The Power Generation Blog: nuclear power

Showing posts with label nuclear power. Show all posts

Carbon Fiber From China Going To Iran?

Here’s something a bit different in the power generation news world: a dispute about carbon fiber, and its role in building nuclear facilities.

This piece in Front Page Magazine traces the connections between China and Iran and the latter country’s efforts to gain nuclear weaponry. The United Nations has recently issued a report stating that the two countries frequently trade “prohibited ballistic missile related items.” Even worse, Iran is just weeks away from opening a nuclear power plant, the Bushehr plant, which is capable of creating nuclear weapons.

One of the most salient things that Iran is importing is carbon fiber. Carbon fiber can be used in nuclear reactors due to its robust physical characteristics. Robert Einhorn, of the US State Department, claims that China is sending a lot of carbon fiber Iran’s way. According to the UN, there are over 200 companies set up to sell Iran materials for its nuclear efforts.

We’ll see if the United States or any other UN nations take action to prevent Iran from gathering carbon fiber and other materials for its nuclear enrichment projects. The Chinese ambassador to the UN claims to support the organization’s efforts at keeping nuclear weapons from Iran, but the country will have to put its money where its mouth is.

American Nuclear Power Remains Underutilized

Even with the terrible events in Japan and the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, demand for power remains as rapacious as ever. And as fossil fuels start running out, the need for sustainable energy is growing.

According to Bloomberg, nuclear power generation at two of the leading nuclear reactors in the United States has remained the same. This staying level could actually count as a decrease, since power generation nationwide actually increased over the last year, a sign of the public’s reluctance to embrace nuclear power.

The two nuclear reactors in question, Salem 1 and Salem 2, are located in New Jersey. The two are currently running at 90% capacity. Other nuclear power plants around the country are facing similar stagnation. A nuclear reactor, the Byron 1, lies inert 85 miles west of Chicago. It requires repairs. The Byron 2 plant, though, is operating at 96% capacity.

The McGuire 2 reactor in North Carolina recently faced a control rod malfunction. The plant is currently shutdown until it can undergo troubleshooting and repair. The McGuire 1 unit is operating at maximum power, though.

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the average nuclear reactor in the United States had a 41 day outage.

Hopefully the tragedy in Japan won’t chasten further shutdowns of nuclear power plants in America. Even though the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has faced an unforeseeable tragedy of epic proportions, it doesn’t mean that a similar thing will happen at other nuclear power plants. And nuclear power is cleaner than fossil fuel-based power generation.

The Lasting Impact from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

The terrible tragedy in Japan was the massive earthquakes and tsunamis that ensued. Of course, aside from the horrible loss of life and property sustained by Japan, there is an even worse, lasting impact on Japan: The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

Now, there’s radiation being found in the water filling trenches around the nuclear plant.

The trenches were built to stop potentially contaminated water from spreading out from the plants. These trenches have collected the water, but its contamination is slowing down the clean-up efforts of relief workers.

According to James Acton, an associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment, the environmental damage stemming from the tragedy in Japan is on par with the massive British Petroleum oil spill. Hopefully, it won’t get any worse than that.

President Obama Pushing Nuclear Power

President Obama has been pushing hard for climate change reform, despite recent political losses for his party, inability to push through healthcare reform, and seeing all his federal nominations blocked. Unfortunately for him, it seems as if his climate change bill is destined for failure.

The President's thinking on the matter is fairly succinct, according to the New York Times.

"There is so much natural gas now that we've moved into the shale plays, the real challenge is, how do you use the available gas to meet near-term energy goals?" Obama said. "It takes the government to get out of the way and do the things it can do."
Besides the cap and trade aspect of Obama's energy reform vision, he is also trying to sell the public on nuclear power. The President has been touring the country trying to drum up support for his plan. He told a crowd in Maryland,

"Nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that procures no carbon emissions," he said. "We'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple."

Residents of Maryland hope that the government will open up its purse and subsidize the creation of a nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs, as he already did for a nuclear reactor in Burke, GA. The President awarded a conditional grant of $8.3 billion for Southern Co. to build a nuclear reactor in Burke.

But not everyone is for such a spending plan.. The Gaston Gazette has published an editorial denouncing the Obama plan to build nuclear in Georgia, saying,

Using loan guarantees to "jump-start" the building of more nuclear reactors, however, is a poor way to get the job done. It is argued that private investors have been reluctant to lend money for nuclear projects, in part because regulatory requirements are onerous, and it is true that it takes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission four years to issue a permit for a nuclear plant.

They go on to cite a Cato Institute analyst who claims that nuclear power plants too long to be completed. This line of thinking fails to capture exactly why the administration seems to be pushing nuclear power, though. If cost-effectiveness were the only criterion for what energy solutions were the best to pursue, then so-called green technology would never take off, which doesn't necessarily speak poorly about green-energy. All the money in the world won't be able to purchase a clean planet.

Argentina Expands Its Nuclear Power

The Wall Street Journal just released an article stating that Argentina will complete its third nuclear power plant by the end of 2010. The nation's Planning Minister, Julio De Vido, said that the plant is called Atucha II, and that it will be completed ahead of schedule. It was previously thought to finish construction by the first or second quarter of 2011.

Atucha II, along with the Argentine-Paraguayan Yacreta hydroelectric plant, will add more than 2,000 megawatts of power generation to the country, increasing its capacity by 10%. The plants will go far toward decreasing the blackouts, which have heavily plagued the country for the last three years when natural gas began suffering shortages.

Strangely, Atucha II was originally thought to go live back in 1987, but political and economic forces conspired to sideline the project for more than 20 years. The plant will be built next to Atucha I, which went live in 1974. Argentina's second nuclear plant, Embalse, commenced operations in 1984. All tolled, the three plants will generate more than 1700 megawatts of power. Nuclear power accounts for more than 6% of Argentina's overall power generation.

Nuclear, Thermal Power Generation Projected To Rise For Latin America's Largest Power Producer

There is news from Mexico that by 2013 the country will account for more than 20% of Latin America’s regional power generation. In 2008, Latin America produced about 1,130 terawatt hours of power, annually. With pressing global environmental concerns, renewable energy sources such as hydro-electricity, thermal generation, and nuclear power are set to rise.

Presently, oil is the dominant energy fuel for Mexican power; it accounts for 52.8% of 2008 energy production, but increases in renewables are expected. Thermal power is expected to comprise 46.20% of regional power production by 2013, and nuclear power generation is expected to rise 30%.

There are a lot more interesting statistics and projections in this Nuclear Street post.

Secret Carbon Tax Revealed in the UK

There is news from the United Kingdom today of a so-called ‘secret plan’ by the British government to tax electricity consumption from carbon-burning power generation plants. This tax is meant to fund the construction of the United Kingdom’s first new nuclear reactors in more than twenty years. This tax is expected to increase an annual household’s energy bill by about £44 per year. Many people are upset since the government ministers have made repeated promises that the nuclear industry would no longer benefit from public subsidies.

The new construction of nuclear power plants and this tax are being carried out because there are growing concerns about the UK’s aging nuclear infrastructure. There is a growing peak energy gap caused by the retirement of old nuclear plants and the long lead time to opening new ones. Adding to this energy gap is public enmity towards plans for the construction of new coal plants. Power companies such as E.ON and EDF Energy are hesitant to build new nuclear power plants because of rising construction costs and falling energy prices. The cost to construct new nuclear plants is in the multi-billions of pounds.

A European energy executive has told the Guardian,

New nuclear will not happen without sorting out the carbon price,

which is bad news for consumers and government ministers, alike. According to the government, the only way to bridge the energy gap and commence swift construction of new nuclear plants is by artificially raising the price of electricity with a carbon tax. The Office of Nuclear Development, a new government unit created to facilitate building new nuclear plants, has promised nuclear companies that the price of carbon under the European Union emissions trading scheme will be disallowed to fall below €30 to €40 per ton. Currently, the price is €13 per ton. Consumers have made clear their desire for cheap, clean energy. Unfortunately, the only way for the government oftentimes to push through such measures is by raising taxes. As the old saying goes, “Cheap, good, and fast: pick two.” The rest of the world should be chastened by these developments in the UK. The power-generation infrastructure of many leading nations is aging at what seems a fast pace. As new, cleaner power generation technologies are created and their costs become reasonable, consumers are going to want to take advantage. However, lower prices means less incentive for energy companies to deliver on substantial improvements to the power grid. The only way to bridge the enthusiasm gap between consumers and power generation companies may be government intervention in the form of higher taxes or incentives.

Good News For Nature?

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), the official energy statistic bureau of the United States government, released its latest outlook report recently, and it contains some good news for opponents of fossil fuels.

Carbon dioxide emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas are expected to drop by 5.9% this year due in large part to the economic downturn and a groundswell of support for green energy and renewable energy sources, which has started to reduce fossil fuels consumption. The EIA outlook report says that reduced coal consumption accounts for 63% of the CO2 emissions decrease. A decrease in petroleum consumption and natural gas account for 30% and 7% of the reduction, respectively.

The EIA outlook report also says that there is an expected rise in power generation from hydroelectric dams and wind farms: 5.4% and 19%, respectively. Power generation from nuclear power plants is expected to remain steady, while solar and renewable biomass power are on a decline relative to last year.

Friday Links

Argus, an international pricing agency, has launched its weekly coverage of Russia's electricity and power generation fuel markets.
China's August power generation is its fastest-growing in 15 months.
Tampa, FL has completed five new 60 megawatt natural gas power units.
USEC, the United States' only provider of enriched uranium for nuclear power, signed a $1.2 billion deal with Exelon Generation.
Exxon to build a 500 megawatt plant in Nigeria.

How are we going to get safe, fissionable material for nuclear power?

In news related a previous story we wrote about concerning Russia’s growing acquisition of uranium, there’s a new article out of Washington from the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs. The United States and Russia have reaffirmed their commitment to disposing of at least 34 metric tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium. This quantity is enough, says the International Atomic Energy Agency, to create over 4,000 nuclear weapons. This reaffirmation comes on the heels of this last July’s Moscow Summit at which Presidents Obama and Medvedev reached an agreement to continue forward with the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement (PMDA).

The PMDA calls for--among other things--the United States to assist Russia with its plutonium disposal efforts. Both countries plan on using a strategy that calls for converting weapons-grade plutonium into a form of plutonium that is similar to that found in commercial nuclear power generation waste. This plan has a double benefit in that it both disposes of potentially dangerous nuclear material while at the same time creating a fuel source for domestic power generation. The National Nuclear Security Administration’ (NNSA) Fissile Materials Disposition Program is assisting the effort in both the United States and Russia.

In the United States, the disposal and conversion efforts will take place at the newly proposed Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, South Carolina. Construction of the MOX facility is set to begin in 2016 and it is expected to remain operational into the 2030s. The plan is based on European MOX facilities, which have functioned at a high level for the last 30 years. The process at MOX will have three primary steps:

To disassemble the cores of nuclear weapons
To turn fissile material into MOX reactor fuel
To dispose of the liquid waste created during the process

The NNSA Administrator, Thomas D’Agostino, has been quoted as saying that he will focus the agency’s efforts on “secur[ing] all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world within four years, expand[ing] our cooperation with Russia, [and] pursu[ing] new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials,” which is a truly pragmatic goal that goes a long way toward establishing a more secure and safe world, both with regard to energy production and nuclear weapons. D’Agostino is working off of President Obama’s four-year plan for reducing the threat of nuclear warfare, which includes

Expanding nuclear security cooperation with Russia and other key partners;
Securing nuclear material at the most vulnerable sites worldwide;
Removing and eliminating weapons-usable nuclear materials where possible;
Strengthening international nuclear security standards, practices and safeguards;
Improving international capacity to stop smuggling of nuclear materials, and preventing terrorists and proliferators from using the international market to access dual-use and nuclear weapons-related equipment and technologies.

The Nuclear Option

With all the recent focus on so-called green technologies--wind, solar, and other alternative energy sources--we sometimes lose sight of one of the older non-fossil fuel technologies: nuclear power. There are a lot of complicated issues surrounding nuclear power, not the least of which is its being weaponizable. There was an interesting article that was kind of buried in the Friday New York Times that explores some of the issues.

The article is ostensibly about Russia diversifying its uranium sources by securing mining rights in Mongolia. Russia's state-owned power industry formed a joint-venture with Mongolia called Rosatom. The deal is part of a so-called land grab by Russia to ensure it has enough fuel to power its burgeoning nuclear power industry, including enrichment programs. Currently Russia provides about 50% of the fuel for the United States' nuclear plants. Russia is looking to expand its nuclear fuel exports to other nations looking to build up nuclear power, including China, India, and Iran.

Of course, any efforts to supply enriched uranium to countries such as Iran should be met by opposition from the United States and other nations. The US opposes Russia helping Iran build nuclear power plants, but it does not exactly oppose Russia sending Iran fuel. This stance, as the author suggests, seems to leave open the possibility of Iran and other countries working on their own enrichment programs. However, with Russia supplying the US with so much fuel, it is in a difficult position from which to negotiate.

After the scary events of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, Americans seem skeptical of the safety of nuclear power generation. A 1998 paper published the American Nuclear Society concludes that

Nuclear energy is safe, clean, and cheap, and it provides the answers to our energy problems. We must not allow misinformation and scare tactics to influence those making the important energy decisions.

It seems as if the threat of another nuclear meltdown is somewhat outweighed by the positive benefits of nuclear power: It doesn't release the high level of carbon emissions of power plants that rely on fossil fuels. Nuclear power does, however, produce its own uniquely dangerous waste product in the for of spent fuel rods. The US Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982. A later amendment to the act designated Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the permanent repository for nuclear waste products. However, one of the first energy-related actions of the Obama administration was to reject the use of Yucca Mountain for storing nuclear waste.

It's important to be cognizant of the rational pros and cons of nuclear power. However, as our energy needs grow more dire, I'm sure it will seem a more and more desirable option.

The Power Generation Blog