When 51 Percent Say Yes

From the department of unlikely mind changes, India division:

An anti-nuclear forum spearheading the stir against Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant today said they would withdraw their protest if most locals favored the project and demanded that the state government constituted panel visit all villages and towns affected by KNPP.

NEI will close its doors as soon as a majority of Americans decide nuclear energy is not for them. The President will resign his position if his approval rating slips below 50 percent. My chance of surviving this disease is slightly less that 50/50. Time to reach for the bottle.

Sometimes, you gotta do what you gotta do. But it’s called the  People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy for a reason. So even if what it will win will be a pyrrhic victory, with the taste of ashes on its tongue, I hope it doesn’t quit on the prospect of 51 percent going against its views. We wouldn’t. But it can make you think.

---

So shrill you almost have to be a dog to hear it:

With the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) believed to be within days of announcing the final federal approval of the controversial Vogtle nuclear project, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) has asked a court to stop more than two years of stonewalling by Southern Co. and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which are resisting any meaningful public disclosure to taxpayers of the risks to which they are exposed in the massive commitment of $8.33 billion in conditional federal loan guarantees to Southern Company and their utility partners for two proposed new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia.

But really, they had me at controversial. How many more paragraphs does SACE have to go before Solyndra hits the mix? You guessed it: one. And SACE probably liked Solyndra.

---

China will slow approvals of nuclear projects after the resumption, which is expected to take place this year, according to an industry expert from a national energy think tank.

Okay, I guess that makes sense.

"China will be cautious in pursuing nuclear power and is likely to approve only three or four projects each year,…" said Xiao Xinjian, a nuclear industry expert at the national Energy Research Institute, affiliated with the National Development and Reform Commission.

Oh. Wait, what?

The country had been accelerating its nuclear development since 2008, with 14 reactors approved in 2008 and six in 2009.

So there you are. It’s all relative. Wonder how SACE would take it.

---

It can’t all be good news and snark, can it?

Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha recently announced that the government will postpone the construction of a nuclear power plant in the Shkoder region until issues regarding its potential impact on the environment and territory are fully resolved, AENews reported.

Albania is hesitating because the Shkoder region is seismically active. There may be surprises in the Japan lesson learned reports,  but the accident there appears to have had the tsunami as its main cause, not the earthquake.

Regardless, if Albania chooses to proceed, and it would be smart to do so, it will be with enhanced safety in mind, and that’s never a bad thing. We expect at least 51 percent would agree.

Koodankulam nuclear facility.

AREVA in Funkytown: Bad Quarter or Harbinger of Industry Doom?

Today, French nuclear company AREVA said it expected to post operating losses of about 1.4 to 1.6 billion euros in its 2011 year-end financial report, including a cash flow loss, before tax, of about 1.8 billion euros.

This story from AOL Energy News is rather bare on facts, substituting something very close to a bald assertion:

Only last week Washington DC-based think tank Worldwatch Institute released its Vital Signs Online (VSO) report noting that the world's nuclear power portfolio was quickly shrinking. Now nuclear power companies worldwide are posting numbers that reflect the trend.

Well, it’s one nuclear energy company and it wouldn’t seem to be reflecting this particular trend, if trend there be. (I haven’t looked at the VSO report – yet – and must admit I’ve never run into the Worldwatch Institute.)

This story, from the rather unbalanced Business Green, at least gets the details about this right:

The company announced yesterday that operating losses for this year could reach €1.6bn, primarily as a result of the Fukushima disaster on the value of its uranium mining operations.

But what does AREVA have to say about this? Let’s look:

In this context [the global demand for more electricity], the German decision [to close its nuclear facilities] remains an isolated case and the great majority of nuclear programs around the world have been confirmed. More conservative in its projections than the International Energy Agency, the group expects growth of 2.2% annually, reaching 583 GW of installed nuclear capacity by 2030, against 378 GW today. However, the Fukushima accident will lead to delays in launching new programs.

A little more:

The news was followed today by confirmation that Areva will suspend planned "capacity extensions" at four nuclear sites in France, halt work to extend its Eagle Rock enrichment plant near Idaho Falls in the US, and scale back planned investment at uranium mines in the Central African Republic, Namibia and South Africa.

Uranium again. I guess you could look for corporate spin there, but it’s generally transparent. in any event, AREVA has created a plan called Action 2016 to help it refocus the company:

"Action 2016" [will] consolidate AREVA's leadership in nuclear energy and become a leading player in renewable energy.

You can read more about Action 2016 at AREVA’s site. Here’s what AREVA says about Fukushima and its role in the nuclear energy industry in general:

Faced, like all its competitors, with the period of uncertainty in the wake of the Fukushima accident, AREVA can rely on the strength of its integrated business model, which makes it possible to take advantage of opportunities in each segment of the nuclear market.

Which means the company can manage a facility top to bottom or just some aspects of an operation – and ride out the bumps if countries delay nuclear energy projects. 

None of this is to say that AREVA hasn’t hit difficulties or that the accident at Fukushima Daiichi hasn’t contributed to those difficulties. (Curiously, the global slowdown in electricity consumption and the continuing economic environment aren’t even mentioned. I’d hate to think we’re so used to them that we consider them a given.)

But it’s a little too easy to jump to the conclusion that the nuclear energy industry has entered a death spiral or even “reflects a trend',” even if one shy of evidence. A rough patch for one company doesn’t set the entire industry out on a plate for vultures. It’s lazy and dishonest to imagine it does.

---

For example:

China, the world’s biggest energy user, may resume approving new nuclear projects after the cabinet endorses draft safety rules prepared by the Ministry of Environmental Protection, an industry association official said.

Perhaps not fertile territory for AREVA, but this is the kind of thing it says it is waiting for. And it is happening.

---

I’m purposely ignoring the stories about the NRC currently making the rounds of news outlets. There’s a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee tomorrow at 10:00 am (EST) (you can watch the webcast here) at which the five commissioners will offer testimony and answer questions about possible discord at the agency. Let’s watch that first and then return to the subject. Until then, what you may read will remain a heap of gossip.

From USA Today:

Q: I never heard of Areva until I saw a TV ad recently and don't think I got the message. Just who is Areva and how are they going to influence my future? The commercial is catchy, and the little tune stays running around in your mind, but if people can't understand it, I don't think Areva is getting their money's worth.

A: Areva wants to power your future. It's a Paris-based industrial giant whose businesses include nuclear power and energy alternatives. It has U.S. operations in 45 locations in 20 states. The ad, which has aired previously, is part of a campaign started in May to make its name better known in the U.S. The animated TV ad, which you can see here, uses the 1980 Lipps Inc. classic Funkytown, a song that's also been in ads for FedEx, Ore-Ida's Funky Fries, Nissan and Volkswagen. Areva uses the opening lyrics for the song, which have a distorted sound through use of a voice box. They speak about moving to a town that's "groovin' with some energy." Areva marketers most care that you get the last few words: "Talk about it, talk about it, talk about it" (which is what they want you to do about them).

Not Speeding But Not Stopping

The analysts at the Commonwealth of Australia Bank want you to know:

"But it is a case of one step backward, two steps forward," they said in a review of the sector. "Nuclear growth plans remain intact in China, India, Russia, South Korea, the U.S. and U.K. among others, and dominate the medium- term uranium industry outlook."

The Australians maintain an interest as a large exporter of uranium, but the salient point is that the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi has not dimmed interest in nuclear energy in many countries. One can see that in any number of stories, but it’s interesting to see it aggregated where its abandonment would cause financial pain – as it would in Australia – even if it has no nuclear facilities of its own. But uranium? it has a lot of that. You can read more about uranium mining in Australia here.

Obviously, not speeding ahead is good policy. But so is not stopping.

---

Speaking of which:

Developers of major energy projects in the U.K. such as nuclear power plants and the associated grid infrastructure will now have greater certainty on planning applications following parliament's approval of the Energy National Policy Statements, the government said Tuesday.

You can read the rest at the site – this is a procedural change, so we’ll see if it has the intended outcome – but the point is that the U.K., which has been working on this change for awhile sees no reason not to proceed. Plenty of time within this framework to apply lessons learned from Fukushima to license applications as they come in. This simply allows for better planning and allocation of assets for exceptionally big projects.

---

And a little more:

While America and Europe dither over nuclear power, Asia is going full steam ahead.

According to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, 65 percent of nuclear plants, currently under construction, are in Asia, with China and India leading the pack. China, like India, relies on coal for 70 percent of its electricity needs… And both know that the only way to power continued economic growth is through nuclear.

I’m not sure “dither” is the word I’d have used – see bit above for Europe not dithering – but fine. Again, the argument is clear: the benefits of nuclear energy remain well understood and the lessons of Japan will be incorporated as soon as right now and into the period ahead. No reason to stop.

This story is looking primarily at China and India from an investor’s perspective. As always when we point in such a direction, the word is caution: not doing research on stocks before buying can lead to many tears and a grim future.

Australia’s Olympic Dam uranium mine.

SCANA’s Analyst Day - “New nuclear continues to be the low cost alternative for customers”

Yesterday, SCANA held an Analyst Day that mostly talked about the construction of the two nuclear units at their Summer station. Here’s the link to the 164 page slide deck (18 mega-byte pdf). Below are a few noteworthy slides.

The first slide to mention is “Why Nuclear?” If you look at the chart at the top right of the slide below, SCANA provided their all-in cost estimates for nuclear ($76/MWh), natural gas ($81/MWh), coal ($117/MWh), offshore wind ($292/MWh) and solar ($437/MWh). For them, “new nuclear continues to be the low cost alternative for customers.”

Here are two slides, of many, showing construction at the site.

Also worth mentioning is the slide showing where SCANA is purchasing the supplies around the world to construct the units.

And, below is a picture of one of the AP1000s being built in China that is 2.5 years ahead of SCANA’s construction schedule. They are, of course, sharing lessons between each other.

There is definitely much more to peruse in the fat document so be sure to check it out.

“30 percent higher than it would otherwise be”

One of the points that is made again and again about nuclear energy – on this blog, certainly, but really, in many places – is that if the world pulled away from nuclear energy, it would be very hard to achieve the carbon emission reduction goals that are wanted – needed – to stave off climate disaster. That’s not a slam at renewable energy, just a recognition of what’s currently possible and impossible, practical and not practical

Still, the starkness of this article startling:

A halving of a global nuclear power expansion after Japan's Fukushima disaster would increase global growth in carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent through 2035, the IEA said on Wednesday.

Although the International Energy Agency has a dog in the race, it’s not the one you think. It was created after the seventies oil crisis (If you’re of an age, you may remember lining up your car - on certain days of the week – to get your rationed gasoline) to act as a stopgap if the petroleum supply is again interrupted. It still has that role, but has also taken on board issues of international energy development.

"(Growth in) CO2 emissions from electricity generation between now and 2035 would be about 30 percent higher than it would otherwise be." That was equivalent to almost an extra 500 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually by 2035, he [IEA chief economist Fatih Birol] added.

CO2 emissions rose above 30 billion tons last year, a new record and just short of the amount that Birol estimated was consistent with the world's new warming target.

You can read the rest for yourself. There are two points to keep in mind before getting thoroughly depressed by the article (which you will): One, as Doris Day once sang, the future’s not ours to see. People predict things all the time based on the band of evidence they consider relevant, but there are many, many such bands and they all of them make the future together. Two, the world has not declared that fifty percent of nuclear energy will go away. In fact, the likelihood of it becoming more ubiquitous is pretty good.

And one of the reasons this is so, no doubt, is the grim forecasts of groups like the IEA. We’re not the only ones who can read, after all. But, all told, I doubt the issue of carbon emission reduction is even determinative in countries committing to more nuclear energy – the growing need for a lot more electricity is closer, the desire for developing countries to modernize while not producing emissions closer even.

---

News is of a mixed nature, but not bad. There’s this:

China's nuclear safety regulators said that the country's all operating nuclear reactors are safe and sound, following a two-month inspection after the disaster at Japan's earthquake-stricken Fukushima Daiich nuclear power plant in March.

Li Ganjie, Vice Minister of Environment and director of China's Nuclear Energy Safety Administration, said in a statement posted on the ministry's website Wednesday that inspections of all 13 working reactors have been completed, and found no problems.

Not that there would be any particularly glaring problems. But this is what China has really needed:

The country originally plans to have up to 100 reactors in operation by 2020, but Beijing has suspended issuing permits for new plants until a national nuclear safety regime is phased in.

And that seems just right.

---

And this:

The UAE’s nuclear regulator, the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation (FANR), has said that there could be changes to the design and location of the country’s proposed nuclear reactors to ensure safety, following Japan’s nuclear disaster.

Again, seems judicious enough.

“Everything is on track. We asked Emirates Nuclear Energy Corp (ENEC) and its Korean partners to look at the design and siting in the light of the Fukushima accident and see what can be learned from that,” John Loy, Director of Radiation and Safety Department at FANR, told reporters at a briefing on Wednesday.

He added that changes would not affect the project’s timeline.

The UAE said it expects to start its first nuclear power plant in 2017, and hopes nuclear energy to eventually supply 25 per cent of its power.

A variation of trust but verify. I expect many actions regarding nuclear energy will take that approach.

Quick Hits: Electric Cars, Solar/Nuclear, China

What about electric cars?

Plans in Europe call for about 1 million EVs on the road by 2020, and a lot that push centers around increasing the number of nuclear power plants to feed these vehicles. Let's face it, an EV that's charged via electricity generated at an oil or coal-burning plant doesn't do much to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels, so nuclear makes a lot of sense. And as costly and time-consuming as it is to erect a nuclear facility, it's likely easier and less expensive than relying on solar, wind or hydro-electric energy sources.

So what does all this have to do with electric vehicles? If the events unfolding in Japan lead governments to question the safety and viability of nuclear power, then new plants will be slow to come online. If car buyers know that their EV is likely burning the same CO2-emitting fossil fuels as their neighbor's internal combustion engine, what's the point of paying more for something that's just as dirty, more expensive and not as easy to fuel up?

I discussed earlier anxiety about radiation. Consider this anxiety about a slowdown in nuclear energy.

---

Qualified enthusiasm from Jigar Shah, CEO of Carbon War Room, a non-profit group championing clean energy technology. The interviewer for NPR is Farai Chideya:

CHIDEYA: So, are you supportive of the Obama administration's plans to expand the number of nuclear power plants.

Mr. SHAH: Well, we're supportive of carbon emission reductions. And so I think that, you know, that what we're trying to do is to harness the power of entrepreneurial effort to unlock market-driven solutions to climate change. And so if nuclear can stand alone without some of the government guarantees that seem to be very difficult to get through a Congress that is trying to cut cost, then, you know, I think that would be great.

Chideya notes that Shah has had an entrepreneurial interest in solar energy – something that would be dead on arrival absent “government guarantees.” Still, given his own concerns, his words in favor of nuclear energy are striking.

---

From China:

An official overseeing nuclear safety in China has said that the safety of the country's nuclear power facilities is guaranteed, while reaffirming its goal of developing nuclear power as a clean energy source.

"There is a guarantee for the safety of China's nuclear power facilities and (China) will not abandon (its nuclear power plan) for fear of slight risks," said Tian Shujia in response to reports that China will become more prudent toward developing nuclear power.

Remember, these are Chinese officials speaking through an official Chinese outlet. Still, the word is: nuclear energy remains strongly supported.

I’m not a car maven, but I believe this is Tesla Model S and the Roadster. By all means, correct me if you know better.