A Good Time to Speed Up – Vietnam, Iowa, FOE

Not getting respect:

“We also have a good chance in Vietnam,” the minister added. “The United States, France, Canada, Russia, Japan and Korea can build nuclear power plants, but the U.S. lags behind in technology as it hasn’t built one for 20 to 30 years. This is a good time for us to speed up (atomic power plant construction).”

Ouch! That stung a little.

This is South Korea’s Knowledge Economy Minister Hong Suk-woo. He’s not exactly right – falling behind in construction and in technological advance are two different things and the U.S. has not fallen behind – at all – in technology. But Hong is selling Korean capacity in both, so fine. Still – ouch!

---

Land of corn and plenty:

Dueling videos debuted Wednesday on possible nuclear power expansion in Iowa.

A group that opposes nuclear power launched a television ad on the eve of today’s Senate committee hearing on a proposed compromise that advocates hope will push the bill ahead.

And minutes later, MidAmerican Energy released its own Web video, featuring Bill Fehrman, the company’s president and chief executive officer.

The opposing ad is from Friends of the Earth, our old FOEs. I generally find anti-nuclear advocates interesting if not always on target, but not FOE. It’s notably fact free.

But the pleasant surprise is that MidAmerican isn’t standing for it and has put its own ad in response. It’s simply done but that means there’s no manipulation or appeals to emotion. It’s simply Fehrman providing the company’s viewpoint:

---

Hey, South Korea was talking about Vietnam above, wasn’t it? Care to know just what Vietnam is up to these days?

"The consistent view of Vietnam is to utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in a responsible manner while ensuring safety and security," [Le Dinh Tien, deputy minister of the Vietnamese Ministry of Science and Technology, which] is responsible for overseeing the country's nuclear power, said in January.

By 2030, Vietnam aims to build 10 reactors and, by 2050, it hopes to generate enough nuclear power to account for 20-25 percent of its energy consumption.

Now you know.

---

NEI’s main site and the Safety First site have been doing a good job of keeping you up to date on post-Fukushima information and updates (Safety First has a great infographic up right now showing how FLEX, the industry’s response to Fukushima, will work – poster worthy – really), but we’d be remiss not to note good work done by some of the nuclear companies out there.

If you have a few minutes, check out these pages by FPL (Florida Light & Power) and NextEra Energy to see how they are presenting nuclear energy, the accident in Japan and the drive to apply the lessons learned to their fleets. Both are very nicely done – corporate speak kept to a minimum, little to no attempt at spin. (We noticed FPL redid its nuclear energy launch page, too – a lot less text heavy and more inviting.)

The French Choice; The Iowan Misapprehension

Even in the context of a political contest, it’s nice to be reminded how nuclear energy benefits people in the nickel-and-dime sense:

France's electricity bills will rise less over the next two decades if it continues to rely on nuclear power for its energy needs, a government-commissioned report showed on Monday, two months ahead of the country's upcoming presidential election.

Neither President Nicholas Sarkozy (the conservative more-or-less) nor his main opponent in the upcoming election, Francois Hollande (the liberal give or take), wants to shut down the nuclear plants. Hollande wants to close an older facility and reduce the dependence on nuclear energy from 80 to about 50 percent. I’m not sure why, but there it is.

Still, French users could pay around one quarter less at the end of the next decade if the country decides to keep relying on nuclear power for at least 70 percent of its power instead of boosting renewable energy's role and lowering nuclear output to 20 percent of its needs, figures in the report showed.

I think the story means one-quarter less than other European countries not 25 percent less than now. In any event, suspicion about a “convenient” report (for Sarkozy’s view, since he holds the levers of government) is balanced somewhat by the reality that the French do not seem all that eager to tack away from nuclear energy. And anyway, the report isn’t saying anything outlandish – you could say Sarkozy is making a case, but that’s about it.

Currently, Hollande is ahead in polls, but neither he nor Sarkozy are above 50 percent, which makes a second round likely – that happened in 2007, too. The first round of voting comes on April 22 and the run-off on May 6. (Note that Sarkozy has not announced his candidacy yet – the stories I read suggest this is tactical rather than hesitancy, so every poll counts him as in.)

---

It looks like Sarkozy is taking that report quite seriously:

Nicolas Sarkozy a décidé de prolonger la durée de vie des centrales nucléaires françaises au-delà de quarante ans pour permettre à l'économie de disposer d'une énergie bon marché, a déclaré dimanche 12 février le ministre de l'industrie Eric Besson, précisant que le chef de l'Etat a demandé aux opérateurs "de procéder à tous les efforts de maintenance, de recherche des plus hauts standards de sécurité et de sûreté, pour faire en sorte que ce parc puisse être prolongé".

Let’s see if my French is up to this:

Nicolas Sarkozy will prolong the lives of French nuclear power plants beyond forty years to allow the economy [I think an American politician would have said “the people”] to have inexpensive energy, said Minister of Industry Eric Besson February 12, with Sarkozy [the chief of state] asking the facility operators "to conduct all maintenance efforts to maintain the highest standards of safety and security so that the lives of the plants can be extended."

A little clumsy, but that does the trick. I reckon this will show up in American papers soon enough.

---

Some Iowans are missing the point:

Some lawmakers and advocacy groups are questioning a measure that would help MidAmerican Energy pay for a possible nuclear power plant, arguing that slow-growing Iowa produces significantly more energy than it uses and doesn't need an expensive electricity generator.

Consider that about 9 percent of electricity in Iowa is generated by nuclear energy (at Duane Arnold, to be exact). 72 percent of it is coal-fired. Iowa has done a good job with renewable energy – about 15 percent. So you may say that Iowa has filled the energy coffers, but not in the best possible way.

But there’s an elephant in the room and the new nuclear facility can help push it out. The story almost gets there:

Potthoff said the excess supply in Iowa also likely won't continue for long because expected environmental regulations could limit coal-powered electrical plants at a time when an improving economy will increase demand. Although wind power is important, it's less consistent than coal or nuclear power, she said.

But not quite. Build a nuclear facility, shut down a couple of coal plants – or more, as Iowa seems able to afford it – and it’s your classic win-win.

Potthoff is MidAmerican spokeswoman Tina Potthoff.

---

Coming from Warner Brothers: The Chernobyl Diaries:

Diaries is set in the city of Prypiat that once housed the workers of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor and follows a group of friends who, while vacationing in Europe, find themselves stranded in the abandoned city only to discover that they are not alone.

Presumably, the kids get left there by a tour bus. Whether they will be set upon by giant insects or Hills Have Eyes-style cannibals remains to be seen.

Francois Hollande – and yes, France has pointing politicians.

Nuclear Plants and Red Lights

Here’s the headline in the Sioux City (IA) Journal. I’m not sure what it means, though it seems to mean something.

Nuclear power, red-light camera bills could be on Iowa legislative agenda

I mean that nuclear power is given parity with the camera bill. Here’s what that’s about:

A bill likely to come before the House Transportation Committee Feb. 2 could be a financial risk to lead-footed drivers. That's HF 2048 sponsored by Rep. Walt Rogers, R-Cedar Falls, to ban red-light and speed cameras in Iowa. It calls for all existing cameras to be removed by July 1.

So far the debate has pitted law enforcement and city officials against personal liberty interests.

"How much of a police state do we want to have?" Rogers asked at a hearing where his bill won subcommittee backing.

What pops into my head is: how many traffic lights are there in Iowa?

But really, we came for the lights and stayed for the energy:

Example One [of controversial legislation – banning traffic light cameras is the other] is a bill that would pave the way for MidAmerican Energy to pursue approval to develop a small-scale nuclear reactor with ratepayers picking up the cost. House File 561, which was approved 58-39 in the House last year, is scheduled for action in the Senate Commerce Committee Jan. 31.

While Chairman Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, spoke glowingly of the bill and MidAmerica's plan, Sen. Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City, called nuclear energy environmentally risky and said the bill places an "enormous financial risk on customers."

Iowa derives 72 percent of its electricity from coal (almost 8 percent from nuclear). If Rep. McCoy wants to get together at an Iowa City chop house, we can have a friendly chat about what’s environmentally risky.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, acknowledged there is "some support" in the Senate for the bill as well as concerns with protecting utility customers.

However, doing nothing has its risks, too, he said. "Every option will result in some increase."

Of risk, I think.

The story doesn’t tell us what Gov. Terry Branstad is thinking, but this one does:

Gov. Terry Branstad says he's open to legislation allowing MidAmerican Energy to bill customers for the cost of a proposed nuclear power plant before construction is complete.

Speaking Monday at his weekly news conference, Branstad maintained Iowa should consider all kinds of energy sources, including nuclear power.

So far, so good. Different state initiatives have been gaining some traction over the last few years. The Iowa one has just come out of committee, so who knows its chances, but it looks to be in pretty good shape.

The iconic traffic light from David Lynch’s Twin Peaks (1990-1991). It’s a symbol, but of what, we may never know. In any event, if there’s a camera on it, some Iowans want to know about it.

Muscatine, Iowa , USA Meteor 16NOV2011

Muscatine, Iowa , USA Meteor 3:00 am CST 16NOV2011
Driving toward the east I saw a shooting star with a green tail in the eastern sky shooting straight down. It lasted for just 1 second with a flash at the end. – Mark H.


More reports?Date and Time of event? Location name (town,city) where you were when saw the meteor? Start and Stop location in sky? Direction of movement? Duration of Event (

Video of Bolide Meteor as Seen from Lincoln, Nebraska 19OCT2011

Mystery Green Fireball Caught On CCTV In Nebraska 19OCT2011

Uploaded to Youtube by  MaryGreeley on Oct 20, 2011 1,608 views


Original Post by LunarMeteorite*Hunter - The Latest Worldwide Meteor/Meteorite News:

Breaking News- Meteorites Produced? -MBIQ Indicates Large Bolide Meteor Event Manitoba Canada, South Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota

Iowa – Nevada - Brunei

The Des Moines Register sees the nuclear energy facilities over in Nebraska surrounded by flood water and that people are fretting about them:

People worry because just the phrase "nuclear power plant" conjures thoughts of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. People worry because the world is still watching as Japan deals with the Fukushima nuclear power plant from both a human health and economic perspective.

Iowans worry because the Nebraska plants are separated from us by only a river rather than the Pacific Ocean.

Actually, I’d be surprised if people needed to project back 25 or more years to find fear buttons to push. Any such button, fairly or not, is now labeled Fukushima. (And remember: not downplaying the seriousness of the accident, of course, but the health and economic issues resulting from the earthquake and tsunami were fantastically large.)

Yet the public's concern should not be irrational or used to feed an anti-nuclear energy agenda or imply that the U.S. government is lying to Americans.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what is happening online where anything goes and supposed reporters aren't held accountable for blatant misinformation.

Just so. The editorial board reaches to Pakistan for its example, but it needn’t have gone so far afield. Nuclear energy facilities will live in a world for awhile where Fukushima informs everything – and while the floods in Nebraska are not comparable in kind to the tsunami in Japan, both involve water and that’s enough. Fearing a similar result is a natural response for some and it doesn’t have to be particularly rational. And rumor mongering to enflame those fears is – well – what some people like to do.

Still:

We cannot allow fears about nuclear energy -- unfounded fears, as of now in Nebraska -- [to] scare us away from this important power source.

There can be countervailing voices. That’s the service being provided by the Register.

---

The Las Vegas Sun is a reliable opponent of the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository and enjoys any opportunity to say so. That’s fine – that’s its role if it wants it. But still, its glee over a court case regarding Yucca Mountain that was recently dismissed included this curious paragraph:

Instead of concentrating on litigation, the nuclear power industry and its friends in South Carolina and Washington [state, which brought the suit] should turn their attention to disposal alternatives being considered by the Obama administration’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. The commission, co-chaired by former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, is scheduled to issue its interim findings by the end of this month and final recommendations within the following six months.

Why curious? Because the alternative could, after all, involve Nevada. Good to know the Sun favors an alternative approach in Nevada if it is different than Yucca Mountain.

---

Occasionally, we run into stories that promise to be about something, but turn out to be more of a tease. In this case, we were looking for some international news and thought our old friend Brunei might have something cooking.

Nuclear power will be discussed by energy ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and their counterparts outside the region at an annual meeting scheduled for September in Brunei, according to Brunei's energy minister, Yasmin Umar.

So the action here, if any, will be in September. Brunei has talked a bit about nuclear energy here and there but not much more. It sounds as though it will be a topic at the conference, but most likely the discussion will concern nuclear developments in southeast Asia following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi.

So we’ll keep Brunei back-of-mind for now.

In case you didn’t know. Brunei is two pieces of land occupying the northern part of the island of Borneo. Malaysia and Indonesia have other parts, with Malaysia bordering Brunei on three sides. Brunei has about 400,000 people and is a constitutional sultanate.

The Hidden Cost of Yucca, The States of Nuclear

In the Congressional hearing report a few posts down, several House members turned the heat up on four NRC commissioners (including Chairman Gregory Jaczko) over the commission’s decision – or action, as it hasn’t technically made a decision yet - to not review the license for the Yucca Mountain used fuel repository.

So a report from the Government Accounting Office acts only to pour both salt and lemon on the wound:

The U.S. government could face fines of $75,000 a day if it fails to find a way to store or handle stockpiles of defense-related nuclear waste by 2035, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Because Yucca Mountain was meant to harbor this material, too. 

In government terms, $75,000 may sound paltry. It adds up:

If the Energy Department does not find a way to remove the waste by then, it could face "significant penalties," GAO says: $60,000 a day for the remains in Idaho and $15,000 a day for remains in Colorado - or $27.4 million annually.

That’s not so paltry.

The decision to halt work on the repository does seem to have required more thought than it received, but who knows? Maybe the Blue Ribbon Commission will come up with some better ideas.

See the story for more on all this – the account from Dow Jones is quite interesting. You can find the whole GAO report here.

---

We can’t say that two swallows make a spring – but neither do they bring on winter.

Here’s one:

Missouri House members have endorsed a proposal to let utilities charge electric customers for some costs of developing a nuclear power plant before it's built.

The House voted 121-21 Thursday to add the nuclear plant issue to a separate bill, which wasn't put to a final vote. The legislative session ends May 13.

Not bad – let’s see how this works out.

And two:

The top Senate Republican says the Minnesota Legislature likely won't vote this year on a bill to lift a ban on new nuclear power plants.

Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch told reporters Thursday that the bill is "on pause" after passing both chambers in February.

The tell:

The nuclear crisis in Japan also didn't help its prospects.

Says the reporter. This bit wasn’t sourced. In any event, passing this bill wouldn’t have guaranteed a new plant, just allowed the state to consider nuclear among its energy options. Whether or not Fukushima weighed in, seems silly to exclude nuclear from the mix.

Motto: Can’t win ‘em all. Though you can keep trying – I wager this bill will be back in the next session of Minnesota’s legislature.

---

Iowa voted a couple of weeks ago to allow MidAmerican to charge ratepayers the cost of studying a new reactor in that state. The value of doing this is that it saves the utility from borrowing money – with the (considerable) finance charges paid by ratepayers. This way, none of that.

At least, that’s what I thought the charges were for. Instead, MidAmerican apparently wants to move right ahead with two small reactors:

If approved, it would clear the way for MidAmerican Energy, the state's largest utility, to begin billing customers in advance for the estimated $1 billion cost of developing one or more small modular nuclear reactors that could be on line as early as 2020.

This is a bit of a puzzle, as no design for a small reactor has been licensed by the NRC yet. It might happen in time to get the Iowa reactors up and running by 2020, but it seems a big “might.” I wonder if Forbes has this right. We’ll check into this and report back.

We sometimes show a picture of an African or Asian city at night to show why the country that houses it is considering nuclear energy. Doesn’t seem fair to ignore the North American continent. So - here’s Minneapolis – not enjoying the possibility of a new nuclear plant.

Not Wasting Opportunities

A few posts down, we spotlighted continued support for nuclear energy from Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The billionaire’s club may not be big, but it certainly is interested in energy issues.

Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos has contributed to a $19.5 million round of funding for Canadian nuclear fusion startup General Fusion, marking the web billionaire’s first major investment in nuclear energy.

General Fusion describes itself as a venture capital funded company, so this infusion will doubtless be very welcome. Here’s how the company describes what it is doing:

General Fusion’s approach is based on “magnetized target fusion” concepts first developed about 30 years ago. This approach is a hybrid of traditional “magnetic fusion” and “inertial confinement fusion” methods, and involves first confining plasma in a magnetic field, and then compressing the confined plasma to thermonuclear conditions. General Fusion’s patent-pending fusion technology involves the equipment needed to contain and compress the plasma, and the systems needed to manage the process.

And a little more:

Our generator will operate in a repeating cycle, with each cycle culminating in a burst of fusion energy.

Each cycle will involve:

• creating plasma of deuterium and tritium,

• trapping the plasma within a magnetic field,

• compressing the magnetic field and the plasma within it to thermonuclear conditions, and

• capturing the heat that results from the fusion reaction and using it to generate electricity and power the next cycle.

The company says it will be ready to commercialize its technology by the end of the decade, which sort of fits the “always tomorrow” theme that has dominated nuclear fusion projects. But who knows? I’m not sure Bezos’ money will help fusion to find a commercial application any more than any one else’s money has up to now. But it never hurts to think big. Maybe this time, fusion really does have a tomorrow.

---

The confluence of events this week can certainly, along with elation, cause considerable nervousness. So this seems germane:

The tires on a semitrailer delivering hydrogen to Iowa's only nuclear power plant exploded Tuesday, prompting an alert, but the safety of the plant and the public were never affected, a spokeswoman said.

That would be Duane Arnold. Naturally, that led to:

The tires that blew were on a trailer holding several long tanks of hydrogen. A fire started, but officials didn't know whether the exploding tires caused the fire or the fire caused the tires to pop. The plant's on-site fire brigade and local firefighters responded, prompting the alert.

A fire. Around hydrogen. The fire was put out quickly enough, the driver sent to the hospital and the hydrogen put in storage, but anyone who read about this in little bursts had every right to jitter just a little. But the end result?

The plant remains at 100 percent power. It's operating safely," Nelson [Renee Nelson, spokeswoman for NextEra Energy Resources] said.

So there you go. I doubt this would have made the Iowa papers (much less Business Week, where this account originated) most other weeks.

---

So why waste an opportunity?

A grass-roots group organized after the Japan nuclear disaster is holding what is expected to be a large rally for nuclear safety at Plymouth Rock on Saturday. Its leaders say it is neither antinuclear nor political in purpose.

“It’s about families. It’s not about politics,’’ said Anna Baker, coleader of Pilgrim: Make Us Safe Today, or Pilgrim: MUST.

The Pilgrim plant? Really? It went online in 1972 and has quietly gone about its business for 40 years, powering about 600,000 homes around about Plymouth (and creating jobs and economic activity and not producing a bunch of emissions). It’s up for license renewal in 2012, so that’s the reason to do something this year.

The protesters sort of grasp that this is a protest against nothing in particular:

To make the rally more positive, the group is focusing on specific problems and proposing solutions. The list begins with the storage of nuclear waste in water inside a plant, which experts say was the source of the greatest danger in the Japanese crisis.

The protest isn’t being held directly in front of Pilgrim but in a nearby state park next to Plymouth Rock. I hope Entergy gets some of the plant employees over there to contribute to the discussion. Sounds like a friendly enough crowd inclined to listen as well as be heard. So why waste an opportunity?

The Pilgrim nuclear plant.

“This is a huge step for Iowa”

"This is a huge step for Iowa, and it is a huge step if we believe we want to grow the great state of Iowa," said Rep. Chuck Soderberg, R-Le Mars, chairman of the House's commerce committee and floor manager of the bill. "If Iowans, if businesses are expected to stay here, we need to provide them with power."

A huge step? Well, it just may be:

The Iowa House gave the go-ahead Tuesday to legislation that helps pave the way for a new nuclear power plant in Iowa

It’s MidAmerican that wants to build a new nuclear plant – this legislation doesn’t mandate that occurring, it just allows MidAmerican to charge ratepayers a modest monthly fee to help pay for the construction.

That may sound obnoxious. In fact, the story in the Sioux City Journal leaves objectivity to say so:

Whether MidAmerican Energy will decide to build a plant is not a done deal, but its ratepayers would be on the hook to help cover the cost of nearly all facets of the pre-planning and construction of a new nuclear facility, even if the plant is never built.

Clearly news to writer Mike Wiser, but ratepayers are always on the hook for new energy build, nuclear, coal or whatever – it’s just a question of how much is on that hook – the way MidAmerican wants to do it, far less.

Construction Work in Progress (or CWIP) is used by many energy providers to build new plants. It’s more beneficial than it sounds because it allows MidAmerican (in this case) to finance the plant without running up gigantic interest charges – which would be paid by the ratepayers ultimately. That really would be obnoxious.

I suppose the hugeness of this news will manifest itself when MidAmerican announces that it will build a new plant. So we’ll wait for that. (Iowa already has a nuclear plant, by the way – Duane Arnold Energy Center – that is owned by NextEra, The Central Iowa Power Cooperative and the Corn Belt Power Cooperative.)

---

Bloomberg has been on the nuclear beat lately:

U.S. nuclear-power output increased from 4½-year lows as Energy Future Holdings Corp. started the Comanche Peak 2 reactor in Texas, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said.

Power generation nationwide increased 857 megawatts from yesterday to 72,898 megawatts, or 72 percent of capacity, according to an NRC report today and data compiled by Bloomberg. Twenty-six of the nation’s 104 reactors were offline.

Looking at it this way can be a little silly, as it implies that nuclear energy plants have been sputtering along, barely able to light a bulb. But refueling outages will always cause slight rises and falls on an annual basis. Nothing new or unusual here. Maybe the industry should just time things to ensure one year has no outages anywhere so as to get a happier lead (though the lead the following year will be awful.)

The story explains this at the very bottom:

Some reactors close for maintenance and refueling during the spring and fall in the U.S., when demand for heating and cooling is lower. The outages can increase consumption of natural gas and coal to generate electricity.

Or wind or solar or hydro, if they’re in the vicinity.

On the other hand, putting together a story like this is fairly thankless. I guess Bloomberg wanted to present this information and the story is actually pretty tight, if not really with much apparent purpose: noting which plants increased or decreased their loads. For example:

Exelon Corp. increased output from the 1,164-megawatt Byron 1 reactor in Illinois to 65 percent of capacity from 40 percent yesterday after a refueling outage. Another unit at the site, the 1,136-megawatt Byron 2, is operating at full power. The plant is located 85 miles west of Chicago.

And so on. That’s the story: some plants increased capacity, some plants decreased. If you want to know which did which, here it is.

Well, all right, it’s pretty, um, corny. But if you look through any post card rack in Iowa, you’ll find a variation of it.

The Plants in (and Around) Iowa

While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission gears up to take a close look at U.S. nuclear plants, it makes sense that newspapers play watchdog and pore over the records of plants in their vicinity. That’s what the Chicago Tribune and the Des Moines Register have done with plants in and near Iowa:

The newspaper, which reviewed Nuclear Regulatory Commission records, reported that Nebraska's Fort Calhoun Station is one of three plants in the United States facing the highest level of regulatory scrutiny. That's because the plant's safety systems were found last year to be in danger of flooding, according to records.

Inspectors found the plant didn't have enough sand to fill bags that operators planned to place on a flood wall to protect buildings and equipment.

And:

There's an adequate stockpile of sand in place now, but the plant will continue to be inspected frequently because the violation was consider a "substantial" safety risk.

The other plants in or near Iowa were cited for less serious problems, records show.

That’s Nebraska – how about Iowa’s sole plant, Duane Arnold?

In the past five years, the Iowa plant received notification of four violations that occurred between 2003 and 2009, said Renee Nelson, spokeswoman for NextEra Energy Resources, which owns 70 percent of the plant.

No fines were issued. The violations involved a diesel generator problem, a deficiency in drills and planning, failure to complete a checklist before moving fuel bundles and failing to properly notify health personnel.

The plant fixed those things, so:

The NRC determined that the plant "operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and met all cornerstone objectives," according to the agency's latest assessment released March 4.

I can’t say every plant will do as well as those around Iowa, but it is striking to see the concern for safety, the NRC’s determination to niggle out every little flaw, and the plants’ quick response to their reports. Well, striking if you expected any other outcome, that is.

These should be interesting journalistic exercises – let’s keep an eye out for more.

Duane Arnold Energy Center.

Saving Iowans “An Incredible Amount of Money”

We wrote yesterday about Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad’s support for nuclear energy. It looks like the legislature there is about to act on that support:

The chairman of the Iowa House commerce committee says there's enough support to move a bill that sets out how a new nuclear power plant would be built in the state.

"I still sense there's a lot of support on this bill, especially because there are concerns with a lack of new (energy) generation in this state," said Rep. Chuck Soderberg, R-Le Mars.

That’s from today, so we should know soon how it goes. This story doesn’t actually explain the bill. This one does:

The Iowa Legislature would have to pass a bill to allow the change in energy rates because MidAmerican, even though it's a privately-owned company, doesn't have the authority to set its own rates -- instead regulators set the prices the company can charge, Fehrman said.

At first, I thought this was to implement CWIP - Construction Work in Progress – which allows utilities to charge ratepayers a nominal amount extra to pay for a power plant while it is being built (which benefits customers because it saves on finance charges accrued during construction) and it is, sort of.

This discussion follows a law passed last year that allowed MidAmerican to charge customers a total of $15 million to pay for a three-year study looking into the viability of building a nuclear plant in Iowa.

So, presumably, the company wants to do this without taking out a loan, which would cost customers more.

"Any money that customers pay up front -- it could be a small percentage increase -- but in the long run it will save the customers an incredible amount of money if we can get nuclear done," [state Sen. Randy] Feenstra said.

Yes, that’s CWIP, though not exactly for a construction project.

So, early days for this effort. But with the governor on-board, it’ll be interesting to see if this passes both houses in the next weeks. Fingers crossed.

It’s a barn and windmill – hey! – in Iowa.

Terry Branstad on Making Sense

The Dallas News has up an editorial that favors continued development of nuclear energy:

Americans must learn from this tragedy in our own necessary pursuit of nuclear power as part of a broader plan to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Nearly all of the 104 reactors in this country are on coastlines and near earthquake faults, and, similar to Japan’s, they utilize backup electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries. A confluence of several catastrophic events here could be just as calamitous as what is unfolding half a world away.

The support is always welcome, but the mainland of the United States is not vulnerable to tsunamis except in the Pacific Northwest and no nuclear plants are at the coast there. Earthquakes are a different matter, but plants are built to withstand more than the largest earthquakes ever recorded in their areas. See this FAQ from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Still, the editorial is more than judicious and worth a read.

---

The other day, we highlighted Utah Gov. Gary Herbert and his willingness to push forward with nuclear energy in the shadow of Japan. Now, meet Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad:

Gov. Terry Branstad said Monday it “makes sense” for state lawmakers to move ahead with legislation that would help address hurdles that might impede MidAmerican Energy’s exploratory effort aimed at building a nuclear-powered facility in Iowa.

And the reason?

Some critics have contended that the state should expand more aggressively into renewable energy production rather than pursuing an expansion into nuclear-generated power given the unfolding environmental crisis in Japan. Branstad agreed that Iowa already has been a leader in wind and renewable energy production, but he added “we really can’t do it all with renewable.”

“We can’t generate all of our power needs from wind energy, so we do need to look at the other sources and this seems to be something that is worth significantly studying,” Branstad said.

He’s right. Wind simply can’t do it all, though it’s certainly welcome in the mix. But nuclear energy can. A little more:

“We have a problem because of most of the power in Iowa is generated by coal and (federal Environmental Protection Agency) rules now are really very restrictive on coal-fired plants,” the governor said during an Iowa Public Radio interview. “So we’re either going to have to shut those plants down or do major expenses on retrofitting them or replace them with something that’s going to have the environmental problems that we have with coal.”

The arguments are as the arguments were. Nothing’s changed. And governors like Herbert and Branstad see that. I don’t really know whether taking these stands will cause trouble for them – I doubt it – but they are realistic policy decisions.

Gov. Terry Branstad.