Nuclear Fact Check: Jamie Reno and the Daily Beast

Earlier this week, Jamie Reno, a reporter for Tina Brown's Daily Beast wrote a story about San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and the situation there concerning excessive wear in the steam generators. For an update on that situation, click here.

In any case, Reno's story attempted to tie the operating difficulties at San Onofre to Fukushima, and efforts by anti-nuclear activists in California to shut it and the state's other nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon.

The anti-nuclear power movement in the United States peaked in 1979, with widespread protests, the “No Nukes” concert in New York City, and the release of The China Syndrome, the gripping film about a near-meltdown at a fictional California facility that foreshadowed a real-life accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania just weeks after the movie’s premiere.

Since then, no new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S.

That's incorrect. 50 more reactors were built after Three Mile Island and number 51, Watts Bar 2, will be completed in 2013.

I recently got a note from one of my colleagues on our media team, Tom Kaufmann. For those of you who might not have heard his name before, Tom worked at Three Mile Island as a reactor operator before moving on to a career in media relations.

What bothered him about Reno's article was the contention that the incident with the steam generators at San Onofre should cause the public to worry that a Fukushima-like event could occur at the plant.

Here's the note Tom sent to me in response:

The assertion that the leaking tubes illustrates that what happened in Japan absolutely could happen here is baseless. Amassing more than 3,500 reactor-years of operation, commercial nuclear power plants like San Onofre have been operating in the U.S. for more than half a century. During that entire time, including the accident at Three Mile Island, no member of the public has ever been harmed by a reactor accident or radiation from any U.S. nuclear power plant. Why? Because the facilities were very well designed, the nuclear energy industry is committed to hold safety as its utmost concern, and it has continuously improved the plants by expanding and upgrading the layers of protection.

The improvements made after Three Mile Island and the 9/11 attacks helped the industry produce a safety record that is second to none. The improvements being made in response to the accident in Japan will push safety even higher. The nuclear industry isn’t perfectly safe, no industry is, but it is very well prepared to handle challenges. In fact, a recent state-of-the-art study by the NRC found that the likelihood of a serious accident causing anyone harm is very, very small.

The report that Tom refers to is the State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses that the NRC published earlier this month. Click here to read that report. For a closer look at it by NEI's Mark Flanagan, click here.

Back to Tom:

This current situation with the steam generator tubes at San Onofre proves how conservative and proactive the plant operator is toward safety. The problem was discovered early, the plant was shut down so a through investigation of the cause could be conducted, and the regulator and public have been kept fully informed. This is exactly what should happen.

As we approach the April deadline to submit signatures for the California ballot initiative to shut down the plants, we can expect to see more articles like this one. We'll keep an eye out.

NBC Los Angeles Gets it Right on San Onofre

Over the past few days we've seen a raft of coverage about the incident at San Onofre last week, but little of it has put the events there in the proper context. The one exception to the rule is this report by Vikki Vargas of the NBC affiliate in Los Angeles:

View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

More later.

SONGS Is Vital for California’s Electricity Supply

Earlier this week, we reported on our blog about a steam generator tube leak in unit 3 at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in California (see here and here). The key facts are that:

1) the public and plant workers were never in danger;
2) the plant responded exactly how it was supposed to—sensitive monitoring instruments alerted workers to the problem & they were able to quickly shut down the plant and isolate the component within four hours of detection. Southern California Edison, the plant’s owner, also immediately notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the nation’s nuclear energy regulator, of the issue; and
3) pinhole-sized leaks in steam generator tubes are not an uncommon occurrence while a new steam generator is still being broken in. (SONGS just last year finished installing new steam generators at the site.)

As soon as the event occurred, some groups immediately called for the plant to close.

For instance, in the San Clemente Times:

But Gary Headrick of San Clemente Green said the latest incident is another reason SONGS should close.

"Let's move away from this outdated dangerous technology and replace it with safe and sustainable options that will lead us to a brighter future," he said in a statement.

And San Onofre Safety had this to say:

San Onofre Unit 2 and 3 are both down today (1/31/2012) and yet we still have plenty of power without this nuclear plant running. Unit 2 is shut down for maintenance and Unit 3 is shut down after a possible leak.

Tell me again why we are risking our lives, the environment and the future of California for energy we obviously can live without?

Although I know groups like these will take advantage of any opportunity to push their anti-nuclear energy agenda, this last quote is especially bothersome to me because it glosses over the intricacies involved with supplying electricity to the power grid and paints a picture that Californians can simply “live without” electricity from SONGS. What some may not realize is that the electricity has to come from somewhere else when a nuclear plant is shut down and it’s usually not from where they think.

When a nuclear plant is shut down, either for routine purposes or during an outage like in SONGS’ case this week, fossil fuel plants in the area will start up to offset the power that is no longer being generated by the nuclear plant. The local electricity grid operator will work with the fossil fuel plant to ensure that there is enough electricity to meet the demand in the area to avoid brownouts or blackouts. Given that it is winter and southern California typically does not have cold temperatures at this time of year, electricity demand in the area is low, which allows for other plants on standby to easily fill the gap in the lost electricity supply from SONGS. If this happened during the peak of summer when electricity demand is highest, then SONGS’ shutdown could affect the grid. Throughout the year (and even more so during peak times), SONGS provides the grid with stability in a congested region with its large, continuous baseload power.

Southern California Edison’s Gil Alexander explains this week’s shutdown on the grid:

The plant's only other reactor already had been deactivated for a scheduled refueling and technology upgrade, he said. But the utility has ample reserve electricity, which it buys from independent power producers, to continue meeting customer demands while the two reactors are off line, the company said.

"We don't expect any impact on our customers tomorrow," Alexander told Reuters.

The short-term solution of purchasing power from a nearby utility comes in handy during an unexpected or planned outage, but it is not a long-term option because the costs are higher than what SONGS can produce.

It’s important to consider that SONGS helps control power costs for Southern California, saving its customers some $250 million per year compared to the average costs of other available sources in the region. The plant generates 2,200 megawatts of electricity, which is enough to meet the needs of 1.4 million average homes. Since nuclear energy is emission-free, the SONGS plant also helped to avoid roughly 180 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions.

While it may be easy for some to quickly dismiss the economic and environmental benefits that SONGS provides to the southern California area, I hope that others will take the opportunity to learn more about why SONGS is essential to the region.

MIT Recommends Single Agency to Manage Cyber Security Threats for Electricity Grid

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a report on Monday that discusses the future challenges facing the U.S. electricity grid and several recommendations for how to best manage them. The researchers found that one of the most notable challenges facing the electricity grid is the threat of cyber attack.

MIT writes in the report:

Perfect protection from cyberattacks is not possible. There will be a successful attack at some point.

This is a huge threat to the grid because a cyber attack in one area has the ability to affect other areas very rapidly, which could greatly disrupt power supply all over the country. Cyber attacks are also considered by the Pentagon to be an “act of war,” said the MIT researchers at a National Press Club event this week.

To best manage this issue, MIT recommends that:

The federal government should designate a single agency to have responsibility for working with industry and to have the appropriate regulatory authority to enhance cybersecurity preparedness, response and recovery across the electric power sector, including both bulk power and distribution systems.

But which agency should be tasked with this authority? CNET’s Don Reisinger writes:

The Obama administration has argued in the past that the Department of Homeland Security should be charged with securing the electrical grid, while many members of Congress have called on the Department of Energy or Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC] to take over. So far, a decision hasn't been made, and MIT researchers didn't provide insight into which organization might be best.

Although the MIT researchers believe that a single agency should be tasked with overseeing these efforts, the nuclear industry believes that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has extensive regulations already in place for protecting nuclear energy facilities from cyber attack and that regulatory oversight by other agencies would be “unnecessary and duplicate strict NRC oversight.” In response to the White House’s proposal for DHS to manage a cyber security program, NEI writes:

However, this proposal—along with recent efforts to legislate cyber security for critical infrastructure—is not needed for nuclear plants because NRC regulations and oversight of industry actions to respond to cyber threats. Additional regulation would be duplicative and risk creating inconsistencies in requirements.

Some of you may remember NEI’s cyber security expert Bill Gross who posted in October on the House Republican Cybersecurity Task Force’s recommendations. He had this to say about the MIT’s recommendation:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has mandatory cyber security requirements in place for all power plants. While there may be value in a central coordinating authority, the regulators of jurisdiction have the subject matter expertise to manage the cyber security issue. Any centralized role should be focused on minimizing the potential for dual or duplicate regulatory requirements across sectors.

The industry does agree with MIT, however, that cyber attacks are one of the greatest threats facing the electric power industry today. Exelon Nuclear’s President and Chief Nuclear Officer Mike Pacilio commented on current cyber security programs in place in the nuclear industry in a recent video interview at the 10-year anniversary of September 11.

All of our plants today, not only Exelon, but in the industry, have a very comprehensive cyber improvement program where we are essentially making our plants an island. Any of the controls that interface with the Internet, for example, that could possibly control the reactor are not connected.

See NEI’s website for more information on cyber security programs in the nuclear energy industry.

Among MIT’s other recommendations outlined in the report are:

• To facilitate the integration of remote renewables, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should be granted enhanced authority to site major transmission facilities that cross state lines.
• To improve the grid’s efficiency and lower rates, utilities with advanced metering technology should begin a transition to pricing regimes in which customers pay rates that reflect the time-varying costs of supplying power.
• To improve utilities’ and their customers’ incentives related to distribution generation and energy conservation, utilities should recover fixed network costs through customer charges that do not vary with the volume of electricity consumption.
• To make effective use of new technologies, the electric power industry should fund increased research and development in several key areas, including computational tools for bulk power system operation, methods for wire-area transmission planning, procedures for response to and recovery from cyber attacks, and models of consumer response to real-time pricing.
• To improve decision making in an increasingly complex and dynamic environment, more detailed data should be compiled and shared, including information on the bulk power system, comprehensive results from “smart grid” demonstration projects, and standardized metrics of utility cost and performance.

For more information on MIT’s research, see the full report, “The Future of the Electric Grid.”

Image credits: From the Department of Homeland Security’s Web page on Cybersecurity.

Some Additional Context on the UCS Study on Power Plants and Water Use

Yesterday afternoon, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a study that suggested that thermoelectric power plants were contributing to stress on the nation's supply of fresh water.

For readers of NEI Nuclear Notes, this issue isn't exactly new. Back in 2006, we needed to push out some clarifying information (click here and here) in the wake of the drought that struck Europe. Back then, the angle reporters would take targeted nuclear energy in isolation (speaking of reporters, see this from NEI's Steve Kerekes), despite the fact that any steam cycle power plant has to deal with the same issues. At the time we pointed out that data from the U.S. Geological Service showed that the largest use of freshwater in the country was not electric power generation, but rather crop irrigation.

NEI's Bill Skaff wrote the following response to the UCS study.

Responsible environmental management must begin with a recognition of the water-energy nexus—large-scale electricity generation and large-scale usable water production are interdependent. We cannot have one without the other. Power plants require water for cooling, and water utilities require electricity for filtration, purification, and pumping to deliver usable water. In fact, nationwide, about 80 percent of municipal water processing and distribution costs are for electricity.ⁱ

According to USGS, residential consumption of freshwater—at 6.7 percent of U.S. total water consumption—is more than double the consumption of freshwater for electric power generation, at 3.3 percent.ⁱⁱ A typical nuclear plant supplies 740,000 homes with all of the electricity they use while consuming 13 to 23 gallons of water per day per household. By comparison, the average U.S. household of three people consumes about 94 gallons of water per day for indoor and outdoor activities.ⁱⁱⁱ

Power plants may withdraw almost as much water as farms for irrigation, but 98 percent of the water withdrawn by the electric power sector is returned to lakes and rivers, available for other uses. Since only 20 percent of irrigation water is returned, irrigation is the largest consumer of water resources.^iv Power plants observe the temperature limit of their discharge water as set by the state regulatory authority, who determines the temperature that is safe for fish and plant life.

Numerous scientific studies of power plants around the country—reviewed by state permitting authorities—demonstrate that once-through cooling systems have no adverse impact on aquatic life populations.^v This is because the miniscule number of fish lost to the cooling system, when compared to the overall population, is readily replaced by prolific reproduction.^vi

Cooling towers consume twice as much water as once-through cooling systems.^vii In light of climate change modeling that indicates freshwater constraints, how can cooling towers nationwide be a sustainable choice of cooling system?

Wind and solar energy use very little water, but their electricity output is variable—wind changes speed and direction, clouds block the sun—and intermittent—the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun shine. An electricity grid can only balance a limited amount of these electricity shortfalls, limiting how much renewable energy can be accommodated by a grid before it becomes unstable and black outs occur. Moreover, the variable, intermittent output of these renewables is usually balanced by fossil plants, which emit carbon dioxide and air pollutants.

The electricity grid requires steady, reliable baseload electricity—the output of nuclear and fossil plants. Nuclear power plant water use is comparable to coal plants. Natural gas uses less water,^viii but produces half as much carbon dioxide as a coal plant as well as nitrous oxide, which contributes to ground level ozone formation, a cause of respiratory ailments. By contrast, nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gases or air pollutants during operations.

Sustainable development will require electricity for quality of life and a mix of energy sources to generate that electricity—renewable, nuclear, and fossil. We must balance all environmental, social, and economic factors and make trade-offs when considering what energy source or cooling system to deploy at each of our diverse ecosystems around the country.

ⁱ EPRI, Water & Sustainability, Vol. 4 U.S. Electricity Consumption for Water Supply & Treatment, 2002, p. 1-2.

ⁱⁱ U.S. Geological Survey (Wayne B. Solley, et al.), Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, 1998, pp. 6, 48-9, 40-1, 36-7, 28-9, 44-5, and 32-3. Percentages are derived from the individual sector data tables rather than the summary percentage chart (Figure 7) on p. 19. The USGS 1995 study is the most recent to include both consumption and withdrawal data.

ⁱⁱⁱ This calculation assumes a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant operating at 90 percent capacity factor per year, the industry average of the time that a plant is actually operating compared to its operating 100 percent of the time. Average U.S. household electricity consumption is from EIA, Survey of Residential End-Use Electricity Consumption, 2001. Nuclear plant water consumption per megawatt/hour is from EPRI, Water & Sustainability, Vol. 3 U.S. Water Consumption for Power Production, 2002, p. viii. Residential water consumption per person is from U.S. Geological Survey, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, 1998, p. 24. Number of persons in an average U.S. household is from U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports; reports consulted were from 1995, 2003, and 2006.

^iv U.S. Geological Survey (Wayne B. Solley, et al.), Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, 1998, pp. 48-9, 24-5, and 32-3.

^v Among the studies submitted for NPDES permit renewal: Virginia Power, Impingement and Entrainment Studies for North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983, prepared by the Water Quality Department, Richmond, Virginia, May 1985. The study’s results are presented in Dominion, North Anna Early Site Permit Application, Revision 9, September 2006, p. 3-5-54. PSEG, Salem Generating Station NJPDES Permit Renewal Application, February 1, 2006, Section 5, Adverse Environmental Impact, p. 159. LWB Environmental Services, Inc. (L.W. Barnthouse), AKRF, Inc. (D. G. Heimbuch), Van Winkle Environmental Consulting (W. Van Winkle), and ASA Analysis & Communications, Inc. (J. Young), Entrainment and Impingement at IP2 and IP3: A Biological Impact Assessment, January 2008, p. 79. Carolina Power & Light, Environmental Services Section, Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1993 Biological Monitoring Report, March 1994, p. viii. ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc., Impingement Mortality Characterization Report, 2006-2007 [for Oconee Nuclear Station], May 2008. p. ES-2. In addition, see Electric Power Research Institute, Ohio River Research Program: Impingement Mortality Characterization Study at 15 Power Stations, June 2009, pp. v-vi.

^vi For a discussion of population dynamics, see National Research Council, Commission on Life Sciences, Committee on the Applications of Ecological Theory to Environmental Problems, Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem-Solving: Concepts and Case Studies (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986), pp. 28-35.

^vii National Renewable Energy Laboratory, A Review of Operational Water Consumption and Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies, March 2011, p. 6.

^viii EPRI, Water & Sustainability, Vol. 3 U.S. Water Consumption for Power Production, 2002, p. viii. National Energy Technology Laboratory (G. J. Stiegel, J. R. Longanbach, M. D. Rutkowski, M. G. Klett, N. J. Kuehn, R. L. Schoff, V. Vaysman, J. S. White), Power Plant Water Usage and Loss Study, August 2005, revised May 2007, p. xiii.

Here's hoping that provides some useful context when it comes to domestic use of freshwater. Then again, something tells me that we'll probably be revisiting this story over and over again in the coming years. For more information, see this page at NEI.org.

The Latte Fallacy: German Nuclear Shut Down Proving Expensive

One of the big arguments against nuclear is that it simply costs too much. Well, if the latest reports from Germany are anything to go by, consumers are going to have to pay more without it.

As reported here earlier, Germany has decided to phase out nuclear power and is hoping to shut down all of its plants by 2022. What has been the result? Rising electricity prices.

Since the first nuclear power plant was shut down, the price of electricity on the European Energy Exchange in Leipzig has increased by about 12 percent.

Not only that, Germany has lost  some energy independence too:

Germany has gone from being a net exporter to a net importer of electricity. According to the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSOE) in Brussels, Germany now imports several million kilowatt hours of electricity from abroad every day.

This wasn’t the way things were supposed to go.

"According to our calculations, the cost of a kilowatt hour of electricity will go up by only one cent," says Economics Minister Philipp Rösler, head of Merkel's junior coalition partner, the Free Democrats (FDP). For an average household, this would correspond to the price of only one latte a month, says Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, of Merkel's Christian Democrats.

One latte a month. Doesn’t sound so bad. Well, the real price increase could be five times as much according to a study by the Rhenish-Westphalian Institute for Economic Research (RWI).

…the politicians' estimate of the costs of expanding renewable sources of energy is far too low…RWI experts estimate that the cost of electricity could increase by as much as five times the government's estimate of one cent per kilowatt hour.

Another study by the “semi-governmental” German Energy Agency anticipates an increase of four to five cents, in line with the RWI estimate. Finally, a third estimate from the Economics Ministry sees more than a “latte a month” increase. 

An internal estimate making the rounds at the Economics Ministry also exceeds the official announcements. It concludes that an average three-person household will pay an additional 0.5 to 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour, and up to five cents more in the mid-term [emphasis added]. This would come to an additional cost of €175 ($250) a year. "Not exactly the price of a latte," says Manuel Frondel of the RWI.

It’s just more evidence that when it’s done right, nuclear energy is one of the most cost effective ways of generating electricity.