94th Carnival of Nuclear Energy – Old Battles, New Technologies and One Scandal

Last week was another busy week in social media. Today we’re hosting the 94th carnival and highlighting 21 posts from 14 blogs.

To start, Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk discusses her concerns about the zeroing of funds for nuclear engineering education programs in the 2013 budget request. It’s been an annual battle to maintain the nuclear education programs at the NRC and DOE and this year was no different. From Gail:

It seems to me that in general, it is penny-wise and pound-foolish for a nation to skimp on education. I know the budget is tight and I know there are many other important programs, but we really can't stop looking ahead.

The case for nuclear engineering education is particularly important. The current workforce of nuclear engineers is rapidly retiring. … One hopes that some of the supporters of nuclear energy on the Hill will notice this cut and restore the funding. I would encourage those who share my concern to contact your members of Congress and ask for their help in restoring funding for educational programs.

Hear, hear!

…

Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee wrote a guest post at the ANS Nuclear Cafe describing the controversies around VY. She notes that “putting Vermont Yankee issues in context is like facing a huge mountain range. There is always another set of hills beyond this one.”

Also at her own blog, she announced the March 17 community rally in support of the plant.

…

Steve Aplin at Canadian Energy Issues commented on the different risk perceptions between nuclear materials and chemicals. Fear of the 'Dirty Bomb' recently led to a campaign to phase out the use of cesium-137 in hospital irradiators. Those machines sterilize blood prior to transfusion and prevent transfusion-associated diseases. Steve pointed out that there have not been similar campaigns to phase out other useful chemicals, like chlorine, ammonium nitrate and gasoline, which are much easier to obtain and put to evil purposes than cesium. Many people fear nuclear materials but forget that chemicals, fuel and fertilizers can cause much greater damage.

…

Atomic Power Review has a two-part contribution this week concerning the Palisades nuclear station and reactor pressure vessel embrittlement. In the two posts, Will Davis addressed media claims of vessel embrittlement. Part 1 was a background on Palisades with a link to a past APR article on the topic and part 2 provided great detail on embrittlement from a number of print sources and A. David Rossin (former President of ANS).

…

Filling in for Charles Barton at Nuclear Green, NNadir shares his thoughts on the first nuclear reactors in the world that naturally fissioned a few billion years ago. Although there is a lot of squabbling about burying nuclear waste, nature proves it can be contained. From NNadir:

Over two billion years, most of the fission products in porous sandstone at Oklo didn't even migrate as far as Tom Brady can throw an errant football in a "Hail Mary" pass at the end of a Superbowl as a last ditch attempt to avoid a losing effort.

His post is humorous and dense but definitely worth the read on Oklo.

…

Steve Skutnik from the Neutron Economy describes how small modular reactors can help displace Iowa's coal-heavy energy portfolio. SMRs can provide an economical, "right-sized" solution for smaller, rural electrical grids like Iowa’s. Of course, not everyone is convinced of the benefits. Skutnik also blasted some of the specious arguments against the technology.

…

Over at Energy From Thorium, Kirk Sorensen is working hard to push for thorium all around the world. Kirk was in London last year to help launch the Weinberg Foundation which promotes thorium. On Thursday, Kirk highlighted the Foundation’s press release on the formation of an “All-Party Parliamentary Group” in London with members of both the House of Commons and House of Lords to consider the potential of thorium as an energy source. Well done.

…

Rod Adams at Atomic Insights discusses how and why we should combine domestic coal with nuclear energy to make oil.

My pitch to the coal industry would be to use cheap, clean nuclear heat to convert H2O and their carbon rich fuel into a refined hydrocarbon that could compete with petroleum products.

No, it’s not a new concept. Technologies exist to achieve this, check out Rod’s post on how.

…

How close did Japan really get to a widespread nuclear disaster? At Brave New Climate, Barry Brook highlights a post at Slate.com by two authors at the Breakthrough Institute who put Fukushima into a proper context. Barry adds:

Much of the post-accident speculation was constrained only by people’s imagination (which can be pretty wide ranging), and utterly failed to resolve the fact that RISK is probability X impact. Instead, anti-nuclear types typically choose a huge, speculative impact, and then try to attach a large probability (often near certainty) to it. For truly catastrophic outcomes, both numbers are very small, and multiplied, vanishingly so.

Can’t add to that.

…

We have two posts to mention from the ANS Nuclear Café. Wesley Deason launched his series on the uses of nuclear fission to enable human space exploration beyond earth’s orbit:

Nuclear reactors, due to their ability to produce large amounts of energy at any location, will be the required energy source for future human space travel outside of earth’s orbit.

Make sure to follow the Café for more of his series.

Also at the Café, Dan Yurman reveals a dispute over the start of two new nuclear plants in India. To the right, months of protests have delayed the Kudankulam nuclear project in southern India. Some people (including India’s sitting prime minister) allege that American NGOs are funding the protests. If true, it sounds like a scandalous story.

…

Dan Yurman at his own blog, Idaho Samizdat, also reported several positive news items for the week including the good news that North Korea is suspending its nuclear weapons program and opening more dialogue with the U.S. Of course, some aren’t holding their breath.

Dan also reported that Iran is having a tough time with its uranium enrichment program, how the U.K. is consuming its surplus plutonium, and how South Africa is taking another shot at bids for new reactors in the country.

…

Brian Wang at Nextbigfuture looked at detailed levelized cost comparisons of nuclear, solar and coal. Brian notes that two-thirds of the cost of coal energy is determined by future commodity prices while nuclear and solar costs are dominated by construction costs and financing.

Brian also highlights a World Nuclear News story on GE’s laser uranium enrichment plant. The NRC just issued its final technical Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed enrichment plant.

The GLE plant would use a laser-based process to enrich uranium up to 8% uranium-235 by weight (although nuclear power reactors normally require 3%-5% enriched uranium), with an initial planned maximum target production of six million separative work units (SWU) per year. … Laser enrichment could be 2 to 20 times more efficient than other enrichment processes.

Sweet.

…

And here at NEI Nuclear Notes, various contributors generated a lot of action – covering PBS’ documentary of Fukushima, Senator Bingaman’s proposed Clean Energy Standard, tornadoes in the South, and NEI’s next social media call on the industry’s FLEX strategy.

Be sure to stop by everyone’s pages for these great articles and new reporting. Stay tuned for other carnivals at Yes Vermont Yankee, ANS Café, Next Big Future and Atomic Power Review!

New NEI White Paper: Making Safe Nuclear Energy Safer

With the anniversary of the incident at Fukushima Daiichi almost upon us, it's only natural for the public and other stakeholders to be asking questions about the safety of America's nuclear energy facilities. To answer those questions, NEI has published a white paper entitled, "Making Safe Nuclear Energy Safer."

The following passage is from the document's Executive Summary:

The nuclear energy industry’s primary and constant goal is to make safe nuclear energy facilities even safer. A decades-long commitment to safety and continuous learning is reflected in the operational focus and safety culture at our facilities. Companies that operate 104 U.S. reactors review safety procedures continually and update their facilities and training programs with lessons learned from those reviews.

The industry has a commitment to safety because nuclear energy is a vital part of America’s electricity portfolio. It helps achieve greater energy independence for America and produces affordable, reliable electricity for one of every five Americans. Safety is the foundation of a thriving nuclear energy industry in America and globally—with more than 430 reactors producing electricity and 65 plants under construction.

After the March 11, 2011, earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the U.S. nuclear power industry is looking even more closely at ways to ensure safety is maintained in the face of extreme natural events. The U.S. industry and our global partners took immediate actions after the events in Japan, both to support the recovery of the Fukushima Daiichi reactors and to review critical safety systems at U.S. reactors. While we continue to monitor the situation closely and to learn from it, the nuclear energy industry in the United States is already implementing numerous measures to maintain and upgrade the already-high level of safety at nuclear energy facilities.

The paper clocks in at nine pages in length, and is easily digestible for readers who, while they might be aware of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, might not be completely up to speed on what the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S. industry have been doing in the interim to apply lessons learned from our colleagues in Japan. Click here to download it right now.

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.

Dr. Robert Emery Disputes Joe Mangano's Findings on Radiation and Fukushima

Just a few minutes ago, I received the following statement from Dr. Robert Emery, Vice President for Safety, Health, Environment & Risk Management at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston concerning Dr. Joseph Mangano's recent study on fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility reaching the U.S.

“We aggressively monitored for the presence of environmental radioactivity in Houston following the Fukushima event and worked closely with local public health authorities in the event we detected any threat to public health. We never detected any elevated radiation levels. I don’t see any evidence to supports the assertion made by this report that the additional 484 deaths in Houston in 2011 could in any way be related to radioactivity from Fukushima - we never detected any.”

"Moreover the study bases its conclusion on the comparison of data from deaths in the U.S. in 2010 and 2011. Using this method you really can’t determine the specific cause of any increase in deaths over the two years. Perhaps the most important question is: what did the 148,395 U.S. citizens die of in 2010, the year before the Japanese earthquake? Most likely the overwhelming causes were heart disease, cancer, and stroke. I believe this is likely the case in 2011 as well. I also believe our finite public health resources are better spent on the issues we know are causing people to die rather than being diverted to explore hypothetical projections"

It ought to be clear by now that Mangano's claims are being broadly discredited by the wider scientific community. Click here, here and here for our recent posts on how independent 3rd party voices are warning the public to disregard Mangano's research.

Joe Mangano's Credibility Takes Another Body Blow

This time, the sledgehammer is delivered courtesy of Barbara Feder Ostrov's Health Journalism Blog. Like plenty of other folks, she was shocked at Joe Mangano's claims -- ones that he backed off from when under questioning from MedPage Today -- so she talked to some long-time medical journalists.

Here's what Ivan Oransky of Reuters Health had to say about Mangano's research:

I do use impact factor to judge journals, while accepting that it's an imperfect measure that is used in all sorts of inappropriate ways (and, for the sake of full disclosure, is a Thomson Scientific product, as in Thomson Reuters). I find it helpful to rank journals within a particular specialty.

[...]

I looked up the journal in question, and it's actually ranked 45th out of 58 in the Health Policy and Services category (in the social sciences rankings) and 59th out of 72 in the Health Care Sciences & Services category (in the science rankings).

Here's Gary Schwitzer of Health News Review:

Journalists who live on a steady diet of journal articles almost by definition promote a rose-colored view of progress in research if they don't grasp and convey the publication bias in many journals for positive findings. Negative or null findings may not be viewed as sexy enough. Or they may be squelched prior to submission. While perhaps not a factor in this one case, it nonetheless drives home the point to journalists about the need to critically evaluate studies.

I'm afraid I have more bad news for Mangano. Who's going to tell Christie Brinkley?

Mike Moyer of Scientific American Debunks Joe Mangano Again

Mike Moyer, the writer at Scientific American who so expertly debunked Joe Mangano's "research" in June, had a chance to read the latest Mangano study that claimed 14,000 deaths in the U.S. were linked to fallout from Fukushima.

The verdict: it's just another flawed study.

No attempt is made at providing systematic error estimates, or error estimates of any kind. No attempt is made to catalog any biases that may have crept into the analysis, though a cursory look finds biases a-plenty (the authors are anti-nuclear activists unaffiliated with any research institution). The analysis assumes that the plume arrived on U.S. shores, spread everywhere, instantly, and started killing people immediately. It assumes that the “excess” deaths after March 20 are a real signal, not just a statistical aberration, and that every one of them is due to Fukushima radiation.

Of course, as we pointed out yesterday, Mangano was forced to back off that last claim when pressed by a reporter from MedPage Today.

Back to Moyer ...

The publication of such sloppy, agenda-driven work is a shame. Certainly radiation from Fukushima is dangerous, and could very well lead to negative health effects—even across the Pacific. The world needs to have a serious discussion about what role nuclear power should play in a power-hungry post-Fukushima world. But serious, informed, fact-based debate is a difficult enough goal to achieve without having to shout above noise like this.

Amen, brother.

Joseph Mangano Contradicts His Own Press Release on Fukushima Research

Our readers will recall that on Friday afternoon that we were alerted to the impending release of a study authored by Joseph Mangano and Dr. Janette Sherman on the alleged effects of radioactive fallout from the Fukushima Daiichi incident here in the U.S.

Earlier today, Mangano and company held a teleconference to announce their findings:

An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services.

Sounds scary, doesn't it? Then again, only a few hours later, Mangano admitted in an interview with MedPage Today that the results of his research weren't quite as definitive as his press release would have led folks to believe:

But he (Managno) told MedPage Today that the researchers can't rule out factors other than the Fukushima radiation that might have accounted for the excess.

"There are probably a variety of factors that could be linked to this excess of 14,000 deaths," he said.

Huh? In any case, it's clear that the scientific community doesn't think terribly much of Mangano and his study. As luck would have it, MedPage Today also talked to Richard L. Morin, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida:

On the contrary, any link between the deaths and the radiation released by the reactors is "very, very unlikely" simply because the levels are low, according to Richard Morin, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Morin told MedPage Today that such an acute effect would be unlikely, unless radiation levels were four or five orders of magnitude higher than those reported by Mangano and Sherman, and the whole body of the victim was exposed.

Typically, he said, the effect of low-level ionizing radiation doesn't appear until years after the exposure.

Morin, who is chair of the American College of Radiology's safety committee, said an earlier public report by the authors on the same issue -- preceding the journal article -- "has not been taken seriously by the scientific community."

He added it's important to remember that "association doesn't imply causation.

It's been more than six years since I wrote my first post on Mangano's antics. As I wrote at the time, eight states have investigated Mangano's claims and all eight refused to validate them. One wonders why reporters even bother to talk to him anymore when his work has been so thoroughly debunked.

Note to Reporters: Be Sure to Fact Check Joseph Mangano, Janette Sherman and Robert Alvarez

Late this afternoon, it came to our attention that Joseph Mangano, Janette Sherman and Robert Alvarez will be holding a news conference on Monday morning (December 19) concerning a new study they've done about how Americans might be affected by radiation released into the atmosphere from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility in Japan.

While we haven't seen the article as of yet and can't comment on it, our readers should know that reliable third parties have reviewed the work of all three authors in the past and found it to be fatally flawed.

Here's what the New Jersey Commission on Radiation Protection had to say about Mangano's "Tooth Fairy" project:

The Commission is of the opinion that "Radioactive Strontium-90 in Baby Teeth of New Jersey Children and the Link with Cancer: A Special Report," is a flawed report, with substantial errors in methodology and invalid statistics. As a result, any information gathered through this project would not stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific community. There is also no evidence to support the allegation that the State of New Jersey has a problem with the release of Sr-90 into the environment from nuclear generating plants: more than 30 years of environmental monitoring data refute this.

In June, Michael Moyer of Scientific American had this to say about a study by Mangano and Sherman on radiation and Fukushima:

[A] check reveals that the authors’ statistical claims are critically flawed—if not deliberate mistruths.

[...]

Only by explicitly excluding data from January and February were Sherman and Mangano able to froth up their specious statistical scaremongering.

This is not to say that the radiation from Fukushima is not dangerous, nor that we shouldn’t closely monitor its potential to spread (we should). But picking only the data that suits your analysis isn’t science—it’s politics. Beware those who would confuse the latter with the former.

As for Mr. Alvarez, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had this to say about one of his papers on the safety of spent fuel pools:

The NRC staff has reviewed the paper, "Reducing the Hazards from Stored Spent Power- Reactor Fuel in the United States," April 21, 2003, Robert Alvarez, et al., (published in Science and Global Security, spring 2003) and concludes that it fails to make the case for its central recommendation.

[...]

Our review of the paper indicates that it is a deficient study of the hazards associated with the storage of spent fuel. Many of the 114 cited references are NRC studies or NRC contracted studies conducted for a variety of purposes, and most are not applicable to terrorist attacks.

Members of the press should take care to challenge the findings announced on Monday, and to be sure to contact NEI or other third party experts to review the validity of the study, rather than simply rebroadcast its findings.

NEI Confronts Politifact on Clinton Statement on Nuclear Costs

Last week, David Bradish posted his take on President Clinton's statement concerning the costs of electricity generated by wind, solar and nuclear energy. After looking at the numbers, David concluded that an analysis by Politifact that rated Clinton's statement as "half-true" was flawed and needed to be updated to "mostly false."

Earlier today, John Keeley of NEI's media team I shared a copy of David's analysis with reporter Louis Jacobson and editor Martha Hamilton. If and when we get a response, we'll let you know.

In Attack on AP-1000, Anti-Nuke Gundersen Hits a New Low

Late last week, anti-nuclear gadfly Arne Gundersen took to the Web to attack the safety of Westinghouse's AP-1000 nuclear reactor. It's all part of a larger effort by anti-nuclear activists to delay the certification of the reactor design by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NEI's Tom Kauffman shot me a note that has asked me to share with our blog audience:

Arnie Gundersen’s claim there was an inadvertent criticality in the one Fukushima reactor is totally unfounded. A criticality is a sustained chain reaction within the nuclear fuel. There is no evidence a criticality occurred in any of the damaged reactors since the accident. Spontaneous fission of uranium atoms naturally occurs, but conditions to support criticality do not exist. The control rods are in fact in the damaged fuel. And boron, a highly effective fission control element, is mixed in the cooling water in all three reactors and all the used fuel pools thereby virtually eliminating the possibility of criticality. Gundersen knows this and is deliberately misleading people.

Gundersen’s claim that loss of the cooling water at the top of the AP1000 containment structure would be the loss of the plant’s ultimate heat sink also is false. Just like the nuclear plants at Fukushima, the ultimate heat sink of the AP1000 reactor is the cooling water source for the plant. If that is lost, multiple emergency cooling water supplies would be used to cool the reactor. If they too are lost, the water at the top of the containment could provide cooling for three days even in the event of a total loss of all electrical power. He also failed to mention that no U.S. nuclear facility faces the sudden flooding that stopped the ultimate heat sink in Japan.

His claim the fuel pool at the #4 reactor at Fukushima “blew up” is absolutely false and is fear-mongering at its worst. Video of the #4 pool and the used fuel in it along with samples of the water in the pool, are irrefutable proof there was no explosion in the fuel pool and fuel is intact. In fact, there were no explosions in any of the fuel pools. NRC Chairman Jaczko publicly confirmed this weeks ago. Likewise, Gundersen’s recent claim that molten fuel is moving into the ground beneath one plant and causing groundwater to change into steam is totally unsupported and irresponsible.

Mr. Gundersen also failed to mention that the AP1000 reactor, designed to be at least 100 times safer than existing plants due to exceptionally large safety margins, is based on 50 years of operational lessons-learned and more than 20 years of research and development. Probably the most highly engineered and analyzed nuclear plant design in the history of the U.S. (if not the world), the Westinghouse advanced passive reactor design underwent the most thorough pre-construction licensing review ever conducted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Because of the AP1000 design’s huge safety margins, any changes needed in response to the lessons learned from the accident in Japan are expected to be manageable during plant construction.

Mr. Gundersen does not speak for the people of Georgia or South Carolina, nor their governors or public service commissions who support new nuclear facilities. He should respect their right to decide for themselves how to manage their energy supplies.

This isn't the first time Gundersen and his allies have attacked the AP-1000. Last April, a group of 12 regional anti-nuclear energy organizations called on the NRC to investigate their claims. Click here for NEI's response to that request.

An artist's conception of the AP-1000 reactor, courtesy of Westinghouse.

Are Wind and Solar Cheaper Than Nuclear?

Last week on the Daily Show, former President Bill Clinton asserted that wind and solar are projected to be cheaper than coal in 2-5 years and that both wind and solar are cheaper than nuclear right now.

PolitiFact dug into the numbers and found that the President's statements were only half true. We took their analysis one step further and argue that the President’s statements were mostly false.

PolitiFact cites the Energy Information Administration (EIA).  EIA is a credible source for comparing levelized electricity costs for new generation technologies. PolitiFact is correct that solar is much more expensive than most all other generating technologies including nuclear. When it comes to the cost of wind, however, we think PolitiFact should take another look.

When delving into the numbers, PolitiFact only looked at one set of single-point cost estimates from EIA. In reality, though, the cost of building and operating power facilities falls in a range that depends on many factors such as financing, transmission requirements, available natural resources for renewables and performance of the operating companies.

Wind turbines, like all other technologies, have a range of costs based on many variables.  EIA shows that the upper end of wind’s cost range is more expensive than the lower end of nuclear’s cost range. On the bottom of EIA’s page, a range of costs for each technology is provided (chart below).

As shown above, the low end of nuclear’s cost range ($109.70/MWh) is lower than the high end of wind’s cost range ($115/MWh); therefore wind is not always cheaper than nuclear.

Further, the amount of wind that can be built is limited to specific places in the U.S. that receive adequate wind flow (see map below).

A substantial amount of wind cannot be built in places such as the Southeast due to a lack of natural resources. Areas with low wind resources will produce less electricity from installed turbines which in turn cause higher levelized costs.  Here are SCANA’s estimates for its region which show nuclear is cheaper than gas, coal, wind and solar (different incentives included for all):

Currently, 104 nuclear reactors (101 gigawatts) generate 20% of the country’s baseload power at low operating costs. This compares to 40 GW of wind and 1 GW of solar generating 2.2% and 0.0003% of the country’s electricity, respectively, at intermittent times.

The folks at PolitiFact should reconsider their conclusion about former President Clinton’s statements and change it from Half True to Mostly False.

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.

Mothers in Nuclear – Yes, They Do Exist

The Clean Energy Insight blog, which is the blog for the North American Young Generation in Nuclear, just published four stories from mothers who work in the nuclear industry. Being a mother and having any job is tough enough; working in the nuclear industry on top of it is, well, it makes for some good stories. Here’s one nugget from a mother who described the unique circumstances she found herself in when it came to breastfeeding:

Issue #1: Getting a breastpump through security. Need I say more? The situation was usually comical, but one special day stands out in my mind. After what seemed like the hundredth time passing my breastpump through security, a well-meaning guard asked me to open the “mechanism.” The breastpump itself is sealed for sanitation and functional purposes, so opening the “mechanism” was a tall order. After a few minutes of trying to explain this to him, he was saved by a coworker who took over the search and muttered an apology to me without ever raising his eyes. Embarrassing, yes. Unexpected, not really.

And some advice from another working mom:

Being a working mom is a balancing act. You have to start by setting your priorities—family first, in my opinion—and sticking to them. Our extended family didn’t respond enthusiastically when we first talked about our plan of becoming a one-income household with my husband holding down the home front. But they now see how much it has benefitted the kids and the family as a whole. All moms will eventually find the equation that works best for them. Being a good mom does not mean that you have to sacrifice your career and upward mobility, but it may mean that you need to modify your approach from time to time. I wish you all the energy you will need as you find the right balance for your family!

Yes, moms do exist in the nuclear industry and yes, the kids don’t come out radioactive. Be sure to stop by and read the rest of the stories!

60 Years of Energy Incentives – An Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development from 1950-2010

In 2008, NEI published a study based on an analysis by the Management Information Systems, Inc. that detailed the amount of subsidies that go to each energy source. The study has just been updated and now shows 60 years of energy incentives. Here’s the intro:

With concern about the price and availability of energy increasing, public interest in the role of federal incentives in shaping today’s energy marketplace and future energy options has risen sharply. That interest has met with frustration in some quarters and half-truths in others because of the difficulty in developing a complete picture of the incentives that influence today’s energy options.

The difficulty arises from the many forms of incentives, the variety of ways that they are funded, managed and monitored, and changes in the agencies responsible for administering them. It is no simple matter to identify incentives and track them through year-to-year changes in legislation and budgets over the 50-plus years that federal incentives have been a significant part of the modern energy marketplace.

…

The findings indicate that the largest beneficiaries of federal energy incentives have been oil and gas, receiving more than half of all incentives provided since 1950. The federal government’s primary support for nuclear energy development has been in the form of research and development (R&D) programs, one of the more visible types of incentives identified. In the past 10 years, federal spending on R&D for coal and renewables has exceeded expenditures for nuclear energy R&D.

Below are two key charts showing the latest numbers on pages 10 and 12:

And a little bit more on page 17:

The common perception that federal energy incentives have favored nuclear energy at the expense of renewables, such as wind and solar, is not supported by the findings of this study. The largest beneficiaries of federal energy incentives have been oil and gas, receiving more than half of all incentives provided since 1950.

The federal government’s primary incentive to nuclear energy has been in the form of R&D programs, one of the more visible types of incentives identified. Since the end of funding for the breeder reactor program in 1988, federal spending on nuclear energy research has been less than spending on coal research and since 1994 has also been less than spending on renewable energy research.

The analysis takes you back into some good history of U.S. energy policy since 1950. There is a telling story on renewables on page 52 and some interesting incentive figures for each nuclear technology (light-water reactors, heavy-water reactors, gas cooled, sodium cooled and others) on page 35. Make sure to take a gander at the full report.

Readers Weigh In On CJR's Look at AP Series on Nuclear Energy

A few days back, I pointed to a piece by the Columbia Journalism Review that took a look at NEI's dispute with the Associated Press over their series on the safety of nuclear power plants. Since that piece was published on Wednesday, a number of readers have weighed in with some interesting comments. We've included a few below:

I see you think the plants were designed for 40 years of use. I think rather that the plants were licensed for 40 years of use. When you get a drivers license lasting for four years, do you expect to quit driving after four years?

When a steam generator is replaced in a plant is the new steam generator less reliable that the same steam generator placed in a new plant?

The point here is safety is not determined by plant age. Safety is determined by measuring how safe something is. Is the plant safe when it is new? Is the plant safe 10 years later? Is the plant safe 40 years later? Is the plant safe 60 years later? Safety is not based on the age of the plant! This is especially true when large parts of the plant are replaced over time.

[...]

Jeff Donn did what many reporters do in similar situations. He presented material without context and relied on “experts” friendly to his point of view to make the material seem far more devastating than it actually is. The nuclear industry was right to go for the throat in this instance. They learned the hard way during the 70’s that if they don’t hit back at reporting like this it will over time do irreparable damage to the industry.

[...]

Understanding how carefully nuclear power plants are maintained requires more than a cursory look at some of the countless pages of documents that the industry produces every year. It is not news to any engineer that pipes made of steel occasionally rust or develop thinning walls, that electrical cable insulation becomes brittle in certain situations, or that valves develop leaking seals. We have inspection routines and planned maintenance systems that are designed to identify these situations and correct them before they cause major risks.

I'm sure there are more to come. Please feel free to join the fray. Click here to leave your own.

CJR Critiques AP Series on Nuclear Plant Safety

Over the Summer that the Associated Press (AP) ran a four-part series on safety at America's nuclear power plants by reporter Jeff Donn. Needless to say, everyone here at NEI believed the stories had some significant holes, ones that we detailed in a formal rebuttal back in June.

Earlier today, the Columbia Journalism Review published a the latest edition of its Audit Arbiter series about our dispute with the AP. Please give it a read right now.

POSTSCRIPT: Click here for the formal response from NEI's media team. Click here for additional material we published here on NEI Nuclear Notes, including links to other third party sources that found the AP's work less than convincing. NEI's Chief Nuclear Officer, Tony Pietrangelo, outlined his objections to the reporting in a video report that can be found here.

71st Carnival of Nuclear Energy: Critical Reviews, History and Future Stuff

Today, we have the privilege of hosting the carnival for the seventh time in its young history. We have contributions from ten folks discussing a whole slew of things on nuclear.

History

In the latest APR Atomic Journal, Will Davis completes the story of the Elk River nuclear plant built back in the late ‘50 and ‘60s. Using original and never-before-seen material, he takes you back in time to describe one of the first reactors constructed in the world.

…

Brian Wang at Next Big Future noted that research on radiation from back in 1946 was uncovered that suppressed evidence related to benign low doses of radiation.

…

Speaking of history, Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat reported on Siemens’ exit from the nuclear energy industry. In doing so, the firm is leaving the potential for substantial revenue. Siemens will scrap its deal with Russia’s Rosatom to develop the state-owned firm's VVER pressurized water reactor (PWR) to compete with exports from Areva. Siemens said the firm felt that after Fukushima, demand for reactor exports would diminish, casting doubt on the financial viability of the deal.

Future stuff

Brian Wang also highlighted the progress of the Sanmen AP1000 construction in China with the installation of the pressure vessel.

…

Margaret Harding at 4 Factor Consulting was on vacation on a cruise out in the Pacific Ocean, but was inspired to write about nuclear power cruise ships in the hope that someday they might be a reality she might get to be on.

…

Charles Barton at Nuclear Green discussed a plan on how Generation IV nuclear power systems are economically viable, even when countries are faced with a sovereign debt crisis. From Barton:

by adopting more advanced nuclear technology, and adopting the thorium fuel cycle, all the objections brought against nuclear power by renewable advocates can be demonstrated to be fallacious. If we want to avoid a climate disaster, we have no choice other than to commit to a massive deployment of nuclear power. Even in the face of a sovereign debt crisis, a massive deployment of LFTRs [liquid fluoride thorium reactors] is possible.

Critical Reviews

Steve Skutnik at Neutron Economy reviewed journalist Tom Zoellner's popular book: Uranium (basically a history of uranium with a slightly bent position). Skutnik, of course, gave it a critical review and even earned a comment from the author himself. Here’s Steve:

remarkably absent from Zoellner's narrative is much discussion of the flip side of the coin: the promise of clean, abundant energy in addition to a cornucopia of advances in medicine, agriculture, and engineering.

…

Inspired by a Wall Street Journal article, Rod Adams at Atomic Insights took a look at the companies and individuals that benefit from higher fossil fuel prices and larger sales volumes resulting from irrationally shutting down undamaged nuclear plants in response to the Fukushima disaster. Rod believes that plans are being executed to take advantage of the Japan situation to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) by nuclear energy competitors who want nuclear's market share for themselves.

…

Steve Aplin at Canadian Energy Issues took issue with the Canadian Auto Workers union for their alliance with a renewable energy association in order to promote and create jobs. Instead, Aplin has a better recommendation for creating jobs and generating low cost electricity: nuclear.

…

Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk attended the Energy Information Administration’s press event rolling out the International Energy Outlook 2011. Despite the fact that the IEO reports haven’t been the most favorable to nuclear in past years, she found the event interesting from a nuclear perspective:

In particular, the report has been a year in the making, and some of the information in it is already dated. The report shows the penetration of nuclear power increasing from 5% to 7% of total energy demand globally by 2035. However, Dr. Gruenspecht pointed out that the nuclear portion of the report was developed prior to the Fukushima event, and was not adjusted to reflect the decisions several countries have made following that event.

…

And last but not least, Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee analyzed VT’s energy plan (or lack thereof) published by the Department of Public Service last week. In her post, Meredith reviewed the 700 page draft energy plan which is the plan for Vermont without VY. Vermonters have only 4 weeks to review it. Luckily for Meredith, the documents had no actual content (no plan, no numbers) so reviewing it was quick work for her.

Hope you enjoyed, stay tuned for next week’s carnival at Yes Vermont Yankee!

65th Carnival of Nuclear Energy: Turning Inspiration Into Action, Not Just Nuclear, And The Bigger Pictures

For the sixth time in the carnival’s 15-month history, we have the privilege of hosting. Each time we’ve written, the number of contributions from pro-nuke bloggers has increased. Today we have posts from 13 folks discussing all sorts of topics.

Inspiration Into Action

Suzy Hobbs at the ANS Nuclear Cafe asked:

Inspiring people to learn about energy issues is a huge step, but how do we turn that inspiration into action?

Her answer:

My best piece of advice to a newly minted nuclear supporter is to be bold and talk about it. Talk about it every chance you get. Bring it up, even at the risk of creating or escalating a conflict.

…

Will Davis at Atomic Power Review did just that. He recently chatted with a friend who had seen the Davis-Besse plant at a distance while on vacation. Addressing his friend’s concerns, Davis started a frank discussion about perceived risk and how big media drives and controls it.

…

Rod Adams hosted two gentlemen on his Atomic Podcast Show: Ben Heard of Decarbonise SA (South Australia) and Barry Brook of Brave New Climate. Ben grew up assuming that nuclear energy was dangerous, but after evaluating all available options, he changed his mind. He is now running a campaign that he calls Decarbonise SA. The other guest, Dr. Barry Brook, is a scientist who focuses on the earth’s climate. He never opposed the use of nuclear energy but now recognizes just how effective of a tool it can be.

As Ms. Hobbs suggested, inspiration can lead to action.

Not Just Nuclear

Dr. Ulrich Decher also at the ANS Nuclear Cafe published his third piece of his series on California's Renewable Energy Portfolio. The Doc continued to analyze the assumptions and predictions underlying California’s energy goals. This time he took a special focus on issues arising from the intermittency of renewable sources.

…

Dr. John Bickel at Evergreen Nuclear presented some enlightening numbers on the radioactive releases from natural gas production compared to nuclear. There is clearly a big difference on how the nuclear industry handles radiation compared to the gas industry (looks like they don’t).

…

Steve Aplin at Canadian Energy Issues called out environmentalists and the Sierra Club for their disconnect on their natural gas policies.

Environmentalists who make a big deal out of opposing the proposed expansion of the Keystone pipeline do so on the grounds of the sheer amount of carbon it represents. Keystone carries synthetic crude from the Alberta oil sands to refineries in the U.S. Natural gas is a vital ingredient in oil sands processing, and is the main source of oil sands carbon emissions. Now, if oil sands carbon is bad, and that carbon comes from natural gas, then why do the same environmentalists who oppose Keystone support the increased use of natural gas for power generation in Ontario? … In Ontario, Sierra opposes new nuclear build and favours, incredibly, natural gas.

…

Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee created a slide show presentation on Vermont's energy future and Vermont Yankee issues. In the slide show, she explains what "buying from the grid" in New England means (hint, it's fossil). She also covers nuclear safety issues, including concerns based on Fukushima, and a significant section on the economics of Vermont Yankee. The show provides a strong context for understanding the future of electric generation in New England.

Back to All Nuclear

Charles Barton at Nuclear Green has re-posted a blog entry by Bill Hannahan in response to an attack on the Molten Salt Reactor by DA Ryan, a British anti-nuke. From Barton:

Ryan began with questionable assumptions, failed to note well regarded information sources that simply disagreed with his controversial views, then proceeded to reason from unsupported assumptions to dogmatic conclusions about nuclear energy.

The essay rebuttal is not only a defense of the Molten Salt Reactor concept but of nuclear in general.

Brian Wang at Next Big Future has the latest on reactor construction in South Korea and new plant starts in China. He also reported on the International Energy Agency’s monthly nuclear stats worldwide and country by country. Looks like Japan’s decline in nuclear generation this year is going to make a dent in nuclear’s worldwide fuel share. New plants in India and China may be able to make up the slack though.

Bigger Pictures

Margaret Harding at 4 Factor Consulting published the fourth piece in her series that reviews strategic factors affecting the nuclear industry. Using the PESTEL analysis (acronym for Political, Economic, Social, Technical, Environmental, and Legal), Margaret’s latest piece looked at a high level economic overview of the nuclear industry.

…

Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk discussed the three types of regulatory independence that the Japanese should factor into the new regulatory organization they are developing: organizational independence, independence from the licensee, and ability of staff to assess the technical situation independently.

And Slow and Steady Progress

Last but not least, Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat has two posts to mention. Closely following the progress of the Vogtle reactors, Dan notes that the Georgia Public Service Commission will not adopt a controversial cost risk sharing plan with Southern Company. Instead, the regulatory agency and the utility have agreed to a "look back / look forward" program that reviews all costs as necessary and prudent under the state's CWIP program. The decision allows Southern to move forward with additions to the rate base to pay for the construction of twin Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors at the Vogtle site.

Dan also reported that the NRC issued the final safety evaluation report for the combined construction and operating license for the Vogtle reactors. The NRC is on the home stretch with the safety review of the AP1000 reactor design!

…

That’s it for the week’s carnival. Always something going on, always something to say. Hope you enjoyed. Stay tuned for the next carnival at the ANS Nuclear Cafe. :)