Updated EIA Subsidy Report for 2010

In 2008, the Energy Information Administration published a report that provided a snapshot of the amount of federal incentives each energy technology received during the year 2007. Three years later, EIA released an updated analysis that looked at the federal incentives received in 2010.

Below is the summary table EIA generated by examining the energy incentives for all sectors (p. xii). Renewables by far have received more incentives in 2010 than any other beneficiary: 40 percent of the total.

If we look at the incentives received in just the electric sector (a subset of the overall energy sector), the numbers expose even more favor for renewables, which garnered 55 percent of the electric sector’s incentives in 2010 (p. xviii).

What about nuclear?

Incentives for nuclear have largely been for research and development. Since 1978, nuclear has received more R&D incentives than any other technology. Most of the R&D expenditures for nuclear took place in the 1970s and 1980s (p. 34).

Times have changed though. R&D for renewables has doubled over the last three years and surpassed nuclear in 2010 (p. 35).

Predictably, the report has not been well received by a number of the renewable fans. Basically, folks are knocking the new analysis because it only looks at one year’s worth of incentives and doesn’t quantify fully all of the incentives available for all technologies (as if that’s easy to do).

It’s interesting that the Union of Concerned Scientists, Climate Progress, Grist and others looked for reasons to dismiss the whole report, and – surprise – found some.

Although EIA only quantifies a few years’ worth of data, the report clearly shows renewables have been receiving the lions’ share for a number of years.

It’s funny, the critics demand incentives for renewables to level the playing field. But when the data show that renewables have been receiving a good portion of incentives for a while now, the critics ignore it so they can spin the data to hammer other technologies. Which is it? Are incentives good or bad? Or is it that they’re good for renewables and bad for nuclear? Can’t have your cake and eat it too, guys.

For a study that calculates all of the incentives for all technologies back to 1950, check out this 2008 report written by the Management Information Services, Inc (pdf). The table pasted below sums up the results quite efficiently.

What the Commissioner Said

A couple of days ago, I said I’d bring you a longer account of NRC Commissioner George Apostolakis’ presentation – a notably frank and forthright presentation - at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Well, as politicians like to say, Promise kept. This is original reporting:

NRC Commissioner George Apostolakis criticized Japan’s preparedness at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility in his presentation at a recent forum on responses to the accident.

Speaking at a seminar on lessons learned at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, D.C., Apostolakis said, “It turns out [the event in Japan] was not unthinkable, and it was not unforeseen either. This is the kind of secret that everybody thinks but nobody wants to say in public.”

Apostolakis said that there were 10 earthquakes around the world in the last 10 years accompanied by tsunamis that Japanese regulators did not consider. “If anyone did calculations about tsunami in the United States and ignored this,” he said, “the NRC would complain bitterly.”

Discussing the report of the NRC’s post-Fukushima task force, Apostolakis said additional recommendations may be forthcoming from NRC staff.

“… The most important thing is that the staff may come up with additional recommendations. They’re very experienced people,” he said. 

Apostolakis also responded to media reports that criticized the NRC for loosening some regulations, allowing older plants to continue to operate past their initial license terms.

“We have issued some regulations over the years as a result of risk assessment and we have also relaxed some regulations over the years as a result of further insights on risk assessment, deciding that they constitute an unnecessary burden on the licensees,” he said. “We imposed a lot of burden 20 years ago in the area of risk assessment.”

He also said he did not think it necessarily worthwhile to use current rules and regulations to oversee the licensing and operation of “exotic” new reactor designs that might emerge. He noted he is chairing an NRC task force to explore merging defense-in-depth, which dictates multiple layers of protection against possible threats, and risk assessment, which calculates the likelihood of an event, into a unified vision for future regulation.

---

Honesty is always the best policy, but it does seem that the drive to insert entertainment into the pursuit of truth has sometimes left honesty taking care of itself. Consider, for example, the BBC car show Top Gear:

Last Sunday, an episode of Top Gear showed Jeremy Clarkson and James May setting off for Cleethorpes in Lincolnshire, 60 miles away. The car unexpectedly ran out of charge when they got to Lincoln, and had to be pushed. They concluded that "electric cars are not the future".

Well, too bad for the Nissan Leaf, one of the cars in the show (The Peugeot iOn was the other). If the Leaf couldn’t hold its charge and didn’t warn the drivers it was in trouble, that should be exposed.

Except:

But it wasn't unexpected: Nissan has a monitoring device in the car which transmits information on the state of the battery. This shows that, while the company delivered the car to Top Gear fully charged, the program-makers ran the battery down before Clarkson and May set off, until only 40% of the charge was left.

Ulp:

Moreover, they must have known this, as the electronic display tells the driver how many miles' worth of electricity they have, and the sat-nav tells them if they don't have enough charge to reach their destination. In this case it told them – before they set out on their 60-mile journey – that they had 30 miles' worth of electricity.

Which is exactly as far as the Leaf got. It gets better:

“…[I]n order to stage a breakdown in Lincoln, "it appeared that the Leaf was driven in loops for more than 10 miles in Lincoln until the battery was flat."

Obviously, this does a disservice to viewers. The show offered an explanation, via Executive Producer Andy Wilman, which is genuinely, well::

We never, at any point in the film, said that we were testing the range claims of the vehicles, nor did we say that the vehicles wouldn’t achieve their claimed range. We also never said at any time that we were hoping to get to our destination on one charge.

What he misses is that the show never indicated what it did to the car that put it at a disadvantage. If this were made clear, then the audience would have some sense of the ground rules and judge accordingly.

We were fully aware that Nissan could monitor the state of the battery charge and distance travelled via onboard software. The reporter from The Times seems to suggest this device caught us out, but we knew about it all the time, as Nissan will confirm.

They and Nissan may have known about it – the audience did not. It goes on like that – you can read the rest at the link – and concludes:

In conclusion, we absolutely refute that we were misleading viewers over the charge/range, and we stand by the consumer points raised in the film.

Not even fans of the show buy that. At Autoblog Green, Eric Loveday wrote:

Wilman had more to say … but need we really remind anyone that Top Gear is pure entertainment with just a dash of factuality.

That means to raise “consumer points.”

Electric cars are at a tipping point and genuine attempts to help consumers understand their strong and weak points are more than welcome. But, even in pursuit of entertainment, devising “funny” ways to have the cars fail in their basic function without telling the audience what the game is has a certain – ordure - about it.

---

Electric cars run by nuclear energy – and its renewable cousins – has always seemed a win-win proposition by ensuring energy security and reducing carbon emissions. But of course, electric and hybrid autos will charge as they will – electricity doesn’t really care where or from what source it comes from. So a little conspiracy mongering with a soupcon of political intrigue to fit it all together:

Recently I asked the question, Are plug-in hybrids code for nuclear power? With numerous folks on the right supporting plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles, I cannot help but think that some are using the move to electric autos as a ploy for more nuclear power.

I can’t say that I agree with this in any great measure – politicians right or left who want to link the two wouldn’t be shy about doing so - but if it is a ploy, then ploy away.

NRC Commissioner George Apostolakis on the job.

Running on Empty

A guest post from Scott Peterson, NEI’s senior vice president for communications:

They’re back…

Aging rockers that comprise Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE) will be performing this weekend in Mountain View, Calif., as a fundraising event for Japan disaster relief and to “promote safe non-nuclear energy.”  Supporting the people of Japan displaced by the horrendous earthquake and tsunami is, of course, a commendable goal.  MUSE’s energy policy, however, remains forged by Jimmy Carter-era thinking.

I recall listening to my older brother’s No Nukes album late in 1979, especially riffs by Bonnie Raitt, Tom Petty, Bruce Springsteen and Ry Cooder. These artists remain in my collection of old albums, cassettes and CDs … and on several playlists. This weekend’s version of the 1979 No Nukes concert shapes up to be a B-side performance with secondary lineup and a message that’s been overtaken by decades of safe performance at America’s nuclear energy facilities. Expecting rational energy policy from MUSE is like looking to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for the next Billboard hit.

In advance of this weekend’s show, there’s other news out of California.  A new study shows that increased efficiency at America’s 104 commercial reactors has saved consumers $2.5 billion annually and decreased carbon dioxide emissions by almost 40 million metric tons each year.  The study by two U.C. Berkeley economists won’t garner many headlines, but is sweet music for consumers and the environment. They found that efficiency at U.S. reactors increased by an average of about 10 percent from 1999 to 2007 as the electric utility industry deregulated in many states and nearly half of America’s nuclear energy facilities were consolidated into a smaller number of highly efficient operators. Here’s the short version of their findings:

“Deregulation has been accompanied by substantial market consolidation and today the three largest companies control more than one‐third of all U.S. nuclear capacity. We find that deregulation and consolidation are associated with a 10 percent increase in operating efficiency, achieved primarily by reducing the frequency and duration of reactor outages. At average wholesale prices the value of this increased efficiency is approximately $2.5 billion annually and implies an annual decrease of almost 40 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.”

The bottom line: increased reliability and safety at America’s nuclear energy facilities, more greenhouse gas prevention than was achieved by all U.S. wind and solar power combined during the same period of U.C. Berkeley’s study and lower electricity prices for consumers.  Now that’s worth singing about!

Jackson Brown. Good music, message a little off key.

Schooling in Nuclear Energy; The Welcome Return of Pete Domenici

There has been a very productive collaboration between the nuclear energy industry and community college to create programs to train the next generation of nuclear facility workers. It’s no big secret that the current workforce is, like so many of us, graying, so getting some whipper snappers into place is a logical idea. NEI’s Insight newsletter has written about a bunch of these programs – see here for an example and browse through the archive for a lot more.

But Insight talks about it from an industry perspective. Here’s a story from the Community College Times:

Far too often, we read about college students earning degrees after much hard work and expense and then find a skill-set mismatch with the expectations of the workplace. Affixing blame to this dilemma is a waste of energy (no pun intended), but it is incumbent upon the colleges to work as closely as possible with industry to ensure that their educational programs include critical skills.

The partnership between the Maryland-based Constellation Energy Nuclear Group and the College of Southern Maryland offers an excellent example of how a cooperative venture can be beneficial to a major company, a college, and, most importantly, to students in preparing them for a rewarding career.

Writer Bradley Gottfried highlights the Nuclear Uniform Curriculum Program, an industry initiative that ensures that students learn what will really be useful to them professionally:

NUCP is composed of 38 community colleges across the country that is ensuring that the next generation of nuclear industry workers is being trained in a cohesive manner that addresses the needs of the plants. It is the only recognized energy education program in the U.S.

When a student graduates from an approved program, he or she receives an associate degree from the college and the NUCP issues a transportable certificate that certifies completion of the industry’s required learning objectives. This certificate is what guarantees the graduate’s portability in the industry.

And he points out that students in these programs really are getting into jobs:

In 2010, the first graduates of this program [NUCP] from Chattanooga State Community College in Tennessee and Salem Community College in New Jersey moved into careers with average salaries ranging from $66,000 to $72,000 a year. Since nuclear plants operate for up to 60 years, it’s as close to a lifetime guarantee of employment as possible.

My first job in journalism paid $6000, a salary that was absurd in the 80s but wouldn’t be much improved upon today – liberal arts grads are so easy to exploit - so this path certainly could appeal to a lot of prospective graduates casting about for a rewarding career.

I know this sounds a bit like a sales pitch, and maybe it is – a bit – but NUCP is a strikingly successful program that brings real benefit to both the employer and prospective employee, so maybe it’s a thing one can tout without embarrassment. Just to keep the pitch rolling, NEI has a portion of its web site devoted to education – start here if you have a disengaged high schooler lurking around the house.

---

This morning, I attended a briefing at the Bipartisan Policy Center, which has about as direct a name as a think tank can have - no guessing about their priorities, that’s for sure.

I’ll write more about the briefing later – NRC Commissioner Gregory Apostalakis gave a very frank talk about Japan and the NRC’s 90-day review of the Fukushima Daiichi accident that’s worth thinking about at length – but the news about the center itself is worth highlighting:

Former Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), who was Capitol Hill’s leading nuclear power advocate, is heading a new think tank initiative aimed at ensuring nuclear remains a viable option for the United States.

Domenici and Warren “Pete” Miller — who led the Energy Department’s nuclear research programs until late last year — will serve as co-chairmen of the project, which is housed at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

And here’s what they want to do:

“From both a national security and environmental perspective, it is critical that our country maintains global leadership in the next generation of safe nuclear power technology. This will require a robust domestic industry and policy work to ensure this occurs.”

That’s Domenici talking – he and Miller will be working on the policy part, obviously, and it’ll be worth attending to what they and their group produce. Nuclear energy used to be so much a Republicans-only domain that its emergence in the political sphere as a broadly accepted source of energy is one of the more heartening developments of the last several years. This announcement seems to cast that reality in bronze.

Let’s keep an eye on this initiative. Domenici in particular is someone the current Congress takes very seriously on nuclear energy issues – he made it one of his key issues during his 36 years in the Senate - so his work at the Bipartisan Policy Center could be quite consequential.

---

What the Japanese decides to do about its nuclear energy industry is something I don’t think can be criticized with much force. After the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, only they can decide the social, economic and environmental value of it. We may be cheered or depressed by their decisions, but there it is. (Germany, however, we reserve the right to endlessly mock.)

That doesn’t mean that closing its facilities wouldn’t have rather severe consequences:

According to an estimate made by the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, if all domestic nuclear power plants are shut down, the cost of Japan's imports of fuel will increase by 3.473 trillion yen next fiscal year, increasing the monthly average electricity charge by 1,049 yen (about $14) per household and by 36 percent for businesses.

That’s a lot of yen. The article doesn’t say what Japanese households now pay for electricity on average and I’m not sure what the institute is assuming as replacement fuel - i would guess natural gas. Still, the additional economic burden is a lot to ask of a society that did experience the severe traumas of the earthquake and tsunami. But - there it is.

Not the most attractive photo of Pete Domenici, I admit, but it does show him at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site:

High Radiation Readings Expected as TEPCO Surveys Vent From Reactor

Plant Status

• Tokyo Electric Power Co. said it has detected radiation levels of at least 1,000 rem per hour at the base of an exhaust pipe between reactor buildings 1 and 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear energy facility. It is the highest radiation level detected at the site. The pipe was used to vent air from the reactor containment the day after the accident began on March 11. TEPCO also detected radiation of 500 rem per hour on the second floor of the reactor 1 building, the highest level found indoors since the accident. TEPCO has restricted access to both areas. These levels of radiation are not unexpected. As recovery efforts proceed, more extensive and detailed radiation surveys are being conducted. Given the severity of events at the site, it would not be surprising if similarly high radiation levels were measured in some areas of the plant in the future. Radiation assessment is important work that will continue. These surveys help ensure that proper safety measures are implemented before workers enter previously inaccessible areas of the facility.

Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues

• The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee heard testimony Aug. 2 from the commissioners of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the agency’s follow-up to the accident in Japan. The commissioners discussed their views on implementing the recommendations of an NRC task force in light of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi. Statements from participants and an archived webcast of the hearing are available online.

• The Japanese government will begin full-scale decontamination work in the 12.5-mile evacuation zone around Fukushima Daiichi. A government official said the goal is for residents to return by early next year.

• Japanese authorities will centralize radiation monitoring within one organization after complaints about difficulties of finding radiation information from the several government agencies, prefectures and electric utilities that collect it. The central government also plans to set up 250 monitoring stations across the country and map radiation levels. It will begin providing information online by mid-August.

• The Fukushima prefecture government next week will start buying cattle that are believed to have eaten feed contaminated with radioactive cesium. Beef shipments have been banned from four prefectures near Fukushima Daiichi that account for 15 percent of Japan’s production. Several prefectural governments also plan to test this year’s rice crop for radiation.

Media Highlights

• Nuclear energy will remain a key electricity source for Florida and energy companies should continue with development of new reactors, state Public Service Commission Chairman Art Graham told the St. Petersburg Times. “The biggest mistake that we made when Three Mile Island happened was that we turned and ran from it,” said Graham, referring to the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island.

• NRC Commissioner William Ostendorff outlined six recommendations of the agency’s post-Fukushima task force that the commission could act on “in a matter of weeks,” The New York Times reports.

• Japan’s parliament has approved a $26 billion fund to help pay compensation claims resulting from the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, The New York Times reports.

• Japan’s government is expected to announce the creation of a new nuclear energy oversight agency, Reuters reports. It would combine the current regulator, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, with another government organization and put them under the Environment Agency.

Monday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site:

New Cooling Water System Lowering Temperature in Reactor 4 Fuel Storage Pool

Aug. 1, 2011

Plant Status

• Cooling water temperature in the Fukushima Daiichi reactor 4 used fuel storage pool is returning to normal after Tokyo Electric Power Co. began operating a new recirculating cooling water system. The new system is expected to bring the temperature of the pool down to about 104 degrees Fahrenheit, about 80 degrees cooler than it has been since the pool’s circulating water system was damaged in March. The company has been relying on water injection by a variety of means, most recently through a piping system installed along the exterior of the reactor building. Recirculating cooling systems already are cooling the used fuel storage pools at reactors 2 and 3. TEPCO plans to install a similar system for reactor 1.
• TEPCO has installed a new system to decontaminate and recycle radioactive water at the Fukushima Daiichi facility. The company began testing the equipment over the weekend and expects to begin full-scale operations in the coming days. The Japanese-made system will supplement a U.S.-French system that has been operating since last month.
• TEPCO reported that levels of radioactive cesium in the seawater near reactors 2 and 3 are no longer rising. Cesium had been leaking into the ocean from the plant, but TEPCO believes the leak has been halted.

Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues

• In response to a call from Goshi Hosono, minister for nuclear crisis management, the Japan Atomic Energy Commission has established an advisory committee to develop medium- to long-term measures for the recovery of the Fukushima Daiichi site. The committee also will identify technology needed to aid in long-term recovery efforts, including removal of used fuel, management of radioactive waste and site decommissioning.
• The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems has published a report on technical lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The report recommends that the U.S. nuclear industry take a “measured and rational” approach to energy policy and questions whether decision-makers can take a risk-informed approach to energy policy.

Media Highlights

• An NEI video news release—an excerpt of a recent briefing by NEI President and CEO Marvin Fertel to Wall Street analysts—summarizes the industry's response to events at Fukushima Daiichi and the industry’s view of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s 90-day Fukushima task force report.
• A front-page article in today’s edition of The New York Times looks at the use of dosimeters to measure radiation levels among the Japanese citizenry.

Upcoming Events

• All five NRC commissioners will testify at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee joint hearing Aug. 2 to review the NRC’s near-term task force recommendations for enhancing reactor safety following the events at Fukushima Daiichi.

The Bipartisan Policy Center will hold a discussion with policymakers and experts on the potential ramifications of the Fukushima incident and how new insights may be incorporated into U.S. regulations and operations. The Aug. 3 event will feature NRC Commissioner George Apostolakis, Exelon Generation Chief Operating Officer Chip Pardee and Westinghouse America President Jim Ferland. Former New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici will provide an opening statement, and former Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Warren “Pete” Miller will moderate the session.

Spinning a Report, Ramping Up in South Africa

An early release of a draft of an NRC report contains good news that clearly isn’t what some folks, however perversely, might have hoped:

The conclusion, to be published in April after six years of work, is based largely on a radical revision of projections of how much and how quickly cesium 137, a radioactive material that is created when uranium is split, could escape from a nuclear plant after a core meltdown.

And that conclusion?

[A] meltdown at a typical American reactor would lead to far fewer deaths than previously assumed.

By far fewer, it means close to zero. Now, I’d rather wait until the final version is released next April to discuss it in detail, but what is interesting now is that it was the Union of Concerned Science that requested this version of the report via the Freedom of Information Act. 

I cannot imagine the report’s conclusions are what the group expected, and having gotten it, they just deny it.

Edwin Lyman, a nuclear physicist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, contends that the nuclear commission has consistently painted an overly rosy picture and that its latest study does as well. He noted that the study assumed a successful evacuation of 99.5 percent of the people within 10 miles, for example. The report also assumes “average” weather conditions, he noted.

You can read the article if you want to see Lyman spin like a top – some of which writer Matt Wald counteracts with contrary but truthful information – but it would be churlish not to point out that UCS requested the report and gave it to the New York Times. Since the report doesn’t really fit the UCS narrative, it might have just buried it. But it didn’t, so good for UCS.

Our good friend Rod Adams has a more thorough response to some of Lyman’s comments – it really is like watching a dream evaporate.

---

On the road to nuclear energy:

However, SA was firmly on the road to nuclear generation - which at present only accounted for around 6% of electricity generated in the country.
The country has only one nuclear power station in the Western Cape constructed during the eighties.

SA is South Africa. It already has one nuclear facility, but it provides only 8 per cent of South Africa’s electricity – coal has most of the marketplace - and that’s a problem because 3.7 million people lack any electricity at all. So this is an instance where electricity generation will have to grow with infrastructure, which provides South Africa an opportunity to change course.

Public Enterprises Minister Malusi Gigaba supports the use of nuclear and renewable sources, and of course, he is more than aware of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi.

"While there is a risk that there might be delays in introducing nuclear capacity, rather have these delays than a disaster of life threatening proportions."

Amen. But he knows that the lessons learned – and the fact that any new nuclear build will be of the current generation – can mitigate concern. South Africa is ready to move forward.

The minister added that it could take up to twenty years for SA to fully supply electricity to these 3.7 million people. "But we don't think we can wait that long ... and if we do, then new challenges would have emerged."

Can’t help but like Minister Gigaba. He knows what his country needs and he makes the argument to move forward.

(A number of stories have noted that the South African nuclear market will be state-owned – I’m not sure why this is interesting, as it is true of virtually all its electricity generation now.)

---

In Japan:

Prime Minister Naoto Kan said the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency was siding with the industry rather than acting as a regulator. He said that underscored a cozy relationship and the deep-rooted problem that must be corrected following the March 11 tsunami and the nuclear crisis.

What is NISA alleged to have done?

Japan’s prime minister criticized the country’s nuclear safety agency yesterday for allegedly trying to plant questions aimed at supporting atomic energy at public forums.

That would certainly cause a major scandal if done by the NRC here, but it is perhaps a little worse for Japan because NISA does not have the independent profile of the NRC. Instead, it is a department under the government’s Trade and Industry Ministry, which promotes Japan’s nuclear technology in the manner of our Commerce Department. It’s easy to see why NISA might see its role as promotional in part, but Kan is right: it leads to ethical deadlocks.

But it also means a NISA scandal is a government scandal and that’s what Kan has to knock back. (The IAEA has recommended that Japan separate the two – that would certainly moderate industry/regulatory coziness.) But still: alleged. Let’s see how this works out.

In Japan, 35 of 54 reactors are idle, causing electricity shortages in sweltering heat.

Most of those facilities could be running, but so it goes. We cannot criticize Japan for anything it chooses to do at this junction. But if the Japanese summer is anything like the American summer, oof!

Milusi Gigaba