Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes

England will keep the lights on with nuclear energy

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:51:00 +0000

A new generation of nuclear power stations will be built to prevent an energy crisis

The award for decisiveness in energy policy this month goes to Ed Miliband, Energy & Climate Change Secretary (right) in the U.K. government who has committed the nation to “significant infrastructure construction” in the next decade.

Miliband told the daily Telegraph Nov 7 Britain will face a serious energy crisis unless plans to build new nuclear power plants are sped up. The government warned that endless delays will have only one result – lights out. He told the newspaper, “”saying no to nuclear is no longer an option.

“We have go to say yes to nuclear energy. It isn’t just the green thing, it is the right thing by way of energy security.”

Miliband also targeted the expected backlash from anti-nuclear groups. He said, “We can’t have endless delay.”

The reason for Miliband’s move is that natural gas fields in the North Sea are running out and so-called clean coal technologies are not available at a commercial scale. He wants the first nuclear power station, at Hinkley, Somerset, 40 miles southwest of Bristol, to be in revenue service by 2017. He wants eight under construction by 2015 Otherwise, he says, the U.K. could experience blackouts on a major scale.

The government has selected a list of sites which include some that already have nuclear reactors. The sites include two at Sellafield, Wylfa, and Dungeness.

Private sector wants floor price on carbon

The government will rely on the private sector to build the plants, but that’s where controversy broke out. At the same time Miliband was making a historic speech in support of nuclear energy, the Times of London reported that carbon cap-and-trade prices could push up family energy bills on average of {L}227 or $377 a year.

Green groups fastened on the claim by EDF Energy CEO Humphrey Cadoux-Hudson (left) that the price of carbon would have to rise to {L}25-35/ton as a floor price to push energy investments to nuclear energy. He reportedly said that the current price of carbon permits is too low.

“The waste product of fossil fuel generation needs to have a cost.”

If there is a loose spike in the tracks to derail Miliband’s plan for more nuclear energy, it is a public perception that the government will subsidize construction of new nuclear plants with increased prices for carbon permits. Taxpayer groups reacted to Hudson’s comments saying that EDF was trying to hold the government hostage.

Green groups went much further in their condemnation of EDF’s position. Ben Ayliffe, (right) a spokesman for Greenpeace, told the Times,

“They [EDF] has them by the short hairs. Even with the full resources of the French government behind them, it seems they cannot make the economics of new nuclear stack up.”

Government spokesmen responded that there are no plans to provide any subsidies and that private industry must provide the financing for new nuclear reactors. The spokesman told the Times,

“The government has no current plans to introduce a floor price for carbon. All our efforts are towards an ambitious deal at Copenhagen.”

What Miliband and the U.K. government know is that while nuclear reactors are expensive to build, once operating they are huge profit centers. They are banking, literally, on the fact that EDF and other firms planning to build reactors in the U.K. are focused on the profit potential as well.

# # #

Exelon exits growth through acquisition strategy

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:55:00 +0000

CEO John Rowe tells WSJ focus is on earnings

Over at Atomic Insights Rod Adams has a long piece in which he tries to figure out what Exelon’s John Rowe is really doing about the nuclear renaissance. Adams has some strong opinions about where Rowe and Exelon are going. Right now the paradox is that Exelon (NYSE:EXC), as the nation’s largest nuclear utility, has no plans to build a new nuclear reactor in the next decade. The question is which way is Exelon headed in the nuclear renaissance?

Rowe is a force to be reckoned with since he is the CEO of Exelon and the past president of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). So, when he has something to say, people listen. Exelon’s corporate web site has the full text of his testimony to the Senate late week plus all his other speeches.

More significantly, Rowe has been talking a lot to the Wall Street Journal about earnings. On Oct 19, Rowe sat for an interview with WSJ reporter Rebecca Smith. A video segment from that interview captures him talking nonstop for almost three minutes about how he makes decisions and what factors drive them. That monolog isn’t in the text of the published interview which makes it is a good place to start.

Discontinuous data can make you dizzy

One of the hallmarks of executive thinking is the ability to deal with discontinuous data, events, and the general panorama of things you cannot control that impact your business. Rowe says he uses time as the organizing principle for investment decisions. He tells the WSJ utility executives have to use multiple time horizons. This is important because what he is saying is that he is focused on earnings and the time it takes to deliver gains from investments to stockholders.

Even though Rowe is the CEO of the largest nuclear utility in the country. he freely admits he is benefiting from 40-60 year investment decisions made by his predecessors. Worse for them, they never got to deliver these gains to stockholders. Rowe made money for Exelon buying nuclear reactors for a song and increasing their operating efficiency.

It’s like saying if a turnip falls off the truck Exelon will be there to pick it up. On the other hand, stockholders taking their dividends to the bank have no complaints. The depreciated assets are cash cows for the firm’s investors especially the big ones who own 5% or more of the stock.

The older plants are also magnets for controversy when it comes to relicensing them for another 20 years. Exelon isn’t alone in this field. Rival utility Entergy (NYSE:ETR) has a similar strategy and multiple headaches relicensing Indian Point and Vermont Yankee. Also, like Exelon, Entergy has no plans to build new nuclear power plants and is yet again reorganizing its assets for maximum earnings rather than growth. Entergy pushed back the dates for new reactors at Grand Gulf and Riverbend sites to the 2020s.

For Rowe, the best investments are those that deliver gains within three years. He tells the WSJ, “from an investor point of view, something that doesn’t pay off in 10 years isn’t viable.” That’s probably a clue why the firm isn’t building any new reactors which take a minimum of 10 years from a cold start to entering revenue service.

Exelon’s failed effort to acquire NRG

In fact, that single sentence is probably the biggest pointer to the reason why Exelon looks like it is exiting its growth by acquisition strategy and concentrating on earnings.

Earlier this year, Exelon tried to acquire NRG (NYSE:NRG) which owns and operates the South Texas Project (STP). Exelon’s $6 billion all stock offer was designed to not only buy two operating reactors, but also NRG’s planned two new units.

Exelon stockholders would have reaped immediate benefits from the cash generated by STP units 1 & 2. The deal looked good to Exelon, but NRG’s stockholders and Wall Street said it was priced too low. Exelon called off the effort after an NRG stockholder’s vote turned down its offer last July.

The value of the transaction was based on the idea it is lot cheaper to buy someone else’s the reactors rather than build new ones. This is how the beer industry grew in the U.S. Chances are your favorite micro-brew is actually owned by a major brewery. Note that Anheuser-Busch (NYSE:BUD) itself got acquired by a Belgian company when the decline of the U.S. dollar put American assets up for grabs at fire sale prices. This is why Exelon went after NRG which itself had grown through acquisitions. It was a case of a bigger fish chasing a smaller one, but it got away.

Victoria Texas two-step

Exelon also exited its near-term plans to license and build twin nuclear reactors in Victoria, Texas. For a while no one, even Exelon’s contractors, were quite sure what the utility was doing in Texas. It finally became clear Exelon would not continue to pursue a license to build twin reactors at that site.

Instead, the firm will develop an Early Site Permit that holds its place in line with the NRC. The project was also complicated by Exelon’s low ranking for Federal loan guarantees when it chose the GE-Hitachi ESBWR reactor for the project. The Department of Energy reviewed the ESBWR’s then long-term prospects to get the design certified by the NRC and raised a red flag about time-to-market. Since then the ESBWR reactor has made progress at the NRC, but it came too late for Exelon.

Federal loan guarantees a long shot. Harvest strategy rules.

Another way to see what Exelon is doing is to call its direction a “harvest strategy.” For instance, if carbon cap-and-trade legislation eventually passes in Congress, Exelon, with 17 carbon emission free reactors, will benefit handsomely without having to invest a single dollar of its own money in new plants or uprates to existing plants.

What will it take for Exelon to invest in new nuclear reactors? Rowe tells the WSJ natural gas prices have to go up, and stay up, and the federal government has to offer substantial support via loan guarantees.

To this end, Rowe testified at a Senate hearing last week. He said the current ceiling of $18.5 billion should be raised to $50 billion. He targeted this number because it is a figure that got enough votes to pass in the Senate in 2008 when it was working on economic stimulus legislation. The Nuclear Energy Institute called for $100 billion.

Rowe also said he thinks the first round of new nuclear power plants will include just four new reactors. He cited as key reasons the current recession, the long-term price of natural gas, and infrastructure and supply chain limitations. He also said it could be as late as 2030 before the nation really gets up a head of steam to build large numbers of new nuclear power plants. Sen. Lamar Alexander may have a long wait for his 100 new nuclear reactors.

Nuclear utility likes sun dials

While Rowe was offering his views on nuclear energy to the Senate, he was also working on following his own advice on investments and earnings. He announced plans to build a $60 million solar energy project in its home town of Chicago. It helps that the Department of Energy is issuing loan guarantees for the project.

Also, the solar energy plants is easily bolted together from readily manufactured components with a robust supply chain. It doesn’t take rocket science to build one or run one. And it takes less than three years to reap returns from one.

Rowe knows the solar plant, even operating at full capacity only 30% of the time, will deliver a reliable carbon emission free revenue stream to his stockholders. Ratepayers might not be happy with $0.15/KwHr electricity, but that isn’t Rowe’s problem.

Rowe isn’t exiting the nuclear renaissance. He just thinks that without federal loan guarantees it makes no sense to be in one even with carbon taxes unless they hit $75/ton for CO2 which is unlikely. So he’s putting his money where his mouth is. At least he is consistent.

And consistent returns and a rising stock price are all that Exelon’s stockholders really care about. They don’t care if it comes from solar, wind, gas, or nuclear so long as it keeps coming. John Rowe says he’s there to make sure that’s what the company delivers.

# # #

What comes after Watts Bar?

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:43:00 +0000

At TVA shrinking demand for electricity shifts strategy focus to the long term

The Watts Bar II unit in east Tennessee is the only nuclear reactor under construction in the U.S. According to TVA, it is on schedule and expected to be finished in 2012. Once it enter revenue service, the $2.5 billion spent over five years will payoff with 1,200 MW of new electricity for a multi-state region. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which owns it, is facing unprecedented challenges not only to the further development of nuclear energy, but also its entire energy strategy.

Environmental groups have mounted a determined effort to stop the reactor from being completed and also to prevent TVA from building new ones like the two planned for TVA’s Bellefonte site in northern Alabama. In hearings Oct 8 before the NRC a broad coalition of green groups called the utility’s focus on nuclear energy “misguided,” and accused it of “compromising public safety” in its plans to build new nuclear reactors.

A major source of public pressure comes from distrust related to a giant coal ash spill. On Dec 22, 2008, more than 5 million cubic yards of dangerous black mud breached a dam at a TVA coal plant. The massive spill destroyed numerous homes and polluted the Tennessee River. TVA was slow to respond to the mess.

The physical disaster has now become a public relations nightmare touching the credibility of everything it does. Former TVA employee and whistlesblower Ann Harris, who criticized safety and security issues at TVA nuclear plants, told the NRC at the Oct 8 hearing in Sweetwater, TN, that because of the coal ash spill the utility cannot be trusted. "They will lie," she said.

Declining demand for electricity challenges TVA’s nuclear future

However, the biggest challenge to the utility’s plans for new nuclear power plants is coming from the very people TVA was set up to serve. The quasi-government corporation’s customers are using less electricity due to the deepest recession in decades. TVA VP John Hoagland (right) told the Times Free Press on Oct 24,”

“The economic downturn has changed some of our energy habits. Things will be different. We expect growth to return, but it’s going to be a lot slower.”

Slow economic growth means less demand for electricity. In response, TVA cancelled one of the two planned reactors at Bellefonte. The utility still has to make up its mind whether to complete one of two partially built reactors at the site or build an entirely new used based on the Westinghouse designed AP1000. That decision is still some time in the future.

Driving to complete Watts Bar II

The immediate issue TVA has is to complete Watts Bar II and convince the NRC is knows what its doing. In the court of public opinion, TVA is being hammered by vivid imagery. Dan Safer, the head of the Tennessee Environmental Council, told the NRC Oct 8 the Watts Bar II reactor, which was designed in the 1960s, is about as modern as a 1965 Mustang.

Ashok Bhatnagar, TVA VP, responded that Watts Bar I, which is the same design, has operated reliably and safely at 90% capacity.

“We expect Watts Bar II will do the same,” he said.

Shaving peak power in a carbon constrained world

Meanwhile, to meet declining demand, TVA is redoing its strategic plan. The last plan had a target date of 2010 and never anticipated a global financial crash.

Because customers are using less electricity, TVA’s Hoagland is working on a plan to shave the peak power it supplies by 1,400 MW by 2012, which is 250 MW more than the output of one of those AP1000s.

In the world of unknowns, what TVA cannot yet plan for, is how legislation currently making its way through Congress will affect its coal-fired power plants. TVA has 11 coal plants which supply 15 MW of power. If Congress enacts carbon taxes and/or carbon-cap-and-trade laws, TVA could see the cost of electricity it supplies to customers shift north in a time when there is less demand for it.

These are not good prospects and the mere thought of it has driven the utility to do some serious head scratching about the role of nuclear energy in a carbon constrained world.

It is interesting that TVA has also brought to the table the very critics who roasted the utility at the NRC hearings. It seems counter-intuitive, like giving encouragement to the brass in an orchestra.

Then there are the 9 million people who buy electricity from TVA. Business groups also have a seat in the meetings, which take place behind closed doors to encourage free exchange of views and to prevent grand standing in the media.

Hoagland and other TVA executives have some time to put a new strategic plan together, but not too much time. And the old saw still applies, which is that life is what happens while you are making other plans. Change comes at you fast.

# # #

AECL’s cloudy future

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:26:00 +0000

What if they held a sale and nobody came?

One of the arguments for having the government build nuclear reactors in Canada, via a ‘crown corporation,’ is that the private sector won’t have to take the risks given the enormous amounts of capital needed to pay for them. That principle is being called into question.

Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) is facing the prospect of being broken up via sale of its assets to investors. The problems are no one is sure what AECL is worth, who would buy it, or even whether the sale is in the government’s best interests.

No can say the conservative government of Stephen Harper hasn’t been paying attention. Members of parliament are in an uproar over the sale and also the escalating costs associated with AECL’s operations. It’s an issue ripe for the opposition party which wasted no time taking advantage of it.

NDP MP Nathan Cullen told the Montreal Gazette Nov 1 he thinks the return on investment from the sale of AECL’s assets to investors, sans the Chalk River reactor, will be near zero. He estimates the government has poured $8 billion in subsidies into AECL in recent years. Industry source reached by the Gazette apparently agree saying a sale of commercial side might bring $300 million.

According to the Gazette, the more numbers you look at the worse it gets. The newspaper reported that for the 12-month period ending last March, AECL received $642 million in government funds, including R&D support for the ACR-1000. It had $401 million in revenue, but recorded an operating loss of $413 million.

Current and former employees, speaking to the newspaper anonymously, went far beyond the boundaries of civility calling the firm “bloated” in terms of employment growth, and having “no firm prospects.”

It’s raining cheeseburgers, but they’re over cooked

At the top of the list of problems facing AECL is an ever increasing repair tab, and mounting delays, for the Chalk River isotope reactor. What started out as a minor leak has escalated into a $70 million retrofit and the possibility of return to service in March 2010 at the earliest. The closed reactor has created an international medical crisis because it supplies so much of North America's medical isotopes for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Another high profile problem child for AECL is the retrofit of thePort Lepreau plant in New Brunswick province. There a planned $1.4 billion million refurbishment, designed to give the plant another 25 years of operating life, has gone south.
Best estimates are the price will increase by more than 50%, and instead of being completed in October, the plant might not be back in revenue service before next Spring. Meanwhile, ratepayers are being socked with the higher cost of replacement power at an estimated cost of $1 million a day.

Sales prospects

On the government side of the ledger, Serge Dupont, a government energy minister, told the newspaper AECL needed to be restructured if it is to survive. He thinks the new ACR-1000 reactor could generate revenue if sales could be booked for new plants in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia. Those sales would answer the catcalls of the opposition members of parliament and cement AECL’s future as a viable nuclear reactor vendor.

Dupont’s boss, Natural Resources Ministers Lisa Raitt, is trying to figure out if and when to sell AECL to investors. She hired bankers Rothschild & Sons to make recommendations, which they did, but so far Raitt has refused to release their findings.

A few entries in the order book would boost the price. Bruce Power has been looking at twin ACR-1000 reactors for a site in the tar sands region of Alberta. It would supply electricity and process heat to the oil industry there. Prospects look good for now. Bruce Power is building on its acquisition of Energy Alberta which has unmet demand for 9 GWe of electric power over the next decade.

There are doubts about the future of nuclear energy in Saskatchewan. Despite being a major exporter of uranium, the low population density of the western province puts it on the fence in terms of the economic feasibility of nuclear reactors there. Changes in Canada’s commitments to cut greenhouse gases as a result of the Copenhagen climate conference this December could boost the chances reactors will be built there.

Bright spots and long shots

There might be some bright spots on the horizon, but the immediate business and political climate is so dark that no one is likely to see them.

First, AECL’s newest design for a nuclear reactor, the ACR-1000, has completed a major milestone in its design review by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). In September, the CNSC said “there are no fundamental barriers to licensing the ACR-1000 in Canada.” This means AECL will eventually be able to sell the reactor in Canada and perhaps for export.

The bad news so far -- no one is buying it. A major contract for the Darlington site in Ontario is mired in complex cost negotiations. Areva has a cost-competitive bid that is vying for the attention of provincial officials. They worry about lost AECL jobs in Ontario if they contract is award to Areva. What worries AECL executives more is how they are going to stimulate export sales abroad if they can’t sell the reactor at home.

Second, while all this turmoil is taking place, PM Harper is off to India to try to sell them the new AECL ACR-1000 reactor. Harper will be there starting Nov 16 for a three-day visit. During the trip Harper will update Canada’s civil nuclear trade agreement with India. The country has some aging, low power CANDU reactors. There is no word from the Indian government how they view Harper’s planned sales pitch. AECL could be late in its trip to the sales floor.

India is serious about building nuclear reactors. Last March it raised [euro] 8 billion from European banks for this purpose. Russia inked a deal last December involving four new reactors. Areva has a deal for two more with the longer term prospect of six EPRs. Both firms will sell India fuel for the reactors, once built, for the next 60 years.

Third, once the Port Lepreau reactor refurbishment is done, New Brunswick will sell the power station to Hydro-Quebec for $4.4 billion. However, Hydro-Quebec will not assume the debt, or cost over runs, from the current AECL refurbishment. Instead, the plant will become a subsidiary and retain its own set of business books.

New Brunswick Premier Shawn Graham is pointing his finger at Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He wants the central government, which still owns AECL, to pay for the massive cost increases. Harper’s Natural Resources Minister, Ms. Raitt, hasn’t yet said whether she will pick up the tab.

AECl had hoped to use the Point Lepreau project as a showcase to promote its services to the global nuclear market. Instead, it has egg on its face. If Ms. Raitt succeeds in breaking up AECL, like Humpty Dumpty, no one will ever be able to put it back together again.

# # #

Small reactors get Senate support

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:17:00 +0000

Two leading senators sign on with Colorado Sen. Mark Udall

Colorado Senator Mark Udall, (right) has introduced a bill to authorize federal R&D for small, modular reactors. Udall said in a speech on the Senate floor he believes nuclear energy is an important part of the nation's response to global warming.

"Given the economic, national security, and environmental threats that our current energy system creates, we need a comprehensive and cleaner energy policy. In this regard, nuclear energy clearly has emerged as an important player in our search for a stable and domestic energy source that has less greenhouse gas emissions."

Going against type

In supporting nuclear energy, Udall is going against his political base and family history. Colorado is one of the greenest states with a long history of opposition to nuclear energy spurred in part by the failure of the Ft. St. Vrain nuclear reactor located 40 miles north of Denver. It never had an accident, but it was a technical and financial failure. Decommissioning was completed in 1992.

Also, Udall is the son of the late Arizona congressman Morris Udall. He is the nephew of former secretary of the interior Stewart Udall. According to media reports,he is considered an strong supporter of environmental organizations and has support their drive to expand the use of renewable energy sources including solar, wind, and biomass.

Key senators support Udall’s bill

Udall's bill, the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative Improvement Act of 2009, is co-sponsored by Senate energy and natural resources committee chairman Sen. Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from new Mexico, and the ranking Republican member of that committee, Sen Lisa Murkowski a Republican from Alaska. Both are strong supporters of nuclear energy which gives Udall’s bill a better than even chance of not winding up in the scrap heap of symbolic bills.

It would authorize the government to research small-scale nuclear power plants as a source of electricity. Some of the R&D would take place at the Colorado School of Mines. The Colorado School of Mines has a history of R&D collaboration with the Idaho National Laboratory as a scientific user of the INL’s Advanced Test Reactor (ATR).

There was no word whether the bill would also change the way to NRC conducts cost recovery for reactor design certification for small reactors. The bill number is S.2052. Here is a PDF file courtesy of Sen. Udall's office.

Green groups target Colorado uranium mining impacts

Environmental groups in Colorado lashed out at Udall's bill. Keith Hay, a spokesman for Denver-based Environment Colorado, said his group disagreed with Udall, and called the measure is just so much "buckshot" and is not a silver bullet for dealing with climate change.

Environmental groups also criticized Udall on the grounds that expansion of nuclear energy means more uranium mining will take place in Colorado. Hay said the state is "on the dirty front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle.”

However, recent developments in Colorado show green groups may not be holding sway on the issue of uranium mining. Recently, the Montrose County Commission unanimously approved a special use permit for a new 500 ton/day uranium mill to be built by Energy Fuels (TSE:EFR) in the Paradox Valley.

Most uranium mining in the western slope is underground. However, Powertech (TSE:PWE), a Canadian firm, is developing an ISR mine near Nunn, Colo. Despite noisy opposition in Weld and Larimer counties, the company continues to make progress with permitting the mine with Colorado regulatory authorities.

Video of Udall’s Senate speech on nuclear energy

# # #

On keeping up with the news

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:21:00 +0000

Twitter is not a substitute for blogging

Readers of this blog will note a few changes in recent weeks. I’ve been doing less “tweeting” and more in-depth reporting about the nuclear industry. While Tweeting is important for breaking nuclear news, it is not a substitute for blogging.

Yet, the temptation is there to just tweet away and not do the skull work necessary to bring readers answers to the “so what” questions. The reason is the volume of nuclear energy news is increasing at a rapid pace. This past week, with three days of Senate climate and energy hearings, it was overwhelming. Like most of the other nuclear bloggers, I’m a one-man operation and this isn’t my day job.

Frankly, that is the challenge. Answering the “so what” questions is the heart of the spirit of this blog. Anyone can write a summary of a wire service story. In the nearly four years this blog has been in service, what readers and other nuclear bloggers tell me is this.

Explaining is better than telling. Creating understanding of how the pieces of the puzzle fit together is even more valuable.

On the other hand, writing a blog isn’t alchemy. I’m not turning lead into gold here, but I do strive not to burden you with leaden prose.

So, while I will continue to tweet breaking news, and publish new posts on this blog, I am focused on the writing. The tweets will come and go, but the blog posts remain. Just in case you were wondering. :-)

Oh yes, for those who want to follow the breaking news tweets, I’m djysrv on Twitter.

# # #

China plans commercial fast reactors

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:10:00 +0000

Two units are being acquired from Russia and a domestic design is in the works

China’s massive drive to build 70 GWe of conventional light water reactors by 2020 will be augmented by an emerging effort to also build advanced “fast” sodium-cooled reactors (large graphic) that burn and produce nuclear fuel at the same time. The Wall Street Journal reported Oct 30 the “Experimental Fast Reactor” is being designed to have a power generating capacity of 800 MW and is due to come online in 2020.

The WSJ report indicated the fast reactor would be built at Sanming City in Fujian province. However, an Oct 15 report by World Nuclear News put the two Russian units at a coastal location though possibly still in the same province. In any case, the WSJ report indicates the project will break ground by 2013.

Xu Mi, the chief engineer (right) of the Fast Reactor Experiment Department at the China Institute of Atomic Energy is reportedly the leader of the effort. An undated 24-page English translation of the conceptual design for the Chinese fast reactor by this engineer was published by the IAEA. It is for a 65 MW unit and appears to have been published following initial R&D work in the late 1990s. More recently, he was listed on the program of the 2009 China Nuclear Energy Congress held in Beijing May 19-21,2009.

China to buy two units from Russia

Not all the work will be home grown. Like its work on light water reactors, China is developing its new fast reactors with a combination of its own scientific work and buying needed expertise from other sources. China signed an agreement with Russia to build two fast reactor units similar to the BN-800. If the agreement is carried out as planned, it will be the first export of a fast reactor by Russia.

While there are numerous R&D efforts related to fast reactors, only Russia is committed to the design for commercial purposes. According to the GlobalSecurity, Russia is working toward having the BN-800 in commercial service as early as 2012

U.S. lags behind Chinese and Russian efforts

Early work on fast reactors in the U.S. took place at Argonne West in Idaho (EBR-II) and was shut down in the mid-1990s. More recently, GE-Hitachi has indicated it is developing its PRISM rector based on the Integral Fast Reactor design. According to the NRC, GEH plans to submit the PRISM reactor design for certification in 2011. Assuming it meets this milestone, the NRC could issue a safety evaluation report by 2015. An operating fast reactor, depending on its size, could be operational in the realm of 2020-2022.

Additional Information

See also the report on this blog from last June on the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) and the excellent briefing on the IFR by Barry Brook and Steve Kirsch on the blog Brave New Climate.

For more information on technical aspects of fast reactors, see the World Nuclear Association briefing on this technology. For a plain English briefing, with pros-and-cons of the technology, see What is Nuclear.

# # #

2nd Update - Nuclear bloggers at ANS winter meeting

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:50:00 +0000

An open invitation for dialog on new social media and nuclear energy

2nd Update - the event will take place at the OMNI Hotel, 2500 Calvert St., NW, which is the ANS conference hotel, in the Capitol Room at 6:30-8:00 PM, Tues Nov 17. The hotel is a block from the Woodley-Park Metro station. [map]

Look for a poster in the lobby for the conference room location. Light refreshments will be available.

Note: this event is not part of the official ANS conference program. ANS has graciously agreed to let us use one of the hotel meeting rooms for this informal forum.

The resources for this event are provided by three generous sponsors . Please be sure to thank them for their support.

Many thanks to Jarret Adams at Areva, Jeff Madison at CoolHandNuke, and Andrea Jennetta at International Nuclear Associates. Also, thanks to my fellow nuclear bloggers for publicizing the event.

* * *

The winter meeting of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) will take place in Washington, DC, November 14-18, this year, at the OMNI hotel just off Connecticut Ave., NW, at Calvert.

While there is no formal session on blogging and social media in the program, several nuclear bloggers will be there. We plan to have an informal discussion about how social media, including blogs, instant messages, and web services are shaping public perceptions of the nuclear energy industry.

If you are interested in participating, please drop me at email at: djysrv [at] gmail.com Include an email address so that a broadcast notice can be sent to everyone once we firm up the details. Or use my Google Voice service 208-419-3881 to keep in touch.

See my prior report "Nuclear bloggers attain critical mass at ANS Atlanta" from the June 2009 ANS meeting.

Hope to see you there.

# # #

Price of South Texas Project could go up by $4 billion

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:39:00 +0000

Toshiba shocks San Antonio CPS Energy. City Council postpones $400 million bond vote.

The estimated cost of two new 1,350 MW ABWR reactors to be built by Toshiba for NRG at the South Texas Project (STP) rose by $4 billion this week. According to a report in the San Antonio Express, the project cost will be "substantially higher" than the current estimated cost of $13 billion.

In response to the announcement of the massive price increase, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro and the city council have postponed a vote on a $400 million bond issue to support their 20% share in the plant. So far CPS Energy has invested $280 million in the new reactors.

At a quickly organized press conference this week, Castro said CPS Energy knew about the price increase ahead of the pending vote, but said diplomatically it "was less than proactive" in telling elected officials about it. He added the city-owned utility found out about the price increase just last week. As a result, Castro says, the city council will not take up the bond issue until January 2010 in order to get more information about the ultimate cost of the new reactors.

Don’t play poker with billions

CPS interim general manager Steve Bartley told the San Antonio newspaper the $4 billion price increase could be a "negotiating tactic." He agreed with Mayor Castro that the decision to postpone the bond vote "sends a signal to Toshiba" that the delivered price of the twin reactors must come down. Bartley added that CPS Energy will send a delegation to Japan to sit down with Toshiba to discuss costs.

City council members joined the mayor in expressing their concerns about the price increase. None are happy about it. Councilman John Camp told the newspaper, "you don't play poker with billions."

Last August Mayor Castro expressed concerns about the way the planned 5% rate increases associated with the bond issue was being explained to the public. He said he was uneasy about potential cost increases and this month reduced the city’s planned investment in the twin reactors from a 40% stake to 20%.

CPS General Manager Steve Barley told local newspapers the recession played a significant role in the decision to scale back to a 20% share. Rate increases associated with building the plant, in the current economic environment, have to be kept within 5% every other year. He said the utility couldn’t come up with a feasible plan to hit that number due to declining revenues from lower electricity usage due to the recession.

When NRG first announced the filing of their COL application with the NRC, the utility cited a price of $2,000/Kw or about $2.7 billion for each reactor and a total price, not including balance of plant, of about $6 billion. Since then the price of the total project, as estimated by CPS Energy, has grown to $13 billion. The announcement of a potential $4 billion price increase would put the total price at $17 billion.

Throwing gasoline on an anti-nuclear fire

Opponents of the new nuclear project said the announcement of the price increase confirmed their worst fears and gave them new ammunition to develop public support to stop a 20% share investment by CPS Energy in the reactors. A spokesman for the ant-nuclear group Energia Mia said, "I told you so."

The announcement of the price increase could send shock wave through the nuclear industry. When NRG hired Toshiba to build the reactors, the utility pointed to construction cost control mechanisms that the firm would bring with it from experience based on building four ABWRs in Asia.

The news coverage in the San Antonio newspaper did not include any sources from Toshiba or NRG. What everyone will want to know is what is driving the price increase and what can be done to contain it? Until this information becomes available, it is unlikely that the city council in San Antonio will vote on the bond issue.

Update 10/28/09 6 PM

According to the San Antonio Express, in a late update to the paper edition, NRG spokesman Dave Knox is quoted as saying Toshiba's latest cost estimate is “part of the back-and-forth of negotiating.” If NRG thought the latest figure was the actual cost, “we wouldn't be spending money on the project,” he said.

Toshiba must offer up a firm cost estimate in January, Knox said, “and that's the important number.”

Video of San Antonio Press Conference

# # #

Idaho nuclear news you can use

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 16:28:00 +0000

Two of the state’s newspapers focus on the topic

An old journalistic tradition is that editors wait until Sunday for their biggest and most significant in-depth news stories and editorials. That tradition is alive and well in Idaho this weekend with a major feature story in the Idaho Statesman and an editorial in the Idaho Falls Post Register.

At the Idaho Statesman reporter Rocky Barker takes a look at the future of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and its role in the emerging nuclear renaissance. What he finds is there are significant opportunities for the lab to help develop the next generation of nuclear reactors, but one analyst thinks the lab could face stiff competition for R&D dollars in future years.

At the Idaho Falls Post Register, editorial page editor Corey Taule lays out the reasons why the Snake River Alliance, a self-appointed nuclear watchdog, could use some watching of its own. The reason is its over-the-top, and misleading, rhetoric about Areva’s planned uranium enrichment plant in eastern Idaho.

INL positioned for growth

At the INL, Dave Hill, deputy director of the lab, tells the Statesman, “I think it is pretty clear there is going to be a nuclear renaissance."

However, it may not include construction of a next generation nuclear plant on the Arco desert. Hill says that industrial partners who will help fund the project will have a say in its location.

“If industrial partners come with enough money, they will decide where you build it.”

The likelihood is that the Department of Energy, which just announced $40 million in funding opportunities for NGNP design work, will eventually want to build a prototype 300 MW plant. Where it goes may not matter much, but the INL's role will be crucial to its success.

On the other hand, Boise State Professor of Political Science John Freemuth says success could come with a price. Competition for R&D dollars from other federal labs could be on the upswing.

“If we decide to go nuclear in a big way, INL is going to have to fight for its primacy.”

For now the lab looks to a future that includes sustained funding for its nuclear R&D work in new fuels and materials for the next generation of nuclear reactors.

Watchdog needs watching

While the Idaho Statesman over in Boise was looking at the “half-full” picture of nuclear energy, on this end of the state the Idaho Falls Post Register was writing about the rhetoric of those who take the “half empty” view.

The reality check to the misleading claims by the Snake River Alliance (SRA) about Areva’s uranium enrichment plant is that “folks around here” [eastern Idaho] “are educated on the issues.”

“Idaho's self-appointed "nuclear watchdog" offers these headlines: "Uranium enrichment -- it's about the bomb!" and "Tell your neighbors -- uranium enrichment is an open road to a nuclear weapon."

Unfortunately for the Snake River Alliance, it's slinging that stuff in the wrong part of the country. Eastern Idaho is pro-nuclear and educated on the issue. Folks around here know that while there are legitimate concerns about Areva's plans, the creation of weapons-grade uranium isn't one of them.”

The Post Register’s editorial then steps through the claims made by the SRA about Areva’s plant. The true facts, the newspaper writes, are . . .

No weapons grade uranium will be made at the plant
Depleted uranium will not be stored at the plant
Demand the the U.S. for enriched uranium will grow as new nuclear plants are built in this country

It isn’t very often that an so-called “watchdog” group gets so many things wrong. It’s a plus for public understanding of the issues when a newspaper that shapes public opinion takes them to task for it.

Note: the online edition of the Post Register’s editorial is behind a subscriber only firewall. Buy dead trees media at your favorite news stand.

# # #

Nuclear news roundup for 10/25/09

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:47:00 +0000

Rolls Royce plans new nuclear plants with EDF

Nuclear engineering firm Rolls Royce will enter into joint ventures with EDF to build four new Areva EPR nuclear power plants in the U.K. The firms have set a goal of having the first unit enter revenue service by 2017 and have all four generating power by 2025. At 1,650 MW each the plan represents over 6 GWe of nuclear powered electricity.

The deal is part of an ongoing shift from manufacturing nuclear reactors for the U.K. nuclear submarine fleet to targeting the civilian reactor market. Rolls Royce set up its commercial nuclear division in July 2008.

The firm will focus on development and supervision of the reactor component supply chain. In a statement, Rolls Royce said, “The agreement covers engineering and technical support during pre-and-post construction phases.”

Rolls Royce also announced it will build a manufacturing center to make components for new nuclear reactors. It will get support from the U.K. government’s Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Center.

The U.K. is committed to building as many as 11 new reactors to replace units that will close over the next two decades. Also, as part of its response to global warming, the U.K. government is shifting resources to pay for the new nuclear plants from commitments for new coal fired power plants.

Russia and France plan fast reactors

Rosatom, Russia’s state nuclear energy corporation, and the French Commission on Atomic Energy have drafted an agreement to increase their joint work on fast reactor technologies. Rosatom made the announcement following a Sept 16 meeting between Rosatom CEO Sergei Kiriyenko (right) and French Commission Chair Bernard Bigot.

The scientific agreement adds to a number of relationships between the two agencies. The work scope includes developing new reactor technologies, nuclear fuel, and related aspects, such as safety. Bigot said the French government has an objective of launching its fast breeder reactor program in 2012 with a demonstration plant being operational by 2020. Both countries have indicated their so-called Generation IV reactors will be fast reactors.

In the U.S. GE-Hitachi is pursuing development of a fast reactor code named ‘Prism.” It is based on the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR), a sodium-cooled system, developed at Argonne West at the Idaho National Laboratory in the 1990s. At the Brave New Climate blog, authors Barry Brook and Steve Kirsch have a briefing on fast reactors that explains the technology (large graphic), history, and prospects for development.

In the category of "my oh my how things have changed," some analyst point out that, ironically, U.S. Sen. John Kerry, who endorsed nuclear energy in an NYT OP ED a few weeks ago, was one of the leading critics of the IFR speaking out against it in a 1994 speech on the Senate floor.

Turkey’s nuclear deal with Russia still on hold

The nuclear contract to develop Turkey’s first nuclear reactor in Mersin’s Akkuyu district on the country’s southern Mediterranean coast is still in limbo. Energy Minister Taner Yildz (left) said in late September a decision could be made in late November. He said the government is continuing to hold talks with the only bidder which is Russia’s Rosatom.

Initially, the deal was held up because Rosatom proposed to sell electricity from the plant at $0.21/KwHr. Electricity from natural gas sells in Turkey for $0.08/KwHr. After some arm twisting, and a visit by Russian Premier Vladimir Putin earlier this year, the price was dropped to about $0.15/KwHr. However, another issue has emerged which could further delay the deal.

Talks between the two nations are now focused on how Russia will be a reliable supplier of fuel for Turkey’s nuclear program. Turkey wants to develop 4-5 GWe of nuclear powered electricity not only to reduce dependence on natural gas, but also to be a regional supplier of electricity. The operational lifetime for as many as three reactors could be a minimum of 40 years.

Turkey’s cabinet is said to be concerned whether the Russians will be capable and willing to supply fuel for a program that could last a lot longer. The revenue stream is of particular interest to the cabinet. It estimates that while the reactors could cost $15-20 billion, if all three are built, the revenue from them over 40 years could be in the range of $100 billion.

Not only does Turkey want to make sure it can get all the nuclear fuel it needs for the Russian built reactors, it also wants to make sure the Russians don’t try to dip their buckets in the revenue stream. The initial agreement with the Russians for sale of nuclear power only covers the first 15 years of operation. After that contract expires, a new round of negotiations will be required to set prices. Some give-and-take is expected between Turkey and Rosatom regarding the huge revenues that will be associated with the new reactors.

Port Lepreau refurbishment delayed

The turbines that fell off a barge into to brine of the harbor at St. John, N.B. last year have been dried out, sent back to Siemens in the U.K., cleaned up, and safely delivered to the Port Lepreau plant. They will add 25 MW of power to the plant’s output. However, Atomic Energy Canada (AECL) new problems.

A spokesman for the nuclear agency said that replacement of all 380 fuel channels, feeder tubes, and other components was taking longer than expected due to custom tool and die work needed to make parts. The $1.4 billion refurbishment is expected to extend operations of the single reactor by 25 to 30 years.

The delays have generated lots of political heat. New Brunswick province Premier Shawn Graham said in late September he is pressing Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper for answers. AECL has reportedly told provincial energy officials the project, which was supposed to be done in October 2009, will be delayed until February 2011.

Utility spokesman Jack Keir told the Canadian Press Sept 27, AECL was “unprepared for the complexity of the job.” He also said it is costing the utility $1 million (CDN)/day to buy replacement power while the reactor is offline.

Germany’s nuclear plants get a new lease on life

The victory of Chancellor Andrea Merkel’s new coalition in the elections held in September saved the nation’s 17 nuclear reactors from extinction. However, the plan to save them has threatened to re-ignite the anti-nuclear movement in Germany and also set off a round of sometimes contentious negotiations about taxes on profits from the plants.

Despite having lost at the polls, German anti-nuclear activists vowed to demonstrate outside the offices of Merkel’s Christian Democrats. They also vowed to make the nuclear issue the centerpiece of provincial elections next May. Like the main character in the ‘Terminator’ movie, anti-nuclear greens said they’d be back.

The biggest problem is actually inside the pro-nuclear government. It is how much to tax profits from the completely depreciated nuclear plants. In short, they are cash cows and some in the German government want to milk them.

A key goal is to redirect what is seen as a corporate windfall into renewable energy. Merkel proposed such a plan in Sept 2008 and now is in a position to execute it.

According to an analysis by a German think tank, the plants could earn as much as (euro)1 million a day in profits for every year their operation life is extended as a result of the change in government policy. Had Merkel lost, seven of the 17 plants would have been shut down next year and the remainder by 2020.

German utilities are divided over how much new tax to accept. The reason is it isn’t clear how many of the 17 reactors will stay in service beyond 2020. Two may cease operation as soon as 2013. The utilities don’t want a “one size fits all” tax plan from the government.

Germany has to build new reactors

Also, keeping the current reactors could be a barrier to building new ones. Work would have to begin now to build replacement reactors to be in service by 2020. Otherwise, Germany would face the same threat of dependence on Russian natural gas it avoided in the recent election-based rescue of its nuclear fleet. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar will not be able to power Germany’s export driven manufacturing sector. Sooner or later Germany will have to face the prospect of building new reactors. It cannot revert to coal given the increasing emphasis on curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

In any case, Chancellor Merkel is reportedly in no hurry to resolve these issues. She wants to put off any decisions on taxes or reactor decommissioning and replacements until after a May 2010 election in North Rhine-Wstphalia. According to media analyses, she has to retain seats in parliament from that state to maintain her majority in the upper house.

# # #

Open road for US-UAE nuclear agreement

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:43:00 +0000

Landmark nuclear deal clears congressional review

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has an open road to implement its nuclear energy agreement with the U.S. Reuters reports that the U.S. Congress, as predicted, took no negative action in response to its review of the pact. The deadline for a measure passed quietly late last week.

Newsweek reported the agreement will get special emphasis from the Obama administration because of the example it sets for other countries regarding nonproliferation of weapons grade nuclear materials. The UAE has pledged not to develop capabilities to enrich uranium nor reprocess spent nuclear fuel.

“The Emirates deal sets a precedent for countries that say they want nuclear energy, but not the bomb. Why go to the expensive trouble of enriching uranium if France or the U.S. will do it for you? Nations can still insist on their right to do their own enrichment, but it's becoming much harder to convince the international community that their intentions are peaceful.”

UAE plans massive new nuclear build

Also, at stake, is the expected $40 billion in spending over the next two decades for up to 5 GWe of nuclear reactors. GE-Hitachi and Westinghouse are keenly interested in the deal. The leading consortium bidding on the massive contract is GDF-Suez and Areva. French President Nicholas Sarkozy made a personal visit to the UAE last May to pitch the GDF/Areva bid. A Korean reactor group is also in the mix. A U.S. trade mission is scheduled to travel to the UAE in December.

The UAE has three objectives for its reactors. The first is to swap out use of declining supplies natural gas for water desalinization with nuclear energy. Second, electricity from the reactors will be used to power development of the nation’s aluminum industry. Third, it’s hot over there, and as the nation develops, it’s going to need a lot more air conditioners, plus electricity for office and home use. The UAE is positioned to become a net exporter of electricity to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

There are two reasons a contract award could come by the end of the calendar year. The first is the UAE now has the credibility of a completed agreement with the U.S. on transfer of nuclear technologies including fuel. The second is earlier this month the UAE put in place the policy and organizational infrastructure of their version of a nuclear regulatory body to address key reactor safety issues.

# # #

Stewart Brand goes nuclear

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:55:00 +0000

Legendary author of the Whole Earth Catalog has a new book

A radio jingle asks the rhetorical question, “If you remember the 60s, you weren’t there,” which is an inside out joke on the reality altering nature of the decade. Stewart Brand became one of the icons of the era with his ground breaking book ‘The Whole Earth Catalog” which helped readers cope with the ordinary and extraordinary challenges of the times.

Now 70 years old, but as energetic as ever, [bio] Brand (left) has a new book that talks, among other things, about nuclear energy. Titled, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto, a key element is Chapter 4 which addresses the role of nuclear energy in dealing with climate change.

Here’s how he launches into his subject

For the definitive word on how much to worry about climate change, environmentalists in America have taken to relying on James Hansen, NASA’s authoritative and outspoken climatologist. When Hansen declared in 2007 that we must not settle for leveling off carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million (ppm) but must take the level down from the current 387 ppm to 350 ppm or lower, the new environmentalist slogan became “350!”

Environmentalists take no notice of Hansen’s views on nuclear, however. As President Obama was taking office, Hansen wrote him an open letter suggesting new policy to deal with the climate crisis.

“Coal plants are factories of death,” he wrote. “Coal is responsible for as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as the other fossil fuels combined.” Hansen proposed what America needed: a carbon tax “across all fossil fuels at their source”; the phasing out of all coal-fired plants; and “urgent R&D on 4th-generation nuclear power, with international cooperation.…”

Profound transformations

According to Stewart Brand, a lifelong environmentalist who sees everything in terms of solvable design problems, four profound transformations are under way on Earth right now. [Ted Talk: Video]

Climate change is real and is pushing us toward managing the planet as a whole.
Urbanization-half the world's population now lives in cities, and 80% will by midcentury-is altering humanity's land impact and wealth.
Biotechnology is becoming the world's dominant engineering tool.
Nuclear energy is a solution to reducing carbon emissions.

Brand says these changes will require environmentalists to reverse some long held opinions and embrace tools that they have traditionally and profoundly distrusted. Good luck with that, but Brand is not deterred.

He says that a radical rethinking of traditional green mantras will be necessary to stop the catastrophic deterioration of the earth's resources.

Whole Earth Discipline is what book publishers like to call “myth shattering” because it presents counterintuitive observations on why cities are actually greener than countryside, how nuclear power is the future of energy, and why genetic engineering is the key to crop and land management.

Brand says the environmental movement must figure out how to come to terms with fast-moving science and take up the tools and discipline of engineering. Brand was trained as an ecologist at Stanford University so he comes to this point of view with impeccable credentials. That doesn’t stop the critics.

Lovins weighs in

As you might expect, some environmental groups disagree with Brand’s paradigm shift. A high profile response comes from Amory Lovins, an energy analyst who has over many years has criticized nuclear energy as being unsustainable.

In a long article in GRIST, which also attracted over 100 comments, Lovins argues against Brand’s visions. The heart of Lovins’ reply to Brand’s book is on the issue of the cost of nuclear power.

“Today, most dispassionate analysts think new nuclear power plants’ deepest flaw is their economics. They cost too much to build and incur too much financial risk. My writings show why nuclear expansion therefore can’t deliver on its claims: it would reduce and retard climate protection, because it saves between two and 20 times less carbon per dollar, 20 to 40 times slower, than investing in efficiency and micropower.”

I’ve had the opportunity to exchange emails with Brand on developing responses to the criticism laid out by Lovins. I specifically went after the issue of cost.

What I said is that small reactors offer an opportunity for early entry of nuclear energy on to the grid. Here’s what I wrote, which Brand included as a sidebar note in Chapter 4 of the online version of his nuclear book. See also his closing online chapter on recommended reading.

“Size does matter relative to cost. Small reactors come in at $2,500-$4,000 per KW, but at 125 MW cost approximately $300-500 million and can power a city the size of Greeley, Colorado (pop 90,000). They are affordable to utilities which cannot afford to bet the company on a $6 billion deal.

Any municipal utility which currently buys power from a coal fueled plant will want to get off that grid once carbon taxes and carbon-cap-and-trade show up. Small reactors provide the potential escape hatch for these utilities.”

Newsweek interview

For more information about Brand’s vision of nuclear energy, and his views on climate change, see an interesting interview with Brand at Newsweek magazine.

I was intrigued by a comment in the interview. Brand and his wife live on a tugboat, in a very small space. He’s live there for years. It just goes to show that a guy with very big ideas is very down to earth even if it is the whole earth.

# # #

Western lands uranium gopher for 10/22/09

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:33:00 +0000

If a butterfly flaps its wings in Ohio, does it matter in Wyoming?

(Portions of this blog post also appeared in Fuel Cycle Week, V8:N349 10/21/09 published by International Nuclear Associates, Washington, DC)

The answer, it turns out, is yes, according to Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, who did some flapping of it his own this week over the Department of Energy's (DOE) plan to sell surplus uranium to pay for cleanup of the Portsmouth, OH, uranium enrichment site.

Wyoming's top elected official took up the cause of his state's uranium mining industry. The reason, he says, is the DOE plan to sell $650 million in excess uranium over the next three years "will flood the market." He said it will depress the price of uranium which is already below the $50/lb threshold some miners say is the point at which they think production is economically feasible.

It gets complicated, but the deal goes like this. Earlier this year, DOE Sec. of Energy Steven Chu delayed making a decision to provide the U.S. Enrichment Corp. (NYSE:USU) with a $2 billion federal loan guarantee to build its American Centrifuge Facility.

Chu said the technology wasn't ready and noted the company's finances were so shaky it was unlikely to be able to pay anyone to build the plant. As a consolation prize for the much put upon citizens of southern Ohio, he pledged to speed up spending on cleanup of nuclear waste at the Portsmouth site. To pay for it, he proposed to release $150-200 million a year in excess uranium for the next three years. Paradoxically, the bulk to the sales would go to the U.S. Enrichment Corp which make nuclear fuel for the nation's 104 commercial reactors.

The Wyoming governor is not buying this deal anymore than he would trade his pension for a handful of penny stocks on the Toronto Stock Exchange. In a letter to Sec. Chu sent Oct 5, Freudenthal wrote "there is no question that the noncompetitive introduction of a large quantity of uranium will adversely impact the uranium producing industry in Wyoming."

He claims the mere mention of the government's deal in Ohio has already "depressed the price of uranium by 20%" and he said it has resulted in job losses at Wyoming mines.

Freudenthal also said the proposed sale is contrary to DOE's own "Excess Uranium Inventory Management Plan" which is designed to balance sales of excess uranium against "the viability of domestic mining operations."

The Governor, in effect, told Sec. Chu to take his uranium and smoke it, or do something else with it, but don't sell it. In a crescendo of outrage the governor said, "sacrifice of Wyoming jobs for short term results in the Midwest is shortsighted."

NRC Accepts Powertech uranium permit application

Powertech (TSE:PWE) must be wondering how the State of South Dakota, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency, all looking at the same permit application, came up with different responses whether it is complete or not. It is enough aggravation to drive a dispirited uranium miner to hunt down a six pack of Moose Drool, a local micro brew favored in the West.

Powertech announced Oct 7 that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) deemed the firm's application for an ISR mine permit to be acceptable for detailed technical and environmental review. This happy result comes after the second try at getting the paperwork right by the Denver-based firm. Last August, the NRC sent the firm's application back to the desktop to be done over. The firm also got the "incomplete" stamp the same month from the State of South Dakota on its Underground Injection Control permit.

Randy Birch, a spokesman for the firm, told FCW in an email Oct 9 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) earlier found Powertech’s UIC application complete. As for the "incomplete" from the State of South Dakota, he wrote, "This is the first UIC/ISL application the State has reviewed. Powertech hasn’t applied, yet, for the Large Scale Mine Permit."

It appears the engineers at the State of South Dakota dove into their job with gusto. A review of the State's Aug 6 letter shows it includes 41 pages of comments some of which include corrections of spelling, grammar, and plain old typos. Birch said the firm is working to respond to the state's comments.

Mark Hollenbeck, Powertech's South Dakota project manager, told the Rapid City Journal on Oct 8 the NRC review of the now docketed ISR permit application will take about 18 months. He also said the firm has drilled over 100 exploratory holes, and 30 groundwater monitoring holes, on the 10,580 acre site 13 miles west of Edgemont, SD, near the Wyoming border. The actual mine site, he said, will have a footprint of about 200 acres. The firm expects to get all of its permits in place by 2011.

So, there is more work to be done on the regulatory front for the Dewey-Burdock project. The federal Bureau of Land Management also gets a crack at review the proposed mine. The folks at Powertech must have a lot of patience, or a lot of Moose Drool, or both, to see this through to getting a mine into production.

Texas ISR mine cuts back

Privately held Mestena Uranium LLC isn’t the kind of firm that posts its operating numbers on a billboard. So it comes as a bit of a surprise to read some frank comments about cutbacks by company President Paul Goranson. He told the Austin-American newspaper Oct 9 the firm has cut its payroll from 225 employees to 135 at its Alta Mesa operation 12 miles west of Encino, Texas. He chalks up the drop on production to the feeble price of uranium. On Oct 5, Ux Consulting reported the price of U3O8 at $43.50/lb up $0.75 from the September close.

Goranson told the newspaper the mine has cut capital costs and production reducing output from 850,000 lbs to 650,000 pounds this year. However, he also said with the number of new nuclear plants planned for the U.S., the price of uranium should rebound in the future. How much he's not sure, but more nuclear reactors has to mean more business for the Texas-based firm.

That is, unless that Ohio butterfly flaps its wings some more. Goranson and some of his fellow uranium miners have been making the rounds of Capitol Hill trying to convince Congress to cut Sec. Chu off at the pass with his wagon train of uranium headed for an auction.

Titan Uranium to acquire 100% of Sheep Mountain property in Wyoming

Titan Uranium (CVE:TUE) announced it has closed the previously announced agreement with Uranium One Inc. (TSX:UUU) to acquire the 50% interest held by Uranium One in the Sheep Mountain property, Fremont County, Wyoming. This will result in Titan holding a 100% interest in the property which hosts an NI 43-101 compliant Inferred Resource of 15.6 million pounds of U3O8.

In conjunction with this transaction, Titan will acquire Uranium One's 50% interest in the Hollie claims, Emery County, UT and transfer its 50% interest in the Breccia Pipe project, AZ and the Burro Canyon project in Colorado to Uranium One.

The initial cash price of the transaction is $850,000. However, the deal could cost Titan as much as $6 million if the price of uranium rises above $85/lb in the next three years. Titan's stock at market close Oct 9 was $0.30 against a 52-week range of $0.11-0.64 with a market capitalization of just under $16 million.

Crosshairs completes earn-in at Bootheel property and starts NRC licensing process

Crosshair Exploration & Mining Corp. (AMEXC:CXZ) announced that it has completed the 75% earn-in of The Bootheel Project, LLC from Ur-Energy Inc. (AMEX:URG). The Bootheel Property, together with the Buck Point Property, cover 8,524 acres of mineral lands within the Shirley Basin in southern Wyoming and make up the Bootheel Project.

Crosshair has also initiated the NRC licensing process for its Bootheel Property. Crosshair CEO said in a statement the firm would start additional exploratory drilling in 2010. Less than 60% of historical resource estimate has been validated he said.

The initial independent National Instrument (NI) 43-101 Mineral Resource estimate on the Bootheel Property includes an indicated resource of 1.09 million pounds U3O8 (1.44 million tons at 0.038% 3O8) and an additional inferred resource of 3.25 million pounds U3O8 (4.40 million tons at 0.037% eU3O8).

Uranium Energy acquires Texas ISR plant

Uranium Energy (AMEX:UEC) has agreed to buy Uranium One's assets in Texas. The deal for includes a licensed processing plant for ISR mining and an ISR mine which has obtained most of its permits. The all stock deal for 2.5 million shares could be worth about $9.1 million based on closing stock price Oct 16. Uranium Energy's stock has a 52-week range of $0.16-$4.16. Market capitalization is $169 million with 46.6 million shares outstanding.

The two properties being acquired are the Hobson in-situ uranium processing plant and the La Palanga uranium project. The Hobson plant has a reported capacity of 1 million pounds annually. Uranium Energy said it will use the Hobson plant as a regional operations center for its South Texas properties including the Goliad and Nichols sites.

Uranerz to float $20 million stock offering

Uranerz Energy (AMEX:URZ) announced it will offer 10 million shares of stock at $2/share to the public in the U.S. and Canada. The offering comes at a time of severe turmoil in financial markets worldwide.

The firm's stock closed Oct 16 at $1.96/share against a 52-week range of $0.40-$2.50/share and market capitalization of $106.6 million with 55.5 million shares outstanding.

The firm said proceeds from the sale of stock will support continued development in Wyoming of its Nichols Ranch property and further exploration in the Powder River Basin including its Arkose project. The company said it may acquire additional properties in the region.

# # #

Tamar’s Law ~ Thoughts from across the pond

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:56:00 +0000

Europe’s reality check on global warming is that it is shifting to nuclear energy

By: Tamar Cerafici *

Tamar is offering this month’s column from Varberg, on the southwestern coast of Sweden where she’ll be for the next couple of months.

Varberg is a popular summer resort area, boasting sandy beaches and clear water. It’s not bad in the fall, except the rocky Swedish coast is the windiest spot I’ve ever lived, and I include the Idaho Samizdat’s eastern Idaho home in that comparison sample. (Editor’s note: twin nuclear reactors in photo background.)

The scrub oak along the coastline grow in the peculiar slant showing a fairly constant pounding from the southwesterly gales off the North Atlantic.

After two weeks here, I’ve counted two calm days. Huge windmills dot the coastline– even deep into the country near the SAAB plant in Trollhättan, and they’re constantly operating. The nation only derives 1.4% of its electricity from wind.

The vast majority of its renewable energy comes from hydropower, and Sweden recently moved to ban further development of the nation’s rivers for this purpose.

Varberg is also about 20 km from Ringhals, a four-unit nuclear plant whose first and second units are undergoing yearly maintenance. Unit Two is also currently undergoing significant modernization under the Westinghouse-led TWICE project (Ringhals 2 Instrumentation and Control Exchange).

An entirely new digital control room is being installed, and 23 analog systems are being replaced by software-based instrumentation and control systems. This is the culmination of a ten-year effort by Westinghouse and Ringhals, and from the looks of the simulator, will be pretty cool looking. Yes, control rooms can look cool!

The fast-growing industrial region still needs help from the nuclear plant at Ringhals. My sources tell me that the area (which includes industrial centers in Gothenburg and Boras) is overreaching the current capacity available. Are brownouts possible in an advanced Europan country? Some worry it could happen.

Despite the country’s high reliance on renewable energy (52% of its electricity comes from hydropower and wind), Sweden still needs nuclear energy to meet its growing energy needs and to comply with its own energy policy.

Sweden’s ambivalent nuclear history

As a result of the Three-Mile Island accident, Sweden voted three decades ago to phase out nuclear plants. The referendum canvassed three options for phasing out the country’s nuclear program, but had none for maintaining it. The overwhelming majority preferred allowing the plants to operate through their economically viable life. Sweden’s Parliament placed the embargo on new development and sought to close the country’s 12 reactors by the end of 2010. This policy turned out to be unworkable.

(Chart courtesy World Nuclear Association: “Nuclear Power in Sweden”)

Easy to vote, hard to do

In 1994, the government concluded that the effort would not be within the art of the possible. Under a 1997 statute, the government asserted control of the decision to close nuclear plants provided new electricity was obtained from other sources. It did closed two units not far from Copenhagen in 1999 and 2005.

This may have been a wise political move, but it increased the country’s reliance on fossil imports and forced uprates to the existing nuclear fleet to compensate for the lost generation capacity.

Ten of the country’s 12 reactors are still operating today. Earlier this year, Sweden lifted its ban on new nuclear plants, citing the country’s environmental and climate policy as primary motivation for the move. (See coverage on this blog: “Sweden soars to center of new nuclear movement in Europe” 02/08/09)

A key issue is that public opinion seems to be swinging in favor of maintaining or increasing development of nuclear power in Sweden.

In a 2004 survey . . .

77% prioritized restraint of greenhouse gases, and
13% prioritized protection of Sweden’s unspoiled rivers.
Only 7% supported the continuation of Sweden’s current nuclear phase-out policies, with
27% favoring continued operation of nuclear plants,
32% favored operation plus replacement, and
21% wanted further development of new nuclear plants.

With slightly different questions, a 2006 poll showed 79% in favor of nuclear development and in 2008, support rose to 82%. 42% favoring expansion of nuclear capacity and 40% favoring continuing operation and uprates of existing plants.

Sweden’s needs for energy, and following public opinion polls, illustrate the current turnaround in nuclear policy all over Europe.

Whither Europe?

European countries seem to be following Sweden, and bans on continued nuclear operations and new development are falling like leaves from the trees this October.

Belgium On Oct 13, the Belgian government announced that it was postponing its phase-out of nuclear plants for 10 years, although the industry must pay for the privilege. The resulting fund will support a “rigorous and proactive” plan to develop renewable energy and develop efficiency programs. World Nuclear Association director general John Ritch lauded the decision, but also noted that the Belgians had implemented the principle with “stunning silliness.”

Germany In September, Angela Merkel’s conservative coalition retained a narrow margin of power in German elections. With the German FDP, however, her government will retain a comfortable majority in the Bundestag. As noted previously in this blog, the victory was important for Germany’s existing nuclear plants, slated for phase-out by 2022.

The phase-out was a central feature of the opposition campaign, heralding a likely shift in German national sentiment towards nuclear power. Germany’s plants may also have to pay for the privilege of continued operation.

Italy & United Kingdom Both promised new reactor construction as important components of their climate policies running up to the December climate talks in Copenhagen. On October 12, the UK’s Committee on Climate Change (CCC) recommended increased nuclear capacity as a way to dramatically lower CO2 emissions.

Greenpeace UK also issued its annual manifesto to Parliament on October 11, and none of its 12 goals asked for an explicit ban on nuclear. By its omission, is Greenpeace UK acknowledging some necessity for new nuclear capacity in the UK? Nope. Greenpeace still remains anti-nuke in principle.

On the other hand, rather than attacking the CCC’s conclusions on development, it followed up with a gentle statement disagreeing with the CCC’s stand on nuclear, while lauding the Committee’s call for “radical action.”

Spain A holdout with Australia on aggressively phasing out its nuclear plants, it was told recently by the International Energy Agency that it needed to keep open all of its options, including nuclear to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) indulged in a bit of a wrist-slapping, finding difficulty with Spain’s stance on nuclear power. In an uncharacteristic lapse of diplomatic “niceness,” the energy regulatory advisory agency noted, “[i]ndeed, it is difficult to see how phasing out nuclear energy could serve Spain’s energy and climate change goals.”

Netherlands The Dutch have been pursuing new nuclear plants since 2006. In 2009, utilities began seeking preliminary approvals of a second unit at Borssele, the Dutch nuclear plant.

Additionally, the German utility RWE announced plans to buy Essent, a Dutch utility with a 50% interest in Borssele, and promised to pursue new nuclear capacity in Netherlands.

European Union In an unprecedented run-up to the UNFCCC talks in Bangkok, the IEA issued an early excerpt of its annual energy outlook, specifically geared to addressing the energy sector’s role in a climate agreement in Copenhagen.

Nuclear energy is a key component to the IEA’s goals of achieving long-term stabilization of greenhouse gases at 450 ppm of CO2 equivalent. The 2009 World Energy Outlook promises to be exceptionally grim, with an analysis of the world’s capabilities to meet climate change goals during the financial crisis.

All of these countries have aggressive plans to expand their renewable portfolios. They recognize the environmental, political, and diplomatic necessity to include nuclear generation as part of a low carbon energy mix.

Implications for the U.S.

As the U.S. Senate prepares for debate on the Kerry-Boxer bill, Senators may do well to look across the pond as they start to reach across the aisle. It seems that at least some of our European neighbors are thinking realistically about nuclear power’s role in averting potential energy catastrophes as well as environmental disaster. And their careful consideration of these issues now may go a long way in averting diplomatic trouble in December.

Author ID

* Ms. Cerafici (right) is an attorney in private practice with expertise in nuclear licensing and environmental law.

Contact info

Tamar Jergensen Cerafici, tnelaw@gmail.com

(She is currently on travel in Sweden)

AEHI picks new site for Idaho reactor

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:58:00 +0000

This is the third site selected in the firm’s search for a suitable location

Alternative Energy Holdings Inc. (OTC:AEHI) announced Oct 20 it has selected a new site for its planned nuclear reactor in Idaho. The site in is Payette County, Idaho, some 60 miles northwest of Boise and about five miles northeast [at Stone Quarry Rd.] of the intersection of State Highway 52 and Big Willow Rd.

In a press release, AEHI said it submitted a comprehensive plan amendment application in Payette County, Idaho for the development of a nuclear power generating facility on approximately 5,100 acres of land.

“This is a key step to developing an additional nuclear site in Idaho,” said CEO Don Gillispie.

In a telephone interview with Mary Mejia, Administrator of the Payettee County Planning & Zoning Office, I confirmed that AEHI has filed the amendment. It is now being reviewed by the staff. At this time, Mejia said, the company has only requested a change in the plan from agricultural use to industrial use. The current plan calls for non-irrigated agriculture uses such as grazing.

“This is not prime farmland,” she said.

The site is just north of the Payette River [map]. AEHI would have to acquire water rights in the area to provide cooling water for the planned reactor.

If all goes well in the review, a public hearing could be held as early as Nov 12th at which time the county planning & zoning commission will make a recommendation to the Payette County Commission.

Once that happens, the county has a minimum of 30 days to hold a hearing on a decision to change the plan.

The comprehensive plan change is the first of two steps to approve use of the site for a nuclear reactor. Mejia said AEHI will also need a conditional use permit for the site since nuclear reactors are not listed as an allowed use in the industrial section of the county zoning ordinance. That permit would also require a separate public hearing.

Third time for site selection process

This is the third time AEHI has selected a site for its planned nuclear reactor. The firm has an application pending with nearby Elmore County, but that process is bogged down with the county commissioners sending the application back to the planning commission for more work. The site selected by AEHI in Elmore County, near Mountain Home, ID, would be adjacent to the Snake River. However, the county commissioners indicated a preference for a high desert site without nearby water supplies, but near the American Ecology hazardous waste landfill.

A prior application in Owyhee County was withdrawn after AEHI decided the site wasn’t suitable in terms of its physical characteristics. That site, near the intersection of state highways 78 and 51, would also have used water from the Snake River.

AEHI at one time it said would build an Areva 1,600 MW EPR. More recently, AEHI has not told the NRC what reactor design it will reference in a COL application. The NRC lists AEHI as expected to file a COL application in 2009. With the kickoff of a new site selection process, it is uncertain when AEHI will file with the NRC for either an Early Site Permit or a Combined Construction and Operating License.

Nate Poppinio, a reporter for the Twin Falls Times News, told this blog in a comment that in a Sept 10 letter to the Nuclear Street web site, AEHI CEO Don Gillispie said his firm was considering a Korean reactor for the Idaho site.

"We are in the process of negotiating on the price to bring the Korean advanced reactor, APR 1400, to the US. This reactor will be lower than the cost of the other reactors currently in the US market making us more than competitive with any new source of electricity in the country. As a backup, we have begun to talk with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries about their advanced reactor as well. Further, we have a large energy trust that is willing to loan us up to $5 billion for the plant construction phase."

Neither the Korean reactor nor the Mitsubishi unit are certified designs in the U.S. The Mitsubishi reactor was submitted for design certification by the NRC in January 2008. The NRC does not list any information about the Korean reactor on its reactor design certification web page. A review in ADAMS, the NRC's massive online document library, turns up eight references to the reactor, but none focus on it for certification purposes. If AEHI references either design in a COL application, it will have to wait for the NRC to certify either design before it could get a license approved and break ground.

Not Warren Buffet’s site

In 2007 Warren Buffet’s Mid American Energy utility evaluated a ‘greenfield’ site in Payette County for a 1,750 MW Mitsubishi nuclear reactor. Buffet withdrew funding for the project when it became clear how many difficulties he faced with the Idaho site. One of them was the huge expense of upgrading the transmission and distribution infrastructure to get the power from the reactor to customers. There are no other commercial nuclear reactors in Idaho.

(map of high voltage power lines in Idaho courtesy Idaho Power)

Martin Johncox, a spokesman for AEHEI, told this blog in a telephone interview that the new site in Payette County selected by AEHI is not the same one evaluated by Warren Buffett in 2007.

Andrea Shipley, head of the Snake River Alliance, told reporter Rocky Barker at the Idaho Statesman Oct 20 "Warren Buffett's Mid American Energy spent millions of dollars researching whether or not Payette County was a good place to build a nuclear power reactor and pulled out."

"This [Buffet] is a company with money and expertise, two things that Gillispie is struggling with," Shipley said.

Even AEHI gets the firm’s newest site approved by the Payette County Commissioners, it still must raise $4-6 billion from investors. The firm’s assets, as described in recent SEC filings, are less than $500,000. In the past few years, AEHI has hired three investment banking firms. So far, none of them have succeeded in getting major investors, like a utility, to sign up for the project.

While there are many uncertainties ahead for AEHI, one thing is sure. CEO Don Gillispie is persistent in the quest for his reactor even it it leads him trekking across the landscape of southwestern Idaho in search of a home for it.

# # #

Nations cannot cover the globe in windmills

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:17:00 +0000

Nor most of west Texas for that matter

Strong stuff is in this week from the staid OECD about nuclear energy and renewable energy. Also, Nuclear energy may be the solution to global warming, but someone has to pay for it writes Matt Wald, NYT reporter, in the December issue of MIT’s Technology Review

* * *

(via NucNet) Tackling climate change should include acceptance that nuclear energy “must play a central role in global base load energy”, a former secretary-general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has said in a speech Oct 8.

Donald Johnston, who is also a former Canadian science and technology minister, said those who disagreed with this view were “well intentioned but politically perhaps naive”.

And he told the 2009 congress of the International Nuclear Law Association on 8 October 2009 in Toronto, Canada, that he was pessimistic about the likelihood of any enforceable agreements being reached at next December’s 15th session of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Mr Johnston said:

“Within the short time frames we face… we will not cover the world with windmills. We will not supply the world with solar energy by covering an area half of the state of Texas with solar panels.”

So why aren't we following the French and investing in nuclear energy, the only proven technology which does not produce significant greenhouse gas emissions?

“Had the world embraced nuclear energy as a source of electrification as France did where over 80 percent of electricity is of nuclear origin, we would not be faced with global warming and climate change today,” he added.

However, Mr Johnston said a major expansion of nuclear energy must address a number of issues in order to satisfy the public and political leaders of its safety, including proliferation concerns.

He said: “There should be rotating international teams of experts to monitor and audit the running and maintenance of all existing and future nuclear facilities, and in particular reprocessing facilities.”

Greatest risks to nuclear energy are financial

While the OECD was tilting at windmills in Toronto, just a few hundred miles away, MIT’s Technology Review Magazine was publishing another of NYT reporter Matt Wald’s gloomy assessments of the future of nuclear energy.

Mr. Wald contrasts the costs to build various kinds of energy plants, and their time to market, and concludes, regardless of size, nukes don’t cut it. He writes

“If a reactor producer produces power at 10 cents/KwHr and a natural gas plant produces [electricity] at 12 cents, the reactor builder makes a killing. Reverse the numbers and the reactor builder gets killed.”

He writes that Congress has little inclination to expand the federal loan guarantee for new nuclear power plants. He also correctly points out the $18.5 billion made available is shrinking relative to the impact it will have on the industry. With prices rising to $4,000/Kw, it is unlikely the loan guarantees will support more than three-or-four new reactors.

Jim Miller, CEO of PPL, a nuclear utility, tells Wald, “Nothing is currently in place to move the industry along at the pace people perceived it would when the 2005 act was passed.”

Wald also puts a finger up in political winds, metaphorically speaking, and pronounces that “odds are not good enough for the nuclear industry to place a bet with its own money.”

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has called for an expansion of federal loan guarantees to $37 billion. And Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Lindsay Graham have written, a NY Times OP ED, that the Senate climate bill needs to include incentives for nuclear energy. But, if wishes were fishes, we’d be knee deep in flounder.

Right now nothing is in place. And what’s really needed are long term political and financial commitments that won’t be overturned by opportunistic whims by a future administration. That includes realistic thinking about fuel recycling and an end to endless bickering about Yucca Mountain.

In short, while some people are worried about safety, or risk, Wald points out the biggest risk to the future of the nuclear energy industry is financial.

# # #

Chamber of Commerce climate story is a hoax

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:55:00 +0000

Pranksters create turmoil at National Press Club

The Washington Post reports that a press conference held at the National Press Club today (Oct 19) purporting to be a statement by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce reversing its position on climate change is a hoax.

Environmental activists held a hoax press conference Monday morning, pretending to be the business group -- and pretending to announce that the chamber was dropping its opposition to climate-change legislation now in Congress.

The event, complete with fake handouts on chamber letterhead, at least a couple of fake reporters, and a podium adorned with the chamber logo, broke up when a spokesman from the real chamber burst in.

The Post also reported that the prankster was confronted by an official from the real Chamber of Commerce who shouted that the giant business lobby has not changed its mind about global warming.

"This guy is a fake! He's lying! This is a stunt that I've never seen before," said Eric Wohlschlegel, an official at the actual Chamber of Commerce, who said he'd heard about the hoax event from a reporter who'd mistakenly shown up at the chamber's headquarters.

The fake Chamber of Commerce official, who called himself "Hingo Sembra," did not give his real name to reporters, saying only that he represented a coalition of climate activists.

The Guardian UK also reported that the event was a hoax, and it worked way too well.

In today's instant news era, that wasn't quite soon enough. Several green organizations tweeted or blogged on the about-face. Reuters news agency put out a straight news story about the Chamber's apparent U-turn, and the Washington Post and New York Times put the story on their news sites (both later removed the stories from their websites). CNBC actually sought – and got – comment from analysts. It also broke its programming to have a reporter read out the fake press release.

Another “balloon boy” stunt baffles the media

It looks like the mainstream news media has been taken in by another “balloon boy” story. However, it doesn't detract from how serious the issue is or how ticked off some of the Chamber's dues paying members are about the issue.

In recent weeks dues paying members like Exelon (NYSE:EXC), the nation’s largest nuclear energy utility, and Apple Computer (NASDAQ:APPL), quit in protest over the Chamber’s head-in-the-sand views on climate change legislation.

The prospects of empty pockets became real as its members did the unthinkable, and in independent, but unprecedented, actions, walked away from the top business lobby group in the country because it was unyielding in its opposition to President Obama’s climate change initiatives.

In the view of this blog the Chamber, and the remaining business groups that support it, ought to try science instead of politics. Then they won’t have to eat nearly so much crow when they do change their minds for real.

Video of the hoax press conference

# # #

Westinghouse gets a scare from NRC

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:12:00 +0000

Halloween comes early for the AP1000

Westinghouse engineers are burning the midnight oil in Pittsburgh this week, and it’s not because they are filling trick-of-treat goodie bags. The reason is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) threw a scare into the company and with it set teeth on edge at five U.S. power utilities and two provinces in China.

What happened is that the NRC appears to have lost its patience with the company after holding discussions with firm for the past 12 months on design changes to its AP1000 reactor. According to an NRC press release, the agency feels the shield building, which provides the primary containment safety barrier for the reactor, isn’t going to do everything expected of it.

The decision has the potential to delay construction of 14 new U.S. reactors worth collectively over $80 billion. Public utility commissions in states that allow cost recovery for reactors while they are being built are nervous about the possibility of these delays. The NRC’s action has already hammered the stock of a key contractor building the plants.

Full details in my exclusive report at the Energy Collective.

# # #

Nukes v. Coal at ELI Forum

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 16:08:00 +0000

Baseload demand gets a rhetorical workout

Psst! Wanna see some rhetorical fireworks about nuclear energy and coal? Then reserve a free seat at the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) forum Oct 29th in Washington, DC.

The topic is whether expanded use of nuclear power and coal is inevitable in our climate-constrained future, and if so, how best to manage them. There are some people who believe we don't need any more baseload power plants -- that solar, wind, and energy conservation can meet our needs. And, some of these people have President Obama's ear which may account for his tone deafness when it comes to nuclear energy.

There are other views. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace, says that nuclear power is essential to combating climate change. Producers of coal maintain that it is impossible to ignore the most-abundant fossil fuel -- and that it can compete with lower-carbon energy sources. OK, see it’s a debate so be civil about it.

Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, (right) will be among the panelists participating in the Forum. Representing a very different viewpoint, Wellinghoff once told reporters, "we may not need any, ever," referring to new coal and nuclear power plants. This guy has gone out of this way to be a lightning rod for the electric power industry, which his agency regulates. Talk about controversy?

State regulators, meanwhile, are responsible to ratepayers and pollution control mandates. Environmental organizations have mostly opposed expanded use of both energy sources.

To represent the diversity of this debate, the following panelists will
contribute to the Forum: My comments about them are in italics.

Matthew L. Wald, New York Times energy reporter (Moderator) (covers all the energy news that’s fit to print)
Peter Bradford, Vice-Chair, Union of Concerned Scientists (anti-nuclear activist despite having once served as an NRC commissioner)
Hon. Garry Brown, Chairman, New York State Public Service Commission (New York’s state attorney general Andrew Cuomo wants to close Indian Point)
Alex Flint, Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute (pro nuclear utility trade group)
Mike Morris, President and CEO, American Electric Power (owns & operates nuclear, coal, gas, and wind power plants)
Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (arch druid of “no” to new nukes and new coal plants)

WHEN: October 29, 2009, 3:30 PM to 5:30 PM
Speakers will begin promptly at 4:00 PM

WHERE: Omni Shoreham Hotel; Hampton Ballroom; 2500 Calvert St NW Washington, DC 20008

RSVP: This event is free and open to the public; however, space is limited. To reserve, e-mail: bkitchen@eli.org. Please reserve by October 23, 2009.

# # #

More bad news for USEC's uranium enrichment plant

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:31:00 +0000

DOE fails to get the $30 million it promised last August

The Energy & Water appropriation, sent by Congress this week to the White House, does not include $30 million promised by the Department of Energy (DOE) to USEC (NYSE:USU) to help it with its plans to build a uranium enrichment plant in Piketon, OH. It is the second time in recent months that DOE's plans to rescue the project have run into a political firewall.

Earlier this month uranium miners lobbied Congress to prevent DOE from selling surplus uranium to raise $650 million to pay for accelerated cleanup at the Piketon plant. The governor of Wyoming weighed in saying that if a butterfly flaps its wings in Ohio, it does matter in his state, a major producer of uranium. DOE's plan was to fund 800 nuclear waste cleanup jobs while it tried to get USEC's enrichment plant back on track. So far, both efforts have failed to produce the expected results.

Full text of this report can be read exclusively at CoolHand Nuke, a nuclear energy jobs portal and a whole lot more.

* * *

Note to readers – Jeff Madison, CEO at CoolhandNuke, is a co-sponsor of the nuclear blogger meeting to take place at the American Nuclear Society winter meeting.

It will be at 6 PM Nov 17th at the OMNI Shoreham Hotel, 2500 Calvert St., NW, Washington, DC.

You do not have to register at the conference to attend this discussion of how new social media is impacting the nuclear energy industry.

# # #

Dale Klein to step down from NRC

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:52:00 +0000

Former chairman asks President Obama to fill his seat

NRC Commissioner Dale Klein (left) has submitted his resignation to President Barack Obama.

Klein also committed to serve in his post until his successor takes office. His term expires in June 2011.

In his letter Klein wrote he looks forward to returning to private life. He welcomes the President’s recent announcement of the nomination of “his friends and colleagues Bill Magwood and George Apostolakis to the Commission.”

“I applaud the President’s choices. I have worked with both of them for several years and if confirmed, I look forward to welcoming them to the Commission.”

Klein entered government service in 2001 as a policy level official at the Department of Defense. He served as Chairman of the NRC under two presidents from July 2006 to May 2009..

In terms of his future plans, Klein said,

“I also have looked forward to returning to private life at that small university in Austin Texas at the completion of my term.”

Klein was interviewed on this blog earlier this month. He took special pride in NRC’s designation in 2007 and again in 2009 as one of the best places to work in the Federal government.

Previously, Dr. Klein served as the Vice-Chancellor for Special Engineering Programs at the University of Texas System and as a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering (Nuclear Program) at the University of Texas at Austin.

See also NEI press release on Klein's departure from NRC.

# # #

Rethinking the electric grid

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:10:00 +0000

Just how smart do we have to be?

Energy Collective webinar will tackle this issue in a live webinar ~ October 28, 1 PM EST

Join a panel of experts as they discuss how to modernize the nation's transmission systems.

The registration page has a lot of information about the event and what will be discussed and about the panelists. Marc Gunter, an editor at Fortune Magazine, will moderate the session.

Congress adds $4 billion for a smarter grid

With $4 billion of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act designated for the “Smart Grid,” or modernization of the nation’s electrical transmission systems, investment has accelerated at a feverish pace in viable projects initiated by utilities, research facilities, and technology companies.

The Smart Grid represents more than a commercial opportunity. It will make possible more efficient and lower cost delivery of power, better informed customers, smart appliances, distributed energy, electric cars and a host of other innovations yet to be invented.

Webinar Topics

In an effort to help our members better understand the policy, investment opportunities and trends swirling around this topic, The Energy Collective is proud to announce the second of our fall panels on energy topics: “Rethinking the Electric Grid."

In addition to fielding any questions from the audience, our expert panel will respond to following questions:

- Where is the leadership for innovation coming from? Utilities? Technology companies?

- What policies are needed at the federal and regional levels to support smart grid deployment?

- How will greater decentralization of the grid change the power distributors' business models?

- What role does FERC need to play, acting in concert with utilities?

- What roles will the customer and customer feedback play in the development of smart grid?

- What technology breakthroughs are needed?

Want to know more?

Check out the Energy Collective special section "rethinking the electrical grid"

A good example is a link to a piece by the Economist which reports

"Information technology can make electricity grids less wasteful and much greener. Businesses have lots of ideas and governments are keen, but obstacles remain."

Smart Grid Video from IEEE

Robin Carey on new social media

Questions?

Caitlin Hinrichs
Community Marketing Manager
Social Media Today LLC
w: 973.763.2829
f: 973-763-2864
caitlin@socialmediatoday.com

# # #

350 reasons to focus on climate change

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:17:00 +0000

Blog action day points to progress at Copenhagen in December

Today, October 15, 2009, is blog action day focused on the issue of climate change. So far it involves 10,884 blogs, 13 million readers, and most of the nations of the world. As readers of this blog known, nuclear energy is a carbon emission free source of base load power. In this blog post, readers are offered some climate-related news on progress, or the lack of it, in dealing with the global crisis.

350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. We are already well past that number as any polar bear looking for an ice flow knows all too well.

For all of human history until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Parts per million is simply a way of measuring the concentration of different gases, and means the ratio of the number of carbon dioxide molecules per million other molecules in the atmosphere. 275 ppm CO2 is a useful amount—without some CO2 and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in our atmosphere, our planet would be too cold for humans to inhabit.

So we need some carbon in the atmosphere, but the question is how much?

You can learn more and find out ways to have your voice heard at the web site 350 which has a wealth of information on this global issue. Here's their video. Tweet your participation to #350ppm

# # #

Snake River Alliance vows to drive Areva out of Idaho

djysrv@gmail.com (djysrv) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:33:00 +0000

Haunted by the goblins of the cold war, a Boise-based group is obsessed with a uranium enrichment plant

A relic with knee-jerk, anti-nuclear reflexes from the cold war has energized itself to oppose Areva's planned $2.4 billion "Eagle Rock" uranium enrichment plant in Idaho. The Boise-based Snake River Alliance (SRA) has a war chest of $300,000 from the Bullit and the Edwards Mother Earth foundations and Patagonia outdoor clothing. With a staff of five and a claim of 1,000 members, it is planning to mount a major campaign to drive Areva out of Idaho.

The French nuclear energy firm announced plans in May 2008 to build a $2.4 billion uranium enrichment plant in eastern Idaho 18 miles west of Idaho Falls, ID. Areva chose the site after a yearlong nationwide search, with intense competition among five finalist sites, and only after the Idaho legislature offered tax incentives to sweeten the winning deal. Idaho Falls is one of the nation’s most pro-nuclear cities with a sustained track record of standing up for Areva’s project.

Tilting at windmills or trophy homes?

Andrea Shipley, the 26-year old director of the SRA told the Idaho Statesman this week the Areva plant, "is the biggest threat to Idaho in 30 years." With that tag line in hand, SRA says their stated goal is to “drive Areva out of Idaho.”

She is taking this message, as a fund-raising slogan, to the trophy homes of the super rich who are seasonal residents in Sun Valley, just two hours drive west of the Areva plant. Once they are told that “radioactive releases” from the plant could threaten their mountainside playground, checkbooks fly open. It isn’t the first time nor the last that the SRA will engage in exaggerated rhetoric to raise funds and win over supporters.

The SRA describes itself as a "watchdog," but as Idaho’s self-appointed nuclear watchdog, the Snake River Alliance (SRA), has also demonstrated that having one around sometimes results in a lot of barking at the wrong things.

At an NRC environmental scoping hearing held in Idaho Falls last June, the Snake River Alliance (SRA) made the 300-mile trek to speak out against Areva's license application. Like its campaigns against U.S. Navy nuclear spent fuel reprocessing programs at the Idaho National Laboratory during the Cold War, the SRA was not averse to telling farmers in nearby Twin Falls, ID that the nuclear energy project in Idaho will French fry the state's famous potatoes right on the vine.

Watchdog barks but at what and why?

Two of SRA’s assertions are that there is no “need” for the enrichment facility relative to market demand and that the depleted uranium from the gas centrifuge process would be a threat to Idaho for decades if not centuries. Areva has pointed out the demand for enriched uranium by 2014, which is when the plant will come online, will exceed the total U.S. capacity. Areva has also repeatedly stated no waste will be left onsite. It will ship the depleted uranium to a licensed landfill for disposal.

Meanwhile, in Idaho Falls, at International Isotopes(OTC:INIS), entrepreneur Steve Laflin is working on raising investor support for a $55 million plant to be located in Hobbs, NM, to recover high quality fluorine from depleted UF6 and sell it to industrial customers. The SRA did not respond to comments at the hearing about their mis-statements of fact, which they continue to assert on their website.

The SRA also claims on its website that Areva's commercial uranium enrichment plant will be making weapons-grade uranium for use in nuclear weapons. This false claim could kick up some dust on the diplomatic scene, possibly creating an international incident, since it alleges that a foreign nuclear power is planning to make its weapons components on American soil. This is the type of incendiary rhetoric that has gotten the group into hot water in the past.

Slap shot, slap suit

Last year Shipley called Alternative Energy Holdings Inc. (OTC:AEHI) a "scam." The penny-stock firm has had little success in its efforts to organize a nuclear reactor project in Idaho. Also, it has repeatedly failed the now world-famous “baloney test” first developed by this blog in 2007. However, there are no reports of any financial wrongdoing by the company which last year registered its stock with the SEC.

Unlike most nuclear energy companies, which take over-the-top, anti-nuclear rhetoric in stride, thin-skinned AEHI CEO Don Gillispie threatened to sue the SRA for libel. SRA then exploited the situation it had created by charging AEHI with trying to shut it up with a “slap suit.” But both parties backed down after a cooling-off period.

And there is organized opposition to the SRA. Lane Allgood, executive director of an Idaho Falls-based pro-nuclear business group, Partnership for Science & Technology(PST) told me, "we will challenge them [SRA] if they make statements that are misleading or wrong. With a staff of one and a budget one-fourth the size of SRA's, Allgood may have his work cut out for him.

Even the news media doesn't seem to be much help. In a long retrospective piece on the SRA's three-decade history published last Sunday, the Idaho Statesman inexplicably mis-labeled Areva's facility as a "nuclear reprocessing plant."

NRC licensing process underway

Areva's license application for the Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility is under review at the NRC. The firm has asked the agency to complete its work by early 2011. The NRC told Areva last month, conservatively speaking, the firm should have its license no later than January 2012.

More recently, NRC Commissioner Dale Klein told a meeting of business and civic leaders in Idaho Falls he did not foresee any unusual circumstances that would prevent Areva from getting its license for the enrichment plant and by sometime in 2011.

Areva told community leaders in Idaho Falls this week the firm is focused on the regulatory process at the NRC with no plans to respond at this time to SRA's initiative.

Greenpeace blinks on nuclear energy in the U.K.

For the first time ever an environmental "manifesto" from Greenpeace in the U.K. is devoid of strident anti-nuclear rhetoric. While the Snake River Alliance in the U.S. pursues the cold war anti-nuclear campaign issues of a former generation, Greenpeace, always a militant presence in the European environmental movement, appears to have changed its tune.

The group's omission of its usual negative broadside against nuclear energy may be the result of a change of heart by its former director. Stephen Tindale (left) went public last year with his support for nuclear energy. He promotes his views in the U.K. through a new organization called Climate Answers.

In a paper titled "Change the politics. Save the Climate," Greenpeace laid out 12 goals for reducing carbon emissions and using "renewable energy" technologies. The group wrote that "nothing should be ruled out in terms of applications of "low carbon technologies." It also referred to documents published by the U.K. Committee on Climate Change and the IAEA, which call for significant investments in nuclear power to lower CO2 emissions.

Even if most of the Greenpeace members in the U.K. remain staunchly anti-nuclear, observers in the U.K. told this blog the change "represents cracks in the group's facade." In the U.S. the Snake River Alliance shows little likelihood of such a change, preferring to remain as rooted in its 30-year history as the sagebrush on the Arco desert.

# # #