Gregory Jaczko resigns

Gregory Jaczko resigned from the Chairmanship of the NRC today. Mr. Jaczko has been a controversial figure, with various allegations of misconduct against him. Among other accomplishments, he was responsible for shutting down the Yucca Mountain waste repository. Mr. Jaczko has served as Chairman for 3 years, and was a member of the NRC for eight.

MIT indicates current exposure rules may be unreasonable

MIT has published a new study in Environmental Health Perspectives which analyzes the effect of high levels of constant radiation on the DNA of mice. The study found no measurable change after continuous exposure to levels of radiation 400 times greater than normal.
In the study, mice were exposed for five weeks. The result:

"these results demonstrate in an in vivo animal model that lowering the dose-rate suppresses the potentially deleterious impact of radiation, and calls attention to the need for a deeper understanding of the biological impact of low dose-rate radiation."

The same total dosage, when delivered "acutely" (all at once), did create the expected problems. In other words, radiation exposure appears not to be cumulative, or not nearly so much as has been thought.

This is an important finding. Current rules treat all radiation exposure as dangerous and seeks to minimize exposure, encouraging sometime ridiculous efforts to protect people from something that may not be dangerous.

The wide-spread evacuations following the Fukushima accident were largely protective. Because of earthquake damage, residents did not have the normal mobility, shelter, information, communication or health care systems available. As a result, thousands were evacuated out of an abundance of caution. This study, hopefully, will alleviate irrational fears and allow correct responses to future disasters.

"Current U.S. regulations require that residents of any area that reaches radiation levels eight times higher than background should be evacuated. However, the financial and emotional cost of such relocation may not be worthwhile, the researchers say." (Quote from MIT News.)

Anti-nuclear and environmentalist groups leverage (often irrational) fear of radiation to achieve their political ends. Hopefully, this study will reduce the potency of silly scare tactics and help government and industry to do the right thing.

New Energy Advisor for Governor Herbert

Governor Herbert has tapped Cody Stewart, previously the Chief of Staff for Lt. Governor Bell, to be his "Energy Advisor".
Key quote from Mr. Stewart:

"I'm convinced Utah's energy sector has a bright future, and I look forward to working with the governor and the Office of Energy Development staff to bring about our shared goals of a vibrant, growing energy sector in the state."

Utah, with a growing population and growing economy, will require more energy from diverse sources. Nuclear will be one of those sources. With the large NSA datacenter now being built south of Salt Lake City expected to consume 65 Megawatts of power, the Federal Government now has a strong incentive to ensure a reliable power supply.

Refuting Paul Josephson in Christian Science Monitor

Paul Josephson has written an op-ed in the CS monitor which outlines his 7 reasons why civilization should run away from nuclear power. I'd like to address each of his points, because he essentially summarizes all the talking points of anti-nuclear groups. Please read his article first.

Just so we know who has written this article, a few excerpts about Mr. Josephson from his bio:

A Russian and Soviet history professor at Colby University, he specializes in the history of twentieth century science and technology. 

His first book was a cultural and political history of the Leningrad physics community from 1900 until 1940. Paul has written two other books, both of which consider how the [U]topian dreams of scientists and political leaders have been misplaced.

Josephson has become a neo-Luddite who worries about the way in which modern people embrace SUVs, cell phones, weedwackers, jetskis, computers and so on, but rarely ponder the ethical, moral, social, or environmental costs of these extravagances, nor the way in which extravagancies have become necessities.

1. Accidents and population centers

Mr. Josephson states, "Worldwide standard operating procedures at nuclear power plants offer little margin for safety errors, and the industry is scrambling to check safety at each station."
No evidence is proffered for this very broad assertion.
Leaving out 50-year-old Soviet reactor designs, Western-designed plants have incredibly large tolerances for accident and human error. The well-known empirical evidence of these safety margins come from our worst accidents like 3 Mile Island and Fukushima. Despite either exceptional human error or natural disaster, the engineering behind these plants worked.
Modern nuclear power plant designs, based on decades more experience, will be even safer. Will they be perfectly safe? Of course not. But they will be very safe, far safer than driving, jumping on a trampoline or air travel.

"...most nuclear reactors are located near major population centers – Moscow, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Budapest, Kiev."
This is true- and without the 'nearby' nuclear power plants, those cities would likely not exist, either. Think about that for a moment... those power plants are there because people wanted them.
Data point: California has two nuclear power plants, which provide half of the electrical power used in the state. Without those two nuclear plants, what would California be like? Should we double the fossil-fueled power plants in California? Or should we cut the standard of living and economic output in half?


Citing the failures of decades-old designs or the stupidity of government managers does not lend support to the original argument.

2. Old reactors are dangerous

Citing this point in whole:

It is now standard practice to extend the life of reactors from their design parameters of 25 years to 40 years and longer. It seems foolish at best to take such a gamble on complex technology that operates under high temperature and pressure. Any “unlikely” loss of coolant-capacities may result in explosions, meltdown, and significant release of radioactivity into the environment.

It is standard practice to extend the licenses of these reactors. Like cars that are licensed year after year, these plants are subject to safety checks and constant monitoring. Their equipment is constantly being upgraded to improve output and safety- what is in use today is not the same equipment that was originally put in place.

Again, modern designs are even better and safer than what we now have. The fact there there are so few accidents indicates that "such a gamble on complex technology" is a good one.

3. No secure repository for spent fuel

Absolutely correct. There is no secure repository for spent fuel. By law, this is the responsibility of the US government, which has failed to provide such a repository... and why? Because people like Mr. Josephson have fought and argued against the creation of one.
As a result, we are all less safe. This issue is not a failure of the Nuclear Power industry, but of fear-mongering activists.

4. Vulnerable to terrorism

Of course they are- but not nearly so much as office buildings, schools, shopping malls, pipelines, train stations, football stadiums or anything else. In the United States, nuclear power plants are very robust structures with containment buildings designed to resist the impact of a passenger plane or other disaster.
Mr. Josephson might as well argue that Nuclear Power plants ought not exist because they are vulnerable to meteors. Concerns about terrorism are not a valid reason to avoid nuclear power.

5. Mother Nature's threat

Earthquakes and other natural disasters are valid concerns. It is also true that plants can be sited in places where the likelihood of disaster is low.
There is no place in Japan or Southern California that is 'safe' from earthquake. Fukushima- built around 1970, using a 1960's design that had roots in 1950's US Navy technology- survived one of the largest earthquakes in human history. On the other hand, not one life has been lost due to release from the plant.
Once more, modern designs are better and safer than what we now have.

6. Costs outweigh benefits

Clearly wrong. If this was true, we would have no operational plants today. All power sources involve tremendous cost and risk, even the so-called renewable sources. $54 billion in loan guarantees (not subsidies) has been provided by government; $38 billion in similar guarantees have been provided for 'green' energy projects.
One of these industries provides 20% of all electricity in the United States. Solar, and wind, together, provide less than half a percent.
This is not a valid argument.

7. Renewable energies are safer, cheaper

This may be true, though the statistics don't yet support such a statement. What is absolutely true: Renewable power is nonexistent. Many hundreds of billions of dollars- money we don't have- will be required just to provide any useful capacity.
'Renewable' energy sources are in the future, just like fusion.


Mr. Josephson- with fallacious arguments and distorted facts- is clearly wrong. Nuclear power is currently the safest, cleanest way to generate the power needed by our modern, high-energy civilization.

NRC Releases new requirements for US Reactors

It's taken a year, but the NRC has released new requirements that apply to all nuclear plants in the United States. These requirements are based on the 'lessons learned' from the Fukushima plant in Japan.

From the NRC release:

Two of the Orders apply to every U.S. commercial nuclear power plant, including those under construction and the recently licensed new Vogtle reactors. The first Order requires the plants to better protect safety equipment installed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and to obtain sufficient equipment to support all reactors at a given site simultaneously. The second Order requires the plants to install enhanced equipment for monitoring water levels in each plant’s spent fuel pool.

The third Order applies only to U.S. boiling-water reactors that have “Mark I” or “Mark II” containment structures. These reactors must improve venting systems (or for the Mark II plants, install new systems) that help prevent or mitigate core damage in the event of a serious accident. Plants have until Dec. 31, 2016, to complete modifications and requirements of all three Orders.

Each plant will also undergo on-site review for safety, compliance and ability to meet the relevant requirements.

All told, a good call by the NRC.

First new reactors in 30 years approved by NRC

Bottom of containment vessel

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the combined license for two new AP1000 reactors at Georgia's Vogtle nuclear plant Thursday afternoon -- the first time since 1978 a new nuclear plant has been licensed in the U.S.

Southern [Company] is building the new reactors with Oglethorpe Power Corporation (holding 30 percent ownership), the Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7 percent) and Dalton Utilities (1.6 percent). The project is expected to cost $13.3 billion.

As stated, the new reactor units will use the Westinghouse AP1000 design. There are six other sites in the United States seeking a license to build reactors of the same design; it is likely that the Green River plant will choose the AP1000 design as well.

Reaction to HEAL protest of Nuclear Plant

From the article at: http://healutah.org/nuclearutah/energy/greenriverreactors:

HEAL says:

It Uses Too Much Water. The Green River reactors would consume as much water as Washington County, which includes St. George, and has a population of more than 135,000. Our already scarce water supply will soon become even scanter: Utah is the second driest state in the nation with a population slated to double in the next 40 years. Do we really want to allocate this precious water to nuclear power for at least a half-century, instead of to homes, businesses and farms?

UFNP responds: Yep, we live in a desert. However, any significant power generation will require cooling water, so this is point of argument is unsound. And with our state population "slated to double in the next 40 years", surely we need to double our power capacity, too?

HEAL says:

It’s Costly. Nuclear remains one of the most expensive sources of electricity, with independent analysts estimating a per kilowatt-hour cost of at least 13 to 18 cents, much more than what Utah (7 cents) or the nation (10 cents) pays today. That hefty price tag is why no one has built a nuclear power plant in this country since 1977. Wall Street won’t even loan money to utilities for nuclear power, because of its skyrocketing costs. Proposals to build new reactors depend upon federal loan guarantees to get off the ground.

UFNP responds: Yes, nuclear plants cost a lot of money. Perhaps they would cost less if there were fewer baseless lawsuits and protests? Maybe HEAL would prefer a nice cheap coal-fired plant instead? Still, despite the costs, Nuclear power remains one of the cheapest and most reliable energy sources available. If you factor in possible costs for trapping CO2 emissions, Nuclear starts looking very cost-effective.

HEAL says:

It Poses Risks. Utah would need to grapple with the spent fuel rods that reactors produce, high-level nuclear waste stored on-site which remains dangerous for centuries. And then there is the possibility, even if remote, of a Fukushima-style accident. The impacts would be devastating: The reactor site is close to the world-renowned rafting destinations on the Green River, Desolation and Gray Canyons. Downriver, of course, are the jewels of America’s national park system, Canyonlands and the Grand Canyon. What if there were a release of radioactivity, even a minor one, into the Green River? Tilton has said that a Fukushima-style disaster could never happen, because earthquakes are unlikely. However, what the Japan nuclear tragedy should teach us is that any event which disrupts cooling water to reactors – such as severe storms, floods, fires, terror attack, equipment malfunction or human error – can quickly spiral out of control and have terrifying consequences.

UFNP responds: Yes, there are risks. Let's look at them:

1. Storage of spent rods: all nuclear plants do this. Fundamentally, this is a failure of the US Government in general (for not providing a national repository) and President Carter (for shutting down the spent nuclear fuel reprocessing industry. There's a lot of energy left in those fuel rods- but that's for another post.
2. Fukishima-type accident: remember, Fukishima was caused by a Tsunami, not an earthquake. Further, the real story behind Fukishima is, despite massive damage from one of worst disasters in history, the engineering worked... and Fukishima is an old, out-dated design. Presumably a newer reactor design will be selected.
3. Down-river vulnerabilities: yes, this is a very real concern. Lots of drinking water and agriculture is at stake, not to mention the pretty vistas that HEAL seems concerned with. On the other hand, unless the leak is large, time and space will do much to dilute and diffuse any leak.
4. Other issues: Yes, storms, floods, fire, terrorists and stupidity are all problems- with anything. These are concerns, but we'll have to see what design is ultimately chosen.

HEAL says:

There are Better Alternatives. Given that our organization also has serious concerns about burning coal to produce electricity in Utah, it’s reasonable to ask: What’s your plan for keeping the lights on? In 2010, our organization designed a homegrown energy system for Utah. We laid out a blueprint for transforming our power supply by 2050. Our system combines Utah’s best wind, solar, and geothermal resources with proven storage technologies. Everyone knows that renewable energy is clean and safe, but our study proves that it can also be affordable and reliable. In addition, it uses much less water than nuclear power and burning fossil fuels – a critical issue in dry Utah.

UFNP responds: I'm glad your plan includes "clean and safe" wind, solar and geothermal. (Nuclear has an excellent 'clean and safe' record as well.) Unfortunately, the power costs of these sources is greater than the 'higher' costs of nuclear power. Further, renewable sources are next to useless for supporting baseline demand. And what about natural gas? Hopefully, renewable sources will be a large part of electrical generation by 2050. Solar and wind have their own heavy environmental costs, too.