by Nicholas Thompson
Disclaimer: Any views here are purely my own. This article was originally posted on the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

“A Tale of Two Cities” begins with the famous phrase, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,” and I think in many ways, that truly captures the current state of nuclear energy.

It was the best of times:
With 60 reactors under construction in 15 different countries, it’s hard to argue that nuclear isn’t undergoing a renaissance, although it’s not the renaissance many had predicted. Most of these reactors are being built in growing, energy hungry countries like China and India. Additionally, four reactors are under construction in the US, and Watts Bar 2 is now finished, has gone critical, and is producing electricity.

It was the worst of times:
In the US and Germany, nuclear reactors are being shut down. While in Germany this is primarily occurring due to politics, in the US, reactors are shutting down primarily due to economics. Kewaunee shut down in 2013, Vermont Yankee in 2014, and now Fort Calhoun will be closing this year, FitzPatrick and Clinton are scheduled to shut down in 2017, Quad Cities in 2018, with Pilgrim and Oyster Creek in 2019. Even closures of San Onofre and Crystal River 3 were related to economics, in that it would take too much money to fix the plants. There are other facilities which are also at risk of closure, including Ginna and Nine Mile Point Unit 1. Additionally, Diablo Canyon, the last nuclear energy facility in operation in California, has decided it will not seek a relicense for its two units, meaning they will close in 2024 and 2025.

It was the age of wisdom:
Given all that, it does seem the federal government and  certain states are starting to wake up to the realities of the impacts of closing nuclear facilities. The Department of Energy recently held a large Summit on Improving the Economics of America’s Nuclear Power Plants, where Senators, Representatives, industry leaders, regulators, scientists, advocates, and even the Secretary of the Department of Energy spoke about the value and importance of nuclear, and what policies could be enacted to keep these facilities running. Additionally, N.Y. state has proposed a plan to help struggling nuclear facilities by providing them zero emissions credits, which could be sold on a market.

It was the age of foolishness:
It’s quite clear that man made climate change is a major problem, and the vast majority of ANS members agree. ANS has collaborated with 39 other nuclear societies around the world and made a clear statement, “Nuclear energy is a part of the solution for fighting climate change.” And yet, nuclear facilities, which provide 60% of the low carbon electricity in the US, are still being shut down, primarily because of the cheap price of fossil fuels. Deciding to close these critical pieces of infrastructure at a time they are needed the most is foolish, as making permanent decisions based on short term economic situations usually are. But it is hard to place all the blame on the company making the decision – companies need to make money, and it’s hard to justify keeping a plant open when it is losing money.
​
That’s why we as Young Members must start advocating for solutions. ANS’ Special Committee on Nuclear in the States recently published a Toolkit of these solutions, which is available here. If we do not act, more nuclear facilities will close.

Climate change may be one of the biggest challenges of our time. The thing is, we do have the technology to solve it. The problem is that it's expensive - as compared to traditional fossil fuels that are currently providing most of our energy. In his recent annual letter, Bill Gates says: 

Renewable energies, like solar and wind, are clean but can't compete in an open electricity market without subsidies. Carbon sequestration with fossil fuels only makes sense with a high carbon tax. And, because of strict regulations and high construction costs, nuclear energy is also expensive.

From the perspective of the fuel and reactor itself, nuclear energy is actually very inexpensive. Uranium fuel has a very high energy density, so a lot less of it is needed than fossil fuel to produce the same amount of electricity. High regulatory requirements drive up the cost both during construction and operation, but also make nuclear power one of the safest industries in the world.

Nuclear power plants made a lot of sense to build in the 1970s because energy markets were regulated and prices could be set to ensure that the plant would make money over a long period of time. Since then, the reform of the electricity industry has been undertaken as part of wider economic reform driven by a range of factors including the globalization of the world economy and pressures to improve domestic and international competitiveness, trends towards smaller government and emerging beliefs in free market principles.

The current energy market, in most industrialized countries, depends on electricity prices for the benefit of consumers, and is not dependent on the environment, emissions, or reliability.

Many large nuclear power plants under construction right now, especially in Europe, are facing significant cost overruns and investors are threatening to pull out. In the past few years, China has been the most successful in completing construction and putting nuclear reactors online. Although the Chinese electricity industry has undergone some reform, most of it is still owned by state-holding enterprises. In addition, cheap labor and material decrease construction costs.

In the United States, nuclear power plants are closing early - well before their license retirement dates - because they can't compete with low natural gas prices and the short-term nature of the competitive market. Illinois may be the first state to pass an energy law that would include implementation of a zero emission standard, specifically to keep nuclear power plants open.

Electricity markets are only moving more and more towards deregulation and open markets. Government incentives and subsidies can't be the only enabler for clean energy. Clean energy sources need to be able to compete on price. The costs of renewables are decreasing every year, but are not enough to tackle the climate change and energy problem.

Significantly reducing the construction and operation costs of nuclear power plants could be the "energy miracle" that is needed for climate change. This is possible through streamlining regulation, modular construction and efficient operation. More on this in the next post!

by Lenka Kollar

With the highest carbon emissions and dependence on fossil fuels in decades, Japan has begun the first steps towards restarting its nuclear energy program. Unit 1 of the Sendai nuclear power plant was restarted this week and will be in full commercial operation generating electricity in September. This marks the beginning of Japan restarting its nuclear fleet after two years of standing idle.

Nuclear power plants in Japan were gradually shut down following the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant after the great earthquake and tsunami in March 2011. Japan's energy future remained uncertain until the national decision was made to restart the nuclear power program. 

The nuclear power shutdown forced Japan to depend on imported fossil fuels for energy production. Nuclear power benefited the Japanese economy ¥33 trillion ($276 billion) over the years by reducing dependence on foreign oil. Nuclear power also allowed Japan to reach its Kyoto Protocol targets by greatly reducing greenhouse gas emissions (read more).

The nuclear power shutdown allowed the Japanese nuclear regulator and utilities to conduct safety inspections and update new post-Fukushima safety standards. Twenty more reactors are progressing through the restart process while a few older reactors are being retired and decommissioned.

That's what Kirk Sorensen, of Flibe Energy, answers when people ask him if nuclear energy is safe. When explaining the benefits of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) in the video above, he makes the point that there are many more technologies available to produce electricity from nuclear energy. LFTR is one of these and is different from traditional nuclear energy in use today in that is utilizes a liquid thorium fuel instead of solid uranium fuel that needs to be cooled by water.

Thorium is four times as more common in the Earth's crust than uranium and can also be utilized more efficiently in a reactor. The safety issues in traditional pressurized water reactors stem from the fact that the solid uranium fuel must be cooled by water that is kept at a high pressure. Because of this, safety systems are needed to cover the core with water and cool it in case of an accident.

The LFTR utilizes fluoride salt as a nuclear fuel and therefore doesn't use water for cooling and doesn't have to operate at a high pressure. This means that the core will not 'meltdown' in the case of an accident.
 
Although the current commercial nuclear reactors in operation around the world are safe, there are more advanced nuclear technologies that are even more safe and efficient. We are currently operating only the second generation of nuclear reactors. Imagine if we were still using the second generation of other technologies, like the car or the cell phone? It's time to invest in and develop these advanced nuclear technologies to meet the world's growing energy needs in a clean and sustainable manner.

By Lenka Kollar

Last month the European Commission announced their plan to integrate all 28 national energy markets of the EU, with the main goal of independence from energy imports (i.e. gas from Russia). The current fragmented system will be transformed into an "Energy Union" where gas and electricity are freely transported within Europe.

The EU as a whole is the largest importer of natural gas in the world and many member states are 100% dependent on Russia for gas. To alleviate this dependence, the EU plans to build a new “southern corridor” that will pump gas from the Caspian basin to Europe via Turkey.

An EU-wide regulatory framework will also call for a unified energy policy, which may prove to be a challenge. Will Germany and Austria be able to agree on a policy that includes nuclear energy? How will renewables be leveraged in a larger, more complicated market? The EU's target is to have nearly a third of electricity from clean energy by 2030. 

Each of the member states has different resources and different costs for producing electricity. A unified grid and gas network might mean that energy prices are reduced in some states at the expense of consumers in others. Formulating an energy strategy, taking into account all of the European stakeholders, will be complicated and likely involve intense negotiations between states. 

However, the benefits for an energy union are apparent: reduced dependence on gas imports, more options for consumers, and investment into a smarter grid to increase energy efficiency. And, maybe Germany will even reverse their nuclear energy phaseout mandate? 

By Lenka Kollar

I'm currently participating in the Abu Dhabi Action Learning Module sponsored by INSEAD and the UAE. We have a great group of 45 students from all over the world, some of which have worked in the region and others, like me, that have no experience here but are very interested.

The UAE was founded in 1972 by a conglomeration of seven emirates with Abu Dhabi as the capitol. The economy predominately depends on oil exports and has thus created a tremendous amount of wealth in the country. Unlike other prosperous nations, the wealth came before industrial development and the UAE is now using the wealth created by a resource-based economy to diversify into the industrial and technology sectors.

Mubadala is a government mandated investment fund to diversify the UAE's industry from oil and gas for a sustainable future economy. The fund represents about 10% of the wealth from oil resources. One sector that Mubadala has focused on is aerospace manufacturing. The Strata plant produces parts for Airbus and employs many local employees, 85% of which are women. Global partnerships bring industry to UAE. The Siemens regional headqaurters, for example, is in the new Masdar City, which is the first fully sustainable city in the world. The Masdar Institute conducts research in sustainability and renewables.

Other Mubadala investment projects include renewables, utilities, healthcare, and other segments of the oil industry. Under a separate mandate, the UAE is also investing in nuclear energy.

By Lenka Kollar

Unprecedented catastrophes can happen in many industries, from energy to transportation to space. Some are caused by man-made errors while others by severe weather or other uncontrollable conditions. Regardless of the cause or magnitude, any perceived major crisis will get media attention and likely have a negative affect on that industry and/or company. 

The economic affects on a company or industry after a severe accident are generally dependent on the status of the industry before the event, according to a study by The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) on the Deepwater Horizon disaster (pictured above). Industries and companies with positive public perception and economic growth before a catastrophic event will be able to better bounce back afterwards. While sectors with a negative perception are more likely to experience very negative affects or even die out after a crisis.

While governments attempt to respond to these accidents, regulations and policy changes are usually quite limited and very local. In addition, BCG states that the impact on the industry largely depends on the existence of economic alternatives and public perception. The huge amounts of effort that firms put into risk identification and mitigation could perhaps be better spent on preparing better crisis response.

This theory can be applied to the nuclear industry because severe accidents, such as at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan, are extremely unlikely and difficult to predict, especially if they are caused by uncontrollable conditions. More preparation can be spent on the response effort required after an accident. Nuclear power plants in the United States already have robust emergency planning involving the community, state, and country that can go into effect immediately during an accident. But these response efforts should be reevaluated and possibly redesigned to make sure that they do not cause panic in the community and include accurate information dissemination to the media and public. The accident at Fukushima can be used as a case study to come up with more effective methods in dealing with an unpredictable crisis in a way that keeps the public safe and the industry functioning after.

We discussed before how the EPA's Clean Power Plan ignores nuclear and there's still time to submit your public comments by December 1st. It is important that the EPA here's from you that they should:

1. Treat existing plants equally by including 100% of their current output in the baseline CO2 calculation.
2. Allow states with new plants under construction to count their clean energy generation toward their EPA emissions target.

Submit comments to the EPA here!

By Nicholas Thompson

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a rule for regulating carbon emissions, or to be more precise, average carbon emissions per power produced. There is a fundamental difference between these two things, which will have a large impact on whether or not emissions actually decrease, and by how much.

What the Clean Power Plan proposes is setting emissions targets for each state based on a formula that calculates pounds of CO2 emissions per megawatt-hour of energy produced. To use an analogy, imagine you ran a delivery service and had a fleet of delivery vehicles; this regulation would be looking not at the total emissions of those vehicles, but the average miles per gallon across the fleet. Retiring old vehicles (coal) that don’t get as good mileage and replacing them with better ones (natural gas) would be one way to reduce the fleet’s average miles per gallon. To extend the analogy though, the best way to reduce the miles per gallon of the fleet would be to switch to electric vehicles (nuclear and renewables), since they consume no fuel. This is where the problem begins with the Clean Power Plan.

In order to calculate the state’s target goal for emissions, all of the emissions from all sources are added up, and then divided by the sum of all the power produced by coal, oil, natural gas, renewables, but only 5.8% of the power produced by nuclear. This 5.8% number seems out of place; all other sources (except hydro) are fully accounted for, so why wasn’t nuclear?

The answer is not clear, but what is clear is that a number of environmental groups, most notably the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) played a large hand in helping shape the new rule, according The New York Times (reports here and here). When an attorney for the NRDC was asked about this, he responded by saying,  

By Lenka Kollar

Last month I was on a regional train from Trnava to Bratislava in Slovakia accompanying my aunt who makes this trip every day for work. The train is connected to an electric line above the track, which naturally got me thinking about energy. The Bohunice Nuclear Power Plant supplies most of the electricity in this region so I thought it was pretty neat that I'm using public transportation power by nuclear energy. A robust transportation system connected to an electric grid with dependable and clean nuclear energy can really reduce dependence on fossil fuels and cut carbon emissions, which is already being done in some areas, as evidenced by Slovakia.

My parents are from Slovakia and most of my extended family still lives there, so I visit quite often. Slovaks are very favorable of nuclear energy, probably because it provides about half of their electricity. It is dependable and cheap and the plants provide jobs. There are two power plants with a total of four nuclear reactors and two more under construction. A new reactor block at Bohunice is also planned.

When he still lived in Slovakia, my father actually worked on the district heating system from the Bohunice plant to Trnava. Large pipes transport excess heat (in the form of steam) from the power plant to the city and provide heat for large buildings. This is a very energy efficient and sustainable process and is prevalent in Eastern Europe and Russia. The steam line is usually the tertiary loop so it is not radioactive.

Energy independence in Eastern Europe is important and especially as tensions between the US/EU and Russia arise. Slovaks are also concerned about UN sanctions against Russia because their nuclear technology is Russian so they need to be able to work with Russian companies and buy Russian parts. Worldwide tensions can have serious implications on the energy sector in Europe.