The word "uncertainty" has become quite a buzzword in business and financial reporting, but it's perhaps nowhere more aptly used than it is when talking about the state of the U.S. nuclear power industry. Uncertainty is the stated reason why Edison International's Southern California Edison decided to permanently retire its already shut down San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).
This uncertainty stems from low natural gas prices, the lingering memory of Fukushima, cheaper alternatives, nervous investors and capital costs that seem to start out high only to be revised higher — as is the case with both the SCANA Corp.'s V.C. Summer Nuclear Station expansion and Southern Co.'s Plant Vogtle expansion.
The uncertain environment is in no way helped by the spate of awful headlines that is plaguing the industry as of late — everything from cracked equipment and plant closures to the strange case of how two goldfish wound up in a juice pitcher in a restricted area of FirstEnergy's Perry nuclear plant.
Headlines such as these (and others, as the parade of bad news for the nuclear industry has been almost too overwhelming to keep track of lately) have a cumulative negative impact on public opinion, and the nuclear sector has always had to be more concerned about public goodwill than most other businesses.
So call it navel gazing, soul searching or just a much-needed conversation, but people are wondering about the long-term future of this industry. Proponents of nuclear generation are hoping the technology didn't peak in 2001 when it produced more than 20 percent of all power in the U.S., though that figure has since fallen to 19 percent.
What are the bright spots for nuclear? Well, one advantage that will never go away is the technology's superior carbon emissions profile — namely, it releases none. However, there are alternatives to nuclear that release no pollution, are easier to install, suffer from less of a NIMBY effect and are generally better-liked by the public.
Another area where nuclear proponents are holding out hope for is small modular reactors. The Department of Energy is backing R&D for SMR technology, and several big-name companies are looking into getting involved or are already involved. The benefit of the SMR is safety and scalability, but developers still need to prove they can get an SMR up and running. The advantages of SMRs don't mean much if they prove every bit as hard to get deployed and operating as conventional reactors are.
For California, the permanent loss of SONGS' nuclear generation capacity means a less diverse generation portfolio overall, to be sure, however, all is not lost on that score. Around the same time SCE announced they were throwing in the towel on SONGS, the California ISO announced that the Golden State was now capable of producing more than 2 GW of solar energy.
Normally when nuclear power plants are taken offline, for whatever reason, the only feasible solution is to replace the lost baseload with coal-fired power or natural gas power. California, though, is one of the top 10 economies in the world and in possession of an incredible variety of natural resources and geological variety. The potential for developing geothermal assets, hydropower facilities and solar and wind farms is more promising in California than in many other areas of the world. The state already generates more than 23 percent of its power from renewable sources, including hydropower.
What California does or doesn't do about its generation mix, though, is cold comfort to the nuclear industry at large. The economics of power generation is changing as fuel prices fluctuate and new regulations kick in. Coal as well as nuclear energy — both proven ways to generate baseload power — are becoming liabilities to their owners instead of assets.
Given the economics of the situation, it's hard to blame Southern California Edison's for its decision on San Onofre. The plant had become a money pit. However, even now that the decision to close it has been made, the plant itself will continue to cost its owners a significant sum. Safely disassembling the facility will take decades — perhaps even a half century. You have to wonder what things will look like for the American nuclear power industry by the time the plant has been completely taken apart.
Showing posts with label nuclear energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear energy. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
What is in Obama's budget for energy?
President Barack Obama's running mate Joe Biden is fond of saying
"show me your budget, and I'll show you where your priorities are."
Media outlets have already begun picking through the wording of the
president's $3.78 trillion 2014 budget to see what is being prioritized
at a time when seemingly every cent of spending results in overheated
press conferences on Capitol Hill and the threat of some catastrophic
government shut-down.
When you look at just one area of the budget, massive at it is, it gets a little easier. So let's see what the budget has to say about energy policy. Here are some highlights:
The budget provides $28.4 billion in discretionary funds for the Department of Energy (DOE) — an 8 percent increase about the 2012 enacted level. This is meant to position the U.S. as a leader in clean energy while boosting energy security.
The budget proposes for $615 million to promote wind, solar, geothermal and hydrokinetic energy.
The document calls for a "Race to the Top" program to promote grid modernization and energy efficiency, which is something Obama mentioned in his most recent State of the Union. The awards would support state-level policies that increase energy productivity and modernize the grid — with the goal of cutting energy waste in half over the next two decades.
Also in the budget is more than $5 billion — 5.7 percent more than 2012 — for energy sector research and development. The need to continue R&D even in difficult economic times is something the present has said repeatedly, so finding it in the budget is perhaps not unexpected.
About $153 million in research and development funding is proposed for grid modernization, cybersecurity and energy control systems. Advances in the technologies and tools for improved clean energy integration onto the grid through an $80 million coordinated effort within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Part of this tranche would include $20 million for a new Electricity Systems Hub, which would explore the interface between transmission and distribution systems in the smart grid context. The budget would support hardware and modeling R&D to improve the integration of renewable energy into the distribution grid, distributed generation, electric vehicles and residential/commercial buildings loads behind the meter.
About $575 million will be invested in alternative vehicle technologies, according to this budget — presumably this goes further than electric vehicles and charging stations, but likely includes both. There is also mention of a $2 billion of proposed mandatory funding for an Energy Security Trust (also mentioned in the State of the Union), intended to transition cars, trucks and other vehicles off of oil (biofuels, hydrogen, natural gas and electricity are specifically mentioned).
The budget provides $735 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy, which includes funding for small modular reactors. There is also $379 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy, or ARPA-E, which is the agency that investigates "long game" technologies.
Carbon capture and storage is mentioned in the budget breakdown, with $421 million for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, including an investment of $266 million in fossil energy R&D primarily dedicated to carbon capture.
The budget eliminates $4 billion yearly in "unnecessary subsidies to the oil, gas and coal industries;" restructuring the plutonium disposition program; cutting low performing programs; and using existing facilities and infrastructure.
In another energy efficiency measure, the budget calls for funding of the president's Better Buildings Initiative, which is meant to help consumers and businesses save money through energy efficiency.
There is $16 million — up from $10 million — in enhanced energy infrastructure security and energy recovery capabilities.
Separate from the DOE funding, the Environmental Protection Agency budget is about $296 million lower than the 2012 level, with the president's budget allocating the EPA $8.2 billion.
When you look at just one area of the budget, massive at it is, it gets a little easier. So let's see what the budget has to say about energy policy. Here are some highlights:
The budget provides $28.4 billion in discretionary funds for the Department of Energy (DOE) — an 8 percent increase about the 2012 enacted level. This is meant to position the U.S. as a leader in clean energy while boosting energy security.
The budget proposes for $615 million to promote wind, solar, geothermal and hydrokinetic energy.
The document calls for a "Race to the Top" program to promote grid modernization and energy efficiency, which is something Obama mentioned in his most recent State of the Union. The awards would support state-level policies that increase energy productivity and modernize the grid — with the goal of cutting energy waste in half over the next two decades.
Also in the budget is more than $5 billion — 5.7 percent more than 2012 — for energy sector research and development. The need to continue R&D even in difficult economic times is something the present has said repeatedly, so finding it in the budget is perhaps not unexpected.
About $153 million in research and development funding is proposed for grid modernization, cybersecurity and energy control systems. Advances in the technologies and tools for improved clean energy integration onto the grid through an $80 million coordinated effort within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Part of this tranche would include $20 million for a new Electricity Systems Hub, which would explore the interface between transmission and distribution systems in the smart grid context. The budget would support hardware and modeling R&D to improve the integration of renewable energy into the distribution grid, distributed generation, electric vehicles and residential/commercial buildings loads behind the meter.
About $575 million will be invested in alternative vehicle technologies, according to this budget — presumably this goes further than electric vehicles and charging stations, but likely includes both. There is also mention of a $2 billion of proposed mandatory funding for an Energy Security Trust (also mentioned in the State of the Union), intended to transition cars, trucks and other vehicles off of oil (biofuels, hydrogen, natural gas and electricity are specifically mentioned).
The budget provides $735 million for the Office of Nuclear Energy, which includes funding for small modular reactors. There is also $379 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy, or ARPA-E, which is the agency that investigates "long game" technologies.
Carbon capture and storage is mentioned in the budget breakdown, with $421 million for the Fossil Energy Research and Development program, including an investment of $266 million in fossil energy R&D primarily dedicated to carbon capture.
The budget eliminates $4 billion yearly in "unnecessary subsidies to the oil, gas and coal industries;" restructuring the plutonium disposition program; cutting low performing programs; and using existing facilities and infrastructure.
In another energy efficiency measure, the budget calls for funding of the president's Better Buildings Initiative, which is meant to help consumers and businesses save money through energy efficiency.
There is $16 million — up from $10 million — in enhanced energy infrastructure security and energy recovery capabilities.
Separate from the DOE funding, the Environmental Protection Agency budget is about $296 million lower than the 2012 level, with the president's budget allocating the EPA $8.2 billion.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
First fatal accident at Arkansas Nuclear One is painful for many
By Teresa Hansen
Editor in Chief
You've probably heard by now that a fatality accident occurred on Easter morning at Entergy's Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 in Russellville, Ark. The accident was an industrial accident and did not involve the nuclear side of the plant, so the public and most workers on site were never at risk.
The worker who died and eight other injured workers were removing handrails in the travel path of a generator stator replacement project when the lift system collapsed and the stator fell. Unit 1 is offline for maintenance, which included the turbine-generator work.
Any accident at a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant, resulting in injury or loss of life is certainly tragic. For me, this accident seems almost personal. I got my start in the electric utility industry at Arkansas Nuclear One, where I worked for 13 years. I still have many ties to the area. In fact, I was in Russellville celebrating Easter with my family when I heard about the accident.
I've been reading about it daily in the local newspaper and have read statements from people with whom I once worked closely. My heart goes out to the family of the young man who died, and to the people who work at the plant. I know from first-hand experience that it is a close-knit group and those who work at and manage the plant are heartsick. Russellville itself is a close-knit community that has been hit hard by this tragedy.
Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 came online in 1975 and Unit 2 came online in 1980. Construction began almost a decade earlier. This is the first fatality accident at the plant and as far as I know it was the first serious accident. I hope the fact that it occurred at a nuclear power plant doesn't create negative press or taint public opinion about the nuclear power industry. Such an accident could have occurred at any industrial facility.
I will continue to follow the news of the accident as Entergy and federal authorities work to determine what went wrong. We will update this website as new information is released. In the meantime, please let this tragedy be a reminder for you to make safety your No. 1 priority.
Editor in Chief
You've probably heard by now that a fatality accident occurred on Easter morning at Entergy's Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 in Russellville, Ark. The accident was an industrial accident and did not involve the nuclear side of the plant, so the public and most workers on site were never at risk.
The worker who died and eight other injured workers were removing handrails in the travel path of a generator stator replacement project when the lift system collapsed and the stator fell. Unit 1 is offline for maintenance, which included the turbine-generator work.
Any accident at a power plant, especially a nuclear power plant, resulting in injury or loss of life is certainly tragic. For me, this accident seems almost personal. I got my start in the electric utility industry at Arkansas Nuclear One, where I worked for 13 years. I still have many ties to the area. In fact, I was in Russellville celebrating Easter with my family when I heard about the accident.
I've been reading about it daily in the local newspaper and have read statements from people with whom I once worked closely. My heart goes out to the family of the young man who died, and to the people who work at the plant. I know from first-hand experience that it is a close-knit group and those who work at and manage the plant are heartsick. Russellville itself is a close-knit community that has been hit hard by this tragedy.
Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1 came online in 1975 and Unit 2 came online in 1980. Construction began almost a decade earlier. This is the first fatality accident at the plant and as far as I know it was the first serious accident. I hope the fact that it occurred at a nuclear power plant doesn't create negative press or taint public opinion about the nuclear power industry. Such an accident could have occurred at any industrial facility.
I will continue to follow the news of the accident as Entergy and federal authorities work to determine what went wrong. We will update this website as new information is released. In the meantime, please let this tragedy be a reminder for you to make safety your No. 1 priority.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
10 facts about Obama's new head of the DOE
After a lot of speculation, the official announcement has been made. Ernest Moniz will be President Barack Obama's main man at the Department of Energy pending approval by the Senate. Here are 10 things worth knowing about Moniz, who will run the DOE during Obama's second term.
1. Moniz is a nuclear physicist by training, and an advocate for the safe use of nuclear power as an energy source. In the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Moniz said it would be a mistake not to pursue a nuclear friendly energy policy in the U.S.
2. Obama is the second president Moniz has worked for. Moniz was President Bill Clinton's undersecretary of the DOE from 1997 to 2001. He also served as an associate director for science in Clinton's Office of Science and Technology Policy.
3. Moniz has a "wait and see" approach to new techniques in natural gas extraction, like "frakking." He says the risks of such techniques are challenging, but manageable. He has also referred to natural gas as a "bridge" fuel that can take the country to a future low-carbon energy portfolio (i.e. Away from coal).
4. Among the issues Moniz has handled at the DOE are: Oversight of science and energy policy, nuclear weapons proliferation and stockpile stewardship, nuclear fuel cycles (including waste disposal) and solar energy in a low-carbon world.
5. In a Washington Post story about carbon capture and storage, Moniz was quoted as saying in 2009 that there is no credible pathway to meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets without cutting carbon dioxide from existing coal-fired power plants.
6. As director of MIT's Energy Initiative, Moniz has some financial ties to the energy industry via the research group's $125 million in donations from the oil and gas industry since 2006, according to reports. Founding members of the organization include BP, Saudi Aramco and Shell.
7. Unlike his predecessor Steven Chu, Moniz will probably have less funding to work with. Chu's tenure at the DOE was marked by the early passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which significantly expanded the department's operating budget.
8. Moniz's grandparents were immigrants to the U.S. who came from the Azores, an archipelago that is an autonomous region of Portugal. He grew up speaking some Portuguese.
9. Moniz serves in Chu's Blue Ribbon Commission on nuclear energy's future, which was tasked with finding new solutions for storing and disposing of nuclear waste. Moniz advocated transferring spent nuclear fuel from pools to dry casks.
10. On solar power, Moniz said he is "bullish," adding, "It just has so many features, including the fact that even though it's intermittent, at least it tends to be on when you want it." He adds, however, that fossil fuels like oil and gas will remain at the forefront of the world's energy picture for the foreseeable future.
1. Moniz is a nuclear physicist by training, and an advocate for the safe use of nuclear power as an energy source. In the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Moniz said it would be a mistake not to pursue a nuclear friendly energy policy in the U.S.
2. Obama is the second president Moniz has worked for. Moniz was President Bill Clinton's undersecretary of the DOE from 1997 to 2001. He also served as an associate director for science in Clinton's Office of Science and Technology Policy.
3. Moniz has a "wait and see" approach to new techniques in natural gas extraction, like "frakking." He says the risks of such techniques are challenging, but manageable. He has also referred to natural gas as a "bridge" fuel that can take the country to a future low-carbon energy portfolio (i.e. Away from coal).
4. Among the issues Moniz has handled at the DOE are: Oversight of science and energy policy, nuclear weapons proliferation and stockpile stewardship, nuclear fuel cycles (including waste disposal) and solar energy in a low-carbon world.
5. In a Washington Post story about carbon capture and storage, Moniz was quoted as saying in 2009 that there is no credible pathway to meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets without cutting carbon dioxide from existing coal-fired power plants.
6. As director of MIT's Energy Initiative, Moniz has some financial ties to the energy industry via the research group's $125 million in donations from the oil and gas industry since 2006, according to reports. Founding members of the organization include BP, Saudi Aramco and Shell.
7. Unlike his predecessor Steven Chu, Moniz will probably have less funding to work with. Chu's tenure at the DOE was marked by the early passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which significantly expanded the department's operating budget.
8. Moniz's grandparents were immigrants to the U.S. who came from the Azores, an archipelago that is an autonomous region of Portugal. He grew up speaking some Portuguese.
9. Moniz serves in Chu's Blue Ribbon Commission on nuclear energy's future, which was tasked with finding new solutions for storing and disposing of nuclear waste. Moniz advocated transferring spent nuclear fuel from pools to dry casks.
10. On solar power, Moniz said he is "bullish," adding, "It just has so many features, including the fact that even though it's intermittent, at least it tends to be on when you want it." He adds, however, that fossil fuels like oil and gas will remain at the forefront of the world's energy picture for the foreseeable future.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Our changing generation mix
As an online editor, I handle stories every day of new wind farms going up or some local dignitaries pulling the switch for a new solar energy project. You read stories that use phrases like "dash for gas" or "war on coal," but absorbing stuff like this day by day has a way of numbing you to the big picture.
The big picture is that things are changing in a big way. I realized recently that the way I think about the generation mix in the U.S. is seriously out of date. I did a mental check. "OK, so natural gas is about 25 percent, nuclear is a steady 20 percent, coal is like half at least, right?"
Wrong.
New data from FERC shows the picture is changing drastically. Especially natural gas, coal and renewables. Wind and solar — which used to be relegated to a tiny sliver of the pie, or else an asterisk or an "other" — are contributing more than 5 percent of the total generation mix of the country.
Even more surprising perhaps is coal, which has fallen to less than 30 percent of the pie. What's replacing it, largely, is natural gas, which is now 42.37 percent of the mix.
Certainly I knew that coal-fired power plants were retiring. I hadn't missed those announcements. Indeed, sometimes it felt like the only coal stories I ever filed were those concerning coal power plants shutting down or switching to natural gas.
Nuclear, known for its reliability, is sticking at a steady 20 percent. However, given the potential of small modular reactors and the NRC granting new licenses, even just a few new projects going online could change that figure in the future.
Even unexpected generation technologies, like geothermal energy, seems to be showing some growth with more than 147 MW of new capacity being brought online last year — an increase of 5 percent from 2011.
I first started to notice this when FERC released a recap of the power generation that came online in 2012. Half of that new generation had been renewable energy. Some analysts I spoke to at the time considered this a fluke. They said there was no way that this could sustain itself. But FERC keeps reporting the data, and if anything the numbers look like this trend is speeding up. Coal is out, natural gas and renewables are in.
Things are changing in statistically significant ways. When you watch it every day, like energy experts tend to do, sometimes you can lose track of just how fast it's moving.
The big picture is that things are changing in a big way. I realized recently that the way I think about the generation mix in the U.S. is seriously out of date. I did a mental check. "OK, so natural gas is about 25 percent, nuclear is a steady 20 percent, coal is like half at least, right?"
Wrong.
New data from FERC shows the picture is changing drastically. Especially natural gas, coal and renewables. Wind and solar — which used to be relegated to a tiny sliver of the pie, or else an asterisk or an "other" — are contributing more than 5 percent of the total generation mix of the country.
Even more surprising perhaps is coal, which has fallen to less than 30 percent of the pie. What's replacing it, largely, is natural gas, which is now 42.37 percent of the mix.
Certainly I knew that coal-fired power plants were retiring. I hadn't missed those announcements. Indeed, sometimes it felt like the only coal stories I ever filed were those concerning coal power plants shutting down or switching to natural gas.
Nuclear, known for its reliability, is sticking at a steady 20 percent. However, given the potential of small modular reactors and the NRC granting new licenses, even just a few new projects going online could change that figure in the future.
Even unexpected generation technologies, like geothermal energy, seems to be showing some growth with more than 147 MW of new capacity being brought online last year — an increase of 5 percent from 2011.
I first started to notice this when FERC released a recap of the power generation that came online in 2012. Half of that new generation had been renewable energy. Some analysts I spoke to at the time considered this a fluke. They said there was no way that this could sustain itself. But FERC keeps reporting the data, and if anything the numbers look like this trend is speeding up. Coal is out, natural gas and renewables are in.
Things are changing in statistically significant ways. When you watch it every day, like energy experts tend to do, sometimes you can lose track of just how fast it's moving.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Energy stats to remember
Every now and then I like to be able to raise eyebrows with an impressive, unexpected or otherwise ... well, eyebrow-raising fact about energy. The people over at OPower shared a list they compiled with me, and I wanted to pass them on to you. Maybe you'll find one or two of them worth passing on.
The increase in power generation capacity from natural gas-fired power plants in the U.S. between 2000 and 2012: More than 96 percent.
As previously predicted on this blog, the dash for gas is a trend many energy analyists expect to see continue into 2013 and beyond.
In April 2012, for the first time ever in the U.S., the amount of power generated from natural gas was equal to that generated from coal. Because of low prices and other factors, natural gas is on the rise and coal is on the decline. Even given all of that, this is a statistic I wouldn't have easily guessed.
The annual cost of charging an iPhone 5: $0.41
I'm kind of surprised that Apple doesn't talk about this. I would. Then again, when it comes to getting people to want to buy their stuff, Apple has never had a problem with that at all. But still, that's pretty impressive. You can't buy much for four dimes and a penny, so to find out that gives your iPhone a year's worth of juice for that amount is surprising.
The year that the United States will become the world's largest producer of oil: 2017
"Drill here, drill now" say the bumper stickers. Well, we actually do quite a bit of drilling here and now. So much so, in fact, that the U.S. is giving Saudi Arabia a run for its money. And America beating the Saudis at drilling oil is a bit like beating Canada at hockey. It's kind of their thing.
The consequences of this trend are obvious. The U.S. gets to brag that it is less reliant on foreign oil than ever before. This has been a goal of every president since Richard Nixon, and one it felt like we'd never make any real progress on. But we have managed already to become a net exporter of petroleum, and we did it with expanded drilling, new technology and energy efficiency.
2012's rank in the list of the warmest years ever recorded in the continental United States: No. 1
I am writing this blog from Tulsa, Oklahoma. And nobody knows this fact better than we Oklahomans. Except perhaps Texans. During the summer we were trapped in a cruel heat bubble, and we had a winter that wasn't a winter.
Me personally, I'd rather be hot than cold, and part of me enjoyed a winter that was more cool than cold, but it is creepy to see weather act this way. Especially when storm season rolls around. Watching the damaging hurricanes and hybrid "Frankenstorms" of the past year have made more people than yours truly wonder whether "once in a lifetime" weather is the new normal.
The average miles per gallon of new cars sold in the first half of 2012 in the U.S.: 23.8 MPG
Consumers rank fuel economy as the first question they ask a car salesman about, and no wonder with fuel prices being what they are. But high gas prices and consumer demand is only one factor. Government action is another. Congress passed new CAFE standards in 2007. The measures of this law are now taking effect and the average fuel economy of a car is expected to rise to 35.5 MPG by 2016.
The proportion of U.S. households that have a smart meter installed: 1 in 3
The number of smart meters deployed in the U.S. has increased fivefold in just five years. Utilities love them because they provide the two-way communication that helps them in so many different ways, and some consumers like them too because they can make billing easier and make sure they don't pay too much for the electricity they use.
By mid-decade, it's predicted that half of U.S. households will have a smart meter installed. Economists foresee that the world smart meter market could grow to $34 billion in spending from 2012 to 2020.
The number of new nuclear reactors in the U.S. that were granted licenses in 2012: 2
These were, of course, the first new licenses granted to any nuclear reactor in the U.S. since 1978. For fans of nuclear energy, this is an exciting number. Perhaps even more exciting than that is the number of new nuclear reactors currently under consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 16 other plants across the country have applications with the NRC to build 25 new reactors.
The number of nuclear reactors that Japan has announced it will close by 2040: 50
Likewise, if you're not a fan of nuclear energy, here's a statistic that should be important to you. Japan is, by and large, getting out of the nuclear power industry when it used to be at the forefront of the science of nuclear energy. A surprising development that few would have predicted a few years back, when many were talking about a worldwide nuclear renaissance. If there is a nuclear renaissance, it doesn't look like it will be happening in Japan. It's not looking too good in Germany, Switzerland or France, either.
The percentage of energy that is wasted in the U.S. every year: 56.2 percent
That's right, the U.S. wastes more energy than it uses. Despite recent advances in the world of energy efficiency, we are still a deeply inefficient country when it comes to what we do with our energy once it's generated. Of the 97.3 quadrillion British Thermal Units of raw energy that the U.S. generates, only 41.7 were used constructively. Most of this wastage has to do with how we generate energy in the first place. Most power plants are inherently inefficient. As is our transportation sector, even though it is becoming more efficient.
Thanks again to OPower for helping gather these facts.
The increase in power generation capacity from natural gas-fired power plants in the U.S. between 2000 and 2012: More than 96 percent.
As previously predicted on this blog, the dash for gas is a trend many energy analyists expect to see continue into 2013 and beyond.
In April 2012, for the first time ever in the U.S., the amount of power generated from natural gas was equal to that generated from coal. Because of low prices and other factors, natural gas is on the rise and coal is on the decline. Even given all of that, this is a statistic I wouldn't have easily guessed.
The annual cost of charging an iPhone 5: $0.41
I'm kind of surprised that Apple doesn't talk about this. I would. Then again, when it comes to getting people to want to buy their stuff, Apple has never had a problem with that at all. But still, that's pretty impressive. You can't buy much for four dimes and a penny, so to find out that gives your iPhone a year's worth of juice for that amount is surprising.
The year that the United States will become the world's largest producer of oil: 2017
"Drill here, drill now" say the bumper stickers. Well, we actually do quite a bit of drilling here and now. So much so, in fact, that the U.S. is giving Saudi Arabia a run for its money. And America beating the Saudis at drilling oil is a bit like beating Canada at hockey. It's kind of their thing.
The consequences of this trend are obvious. The U.S. gets to brag that it is less reliant on foreign oil than ever before. This has been a goal of every president since Richard Nixon, and one it felt like we'd never make any real progress on. But we have managed already to become a net exporter of petroleum, and we did it with expanded drilling, new technology and energy efficiency.
2012's rank in the list of the warmest years ever recorded in the continental United States: No. 1
I am writing this blog from Tulsa, Oklahoma. And nobody knows this fact better than we Oklahomans. Except perhaps Texans. During the summer we were trapped in a cruel heat bubble, and we had a winter that wasn't a winter.
Me personally, I'd rather be hot than cold, and part of me enjoyed a winter that was more cool than cold, but it is creepy to see weather act this way. Especially when storm season rolls around. Watching the damaging hurricanes and hybrid "Frankenstorms" of the past year have made more people than yours truly wonder whether "once in a lifetime" weather is the new normal.
The average miles per gallon of new cars sold in the first half of 2012 in the U.S.: 23.8 MPG
Consumers rank fuel economy as the first question they ask a car salesman about, and no wonder with fuel prices being what they are. But high gas prices and consumer demand is only one factor. Government action is another. Congress passed new CAFE standards in 2007. The measures of this law are now taking effect and the average fuel economy of a car is expected to rise to 35.5 MPG by 2016.
The proportion of U.S. households that have a smart meter installed: 1 in 3
The number of smart meters deployed in the U.S. has increased fivefold in just five years. Utilities love them because they provide the two-way communication that helps them in so many different ways, and some consumers like them too because they can make billing easier and make sure they don't pay too much for the electricity they use.
By mid-decade, it's predicted that half of U.S. households will have a smart meter installed. Economists foresee that the world smart meter market could grow to $34 billion in spending from 2012 to 2020.
The number of new nuclear reactors in the U.S. that were granted licenses in 2012: 2
These were, of course, the first new licenses granted to any nuclear reactor in the U.S. since 1978. For fans of nuclear energy, this is an exciting number. Perhaps even more exciting than that is the number of new nuclear reactors currently under consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 16 other plants across the country have applications with the NRC to build 25 new reactors.
The number of nuclear reactors that Japan has announced it will close by 2040: 50
Likewise, if you're not a fan of nuclear energy, here's a statistic that should be important to you. Japan is, by and large, getting out of the nuclear power industry when it used to be at the forefront of the science of nuclear energy. A surprising development that few would have predicted a few years back, when many were talking about a worldwide nuclear renaissance. If there is a nuclear renaissance, it doesn't look like it will be happening in Japan. It's not looking too good in Germany, Switzerland or France, either.
The percentage of energy that is wasted in the U.S. every year: 56.2 percent
That's right, the U.S. wastes more energy than it uses. Despite recent advances in the world of energy efficiency, we are still a deeply inefficient country when it comes to what we do with our energy once it's generated. Of the 97.3 quadrillion British Thermal Units of raw energy that the U.S. generates, only 41.7 were used constructively. Most of this wastage has to do with how we generate energy in the first place. Most power plants are inherently inefficient. As is our transportation sector, even though it is becoming more efficient.
Thanks again to OPower for helping gather these facts.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Land of the rising sun runs increasingly on solar power
UPDATE: Shortly after this blog was written, Reuters reported
that Japan will shortly introduce a plan to wean itself off of nuclear
energy entirely by as soon as 2030. This development will doubtless
result in an entirely new energy policy and eventually an entirely new
generation mix for the country.
In many spots around the globe, power producers and utilities are looking to deconcentrate their grids away from large, centralized power generators and steer them more toward distributed generation. There are cons to this approach, but the benefits are attractive, at least in theory.
While some countries have the luxury of carefully weighing these pros and cons, there is one country that's being forced by current events to decentralize, and rapidly, just to keep the lights on.
New research indicates that post-Fukushima Japan is now the world's third-largest solar energy markets, with nearly 5 GW of installed solar capacity. Germany and Italy, respectively, are the first and second. In some ways, though, this is a return to form for Japan rather than a new development.
In the 1990s and the early 2000s, Japan was the world leader in solar. Due to the cancelation of programs that backed solar (as a result of the government response to the "Lost Decade" depression in that country) and an accompanying shift toward nuclear power, Japan took its eye off the ball when it came to solar energy.
Then, of course, came the earthquake, the tsunami and the Fukushima disaster.
(Photo credit: Shutterstock)
Since then, Japan's government has taken a second look at solar, and added more than 1 GW of solar capacity last year. The majority of this new generation is grid-connected, with all the benefits and drawbacks that adds.
With the adoption of new solar-friendly regulations and generous tariffs, companies across Japan's economic spectrum have announced plans to set up solar parks and install rooftop solar arrays on their properties. To boot, Japan is also one of the world leaders in manufacturing solar cells, modules and other key materials that support the solar energy supply chain.
Can a country replace a highly productive nuclear fleet with solar energy? That question raises further questions, but it's certainly a daring strategy and it will be interesting to watch unfold.
In many spots around the globe, power producers and utilities are looking to deconcentrate their grids away from large, centralized power generators and steer them more toward distributed generation. There are cons to this approach, but the benefits are attractive, at least in theory.
While some countries have the luxury of carefully weighing these pros and cons, there is one country that's being forced by current events to decentralize, and rapidly, just to keep the lights on.
New research indicates that post-Fukushima Japan is now the world's third-largest solar energy markets, with nearly 5 GW of installed solar capacity. Germany and Italy, respectively, are the first and second. In some ways, though, this is a return to form for Japan rather than a new development.
In the 1990s and the early 2000s, Japan was the world leader in solar. Due to the cancelation of programs that backed solar (as a result of the government response to the "Lost Decade" depression in that country) and an accompanying shift toward nuclear power, Japan took its eye off the ball when it came to solar energy.
Then, of course, came the earthquake, the tsunami and the Fukushima disaster.
Since then, Japan's government has taken a second look at solar, and added more than 1 GW of solar capacity last year. The majority of this new generation is grid-connected, with all the benefits and drawbacks that adds.
With the adoption of new solar-friendly regulations and generous tariffs, companies across Japan's economic spectrum have announced plans to set up solar parks and install rooftop solar arrays on their properties. To boot, Japan is also one of the world leaders in manufacturing solar cells, modules and other key materials that support the solar energy supply chain.
Can a country replace a highly productive nuclear fleet with solar energy? That question raises further questions, but it's certainly a daring strategy and it will be interesting to watch unfold.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Fukushima a disaster made in Japan
The Japanese government's official report on the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear disaster hit the internet earlier this morning and now everyone is picking apart what it means.
The parliamentary report purports to assign some level of responsibility for the accident, and the part that is making headlines so far is the finding that it was "man made," which must be opposed to a natural disaster — even though it was a natural disaster that touched the meltdowns off in the first place. The report, by the way, took half a year to put together, and the commission who authored it had the authority to compel government agencies to surrender pertinent information whether they wanted to or not.
Man-made failures that occurred both before and after last year's earthquake and tsunami were chiefly to blame for the Fukushima disaster, the report holds. This is probably the strongest-worded rebuke that plant operator TEPCO has received through official channels to date.
The commission's chairman wrote that the triple meltdown cannot be regarded as a natural disaster, but went on to say that it could have been prevented with a more effective human response.
In a twist that might be hard for Westerners to understand, the report places blame on Japanese culture itself.
"Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: Our reflexive obedience, our reluctance to question authority, our devotion to sticking with the program, our groupism and our insularity," according to the preface of the report. "Had other Japanese been in the shoes of those who bear responsibility for this accident, the result might well have been the same."
It's sharply worded indeed, but it also comes right on the heels of the 1 trillion yen (or about $12.5 billion) bailout from the Japanese government that will both save the company and put the government in charge of it. At least temporarily, if all goes as planned.
It's interesting to note that this report, unlike some others, did not specifically say that the magnitude-9 earthquake did not damage equipment or structures at the Fukushima plant. Most other reports held that the plant withstood the earthquake only to succumb to tsunami damage.
These findings could challenge some of the design assumptions the Japanese nuclear industry and the Japanese government (which are, even now, regarded as especially cozy) have stood by over the past few decades.
The report devoted a good deal of attention to the relationship between industry and government in Japan, implying that TEPCO lobbied the government to slacken regulations. To build this case, the commission requested information from Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.
Government mismanagement of the situation as it evolved, the report also said, didn't help matters. The report's writers made it explicit that TEPCO can't and shouldn't try to pin blame on the government, however.
When Japan's government gave the nod to restart the first reactors to complete their required stress tests, those restarts were met with public protests. The public, perhaps understandably, thinks nuclear energy is too dangerous. A suite of new safety requirements — maybe passed in the wake of reports like this one — could create a new argument for protesters: That nuclear power is too expensive.
The parliamentary report purports to assign some level of responsibility for the accident, and the part that is making headlines so far is the finding that it was "man made," which must be opposed to a natural disaster — even though it was a natural disaster that touched the meltdowns off in the first place. The report, by the way, took half a year to put together, and the commission who authored it had the authority to compel government agencies to surrender pertinent information whether they wanted to or not.
Man-made failures that occurred both before and after last year's earthquake and tsunami were chiefly to blame for the Fukushima disaster, the report holds. This is probably the strongest-worded rebuke that plant operator TEPCO has received through official channels to date.
The commission's chairman wrote that the triple meltdown cannot be regarded as a natural disaster, but went on to say that it could have been prevented with a more effective human response.
In a twist that might be hard for Westerners to understand, the report places blame on Japanese culture itself.
"Its fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: Our reflexive obedience, our reluctance to question authority, our devotion to sticking with the program, our groupism and our insularity," according to the preface of the report. "Had other Japanese been in the shoes of those who bear responsibility for this accident, the result might well have been the same."
It's sharply worded indeed, but it also comes right on the heels of the 1 trillion yen (or about $12.5 billion) bailout from the Japanese government that will both save the company and put the government in charge of it. At least temporarily, if all goes as planned.
It's interesting to note that this report, unlike some others, did not specifically say that the magnitude-9 earthquake did not damage equipment or structures at the Fukushima plant. Most other reports held that the plant withstood the earthquake only to succumb to tsunami damage.
These findings could challenge some of the design assumptions the Japanese nuclear industry and the Japanese government (which are, even now, regarded as especially cozy) have stood by over the past few decades.
The report devoted a good deal of attention to the relationship between industry and government in Japan, implying that TEPCO lobbied the government to slacken regulations. To build this case, the commission requested information from Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.
Government mismanagement of the situation as it evolved, the report also said, didn't help matters. The report's writers made it explicit that TEPCO can't and shouldn't try to pin blame on the government, however.
When Japan's government gave the nod to restart the first reactors to complete their required stress tests, those restarts were met with public protests. The public, perhaps understandably, thinks nuclear energy is too dangerous. A suite of new safety requirements — maybe passed in the wake of reports like this one — could create a new argument for protesters: That nuclear power is too expensive.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Too early to use the phrase 'nuclear renaissance' again?
Back around late 2008 when I worked for Power Engineering, one of our sister publications in the electric power trade media people were using the phrase "nuclear renaissance" quite a bit.
Is it too early to talk about a nuclear renaissance again? The short answer is: "Probably." The only other answer I can think of right now is, "Time will tell."
With both 2008 presidential candidates supporting a new fleet of nuclear plants and nearly 40 planned nuclear reactors ready to be constructed around the world, my senior editors told me a "sea change" was happening. Those were their exact words. The industry hadn't been buzzing about nuclear energy this much since the days before the Three Mile Island accident, they said.
This was, of course, before the world economy hit rock bottom and an earthquake-spawned tsunami swamped the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, touching off the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. That was before Japan's nuclear industry was shattered, Germany pulled out of nuclear energy entirely and few countries seemed eager to pursue anything resembling a renaissance.
For an industry that has for so long been defined by the terrible accidents associated with it, and not for the carbon-free energy that it produces as baseload electricity for some 30 countries, good news has often been scarce.
Even when people don't think about nuclear disasters, they tend to think of nuclear energy as being more expensive than it appears. While it is true you can fuel cities on just a few small pieces of fissionable material, the sheer amount of cash it takes to get those fuel rods humming in a fully constructed plant makes nuclear energy seem more promising on paper than it is in the real world.
So maybe it's because this industry hasn't gotten much good news over the past decade that people who advocate for nuclear energy are willing to latch on to any bit of progress. That progress may be arriving with the approval of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency's first Combined Constriction and Operating Licenses ever.
At Southern Co.'s Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.'s Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station, the idea of the nuclear renaissance is being tested yet again. The approvals of the licenses are a big step — a historic step, even. But there is still a lot standing in the way of a true renaissance.
The first time Americans started talking about a nuclear renaissance was around the turn of the century. Perhaps key here was that natural gas and coal prices had spiked. Today, natural gas is dirt cheap, and there's a rush to build more gas-fired turbines. One might justifiably ask now why we shouldn't just build a fleet of gas-fired units instead of a large, expensive nuclear plant.
While there is still some dispute over cost-per-megawatt figure building a nuclear plant represents, no one will call that figure low. Even as large as modern power utilities are, some doubt whether there's a single utility with a balance sheet large enough to float a loan to build one — thus requiring the advent of nuclear consortiums, perhaps even international ones.
Then there's the problem of getting plans for a plant past the local public utility commissions, who must approve these expenditures. In today's economy, they might want to know why the utility doesn't want to choose a cheaper generation technology. Plant Vogtle's builders said they wanted to diversify into nuclear energy because they don't want to be held hostage to a future spike in natural gas prices. This seems logical, but bureaucrats can be less than logical.
Finally, you've got to sell the idea to a post-Fukushima public that is more skeptical of nuclear than ever. Even if you manage to find a receptive audience and the locals do want a nuclear plant, anti-nuclear and other hostile environmental organizations will be more emboldened than they were a decade ago when the talk of a nuclear renaissance first started.
There are still 18 expansion projects comprising 28 nuclear units that have applied for COLs, including Vogtle and Summer, according to the NRC. I'm thinking that potential nuclear power plant builders are thanking heaven for small favors that they are able to apply for and occasionally get a COL approved. Licensing might actually be one of the easier things about building a nuclear plant.
Then again, editors have long memories and we can be a cynical bunch. Just because we've heard this stuff before doesn't mean big things aren't about to happen.
Is it too early to talk about a nuclear renaissance again? The short answer is: "Probably." The only other answer I can think of right now is, "Time will tell."
With both 2008 presidential candidates supporting a new fleet of nuclear plants and nearly 40 planned nuclear reactors ready to be constructed around the world, my senior editors told me a "sea change" was happening. Those were their exact words. The industry hadn't been buzzing about nuclear energy this much since the days before the Three Mile Island accident, they said.
This was, of course, before the world economy hit rock bottom and an earthquake-spawned tsunami swamped the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, touching off the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. That was before Japan's nuclear industry was shattered, Germany pulled out of nuclear energy entirely and few countries seemed eager to pursue anything resembling a renaissance.
For an industry that has for so long been defined by the terrible accidents associated with it, and not for the carbon-free energy that it produces as baseload electricity for some 30 countries, good news has often been scarce.
Even when people don't think about nuclear disasters, they tend to think of nuclear energy as being more expensive than it appears. While it is true you can fuel cities on just a few small pieces of fissionable material, the sheer amount of cash it takes to get those fuel rods humming in a fully constructed plant makes nuclear energy seem more promising on paper than it is in the real world.
So maybe it's because this industry hasn't gotten much good news over the past decade that people who advocate for nuclear energy are willing to latch on to any bit of progress. That progress may be arriving with the approval of the Nuclear Regulatory Agency's first Combined Constriction and Operating Licenses ever.
At Southern Co.'s Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.'s Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station, the idea of the nuclear renaissance is being tested yet again. The approvals of the licenses are a big step — a historic step, even. But there is still a lot standing in the way of a true renaissance.
The first time Americans started talking about a nuclear renaissance was around the turn of the century. Perhaps key here was that natural gas and coal prices had spiked. Today, natural gas is dirt cheap, and there's a rush to build more gas-fired turbines. One might justifiably ask now why we shouldn't just build a fleet of gas-fired units instead of a large, expensive nuclear plant.
While there is still some dispute over cost-per-megawatt figure building a nuclear plant represents, no one will call that figure low. Even as large as modern power utilities are, some doubt whether there's a single utility with a balance sheet large enough to float a loan to build one — thus requiring the advent of nuclear consortiums, perhaps even international ones.
Then there's the problem of getting plans for a plant past the local public utility commissions, who must approve these expenditures. In today's economy, they might want to know why the utility doesn't want to choose a cheaper generation technology. Plant Vogtle's builders said they wanted to diversify into nuclear energy because they don't want to be held hostage to a future spike in natural gas prices. This seems logical, but bureaucrats can be less than logical.
Finally, you've got to sell the idea to a post-Fukushima public that is more skeptical of nuclear than ever. Even if you manage to find a receptive audience and the locals do want a nuclear plant, anti-nuclear and other hostile environmental organizations will be more emboldened than they were a decade ago when the talk of a nuclear renaissance first started.
There are still 18 expansion projects comprising 28 nuclear units that have applied for COLs, including Vogtle and Summer, according to the NRC. I'm thinking that potential nuclear power plant builders are thanking heaven for small favors that they are able to apply for and occasionally get a COL approved. Licensing might actually be one of the easier things about building a nuclear plant.
Then again, editors have long memories and we can be a cynical bunch. Just because we've heard this stuff before doesn't mean big things aren't about to happen.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
FROM THE ARCHIVES: Is Yucca Mountain Dead?
American news agencies from the Las Vegas Sun to the New York Times are reporting the demise of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project. And, honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about that.
I know how I’m supposed to feel---at least, in parts. The Democrat in me wants to follow Harry Reid and say “good riddance to bad rubbish that never actually worked.” But, the industry insider in me thinks, “Well, OK. Yucca was super flawed, but where’s the waste going to go now?”
All this fuss centers around page 65 of President Obama’s budget, which proposes the Yucca Mountain elimination and allocates lots o’ millions, instead, for the Department of Energy (DOE) to explore alternatives to the Nevada site. In fact, the 2009 United States Federal Budget, “A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise,” proposes to eliminate funding for the repository almost entirely.
The report states, “The Budget focuses on improved performance and accountability for the environmental legacy of the Nation’s nuclear weapons program by addressing health and safety risks across the country. The Yucca Mountain program will be scaled back to those costs necessary to answer inquiries from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal.”
So, they’re killing it by not funding it. It’s a pretty common political play. And, again, the divide seems to fall a lot along party lines with this. Dems are celebrating; repubs are annoyed. The donkey dances; the elephant harrumphs.“For more than two decades, some have persistently tried to turn a piece of the magnificent Nevada desert just outside of Las Vegas into a dumping ground for dangerous nuclear waste. I am proud to say that today, with the release of President Obama’s budget, that idea is dead,” stated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about the developments in his home state. It’s been pretty common knowledge that he hated the Yucca project for years. He hasn’t exactly made it a secret.Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) added, “President Obama is making good on the promise he made to end Yucca Mountain, and this budget takes us closer than ever before to permanently burying this $100 billion dinosaur in the Nevada desert. Support for Yucca Mountain has collapsed.”
The Republicans aren’t quiet, either. In late April, when news of this funding cutoff filtered through political channels, seventeen GOP senators wrote to Energy Secretary Chu asking for a rationale of the decision. The letter was penned by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). Former presidential candidate John McCain was among the 16 senators who signed Inhofe’s letter. The DOE stated that Inhofe will receive an answer to his letter, but no response has yet been made public by the DOE.And, just this morning, Chicago writer Dennis Bryne, penned an editorial on the Chicago Tribune’s Web site claiming that the demise of Yucca Mountain’s repository “would leave Illinois with the shaft” while the state holds onto nearly 7,000 tons of nuclear waste.“Now, the question becomes whether Illinois' Democratic senators---Dick Durbin and Roland Burris---will adequately represent the state's and nation's interests by fighting to keep the Yucca Mountain project alive,” Bryne wrote. “Ah, but you know they won't.”
Yucca Mountain was selected in 1987 as a potential repository for nuclear waste created from the process of electricity production, including spent nuclear fuel rods and solidified high-level radioactive waste. It has been a contentious subject for over 20 years and the project itself has never been completed. And that’s why I don’t know exactly how to feel. As a proponent of nuclear, I’m a little sad. But, as someone who has been in the business almost a decade---long enough to follow only half of the Yucca debate---I can’t help but think of what my grandfather would say after 20 years of wrangling and wrestling with an issue: Girl, it’s time to fish or cut bait.The Obama Administration chose to cut bait. And while I may not agree with it, while I may be wondering what that all means for nuclear energy’s future, I can’t help but agree that it was past time for a decision of some kind to be made.
I know how I’m supposed to feel---at least, in parts. The Democrat in me wants to follow Harry Reid and say “good riddance to bad rubbish that never actually worked.” But, the industry insider in me thinks, “Well, OK. Yucca was super flawed, but where’s the waste going to go now?”
All this fuss centers around page 65 of President Obama’s budget, which proposes the Yucca Mountain elimination and allocates lots o’ millions, instead, for the Department of Energy (DOE) to explore alternatives to the Nevada site. In fact, the 2009 United States Federal Budget, “A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise,” proposes to eliminate funding for the repository almost entirely.
The report states, “The Budget focuses on improved performance and accountability for the environmental legacy of the Nation’s nuclear weapons program by addressing health and safety risks across the country. The Yucca Mountain program will be scaled back to those costs necessary to answer inquiries from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal.”
So, they’re killing it by not funding it. It’s a pretty common political play. And, again, the divide seems to fall a lot along party lines with this. Dems are celebrating; repubs are annoyed. The donkey dances; the elephant harrumphs.“For more than two decades, some have persistently tried to turn a piece of the magnificent Nevada desert just outside of Las Vegas into a dumping ground for dangerous nuclear waste. I am proud to say that today, with the release of President Obama’s budget, that idea is dead,” stated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) about the developments in his home state. It’s been pretty common knowledge that he hated the Yucca project for years. He hasn’t exactly made it a secret.Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) added, “President Obama is making good on the promise he made to end Yucca Mountain, and this budget takes us closer than ever before to permanently burying this $100 billion dinosaur in the Nevada desert. Support for Yucca Mountain has collapsed.”
The Republicans aren’t quiet, either. In late April, when news of this funding cutoff filtered through political channels, seventeen GOP senators wrote to Energy Secretary Chu asking for a rationale of the decision. The letter was penned by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.). Former presidential candidate John McCain was among the 16 senators who signed Inhofe’s letter. The DOE stated that Inhofe will receive an answer to his letter, but no response has yet been made public by the DOE.And, just this morning, Chicago writer Dennis Bryne, penned an editorial on the Chicago Tribune’s Web site claiming that the demise of Yucca Mountain’s repository “would leave Illinois with the shaft” while the state holds onto nearly 7,000 tons of nuclear waste.“Now, the question becomes whether Illinois' Democratic senators---Dick Durbin and Roland Burris---will adequately represent the state's and nation's interests by fighting to keep the Yucca Mountain project alive,” Bryne wrote. “Ah, but you know they won't.”
Yucca Mountain was selected in 1987 as a potential repository for nuclear waste created from the process of electricity production, including spent nuclear fuel rods and solidified high-level radioactive waste. It has been a contentious subject for over 20 years and the project itself has never been completed. And that’s why I don’t know exactly how to feel. As a proponent of nuclear, I’m a little sad. But, as someone who has been in the business almost a decade---long enough to follow only half of the Yucca debate---I can’t help but think of what my grandfather would say after 20 years of wrangling and wrestling with an issue: Girl, it’s time to fish or cut bait.The Obama Administration chose to cut bait. And while I may not agree with it, while I may be wondering what that all means for nuclear energy’s future, I can’t help but agree that it was past time for a decision of some kind to be made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
