41st Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs

Energy density matters ~ graphic courtesy of Pop Atomic Studios

The 41st Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is up at CoolHandNuke. The carnival is a weekly round-up of the best blog posts from  the leading nuclear bloggers in the United States.

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear  renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

Past editions have been hosted at NEI Nuclear Notes, Next Big Future, Atomic Insights, Idaho Samizdat, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Canadian Energy Issues, and Yes Vermont Yankee, in addition to several other popular nuclear energy blog sites.

If you have a pro-nuclear energy blog and would like to host an edition of the carnival, please contact  Brian Wang at Next Big Future to get on the rotation.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support. Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or blog to support the carnival.

# # #

The NN World List of Nuclear Power Plants

The hard-copy March edition of Nuclear News will soon be in the hands of American Nuclear Society members. That edition will also be available electronically to members. The edition contains the 13th Annual Reference Issue, which includes a 34-page special section on the World List of Nuclear Power Plants. The special section includes:

• Notes on the 2011 World List of Nuclear Power Plants
• The World List of Nuclear Power Plants
• Power Reactors by Nation; Power Reactors by Type, Worldwide
• Abbreviations Used in the List
• Nuclear Power Plants No Longer in Service
• Maps of Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide
• U.S. Power Reactor License Renewal
• New Power Reactor Projects in the United States; U.S. Power Reactor Ownership/Operator Changes

In addition, the March issue features a Q&A article with Doug Kothe, director of the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL), a project announced by the Department of Energy in 2009 as part of its Energy Innovation Hub initiative. CASL’s mission is to create a virtual environment for predictive simulation of light-water reactors.

Dome removed from the Hector reactor

Other items of note in the March issue include news about GE Hitachi’s ESBWR, Westinghouse’s AP1000, and Toshiba’s ABWR nearing design certification; the NRC’s pressing of TVA on Watts Bar-2 fire protection; the final environmental impact statement for Calvert Cliffs-3, which awaits additional information from UniStar; Shaw’s temporary halting of module prototype work at a fabrication facility; the denial of one petition and the proposing of others in the license renewal proceeding for Vermont Yankee; Holtec’s creation of a subsidiary to develop a small modular reactor design; the NRC’s easing of Oconee inspections and increasing oversight of Robinson-2; the GAO’s review of guidelines for securing smart grid systems; the NNSA’s work in West Africa on border security; Brazil’s and Argentina’s signing of an agreement to build research reactors; GE Hitachi signing of supply agreements with two Polish companies; the withdrawal of major investors from Romania’s Cernavoda-3 and -4 project; news of the political turmoil that erupted in Egypt as a nuclear tender was planned; Canada’s Bruce Power’s plan to ship decommissioned steam generators to a Swedish recycling facility; EDF’s adding to its nuclear decommissioning fund; the NRC extending the time period for on-site storage of used nuclear fuel; a dome removed from a heavy-water test reactor at Savannah River Site; General Electric’s closing on a $3-billion deal to acquire Dresser Inc.; Westinghouse signing of an agreements on fuel fabrication, AP1000 deployment in China; high-energy collisions at Large Hadron Collider are delayed until 2014; USEC looks to continue operations at Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant; U.S., international partners establish the National Center for Radioecology; and the NRC issues notice to medical licensees on release of patients treated with iodine.

Past issues of Nuclear News, including the February issue, are available here.

This post first appeared on the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

ANS president-elect Eric Loewen visits City College of New York

American Nuclear Society president-elect Eric Loewen on February 17 visited the City College of New York (CCNY). Loewen presented a talk during the noon hour on “Nuclear Reactor Physics at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl” to an audience of about 40 engineering faculty members and students. Most students were from CCNY’s mechanical or chemical engineering programs and have taken, or are currently taking, at least one of the college’s nuclear engineering concentration courses:

• Reactor physics
• Thermal hydraulics
• Nuclear Power Plant Safety
• Nuclear power plant design/operation

Following the presentation, Loewen met with the students in the nuclear program, answered their questions, and gave them individualized advice on how to set a path for a career in the nuclear industry.  Loewen’s presentation was part of a lecture series that has included other speakers in the past and will include other speakers in the future.

“I’ve received nothing but praise about Eric’s presentation,” said Charles Sosa, a nuclear engineering student who invited Loewen to the college. “I’ve spoken to all nuclear engineering concentration students at CCNY, including other engineering students and faculty who are not involved in the nuclear program, and all were thoroughly impressed by the mixture of science and humor that Eric incorporated into his presentation.”

Loewen speaks at CCNY

The concentration program

In spring 2010, the CCNY Grove School of Engineering started the concentration in nuclear engineering for its mechanical and chemical engineering  students. The program is run by CCNY Professor Masahiro Kawaji. An ANS Student Club was formed in 2010 as a direct result of the enthusiasm expressed by students to expand education beyond the classroom by attending ANS conferences and hosting talks by scientists and engineers in the nuclear industry. CCNY is currently working to get the student club recognized as an official ANS Student Section.

Loewen and CCNY engineering faculty and students (Sosa is standing furthest left)

The seeds for Loewen’s visit were sown in 2010, when Loewen gave a talk at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) about his nuclear fuel cycle work for GE-Hitachi. Sosa was a student researcherat GISS under the NASA MUST (Motivating Undergraduate and Science and Technology) program and briefly met with Loewen before his fuel cycle presentation.

Afterward, Sosa entered the nuclear engineering concentration program in conjunction with his CCNY mechanical engineering studies. Students in the concentration program are encouraged to bring industry experts to give lectures, and so Sosa reached out to Loewen, informed him about the newly formed nuclear program at CCNY, explained that the student body is enthusiastic about nuclear energy, and invited him to visit.

Future activities

The Grove School of Engineering

The concentration program and the CCNY ANS students are planning to continue a guest lecturer series highlighting the nuclear industry. John Yoshinari, chief operating officer of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, on February 24 presented “The Technical and Financial Aspects of the Nuclear Business.” The nuclear concentration program is planning two nuclear energy plant visits—to the Indian Point and Salem facilities. A visit to Brookhaven National Laboratory is also being scheduled.

2011 nuclear technology scholarships

The Mississippi Section of the American Nuclear Society is offering two $1000 college scholarships to Mississippi high school graduates or college undergraduates. Scholarship winners are chosen from state-wide applications.

The application deadline is May 1, 2011.

“Selection gets harder every year because of the high caliber of students applying,” said Ryan Doerr, ANS Scholarship chair. Doerr is a senior engineer in procurement engineering at Entergy’s national nuclear fleet headquarters in Jackson, Miss. This is the sixth year that the Mississippi section of ANS has offered scholarships that encourage student interest in nuclear science, technology, and related fields.

The ANS scholarships are awarded to Mississippi students who will be enrolled or are currently enrolled full-time in college courses in science, mathematics and/or technical areas. Recipients are chosen based on academic achievement, extracurricular activities, an essay, and letters of recommendation from counselors and teachers.

To apply for the scholarship and for more information, go here.

The Mississippi Chapter of ANS is located at the Entergy Nuclear national fleet headquarters in Jackson, Miss., and at Entergy”s Grand Gulf nuclear plant in Port Gibson, Miss., with membership from area health care and nuclear power professionals promoting the awareness and understanding of the application of nuclear science and technology.  The chapter’s website is here.

Established in 1954, ANS is a professional organization of scientists and engineers devoted to the applications of nuclear science and technology. Its 11 500 members come from diverse technical disciplines ranging from physics and nuclear safety to operations and power, across the full spectrum of the national and international nuclear enterprise including government, academia, research laboratories,  and private industry. The ANS website is here.

Thoughts on meeting the Clean Energy target

By George Stanford

President Obama has declared “a bold but achievable goal of generating 80 percent of America’s electricity from clean sources by 2035.” How we are to get there is not spelled out, so there is room for speculation about just what the administration has in mind.

In searching for enlightenment, one might turn to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administra­tion (EIA), which projects energy supply and demand to 2035.  The EIA predicted in December 2010 that electricity consumption will grow “from 3,745 billion kilowatt-hours in 2009 to 4,880 billion kilowatt-hours in 2035 . . . , increasing at an average annual rate of 1.0 percent.”  Well and good, but the EIA is of no help on the clean energy front. The agency’s accompanying chart would seem to be seriously out of step with Obama’s 80-percent goal, because it foresees 68 percent coming from coal and natural gas in 2035.

But wait a minute—we haven’t yet discovered what constitutes a “clean source.”  For that, we can perhaps go to the U.S. Senate and look at “S.20—Clean Energy Standard Act of 2010”—a bill introduced last year but never voted on, which is probably just as well. Its definitions of “clean energy” could drive a person to drink. There are 13 categories of clean energy, labeled (A) through (L), many of them with definitions convoluted enough to curl your toes.  (If you feel up to it, brace yourself and read the bill.)

I will comment only on category (I), “qualified nuclear energy,” whose definition, while surprising, seems at first to be not at all complex. Here it is: “The term ‘qualified nuclear energy’ means energy from a nuclear generating unit placed in service on or after the date of enactment of this section.” In other words, the output of the 104 currently operating nuclear power plants in the United States would not qualify as clean according to the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2010—except some of it might, after all, because there is this added complexity: “incremental” nuclear energy from current plants does qualify as clean (with limitations I won’t go into, but you can read about them in the bill):

“(13) INCREMENTAL NUCLEAR PRODUCTION- The term `incremental nuclear production’ means the incremental quantity of energy generated by an existing nuclear facility over the average quantity of energy generated at the facility during the preceding 3-year period that is attributable to permanent efficiency improvements or capacity additions made on or after the date of enactment of this section.”

The point of all this is that there’s no telling what weird and wonderful national energy policy will emerge as the vector sum of the various political forces influencing the decision-making process.

From a simple-minded technical viewpoint, the president’s 80 percent target should mean that four-fifths of our electricity would be generated by nuclear and the non-nuclear renewables by 2035, with the remaining one-fifth from fossil fuels. Using the EIA’s numbers, we have average electricity consumption of 427 GW (in 2009) growing to 557 GW in 2035, of which 445 GW would be from carbon-free sources—mainly nuclear—and 111 GW from coal and gas (currently  about 340 GW).  Note that with today’s 100-odd GW of nuclear power excluded from the “clean” category as defined in S.20, the 80 percent goal leads to 545 GW from carbon-free sources and 11 GW from coal.

To me, even the first of those outcomes seems too unrealistic (politically, not technically) to be contemplated by President Obama or Energy Secretary Chu.  Presumably, then, their assumption is that large-scale carbon sequestration will become practical. Or maybe the creative souls who came up with the definitions in S.20 will work some more semantic magic. But few goals are cast in concrete, and most likely this one will be modified as time passes.

Let’s face it—the United States is constitutionally unable to formulate and implement a coherent, rational, long-term energy policy. As it becomes increasingly evident that nuclear fission is destined to supply the bulk of the world’s energy needs, our erstwhile international leadership in the development and deployment of the technology continues to recede.

We live in interesting times.

Stanford

George Stanford is a nuclear reactor physicist, part of the team that developed the Integral Fast Reactor. He is now retired from Argonne National Laboratory after a career of experimental work pertaining to power-reactor safety. He is the co-author of Nuclear Shadowboxing: Contemporary Threats from Cold War Weaponry.

The nuclear-themed Indy cars

By Paul Bowersox

IndyCar is the premier open wheel racing series in the United States. IndyCar features street races, road races, and oval track races around the country, including the world famous Indianapolis 500. “Indy cars” are technologically quite sophisticated, as they are built only for racing. One particular Indy car this season will be sporting a clean, new nuclear-themed look, courtesy of the Entergy, the second largest owner and operator of nuclear power plants in the United States.

2011 "Nuclear Clean Air Energy" IndyCar

Nuclear energy’s hardest-driving spokesperson: Racer Simona de Silvestro

De Silvestro

The race car,  no. 78, is driven by one of the most promising young drivers in open-wheel racing, 22-year-old Simona de Silvestro, winner of the 2010 Indy 500 Rookie of the Year Award.

De Silvestro dominated the developmental 2009 Atlantic Championship Series. She was the first woman in Atlantic Championship history to earn the most wins and pole positions, and to lead the most laps in a single season. In 2010, de Silvestro moved up to the top tier IndyCar Series. She led the field for several laps in her very first IndyCar race in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and finished in the top 10 in races in Toronto and Ohio. Entergy sponsored her in the 2010 Indianapolis 500, where she carried the message of emission-free nuclear energy on her racing uniform and racing car to an impressive 14^th place rookie finish.

Entergy sponsored de Silvestro in the 2010 Indy 500 race

Enter Entergy with a new three-year sponsorship

Pit crew unveils 2011 Nuclear Clean Air Energy car

On January 24, 2011, Entergy Corporation made the official announcement of a new three-year primary sponsorship for de Silvestro and her team, HVM Racing. This rare long-term sponsorship, and the all new look of car no. 78, are the latest in Entergy’s Nuclear Clean Air Energy national education campaign. This campaign has reached millions of fans at racetracks, college campuses, and community events with its message of promoting emission-free nuclear power. These important exhibits and events use the eye-catching car to open up essential one-on-one discussions between the public and nuclear engineers, and to aid in recruiting prospective employees for the nuclear sector.

De Silvestro and fans

At the official announcement of Entergy’s sponsorship, an elated de Silvestro said, “It’s pretty special to have a sponsor like Entergy and to have such an important campaign as the Nuclear Clean Air Energy initiative. It’s a great message.” John Herron, Entergy chief nuclear officer, added at the sponsorship announcement, “Education is key to smarter energy consumers, and doing so with a young role model like Simona couldn’t be better.” De Silvestro is widely known in the racing circuit as affable, very approachable, genuinely pro-nuclear, and a fan favorite with a huge following.

Simona de Silvestro discusses her 2010 racing season here.

Simona de Silvestro gets her memory tested when she is asked to trace the Barber Motorsports course while blindfolded:

The ANS IndyCar Outreach Program

The story of nuclear promotion in open wheel racing spans nearly two decades. Denis Beller, research professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas (UNLV) and an American Nuclear Society Landis Public Communication & Education Award winner, was instrumental in using Indy cars to promote nuclear technology: “We had this wonderful source of electricity, medical breakthroughs, industrial applications… [in 1994] I was an IndyCar fan who had observed racing being used to successfully promote many organizations and causes, and I thought ‘Why not nuclear?'”

De Silvestro and Beller at Entergy's 2011 sponsorship announcement event

“I called Carl Haas at Newman-Haas Racing and explained my idea [in 1994, eight years before being introduced to Haas’s partner Paul Newman],” said Beller, “and he suggested that I call Dick Simon, co-owner of Dick Simon Racing. I also called Sharon Kerrick at ANS, and she got it instantly.” With approval from the ANS board of directors, Beller and Dick Simon Racing decided to put nuclear decals on the Simon team’s show car for the ANS Winter Meeting. Thus was born the ANS IndyCar Outreach Program.

IndyCar Outreach nuclear communications exhibit, 1996

“My wife and I towed the car [and showed it] all over the country during 1995,” said Beller. Among these very successful early exhibits were showings at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Engineering Expo, the Mall of America in Minnesota, Northern States Power headquarters in Minnesota, Milwaukee Machine Tool Expo, Purdue University in Indiana, the Toronto Grand Prix, and, of course, the Indy 500.

Complementary exhibits by ANS local and student sections at many events promoted the benefits of nuclear energy to the public, policymakers, some celebrities, and often local television crews.

Beller, Newman, and Wachs

In 2002, Beller was introduced to actor and racing enthusiast Paul Newman. Beller hosted visits by Newman to the Department of Energy’s proposed Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and to a nuclear waste recycling research project at UNLV. During the visits, nuclear issues were discussed. Newman, who eventually became a strong proponent of nuclear energy, co-founded Newman Wachs Racing (NWR) in 2006 with fellow racing enthusiast Eddie Wachs.

Several companies formed by Wachs are involved in nuclear design, modification, repair, maintainance, and decommissioning, and Beller wanted to meet Wachs and tour the companies. “We met on a Monday, and after quite a bit of discussion, he invited me to dinner,” said Beller. “We came up with the idea of the philanthropic use of their cars to promote nuclear power and ANS. Sharon Kerrick quickly got permission from ANS to put its decals on the race cars. By Thursday, NWR’s marketing exec was flying to a race in Mexico with ANS’s decals in her bags.” At the race that weekend in 2006 in Monterrey, Mexico, the ANS logo appeared prominently on the air for several minutes via the in-car camera.

ANS logo on 2006 NWR Car rear wing

Go Nuclear!

With the success of the Monterrey race, nuclear decals on NWR cars eventually expanded to a full ‘Go Nuclear!’ livery. The new look on exhibit helped with setting a student recruitment record into the nuclear program at Purdue University in 2006, and in 2007 local and student ANS sections set up very successful nuclear communications exhibits at races in San Jose, Denver, Las Vegas, and Road America [Wisconsin]. Of course, the car’s message was unmistakable on the racetrack.

Go Nuclear! car at Road America Wisconsin race 2006

Nuclear Clean Air Energy 2008

After two years of nuclear logos and livery on NWR cars, by 2008 the continuous efforts of Beller and other key ANS members had attracted the attention of Entergy, the Nuclear Energy Institute, and the newly-formed Nuclear Clean Air Energy campaign. That year, then-19-year-old de Silvestro drove Newman and his partner Wachs to their first Atlantic Championship victory in the 2008 Nuclear Clean Air Energy car.

2008 Long Beach Grand Prix champion

Newman-Wachs 2008 Nuclear Clean Air Energy car and driver

“My wife Judy deserves much of the credit for this whole thing,” said Beller. “She traveled with me all over the country towing the Indy show car, helped me unload the car from trailers and trucks and maneuver it into some very tight spots and move it up and down ramps—it had no engine or brakes and was very valuable—and she set up and ran exhibits sometimes 12 or more hours a day, stood by me at professional meetings, worked with ANS students, took thousands of photographs, convinced nuclear industry leaders that it would work, and so much more.”

There was a lot of support from many prominent people in ANS, “including then-President Alan Waltar of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Don Hoffman at Excel Services, Sharon Kerrick at ANS,” said Beller. “I thank every ANS member who has helped with exhibits or who has otherwise supported my many public communication efforts.”

Newman, longtime nuclear racing supporter Hoffman, and Wachs in 2006

De Silvestro with the last word and hopefully first place

Beller with 2011 Nuclear Clean Air Energy Indycar

When de Silvestro later moved to HVM Racing, Entergy’s interest in her ability to promote nuclear energy followed, with a sponsorship at the 2010 Indy 500, and now this year’s multi-year racing sponsorship. The first and lead spokesperson for Nuclear Clean Air Energy, de Silvestro perhaps summed it up best before the 2010 Indy 500 race: “Clean energy generation is a key issue globally, and I’m glad to be representing an industry that is a viable, green option.”

Look for the talented young driver in a new, clean green-and-white nuclear-themed car beneath the checkered flag this Indy racing season—along with a message of support for clean nuclear energy.

Bowersox

Paul Bowersox is a new open-wheel auto racing enthusiast and freelance writer who lives near Mid-Ohio Speedway and holds a master’s degree in science policy.

He is a guest contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

Nuclear budget proposals for FY 2012

By Jim Hopf

The Obama administration, and the Department of Energy, recently released their fiscal year 2012 budget request for nuclear related programs. The budget request is pretty favorable to nuclear, given the current pressure in Washington to cut spending.

Request details

The administration is, again, requesting an additional $36 billion in new nuclear plant loan guarantee volume, which would increase the total loan guarantee volume to $54 billion. This request was made last year, but was not appropriated by Congress. This increase in loan guarantee volume would increase the total number of covered projects to 9–13 reactors.

With respect to nuclear-related research and development, overall spending was reduced slightly (~3 percent), from $775 million to $754 million, versus the 2010 budget. (2011 spending was based on a continuing resolution, from the 2010 budget.) There are significant changes in funding, however—new initiatives, the termination of some existing funded programs, and some rearrangement and reorganization of some of the ongoing R&D efforts.

The most significant new initiative concerns small modular reactors (SMRs).  The budget request includes $100 million in support for SMR development.  This includes $67 million for sharing the licensing and development costs with industry for multiple light-water SMR designs. An additional $33 million is applied to general SMR R&D. Also increasing is the funding for fuel cycle R&D, which increased from $132 million to $155 million.

Programs that have been reduced include the Nuclear Power 2010 program, which is zeroed out because the DOE believes that the program has achieved its objective, and the Next Generation Nuclear Plant project, whose funding was reduced to $50 million. The Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems R&D program has been zeroed out, but most of that research will be funded under the new “Reactor Concepts Research” and “Nuclear Energy Enabling Technologies” R&D programs, which together have a similar overall funding level.

One area of concern with the new budget request is the fact that the administration has zeroed out the $5 million in DOE funding for the “Integrated University Program.” This program was jointly funded by the NRC and the DOE in the past. The NRC has also not requested funds for this program for the new year. In response to the need for large numbers of new graduates in the nuclear field, universities across the country used the previous funding to create large numbers of nuclear faculty positions. With the cut off in funding, those universities will find it difficult to actually fill those positions.

House budget proposals

The administration’s budget request must, of course, be approved by Congress.  Details are still sketchy, but it appears at present that the budget being considered by the House is less supportive of nuclear than the administration’s budget request.

Initial indications are that the House budget reduces overall nuclear R&D spending (for FY 2012) by $131 million, including a $70-million reduction in the budget for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant. The overall DOE science budget is reduced by roughly $1 billion.

With respect to loan guarantees, the House is considering eliminating all non-nuclear loan guarantees. While the budget would not eliminate the current ($18.5 billion) nuclear loan guarantee volume, it would not increase the loan guarantee volume, as requested by the administration.

Several amendments to the House budget bill have been filed, including amendments that seek to reinstate loan guarantees for renewables, and amendments that seek to remove all funding for the Yucca Mountain project and for any NRC licensing activities related to Yucca Mountain. None of these amendments are considered likely to pass, however.

Senate actions

How the Senate will react to both the administration’s and the House’s budget proposals remains to be seen. There is also significant bipartisan movement in the Senate to develop and introduce Clean Energy Standard (CES) legislation that would, of course, have a dramatic impact on nuclear’s future prospects. The CES is also supported (and being pushed) by the administration. It is unclear, however, if any such standard will be able to pass in the House.

Hopf

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer at EnergySolutions, with 20 years’ experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10 years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

Chicago ANS gets National Engineers Week rolling

The Chicago local section of the American Nuclear Society launched  activities for National Engineers Week a day early on Saturday, February 19, by presenting a student engineering workshop. The event was hosted by the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry (MSI), the largest science museum in the western hemisphere. The workshop was part of a series in which high school science achievers learn about different science disciplines and career paths. The workshop included 26 high school students from across Chicago, an MSI education coordinator, and two adult MSI volunteers.

The workshop was featured on ABC Channel 7’s local news at 5 p.m. on February 19:

Representing the Chicago ANS local section and overseeing the student activities were:

• Natalie Zaczek—Exelon, Dresden plant—mechanical engineer
• Paul Stalec—Sargent & Lundy LLC—mechanical engineer
• Marissa Seloover—Exelon, Dresden plant—electrical engineer
• Rona Banai—EPIR Technologies—chemical engineer

Chuck Vincent of ANS Headquarters introduced the workshop by talking about the role of engineers in our modern world—citing students’ use of cell phones, roads and bridges, electricity, etc.—and how National Engineers Week provides an opportunity for students to learn about the kind of work that engineers do.  Zaczek, Stalec and Seloover then spoke about their engineering specialties.

Zaczek introduced the engineering challenge:  Work in a group to design an apparatus to allow an egg to drop from a height of 5 feet and have it “stop” within 2 inches of the floor without breaking. Students were given a variety of materials: one nylon leg from a pair of panty hose, balloons, rubber bands, string, plastic bags, and pennies.

Students test their prototypes

The students first designed and tested a prototype of their design (without the egg). Then, under the watchful eyes of their fellow students, they tested the design for their “thrill ride” using a raw egg. The initial results weren’t quite on target. One group broke its egg; the other groups had the egg stop too far above the floor. Groups were given additional time to tweak or redo their designs.

Then, the final demonstrations followed. In the final round, four of the six student groups achieved the goal. One group managed to stop the egg 1.5 inches from the floor. The remaining two groups made significant improvements in their work.

Throughout this activity, there was discussion of HOW engineers work to solve problems, including testing prototypes before attempting to employ the planned solution. Students asked many questions of the four engineers, covering such things as how long do engineers have to come up with solutions, how did they find their jobs after college, and what kind of training is important. About half of the students indicated an ongoing interest in engineering. After this activity, virtually all the students said that they had a better understanding of how engineers work.

“This very successful event is an example of what a local section or student section can achieve with enthusiastic volunteers and advance planning,” said Chuck Vincent, ANS Outreach administrator. “We hope to see other sections working on plans for National Nuclear Science Week and National Engineers Week next year.”

Students work on final designs during the National Engineers Week workshop held by the Chicago ANS local section

ANS local sections, student sections, and individual members can all help students and the general public develop a better understanding of the important role of engineers. For a list of 50 ideas about how to participate in National Engineers Week, visit Get Involved.

Talking about my (nuclear) generation

By Meredith Angwin

I was not born a geek, but by the time I was a 10-year-old buying books at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, my path was set. Some considered this as an unfortunate background, so I had to learn the hard way how to handle myself in debates  and how to answer aggressive questions. Below, I share what I have learned in defending my position, in the hope that it will help others.

Get asked a question, give a long repetitive answer

I am a scientist, which means that if you ask me a technical question, I try to give an accurate and concise answer. When I do this in debate, the opposition usually runs right over me. Anti-nuclear activists are very willing to fill airtime with their own voices. They are often paid professionals, trained in debate. Sometimes a strong moderator can help keep things fair, but not always.

I once watched a videotape of myself debating, and I was astounded at how little speaking time I had. (For what it is worth, this problem is not just mine. When NRC Chairman Jaczko came to Brattleboro, many people noted that he spoke for less than two minutes at a time before getting interrupted.)

Advice: When you get the floor, hold it. Say everything at least two  different ways. Do your best to prevent people from interrupting by pointing out that they ARE interrupting.

You deserve equal time, but you won’t be given equal time. You will have to take it assertively.

Learn to get your message across with blocks and bridges

Your opponents will rarely answer the question they were asked. Instead, they block the question, and bridge themselves back to whatever point they were planning to make anyway. In a recent debate in Vermont, State Senator Dick McCormack was a master at this. His main point was “a deal is a deal, and the Vermont Yankee deal [to close the plant down] was for 40 years.”

Almost everything led him back to his point. If you talked about economic impact of Vermont Yankee closing, he was quick to say that “Everybody knew the deal, so why are people surprised at the job loss?” No discussion of economic consequences for him: everything leads back to “a deal is a deal.”

You can’t make the opponents answer the questions, but you can block and bridge yourself as necessary.

(I know that it goes against the grain). You should learn to do this,  and keep this method in your arsenal of responses. It’s about getting your message verbalized and out there, not about convincing your opponents of anything by logical argument simply because they really won’t be listening. They will hear your words, but not digest them.

The audience may be convinced by your steady, repeated message. The opponents won’t be convinced by anything you can say.

Be ready for the shotgun questions

There is one situation in which you must block and bridge. If someone asks a reasonable question, you may well choose to answer that questions. When someone approaches with a loaded shotgun, you must block and bridge.

For example, on a radio talk show, some people called with single questions.  The question might not have been exactly flattering: “Doesn’t that cooling tower collapse prove Vermont Yankee is falling apart?” I usually answer single questions directly, however.

Other questioners loaded up their shotguns and asked multiple questions. They want to know about tritium, the fuel pool, the cooling towers, the Price Anderson act, etc. I have counted up to eight questions in a string. If you try to answer all of them, you will take up the rest of the show with their laundry list of concerns. Or, if you answer the first three, for example, you may be accused of ducking the later questions. So, what to do?

Don’t even begin to respond to a shotgun question. When you meet a shotgun, block and bridge.

“Thank you for your questions. It is clear that you are concerned with nuclear safety, and I am happy to tell you that nuclear is the safest form of energy production…” etc.

A shotgun question is an opportunity to get your own point across.

My final advice: Forgive yourself

My last advice is to forgive yourself. You go out there, and you do better than you think you do. Yes, you should have blocked that one…you will do it next time. Yes, the opponent interrupted and said something outrageous and you couldn’t stop him. Yes, it wasn’t perfect.

Face it. You are usually up against paid professional activists who have training in debate. You are up there as a geek, and you are saying what needs to be said and saying it to the best of your ability.

By being in the public forum and telling the truth, you are doing a service for the future of the world. Forgive  yourself for not doing it perfectly.

Angwin

Meredith Angwin is the founder of Carnot Communications, which helps firms to communicate technical matters. She specialized in mineral chemistry as a graduate student at the University of Chicago. Later, she became a project manager in the geothermal group at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Then she moved to nuclear energy, becoming a project manager in the EPRI nuclear division. She is an inventor on several patents. Angwin serves as a commissioner in the Hartford Energy Commission, Hartford, Vt.

Angwin is a long-time member of the American Nuclear Society and coordinator of the Energy Education Project. She is a frequent contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

40th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The fuel cycle is a frequent topic in the nuclear blogsphere

This is the 40th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs. The carnival  features blog posts from the leading U.S. nuclear bloggers and is a roundup of featured content from them.

If you want to hear the voice of the nuclear renaissance, the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs is where to find it.

This is a great collaborative effort that deserves your support. Please post a Tweet, a Facebook entry, or a link on your Web site or blog to support the carnival.

Bloggers call foul on NRC licensing and Yucca Mountain

The staff at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission might feel like a soccer ball at a World Cup match after reading the critiques of three nuclear bloggers. In their view, the NRC is not scoring any points with them. Their issues are decision processes for relicensing, how fast the agency moves applications for new licenses through its approval process, and the increasingly muddy waters of the end of the Yucca Mountain project.

Yes Vermont Yankee

Yes Vermont Yankee notes that Duane Arnold and Vermont Yankee are sister nuclear plants. Duane Arnold’s license review took two years and two months.  Vermont Yankee’s license review is at five years and counting. It is pointed out that if the NRC were actually using objective criteria to evaluate plants, this would not happen.

Next Big Future

The NRC does not have enough money to process all the COL (combined operating license) applications in 42 months. Some of the applications, however, are not ready for prime time because of deficiencies, and other license reviews have been suspended at the applicant’s request. The situation is better with reactor design certification. There, NRC expects to finish by 2011 (claim made in 2009) all three that it has docketed.

CoolHandNuke

The NRC has just released a heavily redacted version of the Yucca Mountain review. This action has been justified using a maneuver within the Freedom of Information Act, the process by which the Heritage Foundation sought access to these documents.

What was redacted, you ask? Well, it was the scientific analysis and unbiased recommendation of the NRC staff, something that the taxpayers and nuclear utilities have paid millions upon millions of dollars for, but Chairman Jaczko seems bent on preventing.

Spent fuel is here to stay

An example of dry cask storage

Three states are suing the NRC over the issue of spent fuel stored in dry casks at the Indian Point nuclear plant. New York’s attorney general led the charge.

Idaho Samizdat – New York’s AG sues over spent fuel at Indian Point.

Idaho Samizdat reports that the state of New York has sued the NRC over the issue of storage of used nuclear fuel in dry casks at the Indian Point reactors in Westchester county. It is a politically motivated act promoted by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo ,who campaigned on a platform of closing Indian Point.

Idaho Samizdat – New York may have lost the case before the ink was dry. New York’s lawsuit may fail as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled against an anti-nuclear group in California that sued over the very same issue at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. If courts in New York look at the Ninth Circuit ruling for precedent, it could turn serious litigation into nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Learning from the opposition

People who are opposed to nuclear energy are good at what they do. The public is scared silly about radiation as a result. Are there ways to push back?  Several bloggers explore the landscape.

Pop Atomic – Learning from anti-nukes: An alternative strategy.

Save Vermont Yankee ~ original artwork by Pop Atomic Studios

Anti-nuclear activists are good at exploiting cracks in the media coverage of thenuclear industry. Can the nuclear industry learn from this tactic? Is is a good idea?

It may seem like anti-nukes “don’t get it,” but you must admit that they are good at what they do, and they do make nuclear projects as difficult as possible.

It is time to take a closer look at what is working for anti-nukes, and examine exactly what they are trying to achieve. Is it possible that we have a lot to learn from each other?

Nuke Power Talk – Are people finally getting it or not?

People are beginning to capture the subtleties of the issues of nuclear power compared with other energy sources. An editorial entitled “Energy Roulette” in  the Washington Post calls for a technology-neutral carbon reduction standard, saying that if “the government interest is in reducing climate change…why should government aid only wind and solar?”

NEI Nuclear Notes – big splash in USA Today.

Editions of USA Today in many regions of the country include a special section on the nuclear energy industry. The section includes a foreword by Nuclear Energy Institute president and chief executive officer Marvin Fertel on the value of nuclear energy, as well as articles and advertising from many nuclear energy companies.

Nuclear Fissionary – Greenpeace activists swarm Spanish nuclear site.

Greenpeace activist on cooling tower at Spanish nuclear plant

Twenty Greenpeace activists entered a nuclear reactor compound in eastern Spain and several of them climbed a cooling tower to protest the use of nuclear power, a Spanish official and Greenpeace spokeswomen said.

Some of them attacked and injured three security officers. The men were assaulted as the angry mob of activists painted the word “peligro” or danger on the cooling tower.

Greenpeace claims that this reckless stunt demonstrates that nuclear power plant security is weak. The truth is, the cooling tower is outside of the secure areas of the plant and the activists never got anywhere near the reactor or the redundant security barriers.

Nuclear Town Hall – Report on fuel rods creates false fears.

A story about potential defects in reactor fuel rods was siezed upon by citizens groups opposed to nuclear energy. On closer inspection, however, the story reveals that alarmist hand-wringing over a gloom-and-doom scenario is not warranted.

If the rods begin to crack, they release boron and tritium into the cooling water, a condition that can easily be monitored.

“As long as there is no significant increase in boron or tritium observed, the recommendation would be continue operation until the end of the operating cycle,” NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, told the Wall Street Journal.

Areva North America Next Energy – Survey says American support nuclear energy.

A survey found that 79 percent of respondents agree that “to jump-start investment and maintain U.S. competitiveness, the federal government should provide guarantees backing loans for buildings solar, wind, advanced-design nuclear power plants, or other energy technology that reduces greenhouse gases.” Nineteen percent of those surveyed do not agree, and two percent don’t know.

Those who “strongly agree” outnumber those who “strongly disagree” by a similarly lopsided margin, 46 percent to 10 percent.

This was a telephone survey of 1000 U.S. adults was conducted on February 10-13 by Bisconti Research Inc./GfK Roper for the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Thorium fueled reactors generate interest

Nuclear Green – Rising interest in thorium fueled reactors.

Full-size thorium fuel assembly for a 1000 MWe Russian VVER-1000 nuclear power plant

Now that China has announced interest in developing innovative thorium-fueled reactor designs, a lot of people are paying attention.

Despite [the Chinese announcement of LFTR development plans] not making a ripple in the wider press, there’s a chance this development could be very significant. If the advocates of LFTRs are proved correct—and their arguments are certainly very compelling—then the Chinese could be taking one of the first substantial steps in a new type of nuclear race.

And the stakes are high: as Kirk Sorensen reports, the project “aims not only to develop the technology, but to secure intellectual property rights to its implementation.” It will be very interesting to see what happens next.

Oil company business model v. nuclear energy

Atomic Insights – Embargo oil business model.

The Atomic Insights blog has been covering the business competition between oil, gas, and nuclear energy. This week, it takes on the oil company business mode,l exploring reasons why it is low on innovation, yet high on profits.

ANS launches India Section

ANS Nuclear Cafe – A passage to India.

ANS India Local Section officers (from left: Kumar, Deshpande, Joshi, and McDaniel)

The American Nuclear Society presented the charter to the ANS local India Section at its inaugural event held in Mumbai, India, on February 11, 2011. ANS Past President Harold McFarlane led the presentation of the charter, which was granted in November 2010 by the ANS Board of Directors.

The keynote address for the meeting was given by Vice Admiral John Grossenbacher, director of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), who talked about recent U.S. developments in nuclear research and development.

The event was hosted by the U.S. Counsel General for Mumbai, Paul A. Folmsbee, and attended by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke. The event took place with the simultaneous visit to India by representatives of 24 U.S. firms on a trade mission. A delegation from INL also visited.

Reprocessing used fuel

Recovering uranium and plutonium from used fuel can power a nation’s factories and cities. We recycle aluminum, glass, and paper, so why not used fuel? The logic appears to escape some in the United Kingdom and elsewhere

Canadian Energy Issues

Get ready for a righteous fight over plutonium in the UK. The coalition government has launched consultations on the question of whether to recycle it in power reactors, or entrain the stuff permanently in glass logs and dispose of it, or just keep it in long-term storage.

Expect the professional environmental lobby—with the full support of the professional anti-proliferation lobby—to oppose recycling, and to back up that opposition with reasoning that is either weak or outright contradictory.

Brave New Climate – Safeguarding the nuclear fuel cycle.

The purpose of this post is to compare the safeguards challenges presented by two nuclear recycle approaches, relative to the current U. S. approach of a once-through fuel cycle. If these nuclear fuel cycles are evaluated solely on the basis of the safeguards needed, one finds the following:

PUREX recycle offers no safeguarding advantage over the once-through fuel cycle. Beyond that, this approach presents a significant concern over handling of separated plutonium in the power plant environment. Since chemically pure Pu is inherent in the PUREX process, safeguards inspections must be highly intrusive.

Adding recycling fast reactors with pyroprocessing (“PYRO”) to an existing fleet of LWRs absorbs all of the plutonium produced by LWRs. There will be no inventories of plutonium other than what is in active use. PYRO is a new class of facility requiring safeguards, but batch-process inventory controls, coupled with a simple mechanical layout, will make the inspectors’ jobs more straightforward than for a PUREX facility.

The facility for recovering usable material from used LWR fuel may require safeguards similar in approach to those in PUREX facilities, but no separated plutonium will be involved. If plutonium were to be diverted from a PYRO facility or from the LWR recovery facility, it would be useless (for weapons use) without further processing in an otherwise unneeded PUREX type of facility.

Realistically, a full transition to recycling fast reactors is a process that will take decades. If, however, all the LWRs were retired and replaced with recycling fast reactors, in addition to the above advantages, there would be no further need for uranium enrichment.

This is a guest post by William Hannum, a member of the Science Council for Global Initiatives who has worked for more than 40 years in nuclear power development, stretching from design and analysis of the Shippingport reactor to the Integral Fast Reactor.

Hannum earned his BA in physics at Princeton and his MS and PhD in nuclear physics at Yale. He has held key management positions with the U. S. Department of Energy.

Hannum is a fellow of the American Nuclear Society, and has served as a consultant to the National Academy of Engineering on nuclear proliferation issues.

# # #

Nominations open for ANS Young Member awards

Nominations are now being accepted for two American Nuclear Society awards established to recognize the important contributions of young members and the ANS Young Members Group (YMG) to ANS as a whole.  Nominations for the Young Members Advancement Award and the Young Members Excellence Award are due by July 1, 2011.  Each award is presented annually at the ANS Winter Conference.

Advancement award

The Young Members Advancement Award is granted to an individual or a group who has

• increased membership or participation of young members
• created leadership or experience opportunities for young members
• trained or mentored young members
• raised funding for young members
• publicly supported the cause of young members, or
• taken other actions to get young members involved with ANS on a national level

Special consideration is given to those whose actions have far-reaching effects, such as positively influencing large numbers of young members or setting a public example for young member outreach. Past honorees may be found here.

Young Members Advancement Award recipients are selected by the YMG Honors and Awards Committee. Nominees need not be ANS members, ANS-based organizations, or YMG members, but must be living at the time of selection. Further information, including nomination materials and instructions, is available on the ANS website.

Excellence award

Established by the YMG in 2007, the Young Members Excellence Award recognizes a young member who has demonstrated overall excellence in a variety of areas. It is presented annually to an individual who

• is a member of the ANS Young Members Group
• is involved with ANS at the national level
• actively advances the goals of the ANS Young Members Group
• displays outstanding non-technical skills as well as technical or managerial ability
• is recognized by others in their field
• demonstrates high quality and safety standards, and
• positively represents nuclear science and technology to the general population

Emphasis is placed on well-rounded candidates who demonstrate a history of continuing excellence. The candidate must be under the age of 36 or within five years of graduation at the time of nomination (i.e., fulfilling the ANS definition of “young member”). Past honorees may be found here.

Young Members Excellence Award recipients are selected by the YMG Honors and Awards Committee. Nominees must be members of ANS and YMG. Further information, including nomination materials and instructions, is available on the ANS website.

Vietnam’s nuclear ambitions are quickly realized

Russia and Japan will build the first four of 16 planned reactors

By Dan Yurman

Map of Vietnam

Flying under the radar of global market intelligence reports, Vietnam has quietly inked deals with Russia and Japan to build 4 GWe of nuclear power generating capacity. The first power station, composed of twin Russian 1000-MW VVER reactors, will enter revenue service in 2020. The second, composed of two Japanese-built reactors, will follow a few years later.

Russia signed the deal in December 2009 to build the first two reactors. The Japanese deal, a first for the nation’s newly-formed nuclear export program, was inked last October.

Projections are that total demand for electricity in Vietnam is estimated to increase rapidly from 65 GWe in 2020 to 92 GWe in 2025. Of that amount, the country hopes to deploy the first 4 GWe of a planned 16 GWe of nuclear generating capacity by the 2025 date. It plans to double its nuclear energy commitment to 8 GWe by 2030. A total of eight sites in five provinces are being considered for the new power stations.

There are two drivers for rapidly rising demand for electricity. The first is  that Vietnam is now a major global center for high tech manufacturing. Intel is building a $1 billion computer chip factory there, the world’s largest. Also, Vietnam has substantial bauxite ore reserves and wants to develop a finished goods aluminum manufacturing industry. Smelter operations are huge consumers of electric power.

Vietnam’s rapid build-out of nuclear reactors also faces some stiff challenges, including the need for trained personnel and an effective, fully funded nuclear regulatory infrastructure. For now, the country is importing nuclear engineering expertise, along with technology, while sending its citizens to Japan and Russia for technical training.

Russia are first movers for new nuclear power stations

VVER conceptual design. Graphic: Nuclear Tourist

The Russian-built nuclear power station, Ninh Thuan-1, will be a turn-key operation with financing through Atomstroyexport. Rosatom, Atomstroyexport’s parent firm, has committed to supply the fuel and retrograde the used fuel back to Russia. The two reactors are estimated to cost $11 billion, with most of the money coming from Rosatom. The Vietnam Electricity organization (EVN) will be the operator of the reactors.

Like Russia, Japan has committed to providing export credits for construction of two reactors up to 85 percent of the cost. A consortium of Japanese firms will build the two reactors for about $11 billion. Several Japanese government ministries, and quasi-government organizations, will coordinate contract details with the government of Vietnam, including Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry.

The Vietnamese government has said that it is not interested in building a uranium enrichment capability due to the political sensitivities of China. Also, since the Russians and Japanese have signed identical agreements to provide reliable fuel services, and take back used fuel, Vietnam can avoid the expense of building its own enrichment and used fuel facilities.

Regulatory agency still a work in progress

According to the Vietnam News Agency, the lack of an independent regulatory framework for the country’s rapidly developing nuclear program is a significant challenge. The Vietnam Agency for Radiation and Nuclear Safety was upgraded in March 2008 with 11 new laws passed by the National Assembly. In January 2009, the agency issued regulations for licensing nuclear power stations and to certify the qualifications of workers assigned to the reactors.

Phan Minh Tuan, a Vietnamese utility executive at EVN, which will operate the new Russian reactors, told an international nuclear conference in January thst the government is allocating funds to pay for development and implementation of the nuclear energy regulatory framework. There are, however, no indigenous nuclear engineering schools, so new workers are being sent overseas for training. A delegation of Vietnamese engineers participated in a recent tour of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission under the sponsorship of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Recruiting technical workers for nuclear plants will be a challenge as more than 50 percent of the nation’s workforce is involved in agriculture, much of it at a subsistence level. Only 15 percent of work force is employed in manufacturing or other professions requiring more than an elementary education. These workers are filling slots in factories such as the ones being built by Intel and other multi-nationals.

The Vietnamese government is faced with another challenge, and that is to meet the IAEA’s requirements for transparency and openness in its nuclear regulatory system. Vietnam’s socialist state allows only one political party—Communists—to participate in elections. Elections for the unicameral national assembly are held every five years. Nongovernmental organizations that advocate for democracy are not recognized by the government. It is unclear how the public or any citizens groups will engage with the nuclear regulatory process.

According to the CIA Work Fact Book, Vietnam is a densely populated developing country that in the past 30 years has had to recover from the ravages of war, the loss of financial support from the old Soviet Bloc, and the rigidities of a centrally planned economy.

Vietnamese authorities have reaffirmed their commitment to economic liberalization and international integration. This change has drawn industry to the country for its low labor rates. Developing enough electricity to meet demand is the key success factor for continued growth.

Prospects for U.S. firms

Uranium ore can yield 4 to 15 pounds U3O8 per ton

No U.S. firms are in line for deals to build nuclear energy projects in Vietnam. The U.S. State Department is still negotiating a 1-2-3 agreement with the Vietnamese government, which could include provisions related to uranium enrichment programs. Vietnam has a reported uranium reserve of 8000 tU in Quang Nam province, but no mining is underway there at this time.

Westinghouse and G.E. Hitachi have shown an interest in pursuing contracts for future reactors. Until U.S. diplomats sort out the nonproliferation issues in a 1-2-3 agreement, however, the companies’ hands are tied.

The United States and Vietnam established formal diplomatic relations in 1990. The war in Vietnam killed 58 000 U.S. soldiers and more than 3 million Vietnamese. The country remains influenced by its long-term relationship with Russia, despite sharing its northern border with China.

Yurman

Dan Yurman publishes Idaho Samizdat, a blog on nuclear energy. He is a contributing reporter for Fuel Cycle Week and a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

National Defense University publishes SMR article

The Institute for National Strategic Studies—a component of the National Defense University—has published a new article examining the potential for using small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) to address the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DOD) dependence on civilian power grids. The article also looks at the potential for using SMRs in the field.

Key points

The full article can be found here. The key points are excerpted below:

• Without DOD intervention, the United States runs the risk of an SMR market dominated by foreign countries, further eroding U.S. commercial nuclear power capabilities and damaging U.S. control over nuclear energy proliferation.
• DOD has recently expressed interest in the possibility of integrating SMRs on military bases as part of its strategy to “island” bases from the fragile civilian power grid.
• SMR technology offers a host of benefits over traditional large reactors—namely, a smaller footprint, scalable design, factory-based construction, portability, and passive safety features.
• DOD has a chance to become a “first mover” in the emerging SMR market; by providing assistance and guidance to the private sector, DOD can ensure that successful designs meet its operational needs.

About the authors

Andres

Richard B. Andres is professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College and a Senior Fellow and Energy and Environmental Security and Policy chair in the Center for Strategic Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies, at the National Defense University.

Hanna L. Breetz is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The march of time, nuclear wise

By Peter Caracappa

I teach students of engineering. Many of them (although certainly not all) prefer logarithms to literature and algebra to anthropology. No doubt they get a fair share of that in my classes, but I try to include a bit of history whenever I can.

My students all know that matter is made up of atoms. They know that those atoms are made up of electrons that are orbiting around a central nucleus, which itself is a mixture of protons and neutrons. “When did you first learn these concepts—the nucleus, protons, and neutrons?” I like to ask. For many, it was elementary school, or possibly early in middle school. Regardless, it is clearly something that we teach to children, and it is perceived as an “obvious” fact of nature.

Then I point out that 100 hundred years ago, these theories simply did not exist that today we consider so fundamental to our understanding of the nature of matter. One hundred years ago, there were airplanes, automobiles, and electric lights, but no such concept as the nucleus.

Rutherford

In fact, it will be 100 hundred years ago this May that Ernest Rutherford published a paper in Philosophical Magazine positing the idea that atoms consist of a dense nucleus surrounded by electrons (Rutherford E. [1911]. “The Scattering of α and β Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom”. Philosophical Magazine, Series 6 21: 669-688).  I think this is a centennial worth celebrating!

Okay, so maybe some will peg the 100th anniversary to the gold foil experiments performed by Rutherford’s students Geiger and Marsden in 1909 .  So be it—there are plenty more anniversaries to come:  it wasn’t until 1913 that Bohr put forth his theory of orbiting electrons, and it was all the way to 1932 before Chadwick demonstrated the existence of that last puzzle piece that made the entire field of nuclear engineering possible, the neutron (although a neutral nuclear particle was postulated by Rutherford himself in 1920).

In today’s world, the pace of technological innovation should come as a surprise to no one. And yet, it is easy to forget just how “young” the fundamental knowledge is that we rely on as the building blocks of our industry. If nothing else, it should give us an appreciation for the potential for the discoveries made today, and just how quickly they could change everything.

Caracappa

Peter Caracappa is a clinical assistant professor and radiation safety officer at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, in New York State. He was a founding executive committee member of the Young Members Group and currently serves as its chair. He is a contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

Economic and emissions impacts of electric vehicles

By Ulrich Decher, Ph.D.

President Obama during his 2011 State of the Union address stated that we should have one million electric vehicles (EV) in the United States by 2015. The benefits of that would be to to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and to reduce emissions. These are worthy goals. This article will take look at the economic impact of using electric cars, their emissions, and their impact on the electric grid.

Nissan Leaf

As an example of a currently available electric car, I have chosen the Nissan Leaf since it is all electric.

The car has the following pertinent specifications:

• Price $32 780
• 100 miles per electric charge
• 24 kWh lithium-ion battery

Operating economics

The Leaf might be used primarily as a second car for commuting on a daily round trip of say, 50 miles, requiring a daily charge of 12 kWh. A typical home currently uses 25 kWh each day, so this represent about a 50-percent increase in the electricity use. The cost of that electricity varies, depending on where you live, but if we use an average residential rate of 11.3 ¢/kWh, we get a daily cost of $1.35, or a monthly cost of about $40.

This cost needs to be compared with the cost savings of not using the required gasoline. If we assume that a typical equivalent gasoline-powered car would get 25 miles per gallon; and if we assume $3 per gallon, we get the monthly cost of $180 (50 miles/day x 30 days/month x $3 per g/25 miles/g).

For a complete examination of the economics, we would have to consider the incremental cost of the batteries. The added expense would have to be properly amortized over their effective lifetime. Both the cost and the lifetime are presently difficult to determine because the cost of batteries is not listed in the specification and because experience on the lifetime is limited. A very rough estimate might be that the batteries cost $10 000 and last for five years. This implies that the amortization cost of $166/month, neglecting any interest charge ($10 000/60 months)

Also to be considered is the cost of maintenance, which may be less expensive for an electric vehicle because of fewer moving parts. So the cost of electric vehicle ownership may be about the same as owning a gasoline-powered car.

Impact on the grid

The next question that needs to be asked is whether the power to charge the batteries of the one million electric cars is available on the grid. The answer to this question is a definite yes, since the charging would be done at night when the electricity demand is low. As a matter of fact, there is power available to charge many millions more.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Transit Statistics, for 2006 there were 250,844,644 registered passenger vehicles in the United States, with 135,399,945 of them classified as automobiles (excluding SUVs and pick-up trucks). In the future, one might expect that half (68 million) of those cars could be electric and used for commuting, in which case the extra power requirement during the night to charge them for six hours would be 136 000 MW (12kWh x 68 x 106/6 hr).

In 2009, the U.S. electrical grid generated 400 000 MW of electricity. Depending on the nighttime power requirement to meet other loads on the grid, the current grid could accommodate much of that extra load. For example, if a typical nighttime load reduction is 20 percent without charging EVs, then one could accommodate the charging of 40 million EVs without reducing power (68 million x 400 x 0.2/136).

If smart chargers are used that would allow timing control by grid operators, the load on the grid could be flattened, thus making maximum use of the baseload generators, which have the lowest cost.

Emissions impact

Finally, the question of whether the use of electric cars leads to reduced emissions needs to be addressed.

The use of electric cars in metropolitan areas would definitely reduce emissions locally, which is beneficial because that is where people live and work. The emissions are transferred to whatever emissions are created at the power plant location (which may be a distance away from the metropolitan area). Transferring the emissions to power plants would eliminate the unhealthy emissions of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and carbon monoxides from automobiles. The EPA states that “the personal automobile is the single greatest polluter, as emissions from millions of vehicles on the road add up”.

If electric cars are to be charged at night when they are not used, the emissions are created by the mix of power plants connected to the grid at that time (coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, etc.) Only nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind are emission free.

Solar photovoltaic array

Solar photovoltaic can make no contribution to charging electric cars, unless extra batteries are used for charging during the day. This may require several $10 000 batteries and many times that cost for the solar power system. That is a very high cost for the benefit of generating $1.35 worth of electricity each day.

Similarly, wind cannot be relied on to charge electric cars because it is intermittent. One could contemplate having several spare electric cars in one’s driveway waiting to be charged, with only one of them being available on any one day. The expense of that would be prohibitive.

For grids with ample hydro such as the Bonneville Power Administration, the charging of electric cars can easily be accommodated. The hydro power is reduced significantly at night, which is just when the power is needed to charge the electric cars. This is a very good fit. It is also very inexpensive since the extra water that would otherwise be wasted would be used to produce the extra power at night.

For grids with less hydro, it is likely that the maximum hydro power is used continuously, as it is a low-cost generator. For that situation, the peaking generators are likely to be fossil generators that need to operate longer during the night. Thus, the emission impact of charging EVs at night is the difference between the extra emission at the power plant (likely to be natural gas) and the emission from gasoline-powered cars. There is likely to be a net carbon emission benefit, but not a complete elimination of carbon emissions.

Brunswick Nuclear Energy Facility

Thus electric vehicle can have a significant impact on the reduction of unhealthy automobile emissions, but in order to decrease the emissions from the production of electricity in general, nuclear power plants are the only emission-free power generators that can have a significant impact. Currently, they produce 20 percent of the electricity in the United States, with coal’s share being 50 percent. That ratio needs to change in favor of nuclear plants by building more of them.

Decher

Ulrich Decher holds a PhD in nuclear engineering. He is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee and a contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.