Nuclear plant license submittal in the USA

The first in about 3 decades is to be submitted today, Tueday September 25 by Princeton, NJ based NRG Energy.

We Support Lee has the full details, including anticipated schedule, budget and job creation.

Well done [again] Ruth!

Note that of the 10,000 MWe required in the US state of Texas alone over the next few decades, the capacity of these two plants will account for 27%. Plenty of work remains for efficiency programmes, renewables - or of course more nuclear.

image - Dallas Morning News

But from this 21-June-2007 report from the Dallas Morning News, there are still a fair amount of coal stations planned in Texas. I expect that will change as the pressure to reduce carbon continues to increase.

GNEP - Nuclear grade clubbing

According to recent news, Australia may be either entering directly into a bilateral agreement with the US (and other countries), formally enlisting in GNEP, or both.

The United States is claiming that Australia's role wold be research oriented. I have no problem with this claim. I believe all the chatter about waste is purely political - and being fanned heavily by Labor for their own gains.

Unless Canberra is full of complete idiots on both sides of the political aisle, the Coalition and Labour both clearly understand that 1) if Australia did accept high level waste from other countries, they could virtually name their price (and subsequently reprocess it and sell it on as reactor fuel - but I digress), but 2) agreeing to this without a lengthy public outreach programme including some very broad education of the general public - would be political suicide.

If you have a look around, you will discover that the US is signing bilateral nuclear agreements with just about every country with a research reactor. Others are dong it as well - including Australia. I believe, with respect to research, the US appears to be playing catch-up following several decades of little support for nuclear power technologies. Australia has a demonstrated research capability, very relevant capability in fact. Just consider how General Electric is capitalising on Australian ingenuity. Personally, one of the most disappointing lines on the page is:

GE has the exclusive rights to develop, commercialize and launch this third-generation uranium enrichment technology on a global basis.

Yet another example of others gaining from Australian innovation. Sure it's great to proudly proclaim "... that's Australian!". But to be blunt - proclamations don't pay the mortgage. It is not too difficult to imagine a day when Australian uranium is shipped to the US, enriched at a GE facility and then shipped back to Australia in the form of fresh fuel [and we don't need power reactors to savor this technological embarrassment, it's quite possible the OPAL reactor fuel could one day take this route. I am fairly certain Argentina gets its enriched fuel from the USA].

I mentioned other agreements. Canada is on the [nuclear] move. Comparisons between Australia and Canada can be quite entertaining. Similar size [33-Million to our 21-Million], loyal servants of Her Majesty, loving and hating America simultaneously, etc. Oh, and I almost forgot - a considerable quantity of the world's Uranium. One notable difference is that Canada not only embraced the nuclear fuel cycle over 5 decades ago, but Canadian engineers designed a unique breed of reactor [the CANDU] that has helped power Canada and more than a few other countries for quite some time now.

This past week the Canadian Province of Ontario announced a bold initiative [find even more here] that appears to be quite serious about mitigating Canada's contribution to climate change - which in case you are wondering is [on a per capita basis] about equal to the US and a little more than 90% of what we spew into the atmosphere here in Australia. Note the plan involves a blended array of strategies, including Nuclear, that will eliminate coal by 2014, not long after Australia plans to have developed our carbon trading strategy [just a bit embarrassing, no?].

And there's more. Canada, with not only a demonstrated research background, but a damn respectable industrial track record to boot, has also been 'invited' to join the GNEP. Here's what The Times Colonist had to say,

The initiative came to light in Canada in May 2006, when Prime Minister John Howard of Australia -- like Canada, a major world supplier of uranium -- visited Ottawa and voiced interest in the U.S. proposal, but also concerns about its possible effect on the mining and export industries.

At the time, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said: "Australia and Canada, as the two major uranium producers in the world, have considerable interest in whatever the United States and the international community have in mind in terms of future uranium development, production and marketing."

He added that he and Howard had "agreed we're going to collaborate very closely together to make sure Australian and Canadian interests are closely protected while the Americans and others discuss the future of that industry."

At least they're being pragmatic about it. No sugar-coating speeches about research. They want to ensure their interests as a supplier of Uranium are protected. And I am confident that Australia's interest in GNEP are the same - as reported in Canada, if not here in Australia. Because, let's face it, mining jobs and healthy exports do pay the mortgage.

As you can probably tell, I have a great deal of respect for the Canadian nuclear programme. They are lean and mean, excellent planners [with the versatile NRU still fully utilised at 50 years old] and even better decision makers. With about 10% of the US population they have managed to essentially equal their technical capability with respect to nuclear power and surpassed them in closely related fields. The USA, for example imports 100% of their Molybdenum-99 [used to make Technetium-99m, the most utilised diagnostic radiopharmaceutical on the planet] and a LOT of that comes from Canada. And before you click that comment link to tell us all about their Maple reactors, take a look around your own glass house.

Canadians also have an interesting approach to increasing enrolment in nuclear engineering programmes.

Nuclear Bloggers

Not long after I began this Blog, I posted links to different anti-nuclear Bloggers and websites and maintain these links in the right margin of this Blog to this day - even the inactive ones. I do this to encourage/enable any readers to consider the full range of the nuclear debate. I believe nuclear power is a valid energy option and further that when considered objectively can be easily defended as one of several reliable sources of safe and clean energy.

But I haven't done much to promote the pro-nuclear sites and Bloggers. Sure many links are also to the right, but I've never discussed many of them.

New on the scene is a namesake of sorts. He goes by the title of Nuclear Man and calls his Blog 'Nuclear Australia'. While it's a bit sad that he appears to not be aware of this Blog [poor communication on my part]; I am delighted another Aussie feels passionate enough to actively participate. Nuclear Man is just getting started & I wish him well.

Also in Australia is Robert Merkel - who doesn't manage a pro-nuclear Blog per se [at least that I am aware of], but my impression is that he is in favour of nuclear power in Australia, or he is certainly keeping an objective and open mind about it. Robert's Blog is called The View from Benambra. He is also a contributing Blogger at Larvatus Prodeo. Many of his posts are related to nuclear power. He is well researched and articulate.

Within Australian Politics you will find Blogger, and Democratic Senator, Andrew Bartlett. Senator Bartlett's Blog is called The Bartlett Diaries. To my knowledge, he is against nuclear power technology in Australia, but is generally willing to host/enter into civilised debate and has even linked this Blog into some of his posts. He is also a fellow fan of Robert Merkel - who visits the Senator's Blog regularly.

Venturing outside of Australia we have Ruth Sponsler, NNadir, Rod Adams, Stewart Peterson and the professionals at NEI. All are well researched. Being an Industry group, NEI is stacked with information and statistics. Rod also runs the Atomic Show. Stewart features frequent 'Anti-nuclear quote of the day' posts. Ruth's posts are typically packed full of links/references for the detail deprived. NNadir is - from my perspective - a legend. Again, all links may be found in the right margin.

An informed, objective and open minded community will make the right decision.

Sometimes it’s like drinking from a fire hose…

Whether Peter Beattie in Queensland, Alan Carpenter in Western Australia or Peter Garrett in Canberra… they all seem to be sending the same message…

The Task Group on Emissions Trading report is flawed…

Howard’s continued support for nuclear is stuffed…

And ‘modern’ [mystical] technologies will allow Australia to achieve a 60% reduction in greenhouse gasses with Labor at the helm.

Nothing specific though. Yes there are the common warm-fuzzy words we all know and love – renewables, wind, solar, geothermal etc., but nothing specific; no plans, no siting of examples of stations or capacity in other locations anywhere on the planet; no demonstration of such technologies on an industrial level. Are they serious? Who’s supposed to believe this?

Without nuclear on the table, any substantial goal for emissions reductions are no more than pipedreams.

Sure there’s gas – better than coal, but still not an emissions darling, and the long term price projections, I believe, are anything but stable. Reading the bottom of this We Support Lee post, along with this quote from the International Energy Outlook pg. 46:

Although Australia has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, several of the government’s environmental policies have been put in place to help stimulate increases in natural gas use for electric power generation and to moderate growth in the use of coal, of which Australia has large reserves.

And we can see why Mr. Carpenter is so down on nuclear. The sale of all his State’s gas, will earn them big-bucks – I imagine he is reminded of this frequently.

Also Dr. Ziggy Switkowski’s recent remarks (reported in no less than 402 linked news articles!) are being trumpeted as something significant… an admission of sorts(??). I guess those who are against nuclear are much more willing to defer to his expertise when he is saying something they can use to support their arguments (pathetic). Basically he is saying that the path to nuclear power in Australia will be a fairly long one. On that I agree, at least as I’ve said here and here, there is a hell of a lot of work to do in order to even think about constructing a plant. But the three mines policy is finally dead and Australia is seriously considering a long term used fuel store and becoming more involved in the nuclear Fuel Cycle. So from a 'consider what they do as opposed to what they say' point of view – there is reason to be optimistic.

Not being one to feel the need (or, for that matter, justification) to force anything on anyone, I advocate a patient but steady approach for those in support of nuclear power in Australia. Despite all the headline-grabbing, election year crap being tossed out at the moment – in particular by the same old group of anti-nuclear activists we always see muddying the technical waters – I see shortcomings on both sides.

To me, the Liberals are overly sensitive to the economy, but in general I like the idea of looking forward and progressing via a well thought, measured process. However, I think their targets need to be a bit more in line with Labor. Speaking of which, Labor’s unjustified, fear-driven dismissal of nuclear with no credible alternative technology (other than the fantasies that exist only on report pages from the deep dark world of academic theory) is a type of wishful thinking that will draw out and ultimately kill any hopes of achieving anything close to their stated targets.

We have the resources and capability to do so much better than this, but for nothing more than fear and ignorance – we remain, for the moment, a humiliating stain on the world.

Nuclear push gains momentum

I am pleased to pass on this great post (yet another) from Ruth at the We Support Lee blog.

In a nutshell, it's about current legislation blocking Australian nuclear power plant construction and some plans to amend/overturn it (with plenty of well researched supporting information - as is typical of Ruth).

I am glad Ruth is there to support me on this post. I admit to being immersed in NNadir's Diary ; where one sees the result of a left-leaning activist who takes the time to look well beyond the rhetoric and become familiar with the relevant facts associated with nuclear energy production.

I've also enjoyed Rod Adams' The Atomic Show as he mentioned in a previous comment to this Blog.