Loan Guarantees and Bennett's Amendment

I earlier mentioned the stimulus package; now, I've got some better understanding.

First, some background. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a federal loan guarantee program to facilitate deployment of clean technologies, which include renewables, transmission, and advanced coal- and nuclear-based generation. Companies who take a loan pay a subsidy cost, which is essentially the expected long-term liability the government would face. Typically, this is on the order of 1o% of the face value. The loan program is "scored" at just 1% of the loan face value--which means only 1% of the face value is appropriated.

The current stimulus legislation aims to appropriate $8 billion (House) to $10 billion (Senate). However, in its current form, this legislation would appropriate the subsidy cost, again, roughly 10% of the face value. That means, e.g., the Senate's version would allow provide roughly $100 in available loans.

Senator Bennett [R-UT] has proposed an amendment that would put $1 billion of the Senate's package into the current loan guarantee program. This $1 billion, with the 1% score, would allow for an additional $100 billion under the current program.

Obviously, this could be of paramount importance for financing new nuclear generation. Contact your Senators and let them know your opinion!

Some Articles Revisited

Two old articles in Scientific American were listed in my nuclear news feed, apparently having just been placed online.

The first provides a nice overview of Gen-IV reactors and related technologies. The second focuses on the fuel cycle side of things, specifically with respect to recycling.

Both appear to be good reads...

Stimulus + Energy Loan Guarantees = ?

I've gotten two emails about an upcoming Senate Appropriations Committee vote on the economic stimulus package and an amendment by Senator Bennett (R-UT) to provide $100 billion in loan guarantees for renewable (and supposedly nuclear) energy. Another student of nuclear must also have gotten this news.

I can't be sure, but the amendment would seem to modify the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan, the fancy name for a Senate version of the stimulus plan.

Anybody know more than I do?

I was browsing the standard nuclear journals today and found in NS&E a paper on the French fission product experiments, which has been heavily analyzed at ORNL over the past couple years. It will be interesting to learn more about these experiments and how new analysis techniques I'm trying to develop could be used on their data in burnup credit analyses.

Last night I baked bagels (myself) for the first time. Let me say first that they are superb, and second, that molasses works well as a malt extract substitute in small quantities. Tonight, we host a largely nuclear-grad gathering for a "veggie-mex" dinner...

10 Reasons Not to Listen to 10 Other Reasons

My Google nuclear news filter popped up a little gem entitled “10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear” put out by the Center for American Progress, an entity bolstering “progressive ideas for a strong, just, and free American.”

I read through their points, and it’s the same old stuff, and as I always think—at least to myself—here is why they’re wrong:

1. Nuclear faces prohibitively high-and-escalating-capital costs.

It is true the cost to build a nuclear plant has gone up since we last built one, but that’s to be expected—it’s been a long time. They cite AEP’s CEO Michael Morris as saying he doesn’t see new nuke in the near term. What, then, does he see? Coal. The article they cite, here, also states that new nuclear would cost about $4000 per kilowatt; the same article says new coal—potentially with sequestration—would be $3500. Nuclear doesn’t sound so “prohibitive”, especially when one considers the 20-50% increased cost of sequestered coal power.

Besides, if nuclear were absolutely so costly, we wouldn’t be seeing license submissions and orders for reactors. Bottom line? Nuclear is economically viable.

2. Plant construction is limited by production bottlenecks.

Sure, we all know Japan Steel is the containment vessel master of the world. They go on to state,

“even if Japan Steel increases its capacity [up from 4/year], American power companies would be buying components in a global market at a time when China and India are increasing their nuclear capacity to meet growing energy needs.”

Aren’t China and India the fastest growing coal users in the world, too? That’s what I get out of the recent G8 discussions. Sure, there will be competition for nuclear supplies, but that’s no different than any other energy—we have to accept that sooner than later. And about the vessels—I already know of one U.S. company who has one in construction.

3. New nuclear plants probably won’t be designed by American companies.

In 30 years, the United States has lost much of its indigenous nuclear infrastructure—that is true. However, it’s not the case the nuclear companies are foreign; rather, they are international. So what if Constellation teamed with Areva in a joint multinational endeavor? Areva, though headquartered in France, has 5000 U.S. employees. If Areva designs are used here in the U.S., that will mean more—not fewer—jobs for our workforce.

4. Unresolved problems regarding the availability and security of waste storage.

What do they mean there is nowhere to store used fuel? It has to be somewhere right now – and it is, on site, all around the U.S. They bring up a point of truth—Yucca would be at about capacity with what we have right now. They’re wrong, though, to say recycling wouldn’t help. Few understand that roughly 95% of what comes out as used fuel is still uranium, some of which is still usable as fuel (hence used fuel, not waste!). Take out 95% of the used fuel content for use as new fuel, and you’re left with “5% of the problem”, as it were. And that’s not a reduction? I think it is.

They also suggest recycling would increase electricity costs. However, this could very well be an issue for government—which is required by law to deal with civilian waste. And in fact they are looking at it here, here, and here. (I like the last, particularly).

5. Nuclear faces concerns about uranium supplies and importation issues.

Our foreign dependence on energy is no new thing. However, our dependence on foreign nuclear fuel would be much reduced if we went to a closed fuel cycle, i.e. recycling.

6. Nuclear reactors require water use amid shortages

“Large areas of the United States already face water shortages, and the effects of global warming are expected to exacerbate this problem.”

Nuclear power is the enemy of global warming. I like this quote from a rudimentary thermodynamics book:

“If this power plant [for which we just calculated oodles of numbers] were coal-fired rather than a nuclear plant, the quantities we have calculated would be little different. We would have essentially the same amount of heat...and the temperature rise of the river would be about the same. But there are other considerations. To supply the heat...would require about 6 tons/min [of coal]. The sulfur content...would produce about 600 lb of sulfur dioxide per minute...[and]...would pollute the atmosphere continuously. Thus the coal-fired plant would cause both thermal pollution and air pollution."

The extra water use is marginal; the emission-reduction is paramount.

7. Safety concerns still plague nuclear power.

“After the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, the United States stopped granting licenses for new nuclear plants. The crises demonstrated that the nuclear industry is vulnerable to public concern.”

True, but rather mute given current public opinion; one poll shows 67% of American support new nuclear plants. (Five-to-one preferred a nuclear plant to a coal plant in their neighborhood)

8. Nuclear is already a mature technology—it will not get cheaper.

I don’t know anyone who has ever said any type of base load generation will get cheaper.

That said, the nuclear industry will benefit from any carbon emission mandates set by the government. Thus, nuclear will become comparatively cheaper as our nation commits to green.

9. Other clean energy technologies are cheaper, cleaner, and faster to build.

And other clean energies are not appropriate for round-the-clock base load generation.

I will state I do support research into other technologies, e.g. solar and wind, for I do believe they have their place. However, I did a calculation the other day. The results were something like this. In the next thirty years, our energy demands will grow. If we use just solar for that growth, we’d be covering the whole of Illinois in solar panels—not going to happen. Same sort of thing for wind. These sources simply are not the solution unless we plan to ramp back our energy consumption level to that of say 1950, and the statistics on American consumption don’t support that possibility at all!

10. Nuclear subsidies take money away from more effective alternative energy subsidies.

Look at 9. Why heavily subsidize technologies that simply cannot meet our needs?

Obama discussed his energy policy yesterday; see the video here.

It all sounds "good"... except where he says McCain's call for 45 new nuclear plans is "not a serious" energy plan. He makes specific note of used fuel storage and Nevada, i.e. Yucca Mountain.

I understand oil is the big ticket item today. I understand families are hurting. However, if we limit our attention to oil in the context of total energy consumption, then we are missing the big picture. Renewables just do not count right now. Biodiesel/ethanol to me is a joke.

Baseload energy should be the focus. If we solved--I mean really solved--the baseload energy problem, our transportation cost crisis would be mitigated severely. Think nuclear and think either plug-in electrics or fuel cells.

I am war-weary, surely, but I am becoming suspicious of Obama's ability to lead our energy future.

The Renaissance: Job Market Impact

Nuclear power had its commercial roots in the 1950’s, touted from its birth as the “answer to humanity’s energy needs.” However, neither was its full promise realized nor did nuclear power continue its ascendancy; the 1979 incident at Three Mile Island effectively stopped commercial growth of nuclear in the U.S. Moreover, the 1986 disaster in Chernobyl induced worldwide fear of nuclear power.

Despite these incidents, nuclear power has remained important both in the U.S. and abroad as an energy source, and more importantly, it has seen greater support in recent years. In the U.S., utilities, investors, and the government are beginning to consider nuclear power again. The rest of this report details in what capacity they are doing so and how this could change the domestic nuclear job market.

Recent Maneuvers: The Industry Revisits Nuclear

2007 was a milestone year for the nuclear industry. Four companies—NRG Energy, NuStart, Dominion, and Duke Energy—submitted full Combined Operating License (COL) applications, the starting point with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for constructing new plants. A fifth company, UniStar Nuclear, has submitted a partial application (expected to be finished in early 2008) [1].

These applications are of paramount importance to future applications, as they are the first for several new baseline plant designs. In the NRC’s new application process, plant designs are first submitted for approval by vendors, after which the various generation companies adapt these basic designs for their needs and submit separate applications. Currently, two of four proposed reactor designs—the ABWR by General Electric and AP1000 by Westinghouse—have been approved by the NRC; all COL applications based on other designs would be contingent on reactor approval [1].

Given these submittals and the promise they provide, many within the nuclear industry feel 2008 will be even more flourishing. Another ten companies are expected to submit COL applications. Together with 2007 applications, this would amount to 33 new nuclear reactors in the U.S., roughly a 33 percent increase to the current fleet.

Investors: Money Where their Mouth Is

Certainly, a driving force behind any resurgence in nuclear construction will be support on Wall Street. While much skepticism still exists, there are vocal enthusiasts among financiers for several reasons. The following quotes elucidate some of these viewpoints.

Fitch Ratings Ltd. noted in its March 13, 2006 Wholesale Power Market Update,

High natural gas prices, continuing constraints on rail deliveries of coal, and longer term concerns about carbon dioxide emissions and a new mercury rule have made fuel diversity a more pressing priority on a national and state level. It is no longer a matter of debate whether there will be new nuclear plants…the discussion has shifted to predictions of how many, where and when. [2]

Financial power Merrill Lynch has reported, “We view large nuclear utilities as beneficiaries of the rising cost profile of coal generation and potential future carbon reduction … [We] believe that nuclear utilities represent a free option on potential future carbon-reduction legislation…” [3].

That coal costs have continued to rise has caused many to revisit nuclear as an environmentally-friendly tool, and with increased public support for stricter emissions standards, nuclear will continue to be one, if not the only, practical solution for large-scale energy production.

Nuclear Politics – Progress on the Back of an Elephant (or Donkey?)

To quote the recent Nuclear News, “…[The] general belief is that another Republican president would either accept or encourage new reactors, while a Democrat would oppose them…” [1]. This general view has been held widely within the nuclear community, but upon looking at the candidates, is it really clear a Democrat would nullify the near-term future of nuclear? A recent NEI release [4] offers an answer to this question.

Senator Hillary Clinton is “agnostic” toward nuclear power and is not against it if solutions to waste and financing issues are found. Senator Barack Obama is “open-minded” about the nuclear question and echoes Clinton’s concerns about waste. The only major player against nuclear was former Senator Edwards who has since dropped out of the race. The leading Republican candidate Senator John McCain has said, “The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our future energy mix is an unsustainable position.”

It would seem as long as a candidate is not openly averse toward a nuclear rebirth, than we in the industry should not worry excessively; however, given the Democratic majority in Congress, either Democrat could succumb to party pressures. Only Obama would have personal reasons for remaining at worst a neutral player—his Illinois is a leading nuclear market.

The People: Powering the Renaissance

While the future of nuclear is by no means set in stone, to ensure the industry lands running, the nuclear workforce has to be developed and ready for the challenge. An old adage says the nuclear workforce is comprised of individuals ready to retire; while not entirely true (average age is 48), the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) notes 27 percent of personnel could retire by 2011, leaving a gaping void in labor and knowledge [5].

What exactly are the prospects for new nuclear engineers? If there are to be no new nuclear plants, that exodus of retirees will leave nearly 20,000 jobs to fill (not all engineering) [6]. Additionally, the NRC looks to hire 600 new engineering staff, most likely to accommodate the workload associated with incoming licensee applications [6]. If NRC-approval of recent applications becomes imminent, we can expect utilities also to undertake massive hiring—which would likely tax the outgoing pool of the 29 U.S. nuclear engineering programs (of which there had been 38 some 30 years ago!).

Conclusion

In summary, it is impossible to quantify exactly the effect this nuclear “renaissance” will have on the nuclear job market, but what is clear is that it is already affecting it.

References

1. Blake, E. M., “Renaissance Now?”, Nuclear News. January 2008

2. Fitch Ratings, Special Report: Wholesale Power Market Update. March 13, 2006

3. http://nei.org/newsandevents/wallstreet/

4. Nuclear Energy Insight, publication of the Nuclear Energy Institute. May 2007

5. Howard, Angie, “Achieving Excellence in Human Performance: Nuclear Energy Training and Education,” American Nuclear Society. Conference on Nuclear Training and Education, Jacksonville, Florida. February 5, 2007

6. Washington, E. H., “Workforce issues big challenge for NRC”, Inside N.R.C., 2. November 12, 2007.

Tech Review - 1

Per my own goals and aspirations, I'm jumping into the Sunday morning tech review. For my first tidbit, I revisit an article I've read at least once before entitled "An Automated Deterministic Variance Reduction Generator for Monte Carlo Shielding Applications" by J. Wagner, a former mentor at ORNL.

In the article, Wagner notes that Monte Carlo methods are widely believed the best tool for solving radiation transport problems, but at the same time, are extremely computationally-intensive for difficult, "deep penetration" problems. The work described aims to provide a way in which to cut down on this computer time via variance reduction.

The method does two key things. First, it produces for the problem a so-called biased source, which is defined essentially as the space- and energy-dependent source, s(x,E) weighted over the entire detector response function via the adjoint flux, A, i.e.

--> s'(x,E) = A(x,E)s(x,E)/R

where R is just the integral of the numerator over all energy space. What this source does is that it gives to us those particles most important to the detector response of interest. If, for example, we had a fission source (think the Chi-spectrum) and detector separated by a thick concrete wall, we imagine our detector response is largely dependent on the fastest of those neutrons; as such, we bias the source to give more of those particles while simultaneously decreasing the per-particle weight to maintain "fair" biasing.

The method uses weight-windows for transport biasing. WW's are essentially a superficial grid placed on the problem geometry. The various superficial regions are assigned a range of particle importance that it will let enter; for those particle outside the range, either Russian roulette or splitting occurs (i.e. if the particle 'weighs' too much, it is split into two or more particles of appropriate weight, and if the particle 'weighs' too little, a game is played to see whether it can enter; if so, its importance is raised a consistent amount; if not, it is destroyed).

The lower bounds of the WW's are inversely proportional to the importance function, A. and proportional to the overall detector response. That is to say

--> wl(x,E) = R/(Ak)

where k is some constant I won't explain here. Suffice it to say, wl(x,E) is defined such that biased-source particle weights are in (wl,wu) to remain consistent; this reduces unnecessary splitting or rouletting straightaway.

The article goes on to apply these methods to difficult problems, namely a nuclear well-logging simulation (which I've done before!). Time is saved by several orders of magnitude, which makes this theory a very valuable one indeed.

In the future, I would like to couple the idea with charged-particle problems, namely with proton beam therapy facility shielding analysis in mind.

A Statement of Professional Interests

At some point it becomes relevant to write down one's interests; for me, I choose now.

My professional interests, as a student in nuclear engineering, are wide-ranging. I enjoy the computational aspects of nuclear engineering; simulations or analytical studies of nuclear phenomena are engaging and show how much we know (and do not know) about the physical world.

Specifically, I (think I) like methods of (neutral particle) transport; in other words, I like to know how radiation works in large-scale, real-world problems. I note my skepticism only because I have not myself actually dug deeply into the 'guts' of such methods; rather, I've simply 'used' them a bit.

As for applications of transport, I find reactor physics, shield analysis, and radiotherapy all to be stimulating.

To support this interest, I find also I like numerical methods in mathematics. Pure math has always seemed so abstract to me, and while beautiful, I cannot say it is 'relevant.' Additionally, high performance computing is a necessary companion to applied math and engineering.

During my research experiences, a number of relatively specific sub-genres within nuclear engineering have struck me as particularly engaging. Sensitivity analysis, especially with respect to nuclear data analysis is an important application of applied math and transport theory. Additionally, optimization, a rather broad topic within many science (or even all of life!) has come into play more than once.

Having stated these interests, which are certainly not exhaustive, I feel it is my duty as a good and soon-to-be graduate to keep abreast of the 'latest-and-greatest' within the fields. I will try using this blog as a technical log of those things which seem especially valuable. My goal will be every Sunday morning to browse a recent volume of a related journal for relevant material; upon finding an article of interest, I shall read it over coffee and then recount the very basics of it via this blog. I shall also try finding ways such work could be applied in my own work or expanded to be of further utility.