TMI Update: Jan 14, 2024


Did you catch "The Meltdown: Three Mile Island" on Netflix?
TMI remains a danger and TMIA is working hard to ensure the safety of our communities and the surrounding areas.
Learn more on this site and support our efforts. Join TMIA. To contact the TMIA office, call 717-233-7897.

    

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Dear Eric,

We thank you from the bottom of our hearts for following us and our mission to create a cleaner, more just world. Today, we want to introduce you to the concept of Energy Democracy and discuss its crucial role in the just energy transition and a cleaner, more equitable energy future.

What is Energy Democracy?

Energy Democracy is a framework that places communities at the center of energy decisions. It emphasizes the decentralization of power generation, prioritizing renewable and sustainable energy sources. It seeks to redistribute decision-making power to local communities, ensuring that the benefits of the energy transition—like job creation, environmental protection, and energy independence—are shared equitably.

Why Energy Democracy Matters

  1. Just Transition: As we move away from fossil fuels, it's vital that we create systems that benefit all, not just a few. Energy Democracy ensures that frontline communities, often those most impacted by environmental degradation, have a say in how energy is produced and distributed. This leads to solutions that are not only sustainable but also socially just.
  2. Local Economic Benefits: By focusing on local, renewable energy sources, communities can reap the economic benefits. This includes job creation in the green energy sector and keeping energy dollars within the community, fostering local economic resilience. This keeps money local and out of the pockets of Big Utility CEOs.
  3. Empowerment and Participation: Energy Democracy empowers the people by involving them in the decision-making process. This participation ensures that energy policies reflect the needs and values of the community, leading to more sustainable and accepted energy solutions.
  4. Environmental Protection: Prioritizing clean, renewable energy sources reduces our reliance on fossil fuels, mitigating climate change and reducing pollution. Energy Democracy is integral to achieving a renewable energy future that protects our planet for generations to come.
  5. Demonopolization: Energy Democracy helps dismantle the concentration of power within the energy sector, which has historically been dominated by a few large corporations. By decentralizing energy production, it promotes diverse ownership and management of energy resources, empowering communities to control their energy futures and reducing the influence of monopolies.

How You Can Get Involved

Supporting Energy Democracy means advocating for policies that decentralize and democratize energy production. Your involvement can take many forms—from supporting community-led energy projects to engaging with local and national policymakers to promote renewable energy and fair access.

Join us in our mission to create a clean, equitable energy future by supporting Energy Democracy. Together, we can ensure that the transition to renewable energy is just and benefits everyone. You can also donate directly if you can’t participate in other areas.

Thank you for your continued support and commitment to a sustainable future.

P.S. Stay tuned for upcoming events, working groups, and initiatives where you can get involved in promoting Energy Democracy! Plus, check out our Bonfire store to rep Energy Democracy merch!

Join the fight and follow us on social media!

DONATE HERE TO MAKE YOUR DONATION MATCH!

Onward with action, 

The NIRS Team

Diane D’Arrigo

Denise Jakobsberg

Tim Judson

Ann McCann

https://www.wyomingnews.com/opinion/guest_column/drake-no-amount-of-money-is-worth-turning-wyoming-into-a-nuclear-waste-dump/article_0b090a02-5b2f-11ef-8505-5b451b00d6e9.html

Drake: No amount of money is worth turning Wyoming into a nuclear waste dump

Kerry Drake

Kerry Drake

Wyoming columnist

 

Wyoming really needs to clone Jeff Steinborn, a New Mexico state lawmaker, or elect someone just like him.

Last year, Steinborn led a successful effort to ban the transportation and storage of high-level nuclear waste in his home state.

Steinborn didn’t buy the claims of a private company that planned to build a temporary storage facility for spent nuclear fuel rods near Carlsbad, New Mexico. Backers had visions of billions of dollars dancing in their heads.

It’s the same dream some Wyoming legislators have embraced — fortunately without success — since the early 1990s. Now the idea has reared its ugly head again.

Rep. Donald Burkhart Jr., R-Rawlins, said he will bring a draft bill to October’s Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Committee to allow a private nuclear waste dump (my description, not his) to be built in Wyoming.

Burkhart, who co-chairs the panel, said the state could reap more than $4 billion a year from nuclear waste storage “just to let us keep it here in Wyoming.” What a sweet deal!

Except the prospect of that much revenue may be a tad overstated. It could be about $3.974 billion less than Burkhart suggested, so the trial balloon he floated won’t get off the ground.

Wyoming legislators start touting nuclear waste storage whenever the state has a budget crunch.

I naively thought whether to establish a temporary “Monitored Retrievable Storage,” as they used to be called, had long been settled in Wyoming.

In 1992, then-Gov. Mike Sullivan rejected a proposed Fremont County project. A University of Wyoming survey in 1994 found 80% of respondents opposed a high-level nuclear waste facility.

“It makes no sense to me as governor to put this state or its citizens through the agonizing and divisive study and decision-making process of further evaluating the risks of an MRS facility,” Sullivan wrote in a letter to Fremont County commissioners.

In 2019, the Legislative Management Council narrowly decided — in a secret email vote — to authorize a Spent Fuel Rods Subcommittee to study the issue. Sen. Jim Anderson, R-Casper, said it could be an annual $1 billion bonanza.

The subcommittee’s enthusiasm for the idea sank when it learned the feds were only going to pony up $10 million a year. That figure has since increased, but not by much.

The Department of Energy announced in 2022 that it would make $16 million available to communities interested in learning more about “consent-based siting management of spent nuclear fuel.” Last year, the pot was sweetened to $26 million.

Steinborn said there was no financial incentive at all for an interim site in his state. “New Mexico has not been offered anything in the deal,” he said. “And even if we had, I don’t think any amount of money would convince me that it’s the right thing.”

Steinborn said the nation needs a permanent solution for storing spent nuclear fuel. “But New Mexico can’t just be the convenient sacrifice zone for the country’s contamination,” he said.

And neither should Wyoming. Yes, the U.S. Department of Energy and Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates are backing a $4 billion Natrium nuclear power plant near Kemmerer. But Wyoming has no obligation to take other states’ nuclear trash.

It’s increasingly unlikely a permanent site will ever be built. Yucca Mountain, Nevada, was chosen by Congress in 1987, but it’s been tangled up in a web of political and scientific controversies.

There is a significant legal obstacle to siting a “temporary” waste site in Wyoming or anywhere else. Congress would have to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which prohibits designating an interim storage site without a viable plan to establish a permanent deep-mined geologic repository — like the Yucca Mountain project, but one that could actually be approved and built.

Victor Gilinsky, former consultant for the state of Nevada, investigated the Yucca Mountain project. He offered this observation: “I don’t think any state would ever trust the Energy Department to build and operate a nuclear waste repository.”

Why in the world do Wyoming legislators who brag about their distrust of federal government see nothing wrong with a federal agency managing nuclear waste here? They’ve turned down an estimated $1.4 billion for Medicaid expansion since 2013, but they’re willing to take peanuts from the federal government to be a nuclear dumping ground.

Jill Morrison, a retired landowner advocate who has lobbied against similar proposals since the 1990s, told WyoFile that lawmakers are trying to sneak in this one “and ram it through.”

“It threatens public safety, and it’s really going to wreck Wyoming’s national reputation and image as a destination for tourism and recreation — a beautiful place to visit or live,” Morrison said.

I’ve read suggestions on the internet that Wyoming could make a nuclear waste facility a tourist attraction.

I reckon something that exciting could at least draw half of the 4.5 million Yellowstone visitors we get each year. Charge ‘em $1,088 each, the average price of a Taylor Swift concert ticket. That would bring in a cool $2.4 billion.

That’s not as much as Burkhart said we’d reap, but it’s about as realistic.

Finland's Fortum says new nuclear not feasible at current prices
Anne Kauranen

Fortum headquarters in Espoo, Finland

By Anne Kauranen

HELSINKI (Reuters) - Fortum doesn't believe investing in new nuclear generation capacity is feasible at current low Nordic power prices, its chief executive said on Thursday, after the Finnish utility surprised markets with better than expected second quarter results.

Fortum is among companies eyeing possible deals from the Swedish government's goal to build 2,500 MW of new nuclear power by 2035 - the equivalent of two new reactors - and 10 new reactors a decade later to help tackle climate change.

On Monday, a commission appointed by the Swedish government put a price tag of around 400 billion crowns ($38 billion) on the new nuclear plans and proposed a financing and risk sharing model, which would include state loans, a price hedging agreement and a mechanism to share risk and gains.

Sweden and Finland are both considering introducing new nuclear power to serve as steady base load for intermittent renewables.

Fortum's Chief Executive Markus Rauramo welcomed the Swedish government's report but said more details were needed before any investments could go forward.

"With today's market prices, new nuclear is not feasible," he told a conference call after the company's quarterly results on Thursday.

Shares in Fortum were up 1.2% in afternoon trade after the company reported a 233 million euro ($256.51 million) operating profit for the April to June period. That was down from 262 million a year earlier, but beat a forecast of 200 million euros in a company-provided poll as higher hydro volumes and the divestment of Fortum's Indian solar portfolio helped offset a decline in revenue from its power generation unit due to a drop in spot prices.

"The main reason for the lower Generation result was the lower achieved power price, but this was partly offset by higher hydro volumes and improved results in the renewables and decarbonisation businesses," Rauramo said in a statement.

Benchmark Nordic power prices have fallen this year due in part to a surge in wind and solar power output. Spot prices have averaged 42.01 euros/MWh this year, down from 56.44 euros/MWh in 2023 and 135.86 euros/MWh during the energy crisis in 2022.

Fortum also said it was on track with its goal to lower its recurring fixed costs by 100 million euros by the end of 2025, expecting to reach 50 million euros in cost reductions by the end of this year.

Its shares have gained 10% this year.

(Reporting by Anne Kauranen in Helsinki and Louise Breusch Rasmussen in Copenhagen; Additional reporting by Nora Buli; Editing by Terje Solsvik and Susan Fenton)

Finland's Fortum says new nuclear not feasible at current prices
Anne Kauranen

Fortum headquarters in Espoo, Finland

By Anne Kauranen

HELSINKI (Reuters) - Fortum doesn't believe investing in new nuclear generation capacity is feasible at current low Nordic power prices, its chief executive said on Thursday, after the Finnish utility surprised markets with better than expected second quarter results.

Fortum is among companies eyeing possible deals from the Swedish government's goal to build 2,500 MW of new nuclear power by 2035 - the equivalent of two new reactors - and 10 new reactors a decade later to help tackle climate change.

On Monday, a commission appointed by the Swedish government put a price tag of around 400 billion crowns ($38 billion) on the new nuclear plans and proposed a financing and risk sharing model, which would include state loans, a price hedging agreement and a mechanism to share risk and gains.

Sweden and Finland are both considering introducing new nuclear power to serve as steady base load for intermittent renewables.

Fortum's Chief Executive Markus Rauramo welcomed the Swedish government's report but said more details were needed before any investments could go forward.

"With today's market prices, new nuclear is not feasible," he told a conference call after the company's quarterly results on Thursday.

Shares in Fortum were up 1.2% in afternoon trade after the company reported a 233 million euro ($256.51 million) operating profit for the April to June period. That was down from 262 million a year earlier, but beat a forecast of 200 million euros in a company-provided poll as higher hydro volumes and the divestment of Fortum's Indian solar portfolio helped offset a decline in revenue from its power generation unit due to a drop in spot prices.

"The main reason for the lower Generation result was the lower achieved power price, but this was partly offset by higher hydro volumes and improved results in the renewables and decarbonisation businesses," Rauramo said in a statement.

Benchmark Nordic power prices have fallen this year due in part to a surge in wind and solar power output. Spot prices have averaged 42.01 euros/MWh this year, down from 56.44 euros/MWh in 2023 and 135.86 euros/MWh during the energy crisis in 2022.

Fortum also said it was on track with its goal to lower its recurring fixed costs by 100 million euros by the end of 2025, expecting to reach 50 million euros in cost reductions by the end of this year.

Its shares have gained 10% this year.

(Reporting by Anne Kauranen in Helsinki and Louise Breusch Rasmussen in Copenhagen; Additional reporting by Nora Buli; Editing by Terje Solsvik and Susan Fenton)

 

American Purpose

The Curious Endurance of Atoms for Peace

Peaceful nuclear power was a political gambit from the start. Why does it still continue?

 Henry Sokolski | Aug 14, 2024


The Atoms For Peace bus, a mobile exhibit about nuclear power operated for a time by the Atomic Energy Commission. (Corbis via Getty Images.)

Seventy-one years ago, while President Eisenhower was vacationing in Colorado, the Soviets tested their first thermonuclear device. It failed as a true fusion weapon, but the 400 kilotons of energy it released (roughly 25 times more than was released over Hiroshima) rattled Washington. More important, it spurred the formulation of one of America’s most curious endeavors: Atoms for Peace and its policy that spread dangerous nuclear technology world-wide. 

This program’s continued endurance is difficult to understand. Its historical genesis, though, is clear enough. Early in 1953, J. Robert Oppenheimer briefed Eisenhower on the findings of a classified nuclear disarmament advisory panel Truman had asked Oppenheimer to chair. The panel’s findings were grim: Within a few short years, the Soviets would have enough nuclear weapons to knock out one hundred of America’s largest cities in a surprise attack. The United States might retaliate by destroying Moscow but America itself would be in ruins. The bottom line: Unless Russia capped its nuclear buildup, America and Russia would be able to land deadly strikes against one another but be unable to survive or thrive. Compounding the problem was that Moscow might not understand this. Oppenheimer urged Eisenhower to clarify the threat publicly.

What ensued was a close-hold assignment—“Operation Candor”—a speechwriting project, chaired by psychological policy advisor C.D. Jackson to produce the seemingly impossible: a presidential address that would explain the emerging nuclear threat without frightening America. Months of feckless drafting efforts followed. Then, on August 12, 1953, the Russians detonated Joe-4, a massive weapon that brought the “critical date”—when Russia might knock out the United States—even closer. 

The test made headline news. It also catalyzed an idea Eisenhower had already been mulling to pit the good atom of nuclear power against the evil atom of war. Why not ask the Russians to make joint fissile material contributions with the United States to fuel peaceful nuclear power projects globally. The idea here would be to goad Moscow into contributing so much of its military fissile material to an international atomic bank for civilian projects so as to keep it from ever acquiring a nuclear arsenal large enough to knock out America. Such a program, Eisenhower explained, might achieve the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament “by the back door”—i.e. without the intrusive on-site inspections that the Soviets had already rejected.

Eisenhower liked his idea. Nuclear experts, though, were skeptical. Lewis Strauss, Eisenhower’s top nuclear official, doubted the proposed fissile contributions would ever be large enough to matter. J. Robert Oppenheimer also was doubtful, dismissing the program’s connection to disarmament as sentimental and illusory.

Over time, the truth turned out to be much harsher. No joint U.S.-Soviet fissile contributions were ever made. Instead, Soviet and American nuclear weapons deployments ramped up exponentially. Worse, countries piggybacked off of the “peaceful” nuclear projects the program promoted to create nuclear weapons efforts of their own. France, Russia, the UK, and India (a major beneficiary of the Atoms for Peace program) used their “peaceful,” dual-use nuclear power plants to make bombs. South Africa, Iraq, Sweden, Italy, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil and Argentina all attempted to do so. Today, experts fear China, Saudi Arabia, Poland, Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, and Japan might do the same. 

Have those unforeseen consequences put an end to Eisenhower’s fanciful program? No. In fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which the Atoms for Peace program helped create, actually built a version of Eisenhower’s proposed fissile bank in Kazakhstan to assure nuclear fuel supplies to countries hungering after nuclear fuel.

Then there is the U.S.-Russian “megatons to megawatts” nuclear fuel downblending program, launched in 1993. It converted 500 tons of weapons-grade Russian uranium to low enriched uranium to fuel U.S. power reactors. These numbers are impressive but after twenty years of operation, the program failed to limit Russia’s or China’s continued nuclear ramp-up. Nonetheless, the megawatts program, like the Kazakhstan fissile bank, is still cast as a practical option to promote nuclear weapons restraint.

Why is unclear.

Even more curious is the persistent popularity of Atoms for Peace’s promotion of  nuclear power. In 1954, Eisenhower’s Atomic Energy Commission chairman insisted nuclear electricity would be “too cheap to meter.” The prospect of limitless, “free” electricity continues to mesmerize governments and the public. Yet, after decades of massive government subsidies, nuclear power still only constitutes 10 percent of the world’s electrical generation and this percentage is expected to plateau or decline by 2050. As for its cost, nuclear reactors—small, large, modular or not—are now the most expensive way to generate electricity. 

Additional problems have emerged. In the Middle East, Israel, Iraq, Iran, and the United States have all targeted nuclear reactors as part of their military operations on more than a dozen occasions. Since 2022, Putin has attacked Ukraine’s research and power reactors repeatedly. Meanwhile, Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, and Israel have all threatened to target their neighbors’ nuclear plants. If they do, the environmental, military, and diplomatic effects of a major radiological release from nuclear plants in war zones could be huge.

Undeterred, Iran, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Poland, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea all want to build and operate additional nuclear power plants. They insist nuclear power is necessary to bolster their energy security and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. None, however, has clarified how they might prevent these plants from being seized militarily or becoming targets. 

What explains this? 

One possibility is inertia. For decades, governments have invested significant capital into civilian nuclear projects, creating a multitude of vested interests eager to keep the money flowing. Electrical utility systems in many countries are owned and operated by national authorities that can ignore or muffle negative market signals. In the United States, many utilities’ spending on expensive nuclear construction projects are rewarded with higher utility rates, whether the project is the best economical choice or not. Once a major reactor project runs over-budget in regulated jurisdictions, these costs are not necessarily “prohibitive” as long as the project enjoys political support.

What, though, explains such backing? Frequently, contractors and public officials warn against “losing” the costs already sunk in an expensive nuclear project as a way of justifying the completion of plants that are decades behind schedule and billions over budget. This, however, fails to explain why states launch such projects even when they’ve been flagged as being financially dubious from the outset.

A deeper set of explanations is needed.

A worrisome possibility is that countries lacking nuclear arms view building and operating reactors as an amiable way to develop a nuclear weapons option. “Peaceful” nuclear plants, after all, can serve as bomb starter kits. This certainly explains Saddam Hussein’s construction of Osirak and its supporting facilities, as well as Syria’s construction of its reactor. It also explains Sweden’s original heavy water reactor project, Israel’s construction of Dimona, and Iran’s extensive nuclear activities. Taiwan’s and South Korea’s early nuclear weapons ambitions, as well as those of Argentina, France, Italy, Algeria, Brazil, India, Pakistan, and South Africa were also all fueled by first standing up a “peaceful” nuclear reactor. Exploiting civilian nuclear projects to develop bomb options might soon contribute to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt’s nuclear programs.

The nuclear weapons potential of nuclear plants also produces a halo effect for small and large reactor sales to medium and developing nations. China and Russia, on the one hand, and the United States, South Korea, and France, on the other, are now competing for nuclear power markets in Eastern Europe, South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. For nuclear suppliers, securing nuclear deals in these regions is not only about establishing or maintaining a geopolitical-economic foothold, but about sustaining their own economically-fragile domestic nuclear vendors.

Meanwhile, most nuclear client states find the energy security rationale for nuclear power appealing—so much so that they are willing to commit to projects that put them into serious debt. They also give lip service to limiting greenhouse gas emissions, even though nuclear power’s current contribution to countering climate change is marginal and a distraction from more viable renewable energy solutions.

All these claims skim over an underlying explanation—that promoting “peaceful” nuclear power never was or is much of an end in itself, but instead is only sustainable as a support to some grander goal. When Eisenhower first proposed Atoms for Peace, his main objective was to somehow reduce the public’s fear of nuclear war by presenting as an alternative a peaceful, prosperous nuclear future. Eisenhower proposed nuclear power’s development even though he and his advisors suspected nuclear energy might not be economically viable for a decade or more.

This did not matter. Eisenhower wanted to have a more positive vision guide his policies than the impending threat of a Russian nuclear knock out blow. He proposed Atoms for Peace to offer hope against this fear. 

Was there ever a real, clear fix against the threat of nuclear war? Did the Atoms for Peace program address the most likely nuclear threat that could defeat the United States? Was the program’s hope of drawing down stockpiles and production of nuclear fissile material all that sound?  No. 

Again, it did not matter. America and the world needed to believe that the most powerful nuclear-armed state—the United States—had both a clear desire and a plan to skirt Armageddon. By fully committing to an ambitious (albeit questionable) program of peaceful nuclear development, Eisenhower convinced the world and himself just how dedicated he and America were to security and economic development. It helped that, early on, few had a clear idea of what nuclear deterrence or developing nuclear power actually required.

In subsequent decades, America’s organizing principles changed but the use of peaceful nuclear energy to achieve them persisted. In the 1960s, the Great Society’ commitment to eliminating poverty and making the “deserts bloom” embraced the Atomic Energy Commission’s fantastic vision of bringing a thousand reactors (both fast and thermal) online by the year 2000.

Today, nuclear power boosters pitch nuclear power in an effort to help America become energy-independent. They insist net zero is impossible without nuclear energy. As such, the uncertain costs of small, advanced modular reactors and the poor financial performance of the large ones are no longer relevant: Achieving energy security and stopping global warming are “existential” imperatives whose ultimate value cannot be fully internalized in any compelling, quantitative fashion. When it comes to saving America and the world, money no longer is much of an object. Nor are the technical, safety, environmental and military concerns these projects raise.

What might change this?

One possibility is the emergence of economically-distributed electrical supply systems. The further development of affordable electrical storage batteries, improved switching and monitoring technologies, and advanced distribution and transmission systems should make this possible. Such systems might even render nuclear or non-nuclear baseload generators unnecessary. The growing vulnerability of electrical supply systems and of nuclear plants to cyber and physical attacks might catalyze these developments. On the other hand, vested industry interests and local regulatory and bureaucratic inertia could easily slow them.

Another possibility is that a major reactor accident or attack on a nuclear plant could produce a major radiological release that might catalyze support for developing safer, cheaper, non-nuclear power alternatives. 

A similar but more worrisome negative incentive might happen if “peaceful” nuclear plants and  know-how are ever exploited to make bombs. If states made weapons from such plants and fired them, it would cast a pall over “peaceful” nuclear energy. It also would increase demand for tougher nuclear controls, which could detect possible military nuclear diversions early enough to prevent bombs from being built. Such tighter controls, in turn, would necessarily restrict nuclear fuel making and the operation of the most proliferation-prone of reactor types.

Unfortunately, the last half century suggests that demand for such exacting inspections is hardly high. However, it can be generated. In 1974, India’s “peaceful” nuclear test, which used plutonium produced in a “peaceful” nuclear reactor, prompted a serious tightening of the nuclear rules. Perhaps another “peaceful” test by another non-weapons state might result in the same consequences. Until then, though, support for Atoms for Peace and its mixed results are likely to persist.

Henry Sokolski is Executive Director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and the author of Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear Future. He served as Deputy for Nonproliferation Policy in the office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense during the George H.W. Bush Administration.

https://files.constantcontact.com/abc65024401/7ee258bf-32c2-48a3-bbd6-c0cec7c545aa.jpg?rdr=true

Beyond Nuclear Bulletin
August 15, 2024

"CONSENT-BASED SITING"?
DOE targets EJ communities for dumps

Thursday, August 29 at 1:30pm ET, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will hold its fifth webinar about "consent-based siting" for highly radioactive waste "consolidated interim storage facilities." Pre-registration is required. Beyond Nuclear has opposed DOE's insincere initiative from the get-go: so-called "consent-based siting" is little different from DOE's Nuclear Waste Negotiator efforts decades ago.

As then, so now: low-income, already disproportionately polluted, and/or Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities are being targeted for nuke waste dumps. These sessions are entirely scripted, with no voices of resistance allowed. But it's still important for us to watch-dog what they are up to, to nip this environmental injustice in the bud!

Read More

ZOMBIE NUKE!
Investigative journalist shines light

Investigative journalist Roger Rapoport has published an article in The Progressive Magazine entitled "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Antiques Roadshow: As new U.S. nuclear construction grinds to a halt, one company aims to restart a Michigan reactor that violated fifty codes—in just one year." Rapoport is also host of the podcast "The Nuclear Reactor Next Door," focused on the Palisades zombie atomic reactor on the Lake Michigan shore (pictured). There are currently eight episodes, four featuring Beyond Nuclear's radioactive waste specialist Kevin Kamps, who has watch-dogged Palisades for 32 years. Other guests include Palisades Park Country Club residents Bruce and Karen Davis, epidemiologist Joe Mangano, climate expert Dr. Mark Jacobson, and former Entergy Palisades senior engineer Alan Blind.


 


 

 

PROTEST AT TMI!
Unit 1 restart scheme controversy

Longtime watchdogs on the infamous Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania have rallied at the front entrance, to warn the public about intensifying efforts to restart Unit 1, which closed for good on September 20, 2019. Unit 2 had a 50% core meltdown (pictured) on March 28, 1979, the worst reactor disaster in U.S. history. As documented in Heidi Hutner's film "Radioactive: The Women of Three Mile Island," Gene Stilp has led vigils and protests at TMI for decades, and risked arrest once again this time. As the Washington Post has reported, TMI-1's potential restart follows the precedent being set at Palisades in Michigan; Duane Arnold in Iowa is also under consideration for nuclear zombification.

Read More

WHAT AROSE AT ZAPORIZHZHIA?
Fire at cooling tower extinguished

It could have been an accident. Or deliberate. Ukraine started it. Or Russia did. There was no radiation release. It will be virtually impossible to unravel any of these assertions in the coming weeks. The only comfort is that a fire in one of the two cooling towers at the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, located in Ukraine but occupied by Russian forces, is out. The precise function of these cooling towers is also unclear as they are not attached to the six reactor buildings. The IAEA says “The cooling towers are separate and removed from the shutdown reactors and spent fuel pools. The towers’ function is to release heat through evaporation to cool down machinery, equipment, or air inside a building.”

Read More

Beyond Nuclear | 301.270.2209 | www.BeyondNuclear.org

 

Radioactive water leaks reported at Japan's crippled Fukushima power plant

TOKYO, Aug. 15 (Xinhua) -- About 25 tons of radioactive water have leaked within the crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the plant's operator has reported, a week after the latest round of ocean discharge started.

The nuclear-contaminated water, which leaked from a surge tank connected to the Unit 2 reactor building, was meant to be contained in a tank receiving overflow from the spent nuclear fuel pool, according to Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

Accumulating on the first basement level of the reactor building, the leaked water led to a rise in the level of contaminated water already present in the area, TEPCO introduced on Tuesday, confirming that the contaminated water had not escaped outside the reactor building.

20240815b2aeda37e15a4f34be1a2b4ea67c30c5_ChkhgeE007014_20240815_CBMFN0A002.JPG
Photo taken on March 6, 2023 shows abandoned houses in Futabacho, Futabagun of Fukushima Prefecture in Japan. (Xinhua/Zhang Xiaoyu)

The leak was first identified last Friday, when a decrease in the water level of the surge tank was detected, according to TEPCO, which upon further investigation discovered water flowing into a drain in a room on the third floor of the reactor building.

The company plans to use a remotely operated robot to measure radiation levels in the room by Friday and further pinpoint the exact location and cause of the leak. The cooling pump for the pool has been temporarily shut down as part of the investigation.

Hit by a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and an ensuing tsunami on March 11, 2011, the Fukushima nuclear plant suffered core meltdowns that released radiation, resulting in a level-7 nuclear accident, the highest on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

The plant has been generating a massive amount of water tainted with radioactive substances from cooling down nuclear fuel in reactor buildings. The contaminated water is now being stored in tanks at the nuclear plant.

20240815b2aeda37e15a4f34be1a2b4ea67c30c5_ChkhgeE007014_20240815_CBMFN0A003.JPG
People protest against the Japanese government's plan to discharge nuclear-contaminated water into the sea in Fukushima, Japan, June 20, 2023. (Xinhua/Zhang Xiaoyu)

Despite furious opposition both at home and abroad, the ocean discharge of the Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water began in August 2023, and the eighth round of ocean discharge started last week.

In fiscal 2024, TEPCO plans to discharge a total of 54,600 tons of the contaminated water in seven rounds, which contains approximately 14 trillion becquerels of tritium.

Amid raging credibility and safety concerns among the Japanese public following a series of accidents at the crippled plant, TEPCO and the Japanese government have been frequently challenged for mishandling the contaminated water.

US wind and solar on track to overtake coal this year
By Benjamin Storrow | 08/13/2024 06:33 AM EDT

The two renewable resources together have produced more power than coal through July — a first for the United States.
 
Wind and solar generated more power than coal through the first seven months of the year, federal data shows, in a first for renewable resources.

The milestone had been long expected due to a steady stream of coal plant retirements and the rapid growth of wind and solar. Last year, wind and solar outpaced coal through May before the fossil fuel eventually overtook the pair when power demand surged in the summer.

But the most recent statistics showed why wind and solar are on track in 2024 to exceed coal generation for an entire calendar year — with the renewable resources maintaining their lead through the heat of July. Coal generation usually declines in the spring months, due to falling power demand and seasonal plant maintenance, and picks up when electricity demand rises in the summer.

 

Renewables’ growth has been driven by a surge in solar production over the last year. The 118 terawatt-hours generated by utility-scale solar facilities through the end of July represented a 36 percent increase from the same time period last year, according to preliminary U.S. Energy Information Administration figures. Wind production was 275 TWh, up 8 percent over 2023 levels. Renewables’ combined production of 393 TWh outpaced coal generation of 388 TWh.

“I think it is an important milestone,” said Ric O’Connell, who leads GridLab, a clean electricity consulting firm. “I think you’re seeing a solar surge and a coal decline and hence the lines are crossing.”

EIA previously reported that renewable generation eclipsed coal in 2020 and 2022 and then repeated the feat in 2023. But those figures notably included other resources such as hydropower. Now wind and solar are posed to overtake coal on their own. The pair accounted for 16 percent of U.S. power generation through July, slightly more than coal’s share of the power generation market.

The development comes at a time when the reliability of the electric grid is in the spotlight amid increasing power demand due to the growth of artificial intelligence, data centers, and more frequent and severe heat waves — which drive up air conditioning use. EIA statistics show electricity demand through the first seven months of the year was up 4 percent to 2,436 TWh through the end of July.

The growth in demand has been a boon for power generators. Nuclear generation was 459 TWh through July, a 3 percent increase helped by two new reactors in Georgia coming online within the last year. Hydro was up a slight 1 percent to 159 TWh. Gas has been particularly important for supplying additional demand, increasing 5 percent over 2023 levels to 987 TWh.

Mark Repsher, an analyst who tracks the power industry at PA Consulting Group, said the figures point to larger challenges facing the power grid. Additional power plants that can be turned on at the flip of a switch will be needed to meet demand, he said. The question is whether it will come from natural gas or zero-carbon resources, such as nuclear or geothermal.

“Renewables will continue to be a huge part of the industry, but I think there will be an inflection point where the incremental value of an additional megawatt-hour from renewables will be less than some other alternatives,” he said.

Others were less sure. The rapid growth of wind, solar and batteries in Texas shows that renewables can be built quickly and stabilize the electric grid, said O’Connell. The state is “sailing through a crazy summer” thanks to record wind, solar and battery output, he said.

Coal may yet hold off wind and solar with a strong five months to close 2024. But renewables are likely to overtake the former king of the power sector sooner rather than later.

The last coal plant built in the continental United States came online in 2013. American coal capacity then declined 38 percent over the following decade.

Renewables, meanwhile, are booming. The U.S. installed almost 12 gigawatts of new solar capacity through June, meaning 2024 already ranks as the third best year for U.S. solar installations with six more months to go. Another 25 GW is planned to come online this year, according to EIA. Wind added 2.5 GW through June and is expected to install another 4.5 GW by the end of the year.

One piece of positive news for the coal industry is that plant retirements are on track to hit their lowest level in 13 years. EIA projects 3.2 GW of coal capacity will close this year, the lowest annual retirement figure since 2011 and down from the 9.5 GW of coal capacity shut down last year.

Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3 - Integrated Inspection Report 05000277/2024002 and 05000278/2024002
 
ADAMS Accession No. ML24227A549
 

AI game changer hits the grid
By Peter Behr | 08/13/2024 06:44 AM EDT

Northern Virginia is ground zero for digital data centers as Dominion Electric is squeezing all it can from its high-voltage lines.
 
 
LOUDOUN COUNTY, Virginia — High up along a string of transmission towers leading into northern Virginia’s immense cluster of digital data centers, line crews are doing one of the scariest jobs in the energy world.

Specially trained technicians have been unhooking live, uninsulated high-voltage lines that are crackling with 230,000 deadly volts of electricity. They’re replacing them with advanced cables that boost power delivery by 50 percent.

You wouldn’t do it this way unless you had to, says Matthew Gardner, vice president for transmission for Dominion Electric, the state’s largest utility, which owns and operates the lines.

Dominion says it has to.

Here, on the outskirts of Dulles International Airport, the largest collection of data centers in the United States is drawing power from Dominion’s lines. The eruption of generative artificial intelligence traffic and expectations for more are sending electricity use soaring.

Dominion chose the rare “hot line” replacement. It simply couldn’t shut down existing power lines that feed 24/7 demand for power from the growing hub of data centers. “It’s absolutely essential that these projects are completed to serve the future growth that’s coming our way,” Gardner said in an interview.

It took Dominion 115 years from its founding to reach its current level of power delivery. “The pace of growth is so rapid, driven by data centers, that we’re on pace to double our system load in the next 15 years,” Gardner said.

Here and at other data center clusters around the U.S., a grid industry struggling with a historic shift from fossil fuel generation to renewable energy is suddenly facing predictions of unprecedented demand because of this next phase of America’s digital economy, with no overall game plan to go on.

At the moment, the U.S. grid industry has slipped well off pace to meet President Joe Biden’s zero-carbon generation goals, required to lessen the risk of catastrophic climate events. The 2024 presidential race stands as a referendum on climate policy, given the scale of federal spending on clean energy under Biden. The AI-driven need for energy poses a new barrier to cutting carbon emissions if utilities rely primarily on gas- and coal-fired generation to meet the demand, according to recent studies.

Arshad Mansoor, chief executive of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), said utilities, grid planners, data center operators and their customers should be working together to develop clean energy. 

In a report to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm’s energy advisory board, EPRI urged the nation to “transition to carbon-free electricity sources for data center operations and low carbon technologies for backup power.” 

Data center vs. climate change?

Meeting power needs without losing the fight against global warming has suddenly changed the planning and politics for the U.S grid.

To illustrate digital technology’s ravenous appetite for power, EPRI noted that simple searches today on a laptop browser consume about one-third of a watt of electricity. But advanced AI technology and high-powered computing are training software algorithms to create answers from vast data files, with skyrocketing increases in power needs.

A complex generative AI question over ChatGPT today would require 3 watts, 10 times the simple search amount, EPRI’s report concluded. A Google search with similar generative AI capability could require 9 watts, it added.

Depending on how fast AI expands, data center electricity demands could mushroom from about 4 percent of U.S. grid output to over 9 percent in just six years, EPRI said.

“Nobody has a good understanding of how generative AI will impact every aspect of the society,” Mansoor said in an interview. “And so anything we say now, most likely will be wrong in six months,” he added.

Energy & Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco energy research firm, gathered 13 analyses of how much electricity output may have to grow to keep up with data center expansion, under different assumptions.

The projections range from 20,000 megawatts to 100,000 MW of new capacity by 2030. There are plenty of unknowns, including just how “smart” generative AI becomes, how much efficiency can be built into AI chips and whether a strained electric grid can actually deliver the power data centers require.

“There’s still a ton of uncertainty,” particularly concerning the highest forecasts, said E3 senior partner Kushal Patel, a report co-author. “It’s probably not going to be more certain in the future,” he added.

If some utilities wind up overbuilding infrastructure to serve data centers, consumers could be stuck with higher costs, warned Moody’s Investors Service in a recent research report.

The 100,000 MW figure is roughly comparable to duplicating the generation capacity of the entire 94 U.S. nuclear reactors in six years.

While the impact is unmeasured, growth is coming because the potential profits from AI applications has created a sprint for the lead among hyperscale internet cloud infrastructure companies, led by Amazon Web Services, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Apple and TikTok, said Phill Lawson-Shanks, chief innovation officer at Aligned Data Centers, a Texas-based data center builder. 

“I hesitate to use that term, but there’s almost an arms race,” he said.

“They are saying, ‘OK, I have no idea how much, but I know I need power,’” EPRI’s Mansoor said. “’I need to build as much as I can.’”

The cost of new power

E3 pointed to the health care industry to describe the potential scale of artificial intelligence power demand.

There are roughly 32,000 radiologists in the U.S. with a midrange annual wage of $354,000, the firm estimated. If AI could learn to accurately analyze X-ray, ultrasound and MRI images, and replace just 10 percent of those radiologists, the revenue from that substitution could be more than $1 billion a year, according to E3 researchers.

That would pay for a lot of energy-hungry supercomputers.

With long lead times to connect wind and solar to the power grid and a split between the two political parties on federal transmission policy, the quickest source of new power for data centers is from gas-fired generation, E3 noted.

Officials in North Dakota see prospects for a booming data center business — based on discussions with major technology companies — as an opportunity to use some of the natural gas coming off the region’s prolific oil fields. North Dakota Department of Commerce Commissioner Josh Teigen says state officials are looking for ways to develop more gas-fired generation to power data centers and sell surplus electricity to the grid.

Grid operators and utilities are postponing some fossil fuel plant retirements citing threats to electricity reliability. “These rollbacks clash with the customers’ environmental goals and investments, and they threaten state and utility emission reduction targets,” E3 analysts said.

According to E3, delaying the retirement of a typical 1,000-MW coal power plant for a single year, for example, puts 3.8 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. That would offset the carbon-saving effects of 3,000 MW of utility-scale solar installations, E3 calculated.

What can be done?

As an immediate step, utilities need to make greater use of advanced transmission cables and “grid enhancing technologies” like dynamic line rating sensors that tell grid operators when more power can be moved without overheating cables, Gardner said.

EPRI analysts suggested data center operators could sync AI operations to times of the day or night when renewable power is most plentiful. Or large AI customers could help finance pilot installations of advanced 24/7 carbon-free power sources.

At its July 30 meeting, the advisory board to the secretary of Energy urged utilities, regulators, and data center users and builders to work together to speed up development of wind, solar and batteries. Longer-term technologies include small modular reactors (SMRs), long-term grid batteries, hydrogen hubs, fuel cells and underground storage of fossil plant carbon emissions.

Andy Bochman, senior grid strategist for the Idaho National Laboratory, emphasized small nuclear reactors.

“Coal and gas plants can then be replaced by similar-sized SMR installations on a one-to-one basis,” Bochman said. “This must be complemented by expanding wind and solar and storage on microgrids as quickly as possible.”

“As an industry, we will be forced to look at self-generation until the grid can catch up,” said Lawton-Shanks of Aligned Data Centers.

The hyperscale operators have huge financial resources, EPRI’s Mansoor said. They can partner with utilities to build pilot generation plants at data centers that could remove some of the financial risk of backing emerging technology like hydrogen or carbon capture.

“We can have 10 SMRs and 10 carbon capture and storage projects working by 2030,” Mansoor said.

There could be 10 carbon capture and storage installations at natural gas and coal plants, he continued.

Will the big data center users invest? “They’re talking,” Mansoor said.

Pages