Engineering-civil,mechanical,architectural,structural,aerospace…

Congress and the Obama administration are on a course to provide the nation’s nuclear industry an unprecedented financial package—one that could dwarf the combined expenditures of last year’s bailout programs. And the legislative package comes with restrictions that would block the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from completely examining untried nuclear power systems.

The extensive support for the development of nuclear power is incorporated in the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act moving separately through the Environment and Public Works and the Energy and Natural Resources committees. The House version of the bill passed in June.

If enacted, the legislation would create a special “bank” affiliated with the Department of Energy (DOE) called the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA), which could potentially provide underwriting for 187 new nuclear power projects—at an estimated cost of $10 to $14 billion each—and assume responsibility for cost overruns and delays.

If the Senate version is approved, there would be unlimited funding for nuclear power projects throughout the country, instead of just in the three states (Florida, Georgia and South Carolina) that allow utilities to bill consumers in advance for the cost of constructing nuclear power plants. Federal investment in nuclear energy would replace that from the Wall Street investment community, which has been loathe to invest in these expensive capital projects.

That reticence, says energy analyst Jim Hempstead of Moody’s Investors Service, stems from the fact that these plants tie up a large percent of a utility’s capital and have a high probability of default. Moody’s, therefore, downgrades the ratings of companies beginning nuclear projects. “History has not been a friend to the sector,” says Hempstead. “None of these designs have been approved and there is a significant amount of execution risk.”

But forcing taxpayers to fund nuclear plants is “very bad public policy,” says Peter Bradford, a former NRC commissioner and former member of the New York State Public Service commission. “It means the entities best positioned to control costs and risks—mainly construction managers and the private financial system—don’t have to worry about those risks.” What’s more, he adds: “It exposes taxpayers to very large potential losses when you consider that nearly half of the nuclear plants that received construction permits were cancelled before they came on line.”

Specifically, CEDA would take over the loan guarantee authority currently vested in the DOE, which is budgeted at $18.5 billion for nuclear plants underwriting. DOE Secretary Steven Chu told the Senate Committee that the current allocation should underwrite the development of four nuclear power plants.

The Senate bills, however, start the new funding at $100 billion—a figure the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry’s lobbying arm, calls “a minimum acceptable additional loan volume.”

In theory, CEDA would be used to underwrite the development of a variety of technologies having difficulty obtaining funding on Wall Street. To that end, the House version of the bill states no more than 30% of the funds can go to any one energy source. The Senate versions, however, remove that restriction.

“This is pretty breathtaking,” says Ellen Vancko, nuclear energy and climate change project manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “On top of the loan guarantees, they are looking for investment tax credits, production tax credits, worker training tax credits, changes to the IRS codes for nuclear decommissioning funds and the inclusion of nuclear energy in the nation’s renewable energy standards. That’s pretty ambitious.

“If all these risks get shifted from the private sector to the public sector, then why don’t we just nationalize the nuclear industry like the French?”

In addition to financial support, the industry is pushing for provisions that would bar NRC engineers from examining the capabilities of new reactor systems. In practice, the NRC tests each major system designed for a new reactor, and then tests its interaction with previously certified systems. This helps uncover unforeseen glitches as complex electrical and pressurized systems interact. But under proposals in the bills designed to streamline the approval process, once a system is approved it could not be subject to a new test. Public hearings on nuclear safety issues, under the bills, would become informal and non-binding instead of an integral part of the license review process.

Between the trillion dollars in construction loan guarantees and the regulatory restrictions, says Vancko, it’s celebration time for the nuclear industry. “If they can eliminate the public and tie the hands of the regulators and get the taxpayers to pick up the bill, they should be able to move along quite nicely,” she says.

ROGER WITHERSPOON is an environmental journalist, educator and author specializing in energy issues and the founder of the Association of Black Journalists.

BYRON (WREX) – An upgrade to the emergency alert sirens at the nuclear plant in Byron has been completed.

Exelon Nuclear says the five-year project to install larger sirens that provide better sound coverage was finished Tuesday.

The project, which involved plants in Illinois and Iowa, cost Exelon Nuclear $3.6 million.

“These sirens are an important part of Exelon Nuclear’s emergency plan, and they also benefit the counties in which each station resides,” said Kevin Appel, Exelon Nuclear’s Emergency Preparedness Manager. “The siren system layout was designed by a siren acoustic engineering company and approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

The Byron Station now has a total of 61 sirens.

The new system was tested during the morning hours Tuesday. It will continue to be tested at 10:00 a.m. on the first Tuesday of every month

The two issues likely to dominate the legislative session beginning today are the state budget and the future of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. As legislators face Yankee’s future, Yankee’s owners will be trying to answer several vexing questions.

Vermont Yankee’s license to operate expires in 2012, but the plant’s owner, Entergy Nuclear Vermont, is seeking a 20-year extension. When Entergy purchased the plant in 2002, one condition of the sale was that the Legislature would have a say on the license extension. Now that decision is before the Legislature.

Some legislators will support Vermont Yankee because they are willing to rely on the regulatory oversight of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the state Public Service Board. They may agree with Gov. James Douglas that Yankee’s license was not the Legislature’s business in the first place and that NRC and PSB approval will satisfy their concerns about safety and other issues related to the public good.

Others will oppose Vermont Yankee because they oppose nuclear power, with its potential for catastrophic failure and its unsolved problem of fuel storage. They will welcome the chance to vote no.

Others are weighing the relatively inexpensive power provided by Vermont Yankee in recent years against the uncertainty of power costs in the future. They are weighing the economic benefits and the jobs provided by the plant against uncertainties about future ownership and the liabilities associated with decommissioning the plant in 2032.

Many legislators have found the answers provided by Entergy so far to be less than satisfactory. Thus, as a vote on Yankee’s future nears, they must press for clear and definitive answers on these questions:

How much will it actually cost to decommission the plant? Legislators have been alarmed by the apparent shortfall in the decommissioning fund maintained by Entergy. Previously, the cost of decommissioning the plant was thought to approach $1 billion. The fund at present is somewhere in the vicinity of $400 million. If the plant stopped operations in 2012, legislators feared that it would take decades for the fund to grow to a size sufficient to dismantle it.

Lately, however, Entergy has been saying that decommissioning is likely to cost only $500 million or so because the cost of fuel storage will be assumed by the federal government. We know the federal government has promised to accept responsibility for fuel storage. How close to doing so is it?

Why does Entergy need to spin off ownership of Yankee and several other plants to a separate corporate entity? Entergy says it wants to create a separate corporation, Enexus, which will borrow money to buy Yankee. Decommissioning the plant, and responsibility for any future disasters, would fall to Enexus. This corporate restructuring has stirred deep suspicions among legislators who have observed the financial disasters of recent years and gained an appreciation of the dangers of excessive debt. Entergy has described the restructuring as a form of corporate streamlining — grouping similar plants within their own company. This explanation has not been persuasive. We must assume the motivations for the spin-off are financial, and legislators need to get a better fix on what Entergy is up to. If the effects of the spin-off are likely to be benign, we need to see why.

How much will Vermonters have to pay for power from Vermont Yankee? Vermont utilities got a sweetheart deal when Entergy bought the plant: If the market price for power produced by Yankee exceeded a specific level, Vermont utilities would share in the profits and Vermont ratepayers would benefit. Now Entergy wants to do away with that revenue-sharing deal and stick Vermont ratepayers with a higher price. Entergy has failed to come to terms with Vermont utilities on a power contract. Legislators need to be persuaded that the continued operation of Yankee is in the public good.

Conceivably, Yankee might be considered a public good even if it sold no power to Vermont utilities — after all it is a major employer and source of revenue. But this list of questions goes to larger issues of corporate responsibility that continue to trouble many legislators. Entergy has done a better job in recent weeks of providing answers to these questions. Legislators have to listen with an open mind.

LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK — A Salem County nuclear power plant was shut down and another was put on reduced power because of ice in the Delaware River.
The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Salem Unit 2 was shut down around 8 a.m. Sunday because it was taking ice into its cooling mechanism. Salem Unit 1 was reduced to 80 percent power for the same reason. It’s not clear when the two plants will return to full power.

Hope Creek, a third nuclear power plant in the same complex, was not powered down because of the ice.
Tuition breaks for immigrants advance

TRENTON — Committees in both houses of the state Legislature voted Monday for a proposal that would give immigrant children in the country illegally the ability to pay in-state tuition rates at New Jersey public colleges.

Students who are undocumented aliens would be eligible to pay in-state tuition if they attended a New Jersey high school for at least three years, graduated or got the equivalent of a diploma, and file an affidavit with their college promising to apply to legalize their immigration status as soon as they’re eligible.

New Jersey would be the 12th state to exempt undocumented immigrants from paying out-of-state tuition rates — which can be twice or more the rates charged to in-state residents — if the Senate and Assembly pass the bill by Monday and Gov. Jon S. Corzine signs it before leaving office Jan. 19.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Tuesday that the state should include more nuclear power plants in its energy portfolio while cutting taxes and government regulation to provide a welcome mat for solar and wind projects encountering “green tape” elsewhere.

Said Brewer, “Memo to California solar industries: Arizona’s door is open, we’ll leave the light on for you.”

Brewer outlined a portfolio of positions and initiatives on energy topics during an address to a regional business summit held at a Phoenix resort.

Arizona already is home to the three-reactor Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station west of Phoenix, and Brewer said she wants to develop more nuclear power.

No new nuclear power plant has been built in the U.S. for decades but economic and environmental factors warrant a new emphasis on that electricity source, Brewer said.

“I believe it’s the wave of the future,” she said.

Brewer said she is committed to taking other steps to make Arizona “the solar capital of the world.”

She cited newly enacted income and property tax incentives that encouraged a major Chinese solar company, Suntech Power Holdings, to choose Arizona for a major manufacturing plant.

Arizona should go beyond those new tax incentives targeted to renewable energy projects by making itself more attractive to jobs-providing businesses in general by phasing in an overall reduction of the corporate income tax, Brewer said.

That proposal will be included her State of the State address Monday, she said.

Brewer, who froze new state rule-making after taking office just under a year go, also said she will continue to push efforts to reduce “the hidden tax of regulation.”

Said Brewer: “We cannot quash the next generation of entrepreneurs with petty rules and fines.”

Brewer, a Republican, is running for election to a full four-year term.

Areva, the French nuclear, giant, has signed a letter of intent to build up to two nuclear plants near Fresno, California. California has a ban on new nuclear plants in the state but Areva believes the law will fade away under the state’s demand for more clean power. Each plant could produce 1.6 gigawatts and the whole thing could cost between $5 and $8 billion.

Sez the Los Angeles Times:

The agreement with Areva is expected to be finalized in March, said John Hutson, chief executive of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, a partnership of local business executives and farmers. Once that’s done, the two potential partners would begin a site selection and evaluation process that could take as long as two years, he said.

Will it happen? Hard to say. Nuclear advocates say that the U.S. will need 25 to 30 new nuclear plants by 2030 to just keep nuclear at 20 percent of the energy budget. The U.S. could ultimately need 187 new reactors by 2050 to meet its climate goals, they add, although nuclear advocates admit that’s unlikely. Public opinion has begun to soften toward nuclear. Additionally, academics like MIT’s Ernie Moniz and UC Berkeley’s Dan Kammen have stated that nuclear needs to be part of the future energy diet. (Eric Wesoff and I also recently wrote a report on modular nuclear reactors–it makes a great gift.)

Nuclear could also produce jobs, both construction jobs and high-end, high-tech jobs. France and Japan have become the centers of nuclear engineering since the U.S. stopped building power plants in the 70s.

Still, waste, proliferation and other grave issues remain. On the same day that Areva announced its plans, a report came out that Iran has been trying to buy uranium from Kazakhstan. A new nuclear renaissance will mean more widespread knowledge of how to process uranium, and with that will come more opportunities for bribing and cajoling said individuals for that information. It’s not an easy debate.

Californians are also prickly when it comes to the environment. U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein continues to move ahead with a plan that would prevent solar thermal power plants, one of the more cost-effective forms of alternative enrgy, from going up in the Mojave. A thermal plant is one heck of a lot cleaner than a nuclear plant when you consider the construction materials and nuclear waste. And, unlike PV panels or wind, solar thermal plants produce power in steady, large quantities.

High energy electrons, protons, and complex nuclei can be produced in a number of astronomical environments. Such particles travel throughout the universe and are called cosmic rays. Some of these particles reach our Earth. As these objects hit our atmosphere, other particles called pions and muons are produced. These particles then slow down or crash into other atoms in the atmosphere. Since the atmosphere slows down these particles, the higher we travel, the more cosmic radiation we see. When you visit the mountains or take an airplane ride, you will encounter more cosmic radiation than if you stayed at sea level.
Most cosmic radiation is very energetic. It can easily pass through an inch of lead. Since cosmic radiation can cause genetic changes, some scientists believe that this radiation has been important in driving the evolution of life on our planet. While cosmic radiation can cause some damage to individuals, it also has played an important role in creating humans. Our atmosphere is naturally shielding us from harmful effects. However, if we were to leave the earth and travel to some planet, we could be subjected to very high levels of radiation. Future space travelers will have to find some way to minimize exposure to cosmic rays.

To find out more information, please take a look at experiments (10-14).

Cosmic Ray Exercise

Turn on the Geiger counter. Use the most sensitive scale. Make sure that no radioactive material is nearby. What do you hear? Every few seconds, you will hear some beeps from the counter. Some of these counts are caused by cosmic rays. Surround the counter by some concrete or iron. Do the counts go away? Take the Geiger counter to a mountain such as Mount Diablo or Mount Tamalpias. Can you measure an increase in rate? It might be necessary to make measurements for five to ten minutes or more to achieve sufficient statistical accuracy.

Fission is a nuclear process in which a heavy nucleus splits into two smaller nuclei. An example of a fission reaction that was used in the first atomic bomb and is still used in nuclear reactors is

²³⁵U + n —-> ¹³⁴Xe + ¹⁰⁰Sr + 2n

The products shown in the above equation are only one set of many possible product nuclei. Fission reactions can produce any combination of lighter nuclei so long as the number of protons and neutrons in the products sum up to those in the initial fissioning nucleus. As with fusion, a great amount of energy can be released in fission because for heavy nuclei, the summed masses of the lighter product nuclei is less than the mass of the fissioning nucleus.
Fission occurs because of the electrostatic repulsion created by the large number of positively charged protons contained in a heavy nucleus. Two smaller nuclei have less internal electrostatic repulsion than one larger nucleus. So, once the larger nucleus can overcome the strong nuclear force which holds it together, it can fission. Fission can be seen as a “tug-of-war” between the strong attractive nuclear force and the repulsive electrostatic force. In fission reactions, electrostatic repulsion wins.
Fission is a process that has been occurring in the universe for billions of years. As mentioned above, we have not only used fission to produce energy for nuclear bombs, but we also use fission peacefully everyday to produce energy in nuclear power plants. Interestingly, although the first man-made nuclear reactor was produced only about fifty years ago, the Earth operated a natural fission reactor in a uranium deposit in West Africa about two billion years ago!

Fusion is a nuclear process in which two light nuclei combine to form a single heavier nucleus. An example of a fusion reaction important in thermonuclear weapons and in future nuclear reactors is the reaction between two different hydrogen isotop es to form an isotope of helium:

This reaction liberates an amount of energy more than a million times greater than one gets from a typical chemical reaction. Such a large amount of energy is released in fusion reactions because when two light nuclei fuse, the sum of the masses of the product nuclei is less than the sum of the masses of the initial fusing nuclei. Once again, Einstein’s equation, E=mc², explains that the mass that is lost it converted into energy carried away by the fusion products.
Even though fusion n is an energetically favorable reaction for light nuclei, it does not occur under standard conditions here on Earth because of the large energy investment that is required. Because the reacting nuclei are both positively charged, there is a large electrostatic repulsion between them as they come together. Only when they are squeezed very close to one another do they feel the strong nuclear force, which can overcome the electrostatic repulsion and cause them to fuse.
Fusion reactions have been going on for billions of years in our universe. In fact, nuclear fusion reactions are responsible for the energy output of most stars, including our own Sun. Scientists on Earth have been able to produce fusion reactions for only about the last sixty years. At first, there were small scale studies in which only a few fusion reactions actually occurred. However, these first experiments later lead to the development of thermonuclear fusion weapons (hydrogen bombs).
Fusion is the process that takes place in stars like our Sun. Whenever we feel the warmth of the Sun and see by its light, we are observing the products of fusion. We know that all life on Earth exists because the light generated by the Sun produces food and warms our planet. Therefore, we can say that fusion is the basis for our life.

When a star is formed, it initially consists of hydrogen and helium created in the Big Bang, the process that created our universe. Hydrogen isotopes collide in a star and fuse forming a helium nucleus. Later, the helium nuclei collide and form heavier elements. Fusion is a nuclear reaction in which nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus. It is the basic reaction which drives the Sun. Lighter elements fuse and form heavier elements. These reactions continue until the nuclei reach iron (around mass sixty), the nucleus with the most binding energy. When a nucleus reaches mass sixty, no more fusion occurs in a star because it is energetically unfavorable to produce higher masses. Once a star has converted a large fraction of its core’s mass to iron, it has almost reached the end of its life.

The fusion chain cannot continue so its fuel is reduced. Some stars keep shrinking until they become a cooling ember made up of iron. However, if a star is sufficiently massive, a tremendous, violent, brilliant explosion can happen. A star will suddenly expand and produce, in a very short time, more energy than our Sun will produce in a lifetime. When this happens, we say that a star has become a supernova.

While a star is in the supernova phase, many important reactions occur. The nuclei are accelerated to much higher velocities than can occur in a fusing star. With the added energy caused by their speed, nuclei can fuse and produce elements higher in mass than iron. The extra energy in the explosion is necessary to over come the energy barrier of a higher mass element. Elements such as lead, gold, and silver found on Earth were once the debris of a supernova explosion. The element iron that we find all through the Earth and in its center is directly derived from both super novae and dead stars

More peaceful uses of fusion are being researched today with the hope that soon we will be able to control fusion reactions to generate clean, inexpensive power.

In 1896, Henri Becquerel was working with compounds containing the element uranium. To his surprise, he found that photographic plates covered to keep out light became fogged, or partially exposed, when these uranium compounds were anywhere near the plates. This fogging suggested that some kind of ray had passed through the plate coverings. Several materials other than uranium were also found to emit these penetrating rays. Materials that emit this kind of radiation are said to be radioactive and to undergo radioactive decay.
In 1899, Ernest Rutherford discovered that uranium compounds produce three different kinds of radiation. He separated the radiations according to their penetrating abilities and named them a alpha, b beta, and g gamma radiation, after the first three letters of the Greek alphabet. The a radiation can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Rutherford later showed that an alpha particle is the nucleus of a He atom, ⁴He. Beta particles were later identified as high speed electrons. Six millimeters of aluminum are needed to stop most b particles. Several millimeters of lead are needed to stop g rays , which proved to be high energy photons. Alpha particles and g rays are emitted with a specific energy that depends on the radioactive isotope. Beta particles, however, are emitted with a continuous range of energies from zero up to the maximum allowed for by the particular isotope.

? decay

The emission of an a particle, or ⁴He nucleus, is a process called a decay. Since a particles contain protons and neutrons, they must come from the nucleus of an atom. The nucleus that results from a decay will have a mass and charge different from those of the original nucleus. A change in nuclear charge means that the element has been changed into a different element. Only through such radioactive decays or nuclear reactions can transmutation, the age-old dream of the alchemists, actually occur. The mass number, A, of an a particle is four, so the mass number, A, of the decaying nucleus is reduced by four. The atomic number, Z, of ⁴He is two, and therefore the atomic number of the nucleus, the number of protons, is reduced by two. This can be written as an equation analogous to a chemical reaction. For example, for the decay of an isotope of the element seaborgium, ²⁶³Sg:

The atomic number of the nucleus changes from 106 to 104, giving rutherfordium an atomic mass of 263-4=259. a decay typically occurs in heavy nuclei where the electrostatic repulsion between the protons in the nucleus is large. Energy is released in the process of a decay. Careful measurements show that the sum of the masses of the daughter nucleus and the a particle is a bit less than the mass of the parent isotope. Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc², which says that mass is proportional to energy, explains this fact by saying that the mass that is lost in such decay is converted into the kinetic energy carried away by the decay products.

? Decay

Beta particles are negatively charged electrons emitted by the nucleus. Since the mass of an electron is a tiny fraction of an atomic mass unit, the mass of a nucleus that undergoes b decay is changed by only a tiny amount. The mass number is unchanged. The nucleus contains no electrons. Rather, b decay occurs when a neutron is changed into a proton within the nucleus. An unseen neutrino,, accompanies each b decay. The number of protons, and thus the atomic number, is increased by one. For example, the isotope ¹⁴C is unstable and emits a ? particle, becoming the stable isotope ¹⁴N:

In a stable nucleus, the neutron does not decay. A free neutron, or one bound in a nucleus that has an excess of neutrons, can decay by emitting a b particle. Sharing the energy with the b particle is a neutrino. The neutrino has little or no mass and is uncharged, but, like the photon, it carries momentum and energy. The source of the energy released in b decay is explained by the fact that the mass of the parent isotope is larger than the sum of the masses of the decay products. Mass is converted into energy just as Einstein predicted.

? Decay

Gamma rays are a type of electromagnetic radiation that results from a redistribution of electric charge within a nucleus. A g ray is a high energy photon. The only thing which distinguishes a g ray from the visible photons emitted by a light bulb is its wavelength; the g ray’s wavelength is much shorter. For complex nuclei there are many different possible ways in which the neutrons and protons can be arranged within the nucleus. Gamma rays can be emitted when a nucleus undergoes a transition from one such configuration to another. For example, this can occur when the shape of the nucleus undergoes a change. Neither the mass number nor the atomic number is changed when a nucleus emits a g ray in the reaction

The time required for half of the atoms in any given quantity of a radioactive isotope to decay is the half-life of that isotope. Each particular isotope has its own half-life. For example, the half-life of ²³⁸U is 4.5 billion years. That is, in 4.5 billion years, half of the ²³⁸U on Earth will have decayed into other elements. In another 4.5 billion years, half of the remaining ²³⁸U will have decayed. One fourth of the original material will remain on Earth after 9 billion years. The half-life of ¹⁴C is 5730 years, thus it is useful for dating archaeological material. Nuclear half-lives range from tiny fractions of a second to many, many times the age of the universe.

For more information on half-life and isotopes, please refer to the Isotopes Project at LBNL where you can also find the Table of Isotopes online.