Bush Calls for the Building of a New Gen. of nukes

Date: Jan 12, 2005

Bush Calls for the Building of a New Gen. of nukes

Date: Jan 21, 2005

RE: Bush Calls for the Building of a New Gen. of n

Date: Jan 21, 2005

RE: Bush Calls for the Building of a New Gen. of nukes

Date: Jan 27, 2005

....and some more :

NUCLEONICS WEEK JANUARY 27, 2005

Jaeri says HTR materials issues

solved for hydrogen production

Some critical materials issues standing in the way of

future efficient nuclear hydrogen production have been

solved, in cooperation with Japanese industry, experts at the

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (Jaeri) said.

Jaeri is waiting for a decision by Japan’s Ministry of

Education & Science (MEXT) to fund a pilot program beginning

this year to develop infrastructure allowing Jaeri in

2010 to connect to its high-temperature test reactor (HTTR)

at Oarai a hydrogen production unit based on proven

iodine-sulfur (IS) technology (NW, 20 Jan., 18).

In the meantime, Jaeri experts said, the institute, together

with outside partners, has been successfully attacking

technical obstacles related to production of high-temperature process heat.

The HTTR went critical in late 1998. After reaching the

nominal design thermal power level of 30 megawatts and an

operating outlet temperature of 850 degrees C at the end of

2001, a milestone was attained last year when the HTTR outlet

temperature reached 950 degrees C for a sustained period.

With a single helium intermediate heat exchanger (IHX)

in operation, in April 2004 the outlet temperature reached

950 degrees C for about one week. With both IHX units

operating, the feat was then repeated in mid-June.

This was possible, experts said, because Jaeri and

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) had solved IHX materials

problems using Hastelloy XR, the advanced corrosion-resistant

material chosen for the IHX equipment for HTTR.

Twenty years ago, Western experts said, the German

high-temperature reactor (HTR) development program, originally

intended to liquefy coal, had been held back by materials

science problems in the IHX related to demands for

generation of heat. German experts then were focusing on

advanced ceramics to withstand high temperatures.

With Hastelloy XR, "we now have the IHX material we

need, and the problem is solved," said Masuro Ogawa, director

of Jaeri’s department of advanced nuclear heat technology.

Some like it hotter

Jaeri has been cooperating with U.S. DOE in this development.

Looking forward to development of HTR technology

in its Generation-IV (GIF) advanced reactor program,

"DOE wants IHX technology to operate at 1,000 degrees C,

but we don’t think that’s possible right now," said Yoshihiro

Komori, director of the HTTR project. Jaeri experts have

explained to DOE counterparts that, according to their calculations,

an IHX operating at 950 degrees C on the basis of

HTTR technology and materials can have a design lifetime

of about 40 years. If the same equipment is operated at

1,000 degrees C, Jaeri believes, the design lifetime of the

IHX may be only about 10 years.

The 950-degree temperature "is enough heat for economic

production (of hydrogen or electricity), and the utility of

the investment which would be needed to increase the operating

temperature of the IHX beyond that level is very low,"

Komori said. At an operating temperature of 850 degrees C,

the calculated efficiency conversion from thermal energy in

helium to electricity generated in a gas turbine is 46%, compared

to 50% for an operating temperature of 950 degrees C,

Jaeri experts believe. If the operating temperature were to be

increased to 1,000 degrees C, the efficiency would be 53%,

"not that much more considering all the problems that

would have to be overcome" in raising the temperature by

50 degrees C, Komori said.

A U.S. expert, David Baldwin, senior vice president for

General Atomics in San Diego, Calif., agreed. "At 950

degrees we have technology in hand right now," he said.

"There we’re at the limits for metallic IHX materials. If you

want to go to 1,000 degrees, you will need ceramic material,

but that development is still in the future."

Integrity of in-core graphite structures is another technical

issue that has witnessed steady progress, Jaeri experts said.

Twenty-five years ago, pioneers in Germany of graphite-clad

fuel spheres faced the challenge of preventing graphite

from crumbling and eroding—an issue that later emerged

during the decommissioning of the pilot AVR unit in Juelich.

For coated fuel particles, fuel rods, and fuel assemblies,

HTTR relies on a pressurized isotropic graphite material

called IG-110, which was developed by Japanese vendor

Toyo Tansu Ltd. IG-110 is also now used in German-type

coated fuel spheres that China fabricates for its HTR program.

"Looking at its thermal, stress, ductile, and radiation

behavior, we think this is the best nuclear-grade graphite in

the world," one Jaeri project engineer said.

The core design of HTTR calls for a fuel burnup of 22

gigawatt-days per metric ton of fuel. "This will be the optimal

burnup for five or six years," he said. The core temperature

design limit is about 1,600 degrees C. In tandem with

research and development for a follow-on HTR in Japan,

experts said, engineers may fashion a core calling for a temperature

as high as 2,000 degrees C. If they do, the Jaeri

expert said, "we’ll need better coatings for the fuel."

Foreign cooperation

Japan is participating in work on five reactor systems for

the U.S.-sponsored GIF program. The Japan Nuclear Cycle

Development Institute is heading Japan’s efforts on four systems.

Jaeri is working on one system only, the very high-temperature

reactor (VHTR), and is the co-chair of that

group, which includes nine countries.

Since 2005, three agreements have been in preparation

for cooperation in the VHTR program: so-called framework,

system, and project agreements. Work on the general framework

agreement has been most advanced. The system agree-

ment, Japanese experts said, may be concluded by the end

of 2005, and will have five parts: design, fuel, material,

hydrogen production, and component development.

U.S. and Japanese experts are involved in what one

expert called "joint design" of reactor systems, including

turbines. Japanese engineers, this expert said, are "comfortable

with horizontal turbine design, but this will take up

more space. A final solution will have to be worked out together."

Separately, Jaeri has entered into cooperation on HTR

development with the Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique

(CEA) in France, with the Institute of Nuclear & New Energy

Technology of Tsingua University in China, with the Korea

Atomic Energy Research Institute, and, in another agreement

with DOE, with both Sandia and Idaho national laboratories.

Thus far, there is no cooperation agreement between

Jaeri and South Africa related to that country’s efforts to

launch the pebble bed modular reactor (PBMR).

Cooperation with China and Korea so far, Japanese experts

said, has been limited to information exchange. With U.S.

laboratories, Jaeri is discussing a memorandum of understanding

for joint use of HTTR facilities. Japanese experts

are interested in cooperation with DOE on hydrogen production

and fuel development. With CEA, fuel is also a key

topic of interest, related to expertise in fuel fabrication

accumulated by Nuclear Fuel Industries Ltd. for HTTR,

Japanese officials said.

While waiting on MEXT and the Japanese government

for financial approval of its plans to move forward toward

hydrogen production at HTTR in 2010, Jaeri experts said

they are optimistic that nuclear hydrogen production will

prove economic in the long run in Japan.

Ogawa said Jaeri studies show that most of the cost of

nuclear hydrogen production "is the cost of the reactor, so

the most important contribution toward reducing the cost

will be having low-cost reactors." It is "not a coincidence,"

he said, that in GIF, in China’s plans for commercialization

of HTR (NW, 6 Jan., 1), and in the PBMR program, "the

focus is on high reactor economy."

There is "no question," Ogawa said, that the cheapest

way of producing hydrogen commercially will be with fossil

fuels, not reactors. Assuming production based on the

iodine-sulfur process, the cost of hydrogen generation using

methane as fuel will be about one-fourth of the cost of production

using nuclear heat, he said, "since methane con-tains

about 75% of the energy" needed in that system. But

fossil fuel-driven hydrogen production systems "in the

future will have to account for and manage carbon dioxide

emissions, and the sequestration cost of doing that will

make fossil-fueled production of hydrogen very expensive."

The solution for sequestration if coal is the fuel, he said,

"is to bring (CO2) back to a mine." In China, he said,

"transport costs will be low and there is an abundance of

coal," posing "some questions" about the economy of

nuclear hydrogen production in China compared to fossil-fueled

production. In Japan, however, Ogawa said, "the

transport costs for sequestration will be high, and there is no mine in Japan."

Some experts have advocated production of hydrogen

using solar power. Jaeri calculates that the space required for

steady production of hydrogen using solar technology

would be about 100 times that needed for nuclear-driven systems.

—Mark Hibbs, Oarai

Date: Feb 11, 2005

NUCLEONICS WEEK FEBRUARY 10, 2005

DOE backs push for new reactors

with request for FY-06 increase

The Bush administration backed up its push for new

reactors this week with a $23.4-billion DOE budget request

that includes $101-million for two advanced reactor pro-

grams in fiscal 2006 that the department says will wrap up

an early site permit (ESP) project and initiate materials

research for next-generation reactor components.

Overall, the DOE spending proposal came in roughly 2%

below what the department received this fiscal year. Some

DOE work in the area of energy efficiency and renewable

energy, as well as oil and natural gas research and development,

however, would take funding hits.

DOE is seeking roughly $510-million, a 5.2% increase,

for nuclear energy activities in FY-06. Nuclear Power 2010, a

cost-share program aimed at the near-term deployment of at

least one advanced LWR, would receive $56-million, while

the Generation IV reactor program would be funded at $45-

million. Both programs would see their spending increase

roughly 13% under the budget blueprint. The administration

zeroed out the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization program

aimed at improving existing nuclear energy technologies

and the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) to

advance reactor technologies. NERI projects have been folded

into other nuclear energy activities, DOE stated in an FY-06 budget document.

A DOE budget document said the Gen IV program would

develop and issue a detailed research and development plan

for a very-high temperature reactor (VHTR) in FY-06 that

would identify all outstanding technology needs and schedules

for meeting them.

Other Gen IV work slated for next fiscal year includes the

initiation of irradiation of Triso-coated fuel for a VHTR and

the start of an effort to scale up the Triso fuel coating and

fabrication process developed in Germany from laboratory

scale to intermediate scale, DOE said. It added the program

also would initiate irradiations of candidate reactor pressure

vessel steels and would purchase preproduction lots of candidate

graphite for potential use in VHTR fuel. Next fiscal

year, the Gen IV program also plans to initiate mechanical

testing of candidate materials in a VHTR coolant environment.

DOE’s Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative—which is part of

the department’s nuclear energy program and which seeks to

develop advanced, proliferation resistant nuclear fuel—

would receive $70-million under the budget request. Work

on the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, aimed at developing

advanced technologies that could be used in tandem with

Gen IV reactors to commercially produce hydrogen fuel

from water, would receive $20-million.

Yucca Mt. delays

Separately, at the Feb. 7 budget briefing, DOE Associate

Deputy Director Bruce Carnes announced that the department’s

civilian nuclear waste program now plans to submit a

repository license application to NRC in December, a year

after it missed its initial December 2004 deadline.

Dependent on future funding, DOE hopes to have a repository

available by 2012 to begin disposal operations, waste

program director Margaret Chu said following the briefing.

The delay was reflected in DOE’s $651-million budget

request for the waste program. The budget request was what

DOE thought the program could responsibly spend, Energy

Secretary Samuel Bodman said. On the reclassification of the

nuclear waste fee, which the Bush administration unsuccessfully

pushed for in the department’s FY-05 budget request,

Carnes said the department would work with lawmakers to

have a reclassified fee in place by FY-07. Unlike the FY-05

request, none of the money sought for the DOE waste program

in FY-06 was dependent on the enactment of legislation

reclassifying as a user fee the estimated $750-million in

a special nuclear waste fee collected each year from nuclear

utility customers. A reclassification would make those

receipts available to the DOE waste program each fiscal year

and would prevent other federal programs from dipping into that money.

Typical of past DOE budgets, defense-related spending

accounted for the big ticket items in the FY-06 request. DOE

is seeking roughly $9.4-billion, about 40% of its entire budget

request, for National Nuclear Security Administration

activities in FY-06. The request includes $1.64-billion, a 15%

increase over the FY-05 appropriation, for nonproliferation

programs, including $132-million—triple the FY-05 appropriation

—to increase work on the refurbishment of a coalfired

plant that is to replace two plutonium production reactors

at Seversk in Russia. Under the DOE program, the two

reactors are scheduled to shut down in 2008. DOE is working

on a similar project at Zheleznogorsk, the home of

Russia’s other operating production reactor, which is scheduled to close in 2011.

In the U.S., FY-06 funding for the construction of a

mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication plant at the Savannah

River Site in South Carolina would decrease by $26.5-million

from the FY-05 appropriated level, coming in at $338.6-million.

But other work on the MOX project—under the category

of "Reactor-Based Technologies"—would increase from

$23.3- to $60-million. DOE is building the MOX plant to

convert surplus weapons plutonium into reactor fuel. Russia

is pursuing a similar program, which also receives DOE funding.

DOE’s environmental management activities would

receive $6.5-billion, a 7.8% reduction. Though the $1.8-billion

sought for the cleanup of legacy waste at the shuttered

plutonium production plant at Hanford, Wash. was down

from the FY-05 level, it was the largest amount sought for

the cleanup of a DOE site in FY-06. Department officials

attributed the decrease to the winding down of some of the

cleanup work at Hanford and to uncertainty surrounding

how DOE would deal with some of the waste at the site.

The department projected the closure in FY-06 of its Rocky

Flats site in Colorado and of its Fernald and Mound sites in Ohio.

Elsewhere in the budget proposal, DOE requested $290.5-

million for fusion energy sciences in FY-06. That amount

includes a U.S. payment of $50-million, most of which

involves in-kind contributions, to the International

Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) program.

A DOE budget document noted that the ITER site has not yet

been selected but that participants in the international

fusion project wanted to reach an agreement and finalize

the ITER agreement this fiscal year.

Mixed reaction

Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) of the Senate Energy

& Natural Resources Committee called the DOE request an

"important foundation" for work on energy legislation and

said he would work with members of the energy committee

to get a bill through the Senate this year.

Meanwhile, in remarks to the Detroit Economic Club

Feb. 8, President George W. Bush stressed that energy legislation

must include provisions to modernize the electricity

grid, and encourage conservation and domestic production.

"And we can do so in an environmentally friendly way,"

Bush said. "We’re spending money—and important money

and good money—on new technologies such as clean coal

technologies, and ethanol, and hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.

I believe that we ought to expand the use of safe and clean

nuclear power. And I think we ought to allow for exploration

in environmentally responsible ways in the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge."

The antinuclear group Public Citizen this week criticized

the Bush administration’s continued push for new nuclear

reactors, "despite the inherent waste, safety, security, cost,

and proliferation problems of nuclear energy." DOE’s "supposedly

‘tight’ budget wastes taxpayer money" on the

nuclear power industry, it said in a press statement.

On other budget matters, Domenici criticized as "politically

untenable" the administration’s plan to have regional

power marketing administrations charge market-based rates.

Under the budget request, the Southeastern, Southwestern,

and Western Area Power administrations would be allowed

to credit a portion of their revenues as offsetting revenues to

pay operating and maintenance costs. The Bonneville Power

Administration (BPA), which is located in Washington state

and which is Energy Northwest’s (EN) sole customer, is pursuing

other strategies in the Pacific Northwest, DOE noted,

including some non-federal funding of its infrastructure requirements.

Washington state’s two Democratic senators in Congress

immediately criticized the Bush administration proposal,

saying it would result in a near-doubling of power rates in

the Pacific Northwest. EN, which owns and operates the

Columbia nuclear plant, isn’t likely to be affected by any

change in BPA’s charge for electricity, EN spokesman Brad Peck said Feb. 8.

—Elaine Hiruo and Daniel Horner, Washington

Date: Feb 25, 2005

NUCLEAR NEWS FLASHES - Thursday, February 24, 2005

U.S.:

--PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS HE WILL PUSH FOR INCREASING NUCLEAR POWER

generation in the U.S. At what was billed as a roundtable discussion with

young professionals yesterday in Mainz, Germany, Bush said a nuclear

expansion would have several benefits. "To me, that would achieve several

objectives," he said. "One, it's a renewable source of energy; two, it's a

domestic source of energy; and three, it would help us meet our obligations

to clean air requirements." Bush acknowledged the uphill battle he faces in

the Congress and by many in the public who fear the technology. But he said

it was a debate he's "engaged in" and will continue to support. "It's a

subject I brought up in my State of the Union address, and it's a subject

I'll continue to talk about, because I think it is a way for the United

States to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy, which is good for

our economy, and, frankly, helps us with foreign policy."

--FORMER ENERGY SECRETARY SPENCER ABRAHAM CALLED FOR FEDERAL FUNDING to help

defray some of the high first-time costs associated with construction of new

reactors. Speaking at a United States Energy Association luncheon, Abraham

said he was not talking about "massive ongoing subsidies" to the industry.

However, he said some "federal financial participation" is in order "so long

as the industry agrees to build an agreed upon number of new additional

units after the government has helped with the first few." Abraham also said

the U.S. should set a goal of doubling the country's nuclear power capacity

by 2030. He cited a Princeton University study released last year that

called for doubling the world's nuclear power capacity as a means of

offsetting the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. After the speech, Nuclear

Energy Institute President/CEO Frank "Skip" Bowman presented Abraham with a

certificate of appreciation for his efforts to support nuclear power as

energy secretary. Abraham is a distinguished visiting fellow with the Hoover

Institution, a public policy research center.

Date: Apr 22, 2005

FYI.....

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=772

Nuclear Energy Industry Applauds House Passage of Energy Policy Act

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 21, 2005-The U.S. House of Representatives

approved the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6) by a vote of 249-183

today. Following is a statement from Skip Bowman, the Nuclear Energy

Institute's president and chief executive officer.

"We applaud the House of Representatives action today in passing a

much-needed comprehensive energy bill. Approval of comprehensive

energy legislation is imperative for economic growth, environmental

stewardship and an improved quality of life for the American people.

Passage of this legislation sets the stage for new nuclear plants to

be part of this country's diverse energy mix and recognizes the

invaluable and necessary contribution of nuclear energy in achieving

long-term energy security.

"Energy security and national security are inextricably linked. The

expected increase of America's electricity demand by 50 percent over

the next 20 years, along with increased awareness of our global

environment, leads to new nuclear power plants as a necessary part of

our energy future. Nuclear energy is the only emission-free source of

electricity that can be readily expanded to meet our needs for

reliable, baseload power. The industry looks forward now to working

with the Senate to pass similar comprehensive energy legislation."

Nuclear energy provisions in H.R. 6 include:

· Renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, the framework for

industry self-funded liability insurance, for 20 years.

· Authorization of close to $3 billion for nuclear energy

research programs over the next five fiscal years.

· Funding of $3.1 billion authorized to direct the Department

of Energy to establish an advanced reactor for hydrogen production at

the Idaho National Laboratory.

· Updating the tax treatment of nuclear decommissioning trust

funds that allows deduction of contributions that better reflect the

emergence of competition in the electricity business.

================================================================

CEO says Progress Energy considering new nuclear plant

Associated Press

21 April 2005

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - Progress Energy is exploring the possibility of building a new nuclear plant, meaning both of North Carolina's main power companies are considering the long-opposed option.

Progress Energy will decide within two years what type of energy will best meet anticipated electricity demand in its service area in North Carolina and South Carolina, chief executive officer Robert McGehee said. The Raleigh-based utility also provides electricity in west-central Florida.

The cheapest, cleanest and wisest fuel source to generate new power would be nuclear, McGehee told The News & Observer of Raleigh. A natural site for a new reactor would be the company's Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant, about 25 miles south of Raleigh, he said.

"The only long-term solution is to do what they're doing in Europe: It is to have some kind of renaissance of nuclear power in this country," McGehee said. "I think it's just a perfect environmental solution, but I know there are other opinions on this."

Charlotte-based Duke Energy has taken preliminary steps toward getting approval from federal regulators to build a nuclear plant. Duke will decide possibly next month whether to build a nuclear plant, and would choose a site by year's end.

Nuclear-plant projects in Virginia, Louisiana and Illinois are in the very early stages of applying for licenses. The last U.S. nuclear plant to come online was in Tennessee in 1996.

Progress Energy anticipates it will need a new power plant by 2017, and it will finish plans in time to give itself a decade to tackle the project. The utility, which serves 2.9 million customers in the Carolinas and Florida, also could decide to build another natural-gas plant, the most common fuel source used in the past decade.

But officials are evaluating new nuclear-plant technology that could be added at the company's 18-year-old Shearon Harris site.

"Talking just hypothetically -- and I know there are a lot of issues here in Wake County -- here's where our load is and here's where growth is," McGehee said. "Here's where we need electricity -- we need it in the Triangle area. Now, I know there are hundreds of other issues that may outweigh that, but it's a very good site, it's built for multiple reactors, and it's where the load is."

Progress Energy also operates the 30-year-old Brunswick Nuclear Plant near Southport.

Nuclear opponents expect pitched battles if Duke or Progress pursue that option in North Carolina.

"There would be a wide range of opposition tactics -- everything from scientific arguments to street protests," said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness Reduction Network, or WARN.

Disposing of radioactive nuclear waste remains a problem for advocates of increased nuclear power. Nuclear plants are temporarily storing spent fuel rods, and a plan to create a permanent underground storage vault at Yucca Mountain in Nevada has been stalled for years.

McGehee said the future of nuclear power also depends on state regulators allowing utilities to recover nuclear construction costs by raising rates. Progress Energy is lobbying state and federal lawmakers to promote nuclear power.

"It's necessary to get people really building again," McGehee said.

========

http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=67921&SecID=2

Progress Energy considers building new power plant

4/21/2005 7:42 PM

By: Brett Tackett & Web Staff

A report released by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Thursday said the Shearon Harris power plant has met all health and safety objectives.

Also this week, Progress Energy, which runs Shearon Harris, said it's considering building a new power plant in the Triangle.

One possibility is putting a second nuclear reactor at the Harris site.

But Progress Energy may be in for a fight.

Helen Powell has a perspective on the Shearon Harris plant most people don't.

She worked there for almost 20 years.

Helen Powell lives near Harris plant and said, "I swept the floors and cleaned up the bathrooms."

And she still lives well within the five mile evacuation circle which surrounds the plant.

When she heard Progress Energy's plans, which could mean a second nuclear plant will be built on the Harris site, she doesn't mind.

Powell said, "I don't think it's going to bother me."

Progress officials said the type of plant isn't set in stone.

But they are looking into building another power plant in the Triangle because of expected growth over the next ten years.

Rick Kimble of Progress Energy stated, "To talk about future generation we start early. And that's what we're doing."

When asked Progress Energy officials said they're considering nuclear power because it burns cleaner than fossil fuels and in the long run is much cheaper.

Kimble explained, "Building a nuclear plant is much more expensive than building say a coal power plant. Long term though nuclear has always been more economical to operate."

But not everybody is thrilled about the idea of having a second nuclear power plant in the area.

In fact one group said they will take action to make sure it doesn't happen.

Jim Warren from North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network explained, "It would be a range of economic and scientific arguments, probably demonstrations and rallies."

"It's a very hazardous industry," he said. "These reactors across the country are more problematic than ever. And they are vulnerable to security and technical failures."

But if you ask Powell she said she's lived near Harris long enough a second plant doesn't make a difference.

Progress Energy officials said they expect to have the power plant plan in two years.