---- Tranksc : nuclear power comeback. 1. Stewart Brand, 'environmental activist from the 70s', whom iman of you know, to talk about a bit of a change of heart. Here's steward t on why yo u should change your mind if you're still opposed to nuclear power. SB (raising eyebrows a little at the last line) - this all started when I published a piece titled "Four Heresies" ... (lists them) including nuclear energy, overpopulation., ... guess which one got all the attention? Suddenly I was on the cover of the NYT, being contacted by .... got totally reamd out buy Greenpeace... and Jared Diamond! He was asked at the end of ? recently, what do you think of stewart brand talking about nuclear power being a good thing? and he said, "yeah, I think it's probably a good idea... I noticed that the [joint .... ocommission] supported it [ref? detail?] So, what has changed? 1. greenies like me have (previously) been encouraging people not to go into nuclear energy... and related fun things. 2. France is considering... (not just pebble-bed) and so should we. 3. The main thing that has realy changed is not te engineering, but what climate change means. This month, it is easier to talk about,b/c of Katrina. Warmer water doesn't nmean more hurricanes, but stronger ones. there are good indications in mnay models, many people talk not about g. warming any more but lobal weirding. I was involved in a study we did for andy marshall, the ? ofice in the pentago , about arupt climate change. That's what happened ? years ago, when we had an abrupt failure of the gulf stream, and the europelooked like canada. and the whole world becomes much cooler and windier... and basically the carrying capacity of th earth goes down 10-40% . since the earth is right up aganst the carrying capaity right now... suddenly we have the whole world at war... so the pentgon will rule. SIn fact, it will be a world of warlords. so from a socio-ool aspect, you really don't want abrupt climate change. What does this mean? it means cutting back the carbon consumption we do now a Whole Lot! We should be doing every kind of convservation, yesterday. it's fast, it's ditributed, and it lasts, b/c once people start doing it, they pass it on. meanwhile, the whole set of machines on the shelf, that are getting better, a[ren't being] used. Green nukes are needed most right now in russia. Russia has a lot of other chernobyls waiting in the wing. If we get another, that's bad for N P. and that would be bad for the atmosphere, and bad for everybodu. What I have found is tahti got away less resistance from y fellow greenies than I expected on this issue. I don't htink you'll see a big conversion, with lots of thems aying 'nukes!' but you'll see fewer of them saying 'no nukes'. Q: Next, Dan Keuter, proposeing to build 2 nuclear plants, and another proposal to build a third... A: Thank you david I'm VP for N.Bus Develpoment; so what does that mean? I'm the one who goes out and buys nuclear plants. A bit about entergy. it's the 2nd largest energy provider in the us; it's based in no; don't konw where it is now. we won't be able to get bak into corp hq for 6-8 months; so we're moved up to Jackson, where I am , now where our nN. hq is. Katrina came and wiped out the East side of our ? and Rita came and wiped out the West side, so we've been Real Busy for the past couple week.s Weve received several awards in th past coupel of years... probably the thing we're orst proud of and our CEO is most proud of is our env stewardsship. And the chart here shows where we stand in the US; as for as CO2 emission; NOx, SOx, and mercury. Our si shte lowerst per megawtt. In 2001, we partnered iwth te DOd to stabilize our CO2 emissions. 2nd largest : 5 N powre? and 10 ? plants... we don't have a crystal ball but there are a few things we know for sure. 1) we need more neergy. 2) limited supplyu of oil, ngas; already extemely expensive .l 4) stricter env regs are coming, including CO2; not if but when. And E security and diversity : get off of foreign E supplies. Kepeing this in mind, not only NP promising; eventually we have to get into a H economy; and the best way to get there is NP. What will it take to make new plants? N. E Policy, we're well on our way. Admin and Congress Regulatory certainy; 10CFR52 approved funding for design and operations... NRC Safe, economical designs -- ALWR (Westinghouse AP1000) GE ? Raptor/Gas Rx Reactor vendords Demonstration Plant -- Gov/ind consortium to work on a demo Adequate plant financials - what price to sell E in the future. Biggest issue is the price of Nat. Gas. The biggest reason for no plants in the 90s, 'cause nat gas was $2/BTU; as of Monday, they are $12/BTU, so it's become expensive. But also, Carbon, Carbon credits (env) mean we just have to build the first few plants Kind of like when ew bought our first n. plant, Pilogrim Plant, just s of here. Once we did it, proved it worked... the 5 plants we've bought account for 20% of the whole comapny's earnings. Once you prove it can be done, everyone will jump on oard. (1 more thing in the sexted) NuStart : 11 Ind leaders. Constellation, EDF International NA... 9 more. We announced 6 cand sites, selected 1, just last week; bellafont in AL and ? in MI. We're also doin RiverBend on our own without cost-sharing (the other was DOE cost0share) We'll submit our COL applications / license in late 07 or early 08. Potential operations in 2014. Stewart kind of stiole my thunder here - it's not just me and N professionals, we're lookig at the virtues and value of N power plants. Dr. Moore (co-f of greenpeae) and James Lovelock are also on board. the last slide : borrowed from National Resource Defence Council -- since 1979, more than 20% of the polar ice cap has melted away" "future generations are counting on us... Can we afford to be wrong?" NASA photo, NRDC. Entergy : "Go Nuclear! Because you care about air." Q: here is Ed Wallace aout why PBMR will be the first successful commercial breakthrough tech. EW: Safe, efficient... accepted by s. africa. Today there are over 700 people working at pbmr and its key suppliers. [full-blown corporate slide show and methodical presentation follows] Q: Tom Cochran, N Program Director, NRDC. Consequnces of avpoiding a 0.2deg C rise (over what time period?): * 1200 N plants (plant life 40 yrs), * 15 enrichment plants (8M separative work units/year, SWU/y, plant life 40yrs), * 9 plants in a given year. * 14 Yucca Montains for 973Kt spent fuel, with * 1M kg of plutonium... or * 50 reprocessing plants, if all SF were reprocessed... 800t SF/yr. * $1-2T in capital. Comparison of per capita electriciy consumption in the US and Cali. Both started at 4k KWh in 1960, now the US is at 12k and Cali is under 8k -- the fastest way to reduce consumption is to tax and limit carbon consumption. If you want NP to contribute to G Warming, you hvae to change the underlying economics. get companies producing energy to get on the ball... and get people in Washington to adopt effic standards =like those being adopted in Ca, if we can get the rest of the nation, including LA, MI, LA -- btw, my mother is from MI and I've lived in LA - (just picking up on Entergy) get them to be progresive about efficienfcy, we might solve this problem. per cap CO2 emissions: CA, 15 in '75 down to 11 today. US, steady around 22 metric tons(/yr) -- source, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2004. ----- Q: Alison McFarlane on why Yucca is deeply flawed; her upcoming book: [[Uncetrainty Underground]]. AMcF: I'm going to eho a lot of what Otm said, and present the other side of the issue, a reality check on this enthusiasm for using n energy for climate change. 5 topics really briefly. 1. high Cap costs, long socntruction times : New 1400 MWe plant = $2.6B, 6.5 yrs to build. (Dominion Rsrces, inc CC nat gas pant, 300M, 2 yrs) 2. Risks - interest payments befoe income earned. Reactor cancellations, like Shoreham 3. Uncertaintiesin costs (US) -- ost regions have sruplus baseload; legal costs; decommissioning costs underestimated. Final construction costs underestimated. (74-75, 14 build, initial cost $615/kWe, final cost $2,346/kWe.) 4. Generation IV reactors (?) -- don't think they will save you any money. "they'll probably cost you a lot more" ==WASTE== Lartge amts of waste would be produced from a lrage expansion. - to avoid doubling CO2 over 50 yrs : 1/7 of the reduction would take 700 GWe around the world. - for LWRs, that would be 14k-21k MT spent fuel per yr. - Yucca Mtn, for comparison :mandated to hold 70k MT of waste. * waste repoitories still not demonstrated. largely a political and tech problem. People have been working on this for 50 years. * Reprocessing schemes wouldn't affect reps requrements; size depends on heat, not volume, of waste. (well... reproc also recatures some heat, yes?) == PROLIFERATION == can't sever the connexn b/t energy and weapon atoms. (Iran) Once-through cycle is most prolif resistant. - reproc creaties separated Pu - Generation IV involves separated Pu * Large N power expansion would mean many new plants in dev countries -- SB recommends centralzeing enrichment/reporc facs, or make N Energy 'batteries' -- they'd plug it in, use it for 15 yrs, give it back. unfortunately, studies in MIT suggest this would be overly expensive for dev countrie. With a Nuclear park, someone owuld have to host it. -- the countreis receiving the fuel would not be E indep; though that's what they are seeking. and it would require discriminatory restrictions. -- finally, you somehow have to devalue n. weapons; to sever the lnk. briefly : in the US, thoug now it looks like public opinion favors N energy, 54%, people don't want one nearby. Get over that? -- PBRs : "inherently safe?" there are water ingress acidents, graphite fires, other radiation lrelease;needs to be played out more. == SECURITY == vuln. to terrorist attack; especially spent fuel pools. solutions have to be paid for. Alternatives : diversity, flexibility; N couldn't contribute to GHG reduction over the next 10-20 yrs anyway. (thanks!) ---- Two quick Qs : 1) alison, is waste storage solvable? props in utah for above-ground storage... why not a big concrete pad? heat not an issue? 1A) tech, yes. repositories are the right solution, speaking as a geologist. is HYucca the right location? that's a different question... D. Milk mentioned above grounds orage -- that's a short term option. casks you'd store this in will degrade... on 100s of years, maybe 1000 years. 2) Financial disasters? Shoreham retraction. Dan keuter. 2A) yes, shoreham. held up in lawsuits... now you have to get licenses ahead of time... read the MIT study you mentioned. if you use conservative #s, it looks less good. the avg ? in the nation is over 90%, not 85%. Operating costs - $15/Mwhr? today, it's at $12-13. They used 15% cost of capital; once you've demonstrated you can build these, you can get down to 12%, as for clean coal (really? --Ed). Starts to get a bit defensive about the economics being good... mentions that U itself is very cheap... but more RD is needed to make it economical to recycle rather than mine more. "people out there making nuc weapons are enriching uraniu, they're not using plutonium..." Alison is shaking her head throughout most of the abovf e(though agrees that U is cheap) ---- Audience Qs * We're looking at things now, with a good supply of oil. How about 50 years from now when we're running out of natural fuels? I don't konw of anything other than nuc power and fuel cells... this is to all members, but especially a doubting Thomas. * A; (Tom) today E power plants don't really impact Oil economy, they run on coal, nuc, nat gas. The solution, in my opinion, ar tech like plugin hybrids that would allow you to fuel autos... * A: (Dan) There's also the question of how much fossil fuel we'll have around to make hydrocarbons and plastics for future generations. * A: (biz) - 1/3 transportation, 1/3 pure energy, 1/3 chemicals and other things to make those products. I think in the next 10 yrs, oil production in the world will peak and start to fade. One of the real values of N power, particularly high-temp reactors, is that you scan use them in other industries to convert coal, gas, other things to liquid; fossil-free liquids/heat sources to extract oil sands... ways to provide an E supply. "I think that to sequeter N on the basis of some narrow questions and issues, is to reduce our chances for diversity in E supply. and to reduce global warming." Q: This morning, we heard the surprising fact (to me) that we produced more sports grads than engineers... recent survey, roughly ? of the population could not answer the question how long it take the earth to go around the sun. with this as context, a lot of the q's around N pwer are highly techincal, but you're dealing wiht a public that is not tehcnial. do you have as part of your strateginc plan, a strat. education endeavour that you will partake in along with the public, to let them kmake a good valu-epbasedjudgment about whether it is going to work or not. oif you don't do that, other than some pretty power point slides, I think it will certainly fil. * Dan - I hink tyou're abs right. I don't htink it is highly tech as people thing... if you come at it from a common-snese approach... is it etter to store at 100 places in the us or just at 1? is it etter to store it way underground, or in a fuel pool? safety -- everyone is worried about it. NP has not injured one person in the us. Chern was an unfortunate accident, but you haven't, couldn't build one like that here.. [pitch on cost :) ] When you say people don't want it... talk to people in LA; they want it. theyre fighting to see woh gets the first one; they want the jobs, they want th cheap power, they want the technology.. [quotes a survey : 70% are for it, 24% against... why the different #s?] Q: 200 plants around the world (being planned?) -- many in china, india, france... no matter what we do, the world is going another way. od yo uhva a sense of why thir econ predictions are diff than ours, or why their energy seutyis diff? A: DK your #s are close... there are 440 plants world wide. 1/4 in the Us. 24 in construction today, including China, India. They didn't hae $2/BTU gas, like the us has up to 2002. A: SB: more about China, India. a lo tof the debate was about the us, as though the us was the world. now the econ takeoff is happening massively in chinae and india they realize the choise is not N vs conservation; you want to do both as fast as you can. for them, it's N vs coal. and coal is a bad actor, every step of the way. looking at an art here... says "in the Us, 15k premature deaths a year, ust from coal pollution. that's with good coal; chinese coalis nasty as it coes. so it's... from our standpoint, just swell if china and india are going N quickly; that's our atmosphere theyr'e trying to protect. If ythey have problems with th waste, we don't have to be as pconcerned. but the q's are where the new E is coming online- asia, and eventuall y Africa. Cons doesn't make new E. you do all the con syou can, and want the new E to be as fficient as it can. A: Alison - in terms of hcina, loka t thte whole picture; and chine is mostly gbuilding coal plants; it's just building a very few N plants. I would urge them to do Carbon-? flustration?? SB - you need technology for that (both laugh) A:(biz) they rae interstedin PBR; they're already expresed in terst in pbr. it's not just a simple issue of whta's going on tday'; have to look athad to dev countreis, subreagios that require dev, and how they will be served; if there's no local E, transmission greid, oil, gas, or coal.. there are still people there, demanding econ growth, hav to get powre from some polace. N provides some distributed power capaility without re'ing some of those other fatures. QQ: how serious are china's plans to build 100 PBRs? A: if they build thefirst one, the other 1000 will follow. they're very ommitted to the program; to putting oneonline in 2010; I think that's al ittle optimistic, ut they're commited to do it, and have a large # of people working on it; it may not be 2010, but I don't htink it will beo 2030. b/c they have these other leads they have to fill. QQ: I wonder if andy can comment on what's going on now... Andy: they have a cmpany like ? they hae a plant in shjengdong, they're plannig to hae one online by 2010. I don't see any reason why they won't do it; as you know, once the gov gets behind a project, it's pretty much a ddone deal... SB: once you're up, what do you think the next gen reactor will look like, beyond PB? Andy: I don't think it's bee decided... [mod: fusion!] Andy: don't think so, even though a lot of people want it. lot of interest now in fast breeder reactors, to enhance the suply of urani8um in terms of the fule cyle; if the projection of 700 reactors is true, the price of uranium will surely go up... [I don't believe that... you know historically, the price goes down as you use more of it, 'cause the improvement in extraction... prices today are no higher than they were in 1960...] Tom: In real dollars, the price of U has not increased; it's a failure of ost N engineers to realize that the price is not going up; the prices that went up : reprocessing, plants, and fuel fabrication. What's cheap is buying and enriching U. Q: for alison. Look at Finland; the state owned co of Ariva? the powerhouse of France. is scheduled to be at least partially public. the exchange is buzzing to see this as a star of the stock exchange... what is driving ths buzz? the activity would be int'l not only france... I've read the biz model and prospectus, etc. Alison: I was mostly talking about the us. frances situation i s very diff. they don't have many nat resource; nuclear is much more economic; and now they've heavilo einvested in it. when they start extending the lifetimes of their reactors, there will still be pleny of bus for arriva. esp if other fcountries start doing that as well. looking at the larger int'l pic, there's more investment going on. but in europe in genreal, you're building one reactor; that's not a resurgence... it's maintaining, barely. SB: well, sweden turn ed around; they were getting out of the business, and has gotten back into biz. A: have they buit one tha tI missed? Dan: Finland is right net tdoor, and they're planning one now... the econ in the us... Entegy has been the most profitable utility the last 2/3 yrs in a row A: that's b.c the rate payers, not you, paid to build those ractors; now its a deregulated market Dan: now the 5 ones we bought are deregulated A: but you didn't pay to build them... the proof is in th epudding. Tom: the proof is in the behavior of the consortia over the last coupe of years. they woudln'gt coit to buiod a new n plant when they went for a ed subsidy for a site permit.. they woudln't comit to buld one when the asked the DOE for $ to subsidize consruction/operating licenses. Most of that will go to the vendors; who are the vendors? -- GE. which makes boiling-water reactors. It was srupsassed earlier this year by Exxon-Mobil as the largers company in the US. thees guys wnet to the Feds to ask the gov to pay money to go to the 2d largest company in the US to subsidize the licensing of a n poewr plant which they wouldn't do anywah, b/c they're trying to sell them in china? -- Westinghouse. Ctually owned by BNFL, british. subsidiary of a british company,a bout to sell it, westinghouse, to Mitsubishi. So we're also going to subsidize, either GE or Mitsubishi or BNFL. -- the other competing vendor is the french. so we may just subsidize the French company. Then tey went ot Congress to get $6B in tax subsidies, b/c ntergy wouldn't commit to building a plant with their money; they wouldn't do it todya; they woun't commit to capping carbon, b/c they have a lot of fossil fuel plants. But ask then, weher wer thereNuStart companiees when theywer debating the McCain Lieberman bill? They were up there to get a $6B subsidy that would go into their own pockets. (a quiet man, but furious, shaking) Dan: that's absolutely untrue.... what has N power gotten ? $50M over the past 10 years Tom: it's gotten $55B over the past 50 years! Dan: okay, I'm talking the past 10 years. It's put ? into the nat'l treasury. We're pyaing money in to the national budget. we're the only one that pays the full cost of our n. oversight. Mod: except for the waste Dan: we do pay the waste... Mod: the lesson here tody is that big industry sometimes seeks and receives big subsidies. of all kinds. -- Q: Is there even a prayer that... the N active/radioactive waste products could be changed back? is that what fusion is ? is it possible to make it not radioactive ever again? A: you can't not makt it... but there's a proc of transmutation, where you can take some longer-lived isotopes and theoretically convert them to shorter-lived isotopes, so you don't ahve to have a rep that last so long (right now the EPA has hanged the standards for Yucca, and pushed it out to 1M years). Let me just say that transmutation tech is relatively far of, and would be v. expensive. A Nat'l Academy of Sciences study said you'd still need a repository. Dan: there's a question of what is dangerous... Alison: that model he mentioned to you is highly uncertain, btw. Biz-m: Compare waste : coal plants produce 200 solid metric tons of waste; compared to 20 M tons for a nuclear plant. it's important to recognize... it's a law of large numbers problem; it's a huge folume of waste, which mostly doesn't ever decay. if we're really worried about what we're doing in the environment -- we ought to worry about the waste product from coal. then maybe nuclear wouldn't look quote so bad. Q: I'm trying to take a long-view; what is the historical ? so far of the cost of decommissioning plants? A: Dan the yankee? plant was estimated to cost about $450M and it cost about that. it's part of the rate in the cost of power; [we are] the only industry that prefunds decommissioning. Q: compared to the cost of building the reactor, how much is decom cost? A: it's about $450/kW; the cost of building is more like $1500/kW. But you can collect the decom over the life of the plant. There are a lot of plants now that have overfunding; they were colelcting the cost over 40 yrs, many have gone for a license extension and will have a surplus. A: Biz - 15% of the capital cost. Q: How much nuclear fuel is there on the planet? I'm assuming there's not an infinite amount... A: over 50 yrs under existing known reserves; 0.75% of total uranium. you can also use thorium... Dan, on sequestration : huge cost! Alison (geologist on the panel ) -- it's being doemonstrated now, and iI thinkit's a very viable option... Dan: I agree we should be working on it, it has been demonstrated on a few gas and oil wells. [moderator today : David Talbot]