Saturday, August 21, 2010

TVA rising at Bellefonte

The utility will spend $248 million in 2011 on next steps to complete the 1,260 MW reactor

tva-logoThe Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) decided Aug 20 to spend nearly $900  million on development of nuclear energy in 2011. 

It will invest $248 million to develop an option to complete the 1,260 MW Bellefonte Unit 1 reactor.  TVA's Board also approved spending $635 million towards completion of the Watts Bar 2 nuclear reactor which is within budget and on schedule to be completed by late 2012.

At the same time, the utility will take 1,000 MW of coal-fired power generation capacity off-line replacing it with other energy sources.

If TVA makes a decision to complete Bellefonte 1 sometime next year, it will also be committing to spend up to $4.7 billion on the reactor. At 1,260 MW, that cost would bring in the power station at $3,730/Kw which is competitive with global costs for new reactors. 

Read the full report exclusively at Cool Hand Nuke, a nuclear energy jobs portal and a whole lot more.


# # #

Western lands uranium gopher for 8/21/10

gopherThis blog post is an edited version of a column published in Fuel Cycle Week, V9:N388, August 5, 2010, by International Nuclear Associates, Washington, DC.

International Isotope gains on application for $65 million DOE loan guarantee

The Department of Energy has approved the first of a two-part application process which could eventually award International Isotopes (OTC:INIS) a $65 million loan guarantee for construction of a uranium deconversion plant in Hobbs, NM. Steve Laflin, the company's CEO, told FCW in an interview the total cost of the plant is approximately $100 million. The company has a contract with Louisiana Energy Services to provide uranium deconversion services for the firm's Eunice, NM, uranium enrichment plant which began operations in June.

Laflin said the second part of the loan guarantee application will be submitted to DOE by the end of 2010. If all goes well, Laflin said, the firm expects approval by 3Q2011.

"This fits very well with our plans for construction start in January 2012," Laflin said. "We expect to have our NRC license for the facility at that time."

International Isotopes is currently in the middle of the licensing process. A public meeting was held by the NRC in Hobbs, NM, in late July. About a dozen people showed up and Laflin says most expressed support for the plant.

"It was a very positive meeting, We have strong support from the community."

NRC's Matt Bartlett, the licensing project manager, told the meeting the facility's primary function is chemical processing, but that the NRC will issue the license because uranium is involved in the products it makes. The plant's energy efficient fluorine extraction process will make chemical products for a number of industries. In an interesting twist, the waste stream from a uranium enrichment plant provides feedstock for a product required to make solar energy panels that convert sunlight to electricity.

The company is moving ahead with plans to build the deconversion plant even though ground breaking is 18 months away. This month the company will issue a request for expressions of interest from construction firms. An RFP will be issued a month after the responses are reviewed with bids due by the end of October.

Raising the $100 million for the plant will be easier once it has the NRC license in hand and DOE approves the loan guarantee. Even so early investors are lining up. Laflin said the firm recently raised $3 million to cover development and regulatory costs. He's confident the rest of the money will be found.

"Every day we get closer to a licensing decision improves investment opportunities."

Two groups get standing on interventions for Powertech Edgemont ISR mine permit

The Ogalala Sioux Tribe and a consolidated group of environmental groups and individuals have been granted standing to file interventions on Powertech's ISR mining permit with the NRC. The NRC Atomic Safety & Licensing Board said the groups could weigh in on claims the mine will impact groundwater and that Powertech (TSE:PWE) hasn't done an adequate job surveying for cultural artifacts in the area around the proposed mine. The site is about 60 miles from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

Richard Clement, Powertech CEO, told FCW the hearing in June also denied a number of claims the group tried to bring into the process. He said cultural resources "are the dominant issue" with the Indian tribe. He added that the issue of potential for groundwater contamination from the proposed mine was also accepted by the Board.

David Frankel, the attorney representing the consolidated group of intervenors said the groundwater issue seemed to his clients to loom more significantly than the others.

"The issue of whether there is adequate confinement of the aquifer they intend to mine could be fatal to the permit application."

At the hearing held in Custer, SD, Tony Thompson, lead counsel for Powertech, told the hearing examiners, "I can state unequivocally that this [mine] will not harm your drinking water."

Frankel complained that the permit applications submitted by Powertech were "sloppy" and had to be done over to get docketed by the NRC and accepted for review by the State of South Dakota. He questioned whether Powertech had done an adequate job of documenting the groundwater issue.

Clement told FCW that looking past the current round of reviews, the company expects a permit from the NRC this time next year. Once the firm breaks ground, it will take another six-to-twelve months to bring the mine into production. Clement said that when the mine is fully operational it is expected to produce one million pounds U3O8 a year.

Wyoming uranium conference draws 300

In a sparsely populated state, putting 300 people in the same place at the same time makes it a major population center. This was the story at the University of Wyoming at Laramie last week for a conference on uranium which drew an audience composed of everyone who is anyone in the industry in that state.

Paul Goranson, the new head of Cameco's Cheyenne, Wyo., office said he wants the university to educate more geologists and engineers to work in the industry. He pointed out these are high paying jobs which should make them attractive in today's economy.

Glenn Catchpole, CEO of Uranerz (AMEX:URZ) told FCW that while there were no surprises at the uranium conference, the discussions again proved Wyoming is the key state in the nation for the industry.

Catchpole, who was a speaker at the conference, has these points to make.

  • Production follows price, but miners also look at the predicted price
  • More uranium is being sold under long-term contracts at $60/lb
  • While the spot price is in the mid-40s, it could reach $80/lb by 2013
  • Wyoming has about 220 million pound of uranium based on what we know today
  • Those reserve equate to 20-30 years of production at 5-12 million pounds a year

Maps for stock price bets on big increases

Catchpole told FCW Uranerz has acquired an extensive collection of prospecting data including drill logs, maps, and other geologic and technical reports from Excalibur Industries. Under the terms of the deal, Excalibur gets 2 million warrants to buy stock at $3.00/share.

At market open on Aug 9, the Uranerz stock traded at $1.34 against a 52-week range of $0.87-$2.50. Asked how confident the owner of the geology information was that the stock at $3.00/share was a good deal, Catchpole said, "the seller is confident the price will be hit."

In other news about the company Catchpole said near-term progress on the Nichols Ranch and Hank properties include completion of the NRC environmental impact statement by the end of this month.

Ron C. Linton, the NRC project manager for the EIS told FCW in an email, "The NRC staff is currently targeting mid-November for the licensing of the Nichol Ranch ISR Project, assuming no unexpected licensing issues are identified."

Once a license is issued by the agency, Catchpole told FCW it will take 12-15 months to build the ISR mining operation. The firm is targeting production of 600,000-800,000 pounds of uranium a year.

Lawsuit seeks to halt Utah mine

Three Utah environmental groups filed suit in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City in July to stop work at the Pandora uranium mine which is owned by Denison Mining (AMEX:DNN). The complaint challenges a decision by the U.S. Forest Service to permit 16 drill holes and two radon vent holes as part of the expansion of the mine.

The groups also filed for a temporary injunction to stop all work until the court could hear the case. They said the Forest Service erred when it granted a categorical exclusion without considering the cumulative environmental impact of all uranium mining in the 1.4 million acre Manti-La Sal National Forest.

Sara Fields of Uranium Watch told FCW the lawsuit was filed because, "Denison is operating on a 107 word environmental assessment from 1981. It's inadequate."

Fields wants the federal government to require an updated assessment and a new plan of operations. She said one of the issues for the radon vents that they are located about three miles from the La Sal elementary school. Fields noted that an EPA air quality model shows that the radon from the vents could reach the school.

The Forest Service did not return a reporter's call to get a statement. Denison CEO Ron Hochstein was unavailable for comment.

Uranium Resources to seek license renewal for Crownpoint

Uranium Resources Inc. (NASDAQ:URRE) told the NRC Jul 28 in a public meeting at the agency's offices that it plans to file for a renewal of the license for its Crownpoint property in New Mexico. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the company on the land status of the property.

Although the site is privately owned, it is surrounded by the Navajo Indian Reservation. Tribal authorities banned uranium mining in 2005 and sought to impose the ban on the mine. The court found that since the mine is on private land, the tribe could not impose its policies on it nor compel the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to stop the permit process of the State of New Mexico.

The company said in a statement it owns 183,000 acres in New Mexico which contain 101.4 million pounds of uranium. The company said it hope to start mining by 2013.

USEC files updated loan guarantee application

In a response to technical and financial concerns raised by the Department of Energy (DOE) last year, USEC (NYSE:USU) has re-filed its application for a $2 billion loan guarantee for its American Centrifuge Facility in Piketon, OH. The update includes new measures including a quality assurance program and demonstrating reliability by building and operating 40 centrifuge units. John Welch, CEO, said in a statement the firm has addressed the issues DOE raised last year.

Jeff Donald, a spokesman for the company, told FCW the government hasn't provided any feedback yet on the revised application. Donald added that the plant, when built, will cost $2.8 billion and be capable of producing 3.5 million SWU annually. It will take 24 months to build the plant and is expected to employ 300-400 people.

Earlier this year USEC received an infusion of capital from Toshiba and B&W which gave the firms substantial equity stakes in company. The funds are to be released in stages contingent on USEC getting the conditional loan guarantee from DOE and then closing on the deal by signing the term sheet.

# # #

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Nuclear energy news roundup for 8/19/10

Bolton’s bogus bombast

JOhn BoltonForeign Policy Magazine has an excellent article that takes apart John Bolton’s alarming statement about the likelihood that Israel would bomb Iran’s uranium enrichment plants and the Russian built LWR at Bushehr. Fuel will be loaded into the reactor next week. Bolton (right) said earlier this week Israel has “eight days” to bomb the reactor before it has the fuel in it.

According to the NY Daily News, the former United States Envoy to the UN warned 8/16 that if Iran's nuclear facility in Bushehr isn't destroyed soon it could be a source of plutonium for Iran to use to make nuclear weapons.

"Israel's got a problem, because once the fuel rods are inserted into the reactor, an attack ... would almost certainly release the radiation into the atmosphere," John Bolton said on Fox Business.

What Foreign Policy pointed out is that this is “bogus” reasoning. The reactor is a conventional LWR and that it is subject to UN inspection through the IAEA. Also, the Russians will retrograde spent fuel from the reactor to one of their nuclear facilities. It would be difficult for Iran to divert spent fuel to make a bomb especially since they don’t have reprocessing facilities of their own.

What the Iranians are doing with their uranium enrichment plants is an entirely different matter. And Iran has been deceptive with the IAEA about it. For a detail profile and history see NTI’s write up that covers the whole range of threats from a country which seems to have a lot more whackos than we do.

Chalk River plant making isotopes again

The National Research Universal Reactor at Chalk River, Ontario, which makes about a third of the world’s supply of certain medical imaging isotopes, is back online after $70 million in repair costs and lost sales. The Los Angeles Times reports the 15-month long shut down created havoc in the world of nuclear medicine. The isotopes from the reactor reportedly are used in 55,000 tests a day in North America.

The Society of Nuclear Medicine isn’t happy about the Canadian government’s plans to shut down the reactor permanently in 2016. The group is urging Congress to enact legislation (H.R.3276) to establish a U.S. facility. The bill passed the House in November 2009. It is pending in the Senate where Missouri Sen,.Kit Bond (R-MO) has tied it up in knots in an effort to target funding under the bill to a research reactor in his home state.

Brazil’s long range plan for five new reactors

Carmen mirandaBrazil currently has two nuclear energy plants, located at Angra dos Reis some 150km (100 miles) from Rio de Janeiro. It is building a third, Angra 3, which is a 1,400 MW unit, for $5.1 billion. The first concrete was poured in June of this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Aug 16 that Eletrobas, which is the Brazilian utility doing the work, has signed an agreement with the government to look at sites for five more reactors. It could be a while before they are built.

Given the price of the current reactor, the tab would be a whopping $35 billion. Is Brazil good for it? The WSJ reports that competition from investment in hydroelectric dams, which provide 90% of the nation’s electricity, and 36% of total energy needs, will make raising capital more difficult.

Three dams are expected to come online in the next five years. The biggest will cost $17 billion and generate 11.2 GWe when complete. That’s the equivalent of 10 Westinghouse AP1000 reactors.

The nuclear utility gets its money for operations and capital infrastructure from the government, which does not allow private investment in the nation’s nuclear facilities.

An investment analyst quoted by the WSJ says it will be difficult for the government to allocate the money to the reactors. In addition to capital needs for dams, Brazil is one of the world’s largest oil producers and is investing heavily in new offshore oil fields.

Vermont nuclear critic has meltdown

smoke-stack1Arnie Gundersen, who was hired by State Sen. Peter Shumlin to be a technical advisor to the state legislature, blew his stack in a statement sent to several State of Vermont government agencies Aug 14.

In a long news article the Brattleboro Reformer reports that in his capacity as a member of the Public Oversight Panel for the state, Gundersen charged that state officials “conspired to belittle the accurate analysis” that he provided to the legislature’s Joint Fiscal Committee on Aug 12.

He added that the Vermont Department of Public Service (DPS) and Entergy, which owns and operates the Vermont Yankee reactor, “were actively communicating . . . in an attempt to discredit” his report.

State officials and an Entergy spokesman denied the charges. In an email to the newspaper, DPS disagreed with a number of items in the report related to findings about cesium and tritium in the soil near the reactor. The Department of Health disputed Gunderssen’s claims the radioactive isotopes migrated from where they were found.

Gundersen and DPS officials are also clashing in print over the schedule of action items plant managers committed to complete in 2010.

For its part, Entergy said through spokesman Larry Smith that the July 20 report of the Public Oversight Panel, of which Gundersen is a member, “reaffirms the central finding of the 2009 report that . . . Vermont Yankee can be operated reliably beyond 2012.”

Scientific American columnist becomes “pro-nuke nut”

powertosaveJohn Horgan, a columnist for Scientific American, wrote in his Aug 16 column that after reading Gwyneth Cravens’ book Power to Save the World, that he “feels a lot better about living near Indian Point.”

He met Cravens during a tour of the reactor which she arranged after Horgan had spoken with nuclear blogger Rod Adams in an online interview last May.

Horgan’s column highlights his surprise at the depth of accessible detail in Cravens’ book about radiation, the Chernobyl disaster, depleted uranium, and other nuclear topics.

“I've always had a knee-jerk distrust of nuclear advocates, just as I have of right-wing Congressmen, psychiatric-drug shills and string theorists. But I trust Cravens and the experts she interviewed—including physicists, engineers and epidemiologists—over many years of reporting. If you're agonizing over whether to support nuclear energy, read Cravens's book . . .”

Scientific American regularly covers nuclear energy issues though often from the perspective of nonproliferation analysts. More recently, the magazine has been paying attention to nuclear utilities. Horgan’s column, of course, represents his opinion, but the magazine printed it and that’s welcome news.

Bravo Ms. Cravens. Well done.

# # #

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

NEI seeks consensus on licensing small reactors

Nuclear industry group leads efforts to overcome regulatory barriers to commercial success

Last winter the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) thought it might get 75-100 people to show up for a forum on small modular reactors (SMRs). The nuclear industry's flagship trade group was pleasantly surprised when 250 people signed up. One of the outcomes of the meeting is an NEI led task force on small reactors that involves the vendors, utilities (customers), and R&D centers like DOE national labs and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The task force is the leading edge of the nuclear industry's response to regulatory barriers to commercial success for small reactors, e.g., with output in the range of 300-350 MW (NEI Fact Sheet on SMRs)

In an exclusive interview with this blog, Paul Genoa, Director of Policy Development at NEI, (right) emphasized the serious nature of the work.

"This isn't a forum for people to trade marketing slides," he said. "We are looking for ways to meet the NRC's requirements, but in new or innovative ways that don't impose unnecessary costs on small reactors."

What NEI hopes to do, according to Genoa, "is to create a new regulatory paradigm for small reactors," and to do it in the next 18 months.

NEI's priorities are laid out in remarks Genoa made to the SMR conference last February. In this interview, he ticks off the items at the top of the list including annual fees, decommissioning costs, emergency response, and modularity, e.g., how to manage multiple small reactors at a single site.

Other issues include design certification, the licensing application process, and Price-Anderson liability issues. The last one will be tough, Genoa said.

"It is hard any time you have to make a statutory change."

That doesn't mean it will be easier to change the regulatory requirements to adapt them to SMRs. The NRC has a mature view of reactor safety issues especially for LWRs. Genoa said the NRC "is doing a good job to encourage the industry to organize itself to address the issues." Despite this assessment, the industry still has to make its case with the agency.

Part of it is what the NRC calls a “chicken and egg” issue. The agency wants to see customers showing interest in SMRs before it commits itself to diving deep into the regulatory issues for them.

In a speech to a Platts Energy conference in Washington DC June 28, 2010, NRC Commissioner William C. Ostendorff said:

“On the one hand, you have the industry and vendors seeking a high level of certainty and assurance from the federal government that related legislation and regulations will provide for a future return on their investment. On the other hand, you have the federal government looking to the industry and vendors for actions and signals that indicate the existence of a market for SMR technology . . .”

NEI using ANS white papers

white papersNEI is expanding the scope of its search for ideas by using a series of white papers being developed on SMR licensing issues by the American Nuclear Society (ANS) . Genoa notes that ANS members participate in the drafting process as private individuals and don't represent their employers.

"The ANS is not directly engaging the NRC in dialog about how to regulate SMRs. NEI is using the ANS papers to help develop industry positions that will represent our membership's interest with the regulator."

However, Genoa noted that Phil Moor, who co-chairs the ANS SMR committee, is a member of the NEI task force.

"The paper on fees was particularly useful," Genoa said, " but as is the case with any white paper, you use what matters most to your association's members."

NRC policy review of small reactor issues

The drive to seek innovative solutions has the attention of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) even if it is officially skeptical about customer interest. Small reactors may not need a mirror of all the requirements as those imposed on their larger cousins, or at the same scale, in order to be safe.

The NRC has published a policy paper (SEC-10-0034) (PDF full text) which takes up these issues. Genoa says this paper is "essential reading for anyone who wants to understand the regulatory issues from the NRC's point of view."

While the paper takes note of nine small reactor designs, it doesn't speculate on which ones will be most likely to hit the regulator's desk first. The paper divides the world of regulatory issues into four parts. The paper ranks each regulatory issue with these four groups as high, medium, or low importance.

· Licensing issues
· Design requirements
· Operational issues
· Financial issues

It takes note of all three generic classes of small reactors including light water (LWR), high temperature gas (HTGR), and liquid metal fast (LMFR) though it doesn't used these acronyms. Also, the paper does not address R&D or technical issues that small reactor vendors need to address to complete their designs such as fuel design or testing.

Financial issues are first for industry concerns

fees calculationWhat's interesting is that while the NEI task force picked ten issues which match many of those on the NRC's list, the first two white papers NEI wrote are on financial issues – fees and decommissioning funding.

Genoa says a key example is that a large, 1,000 MW reactor will pay $5 million a year in fees to the NRC for basic licensing activities. He says the NEI white paper asks the question whether this is the "right fee level" for a 300 MW reactor with a much less complex plant to regulate?

On the issue of the size of the decommissioning fund, Genoa says the white paper is exploring the question of whether it can be smaller, for a small reactor, if the design on the front end takes into account the decommissioning of the reactor on the back end 60 years later?

"We've learned a lot of lessons about pumps and pipes. If we incorporate them into design, can it reduce the cost of decommissioning and thus the size of the fund needed to cover these costs?"

The industry has taken this approach for large BWR and PWR plants. Now it wants to extend the idea to SMRs.

Emergency Response

siren2One of the key objectives in any reactor emergency response plan is to protect the public from exposure to radiation. Responses can include evacuation or shelter. In the case of SMRs, if the reactor is underground, and any release is contained there, how does that change the emergency response plan? Genoa says this might change the size of the evacuation zone from 10 miles to 2 miles.

"Our going in position is that there may not be a change to the size of the zone, but rather what happens inside it in terms of utility response."

"SMRs will have to meet the NRC's requirements, but in different ways. Different levels of risk depend in part on the size of the reactor."

Once you get a 'six-pack' of these small reactors they start to look like a big one, but until then specific issues, based on size, need to be addressed. Genoa says placement of reactors underground is is a game changer when it comes to deciding how to handle a whole range of issues including security.

"If you secure the reactor that way, how many guards and guns do you need on the surface? Also, are sirens still the best way to notify the public about an emergency?"

Another aspect of this issue is how control rooms will be set up. One of the features of SMRs is that vendors hope to offer economies of scale to utilities by being able to manage multiple modules from a single control room.

Diesel locomotive with slave units The railroad industry tackled this issue when it developed multiple diesel units to be controlled by a single engineer. While nuclear reactors are a lot more complicated than a railroad locomotive, the metaphor illustrates the idea.

There are human factors involved, Genoa says, that have to be worked through. Another issue is how to license a new module at a site where there is one that is already licensed and in operation.

Next steps in dialog with NRC

dialog balloonsNEI plans to hold a series of public workshops with the NRC as it completes the white papers. The next one is scheduled for Sept 22-23 which will address fees and decommissioning costs.

NEI plans to make top level presentations at the meeting. It hopes the meeting will be the start, not the end, of dialog with the NRC.

Genoa says NEI doesn't expect NRC heads to go north and south or east and west at these meetings. That would be unrealistic. The objective of the meetings is to discuss alternative approaches to regulating SMRs based on industry buy-in as represented in the NEI white papers.

"These discussions are intended to establish a technology neutral framework for a final decision. We don’t expect the NRC to make up its mind one way or the other the first time they see an idea from us on SMRs."

Genoa said the members of the NEI task force have been impressed that the NRC is serious about the industry's concerns about changing regulatory paradigms for SMRs.

"They've put their "A" team on it," Genoa said, and he mentioned several by name.

Will the white papers be published at the these meetings? Genoa says some documents, like presentations, will become part of the public record of the meetings and eventually will be accessible through the NRC’s web site.

Genoa is hoping the NRC will consider having web access to the audio portions of the meetings, or a webinar format, so that people outside the DC area can follow the discussions as they happen.

Fuel is a critical success factor

Resolving regulatory issues won't clear away all the barriers facing SMRs in terms of time to market.Genoa says other critical success factors, especially for HTGR and LMFR, include fuel testing.

"Fuel is the long pole in the tent for advanced reactors. For instance, I expect NGNP will complete their fuel work by 2018."

LWR designs are obvious candidates for earlier success Genoa says. The manufacturing base is there in the U.S. and LWR designs, including fuel, are well-understood by the NRC.

"You can't expect perfect alignment in terms of R&D priorities by the government and the vendor community. There are a lot of tasks to put in one basket which is why we are tackling the three types of reactor designs as distinct for regulatory purposes."

Another issue will be that the NRC may eventually decide to license the manufacturing facilities for SMRs which could speed up plant licensing at reactor sites. However, Genoa says the first few SMRs will be built one-at-a-time.

“The industry will learn from the front end and then be able to move to producing them in a factory setting based on customer requirements.”

NEI is focused on opening new market opportunities. The NRC and the industry know that new American jobs, and the potential for export earnings, are riding on how to license, manufacture, and operate SMRs can be made more cost effective without giving up anything on safety. That's the industry consensus Genoa is driving to achieve.

Prior coverage on this blog

  • 06/22/10 – Opening running room for small reactors
  • 07/28/10 – Licensing small reactors

Video Link

  • Platts on SMRs Platts Energy Week 7.11.2010 - Bill Loveless holds a panel discussion with Mike Anness from Westinghouse Electric Company; Paul Genoa from the Nuclear Energy Institute and Edwin Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists.

# # #

Monday, August 16, 2010

Merkel's nuclear energy tax plan backfires

Planned tax on nation’s 17 reactors prompts a threat by utilities to shut them down

backfireAs an idiomatic phrase, if something "backfires," it means plans for a project have not worked out and with unanticipated negative consequences. It can also mean that the plans were not thought out deeply ahead of time.

Technically speaking, a backfire is an explosion of unburned gas in the exhaust system. Instead of blowing the doors off the competition, the poorly tuned engine blows the tailpipe off the car.

This is exactly what's happening in Germany this week as Chancellor Angela Merkel struggles to save the nation's 17 nuclear reactors and simultaneously tax their profits to buffer the impacts of her government's austerity budget.

Germany's two largest utilities mounted a major campaign to push back on the idea of taxing their nuclear fuel rods to produce €2.3 billion a year or €23 billion ($2.9 billion) over the next decade.

The German newspaper Der Spiegel reports Aug 14 that the utilities threatened to shut down the reactors on their own unless the tax is replaced with a fixed contribution to a renewable energy fund. They claim the tax will severely cut dividends to shareholders and funds for capital investment though none is planned for new reactors.

Real the complete details exclusively at the EnergyCollective online now.


# # #

Sunday, August 15, 2010

Nuclear energy videos for Monday August 16

Another in the weekly series to brighten your first day back on the job

All videos are absolutely safe for work.

First light bulbs powered by nuclear energy

This is a visual tour with interviews about EBR-1. How does a nuclear engineer turn on a light bulb? He plugs it into a reactor.

Too bad all we have on Facebook is Farmville

Areva Funkytown commercial . . . It's entertaining and informative. Too bad we don't have a simulation like it on Facebook instead of one running a farm.

Reactor safety analysis? Well maybe not!

Frets on Fire . . . This is not an animation of nuclear probabilistic risk assessment software. You can actually get this software for home use and play any song with it.

A coke commercial that a nuclear engineer could love.

I like this one just because Coke actually spent money to get it made. Wonderful for kids.

# # #