JHEverson Consulting

My blog post of February 9, 2012 noted that the Seabrook nuclear plant in New Hampshire poses a serious safety risk regarding onsite storage of spent fuel rods and a degraded concrete foundation. These observations, coupled with recent headline accounts, do not inspire confidence in U.S. nuclear plant safety.

Regarding U.S. nuclear safety, The Hill reported, “A federal report recommending a suite of new safety measures at the country’s nuclear power plants lacks ‘rigorous analysis,’ the nuclear industry said. The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the industry’s national trade group, faulted the 90-day report released by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) task force last week for not including a detailed analysis of the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant.”

According to the Associated Press, “Japan’s nuclear safety chief said Wednesday the country’s regulations are flawed, outdated and below global standards, and he apologized for their failure when a tsunami crippled one plant last year. Haruki Madarame admitted Japanese safety requirements such as for tsunami and power losses were too loose and many officials have looked the other way and tried to avoid changes.”

Why western countries invaded Libya and why they will probably not invade Syria: Syria’s oil reserves are only 5 percent of Libya’s. Thus, there is only a 5 percent chance that Europeans and/or the United States will do anything of substance to prevent the slaughter of innocent children, women and non combatant men.

In a recent article entitled, “Drill here, sell there, pay more,” Representative Ed Markey, wrote, “For the first time in 62 years, since Harry Truman was president, the United States was a net exporter of oil products. An estimated $88 billion worth of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products was sent to overseas markets last year.”

Exported diesel fuel also includes home heating oil that has been exported in greater quantities for the past several years. I wrote about this matter in my blog of October 18, 2011. That post noted, “Oil companies are making profits from exported distillate fuels and federal subsidies, while state and city government are vainly attempting to provide heating oil assistance to financially stressed families. Although oil companies are free to sell products to whomever, nevertheless they are not entitled to totally unnecessary subsidies. Some portion of those subsidies could be diverted to poor families for home heating oil payment assistance, while the remaining subsidies could support renewable energy R&D, especially to decrease the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) generated from solar PV and off shore wind.”

Representative Markey concluded, “An energy agenda that places oil above all is not helping Americans find work or achieve energy security. As we build America’s clean-energy future, we also must also ensure that our domestic oil and natural-gas resources stay here in America.”

In a blog post of December 4, 2011, I wrote, “Thirty percent of New England’s electricity generation is from nuclear plants (ISO Regional System Plan 2011). Three out of five of these five plants are past their design life time. All use mostly imported uranium, and exercise questionable safety by storing greater numbers of densely packed, spent fuel rods at the plants. Nuclear power plants have a finite lifetime. Replacing a decommissioned plant with another will be extremely expensive and time consuming. For example, an AP1000 nuclear power plant (Generation III+) built by Westinghouse will cost between $5B to $7B per reactor and be operational 60 months from receipt of order.

Those comments were reinforced with an article in the Boston Globe (February 9, 2012), “Officials question safety of Seabrook power:”

“Citing safety concerns, a growing chorus of local politicians is urging the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to halt the relicensing  process for Seabrook Station until a long-term solution is implemented to address concrete degradation at the plant.”

“Concrete surrounding an electric control tunnel at the nuclear power plant has lost almost 22 percent of its strength and is showing signs of an alkali-silica (ASR) reaction because of more than a decade of ground-water infiltration, according to an NRC inspection report released in May 2011.”

“The degradation was discovered during a below-grade inspection of the accessible portion of the foundation, including the tunnel, a safety structure with vital electric cables that support the cooling system used when the reactor is shut down.”

How many more Fukushima-Chernobyl wakeup calls are needed to put safety concerns ahead of profit motives?

In a blog post of February 4, 2012, I wrote, “In spite of extensive incentives from U.S. federal and state governments…, renewable energy consumption of solar and wind from 2006 to 2010 has been underwhelming at best.”

That observation was confirmed in a recent article in the Boston Globe (January 31, 2012), “Green electricity finds few customers in Mass:”

“Five years after NStar became the first Massachusetts utility to allow customers to buy electricity supplied by a wind farm, its Green program has failed to catch on. Less than 1 percent of the company’s nearly 900,000 customers have enrolled.”

“The dismal response resembles lackluster participation in similar renewable energy programs offered by other utilities, worrying state officials as they push toward a goal of generating 20 percent of electricity from renewable energy by 2020.”

“The NStar program has faltered because of the recession and falling fossil fuel prices, which resulted in a greater surcharge for wind energy. Environmental activists are frustrated and question whether utilities have done enough to publicize the programs.”

Electricity from renewable energy makes sense from environmental impact and domestic accessibly perspectives. However, cost to the consumer is more important.