Support Growing for US Nuclear Power Industry Bailout (NYTimes.com)

An article in the New York Times today looks at a growing support from officials in the United State for maintaining the nuclear power industry, mainly because they see the environmental benefits from keeping a non-greenhouse gas emitting power source online. In the United States, nuclear power plants provide 60 per cent on non-carbon producing electric power.

With US power plants aging, there are people in government and in the environmental movement who are pushing for government financial support to provide a bailout for the nuclear industry and keep the existing plants running.

US Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz is interviewed for the article and he states that “maintaining the nuclear fleet is really important for meeting our near-term and midterm goals.”

If there is a LENR emergence in the near future, I would expect the narrative to change quite a bit with regard to nuclear fission plants. But we are not there yet, so the focus of decision makers will likely remain on the nuclear technology that is already up and running.

The full New York Times article can be read here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/business/energy-environment/nuclear-plants-despite-safety-concerns-gain-support-as-clean-energy-sources.html?_r=0

  • greggoble

    This cold fusion process out of US Navy SPAWAR labs transmutes nuclear waste to benign elements while providing high process steam to the turbines. This keeps the money coming in while ending the nuclear fuel cycle. This ensures the funds are there for decommissioning. Turbines and generators have a lifetime from 50 to 80 years. If you want to study how these funds are handled read the 2016 report.

    Global Energy Corporation
    http://www.gec.solutions

    After 20 years of R&D and product development, GEC has developed a truly safe, clean and secure atomic energy generator through hybrid fusion-fast-fission Technology. These SMG’s are safe (no chain reaction-no melt down), clean (uses nuclear waste/unenriched U as fuel), and secure (no enrichment and no reprocessing).

    Market Analysis for the Technology!

    Because GEC SMG through Hybrid Fusion Technology is safe, clean and secure, the current market potential estimate ranges from an initial market in the $billions to an ultimate market in the $trillions. This is based upon GEC specific market analysis and potential nuclear power plants that need to be built by 2050 as estimated by OECD. Specifically, GEC will concentrate on the Island Nations, Middle East, Asia and Africa.

    2006 – Global Energy Corporation founded
    2011 – Subsidiary GEC Global LLC established for development of conventional power plants
    2012 – BOT signed to develop and build a 50MWe GEC SMG Power Plant on the island of Saipan
    2013 – Patent issued for Technology

    Condensed Matter Nuclear Reactions – December 7th, 2013
    http://www.academia.edu/5362533/Condensed_Matter_Nuclear_Reactions
    P.A. Mosier-Boss – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
    L.P. Forsley – University of Texas, Austin, Austin, TX
    President JWK International, Annandale, VA

    NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

    Nuclear Development

    “Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants” © OECD 2016 NEA No. 7201
    https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2016/7201-costs-decom-npp.pdf

    4.2.2.1. External segregated fund management

    In the “external segregated fund model”, the funds are managed externally, by a dedicated independent body that may be a private or state-owned entity. Such funds may be centralised, for the entire industry, or decentralised, with as many funds as there are operators. It is argued that the advantages with this model include increased transparency, enhanced insolvency protection and improved public confidence that the required funds will be available when needed.

    Finland, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States indicated that there were external segregated funds in their countries. Switzerland indicated that there are two national funds, one for decommissioning and one for waste, each having their own legal personality and subject to the supervision of the Swiss Confederation.

    https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2016/7201-costs-decom-npp.pdf

    4.2.2.1. External segregated fund management

    In the “external segregated fund model”, the funds are managed externally, by a dedicated independent body that may be a private or state-owned entity. Such funds may be centralised, for the entire industry, or decentralised, with as many funds as there are operators. It is argued that the advantages with this model include increased transparency, enhanced insolvency protection and improved public confidence that the required funds will be available when needed.

    Finland, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States indicated that there were external segregated funds in their countries. Switzerland indicated that there are two national funds, one for decommissioning and one for waste, each having their own legal personality and subject to the supervision of the Swiss Confederation.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

      A few months back I sent details of the GEC GeNiE hybrid reactor (including full contact details) to a parliamentary enquiry into ‘novel’ technologies that might be relevant to UK energy needs. Before that I had also sent details to the country’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority when it was announced that they are looking into SMRs as a future option.

      Despite being aware from these contacts, their own research and probably many other inputs, the government is currently continuing the process of ‘selecting’ a site where they can dump high level waste into boreholes and forget about it (and re-writing planning law so they don’t need to consult the local frogs). They are also encouraging submissions from the usual suspects for designs for plutonium burning SMRs, together with estimates of cost.

      It would seem that either GEC’s waste-eating reactors aren’t ready, or the USG is blocking export, or the UK government is even more stupid than it appears (high probability).

      BTW Greg, your final para. above is duplicated.

      • greggoble

        You may want to contact Michel and get involved with his efforts…

        Q&A with Michel Vandenberghe of LENR-Cities on the LENRG Ecosystem – Posted on April 22, 2015 by Frank Acland
        http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/04/22/interview-with-michel-vandenberghe-of-lenr-cities-on-the-leng-ecosystem/

        10. What kind of progress have you made in getting both these new programs started and operational?

        All processes are initialized and core is well defined.

        We are now doing our first scientific project proposal in UK about Nuclear Waste Management.

        We are planning to develop Challenges The scope of the first challenge is defined

        Key is to get funding to set up LENR-Venture and go to the next stage with LENR-Cities

        • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

          I wonder whether you have any additional info regarding actual current availability of GEC’s hybrid reactors? Obtaining one to test seems a ‘no brainer’ for the UK NDA, given the heaps of high level nuclear crap accumulating at Sellafield – but perhaps it’s not quite so simple?

          Meanwhile, thanks for the suggestion re. Michel Vandenberghe and LENR-Cities.

          • greggoble

            Frank Carlucci is on GEC board of directors. He was head of the Carlyle Group and still a major shareholder.

            GEC was ready to build the reactor on Guam with $250 million of their own money. Strange story… future historians will have a fun time investigating this.

            Keep in mind… the Navy is the licensor of this technology.
            Kenneth Kok report shows that nuclear waste is a resource, which when fissioned out completely, is worth trillions. The Carlyle Group wants it all.
            Navy LENR Series
            http://coldfusionnow.org/?s=navy+lenr+series

            Germany’s Attempt to Dump Nuclear Waste and Liability Upon America: SRS Citizen’s Board Objects
            https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2016/06/07/germanys-attempt-to-dump-nuclear-waste-and-liability-upon-america-srs-citizens-board-objects/

            The US Relies on Foreign Uranium Mining, Enrichment Services to Fuel its Nuclear Reactors/ Helps Perpetuate Lie that Nuclear is “Low Carbon” Aug 2015

            [August 8th update: Until last year Traxys belonged to German brothers Reibling and was registered in Luxembourg. Now it is majority owned by the Carlyle Group. We aren’t the only ones who found that this was not “bartering”: In 2011, the US GAO stated: “DOE has mischaracterized the transactions as barters, but it is not this mischaracterization that makes the transactions illegal. The transactions constituted sales, and sales—whether through an agent or not—are authorized by the USEC Privatization Act. Rather, DOE’s legal violation occurred when it failed to deposit the value of the net proceeds into the Treasury as required by the miscellaneous receipts statute.” Page 16 GAO-11-846 DOE’s Uranium Management Program, Sept. 2011 http://gao.gov/assets/590/585406.pdf There was also a Congressional investigation this past Spring.

            • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

              Cameron in the UK is also playing this game, although details are hard to come by. Basically, 700 kgs of ‘unwanted’ highly enriched uranium is to be shipped from Dounreay in northern Scotland to the US for ‘disposal’. In exchange, an unspecified quantity of ‘a different type of HEU’ will be shipped to France where it will be converted to ‘medical isotopes’ to be used ‘to fight cancer’ (well who could possibly argue with exchanging dangerous waste for ‘medicine’).

              I wonder what the cost of 700 kgs of highly enriched uranium was to the UK taxpayer? (not that I want my share).

  • GreenWin

    OMG, planet Earth needs a”nuclear power industry like neurosurgery needs to rejuvenate the lobotomy. GW,

    ERNIE MONIZ your most benevolent public service would be to RESIGN IMMEDIATELY!! Ernie competes with NYU’s personal Dunce, ” Dr.”. Stephen E. Schwartz, perhaps the most dishonest hack in all of science.

  • sam

    The people that commented might not have researched A.R and the E cat well enough.
    If you do there is lots of facts to
    believe A.R and his technology
    are for real.

  • sam

    There are 287 comments from the article
    and not one mentioning LENR.
    Looks like that crowd is not following A.R

  • Carl Wilson

    I suspect they are desperate to keep these old nuclear plants going because the funds to pay for the of decommissioning them have been looted. Look what’s been happening to pension funds.

    • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

      Mostly they were never adequate in the first place. In the UK, in response to an FOI request, the government refuses to release any details of plans for processing waste from the proposed 32GW Hinkley C power station.

      https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/30/edf-hinkley-point-deal-radioactive-waste-sparks-anger

      Corporations involved in the nuclear industry have for years been hiving off the ‘nuclear’ [arts of their activities as subsidiaries, probably so that these can be made bankrupt as soon as profits stop flowing, and decommissioning costs beyond provision can be passed to taxpayers.

  • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

    Even after CF is in the public domain, some excuse will be found to keep the nuclear power stations running. The nuclear industry is needed by nuclear-armed States to mine, refine and ‘burn’ uranium in order to create the plutonium used in atomic bombs. Without this need, the nuclear industry would be allowed to just quietly die by the various governments that instead are so very keen to throw taxpayer money at it, in whatever quantities are required to keep it afloat.

    https://www.wired.com/2007/12/a-week-after-it/
    http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons/civmil
    http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm
    http://www.cnduk.org/about/annual-reports/item/579-the-links-between-nuclear-power-and-nuclear-weapons

    • Hador_NYC

      this is true. this is why we use these reactors over Thorium based ones in the first place. The test reactor was invented about teh same time for both elements, and thorium is more abundant in the crust anyway.

      • Zephir

        Thorium is harder to use and also the thorium breeding reactors must run
        at much higher temperatures and/or pressures, which pushes the safety
        limits of technology. http://ieer.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/thorium2009factsheet.pdf

        • sam

          This is one of the comments from
          the article.
          Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors are based on a different technology than conventional nuclear, and lack the problems of safety and waste hysterically reiterated in these comments. MSR (or LFTR) burn cheap and widely available thorium, can’t have a catastrophic accident, generate only small amounts of low-grade, short-half-life waste, and can be used to burn high-grade waste. The US had working prototype reactors in the 60s but then stopped development. Now the Chinese are using our publications to redevelop the technology, patenting advances as they go. Since wind and solar will always need a reliable base-load energy supply, it seems odd that this superior technology is almost never discussed in the main stream media, and that all commenters seem unaware of it.
          https://www.technologyreview.com/s/540991/meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor
          http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/2012-what-is-a-lftr/

          • GreenWin

            Tried, Failed, Oakridge, MSRE1969… got anymore pipedream science?

            • US_Citizen71

              It didn’t fail, as much as it wasn’t something that was useful for fighting the Russians. The cold war killed the technology not the feasibility or functionality of the technology.

            • David Taylor-Fuller

              OakRidge didnt fail it was cancelled because nixon wanted to reduce the budget nuclear was getting and the powers that be basically didnt want ot have to relearn how to build reactors since they had invested all their time energy and treasure in Light water reactors.

          • David Taylor-Fuller

            not all Molten Salt reactors are created equal. The article linked to by Zephir is right about one thing. depending on how you burn the fuel you can end up with waste that lives longer than promissed. I believe the only way to actually get the 300 year promis is with the integrated chemical distilation that allows you to remove the precursors that create the waste problem. If that is reprocessing then I am fine with it. Because Anytime humanity has decided to take a resource from the earth and use it only once. We always get bit in the ass.

        • David Taylor-Fuller

          Please stop spreading misinformation. Thorium base reactors are not harder to use and they do not run at higher pressures. I suspect you assume the higher pressure outcome because your also assuming that they would be cooling the reactor with water. Every design I have seen so far is using either a single salt to hold the fuel and conduct the heat to the heat exchanger. Or two salts one that only has the fuel and another that conducts/convects the heat to the the heat exchanger.

          Thorium liquid fueled reactors do not have a high pressure problem like light/heavy water reactors because it is not possible to disassociate hydrogen from the water molecule. Which is what is the primary problem with the current nuclear fission fleet.

          Molten salt fueled reactors get rid of the pressure issue that made fukashima the problem it became. While also removing the possibility of a melt down because the fuel is already in its liquid state. And in case your thinking well what if the reaction vaporizes the liquid fuel. Physics prevents that from happening period, The hotter the liquid fuel gets the more the rate of the reaction drops off. You also dont have to take my word for it do your research and you will find that ORNL ran a test where they turned off all the active safety systems. The reactor core got hotter, peaked then fell off.

          Finally, I read the link you provided. From what I can tell since it doesnt say explicitly they are mostly talking about the current industry’s desire to continue making solid fuel. If you go down the path of continuing to make solid fuel you inherit the problems of the current generation. Also I completely agree that Thorium and MSR’s dont permanently get rid of proliferation. But from where I stand as long as we desire to kill one another there is very little we can do to stop proliferation. The only thing you can do and the only thing thorium liquid fuel pl proponents have offered is making proliferation harder. If your dealing with people who are willing to throw life away you have way bigger problems than proliferation.

          I am a huge proponent of all Nuclear technologies be they fission, fusion, or LENR. I think the biggest mistake we ever made was building light water reactors everywhere. But thats what happens when we use War to solve our problems. The cost of war is so insidious that our our fear of nuclear power has basically stunted our development as a species from my perspective.

          That said, I doubt that nuclear energy will be leveraged on earth outside of a few exceptional situations. It will mostly come into its own in space as we expand off the planet. I take this position because I think the development of solar and wind will allow us ot meet our power needs. The only missing component is storage and I think there are enough industries who need a storage solution that Batteries will get better. Push come to shove they can use the waste heate to disassociate water and run it through a fuel cell. or use the excess power that they generate to do the same thing. They will then build out solar power satellites in space to handle the continued growth in power demands. I also expect technology improvements to reduce our energy usage requirements while we move the true power hungry stuff we do off world.

    • HS61AF91

      In Germany energy companies fight tooth and nail to preserve their nuclear producers, while the government just keeps on subsidizing wind and solar, so that the nuclear squeeze is losing its elasticity. May LENR be the salve that loosens the noose of nuclear generation here, because the exec or legislature surely won’t.

      • http://www.health-answers.co.uk Agaricus

        Here in the UK the nuclear industry lobbyists seem to have won across the board. All UK political parties except the Greens support new nuclear, and the current government has deliberately run down the ‘renewables’ industry and mortgaged the future of our kids in a desperate attempt to get a ‘fleet’ of new nuclear dinosaurs built.

        Fortunately they chose EDF to lead this charge – a company so debt-ridden, corrupt and inept that it will almost certainly be unable to get the job done, even with the vast subsidies – overt and hidden – that UK chancellor Osborne has signed us up to, plus a 30% stake from the Chinese state nuclear companies.

        • GreenWin

          Nice Camoron, invited nuclear allies the(former Red Chinese) to set up shop there at Hinckley . Close to their pals at MI6 and JTRIG.

          • Charles

            Camoron – neat play on words.