“Report Faults Online Services Over Reliance on Coal and Nuclear Power” (Business Day, April 18) discusses a Greenpeace report suggesting that emissions-free nuclear power and coal constitute “dirty energy.”

It’s true that by opening up new data centers in states like North Carolina, Virginia and Illinois, major Internet companies are using more nuclear energy — and at affordable prices. What’s untrue and insinuated in both your article and the Greenpeace report is that this reliance on nuclear somehow sullies a company’s environmental reputation, when nuclear is in fact playing an important role keeping the cloud clean.

Nuclear energy accounts for 70 percent of the clean electricity produced in the United States, and together with renewables like solar and wind is a vital part of any clean energy portfolio. Companies that rely on 24/7 baseload power to meet their electricity needs are contributing to emission-reduction goals by including nuclear in their energy mix.

CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN
Princeton, N.J., April 19, 2012
The writer, the former Environmental Protection Agency administrator, is co-chairwoman of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, an industry-funded coalition that promotes nuclear energy.

To date, nuclear is the only proven source of low-emissions “baseload” power — that is, electricity that’s always on, day or night, powering round-the-clock elevators in Tokyo or office buildings in Munich. Yet both Germany and Japan are poised to prematurely shutter their large nuclear sectors, giving up all of that guaranteed, low-carbon electricity generation in an anti-nuclear frenzy, on a bet that they can multiply their generation of renewable electricity within a decade or two.

Before the Fukushima Daiichi disaster last year, Japan derived a third of its electricity from nuclear power. Now, with all but one reactor offline, the country’s consumption of crude and heavy fuel oil for power generation has roughly tripled. Even with that backup fossil-fired power, though, the government worries that the electrical system will fail during peak summer demand if utilities don’t switch on reactors. The Financial Times’ Gerrit Wiesmann reports a similar situation in Germany, which has committed to closing all of its reactors, even as its power grid teeters and its electricity sector emits more carbon than it must after eight reactors shut down last year.

With both countries making the paths to their emissions goals more difficult, anti-nuclear activists justify this mess by insisting that renewable energy sources will pick up the slack. But that raises major questions of feasibility and cost.

Perhaps, a Japanese government report claimed, Japan could still reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent of its 1990 levels by 2030 without nuclear power. Yet even if that’s true, it’s hardly a reason to let all of that existing nuclear infrastructure and know-how go to waste. The report also notes that the country could cut emissions 33 percent if nuclear accounted for a fifth of the country’s generation, or even as much as 39 percent if Japan continued to derive a third of its electricity from nuclear.

It’s also far from clear that cutting Japan’s emissions will be as easy as those numbers suggest. A separate government analysis indicated argued that the country would actually fall well short of 25 percent without nuclear. Not content to rely on optimistic predictions about renewables, Japanese utilities are already investing hundreds of millions of dollars in projects to promote fossil- fuel imports.

Advocates of green energy point out that Germany already derives more of its electricity from renewables than Japan because of hefty government subsidies. But making up for the loss of that country’s reactors and meeting ambitious emissions goals would still require a veritable revolution in its electricity generation on a scale not seen since post-World War II reconstruction, Bloomberg reports. Critics reasonably predict that the country will instead rely on electricity imports from neighbors running old, reliable coal, gas and, yes, nuclear plants for years to come.

Following the scary but ultimately non-catastrophic Fukushima nuclear crisis, every country with a reactor had reason to review the safety of its existing facilities and the integrity of its regulatory systems. But prudence demanded then and now that they not abandon the power source precipitously. Maintaining existing reactors — and, we would argue, including next-generation nuclear technology as a component in forward-looking anti-carbon policies — doesn’t rule out a promising future for renewables, too. But it does make it much more likely that emissions goals can be met or exceeded.

Equally important, the industry is proactively applying lessons learned from Fukushima Daiichi and is making nuclear power, which provides 20% of America’s electricity, even safer.

The nuclear energy industry is working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the steps to be taken to enhance safety at America’s reactors. To further strengthen the plants’ ability to withstand extreme events, the commission will require U.S. facilities to install additional instruments to monitor the level of water in used reactor fuel storage pools and add protection from extreme natural events such as floods and earthquakes, no matter how infrequent they may be.

Nuclear energy facilities already have multiple emergency generators, battery banks, backup offsite power supplies, extra pumps and other equipment. But companies that operate America’s 104 commercial reactors have added or ordered nearly 400 major pieces of equipment to supplement layers of safety at these facilities. Under a commitment made by all U.S. operators, the companies will buy additional equipment, such as portable generators and pumps, which can be used to provide power and water to cool the reactors and used fuel pools under any extreme scenario.

Additional backup equipment at America’s reactors will add even more layers of protection to deepen the resources that operators can draw upon to ensure power can be delivered to critical safety systems no matter what causes an event.

Our industry is committed to continuous learning: checking and rechecking every safety measure to make sure nuclear energy facilities are safe at all times. After global operational or natural events, it is our responsibility to ask again: How can we be even safer?

The nuclear industry is, without hesitation, using what is being learned from Japan to improve safety. Within days of the Fukushima accident, the U.S. industry launched intensive inspections to evaluate the readiness of the operators and equipment to respond to events similar to what happened in Japan, including managing an extended loss of power for vital safety systems, and seismic and flooding challenges.

The inspections confirmed assessments by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and state-based task forces that nuclear energy facilities are safe and have identified key areas for near-term safety enhancements. Important operational and preparedness features at U.S. reactors, different from those in Japan, would have enabled them to maintain safety during earthquakes or extreme flooding. Nonetheless, the industry is forging ahead to make those enhancements.

In a recent CNN.com opinion piece, an organization criticized these actions, saying industry is “getting out ahead of the NRC” by launching its own safety initiative. We would have it no other way. It’s in our industry’s DNA to learn safety lessons at any opportunity and apply them where warranted at our facilities. That is why our industry and its own watchdog organization — the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations — was held up as a model for safety when the president’s commission on the Deepwater Horizon accident was looking at other industries for the oil industry to emulate.

Public and worker safety is our industry’s top priority. We constantly reevaluate our safety practices to see how they can be even stronger. We have embraced this challenge, and our industry is aggressively seeking out and applying the lessons from Fukushima to our operations.

America needs nuclear energy as part of a portfolio of electricity options that will power our economy for generations. It is a vital source of affordable, carbon-free electricity today and for the future. To continue to reap its benefits and move toward American energy independence, we must and we will ensure that nuclear energy facilities operate safely.

Marvin Fertel is president and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a policy organization for the nuclear energy industry.

In the 1970s, nuclear power was just beginning to establish itself as a major energy source in America. Then came an energy crisis, cost increases, an economic downturn and an accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) in Pennsylvania. America’s nuclear energy industry was declared all but dead.

Yet, three decades later, it lives. Some might say it thrives.

True, no new nuclear plants were permitted after the 1979 accident — until this year. But nuclear energy never went away. At the time of the TMI incident, the U.S. had 72 nuclear power plants up and running. Today we have 104.

And nuclear power isn’t just about numbers. It’s about efficiency, too. In 1979, America’s reactors operated at an average capacity factor of less than 60 percent. That means the average nuclear plant spent 40 percent of that year not producing electricity.

Since then, the nuclear industry has figured out how to make its technology much more efficient. Today, nuclear plants routinely exceed capacity factors of more than 90 percent, making them among the most efficient energy sources available.

In the wake of TMI, energy production began shifting toward natural gas. Natural gas plants were less expensive, didn’t carry the political risk of nuclear power and were fueled by low-cost natural gas.

But as demand grew for natural gas, so did its price. By the early 2000s, energy producers began seeking cheaper alternatives. And a nuclear power industry that had spent the past 30 years refining its product was ready to be that alternative.

This renewed interest sparked major investment in nuclear power. Since 2007, the industry has filed 18 applications to build almost 30 new reactors. One of those permits has been issued already, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is reviewing 11 more. (Others were withdrawn.) In addition to plant permits, the NRC also is reviewing certification applications for new reactor designs, and a multitude of companies are working on new small modular reactor designs.

Now, once again, with cost estimates rising, natural gas prices dropping and public anxiety fueled by a major accident, some question whether nuclear power has a future.

The answer is a resounding “Yes,” if we learn the right lessons from Fukushima and implement the right policy reforms.

For starters, we should not assume that the mistakes made in Japan apply directly to the U.S. nuclear industry. It’s worth remembering that the United States has had no nuclear energy incident in more than 30 years and has never had one that resulted in deaths or other disasters.

After TMI, the U.S. nuclear community embarked upon a major reform effort. Government produced far-reaching new rules. Within the plants themselves emerged what has become known as a safety culture.

The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks also sparked significant regulatory reforms. Now, the accident at Fukushima has produced new lessons that will lead to additional changes in U.S. safety regulations. For example, the NRC is calling for new regulations to ensure the integrity of spent-fuel pools and the availability of adequate backup power.

We also will need reforms that allow for greater competition in energy markets. Though safety is critical, a major problem for nuclear power is cost. Costs have been driven artificially high by the government’s attempts to micromanage the nuclear energy industry. So long as politicians and bureaucrats trump market forces, nuclear power will never fully realize its potential.

This reform effort should concentrate on two areas: expanding the NRC’s technical expertise to regulate new technologies and introducing market forces to nuclear waste management.

Though there are no guarantees, nuclear power — despite much adversity — has proved to be much more than a survivor. The right reforms will open up markets to more abundant, more affordable and even safer nuclear energy.

A senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Jack Spencer served as content expert for the new documentary “Powering America.”

“Within a week of the March 11, 2011 events, teams of engineers and technical experts from Exelon Nuclear and others in the industry traveled to Japan to provide expertise and to begin understanding as many lessons as possible from the experience,” read a release from Exelon Nuclear issued March 5.

Along with that release from Exelon, which owns and operates the Limerick Generating Station, was a list of things done at Limerick in the wake of the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima-Daiichi reactors.

Within one week of the accident, “Limerick was reviewing systems and components to ensure that the plant could mitigate the effects of a seismic event, flood or complete loss of (electrical) power.”

Since that immediate response, Exelon technical experts have “verified readiness of more than 1,700 other pieces of equipment; inspected more than 1,900 flood barriers and seals; and invested more than 43,000 worker hours checking and testing equipment and procedures that might be needed in an emergency,” the release stated.

Here is a list of other actions taken at Limerick:

• More than 3,800 worker hours applied to completing Fukushima response activities, some of which were voluntary and others required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission;

• 208 procedures and operating guidelines created, revised or verified;

• Additional training on backup emergency equipment pump conducted with operators;

• Hands-on pump trailer towing training conducted with all operators;

• 93 pieces of portable and installed equipment throughout the plant site were reviewed;

• 37 plant areas that have internal or external design flood barriers or seals were inspected to verify barrier/seal functionality;

• 20 operations training lesson plans and main control room simulator guidelines modified to address post-Fukushima lessons.

According to the company release, “Limerick is protected from flooding by watertight doors, elevation of equipment above flood levels and specially engineered flood barriers. Limerick can automatically and safely shut down and keep the fuel cooled even without electricity from the grid, using massive back-up power generators that have second, third and fourth layers of back-ups.”

“Since March, we have taken the learnings from Fukushima, critically assessed our operations and taken immediately actions,” Mike Pacilio, president and chief nuclear officer of Exelon Nuclear sad in the release.

Recent reports that have come out use Fukushima as a scare tactic, raising the levels of fear in the public that an event like Fukushima can happen in Pennsylvania. The reports fail to outline the safety measures taken in Pennsylvania, and our country as a whole, as a result of the accident.

Following the events in Japan, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) performed detailed air, water and milk testing to ensure safety. The conclusion was that none of the precipitation, water, milk or air samples exceeded normal regulatory standards. Furthermore, nuclear companies have performed various tests to ensure that nuclear plants in the United States can withstand a disaster like Fukushima. Exelon, specifically, has verified readiness of more than 1,700 other pieces of equipment; inspected more than 1,900 flood barriers and seals; and invested more than 43,000 worker hours checking and testing equipment and procedures that might be needed in an emergency.

The PA DEP closely monitors any and all possibilities of threats around each of the plants in Pennsylvania for problems before they become an environmental or public health risk. Nuclear energy is a legitimate part of our energy portfolio and should be regulated based on facts, not fiction or innuendo.

DAVID HESS

Former Secretary, PA Department of Environmental Protection
Advisory Board member, PA Energy Alliance
Dauphin County

The recent poll also showed 33 percent now oppose nuclear in the U.S., compared to 35 percent in September 2011.

By comparison, a similar survey in February 2011, a month before the accident, showed that 71 percent favored nuclear.

About 81 percent of respondents believe that nuclear energy will be important in meeting the U.S.’s future electricity demands, a slight increase from 80 percent in September. Additionally, 82 percent thought the U.S. should “take advantage of all low-carbon energy sources, including nuclear, hydro and renewable energy,” and the same proportion believes the operating licenses of plants that continue to meet federal safety standards should be renewed.

Two-thirds, or 65 percent, of those questioned said they were OK with the construction of a new reactor at the nearest existing nuclear plant, and 58 percent of respondents think that the nation should build more nuclear plants in the future.

The survey also found that 76 percent of respondents would like to see nuclear waste and by-products stored at one or two storage facilities at volunteer host sites. In addition, 80 percent of participants support the federal government developing a final disposal facility for used nuclear fuel as long as it meets U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements.

The public’s view of nuclear plant safety in the U.S. remains high, with almost three-quarters of respondents saying they believe nuclear plants in the U.S. are safe and secure. However, 82 percent of people believe the U.S. should use lessons learned from Fukushima and continue to develop advanced nuclear power plants to meet the country’s growing demand.

Join us on Tuesday, March 20, Monday, March 26 and Thursday, April 5
On MCCC’s Central Campus:
340 DeKalb Pike
Blue Bell, PA 19422

The Series is free and open to the public.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
Energy Workforce
Advanced Technology Center – Room 101
From nuclear to shale, Pennsylvania’s economy is highly dependent on energy jobs. This panel will focus on the work opportunities created by the state’s various forms of energy generation. Confirmed speakers include:
· Moderated by Suzanne Holloman, Dean of Workforce Development and Continuing Education at Montgomery County Community College
· Terry Peck, PA Energy Alliance member and Business Manager of UA Local 520 Plumbers and Pipefitters Union
· Carolyn Albright, Human Resources, Limerick Generating Station
· Jon Costanza, SunPower Builders
· Alan Robinson, Program Manager, Kleinfelder, Member of the Marcellus Shale Coalition

Monday, March 26, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
An Energy Forecast for Pennsylvania: How will the state be powered in 25 years?
Advanced Technology Center – Room 101
This panel will provide an overview of the future of energy, and the role that Pennsylvaniawill play as these changes unfold. Energy cost, government regulations and the role of world politics will be key factors in the discussions. Confirmed speakers include:
· Moderated by Stephen Mullin, PA Energy Alliance member and Senior Vice-President and Principal at Econsult Corporation
· Jill Beccaris-Pescatore, Instructor of Economics, Montgomery County Community College
· Wayne Gardner, Commissioner, PA Public Utility Commission
· Professor Edward Turzanski, International Relations/Espionage and Terrorism, Assistant Vice President for Government and Community Relations, La Salle University

Thursday, April 5, 2012, 7:00 p.m.
Environmental Sustainable Energy
Advanced Technology Center 101 – NOTE CHANGE
The state of Pennsylvania features a wide variety of energy sources, and has made significant steps to become a leader in sustainable energy. This panel will focus on the clean energy used in Pennsylvania and the benefits it has for our state. Confirmed speakers include:
· Moderated by Jeff Norton, Energy Group member at Eckert Seamans
· John Hanger, Former Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Former President and CEO of PennFuture
· Professor Rob Kuhlman, Geology Professor, Montgomery County Community College
· Jon Costanza, SunPower Builders

For more information, please visit http://paenergyalliance.com/energy-speaker-series, email mmoerder@paenergyalliance.com or call 717-319-1988. For directions and panel locations, please visit http://www.mc3.edu/aboutUs/directions and select Central Campus. We hope to see you there!

As discussed at the Energy Workforce panel on Tuesday night, check out some of these organizations for job opportunities:

DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [eere@service.govdelivery.com]
Solarbuzz Info [info@solarbuzz.com]
North American Clean Energy [noreply@nacleanenergy.com]
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America [Distribution184@qMags.com]
Solar Energy Industries Association: SEIA Weekly News Brief [seia@multibriefs.com]
Solar Industry Magazine
Clean Energy News [infoasp@cleanenergynews.net]
American Solar Energy Society
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Grid Magazine [alex@redflagmedia.ccsend.com]
Green Jobs Philadelphia

Courtesy of Jon Costanza, SunPower Builders

We strongly believe that nuclear energy for the production of baseload electricity in the United States should be expanded. The technology solves a host of problems facing us.

Today, nuclear energy produces nearly 20 percent of the nation’s electricity with no carbon emissions, so increasing production will decrease our carbon footprint. We must remember that battery-powered automobiles promise to reduce both oil imports and greenhouse gases. An electrical powered car, however, is still using fossil fuels, because much of the electricity in the U.S. derives from coal-fueled plants.

Demand for electricity will continue to increase significantly as we move to a more electrified world. As populations move to higher-density locations—cities—and as we move toward a more digital society, we expect and demand access to reliable electricity, 24/7. A stable baseload source is the only solution—the question is from what source.

While our energy portfolio must remain diverse, there is simply no room for more coal-generated power and its demonstrated health impacts. Nuclear energy is the only source whose technology is proven and is becoming better, safer, and more efficient. In fact, nuclear energy is as safe—or safer—than any other form of large-scale energy available. The design for a new generation of nuclear facilities, just approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, delivers an unprecedented level of safety and economy.

Finally, a nuclear facility, from construction through operation, is a tremendous economic engine. The construction of only one new plant will initially create 1,700 jobs with the promise of additional highly paid, skilled employment, and eventually will generate $400 million to $600 million in revenue for the community. Interestingly, the citizens residing near nuclear facilities are those most supportive of nuclear power in the United States.

We have this chance to provide a safe and constant source of energy for our children and our grandchildren, using a fundamental energy source of the universe and one that produces good jobs without air emissions. We should jump at the chance!

Dr. Eric Loewen is president of the American Nuclear Society. In November 2009, Esquire magazine profiled Loewen as “The Man Who Could End Global Warming.”

Moreover, these reactors are designed to use existing nuclear waste as their fuel. In other words, their use would actually reduce stores of waste generated by huge reactors such as New Jersey’s Oyster Creek.

Unfortunately, all the arguments for developing and licensing small, modular nuclear reactors fell on deaf ears at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The commission has no immediate plans even to begin assessing traveling wave or any other small nuclear technology.

It is not as if mini-nuclear technologies are experimental and unproven. The basic science was developed and paid for by the U.S. government in the 1950s. The Navy has had about 100 small nuclear reactors operating with a perfect safety record for 50 years on its nuclear-powered submarines. Our modern aircraft carriers are all nuclear-powered. And there are about 60 low-energy reactors, mostly in American universities, that have been used in nuclear medicine for half a century.

Recent news that Gates has been meeting with the Chinese about traveling wave technology is particularly ominous. This could help put China at the forefront of a new industry and leave the United States, in nuclear terms, a banana republic.

The Chinese lack the contentious, partisan political structure that prevents some alternative technologies from growing in the United States. One is reminded of Mao’s injunction to “let a hundred flowers blossom,” which is still the Chinese government’s attitude toward technological innovation. With this approach, and no need to contend with uninformed public opinion or political bickering, China threatens to rapidly outpace America in developing tomorrow’s means of energy production.

In the 1980s, I went to China to help build factories for the manufacture of fiberglass luxury yachts. The Chinese started from absolute scratch, never having even seen a fiberglass yacht, yet in relatively short order, they were exporting million-dollar boats. If they start applying this kind of innovative energy to the construction and export of small, modular nuclear reactors, the world will cease to look to America for energy solutions. The Chinese, standing on the shoulders of half a century of American ingenuity, will inherit the leadership of the world’s most vital industry.