Think Big - Sink Big: Fennovoima Sinking Fast - Rats Are Leaving the Ship

More than 2000 experts on clean tech and renewable energy were participating Vaasa Energy Week 2013 last week in Vaasa, Finland  - new wind power is now half the price of new nuclear power   Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints


More and more rats are leaving the Fennovoima -ship. They are thinking with their own brains.

LINK (Finnish) - KALEVA:
http://www.kaleva.fi/blogit/pohjoisen-aani/tuiran-poika/84/fennovoima-heikolla-hapella/3452/

LINK (Finnish) - MTV3:
http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/kotimaa.shtml/2013/03/1727605/kuopio-hylkasi-fennovoiman
There is no trouble with Finnish nuclear power companies to Think Big. Fennovoima and Olkiluoto-3-4 projects are a clear sign of ability to Think Big when everyone else in the world is thinking small about nuclear power investments (if you don't count China, Russia, North Korea and other politically and from a military point of view centralized countries, and of course Iran , Saudi-Arabia, Arab-Emirates and all the other countries willing to have their own bomb). But realism has something to do with businesses, I have heard. And during the Vaasa Energy Week,  http://energyvaasa.fi/energy_week/index.php  last week in Vaasa, I heard many specialists on renewable energy telling that the real business is now in renewables. New wind power is half the price of new nuclear power. Solar is getting cheaper. The main problem with renewables seems to be that sometimes the price for generated energy gets too low due to overproduction.

So when a Finnish company is continuing its efforts to build a brand new nuclear power plant in Hanhikivi -area in Pyhäjoki, it is struggling with raising constructing costs - the estimate now shows the plant to be costing 8-9 Billion Euro - a slightly smaller unit than Olkiluoto-3 which may break 10 Billion Euro limit if it gets ready for power generation in 2015-2020. I hope not. This spending money on old-fashioned and unsecure way of generating power should be abandonned straight away. The investments should be made for creating smart grids for wind and solar power generation.

New onshore wind power is even cheaper than new coal power in Australia according to Christian Kjaer (EWEA)   Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints

In Vaasa some experts on renewable energy were just wondering why Finland is spending 2 Billion Euro for constructing old technology power grids, while Germany is investing Billions on constructing smart grids. Yesterday I saw on TV news that Fingrid had invested almost two Billion Euro for "securing the grid" as they said. They had built a new 110 Million Euro gas turbine power plant for fast peak power generating in Forssa, southern Finland.

LINK (Finnish) - MTV3:
http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/kotimaa.shtml/2013/03/1727519/forssaan-miljoonien-laitos-jonka-toivotaan-pysyvan-sammuneena

Our Minister of Trade and Economy Mr. Jan Vapaavuori was ponting out that this power plant was needed for securing grid beacuse of increasing wind and solar power generation. But the news reporter knew better the reason: this kind of fast to maximum power PPs are made to secure Olkiluoto-3 and other big nuclear power plants if they go suddenly offline.The need of additional 1600 MW of power generating capacity in 10 minutes or less is compromizing the grid unless you build this kind of fast PPs. In the end of 1970ies we had Inkoo 1000 MW coal power plant to secure our grid if our NPPs should have emergency shutdowns: in half an hour that 1000 MW could be fully achieved if needed. Those power plants were just kept most of the time idling and they were expensive to have. Nowadays these fast supply PPs are mostly gas turbine powered. They are expensive to have but a must if you have large power generating units like Olkiluoto-3. Of course they can be used for backing up wind or solar power, but nordic hydro power does that job more easily and cheaper. And by constructing smart grids with storing capacity quick changes in power output or demand can be managed though it needs much R&D to be fully realized in a large scale.

The message I hope Finnish power industry and leading politicians should now understand is that every Billion Euro investment on old technology is giving our European, Asian and American competitors more advance for their projects. If we are trying to remain in centralized DDR-like power generating  thinking we'll end up with watching them winning the multi-billion global renewable projects that we could have technology and know-how to win. It's a question of HOW and WHERE to Think Big. Now it's time to Think Big - Renewables!

SolarWindProNet Admin was also participating Vaasa Energy Week - and Thinking Big :-)      Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints  

JPS

NRC Finally Admits Solar Storms Can Threaten Nuclear Power Plants Causing Multiple Meltdowns

The Sun was quiet - not at all stormy during the historical Venus Transit last year. But solar storms could trigger geomagnetic storms that may be capable of causing months long blackouts and multireactor meltdowns - a possibility NRC is now gathering more information of  for better estimating the risk and possible means of dealing with it.  Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints

NRC says it cannot rule out the possibility of severe solar storms causing geomagnetic storms that may cause multiple nuclear meltdowns in US nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools. Further investigation is needed to better estimate the real risk, but there may occur some new regulations and means of securing the US NPPs against long blackouts caused by geomagnetic storms.

LINK - ENENEWS:

http://enenews.com/govt-concerned-about-solar-storms-impacting-nuclear-plants-carrington-like-event-core-damage-multiple-sites-discussed

LINK - GPO.GOV:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-12-18/pdf/2012-30452.pdf

I hope this new information makes it easier for the other nuclear regulators of the world to realize and re-estimate the dangers of long blackouts for the nuclear industry. I'm waiting the reaction of Finnish nuclear regulatory authority - STUK to study the new information available about severe solar storms and months long blackouts.

At least one "Black Swan" is just now being indentified by NRC ( US Nuclear Regulatory Commission) - the voulnerability of NPPs against severe geomagnetic storms.    Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints


As energy blogger I have written about this issue from the very beginning of my blogging.  http://solarwindpronet.blogspot.fi/2011/10/welcome-to-solarwindpronet.html  I see this question to be a real "Black Swan"  http://solarwindpronet.blogspot.fi/2013/01/the-renewable-energy-revolution-is-here.html until sufficient structural changes and backup systems are provided to secure our electrical grids and transformers - and NPPS and spent fuel pools - against long blackouts caused by solar storms or other such events affecting power grids.

Let's hope the discussion begins!

JPS

Former Prime Minister of Japan Naoto Kan Has A Message to The World

Mr. Naoto Kan tells his Experiences as Prime Minister during the FD Nuclear Disaster on a new video.   Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints

The second anniversary of Fukushima nuclear disaster has revealed many good articles and videos about this worst accident of our industrial history. One of them is this excellent video speech which the former Prime Minister of Japan, Member of the House of Representatives, Mr. Naoto Kan has given for Helen Caldicott Foundation "Symposium: The Medical and Ecological Consequences of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident" that is being held in New York the 11th and 12th March 2013. Mr. Kan could not attend the Meeting but gave his speech via video. The video behind the following link is 16 minutes - worth watching!

LINK - INTERTELEMEDIA/VIMEO:   http://vimeo.com/61465640

On the video Naoto Kan explains his experiences as prime minister during the FD -crises and how it affected his way of thinking about nuclear power. He reveals that 50 million people would have been evacuated for decades if the worst case scenario had happened. Well, that's something really to think about.


JPS

The Russian Asteroid Could Have Killed Tens of Thousands of People and Caused A Worldwide Nuclear Fallout

There are plenty of space rocks moving ten times faster than bullets through our solar system. Thousands of potentially hasardous asteroids are estimated to circle around us crossing the earths path in space. It's a question of timing whether they will hit or not. This bright spot in the picture is not an asteroid - it's our fellow planet Venus.   Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints

It was a big surprize. The scientists admitted it was an extraordinary rare event. That two relatively large asteroids came so close to the earth in 24 hours time from different directions. And the other, smaller one actually hit the atmosphere. And it is also rare for an object this big to evaporate and explode high in the air without hitting the earth. And the bigger space rock, 45-60 meters long, just passed by. This time. We were lucky. This time.

LINK - TELEGRAPH: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9874662/Russian-meteor-exploded-with-force-of-30-Hiroshima-bombs.html

LINK -THEDAILYBEAST:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/02/25/asteroid-apocalypse-why-scientists-worry-about-2036-planet-buster.html

LINK -  SCIENCE20 :
http://www.science20.com/science_20/atlas_collins_helps_put_russian_meteorite_context-103672

Scientists say that if this 15 meter wide smaller asteroid had striken the earth and exploded there, it would have been equivalent to 20-30 hiroshima bombs. It could have killed tens of thousands of people nearby. If hit into a major city it could have killed millions.

The evidence of continous threat of asteroids can be found on the surface of the moon. There is no atmosphere to protect our natural satellite from impacts. And the impact craters are not eroded by winds and water.   Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints



And the radioactive fallout. It would have been far more worse than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It would have been far worse than Harrisburg. More worse than Chernobyl. Worse than Fukushima.

And why is that? Asteroids are not normally radioactive. But Cheljabinsk and Majak nuclear arms facilities with masses of spent nuclear fuel are. This kind of mega-explosion could have devastated some of these nuclear facilities and caused a masssive, world-wide radioactive fallout.


LINK - BELLONA:
http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2013/Meteorite_nuclear_hazards
LINK - PRESSENZA:
http://www.pressenza.com/2013/02/russian-meteorite-another-nuclear-near-miss/

Well, we were lucky as well as the Russians were. We got some more time for preparations. One day a 15-50 meter or bigger asteroid is going to strike our planet. We'd better get rid of nuclear power as quick as possible. The nuclear industry said that a core meltdown accident would be as impossible as an asteroid strike to some nuclear power plant. Now we have had five nuclear reactor meltdowns - and been very near to a catastofical asteroid strike straight to a nuke concentration.

Somebody up there likes us. We have been warned. Those who have ears....

Photo: J.S/C.F.

JPS

Volcanoes and Nuclear Power - The Absent Discussion

Volcanoes could pose a threat to nuclear facilities - perhaps greater than  admitted up to now  Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints

One issue that has bothered me personally for some time now (in addition to nuclear power & solar storms http://solarwindpronet.blogspot.fi/2012/08/power-grids-in-danger.html  ) is volcanic hazards and nuclear power. I think this subjects has just been too difficult to analyze since it brings such horrifying scenarios with it that the main reason for ignorance of discussion would be something like this: "If Yellowstone blows up, we don't need to think about nuclear fallout - we'll end up dead, all of us, and there's no difference which one would be the cause."

But this kind of thinking rejects the logics as too painfull to be continued. The most probable case is that there won't exist any ELE -volcanic eruption on this earth during the next thousand years but thousands of smaller volcanic events that could have a high regional or national impact. And there's where this nuclear thing becomes important.

There was just recently a brief news that Hanford nuclear facility in the U.S.A. is having once more a serious radioactive leak. But when this Hanford case was analyzed, there occurred another hazardous possibility. The Hanford staff would have only less than 24 hours to change 7 000 filters of the facitility in case of volcanic eruption of the nearest volcano. Could that be possible? And what if the eruption and ashfall continues for weeks or months?

LINK - KLCC:
http://klcc.org/Feature.asp?FeatureID=4261

That article reminded me of the volcanic black swan ( http://solarwindpronet.blogspot.fi/2013/01/the-renewable-energy-revolution-is-here.html ) that is hidden from the politicians, the common man and even from the nuclear industry. What if we'll get strong volcanic events near to nuclear power plants? If we'll get 20 - 30 inches of volcanic ash falling down from the skies. How would water intake filters and cooling systems, emergency cooling systems and power grids response to this kind of event?

And how about the structures of nuclear facility buildings? Well, perhaps the reactor buildings would not have any difficulty with coping the extra weight of hundreds of tonnes. The main issue would be the large turbine and generator halls, spent fuel storage buildings, high voltage transformers and such vital equipment that could be destroyed by falling ash.

If you believe this is not possible, you could check out this article about Chernobyl NPP turbine hall which was recently partly collapsed by the weight of the fallen snow. ( LINK -  DAILY NEWS:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/chernobyl-radiation-unaffected-roof-collapse-article-1.1263037 )

We were lucky the reactor was decommissioned due to that famous accident.

In Japan they have warned that Mt Fuji, the magnificant volcano quite near to Tokyo, may erupt in the near future with a great intensity. They are now making evacuating plans and updating early warning systems.

LINK - ASAHI SHIMBUN:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201207010023

LINK -  JAPANTODAY :
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/mt-fuji-may-erupt-by-2015-says-ryuku-university-professor

LINK - VOLCANODISCOVERY:
http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/fi/fuji/news/28757/Mt-Fuji-volcano-Japan-new-evacuation-plans-in-case-of-new-eruption-published.html

But no one - at least that I have noticed - have mentioned a single word of the risks that this kind of powerful eruption could  pose to the nearest nuclear facilities. And there are plenty of other active volcanoes in Japan. And over 50 NPPs (It doesn't really matter if the NPP is closed down as long as there is nuclear fuel inside the reactor or in the spent fuel pools - they have to be constantly cooled down).

I know that the designers of nuclear facilities have realized the issue but I think they have underestimated the risk and possible consequences as they did with earthquakes and tsunamis, dam breaks and superstorms and of course solar storms.

I think what we'll need now is a fair and open discussion; how to reduce the risks of nuclear meltdowns and radioactive fallout caused by volcanic events. But the question is: who will take the initiative?

Could it be NRC, or STUK or perhaps JNES? Or GREENPEACE, NIRS or UCC?
We'll see.

JPS

Will 10 Billion Euros Be Enough to Get Olkiluoto -3 EPR Generating Power? (And Is It Worth It?)

This week we once more read the news about Finnish Olkiluoto-3 nuclear power plant construction project: the NPP may not be generating power before 2016.

              Olkiluoto-3 will be delayed until 2016    Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints

LINK - FOXBUSINESS: http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2013/02/11/finnish-nuclear-reactor-may-be-further-delayed-until-2016/


LINK -YLE: http://yle.fi/uutiset/professor_no_power_but_heavy_losses_from_olkiluoto_3/6225652

LINK - YLE: http://en.yle.mobi/w/news/ns-yduu-2-6489784

LINK - YLE: http://yle.fi/uutiset/tvo_unperturbed_by_nuclear_reactors_spiralling_cost_estimates/6415992

LINK - REUTERS: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/11/teollisuudenvoima-olkiluoto-idUSL5N0BBEZ520130211

LINK- NIRS: http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/newreactors/eprcrisis31110.pdf

LINK- POLSOZ: http://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/polwiss/forschung/systeme/ffu/veranstaltungen_aktuell/veranstaltungen_downloads/10_salzburg/vehmas.pdf

LINK - GUARDIAN: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/jul/22/nuclear-power-cost-delay-edf

A few months ago they postponed the construction schedule to 2014, AREVA estimated the total cost for the NPP to be 8,5 Billion Euros. And now two years more. Is it 1,5 or 2 Billion Euros more? So the total cost of this project would rise up to 10 Billion Euros or more. And with that 8,5 Billion Euros it was obvious that this project would not bring the investors back the money which they had thrown into it. Never. http://solarwindpronet.blogspot.fi/2012/12/olkiluoto-3-epr-to-cost-at-least-85.html Each MWh that will be produced will be just for trying to minimize the lost amount of money.

LINK -EUROPEAN NEWS-AGENCY: http://www.european-news-agency.de/wirtschaft_und_finanzen/no_power_but_heavy_losses_from_olkiluoto_3-51825/

But if the investors keep on burning their money on this project for many years to come, they will find out that it would have been wiser to back off in good time.

Say you'll have to invest 4 Billion more to the recent level of estimated investments to get the generators running. Then you'll have to pay for the decommissioning of the radioactively contaminated reactor once you'll load the fuel and start the nuclear reaction. You'll have to pay some 300 Million to 1 Billion more. And if you'll use the reactors several years or decades, you'll have plenty of highly radioactive spent fuel to take care of. Another 200 million spent.

LINK - PROSPECTLAW: http://www.prospectlaw.co.uk/assets/Radwaste-Modelling-Article-Ian-Jackson.pdf

So You'll end up with 4,5 - 5 Billion Euros more costs. And that should be added to that 8,5 Billion .

Well, that may be too simple maths but it seems to me to be quite clear that if I were an investor, I would quit my funding on nuclear power and instead put my money on renewables. With about 5 Billion Euros you'll get the same average power generating capacity 1600 MW (4500MW Max.) with wind power parks. And you don't have nuclear waste. You don't produce CO2. You don't pay for the fuel. You don't have nuclear accidents. You'll generate cheaper power - and first years with price quarantee. And you don't have to wait 10 years to get the power on - in three years you'll see your windmills spinning money to your company account. And you will get a true green reputation on the market. In a positive way.

And in addition to wind power there are solar PVs and new wave power concepts. They are really getting ready for powering nations and continents. During the arctic winter we have plenty of biomass or biogas in addition to existing hydro power to balance the supply and demand. It deals with capability of organizing and there we need real leadership, engineering and business skills. But I think that shouldn't really be an issue.

P.S. If you still believe in nuclear, think about if an accident occurs in your brand new EPR-NPP. Well, the core-catcher can (perhaps) handle your reactor core and the containment building can (perhaps) copy with the radioactive particles and gases and 5000 degrees heat of the melting core and keep inside your new reactor building the radioactivity that could wipe out Europeans from our continent if totally vaporized and set free. And this could be the situation if you were extremely lucky and there would not occur any coincidents which the engineers hadn't think of beforehand (that's what happened in Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima: great surprizes)). So if you'll be that lucky you'll only had to pay some 1-20 Billion Euros extra just for decontamination and decommissioning. But If you weren't that lucky there wouldn't be any TVO more just state and taxpayers owned wreck (like TEPCO)  that should be trying to cope with hundreds of Billions of Euros compensations and decontamination costs for a very severe nuclear accident affecting large areas of Finland and Northern Europe.

We have the right to think. And rethink.

JPS

Wind and Solar Too Cheap to Meter - Nuclear Too Expensive to Think About

Wind power can create a situation where "power is too cheap to meter"  Photo: Jukka Seppälä/Creator's Fingerprints

In 1950ies and 1960ies they told us that nuclear power would be so cheap that by now it should be too cheap to meter.

LINK - THE ENERGY LIBRARY:  http://www.theenergylibrary.com/node/12259:

This scenario turned out to be ultra-optimistic and the real costs of nuclear power are very difficult to count but are far from free power. In fact it seems that if all costs are combined (planning, construction, running, back up systems, accidents, health consequences, nuclear waste, decomissioning and clear weapons proliferation) then nuclear power is the most expensive way of power generating.

LINK -  DW : http://www.dw.de/calculating-the-true-cost-of-electricity/a-16235063

But wait a minute - could there be energy sources that generate power almost without costs?
In fact, none. But if you think about old hydro power, wind or solar PV, you have no fuel costs. Only the payback of investement of constructing, transformers and the grid. And maintenance costs. Well, thats a lot of money. But when you have paid the investment, the price of energy remains low. For example the low price of hydro power is pulling down prices on Nordic power market. When the new wind parks will be starting their power generating, the price will be going further downwards.

And last summer - yes it's true - the power price in Germany was almost zero during windy, sunny days. Those moments were short, but they did exist. Wind power combined with solar PV capacity was creating a situation "too cheap to meter". Still the consumers payed full price for their power but this event shows the direction for the future. Many studies have shown out that renewable energy can offer power with lower prices than our coal-nuclear power plants do today.


LINK - GUARDIAN : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/may/22/energy-nuclear-renewables

So we have a clean and sustainable and economical way to go. Let's take the renewables seriously!

JPS