Ambient office = 128 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 112 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 113 nanosieverts per hour

Tomato from Central Market = 98 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 93 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) held a Twentieth Anniversary conference in late April. Speakers at an international panel discussion agreed that the goals of the GIF and the six types of reactors that are its focus are as important today as they have ever been. One conclusion of the panel was that reactor demonstrations are an important way to drive the development of nuclear technology.
     The panel was called Progress and Future Prospects toward Deploying GEN IV reactors as Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems. Current and past chairs of the GIF met on April 28th to discuss progress in collaborative research and development made by the forum. They provided their perspectives on progress made and the prospects for the future deployment of Generation IV systems.
     The GIF was initiated by the U.S. Department of Energy in the year 2000 and formally chartered in the middle of 2001. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Japan, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, the UK and the USA came together with Euroatom (representing European countries) to form the GIF. Their purpose was to develop the research needed to test the feasibility and performance of fourth generation nuclear systems and to make such reactors available for industrial deployment.
     The GIF has selected six reactor technologies for development. These include the gas-cooled fast reactor, the lead-cooled fast reactor, the molten salt reactor, the sodium-cooled fast reactor, the supercritical-water-cooled reactor and the very high-temperature reactor. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) provides the GIF’s technical secretariat.
     The GIF has established four very ambitious goals for Gen IV energy systems. These four goals are sustainable energy generation with minimum waste; clear life cycle cost advantages over other energy sources as well as a level of risk financial comparable to other energy projects; excellent safety and reliability, eliminating the need for off-site emergency response; and proliferation resistance and physical protection. This was mentioned by Diane Cameron, who is the head of the NEA’s Nuclear Technology Development and Economics Division.
     The GIF target date for the deployment of Gen IV technology is 2030 which is only eight years away. The climate change crisis requires that coal and other fossil fuels be eliminated as soon as possible. There needs to be radical decarbonization in sectors that are difficult to change. Clean generation of hydrogen is currently a hot topic. Problems with water availability require advanced desalinization techniques. All of these need simpler, safer, cheaper and, in some cases, smaller nuclear power reactors. Those reactors need to be ready in time for deployment by 2030. (There is a hot debate about whether or not such new reactor technologies can really bring the benefits that are being claimed.)
     Cameron said, “There is a window of opportunity open now, but it may close in the 2030s. There’s a clear possibility that 2030 technology decisions in both the public and private sector will be locked in within the next 5-15 years. So there’s an urgency to the Generation IV International Forum now.”
Please read Part 2 next

Ambient office = 119 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 85 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 90 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 112 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 90 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 78 nanosieverts per hour

     For twenty years, Potomac Economics (PE) has been the Independent Market Monitor for four of the regional power markets in the U.S. The U.S. Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) asked PE to carry out an evaluation of the economic viability of nuclear power plants in the Pennsylvania New Jersey Maryland Interconnection LLC (PJM) wholesale electricity market.
     PJM is a regional transmission organization that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The region covered by PJM contains thirty one of the ninety-four operating  nuclear power plants in the U.S.
      The PE analysis is titled A Review of Nuclear Costs and Revenues in PJM. It accurately evaluates the “avoidable” costs of PJM’s fleet and compares them to “realistic” revenues from PJM’s energy, ancillary services, and capacity markets. The evaluation also recognizes operational and market risks that must be considered in accurately assessing the costs of the continued operation of nuclear plants.
     The PJM analysis found that declining energy prices and associated revenues in recent years have significantly reduced the net revenues of all of PJM’s nuclear resources. The report said, “As energy prices have fallen to their lowest levels in decades in 2020, we find it unlikely that any of the nuclear resources in PJM are covering their costs. Although all of the forward energy prices are significantly higher than the prevailing prices in 2020, we find that it is unlikely the market revenues will be sufficient to allow any of the resources to be viable to remain in operation, with the possible exception of very lowest-cost resources.”
     If the PJM markets change to better reflect the value of carbon emissions, the economic outlook for nuclear resources would improve since they emit no carbon. (Actually, despite what the report said, nuclear power emits a lot of carbon during construction so it would be better to call it “low carbon”.)
     The NEI said that the analysis by the PE is a “wakeup call.” Matt Crozat is NEI Senior Director of Strategy and Policy Development. He said, “These results paint a dim picture for the financial viability of most of the nuclear resources in the PJM region. Often, there are two key aspects of nuclear economic analyses that get overlooked.” He noted that the first of these aspects is the financial costs and risks involved with operating large plants borne by owners. The second aspect is the use of unrealistic or over-optimistic revenue forecasts.
      Crozat said, “However, the Potomac Economics report sets the record straight by basing their analysis on realistic market-based prices. By utilizing true avoidable costs and a reasonable revenue estimate, the report demonstrates that nuclear plants are not viable. Through Potomac Economics’ analysis, it is clear that the economic hurdles facing nuclear plants in PJM are significant. Energy policies can be enacted to overcome these hurdles, but reforms to federal and state policies are needed quickly.”
     During the past ten years, ten states in the PJM region and the District of Columbia have put in place policies like renewable portfolio standards or zero-emission credits to cut emission. Crozat said, “Yet federally regulated energy markets do not properly value carbon-free energy and thus are pushing nuclear plants out, while policy experts are coming to exactly the opposite conclusion. Policymakers need to enact policies that properly value our largest source of carbon-free energy in order to have any hope of achieving a clean electricity sector and protecting the climate.”
     Over the past two years, nuclear power reactors at Three Mile Island and Oyster Creek in the PJM region have been retired. Planned closures of reactors at the Davis-Besse and Perry plants were rescinded in 2019 after the state of Ohio passed a billed that provided clear energy credits for zero-emission. Last year Exelon announced that it intended to close a total for four reactors at the Byron and Dresden plans in 2021 because of market conditions. The PE report said that “Based on the results shown in this study, other PJM nuclear units are at risk of early retirement due to deteriorating economic conditions and the fact that carbon emissions are not effectively priced in the PJM region.”

Ambient office = 111 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 104 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 103 nanosieverts per hour

Leeks from Central Market = 94 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office = 89 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 122 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 122 nanosieverts per hour

Scallion from Central Market = 63 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 85 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 76 nanosieverts per hour