Pro Nuclear Democrats

Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant: The Facts So Far

2011-03-13T01:23:00.000-08:00

At this point, writing a blog post on this almost seems futile since information has been changing often in the past 30 hours, but I'm going to give it my best shot based on what I've gathered. So far this is like trying to see through the fog of war. Many different stories are being told by many sources. Some of those sources obviously don't know what they are talking about but hopefully the common details can distill a better picture.

Here is a Google Earth photo that I pin marked with the locations of the two nuclear power plants and the epicenter of the March 11th quake that measured 8.9 on the Richter scale. Over 100 aftershocks of magnitude 4.5 or greater have occurred since the initial quake. The two plants, Fukushima Daiichi (North) and Fukushima Daini (South), are approximately 75 miles from the epicenter and about 7.5 miles distant from each other.

Here is a sketch of the approximate evacuation area based on a 20 kilometer radius.

According to WNN (World Nuclear News), the status of the reactors is as follows:

Fukushima Daiichi
Unit 1
- 439 MWe BWR, 1971
- Automatically shut down
- Water level decreasing
- Pressure release implemented
- Explosion observed
- Containment believed intact
- Seawater injection has started
- Radiation levels did not rise after
explosion
Unit 2
- 760 MWe BWR, 1974
- Automatically shut down
- Water level lower but steady
- Preparations for pressure release
Unit 3
- 760 MWe BWR, 1976
- Automatically shut down
- Preparations for pressure release
Unit 4
- 760 MWe BWR, 1978
- Shut for periodic inspection
Unit 5
- 760 MWe BWR, 1978
- Shut for periodic inspection
Unit 6
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1979
- Shut for periodic inspection

Fukushima Daini
Unit 1
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1982
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
Unit 2
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1984
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
Unit 3
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1985
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
Unit 4
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1987
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release

The Explosion
At this time, the location of the explosion has been confirmed as above the reactor containment in the outer shell container surrounding the robust level 5 barrier.

The explosion only affected the top portion of the steel framed section.

The 5th level reinforced concrete barrier is said to be intact and doing its job. The cause of the explosion is speculated to be from hydrogen, but exact cause is still unknown at this time.

Radiation Releases
According to WNN:

At Fukushima Daiini unit 3 one worker received a radiation dose of 106 mSv. This is a notable dose, but comparable to levels deemed acceptable in emergency situations by some national nuclear safety regulators.

And...

the amount of radiation detected at the site boundary reached 500 microSieverts per hour - exceeding a regulatory limit and triggering another set of emergency precautions.

We have heard reports of a 1000 times increase of radiation levels above normal "inside the control room". I don't know what the means exactly. Did the control room detect such an elevation from a sensor or did they experience an elevation inside the control room? This is not clear, but the reports from the Japanese authorities say that the radiation levels are dropping.

Casualties
One worker at the site has been killed who was "trapped within Fukushima Daiichi unit 1 in the crane operating console of the exhaust stack". It is not clear if the force of the explosion killed the worker. Two are said to be missing.

One person has a broken bone and another had chest pains.

Reactor Status
Reactor 1 is a total loss. The accident has been categorized as a level 4 event on the INES scale, the lowest category of accident. Reactor 3 is said to be in trouble too. I'm sure we will hear new developments for day to come but the worst appears to be over now. There is almost no chance of a "meltdown" in the "China Syndrome" sense but there are reports of the fuel rods being exposed partially. At this time there is no confirmation of any fuel rod damage.

Media Reaction

As expected, any nuclear accident immediately hits the headlines, but in this case, I found the attention to the reactor skewed to the point that it became the dominant story headline over the tsunami, the quake damage, the fires, the missing, killed and injured. As Rod Adams put it "It's the least of their worries...". I'm certainly not trying to downplay the significance of an accident at a nuclear plant, there is concern here and people have a right to be alarmed when they see an explosion at a nuclear plant. However, I know that these plants were designed to be tough from the very start, they've survived earthquakes before, but it appears the tsunami compromised the secondary power system which lead to the loss of coolant accident (LOCA). Also, this is a lot of electrical energy taken out of a system that desperately needs it at this time.

The reactions have ranged from the ridiculous to the surprisingly well balanced. There are even some candid admissions of ignorance about nuclear energy. This is not a time to panic and start speculating about things being "worse than Chernobyl". It's not. The reactors have been shut down and it is now just a matter of making sure the cores are cooled.

More reading and references:

Japanese Earthquake Implications Quick Q&A @ Energy from Thorium

Nuclear Bloggers Speak to the Blue Ribbon Commission

2010-09-25T17:06:00.000-07:00

The Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) was set forth by President Obama to "conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, including all alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense used nuclear fuel, high-level waste, and materials derived from nuclear activities. Specifically, the Commission will provide advice, evaluate alternatives, and make recommendations for a new plan to address these issues..."

At first, I was skeptical of the BRC and thought it was another stall tactic to delay the progress of nuclear power. Now, I believe it was what should have been done in the first place over 20 years ago. The commission offers an important dialog between government, interested parties, and citizens. Evidence of this taking place is right on Youtube available for everyone now. For the first time we see nuclear bloggers like Kirk Sorenson and Rod Adams get a chance to speak to this high government commission and give them their unique perspectives. John Kutsch from the Thorium Energy Alliance was also there to talk about the importance of Thorium. Well done gentleman!

The Jevon's Paradox: It matters more than ever.

2010-07-08T05:17:00.000-07:00

A recent "opinion" post from the Energy Collective blog titled "The Jevons Paradox: Time to send it the way of the Dodo? by Peter Troast challenges the validity of economist William Stanley Jevons' 1865 energy and economy classic "The Coal Question" (link to the book online). Troast makes this challenge because:

"But while it continues to be broadly accepted as an economic principle, we think there's growing reason to question the validity of Jevons in a new era, and certainly good cause for those of us in the energy efficiency business to stop talking about it as though it were an immutable law of nature. Here's why:"

In other words, in this era of everything green this dead Victorian-era steam-punk economist Jevons is a real buzz kill and it's bad for business. Peter continues with several reasons why William Jevons economic theories are no longer valid because times are changing to simpler less-is-more economically-lean eco-conscientious demographics in the midst of rising energy prices. To preface this rationale, Peter set the tone with:

The Jevons Paradox has been the elephant in energy efficiency's room since energy efficiency was in diapers. It casts a gloomy shadow over the industry, raises doubts about the sanctity of our mission, and the fact that it exists at all is, frankly, kind of a drag.

But here's the thing: energy efficiency is all grown up now, and Jevons is dead. It's Hans Castorp's grandfather-on-the-wall in The Magic Mountain—archaic, mysterious, and useless. Time to move on.

Peter's glib attitude toward the inconvenient truth of energy efficiency is also a missed opportunity of an energy blogger to inform his readers rather than add to the existing and seriously misguided strategic dependency that energy efficiency will be the main pillar or "wedge" of a clean energy future. The Jevons paradox, or effect, is not just some passé idea that can be brushed aside because the times are a changin'. This is a real phenomena that affects our human condition and needs to be taken seriously. It is also shamefully totally absent from the mainstream media reporting whenever the topic of energy efficiency is discussed.

Two recently released books Energy Efficiency and Sustainable Consumption: The Rebound Effect (Energy, Climate and the Environment) and The Myth of Resource Efficiency: The Jevons Paradox (Earthscan Research Editions) would be worth checking out for further study.

The Coal Question book has some very well written passages in it that read just as relevant today as they did almost 150 years ago. If you're a fan of technology history, this book is a must read. If one can substitute the word "coal" with just "energy" or "oil" in the first introductory paragraphs, the relevancy to today becomes quite apparent if not even more so than in 1865:

DAY by day it becomes more evident that the Coal we happily possess in excellent quality and abundance is the mainspring of modern material civilization. As the source of fire, it is the source at once of mechanical motion and of chemical change. Accordingly it is the chief agent in almost every improvement or discovery in the arts which the present age brings forth. It is to us indispensable for domestic purposes, and it has of late years been found to yield a series of organic substances, which puzzle us by their complexity, please us by their beautiful colours, and serve us by their various utility.

And as the source especially of steam and iron, coal is all powerful. This age has been called the Iron Age, and it is true that iron is the material of most great novelties. By its strength, endurance, and wide range of qualities, this metal is fitted to be the fulcrum and lever of great works, while steam is the motive power. But coal alone can command in sufficient abundance either the iron or the steam; and coal, therefore, commands this age—the Age of Coal.

Coal in truth stands not beside but entirely above all other commodities. It is the material energy of the country—the universal aid—the factor in everything we do. With coal almost any feat is possible or easy; without it we are thrown back into the laborious poverty of early times.

Widespread electricity generation was before Jevons' time but coal goes on to a new main use to make electricity, it then becomes more important, not less.

The Jevons "paradox" isn't a paradox at all. Jevons' analysis showed a relationship between efficiency and consumption: as machines consumed coal more efficiently, more coal was consumed overall. These are demonstrable system dynamics between scarcity, demand, energy density, efficiency, and human nature. Jevons didn't make up a story, he observed made an accurate description of his findings. He wrote:

IT is very commonly urged, that the failing supply of coal will be met by new modes of using it efficiently and economically. The amount of useful work got out of coal may be made to increase manifold, while the amount of coal consumed is stationary or diminishing. We have thus, it is supposed, the means of completely neutralizing the evils of scarce and costly fuel.*1 It is shown, in fact, by the mechanical theory of heat, that the work done by coal, in a good engine of the present day, does not exceed about one-sixth part of what the coal is capable of doing. In furnaces, too, the portion of heat actually used is a small and often infinitesimal fraction of the heat wasted; and in the domestic use of coal, in open grates, at least four-fifths of the heat escapes up the chimney unheeded.

I speak not here of the domestic consumption of coal. This is undoubtedly capable of being cut down without other harm than curtailing our home comforts, and somewhat altering our confirmed national habits. The coal thus saved would be, for the most part, laid up for the use of posterity. But even if our population could be induced to abstain from the enjoyment of a good fire, the saving effected would not extend over more than about one-third of the total consumption of coal; the domestic consumption being, on an average, about one ton per annum, per head of the population. Of the other two-thirds, nearly one-third is used in our iron manufactures; and the remainder in our factories, furnaces, and machine shops generally.

But the economy of coal in manufactures is a different matter. It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.

I had a conversation with a friend a few months ago about the Jevon's "paradox". He had not heard of Jevons before but after reading the gist of it he said to me, "ok, but with renewable energy the sun and the wind are free sources of energy, so wouldn't that make this whole Jevons thing moot?" While I'm sure Peter Troast might agree, I could see where he was going with this and it took me a little time to think it through.

Unlike coal or oil, sunlight and wind are very dilute sources of energy, they are not transportable, and vary depending on location and climate - all of these are scarcity factors. The types of machines that transfer wind and sun energy are energy collectors, fossil fuel machines are energy processors. This changes the dynamic of scarcity from the fuel to the machine. With a combustion machine we can turn up the throttle or feed it more fuel to do more work, with wind farms and solar panels we must add hundreds and thousands of collection machines to match the same job of a combustion machine. We then have a very "diluted" expensive and large machine(s) to collect same quantity of energy and this isn't even factoring in any required storage batteries to equal the consistent minimal power output to meet demand (baseload) that combustion machines provide. Factor in the additional manual labor required for the constant maintenance of renewable energy farms networked over hundreds of thousands of square miles and the "renewable machine" has created a new fuel demand for itself - human labor. And these wouldn't be for the sexy computer analysis and engineering jobs, no, these would be boring no-brainer labor jobs with lots of exposure to some very risky heights. I don't even want to think about how many turbine-blade cleaners would be needed to keep up with 600,000 blades each as long as a football field in length. We need jobs yes, but creating dead-end jobs based on a technology that quickly hits a wall by the law of diminishing returns is not the way to go, especially when we are trying to compete in the global marketplace against countries like China which is currently building two dozen nuclear power plants at once.

Nuclear energy largely escapes the Jevons effect at least in respect to its fuel source since it contains at least 2-10 million times more energy than oil or coal per mass unit. With additional and proven technologies the nuclear fuel supply can continue for thousands of years. But a nuclear power plant does not run on the fuel alone, it requires regulation, licensing, siting, capital financing, an industrial supply chain, and a good pool of qualified workers - these human factors then become the scarcity factors at play with nuclear energy. Perhaps our own deficiencies are the worst kind of scarcity to have. To limit ourselves because of a lack of initiative, acceptance of the status quo, adversity to lawsuits, falling in love with bad ideas, or just plain ignorance should be unacceptable.

I'd rather wish for something that we can achieve rather than wishing for ideas that I don't like to go away. I would also hope that Jevons enters the mainstream energy conversation. The idea that efficiency and conservation are energy sources is wrong. There is no such thing as a "nega-watt" despite what Amory Lovins says. Striving to be more efficient is a wonderful thing to do but expectations of what additional efficiency can do for us must be tempered by respecting and learning the Jevons effect.

New Additions to Blogroll + More

2010-06-23T00:53:00.000-07:00

This blog keeps a blogroll of nuclear and nuclear related sites in addition to a host of other nuclear links in the right column. These links are intended for anyone who wishes to explore the nuclear blogging world or other informational sites. Some of these additions are long overdue and others I've just discovered today because they are brand new.

PopAtomic Studios

Artist Suzy Hobbs and her crew are creating art to communicate and express the virtues of nuclear energy. Suzy 's work is bursting with energy itself. It has a whimsical and informative approach to make nuclear energy not the n-word anymore!

Nuclear Townhall
Author of Terrestrial Energy, William Tucker and journalist Steve Hedges have launched a blog packed with stories from the get-go. Steve asks a few key questions in the about section but this one got my attention the most, "Most of all, how do we avoid the paradox that the rest of the world is going to sprint ahead on nuclear power with the technology America developed?

I've wondered the same thing Steve and it gives me a heavy heart to think about it.

Nuclear N-Former
This site is sponsored by Amidyne Group, a supplier of engineered products and services to the power, water and waste water industries. This Wordpress powered blog has a great layout and aggregates lots of other useful information from new nuclear builds, videos, vendors, and more.

Other nuclear sites added (in the lower grey sections):

The National Museum of Nuclear Science and History

This museum site also has an online store which should be the number one shopping spot for your fellow nuclear geek. Located in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the museum encourages your reaction!

Emirates Nuclear Energy Corporation
Putting up individual power companies, especially those from a foreign nation, would normally be a bit beyond the scope of what I would include, but the ENEC has created what I consider a shinning example of what a government run energy program ought to be doing to inform and educate their population about nuclear energy and their plans. They've created some beautiful videos which I plan to post later. And they are hiring both nationals and non-nationals.

Stories not Data. Can Nuclear Learn Something from the Invisible Gorilla?

2010-06-21T02:39:00.001-07:00

The other night I caught a repeat of NPR's Talk of the Nation, though my first listening, with the authors who wrote The Invisible Gorilla: And Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. Near the end of their discussion the subject of causality came up, here is the transcript:

And one of our intuitions is, indeed, that we do try - our minds do try to make sense of things so that if A - if B follows A, then clearly A had something to do with B. You call that the narrative fallacy.

Prof. CHABRIS: Yeah. We also call it the illusion of cause, the idea being that we see things as causally related, one thing causing the other when we see them go together. And one of the ways things go together commonly is in sequence. One thing happens before another

CONAN: Mm-hmm.

Prof. CHABRIS: And storytellers exploit this quite nicely by stringing together a series of facts and leading the reader to automatically infer that they're happening in some causal sequence, that they happen for a reason and filling in the blanks, in fact, between them to make up a coherent story. Those things are very powerful and they stick in our memory much better than let's say statistics or other kinds of information that people use to persuade, which don't really work nearly as well as stories, especially stories with emotional content.

This last statement which I've highlighted hits upon something that I've been mentioning for quite some time now: nuclear energy needs to tell its story. It also explains a lot of the frustration nuclear advocates encounter when trying to explain to others the benefits and virtues of nuclear energy with lots of scientific proof to back up their statements. And this also sheds some light on how anti-nuclear organizations have had much of the success they have as well because they are more eager to put out scary stories and sometimes pair them with a videos and some spooky music to get their point across and run those outrageous ads on TV without impunity.

Daniel Simmons and Christopher Chabris have done some fascinating work in human perception and intuition. Unlike Malcolm Gadwell's Blink, this book takes a more clinical look at the science behind intuition and surprisingly enough have found that it doesn't operate as well as we think it does.

It has been explained to me that the reason we don't see nuclear energy telling its stories is because the companies who buy and operate nuclear plants, the utilities, don't feel comfortable advocating one energy source over another as they have a variety of energy sources (much of it fossil) and do not want to disparage one part of their business for another. Make sense? Yes, actually a lot. Imagine if you saw an ad on TV with the narration saying something like, "Unlike our coal plants, our nuclear plants emit no emissions and are less expensive to operate." If you were that utility's vendor for coal, an ad like that might make you a bit upset.

After all, the rate payer usually only cares if the juice is not flowing out of the wall socket. It could also be they don't know how to approach the n-word in a way that makes people feel warm and fuzzy so they'd rather be very discrete about the cash cow nuclear plants. Why go through the headache when anti-nuclear groups are ready to call the upon the Better Business Bureau, strangely enough, to claim false advertising when making the claim of zero emissions. The double standard applied to nuclear for the antis quibble in that case is obvious to some. But did the nuclear industry fight back with vigor? No, they yielded.

Hopefully someone with more power and influence than I will read this and agree with some of my points. If the nuclear industry wishes to gain massive wide attention and toot their horns then make a movie like Josh Fox did. Why? People don't read (enough). They think statistics are meaningless and can't make heads or tails of them. People will come up with the most inane reasons to fear the most minute risks of which they know virtually nothing and magnify their significance beyond reason. But when people see a face they trust tell a story, that sticks. Yes, statistics can be very convincing too but first and foremost we are evolutionarily hard wired to trust someone familiar telling a story.

Gasland Director Josh Fox Interview on PBS Now

2010-06-19T18:51:00.000-07:00

While continuing to explore information about Gasland the movie, I came across this interview with the director Josh Fox on PBS Now. Josh seems like a very sincere guy with his intentions in the right place, but I think Josh still has a few things to learn about the world of energy.

At about 21 minutes into the 23 minute interview, the interviewer states this "[gas may strike a blow to oil imports and help energy independence but your saying this comes at a tremendous cost of cleaning water." The only energy independence is renewable energy. No matter what, this is a fossil fuel, it contributes to global warming, it will run out. [...] We have the technology now to move to renewable energy." Ah yes, renewable energy, just the phrase itself sounds wonderful, it sounds like a gift that keeps on giving. But that is not the reality. With renewables we have significant rare element challenges, scalability problems, intermittentancy, storage issues, fossil backup, toxic chemical wastes, land sprawl, low efficiencies, and a relentlessly unkind threshold of diminishing returns. No smart grid or building of redundancy will ever overcome this issues because of the fundamental problem of collecting very dilute sources of energy - the sun and wind.

The interviewer continues to say "T. Boone Pickens calls gas a transition fuel" but the conversation failed to continue to the next level - that is, Pickens supports wind energy because it compliments his gas business and it's a heavily subsidized money game that big players like Pickens can get into. Pickens knows during hot spells gas consumption goes way up to meet peak demand and the wind hardly blows. Pickens even admitted during interviews that he thinks windmills are ugly and if the subsidies were gone his wind projects would be a non-starter.

Although I don't know what Josh thinks about nuclear energy, I would hope that he would explore it with the same open mind when looking at other energy sources. Renewable energy is not a path to energy independence for America nor is it even contributing to our economy the way it should when most of the wind turbines installed are being made in China.

Gasland will be on HBO this Monday June, 21st at 9 PM Eastern. There will also be a live chat on the "Enviroblog" on June 22nd, 2 PM Eastern time with Josh and a fracking expert where you can ask questions and pose comments. Josh will also make an appearance on the Daily Show with John Stewart on Monday night at 11PM. Maybe we can get some nuclear energy supporters to attend the blog livecast event. You can also follow Gasland on twitter.

More links:
Diminishing Returns of renewables
Tedx Information about Fracking Chemicals

Watch the full episode. See more NOW on PBS.

Movie Trailer for Gasland

2010-06-18T21:18:00.000-07:00

Hydraulic fracturing is a mining technique used to extract methane gas from tight spots in the earth. It is also contaminating well water, though that's disputed by the gas mining companies of course.

Methane gas is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It is a limited resource with a lot of price volatility. So why do we want to burn all of what's left in vast quantities daily to make electricity? It is not sustainable for long and really not the appropriate energy source to do that job. Since it is a limited resource, I believe we should use it sparingly so future generations can enjoy some. Oil and gas companies would disagree of course.

Methane gas is the favorite fossil fuel of organizations like the Sierra Club and Rocky Mountain Institute. It is said to pollute half as much carbon dioxide as coal, yet given the amount of methane that's leaking from well sites and pipelines, the carbon dioxide offset may be completely wiped out. A recent AP article even states "4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas — and possibly almost twice that amount — have leaked since April 20". Wow! That's a lot of methane gas.

I admire a guy like Josh Fox who went out to find out the real story for himself and produced Gasland. We all need to be rethinking our assumptions that have filtered down by advertising that "gas is clean". Gas is not clean and the business of methane looks even dirtier.

NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko Lectures at Stanford: Nuclear Regulation in Our Era

2010-06-15T08:26:00.000-07:00

I'm so glad Stanford University posted this on Youtube.

Exploring China and CO2 Output with Carma and Google Earth

2010-06-11T03:12:00.000-07:00

If you're a Google Earth fan like I am, you should really like the data layer from Carma.org. Carma contains a database of power plants all over the world and the amount of CO2 they put out. Combine this with Google Earth and we can zoom right in and see close details of dirty power plants and clean ones too. Carma also added a time slider plugin to show how things have changed since 1989. Looking at China, I dragged the slider and was surprised to see the growth in mega-emission plants in such a short period.

As a side topic, I have to rave about Google Earth. This is an amazing piece of free software that provides immense educational value to the world. This visualization combination is fantastic and free. I'm really impressed.

If you double click on a colored shape it will zoom into the power plant, which depending may be very clear, or blurry or not spot on, but most of the time it gets very close. The big shapes at high altitude indicate a large output source. Smaller and medium sized emission sources appear as the view is zoomed in. A data profile for each country is click-able as well.

Pollution Growth of China 1989 - 2010

China 1989

China April 2001

China July 2010

The pentagon shape represents the total country CO2 output. Round green dots are cleaner power plants, most likely large hydro or nuclear power plants. Notice how France and Sweden, two countries which use a nuclear as a large part of their power mix, get big green marks and stand out for their low emissions per capita as well.

Europe with Carma.org data overlay

I like to tilt the virtual earth to find new angle that capture a new perspective on things. Here is a tilted shot overlooking the greater Ohio River Valley and beyond into the west - Illinois, Missouri. In the lower left we can see a cluster of nuclear plants - Oconee, Sequoyah, Watts Bar, Browns Ferry, Arkansas One. On the right we see Fermi, Davis-Bessi, Palisades, and DC Cook.

There are more nuclear plants in Illinois and the east Lake Michigan shore. Trying my best, I then count 64 coal or other fossil plants in this greater Ohio Valley representing millions and millions of tons of CO2 output per year. This Valley alone represents billions of dollars to the coal business but from the view with Google Earth, this Valley strip really sticks out on the map with its dense population of large coal plants. Looking at the coal-rust belt from this view, does it seem like coal was threatened at one time from new nuclear plants arriving on the north and south regions of the coal heartland? This region needs new jobs badly and building a fleet 10-20 reactors to replace many of the coal plants would go a long way toward cleaning the air even on a regional basis and giving this area a much needed industrial boost to attract new business.

The coal heartland has had its time and we need to move away from this 19th century industrial relic for our 21st century low emission economy. Places like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Minnesota need to lift their nuclear bans and so as to put nuclear on the discussion table at the very least. Don't be laggards, be leaders.

Two TVA power plants very close to each other in proximity and power but dramatically different CO2 output. Nuclear replaces coal with zero emissions better than anything else.

Stewart Brand Vs. Mark Z. Jacobson Debate

2010-06-11T00:03:00.000-07:00

This is the closest nuclear energy will ever come to having its version of Celebrity Death Match. I thought Stewart Brand did a great job and Mark Z. was "finessing" reality as Stewart put it. Then again I'm biased to favor reality.

The problems I have with Mark Z.'s argument are the following:

Saying X number of square miles for wind to supply enough power for all US transportation by showing a circle a few hundred miles wide is very deceptive, the plan would actually involve peppering the landscape from sea to shining sea with thousands of wind farm sites. It would never be clustered as one group so implying it would be so by waving around a circle is a deception.
His argument about only the base of a wind turbine affects the surrounding land area and thus the land is very usable for other things like "agriculture, ranch land, or open space" is also completely misleading. As I posted before, no one wants to live in the shadows of wind turbines because of the flicker, the noise, or the loss of property value. Ever notice how wind proponents always say the other uses for land around turbines can be "agriculture or ranch land" and nothing else? That's because after the turbines are put in place, that's about the only 2 or three things the land will be good for after.
The argument about eventual nuclear war as a derivative of more nuclear power is preposterous and has been torn to shreds on other nuclear blogs and forums. Mark is really creating a strawman here to topple nuclear's emission free dominance.
To go even to the extreme he does to make his case that nuclear isn't necessary at all as undermines his credibility. Certainly, even if one has moderate reservations about nuclear, but is concerned about the risks of global warming taking it away from consideration would invite greater risk as the gentleman from ICANN pointed out after the debate.
The idea of overlapping systematically tied together through all kinds of smart grid juiciness is too Rube Goldberg-like of an energy system for my taste. I think talking to any kind of grid operator engineer or other person in electrical distribution would give Mr. Jacobson a better understanding of why that is nothing but a kludge based on a fantasy. Smart Grid or not, an energy system at the mercy of the weather will never compete well in the global market.

A few things Stewart Brand may have done to boost the argument for nuclear would be to talk about the compact size of the nuclear by-product and the long term sustainability. New nuclear can be built quite quickly is we design a path for it, or as Stewart said it, "an act of Congress." I couldn't agree more Mr. Brand.

The Nissan Leaf offers an Inspiration for the Electric Economy

2010-06-10T18:44:00.000-07:00

If you watched Steve Jobs keynote address a few days ago announcing the new iPhone 4, you may remember he demonstrated an app by Nissan which shows how far one dollar can take you with a Nissan Leaf compared to other vehicles. It is a compelling graphic.

The Nissan Leaf can travel 38 miles for $1, that's 3-4 times better than the average car. So even though the Nissan Leaf doesn't store very much energy and has a short range of 100 miles, it does use a low cost energy medium (electricity) quite efficiently. There is a lot to like about electric cars:

they're quiet
great acceleration and torque
zero tailpipe emissions (notice I said tailpipe, more on that later)
very efficient
less moving parts, simpler mechanics compared to ICE.
no flammable liquids

Electric cars can be made to be equal to or better in performance, reliability, styling, and costs --- except, and this is a huge one, electric batteries don't store very much energy so both the "fill up" time and range of the car are limited. The Nissan Leaf has at least made a moderate advance in charging capabilities with a high voltage DC input that can achieve an 80% charge in about 20-30 minutes, but how and where those charging stations will be situated is in the works.

I suspect the immediate market for the Nissan Leaf will be those who have a regular commute comfortably in range for the car, are tech enthusiasts, and really like the idea of not visiting a gas station. There are a ton of sweet incentive deals on this car including discounts on off-peak electricity use for Leaf owners by many utilities. Price with the kickbacks and such brings the car into the $25K range, making the leaf one of the first more-practical mass production electric cars. A home charging station which can do a full charge in 6-8 hours is extra option maybe. An iPhone integration application is also in the works.

And though this is an exciting product, especially for Apple iPhone fans, electric cars have many marketing and technical hurtles to overcome. Extending range by building new advanced batteries is likely going to make these cars more expensive. Battery swapping stations seem very impractical, uneconomic and clumsy solution as well. In my opinion the best solution to these problems with electric cars is to design a good engineering compromise that could offer consumers a choice of fuel for the same vehicle to get the best benefits from hydrocarbon fuels and battery electricity. This is more or less the approach GM has taken with its Chevy Volt, a plug-in serial hybrid car.

I can imagine a future where we have electric cars with a 150 mile range and a 20 minute recharge and serial plug-in hybrids like the Volt, and that could make a dramatic difference in oil consumption. But that will take a very long time. If a wide range of selection was on the market in 10 years, it would take another 40-50 years to see very few gasoline-only cars left on the road going at the regular market attrition rate.

A common criticism of electric cars is they are only deferring their pollutants elsewhere on the electrical grid. This is more true for some locations than others, but the point should be that an emission free grid could lower the total CO2 signature of car even more. I believe nuclear energy is the path to the emission free grid. If we had an emission free grid with plenty of clean power to spare we could make cleaner synthetic fuels as well.

The Nissan Leaf offers a glimpse of a future where a clean nuclear powered electricity based energy system can push hydrocarbons to the fringes of energy consumption in a few vehicles and for use as chemical feedstock. It's great to see companies like Apple and Nissan making great innovations for a brighter tomorrow. Perhaps if we gain a make a big leap in battery technologies that are inexpensive, lightweight and hold 2-4x more energy that day could come sooner.

Be sure to check out the Leaf website and see some of the great videos they've put together.

Proposition 16 Goes Down, Thank you California!

2010-06-09T14:40:00.000-07:00

My faith in the voting population has been restored. PG&E spent $46 million dollars for proposition 16. That's a lot of money that could have otherwise been spent on more constructive things in a cash strapped state.

Though it was a narrow defeat, it was a huge victory for the underdog campaign who only spent about $100,000 opposing 16. I am relieved that common sense prevails over a constant hammering of slick advertising that only a big marketing firm could love.

Though many of the community choice aggregators possibly planned for communities in California are very pro-renewable and tend to be anti-nuclear, the point of concern with this issue for me is about fairness in the market place for different business models to compete on more or less equal footing. Whether these new power providers will succeed on their own or do a good job is irrelevant.

VOTE NO ON CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 16: A blatant market barrier to protect PG&E

2010-06-07T21:58:00.000-07:00

If you live in California like I do and spent about 1-15 minutes watching any television, particularly prime time, you are more than likely to have seen at least 3-4 commercials paid for by PG&E encouraging you to vote 'yes' on Proposition 16. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) has spent over $35 million dollars according to various sources to support the passage of Prop 16 (CA voter page). Follow the money folks, it's almost that simple. PG&E thinks people are idiots and they ought to have their proposal go down in flames tomorrow.

The TV commercials are rather annoying. With a jangly guitar track and a very glib explanation of how Californians are being violated because they "don't have the right to vote" on any project which are new or expansions of any municipal utilities or Community Choice Aggregator (CCA). Prop 16 wants to "correct" this injustice by mandating any proposal for new or expanding CCA's or Municipal operators be passed by a 2/3'rds super majority in a public vote. 2/3rd's majorities among the voting populous is rare, so rare in fact that PG&E would barely need to life a finger to fight any such future proposals and their market share is virtually guaranteed.

So what are these annoying ads that Californians have had hammered over their head for the past 6 weeks from every imaginable media outlet? Well, they kept the jangly guitar video off the internet, but here's a more serious one available on youtube:

After watching that, do you feel more informed to make a decision, confused, or feel they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes? If you feel you want to vote yes, then you got taken. Don't believe me? Well take it from the word of PG&E CEO Peter Darbee:

Then there's this very colorful video from another concerned citizen:

What's So Bad About Municipal Utilities or "Government run electricity"?

First, there is a distinct difference between municipal power and investor utilities - shareholders. This could be a good thing or bad thing depending on your point of view but apparently many municipal utilities are loved by their customers. Personally, I think a mix of municipal and investor utilities are fine for America.

Whatever the reasons for the contrived media swarm around anything that is "government run", I happen to think that utilities such as power, water, hospitals, or gas are far more "natural" areas of business for a state to be involved with than say alcoholic beverages. We gladly accept that government should be in the road business, sewage, police, fire departments and would be appalled if we were charged on a per-use basis for these things. In some instances the state or local government may be the only one interested in providing these services to small remote communities. Many people wrongly label the government as a "wealth drainer" as opposed to a "corporate wealth creator". I disagree. There is great value in doing jobs where there is no money to be had but add immense value to the community. For those 19 or so states which profit in alcohol distribution, I've always found their business position extremely hypocritical of the states' obligation to protect and serve the citizens.

So what does this have to do with nuclear power?

Nothing really since California has an effective ban on new nuclear. California has more fundamental energy problems to tackle with the ill-conceived AB-32 that is sure to cost an already financially strapped state even more. But that's a topic for another post. Meanwhile, go out there and answer PG&E's proposition with a vote of NO!

See also: http://stop.prop-16.com/
http://noprop16.org/
http://www.powergrab.info/news.html

There's Good Reason for NIMBY Reaction Against Wind Power

2010-05-18T20:21:00.000-07:00

I found this video while browsing Youtube where an engineer uses CAD to determine the shadow fall of a proposed wind turbine installation in the UK. He points out that the turbines are within the limit of recommended distance of 2 kilometers but during certain months of the year the shadows will be so long that they will be casting over the nearby village and prison. As much of England is fairly far north, the shadows get very long during the winter months, the better months for wind generation. He points out that a sensor or timer could be devised to shut the turbines down to prevent shadow flicker that would continue for most of the day. The video might be a little dry for some but it does do a good job of explaining something usually not discussed when the subject of wind energy comes up.

I think this disproves the point that the land around wind turbines is still usable argument from Amory Lovins. Usable is a relative term, but at least we can settle on uninhabitable. Take a look at the video of shadow flicker from a wind turbine and think if you would want to live where these people do:

That would ruin an otherwise nice afternoon.

Check out the new trailer for the movie Windfall. Hat tip to New Papyrus blog. For further reading check out the Wind Farm Scam:

Thorium Energy Alliance Conference at Google, Day 1

2010-03-30T01:54:00.000-07:00

Click for larger image.

Major learning take-away points for the day included:

Energy from Thorium has a new blog.

A golf ball sized quantity of Thorium is enough energy for a person's entire lifetime. Efficient use of fuel density leaves the smallest eco-footprint per unit of energy.

There are many ways to implement the use of Thorium in the nuclear fuel cycle. All developments feed one another in nuclear science. Thorium can be put in pebble bed reactors. Thorium can be mixed into fuel for LWR's. Thorium is 4x more abundant than uranium and all of it is fertile for a LFTR type reactor.

Thorium plays a key roll in the magnetosphere generation for the Earth. The Earth is alive because this maintains our vibrant life giving atmosphere.

Thorium is a major rare earth element mining by-product. If the USA was to revive only one or two rare earth mineral mines, they would supply more than enough thorium to power all of the United States with no emissions.

China now monopolizes the rare earth element mining and asset infrastructure, restarting one or two domestic mines is a matter of national interest.

Rare earth mines are subject to harsh economics of a player who controls 99% of the market. Every industrial process - solar power, wind energy, nuclear energy, cars, electronics, computers, lighting, plumbing, is connected to rare earth minerals. This is something the United States needs to address now as a strategic and economic issue soon and with loan guarantees if needed.

"A price on carbon will not be placed in the United States because it will be too harsh upon the economy." Price of new power is a function of capital and sell-ability. Could wind power really grow to 100 GW in the United States? What would that look like? What would it do.

Cheap nuclear electricity and process heat could make new and more lucrative value added markets for coal in synthetic fuel production. China now leads in coal to synthetic DME fuel production.

Looking at things from an investment capital vehicle, a realistic 10 year time frame is ideal. It has to be able to withstand reasonable risks of regulation, technology, and capital. Bigger multi-billion research and development projects are better to be funded by nations like the international space station.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor has been proven in principle by prototypes.

Features and inherent safety characteristics:

Low waste stream, 40x less than typical LWR. Only dangerous for about 500 years, easy to contain.
Depending on reactor design, minimal chemical exchange would be required. Self regulating safety reaction.
Meltdown proof, it simply cools and shuts down.
No proliferation risks.
Smaller foot print than current LWR's and would use brayton cycle for increased 40-50% efficiency.

LFTR is like the Moore's Law of nuclear energy. Thorium, It's what Fusion wanted to be. It's more than just a "paper reactor", it's had a solid working prototype. Many other advances in nuclear science benefit the knowledge-base for LFTR.

The dream to use Thorium in the form of the LFTR has arrived at the perfect storm of materials science, computer engineering, operations and analysis, chemistry, and a group of visionaries. If Bill Gates is behind the Traveling Wave Reactor project then the Thorium Energy Alliance has the feel of an Open Source software community gathering. Research and Development are wide open opportunities now for an aggressive market player to dominate the nuclear power

The LFTR might take 10-15 billion dollars to invest in for a solid working prototype. This might be out of reach for VC Funds. Use of thorium in future fuel assemblies in the short term would be the sure bet of how thorium will be used in nuclear reactors. VC funding needs the right-sized scope approach to work in its framework. Right now small light water reactors fit within the VC mindset to advance nuclear. Payback on efficiency items or plans is a total loss - I'm not surprised.

Once perfected as a modular unit, they could be produced and certified at a rate of 1 or 2 a day. Could be made to be cheaper than coal? There are many good reasons to believe so. The United States can rightfully call itself the Saudi Arabia of Thorium.

Could the idea of the LFTR be too good to be true? Is it all hype? Yes and no. As mentioned before, there are serious growing pains to go through for new materials and fuel designs. If you appreciate the benefits of a nuclear plant compared to fossil plants, then the orders of magnitude differences that LFTR is said to have won't mean very much anyways. But with an appreciation for how nuclear energy works, it's not too hard to imagine a design that could carry the orders of magnitude that much farther. Momentum is gaining for the LFTR and it has the best thing anything in the energy business can ever hope for -- a passionate group of individuals behind it. The news buzz is just beginning to pick up.

Thorium is everyone's fuel of the future and fundamental steps can be taken now.

Wind Turbines: More Fossil Fuels than Wind Energy

2010-03-17T13:31:00.000-07:00

As I have pointed out before, wind turbines consume fossil fuels for their manufacture, deployment, maintenance and backup grid power when the wind is not blowing. Energy-wise one might argue that turbines are less than a zero-sum game, but financially they are propped up by some attractive government subsidy incentives.

Anti-nuclear fanatics often make much of the same points about nuclear energy but they are wrong. They ignore the fact that nuclear energy has at least a 2 million to 1 energy per mass unit advantage over fossil fuels. They also ignore the fact that nuclear energy is one of the least subsidized energy sources while wind energy and solar energy are the highest. Their claims don't hold water but the arguments against wind turbines do.

This video about wind turbines and fossil fuels is a good introduction for those who haven't thought about the upstream and downstream consequences of wind energy. In addition, wind turbines are notorious for ruining rural neighborhoods with noise, killing birds and bats, clearing large tracts of land, and being horribly unattractive.

Banned from Huffington Post?

2010-02-24T04:08:00.000-08:00

Awhile back I linked my twitter account to the Huffington Post as it was a convenient way to start an account there and I began commenting on posts as "pro nuclear". As everyone knows who's participated in the Huffington Post, all the comments are moderated. In addition they have a flagging system which seems a bit redundant for such a large blog but that's their choice. The Huffington Post does what other anti-nuclear websites do to pro-nuclear commentators - disapprove or delete their comments.

Lately, Alec Baldwin has been giving nuclear energy a thorough flame job in a series of posts. Alec Baldwin basically knows nothing about nuclear energy yet he comes across as though he is smarter than Dr. Steven Chu. Alec must be really upset that Stewart Brand has upstaged him as an authority on nuclear on the media circuit. Stewart Brand has humility. He's humble enough to admit he was wrong about nuclear and concerned enough about the health of the environment of have written a new book about it "Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto".

So how did I get banned? I really have no clue, but I can't seem to get even the most benign comment such as "Go Nukes! Nuclear power is the way to go!" approved by the moderators. There is something very fishy going on with the Huffington Post comments. I can't prove it but it seems as though they might be paying commentators to flood certain topics. I won't name any names, but looking into some of the profiles and seeing how often these people are commenting, it would almost seem that is their full time job.

Rod Adams created a great post on Baldwin a few days ago.

Like many celebrity posters on the Huffington Post, Alec doesn't engage with people in the comment section. It's a hit and run style of blogging that never challenges any of the comments that take him to task, thus he will never have to do any further research, say he was wrong, or be challenged in any way.

Alec is still on his rampage, so if you have a valid account at the Huffington Post, please give Alec Baldwin a piece of your mind. I plan to post more on Alec's rants soon as I can fully exercise my freedom of speech here.

UPDATE: This morning, 2-24-2010, I see that at least one of my posts was accepted. Perhaps I'm too impatient. The content moderation system at the Huffington Post might need some automation though, it seems to slow the pace too much for my tastes.

Letter to President Obama to Stop the Destruction of Uranium 233

2010-02-10T21:28:00.000-08:00

Kirk Sorenson, at the Energy from Thorium blog, posted a very important update about the status of the uranium 233 destruction project going on at the DOE. Uranium 233 is not particularly radioactive with a half-life of 160,000 years, one seventh of plutonium 239. The DOE currently stores about 700 pounds of the isotope which would be the ideal startup seeds for future thorium reactors, or liquid fluoride thorium reactors. By not having this ideal starter, the research for the LFTR will be seriously cramped. It is possible, but not easy, to make new U-233 but that would take time and money that doesn't need to be spent since the isotope already exists and currently doing no harm.

The DOE currently spends some money on the building and the security at Oakridge National Lab to house the uranium, but certainly they could come up with a cheaper and more creative solution to the task of storing it than spending $500 million dollars to destroy it? Kirk inspired me to write the President a letter expressing my concern about this. I'm sure President Obama can halt this project with a signed executive order in a heartbeat. So now I urge you to use my letter as a template and send it to the President, Members of Congress, and Senators to gain support and stop the disposal of this valuable resource.

All you need to do is cut and paste the following

Dear Mr. President,

The DOE currently has a project in the works to dispose of a rare isotope of uranium (uranium 233) and the price tag currently stands at $477 million dollars. My source for this information is http://blogs.knoxnews.com/munger/2010/02/u-233_project_in_flux_pricetag.html

This uranium isotope is extremely valuable to future research for thorium fueled nuclear reactors. As you may know, thorium as a nuclear fuel may hold many advantages in safety, efficiency, waste production, and proliferation concerns over the current light water reactor paradigm we currently have. Bills proposing research into this area have been proposed by Senators Hatch and Reid.

Destroying this valuable isotope supply would create an unnecessary obstacle for this future research. By stopping this project, you can save the taxpayer almost $500 million dollars. Under secure possession of the DOE, this material poses no health threat or hazard to anyone. It can be safely locked away and stored for the day when a new frontier of nuclear energy is embarked upon.

I am strongly encouraged by your words of support for nuclear energy in your recent State of the Union speech and the proposal to increase the loan guarantee budget for 2011.

I urge you Mr. President to consult with Secretary Chu and draft an order to stop this project. Please Mr. President, we don't need to continue wasting money on this project. You can stop it with swift action.

Sincerely,
(your name here)

A Perspective on the Cost of Nuclear Power Compared to Other Large Engineering Projects

2010-02-06T19:14:00.000-08:00

The other day I ran across a Wikipedia article titled "List of World's Most Expensive Objects". The list is incomplete but it does have an interesting variety that I thought brings a perspective on the costs of a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants are now expected to have a 60 to 80 year lifespan and there is no reason not to believe they couldn't be maintained and upgraded to last a 100 years or more.

Some of the items on the list have extremely dubious benefits. Depending on how much you value scientific research done with the Large Hadron Collider, the NIF Facility in Livermore, or the International Space Station, these could be valuable assets or huge money pits. These research projects are only profit centers for the contracted vendors selling parts or services to the project, otherwise the projects themselves bring in no money. Yet we don't see people writing articles opposing them or holding protests.

A nuclear plant, once completed, becomes a cash cow for the utility company. Connecticut wanted to impose a windfall tax on their nuclear plants because they were making so much money. The cheaper power can be produced, the better the cash flow. This purpose of this post is just to gain a perspective on what is "expensive" compared to other large projects, so let's look at a few.

First on the list is the International Space Station which is said to cost $157 Billion dollars when completed by 2011. That's a lot of money no doubt and I doubt it will last 60 years either. I think space research is a great thing but if the project isn't expected to pay off with major scientific breakthroughs, any government should have to think hard twice before committing to a project like this. At that cost, we could build 26 nuclear plants at $6 Billion each and 39 at $4 Billion each.

The new SF Bay Bridge is coming up with a cost figure of $6.3 Billion and that's for a replacement bridge, not a new connection, and half of the connection at that. It is expected to be completed in 5 years in the year 2012. The bridge is vital to the transportation of the area so the transportation authority decided to up the bridge toll to $6 from $4 just recently. I suppose they think that will encourage more travel across the span. If B&W's mPower modular reactor were for sale now, each with a price tag of $500 million, 12 of them could be build for 1.5 GW of power for this price. By the way, the mPower project is now hiring.

The new Meadowlands Stadium, expected to be completed this year, is expected to cost $1.6 Billion. The Giants stadium it is replacing was completed in 1976 with roughly the same seating capacity as the new stadium will then be demolished, giving it only a 34 year lifespan. I guess those stadiums take a lot of wear and tear. Stadiums can employ a fair number of people and can be used throughout the year but the revenue depends on contracts with the teams and event organizers. A nuclear plant on the other hand has a guaranteed customer base, selling its electricity about 90% of the time delivered directly with zero carbon emissions. Compared to a stadium, a nuclear plant has a very solid business model.

The next project, the Vasco da Gama bridge built in Portugal, the longest bridge in Europe (10.7 miles), is put on this list for the relative bargain it is compared to these other projects. For only $1.3 Billion, it didn't cost the nation of Portugal a single dime. A consortium with a build-to-operate transfer will get a 40 year concession on the tolls collected. It was completed in 18 months in March of 1998. The bridge was engineered to withstand winds of 155 mph and an earthquake 4.5 times stronger than an 8.7 earthquake and a lifespan of 120 years. Compared to the Bay Bridge project above, this really puts it to shame. It's amazing the state of Portugal can manage to build a bridge that is more beautiful, a longer span, in faster time, and for far less money than the State of California. This should be a story of inspiration for any engineering effort.

The Deer Island Waste Treatment Facility, the second largest sewage treatment facility in the United States, cost $3.8 Billion. Sewage treatment facilities are just as necessary as electricity generation facilities but hardly gather any excitement from the public but they absolutely should. Many developing countries have no such facilities and simply dump their raw sewage directly into the environment creating a health and environmental catastrophe. Engineers have designed facilities to process millions of gallons of liquid waste daily and the civil engineering is hardly questioned. Yet the designs that engineers created to handle a few hundred tons of solid nuclear by-products over a period of many years are questioned mercilessly.

The National Ignition Facility in Livermore California, at $4.2 Billion and counting, is probably the biggest waste of money on this short list. They discovered they can create a fusion reaction with high powered lasers. This technology will never come to fruition as a usable energy producer as there are many wise skeptics who give good reason why. The government would have been far wiser to invest in Thorium as a nuclear fuel in advanced reactors because Thorium is properly credited as "what fusion wanted to be".

Lastly, the Three Gorges Dam built for about $25 Billion, is perhaps the most inaccurately priced of all these items because of the many extra costs such as the environmental damage, relocation effort, flooded cultural and archeological sites to name a few. The electricity generated thus far has paid for about a third of the project which is expected to be complete in 2011. While there are other benefits to the project, it should be noted that nuclear plants tread far lighter on the environment than enormous dams. In fact, the Sierra Club was originally for nuclear plants for this very reason and ran a campaign called "Atoms, not Dams". The cost of a nuclear plant is augmented by the hidden benefits that are not calculated - no emissions, small footprint, safe operation, and excellent jobs base.

President Obama Stirs the Anti-Nuclear Hornet Nest

2010-02-05T01:08:00.000-08:00

In the year since President Obama took office, nuclear advocates have been speculating about his feelings and intentions for nuclear power. Those questions were put largely to rest in this past week with the President's firm endorsement of building new nuclear power plants, the following budget announcement to triple the loan guarantee program for nuclear, and the Blue Ribbon commission for nuclear by-products. The President hit a triple and has shown both sides of the isle that he is a very reasonable man.

Yet, while the President has shown himself to be a reasonable man who can back his words with actions, many of those who supported him are now being very un-reasonable. They are indignant and completely wrong.

I've spent more time reading the reaction pieces in the past week when I should be writing about them. Today I read a post by Kate Sheppard on Mother Jones titled "Obama's Nuclear Giveaway" which warrants a strong response. This is a typical anti-nuclear salvo type article that doesn't hold a focus on any one topic before escorting the reader to yet another topic designed to stir the hackles.

It wouldn't make much sense to pull out all of my ammo to refute the claims made in the article at this point, so here is my comment I submitted in response to the post by Kate Sheppard:First, I support President Obama's endorsement of nuclear energy 100%. Many Democrats do.

There are many areas of focus in the above article - cost of plants, undue political influence of the nuclear industry, and the environmental efficacy of nuclear power. So which matters the most Kate?

If the plants were cheaper would you still oppose it? If the nuclear industry lobby donated nothing to any campaigns?

This lack of focus in this polemic against anything nuclear is at the heart of the nuclear controversy and what sustains it.

As soon as it is shown the nuclear plants produce power very economically, then the argument is shifted to waste. As soon as the waste argument is quantified as being quite small and controlled, then the argument is shifted somewhere else.

Bottom line, nuclear energy produces 73% of our emission free electricity. Nuclear plants pay a lot of taxes back to the government and their local communities. They create thousands of jobs during construction and hundreds during operation. Nuclear power has never killed or harmed anyone in the United States despite what some lunatic anti-nuclear activists would like you to believe.

Getting rid of nuclear would be catastrophic for our economy and our fresh air, yet this is what anti-nuclear activists want. As president Obama said in his state of the Union, "these other countries aren't playing for second place." China already has a head start on building several advanced nuclear reactors designed by Americans in America, by Westinghouse, now Japanese owned.

By the way, the "economist Mark Cooper" study has been debunked and taken to task by many. It's a half-baked analysis that anti-nuclear folks cling to like it was gold. Curiously, this guy doesn't show in the faculty directory at the Vermont Law School.

President Obama has done his homework on nuclear energy and has listened well to his Nobel Prize-winning-scientist secretary's advice and reason. I think it's about time we give up on the ignorant attitude behind the 1970's tired old chants of "No Nukes", start doing your own homework, support the President and our country.

10 Benefits of Nuclear Energy

2010-02-04T17:16:00.000-08:00

Nuclear energy proponents are constantly put in the defensive mode when speaking or writing about nuclear energy. I thought it's long overdue to come up with a short list of benefits from nuclear energy, not all entirely from nuclear power, that enhance our lives and enable technology that would otherwise never be possible. Some of these benefits require more explanation than I'm prepared to write so I will provide links to sources for more thorough coverage where necessary.

Many people react when I tell them I am a pro-nuclear Democrat. They often say something about nuclear energy that I consider cliché by now like "what about the waste?" or "nuclear is dangerous, why are you for that?". This list is for them so they can explore the benefits of nuclear energy and discover that many of the most influential supporters of nuclear energy are indeed very liberal. Liberals are labeled as haters of nuclear energy especially by conservatives. This isn't true, of course, but more importantly as liberals, by the very definition of the term, we ought to be keeping an open mind to new ideas, ideas that sometimes necessitate tolerance while your comfort zone catches up the new information you may be processing. Many people think they know a thing or two about nuclear energy; I thought I did. Researching, taking a college course, and studying nuclear energy over the years made me realize that what I thought I knew was nothing more than second-hand ignorance. If there is one thing a liberal minded person doesn't want to be; it is intentionally ignorant. Thus is my challenge to all those who have dismissed nuclear energy in the past without much consideration to perform at least the mental exercise of understanding its benefits.

Nuclear advocates ought to promote its benefits first and explain away the profit seeking and ego fulfilling detractors secondly. The nuclear advocacy community should be on a continuous mission to educate the public about the benefits of fission. Some people don't want this education to spread. Fossil fuel companies and renewable energy advocates fear nuclear energy, not because of any physical threat it poses, but for the financial threat it poses to them. From the 70's-80's, nuclear energy did quite a good job at indirectly eliminating almost all oil-fired electricity generation in the United States, only to have that largely supplanted by natural gas in the 1990's. Nonetheless, nuclear fission proved that it could kick out a very significant fossil competitor out of the electricity market within 15 years. It did this in spite of all the hurtles of poor project management, cost over-runs, regulatory challenges, and some serious bruising of its public image. In contrast, renewable energy has been given break after break with subsidies, incentives, grants and still hasn't managed to make a significant penetration into the market. A lot of people play the blame game as to why renewables haven't made a significant impact or they will define the terms so broadly to make the claim otherwise. The reality is that dilute forms of energy require extremely large energy gathering apparatuses and thus the laws of physics can be very unkind to the laws of economics. Just so you know, I think renewables are fine in certain applications, but many harbor unrealistic expectations for what they can ultimately accomplish.

Fission energy can certainly meet up to any what's-in-it-for-me challenge. In these grim economic times, people have good reasons to be skeptical. But I believe that nuclear energy, discovered and developed in the United States of America, can deliver these benefits if given the support and opportunity to do so. It will be a struggle, there will be growing and changing pains but ultimately we will be reinventing the energy civilization as we know it. So like David Letterman does, let's start at 10 and work our way down.

10. Nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gases.
In this time of urgency for clean energy, this is the first reason why many have converted their support to fission power. While all sources of energy emit some greenhouse gases during some part of their life cycle, nuclear emits ZERO during the generation of electricity. Nuclear is a powerhouse when it comes to this performance aspect - 73% of our clean electricity comes from nuclear which holds only 10% of the total generating capacity. Within 10 years nuclear fission went from generating very little power in 1966 to meeting the same output of hydro generation in 1976. In the next 11 years to 1987, nuclear doubled its output. I think we could do considerably better development now than in the 70-80's period. Much has been learned and developed since then in nuclear energy and the supporting technologies that were not even available during the initial growth period of nuclear energy.

9. Nuclear energy creates high paying jobs that will stay in America.
Electricity factories stay put. The workers cannot be shipped overseas. Many sleepy rural towns have grown into thriving prosperous communities all because of their local nuclear power plant. There becomes a positive economic ripple effect in the surrounding area as demand for everyday goods and services increases. Nuclear workers are paid very well with some engineers earning over $90,000 per year. As more high skilled workers move into an area this will often attract other high technology types of businesses. The surrounding community will be in a better position to attract these new businesses with increased tax revenues from the nuclear plant as well. The citizens of these communities can take great pride in contributing vast quantities of clean energy and being part of the global warming solution.

8. Nuclear energy is a vital component of our high technology economy.
Think nuclear is only good for generating electricity? Think again. While a power generating facility is its own industry segment, other applications of nuclear technology can be thought of as close cousins that often require research type reactors in their supply chain. Doctors use medical isotopes made in reactors to save lives everyday by detecting and treating disease. Smoke alarms save lives and property everyday. Food is made safe to eat by irradiation. Products and materials are sterilized. Nuclear technology is also used in mining and the aerospace industries. Invasive insects can be eradicated using sterile insect technique. There are other applications in security, academic and research applications to name a few more. For an interesting lecture on more diverse nuclear applications check out this video at MIT World.

7. Nuclear energy is the most cost effective way to reduce CO2 emissions.
Here's a quote from NEI's website: "Nuclear plants are the lowest-cost producer of baseload electricity. The average production cost of 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel." The current fleet of reactors in the USA produces enough clean energy every year that is equivalent to removing all the exhaust from our vehicles. Other impartial sources confirm similar low costs. Uvdiv at the Capacity Factor blog compiled a chart of different sources here. Though production costs are different from life cycle costs figures, the bottom line is the same - nuclear is very cost effective and that's including all the externalizations. This becomes more clear in conjunction with benefit #10.

6. Nuclear energy provides affordable electricity.

While this is almost the same as benefit #7, the bill you pay is often what matters most and not its CO2 reductions. A person has little choice to no choice regarding the source of the electricity generated to their home or workplace. To choose emission free energy, a person might choose solar and/or wind but these choices are limited in application and expensive. Because nuclear fuel is so dense it can withstand a lot of volatility without affecting overall costs very much. Prices are predominately dictated by fuel costs in the world of fossil fuels. In the nuclear realm, costs are focused on salaries and relatively small amounts on fuel.

5. Nuclear energy is safe.
Commercial nuclear energy in the United States has zero deaths on its record. It can never blow up like a nuclear bomb. As for other accidental deaths due to radiation contamination, one could go back as far as the 1920's when workers who painted radium tinted paint onto watch dials for glow in the dark luminescence. The Three Mile Island accident harmed no one and can be considered a success because the plant did what it was designed to do: contain and isolate any nuclear materials from the biosphere in case of an accident. It was an expensive lesson as the reactor was lost for good but the remaining reactor is safely operating today. With over 50 years of operation and thousands of reactor years of operation, the industry prides itself on an excellent safety record. Radioactivity is a well understood form of energy and is easily controlled with simple principles of shielding, time and distance. Yes there have been other types of accidents but still no one has been harmed from commercial nuclear power operation in the United States.

4. Nuclear energy is sustainable for millions of years.
Some people may be under the impression that uranium is a rare metal. It's not. It's about as common as copper or tin and 40 times more common than silver. All nuclear reactors do some degree of "breeding", making new fissionable fuel, Plutonium-239, from the fertile fuel of Uranium-238 in addition to using slightly enriched uranium. The power yield from this rises steadily to around 30% of the output as the fuel bundles remain critical in the reactor. Reprocessing or recycling of the fuel elements can extend the life of the fuel a few times over. Much greater fission fuel production can take place with breeder type reactors. Thorium can also be used as fertile fuel in the LFTR reactor. With a reactor such as LFTR with Thorium, it would be possible to power all of the Earth for millions of years. In the meantime, there is plenty of uranium resources to supply many hundreds of new conventional light water reactors for many years to come. Uranium may also be extracted from seawater, though it is not economical to do so at this time.

3. Nuclear technology is flexible for many different applications.

Nuclear energy is but one facet of nuclear technology. Special isotopes created in reactors can be used in aerospace, manufacturing, security, medicine and agriculture. Without nuclear medicine many 100's of thousands of people would not be alive today. Doctors depend on a steady supply of fresh special isotopes to do their work and save lives. Recently the supply of these isotopes from Canada has become threatened. Food irradiation prevents contamination. Many products are sterilized in manufacturing with irradiation. Deep space satellites that use a radioactive heat source help scientists discover new things about our universe. Nuclear energy can desalinate water. Nuclear energy can power large ocean vessels. Cleanly produced electricity from nuclear could power plasma arc waste disposal plants to keep our environment clean. Nuclear fuel gets hot and stays hot for years, thereby allowing for a wide variety of reactor designs for different applications. We cannot afford to let our expertise fall behind in any of these areas if America wants to be a strong contributor to the 21st century global economy.

2. Nuclear energy is capable of providing greater energy independence.
It is important for all energy sources, not just nuclear, to put the qualifier "greater" before energy independence as striving for 100% energy independence just for the sake of being fully independent doesn't play out well with economic realities. But to put a big dent in the money transfer for foreign oil, we will have to employ a very smart combination of bio and synthetic fuels, more efficient vehicles, more hybrid vehicles, better batteries, some electric vehicles, less highway congestion and more public transport, offset coal powered electric generation with nuclear generation, some coal to liquids using nuclear process heat, and increased domestic oil production. In short, there is no easy fast fix but the more coal and gas that we take off the grid, then the more coal and gas will be available to power advanced and plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles. This will take decades but if we do not have a comprehensive plan to de-fossil our electric grid then that will lower the success factor of running cleaner vehicles as well.

1. Nuclear energy is the densest form of usable energy known.

This is perhaps the least obvious benefit to the lay person but becomes more apparent as one gains a better understanding into the nature of energy. Denser forms of energy prevent energy sprawl. Very little uranium needs to be mined to last a very long time and the mining footprint for uranium is tiny compared to oil, gas and coal. Dilute forms of energy like photovoltaic panels and wind turbines would require vast surface and land areas with the hope of gaining the same power output from one nuclear power plant. The intermittency of renewable energy complicates grid reliability. There are some 1500 coal fired boilers in the United States and it would only take about 200 new nuclear power plants to eliminate all of them. As I've mentioned before on this blog, I am not against renewable energy but I believe it is a mistake to apply it for massive electricity generation for which it is not well suited.

New Nuclear Blogs Added to the Blogroll

2010-02-03T02:16:00.000-08:00

In the last few weeks a new batch of pro-nuclear blogs debuted. In addition to doing my own blog redesign, I've added these to my blogroll:

Yottawatts from Thorium by Robert Steinhaus explores the promising use of thorium as a nuclear fuel and other subjects that will inspire any who think about our energy future. The thorium community is gaining momentum and is going to have their next conference in March.

Meredith Angwin focuses on the support for the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant with her blog Yes Vermont Yankee. Vermont Yankee has been in the news a bit lately due to claims of a tritium leak. Compare and contrast the information and differences between the coverage from the Associated Press, Rod Adams at Atomic Insights, Meredith at Yes Vermont Yankee, and John Wheeler over at This Week in Nuclear. The Associated Press by trying not to take any sides, edges toward the side of caution with no explanation of what a picocurie actually is. This is a classic case of how the nuclear energy controversy gets so out of hand, it becomes more of a test of egos rather than a test of common sense.

The amount of tritium water sampled is so small that it equals the amount I would normally receive by taking a bite from a banana. Common sense tells me this small amount of tritium is hardly anything to get excited about in contrast to the larger poisons from hydrocarbons that put people in danger everyday and cause huge environmental destruction and the coal plants which emit radio-active particulates into the atmosphere. Tritium cannot hurt you if you are standing next to it. It is commonly used in gun sights and exit signs.

Nuclear Dialogues was created by Patrick, a nuclear engineering student skilled in debating. He will have no end of anti-nuclear arguments to keep him going and I'm sure he will discover if he hasn't already that arguing with the anti's is not an exercise in rationality. Barry Brook exemplified this very well in a recent post titled Hypocrisies of the Antis.

It looks like 2010 will be a great year for nuclear energy!

Nuclear Energy Helps Haiti

2010-01-16T02:45:00.000-08:00

As I was keeping up with the latest news about the tragic earthquake in Haiti, I heard the USS Carl Vinson is being sent to Port-au-Prince to supply humanitarian aid and fresh water. The desalination capabilities of the aircraft carrier was briefly mentioned but no other details given beyond that which is completely understandable. News agencies are not interested in boring their audience with technical diversions and that's why this is a perfectly good opportunity for this blog to remind everyone the USS Carl Vinson is a nuclear powered ship and uses that power source to desalinate about 400,000 gallons of sea water a day.

Haiti needs more water than this on a daily basis in this emergency situation but this vital supply of fresh water would otherwise be extremely logistically difficult without a transportable desalination plant like the Carl Vinson. Additionally, the energy to process this water would be extremely voluminous if done with oil and require constant resupply - yet another logistical challenge. However, with a nuclear power source, the fuel supply is extremely compact and lasts for years, it makes the logistical problem that would exist with a fossil fuel source disappear completely. There is no other power solution that can do a better job of bringing fresh water in this situation.

Fortunately Port-au-Prince has a deep water port which hopefully will assist in getting this water to people who need it.

So why is this important to bring up in the midst of Haiti's crisis? Firstly, nuclear energy is going to be used to save lives in Haiti by supplying fresh water. The ship also has operating rooms, medical supplies and thousands of highly trained personnel ready to give assistance.

While researching for this post, I came across this article from EarthMagazine.org (May 2009) on the subject of floating desalination plants and their importance in Haiti and other locations that need emergency aid. Upon first glance, I had thought I'd possibly bumped into a source of significant information. That feeling was short lived.

The article speaks about the need to retrofit existing navel vessels to supply desalinated water but barely acknowledges fission's role which already supplies the obvious answers to the questions it poses. The author, David Kreamer professor of hydrology at UNLV, has an extensive CV, including roles as an independent peer reviewer for Yucca Mt. hydrology and other assisting radioactive waste studies. The article states:

Desalination also uses a lot of electricity. And ship-based desalination plants would have to produce all their own power. How exactly they could produce that power is a matter of debate.

When it comes to mobile desalination, as far as I'm concerned nuclear energy should end that debate abruptly. The article continues later with:

Mobile shipboard desalination plants can also eliminate the problem of producing large amounts of greenhouse gases. These ships could rely on a variety of low-carbon energy alternatives and emerging technologies, from wind to nuclear power.

The link in the quote above goes on to discuss ideas of using solar, wind, and water currents to make the enormous quantity of electricity for a desalination ship. And yes, this time he even says, "and even nuclear power". I highly doubt a ship powered with renewable energy will be able to desalinate any appreciable amount of water. This strikes me as yet another damming with faint praise of nuclear.

But the last paragraph is a bit confusing as he states:

Military ships are increasingly exploiting more nuclear power to run their engines, so as the nuclear fleet ages, nuclear power will likely be an increasing option for these mobile desalination ships. That’s an energy source that could already be used to supply energy to coastal regions. Part of the U.S. security strategy is to develop versatile “smart grids” for power supply. Mobile off-coast power sources could help provide that security.

First, our military ships have been using nuclear power for over 50 years. Perhaps he means that as older nuclear powered ships become decommissioned they could be recommissioned as floating civil desalination and power plants. If so that's an idea that I would support. I also agree very much with this statement in the article:

Mobile shipboard desalination may also make the world a safer place. As the human population continues to rapidly expand, some researchers predict that future wars and human conflict will increasingly arise because of diminishing natural resources. An increased availability of water could act as a politically stabilizing force in the world, reducing conflicts over competition for resources. Shipboard mobile desalination is an idea whose time has come, and is about to make port.

Nuclear energy could easily be employed to create a specialized floating power and desalination plant. However if it would be a civilian ship, it would have to pass licensing from the NRC, so for now I'm very happy that our military ships are able to meet some of these humanitarian needs and help the people of Haiti.

Possible 4th Generation Nuclear Assembly in NY

2009-12-25T17:05:00.000-08:00

Well...the title of this blog should not confuse anyone. No one is planning to build either a nuclear power plant or a manufacturing nuclear component factory anywhere near New York City. Unfortunately. However...

Progressives have long sought nuclear energy to help in climate change mitigation. Newer Generation IV reactors, now, slowly coming to fruition, provide the material basis for the physical economy of a people oriented, pro-working class future for the U.S. and the world. To that end...

Many of us who support the development of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor made popular by the work of the folks at energyfromthorium.com/forum have discussed various advantages to this or that manufacturing techniques that could employ assembly line production of smaller, sub-300 MW reactors.

But the use of the already existing, albeit crumbling maritime industrial capacity of the United States could develop barge-borne reactors of almost any size if built on barges that could be floated into place in temporary drydocks and then seal in place, hooked right up the grid where ever there is water traffic. This corresponds to any number of coal plants in the U.S. today. I have written on this on numerous blogs but lately coal2nuclear.com has taken up my idea in one of their postings.

Here is an example using the old Brooklyn Navy Yard in New York City on what such a yard could look like. It is a VERY LARGE IMAGE so you may to scroll around to see everything.

Part of any progressive agenda is to restore manufacturing facilities to the heart of the our largest urban centers. This LFTR Enterprise could be one example when LFTR starts getting deployed in exponential numbers in 15 years or so. The Brooklyn Navy Yard is located about 1/2 miles from Wall Street, between the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges. I worked there from 1979 through 1981 as a proud union pipefitter.

Does the Avatar Movie Plot Defy Science to Send a Message?

2009-12-18T05:53:00.000-08:00

I like science fiction movies a lot and I'm more than willing to engage my suspension of disbelief to enjoy a good show, but when the story uses tortured science to veil an ill-conceived political message as opposed to a dramatic story, I want to burst its bubble before everyone rushes to the theater.

We can see from the Avatar movie trailer and website the plot is set in the future where humans have traveled through space to a planet some 4 light-years away, Pandora, to recover a rare mineral that sells for $20 million dollars per kilo that yields a tremendous amount of energy. Now that's interesting, we already have a mineral on Earth that yields a tremendous amount of energy that sells for around $50 a pound (.45 kilos), uranium. The "low-tech" alien race, the Na'vi, just happen to be living on top of the mineral deposit. The humans make an effort to infiltrate the Na'vi and the rest can be described as a "Dances with Wolves" science fiction.

The science fiction genre is rarely pure science fiction and is mostly sci-fi fantasy. Both Star Wars and Star Trek use the envelope of sci-fi fantasy to tell classic drama stories. Change the lines, the costumes, and time period, you could just as easily have a Western or War drama. Certainly a lot of Star Trek episodes explored contemporary themes, but would hardly be described as a political drama. Warp drive and dilithium crystals are pure fantasy but we go along with it because they are only trappings to the story.

I think director James Cameron, as much as I like his movies, is trying to send a message that we humans know no boundaries - we will destroy any people, their land to satisfy our lust for energy and money. Based on past and current human behavior this isn't necessarily a far-fetched theme. However, the plot hole in Avatar would be apparent to anyone with a high school chemistry education. There are no more new elements to be discovered unless we are talking about element 113 and beyond. These have either become extinct in nature or would have very short half-lives if created in a lab. There are lots of new chemicals to be discovered and most can be synthesized in a lab, but nuclear energy is millions of times more powerful than chemical energy so there's no point in searching for a compound unless it's a compound of a fissile or fertile element like uranium or thorium. Even a fusion reactor might seem easier to perfect than interstellar space travel and that is thought by some to be the Holy Grail of energy, so it seems logical the humans visiting Pandora should have already solved their energy problems.

If you're a regular reader of nuclear advocacy blogs, you may have already learned that there is enough uranium and thorium on earth to power human civilization for millions of years. This isn't science fiction, it's science fact. Perhaps a story of an engineering team perfecting the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) would not be as exciting as a story where humans aggressors go to war with an alien race. And it might not be very exciting to learn that most of the principles and design elements of the LFTR were worked out in the 1960's only to be shelved due to government politics and funding favoritism. And it would be especially irritating to "environmentalists" to learn nuclear energy has the smallest environmental footprint of all energy sources despite their desperate attempts to scare people into thinking otherwise.

If there was a movie made about a compact, abundant, reliable, affordable, no-emissions, inexhaustible and safe energy energy source that could be deployed by machines in 100, 250, 500 MW sizes, built in factories and shippable anywhere in the world, I could envision the plot line. It might go something like this. A team of scientists and engineers manage to get a government grant and contrary to expectations build a better than expected prototype reactor. It actually runs flawlessly. They make their announcement to the world only to be met with heavy skepticism in that very same week from all the pundits speaking out on Larry King, 60 minutes and other shows. Fossil fuel companies like Chevron and Exxon quickly round up thousands of paid protesters, covertly of course, to stage appearances in Washington and New York, just to stir up and cast doubt on the new invention. They carry signs that read like "NUCLEAR ANYTHING=DANGER". More proof comes out to its efficacy and engineers speak out in their defense. Getting desperate, the fossil companies start to make threats on their lives, one or more of them is killed, car chases ensue, and even the police are cohorts with the bad guys - there is no safe haven. Near the end, the chief engineer leading man, is caught by the fossil fuel men-in-black where it is explained to him why they cannot accept his invention. It would upset the status-quo, change the balance of powers, make fossil fuel obsolete, poor nations could become wealthy nations, clean desalinated water would be plentiful, it would make warfare less and less necessary, safe synthetic fuels like dimethyl ether could be made for a dollar a gallon, and wealthy nations might need to find a new source of wealth or compete on the same level as everyone else. "Scarcity is our business, not energy, we had hoped you were smart enough to figure that out by now" they tell him before they blow up his research facility in a way to make it look like it was a malfunction of the reactor due to his negligence. They let him live so the world can see him discredited as he is charged for some homicides from the explosion. The end.

I know my thriller probably wouldn't be as exciting a James Cameron's Avatar but at least it would fall in the realm of plausibility. My message is: just because we seek energy to sustain and improve our modern civilization does not make us greedy or corrupt but maintaining the power to control and limit that energy supply can. My next message is: innovation can produce radical change that take cultures many years to adapt to. This is a symptom of much innovation. Now that I've had my say on Avatar, please go out and enjoy the movie, I only hope people don't take the message seriously.