Clean Energy Insight - Moving Energy Forward

[Approx. Read/Watch Time: 11 minutes]

“All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.”

- Ronald Reagan, US President

Imagine that the federal government forced everyone to use only 4% of the gasoline in their tanks and pour the other 96% down the drain.  This is exactly what the United States federal government is doing with nuclear power.  Only 4% of nuclear fuel is considered waste after being used in a reactor once-through.  The rest can be recycled and used again many times, reducing the volume of waste that exists after the fuel is exhausted.  I think that it’s important for everyone to know that while a handful of American politicians are going around telling everyone that nuclear fuel recycling is a science that “isn’t proven,” the French, Japanese and British have been recycling for decades.

The French-based company AREVA has been recycling nuclear fuel at their La Hague facility for over 30 years.  AREVA recently posted a video on their blog documenting and explaining their proven recycling activities at the La Hague facility.  Enjoy.

“Here’s an informative video that takes you inside the world’s #1 facility for reprocessing used nuclear fuel. The AREVA La Hague industrial complex, located just west of Cherbourg, has recycled more than 21,000 tons of used fuel since its inception, reducing the need for natural uranium and the amount of radioactive waste.”

[Approx. Read Time: 2.5 minutes]

Yesterday, Jim Efstathiou Jr. reported from Bloomberg that the Cap-and-Trade Bill, in its current form, would boost the amount of land required for the development of energy by approximately 48%.  This is because the Bill places a lot of importance on renewable energy technologies like biomass and wind power.  Critics are calling this “energy sprawl.”  Although, unlike it’s evil twin “urban sprawl,”  the Sierra Club doesn’t have a website devoted to grinding it to a halt.  The Sierra Club claims to support preservation and conservation of the environment while also avidly supporting the use of wind and solar power.  While not being a contradiction in theory, (renewables are environmentally friendly from an emission and fuel resource standpoint) this stance is a blaring contradiction in reality because of the massive amounts of land required to support most renewable technologies.  Maybe the Sierra Club would benefit from checking out how much land their ardent support for wind and solar requires in order to produce as much energy as say, nuclear power.

Here are two blogs where I previously addressed this issue:

What Does Renewable Energy Look Like

What Does Renewable Energy Look Like Part II

Forests, Deserts in Climate Measure May Spawn “Energy Sprawl”

By Jim Efstathiou Jr.

Aug. 26 (Bloomberg) — More forests, deserts and grasslands in the U.S. will be used to produce energy under a proposal to cap greenhouse gases, an unintended consequence of efforts to fight global warming, according to a Nature Conservancy report.

A bill that boosts energy from wind turbines and biofuels will increase the amount of land needed for energy development as much as 48 percent, or almost 100,000 square kilometers (38,600 square miles) during the next 20 years, said Robert McDonald, a scientist with the Arlington, Virginia-based Nature Conservancy environmental group. An area larger than Minnesota will be affected even without any climate change bill, he said.

Less land will be needed to grow corn for cleaner-burning ethanol and to support electric-generating wind turbines if legislation gives carbon-dioxide emitters more options to reach targets, said the report, published today in the online journal PloS One. Greater energy conservation can also reduce the amount of land needed for development.

“Climate-change legislation could have a significant impact on land use in the U.S. but it might not if it’s properly designed,” McDonald, lead author of the report, said in an interview. “We’re tying to make sure that energy sprawl is one of the things policy makers are thinking about.”

Biofuel made from corn, along with biomass burned to make electricity, affects the most land for every unit of energy produced. Nuclear power uses the least amount of land, the report said.

Corn for Ethanol

Growing corn for ethanol on land already used for agriculture is one way to reduce the area needed to meet future energy needs, McDonald said. Allowing utilities and manufacturers with carbon-dioxide caps to use offsets — credits from projects that lower emissions — to meet pollution targets also reduces land use for energy.

The report analyzes the land-use implications of a climate- change bill that failed in the U.S. Senate last year. A bill that passed the U.S. House in June would have a “very similar” effect, McDonald said.

“Depending on the details of the bill, there may be millions of acres of new development,” McDonald said. “While we’re changing the rules of the system, we want to think about the land-use impacts.”

Without climate-change legislation, new coal-fired power plants will be built on over 26,000 square kilometers of conifer and deciduous forests, grasslands and desert, according to the report. Under a climate bill, costs for power from burning fossil fuels will rise, and the area needed for coal-burning power plants will be reduced by 7,500 square kilometers.

More land, meanwhile, will be needed for lower-emissions energy from biomass, biofuels and wind turbines. More than 49,000 square kilometers will be needed just to grown biomass that can be burned for electricity under a climate-change bill.

“In the scenarios we considered, there is a tendency for greater reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to be associated with a greater total new area affected by energy development,” the report said. “A decrease in U.S. emissions increases the new area impacted, although the magnitude of the effect is policy-specific.”

[Approx. Read Time: 9 minutes]

Myth:  Nuclear Power Plants Cause Cancer

Few words in the English language invoke feelings of unrest and controversy as the word “nuclear”.  Historically, the word has been associated with feelings of uncertainty, fear or danger, and understandably so, as nuclear technology made its debut in the mainstream media by way of its use in weapons of mass destruction.  But as the general public becomes more aware and educated on the subject, many are finding that nuclear has nothing more than a bad rap.

As an illustration, let me pose this question:  When you think of gasoline, does your mind initially wander to Napalm?  Or better yet, does the use of fertilizer lead to thoughts of home made bombs?  There are a slew of atrocious myths circulating about nuclear power which are perceived as fact by many for this very reason.  One common misconception is that nuclear power plants emit substantial levels of radiation leading many to believe that operating nuclear power plants are surrounded by disfigured wildlife or that nearby residents are at a higher risk of contracting cancer or growing a third arm.
The truth is that the highly regulated nuclear industry takes the safety of the general public as its primary initiative through many stringently enforced radiological safeguards.  Among the physical barriers incorporated into the design of the plants, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) enforces a number of requirements and expectations on the industry.
Take, for example, the policy statement issued by the NRC in 1986 which established safety goals and expectations with respect to an acceptable level of risk to public health and safety from the operation of nuclear power plants. According to the policy statement, the following goal was implemented as follows:

“ . . . the risk of cancer fatalities to the population near a nuclear power plant should not exceed 0.1% of the sum of cancer fatality risks from all other causes.”

As reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 180.7 cancers (i.e. malignant neoplasms) related deaths occurred per 100,000 people in 2006.  Taking this value into account with the NRC’s expectations discussed above, for a population of 100,000 people living near a nuclear power plant the risk of cancer fatalities should not exceed 0.001 x (180.7 / 100,000) = 0.000181% – still concerned?

One might argue that NO cancer related deaths should be tolerated – agreed!  Studies show that this is in fact the case and that plants exceed the NRC’s expectations (discussed further below).

The reality is, however, that we live in a radioactive world – this has been true since the beginning of time – and everyone is exposed to varying levels of radiation on a daily basis.  Take for example bananas and brazil nuts, which naturally contain higher levels of radiation than other foods.  Similarly, brick and stone homes have higher natural radiation levels than homes made of other building materials such as wood. Heck, our nation’s Capitol, which is largely constructed of granite, contains higher levels of natural radiation than most homes.  JunkScience.com once measured the radiation emanating from granite statues in the U.S. Capitol Building and discovered that a person standing in statuary hall near the Senate Chamber would absorb 5 times more radiation than would be absorbed by standing at the fence line of a nuclear power plant.

The chart below provides a comparison for doses from everyday radiation sources relative to living near a nuclear power plant, which exposes residents to an average annual dose of less than 0.001 rem.  In comparison, Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20) dictates that the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from a licensed operating plant is not to exceed 0.1 rem in a year.

For additional consideration, the pie chart presented is from the NRC’s website and provides a percentage breakdown between natural background radiation and artificial sources.  I believe the numbers speak for themselves.

The NRC similarly limits the amount of radiation that a nuclear plant worker can receive in one year.  Title 10, Part 20, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 20), establishes the does limits for radiation workers. Although the limits vary, depending on the affected part of the body, the annual total effective dose equivalent for the whole body is 5 rem, although many plants go even further to restrict employees to 2 rem per year.  In contrast, the Federal Aviation Administrations recommended occupational exposure limit for ionizing radiation is a 5-year average effective dose of 20 mSv (2 rem) per year, with no more than 50 mSv (5 rem) in a

single year (nearly the same standard).

Regulations imposed on nuclear power plants ensure that both the surrounding population and the workers within plants are exposed to only low levels of radiation.  The fact of the matter is that the biological effects due to low levels of radiation exposure are so small that they may not even be detectable.  The exact effect, however, depends on the specific type and intensity of the radiation exposure.

In order to truly wrap your mind around the risks associated with radiation exposure, it is useful to evaluate those risks relative to the risks associated with everyday life.  For example, a 3-millirem exposure imposes the same chance of death — 1 in a million — as each of the following common life experiences:

• Spending 2 days in New York City (because of the air quality)
• Riding 1 mile on a motorcycle or 300 miles in a car (because of the risk of collision)
• Eating 40 tablespoons of peanut butter (because of aflotoxin) or 10 charbroiled steaks
• Smoking 1 cigarette

Dr. Bernard L. Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh has extrapolated this approach in his book “The Nuclear Energy Option”.  In Chapter 8 of the book, Understanding Risk, Dr. Cohen instructs that the most logical procedure for minimizing risks is to quantify all risks and then choose those that are smaller in preference to those that are larger.  He then goes on to provide a framework for that process and applies it to the risks in generating electric power.  Chapter 8 presents various everyday activities or occurrences and their associated risks.  These risks are quantified then in terms of the loss of life expectancy (LLE); which is the average amount by which one’s life is shortened by the risk under consideration.  The figure below shows some of the activities or occurrences investigated.  It is clearly shown that living near a nuclear power plant ranks at the bottom.

Further substantiating his findings, Dr. Cohens work is also published by the NRC in Regulatory Guide (RG) 8.29.  RG 8.29 offers further indication that:

“. . . the health risks from occupational radiation exposure are smaller than the risks associated with many other events or activities we encounter and accept in normal day-to-day activity.”

As mentioned earlier, countless studies have shown that populations in close proximity to a nuclear power plant receive negligible levels of radiation exposure relative to general population and are no more susceptible to cancer than the average person.

It is impractical to discuss every study ever conducted by any organization or individual regarding this matter.  Instead I have listed a few additional determinations or studies from non-bias organizations concluding such.

• The American Cancer Society blatantly backs this notion on their website with the following statement:

“Ionizing radiation emissions from nuclear plants are closely controlled and involve negligible levels of exposure for communities near the plants. Reports about cancer case clusters in such communities have raised public concern, but studies show clusters do not occur more often near nuclear plants than they do elsewhere.”

• A survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed no general increased risk of death from cancer for people living in 107 U.S. counties containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. The facilities in the survey had all begun operation before 1982. Included were 52 commercial nuclear power plants, 9 Department of Energy research and weapons plants, and 1 commercial fuel reprocessing plant. The survey examined deaths from 16 types of cancer, including leukemia. In the counties with nuclear facilities, cancer death rates before and after the startup of the facilities was compared with cancer rates in 292 similar counties without nuclear facilities.

The results of the survey, per John Boice, Sc.D.(who was chief of NCI’s Radiation Epidemiology Branch at the time of the survey), showed that “From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers we surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities”.

• In a response to ongoing public concern over the risk of people living near nuclear facilities, a publication of the Illinois Department of Public Health examined the pediatric cancer risk in relation to the proximity of nuclear power plants in Illinois.  Evaluations were conducted at both the county and ZIP code levels. Age-adjusted cancer incidence and mortality rates for children aged from 0 to 14 for years 1990 to 2002 were calculated for nuclear facility county group and nuclear facility ZIP code group, respectively, and then compared with those for the matched non-nuclear facility county group or non-nuclear facility ZIP code group.

The results of the publication The results indicate that pediatric cancer incidence and mortality rates for the nuclear facility county group and nuclear facility ZIP code group were not significantly different from those for their comparison groups. In addition, there was no evidence of increased trend in cancer incidence rate after startup of nuclear power plants.

• The accident at Three Mile Island 2, what is considered the worst nuclear related accident ever to occur in the United States, caused no injuries to workers or the public.  At least a dozen epidemiological studies conducted since 1981 have found no discernible direct health effects to the population in the vicinity of the facility. Studies of the consequences of the accident were conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Energy and the state of Pennsylvania. The average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem, according to the results of these and independent studies.  The public’s average dose from natural radiation is 100-125 millirem per year for that area.

In the decades following the accident, several studies were conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Health, all showing conclusive evidence that no negative health effects on the population surrounding the plant. In addition to the Pennsylvania Health Department studies, several other studies have examined the health impact of the TMI accident on the population and yielded similar results.

The key to dispelling this myth is to acknowlege that, as demonstrated:

1. Any increased risk of cancer around an operating nuclear power plant relies primarily on the adverse effects resulting from any small amount of radiation it might release.
2. No single person can go through life without experiencing some level of radiation dose on a daily basis.
3. The levels of radiation emitted at or near a nuclear power plant, and the associated level of risk, are negligible in comparison to that experienced in commonly occurring events and activities experienced by most on a day-to-day basis.

Once you are able to come to terms with these facts (and I hope that this article is of some help) it becomes painstakingly obvious that, contrary to popular belief, nuclear power plants do NOT cause cancer, and in fact pose no more threat to an individuals health than 365 Tbsps of peanut butter.

Myth Busted!

Next Wednesday, Adam Johnson will address the myth that as nuclear power plants age, they become more risky.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Despite the death of Senator Kennedy on Wednesday, I was able to stumble upon some positive political news. Democratic Senator Mark Udall from Colorado has recently voiced his support for Nuclear Power. Together with John McCain, Senator Udall plans to push for the bipartisan support of nuclear power to address climate change.

Udall has seen the negative effects of climate change in his home state where the spread of pine beetles due to warmer temperatures has devastated 2.5million acres of Ponderosa and pine trees. In the article, Udall had the following to say about climate change and nuclear power:

“It is clear that if we want to respond to climate change, nuclear power has to be part of the solution.”

Rod Adams over at Atomic Insights put together a great blog about how some environmentalist are reacting to Udall’s support of Nuclear, and in a separate editorial written in support of Senator Udall to the Denver Post I found a fascinating quick fact about the waste generated by nuclear power that I have to share:

“Uranium, for example, could power one person’s electrical needs for a lifetime and leave a volume of waste only the size of a soda can, says Gwyneth Cravens, author of “Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy.”

That seems like a relatively small amount of waste to me for a lifetime worth of power. Especially considering the fact that reprocessing the spent fuel could help further reduce the amount of waste that needs to be stored.  Do our environment a favor and let your senator know that you support Nuclear Power!

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

I found a pretty interesting video a couple of months ago of Google CEO Eric Schmidt giving his strong opinion on nuclear power.  We were still designing this website at that time, so I have been waiting to post this for a while.

Watch the video before you continue:

What really strikes me is the pompous attitude Mr. Schmidt carries with him throughout the video clip.  Where did he get this information that he is so confident in?  Nuclear power just doesn’t “cost out” against renewables?

I believe that Mr. Schmidt’s flawed assumption is that wind and solar installations will last forever, just like their energy sources–the sun and wind. That is obviously not the case, these installations must be replaced on a large scale every 15 to 20 years (if everything goes as planned).

Wind and solar installations aren’t made by Ron Popeil.  You don’t “set it and forget it”. Other than having proverbial maids go around and wash off those solar installations every three to four days (which are ironically best placed in the desert), the installations must be replaced every 20 years.  All in the face of a 60-80 year lifetime for nuclear plants.  (The lifetime promise is the same for wind turbines; but, Danish turbines are only lasting for an average of 16 years.)

Anyway, Clean Energy Insight created this graph “Comparing Clean Energy Costs” with information from the Energy Information Administration’s 2009 Annual Energy Outlook.  Annually, the EIA completes energy forecasts for the following 20 years based on current information.  Back in April, they updated their forecast to include Stimulus provisions.  This includes subsidies for renewables in an attempt to make them more competitive.  Even Schmidt admits in the video that renewables rely on federal subsidies to be competitive.  Something that Nuclear power does not rely on.  As you can see, nuclear is far cheaper than any variation of wind and solar technologies.

Here is a link to the full-size graph.

Here is a link to a decent explanation of the information used.

Finally, I would like to address Mr. Schmidt’s claim that solar thermal power can power the entire United States with a 10,000 sq mile installation.  I’ll bring back my methodology from What Does Renewable Energy Look Like? Parts I and II to debunk this claim.  I’ll even ignore the fact that current transmission technology isn’t even able to do this in the first place, and even the biggest planned solar thermal installation is only 340 MW and yet to be proven.

According to the Energy Information Administration Solar Thermal installations have a capacity factor of 0.312.

Mr. Schmidt proposes a 100 mi x 100 mi = 10,000 square mile area of solar thermal panels will power the entire United States.

The 340 MW Arizona installation uses approximately 4,000 acres or 6.25 sq miles.  We’ll use that ratio for this quick calculation.

This means that for 1,000 MW, solar thermal would need approximately 18.4 square miles.

The United States uses an approximate hourly average 3,310,502 MW of power.

Mr. Schmidt’s proposed 10,000 square mile solar thermal installation will reliably provide:

18.4 sq mi / 0.312 capacity factor = 59 sq mi per 1,000 MW

Therefore, 10,000 sq mi of solar thermal panels will yield only 169,491 MW of power.

5.1% of the energy consumption of the United States.  That’s 3,141,011 MW short.

Someone recently commented on one of the “What Does Renewable Energy Look Like” posts and said that I was at least 95% off in my calculations.  It’s pretty ironic that Mr. Schmidt is actually 95% off in his claim.  I would really like to see the study Mr. Schmidt used for his claims, and would welcome the chance to see the methodology and calculations of the study.

I wonder why the CEO of Google would make such blatantly false claims like this about solar power?

[Approx. Read Time: 1.5 minutes]

Professionals in nuclear industry across the globe continue  to develop innovative technology to enhance the efficiency of nuclear power plants.  I recently blogged on development of “Smart” Polymers which can significantly reduce the radioactive waste and further help decrease the cleanup costs in nuclear power plants. The research was done by scientists in India and Germany.

In the US, usage of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) piping is the latest award winning cutting-edge technology which eliminates the need for system cleaning that increases cost and decreases system availability.

Recently, two US plants, Catawba nuclear station in South Carolina and Callaway nuclear plant in Missouri won Materials and Services Process Top Industry Practice Award for implementing high-density polyethylene piping (HDPE) for their plant water systems.

The Catawba power station was the first U.S. nuclear plant to use polyethylene piping for the replacement of a cooling water system. Unlike carbon steel pipe which the new pipe replaced, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) is not subject to corrosion, and it eliminates the need for system cleaning that increases cost and decreases system availability.

Callaway was honored with award for being the first U.S. nuclear plant to use high-density polyethylene piping in a safety-related system. The Callaway project involved replacing the original 30-inch diameter carbon steel buried piping in the Essential Service Water system with approximately 1,600 feet of new 36-inch-diamater HDPE piping. The system consists of two redundant sets of piping that supply water to certain safety-related equipment. Callaway completed the installation of one set in December 2008 and completed the other set in April 2009.

Special safety review and approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was required in order to use the HDPE material.

Both Duke Energy and AmerenUE have shared information and technology with the nuclear industry for the use of polyethylene piping as a safe and cost-effective alternative for replacement of service water piping systems. Their achievements can yield benefits to the entire U.S. nuclear energy industry, including new nuclear energy facilities.

Check out the NEI video news below:

View the related article here.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

In an article written by Mary Ellen Cheatham titled “Federal Government May Decide on Permit for Nuclear Reactors Soon”, published on August 18th, 2009 on the Georgia Public Broadcasting News & Public Affairs website states that the U.S. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board has issued a decision that clears the way for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve an early site permit for two new nuclear reactors in Waynesboro, GA.

In about two weeks the NRC may decide on a permit that deems a Waynesboro site suitable for construction of two new nuclear power plants; this is one of the first permits issued for new nuclear reactors in the U.S. in decades.

We, as Americans, should support this decision, because we can decrease our dependence on other nations for our energy needs by building new nuclear power plants in our own country. We need to encourage the NRC and our federal government to approve permits and licenses for nuclear power plants so we can continue to grow in industry, support booming populations and maintain a sense of security in this country for one and for all. Yes, we want to support the growth and use of other renewable energies, such as solar and wind, but we need to learn, understand, and accept the fact that nuclear energy is not going away, in fact, it is being revived. And, it is safe, it is efficient, it is NOT going to blow us up, it is NOT going to give us weird and inhumane growths. It will give us energy independence, it will provide energy for years and it will allow our children and our grandchildren to live better quality of lives than we have now. One step forward….

Read the full article here.

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

Apparently, Westinghouse read my last post on skilled labor job opportunities in the Nuclear field.  Coincidentally or not, they just announced a need for 100 new skilled labor positions at their new $21Million Chattanooga facility.  Read here:

Fission for new jobs

By Mike Pare

Westinghouse Electric could add another 100 employees at its new $21 million Chattanooga facility depending on business, an official for the company’s nuclear services division said Thursday.

Westinghouse unveiled its boiling water reactor training center and welding institute at Centre South Riverport. The 65,000-square-foot facility is aimed at training employees and customers on the safe maintenance and refueling of the reactors in nuclear power plants.

Nick Liparulo, Westinghouse’s senior vice president of nuclear services, said the company is up to about 130 people in the city and could add another 100 workers within a year or so if business opportunities come through.

When Westinghouse first announced its Chattanooga expansion in March 2008, it had about 75 workers.

Mr. Liparulo said the company, a division of Toshiba Group, already has orders for 10 new nuclear power units. Six are in the United States and four in China, he said.

Mr. Liparulo cited the city’s available work force as a reason why Chattanooga was picked by the company for the expansion.

Hamilton County Mayor Claude Ramsey called the facility “a big win.”

Mr. Ramsey said potential workers need to be trainable.

“If you’re not educated, you’re going to miss the boat,” he said.

According to Westinghouse, its service technicians can earn $60,000 a year or more.

David Howell, Westinghouse’s vice president of field services, said company officials believe nuclear power is necessary for the energy strategy for the United States and world.

“Safe, clean, reliable nuclear power is essential for the future and we are going to be a part of it,” he said.

The welding institute has the capacity to certify 288 students a year to work in nuclear and non-nuclear plants.

The company has had a facility off Riverfront Parkway near the Alstom plant. It bought the former Metals USA building at the riverport and undertook a large-scale upgrade and addition.

The building is equipped with a full-scale, 85-foot-deep reactor and pool mockup serviced by a refueling bridge and overhead cranes. Westinghouse officials noted that digging such a deep hole into the ground next to the Tennessee River “was not an easy task.”

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

Earlier this week, I started to blog about the extensive interview TVA Nuclear VP Ashok Bhatnagar had in the Tennessean on Monday.  Shortly thereafter, I noticed that Mark Flanagan over at NEI Nuclear Notes had blogged about it already.  Mark does a good job at enthusiastically putting his two cents in while not leaving out any details.  The entire blog hits on the interview with Mr. Bhatnagar while also covering some other TVA-related tidbits.  I’m sure that you’ll enjoy Mark’s work as much as we do at Clean Energy Insight.

Nuclear Energy on the Wild River

The Tennessee Valley Authority is on the build:

Completion of a second reactor at the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant — partially built for $1.7 billion, then abandoned in 1988 for lack of need — is under way.

TVA also has been studying the possibility of completing two reactors once under construction at its Bellefonte site in northern Alabama. And TVA has applied for a license that would allow two reactors of a new design — called an AP 1000 by Westinghouse — to be built and operated there.

The bulk of the piece is a q&a with TVA’s Ashok Bhatnagar. TVA had the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tenn. last year, so they’ve got a reasonably skittish customer base. Thus, we were interested to see how Bhatnagar dealt with the inevitable used fuel questions.  Here’s how:

We have a very good method right now for managing wastes. It’s very safe, and we’ve done that for almost 30 to 40 years. We’ve stored them in our pools, and then we’ve found a way to store them outside in dry cask storage. And we have a good method that was established to put them in a repository. A particular repository needs to get licensed.

Pretty good. Safe where it is, would be nice to have a central repository.

And why won’t there be a nuclear version of the the coal ash spill?

Because it’s well regulated. There’s very well defined criteria for how you store the waste. It’s a design concept that’s built into the plant from the very beginning. The spent fuel pools are designed and reviewed and approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission per very strict regulations.

We’re undecided whether to sound the buzzer on this one. We’re reasonably sure there are regulations about coal ash now and we know more are coming – see here. Beyond this, it doesn’t raise confidence to think TVA only takes care when a regulator is breathing down its neck. Mightn’t it try to circumvent regulation for whatever reason (profit, malice) rather than protect its customers?

We don’t believe TVA has any malicious or avaricious motivation – TVA has been a good nuclear (and coal) neighbor for many years. While we might wish Bhatnagar had thought this statement through a little more, he does an excellent job altogether. Take a look.

—

We’re pleased to see some information about the Babcock & Wilcox mPower reactors (small, modular units) from the TVA side. Here’s Bhatnagar:

We have elected to start working with a company on this small reactor concept they have come up with, but it’s at the very early stages. There is no detailed design yet. This is the 10-, 15-year kind of thinking that you have to have. You have to make sure your input is in early so the designs come out the way you want them, with the kinds of experience that you’ve gained over 30 years of operation.

Still in the loop, not far enough along to commit to it. About where we left it.

—

We were actually poking around a bit to see what explained this cartoon:

This is from the Chattanooga Times Free Press (If we create a newspaper, we’ll name it the Constitution Free Journal Register Press in honor of merged newspapers.) Presumably this represents the editorial board’s nervousness about TVA’s plans. But it suggests the opposite, too: that it is the public’s nervousness (the sign painter probably not a plant worker) about nuclear energy that creates a problem, not the presence of the plant itself.

And we’ve looked at enough polls on this site to suggest that even this isn’t true. Our conclusion: an incoherent cartoon not reflective of any significant public attitude. As we said, TVA has been a good nuclear neighbor. Let’s just call it drive-by editorializing and be done with it.

Watts Bar nuclear plant.

Believe it or not, there’s a first rate movie about the work of the Tennessee Valley Authority – Elia Kazan’s Wild River (1960). TVA is a 1930s New Deal deal, one of two federal electricity outlets created during the Depression (the other is Bonneville in the Northwest).  TVA has economic development tasks as well as electricity generation.

As you might imagine, TVA’s virtually unique status engenders controversy: further valley authorities were blocked by Congress (Bonneville is a different kind of entity), with small government advocates having at it occasionally since then. Ronald Reagan, for example, famously took a swipe at it at the 1964 Republican convention as an example of big government. But neither Reagan nor any other President has privatized it. And so it is today much as it was created to be in 1933. Fascinating American story – start with TVA’s own version of its history for a baseline.

[Approx. Read Time: 4 minutes]

Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat recently posted this insight into upcoming job opportunities in the nuclear industry on CoolHandNuke.com (nuclear job recruiting website).  As Dan states on his Idaho Samizdat post, this article is targeted at new college grads looking for jobs. This has been one of the driest seasons for new college grad hiring rates recent history. It is important that the industry gets out there and makes the job opportunities in the industry known to this demographic.

I, for one, as a young civil engineering student had no idea of the opportunities that the nuclear field had to offer to civil engineers.  Everyone I went to school with had grandiose plans of designing bridges, roads, and skyscrapers.  I just wanted to design something big.  When I stumbled upon a nuclear engineering company at a university career fair, I found that the nuclear industry was a fit for me.

Another demographic that is hardly acknowledged is skilled laborers.  When was the last time you heard of programs targeted at high school students encouraging them to go to vocational school and become skilled laborers?  Less than 15% of my high school graduating class in Southwest Virginia attended a four year university.  It is really frustrating for me to hink of the missed opportunities for some of those kids.  It’s not their fault that the politically correct message to send to high school students is that they must attend college.  The nuclear industry poses a great opportunity for thousands of skilled laborers to become trained and employed.

Let’s hope that the message gets out.

Targeting nuclear job growth opportunities

And how to avoid a few potholes in the road to employment

By Dan Yurman, Idaho Samizdat

The nuclear energy industry has two major growth sectors which should be commanding the attention of job seekers with backgrounds in mechanical, electrical, chemical, and nuclear engineering. The sectors that are ramping up are design and construction of new plants and license renewals for current operating plants.

New college graduates should pay particular attention to plants with Early Site Permits (ESP). The reason is that they grant the utility building the reactor limited authority to begin some work at the plant site while the full license is still in review.

A good example is the Vogtle site being expanded by the Southern Company (NYSE:SO). The NRC is expected to issues an ESP by the end of August. It clears a number of safety and environmental issues and with it the NRC gives the utility a green light to start site preparation work. Also, it is a boost in confidence for investors and ratepayers and it bolsters public support for the entire project.

It is a clear signal to the utility and the engineering procurement contractors (EPC) building the plant to start hiring engineers and skilled crafts. Assuming the plant gets a license in 2011, it could generate 3,000 construction jobs and several hundred permanent plant jobs for the twin Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. They are scheduled to enter revenue service in 2016-2017 and have operational lifetimes of at least 60-years.

Currently, the nuclear industry has 17 applications pending with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for new reactor combined construction and operating licenses. Of these more than half, including, reactors in Maryland, North & South Carolina, Florida, and Texas, are most likely to be under construction by 2012. A new reactor project will involve 3,000-5,000 construction workers and a permanent workforce of 400-700 people once in operation.

The reactors in the southeastern U.S., all Westinghouse AP1000s, will be built by the The Shaw Group which has a 20% equity stake in Westinghouse. To support this massive scale of construction, the two firms are building a $300 million nuclear reactor manufacturing facility in Louisiana.

The two firms announced in 2008 that the companies will build the first module fabrication and assembly facility focused on constructing components for new and modified nuclear reactors in the United States. The facility will be located at the Port of Lake Charles, LA.

In addition to constructing components for new and modified nuclear reactors, the new Lake Charles facility will have the capability to manufacture modules for chemical sites and petrochemical plants round the world. It will create at least 1,400 jobs in Lake Charles over the next five years. Starting salaries for undergraduates with engineering degrees range are about $50-60,000/year.  If you have a taste for working overseas, Westinghouse is building four new reactors in China.

Last month Areva and Northrup Grumman announced plans and broke ground in July to build a similar facility in Newport News, VA, at a similar scope and scale and with similar job opportunities.  Similarly, Areva is building new reactors in Finland, France, India, and China.   Areva will also build reactors in the U.S. in Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio. The firm says it will hire 15,000 new workers in the next few years.

Additionally, the engineering procurement contractors such as Bechtel, URS, and similar firms found in the top 20th percentile of the Engineering News Record 500 are also hiring to work in the nuclear industry.

Work on reactor relicensing is just as intense

As of summer 2009 more about half of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors have gone through relicensing by the NRC for another 20 years. Currently, 12 more are pending and are likely to make it all the way through the NRC process. The relicensing process is just as demanding as a new license. The NRC holds the utility’s feet to the fire since it will be issuing a permit good for 20 years.

A related work area is the “uprate” path for some reactors which boosts its power output by changes to the reactor, turbines, and balance of plant. All of these functions require highly skilled engineering talent.

Most of the relicensing activities have been trouble free, but two bear watching to see how things develop at these sites. They are Indian Point in New York and Vermont Yankee both of which are beset by anti-nuclear elected officials and citizens groups who support them.

While both plants have good odds to be relicensed, the hostile political environments in both states toward nuclear power makes these plants unattractive for recent graduates entering the industry. These two sites are the exception as the majority of renewals go according to plan.

Common areas for job opportunities

All three areas share common areas where new jobs can be found. Here are a few of them.

• New plant design & construction
• Operating plant services
• Safety analyses
• Nuclear procurement and construction quality assurance
• Pipe & pump fabrication and systems
• Electrical, instrumentation, and plant control systems

In summary a candidate with a recent engineering degree has many opportunities for long and beneficial employment in the nuclear industry.

[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

Myth: People don’t want Nuclear power plants in their backyards

Where do I even start? This is an enormous myth. I was pleased last week to find that Bisconti Research Inc. made public their Nuclear Plant Neighbor Survey results because it makes my job in disproving this myth embarrassingly easy.

The Nuclear Plant Neighbor Survey used a sample of 1,100 adults living within 10 miles of one of our nation’s 64 nuclear plant sites. Plant employees living within ten miles of a site were not surveyed. Below are some of the results worth highlighting:

• 84% of Americans living near nuclear power plants favor nuclear energy!
• 90% view the local nuclear power station positively!
• 76% would support the construction of a new reactor near them!
• 72% associate nuclear energy “a lot” with reliability!
• 71% have heard or read about the clean-air benefits of nuclear energy!
• 58% strongly support nuclear energy whereas only 5% strongly oppose!
• 83% believe that companies that own sites are involved in the community!

Wow! Nuclear plant neighbors are not only happy with the plants, but they wouldn’t even mind more reactors being constructed on site. These survey results really point out what great stewards domestic nuclear sites are within their respective communities. It doesn’t hurt that no member of the general public has ever been killed as a result of nuclear power plant operation something even wind turbines can’t claim.

Separate from the survey, I also wanted to take a more in depth look at another argument made by the “not in my backyard” crowd. Some residents have expressed worry that nuclear power plants could drive down home prices and hurt nearby communities. I decided to take a look at home prices directly next to McGuire Nuclear Station outside of Charlotte, NC where the median home price is $169,000. Using Zillow.com, I scanned prices of homes that have recently sold or are for sale near McGuire Nuclear Power Station. I found that there are several houses within less than ten miles of the power plant that have recently sold for over $1 million. Some of Charlotte’s most wealthy residents are choosing to live near the plant. When people that can afford to live just about anywhere invest in a home that close to a plant it makes you wonder if the “driving down home prices and hurting communities” fear really carries any weight. And the answer is no.

I dug deeper and found a 2006 study by Roger Bedzek and Robert Wendling that specifically studied the impact of 7 nuclear sites on property values. The results of this study can be summed up in one excerpt:

“The taxes and fees the facilities pay often fund over half of the county and school district budgets and provide levels of public and educational services that are far above those of surrounding counties and greater than the state averages. In each of the seven regions, housing and real estate values have benefited from the operations of the nuclear facilities.”

If nuclear power plants make for better schools and higher property values you can put one in my backyard today!

[Approx. Read Time: 3 minutes]

William R. Hawkins, expert on national security and economic issues, posted the following article at FamilySecurityMatters.org yesterday.  I found it to be an interesting look at some of the politics of a Nuclear renaissance.  Hawkins sure isn’t afraid to show his disappointment in the anti-nuclear stances that some so-called environmentalists have taken in recent years.  This includes a disappointment in many of the anti-nuclear policies held by some elected officials in the Democratic party, but please don’t let this take away from the story that is told.

Eventually, Hawkins ends up making a point that the issue of whether to utilize nuclear power or not is an issue of production and standard of living.  We cannot possibly sustain our current American standard of living while making great reductions in pollution and greenhouse gases by relying on wind turbines that only work 30% of the time.

My only comment on the article was on this quote from EPA officials that Hawkins noted:

In the EPA’s April analysis of the initial Waxman-Markey draft legislation, nuclear power was included along with renewables and improved efficiency as “low- or zero-carbon primary energy” sources. But the EPA also noted that there was an “uncertainty” about “The degree to which new nuclear power is technically, politically, and socially feasible” and that “Constraints on nuclear power growth are exogenous.”

Why should there be any doubts on whether or not nuclear power is politically or socially feasible?  The EPA was correct when it says that constraints are exogenous, but (according to recent polls) over 70% of Americans support new nuclear power as a clean energy source.  The Drill Here, Drill Now campaign garnered a 78% support level among Americans before action was taken by the US Congress to lift restrictions on offshore oil exploration.  Is there a magic number that must be reached before the overwhelming support for nuclear power is recognized?

Noting that this 78% support level was coupled with the fact that Americans were paying $4.00/gallon for gasoline, will Americans continue to stay silent on their support for Nuclear power until so many unreliable renewables are installed on the grid that rolling brown/blackouts occur on a regular basis?

August 18, 2009

Exclusive: A Nuclear Renaissance Beckons

William R. Hawkins

In 1993, I taught an upper level course in managerial economics for Tusculum College in an unusual setting. The classes were held at the Watts Bar nuclear power plant. Watts Bar was the third nuclear plant built by the Tennessee Valley Authority, and was located not far from Knoxville. Construction had started in 1973. The plant still was not operational when I was teaching there 20 years later due to constant legal challenges and regulatory delays driven by anti-nuclear environmentalists. If Watts Bar had been a private enterprise rather than a government project, it would have been driven out of business by the Green obstructionists, as were so many planned nuclear facilities.

My students were employed at the plant, and most thought the facility would never be turned on. Yet, in 1996, Unit 1 did go online, the last commercial nuclear reactor to do so in the United States in the 20th century. Unit 1 produces 1,170 megawatts of electricity, enough to serve 650,000 homes.

In 2000, under the Clinton Administration, the decision was made to halt work on Watts Bar Unit 2 even though substantial work had been completed. But in 2007, in the pro-growth climate of the Bush administration, the TVA Board decided to complete construction of Unit 2 to help meet the region’s expanding energy needs. Completion of Unit 2 is scheduled for 2013 and will double the electrical output of Watts Bar. TVA was able to move forward fairly quickly because it was already licensed. Building new power reactors elsewhere will be more difficult, but there are signs that for the first time in over 30 years, progress is possible in this vital field.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received 17 license applications for 26 new nuclear power reactors. These are the first applications for new reactors since the late 1970s. In addition to new reactors, the NRC has seen an increase in licensing applications related to uranium recovery and fuel-processing facilities.

Electricity demand is expected to increase 50 percent by 2030. NRC head Kristine L. Svinicki has said that for nuclear power to maintain its share of production, “it would be necessary to build and bring on line nearly 50 additional large, commercial nuclear power reactors to add to the 104 that are currently operating. “ She called this a “nuclear renaissance.” Under projections made by the Environmental Protection Agency, nuclear expansion will have to be even greater if coal and natural gas are to be partially replaced to comply with mandated limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

The controversial Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H. R. 2454), passed narrowly by the U.S. House in June, requires utilities to generate 15 percent of their electricity from “renewable” sources by 2020. Nuclear power is excluded from the list of renewables, but the bill is silent about the overall role of nuclear power in meeting the bill’s overall targets for reducing carbon emissions.

In the EPA’s April analysis of the initial Waxman-Markey draft legislation, nuclear power was included along with renewables and improved efficiency as “low- or zero-carbon primary energy” sources. But the EPA also noted that there was an “uncertainty” about “The degree to which new nuclear power is technically, politically, and socially feasible” and that “Constraints on nuclear power growth are exogenous.” Yet, the EPA model postulates that nuclear power will be “allowed to increase by ~150 percent from 782 bill. kWh in 2005 to 1,982 bill. kWh in 2050.” The growth would have to be even greater and faster if the EPA’s optimistic forecasts of progress in creating renewable energy technology are not met. And the EPA counts heavily on gains in efficiency that will mean “lower energy demand” resulting in “fewer new power plants needing to be built.”

The Department of Energy says it wants to support the revival of nuclear construction and development. DoE claims it will make “investments in clean energy sources that will curb our dependence on fossil fuels and make America energy independent.” To generate more domestic energy, it will “Enhance U.S. energy supplies through responsible development of domestic renewable energy, fossil fuels, advanced biofuels and nuclear energy.” Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was director of DOE’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and professor of Physics and Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California. He worked in atomic physics and does not have the Luddite mentality of the Green zealots even though he is concerned about carbon emissions and climate change.

On May 6th, Secretary Chu announced the selection of 71 university research project awards to advance cutting-edge nuclear energy research and development. These projects will receive approximately $44 million over three years to advance new nuclear technologies in support of the nation’s energy goals. “As a zero-carbon energy source, nuclear power must be part of our energy mix as we work towards energy independence and meeting the challenge of global warming,” said Secretary Chu at the time, adding, “The next generation of nuclear power plants – with the highest standards of safety, efficiency and environmental protection – will require the latest advancements in nuclear science and technology. These research and development university awards will ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in the nuclear field for years to come.”
DoE’s Office of Nuclear Energy has stated as goals: “Develop new nuclear generation technologies that foster the diversity of the domestic energy supply through public-private partnerships that are aimed in the near-term (2015) at the deployment of advanced, proliferation-resistant light water reactor and fuel cycle technologies and in the longer-term (2025) at the development and deployment of next-generation advanced reactors and fuel cycles.”

What could disrupt a nuclear renaissance in America is “exogenous” politics, the kind that has crippled an industry that was created in the United States. The Left is still anti-nuclear for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with science or the energy needs of the nation. Greenpeace opposed the Waxman-Markey bill because it felt the door had been left open for new nuclear plants. Greenpeace is still peddling fears of another Chernobyl, the only catastrophic example the movement has. It took place in 1986 in the old Soviet Union at a plant whose obsolete technology bears no resemblance to what is being used in the U.S. Christopher Barker, of the popular Motley Fool investment advisory group, told AARP members that he opposes nuclear power “because I consider radioactive waste and Chernobyl-type risks utterly unacceptable.”

After the Senate Energy and Public Works Committee held hearings on July 7th, the Sierra Club found “troubling” that “many senators continued insistence that nuclear power is the sole answer to our climate and energy problems. Many have called for as many as 100 new nuclear power plants. This plan ignores the cleaner, cheaper, safer, and faster emissions reductions that could be achieved through energy efficiency and clean energy.” Sierra defined clean energy two days later as “wind, solar and geothermal” in a press release celebrating their role in blocking the construction of 100 coal-fired power plants.

The 100 nuclear plant proposal was contained in the American Energy Act (H.R. 2846) offered by the Republican leadership on June 12th. That the GOP is pro-nuclear is not news, but that there is growing support within Democrat ranks for a revival of atomic energy is surprising.

The Democrat Obama administration can only defy its left-wing constitutions on an issue as emotional as nuclear power if the American people impress upon it their unwillingness to suffer a decline in living standards as the country reduces pollution and moves towards energy independence. While some Americans may like the “wilderness adventures” that the Sierra Club promotes as a vacation, few want it as a way of life. The future simply won’t work without a major expansion of nuclear power.

[Approx. Read Time: <1 minute]

The Nuclear industry is one of the safest industries in the United States.  Recently, I looked up some facts about workplace incident comparisons by industry.  These include OSHA recordable accidents.  I decided to go and check out the updated Nuclear industry averages and compare them to some other industries in the available US Bureau of Labor Statistics database.  I made the following graph with some of the information I found.  This data may surprise some of you who do not work in the Nuclear industry.  I believe that the graph speaks entirely for itself.  (Link to graph)

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

A new cobalt imprinted polymer that could significantly reduce the amount of radioactive waste produced during decontamination of nuclear reactors is being developed by scientists in Germany and India. Their study, which details a first-of-its-kind discovery, has been published in the ACS Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, a bi-weekly journal.

Article: “Synthesis and Characterization of Imprinted Polymers for Radioactive Waste Reduction”, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 2009, 48 (8), pp 3730–3737 DOI: 10.1021/ie801640b

The researchers note that structural materials such as carbon steel in power plants’ water cooling systems form deposits of metal oxides when they interact with coolants. In nuclear power plants, these oxides trap radioactive ions, leading to buildups of radioactivity that require costly cleanups of reactor surfaces. Cobalt, present in some alloys used in the reactors’ water systems, is a major contributor toward this problem because of its long half-life.

In the study, the researchers created an adsorbent material that - unlike conventional ion-exchange resins that are frequently used in reactors - is selective for cobalt but has the unique ability of disregarding iron-based ions.

The retention capacity for the active cobalt was found to lessen reduction in the solution activity by about 55%. The polymer’s high selectivity increases its appeal, the researchers add, for use in decontamination processes in reactors that utilize a variety of structural materials.

This adsorbent is promising in effecting large reductions in the volume of radioactive waste generated during the regular cleanup operations as well as during decommissioning of these nuclear reactors.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511090842.htm

[Approx. Read Time: 2.5 minutes]

I’d like to spotlight some of the best blogs from the week from around the pro-nuclear blogosphere.  I read one from Rod Adams (See Atomic Insights and Adams Atomic Engines) that you won’t find reported anywhere else.  Rod commented on the Clean Energy Summit 2.0, where very important people discussed our clean energy future.  There’s only one problem with that–nuclear energy wasn’t mentioned ONCE.  Enjoy this article from Rod.  He always seems to catch the good stuff.

Nuclear - The CO2-Emissions-Solution-That-Must-Not-Be-Named At The Clean Energy Summit

by Rod Adams

I have finally worked my way through nearly 3 hours of the town hall meeting at the National Clean Energy Summit 2.0 held on August 10, 2009 in Las Vegas Nevada. The panel included John Podesta, President and CEO of Center for American Progress, Al Gore, Harry Reid, T. Boone Pickens and Cathy Zoi, Assistant Secretary of Energy For Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. According to Tyler Suiters from Clean Skies News, this group included “the real heavy hitters on policy making in terms of clean energy and energy efficiency”.

Though it is possible that I stepped out of the room at just the wrong time, I am pretty certain that neither the word “nuclear” nor the word “atomic” were spoken during the entire discussion. I heard a lot about the importance of natural gas. In fact, here is a quote from Susan McGinnis of Clean Skies News, when she was fulfilling her anchor duties by summarizing what she had heard during the morning sessions at the Summit.

It’s something that we did not hear a lot about out of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, in the past anyway, is natural gas, something T. Boone Pickens has been pushing for quite a while. It really seems that at this energy summit that his crusade finally has solid legs. I mean T. Boone Pickens is now at every major energy gathering that happens. The words “natural gas” are coming out of the mouths of Al Gore, Steven Chu and lots of others. Margaret Ryan was talking earlier about being surprised that this has such a prominent place at a summit like this one. Whereas a year ago there were all other kinds of renewables being talked about. One year later it does seem that natural gas does have a place at this table, Tyler.
(Ref - Minute 2:30-3:00 of national Clean Energy Summit 2.0 Town Hall Video.

The panel also talked a lot about wind turbines, solar panels, solar thermal energy, carpeting an area 95 miles on each side with solar collectors, building energy efficiency, reducing dependence on foreign oil and even some words about carbon capture and sequestration from coal burning power plants. I heard T. Boone Pickens state that financing wind turbines when natural gas costs less than $7.00 per MBTU is not possible (that is nearly 2 times the current market price). I also heard Harry Reid say that he believes that it is necessary to give eminent domain powers to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) so it could force land owners to accept the installation of electric transmission lines. He compared the needed powers to those that were available during the 19th century railroad construction boom and those used to enable the current interstate highway system.

However, I did not hear one of the panelists or anyone in the audience mention the fact that we discovered a vast new emission free energy source in the middle of the 20th century.

Since not one of the panelists mentioned nuclear power or atomic energy, none of them could talk about the fact that the power source does not produce any greenhouse gas emissions or any other form of air pollution. None of them could talk about the vast reserves of fuel found in North America or Australia. None of them could talk about the job growth in the industry or the recently announced expansions of production facilities by Shaw Group, Northrop-Grumman, Areva, and Westinghouse. None of the could mention the fact that the 26 nuclear plants waiting in line for license reviews at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if completed, would produce more electricity each year than ALL of the windmills installed in North America. None of them could describe how this almost magical power source grew from inconceivable to 8% of the world energy market in just a couple of decades, despite the inevitable teething pains of new technology development and a well organized opposition to its expansion.

One of my readers recently accused me of being a nuclear fanatic and described my attitude as similar to someone with a hammer who sees the world as being full of nails needing pounding. I think he is pretty close. I am a fission fan (that is the short form of the word “fanatic”) who gets seriously frustrated by the lack of routine discussion about a power source that has a lot to offer to a world in serious need of what it can do.

During the morning round table at the Clean Energy Summit Al Gore said something to the effect that the people alive on earth today have to ask themselves - how can we not act knowing what we know about the effects of climate change. He said he thought that our children and grandchildren are going to be pretty disappointed with us if we do nothing.

Along those same lines, I have to ask - how can I not make the case for using more fission as forcefully as possible? How can I not keep reminding people who would prefer not to complicate their plans or offend their donors that we have an energy source that is at least as American as natural gas, produces far less carbon dioxide when used, and is far more abundant than gas will ever be? How can I fail to point out that a natural gas powered ship would be terribly impractical because of the massive fuel tanks required, but ships burn a lot of oil that could be otherwise put to use? How can I help people like Al Gore and John Podesta understand that natural gas is not accessible in places where there are no pipelines, but small nuclear plants have a proven track record of providing reliable distributed power in the most inaccessible places on the planet?

I need your suggestions. How can we make sure that Clean Energy Summit 3.0 does not ignore the existence of fission and treat it like Harry Potter’s friends treated Voldemort - as that which must not be named?