[Approx. Read Time: 2 minutes]

80-202Our nation has a continued dysfunction in regard to paying attention to and solving real problems.  Tunnel vision and osmosis must be the source of some of our nation’s prioritization because all of the problems that get attention have the same attributes.  They are within arms reach or are right in front of our collective faces.  This is the only way I can explain the reason why the vast majority of regulation and laws passed for air pollution control up to this point are for automotive emissions.   All this attention when only 20 percent of our nation’s air pollution is from car exhaust and 80 percent of air pollution comes from electricity generation by fossil fuels.

I’m not particularly for or against car exhaust regulation, I’m just puzzled by our nation’s constant attention being drawn to it just because we are around cars all of the time.  Are we unable to use data to make decisions anymore?  Do we really have an attention span that short or is our congress that dense?

Our nation has real problems in many areas, some we can see with data and some we see because we are staring at it every day.  I think our nation needs a better ability to prioritize problems on an absolute scale.  It is no secret that Clean Energy Insight is for nuclear electricity generation because it solves the 80% part of the air pollution problem while simultaneously creating jobs here in the USA.

Congress appears to have renewed some attention to the climate bill this week. Let me make a few suggestions that may help reduce the tension in the air.  Number one, if you don’t want any more coal plants to be built then just write a law that says that (or restricts it to a small number) and stop this increase in costs of production nonsense that would be immediately passed onto the citizens.  Number two, make nuclear power the preferred source of base load power and pass loan guarantees for about $20 billion per year over the next 15 or so years.  This creates many thousands of jobs, solves the clean energy problem, and does not spend any federal money (just co-signing the loans).  Number three, put any other kind of non-base load renewable feel good power generation in there you want.   We all know solar, wind et al. won’t make a difference to the big picture overall power consumed, but apparently we have to spend money on it to feel good about ourselves.

Let’s get smart America and use data to solve the right problems the best way and reject the continued dysfunctional short attention span that is spending us into the poor house, gaining us little progress on pollution control, and no job creation during the worst recession in 75 years.

Now take a deep breath and sigh admittedly to yourself…..”nuclear is the solution”.

Loan Guarantees = Jobs (Without actually spending money!!!)

Posted by DGM On September - 10 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

WaxmanA long slow recovery of the economy with job growth tentatively scheduled on the back end has caused our government to spend nearly a trillion dollars on “stimulus.”   Job creation is supposed to be at the heart of this spending and the results are mixed at best.

As much as 50 billion dollars in federal loan guarantees were almost  included in the stimulus package this Spring which could have allowed for the construction of 7 to 10 new nuclear power plants all in different states across the country.   Unfortunately, the loan guarantee amount was reduced by Rep. Waxman (Dem, CA) at the last minute to 18 billion dollars, which would allow the construction of only 3 new plants.

A quick refresher of what a loan guarantee is: essentially, the government co-signs on a construction loan but pays no cash in the process. The reason this is done is to lower the risk of the loan, which lowers the interest rate.   The lowering of the interest rate makes the large investment more manageable for the utility and incentivizes them to start construction sooner.   In this instance it would be economic stimulus without spending. This cash free type of stimulus is a beautiful thing in this poor economy.

So, if EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) and others say we need more nuclear plants to meet the nation’s energy needs and maintain clean air standards, and the economy is desperate for job creation, then loan guarantees are a no brainer.   The current three loan guarantees are not enough and we need more to add job creation into this economic recovery. Our congress needs a sense of urgency in the right direction on this issue, and currently the urgency is all going to other issues besides job creation.

The Real Nuclear Waste Solution

Posted by DGM On September - 1 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

isfsiWe need to solve the problem with nuclear waste.  As we all know nuclear fuel is recyclable with only 4% of each fuel assembly being actual waste that can’t be re-used and the other 96% can be recycled and used again.  As the government technically owns the fuel it also owns the problem of disposal, and the government must provide the solution.  The problem is that we know who runs the government and their ability to make a coherent, timely, or realistic solution.  I’m not sure how many blue ribbon panels will be formed to study this issue before they come to a recommended solution that will likely not be followed.

In brief, here is the real solution:

One, we recycle the fuel at one centralized or two regional locations.  The fuel is re-used and then re-cycled again as many times as technology allows.

Two, we store the unusable waste at the Yucca Mountain site that has been selected and is in the process of being licensed.  The design of the facility would not need to be modified nor would the license require any serious amendment.  The capacity problem that would have previously come up with Yucca Mountain would go away with fuel recycling, as the amount of waste would be much less.  The site could be used to store the waste for many decades or even centuries before it would be filled up.  Also, with the current construction schedule, the first batch of waste would probably be ready a little after Yucca would be ready to receive it.

And that’s it.  Any blue ribbon panel members out there feel free to copy this solution.

Nuclear Needs a Celebrity Endorsement

Posted by DGM On August - 14 - 2009

[Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

The pro-nuclear movement has almost everything going for it.  We have the support of technical experts, environmentalists, the utilities, most Republicans, and some Democrats.  We have overwhelming data and facts and even survey data shows that 68% of Americans are for new nuclear power.  There is a missing endorsement that the mass population of the US would take a shine to and that is of celebrities.  In order to be successful the nuclear clean energy movement is going to have to work on getting a celebrity endorsement.

patrick_moore

Patrick Moore

The best we have right now is Bob Geldof (aging rock star really only known in the UK) and Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace).  No offense to these guys, but if we are going to get some positive attention for nuclear as a green alternative via tabloid journalism we are going to need to do a whole lot better.  If corn based ethanol can get Willie Nelson then we ought to be able to get somebody that The Soup would report on.

Some Names from Grist.org of celebrities that have endorsed other Green energy are:

Leo DeCaprio – Anything green,  Famed Prius owner

Robert Redford – Solar, lots of stuff

George Clooney – Against foreign oil.

Ed Norton – Solar

The importance of a celebrity endorsement has nothing to do with legitimizing the idea of nuclear, just massive attention and positive flashiness. These attention getters rarely have any decent knowledge of what they are endorsing, nor are they expected to. So that pretty much means we could get any of them up to speed in a hurry.

Here is a first draft list that we have brainstormed for potential celebrities we should invite to join the nuclear cause:

scarlett-johansson

Scarlett Johansson

Scarlett Johansson

Shaquille O’neal

Simon Cowell

Matthew McConaughey

Kellie Pickler

Kevin Costner

Kid Rock

Miley Cyrus

The Jonas Brothers

Eminem

Seth Rogen

Please post your recommendations as to the best celebrity to court for an endorsement.  We need all the help we can get.

( By DGM ) [Approx. Read Time: 1.5 minutes]

money

The current horizon for most business investments to payoff is 3 to 5 years.  This stands in contrast to what is required for investment in a nuclear power plant.  Is it short attention span or the pressure to make profit on every quarterly earnings report, hard to say?

The competing CO2 emitting sources of electricity can be built much quicker and turn a profit much faster.  The good news is that nuclear power is very profitable; it just takes longer to get the ball rolling.  The risks that used to be associated with nuclear plant startup have been somewhat mitigated with the new one step licensing process and loan guarantees, so my question is what is everyone waiting for?  I think the answer is the culture clash.  If it won’t turn a buck next quarter the likelihood of getting investment dollars is low, especially when the credit markets are just barely thawing out.

To provide some encouragement to any big time investors out there, see my spreadsheet on what the timeline and returns would be if you were to invest in a nuclear power plant.  The calculations are very conservative and likely would be more profitable than what would actually be realized.  The net present value (NPV) of the investment is positive which really all that matters is.  The rest of the info is just nice to have.

If Wall Street had more patience in their big time earnings and used their lobbying power to help the nuclear energy industry we probably would have built Yucca Mountain 10 years ago and our grid would be supplied with more than 50% nuclear power right now.  Too bad we feel we need to turn a buck every quarter so CNBC has something good to say about us every 90 days.

In other news, T. Boone Pickens abandons plans for wind farms in West Texas because it is not profitable even with government aid.  Well T. Boone, if profit and clean energy is your objective you should have gone with nuclear, see this spreadsheet for a nickel of free advice.

Mr. President, You Need An Engineer

Posted by admin On July - 16 - 2009

( By DGM ) [Approx. Read Time: 1 minute]

equation2I am sadly terrified that our Government does not employ engineers at the highest levels of government. Why this is, I do not know.  The rest of us engineers stand in astonishment when we look at how much power our country needs, along with the ability of solar and wind power to provide that power—as these are apparently the only form of power that the President recognizes.

Perhaps we need a Chief Engineer of the United States. We have an Attorney General and a Surgeon General, why not an Engineer General? He/she could take a dry erase board over to the White House and draw the simple equation of “SOLAR + WIND < FUTURE ENERGY REQUIRED.”

Then he/she would show the realistic CO2 free proposed solution of “SOLAR + WIND + NUCLEAR = FUTURE ENERGY REQUIRED.” There is a staggering realization here that our Government is failing to recognize. My real fear is that if our Government fails to admit to understanding the problem until too late then we will build a bunch of CO2 emitting plants because they are faster and more convenient to build.

OK, now I’m a little miffed. Carrington just pointed out this story to me that I never saw. Although it kind of steals my thunder a bit, Henry Petroski and I are in complete agreement.

Another Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Really?

Posted by admin On June - 17 - 2009

( By DGM )

Harry Reid tries to stop Yucca Mt. and waste 15 Billion in tax dollars

Harry Reid tries to stop Yucca Mt. and waste 15 Billion in tax dollars.

Lately, when I watch the news about congress debating a new Nuclear Waste Policy Act I feel like I should be watching “Really?” with Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers. So, really, taxpayers have spent more than $15 billion over 25 years and we want to start over? Really?

The site has been studied, selected, validated, approved, and is in the process of applying for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Congress wants to start over from the very beginning? Really? There is absolutely nothing useful that was produced in the last 25 years with all of that money and we’re going to throw it all away and start over? Really? Square one, really?

I can’t figure out if this is a ploy by Harry Reid to kill the Yucca Mountain Project or by the anti-nuclear special interests to remove the end of the fuel cycle so we can’t build new plants, despite 70% of Americans being for building new Nuclear Plants. Who is writing this legislation anyway? Really.

Fact Sheet 2010 NEI Quiz