Pro-Nuke? Anti-Nuke? Talk About It With the Experts

Stewart ? you said:

"Um, the term 'professional anti-nucleaer activist" suggest that somebocy can make good money opposing nuclear, and suggests they are doing it for the money. I doubt that either is ever the case."

At least you earned your money by adding value to a product. And while a Director for GBN, you accept no compensation. Kudos. However, the professional anti-nuclear activists actually suck value from the system. As always, I back up what I say with facts.

Most of the environmental/anti-nuke organizations are set up as 501(c)(3) non-profit corporations. As such, they must file annually the IRS Form 990, which is akin to the lovable IRS 1040 Form for individuals. The 990 Forms are public information. The following is directly from the 2006 IRS 990 Forms for these organizations:

NIRS ? Revenue of $1,060,704, paid $272,00 in salaries.

CarbonFund.org ? Revenue of $749,129, Expenses of $415,349, of which $127K went to "carbon offset projects" ? their stated mission. So for every $10 donated, $1.70 went to a project. Hint: cut out the middle men and plant your own trees. Also?they had only $3200 revenue in 2004 and $40K in 2005. This is a real growth company here?and you get a signed certificate to document your carbon offset!

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ? Revenue of $2,156,576, Expenses of $1,263,365. Nice profit for a non-profit. Of those expenses, an unmanned officer received $130,000 compensation.

Foundation for National Progress ? who are they? The owners of MotherJones.org. Revenue of $9,650,897, Expenses of 9,245,089, of which nearly $3 million was in salaries to people who also had $145K in travel expenses?no carbon impact from that travel, I am sure. They had $500K in cash at year end and $1.7 million in "accounts payable." Hmm?not good to be one of their vendors. They have at least 10 people making $100K to $171K per year.

Rocky Mountain Institute ? Amory Lovins, CEO. Receipts of $9,371,101, Expenses of $7,530,761. $3.2 million in salaries. $706K in travel. $108K for telephones. $6.3 million in investments and a $1.2 million line of credit. Amory's compensation was $189,163 and Martha Picketts was $169,392. Five other employees made between $108K to $176K each. As part of $2.5 million in Assets, there are three different "Staff Housing" properties listed. Perhaps another employee benefit.

I would say some are doing quite well.

Ike -

You got me thinking about those solar generating parks...here are some figures I just pulled off the net.

How much land area is required for Solar vs. Nuclear?

Solar Photovotaic (PV)

SkyPower Corp and SunEdison Canada announced the groundbreaking of First Light, North America's largest solar photovoltaic 19 megawatt (MW) solar park, located on 300 acres in Lennox & Addington County, Ontario.

300 acres / 20 MW = 15 acres per MW

Solar ? Thermal
The proposed project includes three solar concentrating thermal power plants, based on distributed power tower and heliostat mirror technology, in which heliostat (mirror) fields focus solar energy on power tower receivers near the center of each heliostat array. The total area required for all three phases and 400 MW would including the administration building/operations and maintenance building and substation is 3,400-acres.

3400 acres / 400 MW = 8.5 acres per MW

Solar ? Thermal
Total Generation ?280 megawatts, 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, near Gila Bend, Arizona. Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technology with thermal energy storage. Solana's parabolic mirrors focus the sun's heat on a heat transfer fluid. The fluid can reach a temperature of 735 degrees Fahrenheit. To produce electricity, the hot fluid transfers its heat energy to water, creating steam. The steam is then used to run conventional steam turbines. The heat energy in the fluid also can be stored and used at a later time to generate electricity. The Solana Generating Station will cover 3 square miles and contain 2,700 parabolic trough collectors. Located on what is currently agricultural land, the power plant will use 75 percent less water than the current use of the property.
3 square miles x 640 acres/ sq mile = 1920 acres. 1920 acres / 280 MW = 6.85 acres / MW
Nuclear
Two nuclear plants were evaluated for power density. One produces 2400 MW on 650 acres, resulting in 0.27 acres / MW. Another nuclear power plant 50 miles west of Phoenix, generates 4000 MW on 1000 acres or 0.25 acres / MW.

Now compare:

Solar ? photovoltaic 15 acres / MW means 15,000 acres 1000 MW

Solar ? thermal 7 acres / MW means 7,000 acres 1000 MW

To equal replace the Arizona nuclear power plant,

Solar ? PV would need 60,000 acres, or 94 square miles, a 9.4 x 10 mile rectangle
Solar ? Thermal would need 28,000 acres, or 44 square miles, a 7 x 6.3 mile rectangle

Manhattan Island = 23 square miles

20,000 MW, as you suggest?

Solar ? PV would need 300,000 acres or 468 square miles

Solar ? Thermal would need 140,000 acres, or 218 square miles

Rhode Island = 1045 square miles

The same nuclear island would be 5000 acres or 7.8 square miles.

Seems that for large scale generation, solar, in its current state, would require significant amounts of land. Now there is an environmental impact!

Great comments and I hope learning is occurring!

For those advocating "community owned" electrical generation... not sure why that is such a big deal to you, but ok... every nuclear power plant in this country is "owned" by Investor Owned Utilities, or IOUs. Join the community of owners today! Buy stock in Duke Power, FPL, Exelon....you get the picture.

Also... as noted, Galena, Alaska is tired of paying 28 cents/kw for diesel driven generators. It's expensive, transporting diesel fuel is intermittent, and it is smelly (a non-nerdy term for those that care). The city council voted unanimously to install a local underground reactor that will provide electricity for 30 years at less than 10 cents/kw. See these links:

http://www.atomicinsights.com/AI_03-20-05.html

http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6913415/

Stewart: I have been accused of being nerdy before, so no harm done. My point in running the numbers was to personally understand and help others visualize how much land would be consumed by equivalent power generation sources.

While the Great West is very large, I am not sure all would agree that covering areas the size (or half size) of Rhode Island is a good idea! The water issues and back-up power issues are staggering. As you know, these thermal solar projects, the ones with the smaller footprint of the two solar technologies, do need water. And the first solar project I referenced noted it is close to a major natural gas pipeline for its reserve gas turbine to provide power when the sun is not available ? so like 12 hours a day.

Imagine the environmental impact statements for such a large solar project. Odds are a project covering that large area an area would fail due to the endangered species act ? someone would find something that qualifies.

Many people posting here seek a simple answer to a complex question. A sound bite, if you will. My life experience tells me there are none. Complex questions require complex answers.

AB?

I bet you are correct ? according to the NRC's website, there are 32 operating "non-power" reactors in the U.S., mostly at colleges and universities.

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/map-nonpower-reactors.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/non-power.html

These are very low power reactors containing very small amounts of fissionable material. If all cooling were lost, the water temperature would barely increase at all. Because of their low power and open system, i.e., they are called "swimming pool reactors" because they literally sit at the bottom of what looks like a small, but rather deep, swimming pool, there is no potential for boiling and steam production.

As a result of these design factors, a solid containment structure able to withstand 50 pounds of pressure is not necessary. As far as diving a plane into one? good luck. They are so small and difficult to locate. As an experienced pilot and knowing the vagaries of landing on a particular spot, I doubt I could ever hit such a small target.

Of course, every commercial nuclear power plant in this country has a very robust containment structure.

This is another example of an activist (that is Harvey's title for the Forum) playing loosely with the truth.

I want to respond first to the commenter, Tom Wood, who claimed disbelief over non-experts having opinions. I've spent time in France, and I learned there that any reasonably bright 12-year-old can tell you quite a bit about nuclear power. Not everyone's for it (contrary to what you hear), but they do know how it works. I don't think we can live in a democracy where we rely on "experts" to make decisions about our future. We've already seen how well that's worked out. We need to start thinking for ourselves.

Second, I want to respond to Harvey Wasserman about that "radioactive fuel chain": Several agencies have conducted studies comparing cradle-to-grave carbon-dioxide emissions of different energy sources, including coal, gas, solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear. They include the European Commission's "ExternE" research (http://externe.jrc.es/ger.pdf), a University of Wisconsin Ph.D. thesis, a study by Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institute and a joint analysis by a team of Canadian and Japanese researchers. There's also Fthenakis and Kim's study comparing just nuclear and solar.

On greenhouse gas emissions alone, nuclear energy does very well in these studies. While coal-fired electricity generation emits around 900 kg of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity generated, nuclear leaves us with only 16 to 55 kg CO2 per MWh (that's including mining, milling, enrichment, plant construction, waste disposal -- the whole deal). At its best ? that is, when the enrichment process is done in centrifuges, the way the Europeans do it, it's comparable to wind. At its worst ? enriched in energy-sucking (and, until recently, CFC-leaking) gaseous diffusion plants, it's equivalent to solar.

That's not to say nuclear doesn't have serious drawbacks. But we also have to be honest about its advantages. And whether the pros outweight the cons really does depend on how urgently worried we are about catastrophic climate change.

The only answer to all of our problems is radical energy conservation; failing that, there just isn't any energy nirvana. You say solar is the answer, but I was just out in the Mojave Desert, where California utilities intend to install solar plants tens of thousands of acres wide, and build transmission towers two-thirds of a mile across to transport that electricity to cities. I was in favor of the projects until I went out there and walked among the bighorn sheep tracks and desert tortoises ? endangered species whose habitat would be severely diminished by them.

Nuclear's footprint per megawatt is tiny compared to solar's, and that only seems trivial until you walk the land solar will cover. (That said, solar panels should absolutely cover every available rooftop where the sun shines).

For Steward Brand...about Biomimicry and mimicking how biological systems use energy.

As Wendell Berry makes the distinction between biological and mechanical energy, why can't we accept that the Earth is subject to limits and boundaries, as Biomimicry instructs, to define an alternate path, rather than the hollow debate about footprints too complicated for our understanding and practitioners to measure? More solar energy strikes the earth in less than one hour than what humans consume in a year.

That's our limit, of the biophysical world, to which we must adhere. Instead of recognizing that in Nature, limits create room for innovation, using diversity as a tool...we fall into arbitrary arguments about relative costs of different alternatives. Coal is not cheap!!, as I bet you'd agree. So to say, "coal is cheap," is to ignore the externalities and true cost of our energy decisions.

Below is a different position, based on Biomimicry and Wendell Berry...to a client to hopefully convince them to adopt a community geothermal system.

My question to you is in a world of finite time, for cultures, individuals and natural populations...why bother even arguing the false strawmen of today's economic doctrine? And I'd appreciate any thoughts you had about the argument below, as it is directly against nuclear (if only because nuclear energy does not use benign manufacturing!).

.............

We now understand that the quality of energy and structure of energy in a community matters, much more than any quantum of efficiency. In developing a community energy plan for [the Project] "social-ecological system", the first step is "Quiet Our Cleverness" and look humbly to Nature as Mentor.

Biological communities tend to degrade energy in a high number of small steps rather than a small number of large steps, as human systems do. Each step in a biological systems tend to be highly structured and essential to the system; what community members take in they change, but change it always into a form useful or essential to a living body of another kind. In this way, resilience is found in healthy biological patterns,
"an order, a pattern of forms, kinds and processes that include any number of offsets and variables."

Energy made available by living systems is not available in infinite quantities but rather in discernable patterns that join social-ecological components in a kind of energy community. Consequently, while we cannot create or destroy biological forms of energy (any more than atomic or fossil fuel energy), we can, in a practical sense, preserve and even augment it in use.

Nature uses energy to solve less than 5% of its survival strategies, while human technology manipulates energy for 70% of our solutions to technical challenges. In biophysical ways, we have substituted energy for information (in the design and form of physical structures such as homes) and technology for skill (in doing the actual building).

Each of us are consumers of energy in some form. To achieve biological sustainability, the Near West Side, as a consumer, must become equal in some ways to its energy needs?its buildings must become not only producers of energy, but members of an energy community that shares energy over a higher number of small steps, in ways that prove essential to local residents (and local inhabitants of our 1.8 to 30 million co-resident species).

This level of community resonance requires requires a third step beyond production and consumption in design, "Return," which involves responsibility and care of a higher resonance, even in net-energy-positive buildings that produce more energy than they consume. Simply, consumption and production must balance at the level of community, more than the sum of its parts, just as with material producers and decomposers (recyclers).

Using the template of a biological energy community, it becomes possible to develop develop a physical structuring of energy flows at a social-ecological community level.

Different facilities require heat, air conditioning and/or hot water at different times. The typical solution, roughly described, is to isolate buildings, add energy to hold some internal equilibrium, decreasing internal entropy. But since buildings exist as "open systems" relative to the surrounding socio-ecological environment, this form of design, following the Second Law of Thermodynamics, increases the entropy of this environment outside of its walls. Modeling and other machine-based technologies only act to reinforce the manipulation of energy as a "survival strategy" for anthropocentric designs, by concentrating on stability near a defined equilibrium of "efficiency, control, constancy, and predictability." This sort of system exports degraded heat, disorder and pollution, in a simple two step process: fuel in, waste out. It is a "specialists" system that works in isolation, and creates more disturbances than solutions in biological patterns.

But in accepting this limit, opportunity emerges. By assessing key operating parameters and resources in each building at a community level, it is possible to mimic the structure of biological systems, over a pattern of highly-structured, higher-frequency steps that degrade in forms and processes useful or essential to other "residents." For example, living machines resembling solar greenhouses utilizing heat rejected by ________ to grow biologically diverse heritage crops while purifying community blackwater, managing stormwater, employing local residents as gardeners. Laundries that capture the waste heat from adjacent air-conditioned buildings to heat the water to do the laundry.

This possibility of biological resonance in the energy systems of human communities means that the design of energy must function at the level of community, more so than in the isolated design processes of each building, home or school in the neighborhood. Because neighborhoods embody a diversity of uses and needs, it is necessary to consider diversity also as a template of design, mimicking how Nature uses diversity as one tool of a set to generate ecological resilience in natural communities.

Two qualitative forms of diversity are particularly essential for communities.

The first form is functional diversity. This refers to the set of groups or species that perform different functions in natural systems, at different scales of time and space, e.g., predators of leaf-defoliators, structure-building corals in reefs, decomposers, autotrophs. In human systems, it is possible to adapt this concept to develop a taxonomy or list of functions required and/or present in a socio-ecological community, such as "food production," "food composting and recycling," and "shelter," as examples. It is possible to evaluate groups, nonprofits, government, citizens by the function(s) each performs in a community.

Closely related is the concept of response diversity. Inside of each functional category, there usually exists a range of species, groups, or individuals that provide essentially the same function (i.e., they are inside of the same category of functional diversity) but that perform this function in slightly different ways. This generates a redundancy that is a "most intricate and close grained diversity of uses that give each other constant mutual support...that supplement each other in certain concrete ways," as one writer describes the role of redundancy in communities. In this way, social-ecological resilience derives from overlapping functions within spatial and temporal scales (i.e., houses, to a street of homes, to a block, to the neighborhood, City, region, etc.) and the reinforcement of function across scales (i.e., designing for cross-scale redundancy such as community geothermal loops).

It becomes possible to design a form of biological energy community on the basis of these (and other principles not outlined herein).

Consequently, to become a "living socio-ecological community," [the Project] must conform to natural limits and biological patterns and limits rather than mostly mechanical energy (e.g., higher-efficiency HVAC or building envelopes) or economic models. To adapt these Life's Principles into the work of stewardship in community design involves the "practical intricacies of collaboration" with the local human and other inhabitants of the 1.8 to 30 million co-resident species.

Messrs. Siegel and Wasserman

Still looking for answers to my above questions, which were based on your earlier responses to me. As a reminder:

Mr. Siegel, you use the possibility for weapons proliferation among rogue states such as Iran and North Korea as an arguement against commercial nucleaer power here. Better to spend your energies trying to convince the Russians, French, and ChiComs to stop exporting their technologies to them? why penalize us?

Mr. Wasserman, you speak about the nuclear cycle and its contribution to GHGs. Where is the research denoting the GHG contribution for the entire cycle for all generation sources on a "per kilowatt" basis so we can better evaluate each source?

Where is the list of 30 U.S. nuclear plants that have containments weaker than Chernobyl's?

Explain how terrorists could get their hands on irradiated commercial nuclear fuel to make "dirty bombs" ? that fuel being stored inside a hardened, secure facility under 25 feet of water with each fuel assembly weighing 1450 pounds?

Spouting generalities does not a forceful argument make. Read the banner at the top of this page - Smart, Fearless Journalism. Come on, Gents. Step up to the plate with relevant facts.

Mr. Wallace is right. Just because there are attendant proliferation risks with developing nuclear energy in some countries doesn't mean that the same risks exist everywhere. Each type of reactor has its own waste, proliferation, and safety challenges?and its own advantages; each country chooses to manage its nuclear fuel cycle in its own way; and the countries that require additional energy capacity vary tremendously?in regulation, availability of natural resources, instability, and level of demand.

The difficult part comes with the precedents that the United States and other countries set by taking a specific nuclear energy course. Why should the United States be allowed to enrich uranium and reprocess spent fuel, while it is asking other countries, for example Iran, to suspend its uranium enrichment activities? Despite Iran's many transgressions?concealing its nuclear activities, etc.?it is still theoretically allowed to operate uranium enrichment facilities under international law.

The United States, Russia, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and many others are working to develop a system where countries that operate nuclear reactors would be guaranteed a supply of nuclear fuel. This would obviate the need for every country to have an indigenous capability to make nuclear fuel and would reduce the proliferation risk. To answer Mr. Price's question, yes, I think that it is quite possible that such a system could come into being. But there are a lot of interested parties?countries that want to serve as suppliers and others who worry about their supply being cut off for whatever reason--so putting together this type of arrangement might take a little while.

Mr. Siegel,

Thank you and the following is a response to your comment: "The difficult part comes with the precedents that the United States and other countries set by taking a specific nuclear energy course. Why should the United States be allowed to enrich uranium and reprocess spent fuel, while it is asking other countries, for example Iran, to suspend its uranium enrichment activities?"

I am not sure how old you are, but many of the readers here were most likely children or not yet born in the 1970s, and your above comment made me think, "De ja vou all over again."

Prior to the second Arab oil embargo in 1979, electrical growth rates were 6 to 7% a year. That means the base load requirements would double every 10 to 12 years. State utility commissions, by law, required the public electric utilities to ensure they met system loads with the least expensive and most reliable options. In the 1970s that was a no-brainer. Nuclear. Every utility wanted a nuclear power plant or plants and they needed to begin construction right now, anticipating a doubling about the time the plant completed construction ? six to seven years. Then four things occurred.

1. Jimmy Carter, based upon his concern that rogue nations might employ used commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing for nefarious purposes, decided that the U.S. should be a good example to the world and back away from its long held national strategy to reprocess nuclear fuel. Ergo, the de ja vou.
(see the following?very well written, in the late 1990s). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.h...)

2. Arab oil embargo, which caused gasoline prices to soar from 50 cents to one dollar a gallon! (ahhh, the good old days). Home heating oil also doubled, hence the famous Jimmy Carter thing about "turn your thermostat down and put on a sweater" statement.

3. Inflation rates were running 12 to 15% a year and the cost of borrowing money did the same.

4. Economic slowdown and conservation reduced electric growth rates to 1% a year, meaning a doubling every 72 years and a reduced need for new baseload.

These four dynamics were the cause of nuclear power's stagnation. With an inflation rate of 12%, construction costs doubled every six years. Borrowed money costs did the same. Regulatory processes allowed activists to use delaying tactics, lengthening construction times and costs. State utility commissions waffled on their support for new baseload generation.

As a result, Utility owners had little ability to forecast construction costs, certainty of completion, certainty of need given the lowered growth rates, and certainty of state utility commissions to allow them to re-capture their costs.

Utilities by nature do not like taking financial risks.

The final issue was the issue of what to do with the spent fuel. Carter's change of mind in 1977 meant that all the reactors would temporarily store their fuel onsite. That was fine for the near term?they were built for that anyway. In 1982, under the Reagan administration, a law was passed that recognized this was an issue of national interest and that by 1992, there would be a long-term storage location ready to take commercial nuclear fuel. As part of that agreement, nuclear utilities would add an incremental charge to their "nuclear electricity" to pay for this solution.

Now, here we are, 26 years later, billions of dollars collected from rate payers (that would be you and I) and we are still waiting on Congress to do what they said we should do.

Ok, kids? history lesson over. Hope this was not too nerdy for some 

Kirk/Rod/Jim, et al

I have appreciated your calm presentation of reliable data in the face of some who spout worn-out anti-nuclear speaking points that are nothing more than "red herrings." Statements tying U.S. commercial nuclear power and technology to Chernobyl and foreign nuclear weapons proliferation are false, incendiary, and irresponsible.

While originally well-intentioned, those that actively and successfully removed the nuclear power option off the table for so long have indeed contributed to deleterious health effects in this and other Western countries.

Plaudits to those that can see a middle ground and adjust their thinking, such as Stewart and Patrick Moore, Greenpeace Co-founder. See this 4/24/08 Idaho Statesman article: http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/360625.html

Those of us that "run the numbers" are not against alternate forms of electrical generation. I would love to own land with a year-round stream and buy a micro-generator or even live in the SW deserts and install solar panels that have a 20 year payback, but that is not my case ? nor the case for most Americans.

My professional opinion, which is based upon 30 years in the generation business and research as an adjunct college instructor in such matters, is I do not see the so-called alternative sources capable of replacing the current fossil-fueled base load supplies, let alone the expected future base load demands.

Harvey, although I have been following this discussion from a nominally pro-nuclear perspective, I try to approach issues with an open mind. But for me, keeping an open mind means maintaining a healthy disinterestedness, and in this, I have run out of tolerance for your emotionally-laden sloganeering.

The others are attempting to have a sober discussion on the relative merits and faults of all the technologies we have as options for our energy survival, nuclear among them, a discussion in which you have decided to persist in a corporations are bad screed which has already on this page been convincingly demonstrated as nonsense. None of us has yet seen a pv cell not made by a large corporation, so like it or not, your beloved communities, whatever that term even means, will in some way continue to be dependent on the amoral deacons of the holy profit.

This type of language may target well with your celebrity endorsers, and with the public at large, but it is an embarrassment here. It's not just your flimsy double standard , really its more the fact that after seven years of life with President Bush, I am fully exhausted of people crusading against cartoonish evildoers.

For your tilting at windmills hating on the corporation as archetype is clearly underpinned by a maudlin earth worship which for all its new agey pep bears the old age mistake of putting all the world's objects into separate bins for good and evil. Who are you to define what gets to be harmonious and what must be war? Sun and wind as love from the earth? The sun causes cancer. Wind becomes hurricanes that destroy cities.

Nothing about these specific energy vessels in any way bears some sort of Ranger Rick seal of planetary approval. Thorium and Uranium are also products of the earth, and yes, they have destroyed cities too, but to let that define them permanently would in your worldview seem to suggest that the earth either combats them as some sort of odious disease, or sees them as a black magick that humans must cease all experiment with, or else?

Medieval superstitions notwithstanding, this model of the universe adds nothing to the discussion at hand, except to discredit you in my mind at least as an authority on much of anything really. Which is unfortunate, because I would like to hear from someone on the other side who can actually parry the expert cut and thrust of the pro nuclear voices in this discussion. I think Kirk for example, though I have enjoyed reading his blog for a few months now, is far more pollyanish on the proliferation question than I am comfortable with.

We all struggle with the horrors that nuclear power has unleashed, but I think those of us who are willing to consider it for peaceful uses recognize a couple things that you do not. The first is that you cannot close Pandora's box, and we cannot unlearn what we have learned. The second is that neither good nor evil are innate qualities of any thing, and whether those judgments exist at all, and when and where they belong if they do, has everything to do with how we as moral agents interact with the world. The fact that nuclear power has been used for ugly purposes does not in any way make it evil, nor unnatural, not any more than the actions of 9/11/01 did for aviation.

Now to your credit, you have not demonstrated such an intensely religious hatred of power as characterizes say a Bill McKibben, but be sure that I emphatically reject the notion that we should fear learning to do powerful things because of the horrors we are fated to unleash.

Such is the crux of it. The fact of global warming demands that we not only recognize the power we already have leveraged over the planet, but that we learn, rapidly, how to best wield that power so as not to destroy ourselves. The problem of atmospheric CO2 levels escalating due to our burning fossil fuels for energy is ipso facto proof that there is at least one thing green about nuclear power, which emits no CO2, and this guarantees it a spot in the debate. So there's one teeny problem with it, which is that the technology is the same one we can, and almost did, use to blow up the world. I don't see that as a dead end so much as another lesson in the many paradoxes of our world, and one which resolves to a rather cute thing to say: grow up or blow up.

Stewart, as for your wondering about how many people are following this conversation, I think we both know the answer is not nearly enough. I'm just a chronic underachiever with an ecology degree, and so I have no idea what my support of anything is worth, but reading all of your comments has absolutely hardened my sense that nuclear power is an utterly valid consideration. Unfortunately, this dialog has a certain speakeasy tone to it which I think alludes to the underground status of well informed individuals such as yourselves who believe nuclear power is a green option. These arguments need to be out in the daylight. So everyone can make up their minds on the issue without some puppeteer tugging at their heartstrings. So wherever we go with energy we can hopefully do so with a little more clarity than was there before.

Congratulations! You made it all the way to the end of my post.

Mr. Wasserman:

Your comment below caught my eye:

"Nuclear power is also the ultimate engine of corporate domination. These are machines that cannot be realistically controlled by small communities, and that conversely facilitate control of our energy economy by very large corporations. Ultimately, in a radioactive economy, democracy itself is at risk."

Having held a Senior Reactor Operator's license for more than 15 years, I think I am qualified to weigh in on your comment. The utilities that own and operate nuclear plants do NOT make decisions affecting reactor safety such as when the reactors operate or shut down. Those decisions are made by individuals like myself who are licensed by the federal government (not by the utility) to make those decisions. Sure, we're employed by the utility, but we take the responsibilities seriously. We're licensed professionals like physicians and airline pilots (but we get far more training than either). We're highly educated, trained, and motivated. I could provide you with many, many examples over the years where I or other operators like me have made conservative decisions to lower reactor power level, shut down a reactor, or to delay a reactor startup until we were satisfied it could be done in a safe, reliable way. Those conservative decisions cost our companies many millions of dollars, but that matters not. We do the right thing, regardless of the financial impact because that is what we are expected to do. We are your neighbors, your kid's little league coaches, and your community volunteers, NOT faceless and careless corporations making decisions for profit at the expense of safety.

Another thought? if you'd like to share in the ownership of your local power plant then go buy some stock in a nuclear utility. If you'd like some suggestions shoot me an email.

Ahhh? I too, will sleep well?uhm tomorrow. I am working a 12-hour nightshift as we complete a refueling outage and prepare for another 18 month run producing 1100 Megawatts 24/7 of clean, no GHG emitting nuclear electricity at about 2.7 cents/kw-hour. And that's just one unit. The other unit is doing the same.

I fully understand some of us have different and non-converging views on energy policy and most likely, our general world-views. I just have never been a conspiracy junkie. Organizations are not that well organized and people cannot keep secrets.

I have appreciated the dialogue and the "experts" responding to us, though I am still looking for those 30 power reactors without containments Harvey talked about.

I also have no issue with anti-nuclear, pro-nuclear, "greenies" or any other types making money off their stated positions. That is the American spirit of Entrepreneurism! In fact, let me plug Harvey's website, www.harveywasserman.com, where one can purchase books etc. he has authored.

My "beef" is with those that hold strong positions, raise peoples' emotions, make pleas for contributions and then not own up to the fact they are making a buck off of what they are selling. I have the same complaint about certain TV/Radio preachers. But that is a whole other topic.

With that (if I may plagiarize a bit), good night!

Best to all of you, Pro Nukes, and let the dialog continue!!!

Thanks for the clarification, Jim.

So, how does U.S. nuclear energy development impact global nuclear proliferation? This is not a simple question. I don't think that thieves will try to steal spent fuel from U.S. reactors, for the many reasons outlined above. The security record of existing plants, however, is not stellar, and some observers believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) needs to not only raise their security standards for these plants but also better enforce existing ones. The NRC should make sure that these plants have the appropriate security measures in place before building additional plants.

Since the inception of nuclear technologies, scientists and government officials have understood the need for global cooperation to ensure the safety and security of nuclear facilities, materials, and know-how?not to mention the public they are intended to serve. The effects of nuclear proliferation or a nuclear accident in one country will undoubtedly impact other countries?politically, economically, and socially. That is why governments have put so much effort into building international rules to govern commerce in nuclear technologies and materials. Every country has their own individual regulatory processes, but each also subscribes to universal rules.

Those rules are presently being challenged on a number of fronts. The expansion of nuclear energy in the United States could further affect these global norms, particularly if the United States decides to get involved in an international nuclear fuel bank and continues to produce fissile materials. In sum, the United States should look to strengthen the international system that governs nuclear commerce and that seeks to thwart global nuclear proliferation as part of any push to expand its nuclear energy production.

For Mr. Jonas Siegel

In regards to commmercial nuclear power, a history spanning over 50 years, whith 433 units operating world-wide, you state:

"...nuclear energy has not overcome a range of risks?safety, nuclear proliferation, and waste..."

Safety - what would be an acceptable level of safety for you?

Nuclear Proliferation - how does commercial nuclear power in the United States contribute or relate to nuclear proliferation and weopons?

Waste - is the "waste" issue a technical issue or a political issue?

Thank you and Regards

In response to Mr. Wallace's question regarding the connection between nuclear proliferation and nuclear power:

One of the most vexing aspects of the current system that governs the use of nuclear technologies and materials is that it allows for countries to build much of the infrastructure necessary to make nuclear weapons in the name nuclear energy development. The same uranium enrichment facilities that enrich fuel for power production can also enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. The plants that reprocess spent fuel after it is taken out of a reactor can be used to make additional fuel--or plutonium for nuclear weapons.

If more countries decide to build nuclear reactors and the infrastructure to manage all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle within their national borders, then there is the risk that those countries will someday decide to use that infrastructure to make nuclear weapons. Even if a country decides not to build uranium enrichment plants or reprocessing facilities within their borders, they will have to deal with transporting fissile materials to and from their nuclear facilities, storing them, and securing them?not trivial tasks.

The United States continues to deal with the dangerous legacy of earlier nuclear energy development. Through the Reduced Enrichment for Research and Test Reactors program, Energy Department officials help to reduce the risk of proliferation by removing highly enriched uranium fuel (which can be used to make a nuclear weapon) from reactors throughout the world and replace it with low-enriched uranium fuel, which does not pose as serious a proliferation risk.

Now, the United States already has nuclear weapons. As a legacy of its once gigantic?and still large?nuclear arsenal the United States has an inventory of more than 10,000 kilograms of highly enriched uranium and around 100 metric tons of separated plutonium within its borders, according to the International Panel on Fissile Material. Much of this material came from nuclear weapons and could theoretically be used in nuclear weapons again. This material could also be used to make more nuclear energy fuel. If the United States begins to reprocess spent fuel from nuclear reactors (as has been advocated under the Globel Nuclear Energy Partnership) its stocks of separated plutonium will likely grow. Not to mention it still has a large-scale enrichment infrastructure?why, I have no idea.

For Mr. Jonas Siegel

In regards to commmercial nuclear power, a history spanning over 50 years, whith 433 units operating world-wide, you state:

"...nuclear energy has not overcome a range of risks—safety, nuclear proliferation, and waste..."

Safety - what would be an acceptable level of safety for you?

Nuclear Proliferation - how does commercial nuclear power in the United States contribute or relate to nuclear proliferation and weopons?

Waste - is the "waste" issue a technical issue or a political issue?

Thank you and Regards

For Mr. Harvey Wasserman

Q1: If solar and wind power are already cheaper than nuclear power, why do they - together - produce less than 1/20th as much electricity each year in the US?

Q2: If solar and wind power could replace nuclear power, why is Germany planning to build at least 20 new coal fired power plants as they move towards the phase out of nuclear power planned by Gehart Schroeder, Germany's former chancellor and current director of Russia's Gazprom project to build a gas pipeline from Russia to Germany?

Q3: Why do you believe that nuclear plants as terrorist targets are any worse than any other? Have you ever seen a containment dome up close or been through security at an operating plant?

I may be viewed as an equal opportunity offender but still I have to ask how can reasonable people still see nuclear power as an option?
It makes about as much sense as burning coal and apparently we use coal burning power to process the enriched uranium required for a nuclear plant.
Nuclear power is not economically sustainable.
It costs billions to build, update and expand.
It costs billions in subsidies to sustain it and the ONLY ones that profit are corporations and the lobbyists that feed off this free lunch at the taxpayers expense.
It costs billions to store the waste.
And it costs billions to decommission this failed science project.

So nuclear is costly, pollutes the planet with radiation and then you are stuck with a hazardous waste by-product. Coal is dirty and also pollutes the atmosphere.
So why are they still considered viable energy alternatives?

If big oil had one shred of decency, with their billion dollar profits they could could have turned the tide twenty years ago and invested in the development of sustainable energy like solar and wind and been ahead of the game and become environmental stewards instead of pariahs.

The fact that nuclear has an even darker side with the it's use in weapons I think makes this a no brainer. Just say NO to Nukes.
Questions can be answered by anyone with an opinion.
Thanks

Judith Lewis, you say, "Nuclear energy is far from environmentally benign". Do you believe getting the same power from some other source would be closer to benign? It seems to me that workers (http://www.komotv.com/news/local/9383316.html) are part of the environment too.

'elemental jim': if you're so cynical about "big oil", why does it not occur to you that you have been tricked into saying the things you say about nuclear power by slick big-oil-funded liars?

(It stands to reason big oil would still be angry about losing the electricity generation market. If the oil-fired generators they had on the string in 1970 were still going, they'd be burning oil at $12 million per tonne-of-uranium-equivalent. The real thing costs $0.17 million per tonne.)

To answer Mr. Wallace

Q1:

You state "The radioactive fuel chain is a major cause of global warming." Please explain the means by which the nuclear fuel cycle contributes to global warming and the factual basis for such a conclusion.

IN RESPONSE: The mining of uranium release significant amounts of greenhouse gases, as does the milling process. The milling has also left us with billions of tons of "tailings" sitting at mill sites that emit substantial quantities of radon gas, among other things.
Milled ore must then be shipped to Paducah, Kentucky, for enrichment in a process that requires very substantial electricity coming from coal-fired power plants.
Initial construction of the reactors themselves also require very substantial energy inputs, much from fossil fuels.
The fission process does circumvent the GHG "middle man" in global warming by dumping very substantial quantities of heat directly into the air (in the form of steam, much of it chemically treated) and rivers/lakes/oceans (in the form of hot water).
The management of spent fuel remains an uncertain process, but also requires substantial fossil-fueled energy inputs.
And the decommissioning of reactors is a fuel hog of undetermined appetite.
These last two factors remain major uncertainties in terms of financial and ecological cost.
And there may be more. Consider, for example, the fossil-fired energy requirements of dealing with a melt-down or explosion, as at Chernobyl and, possibly, during a future terror attack.

Q2:

You state that commercial nuclear power is a source of "weapons proliferation." Please expain how or where this is occuring in the United States?

EVERY ATOMIC REACTOR creates radioactive by-products usable in a "dirty bomb" that need not be a fission device, but that could be merely used to distribute lethal quantities of radioactive materials over large areas through pedestrian explosive means.
There are also fissionable materials in radioactive waste that could be used for fission bombs, particularly if there's an attempt to reprocess, as is being done in France, with enormous financial, ecological and security costs.
Furthermore, all reactors are themselves potential "bombs" in that they're subject to attack from a wide variety of means, any one of which could lead to an apocalyptic radiation release. Though containment domes are of varying strength (some 30 US containment systems are weaker than the one at Chernobyl 4) a dome need not be penetrated to cause an unfathomable disaster. Control rooms, cooling systems, spent fuel pools, off-site power and other weak links in the reactor operations chain are potential targets.
This is not a scenario we want to describe in great detail, but it's one that must be avoided at all costs, which is why there is absolutely no future for atomic power. No terrorist will ever threaten to destroy an entire region by bombing a solar panel.

To answer Rod Adams:

Q1: If solar and wind power are already cheaper than nuclear power, why do they - together - produce less than 1/20th as much electricity each year in the US?

AS MENTIONED ABOVE, in 1952 the Paley Commission advocated a massive shift to renewable energy, and predicted 15m solar-heated homes in the US by 1975. But Eisenhower embarked on a "Peaceful Atom" program that shifted government funding to nukes. It was done in no small part to paint a "happy face" on the nuke weapons industry. The utility industry was strong-armed into building reactors, and demanded a legal, financial and liability blank check. A trillion dollars later, there is still no level playing field in energy, and nukes still can't compete. Today wind is the cheapest new form of electric generation to build, and PV is not far behind, even in straight market terms, without accounting for the "ancillary costs" of fossil/nukes. And even with all the government subsidies, nukes cannot get private financing, or private disaster insurance. In a truly open market, all of them would shut, and no new ones would be seriously considered, even despite all the high-priced corporate hype.

Q2: If solar and wind power could replace nuclear power, why is Germany planning to build at least 20 new coal fired power plants as they move towards the phase out of nuclear power planned by Gehart Schroeder, Germany's former chancellor and current director of Russia's Gazprom project to build a gas pipeline from Russia to Germany?
GERMANY IS MOVING rapidly toward renewables and efficiency, but not rapidly enough. The phase-out of their reactors tells us they know something the French, who are right next door, and whose industry is a disaster, won't face.

Q3: Why do you believe that nuclear plants as terrorist targets are any worse than any other? Have you ever seen a containment dome up close or been through security at an operating plant?
I'VE BEEN THROUGH THE RANCHO SECO nuke (it's dead!) and have seen far too many containment domes to have any faith in any of them. What does on-the-ground security, which has been penetrated frequently anyway, have to do with an attack from the air? No other kind of industrial facility can inflict the kind of damage that can come from a nuke.

The problem is not that nuclear is expensive. The problem is that coal is cheap.

That brings in government, in the US and everywhere else. Only severe regulations can make coal "clean," and the hoped-for Carbon Capture and Sequestration technologies will make it expensive. Add various forms of carbon tax, cap & trade, and mandates which are crucial to decrease carbon emissions, and nuclear competes well.

On the subsidies issue, nuclear gets substantially less than renewables.
Quote:
The perception that renewable energy has been short-changed at the expense of other
energy sources is not correct: Federal subsidies for renewable energy (including
hydroelectric power) totalled $111 billion, compared to $87 billion for natural gas
and less for each coal and nuclear.
Unquote.

That's from "A half-century of US federal government energy incentives: value, distribution, and a policy implications," by Roger Bezdek and Robert Wendling, in the International Journal of Global Energy Issues, No. 1, 2007.

Let's see if this link works:
inderscience.metapress.com/index/7U3K1GL3NXXD0KFL.pdf

Judith, I'm impressed that you walked around where the large solar footprint might tread.

A paper that really wades into that one is by Jesse Ausubel (brother of Bioneers leader Kenny Ausubel). He is head of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University and one of the earliest leaders on climate change. In his paper, "Renewable and Nuclear Heresies," he examines detailed comparative footprints of nuclear versus wind and solar and concludes that "Nuclear is green. Renewables are not green."

The paper is in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology, No. 3, 2007.
Link:
phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/HeresiesFinal.pdf

For all:

I am by no means a nuclear expert; in fact, I know very little about it. But I guess that's why I'm asking all of you.

From what I have read, it seems that the earth's available supplies or uranium are starting to run low, or will start to run low in the near future. Is this a concern for the nuclear industry? Can the nuclear industry continue to grow if their fuel source is being depleted at a quickening rate?

Thank you,
Ross L.