Power Q&A: S. David Freeman
The former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority and author of Winning Our Energy Independence explains why corn-based ethanol is "almost a fraud" and what should happen to Los Angeles warehouses.
S. David Freeman: I'm cautiously optimistic that we are going to get an administration in Washington that will recognize that this is a life-or-death issue for this civilization. And it's an opportunity for America to exercise some leadership in something besides blowing people up. Oil is our foreign policy. We've got to change that. And then there are these religious zealots who favor nuclear power, which already failed. How can we morally build more plants and create waste that we don't know what to do with? Halfway measures don't measure up to the size of the problem. Let's outlaw new coal-fired plants and new nuclear plants and let's order Detroit to make plug-in hybrids and treat this as a life-or-death issue, which is what it is.
MJ: What would you want to see the next president do in his or her first 100 days to get some of these ideas moving?
SDF: I think they should send a bill up to the Congress to invest somewhere between $50 and $100 billion in renewable energy technology. The technology is there; it needs to be deployed. Part of that money should build several large solar-thermal plants to show the world that solar power is an alternative to coal. And let's pass some laws that say to Detroit, "You have to make an increasing number of plug-in hybrids every year until 10 years from now all the vehicles are plug-in hybrids." And then we're using our solar electricity to run our cars. The day we start seriously going down this road, the world changes. Saudi Arabia starts getting worried about selling its oil rather than us being worried about getting it. And we don't debate about ANWR, because nobody in his right mind is going to destroy what's left up there if we really don't need the oil. The whole debate changes once we start going down the renewable road in earnest. Now it still will take 25, 30 years to phase out the existing coal-fired plants and have an all-renewable world. But I'm not a member of the Sierra Club. I'm a utility executive that ran major utilities, and I can tell you there is no reason why the electric-power industry can't be all renewable.
MJ: You obviously think that government should play a huge role here. What role you do think the market should play in all of this?
SDF: Well, the market has brought us where we are. Look, before Christmas everybody went gaga over some lead in the paint for kids' toys. Well, they should have gone gaga. But we are being poisoned on a daily basis by the burning of fossil fuels at lung level in the city streets, and we just seem to be paralyzed. The marketplace is not going to get it done because the price of energy doesn't include its major cost, which the consumer pays—the health bill from the asthma and lung disease and the tax bill from protecting our oil interests overseas. Think about it this way: If we added the cost of our involvement in the Middle East, then solar power is the cheapest thing. The problem is that the marketplace doesn't internalize the externalities. In other words, the things that really count in this world are not counted.
MJ: As someone who has worked in the utility industry, have you spent a lot of time thinking about the proposals to build a so-called smart grid?
SDF: Oh, yes. Transmission is an orphan in the utility business. The utilities are concerned about power plants and their distribution system. We have a pretty good grid in the country, but we're not putting the resources into developing a truly smart grid for the country. There is a lot about this subject that requires something equivalent to a Manhattan Program.
MJ: Do you see solar as the most promising renewable energy source?
SDF: Yeah, because it's by far the largest. There is more solar energy that comes to earth free of charge than we could ever need. You can't look at a city like Los Angeles and all the warehouses and flat roofs without realizing that there is a huge solar potential there. The huge solar complexes in the desert can provide us with all the energy we need in the future. Solar can be converted to hydrogen, and then the hydrogen is piped all over the country. That comes second, though. First the plug-in hybrids will knock the hell out of our gasoline consumption if we just start making them and using them. And that's something Detroit knows how to make.
MJ: Which renewable energy source do you see as being the most overhyped?
SDF: Ethanol. Corn-based ethanol is almost a fraud. It's highly subsidized; they actually use coal to make the stuff. It's embarrassing, and the net energy is very little, and the worst thing about it is it's jacking up the price of food. What kind of people are we to take food off the table and put it in the gas tank?
MJ: Do you have any favorite energy-saving tips?
SDF: The bottom of the pile in this whole energy equation is this one simple question: How much is enough for middle- and upper-income Americans? We've all been sinners here, but the truth of the matter is just because you have a Prius and you drive it all the time instead of taking a short walk to the grocery store, you're using a hell of a lot more gasoline than somebody with a Hummer that just drives it on Sunday. And also, people forget the amount of energy it takes to make a new car. I take some pride in having a 2001 Honda Civic, and I'm not buying a new car. I went through the last year without buying any new clothing. We are setting an example for six billion people on earth. Think for just a second—if six billion people have the lifestyle of Americans, do you think the planet and life on this planet for human beings is going to last? It just boggles your mind, the destruction of the ecosystem that will take place if that much stuff is dug up, manufactured, and thrown away.
MJ: Have you been following the Democratic presidential candidates' energy policies?
SDF: I think all of their energy policies require a bit more thought. I think they are all on the right track, but some of the phrases that I find to be essentially misleading are phrases like "clean coal" or "safe nuclear power." There is no such thing. I have great hope that Senator Obama, who seems to have the ability to galvanize public opinion behind big ideas, will make this energy issue a central part. Although I know that Bill and Hillary Clinton know this issue quite well, they're just not [approaching] it with quite the sense of urgency and breadth that I would. But then, I'm not running.
Page 1 of 1 
I would ask the interviewee the basis upon which he concludes “…and then there are these religious zealots who favor nuclear power, which already failed.” Have there been events, mismanaged projects, and disappointments? Yes. That is often the case with new technologies, such as automobiles and airplanes. Consider the history of these two accepted technologies. Are they failures as well?
First, isn’t that painting with a rather broad brush as well as demeaning to assume all nuclear power supporters are “religious zealots”? That stirs visions of extremism and the outlaw behavior.
Secondly, by what definition has nuclear power failed?
Longevity? Nuclear power has produced electricity for consumers in the U.S. since 1957.
Numbers of operating units? 104 operating units exist today in the U.S. World-wide, there are over 400 operating units.
Contribution? Nuclear power provides 20% of this country’s electricity. In other parts of the world, the percentages are even higher. The French, not known for their conservative politics, produce over 70% of their electricity with a large nuclear fleet.
Price? Nuclear power produces electricity at an industry average of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour – comparable to coal fired plants and much much cheaper than natural gas.
Polluter? Every effluent and off-product at a nuclear power plant is closely monitored and measured. The records are pubic and available for scientific scrutiny. However, the impact is very minimal, even when comapared to any industrial operation. The one impact that all steam-cycle plants, whether nuclear, coal, or oil, can have is the need to eject waste thermal energy to the environment in order to condense the steam after it has given up its energy passing through a steam turbine. This waste thermal energy is ejected to either the air or a body of water, such as a lake, ocean, or large river. However, those effects are also minimal. For example, one very large nuclear power plant on Lake Michigan cycles several hundred thousands gallons per minute of lake water through this cycle. The water comes in at lake temperature, say 50F, and comes out around 90F. This sounds like it would cause an environmental calamity. In fact, within 1000 feet of the outlet the water temperature difference is less than one degree. As far as impact on water life…it’s disastorous… for the fresh water herring that love to congregate in the warmer water. Salmon in the lake know where the food is and they love to eat the fresh water herring. In fact, until post-9/11 security measures expanded the no inclusion zone in the lake, the power plant outlet was the most popular fishing spot on the lake.
Radioactivity? Nuclear power plants do not emit radioactivity at any elevated level. Plants operate such that no member of the public receives more than two millirem of radiation each year. For comparison, a chest x-ray is about 20 millirem. The normal background radiation from natural sources for most U.S. citizens is 200 to 300 millirem per year. In fact, more radiation is given off by a coal fired plant than a nuclear power plant since coal contains naturally occuring radioactivity (as do all living things).
Nuclear Waste? This has been a failure, but the failure here is not technical or the result of irresponsible operators. Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled and reused. It can be liquified and vitrified, locking the high level radiation immobile in a glass-like marble. It can be placed in long-term monitored storage. Are we doing any of this? No. In our country the federal government owns responsibility for all nuclear material from the time it is mined, processed, used, and disposed. We have not made the political decision on the path to pursue. As a result, plants must store their used fuel onsite. Other countries have made the disposal decisions and it is not an issue for them.
The above can be substantiated with objective and scientific data, data that is public and transparent.
Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes fact. Supporters on either side of an argument can be guilty of spin and exaggeration. Lieing to sustain or reinforce a misperceived fact is both devious and unethical.
Mr. Wallace,
In his book, Mr. Freeman offers a few more reasons as to why nuclear power is simply not feasible. While you address a few of his points, one of his other points is that "Nuclear power plants have now become a prime target for terrorists," and he goes on to say that, "Terrorists have the opportunity to hit the U.S. with the radioactive force of a massive atomic bomb without even having to smuggle weapons across our borders."
Addressing another of your points, Freeman wrote, "My experience at TVA was that nuclear energy costs over ten cents/kWh. This was based on costs of construction twenty years ago. Cost information for new plants is conspicuous by its absence," and later mentions that "The estimates for new nuclear facilities, with all their risks, are more expensive than the development of wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass facilities, which don't carry the life-and-death risks." I would also appreciate seeing your source for your "3 cents per kilowatt-hour (for industry average) statistic. Mr. Freeman also recognizes the success of the French nuclear program, but mentions that they have "80 metric tons of surplus plutonium in storage," which is certainly a tempting source of bomb-making material for any terrorist.
I thought it was interesting to learn that President Bush addressed nuclear power as a way of weaning ourself off of foreign oil, and yet America produces very little of its electricity with foreign oil.
Lastly, Mr. Freeman offers a solution to a fossil fuel-based energy economy in his book, Winning Our Energy Independance, which includes replacing our entire existing energy sources with renewable energy sources in an entirely feasible way. I encourage anyone interested to read more into it.
Thanks for your well written comments, Max. I haven’t been in her for awhile but wish to address your thoughts now.
You quote Freeman, the ex-leader of TVA (an appointed political position requiring no technical expertise) where he shut down nuclear construction which then did in fact drive up the cents/kWh for the remaining units. He also led the charge to cancel units in various stages of construction that required coal fired plants to replace them. Several of these units have since been completed by today’s TVA leadership. Freeman is also the ex-leader of SMUD where he shuttered a perfectly good and clean Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant…replacing it with gas fired turbines, the most expensive to operate on a cents/kWh basis.
This is the same the Freeman who said “Terrorists have the opportunity to hit the U.S. with the radioactive force of a massive atomic bomb without even having to smuggle weapons across our borders.” Is Freeman suggesting a nuclear power plant can blow up like an atomic bomb? He is smarter than that but he is playing to his audience. And just how would terrorists attack a power plant? Perhaps since Freeman has been out of the business so long he has no idea of today’s security force capabilities, incluiding training, weaponry, and strategies to force attackers in to very efficient killing zones.
The real bottom line is what could they do to a plant anyway? Oh that’s right…get that “ ‘80 metric tons of surplus plutonium in storage,’ which is certainly a tempting source of bomb-making material for any terrorist.”
This shows a complete lack of understanding or major deceipt…not sure which. All used nuclear fuel is stored either under 25 feet of water inside the plant or in large steel and concrete storage units next to a plant. If a terrorist could get the fuel from their safe storage areas, they would die within minutes from the radiation given off once they open the cannisters. In addition, since the used fuel contains less than bomb grade material, the stolen fuel elements could not blow up even if a long line of suicidal terrorists handed the fuel assembly (each of which weighs 1500 pounds) bucket brigade style to the desire location as they fell over dead. Fuel assemblies could be blown up with conventional explosives, but the effects would be very localized. If I were a smart terrorist, I would focus on something much easier…like a municipal water supply.
The other statement Freeman professes is replacing coal and nuclear, 75% of this country’s current electrical capacity, with solar, wind, and biomass. If one does the math one would soon realize that large parts of our land mass and offshore channels would be blanketed with equipment that produces power only 5% and 25% of the time (solar and wind). This means to replace a nuclear power plant that operates at 90% capacity factor night and day regardless of weather, one would have to build 18 times the solar capacity or four times the wind capacity. That means nuclear construction could be 18 times more expensive than solar to build and still come out ahead because it is there in all conditions. I do not see solar and wind as a “feasible” alternative to nuclear and coal, nor does any other thinking person.
Speaking of construction and operating costs, the best source is the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy. Their analysts count everything our country does in the area of energy. Check it out for actual costs of construction and operation for all types of energy sources, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, fossil (gas, oil, coal), and nuclear.
http://www.eia.doe.gov. In particular, I would suggest you check this page out regarding expected construction and operating costs for all possible generation sources… http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=3
Remember, if solar is only there 5% of the time, you must build 18 facilities to equal the output of a similar nuke unit.
Freeman says and you quote: “Cost information for new plants is conspicuous by its absence," and later mentions that "The estimates for new nuclear facilities, with all their risks, are more expensive than the development of wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass facilities."
Again, these are Freeman lies. See the above reference links. Other sources include FERC’s website.
“I thought it was interesting to learn that President Bush addressed nuclear power as a way of weaning ourself off of foreign oil, and yet America produces very little of its electricity with foreign oil.” True statement, however, electricity can charge electric vehicles such as the Volt and other “plug-ins” that are on the drawing board. These vehicles will displace a lot of gasoline used for commuting and local shopping runs…the type that gets the lowest mpg. In addition, another popular Freeman concept is hydrogen fuel…my favorite as a matter of fact. To produce hydrogen, one must have lots of electricity to disassociate water’s hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Hydrogen cars and trucks could litterally replace every form of today’s gasoline/diesel powered ground transportation. So President Bush was correct.
Freeman continues to be proven wrong and in the rear-view mirror of history his decisions of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s range from irksome to diasastorous to both the environment and regional economies he “served.”
What do you think if all the
What do you think if all the government loans will be used to develop a next generation plug in? Or they will be releasing a cheap vehicle based battery and fuel pump assembly? Also, that's no surprise that we are considering mandate for cleaner cars and enthusiasm for plug-in hybrids.
