Nuke Climate Change

What do you think of the early morning brainstorm above?

As we approach the 70th anniversaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there are a number of opinion pieces being published that repeat the refrain that using The Bomb was unnecessary.

On the other hand, there are also some excellent treatises that provide historical justifications showing that the decision saved hundreds of thousands of lives and averted a great deal of needless suffering by enabling a quick, face-saving, unconditional surrender in response to overwhelming power.

It’s quite possible that my search techniques have provided me the wrong impression, but I’ve determined that the position that using The Bomb was the right decision is significantly more prevalent among thinking, writing Americans than the opinion that President Truman should have made a different choice.

Even though there is some debate about the remaining strength of the Japanese military in August 1945 and its ability to resist the building momentum of the Allied forces, most current commentary seems to recognize that the bushido code of Japanese warriors would not let them surrender. Forcefully demonstrating our ownership of a weapon powerful enough to destroy a city with a single blow gave them an out and prevented extensive bloodshed and starvation.

Aside: I am biased. My dad served in the Pacific as gyroscope repair technician in the US Navy on a repair ship named the USS Rigel. Without the use of The Bomb, my own history might have been substantially different. End Aside.

Americans seem predisposed to understanding that big problems can be solved with powerful tools. As a corollary notion, many assume that if the major promoters of a particular problem refuse to use the most capable solutions, the problem must not be as bad as they say it is.

The more cynical among us may also realize that some people profit more from continued treatments using weak and ineffective tools than from an effective solution that may eventually allow resources to be redirected to fighting other problems.

The bumper sticker slogan “NUKE Climate Change” is thus aimed at attracting attention, pointing out the optimistic fact that we may have already found a weapon powerful enough to end the “war”, and putting the opponents of nuclear energy who also claim that climate change is an existential battle on the defensive.

For those of you who believe it is wrong to tie nuclear energy development to the climate issue, I have other bumper sticker ideas with similar slogans. For example:

Feel free to disagree, but please provide a reasonably detailed justification for your opinion.

PS – One of the motivations for the above line of thinking is the coverage being given in advance of today’s planned release of the EPA’s final Clean Power Plan rule. Most media sources seem to believe it is all about “renewables like wind and solar” and ignore any possibility that it might include credit to states and companies that chose a more realistic nuclear solution.

Here is the take from CBS News.

Who said modular construction would save money on first of a kind units?

Sourced from with permission from Southern Company

Sourced from with permission from Southern Company

On July 27, 2015, the Wall St. Journal published an article written by Rebecca Smith titled Prefab Nuclear Plants Prove Just as Expensive. That piece has been widely shared and discussed on social media with more than 2700 shares on Facebook and more than 150 shares on Twitter as counted from the original article. I suspect that there have been several times those numbers of additional shares and retweets, based on my own limited sample on both sites.

Though the headline and article content are welcomed by those who oppose nuclear energy and disappoint many who favor its deployment, no one should be surprised. Unfortunately, many people from both points of view seem to believe that it’s another example of the nuclear industry failing to live up to its promises. Here is a quote from the article:

Building nuclear reactors out of factory-produced modules was supposed to make their construction swifter and cheaper, leading to a new boom in nuclear energy.

But two U.S. sites where nuclear reactors are under construction have been hit with costly delays that have shaken faith in the new construction method and created problems concerning who will bear the added expense.

My headline question is a serious one; I’d really like to find the marketing and sales people who oversold the benefits of of using manufactured, prefabricated modules over on-site construction. It would also be nice to locate examples of literature or presentations demonstrating excessive promises.

I’m not denying that there are substantial long-term advantages, but it is well-known among practitioners of modularity and series manufacturing that any cost and schedule related advantages of the choice would only appear in “nth of a kind” units.

No matter which modular industry one studies, there is always a cost and schedule challenge associated with creating a supply chain, tooling up for manufacturing, shaking out quality-related issues, refining interfaces between both components and suppliers, training distributed work forces, and establishing the logistics required to put the right components and modules in the right place at the right time.

Aside: I not a modularization expert, but I was once tasked with drafting initial versions of procedures required for an effective program of using prefabrication and modular construction for a nuclear reactor project. My participation in that task spread out over dozens of meetings during a several year period, yet the program was still in the early start-up phase when I made a career change. I had the opportunity to learn from some experts in the field; it is an enormously complex task, made even more difficult in an industry with a regulator and suppliers that have little experience in the processes. End aside.

The rate at which the various issues are solved depend on the industry and its relationship with regulators, customers, partners and suppliers. The more cooperative the environment and the better the interests of the various parties are aligned, the quicker the start-up issues can be solved.

The required improvement process works best when all parties recognize that prompt solutions will result in increased future sales and profits; incentives to compromise in disputes disappear when major order cancellations increase the risk that investments and other actions to solve problems will produce results that are too late to have positive effects.

The situation at the Vogtle and VC Summer projects is not ideal. There are almost unbelievable sums of money at stake, additional customers that could benefit by problem solutions are putting their orders on hold, and suppliers are justifiably nervous about making substantial investments in manufacturing tools due to the paucity of firm follow-on orders. The initial module supplier plan had to be essentially torn up and recreated with new subcontractors. The process is complicated by the fact the AP-1000 modules are some of the largest ever attempted by any industry.

Even with all of those challenges, the people working on the project are making good progress as demonstrated by the improving quality and schedule performance on the second units at each site. The utility customers, though disappointed with the performance and perhaps justifiably upset that they are being asked to pay some of the costs of being early adopters, are benefiting from low interest rates on borrowed money and low commodity prices.

Tom Fanning — the CEO of Southern Company, the parent of Georgia Power, plant Vogtle’s lead customer — has consistently explained that the final cost of the project for customers is likely to end up being less than expected when the project was initially budgeted.

My prescription, based on several years of running a manufacturing enterprise along with a deep immersion in the history of nuclear power plant construction programs is to press forward. Keep focused on solving the problems to enable improved performance on the next projects.

I also hope that marketers and salespeople in the nuclear industry learn that this is one enterprise where it is better to “underpromise and overdeliver” than to make rosy predictions that cannot be fulfilled. Word of mouth among disappointed customers can be fatal for an already embattled industry.

I disagree with people like John Rowe, who state that nuclear energy is just a business and not a cause. If it is to succeed, it needs to be pursued with as much passion and dedication as any other innovation that has the power to save the world.

Utility customers should put down the journalists’s interpretations of the nuclear revival story and dig deeper to recognize that they cannot make multi-decade investment decisions based on short term prices of a volatile commodity like natural gas. They should take time to imagine what the natural gas price trajectory will be if the gas industry succeeds in killing off both coal and nuclear as competitive suppliers in the electrical power market.

All of us need a viable nuclear option; one necessary ingredient to enable that option is for utility customers to demonstrate a greater commitment to purchasing new plants. Vendors and their suppliers must also commit to making the investments required to shake out inevitable start-up issues.

Nova’s “Uranium – Twisting the Dragon’s Tail”

On July 29, 2015, a week before the August 6 commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, PBS (Public Broadcast System in the US) aired a documentary titled Uranium – Twisting the Dragon’s Tail. Unlike many efforts on similar topics, this one is worth watching. More importantly, it is worth recommending […]

Read more »

Sierra Club member asks Executive Director Brune to support nuclear energy

A few days ago, a friend from Californians for Green Nuclear Power shared a letter he had written to Michael Brune, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club. He gave me permission to share his letter with Atomic Insights readers. My friend is a Sierra Club member because he agrees with many of its goals […]

Read more »

FOE continues promoting fossil fuel by trying to force Diablo Canyon closure

As a literature major during my undergraduate years, I was fascinated by the variety of stories that can be told about the same topic depending on the author’s selected point of view. Here is a brief example. Friends of the Earth (FOE) has a page on its web site titled Shutting down Diablo Canyon. The […]

Read more »

Diablo Canyon relicensing public meetings August 5, 2015

On November 23, 2009 — close to six years ago — the Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed a license renewal application for Diablo Canyon units 1 and 2. That renewal application continues its excruciatingly slow journey through obstacles that continue to be invented by people who are opposed to the use of nuclear energy. […]

Read more »

Why does ERCOT credit wind capacity at less than 9%?

For a number of years, the planners on the ERCOT (Texas) grid assumed that wind projects would provide less than 9% of their nameplate capacity towards meeting peak demand. That assumed number for “Effective Load-Carrying Capability” (ELCC) was based on the fact that wind production is not dependable and may be inversely correlated with demand, […]

Read more »

Hormesis is entering the mainstream

Even if you read nothing else today, please take the time to visit Environmental Toxicologist Hopes Hormesis Hypothesis May be Acknowledged by U.S. Regulatory Action. The story offers a renewing tale of the value of persistence in the pursuit of truth in the face of sometimes hostile opposition. It is a press release from the […]

Read more »

Teaching Nuclear Science to bright, open-minded, questioning teenagers

Some of you might have been missing irregular, but frequent, updates here on Atomic Insights for the past few weeks. You may have wondered why most comment threads have been closed. You may have even noticed that the Twitter tool in the right hand column didn’t include any new tweets for days on end. I […]

Read more »

Leukemia and lymphoma study recently published in Lancet being strong challenged by SARI

A recent study published in Lancet Haematology claims to show that even extremely low doses of radiation increase the risk of leukemia and lymphoma. The study includes several statistical flaws, ignores the effects of medical exposures — which are of similar levels to occupational exposures — that change dramatically over the duration of the study, […]

Read more »

BWXT Begins Life as a Pure Play Nuclear Company

The Babcock & Wilcox Company has completed its planned separation into two companies, Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. and BWX Technologies, Inc. (BWXT). One of the neat things about this announcement is that BWXT will be headquartered in Lynchburg, VA. It might also mean that there is a chance that the new company will regain […]

Read more »