I'm going to beg forgiveness and literary license for the following extended, potentially inappropriate, and perhaps too personal metaphor. For several … [Read More...] about Atomic fission technology is a terrible candidate for a “do not resuscitate” order. Antinuclear groups MUST not be granted right to put one in place
(Reprint. Originally published September 17, 2013. During the 4.5 years since the original appeared, the licensing moratorium mentioned has been lifted, and the confidence rule has been replaced by Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel [NRC–2012–0246] but stubborn opposition arises in response to any proposed solutions.)
During the 1970s, the antinuclear movement made a collective decision to use “the waste issue” as a weapon to help force the eventual shutdown of the industry. Though the strategy has not succeeded in forcing any plants in the US to shut down, it has prevented a number of plants from being built. Ralph Nader, one of the most visible organizers of the movement, often referred to the waste issue as the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry. He described his movement’s strategy for taking advantage of the perceived weakness in some detail during a 1997 interview as part of a PBS Frontline show titled Nuclear Reactions. The issue continues to be used to slow nuclear energy development.
One of the repercussions of the illegal actions of the Secretary of Energy and the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to halt the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain waste repository was to cause a court to declare that it no longer had any confidence in the NRC’s Waste Confidence Rule. That court logically declared that the generic determination on the environmental impacts of used nuclear fuel storage depended on the notion that eventually a permanent repository would be available.
Aside: For more background on the Waste Confidence debacle, please see two excellent guest posts by Paul Dickman Waste Confidence: A Classic Case of Failed Leadership (Part 1 of 2) and Waste Confidence – A Classic Case of Failed Leadership (Part 2 of 2) End Aside.
When the Yucca Mountain license application review was forcibly halted, the only remaining action being taken by the federal government to take responsibility for used nuclear fuel was a “Blue Ribbon Commission” that was starting the whole process from scratch. When the court made its determination of no confidence in Waste Confidence, the country’s nuclear waste situation had been reset to the same position as the one established in 1977.
That was the year when Jimmy Carter put the used fuel recycling industry out of business and declared that the US would try to convince the world to forgo recycling by setting an example in the United States. The only real difference was that the inventory had increased in size by 1,000 to 2,000 tons per year for 35 years.
After the court made its determination, the NRC placed a moratorium on the issuance of both new reactor operating licenses and license extension decisions. It has diverted substantial resources into an effort to draft a new generic environmental impact statement. That draft is now complete — after about a year’s worth of effort by an unknown number of regulators — and the Commission has announced a resource-intensive series of hearings around the country along with a public comment period that is scheduled to run until November 27, 2013. Under the currently promised schedule, the draft will be ready for final approval in about a year.
In a discussion about this frustrating situation and its impact on the development of nuclear energy — due to the uncertainty it adds to the investment decision process — Jerry Cuttler provided the following perceptive comment.
This has always been the antinuclear strategy to phase out nuclear energy, which is:
1. Define (slightly) used nuclear fuel to be “nuclear waste.” (If you do not intend, or are prevented, to recycle once-through nuclear fuel, then it is waste.)
2. Create a the idea that managing used nuclear fuel is an enormous “problem” or burden for future generations of humanity, instead of this fuel being an enormous resource of energy for them.
3. The reasons given by the antinuclear movement for the “problem” are:
a) Used fuel is radioactive forever, and any dose of (human-made) radiation leads to a risk of cancer in exposed people and harmful genetic mutations in unborn children (LNT model of radiation-induced mutations).
b) Used NPP fuel contains plutonium, which could be extracted and made into nuclear weapons (discounting the easier route of separating U-235 from natural uranium or the use chemical or biological weapons).
4. Advocate that no new nuclear power plants be built (or no plant life extension) until we “solve the problem of nuclear waste.” Technical acceptability is not sufficient; we must “demonstrate social acceptance” of any proposed solution to the “problem.”
5. Intervene and oppose all plans or projects that would isolate (human-made) radioactivity or used fuel. Use the LNT model to calculate health risks to nearby residents from minute amounts (becquerels) of radioactivity that could reach underground drinking water or the surface by any hypothetical means. Create social concerns and social opposition to any transport or disposal of radioactivity or used fuel anywhere.
The world nuclear societies must recognize that this antinuclear strategy is a political problem, and there are no technical solutions to this political problem.
Nuclear societies have to change the rules of this game to regain social acceptance, or witness the phase-out of nuclear energy due to fear of attributed adverse health effects.
The key step to solve this political problem is for the nuclear societies to denounce the invalid LNT concept/model that predicts adverse health effects from low radiation. We have the biological and historical evidence to do this. The ICRP must be persuaded to revert to its 1934 standard that was based on the tolerance dose concept.
My take on the issue includes a emphasizing a slightly different aspect of the situation. I believe that the industry bears much of the blame because it keeps insisting that power plant owners signed a contract with the government to take charge of the used fuel material. The industry regularly criticizes the government for failing to abide by its contracted obligations.
In my opinion, a far more successful strategy for nuclear plant operators would be to reverse course and declare the used material to be valuable private property. Nuclear plant owners should tell the government that they no longer desire any assistance to remove the material. They should inform the government that they want to recycle the material to recover its valuable components. They should stop telling the pubic that they want government assistance in handling a potentially dangerous material; instead they should tell the public that the material is a valuable energy source that also contains additional materials with other useful properties.
The beauty of that reversal is that every statement is true. Making them will alter the conversation and remove the blockage caused by the current misunderstanding about the enormous stored value contained in slightly used nuclear fuel. It is not a burden for future generations; it is a rich resource legacy.
Energy Collective (April 5, 2011) by David Lewis – Dysfunctional Anti Nuke Waste Strategy Increases Nuclear Risk
(HT to Atomikrabbit)
PBS Frontline – Nuclear Reaction (1997) Interview of Ralph Nader : “A consumer advocate and founder of Public Citizen, a consumer rights advocacy group in Washington”
I’m going to beg forgiveness and literary license for the following extended, potentially inappropriate, and perhaps too personal metaphor.
For several weeks, I’ve been struggling with finding my “voice” in dealing with current events related to the U.S. electricity production system. As part of my healing process, I went on a several day long reading binge that included some histories, an advice book by a famous cartoonist about finding paths to success through multiple failures, and even a few mystery novels.
A reading binge can produce a hangover characterized by a stimulated mind armed with new methods of expression. It provides a variety of new filters useful for finding unusual patterns in a complex world.
Looking through my new set of lenses, the following headline from one this morning’s Google Alert emails struck me hard.
My immediate reaction was to wonder who the heck gave “Environmentalists” the authority to make the “do not resuscitate” (DNR) decision for nuclear energy in the United States.
It reminded of a recently devoured novel about a patient, cold-blooded, calculating chess player who decided that he was ready to move on to another woman. Divorce didn’t cross his mind. Instead, he created a long-term plot that would eliminate his first wife, cast himself as a deeply caring and emotional man, and allow him to walk away with a huge life insurance payment. The setup for the payoff took almost a decade, but his plan succeeded.
Even though not part of the original strategy, he took advantage of a painful illness and a claimed DNR discussion to get away with a skillfully executed murder. His success required the assistance of a number of additional characters; some were unwitting people taken in by the murder’s act, some were knowledgable co-conspirators.
It’s my belief that the U.S.’s ability to effectively use nuclear fission energy is in a situation analogous to the inconvenient wife in that story. Unlike the situation in the novel, where the patient is dead and buried when the book begins, our nuclear technology sector is still alive, but in the throes of a painful struggle with an uncertain outcome.
It’s at a point where active intervention is required to keep it alive.
Aside: Sure, I know about new nuclear and have a great deal of optimism about its potential. I can’t shake the belief that there will be no “new nuclear” in the U.S. for a very long time unless we take action now to slow the demise of old nuclear. End Aside.
There is obvious potential for occasional, potentially painful code red actions, but it is far too young and potentially vibrant to be a candidate for a DNR. An awful lot of people will miss the electricity production option if the plot to kill nuclear power promptly enough to avoid the potential of a cure succeeds.
Not only has the industry been severely battered by external forces, but it has developed habits that have damaged its ability to thrive. An identifiable group of opponents would like nothing more than to prevent the possibility of recovery. The people with harmful intent are deeply involved in the situation and looking for opportunities to kill the patient.
Some attending specialists have declared a terminal prognosis with a near term demise after a significant amount of additional pain. Others are praying for a miracle. Many are feverishly working on potential cures; I feel compelled to try to give them more time.
Unlike the defense attorney protagonist in the novel that inspired this admittedly unusual post, I’m under no ethical code of confidentiality. There’s nothing to stop me from sharing what I know about what I believe is a sustained plot to kill nuclear and reap a huge payoff.
One contribution that I can make to potential recovery of the patient is to step into the plot and identify the evil intent of the people actively – but not always openly – seeking the final demise of the patient.
Of course, it’s still going to be my word against that of a skilled, ostensibly credible, and beguiling group of assassins who have attracted a number of innocent supporters and clever co-conspirators. Convincing people to listen requires providing them with insights into motive and methods that open their minds to asking hard questions.
There is an almost unfathomable quantity of money and power riding on whether or not nuclear energy can be revived in time to approach its true potential. Any energy that is not supplied by nuclear power plants will have to be supplied by another source. All competitive suppliers, including those who market coal, gas, wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, and even distillate fuel oil have the potential to increase sales, revenues and profits if they can force nuclear plants to exit the market.
During a brief building period that lasted less than 40 years, electricity production from nuclear reactors in the U.S. increased from zero to 800 billion kilowatt-hours per year.
At $0.05 per kilowatt-hour, that electricity is worth about $40 billion per year. Just imagine how large that number could have been if the technology deployment had not been abruptly halted. Heroic resuscitation efforts are worthwhile.
Late last week, while many observers were focused on a long weekend of religious celebrations with friends and families, there were several announcements made in the slowly developing crisis in the American electricity supply system. Operators of a number of several large power plants with the ability to produce electricity night and day, wind or […]
Though I take some pride in my critical reading skills and resistance to getting snookered by scam stories, I fell for a doozy yesterday. Unfortunately, I ended up propagating what might have been a clever ruse designed to paint nuclear energy advocacy in a bad light. It’s a story worth telling after I apologize profusely […]
California, an enormously populous and wealthy state with an outsized impact on the culture, economy and politics of the United States, has a gubernatorial election this year. Jerry Brown, who has served a total of four terms and is the son of a former two-term California governor, isn’t running for reelection due to term limits. […]
Mark Menezes, the Undersecretary of Energy at the Department of Energy, gave an optimistic, forward-looking, audience-flattering, stage-setting talk at the Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. At least five times during his 10-minute talk, he repeated various combinations of a phrase – “revive, revitalize and expand” – that is apparently the mantra that the Administration has chosen […]
Last week, the Nuclear Infrastructure Council hosted its 5th annual Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. The agenda was packed; information and ideas came rapidly enough to inspire significant post-event reflection. One question worth of significant additional discussion is “How do we match the ingenuity and enthusiasm of atomic innovators with the large magnitude financing sources needed […]
By Peter Lyons Somewhere in Russia, 34 tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium—enough material to make about 10,000 weapons—are awaiting disposal. Moscow was supposed to start destroying this stockpile, but has yet to start, leaving a huge threat lurking in an unknown location. If even a tiny fraction of this material fell into terrorists’ hands, they […]
I’ll start with a thank you and a congratulations to the Nuclear Infrastructure Council, David Blee, Caleb Ward and all supporting staff for assembling a great cast of attendees and speakers at the fifth annual Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. The event was a high quality, well run and skillfully moderated affair that provided valuable learning […]
For now, I’m going to leave all names out of this piece of hearsay. Please believe me when I say that my sources are good and varied. Throughout his campaign, President Trump ran on the slogan “Make America Great Again.” That inspired many to attend his rallies and probably convinced many to vote for him. […]
It’s time – or way past time – to think and talk about nuclear energy in new ways, recognizing the importance of the topic for the future health and prosperity of humanity. This show includes 5 forward leaning thought leaders in atomic energy. All of them are optimistic about nuclear’s future, often driven by their […]
During a recent House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing titled DOE Modernization: Advancing the Economic and National Security Benefits of America’s Nuclear Infrastructure there was an important exchange between Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) and Maria Korsnick, President and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute. So you don’t have to scroll through 4 hours of video, I […]