Appealing to the hearts and minds of the people at APIEL
During the weekend in Knoxville, TN, I met some marvelous people who were friendly, energetic, personable, excited by life, and ready to learn how they could take small steps to make the world a better place.
As reported on Saturday morning, I dressed in blue jeans and a high visibility tee shirt sporting an atomic symbol, wore my Atomic Power to the People button and attended a gathering of environmental activists, community organizers, students and attorneys. It was the sort of meeting where many nukes assume they are not welcome and would feel out of place.
As I suspected, the people who attended the Appalachian Public Interest Environmental Law (APIEL – pronounced “appeal”) conference last weekend were sincerely interested in creating a cleaner, more just, and more prosperous world for all of us using public information campaigns, activism, independent media and the court system.
Many of them, however, knew little or nothing about the capabilities of atomic energy as a useful and powerful tool for achieving their goals. Some of them were actively promoting efforts to put the tool as far away from the reach of their fellow humans as possible; most of those people were apparently expressing beliefs that had been accumulated during a lifetime of exposure to purposeful propaganda designed to spread misinformation resulting in fear, uncertainty and doubt.
As people who have attended meetings in which I was a participant might understand, I was not shy about challenging those who were spreading or repeating misinformation about atomic energy. I also seized the opportunity to tell people why I was so enthusiastic about the technology and to testify about how my personal experiences as a submarine engineer officer gave me a rare perspective on the amazing characteristics of machines heated by atomic fission.
Several of the attendees, a couple of whom had a long track record with both APIEL and large, well-established environmental organizations, sought me out during breaks to thank me for attending and sharing what I know. One of them quietly told me that he had always thought his club was out to lunch on nuclear energy, but that it did so much other good work that he kept participating. He encouraged me to keep charging, telling me that I was young enough and energetic enough to make a difference, while he was getting too old and tired.
On a number of issues, I was able to claim common ground with the presenters. There were people who were concerned about the health effects of coal ash and the lack of effective regulations requiring safe disposal. I met Rhiannon Fionn, an independent journalist and film maker who has been producing a film called Coal Ash Chronicles. Her work highlights the large number of vulnerable storage ponds around the US, especially in the southeast, includes interviews with people whose property and health has been affected by coal ash and showed stark images of effects of both routine dumping and accidental, but massive discharges.
There were other people who were concerned about the large amount of activity in pipeline construction and refurbishment/repurposing associated with both increased oil and gas production and in shifts of producing areas away from traditional production basins. One speaker spent a considerable portion of his talk on the effects of the massive compressor stations required to keep gas moving long distances, reminding the audience that materials do not flow by themselves.
Climate change was a major topic; several presenters spoke about organized efforts to reduce coal consumption and permanently close coal-fired power stations while others pointed out that replacing coal burning with natural gas burning did not do much to reduce the total greenhouse gas burden on the planet if even a small portion of the extracted and transported methane escaped into the atmosphere without being burned first.
They agreed that natural gas was less polluting but were concerned about the implications of corporations and investors putting billions of dollars into new infrastructure that would required lengthy periods of operation to pay back the investments.
At strategic points in the middle of several presentations or during the established Q&A period, I suggested that emission-free nuclear was a powerful and well-proven tool for emissions reductions. The responses to my comments often amounted to “we can do it all with energy efficiency and renewables.”
I caused some consternation when I pointed out that a substantial portion of the “renewables” category of energy production statistics came from burning wood and refuse. There were a number of people who expressed surprise when they found out that a significant portion of Germany’s renewable energy production comes from imported wood pellets created by harvesting southeastern US forests.
One presenter quoted Benjamin Sovacool’s numbers for nuclear energy’s life cycle CO2 emissions, saying that his study reported that nuclear produced six times as much CO2 per unit of output energy as wind. I asked him why he accepted the IPCC as a credible source of information when it came to their warnings about climate change but not their recommendations for solutions and not their representative numbers [p.979] for emissions from various sources.
One young lady who said she was in her final year of college and had spent the summer interning with Mary Olson at NIRS gave a presentation claiming that the waste heat from nuclear reactors was thermal pollution that was directly contributing to global warming. I pointed out that the sun provides about 10,000 times as much heat energy to the earth as the total heat released by all of our energy production; she said she was not a scientist. She also said that we couldn’t do anything to affect the sun’s heat but we could avoid the warming caused by nuclear reactor waste heat. I did not do too much further arguing at that point.
A highlight of the weekend was the Tennessee premier of a documentary titled Blood on the Mountain. Mari-Lynn Evans, the film’s director and a West Virginia native, attended the screening and participated in the post screening panel discussion. During the post screening party at a local pub, I had a delightful conversation with a friend of hers who helps by taking photos and driving to various screenings while Mari-Lynn is involved in logistical and other discussions. She had a lot of tales to tell about what they had seen and the people they’ve met on the road. (We each shared grandchildren photos and agreed that our grandchildren were some of the world’s smartest and cutest kids.)
On Sunday Mary Olson, a NIRS activist, spoke about the health effects of radiation, noting that regulators around the world agreed that there was no safe dose of radiation. I asked her if she was familiar with James Hansen’s peer reviewed paper calculating that nuclear energy had saved 1.8 million lives already and could save far more in the future. She responded by stating that she has a great deal of respect for his work as a climate scientist, but they said that he was completely unqualified in the area of energy policy. She referred me to a piece published on the NIRS web site that refuted Hansen’s work. This commentary from Sovacool, Parenteau, Ramana, Valentine, Jacobson, Delucchi, Diesendorf appears to be the document she was referencing.
The conference was an experience I’d like to repeat. Perhaps I can even make a presentation during next year’s APIEL conference. If you have information about similar events near you, please let me know.
You are doing great work there.
What is particularly good is that you have facts at your fingertips to use in discussions.
Thanks Rod, you do not disappoint. The Sovacool et al. rebuttal Commentary you link is pretty much fish in a barrel, save for two key points:
1. Energy efficiency / reduced consumption is indeed the least cost route to lower emissions — at least for those who can afford to reduce energy consumption. Efficiency is always good, within bounds of reason.
2. That “(n)ew reactors today never prevail in competitive power procurement processes anywhere in the world” may well be true. And therein lies the problem. If reliable energy alternatives aren’t cheaper than coal, coal it will be. Every single time.
As we here are all aware, new nuclear construction is far from dead. But it does appear to proceed only in non-competitive markets where grid operators have some freedom to look ahead at cost savings far down the road, frequently 30+ years. An operating nuclear plant is in effect an investment in our children, and we’ve no reason to think our children will be any more appreciative of that investment, that gift, than we are to the energy bounties bequeathed by our parents unto us.
Their point r.e. proliferation does have some merit, by my understanding India did indeed develop its nuclear weapons capability under guise of a poorly regulated civilian nuclear power program. It has been argued — not without some evidence — that Iran was at one time on track to do the same. But as you have observed, while India may have obtained plutonium from a modified heavy-water reactor, Pakistan in its reply did not — and Pakistani centrifuge technology is now a genie truly out of the bottle. Weapons proliferation may well be an ongoing problem requiring constant international vigilance. But stoppering an empty bottle isn’t going to solve it, while addressing the root causes for the perceived need for warfare of all types just might.
The rest of that Sovacool appears to me to be totally at odds with real-world data. Continued conflation of unreliable with reliable energy, and vastly overstating the cost-effectiveness of intermittent generators in reducing total ghg emissions. In the real world wind+solar displace gas, not coal, lignite, or peat. And coal, lignite, and peat are the most pressing problem.
How much CO2 does wind power save?
Radon emissions from uranium mining and milling are of course a serious health problem. (Or not…) Radon emissions from hydraulic fracturing (which can end up indoors when used for cooking) are, of course, utterly benign.
I suspect it’s that factor of 20 million thing again, but I’d have to run the numbers…
Taking aim at those fish:
The NIRS published piece that refutes Hansen’s work states “wind energy is 96 times more effective at displacing carbon than nuclear…then it may have saved-and can save-96 times as many lives.” To make this conclusion, the paper calculates a carbon/cost ratio by multiplying an energy source’s carbon emissions (grams of CO2/kWh) x levelized cost (cents/kWh). Wind’s “carbon/cost ratio” is 31, while nuclear’s is 2976 or 96 times greater.
I am not sure the unit created by multiplying these two numbers makes any sense, it makes even less sense to say such a unit is 96 times better at displacing carbon, and even less sense to say such a unit is 96 times better at saving lives?? Hansen’s paper mentions CO2 reduction from not burning coal, or CO2 avoidance. The NIRS paper makes no mention of how much CO2 is avoided from NOT burning coal per each energy source.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/
Ed has done a decent back of the envelop calculation, comparing nuclear and wind, in the comments section on Ben Heard’s blog. He uses Wheatley’s paper for CO2 avoidance from wind generation on the Irish grid. Per Ed’s calculation, nuclear avoids emissions ~2 1/2 times more per unit of cost than wind in Ireland.
http://decarbonisesa.com/2015/07/18/a-lot-changes-in-three-years-zero-carbon-options-2015-edition/
Tom d wrote and quoted:
The NIRS published piece that refutes Hansen’s work states “wind energy is 96 times more effective at displacing carbon than nuclear…then it may have saved-and can save-96 times as many lives.” To make this conclusion, the paper calculates a carbon/cost ratio by multiplying an energy source’s carbon emissions (grams of CO2/kWh) x levelized cost (cents/kWh). Wind’s “carbon/cost ratio” is 31, while nuclear’s is 2976 or 96 times greater.
This is innumerate nonsense! The units of measure come out as “carbon-cents per kWh”. This makes no physical or financial sense. “Carbon per kWh” would make sense, as would “carbon per cent”. But a “carbon-cent” per anything is gibberish.
Note: In each case, “carbon” really means carbon emissions saved.
But innumerate people will fall for stuff like this every time.
Rod,
As I was reading through your post, a thought occurred to me. You and your panelists that you occasionally have on The Atomic Show (Gwyneth Cravens, Merry Angwin, Dan Yurman, Steve Aplin, Les Corrice, et al), and a lot of your readers (like myself – I have personally experienced this in news comment threads), are frequently attacked as “shills for nuclear power”.
I think we should TOTALLY OWN THIS. I want a button I can wear to protests and conferences with a graphic logo that is eye catchy and appropriate, and, in large letters, “UNPAID SHILL FOR NUCLEAR POWER”.
I’m totally a shill for nuclear power, and there ain’t nothin’ wrong with that.
Because, if being a shill for nuclear power just means that I support it, then, yeah, that’s right, I do. Why do I support it? For the same reasons, largely, that shills for solar and wind power shill for them – because I think it will provide clean, safe energy that will make the environment better for everyone, while keeping energy affordable and available for everyone, which makes life better for everyone.
“For the same reasons, largely, that shills for solar and wind power shill for them – because I think it will provide clean, safe energy that will make the environment better for everyone, while keeping energy affordable and available for everyone, which makes life better for everyone”
Rod’s participation in this event, and the positive tone of his subsequent comments, coupled with your comment, is indeed refreshing. It is nice seeing you present renewable advocates as something other than fossil fuel moles that have infiltrated the renewable movement, or as closed minded ignorant antis who are the enemy. I have long argued here that the adversarial arttitude some here express towards the renewable crowd is a self defeating strategy. I realize that on a corporate level it is foolish to fail to note that some nefarious motives are involved on the part of high level executives. But the average John Q, expressing faith in renewables, does so because of a genuine concern for our environment. Right, left, or indifferent, shouldn’t we all share that concern?
I agree – I think Rod would mostly agree too, but he’s focused on the people in leadership positions at places like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc, not the rank and file. I’m sure he understands the rank and file are people who believe in those technologies, right or wrong.
Which is why I never use scorn when I talk with people about this subject. I have to do with the rank and file, not with the leadership. Or, mostly, with unaffiliated people who soaked up the message and accepted it unthinkingly.
I don’t understand the “proliferation” argument. It certainly doesn’t apply to the major energy producers (US, China, India…) because we already have nuclear weapons. Many people don’t know, but for the past 20 years *one-half* of the nuclear fuel used in the US was made from *Russian warheads.* The benefit there in terms of avoided nuclear holocaust should be obvious. In my mind it balances out all of the fantasy about the connection between power generating reactors and weapons.
I summed it up once: Including Italy and Denmark (who have no reactors within their borders but who nonetheless import nuclear electrons from their neighbors), this globe hosts 36 countries that benefit from nuclear power. Those 36 also account for 82% of the planet’s total CO2 emissions.
If these 36 were to cut their CO2 emissions by 60% and the rest did not increase, global emissions would fall by half, with no additional countries obtaining nuclear power. The 36 did not include an additional 7 who were projected to acquire commercial nuclear power, but have not yet done so.
@gmax137
I’m not sure that burning the Russian warhead uranium has significantly lowered the risk of nuclear war. There are still more than enough warheads left, and I guess that the decommissioned ones were older and harder to maintain well. If the nuclear powers want, they have enough and to spare to lob to each other.
A smaller, well-maintained and well-controlled arsenal may lessen the risk of accidents, so that’s a good thing.
The main benefit I think is the great symbolism: swords-to-plowshares.
I was quite enthousiast when I first read about it. I use it as an example of a very good way to get rid of nuclear weapons: burn the uranium so it can never be used again in warheads, and we even get electricity for it! Nuclear power to the rescue!
@Twominds “The main benefit I think is the great symbolism: swords-to-plowshares.”
Exactly! Never underestimate the power of symbolism.
Wind turbines gently turning in the distance = Green, holistic, reasoned thinking…
Hyperbolic cooling tower = Imminent death, uncontrolled greed, helpless individuals…
This is a battle that many of us fight every day. I will not tire of saying “what about nuclear”. They may shut me out of the clean power plan discussion, but if I am careful, I can continue to participate and point out that nuclear is an effective tool for carbon mitigation.
@Kevin Krause
Do you have an official role in the deliberations regarding the clean power plan? Your state is one of the few — perhaps the only one — that has permission to move forward promptly to begin building a new nuclear plant. (I have an advantage over other commenters.)
I would not call it official. I would say that Michigan’s state implementation plan will get written within the walls of my building. I would also say I know the key players and that they tend to come to me when there are nuclear questions.
However, much like what is going on around the country those same key players are constantly being fed and then regurgitating talking points about renewables and energy efficiency. Those things are fine, but they are not the only options.
On the other side of the coin, DTE Electric will not let them forget about the other options either.
It’s hard to read the tea leaves on DTE. They are as much a gas company as anything else, with an aging nuke that struggles to make a profit at times. By already certifying the site for another nuke they have made that site more attractive to a potential buyer.
Up until 2005 they were an electric only utility. That is when they bought Michigan Consolidated Gas, so I don’t see how anyone can accuse them of being primarily a gas company.
Aging nuke, OK, but they have aging wind farms too, and Fermi 2 does not struggle to make a profit.
I would love to see a Fermi 3 and 4 replace Monroe.
@Rod
I should have added. Even though my state is out in front at the current time, I think your state will add new nuclear before mine will.
@Kevin Krause
Wouldn’t it be nice if our governors could make a bet on that and work to see who reaches the commercial operations finish line first? It would be fun, energize entire school systems and result in both states winning by having a reliable clean power source for decades to come.
Kevin, I’m up in the TC area. Anything I can do, let me know.
@E-P I was half-way, camping in Ludington, this past weekend. Were you at the TC energy forum in 2013? I was there just after touring the Cadillac wood burning plant.
Nope, I got the news late and I was having major money problems at the time.
Rod
I am kind of glad you took my comment off. It was too far out to keep. I wish there was a way to edit after you post. One reason I like Facebook.
Rick
I confess I’m always a bit annoyed when people draw ostensibly scientific arguments to support a viewpoint, then at the first sight of criticism they counter with “I’m not a scientist”. Why, isn’t that a surprise.
The thermal pollution argument is easy – solar PV efficiency is 10-15%, so 90-85% turns to heat. Wind turbines are 40-45% efficient at optimal wind speed.