Greg Jaczko is continuing his career as an international promoter of natural gas
IEEE Spectrum recently published an article titled Former NRC Chairman Says US Nuclear Industry is Going Away that included a few choice quotes about Greg Jaczko that put me into a feisty mood. As regular Atomic Insights readers know; I have no love and virtually no respect for the man. He has spent at least a decade and a half misusing his apparently impressive brain power in destructive ways by focusing it on halting the beneficial use of nuclear energy.
The occasion for the IEEE article was an interview conducted after Jaczko’s participation in an antinuclear event held in New York City called The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Ongoing Lessons. Here is the passage that fired me up:
Jaczko bases his assessment of the U.S. nuclear industry on a simple reading of the calendar. The 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the United States are aging, and he thinks that even those nuclear power stations that have received 20 year license extensions, allowing them to operate until they’re 60 years old, may not see out that term. Jaczko said the economics of nuclear reactors are increasingly difficult, as the expense of repairs and upgrades makes nuclear power less competitive than cheap natural gas. He added that Entergy’s recent decision to close the Vermont Yankee plant was a case in point.
“The industry is going away,” he said bluntly. “Four reactors are being built, but there’s absolutely no money and no desire to finance more plants than that. So in 20 or 30 years we’re going to have very few nuclear power plants in this country—that’s just a fact.”
First of all, “cheap gas” is not a world-wide phenomenon; natural gas in Japan or Europe costs at least three times as much as it does in North America. It is also not something that is going to last; even the most optimistic assessments of the natural gas resource base in North America indicates that we have less than 100 years of supply if we make sure that we do not increase the current rate of consumption. If the gas industry has its way and grows its current market from 25 trillion cubic feet per year to something larger, the same optimistically estimated resource base of 2400 trillion cubic feet will last less than 100 years.
Secondly, Jaczko is being too modest by not claiming credit for his own role in making the economics of nuclear reactors increasingly difficult. He personally threw a huge wrench into the process of renewing licenses for existing reactors and for awarding licenses for new reactors with his illegal manipulation of the process of reviewing the Yucca Mountain license application. He was the driving force behind the aircraft impact rule for new reactors; he pushed as hard as he could to add more requirements for design changes after Fukushima; and he used his power as Chairman to set the Commission agenda as a way to significantly delay the approval of the four new reactors that are under construction.
Every day of delay at the NRC in producing the final COLA approvals for Vogtle and VC Summer after the staff had completed its review added at least a million dollars to the cost of each approved unit. Five months of delay for four units added at least a half a billion dollars of unplanned costs for the rate payers in Georgia and South Carolina. Those additional costs and the unpredictable delay associated with obtaining a license from the NRC is part of the reason customers have been discouraged from placing new orders.
Here is a comment that I submitted to IEEE Spectrum in response to their article:
Greg Jaczko is apparently continuing the profession that he was hired into when he began working for Ed Markey in 1999. He began his professional career as an antinuclear activist after being awarded a PhD in particle physics. His university course of study had nothing to do with nuclear energy production; his thesis described his research into the low energy behavior of baryons and mesons.
By 1999, Markey had already spent more than 20 years in Congress helping the natural gas industry to expand its already lucrative markets in New England. He performed that constituent service (Markey’s congressional district was the home of the only LNG importer that functioned in the US during the 1980s and 1990s) by doing everything in his power as a congressman to slow or stop the use of nuclear fission to produce electricity and heat. Atomic fission is a formidable competitor to natural gas; its heat is cheaper, costing about 70 cents per MMBTU compared to somewhere between $2-$30 per MMBTU for natural gas. Fission heat is also much cleaner; it produces about 20 grams of CO2 for every kilowatt hour, compared to about 500 grams per kilowatt hour for natural gas combustion.
Markey knew that Jaczko had experience as an antinuclear campaigner; he had practiced that “profession” while he was a student at the University of Wisconsin. (Note: I have friends that were involved in the student chapter of the American Nuclear Society at U of W in the same years that Jaczko was a student on “the other side” of the campus. Though they never saw him in any nuclear engineering or radiation physics classes, they knew they could call him any time they needed a nuclear opponent for a public debate on the use of nuclear energy.)
Jaczko served Markey well, but when it was time for a promotion, Jaczko moved on to serve in his chosen profession for Senator Harry Reid. That service positioned Jaczko to be ready to be forced onto the NRC. As a senator, Reid had the unilateral power to hold up judge appointments. In order to convince President Bush to appoint Jaczko, Reid had to stop the confirmation process for more than 100 federal judges, but he kept pressing until he achieved his goal.
As described in Mark Leibovich’s “This Town”, Reid played an important role in President Obama’s early decision to run for office. He pushed a lot of support to Obama from his position as Senate majority leader. After he became president, Obama made a payment on his political debt by firing Dale Klein as the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and promoting Jaczko into the position. Jaczko was, at the time, the only available “Democrat” on the NRC. That commission is supposed to have 5 members — at least 2 from each major political party — but Reid had maneuvered Obama into having no choice but to pick his former staffer. Through several maneuvers during the lengthy 2008 presidential campaign, he created a situation where there were only three commission members (2 Republicans and 1 Democrat) at the time that President Obama took office.
The rest of the story is also interesting, but this comment is already too long. Please visit Atomic Insights and search on Jaczko to read more about the man’s career as a professional antinuclear activist in the service of the multinational natural gas industry.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Yes, I know that this entire post can be considered an ad hominem attack. However, it is an appropriate response in a situation where a man uses his resume as having had an appointed role in a position of nuclear responsibility to add credibility to his statements. It is important for people around the world to understand just how Jaczko ended up in the job, what he knows about nuclear energy production, and what his motivations might be for the statements that he makes about the technology.
Jaczko’s statements must not be taken at face value and he must not be allowed to give the impression that he is a disinterested observer who knows what he is talking about. He is not neutral and not knowledgable about his subject matter when it comes to nuclear energy technology development or the economics of energy supply choices.
Rod, I don’t think your comment is an ad hominem attack; it’s factual. It’s a great human interest, biographical story. I never knew Jaczko worked for Markey.
Who is Dr J working for these days ?
And another thing, did the NRC revoke the 50 mile evacuation zone yet? If not, it looks pretty silly especially given the fact that the IAEA sets a 5 miles such an evacuation radius in the case of civil nuclear accidents.
And why did the IAEA remain silent on that incompetent call from the NRC ? That call from the NRC had an impact on the speed of help getting to needy people as it raised the level of fear. The IAEA slept on the job.
Dr J should be held criminally liable for making such an incompetent call and impacting the flow of help. And where in the name of God were the other commissioners ? I will always maintain that they did not show courage then and when the NRC voted to stop granting COLs.
One thing is for sure, Japan does not think highly of the NRC following Dr J’s imaginary interpretation of the situation that merged in March 2011.
And we all agree and know that at some point Dr J acted illegally. He has not been prosecuted.
I think we should make a collective case on this board to gather all the facts at some point before any statute of limitation evaporates the case.
The man REALLY needs to be called-out and taken down in high public like yesterday since he’s given SO much credence and high regard now in the media and anti-nuke contingent. Every time he opens his mouth he costs the national and international nuclear community months of public nuclear education and political pro-nuke guts and support Just flapping gums as he has here is making it harder for Japan to fire-up its nukes soon as possible.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
Japan firing back the nukes ? I am really getting mad at the speed at which things are going with regards to the benefits and urgency of it all.
I think the next major nuclear event will be within a week or two when the UK closes the deal on Hinckley with the EDF-Areva nukes.
Then in December 2014, the first AP-1000 is set to go critical. And soon the first EPR.
As far as I know neither Jaczko or his fellow traveller Gundersen were called on their outrageous FUD about SFP4 “burning” out of control. There was video that showed absolutely no evidence of that in SFP4. Everything was where it should have been with no indication of damage. If a credible engineering professional had made such outrageously wrong public statements they’d lose their license and be drummed out of the business. But these bums get away with it because everyone thinks “they have good intentions”. Like hell they do.
I totally agree with every word in this commentary except one – there are “five” nuclear plants under construction in the US: Vogtle 3&4, Summer 2&3, and TVA’s Watts Bar 2.
http://www.tva.com/power/nuclear/wattsbar_unit2.htm
@Atomikrabbit
Watts Bar II does not qualify as a “new” plant or a new license. It was licensed to begin construction in
the 1980s 1974. It was not reviewed or approved by Dr. J.@ Rod,
I use Dr J as a diminutive And to show my lack of respect.
I think the construction permit was actually granted in about 1974 actually, Rod.
@Joel Riddle
You’re right. Thank you for the correction.
Point taken.
With some belt-tightening, an inevitable rise in NG prices, a little positive PR, and a changeout of a few politicians, the US nuke count might be back up to 105 by 2018.
105 would require a reversal of the VY decision. Are you thinking that is feasible? It was 104 prior to CR3, SONGS 2&3, Kewaunee, and VY, bringing it down to 99 as of January 2015. Adding in VC Summer 2&3, Vogtle 3&4, and WBN2 would put it back at 104.
@Joel Riddle
It is possible for Entergy to change its mind about Vermont Yankee right up until the time that they file the documents required to turn in the operating license. There are two documents, one certifying that operations have ceased, the other certifying that the fuel has been removed from the core and will not be replaced. Once those documents have been filed and accepted by the NRC and the operating license is terminated, there is no precedent for any recovery. It would require a new licensing process on an old plant. For a 620 MWe isolated plant, there would be no economic benefit for the action.
It’s unreal, Atomikrabbit! Every Wiki or Google citation on a nuclear plant is predominately OBSESSED with emergency evacuation plans and population proximity and civil defense measures and safety -safety-safety and things that MIGHT go wonky. Is ANY other industry treated this way??
@Daniel
October 12, 2013 at 6:43 AM
“And we all agree and know that at some point Dr J acted illegally. He has not been prosecuted.”
I am not a lawyer so this is really just a question. But didn’t the DC circuit court ruling that the NRC must finish and publish the Yucca Safety Evaluation basically prove the termination was at least in part illegal? Experts encouraged to pine in here. But the problem is it is a civil not criminal matter. The courts have already ruled that DOE must pay the utilities for storing the DOE fuel on the utility sites, because of DOE breach of contract. So this is hitting everybody in the pocketbook. Sooner or later the whole nuclear community must realize this guy is costing big bucks and can not be ignored any longer. It is not just a job for pro-nuclear bloggers and messengers. He is here to stay, and has become the “go to” guy replacing Arnie. It is long past time to discredit the man, and it will take money to do it, but cheaper in the long run. Right now it seems to me the total pro nuclear community attitude is “no news is good news”, so they avoid interaction with the man. Have you seen a nuke plant owner discrediting him in any big way? He gets press 20 to 1 in his favor. A big mistake. You/we can’t force reporters to run our side of stories. But we can pay for ads to get our side in the news. It is long past time to begin.
I think there is somewhere cause for criminal misconduct from Dr J.
It is one thing to be an incompetent bully. It is another to have broken the law.
Dr J. Incompetent bully and criminal. That is what I want him to be known for.
How this person ever made it to the top of the NRC is beyond me. How could that happen? In what universe was that a good idea?
I honestly think I could have done a far better job. I can say that in total confidence.
What a disaster for environmentalism. I cant even think about it without getting angry at the Obama administration. I cant seem to get past it either even though I voted for him twice. I think now the quicker this administration is out of power the better. The back-room deals and PR first polices have worn a bit too thin on me.
John, the problem is that there used to be a rational alternative, but the Republican party has been taken over by ideological extremists, who don’t even believe in the Constitution or our way of government.
My second vote for Obama was about as unenthusiastic as it is possible to be. It might be the case that nuclear will do better under a Republican administration, but I’m not sure, given the strong ties to oil/gas. Of course I’m talking about ‘regular’ Republicans (a vanishing breed). Where the ‘tea party’ stands on nuclear, I have no idea. I’m not sure those guys have even thought about it, or would be capable of doing so.
Everyone I have talked to who claims to be a tea party person is also ardently pro-nuclear. As far as being capable of thinking about it, I know I am (Ph.D. in NE, neutron transport focus). It is wise to avoid egregious generalizations.
The Democrats force through a massive bill, voted on completely unread, which turns out to incorporate a revenue-raising measure originated in the Senate (blatantly un-Constitutional)… and you say the REPUBLICANS don’t believe in it? The few in Congress who do are ALL Republicans.
I wonder why the gas fracking operations are not held to the same standards as the nuclear industry when it comes to radiation?
Dangerous levels of radioactivity found at fracking waste site in Pennsylvania
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/02/dangerous-radioactivity-fracking-waste-pennsylvania
I don’t personally think that radiation could be called dangerous, but when the anti-nuclear folk are screaming about the ‘life-ending’ radiation, measured in micro-sieverts, around Fukushima, then shouldn’t the frackers be receiving the same bad press?
@GaryN
My thesis is that both the media and the environmentalists favor natural gas over nuclear because it’s their job to promote the interests of their source of income. Natural gas is a product of Big Oil, a consistent advertiser and funder of “non-profit” foundations.
Jaczko’s anti-nuclear demands had a significant effect on the delay and cost of licensing. What economic benefit is the NRC providing if all they do is hold back nuclear energy? If the government shutdown and budget tightening continues, perhaps there will be an opportunity to make this agency more productive.
“What economic benefits is the NRC providing if all they do is hold back nuclear energy?”
Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of benefits, if you’re a fossil fuel profiteer.
“Yes, I know that this entire post can be considered an ad hominem attack.”
I do not care if the post was an ad hominem attack or not. It was truth. But the problem goes higher. While Bush put Jackzo in the NRC as a compromise with Harry Reid to stop holding up John Roberts’ nomination as SCOTUS Chief Justice, it was Barack Hussein Obama who made him chairman of the NRC, and when he proved to be a liability to Barack Hussein Obama’s “pro-woman” 2012 platform because of his despicable behavior towards women, he was made to resign and Allison Macfarlane (coincidentally or not a woman) was appointed, and while she is nicer, she still is anti-nuclear. The problem is Barack Hussein Obama. Get rid of him and his allies. Hate the Republicans all you want, they are less evil and they won’t be the obstructionist against nuclear that the current regime is. But now I have to wash my hands for typing anything on this horrid subject. Yuck! 🙁
We had our fair share of Republican governments over the years. No matter what, the NRC grants licences every other 30 years.
And some say the NRC does not have a predictable licensing procedure.
Bogus I say. (grin)
Something big has to happen and soon. But we have the Dalai Lama, Gates, Branson and many more on our side.
But the law of the few stands. The green aristocrats like Lovins, Fonda and RFK Jr want us to bear less children, use less energy: a way of life that the rich and plentiful can sustain once they are at the top in order to prevent the masses from reaching the top.
Energy is the ultimate equalizer for the poorest countries. (Wake up UN and World Bank)
And again. At the risk of repeating myself. We need a Fukushima like incident in the South Eastern USA. Zero radiation death drama of course. Then all the nuclear industry along with the Navy nukes, active and retired, would be able to use all of their influence and clout domestically. No travel expenses and access to local media. Mano to mano fight. Facts only the facts.
I know. I know. The nuclear industry is the safest of them all. But I wish for such a mishaps to happen.
@Paul Primavera
Why do you negate the value of your comment by only using one person’s middle name?
Why does that matter so much to you? My middle name is Matthew, but I did not write any gospels.
It is a common anti Obama tactic because the name “Hussein” makes people think “Muslim” just like the anti bush people made a point to say George “dubya” Bush to remind people that he had a reputation for being uneducated.
In either case I find it wrong.
Help needed.
There is a foundation in Montreal called One Drop. It was created by the owner of the Cirque du Soleil and aims at providing water to third world countries.
I want to get in contact with them and push nuclear and educate. (Hey maybe they can give a wake up call to the World Bank, you never know)
Here is my question to the board: Is there a working commercially available nuclear reactor model and design that suits water desalination NOW.
Daniel- The short answer is yes. Reverse Osmosis desal systems just need electrical power. Other evaporative type systems can use heat from the plant. Much more detail here:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Non-Power-Nuclear-Applications/Industry/Nuclear-Desalination/#.UlqhthClrng
Pete51,
I want a commercialy opérating nuclear reactor model.
I want a working solution And the name of a Country Town where it works today.
Daniel- Any nuclear plant that produces electrical power can supply that power to a large RO desalination plant. US AP1000, French EPR, Russian VVER, South Korean APR-1400, Canadian CANDU, take your pick. The link I supplied describes several large RO plants currently in service (Israel, Singapore, Australia) using RO, and supplying potable water at around 50 US cents per cubic meter. The fuel source you use to generate the electrical power might not be uranium, but that doesn’t really matter for the RO plant. Nuclear usually compares favorably in O&M plus fuel costs for generating power. The high up-front construction costs for nuclear is where the problem is.
However, I recently read that China’s Sanmen dual AP1000 plants will have a total construction cost of $6.5 billion. That is very reasonable. The two Vogtle plants in Georgia are somewhere north of $14 billion right now.
I am simply asking for One working nuclear reactor that is used to desalinate Water as we speak.
Does this exist And if so where.
@Daniel
All US Navy submarines and aircraft carriers use a portion of their power to convert salt water to fresh water. Most of them use RO systems, some use flash evaporators.
Yes. Just look at any US Navy CVN (aircraft carrier). The reactors are used to desalinate water for the crew in addition to providing electricity and propulsion.
The Soviet BN-350 reactor was also used for desalination.
From the link I previously posted. Under the heading- Desalination: nuclear experience. Kazakhstan, Japan, India, Pakistan, China are referenced.
Regarding China-
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China–Nuclear-Power/#.UlrI0BClrnh
“The [Hongyanhe] project incorporates a 10,080 m3/day seawater desalination plant to provide cooling water.”
Hongyanhe Unit 1 is currently in service. Units 2, 3 and 4 are under construction. I don’t know the status of the desal plant. I would guess the “cooling water” referenced above would be water going into the primary and secondary plant systems. That water is required to be much cleaner than drinking water standards, with all minerals removed.
Navy nukes to desalinate water, I can dig.
But is there a single civilian nuclear reactor that is used today to desalinate water?
From expert testimony from Rod and Brian, this would not exist.
Isn’t Russia in the process of building a floating nuclear reactor to desalinate water?
@Daniel
Please do not misinterpret my statement – I told you about desal plants that I know exist. I did not mean that list to be interpreted as comprehensive. As Pete51 told you, an RO facility is just an electricity powered way to produce fresh water. They can be powered by any electricity generator, including any of the 400 plus commercial nuclear plants around the world. Why do you insist on an example where there is a dedicated nuclear plant and an identifiable RO plant?
@ Rod,
As I pointed out in an earlier post, I want to get in touch with the ONE DROP foundation here in Montreal. It is a philanthropic organization focused on getting water to the needy.
I wanted to know if a singular, commercial, civil nuclear reactor anywhere in the world was being used today for such an application (to desalinate water)
Then I wanted to have ONE DROP dig the concept and try to see of the World Bank, whose mission it is to help finance infrastructure projects for the poorest countries in the world, could one day wake up and do something on a nuclear scale.
This was my motivation.
@ Sean,
Yes the russians are in the midst of getting this done. An out of the box nuclear combo platter with watts and water desalination.
Watch the line up in 2-3 years.
Pete51,
Your article states that Australia Perth would have such a reactor.
I doubt it.
No, it says the Perth plant uses RO. Any electrical power generator can be used. The fuel choice for generating that power is up to you.
For those of you who miss DV82XL, you can give him a wake up call at DV82XL@Gmail.com
I know I did
Any comment Dr J ?
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-13/u-dot-k-dot-says-deal-on-22-billion-nuclear-plant-extremely-close
From your link Daniel:
“…the project would be one the U.K.’s single largest investments and pressing ahead would be a boost to the government’s policy of using large infrastructure investment to spur economic growth.”
Sitting around a camp fire last night, one smart young man, presently working on the Fort McMurray oil sands project, and earning absolutely insane amounts of money, was saying that nuclear could put all these people out of work, and that I should consider just how much money is put into the economy. And that is what the governments want, lots of jobs (the young man said there were people commuting to New Zealand, 2 weeks in, 2 weeks out), and lots of money that trickles down to so many support industries. Even the lowest paid workers up there all drive new tricked-out F250 4x4s it seems. When you consider all the work and money created by all the carbon based energy operations around the world, it is true that shutting the taps off suddenly would cause huge labour market disruptions and be a big hit on government revenues. No wonder its “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” with carbon fuel power generation, so how do you counter that argument?
A lot if carbon being used to get the carbon out.
Nukes would make tar sands And gas extraction cleaner.
If we doubled or more our world nuke capacity we would need a ton of AO’s, RO’s, HP’s, CHEM TECHS, etc… Not to mention the outage workers…
Abolishing drug smuggling would put a lot of people out of work too. Some jobs do more harm than good.
One thing which I think should be brought up, whenever Jackzo is mentioned, is his self-proclaimed incompetence.
He claims to oppose nuclear electricity generation because he maintains that heat from residual decay after shutdown makes nuclear reactors inherently unsafe. When asked why he only now took this position and not while he was on the NRC, he claimed that he only recently became aware of it.
So, Jackzo was on the NRC as a commissioner and chairman for how many years? And he didn’t know about residual decay in all that time?
Incompetent. By his own words.
One way Dr. Jazko can help promote natural gas: See him on an informercial, showering his baldness with a gas water heater, cooking on a gas range, doing a barbecue with a gas grill. Think we will see him load clothes in a gas dryer?