|

President Trump: Nuclear energy is the mother lode of untapped potential

ByRod Adams

President-elect Trump’s gracious acceptance speech includes a statement that should stimulate creative people who appreciate the capabilities of nuclear energy yet are saddened by the huge gap between the promise and the current reality.

“I’ve spent my entire life in business looking at the untapped potential in projects and in people all over the world. That is now what I want to do for our country.”

Nuclear energy is the mother lode of untapped potential.

At Atomic Insights, we’ve been documenting the reasons why nuclear’s potential benefits have barely begun to be exploited and put to beneficial use — both in the initial posts provided by your host and in extensive comment discussions provided by the growing group of talented contributors.

We’ve also been talking for years about the actions that could release a great wave of creative solutions to reduce or eliminate the erected barriers, improve our internal management practices, begin effective marketing efforts and solve the remaining cost and schedule challenges that scare potential customers away.

With a newly elected president who states that he wants to make America great again, we have a golden opportunity to remind both our leaders and the public that nuclear energy development was once a great business full of optimism and ingenuity.

The universe of challenges that can be mitigated or overcome with the intelligent use of the vast, emission free energy that our creator locked inside the nuclei of certain superfuels — uranium, thorium and plutonium — continues to expand.

Compared to the 1960s through the 1980s, when nuclear energy production was expanding rapidly around the world, we have more people, more energy demands and a greater realization of the importance of using sources that do not pollute, minimize their footprint and require less supporting infrastructure.

The existing nuclear power plant sites in the U.S. are underdeveloped assets with available land, buildings that can support a much greater production level, transmission corridors, a trained workforce capable of expansion and supportive communities that recognize the value of having productive enterprises that serve important societal needs and desires.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is an organization full of capable people, but its effectiveness been hampered during the past decade or more by unproductive, politically divisive oversight and poor management. Its budgets have been attacked as being too large, but the responses to the attacks have often resulted in practices that reduce effective ability to regulate.

Decisions take longer than they should, adding unaccounted costs without making any improvement in the outcome. People get realigned into unfamiliar roles and slow down their reviews as they learn their new responsibilities. Corporate knowledge gets lost in waves of early retirements or buyouts, again adding an unrealized burden by breaking the necessarily level of continuity that contributes to efficiency.

Development of a robust nuclear energy industry can and should be a unifying activity. A prosperous industry serving a growing appetite for affordable energy would be capable of funding the kind of research and development effort that will be needed to begin working up the evolutionary S-curves of technological development. It’s time begin expansive efforts to tap the incredible potential of the only new energy source discovered in the past couple of centuries.

Government enabling action is needed more urgently than government funds. The president’s bully pulpit can be used to inspire the workforce, to improve regulatory effectiveness, to create new energy demands as we work to improve our crumbling infrastructure and to help expand on the growing realization that we can have both an expanding economy and a clean economy based on essentially inexhaustible resources.

What about increased competition from fossil fuels?

I’m not fazed by the prospect of streamlined regulations and expanded domestic development of hydrocarbon resources. Combined with abundant heat energy from atomic fission, America’s raw materials can be fully developed into finished products for global markets while improving our shared environment.

The chemical processes needed to convert materials like coal or natural gas into clean liquid fuels have been known for almost a century, but they can be more cleanly and effectively applied with abundant heat from clean atomic fission.

Abundance lowers market prices and reduces the financial incentive for extreme energy exploitation in underdeveloped areas. When there is competition for an expanding market, suppliers work hard to eliminate waste and to expand the productivity of already built infrastructure.

New pipelines reduce the risks associated with both old pipelines and with alternate sources of transportation like trucks and trains. Expanding demand provides the incentive for financial investments in improvements and maintenance; falling demand results in more risky practices known colloquially as “milking the cash cow.”

What about competition from renewables?

I suspect that wind and solar energy development will be put on a more rational basis by allowing the currently scheduled phase out of tax credits to progress without intervention.

Both industries have made it abundantly clear that they are mature technologies with falling costs and increasing ability to compete. I relish the prospect of taking them at their word and engaging in competition on a more level basis.

Like raw hydrocarbons, biomass can benefit from partnering with abundant fission heat to improve both productivity and product quality.

Maybe the Ft. Calhoun Station can be turned into a demonstration of exactly that kind of partnership. There is a huge biomass refinery on the northern border of the plant site. That situation seems like a prime example of “untapped potential.”

There’s little doubt that many of my colleagues in clean energy advocacy will be horrified by the prospect of increased fossil fuel extraction and the removal of financial incentives for wind and solar.

I’m sure there are nuclear supporters who will be offended by my suggestion that the government does not need to spend much money on nuclear energy research if it focuses its efforts on figuring out how to get out of the way.

During the recent ANS meeting, I was reminded that some current leaders in the nuclear field firmly believe that success can be defined by the ability to capture large quantities of government funds for “big science” projects, even ones that never produce anything of value. I’ve never been a fan of that kind of grand challenge.

Nuclear energy is fully capable of competing. It can make a vast improvement in the cleanliness anc capacity of our energy supply. Society has a lot of work to do to make the earth a better place for us all. It can use all the energy we can provide.

Avatar
Rod Adams

Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.

163 Comments

  1. Off topic but important: Happy Veterans Day Rod. Thank you for your many years of dedicated service.

    I like the piece also; Nuclear Power is a American treasure in technology, industry and responsible environmentalism.

  2. This is an excellent strategy, it is business compatible and well conceived. However.. How will progressive nuclear regulation reform proponents get visibility and voice within the Trump cabinet? My concern is he will only bring in rich and powerful elites who supported his campaign.. This isn’t like how Obama actively engaged the citizens and listened to their ideas. What is the strategy to get inside his coalation?

    Likewise, Happy Veterans Day!

    1. @Bryan Hallez

      Nuclear energy advocates are already inside Trump’s inner circle. I can name at least 3 – Jeff Sessions, Peter Theil and Don Hoffman.

      2. Add Ado Machida to that list; good guy (former Cheney domestic policy director who helped assemble the nuclear provisions in the 2005 Energy Policy Act).

        1. Giuliani as well…in fact he is the only one that has a consultant firm which in large part is a pro-nuclear lobbying group.

          2. “what is the name of Giuliani’s consulting company”

            Guilliani partners…..

            Giuliani Partners has been categorized by various media outlets as a lobbying entity capitalizing on Giuliani’s name recognition.[18][19] Clients of Giuliani Partners are required to sign confidentiality agreements, so they do not comment about the work they get done or the amount that they have paid for it.[4] Giuliani himself has refused to talk about his clients, the work he did for them, the compensation he received from them, or any details about the company.[4]

            One of Giuliani Partners’ clients during this time was Hank Asher, an admitted drug smuggler and millionaire founder of companies that perform electronic information gathering (datamining) on individuals. According to a shareholder in the company, Asher hired Giuliani for his “influence with the federal government to enable Mr. Asher to take an active role in Seisint as a chief executive officer despite the allegations about his drug dealing”. Giuliani helped Asher’s company get $12 million in government grants.[4] After Asher’s past was publicly revealed, he resigned from the company; Giuliani defended him to newspapers without mentioning that Asher was a paying client.[4] After Asher’s resignation, investors in Seisint looked into how much Giuliani Partners had been paid: $2 million a year in fees, a commission on sales of Seisint products, and 800,000 warrants for Seisint stock, which would prove valuable when Seisent was sold to Lexis Nexis for $775 million. One investor sued the board, claiming that Giuliani’s contributions had not been worth the large amount paid.[4][20] The Seisent database product that Giuliani Partners was to help market, the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, was itself criticized on civil liberties grounds, and within two years the program had folded.[21]

            In representing Purdue Pharma, maker of OxyContin, in a case against the Drug Enforcement Administration, Giuliani Partners negotiated a $2 million fine and no further penalty for what the DEA called “lax security” at plants that produced the drug, which the DEA said was being used as a recreational drug. The lead DEA investigator later said that Purdue Pharma escaped harsher penalties in the case because of Giuliani’s connections to government officials.[4] Giuliani later represented Purdue Pharma in a recently settled case in which the DEA accused the company of marketing OxyContin by playing down its level of addictive properties. Giuliani met with government lawyers six times to help negotiate a settlement in the case.[4]

            Forbes reported in November 2006 that Giuliani Partners accepted fees from penny stock firms, made alliances that have gone nowhere, and formed pacts with businesses and individuals that have come under scrutiny by regulators and law enforcement officers.[22] For instance, Giuliani Capital Advisors accepted 1.6 million warrants from Lighting Science Group at 60 cents, a fee of $150,000 and a promise to raise cash. The company went bankrupt, losing $412,000 on sales of $137,000 in the first part of 2006. A venture with CamelBak started out under Giuliani’s consulting arrangement with $31 million in sales, but was run into the ground with various missteps, including having the disgraced Bernard Kerik sit on its board. Forbes said Giuliani’s most controversial deal was throwing in with a 2004 project with Applied DNA Sciences. Its backer, Richard Langley Jr., had previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and commercial bribery in another penny stock scam; another, Jeffrey Salzwedel, had been fined for making “unsuitable” stock recommendations to clients; and the brokerage firm Vertical Capital Partners, a third backer, had been penalized repeatedly for various securities violations.[23][24]

            Mexico City hired Giuliani Partners to consult on its crime rate, hoping for a drop in crime like that which New York City had experienced in the 1990s. Giuliani toured the city for a day and Giuliani Partners produced a report analyzing ways in which crime could be reduced. However, in the year after the plan was implemented, crime dropped by only 1% and some city officials expressed regret at hiring Giuliani for a $4.3 million fee. Some called it a “$4 million publicity stunt”.[4] Some of the recommendations that were put into place included using Breathalyzers on drunk drivers and targeting “squeegee men”.[25]

            Giuliani Partners has had contracts since 2005 with Qatar’s Ministry of the Interior, for security advice and consulting services.[26] These contracts were overseen by Minister Abdullah bin Khalifah Al Thani, a member of Qatar’s royal family.[26]

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliani_Partners

          3. Contrary to Tuckers claim, “Giulliani partners” once was gired to do a report on security at Indian Point. It did so, gave the plant a clean bill of health, and that was that. Of course, the consulting firm was paid for their assessment. As far as lobbying goes, I can find no evidence thst Giulliani partners has done any lobbying on behalf of NE. However, the firm has done considerable lobbying on behalf of the oil rich nation of Qatar. The firms clients have also included a known illegal drug distributer/smuggler, as well as a large pharma corporation that was involved in litigation about its attempt to downplay the highly addictive nature of oxi-contin. Rudy, and his firm, seemingly have no concern for the nature of their clients, as long as they pad his pockets.

  3. We are of the same mind, Rod, as I am in total agreement with the positions you have outlined. The nuclear industry needs to realize that we need to change as much as our regulator and the US energy markets. We also need to end the mindset that the nuclear industry be saved by that next great government project. The government needs to get out of the way and let us do the rest. It will not be easy, but things worth doing usually are not easy. I believe that we can compete on cost, even in this market. The proof is that we have done it before…that’s how our industry started. The low gas prices are simply a larger hurtle to jump over…besides combining the attributes of a nuclear power plant and a combined cycle gas plant can have tremendous benefits to both consumers and the environment.

    I will admit that I am somewhat disheartened at the negative comments that I have seen on this blog lately regarding the prospects for the future of the nuclear industry, especially when personal attacks begin. I respect those folks opinion and appreciate their enthusiasm for nuclear science and technology, but we all need to deal with reality and make it the best that we can. Wishing things had gone the other way will get us nowhere.

    I believe that the sentiment you expressed is a good mix of hopeful optimism and a hard nosed view of reality. Lets get to work.

  4. Hi Rod – Just read your article in Forbes regarding the prospects of Donald Hoffman being named Energy Secretary – hope the possibility, remote as it might be, becomes a reality. Your article certainly puts Don Hoffman on the radar of many, including myself, who were unaware of any discussions the President Elect has had with someone possessing a strong background in Nuclear Energy.

    I hope this article – “President Trump: Nuclear energy is the mother lode of untapped potential” – reaches it’s intended recipient.

    Since Donald Trump seems to envision himself, as well as wishing to portray himself, an iconoclast. Perhaps Bill Clinton’s statement in his 1994 State of the Union address “We will terminate unnecessary programs in advanced reactor development” might serve to not only emphasize to him why nuclear development has languished but to ignite a desire to challenge long standing attitudes among the leadership in Washington.

      2. Nobody gets and keeps a fortune of several billion dollars by being an idiot.  That kind of talk doesn’t pass the laugh test.

        1. I can make the case he’s an “idiot”. But he’s far more ignorant than smart. And this is not the place to prove anything about him. There is simply zero evidence he “gets and keeps a fortune of several billion dollars”. He’s a rich guy and that’s about it.

          1. Actually, a feasable reason for concealing your tax statements would be to hide the true and amount of your “wealth”, if in fact it exists. EP has absolutely no evidence for his claim that Trump is worth billions. But hey, it sounds good, and must be a real comfort to those laborers and contrators that have been cheated out of their monies by this despicable thief, con man, and liar.

        1. @pao, no…the reason to conceal how much money you made after *bragging* you are a “billionaire” is because his reputation is just that: a billionaire. Likely he is lying and didn’t want to get caught doing it. It was never about his “finances” but about his *tax returns* which probably showed like a lot of rich, he paid little in taxes and he wasn’t worth as much as he said.

          1. I disagree, david. I think there are numerous reasons fot concealing his taxes. Primarily, I believe it was to hide his business affiliations and interests. But I highly doubt he is as wealthy as he claims. On tja th note, thr involvement of his kids in both the business, and the administration, is completely polar to the separation he told us would be put in place should he win the presidency.

            Defending this man is as despicable as the man himself.

          2. “Defending this man is as despicable as the man himself.” – says the person more often wrong and disrespectful than anyone here.

            He won. He beat all the wonderful lawyers you love so much and is going to work for free.

          3. Just going to ignore the fact that this “separation” of hos business interests he claimed he would put in place WAS PURE UNADULTERATED BS, eh, John?

          4. “He won. He beat all the wonderful lawyers you love so much and is going to work for free”

            Heres a man that sues, and is sued, LITERALLY HUNDREDS of times. He uses the courts, and lawyers, as a business tool. He is going into the White House with major suits pending, everything from sexual assault, to operating that sham university where he RIPPED PEOPLE OFF who were only trying to better themselves through education. And you’re so friggin’ ignorant to accuse ME of loving attorneys?

            You’re detached from reality, John. Your comments on this thread DEFINE “stupidity”.

  5. The magnitude and consequences of global warming have been greatly exaggerated for political and financial benefit. NE advocates have made a mistake in relying on global warming which has actually benefitted the natural gas industry at nuclear’s expense. On the positive side, Trump’s emphasis on sane regulations and domestic economic growth won’t hurt nuclear. However, if tensions with Russia are reduced, our natural gas export strategy would cease which would keep natural gas prices low. On the other hand, I think there has been a concerted but covert effort to keep oil and natural gas prices low to hurt Russian export earnings (Reagan did this in the 1980’s). That too would end.

    By the way, the overwhelming number of violent acts have been committed AGAINST Trump supporters.

    1. “The magnitude and consequences of global warming have been greatly exaggerated for political and financial benefit”

      Yes, the global scientific community is just in it for the money.

      “By the way, the overwhelming number of violent acts have been committed AGAINST Trump supporters”

      (And you know that, how?)

      But in any case, thats nice. So, I’m quite sure the chants of these students are therefore perfectly acceptable, and will have an extremely unifying effect on their student bodies.

      You know, its kinda pitiful, the contortions that must be gone through to defend Trump, and the despicably divisive tactics he used to reach out for the ignorant and bigoted voters. I don’t know whats worse, the rationalization of Trump’s deviant character, or the mewling hand wringing being employed, like above, to unrealistically think this man can be reined in to act in a manner requiring integrity, honesty, or concern for our democratic principals, out enviroment, or just basic science. He’s a man that knows better than all the experts. Be it our generals, or intelligence officials, or our scientists. Remember when you guys were whining about how the politicians were meddling in military strategy and tactics? Well, now you’ve got an expert in charge. Thank the heavens above that he’s more knowledgable than our military brass. We’ll show nasty muslims now, by golly!!!

      1. You know, its kinda pitiful, the contortions that must be gone through to defend Trump, and the despicably divisive tactics he used to reach out for the ignorant and bigoted voters.

        This is an ignorant rant that could only come from someone who has never read his statements or watched even one campaign speech and whose only impressions of Donald J. Trump come from hard-left caricatures.

        Nope, POA believes Donald J. Trump is LITERALLY Hitler.  POA is the stereotypical low-information voter.  He’d be able to pay a poll tax and pass a literacy test, but relevant knowledge—epic fail!

        Trump is, admittedly, soft on nuclear energy (or at least soft-pedaling it).  He has at most 8 years to do something, and the current regime can’t build a new plant in less than about 10.  But Hillary was certain to be in thrall to the monied interests behind the Greens, and lead to certain disaster while enriching them beyond imagination.  Trump has those same interests in his sights, and is drawing the trigger.  He is going to be far better for nuclear energy, even indirectly, than I think even he suspects he can be.

        As for the nation, it’s no contest.  Trump was the best by far.

        1. Trump’s Campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway appears to be the first woman in history to successfully run a presidential campaign. Crickets.

      2. One of my rules is the “Pauls (not Pauli) exclusion principle”: any idea, concept, plan, perspective or worldview where Paul Krugman and Paul Erhlich agree is wrong.

    2. I don’t know if it is related to global warming but Fullerton CA a high of 96 on Election Day an 97 the next day. February 2016 was unbelievabaly hot for time of year and often required air conditioning and there has been a drought for the last five years resulting in devastation of trees in southern CA.

  6. @POA

    I am a long time reader here and first time poster. I am very aware of your posting and at times curious why Rod allows you to post here. Now I can’t say I am surprised you put the liberal MSM spin on your two stories and completely left out all the professional protesters chanting for the death of Donald Trump and for an overthrow of the democratic process we here in the US hold dear or all the calls from your liberal celebrity friends calling for the assassination of Trump. Trump has come out in favor on Nuclear Power so you non MSM kool-aid portion is also incorrect.

    ASIDE:
    The American people are clearly sick and tired of those in the MSM and those like POA who continue to push the false narrative that those who support Trump are well every name in the book. The American people spoke up and said we are done with professional protesters blocking hard working Americans from getting to work we are done being called every name in the book. How about those like you POA learn from your mistakes and try a different plan or its going to be 8 years of Republican control in congress and 8 years of Trump…which I will be completely fine with BTW.

    1. ” blah blah blah..professional protesters….blablahblah…”

      You must not have got the memo. Trump changed his mind. His second tweet, shortly on the heels of his first one, about these protesters, labels them as patriots, merely exercising their rights. So, uh, I guess you wanna agree with his first tweet, eh? And, of course, those inclined can agree with his second tweet. There ya go, covered both bases in a matter of hours. The man is brilliant. He has already figured out how to mezmorize the impossibly ignorant amongst us. Fall in, comrad, you’re in the right place.

      1. Uh oh….

        “Real change begins with immediately repealing and replacing Obamacare. What a mess,”

        Hmmmm….seems he’s, uh, well, changed his mind. Kinda like he did about…well…hmmmm….anything and everything he has said. After he “bombs the sh*t oughta..” someone, anyone, against the advice of the generals, (that he is smarter than), whats he gonna do when he realizes he made a mistake? Tweet that he never really “bombed the sh*t outta them”, it was just locker room talk?

        1. POA – That last response was classic. Whether people agree with you or not you do have the best sarcastic sense of humor of all that post herein.

          1. Yeah, well, eino, I wish there was something funny about this.

            But I guess I just live in a world where “Drain the swamp” doesn’t mean placing family, heavy weight corporate players, and science denying ideologues in high positions of government. How does dumping a gunny sack full of water moccassins into the water equate to “draining the swamp”? The evidence, in less than a week, points to a man that said anything necessary to run a con to set up a scam.

  7. Rod, I recommend you submit your ideas to http://www.greatagain.gov
    There is a ‘Share your ideas’ form to submit ideas how to Make America Great Again.

    I really appreciate your article and excitement.
    My favorite part:
    “Government enabling action is needed more urgently than government funds. The president’s bully pulpit can be used to inspire the workforce, to improve regulatory effectiveness, to create new energy demands as we work to improve our crumbling infrastructure and to help expand on the growing realization that we can have both an expanding economy and a clean economy based on essentially inexhaustible resources.”

  8. The electoral college doesn’t vote until Dec. 19. Is it possible that they could vote for someone other than Trump of Clinton?

    1. No.  The House has to choose between the top 3 candidates ranked by electoral votes, and intended-spoiler McMullin got zero.

      1. EP:
        Bill’s hypothetical supposes that “someone other than Trump or Clinton” actually DOES get electoral votes. He thus brings up the “faithless elector” situation.
        Suppose 100 of Trump’s electors are “faithless electors” and they vote for Rod Adams?
        Then the election would move to the House where Trump, Clinton and Adams would be the 3 choices.
        Voting would be 1 vote per state, with the House delegation for each state determining how that one vote would be cast. 26 votes wins the presidency.

        1. So far, the only faithless electors have been one or two Clinton electors who have said they will not vote for Clinton.

    2. The electors from each state are also picked from a list submitted by the candidates. The list selected is done so when the candidate wins. They take a oath to convey the wishes of the voters. Petitions are not going to change the outcome.

  9. Fortunately, theres hope for us. The majority of Americans voted against putting this racist lying science denying fascist in office. Funny how his outline of first hundred day actions does not include fixing the “rigged system” he claims the electoral process to be, eh? Oh, I forgot, its only rigged if he lost. You people are fools. And within two years, you are going to realize it.

    1. Perhaps you should support the secession movement they are trying in California. Then hopefully Trump will enact an Executive Order requiring that all power, energy etc. sold to the new country of California be sold at the price of the most expensive electricity, oil, gas, etc. in the USA. That rule is presently applied to all utilities for failure to meet promised electricity contracts, has not been struck down by any court so it must be legal/constitutional. After Diablo Canyon is shut down, CA will be hard pressed to produce electricity in state to meet needs. Perhaps they will revert to Coal, then LA will look like China before the Olympics.

      1. Haven’t actually looked down on the San Joaquin Valley, have you, Rich. It already looks like China before thr Olympics. Has now for a number of years. Gee, I betcha if we didn’t have the EPA, and all these silly regulations reining in major polluters, the San Joaquin Valley would have nice clear air by now, eh? I happen to remember being a kid, and not being able to see across the playground on the days we weren’t allowed to go outdoors during recess. Too bad the EPA was created, and all those nasty rules and regulations. I’m sure we’d have much cleaner air, by golly, if those hippie leftists woulda just let the industry police themselves, uh huh. So take heart, Rich, Trump’ll hand it back to industry, and the multi-national global corporations, take the reins off, and in no time at all we’ll be breathing nice clean mountain air.

        1. Stationed in Long Beach in the early sixties. Have not seen it that bad since EPA cleaned it up. My only problem with the EPA is their illegal take over of rivers all the way to ever spring or melting snowfall. AND the PHONY control of CO2. CO2 did NOT cause the haze of the sixties and does not cause the haze you see today. Even 100% electric cars will not git rid of it. Electric cars just move the pollution. Nuclear will eliminate 99% of the HAZE and is the only way electric cars are pollution free. Look at NG used in home heating and industrial uses. That is NOT being reduced it is being increased. Even the newest generation Ultra Super critical COAL plants are cleaner. But Obama, and the EPA does not want COAL. They are sending the coal fired plants to China and India which is ten times worse than the existing plants in the USA today and each are building ten a week for the next 15 tears. How does that help “Climate Change?” How does doubling the CO2 production over the next 15 – 20 years help? Google China or India and Coal my facts are easily verifiable. The fact that it does not tells me that CO2 is a false flag and Climate Change is all about enriching the elites. Trillions have been made off of the CO2 meme and trillions more will be made before the liberals wise up. Why can’t you see that?

        2. Forgot to add, The plant I retired from is in the process of converting 4 to 6 (number depends on how much wind power they actually get) Coal fired power plants, all of which meet all of the latest EPA requirements other than CO2 per MWH and P2.5.
          Converting a pulverized coal power plant is similar to converting an ancient coal furnace that they heated homes with 40 – 50 years ago tho burn Natural gas. The just put a large gas nozzle into the port coal dust was sprayed into. About as efficient as it sounds. But it meets the EPA guidelines on CO2, etc because the EPA limit was placed just above the average for the typical NG plant. Wonder why?
          By the way, Each of these plants have gone through extremely expensive refits and have just completed them prior to Obama’s EPA mandate. Thus, all of the rate payers get to pay even more for their electricity, fulfilling Obama’s promise.

      2. A thought experiment on CalExit:

        Increasing numbers of productive people and businesses leave.
        Increasing numbers of what are now known as illegal aliens arrive.
        Total fiscal collapse leading to infrastructure collapse.
        Bailout by Asian/Middle Eastern investors or sovereign wealth funds.
        Cost of bailout includes colonization by whoever bails out the Peoples Republic.

        Much as I would like to see CAs influence on national politics disappear, I don’t think I would want a Chinese or Middle Eastern foothold on our border.

        Ironically, the CalExit types probably mock the Confederacy.

    2. Actually the popular vote counts are not completed, probably wont be out until late in the month or December and we are not a direct democracy so it doesnt matter who wins that.

      I dont care about cafeteria fights.

      An irresponsible press and a unwillingness of self policing among Democrats has fanned and continues to fan the flames of real extremism. The Republicans over the same period have generally grown far more moderate and tolerant than ever.

      I am even more supportive of President Trump after the election now if thats possible. Im glad after being a Democrat for a lifetime I switched sides. That was a corrupt and hopeless intolerant and uninnovative dead ended echo chamber for everyone involved. Mind you under Obama a lot was accomplished but, due in part to that, there are new directions and ideas open now that would be foolish not to explore. People need a future of hope. Plenty of good jobs, inexpensive energy, responsible environmentalism and low costs of living.

      Hopefully, given recent behavior and continued improvement Republicans can start winning more local elections as well, after taking both Houses of Congress, the Presidency, and the highest number of Governorships since 1922.

      I dont think most begin to realize, still, how epically things have changed or why. And for the better. Truly historic.

    3. First why are you being such a sore loser? Second it was rigged, its just the democrats cant even succeed right now when they cheat. No worries Soros is still pumping tons of money into the professional protesters because America wasnt sick enough of their antics. I encourage you to google “Obama encourages illegals to vote”, “3 million illegals voted in the election” or “AG investigation Broward country election fraud”. Now none of these stories will be on your liberal MSM news programs but hey you clearly need to be educated on what is actually going on so you are welcome I am glad to help educate those like you.

        1. Hey at least when you are on the losing side and extremely upset by it as you are, you can always resort to ad hominem attacks to show how out of touch with reality you are.

          Like I said before its hilarious the left didnt learn from the landslide defeat they just recieved. All the names you guys called us failed, yet your professional protesters and forum warriors like you continue on the path that gave America Republican controlled congress, the most republican controlled states in decades and by far the most important PRESIDENT TRUMP. Hey I am all for you guys shooting yourself in the foot so we can have decades of Making America Great Again!!! Keep it up bud.

          1. No comment on the fictitious nature of your claim Obama was encouraging voter fraud, eh? Of course not. As far as ad hominem goes, your the idiot that came in with it. I responded in kind. Like I said, you’re as dumb as a rock. Pretty amazing that it only took you one comment to prove it. Then, your second comment only underscored it. Carry on, idiot.

          3. EP just posted a highly edited video, that was edited to create a myth. This is getting absurd. Doesn’t he bother to check this stuff out?

          4. Regardless of the video being of a mistaken comment or edited, should the president be telling people to vote for the interests of someone in the country illegally? Does that seem like its a good idea? Shouldn’t someone here illegally leave or turn themselves in?

            Obama has made a bad situation worse in this case I believe by encouraging more adults and even unaccompanied minors to cross the border. Is that fair to people that wait years and go through significant hardship to immigrate legally? Our immigration laws and polices are some of the most liberal and humane in the world. We should be enforcing them fairly.

          5. “Regardless of the video being of a mistaken comment or edited, should the president be telling people to vote for the interests of someone in the country illegally? Does that seem like its a good idea? Shouldn’t someone here illegally leave or turn themselves in?”

            Thats a pretty luke warm criticism you have for someone ourposely posting disinformation and lies, John. Seems your regard for the truth ain’t as solid as you’d lead us to believe. But, don’t worry about it, I didn’t need reinforcement for something I already knew.

            But, in regards to the second of your comment, I think it makes perfect sense to tell a registered citizen, that has undocumented family, to vote. Or, are you of the opinion that an american citizen, who has undocumented family members, should not becallowed to vote? I mean, I can believe you probably feel that way. Your complete disregard for so many other basic rights of those that disagree with you night as well be compounded by yet one more perverse notion about what you want our democracy to become. Sure, why not, take the vote away from those nasty beaners, eh, John? Might as well include the blacks, seeing as how there is such an effort being made to take away their vote too, through onerous legislation that purposely targets them for marginalization. Frankly, man, you disgust me.

        2. I am all facts bud,nothing to reply to, you go to some left wing nut job website that tells you something when the facts are different. Not surprised you are ignoring the other facts I have pointed out…its very common for desperate hurt feeling lefties like you to resort to name calling at a time like this. Its almost to the point where America is feeling sorry for those like you. You only do it to yourself, you call everyone else names like idiot when you demonstrate post after post your lack common sense and lack the mental capacity to learn from your mistakes.

          Carry on being an angry, desperate forum warrior on here. The rest of us will watch America become great again, its truly sad watching people like you completely fall apart, I really hope you have someone checking in on you during this troubled time you are having. Carry on bud.

  10. Shouldn’t we eliminate subsidies on fossil fuels as well rather than just “clean” energy sources?

    1. Ive gotten to the point where Im starting to like subsidies and tax breaks for energy in general. Perhaps not so much for some and a lot more for others, but always maintaining inexpensive and reliable energy and energy technology development as a necessary part of national infrastructure.

    2. I’m not aware of direct subsidies of fossil fuels. Indirect subsidies such as making land and water available at below market rates do exist.

      Would you care to list subsidies that you are aware of?

      1. IIRC, the EIA (Energy Information Agency) published subsidy figures in 2007 and 2010. Fossil fuel subsidies came to about $.80 per MWHr, again IIRC, nuclear subsidies were something like $2 per MWHr and wind and solar were around $30 per MWHr. I think.

        Interestingly, when the wind and solar subsidies rwally ballooned, someone at EIA decided to stop publishing that subsidy comparison table.

        Also, there were DOE expenses included in the “nuclear subsidies” that should not have been allocated to fission energy production.

        1. @Jeff Walther

          I’m pretty sure that none of the career professional public servants at the EIA made the decision to stop publishing the subsidy comparisons you found.

          Such decisions are far more likely to come down from the political appointees that run the agency.

  11. So…heres EP, defending blatant racism, exhibited by our kids, on school campuses. A true card carrying Trump supporter, a perfect example. Note the ignorance here, despite how long I have posted here, that still thinks I have any more regard for the left than I do for the right. But the ignorant here know no bounds, and can only defend the indefensible by reducing all matters down to partisanship, and right versus left. Its ok for our kids to march down the hall like nazi jackboots, chanting racist screeds. Meanwhile, the spineless lurkers here allow such despicable crap to go unchallenged. No wonder NE is in the shape its in. No balls.

    1. @POA Strongly suggest you google and read or watch “Moore: Trump Voters Aren’t Racists, Many Voted for Barack Hussein Obama” Obviously Michael Moore is more observant and less “ignorant” than you and the many hate pages you visit. Time for you to stop reading the hate and fear mongering web pages and then regurgitating that hate and propaganda here. Most readers here are tired of your regurgitated disinformation and many have left the site due to you. Or is that your true motive?

      1. Rich, you have no idea what I read. Nor what I watch. One side committing travesties doesn’t justify the other side committing travesties. There’s plenty of shame to be had by all. But my opinion of Donald Trump isn’t the result of any opinions expressed by media talking heads, pundits, or newspaper op-eds. It is an opinion formed by hearing his own words, out of his own mouth, and by hours of scouring past news accounts of his statements, business dealings, bankrupties, social appearances, talk show appearances. By the comments here on this thread, I can about GUARANTEE that I have sunk far more research into the man than most here, if not everyone here. On the contrary to your unfounded accusations about where I get my info, it is quite obvious that those here defending this man are the ones that have formed their opinions from media blather, rather than actual research into this man’s despicable and backstabbing history of greed, lies, and unethical business behaviours. Bide my words, this is a disaster for our nation, and within two years, this man will bring this nation to its knees.

        1. @POA so then you are taking back your 9/11 Truther support and your anti-semitic hate innuendos you posted here? Those are the comments that I considered when I said ” fear mongering web pages and then regurgitating that hate and propaganda here.”

          1. Ok. Tell you whay, why don’t you give me one, one post of mine thag was “anti-semitic”. You can’t. But you’re so frigging ignorant that you consider any criticism of Israel to be anti-semitic. Thats just plane stupidity, Rich. Period. You’re a liar. I have never posted a single anti-semitic comment here, nor would I. But I will freely criticize Israel’s illegal expansion, and the grave human rights abuses, war crimes, and aparthied polices currently in play in the middle east. If if you are so absurdly ignorant to think thats anti-semitic, than who is prey to media brainwashing? Get a clue Rich, its obvious you don’t have one.

          2. You know, when you, or Brian in the past, make this accusation of “anti-semitism”, then crawl back under your rock when you are asked to substantiate your accusation….

            It really underscores how the accusation has become a tool to silence ctiticism of Israel. And thats a real shame, because there is REAL anti-semitism. (Steve Bannon and his alt-right followers, supporters, and compatriots, for instance. Of course, we will never see you throw that accusation at him, will we? After all, he’s Trump’s right hand man.). Your misuse, and overuse, of the term really weakens its impact. It is supposed to mean something, and you are robbing it if its meaning, and its import.

        2. you have no idea what I read. Nor what I watch.

          But we can tell where all your ideas are coming from.  Your talk about reading what the European press is saying is a case in point.  What I’m getting from folks on the ground over there is that the European press only reads the most-leftist American press, and more or less echoes what it says as gospel.  What we get back from Europe is thus a set of opinions with anything right of a hard-left POV filtered out.

          I don’t think Europe’s been doing so well in the listening business, not even to people much closer than North America.  Enoch Powell warned of “rivers of blood” if hostile peoples were allowed into the UK, and it looks like Mutti Merkel is just daring her million rapefugees (with a leavening of jihadis) to prove Powell right… as if Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan hadn’t already.  The USA just voted NOT to double down on stupid.  We’ve already had Ft. Hood, San Bernardino and the Pulse nightclub to list just a few, and Hitlery still campaigned to quintuple immigration of un-vettable people.

          It’s time to quit whining.  There’s work to do.

          1. “What I’m getting from folks on the ground over there is that the European press only reads the most-leftist American press…..”

            Of course, he needs to “get it from folks on the ground over there…” because he can’t be bothered to look for himself. European media just a click away, but hes gotta feed us this BS?

            Bottom line, globally, people are alarmed, and amazed, that we put this guy in office. It doesn’t speak well of us. Are we so naive here that we don’t think the rest of the world has heard his divisive racist spew?

          2. Of course, he needs to “get it from folks on the ground over there…” because he can’t be bothered to look for himself.

            I do read some of it… when I have time, and they have English-language sites.

            European media just a click away

            So tell me, POA, just how many languages do you read besides English?  I can manage a bit of French on a good day, if it’s maybe 4th-grade level.  German, Swedish, Italian, Spanish, Danish, Finnish, Hungarian… no hope without a translation app.  And you know as well as I do how much of a mish-mash they produce.

            When you say you’re reading European media, what exactly ARE you reading?

            I’m getting feedback from natives, who also know their local zeitgeist.  I trust them to tell me what they’re getting, because they are fluent in both the language and the culture.  What I get confirms that the lügenpreße is a pan-European phenomenon, not just German.  They are carrying out the globalist agenda, and if you take their marching orders you are just a tool.

            Probably appropriate for a carpenter to be a tool.  Apply the tool, get woodwork.  Simple.

          3. “Probably appropriate for a carpenter to be a tool. Apply the tool, get woodwork. Simple.”

            This is the hallmark of an ignorant bigot. When all else fails, attack the person’s proffession. I recently joined a customer, in their private Gulfsream, on a flight to Wyoming, to look at a jobsite. I wonder, does EP get flown out to KKK rallies?

          4. POA touts foreign media as THE place to get the Correct and Approved opinions, then refuses to say which specific media he follows, or even what languages/nationalities.  He tries to distract with “KKK rallies”.

            Know what, POA?  At this point I’m so done with libtard shaming language that the only reason I’d refuse to go to a KKK rally is because trying to figure out which others aren’t actually federal informants isn’t a hobby of mine.

            Last, it might surprise you that most Americans don’t even know anyone who has a private Gulfstream.  You might want to look at that and see if it isn’t YOU who’s way out of touch.

          5. Its interesting how a true bigot seems to always assume they know something about a person, when really, they know nothing at all. It becomes the manner that they debate and rebut. I mention a customer flew me to look at a project in Wyoming, and it is immediately opined that my sphere of acquaintance is the elite. And, bingo, I’m out of touch. My clientelle is not my life. Does my work with recovering alcoholics and addicts mean my sphere of acquaintance is urban ghetto dwellers and homeless people? Does that mean I’m “in touch”? What about my sideline and hobby of buying and selling antique woodworking tools? What possible ignorant and spiteful conclusions can a such a small minded bigot possibly conclude from that information? I sail, too. Must be a drug smuggler, eh?

            I’d say it all ain’t all black and white when making assumptions about people. But then again, for the ones with the weakest character amongst us, I guess thats all they got to go on, and it really is just black and white to them. You are this, therefore you are that.

    2. @POA Here is what Hillary supporters did – Google “HIGH SCHOOL GIRL VICIOUSLY ATTACKED FOR SUPPORTING DONALD TRUMP” There are many other examples. if you look for them, all suppressed by MSM. Thus your comments support their actions, both the perps and the MSM.

  12. Good Article and great comments:

    Donald Trump has a massive ego. There is no doubt about that. He will be surrounding himself with well wishers. (I would have used a stronger phrase, but it would have caused this post to disappear.) Perhaps, getting him to pay attention to nuclear energy could be done by using his words to point him to the right direction. I believe Rod’s article may be a start. Trump knows there is such a thing as global warming. The man is not stupid. However, it’s pretty hard for him to reverse his position. He does believe in clean air. Nuclear power can be sold as “clean air plants.”

    The best way is to start a campaign to build a LFTR. It will be a clean air plant. Like the ego driven utility presidents that have had plants named after them, this one could be called the “Donald G. Trump Clean Air Facility.”

  13. I’m a bit curious what happened to this idea that fossil fuel usage is far more hazardous to our health, has resulted in far more deaths, far more disasters, than nuclear energy has.

    For years now, I have seen that argument waged here, as a talking point extolling the virtues of NE.

    Now, those self same people are celebrating the massive (according to Trump) deregulation of the fossil fuel industry, not the least being Rod’s essay, above, that drips syrup like a stack of hotcakes on a Sunday morning. So what changed? Did this vast conspiracy, waged by the fossil fuel industry, against nuclear energy, disappear on Tuesday night? Did these deadly health effects of fossil fuel suddenly become a fiction when Donald conned less than half of us into buying his constantly fluctuating line of BS? What about the disasters, like Deep Horizon? Never happened, I guess, and deregulation is sure to stop it from happening again, even if if did.

    Nope. All that changed is the partisan nature of who is soiling the rugs in our White House. And now, fossil fuel is NE’s friend and ally. Forget the years of criticism I’ve seen here against fossil fuel. Forget these accusations of a concerted effort by the fossil fuel industry to marginalize nuclear energy. Its all good now, Trump’s in charge.

    Rod, why not just delete your archives? They don’t mean anything, anyway.

    1. @poa

      I think you have hugely misunderstood my position on hydrocarbons. I like them. I’ve pointed out their environmental impacts and hazards mainly to help establish the risks that humans have accepted in order to also accept their benefits.

      My point is to show how we have somehow been taught to accept a FAR lower level of risk with nuclear and to give up the potential for even greater benefits. In other words, I’ve tried to show how defensive efforts by certain hydrocarbon interests — a term that doesn’t mean just hydrocarbon suppliers — have resulted in us being sold a bill of goods.

      My archives mean a lot to me and to most of the readers here. Sorry you don’t seem to understand them.

      1. So heres Korsnick, commenting recently…

        “We have a presidential election coming up. And much of that debate has been incredibly polarized,” said Maria Korsnick, chief operating officer for the Nuclear Energy Institute. “But when it comes to nuclear energy, there’s really bipartisan support in Congress and with both presidential candidates.”..

        So what now? Do you folks attack her because she isn’t playing your idiotic left versus right game?

        You know, I’ve ran a little test here the last coupla weeks. Rod’s essay about Korsnick intrigued me, so I did some fairly extensive research, looked into everthing I could find on her. Really, theres quite a bit of info out there on her, both recent and and back aways in the past. Smart woman, strong, successful, concerned, and proffessional.

        Armed with some knowledge, I then started testing the waters here, about what lengths people here go to to inform themselves, and stay abreast of what industry insiders are up to. Guess what? When I painted a picture, totally polar to what I know about the woman, not one of you offered dissent, or cited the very real efforts she is making ON YOUR BEHALF. When I said she was in hibernation, not one of you pointed out how busy she was in October, ON YOUR BEHALF. When I questioned her silence about projected strategies, not one of you cited the statements she has made about her intentions and strategies, not the least being a renewed effort to educate and woo John Q.

        So whats here? A bunch of partisan finger pointing. Have any of you commented on Ebell’s role in this administration, and its ramification for the fossil fuel industry? Nope. Bring up Ebell, and all I get is a bunch of BS partisan spew.

        Its comical. But not very funny. Apparently Ms. Kosnick has a clue. A shame the rest of you can’t find one.

        1. Do you honestly believe anyone reading this blog respects your thoughts, opinions, findings or regurgitation of misinformation and looks forward to the next “jewel” you pen that you post here? Have you not figured out that many replies to your posts are in response to the vitriol you direct toward them, or they are simply to “spin-you-up” or “set -you-off?”
          It is amazing how your presence on this blog has turned this site from an intelligent, informative, respected site into a POA cesspool.
          Why don’t you take a poll asking those that want you to stay respond by indicating such!
          Don’t bother responding to me as I will quit this site once this is submitted. Perhaps in a few years, after you have moved onto disrupt other sites. I can return.

          1. “Do you honestly believe anyone reading this blog respects your thoughts, opinions, findings or regurgitation of misinformation and looks forward to the next “jewel” you pen that you post here?”

            Well, apparently so. I’ve recieved a compliment or two in the last month or so. Don’t recall you getting any, though, Rich. Maybe I just missed ’em.

            But ok. I’ll bite. Those of you wanting me to leave, please speak up, and state your reasons. If it appears to be a concensus here, then I’ll clear out. (EPs opinion, however, doesn’t mean squat to me, so I won’t be considering him part of any concensus.)

            I wish Dr. Shu would chime in about how he feels about a global warming denier and Exxon lackey taking over as head of the EPA, and what he thinks the ramifications are of major deregulation of the fossil fuel industry. Be nice to hear from someone whose opinions are based on common sense instead of political partisan biases and prejudices.

          2. FWIW, I don’t think Rich or POA should leave. Both make valid points although they have differing views. Sometimes the style of either can be a bit abrasive, but everyone’s different. Maybe its best just to let things cool off for a bit and then pick up the debate on less personal terms. Maybe wishful thinking…

      2. Oops…sorry about the double post, Rod. Weird glitch on one or the other end……

        “In other words, I’ve tried to show how defensive efforts by certain hydrocarbon interests — a term that doesn’t mean just hydrocarbon suppliers — have resulted in us being sold a bill of goods”

        If you realize that, than you’d think you’d be able to recognize a con job, a flim flam man, when you see one.

      3. Not one time, on this blog, have I defended or supported Clinton, or Obama. But obviously, anyone with the integrity, or common sense, to dare look at Donald Trump without the filter of partisan bias, needs to be rebutted by applying political labels, rather than by responding to context.

    2. Sometimes its like you cant even read. We have been discussing and arguing this stuff for years. Absolutely NONE of it was all of a “sudden.” None of it. Nobody here that I know of that changed their mind on anything did so quickly or drastically at once. Its been a long, slow, sometimes embarrassing, mistake correcting trudge.

      1. Oh, I get it. Ya’ll have changed your mind about the conspiracy that fossil fuel interests waged against NE. Slowly….so slow that is was nary a coupla weeks ago that Rod was waxing eloquent about it.

        Well, don’t worry about it, John. I’m sure, now that the EPA will get a man whose various organizations have collected millions from Koch and Exxon, who denies global warming, who argues that global warming would be a GOOD thing, if it existed. So he’s an expert scientist, and Trumps an expert on military tactics. I’m sure they’ll show their respective proffessional inferiors, (our military brass, and the global scientific community), how its REALLY DONE.

        1. I dont recall saying that. I can speak for myself. I do recall becoming more appreciative of the role availability of fossil fuels and inexpensive energy paly in quality of life issues over the last few years.

          1. And I don’t recall you disputing it any time that Rod launched into describing this “conspiracy”, either.

          2. We’ve discussed this on several occasions over the years. They are two completely different positions that are not mutually exclusive. Its not as if its prince of darkness evil all over or pure angelic goodness either. Everything isn’t a simple dichotomy. Few if any things really are outside of superstition.

  14. Rod,

    First, this posting is a continuation from my posting in the article about the new NEI president. I do agree with much of what you have in this article. Given the proper government incentives, private innovation, and proper support for the technical issues to resolve by using the DOE labs and giving the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission the needed resources, leadership, and oversight, significant progress can be made over the next four years.

    As in my prior post, I still believe that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel should be part of this and the effort to make this happen needs to start now. In support of my position, I point you to the recent ANS Nuclear Cafe article by Will Davis entitled “International Activities on Used Fuel Reprocessing”. In this article Mr. Davis writes:

    “Mr. Vernon then told the attendees that the process, from political decision to construction of a new fuel reprocessing plant in France would likely take more than 15 years. The signal here is that the discussion about reprocessing, and then the design, construction and licensing of a reprocessing facility might well take enough time to only just be ready when Gen-IV reactors are ready. The major implication then is that these discussions need to begin very soon.”

    I do note that Mr. Veron was discussing the situation in France but I view this as being not significantly different for the U.S.

    Let me close by saying I do understand your last posting to me but that concern can be appropriately addressed as part of starting the planning process now as you describe in this article.

    Enjoy!
    Flying Finn

  15. This whole thread, really, could be addressed with one simple question. And if asked directly, it kinda slams the door shut on this absurd effort so many of you answer with partisan accusation and stupidity. (Or with sacharin appeals to an incoming administration that is being salted with global warming deniers and oil industry insiders.)

    Heres the question…

    Do any of you actually believe that major deregulation of the fossil fuel industry will improve the condition of our environment?

    If the answer to that question is “no”, yet you still celebrate this incoming administration, then please drop the facade of altruism, exhibited by a false claim of concern for what kind of world your kids are gonna grow up in. Get real, and fess up to only being concerned about political alliances, and ideological biases that have nothing to do with altruism, or concern for your fellows.

    1. @poa

      Here’s a more complete version of your question. Do I actually believe that major deregulation of the fossil fuel AND nuclear industry will improve the condition of our environment?

      That would vastly improve both our environment and the living conditions for billions of people around the world. Empowering people is better for all than restricting access to energy.

      I have no fear that “deregulating” energy will lead to major increases in pollution or environmental degradation. Under current conditions, there is NO regulation of CO2 emissions anyway.

      One more thing. Though I appreciate differing opinions, I am getting tired of insults and “chip on your shoulder” statements that assume you are right and everyone else is wrong.

      1. We’ll see, won’t we, Rod? You’ll know pretty quick too. As soon as this man gets his hands on the power of the Presidency, he will reveal who he really is.

      3. “Here’s a more complete version of your question. Do I actually believe that major deregulation of the fossil fuel AND nuclear industry will improve the condition of our environment?”

        So know we are changing questions into something thats more comfortable to answer? Gee, somehow I don’t remember anyone in the Trump campaign, or Trump himself, say anything about deregulating the nuclear industry.

        1. The answer to either one is a qualified yes. The qualification is needed because some regulations are beneficial despite the monetary cost. Regulations which are not can actually be detrimental to the environment if the expense of enforcing the regulations have unintended side effects or divert resources from other environmental problems.

          You rarely solve the original problem without creating a new, unintended problem. Sometimes, you don’t even solve the original problem.

  16. I would be positively surprised if the new administration is more than lukewarm towards nuclear energy. Trump, after all, pandered to the coal industry and this won him WV, PA, Iowa, and probably some rust-belt states as well.
    It is crystal clear: If nuclear is allowed to flourish, coal is dead. A demise that should have happened decades ago.
    Coal to liquids is a pipe-dream, especially at the current oil prices.
    The coal plus nuclear path to energy autarky was promoted in Germany in the 70s and 80s by some, and the pebble bed reactor was proposed as a heat source for this enterprise. Nothing ever came of it. Hard coal was not even competitive with imported hard coal. In the end, the coal industry realised its only survival strategy was to kill nuclear.
    Note also that the US is a coal exporter. If Trump goes into trade war mode, this is certainly bad for coal exports, and the only way growing domestic demand is to kill nuclear.
    Just weeks ago, you had an article here by Frank Shu on achieving negative carbon emissions by burying biochar. Burying biochar is of course a ludicrous proposition as long as elsewhere sociopaths blast off mountaintops to get their hands onto coal that has safely been buried there for the last 250 million years.

    1. RR Meyer, I agree 100%. People who hold out hope for Trump being “pro-nuclear” beyond what it is on a sound bite are deluding themselves. He will be exactly like Bush and Obama: few a few pennies here and there for nuclear, support for some R&D, and that is it. Obama didn’t hinder the 4 AP1000s currently under construction and his energy sec’ty is pro-nuclear.

      I’m not sure the climate-denying head of the EPA is going to do that. This administration is super-pro-coal as others have mentioned. But even that is largely irrelevant: what is key is something beyond the control of a Trump or a Clinton: cheap natural gas. This is the real reason coal hasn’t been built in the US and why proposals for nuclear builds has been stymied: nothing beats cheap and that is something that Trump or his advisors are either too ignorant of or just liars. It’s hard to tell.

      POA: I have the same assessment of Trump as you do. But your intervention here is akin to the venting kind of crap I see liberal Democrats (most of my friends are liberal Democrats and I live in San Francisco) who are all upset about the Trump victory. Get over it. He has zero political mandate (Important in taking both the political and moral high ground) because most voters voted against him.) But the stupidity and ultimate “elitist” character of the Electoral College is water under the bridge. The issue now is over policies and which ones to parse out with regards to energy, which is what this forum is about.

      A correction to everyone: California air is FAR cleaner *thanks only to the Clean Air Act* that regulates NOx and acid rain (though the latter was never a big deal in California). The Clean Air Act and the Clean water acts are great examples of proper legislation. Right now it’s against the law to build coal plants in Cali (though you can import the power it produces as LA does). I’m glad for that as it saves lives these days not to burn coal. The NOx regs were phenomenally successful in reducing smog. The bad air in the Central Valley is due to agricultural industry not power production or even automobiles though the contribute to it.

      I have very little beef with fossil fuel regulations. They need to stay. All of them. Nuclear regulations need to be zero-summed and rewritten starting with ditching the regulatory mandate from BEIR VI based on the LNT.

  17. “I’m sure there are nuclear supporters who will be offended by my suggestion that the government does not need to spend much money on nuclear energy research if it focuses its efforts on figuring out how to get out of the way.

    During the recent ANS meeting, I was reminded that some current leaders in the nuclear field firmly believe that success can be defined by the ability to capture large quantities of government funds for “big science” projects, even ones that never produce anything of value. I’ve never been a fan of that kind of grand challenge.”

    Couldn’t agree more with these last two paragraphs. I’ve come around to thinking that many IN our industry are actually part of the problem. They include companies that view unnecessary requirements as a great opportunity to make a buck (as long as the industry is still around, eh?). Another example is nuclear researchers who hype “problems” with nuclear in order to justify/get research grants.

    Consider the following case (link below) of research on the “crucial” need to contain Iodine-129 for millions of years (even though I-129’s radioactivity level is a BILLION times smaller than that of I-131). The message to the public, from the article and the researcher? Nuclear power generates large volumes of materials that last for millions of years and will have a devastating impact if ever released. Yeah, thanks for the help. How do you think the average member of the public reacts to messages like these? With friends like these…

    http://news.rutgers.edu/news/can-radioactive-waste-be-immobilized-glass-millions-years/20161102#.WCjcl2frt35

    My boss once recommended that I join this group called the Nuclear Infrastructure Council (NIC), because I was into nuclear politics/advocacy. But when I attended the conference calls, the main thing they talked about was next year’s DOE R&D budget, and how to get that increased, etc.. It was solely about bellying up to the trough. No discussion of fixing the greatly unlevel policy and regulatory playing fields (reigning in NRC regs, getting nuclear proper credit for its non-polluting nature). I soon decided that the group was not worth my time.

    I’m afraid that much of the rest of this article, however, strikes me as Pollyannish. Whereas we must try as best we can to work with this new govt. to improve things for nuclear (e.g., reducing regulations and requirements, and making progress on waste), the overall impact seems, to me, to be clearly and profoundly negative.

    I am “fazed” by the prospect of relaxing regulations on hydrocarbon (and coal) even further. Not only is it the wrong thing to do (due to the harm to the environment and public health) but it will clearly harm nuclear. The playing field is already grossly un-level, and this will make it even more so. That will make nuclear less economically competitive, and the likely result will be additional plant closures (that would have not otherwise occurred). Removing prospects of doing anything about global warming will add to that effect, credit for its non-emitting nature being one of nuclear’s few hopes. On that score, it looks like we will have to (mainly) take our efforts to the state level.

    The only hope would be for Trump and the Republicans reducing nuclear regulations as much as (or even more than) they reduce fossil regulations. But given that he’s more in bed with the fossil industry, that is very likely to happen. We should definitely pursue it, but I’m not that hopeful.

    1. You feel exactly as I do about it, Jim. But I can guarantee that striving to work with those such as Ebell is a waste of precious time, that NE has ran out of. These people will need to be opposed, not courted. There is nothing in it for them, to advance nuclear energy. They are oblivious to the concept of environmental responsibility. And they certainly do not think on a national scale. Their loyalties are global, and corporate.

      I’m even more alarmed today, as Woolsey is being considered for a spot on the administration. Not only is he one of the major architects of the Iraq invasion foreign policy disaster, a card carrying member of the P.N.A.C, he is also heavily invested in an effort to have Israel annex the Golan Heights to gain access to the fossil fuel assets contained there.

      The appointment of a man such as Woolsey, only further illustrates that Trump’s campaign rhetoric was smoke and mirrors. How do you call the Iraq war a blunder and a disaster, then sign on one of the main architects of that disaster?

      Something I haven’t seen mentioned on this topic is the fact that a megaphone is about to be applied to a narrative that is highly destructive to the public’s perception of NE. Trump has said he will dosmantlr yhe Iran deal, and his pundits and surrogates are once again hitting the airwaves claiming that Iran will have a bomb within ten years. Considering that Woolsey hasxadvocatef all along, loudly, to pull the plug on this deal, no doubt, knowing Trump’s stated intentions, and Woolsey’s, the treaty is dead. So once again, nuclear energy is going to share the stage with nuclear weaponry, with the claim that one capability enables the other. The public’s perception of nuclear energy as a stepping stone to nuclear holocaust is about to be reinforced, once again. Can NE afford that debate right now, while plants are getting shut down and fossil fuels are about to get a shot in the arm? I think not.

      1. POA points out an area (Iran deal) where I disagreed with Trump. Early on in the campaign, Trump pointed out that our policy with regard to Israel and the Palestinians needed to be more evenhanded. He went on to say that the policy of giving “allies” a free ride on defense had to stop and he specifically included Israel. He also mentioned that we and some of our “allies” were actually supporting ISIS. This is what caused me to support Trump. Some time after this, someone must have had a “conversation” with Trump. He then went forward and groveled before AIPAC. Much, but not all of my enthusiasm for Trump left at that point. However, Hillary Clinton did the exact same thing and she came with other lethal baggage.

        It turns out that for all Trump’s pandering to the Israel Lobby, he received more support from Hispanics (29%) than Jews (24%). Further, the media, and Hollywood were not swayed. Many of the “NeverTrumpers” had a passionate attachment to Israel. Hopefully, Trump realizes this.

        On the other hand, I suspect the Iran Deal was possibly set up to fail to give us a casus belli to attack Iran. Trump had been a bitter critic of the Iraq war so he could have more credibility if he concluded that an attack on Iran was needed. Hopefully this is paranoia.

        We’ll see who he names to his cabinet.

        1. “We’ll see who he names to his cabinet.”

          James Woolsey ring a bell? And of course the jewish vote went to Hillary. She been at Israel’s beck and call for decades. As Secretary of State she stood idly by as Netanyahu committed massive settlement expansion, illegally. Her response? She muttered it was “unhelpful”. She stood mute when Israeli IDF forces have seriously maimed, even killed, american citizens engaged in peaceful protest. She has had nothing but drooling praise for Israel in her many appearances at AIPAC gatherings, conventions, and policy panels.

          Trump, too, will get on his knees for Israel. This is demonstrated by his proposed appointment of James Woolsey. If your prediction of a military action against Iran is based in prescient and informed opinion, Woolsey’s appointment pretty much puts icing on your cake. I’d say you’re spot on. Netanyau is in seventh heaven, with Woolsey coming on board a Trump administration.

          1. James Woolsey ring a bell?

            Woolsey is the co-author of OIl and Security, which specifically cites plug-in hybrids as a technology which can help free us from economic dependence on oil and the ME.  He definitely Gets It.

            Trump’s buildings in Manhattan are certainly served by steam from Con Edison.  He knows how vulnerable everything is to interruption of natural gas and electricity supplies.  If Manhattan was served by its own NPPs for steam and electricity, those vulnerabilities vanish.  I’ll bet that if you brought this up to him, you’d have his complete attention.

          2. E-P – Woolsey may “get it” about energy independence but I am concerned about him (or John Bolton, Stephen Hadley etc.) about getting us in another war for Israel.

            I suspect Woolsey’s energy policies are more motivated by being able to engage the US in wars for Israel’s security with impunity rather than energy independence for it’s own sake.

            I voted for Trump for 3 reasons – end futile wars, stop illegal immigration and end bad trade deals. Picking a neocon for any important position removes one leg of the tripod and puts casts suspicion on the other two.

          4. BTW, fermi, I thought you were using Bolton, as an example, but not implying he was actually being considered for a place in this administration. How wrong I was. More and more, as this disaster shapes up, it becomes crystal clear that Trump’s placement in the Oval Office is the result of a long running and insidious continuation of the P.N.A.C.’s agenda. And now, Pelosi is actually being considered as the leader of the Dem party. All the pieces of the gameboard are becoming aligned. You think the middle east is on fire right now? Stay tuned, for the inferno.

        2. “Picking a neocon for any important position removes one leg of the tripod and puts casts suspicion on the other two”

          Says Fermi as the light bulb begins to come on….

          I’m disappointed, Fermi, because you don’t strike me as a man who doesn’t do his homework. Yet in regards to Trump, and what is revealed with some dilligent research, you have missed seeing what is actually going on here, and who is behind it. Go all the way back to 2001, then start researching those people that Trump is surrounding himself with. This coup has been in the making for quite some time now. The United States, as we thought we knew it, what we wished it could be, is over.

          1. I know all about Trump’s ties to the Likudniks. However, he made several unambiguous remarks that would seem to be targeted at a very small, disdained sector of the electorate. The safe thing to do if one held these views would be to not discuss them if possible and be vague if necessary. Trump was very outspoken. Until the AIPAC grovelfest. I never eliminated the possibility that it may be a ploy. While the names mentioned are not encouraging, I am willing to wait for actual names. And politics being politics, some compromise and disappointment is to be expected.

            Clinton worships at the altar of the neocons. She is just more “nuanced” about it.

            I have no doubt in my mind that a President Al Gore would have invaded Iraq had he (and Joe Lieberman) had won. Might not have been until 2005. But it would have happened. Remember, the Iraq Liberation Act was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1998.

            Clinton wanted TPP and millions more illegals. These positions alone make her unacceptable. Trump still offers the prospect of even slightly better alternatives on theses issues.

            And Bernie is a sellout.

          2. “Clinton worships at the altar of the neocons. She is just more “nuanced” about it”

            Absolutely. And was a staunch supporter of the Iraq debacle. So, eenie meenie, miney mo….whats that tell you about the “differences” between the two parties, behind the scenes? You’ve read my opinion here, about the utiliity of keeping the people divided along partisan lines. Angry, and divided, we have now allowed an election to occur that is a travesty, on both “sides”, of the aisle. The division, since 9/11, has been so perfectly nurtured, that here we are. Bide my words, Fermi, we as a people have just been screwed out of everything we hold dear that our founding fathers envisioned. “It can’t happen here”, just happened.

    2. Jim, some fun facts on I-129: The specific activity is 6.5MBq/g and the beta decay energy an average of 40keV. So the beta decay power is 6.5e6*4e4*1.6e-19 = 4.2e-8W = 1.3J/year.
      The iodine concentration in the thyroid is about 0.1%, hence someone deriving their entire iodine intake from spent fuel (83% I-129) would get an additional thyroid dose of 1.1mSv per year. So it is absolutely impossible to come to harm from this, especially since any release into the environment is rapidly diluted with stable I-127.
      Globally NE generates 2t I-129 per year for 2400TWh. In Germany, each year coal plants puke out 5t much more poisonous Mercury into the atmosphere for 300 TWh.
      In spite of the lack of danger from I-129, vitrification is a sensible treatment for reprocessing waste. If you really want to weep, read up about transmutation proposals to destroy this terrible I-129 forever.
      https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4056-giant-laser-transmutes-nuclear-waste/

      1. I don’t have a problem with vitrification of reprocessing waste, that includes I-129 (as one of many constituents). But the article seemed to say they were considering isolating the I-129 for separate vitrification. That makes no sense.

        Also, I have no trouble with the idea in general, if it’s not expensive (as the researcher suggested). What’s harmful is how it was highlighted and discussed in this article. Telling the public that I-129 containment is “crucial”. As I discussed, that has clear, negative impacts on public perception, concerning the “long-term risks” that nuclear poses.

  18. I would like to see an end to the energy starvation that people are being forced into by the government. Old fashioned incandescent light bulbs are better for the eyes than the light sources the government is trying to force on us. This is especially true for people with vision problems. They are probably also better for overall health.

  19. Anyway, down to business (of making the best of this):

    We had a call over at Environmental Progress, to discuss how we should proceed. We mainly spoke about how me may pursue meaningful reforms/reductions in nuclear requirements that could significantly affect (reduce) costs. Here is a list of things considered:

    1) Use this opportunity to try and get a more reasonable level of regulation. May be able to argue about fairness and a level playing field (i.e., same regulation level, such as dollars per life saved spent, for all energy sources).

    2) Strongly make the case that less rigorous regulations and fab QA requirements are justified for SMRs, given their much higher level of inherent safety, and their much smaller potential source term.

    3) Someone all the call was saying that Emergency Planning costs were significant, and that all those costs/activities were significantly affected by the assumed maximum possible source term. He went on to say that the source term used in 10 CFR Part 100 is unrealistically large (based on new analyses, what was actually seen at Fukushina, etc..) Perhaps 10 CFR Part 100 could be revised?

    4) Other areas where nuclear faces unfair burdens include security expenses and NRC fees. In both cases, it could be argued that the govt. should pay for it instead. With respect to security, we could ask why other facilities, including dams, oil refineries, LNG terminals, chemical plants, tall buildings, schools and large gatherings, don’t have to spend nearly as much on security even though a successful attack on those facilities would actually cause a GREATER loss of life. Participants said that NRC fees are a significant fraction of overall nuclear costs. Are there any other examples where the regulated entity has to pay for the regulators operations? Does EPA work that way?

    5) Use this opportunity to make real progress on waste, i.e., moving Yucca, and perhaps centralized interim storage, forward.

    6) Make the case, to NRC and perhaps Republicans, for regulatory changes necessary to allow the mothball option. (Republican political pressure could have an effect on NRC, with respect to being reasonable in this regard). Rod has already addressed this in detail. One idea I had is that we could argue that they should be able to tap into the decom fund to pay for mothballing related expenses.

    7) With respect to having nuclear get credit for its non-polluting nature, looks like there is not much opportunity at the Federal level, but we should still be pressing our case on the state level, just like before. This all has no effect on getting Illinois legislation passed, for example.

    8) A longer shot would be to try and get the Republican federal govt. to actually try and overturn state renewables mandate policies (or force them to include nuclear). As Rod says (above) removal of the renewables PTC/ITC would be great, and would help nuclear. However, given that the federal PTC for renewables has just been extended for 5 more years, it would be hard to do anything about that, although it would be possible through new legislation (to retract the old), I think.

    I’d appreciate any feedback on any of the ideas listed above.

    1. I like all of it, but for (2) is there actually any quality/reliability improvement in “nuclear grade” parts compared to regular commercial stuff any more?  If you just got rid of all the process documentation for the manufacture of each individual unit and allowed the use of equivalent COTS parts, cost would plummet.

      1. Yes, there is a difference, but it depends on the item and the manufacturing process. For example, I know of a company that makes nuclear grade items and commercial grade items where the only difference, in the end, is the paperwork and the bins they are stored in. Literally, the parts are exactly the same in every way. Of course, the nuclear part costs 3x more.

        Looking at structural materials and “nuclear quality”, I’d focus my efforts to see if we can get the cost of concrete down (e.g., by taking a hard look at the requirements for both the final concrete itself and the requirements of its constituent materials and overall production process).

      2. EP,

        The relative performance of “nuclear grade” vs. commercial grade components is something I’d like to see studied in detail, based on real world data. It’s an “R&D” program that I’d like to see (in addition to the usual stuff like advanced reactors and fuel cycles). I would like to see someone determine both the rates of failure and the type/nature of failure, for both commercial and nuclear grade components, using a broad survey of multiple industries over the last several decades.

        Then, I would like to see that data used in rigorous PRA (probabilistic risk assessment) analyses, which may be used to justify the use of commercial grade for many if not most reactor components (particularly in the case of SMRs). I think that would be a far greater level of detail in PRAs than we’ve seen in the past, but I think it would be worth it (especially if one is planning on building a very large number of modules, well into the future).

        My personal opinion is that “lazy” analyses which simply assume that a non-Q component will fail (100% chance), and/or that it fails completely/catastrophically (e.g., vanishing into thin air), won’t cut it and are a disservice to the industry. Basically, they aren’t trying hard enough to make nuclear cheap. Instead, they’re focused on getting the regulator to say yes, as quickly as possible with minimum hassle. I know, I’ve been there and have often done the same thing. May seem convenient at the time, but look where those practices have led us (nuclear being priced out of the market). We need to put up a fight before just making everything max quality grade.

        1. Jim,

          I completely agree as this is the kind of unsexy, cost-focused thinking that needs to happen. Have you ever done anything with this idea, such as push for an actual study? I would love to help.

          1. Nothing other than preach the idea to anyone who will listen. I’m not sure what else I can do to “push” for an actual study.

            I don’t think this would be any kind of NRC rulemaking, at this point. It would essentially be an R&D project of sorts. I think we would need to pursue a DOE research grant. I suppose it wouldn’t be a petition or any other kind of political movement, so I’m not sure getting a group to pressure some organization (e.g., DOE) would help. Who would the “experts” be, who would make the research proposal? I don’t think I have any special qualifications in that regard.

            Thoughts, anyone? If one wanted to pursue the research described in my earlier post (rigorous detailed PRA analysis on the use of commercial grade components), what would be the best way to go about it? Who would we need to get behind the idea (i.e., what “experts” to do the research, and what govt. entities)?

    2. Jim….my suggestion would be to take a hard look at those people being placed at the head of the energy department, the interior department, and the EPA. Then, contact any and all politicians, on both sides of the aisle, that you know are onboard with nuclear, and raise one hell of a stink. Across the board, Trump is proposing fossil fuel lobbyists, industry insiders, and major oil industry stockholders to head these departments. His idea of “draining the swamp” seems to be injecting steroids into the DC corruption he supposedly ran against.

      1. He has ALL the most wonderful toys and you cant play with them!

        On a more serious note his 60 min interview went well even though I think they were hostile towards him. Clinton certainly never faced that kind of scrutiny. Anyway he said EXACTLY what I said was his position on marriage equality. Its settled. I have been called everything and unfriended by people ive known for decades over that one issue all year. That was another press hyped fabrication. On the lobbyists/insiders issue you and Greenpeace are so worried about he said basically its how things work now in Washington but hes working on it.

        I credit my hefty skepticism of the press and success in calling things they mislead on from my time here during the fukushima coverage. I think it was the exact same situation during this campaign. A whole otherworldly narrative built on misplaced advocacy, fear and deception.

          1. Look it up yourself.

            “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” –

            President Obama to House Republican Whip Eric Cantor, January 23, 2009.

    3. It’s great to see originations like EP working to be construction in this time of change. I agree with all of the efforts mentions, but I question the worth to expend any political effort on Yucca mountain. If storing our “spent” fuel in a larger field is ok, why go through the effort to put it under a mountain? Wouldn’t a fight over Yucca just send the message that the nuclear industry can’t survive without government help? It seems better to let the current efforts to store fuel in rural Texas and New Mexico continue…the industry seems to have found a good enough solution already.

      As another idea, I think that EP should examine how nuclear plants get paid. There is value in their reliability and their grid stabilizing nature. Are they being compensated appropriately for that? All of the items listed are good for the bottom line, but we can’t forget about the top line either.

      2. The main benefit of Yucca is that it represents a “final” solution to the waste problem. That will have significant benefits with respect to public perception and support for nuclear. Much of the public’s opposition to nuclear is based on the notion that nuclear waste is unique and that no technical solution to it has been found. (This despite that the problem is actually entirely political.)

        If Yucca went forward, it would largely eliminate the waste argument that opponents have used to such great effect. Sure, they will still try to argue that Yucca is unsafe and will not acceptably isolate the waste over the very long run, but the strength of their arguments will be greatly reduced, in the eyes of most of the public.

        My personal view is that things like centralized interim storage will not have anywhere near the same benefit with respect to public perception and support. Because it is not a final solution, the problem will remain unresolved and the public will continue to think that no acceptable technical solution has been found. Indeed, such a facility, where the plan is to store (not dispose of) the waste for 100 years or more, will be a symbol of how intractable the problem is, and how we still haven’t found a solution. I know many of us in the industry try to argue that, no, it actually a valuable resource, and that we’re storing it for future use. But I’ve never thought that argument resonates much with the general public, and (frankly) probably never will.

        Similar story with reprocessing and advanced fuel cycles. Putting off disposal and waiting several more decades for some fancy, advanced fuel cycle program to be put into operation only delays the “resolution” of the waste issue by several more decades, allowing nuclear opponents to go on using their most effective argument that much longer.

        I’m not saying that we should not research and pursue those things. Note that the fuel can be retrieved from Yucca (for a few hundred years). Yucca, or some other final repository, gives us the best of both worlds. If we want to take the fuel back out, we can. If we never decide to do so, we don’t need to do anything, since Yucca stands on its own as a final solution. It offers both a final solution/resolution to the problem, along with the flexibility to do something better in the future.

        At the very least, the Yucca licensing process should be completed. That will allow us to say that yes, we have a valid technical solution to the waste problem, which we can always use if we choose to do so. At least that may reduce the public perception, somewhat, that there is no technical solution to the problem.

        Finally, I don’t get how Yucca shows that nuclear needs govt. support. It was paid for by the industry through the 0.1 cent fee. And how would any other waste/fuel cycle approach be different? The govt. will be intimately involved with whatever approach we take.

        1. Jim,

          I agree with you in many ways, especially regarding the need to finish the license. I will attempt to clarify my question above. My concern, as is yours, is about public perception. What truly is the public’s perception of our “waste”? Should we differentiate the public’s perception (whatever that is, and it is probably not a “unified” perception), the media’s perception, and various anti-nuclear group’s perception? I think that there are differences between the three that we can exploit. Here is my guess: the public perception(s) are more malleable than we realize, the media perception is changing (a softening from their anti-nuclear positions of the past), and the anti-nuclear groups perception (or should I say, “official position”) is the same. I think that we can change/improve/unify the public’s perception and the media’s perception, but not the anti-nuclear group’s perception (“official position”).

          Regardless of the technical merits of putting our waste in a bunch of deep tunnels, the major political fights of the past regarding this issue were, in my opinion, universally bad for the public’s perception of our industry. I am afraid that a public quarrel between members of the federal and state governments enables/encourages/promotes a perception by the public that we need government friends to help us out. Whether or not that is actually true is not relevant. I agree that the government will be part of the approach since it has the license the facility, but that should not be a big deal to the public as government “certification” or approval is a common thing. However, it becomes a big deal of people in the government make it a big deal.

          My concern is that continuing the pursue Yucca mountain will take us back down the path of a very public fight and result in more bad PR…which we absolutely do not need right now. Reading some of the articles in the past few days, however, it seems as though the upcoming administration might want to complete it, and they probably will have the political power to do it (esp. since Reid will have retired). If that is the case, then my concern might be moot.

          1. I suppose what I’m saying is that I don’t see how a public fight can be avoided, no matter what we do. The waste will eventually have to be buried somewhere, and that will result in a fight. I also believe that reducing the longevity or volume of the waste will not do much to reduce that fight. The public’s perceptions are not based on science or numbers.

            Are you saying that a long delay would actually help? That is, the waste would just stay where it is and not generate significant publicity or political strife? It may fade from the public’s mind? And you think that that would outweigh the negative impact of having the waste “problem” still not be resolved, for many decades to come. It’s an interesting point. I remain unconvinced at the moment.

          2. Jim,

            “The public’s perceptions are not based on science or numbers.”

            Very true and it’s time we use this to our advantage (which I believe will be difficult for us scientists and engineers). If we could reframe nuclear power in the minds of the public, then, for example, we could show that our relatively small amount of “waste” is a good thing and easily managed. Not talking about Yucca mountain in any major way might allow us time to do that “reframing”. It’s just a thought.

            In the end, it’s all about perception and cost. For us, the two are intertwined.

          3. “Very true and it’s time we use this to our advantage (which I believe will be difficult for us scientists and engineers).”

            Should be easy for you, considering how easily you’ve swallowed Trump’s BS. Heck, who needs evidence, or truth, when hoodwinking the masses? Just watch how Trump does it, then go for it.

    4. Regarding 5, my thought is that partitioning will greatly reduce volume, but it doesn’t solve the heat load issue. Actinide recycle will. Then you have an extremely small volume of material to dispose of that might rightly be called “waste”. If Yucca Mountain is off the table, then this very small volume of true waste could be safely sequestered in the salt formations of NM and West TX. Perhaps an expansion of the WIPP facility would be a way to do it. It would require amending the NWPA and also a government program to do the actinide burning, but we’re just wishful thinking here, so why not consider it?

    5. Jim,

      Has EP ever pushed the idea that an organization could purchase power “directly” from a nuclear power plant at a higher-than-market rate so that purchasing organization can claim to be “green” (similar to how conpanies purchase power “directly” from wind farms)? I’ve proposed this idea before, but it has never gained much traction. If we can promote our “green” nature, then this idea might be a way to profit from it directly in the current marketplace.

      1. No (you can check The Ergosphere to find most things I’ve advocated), and most of my attention has been on non-energy things of late so that’s not likely to happen.

        1. Engineer-Poet,

          I apologize for being lazy and not clarifying this earlier. In my last few posts, EP means “Environmental Progress” and not “Engineer-Poet”. That being said, I always enjoy reading your comments, so please feel free to continue commenting.

          1. ….”so please feel free to continue commenting”

            How nice of you to give him permission. Perhaps now he’ll give us a list of inferior races, and which ones to avoid interbreeding with.

      2. Not that I’m aware of. Their main focus is changing policy to reward nuclear for its non-emitting nature. Mostly at the state level. (They “won” in New York and are now fighting in Illinois.)

        Your idea is interesting. I often get annoyed by such “green power option” ideas, in that they’re always about renewables only. Perhaps some people and a few organizations could get behind the idea to purchase nuclear energy.

        I think some utilities in Europe took the idea all the way, and let everyone choose which generation mix they were “buying”. So, one approach would be to approach utilities and ask them to add a nuclear option. Another example is that many local communities are forming their own collectives to buy renewable energy.

        All such ideas run into a fundamental problem; the same one that is the real source of nuclear’s problems, lack of significant public support. Basically there are two types of people (or organization, or community); those “concerned about the environment” and willing to pay more for renewables, and those who only care about cost.

        We could try this, but the sad fact as that we are simply a small number of people. As for communities, I could perhaps see a few small communities right around national labs (like Idaho or Savannah River) that have so many people in the industry that they may actually opt for a nuclear power option (of offered by their utility). But seriously, it would only be a couple communities.

        Anyway, to reiterate, I think the only way to pursue this would be to approach utilities and ask them to offer the option. I don’t think this idea requires any govt. involvement. If a utility has a large amount of customers who were willing to pay more for nuclear, it would affect their decision to close plants.

        1. I have approached my local utility about this idea…literally I did it this morning. I will let you know what comes of it. I agree with you about the potential lack of public interest. It would help if we had a PR campaign about it from a national organization (NEI, ANS, etc.).

  20. “I’ve spent my entire life in business looking at the untapped potential in projects and in people all over the world. That is now what I want to do for our country.”

    Untapped potential, for Trump=

    Illegal alien work force that he can stiff, then threaten to deport when they look for their paychecks. I guess we are supposed to ignore that he did this.

    Appointing a senior advisor that is a known racist and anti-semite. One wonders what “untapped potential” this despicable bigot will reveal.

    This list could get very long indeed. The 60 Minutes interview was comical. The man isn’t even in office yet, and his surrogates and pundits are already going through the contortions of trying to rationalize and explain the myriad of campaign promises that he is weaseling out of.

    You realize we never will see his tax returns, don’t you?? This man tells one lie after another, to the extent that he can’t even keep track, as his surrogates scramble to do damage control with absurd explanations that only the most ignorant of the partisan bots can swallow.

    It won’t take long before the explanations and justifications become impossible to advance. This man is just simply too deranged, too scattered, too full of himself, to don a single costume and wear it for any length of time. This might not even take the two years I have been predicting. Its like a ship thats taking on water before it even leaves the dock. Meanwhile, his crew is boarding, and they are all carrying hand drills. Take heart, nuclear energy advocates. The sooner this ship sinks, the better it will be for you.

    1. Since Democrats lost control of the rudder many want the ship to sink. Ive never seen people so nasty and vindictive out of the gate and so grounded in hype and misinformation. I cant see myself ever going back to vote for Democrats again after this. Unless the Republicans were to run someone like Clinton. Then I might consider it.

      1. You have this uncanny to offer rebuttal that doesn’t really rebut, John.

        And as far as “nastyand vindictive goes, what, you slept through Trump’s campaign rhetoric, directed towards ANYONE that ciriticized him?

        So, do you deny he has stiffed contractors and laborers? Or perhaps you deny the covert racism and anti-semitism of Bannon, the alt-right, and Brietbart media? If so you ain’t doing your homework.

        1. You’ve criticized him 24/7 its seems over and over and over for months. The same accusations and generalities.

          The Bannon stuff is more leftist media/huffington post garbage. Utter garbage by people that are arguably at many times violent or condoning of violence, racist, sexist and anti Semitic. This reminds me so much of the Fukushima “reporting”, its uncanny.

          Trump was involved in something like 300 plus businesses. So no I dont think he was all that invested in most decisions. And I dont care – if he fought legally for his self interests then GOOD. We need him working on the Deficit.

          Certainly, if noting else, you’ve proven that there is a continuing history of misinformation and propaganda in this race.

          1. “if he fought legally for his self interests then GOOD.”

            What is he fought illegally? In my opinion not paying an honest contractor for agreed upon acceptable work is illegal. Seems like this came up many times with this man. Perhaps the many people that came forward were simply promoting more misinformation.

            We’ve no choice but to give the man a chance. He is definitely different. Fate has an odd way of providing good leadership.

          2. Ive read a few of the articles. Obviously sometimes the courts agreed with Trump affiliated businesses sometimes not. I didn’t see a great deal of research into any one case which makes me very suspicious. After reading another one I was like yea ok, why did I read that. It told me nothing conclusive.

          3. You know, John, I just did a google search using “Trump refuses to pay” as the key words. And such a search reveals that either you didn’t actually research this issue. Or you’re a liar. Take your pick, only you know which one is true. Rather than post links to the media accounts that prove my point, I think it makes more sense, for anyone interested, to do the same search, then wade through the available information. For people like myself, to not get paid for a large contract, is a life changing and devestating occurence. And Trump has done it to people like me, time and time again. It amazes me that partisan bias, and partisan ignorance, disallows people like yourself to place themselves in the shoes of the people this man has victimized, whether it be by rhetoric or by action. Trump knows that most small contractors cannot afford an army of lawyers to fight an extended court battle in order to recieve just compensation for their product. And he has been, and is, litigating hundreds of such cases. For you to claim you can’t find evidence of his unethical, cut throat, and life ruining business practices IS PURE BS.

        2. Obama put a man who admitted he voted for Gus Hall (Communist Party USA) as director of the CIA. And Van Jones, a hard-core Marxist to an administration position.

  21. The amount of energy in nuclear fuel is YUUUUUGE. Nuclear energy is a beautiful thing. Great. Just fantastic. Let me tell you, Nuclear Energy is the best energy.

    (I’m sorry, I just can’t help myself 😉 I hope nobody takes offense to this – it’s simply a bit of humor).

    1. “I’m not gonna say I like it, YOU say you like it.”

      “I’m not gonna say I like it.”

      “Hey, let’s get POA.  He hates everything.”

    1. That was actually well before the election. If you didn’t see it dont feel bad – somehow a public, major policy statement and shift by a candidate was ignored by the national media

      In case you notice too the rape allegations by the person that had changed their story, had no evidence, or witnesses and made incorrect statements – were dropped. The “assault” claims countered and disputed by people that were there, who came forward were also never defended. Everyone disappeared into the woodwork after the election.

      I have never seen such attempts at mass deception. Stephen Bannonam is being slandered now with no proof of claims and charges made whatsoever. It is truly disgusting.

      I am keeping track and score and will not just forget this.

      1. If you’re keeping score, do keep track of score for both sides, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, on Trump himself. He changes his positions seemingly so frequently, it’s hard to keep track.

        I’m trying to take a wait and see attitude about Trump. The way he campaigned was detestable, blatantly appealing to racism, blatantly lieing about his opponents (not just obscure third parties lieing, but the candidate himself caught lieing so many times).

        But, perhaps how he governs will be different. I can hope.

  23. The “assault” claims countered and disputed by people that were there, who came forward were also never defended. Everyone disappeared into the woodwork after the election”

    Actually, this thief, misogynist, liar, criminal, and racist flim flam man is going into office with literally dozens of law suits against him. The women alleging sexual assault have not “disappeared”. The suits have not had any actions these last few weeks that were newsworthy. And the three major suits, about the scam and pseudo college known as Trump University, are proceeding as well.

    John, for someone so prone to accusing someone of misinformation……..

    One wonders, with the pure unadulterated BS, stupidity, bias, and dishonesty that is being waged here, by many regular and prolific participants, what can be trusted about their statements concerning NE.

  24. Aside:
    On November 8, 2016 a minority of the US electorate was deceived by a
    con job of historic proportions. Our broken voting/election system did the rest.
    End Aside.

    So where do we go from here …

    Both Rod and Jim Hopf have presented plans for a path forward for the advancement of nuclear energy and, for that matter, all non-combustion energy systems. No doubt, the combustion systems have enough advocates.

    So, in that spirit, I would like to add an item to Jim’s list:

    9) Advocate for an energy policy with a huge untapped potential: Carbon-fee and Dividend(CFD).

    One can even be a climate denier and really love this policy. It internalizes the external cost of combustion energy systems that use the atmosphere as a garbage dump. And we can even dump the Clean Power Plan(CPP) because harmful emissions are regulated by market forces. See citizensclimatelobby.com for more details. In my opinion this is the best way to a “level playing field” for the entire energy industry.

  25. “Nobody gets and keeps a fortune of several billion dollars by being an idiot”

    There is no evidence for Trump having several billion dollars. In fact, there is no way to know what he is worth, what he owns, what he owes, how his businesses arr doing, or anything else about his fanacial situatio , as he is hiding his tax records from us.

    “He beat all the wonderful lawyers you love so much and is going to work for free”

    Do you know anyone that has made more use of attorneys, than Donald Trump? Hundreds of suits over the years, and entering the White House with dozens of suits pending. But don’t represent Trump, and lose, because he will rip you off for your attorney fees.

    “By the way, the overwhelming number of violent acts have been committed AGAINST Trump supporters”

    If this was true, it certainly isn’t now. The bigots have been empowered by Trump’s rhetoric, and his victory, across the nation hate crimes are spiking, with the majority being committed against people of color, and latinos. The his rhetoric, and the introduction of Bannon into his inner sphere, (who has provided a bully pulpit to neo nazis), has brought these kinds of people out from under their rocks, and given them the mind set that its now OK to openly harrass, intimidate, and assault minorities.

    “The American people spoke up and said we are done with professional protesters…”

    There is absolutely no evidence of “proffessional protesters” organizing or inciting the widespread protests occurring across our nation. Trump’s own divisive, racist, and inflammatory rhetoric, throughout the campaign, is wholly responsible for these protests. Also, if the american people, “speaking up” matters, Clinton is currently over a million votes on top. So, don’t spit this garbage at me about actually caring about the will of the people.

    This list of ignorant false assertions by Trump supporters here could go on and on. The most prolific posters in support of this cheap and pathetic con man are also the most prolific in posting sheer idiocy in their attempts to paint this guy as anything other than a lying racist fascist, who is surrounding himself with zealots and fanatics. The White House is becoming a carnival tent, full of pathetic clowns and and dangerous pick pockets.

    1. On November 8, Donald Trump did the following:

      Ended the Clinton dynasty.
      Ended the Bush dynasty.
      Saved us from Ted Cruz and Mitt Romney.
      Humiliated the media.
      Humiliated the pundits.
      Humiliated numerous self-absorbed celebrities.

      And he has not even been sworn in yet. Let’s hope he does not or has not fallen for neocon nonsense, most of whom went to Clinton.

      1. – New Stock Market highs.
        – From DEFCON 3 back down to 5
        – Canada and Mexico have communicated a willingness to re noviciate NAFTA. China has made friendly overtures.

        All before taking office. I think too its a dynamic still very much in play. Trump wont let recent protests and bad blood go to waste either. He now has been freed from “bipartisanship” as well as being anti establishment and having no real obligation to follow a Republican course.

        I wouldn’t be asking for Carbon Taxes or trading schemes now. Its not going to happen and it is an immediate turn off. Not that plenty cant be done environmentally in the next four years.

        America is roaring back to life.

  26. I think you guys may be aiming too low. All you technical types in the Nuclear Field that is. Anemic, Stockholm Syndrome traumatized social justice warriors you seem to all be now.

    Its almost Christmas GO BIG.

    Now is the time to be pointing out all those regulations and all that red tape that needs to be changed, its time to be discussing the economics that doesn’t favor low stable energy costs and abundant energy, Its time to push American technology and sensible environmentalism (even if criticizing the “free market”), ESPECIALLY NOW is the time to be asking for the NRC you always wanted. You might get it ALL !!

    1. “Its time to push American technology and sensible environmentalism…..”

      What for, if global warming is a hoax, and a chinese deception?

      “Sensible environmentalism”, to Myron Ebell, is no environmentalism. But hey, you don’t care, do ya, John? Environment be damned, as long as this shyster, Trump, and his band of oil industry lobbyists, insiders, and shareholders are the ones destroying it.

      1. Baggage POA. No one has the time to respond to generalizations and expired media narratives moving forward. We are all on the same airplane, might as well enjoy the flight and stop trying to make it miserable wishing for a crash.

        This is a wonderful opportunity that might not come along again in our lifetimes. Trump of all people is talking about things that may be a turning point for humanity in energy, science and space exploration. Stop being so petty and infantile. Make a viable advocacy plan that doesn’t involve strife, civil war and ruin. Why is that so difficult ?

  27. Listening to this now: November 16, 2016

    Nuclear Power in Trump Administration John Deutch, the chairman of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, and nuclear physicists testified before a Senate subcommittee on the future of nuclear power in the U.S. Mr. Deutch discussed the findings of the advisory board’s task force which outlines specific measures for reestablishing a robust nuclear power initiative in the 2030 to 2050 timeframe. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) emphasized the need to find solutions to nuclear waste disposal and establish a permanent waste facility. Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Lamar Alexanader (R-TN) spoke briefly with reporters at the conclusion of the hearing. ( https://www.c-span.org/video/?418598-1/hearing-focuses-nuclear-power-trump-administration )

    1. Why was NRDC there? That was utterly vague and ludicrous. They were incompetent. Senator Feinstein is a menace to technology, energy and science in general. Then the Trump worry segment. That was bizarre. Security and leadership in technology taking a back seat to climate change negotiations? Shameful. Sen. Alexanader seemed ok. The guy with the red Mohawk ?

      That was weird and disappointing. I thought it would be more technical. Do they have information I dont: like final assessments of leakage contributions of natural gas? Were they talking about some other California that was successfully converting to “all clean energy” ?

      And knowing something about the technology and its history I still dont see the storage / proliferation conundrum.

      Anyway there was also this recently:

      Trump Advisers Eye Reviving Nevada Yucca Nuclear Waste Dump ( http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-14/trump-advisers-eye-reviving-nevada-s-yucca-nuclear-waste-dump )

      Why is this seemingly incompetent guy form NRDC getting so much press coverage?

Comments are closed.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts

Nuclear Generator Movable By Cargo Plane. Not Only Possible, But Proven In Early 1960s

Nuclear Generator Movable By Cargo Plane. Not Only Possible, But Proven In Early 1960s

ByRod Adams

Last week was National Clean Energy Week. On Tuesday, there was a wide ranging symposium with talks about nuclear energy, wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectricity, carbon capture and sequestration and natural gas. Early in the day, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry and Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke participated in a panel discussion moderated by former…

Energy versus Power – Energy delivered rapidly equals power

ByRod Adams

A BusinessWeek article titled Putin $14 Billion Nuclear Deal Wins Over Russia Critic Orban recognizes the importance of recent Russian power deals to supply gas, oil, and nuclear energy facilities. There is widespread confusion about energy versus power. Conversations about the business of selling hydrocarbons or electricity are described as being about energy, but the…

Great post about Australia’s nuclear energy debate

ByRod Adams

Several months ago, I interviewed Ruth Sponsler, an amateur mineral collector. Ruth also runs a blog titled We Support Lee, which is named for a proposed new nuclear power station in Ruth’s home state of North Carolina, located in the southeast section of the United States. Ruth recently wrote a rather detailed post titled The…

Public is rational about radiation; the industry isn’t

ByRod Adams

Malcolm Grimston, a senior research fellow at Imperial College in the UK, gave a fascinating talk to the Canadian Nuclear Association’s February 2016 meeting. His message includes powerful suggestions for people who are excited about the prospects of using nuclear energy to solve some of humanity’s most wicked problems. It’s also a critical message for…

Amory Lovins continues Sowing Confusion About Renewable and Nuclear Energy

ByRod Adams

On August 5, 2014, Amory Lovins published a commentary on Forbes.com titled Sowing Confusion About Renewable Energy. He was responding to an opinion piece published in the July 26, 2014 issue of The Economist that was based on a working paper titled The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies written by Charles R….