Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Bipartisan support for advanced nuclear energy development

By 21 Comments

Third Way bills itself as a centrist think tank that is not satisfied with just thinking; they take action that gets results.

Wednesday’s (Jan 27, 2016) Advanced Nuclear Summit and Showcase provided an excellent example of Third Way’s ability to seek common ground among people from both major political parties in the United States.

The event provided the opportunity for speakers from a variety of points around the middle of the political spectrum to share their thoughts about the importance of advanced nuclear technologies and their personal reasons for joining the growing chorus of supporters acknowledging the valuable nature of nuclear tools for addressing some of society’s most challenging problems.

Third Way produced a complete video archive of the event, but Atomic Insights recognizes that many people do not have the time or the patience to watch a 3:44:52 video. Those numbers are pretty intimidating. In the first three days after the original event, YouTube says the video has received 223 views, but that number doesn’t indicate how many complete viewings have occurred.

As part of our continuing service for readers, here are some clips featuring the event’s political participants.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, (R-AK) began by noting how thinking and acting on energy issues gets her going in the morning. She is currently serving as the Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee. She and Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) have spent a good portion of the past 18 months crafting an Energy Policy Modernization Act (S.2012) the old fashioned way. They have encouraged input from a broad base, understanding the importance of assured supplies, robust infrastructure, regional interests and environmental impacts.

EPMA 2015 has been reported out of the Energy Committee with an 18-4 vote to elevate debate to the Senate floor. (10 Republicans and 8 Democrats on the committee voted to move the bill forward.) The bill that she described in her talk on Thursday was introduced as scheduled; it is in the amendment process now.

One of the more personal segments of her talk included mention of the value that nuclear energy could bring to remote communities in Alaska that currently depend on expensive distillate fuels delivered over long distances via transportation routes that are not available year round. She said that “nobody” thinks about Alaska as an opportunity for nuclear energy, but we know that is a bit of an exaggeration.

Small groups of people have been thinking about how to use nuclear energy’s incredible energy density in remote areas like Alaskan villages since the beginning of the Atomic Age. There have even been commercial efforts like Toshiba’s proposed 4-S system, but so far there has not been sufficient political support to create an enabling environment. Some of the provisions that Sen. Murkowski described as being included in EPMA 2015 may be exactly what turns visions into real projects.

In some ways, Sen. Murkowski’s talk was designed as a motivational pitch to encourage innovators and venture capitalists to keep pushing for the needed changes by showing them that people on Capitol Hill are paying attention. She praised the risk takers who have already committed $1.6 billion to innovative projects even though there is still a lot of work required to pave the path toward licensing and commercialization.

Carol Browner was the head of the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration. She used to be reflexively opposed to nuclear energy, but had an epiphany when she realized its value as a reliable power source that is virtually carbon-free. Though her focus is on maintaining the existing nuclear fleet, she is also supportive of advanced nuclear energy as a way to address some of the issues that have limited the growth of technologies developed in the 1960s.

Dan Reicher, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy during the Clinton Administration. Former head of Google’s renewable energy business. Currently chair of the board of American Council on Renewable Energy. He notes that wind and solar cannot provide needed power by themselves. He states that he supports all low carbon energy sources including wind, solar, efficiency, CCS, natural gas, but emphasizes the important role that nuclear plays in providing carbon free baseload power.

These are exciting times for people like me. I’ve been writing about the value of nuclear energy as a tool for addressing important challenges on the Internet since 1991, before there was a World Wide Web. It’s good to see that my efforts, and those of thousands of others, are starting to capture attention and gain a broader range of supporters.

PS: Very early this morning, I gained one more important reason to work hard to make the future better, cleaner and more prosperous.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. I looked at S. 2012 – The Energy Policy Modernization Act (EPMA) I do not understand why this is considered important. I see that anti-nuclear zealot (and natural gas monger) Sen. Markey’s amendment to it passed handily. I could not access what this was. Probably not good.

    Reply

    • It appears there were two bills: S. 2461 and S.2012, of which 2461 is a part. From James Conca’s write-up:

      “The legislation [S.2461], introduced by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Mike Crapo (R-ID), directs the U.S. Department of Energy to prioritize partnering with private innovators on new reactor technologies and the testing and demonstration of new reactor designs. The measure is cosponsored by Senators Jim Risch (R-ID), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), an unusually bipartisan group for nuclear energy, signaling a shift in views on nuclear in light of climate change and grid reliability.”

      Reply

  4. Color me disappointed in Carol Browner.  The facts behind her epiphany were so obvious, I’ve been telling anyone who’d listen for nigh unto 4 decades.  Further, they were in her area of specialty so she had no excuse for ignorance.

    I think something else is behind her conversion.

    Reply

    • @E-P

      I’m guessing that Ms. Browner didn’t spend much time within hearing distance of your commentary. It wasn’t that she wouldn’t listen, but she was inside a certain kind of bubble.

      Reply

      • She had to have had all the facts I did and then some, and she should have noticed that they didn’t mesh with the zeitgeist in the bubble; either she was truly clueless and unfit for the position, or is a political opportunist (and will likely sell out the nuclear renaissance if it fits her agenda).  There really is no excuse for some things.

    • I can be very naïve, however, I am going to give Carol Browner the benefit of the doubt. I believe she is a true convert to nuclear. Maybe not a zealot, but a supporter nonetheless.

      Reply

      • The thing to watch out for is when former opponents who are recipients of such “epiphanies” turn and scuttle new initiatives at crucial times.  If you think the FF industry doesn’t have the pull to plant agents who’ll turn around and act in their interest before the opposition can deal with the reversal, you haven’t paid attention to history.

      • @E-P

        Your caution is understandable, but it should not extend to stiff-arming genuine converts.

        It’s always smart to carefully watch the converts in any situation for indications that they are going to return to old ways, but true converts can be extremely active and valuable assets, especially compared to tired and jaded people who have always been on “our side.”

      • I don’t suggest stiff-arming them.  I suggest restricting them to roles well outside of leadership, so that the damage from any return to previous form is limited.

      • Nobody can preach like the converted former sinner. If she has had a “Road to Damascus” moment, then by all means let her preach.

        But I agree with Engineer-Poet that it would be foolish to put too much faith in her conversion and give her too much responsibility at this time. Let her evangelize for a while before giving her too much credit.

  5. Apparently there is some question as Carol Browner’s prior “anti-nuclear” sentiments. When she was with the Clinton Administration, can anyone cite one single anti-nuclear statement from her?

    This “used to be” stance, on a wide range of subjects, can often be subterfuge, designed to convince the naive or uninformed that credible information was found that prompted an epiphany. Often, that “information” is not actually disclosed, if in fact it even existed. Absent any actual past anti-nuclear statements from Browner, what assurance is there that she’s not simply a paid schill for NE industry?

    Reply

    • @poa

      According to a New York Times article from November 2, 1993, Ms. Browner was the point person for a Clinton Administration effort to establish a world-wide band on disposing of low level radioactive material at sea. That plan was strongly opposed by the U.S. Navy.

      The idea of a comprehensive ban had been vigorously opposed by the Navy, which has argued that the United States should not omit the possibility that new technologies might eventually insure the safety of disposing low-level waste at sea.

      France has been strongly opposed to a global ban, along with Britain. Japan’s Environment Ministry, however, expressed support for a ban after the Russian dumping incident on Oct. 17.

      In National Security Council deliberations last week, the Defense Department was said to have pressed for a flexible moratorium, with provisions for any party to withdraw at any time. But after more negotiations, it was said to have given grudging support to the ban.

      “This is a pretty significant departure from the past,” the Administration official said.

      The decision is a victory for Carol M. Browner, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who argued that support of a ban would not only be an important step toward protection of the oceans, but an opportunity for the United States to assert its commitment to environmental protection beyond its own borders.

      She is also described in several articles as an environmental protege of Vice President Gore, a man who has often opposed nuclear energy development.

      The Clinton Administration reduced funding for nuclear energy R&D to zero for at least one fiscal year. It killed the Integral Fast Reactor project just a couple of years before it was going to be complete and demonstrate the possibility of completely recycling used fuel.

      The EPA began its campaign to scare people about the “danger” of radon in 1993, when Ms. Browner was head of the EPA. Here is a quote from an April 7, 1993 article in the New York Times titled U.S. Urges Radon Curbs in New Houses:

      The E.P.A. also published a new information pamphlet warning people of radon’s potential to cause lung cancer and urging buyers to require sellers to test houses for radon, just as they are for termite damage, before a sale can be completed.

      The agency said today that it regarded radon as being among the most serious environmental threats to public health, accounting for 7,000 to 30,000 cases of lung cancer each year in the United States. But that view has been disputed by a growing number of scientists, some of whom said today that the money the agency expected the public to pay for reducing radon in houses was out of proportion to the risk posed by the gas.
      …
      Testing for radon in a house costs $15 to $50, and taking steps to remove radon in existing homes by venting the gas outside the houses can cost up to $3,000, building contractors said today. Installing measures to prevent radon in new homes can cost $500 to $1,000, builders said.

      Taken together, the actions represent a new and politically risky step by the E.P.A. to expand its authority to protect people from a potential environmental hazard in their homes.
      …
      An agency spokesman said Carol M. Browner, the E.P.A. Administrator, was briefed about the agency’s action today and raised no objections. Ms. Browner was unavailable for comment today because of an illness.
      …
      But scientists inside and outside the Government question the risk from radon in houses. Dr. Jan A. Stolwijk, a professor of epidemiology and public health at Yale University, said that the low levels of radon that people are normally exposed to in their homes do not pose an exceptional risk of lung cancer, particularly for people who do not smoke. And for those who smoke, he said, exposure to low levels of radon is a minor factor in their already high chances of developing lung cancer resulting from smoking.

      “If I’m worrying about lung cancer, I have a much better way of clearly lowering my risk than spending a lot of money preventing radon from entering homes,” said Dr. Stolwijk in an interview today. “And that is to stop smoking. If the E.P.A. wants to wipe out lung cancer, they would be much more effective if they banned cigarettes.”

      Since the primary effect of scaring people about radon is to make them afraid of any radioactive material, I think that qualifies as an antinuclear action.

      Note: These comments are about a 20-year old position and do not reflect Ms. Browner’s current stance on the importance of nuclear energy as a low pollution power source. They should, however, provide support for her claim of having been opposed to nuclear energy in the past.

      Reply

      • Rod, thats a long winded way of saying that: “No, I cannot find any statements by Browner that qualify her as being “anti-nuclear” in the past”.

        In fact, you have painted a picture, in your comment, of a political figure who got along to get along, avoiding any kind of solid public statements supporting anti-nuclear policies.

        So, it boils down to “because we said so” in the attempt to paint Browner as a past anti-nuclear politico that has been converted into the fold.

      • I disagree, poa. Ms. Browner was EPA Administrator. When you are top brass, implicit approval of subordinate action is explicit approval. Yes, the buck passes upward through Vice President Gore and stops with President Clinton. But the buck had Ms. Browner’s signature.

      • “The Administrator of the EPA is not merely an administrator. If you disagree, please take a look at the way that Gina McCarthy or Lisa Jackson have operated in that role.”

        No….Why look to other’s when we are talking about Browner? You cannot find one single anti-nuclear comment from Browner, yet you dig in your heels. She was an administrator. The job of an administrator is to administrate policy…NOT to orchestrate policy or design policy. If she was the anti-nuke you claim she was, she would have jumped at the opportunity to give voice to her opposition. Instead, she reserved comment. I think this anti thing, as it applies to Browner, is BS.

        Wheres the meat? Its a PR stunt. A marketing ploy.

Leave a Reply

You have to agree to the comment policy.



Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.