Atomic Insights

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

The Atomic Show #126 – Wasserman v Moore moderated by Goodman and Adams

By

On Thursday February 5, 2009, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! moderated a brief debate about nuclear power between Harvey Wasserman and Patrick Moore.

The forcing function for holding the debate on that date was the fact that the Senate has included an additional authorization for $50 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy as part of the stimulus package. Though all forms of low emission energy can qualify, the fear among the virulent anti-nukes like Harvey Wasserman and the O’Connor family sponsored Texans for a Sound Energy Policy Alliance is that the vast majority of the loan guarantee authority will be captured by the nuclear power industry.

That is a reasonable evaluation of the current situation. After all, utility companies interested in building new nuclear power plants already have $122 Billion in shovel ready projects waiting in line for loan guarantees. The project applications were turned in several months ago and are being ranked and evaluated by the Department of Energy.

During the debate, Wasserman focused on telling lies about nuclear power plant insurance, about the risk of living and working near a plant, and about the expense associated with recycling used nuclear fuel. He also attempted to attract some strange bedfellows from conservative groups like Cato by focusing on what he called the market failure of nuclear power.

Moore admitted that he had been totally wrong in his youth by not recognizing the difference between nuclear weapons and beneficial uses of nuclear technology. He talked about the benefits of clean, reliable nuclear power that can reduce the need to burn coal, about the myth that we do not know what to do with the waste, and also wondered why Wasserman, a man with no history of love for the free market, is so certain that government should not be involved in electricity supply enterprises.

Of course, you can view the full debate uninterrupted at the Democracy Now! web site: Should the Economic Stimulus Bill Include Billions in Loan Guarantees? but I think this interrupted version adds some entertainment and informational value. I hope you agree and come to the site to share your thoughts.

In addition, please do make the effort to contact your senator and congressman to let them know how you feel about loan guarantees. (If you do not like them, that’s okay. I would be interested in hearing why or why not.)

One more thing – Harvey Wasserman is still an idiot.

Play

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Android | Google Podcasts | RSS

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Concerning Shoreham, does anyone know what condition that reactor was left in? presumably SAFESTOR. Was any consideration given to the possibility of future revival of that plant? I understand that an undersea power cable from Shoreham’s twin in Connecticut connects to the Long Island grid via the Shoreham switchyard.

    Rod would you have any research on market prices for the various fission products in used fuel? It might be informative to publish such a list.

    Amusing hearing Wasserman decry France’s “National Socialist” form of electricity generation, then take a cheap shot at Patrick Moore “who is Canadian”. Presumably Moore pays US taxes if he’s paid to work here as an advocate for the nuclear industry; his nationality is beside the point.

  2. Aaron:

    Shoreham was dismantled (decommissioned) at a cost of approximately $185 million. Some of its parts are now operating in other nuclear plants. There is a pretty good Wikipedia article on the topic.

    The problem with market prices for any commodity is that they are quite variable. In some cases, there is no real market since the volume of trading is so small and specialized. For most of the specialized fission product isotopes that I think have real value because of their unique properties, there is no supply in the market today. My friend NNadir at Daily Kos has written a number of diaries on some of the potential uses. http://tinyurl.com/bmkugh

    Since his day job is in advanced chemical engineering, he is a much better source than I am for that information.

    I also presume that Patrick Moore pays US taxes on his US income. That is part of what green card holders do. However, I also know that he fully understands the importance of not getting distracted side issues in a time constrained debate. He had some clear points that he wanted to make before time ran out, so he did not take the bait offered by Wasserman to use some of that precious time talking about tax laws.

  3. Thanks for the link to NNadir’s postings Rod they should be an interesting reference.

    There are web resources on the decommissioning status of US NPPs , however the NRC website still lists Shoreham as simply “License Terminated” not DECON for some reason.

    Google satellite imagery seems to reveal a painted or artificially pixelated containment building (apparently not imploded yet as Trojan or Maine Yankee), the turbine hall and many annex buildings remain. What appear to be oil or gas tanks are visible, I seem to recall at one point years ago a plan to use the facility for a gas or oil burning facility. Anyway the complex looks new, although that may be just an artifact of the apparent pixelation of the satellite imagery (for some reason). The Wiki article on Shoreham says a couple 100kW wind turbines were stuck up as a final fitting insult.

    Nukeworker supplies all the gory details on how the Shoreham RPV and internals were cut up. “the core, vessel, and internals accumulated less than three effective full power days by the time of shutdown in June of 1987.” apparently “[t]he primary objective of the program was to transport all other radioactive materials to the Barnwell burial facility [SC] before it closed to outside waste generators (then expected to occur in 1994). There were only 602 curies (due to neutron activation) in the reactor vessel and internals, and approximately thirty millicuries of surface contamination in the remaining reactor systems and structures.”

  4. Also I appreciate the need to stay on message and saw your youtube response to Wasserman you posted above. But often, depending on your audience, the low road retort can be even more effective (and amusing).

  5. Folks, Wasserman took a *right wing pro-free market* approach to his little marshmallow attack on nuclear energy. He said that if “Wall Street doesn’t like it can’t be good”. What kind of reasoning is this for someone supposedly on the left? Then he goes on to *attack* the French socialized electricity grid as “National Socialist” as if it was a throw back to the German Nazis! That the French electrical grid is government owned made Wasserman steam like a an overhyped intern from the CATO institute, waving his copy of “Atlas Shrugged” at the camera.(Apologies to Ann Rand fans here).

    Several million, very leftist workers went out in strikes in 1945 and 1946 after years of German Occupation to WIN control of their previously privatized electric companies. Wasserman should be ashamed.

    David

  6. Here’s the note I submitted to one of Virginia’s Senators, James Webb, based on Harvey Wasserman’s call to contact our elected officials. I’m looking at Mark Warner’s site now.

    Senator Webb,

    I’m writing to encourage your support for the proposed $50 Billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power plant construction in the stimulus package that is now proceeding to the House-Senate conference. In my opinion, this is a good use of government authority–to provide loan guarantees, but not to directly fund, plant construction. I hope you will support nuclear power in the United States, since it is truly the power production method that results in the least environmental degradation. I was pleased to see on your website the report of your visit on August 21, 2008 to AREVA in Lynchburg, and hope this is indicative of your support for the nuclear industry.

    Best Regards,

  8. I think it’s pretty funny that Mr. Wasserman touts geothermal energy. I wonder if he knows that fission processes generate over half of the Earth’s interior heat.

  10. God, is Wasserman a bore!? He employs the usual tactics of the far Left: interrupt and talk-over your adversary; spew outright lies knowing that the time limitations won’t allow your opponent the ability to refute your lies adequately; declare your opponent a shill for the “evil” big “X” corporation(s), etc. If it weren’t such an important topic of national security and public options, it would almost be hilarious. And to top it off, Patrick Moore and Bjorn Lomborg, founders of Greenpeace, are both pilloried by their former fellow-travelers on the Left. Much like David Horowitz (FrontPageMag.com), who was in on the ground floor with the “free speech” movement at UC Berkeley, is similarly mistreated by his former pals. Nota bene.