This from a classmate of mine. He fails to mention the mercury discharged to the atmosphere of coal plants which has made our fish dangerous to eat. -
<h2>President Carter and his reputation as a nuclear power expert</h2><h4>Thu Aug 10, 2006 9:30 pm (PST)</h4>"Nuclear Waste" a term that has come to mean something that it really isn't and connotes or congers up a rather massive amount of waste. Basically it is political term that has warped the meaning of a technical term.
More than 98% of the material in a spent nuclear fuel rod is being recycled in other parts of the world. About 97% of spent fuel is uranium: 2% is fissionable U-235 isotope; the fuel that powers the reactor and the other 95% is U-238; the isotope that comes out of the ground. It can't be used for bombs. It has a half-life of approximately 3.2 x 105 years to get to Lead-206, which is non radioactive. The chain emits alpha and beta particles that are not penetrating radiation. U-238 is the naturally occurring element found in granite. With these two scientific facts, why do environmentalists think they have to watch it for millions of years?
The isotope that really causes concern of course is plutonium-239 which is formed when small amounts of U-238 absorb neutrons during the reactors fuel cells life. It makes up about 1% of spent fuel. Separating it and putting it back in a reactor as "mixed oxide fuel" (uranium plus plutonium) is no problem.
Now to the point of the title of the email: Unfortunately back in 1976 President Carter decided that, if we extracted the plutonium, somebody might run off with it and make a bomb. Therefore he cancelled fuel recycling. He claimed his nuclear expertise in making that decision. That created the problem of "Nuclear Waste".
As I understand both from current articles and my association with these matters in the late 80's France recycles all its fuel rods and has never had any Plutonium stolen. As for the remaining 2% of the fuel rod, the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission products are stored in a large room in a building in Le Havre.
A real waste problem, as I see it in this country, is the 10 million tons of carbon dioxide we throw into the atmosphere from fossil fuel plants, that may or may not have some effect that is measurable on the earths atmospheric environment and temperature. I might add, that amount sounds like a large number but when compared to the largest component of so-called "green house gases" which includes water vapor is a rather very small portion. According to various journals that amount of CO2 represents approximately 15% of the worlds discharge to the atmosphere.
It is rather ironic and disingenuous that the environmentalists and their like- minded scientists generally oppose the use of nuclear power, which could decrease the amount of CO2 that is discharged into the atmosphere.
A coherent energy policy would make use of nuclear power, electrifying portions of our rail systems, and our city bus transportation systems to maximize it use. This coupled with oil, gas drilling in areas now precluded because they are considered political footballs, new refineries and added infrastructure for its transportation, Bio fuels, and the other more far out remedies including Hydrogen, which currently has the drawback that it requires fossil fuel to generate, plus transportation issues. However, there is research that may promise to produce it as a by-product of an intermediate gas cooled reactor that is moderated and controlled by a rather esoteric technology, which I find difficult to follow the physics and math behind it.
One last thought on batteries, they in my estimation provide a much more serious problem of disposal because of the toxic elements that they contain.
From Morro Bay where we have an old technology gas fired power plant, which for the past 8 years has been stopped from being upgraded to a more environmentally friendly plant. The oppositions comes from the atmospheric environmentalists, the NYMB's, and the sea environmentalists, who have a legitimate concern but who have not for 10 of years and still now will not approve sampling in the bay to determine the exact impact to the water environment, since they fear that it would give proponents facts to support the upgrade. The city council is conflicted, as they need the money generated from the plant, but are solidly in the NYMB camp. However imprudent in the 50's the decision was to approve a power plant here, we are now stuck with it, and nobody else wants a plant in their back yard. If the company chooses to close the plant and walk away, the City will be stuck with the clean up and demolishing of the plant per the initial contract signed when the plant was built on city property.
More than 98% of the material in a spent nuclear fuel rod is being recycled in other parts of the world. About 97% of spent fuel is uranium: 2% is fissionable U-235 isotope; the fuel that powers the reactor and the other 95% is U-238; the isotope that comes out of the ground. It can't be used for bombs. It has a half-life of approximately 3.2 x 105 years to get to Lead-206, which is non radioactive. The chain emits alpha and beta particles that are not penetrating radiation. U-238 is the naturally occurring element found in granite. With these two scientific facts, why do environmentalists think they have to watch it for millions of years?
The isotope that really causes concern of course is plutonium-239 which is formed when small amounts of U-238 absorb neutrons during the reactors fuel cells life. It makes up about 1% of spent fuel. Separating it and putting it back in a reactor as "mixed oxide fuel" (uranium plus plutonium) is no problem.
Now to the point of the title of the email: Unfortunately back in 1976 President Carter decided that, if we extracted the plutonium, somebody might run off with it and make a bomb. Therefore he cancelled fuel recycling. He claimed his nuclear expertise in making that decision. That created the problem of "Nuclear Waste".
As I understand both from current articles and my association with these matters in the late 80's France recycles all its fuel rods and has never had any Plutonium stolen. As for the remaining 2% of the fuel rod, the highly radioactive transuranic elements and fission products are stored in a large room in a building in Le Havre.
A real waste problem, as I see it in this country, is the 10 million tons of carbon dioxide we throw into the atmosphere from fossil fuel plants, that may or may not have some effect that is measurable on the earths atmospheric environment and temperature. I might add, that amount sounds like a large number but when compared to the largest component of so-called "green house gases" which includes water vapor is a rather very small portion. According to various journals that amount of CO2 represents approximately 15% of the worlds discharge to the atmosphere.
It is rather ironic and disingenuous that the environmentalists and their like- minded scientists generally oppose the use of nuclear power, which could decrease the amount of CO2 that is discharged into the atmosphere.
A coherent energy policy would make use of nuclear power, electrifying portions of our rail systems, and our city bus transportation systems to maximize it use. This coupled with oil, gas drilling in areas now precluded because they are considered political footballs, new refineries and added infrastructure for its transportation, Bio fuels, and the other more far out remedies including Hydrogen, which currently has the drawback that it requires fossil fuel to generate, plus transportation issues. However, there is research that may promise to produce it as a by-product of an intermediate gas cooled reactor that is moderated and controlled by a rather esoteric technology, which I find difficult to follow the physics and math behind it.
One last thought on batteries, they in my estimation provide a much more serious problem of disposal because of the toxic elements that they contain.
From Morro Bay where we have an old technology gas fired power plant, which for the past 8 years has been stopped from being upgraded to a more environmentally friendly plant. The oppositions comes from the atmospheric environmentalists, the NYMB's, and the sea environmentalists, who have a legitimate concern but who have not for 10 of years and still now will not approve sampling in the bay to determine the exact impact to the water environment, since they fear that it would give proponents facts to support the upgrade. The city council is conflicted, as they need the money generated from the plant, but are solidly in the NYMB camp. However imprudent in the 50's the decision was to approve a power plant here, we are now stuck with it, and nobody else wants a plant in their back yard. If the company chooses to close the plant and walk away, the City will be stuck with the clean up and demolishing of the plant per the initial contract signed when the plant was built on city property.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
I am guessing now that this policy has created SO much misapprehension that there is NO way the Bush Admin could institute any policy changes because it would create a panic in the ignorant (with plenty of help from the liberal slanted media) and Washington would be besieged with demands to pass no such legislation to change the policy, and yet charmingly the current Admin gets the blame for being evironmentally irresponsible!
The Liberals must just LOVE this situation! What do you think Ben, does that sound about right??
Leslie T
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
But, as Amory Lovins once said, nuclear power is just an expensive way to boil water. If we were to unleash the full power of American ingenuity, we could develop new ways to boil water that are cheap, clean and don't help create materials that could fall into the hands of terrorists.
Why could he not have done so for civilian nuclear reactor fuel rods? It certainly was not a technical issue or a terrorist issue, just a political one. Carter wanted to please environmentalists who were strong supporters of Democrats and long against commercial nuclear power.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Second, those US GoCo facilties on the defense side to which you refer have not been models of good management. Government-owned and Contractor-operated is a recipe for malfeasance. The contractors take the profit and the government -- taxpayer actually -- gets stuck with the consequences. These facilities have been environmental nightmares with clean up costs of enormous proportions. Ever hear of Rocky Flats? The way Rockwell managed that facility was literally a crime.
Third, I am a firm believer in the free market, not socialistic energy policies. Creating a GoCo for civilian power puts the government square in the middle of energy supply decisions that should better be left to the invisible hand of the marketplace. And if we had created a GoCo in the 70s, it would have been an economic disaster. Nuclear power tanked, not because of issues of environmentalism or proliferation, but because of economics. Nukes simply could not compete in the marketplace with other forms of electrical generation. And with the advent of the deregulation of utilities in the 1980s, the companies were no longer able to slip over-priced nukes into the rate base without an outcry from consumers -- both business and residential. We can thank our lucky stars that the marketplace stopped nuclear power in its tracks. There are cheaper and cleaner ways to boil water.
As for GoCo facilities, having spent many years associated with nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons, I am well aware of their dismal environmental record. Retired naval nuclear trained officer were brought in to fix these problems, problems which were caused by government bureaucracy not private industry's malfeasance. There is no reason that we could not have done what the French have done except for politics.
As concerns commercial nuclear power, the costs were driven north by our courts in response to the lawsuits of environmental activists. No other country has experienced the same high costs even though the contractors involved were the same. Having worked for a utility with nuclear plants, I am well aware of these costs and that they had very little to do with safety or prudence and everything to do with our justice (?) system.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
On the commercial power side, it is too simplistic to blame the demise of nuclear power on environmentalists. That really misses the fundamental economic issues at work here.
From the outset it was understood that nuclear power was an inherently dangerous technology that posed economic risks to investors. In 1957 -- long before the rise of the modern environmental movement -- the Price-Anderson Act was passed to limit the financial liability of a reactor operator in case of an accident. It was understood from the outset that the cost of an accident could be so catastrophic that the federal goverment must both share the responsibility for such costs. Without the major goverment intrusion into the market place respresented by Price-Anderson, the level of economic risk would have been so unacceptably high that the US nuclear industry never would have gotten off the ground. And 50 years later, Price-Anderson still remains on the books. Although a mature industry, nuclear power still cannot provide its own insurance against accident without government subsidy.
And it is these ECONOMIC issues that have dogged nuclear power since its inception with the Atoms for Peace Program in the 1950s to the present day.
You've said that nuclear power has worked in other countries and the problem is US environmentalists.
But the real problem is that nuclear power will always struggle to survive in a true free-market democracy. Nuclear power is by definition highly-centralized, capital-intensive and economically risky. It can survive in a socialist or communist nation with central planning because the government -- not the market -- is making the decisions (often bad) and assuming the risks. But in a free market system such as ours, private investors and consumers make market decisions and the public participates in political decisions. When people have a choice, nuclear loses.
So, Ben, here's the question you avoided earlier. You are very conservative politically. Why are you a socialist when it comes to nuclear power? Would you agree that Price-Anderson is an inexcusable government intervention in the free market and support its repeal?
As concerns being a socialist, I am not. I do believe that nuclear materials which can be made into atomic bombs should be controlled by the federal government as it is.
As concerns commercial nuclear power being "inherently unsafe", that is simply not true.
As designed and constructed by U.S. companies, commercial nuclear reactors are inherently safe, not unsafe. I repeat, inherently safe. The proof of that contention would be Three Mile Island because it suffered the worst possible accident, repeat worst possible accident, and that accident did not result in any deaths of or damage to people.
My contention that the environmentalists assisted by our court system caused commercial nuclear power to become very expensive is proven by the FACT that commercial nuclear power in the rest of western world is cost competitive. The only difference between them and us is that our court system assisted the environmentalists and the other western country's court systems did not.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
As for the FACT that you claim that nuclear power is cost competitive in the rest of world doesn't prove anything. To determine if something is truly "cost-competitive" you'd have to have a common set of accounting standards across countries to determine which costs are to be internalized when determining the cost of energy and which are not. To my knowledge, no such standards exist. If you can show them to me, I will reconsider my position.
He advises that the insurance industry is unwilling to provide nuclear plant insurance at any cost in any country.
So the choice comes down to whether you want to have a environmentally clean and proven safe nuclear power generating station with limitless availability of fuel or one powered by coal which is extremely dangerous to our health through CO2, mercury et al. At present, 50% of our electricity comes from coal plants.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Thanks, Ben. You have made my point. The insurance industry is in business to make money. They do it better than just about anyone and they do it by assessing risk. The fact that they won't provide insurance on nuclear plants at any cost anywhere is a significant market test that demonstrates that the risks -- in terms of both safety and economics -- associated with the technology are unacceptably high.
Therefore, with the free market sending that kind of signal, the only way for nuclear energy to survive is with a socialistic approach to energy policy that relies on the centralized planning and decision making of big government.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to go that route. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing our planet. But I believe in the power of the free market place a lot more than government in finding solutions to a problem like this. I am convinced that if government sets aggressive goals for CO2 reduction, the profit motive of the free market place will unleash a wave of American ingenuity that will solve this huge environmental problem while creating -- not reducing -- economic growth.
I refuse to be so pessimistic about the future that I am willing to accept the safety, environmental and economic risks associated with a failed technology such as nuclear energy.
America can do a lot better.
In the case of nuclear power, governments provide insurance so that the populace can have the benefits of nuclear power, a far better choice than very coal which is very hazardous to our health.
In the case of corporations, the government created "limited liability" thus protecting owners from being held liable for business debts. Without this action by governments, the risk would be too high for anyone to invest in any corporation. Would you repeal this law, Spike?
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
No, Ben. It's not that I miss the point. It's that we DISAGREE about the role that government should play.
I am a traditional free market liberal. You are a conservative socialist. You have a lot more faith in the decision making capacity of big, centralized government. I beleive that such decisions will be more economically efficient and politically popular if they are determined by the competitive forces of the marketplace.
You have chosen the technology you want -- nuclear -- and want the government to use its many powers to force that choice upon the American people.
I propose that we choose the energy outcomes America needs -- ie energy security and a clean environment -- and trust the marketplace to determine which technologies will produce those outcomes at the lowest possible costs.
We fundamentally see the world differently.
Can I also assume that you would have Congress remove its restrictions on developing our oil and gas resources and the many other restrictions they have on restricting the development of our other resources???????
It is a new experience for me to be called a socialist with faith in the decision making capacity of big, centralized government. My entire family got a very good belly laugh out of that one. Thanks.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
1. Your question about "limited liability" to owner/stockholders is a non-sequitar that is irrelevant to the question at hand: the proper roles of government and the market place in establishing national energy policy.
2. No you cannot assume that such restrictions would be removed. As previously stated, "I propose that we choose the energy outcomes America needs -- ie energy security and a clean environment -- and trust the marketplace to determine which technologies will produce those outcomes at the lowest possible costs." That statement explicity indicates that any policies necessary to ensure a clean environment will remain in place.
I am an optomist, Ben. I believe in America. There is no good reason that American ingenuity cannot produce energy security without resorting to practices that will despoil our environment for our kids and grandkids.
3. I'm glad you and your entire family got a good belly laugh. That alone makes this whole discussion worthwhile. :) I'm not sure anyone else has seen it.
But please allow me to make a broader point and I hope that you will not take it personally. These observations are not intended to be personal, rather they are intended to illustrate a broader point regarding nuclear energy that you personify.
To set the stage, I assert that there are two major spheres for decision making in our society: (a) the government which sets rules (ie laws, regulations, etc) and provides security (defense and police); and (b) the market place which creates prosperity through competition within the groundrules specified by government.
I have read your profile. You have had a distinguished career in the US Navy. The military is -- by definition -- a government enterprise. Protecting our nation is the foremost responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, you spent much of your career working within the command and control mindset of sphere (a) above.
However, when you moved to the private sector -- sphere (b) above -- the rules of the game changed. In theory at least, economic decisions are not made by the central government, but by the market place.
But this clear delination between the role of government in providing for security and the role of the market in providing prosperity has been hopelessly confused with regard to nuclear energy since the creation of the Atoms for Peace program.
Because of the history of the Manhattan Project and the inherently dangerous materials associated with nuclear fission, the government has played the primary role in the research, development and commercialization of nuclear energy from the beginning. As a result, the mindset of centralized government has permeated the industry from day one.
When the government so controls the creation of a commercial enterprise -- protecting it from the accountabilty of the competitive marketplace -- it is socialism, pure and simple. So the unique history and circumstances of the industry have created a perversion; a socialist industry primarily championed by conservatives in a capitalist country.
While clearly a political conservative, your ardent support for an industry that relies upon government for its survival qualifies you as a socialist in at least that one small part of your belief system.
I hope you have not taken offense at using your personal experience as a metaphor for the nuclear industry. I assure you that none was intended. I will gladly delete this entry if you think I've stepped over a line.
But I find your arguments to be nonsensical and inconsistent.
On the one hand, you say you believe in the market place and don't want the government involved in one very limited case, that of nuclear power.
But on the other hand, in the case of supplying energy you want the government to interfere with the marketplace and somehow expect that the free market will still work its magic.
In addition, you choose to make assumptions about me based on my past employment. Be advised that your assumptions, however, could not be further from the truth. I was considered an iconoclast in all of my employment positions.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
They are neither. I apologize if I haven't done a better job of explaining them. And even if I had explained myself well, I think you have preconceived notions that would make it difficult for you to objectively evaluate my arguments.