11. American Football and Nuclear Power - One Fan's Differing Dilemmas

Anyone who knows me even a little bit could probably instantly answer correctly if asked the 2 things I am the biggest fan of:  Nuclear Power and a particular American Football (not to be confused with Soccer/Futbol) team based in the Southeastern U.S.  (Both Nuclear Power and American Football were invented in America, by the way.)


The first blog I ever started (with Entreprenuclear being the 2nd) was supposed to be primarily about analyzing Football (for the rest of this post the American designation will simply be implied) with some other sports and random musings thrown in.  I have to admit that my love of football even played a role in my period of delaying 6 months to obtain employment during the fall in 2008.

You could also say that I am more than a little bit of a fan of peaceful nuclear power.  I mean, how many people start a blog, or even read other blogs, about something that they aren't a fan of?

I have a dilemma with being a fan of each of these 2 things, but only 1 of my dilemmas is actually related to safety.

Football being a dangerous, somewhat violent sport is not any kind of revelation to me.  Big hits on the football field have long been celebrated, and have been a big part of why some people like watching the game.  Many people tend to enjoy seeing impressive displays of Energy being rapidly exerted.

Some might feel a little squeamish seeing some of these hits.  A small part of me wonders whether I should feel a little bad about enjoying this game and actively contributing to its popularity via my fandom (and subsequent $$ spent on it).



The tragic news story from yesterday regarding Junior Seau's suicide (Articles from USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, Orange County Register, and the LA Times) very possibly adds to the evidence of just how dangerous football is.  While it is still far too early to draw a definitive conclusion that repeated head trauma obtained on the gridiron might have contributed to whatever depression/inner demons caused Junior to choose to do what he did, it would be difficult to think that there isn't at least some correlation there.

He's why #55 is a big-time number at USC

Regardless of conclusiveness of any cause and effect, this incident has made it impossible to ignore that a definite safety issue exists in regards to playing football.  While a definitive number for the life expectancy effects of playing football is tough to find, ages younger than 60 are cited pretty often (53-59 in this article).  That is a significant departure from the average of 75 for all American males.

American Football has a safety issue.
The need for improvements in the safety procedures and protocols in the NFL (and college and high school) is imperative.  The NFL has been taking steps to improve, and they must continue taking steps.  My dilemma results from not being sure that I can perpetually remain a fan of a game that has the capability of doing so much harm to people.  Would doing so make me a barbarian?

American Nuclear Power does NOT have a safety issue.
I am fully confident that the rules in the United States governing the safety of nuclear power plants and the enforcement of those rules are adequate for protecting the health and safety of the public.  There are stiff penalties (and jail time) for violating NRC rules.  The safety record of commercial nuclear power in the United States is highly enviable (ZERO fatalities, ALL-TIME, Three Mile Island-included).

While Nuclear Power does not have a safety issue that would cause me a dilemma, I do have a dilemma related to nuclear power that comes from a completely different angle.

Here is MY Nuclear Dilemma
Peaceful nuclear power is not being used extensively enough throughout the world and advancements (which are well-known to be possible and likely) in regards to peaceful nuclear power are far from encouraged by the present, existing regulatory environment.  Neither of these issues should be reversed at the expense of maintaining adequate levels of nuclear safety, but luckily they won't have to be.

The world presently has something like 1.1 BILLION people who don't have a good source of clean drinking water.  "Left-over" waste energy from future nuclear power plants should be capable of desalinating vast quantities of water from the ocean to help mitigate this problem.  Many people live in energy poverty.  More than 1.3 Billion people lack any access to electricity, and certainly more than that lack access to reliable electricity.  Having adequate supplies of reliable energy can help solve a significant portion of the world's other poverty-related problems.

Fossil fuels are considerably more finite than fission fuels in regards to feasibly harness-able energy content.  Nuclear power needs to be allowed to be the primary energy source for a growing portion of the world's energy needs if my hypothetical future grandchildren are to have any hope of living in an America (and world) that isn't filled with an increased degree of energy poverty from what present generations have gotten to enjoy (apologies for this 56 word sentence).  Increased energy poverty would almost certainly equal decreased societal wealth and would likely coincide with increased incidences of violence and theft.  That is not a world that we should want to leave behind.

My Nuclear Dilemma is am I doing all I can to help future energy supplies be ABUNDANT.

Note:
I have no plans to abandon being a football fan, but I would like to see the NFL (and NCAA and High School governing bodies) strive to make continuous improvements to players head safety.  I realize that there will always be a degree of risk is involved when human bodies often at well over 200 lbs collide and almost instantly decelerate to a stop from speeds of greater than 15 mph (that is a lot of energy to be absorbed somewhere).  I would not advocate shutting down the most popular sport in America, but recent events make it imperative to consider the need for improvements in player safety.
Also, I anticipate the somber tone of this post being a rarity here at Entreprenuclear. Most posts will be much more upbeat overall.

10. Entreprenuclear View of Energy

Here at Entreprenuclear, the viewpoint is that Energy usage is a good thing that should not be villainized.

Energy can be defined in very simple terms as "the ability to do work" or according to wikipedia as "the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems".


Things don't get done if energy is not used.

No Energy = No Work (nor Jobs (and I don't mean Steve))

Reduction in the amount of energy used within an economy equals a reduction in the amount of useful things that can be done within that economy, which will equal an overall reduction of wealth within that economy.  It really is that simple.




While I am a fan of School House Rock and of not being wasteful in using energy, Atomic Energy (if allowed to flourish) can paint a much rosier picture than the video above.

The "favored" source of primary energy here at Entreprenuclear is, of course, Peaceful Atomic/Nuclear Energy.  This favored status is due to the lack of supply issues for nuclear fuel combined with a realization/knowledge that present limitations that have historically hindered Nuclear Energy from flourishing to its full potential are simply man-made, rather than true physical constraints.

Here is a recent posting at Nuclear Green about the lack of any supply issue for nuclear fuels, along with an additional illustration relating to how plentiful nuclear fuels can be from Kirk Sorensen here (which he admits in the comments does not give credit for further gains that would be available for Uranium if utilized within a fast neutron spectrum reactor).

Rod Adams posted a great blog this morning, mentioning that Nuclear Energy can allow mankind to enjoy the benefits of a high energy lifestyle (which include reduced human slavery, enhanced overall liberty/prosperity, and greater gender equality), while exerting a limited impact on the naturally-occurring global systems of the Earth.

All that is needed is for more people to keep understanding the benefits of nuclear energy and for those of us who already understand those benefits to do what we are able to be adding value in entrepreneurial ways in whatever aspects of Peaceful Atomic Energy that we can think of.

9. Meager Initial Attempts at a Logo

Engineers aren't often known for their artistic abilities, but here are a few meager attempts at logos.

The one above is what I have added as the background of the blog. If you are reading on a wide enough screen, it might be visible. If you're reading it on a Smartphone or iPad, you may only see edges or none of it at all.

The one below is the one that I added as a profile picture for now for the Facebook (which has a misspelling in the address due to creating the Facebook page on my iPad) and Twitter profiles.

I will gladly accept other ideas and suggestions for some better logos. Just leave a comment down below or send an email to Entreprenuclear "At gee mail dot com" (typed as @gmail.com of course).

For some better examples of artistic ability relating to Nuclear Energy, go check out Pop Atomic or go read about this rather fascinating individual, James Acord, (also, a very interesting article about him here).

8. Entreprenuclear View of PBS's "Electric Nation"

Here are my initial, shooting-from-the-hip thoughts on the program.

Only 4 and a half minutes for nuclear? Really? Nuclear provides 20% of America's electricity and it only got around 8% or 9% of this program's air time?

At one point, the program stated that Watts Bar Unit 2 is the only nuclear plant under construction, which is no longer true as of the past few months, with the approval of the combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COLs) for 4 AP1000's, 2 each at Vogtle in Georgia and VC Summer in South Carolina. They even showed site preparation work at Vogtle about a minute or two after stating that no new plants had been ordered since the 70's. Were Vogtle Units 3 & 4 not ordered, but work somehow magically got started there? Hello?


The recently announced changes to the schedule for completing Watts Bar Unit 2 were not included in the program either., but that is understandable since it was only made public a few weeks ago.

There was no mention of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) in the initial nuclear power section, a market segment which I will be discussing in "shallow depth" in the near future.

Had I been telling the story, I would have expounded a lot more on the reasons the first nuclear build-out didn't meet President Nixon's 1974 projection that America could have 1,000 reactors by the beginning of the 21st century (which would have been fully possible without breaking any laws of physics).  Pure obstructionism, combined with approaching of electricity market saturation/slowed demand growth rates (see Note below) and combined with interest rates shooting up above 20% played considerably bigger roles in not meeting that projection than safety concerns did.  Here is a link explaining it further.  Stating that it was safety concerns is a lazy cop-out that fails to consider the whole situation, but this did admittedly all occur long before my birth.


Aside: People using the word safety in regards to nuclear power, with nothing close to any further explanation for how something specifically relates to nuclear safety is becoming more and more a pet peeve of mine with each successive 4-1 NRC Commission vote. /End Aside

In summary 

My expectations were met for the opening segment, which did do a good job of stating just how vital electricity is to modern day American life.  On the negative ledger though, for almost every other energy source that the program covered besides nuclear, some forward-looking attributes were the main things featured.  For natural gas, fracking shale was featured.  For wind, the fancy simulations of America's wind "resources" was shown.  For solar, a church was featured.  In the coverage of nuclear power, however, the very mild folly of the first nuclear era's over-exuberance was mentioned while barely a smidgen of the really forward-moving aspects of nuclear power were featured outside of the short clip of site preparation work at Vogtle.

The way things were presented in this particular program is a prime example of precisely the information and optimism void in regards to the use of Peaceful Atomic Energy that Entreprenuclear is here to play a small role in filling.


Note: People didn't generally need more and more refrigerators, air conditioners, and other appliances after getting their first ones in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's. Therefore, electricity load growth projections from that era turned out to be unsustainable.  What would a person do with a 3rd washer and dryer?

7. A Short TV Programming Note

At 10 pm, April 25th, "Electric Nation" aired on PBS. This program included a very short tour of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant's Unit 1.  I believe this link will allow watching the program online in the future, but it was having technical difficulties at the time I copied and pasted the address.  Here is a preview.


I have not gotten to preview the episode or anything and cannot vouch for its content, but my unverified assumption is that it will at the very least help point out just how important electricity is and how useful it is.

We far too often take electricity for granted. This Friday (4/27) marks the first anniversary of the record-breaking string of tornados that swept through portions of the Southeastern U.S. (which is where I happen to reside). That series of storms provided an unpleasant reminder of how important electricity is to our modern, first-world way of life here in America.

So, if you aren't busy tomorrow night, take the time to be educated a little by watching the special on PBS. Or if you're rather busy like me, record it on your DVR of choice to watch later. Hopefully the program will be devoid of any significant political slants.

Oh, and a solid rule of thumb, always be sure to check your local listings.  The program could re-air sometime, or it may be placed online, in which case I will add a link to this posting.

6. Entreprenuclear-Related News

Westinghouse is now making some significant progress in placing themselves firmly into the middle of the SMR competition. (Here's their page.)

Dan Yurman has posted about this over at the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

Will Davis posted about it over at Atomic Power News.

That makes 3 separate sites that should have now been identified for initial implementations of various SMR designs: Clinch River in East Tennessee for B&W's mPower, Callaway in Missouri for the Westinghouse SMR, and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina as a possible SMR Park housing each of the Gen4 Module, the NuScale SMR, and the Holtec SMR.

Additionally, these design efforts have some backing from major players in the EPC world.  The Holtec SMR effort is being assisted by Shaw.  B&W's mPower is receiving design help from Bechtel.  NuScale is partially owned by Fluor.

Let this serve as proof.  Nuclear Entrepreneurs do exist.

Also, private investments in Peaceful Nuclear Energy do exist. 

5. Why Nuclear?

What an excellent question: "Why Nuclear?"
The answer for me really boils down to 2 primary points, each of which with numerous sub-points.

1. Existing, operational nuclear power plants are amazing.

- Nuclear energy has immense energy density. Only a handful of truckloads of fuel needs to be delivered every 18-24 months to provide electrical power for upwards of half a million people per operating unit.

- Nuclear energy's total costs have already all been internalized, with no emissions of CO2, NOx, SO2, Mercury, or particulates. "Spent" fuel storage has been shown to be safe. Ultimate "spent" fuel storage costs have been funded via the nuclear waste fund ($0.001/kW-hr generated). Decommissioning funds are in place for when plants cease to operate far off in the future.

- Nuclear power has a stellar safety record.

2. Currently operating commercial nuclear power plants merely scratch the surface of what is physically possible.

- Nuclear power plants will be able to provide energy in more sectors of the energy market than merely base load electricity in the future, while still continuously operating at full capacity other than either forced or re-fueling outages.

- Future nuclear power plants will utilize a greater portion of their potential fuel, possibly approaching 100% utilization rather than less than 5% presently.

- Greater fuel utilization ensures less waste to be dispositioned. If utilization gets to near 100%, the time scale that that the waste is required to be isolated will be immensely decreased.

- Advancements in nuclear energy could potentially allow a solution that would render a geologic repository (such as Yucca Mountain) a non-necessity, even for the already-generated "spent" (partially-used) commercial nuclear fuel.

- Nuclear energy's capital costs are not inherently as expensive as they have been portrayed to be. In numerous cases, they have been increased due to flat out obstructionism.

- Modularization and the NRC's new method of licensing present a promising means of avoiding the historical cost increases that many people (wrongly) think are inherent to nuclear power plants.

- Nuclear energy represents technological progress.

- Nuclear energy enables the possibility of a much less oppressive future overall.

- Nuclear energy can allow future necessary energy transitions to be more gradual, rather than being abrupt and likely destructive resulting from resource scarcity.

- Peaceful nuclear energy is legitimately scalable to power the whole world, for a long, long time and help make the world a more peaceful place......as long as it is actually allowed to make progress.

Viva Nuclear Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurs!!!