36. Thresher - SSN 593 (a song)

In about 40 minutes, I will be watching Shovels and Rope play in Mexico. The below post has been saved as a draft since about October 2014 or some such......so it may be out of date. Regardless, I am hoping to hear this song live for the first time tonight. I am not holding my breath, but you never know.

I have recently come across a talented musical duo, known as Shovels and Rope. I purchased their new album "Swimmin' Time" and listened through it several times. On probably the 3rd or 4th listen-through, I caught the lyric "SSN-593" in the final song and immediately thought to myself "SSN, that is the numbering for a nuclear submarine. I should Google 'SSN-593' sometime." I didn't get around to doing a search, and during one of the next listens as I was driving home from a football game, I finally remembered "Oh yeah, the Thresher was the name of a U.S. Navy submarine that was lost."

After that epiphany and once I was safely home, I did some research. Sure enough, the SSN-593 was the Thresher, and there is much that has been learned as a result of the tragic fate of April 9, 1963 (more than 20 years before my birth). This modern song tells the story of the Thresher, in eerily beautiful fashion.

Could not find any live performances of the song on YouTube.

The loss of 129 men (100+ men, in the song) was certainly a great tragedy, but there are many interesting aspects of the Thresher's story. It was the first submarine in its class, which meant that that brand new class of submarines was to be known as the Thresher class (until the Thresher went onto Eternal Patrol).

I heard the names John Wesley Harvey and Jimmy when listening to the song, but I didn't think anything of them the first several times through. After some actual research, however, I discovered that John Wesley Harvey was the ship's commander. Further, I read the story about how

I came across this interesting article discussing John Wesley Harvey's life and found the interesting fact that he played football alongside Chuck Bednarik at the University of Pennsylvania and actually changed positions because Bednarik had the center spot locked down. The Chuck Bednarik Award is given annually to the College Defensive Player of the Year.

In researching for this post, I also came across this song, written in the same era as the loss of the Thresher. Musically, I certainly prefer the song from Shovels and Rope.

35. Fracking Killed Peak Oil

The advent of fracking (also known as hydraulic fracturing) has greatly increased the perceived amounts of available crude oil and natural gas supplies as fracking became widespread in the U.S. from ~2007 (guesstimate) through the present  (2/3rds through 2017). This increased supply from fracking has greatly reduced the price of oil and natural gas (with numerous downstream effects and cost reductions). Due to these price reductions which have had tremendous benefits throughout the greater overall economy, fracking has essentially killed peak oil/natural gas concerns (and likely been a substantial driving force of the bull market from 2009 through the present).

The combination of concern over climate change plus peak oil/natural gas was the primary impetus for the "nuclear renaissance" during the period from ~2004 through 2011, and sparked many other initiatives, including many of the subsidy programs for wind and solar power and the start of Tesla Motors (now simply Tesla) as a company.

Climate change concerns alone are far, FAR weaker than climate change concerns combined with peak oil/natural gas (NG) concerns in providing a driving impetus for finding truly capable alternative primary energy sources to crude oil and natural gas.

The 100% renewable "plans" (many would call them dreams or fantasies) would have been untenable in the age of concerns over peak oil/natural gas combined with climate change concerns and would have been given almost no credence whatsoever by those understanding the scale of energy use within the overall economy (my knowledge and biases suggest that electrical and mechanical engineers are maybe the two professions best-qualified in having a true gauge of this magnitude, along with mining and petroleum engineers). These renewable-only plans are only given credence at the level they are because peak oil/NG concerns have subsided thanks to fracking. The extra supplies of oil and natural gas that have become available as a result of fracking gave resulted in energy prices in the 2009 through 2017 period that have been considerably lower than those in the 2000 through 2008/2009 period (Note, these high prices provided a big part of the "fuel" for the all-too-brief nuclear power "renaissance").

Fracking will eventually be shown to not be enough. I have no clue when this will occur, but at that point, I envision nuclear power finally experiencing its full renaissance (barring a complete loss of knowledge). The 100% renewable plans/dreams will likely continue to seduce people as being possible for the period until fossil fuel prices again rise to levels where peak oil and natural gas re-emerge as real, viable concerns within single digit numbers of decades. Peak oil and natural gas are simply not concerns presently with gasoline at less than $2.60/gallon in most of the U.S. and with electricity price remaining in a reasonable range (<$0.15/kW-hr for large portions of the U.S.).

An additional proxy of this line of thinking is the delta between Al Gore being given a Nobel Prize following the first "An Inconvenient Truth" (released during the period of combined Climate Change + Peak Oil concerns). Alternately, Vice President Gore has gotten substantially less traction with the inconvenient sequel (released during the era of Fracking having killed Peak Oil/NG).

My posting here is not intended to provide a value judgment of whether climate change concerns alone should be an impetus for taking actual steps towards a more and more decarbonized economy (best done by far by increasing usage of nuclear power, imo). Instead, I am simply presenting my observation that climate change concerns during a period of seemingly abundant fossil fuels for transportation and intermediate/peaking power are insufficient (as shown by events from 2009 through mid-2017) for causing people/societies to take big steps towards legitimate, meaningful decarbonization.

34. What is an Advanced Reactor

Early today, I saw a response to a tweet from David Roberts (@drvox on Twitter) that had posed a good question.

@drvox Advanced nuclear: Gen III and Gen IV, as used by Jim Hansen and everyone else. https://t.co/uOmKl2PNEa

— karenstreet (@karenstreet) May 3, 2016

The term "Advanced Reactors" definitely doesn't have a hard and fast definition, unfortunately. Also, there are the Generation I, II, III, III+, and IV terms thrown around for different generations of reactors that possess different features in terms of technological advancements, fuel utilization, economics, and safety features.

These Reactor Generation designations are not incredibly well-defined, much less well-defines than the 300 MWe cut-off under which a reactor would be considered an SMR (small, modular or small or medium reactor).

Are Britain's gas-cooled reactors designed in the 1950's Gen I or Gen II?

Is it possible to have a water-cooled reactor that is Gen IV......even a super critical water-cooled reactor (according to the title of this .pdf, apparently yes for the super critical concept)? Or is substantial fuel breeding a prerequisite for "qualifying" as Gen IV?

Would the thorium breeding for Shippingport's final fuel load (additional writeup from Rod Adams) make that obviously Gen I reactor be closer to being a Gen III for that fuel cycle, since fuel was bred.........with the lack of "more modern" technology (lack of passive safety features.........or maybe Shippingport did have passive safety features?) and being literally the FOAK land-based PWR preventing it from being Gen IV (or even II or III)?

I chimed in with my present understanding (which has been painted by a few recent happenings).

@EntrepreNuclear @drvox @AP1000 Some define advanced nuclear in other ways, am using what I hear most often, WNA uses.

— karenstreet (@karenstreet) May 3, 2016

Then I mentioned a few of the happenings.

(2/2)@karenstreet @drvox @AP1000 recent bills, the @theNIAorg recommendations, and NRC ARDC comment period is more for non-H2O-cooled Rxs

— EntrepreNuclear (@EntrepreNuclear) May 3, 2016

As was mentioned in my Twitter response, I feel like the following 3 "advanced reactor" items are referring to non-light water cooled reactors (counting the 2 bills as a 1 of the 3). The Advanced Reactor Design Criteria (presently under a public comment period) are certainly explicitly geared that direction. The Nuclear Innovation Alliance also recommendations also seem to be geared that direction (with a big emphasis on how the licensing process relates to the confidence needed for investment capital to be risked).

The NRC's present licensing process is tailored to light water reactors (LWRs), and does not presently lend itself to licensing molten salt, molten salt-cooled/solid-fueled (like Per Peterson's "FHR"), gas-cooled, sodium-cooled, lead-cooled, etc. reactors. 

NRC comment period on Advanced Reactors:

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/non-lwr-activities/adv-non-lwr-rx-dc.html

Strategies for Advanced Reactor Licensing:

http://www.nuclearinnovationalliance.org/#!advanced-reactor-licensing/xqkhn

Nuclear Energy Regulatory Modernization Act:

http://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=404

Nuclear Utilization of Keynote Energy Policies Act (horrible bill name):

http://atomicinsights.com/house-energy-commerce-seeks-enable-advanced-nuclear-energy/

In conclusion, my thoughts are that although the Westinghouse AP1000 is a Gen III reactor and the A in its name is for "advanced", I would say that most of the recent discussion of "advanced reactors" is not referring to the AP1000 (or the APR1400 or any other iteration of a PWR or BWR) geared much more towards reactors designs other than light water-cooled reactors (LWRs, which includes pressurized and boiling water reactors [BWRs]) or CANDUs (which are cooled by heavy water). 

33. How to END Global Fossil Fuels Subsidies

A headline from May 18th from The Guardian really caught my eye.

Fossil Fuels Subsidised by $10 million a minute, IMF says (note the British spelling of subsidize)

In summary, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has completed a study of global fossil fuel subsidies. They calculated a whopping $5.3 trillion worth of annual subsidies for fossil fuels. I have not yet had a chance to thoroughly read the study, and doubt that I will find time in the near future. 

These subsidy calculations include implicit impacts from both local air pollution (see: Beijing, China) as well as impacts purported to be the result of increased heat being trapped in the atmosphere due to the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 that has been observed following the ever-increasing combustion if fossil fuels, with the combustion products (mostly CO2) being dumped more or less directly to the atmosphere. Most people shorten this to climate change, formerly known most often as anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Note that this post is not meant to argue whether global warming or anthropogenic climate change exists, it is simply to lay out a simplistic plan that would eliminate, over a matter of roughly 2 to 3 decades, a great deal of the subsidies enjoyed presently by fossil fuels (which mostly freely release combustion products to the atmosphere).

The simple proposal (other than politically simple)
Most proposed carbon taxes I have seen over the years have suggested a tax of at least $25 dollars per ton. The article I linked above mentioned a projected cost of 42 pounds per tonne (roughly the same as a ton) of carbon dioxide emissions.
Aside: I should maybe be ashamed to admit that I never have bothered to research the rigor of whether these often-thrown out number are per ton of Carbon in the CO2 released or per ton of CO2, with the oxygen molecules included on the calculation. This is basically irrelevant for the discussion of my proposal here, other than being about a factor of about 3.66 off (3.66 = 44/12 : rough CO2 molecule atomic weight versus carbon atom atomic weight). End aside

Whichever method is typically used in the calculations for computing a carbon/CO2 tax, my proposal will involve instituting such a "carbon" tax in the U.S., but limiting the tax to only $10 per ton (of carbon or carbon dioxide). This cost is much lower than most carbon taxes that have been proposed (that I can recall). Of the revenues generated by this carbon tax, I propose that in the neighborhood of only $2-3 Billion per year for ONLY 5-10 years be allocated to help advance peaceful nuclear power. This level of spending will leave plenty of money leftover for other worthy causes, which I will leave for others to fight over. Despite this "relatively" modest amount dedicated to advancing peaceful nuclear energy, the amount would be enough to kickstart nuclear energy. Properly deployed funding within the U.S. would put the world on a course that can legitimately end the need for any future fossil fuel subsidies. This will eventually result in a reduction reduction global CO2 emissions and allow an increasing of the standard of living of people all across the globe.

For this reduction of CO2 emissions and increase of worldwide standard of living to occur, I would prefer to see the United States regain a top position in supplying nuclear power plants for export. The U.S.-produced designs must be capable of competing with Russian, South Korean, and Chinese plant designs, as those three nations are presently far-and-away leading the world in exporting ready-to-build nuclear power plants. I am afraid that without some fairly rapid policy shifts within the next 5 years, the U.S. will have fallen fully behind the 3 nations listed above, possibly with no hope of recovering.

2 Primary Uses of the Funds

1. Regulatory Funding Reform (combined with a shift toward Enabling rather than Disabling)

Of the $2-3 Billion annually to be allocated to advancing to U.S. peaceful nuclear power endeavors, $200 Million should go towards providing additional funding to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), above and beyond the present $1 Billion budget, all but about 10% of which is provided directly from license-holder fees. The primary use of these new funds (greater than 60%) should be to fund hiring of new employees and training staff to support licensing of advanced reactor design and fuel cycle facility license applications.

In conjunction with this new increase of funding, the overall direction of the NRC should be ever so-slightly re-calibrated, more towards enabling than disabling, with NO CHANGE to its reason for being:  "The NRC was created as an independent agency by Congress in 1974 to ensure the safe use of radioactive materials for beneficial civilian purposes while protecting people and the environment."

2. D.O.E. Nuclear Innovation Fund

The funds wouldn't necessarily have to all go through the D.O.E., but more funding needs to be provided to some innovative nuclear power startups than the $452 Million over 6 years that the SMR program was allocating. While those funds should be useful, they are going to light water reactor designs, which are well-proven and probably a little less worthy of subsidizing than some advanced designs that could really advance the overall nuclear fuel cycle. These designs and concepts would not be limited only to reactor designs, but also to advanced fuel cycle facilities. 

Why Will It Work

Simple: Because E = mc^2  (E being energy, m being mass and c being the speed of light........and the speed of light is FAST, really really fast, and SQUARED; thus a tiny change in mass equates to a massive amount of energy)

If you don't understand why I provide such a short answer, PLEASE go read more about nuclear energy and energy density. Basically, nuclear power is a far superior energy source to any other alternative that has been commercially developed so far in terms of the combination of energy density, controllability, and overall environmental impacts.

Limiting the funding to no more than 10 years would make it slightly more palatable politically, although this proposal would be sure to have numerous vehement opponents who would stand to lose out in a true nuclear renaissance. The combination of several years of sustained funding, combined with slight regulatory recalibration would be sufficient to overcome the "coefficient of static friction" that is presently hindering the deployment of peaceful nuclear energy within and from the U.S. and enter a period facing only "rolling resistance" (kinetic friction). Kinetic friction is generally much less than static friction, so once nuclear power enters more of a kinetic friction regime, other sources of energy will be unable to beat it out in any properly-designed, fair market. The qualities that make nuclear energy a superior source of energy will cause it to win out in the markets it is suited for. I would expect that in this hypothetical future, that fossil fuel subsidies could be all but fully eliminated from the world within 25-30 years of the start of my proposed program.

32. New Blog Post coming soon (dormancy ending)

It has been far too long since I have written a new blog. For that, I apologize.

My upcoming post will feature a song from Shovels and Rope. 

If anyone is reading this or following this blog closely, a new posting will happen soon. Sorry to not write anything since April 2013. I can make no promises regarding posting frequency in the future. I recommend Rod Adams' Atomic Insights for regular pro-nuclear slanted postings.

31. Risk vs. Benefit and the Best of Intentions

Pro-Nuclear Advocates vs. Anti-Nuclear Crusaders

Simplifying Unverified Assumption (NOTE: not always true):

The motives of advocates on both sides of this issue are pure, and are not driven primarily by greed nor generic financial interests.

The above, somewhat grossly simplified, Unverified Assumption (UVA for short) is simply for the purposes of this discussion. Independently exploring the frequency of the truth of this assumption for each side would make for an excellent homework assignment for anyone that happens to read this post, and could possibly be the subject of future postings here. Determining the accuracy of the assumption is far from an easily-completed task, particularly in cases of either undisclosed motivations or sources of funding (emphasis fully intended).

Aside: If you don’t mind thinking with an open mind and would be interested in exploring some thoughts about some possibilities for some of these undisclosed items from people fighting against Nuclear Power, I would recommend reading some of Rod Adams’ “Smoking Guns” series of posts as a starting point. I would not recommend accepting any of Rod's theories without critical thinking, but I don't think they should immediately be dismissed without a fair amount of further thought.
/End Aside

So, assuming that both Pro-Nuclear Advocates and Anti-Nuclear Crusaders are each driven by “pure” motives, what are the primary arguments forming the basic building blocks that each side stands upon?

This again requires some simplification and an ideal situation of people thinking through the issue rationally, but my view is that arriving at a strongly held position should fundamentally come from an in-depth weighing of the Risks of the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Power vs. the Benefits derived from the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Power.

Risks on one side               Benefits on the other

Or, if you prefer, like a see-saw.

The oversimplified position of Pro-nuclear Advocates (such as myself) is that the Benefits side of the ledger outweighs the Risks side (by a significant amount, in my case).  

The oversimplified position of Anti-nuclear Crusaders is that the Risk side outweighs the Benefits, and one would have to think that the staunchest of those Crusaders think that the margin is widely in their favor.

Benefits

For an example of the benefit of Abundant Energy, I present this excellent video that has completely no mention of nuclear power. In case you aren't able to watch it at the time of reading, the video shows the progression of all the countries of the world's average wealth and average life expectancy from the year 1810 to the present. Based on the years that I have studied and given deep thought to energy-related issues and on my knowledge of the progression of energy sources that have been at our disposal, I couldn't help but watch the upward progression of both wealth and life expectancy over the past 202 years and note that the upward progression correlates essentially perfectly to people gaining more and more access to increasingly dense sources of energy at their command.

I highly recommend reading this post regarding human ingenuity that has been one of the most pivotal influences in my thinking regarding the issue of our need for nuclear power.

Recently, I was referred to on Twitter as a “Nuke True Believer” and a dreamer. I take NO offense to either term. I still believe in the future. I have spent a considerable amount of time thinking about the limited nature of fossil fuel resources in comparison to the "for all intents and purposes inexhaustible" nature of fission fuels, once Generation IV designs are ready to be built (which is admittedly, probably 9-14 years away). I watched as increasing gasoline costs provided the needle that burst the housing bubble in 2008. Without greatly increasing the amount of energy utilized from fission fuels, I see practically no way that the 2 Billion people in world presently lacking access to electricity will be able to move to that upper right quadrant in the video above.

Risks

Given the simplifying UVA at the beginning of this post, Anti-Nuclear Crusaders must truly believe that the risks of nuclear power generation outweigh the benefits.

Do I think that Nuclear Power Generation is a completely risk-free endeavor? Absolutely not, but neither is virtually anything on this planet we call Earth. Not to be callous, but the eventual death rate of people here on Earth is a rather staggeringly high 100%. Yes, Chernobyl was a horrific occurrence. Yes, the Earthquake and Tsunami in Northeast Japan were also terrible. Avoiding the areas of highest contamination that resulted from both of these occurrences is the right thing to do. I don't really see any major points of disagreement between either Pro or Anti-nuclear people on the relative scale of these incidents (outside of one particular piece of work, which may have been rather short on usage of the scientific method).

From my vantage-point, however, the major point of disagreement in regards to the risks of Nuclear power result from views regarding to the risks of lower levels of radiation. Much of the rhetoric that is the primary tool I have seen used by Anti-Nuclear Crusaders to convey their conclusion of weighing the Risks vs. Benefits is based on the use of adjectives that attempt to give the impression that any single ionization caused by radiation will absolutely cause a cancer. This is simply not the case. Whether the LNT hypothesis is true or not, at low enough doses of radiation, the increased cancer risk incurred from very low radiation doses is grossly outweighed by the numerous other cancer risk factors that we are faced with in our normal every day lives.

It may go without saying, but I have arrived at my position of being a Pro-Nuclear Advocate based on my weighing of these factors.

30. Call Me "Johnny Atomicseed"

In addition to being something of a folk hero, "Johnny Appleseed" was an actual real-life pioneer who lived in the early days of America's existence. His actual name was John Chapman. American school children grow up learning that Johnny Appleseed traveled the American country-side in the pioneer days, planting apple seeds (or at least they learned that back in the late-1980's and early-1990's).

Depiction of Johnny Appleseed: If anyone has free time to create a Johnny Atomicseed logo, please do

So, I know you are asking "What does Johnny Appleseed have to do with Peaceful Atomic Energy?"

Nuclear power is an investment in future generations. It is an investment in technological progression. To oppose nuclear power is to be in favor of either a large amount of increasing combustion to meet energy needs or "Endarkenment" (Also: in favor of additional deaths in comparison to alternative means of cost-effective, reliable generation according to this recent study).

Like planting apple trees (or other fruit trees), building nuclear power plants is not an investment that pays off in the short-term. It is a long-term investment that provides benefits further into the future. You can't bake an apple pie next month from apples grown on a tree you decide to plant in your yard today. However, if you do decide to plant an apple tree today, 10 years or so from now (depending on many factors), you should have the benefit of some home-grown apples.

Nuclear power is not conducive to a mere quarterly financials-style outlook, which is far too common the default in today's society.

"How does building new nuclear plants pay off?" you ask. 

By providing the lowest life-cycle cost of electricity generation.

Even considering the massive investment outlay of roughly $14 Billion for the 2 new Westinghouse AP1000's being installed at Vogtle near Augusta, GA, the total life cycle cost of the electricity is estimated to be up to $4 Billion less than the next best generation option. The reason that number is uncertain and requires the words "up to" in front of the $4 Billion is primarily due to the volatility and future uncertainty of natural gas prices. From March of 2012 to March of 2013, the Henry Hub spot price of natural gas fully doubled from a low of under $2.00/MMBtu to over $4.00/MMBtu within the past few weeks.

For a similar real-world lowest-cost estimate, FPL/NextEra Energy estimates (per this fact sheet) that their Extended Power Uprate (EPU) projects at St. Lucie and Turkey Point would save their customers approximately $3.8 Billion for the time period of the remaining life of the 4 Units in comparison to other generating options.

Feel free to question these numbers from both Southern Company and FPL, but these 2 utilities are required to testify in front of public service commissions to justify that their costs for adding this new generation are reasonable and prudent, and they wouldn't have undertaken these projects if they didn't trust their own math.

The same FPL fact sheet linked above mentions that 2 new AP1000's at Turkey Point (Units 6 and 7) would save customers $58 Billion over their operational lifetimes. That even almost sounds absurd to me right off hand before giving it much thought. If you actually stop to consider that 2 AP1000's will generate 1100 MWe each, should be fully capable of operating for 60-80 years, and that the residential price of electricity in the presently nuclear generation-free Los Angeles area is about $0.23/kW-hr, the $58 Billion savings number starts to actually make a decent amount of sense. Would anyone want to sell me any natural gas futures with a 2030 delivery date at even $6.00/MMBtu?

Even further into the future

So far, I have only referred to conventional Gen II and III light water reactors (LWRs). Plenty of potential exists in the future for Generation IV reactor designs with many, many improvements over Gen II and III designs, particular in terms of the utilization of natural Uranium. Nuclear power being allowed to continue to progress will "plant seeds" for future generations to properly utilize the naturally-occurring 0.7% of Uranium that is fissile U-235 to be the seeds for virtually unlimited power by way of breeding fertile Thorium and the 99.3% of natural Uranium that is U-238, while reducing other potential impacts to levels below even the minuscule impacts of the present generation of light water reactors.

Nuclear power is an investment in the future. From my viewpoint of knowing a great deal about it, and about its potential for even further future improvements, I think nuclear power is THE investment in the world's future. A new nuclear power project started today won't pay dividends next quarter, but over the next 60-100 years, it will help make the world a better place by helping more people get close to a situation of having Energy Abundance.


Disclaimer: I did notice when I Googled the terms "Johnny Appleseed" and nuclear, that A.Q. Khan popped up several times with people calling him a nuclear Johnny Appleseed due to his role in past weapons proliferation, but that was not even close to the point of my post. Here at Entreprenuclear, I prefer to stick to talking about the benefits of peaceful atomic energy. So, I will  

29. Energy Abundance, The Moral High Ground

Using energy does not make you a bad person.

A dangerously seductive idea has been adopted by many very intelligent people overestimating the possible benefits that can be obtained by foregoing the usage of energy/electrical power. The term "Negawatt" has been derived to refer to an amount of energy saved. Please, DO NOT twist my words to suggest that I am against the elimination of wasteful usages of energy or am against pursuing increasing energy efficiency, as I would disagree with either assessment. That said, I would like to make several points.

"Negawatts" have never powered desalination plants to change a single gallon of ocean water into clean drinking water or powered a single piece of life-saving medical equipment. Would anyone argue that those aren't desirable?

A "negagallon" of fuel has never powered the transportation of any person anywhere or delivered any goods to a new destination. The freedom provided by access to transportation is a major positive. Thanks to me owning a road-worthy personal vehicle and to the existing infrastructure of fueling stations, I was able to decide during the day on Friday (the same day as she broke her hip and had surgery) to travel 7 hours to visit my grandmother in the hospital 3 states away. I will fortunately be joined in the car by my two brothers who each live more than 4.5 hours away from me. Having the freedom of transportation to be able to travel and visit family (or friends) is certainly something that can easily be called a good thing.

A "negawatt-hr" of electricity has never powered a dishwasher or washing machine, 2 appliances which drastically reduce the needed human input time of accomplishing household chores. I would have considerably less time to read blogs if I had to handwash my clothes. Do you think that there might be a few people living in the less well-developed parts of the world today that would be happy to have the opportunity to have leisure time, rather than needing to strive for survival at every instant?

Negawatts don't keep lights on at night to allow people to study, learn, and improve their overall positions in life. Yes, candles can provide some light at night, but they do pose a higher fire risk than most electric lights.

On occasion, I have little thoughts of self-doubt that my goals of increasing the availability of energy and electricity will simply allow people to become increasingly lazy and be able to do more completely non-value added things, like send cat pictures around the Internet. (Ok, I admit that there is an ever-so-slight amount of value added by the 1,322,650,448th cat picture.) Yes, more cheap energy availability is likely to cause an increase in frivolous or wasteful uses of energy. When I think about the positive aspects of access to energy, though, like being able to travel three states away at almost the drop of a hat to join my Mom in visiting her Mom in the hospital, the positive aspects of access to energy far outweigh the meager negatives of greater potential for laziness and of increased frivolous usages of energy.

With access to sufficient energy, other needs like food and drinking water are fully attainable. Energy poverty begets poverty of all forms.

Guilt-derived negawatts "generated" (sarcasm intended) within America will do nothing to solve poverty in other parts of the world. Increased usage of nuclear energy, particularly within markets beyond baseload electric power, has the potential to enhance energy and thus other resource abundance, significantly reducing worldwide poverty. These effects would subsequently enhance people's levels of freedom and reduce the incentive to fight over constrained resources, since with abundant energy, other essential resources would become increasingly abundant. People whose needs are met are much less likely to feel a need to fight.

Late addition: Here is a song titled with what you don't need to feel.

Never feel any shame or guilt for utilizing energy for a non-frivolous purpose that fits within your personal budget. Don't be seduced by the idea that a soft energy path is a path that leads to a better future. A truly better future for the world is a future with increasingly affordable energy abundance, with minimal environmental impacts. Increasing usage of peaceful nuclear power and new beyond baseload electricity utilizations of nuclear energy are a means of achieving such a desirable future of abundance.

Avoidance of energy usage is not inherently morally superior to the numerous positive uses of energy.

28. Nuclear Risks are Acceptable, YOLO

Up-front Warning, this post will include a humorous video courtesy of Andy Samberg's "The Lonely Island" (which also features Maroon 5's Adam Levine). Skip ahead and scroll down to watch that if you don't care all that much about reading how I tie it into Nuclear Power. Now, on to your completely irregularly-scheduled Entreprenuclear blogging.

Earlier this week, I read this excellent piece written by Dr. Robert Hargraves (author of Thorium: Energy Cheaper than Coal) regarding how opposition to nuclear power approaches superstition. There is no point in me re-hashing that post here, so just go read it.

HERE is an even bigger link to it. (note the interesting list of publications at the end that chose not to publish it)

On a very similar note, not too long ago on Forbes, this article from Jim Conca described how the risks of low-level radiation are so small that they get lost among all other background risk factors. I also recommend reading this article if you haven't yet and get a chance. 

Now for the embedded funny video, which I will then (hopefully sufficiently) relate to the gist of this posting, in case it is somehow non-obvious to anyone who might read this.

Oh, in case you're reading my blog somewhere that is not conducive to watching the video embedded above, I will describe it for you. The video is from the group The Lonely Island and features Maroon 5's Adam Levine (also one of the judges on "The Voice"). If you are familiar with The Lonely Island, their videos have often been featured on the highly popular show Saturday Night Live, often simply referred to as SNL. The song is titled YOLO, which stands for "You Only Live Once". The song and music video accomplish what I found to be an outstanding job of poking fun at the idea of people being excessively risk averse in stark contrast to the presently-popular "YOLO" mantra (the battle cry of a generation, per this song).

The song starts off with the lyric "This life is a precious gift, so don't get too crazy, it's not worth the risk." Lonely Island then takes this absurdity of risk aversion to the extreme by suggesting such things as you should pull out all your teeth to avoid biting your tongue and that you shouldn't go to loud clubs because it is bad for your ears. It suggests burying all your money in your backyard, never traveling anywhere by any mode of transportation, and wearing a titanium suit in case a piano might fall on you. Basically, nothing in life is 100% safe, and to actually live a life worth living, taking risks is an absolute necessity.

Most people probably wouldn't immediately think so, but fears of low-level radiation from nuclear power are every bit as outlandish as the risk aversion that The Lonely Island parodies in "YOLO". The reason that might not seem to be the case for many people is that people have been systematically taught over the course of decades to have outlandish fears of radiation (even at levels below detectable/discernible impacts). Here is a graphic from IDigUMining.com of the ACTUAL numbers for how safe various sources of energy are.

Risks from low-level radiation are minuscule (also sometimes spelled miniscule), to the extent that they get lost in the statistical noise. Risks of having insufficient energy are much, MUCH greater.

The total production capacity of the worldwide economy is limited by the amount of useful energy available to be used. To attempt to claim otherwise would be a losing battle. People currently living in poverty in the world could best be brought out of their poverty by having sufficient access to clean and reliable energy. Having more energy at a person's command gives them the opportunity to more access to clean water and to sufficient food. Energy also gives people sufficient freed up time doing more than merely surviving the day that they can become educated, and even pursue leisure activities.

Regardless of possible anthropogenic global warming impacts from CO2 emissions, I absolutely don't believe that the world has sufficient quantities of easily accessible fossil fuels to pull the existing population of impoverished people out of their poverty. Therefore, as inhabitants of planet Earth, we need to increase the percentage of our energy that is derived from peaceful atomic/nuclear sources.

To be afraid of nuclear power or to be anti-nuclear because of nuclear power's risks, when viewed in light of the risks that would be presented by insufficient access to energy, is equivalent to the absurdity of cutting out your teeth to avoid the risk of biting your tongue.

YOLO - You Only Live Once, preferably not in Energy Poverty

27. Musings on Unused CR3 Steam Generators

There was some somewhat bad news in the nuclear world this week. Duke Energy announced that the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR3) nuclear plant, that was obtained as part of the Duke-Progress merger, will be decommissioned rather than repaired after not operating since a 2009 outage.

During the 2009 outage, a hole had to cut in the containment to allow for new steam generators to be installed. As part of cutting the hole, the containment's concrete was cracked. An initial crack was repaired, but then in 2011, there was additional damage. This put Progress Energy, and following the merger Duke Energy, into the position of having a very tough decision to make of whether it would prove to be economical to repair the containment. It should be noted that the damage was not irreparable damage, but that the repairs carried enough uncertainty (both cost and schedule-wise) that the damage proved to be uneconomical to repair.

The 2009 outage included replacing CR3's steam generators. Replacing steam generators is far from a trivial maintenance operation, considering steam generators weigh in the hundreds of tons. Here is a rather incredible time-lapse video of the replacement of the 4 steam generators at Sequoyah Unit 2 which occurred towards the end of 2012.



Since Crystal River 3 never came back online following that outage, the steam generators have never entered service and should be brand new for all intents and purposes. With such valuable pieces of equipment being free of any wear and tear (other than being welded into place within the CR3 reactor coolant system, feedwater system, auxiliary feedwater system, steam generator blowdown, and main steam systems), it would be nice if they could somehow be re-used somewhere for their designed purpose of generating steam (with zero emissions, of course).

Being the entrepreneurial thinker that I am, I spent a few minutes trying to think of a few options to re-use these very valuable components. Here are the 3 options, in the order in which they came to mind.

1. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (aka SONGS) Units 2 and/or 3

This would almost be a perfect match, considering the SONGS early-life steam generator wear issue that has kept both Units 2 and 3 there shut down since January 2012. Sadly though, there are several extremely intractable problems that would arise from trying to fit the CR3 steam generators into either unit at SONGS that would make such an arrangement an impossibility economically. CR3, being a B&W-designed plant, has a completely different steam generator design than the Combustion Engineering-designed plants at San Onofre. The engineering and modifications that would be necessary to put once-through B&W steam generators (OTSGs) into a Combustion Engineering plant with U-tube steam generators would be intractable, sadly. It would be pretty far beyond trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The biggest reason for this being that OTSGs have the primary side water enter at the top of the steam generator, whereas U-tube steam generators have the primary side enter at the bottom.

Additionally, Crystal River’s lower designed core thermal power (2609 MWt) would be poorly matched to the designed core thermal power of either of the San Onofre units (3438 MWt). The power level would be rather close to the 70% level that has been proposed by the owners of San Onofre Unit 2 for the trial 5-month period after restart.

2. TVA's Bellefonte Unit 1, scheduled to come online around 2021-ish

TVA had maintained the partially/mostly-completed plants at Bellefonte for quite a few years prior to cutting into their steam generators and selling the metal from the steam generator tubes in the 2006 or 2007 time-frame. With no tubes, a steam generator is basically worthless for its intended purpose. So, as one of the earliest steps following the August 2011 decision to complete construction of Unit 1 at Bellefonte, the procurement process for new steam generators was at least kick-started. I have no knowledge of how far along that process is, but I do know that Bellefonte, like CR3, is a B&W-designed plant. The 2 plants at least share the once-through steam generator (OTSG) aspect of their design. Sadly, the power level of Bellefonte is grossly mismatched from what the CR3 SGs were designed for (3,600 MWt vs. 2609 MWt , >1200 MWe vs. < 900 MWe, and 205 fuel assemblies vs. 177 fuel assemblies).

3. One of the 3 Duke-owned Units at Oconee  

Ah, finally, this could be a great place to utilize this pair of enormous and valuable components - three units to pick from, B&W-designed, entered initial operation at almost the same time as Crystal River Unit 3, now owned by the same parent utility as CR3 following the Duke-Progress merger, and nearly exactly the same power level as CR3 (2,568 MWt vs. CR3's 2,609 MWt). But alas, the 3 units have had their SGs replaced since 2003, so with a good chemistry program in place to prevent corrosion, etc. the units at Oconee could very well not need new steam generators during the duration of the 20-year license extensions they have already received. Maybe they will need them during a subsequent 20-year renewal period.

Concluding

So, maybe there is no good way to actually utilize the Crystal River Unit 3 steam generators at this time. The amount of work that would be required to remove them from CR3 and transport them to anywhere other than where they are positioned right now within the CR3 containment building would be considerably expensive, so the best place for them at this time is likely right where they are. Also, as the NEI blog, Nuclear Notes, noted in a posting on the same subject, who knows what the future might hold. Perhaps Rod Adams will prove prophetic in his bet with Steve Skutnik regarding natural gas prices and repairing Crystal River could make economical sense.

26. A Nuclear Power/Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Analogy

After finishing up my evening run today, I came across an article about Universities preparing students to work within the coming domestic drone/unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)/remotely-piloted aircraft industry. I don't anticipate this posting to be especially profound, but simply a slightly intriguing analogy.

Here is a link to the article.

So, if you've read many of my postings here, you're probably asking, "What in the world does this have to do with peaceful nuclear power?" Well, I am about to tell you.

This image of a UAV was posted on Dan Yurman's now-retired blog Idaho Samizdat 

The main comparison that jumped out at me between the impending useful, economical, and peaceful uses of drones domestically and useful, economical, peaceful, atomic energy is that they have had and will continue to have perception problems to overcome. In general terms, these perception issues both stem from the same roots - that unmanned aerial vehicles and harnessing the power of the atom both made immense development strides solely due to military uses. Numerous other technologies that are now in use in everyday life share a comparable origin in terms of their militarily-derived developmental paths, but they have managed to not carry a stigma.

I anticipate that the term drone will carry more of a negative stigma than the acronym UAV and that UAV will carry more of a negative stigma than "remotely-piloted aircraft", despite them all being the same thing. For branding purposes, many domestic drone operations will probably jettison the term drone as quickly as possible. I don't have an immediate recommendation for a more publicly-accepted name for nuclear power, but going back to Dwight D. Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace program I like to emphasize here that nuclear power is a peaceful use of atomic energy.

Slight Aside: Consider this sentence my acknowledgement that there are definite privacy concerns to be hashed out relating to UAVs, but my purpose here is not to discuss those aspects.

I am not about to say that UAVs are going to come anywhere close to being as important to the global economies future as I believe nuclear power is and will be, but they will provide a lot of economical utility for legitimate, peaceful, and non-invasive purposes. Hopefully the stigma for both technologies can be lessened for the usages that deserve no stigma.

As I said, nothing profound, just an interesting analogy that I noted.

25. End of Unplanned Entreprenuclear Hiatus

I haven't posted a new blog in a long time. Sorry about that. Here are my lame excuses. Since December, I have had 2 interstate moves as well as changed jobs (don't worry, still working in nuclear power). I think the main factor in ending this hiatus is that I have actually gone for a few runs in the past few days.

I will try to keep this short, so I will simply post a few semi-related things that I came across today.

First, some very good news by way of what in my humble opinion is a very, very beautiful picture.

What is going on in that picture you might ask? Well, the top of the containment dome of Sanmen Unit 1 in China is being put into place. That is the WORLD's very FIRST AP1000 reactor, which is the same type of reactor that Units 3 and 4 at Vogtle, Units 2 and 3 at VC Summer, and someday Units 6 and 7 at Turkey Point will be. This is very good news. Thanks to World Nuclear News for posting the picture and this writeup.

The plant's polar crane was put into place about a week ago, which obviously needed to be completed prior to putting the top of the containment dome into place. The plant should enter commercial operation fairly early next year (2014).

So, how important is it for China to be getting so close to completing this nuclear reactor? Check out today's post from the Energy Information Administration. Coal consumption since 2000 worldwide, excluding China's growth, has only increased by 1%. But 2.3 billion of today's entire consumption of 8.1 billion tons has come from Chinese growth since merely 2000. China isn't going to slow their economic growth simply to meet any emissions targets. The only thing that can slow down China's increasing consumption of coal is for China to finish building more and more nuclear power plants.

Luckily, that is their plan with the 4 AP1000's they presently have under construction and their future plans to modify the AP1000 design into their own CAP1400. Here is a link to the English version of China's State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation website.


Update, 2 better pictures from China, thanks to the AP1000 Facebook Page (Entreprenuclear also has a Facebook page):

Click the picture above for a larger version.

There has also been a lot of exciting recent news regarding the increasing number of environmentalists coming to the realization of nuclear power's environmental benefits, particularly reviews of the documentary that recently debuted at the Sundance Film Festival, Pandora's Promise. On that topic, The Breakthrough Institute's Michael Shellenberger appeared  last night on The Colbert Report (silent T's, of course) which you should be able to watch either below or at the Colbert Report site.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

24. 126th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

When I was asked earlier this week if I would be interested in hosting the Nuclear Blog Carnival, I was more than happy to Volunteer for the task. I didn't realize it at that moment, but the 126th Blog Carnival marks exactly 6 months (Friday the 13th, April 2012) since I finally started up the blog. The impetus for me to finally launch was to have a submission included in the 100th Carnival.  I consider it an honor to have been asked to host. 

Enough intro, here we go with the past week's best Nuclear Postings:

i1. UPDATE/ADDITIONAL Submissions

Brian Wang at Next Big Future brings some news regarding Chinese nuclear expansion, including that China is on track for 27(!!!) new plants being completed by 2015. I am sure witnessing the placing of a Reactor Dome in person would be quite a site to behold, and would easily trump seeing a crane move a Moisture Seperator Reheater (the "other" MSR besides Molten Salt Reactors).

China Nuclear Plant Construction Progressing

ii1. From Things Worse Than Nuclear Power

In light of the national debates and elections, our current post (as of today) is the second in a 3-part series focusing on federal interventions in energy market, including subsidies, loan guarantees, tax preferences, R&D, and even lobbying.  Part 1, published the day of the first Presidential debate, called out issues which became headlines in the debate, including the loan guarantees to companies like Solyndra! 

Big Energy Part 2 of 3

1. 2 entries from musician and pro-nuclear power advocate Rick Maltese's blog Deregulate the Atom.

Pertaining to Fossil Fuel Industry Fighting Nuclear Using Propaganda

Summary: This is a re-posting of Facebook discussion about the fossil fuel industry's interference with the progress of nuclear energy. Robert Steinhaus makes a long comment about The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Rod Adams comments back. It demonstrates how government policy shifts can have a crippling effect.

 A Letter to the Newest Federal Liberal Candidate – Justin Trudeau 
Summary: Another letter added to my growing collection of reaching out to people of 

influence to spread the pro-nuclear word. In this case I appeal to their willingness 

to educate themselves about nuclear.

2. From Leslie Corrice's The Hiroshima Syndrome, these 2 entries can be found on the same page:

  http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html

October 10 Commentary...

"Antinuke Peter Bradford speaks with forked tongue" 

In a Wall Street Journal debate on nuclear energy viability, Peter Bradford takes the 

antinuclear side using time-worn rhetoric and making misleading statements, some of which are outright fabrications. Bradford's bombast literally demands this rational rebuttal.
(See Entreprenuclear post number 22 for additional Bradford debunking)

October 12......

No “Melt-throughs” at Fukushima Daiichi?  

Tepco has posted the results of the first water sample taken inside the unit #1 Primary Containment Vessel (PCV) at Fukushima Daiichi. We find results that come as more than a bit of a surprise. Given the differences with respect to the chemical make-up of the interior and exterior waters relative to the unit #1 PCV, and the fact that the highest radiation level inside the PCV is essentially parallel to the bottom head of the RPV (in today’s first update), I now believe it is possible that none of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi experienced catastrophic RPV “melt-through”.

 

3. From Rod Adams' blog Atomic Insights

Theo Simon and George Monbiot – Rational discussion about nuclear energy development

http://atomicinsights.com/2012/10/theo-simon-and-george-monbiot-rational-discussion-about-nuclear-energy-development.html

During the past week or so, Rod Adams has been spending quite a bit of time following a discussion about nuclear energy between Theo Simon and George Monbiot. It is a deeply philosophical engagement between two literate and concerned people who view nuclear energy through different lenses and have, so far, reached different conclusions about its value and potential for growth.

Rod provides a third perspective and hopes that the development of smaller reactors may encourage additional deep thinking.

 

4. From the ANS Nuclear Cafe:

Howard Shaffer with a very interesting history of the founding of the anti-nuclear energy movement -- as told last week at UMass Amherst by two of the very persons who helped to found it, Anna Gyorgy and Lionel Delevingne.

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/10/09/founding-the-anti-nuclear-movement/

Margaret Harding is blogging from the American Nuclear Society-sponsored Indo–US Nuclear Safety Summit in Mumbai, India.  Her notes on the discussions of regulatory issues, emergency risk assessment, international trade relations, economy, politics...

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/10/11/update-from-mumbai/

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/10/12/post-2-from-mumbai/

Check ANS Nuclear Cafe http://ansnuclearcafe.org/ for Harding's
continuing updates on news, and views, and traveler's tales, from the
Summit.

 

5. From the Yes, Vermont Yankee blog

Meredith Angwin revisits her area of technical expertise: PWR steam generators.  In "San Onofre Thoughts and Future. I told you so", Angwin quotes some of her earlier posts on the subject. She predicted the plant would be derated but start again. Plant opponents make endless negative predictions, and are all over the airwaves if even one of them comes true.  Angwin decided to trumpet her positive prediction this time. 

San Onofre Thoughts and Future. I told you so.

6. From Nuclear Diner:

Russia Plans to Raise Two Nuclear Submarine Reactors from Sea Floor

The Russian Defense Ministry is planning to raise and scrap two sunken nuclear submarines in the northern Barents and Kara seas. Susan Voss considers the reactors in those submarines and the hazards they may or may not pose. She also looks at Project Azorian, a 1968 CIA attempt to raise a sunken Soviet nuclear submarine.

7. From Will Davis's Atomic Power Review

http://atomicpowerreview.blogspot.com/2012/10/toshiba-to-buy-shaw-groups-holdings-in.html

Toshiba buys out Shaw

Although Will Davis is quite busy this week with a convention, he submits the press release from Toshiba on the put option Shaw has exercised on its Westinghouse stake (as well as links to other related stories) and invites readers to examine the very last line of the press release closely.

 

8. A posting from Jim Conca published by Forbes

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/10/09/fukushima-slugfest-japans-new-nuclear-regulation-authority/

 

9. William Tucker talks about the tragedy of Radiation Phobia at Nuclear Town Hall

http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/william-tucker-the-tragedy-of-radiation-phobia/

10. Gail Marcus at Nuke Power Talk

http://nukepowertalk.blogspot.com/2012/10/emergency-preparedness.html

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus discusses a recent article pointing out that the strong and positive link between the effectiveness of emergency response measures taken during the floods in Cedar Rapids in 2008 and the emergency response preparedness at the Duane Arnold nuclear power plant nearby. She also recalls a previous incident in which the emergency response preparations at another nuclear power plant proved to be very applicable and helpful for handling the emergency response for a chemical spill.  While communities should not depend on their nuclear neighbors to for emergency situations, the reality is that the more specific and stringent requirements imposed for nuclear power plants are a powerful spur to assuring that the necessary plans for an emergency are developed and maintained. 

And that concludes this week's Carnival entries.  Now, I will reveal the latest Entreprenuclear logo (actually created by a friend for me, not by me).  

 

(Disclaimer: My everyday attire does not consist of a Tie)

23. 10/11/12 One Day Late

So, yesterday was 10/11/12, October 11th 2012. "Why is that significant?", you ask. Just look at it - 10/11/12.

November 12th of next year will be similar, as will December 13th in 2014 (which will be a Saturday, not a Friday).

Unless I approach Guinness-level long-life status, 12/13/14 will be the last nerdily cool date like yesterday that I will see during my lifetime. Do you know what actually will still be alive and running when January 2nd, 2103 (01/02/03) rolls around?

1. Many of the Small Modular Reactor designs being designed today that will start up in the early 2020's could very possibly still be safely operating 80 years later.

2. The AP1000's to-be-built in Florida in Levy County and at Turkey Point to start up in the early-to-mid 2020's could quite possibly be safely operated for 80 years too, with proper operation and maintenance.

If I could have my way planning out the energy future of America, the primary threat to not having those plants operating the next time calendars read 01/02/03 will be nothing approaching safety issues, though. What I hope the main threat is, is that we have nuclear power plants that are simply miles better economically (making far more efficient use of our naturally occurring and already-produced fissile resources), and in terms of safety, that 80-100 year old technology simply won't be able to compete.

We have our work cut out for us, but the future can be bright, and it doesn't absolutely require energy austerity by any means.

Viva Abundant Energy

22. Debunking Antis (Peter Bradford) - The Weight of Lies

You may or may not have known it yet, but the Wall Street Journal has been conducting an online poll regarding the question "Should the World Increase Its Reliance on Nuclear Energy?". (Helpful Hint: click on the 1st entry of these search results, the WSJ gives access to things when accessed via Google search results). The poll has been up for at least several days, and I am not sure how much longer it will be up. If you have read any of the posts here, or met me in person, you could probably guess that my answer would be a resounding "HECK YES!! and faster than what we've done during any point in my lifetime (which began in the mid-80's)".

Within the past few days, commentary from Mark Lynas on the "pro-nuclear" side and from Peter Bradford on the "anti-nuclear" has been added. Mark Lynas is a British environmentalist and has relatively recently come to the realization that increasing the usage of nuclear power is an imperative for the world to have a successful future. Peter Bradford was a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Commissioner from 1977 to 1982. He has since made a bit of a career for himself as an anti-nuclear activist.

I will let Mark's words stand on their own (although I make zero claims of possessing climate change expertise).

In this post, however, I will break down Mr. Bradford's editorial, add some corrections and/or things he omitted, and add in a video of a song from my favorite musicians, the chorus of which makes me think of anti-nuclear folks almost every single time I hear it. My strong speculation is that almost anyone who would wish to get in touch with Mark Lynas would have an opportunity, by simply Tweeting him. I imagine/speculate Mr. Bradford is much tougher to get in touch with (and I will leave it to the reader to guess how that sways my idea of the overall integrity of each man).

Additions:
1. My assertion regarding ease of getting in touch (despite an Atlantic amount of distance) has been proven true in under 12 hours.
2. Check out Leslie Corrice's commentary on Bradford's writing over at his Hiroshima Syndrome site.

The Breakdown/Analysis/DeBunking:

Bradford starts off with a straw man argument comparing the utilization of nuclear power to using caviar to fight world hunger. This is not even close to a comparable comparison on a cost basis. Additionally, many of the costs associated with nuclear construction have been concocted precisely by the actions of anti-nuclear activists combined with the timing of extreme inflation rates within the U.S. (see: this chapter of a free online book written by Bernard Cohen).

Bradford goes on to make the claim that the full impact on people's health from Fukushima won't be known for years, if ever (cue cheesy, scary sound effect). I disagree. The majority of the region around the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant following the Great East Japan Earthquake has had radiation levels far below those that cause harm to humans and far below the naturally-occurring levels of quite a few places around the world that experience no negative health effects. The over-exaggeration of potential negative health effects is, from my viewpoint, highly immoral in that it has caused actual harm while preventing no real harm.  I agree with Mr. Bradford that people not being able to return to their homes is a tragedy, but I actually realize that it is efforts of people like Mr. Bradford himself that are the biggest impediment to those people being allowed to return home, rather than trivial amounts of radiation that could be easily managed/worked around.   Next

Pete B., what do 1970's advertisements have to do with anything regarding the present discussion? The Shah was basically a puppet ruler put in place by the U.S. government, who was overthrown by the people of Iran. U.S. over-extension in Iran in 1953 is a major contributor to the Iran situation today. Bringing that up has ZERO relevance to today's nuclear power discussion.  Next

"If the next nuclear-power-related catastrophe is a bomb........." - Yet another fallacy. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not a "Like-for-Like" equivalent, Pete. The bomb pre-dated nuclear power. Diverting fissile material from a nuclear power plant to create a bomb would be a far-far-from-optimum way to obtain nuclear weapons. Find another straw man.  Next

"Of course new reactor designs are safer." Thanks, for admitting that, Pete. Maybe we can actually get somewhere with this discussion. "However, safety depends on more than design." I agree completely, Pete. Operations are highly important. I mean, Technical Specifications specifying the minimum requirements of plant OPERATION make up an integral portion of a plant's OPERATING license granted by the Commission you were once a part of (a fact you have utterly milked in your activities subsequent to 1982). Oh, you didn't mention that operations and maintenance also ensure safety. I'll grant that you simply forgot that.  Next

"A world more reliant on nuclear power would involve many plants in countries that have little experience with nuclear energy.........."  Mr. Bradford, to suggest that these countries wouldn't be completely willing, able, and eager to learn all the things that they would need to know to properly build, maintain, and operate nuclear power plants screams of an air of arrogance on your part. People are capable of learning, particularly if the reward will enhance their society's well-being.  Next

Expense - I covered this above   Next

Quoting John Rowe - See the Rod Adams collection on John Rowe. I will summarize for you. The way Exelon is currently structured and positioned, they have basically no incentive to build new plants as extra capacity would merely hurt the profit margin of their existing TWENTY-TWO CASH COW plants.
(Lengthy Disclosure: I have been intending to purchase Exelon stock for months now, and at under $36/share, I need to do it soon particularly with the possibility of a normal amount coldness this winter leading to considerably increased natural gas demand and somewhat increased natural gas price which equals increased profit margins for Exelon's TWENTY-TWO already-built, operating nuclear plants). Next

Then, Peter Bradford goes into full-on, Tea Party market-based capitalism-mode, which I doubt he would do for ANY other topic. I admit that there is a severe disconnect between "pure" free-market capitalism and the utility industry as a whole. There are rather complex and diverse market structures involved (including the U.S. Government Corporation that is the Tennessee Valley Authority). This disconnect is not reason to abandon nuclear power, it is a reason to figure out methods of properly figuring out how to plan for, pay for, and build nuclear power plants.

You can't decide you want a nuclear power plant one day and start getting power from it the next. If you could, a "pure" free-market capitalistic approach would show, unequivocally, in the long term that nuclear power is the most cost-effective energy source.

Now the Music:

And now for a song from my present favorite musicians. These guys are my favorite in large part because I have 2 brothers (one of whom actually called in the middle of me writing out this sentence), but also because these guys are extremely talented and put tons of ENERGY and emotion into their songs.

Lyrics to Weight of Lies

"How does this song apply to anti-nuclear activists?" you might ask. The chorus starts off with a slightly obvious statement "The weight of lies will bring you down", but the part that always made me think of anti-nuclear folks was the end of the chorus, "so when you run make sure you run; to something and not always from; cause lies don't need an aeroplane, to chase you down". 

The anti-nuclear movement is a move away from technological progress. I see no way to argue against that. Turning away from peaceful atomic energy would be a step backward for humanity, and would lead to enhanced energy scarcity in a time when increased energy abundance is needed to minimize physical human suffering. Bill Gates understands the situation, thus he has helped fund TerraPower. 

Thus, I say we (the World) should run TO increased reliance on Nuclear Power, so vote YES in the Wall Street Journal poll while it is still open.

/An Aside

Also, a link that was shared this evening on Facebook titled "5 Biggest News Stories that Left out the Most Important Part".  

#1 on the list: The "Fukushima 50" Sacrificed Their Lives to Prevent Disaster (also, They're All Still Alive)