News Is Obama's Endorsement of Nuclear Power a Liberal Shift?

[MotoH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html"

I know it is old, but it sums up some things nicely. If we could start replacing coal plants with reactors, it would reduce the United States' carbon footprint dramatically.

 

[russ_watters]

The video tapes of not one, but two security guards at nuclear power plants, sleeping while on-duty, not long after 911, did not convince me that we have anything even close to a failsafe system. That showed me that for all of the posturing, there is no way to control the human element...

We were told this was all safe even while three mile island was on the verge of melting down; while the two most knowlegable people in the country were screaming at each other and didn't know what to do...

What is already done to work around the human error element is to simply engineer human error (and a host of other potential errors) out of the equation. You engineer plants that fail off instead of failing on.

TMI is evidence of the success of the safety engineered into American reactor designs.

But, at this point energy independence is probably more important that safety concerns. Better to potentially lose one city than all of them. Also, the sooner we can gain energy independence, the sooner we can get out of the ME. Ultimately, our need for oil is the reason that we have terrorists.

Yes, one thing about risks is the risk of losing one city, based even on the worst potential projections by assuming all reactors are as bad as Chernobyl, is still very low. And more importantly, we'd have to lose a city every 10 years or so to compare to the people that already die due to regular air pollution.

I don't know what sort of operation we might need to prepare for. Do you? Please provide your sources.

Nevertheless, you are basing your fear on something, aren't you? What is your source for believing there is a terrorism threat lurking in our nuclear plants? And a clarification I'd ask for:

My biggest concern is the proliferation of nuclear materials; for dirty bombs, for example.

Your use of the word "proliferation" is confusing to me. Proliferation is other countries getting the capability to generate their own nuclear fuel, isn't it? What you are really worried about is people stealing our nuclear fuel, right?

 

[mheslep]

All of these allusions to the past are moot. We now live in a world of terrorism - foreign and domestic. If a few knowledgeable people were to gain access to and control of a nuclear plant, and had the proper materials, could they cause a catastrophic failure and meltdown?

Yes.

That maybe correct, I don't know, but I'm sceptical. The answer to that question must require some fairly sophisticated analysis to a difficult problem. The lesson of Three-Mile Island is that containment works. It is far from clear, to me at least, that a 'few knowledgeable people' could blow open the containment, assuming they could melt down a modern reactor.

The fact that we've never had a catastrophic event, is not an argument.

Of course it is. Observation provides evidence over time, not certainty. The lack of an event for ~100 reactors over 30-50 years is a significant data point, though it is not conclusive. It is very suggestive, for instance, that adding, say, 10% more reactors is not going to change the reality of whatever risk we have now. I'd be much more concerned about a plan to build another 500 reactors in 20 years, in that case I'd like to know much more about the risk.

 

[russ_watters]

can you calculate the psychological and economic effects (beyond the cleanup) of an "ineffective" dirty bomb ?

No, but neither can you. It isn't any more reasonable to assume they'd be devistating than it is to assume they wouldn't. And based on how low the actual physical risks really are, I tend to suspect the phsychological risks would work themselves out relatively quickly.

 

[russ_watters]

What we will do with the spent material is also a valid concern. Obama want's a bipartisan commission to sort this out.

This is why I don't trust Obama: He promised us he'd create a commission and they'd have an answer by now. And he hasn't done it yet. This ain't like 'Gitmo - he could have kept this promise with the simple stroke of a pen. Why didn't he?

 

[russ_watters]

Source? (I happen to know that's wrong).

A Google for "nobody has ever died from nuclear power" turns up a host of results confirming at least the spirit of the claim. The claim wasn't quite specific enough, though. It should be 'No one has ever died from radiation from a western nuclear power plant'. There are other forms, though, such as:

According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Since commercial nuclear power plants began operating in the United States, there have been no physical injuries or fatalities from exposure to radiation from the plants among members of the U.S. public."

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/energymyths/myth7.htm

 

[russ_watters]

We are working closely with Russia and other former Soviet States, to contain all nuclear materials. They also see this as a highest priorety.

When the Soviet collapsed, the security of their nuclear materials were seriously compromised. In many cases, guards at nuclear facilities, including weapons facilities, left their posts to go find food. Others left because they were no longer receiving any pay.

Indeed, with all the Russian nuclear fuel people assume is available on the black market, it makes me wonder why people are worried at all about the security of American nuclear fuel.

 

[russ_watters]

All of these allusions to the past are moot. We now live in a world of terrorism - foreign and domestic. If a few knowledgeable people were to gain access to and control of a nuclear plant, and had the proper materials, could they cause a catastrophic failure and meltdown?

Yes.

Source and specificity? Certainly, they could cause a "catastrophic failure", but what does that even mean? Can they cause a "China syndrome"? Certainly not? Chernobyl? Certainly not. TMI? Certainly. But if TMI is all terrorists are capable of doing, then there is no real public health risk.

Again, you are basing your fear on an assumed risk that has no basis outside your own recursive fear inside your head!

Here's an article discussing nuclear power and terrorism: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/rs21131.pdf

Operating nuclear reactors contain large amounts of radioactive fission products
which, if dispersed, could pose a direct radiation hazard, contaminate soil and vegetation,
and be ingested by humans and animals. Human exposure at high enough levels can
cause both short-term illness and death, and longer-term deaths by cancer and other
diseases.
To prevent dispersal of radioactive material, nuclear fuel and its fission products are
encased in metal cladding within a steel reactor vessel, which is inside a concrete
“containment” structure. Residual heat from the radioactive fission products could melt
the fuel-rod cladding even if the reactor were shut down. A major concern in operating
a nuclear power plant, in addition to controlling the nuclear reaction, is assuring that the
core does not lose its coolant and “melt down” from the heat produced by the radioactive
fission products within the fuel rods. Therefore, even if plant operators shut down the
reactor as they are supposed to during a terrorist attack, the threat of a radioactive release
would not be eliminated.
Commercial reactor containment structures — made of steel-reinforced concrete
several feet thick — are designed to prevent dispersal of most of a reactor’s radioactive
material in the event of a loss of coolant and meltdown. Without a breach in the
containment, and without some source of dispersal energy such as a chemical explosion
or fire, the radioactive fission products that escaped from the melting fuel cladding mostly
would remain where they were. The two meltdown accidents that have taken place in
power reactors, at Three Mile Island in 1979 and at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union in
1986, illustrate this phenomenon. Both resulted from a combination of operator error and
design flaws. At Three Mile Island, loss of coolant caused the fuel to melt, but there was
no fire or explosion, and the containment prevented the escape of substantial amounts of
radioactivity. At Chernobyl, which had no containment, a hydrogen explosion and a
fierce graphite fire caused a significant part of the radioactive core to be blown into the
atmosphere, where it contaminated large areas of the surrounding countryside and was
detected in smaller amounts literally around the world.

The fact that we've never had a catastrophic event, is not an argument. The point is to avoid problems, not to wait until we have one.

It isn't an argument, it is a statistic that enables us to calcuate at least an upper bound on the risks posed by nuclear power. Ie, you can assume a Chernobyl-style accident happens in the US tomorrow* and base your risk assessment on that. If you do that, you still end up with nuclear power being the right choice.

All of this equivocation only tells me that the public is not ready for nuclear power. We lack the social responsibility.

Ready or not, they've lived with it just fine for the past 40 years!

*And hopefully you realize that even that method is orders of magnitude unreasonably conservative

 

[mheslep]

... And based on how low the actual physical risks really are, I tend to suspect the phsychological risks would work themselves out relatively quickly.

In a modern society, I suspect the opposite. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/_img/86/i46/8646gov2_view.jpg" , which was 35 years ago and perhaps overblown.

 

[russ_watters]

In a modern society, I suspect the opposite. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/_img/86/i46/8646gov2_view.jpg" , which was 35 years ago and perhaps overblown.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate or representative:

-The Love Canal dump site is huge and old and as a result extremely difficult to clean up. In a that way, that makes it worse than a dirty-bomb.
-People can't build homes on it because it is still a federally controlled site, fenced-in, with chemical monitoring equipment sticking out of the ground. Nevertheless, people are building homes next to it:

In the 1990s, the city "reclaimed" some of the boarded-up houses and declared the area outside the perimeter safe. But in order to obtain mortgages, buyers had to sign waivers that they would not later sue.

David Bower, who was one of the first to buy a home from the city (for $38,000), pays little attention to the fenced wasteland just one street away.

"I'll be honest," the 42-year-old detective told ABCNews.com outside his renovated ranch home. "This is the most tested part of the country. I know what's in the soil."

"It needs to go to rest," he said of the efforts of the outspoken Love Canal children. "I eat the vegetables in my garden and I'm not glowing in the dark."

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5553393&page=4

and...

[from 1998] However, the rest of Love Canal has been declared safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A public corporation took ownership of the abandoned properties, fixed up the homes and resold them.

Susan Bloss of the Love Canal Revitalization Agency said the agency has sold 232 of the 239 homes it renovated. Love Canal, which once symbolized hidden toxic wastelands, is now known as Black Creek Village.

The new residents of Black Creek Village feel safe in their new homes. "This area has been tested and tested and tested," said homeowner Trudy Christman. "This is the most tested piece of real estate in the United States."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/07/love.canal/

 

[Proton Soup]

No, but neither can you. It isn't any more reasonable to assume they'd be devistating than it is to assume they wouldn't. And based on how low the actual physical risks really are, I tend to suspect the phsychological risks would work themselves out relatively quickly.

i didn't say they would be devastating. but i tend to suspect that they would be significant.

 

[russ_watters]

i didn't say they would be devastating. but i tend to suspect that they would be significant.

...ok...so what does "significant" mean and how does this help us to build an energy policy?

 

[Proton Soup]

...ok...so what does "significant" mean and how does this help us to build an energy policy?

it means people are afraid to go outside in an area where a device was detonated, or in areas similar to where a device was detonated. telling them it's safe may not help, because people are afraid of radiation. the effect to businesses should be obvious. as far as energy policy is concerned, it means you keep a tight lid on nuclear materials, even if it's technically difficult to build a dirty bomb that is physically effective as Doug Huffman claims.

but... not that i think Ivan has strong point here, because even if some well-prepared terrorists came to a nuclear power plant, someone is going to call the local authorities and they won't get far. it's not going to be like doing a smash and grab at a jewelry store. nor would an awake guard be much use against truck bombs in the intent were to bomb the facility.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

...ok...so what does "significant" mean and how does this help us to build an energy policy?

The effect in any major urban area would be pretty bad unless the military stepped in and contained the area very quickly. Most likely there would be massive numbers of people fleeing the area and the obligatory rioting. I do not think though that this would have any greater significance to energy policy than it already does.


As for security guards I do not think most people really get what the problem is. Certainly the issue with Wackenhut's nuclear plant security devision was much worse than it should ever get but the root causes are likely not just poor hiring practices. How many of you have ever had to stand and/or sit for 8, 10, or 12 hours watching for something that is likely never going to happen with little to no stimulus at all to keep you alert? How many of you have had a job that basically amounted to being a fall guy in case anything goes wrong?
Most employers, employees, and people in general treat security guards like **** and figure they are mostly lazy bums who couldn't hack it as real police officers. If you can figure out a reasonable way to reliably maintain a force of good workers in a braincell killing job where they are looked down upon, treated like crap (often even by their own employers), and usually not paid very well then please outline it for us. Until then please just realize that any employee usually only does as well as you would expect based on how they are treated.

 

[drankin]

The effect in any major urban area would be pretty bad unless the military stepped in and contained the area very quickly. Most likely there would be massive numbers of people fleeing the area and the obligatory rioting. I do not think though that this would have any greater significance to energy policy than it already does.


As for security guards I do not think most people really get what the problem is. Certainly the issue with Wackenhut's nuclear plant security devision was much worse than it should ever get but the root causes are likely not just poor hiring practices. How many of you have ever had to stand and/or sit for 8, 10, or 12 hours watching for something that is likely never going to happen with little to no stimulus at all to keep you alert? How many of you have had a job that basically amounted to being a fall guy in case anything goes wrong?
Most employers, employees, and people in general treat security guards like **** and figure they are mostly lazy bums who couldn't hack it as real police officers. If you can figure out a reasonable way to reliably maintain a force of good workers in a braincell killing job where they are looked down upon, treated like crap (often even by their own employers), and usually not paid very well then please outline it for us. Until then please just realize that any employee usually only does as well as you would expect based on how they are treated.

How did we get from Nuclear Plants to mall cop stereotypes?

People have an irrational fear of nuclear energy (and in PF even!). The data does not exist to support it.

 

[rootX]

The effect in any major urban area would be pretty bad unless the military stepped in and contained the area very quickly. Most likely there would be massive numbers of people fleeing the area and the obligatory rioting. I do not think though that this would have any greater significance to energy policy than it already does.

Or China can be asked for help :) They seem to be experts in these kind of areas.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How did we get from Nuclear Plants to mall cop stereotypes?

I'm responding to Ivan's concern over inattentive security guards at nuclear power plants. I do not think it is the issue that he thinks it is. And the problem exists in just about any security setting. It can be fairly easily remedied but people need to be willing to realize the real issue and not just blame the guards. People blame the guards because that is pretty much what they are there for, to be blamed for things going wrong, and so they only reinforce the problem and it never gets fixed.

 

[WhoWee]

All of these allusions to the past are moot. We now live in a world of terrorism - foreign and domestic. If a few knowledgeable people were to gain access to and control of a nuclear plant, and had the proper materials, could they cause a catastrophic failure and meltdown?

Yes.

It has already been shown that even in a time of crisis, we cannot depend on the private sector. The fact that we've never had a catastrophic event, is not an argument. The point is to avoid problems, not to wait until we have one.

All of this equivocation only tells me that the public is not ready for nuclear power. We lack the social responsibility.

Are you suggesting the Government (military) should guard the facilities?

 

[Gokul43201]

This is why I don't trust Obama: He promised us he'd create a commission and they'd have an answer by now. And he hasn't done it yet.

Wrong. The commission was created a few weeks ago - http://www.energy.gov/news/8584.htm

 

[mheslep]

Wrong. The commission was created a few weeks ago - http://www.energy.gov/news/8584.htm

Chu announced plans for the commission in the first couple of months of the administration. An announcement of its creation just now about that which has been already been studied ad infinitum seems to be moving a little slow.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/41125772.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, it's been slow - very slow. I can't say I have any real clue why it took so long - maybe they were distracted by the recession and healthcare issues, maybe they didn't see a need to rush when the present system is still probably okay for the short term, or maybe they were just procrastinating and hoping to put it off for as long as possible. But the only point that I wished to make was that it is incorrect to assert that such a panel has not been created.

 

[Astronuc]

Energy secretary plans to act fast on alternative to Yucca Mountain

One year in government is fast!

I've seen DOE/NASA programs come to a lurching halt, and sometimes abandoned altogether, with each new administration (R or D doesn't matter). I've had colleagues at DOE tell me that they won't be doing much for 6 months except preparing presentations for discussions in Washington DC with the new secretary and administration.

 

[mheslep]

...But the only point that I wished to make was that it is incorrect to assert that such a panel has not been created.

Russ said

[...]create a commission and they'd have an answer by now. And he hasn't done it yet.

and indeed they did claim http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/11/11greenwire-yucca-haunts-admins-lagging-efforts-on-nuclear-24943.html"

[...]Energy Secretary Steven Chu quickly followed up, telling Congress last March that the commission would be formed "ideally" within a month and would craft recommendations by the end of 2009.

If this was 1975 and the US was doing its first look at long term waste and we didn't have a Nobel laureate as Energy Sec who could fathom the issues, I'd be inclined to grant the usual 'its govt' slack on this one. It's not and we do. There are some 13 new plant NRC licences in late stages of the process. So it's reasonable in my view to see this blue ribbon panel as a political head fake.

 

[MotoH]

If they want to build a reactor in my city I am all for it. We need the construction jobs!

 

[Astronuc]

I think Vogtle 3 & 4 are the most likely to come on line first, and possibly Summer 3 & 4.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Loan_guarantees_offered_for_new_Vogtle_units-1702104.html

 

[mheslep]

One year in government is fast!

I've seen DOE/NASA programs come to a lurching halt, and sometimes abandoned altogether, with each new administration (R or D doesn't matter). I've had colleagues at DOE tell me that they won't be doing much for 6 months except preparing presentations for discussions in Washington DC with the new secretary and administration.

Well if that is a hard and fast rule as applied to nuclear power the US might as well ban/cancel all new commercial nuclear power. If we stipulate that the government/NRC must be intimately involved in nuclear power, and given that new plants take 5-10 years to build, it's impossible to have an economically viable industry no matter how many loan guarantees are offered. Better to stick with something that can be built in 6 months and forgotten about, even it is an inferior solution.

 

[mheslep]

I think Vogtle 3 & 4 are the most likely to come on line first, and possibly Summer 3 & 4.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Loan_guarantees_offered_for_new_Vogtle_units-1702104.html

What leads you to believe that they'll ever be approved by the NRC under current leadership?

 

[Gokul43201]

If this was 1975 and the US was doing its first look at long term waste and we didn't have a Nobel laureate as Energy Sec who could fathom the issues, I'd be inclined to grant the usual 'its govt' slack on this one. It's not and we do. There are some 13 new plant NRC licences in late stages of the process. So it's reasonable in my view to see this blue ribbon panel as a political head fake.

Fine. You see it as a head fake. I don't have an opinion on it yet. Can we just get the record straight that we finally have the panel that was promised a year ago?

In the last few weeks I think I've read three posts mentioning this promised, but undelivered, panel (can't recall who wrote the other posts), so just wanted to make it clear that this is no longer the case.

 

[Gokul43201]

...
Just another hole in the boat for those who recklessly apply "liberal" labels to Obama.

Obama's spending has earned him the label.

This sounds like a fair rationale, if part of a more extensive argument. But by itself, it's too limited. Using the same measure, one would have to conclude that (haven't checked the numbers, but going by my memory of Fed spending relative to GDP) Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr were more liberal than Clinton.

 

[Gokul43201]

This point is often made based on who held the White House, but I don't think its valid unless looked at in combination with who held the Congress.

That wasn't addressed either, in the reasoning provided by whowee.

To my mind Gingrich and company get much of the credit for holding down spending when they took office in in '94, given the spending and Hillary Care track Clinton took in '92.

Again, going by memory, I seem to recall that the deficit was being cut (yes, cut, not inflated) at roughly the same rate before the Rep majority (i.e., 92,93, under a Dem Congress) as it was after.

Without a line item veto and with split government it is difficult to lay sole responsibility for this or that funding decision with the executive.

True. But I suspect we'll continue to see a lot more of it over the next 3 years.

Edit: I've gone way off topic now. My non-response to any follow-ups to this line of discussion is meant only to stem the digression.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Regarding Obama's position on nuclear power, if I remember correctly, he wrote about the promise of nuclear power in The Audacity of Hope and a need to reexamine that potential. So this is not exactly as out of character for Obama as some may think, from my perspective. Some people may want to learn a bit more about Obama from his own words than what commentators say about him.

 

[Gokul43201]

Along similar lines, but this coming more from a lack/fuzziness of knowledge, how many new commercial nuclear power plants have been authorized under the previous Presidents, say Reagan onwards? And what kind of federal monies have been allocated?

 

[MotoH]

Every topic in P&WA turns into a political debate on whether Obama is great or Obama is ermm opposite of great.

 

[Astronuc]

What leads you to believe that they'll ever be approved by the NRC under current leadership?

NRC has sounded positive so far. Why would one believe the NRC leadership would not approve any COL?

 

[mheslep]

Along similar lines, but this coming more from a lack/fuzziness of knowledge, how many new commercial nuclear power plants have been authorized under the previous Presidents, say Reagan onwards? And what kind of federal monies have been allocated?

The conditions are substantially different now, so it probably doesn't make sense to look back too far:

1. The most recent nuclear plant, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statestn.html" , went online in 1996.
2. US nuclear operators have steadily brought up their capacity factors over the years from 60-70% to 93-94% now. This is the equivalent of bringing on about one new virtual 1970's 2GWe plant every year for thirty years. That play is about over, as in this century capacity has plateaued. (Note: uprates will likely squeeze out another 2% = 4GWe from existing plants).
3. The US has recently had the possibility of a multi-hundred billion dollar CO2 cap via legislation, making the nuclear question much more important. I take the general public sense to be (+/-) that they'd go along with dumping coal for new nuclear. The question then is will new nuclear be allowed?
4. Existing nuclear is nearing retirement age.
5. Onsite waste accumulation is becoming significant. Ten years ago not so much, and a long term waste repository was under construction.
6. 21st century China and India on the rise, competing for energy, driving up the cost.
7. Several innovative small reactor designs that didn't exist beyond concept 10 years ago (TWR, MPower, B&W, Hyperion, liquid Th) have reached an advanced stage of design. The government controls the go/no-go switch on small nuclear; the industry needs an answer.

 

[mheslep]

NRC has sounded positive so far. Why would one believe the NRC leadership would not approve any COL?

Fair question. Because:

• Several of those individual plant COLs (NRC fee $50 million each, minimum) have been in the queue approaching three years now http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/calvert-cliffs.html", and none have been approved.
• The AP1000 design was submitted in 2002 and the amendment / revisions are still ongoing; the scheduled completion is not until the http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.html".
• Jaczko used to work for Sen. Harry Reid who has made many disparaging remarks about nuclear, aside from his Yucca Mtn attacks.
• The NRC bureaucracy is set up so that it stands a great deal to lose politically by approving a plant under protest, and very little to lose politically by delaying or saying no.

 

[Astronuc]

Fair question. Because:

• Several of those individual plant COLs (NRC fee $50 million each, minimum) have been in the queue approaching three years now http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/calvert-cliffs.html", and none have been approved.
• The AP1000 design was submitted in 2002 and the amendment / revisions are still ongoing; the scheduled completion is not until the http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.html".
• Jaczko used to work for Sen. Harry Reid who has made many disparaging remarks about nuclear, aside from his Yucca Mtn attacks.
• The NRC bureaucracy is set up so that it stands a great deal to lose politically by approving a plant under protest, and very little to lose politically by delaying or saying no.

With respect to the first two, there were a number of COLs in the queue, and they were handled in the order they were filed. Several have been suspended (or deferred) because the utility backed out. Utilities changed their position on three of the four ESBWRs. The DCA for the EPR is pending, and Constellation was negotiating a deal with FPL Group that feel through. EdF is taking some stake in CC-3. The delays don't have much to do with the NRC, but more to do with utilities.

Jaczko I don't much about, but what I've heard is positive.

Most plants with which I'm familiar are not being strongly challenged, or what I'd consider strongly challenged.

There are technical issues that do need to be resolved on all of the new plants.

 

[mheslep]

... The delays don't have much to do with the NRC, but more to do with utilities...

What's the basis for laying the responsibility with the utilities? If it is solely because several utilities dropped out, I find that unpersuasive, as the delays and costs fixed by the NRC may be the main reason they did so.

 

[russ_watters]

Wrong. The commission was created a few weeks ago - http://www.energy.gov/news/8584.htm

As noted, you missed half of what I said. Anyway, perhaps I should have split them into separate promises and given them full treatment. I'll do that now:

Yes, it's been slow - very slow. I can't say I have any real clue why it took so long - maybe they were distracted by the recession and healthcare issues, maybe they didn't see a need to rush when the present system is still probably okay for the short term, or maybe they were just procrastinating and hoping to put it off for as long as possible.

Those are all interesting reasons - which do you consider most likely?

It took almost a year just to appoint the panel, when he promised to do it in a month. That's more than just a little odd, since the actual effort required by Obama himself to appoint the panel is minimal. Staffers gather the resumes and do most of the interviews, write a proposal, run it by the lawyers, etc. All Obama has to do is read and sign off on the proposal, read the list of candidates and do some final quickie interviews, and select the panel. That's what, an hour of his time? Two? So it is tough to fathom that he just got distracted: it was a simple promise and would have been simple to keep.

The reason he was unable to keep it more likely has to do with Obama's nuclear policy itself than Obama's ability to appoint a panel. Obama backed himself into a corner by saying that Yucca (and reprocessing, according to McCain) was off the table. It may well be that the reason he didn't appoint the panel last March is that he came to the realization that he had trapped himself and not having a way out, he buried the issue, " hoping to put it off for as long as possible". And fortunately for him, few in the media called him on it. In any case, that's not my theory, I got it here:

But despite agreements between Reid and the administration, Yucca Mountain remains -- by law -- the disposal site for U.S. nuclear waste. The DOE repository license has not been withdrawn, nor has the department moved to do so, according to an industry source. Meanwhile, Reid is facing a tough re-election battle this year.

Moreover, some say that disagreement over whether the blue-ribbon panel should consider Yucca Mountain as a potential waste management solution is one reason the administration has taken so long to get the commission going. Qualified candidates, several sources say, do not agree Yucca should be taken off the table.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...ng-efforts-on-nuclear-24943.html?pagewanted=1

In other words, he may have run into problems when he tried to stock the panel with people who would follow his already laid-out position.

Now I, of course, consider the entire exercise an act of misdirection. The Yucca project in particular and the idea of long term storage in general has been rediculously well studied and vetted over the past several decades. It is viable and needs no further study to implement it. But even that is a misdirection, since more than 90% of nuclear fuel is recylable and requires no long term storage. By engaging in a multi-faceted misdirection, Obama makes me more than just suspicious of this recent announcement about loan guarantees. Simply put, I don't believe he actually favors nuclear power - a token act of support isn't enough to show he really wants it.

 

[mheslep]

...
There are technical issues that do need to be resolved on all of the new plants.

Well given the industry is 50+ years old I find that a) remarkable, and b) without further details an excuse that could be used by the NRC forever. After all, the AP1000 is not some radical new liquid Th gizmo, basically it is still a PWR.

 

[Astronuc]

What's the basis for laying the responsibility with the utilities? If it is solely because several utilities dropped out, I find that unpersuasive, as the delays and costs fixed by the NRC may be the main reason they did so.

Because the utilities initiated the requests to the NRC or changed their plans, and because of comments made to me by utility personel.

 

[Astronuc]

Well given the industry is 50+ years old I find that a) remarkable, and b) without further details an excuse that could be used by the NRC forever. After all, the AP1000 is not some radical new liquid Th gizmo, basically it is still a PWR.

Because the guys who designed the plants 30+ years ago are gone, and they were not replaced. There have been tremendous staffing changes at the vendors and NRC, there was a loss of institutional knowledge and skill, there have been reorganizations, and many new people who do not know the technology as well as they should. It's not so much the core technology as it is other parts of the plant.

 

[mheslep]

Because the guys who designed the plants 30+ years ago are gone, and they were not replaced. There have been tremendous staffing changes at the vendors and NRC, there was a loss of institutional knowledge and skill, there have been reorganizations, and many new people who do not know the technology as well as they should.

Fair enough. Given though that an AP1000 is nearly under way in China, I'm inclined to point first to the NRC and not the vendors.

It's not so much the core technology as it is other parts of the plant.

The other nuclear related parts of the plant? I.e. fuel storage, waste handling? Otherwise the non-nuclear balance of plant shouldn't be any different from a coal boiler balance of plant.

 

[Gokul43201]

The conditions are substantially different now, so it probably doesn't make sense to look back too far...

Thanks for the list. Given the changes over the years, I agree it is probably wise to limit comparisons to the very recent past. Could you (or anyone else familiar with the situation - Astronuc?) summarize what Bush has done for commercial nuclear power production in say, his last couple of years (or pick any reasonable representative period)?

 

[mheslep]

Thanks for the list. Given the changes over the years, I agree it is probably wise to limit comparisons to the very recent past. Could you (or anyone else familiar with the situation - Astronuc?) summarize what Bush has done for commercial nuclear power production in say, his last couple of years (or pick any reasonable representative period)?

It is likely a large part of the answer is in the widely supported "Energy Policy Act of 2005". Nuclear provisions:

Nuclear energy-related provisions in H.R. 6 include:
* “Standby support” to offset the financial impact of delays beyond industry’s control that might occur during construction and at the start of operations for as many as six new nuclear power reactors. This counterweight to the risk of potential delays would the full cost of delay for the first two new reactors–up to $500 million each–and 50 percent of the delay costs–up to $250 million–each for reactors three through six.

* Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, the framework for industry self-funded liability insurance, for 20 years. This is the longest extension ever granted by Congress. The measure to renew the act excludes a “subrogation” provision, which would have greatly increased potential liabilities to contractors at nuclear sites.

Price Anderson is a 1957 law that indemnifies the industry, partially, against liability from accidents.

* A measure empowering the secretary of energy to provide loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of “innovative technologies” that “avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.” This would include new advanced-design nuclear power plants, as well as clean coal and renewables.

This is the only mention of loan guarantees in the 2005 law, and it appears they are different (innovative tech) from the blanket guarantees just pledged by the President. I vaguely thought there were some guarantees already in place from years ago but I can't find a reference.

* A production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 6,000 megawatt-hours from new nuclear power plants for the first eight years of their operation, subject to a $125 million annual limit. The production tax credit places nuclear energy on equal footing with other sources of emission-free power, including wind and closed-loop biomass. These other sources have received a production tax credit on an unlimited basis since 1992, while the nuclear energy credit would be limited to eight years.

* Authorization of $1.25 billion to fund a prototype Next Generation Nuclear Plant project at Idaho National Laboratory that would produce both electricity and hydrogen.

* Authorization of funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which would foster research and development aimed at developing advanced nuclear power plants, more proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel and improved methods for managing used nuclear fuel.

* Additional nuclear power plant security requirements to buttress measures the industry has taken since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The measure requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revise by rule the design basis threat—the threat level against which nuclear plants are required to protect. Also provided for in the bill are periodic “force-on-force” drills by the NRC and a requirement that the NRC assign a federal security coordinator for each of its regions.

* Updated tax treatment of decommissioning funds to allow regulated and merchant companies to treat their contributions to the funds similarly, and to allow pre-1984 contributions to funds to be moved to “qualified,” deductible status over the remaining life of the power plant.

* Exemption from Department of Labor (DOL) training guidelines that will free the nuclear industry from instituting redundant and costly training guidelines, saving the industry millions of dollars.

* Establishment of one year as the time to lapse before a whistleblower can opt out of the DOL administrative process and take a case to a federal court.

* A provision directing the Department of Energy to report to Congress within one year with a long-term plan for dealing with greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste, as well as requiring a short-term plan, due within six months, on continuing recovery of sealed radioactive sources, pending the availability of a permanent disposal facility.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070710094024/http://www.nei.org/documents/Energy_Bill_2005.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

Fair enough. Given though that an AP1000 is nearly under way in China, I'm inclined to point first to the NRC and not the vendors.

China may have different standards than the US.

The other nuclear related parts of the plant? I.e. fuel storage, waste handling? Otherwise the non-nuclear balance of plant shouldn't be any different from a coal boiler balance of plant.

Nuclear plants have the burden of containment that fossil plants don't, and since 9/11, NPP systems are attracting a lot more scrutiny. Remember 9/11 came after the designs were started, and IIRC, the ABWR was certified before then. Since 9/11 the industry has had to revisit some of the design features.

 

[mheslep]

China may have different standards than the US.

Agreed, I suggest that it is something to watch.

Nuclear plants have the burden of containment that fossil plants don't, and since 9/11, NPP systems are attracting a lot more scrutiny.

Of course. I was referring to the balance of plant outside the 'core' as you called it. I don't know that transformers and steam turbines need containment, for instance.

 

[Astronuc]

Agreed, I suggest that it is something to watch.

As far as I know, the utilities are state run companies, so they have an economic advantage and other support that US utilities do not.

Of course. I was referring to the balance of plant outside the 'core' as you called it. I don't know that transformers and steam turbines need containment, for instance.

Yes, BOP is outside of containment, but those areas support the safety of the core and primary system, and so they also require protection. Fossil plants are certainly less likely to be targets.

Part of the problem is that in lieu of an experiment, one has to demonstrate with analyses that one's design is sufficiently robust to meet certain unique requirements.

 

[tori97]

Nuclear plants aren't bad they're a good way to get the job done fast and easy... now the nuclear plant security is ttly differnt. If you really have a problem with nuclear plants you should sign a petition against nuclear plants instead of complaining to the people on this forum. just an idea... ;p

 

[Gokul43201]

It is likely a large part of the answer is in the widely supported "Energy Policy Act of 2005".

I consider that to be more of a legislative accomplishment than an administrative one. As an argument for Bush's efforts it would have carried more weight if there was say, demonstrated initiative out the White House, helping push forward an unpopular bill. But signing into law a bill that cleared the Senate with 74 yeas does not strike me as a particularly dazzling credential to pin up on a resume.

That said, there seem to be some very positive measures (some seem like not such a big deal to me, like reauthorizing Price Anderson, and some I don't have an opinion on yet) in the bill, and I suspect the credit for most of it belongs to Pete Domenici.

I also find it mildly eyebrow-raising - especially given the flack that Obama's taking in this thread for his head fakes and misdirection moves - that the law being put forward as the primary nuclear power accomplishment of the Bush administration was in fact voted FOR by Obama, and voted AGAINST by McCain.

The way I see it, Obama was never a strong proponent of nuclear power, but at least as far back as mid-2007 (earlier, if you go by TSA's recollection from Audacity...) Obama was advocating that a push for more nuclear power ought to be re-visited, in light of its ability to cut down emissions, mitigate pollution, and reduce dependence on the Middle East for energy needs.