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

[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.