Vermont Is Part of the World: Guest Post by N Nadir

Reading Prong, in dark pink, from Wikipedia

The Prisoner's Dilemma

My American Nuclear Society blog post The Prisoner's Dilemma and New Types of Nuclear Energy Reactors was also posted at The Energy Collective.   In these posts  I compared the game theory example of "prisoner's dilemma" to the internecine fighting within the nuclear community.  I concluded that proponents of all types of reactors should communicate with each other. This would advance the good of nuclear energy as a whole.

Within my post, I said that I had no trouble in supporting Vermont Yankee and also supporting the development of new types of reactors, especially the LFTR.

The post immediately received a lengthy comment from a nuclear opponent, who objected very strongly to anyone supporting Vermont Yankee.  This man wrote that the people of Vermont don't want Vermont Yankee, they voted against Vermont Yankee, etc. etc. and so forth.

Blogger N Nadir replied to this comment about Vermont.  N Nadir has graciously allowed me to use his answer as a guest post.

------------------------------

Guest Post by N Nadir

The people of South Carolina all once wanted slavery too; that didn't make it right.

Unfortunately, the decision of the people of Vermont to abandon climate change gas free energy does not effect only the people of Vermont, irrespective of their contempt for scientists.   It effects everyone on earth.

The great climate scientist Jim Hansen has calculated that nuclear power has saved the lives of more than 1.8 million people.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197

As it happens, much of the fracking that will be required to replace Vermont Yankee will take place on the Marcellus shale formation, overlying the Reading Prong.   This is a uranium formation in equilibrium with radon gas.   Unless the uranium is removed and fissioned it will leak radon for hundreds of millions of years, just so the citizens of Vermont, their pitchforks in hand, can avoid the paraoxyms of fear they had over a few atoms of tritium that, like the rest of the nuclear industry which has saved so many lives, has had no health effect.

One would find it amusing to compare the number of deaths from the use of nuclear power in Vermont with the number of deaths associated with the PAH's and PM10 particulates from burning wood in Vermont.

How many people have died because of Vermont Yankee?

There are some people who have some, um, concerns about so called "renewable" wood boilers in Vermont and they've written a rather long report about some of the issues:  http://www.4cleanair.org/OWB-NESCAUM-Report_March2006.pdf

Has so called "renewable" energy in Vermont been more safe or less safe than the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant that everyone loves to hate, despite the lives it's saved?

The World Health Organization, in fact, reports that about 2 million people die on this planet each year - half under the age of five - from biomass burning:   http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs313/en/index.html

For the entire 60 year history of nuclear power practiced all around the world, the loss of life from nuclear energy will not even remotely approach the loss of life from the burning of wood in New England next winter.

There are wrist watches that have more tritium in them than 20 tons of water around Vermont Yankee, not that this reality has prevented anyone from issuing hysterical demands that this life saving reactor be shut:

http://www.bluetritium.com/servlet/StoreFront

One would hope that no anti-nukes have tritium watch dials in Vermont, just as one hopes that they will be as upset with the millions of tons of carbon dioxide that they will soon be dumping out of fear of a few tritium atoms.

The planetary atmosphere is collapsing at the fastest rate ever observed.    When we hear things like how Vermonters hate their nuclear plant, one must admit that we deserve what we are going to get.

Vermont cannot stop the diffusion of its atmosphere outside its borders.

When an element in Vermont destroys, out of ignorance and fear, clean infrastructure, they are not doing so in isolation from the rest of humanity.   This is not a Vermont issue; it is a human issue.

....any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. -John Donne

----------
N Nadir is a well-known blogger about energy: for a long time, he blogged at Daily Kos.  A few years ago, Charles Barton of Nuclear Green described and listed many of his posts.

Areva and Helen Caldicott, plus More on Hurricanes

Areva and Helen Caldicott

Helen Caldicott recently went to Canada to talk about uranium mining.  She called the nuclear industry "immoral" and compared it to Hitler.  On a radio show, she refused to back up her statements, becoming angry instead.  The radio interviewer wrote that  she “sounded like a person unhinged.”  Today, I was pleased to see Jarret Adams of Areva refute her statements about Canadian mining in his blog post: Helen Caldicott Stays One Step Ahead of the Facts.

I thought I should illustrate this post with a picture of Caldicott, but I couldn't bear to do so.  Instead, here's a picture of a bunch of us at Areva's nuclear fuel recycling facility in France, about two years ago.  That's Jarret standing behind me (I'm the white-haired woman on the right).  Rod Adams is standing next to Jarrett and behind Gwyneth Cravens.

Okay, the rest of the names are Jack Gamble (next to Rod) and Steve Aplin (next to Jack) and a very knowledgeable Areva manager at the left side of the picture.  I am so sorry I don't have his name in front of me!  I guess that is why you can amend blog posts.

Update: We are standing in front of the Melox facility, and the man on the left is Regis Faure of Areva. Thank you to Jarret Adams for this update!

Do read Jarret's post: Helen Caldicott Stays One Step Ahead of the Facts.

More About Hurricanes

Since I have already mentioned Rod Adams, I want to say that Margaret Harding, William Davis and I were on Rod's most recent podcast.  Atomic Show #190: Nuclear Plant Performance During Hurricane Sandy. I linked to  the announcement of the podcast. Here's a link to the podcast itself.  It was a great discussion. I learned a lot from Margaret Harding's honest, blunt and basically optimistic discussion.

Meanwhile, my blog post Hurricane Sandy and Nuclear Plants in the Main Stream Media has been posted at The Energy Collective.  I am always proud when they choose one of my posts.

What Determines the Comment Stream? One Post, Two Sets of Comments

Carbon dioxide and nuclear energy

Recently I wrote a post about carbon dioxide and nuclear energy. Specifically, I posted about why people concerned with climate change seldom talk about nuclear power (though it is a VERY low-carbon source of electricity) and why pro-nuclear people like myself rarely mention climate change.

The simple answer for both groups (climate-change activists and pro-nuclear activists) is that we are both afraid of losing our core supporters.  Pro-nuclear people are often conservative and do not believe climate change is a major issue.  Climate change activists are often liberal and don't approve of nuclear power.  If a speaker crosses the line to say: "we need nuclear" (in front of a climate change group) or "nuclear will help prevent accelerated global warming" (in front of a pro-nuclear group)...well, that speaker will probably lose half of her audience.

My original post appeared in my blog, Carbon Dioxide and Nuclear Energy: The Great Divide and How to Cross It. It was syndicated by The Energy Collective and appeared on their site, also.  The post received a lot of comments both places...as a matter of fact, 34 comments on both sites. The Energy Collective recently sent their contributors an email that contained a  Leaderboard (part of the Leaderboard is at the upper left). From that board, I learned I had written the top-commented post for July.  I decided I would look a little more closely at all the comments.

Before I talking about the comments, however, I want to note that my friend Suzy Hobbs Baker has written an excellent post on the same subject at ANS Nuclear Cafe today. Climate Change and Nuclear Energy: We Need to Talk.

The Comments and the Numbers


The Energy Collective is a much bigger site than Yes Vermont Yankee, and that is reflected in the number of people who read the post on the two sites. As of this writing, 710 people have read my post at The Energy Collective, and 392 have read it at my own blog.

The comment streams on the two posts were so different that they might as well have been about different posts.

The Energy Collective comments started with a discussion of renewables but quickly moved to  the idea that nuclear was not implemented safely, and then went on to a discussion of thermodynamics and Ocean Thermal Energy (OTEC).  Rod Adams, Paul O, Aggie Engineer and I were sticking up for classical thermodynamics and heat transfer, while others argued against what the second law tells us about the requirements of heat engines.  My favorite quote was from Aggie Engineer. He said I should think of myself as "grief counselor"  as people came to terms with the second law.

OTEC Diagram from Wikipedia

The Yes Vermont Yankee comments riffed from my statement that nuclear had many advantages over fossil fuels, besides the global warming argument. The main discussion was about the advantages (or not) of nuclear power.  People quoted article after article, source after source, to make their points.  Kit P has had a guest post on my blog and commented extensively on this post. He had many references about the way fossil fuels have been cleaned up, but Aaron Rizzio and Gwyneth Cravens had rebuttals. Naturally, Kit P had rebuttals to them, also.

The comments also included references to Vermont energy sources and the effects of thermal pollution and pumped storage on the Connecticut River.  In other words, many of the comments on my blog were more detailed and closer to home than the comments on The Energy Collective blog.   I am sorry to say there was also more snideness on my blog, crossing the border to ad hominem attacks.


Vermont is a Small Town,  and so is Yes Vermont Yankee

Most of the posts, on both boards, were about the science: thermodynamics, OTEC, ocean acidification, coal plant clean-up.  There were very few comments about the politics: who speaks about global warming, and in what context.  This is probably because both blogs are technology-oriented.

My blog was more like a small town discussion, getting right down to talking about Connecticut River issues and getting snide.  The Energy Collective comments took a wider view.

I guess that is what would be expected.

I am grateful for everyone who commented on either of the posts!  Thank you all!