Nuclear Science Week Next Week, October 15-19

 Nuclear Science Week on a National Scale

Nuclear Science Week is a national week-long celebration of all aspects of nuclear science.  the Week is nationwide, and various areas plan local events. For example, Energy Northwest employees visited a middle school during Nuclear Science Week  in 2015:

“We always get a great response and a lot of interest from the students when we explain the science behind nuclear energy,” said Jamie Dunn, an engineer at Energy Northwest. (Quote from Energy Northwest blog post.)

The "Big Event" at Nuclear Science Week, Albuquerque

Each year, Nuclear Science Week plans one Big Event at a single location.  This year, the Big Event is in Albuquerque New Mexico.

Okay.  I admit I am being overly shy here.  I have not yet linked to the schedule for The Big Event in New Mexico. That is because I am the keynote speaker. 😊  On Monday morning, October 15, I will talk about the importance of pro-nuclear activism.  My talk will be at the University of New Mexico campus in Albuquerque.  (Here's a link to the venues for The Big Event.)

James R Polk Sub Sail
Heritage Park
National Museum of Nuclear Science and History

Many activities at the Big Event center around the National Museum Of Nuclear Science and History. At this Smithsonian-affiliated museum, the indoor area includes exhibits on energy, uranium, nuclear medicine and more. The Museum also contains a nine acre outdoor exhibit area, Heritage Park, with mostly military exhibits. I am happy to be visiting the museum.  And of course, I am happy to be keynote speaker.

I am not the only distinguished speaker  who will be at The Big Event. (Wow, I just called myself a "distinguished speaker." Maybe that keynote business is going to my head?) Other speakers include Jim Walther (executive director of the Museum) and Carol Browner, head of the EPA under Clinton, and now a leader in Nuclear Matters.

• Browner, Walther and I  (among others) will be speaking on Monday October 15. 
• On Wednesday, October 17, Michael Shellenberger will speak at a showing of Pandora's Promise.  
• On Thursday, the Department of Energy and the Museum will host a Millennial Nuclear Caucus on the theme of "Nuclear Science in Pop Culture." 

Starting this year,  Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is partnering with the Museum to be a major sponsor for The Big Event.

It is going to be a wonderful week in New Mexico (schedule).  I hope you can attend!

Nuclear Science Week in South Carolina and Georgia

Nuclear Science Week is nationwide, with events in schools all over the country. One area has Nuclear Science Week events that rival The Big Event in New Mexico. In South Carolina and Georgia (Savannah River Site area, ) SRSCRO.org  has organized a full list of activities for Nuclear Science Week.  Many companies are participating.  The events include:

• Plant Vogtle visits 
• field trips to the Savannah River Site
• a lecture by Dr. Jose Reyes, a founder of NuScale Power 
• Science Education Enrichment Day
• Nuclear workers visiting high school chemistry and physics classes
• Tours of the Savannah River Site Museum
• A costume ball (Yes. This is real.  I love to see nuclear supporters having fun!)

See the full list of Savannah River area Nuclear Science Week events at the SRSRCO web page about Nuclear Science Week. 

Nuclear Science Week for Everyone

Nuclear Science Week is not just for people who can attend a local event, spectacular as some of the events may be.  For example, the Nuclear Science Week website  has a tab Get Involved.   Everyone can find something interesting on this tab. There's a section on lesson plans for elementary school, middle school and high school.  The resources include games to learn physics, a "mock Senate" module to lead to discussions of energy choices, and more. The tab on Resources is also rich with links and ideas.  In short, the Nuclear Science Week website is a resource for all of us.

If you can't come to New Mexico, or Georgia, don't feel left out. I enjoy browsing the Nuclear Science Week website, and I think you will enjoy it also.

Low Dose Radiation: Keynotes, Initials and History

Alan Walter opens the conference.
October 1, Pasco WA

Rod Adams post:

Rod Adams and I are covering the Low Rad meeting.  I urge everyone to read his post (which he posted just a few minutes ago) and comment on it.

Would you evacuate your home in the middle of the night because of a radioactive release? This question was during at the meeting. Read the answer here: Making sense from radiation protection controversy

Nonstop Learning

I am now in the morning of the third day of the Low Dose Radiation conference, and it has been non-stop learning. In between the sessions and the poster sessions, it has been hard to post.   To give you an example of what I mean, on Monday morning there were eight presentations, not counting various welcoming remarks.  At lunch, Michael Shellenberger gave a stirring talk.  In the afternoon, there were two panel discussions and four presentations. The poster session is also extraordinarily interesting.  And I haven't even mentioned the handbell concert at breakfast.  When I say "nonstop," I mean nonstop.

I cannot possibly summarize this conference.  That's the bad news.  The good news is that since I can't possibly cover the whole thing, I will just hit some high points, and add plenty of commentary. Starting with Monday morning.

Goals and First Set of Keynotes

Goals: Mike Lawrence, former director of the Hanford site,  described the goals of the conference.  The conference attempts to pull together scientific data on the effects of low-dose radiation.  A major goal is to ensure that radiation protection through evacuation after an accident is done only on scientific grounds, not on primal fear of radiation.  The doses encountered at Fukushima would have led to no deaths or very few, but the evacuation killed over a thousand people. (Some estimates are only 800 people,  but you get the idea. The difference between no deaths and hundreds of deaths is a lot of deaths.)

Brenner talk: The first keynote was by David Brenner of Columbia University.  He supported LNT as the proper measure for low-dose radiation. The two arguments that he used to support the LNT theory really struck me, but not in a good way.  He used the idea that there is a cell, and it gets zapped with radiation.  We know quite a bit about high doses, but as we lower the dose, we can expect that each cell will only be zapped one time.  Then, as we lower the dose further, fewer cells will be zapped, but each cell which is zapped will be zapped pretty much the same way.  He admitted that repair mechanisms exist, but felt they were the same (or could be considered to be the same) if every cell was zapped once, or if only half the cells were zapped.  Therefore, he considers LNT to be correct.

My opinion: this was an overly-simplistic gedanken experiment. Later in the meeting, I heard many scientists describing the complex interactions of radiation, expression of genes, DNA repair, and so forth.

He also claimed that radiation damage to a fetus was another reason to support LNT, because fetuses do not have the confounding factors that adult humans have: no smokers, drinkers, etc. So damage to a fetus can stand in for damage for adults.  My opinion: "I'll drink to that. And while I am at it, I will have a thalidomide pill, if I can find one, in case I get a little nauseated."  In other words, many things that harm a fetus (alcohol, thalidomide) are not harmful to an adult, especially at low doses.  Many choices that would have been unwise for me to make while I was pregnant are no particular problem to me now. His fetus-centric argument strikes me as a thin reed to hold such an immense regulatory structure.

McClellan talk. The second keynote was by Roger McClellan, an internationally known expert in inhalation toxicology. He has worked in both radiation toxicology and chemical toxicology, and understands the difficulties of obtaining good data at low doses.  Brenner's conclusions about low dosages were clear (but wrong in my opinion), while McClellan was nuanced. McClellan said that all industries, de facto, use ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) for exposure, basically because no CEO wants to get sued.  He concluded that poverty is far more dangerous to human health than the low-dose issues of nuclear energy.  (I hope I am reporting this correctly.) I enjoyed his talk, and hope to read it in full at some time, to report on it more accurately.

The March of the Initials

The next part of the meeting was what I call the March of the Initials. At this point, I need to encourage people to go to the program tab of the Low Radiation Dose Conference website.

Website for Program: http://lowdoserad.org
Pdf of program: http://www.umtanum.com/TopicalManagedFiles/_Program/Program.pdf

The March of the Initials is the list of regulatory agencies, marching by in rapid fire, who presented their approaches to radiation protection. They had twenty minutes per agency.  These agencies included NRC, IAEA, UNSCEAR and others.  I was somewhat surprised (I am naive) about how different these agencies are in their approach.  David Pawel of EPA could have been giving Brenner's talk, while  Patricia Wieland of UNSCEAR acknowledged the limitations of understanding any possible levels of good or harm at low doses. She ended her talk by recommending that "regulators...use the old concept of ‘de minimis non curat prætor’ and exempt from regulations low-dose exposure situations that do not warrant control."  (Lots of us wanted to kiss Ms. Wieland, but we refrained.)

Note: Wieland was standing in for Abel Gonzalez, whose name is on the paper but could not attend the meeting.

As this point, I encourage people to go the website for the program, go to the program tab, and download the zip file of the Flash Drive for more information.

Micheal Shellenberger and History

Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress, spoke at the luncheon, with a fascinating talk on "The Making of Radiation Panic."  History teaches us the way forward.  To some extent, the bomb-making scientists (such as Oppenheimer) found themselves displaced in the public esteem by the reactor-making leaders (such as Rickover). They did not necessarily like this fact. Also, many of the older scientists, including Einstein, had the Utopian idea that the bomb would lead to a world government, which would mostly supersede the nation-states.  This also did not happen. It's a complex story, and Shellenberger told it well.

It became a battle between the idea of promoting world peace through promoting fear of radiation, and promoting world prosperity through the use of nuclear power.  I believe Shellenberger is writing a book on this subject.  I will be eager to read it.

So Much More

There's so much more to say. But if I don't post now, I will be late to the meeting!

Ending the Fear of Nuclear Energy (video)

My friend Michael Shellenberger delivered a TEDxCalPoly talk: How Fear of Nuclear Ends.

This is a terrific talk, tracing opinions on nuclear energy from the days when the Sierra Club policy "Atoms not Dams, (because of the huge ecological impact of hydro plants).  Then he describes  the controversy and confrontation within the Sierra Club as subgroups pushed against nuclear power. The quotes from the early anti-nuclear people are very telling: these people are basically against clean power because it would lead to population growth or economic growth or both.

Shellenberger talks about how anti-nuclear fears were nurtured by a small group of people, and how anti-nuclear fears will end.  One reason they will end is because everyone wants---a better world for our children.

Clean Air versus Efficiency Charges. Clean Air Wins.

The Clean Energy Standard

New York State recently enacted the Clean Energy Standard, which has supportive subsidies for clean energy producers, including nuclear energy.

Yes, this was a huge change. The number of people who welcomed it was also huge.  You can see pictures of the rally in Albany at this blog post at Environmental Progress: Big New York Victory Shows How Far Nuclear Still Has to Go.  You can see Al Gore and Governor Cuomo congratulating the state in this Twitter stream, which was Storified by Nuclear Energy Institute.

August 1 Albany CES Rally
Michael Shellenberger at center
photograph by Stephen Whiting

 The Price of the Clean Energy Standard

In the Environmental Progress blog post, there's a graph of the amount of the clean energy subsidy for nuclear and renewables.

The current subsidy for New York state renewables is 4.6 cents per kWh.  This is the federal 2.2 cents  per kWh subsidy (the production tax credit), plus the Tier 10 subsidy by New York State of approximately 2.45 cents per kWh.   Over the various years, the New York Tier subsidy has varied between 1.5 and 3.5 cents per kWh, with most of the recent year New York subsidies being close to the current 2.45 cent subsidy.  These subsidies are set by an auction process.

The Clean Energy Standard price supports for nuclear are set depending on the price on the grid and the credit given by the Greenhouse Gas initiative, and so forth.    For Indian Point, the subsidy is zero. It sells into a high-price grid.  For the upstate plants, the subsidy is currently 1.7 cents per kWh.  If the price on the grid goes up, the nuclear subsidies go down.  In contrast, the 4.6 cents per kWh for renewables continue, no matter what the price on the grid might be.

The Price of Efficiency

A question I often get asked is:  why can't we just fund efficiency? Wouldn't that be better?

Well, no.  I will leave out the problem that you can only push efficiency so far, before we go back to candlelight.  Instead, I will look at Vermont's full-speed-ahead attempt to support efficiency.

Vermont has an entire agency, Efficiency Vermont, to promote efficiency. According to a government renewables and efficiency energy website, the funding for this agency has grown from $19 million in 2006 to over $35 million in 2010.

Efficiency Vermont is supported by a surcharge on everyone's electric bill, and that surcharge has been growing.  According to recent newspaper articles, linked below, the agency now has a budget of $50 million per year. There are 600,000 people in Vermont, so that is about $80 per person per year. Most households (one electricity bill) have more than one person, so their "fair share" could be hundreds of dollars a year (say, four times $80 or $320).  On the other hand, commercial and industrial users pay these charges, and this lowers the household cost.  I think the average residential bill for Efficiency Vermont is less than $200 a year.

As you can see, this per-person charge for Efficiency Vermont  dwarfs the charges expected from the New York State Clean Energy Standard.  The Governor's office in New York estimated the Clean Energy Standard cost at  $2 per household per month ($24 per year)   In contrast, Vermont efficiency costs approximately $80 per person per year.

Efficiency for Whom?

I spent a few years serving on my town's Energy Commission.   I am no longer on the commission, but I still appreciate energy efficiency.

Efficiency is getting a bad reputation, though.  In recent years in Vermont, there has been a rebellion against Efficiency Vermont charges,  A typical article from VPR is titled: House Brings Down Budget Axe on Efficiency Vermont.  Or in VTDigger: Amendment to H.40 freezes energy efficiency charge.  These articles state that Efficiency Vermont has a budget of about $50 million per year.

If you read the comments on these articles, you will read notes from people who wanted Efficiency Vermont to help them with the costs of energy improvements to their homes.  Many of them didn't get funded, and they were not happy about it. Many people did not qualify for the grants, for various reasons.  Some could not afford the blower-door tests that Efficiency Vermont required to start the efficiency process.  All in all, an efficiency grant helps me but not you, or you but not me.  If my neighbor has new insulation,  that helps him directly, but all I see of the insulation is a surcharge on my electricity bill.

It is no wonder that at $80 per person per year and only some people benefit--there was going to be pushback from Vermonters.

Clean Energy versus Efficiency

For some people, it's a no-brainer to fund efficiency instead of funding any kind of big nasty power plant.  However, when taxes and surcharges fund a clean energy source, everybody benefits from the clean air.  When efficiency is funded, only some people benefit.

Let's be honest. I  benefited.  I could afford a blower door test.  I could afford to work with a certified contractor.  Yes.  I have new insulation.  Every now and again, I want to thank my neighbors for donating the money (through their electricity bills) for my new insulation.  Well.  Maybe that "thank-you" would not be a good idea. ;-)

In contrast, clean energy benefits everyone. The benefits are as clean and clear as the air we breathe.

The New York State Clean Energy Standard is a great bargain for the people of New York.

The New York Clean Energy Standard

The victory

I was in Albany today, and the New York Department of Public Service passed the Clean Energy Standard.  It was a great day and a fabulous victory for clean air!  New York State officially acknowledged that nuclear energy is a low-carbon source, and it deserves to be supported, in a similar manner that renewables are supported.  (Nuclear will receive far less money per kWh than renewables, however.)

A victory like this cannot be ascribed to only one person or one organization.  Many people and many groups did a huge amount of work to make this happen.  That said, I have to give a huge amount of credit to the Environmental Progress organization, Michael Shellenberger and Eric Meyer, along with the Mothers for Nuclear organization, with Sarah Spath and others.  There will be much more written about this in future days, but I wanted to get a blog post about it up  today.

My day in Albany

I also wanted to give a first-hand idea of what it was like to be there.

My visit to Albany started last night with a dinner with nuclear activists from all over the country: California, Ohio, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Virginia.  Rod Adams includes pix of the dinner at his blog post: Fighting climate change with best available tools. 

The next morning, we gathered for a rally before the Department of Public Service meeting.  We met in a ground-floor corridor of the building in which the meeting took place. The meeting room was on the 19th floor.  Various people spoke. I spoke about the consequences of closing Vermont Yankee, and why we have to avoid closing nuclear plants. Eric Meyer led us in a rousing rendition of "The Battle Hymn of the Atom" (The Truth Goes Marching On). And then we went to the meeting rooms.  Tim Knauer's article in Syracuse.com has a picture of part of the scene at the rally. Dozens of CNY residents flood Albany meeting on nuclear subsidies. 

We went into the meeting room. I had the good luck to get a seat and be able to stay in the meeting room itself: the department had to open three "overflow" rooms with video feeds because of the large crowd.  I heard the historical decision to support all kinds of clean energy: renewable AND nuclear.  I think the best post on this is Shellenberger's post at the Environmental Progress blog: Big New York Victory Shows How Far Nuclear Still Has to Go.  This post also has pictures of the celebration outside after the ruling.

It's good to have a victory.

Video: Here's a good nine-minute video about today's events, with Sarah Spath and Michael Shellenberger.
http://www.twcnews.com/nys/capital-region/capital-tonight-interviews/2016/08/1/michael-shellenberg-sarah-spath-080116.html

Monday: Rally for Nuclear at the New York State Capital

State House, Albany New York

The Standard and the Rally

New York State is considering a Clean Energy Standard that includes nuclear power plants. This is a big deal.  Many states have Renewable Portfolio Standards that give preference and subsidies to renewables, supposedly in the interest of preventing climate change, but give no value to the fact that nuclear plants do not emit carbon dioxide, any more than wind turbines do.

This coming Monday, there's an important hearing at the New York State Capital about the Clean Energy Standard.   Two organizations: Environmental Progress and Mothers for Nuclear,  are coordinating a rally in Albany for the standard.  After the rally,  we will attend the hearing. I say "we" because  I will be there, hopefully with some others from this area. I'm driving 140 miles to attend, and I am glad to do it!

 Hopefully, the Clean Energy Standard will be enacted, and nuclear plants will be given credit for their clean-air qualities!

If you are interested in coming to the rally, but not sure...email me offline at mjangwin at gmail.

This is very exciting, and I am happy about it.

New York and Vermont

This possibility/ probability in New York shows that nuclear can make progress and get support.  I am very pleased with this development, and happy that nuclear supporters who have been in Albany will go to the plant area for an extension of their rally. The people of Oswego have every reason to be proud of themselves for their work in gaining support for nuclear plants.  Shellenberger gives them abundant credit in his article on How to Save a Nuclear Plant.

However, the contrast with Vermont makes me sad.

In New York, the Governor was in favor of keeping the upstate plants operating. (He wanted to shut Indian Point, however.)  In Vermont, when Peter Shumlin ran for governor the first time, I swear Shumlin was running against Vermont Yankee more than he was running against Brian Dubie.  As a matter of fact, he told Brian Dubie that Dubie  cared more the shareholders of  "Entergy Louisiana"  than he cared about the people of Vermont.  Here's my blog post on that: Taking It Personal: Shumlin Accuses Dubie of Serving the Interests of "Entergy Louisiana."

All politics is local, and local politics in Vermont can be painful.

Relevant Links:

Here's Environmental Progress's review of the history of the standard: How to Save a Nuclear Plant, by Michael Shellenberger.

Here's the schedule and sign-up link for the rally. It starts at 8:30 a.m. in Albany, and then moves on to the plant area (Oswego) later in the afternoon. Save the Climate rally information.  I personally will not be going to Oswego, but I expect that many people in that area will be glad to see people who went to Albany to defend their plants!


Here is my July 17 blog post on writing in support of the Clean Energy Standard. It  includes a link to the standard itself. Write a Comment! Support New York Nuclear Plants.

And if you can't come to the rally, you can donate to Environmental Progress with the Donate button on this page.