Books for Climate, Books for your Nuclear Family

Shopping and Climate Conferences

Now that Thanksgiving is in the rear view window, it is time to go shopping.  Meanwhile, the long-awaited Climate Conference (COP21) begins tomorrow in Paris.  Therefore, I will take the opportunity to encourage my readers to read two excellent books about nuclear power and climate change.  And to give the books as gifts, too!

These books address two fundamental questions of our time:

• How can we stop climate change?
• Why is the so-called "environmental" movement so anti-nuclear?

Climate Gamble

Climate Gamble: Is Anti-Nuclear Activism Endangering Our Future?
Raul Partanen and Janne M. Korhanan

I first heard of this book by two young Finnish authors when they were running an Indiegogo campaign. They were raising money to give away free copies of their pro-nuclear book at the COP21 Climate conference in Paris. As you can see by this press release, they raised enough money to distribute 5000 copies of this book in Paris.  A pre-run of the French edition will be available for COP21.

Read this book to learn exactly why the climate needs nuclear energy and exactly how the nuclear opponents tell straight-up falsehoods to claim that nuclear plants create as much carbon-dioxide as gas-fired plants.  Learn when the anti-nuclear groups started saying this about nuclear power plants, and who said it first.

 Buy the book. Prepare to be shocked.

Greenjacked

Greenjacked! The derailing of environmental action on climate change
Geoff Russell

Geoff Russell is an environmental activist and an animal activist in Australia.  In this book, Russell compares the carcinogenic properties of radiation with those of obesity, red meat, and alcohol--all are far more potent cancer-causing agents than radiation is.  (Note, on the cover, the woman with a sign saying "But what about the waist!"  That is indeed the question.)

This brilliantly written book illustrates DNA repair mechanisms, compares radiation and smoke, describes the death of Shoreham and the rise of oil-fired electricity, and catalogs the "deadly failure of governance" at the Fukushima evacuation. As Russell describes the current situation: a rich "fabric of mythology" tightly binds nuclear weapons and nuclear energy.

The Greenjacking of the environmental movement is having severe effects on our health, and the health of our planet.

Buy the book. And read the excellent article and comments about Greenjacked in Brave New Climate.

---
Note:  I am painfully aware of many excellent pro-nuclear books that I have not mentioned here. I reviewed these two books in particular because they will help people learn about climate-and-nuclear in time for the newspaper articles about COP21.

 Buy both books, read both books, and give them as gifts, too!

Nuclear Blogger Carnival 269, Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Once again, we are proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, right here at Yes Vermont Yankee.  The Carnival is a compendium of nuclear blogs that rotates from blog site to blog site, and it is always a pleasure and an honor to host it.

Nuke Power Talk - Gail Marcus
Climate Change and Science

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus reports on an article that echoes a theme she's been concerned about for years--that some actions taken in the name of conservation, or of combatting climate change, are actually short-sighted or counterproductive.

Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman
Entrepreneurial Startups Tackle Advanced Nuclear Reactor Designs

Almost three dozen firms representing $1.3 billion of investor money are pursuing technological innovations in the field of nuclear energy. A June 2015 report by the Third Way, a Washington, DC, think tank, details the mix of firms includes small startups and big-name investors like Bill Gates.  All are placing bets on a comeback for nuclear energy working to get their respective technologies to market in an increasingly carbon-constrained world.

Northwest Clean Energy Blog - Meredith Angwin
Small Modular Reactors for the Northwest

Recently, the Washington State legislature has allocated money for a study of siting Small Modular Reactors (SMR) in the state.  Energy Northwest has an agreement with NuScale for future use of their reactor. At a recent meeting in Boston, NuScale reported on its plans for obtaining an NRC license.   In this post, Meredith Angwin describes the meeting and NuScale's plans.

Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman
Greens target license renewal for Diablo Canyon nuclear plant

Seismic issues and demands for cooling towers are potential points of leverage

This month the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) kicked off the restart of the  license renewal for the twin 100 MW Westinghouse PWR type nuclear reactors at the Pacific Gas & Electric  Diablo Canyon site located on California’s Pacific Ocean coast 200 miles north of Los Angeles.

Green groups see the development of an environmental impact statement (EIS), required as part of the license renewal decision process, as a key opportunity to raise two sets of issues.  The first is seismic safety and the second is a demand for the plant to go from an open loop to closed loop cooling system by building cooling towers.

Make no mistake about how these concerns are presented by the California environmental movement. It is stridently anti-nuclear and has just one objective, and that is to end the operation of the reactors.

Yes Vermont Yankee - Bruce Parker Guest Post
Vermont Utilities Buy Nuclear Capacity from New Hampshire: Guest post by Bruce Parker

Now that Vermont Yankee is closed, Vermont utilities have asked the Vermont Public Service board to approve new contracts with Seabrook.  Post by Bruce Parker includes details of the utility requests, interviews with utility executives, and an interview with Guy Page of Vermont Energy Partnership.

Vermont and Climate Warming: Guest Post by Rob Roper

Camel's Hump

Time to Take Climate Change Debate to the Next Level

It is safe to say that all or at least most of us believe that Vermont is a very special place, and we all want to do what’s necessary to preserve and pass on this unique treasure that both draws and keeps us here – majestic mountains, pristine waters, and wild, open spaces. The question is, what is the best policy for doing so.

On April 14, the state Senate passed a resolution declaring:

That the Senate of the State of Vermont recognizes that climate change is real, that human activities make a substantive contribution to climate change, and that it is imperative Vermont take steps now to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in order to promote energy independence and meet the State’s statutory goals for reduced greenhouse gas emissions. …

These statutory goals mean putting Vermont on a path toward getting 90 percent of our energy, including that for home heating and transportation, from renewable, preferably local sources by 2050. This sounds all well and good until one considers the cost, and we’re not talking about money. The policy of generating so much electricity from wind and solar plants will require developing thousands of acres of Vermont’s pristine landscape for industrial energy production. This will have profoundly negative effects on both the aesthetics and the ecology of the Green Mountain State.

It’s time to bring the climate change debate beyond whether or not the phenomenon exists (the useless quibbling between “deniers” and “alarmists”), and to start seriously discussing in concrete, realistic terms the costs and benefits of specific proposed policies. In other words, if we embark on transitioning to a largely renewable, locally produced energy portfolio, what will the net impact be on our ecosystem both in the short and long term.

Let’s assume for the moment that the most dire climate change predictions are true: human activity is a big factor, and temperatures could rise as much as 4 degrees by the end of the century.

It’s time to bring the climate change debate beyond whether or not the phenomenon exists (the useless quibbling between “deniers” and “alarmists”), and to start seriously discussing in concrete, realistic terms the costs and benefits of specific proposed policies.

So, if we develop all of Vermont’s usable ridge lines with industrial wind turbines, and develop thousands of acres of pasture land with industrial solar plants, will that have any impact on global climate trends either directly or indirectly? Will this effort and expense be relevant in preserving our own ski or maple sugaring industries, for example, over the next eight decades? Will it prevent the next Irene from happening? The honest answer to all these questions is no.

So, why are we doing this?

Some will argue that while Vermont’s efforts are by themselves futile, we should serve as an example to others. OK. But, then we have to ask how much of an influence would Vermont’s example have to impact global climate trends? If a couple of New England states follow us, would that make a difference? What about the East Coast? Or the entire United States? The honest answer is, even if the entire world did its best to follow Vermont, the impact by 2100 would be negligible to the point of unnoticeable. And, realistically, what are the odds China and India or even Texas are going to take a cue from Vermont any time soon?

We do know, however, that developing the kind of land intensive energy sources our current policy path calls for will negatively impact our ridgeline ecosystems through the construction of industrial wind turbines. Birds and bats will be killed, including endangered species. Thousands of acres of solar panels will disrupt animal habitats, ironically, making it harder for some species to adapt to climate change. And, of course, we will be sacrificing to a great extent the singular beauty of Vermont.

Is this really what we want to do?

A recent article in the New Yorker by environmental conservationist Jonathan Franzen, Carbon Capture: Has climate change made it harder for people to care about conservation, makes several interesting points on this topic, but this one sums it up neatly:

We can dam every river and blight every landscape with biofuel agriculture, solar farms, and wind turbines, to buy some extra years of moderated warming. Or we can settle for a shorter life of higher quality, protecting the areas where wild animals and plants are hanging on, at the cost of slightly hastening the human catastrophe.

Is it worth wiping out wildlife species, habitats, and landscapes today if the end result is an earth that is 3.9 degrees warmer a hundred years from now instead of four?

We can use our resources to make genuine progress in preserving our mountain tops, cleaning our lakes and waterways, maintaining open spaces, and saving our wildlife, or we can sacrifice all this to no real effect whatsoever. Plan A makes more sense.

-----
This guest post is by Rob Roper, President of the Ethan Allen Institute. Meredith Angwin heads the Energy Education Project of the Institute.

This post appeared in Vermont Digger on April 26, 2015, where it has a lively comment stream.

I also recommend my Earth Day post at the Northwest Clean Energy blog, which addresses similar concerns.

Nuclear Energy Blog Carnival 209: Right Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

The Blog Carnival is here again!

Yes Vermont Yankee is proud to host the 209th edition of the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs! Every week, top English-language pro-nuclear bloggers choose their most important post for that week. They present their selections at the weekly Carnival.

While the posts come from many blogs and many bloggers, a theme usually develops.  This week's theme is Nuclear Energy in Perspective.

Perspectives on the Current Nuclear Fleet

First, two posts describe the on-going value of existing plants.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Thoughts on Nuclear  

At Forbes, James Conca reported on a speech by Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner John Norris. This week, Norris reiterated nuclear energy’s value as the best form of carbon-free base load in a diverse all-of-the-above energy mix for America. The speech was titled "Preserving Our Country's Nuclear Fleet."

Existing nuclear plants are valuable and worth saving.

In this post by Rod Adams at Atomic Insights, Adams notes that many currently operating nuclear

San Onofre

plants are in danger of being permanently shut down due to temporary conditions. These conditions include:

• currently low (but highly volatile) natural gas prices, 
• improperly designed markets that fail to recognize the value of reliable generating capacity, 
• quotas and mandates that result in certain types of electrical generators receiving direct monetary payments in addition to wholesale market prices,
• insufficient recognition of nuclear energy as a near zero emission power source.

The impulse of nuclear plant owners to consider permanent closure as a response to current market conditions reminds Adams of a Jimmy Buffett song: Permanent Reminder of a Temporary Feeling.

A third post describes women who have achieved success in nuclear utilities.  

Women and Nuclear

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus follows a recent blog on women in the American Nuclear Society with another report on two women who have achieved success in nuclear utilities.  Maria Korsnick is Chief Nuclear Officer at Exelon, and Sarah Kovaleski is Director of Engineering Design at Ameren Missouri. In addition to celebrating these successes, Gail notes with some dismay that things have not changed as much as she had hoped from her own early days in the field. The male/female ratio in the industry is currently nine to one.

Perspectives on Radiation and Radiation Releases

Bloggers provide some perspective on the recent WIPP accident and on Fukushima.

The first post quantifies the WIPP release

Some perspective on the 1.3 mCi release from the WIPP

At NewsOK (News Oklahoma), Robert Hayes puts the 1.3 mCi release from the WIPP site (due to the accident) in perspective. A quote from his article:   In other words, the nearest neighbors to the WIPP site (which are ranches)  received a larger dose just from breathing regular air that one day during the release than the entire lifetime dose they will have received from the activity given off by the WIPP release.  

The second post fights FUD about Fukushima


The Hiroshima Syndrome's Fukushima Commentary

Japan Today rejects the truth about Fukushima. It says the truth is “obscene and vulgar.”

In this blog post, Les Corrice reports on a fear-mongering article in Japan Today. The incorrect article filled with fear-mongering references. Corrice attempted to post a response, which objected to only a few of the numerous misinformational issues. His response was rejected for being "offensive and vulgar." This travesty is laughable.

Perspectives on the Future of Nuclear Energy

Three posts on future of nuclear energy.

Two posts describe the status of proposed reactors.

Climate change and Ontario electricity: federal court clarifies the choice

The Canadian Federal Court recently ruled that in Ontario Power Generation’s plan to build new nuclear reactors at the Darlington site, the utility did not adequately address the issue of what will happen to the used fuel. Anti-nuclear groups hailed this ruling as a victory. Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues sees it as a huge opportunity. Used nuclear fuel is a grain of sand next to the mountains of carbonaceous waste produced by nuclear’s fossil competitors. Not enough people are aware of this, and Aplin sees the new round of public meetings on Darlington as a forum to finally put to bed the trumped up issue of nuclear waste.

Florida ANS Students Steal Show at Turkey Point Siting Hearing

Current Turkey Point

At ANS Nuclear Cafe, Jerry Paul reports on the impressive testimony given by ANS student members at a hearing about proposed new reactors at Turkey Point.  The Energy Information Center's "Student army" gave testimony that was referred to by Florida's Governor.  The Turkey Point expansion won Florida state approval.

The next post describes molten salt reactors under development

Per Peterson has a modular molten salt reactor design in the US and is working with China's molten salt nuclear program.

At Next Big Future, Brian Wang describes how Per Peterson and his co-authors believe that the way forward for the US nuclear industry is to use new nuclear reactor designs with passive safety and modular construction. This will make nuclear power both cheaper and safer.

Per Peterson has a design for a molten salt-cooled reactor that couples to a conventional General Electric (GE) gas turbine. The Mk1 reactor design can generate 100 megawatts (MWe) of baseload nuclear power, but can also be co-fired with gas to rapidly adjust power output between 100 MWe and 240 MWe. The ability to rapidly adjust power output helps balance variability in the grid and is thus
attractive to grid operators. And because the turbine remains “hot and spinning,” efficiency losses to provide peaking and spinning reserve services are low. The thermal efficiency of this design in converting peaking fuel into electricity is 66 percent, compared to about 60 percent for today’s best combined-cycle natural gas-fired power plants.

Please spread the word!

The posts in this carnival represent careful work and communication by many people in the nuclear industry.  Spread the word about this carnival!  Tweet about this post, place it on your Facebook page, put it on Reddit, refer to it on Google plus,  pin it on Pinterest.  In other words

Spread the word!

Letters and Inspiration

The Safe and Green Campaign is part of the Sage Alliance, dedicated to shutting down Vermont Yankee.  Recently, Safe and Green did us a favor (sort of).  They have been annoyed at all the letters in favor of Vermont Yankee that have been published in local papers recently, and they want their supporters to answer these letters.  So they put a bunch of pro-Vermont Yankee letters on their website, with links to the letter as it appeared in the local paper.

I looked at the page and thought---wow!  How convenient! All these good letters in one place! I wish I had thought of that.

The Letters Themselves

Here's a link to Sage and Green web page with the letters.  If you prefer, you can look at the list below, the same letters, instead of visiting an opponent website.

• Nuclear Fuel: The Win-at-any-cost philosophy of anti-nuclear activists.  Let's shut down Yucca Mountain and then complain there's no place to store spent fuel!  Jim DeVincentis in the Brattleboro Reformer
• Vermont Yankee helps in the fight against climate change.  Without nuclear power, there's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "Mother Earth will not be shouted down by nuclear opponents"  Harriet Green in the Brattleboro Reformer
• Economic Impact of Vermont Yankee.  Up to 1500 well-paying jobs in the local area, due to Vermont Yankee. Michelle Joy in the Brattleboro Reformer
• The Vermont Yankee Economic Benefit Zone. Opponent signs always call the "Emergency Planning Zone" the "Evacuation Zone."  Wrong name.  Whatever you call that zone, though,  the Vermont Yankee Economic Benefit Zone is much bigger.  Richard January in Vermont Digger
• Trojan Horse about Energy:  It's the Fossil Fuels.  Opponents brought a "Trojan Cow" to the plant's gates, and pulled fake solar panels from within it.  Trojan Horses (or cows) are the symbol of deceit.  In this case, the deceit was that VY would be replaced by renewables if it closed.  It would be replaced by fossil fuel plants. Meredith Angwin in the Brattleboro Reformer.

Not really a favor

Of course, Sage and Green had no desire to make things better or easier for us.  They placed those letters on their website because they wanted to inspire their followers to write counter-letters.  I guess I should be worried.  Letters may flood in.

However, I have seen responses to these letters in the website comment streams, and these responses have not worried me.  For example, my letter was in the Burlington Free Press, and one comment there said that I claimed "there was as much tritium in a banana as leaked from the plant." Even when they make up a fact (tritium in a banana?) they get it wrong.

The actual facts are on our side.  The factual facts, so to speak.

I hope that some of the people reading this blog in Vermont, Massachusetts and New Hampshire will be inspired to write a letter in favor of VY to their local paper. If you plan to write a pro-VY letter and want some fact-checking, please email me at mjangwin at gmail. I will be happy to hear from you and to help. (If you are writing an anti-VY letter,  just go ahead with business as usual and make up your own facts.)

Let's keep those pro-Vermont Yankee letters coming!

Carbon Dioxide and Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Plant Opponents and Climate Change

Let's talk a little about carbon dioxide.

1. Burning fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide, and carbon dioxide leads to climate change.
2. Nuclear power produces only negligible amounts of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases.

Opponents of nuclear power are stuck with these facts about carbon dioxide, but they try to get around them. They want to have their cake (close nuclear!) and eat it as they wrap themselves in environmental nobility (stop climate change!) How do they do this?

• Few opponents will say carbon dioxide doesn't matter, because then they would be "climate change deniers" -- which is the wrong political party.
• Some opponents say that both nuclear and fossil should be and will be replaced very quicky by renewables, so the comparison is not important.
• Some say nuclear power cannot make much of a dent in the problem anyway, and the nuclear fuel cycle makes as much carbon dioxide as natural gas.

Gundersen: A Little Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Matter

At the January Janus Forum debate at UVM, Arnie Gundersen took a different approach than the ones I outlined above. He discussed nuclear plants (Vermont Yankee) and climate change. Here is what Gundersen said in January.

Gundersen's argument is that nuclear plants have poorer Carnot efficiency than fossil plants and therefore heat up the rivers more, which is bad for the fish. He claims that Vermont Yankee heated the river and decreased the shad in the Connecticut from 70,000 fish to 16 fish. Therefore, the little bit of global warming we would get if we replaced Vermont Yankee with fossil power does not matter very much. He claims we will save the river, even if we hurt the climate a tiny bit.

Actually, there are far more than 16 shad in the Connecticut River, but this post is not about refuting Gundersen. I did that in an earlier post, Hot Climate and Cold Fish. My aim in this post is to show the variety of complex, baffling, and ultimately false arguments nuclear opponents make about carbon dioxide and nuclear power.

France versus Denmark on Global Warming

Luckily for pro-nuclear people, we don't have to make complex arguments. We don't have to look at the future when (hopefully) renewables-do-it-all---and pretend that future is here right now. We don't have to tell lies about the nuclear fuel cycle being as bad for the climate as natural gas. We don't have to claim that warm water (not hydroelectric dams or imported bass) is killing the native fish.

Pro-nuclear people can be straightforward, because we have real facts and can make a real arguments. Pro-nuclear people can can look at actual countries (Denmark and France), actual carbon dioxide numbers, and cheerful videos to show that

Nuclear Energy is a major ally in the fight against carbon dioxide increase and changing climate.

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

Video Note: Gundersen video is from the UVM debate in January. France/Denmark video by MyLiberationBaby for Brave New Climate.

Gundersen note: Gundersen made similar remarks about the river when he was on the panel discussing the Transparent Radiation film at University of Vermont about a week ago. (I don't have links to the panel itself, so I will link to my post on the UVM film.)

Climate Change Note: I am aware that a certain portion of my readers do not believe carbon dioxide is leading to climate change. I think carbon dioxide is leading to climate change, and that is a problem. However, I was pro-nuclear long before climate change was an issue. Whether you think carbon dioxide causes climate change or not, I hope you can agree that using up our fossil fuels for generating electricity is not a good idea, since nuclear power will do the job just as well.