Progressives for Nuclear Progress: Welcome to a New Blog

Welcome to the new blog in the pro-nuclear blogosphere: Progressives for Nuclear Progress. This blog, by Eric Schmitz, has the subtitle: Bringing the American Left on board for a clean nuclear future.  Together it reads:

Progressives for Nuclear Progress

Bringing the American Left on board for a clean nuclear future.

The blog also has a Facebook page Progressives for Nuclear Progress.

In his latest post I take a vacation and what happens?  Will Davis at Atomic Power Review welcomes  the new blog.  Davis notes that Schmitz is an engineer, and I would like to note that Schmitz is a good writer.  Let's look at his two most recent posts.

Teachable Moments   

Schmitz (so far) has taken some news item or blog post about nuclear power, and made very thoughtful (and sometimes acerbic) comments.  For example, in his post: "Fail-Safe"--when failure does NOT mean disaster,  Schmitz critiques Entergy for its communication about some malfunctioning radiation monitors. Schmitz says that the problems with those monitors was a "teachable moment." He notes that  "fail-safe" does not mean "this can never fail."  It means: "Even if this fails, safety is not affected."

Progressives

In another post, Schmitz comments on the Breakthrough Institutes major post: Liberals and Progressives for Nuclear.   As Schmitz says: "I have come to realize that we (liberals and progressives) cannot afford to continue sticking our heads in the sand when it comes to the one kind of power generation that is capable of providing ample energy at nearly zero carbon cost."

By the way: please read the Breakthrough Institute post on Liberals and Progressives for Nuclear.  It features an impressive group of people, with impressive quotes.  Paul Allen, Mark Lynas, Gwyneth Cravens, Stephen Tindale (former director of Greenpeace).  Read it!

Slightly-off topic: Non-Progressives

The "other side of the aisle," is also noticing that more liberals and progressives are supporting nuclear nowadays.  Joseph Somsel writes Nuclear Power's New Friends in American Thinker.   He reviews  Pandora's Promise. He basically likes the movie, but  he warns the nuclear industry not to embrace climate change. Somsel writes: "As public opinion becomes more aware of the falsity of the claims of impending climate catastrophe, nuclear needs to maintain its distance. "

Well, I don't agree with Somsel about climate change, but there you are. Personally, I welcome all nuclear supporters, no matter what they think about global warming.  Climate change is only one of many reasons to support nuclear energy.

Charles Barton

In any reasonable discussion of nuclear communication, all nuclear bloggers must acknowledge the leadership of Charles Barton of Nuclear Green Revolution.   Barton has been blogging from an avowedly liberal political stance...since 2008!  Other pro-nuclear blogs started earlier, and were written by liberals, but Barton is the person who explicitly combined the two topics.

 I am always and eternally grateful to Charles Barton for his work in changing nuclear energy from a Republican-Democratic debate to..an energy discussion.

I am pleased to see Eric Schmitz's blog joining Barton's blog.

Nuclear Green

Superfuel: A Book I Wanted to Love

As you can tell from the title of this blog post, I didn't love the book Superfuel, Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future, by Richard Martin. I didn't even like it.

I expected to like the book. I like both the subject and the author. I recognize that I am not the target audience for this book, and I tried to take that into account in my review.  I still found the book disappointing.

Superfuel is about  the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR)  an advanced reactor technology that uses thorium fuel in circulating molten salts.  I think LFTR technology has great promise for the future.   The author, Richard Martin, is a technology journalist and contributing editor for Wired Magazine.   I admired his  January 2009 article "Uranium Is So Last Century--Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke." I thought the article was an important step in winning mainstream acceptance for new types of reactors.

I'm not the target audience

LFTR Image from Energy From Thorium blog
http://energyfromthorium.com/lftradsrisks.html

Superfuel begins well. The book starts with an effective story about how Kirk Sorenson learned about LFTRs and how they could be deployed. It describes Robert Hargraves and his Aim High work, and Charles Barton's important blog Nuclear Green. I know and admire both Hargraves and Barton, and I admire Sorenson, though I don't know him.

However, I soon noticed that the tone of the book was taking direct aim at the present nuclear industry.  There was a little too much differentiation between the brave pro-thorium engineers and the "hide-bound and risk-averse nuclear power industry." Superfuel refers to the people in today's nuclear power industry as the "nuclearati." Apparently, we are the ones impeding the development of LFTRS.  Well, it shows that I am not the book's target audience.

I began to feel very distant from the thesis of his book, despite the fact that I support the development of LFTRs. I even made a poster presentation ("poster session") about LFTRs at a scientific research conference in 2010.  From the book's point of view, I am just one of the "nuclearati."

The Good and the Bad in Superfuel


The good. Martin is at his best in describing the history of the nuclear industry. Superfuel contains an excellent and understandable section on the various failed reactor concepts in the U. S.  It  describes the contributions of Alvin Weinburg, a  pioneer of the light water reactor and the molten salt reactor.  The chapter on the Asian nuclear race was top-notch, including a clear description of the impractical "three-stage program" in India.

The bad.  The book makes huge factual errors.  When I notice so many mistakes in areas with which I am familiar, then I can't trust the book on areas on which I am unfamiliar.  That destroys the book for me.

A secondary issue is that the book raises straw men and uses inflammatory rhetoric about the present nuclear industry in ways that I can't accept.  Yes, I realize that the point of the book is to show how LFTRs are superior to the current fleet.  Even considering "the superiority of LFTRS" as a legitimate purpose of the book,  I think it goes over the top in its rhetoric and loses credibility.

Fresh fuel pellets
NRC photo

Factual Errors: Fuel Rod Aging


Superfuel contains a major (incorrect) thesis about fuel rod aging as a weak point for today's reactors. This idea is mentioned throughout the book, but the most succinct statement is on page 74. where the book claims that "fuel rods age quickly" due to the buildup of fission products. ..."they have to be replaced every few years, even though only three to five percent of their energy has been consumed."  There are two major problems with this statement.

LWR fuel rods use fissionable material efficiently. In a LWR, fuel rods are replaced when they have consumed over 80% of the energy source (U-235) that they CAN consume. They also burn up some plutonium that they have created.  It would take a different type of reactor to consume the U-238 (95%) of the fuel effectively.

LWR Fuel rods are not life-limited by radiation damage. Martin writes about damage to the fuel as a problem the molten salt reactor solves, but such damage is not the life-limiting step for light water reactor fuel. Highly enriched uranium fuel runs Naval reactors for many years, without fuel rod replacement. Navy fuel is a different type of uranium fuel, but it is a uranium-based solid fuel. For the nuclear power industry, LWR reactor fuel is available at various degrees of enrichment, depending on the design of the plant and how long the plant chooses to run between maintenance outages.

Reactor fuel enrichment decisions are engineering decisions. Fuel damage is only one consideration in fuel design, and is not life-limiting for LWR reactor fuel.

Careless Errors


The book contains many errors.  I chose two.  You might say these are trivial problems.  However, if you are comparing two technologies (LWR and LFTR) it is important to get the facts right.

Positive and negative. On page 44, Martin says that 19th century scientists "knew that the positively charged protons (red) would necessarily repel the negatively charged electrons (black)." Actually, opposite charges attract.

Actinides and fission products. On page 186, "the buildup of actinides (including xenon, cesium, technetium and so on) eventually ruins conventional solid uranium fuel rods." The author means "fission products," not "actinides."

Attacking the Current Fleet and People


Superfuel sees uranium as dangerous.  For example, the third chapter starts a description of a ship carrying yellowcake.  The ship encounters heavy weather,  and two of the yellowcake casks were smashed open. In my opinion, this is a non-incident.  Martin writes that "the Altona averted disaster" by cleaning up the ship and not releasing any yellowcake into environment. What disaster would this have been? Until it is enriched, yellowcake isn't very radioactive.

Superfuel describes uranium as follows: "Uranium is like a finicky child at a buffet: only the right combination of moderator, fuel, core design and materials will produce a sustained fission reaction." (page 65)  This is a problem?  I thought it was engineering!  However, in the book, this statement is a mark against uranium.

The book also attacks the people involved in this generation of nuclear power plants. On page 65:  "By the limited standards of the nuclearati, nuclear power is a success."

Well, yes.  As a proud "nucearati." I do think nuclear power has been a success.  That doesn't mean we can't build better reactors in the future.

When he describes the nuclear founders, Martin can be especially vitriolic.  For example, he blames Milton Shaw for the end of the Molten Salt Reactor program at Oak Ridge.  Shaw may well have been responsible for the end of that program. Shaw was also the project leader for the first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus.  I don't know much about Shaw except that he was a project leader in the early days.

How does Martin describe Shaw? Shaw was "known as the admiral's chief henchman, Beria to Rickover's Stalin."

Stalin? Beria? With opinions like that, it's hard to take  the book's comparisons between LFTRs and LWRs completely seriously.

A word from a nuclearati


Superfuel often doesn't get the facts right.   Demonizing the current industry and its founders is also unnecessary. One can admire Weinberg without simultaneously comparing Rickover to Stalin.

If you want to learn more about the promise of the LFTR  I recommend Dr. Robert Hargraves short book Aim High!  Hargraves is a physicist and he gets his facts right. Aim High! is a small self-published book, and Superfuel comes from a major publisher, but Hargraves doesn't make so many mistakes. There are good parts of Superfuel, as mentioned above.  If you want a general history of nuclear power, Superfuel is one of many books you can read with interest.

I appreciate that a major author and a major publisher have released a book on the LFTR.  I wish they had spared some of the "nuclearati-Stalin" type rhetoric, and done more fact-checking.  It could have been a book I loved.

Other reviews:
Will Davis at Atomic Power Review has a more positive review of this book, Another positive review at the blog ThoriumMSR, by Rick Maltese.

Update: Rod Adams wrote a related post this morning: There are three Superfuels--uranium, thorium and  plutonium.  Fascinating post and good comments!

Two Carnivals and an Update Link on the Pilgrim Debate

Update:

Howard Shaffer's post on his debate with Gundersen about the Pilgrim plant is posted today at ANS Nuclear Cafe. You can view it here: The Nuclear Debate on the Road.

The 98th Carnival

I was in Arizona last week, and I didn't link to the 98th Carnival of Nuclear Energy, compiled by Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat. Do visit the Carnival for links to NEI's review of Arnie Gundersen's claims about radioactivity in Japan (Gundersen won't show anyone the data), the NRC granting licenses to V C Summers reactors, a new nuclear plant coming on-line in China, and Steve Skutnik looking at the EPA rules about coal pollution and carbon caps. Steve asks if this is a step forward in pollution control, or a give-away to the natural gas industry? Will Davis at Atomic Power Review begins a new series on nuclear energy history.

Gail Marcus, of Nuke Power Talk wrote the book on nuclear energy history (Nuclear Firsts). In her blog post, she describes today's nuclear power as two steps forward and one step back. She includes an inspiring excerpt from a recent speech by President Obama on nuclear technology. Oh heck, I'm going to quote some of his speech from her blog:

...let’s never forget the astonishing benefits that nuclear technology has brought to our lives. Nuclear technology helps make our food safe. It prevents disease in the developing world. It’s the high-tech medicine that treats cancer and finds new cures. And, of course, it’s the energy—the clean energy—that helps cut the carbon pollution that contributes to climate change.

And also, a big welcome back to Charles Barton and Nuclear Green, with the history of power development at Oak Ridge.

99th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

This week's Carnival went up today at NEI Nuclear notes. Nuclear Green looks at the Clinch River reactor, and Gail Marcus takes a hard look at the latest Mark Cooper claims about nuclear energy economics. (Cooper is a member of the Vermont Law School adjunct faculty who himself claims to be an economist.) Idaho Samizdat looks at the conditions set for restarting San Onofre, and Brian Wang of Next Big Future and Will Davis of Atomic Power Review catch up on recent developments. A Carnival with many controversial posts and thought-provoking ideas!

--------

We had a family celebration in Arizona last week, and I wanted to share some pictures of desert flowers that I took at Hassayampa River Preserve, near Wickenburg, Arizona. Hey, it's my blog, and I'll include some pretty pictures if I want to!

Have a great spring!

91st Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs: The Vogtle Edition

Yes Vermont Yankee is proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Blogs this week. This is a great week for nuclear energy: the NRC issued the first license for a new generation of nuclear power plant. Units 3 and 4 at the Vogtle site in Georgia now have a Construction and Operating License. These AP1000 reactors have an advanced design, based on the Westinghouse PWR, but with more passive safety features and less piping.

In honor of this historical occasion, I titled this Carnival The Vogtle Edition. Though the Carnival includes more than one topic, let's start with Vogtle.

The Vogtle Approval Considered Directly

NRC issues licenses for Southern’s Vogtle Project by Dan Yurman at the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

By a 4-1 vote, the NRC opens the door to $14 billion in new construction of two Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors. At the ANS Nuclear Cafe, Dan Yurman breaks down the NRC voting on the Vogtle licenses, the economic impacts, the opposition's next legal moves, and what might be next on the horizon for nuclear energy in the USA as a result.

NRC approves the Vogtle AP1000 reactors in just under 4 years. Brian Wang at Next Big Future sums it up.

The Vogtle Approval in Wider Context

A brief history of commercial nuclear power in the US by Will Davis of Atomic Power Review

Will Davis presents a condensed and simplified history of commercial nuclear energy, complete with a few rare photos, in order to help the mainstream media get the real perspective on the nuclear renaissance.

High quality job creation in Ontario: here’s how they’re solving the problem in the U.S. By Steve Aplin of Canadian Energy Issues

The Vogtle new build license means 25,000 new jobs in Georgia. That will accelerate the U.S. jobs recovery. Ontario could do the same by restarting the Darlington B process. Thousands of high quality long term jobs east of Toronto would look good in all of Canada.

NRC Approves New Nuclear Build at Vogtle Site in Georgia by Canadian Talk Nuclear

A big congratulations goes out to all the stakeholders involved in the recently approved new build at the Vogtle site in Georgia. This is great news for the global industry as many countries, including Canada, are undergoing the new build review process. Here's to a balanced and sustainable energy future for North America!

Encouragement for Other New Types of Reactors

Pursuing the unlimited energy dream – history of the Integral Fast Reactor by Rod Adams of Atomic Insights

Len Koch, whose participation in nuclear energy research started in the 1940s, wrote an open letter to colleagues who are striving to restore interest in the progress that they made in research and development of the Integral Fast Reactor during the period from 1954 to 1994, the year that President Clinton and Hazel O’Leary, his Secretary of Energy, zeroed out all nuclear energy research funding and killed the IFR program.

SMR vendors seek $452 million in federal funding by Dan Yurman at Idaho Samizdat: Nuke Notes

The U.S. Department of Energy issued on Jan. 20 a draft Funding Opportunity Announcement that would provide $452 million in federal funds over five years to establish cost-sharing agreements with private industry to support the design and licensing of small modular reactors (SMRs).

The DOE money is expected to be eligible for first-of-a-kind engineering, design certification, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing costs. Also, the reactors must be on track to be licensed by the NRC and in commercial development by 2022.

One U.S. firm, TerraPower, which isn't likely to qualify for federal funding, is in negotiations with the Chinese to build a 500 MW sodium cooled fast reactor demonstration unit. TerraPower said that contrary to media reports, Bill Gates did make substantial progress in his trip to China late last year. Gates is a private investor in the company,

New 130 MWe Lead cooled fast reactor design from Argonne. A superstar. Brian Wang at Next Big Future

China and the Rest of the World

Canadian Nuclear Association Applauds Canada-China Agreement on Uranium Exports by Canadian Talk Nuclear

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's recent trip to China proved positive for Canada's uranium industry. Thanks to the successful completion of negotiations between Canada and China, an agreement has been formalized that will increase exports of Canadian uranium to China. This means more jobs and new investments in Canada, and greater security of nuclear fuel supply for China, which is the world’s largest energy consumer.

Brief profile of the South Korea nuclear programme by Brian Wang of Next Big Future

South Korea, and activity on nuclear restarts in Japan and Germany. The German situation is not clear: they may have restarted coal plants and not nuclear.

Choices: Clean Fuels, Greenwashing, the Sierra Club, and Hiding Behind the Bomb

Clean Fuel by Gail Marcus of Nuke Power Talk

Gail Marcus finds another example of good intentions gone awry. In this case, attempts to use a cleaner fuel prove futile in two-stroke engines in India. The example emphasizes yet again the complexity of energy projections. Simplistic assumptions may give us a distorted impression that achieving some of our energy goals will be easy.

Rent-seeking and Greenwashing: The Case of Sierra Club and Natural Gas by Steve Skutnik of Neutron Economy

The recent scandal over the Sierra Club's acceptance of millions of dollars from major natural gas extraction companies in the service of its "Beyond Coal" campaign highlights not only the inherent conflicts of interest among environmental groups, but the larger problem of rent-seeking in energy markets writ large. Instead of focusing resources on the development of cheaper and more abundant energy sources, producers are instead investing - both directly and indirectly - in ways to kneecap the opposition, gaming the market through regulations, ultimately at the expense of consumers.

Sunny News About Fish and Vermont Yankee by Meredith Angwin of Yes Vermont Yankee

The Vermont Department of Health routinely analyzes fish in the river near Vermont Yankee. When they find trace radionuclides in the fish, plant opponents (including the state governor) become very noisy about the dangers of nuclear power. If plant supporters mention radiation from fallout, plant opponents accuse them of "hiding behind the bomb." Recently, the impasse was broken. The Department of Health analyzed fish from the far north of Vermont, about 150 miles from Vermont Yankee. The northern fish had the same levels of background radioactivity as the Vermont Yankee fish. Angwin includes the history of the trumped-up controversy as well as the fish facts.

What's your Alternative? Steve Skutnik of Neutron Economy

In the realm of nuclear energy, the most effective test of the seriousness of objectors is asking simply, "What is your alternative?" A focus on problem-solving, rather than fault-finding, ultimately moots many of the traditional objections to nuclear.

Wind Power to Nuclear Power Infographic Comparison by Jason Correia at ANS Nuclear Cafe

When wind power is the supposed alternative, you should have a copy of Jason Correia's first-class wind power to nuclear power infographic. It's the a first-in-a-series feature at the ANS Nuclear Cafe. The energy density of nuclear vs. wind makes for a very dramatic comparison -- and Jason Correia provides a very enlightening description and discussion of wind and nuclear in their own right. The infographic can be saved as a beautiful poster-sized .pdf!

Charles Barton is Back On Line at Nuclear Green Revolution!

I want to start with some great good news. Charles Barton, steady advocate of advanced reactors, is back on-line! His new post is truly called Return from the Jaws of Death. Barton has been truly near to death (ten days in a coma) and we are all so glad to see him back on-line and back among the living.

With this wonderful news, I will end this Carnival!

----------

San Diego Fireworks from Wikipedia

AP1000 from Today's Engineer

Autorickshaw from Wikipedia