(Shaffer) Five Best Things About Nuclear

Five Best Things About Nuclear Energy

Suzanne Jaworowski recently asked for input on nuclear communications. Jaworowski is Chief of Staff, Senior Advisor, Office of Nuclear Energy at the Department of Energy. I read her questions on Dan Yurman's blog post , and I sent her my own Five Best ideas. Later,  I published my ideas in a blog post that has a developed a wonderful comment stream of other people's input.  Please read it, especially the comments!

Today, we have Howard Shaffer's essay on the five best things about Nuclear Energy. He sent this to the Department of Energy, and sent a copy to me. Shaffer was a start-up engineer at Vermont Yankee.  He was an engineer at several other nuclear plants, in the United States and abroad, and an American Nuclear Society Congressional Fellow.  Shaffer is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.

Howard Shaffer 

Five Best Things about Nuclear 

by Howard Shaffer

Communications Continuity  Radiation is natural and man-made, and safe within limits. Limits are well known, based on sound science and over 100 years of experience. Like fire, radiation can be used safely and for great good; but can cause havoc  if misused, or mistakes are made. People are not perfect, so mistakes will be made with all technologies.  We still have fire departments, don’t we? Demanding perfection, or raising decades-old mistakes is unrealistic.

Communication about nuclear power has not prevailed in some areas of the country because of a “missing link” in the information presentation “chain.”  That link is addressing concerns raised by citizens at public meetings.  When these concerns, challenges, and charges are not addressed at the meetings, or immediately thereafter- 48 hours(?)-they become the story.  Local media pick them up, and they get repeated many times. Local media go with  "if it bleeds it leads,” and they also love a David and Goliath story.

Nuclear power plant management has just begun to recognize this is a political fight, and all the modern tools are being used by the opposition.  There is an “Anti-Nuclear Industry” professionally staffed, with some of it headquartered in Washington.  One of the common tools they use is repetition, which works for good or bad information.  When bad information is repeated and not countered by good information, it becomes the story.

As in elective politics nuclear power is a “red state, blue state” issue. The political demographics where nuclear power plants have been forced to shut down, compared to where they continue to run with just a little opposition clearly illustrate this truth.

The Anti-Nuclear industry has been effective in selling “Any amount of Radiation is dangerous.”

Safety  Nuclear power is safe. That does not mean perfect for any technology. When the total casualties and environmental effects for energy technologies are compared, nuclear power comes out way ahead of all fossil fuels and even hydro power.  It has been observed by Prof Von Hippel that, “Some people don’t like this kind of arithmetic.”  Those who don’t like the “spread sheet” type of comparison i.e. all effects and costs, seem to like to focus on the few large nuclear power accidents that have been media circuses.

Anti-nuclear information says that a large nuclear accident will make the surrounding area uninhabitable for thousands of years.  How silly is this when anyone can go on-line and see before and after pictures of the city of Hiroshima.  How much sillier that the plant spokespeople don’t use them.

The operational, health, and environmental records over more than half a century prove the personnel and environmental safety of nuclear power, and all uses of radiation.

Inexhaustible Energy  The fuel for nuclear reactors of the present types, and proven types being developed for the market,  can last for at least a thousand years.  This is possible because the energy from splitting an atom is a million times more than from burning an atom. (Burning gives a thousand times more energy than a moving atom-wind or water)

Benign  The environmental impact of the whole nuclear fuel and plant cycle is small compared to fossil fuels, because so much less fuel material is used.  Used fuel is in solid form and is easy to handle; there are no liquids to leak if there is an accident.

Reliable Nuclear power plants, and fossil fuel plants, can and do run 24/7 to supply the electric grid. Coal and oil plants depend on fuel deliveries and usually keep a 60 day supply on hand.  Natural gas plants depend on pipelines, so a pipeline accident will shut them down.  Nuclear reactors have 1 ½ to 2 years fuel in them when refueled.
-----

End note: 

On Facebook, a friend wrote that Jaworowski had asked for the best things to communicate about nuclear.  He is at least partially correct.  However, for the sake of headline writing, I am going to continue to call this exercise "The Five Best Things about Nuclear."

Rubble at Vermont Yankee: Framing the Discussion

Vermont Yankee in the good days

The Future of Vermont Yankee

Nuclear opponents continue to attempt to put roadblocks into the Vermont Yankee decommissioning process. They claim that they want a quick, safe process for decomm, but several of them also claim that the land should "heal" for about two hundred years before anything is built there.

Basically, a quick safe process is the very last thing opponents would want, as far as I can tell. A successful  process would show that nuclear decomm is no big deal, and perhaps nuclear opponents should turn their attention to coal ash ponds.

Right now, rubblization is a major issue.  Here's my letter about it.

Framing the Discussion

Dear Editor:

I am well-known as an advocate for nuclear energy. I lost most of my interest in the Vermont Yankee plant after it closed down, and I devoted myself to writing a book about pro-nuclear advocacy. However, in the past six months, I began looking at the issues surrounding the proposed sale of Vermont Yankee to NorthStar.

Since NorthStar's announcement about the proposal to purchase Vermont Yankee, I have attended several public meetings and community briefings, and heard NorthStar CEO Scott State speak. In these meetings, Mr. State has answered the hard questions about about NorthStar's plan to decommission Vermont Yankee in a safe, well managed process over relatively short time frame. State has responded to questions with candor and transparency. For example, I hadn't really understood that the nuclear opponent slogan of "no rubblization" would lead to huge amounts of truck traffic taking rubble away from the site. (Yes, I should have realized this myself.) Mr. State noted that, without rubblization, heavily-loaded construction trucks would constantly pass the elementary school. This would be a safety hazard for parents and children.

Nuclear opponents have effectively framed the discussion to their own personal definitions of safety: their definitions ignore traffic safety and children's safety. Similarly, nuclear opponents are now speaking of letting the site "heal." In other words, they want to remove the Vermont Yankee site from possible use as a commercial site (with jobs) until such time as it meets their non-measurable criteria for "healing."

I'm hopeful the Public Utilities Commission recognizes the tangible safety, economic and environmental benefits of NorthStar's proposal.

Meredith Angwin,
Wilder, VT

This letter has appeared (sometimes with edits) in various newspapers in Vermont and New Hampshire, for example, The Brattleboro Reformer, the Burlington Free Press, the Rutland Herald,  and the Caledonian Record. It has appeared in other newspapers also, but I don't have the links.

------
Additional Reading:

 Rubblization of a road
Wikipedia illustration

Howard Shaffer's letter to the Brattleboro Reformer. Without rubblization, there would be over 4000 truckloads of rubble removed from the site. Specious Objections to the NorthStar Proposal. 

Patty O'Donnell in the Keene Sentinel. Why Wait 60 Years for Economic Benefits?

Guy Page in Seven Days on the....umm....incorrect statements....of nuclear opponents. True NorthStar

Bob Leach in the Times Argus on why Residential Standards are not the appropriate standard for cleanup.

Wikipedia on Rubblization, which is not a new concept.


 

Nuclear plants, films and trains

Breakers opening at Vermont Yankee when it went offline for the last time 2014
Photo courtesy of Entergy

Film night

Two nights ago, I went to a "sneak preview" of Power Struggle, a new documentary that chronicles the activism to close Vermont Yankee.  Robbie Leppzer, the filmmaker, has been filming this story for about 7 years.  Here's a balanced review in VPR.

Leppzer gives nuclear proponents a voice in the movie.  Howard Shaffer, Mike Hebert and I all appear several times, and we are depicted sympathetically, for the most part. Leppzer wanted us to attend, and he called me and Howard personally to extend his invitation. (He probably called Mike, too.  I just haven't spoken to Mike about it.)

That said, it must also be said that the preponderance of film time was spent following anti-nuclear activists and Arnie Gundersen.  They didn't just appear in the movie: they were the heroes. There was a panel discussion after the movie.  From the discussion and the major content of the movie,  it was clear that Leppzer thinks nuclear power is a very bad idea.

I am not doing a movie review here.  In some ways, it was a hard movie to watch because almost every nuclear opponent that I have ever met was in the audience.  Jeff Potter of The Commons introduced the movie, and he warned the crowd that there were pro-nuclear people in the audience also, and the crowd should not be too exuberantly anti-nuke, but be respectful.   Still, at various points, the joy of the crowd could not be contained.

I may do a movie review at a later time.

Tank car, wikipedia

Coffee shop and fuel trains

Instead of a movie review, I am going to post something I wrote on Facebook almost exactly a year ago today.  I have edited it slightly.   I hope you like it.

-------
I got up in a sort of blue mood. So George and I went over to Tuckerbox for coffee. This sometimes helps: leave home, go somewhere cheery.

Tuckerbox is right by the rail yard, and we saw (as usual) a train which was being made up. So we are sitting in a coffee shop in downtown White River Junction watching tank car after tank car that contains "Liquefied petroleum gas, no odorizer added." First the train traveled in one direction, then in the opposite direction. That is usual, when they are being made up. The cars bumped together and joined, then moved away and then a new car bumped together with the train. As a friend of mine said: "I like to sit in Tuckerbox and watch the trains couple."

We do what we can for voyeurism, here in Vermont. It's not the Riviera.

And I am thinking: some of these people, sitting here in the coffee shop, right next to a fuel-train being made up….are undoubtedly feeling SO much safer because Vermont Yankee is shut down.

So I guess Tuckerbox didn't completely help my mood.

But the coffee is good. If you come to this area, let's go over there and have coffee. The food is good, too!

The Grid: Power and Policy Introduction and Shaffer on the Physical Grid

I gave a three session course at OSHER, called The Grid: What Your Electricity Bill Won't Tell you.

The first session was an introduction to the course (power and policy) and Howard Shaffer's explanation of the physical grid....that is, electricity and how it flows.

The second session will be about policy and controversies on the grid, and the third session was the guest lecture by Christine Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative.

Because of the interest in the course, our local Community Access TV (CATV8) station videotaped it, and is also putting it on VIMEO.

I embed the first video below.


Update 2018: The videos still exist, but their URLs have changed.  Video link below.

http://reflect-catv.cablecast.tv/vod/4807-OSHER-Grid-class-April-2016-Medium-v1.mp4

The Grid: My Course at Dartmouth OSHER

The Course

I have been quite busy in the past week, getting ready for the launch of my four-week course about the grid, The Grid: What Your Electricity Bill Won't Tell You. The course begins at OSHER at Dartmouth,  Tuesday, April 19.    Here is the course catalog description.

And here is a slide from my Tuesday April 19 presentation.

The Guest Speakers

I don't know why everything is taking me so much time!  I have two great guest speakers, and we are taking a field trip to ISO-NE headquarters the last day of the course.  With all this help, it should be easy-peasy for me to get ready for the course.  Right? Okay.  It's hard.

The guest speakers:

Howard Shaffer was a startup engineer on a major pumped storage project.  He will speak on the first day, about the physical grid. Here is Shaffer's post about the difference between supplying power and paying for power.  Where's the Magic Switch?

Christine Hallquist, CEO of Vermont Electric Cooperative, will speak on controversies on the grid. Here is Hallquist's recent op-ed at VTDigger: Pricing Renewable Energy Right.

Videotape

The course will be videotaped for CATV8  community TV, and it will also be on-line.  I will put links to the videos in some later blog posts. (In other words, I will be videotaped three times, and  I haven't got a thing to wear.)

A Reasonable Look at Emergency Planning for Vermont Yankee: Guest post by Howard Shaffer

A Draft Plan

Shaffer speaking in favor of VY
PSB hearing, November 2012

Vermont's Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen's Advisory Panel (NDCAP) has written a draft plant for future emergency planning in the area around Vermont Yankee.  You can read the plan here, or I can summarize it. (This summary is simply my opinion.)

The mountains may crumble, Gibraltar may tumble, but Entergy providing money for emergency planning for the towns around Vermont Yankee---that money must be here to stay.

Howard Shaffer wrote a very reasonable comment on the plan, which I am happy to post as a guest post.  You can read more about NDCAP in the notes at the bottom of this post.

Shaffer Comments on the Draft Plan

Comments on the

Draft Advisory Opinion on

Continued Funding for the Radiological Response Plan

by the 

Vermont Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel

Introduction

The Emergency plan’s purpose is to provide for public safety during the decommissioning period.  This draft of a discussion to justify continued funding of a plan outside the plant fence appears to have been influenced by emotional concerns about the Emergency Plan used during the now completed operational period.  This draft has not sufficiently focused on the radical difference in the potential hazard that occurs after the energy releasing chain reaction in the fuel ceases.

While the plant is in operation and fission is on-going, fission products are continually produced.  After the plant is no longer operating, fission products are no longer produced, and the existing fission products decay.  The nature of any radioactive decay is that it continually decreases with time. The change from operating to not-operating is not reflected well in this draft plan.

The draft should take into account the continual decrease in the potential hazard, and the implications of the continual decrease of energy release.  The slowing of the energy release means that the any hazard from a  release of radioactive material from any damaged fuel pellets would take longer and longer to develop as time goes by, after the plant has ceased operation. The time also allows for intervening action by responders to interrupt and contain the release.

The draft seems to focus only on protective action outside the plant boundary, and forgets that inside the boundary there will always be a plan, and there would be protective and intervening action inside the boundary.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s approach takes into account both the continually decreasing potential hazard and the continually increasing length of time available for intervening action by responders.  The Commission’s approach recognizes that an Emergency Response Plan will always be needed, but for a smaller and smaller area.   The area of concern that might be affected by any release shrinks with time until it is all inside the plant boundary.

The draft does not seem to recognize the shrinkage when it contemplates a plan outside the boundary until there is no radioactive material on site.  The draft uses a potential public exposure limit that is so low that it unrealistic.  No number for the avoided exposure is given.

Problems in the Draft

The draft states that “Nevertheless, all drained structures, systems and components across the entire site are contaminated with layers of solid radioactive material …”  All?  That will be news to the employees who worked in the offices, warehouses, and operated and maintained the many secondary plant systems and equipment. Many systems and parts of the plant are not contaminated.  For example the systems handling river water, electric power, and diesels etc.  Understanding which things are contaminated and which are not is fundamental to a safe and economical decommissioning.

The draft is concerned with “radiation exposure” to the public as it should be, but does not seem clear on the fact that what this means is “excess radiation exposure.”  That is, exposure that can be controlled or avoided in excess of the natural amount of exposure everyone gets.  The draft refers to the State of Vermont’s limit of 25 mrem per year. This limit is exceeded in the State House, in the corners, by the radiation coming from the granite blocks.  Locally we all get 28 mrem per year at 0-1000 feet above sea level from cosmic radiation (Denver = 52 mrem per year).  We all get on average another 200 mrem per year from Radon gas in the air. Medical diagnostic procedures account for some exposure (CT Abdominal scan 800 mrem; I had two in 90 days).  The draft should be clear on what exposures might be if there is an accident releasing radioactive material any time during decommissioning.

The draft should have considered the physical sources of the potential radioactive material.  The main source is the used fuel pellets.  These pencil eraser sized ceramic pellets are in sealed metal tubes.  The tubes make up fuel bundles and the bundles will eventually all be in the sealed metal cans, inside the concrete shield chimneys, which are the outer layer of the Dry Cask assemblies. If an accident occurred that resulted in some fuel pellets being scattered on the ground, they would continue to be air cooled, and remain solid. Unlike, say, coal ash, these pellets are highly sintered ceramic. They would probably break into shards, not dissolve into dust.  All the structure of the plant and its equipment are a much smaller source of hazard.

While used fuel remains in the Fuel Pool in the reactor building there is some slight risk that loss of pool water could eventually lead to a release, due to used fuel damage from overheating and possible fire.  Water loss is not likely. The Fuel Pool has a heavy stainless steel liner designed and tested for zero leakage.  It is set in the middle of the Reactor Building, surrounded on the sides and bottom by thick reinforced concrete walls and floors. The top of the pool is open to the Refueling Floor, but there are many feet of water above the used fuel.  The refueling floor is surrounded by the heavy steel beams that support the overhead crane and roof.  This structure and the crane would break an aircraft impacting the building.  The pool has no drain line, and attached lines have siphon breakers.  There are several sources of water for normal and emergency filling.

Opponents of the plant cite it as being a GE Mark I style, as are the plants at the Fukushima- Daiichi site. Those pools survived the earthquake of 2011.  The unit 4 building had no fuel in the reactor, and much fuel in the fuel pool.   After being hit by the tsunami, the Unit 4 building settled several inches and tilted a little. The used and new fuel in that pool stayed in the pool, was never uncovered, and has now all been safely removed.  This demonstrates the robustness of the pool and building.

Conclusion

This draft  has two serious problems: lack of numerical values for expected off-site emissions, which could be compared to regulatory limits, and lack of understanding of the process of radioactive decay: radioactive materials get less radioactive as time goes by.  However, it is a start on a document that could be used in the decision making process.


Howard Shaffer  PE (nuclear) VT, NH, MA, IL
November 11, 2015

-----------


The Citizen's Advisory Panel and the Draft Emergency Plan

When Vermont Yankee closed down, Vermont dissolved its Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Board VSNAP.  This panel's meetings (IMHO) had become room rentals for people to get together and bash Vermont Yankee.

When the plant announced it would close, Vermont started convened a new panel, the Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen's Advisory Panel, NDCAP.  The new panel includes members from New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and members from Vermont Yankee and the IBEW.  In terms of membership, NDCAP is clearly a more representative group than the old VSNAP. You can read its membership list here.

Howard Shaffer

Howard Shaffer has attended almost every meeting of this panel.  He acknowledges that he was late in submitting his comment on the draft plan: he missed a deadline for commenting.  That means his comments may not get into the Department of Public Service public record.

His comments are now in the public record, right here at this blog.

Shaffer has contributed many guest posts to this blog. One of my favorite posts is Where's the Magic Switch, about power and pricing on the grid. Howard Shaffer and I both received Presidential Citations from the American Nuclear Society in 2012. Photo below courtesy of American Nuclear Society.

Howard Shaffer, Meredith Angwin,
ANS president Eric Loewen

There is an emergency plan: Guest post by Howard Shaffer

Vermont Yankee
When it was making power

A recent editorial in the Keene Sentinel claimed that Vermont Yankee is still a danger to its neighbors.  The editorial, NRC backs Entergy bid to turn off emergency data system at Vermont Yankee, begins with the following sentence:

Once again the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission appears ready to dismiss the health and safety of citizens in favor of keeping change in the pocket of Entergy Nuclear Corp.

Several Vermont Yankee supporters wrote letters answering this editorial.  This blog is proud to feature some of their letters.

-----------
There will ALWAYS be Emergency Plans for Vermont Yankee.
by Howard Shaffer

Once again the Sentinel has succumbed to the siren call of the maidens of the anti-nuclear movement.  The editorial writer emotionally attacked the plans to modify the Vermont Yankee plant’s Emergency Plan to match the expected conditions in April 2016.

If Vermont Yankee had never been built, all jurisdictions would still have Emergency Plans, including evacuation when necessary.  Plans are required by Federal Law, for all kinds of emergencies--truck and rail accidents, storms, and industrial accidents at all the different kinds of plants present, etc. They began to be formed in 1979.

In the spring next year, the used fuel at Vermont Yankee will present a much reduced hazard to the public.  The amount of radioactive atom-splitting pieces that could possibly escape will be greatly reduced. All the pieces are still there, but many have given up their radiation and have nothing left to give.  The pieces left will continue to give off radiation, which creates heat, but in an ever-decreasing amount.

Maintaining an Emergency Plan for the plant that was properly needed when the plant was in operation is just a waste of money.  That money would come from the Decommissioning Trust Fund, slowing down the process.  Any money left over at the end will go back to the ratepayers, not to Entergy as the editorial wrongly charges.  Remember the heated discussion about any left-over decommissioning money when the plant was sold to Entergy?

The Emergency Response Data System is a computer link for a small number of plant instruments, to the NRC and State Emergency Response Centers. These few pieces of data indicate if the reactor is headed for a meltdown or not, so the NRC can advise the Governors of the three states to order precautionary evacuations, if the plant’s Offsite Emergency Response Center has not already done it.  There are only one or two data points that would indirectly indicate that the used fuel in the pool was releasing radioactive atom-splitting products, after the fact of an accident.  There are no data points in this link that would predict a release from the fuel pool.  In the spring next year it would take more than a day to get to that point in any conceivable accident, which is more than enough time for plenty of action to be taken to stop any chain of events.

Plenty of time and to inform the NRC, states and the public of events by the many other communication links that will continue to exist.  Keeping this system is also a waste of money. Relying on the normal Emergency Plans of all the surrounding states and towns is more than sufficient for any possible very slowly developing situation.

The plant will continue to have its Emergency Plans for all types of industrial and nuclear-related accidents inside the fence.

The editorial has the emotional tone that no plans at all will exist, which is not the fact, and silly.

----------

Howard Shaffer  PE,  Enfield, NH  Startup Engineer at Vermont Yankee, 2001 Congressional Fellow.

Howard Shaffer is a frequent guest blogger at this blog.

Men and Energy: When Energy was Expensive, But Lives were Cheap

From Robert Hargraves book
Thorium, Energy Cheaper Than Coal

Women and Energy

On Thursday, April 30, Howard Shaffer and I were guests of Bill Sayre on the Common Sense Radio program of WDEV. Near the end of the program, Bill asked me to comment on the role of energy in improving women's lives.

 Image from
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves

This is one of my favorite subjects, and I was happy to answer.  I referred to Robert Hargraves' chart on prosperity versus birthrate, for many different countries.  As prosperity goes up, birthrate goes down.  In poor countries, women's lives are limited by gathering fuel, cooking over smoky biomass stoves, drawing water, having multiple pregnancies, and losing young children to death.

In a poor country, there's not much room for education (or even time to rest quietly) in women's lives.  When a country becomes richer, energy use goes up and women's lives improve.

(The chart above comes from Hargraves book: Thorium, Energy Cheaper Than Coal.  I wrote more about that chart in my post that reviewed the book.)

Men and Energy, Starting with Ice

As I mentioned, I was on the program with Howard Shaffer.  After I talked about women's lives, Shaffer spoke about men and energy.  Before the use of fossil and nuclear energy, the world relied only upon renewables. In those days, a high percentage of men had very dangerous jobs.

Shaffer spoke specifically about an industry that grew in New England, until electricity became common: Ice Harvesting.  Men would go out on the New England lakes in winter, cut ice and cart it into large ice houses, where it would be protected from the summer heat with straw.  Later the ice was  shipped to cities, where dairies, hospitals and restaurants used great quantities of ice to keep food and drugs cool. "Ice boxes" at home prevented food from rotting during the hot days of summer. Shipping lake ice from New England was big industry, though it had some competition from manufactured ice, usually made with ammonia.  Needless to say, you didn't put lake ice in your drink, unless you wanted to get sick. Ice was only used for keeping things cold. You didn't eat it.

That industry ended as energy became more common and less expensive. The first home electric refrigerator was sold in 1913. This marked the beginning of the end of the lake ice trade of the 1800s.

Harvesting ice was dangerous work.  It was probably not more dangerous than other occupations of the time (my husband's family were miners), but it was definitely hazardous.   Men died harvesting ice.

But let's talk about something really dangerous.  Log Drives.

Log Drives

Rumble rumble rumble….oh…that's just the log train going by….

Log Drive near Sharon, VT

I live in Wilder, Vermont, close to the Connecticut River, and close to a small railroad track that runs near the river.  On weekdays, two trains a day run along that track. The morning train mostly carries logs to a plywood factory, and the evening train mostly carries plywood from the factory.  I find the sound of the two trains quite comforting. There's the morning train, and then there's the evening train: their noise adds a rhythm to my life at home. Yes, if these trains ran as often as the New York Subway, the noise would be annoying.  But they don't run all the time.  They are just the log trains.  The morning train.  The evening train.

Before logs were shipped by train, there were log drives on the river itself: the Connecticut River Log Drives. Logs were harvested, rolled down to the river, tied up into rafts, and poled and shoved down the river by "shantymen."  The log drives on the Connecticut River started in about 1865, and only ended in 1918.  Men guided the rafts. Men fended off log rafts that threatened the bridges. They frequently died at this work.

Railroads, whatever their problems, are much safer than log drives.

I first heard the song "The Jam at Jerry's Rock" when I was in high school. The version I heard was set in Canada.  The version I have on this post is set in Michigan.  Log drives were dangerous…all over.

It's a short song, and worth listening, in my opinion.  If you go to YouTube, you can see comments on its history.



Men and Energy

As Shaffer pointed out, you can get ice from the local lakes and store it all summer. That's what men used to do, before electricity. The ice was limited in both usefulness and availability, and it cost men's lives.

Similarly, you can float logs down a river, or you can ship them by rail. Before abundant energy, the cost of shipping logs by water was considered cheap. It was paid in men's lives.

Abundant energy enables women to live healthier lives with less drudgery and more education. Abundant energy enables men to have jobs that allow them a better chance at living to an old age.

All hail to abundant energy!  (And of course, nuclear is my favorite kind!)

Nuclear Power Has a Place in New England Energy Future: Guest Post by Howard Shaffer

Howard Shaffer
at a rally

New England is at a crossroads. One choice is to continue on the road now traveled, with natural gas for electricity production exceeding that of coal, hydro and nuclear power combined by 2018.

Due to a shortage of gas-pipeline capacity, we are already experiencing high prices for home heating and electricity. And there has been a decline in air quality due to the increased use of coal plants to meet electricity needs and the loss of Vermont Yankee’s 600 megawatts of emission-free power.

The other choice, the path we should be taking, is to maintain a balanced mix of low-carbon energy sources, including the Seabrook and Pilgrim nuclear plants with licenses renewed, wind and solar power. (It is always understood that on the use side, we must do the maximum conservation and efficiency.) This would enable the plants to continue running for another 20 years or longer. With less reliance on natural gas for electric power generation, households and businesses would benefit from lower energy costs.

But for that to happen, the EPA will need to modify a proposed rule to cut carbon emissions from power plants. As the rule is now written, it is rigged against nuclear power, even though the U.S. fleet of nuclear plants accounts for nearly two-thirds of the nation’s zero-carbon electricity – and they will become increasingly important as more coal plants are shuttered. The proposed rule – which would require New Hampshire to reduce its carbon emissions by 46.3 percent compared to 2005 levels by 2030 – shortchanges nuclear power, the one technology that could make a decisive contribution in the battle against global warming.

Nuclear plants are a dependable source of electricity, because they produce “base-load” power about 90 percent of the time, underpinning the stability of the electricity grid. But currently, New England’s deregulated electricity market does not recognize nuclear power’s environmental value or its critically important role in maintaining power reliability. New England’s regional and state power authorities need to make the changes necessary to ensure the continued availability of nuclear-generated electricity, which is much cheaper than most other alternatives.

At one point last winter, during the polar vortex, 75 percent of New England’s natural-gas generating capacity was not operating due to lack of supply or high prices. Public Service of New Hampshire resorted to burning costly jet fuel to meet the demand for electricity, while the price of oil rose to more than $400 per barrel.

Imagine what would happen if the Seabrook and Pilgrim nuclear plants are shut down. Once a nuclear plant closes, its license terminates. The price of electricity would skyrocket. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen.

-------

This column by Howard Shaffer first appeared in the Concord Monitor, on January 28, 2015.  Shaffer holds a M.S. in Nuclear Engineering from M.I.T., is a registered nuclear engineer in Vermont and New Hampshire, and was a start-up engineer and systems engineer at Vermont Yankee.  He is a featured writer at this blog.

The Vermont Yankee Series Expands. The "Attitude Post" and more

The American Nuclear Society  blog has run a three-part series on the reasons for Vermont Yankee closing. Seven bloggers contributed.  Here are links to part one, part two, and part 3.

Now, the series has expanded at another blog.  Dan Yurman described the reasons for the series, and the credentials of the bloggers, at his blog: Neutron Bytes.  His post is called Seven At One Blow (seven bloggers on one topic, in one series).  Pro-nuclear bloggers are knowledgeable and accomplished people, but the bloggers are seldom explicitly acknowledged.  A big THANK YOU to Yurman for his post.

Well Begun is Half Done

The third post in the American Nuclear Society blog could be called the "attitude" post.  How shall we approach the political battle for nuclear energy?  Our attitudes matter.

Well Begun is Half Done. Confused beginnings  and confused goals rarely lead to success.

Vermont State House chamber

Howard Shaffer's post is titled "Failure to Politically Engage. As Shaffer writes: Unfortunately, Entergy Vermont Yankee carried through with the industry’s error of misunderstanding the campaign against the plant as a technical and legal policy debate, as opposed to recognizing it for what it truly was—a bare knuckle political campaign.

Shaffer doesn't leave it at that, though.  He develops a list for winning a campaign. The material on the list might be old-hat to a politician, but these things seems new to the nuclear industry. For example:

Be the first to get negative information about you into the media. You get to define the issue, not your opponents. 

Shaffer is a co-owner of  this blog, as well as a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe. I recommend his ANS Nuclear Cafe post about testifying to a legislative committee about spent fuel storage: Getting Inside the Legislative Process.

Dan Yurman continues the theme with his post "Vermont Yankee Shuts Down for Good."  He concludes that low gas prices and the regulatory environment contributed to Vermont Yankee closing, Entergy, which is a Louisiana business, never got a sense of how to deal with New England greens.  Yurman's conclusion, however, is more about the market: Entergy...(could not) to recover value, nor earn revenue, ... based on the carbon emission reductions it provided to the region.

Prices in New England
2014

In this case, it was the market that was ill-begun.

Dan Yurman is a pre-eminent nuclear blogger.  His current blog is Neutron Bytes: his former blog, Idaho Samizdat, was one of the pioneering pro-nuclear blogs.

So Many Thanks!

First, I want to thank Dan Yurman, who had the idea for this series of blog posts at ANS.  He was also a contributor to the blog, the collector of the posts (we sent them to Yurman), and a major force in publicizing this effort.

Second, I want to thank Will Davis of the blog Atomic Power Review and Linda Zec of the Outreach Department at American Nuclear Society, who took the seven essays across the finish line for publication at ANS Nuclear Café.

Third, I want to thank the people who wrote excellent, informed and thought-provoking comments on Reflections 1 and Reflections 2.  Join the conversation!

On the Roof? Video about Vermont Yankee retirement

WCAX interviewed Howard Shaffer and Arnie Gundersen about Vermont Yankee's retirement.  Gundersen apparently does not know where the fuel pool is: he says that the fuel is stored "on the roof."  Really?  Last I looked, it was under the roof.

Shaffer is reasonable as usual.

Just a quick post to share this. I hope the video comes through.  If not, please follow the link.

http://www.wcax.com/story/27886195/vermont-yankees-long-road-to-retirement

  WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-

Decommissioning Panel and Appointments: Good, Bad and Ugly

Appointments Thick and Fast

With Vermont Yankee shutdown coming soon, the state government is getting busy appointing people to advise about, supervise, and generally harass the decommissioning project.  Okay, okay, maybe that's too strong a way to describe it.  Instead, perhaps I can just borrow the headline from a recent article in the Greenfield, MA, Recorder. Anti-nukers on Vt. Yankee Advisory Panel. 

Well, that was a short blog post.  I guess I can quit now...

No, wait!  I still have things to talk about.  There are good things, there are bad things, and there are...ugly things.

Smiley from Wikipedia

The Good

The New Panel: The old Vermont Nuclear Safety Advisory Panel (VSNAP) is being replaced by the newly-mandated  Nuclear Decommissioning Citizen Advisory Panel.  Howard Shaffer describes the new panel in his blog post at ANS Nuclear Cafe: The Latest Sop to Nuclear Opponents.

(Gosh, the titles of the links aren't getting any better, are they?)

In his post, Shaffer notes that the old panel was pretty much a straight Vermont-Yankee-bashing experience.  The new panel may be better. The panel is larger, and includes representatives from Entergy and from the Vermont Yankee union (IBEW). Also, there will be representatives from neighboring states. Hopefully, the presence of these panel members will keep the panel from being a complete anti-nuclear attack-dog,  the way VSNAP was in the past.   As Shaffer describes it in his post, in the days of the VSNAP panel: The plant was in the position of being a witness to be cross-examined. There was no appeal to the panel’s findings. The meetings were covered in detail by the regional press. The panel, in effect, became a vehicle for anti-nuclear publicity.

With an expanded membership, hopefully the new decommissioning panel will be more than a kangaroo court.

The New Engineer: Vermont has always had a state nuclear engineer to advise the legislator.  In my opinion, Vermont didn't always pick the most qualified person, but that is just my opinion.  To my surprise, the newly-appointed state nuclear engineer is actually a qualified nuclear engineer. Oops, I forgot. The "nuclear engineer" job title has been changed to "decommissioning coordinator."

In the Rutland Herald (reprinted in The Recorder), Susan Smallheer reports about the new hire: Get to know Vt's decommissioning coordinator.  Anthony Leshinskie is a nuclear engineer, who used to work at Palo Verde.  In the article, Leshinskie is quoted as saying that Vermont Yankee appears to be a well-run plant, and he does not see the work force as demoralized. He notes that Entergy is not scrimping on continuous training (which makes the workers more attractive to new employers). Leshinskie said he was concerned that his role would be "anti-nuclear" but is now reassured that his job is technical, not political.

Ray Shadis, a long-time nuclear opponent, doesn't seem completely happy with this appointment. A quote from the Smallheer article:  What Vermont or any ‘reactor-occupied community’ does not need is a bureaucratic pussycat,” said Shadis. (Shadis did not actually accuse Leshinskie of being a pussy-cat, but Shadis is obviously worried about something here.) Shadis emphasized that he believes that  a state nuclear engineer should be a critic.

Frowny 
from Wikipedia

The Bad

Governor Shumlin, the President Pro Tem of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House appointed the six citizen panelists, all of whom are serving three or four-year terms. Vermont Business Magazine names the panelists in the article Shumlin, Campbell, Smith announce appointments to the Nuclear Decommissioning Citizens Advisory Panel. As far as I can tell, a major qualification for these appointments was that the panelist was opposed to Vermont Yankee.

One of the panelists is David Deen, a legislator with a long history of opposing Vermont Yankee. He claims that the plant overheats the Connecticut River. In this article Deen describes Vermont Yankee as operating under a "zombie" water permit. He claims it has a fifty-five mile thermal plume that extends way downstream, keeping its thermal integrity of heating the river...all the way past the Vernon dam.

A second panelist, Derrik Jordan, is described as "a musician and social activist" by the Speaker of the House, who appointed him.

I don't know everyone on the panel, but I fear that the ones I don't know are probably of the same opinions as the ones I do know. For today, however, enough is enough.

The Ugly

Gargoyle, Wikipedia

Back in the days when the chairman of VSNAP was appointed by  Governor Jim Douglas, a Republican, the VSNAP meetings were a complete zoo.

At one meeting, people came in costume. A costumed man and woman pretended to have sex while pro-nuclear people were speaking, distracting the crowd.  At other meetings, members of the panel paced around and shouted "I am tired of being lied to!" They shouted down  the chairman, who was attempting to keep the panel moving by Robert's Rules of Order.  In another case, a panel member physically wrestled the microphone away from the chairman.

I was pretty naive then, and I couldn't believe what I was seeing.  But I saw it.

The meetings calmed down when the chairman of VSNAP was appointed by Governor Shumlin. There was no longer a reason to intimidate him or her. When the chairman was appointed by Shumlin, it meant that the agenda could be followed, with minimum interruptions.

My fear of the ugly. Now we have Entergy members and union members on the panel. That could be great or not-great. Great: maybe the new members can contribute.  Not-great: once again, the panel includes people worth intimidating

Will the bad old days come again?  I hope not, but I fear that they may.

"No Safe Dose" is Bad Science. Updated. Guest Post by Howard Shaffer

Linear Function Graphs
from Wikipedia

Update: Robert Hargraves new Video "Radiation is Safe Within Limits" is now posted at Rod Adams blog. Adams gives a shout-out to this post, also.  These two posts make a very good pair!


 The non-existent risk of low level radiation

At his blog, Atomic Insights, Rod Adams recently posted Resolving the issue of the science of biological effects of low level radiation.  In this post, he encouraged people to sign a letter urging the American Nuclear Society (ANS) to address the issue of unreasonable fear of low levels of radiation.  There is now a great deal of evidence that, below a threshold value, increases in radiation exposure do not lead to increases in cancer.

Adams provided a link to the letter, which urges the  ANS to ask for a review of newer evidence (studies done after 1956) concerning the use of Linear Non Threshold (LNT)  to predict cancer deaths from radiation.  LNT asserts that there is no threshold for increased cancer risk.

 "Protecting" against very low levels of radiation increases the cost of nuclear plants, but the LNT model says we must protect against any level of radiation, no matter how small.  Rod and I are happy to assert that LNT increases the cost of building and operating nuclear plants, but does not lead to an increase in public health outcomes.

The crowd goes wild

Once Rod had posted, the comments came thick and fast, starting with a one-line comment that Rod was tilting at windmills.   (I encourage you to read the comments and join the conversation.)

I  was very impressed with Howard Shaffer's comment, and I obtained his permission to use it as a guest post, as below.  I did a few edits, with his permission.

------

The consequences of assuming No Safe Dose: By Howard Shaffer 

Bob Hargraves, Meredith Angwin and I have all gone  head to head with the nuclear opponents and the Helen Caldicotts brought in to Vermont. We have gone through all the logical arguments on cost, alternatives etc. We needed to be face to face, up close in public meetings in order to FEEL the fear that is driving their single minded opposition. Fear that drives elderly ladies to repeatedly chain themselves to the plant gates and get arrested, and many other examples.

As for evidence, see the election results here in Vermont.

Let me repeat part of my post from ANS Nuclear Cafe, A CAN-CAN Dance around Vermont Yankee Decommissioning:

In Vermont, in the very emotional political fight over Vermont Yankee, we directly experienced the effects of the misuse of BEIR VII. Deb Katz  http://www.nukebusters.org/ and others endlessly repeat “any amount of radiation is harmful” to energize the opponents AND make EVERY event at the plant seem like the “sky is falling.”

Enough FEAR has been created to keep driving the opponents, so they always find a new issue. Now it is “all fuel in Dry Casks NOW” which is also being used in the SONGS fight.

We need to get a BEIR VIII. I believe that it will take Congress requiring it in an appropriation bill to get it done. We also need Congress to set the time limits on exposure from High Level Waste Repositories to a few hundred years, not thousands as decided by a court case. end post

Perhaps ANS can get Ann Bisconti to do a poll asking what people believe about radiation.

The Fear Campaign

The LNT issue is in the middle of the largest issues of our time, starting at the middle of the last century.

• The Environment as limited. History shows that we believed the earth to have unlimited resources and be an unlimited sewer. (At one point, the chemical industry saw chemical injection underground as a legitimate disposal method. Where were the studies on the effects done before this was started?) Fear of fouling our own nest and ruining the earth is legitimate.
•  Fear of nuclear war. Einstein was right that World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones.
• Out of these came fear of planetary pollution from atmospheric weapons testing. The BEIR committee was persuaded by powerful personalities to extend the evidence from the excess cancers in atomic bomb victims to low levels of exposure and to “zero” exposure (which does not exist). This was done to boost the fear campaign they thought was needed to get the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty. 

"Ban the Bomb" was a Fear Campaign. I agree with the goals of that particular campaign.  But  history shows that Fear Campaigns get out of hand and have a life of their own. Forgive me for using Racism, Suppression of Women, and Anti-Semitism to name a few. None of these are supported by evidence, but take a long time to erase.

Howard C Shaffer III

The irony of nuclear power is that it meets these fears by providing a bridge – a long one- to a planet of total sustainability. The opponents of nuclear power have never answered the question of HOW we get from here to there. For example,”What do we do about Coal Miners?”

We who believe in nuclear power have a lot of work to do. It’s time to face up, as Rod says, to the realization that the public needs to be told that some of them bought into a Fear Campaign that outgrew its original purpose and the facts were not true. The campaign was well motivated but the wrong approach.  It is time to get back to the facts.

Opponents Make Assertions, Shaffer Tells Truth

Can-Can Dancers by Toulouse Lautrec

CAN and CAN and the Supposed Horrors of Decommissioning

Howard Shaffer went to a local Sierra Club meeting about the horrors and dangers of decommissioning Vermont Yankee.

Luckily (snark alert) two anti-nuclear groups are ready to step into the breach and make sure the decommissioning is done right!  These groups are Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) and Citizens Action Network (also known as CAN).

Leaders of the two groups did their Sierra Club presentation as a "tag team," switching back and forth, from one to the other. Therefore, this meeting could be described as a CAN-CAN show.

Howard Shaffer went to the meeting and wrote a blog post about it at ANS Nuclear Cafe blog: A CAN-CAN Dance around Vermont Yankee Decommissioning.

Howard Shaffer

Equipping Us With the Answers

Shaffer's post is better than being at the meeting.  Instead of sitting in a room full of nuclear-hostile people, while hearing a bunch of assertions and untruths, you can read Shaffer's post.  Shaffer does more than just list the things they said--he immediately answers them in his post. His post equips all of us with answers.

Shaffer deserves a hazardous-duty-for-the-blood-pressure award for attending this meeting.

Thank you, Howard Shaffer!

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2014/06/05/a-can-can-dance-around-vermont-yankees-decommissioning/

The Art of the Deal: Shaffer at ANS

Howard Shaffer

The Art of the Deal: ANS Nuclear Cafe post by Howard Shaffer

Yesterday, ANS Nuclear Cafe posted Howard Shaffer's blog post The Art of the Deal.  In this post, Shaffer summarizes the Entergy-Vermont deal which will be presented to the Public Service Board. In the hearings about the deal, Entergy AND Vermont state agencies will be in support of the deal. They will mutually support the Public Service Board granting Entergy a  Certificate of Public Good for operation through 2014, based on the agreement. The sight of Entergy and state agencies supporting each other in front of the Public Service Board--Wow. What a wonderful sight that will be.  It surely has not happened since Governor Shumlin was elected!  And now it will happen.

This is truly a New Deal and a Big Deal, and Howard describes it very well.  He also describes the ways the opponents are likely to fight it, and why they are unlikely to win.
At the price of a small spoiler-alert, I want to share some of Howard's conclusions:


Where does this leave the PSB? With an easier task than before.... Now, with the state and Entergy together—...—it will be hard to find something that will not be in the public good. It is expected that the PSB will complete the hearings to give the opponents their “day in court,” and perhaps impose a few administrative conditions, and then approve the CPG.

The opponents can be expected to continue to fight to the end, and to try to make it even more bitter.


But really: read the whole Art of the Deal, not just this excerpt!

Howard Shaffer Post at ANS Nuclear Cafe: What are opponents doing nowadays?

Vermont Yankee

Howard Shaffer's most recent contribution to ANS Nuclear Cafe was posted yesterday afternoon.

Vermont Yankee: Now What Are Opponents Doing?

In this post, Shaffer describes the many ways opponents are attempting to generate political cover for the ways in which the plant's closing will affect the state, and the related ways in which they continue to foster fear about the decommissioning process, the last few months of the plant's operation, etc.

Governor Shumlin

Vermont Yankee management and the Shumlin administration are in closed-door meetings at this time.  Who knows what they will resolve?  Who knows what they are even discussing, since almost everything about the decommissioning is in the hands of the NRC and Entergy, not the state?  I suspect the discussions are another case of the state attempting to extract Dane-Geld from Entergy.

In the meantime, I recommend reading Shaffer's post for the most up-to-date information on the current "controversies."  Comment on the post, too!  (The opponents are commenting.)

Vermont Yankee: Now What Are Opponents Doing?

Whack-A-Mole on Anti-Nuclear Claims: Sometimes It's Necessary

I think of pro-nuclear advocacy as something better and finer than a game of Whack-a-Mole.

You know, the game. You whack down one ridiculous accusation, but two more pop up.  It isn't my favorite game.  I like to talk about the benefits of nuclear power. I don't try to answer everyone who claims it is horribly dangerous. Duty doesn't always call me.

"Duty Calls"
Famous XKCD cartoon

 But sometimes, it's whack-a-mole time.  "A charge unanswered is a charge believed" is a political truism.  Sometimes, we have to answer.

Scaremonger Week

Last week was Scaremonger Week in the media, with three separate articles with ridiculous accusations against nuclear energy.  I am pleased to see that nuclear advocates are answering.

Today's ANS Nuclear Cafe post is Scaremonger Week in the Mainstream Media. The post has links to the scary articles and links to the answers. Congratulations to Paul Bowersox for putting this post together, and for all the people (James Conca, Howard Shaffer, the Nuclear Energy Institute team, James Hansen, and others) who actually answered the accusations.

1. The first article is about "nuclear plants vulnerability to terrorism." This was written by a student whose graduate work was partially funded by the Department of Defense.  The press release makes it sound like an official DoD study. Semi-amusingly, a comment on the ANS blog post calls it  Pentagon-commissioned study, despite the fact it is nothing of the kind.  Ah well. If that were the only problem with this "study."
2. The second article was a "nuclear submariner" challenging the pro-nuclear film Pandora's Promise. This article appeared as New York Times opinion piece.  The Grey Lady didn't do a very good job on qualifying the writer, whose nuclear experience is more limited than it might appear. (Please see update below.)   Read the "editor's choice" and "reader's choice" rebuttals to this post.
3. The third was in Russia Today.  In some ways, it is the most fun, because it is the most outrageously ridiculous.  Tokyo will be evacuated when Fukushima waters contaminate its groundwater? Billions will die?  Good grief!  Howard Shaffer answers this one. Yes, our own Howard Shaffer.  By the way, I had no idea that Russia Today is such a popular site. As Bowersox writes:  RT is the 2nd-most-watched foreign news channel in the United States, with 1 billion views on YouTube (more than Fox News). The article above [about Fukushima] has 23,000 Facebook ‘likes’.

Woman Playing Whac-a-Mole

Whack-a-Mole--Sometimes It Matters

I admit...no matter how many you whack, more of these articles arise. They say the same-old, same-old, sometimes with a new twist--Tokyo water! Pentagon-commissioned!  

People who know about the subject answer.  Links to the answers are in the ANS Nuclear Cafe article. Do the authoritative answers get the kind of play that Russia Today can provide?  Maybe not.  But thanks to the knowledgeable nuclear advocates, the answers are out there, the answers are available.  

The answers are available, and that is worth a lot.

---------------
Update:

In an earlier version of this post, I said that the "nuclear submariner" who wrote the New York Times article,  Dr. John Miller, Ph.D., had not served on an active boat.  Actually, Miller did serve on a boat at sea.  He was on a boat during operations for about a year, and then he was assigned to the same boat while it was in dry dock for about two years.  I apologize for the error.

I also said that Miller was not an engineering officer. Again, I apologize for the error.  However, my statement was wrong but the issue is more complicated.  As far as I can tell, Miller took engineering training but he was a supply officer while assigned to his boat. I do not know enough about the operations of the Navy to follow all this and be accurate in what I say about his background.  To me, it doesn't seem very strong to be a supply officer and yet claim to be an expert on nuclear operations. But I really don't know.  My husband was a tin can sailor (enlisted man who served on a destroyer). So I know little about submarine officers and their duties.

Those of you with Navy backgrounds or interest might want to follow the comment stream on Rod Adam's blog post about Arnie Gundersen: Was Arnie Gundersen a Licensed Reactor Operator and Senior VP Nuclear Licensee?  In the comment stream, Miller and other Navy Nukes discuss Miller's background. 

The Local Scene: Shaffer At ANS Nuclear Cafe

Howard C Shaffer III

Today, at ANS Nuclear Café, Howard Shaffer posted about Vermont politics and energy issues--Power Play: People Politics, Electricity, Nuclear.

When Shaffer told me he was going to write an overview post for ANS, my first reaction was "don't!"  Now I am very glad he has written it, and I recommend all readers of this blog to follow the link and read it also.

So why did I say: "don't write it"?  Of course, I was wrong, but why did I say it?

You see, Vermont energy is highly-politicized situation with a constant stream of court cases, events and hearings.  In my own blog, I usually attempt to clarify one aspect or another.  I rarely give overviews.  There's just too much going on (I think). There are court cases, protests, Public Service Board hearings, Vermont State Nuclear Advisory Panel hearings, hearings in various legislative committees, etc. etc.  In my blog, I pick this or I pick that to write about.  Which is nice, of course.

But Shaffer's post shows why we need more than just Meredith's viewpoint.  My one-issue posts don't give the true idea of how wild and political energy policy is in Vermont.  Read Shaffer's post, for everything from the Comprehensive Plan, to wind, to flotillas on the Connecticut River to...well, everything.

Thank you, Howard, for writing this.