LFTRs, a Disruptive Technology; Guest Post by Fred Moreno

This is a letter written to me and Robert Hargraves, which I obtained permission to share on my blog.  I have edited it a little:

Dear Robert:

Thanks for your book Thorium Energy Cheaper than Coal which I have just completed.  Besides providing a further education on the topic, in reading the first page reviews, I saw one by Meredith Angwin which caused a distant memory to light up... I found her email address and we have struck up a conversation of shared interests.

I was motivated to write after reading your appendix with the paper that again retraces the history of LWRs and the evolution of the latest generation systems from Westinghouse et al.  Their investment causes them to have little interest in any new technology that may detract from their established history and embedded corporate strategic heading.  As you know, this is common in companies/industries that grow long in tooth.

Disruptive Technologies

If you are not aware of the work of Clayton Christensen at the Harvard Business School, you should review his work on "disruptive innovation" in light of the Westinghouse strategy and disruptive characteristics created by LFTR.  In short, Christensen showed through research that markets change need, and differing needs cause changes in buyer preference which old suppliers can not adjust to meet. So they die.  He started with disk drives, and broadened his research.

Some examples:

In disk drives, for years the driver was lower cost per megabyte which meant huge disk drives.  I am

sure you remember the refrigerator size drives, lined up in rows, that serviced IBM 360's at computer centers to which we brought stacks of punch cards.  Mini-computers (DEC VAX being most notable example) could be put in a closet so that small hard disk drives were preferred despite much higher $/MB cost.  Small size was more important.  The 8 inch Winchester and then 5 inch Winchester drives emerged, and a whole new industry of disk drive companies thrived.  Interestingly, IBM did not make the transition, and the 8 inch guys could not transition to 5 inch who could not transition to 3 inch shock hardened units for lap tops.  Once established, the established players could not match the cost structure and demands of the next smaller step.

Research showed this happened in the past again and again. American clipper ships were unsurpassed in ability to sail around the Horn at low cost with high reliability. Steam ships were unreliable, expensive, and exploded.  But clipper ships could not navigate rivers and canals, and it was on the Mississippi River and elsewhere that steamships found a solid footing and matured to eventually take over.  Number of clipper ship companies that made the transition:  zero.

Earthmoving was dominated by huge steam shovels.  Figure of merit: dollars per cubic yard of soil moved.  Bigger was better.  Until the post WWII housing boom when somebody cobbled together a small hydraulic powered scoop that fitted on the back of a Ford rubber tire ag tractor and was driven by the agricultural power take off coupling.  It was a kludge, but for cutting trenches around tract houses, it beat hand work by miles.  Time goes on, and hydraulic backhoes have become huge and dominant in earth moving.  Survivors from the steam shovel days: a couple that now make huge drag lines for open pit mining.

Avant Loader in Sweden

Bigger seems better, until it isn't

You see the pattern is clear in the context of LFTR: The proposed GEN III huge "modular" LWRs are derelicts of the past.  They must be bypassed because the market demands something with different requirements - mass production, easily shipped and quickly erected at smaller, easier to find sites, economy from production line manufacture instead of economies of scale, and all the other benefits you know so well.

So as you pursue your quest for LFTR, and given your bully pulpit, I suggest you incorporate the lessons of "disruptive innovation" to show that costs, risks, performance, and other benefits arise from adaptation to the changes in market demand.   "Disruptive innovation" needs to be a primary strategic element of LFTR commercialization attracting a new generation of business entrepreneurs not bound to the views of the past.  It is a message that rings strongly with the venture capital set, all of whom have carefully read Christensen's work.   It needs to be part of the LFTR equation.

Sincerely,

Fred Moreno, a retired Yankee Techie now resident on the SW coastline of Western Australia

 ----------
 I worked with the author, Fred Moreno, at Acurex in the 70s.  Moreno has a BSME from University of California and an MSME from Stanford University. He retired from his position as Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President of Silicon Valley technology company. The company made robotic systems for use in the semiconductor manufacturing business.  Moreno now lives in Australia.

Hydro: Some insight into nuclear opponent mistakes

My recent post on Nuclear Opponents View of New Hydro in Vermont described a Public Service Board hearing. The post showcased a lawyer for a nuclear opponent as he said the equivalent of:
"Nah, nah, nah, I know about hydro and I am not telling!"

What did he think he "knew" but didn't have to "tell"?

Two engineers contributed to this current post on the topic of new hydro.   William Rodgers commented on my earlier blog post itself, while Jaro Franta (from Quebec) commented on the earlier post at the Save Vermont Yankee Facebook page.

Licensing  by William Rodgers:

..But anyway, not to take away from Mr. Simon's moment illustrating his maturity level; the other issue of new hydro is not just available capacity but also licensing.

New hydro needs to walk the path of licensing with FERC. It is one thing to read a few research articles in Hydroworld and proclaim some sort of illusory victory. It is entirely something else to actually make a transition plan to new hydro work so all will benefit and none will suffer. New hydro can take anywhere from 5 to 15+ years to get licensed.

And with the current FERC leadership preferring natural gas plants over all other generation sources to back up wind, it is highly doubtful significant new hydro would be licensed anyway. Especially since actual environmental groups would come out and protest licensing activities.

Then there is the construction costs, number of sites that would have to be used to get even close to the output of VY, issues with run-of-the-river dams where water is already needed for other uses, not hydro-generation. Oh the list goes on and on.

Then there is the dreaded drought year or years. What then?

What is "Hydrologic"? by Jaro Franta

"Hydrologic turbines" seems to be a reference to an aquatic version of windmills:

Greens in Quebec have also been pushing these "water current turbines" or Tyson turbines, as an alternative to standard hydro dams - they would apparently prefer putting thousands of these things in the St. Lawrence and other rivers.

Unfortunately they're clueless about the crud (fouling) that develops over time on these things, due to the low-speed water flow, and the massive job it would be to keep cleaning them.

(Not to mention other undesirable aspects, such as interference with marine traffic and harm to aquatic life)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_head_hydro_power#Installation_of_turbines_in_river_current

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyson_turbine

Developments in ducted water current turbines

http://www.cyberiad.net/library/pdf/bk_tidal_paper25apr06.pdf

Keeping These Turbines Clean, by Jaro Franta

Incidentally, a fair comparison may be made with the Côte Sainte-Catherine Hydromega projects, which I was involved in the mid-1990's.

As I recall, one of the big issues there was the fouling of the trash racks on the intake to the penstocks: These are ***fortunately*** accessible from shore (they are on the high side of the seaway locks dikes), but they certainly keep the plant operators busy cleaning them, especially in the summer.
I can't imagine what that job would be like, with turbine units spread out all over the river somewhere.....

http://algonquinpowercompany.com/cms/index.php?c=msg&id=166&

" The Côte Ste-Catherine facility is located at the Côte Ste-Catherine lock of the Lachine section of the St. Lawrence Seaway. The bypass canal upon which the facility is located was constructed as part of the St. Lawrence Seaway in 1958. The facility has a total installed capacity of 11,120 kilowatts and was constructed in three separate phases, each phase having a total installed capacity of 2,120 kilowatts, 4,500 kilowatts and 4,500 kilowatts, respectively, and each phase was commissioned in 1989, 1993 and 1996, respectively. Due to the year round, high volume water flows of the St. Lawrence River, the facility is expected to operate at full capacity throughout the year. The Côte Ste-Catherine facility uses approximately 2 per cent of the river flow at any given time.

More photos: http://www.hmiconstruction.ca/real_STCATHERINE.htm

My Own Conclusions

As William Rodgers notes, permitting new hydro would be close to impossible.  This is probably why upgrading existing hydro is more popular.

As Jaro Franta notes, upkeep on run-of-the-river turbines is very difficult, since the low flows mean the trash racks are easily fouled.  Also, the Côte Ste-Catherine facility uses only 2 percent of the river flow.  With a mighty river like the St. Lawrence, installed capacity for these turbines is 11.2 MW.  With a smaller stream, the output would be in kilowatts, and the costs of running and cleaning the system might be too high for the amount of power you would gain.

As Germany goes, so goes Vermont? Guest post by Guy Page

Guy Page

As Germany goes, so goes Vermont?

Parallels in renewable energy policy and outcomes

By Guy Page

“As Maine goes, so goes the nation,” went the political truism between 1834 and 1932, when the Pine Tree State picked the winner in almost every presidential election. When only staunch Republican (!) Vermont joined Maine in selecting Republican Alf Landon in 1936, winner Franklin D. Roosevelt’s campaign manager James Farley famously if somewhat predictably quipped: “As Maine goes, so goes Vermont.”

Eighty years later Vermont is following another trendsetter:  Germany, the Western world’s undisputed leader of government-subsidized renewable power. Visitors to Germany note that solar panels cover the south face of seemingly every village church, school and home. Germany is home to a well-funded, highly popular “feed-in tariff” (FIT) that has encouraged almost broadbased power production. Of the 40 GW of installed solar power worldwide at the end 2010, almost half – 17.4 GW – was located in Germany. In just two years Germany’s share jumped to about 30 GW, according to the Feb. 2013 Washington Post.

German Inspiration

The German program was an inspiration to the crafters of Vermont’s May, 2009 feed-in tariff law, the energy-generation lynchpin of the state’s plan to use 90% renewables by 2050. Then Senate Pro-Tem (and now Governor) Peter Shumlin was particularly enthusiastic. In March, 2010 he told Fox News that if overcast Germany can get 30% of its electricity from solar power, so can America. He said this just days after leading the Vermont Senate in its “no” vote on Vermont Yankee. (When Fox reporter Stuart Varney pointed out that Germany gets just one percent of its power from solar, Shumlin conceded the error but has never retreated from his central point: Vermont, like Germany, can become a leader in the new renewable power energy economy, resulting in new jobs, clean air, and energy independence.)

Like its European forebearer, Vermont’s FIT solar power program also contributes about one percent to the state’s total power portfolio – actually, about one-third of one percent. The state’s SPEED website lists 13 projects (see “project summary” page) as “online and generating,” producing about 18,000 MWh of Vermont’s total load of about 6,000,000 MWh. (The FIT program for ALL forms of generation comes in at 53,000 MWh, or just under the one percent mark.)

German FIT solar power costs about 32 cents American per kilowatt-hour. Likewise in Vermont: FIT solar power is down from 30 cents to 25.7, about five times the average market rate. And while market power rates fluctuate – for better or worse - the Vermont FIT solar power rate, once set, is fixed in contractual stone over the course of the 10 year contract.

Nuclear and Fossil

As in Germany, Vermont opponents of nuclear power were empowered by a nuclear “incident” that helped them reverse government support for nuclear power. The Vermont Senate’s 2010 vote was held amid a powerful public response to reports of a tritium leak at Vermont Yankee. In May 2011, in the wake of Fukushima, the German government announced plans to close many nuclear plants. Although Germany followed Vermont chronologically, the decisions-making process was similar: the politically astute realized that a sense of crisis had moved matters to a tipping point.

The pro-renewables, anti-nuclear policy has had an unexpected effect in both locales: they are more reliant on fossil fuels. Germany has been an acknowledged leader among the “green” nations of Europe. In 2011, Vermont had the nation’s smallest carbon footprint for power generation, thanks largely to its reliance on hydro and Vermont Yankee.

A Step Backwards for the Carbon Footprint

Lignite or "Brown Coal"

In carbon terms, both have taken a step backwards. According to a February 27 2013 Bloomberg News report, Germany plans to build 6000 new megawatts of coal-fired power generation, a move which will significantly increase their overall carbon footprint. The pragmatic Germans realize they need plentiful, domestic, baseload power capacity to support Europe’s strongest manufacturing economy. Deprived of nuclear power, the German government is turning – back – to coal.

In Vermont, something similar has happened. Vermont Yankee’s contract providing about a third of the state’s electricity expired in March, 2012. Vermont’s reliance on New England grid power jumped about one million megawatt-hours in 2012 over 2011, according to “Vermont Electricity At A Glance,” study I conducted for the Vermont Energy Partnership. That figure equals one-sixth of Vermont’s total electrical load. About three-quarters of the grid’s power is derived from fossil fuels, mostly natural gas.

Concerns about the technical Achilles Heel of intermittent power - grid instability - are present in both Vermont and Germany. The August, 2012 Spiegel Online reported that large German manufacturers have experienced expensive power interruptions related to the transition to renewable power. In Vermont, the New England transmission grid operators have “curtailed” its purchases of power from the Lowell Mountain wind turbine development due to intermittency, resulting in a million dollars of lost income this winter, according to the general manager of one Vermont utility quoted in the April 5, 2013 Vermont Digger. The project’s owner is installing a synchronous condenser - $10 million pricetag – that it hopes will solve the problem.

Looking Forward

It is only fair to point out that in neither Vermont nor Germany has the final chapter been written. Perhaps solar power will prove to be greener, in both cash and carbon, in the long run.  Someday, a bright engineer may solve the problem of “translating” intermittent power into a traditional power grid. No doubt renewable power is delivering many positive benefits right now, including energy diversity, property tax income, and strong growth in solar-related employment. Solar power’s cost of production has decreased somewhat in recent years, in part due to fierce competition from China’s solar panel producers. Nevertheless, it’s a safe bet that when the avid backers of solar power in Vermont and Germany celebrated the passage of their FIT laws, few of them were anticipating that the immediate future would have more carbon and serious concerns about power cost and reliability.

-------

Guy Page is a frequent guest blogger at Yes Vermont Yankee. His most recent blog post described his report on Vermont's transition to renewable energy. 

Off Shore Wind Versus Nuclear: Guest Post by Willem Post

Off Shore Wind Versus Nuclear: Guest Post by Willem Post

AWC Schematic, from their website

Introduction by Meredith Angwin

Atlantic Wind Connection (AWC) plans to enable the Atlantic Coast to use off-shore wind efficiently.  As their website says:

The Mid-Atlantic region offers more than 60,000 MW of offshore wind potential in the relatively shallow waters of the outer continental shelf. 

The Atlantic Wind Connection (AWC) backbone transmission project is an essential foundation to this new industry.

Evaluation by Willem Post

Trans-Elect and Atlantic Grid Development are the Atlantic Wind Connection, AWC, project developers.

When completed, the AWC will be able to carry as much as 7,000 MW of offshore wind energy to consumers along the US East Coast.

With a project plan that envisages construction extending from 2016 - 2026, the developers intend to build out the offshore transmission backbone in five phases at a total expected cost of $6.311 billion. The capital cost of the IWTs (Industrial Wind Turbines) would be 7,000 MW x $4.2 million/MW = $24.53 Billion, for a total of $35.7 billion

Energy production would be 7,000 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x CF 0.40 = 24.53 TWh/yr
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/01/17/atlantic-wind-connection-chooses-new-jersey-for-phase-i-offshore-transmission-backbone/

For comparison: The capital cost of 7,000 MW of nuclear plants (7 standard 1,000 MW plants) would be about $28 billion and the energy production of would be 7,000 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x CF 0.90 = 55.20 TWh/yr; more than twice the production at much less capital cost. They could all be built in about 10 years, thereby reducing CO2 much sooner than the IWTs which would take 20 years.

Completing the project would enable transmission of renewable offshore wind power to consumers in NY, Pennsylvania, NJ, Delaware, Maryland, Washington D.C. and Virginia.

According to a project analysis performed by IHS Global Insight, the AWC transmission backbone would be able to deliver:

3,417 MW of electrical power to NJ (44% of AWC’s total capacity);
1,015 MW to Delaware (13%);
1,013 MW to Maryland (13%)
2.297 MW to Virginia (30%).

Based on the above, it appears the energy cost of the IWTs will be at least 20 c/kWh and of the nuclear plants about 10 c/kWh, per EIA/US-DOE

--------
About Willem Post

Willem Post is one of the most-read bloggers at The Energy Collective.  He has a B.S. and M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, and also an MBA.  He designed systems and evaluated costs for utility systems and large buildings.   He is an internationally recognized expert on the economics of wind power.

Post is a founding member of the Coalition for Energy Solutions, and an occasional guest blogger at this blog, for example, his November 2012 guest post: Wind in Vermont is Oversold.

Renewable Subsidies for the Rich: Guest Post by John McClaughry

Renewable Subsidies for the Rich by John McClaughry

Renewable electricity costs from two to five times (depending on the technology) as much as electricity from the New England grid, generated by natural gas, hydro, coal, and nuclear. Therefore no utility would rationally buy it but for an astounding assortment of subsidies and mandates.

Consider just these: The federal investment tax credit subsidizes 30% of the capital costs of small scale solar photovoltaic and wind projects. Some investors may also claim a 50% first year depreciation bonus, plus five years of ordinary depreciation of the remainder, regardless of the actual lifetime of the equipment. Wind generated electricity on any scale earns a 2.3 cents/kWh federal Production Tax Credit.

The Vermont legislature has added to this cornucopia a 7.2% investment tax credit for small wind and solar PV electricity produced from commercial properties. The Clean Energy Development Fund, until it ran out of money, also added 45 cents per residential installed watt for solar panels (40 cents per watt for commercial and industrial projects).

The legislature has also required Vermont utilities to buy solar PV (up to 2.2 MW) and small wind electricity (up to 100kw) at prices up to five times the wholesale price available on the New England power grid.  In an effort to lure enough new investors to stay on target toward the 127.5 MW program goal, the PSB has now pushed the feed in tariff rate for new solar PV projects up to 25.7 c/kWh for the next 25 years; and to 26.2 c/kWh averaged over 20 years for small wind.

To summarize: governments shower lucrative capital and operating subsidies on wind and solar entrepreneurs, then force the utilities buy their electricity at up to five times the New England wholesale price for 20 to 25 years, charging the extra cost to their ratepayers. What a sweet deal!

Willem Post of Woodstock is a retired electric engineer whose career took him all over the United States and Europe. One of his hobbies is running calculations on the economics of energy, especially renewable energy.

Post describes a $10.5 million 2.2 MW solar PV facility in White River Jct., created by high-income Boston investors. About 15 acres of topsoil and trees were cleared, leveled, and shielded by an eight foot high fence. The facility almost certainly features Chinese-made solar panels and German-made inverters. It will generate electricity only when the sun is adequately shining, which is about 35% of the hours of the year. The expected annual generation is 2,755 MWh.

Under the legislature’s feed-in tariff law, the Public Service Board mandated that Green Mountain

Power write a check to the investors each year for 25 years in the amount of $661,415.  Since the cost to GMP is about four times the cost of electricity from the New England grid, the utility will charge its customers $509,840 a year more than they would otherwise have had to pay for grid power.

The generous tax benefits appeal to people in the highest income tax brackets. In 2011 the Shumlin administration made it even more attractive to the rich by allowing them to take half of the lifetime projected tax benefits from the Clean Energy Development Fund as an upfront grant, an option eagerly taken by 64 of the first 68 investors in the program.

The state’s Comprehensive Energy Plan of 2011 recommended adoption of a Vermont Renewable Portfolio Standard, by which utilities would be required to increasingly higher percentages of their electricity from renewables (including HydroQuebec). Achieving this goal would mean that ratepayers would be hammered all the harder, while the investors pocket even greater profits. Nice.

Last spring the House was about to enact a Renewable Portfolio Standard. At the last minute Shumlin, an erstwhile advocate, instructed the House not to do it. We don’t know why he suddenly got cold feet, but 14 of the 29 states with RPS laws are currently watering them down.

That suggests that a lot of voters forced to pay for the renewable mandates have discovered that they are a very bad deal – unless they have allowed people like Peter Shumlin and Bill McKibben to terrify them about the Menace of Global Warming, which has disappeared since 1999.
-------------
John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org). I am a director of the Energy Education Project of the Ethan Allen Institute.


This article first appeared at Vermont Digger
http://vtdigger.org/2013/04/15/mcclaughry-renewable-subsidies-for-the-rich/

Radiation Superstition: Guest Post by Bob Hargraves

Radiation Superstition by Robert Hargraves

Nearly a million people each year die of breathing particulates from burning coal; the climate temperature may increase 2°C this century; more than a billion people have no electricity.  Yet within

our reach is a solution to these global crises of increasing air pollution deaths, climate change, and the

Coal Mine, Wyoming

growing populations of nations trapped in energy poverty.

The welcome growth of the global middle class increases energy demand. If the world's economy prospers enough to allow everyone to enjoy just half of the electricity benefits that Americans now take for granted, world electric power generation will triple. Most electricity will come from coal burning, which grew 8% worldwide in 2011. Germany leads the way, building more coal plants. Wind and solar power are too intermittent and too expensive to displace coal worldwide.

Nuclear power is the solution within reach; it's safe and affordable, with low environmental impact. Yet opposition to it borders on superstition, defined by Merriam-Webster as a "belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation ... a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary".  Let's explore evidence.

People rationally fear possible accidents spreading deadly radioactive materials. Indeed massive doses of radiation did kill 38 emergency workers at Chernobyl, and the fallout of short-lived iodine resulted in 4000 cases of thyroid cancer and 15 deaths. However there is no evidence of the thousands of hypothetical deaths predicted by extrapolation of deadly exposures to lower radiation doses. Opponents of nuclear power have now hyped this death number up to one million, without observable evidence.

Low-level radiation

Using simplistic mathematical extrapolations from the effects of high-radiation accidents, nuclear power opponents claim that no amount of radiation is safe -- not even the low-level natural radiation that comes from the sky and from earth's radioactive potassium, uranium, and thorium created billions of years ago. Potassium is in our food and our bodies. Rocks contains the thorium and uranium that decays to radon or fuels electric power plants.

Reporting about the Fukushima accident created hysteria without basis. A UN scientific committee charged with investigating the accident's health effects reported in December that no radiation health effects have been observed among public or workers, and it cautioned against extrapolation to predict health effects of low-level radiation. Radiation superstition causes great harm. Japan is wasting billions of dollars preventing repopulation of radiologically safe areas. Hundreds have died from evacuation stress. Importing liquified natural gas to replace nuclear power has driven Japan's balance of trade negative.

People unnecessarily fear low-level radiation from accident-dispersed material, buried waste, or medical procedures. EPA required Yucca Mountain engineers to limit accidental releases to just 1/20th of natural radiation for 10,000 years. Dental X-ray technicians routinely drape lead blankets on patients to protect them, but it would take over 10,000 such X-rays to observe any health effect.

Prolonged radiation exposure is safe at natural environmental levels; each cell rapidly repairs DNA strand breaks: one per second per cell. Early life evolved when the natural radiation rate was 3 times greater than now. Today people living in places where natural radiation is 5 times normal exhibit no more cancers. People living in mile-high Denver get more cosmic radiation, but exhibit no more cancers.

Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal
Available Through Amazon

Radiation dose rates are as important as doses. High radiation rates overwhelm natural cellular defenses. Doses deadly to Chernobyl workers would have no effect if spread over a lifetime. Cancers are destroyed by multiple concentrated radiation treatments, allowing time between for less-irradiated tissue to recover. In 2012 MIT radiation researchers discovered no DNA damage from exposure rates 30 times as great as natural radiation, and Lawrence Berkeley Lab scientists actually observed how low-level radiation stimulated repair within cells. Long-term, low-dose radiation is benign.

Nuclear industry and shipyard workers exposed to low-level radiation developed fewer cancers. Accidental contamination of building steel by recycling a medical radiation source exposed 8000 Taiwan residents to radiation 7 times natural levels over 30 years, and cancer rates were dramatically reduced. Last year the Dose Response Journal and the American Nuclear Society published compendia of articles evidencing how low-level radiation is benign or healthful.

The vague radiation regulation, "as low as reasonably achievable" encourages ever more costly impediments to affordable nuclear power. This could be fixed with "as high as reasonably safe" limits that are set with evidence, as practiced for other environmental hazards. Nuclear power can solve our energy, climate, and poverty crises. Should we forsake the future of the planet by clinging to a superstition?

Background of this post:

This post first appeared on Rod Adams blog, Atomic Insights.

On Adams' blog, you can follow many related links about this post.

The post was written as an op-ed, but rejected by a large number of papers, despite its reasonable length and tone, and Hargraves' impressive resume.

On my own blog: Monday Blue Ribbon to Robert Hargraves
Vermont Yankee Explained (the animation) by Robert Hargraves
Plus, Hargraves excellent suggestion that Vernon leave Vermont and join New Hampshire (what's a river, anyhow?)


Hargraves Resumé:

Author: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal
Energy policy study leader: ILEAD@Dartmouth
Vice president: Boston Scientific
Management consultant: Arthur D Little
Vice president: Metropolitan Life
President, DTSS
Assistant professor of mathematics: Dartmouth College

PhD, physics, Brown University
AB, mathematics and physics, Dartmouth College

Mellow Meeting of NRC in Brattleboro

Low Attendance, Mellow Meeting

Last night's NRC meeting about Vermont Yankee was relatively mellow.  The meeting took place at Brattleboro High School, and was lightly attended.  The first part of the meeting was a science-fair set up, in which people talked and looked at exhibits. As  you can tell by the two pictures, there weren't many people there.

As they did last year, the Shut It Down Affinity Group (aka Raging Grannies) came in again, wearing costumes and masks. Once again, they walked single file around the room.  I hope you can tell (despite my lousy photography) that they were wearing tie-dyed shirts and wore masks of former NRC commissioner Jaczko.

Later, when the more formal presentation was supposed to start, the women once again stood behind the NRC people. The women refused to sit down, and delayed the start of the meeting. They read long letters and repeated quotes from Jaczko about how all nuclear plants must be shut down.

However, unlike last year, the crowd did not swarm up and surround the NRC people in solidarity with them. (There wasn't much of a crowd, anyway.) So the Jaczko impersonators  eventually sat down and the meeting proceeded.

Vignettes from the meeting

Being Friendly: During the open house, Cheryl Twarog (plant supporter), Mike Mulligan (plant opponent) and myself had a very friendly and upbeat conversation about children, the Navy, where we grew up, high school experiences, and so forth.

Aside: My husband was a baby during WWII, but later served on a destroyer (a "tin can"). I remember urging Cheryl and Mike (both associated with Navy nuclear) to read this book about destroyers in a major battle in WWII --  The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors.  I also recommend it to the readers of this blog.

Being Unfriendly:  During the meeting, a woman with a heavy German accent (I don't know her at all) gave the usual anti-Vermont Yankee spiel, including lots of comments about Fukushima.   She ended it with the question: "How did you [addressing the NRC people] ever become so contemptuous of other human beings that you encourage nuclear power?" (I didn't record the question, but this was the gist of it.)  At that point, the NRC people began talking about what happened at Fukushima and what we have learned. She interrupted them to say: "I had ONLY ONE question: how did you became so contemptuous of your fellow human beings?" This woman sure had an advanced case of self-righteousness!

Update: My blog post on the meeting is up at the ANS Nuclear Cafe today: Speaking Out of Turn at the NRC Meeting.  The post is about how I spoke out of turn, and how that helped the meeting get back to order.

Further Reading:

• Annual assessment letter for Vermont Yankee from NRC.  All green.
• NRC announcement of the open house and the annual assessment: includes many links to more detailed information.
• March 2013 Nuclear Performance Monthly from NEI, including this quote: For the third time since 2007, Vermont Yankee ran continuously during 2012 and part of 2013 before shutting down for refueling on March 9 (a 493-day run). The unit also achieved continuous runs during 2006-2007 (547 days) and 2009-2010 (532 days).
• NRC Hears Concerns about Vermont Yankee (article by Susan Smallheer in the Times-Argus).

----------
One of the people in masks was kind enough to stop and pose while I took a picture, but I did a bad job of taking that picture, and so it isn't on the blog. I apologize.  My camera is old and is getting unreliable.