Is Obama's Endorsement of Nuclear Power a Liberal Shift?

[Gokul43201]

Yes, it's been slow - very slow. I can't say I have any real clue why it took so long - maybe they were distracted by the recession and healthcare issues, maybe they didn't see a need to rush when the present system is still probably okay for the short term, or maybe they were just procrastinating and hoping to put it off for as long as possible. But the only point that I wished to make was that it is incorrect to assert that such a panel has not been created.

 

[Astronuc]

Energy secretary plans to act fast on alternative to Yucca Mountain

One year in government is fast!

I've seen DOE/NASA programs come to a lurching halt, and sometimes abandoned altogether, with each new administration (R or D doesn't matter). I've had colleagues at DOE tell me that they won't be doing much for 6 months except preparing presentations for discussions in Washington DC with the new secretary and administration.

 

[mheslep]

...But the only point that I wished to make was that it is incorrect to assert that such a panel has not been created.

Russ said

[...]create a commission and they'd have an answer by now. And he hasn't done it yet.

and indeed they did claim http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/11/11greenwire-yucca-haunts-admins-lagging-efforts-on-nuclear-24943.html"

[...]Energy Secretary Steven Chu quickly followed up, telling Congress last March that the commission would be formed "ideally" within a month and would craft recommendations by the end of 2009.

If this was 1975 and the US was doing its first look at long term waste and we didn't have a Nobel laureate as Energy Sec who could fathom the issues, I'd be inclined to grant the usual 'its govt' slack on this one. It's not and we do. There are some 13 new plant NRC licences in late stages of the process. So it's reasonable in my view to see this blue ribbon panel as a political head fake.

 

[MotoH]

If they want to build a reactor in my city I am all for it. We need the construction jobs!

 

[Astronuc]

I think Vogtle 3 & 4 are the most likely to come on line first, and possibly Summer 3 & 4.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Loan_guarantees_offered_for_new_Vogtle_units-1702104.html

 

[mheslep]

One year in government is fast!

I've seen DOE/NASA programs come to a lurching halt, and sometimes abandoned altogether, with each new administration (R or D doesn't matter). I've had colleagues at DOE tell me that they won't be doing much for 6 months except preparing presentations for discussions in Washington DC with the new secretary and administration.

Well if that is a hard and fast rule as applied to nuclear power the US might as well ban/cancel all new commercial nuclear power. If we stipulate that the government/NRC must be intimately involved in nuclear power, and given that new plants take 5-10 years to build, it's impossible to have an economically viable industry no matter how many loan guarantees are offered. Better to stick with something that can be built in 6 months and forgotten about, even it is an inferior solution.

 

[mheslep]

I think Vogtle 3 & 4 are the most likely to come on line first, and possibly Summer 3 & 4.

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Loan_guarantees_offered_for_new_Vogtle_units-1702104.html

What leads you to believe that they'll ever be approved by the NRC under current leadership?

 

[Gokul43201]

If this was 1975 and the US was doing its first look at long term waste and we didn't have a Nobel laureate as Energy Sec who could fathom the issues, I'd be inclined to grant the usual 'its govt' slack on this one. It's not and we do. There are some 13 new plant NRC licences in late stages of the process. So it's reasonable in my view to see this blue ribbon panel as a political head fake.

Fine. You see it as a head fake. I don't have an opinion on it yet. Can we just get the record straight that we finally have the panel that was promised a year ago?

In the last few weeks I think I've read three posts mentioning this promised, but undelivered, panel (can't recall who wrote the other posts), so just wanted to make it clear that this is no longer the case.

 

[Gokul43201]

...
Just another hole in the boat for those who recklessly apply "liberal" labels to Obama.

Obama's spending has earned him the label.

This sounds like a fair rationale, if part of a more extensive argument. But by itself, it's too limited. Using the same measure, one would have to conclude that (haven't checked the numbers, but going by my memory of Fed spending relative to GDP) Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr were more liberal than Clinton.

 

[Gokul43201]

This point is often made based on who held the White House, but I don't think its valid unless looked at in combination with who held the Congress.

That wasn't addressed either, in the reasoning provided by whowee.

To my mind Gingrich and company get much of the credit for holding down spending when they took office in in '94, given the spending and Hillary Care track Clinton took in '92.

Again, going by memory, I seem to recall that the deficit was being cut (yes, cut, not inflated) at roughly the same rate before the Rep majority (i.e., 92,93, under a Dem Congress) as it was after.

Without a line item veto and with split government it is difficult to lay sole responsibility for this or that funding decision with the executive.

True. But I suspect we'll continue to see a lot more of it over the next 3 years.

Edit: I've gone way off topic now. My non-response to any follow-ups to this line of discussion is meant only to stem the digression.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Regarding Obama's position on nuclear power, if I remember correctly, he wrote about the promise of nuclear power in The Audacity of Hope and a need to reexamine that potential. So this is not exactly as out of character for Obama as some may think, from my perspective. Some people may want to learn a bit more about Obama from his own words than what commentators say about him.

 

[Gokul43201]

Along similar lines, but this coming more from a lack/fuzziness of knowledge, how many new commercial nuclear power plants have been authorized under the previous Presidents, say Reagan onwards? And what kind of federal monies have been allocated?

 

[MotoH]

Every topic in P&WA turns into a political debate on whether Obama is great or Obama is ermm opposite of great.

 

[Astronuc]

What leads you to believe that they'll ever be approved by the NRC under current leadership?

NRC has sounded positive so far. Why would one believe the NRC leadership would not approve any COL?

 

[mheslep]

Along similar lines, but this coming more from a lack/fuzziness of knowledge, how many new commercial nuclear power plants have been authorized under the previous Presidents, say Reagan onwards? And what kind of federal monies have been allocated?

The conditions are substantially different now, so it probably doesn't make sense to look back too far:

1. The most recent nuclear plant, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/states/statestn.html" , went online in 1996.
2. US nuclear operators have steadily brought up their capacity factors over the years from 60-70% to 93-94% now. This is the equivalent of bringing on about one new virtual 1970's 2GWe plant every year for thirty years. That play is about over, as in this century capacity has plateaued. (Note: uprates will likely squeeze out another 2% = 4GWe from existing plants).
3. The US has recently had the possibility of a multi-hundred billion dollar CO2 cap via legislation, making the nuclear question much more important. I take the general public sense to be (+/-) that they'd go along with dumping coal for new nuclear. The question then is will new nuclear be allowed?
4. Existing nuclear is nearing retirement age.
5. Onsite waste accumulation is becoming significant. Ten years ago not so much, and a long term waste repository was under construction.
6. 21st century China and India on the rise, competing for energy, driving up the cost.
7. Several innovative small reactor designs that didn't exist beyond concept 10 years ago (TWR, MPower, B&W, Hyperion, liquid Th) have reached an advanced stage of design. The government controls the go/no-go switch on small nuclear; the industry needs an answer.

 

[mheslep]

NRC has sounded positive so far. Why would one believe the NRC leadership would not approve any COL?

Fair question. Because:

• Several of those individual plant COLs (NRC fee $50 million each, minimum) have been in the queue approaching three years now http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/calvert-cliffs.html", and none have been approved.
• The AP1000 design was submitted in 2002 and the amendment / revisions are still ongoing; the scheduled completion is not until the http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.html".
• Jaczko used to work for Sen. Harry Reid who has made many disparaging remarks about nuclear, aside from his Yucca Mtn attacks.
• The NRC bureaucracy is set up so that it stands a great deal to lose politically by approving a plant under protest, and very little to lose politically by delaying or saying no.

 

[Astronuc]

Fair question. Because:

• Several of those individual plant COLs (NRC fee $50 million each, minimum) have been in the queue approaching three years now http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/col/calvert-cliffs.html", and none have been approved.
• The AP1000 design was submitted in 2002 and the amendment / revisions are still ongoing; the scheduled completion is not until the http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert/amended-ap1000.html".
• Jaczko used to work for Sen. Harry Reid who has made many disparaging remarks about nuclear, aside from his Yucca Mtn attacks.
• The NRC bureaucracy is set up so that it stands a great deal to lose politically by approving a plant under protest, and very little to lose politically by delaying or saying no.

With respect to the first two, there were a number of COLs in the queue, and they were handled in the order they were filed. Several have been suspended (or deferred) because the utility backed out. Utilities changed their position on three of the four ESBWRs. The DCA for the EPR is pending, and Constellation was negotiating a deal with FPL Group that feel through. EdF is taking some stake in CC-3. The delays don't have much to do with the NRC, but more to do with utilities.

Jaczko I don't much about, but what I've heard is positive.

Most plants with which I'm familiar are not being strongly challenged, or what I'd consider strongly challenged.

There are technical issues that do need to be resolved on all of the new plants.

 

[mheslep]

... The delays don't have much to do with the NRC, but more to do with utilities...

What's the basis for laying the responsibility with the utilities? If it is solely because several utilities dropped out, I find that unpersuasive, as the delays and costs fixed by the NRC may be the main reason they did so.

 

[russ_watters]

Wrong. The commission was created a few weeks ago - http://www.energy.gov/news/8584.htm

As noted, you missed half of what I said. Anyway, perhaps I should have split them into separate promises and given them full treatment. I'll do that now:

Yes, it's been slow - very slow. I can't say I have any real clue why it took so long - maybe they were distracted by the recession and healthcare issues, maybe they didn't see a need to rush when the present system is still probably okay for the short term, or maybe they were just procrastinating and hoping to put it off for as long as possible.

Those are all interesting reasons - which do you consider most likely?

It took almost a year just to appoint the panel, when he promised to do it in a month. That's more than just a little odd, since the actual effort required by Obama himself to appoint the panel is minimal. Staffers gather the resumes and do most of the interviews, write a proposal, run it by the lawyers, etc. All Obama has to do is read and sign off on the proposal, read the list of candidates and do some final quickie interviews, and select the panel. That's what, an hour of his time? Two? So it is tough to fathom that he just got distracted: it was a simple promise and would have been simple to keep.

The reason he was unable to keep it more likely has to do with Obama's nuclear policy itself than Obama's ability to appoint a panel. Obama backed himself into a corner by saying that Yucca (and reprocessing, according to McCain) was off the table. It may well be that the reason he didn't appoint the panel last March is that he came to the realization that he had trapped himself and not having a way out, he buried the issue, " hoping to put it off for as long as possible". And fortunately for him, few in the media called him on it. In any case, that's not my theory, I got it here:

But despite agreements between Reid and the administration, Yucca Mountain remains -- by law -- the disposal site for U.S. nuclear waste. The DOE repository license has not been withdrawn, nor has the department moved to do so, according to an industry source. Meanwhile, Reid is facing a tough re-election battle this year.

Moreover, some say that disagreement over whether the blue-ribbon panel should consider Yucca Mountain as a potential waste management solution is one reason the administration has taken so long to get the commission going. Qualified candidates, several sources say, do not agree Yucca should be taken off the table.

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...ng-efforts-on-nuclear-24943.html?pagewanted=1

In other words, he may have run into problems when he tried to stock the panel with people who would follow his already laid-out position.

Now I, of course, consider the entire exercise an act of misdirection. The Yucca project in particular and the idea of long term storage in general has been rediculously well studied and vetted over the past several decades. It is viable and needs no further study to implement it. But even that is a misdirection, since more than 90% of nuclear fuel is recylable and requires no long term storage. By engaging in a multi-faceted misdirection, Obama makes me more than just suspicious of this recent announcement about loan guarantees. Simply put, I don't believe he actually favors nuclear power - a token act of support isn't enough to show he really wants it.

 

[mheslep]

...
There are technical issues that do need to be resolved on all of the new plants.

Well given the industry is 50+ years old I find that a) remarkable, and b) without further details an excuse that could be used by the NRC forever. After all, the AP1000 is not some radical new liquid Th gizmo, basically it is still a PWR.

 

[Astronuc]

What's the basis for laying the responsibility with the utilities? If it is solely because several utilities dropped out, I find that unpersuasive, as the delays and costs fixed by the NRC may be the main reason they did so.

Because the utilities initiated the requests to the NRC or changed their plans, and because of comments made to me by utility personel.

 

[Astronuc]

Well given the industry is 50+ years old I find that a) remarkable, and b) without further details an excuse that could be used by the NRC forever. After all, the AP1000 is not some radical new liquid Th gizmo, basically it is still a PWR.

Because the guys who designed the plants 30+ years ago are gone, and they were not replaced. There have been tremendous staffing changes at the vendors and NRC, there was a loss of institutional knowledge and skill, there have been reorganizations, and many new people who do not know the technology as well as they should. It's not so much the core technology as it is other parts of the plant.

 

[mheslep]

Because the guys who designed the plants 30+ years ago are gone, and they were not replaced. There have been tremendous staffing changes at the vendors and NRC, there was a loss of institutional knowledge and skill, there have been reorganizations, and many new people who do not know the technology as well as they should.

Fair enough. Given though that an AP1000 is nearly under way in China, I'm inclined to point first to the NRC and not the vendors.

It's not so much the core technology as it is other parts of the plant.

The other nuclear related parts of the plant? I.e. fuel storage, waste handling? Otherwise the non-nuclear balance of plant shouldn't be any different from a coal boiler balance of plant.

 

[Gokul43201]

The conditions are substantially different now, so it probably doesn't make sense to look back too far...

Thanks for the list. Given the changes over the years, I agree it is probably wise to limit comparisons to the very recent past. Could you (or anyone else familiar with the situation - Astronuc?) summarize what Bush has done for commercial nuclear power production in say, his last couple of years (or pick any reasonable representative period)?

 

[mheslep]

Thanks for the list. Given the changes over the years, I agree it is probably wise to limit comparisons to the very recent past. Could you (or anyone else familiar with the situation - Astronuc?) summarize what Bush has done for commercial nuclear power production in say, his last couple of years (or pick any reasonable representative period)?

It is likely a large part of the answer is in the widely supported "Energy Policy Act of 2005". Nuclear provisions:

Nuclear energy-related provisions in H.R. 6 include:
* “Standby support” to offset the financial impact of delays beyond industry’s control that might occur during construction and at the start of operations for as many as six new nuclear power reactors. This counterweight to the risk of potential delays would the full cost of delay for the first two new reactors–up to $500 million each–and 50 percent of the delay costs–up to $250 million–each for reactors three through six.

* Reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, the framework for industry self-funded liability insurance, for 20 years. This is the longest extension ever granted by Congress. The measure to renew the act excludes a “subrogation” provision, which would have greatly increased potential liabilities to contractors at nuclear sites.

Price Anderson is a 1957 law that indemnifies the industry, partially, against liability from accidents.

* A measure empowering the secretary of energy to provide loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of the cost of “innovative technologies” that “avoid, reduce or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.” This would include new advanced-design nuclear power plants, as well as clean coal and renewables.

This is the only mention of loan guarantees in the 2005 law, and it appears they are different (innovative tech) from the blanket guarantees just pledged by the President. I vaguely thought there were some guarantees already in place from years ago but I can't find a reference.

* A production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour for the first 6,000 megawatt-hours from new nuclear power plants for the first eight years of their operation, subject to a $125 million annual limit. The production tax credit places nuclear energy on equal footing with other sources of emission-free power, including wind and closed-loop biomass. These other sources have received a production tax credit on an unlimited basis since 1992, while the nuclear energy credit would be limited to eight years.

* Authorization of $1.25 billion to fund a prototype Next Generation Nuclear Plant project at Idaho National Laboratory that would produce both electricity and hydrogen.

* Authorization of funding for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, which would foster research and development aimed at developing advanced nuclear power plants, more proliferation-resistant nuclear fuel and improved methods for managing used nuclear fuel.

* Additional nuclear power plant security requirements to buttress measures the industry has taken since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The measure requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to revise by rule the design basis threat—the threat level against which nuclear plants are required to protect. Also provided for in the bill are periodic “force-on-force” drills by the NRC and a requirement that the NRC assign a federal security coordinator for each of its regions.

* Updated tax treatment of decommissioning funds to allow regulated and merchant companies to treat their contributions to the funds similarly, and to allow pre-1984 contributions to funds to be moved to “qualified,” deductible status over the remaining life of the power plant.

* Exemption from Department of Labor (DOL) training guidelines that will free the nuclear industry from instituting redundant and costly training guidelines, saving the industry millions of dollars.

* Establishment of one year as the time to lapse before a whistleblower can opt out of the DOL administrative process and take a case to a federal court.

* A provision directing the Department of Energy to report to Congress within one year with a long-term plan for dealing with greater-than-Class C low-level radioactive waste, as well as requiring a short-term plan, due within six months, on continuing recovery of sealed radioactive sources, pending the availability of a permanent disposal facility.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070710094024/http://www.nei.org/documents/Energy_Bill_2005.pdf

 

[Astronuc]

Fair enough. Given though that an AP1000 is nearly under way in China, I'm inclined to point first to the NRC and not the vendors.

China may have different standards than the US.

The other nuclear related parts of the plant? I.e. fuel storage, waste handling? Otherwise the non-nuclear balance of plant shouldn't be any different from a coal boiler balance of plant.

Nuclear plants have the burden of containment that fossil plants don't, and since 9/11, NPP systems are attracting a lot more scrutiny. Remember 9/11 came after the designs were started, and IIRC, the ABWR was certified before then. Since 9/11 the industry has had to revisit some of the design features.

 

[mheslep]

China may have different standards than the US.

Agreed, I suggest that it is something to watch.

Nuclear plants have the burden of containment that fossil plants don't, and since 9/11, NPP systems are attracting a lot more scrutiny.

Of course. I was referring to the balance of plant outside the 'core' as you called it. I don't know that transformers and steam turbines need containment, for instance.

 

[Astronuc]

Agreed, I suggest that it is something to watch.

As far as I know, the utilities are state run companies, so they have an economic advantage and other support that US utilities do not.

Of course. I was referring to the balance of plant outside the 'core' as you called it. I don't know that transformers and steam turbines need containment, for instance.

Yes, BOP is outside of containment, but those areas support the safety of the core and primary system, and so they also require protection. Fossil plants are certainly less likely to be targets.

Part of the problem is that in lieu of an experiment, one has to demonstrate with analyses that one's design is sufficiently robust to meet certain unique requirements.

 

[tori97]

Nuclear plants aren't bad they're a good way to get the job done fast and easy... now the nuclear plant security is ttly differnt. If you really have a problem with nuclear plants you should sign a petition against nuclear plants instead of complaining to the people on this forum. just an idea... ;p

 

[Gokul43201]

It is likely a large part of the answer is in the widely supported "Energy Policy Act of 2005".

I consider that to be more of a legislative accomplishment than an administrative one. As an argument for Bush's efforts it would have carried more weight if there was say, demonstrated initiative out the White House, helping push forward an unpopular bill. But signing into law a bill that cleared the Senate with 74 yeas does not strike me as a particularly dazzling credential to pin up on a resume.

That said, there seem to be some very positive measures (some seem like not such a big deal to me, like reauthorizing Price Anderson, and some I don't have an opinion on yet) in the bill, and I suspect the credit for most of it belongs to Pete Domenici.

I also find it mildly eyebrow-raising - especially given the flack that Obama's taking in this thread for his head fakes and misdirection moves - that the law being put forward as the primary nuclear power accomplishment of the Bush administration was in fact voted FOR by Obama, and voted AGAINST by McCain.

The way I see it, Obama was never a strong proponent of nuclear power, but at least as far back as mid-2007 (earlier, if you go by TSA's recollection from Audacity...) Obama was advocating that a push for more nuclear power ought to be re-visited, in light of its ability to cut down emissions, mitigate pollution, and reduce dependence on the Middle East for energy needs.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

And the award for the most disingenuous argument goes to Ivan for his point of sleeping guards. When reading past the headline these guards in question were not on the same shift or on the same days. They were also in a holding room, not out at a post. Risk to plant safety and security absolutely ZERO. This is just the same as EMS personal or firefighters who are not up on call sleeping in the ready room. Just another case of the media taking a story and hyping it up for the sake of ratings.

Taking all of the used nuclear fuel from 50 years operation would give approximately 60,000 metric tonnes. A lot of weight, yes, but remember this is with elements around 92 on the periodic table. Putting all of that in one place it would cover one football field 7 yards deep. Plus used fuel from a USA designed PWR can be put into CANDU style reactors with only the need to change fuel rod stack geometry and size.

 

[mheslep]

...

Taking all of the used nuclear fuel from 50 years operation would give approximately 60,000 metric tonnes. A lot of weight, yes, but remember this is with elements around 92 on the periodic table. Putting all of that in one place it would cover one football field 7 yards deep.

That misdirects in the opposite direction. Storage volume is not the issue. The risk of leaking small amounts of it into the environment is. Eventually something must be done beyond onsite storage.

Plus used fuel from a USA designed PWR can be put into CANDU style reactors with only the need to change fuel rod stack geometry and size.

The word 'only' has no place in a sentence describing the manipulation or reforming of nuclear waste from a reactor.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

That misdirects in the opposite direction. Storage volume is not the issue. The risk of leaking small amounts of it into the environment is. Eventually something must be done beyond onsite storage.

If the fact that the Oklo natural reactor can't convince a person that unbound nuclear particles do not have a highly mobile nature then nothing will. Plutonium has moved less than 10 feet from where it was formed almost two billion years ago. Also take into account modern fuel consists of small pellets of a highly stable ceramic uranium dioxide, in a very stable tube of zirconium metal alloy. The stuff is hardly unbound, and not going anywhere. Yes we can do something beyond on site storage. Do as the South Koreans do put the used fuel from PWRs into CANDUs. After it is no good for CANDUs recycle the stuff.

Honestly if there needs to be a concern about waste products from the energy sector in the USA, worry about fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag coming from coal power plants. A higher dosage of radiation is received from the stuff then any dosage that would ever be received from stored nuclear fuel. It will destroy a respiratory tract with frightening ease. A typical 1000 MW coal plant requires 60 hectares of land with an average depth of 9m just for one year of operation. And the coal industry can just put it in plies or land fills and forget about it. that is a much bigger problem then used nuclear fuel.

The word 'only' has no place in a sentence describing the manipulation or reforming of nuclear waste from a reactor.

Why not? All that needs to be done it take the 200 to 300 individual rods out of the fuel rod assembly. Open one end of the 4m long zirconium metal alloy tube. Empty out the pellets. Pack the pellets back into a 50cm long zirconium metal alloy tube. Finally take 43 of these tubes and put them in a new fuel rod assembly. Easy and it can all be done remotely. So yes the word "only" dose have a place in this process of reusing nuclear fuel.

 

[Astronuc]

Why not? All that needs to be done it take the 200 to 300 individual rods out of the fuel rod assembly. Open one end of the 4m long zirconium metal alloy tube. Empty out the pellets. Pack the pellets back into a 50cm long zirconium metal alloy tube. Finally take 43 of these tubes and put them in a new fuel rod assembly. Easy and it can all be done remotely. So yes the word "only" dose have a place in this process of reusing nuclear fuel.

Easily said. Not easily done. And that's not how it done. Remote handling/processing is not trivial.

 

[mheslep]

...the Oklo natural reactor can't convince a person that unbound nuclear particles do not have a highly mobile nature then nothing will.

A higher dosage of radiation is received from the stuff [burning coal dug from the Earth] then any dosage that would ever be received from stored nuclear fuel.

These statements are contradictory. Pick one.

I'm familiar with the environmental hazards of coal including the radiation. I expect many people have some rough idea of the problems with coal. I'm also somewhat familiar, I think, with the issues surrounding commercial nuclear power. That's why, after weighing the alternatives, that I favor some more nuclear power. I didn't arrive at that point by hand waiving and assuming everything is perfect as-is with nuclear, all problems solved. On the contrary, I want to take responsibility for my position and become even more critical in the examination of nuclear power.