Earth Day 2021

A Thai boy riding a motorcycle waits patiently to cross the street. After a minute he sees an opening and very slowly makes his way across even with having a powerful motorcycle. Waiting for him on the other side is a police officer who says, “What are you doing crossing the road with an elephant?” The boy replies, “What elephant?”

This variation of the ‘Elephant in the Room’ joke comes from a 1935 Broadway musical with Jimmy Durante according to Wikipedia. The metaphor pertains to something, usually a problem or situation, so big and controversial that no one wants to discuss it.

An American Senator running for President (Vox) proposes spending $16 trillion on green energy while eliminating nuclear power and natural gas electric generation. Do you see the elephant?

Yesterday, a dozen governors wrote President Biden to demand only ‘zero-emission vehicles’ by 2035. NPR reports the letter states, "Moving quickly towards a zero-emission transportation future will protect the health of all communities.” Do you see an elephant (that produces no waste byproducts)?

On this Earth Day 2021, we can appreciate all the elephants, wildlife and other endangered species on our planet. We can also insist on getting the truth as to where we get our electricity and how globally interdependent we are on energy. I have provided many blogs on energy topics including the nuclear fuel cycle, electrical grid and the Green New Deal which can be found on the home page search bar.

A discussion of energy and transportation infrastructure must begin with where the power comes from to keep the lights on, run the AC, power the TVs, computers, cell phones, hospital ventilators, etc. While solar and wind power are awesome technologies we cannot ignore the elephant in the room and pretend anything is ‘zero emissions.’ How much electric power do we need now and how much more will be needed in the future as we decarbonize fuel sources? How many coal fired power plants will be converted to natural gas? What do we do with the spent nuclear fuel radioactive waste sitting at dozens of reactor sites around the country? Apparently there is more than one elephant in the room as there’s now an entire herd!

Mitigating Nuclear Hazards - Part 1 Overview

(Originally posted June 3, 2019)

To discuss my experience with mitigating nuclear hazards, I like to say that I am the only person I know of who has worked on almost every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle. Please let me know if you know anyone else making such a bold claim so perhaps we can gain their perspective? Groups that gave me this experience include the University of Wyoming, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory as well as several consulting assignments.

Ironically, in the U.S. we do not have a complete nuclear fuel cycle so a person would need to work with the French on reprocessing spent fuel to go full circle. The examination of the nuclear fuel cycle for mitigating hazards is relevant to nations and taxpayers under the construct of Conserve & Pro$per on many levels that will be discussed.

As shown on the figure, the nuclear fuel cycle is the process necessary to generate electric power (as well as medical isotopes) in a reactor. The cycle begins with mining, involves several steps to produce and burn fuel rods, store spent fuel, then ultimately burial in a engineered-geological repository. As discussed on my blog post about the Green New Deal, we all use nuclear energy, which accounts for about 20% or one-fifth of our electricity generated in the U.S. So even for the anti-nuclear activists, we all must be aware of the risks and costs involving the nuclear fuel cycle including the fact that we must properly deal with existing nuclear waste.

I will need many blog postings to explain my experience with the nuclear fuel cycle and provide examples of mitigating nuclear hazards. Here is my proposed outline to be provided in upcoming blog posts:

1. Overview

2. Uranium Mining

3. Uranium Mills and Clean Up

4. Yellowcake Conversion, Enrichment, and Fuel

5. Nuclear Reactors - Operations, Relicensing, and Decommissioning

6. Spent Fuel Storage

7. High-level Waste Disposal

8. Accidents

Thanks for your support and interest!

Climate Change Discussed by Presidential Hopefuls

Of the 20 Democratic Presidential candidates to debate this week, which ones said climate change was their number one issue? How long did they discuss climate change? Who has the best plan? Did anyone mention a carbon tax (or other incentives)? What are the pros and cons for supporting the Green New Deal?

VOX reports that during the 4 hours of debates on two nights (W and Th) this week, the topic of climate change was discussed for only 15 minutes. This is more than in 2016 but really deserves much more time to discuss threats and actions that are needed. Most of the candidates are following a similar script of supporting the Green New Deal “GND”. See my blog from February 2019 Green New Deal: Inserting Realities into Radical Proposals! As you can see from the title of this blog, I support the aspirational concepts of a GND and it will need significant work and debate to form meaningful legislation.

Axios listed candidates in March who support GND in various connotations.

350 Action is keeping a 2020 Climate Test score card on the Presidential candidates including support for the GND. Their name 350 refers to the CO2 ppm level objective of the organization. As explained in the excellent book The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy (page 16), the pre-industrial age CO2 baseline level was 280 ppm.

NASA reports the May 2019 recorded CO2 of 411 ppm. This increase in CO2 resulted in about 1 degree C (1.5 deg. F) temperature increase. So drastic reductions in heat-trapping gases are urgently needed.

Jay Inslee made it his one and only issue for the campaign and future blogs will discuss what he’s been doing as Washington state governor.

Some good things are happening in Colorado and Michael Bennett said this is a top priority issue for his campaign (although his is being cautious in blind support for GND) while former governor John Hickenlooper is more moderate in his approach citing achievements to reduce methane.

According to a Gallup poll in March 2019, “66% believe global warming is caused by human activity, near all-time high.”

I did not hear anyone mention incentives to promote green energy like a carbon tax, did you?

Green New Deal: Inserting Realities into Radical Proposals

The Green New Deal proposed this month in Congress calls for radical changes to how we get our electricity. The non-binding resolution introduced by two progressive Democrats as reported by NPR suggests the energy sector can be converted to 100% zero-carbon power within 10 years while at the same time eliminating future nuclear power plants.

Can the U.S. realistically eliminate generating electricity from natural gas, coal and possibly nuclear sources in the next decade? According to the Energy Information Agency, here are the present sources of power generated in the U.S.: Natural Gas 33%, Coal 29%, Nuclear 20%, Hydroelectric 7%, Wind 7%, Solar 2%, and Biomass 2%

As you can see, 64% of current power generated releases carbon. Nuclear power does not directly emit carbon into the atmosphere and receives mixed to negative support by environmentalists. Currently, renewable wind and solar only accounts for 9% of power generation.

So it is not realistic to propose converting the entire power fleet in a decade to renewables only. Senator Diane Feinstein from California, which leads the nation in renewable power generation, said the Green New Deal must be modified to be more realistic, provide funding such as a carbon tax, and not have such an ambitious timeline. Most of the news coverage showed her defensively debating with children.

I believe that the Green New Deal is timely for creating the debates needed to move the United States from being the second largest emitter of carbon (China is the largest) to leading the future of green power generation and that rational realism, such as including new nuclear technologies as reported in Forbes, needs to be adopted in future legislation and energy planning.