Learning About Energy

Windpower Can Not Add to Our Energy Supply

There is a lot of chatter about how fast windpower is growing.  We're told that windpower is the fastest growing source of electricity, and that we could live on nothing but breezes and sunshine forever, if we really wanted to.  

But let’s not get so involved in the various specifics as to lose the basic truth here: windpower needs spinning backup, ready to leap in at any instant.  Therefore, the only way that windpower can sell electricity is to replace a source that was already reliably doing the job, and make that reliable source less efficient.  This is true whether that reliable source is coal, gas, hydro or nuclear.  Windpower can never add to our energy supply.

How Are Permissible Radiation Limits Set?

[This is an up-date on some previous discussions we've had here]

How Much Is Science, How Much “Prudence”?

U.S. Regulatory Report NCRP-136 examined the question of establishing  permissible radiation limits.  After looking at the data, it concluded that most people who get a small dose of nuclear radiation are not harmed by it, and in fact are benefited.  That’s what the science said:  Most people would benefit by receiving more radiation. 

But curiously, the report’s final conclusion was just the opposite.  It recommended that our regulations should be based on the premise that any amount of radiation, no matter how small, should be considered harmful.  It made that recommendation just to be “conservative” or “prudent.”

Let’s think about that.  Why is it prudent do just the opposite of what the science indicates?  Why is exaggerating a panicky situation considered prudent?  I’ve never seen a good answer to that question.  Whatever the reasoning, that’s where we’ve ended up.

We’ve had three uncontrolled releases of radioactivity from serious malfunctions of nuclear power plants: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.  In each of these, fear of radiation proved to be much more harmful than the effects of radiation itself.  And announcing that no amount of radiation is small enough to be harmless was certainly effective in creating and nurturing phobic fear of radiation, when none was justified by the facts.

In addition, the problem is aggravated by the fact that we’ve been told for sixty years (two human generations) that nuclear terror is infinitely more dreadful than any non-nuclear threat, particularly when you blur the distinction between power plants and bombs.

But what Fukushima tells us is that this abstract, academic position looks very different when you’re telling people they can’t go home – perhaps for years, because, well, it seems more prudent that way, even though radiation hasn’t actually hurt anyone there.

Radiation expert Professor Wade Allison, author of “Radiation and Reason,” has cast the question in a new light.  He suggests, let’s set the permissible radiation limit the same way we set all other safety limits.  Not by asking how little radiation we can get by with, but how much can we safely permit?  There’s no intention of lowering the safety margin, and it will not be lowered.  That’s not the issue.  It’s a matter of working with the scientific data, rather than from a generic fear not supported by the science.

Prof. Allison concludes that setting the permissible radiation limit, with a good margin of safety, results in an annual permissible level about 1000 times the current figure.

To see a brief video of Prof. Allison’s talk to the Japanese people, click on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj8Pl1AiOuA&feature=youtu.be

 

Ted Rockwell

How fast can we build new reactors?

There has been a lot of speculating and theorizing about how few new nuclear power plants one can realistically plan on completing per year.  The more the matter is pondered, the less capable we seem to become.  So, in line with my policy of tackling political and theoretical questions by drawing on events in the real world, let's look at what we actually produced in the Naval Reactors program, in building the first, large-scale power reactors, first for ship propulsion, and then for the world's first fully commercial nuclear power station under President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace Program. .

Download NR KeyDates

Yes, today we lack much of the manufacturing capability we had then, but we had almost none of the relevant knowledge and materials, and none of the experience.  Without arguing the point, can't we get some inspiration from what we demonstrated could be done, with enough determination and organizational skill?  That's what the French did, after the OPEC oil embargo of 1973.  They decided to go nearly all nuclear, and they just did it.  They did it safely and reliably, and they've been selling nuclear electricity at a profit ever since.

How to Avoid Haggling

A Great Truth just dawned on me, and I can't wait to pass it on.  I hate haggling, especially over something as important as energy policy.  When you're trying to convince someone, you're supposed to start by giving a little, to show you're reasonable and not dogmatic.  But I would not feel honest, starting a conversation by trying to say something nice about windmills.  I hate the damn things!

(Oh, now you're showing that you're biased.  Gotcha!)  No, I never claimed that I could look at all those facts and not come to a conclusion.  I'm  not a zombie.  But here's the Great Truth (and I've just recently come to see this.):  Suppose the next time a guy comes up and wants to argue about energy sources, you say something like this:  "Aw, I'm too tired to argue right now.  I'm working on a Facts Report.  Not worrying about convincing anybody about anything.  Just trying to identify all the relevant facts.  You have a different view of these things.  Maybe you could help.  If we could agree on what the relevant facts are, it ought to help make a better argument later, no?  Take a look at what I've got, and see if you see any facts I've left out.  Or maybe you don't agree with some I've got.  If you've got better, or later, info, we'll put it in."

Now, I expect few people will argue against trying to line up relevant facts.  And, freed of the obligation to half-heartedly "agree" to something you don't really believe, discussing facts is less apt to get heated.  In that situation, your "opponent" is more likely to learn a thing or two that you could never beat into him in an argument.  And YOU might even learn something yourself.  What a concept!

Try it.  You'll like it!

       

How to deal with "Perceived Dangers"

In talking about the Nuclear Facts Report, I'm sometimes told: "But it's not the scientific facts that count; it's the perceived facts as seen by a nervous public."  My answer is: that's a perfect situation to use the Facts Report.

If we confine our discussions to working within the context of the Facts Report, we encounter the following facts:  The public has been more fearful than the facts seem to justify.  So the policy-makers have responded by "appeasing the public" by providing much more “protection” than otherwise necessary.  Next fact: The public has not been appeased.  Instead, looking at the immensity of the “solution,” the public has (reasonably, in my opinion) concluded that the problem must actually be must worse than they had perceived, to require such a response.  This course of history has continued until we have policy-makers claiming that if we can just complete the extreme “solution” of Yucca Mountain, the public will conclude that their previous concerns have now been met.  I see no factual basis in science or history to support that hope, and much historical data to deny it.

We also have the Fact that a large majority of the people tell pollsters they favor building more nuclear power plants.  Why don’t we base our measure of the public attitude on that, instead of reinforcing unreasonable fears by acting as if they were real?   As long as we treat those fears as if they were realistically justified, why should the public see them any less so?   The experts should provide the protection they considered needed, and then explain to the public why that policy is appropriate.  At that time, reasonable questions, getting reasonable answers, should provide the best way to build public confidence. 

Of course, the persons profiting from this outlay of money have a strong incentive to maintain it.  That's another fact to be dealt with.

Ted Rockwell

Back in business--again!

I owe all you patient participants a heartfelt apology.  I've been working full time on my Nuclear Energy Facts Report, and all you've seen here is some fallout from that, not all of it intelligible.  But Tuesday December 15, SuperBlogger Denise Wakeman will be here to get everything straightened out.  She'll show me how to clean up some of the detritus that my fumbling has created, and you all will be among the first to see the first public edition of the Facts Report.  (I'm going to try to load it before then--it's dated Dec 13.)

You're all welcome to download it, print it ouit, or circulate it on-line.  Share it with friends or foes.  And, if you feel so moved, send me suggested addtions or revisions.  I think you'll find it quite useful; just facts, without any conclusions, opinions, or attempted consensus-building.  You may find that refreshing  The latest edition of the Report will continue to be posted right here, on this Blogspot.  You'll know by the date, whether you have the latest version.  And there will be a running revision sheet, to show you where we've been.

I'll sign off now, and try to post the Report.  But you can't be certain of anything posted before Tuesday eve. After that,, you'll be in good hands.  And if you  need help with your own blogging activities, get hold of Denise Wakeman.

Ted Rockwell

The Role of Virtual Reality in Education and Promoting Real World Activities

Something new for today!  Everyone ought to know about the burgeoning role of virtual reality sites.  They are a free playground for some, but a growing new opportunity for many universities, and a new way for progressive businesses to carry out expositions, conferences, seminars and trade shows.

Gwyneth Cravens, well-known author of the popular nuclear power book, "Power to Save the World," has been urging me to tell my blog colleagues about this exciting new opportunity.  I didn't really need any urging.  I used the virtual world "Second Life" to promote my recent sci-fi book, "The Virtual Librarian."  I described that experience in a news release.  (I haven't figured out yet how to link to that text.  It's just a one-pager, so I'll just make a separate blog of it.)

I'll just pass Gwyneth's words to you directly:

 "As you may know, Second Life just keeps growing and so does academic and business interest in it.  It occurred to me that you might be moved to comment on this nuclear/Second Life angle on your blog.  Many businesses have created a presence in Second Life, roughly 20% of the
Fortune 1000s are working in Second Life Today: Second Life is not a game.
Large, multi-national organizations such as IBM, Manpower, Microsoft,
Amazon, and many others, are all working in Second Life right now—holding
meetings or events, conducting training, creating simulations and
prototypes, recruiting, marketing, and selling products or services.  And
numerous non-profits. There are hundreds of Colleges and Universities using
this virtual 3D platform.

"Connecticut-based Information and technology research and advisory firm Gartner predicted that "80% of active Internet users will be in non-gaming virtual worlds like Second Life by the end of 2011"  SciLands a virtual continent dedicated to Science, now consists of approximately 70 “islands” in Second Life, including NOAA, NASA, San Francisco Exploratorium, the Tech Museum,  several Universities, the National Physical Laboratory and Imperial College in the U.K., and so on. Many government agencies use SL for training.  The University of Texas system has purchased land in SL, betting the investment will improve teaching and research at all of its institutions.  They will be adjacent  to SciLands, with 50 islands planned.  90% of UK universities have a presence according to recent surveys funded by Eduserv. We have created a virtual Areva EPR Nuclear Power Plant, with some virtual radiation experiments. This site can demonstrate how a plant is laid out, and functions, and can be used for training and meetings. This can be an excellent supplement for educating the public on the proven benefits on nuclear energy.  This island is located in the center of SciLands. (Jeff Corbin co-founded SciLands).  Jeff's email:  jcorbin@du.edu

"Connecticut-based Information and technology research and advisory firm Gartner predicted that "80% of active Internet users will be in non-gaming virtual worlds like Second Life by the end of 2011"  SciLands a virtual continent dedicated to Science, now consists of approximately 70 “islands” in Second Life, including NOAA, NASA, San Francisco Exploratorium, the Tech Museum,  several Universities, the National Physical Laboratory and Imperial College in the U.K., and so on. Many government agencies use SL for training.  The University of Texas system has purchased land in SL, betting the investment will improve teaching and research at all of its institutions.  They will be adjacent  to SciLands, with 50 islands planned.  90% of UK universities have a presence according to recent surveys funded by Eduserv. We have created a virtual Areva EPR Nuclear Power Plant, with some virtual radiation experiments. This site can demonstrate how a plant is laid out, and functions, and can be used for training and meetings. This can be an excellent supplement for educating the public on the proven benefits on nuclear energy.  This island is located in the center of SciLands. (Jeff Corbin co-founded SciLands).  Jeff's email:  jcorbin@du.edu

[I've apparently upset some delicate ecological balance among type-fonts here.  I'll try to get that straightened out by my next blog.  Sorry!]

  I'll just add that my own university, Princeton, has some gorgeous sites in Second Life, including a wonderful replica of the Faculty Room in Nassau Hall, which for a while was the headquarters of the Continental Congress--effectively the Capital of the emerging United States.  I could sit in the chair formerly occupied by Thomas Jefferson, and deliver my pitch from there.  How can you beat such a venue?!

It's located at:  http://secondlife.com  Membership and use of the site is free.  Give it a try.

And do go and buy Gwyneth Cravens' wonderful book, "Power to Save the World."

Ted Rockwell