Nuclear Power: Safer Than Ever

To help set the record straight on how safe nuclear power is, CARE has enlisted the aid of Michael Fox, a regular contributor to the CARE blog and a retired nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor with nearly four decades of experience in the energy field. Professor Fox builds the case that since the Three Mile Island incident in 1979, nuclear power has become considerably safer and should continue to be used in America for decades to come.

Some of the safety improvements discussed include: Reduced average number of "significant reactor events" over the past 30 years, fewer industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours, improved worker protection versus radiation exposure, reduced amounts of low-level nuclear waste produced by plant operations, and improved power plant operating capacity. Professor Fox also discusses lessons learned from Three Mile Island such as the need for enhanced training for reactor operators, the use of site-specific control simulators, and the well-established "culture of safety" throughout the nuclear industry. We have the utmost repect for Professor Fox and our readers can learn much from his expertise.

Safety Improvements in Nuclear Energy

An unrecognized improvement in U.S. nuclear plant safety shows that the lessons of the 1979 Three Mile Island accident still are being taken seriously. Nuclear power wouldn’t be making a comeback in this country unless that was the case.

Industry-wide data compiled by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), a utility organization that monitors nuclear plant safety and operations, shows a dramatic improvement in nuclear plant performance over the past 30 years. Among the changes is a reduction “to nearly zero” of the average number of significant reactor events, especially unplanned reactor shutdowns.

All safety indices show improvement since post-TMI reforms took hold. For example, in 2008 the industrial accident rate dropped to only 0.13 industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours. Efforts to protect workers from radiation exposure and to reduce the amount of low-level nuclear waste produced from plant operations have also been successful.

Not surprisingly, the reliability of nuclear plants has risen along with the industry’s safety and operating record. In 2008, the median capacity factor of the 104 U.S. nuclear plants was 91.1 percent, meaning that plants were operating more than 90 percent of the time. That was the ninth consecutive year that the capacity factor was in the 90-percent range. By contrast, in 1979 the average capacity factor at nuclear plants was 56 percent.

The TMI accident occurred just three months after Unit 2 began operating when a valve malfunction compounded by human error in responding to the problem led to a loss of cooling water in the reactor core, exposing the uranium fuel assemblies and causing them to partially melt. One of the lessons that the accident taught us was that the signals on the control panel of a reactor needed to be improved so as to give the operators a clear picture of the state of the reactor at all times. Also, reactor operators needed better training, and weaknesses in some of the specific reactor designs had to be corrected.

Among the many changes that were made following the accident was the installation of site-specific control room simulators at every nuclear plant. The simulators are used as part of a continuous training program that INPO conducts for reactor operators. The goal is to ensure that a serious accident can never happen again.

One of the more important outcomes of the accident was the formation of INPO to conduct independent evaluations of plant operations and share reactor operating experience and lessons learned across the industry. INPO has used this data to set challenging benchmarks against which safety and plant operations can be measured. Though the results of its evaluations are not made public, INPO makes them available to plant managers. And lessons learned are shared among nuclear plant operators in this country and worldwide.

After the Chernobyl accident in 1986, the World Association of Nuclear Operators was established with a mission patterned after INPO’s. Much of the credit for establishing both organizations goes to the late William Street Lee, who was chairman and chief executive officer of Duke Power Co., headquartered in Charlotte, NC Bill Lee, as he was known by colleagues, did much to instill a culture of safety throughout the nuclear industry that continues to this day.

That attention to safety is much in evidence at the TMI plant. Though Unit 2 was lost due to the accident, TMI Unit 1 has continued to operate.

Over the past decade Unit 1 has achieved one of the highest capacity factors in the country and has held four world records for continuous operation by pressurized water reactors, including a 689-day cycle that ended in October 2005.

The improved performance of Unit 1 – and other nuclear plants around the country – has enabled electricity companies to reduce the use of fossil fuel plants, particularly plants fueled with costly natural gas. But it has been the seriousness with which companies have taken safety that’s led to the renewal of operating licenses at nuclear plants and plans for building new plants. Let’s hope nuclear power will be available to meet America’s energy needs well into the future.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a retired nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor. He is the science and energy writer/reporter for the HawaiiReport.com. A resident of Kaneohe, Hawaii, he has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. His interests and activities in the communications of science, energy, and the environment has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. Dr. Fox is listed by the Heartland Institute as a global warming/climate change expert. He is also the Senior Fellow for Science at the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

Climategate; This Changes Everything

The airwaves have been abuzz and the internet has been on fire with emails and forwarded articles addressing what could turn out to be the biggest scandal since Watergate: the hacking or insider release of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia—which has been dubbed Climategate. Even youtube videos have been popping up! While those of us who work with global warming issues have been deeply immersed in this game-changer, many have heard nothing about it or have only heard a snippet and wonder what all the noise is about.

The news is still relatively new—just few days old—and we will surely have many more postings about this, but this one offers a great summary of the issue and the potential consequences. Here Michael Fox, a regular contributor to CARE’s Blog, shows why this news should change everything in the climate change debate and end the push for cap and trade.

Read on. Learn what all the noise is about. Pass this on to everyone you know. It is big news. What do you think? Add your comments.

The Collapse of the Global Warming Myth
If this scandal of November 20, 2009 continues in the horrendous path it’s taken, it should be the end of the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis. Beyond the warmers inability to prove their simple hypothesis after more than 20 years and $80 billion dollars, has been their collective bullying behavior patterns. This bullying has been so outrageous and out of character of honest scientists, that it is as offensive as it is noticeable. This behavior suggested to me that this group of people were being less than honorable in their conduct of their work.

In a speech last Spring in New York by John Sununu I was reminded that the climate warming leaders were high paid bullies who determined who got funded (the recipients of those $89 Billion), and who didn't, who got published and who didn't, and who got the acclaim, and who didn't. Much of this is now confirmed in the released emails from Hadley/CRU.

The release of 62 Mbytes of the climate research data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in computer files has been momentous, almost unique in human history (http://tinyurl.com/yha4lxn). During the 24 hours following the release of these 62 Mbytes of documents, emails, letters, and reports, all became public knowledge around the world and thousands are pouring over the contents.

While still in the beginning stages of analyses, gleaned information has been showing horrendous levels of corruption, suborning subterfuge and deceptions, and controlling the science journals in limiting publications of research which do not support the AGW hypothesis. I have never ever seen anything like this, so high level, so unethical, and so evil.

I say evil since the unproven AGW hypothesis promoted by these insiders, is the basis for the trillion dollar Cap and Trade legislation and the redistribution of trillions from the US to the rest of the world. It is the basis for the Copenhagen meeting coming up in December which is designed how best to cripple the economics of the west through increased energy costs and energy rationing. It is the basis for the EU and the UN asking the US to pay trillions in reparations to all of those 3rd world nations which have been "damaged" by global warming.

These nation members walk the halls of the UN promoting "justifications” for reparations for their "damages" and their need for our wealth. It is the basis for demanding green energy sources to be installed with trillions of our dollars all over the 3rd world. Green energy sources already installed in the 3rd world, are not working well either. This debate has profound global implications and I find it contemptible that adults, Ph.D.s or not, would works so fanatically to achieve these destructive goals.

I also point out the thousands of media, academics, environmentalists, legislators, and movie elites who have taken strong and powerful positions in this debate, as if the AGW hypothesis has been validated. It hasn't. All of them have failed to ask the simple question "Show us the evidence that man-made CO2 causes global warming." That such people, presumed to be Americans, could promote and defend such a dangerous policy for our nation, is stunning.

Many of the global warming supporters seem to think that a photo of a polar bear on an ice floe is evidence that man-made CO2 is the cause!! The implied message is that this has never happened before, that man is causing it, that it is dangerous, which is all nonsense. They also seem to think that a photo-shopped video of a tidal wave roaring through downtown Manhattan is evidence of sea level rise, or that an iceberg calving from a glacier is evidence. We might also add that consensus is not evidence either, nor are appeals from high authority, nor are computer model predictions. If it weren’t for faulty computer models there would be no controversy at all, since real world measured evidence is still unreported.

Too few seem to have the wits to ask for a thermometer or ask for real Temp data, or sea level data, or hurricane data, or polar ice data. Also missing from the discussions is the large program needed to achieve high quality of all of the data, and how that is sustained. I have never seen a word of a Quality Assessment/Quality Control programs being used within the climate science realm. Then there is the entire issue of pathetically poor quality of the climate computer modeling programs. Anthony Watts at www.whatsupwiththat.com has undertaken to examine the low quality of the temperature stations and the low grade erratic temperature data they produce. His findings also show low grade station and data management as practiced by our climate agencies.

The British seem now to have realized the damage to all of science which has been done by the AGW crowd at the Climate Research Unit (CRU). In response to recent revelations contained in leaked e-mails originating from the CRU at the University of East Anglia, Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), has called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into the matter. While reserving judgment on the contents of the e-mails, Lord Lawson said these are very serious issues and allegations that reach to the heart of scientific integrity and credibility:

"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."

"There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."

People in the media, academics, legislators, movie elites, and environmentalist group have been quite sympathetic to the AGW promoters, and with apologies to Sherlock Holmes they have been the “The Dogs Which Didn't Bark”. They knew or should have known that these climate crimes were being committed and they knew or should have known who was committing them. They not only did nothing to stop them, they attacked, insulted, and dismissed those who objected. These are actions of dangerous people, too, and are unforgivable.

Michael Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows.

Has the EPA Become a Menace?

Regardless of the evidence, The Environmental Protection Agency continues with its scorched-earth policies; all without any vote from Congress, much less the approval of the American people. How will it affect you? In your wallet with higher electricity costs along with hikes in every area of energy. Somewhere, sometime, it must stop as the EPA’s rules and regulations plow through the lives of Americans with wild, and unencumbered, abandon.

BY MICHAEL R. FOX, PHD

One country cannot single-handedly curb global greenhouse gas emissions, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuses to accept that idea.

The EPA is forging ahead with plans to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted from America’s largest power plants and industrial facilities. Never mind that no persuasive scientific case exists for the claim that man-made emissions are causing global warming, given that 99% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide is from natural sources – and whether carbon dioxide is even harmful remains open to question. Leave aside the fact that the recent email scandal involving some of the self-same scientists who are calling for curbs on greenhouse gases has cast much of their work in doubt.

The regulations, which will take effect in January, won’t do a thing to reduce global emissions but they will increase the cost of electricity in the United States, undermine the competitiveness of American industries, and wind up sending more jobs overseas.

The regulations are sweeping and shortsighted. They are being promulgated under the Clean Air Act, which the EPA has twisted to suit the administration’s policy of increasing the use of renewable energy sources.

The naiveté of trying to tackle a global issue like curbing greenhouse-gas emissions without international cooperation is staggering. The United States has little to gain and unfortunately much to lose.

President Obama has hammered home the need to put Americans back to work, to grow our industrial sector and create jobs of the sort that our middle class depends on. But despite his rhetoric, the EPA’s agenda will have precisely the opposite result.

Under the EPA’s new regulations, states that will suffer the most economically are those that rely heavily on the use of fossil fuels to provide electricity – the very ones that make up the core of the nation’s manufacturing and industrial sector. As older power plants are either shut down or retrofitted to comply with greenhouse-gas regulations, the price of electricity will inevitably rise and the cost will be passed directly onto businesses, workers and consumers. Simply put, the EPA’s policy amounts to a nationwide energy tax.

Financial analysts estimate that by the end of this decade it could cost as much as $150 billion in capital investment to comply with new regulations. And the key thing to bear in mind is that Congress had no say in establishing this policy. It was foisted on the American public by the EPA, with the support of President Obama.

Unless Congress takes action to block the EPA from issuing the regulations, U.S. energy companies and major industries will have to curtail greenhouse emissions at great cost, while developing nations blithely add new fossil-fuel power plants in record numbers.

China has already surpassed the United States as the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide. And India, with its massive population and rapidly growing economy, is not too far behind. We are reminded time and again that we live and work in an increasingly flat world. When energy prices rise for American companies, the cost of doing business goes up and it becomes more difficult for our companies to compete in international markets.

So the irony is that the supposed gain in emission reductions that would be achieved under the EPA’s plan will be quickly negated by ever-increasing emissions from China and other so-called developing nations – the very same economic adversaries that are competing directly with U.S. companies.

What the EPA has come up with is not really a strategy to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions so much as a scheme to replace fossil fuels with greater use of renewable energy sources. As such, it is a poorly-conceived plan that will have little or no impact on reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions, while encumbering our own industries with higher costs, undermining their competitiveness and throwing thousands of additional people out of work at a time when our country is struggling to emerge from the deepest recession since the 1930s.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a retired nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor. He is the science and energy writer/reporter for the HawaiiReport.com. A resident of Kaneohe, Hawaii, he has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. His interests and activities in the communications of science, energy, and the environment has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows.

Is Today's Climate Optimal?

Omigosh! This is a day of computer work and online research. Having already posted two new items here on CARE’s Blog, an effort was being made to hold a couple of items for another day—then the following arrived in CARE’s “inbox.” Since one of the items being held was the transcript of Michael Griffin’s interview on NPR, and this piece is fresh, we could resist no longer. Here’s one more item for today—from one of our favorite sources The Business and Media Institute. A link to the edited transcript is included so you can check it out yourself. Better yet, follow the link to listen to the complete interview. It will give you a much clearer idea of Griffin’s actual comments—in context.

ABC Attacks NASA Skeptic with 'Incensed' Scientists
Offer any skepticism of global warming and the media quickly line up experts to discredit you.

That’s exactly what happened on “World News with Charles Gibson” on May 31. Correspondent Bill Blakemore’s report was about a “controversy” over recent skeptical remarks made on NPR by NASA administrator Dr. Michael Griffin.

“I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with,” Griffin told NPR.

Blakemore called Griffin’s remarks “startling,” before summarizing Griffin’s main point: that is “arrogant to assume today’s climate is the best climate for humans.”

“World News” then quoted two “incensed” scientists to attack Griffin’s opinion, including “NASA’s top climate scientist” James Hansen.

“I was shocked,” said Hansen in an interview. “I almost fell off my chair because it is a statement of which indicates and ignorance of what has been learned over the last few decades, primarily from NASA observations.”

Hansen has been referred to by the media as the “leading research on global warming,” but his liberal politics is not always included.

He openly supported George W. Bush’s previous two Democratic opponents. Hansen says he voted for Kerry "because he recognized global warming problem" and he also stated that he had great respect for former Vice President Al Gore, noting that he met with Gore in January 2006 and ended up consulting for Gore on his climate change slide show presentations.

Blakemore also quoted a second upset scientist.

“I think the administrator ought to resign,” said Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. “I don’t see how he can be an effective leader of a science agency if he doesn’t understand the threat.”

Oppenheimer is hardly the voice of reason when it comes to sound environmental policy. In an article published in Science on March 23, Oppenheimer co-authored an article that favored the implementation of a cap-and-trade system of carbon credits. Oppenheimer suggested in the article “a market-based system with a economy-wide cap on emissions and trading of emissions allowance would do the same. The article favored this policy over carbon taxes or the use of carbon subsidies to stimulation innovation, but didn’t rule them out.

Blakemore neglected to include anyone who would support Griffin’s claim, saying there are only a “tiny” number of scientists who agree with him. However, Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes was recently able to produce a list of scientist critical of the global warming hysteria.

Blakemore, himself, is a vocal proponent of the notion global warming is a manmade phenomenon, having attacked companies about the issue earlier this year.

Jeff Poor, Business and Media Institute

A Menacing Energy Agenda

Here at the CARE Offices, we get many, many e-mails and articles sent to us. They make up the majority of the content of this Blog. We try to sift through them and post the pieces that we believe best fit our member’s interests and that reflect our energy position. For example, we received many copies of the speech featured in the previous posting. Therefore, we know it is of interest.

In contrast, no one brought the New York Times article regarding the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff’s comments stating that no new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States--until we received the following from new CARE friend Mike Fox. After reading both the following posting and the NYT article, we had to share it with you. Apparently, it flew under the radar. To have someone at the FERC with this kind of thinking, is down right scary. Please read on.

CARE’s executive director Marita Noon met Mike Fox at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change in New York in March. She’s invited him to be a regular contributor to our Comments About Responsible Energy. We’d love your feedback here!

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman's Dangerous Agenda:
'US may never need new coal or nuclear energy plants'

Jon Wellinghoff is the new head of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Wellinghoff recently suggested that the US may never need new coal or nuclear energy plants. Wellinghoff is a dangerous man, and has received serious criticism.

Coal and nuclear energy now nominally provide more than 70% of the nation’s electricity. Wellinghoff’s proposal stopping coal and nuclear energy and replacing it with wind and solar energy would put the United States well down the road to economic suicide.
Our nation’s decades of prosperity, freedom, and productivity have been directly related to the abundance of low-cost, reliable sources of electricity, nearly all of it being domestic sources. We must recall that in warfare between nations the electrical energy generating plants of the opposing nations are highly prized targets in destroying nations. In this context of destruction of nations, Wellinghoff’s statement is thus reminiscent of the UN’s statement about the destruction of the West: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"--by Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations. That is as chilling as it real. Professional associates of this author were in the 1992 Rio audience when Strong spoke these words. His words were met with thundering applause, with much of it from environmental groups from the US.

Thus, we have the horrendous politics of the international left now pressuring our US government policies. The common belief among too many of our leaders holds that wind energy is a viable substitute for our nation and it supports their opposition to nuclear and coal as sources. But for many reasons wind most certainly is not acceptable. It is very worrying to find that so many in leadership are not familiar with, let alone appreciative of, the benefits of electricity, how it’s made, and what it has contributed to our freedom, liberty, security, productivity, and prosperity.

Wind energy is notoriously costly, unreliable, intermittent, and invariably misrepresented by its supporters. Were it not for its 30 years of heavy subsidies, tax credits, and the many laws which require that rate payers pay for all of these follies through Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), the windmills would be shut down by the weekend. The simple reason is that the windmills do not produce sufficient energy and sufficient revenue to pay for themselves and be profitable. This has been going on for 30 years.

The windmill owners, the only ones who benefit from the windmill scams, are avoiding billions in annual taxes by shifting their tax burdens to the rest of us.

Now Mr. Wellnghoff of FERC proposes that the United States do without 70% of our existing electrical energy sources and replace it with wind energy, believing wind energy to be viable source of energy, when it most certainly is not. Wind energy is famously unreliable, intermittent, and costly and has been that way for the last 30 years only as a result of heavy subsidies. This policy of wind subsidies, scams, and major rent-seeking by the likes of Florida Power and Light, T. Boone Pickens, etc., will bring unreliable electrical energy to our nation and cripple our prosperity, security, freedom, and liberty.

That a high government official makes such suggestions is frightening and utterly avoidable with just a few minutes of analyses. Excellent wind energy analyses are available from many places including from Glenn Schleede, and a recent excellent analysis by Michael Trebilcock of Canada.

The Trebilcock analyses provided data from the European experiences with wind energy and provide valuable lessons for the United States, if we’ll learn from them. He says in part “there is no evidence that industrial wind power is likely to have a significant impact on carbon emissions. The European experience is instructive. Denmark, the world’s most wind-intensive nation, with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity, has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant. It requires 50% more coal-generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability, and pollution and carbon dioxide emissions have risen (by 36% in 2006 alone).”

Trebilcock continues “Flemming Nissen, the head of development at West Danish generating company ELSAM (one of Denmark’s largest energy utilities) tells us that “wind turbines do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” The German experience is no different. Der Spiegel reports that “Germany’s CO2 emissions haven’t been reduced by even a single gram,” and additional coal- and gas-fired plants have been constructed to ensure reliable delivery.” And this is only part of the story. Consider the costs of wind energy to the people of Denmark.

Trebilcock continues with the Denmark example, “Its electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe (15¢/kwh compared to Ontario’s current rate of about 6¢). Niels Gram of the Danish Federation of Industries says, “Windmills are a mistake and economically make no sense.” Aase Madsen, the Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament, calls it “a terribly expensive disaster.” Let us hope that the FERC staff reads this analysis.

Subsidies
“The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in 2008, on a dollar per MWhr basis, the U.S. government subsidizes wind at $23.34—compared to reliable energy sources: natural gas at 25 cents; coal at 44 cents; hydro at 67 cents; and nuclear at $1.59, leading to what some U.S. commentators call “a huge corporate welfare feeding frenzy.” The Wall Street Journal advises that “wind generation is the prime example of what can go wrong when the government decides to pick winners.”

Millions in the public who are furious at the bailouts of banks and automobile companies would be surprised to know that our same government has been greatly subsidizing wind energy for nearly 30 years. Windmills, even after billions in subsidies remain unreliable and unprofitable sources of energy.

“The Economist magazine in a recent editorial, “Cap and Binge,” notes that each ton of emissions avoided due to subsidies to renewable energy such as wind power would cost somewhere between $69 and $137, whereas under a cap-and-trade scheme the price would be less than $15. Either a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system creates incentives for consumers and producers to reduce energy use and emissions that, as these numbers show, completely overwhelm subsidies to renewable energy forms in terms of cost effectiveness.”

We remain hopeful for a successful presidency and a strong and productive nation. Our nation’s success depends upon wise and intelligent science policies and defensible energy engineering processes.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:mike@foxreport.org