Below are a few letters received at EnergyBiz Insider on topics that appeared in the past few weeks. They capture the essence of how many readers say they feel.
________________________________________
Reprocessing is Real - October 21, 2009
Yes, reprocessing is real and needed, but what's needed most in the United States is better understanding of the complex technology and a corporation to manage development, design, construction and operation of the facility.
Reprocessing is the chemical separation of long-lived, energy/weapon-usable nuclear materials such as plutonium, neptunium and uranium from short-lived, highly radioactive fission products using remote technology within a massive, contained, heavily reinforced concrete structure. It is needed for efficient use of nuclear materials for energy. It is also needed to remove long-lived weapon-usable materials from nuclear waste prior to its permanent disposal, since safeguards cannot be assured for the hundreds of thousands to millions of years needed for full decay of these materials.
Reprocessing is complex chemical engineering technology that is a challenge to the most experienced chemical company and is not understood by most nuclear engineers and nuclear facility managers, and other scientists and engineers not experienced with the challenges of safe, sustained chemical processing of large amounts of materials in a hazardous environment.
The only successful reprocessing in the United States was by Dupont at Hanford, WA during World War II, and at the Savannah River Plant during the Cold War. Use and export of failed, pilot plant reprocessing technology from the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, which was designed and built under direction of engineers and scientists of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, resulted in failure of nuclear power plant fuel reprocessing in the U.S., nuclear weapons proliferation in India, and problems worldwide.
The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission made changes during its final years to build on the successes and avoid problems with nuclear power plant fuel reprocessing, and Dupont was asked to manage programs for integrated reprocessing and re-fabrication of fuels. Dupont completed designs of integrated facilities that would have avoided problems, but nuclear program leaders of AEC successor organizations reversed the changes and rejected the Dupont designs in order to support development of other invalid laboratory concepts. White House reviews and/or decisions by Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan were made with no input from persons knowledgeable of reprocessing.
The cost for construction and operation of the Dupont facility and long-term isolation of "glassified" waste would have been much less than the money spent for investigation of Yucca Mountain and development of invalid laboratory concepts.
The U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board should thoroughly review reprocessing successes and failures and recommend appropriate changes.
Clinton Bastin
Chemical Engineer/Nuclear Scientist
U.S. Department of Energy (retired)
Maybe in some sense reprocessing is "real," but the French, who have the most experience with it, have not had a happy or successful run with it. Just that fact that you point out here, that they have 250 metric tons of plutonium sitting around in "secure" above-ground storage in The Hague should be enough to raise some eyebrows. Does that not concern you?
Getting 20-30 percent more use for the uranium in a still large and much more dangerous form, with no technical solution for its long-term storage in sight should be reason to pause for the most enthusiastic supporter of nuclear. The French people are not at all happy about it and are beginning to speak up.
Jack Zeiger
It's good to see reprocessing being seriously considered. It's always seemed ironic to me that when so many folks appear to be in favor of recycling because of its claimed environmental benefits, that anyone can be against reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, which has considerable remaining energy.
Regarding the article itself, I'm surprised to see the statement that reprocessing would be more expensive than disposal. In order to make such a statement, one would need to know the cost of disposal. Since we have no disposal site, and no viable plan for one, how does anyone know what disposal costs?
Also, why is it assumed the cost of reprocessing would be borne by the taxpayers, when the nuclear utilities have already paid many billions to the government for disposal of spent fuel, an obligation that has not been satisfied? It would seem that if the DOE refuses to take care of the spent fuel disposal, they should use the money collected for that purpose and apply it to reprocessing.
The mention of generator capacity factors is also a bit simplistic, as it is not just production cost that determines capacity factor; it is also dependent on load factor of the regional load. If the load factor is only 55 or 60 percent, it's obvious that not all the generators can have high capacity factors, even if their production costs were all the same, or even zero.
Richard (Rick) Gonzalez, P.E.
Chief Engineer, Transmission Planning
Excel Engineering, Inc.
Coal's Evolution - October 26, 2009
What really puzzles me is the industry's resistance to adopting gasification combined cycle technology on a much broader scale. The manufacture of synthesis gas from coal can lead to many other products which can be efficiently and economically produced together with electricity to greatly enhance the overall economics and favorable environmental impact of converting coal into useful products. Moreover, the capital cost and should be lower than the cost of ultra supercritical coal-based generation and scrubbers; and the operating efficiencies should be greater.
It seems the coal and electric power industry has tunnel vision and is resistant to looking beyond just electricity production when there are multiple opportunities to create "coal-plexes" which produce a variety of valuable and widely used chemical intermediates.
It would be interesting to scope out and evaluate a scheme which incorporates the production of electricity and chemical intermediates via gasification; applying current market prices for the products and determining the economic value and the positive environmental impact when compared to conventional manufacturing methods.
Arthur Nislick
Energy Consulting
I don't know about you, but all this extenuating stuff about burying carbon dioxide residue, or sequestering, is nothing more than propagating a false premise that the world is warming. What is proven though is the cost of sequestering doesn't work, and the added cost being fostered onto the fossil fuel generation plants is monumental. Globally we aren't warming, and special interest news journals are still forwarding disinformation remaining firmly adherent to this climate change bunk. What is clear though is progressive liberalism using the environmental laws against industrialization and our utility companies.
So what's next on the climate change team? They've used up their global warming claim when the track record for temperatures went south. And their new claim is carbon dioxide levels, but even those claims are fabricated by well-placed scientists. Many of these so-called scientists are being questioned now by news people asking very important questions. Last week the BBC, which was firmly in the "climate change supporting group" questioned the authenticity of the climate change information.
The questions of eliminating one energy source and replacing it with another energy source are really troubling. Biomass isn't the saving grace of the fossil-fueled generation group. Biomass is nothing more than ecologically young coal. It takes far more volume of it to do the same work that coal provides. And all you get in the end is a really good pat on the back for eliminating an affordable power source to replace it with a limited market who can charge astronomical prices for the right to burn it. Great job! Take affordability away, and replace it with uncertainty.
Biomass is a joke, and a misguided one to ram extended costs on an affordable fuel source. In turn the price of grid power will increase tremendously.
Our continental heavy industries are taking a beating and you want to pass along more conditions of existence on them that make our industries non-operable. Buying carbon credits from Third World despots so that you can operate your local industrial plants or utility companies. So who are you working for?
Jeff Hagar
I respectfully disagree with the point of your article. "Anthropogenic Global Warming" itself appears to be approaching a crossroads in the scientific community, and it's Al Gore who risks irrelevance. As worldwide temperatures continue to recede and more and more scientists are gaining the courage to question his quasi-religious fervor, Gore's self-righteous Ponzi scheme is beginning to come apart at the seams. Until he can explain the recent shrinkage of Martian polar ice caps (on a planet supposedly devoid of any coal-fired fossil plants, live volcanoes or massive SUV gridlock) and disassociate the Solar Cycle from its evidentiary record of being shadowed by climatic results, his theory risks consignment into Reagan's famous "dustbin of history".
Scientific pursuit is the Achilles' heel of Gore's global warming theocracy: True scientists continually question the "accepted" and refuse to be subjugated by the herd mentality. Otherwise we'd still be in the Dark Ages, subject to the Inquisitors' thumbscrews. This logical nonconformity is something Gore can neither comprehend nor control.
We are about to step off into a dark chasm, based on spurious anecdotal evidence put together by "progressives" with a transparent anti-Capitalist, income-redistributing agenda. Isn't it time for those who trumpet the inevitability of this environmental Armageddon to put their names on the line and pledge THEIR incomes and THEIR personal fortunes that this scheme is valid? After all, they're asking the rest of us to mortgage a significant portion of our own futures to their belief.
If, in ten years, all Gore's smoke and thunder proves to be a hoax and the Solar Cycle is recognized as the driving force for climatic change, shouldn't he and his ilk, at a minimum, be required to forfeit to the taxpayers and ratepayers the billions of dollars they've made off the backs of the rest of the Western world? And if it is shown that Gore has prevented Man from creating this planet-changing event, then he can keep his billions. We will have already paid him for it.
Norris Bettis
The future of coal seems to be assured due to its prominence as the premier base-load fuel and through forecasts by EIA. The U.S. needs base-load capacity. Base-load is primarily coal, followed by nuclear and, where available, hydro. Renewables are not base-load and can only be a small fraction of peaking capacity and to even fit that niche they will have to compete with gas-fired units. We have hyped renewable to a point with the technical capabilities and the realistic position in a sustainable energy matrix has been lost to that hype.
The U.S. needs a realistic energy policy and only the U.S. Chamber of Commerce appears to be willing to go on record as challenging the Gore notion that the world can be run on wind and solar power. Wind and solar are feel good generators with limited beneficial impact on generation needs. Policy needs to direct efforts and funding into accelerating the pace of nuclear development and cleaning up coal to make it more environmentally friendly over time. Reality, not rhetoric, needs to be the basis for a sound energy policy in the global world we live in.
Bob Percopo
Executive Vice President
Project Finance Advisory Services
Global Marine & Energy
Chartis
Raising Capital from Non-Traditional Sources - October 28, 2009
With Finance comes the political and social influence no matter what are the restrictions are. As time goes by, these funds sooner or later will be meddling in political affairs, much of their nations just do not believe in the type of democracy the rest of the world follows.
While there is no historical analogy to fall back on Saudi money has changed the social equations in India where there are many new mosques being constructed sometimes from them. While there is no objection, per se, this has created a section of Muslims very keen to work in a Saudi working environment which a traditional Indian Muslim man will hardly condone. Also the voice of those that go there and return because of such conditions is often muffled by those who advocate directly or indirectly such conditions.
Time to rethink how best to go about doing this. Think of China -- it is a terribly closed society still and thinks that Indian Democracy is a big threat to it. This could be true for sure because it cripples its own citizens mercilessly. Take Tibet for example. President Obama should not have asked a noble soul like Dalai Lama to postpone his trip -- this acts as a prop up to regimes like those in Beijing.
Alok Misra
Mainstream Visions - October 30, 2009
I am afraid the only thing at all "mainstream" is the amount of lobbying being conducted by every special interest group. Unfortunately, it seems this Congress is destined to do nothing but argue, block, disrupt and destroy all possibility of a real change in our countries direction regarding fossil fuels and medical industry spending.
The military quagmire that has been created in Afghanistan and Iraq will continue for many decades if we continue to pursue the unachievable present objectives. Meanwhile, oil production costs are continuing the relentless rise forecast by "Peak Oil" and others. Climate change is/isn't a significant event, over which we humans have/don't have significant influence, much less the will to do anything about it.
A much more dismal future is likely as the cost of food escalates beyond the capability of most people to buy. Billions will die of starvation and malnutrition in the next 4-5 decades and earth's population will collapse to less than 1/3 of the present. Our "leaders" shove each other to secure a higher place on the "trough of pork" while total collapse of our entire world economy and civilizations grows ever more probable. Without plentiful, low cost energy -- and particularly liquid transportation fuels -- we will not survive as a culture.
What can we do? How can I help redirect our collective intelligence and energy toward resolving this certain tragedy?
Keith E. Bowers
Increasing Hydro's Stakes - November 02, 2009
Being grateful for your articles, I admire your open-mindedness and adeptness in presenting myriad perspectives and stimulating thought for all stakeholders. However, you missed a huge piece of the solution puzzle concerning hydro. The oceans shift perpetually.
The electric grid will have a completely different look by 2025 in most countries. Unless the United States sensibly enhances its innovative capacity, we will continue to lag behind several countries that are aggressively initiating renewable implementation and putting us to shame. For example; Ireland, Scotland and Great Britain are setting the bar and likewise generating significant tidal power project initiatives. The conceivably achievable challenge is to have the British Isles and the Emerald Isle furnishing its electricity from tidal power to the tune of 25 percent by the year 2020. The U.S. has very few tidal projects on-line yet we have phenomenal stretches of coastal tidal zone potentially capable of furnishing truly renewable power, especially to localized micro-grids. Our tangled bureaucracies at DOE and DOC have garbled tons of words but drastically lack impact vision. The current administration deserves an F as did the previous two. There is an old Bruce Spri! ngsteen song with the lyrics, "...they just talk, talk, talk, until you lose your patience." Teddy Roosevelt did more for this country than any president since, because he had a vision and he implemented a plan which secured the interests of all Americans.
Being a New England fisherman, I am constantly dealing with the infinite power and miraculous constancy of tidal currents. While we are not as adept as Homerus americanus' with its instinctual responsiveness, (perhaps the antennae?), we understand the value of predictability. Tidal charts and moon phases can be generated eons in advance. Channeling and constrictive flows intensify the funneling power. Ebbs and flows are continuous. And here is the best part: no one can own the power of the sea. We are meant to share it and be its stewards. Prioritizing resolutely is a long-term game in which we are falling short. Advances to remedy technological gaps amenable to harnessing the sea are developing at an accelerative pace yet have not been corroborated on potential mass scale. We are working on an aquaculture project which will absolutely incorporate tidal in the renewable hybrid. In case you did not know, the U.S. has a seafood trade deficit approaching $10 billion, ! second only to oil imports. National Marine Fisheries has become a burgeoning bureaucracy (many of these bureaucrats are defunct in understanding marine matters and have no experience with the sea) with fewer and fewer fishermen to regulate as more and more regulations have crimped and destroyed livelihoods.
I cannot resist imagining whether the trillions in bailout money being carelessly distributed to the bankers and brokers to save their jobs might not have generated millions of jobs and a more sustainable economy if we turned our wits toward cooperating with natural law. It's time to change the tide, folks. The tides of politics can be changed thanks to the Founding Fathers. Energizing domains which secure life, liberty and happiness and justice for all is the higher road but unfortunately the road less traveled. Hope lies in the fact the Good Lord's tides never change. The high tide miracle happens twice daily, just to remind the landlubbers. Being submersed, tidal turbines are not eyesores either.
Don't you think it is high time that we did something tangible rather than throw good money unaccountably at ridiculous policies to save the white starch-collared stereotypes who are deficit in social responsibility skills and ethics? These types have massacred our currency valuation and given away our manufacturing capacity in the interest of futures trading and hedging. "What about today?" asks the Ragpicker. Our infrastructures are crumbling and we have no jobs, but GM and AIG and BOA are better off because our politicians have no common sense. What ever happened to the "good old" Army Corps of Engineers? Too many pork barrels perhaps. Our dollar is weak yet we have so much less to export. Who is painting this big picture and for whom, anyhow?
Jim Reardon
This is the same self-serving horse "twaddle" that has been peddled for years. Every few years NHA peddles this same line yet gets nothing done to get help from Congress.
The fact of the matter is that 200,000 MWs is totally unrealistic.
If there were any chance of that happening there would be significant progress underway -- and there just isn't. The reasons are many. Some of which your article mentions. However, there are others:
1. Rates that don't reflect anything near true avoided costs.
2. Incompetence at the regulatory bodies -- particularly FERC. (You won't see this reason coming from NHA).
3. NHA is a collection of big companies. They feel that they have to be in bed with FERC in order to get any cooperation from them. After all FERC also regulates their wholesale rates and none of them want to get on their "bad side". Until NHA gets new board members and leadership that will stand up for the industry, expansion of hydropower will continue to be slow.
4. Part of the industry (the "certifications" for REC) has been hijacked by narrow minded recreational people with no regard for reality. The Feds (DOD, EPA, etc.) solicit for RECs but won't accept ones from hydro-generation.
The reasons are many and there are no changes in sight that will make an significant difference.
The real change requires breaking out the licensing aspects of FERC into a separate agency. Further it needs to be located somewhere other than Washington, DC so that competent and experienced people can be hired to run the program. Right now the Commissioners know nothing about hydropower when they get appointed (One thought he was qualified because he lived near a lake). What they do learn is through the skewed eyes of the legal staff which hasn't a clue how to regulate the industry.
Charles B. Mierek, P.E.
President
The Clifton Corporation
Respond to the editor.
