Category Archives: Environmental Benefits of Nuclear

Climate Change and Nuclear Energy: We Need to Talk

Posted on July 25, 2012 by pbowersox| 21 Comments

By Suzy Hobbs Baker

During my undergraduate studies in art school, I created a body of artwork about micro-organisms. After taking my two required biology courses, I was completely obsessed with cyano-bacteria and diatoms (they are still a central theme in my home décor). Learning that every cell in my body has mitochondrial RNA identical to these ancient life forms floored me, and made me feel completely connected to the planet and all of the other life on it in a very concrete way.

These phytoplankton are not only our actual ancestors – they absorb CO2 and pump out oxygen, which created a unique environment that gave rise to the variety of oxygen-loving species that exist on our planet today (including humans). I wanted to glorify these little powerhouses and to encourage others to think about how these simple, tiny life forms could create a transformation on a global scale. It’s really quite inspiring.

Ocean Acidification

While I was making artistic monuments to single celled organisms in the ceramics studio, new research was emerging about ocean acidification affecting these beautiful and integral pieces of our ecosystem. As the ocean absorbs excess carbon from humans burning fossil fuels, the pH of the ocean is rapidly changing. This means that our ancient oxygen-making pals cannot properly do their job. As their ocean home becomes inhospitable, they are dying off in droves. This not only impacts the ocean’s ability to naturally sequester man made carbon emissions; it also negatively impacts the entire food chain, since they are the primary food source for other multi-cellular ocean creatures, some of which we enjoy eating.

Oh, and did I mention that these little phytoplankton are also responsible for creating the ozone layer that protects all life on the planet from cosmic radiation, and they churn out 70-80% of the oxygen we breathe? These creatures are much more than just a pretty floating form.

Ocean acidification is the issue that brought me to supporting nuclear energy. Ocean acidification is an often-overlooked aspect of climate change that is potentially more threatening than the heat, the super storms, the fires, the drought, the crop losses, and all of the other trends that we are seeing now, which climate scientists have been warning us about for decades.

Climate Change and Nuclear Energy: Like Oil and Water?

It didn’t take long for me to find out that in the nuclear industry, climate change is not something we all agree on. Discussing climate change as a concern is often polarizing, and brings up intrinsic conflicts of interest in the larger energy sector (the companies who design/build/run the nuclear plants also happen to design/build/run the fossil fuel plants). I’ve been advised by people who deeply care about me, and the success of my organization, not to bring up climate at all, and to be extremely careful not to base my support of nuclear on climate issues. I’ve also been specifically advised not to make the argument that nuclear energy is the only solution to climate change.

When you are the new kid, it is usually best not to make waves if you can help it. So, for the most part, I have heeded that advice and held my tongue, despite myself.

However, as I watch the news (and my wilting vegetable garden) and see the magnitude of human suffering that is directly related to increasingly severe weather events, I cannot keep silent. Climate change is why I am here supporting nuclear energy, so what am I doing not talking about it?

The CEO of Exxon Mobile recently made clear that despite his company’s acknowledgement of the irrefutable evidence of climate change, and the huge ecological and human cost, he has no intentions of slowing our fossil fuel consumption. In fact, he goes as far to say that getting fossil fuels to developing nations will save millions of lives. While I agree that we need stronger, better energy infrastructure for our world’s poorest nations, I wholly disagree that fossils are the right fit for the job.

Fossil fuel usage could be cast as a human rights issue only to the extent that access to reliable and affordable electricity determines what one’s standard of living is. At the same time, fossil fuel usage is the single largest threat to our planet and every species on it. Disregarding the impacts that fossil fuel use poses, merely to protect and increase financial profits, is unethical, and cloaking fossil fuel use as a human rights issue is immoral.

Although we are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs, the idea that climate change and ocean acidification are even up for debate is not reasonable. Just think: The CEO of the largest fossil fuel company in America freely speaks out about climate change, while nuclear energy advocates are pressured to stay silent on the subject.

Silence is No Longer an Option

I am someone who avoids conflict, who seeks consensus in my personal and professional lives, and so I have followed the advice of well-meaning mentors and stayed silent in hopes of preserving a false peace within my pro-nuclear circles, including my family and friends. But my keeping silent is now over— starting here and starting now—because this is too big and too important to stay silent. I am not alone in believing this, and the nuclear industry does itself no favors by tacitly excluding the growing movement of people who are passionate about the need to use nuclear energy to address climate change.

And nuclear power is the only realistic solution. It would be great if there were also other viable solutions that could be easily and quickly embraced; however, the numbers just don’t work out. Renewables and conservation may have done more good if we had utilized them on a large scale 40 years ago, when we were warned that our ecosystem was showing signs of damage from fossils fuels…but at this point it’s really too late for them. And burning more fossil fuels right now, when we have the technologies and know-how to create a carbon-free energy economy, would be the height of foolishness.

In the meantime, there is real human suffering, and we here in the developed world are directly causing it. Our poorest brothers and sisters cannot escape the heat. They cannot import food when their crops fail. They cannot buy bottled water when there is a drought. They cannot “engineer a solution” any more than my childhood friends the phytoplankton can.

Energy Choices as an Ethical Obligation

We have an ethical obligation to stop killing people with our energy consumption. That statement may sound oversimplified, but let’s be honest—we know that fossil fuels kill approximately 1.3 million people each year through respiratory diseases and cancers, and the death toll for climate change related events rises every day. Yet, we do nothing but dither about climate change politics. Where is the outrage?

The fossil fuel industry has been successful at presenting a united front and maintaining consistent strategic communications. In contrast, the safety record and clean energy contributions of nuclear are always overshadowed by politics favoring fossil fuel use. If anything, nuclear advocates should be particularly sensitive that the very same politics are happening with climate science.

We should be championing nuclear energy as a science-based solution, instead of enforcing a meek code of silence. People from outside the nuclear industry, like Gwyneth Cravens, Barry Brooks and Tom Blees, have pointed out these relationships, yet the nuclear industry has yet to internalize and accept these realities.

How can we expect people to listen to science and not politics when it comes to nuclear energy, but not climate change?

Disagreeing with a policy does not change the facts. You can disagree with policy to limit carbon emissions, but that doesn’t change the fact that our fossil fuel consumption is changing the PH of our oceans. Many people disagree with the use of nuclear energy, but that doesn’t change the fact that nuclear is our largest source of carbon free electricity and the safest source of electricity per kilowatt hour.

Nuclear Must Lead by Example

If we want the public to overcome the cognitive dissonance between science and policy when it comes to nuclear energy, we need to lead by example and overcome our own cognitive dissonance when it comes to climate change — even if it means risking our own interests as members of the larger energy industry. We are not going to run out of fossil fuels any time soon, so the decision to move to carbon-free energy—to move to nuclear energy—must be made willingly, and based on ethical principles, not the limits of our natural resources.

As green groups wait endlessly for renewable technologies to have some kind of breakthrough, and nuclear supporters stay mum on climate change, we continue using fossil fuels. Our collective inaction is allowing the destruction of our planet’s ecosystem, the dying of our oceans, and the suffering of the poorest members of our own species. The climate conversation has become so convoluted by politics and greed that many smart, compassionate people have “thrown in the towel.” We should be more concerned than ever at our lack of a comprehensive global response.

I strongly believe that there’s still time to reclaim the dialogue about climate change based on ocean acidification evidence, and to use nuclear technologies to improve the long-term outcome for our planet and our species. The first step is acknowledging the complicated and unique role of the nuclear industry in this conflict, and the conflicts of interest that are impeding open communication. The second step is to realize that the climate change community is a potential ally, and that openly addressing the subject of climate change in our communications is in the best interest of the nuclear community. The third step is choosing to do the right thing, not just the polite thing, and reclaim our legitimate role in the energy community as the “top dog” of carbon-free electricity, instead of quietly watching natural gas become “the new coal.”

Climate change is not going away—it is getting worse—and each one of us in the nuclear community has an ethical obligation to speak up and to do something about it. I am speaking up for the oceans, for the cyano-bacteria and diatoms and our shared mitochondrial RNA that still fills me with wonder at the beauty of this world. Please join me if you can, to speak up for what you love—and if you cannot, please understand that we all remain nuclear advocates, and that the nuclear community is much stronger with the no-longer-silent climate change harbingers in it.

: Hobbs Baker

Suzy Hobbs Baker is the executive director of PopAtomic Studios, a nonprofit organization that conducts educational outreach through the Nuclear Literacy Project. Baker is an ANS member and a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 21 Comments

Posted in Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, Nuclear Literacy Project, PopAtomic

Court upholds EPA greenhouse gas regulations

Posted on July 18, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

By Jim Hopf

In a strongly worded unanimous decision, a federal appeals court recently upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the EPA’s “endangerment finding” that holds that those gases present a threat to human health and welfare. The court also upheld the EPA’s authority to “tailor” such regulations as it sees fit, which will allow the EPA to exempt small sources of emissions and focus its regulations on large emitters (which would be more practical, and a less expensive way of reducing emissions). The court stated that the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements was “unambiguously correct” and that its proposed rules were neither capricious nor arbitrary.

Lawsuits had been filed by organizations including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers, as well as the states of Texas and Virginia. The plaintiffs had argued that the proposed regulations would be “devastating,” and would result in substantial economic costs and job losses, which would be especially harmful in times of economic weakness and high unemployment. In response to the ruling, the plaintiffs have stated that all legal avenues are being considered, and that there is a good chance that they will appeal.

One of the first specific EPA greenhouse gas regulations is a proposed rule that concerns new power plants. The rule would require any new plant to have CO2 emissions equal to or less than that of a modern natural gas-fired plant. Thus, any new coal plants would have to rely on some form/degree of carbon sequestration in order to comply. Since large-scale, economic, commercially available sequestration technology does not yet exist, this is generally viewed as being a de-facto ban on new coal plant construction.

Political responses/ramifications

Legal

Although the current Supreme Court is generally considered “conservative,” it may be unlikely that any appeal of the appeals court ruling would be successful. After all, in 2007 the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA violated the CAA by NOT taking any action to address global warming emissions.

Essentially, the CAA simply requires that hazardous air pollution be adequately addressed, and it leaves the details (and specific cases) up to the EPA (and to science). Thus, unless the CAA is amended, it comes down to science, and the scientific case was (apparently) already successfully made to the Supreme Court. Thus, unless there is some major new scientific evidence to present (showing that global warming is not an issue), it is unlikely that the court will reverse itself, especially given that the EPA is now on the other side of the issue.

Legislative

In the legislative arena, Republicans have vowed to pass legislation that would specifically remove EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Mitt Romney has stated that he would support such legislation, as well as efforts to roll back other EPA requirements on other fossil plant pollutants.

While this legislative approach would pass constitutional muster, the effort is unlikely to succeed, given the current Democratic control of both the senate and the presidency. It’s doubtful such a law could pass even if Romney wins in November and the Republicans gain a majority in the senate. In present day Washington, 60 senate votes are necessary to pass any significant or controversial piece of legislation, and it is very unlikely that the Republicans (or those opposed to action on global warming) would ever get such a large senate majority.

Administrative

The final avenue for opposing EPA greenhouse gas rules is in the administrative arena (if Romney becomes president). Here, the situation is a little less clear.

The EPA is part of the administrative branch, and answers to the president. A new EPA head would be appointed by Romney, and would likely share his views on greenhouse gas regulations. Would a Romney EPA simply halt the development of any proposed rules? If the rules are formally established before he takes office, would his EPA actually rescind the rules? Could they simply choose not to enforce them?

I couldn’t find any references to Romney having plans to defeat greenhouse gas regulations administratively; only references to his support of legislative efforts. Perhaps the reason for this is the 2007 Supreme Court ruling. In that case, the Bush EPA was dragging its feet in terms of regulating greenhouse gases, and the court basically said that they had to do something. Thus, if a Romney EPA tries to rescind or not enforce greenhouse gas regulations, the agency will be sued, and it is likely that the courts will require the EPA to take action, given that the CAA has not been amended.

Economic cost of emissions controls

I don’t find opponents’ arguments about greenhouse gas regulations having a “devastating” economic impact at all compelling, especially given the current low cost of natural gas. These are largely the same people who are crowing the loudest about the “miracle” of low cost (shale) gas, and how much it will benefit the economy. But they then try to ignore the low gas cost when they make grim predictions about the effect of coal plant closures on electricity prices and the overall economy. They can’t have it both ways.

Currently, gas prices are so low that many utilities are voluntarily shutting down coal plants and firing up (or even building) gas generation to take its place. Note that they are making this decision despite the fact that there is absolutely no economic incentive being given to choose gas over coal (i.e., to reflect coal’s higher CO2 emissions and the enormous environmental/health impacts of its other pollutants).

For the first time ever, gas recently accounted for the same fraction of U.S. power generation (32 percent) as coal did. A dramatic example is Southern Company, a large, historically coal-dependent power utility. As recently as five years ago, Southern got 70 percent of its power from coal and only 16 percent from natural gas. Now they’re getting only 35 percent from coal and 47 percent from gas.

In general, utilities are planning on shutting many of their existing coal plants in a few years, rather than installing expensive retrofits that will be required by EPA rules already on the books. Instead, that generation will be replaced by gas (and a few new nuclear plants).

Again, these decisions were made in the absence of any economic disincentive (e.g., tax) for CO2 emissions or any other pollutants. Thus, we’re seeing a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions without any economic cost. As many experts have pointed out, EPA’s (de-facto) no-new-coal-plant rule is entirely moot, since no coal plants are (or will be) built anyway. As we’re seeing, even existing coal plants are finding it hard to compete with gas. Paying a high capital cost to build new coal plants is a non-starter (especially given that most utilities still expect some kind of CO2 limits or penalties, eventually).

The need for emissions reduction policies

Given how close gas and coal generation are right now in terms of operating cost, it seems clear that even a small economic disincentive to use coal would go a very long way, and result in a much larger reduction in coal use.

My belief is that given the low cost of natural gas, we’ve lost every last excuse for keeping very old, grossly-polluting coal plants open. There are no longer any valid economic arguments, given that the incremental cost of replacing those plants with gas generation would be minimal. I find the notion of using coal instead of gas (or nuclear, or renewables) just because the operating cost is slightly lower to be very disturbing. This shows why we must have policies that place at least some economic weight on health and environmental impacts. In an earlier post, I discussed the possibility of using the dispatch queue to give preference to cleaner generation.

Most experts agree that natural gas prices will go back up at some point, after the economy recovers. Will coal plants closed today remain closed in the future? In our (nuclear) industry they certainly do. On the other hand, many utility executives have said that they will go right back to coal (i.e., reopen old coal plants) once gas prices increase. Strict pollution regulations, or even a small price on CO2 emissions, would go a long way toward preventing coal plant restarts, and would significantly raise the gas price threshold at which such restarts would be considered.

The EPA’s proposed power plant rule would effectively rule out new coal plants. Stricter pollution controls, policies that tax or limit CO2 emissions, or the proposed Clean Energy Standard would all act to speed the retirement of old, heavily-polluting coal plants. Such policies that place a small economic penalty on CO2 emissions and/or other air pollutants will lead to significant reductions in emissions at a very modest cost to the overall economy.

Impact on nuclear

The above policies would increase gas demand in the short term, which will eventually result in higher gas costs. This will make nuclear more competitive. Without these rules/policies, nuclear’s future looks rather doubtful, frankly, as it will probably remain more expensive than coal, and continued coal use would act to keep gas prices low.

The basic fact is that if nuclear is required to completely contain all of its wastes/toxins, for as long as they remain hazardous, and competing sources are allowed to freely dump their toxins into the environment, at no cost, it’s hard to see how nuclear will ever have a chance. It’s a matter of fairness, if nothing else.

_____________________________

: Hopf

Jim Hopf is a senior nuclear engineer with more than 20 years of experience in shielding and criticality analysis and design for spent fuel dry storage and transportation systems. He has been involved in nuclear advocacy for 10+ years, and is a member of the ANS Public Information Committee. He is a regular contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in DC Perspective, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear

Sowing the seeds of curiosity

Posted on June 13, 2012 by rmichal| 17 Comments

I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.

~Albert Einstein

by Suzy Hobbs Baker

Everyone can remember at least one teacher from childhood who actually made learning fun rather than a task, and inspired students to keep digging for more knowledge after the bell had rung. Really good teachers do more than just teach—they sow the seeds of curiosity.

For me, it was my seventh grade biology teacher, Mrs. Smith. Every class was something new and exciting (cell-shaped cakes, anyone?).

Her enthusiasm for science was contagious, and for me it began a deep-seated interest in biology that persists today.

Nuclear energy professionals, advocates, and communicators can certainly learn a few things from Mrs. Smith and all the great teachers out there.

Over the weekend, a very good example of how to cultivate public curiosity was successfully put into practice by a group of pronuclear environmentalists in South Australia. The environmentalists—Ben Heard, Barry Brooks, Geoff Russell, and Corey Bradshaw—each presented to about 100 local citizens on their respective areas of expertise relating to energy, climate, and the environment, followed by Geiger counter readings of pinchblende (also known as uraninite) that Brooks put right up to his face! How’s that for entertainment? The full story from Heard is available here.

Something notable about their approach was the conscientious creation of a unified front for the sake of outreach. Each of the environmentalists support nuclear energy for very good scientific reasons—and that was the overarching message that these scientists sent to the public. These guys really listened and spoke to the concerns of their community, and they did it with enthusiasm.

The bottom line is that the environmentalists created a public forum that was informative and honest, and—most importantly—that cultivated genuine curiosity in the subject of nuclear power. One hundred citizens walked away from the meeting with a new-found interest in nuclear science, and I would be willing to bet that most in attendance will continue searching for information on their own.

The environmentalists achieved all of this forward motion in their community despite antinuclear activists working against them throughout the planning process and even at the actual event.

Improving the ways we conduct outreach has the potential to increase the number of nuclear projects, lower the cost of projects already underway, and reduce the negative environmental and human health impacts of energy production. These are HUGE stakes.

In fact Steve Kidd, the deputy director of the World Nuclear Association, has made a formal call for a new, more personal approach to outreach in a series of articles on public acceptance in Nuclear Engineering International magazine (I highly recommend reading the whole series): http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?storyCode=2062221

Kidd states clearly, “Last month I argued that there is a clear link between the degree of public and political acceptance of nuclear projects and their cost. It is highly likely that a substantial part of both the escalation in nuclear investment costs over the past decade and also some of the gap between these costs in the Western world and Asia can be explained by the industry’s failure to achieve greater public support. So those people who argue that ‘public acceptance is the biggest issue facing the future of the nuclear industry’ may indeed have a very good case.”

This is not just about good PR. It’s about good business, and about responsible energy generation. So the next time we each make a school visit, or talk to a neighbor about nuclear energy, let’s do it with the zeal and passion of Mrs. Smith, or with the humor of Barry Brooks, who despite being a world-renowned scientist, isn’t afraid to have a little fun! Let’s sow the seeds of curiosity and get people interested in the truly awesome power of the atom.

____________________________

Hobbs Baker

→ 17 Comments

Posted in Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, News, nuclear opponents, nuclear technology

ANS Friday Nuclear Matinee: Areva’s Funkytown

Posted on June 8, 2012 by pbowersox| 1 Comment

“Energy is a story that is still being written.
Let’s continue writing it–with less CO2.”

And… the nuclear fuel cycle in 31 seconds!:

Viewers are, of course, encouraged to make use of the pause and full screen buttons to savor the interesting captions.

____________________

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, general media

How the laws of physics constrain our sustainable energy options

Posted on June 1, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

What is life going to be like after fossil fuels?

Professor David MacKay, chief scientific adviser to the Department of Climate Change in the United Kingdom, takes a pro-arithmetic view of the future of sustainable energy in this very interesting and informative talk.

His message: Stop shouting, start talking, get building.

Hint: 1000 W/m² is an important number.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, United Kingdom

Friday Nuclear Matinee: “Nuclear Energy: Cleaner, Safer and Made in America”

Posted on May 25, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

The 2012 Nuclear Energy Assembly wrapped up this Wednesday evening in Charlotte, NC. The Nuclear Energy Assembly is the nuclear energy industry’s annual conference, attracting leaders worldwide from all segments of the industry.

The Nuclear Energy Assembly is organized by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). A few months ago NEI unveiled a multimedia campaign to highlight the benefits of nuclear energy for policymakers and opinion leaders. The following appealing and effective video debuted on primetime network television as part of the campaign. Enjoy!

Comments Off

Posted in Economic benefits of nuclear, Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear

4th Annual Texas Atomic Film Festival

Posted on April 26, 2012 by rmichal| 1 Comment

The 4^th annual Texas Atomic Film Festival (TAFF) is being held April 26 to May 3, 2012. The festival attracts short films (3 to 5 minutes) produced by students in nuclear engineering courses at the University of Texas at Austin. A public screening of the films, which focus on nuclear and energy related topics, is being held on April 26 at 12:30 pm at the UT Student Activities Center auditorium.

The goal of TAFF is to provide an opportunity for students to take creative approaches to convey scientific information through short films. Griffin Gardner and Alex Fay are this year’s media judge and technical judge, respectively, and awards will be given in four categories:

Best Film
Technical Content
Editing
Audience Award

The Audience Award is based on the number of “likes” accumulated by each film through the Facebook social plugin available on the TAFF website for the 2012 entries.

Please visit the TAFF website, view some of the films in the 2012 Entries section, and vote for your favorites by clicking on the “like” button. You can also follow TAFF and make comments through Twitter by using the hashtag #TAFF2012.

TAFF includes 11 films this year:

How Dangerous is Low Dose Radiation?
An Outlook on Future Energy Solutions
The Legend of HP-Man
Radon—Hazards in the Home: Myths and Facts
The Chicago Pile: A History
The Influence of Nuclear Events on the Public Perception of Nuclear Science
U.S. Electrical Power Production: A Comparison of Energy Sources
REYOLOGY
Special Report: Nuclear Terrorism
From War to Peace: Non-Proliferation 101
Nuclear by the Numbers

Other schools are invited to participate in next year’s TAFF. If you are interested, please contact Steve Biegalski. Special thanks to Juan Garcia and Matt Mangum, of the Faculty Innovation Center at UT, for their continued support of TAFF.

____________________________

→ 1 Comment

Posted in college colleges university universities, Economic benefits of nuclear, Education, Electricity generating capacity, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, News, nuclear technology, physics, Radiation, Renewable Energy, Social Media

The ANS Student Section of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Posted on April 12, 2012 by pbowersox| Comments Off

American Nuclear Society President Eric Loewen visited the ANS student section at the University of Illinois on Tuesday, March 27, followed by dinner with the Central Illinois ANS local section. This event was part of Loewen’s “March Madness” speaking tour, building toward the 2012 ANS Student Conference (which begins today in Las Vegas). The occasion gave ANS Nuclear Cafe a chance to catch up with Valentyn Bykov, president of the ANS student section at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to discuss the section and its activities.

Social events

: Bykov

Valentyn Bykov: “During their first two years, our students take general science and engineering classes along with students from all the other engineering disciplines. Since we are a small department (the Department of Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering/NPRE), we don’t see many of our fellow nuclear engineers during these two years. Therefore, ANS organizes many social events, providing opportunities for students to become better acquainted and to get to know each other. This also allows underclassmen to meet the upperclassmen, who often pass down advice based on their experience.”

Excursions

: Dr. Loewen addresses the Illinois ANS Student Section

“We take many engineering classes, most of which are highly technical. So, it’s very difficult to keep in mind the overall big picture. During the more difficult semesters, we all need to be reminded why we’re doing all this in the first place and recharge our motivation. So our ANS section organizes numerous trips to nuclear power plants and national labs, where students can see what kind of work nuclear engineers can do after they graduate, as well as understand how all these individual components come together, forming the big picture. It’s also a good opportunity to get industry insight on various topics,” said Bykov.

Outreach

“We also make sure to stay in touch with people outside of the NPRE Department and the nuclear industry, mainly through outreach events,” he said. “When we ask people what do they think when you say nuclear engineering, we often hear about nuclear weapons, cooling towers and (more often than you’d think) the dangerous health effects of the microwave oven radiation. Our goal is to inform and educate, but also share why we think that industry nuclear is an interesting and exciting career choice. We organize and assist with several
Boy Scout merit badge events, in which young scouts learn about the science behind nuclear power and related career choices. Every March we hold a series of presentations and demonstrations during our university’s Engineering Open House, a two-day event during which over 20,000 people visit campus to see various engineering demonstrations created by students. We also try to be present during various non-engineering events; for example, we have a table next to other student organizations in an event organized during ‘Mom’s weekend,’ in which students and their visiting moms can see what various student organizations do on campus. Being usually the only engineering organization present at this event, our interactive demonstration of radiation sources is very popular. Many of the visitors want to talk to us about the nature of our organization, potential careers, details about Fukushima, and nuclear power in general.”

The future

: Valentyn Bikov, Arthur Talpaert, Jason Peck, Eric Loewen, Thomas Dolan, Rizwan Uddin, Barclay Jones

“As for long-term goals for our student section, at this point our membership is composed almost entirely of nuclear engineering majors, most of whom are undergraduates,” he said. “One of our long-term goals is to get more people involved, especially from other departments. We believe that the nature of our trips and many of our other events would be relevant to other departments. We are also trying to extend our involvement with other departments (i.e., by cooperating with other students organization on joined events) and non-engineering events (like the aforementioned Mom’s weekend interactive presentation).”

“I feel like our ANS section is an extension of the students,” he added. “At times various students have an idea for an interesting event or a trip, and instead of leaving the organization up to the (already very busy) NPRE Department, the ANS student section will step in and handle everything. This gives more power to the students, as we can spread the word about the idea and, if there’s sufficient interest, organize the whole event without the need for the department to get involved.”

“This also works the other way around, when the department asks or encourages us to set up an event to address an issue they hear about in student feedback forms,” Bykov said. “For example, our university no longer has an operating research reactor (our TRIGA was shut down in the 1990s for political reasons), and many students feel they are ‘missing out’ on the related experiments. Therefore, our department suggested—and our student section is currently in the process of organizing—a visit to a university that has a working reactor, during which we would perform experiments to gain experience with research reactor operation. The goal is to first organize the visit and offer it simply as a trip for interested individuals, then in the future hopefully make the visit more frequently than once in a semester, and offer some kind of course credit in return. The whole effort is currently organized primarily between our ANS student section and the ANS student section at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.”

: The Illinois ANS student section board. top row: Michael Cunningham, Robert Geringer, Cody Morrow; bottom row: Talisa Chambers, Valentyn Bykov, Molly Bilderback; not pictured: Carlos Altamirano

In closing

“Our ANS student section provides many ways in which to get involved, whether it’s getting advice on what class to take next semester, meeting nuclear power plant workers and talking to them about their job, practicing one’s teaching abilities with children and the general public, or one of the many other ways for nuclear engineering students to get involved in the ‘big picture,’” he concluded.

___________________________________

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, ANS Student Sections, college colleges university universities, Education, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Local Sections, News

Not so strange bedfellows – Sierra Club accepts natural gas money

Posted on February 7, 2012 by radams| 14 Comments

By Rod Adams

On February 2, 2012, Time Magazine’s Ecocentric blog published a post titled Exclusive: How the Sierra Club Took Millions From the Natural Gas Industry—and Why They Stopped that has rocked the environmental community and the established energy industry. The story included the shocking news that the Sierra Club had accepted donations from Chesapeake Energy or its executives totaling nearly $26 million during the period from 2007-2010.

Some longtime members of the Sierra Club have expressed feelings of betrayal; Chesapeake Energy is one of the largest domestic natural gas producers in the United States with most of its production based on using the increasingly controversial technique of hydraulic fracturing (fracking). A number of concerned environmentalists and local chapters of the Sierra Club worked hard for several years to convince Carl Pope, Michael Brune, and the rest of the Club’s national leadership to take a principled stand against fracking.

What they saw instead was their national leadership promoting new technologies for producing natural gas alongside people like Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake Energy’s chief executive officer, and T. Boone Pickens. The Club’s official policy on fracking was that it could be done responsibly and safely and that with plenty of regulation it could be a bridge to a renewable energy future.

Finally, as the industry matures, a series of best management practices will emerge, some already identified, some evolving with time. These best management practices should, to the maximum extent possible, be swiftly incorporated into regulatory requirements as they are developed. The Club opposes any unconventional or conventional drilling projects that do not comply with best management practices, even in regions where state or federal law may permit lower standards of environmental management.

The Club will use these standards as a yardstick for any regulatory reform efforts it undertakes or supports, and to judge which new drilling projects, if any, cause unacceptable environmental damage and warrant opposition.

Chapters are encouraged to press for effective regulatory frameworks to control the impacts of deep shale gas and may oppose specific projects that are inappropriately sited or that fail to comply with best management practices.

Board of Directors, December 21, 2009

Now, perhaps the disillusioned members will see the real politik reason why they did not get the support they expected from their globe-trotting leaders.

Michael Brune, who took over as the Sierra Club’s executive director in early 2010, published a blog post titled Sierra Club and Natural Gas that describes his decision to stop taking donations that are tightly linked to the natural gas industry.

By the time I assumed leadership of the Club in March 2010, our view of natural gas had changed—so I made sure our policy did, too. We created a strong natural gas campaign comprised of staff and volunteer leaders. Some chapters sought to establish tough safeguards at the state and federal level to protect their air and water; others sought to suspend fracking completely until those standards were in place. By mid-August 2010, with gas industry practices and our policies increasingly in conflict, I recommended to the Board, and it agreed, to end the funding relationship between the Club and the gas industry, and all fossil fuel companies or executives.

Unfortunately for Brune, words and videos published on the Internet do not disappear and can be recalled with a few simple searches. Before his action to stop taking natural gas industry funding in August 2010, Brune appeared on Jim Cramer’s Mad Money with some words that were welcome to the people who believe that natural gas is a terrific fuel for electrical power plants. That was not an isolated event; Brune made the following statement in November 2010:

Concerns about natural gas extraction have been on the rise not just in Dimock, but in places across the country, from West Virginia to Texas to Wyoming. And yet even given these important issues, natural gas still has a relatively lighter footprint than coal or oil. Gas is not a clean fuel, but it can be cleaner.

(Emphasis added.)

It would be difficult for Brune to prove that those positive words were not influenced by the generous contributions that Chesapeake Energy was providing to the Sierra Club.

This story, however, should not be seen as an isolated incident, but as part of a continuing effort within the energy industry to use whatever means are available to obtain a favorable position in one of the world’s largest, most profitable, and competitive commodity businesses. Here is a quote from an email written by Jim Gibson, a member of Chesapeake’s communications group:

Over the years, Chesapeake has been proud to support a number of organizations that share our interest in clean air and agree that America’s abundant supplies of clean natural gas represent the most affordable, available and scalable fuel to power a more prosperous and environmentally responsible future for our country.

Read that carefully. Here is my paraphrase: Chesapeake has supported a number of organizations that agree that natural gas is the best fuel to power our country’s future. Their funding efforts have not just been limited to the Sierra Club and have not just been limited to efforts to fight coal. Some free market focused observers find nothing inherently disturbing about efforts to obtain competitive advantage through arguably sneaky means:

Hey… this ain’t bean bag.

See… I could at least respect that. NG competes with coal, and you do what you need to do in order to gain an edge in a very competitive market. But jumping in bed with the Sierra Club? That leads to big problems, mostly because our recent success in natural gas exploration relies largely on fracking and other developing technologies.

Here is the important part of this story for nuclear energy advocates to understand. Our technology competes with both natural gas and coal for market share in the lucrative energy business.

The Sierra Club has a well known aversion to nuclear energy and has not been shy about doing all it can to halt the growth of nuclear energy and to speed the early termination of as many operating nuclear power plants as possible. The acknowledged financial relationship between the Sierra Club and the natural gas industry may be a partial explanation for the reason why an organization that has placed fighting climate change near the top of its priority list is such an ardent opponent to the most reliable form of virtually emission-free power in favor of a fuel that is only “low carbon” in comparison to coal.

We all might benefit from an improved understanding of the world if more journalists pull this thread to determine if there are other questionable financial relationships between groups with ardent stances against nuclear energy and industries that stand to benefit from reduced competition with nuclear energy developments.

Final note: I wrote about Chesapeake’s financial support for anti-coal efforts for Atomic Insights in December 2010.

_____________________________

Adams

Rod Adams is a pro-nuclear advocate with extensive small nuclear plant operating experience. Adams is a former engineer officer, USS Von Steuben. He is the host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast. Adams has been an ANS member since 2005. He writes about nuclear technology at his own blog, Atomic Insights.

→ 14 Comments

Posted in Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, nuclear opponents

The Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report

Posted on February 6, 2012 by pbowersox| 5 Comments

By Jim Hopf

Soon after declaring that it would end the Yucca Mountain repository project, the Obama administration created the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to reevaluate the nation’s nuclear waste program and policies. The commission was asked to recommend improvements to the waste program and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and to make general recommendations on the path forward. The commission was specifically instructed to not address the Yucca Mountain project, or any specific project or site. The commission’s final report was released this month.

Primary recommendations

The main recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) are as follows:

• A repository (or long-term storage facility) should be sited using a “consent-based” approach, as opposed to having the federal government select a site and then impose it on the state and/or local community. The government would offer incentives to a large number of communities, whose locations are potentially suitable as a repository site, and let communities (and states) come forward voluntarily. (In essence, this implies that Yucca Mountain should be abandoned and the process should start over.)

• Responsibility for siting, licensing, building, and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities should be shifted from the Department of Energy to a new, independent single-purpose organization (most likely a federal corporation). Most experts agree that such an organization would offer more focus, stability, and credibility than the DOE, which has lost credibility with many stakeholders.

• The waste program must have full access to the nuclear waste fund that has been paid for by the 0.1 cent/kW-hr fee levied on nuclear-generated electricity. In the short term, the administration should amend the DOE’s standard contract so that only the money appropriated (i.e., spent) that year is transferred from the waste fund to the federal government. Remaining funds would be placed in a trust account that is managed by an independent organization. Over the longer term, legislation should be passed that transfers the entire balance of the nuclear waste fund to the new waste management organization.

• A prompt effort to develop a geologic disposal facility is necessary. There is scientific consensus that deep geologic disposal is the best option for final disposal of nuclear waste, and that a geologic repository will be necessary for any type of fuel cycle. The BRC did recommend further research and development of advanced fuel cycles and reactor designs, but stated that committing to a specific fuel cycle option or technology at this point in time would be premature.

• There should be a prompt effort to develop one or more consolidated used fuel storage facilities. This would allow the government to meet its contractual obligation to take the used fuel from utilities much sooner than if it waited for a final repository to be developed. It may also reduce the (small) risks associated with fuel storage somewhat, by reducing the number of sites where fuel is stored. Removing the fuel from decommissioned nuclear sites would free those sites up for other uses.

• Preparations for the eventual shipment of large amounts of used fuel should begin soon. A large number of stakeholders should be involved in the planning of the waste transportation program.

• The government should support research and development into advanced reactors and fuel cycles, as well as nuclear workforce development programs. The BRC stated that the general direction of the DOE’s current R&D is appropriate.

• The United States should maintain its leadership role in the international community in the area of nuclear technology. It should provide aid, advice, and technical and regulatory assistance to other countries, particularly those who are starting new nuclear programs.

NWPA changes

The BRC’s recommended path forward involves specific changes to the NWPA:

• The NWPA currently specifies Yucca Mountain as the sole site to be evaluated as a repository. The law would have to be changed to allow other sites to be evaluated.

• The NWPA currently allows only one centralized used fuel storage facility with limited capacity, and this storage facility may only be developed after a repository is licensed. The NWPA would have to be amended to allow multiple centralized storage facilities, and to remove any linkage with repository licensing.

• The NWPA would be amended to broaden the number of jurisdictions that could receive funding and technical assistance in support of the fuel transportation campaign.

• The NWPA would have to be amended to create the independent waste management organization discussed earlier, and to shift the DOE’s current responsibilities (for siting, licensing, building and operating repositories and/or centralized storage facilities) to that organization.

• The NWPA would also have to be amended to remove the nuclear waste fund from the congressional appropriations process, and to allow the independent nuclear waste management organization to have full access to the fund.

• Some NWPA changes may be required in order to allow the United States to provide a broader range of support to other nations in the area of nuclear waste management.

ANS response

The American Nuclear Society has responded to the BRC’s final report. ANS concurs with the BRC’s recommendation to create a new, independent agency to manage the nation’s nuclear waste in the future. ANS also agrees with the recommendation to create one or more centralized used fuel storage facilities, to accommodate much of the nation’s used fuel until a final repository is finally sited, licensed, and constructed. ANS also supports the BRC’s call for continued R&D on advanced (closed) fuel cycles.

One area of disagreement between ANS and the BRC, however, concerns the Yucca Mountain repository. While ANS acknowledged that the BRC was explicitly instructed not to address Yucca Mountain, it reiterated its position that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should conclude the licensing process for the repository (at a minimum).

My perspective

I largely concur with ANS’s point of view on the BRC recommendations. Almost everyone believes that having an independent organization, as opposed to the DOE, manage the waste program would be helpful. Allowing full access to the nuclear waste fund (for its intended purpose) is absolutely essential, given the history of Congress in hijacking the waste funds for other uses or for political reasons. Right now, the fund is little more than a (punitive) 0.1 cent/kW-hr tax on nuclear electricity.

I also agree that R&D into advanced fuel cycles and reactors is important. The BRC stated that they do not believe that fuel cycle technology that would significantly alter the nuclear waste situation is anywhere on the horizon. ANS thought that this was overly pessimistic, and I’m inclined to agree. Fuel cycle technologies such as “UREX+” are a few decades away at most. Such fuel cycles have the potential to significantly reduce the bulk and heat generation level for the final waste stream, which should greatly reduce the number of final repositories required (to one, probably). This is enormously important.

I also agree with ANS on the subject of Yucca Mountain. It is imperative that the NRC complete the evaluation and licensing process, and formally rule on whether the Yucca Mountain repository would have been acceptable from a scientific and technical perspective. (Virtually all observers believe that NRC staff had concluded that the repository met the requirements.) This should be demanded as part of any “compromise”, in exchange for accepting the BRC’s recommendation that we start the repository siting, evaluation, and licensing process all over again (largely wasting the ~$15 billion that has been spent).

I believe that the single largest drawback of starting the repository program over, and delaying final resolution of the waste issue by decades, is that it will result in a large fraction of the public continuing to believe—falsely—that there is no technical solution to the nuclear waste problem. This in turn will measurably increase public resistance to nuclear power, which will result in greater fossil fuel use in the future. The public health risks and negative environmental impacts of this increased fossil fuel use will utterly dwarf any risks and/or impacts associated with any nuclear waste repository.

Although it wouldn’t be as good (or effective) as having an actual repository in place, having the NRC formally rule that the Yucca Mountain repository met all of the (impeccable) requirements would go a long way toward convincing the public that we do have acceptable scientific/technical solutions to the nuclear waste problem.

I would go on to insist that the government make sure that NRC’s ruling is highly publicized. The government should inform the public that an adequate technical solution to the waste problem has been found, but that we are electing to wait awhile to see if “even better” solutions can be found. Waiting is justifiable and prudent, given the very small risks and economic costs of storing nuclear waste. Those “better” solutions may include the use of advanced fuel cycles that result in a smaller, colder, or shorter-lived waste stream, or simply a final repository that has a greater level of political support from the surrounding state and local communities.

_____________________

Hopf

→ 5 Comments

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, knowledge transfer, licensing, National Laboratories, News, Nuclear Energy Narrative, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, position statements, Radwaste Solutions, spent fuel, Yucca Mountain

ANS to hold teacher workshop in Phoenix, AZ

Posted on February 2, 2012 by lscheele| Comments Off

Hands-on activity during a November 2011 ANS Teachers Workshop

The American Nuclear Society’s Center for Nuclear Science and Technology Information and the ANS Outreach Department will be sponsoring a one-day teacher workshop on Sunday, February 26, in Phoenix, Ariz. The workshop—Detecting Radiation in Our Radioactive World—is intended for science educators (including biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, physical science, life science, environmental, and general science teachers) at the high school and middle school levels. The workshop will be held prior to WM2012, the international waste management conference that takes place annually in Phoenix.

The following video provides feedback from teachers and presenters who attended the June 2011 ANS Teachers Workshop, held in Hollywood, Fla.

The full-day workshop will prepare attendees to teach the basics about radiation, how we detect radiation, and the uses of nuclear science and technology in society. Teachers who complete the workshop will receive a wealth of materials—background information, hands-on activities, and supplementary resources—and a Geiger counter. Career opportunities in nuclear science and technology will be highlighted during the sessions.

“We’re excited to be offering this overview of radiation and nuclear science to teachers in the Phoenix area,” said Chuck Vincent, ANS Outreach administrator. “Workshop participants are always eager to receive their free Geiger counters and learn about hands-on demonstrations that they can use in their classrooms.”

Currently, scheduled presenters include:

Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar, assistant professor of nuclear engineering, Idaho State University, and research scientist at Idaho National Laboratory
Mansel Nelson, program coordinator, environmental education outreach program, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals, Northern Arizona University
Terry Price, mechanical engineer, Palo Verde Generation Station of Arizona Public Service Company
Walter Thomas, chemistry teacher and district science coordinator, Wickenburg Unified School District, Wickenburg, Ariz.
Debra Thrall, executive director, Albert I. Pierce Foundation, Albuquerque, N.M.

Please visit the ANS website for more information, including an announcement and online registration form. The workshop will be limited in size to optimize interaction with presenters. Registration is on a first-come first-served basis.

There is a $60 nonrefundable registration fee—which includes continental breakfast, lunch, printed materials, and a Civil Defense Surplus analog radiation monitor—for teachers to reserve a place at the workshop. The registration deadline is 12:00 noon (Central Time), Tuesday, February 14.

Funding for the workshop is provided in part by individual and organizational contributions to ANS. Additional support is provided by Waste Management Symposia and WM2012.

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Education, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, Irradiation, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Nuclear events, Nuclear Literacy Project, physics, Radiation, Science & Engineering Education, Teacher Workshops, training

Full agenda for National Nuclear Science Week 2012

Posted on January 20, 2012 by lscheele| Comments Off

National Nuclear Science Week—a week-long celebration to focus local, regional, and national interest on all aspects of nuclear science—has nearly arrived! On January 23-27, events and activities will be held across the United States to recognize the benefits of nuclear science and technology and to introduce the next generation of scientists and engineers to the applications of nuclear technologies to everyday life. The National Nuclear Science Week website serves as the clearinghouse for next week’s activities and is chock-full of great ideas for how to learn, teach, and celebrate nuclear science and technology.

North American Young Generation in Nuclear (NA-YGN) recently held its 13th Annual “Roddy Nuclear” Drawing contest all over North America. Roddy Nuclear is a nuclear fuel pellet cartoon character who can fit into the palm of a child’s hand. Roddy provides as much energy as almost two-thousand pounds of coal and 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Check out the finalists at the Clean Air Energy blogsite—the winners will be announced during National Nuclear Science Week.

Tuesday, January 27, has been designated “Careers in Nuclear” Day. From technologists to engineers, radiologists to doctors of nuclear medicine, there are many fields associated with nuclear science. On January 27, a video featuring conversations with individual members of the Chicago ANS Local Section about why they were drawn to nuclear science and the fascinating aspects of nuclear careers will be featured on the ANS Nuclear Cafe. Below is a nuclear careers video currently featured on the aboutnuclear.org careers page—and don’t forget to check out the nuclear careers materials at the ANS website.

Loewen

The American Nuclear Society is proud to be a sponsor of Nuclear Science Day at the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), on Wednesday, January 25. This full-day event features world-class nuclear experts in many fields of nuclear science and technology, explaining what it’s all about in live internet webinars and question-and-answer sessions for grades 5-12 (and other interested parties). ANS President Eric Loewen will participate and speak to students from six area high schools about nuclear careers. His presentation will be live-tweeted using the twitter hashtag #NNSW12.

To register for the webcasts, just visit the National Science Teachers Association Learning Center (a great all-around resource for science learning). For details on the Nuclear Science Day agenda, presenters, and all the information, check the Nuclear Science Day Press Release. About 1,000 classrooms will view the webcast throughout the day—representing more than 20,000 students and teachers across the United States.

If you can attend Nuclear Science Day at IIT in person on January 25, please come on out. Artistic individuals can peruse the latest in beautiful nuclear art that will be on display courtesy of Suzy Hobbs Baker of PopAtomic Studios. And for those who live in the fast lane—stop by to say hello to Simona de Silvestro (right), champion Indycar racer and 2010 Indy Rookie of the Year, and ask if you can take a spin in her Nuclear Clean Air Energy car #78!

The evening of January 25 will feature a National Nuclear Science Day webinar hosted by Excelsior College titled Women in Nuclear: Professional Organizations and Career Advancement. The event is part of Excelsior College’s School of Business & Technology’s “Women in Technology” campaign and will feature representatives from the Tennessee Valley Authority and NA-YGN, as well as Margaret Harding, one of ANS’s leading spokespersons during the Fukushima nuclear crisis this past March and a contributor to the ANS Nuclear Cafe. Visit the weblink above for more information, including how to register.

Are you participating in a National Nuclear Science Week event that is not mentioned here? Please add a comment and let us know. ANS members, don’t forget to report your efforts using the online form at the ANS website. Keep up-to-date on events and activities throughout National Nuclear Science Week by visiting the ANS Nuclear Cafe, the ANS Facebook page, and the ANS website, and by following ANS on Twitter.

Comments Off

Posted in American Nuclear Society, Careers, Education, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, knowledge transfer, National Nuclear Science Week, News, physics, Science & Engineering Education, Tennessee Valley Authority

Nuclear News and the new year

Posted on January 17, 2012 by rmichal| Comments Off

The January issue of Nuclear News magazine is available in hard copy and electronically for American Nuclear Society members (must enter ANS user name and password in Member Center). The issue contains the following stories:

The year ahead: This time for sure? by E. Michael Blake
2012 Preview: Impact of Fukushima Daiichi on global prospects for nuclear, by Dick Kovan
10-year D&D program under way at Zion plant, by Rick Michal
The index to 2011 Nuclear News content

There is also an in-depth report on the 2011 ANS Winter Meeting, along with side coverage of two topicals at the meeting: the first ANS Small Modular Reactor conference, and the Young Professionals Congress 2011 meeting.

Other news in the January issue: NRC commissioner Jaczko votes to publish AP1000 certification final rule; revised emergency plan rule published in final form; study sees potential for small modular reactors to compete with gas-fired generation; is yellow inspection finding at Oconee an old design issue? Davis-Besse restart allowed while concrete studies continue; special inspection at Brunswick; NRC takes no significant action on four petitions; a status report on license renewal and power uprates; Fukushima-related motions in licensing proceedings continue to be denied; Levy site tour, limited statements scheduled; power reactor stress tests in the European Union said to be on track; European Union proposes additional €500 million to close Soviet-era reactors; fuel loading begins at Canada’s long-idled Bruce-1; Vietnam’s pact with Japan upheld, and new pact made with South Korea; three sites on short list for Poland’s first nuclear plant; United Kingdom chooses reuse as MOX to manage plutonium stock; nuclear research center opens in West Cumbria; and much more.

Past issues of Nuclear News are available here.

______________________

Comments Off

Posted in accident, American Nuclear Society, Department of Energy, Earthquake, Education, engineering, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, Fukushima, IAEA, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Meetings, Natural disasters, News, Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Literacy Project, Nuclear News, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, PWRs, reactor designs, Small modular reactors, spent fuel, Vietnam

Pretty Energy

Posted on January 11, 2012 by pbowersox| 4 Comments

By Suzy Hobbs Baker

I recently joined the latest social media phenomenon—“Pinterest”—after some good old-fashioned peer pressure from my pals. Basically it is an online scrapbook, where you can collect images from all over the Internet and organize or “pin” them under categories like “recipes to try” or “ideas for the garden” on your personal page. There is very little text and not much user-to-user interaction. You just browse thousands of images of party dresses, wedding ideas, art, or whatever you or other users have uploaded to the site. Essentially it’s a whole lot of eye candy.

This new forum is largely dominated by women, and has an overwhelming number of users, to the extent that there is currently a waiting list to join. Upon recognizing that this website is basically the “visual-Google-for-women,” I decided to do a little experiment to find out what nuclear-related images were on the site. Since every image has to be “pinned” from the web, I figured that whatever images I found on this site would be a pretty good visual representation of how women feel about nuclear power at this exact moment in time.

Well, what I found wasn’t pretty. In fact, it was downright bad: Earless bunnies of Fukushima, atomic bomb explosion after atomic bomb explosion, and not a single image of a nuclear power plant. Not one. The closest thing I found that was even remotely positive regarding nuclear energy was this image:

For those who can’t read Spanish it says, “Nuclear Today, Solar Tomorrow.” But hey, at least they are smiling and shaking hands.

So my next step, which I thought was going to bring up thousands of results, was to search for wind power. Surprisingly, only two images of wind turbines resulted, and I thought to myself, “Okay, maybe this just isn’t a forum where energy is a topic that people are thinking about.” But before I could rest assured, I did a quick search for “solar power” and stumbled into the archetypal female brain for all things solar energy. Put simply, women like solar energy. A lot. In fact, “solar power” yellow is a very popular color right now. You might even say that solar is en vogue with the ladies.

The common thread among all of the “solar power” search results is that they are small consumer items that you can use in your everyday life. They are all relatively inexpensive, cute, and easy to use. I get the distinct feeling that women’s experiences with “solar” products inform their broader beliefs about solar power. But what else are women thinking about energy issues?

According to the 2009 “Woman’s Survey on Energy and the Environment” by Women in Public Policy, the single largest concern among women is moving toward clean energy sources, trumping cost, reliability, and jobs. Women are the primary decision makers about household energy use, which is good, but they collectively have a lot of misconceptions about energy, which is not so good. Fifty-four percent of women think that nuclear energy releases CO2 and is a primary cause of climate change. Only 12 percent of women surveyed know that coal is the largest source of electrical generation in the United States. Basically, a lot of the ladies making decisions about energy at home do not have all the facts.

So, what can we do to solve this problem? First of all, we need to focus our outreach efforts specifically toward women. When we present information, we should take the time to gear it toward the specific concerns of our audience that we know to be reducing environmental impact. And we must make it visually appealing. Basically, make it pretty. Make it fun. If we can learn anything from Pinterest.com, it’s that ladies really like resources that are pretty, user friendly, and interactive. The best way to increase public support and overall use of nuclear energy is to appeal to women.

______________

Hobbs Baker

Suzy Hobbs Baker is the executive director of PopAtomic Studios, a non-profit organization dedicated to using the power of visual and liberal arts to enrich the discussion on nuclear energy. Hobbs Baker is an ANS member and a frequent contributor to ANS Nuclear Cafe

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Education, Environmental Benefits of Nuclear, Gallery, general media, knowledge transfer, lessons learned, Nuclear Energy Narrative, PI Spotlight, PopAtomic, Social Media, wind power