Former EPA leader: ‘Irresponsible’ for US to halt nuclear power

[FBaggins]

Former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Carol Browner said it would be “irresponsible” for the U.S. to take nuclear power off the table if it is serious about tackling climate change.

Speaking at a Washington event hosted by The Hill and Nuclear Matters, Browner called herself a “lifelong environmentalist” who now supports nuclear energy.

Browner, who led the EPA under President Clinton, also worked on climate and energy policy for President Obama during his first years in office and explained her shift on nuclear policy on Friday. “I think climate change is the biggest problem the world has ever faced,” Browner said.“Here in the U.S., if we were to take off the table an existing source of carbon-free energy, it would simply be irresponsible,” she said.

If you had asked her thoughts 20 years ago, Browner said, she would “probably not be pro-nuclear.” “In the course of thinking about it, I realized it wasn’t a responsible decision given my belief about climate change,” she said.


http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/221787-former-epa-chief-irresponsible-if-us-takes-nuclear-power-off-the

Smart lady.

[zappaman]

1. Fukushima has not only killed starfish but irradiated dolphins in the Atlantic.

Just in before you-know-who gets here.

[FBaggins]

2. I'm a particular fan of the "warming up the pacific" theory

Along with the magical genie fission going on beneath the reactors that somehow produces no short-lived fission products.

But this thread is about US environmental policy as it relates to nuclear power. No sense in trolljacking it for the usual suspects before they even show up.

[zappaman]

3. I agree with the EPA.

[RobertEarl]

14. Since you asked about moi

Gov’t Scientists: “Something very unusual occurring” off west coast of US, Canada — “Unprecedented in historical record” — “Will dramatically reduce productivity” in 6,500 sq. miles of ocean — Anomaly extends “across Pacific to Japan” — “Who knows what will happen?” (MAP)

Fishletter Issue 335, July 24, 2014 (emphasis added): There is a massive pool of warm water in the Gulf of Alaska, NOAA scientist Nate Mantua said in an email. It is unprecedented in the historical record, he added… the past year is way out of the historical range — “so who knows what will happen?“

NOAA Fisheries, Sept. 2014: Scientists across NOAA Fisheries are watching a persistent expanse of exceptionally warm water spanning the Gulf of Alaska that could send reverberations through the marine food web. The warm expanse appeared about a year ago and the longer it lingers, the greater potential it has to affect ocean life… “Right now it’s super warm all the way across the Pacific to Japan,” said Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with NOAA… “it’s a very interesting time because when you see something like this that’s totally new you have opportunities to learn things you were never expecting.” Not since records began has the region of the North Pacific Ocean been so warm for so long… The situation does not match recognized patterns in ocean conditions such as El Niño Southern Oscillation or Pacific Decadal Oscillation… “It’s a strange and mixed bag out there,” Mantua said… warm temperatures are higher and cover more of the northern Pacific than the PDO typically affects… cold near-shore conditions in the Pacific Northwest also don’t match the typical PDO pattern.

North Pacific Marine Science Organization (pdf), Summer 2014: In March 2014 there was something very unusual occurring in the Northeast (NE) Pacific that might have substantial consequences for biota in the Gulf of Alaska and southward into the subtropics… we see SST departures of 4.5 standard deviations… The anomaly field covers a large region of the N.E. Pacific… The authors of this article have never seen deviations… Something as extraordinary as a 4.5-sigma deviation requires corroboration… Argo data verify the very large temperature departures… and similar large deviations in salinity… the event is primarily restricted to the upper 100 metres of the water… In most years, a winter region of high productivity is created by this Ekman transport… Without nutrients from the subarctic, the productivity of subtropical waters must decline… Between 30–40°N, surface chlorophyll dropped to 60% of the average values… weakened nutrient transport from the subarctic into the subtropics this past winter will dramatically reduce the productivity of the eastern subtropics over an area of ~17,000 km² .

[RobertEarl]

15. Annnnd

The researchers still don't know why the sea stars are dying.

http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/

[FBaggins]

24. I know that you and reality had a messy divorce due to irreconcilable differences...

... but you should stop acting as though there's a restraining order keeping you from even getting close.

Not knowing why something is happening is not a rational justification for just making something up.

No marine biologist has even looked into the possibility that it's my kids' excessive time playing Minecraft that's killing starfish... but how nuts would I sound trying to tell them that until the researchers prove what's causing it... my claim is still vaid?

The total lack of evidence (or even a plausible theory) connecting the two is more than enough.

[RobertEarl]

26. Eh?

What is it with you?

You attack me, while dismissing the nuclear pollution in the Pacific.

My agenda is protecting all life from man made pollution.

Your agenda is what?

[FBaggins]

27. There's no "attack" there

That's your imagination. It was merely an attempt to use humor to pull you out of realitylessness (tm)

while dismissing the nuclear pollution in the Pacific.

I haven't "dismissed" it, I've merely put it in the proper context. It simply isn't the threat that you imagine it to be.

My agenda is protecting all life from man made pollution.

Without any connection to reality, having a laudable agenda ends up hurting more than helping.

Your agenda is what?

Rescuing people from tinfoil hat syndrom where possible and making sure that casual visitors to DU recognize that it's far from the norm here.

[RobertEarl]

29. You remind me of faux news

But far, far less entertaining.

Thanks for recognizing that my words and efforts against nuclear pollution are having a positive effect. So much so that you must labor hard to try and kill the message. It is quite affirming. Don't stop, your repeated postings just allow for more opportunities to educate folks so they can see both sides.

[FBaggins]

30. Which, no doubt, you don't see as a personal attack.

Thanks for recognizing that my words and efforts against nuclear pollution are having a positive effect.

As usual... there's something of a cavern between what was said, and what you decided to hear.

allow for more opportunities to educate folks so they can see both sides.

There are two sides when it comes to nuclear power. Unfortunately... you're on neither of them (which is why you haven't been welcome back in E/E - the anti-nukes were the ones who most wanted you to stay away). You're way off in space with the UFO/chemtrail/morgellon crowd.

[RobertEarl]

31. There you go again

I was blocked from E&E because I did not follow the host's demand that i ignore the craziest nuke lover in that group. That is the only reason.

But really, look at the posts now in E&E since i was blocked. Down to hardly any discussions. The lead host is now someone who hasn't even posted in over a year. It's a friggin joke that group is. Here's that host's profile link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=123697

Please, keep posting your pro-nuke threads here. This is fun. Much more views here than in that group, eh?

[FBaggins]

32. There *I* go again?

I keep telling you why you aren't welcome back... and you keep replying with why you were banned.

You really can't tell the difference? Presumably, if it was just unwillingness to ignore a given poster, that would be lifted when that other poster was banned. The problem is that the anti-nuke members felt that you made them look a bit loony with this kind of seastar-melting-pacific-warming nonsense. The consensus was that you were either a troll or a pro-nuke poster trying to make legitimately anti-nuke posters appear irrational.

But really, look at the posts now in E&E since i was blocked. Down to hardly any discussions.

Ah... but those discussions are so much closer to rationality and are largely on-topic. It's really a substantial improvement (except for the loss off Kristopher).

[RobertEarl]

33. That's all you got?

Making up stories about some lame group that is a backwater of DU with hosts who don't post?

And now you are lost even on your own thread. This one is about Browner and 'keeping nukes alive'. Your other thread was about unit 4.

This is really getting quite ridiculous, even for you.

[FBaggins]

34. Making up stories?

Heck... I hope I'm not intruding on your prerogatives.

Let's take another look at reality, shall we?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/112741728#post40

Kris was one of our more rational anti-nuclear regulars (as are a few of the other posters on that thread)

And now you are lost even on your own thread.

Congratulations... you finally got one right. I've deleted the additional comment.

[RobertEarl]

36. Kris?

Where is Kris, these days?

He was blocked at one time too.

I see you are one who supports the idea that if one disagrees with the powers that be, they should be blocked from participating in the discussions.

You keep digging yourself deeper.

Par for the course from the Nukes will save us crowd.

[FBaggins]

37. I haven't seen him in months

He was blocked at one time too.

If so... you're now forced to recognize that the reasons for an initial block are not the reasons that such a block would persist.

I see you are one who supports the idea that if one disagrees with the powers that be,

And I see that you're still making up your own reality. Kris in no way agrees with me or "the powers that be" (whever they are)... yet I clearly didn't say that he should be blocked. In fact... I said just the opposite (but you just keep on going in your own little world).

[RobertEarl]

38. Point is

The hosts of that group are the powers that be in that group and they wield their power to suppress any poster that they don't like. Kris made them mad and they had a pissy fit.

So you think it is cool that I am blocked? That because i did not bow to the authority's undemocratic demand that I should watch what I say?

How undemocratic of you. Again, par for the course from nuke-lovers.

[FBaggins]

39. Of course... that too is incorrect.

The hosts of that group are the powers that be in that group and they wield their power to suppress any poster that they don't like.

The hosts of that group are not all pro-nuclear. In fact, I only know of one or two.

Kris made them mad and they had a pissy fit.

Got any evidence apart from that active imagination of yours?

So you think it is cool that I am blocked?

"Cool" doesn't have anything to do with it.

That because i did not bow to the authority's undemocratic demand that I should watch what I say?

As you've been told lots of times now. Your persecution complex really doesn't interest me. It was reasonable to block you if pro and anti nuclear hosts ageed that your behavior was out of bounds (assuming they held the other person to a similar standard). It would be reasonable to allow you to return if it looked like you would add to the conversation rather then derailing it with nonense. But your longstanding record made it clear that wouldn't happen.

[RobertEarl]

40. That is just your opinion

Of which really I don't care squat for. It is worthless.

Did you know that the earth at one time was too radiated for life as we know it to exist?

[FBaggins]

42. You have a long habit of mistaking facts for opinion...

... and an even worse one of mistaking your opinions/imaginations for facts.

The majority of the hosts on E/E are not pro-nuclear. A couple of them are some of the strongest opponents on the site.

And there's no way that Kristopher's absence is because of being blocked. First of all, he regularly posted outside of E/E and the hosts can't ban a user from DU... also, more than one of the hosts has expressed puzzlement at his absence.

Then of course... there's the easiest one to prove. DU groups list all of the blocked members and he isn't on the list.

Did you know that the earth at one time was too radiated for life as we know it to exist?

It was certainly much more radioactive than today... but wait... that was all "natural" radiation. I have it on good authority that it's only the artificial man-made radiation that's dangerous.

[zappaman]

41. Thanks for the link.

Easy to see why this poster was thrown out of E & E.

[FBaggins]

25. And you still think that's somehow connected to demon cores at Fukushima, right?

Each of those cores is somehow putting out hundreds of times as much heat as they did when the reactors were active... all without releasing any short-lived fission products, substantial amounts of steam, or warming up the harbor?

Seriously?

[greatlaurel]

4. Getting rid of all the nuclear waste in the cooling pools stored at the reactors should be first.

Of course, we should clean up Hanford, Oak Ridge, Paducah, Piketon, the nuclear waste sites on the Navaho reservation etc...

Nuclear power has lots and lots of problems that can not be resolved with our current technology. The problem of waste disposal is first and foremost. Investment in renewables and energy efficiency are lots cheaper and without all the safety issues.

Unless you want to build nuclear weapons, then you need nuclear reactors.

[FBaggins]

5. Waste disposal is actually pretty easy

It's a political problem, not a scientific/engineering problem.

We could get rid of most of it by simply recycling it into fresh fuel.

Unless you want to build nuclear weapons, then you need nuclear reactors.

That's a common error. Civilian power reactors in the US don't produce plutonium or U235 for nuclear weapons and never have. In fact, it's just the opposite. Civilian reactors have been consuming old weapons material for a number of years now.

[dlwickham]

6. I didn't know you could recycle spent fule

and who says DU isn't educational

[FBaggins]

7. Yep. You absolutely can.

A number of countries do it (the French get almost all of their electricity from nuclear power and have a small fraction of the waster problem that we have.

Very little of the fuel is expended in the old E = mc(squared) process. The only reason that it's "spent" after 4-6 years is that the fission products built up int he fuel rods to the point where the ongoing reaction is slowed. Clean out those daughter elements by reprocessing the fuel and you can put it right back into a reactor and use it again (over and over and over).

It has the added advantage of reducing the volume of waste dramatically... and most of that waste is comparatively short-lived. As you can imagine, it would be easier to accept underground storage of nuclear waste if there was far less of it and it only needed to be stored for a century or so before it wasn't very radioactive.

[bananas]

12. That's one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

France is reducing nuclear to 50% of their electricity, from about 75%.
France has less waste because they have fewer reactors - the US has around 100, France has around 50 to 60.
Reprocessing is more expensive, more difficult to handle, and more dangerous than once-through.
Reprocessing actually increases the total waste volume - and it doesn't solve the problem of high-level waste storage at all.

France reprocesses some of it's waste for two reasons:
- to extract plutonium for nuclear weapons
- to extract plutonium for breeder reactors

Their breeder reactor projects failed miserably, and the international consensus for banning nuclear weapons is growing.

[RobertEarl]

19. Breeder reactors?

Woo!!

Woo!!

Woo!!!

[FBaggins]

20. I didn't realize that you were so poorly read.

You could, for instance, take your reply as an excellent example.

France is reducing nuclear to 50% of their electricity, from about 75%.

Which is relevant to the point... how exactly?

France has less waste because they have fewer reactors - the US has around 100, France has around 50 to 60.

I didn't say that they have less waste (for which your reply would be at least a little relevant)... I said they have a small fraction of the waste problem than we have. And that's true. The amount of high-level waste that requires long-term storage is dramatically smaller than ours. And yes, dramatically smaller after adjusting for TWh generated.

Reprocessing is more expensive, more difficult to handle, and more dangerous than once-through.

Not more dangerous perhaps... but certainly more expensive and more difficult. So? Lots of things that are recycled are more expensive and difficult than just throwing the waste away and digging up new materials... but we recycle because it's better for the environment and converts "waste" to useful materials - which reducing landfill volume. That makes it worth the expense (as it does with reprocessing)

Reprocessing actually increases the total waste volume - and it doesn't solve the problem of high-level waste storage at all.

Lol! And that's where you prove that you couldn't have made this post if you read it yourself. That's just plain nutty. The person who came up with that claim was being intentionally deceptive. Were you falling for it or trying to get others to?

Right now, the US has to treat the entire volume of spent reactor fuel as high-level waste. Only ~4% of the French spent fuel ends up as HLW - plus they reduce the incoming waste stream because the reprocessed fuel takes the place of freshly mined and enriched uranium.

France reprocesses some of it's waste for two reasons:
- to extract plutonium for nuclear weapons
- to extract plutonium for breeder reactors

Even though they have all the plutonium for weapons that they need and don't currently have a breeder reactor (while dozens of reactors run off of the reprocessed fuel)... you still expect people to buy that?

Their breeder reactor projects failed miserably, and the international consensus for banning nuclear weapons is growing.

That's nice. Again though... why is it relevant?

[bananas]

9. You can't recycle it, it's a PR term for reprocessing.

When you recycle an aluminum can, you get another aluminum can.

When you "recycle" a fuel rod, you get one seventh of a fuel rod.

[dlwickham]

16. don't you lose some of the original aluminum in the process

[FBaggins]

21. Don't buy the spin

Of course you lose some of the original aluminum.

Just as importantly, not everything that you put into the recycling stream comes out the back end as fresh Al. You end up with some waste that remains "waste". The false dichotomy of "recycling" vs "reprocessing" is nonsensical.

The goal of the program would be:

1 - reduce the need for new fuel
2 - reduce the volume of waste that needs special handling.

#1 is straightforward enough. The uranium and plutonium that are fissile are removed and made into fresh fuel (using up some of the non-fissile uranium as well). The high-level waste (about 4% of the volume) is also removed and stabilize for long-term storage.

That leaves a high percentage of the volume that is just U238. Technically... that's still "waste" since it isn't being used in some other process.... and technically it's "radioactive waste" since it's waste that is radioactive... so there are some less-than-entirely-honest debaters who will pretend that you haven't helped the problem. "You still have lots of nuclear waste!!!" they will say.

The problem with that spin is that the waste problem is much smaller because U238 isn't dangerous... and it's everywhere already. The real waste problem (the stuff you need to store long-term that presents a health risk)... is dramatically reduced (both by the 95+% reduction in high-level waste, but also by the reductin in newly-mined uranium for fuel producion (that eventually becomes waste).

[bananas]

8. She's wrong, and Nuclear Matters is an astroturf group

http://safeenergy.org/2014/10/14/why-nuclear-matters-doesnt-matter/

[FBaggins]

11. NIRS is less credible.

They aren't grassroots environmentalists, they're hardcore anti-nukes (which is not the same thing)... and Nuclear Matters doesn't exactly claim to be a grassroots organization, so how can they be "astroturf"?

Sure looks like The Hill and the Clinton&Obama administration EPA head (the longest-serving in history) - and head of the WH office of Energy and Climate Change - finds them pretty credible.

When discussing public policy... I'd say that she and people like senators Evan Bayh, Bill Daley, Blanche Lincoln... along with union presidents Edwin Hill and Sean McGarvey - carry quite a bit more weight than a clearinghouse for anti-nuclear propaganda.

[ZombieHorde]

10. Much better than coal. nt

[RobertEarl]

13. Solar and wind

Too cheap to meter. Or tax, or create huge profits for wall street. That's why we don't get much electricity from solar and wind.

And Carol Browner could have lead the way when she was in office and we'd be cutting way back on greenhouse emissions today. Instead we have browner skies. Now she's brown-nosing nukes. What a waste.

She is no environmentalist. She's a hack, and nuclear power is the deadliest source of energy humans have ever produced. And it isn't just today's pollution, it's the fact that the nuke waste lasts for as long as a thousand years. In fifty years, once we have solar and wind power, all the excess co2 will be gone.

Long-lived radionuclides such as Cesium-137 are something new to us as a species. They did not exist on Earth in any appreciable quantities during the entire evolution of complex life. Co2 did. Although they are invisible to our senses they are millions of times more poisonous than most of the common poisons we are familiar with. They cause cancer, leukemia, genetic mutations, birth defects, malformations, and abortions at concentrations almost below human recognition and comprehension. They are lethal at the atomic or molecular level.

They emit radiation, invisible forms of matter and energy that we might compare to fire, because radiation burns and destroys human tissue. But unlike the fire of fossil fuels, the nuclear fire that issues forth from radioactive elements cannot be extinguished. It is not a fire that can be
scattered or suffocated because it burns at the atomic level—it comes from the disintegration of single atoms.

[Lee-Lee]

17. Until solar and wind can generate on-demand 24/7 we need something else

Solar is off half the day.

Wind all depends on the weather.

Neither can be turned up and down on demand.

So while they are good, and we should be using them as much as possible when they do generate, we need something else to make the baseload power.

Hydro does some, but we are past the era of ever building another dam and flooding people out of house and home.

That leaves coal, natural gas, or nuclear.

We all know the issues with coal.

Natural gas primary comes from fracking these day.

Of the 3 choices, nuclear seems to generate the least pollution, the least waste, and be the best long-term option of 3 less than perfect options.

The biggest hurdles are political, not scientific.

[RobertEarl]

18. Nuclear is the most expensive

And the worst polluting.

Japan knows how bad nukes are. Let's hope we get smart enough, quick enough, to close down our nuke plants before we have a situation, like Japan has, of 160,000 people forever removed from their land because of nuclear pollution.

Tell me of a similar forbidden zone around any coal plant?

And tell me what your plan is for taking care of the nuclear waste. Ignoring it seems to be the current solution. What is your plan?

[FBaggins]

22. All evidence to the contrary

Not that you've ever let that stop you.

[TBF]

23. Obama and Exelon -

Exelon’s nuclear plant in Byron, Ill. Company officials say its relationship with the Obama administration reflects a shared vision of moving the nation toward a cleaner energy future.
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: August 22, 2012

WASHINGTON — Early in the Obama administration, a lobbyist for the Illinois-based energy producer Exelon Corporation proudly called it “the president’s utility.” And it was not just because it delivers power to Barack Obama’s Hyde Park neighborhood in Chicago.

Exelon secured a $646 million loan on generous financial terms, guaranteed by the Energy Department, to help build this solar project now under construction in Los Angeles County.
Brian Kersey/Associated Press

John W. Rogers Jr., a friend of President Obama’s, is a member of the Exelon board.
Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times

David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, Obama insiders, both have ties to Exelon.

Exelon’s top executives were early and frequent supporters of Mr. Obama as he rose from the Illinois State Senate to the White House. John W. Rogers Jr., a friend of the president’s and one of his top fund-raisers, is an Exelon board member. David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s longtime political strategist, once worked as an Exelon consultant, and Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayor and Mr. Obama’s former chief of staff, helped create the company through a corporate merger in 2000 while working as an investment banker ...


And so it goes. More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/us/politics/ties-to-obama-aided-in-access-for-exelon-corporation.html?pagewanted=all

[NCTraveler]

28. Not sure how we are going to solve our problems here.

When the words "clean coal" can pass the lips of so many democrats it should really be a wakeup to how much trouble we are in. That really made it clear to me that our government isn't going to assist us in the necessary ways to solve our energy problems. To do this without serious government interference is next to impossible.

[RobertEarl]

35. Good point

How can, after Fukushima, this idea that Nukes are Clean, and nukes will save us, pass the lips of any one who is paying attention to the environment?

I think what we are reading is that it is all about big money. Solar panels on someone's roof are hardly taxable and provide little profit for wall street.

[NCTraveler]

43. Fukushima is a joke when compared to coal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/power-plant-air-pollution-coal-kills_n_833385.html