Franken rethinks position on nuclear power (after discussion with Al Gore)

[Dogmudgeon]

This story has been reported by a number of papers in Minnesota. The Post-Bulletin seems to be the paper that got the scoop, so it is the one I am citing.

http://ww2.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=16&a=485682">Franken rethinks position on nuclear power

A discussion with former Vice President Al Gore caused Minnesota Sen. Al Franken to change his opinion on nuclear power.

During a meeting with the Post-Bulletin editorial board last week, Franken said that during the 2008 campaign his position was that there needed to be a solution to nuclear waste storage before nuclear power expanded. That's changed.

Franken said he asked Gore about the issue. Gore told him he believes that advances in technology can keep up with increased use of nuclear power and lead to better ways to monitor and store the waste.

"Yes, (the nuclear waste) will be around for hundreds of thousands of years, but I am kind of hoping we will, too," Franken said. "And I am kind of hoping that just as we're going from a decade to map the human genome to a day or two days or whatever it is that we will be more and more sophisticated on storing the waste."

Franken went on to say this "represents something of a change for me." He said there are certainly pros and cons to the nuclear issue, but he believes expanding nuclear power will help solve global warming.

...

http://ww2.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=16&a=485682">(More at the Rochester MN Post-Bulletin)

Franken was anti-nuclear for many years; when I read that he had become "cautiously" (his word) pro-nuclear in 2007, I was quite surprised.

--d!

[ixion]

1. Once they enter the beltway, they all fall in line...

It's indicative of our systemically corrupt government.

[Archae]

2. More like Franken used his usual method.

Study a problem thoroughly, then come to a logical conclusion.

France gets most of it's power from nukes, why can't we?

Three Mile Island was an outdated design.
Chernobyl was a BAD design.

Wind farms and solar can't keep up with demand.

[txlibdem]

4. Franken is very level headed and doesn't buy any rhetoric, he studies and learns

Then he makes a decision. I have been following Al Franken since his show on Air America. He is one of the best of the best in congress.

[bananas]

6. France doesn't get most of it's power from nukes.

They get most of their electricity from nukes, but not most of their power.

[GliderGuider]

16. You can do better than that.

I just know it.

[ixion]

10. that renewables energy can't keep up is a myth

thanks for continuing to spread the ignorance.

[Sirveri]

14. Hydro=8.17%, Wind=2.65%, Solar=0.15%. 2008 summer peak EIA figures.

All numbers derived from DoE's EIA department using 2008 consumption figures (2010 figures may be projections leading to reduced accuracy).
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/forecasts/aeo/tables_ref.cfm

Table 9: Electrical Power only in gigawatts (Percent Total) using 2008 Summer figures derived from same source material. Oil and Gas was broken down in base data figures, I have combines these for simpler reference.
Total: 939.8 (100%)
Coal: 304.4 (32.39%)
Total Oil/Gas: 403.4 (42.92%)
-Combined Cycle: 157.1 (16.72%)
-Combustion Turbine/Diesel: 131.7 (14.01%)
-Oil and Natural Gas Steam: 114.6 (12.19%)
Renewable Sources*: 109.7 (11.67%)
Nuclear: 100.6 (10.70%)
Pumped Storage: 21.8 (2.32%)

* Renewable sources include: Conventional hydroelectric, geothermal, wood, wood waste, all municipal waste, landfill gas, other biomass, solar, wind. Facilities co-firing biomass and coal were classed as coal.

I found another chart that further broke down renewable sources into their base components, however there was a deviation in total values between that list and the number given in total supply. The total in the breakdown yields 110.31, a difference of 0.61GW which is only a difference of .05% (thus statistically insignificant). Total has been adjusted upwards to 940.41 for greater accuracy in second percent value.

Table 16: Renewable source breakdown in Gigawatts (Percent Renewable/Percent Total) in 2008 Summer
Total: 110.31 (100%/11.72%)
Conventional Hydropower: 76.87 (69.69%/8.17%)
Wind: 24.89 (22.56%/2.65%)
Municipal Waste: 3.37 (3.06%/0.36%)
Geothermal: 2.42 (2.19%/0.26%)
Wood and other biomass: 2.19 (1.99%/0.23%)
Solar Thermal: 0.53 (0.48%/0.06%)
Solar PV*: 0.05 (0.05%/negligable)
Offshore Wind^: 0.00 (0%/0%)

*Solar Photovoltaics (PV) does NOT include off-grid generation, High end estimates place off-grid PV power generation at 237 MW (.237GW), and 550 MW (.55GW) for communication, transportation, and other specialized off grid applications. Sum high end total estimate is .787GW, plus .05 from dedicated grid generation yields 0.837 (0.76%/0.09%). Total Solar (Thermal+PV): 1.367 (1.24%/0.15%).

^Offshore Wind is currently not generating in any on-grid capacity and was included for future projection purposes, projections indicate it will begin to come online in 2014 and generate 0.2GW per year from then until end of projections in 2035.

[ixion]

18. Here is the bottom line: There is more potential and kinetic energy around us

than we could ever hope to use. The trick is in finding the most efficient ways to harness it.

[Sirveri]

26. I generally agree with the sentiment, I simply think we need a bridge right now.

It will take time to shift from conventional fueled plants to green sources, due to the effects of both peak oil, peak gas and global climate change(GCC) the speed needed to adopt such a system will not be attainable without inflating the pressures caused by the peaks and global climate change(GCC). As such a non-carbon intensive bridge is needed. In this case nuclear has been sitting dormant since around 1985 (when the last batch of plants came online). Considering that nuclear plants are only licensed for 50 years, 75 with a DoE extension, that means we are half way to the point where we start seeing a significant decrease in our ability to generate electricity. Given current price points for green energy versus coal, combined with the strength of the coal and fossil fuel lobby's, it is safe to assume that green power sources will not expand at the needed rate to combat either peak oil/gas or GCC. This means we need a bridge technology, nuclear is tried and tested and has the capacity to operate safely for the time needed to act as such a bridge. The major issue therein is carbon generated from the plant construction (which primarily has to do with concrete used in construction), but while operating carbon sources from these plants is minimal/non-existent (main source is mandatory test runs of the emergency diesel generator). The expansion of the industrial base needed to fuel a boom in construction of green energy plants would be good for employment concerns, however due to current political situations I don't believe that such an action will occur.

[ixion]

27. I don't believe it will, either...

which is more than unfortunate, in my opinion, because it makes the inevitable that much more difficult when the time does come.

[wtmusic]

37. Impossible to harness sufficient quantities of it for human consumption.

You would destroy the environment (not to mention the economy) by merely setting up the infrastructure to do so. One step forward, eleven back.

Nuclear is the only net positive energy source with the capacity to stop a climatic slide into hell, and it's doubtful whether it isn't too late already.

[txlibdem]

23. We all agree that is right now, with fossil fuels getting billions in subsidies and solar getting 0

Prior to 2008, renewable energy got practically zero subsidies and zero attention from the gov't. Since Pres. Obama has gotten into office the situation has changed for the better but the fossil fuels are still soaking up billions in subsidies each year. All of that should have been redirected toward the renewables immediately in my opinion.

Solar PV still has a ways to go as far as being competitively priced with the polluting fossil fuel sources but that is only because the externalized costs of burning coal have been passed along to you and me in the form of higher insurance rates and higher medical bills.

If coal was forced to actually pay the total cost of its use solar would be a bargain and nuclear power would be the cheapest form of electricity available.

[Sirveri]

25. I personally prefer solar thermal for dedicated centralized power generation.

Solar PV is great for undistributed power generation from roof tops and the like. If you ignore subsidies to ethanol and carbon capture and storage (ethanol is WAY out of whack), then from '02-'08 you had 82.4B in subsidies, 12.2B of which went to renewable sources, which is 14.81% of subsidy money. Unfortunately I haven't seen a good breakdown for these figures so I still need to do a bit more in depth research, but it's probably close to accurate. However I can't do a breakdown that splits renewable subsidies between say hydro and other sources so it makes it difficult to assess the true scale of the subsidies.

In the case of subsidies another question to ask is the effect on the end consumer. Currently with wage growth stagnant any subsidy destruction would simply lead to those sources passing the new 'expenses' onto the consumer, causing a price inflation that is currently being held artificially low. So while I support eliminating subsidies, we need to figure out a way to phase in the elimination to avoid shocks to the consumer.

As for coal vs. nuclear price points. One question to be asked is if the coal plants are required to deal with all their own waste products. The amount of coal waste generated is substantial, and if those prices were required to be absorbed in cleanup costs akin to what is required for nuclear wastes it's quite possible that the end cost of coal waste cleanup would cause the price of coal generated electrical capacity to spike above that of nuclear (especially if held to the same standards as a nuclear plant is required to adhere for the cleanup of alpha radcon sources).

As for nuclear it's a bit of a crap shoot. First the disclaimer: I was a naval nuclear propulsion plant operator who has previously applied for employment in the commercial nuclear sector. Now on to the meat, part of the big expense for nuclear power is in litigation expenses. We have a small highly litigious and vocal minority that has no desire to see nuclear power generation occur anywhere inside the US or the world. This causes price inflation due to a lack of a waste disposal facility, and that cause price inflation of future nuclear sites. Until that issue is addressed, nuclear power will remain more expensive that coal, oil, nat gas, and even hydro electric. The biggest issue there is the lack of traction they gain when attempting to oppose natural gas plants, they're typically tossed out of court without a second glance. That seems to indicate a lack of understanding from the judicial branch, rather than success of tactics from the 'banana' lobby. If anything it shows the conflated public fear over radiation and nuclear without them having a clear understanding of how either works from a physics perspective.

[txlibdem]

28. We share the preference for Solar Thermal, or more accurately Concentrated Solar Thermal

The desert southwest could provide 100% of our electrical power requirements if each solar plant also incorporated thermal storage. They are building a commercial solar thermal power plant called Solar Tres (which is the offspring of Solar One and Solar Two test projects) with thermal storage to provide 24 hour power reserves in the form of molten salts. Solar Two had thermal storage adequate to provide power till 3 hours after sundown, which would adequately covering peak power needs.

Solar Two
In 1995 Solar One was converted into Solar Two, by adding a second ring of 108 larger 95 m² (1,000 ft²) heliostats around the existing Solar One, totaling 1926 heliostats with a total area of 82,750 m² (891,000 ft²). This gave Solar Two the ability to produce 10 megawatts. Solar Two used molten salt, a combination of 60% sodium nitrate and 40% potassium nitrate, as an energy storage medium instead of oil or water as with Solar One. This helped in energy storage during brief interruptions in sunlight due to clouds. The molten salt also allowed the energy to be stored in large tanks for future use such as night time - Solar Two had sufficient capacity to continue running for up to three hours after the sun had set. Solar Two was decommissioned in 1999, and was converted by the University of California, Davis, into an Air Cherenkov Telescope in 2001, measuring gamma rays hitting the atmosphere. Its name is now C.A.C.T.U.S..<2> Solar Two's 3 primary participants were Southern California Edison (SCE), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

• "We're proud of Solar Two's success as it marks a significant milestone in the development of large-scale solar energy projects," said then U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.
  
• "This technology has been successfully demonstrated and is ready for commercialization. From 1994 to 1999, the Solar Two project demonstrated the ability of solar molten salt technology to provide long-term, cost effective thermal energy storage for electricity generation.", Boeing

On November 25, 2009 the Solar Two tower was demolished<3> The mothballed site was levelled and returned to vacant land by Southern California Edison. All heliostats and other hardware were removed.

Solar Tres
Due to the success of Solar Two, a commercial power plant, called Solar Tres Power Tower, is being built in Spain by Torresol Energy using Solar One and Solar Two's technology for commercial electrical production of 15 MW.<4> Solar Tres will be three times larger than Solar Two with 2,493 heliostats, each with a reflective surface of 96 m². The total reflective area will be 240,000 m² (2.6 million ft²). They will be made of a highly reflective glass with metal back to cut costs by about 45%. A larger molten nitrate salt storage tank will be used giving the plant the ability to store 600 MWh, allowing the plant to run 24x7 during the summer.

Land use
Solar thermal power plants are big and use a lot of land, but when looking at electricity output versus total size, they use less land than hydroelectric dams (including the size of the lake behind the dam) or coal plants (including the amount of land required for mining and excavation of the coal).<5>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Two#Solar_Two

This is but one example that completely debunks the myth that solar power cannot provide for our energy needs. Solar takes no more land than coal power on a land per kilowatt hour output basis. How much more proof do the doubters need?!?

Although the turbine will be only slightly larger than that at Solar Two, the larger heliostat field and thermal storage system will enable the plant to operate 24 hours a day during summer and have an annual capacity factor of approximately 65%.<2>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Tres_Power_Tower

The annual capacity factor of 65% is a "big f**king deal" in the words of our Vice President.

Update: The Solar Tres project has been spun off into a company called GEMASOLAR.

[kristopher]

31. Nuclear power is not "the cheapest form of electricity available" under any scenario

Whether carbon pricing is enacted or not, nuclear power is competing against renewable energy sources. When all external costs are included nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity.

[txlibdem]

33. Recycling that old chart --that has been debunked time and time again

Any claim that coal should be in the positive category (and natural gas in the double positive) is ludicrous.

[kristopher]

34. That is your second unsupported false assertion

To deny that the low direct economic costs are not a benefit of fossil fuels is to deny reality. I guess that ability goes hand in hand with support for nuclear power.

Is your mischaracterization of the contents of the graph deliberate?

The author describes the graph:
"Figure ES-4 depicts three critical characteristics of the alternatives available for meeting electricity needs in a carbon-constrained environment. The horizontal axis represents the economic cost. The vertical axis represents the societal cost (with societal cost including environmental, safety, and security concerns). The size of the circles represents the risk. Public policy should exploit the options closest to the origin, as these are the least-cost alternatives. Where the alternatives are equal on economic cost and societal impact, the less risky should be pursued.
Nuclear reactors are shown straddling the positive/negative line on societal impact. If the uranium production cycle – mining, processing, use and waste disposal – were deemed to have a major societal impact, nuclear reactors would be moved much higher on the societal impact dimension. If one believes that nuclear reactors have a minor impact, reactors would be moved down on the societal impact dimension. In either case, there are numerous options that should be pursued first. Thus, viewed from a multidimensional perspective, including economic, environmental, and risk factors, there are numerous preferable alternatives."

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

[txlibdem]

36. Your false assertions that coal is a positive and Nat Gas is double positive are indefensible

That is why you continually fail to even attempt to defend your pro-fossil fuels positions.

An incorrect graph stays incorrect, no matter how many times you post it. Perhaps I should locate a graph that shows the moon is made of green cheese and post *that* a hundred times as well. It would be equally true.

Coal is a net negative for every living creature on this planet, especially humans. The only reason its costs per megawatt are lower than alternatives is due to the fact that the coal industry does not pay for the environmental costs, nor for the increased medical bills that it directly causes with its waste products. That is not a function or feature or benefit of coal, it is an indication of a broken system that needs to be ended immediately if not sooner.

And tell the residents of the midwest and Colorado whose kitchen faucets can be lit on fire due to natural gas fracking practices that Nat Gas is a double positive.

[Sirveri]

13. TMI wasn't outdated, but the casualty procedures for a fast leak were.

A lot went wrong there, but we also learned quite a bit from it as well. I could spend hours talking about TMI, it was a really awesome casualty, very well documented.

[bowens43]

3. Gore's right , as usual. nt

[bananas]

20. Al Gore: "Nuclear Not The Answer", "Even if you wish away the long-term storage of the waste..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x72346

Nov-17-06

Al Gore: "Nuclear Not The Answer"

<snip>

Mr Gore said nuclear power was unlikely to play a significantly bigger role in the climate change battle. "Even if you set aside the problem of long-term waste storage and the danger of operator accident and the vulnerability to terrorist attack, you still have two others that are more difficult," he said.The first problem was one of economics."Nuclear power plants are the costliest to build and they take the longest time and at present they come in only one size — extra large."

<snip>

He's said this three times now

He said this in a Grist Magazine interview and in his NYU major policy address.
From your second link:

<snip>

Mr Gore played down the role on nuclear power in fighting climate change.

"I have never been a reflexive opponent of it," he said. "But I am sceptical that it will play more than a minor role in most countries around the world because, let's face it, there are a lot of problems.

"Even if you wish away the long-term storage of the waste or the possibility of a reactor operator error. You still have economics and the costs of these things are very high.They only come in one size: extra large. It takes a long time. It costs a lot of money."

<snip>

[bananas]

22. Al Gore: "I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy."

"Let me restate for you my long held policy with regard to nuclear energy. I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy. Moreover, I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable." - Al Gore

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13831

Will Al Gore Help Shut the Nuke Power Loophole?
by Harvey Wasserman | April 2, 2008

Today Al Gore is unveiling a massive campaign to fight climate chaos.

But the hugely funded atomic power industry has jumped on global warming with the Big Lie that its failed reactors can somehow help. It's a sorry replay of the 1950s promise that atomic power would be "too cheap to meter."

Just before the 2000 election, as senior advisor to the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, I wrote then-Vice President Gore asking that he help delete from the Kyoto Accords any reference to nukes as a possible solution to global warming. On November 3, 2000 (the letter is posted at the NIRS web site) Gore wrote back:

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding nuclear energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Let me restate for you my long held policy with regard to nuclear energy. I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy. Moreover, I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable. In fact, you will note that the electricity restructuring legislation proposed by the Administration specifically excluded both nuclear and large scale hydro-energy, and instead promoted increased investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It is my view that climate change policies should do the same.

Nukes were soon deleted from the Kyoto Accords as a "solution" to global warming.

<snip>

Here's the letter on the NIRS site that Gore sent:

http://www.nirs.org/climate/cop6/goreletter.htm

Gore Letter on Nukes and Climate Change

November 3, 2000

Mr. Harvey Wasserman
Senior Advisor
Nuclear Information and Resources Center
755 Eau Claire Avenue
Bexley, Ohio 43209
Dear Mr. Wasserman:

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding nuclear energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Let me restate for you my long held policy with regard to nuclear energy. I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy. Moreover, I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable. In fact, you will note that the electricity restructuring legislation proposed by the Administration specifically excluded both nuclear and large scale hydro-energy, and instead promoted increased investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It is my view that climate change policies should do the same.

Sincerely,

Al Gore

[bananas]

5. Gore doesn't think nuclear power will increase much

and his statement "advances in technology can keep up with increased use of nuclear power and lead to better ways to monitor and store the waste" has to be taken in that context.

[bananas]

7. This may be mis-reported.

There is a long history of pro-nukes misreporting things.

[madokie]

30. I just call it lying

They've been doing it from day one.

[Dogmudgeon]

32. WRONG. The meeting was just a week ago; it was well-reported.

Several news organizations reported it, and the (inter-)national press organizations have picked the story up.

You didn't check the article or its sources, did you?

So you're claiming it "may be" misreported based on ... what? Your own dislike of nuclear energy.

--d!

[bananas]

35. It was also well-reported that Al Gore claimed to invent the internet

and that he discovered Love Canal, etc.
The article will leave people with the false impression that Al Gore is a proponent of nuclear energy, he's not.
That's bad journalism.

[bananas]

8. "Franken has always been for Nuclear Power. I’m a little disappointed that the press ..."

From the comments to the article:

Jack Ludwig
Comment posted January 20, 2011 @ 10:35 am

Franken has always been for Nuclear Power. I’m a little disappointed that the press did not do its homework on this, trying to reinvent himself as a moderate is also a bit unerving..
Here is a quote from Franken in 2007
“Here’s a controversial idea: nuclear. They use nuclear in Europe much more than we do, they use it in France much more, and nuclear does not give off greenhouse gases. It does give off (heckler interupted) I knew I’d hit a nerve. There is the waste and the waste has a half life of thousands of years, but I kind of think we’re going to be around for thousands of years to keep up the technology of storing it. This is a way of creating electricity that does not have greenhouse gases.”

DFL Progressive Caucus, 9.30.07

[NickB79]

11. The OP states Franken became cautiously pro-nuclear in 2007

Which your quote just re-affirms.

Can you find anything before 2007 in which Al Franken weighed in either pro or anti-nuke? I can't find any quotes myself, so saying he's "always" been pro-nuke isn't really an apt observation.

[bananas]

21. It says 2008; and Al Gore isn't pro-nuclear

and we've seen many stories where Al Gore is reported to have said something,
and we later find out he never said that - like when he was reported to have claimed he invented the internet.

[GliderGuider]

9. It's nice to see a sensible, thoughtful person like Franken getting some publicity. n/t

[ElboRuum]

12. I don't think nuclear power is quite the bogeyman people tend to make it out to be anyway

It is true that there are direct and important concerns regarding waste disposal and toxicity, but I never believed for a minute that these issues were intractable. In fact there are already a few technological solutions on the board which would address these issues quite well.

These technological solutions will probably never see the light of day, of course. I believe that our energy production apparatus is solely based around the maximization of profit in the short-term, lacks a future vision, and as such will continue to do things in the manner with which it is most comfortable, usually in the least sustainable and maximally destructive manner possible.

[slutticus]

15. Good for him.

:thumbsup:

[intaglio]

17. I don't like nuclear but was, at times, nearly persuaded

Persuaded that in the short to medium term (10-30 years) it would be the only thing to get rid of coal, oil and gas for electricity generation but I've changed.

My personal belief is that mass produced photo-voltaic at 30% - 40% efficiency will be the way to go. In warm states a 2nd layer of thermo-electrics beneath the PV. All new structures are fitted during construction and subsidies must be made to assist existing buildings to be fitted. The government and power companies provide the infrastructure for transmission, storage and bulk electricity production. Bulk production would come from large PV/TE fields together with wind wave and tidal stations.

40% efficient PV is already in production

Long distance transmission would probably high amperage/ extreme high voltage DC which I believe is already being tested.

The only real problem comes from storage. At the moment bulk storage of generated power is just not possible though I have heard rumours about pumped electrolyte batteries with good efficiencies

[NickB79]

29. "The only real problem comes from storage"

Well, that and 1) 30% deployable solar cells don't exist outside highly specialized labs, and 2) the cost of building the infrastructure you described would probably make it a non-starter in any political environment.

[bananas]

19. self delete

[NNadir]

24. Any objective and rational person who examines the matter realistically

will easily draw the same conclusion.

If you look at it, the complete idiots who oppose the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas primary energy, are all talking about shit that happened decades ago.

By any rational criteria all of the bull they complain about, weapons diversion - nuclear wars are not observed but oil wars are - or waste - nobody knows what to do with dangerous fossil fuel waste - so on and so on, is just selective attention.

The fact is that nuclear opponents are dogmatic conservatives who cannot interpret a clear set of data and attempt to substitute dogma and faith for objectivity.

Nuclear power is not perfect, but it is vastly superior to all other forms of energy, bar none.

[wtmusic]

38. A tall order these days. nt

[Codeine]

39. Rational and logical thought usually takes people to that conclusion.

Well done, Senator Franken.