Mother Jones - Comments for "Power Q&A: S. David Freeman"

What do you think if all the

What do you think if all the government loans will be used to develop a next generation plug in? Or they will be releasing a cheap vehicle based battery and fuel pump assembly? Also, that's no surprise that we are considering mandate for cleaner cars and enthusiasm for plug-in hybrids.

Thanks for your well written comments, Max. I haven’t been in her for awhile but wish to address your thoughts now.

You quote Freeman, the ex-leader of TVA (an appointed political position requiring no technical expertise) where he shut down nuclear construction which then did in fact drive up the cents/kWh for the remaining units. He also led the charge to cancel units in various stages of construction that required coal fired plants to replace them. Several of these units have since been completed by today’s TVA leadership. Freeman is also the ex-leader of SMUD where he shuttered a perfectly good and clean Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant…replacing it with gas fired turbines, the most expensive to operate on a cents/kWh basis.

This is the same the Freeman who said “Terrorists have the opportunity to hit the U.S. with the radioactive force of a massive atomic bomb without even having to smuggle weapons across our borders.” Is Freeman suggesting a nuclear power plant can blow up like an atomic bomb? He is smarter than that but he is playing to his audience. And just how would terrorists attack a power plant? Perhaps since Freeman has been out of the business so long he has no idea of today’s security force capabilities, incluiding training, weaponry, and strategies to force attackers in to very efficient killing zones.

The real bottom line is what could they do to a plant anyway? Oh that’s right…get that “ ‘80 metric tons of surplus plutonium in storage,’ which is certainly a tempting source of bomb-making material for any terrorist.”

This shows a complete lack of understanding or major deceipt…not sure which. All used nuclear fuel is stored either under 25 feet of water inside the plant or in large steel and concrete storage units next to a plant. If a terrorist could get the fuel from their safe storage areas, they would die within minutes from the radiation given off once they open the cannisters. In addition, since the used fuel contains less than bomb grade material, the stolen fuel elements could not blow up even if a long line of suicidal terrorists handed the fuel assembly (each of which weighs 1500 pounds) bucket brigade style to the desire location as they fell over dead. Fuel assemblies could be blown up with conventional explosives, but the effects would be very localized. If I were a smart terrorist, I would focus on something much easier…like a municipal water supply.

The other statement Freeman professes is replacing coal and nuclear, 75% of this country’s current electrical capacity, with solar, wind, and biomass. If one does the math one would soon realize that large parts of our land mass and offshore channels would be blanketed with equipment that produces power only 5% and 25% of the time (solar and wind). This means to replace a nuclear power plant that operates at 90% capacity factor night and day regardless of weather, one would have to build 18 times the solar capacity or four times the wind capacity. That means nuclear construction could be 18 times more expensive than solar to build and still come out ahead because it is there in all conditions. I do not see solar and wind as a “feasible” alternative to nuclear and coal, nor does any other thinking person.

Speaking of construction and operating costs, the best source is the Energy Information Agency of the Department of Energy. Their analysts count everything our country does in the area of energy. Check it out for actual costs of construction and operation for all types of energy sources, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, fossil (gas, oil, coal), and nuclear.
http://www.eia.doe.gov. In particular, I would suggest you check this page out regarding expected construction and operating costs for all possible generation sources… http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=3

Remember, if solar is only there 5% of the time, you must build 18 facilities to equal the output of a similar nuke unit.

Freeman says and you quote: “Cost information for new plants is conspicuous by its absence," and later mentions that "The estimates for new nuclear facilities, with all their risks, are more expensive than the development of wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass facilities."

Again, these are Freeman lies. See the above reference links. Other sources include FERC’s website.

“I thought it was interesting to learn that President Bush addressed nuclear power as a way of weaning ourself off of foreign oil, and yet America produces very little of its electricity with foreign oil.” True statement, however, electricity can charge electric vehicles such as the Volt and other “plug-ins” that are on the drawing board. These vehicles will displace a lot of gasoline used for commuting and local shopping runs…the type that gets the lowest mpg. In addition, another popular Freeman concept is hydrogen fuel…my favorite as a matter of fact. To produce hydrogen, one must have lots of electricity to disassociate water’s hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Hydrogen cars and trucks could litterally replace every form of today’s gasoline/diesel powered ground transportation. So President Bush was correct.

Freeman continues to be proven wrong and in the rear-view mirror of history his decisions of the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s range from irksome to diasastorous to both the environment and regional economies he “served.”

Mr. Wallace,
In his book, Mr. Freeman offers a few more reasons as to why nuclear power is simply not feasible. While you address a few of his points, one of his other points is that "Nuclear power plants have now become a prime target for terrorists," and he goes on to say that, "Terrorists have the opportunity to hit the U.S. with the radioactive force of a massive atomic bomb without even having to smuggle weapons across our borders."

Addressing another of your points, Freeman wrote, "My experience at TVA was that nuclear energy costs over ten cents/kWh. This was based on costs of construction twenty years ago. Cost information for new plants is conspicuous by its absence," and later mentions that "The estimates for new nuclear facilities, with all their risks, are more expensive than the development of wind, solar, geothermal, or biomass facilities, which don't carry the life-and-death risks." I would also appreciate seeing your source for your "3 cents per kilowatt-hour (for industry average) statistic. Mr. Freeman also recognizes the success of the French nuclear program, but mentions that they have "80 metric tons of surplus plutonium in storage," which is certainly a tempting source of bomb-making material for any terrorist.

I thought it was interesting to learn that President Bush addressed nuclear power as a way of weaning ourself off of foreign oil, and yet America produces very little of its electricity with foreign oil.

Lastly, Mr. Freeman offers a solution to a fossil fuel-based energy economy in his book, Winning Our Energy Independance, which includes replacing our entire existing energy sources with renewable energy sources in an entirely feasible way. I encourage anyone interested to read more into it.

I would ask the interviewee the basis upon which he concludes “…and then there are these religious zealots who favor nuclear power, which already failed.” Have there been events, mismanaged projects, and disappointments? Yes. That is often the case with new technologies, such as automobiles and airplanes. Consider the history of these two accepted technologies. Are they failures as well?

First, isn’t that painting with a rather broad brush as well as demeaning to assume all nuclear power supporters are “religious zealots”? That stirs visions of extremism and the outlaw behavior.

Secondly, by what definition has nuclear power failed?

Longevity? Nuclear power has produced electricity for consumers in the U.S. since 1957.

Numbers of operating units? 104 operating units exist today in the U.S. World-wide, there are over 400 operating units.

Contribution? Nuclear power provides 20% of this country’s electricity. In other parts of the world, the percentages are even higher. The French, not known for their conservative politics, produce over 70% of their electricity with a large nuclear fleet.

Price? Nuclear power produces electricity at an industry average of 3 cents per kilowatt-hour – comparable to coal fired plants and much much cheaper than natural gas.

Polluter? Every effluent and off-product at a nuclear power plant is closely monitored and measured. The records are pubic and available for scientific scrutiny. However, the impact is very minimal, even when comapared to any industrial operation. The one impact that all steam-cycle plants, whether nuclear, coal, or oil, can have is the need to eject waste thermal energy to the environment in order to condense the steam after it has given up its energy passing through a steam turbine. This waste thermal energy is ejected to either the air or a body of water, such as a lake, ocean, or large river. However, those effects are also minimal. For example, one very large nuclear power plant on Lake Michigan cycles several hundred thousands gallons per minute of lake water through this cycle. The water comes in at lake temperature, say 50F, and comes out around 90F. This sounds like it would cause an environmental calamity. In fact, within 1000 feet of the outlet the water temperature difference is less than one degree. As far as impact on water life…it’s disastorous… for the fresh water herring that love to congregate in the warmer water. Salmon in the lake know where the food is and they love to eat the fresh water herring. In fact, until post-9/11 security measures expanded the no inclusion zone in the lake, the power plant outlet was the most popular fishing spot on the lake.

Radioactivity? Nuclear power plants do not emit radioactivity at any elevated level. Plants operate such that no member of the public receives more than two millirem of radiation each year. For comparison, a chest x-ray is about 20 millirem. The normal background radiation from natural sources for most U.S. citizens is 200 to 300 millirem per year. In fact, more radiation is given off by a coal fired plant than a nuclear power plant since coal contains naturally occuring radioactivity (as do all living things).

Nuclear Waste? This has been a failure, but the failure here is not technical or the result of irresponsible operators. Spent nuclear fuel can be recycled and reused. It can be liquified and vitrified, locking the high level radiation immobile in a glass-like marble. It can be placed in long-term monitored storage. Are we doing any of this? No. In our country the federal government owns responsibility for all nuclear material from the time it is mined, processed, used, and disposed. We have not made the political decision on the path to pursue. As a result, plants must store their used fuel onsite. Other countries have made the disposal decisions and it is not an issue for them.

The above can be substantiated with objective and scientific data, data that is public and transparent.

Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes fact. Supporters on either side of an argument can be guilty of spin and exaggeration. Lieing to sustain or reinforce a misperceived fact is both devious and unethical.

Mother Jones - Comments for "Power Q&amp;A: S. David Freeman"

What do you think if all the

Mother Jones - Comments for "Power Q&A: S. David Freeman"