Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:42 pm “I have not argued any law here tonight, merely presented facts. I could indeed argue some law, such as the legal requirements for safety equipment and procedures in those “safe” nuclear power plants. But I won’t do that. It would be too easy.”
Hmmm, let me see. You’ve told us that people of your calibre would have ensured that all the legal safety requirements were in place in the Fukushima reactors. You’ve also claimed that the cost of the build is greatly increased in the interest of discouragement. So one has to wonder whether, for example, the construction of storage for gravity-fed coolant water in the event of an accident was abandoned for lack of finance, in favour of the pumps that failed when they were flooded with seawater. I don’t know if that’s how it happened, but it would be a relief to think such things are due to cost-cutting measures necessitated by the likes of you?
On your side there is only the ability to manipulate arguments. Opposing that there is invention, innovation, engineering and mathematics. You say you’re prepared to change your mind yet you refuse to give ground to reason. Guess which side of this discussion is the more persuasive.
Roger Sowell: Why do lawyers bring lawsuits against nuclear power plants? Mostly it is to force the builder to comply with the law. If it takes longer, then build it right the first time.
When it comes to the ability of the anti-nuclear activists to influence what happens in the nuclear energy sector, this is the heart of the matter.
If the licensee is diligently pursuing the quality assurance program that he has committed to, doing so from the first day of the project, then the activists will not be able to challenge the plant on grounds other than pure economics.
The large nuclear projects which failed in the late 1970s and early 1980s failed because they did not pursue the quality assurance programs they had committed to in their license applications; and when it came time to go for an operating license for the reactor, those projects were called to account for those failures by the activists.
That the activists did so is altogether fitting and proper, and it is why we have the regulatory system in place for nuclear that we do. The public has an avenue for holding the managers of nuclear projects directly accountable for the quality of the work they do.
For purposes of licensing a nuclear reactor, a failure in either the actual quality of the construction work itself, or a failure in the implementation of the Quality Assurance Program, will each have exactly the same effect — an avenue has been opened for either the NRC or for the anti-nuclear activists to challenge the plant.
These kinds of challenges aren’t successful when the utilities which manage these projects step up to the task of meeting their quality assurance commitments.
As far as nuclear construction costs are concerned, the QA requirements which now apply to nuclear construction are no more burdensome today than they were twenty years ago when the capital cost of a nuclear megawatt was about half of what it is today.
The fact is that the cost of doing any type of large-scale construction project which is subject to strict quality assurance requirements has approximately doubled in the United States over the last two decades; doing so for a variety of reasons, but with many of those reasons being attributable in one way or another to the United States no longer being an industrial nation.
We are a nation of laws, that were written by lawyers.
Lawyers will claim they are not persecuting people with the legal system, they merely work to ensure compliance to the laws, that they have written.
If you have been wronged by a lawyer, your recourse is to seek out another lawyer to challenge their fellow lawyer on your behalf, if you can afford what that lawyer will want. You might get justice if you can afford a better lawyer. The likeliest outcomes will be you are unable to successfully challenge the lawyer using the system the lawyers have created and maintained, and your wealth will lessen to the benefit of at least one lawyer.
Perhaps you could get a bar association, an organization of lawyers that manages the minimum quality of lawyers, to sanction that lawyer. As lawyers who cannot cover their actions with the system of laws the lawyers created for their own benefit are obviously lesser quality lawyers, the organization of lawyers might possibly allow the punishing of embarrassing incompetence, as it will make the organization stronger. Here we witness a prideful declaration, the law shall be used by the lawyers to ensure the outcome the lawyers demand. It will happen.
We have been told the law is a tool that enables civilization. Here we see that tool, which the lawyers created, shall be used to enforce the will of the lawyers. I have known examples of lawyers releasing slews of personal lawsuits against those whom they would force to their will, threatening them with bankruptcy and permanent ruin if they should attempt to fight what the lawyer dispatches with practically no effort nor cost. Submit or die.
Lawyers use the laws, that lawyers have written, to enforce their will, to take away the property and wealth of others. Lawyers say they merely work towards compliance with the laws, that they have written. You may challenge them, in the arena they have built, using the rules they have written, wielding the tools they are trained to use, although you are allowed to seek another lawyer to be your champion.
Thus we see the law is truly a weapon, as evidenced by its usage by lawyers as such.
Thus would not we common citizens, by the rights endowed to us by our Creator, when attacked by lawyers wielding the law, be justified in the using of whatever weapons are at our disposal in the defense of family, property, and self?
Lawyers may complain this will be in violation of the system of forcible compliance to the weapons they wield, that they have created, for their own benefit, which is ultimately enforced by other weapons wielded by those in service to the system the lawyers created. But as we see here with the dropping of the pretense, with a clear statement that lawyers will use the law to impose their will regardless, the weapon has been brandished outside of its sheath, in clear view.
@ur momisugly kadaka, I’m guessing that you are not a lawyer. I agree with some of what you wrote about the legal system. Yes, for the most part our laws in the US were and are written by elected legislative bodies, some of whom are lawyers. But, a good many are not. Also, laws at the federal level are first passed as bills by both houses, then become law only when the Presiden signs them. Yet, not all Presidents are lawyers. George W. Bush was not a lawyer, Reagan and Carter were not, not Eisenhower just as a few examples. The same is true at state level where a Governor signs bills into law.
And I agree with you that some unethical lawyers do bad things. But, many of us do what we consider to be good things.
I find it interesting that some on this thread heap abuse on me for working to stop nuclear power plants. Yet, how many of you CAGW skeptics would also scorn me for working to stop global warming laws, and using the law to delay their implementation after they are passed? I have done and still do exactly that with California’s climate change law, AB 32.
So, why the outrage over me stating in public what is common knowledge, that lawyers represent clients who try to stop nuclear power plant construction?
People in the US have a right to seek changes and prevent harmful or destructive construction. I could give many examples, but one may suffice. In California recently, a refinery near San Francisco was legally blocked from changing their equipment to process a different crude oil. Lawyers represented environmentalists to block the expansion.
It’s the same with other facilities, when impacted groups file a lawsuit to block a utility from building a conventional gas or coal power plant, or wind turbines, or solar arrays, or a pig slaughterhouse.
This should not be a surprise.
I fight the battles that are important to me, after decades of engineering work in refineries, chemical plants, and power plants. I went to law school to acquire the tools and the credential to fight most effectively.
I feel certain that, if many of my detractors knew what I know from my engineering years and about nuclear power plants, they would agree with me that shutting them down is best. And, not building more of them is even better.
The issue is complex and a blog comment is far too short to delve into all the details. But, I shall try to give a few details.
Reply to Ric Werme at 5:56 re flat islands.
Even a flat island can have pumped storage hydroelectric if they submerge a large hollow chamber offshore. This idea is in the patent literature. A large pipe is run from the ocean surface to the chamber, then ocean water generates power for daytime use as the water flows down the pipe. The chamber fills or nearly fills. Then at night, shore power is used to pump out the chamber.
This would also be an excellent way to use steady power from ocean currents but follow the load on shore or an island. No need for the power source to be nuclear.
Reply to Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 from August 4, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“Well I have to say, you’re a bit off the norm here at WUWT.”
Thanks, I’m used to being a bit different. My background as a chemical engineer for 30 years then becoming an attorney is almost unique.
I will try to respond to your questions.
“So you’re anti-nuclear, but see no problem with CO2? You and James Hansen would make an interesting odd couple.”
This is the first time I’ve ever been mentioned in the same sentence with James Hansen. I don’t know his position on nuclear power. I’m perfectly convinced that whatever small effect CO2 may have on the atmosphere, it is vanishingly small; plus the absurd data manipulations over 100-plus years make any measured warming meaningless. I refer you to my blog and my speech Warmists Are Wrong.
“My reading of your comments is you object to nuclear over safety issues; everything else you’ve mentioned regarding cost is peripheral.”
No, my primary objection is high cost and increased power prices that impact poor people. The nuclear death spiral was real. Secondary to me is the safety. I heartily disapprove of storing our nuclear wastes so that future generations are required to deal with them. This is insanity, and future generations will scorn us for kicking the plutonium can down the years to them.
“Would you be open to change your position based on new reactor designs, or do you believe that all nuclear is inherently unsafe? ”
Yes, I’ve written before that if a nuclear reactor can be shown to compete with gas, and produce no toxic byproducts, I would embrace that. To my knowledge, no such reactor exists.
“You’ve said you’d let the US navy keep their nuclear ships — why? Is there something less unsafe about navy reactors, or is that just a political calculation that you can’t get a nuclear ban enacted if it includes the US navy?”
There is a world of difference in the design and operation of US naval reactor plants and civilian power plants. Also, in the training and mentality of the people who run them. Many people make a fatal mistake in equating the caliber of the people, and the reactor designs. In my view, the US has sufficient enemies that we cannot give up the military advantages provided by our nuclear sub fleet, and our carrier fleet.
” Do you believe the risk of modern nuclear reactors is so much greater than what we’ve already managed for over 60 years that they must be shut down immediately?”
Yes. Our 100 civilian reactors (US) are reaching 40 years old, and some are allowed to run for another 20 years. Older equipment breaks down more often. The risks of nuclear spills, leaks, and catastrophes goes up with reactor age. Just recently, to give but one example, radioactive steam was leaked from eroded tubes at San Onofre near Los Angeles. The reactor is nearly 40 years old.
“What about the risk of extended brownouts/blackouts covering major urban areas?”
I am not sure how that relates to nuclear power. Gas and coal are highly reliable.
“So Roger I have a suggestion for you. Before you try to shut down the nukes, please try to shut down the kooks. Let’s start with the EPA endangerment finding on CO2 and the Obama administration’s declared war on coal.”
I’m doing exactly that, working to change those laws.
“Then we could move on to the fracking debate and related other new technologies to extract more oil and natural gas. Then how about we attack the refusal of the current administration to permit new drilling on the Gulf?”
Actually, I’m for producing more domestic natural gas but against using up our domestic oil. I make speeches on Peak Oil and conclude that the best US policy is to convert our coal to liquids, keep our oil in the ground except for enough to maintain a viable oil industry, and cease our oil imports from Middle East. Please see my blog, and the speech on Peak Oil. I’ll try to give a link to that speech. The US is very short sighted to be drilling and using up domestic oil. We will desperately need it when the next oil embargo occurs and we are in a world war.
” I wonder how many of your lawyer friends who are eager to shut down nuclear power would join you in making competing fossil fuels more abundant?
Most lawyers are not like me, they studied political science or history or philosophy, not engineering. I have grand debates with them. The few of us who are engineer-attorneys don’t always agree, either.
Thank you for your thoughtful questions.
Reply to Slacko at 12:22 am
“Hmmm, let me see. You’ve told us that people of your calibre would have ensured that all the legal safety requirements were in place in the Fukushima reactors.”
As far as I know, safety devices required by Japanese law were in place. The flaw was not designing for large earthquake and large tsunami. Note that such a design in that location was declared “safe” by nuclear advocates. We can see how wrong they were.
“You’ve also claimed that the cost of the build is greatly increased in the interest of discouragement.”
Discouragement is a side effect. Increased cost to construct has several causes, including inflation, changes in regulations to incorporate new knowledge, incompetent designers and builders, and willful failure to build according to regulations.
As but two examples, incompetence in the designers and builder for South Texas Nuclear Plant led to Brown and Root (builder) being dismissed for a botched design. They laid out half the plant in a way that did not match up with the other half. About two years delay was had while they tore out the one half and redesigned. South Texas also had a whistleblower disclose that critical welds were not being xrayed as required by law. One good x ray was copied and submitted for many dozens of welds. Inspectors were threatened and kept quiet. Lawsuits forced the owners to build it right.
Another fiasco was the sheer incompetence in building Shoreham, where they did almost everything wrong.
“So one has to wonder whether, for example, the construction of storage for gravity-fed coolant water in the event of an accident was abandoned for lack of finance, in favour of the pumps that failed when they were flooded with seawater.”
To my knowledge, the elevated storage tank and gravity feed is now approved. I’m not happy that it will use float valves to allow water to pass, since float valves are notoriously unreliable. Heaven help us all when the water won’t flow because a float valve was approved.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: August 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm
We are a nation of laws, that were written by lawyers. …… Lawyers will claim they are not persecuting people with the legal system, they merely work to ensure compliance to the laws, that they have written. ……
That was an eloquent piece of expository writing about laws and lawyers, but in the world of nuclear regulatory oversight and compliance, the nuts and bolts of the process work a little differently.
You as the prospective licensee make a commitment to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its staff that you will follow all the stipulations that the NRC requires, and which you yourself have agreed to, in your license application.
In return, you get the benefit of Price Anderson Act Amendment (PAAA) liability protection, plus other benefits such as the ability to draw upon the knowledge and expertise of the NRC’s excellent technical staff.
If you as the prospective licensee have any sense at all, you will not view the NRC as an adversary; you will get out ahead of the NRC and do what the NRC’s staff would do if they were there in your place running the project.
If you as the manager of a nuclear construction project have met all the commitments that are outlined in your license application; and if all the work you did in fulfilling those requirements was properly documented, then lawyers like Roger Sowell will not get very far in pressing their lawsuits against you.
On the other hand, if you haven’t met your commitments to the NRC, or if you haven’t properly documented how you went about meeting those commitments — and if the NRC hasn’t already called you to account for not doing what it was you promised to do — then the anti-nuclear activists will step in and call you to account in the NRC’s stead.
For example, what happened at San Onofre with their steam generator replacement project.was completely avoidable, and could have been avoided had it not been for SCE senior management ‘s lack of commitment to doing a quality job from start to finish.
Reply to Beta Blocker,
I believe that you have a pretty good grasp of the situation. There must be legal cause for a lawsuit to be brought. Filing a frivolous lawsuit can result in costs to the plaintiff and sanctions for the attorney.
I disagree on one point, and that is the present US capability for precision construction. We still have it, as demonstrated by the numerous complex and high-value oil refining projects. Curiously, the oil refining projects generally are built on schedule and on budget.
Reply to Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 from August 4, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“So you’re anti-nuclear, but see no problem with CO2? You and James Hansen would make an interesting odd couple.”
This is the first time I’ve ever been mentioned in the same sentence with James Hansen. I don’t know his position on nuclear power.
Pushker A. Kharecha and James E Hansen
Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript
DOI: 10.1021/es3051197
Abstract
In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, on balance it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented about 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2-equivalent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. Based on global projection data that take into account the effects of Fukushima, we find that by mid-century, nuclear power could prevent an additional 420,000 to 7.04 million deaths and 80 to 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.
Beta Blocker
August 6, 2013 8:11 am
Roger Sowell says: August 5, 2013 at 9:36 pm I disagree on one point, and that is the present US capability for precision construction. We still have it, as demonstrated by the numerous complex and high-value oil refining projects. Curiously, the oil refining projects generally are built on schedule and on budget.
Nuclear projects must be managed from beginning to end under a strong teamwork philosophy with a strong management presence at all levels of the project.
As compared with the late 1980s and early 1990s when the nuclear construction industry finally turned the corner and was fully capable of delivering its projects on schedule and on budget, there is now a significant shortage of nuclear qualified equipment suppliers and a shortage of experienced nuclear people with the proper attitudes towards working to a nuclear-level quality assurance.standard.
With regard to the ability of the nuclear construction industry to live up to its commitments to the NRC and to the general public, the single biggest issue the industry now faces is the lack of competent managers at all levels of the project organization.
Those of us who have been in the industry a long time know that we are now witnessing a repetition of the kinds of management mistakes that were made in the late 1970s and early 1980s, mistakes which were directly responsible for the problems many nuclear projects in that era had with cost and schedule overruns and with poor quality work.
What happened this year at San Onofre with its failed steam generator replacement project is only the tip of the iceberg. If the low price of natural gas doesn’t put an end to the nuclear renaissance in the United States, the poor quality of management leadership in today’s nuclear construction projects most certainly will.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
August 6, 2013 9:25 am
Re Roger Sowell on August 5, 2013 at 6:51 pm:
Excellent. You start with ‘You’re obviously not as smart as me’, then proceed to insult my education by “educating” me on what I learned in Civics class decades ago. BTW you left off Executive Orders which have the force of law. You also insulted my intelligence, as while there have been non-lawyer Presidents, not one did not act without consultation with and dependence on lawyers. From Presidents to town councils, all act while consulting with legal counsel, because the system the lawyers have created is too difficult for the uninitiated to manipulate, with lawyers ready to pounce on unvetted legislation, all the way down to an inconvenient parking ordinance.
And I agree with you that some unethical lawyers do bad things. But, many of us do what we consider to be good things.
How can they possibly be unethical when the relevant bar associations do not discipline them for unethical behavior?
Plus, I see you have carefully worded the second line. You regale me with your tale of being an engineer who became a lawyer to do good. Likewise the tales are legion, and occurring right before our eyes, of reformers who run for public office, who become the politicians they despised and vowed to fight. We speak often here of Noble Cause Corruption.
And there are many lawyers who do what they consider to be good things, as you do what you consider to be a good thing.
Have fun with your crusade to deprive Americans of new nuclear reactors and to shut down those remaining. As the modular and other small nukes proceed, as more nukes are built in other countries that care less about the bloviation and obstructionism of attorneys, and others benefit from the ongoing advances of what is arguably the safest form of energy we have known and will ever know, you will be comforted by your fight against that which can never be safe enough for you, much like Obama and Hansen are comforted by their fight against coal which can never be “clean” enough for them.
acementhead
August 7, 2013 8:48 pm
Thanks Ric, so then nothing, just the usual BS rolling along. No closer to any sales, and therefore discovery of ineffectiveness.
Socialism is the primal -ism of humanity. All others constructs of money.
Gail, respectfully, what you have cited is evidence of fascism not socialism.
Perhaps the U.S.A. should be rebranded” the U.C.A.; the United Corporations of America.
Your new flag…
http://gcompion.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/adbusters_corporateamericaflag.gif
This blew my mind. The future is fracked up.
Kajajuk says:
August 4, 2013 at 9:29 pm
——————–
“Would you like some GM0 fries with that?”
Roger Sowell says:
August 3, 2013 at 11:42 pm
“I have not argued any law here tonight, merely presented facts. I could indeed argue some law, such as the legal requirements for safety equipment and procedures in those “safe” nuclear power plants. But I won’t do that. It would be too easy.”
Hmmm, let me see. You’ve told us that people of your calibre would have ensured that all the legal safety requirements were in place in the Fukushima reactors. You’ve also claimed that the cost of the build is greatly increased in the interest of discouragement. So one has to wonder whether, for example, the construction of storage for gravity-fed coolant water in the event of an accident was abandoned for lack of finance, in favour of the pumps that failed when they were flooded with seawater. I don’t know if that’s how it happened, but it would be a relief to think such things are due to cost-cutting measures necessitated by the likes of you?
On your side there is only the ability to manipulate arguments. Opposing that there is invention, innovation, engineering and mathematics. You say you’re prepared to change your mind yet you refuse to give ground to reason. Guess which side of this discussion is the more persuasive.
ENSO meter for the week – pretty much unchanged from last week:
Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=oiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&day=06&month=jul&year=2013&fday=05&fmonth=aug&fyear=2013&lat0=-5&lat1=5&lon0=-170&lon1=-120&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
Found target /png/tmp/CTEST137570040217465.txt
Opening http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov//png/tmp/CTEST137570040217465.txt
Data file
data from 00Z06JUL2013 to 00Z05AUG2013
“———-”
-0.0648869
-0.252974
-0.289761
-0.138604
-0.124725
anomaly -01
When it comes to the ability of the anti-nuclear activists to influence what happens in the nuclear energy sector, this is the heart of the matter.
If the licensee is diligently pursuing the quality assurance program that he has committed to, doing so from the first day of the project, then the activists will not be able to challenge the plant on grounds other than pure economics.
The large nuclear projects which failed in the late 1970s and early 1980s failed because they did not pursue the quality assurance programs they had committed to in their license applications; and when it came time to go for an operating license for the reactor, those projects were called to account for those failures by the activists.
That the activists did so is altogether fitting and proper, and it is why we have the regulatory system in place for nuclear that we do. The public has an avenue for holding the managers of nuclear projects directly accountable for the quality of the work they do.
For purposes of licensing a nuclear reactor, a failure in either the actual quality of the construction work itself, or a failure in the implementation of the Quality Assurance Program, will each have exactly the same effect — an avenue has been opened for either the NRC or for the anti-nuclear activists to challenge the plant.
These kinds of challenges aren’t successful when the utilities which manage these projects step up to the task of meeting their quality assurance commitments.
As far as nuclear construction costs are concerned, the QA requirements which now apply to nuclear construction are no more burdensome today than they were twenty years ago when the capital cost of a nuclear megawatt was about half of what it is today.
The fact is that the cost of doing any type of large-scale construction project which is subject to strict quality assurance requirements has approximately doubled in the United States over the last two decades; doing so for a variety of reasons, but with many of those reasons being attributable in one way or another to the United States no longer being an industrial nation.
@ur momisugly ric werme, Alan Watt, Skacko, Beta Blocker, you make some good points. I will try to respond later this evening.
Meanwhile, here is a link to an article I wrote 4 years ago comparing cost overruns in nuclear plants vs oil refineries.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-refinery-on-schedule-and-budget.html
We are a nation of laws, that were written by lawyers.
Lawyers will claim they are not persecuting people with the legal system, they merely work to ensure compliance to the laws, that they have written.
If you have been wronged by a lawyer, your recourse is to seek out another lawyer to challenge their fellow lawyer on your behalf, if you can afford what that lawyer will want. You might get justice if you can afford a better lawyer. The likeliest outcomes will be you are unable to successfully challenge the lawyer using the system the lawyers have created and maintained, and your wealth will lessen to the benefit of at least one lawyer.
Perhaps you could get a bar association, an organization of lawyers that manages the minimum quality of lawyers, to sanction that lawyer. As lawyers who cannot cover their actions with the system of laws the lawyers created for their own benefit are obviously lesser quality lawyers, the organization of lawyers might possibly allow the punishing of embarrassing incompetence, as it will make the organization stronger.
Here we witness a prideful declaration, the law shall be used by the lawyers to ensure the outcome the lawyers demand. It will happen.
We have been told the law is a tool that enables civilization. Here we see that tool, which the lawyers created, shall be used to enforce the will of the lawyers. I have known examples of lawyers releasing slews of personal lawsuits against those whom they would force to their will, threatening them with bankruptcy and permanent ruin if they should attempt to fight what the lawyer dispatches with practically no effort nor cost. Submit or die.
Lawyers use the laws, that lawyers have written, to enforce their will, to take away the property and wealth of others. Lawyers say they merely work towards compliance with the laws, that they have written. You may challenge them, in the arena they have built, using the rules they have written, wielding the tools they are trained to use, although you are allowed to seek another lawyer to be your champion.
Thus we see the law is truly a weapon, as evidenced by its usage by lawyers as such.
Thus would not we common citizens, by the rights endowed to us by our Creator, when attacked by lawyers wielding the law, be justified in the using of whatever weapons are at our disposal in the defense of family, property, and self?
Lawyers may complain this will be in violation of the system of forcible compliance to the weapons they wield, that they have created, for their own benefit, which is ultimately enforced by other weapons wielded by those in service to the system the lawyers created. But as we see here with the dropping of the pretense, with a clear statement that lawyers will use the law to impose their will regardless, the weapon has been brandished outside of its sheath, in clear view.
@ur momisugly kadaka, I’m guessing that you are not a lawyer. I agree with some of what you wrote about the legal system. Yes, for the most part our laws in the US were and are written by elected legislative bodies, some of whom are lawyers. But, a good many are not. Also, laws at the federal level are first passed as bills by both houses, then become law only when the Presiden signs them. Yet, not all Presidents are lawyers. George W. Bush was not a lawyer, Reagan and Carter were not, not Eisenhower just as a few examples. The same is true at state level where a Governor signs bills into law.
And I agree with you that some unethical lawyers do bad things. But, many of us do what we consider to be good things.
I find it interesting that some on this thread heap abuse on me for working to stop nuclear power plants. Yet, how many of you CAGW skeptics would also scorn me for working to stop global warming laws, and using the law to delay their implementation after they are passed? I have done and still do exactly that with California’s climate change law, AB 32.
So, why the outrage over me stating in public what is common knowledge, that lawyers represent clients who try to stop nuclear power plant construction?
People in the US have a right to seek changes and prevent harmful or destructive construction. I could give many examples, but one may suffice. In California recently, a refinery near San Francisco was legally blocked from changing their equipment to process a different crude oil. Lawyers represented environmentalists to block the expansion.
It’s the same with other facilities, when impacted groups file a lawsuit to block a utility from building a conventional gas or coal power plant, or wind turbines, or solar arrays, or a pig slaughterhouse.
This should not be a surprise.
I fight the battles that are important to me, after decades of engineering work in refineries, chemical plants, and power plants. I went to law school to acquire the tools and the credential to fight most effectively.
I feel certain that, if many of my detractors knew what I know from my engineering years and about nuclear power plants, they would agree with me that shutting them down is best. And, not building more of them is even better.
The issue is complex and a blog comment is far too short to delve into all the details. But, I shall try to give a few details.
Reply to Ric Werme at 5:56 re flat islands.
Even a flat island can have pumped storage hydroelectric if they submerge a large hollow chamber offshore. This idea is in the patent literature. A large pipe is run from the ocean surface to the chamber, then ocean water generates power for daytime use as the water flows down the pipe. The chamber fills or nearly fills. Then at night, shore power is used to pump out the chamber.
This would also be an excellent way to use steady power from ocean currents but follow the load on shore or an island. No need for the power source to be nuclear.
Reply to Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 from August 4, 2013 at 8:16 pm
“Well I have to say, you’re a bit off the norm here at WUWT.”
Thanks, I’m used to being a bit different. My background as a chemical engineer for 30 years then becoming an attorney is almost unique.
I will try to respond to your questions.
“So you’re anti-nuclear, but see no problem with CO2? You and James Hansen would make an interesting odd couple.”
This is the first time I’ve ever been mentioned in the same sentence with James Hansen. I don’t know his position on nuclear power. I’m perfectly convinced that whatever small effect CO2 may have on the atmosphere, it is vanishingly small; plus the absurd data manipulations over 100-plus years make any measured warming meaningless. I refer you to my blog and my speech Warmists Are Wrong.
“My reading of your comments is you object to nuclear over safety issues; everything else you’ve mentioned regarding cost is peripheral.”
No, my primary objection is high cost and increased power prices that impact poor people. The nuclear death spiral was real. Secondary to me is the safety. I heartily disapprove of storing our nuclear wastes so that future generations are required to deal with them. This is insanity, and future generations will scorn us for kicking the plutonium can down the years to them.
“Would you be open to change your position based on new reactor designs, or do you believe that all nuclear is inherently unsafe? ”
Yes, I’ve written before that if a nuclear reactor can be shown to compete with gas, and produce no toxic byproducts, I would embrace that. To my knowledge, no such reactor exists.
“You’ve said you’d let the US navy keep their nuclear ships — why? Is there something less unsafe about navy reactors, or is that just a political calculation that you can’t get a nuclear ban enacted if it includes the US navy?”
There is a world of difference in the design and operation of US naval reactor plants and civilian power plants. Also, in the training and mentality of the people who run them. Many people make a fatal mistake in equating the caliber of the people, and the reactor designs. In my view, the US has sufficient enemies that we cannot give up the military advantages provided by our nuclear sub fleet, and our carrier fleet.
” Do you believe the risk of modern nuclear reactors is so much greater than what we’ve already managed for over 60 years that they must be shut down immediately?”
Yes. Our 100 civilian reactors (US) are reaching 40 years old, and some are allowed to run for another 20 years. Older equipment breaks down more often. The risks of nuclear spills, leaks, and catastrophes goes up with reactor age. Just recently, to give but one example, radioactive steam was leaked from eroded tubes at San Onofre near Los Angeles. The reactor is nearly 40 years old.
“What about the risk of extended brownouts/blackouts covering major urban areas?”
I am not sure how that relates to nuclear power. Gas and coal are highly reliable.
“So Roger I have a suggestion for you. Before you try to shut down the nukes, please try to shut down the kooks. Let’s start with the EPA endangerment finding on CO2 and the Obama administration’s declared war on coal.”
I’m doing exactly that, working to change those laws.
“Then we could move on to the fracking debate and related other new technologies to extract more oil and natural gas. Then how about we attack the refusal of the current administration to permit new drilling on the Gulf?”
Actually, I’m for producing more domestic natural gas but against using up our domestic oil. I make speeches on Peak Oil and conclude that the best US policy is to convert our coal to liquids, keep our oil in the ground except for enough to maintain a viable oil industry, and cease our oil imports from Middle East. Please see my blog, and the speech on Peak Oil. I’ll try to give a link to that speech. The US is very short sighted to be drilling and using up domestic oil. We will desperately need it when the next oil embargo occurs and we are in a world war.
” I wonder how many of your lawyer friends who are eager to shut down nuclear power would join you in making competing fossil fuels more abundant?
Most lawyers are not like me, they studied political science or history or philosophy, not engineering. I have grand debates with them. The few of us who are engineer-attorneys don’t always agree, either.
Thank you for your thoughtful questions.
Reply to Slacko at 12:22 am
“Hmmm, let me see. You’ve told us that people of your calibre would have ensured that all the legal safety requirements were in place in the Fukushima reactors.”
As far as I know, safety devices required by Japanese law were in place. The flaw was not designing for large earthquake and large tsunami. Note that such a design in that location was declared “safe” by nuclear advocates. We can see how wrong they were.
“You’ve also claimed that the cost of the build is greatly increased in the interest of discouragement.”
Discouragement is a side effect. Increased cost to construct has several causes, including inflation, changes in regulations to incorporate new knowledge, incompetent designers and builders, and willful failure to build according to regulations.
As but two examples, incompetence in the designers and builder for South Texas Nuclear Plant led to Brown and Root (builder) being dismissed for a botched design. They laid out half the plant in a way that did not match up with the other half. About two years delay was had while they tore out the one half and redesigned. South Texas also had a whistleblower disclose that critical welds were not being xrayed as required by law. One good x ray was copied and submitted for many dozens of welds. Inspectors were threatened and kept quiet. Lawsuits forced the owners to build it right.
Another fiasco was the sheer incompetence in building Shoreham, where they did almost everything wrong.
“So one has to wonder whether, for example, the construction of storage for gravity-fed coolant water in the event of an accident was abandoned for lack of finance, in favour of the pumps that failed when they were flooded with seawater.”
To my knowledge, the elevated storage tank and gravity feed is now approved. I’m not happy that it will use float valves to allow water to pass, since float valves are notoriously unreliable. Heaven help us all when the water won’t flow because a float valve was approved.
For Alan Watt,
Links to Warmists are Wrong, and Peak Oil speeches:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/top-ten-posts.html
That was an eloquent piece of expository writing about laws and lawyers, but in the world of nuclear regulatory oversight and compliance, the nuts and bolts of the process work a little differently.
You as the prospective licensee make a commitment to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its staff that you will follow all the stipulations that the NRC requires, and which you yourself have agreed to, in your license application.
In return, you get the benefit of Price Anderson Act Amendment (PAAA) liability protection, plus other benefits such as the ability to draw upon the knowledge and expertise of the NRC’s excellent technical staff.
If you as the prospective licensee have any sense at all, you will not view the NRC as an adversary; you will get out ahead of the NRC and do what the NRC’s staff would do if they were there in your place running the project.
If you as the manager of a nuclear construction project have met all the commitments that are outlined in your license application; and if all the work you did in fulfilling those requirements was properly documented, then lawyers like Roger Sowell will not get very far in pressing their lawsuits against you.
On the other hand, if you haven’t met your commitments to the NRC, or if you haven’t properly documented how you went about meeting those commitments — and if the NRC hasn’t already called you to account for not doing what it was you promised to do — then the anti-nuclear activists will step in and call you to account in the NRC’s stead.
For example, what happened at San Onofre with their steam generator replacement project.was completely avoidable, and could have been avoided had it not been for SCE senior management ‘s lack of commitment to doing a quality job from start to finish.
Reply to Beta Blocker,
I believe that you have a pretty good grasp of the situation. There must be legal cause for a lawsuit to be brought. Filing a frivolous lawsuit can result in costs to the plaintiff and sanctions for the attorney.
I disagree on one point, and that is the present US capability for precision construction. We still have it, as demonstrated by the numerous complex and high-value oil refining projects. Curiously, the oil refining projects generally are built on schedule and on budget.
Roger Sowell says:
August 5, 2013 at 8:16 pm
Hansen is so blinded by his hatred of CO2 that he’s for anything else.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/02/james-hansen-pushes-nuclear-power-as-saving-more-lives-than-it-has-harmed-with-new-study/
Nuclear projects must be managed from beginning to end under a strong teamwork philosophy with a strong management presence at all levels of the project.
As compared with the late 1980s and early 1990s when the nuclear construction industry finally turned the corner and was fully capable of delivering its projects on schedule and on budget, there is now a significant shortage of nuclear qualified equipment suppliers and a shortage of experienced nuclear people with the proper attitudes towards working to a nuclear-level quality assurance.standard.
With regard to the ability of the nuclear construction industry to live up to its commitments to the NRC and to the general public, the single biggest issue the industry now faces is the lack of competent managers at all levels of the project organization.
Those of us who have been in the industry a long time know that we are now witnessing a repetition of the kinds of management mistakes that were made in the late 1970s and early 1980s, mistakes which were directly responsible for the problems many nuclear projects in that era had with cost and schedule overruns and with poor quality work.
What happened this year at San Onofre with its failed steam generator replacement project is only the tip of the iceberg. If the low price of natural gas doesn’t put an end to the nuclear renaissance in the United States, the poor quality of management leadership in today’s nuclear construction projects most certainly will.
Re Roger Sowell on August 5, 2013 at 6:51 pm:
Excellent. You start with ‘You’re obviously not as smart as me’, then proceed to insult my education by “educating” me on what I learned in Civics class decades ago. BTW you left off Executive Orders which have the force of law. You also insulted my intelligence, as while there have been non-lawyer Presidents, not one did not act without consultation with and dependence on lawyers. From Presidents to town councils, all act while consulting with legal counsel, because the system the lawyers have created is too difficult for the uninitiated to manipulate, with lawyers ready to pounce on unvetted legislation, all the way down to an inconvenient parking ordinance.
How can they possibly be unethical when the relevant bar associations do not discipline them for unethical behavior?
Plus, I see you have carefully worded the second line. You regale me with your tale of being an engineer who became a lawyer to do good. Likewise the tales are legion, and occurring right before our eyes, of reformers who run for public office, who become the politicians they despised and vowed to fight. We speak often here of Noble Cause Corruption.
And there are many lawyers who do what they consider to be good things, as you do what you consider to be a good thing.
Have fun with your crusade to deprive Americans of new nuclear reactors and to shut down those remaining. As the modular and other small nukes proceed, as more nukes are built in other countries that care less about the bloviation and obstructionism of attorneys, and others benefit from the ongoing advances of what is arguably the safest form of energy we have known and will ever know, you will be comforted by your fight against that which can never be safe enough for you, much like Obama and Hansen are comforted by their fight against coal which can never be “clean” enough for them.
Thanks Ric, so then nothing, just the usual BS rolling along. No closer to any sales, and therefore discovery of ineffectiveness.