Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Illinois nuclear plant operators have demanded more subsidies, to help keep unprofitable nuclear plants open, to prevent a surge of fossil fuel usage which they claim will occur if they are closed. If the British experience is any guide, this is just the beginning.
Nuclear Power Fights for a Spot in Illinois’ Clean Energy Future
State lawmakers are debating whether to keep ailing nuclear plants alive. The outcome will set a precedent for more states to come.
With hard times setting in for some nuclear power plants, Illinois state legislators are trying to decide whether they should put nuclear facilities on life support, or lay them to rest early.
A combination of market forces and policy choices has made the nuclear business tougher in recent years, and that’s the case at two facilities in Illinois operated by Exelon. The company is telling lawmakers that the money-losing reactors will have to be brought offline prematurely unless the state lends support. That would result in lost jobs and a big dip in the state’s capacity to produce electricity—one that could have dirty, carbon-burning power plants stepping up to close the gap. With jobs, tax dollars, and environmental quality at stake, it’s turned into a dramatic battle in the final days of the state’s legislative session.
Exelon is searching for a way to subsidize the struggling plants, arguing that the steady, zero-carbon energy source is a public good worthy of public support. One idea in particular is dividing environmental groups: Should nuclear plants, by virtue of being carbon-free, be grouped in with solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources in state initiatives to clean up the grid? It’s a dilemma that could soon spill over into other states as the business and policy landscapes change around clean energy.
In Britain, heavy handed government intervention destroyed a once healthy energy market. The British market is now a patronage driven disaster, where everyone demands special treatment.
In the words of Amber Rudd, the British Government Energy Secretary;
The second phase of modern energy policy began when Tony Blair signed the Renewable Energy Target in 2007.
[Political content redacted]
What has this left us with?
We now have an electricity system where no form of power generation, not even gas-fired power stations, can be built without government intervention.
And a legacy of ageing, often unreliable plant.
Perversely, even with the huge growth in renewables, our dependence on coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, hasn’t been reduced.
Indeed a higher proportion of our electricity came from coal in 2014 than in 1999.
Read more: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/amber-rudds-speech-on-a-new-direction-for-uk-energy-policy
The problem is, renewables need huge government subsidies to attract investment. But subsidising renewables, and giving them priority access to the grid, makes other forms of energy uneconomical – if you have to keep cycling your gas, coal or nuclear plant up and down, depending on whether the wind is blowing, it is impossible to make a profit.
Renewables are too unreliable to replace other sources of energy. Politicians quickly learn that they cannot allow now unprofitable fossil fuel and nuclear power companies to fail.
Guess what happens next? As soon as energy companies catch on that the politicians have taken over, that it is no longer the job of energy companies to keep the grid stable, everyone gets into the government handout game, even coal plant operators. They all demand and receive their own slice of the subsidy cake.
British politicians thought they were in charge of energy policy. Instead they have been captured by energy companies, who have learned through experience that politicians have far more to lose when the electricity grid fails than they do.
If politicians don’t act fast, to restore sanity to US energy markets, the same thing will happen to America.
Several insane public policies derive from the acceptance by the ruling clique of the pseudo-scientific claim that dangerous greenhouse warming is on the way. Among them is the belief that they can “mitigate” this coming disaster simply by lowering carbon dioxide production, at whatever cost.
Some of these crazies have gone so far as to demand a complete stoppage of burning fossil fuels. James Hansen himself has publicly advocated it. He would like to see this, and he was the boss of NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS). If you check how he got to such high position you find political influence of senator Tim Wirth behind it. The phobia of such people to fossil fuels also includes a phobia to nuclear energy, the only conceivable replacement for energy lost by a no fossil fuels economy.
When I speak of a pseudo-scientific claims I mean deceptive use of scientific language to convince you of wrong ideas. It is practiced by members of a global warming movement associated with the UN and their academic allies who control the scientific establishment . They are part of the ruling clique along with their political allies who craft the irrational laws based on the Copenhagen and Paris conference reports. The validity of all such mitigation projects costing billions as well as manipulation of electricity supplies all rests on the belief that the pseudo-scientific future caused by the greenhouse effect is true. But it is FALSE, not TRUE, as we shall see below.
First we take a look at a commonly available NOAA global temperature graph from the eighties till now. It shows the existence of a thirty year warming period that extends from 1910 to 1940. The extended Keeling curve for it shows that there was no corresponding increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide for this period.This would be required if it were a greenhouse warming. In addition, it is followed by a severe cold spell that inaugurates World War II.
It is impossible to stop any greenhouse warming without removing every absorbing carbon dioxide molecule from the air. The fact that this thirty year warming was followed by a cooling proves that it could not possibly have been a greenhouse warming. That takes care of a third of the twentieth century. There is no particular reason to think that this warming was unique because other similar situations exist. This is sufficient to deny the validity of the claim that a dangerous greenhouse warming is on the way. With that, all mitigation projects intended to stop this alleged greenhouse effect are proven FALSE, and they all must be defunded as a waste of public resources.
Wow! They are subsidizing Wind and Solar, but not Nuclear? It is a no brainier that this money should go to Nuclear Power. Nuclear trumps wind and solar in every way. How about nuclear power for 24 and 7 days a week compared to wind and solar. Hey no CO2 – whatever that means. I would cancel the money going into wind and solar and put it into keeping the nuclear plants running, or even building new ones with up-to-date technology.
As Forrest Gump said: “Stupid is what stupid does”.
J Philip
Up to date technology? Whatever for! Nukes are supposed to be inherently unsafe and dangerous, so let’s give them what they ask for: some copies of Chernobyl.
Most people have no idea where their power comes from.
There is a large gas turbine power station at the waterfront in San Francisco built by Bechtel. It is very cleverly hidden and most SF’ers don’t even know it is there, ‘spewing CO2’ all over the downtown area.
Nuclear plants are not uneconomical when the are operated as they were intended – running as base load generators and at (or above) capacity. But when grid operators are required to accept wind and solar whenever it is available, then nuclear plant power is not being bought and the plants income drops below operating expenses,since they cannot be ramped down and up quickly to save fuel, and fuel costs are almost insignificant for a nuclear plant anyway, so saving fuel, even if possible, would have no ability to reduce operating costs significantly. That is the situation anywhere that large amounts of solar or wind power rob nuclear plants of sales. But,of course, the nuclear plant owners have a trump card – they can shut down the nuclear plants and remove the reliable power that wind and solar can’t live without, leading to fossil fuel plants as a substitute for the departed nuclear plants. Nuclear plants can produce power more cheaply than just about any technology, but to do so the plants have to operate at their designed capacities, which are the highest of any power plants, often at or above 100%
Exactly, just add that large amounts of solar and wind rob every conventional power producer and increase ALL electricity prices. California electricity is actual quite expensive and going up. (Just make sure you include 2nd and third tier prices and the low usage that gets you into those levels)
New Scientist comes clean on clean energy – at least this time…
Why cheap green energy could derail the renewable revolution
New ideas needed
We can’t keep subsidising forever. The UK is already slashing subsidies because they cost so much – and wind and solar only supply around 3 per cent of the country’s energy. Globally, it’s 1 per cent. It would be exorbitantly expensive to keep subsidising as that figure rises, says Varun Sivaram at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank based in Washington DC.
See the whole article at
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2088303-why-cheap-green-energy-could-derail-the-renewable-revolution/
It is not cheaper if it has to be subsidised and you need nukes to keep the lights on.
The clean power plan lb CO2/MWh targets are heavily slanted towards crippling any coal generation, 1,350 lbCO2 /MWh, impossible without CCS. Natural gas steam, 1,100 lb CO2/MWh, and NG CCPP, 700 lb CO2/MWh, were basically unaffected. Most CCPP would have credits to trade. Existing hydro was not included in calculating the targets, only new hydro. However, the states can include all fossil generation within its jurisdiction in figuring its various lb CO2/ MWh targets. Could be any combination of fuel switching, CCPP, retirements, dispatching, etc.
Environmental Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 60
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources:
Electric Utility Generating Units; Final Rule
pg 58/304
“The principal changes are the exclusion from the BSER of emission reductions achievable through demand-side EE and through nuclear generation;…..”
So both nuclear and hydro prior to 2012 don’t count in figuring the state’s lb CO2/MWh standards.
The anti-coal agenda is pretty obvious. Not exactly equal treatment under the law.
And what is CPP supposed to accomplish? A 32% reduction in CO2 output from US power generation (not just coal). The US is responsible for about 16% of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 output (anthro CO2 is 2/3rd fossil fuel and 1/3rd land use changes). Power generation represents about 31% of US CO2 production. Therefore – 16% * 31% * 32% = 1.6%. CPP will reduce the global anthropogenic CO2 output by 1.6%. China and India will cancel that out with their next dozen coal fired power plants.
I just drove I-70 Denver to St Louis. The midwest has been ruined by these monstrosities.
We talk about creeping socialism on the back of the “green”movement but this is starting to look like a build up into rampart communism. Esp the description of the UK debacle.
Take note who runs the means of production, not who nominally owns them!
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
I am back from my evening sail. Had to motor back, dead calm on the Columbia River. No wind but a beautiful sunset as the colors reflect off the water.
I am for all means of making electricity. It the false arguments that I am against. The wind may always be blowing someplace but I have gasoline engine on my boat because if the wind is not blowing where I am.
One of the debating tactics is to make a long list to be refuted.
“substantial wind energy, but also low electricity prices. ”
The PNW is one of those places. Long before the first wind farms we had lots of hydro, two big coal plants, one large nuke, natural gas, and a bunch of cogens. We have low electric rates and wind did not ruin that. We are doing a good job of ripping off California and US taxpayers.
Making electricity is a public service. If people want wind, let them pay for it.
Another tactic is of asking questions. “If they are so clean, why the shutdowns? ”
Gosh Roger, if the air quality is good, they are not shutting down because they are dirty.
“Here are some facts for you:”
Apparently Roger does not know the difference between lies.
“Cancer rates near Sacramento, CA decreased significantly after the Rancho Seco nuclear plant was shut down.”
I worked at Rancho Seco and responsible for systems to prevent exposing people to radiation. If there there was a change in cancer rates it had nothing to do with the nuke plant.
“Medics from Fukushima Medical University tested children’s thyroid glands because they are very sensitive to such chemicals as iodine. ”
Yes, and no exposure to I-131 was found.
I said no was hurt and Roger counters with dubious ‘facts’.
Please don’t anyone give Amber Rudd a free pass. She is the one who plans to shut all coal-fired power stations by 2025 at the latest without having any kind of plan in place to make up for the hole in the market.
This is the Amber Rudd who is a strong supporter of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, designed so as to shut down much of the UK’s remaining industry. Oh, and the Amber Rudd who has come out with such hysterical gems as her claim that energy prices for consumers would “rocket” if the UK voted to leave the EU. This stuff is not surprising given that her brother is an active campaigner for the UK to remain. Such sisterly loyalty.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/listen-justin-webb-takes-amber-rudd-to-task-on-today-over-her-plague-of-frogs-brexit-claims/
The only reason why she is not the worst Secretary of State for Energy etc. since Ed Milliband is that in between the two we had convicted criminal and proven liar Chris Huhne. Come to think of it, there is actually little to choose between Milliband, Huhne, Ed Davey and Rudd, except, of course, that Huhne served time for perverting the course of justice which makes him leader in the corruption stakes.
The green utopians with the willing support of politicians and a compliant press sold the idea of a social cost of carbon. Every AP news story now expresses that neatly with the words “dirty” or “carbon polluting”.
No mention is made about the compensating “value” of an electric grid that responds to instantaneous demand 99.99% of the time.
Check this out, asybot:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3614522/Couple-capture-footage-UFO-close-military-base-Ohio.html
🙂
Source……………Share…..GWh…..lb/CO2/MWh……lb/CO2
Coal…………………40%……..800…………..2,200……..1,760,000
NG Steam……..…..15%……..300…………..1,100………..330,000
NG CCPP………….10%……..200 …………….650…………130,000
NG Brayton………..10%……..200…………..1,100………..220,000
Hydro………………10%……..200………………0…………………0
Nuclear……………15%……..300………………0…………………0
Total………………100%…..2,000…………………………..2,440,000
Fossil Only, lb/CO2/MWh…………………..1,627
All Generation, lb/CO2/MWh..……………..1,220
This table is for illustration purposes only. Every state must go through this exercise for the utility (not private who will tell EPA to KMA) power generation under their jurisdiction and prepare a plan for meeting the interim and 2030 standards of performance.
Considering only fossil fuels the existing model produces about 1,627 lb CO2/MWH. This certainly exceeds the EPA’s 2030 standards and requires plans and actions by the state and utility power generators.
Including hydro and nuclear this model is below the EPA’s 2030 standards and requires no action on the part of the state or utility power generators. Not the intended result.
Some argue that the US should set an example for the world. Some example: irresponsible, inefficient use of resources and increasing electric rates for the poor and fixed income while achieving a pretty much meaningless goal.
Seems to me the historical track record of centralized economic planning by assorted communist/socialist systems have proven abysmal failures. Why is another example needed?
The anti-nuke, anti-coal pro-“renewable” clan do have a knack for loudly proclaiming what amounts to propaganda, with plenty of partial-truths, and lots of red herrings. The plain truth about so-called renewables is that they provide little energy which is actually useful, requiring base load power to be ramped down or off, which is expensive. The ugly truth about “renewables” is that they do way more harm than good, in addition to being costly. But Believers just blithely go on believing the positive lies about them, and the negative lies about nuclear and coal power. The truth is that without the completely bogus “carbon” scare, “renewables” would hardly be talked about, much less used.
Unfortunately this is what happens when one starts feeding subsidy farms. Before very long nobody knows the true cost of anything. Roger quotes his factoids, someone else quotes their (anti) factoids. Truth to be told though … Nobody has any idea what anything ‘costs’. It’s called ‘socialism’. Rob ‘Peter’ to pay ‘Paul’. We know how it all ends … Collapse (of eg The USSR).
To fish around and quote von Mises and those who have promoted his work …
If it [Government] does not want to admit defeat [in the production of eg Milk] and to abstain from any meddling with prices, it must push further and fix the prices of those factors of production which are needed for the production of the factors necessary for the production of [milk]. Thus the government is forced to go further and further, fixing step by step the prices of all consumers’ goods and of all factors of production-both human, i.e., labor, and material – and to order every entrepreneur and every worker to continue work at these prices and wages.
The twentieth century has witnessed the beginning, development, and end of the most tragic experiment in human history: Socialism. The experiment resulted in tremendous human losses, destruction of potentially rich economies, and colossal ecological disasters. The experiment has ended, but the devastation will affect the lives and health of generations to come.
A Socialist management of production would simply not know whether or not what it plans and executes is the most appropriate means to attain the ends sought. It will operate in the dark, as it were. It will squander the scarce factors of production both material and human (labour). Chaos and poverty for all will unavoidably result.
Most of this was written, or derived from writings of the 1920’s … Sounds more than a bit familiar now though? I, for one, cannot believe that people born after the collapse of Communism are now attempting to try it again. fzkin Idiots.
“…requiring base load power to be ramped down or off, which is expensive.”
Not true Bruce. You may want to post on subjects that you do not get your information from the internet.
Oh dear. You disagree, and therefore I must just “get my information from the internet”.
Logic indeed.
How can any sanity be restored when the inmates have completely taken over the asylum?
@ur momisugly J. Keith Johnson …
How can any sanity be restored when the inmates have completely taken over the asylum?
In a ‘democratic’ system, a mess created by either too much ‘left’ or too much ‘right’ can be counter balanced quite quickly.
I would consider (not being a US voter) DT as being a sign of the times in that respect. A prolonged period of ‘leftism’ must lead to a sharp move to the ‘right’. It’s a requirement of a Democracy.
3×2 you are undoubtedly correct. However, a knee-jerk reaction by the voters typically does not result in a solution that is workable in the long term. If my memory serves me correctly, this is what the German voters did in 1933.
Nuclear plants and cancer?
“Nope. There’s No Thyroid Cancer Epidemic in Fukushima…The Tsuda study’s conclusions are the product of bad methodology, flawed reasoning and egregious obfuscation of evidence….Hayashida’s uncontaminated control group had a somewhat higher thyroid cancer incidence rate than did Fukushima kids.”
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/issues/nuclear/nopetheres-no-thyroid-cancer-epidemic-in-fukushima
California has only one nuclear plant yet CALIFORNIA HAS HIGHER NUMBER OF THYROID CANCER CASES THAN NATIONAL AVERAGE
http://abc7.com/health/california-sees-high-number-of-thyroid-cancer-cases/1159674/
Cancer incidence in California is 3x higher than in Ukraine where the Chernobyl nuclear disaster took place
(398 vs. 132 per 100,000)
http://www.cancer-rates.info/ca/
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/country-health-profile/ukraine
The US has about 110 operating nuclear generating units. What did the study say about those? Coincidence isn’t cause.
Dr S, can I bust your chops?
The bad actor for nuclear power plants is I-131 because children are very sensitive. The evil empire proved that at Chernobyl.
So looking at adult thyroid cancer rates is incorrect.
Fortunately, it is easy to protect children because of the chemical nature Iodine and the short half life of I-131.
Ironically, the treatment for thyroid cancer is a large dose of I-31 to kill the cancer.
Does it make any difference that the Ukraine was largely upwind at the time of the disaster?
What of the Belarusians? what are their statistics?
What about Nagasaki & Hiroshima? They sure turned into barren, apocalyptic, death zones. NOT!
Build Roger Sowell an all electric car that is covered in high tech solar panels to power it, complete with flywheel, windmill on top and pumped water balls plus halogenated polyacetylene batteries and he’ll beat a path to your door. Just that he’ll want his Gummint to provide a fossil fuelled cab at night at his beck and call when the wind don’t blow and the headlights don’t glow. Roger explains to the surly, ingrate cabby why he must work long hours and pay more taxes because he’s not clean and Green like Roger.
Whew… pumped water balls! I’m not touching that one…
Logic would support nuclear power. Rhetoric would oppose it. The outcome is foreseeable as soon as it is determined whether logic or rhetoric will determine policy.
i agree. Plus, I recollect why my boss referred to me as “Spock”.
“They are different. According to Leo Smith above, new land based plants can be built to cycle quickly. How they actually do it is beyond my pay grade. :-)”
It was my pay grade.
Light water (moderated) reactors (LWR) have a negative temperature coefficient because the density of water changes with temperature. This means that increasing steam demand cools the reactor causing the reactor to increase power to match demand. Decreasing demand is the opposite. This is just reactor physics.
The navy used pressurized LWR. In my day, a throttleman would open the throttle valves with the ability to go from all stop to ahead full to back emergency very fast. The reactor operator just watched power change.
Most (all?) modern commercial reactors use LWR that are either pressurized (PWR) or allow water to boil (BRW) in the core to directly make steam.
Commercial PWRs use boric acid and control rods to control power by absorbing neutrons. To load follow, control rods are shimmed and the concentration of boric acid in the coolant is changed. I was the design and system engineer for this system. Load following was not the limiting design factor.
BWRs have an additional term in reactor physics called the void coefficient. Since water boils directly in the the bubbles or voids reduce the ability of the water to act as a moderator (slow down neutrons) . Control rods are used to compensate for fuel burn up. To ramp up power, reactor recirculation flow is increased to sweep more bubbles out of the core. I was also the design and system engineer for this system but that was 20 years ago. Load following was not the limiting design factor.
The ability to ramp up power is a function of core design. For a given fuel assemble configuration, reactor engineers tell how fast we can increase power.
For all those worried about power matching demand on the US grid, stop worrying. We do it everyday 24/7.
“They are different. According to Leo Smith above, new land based plants can be built to cycle quickly. How they actually do it is beyond my pay grade. :-)”
It was my pay grade.
Light water (moderated) reactors (LWR) have a negative temperature coefficient because the density of water changes with temperature. This means that increasing steam demand cools the reactor causing the reactor to increase power to match demand. Decreasing demand is the opposite. This is just reactor physics.
The navy used pressurized LWR. In my day, a throttleman would open the throttle valves with the ability to go from all stop to ahead full to back emergency very fast. The reactor operator just watched power change.
See next post
Commercial PWRs use boric acid and control rods to control power by absorbing neutrons. To load follow, control rods are shimmed and the concentration of boric acid in the coolant is changed. I was the design and system engineer for this system. Load following was not the limiting design factor.
BWRs have an additional term in reactor physics called the void coefficient. Since water boils directly in the the bubbles or voids reduce the ability of the water to act as a moderator (slow down neutrons) . Control rods are used to compensate for fuel burn up. To ramp up power, reactor recirculation flow is increased to sweep more bubbles out of the core. I was also the design and system engineer for this system but that was 20 years ago. Load following was not the limiting design factor.
The ability to ramp up power is a function of core design. For a given fuel assemble configuration, reactor engineers tell how fast we can increase power.
For all those worried about power matching demand on the US grid, stop worrying. We do it everyday 24/7.
Kit, remember that the naval reactor operator has lots of seawater to discharge the excess heat into when load is dropped from the reactor, until it actually reduces it’s heat output. That is money spent on cooling water circulation and extra heat into the cooling lake or towers, as the case may be in the private sector.
Pop, remember that navy ships operate at low power away from people. Stationary power plants operate at high power and have lots of people around.
Admiral Rickover developed LWR to fit in the hull of a submarine. Commercial LWR are small enough to fit inside a containment building. Expensive but that is how we protect human life.
“Oh dear. You disagree, and therefore I must just “get my information from the internet”.
Logic indeed.”
So Bruce where do you get your wrong information from? It is certainly not experience running a power plant.
THere you go again, Kit, with your total Logic Fail, by using your Argument from Authority gambit.
If you are an authority it is not a gambit. Bruce did not answer the question, where did hid information? Bruce thinks he is right because he said so.
”…. the pools are elevated …”
@pop
Only on some older BWR and it is not a problem.
“and need constant circulation to prevent overheating and ignition of the spent fuel.”
Ridiculous! Spent fuel pools can go days without circulation and even then water can be added with a fire truck.
“Folks I still know in the industry tell me that’s the most likely source of a large radiation excursion.”
Who? I know some in the anti-nuke industry who make a living fear mongering.
“It’s what they are most concerned at Fukushima as another blow to the pool systems before the rods are moved to safer storage could cause an unquenchable fire and the largest excursion in history. Just talk I hear from folks I used to work with at Illinois Power Co.”
What did your friends do at nuke plants, sweep floors? Lots of clueless like to impress friends with BS they read on the internet. They did not read the FSAR which explains the safety features.
I have lots of plant and design experience with spent fuel pools. I many of the responses to NRC request for additional information (RAI). These become public record. I get the sense that somer asking the questions at the NRC have never seen a spent fuel pool. It has cost the industry lots of money.
Let me try common sense approach. If an earthquake damages a spent fuel pool radiation will not kill anyone. The will already be dead buried in the rubble of building that are not designed to the criteria of the spent fuel building.
Chicken little has never been right. The mother of all earthquakes hit Japan. About 20k died but no spent fuel pools failed to keep the fuel cooled.
Retired Kit P
Funny you mentioned that. After many pages of calculations estimating exactly how far down a spent fuel pool would go at certain atmospheric conditions and pressures and temperatures before damage would occur based on the given fuel mix, fuel history core power history and initial water temperatures…. My final answer to the problem on my PE exam was exactly that; “But, before it gets to level 12.345 feet ABL, refill the fuel pool from a fire truck.”
RA, did you use a slide rule or hand held calculator? It is a simple calculation and the model has been validated by years of experience.
“Been to China lately?”
Yes, and there was a 5000 MWe coal plant two miles down the road from the nuke plants being built. It had modern pollution controls and air quality was good.
The problem with air quality which is exaggerated by the press (who knew) is caused by the abundance of old POS cars and motorcycles, and home heating with coal.
MarkW is fast to call folks trolls based on his vast experience reading the internet and a total lack of skepticism when it suits his agenda.
Retired Kit P wrote: “The problem with air quality which is exaggerated by the press (who knew) is caused by the abundance of old POS cars and motorcycles, and home heating with coal.”
That makes sense. Los Angeles, back in the 1970’s used to look a lot like China does today, and that wasn’t caused by coal-fired powerplants.
“said the NRC during the Fukushima Daiichi accident.”
S-T let me clear this up. First, the US NRC does not regulate Japan. Second, it was not the NRC is was an anti-nuke political appointee to the as head NRC commissioner by Obama. His conduct was irresponsible and international fearmongering.
The policies concerning spent fuel storage of that commissioner, Obama, DOE, and the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have reject by Federal Courts with a strong rebuke that the president is not above the law.
It was the NRC, not a director, that estimated that a least some SFP were empty, when the people at Fukushima Daiichi were telling them there was no urgent SFP problem. It was the NRC, not a director, gave the 50 miles exclusion zone advice (now widely cited by antinuc propagandists) to US citizen living in Japan.
The antinuc loons obtained (via FOIA) the transcript of the NRC discussions. The guys seem particularly clueless. (There was an admiral in that group of people in charge of crisis management.)
What does it tell us about the leadership of the US, including its military?
S-T
That is not how I remember it and I was watching it very closely, so if you you can provide some links I would look at them.
As far as the navy is concerned, I had my fair share of shouting matches with the brass. Never lost one either but it helps to be right. I once put a spanner wrench in my back pocket. I had picked it up to knock out a senior officer who pulled rank but thought better of it and put it in my back pocket. At the critique, I dropped the wrench on the table in front of the other officer. The captain did not say a thing.
When my concerns was finally accepted, it was oh sh*t we got to fix this. Dissent is an important part of American society especially in nuclear power.
That was in the nuclear navy, the rest of the navy is as clueless as those in general society about nuclear power. The nuclear navy is clueless about BWRs and the NRC needs lots of education because the NRC has no practical experience at BWRs.
There are two ways for elevated BWR spent fuels to lose all the water. It can boil off but it takes days and the steam plume would be hard to miss. Second, it could structurally fail at the bottom. Flooding of lower levels would be impossible to miss.
And Exelon makes it official. Quad Cities and Clinton(BWR’s) will close.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-exelon-closing-nuke-plants-0603-biz-2-20160602-story.html
The real reason is due to decreasing regional load. For instance; the Mitsubishi auto plant near Clinton is just now closing down permanently.