Login to Change.org
Create an Account
James Aach
Recent Activity
-
James commented on the article |Please forgive the generic nature of this comment -- I think it is applicable here, and no money changes hands....
One of the interesting things about modern nuclear power in the US is that few really understand how it works day to day, and I include in that bin most scientists and journalists who are commenting to the media on the topic. It’s kind of treated as a black box from which occasionally spews toxic goo. While not necessarily leading to incorrect assumptions, this is perhaps not the best way to look at any of our potential energy supplies if we are to make better decisions about them in the future. Hundreds of nuclear workers are busy every day at every reactor. What are they doing?
I’ve worked in the US nuclear industry for 25 years. My novel “Rad Decision” culminates in an event very similar to the Japanese tragedy. (Same reactor type, same initial problem – a station blackout with scram.) The book is an excellent source of perspective for the lay person — as I’ve been hearing from readers. The novel is free online at the moment at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . (No adverts, nobody makes money off this site.) Reader reviews are in the homepage comments.
Unfortunately, my media presence consists of this little-known book and website, so I’m not an acknowledged “expert”. I just do the nuclear stuff for a living. And I think I have explained it well in a non-yawn-producing manner. But it’s a bit of a tree falling in a forest………
I believe there isn’t a perfect energy solution – just options – each with their good and bad points. And we’ll make better choices about our future if we first understand our energy present.
-
James commented on the article |I agree, the governmet figures are pretty good and non-biased. What I wonder is if these are the figures used by everyone in the discussion and in the development of the bills. The testimony and other chatter I hear makes me rather doubt it - because they are very daunting figures to grapple with. This is particularly true because our current (electric) energy production is heavily dependent on an aging power generation infrastructure, so new production facilities have to replace a lot of the old ones before any new construction can really start being counted against increased demand. Of course, the newer carbon-less sources also tend to be much more intermittent and less power-intensive, so it's not a simple exchange. (It might take 1000 of the largest wind turbines available to replace the MW of one coal installation, but even then you don't get the same consistent energy flow. I guess that's where a smart grid helps out.)
Another reason why I like to say the safest, cheapest, most environmentally friendly energy is that which we don't use at all. Conserve, conserve, conserve.
-
James commented on the article |
There is clearly a lot of symbolism in passing carbon controls, and some evidence that it might actually be helpful in reducing atmospheric emissions just a bit. But it seems rather unlikely to me that anything will come out of the current debate beyond mildly useful symbolic legislation with unintended or unadvertised consequences. (Perhaps this is enough?) I don't think Congress or the population as a whole really has that good of a grasp of the subject. If you testified in front of Congress and said that heart surgery is cheap and easy and patients always recover quickly, you'd be laughed out of the room. But you can say things just as silly on the topic of energy and a lot of politicians will nod their heads in approval. Not a good situation to be in at the start of problem-solving.
I'll blather on for a couple of paragraphs with more specifics, but the paragraph above summarizes my point.
BLATHER SECTION: I suspect I know the answer to this, but I wonder: Has Congress agreed upon a reasonable range of values for how much energy will be needed in the future for transportation (oil) and for electric generation? That shouldn't be too partisan of a number. And have they agreed on a reasonable range of values for the monetary cost of supplying a given chunk of energy via a particular power source? Again, if you keep it to a range, it shouldn't be that partisan of an issue. (Environmental and security costs would be more partisan). It would seem that without these these concepts in hand, setting up any kind of an energy policy would be much more hit and miss, because you would not be able to gauge the $$$'s it will cost to maintain the supply.
Without some fixed assumptions, there can be pithy promises about having 20% renewables by 2020 with minimal cost to the consumer. There is probably a study out there that backs that up, and another which entirely refutes it. The difference is in the assumptions made. For instance, if you assume Americans will use something like 5% more or 5% less electric energy than they do now in 2020 - not too unreasonable an assumption - and with the cost ranges agreed upon for power supply types, it can be shown whether the 20% by 2020 is reasonable and what its monetary cost will be. (Perhaps it works out, I don't know.) On the other hand, if you assume Americans will use 40% less electricity in 2020 than now (a big shift), that changes the projections dramatically and makes 20% by 2020 a lot cheaper and easier to achieve. What I'm afraid is happening is there are a whole pile of mutually exclusive assumptions and value ranges in use as part of the current energy debate - which makes it less of reasoned debate and more of random chatter with backstage exercises in political power-brokering. (So what's new?)
James Aach, friend of wind turbines and the author of "Rad Decision", the insider novel of nuclear power.
-
James commented on the article |Ms. Gertz makes a good point that the source of any energy analysis needs to be considered. If you really want to get down to it, the source of each number and the basis for each assumption needs to be examined, and there also needs to be consideration of what has been left out of the equations. I suspect once that is done, one will find major flaws in most, if not all, of the analysis done by groups or individuals who start the work with a definite point of view - - whether they like coal or wind turbines. Regarding assumptions, as an engineer in the electric generation field, I can tell you statements like "engineering details need to be worked out", or "this needs to be scaled up from the laboratory" can usually be translated as "this might work, or it might not."
Findng workable solutions for our energy problems doesn't lend itself to sound-bites, wishful thinking or fuzzy math. Unfortunately, I think our political and social discourse is often built around these concepts.
After re-reading this, I get the feeling that I need to cheer up a bit.
-
James commented on the article |
I would agree with Rev. Bookburn that a discussion of our energy future should be in the interests of the nation. Two points I would make is that one (of many) reasons that the situation is presented as either coal or nuclear is that we use vast amounts of electric energy in the US, and even with significant conservation it is hard to get the math to add up without including these sources. This is one reason why they are around today. A second factor is cost - if money that is no barrier then all sorts of solutions might be available. But it is always a consideration, and it tends to be more cost effective not to rebuild an infrastructure from the ground up.
I believe we can have any energy future we want, as long as we're willing to live with both the positive and the negative consequences (air pollution, radioactive byproducts, high cost, lower or variiable output, wind farm bird issues, homeowner's spending time maintaining their own solar setups, rare metal requirements for alternative techonlogies, etc.). -
James commented on the article |
As someone who works in the US nuclear industry (but isn't that enamored of any energy source) I've found most discussion in the media or online regarding nuclear to be very unenlightening. Once you get past the financial/strategy part, most "experts" have little or no practical experience in operating a reactor, safely or otherwise. It strikes me as similar to a discussion on auto-racing written by non-drivers and read by an audience unfamiliar with cars.
When making decisions about our energy future, I think we need to start by first understanding our energy present. So I've written a book based on my two decades in the bowels of the US nuclear industry. This can give the general reader a glipse into what nuclear is really like (both good and bad). To avoid reader boredom, "Rad Decision" is the form of a novel. It is also free online - no advertisers, no sponsors, no $$ for me, but perhaps it can raise the quality of the debate a bit. Reader reviews at the homepage have been very positive. http://RadDecision.blogspot.com
"I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." - STEWART BRAND, founder of The Whole Earth Catalog, National Book Award winner, and noted futurist.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits