Newsmaker: The public face of nuclear power in the U.S.

newsmaker It's probably one of the toughest talking gigs in the country. As CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, retired Navy Adm. Frank Bowman serves as the public face for the U.S. nuclear industry.

Although nuclear power is gaining in popularity, it remains extremely controversial. To get the industry's view across, Bowman speaks regularly at governors' conferences and local public forums.

He's also well versed in the subject. He served as the director of the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program and was responsible for operation of more than 100 reactors controlled by the Navy. Currently, he also serves on the board of directors for Morgan Stanley Funds, on the BP America Advisory Council, on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Nuclear Engineering Visiting Committee and other organizations. In 2006, Bowman was made an Honorary Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

CNET News.com recently sat down with him to discuss nuclear energy's future.

Q: Can you give us a snapshot of the U.S. nuclear power industry?
Bowman: Sure. There are 104 nuclear reactor plants in this country on the commercial side--there are also 103 Navy nuclear power plants too, by the way. Of the 104 commercial plants, 69 of them are the so-called pressurized water reactor version and 35 are boiling water reactors. They're scattered around on 64 different sites, so many sites have two or three reactors.

What is driving the resurgence in interest in nuclear?
Bowman: It's is a confluence of factors. There are important leaders in the country who used to think that there was no room for nuclear who are now realizing that in this era of climate change, global warming and greenhouse gas concerns, nuclear does in fact deserve a seat at the table.

There is concern about the very high volatility of natural gas prices in this country, the recognition that nuclear is operating safely and productively, the fact that we are looking for energy security.

There are important leaders in the country who used to think that there was no room for nuclear who are now realizing that in this era of climate change, global warming and greenhouse gas concerns, nuclear does in fact deserve a seat at the table.

I won't use the word energy independence because I don't think the country will ever really get to energy independence, but secure is a different matter. The fuel necessary for nuclear generation comes either domestically or from friends like Canada, Australia--not exactly the same group of people that provide (fossil fuels).

This is not an all-in love affair. They all have, not all, but many have legitimate concerns. And it's my position that we (the nuclear power industry) owe it to these people who have devoted their entire careers to public service, or to ordinary citizens who are concerned about these issues, to talk to them factually, adult to adult, and not be arrogant about it.

Was attitude a problem in the past?
Bowman: I think to a certain extent. After Three Mile Island happened, there was a tendency to sort of want to dive into the fox holes. I think we are taking a more serious effort in addressing peoples' concerns.

Has the performance of nuclear plants improved? In the past, uptime and other factors were problems?
Bowman: Beginning about 15 years ago there was a major, major upswing in key performance indicators of safety and capacity factors. Capacity has to do with the total amount of electricity generated divided by the total amount of electricity that could be generated if the plant were online 24/7. That number went from like 75 percent 15 years ago to 90 percent today.

Also, we're very proud of the safety record, but at the same time we realize that we have to keep our eye on the ball and that complacency is a bad thing. As soon as we start being proud of ourselves, danger lurks around the next corner.

What are some of the safety precautions?
Bowman: We insist on the highest possible quality in all the components. We insist on the very best of people to hire and then we train them to the zenith. We test their qualifications periodically. We then have a very stringent and tough regulator in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that does day-to-day kinds of inspections and then full-blown inspections twice at each reactor.

The plant sites have at least two resident inspectors. Some have as many as four, but these resident inspectors can come in the plant anytime they want to. This regulatory agency, unlike other regulatory agencies in the other sectors in this country, has the authority to shut down operations, to fine the plants.

More Newsmakers

[cturkin21]

Risk Vs Risk

Sure, nuclear power is not without risks. But these risks can be easily mitigated, whereas the risk of rising oceans, extreme weather, disease, crop failure and mass migration as a result of global warming cannot be satisfactorily mitigated at all..

So nuclear power remains one of the only practical measures that we have to address climate change.

http://www.talkclimatechange.com

[K A Cheah]

Future Nuclear Disaster like Chernobyl can be avoided by using HHO as fuel

Why can't they resolve these Problems with a permanent solution as said herein below:-
In Same Principles- Water Power could be used to run Power Stations Instead: reader comment from K A Cheah
Posted on: May 28, 2007, 8:34 PM PDT
Story: Alternative fuel for thought

Water(The Rocket Fuel) Miracle -The Truly Divine Gift of Enormous Power Storage & Reserve

Every Country in the World has a great responsibility to control the further release & emission of Green House Gases from Fossil Oil/Fuels and to look for the really clean & cheap alternative fuels to replace the very High Risks Nuclear Pollutions and Contaminations and also to replace Petrol/Diesel/Coal/Natural Gas/Lignite in order to reduce the unfortunate incidences of Global Warming & Nuclear Disasters that will cause hardships & deaths in many Natural Disasters cause by adversed climatic changes.

The same principles will be applicable to Power Stations which will save most of the money from fuel costs and they can now reduce their present tariffs by 80% with hydrogen & oxygen (HHO) gases extracted & derived from Water as their final fuel source. Quote: "Obviously Water holds a better promise as the Alternative Fuel:-In our school days we have learnt in Physics that it possible to split water into its basic atomic components with the application of electricity but even great scientists overlooked the fact that Water is by itself the better, more efficient and safer storage of power, the promise water has as an alternative fuel has been unlimited using a simple process of using electrolysis to split water into hydrogen and oxygen only when required and "on demand" basis only, where the hydrogen & oxygen gases' power to drive a car engine will also recharge the battery (minimum 9 volts) that originally did the electrolysis splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen and also the hydrogen will be only produced when needed just before starting the engine and the electrolysis process will be switched-off when switching off the engine at the same time. This hydrogen & oxygen (HHO) gases-run engines will run cars, SUVs, trucks, buses, trains and airplanes & power stations & as Rocket's Fuel as well no fuel was found to be more powerful this far if you study Rocket Science, therefore more so cheaply and successfully that no other alternative fuels would ever be needed"

Please watch the "youtube" clip on what the HHO gases can do and in the Same Principles, this could also be applicable to run Power Stations as well instead to replace Natural Gas or other fuels:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb8wIqECwGE&mode=related&search=

9v battery will create hydrogen from water: reader comment from Zupek
Posted on: June 4, 2007, 9:47 AM PDT
Story: Alternative fuel for thought

Go home, fill a small dish with water. Go get a NEW and FULLY CHARGE 9v battery. Put one wire to the positive and put it in the water and do the same for the negative.

Those bubbles you see in the water are HYDROGEN and OXYGEN. and it took hardly any power...

Water - the divine gift has the power to give life to all beings on earth or this universe will also give power to all common internal combustion engines in the simple process of electrolysis to produce the fuels in the form of hydrogen & oxygen gases HHO that we would ever need to run everything on earth in including power stations & as rockets' fuels.

From: K A Cheah

[billmosby]

One waste solution-

To quote the Admiral:
"What if we come up with a laboratory scale way to reprocess
partially used fuels and chemically bond that plutonium to the
really nasty stuff that's in here--the long lived radio nuclei that
are there forever and generate a lot of heat--and make it
unappealing to the terrorists?"
"What if we go to the next step now and take that bound up
plutonium and make fuel out of that? Now you reduce by orders
of huge magnitudes the volume, the heat load and the radio
toxicity of the stuff that has to go into an ultimate geological
repository. The old way leaves 95 percent of the energy content
in the fuel rods that would go into a Yucca Mountain."
If he's not talking about the Integral Fast Reactor fuel cycle
process, it sure sounds like he is.

[Manhattan2]

Solar Power will be the final solution. Nuclear is the wrong path to take.

Just ask those in Kashiwazaki Japan why Nuclear is too risky. Check out solar transfer on you tube and you will see why the Sun is all we need.
We don't mean putting Solar Panels on your roof like the Governor of California pushes for. The first thing we need to do is stop all Federal subsidies and tax breaks for residential solar installations unless you are allowed to install your panels or Solar capture solution in another state. The current rush to renewable research is a good thing. The blind selection of solutions like Ethanol and residential solar will cause more harm than the benifit they provide. The rising sees will put additional stress on the active earthquake zones and risk further disasters like in Kashiwazaki

[aintnorainbowdorothy]

Nuclear Power in the U.S.

Certainly HHO has promise. Yet I live only 30 miles from a Nuclear Processing Plant. I've got no problem with that. It simply is the most efficient way to get power. Safeguards are definitely better than they were when Chernobyl and Three Mile Island had their problems. Chernobyl was a fully outdated plant when it was constructed and even more so when it went online. Three Mile had its' own problems also. But those problems are highly mitigated today. The Navy has solved so many of those problems. Nuclear Submarines, Destroyers and other types of ships, both Warships and Support Ships, are using Nuclear power. It's really a matter of tradeoffs. Nine-volt batteries will work, but will they produce power and send it to the grid? How much power will get there? Those are questions that need to be answered before even thinking about putting a power plant online using that technology. Nuclear power is proven. And extracting fuel rods has become proven. Nuclear power is the only way to going Green at the moment. There is research that must be done on HHO, and probably is, at places such as MIT, CalTech and other great research facilities. But reaearch will only go so far. The answer to HHO is to put a plant online. Then see how much power is lost before hitting the grid. HHO may power planes, trains and automobiles, but is it really an alternative to Nuclear? Nuclear is proven, HHO isn't. And with research taking more time than people think, proven resources are the answer. Nuclear and Hydroelectric plants are Green. Oil, Coal and other alternatives simply add to greenhouse gases.

[James Aach]

Nuclear Insider Speaks

One of the real problems with nuclear in this country is that the general public bases a lot of its decisions on "gut feel", and their knowledge of atomic power consists mostly of inaccurate movies and TV shows, and news items of TMI, Chernobyl, and the latest scare. The more informed may read a few light science articles on it, but these don't really capture the real world of nuclear power. What does it mean to say it's safe (or too risky)? The population at large has a much greater feel for the workings of the Starship Enterprise than they do the nearby power plant.

I would like to change that. For those out there looking for an inside view of the real workings of a nuclear power plant, both on a daily basis and during an accident, see http://Raddecision.blogspot.com . Available to readers online at no cost, "Rad Decision" is a techno-thriller novel by a longtime nuclear industry engineer that covers all the ground in an entertaining style. Both the good and the bad are covered (there's plenty of both). Stewart Brand, noted environmentalist, National Book Award winner and founder of "The Whole Earth Catalog" has said "I'd like to see Rad Decision widely read." See the homepage comments for more reader reviews. Also in paperback at online retailers (from which the author receives nary a cent.)

The purpose of Rad Decision is not to convince anyone that nuclear is the best solution. There is no best solution to our energy problems. Each solution has it's own risks and rewards. Nuclear's are not well understood. RadDecision.blogspot.com

[Llib Setag]

Capitalizing on public's fears - NOT GREEN

As the planet wakes up to the fact that global warming is a
reality and that fast action is needed, the nuclear industry,
having floundered for a few decades, has seized on the
opportunity to promote itself as the answer to our energy fears.

It seems that global governments are suffering from mass
amnesia and are doing a good job of spreading it around. The
reality of nuclear power is no different now than it was in the
20th Century - it is inherently dangerous. Time and time again
the industry has demonstrated that safety and nuclear power is a
contradiction in terms.

Safe reactors are a myth. An accident can occur in any nuclear
reactor, causing the release of large quantities of deadly
radiation into the environment. Even during normal operations
radioactive materials are regularly discharged into the air and
water. The policy of secrecy, which surrounded the development
of the bomb, was transferred to civil nuclear power projects
after World War II and lives on today.

The nuclear industy was suffering serious nuclear accidents long
before the catastrophic Chernobyl accident in 1986. Twenty
years later the industry is plagued with incidents, accidents and
near-misses.

Aging of nuclear reactors, in particular the effect of prolonged
operation on materials and large components, is endemic
throughout the world's nuclear industry. At the same time
nuclear operators are continually trying to reduce costs due to
both greater competition in the electricty market and the need
to meet shareholder expectations.

Just a few examples of industrial nuclear incidents that highlight
the world is never far away from the next nuclear catastrophe:

Japan, as one of the largest operators of nuclear power had its
worst nuclear accident in 1999 at the Tokai-mura nuclear fuel
plant when two workers received lethal doses of radiation; one
year later, it was revealed that vital safety data and inspections
had been manipulated at tens of reactors to avoid 'expensive'
repairs and lengthy closure;
Despite claims that the nuclear industry and government had
adopted higher safety standards, in 2004, a steam explosion at
the Mihama reactor killed five workers. In 2006 a district court
ordered the shut down of a nuclear reactor as it could not
withstand severe earthquakes - all of Japan's reactors are sitting
on top of one of the world's most active geological faults;
The US, with the world's largest fleet of nuclear power plants,
only just avoided a catastrophic accident at the David-Besse
reactor in 2002, when it was discovered that corrosion had come
very close to penetrating the vital pressure vessel - an accident
scenario that can lead to a complete reactor core meltdown.
Greenpeace ten years before had filed a complaint to the US
nuclear regulator warning of the risk of corrosion at all US
nuclear power plants. The warning was ignored; following the
discovery at David-Besse, it was shut down for two years
(costing US$600 million), but then given a license to operate
until 2017;
French nuclear safety agency activated its emergency response
center in December 2003 in response to torrential rainfall along
the lower Rhone River, following the emergency shut down of
two reactors (Cruas-3 and -4) due to flood affected damage;
In 2000, the UK Sellafield nuclear fuel processing site was found
to have a fundamental failure of safety culture by Government
inspectors - but only after public disclosure of violations of
quality control and safety standards at its newest nuclear plant
(Sellafield MOX Plant). This helped convince the government of
Ireland to launch a legal challenge against the UK government at
the UN International Court in Hamburg on the issue of nuclear
safety at Sellafield.

In addition to the risk of accident, nuclear plants are highly
vulnerable to deliberate acts of sabotage and terrorist attack.
Even the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which
promotes the use of nuclear power, admitted that in the light of
the September 11th 2001 attacks in New York that:

"Most nuclear power plants were built during the 1960s and
1970s, and like the World Trade Center, they were designed to
withstand only accidental impacts from the small 'Cessna' type
sports aircraft. If you postulate the risk of a jumbo jet full of
fuel, it is clear that their design was not conceived to withstand
such an impact."

GREENPEACE