Which decision about nuclear power (John Shanahan) USofA

Question for advocates of nuclear energy, economic prosperity for humanity, clean environment, and preservation of wildlife habitat John Shanahan February 4, 2018 Is it time to make this decision about nuclear energy? Read on to learn which decision.

Pro nuclear power advocates fall into three camps regarding how to promote nuclear energy: 1) Nuclear advocates joining those claiming that use of fossil fuels is causing serious (catastrophic) man-made global warming, man-made climate change, man-made climate disruption, man-made global cooling. The global cooling coming from use of fossil fuels to stir up dust and soot in the air and block out the sun - used by John Holdren in the 1970s. The other three labels have proudly been used by John Holdren and similar people since the 1980s. Basically they are against use of fossil fuels to one degree or another. It doesn't matter how much fossil fuels have helped people around the world and how much they can help those who still don't have access to them. Its about their consensus that the climate science is settled and fossil fuels must go as quickly as possible because of additional carbon dioxide, a molecule profoundly essential for life.

2) Those indifferent to the topic in (1) 3) Those who want to properly understand the science of the effects of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and other mankind caused releases of greenhouse gases. These people appreciate the importance of fossil fuels for mankind, and want nuclear to play an important role for the future of the world. They don't rely on the carbon dioxide argument to support nuclear power.

Dr. Kelvin Kemm is a distinguished scientist and nuclear industry leader in South Africa: Necsa - South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, Nuclear Africa (Pty) Ltd. Few people have similar accomplishments in science and industry.

He formulated 35 points summarizing the topic of man-made global warming, etc. This document has been commented on by leading scientists who agree with him, see here.

1

Nuclear power in the United States has slowly retreated over 50 years into a corner, driven by anti-nuclear organizations, their allies in the US government and by a sadly misled voting public.

The outlook of how nuclear in the United States will continue after all existing plants reach end of operating license is very bleak now, although we all try to keep hope alive.

Here are challenges that threaten the existence of nuclear power: 1) No substantial plans to replace aging existing nuclear plants with new ones. This situation of one generation and out hasn’t happened in most other industries.

2) No substantial plans to reprocess used nuclear fuel and employ depleted uranium in fast reactors. Reprocessing used nuclear fuel and using depleted uranium alone has the ability to meet America's electrical energy needs at 1994 levels for over 700 years without anymore mining of uranium or fossil fuels for generating electricity.

3) No plans to abandon the Linear No-Threshold Model for radiation safety guidelines and replace with guidelines based on biological science.

4) No substantial plans to design and license Gen III+ NPPs based on sound, realistic safety criteria. Just keep adding safety systems for the appearance of greater safety. In many cases they simply add more cost.

5) Not much interest by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in licensing new nuclear technologies efficiently, just keep asking questions and insisting that all licensing questions be answered to extreme, very expensive quality assurance standards.

6) Practically no interest in developing thorium based nuclear technologies.

7) Far from effective public education to counter very successful misinformation and fear campaigns by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, etc.

8) The USA and France have lost companies that can manage very large nuclear design, license and build projects and keep them on schedule and budget.

If these suggestions are not satisfactorily addressed in a timely manner, nuclear power in the United States and in countries that depend on us will fade away and the opponents of nuclear power will have complete victory.

2

WHICH DECISION? Should nuclear advocates remain divided in three camps above?

Should nuclear advocates focus on the eight problems mentioned here and other administrative/regulatory problems and let atmospheric scientists settle the question of CO2 from fossil fuels?

This message is intended as a suggestion for individuals and organizations to think about and act accordingly. We aren’t looking for a prolonged discussion here. A few comments would be OK. We need effective, timely action to save nuclear power in the USA. Thanks for your interest and attention.

John

John A. Shanahan President, Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy - USA,

website: efn-usa.org

2800 S. University Blvd. Unit 20 Denver, Colorado, USA 80210 Tel. (USA) 303 399 0393 E-mail: acorncreek2006@gmail.com (Acorn Creek is in the Rocky Mountains)

3