Nuclear is Our Future Pro-nuclear activist group

George Bush has proposed a series of international meetings on how to replace the Kyoto Protocol with something that works. At this point, I think it’s fairly evident that:
1. The Kyoto Protocol doesn’t go far enough and has set up a system which has been manipulated to obstruct real progress.
2. Global warming as a result of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere beyond the capability of natural systems to absorb it is a fact of physics.
3. We need a concrete procedure in place for an orderly, face-saving transition from the combustion era instead of more meetings and non-binding agreements.

Count me skeptical. I don’t see anything here that satisfies the third point, but perhaps George Bush knows by now that any proposal of his will be rejected simply because it came from him (which is wrong, even though I don’t agree with him on much), and is trying to set up an international conference where Obama or Hillary will present something nearly identical to what he would have.
Let’s just hope that successor doesn’t drop the ball.

Link.

Filed under Environment, International, Politics and Regulation

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 2 Comments »

The NRC has proposed implementing one of the few POGO recommendations I agree with: reducing hours for security guards at nuclear power plants. I’d like to take this opportunity to draw a distinction between watchdogs and attack groups. We don’t like to engage either, since neither tend to know what they’re doing, and the NRC’s unwillingness to admit anyone to discussions who isn’t a member of the good ol’ boy network doesn’t help, but I submit that there is a difference that we need to be aware of.

We’re used to being under attack; there hasn’t been a moment in the last 40 years when we weren’t. We are used to ignorant arguments coming from groups that are trying to shut down the industry, and accordingly have gotten used to taking any ignorant argument as a threat to shut down the industry. This, I believe, is a mistake.

Greenpeace and NIRS are attack groups. They have campaigns, use words like “shut” and “stop,” and have a stated aim of trying to destroy nuclear technology. They cannot be reasoned with; they must be exposed as fools in public, their sources of volunteers and money cut off, and the loons in charge marginalized. We are familiar with them, their message, their strategy, and their tactics.

POGO, on the other hand, suffers from exactly the same problem as the industry and NRC: nuclear exceptionalism. They are a watchdog group; they believe that the NRC and government in general are not doing the best possible job and are trying to expose problems so they can be fixed. We disagree with them a lot, but they’re not out to get us. They aren’t the problem. Don’t attack them in the manner that Greenpeace and NIRS attack the industry.

Joe Six-Pack thinks nuclear power plants pollute, are unsafe, and produce piles of leaking, deadly waste. They want a good reason to think that nuclear power plants don’t do any of those things, and we can provide it–if we act graciously and professionally, and not wimpy or suburban, and destroy these urban myths with real information. As I’ve said before, people are not dumb–they just have other things to worry about. Tell me an auto mechanic can’t understand how a nuclear power plant works.
The key is, they can’t figure it out on their own. We have to do what every other technology proponent does, and provide information and involvement. Whatever you want to say about how it should be, the public is the boss.

Filed under Activism, Nuclear Exceptionalism, Politics and Regulation, Security and Terrorism, Their Actions

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

They say it’s “incoherent.” And it is; that’s the sad part.

The report does not make any concrete proposals. It recommends that more committees be set up and the issue discussed, saying that the British government is moving too fast.
That’s right: telling the British government to slow down. It’s difficult to think of a recommendation that lacks initiative to a greater degree.

They also are fixed on geologic disposal and do not seem to be interested in processing beyond the existing PUREX-and-storage instead of recycling or beneficial use of fission products. That’s a terrible mistake; these materials can be useful and shouldn’t be dumped.

Filed under Applications, Politics and Regulation, Waste

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

I recently got my hands on an anti-nuclear activist’s comment submitted to the Department of Energy on GNEP’s environmental impact statement. It serves as an example of a few things to do when writing public comments, as well as some things not to do.

First, don’t talk about morals and ethics; talk about the legal and public relations implications of the proposed action. Morals and ethics are nice, but being immoral or unethical doesn’t have an immediate negative effect on the decision-makers. Being sued or inciting a riot does, and a comment must make clear that the proposed action is either illegal or will result in negative political consequences.
If the proposed action is legal and you still don’t like it, you have two options. If you have enough money, lawyers are extremely creative and can concoct an admissible contention from almost anything, and trials/settlements cost the opponents money even if you lose. If you have no money and a lot of people, get about 1,000-1,500 of them to submit near-identical comments threatening protests and media activity. And above all, be prepared to follow through if they go ahead with the proposed action; you can’t be caught bluffing. If you are, that’s the end of your credibility.

Do not assume that they have received “expert analyses” and that you only have to second them. Know the most important points of those analyses and echo them as though you didn’t know about the expert analyses–it’s much more impressive to whatever bureaucrat reads the comment if they think that there’s a huge groundswell of opposition for diverse, original reasons instead of three guys and their 1,500 foot soldiers.

Don’t ask them to follow the procedure. They either will follow the procedure or won’t, and the only thing you can do is threaten negative consequences if they don’t (or do, if you don’t want them to follow the procedure).

Don’t include conspiracy theories. Preferably, don’t originate them or subscribe to them, but don’t try to analyze people’s motives or do a power structure analysis, either. They don’t care about that. Again, they care only about negative consequences to them politically, legally, and financially if they proceed. If you don’t want them to do whatever they’re doing, make it clear that your organization will inflict those negative consequences.

There are more subtle ways to threaten the DOE with legal action than to say “if you proceed with this program, we will be forced to pursue legal action.” State what exactly is not legal about what they are proposing–they’ll fill in the rather obvious blank if you identify yourself as a member of an organization explicitly formed to oppose the proposal. Likewise with publicity campaigns. This is only credible, however, if a large number of people from that organization write in and identify themselves as such, and it really works when that organization has an ongoing publicity campaign that has reached the decision-makers.
This is also different from the standard protest letter or letter to the editor in that the decision-makers actually receive the letter or a summary and are obligated to at least publish it. As such, speak as a negotiator and use negotiating tactics; this is not a place to do general-public-type PR.
Likewise, don’t use personal attacks and don’t try to tell them about what they’ve done. They know what they’ve done and using personal attacks lessens the probability that they’ll accept a face-saving compromise. I’m not advocating for the further wussification of society, just differentiating between the approach needed for PR and the approach needed for negotiation. It is in fact fatal to weasel out, or to suggest solutions that don’t involve the agency you’re complaining about (like legislation).

Oh, and don’t make grammatical and spelling errors, or do anything else that undermines your credibility. Do not feed the ‘allegators’.

Filed under Activism, Environment, Politics and Regulation

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

On June 12 at 10 AM in their hearing room at 244 Washington Street SW, Atlanta (via WAND).

As we saw with Shoreham, this is where a lot of decisions get made while we focus on NRC hearings. We really need a power structure analysis on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis if we are to organize effectively in support of new build.

Filed under Activism, New Build, Politics and Regulation

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

“Right from the beginning of the nuclear power industry, we have been assured that the technology is safe.”

-mng.org.uk

And it was, and still is. It’s safer than fossil fuels, and (rather importantly) works.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Energy, Safety

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Anti-nuclear activists have started circulating an email alert (rather, an alert in the footer of every email they send) asking people to get a (they suggest) WordPress or MySpace blog and start blogging as a way to stop nuclear power. I see some good signs here.

First, a WordPress blog in its externally-hosted form is a technical challenge for people who aren’t familiar with servers, and in its free form is not powerful enough to be effective in an actual campaign. You can’t even change the HTML code. MySpace, however, is a joke. There’s no point trying to use it; once you get past being a joke of a movement, you have to disassemble everything you did and start over on a real platform.
We didn’t make that mistake, at least not that badly. Blogger, for all its faults, is extensible. And most importantly, we made our mistakes a while ago and are starting to recover while they dig themselves a hole. They don’t know that it’s easier to have a tech-savvy organization set up a community that activists can join than to try to make everything work together after six or seven incompatible systems are entrenched. It seems also that anti-nuclear pages are either sophisticated ASP jobs or hacks, with nothing in between; an anti-nuclear activist who is trying to do a good job faces an almost square learning curve with almost no help from their colleagues. They are forced to cut corners and further decrease compatibility (and thus interoperability–which is the whole point).

Second, they honestly think that NEI pays everyone off, and that we’re all NEI employees. Wrong. They simply, honestly, and truly do not understand that there is a difference between the industry and the supporters of the technology. That leads them to think we aren’t distributed and can be beaten easily by five or six dedicated people.

Third, they concentrate on RSS. Go chase RSS, guys. Nobody uses it. It’s useful only as an aggregation tool for people with nothing else to do and when it is converted to an email alert system.

Fourth, they acknowledge that the anti-nuclear movement doesn’t do blogging. The first three dedicated, sustained pro-nuclear blogs (NEI, Atomic Insights, and NIOF) started in a short period in 2005. Others came along later; a second wave came along in 2006 (Freedom for Fission, We Support Lee, Energy from Thorium, and ARDT), and a third wave came along in late 2006 to early 2007 (Pebble Bed Reactor, Idaho Samizdat, Left Atomics, Nuclear Australia, NNadir). I like the fact that that number is going up with each wave (and diversifying), and NIOF is working on making it easier for people to get started–and get started in an organization.
I don’t see the anti-nuclear activists, who are new to this and learn tech more slowly, getting there any faster than we did. Accordingly, I (conservatively) conclude that the anti-nuclear activists are two years behind us.
We have a window, and we have to do something with it. This little smell of blood shouldn’t lead us to believe that they’re dead, but should inspire us to work even harder to kick their butts and make sure they don’t get up again. We must do this by removing their base of support; using the internet’s core competencies (as the UNIX-HATERS Handbook says of computers, “nitpickers with elephantine memories”) as a tool (not a strategy) to accelerate the process of organizing college campuses. It is clear that to do that, we need a Nuclear Advocates’ Declaration of Principles (or something else similar to the Port Huron Declaration; if nothing else, to put our opinions in writing to immunize us from allegations that we’re being bought off), a web-based community platform, and an internal handbook that we can keep out of anti-nuclear activists’ hands until they have their own equivalent (i.e., something we can keep close to our chest for two or three years). NIOF is actively working on the second part, after which we’ll obviously do the third part, but pro-nuclear activists will need to call a conference to do the first part.

In short: they’re a threat, but a foreseen threat. We know what timeline, roughly, they will be operating on. Our application of game theory to proliferation–and their disdain for doing so–helps us. We know exactly what to do to prevent this threat from materializing. We can do it, and I know we will. We must. Too much is at stake, environmentally and on a public health level, for us to not do anything about it, or to fail to do what we know we can do and operate at the high level we know we can operate at.

Get up and do something!

Filed under Activism, Their Actions

Posted on June 2, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

“ASLB rejects new contentions…but not on their merits”

-New England Coalition

…on the fact that they were being used as a deliberate delaying tactic.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Their Actions

Posted on June 1, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Rep. Nita Lowey, that eminent friend of nuclear power (joined by woo-woo John Hall as well as Eliot Engel, Maurice Hinchey, and Christopher Shays), is sponsoring a bill intended to make it even more unnecessarily difficult to build a nuclear power plant–or relicense one.

-Require that the NRC determine that plants are safe. In other words, add another piece of paper onto a process that already works.
-Require that the NRC certify that each nuclear power plant doesn’t have security vulnerabilities during the licensing process. In other words, the effects of a terrorist attack are the victims’ fault.
-Add another level of bureaucracy to the evacuation plans requirement, and expand the EPZ to 50 miles. More stakeholders can veto the plan under this proposal than possible today–any state within 50 miles or any federal agency involved in emergency management–increasing the likelihood of Shoreham-type politics.
-Require that the NRC do the same reviews for a renewal that they do for a licensing, most of which are completely pointless, since the design doesn’t change. In reality, all a renewal application should have to prove safety-wise is that a plant’s designed-in safety effects won’t be affected by aging.
-Require the NRC to determine in any relicensing that the population density around the plant hasn’t changed to the point where it is defined as “urban siting,” which is bad for some reason. In other words, shut down Indian Point.

Fortunately, the bill doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting past President Bush even if it did pass. But we’re going to have to watch out for this in a couple years, when either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be eager to prove that they’re tough on these “problems.” Indian Point is going to have a constant fight on its hands come 2009.

Oh, and four Democrats and one Republican do not a bipartisan coalition make. Maybe they put the “coal” in “coalition” (or the “mental” in “environmentalist”), but not much more.

Filed under Emergency Response, Perception, Physics, Politics and Regulation, Safety, Security and Terrorism, Their Actions

Posted on June 1, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

“Nuclear or Geothermal power plants? Neither.”

-’amazngdrx‘

Geothermal energy comes from the heat given off when radiation from natural radioactive materials inside the Earth is absorbed by nearby rock or other materials. So it is actually a kind of nuclear power.

It is more commonly grouped with wind and solar under the banner of “renewable energy,” but this quote goes to show that “renewable” actually means “unfeasible.” When they realize that geothermal energy might in fact work, it becomes scum, the enemy of the environment. Energy allows us to do things, so if the objective is to starve polluting processes so that they can’t operate (a perfectly reasonable and understandable tactic), any functional energy source must be opposed, existing ones must be made as expensive as possible, and the depletion of reserves must be sped up–with a ban on exploration for new supplies–until there is no alternative but to revert to the solar-powered 1600-vintage “happy peasant lifestyle.” A lifestyle, I might add, which would have killed me at birth.
Thus, I ain’t too happy about proposals like this. I can put two and two together, and I like my energy. To quote one of the store designs (itself a quote):

Filed under Alternatives, Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Energy, Sustainability, Their Actions

Posted on May 31, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »