*Another* High Level German Energy Expert Questions UK Push for Nuclear

[kristopher]

Flasbarth directly confronts the issues alleged by the nuclear indsutry related to Germany's decision to build a 100% renewable energy system and comes back at them with some thoughts of his own. This is well worth reading in full.

UK's faith in nuclear power threatens renewables, says German energy expert
Jochen Flasbarth, who is advising German government on its nuclear phase-out, says UK's wind and solar industry will suffer
Hanna Gersmann
guardian.co.uk, Monday 28 November 2011 05.04 EST


Climate advisor to the German government and Federal Environment Agency president Jochen Flasbarth. Photograph: Britta Pedersen/EPA

Building new nuclear power stations will make it harder for the UK to switch to renewable energy, said one of the top German officials leading the country's nuclear energy phase-out.

Germany said shortly after the Fukushima disaster in March that it would phase out its nuclear plants by 2022, while the UK is planning to build eight new nuclear plants as well as massively increase the amount of energy generated from wind power.

But Jochen Flasbarth, president of the Environmental Protection Agency in Germany, who advises the German government, said: "We are not missionaries, and every country will have to find its own way in energy policy, but it is obvious that nuclear plants are too inflexible and cannot sufficiently respond to variations in wind or solar generation, only gas do."

Flasbarth robustly defended Germany's nuclear phase-out, saying it would be smoother than critics think. "The phase-out is doable and I don't expect unsolvable problems," he told the Guardian in an interview. "I wonder why Germany feels the pressure to defend its decision, but not the countries who stick to nuclear energy, which has been proved to be unsustainable."...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/28/nuclear-uk-renewable-energy?newsfeed=true


See also: UK Govt Promotes Nuclear for AGW While Secretly Helping Canada Sell Tar Sands Oil in EU
Posted by Kristopher at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x318419#318419

The UK government has been giving secret support at the very highest levels to Canada's campaign against European penalties on its highly polluting tar sands fuel, the Guardian can reveal.

At the same time, the UK government was being lobbied by Shell and BP, which both have major tar sands projects in Alberta, and opened a new consulate in the province to "support British commercial interests".

At least 15 high-level meetings and frequent communications have taken place since September, with David Cameron discussing the issue with his counterpart Stephen Harper during his visit to Canada, and stating privately that the UK wanted "to work with Canada on finding a way forward", according to documents released under freedom of information laws.

Charles Hendry, the energy minister, later told the Canadian high commissioner: "We would value continued discussion with you on how we can progress discussions in Brussels," with Hendry's official asking the Canadians if they had "any suggestions as to what we might do, given the politics in Brussels"....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/27/canada-oil-sands-uk-backing

You can find the other article quoting "Prof John Schellnhuber, the current adviser to the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and previous adviser the president of the European commission and other governments" here:
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x318079

[PamW]

1. Doesn't have to...

But Jochen Flasbarth, president of the Environmental Protection Agency in Germany, who advises the German government, said: "We are not missionaries, and every country will have to find its own way in energy policy, but it is obvious that nuclear plants are too inflexible and cannot sufficiently respond to variations in wind or solar generation, only gas do."
=============================================================

Unlike wind and/or solar, nuclear power could carry the entire demand of the UK, or the USA, for that matter.

So with nuclear power, you don't need the wind and/or solar power plants; so you don't build them.
If you don't build them; there's no need to have to respond to the variation in generation on nonexistent wind and/or solar plants.

PamW

[kristopher]

2. A new Yucca Mountain sized storage facility filled every 8 months.

From a presentation by John Holdren.

The nuclear option: size of the challenges

If world electricity demand grows 2% /year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3 nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050; this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000 MWe each.

If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
A diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium the associated flow of separated, directly weapon-usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
A diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be 34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

Mitigation of Human-Caused Climate Change
John P. Holdren

His conclusion: Expanding nuclear enough to take a modest bite out of the climate problem is conceivable, *but* doing so will depend on greatly increased seriousness in addressing the waste-management & proliferation challenges.

Let's say that increasing the amount to 100% would be 3X, it would be far more because the load following problem would dictate a reduction in your fleet load factor to about 50-60%.

That is a LOT of bombs and waste. Not to mention a Fukushima every 5 years....

[PamW]

3. WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium the associated flow of separated, directly weapon-usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
A diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.
=============================================================================

The ever present anti-nuclear lie is that power reactors produce "weapons grade" plutonium.

Evidently you and the rest of the anti-nukes don't know anything about producing weapons grade
plutonium. "Weapons grade" is plutonium that is made in special "production reactors" that
are operated in a very special way.

Power reactors don't produce "weapons grade" plutonium. What they produce is called
"reactor grade" plutonium.

Holdren is NOT a nuclear scientist; his specialty is aeronautics.

Unfortunately in his ferver for opposing nuclear weapons, he never learned the difference
between "reactor grade" and "weapons grade".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade

Weapons-grade plutonium is defined as being predominantly Pu-239, typically about 93% Pu-239. Pu-240 is produced when Pu-239 absorbs an additional neutron and fails to fission. Pu-240 and Pu-239 are not separated by reprocessing. Pu-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission, which can cause a nuclear weapon to predetonate <Edit: predetonate means to "fizzle">. To reduce the concentration of Pu-240 in the plutonium produced, weapons program plutonium production reactors irradiate the uranium for a far shorter time than is normal for a nuclear power reactor. More precisely, weapons-grade plutonium is obtained from uranium irradiated to a low burnup.


PamW

[kristopher]

4. Our own bumbling "Dr. No" strikes again...

It's the whole "alternative fuel cycle" thing that apparently has you confused.

"If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium the associated flow of separated, directly weapon-usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
A diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium ...



Oh btw as far as Holdren's qualifications?

The Future of Nuclear Power
AN INTERDISCIPLINARY MIT STUDY
Copyright © 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology. All rights reserved. ISBN 0-615-12420-8

Study Participants
PROFESSOR STEPHEN ANSOLABEHERE
Department of Political Science, MIT
PROFESSOR JOHN DEUTCH — CO CHAIR
InstituteProfessor Department of Chemistry, MIT
PROFESSOR EMERITUS MICHAEL DRISCOLL
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT
PROFESSOR PAUL E. GRAY
President Emeritus, MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
PROFESSOR JOHN P. HOLDREN
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University.
PROFESSOR PAUL L. JOSKOW
Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and Management Department of Economics and Sloan School of Management, MIT Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research
PROFESSOR RICHARD K. LESTER
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT Director, MIT Industrial Performance Center......





John P. Holdren
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy
On Leave
Science, Technology and Public Policy Program,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs


Profile


John P. Holdren is Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School, as well as Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University. He is also the Director of the Woods Hole Research Center and from 2005 to 2008 served as President-Elect, President, and Chair of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His work focuses on causes and consequences of global environmental change, analysis of energy technologies and policies, ways to reduce the dangers from nuclear weapons and materials, and the interaction of content and process in science and technology policy.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/john-holdren
...

[PamW]

5. Exactly - Holdren is a "touchy - feely" "public policy" wonk.

Study Participants
PROFESSOR STEPHEN ANSOLABEHERE
Department of Political Science, MIT
PROFESSOR JOHN DEUTCH — CO CHAIR
InstituteProfessor Department of Chemistry, MIT
PROFESSOR EMERITUS MICHAEL DRISCOLL
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT
PROFESSOR PAUL E. GRAY
President Emeritus, MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
PROFESSOR JOHN P. HOLDREN
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy John F. Kennedy School of Government, and Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University.
PROFESSOR PAUL L. JOSKOW
Elizabeth and James Killian Professor of Economics and Management Department of Economics and Sloan School of Management, MIT Director, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research
PROFESSOR RICHARD K. LESTER
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT Director, MIT Industrial Performance Center......
=================================================================================

Exactly - Holdren is a "touchy feelly" public policy wonk.

I don't respect his credentials for being a professor of "public policy" at the Kennedy School, at all.
Public policy wonks are NOT the types you ask to resolve scientific questions.

I respect scientists. If you want to know the type of people I respect, just look back at the list for a few:

PROFESSOR JOHN DEUTCH — CO CHAIR
InstituteProfessor Department of Chemistry, MIT

PROFESSOR PAUL E. GRAY
President Emeritus, MIT Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

PROFESSOR EMERITUS MICHAEL DRISCOLL
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT

PROFESSOR RICHARD K. LESTER
Department of Nuclear Engineering, MIT Director, MIT Industrial Performance Center......

Especially the last two, Professors Driscoll and Lester.

Now those are the types of people that really know the science, and NOT some mere "policy wonk"

PamW

[kristopher]

7. You are so profound and convincing, Pam.

Those fools at Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Berkley and Wood's Hole should be ashamed themselves. It isn't like he is a rocket scientist of anything!

Oh, wait..

Dr. Holdren holds advanced degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics from MIT and Stanford.

He is a member of
-the National Academy of Sciences,
-the National Academy of Engineering, and
-the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,

as well as

-foreign member of the Royal Society of London.



He served as a member of
-the MacArthur Foundation’s Board of Trustees from 1991 to 2005,
-as Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on International Security and Arms Control from 1994 to 2005,

and

-as Co-Chair of the independent, bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy from 2002 to 2009.



A former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,

his awards include:
-a MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship,
-the John Heinz Prize in Public Policy,
-the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement,

and

-the Volvo Environment Prize.

In December 1995 he gave the acceptance lecture for the Nobel Peace Prize on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, an international organization of scientists and public figures in which he held leadership positions from 1982 to 1997.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/about/leadershipstaff/director

How could anyone consider believing a hack Holdren when he is contradicted by someone like you?

PS, do you think it is a coincidence? You know, about the fact that both Holdren (Arms Control and Energy Analyst, 1981) and Amory Lovins (Physicist and Energy Analyst 1993) received the MacArthur Genius Award and the fact that you happen to really dislike both of them?

Coincidence?

[PamW]

8. He's not a nuclear expert

How could anyone consider believing a hack Holdren when he is contradicted by someone like you?
==================================

He may have all sorts of credential from other field - but not the right field.

Perhaps an analogy that even you can understand is in order.

Suppose you are sick, and we need a diagnosis for your condition. Who do we call?

Do we call Holdren with all his degrees in aeronautics? Do you think he can diagnose your condition?

Do we call the latest Nobel Prize winner in Economics? Do you think he can diagnose your condition?

No - we call a medical doctor. That is the appropriate specialist to call.

The question here happens to be one about reactors and weapons - and it is just NOT Holdrens field.

However, it just so happens to be mine. I'm like the medical doctor.

PamW

[kristopher]

10. He is an expert Pam. But you are not.

[PamW]

13. You may "think" that ( term used loosely )

He is an expert Pam. But you are not
======================================

You may "think" that ( term used loosely ).

The question here is one about nuclear weapons; can one use
commercial reactor waste as fuel for a bomb.

In that regard, Holdren is definitely NOT an expert.

The true experts in nuclear weapons technology and what can / can not
be done in that field are found in the USA at only two places;
Los Alamos National Lab and Lawrence Livermore National Lab.

Nuclear weapons design and operating parameters can ONLY
be found at those two labs. No other laboratories or institutes,
or universities, are legally able to possess that information.

PamW

[PamW]

9. My difference is obviously with MacArthur and what they "think" is "genius"

PS, do you think it is a coincidence? You know, about the fact that both Holdren (Arms Control and Energy Analyst, 1981) and Amory Lovins (Physicist and Energy Analyst 1993) received the MacArthur Genius Award and the fact that you happen to really dislike both of them?
=======================================================

My difference is obviously with MacArthur and what they "think" is "genius"

However, the real concern here is nuclear non-proliferation. The reason the world has done so poorly in this
regard is that the focus has always been on the least probable route.

We have the Holdrens, and Pugwash...., all the non-proliferation establishment focused on the commercial nuclear
fuel cycle. Name one of the nations that has nuclear weapons that obtained the material from a commercial reactor.
You can't; because NONE of the nations that have nuclear weapons obtained their material from the commercial
sector.

You want to stem proliferation. All the non-NPT signatories already have nuclear weapons. Therefore, any new
nuclear weapons states are currently NPT signatories, which means they can't have an open program. They have to
hide their nuclear weapons program because it is a NPT Treaty violation.

So what does our nascent proliferant nation do? Do they build a big 1000 Mw(e) nuclear power reactor, which is
highly visible. Because they are NPT signatories, the new power plant is going to have to submit to IAEA inspections.
However, the nascent proliferant hopes they can "divert" plutonium under the watchful eye of the IAEA inspectors.
Then they plutonium they get this way isn't really very good for making weapons; it is not "weapons grade" but
"reactor grade". Very difficult if just short of impossible to make a weapon; especially at the burnups that
current reactors have.

Or the nascent proliferant can do what North Korea did. They build a small 5 Mw(e) sized production reactor instead
of a power reactor. This small reactor doesn't have the footprint that a big power plant has. They could probably
hide it on the grounds of one of their universities. Look at the campus of a university with a research reactor and
see if there is anything that stands out. Very few have anything that tips you off as to the nuclear nature of what
is contained within. MIT's reactor has a dome, but it's the exception and not the rule.

Rather than being a power reactor, this reactor can be designed as a production reactor; a reactor whose sole purpose
in design is to make plutonium for weapons. Additionally you can operate it like a production reactor and not a
power reactor. From such a reactor, you can indeed get "weapons grade" plutonium.

Or you can do what Iran is doing, and forgoe plutonium all together in favor of highly enriched uranium.

Unfortunately, the non-proliferation "establishment", the Holdrens, et al, have been focusing on commercial power
reactor fuel cycles, which no nuclear weapons state uses.

They are like someone who is attempting to secure their home against burglars and is so sure that the burglars
are going to come in through the windows that they alarm the windows and put bars over them. All the while, they
leave the front and back doors unlocked and open.

PamW

[kristopher]

11. Your entire screed is a red herring.

It is the knowledge and technology gained from access to the full nuclear fuel cycle that poses the risk.

[PamW]

12. BALONEY!!!!

It is the knowledge and technology gained from access to the full nuclear fuel cycle that poses the risk.
=====================================================

That coming from somebody who doesn't know beans about the technology.

As usual in these matter; you are just plain WRONG!.

Although they share some basics in common, the technology of nuclear reactors
and nuclear weapons is VERY DIFFERENT.

That's why the USA declassified all the technology with regard to nuclear reactors,
but has kept the technology of nuclear weapons classified.

Your contention is a little like saying that someone who has worked for Boeing
on airliners can immediately go out and design / build the B-2 Spirit stealth
bomber produced by Northrup-Grumman.

Yes - the two share some basic principles of aerodynamics in common, but the
real secret of the B-2 which is how to make it invisible to radar is NOT
something one learns designing and building airliners. One certainly WANTS
airliners to be visible on radar.

To a shallow thinker, it's just one big amorphorous "nuclear field" and everything
is the same.

For those that have actually worked in both fields and know the technical details
of both - the two fields are world's apart, and knowledge gained in one doesn't
immediately translate to the other.

PamW

[Dead_Parrot]

6. Define "energy expert", please. nt