New post on Brave New Climate: What "On the ..."?by Barry Brook



New post on Brave New Climate

What “On the…”?

by Barry Brook
I've never liked titles of scientific papers that being with "On the...[whatever]". It's always struck me as simultaneously pretentious and uninformative. These days I usually try to give the main result in a paper's title, or at least, make it clever, or humorous... (Another irk is when people introduce a speaker with the phrase "Without further ado...". Please.)
But despite myself, I'm going to start a new "On the..." series on BNC (3.o!). In this case, it seems to fit. You see, there are a whole range of topics on which I have been holding myself back from commenting over the last year or two (...for various reasons). Now, it's time to unleash. Or counter. Or muse. Or speculate. Whatever befits the topic, really. You know all those soapboxes I've been erecting for others in the Open Threads? My turn, again.
I've made a start on a few of them in Evernote. In no particular order: "On Fukushima". "On Solar Thermal". "On Sc[k]eptics". "On Ideologues". "On Expertise". "On the Energy Mix". "On Science and Philosophy". "On Space". "On the Future". "On Supervision". "On Qualitative Research". "On Positive Discrimination". "On Religion". And so on. Who knows, if I write enough of them, I might have myself a(other) publishable manifesto!
Other topics are planned, but I won't give away their titles. It'd spoil the effect. Suffice to say that they'll be wide ranging (across the broad techno-climate-energy-environment-ecology-evolution-philosophical theme of BNC at least), variable in length, quality and evidence base, and always with a strong lashing of personal opinion. It is BNC 3.0 after all...
The first "On the..." will come soon - tomorrow(ish)... I hope! It'll feature the NFCRC. Given my involvement on the science expert panel, I'd better say something about its findings.

P.S. I did some minor updates to the blog's theme, cleaned out that awful background image that was well past the 'grating on me' stage, and restored the topic categories on the side-bar. I also updated my icon 'photo'. It seemed appropriate.
Barry Brook | 4 June 2016 at 10:52 PM | Categories: On the... | URL: http://wp.me/piCIJ-1Mz


https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=wm#inbox/1551b796f134e260

NRC cites NextEra for ASR reports

  • SEABROOK NUCLEAR PLANT

    NRC cites NextEra for ASR reports

    Violations considered a 'low safety significance'


http://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20160602/NEWS/160609644

ANS Nuclear Cafe Update: Nuclear Energy on the Edge

 

Nuclear Energy on the Edge

By ansnuclearcafe on Jun 03, 2016 11:29 am

by Will Davis Yesterday, June 2, 2016, may have marked a watershed moment in the present day history of nuclear power plants in the United States, when two nuclear plants Continue Reading →
Read in browser »
share on Twitter Like Nuclear Energy on the Edge on Facebook

Michael Shellenberger – Benefits of Nuclear

By ansnuclearcafe on May 27, 2016 11:00 am

http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2134  Today’s matinee: an OnPoint interview with pronuclear environmentalist Michael Shellenberger, as he discusses the benefits nuclear energy has on the economy and the environment.
Read in browser »
share on Twitter Like Michael Shellenberger – Benefits of Nuclear on Facebook

 

 More to read:

Watts Bar Unit 2 Starts Up
ANS Friday Matinee – April 20, 2016
Exelon Meeting: How the New Generation Energy Plan Affects Illinois
ANS President Leading States Discussion at DOE Nuclear Plant Economics Summit
Scientists Develop 3-D ‘X-ray’ for Nuclear Fuel

Power Gen 2015



NIMS

IAEA fuel 'bank' on target for September 2017 launch


IAEA fuel 'bank' on target for September 2017 launch

The IAEA Low Enriched Uranium Storage Facility - or 'bank' - is scheduled to be ready for operations by September 2017, following the conclusion of a partnership agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Ulba Metallurgical Plant in Kazakhstan this week. The agreement was signed on 27 May in Vienna by IAEA LEU Bank project executive Mark Bassett and UMP sales director Alexander Khodanov.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/UF-IAEA-fuel-bank-on-target-for-September-2017-launch-02061601.html

Market Conditions Shutter Three Illinois Reactors

Market Conditions Shutter Three Illinois Reactors

Closures Portend Severe Economic, Environmental Impacts
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Exelon Corp. today announced the premature closing of three of the company’s 11 reactors in Illinois—the single-reactor Clinton Power Station and both reactors at the Quad Cities Generating Station. The company plans to shut down the Clinton station on June 1, 2017, and Quad Cities a year later. Following is a statement from Marvin Fertel, president and chief executive officer at the Nuclear Energy Institute.


http://www.nei.org/News-Media/Media-Room/News-Releases/Market-Conditions-Shutter-Three-Illinois-Reactors

NRC Blog Update: “Too Cheap to Meter”: A History of the Phrase

“Too Cheap to Meter”: A History of the Phrase

Thomas Wellock
Historian

Donald Hintz, Chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said at 2003 conference that the nuclear industry had been “plagued since the early days by the unfortunate quote: ‘Too cheap to meter’.” Those four words had become a standard catchphrase for what critics claim were impossibly sunny promises of nuclear power’s potential.
Not so fast, Hintz countered. He noted that Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss, in a 1954 address to science writers, had coined the phrase to describe fusion power, not fission. Nuclear power may be a victim of mistaken identity.
Hintz was not alone in this view. Over the past four decades, antinuclear and pronuclear versions of what Strauss meant by “too cheap to meter” have appeared in articles, blogs, and books. Even Wikipedia has weighed in, on the pro-nuclear side. Reconciling the two versions isn’t easy since Strauss wasn’t explicit about what power source would electrify the utopian future he predicted.
The text in question:
“Transmutation of the elements,–unlimited power, ability to investigate the working of living cells by tracer atoms, the secret of photosynthesis about to be uncovered,–these and a host of other results all in 15 short years.  It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter,–will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history,–will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds,–and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age. This is the forecast for an age of peace.”*
AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss (sixth from left) can be seen at the head table at the 1954 National Association of Science Writers Founder Day Dinner. In attendance that evening were five Nobel Prize winners, including future AEC Chairman Glenn Seaborg (first on left). Also in this photo: Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (Nobel Prize winner) is third from the left; Alton Blakeslee (president of the National Association of Science Writers) is seventh from the left; Irving Langmuir (Nobel Prize winner) is sixth from the right and Edward C. Kendall (Nobel Prize winner) is fourth from the right.
AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss (sixth from left) can be seen at the head table at the 1954 National Association of Science Writers Founder Day Dinner. In attendance that evening were five Nobel Prize winners, including future AEC Chairman Glenn Seaborg (first on left). Also in this photo: Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (Nobel Prize winner) is third from the left; Alton Blakeslee (president of the National Association of Science Writers) is seventh from the left; Irving Langmuir (Nobel Prize winner) is sixth from the right and Edward C. Kendall (Nobel Prize winner) is fourth from the right.
Nuclear critics believe Strauss was speaking of nuclear power and claim that, as AEC Chairman, he spoke for a budding industry too.  The most thorough defense of Strauss appeared in a 1980 article by the Atomic Industrial Forum.
Citing the opinions of Strauss’s son, former AEC staff, and a Strauss biographer, the AIF argued that Strauss’s omission of a power source in the passage was likely deliberate since he could not make explicit reference to “Project Sherwood,” the AEC’s still secret fusion power program that Strauss championed.
Moreover, the article noted, Strauss understood well that nuclear power would not pay for some years and that his utopian vision might be realized only by his “children’s, children’s, children.” Neither the industry nor the AEC, the AIF article notes, shared Strauss’s optimism.
While the AIF correctly notes the AEC Chairman’s interest in fusion, there is no evidence in Strauss’s papers at the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library to indicate fusion was the hidden subject of his speech. Staff suggestions for the address reflected current issues in the AEC’s civilian reactor program—the new Atomic Energy Act, President Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace, the Shippingport nuclear power plant, the agency’s efforts to declassify information, and medical uses of reactor-produced isotopes.
While it is true that Strauss could not explicitly discuss classified fusion research, the speech is barren of implicit hints of a new source of power. Strauss focused on fission–the discovery of fission, fission-product applications, and the economic feasibility of fission power.
Strauss’s optimism for fission continued several days later when reporters on a Meet the Press radio broadcast asked him about the quotation and the viability of “commercial power from atomic piles.” Strauss replied that he expected his children and grandchildren would have power “too cheap to be metered, just as we have water today that’s too cheap to be metered.” That day, he said, might be “close at hand.  I hope to live to see it.”
By contrast, when Strauss finally revealed the AEC’s fusion research program, he was not nearly as optimistic. In August 1955, he cautioned “there has been nothing in the nature of breakthroughs that would warrant anyone assuming that this [fusion power] was anything except a very long range—and I would accent the word ‘very’—prospect.”
In the years after the speech, the lay public and the power industry never questioned that Strauss’s predictions were for fission power.  The New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning science reporter, William Laurence, attended Strauss’s speech and featured the catchphrase prominently in articles and a book. He wrote of the prediction, “All signs point to the realization within the next decade of a price for nuclear fuels so low that only hydroelectric power, which alone is produced without any cost for fuel could compete with it.”
The electric power industry was not happy with their new catchphrase. Industry officials distanced themselves from Strauss’s speech, sometimes diplomatically calling Strauss too optimistic.
Others were blunt. The president of Cleveland Electric Illuminating disparaged too cheap to meter as “a myth” given the small contribution fuel costs made to a customer’s electric bill. Electrical World called “too cheap to meter” a “delusion” that would make it harder for utility companies to explain electric costs to customers.  In the meantime, the editors declared, utilities would welcome many more customers “with a meter in each and every one.”
This skepticism was echoed by more sober evaluations of nuclear power economics at the AEC and within the industry. Former AEC Commissioner James Ramey was probably correct when he said, “Nobody took Strauss’ statement very seriously.”
It is likely, then, that nuclear critics and proponents are partially correct. “Too cheap to meter” was a prediction for a fission utopia in the foreseeable future. But Strauss was speaking for himself.
“A serious governmental body ought not to indulge in predictions,” he said to the science writers. “However, as a person, I suffer from no such inhibition and will venture a few predictions before I conclude.”
He may have believed that he could step away from his Chairman’s role, indulge in speculation, and that history would note the difference.
* Lewis Strauss’s full speech is available in here.  “Too Cheap to Meter” is on page 9.

US sees saving nuclear plants as “clean energy” solution


US sees saving nuclear plants as “clean energy” solution

Plants that were facing closure could be bailed out to meet Paris agreement on climate change…

http://www.newstalk.com/US-sees-saving-nuclear-plants-as-clean-energy-solution

Still Time to Save Nuclear in Illinois & California — But We Must Act Now from Michael Shellenberger

We can still save Illinois & California nuclear — but only if true environmentalists show courage and take action.

Statement by Environmental Progress President Michael Shellenberger:

Exelon's announcement that it will close Quad Cities and Clinton nuclear plants is just the latest indication that we are in a clean energy emergency. If Quad and Clinton are closed, Illinois will lose one-quarter of all its clean energy, over 1,500 jobs, and its standing as a clean energy leader.
If we lose all 13 nuclear plants at high-risk of closing in the next two years, we will wipe out three times the solar electricity we generated in 2015. If we lose all plants at risk of closing before 2030 we will wipe out 43 percent of the emissions reductions in President Obama's Clean Power Plan. 
Nuclear plants are in trouble everywhere for the same reason. People believe that nuclear energy is something it is not, and cannot see it for what it is. Nuclear is our safest way of generating electricity, and our only reliable clean energy source. Many of our nuclear plants can operate for another 20, 30 and even 50 years. But many people have come to believe the opposite.  
The result is that nuclear suffers from double discrimination. Nuclear plants are excluded from the federal subsidies and state mandates for solar and wind, either of which would be more than enough to protect nuclear energy .  
It is not too late to save Quad and Clinton. But will require that moderate environmental groups show courage and break from the dogmatically anti-nuclear groups that openly say they want to replace nuclear plants with natural gas. 
Saving Quad and Clinton will cost less than half the cost of the federal wind subsidy, and will protect Illinois rate-payers from future price shocks when natural gas prices, today at a historic low, go up.
What happens next will reveal whether Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC and Sierra Club care more about addressing climate change than continuing with their counterproductive and outmoded effort to dismantle our largest source of clean power. 
We also urge President Obama, Congress and the Department of Energy to take swift action. Talk is not enough. Protecting clean energy and the climate will require real world actions. 
And we urge true environmentalists who support all clean energy sources to take action, and especially participate in the Rally and March for Environmental Hope! this June 22 - 24. We can still save our largest source of clean energy — but it will require real-world action.

[Press release on the March follows]
For Immediate Release: Julia Pacetti, JMP Verdant Communications, (718)399-0400, Eric Meyer, March for Environmental Hope!, (218)384-1645

With Nuclear Plant Closures Increasing Emissions, Environmental Coalition Announces Historic Protest, June 24 - 28, SF - Sacramento


CLOSURES OF NUCLEAR IN VERMONT AND CALIFORNIA INCREASED EMISSIONS, THE DATA SHOW


13 US NUCLEAR PLANTS AT RISK OF CLOSURE PRODUCE 3 TIMES MORE ELECTRICITY THAN ALL US SOLAR IN 2015

 
June 2, 2016 — With 13 nuclear plants at risk of closing and taking the United States backwards on climate change, a coalition of environmental groups is announcing a historic pro-nuclear protest march from San Francisco to Sacramento, June 24 - 28.
“If we lose all 13 of the nuclear plants at risk of premature closure we will wipe out three times more clean power than all of our solar provided in 2015,” said the March’s Lead Organizer, Eric G. Meyer. “If you care about renewables, clean energy and climate change, you should support keeping nuclear plants open.”
In Illinois, a coalition of anti-nuclear groups including by Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC), Sierra Club, and NRDC blocked legislation that would have saved two of the state’s nuclear plants, Clinton and Quad Cities.
ELPC has said it wants to replace the nuclear plants with natural gas, and gradually wind and solar. "Everybody looks with excitement when a new natural gas plant is built," ELPC head, Howard Learner recently told a journalist when explaining why he supports closing Clinton and Quad, an extraordinary statement coming from a self-professed environmental activist.
“Anti-nuclear groups should be forgiven for they believe nuclear energy is something it’s not, and can’t see it for what it is,” said Alan Medsker of Environmental Progress, Illinois. “But we cannot allow them to shut down Quad and Clinton. It’s time for Sierra Club, the Citizens Utility Board and Environmental Defense Fund to break from ELPC. There’s still time to pass legislation that would invest not only in renewables but also protect our largest source of clean energy.”
If Clinton and Quad close, 1,500 workers will lose their jobs and carbon emissions will increase the equivalent of adding two million cars to the road. The proposed subsidy for distressed nuclear plants is less than half the cost the wind production tax credit.
Nuclear plants around the country are closing prematurely because they are excluded from the various federal subsidies and state mandates for solar and wind. If nuclear were included in state Renewable Portfolio Standards, or received a fraction of the subsidy for wind or solar, nuclear plants would be economical.
“The evidence is clear: nuclear is far more effective at replacing fossil fuels and reducing pollution and carbon emissions than solar and wind. To exclude it from any clean energy standard in the face of irreversible climate devastation is simply unethical,” said Meyer.
“It’s a mathematical certainty that closing nuclear plants results in more fossil fuel burning and emissions,” says Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker Robert Stone, whose award-winning film “Pandora’s Promise” documents the conversion of many environmentalists from anti-nuclear to pro-nuclear. “California’s reputation as a leader in the fight against climate change is at stake if Diablo Canyon is shut down.”  
“It’s vitally important for any of us that care about the environment-- progressives or conservatives-- to share that message with Governor Jerry Brown,” said Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “People fear nuclear power largely because they associate it with nuclear weapons, but the two don’t equate. Nuclear power is not only an important part of the answer to climate change. It has outstanding public health benefits as well, greatly reducing air pollution.”
The March will occur in the run-up to a Tuesday, June 28, California Lands Commission meeting, where Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and two other members could deny a critical permit to Diablo Canyon, California’s biggest source of clean energy.
March coalition members includes Mothers for Nuclear, Thorium Energy Alliance, Environmental Progress, Pandora's Promise, and Energy for Humanity — all are organizations independent of energy companies and interests.
“We can’t let irrational fears put our children at risk,” said Mothers for Nuclear co-founder, Heather Matteson, an environmental activist who was once anti-nuclear but changed her mind and now works as a reactor operator and procedure writer at Diablo Canyon.
The 13 nuclear plants at high risk of premature closure produce three times more electrical power than the US produces from solar. Diablo Canyon produces 11 times more power than the world’s largest solar farm, Solar Star, will produce.
Rather than simply replacing fossil fuel use, as nuclear plants do, plants like Solar Star increase the demand for natural gas when the sun is not shining which is on average more than 75 percent of the time.
Eric G. Meyer, 28, quit his job as a nurses union organizer and drove to San Francisco from Minnesota last month to be the Lead Organizer of the March. “My heart breaks every time they announce nuclear plant closure,” said Meyer. “We’re going to fight hard to save every last one of those 13 plants. This is going to be remembered as the summer that we saved our largest source of clean energy.”
###

Fukushima Update 6/2/16

Fukushima Update 6/2/16

An interim report on Tepco’s muon scan of unit #2… JAIF posts an interview with Okuma Town Mayor… Tepco is given permission to expand the F. Daiichi frozen wall… Another suit to bar a nuke restart is filed.

http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/fukushima-accident-updates.html

With Nuclear Plant Closures Increasing Emissions, Environmental Coalition Announces Historic Protest, June 24 - 28, SF - Sacramento

Environmentalists Announce Climate March to Protest Nuclear Plant Closures

For Immediate Release:
Julia Pacetti, JMP Verdant Communications, (718) 399-0400
Eric Meyer, March for Environmental Hope!, (218) 384-1645

With Nuclear Plant Closures Increasing Emissions, Environmental Coalition Announces Historic Protest, June 24 - 28, SF - Sacramento

Closures of Nuclear in Vermont and California Increased Emissions, the Data Show

13 US Nuclear Plants at Risk of Closure Produce 3 Times More Electricity than all US Solar in 2015

With 13 nuclear plants at risk of closing and taking the United States backwards on climate change, a coalition of environmental groups is announcing a historic pro-nuclear protest march from San Francisco to Sacramento, June 24 - 28.
“If we lose all 13 of the nuclear plants at risk of premature closure we will wipe out three times more clean power than all of our solar provided in 2015,” said the March’s Lead Organizer, Eric G. Meyer. “If you care about renewables, clean energy and climate change, you should support keeping nuclear plants open.”
In Illinois, a coalition of anti-nuclear groups including by Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC), Sierra Club, and NRDC blocked legislation that would have saved two of the state’s nuclear plants, Clinton and Quad Cities.
ELPC has said it wants to replace the nuclear plants with natural gas, and gradually wind and solar. "Everybody looks with excitement when a new natural gas plant is built," ELPC head, Howard Learner recently told a journalist when explaining why he supports closing Clinton and Quad, an extraordinary statement coming from a self-professed environmental activist.
“Anti-nuclear groups should be forgiven for their advocacy because they believe nuclear energy is something it’s not, and can’t see it for what it is,” said Alan Medsker of Environmental Progress, Illinois, “but we cannot allow them to shut down Quad and Clinton. It’s time for Sierra Club, the Citizens Utility Board, and Environmental Defense Fund to break from ELPC. There’s still time to pass legislation that would invest not only in renewables but also protect our largest source of clean energy.”
If Clinton and Quad close, 1,500 workers will lose their jobs and carbon emissions will increase the equivalent of adding two million cars. The proposed subsidy for distressed nuclear plants is less than half the cost the wind production tax credit.
Nuclear plants around the country are closing prematurely because they are excluded from the various federal subsidies and state mandates for solar and wind. If nuclear were included in state Renewable Portfolio Standards, or received a fraction of the subsidy for wind or solar, nuclear plants would be economical.
“The evidence is clear: nuclear is far more effective at replacing fossil fuels and reducing pollution and carbon emissions than solar and wind. To exclude it from any clean energy standard in the face of irreversible climate devastation is simply unethical,” said Meyer.
“It’s a mathematical certainty that closing nuclear plants results in more fossil fuel burning and emissions,” says Oscar-nominated documentary filmmaker Robert Stone, whose award-winning film “Pandora’s Promise” documents the conversion of many environmentalists from anti-nuclear to pro-nuclear. “California’s reputation as a leader in the fight against climate change is at stake if Diablo Canyon is shut down.”
“It’s vitally important for any of us that care about the environment — progressives or conservatives — to share that message with Governor Jerry Brown,” said Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “People fear nuclear power largely because they associate it with nuclear weapons, but the two don’t equate. Nuclear power is not only an important part of the answer to climate change. It has outstanding public health benefits as well, greatly reducing air pollution.”
The March will occur in the run-up to a Tuesday, June 28, California Lands Commission meeting, where Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and two other members could deny a critical permit to Diablo Canyon, California’s biggest source of clean energy.
March coalition members includes Mothers for Nuclear, Thorium Energy Alliance, Environmental Progress, Pandora's Promise, and Energy for Humanity — all are organizations independent of energy companies and interests.
“We can’t let irrational fears put our children at risk,” said Mothers for Nuclear co-founder, Heather Matteson, an environmental activist who was once anti-nuclear but changed her mind and now works as a reactor operator and procedure writer at Diablo Canyon.
The 13 nuclear plants at high risk of premature closure produce three times more electrical power than the US produces from solar. Diablo Canyon produces 11 times more power than the world’s largest solar farm, Solar Star, will produce.
Rather than simply replacing fossil fuel use, as nuclear plants do, plants like Solar Star increase the demand for natural gas when the sun is not shining which is on average more than 75 percent of the time.
Eric G. Meyer, 28, quit his job as a nurses union organizer and drove to San Francisco from Minnesota last month to be the Lead Organizer of the March. “My heart breaks every time they announce a nuclear plant closure,” said Meyer. “We’re going to fight hard to save every last one of those 13 plants. This is going to be remembered as the summer that we saved our largest source of clean energy.”

Obama’s Nuclear Paradox

http://lobelog.com/obamas-nuclear-paradox/#more-34402

Obama’s Nuclear Paradox

by John Feffer
Of all the accomplishments and disappointments of the Obama presidency, his nuclear weapons policy is the greatest.
Yes, you read that correctly. Obama’s approach to nukes will be his most significant legacy as well as his most salient failure. Obama promised “hope and change” in 2007. The paradox of his nuclear weapons policy is that it falls somewhere between these aspirational poles of his presidency.
Consider, for instance, two highlights of Obama’s tenure: Prague and Hiroshima.
On April 5, 2009, only several months into his first term, President Obama gave a speech in Prague embracing the agenda of nuclear disarmament. His remarks were not particularly radical. But it was the first time that a sitting U.S. president had committed the country to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, albeit with no specific deadline attached.
The speech meandered across several topics — human rights, Europe, NATO. But halfway through, Obama pivoted to the dangers of nuclear weapons. “If we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable,” the president declared, and then went on to challenge that very inevitability. “Today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” http://lobelog.com/obamas-nuclear-paradox/#more-34402

Scrutinizing radiation’s impact


Scrutinizing radiation’s impact

Nuclear science and engineering PhD student Cody Dennett simulates conditions inside reactors to measure microscopic defects in irradiated materials.

http://news.mit.edu/2016/scrutinizing-radiation-impact-0531

Public Meeting Alert

           
Nuclear Advocacy Network

Facebook

Public Meeting Alert

 
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will host a public meeting on consent-based siting of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste on June 2. This is the fifth in a series of public meetings aimed at hearing from the public and interested stakeholders on what matters to you as DOE moves forward in developing a consent-based process for siting storage facilities.
As nuclear energy advocates, we must ensure that the conversation around the siting and storage of nuclear materials is balanced and therefore it's important that we engage in this process that DOE is undertaking. Your expertise is valuable so please plan to attend, view the webcast or submit questions and comments.
Consent-Based Siting Public Meeting
Thursday, June 2
4:00 p.m. 
Hyatt Regency Boston
One Avenue De Lafayette
Boston, MA 02111
Featuring:
John Kotek
Acting Asst. Secretary for Nuclear Energy
U.S. Department of Energy 
Marge Kilkelly
Sr. Policy Advisor to
U.S. Senator Angus S. King Jr.
 

Next Steps
 
– Click here for meeting registration (in-person or via webinar)
– Click here for guidance on submitting electronic comments to consentbasedsiting@hq.doe.gov  

Additional Resources
– Meeting agenda and speaker biographies
Consent-Based Siting initiative (Dept. of Energy)
Used Fuel Management Principles (Nuclear Energy Institute)

 

© 2016 Nuclear Advocacy Network
UNSUBSCRIBE