Nuclear Fissionary

What Makes Successful Communication?

Greg Molyneux — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 02:59:10 +0000

I was fortunate enough to eye an article cycling through my Twitter feed this morning that piqued my interest by title alone, Scientific [Mis]Communication. Satisfyingly, my initial reading of Dave Munger’s well-stated entry justified my intuition completely.

True to its name Munger’s article tackles the issue of communication—specifically communication by scientists—in an effort to emphasize areas of neglect. The basis for Munger’s thoughts stem from an analysis written by Matt Ford of Ars Technica which discussed a case study published in PNAS, where “scientists explained the communication efforts behind establishing a marine reserve off the California coast”.

As I was reading along the following sentences of Munger’s article really stuck with me as both applicable and poignant in my quest to grow into a more effective communicator.

“. . . Ford says the researchers identified four major components of successful communication: Understanding the audience, determining the message, deciding on strategies, and measuring success. While these may seem relatively obvious, I’d submit that most science communicators ignore the first and last points. Without knowing your audience, you’re going to have a hard time choosing an effective strategy for conveying your message. And while they may be concerned with the impact factor of journals they publish in, many scientists don’t take the time to assess the influence of their papers after publication.”

Suffice it to say, I think Munger’s assertions certainly hit the nail right on the head. However, to interject my own opinion for a moment, I do not find that it is only scientists who ignore the first and last points. I’d say omission of these two tenets recurs as a universal failure in communication regardless of one’s field.

How we Communicate

Within the context of Nuclear Fissionary, I’d like to attempt an honest analysis at how we are (not?) addressing the four points outlined above.

Understanding the Audience

Our intended purpose is to educate an audience of laypeople about the cost-effectiveness, science, safety, and overall potential of nuclear energy. Interestingly, we have seen very active (and welcomed) comments and discussion by very knowledgeable people who are closely tied to nuclear energy in one form or another. In most respects our audience is far more knowledgeable than our authors (certainly me).

At such an early stage in our site’s existence it is difficult to ascertain whether or not our purpose is finding its intended audience. Jumping ahead it becomes apparent that point one is most certainly intertwined with point four—measuring success (more on that later).

Determining the Message

This one is easy: Nuclear Energy is clean—safe—reliable. It is inexpensive, abundant, and wrongfully feared.

Deciding on Strategies

Our aim is to honestly and fairly deliver the positive message of nuclear energy in a simple manner which is easy to understand by people of modest educational backgrounds.

We strive for a web interface that is visually pleasing, easy to use, and free of distraction.

Our primary strategy for targeting laypeople is via search. Through search engine optimization (SEO) we have instituted numerous best practices with the intention of steadily increasing our placement on the search engine results page (SERP) over time. Through favorable placement among highly competitive keywords we will have the chance to funnel in an audience that is looking to learn about nuclear energy.

Measuring Success

Aside from our great commentators, Google Analytics statistics, fans likes on Facebook, mentions by other bloggers in the pro-nuclear community, and our followers on Twitter, it is difficult to measure our success as it relates to communicating to our audience. Part of this difficulty arises from our site’s young age, but the reality of the situation is that it is very difficult to quantify who exactly is consuming our information.

Beyond the strongly loyal and well-respected inner circle of pro-nukes, it is hard to know how our message is performing because there is no discernable feedback. This should hardly comes as a surprise though since it is quite abnormal for people to comment who have no real incentive to do so. Understanding the reticence that many may feel in leaving comments on sites, we must establish another method to quantify success; otherwise we may have to reconsider our intended audience, message, and strategies for successful communication.

We must find out if the silent visitors to our site truly are engaged.

Questions for the Community

But enough about us, I’d love to hear thoughts from our readers about the communication breakdown addressed in Dave Munger’s article. Do you find the four points useful and practical? Do you disagree? Regardless of your opinions toward Munger, I’d really love to hear how you all are measuring success with your own ventures.

Image Credit

Foucault’s Pendulum courtesy of Flickr user sylvar published under the CC license.

Creating the Spark

Greg Molyneux — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:00:39 +0000

*Question: How many of you are even moderately interested—let alone passionate—about something you know nothing about? I suspect the answer is obvious and dubious—well dubious as it relates to learning about the unknown.

Perhaps I am applying my own confirmation bias to this topic but I would venture to guess that this inconvenient truth stands as a large obstacle in our mission to educate.

But hold on, maybe we’re getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. How can we proceed with the education process before we have established a need for said education? We know that we want to teach people, but are people even aware of what they need to learn? Let’s think for a moment, what are the driving forces inspiring regular folk to learn about energy, and more specifically nuclear energy? Is it safety? The environment? Our flagging economy? It isn’t so clear, is it?

Once again my bias suspects that while some people draw motivation from those concerns, the great majority has no real cause to care. As long as electricity keeps pumping through their sockets they can hardly imagine a world where electricity might someday experience a shortfall.

So, how can we ignite the spark that will passionately appeal to the emotions of an audience that has previously had very little cause to care? The Nuclear Story needs its hook; a hook that will reign in widespread appeal.

Pathos: Let’s build some together

Our Nuclear Story must find its pathos; an inviting place where we can forge the connection with our audience. It needs to be a place with a comfortable common ground that bridges the gap between the science and everybody else. It is a reasonably natural part of the human condition for people to fear what they don’t understand and in the context of nuclear energy it can make communication very difficult.

For this again I use myself as a barometer. I am no scientist. I am no engineer. I am no mathematician. I am trying my hardest to learn and understand yet I still find it difficult. It’s not so much the technical nature of what’s going on; it’s more the lack of context. It’s hard for me to establish a logical starting point. I have no foundation.

Nevertheless, I press on. But keep in mind it is because I have an incentive to do so. I am, after all, here supporting a pro-nuclear website. Yet if I weren’t in this position, I too would be milling about on my computer perfectly content in my ignorance as the electricity keeps pumping through my sockets.

But what if it weren’t? What if I woke up one morning, powered up my iMac, and wasn’t greeted by that oh-so-familiar digital apple? What if then I went to turn on my LED TV to relive the past with the History Channel, and see nothing but a hollow, black screen? What if then I were to find out I’d be experiencing rolling black-outs with intermittent power for the next, oh let’s say, unforeseeable future? Well, all the sudden I would care. I would have my context, my starting point, and my foundation. More importantly, I’d have one serious problem on my hands.

As a design professional, technology geek, and average member a first world society, I need my electricity. Of course, there are many millions like me. Life without stable power is not an option and people need to be shown that without the enormous energy potential that is locked away in the atom, our comforts and well-being are very much in jeopardy.

What the Community is saying

It was Jason Ribiero’s article, Stories not Data. Can Nuclear Learn Something from the Invisible Gorilla? that served as the impetus for this post. In Jason’s article he highlights the now well-practiced anti-nuclear tactic of creating horror stories in a context where a series of unrelated circumstances becomes a false truth in people’s minds on the basic premise that they occurred in sequence. It is a narrative fallacy and it is a very effective literary device.

As a matter of principle I patently dismiss using scare tactics to illicit an emotional response that manipulates followers. On the same token I do not think it wrong to highlight facts that are truthfully scary: a world with no power. Our infrastructure is teetering, that affects everyone and people deserve to know.

William Tucker, of the freshly minted Nuclear Townhall, invokes Ayn Rand to suggest that perhaps people need to realize life with expensive and intermittent power to serve as a real life smack in the face to otherwise oblivious consumers like me. Clearly I echo William’s thinking in that the Community must find some way to create the impetus for concern among people, I just do not think closing perfectly viable— not to mention important—plants in the nuclear fleet is the way to go. Where I fear that William is correct is that it may take something very extreme—life without stable power—to finally make this everyone’s problem.

Image Credit

fondling flickrspace courtesy of Flickr user jurvetson published under the CC license.

Coal Creates Bigger Environmental Disasters than Nuclear

Jason Morgan — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 21:23:37 +0000

Concerns about radiation and nuclear used fuel are the primary reasons for public fear of nuclear energy. Radiation and nuclear science are not well understood by the average person. The terminology associated with nuclear science and radiation is, well, very scientific and scary-sounding to a lay person. It is because of this that the tiniest radiation dose from a nuclear energy plant is easily spun to sound like an enormous environmental disaster.

Contrast this sentiment with the apparent lack of concern for actual environmental disasters such as the spillage of a billion gallons of sludge comprised of coal ash and water that occurred in Tennessee in December 2008. A dike collapsed at the coal plant’s retention pond, releasing a massive amount of waste into surrounding lands. The headline(s) were muted and hardly could be considered a headline at all. It is as if the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), who operates the coal plant in Kingston, TN, about 35 miles west of Knoxville, should not be drug through the media-mud like its nuclear counterparts are for far smaller infractions.

For some context, the TVA spill was around one billion gallons of a coal ash and water mixture (coal “sludge”) that befouled over 300 acres of land and the nearby Emory River. One billion gallons is equivalent to about 800 Olympic-sized swimming pools, not an insignificant amount. The spill destroyed three homes and damaged a dozen others. It also contained toxic chemicals such as arsenic, lead, selenium, and radioactive chemicals such as chromium and barium.

TVA has been fined $11.5 million in addition to setting up a $40 million fund for economic development projects in the Kingston area. At least Tennessee officials are holding TVA accountable for their mess.

Contrast this with the extremely frustrating situation at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. Vermont officials are in a political-posturing phase, latching onto a trivial and well-controlled incident involving a minute tritium leak at the plant. Rod Adams gave us some perspective on the amount and danger of the tritium leak at VY in a great article on The Energy Collective.

If the leak had been going on for a year before being detected and stopped, the total quantity of fluid that left the pipe would equal 138,000 liters. The total activity released would be 0.35 curies. If a single person consumed every drop of that water, their whole body radiation dose would equal roughly 30 rem.

This dosage of radiation is well below accepted levels for maintaining public health. The well-operated and perfectly safe Pickering B nuclear power plant in Canada releases 40 times as much tritium per day than the VY leak did in one year. That translates into 14,600 times as much tritium released from the Pickering B plant than from the VY leak. Keep in mind that the Pickering B unit is well within their accepted range of tritium release, so even 14,600 times as much tritium as VY is considered perfectly safe for the surrounding population.

The point here is that there is a huge to-do over a tiny issue at a nuclear power plant in Vermont; whereas almost no one talks about the actual devastation caused by a coal plant in Tennessee. And this is just one example out of a long line of environmental and safety hazards occurring at coal, oil and natural gas plants, wells, and mines across the country. It is increasingly frustrating to hear the media and politicians decry the smallest, most insignificant incident at a nuclear power plant when they seemingly turn a blind eye toward huge disasters at coal, natural gas, and petroleum-based power plants.

The only thing that can be done is to try and alter the perceptions and knowledge-level of the public as it pertains to their energy infrastructure. Understanding more about each source of energy including the challenges, costs, and efforts required to produce and distribute electricity, will help people to have a frame of reference when confronted with a news story about this or that “disaster” at such-and-such plant.

Image Credit

Coal courtesy of Flick user joshua I under the CC license

Energy Density and Waste Comparison of Energy Production

Jason Morgan — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:13:45 +0000

Energy density is essentially the amount of energy stored within a given fuel (doesn’t have to be fuel but for electricity production fuel is the energy storage method employed). The energy density of a fuel source also indicates the amount of waste produced per unit of energy output. Since these concepts are complimentary, it is worthwhile to compare several common sources of energy production on an energy density and waste volume basis.

*Consider This—By burning one kilogram of their respective fuels, coal can power a 100-watt light bulb for about four days, natural gas for about six days, and uranium in a light water reactor can power the light bulb for just over 140 years.

Fundamentals of Chemical and Fission Reactions

The first thing you need to know about these forms of energy production is that fuel sources are converted into heat energy, which is then translated into kinetic energy to spin a turbine that produces electricity. This is the same for nuclear, coal, natural gas, and oil. Where these energy production sources differ is in how they create the heat energy portion of the process.

Chemical Reactions

Coal, natural gas, and oil all utilize chemical reactions to produce heat. Chemical reactions are harnessing the power of the electrons orbiting the nucleus of an atom. Electrons only represent < 1% of the atomic mass of an atom, and therefore only represent less than 1% of the potential energy stored within the atom. It is based on this type of chemical reaction that coal, oil, and natural gas are converted from matter into heat energy – by only using less than 1% of the potential energy available.

Fission Reactions

Nuclear energy is a fission reaction that harnesses the potential energy stored within the nucleus of the atom, which represents over 99% of the potential energy stored . The difference between this and a chemical reaction is quite clear: chemical is using < 1% and fission is using > 99% of the mass of the atom to generate heat energy. Since Einstein proved to us via E = MC²that matter and energy are interchangeable, it is easy to deduce that the reaction using more of an atom’s mass is going to generate more energy in the conversion process.

Energy Densities of Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil

Below is a table with a list of different fuel sources and their respective energy densities. Energy density can be calculated based on mass or on volume, depending on which measure makes the most sense for your situation. With energy production, density by mass is the appropriate measure since the mass of fuel, not the volume, is the base measure for a power plant’s fuel needs.

Fuel Type	Energy Density (kWh/kg)	Number of Times Denser than Coal
Nuclear Fission (100% U-235)	24,513,889	2,715,385
Natural Uranium (99.3% U-238, 0.7% U-235) in a fast breeder reactor	6,666,667	738,462
Enriched Uranium (3.5% U-235) in a light water reactor	960,000	106,338
Natural Uranium (99.3% U-238, 0.7% U-235) in a light water reactor	123,056	13,631
LPG propane	13.8	1.5
LPG butane	13.6	1.5
Gasoline	13.0	1.4
Diesel fuel/Residential heating oil	12.7	1.4
Biodiesel oil	11.7	1.3
Anthracite Coal	9.0	1.0
Water at 100 m dam height	0.0003	N/A

Energy Density of Chemical Reaction Fuels

The various chemical-reaction driven fuels are all similar in terms of energy density, ranging from coal at 9 kWh per kg to propane at 13.8 kWh per kg. That means we can power a 100-watt light bulb for about 90 hours (almost 4 days) with one kilogram (about 2.2 lbs) of coal, or up to almost 140 hours (almost 6 days) with one kilogram of natural gas.

Energy Density of Fission Reaction Fuels

On the other side of the spectrum are the fission reaction-based fuels that start with the least energy dense (natural Uranium [99.3% U-238, 0.7% U-235] in a light water reactor) at 123,056 kWh per kg and go up to fission of pure, 100% U-235, which yields 24,513,889 kWh per kg. This means that the typical nuclear fission reaction can power a 100-watt light bulb for 1,230,560 hours (just over 140 years) using one kilogram of natural uranium.

The least energy dense form of fission reaction is 13,631 times denser than coal. Contrast this with the fact that the densest form of fuel using a chemical reaction (propane) is only 1.5 times denser than coal. There are a variety of numbers floating around about how many times denser uranium is than coal, but all the estimates agree on one thing: it’s not even close. Suzy Hobbs at popatomic.org has made a great visual comparison of the energy density of coal and uranium. You will notice her research led to a uranium density figure of about 16,000 times denser than coal. This is close enough to the 13,361 calculated from my sources to still prove the point that fission reactions are enormously more powerful than chemical reactions.

How Energy Density Relates to Waste

Energy density also tells you how much fuel a plant requires to produce a given quantity of electricity. Since energy density is directly related to the amount of fuel required, it is also related to the amount of waste produced. The higher the energy density of a fuel, the less fuel a power plant will use. If less fuel is used, generally there is less waste.

Comparing Waste Outputs from Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil Power Plants

Chemical and fission reactions used to generate electricity produce two very different waste profiles. The chemical reaction-based sources all produce basically the same types of waste, just in different quantities. Coal, natural gas, and oil all produce emissions such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and some others in relatively minute amounts such as mercury and even uranium (from burning coal). In addition to these emissions, burning coal also produces large volume of ash waste.

Annual Waste Produced by 1,000 MW Plant
Type of Plant	Amt of Electricity Produced (MWh)	Nuclear Used Fuel (tons)	Coal Ash (tons)	Sulfur Dioxide (tons)	Nitrogen Oxide (tons)	Carbon Dioxide (tons)	Small Particulates (tons)	Carbon Monoxide (tons)	Total Annual Waste (tons)	Waste per kWh (lbs)
Nuclear	7,971,600	27	0	0	0	0	0	0	27	0.007
Coal	6,683,880	0	400,000	20,000	20,400	7,400,000	100	1,440	7,841,940	2,347
Natural Gas	998,640	0	0	2	157	199,472	12	68	199,711	400
Petroleum (Oil)	1,173,840	0	0	2,248	898	328,655	168	66	332,036	566

This table shows the amount of each type of waste produced by the four energy sources being compared based on the amount of energy produced by a 1,000 MW plant in one year. Understanding that not all power plants are 1,000 MW, nor are the various types of plants necessarily similar in size or duration of operation, these factors were built in to ensure an apples to apples comparison. The raw data for the coal waste was based on an annual operation of a 500 MW coal plant, so this analysis simply multiplied those waste figures by two. Natural gas and oil plants’ waste data was based on 1 billion BTU. This is equivalent to 292.875 MWh. I calculated the average output of a 1,000 MW rated natural gas and oil plant, with capacity factors of 11.4% and 13.4% respectively, to come up with the number of MWhs produced by each theoretical plant in one year (NG = 998,640, Oil = 1,173,840). These results were divided by 292.875 and then multiplied by the waste figures in the data. This calculation converts the raw data from the 1 billion BTU base to waste information for a 1,000 MW rated plant. Taking this further, I then broke down the waste amounts to pounds per kWh to give a true, levelized waste figure for each energy generation source using the same per unit base.

Renewables and Energy Density

A follow-up post discussing the concept of energy density and renewable energy sources is on the way – but probably not until after a post on energy conversion efficiency, since we will need a foundation in that topic before discussing renewables in this context.

Special Thanks to Suzanne Hobbs of PopAtomic Studios!

Suzy designed the Sometimes being dense is a virtue energy density poster. The original content can be found here.

Future’s So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades

Greg Molyneux — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:43:40 +0000

Well, this officially made my day.

While doing my obligatory afternoon scan of Google Reader, I noticed a new post pop-up on the freshly realigned PopAtomic.org website. And to my surprise when I clicked through I was greeted with this little gem. . .

Suzanne Hobbs was kind enough to design our very own and very first Nuclear Fissionary poster art which we are proud to display. The goggles look great and the slogan is perfect; now if only I can get a pair of those bad boys for the next time I’m cruising around in a sidecar. . .

Thanks again Suzy! We really appreciate it.

Coming Up on Nuclear Fissionary

For those of you awaiting some more nuke related goodness, Jason Morgan is working hard on a post comparing energy density and waste volumes between all of the usual suspects. Stay tuned.

3 Months In: A Look at Nuclear Fissionary Site Statistics

Greg Molyneux — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:49:12 +0000

Nuclear Fissionary launched on March 3, 2010 and there was much rejoicing (OK, not really, just felt like throwing a random Monty Python reference in here). In the interest of site-reflection, let’s break down some stats…

On average, each month there are:

13 New Posts
110 New Comments
35 New Subscribers
50 New Facebook Fans
9,519 Visits
13,559 Pageviews

In total (as of June 3, 2010) Nuclear Fissionary has amassed…

38 Posts
331 Valued Comments
104 RSS Subscribers
149 Facebook Fans
28,588 Visits
40,678 Pageviews

The average Nuclear Fissionary visitor…

Browses with Firefox (63.51%)
Has a PC (76.64% running Windows)
Visits for 1:15 seconds
Lives in the US (20,026 visits)
Found the site via StumbleUpon (59.70%)
Is an honorary Fissionary

Thank You

Beyond the numbers, we would really like to thank each and every one of our readers for their support and participation within our little piece of the pro-nuclear blogging community. Hopefully the next time we look into our site statistics we will see even greater growth!

All site statistics presented by Nuclear Fissionary are recorded and tracked by Google Analytics.

America Speaking Out Submission Errors for Nuclear Energy

Jason Morgan — Fri, 28 May 2010 22:19:52 +0000

I am not sure whether it is an honest technical error or something more nefarious (probably not), but I have been unable to submit my idea in American Prosperity/Job Creation regarding the construction of new nuclear power plants. I have tried several times using slightly different wording in case that was the problem but no matter what I do I have been getting the following error: Idea *Inappropriate.

To be fair, I was able to submit a nuclear energy idea on Tuesday. Also, when you search for the tag nuclear you get about ten ideas submitted by people who seem fairly knowledgeable about nuclear energy. Many of these ideas have received a very positive response as indicated by the user voting system. But when you think about the number of submissions (there are a lot at this point) you have to ask, “Only ten people submitted an idea pertaining to nuclear energy? Really?”

So I am left to wonder, “What was inappropriate about my submission?” I have included a screenshot with the full text of my idea so you can see there is no inappropriate language, concepts, or themes. I’m not sure why I was getting this error, but perhaps there is something wrong with the automated logic that separates appropriate from inappropriate ideas that is unfairly preventing full submission of pro-nuclear views?

I don’t know the answer here, which is why I’m writing about it. I seriously doubt there is some America Speaking Out conspiracy to prevent pro-nukes from being heard. However, I am still wondering what characteristics of my multiple submission attempts caused the errors.

Regardless, this website is proving to have some pretty high activity and readership. The audience also appears to respond well to the pro-nuclear message. All the more reason to stop by and vote, comment, or submit an idea to bolster support and encourage further citizen research of nuclear energy and its benefits to the future of our nation.

Republicans Launch Site to Get American’s Feedback

Jason Morgan — Tue, 25 May 2010 21:20:10 +0000

The palpable partisanship in all reaches of US Government has made Americans very unhappy with their elected officials, regardless of which side of the aisle they sit on. Born of this frustration is an attempt by Republicans to get back in touch with their constituents. They have created a website called America Speaking Out where anyone can submit ideas they think should be on Washington’s agenda. Members can also vote and comment on ideas others have contributed. Admittedly, this website will cater toward traditional Republican values, but they allegedly encourage anyone from any viewpoint to post their ideas and vote on others.

The site is organized into several broad categories, each of which has further subcategories.

American Prosperity
Fiscal Responsibility
American Values
National Security
Open Mic (start your own debate)

Platform to Discuss Energy

This is an opportunity for the nuclear energy debate to reach a broader audience. There has been talk about how to get the pro-nuclear message out of the so-called echo chamber and into the public eye. While the success of this website has yet to be determined, and is difficult to predict, it certainly is a beginning in reaching an audience mostly outside of the nuclear debate world.

There is an Energy subcategory under American Prosperity, but I would suggest that you bring a creative spin to your ideas. For example, I am submitting new nuclear construction in the Job Creation subcategory of American Prosperity. This shows people who are interested in job creation the benefits of new nuclear construction. These people may have never realized or learned of new nuclear’s job creation potential, and therefore a message submitted in energy would not have made the most impact on the right audience. Just a thought.

Website Impressions

The site is fairly easy on the eyes but its functionality is lacking in several areas. It can be cumbersome and slow at times. I’ve had server 404 errors and other technical troubles at least 40% of the time, so that is pretty frustrating. Hopefully they can get these issues ironed out. The organization is mainly logical, but sometimes you’re surprised at which subcategories you find in the category you clicked on.

Take some time and stop by America Speaking Out to let your elected officials know how you feel about the future of our nation, and more specifically, how you want nuclear energy to be a part of it.

PopAtomic and the Right Brained Nukes

Greg Molyneux — Mon, 24 May 2010 21:09:43 +0000

A new website has launched and as a front-end web guy that always makes me smile. Although, actually, only the latter half of that statement is true. The website featured here is not new, instead it is an entire redesign—both the look and the architecture—of Suzanne Hobbs’ PopAtomic.org.

Exploring the Relationship between Fine Art and Nuclear Energy

As the title of Suzy’s second post indicates, much of PopAtomic Studios’ intent will focus on innovative ways to incorporate two seemingly disparate disciplines. PopAtomic is already demonstrating that there is no such need for fine art and nuclear energy to remain isolated from each other. On the contrary, PopAtomic is ready to show us how the two will stand together as we all work together to further the cause of the long awaited Nuclear Renaissance.

But enough of my interpretation, here lies the stated goals:

Creating new imagery and icons that invite viewers to further investigate nuclear energy as a solution to the energy, environmental and economic issues we are facing today.

Providing Atomic inspired designs and public artwork for Individuals, Student Groups, Energy Companies and other proponents of nuclear energy.

Creating fun and engaging educational materials for all ages to promote the benefits of new nuclear technologies and the future of clean energy.

The Nuts and Bolts of PopAtomic.org

Suzy has decided to rebuild her website on the WordPress publishing platform. This will afford her with easy posting, a robust commenting system, and outstanding community support. It’s the same platform we use to run Nuclear Fissionary and you’ll get very little complaints from us regarding the capability of the system.

Beyond the boring technical details it appears that Suzy is not alone in this venture. A quick stop on the site’s Biography intimates that there will be plenty of contributions coming from other artists who also share a passion in visually communicating the merits of nuclear energy.

It does not stop there however, as PopAtomic is given oversight by its own hand-selected Board of Advisors. A board that includes nuclear blogging stalwarts, Rod Adams and Kirk Sorenson.

Of course I’d be remiss if I left out the true grit of Suzy’s efforts. After all, what would be a nuclear art site be without the artwork? In addition to posting about the potential marriage between two disciplines, there is featured artwork to enjoy. Be sure to check back regularly as new pieces will surely be added to the gallery.

PopAtomic.org Contact Information

Check out the PopAtomic Studios Page on Facebook
Send an e-mail to radioactiveart [at] popatomic [dot] org
Or just visit the Contact page to drop a note
Of course you should check out the sweet merchandise too

Supporting the Pro-nuclear Community

Suzy and her team are certainly demonstrating that there is great potential for help from outsiders. As we continue to find assistance from talented and passionate individuals from divergent backgrounds and skill sets, the pro-nuclear camp will transform itself into a chain reaction of unstoppable momentum capable of overcoming confirmation bias. Thank you Suzy for your help in making this goal a reality.

US Government Loan Guarantees for New Nuclear Construction

Jason Morgan — Fri, 21 May 2010 04:36:46 +0000

Loan guarantees from the US Government, specifically regarding those to new nuclear projects, are often misunderstood and misconstrued.

US Loan Guarantee Program – Incentives For Innovative Technologies

US Government loan guarantees for new nuclear construction originate from Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Title XVII is called Incentives for Innovative Technologies covering a wide range of energy technologies. The loan guarantee program was designed to promote private investment in carbon-reducing energy technologies that are typically required to pay higher interest rates than many other business investments due to the inclusion of a risk premium. Loan guarantees should enable private investors to acquire capital at a lower interest rate because the unpaid principal and interest on a guaranteed loan will be paid by the government should a company default on the loan. This lowers the risk to the lender, thereby lowering the interest rate.

Eligible Projects for Loan Guarantees

The eligibility requirements for loan guarantees are clearly spelled out in Sec. 1703 Eligible Projects. Any project that [1] avoids, reduces, or sequesters air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (emissions from human activities); and [2] employs new or significantly improved technologies as compared to commercial technologies in service in the US at the time the guarantee is issued, is considered meeting eligibility requirements with one additional caveat.

In order for a project to be considered (above and beyond the two criteria listed above), it must be from one of the following categories:

Renewable energy systems
Advanced fossil energy technology
Hydrogen fuel cell technology
Advanced nuclear energy facilities
Carbon capture and sequestration practices and technologies, including agricultural and forestry practices that store and sequester carbon
Efficient electrical generation, transmission, and distribution technologies
Efficient end-use energy technologies
Production facilities for fuel-efficient vehicles
Pollution control equipment
Refineries, meaning facilities at which crude oil is refined into gasoline
Gasification projects (which essentially are certain types of natural gas, coal, petroleum, and biomass technologies with a large volume of details pertaining to each, such as “shall be located in a western state at an altitude greater than 4,000 feet” as an example of the degree of minutia)

You will notice that just about every type of energy generation technology can be covered by this list, not just nuclear energy. Any utility can make a case for a project that is from one of these categories and meets the two criteria and receive a loan guarantee, provided they pass the rigorous financial review.

Loan Guarantees are NOT Subsidies

So What IS a Loan Guarantee?

A common misconception is that loan guarantees are subsidies and cost the taxpayers money. This is not true. A loan guarantee as defined in Title V §502(3) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, which the Energy Policy Act of 2005 defers to for this definition, is:

The term “loan guarantee” means any guarantee, insurance, or other pledge with respect to the payment of all or part of the principal or interest on any debt obligation of a non-Federal borrower to a non-Federal lender, but does not include the insurance of deposits, shares, or other withdrawable accounts in financial institutions.

This means that the government will step in to repay a lender for unpaid loan principal and interest should the company default, else the government has no expenditures related to the loan guarantee. Loan guarantees are more like insurance than anything else. Theoretically, the government could guarantee $54 billion in loans and actually generate revenue, rather than cost the tax payers, if none of the loans are defaulted on.

Contrast this with the definition of subsidy from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

a grant or gift of money: as a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation b : money granted by one state to another c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

Subsidies are basically monetary gifts from a government to a company. Loan guarantees are contract whereby the government agrees to pay back a lender if a guaranteed borrower defaults on the privately-held loan. This indicates the government may not ever have to lay out funds for the loan guarantee, only if the loan is in default.

How Much Are Loan Guarantees Going to Cost?

This is always a moving target as market conditions change, however §503(d) of Title V of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 makes it clear that these cost estimates are to be reviewed annually for accuracy and adjusted as needed. The definition of the cost of a loan guarantee is also clearly spelled out in Title V of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, in §502(5)(C):

The cost of a loan guarantee shall be the net present value, at the time when the guaranteed loan is disbursed, of the following estimated cash flows:

(i) payments made by the Government to cover defaults and delinquencies, interest subsidies, or other payments; and

(ii) payments to the Government including origination and other fees, penalties and recoveries;

including the effects of changes in loan terms resulting from the exercise by the guaranteed lender of an option included in the loan guarantee contract, or b the borrower of an option included in the guaranteed loan contract.

So, what does that mean? The Congressional Budget Office develops an estimated default rate on guaranteed loans and forcasts the cash outlays the government may have to make in order to fulfill the loan guarantee obligation. They subtract from that cost the receipt of monies from borrowers from the application process as well as forecasted penalty collections based on the default rate assumed. They then use net present value methodology to value the potential cash outlays expected in today’s dollars. That is how the estimated “cost” of a loan guarantee is calculated. It is also important to note that the borrower must pay the Treasury this estimated cost before the loan guarantee is granted, so the guarantee is fully paid for by the borrower before the project even starts.

Currently, there are two dramatically different estimates for the cost of loan guarantees. Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy, believes the fee paid by borrowers should amount to one percent of the loan guarantee’s principal value. Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, feels that borrowers should pay a ten percent fee. The difference in their opinions originate from a vastly divergent view on the likelihood of loan defaults. The Congressional Budget Office believes the loan default risk to be much higher than Chu. The point critics and the Congressional Budget Office are both missing is that their information is based on outdated circumstances pertaining to a different generation of reactors coupled with fierce anti-nuclear activist groups halting construction through the courts. If the Government is to guarantee a multi-billion dollar loan you can be sure that a Combined Construction and Operating License will be issued for the new nuclear reactor. Since a loan guarantee for new nuclear construction cannot be issued unless the project has already obtained a Combined Construction and Operating License, there should be no regulatory delays, which will greatly lower the default risk.

Financial Conditions for Appropriation of a Loan Guarantee

No loan guarantees can be made to companies that do no meet several financial qualifications. First, the cost of the loan guarantee must already be appropriated in the Federal Budget. Second, the Treasury must have received from the borrower a payment in full for the cost of the obligation. Third, the guarantee may not exceed 80% of the estimated total project cost.

Additionally, no guarantee may be made unless there is reasonable assurance the debt will be repaid. The sum of the loan guarantee plus amounts available to the borrower from other sources must be sufficient to carry out the project or else they will not qualify for the guarantee. The term of the loan that is guaranteed must be the lesser of 30 years or 90% of the useful life of the facility. In the instance of a nuclear energy plant that can last anywhere from 60 to 100 years or more, the term of the guaranteed loan would be 30 years. The interest rate on this loan will not exceed a level “that the Secretary (of Treasury) deems appropriate, taking into account the prevailing rate of interest in the private sector for similar loans and risks.”

Should a borrower of a guaranteed loan declare bankruptcy or other restructuring proceedings, the federally guaranteed loan is the number one repayment priority. This means that no other debts held by the borrower may be paid until the government receives payment for the guaranteed loan.

US Government Loan Guarantee Key Take-Aways

Loan guarantees can be made to a wide variety of innovative energy technologies and projects, not just nuclear energy
Loan guarantees are not subsidies – they are a form of debt insurance
The estimated cost of the loan guarantee is covered up-front by the borrower, not the tax payers
The government will only have to step in if the loan is in default, which should happen rarely based on the rigorous credit and financial review required in the application process
The guarantee can only be made for 80% of the total project cost with the remaining 20% coming from other financing sources available to the borrower
In 2009 the DOE issued changes to Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 with the discussion revolving mainly around collateral for debt obligations, the discussion of which can be read by clicking here.

Hopefully this information is helpful to those who are unfamiliar with US Government loan guarantees and how they are different from subsidies. All too often I read about people discussing the “heavily-subsidized” nuclear industry. The nuclear energy industry is not subsidized and loan guarantees are not subsidies. Loan guarantees are extremely important for our energy future as they can help minimize the enormous financing costs associated with building new nuclear construction as well as renewable energy sources that will provide our nation with clean, safe, reliable energy for decades or more.

Image Credit

A Storm was Coming courtesy of Flickr user MiiiSH under the CC license.

Nuclear Fissionary

What Makes Successful Communication?

How we Communicate

Understanding the Audience

Determining the Message

Deciding on Strategies

Measuring Success

Questions for the Community

Image Credit

Further Reading

Creating the Spark

Pathos: Let’s build some together

What the Community is saying

Image Credit

Further Reading

Coal Creates Bigger Environmental Disasters than Nuclear

Image Credit

Further Reading

Energy Density and Waste Comparison of Energy Production

Fundamentals of Chemical and Fission Reactions

Chemical Reactions

Fission Reactions

Energy Densities of Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil

Energy Density of Chemical Reaction Fuels

Energy Density of Fission Reaction Fuels

How Energy Density Relates to Waste

Comparing Waste Outputs from Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, and Oil Power Plants

Annual Waste Produced by 1,000 MW Plant

Renewables and Energy Density

Special Thanks to Suzanne Hobbs of PopAtomic Studios!

Further Reading

Future’s So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades

Well, this officially made my day.

Coming Up on Nuclear Fissionary

Further Reading

3 Months In: A Look at Nuclear Fissionary Site Statistics

On average, each month there are:

In total (as of June 3, 2010) Nuclear Fissionary has amassed…

The average Nuclear Fissionary visitor…

Thank You

Further Reading

America Speaking Out Submission Errors for Nuclear Energy

Further Reading

Republicans Launch Site to Get American’s Feedback

The site is organized into several broad categories, each of which has further subcategories.

Platform to Discuss Energy

Website Impressions

Further Reading

PopAtomic and the Right Brained Nukes

Exploring the Relationship between Fine Art and Nuclear Energy

The Nuts and Bolts of PopAtomic.org

PopAtomic.org Contact Information

Supporting the Pro-nuclear Community

Further Reading

US Government Loan Guarantees for New Nuclear Construction

US Loan Guarantee Program – Incentives For Innovative Technologies

Eligible Projects for Loan Guarantees

In order for a project to be considered (above and beyond the two criteria listed above), it must be from one of the following categories:

Loan Guarantees are NOT Subsidies

So What IS a Loan Guarantee?

How Much Are Loan Guarantees Going to Cost?

Financial Conditions for Appropriation of a Loan Guarantee

US Government Loan Guarantee Key Take-Aways

Image Credit

Further Reading