 |
| Bob Bishop |
The following guest
post comes from Bob Bishop, nuclear guru and former general counsel at NEI:
Each year, hundreds of university students from around the
country participate in local, regional and national debate tournaments. In
addition to their regular studies, they spend countless hours researching the topic and how best they can argue their position. The topic for this past year
concerned U.S. energy policy with regard to domestic energy production. The precise
wording was as follows: “Resolved: The United States Federal Government should
substantially reduce restrictions on and/or substantially increase financial
incentives for energy production in the United States of one or more of the
following: coal, crude oil, natural gas, nuclear power, solar power, wind
power.”
At each debate, the two-person team arguing in the
affirmative chooses where to focus the argument based on the year’s topic. Under
debate rules, the team arguing in the affirmative makes its case, the team
arguing the negative makes its case, each team questions the other, and then
each team makes its closing statements. It is an hour of focused intellects
trying to win the judges’ votes based on their research, presentation skills,
and mastery of the topic. Debates at the collegiate level, at least now, are
not among nerds mumbling into their notes, but rather bright, intelligent,
articulate young men and women happily and forcefully engaging in a battle of
wits.
 |
| Andrew
Arsht and Andrew Markoff |
Last week, the
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a debate on one narrow aspect of
the broader issue of the use of nuclear energy: whether the
U.S. Departments of Defense and
Energy should fund the development and use of
new small modular reactors
(SMRs) to power their facilities. Under the rules, that was the sole topic
under discussion. It was fascinating to watch two teams ranked among the very
best in the nation, a team from
Georgetown
University opposed a team from
Northwestern
University, go at it. Teammates
Andrew
Arsht and Andrew Markoff represented Georgetown arguing in the affirmative,
and Northwestern’s team consisted of
Peyton Lee
and
Arjun
Vellayappan arguing in the negative. During the course of the give and take
in the closely timed segments, each team had to address issues such as the
design features of SMRs,
the impact of the
current
sequestration of funds affecting government agencies, the
NRC licensingprocess,
high-level radioactive waste issues,
security at government facilities,
terrorist threats, micro-electric grids, and
disaster planning. All
as they might relate to the government’s potential use of SMRs.
 |
| Arjun
Vellayappan and Peyton Lee |
These are college students. Two juniors, a sophomore, and a
senior, and not one of them even an engineering student. Yet their knowledge of
the physical, engineering and political environments in which decisions will be
made, and facets of the issue far beyond the assigned topic, was remarkable. I’ve
had the benefit of
almost fifty years of being involved in nuclear energy, first
in submarines, then state energy policy, then a major utility, and then the
broader nuclear energy industry. I was impressed.
And don’t even ask about what they know compared to what I
knew as a college senior.
I echo Mr. Bishop’s praise for the students. I was impressed
by how knowledgeable both teams were. It was heartening that the arguments went beyond the
why question, as it signals that these
bright minds and future leaders recognize that nuclear has a place in America’s
energy mix.
Comments
What is needed is a customer who could specify and purchase, say, 20 small reactors. The DOD owns and operates more reactors than any other entity (nuclear navy) making the DOD a logical first customer.
Small reactors come in many different sizes. The DOD is in a better position to specify size than the DOE.
The DOD has purchased expensive things before (ships, planes, tanks) and knows how to pay for the first of a kind and the Nth of a kind. The DOE has no purchasing experience with Nth of a kind contracts.
If the DOD and its supplier(s) are successful, then the world has a cost effective tool to fight climate change. Might even avoid a war or two.
The introducer to the debate opens up the background statement that nuclear power can not be separated from nuclear weapons proliferation. Just to set the stage. The issue being debated seemed to be whether DoD should be first mover to install SMRs at military bases, or whether DoE is more qualified. There was no concept of private industry. Judges were of course Washington insiders. I found the debate context a good example of the failure of the US government to deal with nucleqr power now and how we are training future politicians to fail in the future.
All the more reason why the fight for hearts and minds in nuclear plant public acceptance must be waged on the media/educational battleground, not feel-good resume-raking forums or debates. Oil and gas and coal (heck, not even Tylenol!) never or seldom needed "debates" to be accepted by the general public. It's all Educate, Enlighten, and Empower with FUD-fighting Fact. Young Nuclear Professionals best focus their talents on producing cable/TV/Web adult nuclear education PSAs, Ads and 911 direct FUD rebuttals to anti nukers in public debates and knock down the media's door to offer themselves as true nuclear consultants, unlike the much tapped Doc Kaku, Arnie and Helen & Co. In their own best interest the nuclear "industry" and community ought be chipping in lively to fund them so.
James Greenidge
Queens NY