Sarah Neumann

@InWithNeumann

Media relations, pro-nuke Idahoan. I drink coffee because nothing else sparks joy. My personal Twitter account. Retweets ≠ endorsements, opinions are mine.

Idaho Falls, ID

Joined February 2017

518 Following

94 Followers

728 Posts

InWithNeumann retweeted

Idaho National Lab @INL

3 months ago

In 1969, @INL's Advanced Test Reactor demonstrated its full power for the first time. After it powered down, photographers shot an iconic #CherenkovRadiation blue glow moment on film. ⚛️ WATCH to see what this moment looks like through today's lens. ⬇️ https://t.co/fayTUVIKI9

InWithNeumann retweeted

Rod Adams

@Atomicrod

4 months ago

Ed Lyman (@NucSafetyUCS) and his colleagues in the nuclear opposition camp are gnashing their teeth at efforts to enable rapid prototyping of advanced reactor designs. Their latest objection is aimed at the DOE's decision to use its authority under 10 CFR Part 1021, Subpart D, Appendices A and B to create a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for advanced reactors built on federal (DOE/DOW) sites. This CX decision means that advanced reactors will not need either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment. The logic is that the reactors have features that prevent them from having a significant impact. Another way to justify the action is to recognize that building and operating small prototype reactors should be as routine as any other infrastructure project at a national laboratory site. After all, several of our national labs are geographically large and were selected to be suitable for building and testing nuclear facilities. Efforts to streamline and enable safe construction and testing of advanced reactor designs are well inside of the intent of US atomic energy statutes. According to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended) improved reactor designs (specific words are "widespread and diverse research and development") should be encouraged. Regulators should "impose only such MINIMAL amount of regulation of the licensee as the Commission finds will permit the Commission to fulfill its obligations under this Act to promote the common defense and security and to protect the health and safety of the public and will permit the conduct of widespread and diverse research and development.” Section 104 (c) NEPA was not officially intended to halt nuclear energy development, but it's not just a coincidence that there haven't been any new prototype reactors built since it became law. Modest sized reactors with modern safety features and benign coolant conditions are less of a threat to the environment than most commercial buildings. There is adequate justification for determining that prototype or demonstration reactors do not constitute "major federal actions" and that experience has proven that they have no significant environmental impact. Countless articles and other forms of commentary have pointed out that the advanced nuclear reactors that have captured investor attention and public excitement have not yet been built. That situation is changing more rapidly than some would like. In fact, many are doing everything they can think of to stop progress so they do not lose this talking point. It is sadly amusing to note how some oppose the CX decision by pointing out that the reactors haven't yet been built or tested. Here's a recent example that references @NucSafetyUCS "Until now, the test reactor designs currently under construction have primarily existed on paper, according to Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group. He believes the lack of real world experience with the reactors means that they should be subject to more rigorous safety and environmental reviews before they're built." Ref: "The Trump administration exempts new nuclear reactors from environmental review" NPR by Geoff Brumfiel (@gbrumfiel) What modern reactors really need before being made commercially available is to be built, tested and operated in a secure environment staffed with experienced people. Another additional safety provision might be to initially limit power level and operating duration – which limits radioactive material inventory – while testing system response and validating computer models. The new DOE CX is a good step towards enabling construction and testing. Computer models and analysis of paper reactors can only take us to a dead end with no new energy production. That's exactly where nuclear energy opponents would like us to be. Note: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave most oil and gas extraction activities on public lands a categorical exclusion under NEPA. Some argue that was a mistake, but that CX was arguably the enabler for the shale revolution. If every new Oil&Gas project needed an EIS or an EA, it is likely that the US would still have an abject dependence on imported oil. Before the CX and wide deployment of the winning combination of horizontal drilling/hydraulic fracturing, natural gas was expected to become another major import. Instead, the US is now the world's largest liquified natural gas exporter.

Sarah Neumann

@InWithNeumann

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users