Listen to Your Elders: They Know What They’re Talking About; a talk with Clinton Bastin – Retired AEC/ERDA/DOE Chemical Engineer/Nuclear Scientist
- By Randy Brich -
"Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows him?"
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Native Americans call their elders Wisdom Keepers: human repositories of valuable knowledge to be consulted whenever a controversial or difficult decision needs to be made. In today’s world where serious decisions concerning the very lifeblood of civilization – energy -- are being made daily it would behoove us to consult our elders to determine a path out of the wilderness we seem to be lost in.
One such energy elder is 82 year old Clinton Bastin, a highly decorated federal chemical engineer/nuclear scientist who served 3 federal energy agencies -- the Atomic Energy Commission, the Energy Research and Development Administration and the Department of Energy – under 9 presidents representing both political parties. Retired in 1997, Bastin remains an active participant in the energy debate bringing wisdom based on experience and knowledge to the discussion.
I recently had the chance to chat with Bastin regarding today’s energy challenges and here is what he had to say:
“Electricity is the foundation and lifeblood of modern civilization. Without electricity, there can be no modern healthcare, little warmth in winter and no cooling in summer, no clean water for cities, no factories, no computers and no viable economy. A few days in a rural village in India with smoke from dung fires, water from remote wells and no relief from oppressive heat can be an interesting experience if all goes well, but that’s unlikely most of the time.
France generates 80% of its electricity by nuclear power plants, which do not produce or release atmospheric pollutants or carbon dioxide. The United States generates 70% of its emission-free electricity by nuclear power plants but only 20% of its total electricity, and releases three times as much carbon dioxide and pollution to the atmosphere, per person, as France.
Despite highest priority and subsidies in the US for almost 35 years, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal and tidal generate only 3% of our electricity and, because of science and limited availability and reliability, will never be able to generate much more. US nuclear policies based on best science and best applications of science will result in nuclear power being used as the solution for climate change and other energy and environmental problems.”
Regarding the perceived risks of radiation exposure from normally functioning nuclear power plants, Bastin explained:
“Radiation exposure to persons living near a nuclear power plant is a small fraction of 1% of the exposure from natural radiation. Exposure to those living near Three Mile Island during and immediately after the nuclear power plant accident was less than they would have received during a summer in Rocky Mountain States, where the incidence of cancer is much less than that elsewhere. No off-site residents have ever received significant radiation exposure from nuclear waste or used nuclear fuel stored at DOE and nuclear power plant sites or shipped in the US.
The safety and productivity of US nuclear power plants has been greatly increased since the TMI accident by nuclear power operators’ commitment to excellence and greater understanding of plant operations, coordinated by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations with improved oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A Chernobyl type accident is not credible in US-type nuclear power plants.”
Comparing the actions of the French and US governments to the last real (not contrived) energy crisis, Bastin stated:
“Leaders of France and the United States made commitments to full use of nuclear power in 1970 when the US lost the ability to recover enough oil to meet demands and became dependent on imported oil. The 1973 oil embargo together with its long lines at gasoline stations and higher prices for oil were wake-up calls for all Americans.
Electricity generators stopped converting coal plants to burn oil and ordered nuclear power plants. The US Navy built more nuclear powered ships and submarines. Atlanta, San Francisco, Washington, DC and other major cities built electric powered, high speed rail for intra-city travel.
The Atomic Energy Commissions of France and the US made major changes to avoid problems resulting from use and export by the US of inappropriate laboratory technology to manage used nuclear power plant fuel. France created a chemical corporation, COGEMA, to improve its reprocessing technology for management of used nuclear fuel. The USAEC reassigned responsibility for direction of power reactor fuel reprocessing programs to chemical engineers who had directed successful US programs, were aware of reasons for failures and understood the complex technology. Dupont was asked and agreed to manage the programs.”
During those halcyon days of the expansion of commercial nuclear energy, Bastin reminisced:
“The US led the world with best technology in all components of nuclear technology and was prepared to move forward to resolve energy challenges in 1974 under improved direction of the Atomic Energy Commission.
Exxon Nuclear Company decided to use AEC-developed gas centrifuge technology for commercial enrichment of uranium for nuclear power plant fuel. The IAEA strongly endorsed the USAEC proposal for multinational reprocessing in “Regional Nuclear Fuel Cycle (integrated fuel reprocessing/refabrication) Centres” in its 1977 report. Dupont completed designs and cost estimates for integrated fuel recycle facilities that were a perfect match for the IAEA concept, were cost effective and would have precluded access to or accumulation of separated plutonium.”
Remarkably, while France conceived and nearly flawlessly executed its energy independence mission by competent corporations with continued direction by the French AEC, the US vision of energy independence became mired in the gumbo of large government organizations - the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Department of Energy who directed programs managed by national laboratories. This organizational structure is identical to that of the former Soviet Union and does not well serve a democracy that works very effectively by competent corporate enterprise. Bastin details:
“Leaders of ERDA and later the Department of Energy:
● reversed changes made by the AEC to build on successes and avoid failures,
● reassigned responsibility for direction of reprocessing and uranium enrichment programs to nuclear engineers who did not understand the complex chemical engineering challenges,
● did not support IAEA and Dupont reprocessing concepts that would have resolved problems,
● assigned responsibility for reprocessing management to national laboratory scientists and engineers who lacked experience with or the discipline needed for safe sustained, cost effective, high capacity operations in a hazardous environment,
● deferred support for gas centrifuge enrichment of uranium for nuclear fuel
● supported government funding for completion of a reprocessing plant that was not valid.
Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan and Congress made major decisions on reprocessing with no input from experienced reprocessors.”
Today, the decision to cease funding for the high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain provides the impetus needed to re-visit the past highly flawed decisions. The US could proceed with a vision that encompasses the entire nuclear fuel cycle as an integrally contained system that will permit full use of non-polluting nuclear resources for energy and other important uses that will benefit humankind.
Using the planned AEC nuclear fuel cycle system as a viable model might provide the template for an endeavor in the US similar to that in France but with some superior concepts. Hopefully, President Obama’s proposed review of used nuclear fuel disposition will recognize the invaluable experience of the nation’s energy elders and will consult with individuals such as Clinton Bastin. The energy elders know firsthand the successes and failures and can identify the good decisions and mistakes of the past allowing us to move forward with a viable solution to the complex energy problems facing the US today.
LAST WEEK'S COLUMN:
Mondo Energy: The New Young Professionals Out to Make a Difference - By Randy Brich - In case you haven’t noticed there are some new young professionals (NYP) bent on making a difference. These NYP do not fit the mold of an average nuclear power advocate, even their name, Mondo Energy, conveys something non-standard ...
About Randy Brich
Randy graduated from South Dakota State University in 1978 with a M.S. in Biology. Following graduation he switched gears and began a lifelong study of ionizing radiation and its beneficial applications to humanity. During the course of his study he worked as a staff Health Physicist with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission specializing in the licensing and inspection of uranium recovery facilities. He transferred to the Department of Energy where he worked as a Health Physicist at the 
Nevada Operations Office and later to the Richland Operations Office specializing in environmental monitoring, dose reconstruction, worker protection, waste cleanup and systems biology.
Since then he has retired from the federal government and, after taking time out to build an energy efficient house near the Missouri River, has formed Diamond B Communications LLC. Diamond B Communications LLC uses a multimedia approach to explain complex energy resource issues to technical and non-technical audiences. He also guides for Dakota Bike Tours, the Relaxed Adventure Company, offering tours of the Badlands National Park, the Black Hills and Devils Tower National Monument.
If you have questions, comments, or know of a book that you think Randy should review E-mail Randy Brich>> randy@nuclearstreet.com