Opinion Talk

By One

March 13, 2007 8:04 AM | Link to this

The real problem is our greedy government….mainly Bush and his cronies. As long as they benefit in some way, we’re all screwed!!!!!!

By Collin

March 13, 2007 8:13 AM | Link to this

What about the other half of the solution: land use planning? Shouldn’t our neighborhoods and businesses be built in such a way that one doesn’t have to drive to the grocery store, hardware store, cafe, doctor’s office? We (blindly)continue to develop our homes separate from the services on which we depend (check out any suburb in Atlanta). This is where all our county commissioners, city councilpersons, and state legislators need a crash course. In addition, home developers seem to be behind the curve in the changing demands of the average home buyer: less yard, more walkabiility. If you develop in a manner that takes the car out of the picture for daily necessities, think of the impact on the pump that will have!

By Dan

March 13, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this

Stop already! It is such BS whining about the pump and cars or city planning, nonsense! Since most fuel oil is used to make electricity (but who needs that fact when you can complain about SUV drivers) how about everyone turn their heat down to around 60 and turn off their AC. In the last 25 years central air in homes has gone from about 25% to about 75%. That would have exponentially more impact than any new autos or planning or “agri fuels” The fact is the complainers all want someone else to cut back while they mosey along doing there own thing. People will change there habits when the laws of supply and demand dictate it and no sooner.

By Tom B

March 13, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this

The editors do a lot of talking. How about some ‘leadership by example?’ I’d like for them to walk/ride bikes in lieu of motorized transportation or drive solar cars; use ethanol-fueled vehicles to deliver the newspapers and gather the news; tell us what they do to reduce their personal demand for energy. Any bets as to whether or not they ride MARTA and/or carpool; have solar heating/cooling in their homes; have their homes built 50% underground; and/or use airconditioning? What is their annual energy use versus the average in the USA … or much less, the average in the world!

Talk is cheap. Let’s see them put their money where their mouths are. Boy, would I be surprised to learn they are actually doing some/all of the above!

By don

March 13, 2007 9:25 AM | Link to this

Tax the stuff and use the proceeds to fund alternative fuels and modes. Roll the tax out gradually so people have a chance to adjust lifestyles to higher prices. Adjust the tax to smooth periodic bumps and shocks in prices that are so painful now.

Forget CAFE standards and windfall profit taxes.

Using taxes to shape supply and demand in the national interest is the American way. Rationing and heavy handed regulation are for socialists!

By Tony

March 13, 2007 9:54 AM | Link to this

The answer here is not to cut back consumption the answer is to drill more oil here and around the United States and build new gasoline refineries. We have not built a new refinery in more than 40 years. The consumption over the 10 to 15 years is going to continue to grow no matter what you do. If there was a quick fix someone would have introduced it by now. The market will drive the introduction of alternate fuel sources.

By JP

March 13, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

Lack of practically any neighborhood planning whatsoever is why I, as a suburban resident, am seriously considering moving to a more walkable community.

I expect to see more of an outmigration as people come to terms with the cancer that is metro Atlanta.

By Dennis

March 13, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this

Nuclear Electric Power Plants now.

Unfortunately, when the AJC and Enviro-Activist say alternative fuel, they mean anything but Nuclear.

And while we build those Nuclear Plants we should drill in Alaska, off the coast of California and Florida: particularly off the Gulf Coast of Florida

By Nate

March 13, 2007 11:09 AM | Link to this

I”m buying a motorcycle and parking my SUV….

By Quinn Mallory

March 13, 2007 11:40 AM | Link to this

No one has mentioned it yet, but one can reduce the demand for gas by purchasing an alternative means of transportation, such as a scooter or a motorcycle. Either one uses far less gas than a typical auto and gets far better mileage (Yes, even better than hyrid autos!). Plus, with lanesplitting, one does not need to sit in traffic burning fuel by idling in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

By Quinn Mallory

March 13, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

No one has mentioned it yet, but one can reduce the demand for gas by purchasing an alternative means of transportation, such as a scooter or a motorcycle. Either one uses far less gas than a typical auto and gets far better mileage (Yes, even better than hyrid autos!). Plus, with lanesplitting, one does not need to sit in traffic burning fuel by idling.

By Tim

March 13, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

My wife and I have taken this issue seriously for years. We bought a house where one of us could bike to work everyday and we bought a hybrid for the one who has to drive. We turn down our heat and A/C to minimums. When we have to fly, we use MARTA to get to the airport. We support environmental groups financially and are involved in local non-profits to educate and advocate. We also communicate our views to local, state, and national rep’s, not to mention newspapers. Thanks to the AJC editorial board for taking this seriously too.

By BurnFat-NotFuel

March 13, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this

Metro Atlanta needs more bike lanes. For trips shorter than five miles, riding a bicycle is a very efficient form of transportation. Cyclists not only save a lot of money on gasoline and parking, they also save time. When cycling becomes part of your daily commute, there’s no need to spend time at a gym. Providing facilities that support active transportation would save Georgia billions in health care costs.

By Tony

March 13, 2007 12:07 PM | Link to this

Inventing a new tax to “punish” oil companies will not solve the problem. It will only make matters worst. We need a combination of more refineries, drill locations, and alternative sources. Please don’t mention ethanol. The mileage on it is horrible compared to regular gas.

By WW-3

March 13, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

JUST USE ALL THE EARTH’S OIL AND THEN WORRY ABOUT ALTERNATIVES.

By robert

March 13, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this

Much more aggressive mpg standards with heavy fines levied on the manuafacturers for failing to meet these standards; reducing our dependence on trucks, vans and other gas-guzzling vehicles both commercial and civilian through a special tax surcharge on the purchase of these vehicles that fall below a certain standard, say 20 mpg which would double the current gas mileage for some of these vehicles; Finally, it is high time for corporate America to step to the plate and rid itself of the old school mentality that requires individuals to physically be at the office when telecommuting will work. Increasing the tax benefits for companies that offer telecommuting is a solid first step.

By yarisworld.com

March 13, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Simple. Buy a Toyota Yaris. 40MPG and they are cheap and cool!!!!

www.yarisworld.com

By Barry Blakely

March 13, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

The only thing it seems the government is good at doing, is to set up a committee to study the problem. The committee will come back in five years to say they couldn’t find the problem and appoint a special prosecutor to investigate where it went.

By Ken

March 13, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

If you would just park your SUV, there would be no need to destroy more wilderness or create an eternal radioactive storage facility to compensate.

The current conflict could have been completely avoided and more conflict can be averted yet still.

My other car is a bicycle.

By lovelyliz

March 13, 2007 1:01 PM | Link to this

I sold my 6 cylinder Taurus and bought a 4 cylinder Corolla. I get and extra 2 to 3 days on a tank of gas.

By Al

March 13, 2007 1:08 PM | Link to this

It’s going to take a combination of nuclear energy and drilling for oil in Alaska and the Gulf. But since the racist and pro-communist environmental wackos get their way, we will continue to suffer. Ask yourself this question, why are the Democrats and stupid Al Gore against drilling for oil? It’s because America would be energy independent and much more powerful. We all know that liberals and stupid Al Gore want a weaker America. It makes them more powerful.

Besides, I thought the libs and stupid Al Gore wanted us to conserve, so high energy prices should be a good thing.

By LOVE

March 13, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

I am originally from the north and I moved down here over a year ago. I still do not understand the lack of sidewalks in this city at all. I have ventured outside of atlanta a little and found some surbaban neighborhoods have more sidewalks than the city ones. Why aren’t sidewalks along bus routes? Almost for everything you have to do, you need about four wheels to do it. And the icing on the cake is even if you do decide to walk, you’d be lucky to find pedestrian crosswalks or lights. I know of many of these that are just M.I.A.(missing in action)!!!

By Michael

March 13, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

Taxes on gasoline will help, but we also need to tax vehicles by weight—if you drive a Hummer, an Escalade or some other land yacht, you should pay to do so, and you should pay more for the damage your super-sized gas hog does to the road system than does, say, a Honda Civic.

We also need better fuel mileage. There’s no really good reason why average mileage in a car shouldn’t be in the 35mpg range—no reason except for corporate and consumer greed, that is.

Beyond appropriate taxing and better mileage, we need a better infrastructure. The roads in Atlanta drive like a trip through the wilderness. Better roads should yield better mileage.

It would also help if more inner city roads were one-way streets, in my view. One-way streets eliminate the need for many red-light intersections, thereby facilitating traffic movement. They also eliminate the need for making a left turn against traffic, which is another significant source both of delays and accidents. A largely one-way street grid would help us get a good deal of traffic relief, and it’s a feature of systems in many cities outside our own benighted, strangely conservative town.

Public transportation will not work in this region until it gets over its peculiarly fragmented sense of itself. Why so many people rely on the city of Atlanta for their sustenance and yet live in proud loathing of the city is a complex issue that is at the heart of why we have never been able to build a decent public transportation system. Blacks, browns, yellows and whites need to forgive each other and get on with their communal life.

Beyond that, we need to alter the infrastructure to encourage biking and walking. Get more people off their fat butts and a lot of social problems will almost certainly resolve themselves.

By lisa

March 13, 2007 1:19 PM | Link to this

You guys haven’t figured it out yet, huh? tisk, tisk, tisk!

By Joe

March 13, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

The government isn’t coming down on the oil companies or really pressing the automobile industry because the government is beholding to both industries. The oil industry (Halliburton, Exxon, etc.) pay big bucks to campaigns in order to get their will to be law. The politiicans can usually count on jobs with these companies (at least lots of paid speeches) when they leave office. The oil companies are making record profits and they don’t care one iota about the cost to the population (nor do the politicians - republican nor democrat) nor to the environment. If the government really wanted to do something about oil prices it would have long ago offered huge incentives to the auto companies to work on hydrogen powered vehicles.

They are only doing it now because Japanese vehicle makers have been successful with the hybrids.

The ultimate desire of government: an ubber class of elite and the rest of us destitute and dependent on the elite for every morsel of food we get.

By davy

March 13, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

I wonder if it is a coincidence that just before we start daylight savings time two weeks early for our nation to save a 100,000 barrels of oil a day, gas prices start spiking. Big oil, big business and Capitol Hill will bleed this country dry.

By SlimP

March 13, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

It’s Al Gore’s fault….

By Biker Wannabe

March 13, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

It seems like the obvious solution is more sidewalks for walkers and wider lanes for bikes. This should help our state’s (and country’s) obesity problem too. I have a Kroger, Publix, Eckerd, numerous other stores, and even Perimeter Mall within 3 miles of my front door but there is absolutely no safe way to bike there and the sidewalks just end… and then begin again 1/2 mile up the road. I would LOVE to bike to work a few days a week but it’s just too dangerous IMO. It’s such a contradiction but I’ll just have to continue to drive 45 min to ride the Silver Comet.

By Anton

March 13, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

I think one of our problems is we don’t think outside the (oil) box. In France there is a person that has developed a car that runs on air. It is called the MDI Air Car that runs on compressed air. You can locate it on their website at www.MDIaircar.com. This car uses no fuel, does not pollute and is affordable. I’m sure we could build one in this Country.

By Paul Gans

March 13, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Last June I purchased a Toyota Camry Hybrid. I had been driving a 6 cylinder Mercury Montego. Most of my driving was local, with speeds below 40 miles per hour. About 1/3rd was at highway speeds of over 50 MPH. My average gasoline consumption was about 18 MPG.

For the first 4 months, my average gasoline consumption was about 35.5 MPG. That was in the NY metropolitan area. I have since relocated to Cherokee county in Georgia, which is very hilly terrain. My gasoline consumption has dropped to about 35 MPG. I now do most of my driving at speeds over 60 MPH. That means that the gasoline engine is in operation most of the time. The battery power only works up to 40 MPH. Overall, I have cut my gasoline consumption by slightly less than 50%! You can imagine the impact on our oil imports if everyone could do that. I should add that the vehicle far exceeds the performance of the Mercury in terms of acceleration, and responsiveness, even at highway speeds. It proves to me that superior engineering can have an enormous impact on the efficiency of the gasoline engine. The vehicle instrumentation provides realtime feedback on gasoline consumption, which frequently reaches 60 MPG or better on a level highway. I will not go on about all of the negative information that the so-called automotive gurus have put forth regarding hybrids. Most of it is inaccurate. I think, that after driving the vehicle for more than 8 months, I am better qualified than they are,to make judgements about the vehicle. It is probably the best automobile I have ever owned and that goes back 50 years.

By Nikita

March 13, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

And also, the question above is what we should do to resolve the issue of high gas prices. Personally, I don’t care. I’m able to walk to work, i’ve made my house as efficient as I can, I buy most of my food from local sources, etc. — and that means that I don’t actually know what gas and fuel cost because they’ve become a very small part of my budget. I’d suggest others do the same, if they can.

By Jeff Kuebler

March 13, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

I would love to see additions of lanes for cycles only. This does not need to be bicycle but should also include mopeds. At a minimal cost, congestion can be reduced, average mileage increased. Currently, a 50 cc moped can cost as little as $800 and get 100 mpg. This means that everyone could afford this type of transportation.

By lovelyliz

March 13, 2007 2:20 PM | Link to this

If American auto manufacturers can develop and sell high mileage vehicle in Europe, why can’t they engineer them to be sold here in the USA?

By Thrash

March 13, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Stop selling American cars in the US, they’re the main reason we have consumption issues. Is it any wonder that Toyota is now the #1 car maker in the world while US makers back track and retrench? They’re getting it right, Ford & GM aren’t.

By scooter

March 13, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this

I park my car and ride my scooter everywhere I can. Cost about $3.50 a week to work and run errands, besides its fun too.
Just have to watch out for the cell phone yackers and OTP “have no clue where I am going drivers” that come into the city.

By Bud

March 13, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

People who don’t understand economics believe that we will just suddenly run out of petroleum. That’s not how things work. If a highly desired good actually becomes scarce over time, the price goes up. The higher the price, the more places the oil companies can afford to look. At some point, either new sources are found, and the price goes back down, or consumers find a substitute, demand falls, and the price goes back down.

The solution to high fuel prices is to allow the the supply of fuel to expand relative to demand. Economics 101. By opening up ANWR and building 5 or 10 more oil refineries, a more generous supply of usable fuel can be created. Also, there are 50+ local blends of gasoline…if there was just one blend, even an environmentally strict blend, it would be better than what we have now, with sharp shortages on particular blends.

Finally, gas prices are high because THE GOVERNMENT TAXES IT SO MUCH! It is a regressive tax that hurts poorer people far more than wealthy people. This, of course, would be the hardest thing to change…the government will always seek to perpetuate itself, grow stronger, and gain more control over the population.

By bee

March 13, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

**Stop making driving so easy and attractive. Build those new, wide roads and they will come. Widening and improving roads has never lessened traffic problems. It just brings more speed, jack knifed tractor trailers, wrecks causing endless traffic tie ups and dangerous driving habits. Here in Georgia driving is the only way to travel.

By George

March 13, 2007 3:14 PM | Link to this

The consumer is not totally to blame as there are many games played in the oil markets by those that manipulate markets but as consumers we can do a lot to lower the gasoline used. The first and easiest is to slow down and drive the speed limits on the roads and highways. What happens to meek and mild people when they get behind the wheel of a car or truck? Second is another simple issue of having properly inflated tires. According to a report I read at my local repair shop just having properly inflated tires would save the country some 2 billion gallons of gas per year.Next are other things like do multiple errands at one time, walk to nearby places instead of drive, keep your car tuned up and use mass transit or car pool as nuch as possible. But, alas we are either unable or unwilling to change our addictions to cars and unless the price reaches a major high cost to us as individuals, we will never change the current dependency on the oil and its hold over our country.

By Ben

March 13, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this

Imagine: clean air, no rush hour, less asthma, more green space, no wars over oil, no drilling in the arctic, lots of jobs in new clean industries, less global warming. Calling our relationship to oil an “addiction” makes it sound like something painful and hard to stop. We need to assert democratic control over the life-destroying oil industries and plan our cities and make laws that allow life to be the pleasant and good thing it naturally is.

By Fulton

March 13, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

When will everyone learn? It doesn’t matter what we say. They’re going to screw us anyway. Americans keep voting for their ‘party favorites’ yet, none of them even care about the people because there’s waay too much money to be made by just playing along! Time to get wise folks…

By Fulton

March 13, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

When will everyone learn? It doesn’t matter what we say. They’re going to screw us anyway. Americans keep voting for their ‘party favorites’ yet, none of them even care about the people because there’s waay too much money to be made by just playing along! Get wise folks…

By Cletus Snow

March 13, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

This is no surprise we’ve known that this was going to be problematic since the 70s,it will continue to be a serious issue until Americans take it seriously and do something about it.We can drill more wells and build more refinerys but thats a temporary fix,the cure is going to have to be new technology or drastic reduction in fossel fuel use, it’s not going to last forever.

By Rosa Boster

March 13, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

Why don’t we fight back by everyone staying home on a Saturday or a full weekend except church at least once a month. IF we can cause a glut of gas won’t it bring prices down?

Rosa

By Rosa Boster

March 13, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this

Why don’t we fight back by everyone staying home on a Saturday or a full weekend except church at least once a month. IF we can cause a glut of gas won’t it bring prices down?

Rosa

By lopro

March 13, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

Yes OPEC cut production…because they can. However this is due to the lack of an updated oil infrastructure in the U.S. OPEC can continue to lower output without new areas of oil exploration and extraction coupled with no new refineries being built in the U.S. Couple this with a population boom over the last 30 or so years and you can see the problem with supply and demand here.

Further, when all of these alternative energy vehicles are mandated and placed into market thus forcing reliance on alternative fuels, we will find ourselves still struggling with high fuel prices becasue we are not even close to the infrastructure capacity to produce the alternative fuels necessary for the mandtated vehicles. The scenario we will find is that once high-priced alternative fuels are more-or-less mandated, trditional crude oil will become much cheaper as demand is reduced from a government mandate.

I vote for more oil drilling and a major refinery increase. And no I don’t work for “Halliburton” for those of you who would scream such nonsense.

By Ben C.

March 13, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this

Thanks for telling it like it is, Mr. Harris. The only thing that I would add is that our addiction to oil is just part of our addiction to materialism, and that our “love affair with the automobile” is really a love affair with self-centeredness.

The good news is that when we see with clarity, and start to love our brothers and sisters around the world more than our things, we’ll finally experience the happiness that we’ve been trying to buy at the mall.

By RiGo

March 13, 2007 5:40 PM | Link to this

There are certain things individuals just cannot do. Among them, land use planning coordinated with the investment in mass transit is the key Atlanta as a municipality can do to grow as an efficient and successful city. Without the support of social infrastructure, individuals do not have options sometime.

By Eric

March 13, 2007 6:34 PM | Link to this

It’s not that Americans love their car. It’s that most people have to drive to work five days a week, as required by their employer. Most of the fuel usage and pollution comes from the commute. So why not go to a four-day work week? That is something employers could do, and thus an immediate 20% reduction in fuel could be achieved. With all our office technology already making us more productive, why don’t we have a four-day work week by now anyway?

By Michael H. Smith

March 13, 2007 7:41 PM | Link to this

In Sunday’s editorial section David McNaughton wrote an article dealing with so-called Free Trade that brought to fore something few have focused upon which could dramatically change the face of this discussion: Namely what we use to fuel our cars. So far in reading this blog, the focal point has been on gasoline, better gasoline efficient cars and with some talk of our alternative energy productions. However, some of our neighbors already produce ethanol in abundance. But as Mr. McNaughton pointed out in his piece, the U.S. has prohibitive tariffs on sugar and ethanol imports presently. Now the ill-gravity of this only becomes important as the strategic security of the panorama becomes clearer. Brazil produces more than enough ethanol to meet its’ needs and makes flex fuel cars that need nothing done to them in order to burn gas, E-85 ethanol or straight ethanol. By now the bells and whistles should be clanging and sounding off: We need to make our inept government end specifically all tariffs on ethanol and sugar imports produced within the hemisphere of the Americas immediately!

An opportunity is here and now knocking upon our door to have ourselves a win-win situation with very little down sides. Many countries south of the U.S. border (as point in case Brazil) can grow sugar cane rather easily to produce ethanol for export. These countries need this very kind of economic kick start to create jobs within those neighbor-nations to end the poverty which sends so many of their people to this country, often illegally. In our case, we need the alternative energy now, as in less than two years not five or ten years down the road to put real competition into the automobile fuel market.

More energy options are in the making going forward but for the quickest solution at the moment, a possible new south of the border “Fair Trade” ethanol strategy could be a readily available answer for all of us.

By amy beard

March 13, 2007 8:10 PM | Link to this

One thing everyone could do to conserve energy is change their light bulbs to CFL’s. It cost more initially but will save money and resources over time.

By Clinton Bastin

March 13, 2007 9:11 PM | Link to this

The energy crisis began in 1970 when the US lost ability to recover enough oil to meet our demands and recognized that the world would lose ability to recover enough to meet world demands by the end of the Twentienth Century unless there were major reductions in demand. We have been relying on a largely dysfunctional bureaucracy to address energy challenges, and it has done nothing of value.

Folliwing is the text of a March 3 letter to President George W. Bush that explains what has happened and what should be done.

Dear Mr. President:

I was pleased to receive your letter and learn of your strong belief that America must address long-neglected energy issues. But there are major problems. The Department of Energy: ● Has spent most of a trillion dollars since it was created in 1977 to address energy issues resulting from America’s diminishing supplies of domestic oil and natural gas ● Has provided little of value and is unlikely to provide future value ● Does not provide full and accurate information to Americans about energy and nuclear technoloy and supports misinformation to obtain funding for programs that are not needed ● Does not learn from its own and other’s successes, failures and other problems ● Does not integrate research and development through design studies and experience to assure focus on needed improvement ● Cancels important programs and rejects proposals based on best technology to obtain funds for development of concepts that are often ill-conceived ● Dismissed competent corporations that managed safe and successful programs and relies on government laboratories to manage complex technology ● Interacts with its national laboratories in a manner similar to that of the former Soviet Union ● Rejects important input based on experience ● Supported an activity with potential for an accident much worse than that at Chernobyl ● Lost capability to produce tritium needed for nuclear deterrence, plutonium-238 needed to explore space, and isotopes needed for medicine, industry, agriculture and research ● Has no plan for responsible disposal of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants ● Has no incentives for success and incurs no penalty for failure or misinformation ● Works for its own and often against America’s interests.

The adverse impact of government management of complex technology greatly exceeds its wasteful expenditures.

Resolving America’s energy issues and ending the adverse impact from government management of complex technology will require implementation of a better, success-based approach based on full understanding of energy fundamentals and lessons learned from experiences.

This letter will provide information about energy fundamentals, an overview of the path of the DOE and its predecessors from success to failure and other problems, ideas for a better approach and other recommendations to resolve America’s long-neglected energy issues. ENERGY FUNDAMENTALS

● Nuclear energy is the ultimate source of all energy. Radiation from decay of nuclear materials in the earth is the energy that keeps earth warm.
● Radiation from nuclear fusion reactions at the sun provides energy during the day that partially offsets energy lost from the earth’s surface at night. This energy also purifies and distributes our water and energizes our atmosphere. Energy from within the earth combined with that from the sun makes life here possible. ● Radiation is energy. Like other forms of energy, high levels of radiation burn and can be dangerous; low levels warm and are beneficial. High levels of radiation are very effective for destroying cancer. False information about dangers of low levels of radiation is used to justify government funding for work that is not needed. The threshold for danger from radiation is about twenty-five REM (0.25 Sievert); maximum allowable exposures to workers per year is set at one-fifth this amount. A large amount of data indicate a net threshold of beneficial health effects from radiation much larger than the threshold for danger. From personal experience with 65 sieverts of radiation to my face and throat used to destroy a very aggressive cancer, the burn to skin from several sieverts of radiation is comparable to that from about an hour in the summer sun. ● The 1979 National Research Council report on energy points out that “the geothermal resource (heat within the earth’s molten core from radioactive decay of nuclear material) represents extremely large amounts of energy … but for many reasons direct use of geothermal energy will not be a major contributor to the national energy system until well into the twenty-first century, if ever … , (and) cannot be considered among the most important energy alternatives.” Present world capability for geothermal production of usable energy is about 8,000 megawatts. ● Nuclear materials near the earth’s surface, if used efficiently, are our most abundant energy source to maintain civilization. However, existing nuclear power plants recover less than 1 percent of the energy in uranium and do not use thorium. Efficient use of nuclear resources is essential for disposal of nuclear wastes without need for indefinite safeguards, which cannot be assured. ● Nuclear materials have little value except to produce energy and materials for space exploration, medicine, defense and other national needs. ● The nuclear fission process provides tens of millions times the energy per unit of mass of life-based fuels and produces tens of millions times less waste. The small amounts of waste from nuclear plants can be safely stored indefinitely and not released to the biosphere. ● Because of important design features, US-type nuclear power plants are one of humankind’s safest and most reliable endeavors. They are also highly resistant to terrorist attacks and disruptive weather. Because of the much smaller amounts of fuel needed, nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to transportation disruptions. There has never been a transportation accident where the presence of nuclear materials endangered anyone. Improvements to operations since the accident at Three Mile Island have greatly improved their safety and productivity. A Chernobyl-type accident is not possible in a US type nuclear power plant.
● Existing nuclear power plants in the US provide more than 70 percent of the greenhouse gas-free and atmospheric pollution-free generation of electricity. Increased use of nuclear power is the most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid global warming and reduce atmospheric pollutants for better human health. ● Nuclear power plants are the foundation for international safeguards, the best assurances of nations that their neighbors are not using nuclear technology to produce nuclear weapons ● Reprocessing of used nuclear fuel is essential for full and efficient use of nuclear resources and appropriate disposal of nuclear wastes. DuPont built and operated the only successful reprocessing plants in the US. Its best-in-the-world reprocessing technology features capability for rapid, remote replacement of failed process equipment and piping and rapid restart after shutdown, containment of radioactivity under normal and credible accident conditions, flexibility for changes to accommodate different types of fuels or increases in capacity, safe use of the facility for hundreds of years, efficient recovery and recycle of nuclear materials with very low losses, provision for integration with fuel refabrication capability that would preclude access to or accumulation of separated plutonium or other weapons usable materials, much lower cost for reprocessing than those of others, remote sampling to ensure good material safeguards and other advantages. The time for restart after shutdown for the DuPont designed “F” canyon reprocessing plant at the Savannah River Plant was a few minutes. This contrasts to eight days for restart of Hanford PUREX and thirty days for the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. ● The concept for permanent disposal of nuclear waste in bedrock underlying the SRP proposed by DuPont and endorsed by a committee appointed by former South Carolina Governor John West has formidable, measurable geologic barriers that would ensure indefinite isolation of wastes. The nuclear waste repository at DOE’s Hanford Site in Washington and that planned for Yucca Mountain provide good assurances that humans will never be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation from nuclear waste, but are in the vadose zone and do not have formidable barriers that provide full assurances of indefinite isolation. Disposal of used nuclear fuel would not be a responsible action because it would deny use of an essential and abundant resource and would create geologic deposits of weapons usable materials that would require indefinite safeguards that cannot be assured. ● Nuclear fusion reactions that we know of occur at temperatures of many million degrees and generate enormous forces. No materials or forces on earth can contain these reactions in a manner that would permit production of continuous, usable energy. There is no scientific basis for a conclusion that nuclear fusion will ever provide significant amounts of usable energy.

● Life-based materials are needed for food, transportation, chemicals, clothing, housing and home heating, medicines, and many other commodities essential for civilization. They should be used with full appreciation of their origin, limitations and special needs for their use. ● Fossil fuels are materials from past life that were produced and processed by earth’s heat into fuels that we are using hundreds of thousands times faster than they were produced. ● Biomass is material from recent life. Production and conversion of biomass into fuels will often require more energy than is obtained from their use. The amount of energy obtainable from biomass will be a very small fraction of that obtained from fossil fuels. Ethanol from all the grain produced in the US would be equivalent to 16% of petroleum fuels used for transportation in the United States.
● Coal is America’s most abundant fossil fuel and the only source for large amounts of fluid fuels for future generations. ● Natural gas is our most precious and most limited fossil fuel. It is needed to heat homes and produce many essential materials. Its use to generate large amounts of electricity is wasteful. ● Oil is our most abundant fluid fuel and is needed for transportation by auto and aircraft.

● At present rates of use, natural gas and oil resources would be fully depleted prior to the end of this century. However, long before full depletion, the ability to produce enough to meet demands will be exceeded. The US lost the ability to produce enough oil to meet its demands in 1970; the world is on the verge of losing the ability to meet world demands. Any disruption in supply, such as that following Hurricane Katrina, will result in shortages, long gas lines, increased cost of heating oil and gasoline, increased trade deficits and adverse impact to our economy. Oil from tar sands, oil shale and further exploration could extend the time for full depletion, but limitations on its rate of recovery will limit alleviation from disruptions.
● The title of the 1979 report of the extensive study of energy alternatives by the National Research Council, Energy in Transition: 1985 - 2010, reflects what should have been but was not done.

Solar Energy

● Energy from the sun is intermittent and reaches earth at relatively low temperature. Based on laws of thermodynamics, conversion of solar energy to another form such as electricity will always be inefficient. Because it is intermittent, the capacity factor (time operating efficiency) will always be low - from 10 to 20%. The environmental cost for construction and maintenance of facilities for solar generation of electricity - plus that for supply of electricity when the sun does not shine - will approach or exceed savings from their operation. Use of batteries to assure continuous availability of electricity will also cost as much as or more - in dollars and adverse environmental impact - than is saved from generation of solar electricity. Government subsidies for solar generation of electricity could lead to facilities that are not cost-effective when the subsidies are removed. Solar generation of electricity and storage of electricity in batteries may be justified in remote locations or in space vehicles not too distant from the sun.
● Energy from the sun is abundant and could be increasingly important to heat water for household use and to warm buildings properly designed for such use. However, replacement of existing buildings would not be justified solely by more efficient use of solar warming. ● Capacity factors for wind power in some locations will exceed that for solar generation of electricity, but careful evaluation is needed. Government subsidies could lead to facilities that are not cost-effective when the subsidies are removed. Use of batteries to store wind-generated electricity will greatly increase its dollar and environmental cost. ● The 1979 report of the major study of energy alternatives by the National Research Council says that “the ecological damage per unit of energy produced is probably greater for hydroelectricity than for any other energy source.” … .”Among the adverse ecological consequences of new dam construction are the loss of habitat in the immediate area of the reservoir, subtle effects on the biological productivity of the river below the dam, damage to scenic area along the wild stretches of the river, damage to the ecological balance of estuaries due to alteration of freshwater flow patterns, accelerated siltation and eutrophication in the artificial lakes behind dams, adverse effects on fish species that swim up river to spawn, and excess evaporation of water from artificial lakes and the resulting increased salinity, particularly in arid regions.”

Hydrogen

● Hydrogen is not available in nature as an energy source on earth. Cost for its production - including environmental cost - will exceed savings from its use. Hydrogen is difficult to handle and has a low energy density. Fuel cells are very expensive and not very durable. OVERVIEW OF A PATH FROM SUCCESS TO FAILURE AND OTHER PROBLEMS

This section describes great successes with use of nuclear technology for the Manhattan Project, successes and failures for the Atomic Energy Commission, and how failure to fully apply lessons learned from these successes and failures led to problems and ultimately to the moratorium on new nuclear power plants. I can provide comparable overviews of other paths to problems, such as loss of ability to produce tritium, plutonium-238 and other important nuclear materials; wasteful expenditures for inappropriate treatment of nuclear wastes; and delays in use of a more energy-efficient process for uranium enrichment.

The Manhattan Project of World War II was a great technological achievement because: ● Important discoveries: Albert Einstein’s energy = mass times the speed of light squared, Otto Hahn’s nuclear fission and Glenn Seaborg’s plutonium provided a scientific basis for the effort. ● Competent, experienced corporations produced nuclear materials. ● DuPont introduced nuclear fission technology and provided corporate management for the Clinton Laboratory and Hanford Engineer Works comparable to that for its commercial plants. ● DuPont’s core values of safety, health and the environment, ethics and respect for people have been exceptional constants since the Company was formed in 1802.

Manhattan Project scientists were disappointed with the decision to use corporations to carry out projects and programs. They lacked experience with complex technology, but believed that they could carry out the tasks for the Manhattan Project. (The Soviet Union lacked experienced corporations, and scientists carried out efforts for production of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. Radiation exposures to workers were among significant differences. Maximum exposure to DuPont workers at Hanford was less than one RAD/year. During the first two years, Average exposure to Soviet workers was more than 100 RAD/year; maximum exposure was more than 300 RAD/year. Some Soviet workers developed illnesses from the high radiation levels. The commercial reprocessing plant built at West Valley, NY, that incorporated laboratory technology, reprocessed 244 tons of power reactor fuel and 375 tons of AEC production reactor fuels during 5-1/2 years of operation. Operation was suspended by order of the AEC Director of Regulation because radiation exposure to workers averaged 50% above allowable amounts and were rising exponentially, and there were other problems. The exposures at West Valley were about thirty times average exposures to workers at the DuPont-operated Savannah River Plant. The decision was made by plant owner Getty Oil not to restart the plant.)

Manhattan Project Director Leslie Groves developed sympathy for the scientists and approved operation of the Clinton Pilot Plant in a production mode, a violation of good management practice. About 300 grams of plutonium were produced and recovered by reprocessing during this 14-month campaign from late 1943 until early 1945, but some at ORNL believed and claimed that “the first kilograms of plutonium were produced in the pilot plant” ( The actual and claimed production are documented in the report The ORNL Chemical Technology Division: 1950-1994 (October 1994), prepared for the DOE by ORNL.) This false claim of high productivity resulted in support by General Groves for National Laboratories so the scientists could carry out the tasks for which they had conducted research and use inappropriate laboratory technology to reprocess highly enriched uranium fuels at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant.

Filters to prevent release of radioactive materials from ICPP operations failed shortly after attempted start of operations and were removed. American Cyanamid Corporation, who had been selected to operate the ICPP, was aware that the plant could not be operated safely or successfully and elected to leave. Phillips Petroleum Company, who was operating the Materials Test Reactor at AEC’s Idaho Site, accepted responsibility for operation of the ICPP, but did not provide corporate management comparable to that provided by DuPont for the Hanford Engineer Works.

General Electric Company replaced DuPont at Hanford, but was not funded to provide corporate management for the effort and serious problems developed. The Hanford PUREX reprocessing plant had to be shut down in 1972 because it - unlike SRP reprocessing plants - could not be operated satisfactorily with a reduced output from Hanford production reactors, nor without release of large quantities of nuclear waste to soils. GE did not learn from these and other AEC experiences and made similar mistakes at its Morris, IL, commercial reprocessing plant.

Former officers of the Army Corps of Engineers recognized the importance of the DuPont effort for the Manhattan Project and urged President Truman to ask DuPont to design, build and operate the Savannah River Plant for the AEC. The SRP was the AEC’s safest and most successful program because DuPont provided core values and management comparable to that for its commercial plants.

Safe and successful use of nuclear power for propulsion of US Navy Ships and Submarines provided full assurances that commercial nuclear power would be safe and successful. But regulators and some nuclear power plant operators did not follow the Nuclear Navy model and did not require full knowledge by operators of the technology and systems for nuclear power plant operation. This became a major problem with larger and more complex nuclear power plants, and ultimately led to the accident at Three Mile Island, long delays in construction and licensing and increased cost of nuclear power plants. This oversight has been eliminated through coordinating efforts of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and good interactions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission with nuclear power plant operators, but Americans have not been informed of the improvements.

Nuclear power began in America and other nations with full expectations that reprocessing would be used to permit full and efficient use of nuclear resources and dispose of nuclear wastes without need for indefinite safeguards, which cannot be assured. Successful experiences of DuPont provided full assurances that reprocessing of nuclear power plant fuels would be safe and successful and not result in proliferation or proliferation threats.

Unfortunately, planned use of successful technology for reprocessing of used fuels from nuclear power plants in the US and those in other nations of US origin was cancelled when early nuclear power plant operators accepted gross misinformation in a 1957 AEC report about the success of laboratory reprocessing technology that had failed. (The report overstated productivity of the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant by about a factor of thirty.) Subsequent use and export of the flawed technology resulted in failure of reprocessing in America, proliferation in India, and proliferation threats and problems in other nations. (ORNL/ICPP reprocessing technology was used in India to reprocess natural uranium from the CIRUS (Canada Isotope Reactor United States), a reactor based on Canada’s NRX reactor that was largely paid for by the US to produce plutonium for US nuclear weapons, and provided with heavy water moderator by the US.)

French and Japanese reprocessors requested information about DuPont reprocessing technology but were denied access. British reprocessors had access to DuPont technology, but their focus at the time of access was on their own “no maintenance” approach, which they later determined to be inadequate for commercial fuel reprocessing. Soviet reprocessors used the DuPont “canyon” approach for its plant at Tomsk, but instead of five to six- foot thick heavily reinforced concrete walls at the SRP, used 3-1/2 foot thick brick walls which were inadequate for accident conditions.

Many American corporations, including five large oil companies, made major investments in nuclear fuel cycle technology, but most lost money because they relied on misinformation from the AEC. An important example is the investment of about one-half-billion dollars by Gulf and Shell Oil Companies, owners of General Atomics Corporation (GAC), for an ill-conceived venture to commercialize High Temperature, Gas-cooled Reactors. The GAC concept for HTGRs avoided the inherent disadvantage of graphite moderated reactors, i.e., the very inefficient use of uranium, by use of an enriched uranium - thorium - uranium-233 fuel cycle, which required reprocessing.

GAC relied on the Atomic Energy Commission’s Idaho Office and Idaho Chemical Processing Plant cost estimate for commercial reprocessing that was low by a factor of ten or more, and estimate for cost of a process demonstration that was low by a factor of several hundred. After funding by The Congress for the process demonstration, other formidable problems led to recognition of need for a major task force review which led to much higher and more realistic estimates of cost for demonstration and commercial reprocessing. GAC abandoned the project.

During this same time frame, GAC partnered with Allied Chemical Company as Allied-General Nuclear Services for construction and operation of the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant (BNFP), which was built based on ICPP technology. Annual production reports from Idaho indicated nuclear material recoveries adequate to support an economic venture at Barnwell. Review of accountability records showed that the Idaho reports overstated production by about a factor of five. After learning of this information, AGNS decided not to operate the plant as a commercial venture, and proposed its operation as a government demonstration project. Aware of the flawed technology of the BNFP, AEC officials did not support this proposal.

Inadequate capability of the ICPP resulted in filled used fuel storage basins at reactors throughout the Idaho site, and removal of ICPP ventilation system filters resulted in release of significant amounts of radiation throughout the site. Thus officials and staff at other operations at the Idaho Site recognized that there were formidable problems with reprocessing there and with commercial reprocessing based on the ICPP model. But they did not know about successful reprocessing at the SRP. (After transfer to AEC headquarters in early 1972, I learned that virtually no one there - including AEC attorneys that helped formulate policies - had any understanding of the differences between successful reprocessing technology and the flawed concepts that led to failures, proliferation and other problems.) Scientists and engineers of Argonne National Laboratory at the Idaho Site began development of pyrometallurgical processes that they believed would be better than aqueous processes that are used for reprocessing at the ICPP and worldwide.

Experiments conducted in laboratory-type, manipulator-maintenance hot cells showed that the pyrometallurgical processes (similar to those used for recovery of iron from ore) were much more difficult than aqueous processes, material losses were unacceptably high, and material measurement to assure good accountability for safeguards was virtually impossible.

The experimental programs of ANL were cancelled and used fuels and nuclear materials from the failed program were transferred to the ICPP and the SRP for reprocessing and recovery.

President Richard M. Nixon declared a national commitment to full and efficient use of nuclear materials for energy as a major initiative for energy independence when the US lost the ability during the early 1970s to produce enough oil to meet US demands.

I told AEC officials in late 1972 that proposed commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing plants of General Electric Company (GE) and Allied-General Nuclear Services (AGNS) would not be successful and was asked to chair a task force to review reprocessing history for lessons learned and recommend appropriate action. The task force review focused on: ● failure of commercial reprocessing at the plant in West Valley, NY; ● likely failures of the GE plant at Morris, IL, and the AGNS plant at Barnwell, SC.; ● problems with reprocessing in other nations, most of whom used the ORNL/ICPP concept; ● the accident at the British Nuclear Fuels, Ltd., B-204 reprocessing plant at Windscale and deficiencies of the British “no-maintenance” concept; ● detonation in May 1974 of a nuclear explosive by India which used plutonium produced and processed in facilities and technology supplied by the US and Canada.
● successful reprocessing of DuPont; and ● recommendation of the Edison Electric Institute Nuclear Fuel Cycle Committee, Chaired by Duke Power Company President Bill Lee, that used fuel from nuclear power plants be shipped to the SRP for reprocessing by DuPont. (This was the initial plan of the USAEC.)

Major recommendation of the task force was to focus on improvements to successful reprocessing technology, including an assignment to DuPont for lead role for development and design integration.
An AEC General Managers fuel cycle task force endorsed our recommendation and the AEC reassigned responsibilities for nuclear fuel reprocessing and recycle to the AEC Division of Production, an organization that had provided direction for successful reprocessing programs and understood the differences between successful and unsuccessful reprocessing. (Directors of the AEC Division of Production and Managers of the AEC Savannah River Office were former Corps of Engineers officers who understood reasons for success of the Manhattan Project and SRP programs. Responsibilities for commercial fuel reprocessing support had been assigned to the AEC Division of Reactor Development, whose officials and staff did not understand reprocessing.)

I was assigned lead responsibility for the AEC program to support commercial fuel reprocessing and prepared the letter to the Manager of AEC’s Savannah River Office requesting that he ask DuPont to manage this program. The AEC General Manager visited DuPont offices to confirm the assignment.

During this same time period, the AEC started programs to provide full and accurate information to Americans about the importance of nuclear energy, science and technology, and to correct misinformation.

The AEC also started studies of Regional Fuel Cycle Centers (multinational fuel reprocessing and recycle centers) that would provide increased assurances that nations used the nuclear technology and materials for nuclear power and not nuclear weapons. I participated in these studies and proposed that best technology - that of DuPont - be used,. These studies culminated in a proposal by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to the International Atomic Energy Agency that Regional Fuel Cycle Centers be considered for support of nuclear power.

I participated as a lead consultant in IAEA studies of Regional Fuel Cycle Centres, which concluded with strong support for the concept.

Unfortunately, programs of the AEC were transferred to the Energy Research and Development Administration in January 1975. One of the first actions of ERDA, carried out at the direction of the Office of General Counsel, was to cancel programs to provide full and accurate information to Americans about nuclear technology.

Leaders of nuclear programs in ERDA did not understand the complexities and demands of safe, successful fuel reprocessing and recycle, set aside those who did, and transferred program responsibilities back to the Office of Nuclear Energy, successor to the AEC Division of Reactor Development.

Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter carried out major policy reviews of reprocessing with no input from persons who understood the technology and what had happened that led to failure, proliferation and other problems. The indefinite deferral of efficient use of nuclear energy resources and responsible disposal of nuclear wastes resulting from these reviews were major factors in the moratorium on new nuclear power plants that started in 1974.

The Ford White House abandoned support for Multinational (Regional) Nuclear Fuel Recycle Centers at about the same time that the International Atomic Energy Agency endorsed the concept.

In 1978, DuPont completed Design Integration Studies and prepared conceptual designs and cost estimates for a Spent LWR Fuel Recycle Complex that would have resolved concerns and permitted reprocessing at less that one-third present costs. There would have been no access to or accumulation of separated plutonium. This complex would have been excellent for a regional fuel cycle center, or for nations with large nuclear power programs.

Leaders of the DOE set aside information from DuPont about reprocessing plant designs that would have avoided problems and supported use and development of laboratory concepts that had no potential for success. No information about the success-based concepts were provided to Presidents Carter or Reagan.

The DOE carried out research and development at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for use of Argonne National Laboratory research-type maintenance systems for conventional solvent extraction processes and supported use of the Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant for demonstration reprocessing - despite the facts that its technology was flawed and there was potential for an accident with release of radioactivity much worse than that at Chernobyl. Fortunately, President Reagan rejected the proposal.

Design studies by Bechtel indicated that the ORNL concept for laboratory type maintenance for conventional reprocessing technology would be much more expensive than that for successful reprocessing, and government funding was discontinued. However, the program was continued as collaborative development with Japan, and some provisions of the concept were apparently incorporated in the very expensive, French-designed reprocessing plant at Rokkasho Mura.

The DOE cancelled collaborative development with Japan and shut down the Fast Flux Test Facility at Hanford in order to support a demonstration by Argonne National Laboratory of another pyrometallurgical concept - electrorefining - for reprocessing of used nuclear fuel. The electrorefining process had been developed by Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory for recovery of very pure plutonium from scrap generated during fabrication of plutonium weapons parts.

In 1991 I was assigned by DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy to evaluate this process for a planned demonstration, and identified major concerns about operability, maintainability, safeguardability, and containment of radioactivity - major problems with commercial reprocessing. Of greatest concern were great difficulties for material balance measurements and high plutonium losses. These findings led to a conclusion that the safeguards challenge would be difficult and the process as planned would be neither proliferation-resistant nor viable for commercial nuclear fuel recycle. Concerns about the planned demonstration were reviewed with DOE and DOE laboratory management and technical staff, ANL/DOE Peer Review Groups and many others, and there was no significant disagreement with my findings.

The DOE Strategic Plan for a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) states “For the past 30 years the United States has conducted research to develop advanced methods of reprocessing spent commercial nuclear fuel that might make reprocessing easier to safeguard and more proliferation-resistant.” This statement is misleading and could lead to further misdirection and wasteful expenditures.

Several U.S. nuclear power plant operators are supporting reprocessing with French technology that incorporates experience but lacks important features of DuPont technology.

A BETTER APPROACH TO RESOLVE AMERICA’S ENERGY CHALLENGES

A better approach to resolve America’s long neglected energy challenges should include:

SOME FINAL THOUGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ENERGY IMPERATIVES

You, with support from The Congress, and the nuclear power industry should ask DuPont to manage programs for reprocessing and recycle of nuclear materials in used nuclear fuel and disposal of nuclear wastes. Funds for this should be provided by the nuclear waste fund, as appropriate. Leaders of State Governments should be asked to appoint technical/political committees to review DuPont concepts and studies for waste disposal, as Governor John West of South Carolina did for DuPont studies for disposal in bedrock.

Mr. President, the transition from a failure-based to a success-based approach for resolution of America’s long-neglected energy issues will be very difficult. I would be pleased to meet and work with you and other leaders of America to help further refine and implement this better approach that is needed. A copy of my biographical sketch is enclosed.

Best wishes!

Sincerely

Clinton Bastin

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH FOR CLINTON BASTIN FROM 2007 EDITION OF WHO’S WHO IN AMERICA, AS MODIFIED FOR 2008 EDITION

BASTIN, CLINTON, retired chemical engineer, retired federal executive for national nuclear programs and initiatives, life mission to resolve US energy challenges; b. Lancaster, Ky., June 4, 1927; s. Clinton Bowen and Adelaide Klingman Bastin; m. Barbara Spencer Bastin; children: Clinton Bowen III, Nancy Bastin Perry, Anna Bastin McKee, Herbert Spencer. B of Chem. Engring., Ga. Inst. of Tech., 1950; reprocessing and nuclear waste summer seminar for chem. engring. faculty, Amer. Inst. Engring. Edu., Hanford, WA, 1958. Fire protection engr. Southeastern Underwriters Assn., Atlanta, 1950––55; USAEC mgr. heavy water prodn. and distb (first US Atoms for Peace), quality assurance for tritium wpns. components, plutonium-238 prodn and proc.(nuclear power for space), used nuc power fuel disp., Sav Riv Plant, Aiken, SC, 1955––62; mgr. nuc. fuel reprocessing, nuclear waste, related programs and tritium prodn, proc and use in weapons, mem. AEC steering com. gas centrifuge devel., SRP, 1962––72, leader to resolve fuel reprocessing problems Washington, 1972––74; chief light water fuel reprocessing br. US ERDA, Washington, 1975––76, lead tech. cons. Internat. Atomic Energy Agency study of regional fuel reprocessing, 1976; tech. leader, US nonproliferation initiative with India, US NSC Task Force, US Dept. State, Washington, 1977––79; mgr. fuel reprocessing devel., USDOE, 1980—81; coord. with Japan for nuc. fuel cycle devel., 1982––93; pres. DOE hdqs. employees union Nat. Treasury Employees Union, Washington, 1983––96; cons. on nuc. proliferation threats US Nat. Security Agys., Aiken, SC and Washington, 1966—96; ret., 1997; V.P. World Coun. of Nuc. Workers, Paris, 2000––; spkr. in field; cons. in field. Author: (worldwide nuc. programs) US Nuclear Technology: Need for a New Approach, 1996, US Nuclear Technology: Need For New Vision, 1999. Pres. Kiwanis Club of Northlake Golden K, Decatur, Ga., 2004––. Chemistry Instructor (PFC) 1945—46, Marine Corps Institute, Washington, DC. Recipient “Thanks for Wonderful Partnership,” Energy Sec. Hazel O’Leary, 1997, Distinguished Career Svc. award, Recognition as US authority on Nuc. Fuel Reprocessing, 1997, letter from Ga Tech Pres. G. Wayne Clough that work on energy is important to future of America, 2004. Mem.: Am. Nuc. Soc. (chair, Ga. sect. 2005––07). Achievements include: (1) selected centrifugal contactors for demonstration which resulted in major reprocessing improvement, 1966, (2) AEC accepted recom. for reproc. based on success instead of failure, 1974, which would have resolved concerns, 1978); (3) Chmn of India AEC accepted recom. that prov. basis for continued nuclear cooperation with US, 1978; (4) Ministry for Atomic Energy of Russia and Russian Nuclear Workers Union adopted ideas for partnerships for improved safety of nuclear facilities and safeguards of nuclear materials (1997); (5), provided info. on (3) to Pres. Bill Clinton and India’s Ambassador to US that he sent to his govt that provided a basis for nuclear cooperation between India and US (1998); Avocations: walking, gardening, writing, teaching nuclear energy at Emory Univ. Lifelong Learning Center. Home: 987 Viscount Ct Avondale Estates GA 30002 Office Phone: 404-297-2005. Personal E-mail: clintonbastin@bellsouth.net.

By Clinton Bastin

March 13, 2007 9:15 PM | Link to this

Following letter to President Bush explains what should be done to address energy challenges, including our addiction to oil:

Dear Mr. President:

I was pleased to receive your letter and learn of your strong belief that America must address long-neglected energy issues. But there are major problems. The Department of Energy: ● Has spent most of a trillion dollars since it was created in 1977 to address energy issues resulting from America’s diminishing supplies of domestic oil and natural gas ● Has provided little of value and is unlikely to provide future value ● Does not provide full and accurate information to Americans about energy and nuclear technoloy and supports misinformation to obtain funding for programs that are not needed ● Does not learn from its own and other’s successes, failures and other problems ● Does not integrate research and development through design studies and experience to assure focus on needed improvement ● Cancels important programs and rejects proposals based on best technology to obtain funds for development of concepts that are often ill-conceived ● Dismissed competent corporations that managed safe and successful programs and relies on government laboratories to manage complex technology ● Interacts with its national laboratories in a manner similar to that of the former Soviet Union ● Rejects important input based on experience ● Supported an activity with potential for an accident much worse than that at Chernobyl ● Lost capability to produce tritium needed for nuclear deterrence, plutonium-238 needed to explore space, and isotopes needed for medicine, industry, agriculture and research ● Has no plan for responsible disposal of nuclear waste from nuclear power plants ● Has no incentives for success and incurs no penalty for failure or misinformation ● Works for its own and often against America’s interests.

The adverse impact of government management of complex technology greatly exceeds its wasteful expenditures.

Resolving America’s energy issues and ending the adverse impact from government management of complex technology will require implementation of a better, success-based approach based on full understanding of energy fundamentals and lessons learned from experiences.

This letter will provide information about energy fundamentals, an overview of the path of the DOE and its predecessors from success to failure and other problems, ideas for a better approach and other recommendations to resolve America’s long-neglected energy issues. ENERGY FUNDAMENTALS

● Nuclear energy is the ultimate source of all energy. Radiation from decay of nuclear materials in the earth is the energy that keeps earth warm.
● Radiation from nuclear fusion reactions at the sun provides energy during the day that partially offsets energy lost from the earth’s surface at night. This energy also purifies and distributes our water and energizes our atmosphere. Energy from within the earth combined with that from the sun makes life here possible. ● Radiation is energy. Like other forms of energy, high levels of radiation burn and can be dangerous; low levels warm and are beneficial. High levels of radiation are very effective for destroying cancer. False information about dangers of low levels of radiation is used to justify government funding for work that is not needed. The threshold for danger from radiation is about twenty-five REM (0.25 Sievert); maximum allowable exposures to workers per year is set at one-fifth this amount. A large amount of data indicate a net threshold of beneficial health effects from radiation much larger than the threshold for danger. From personal experience with 65 sieverts of radiation to my face and throat used to destroy a very aggressive cancer, the burn to skin from several sieverts of radiation is comparable to that from about an hour in the summer sun. ● The 1979 National Research Council report on energy points out that “the geothermal res