President Obama’s Departure from Seattle, September 25, 2011

President Obama’s Motorcade Approaches, Seattle, Washington (image on Flickr)

President Obama visited Seattle, Washington on September 25, 2011, making a number of campaign stops, covered by here by PBS, here by The Daily Beast as “The New Obama” and here by the Seattle Times.

As our President passed by in his motorcade, I wondered at length and extravagance of campaigning, of the time spent by all parties, the Democrat President and his opponents in the Republican party. On the one hand, campaigning is a test of endurance and wills where the contender must consistently outperform opponents to prove him or herself. On the other hand, campaigning carries a heavy cost. A cost measured in campaign contributions and the expenses of campaigning. An opportunity cost as time spent campaigning is time not spent elsewhere. A cost measured in obstruction, as the party not in office sees no benefit in compromise.







President Obama Waving, Seattle, Washington, September 25, 2011 (Image on Photoshelter)

President Obama waved as he passed by, leaving Seattle, and on his way to more campaign stops in California. Campaigning, speaking the message, bringing in campaign contributions, a little over a year out from the election.

One could hardly fault President Obama for his new campaign tone. It has become increasingly clear that a group of Tea Party conservatives has frightened the broader Republican Party to the point that our American system of compromise has broken down. The resulting stasis has meant a government lurching from crisis to crisis. Obstructionism is no way to move a nation forward.

Surely there must be a better way.

Reform the campaign system.

The political process is getting in the way of governance.

There is a balance of risks involved.

Air Force One Leaving Seattle, Washington, September 25, 2011 (Image on Photoshelter)

Nuclear Balance-of-Risks

Trojan Nuclear Power Plant Cooling Tower, Rainier Oregon (before being dismantled) - image on Alamy

Nuclear reactor technology has allowed the world-wide use of nuclear reactors for energy production. With the world faced with mounting carbon dioxide levels and global warming a concern, nuclear energy provides a low carbon emission alternative to traditional energy sources (World Nuclear Association and MIT study). This aspect of nuclear energy makes it a very attractive energy alternative. With President Obama wishing to expand the United States nuclear power plant program, the question becomes an issue of balance-of-risks.

Accelerating nuclear reactor development provides a low carbon emission energy source; however there is risk associated with the use of nuclear materials. If we do not take advantage of nuclear’s low carbon footprint and instead pursue other, higher carbon footprint strategies, we risk exacerbating global warming issues. There are other options, as well, such as cleaner technologies, emerging energy technologies and reducing fertility rates to decrease population size.

We seek to understand the low probability, high impact, long-tail risks associated with the use of nuclear materials. Since the dawning of the nuclear age, mankind has worked to harness the power of the atom. There have been many benefits from the use of radionuclides. However, there are risks as well.

Risk areas to consider in looking at nuclear energy include:

• Economic, including Externalities
• Design and Construction
• Natural Disasters
• Operations and Management
• Political and Regulatory
• Terrorism, War and Sabotage
• Radioactive Waste Treatment and Storage

We have had experience with nuclear accidents that display some of that high impact, long-tail risk. Previous blog articles have discussed Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima (3/12/11, 3/25/11 and 3/28/11).

We have seen historical flooding on the Missouri River which threatened Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant and Cooper Nuclear Plant in Nebraska. Recently we have seen the large Las Conchas Wildfire threaten the Los Alamos Energy Department facility in New Mexico.

These situations, including those situations where facilities were threatened but not breached, are all reminders that radiation is a serious risk and not simply an abstract probability.