Post # 103: Iran's Version of the Facts

In the last post (#102) I provided a brief analysis of the contents of the US Fact Sheet regarding the nuclear framework agreement with Iran.

You had to know it would happen...

Harvard University translated the Iranian Fact Sheet – Iran's version of the details of the framework for the nuclear deal.  Guess what?   It conflicts with the U.S. Fact Sheet in some VERY important ways.

In the interest of not wasting my time reproducing what already exists, I'll just refer you here and here, to a couple of brief analyses of the areas in which the two "Fact Sheets" conflict with each other... (It's difficult to find an analysis in which the commentator doesn't have an axe to grind.)

Regardless of which version of the "facts" one adopts, here are some high-level observations about areas in which the two fact sheets appear to agree...

• Iran will be left with over 5000 operational centrifuges.

• Iran will be left with an intact nuclear research (including enrichment technology) infrastructure (facilities) and a research program.

• UN sanctions would be lifted (the two fact sheets disagree on when that will happen) - with no so-called "snap-back" mechanism to reinstate them if Iran doesn't comply with the terms of the agreement.

• Iran will not be required as a condition of the agreement to modify its broader behavior in the middle-east and around the world

It's clear Iran's nuclear knowledge and technology genies aren't going back into the bottle...  I believe a truly objective analysis of this agreement (even if the US version of the facts is 100% correct and it is perfectly implemented) is that it will not prevent Iran from securing a nuclear weapon.  Perhaps delay that day, but not prevent it.  And it will not result in a change in Iran's otherwise aggressive and disruptive behavior in the Middle East and around the world. (In fact, it could actually exacerbate Iran's behavior because once sanctions are lifted and the Iranian economy improves, Iran will have more resources available to pursue their broader goals.)

Sobering no matter how you cut it...

Just Thinking,

Sherrell

Post 102: Examining the Framework for the Iranian Nuclear Deal

Today's post is a little "off topic" with regard to my normal energy/society/enviroment theme - or maybe not...

The P5+1 and Iran announced today an "agreement" on a "framework" for a final deal on Iran's nuclear program.  Actually, as Secretary Kerry tweeted in a response to a World Post article this afternoon, "we have the parameters to resolve the major issues" the final deal must address. While recalling we were supposed to have the actual deal in place by now (rather than a "framework"), the US Fact Sheet on today's announcement provides a surprising (and encouraging) amount of detail on this "framework".  (I encourage you sit down with a cup of tea or coffee and carefully read the fact sheet.  Much will be said in the media about this agreement in the coming days.  The fact sheet will be one essential primer on the subject.)

I’m surprised at the specificity and the POTENTIAL effectiveness of the elements of the agreement.  Frankly, I had pretty low expectations.  Pleasantly surprised.  This said, I offer a few brief observations from my quick read of the US Fact Sheet:

• Presuming the final deal actually codifies the content of the US Fact Sheet, it’s all about VERIFICATION.  No one has been successful to date in achieving a level of inspections and verification within Iran that produces the required level of transparency.  And, of course, Iran has been caught “cheating” repeatedly on its previous “agreements”.  So I’m looking very carefully at both the details of the inspection regime/protocols and how Iran complies (or not) with them.  I’m from Tennessee, but my mind is in Missouri on this one…

• At the risk of being skeptical (paranoid?)… if Iran really is only two to three months from achieving breakout (as the US Fact Sheet asserts), and if (as Hassan Rouhani tweeted in response to the World Post article mentioned above) the actual agreement won’t be finished until June 30…  June 30 is (interestingly) almost exactly THREE MONTHS from today.  Prudent folks should wonder what Iran will be doing behind the scenes during those three months?

• Unlike US sanctions, there appears to be no “snap-back” trigger for UN sanctions on Iran.   Rather the Fact Sheet simply states “UN sanctions could be re-imposed” in the event of Iran’s “non-performance”.  The US will apparently maintain the sanctions infrastructure necessary to enable us to quickly “snap-back” (reinstitute) our sanctions.  But the Fact Sheet indicates no such effort will be made to enable a UN “snap-back” once the UN sanctions are removed. I wonder how difficult it would be for the UN (an organization not known for quick or 
  harmonious responses) to "snap back).

• I remain deeply troubled by the absence of any coupling of this nuclear agreement to cessation of Iran’s broader disruptive and destructive behavior in the Middle East.  I really worry about unspoken quid pro quos...   It's really difficult for me to see how Iran will not be emboldened by any agreement that fails to link their broader behavior in the Middle East and around the world to the lifting of sanctions resulting from the nuclear deal (as important as this deal is).

• Finally, the people who know Iran best (it’s Middle East neighbors) – and who have the most to lose from Iran’s potential nuclear breakout – have been the most critical of this nuclear deal.  I’m assuming they were not privy to the details we have just learned.  It will be telling to see the reaction of Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others over the next couple of days as they analyze and respond to the details…

Got to go read it again... much detail to ponder...

Just Thinking,

Sherrell

Post # 101: Speaking Engagement at Univ. of Tennessee Dept. of Nuclear Engineering

Last week I was pleased to speak at the University of Tennessee's Nuclear Engineering Colloquium.  The subject?  A Nuclear Safety Ethos for the 21st Century.  I had the opportunity to interact with a great group of undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, and staff.  The presentation was webcast live and video recorded.  You can check it out here if you are interested in viewing the video recording or seeing my viewcharts...

Cheers,
Sherrell

Post # 100: An Ethos of Reactor Safety (2015)

As is common at the interface between last year and this year, I've engaged in my share of review and reflection.  One subject near and dear to my heart is that of commercial nuclear power safety.

Two years ago this month I posted my personal nuclear safety manifesto.  In Post # 75, I presented a four-point "Ethos of Reactor Safety".  My motivation for doing so was/is my concern over the "graying" of the reactor safety profession, and (what I perceive as) a never-ending seduction in the industry and among regulatory authorities to place our confidence in check lists, regulatory frameworks and guidelines, complex computer codes, "generic industry responses", and our great track record (Fukushima and TMI excepted) – while paying far less attention to the culture and skill of the nuclear safety professional who exercises and navigates through this landscape.

I've had numerous conversations since the original Ethos was posted in January of 2013.  The Ethos also appeared as a postscript in my paper, "The Canary, The Ostrich, and the Black Swan: An Historical Perspective On Our Understanding of BWR Severe Accidents and Their Mitigation," which appeared in the May 2014 edition of the American Nuclear Society's journal "Nuclear Technology" (Vol 186, No. 2).

After two years of discussion and reflection, I've decided the four-point Ethos should really be a five-point Ethos.  The fifth point is actually an elevation of a statement that was embedded in one of the original four points, but, I'm convinced, warrants elevation.

So here you go.  Fresh for 2015, an updated (improved?) version of

Greene's Ethos of Nuclear Reactor Safety (2015):

This ethos is comprised of five ideals, principles, and attitudes essential to the practice of reactor safety:

1. An acute awareness of one's responsibility to society.  Abundant, reliable, and affordable electricity is the chief technical enabler of the quality of life most of us desire.  Nuclear power is the only energy technology available today with a realistic potential to supply abundant electricity to billions of people around the world living with little or no access to it.  It is also one of the few technologies which, if implemented poorly, has the potential to prevent our neighbors from ever returning to their communities and homes.  These two realities (benefits vs. risk) should provide strong motivation to those who aspire to be a nuclear safety professional;
2. A chronic sense of uneasiness.  This means having a persistent questioning attitude regarding what we know, what we know we don't know, and what we don't know we don't know;
3. A zeal for fundamental understanding.  The passion for and skills to integrate experimental data, simulation & analysis results, and operational experience to arrive at a science-based understanding of the facts;
4. A scientific and technical humility.  One who has a "healthy respect" for the limits of our (and their personal) knowledge and the wisdom to operate within these limits.  One who constantly asks themselves, "What if I'm wrong?"
5. A willingness to challenge the status quo and the Establishment.  The reactor safety professional is, in many ways, the conscience of the industry.  He or she must possess the strength of their convictions to challenge "group think", "easy solutions", and "convenient responses" when their personal knowledge, insights, and instincts compel action – and to be willing to bear the consequences of doing so.

So there you have it.  Five points I feel every nuclear safety professional should have engrained in their DNA – an interlocking set of principles, attitudes, and behaviors that will ensure commercial nuclear power and related nuclear enterprises continue to set the highest standard for industrial safety as we move into the 21st century.

Cheers and Happy New Year.

Just Thinking,

Sherrell

Post # 99: When New Technology Isn't Better

(WARNING:  This post is not gender-neutral.)

Sometimes new technology isn't better.  It just more expensive.

Evidence the humble "safety razor".  

I grew up watching my Dad shave with an old Gillette "Butterfly" safety razor. By the time I reached bearded adolescence in the late 1960's, "sophisticated" gentlemen were moving away from that century-old technology to the latest greatest method of removing facial hair – the electric shaver.  So, of course, as an aspiring suave and debonair young man in the age of the Apollo moon landings, I went with the electric shaver.  

Funny thing.  It irritated my face and didn't do a particularly good job on the whiskers either.  Never mind.  I was suave and debonair (remember?)  So I stuck with that rotary abrasive machine for twenty years.

Then, in the late 1990's Gillette introduced it's now famous "Mach-3" razor handle and tri-blade razor cartridge.  I had to have one.  (That suave and debonair thing again...).  My original Mach-3 gave up the ghost about 10 years after I purchased it.  I then purchased a fancy red one.  I still have that fancy red Mach-3, and I've shaved with it every day since I purchased it... fighting off the subsequent enticements to move to four-blade razor cartridges, five-blade razor cartridges, articulating razor heads, and (now) pivoting / gimbaled razor heads.  (I'm sure I've left out someone's favorite evolution.)  I'm convinced that if beings from another galaxy landed here and watched a series of today's razor commercials, they would be certain they were looking at micro surgical instruments for brain surgery - not something intended to remove facial hair!

I've used that fancy red Mach-3 every day – until about three weeks ago, that is.  On that fateful day, I journeyed down the razor aisle of the local Walmart with my wife.  I couldn't believe my eyes.  The aisle was filled with multi-blade razor cartridges of all colors and shapes.  But it wasn't the colors and shapes that grabbed my attention.

It was the price – $3.50 to $4.50 per cartridge.  That's right.  $4.50 for a multi-blade razor cartridge that one affixes to the end of that old Gillette Mach-3, uses for two weeks (max) and discards.  Why had I not noticed this before?  Because my lovely wife has been purchasing my blades all these years.

Then it dawned on me.  Could it be that the reason the "Mach-3" razor is called the "Mach-3" is that that's about the speed at which it liberates dollars from your billfold for those outrageously expensive razor cartridges?

I was incensed.  Enough already!  It was back to the future.  So, hopping onto Amazon, I ordered myself a modern embodiment of my Dad's safety razor – a Merkur long-handled version (about $30) and a package of 100 (that's right, 100) razor blades for another $14.00.  Total expenditure: $44.00.

And what have I learned in the past three weeks with my Merkur experiment?  

I've been a suave and debonair idiot for 45 years.  

Two weeks into the experiment with the Merkur, I've only nicked myself once (clumsy).  I can tell NO difference between the quality of the shave the "old faithful" Merkur" is giving me vs. that Mach-3 with the nonobtainium blades.  And I'm actually enjoying shaving again.  Oh... and I've just finished my second week on the blade that came with the razor.  So... if this performance is representative, at $14/100 for blades, I'll be spending 1.4 cents every two weeks for blades in the coming year.  That's less than $7 a year for blades – instead of $100/yr I've been spending.

So...some technology lessons here...

1.  When the consumer isn't price-conscious, or isn't the one making the "buy decisions", you can sell almost anything for almost any price.  Just convince them it's a cool piece of technology.

2.  After 14 shaves, I can honestly tell you, I can detect NO difference in the quality of shave between the fancy modern cartridge razor and the old-school Merkur safety razor.  Conclusion(s)? Sometimes, our ancestors got it right.  We need to admit it.  Celebrate it.  Move on.  Put our creative juices into solving some other problem.

And my final advice to you guys out there?  

• DITCH THAT FANCY MULTI-BLADE CARTRIDGE RAZOR 
• INVEST IN A FINE OLD-SCHOOL SAFETY RAZOR, AND 
• ENJOY SHAVING AGAIN!

Merry Christmas!
Sherrell

Post # 98: Kudos to Koonin (More on Climate Change)

Back in my Post # 93:  My Take On The Climate Change Debate, I shared my views that, far from what many individuals and organizations would have you believe, the debate over climate change is not settled – because the climate science isn't settled.  I offered several specific technical reasons why I feel we simply do not understand climate change as well as many in the media, in politics, and (most unfortunately) in the scientific community would have us believe.

And so I was delighted to read Dr. Steven Koonin's (former Undersecretary for Science in the Department of Energy) lengthy article in last week's Wall Street Journal, entitled, Climate Science Is Not Settled.  In that article, which was quite a bit longer than my post, Dr. Koonin echoed every major argument I presented in Post # 93 – and came to the same major conclusions.

Kudos for Koonin!

Post # 97: Three Threats More Certain, More Imminent, and More Destructive Than Global Climate Change

As I've posted before (Post # 93), I feel our global climate is indeed changing (not a new thing), but the data to support the anthropomorphic (human-driven) climate change argument is inconclusive – at least for now.  However, any good scientist or engineer will leave room and time for the Scientific Method to alter current perspectives.  I certainly do.  But that's not the subject of this posting...

I've recently run across a number of debates on the subject of "global threats to humanity".  This prompted me to consider my short-list of threats that could alter our future in ways we prefer not to think about.  I've concluded there are at least three global threats to humanity that are:

• more certain
• more imminent
• more aggressive
• more destructive

than anthropomorphic climate change.  Here are my Top Three Threats (not necessarily in priority order):

1. A Global Pandemic - we are long overdue; the world is much more highly integrated (in terms of mobility of pathogenic hosts) than in the past; and the nasty bugs/viruses are clearly evolving in a worrisome direction at an alarming rate.  A pandemic would most likely start in the undeveloped world and spread to the Developed World.

2. A Geomagnetic Storm - we are really long overdue for a high-magnitude storm, and developed societies are far more dependent on the electric grid than we were when the last great storms occurred in 1859 (the so-called "Carrington Event") and 1921. A large storm could bring down continental electric grids (and everything that depends on them) for periods of time ranging from many months to many years. This would reduce developed countries to barbaric conditions almost "at the flick of a switch".  The Developed World is much more vulnerable than the Undeveloped World to this threat.

3. Geopolitical Instability Due To Lack of Access To Electricity.  A billion of our fellow inhabitants of this globe have virtually NO access to electricity TODAY, and another billion or so have such limited access that only their most basic needs are infrequently met. The growing impact of this lack of access to abundant, reliable, and affordable electricity is a current, and growing problem of colossal humanitarian and geopolitical import.  This dynamic, along with all the associated induced phenomena, is destined to be a growing source of geopolitical instability throughout this century.  But it is first and foremost, a CURRENT humanitarian crisis.  The Undeveloped World is currently suffering from this "threat", and the Developed World seems to lack both the conviction, the wisdom, and perhaps the means to effectively attack the issue in the near-term.

Personally, I believe these three threats are more likely to significantly impact human life on Earth over the next several decades than anthropomorphic global climate change.  I believe an objective, risk-based analysis that includes appropriate treatment of uncertainties would confirm this conclusion.

My conclusion, if correct, does not imply we shouldn't be paying attention to global climate change.  It just means we should be paying more attention to these other threats.  All three threats have many intersections with science and technology.  But that's fodder for future posts...

Just Thinking,
Sherrell