Latest Comments
|
| Nuclear Power: America’s Energy Salvation |
 |
 |
 |
| Commentary/Politics - Guest Commentaries | |||
| Wednesday, 27 August 2008 02:07 | |||
|
The topic of energy has been overrun with so many false premises and so much junk "science" as to make any intelligent discussion nearly impossible - and nowhere is the effect of this onslaught more apparent than in the field of nuclear power. A complete listing of all the objections voiced against nuclear energy over the decades would fill this page; their refutations can - and have - filled books. The critical points, however, can be summarized as follows: risk of explosion and/or core meltdown; radioactive waste disposal; and economic infeasibility.
(1) Risk of explosion and/or core meltdown. The U-235 used in nuclear power plants is only enriched to a factor of 3.5 percent, while weapons-grade U-235 requires an enrichment rate of over 90 percent. A nuclear power plant's atomic core, therefore, has about as much chance of exploding as does your typical steak dinner. (The explosion at Chernobyl in 1986 was a steam explosion, the results of which could never have happened in the West: The Soviets did not bother with the "luxury" of containment buildings.) While the threat of core meltdown is physically possible, the reactor vessel - typically a nine-inch-thick steel encasement weighing 450 tons, with three completely independent Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) piped into it - would contain all but the most runaway of core meltdowns. And, in such an event, there remains the existence of the containment building itself (made out of four-foot-thick reinforced concrete and designed to withstand the impact of a jet airliner at landing speeds). Such potential meltdowns, should they ever occur, are processes that take hours to complete, even assuming a complete failure of all ECCS and other defense-in-depth safety systems. The chances of 1,000 people being killed in such an accident are the same as the chances of 1,000 people being killed by a meteor strike - one in a billion per year ("Rasmussen Report," 1975). How much time is available to spend on preventive measures when an oil-refinery tank explodes? How many defenses-in-depth does a bursting dam have? Absolutely zero in both cases.
(2) Radioactive waste disposal. Due to the fact that nuclear power concentrates much more energy per unit volume than any other form of power generation, the wastes created by a nuclear power plant are a minute fraction of those created by an equivalent coal-fired plant: 60 truckloads of waste for nuclear versus 36,500 truckloads for coal (still misleading, inasmuch as nearly all of that 60 is lead shielding). Indeed, it is precisely this much higher ratio of energy gained to waste produced that makes nuclear power so attractive. Nuclear wastes, in addition, are completely contained; fully 10 percent of the byproducts of coal-fired power generation, however, are spewed into our atmosphere where, in the words of Petr Beckmann, it proceeds to "dispose of itself in our lungs" ("The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear," 1976). Sealed in fireproof, waterproof, and earthquake-proof glass and stored thousands of feet down in geologically safe locations such as salt formations, these wastes pose no hazard. Not so with coal wastes: Besides being thousands of times more massive in volume, these ashes are simply dumped into unmonitored surface landfills where their poisonous chemicals (selenium, mercury, vanadium, radium, thorium, and benzopyrene, to name a few) are free to leach their way into our groundwater.
(3) Economic Infeasibility. While it is true that a nuclear power plant requires a higher capital investment than a corresponding conventional-energy power plant (due to the costs of the defense-in-depth systems that all other plant technologies lack), it is also true that the operating costs of nuclear energy are smaller than that of coal, gas, or oil. In the decade of 1995 to 2005, for instance, the ratios were (in cents per kilowatt/hour): nuclear, 1.72; coal, 2.21; gas, 7.51; and oil, 8.09 (World Nuclear Association, 2008). Over the typical 40-year lifespan of a nuclear power plant, those lower operating costs more than make up for initial capital investments, making nuclear power the most economically feasible method of large-scale energy-production.
The facts, when examined, are quite clear: Nuclear power is the safest, cleanest, and most efficient form of energy ever invented by man, and its potential for providing safe and massive amounts of electrical power for the United States - and for ending our reliance on the whims of Arab dictators - are positively enormous. To fail to promote such a viable alternative, in the face of our energy problems, is worse than unscientific: It is rapidly bordering upon the suicidal.
Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a freelance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming. Trackback(0)
Comments (8)
  written by schqc, August 27, 2008
Its number 2 though that's a problem, and a lie.
1. There is NO such thing yet found that's a "geologically stable" site. On top of which, most radioactive waste currently is stored on site which means at many geologically unstable sites that happen to be close by. Because in order to get the waste TO a "geologically stable" site you have to transport it on quite unstable vehicles where it is open to terrorist attack and human error. Which isn't too bad, except that one mistake and there goes the region's cancer rates through the roof, and nobody can move back in for 10,000 years. Which is the other problem with #2. Simply put, we have NO IDEA how long radioactive waste will stay dangerous. It will remain amazingly dangerous for over the period that humans have currently been civilized. No product, no container has shown or come close to showing that it will last that long. Number 2 is a huge problem not to be glossed over in a few words.
written by BMused, August 28, 2008
A few nits: the spent nuclear fuel to be deposited in the proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain will not be sealed in glass, but in corrosion resistant metal canisters. The Department of Energy scientists and engineers foresee that many of those containers will remain intact, but some will be breached over time (when the radioactivity levels of the waste will have diminished. The test to be applied is whether any radionuclides are released and find their way to groundwater to be consumed by a resident 16 km from the repository that exceeds a specified dose in millirems per year.
Economics of new nuclear reactor construction and operation are being carefully considered, but remember that these plants will probably operate for 60 years or more. Care to speculate on the costs of any other fuel that far in the future? Also, while the capital costs that Harrington points out will be high, so too will a new coal-fired plant. (Many proposed coal plants have been cancelled as some legislatures and governors don't want to add to the carbon emissions problem. I am an engineer who supports nuclear, but I shake my head when I hear arguments for nuclear in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Huh? Nuclear is used for electricity generation. Oil is used to generate less than 2 percent of our electricity. Now, if you buy into a future with extensive use of "plug-in" electric vehicles with nuclear expansion to supply the electricity, then there would be a reduction in imported oil to make the gasoline. There are a lot of "if's" in that scenario. Thanks for contributing to the debate. There are a lot of myths about energy and nuclear being tossed about as we face yet another "energy crisis" and politicians vow "we will" do things they know little about. Semper Fi
written by DR. EDWARD SIEGEL, August 28, 2008
THE WRITER SHOULD EXPERIENCE THE NUC"EL"AR-INDUSTRY'S ETHICAL/MORAL ROT/DECAY BEFORE POLITICALLY THEORIZING!!!
GENERIC ENDEMIC PURPOSEFUL FRAUDE IN (SO MISCALLED) "SUPER ALLOYS DOMS NUC"CL"AR-POWER FOREVER!!! (REFERENCES: ANA MAYO, "IF LEAKS COULD KILL", THE (NYC) VIALLAGE VOICE, PAGE 40, (8/21/78); GOOGLE < "EDWARD SIEGEL" SUPERALLOYS >; E. SIEGEL, JNL. OF MAGNETISM & MAGNETIC MATERIALS, 7, 312 (1978); LAWRENCE PRINGLE, "NUC'EL'AR-POWER: FROM PHYSICS TO POLITICS", MACMILLAN (1979) DR. EDWARD SIEGEL NUC"EL"AR-METALLURGIST/ PHYSICIST GRADUATE OF: WESTIN"KL"OUSE, PSE&G, I.A.E.A., A.B.B./COMBUSTION-ENGINERING PhD.-M.S.U.(1970); M.S.-U. OF MICHIGAN(1969); B.S.-C.C.N.Y.(1965)
written by Brad Vidmar, August 29, 2008
Watch that HBO documentary on the Chernobyl babies and tell me nuclear is still a good idea.
It's like that scene in "Kingpin" where Woody Allen trys explaining to Randy Quaid that cigarettes are safe because the American Tobacco industry says so and asks: "Why would they lie? If you're dead, you can't smoke?" How else would they make their money? Or something like that. Besides that, I have a few other problems with this guy's theory: 1) He's quoting scientific sources from the 1970's. Maybe these sources are still valid, but a lot has happened between "then and now." 2) That bit about "the containment building itself (made out of four-foot-thick reinforced concrete and designed to withstand the impact of a jet airliner at landing speeds)"...What happens if the jet is flying "full-speed-ahead"? Like on 9/11? 3) What does this guy know about nuclear power plants? At what point in between serving in the Marines and becoming a freelance writer and living in Wyoming did he become an expert on nuclear power and other energy sources? Maybe he knows what he's talking about, but... 4) I have no problem with him stating that nuclear power may be the most "efficient" energy source available or that it's a lot safer than coal(which I think is crazy we're still using), but don't sit there and say "it's the safest or cleanest", 'cause you know it's not. Talk Radio never ceases to amaze me. You give some asshole with back-alley, behind-the-scenes ties to government and industry a platform to bitch, lie, speculate, exaggerate, and argue in favor of "pre-paid positions" and propaganda, and next thing you know, you get idiots who can't handle confrontation and partisan-politics arguing in favor of something that might kill them in the long run. But hey, no one likes being on the losing team. Screw them liberal elite hippies. Who are they to tell me I can't sleep underneath powerlines? This is America, god-damnit! If the rich folks that really run this country were so indifferent towards our suffering and death, who else would they whore-out their products and services to? Go Gators! :o
written by Brad Vidmar, August 29, 2008
P.S. I meant to say "Woody Harrelson" in my previous comment. I regret this error.
 written by steven montross, September 01, 2008
Wow, nuclear power really brought out the comments.
written by Justin A. H., September 03, 2008
No matter how many safety backups are created with Nuclear power the end result remains- the left over waste is toxic for an incredible amount of time. We would be creating a large problem for future generations to deal with, which although would follow suit with the Bush administration philosophy, it wouldn't be the best route we could take. Wind, solar, geo thermal and other untapped energy sources. What is the republican party's problem with this route? They are safe and green friendly energy sources. The world is already headed in this direction and it deals with the global warming problem as well. Why not get ahead of the curve and become a world provider of these resources?
Write comment
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Tags
Fifty years ago nuclear power opponents had some legitimate concerns. But that was fifty years ago. Progress of nuclear power engineering and the present urgency of demands and growth make new plans imperative.