Gov. Gary Herbert, during this month's KUED news conference, said, "I don’t know all the answers to the questions, because we haven’t had the questions really in discussion and debate and we really need to. Over 30 states are already engaged in nuclear power production in some form or fashion and, if we’re serious about having affordable energy and cleaner air and cleaner energy production, nuclear power has got to be something to discuss."
Quite right, Governor, let us discuss it:
Just shy of 50 years ago, on 20 December 1951, electricity was generated for the first time by EBR-1, a US research reactor located near Arco, Idaho. Three and a half years later, the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant near Moscow, USSR, put power on the grid for the first time, The following year, 1955, saw the launch of USS Nautilus (SSN-571), the first nuclear-powered warship (also the first mobile atomic pile).
Atomic energy, as it was called then, was heralded as safe and clean, and, in the opinion of its proponents, would provide an increasing share of America's energy for the 20th Century and beyond.
So, what is the nuclear industry's share of today's energy market?
Now that we are beyond the 20th Century, we should ask, "How have we done?" According to the Energy Information Agency (EIA), a division of the US Department of Energy (DOE):
There are 104 nuclear reactors currently operating at 66 sites in 31 of the several States. They generate nearly 800 million MWh, about 10 percent of the total US energy consumption, and some 20 percent of American electricity. The oldest operating plants are past 40, the newest not yet old enough to vote.
Their combined capacity is described as equal to the electrical needs of California, Texas and New York, the three most populous states. These reactors were initially licensed with a 40 year service life, but almost two-thirds have been relicensed and will continue producing to mid-century, at least. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received applications for 26 additional reactors, each entailing perhaps three and a half years for review and approval, followed by five to seven years of construction. These new reactors might still be producing power when America celebrates the arrival of the next century.
Other countries, however, are ahead of the USA. Statistics from the World Nuclear Association make the French nuclear industry the international leader, providing almost 80 percent of that country's electrical power. In fact, their capacity is so high they actually export n-plant electricity, and some plants close down on weekends when demand lessens.
What prevents the advancement of the US nuclear industry?
In a word, fear. We would be hard-pressed to find anyone ignorant of Three Mile Island or Chernobyl, the boogie men of energy production. These were bad moments, no arguing that. However, I think the bulk of the problem people have with n-power is fear generated by liberal media hype.
The Three Mile Island (TMI) incident occurred in 1979, the same year The China Syndrome hit movie theaters – in fact, the film premiered just 12 days prior to the accident. In the film, a news crew accidentally captures footage of safety compromises at a nuclear power plant, and the operating company's cover-up. The public perception was severely skewed, as the mainstream media sided with environmentalists against the nuclear industry. The facts: Only a small amount of radioactive material was released. The public effects of the accident have been debated, but no deaths have ever been directly tied to the accident. Only one of TMIs reactors was damaged, and it was removed, the other has remained in operation for more than 30 years without incident.
Chernobyl, in what is now the Ukraine, was another matter. On 26 April 1986, there was an explosion in one the plant's reactors, ripping open the reactor building and emitting a huge radioactive cloud. Radiation was soon detected as far away as Sweden, which led to much unwanted international attention on the USSR. The nearby city of Pripyat was evacuated and a 19-mile "exclusion zone" was established. A similar zone was created in nearby Belarus. The facts: The explosion caused 2 deaths; another 28 died in the weeks of cleanup operations and the event is suspected in the deaths (during subsequent decades) of 19 who worked the site. Chernobyl's design (called an "RMBK" reactor) was developed in the 1950s. Similar designs were developed in other countries and rejected as unsafe; none were ever built outside the Soviet Union. Worse, the Soviets staffed Chernobyl with undertrained operators. There is increasing international pressure to decommission remaining RMBKs in Russia. Fortunately, safety measures were upgraded after the disaster, leading to almost 25 years of incident-free operation. The probability of another Chernobyl-like disaster is infinitesimal.
(By the way, the 25th anniversary of the disaster is coming up late this year. Wanna' bet there will be a slew of "documentaries" about Chernobyl with an anti-nuclear message that's as obvious as corruption in a Chicago election?)
The debate.
In the 2010 Australian book Why vs. Why: Nuclear Power (published this year by Australia's Pantera Press), authors Barry Brook and Ian Lowe debate nuclear power.
Brook makes 7 arguments for:
1) Renewable energy and energy efficiency won’t solve the energy and climate crises.
Renewables (hydro-power, solar, geothermal, etc.) now account for less than 8 percent of US production. The US has almost maximized its hydro-power output, and few new sites are contemplated. Solar is not yet cost-effective (though research continues), the wind energy movement really fell on its face a couple of years ago, and other sources contribute insignificant amounts.
(Oh, by the way, there is no "climate crisis.")
2) Nuclear fuel is virtually unlimited and packs a huge energy punch.
Known uranium, plutonium and thorium deposits may have enough energy to supply the world's needs for millions of years. Domestic nuclear fuel reserves could provide for the entire electricity needs of the USA — a major step toward energy independence.
3) New technology solves the "nuclear waste" problem.
Waste storage is a political, not a technical, problem and, in case you had not noticed, we know exactly where all of it is at every moment. Unlike fossil fuels, n-waste hasn't spread pollution throughout Earth's atmosphere.
4) Nuclear power is the safest energy option.
In spite of hype and rhetoric, American reactors have accumulated over 14,000 operational years with only one "newsworthy" incident.
5) Advanced nuclear power will strengthen global security.
I don't have a copy of the book, so I went to the Internet; I found nothing to suggest global security would increase if n-power generation increases.
6) Nuclear power's true costs are lower than either fossil fuels or renewables.
No two cost comparisons agree, but nuclear power costs are comparable to other sources, and would be lower without the costs of litigation and other unnecessary delays.
7) Nuclear power can lead the "clean energy" revolution.
It would be more appropriate to say, "has led." Atomic energy was the first alternative to fossil fuels for mass production of electricity. The revolution spear-headed by the Manhattan Project has now been underway for decades and, in years to come, will bring more and better clean energy options.
Lowe makes 7 arguments against:
1) It is not a fast enough response to climate change.
2) It is too expensive.
Totally spurious arguments; who defines "fast enough" or "too expensive"? These are subjective measurements, and are unfair when one must include the dollars added and years delayed by protests, lawsuits, over-regulation and so on.
3) The need for baseload electricity is exaggerated.
The EIA estimates US energy has grown about 15 percent over the last 30 years, and will increase another 15-20 percent over the next 30 years. Remember the rolling brownouts in California during the last decade? Several pundits suggested those problems resulted from millions of new cell phones, computers, faxes and other electronics coming into use in the new century without a single new power plant completed in the Golden State.
4) The problem of waste remains unresolved.
5) It will increase the risk of nuclear war.
Waste as mentioned, is a political problem, as are the risks of nuclear war. (No, it can't explode, in case you were worried.)
6) There are safety concerns.
Again, 14,000 operational years of civilian US power production with only one incident. The military has an even better record – zero nuclear incidents in over 45 years of operation and a total of over 100 nuclear-powered warships.
7) There are better alternatives.
No, there aren't; fossil fuels pollute far more than nuke power. Have you ever heard of the famous "London fogs"? Actually, it was smog, and in 1952, 4,000 died when a stagnant cloud strangled London. Burning coal in homes was outlawed and the famous fogs have all but disappeared. Other technologies, as noted, are years or decades from commercial practicality.
Conclusion:
In the small space here, we cannot comprehensively cover such a broad subject. We have not even mentioned medical and other industrial use of nuclear power. Your own open-minded research will guide your decision as to which side of this debate claims your loyalty. I've watched this industry, mostly as a curiosity, for over 40 years and I have yet to find a single argument by the anti-nuclear activists that convinces me to abandon my support of this industry.
Thanks for listening, tune in next week for another rant.
No comments:
Post a Comment