Sunday, March 13, 2011

An End to Nuclear Complacency?

It's amazing how swiftly public perception of nuclear power was rehabilitated in recent years. I myself gave up the fight when I noticed that Stewart Brand, a brilliant guy with impeccable environmental credentials, turned pro-nuke a few years ago (here's an update...scroll down for the print interview).

I don't doubt Brand's sincerity, though I see no comment from him this weekend. But isn't what we're seeing in Japan (authorities desperately trying to prevent meltdown by flooding reactors with seawater and evacuating hundreds of thousands) precisely the sort of scenario that made many of us protest nuclear power years ago? I thought this was fixed!

And the politics and economics behind it all are worse than you think. Check out this very interesting information from an engineering manager who's worked on nuclear facility construction (who kindly gave permission to reprint):
The operative words to listen for is when they flood the reactor with sea water. Sea water contains salt which is a death knoll for a reactor. Stainless steel and salt (chlorides) do not go together. Add sea water and that reactor unit is toast. Time to decide to rebuild or moth ball after clean up.

The interesting part about this catastrophe is the American people don't understand our own taxpayer liabilities. The clean up that will have to be performed in Japan for the nuclear power plants would in the case of America have to be borne by the American taxpayer. The American Government is the insurance company for all Nucs in America. No other underwriter would touch it.

And if that is not bad enough, the new reactors that are being designed/planned for the United States have US Governent guaranteed loans. Again the American taxpayer is on the hook for repayment of the loans should a utility with Nucs default. Again, no entity will loan for them without the Government guarantee. Plant costs plus cleanup would be astronomical if a failure should occur. It is all corporate subibsidy and none of it is figured in the electrical rates which makes nuclear power appear cheap versus other forms of generation.

If you are looking at subsidies, then you should also look at the subsidies for research through the Department of Energy and the subsidies in the nuclear fuel cycle. The costs and subsidies do not begin or end with the power generation cycle.

The ever-prudent Mitch McConnell
insists that we move ahead with nuclear power in the US because "I don't think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy." Absolutely right! The time to assess the perils and costs of nuclear power is during quiet periods, when the public's lulled into complacency!

2 comments:

Richard Stanford said...

To be fair, it has been fixed. That design dates from the early '70s, and is quite different from the modern reactors being built in, say, France.

Also, there's a risk involved in the alternatives too - just as flying on a commercial airliner is far safer than driving, but when accidents happen they receive disproportionate media coverage so people think that its a lot more dangerous.

Add in the costs of, say, strip-mining coal, and "traditional" powerplants look a lot worse than they already are. Sure, it'd be great if we were comparing nuclear to some small renewable plant that fit into the size of my hand but we're really not...

As for cleanup costs, those are blurred as well - nuclear plants are very good at centralizing everything. With even a modern coal plant, most of the environmental costs are borne by all of us, quietly, over decades. In fact, IIRC (may be outdated), the total radioactive leak from a coal plant exceeds a nuclear plant under normal operation - its just a very, very slow release into the atmosphere.

Jim Leff said...

Richard,

Thanks for posting! A few comments:


---------
Also, there's a risk involved in the alternatives too - just as flying on a commercial airliner is far safer than driving, but when accidents happen they receive disproportionate media coverage so people think that its a lot more dangerous.
---------

Your analogy would be more appropriate if the commercial airliner held a couple million passengers.

---------
To be fair, it has been fixed. That design dates from the early '70s, and is quite different from the modern reactors being built in, say, France.
---------

At least three plants over there are at risk. Do we definitely know that all three are old designs?


---------
Add in the costs of, say, strip-mining coal, and "traditional" powerplants look a lot worse than they already are.
---------
If everything goes right, then....maybe. But when stuff goes wrong, as in Japan (and 3 Mile Island, and Chernobyl), the costs (economic and societal) are absolutely ginormous. "Exceptions", yes, but those are some seriously untenable exceptions.


---------
As for cleanup costs, those are blurred as well - nuclear plants are very good at centralizing everything. With even a modern coal plant, most of the environmental costs are borne by all of us, quietly, over decades. In fact, IIRC (may be outdated), the total radioactive leak from a coal plant exceeds a nuclear plant under normal operation - its just a very, very slow release into the atmosphere.
---------

That's a straw man argument. Sane anti-nuke people aren't concerned about any minuscule trickle of radiation during "normal operation".

Blog Archive