Three Mile Island's 30th Anniversary Sees Nuclear Renaissance

MIDDLETOWN, Pa. — The nation's worst nuclear power plant accident was unfolding on Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island when an industry economist took the rostrum at a nearby business luncheon.

It did not go well.

Those in the standing-room-only crowd listened to economist Doug Biden's thoughts about cheap, reliable nuclear power, but Biden could not calm their nerves or answer their pointed questions: Should they join the tens of thousands of people fleeing south-central Pennsylvania? Should they let their children drink local milk?

Three decades later, fears of an atomic catastrophe have been largely supplanted by fears about global warming, easing nuclear energy into the same sentence as wind and solar power. Dogged by price spikes and an environmental assault on carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels are the new clean-energy pariah.

"There's a lot of support for nuclear now, and most of that support is borne out of a concern for the desire to have emissions-free energy sources," said Biden, who still advocates for power companies as the president of Electric Power Generation Association in Pennsylvania.

Policymakers in numerous states are warming to nuclear power, even in states where the facilities are banned. Nuclear reactors generate one-fifth of the nation's power. Some see nuclear as a stable, homegrown energy source in light of last year's oil price spikes. Others see it as a way to meet carbon-reduction goals.

Public interest is emerging, too: A Gallup Poll released in recent days shows 59 percent favor the use of nuclear power, the highest percentage since Gallup first asked the question in 1994.

If the U.S. nuclear industry is hitting a new high point, Saturday marks the anniversary of its low point. Thirty years ago, the partial meltdown of Three Mile Island's Unit 2 put the perils and shortcomings of nuclear power under the world's microscope.

Story continues below

No one was seriously injured in the accident, in which a small amount of radiation was released into the air above the Susquehanna River island 12 miles south of Harrisburg. Studies of area residents have not conclusively linked higher rates of cancer to radiation exposure.

Since then, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not granted one license for a nuclear power plant. The industry says it has made major safety advances, but huge obstacles remain.

It takes years to license and build a reactor. Construction costs billions of dollars. The nation has no long-term storage site for the 2,000 tons of radioactive waste being produced annually by the 104 reactors operating in 31 states.

While some environmental groups grudgingly accept nuclear power as part of the energy landscape, others continue to oppose it. Counting waste costs and government subsidies makes nuclear no more effective than a combination of efficiency measures, desert solar stations, wind power and geothermal energy, they say.

Last month, President Barack Obama called for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that would almost certainly raise the cost to operate coal- and gas-fired plants. It was another arrow in the quiver of nuclear power advocates who argue that there is no other reliable source of power that is free of greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide.

In the last two years, 26 applications for new reactors been submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which expects to issue a license no earlier than 2011. No such application was filed in the 28 years following the Three Mile Island accident.

In red states and blue states, public officials are paving the way for new reactors to call their states home. Even lawmakers in fossil fuel-rich Oklahoma, are advancing a bill that would effectively lift a moratorium on nuclear power.

"It makes sense to at least have other options out there," Oklahoma House Speaker Chris Benge said.

Republican Charlie Crist of Florida and Democrats Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Martin O'Malley of Maryland, governors who get high marks from environmental groups, all support proposals for new reactors in their states.

"By no means is (nuclear power) the sole answer to our energy problems, but I think it actually has a definitive place in the whole array of things we need to do to reach our goals of producing enough to meet demand," Rendell said.

In the past year, the Florida Public Service Commission has approved four new reactors, including two at a proposed Progress Energy Inc. plant along central Florida's Gulf Coast.

Bill Johnson, chief executive of the Raleigh, N.C.-based utility, said the proposal met two important criteria for public acceptance: It dovetailed with Crist's anti-global warming agenda and the desire for reasonably priced power.

Down the Susquehanna River from Rendell's office in the Pennsylvania Capitol, the destroyed Three Mile Island Unit 2 remains sealed.

Its core was shipped away years ago and what is left inside the containment building remains highly radioactive.

Next to it is Three Mile Island's Unit 1, now owned by Exelon Corp. and still churning out electricity. Three Mile Island would even make a fine place to build another reactor _ were it not for the memory of the 1979 accident, perhaps.

"I think politically that would be difficult," Biden said.

___

On the Net:

Gallup nuclear power poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/117025/Support-Nuclear-Energy-Inches-New-High.aspx

Comments

[research]

So here we sit.

I can't believe anyone would risk global thermonuclear war triggered by a terrorist or failed state for electricity we can get elsewhere. No other energy source has such a final downside.

We can't seem to convince the pro nuke folks that Solar and Wind can provide the energy we need, no matter what technology information we provide. Because it hasn't been done, many people believe it cannot be done. If it's such a great idea.... Oh that'll never work....

That was reasonable 10 years ago, when solar was 8 times more expensive than today, and production rates were kW per year. Now we have less than 1$ solar per peak watts, with production rates in the GW per year per 3M$ manufacturing machines and giant offshore turbines, and underwater turbines. We have 20% eff thin film cheap, and 40% low material using concentrators.

We have companies with funding already in place ramping up production volumes, wind doubling every year, solar even faster.

Rooftop Solar can generate all the power we use, Not that I am suggesting that.

Individuals installing Rooftop Solar is already a cost saver in areas where Air conditioning is peak load. Let's do as much of this as we can, as fast as we can. Rooftop solar is nearly ideal: It reduces grid load, it can be built into roofs and replace the cost of roofing materials otherwise used.

[gunnerbear]

In my opinion, it may be possible in the future to engineer bacteria to devour nuclear waste, very much as bacteria can be used to clean up oil spills http://www.scienceinindustry.co.uk/articles/innovative/18.htmll).

Even if the effort is not made to engineer such bacteria or biological entities, it is possible that such biological methods may well be discovered as a spin-off of other http://shkrobius.livejournal.com/49484.html9484.html).

After all, it took one man with vision to realise that 'stainless steel' would be brilliant as a material for cutlery even though he was working on rifle barrels at the time
http://www.advanced-stainless.com/Who-Invented-Stainless-Steel.htmm)

If of course one choses to accept that Harry Brearley was the inventor!

Of course, I accept that the creation of bacterial methods may never occur, but given the views of the anti-nuclear power brigade ie wind power will become super efficient, geo-thermal will be cheaper as technology improves etc based on 'what might occur if....' then I think it is only fair that N-power should be able to engage in credible 'what if....." scenarios based on improving technology.

[gunnerbear]

The process of building a new generation of nuclear power plants could be streamlined by simply allowing the President (or Prime Minister in the UK) to use various 'Wartime / Defence of the Realm' powers to get the building underway as strategic projects. In any case, to keep the costs down, it is highly logical to build them where there is existing nuclear technology and / or generation facilities.

Now to the issue of waste: various experiments at CERN (and other labs) have clearly shown that nuclear waste can be transmuted into other forms of less hazardous nuclear material. http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/289300).

In my opinion opponents of N-power continually make the assumption that current N-power technology will not improve compared to wind, solar and tidal methods of generating electricity.

I think this 'static technology dogma' is a dangerous fallacy that can only make the eventual move to more N-power generation even more expensive and time consuming. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/849079/files/thesis-2005-033.pdff). Given that this technology is in its infancy, the potential is enormous!

I would propose however, that N-power should be seen as a stepping stone that 'buys time' to allow for the development of other forms of stable energy generation.

[andresfusion]

YES Nuclear is the future! It always amazes the level of ignorance from anti-nuclear irrationals. WE have to build more nuclear reactors if we want a steady 24/7 supply of baseload power free from CO2 emissions. We could and should be recycling the waste like the Japanese and French do. Is it a coincidence that the most countries meeting the kyoto protocol depend heavily in nuclear like Sweden, France or Finland?
Also nuclear power is cheap! if you look at the whole life span of the reactor because operational and refueling costs are very very low.

Furthermore, there is no Uranium shortage Ur is actually more plentiful than silver and besides thorium reactor are already being built. Why not use this technology to became more energy independent and help along with renewables to curve our CO2 emissions.

[AngieMom57]

The Hanford Nuclear Waste Reservation has over 10,000 employees.

[BlackbirdHighway]

Nuclear is expensive. The industry tells the media that a new plant can sell electricity for 10 cents a kilowatt hour, but then they tell the Public Utility Commission that it will be at least 20 cents and possibly as much as 30 cents.

Solar, wind, hydro, and natural gas are all cheaper than nuclear, not even counting the cost of disposing the radioactive waste.

[ZellaBee]

NO NUKES!

[drkazmd65]

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”
George Santayana

I remember being a teen 30 years ago, and watching the reactions - first of deep concern, then of relief when the Three-Mile Island near meltdown happened. I really didn't understand exactly what was going on at the time, and Jimmy Carter's administration handled the potential disaster relatively well,...

However, there is a whole generation + of forgetfulness between now and then, and about 20 years since Chernobyl,....

Nuclear power does have potential to generate the electricity that we need in the short term,... but the risks of using it will always be high, need to be made well known to everybody in exacting terms, and a real idea for how to deal with the spent fuel waste needs to be made,..

Burying under some mountain in Nevada IS NOT a good solution to the sets of millenia's difficulties in dealing with our decisions now.

[NWBrunette]

Agreed. Nuclear power is complete idiocy. Factor in the cost of disposing of the waste and not a sane person on the planet would consider it. Solar power is the way to go. Put some government money in to R&D and it'll take off.

[isthatso]

I have never liked nuclear power plants, just to risky and you are right about the waste, it really is a huge problem. Lets go with solar!

[jordan3189]

Talk to France

[Brandon Crisler]

Nuclear power is absurd. It takes more than 20 years to build a fission reactor, and as we continually see across the country and across the world, they break down and potentially hurt people and the environment. I personally live 25 miles from a nuclear plant which has never killed a human, but dumps so many millions of gallons of hot water into the pacific that sea turtles think its a lovely place to come and get hit by boats.
We would have to open a new nuke reactor every week for the next thirty years to cut our carbon significantly--and there is not enough uranium in the world for that.
A nuclear plant, given the outrageous energy needs of mining, enrichment, and construction, only gives its first carbon-free watt of power after 17 years of operation.
Plus the elephant in the room of what to do with the waste, which despite the ramblings of highly paid industry apologists, has never and will never be adequately solved short of shooting it into the blackness of space (with carbon-intense jet propulsion).

But at least we're not as dumb as the Russians, who plan to mine the moon for Helium-3 with which to run fusion reactors (for 10 years apiece before the background radiation degrades the framework of the facility). Go

[GregoryHaralson]

Nuclear Power arteicles such as this are always interesting to read, I think now may be the time to review how we approach research and development. Enjoyed the article

[valkyrie607]

The main reason people still talk about nuclear power as a viable option is that they really want to avoid having the discussion about how we're going to have to redesign our entire society for a lower energy budget. Period. Nuclear power is the last best hope for those who think we can continue our current mode of easy motoring and profligate consumption.

It's the elephant in the room. So much easier just to say "nuclear will save us!"

[hippie chucker]

You seriously think that the solution to our problems is less consumption?

The climate solutions will come, my friend. They will come when it makes economic sense for us to do it. A successful idea that successful Americans will accept is not a Spartan switchover to tiny little hybrid type cars-but rather ones that integrate well into our lifestyles. How can a large family pile into a Prius?
The energy answer to carbon based fuels is the biggest cash prize in modern times. Don't you think that's incentive enough, without taxpayer subsidy?

The elephant in the room is that average Americans don't realize that the green movement will cost them significantly more to live their lives. That's what you should focus on, bringing costs down, rather that taxpayer subsidizing alternatives.
Here's Spain's green debacle:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

[Gasparilla]

chucker, you're making the usual false choice between cutting consumption and living a reasonable lifestyle. Obviously, not every family can use a Prius. But a lot can. And it is also possible to redesign cars and trucks, even SUVs, to get much better mileage than they do now. Japan does it. They produce cars there similar to many of the same ones we drive by the millions, Nissans, Toyotas, and those get much better mileage than the average car sold in this country. We should mandate those higher mileage standards, sooner than later.

And that will actually save people money, not "cost them significantly more". If I can drive 30 miles on a gallon of gas, instead of 20, then I've reduced what I'm paying for gas. Don't know where you went to school, but that sounds like I'm saving a lot of money.

Nor did valkyrie say anything about "taxpayer subsidies". There are many things you can do to reduce energy and save money. Buying a new airconditioner? Buy the one with the highest effeciency rating, it's a little more, but in the end you will save far more over the life of it because it uses less energy. Less energy comsumption and you pay less on your electric bill. You're just one of these people who, for whatever reason, wants to trash the idea that we can conserve and still live a decent life. It's more than possible, it's easily done.

[jsarets]

Fission reactor technology has come a long way. It would have come a longer way if we hadn't hit the breaks on research and development.

Nuclear reactors pose a vanishingly small fraction of the environmental and health risks compared to coal. The odds of a biological pandemic, massive agricultural failure, or nuclear war far exceed that of a meltdown. Many designs can tolerate a complete cooling system failure.

Modern reactors can transmute radioactive waste into short-lived isotopes that don't require long-term containment. They can actually produce more fuel than they consume, operating on their initial charge of fuel for 40 years or more.

However, nuclear power is extremely capital intensive. The high-tech marvels I've described simply come at far too high a price to be an economical means of energy production. The relatively low operating costs just aren't worth the enormous down payment to develop and build the reactors.

I believe that we should invest in our public universities to conduct cutting-edge research in the atomic sciences. We absolutely must continue to push the envelope of what is possible, to explore the outer edges of our understanding of the universe, to pursue the full potential of human civilization.

But the "learn to commercialize" model is fundamentally flawed. We shouldn't have to sell everything we develop. We should be able to financing learning for the sake of learning. We should be able to develop advanced nuclear reactors even though they aren't cost effective for energy production.

[AngieMom57]

What do you think about the Hanford Nuclear Waste Reservation in Washington state?

They had a little problem with fruit flies landing in the toxic stuff and spreading it in the lunch room a few years ago, what do you think of that?

Throat cancer, lung cancer; 10,000 workers...

[Brandon Crisler]

We're all big fans of just leaving stuff piled around in the backyard. Thats why over half of all US-produced nuclear waste lies relatively unprotected on-site at nuke plants around the country.

Well, that and Yucca Mountain is a total failure. Fault lines and aquifers are generally not intelligent things to build nuclear waste storage on top of. But they'll do it anyway "Just ten more years!" as they've been saying for decades.

[Tom95134]

I think you've hit a major issue of nuclear power being extremely capital intensive right on the head. For the investment necessary to build a nuclear power plant we could easily build multiple solar tower based generating facilities. And then there is the insurance. It is a fact that the only insurance available to the operator of a nuclear power plant comes from the government. You have to ask yourself, "Why are there no insurance companies willing to step forward and assume the risk?" It's simple, the insurance companies don't trust what they hear.

Think of it. Insurance companies and the markets are more willing to believe in credit default swaps or collateralized debt obligations, or sub-prime mortgages than they are in the long term stability of a nuclear power plant. That should tell you something about nuclear power.

[Korinthe]

Geothermal is in the same boat. Geothermal, once up and running, is extremely efficient and self-sustaining. However, the initial investment is extraordinarily high. That being said, I think it is well worth the investment for We the People to subsidize the building of geothermal plants around the country.

I also agree with the notion that the risks involved with nuclear have plummeted, and that is without a concerted investment to push R&D to its limits, as we do in other industries. Pebble bed reactors are an example of potential new avenues of much more risk-free reactors. They suspend the isotopes in balls of graphite instead of water, and the graphite dissipates the heat. It does so so efficiently, that there is zero risk of a meltdown. When something goes wrong, they literally TURN THE REACTOR OFF and walk away. It absolutely cannot get hot enough to melt down, and there is no risky liquid waste left over. Is it perfect? No, hardly. Duh. But, it would be decades further along in terms of research avenues of discovery, developmental directions taken.

Anti-nuclear sentiment is the single biggest mistake my fellow environmentalists made, IMHO. It would have been a vastly superior stepping stone between fossil fuels and renewable energy than what we got. By many orders of magnitude.

Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, nuclear fission, hopefully nuclear fusion. These should be the current backbone of our energy industry. Not fossil fuels, the worst possible choice among many.

[BroccoliObumble]

If solar and wind energy were so efficient and economical we'd already be using them more than for the 1% or so of power they generate in the U.S.

Both are more expensive than coal and less reliable than coal or nuclear.

They've both come a long way, but we'd be lucky to generate 10% of our electrical needs with them within 10 years. Even to get to that relatively small percentage would be a huge ramping up (by more than a factor of 10).

Coal, natural gas and nukes will be providing the bulk of our electricity for a long time to come.

To ignore this reality is to not take our nation's energy future seriously.

Wind and solar have a future, but they are no magic bullet.

[OkieMon]

coal is only cheap because the coal companies pass on their potentially huge costs as well as health problems of dealing with the pollution from their product to the unsuspecting public and taxpayers....

[AngieMom57]

How about a toxic bullet? As in The Hanford Nuclear Waste Reservation, 10,000 workers; need a job anyone?

[NWBrunette]

If we'd invested government money in solar in anything comparable to the massively uncountable vast sums we put in to oil over the last many decades, we'd be living off solar energy now. The only reason the old energy sources will be around for a while is simply inertia - nothing else. Its way past time to make the transition. Way, way past time.

[Brandon Crisler]

I could build a windmill in a weekend all by myself. Nuclear power plants are NEVER built in under 20 years.

And when a windmill breaks down, it doesn't poison the environment for thousands of years.

If it were more economically viable to drink arsenic than water, would that make it safe or sane?

[research]

7 nuclear power plants worth of average Wind were installed in 2007, double 2006.

S-Curve suggests the doubling can continue to saturation. In just ten years the rate of NEW wind installation could be 7000 nuclear power plants worth per year.

As I have repeatedly said, Natural gas use will continue as heat/electricity co generation at homes and business, and the centralized existing Peak load gas turbine used for backup.

I advocate Rooftop Solar first. It's cheaper then the utility wherever Air conditioning is the peak load. The Thin film solar cells are being made at less than 1$ per peak watt, at manufacturing rates of over 1 GW/year/2 million dollar machine. Concentrator systems use 1/1000 the expensive solar cell material as flat panels, and can achieve 40%+ efficiency. Mass production of the optical and steering system can easily bring the cost way down. Concentrator panels are less than a foot thick.

See my profile for complete plan and documentation.

[Tom95134]

Vested interests keep the use of solar and wind power limited. And, there is a major issue with development of solar and wind power in the area of distribution. The ideal locations for solar or wind generation is limited and often quite distant from where the power is used. Our present AC long distance power grid results in losses that are too high when moving large volumes of electricity very long distances. This is the result of reactance losses incurred when moving AC across long conductors (wires). To correct this problem the national grid will have to be supplemented by a new ultra-high voltage DC distribution system to get the power from the generation point to the regional distribution centers with minimum losses where it is changed to AC and merged into the present grid. Power companies don't like the idea of a new grid because they have very cozy exchange agreements with other power companies and a new grid would put these in jeopardy..

[BannedInBoston]

I am not a huge fan of nuclear power but it may be the best we've got. I cannot understand the industry resistance to solar and wind as well as other proven alternatives such as tidal and geothermal. But given that resistance, nuclear may be preferable to what we've got. And consider this. Three Mile Island probably would not have happened with modern computer-control systems. It bascially happened (like Chernobyl) because control engineers were asleep at the switch. Modern control systems really preclude this kind of thing from happening. (And yes, there are backup systems called "failovers" in case the primary system goes down -- and even a failover would be considered a major attention-getting event.)

Yes. The big problem with nukes is not so much the possibilty of a meltdown anymore as what do you do with the nuclear waste? That was always the primary problem and still is.

[NWBrunette]

And unless the waste issue is solved, rather than simply placed in someone else's backyard (ie, taxpayer's) then nuclear is just a goofy pipe dream. Factor in the cost of disposing of the waste stream in to the price of the product and there's not a soul on the planet who will pay for nuclear.

[Boneszy]

alot of scientists are working on ways to reuse the waste guys

[BannedInBoston]

Before making up your mind on the issue, I strongly recommend viewing the Jack Lemmon/Jane Fonda movie, "The China Syndrome," which, prophetically, was released just a short time before the Three-Mile Island event.

[BroccoliObumble]

"China" isn't based on any actual event. It's just a movie.

Jane was looking pretty hot in those days, however.

[AngieMom57]

The Hanford Nuclear Waste Reservation is based on fact, fifty year old facts..

[wingnutgator]

It was just a propaganda film with no basis in fact. Germany and France have been getting most of their electricity from nuclear for last 30 years without incident. China is building 100 new power plants, 20 of which will be nuclear. With all the new technology and safe guards, we are foolish not to use more nuclear power. Of course, I know many of you so called "greens" will not be content until we are reduced to rubbing two sticks together again.

[NWBrunette]

Cool. That means you'll be accepting the nuclear waste in to YOUR backyard. Right? Stop the pretending nonsense that there's no emissions from nuclear. Total looniness.

[Brandon Crisler]

The French Nuke reactor at Tricastin-Pierrelatte broke down late last year and spewed radiative waste into the ground. The workers had to be evacuated.