|
||
The Misconception of Nuclear Power
On a Connecticut public radio program I listened to recently, two guests discussed their views of the growing energy problem overwhelming the US economy. Both pundits, who are political columnists for national magazines, agreed that in addition to conservation measures and an increase in renewable sources, nuclear power is a card that the US must hold in its hand in order to reduce our reliance on foreign oil and our consumption of fossil fuels. Both speakers agreed that nuclear was a good investment, as it was "clean and had almost no carbon footprint."
The contractors who build nuclear power plants, the energy companies who operate them and the banks that underwrite the bonds that fund them are hoping to take that misconception straight to the bank.
Nuclear power is viewed as problematic typically due to issues involving public health and safety. Grave concerns linger to this day about how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Since 9/11, security issues dominate much of the debate. Many who are more in tune with the realities of how nuclear power is actually produced in the US currently worry about catastrophic breaches of reactors. They also state, with real evidence on their side, that no level of exposure to ambient radiation produced every day at utility sites is healthy for humans, particularly pregnant women and young children. However, many are now willing to ignore, or at the very least table, serious action on these issues because of the false notion that nuclear power is clean.
Even opponents of nuclear power get it wrong on this issue. At a forum held at the Time Warner offices in New York, Chairman Richard Parsons hosted then Democratic candidate John Edwards in a conversation that included Edwards' opposition to expanding America's nuclear capacity. But even Edwards failed to address the question of "how dirty is the mining and processing of uranium?"
The answer is very dirty. The mining of uranium, like the excavation of any other resource that must be discovered, torn out of the ground and carted away, along with the handling of excess rubble, by heavy equipment, could not be any more polluting. The precious uranium must be taken, by truck, to facilities that themselves require enormous amounts of power in order to process and enrich the radioactive ore into the fissionable material that is used in the reactor that is operated by a utility as a "clean" source of power. The retrieval of any energy resources, whether it be oil, coal or natural gas, requires enormous amounts of energy itself. Even gasoline itself is delivered by trucks that are powered by gasoline. But, along with coal, nothing compares to the mining and processing of uranium. It is an overwhelmingly dirty process on a carbon footprint basis.
Energy companies that are investing in nuclear power by seeking the renewal of the licenses of some of America's aging reactors are counting on the current economic downturn and War-for-Oil fatigue to make the case not only for status quo nuclear capacity, but also for a major expansion of utility reactors across the country. The claim that nuclear power is clean is a lie. And not only due to the carbon-heavy mining and refinement processes, but also due to the complete and incomprehensible avoidance of what to do with the ever-increasing stockpile of its deadly radioactive waste.
In my next post on this subject, I want to share with you some of the work I have been involved with, since 1996, in closing specific reactors, utility and otherwise, and the politics involved with opposing the nuclear industry and their allies in Washington and state houses across the country. In particular, I would like to tell you about Tom's River, New Jersey, the home of Excelon's Oyster Creek reactor, one of the most compromised and dangerous nuclear facilities in the US and what Governor Jon Corzine is doing, and is not doing, to protect the health and safety of the residents of his state.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Nuclear power and "clean coal" are a waste of time. We need to move forward and invest in wind and solar power.
Sorry man but you are confusing some issues here.
Are current nuclear power plants unsafe? Probably so. They were also build 30+ years ago with technology that was even older.
Can nuclear plants be built an run safely? Yes. Every Submarine and all but one Aircraft Carrier in the United States Navy is run by nuclear reactors. They are berthed at such places as San Diego, Bremerton, King's Bay, and Norfolk Virginia. In over 50+ years there has never been an accident or discharge involving contaminated materials of any significant level.
I operated in these plants for 5 years. I wore a dosimeter every day. I know exactly how much radiation I received. You get more radiation from a day at the beach than I get in a month of working in a nuclear power plant.
The plants we would build today and the fuels we would use would make safe and productive nuclear power a possibility.
This is just BS!!!! Alec Baldwin should keep to acting and leave this to engineers and scientists.
France gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear as a result they have the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and the cheapest electricity bill in europe, actually electricity is one of their main exports. Countries that actually meet kyoto like sweden or Finland depend heavily on nuclear. The rest of the world seem to be expanding their nuclear fleet, the UK is about to construct a whole new fleet of reactors, France and Finland are building more, Canada are planning t build two in Ontario, Brazil, Japan and Argentina are planning to build more. China and India both are building more than 30 reactors.
By 2030 the world energy consumption is going to grow by 50%, renewables alone are not going to cut it especially because right now they're contribution is in the single digits compare to 20% of nuclear.
Our best bet is to increase nuclear energy and renewable so that one could provide the baseload power while the other provides the intermitted power needed. That's the only realistic way to cut CO2 emission while satisfying our energy needs.
I grew up right near Toms River. Everyone always joked about how there was something in the water there.
Alec, do you have any comments on your brother Stephen's remarks that he would leave the country if Obama were elected?
Alec,
See:
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/index.php and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
and read more about the polywell fusion reactor, and emc2fusion.org.
Your post is very short-sighted, in that is true, but these points apply only to the most primitive fission reactors that start from large, uranium-sized nucleii. Nuclear fusion is clean energy. There are neutron-free reactions that start with boron, and no long-half-life waste products are generated.
There are alternatives to the tokamak design; one the polywell, is described in the BB links above.
The level of funding for fusion technology is pathetic, given the potentially enormous payoff in terms of national security. Almost no articles or reviews of alternative energy discuss fusion. It's always "30 or 40 years away". But part of the delay is lack of funding, with resultant need for international consortia that move slowly, and also lack of funding of designs that are different from the tokamak design.
The polywell story is a fascinating one. The lack of funding for nuclear fusion research is a scandal. Certainly 50 years from now, and maybe 10 with Manhattan project-type funding, we will be running on fusion power. This will change the political landscape, diminish the importance of the Caucasus and Middle Eastern oilfields over which all of these wars are being fought, etc. etc.
We need more liberals interested in alternative energy pushing to massively increase research into nuclear fusion.
Alec Baldwin is actually pretty smart! Who knew?
Nuclear power does not leave a big carbon footprint - it leaves a radioactive footprint that can last 10,000 years. I am all for energy independence, but WInd Power, Solar Power, Natural Gas ( we have the largest reserves on the planet and we have not even scratched the surface) and clean coal technology. Energy Conservation and utilizing existing and emerging technologies make a lot more sense than building a ticking time bomb down the street. Nuclear is also the most expensive technology around and no one has yet to figure out how to deal with the waste, much less melt down!
Say no to Nukes!
Thank you, Cowboylove, you said exactly what I was getting ready to write about nuclear power. And yes, Alec Baldwin is a smart guy; I've known that for a long time.
----
In particular, I would like to tell you about Tom's River, New Jersey, the home of Excelon's Oyster Creek reactor, one of the most compromised and dangerous nuclear facilities in the US...
----
My step sister lives there. Her 12-year old son, who spent a fair amount of time in their swimming pool, died of bone cancer.
- Tom
I hope that the next piece written related to the Nuclear Power Generation will add some interesting facts related to technology being worked with now and designs on the drawing board. Some discussion of Generation 3, 4, and 5 reactors and their capabilities including safety and fuel use should be part of the discussion. The use of this type of power in Europe and South Korea should be reviewed to see what the terrorist concern are in those countries, along with used fuel concerns. This could lead into the discussion of how the fuel will be used, protected, and the life expectancy of same. What are the realities of how the fuel will be used and how previous fuel will be used in the new reactors. Simply running stories to frighten people and bringing in the carbon footprint bugaboo, will not enlighten nor assist realists as to the necessities for and the possibilites of next generation nuclear power geneation.
we need the vision of solutions, more than the fear mongering that this current administration has used against us. fear-mongering stifles creativity and innovation...so for all their "tax incentives" to inspire their wealthy friends, they do greater harm than even unfair taxation, by breathing fear into every chance of change, rather than breathing in life and hope! america needs change in leadership, as brought to our attention over the last eight futile and uninspired yrs.
obama '08
HuffPost's Pick
4. If energy cost remain high and go higher, the likelihood of the U.S. and world economies failing greatly increases. The potential for global chaos is a real possibility, and needs to be factored into any discussion. Russia taking control of pipelines, the U.S. taking control of Middle East oil, China demanding power to lift its people from poverty, and so on, are all evidence of just how important that we not allow power prices to rise. It is an emergency now, and not one that only we in the U.S. will be able to control. While we can lead, we need to not put additional stress on the global energy markets. Some dirty energy may be needed now to stave off chaos. Speed is an imperative.
Actually, you're incorrect. The technology exists now for turbine, hydroelectric, solar panels on all houses, and air compression cars.
If we did one simple thing, like legislate to have the same fuel efficiency standards as Europe, then we would not need to import any OPEC oil.
It's up to the US Government to create energy laws that move us in the right direction, and don't leave a legacy of potential health hazards and waste disposal problems later.
The problem has always been, and will continue to be, the stranglehold that corporations have on our legislature. When our politicians represent the constituents, instead of the lobbyists and their corporate clients, then we'll get a decent energy policy.
HuffPost's Pick
Alec, since you have the ear of many, please consider the following thoughts from a Dem and Environmentalist.
1. States and municipalities that provide cheap clean power to their citizens and businesses will grow. Keep the concept of competition in your equations. Local governments are going to have the greatest say in their choices for power. Carbon and other harmful emissions should, and will be regulated by the federal gov't, and then competition of methods will prevail at local levels. Regulation at the root of the issue will solve many of the issues you examine.
2. States and locales that don't have the wind for windmills, or open space for solar will be forced to burn or buy from elsewhere. Transmission of clean power into these regions will be required to stay clean, even though transmission too has its dirty impacts. Environmentalists need to be open to this logic, and show a willingness to compromise for the lesser of the evils, and not block the cleaner alternatives because they are not perfect. Us Dems who are also environmentalists should not stand in the way of the tough choices we are faced with.
3. Nuclear power, with its inherent dangers and "very dirty" impacts, still need to be considered even if only as a transitional source until we get the clean renewable cranking. Again, us environmentalists need to remain realists.
A 10-15 year build up power source is not a TRANSITIONAL power source.
A transitional power source must be built quickly.
And nuclear power absolutely cannot do that.
Especially when you consider that Nuclear power cannot get a thin dime of private capital financing.
Not to mention that "transition" has a foreseeable way out as well. Nuclear waste has no such out vis a vis radioactivity and waste. Factor into that the unforeseeable problems that occur and a suddenly tanking economy seems like a picnic.
Not to mention.
Nuclear power costs $6000-8000/kW, (and rising)
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=525
Baseload SolarThermal, and Baseload GeoThermal costs around $2000-4000/kW, (and falling)
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/12/13338/791#comment3
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal2
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra
http://greyfalcon.net/geothermal
And in particular, 92x92 miles of flat panel mirrors in the desert would be enough to power the entire United States, day and night.
http://greyfalcon.net/92x92
http://greyfalcon.net/ausra2
Lets be "realists" now, huh?
Can't get much more real than raw economics.
Nuclear power just doesn't make sense in open competitive markets.
Great comment GreyFlen :)
Solar energy is available 24/7 for another 35 Billion years (give or take a billion). Yes people it is available on a cloudy day, unless of course you believe the sun only shines on you.
Regardless of the rock and hard place we've put ourselves into with our energy policies past and present, nuclear power is too dangerous and trumps everything you've mentioned; on the contrary, the disaster that strikes is irreversible. We have too long been slaves to "the economy" as it relates to our social policy and what "we can't afford to do". Becoming slaves to nuclear energy is no solution.
Mr. Baldwin:
I'm looking forward to your next post on the topic, since I have a vested interest: not only do I live part-time and work within a ten-mile radius of the Oyster Creek Generating Station -- as a working media professional, it's part of my job to keep tabs on it.
In the interest of accuracy, if not nitpicking: the Township of Toms River contains no apostrophe ... and the plant itself is located five municipalities to the south, in Lacey Township.
Those who think that atomic reaction is the way go, must understand that the Sun is the nucleus of the solar system! And since it has the capacity to sustain all life within its system, it certainly can sustain our needs. We just haven't figured out the right equation to reach total viability, not the mention the inertia of myopic self-interest to continue the status quo.
Once and for all, we must know that there is no devil, but the EGO that makes trophies of Man! Defeat the ego, and all heaven will break loose!
RENEWABLES
1. Wind/Solar/Geo/Hydro gets a Production Tax Credit (PTC).
This PTC accounts for 87% of the federal finance support that Renewables get.
2. This PTC for Renewables was blocked year 2000, 2002, 2004, and for the first three months of 2008.
3. For 2009, the Renewable PTC was blocked 8 times so far by Republican Senators (Like John McCain)
4. The PTC generally only gets approved for 1 year at a time, sometimes 2. And has to get reapproved all over again the next year. (Usually within weeks of the last possible moment to vote on it)
_____
NUCLEAR
1. Nuclear gets a pretty beefy amount of subsidies annually. Solar and Geothermal hardly get anything by comparison.
2. PTC secured for 8 years
3. Federal Loan Program 3x larger than the entire rest of the electric power industry combined
4. A 2 billion dollar cost overrun fund for the first six plants.
5. More than half of the DOE’s energy related R&D fund (for the past decade, and the past half century)
And it's still begging for more.
6. Hasn’t payed a thin dime to deal with high level waste since 1998 due to lawsuits that Yucca Mountain isn't open yet. Even though new cost estimates have found Yucca mountain costs over 3x what they previously thought.
Here's a reference to all the links for the above.
http://greyfalcon.net/nuclear
Alec some of your articals are very interesting, I live in the UK, but like to keep abreast of what is happening in the states etc. I reed an artical you recently did for the Daily Mail weekend magazine, here in England. The copy was mostly regarding your divorce and your thoughts on the legal system.
Good Luck with the launch of your new book in September. I hope things pick up for you, Never give up on Love. I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Kind regards,
Zoe
Alec, I agree with you that nuclear power is dangerous. Just ask the people and children of Chernobyl, Russia
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
