The August 1945 atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki both ended World War II and precipitated the United States' 65-year-long addiction to nuclear power. In the light of the catastrophe at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi facility, it's time to reconsider America's lethal habit and our cult of atomic energy.
The first U.S. nuclear reactor surreptitiously powered up on December 2, 1942, as part of the Manhattan Project that tested the first Atomic bomb July 16,1945. On that momentous occasion, J. Robert Oppenheimer, the project scientific director, famously mused, I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
After the end of World War II, the U.S. scrambled to justify its awesome destroyer and, in 1953, launched "Atoms for Peace." Our first commercial nuclear generator became operational in December 2, 1957. America is now the world's largest producer of nuclear power; our 104 reactors provide slightly more than 19 percent of our electricity.
Notwithstanding our extensive deployment of nuclear reactors, and the billions of dollars expended, the U.S. atomic energy program has been cloaked in lies and disinformation since its inception. In addition to standard complaints about behemoth federal programs -- wildly unreasonable expectations followed by repeated missed deadlines and enormous cost overruns -- the U.S. nuclear power industry has been dogged by three persistent problems, issues that also surfaced at the troubled Fukushima Daiichi site.
First, government officials responsible for atomic energy seem incapable of candor. We saw this at Fukushima Daiichi where the Japanese government has consistently understated the gravity of the situation. (On March 16th, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chair Gregory Jaczko told Congress that the situation at Fukushima was worse than the Japanese government had admitted.) This contributed to the low level of panic that infected the U.S. West Coast, where many Americans did not believe what the government was telling them.
The second problem is that Nuclear Engineers consistently make gross errors that jeopardize site safety and the lives of the unfortunates in surrounding communities. At the Fukushima Daiichi site there were at least three such errors. First, the site was not designed to survive worst-case conditions, a massive earthquake followed by a tsunami that knocked out power to the cooling systems. Second, Fukushima Daiichi clustered reactors in clumps with four in one contiguous group and two side-by-side a quarter of a mile away. Third, in addition to housing six reactors, the Fukushima Daiichi site is a repository for forty years of spent fuel rods, an estimated 1914 tons including active fuel.
The third problem is that, despite having had 65 years to consider the problem, Nuclear Engineers have yet to come up with a common-sense solution for spent fuel. (The spent nuclear fuel, no longer capable of sustaining a nuclear reaction, remains dangerously lethal for thousands of years and no reasonable person wants it stored in their neighborhood.) This had led to the great Yucca Mountain storage debate in the US and similar sagas throughout the world. At Fukushima Daiichi they "solved" the problem by keeping the spent fuel on site.
The U.S. has accepted these problems because we've been indoctrinated by a cult that's facilitated our atomic energy addiction. America's nuclear cult is ruled by what Admiral Hyman Rickover once called "the nuclear priesthood."
A cult is a group that engages in "coercive persuasion" and for 65 years that's been true of the U.S. atomic energy establishment. Our nuclear cult has six defining characteristics: First, people are placed in a "physically or emotionally distressing situation;" citizens are warned that if we don't build nuclear power plants we will run out of electricity. Second, legitimate concerns are dissuaded by "one simple explanation;" we're assured that our nuclear priests are smarter than the rest of us and their "science" will solve all problems. Third, converts typically fall under the spell of a "charismatic leader;" for four decades, Edward Teller mesmerized Washington with his exaggerated atomic energy claims, "nuclear power will be too cheap to meter." (Teller was the model for Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove.) Fourth, adherents savor a new powerful identity; the U.S. prides itself as being part of an exclusive nuclear "club." Finally, cult members are isolated and "their access to information is severely controlled." This, of course, is what has happened in Japan, where dissenting opinions were stifled and in many cases vital information was withheld; for example, what has happened to the fuel at Fukushima Daiichi reactor four.
As is the case with most cults, America's nuclear priesthood has insisted upon special privileges. Thus, builders of American nuclear plants are granted legal immunity from lawsuits in the event of catastrophic events. And even when new information arises that would question facility safety, nuclear plant operators are give a free pass, told they do not have to submit to new tests or rules. (For example, they've ignored the new fault by California's Diablo Canyon Nuclear Reactor.)
For 65 years the U.S. has been the victim of coercive persuasion administered by our nuclear priesthood. In light of the horrific Fukushima Daiichi events, it's time for Americans to be deprogrammed. It's time for us to kick our atomic-energy addiction and close all of our nuclear plants.
www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
Also, the fact the every single living person in the US lives 50 miles from a nuclear plant and have for the last 30 years.
I just found all that surprising.
I usually go all the way with you on your blogs. This time I went all the way...until the end.
"It's time for us to kick our atomic-energy addiction and close all of our nuclear plants."
You forgot or ignored a couple of uber-energy problems.
World oil/coal output is beginning to decline, natural gas not far behind. Other than hydro which is maxed out, we have installed to date no more than 2% of our energy needs from sustainable, renewable sources. Fossil fuel energy output will decline by at least that 2% rate, ad infinitum. To keep up with renewable energy means installing what we've done to date each year from here on out. And you want to take 20% of our current electrical energy off line now, flushing our whole civilization and creating untold misery and hardship?
If you do this, what's to become of over 50 years worth of grotesque nuclear wastes. Will our progeny protect the human race from them for 100,000 years or so? Fat chance! Getting out of this catastrophy pickle means doubling down on nuclear power generation using first pebble bed reactors, then moving into liquid fluoride thorium reactors. Both of these technologies can burn up previous nuclear wastes, must be actively fed to maintain the reaction, so that in disaster they cool down rather than heat up, unlike the disgusting light water reactors in use now. Thorium reactors create 2-300 year half life manageable wastes.
I think we'd actually do fine with safe and well sited nuclear in the current 20% range for baseload generation, conservation and efficiency (to bring down demand by some 40% … it's not that hard, it actually saves money and creates jobs), a modern grid with 7% storage (that doesn't just make lots of money for energy companies from congestion and waste), lots of renewables (solar, wind, and geothermal), and a little bit of hydro, NG, and coal (just to help run the show). Do you really think energy programs that save money, create jobs, cut down on environmental pollution and risk, and free us from foreign sources of energy will have the direct additional consequence of "flushing our whole civilization and creating untold misery and hardship"? In that case, I'm doubling down on my bet that Fukushima will be a game changer, it's not going to end our love affair with nuclear, but it will end our absurd outlook on low cost energy that comes at any cost to the environment, economy, and human health.
I agree with most everything you say here with a couple of exceptions and additions.
"...we'd actually do fine with safe ,,, nuclear in the current 20% range for baseload generationÂ, conservatiÂon and efficiency (to bring down demand by some 40%..."
None of our current on-line nuclear tech is "safe" in that any plant could get out of hand with the right circumstances, and they are constantly creating ever more highest level radioactive wastes that we have no way to deal with. We have the techology to build nuclear plants that shut down relatively safely on their own dime in disaster and burn up most of the waste accumulated by the first 50 years of nuclear energy. By doubing down I mean get that old tech off line as soon as it can be replaced with the right stuff and reward the utilities for doing so by letting them bring on-line new right stuff, 2 good plants for each removal of a bad plant.
While I believe that we absolutly must smarten up the grid and install as much energy production with renewables on site where the energy is used as possible, increase efficiency, and remove as much coal from the energy equation as possible, this won't be nearly enough to sustain a modern industrial economy. That's what the proponents of all sustainable energy just don't get, the incredible scope of the problem. Thus the need for doubling down, to avoid the "flushing."
Those short sighted people who want to buy coal, nuclear, or natural gas generated electricity allow them!
As people wise up and decide to pay more for their greener energy we can start to close down the coal, nuclear, natural gas generating plants!
You cannot site enough low-density (solar, wind) production near point
of use and you can't afford the transmission line or its losses from
New York City to Arizona. You're going to have a hell of a job getting
natgas pipelines run to distributed plants through all those NIMBY
suburban neighborhoods. You have to get a high energy density
source near the load. That's coal (boo) or oil (hiss) or nuke (gasp).
The only way out is fusion where you can choke the feed and stop
the process on the spot. Too bad about the teeny weeny problem
of it not actually working anytime soon. And you'll still have all the
activated material from the vessel, whatever it ends up being.
That, or people could go to living with less. Good luck selling that
one (because then nobody sells nothing and the pyramid scheme
collapses).
Apparently you have stepped in some stick crap. We have spare capacity of 236,000 megawatts of electricity. We waste better than 60 percent of all of the electricity we produce. Negawatts of electricity is the cheapest source of new electricity through energy conservation and energy efficiency. The former having no cost and the latter at a pittance to the cost of nuclear. Improving our efficiency and using basic conservation could cut this waste in half or more. Thus, eliminating another 300,000 - 400,000 megawatts in place capacity. I hope this answers all of your concerns.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for conservation and producing green energy "when it works", but these aren't the final answers. Personally I think we need to develop a broad portfolio of power generation, which would include things like coal, gas, hydro, wind, nuclear, and conservation, that will keep us going while we take the next step in power generation. Right now the technology is just not there to do it all on conservation and windmills.
Also, basic conservation doesn't do as much as you think...it takes a drastic change in lifestyle to get the results you are listing...and that is not something most Americans are willing to do.