When I was a young attorney barely out of law school, I took over the case to stop the restart of the Three Mile Island Unit 1 nuclear reactor on behalf of the local community group, Three Mile Island Alert. (To refresh everyone's memory -- and for anyone not born then -- on March 28, 1979, Three Mile Island Unit 2 experienced a partial-meltdown in what is still the worst commercial nuclear accident in U.S. history.)
We challenged the competence and character of the company seeking to restart the plant -- General Public Utilities (GPU). We had a pretty good case. Company officials created the conditions that led to the accident, then withheld the information about its seriousness from the public, state and federal officials for two days. This was even though the plant was minutes from melting down, which would have spewed lethal radioactivity far and wide. After the accident, company officials lied to the government regarding its causes and covered up facts, which eventually led to the criminal conviction of the company that ran the reactor, GPU subsidiary Metropolitan Edison Co. Rather than fire anyone, GPU rewarded and promoted those who were responsible and who had lied. GPU engaged in an ongoing post-accident cover-up of the accident's seriousness. There's more, but that gives you some idea.
Unfortunately, nothing was going to stop the federal government from restarting that plant, and so it did. I'll never forget what happened at TMI, and this is why I have become horribly uncomfortable as news trickles out about the BP calamity.
There are many freaky coincidences between these two events, which ironically involve two new energy priorities for this administration: nuclear power and offshore oil drilling. Here are just a few:
Never Supposed to Happen
At TMI, the nuclear core was uncovered for approximately 2 and a half hours until a shift supervisor finally guessed that water was leaving the reactor through a stuck-open valve. Workers shut the valve, but not in time to prevent much of the radioactive core from melting and much radiation from escaping. This was a "beyond design basis" scenario, meaning it was never supposed to happen -- although extensive evidence later revealed that the company's actions caused the accident and may have even damaged the valve.
In BP's case, a valve failed to close. The company called this valve "failsafe." It therefore failed to install any safety back up that might have stopped the spill -- although there is evidence that a back up system could have and should have been installed. The result is an unprecedented environmental disaster.
Don't Worry -- It's Under Control
The morning of the TMI accident, state officials announced "Everything is under control. There is no danger to the public health and safety." The company knew this to be untrue. Eventually (two days later), pregnant women and children within a five-mile radius were evacuated but by then, most of the danger had passed.
The day after the BP's explosion, BP and Coast Guard officials said there was a small leak. No reason to be alarmed. In fact, the leak was five times bigger than first thought. They now estimate that 210,000 gallons are gushing out each day. Others think this is a significant underestimation.
Finger-Pointing
In TMI's case, GPU never accepted full responsibility for the accident. In fact, it sued TMI's designers, Babcock and Wilcox Co., for $4 billion, but dropped the case, reaching an out of court settlement, after many days of trial and the accumulation of an extensive record of new evidence showing that GPU engaged in a post-accident cover-up.
Similarly, BP is pointing the finger everywhere. As the New York Times recently wrote, BP "is emphatic about blaming the rig's owner and operator, a Swiss company called Transocean, for the accident. Two other companies -- Halliburton, which handled a critical procedure about a day before the accident, and Cameron International, which made the blowout preventer that failed to engage -- have also found themselves caught in the swirl of litigation and finger-pointing."
Liability Cap
No one disputes that the nuclear industry would not exist without the Price-Anderson Act, a government back up that caps company liability at $10 billion in the event of a serious accident, with taxpayers on the hook for the rest.
Similarly, deep water drilling would not exist without a liability cap, which is currently a paltry $75 million for offshore spills, $1 billion per incident. Legislation to raise the cap to $10 billion and remove the per incident limitation is before Congress. Passage of this is urgent, but many believe that any cap, which prevents companies like BP from being assessed the full cost of damages it inflicts, is bad public policy.
After TMI, the nuclear industry was quick to say that the accident had a sobering effect and that serious accidents would never happen again. However, both the nuclear and oil industries' records reflect grudging acquiescing to safety and refusals to acknowledge problems or take effective steps to prevent accidents. The problem is not one of old technology or failed systems that are fixable. The problem is the corporate culture that permeates the energy industry, a culture that protects problem-ridden energy sources even if it means failing to protect the public or properly compensating those they hurt.
A month after the TMI accident, President Carter announced his strong support for an expanded nuclear power program. Within days, close to 100,000 people poured into Washington for a massive rally to demand an end to the United State's growing dependence on nuclear power. A moratorium on new plants held for three decades. This is clearly a new day and a brand new public outcry is what's needed to end offshore drilling, stop the resurgence of nuclear power, and ensure a safe and clean energy future.
Follow Joanne Doroshow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/centerjd
I think nuclear reactions can be made safe, theoretically, but I don't trust the profit motive to keep anybody honest -- to motivate people to any behavior but profit maximization which, duh, means cost-cutting. As long as private corporations run public utilities, no new utility power sources but wind and solar.
I favor hydrogen for vehicles myself. I like performance vehicles. I like the research & development BMW is doing for hydrogen.
We have the usual minivan also. We need it for our family and for my wife's many community and social activities. We need vehicles that can both run around town for groceries and make a 1200 mile one-way road trip for a vacation. The little short-ranged electrics and hybrids just don't cut it.
I think hemp is an excellent resource. It makes far better paper than tree cellulose. Its harvesting has negligible effect on the environment compared to trees. But it's use for ethanol is dubious. Ethanol produces ozone at ground level that is highly corrosive to everything - rubber, concrete, stone, metal, and lungs. We see that now in areas of California that have heavily converted to ethanol.
So I think that ethanol is a mistake and electric cars are useless to most families.
"So I think that ethanol is a mistake and electric cars are useless to most families."
The Ultimate Aero EV utilizes a twin motor AESP producing an astounding 1,000 HP and 800 lb-ft of torque enabling it to rocket to 60 mph in a mere 2.5 seconds and reach a top speed of 208 mph. Not only does the Ultimate Aero EV have a range of 150-200 miles on a single charge, but SSC's "Charge on the RunTM" onboard charging system allows for full battery recharges in as little as 10 minutes. SSC's 3-speed automatic transmission transfers the Ultimate Aero EV's power to its wheels and achieves electronically controlled shift times of .24 s. The entire AESP is liquid cooled allowing it to run for extended periods of time at peak performance with no overheating issues.
http://www.shelbysupercars.com/news-012209.php
Obviously, a family vehicle needs different gear ratios, and no more than half that torque, but doing that and putting one or two more strings of batteries in parallel to extend range is trivial. There are no technical challenges to electric cars, only political ones.
They never lie or make mistakes?
How many Chrynobyls, TMI's and Giant Oil spills will it take for you to get the systemic risk?
or are you trying to hasten the rapture?
Solar wind and waste bio fuels 3-6 cents, affordable now, and getting cheaper fast.
In your second paragraph, you make several allegations of corporate misconduct that are unsubstantiated. Please provide reputable links supporting your claims. Otherwise, the entirety of paragraph 2 is strictly hearsay.
Re: "At TMI, the nuclear core was uncovered for approximately 2 and a half hours until a shift supervisor finally guessed that water was leaving the reactor through a stuck-open valve."
This is a very misleading statement. The leak in TMI-2 was through the pressurizer relief valve. The pressurizer and the reactor vessel are distinctly different structures, as the first diagram in this description of the TMI-2 accident shows:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/04.pdf
The above reference identifies that the key events that led in damage in the TMI-2 core were the reactor operators limiting emergency cooling water flow to the primary system. This error was partly caused by lack of proper instrumentation showing core water level. Had emergency cooling not been limited, the TMI-2 core would not have been damaged at all.
(cont’d)
Re: "Don't Worry -- It's Under Control ... The company knew this to be untrue."
Counterpoint:
From a Dickinson College report,
http://www.threemileisland.org/science/what_went_wrong/index.html
"The actual dose received by any one person will never be known, but experts, according to testimony in the TMI Litigation, gave limits in the 25 to 50 mrem range. (TMI Litigation Consolidated Proceedings, Civil Action No. 1:CV-88-1452; Judge Sylvia Rambo) Normal background radiation, excluding radon (cosmic rays, radioactivity in the body, and terrestrial radiation), is about 100 mrem per year in the central Pennsylvania area. (For further discussion on radiation dose and health effects, see Chapters 2 and 3 in The 3 R's; Radiation, Risk, and Reason) In addition, researchers did not find any radioactive iodine from the accident in food and milk samples."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf36.html
"The studies found that the radiation releases during the accident were minimal, well below any levels that have been associated with health effects from radiation exposure. The average radiation dose to people living within 10 miles of the plant was 0.08 millisieverts, with no more than 1 millisievert to any single individual. The level of 0.08 mSv is about equal to a chest X-ray, and 1 mSv is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by U.S. residents in a year."
(cont’d)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html
In June 1996, 17 years after the TMI-2 accident, Harrisburg U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging that the accident caused health effects. Judge Rambo's conclusion:
"The parties to the instant action have had nearly two decades to muster evidence ... The paucity of proof alleged in support of Plaintiffs case is manifest. The court has searched the record for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of their claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain."
Ms. Doroshow's article has a very engaging thesis. Especially now as corporate greed and graft are clearly revealed in our everyday lives.
However, elements of this article are too unresearched, misunderstood, and unsubstantiated to draw a credible conclusion.
Referring to the Kemeny Commission report on TMI-2:
http://www.pddoc.com/tmi2/kemeny/health_effects.htm
Comes this:
"a. It is estimated that between March 28 and April 15, ... the increment of radiation dose to persons living within a 50-mile radius due to the accident was somewhat less than one percent of the annual background level. The average dose to a person living within 5 miles of the nuclear plant was calculated to be about 10 percent of annual background radiation and probably was less.
"b. The maximum estimated radiation dose received by any one individual in the off-site general population (excluding the plant workers) during the accident was 70 millirems. On the basis of present scientific knowledge, the radiation doses received by the general population as a result of exposure to the radioactivity released during the accident were so small that there will be no detectable additional cases of cancer, developmental abnormalities, or genetic ill-health as a consequence of the accident at TMI."
The above corroborates the NRC report on health consequences after the accident. Multiple sources agree in their conclusions - there was no significant radiation exposure to the surrounding populace at TMI.
"In a September 2009 letter to the president of the UN Security Council, Pyongyang’s permanent
representative to the UN announced countermeasures to UN Security Council sanctions. The
letter said that “reprocessing of spent fuel rods is at its final phase and extracted plutonium is
being weaponized,” and “experimental uranium enrichment has successfully been conducted to
enter the completion phase.” In early November 2009, the North Korean news agency announced
that all 8,000 spent fuel rods in its possession had been reprocessed by the end of August. The
statement said that the resulting plutonium was being weaponized.
reactors can easily be used to make nuke bomb material.
From Your "refutable" link.
nuke power = nuke proliferation. Obviously.
Notice that in the very same paragraph, you completely skip over the part about Plutonium-238 production being stopped to transition to Uranium 235 enrichment.
That's your cherry-picking again. Taking quotes out of context and twisting them to your distorted view of reality.
The Nuke folks and the Derivatives folks, the OIl folks, all underestimate and ignore the "systemic Risk".
ONLY Solar, wind and waste Bio fuels can supply all the world energy need within 12 years: clean, safe, Cheaper in the long run and forever.
Nuke are an insane proliferation and million year deadly waste risk.
Solar and wind 3-6 cent, Waste Bio fuels/bio char = cheaper than dumping.
I debunked his earlier post. Check it out there.
Your assetions about nuclear proliferation with commercial nuclear power ignores both sides you've tried to claim:
- Commercial nuclear power is not a prerequisite for nuclear weapons. In fact, all of the Five Nuclear States had successful weapons programs 4-15 years before deploying commercial nuclear power plants.
- Commercial nuclear power does not sustain weapons programs. In fact, Plutonium 238 was produced in specialized military breeder reactors. Prolonged exposure of U-238 in commercial reactors reduces the yield of Pu-238 and increases the yield of Pu-240. This defeats the purpose of Plutonium breeding. Uranium-235 was enriched by physical separation methods. Now the whole issue is moot with militaries using recycled weapons-grade materials from dismantled warheads rather than producing them.
1000's more nuke power plants, tech, industry, will provide the industrial base needed for nuke bombs and cover.
India, N Korea, Pak, all use the cover and tech of power nukes to create their nuke bombs.
That doesn't solve our energy problem, which is both real and pressing.
You're also not allowing for the technological improvements since TMI.
In addition, the arguments you have made here with respect to Chernobyl are problematic or unclear.
Without even going into the most promising new technologies, your position is not particularly strong. If you take those technologies into account, then the picture changes even further and not in favor of the argument you seem to be making here.
I agree that the problem of industry-captured regulators is a real one. That isn't a problem with nuclear power, though, that is a problem with industry in general and regulators in general.
I suppose you could make the argument that because a reactor meltdown would be so serious, nuclear regulatory issues are that much more serious. You'd find me receptive to that.
The risks of LNG terminals in major cities are also catastrophic; the risks of certain kinds of geothermal may well be catastrophic; the risks of offshore drilling are obviously catastrophic; the risks of coal burning are catastrophic; the risks of hydropower may also be catastrophic; the risks of natural gas 'fracking' might also be catastrophic, and so on.
What's your solution?
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html
Under existing policy, utilities that operate nuclear power plants pay a premium each year for $300 million in private insurance for offsite liability coverage for each reactor unit.
One insurance pool, American Nuclear Insurers, is comprised of investor-owned stock insurance companies. About half the pool's total liability capacity comes from foreign sources like Lloyd's of London. The average annual premium for a single-unit reactor site is $400,000. The premium for a second or third reactor at the same site is discounted to reflect a sharing of limits.
The Grand Coulee dam oddly has no insurance either. Course neither do any US Navy nuclear armed nuclear powered vessels. Without legislation American attorneys would be suing nuclear plants if an employee spilled his coffee -a low level nuclear spill. And with American juries they' d win.
We learned a lot from TMI and nukes now how heavily monitored by the NRC.
Unfortunately that lesson wasn't passed on the fossil fuel, chemical and hydro industries with properties that potentially could kill millions in one accident. These have only corrupt or lazy inspection and safety regimes sustained by bought and paid for politicians.
As a result of TMI each nuke has two NRC inspectors on site and they take their job seriously, requiring immediate action on staffing, security and equipment shortcomings.
It always amazes me when an long time no nuker has the Chutzpah to show up on this forum bragging about shutting down nuclear power for 30 years.
Because Doroshow, her pals and their Big Coal/Oil sponsors were so successful at replacing nukes with toxic radioactive pollution spewing coal power in the seventies, they are responsible for the deaths of almost a hundred million people worldwide from lung disease, the continuing deaths of millions annually, the sickness of hundreds of millions more, and giving us global warming - a gift that could end civilization killing billions.
Nuclear is the only tech we have that can replace coal. Every year no nukers defer the nuclear conversion from coal is another 3 million dead from coal pollution and we get one year closer to the global warming precipice.
The chances of a major nuclear accident in a modern reactor is tiny in comparison to the likelihood of terrists blowing up a LNG tanker in port to provide that gas to backup useless wind and solar tech.
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2009/01/relative-safety-of-new-generation-of.html
First, thanks for jumping in here. It makes things much more interesting for readers.
Second, your reference to the Chernobyl 'containment vessel' is confusing, since as far as I know there was no hard containment at Chernobyl. Could you explain?
Nukes still get ten times the subsides solar does.
Rooftop PV Solar, Offshore wind and waste biofuels can supply all the world energy needs, clean safe, cheaper in the long run, and within 12 years.
Stop hoping that the nuke folks "will get it right this time..."
Time to stop obsessing on the last few drops of oil.
Immediately have the gov order green retrofits for all it's building.
The Federal government needs to set standard for rooftop solar grid connect, fees, terms, insurance, and the like. The patchwork of state laws is now one of the biggest barriers to rooftop pv solar expansion.
installed solar has reached less than 2$ installed, 3 -6 cents per KWH.
Wind too is 3 -6 cents,
that's already cheap enough.
Add waste bio fuels, bio char in particular, and you get base load, transportation fuels, and oils for plastics and such. We also stop dumping our stuff. Bio Char Oil is now about 26$ per barrel. We need to ramp this up.
There are no current nuclear subsidies not one. Wind power soaks up $30 billion in tax breaks and other subsidies 19 cent a kwh in subsidies, 25 times as much as the combined subsidies for all other forms of electricity.
Research knows his Solar and wind produce more GHG's than just burning natural gas alone sending immense profits to Big Oil. These products can never supply more than a small percentage of world energy needs.
Research's 3-6 cents a kwh is nonsense and he knows it
Mainly, he assumes free money - the money to build the panels was neither borrowed from a bank, used to pay down your mortgage, or reinvest ie no interest on a 30 year life.
Then he assumes no labor, permits, or maintenance cost and uses the latest going out of business sale prices reflecting the collapse of the Spanish PV market.
Add those in and his 3 cents becomes 35 cents
Largest solar installion in the US at Arcadia Florida
$32B/Gw or 50 cents a kilowatt hour at Florida Power's discount rate.
Cape wind $20/Gw with a current negotiated 24 cents a kwr rising to 38 cents over 15 years.
Waste bio fuels, would decimate our forest and farmland taking out valuable compost material and burning it to produce a tiny percentage of our power needs killing millions with toxic air pollution.
Review the DOE documents for the cost per kilowatt - wind is cheaper than nuclear.
No government agency has tabulated the cost of nuclear subsidized. There are however some current nuclear subsidies listed for every year. They far exceed wind subsidies.
Stranded cost bailout for nuclear alone reached just under $100 billion dollars. The total subsidies for nuclear have reached more than $300 billion. That number sounds credible to me but is not varifiable.
So, why would anyone support their next wilderness-killing profiteering boondoggle when we know FOR SURE how it will go? Can't we support rooftop solar and efficiency upgrades within the built environment and STOP BIG SOLAR?
If this were a company to company dispute, would laws still limit the amount one company could be liable for to another or are they required to fully compensate for any and all corporate losses?
It's particularly ridiculous to make the nation collectively accountable for the egregious mistakes and misdeeds of a company by holding it hostage to the notion of too big too fail, particularly since this company and this industry can WELL afford to cover all clean up costs and all claims against them.
In the event that the failure of a company catastrophically affects the people , a reasonable pay back to any government assistance should prove sufficient. Or we could simply let the free market chips fall where they may. Surely in that scenario there would be a rush to fill a very profitable vacuum? ;)