Posted by
Stay Red on Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:16:05 PM
Part 3 of a three-part series on Nuclear power in America
As America’s need for electricity grows, and public concerns continue to rise over the cost-both environmentally and in real dollars-of using fossil fuels to generate power, people are looking for inexpensive, non-polluting alternatives. One such alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear, which has cheaply and reliably and cleanly and safely produced electricity for nearly 30 years.
But public fear remains a major obstacle to increasing nuclear power generation in the US. Concerns remain over the operating safety of nuclear power plants. Then there is the vexing issue of what to do with all that nuclear waste.
Three Mile Island’s 1979 meltdown rattled people’s faith about the safety of nuclear power. The Chernobyl meltdown seven years later shook public confidence like a magnitude 8 earthquake. Much was made of Chernobyl at the time, and it is still cited and studied as the world’s greatest nuclear disaster. Yet many people are under-informed about the Chernobyl meltdown.
The cause of the meltdown at Chernobyl was:
A. Untrained, inexperienced crew.
B. Flawed reactor design.
C. An experimental test that went awry.
D. All of the above
Which meltdown caused more nuclear fallout in Pennsylvania, Three Mile Island (Pennsyvania) or Chernobyl (Ukraine)?
A. The answer cannot be scientifically determined
B. Three Mile Island meltdown
C. Both about the same
D. Chernobyl meltdown
How many people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl meltdown?
A. 4,000,000
B. 400,000
C. 40,000
D. 4000
The answer to all three Chernobyl questions is "D". The meltdown at Chernobyl occurred when an inexperienced crew-some of whom had been transferred in from jobs at coal-burning power plants-violated safety procedures and performed a fatal experiment on one of the reactors. The Chernobyl plant’s major flaw was the lack of a steel-reinforced, concrete containment structure around the metal vessel housing the reactor. The lack of secondary containment allowed radiation from Chernobyl’s reactor vessel to immediately escape into the atmosphere.
The Chernobyl reactor also used a "carbon moderator" to facilitate the nuclear chain reaction. During the meltdown, the carbon moderator caught fire. It burned for nine days, delaying clean up efforts and prolonging the leakage of radiation into the surrounding area. As radiation continued to escape from Chernobyl, some of it found its way into the upper atmosphere, to be globally distributed by air currents. This helps to explain why ground level monitoring in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania detected higher radiation levels after Chernobyl than had been detected after the meltdown at Three Mile Island.
Opinions vary regarding the number of deaths that directly resulted from the Chernobyl meltdown. Great Britain’s Lancet-the same medical journal that
claims the US liberation of Iraq resulted in 655,000 "excessive" Iraqi deaths-published a study alleging that Chernobyl’s meltdown killed every human being on the European Continent and in Asia. More serious and reliable estimates place Chernobyl’s death toll at around 4000 people. Between 50 and 100 of the deaths were plant workers or clean up personnel, most of whom received extremely high radiation exposure and died within a couple of weeks of the meltdown. The remaining deaths were spread over a number of years and were mostly attributed to exposure-related ailments such as cancer.
Based on the available information, all current US nuclear power plants have reinforced concrete containment structures around a separate metal reactor vessel. This would be the required configuration for any new nuclear plant construction. And US plants do not use carbon moderators, they use water.
A disaster like Chernobyl simply could not happen in the United States. American nuclear plants have had a clean safety record for nearly three decades. Even the 1979 incident at Three Mile Island-a "perfect storm" of things gone wrong-did not result in any injuries. If the odds of a nuclear accident are so small, why all the fear?
GQ’s
Meltdown has one possible explanation:
What drives this (fear), in many cases, is the conflation of magnitude with probability. That is, when people worry about nuclear power, what they worry about is the scale of an accident, not the likelihood.
So even if the probability of a nuclear meltdown is one in a million, that one occurrence strikes people as potentially devastating. Nobody wants her/his city to be the one smoldering in radioactive ruins.
Though some opposition to nuclear power generation results from worries about the day-to-day safety of America’s nuclear power plants, even more resistance comes from people concerned about what to do with the nuclear fuel after it is no longer useful for generating power. There are two primary options for nuclear waste, which maintains some level of radioactivity for thousands of years: recycle then dispose, or dispose.
France gets 80 percent of its power from nukes, and has the cheapest electrical rates in Europe. The French also the have cleanest air in Europe, and annually export $4 billion worth of electricity to their European neighbors. France recycles its nuclear waste. From FOXNews article "
Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It; Why Can’t Oui?":
Upon its removal from French reactors, used fuel is packed in containers and safely shipped via train and road to a facility in La Hague. There, the energy producing uranium and plutonium are removed and separated from the other waste and made into new fuel that can be used again. The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French.
Anti-nuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferaton, and o accidental explosions.
France meets all of its recycling needs with one facility. Indeed, domestic French reprocessing only takes about half of La Hague’s capacity. The other half is used to recycle other countries’ spent nuclear fuel.
Since beginning operations, France’s La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel—enough to power France for fourteen years. SNIP
The French recycling process is also being adopted by Japan and is being considered by the Chinese. At some point, even the recycled fuel runs out, at which point the French process involves encasing the spent material in glass blocks. The glass blocks then go for "deep geologic disposal" (translation: burial in a really, really deep hole), covered momentarily in this piece.
Current US laws prohibit recycling of nuclear waste, thanks to a 1977 directive signed by then-president Jimmy Carter.
That is unfortunate because the US currently has 112 million pounds of nuclear waste. Recycling would reduce that unusable nuclear waste down to about 12 million pounds. The 100 million pounds of recycled uranium could
potentially produce enough electricity to light every home in the United States for the next twelve years.
As a consequence of the ban on nuclear recycling, US nuclear plants currently store nuclear waste onsite, typically in reinforced cooling ponds designed specifically for that purpose. This practice is a big part of the reason that many Americans fear nuclear power. Storing nuclear waste onsite at a nuclear power plant creates the potential that radiation will seep out into the surrounding land, eventually getting into the local water supply.
Concerns about potential groundwater contamination are not unfounded. Nuclear power plants need plenty of cool water to keep the reactors from overheating, so plants are typically located next to large bodies of water. That close proximity to water increases the risk that escaping radiation can contaminate one or more local water sources.
The majority of experts seem to agree that keeping nuclear waste onsite is needlessly risky. And expert consensus is that deep geological disposal is currently the best disposition for spent nuclear fuel. It appears that the only consensus on where to locate the repositories is "in someone else’s backyard".
The French are apparently some of the world’s most informed people when it comes to nuclear power. They are also pragmatic when it comes to nuclear; they understand that there are risks involved, but they trust the people who design and manage the nuclear power systems. And they seem to feel that cheap, clean power is a worthwhile tradeoff for the risks involved.
Yet, enlightened as they are about nuclear power, the French people are not comfortable about the idea of having a large repository for nuclear waste on French soil. Amid much ongoing controversy, the French have yet to settle on their nuclear disposal site.
The US has settled on its disposal site, in tunnels, 1200 feet beneath Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. From
Meltdown:
(The mountain) consists of four principal layers, which alternate between a hard and relatively brittle material known as welded tuff and a sponge-like material known as nonwelded tuff. SNIP On the surface, the harder material cloaks the mountain, shedding most rainfall down the sides and into the surrounding plains. The water that does seep into the cracks would have to travel 300 feet through fissures in a layer called Tiva Canyon, saturate a hundred feet of the softer rock, and then continue through fissures in another several hundred feet of hard rock known as Topopah Spring in order to reach the repository. Even then, to be dangerous, that water would first have to penetrate the metal canisters that are molded around the waste, become irradiated, continue down through several hundred more feet of hard rock, and fill yet another layer of spongy rock known as Calico Hills, before finally reaching the water table, where it might, depending on whose data you believe, either surface a century later in the middle of Death Valley, or else not at all. Also, since the spongy layers of Yucca Mountain happen to be rich in minerals known as zeolites, which are known to neutralize radioactivity. SNIP
The US government has already spent billions of dollars building Yucca and preparing it for operation, even going so far as hiring staff. But then things ground to a halt, primarily stopped due to political pressures. And they may not restart for awhile. Again from
Meltdown:
The people of Nevada, by a large majority, believe the repository should be in somebody else’s backyard and have thrown up legal challenges at every stage of the site’s development. With the ascension of Nevada’s Harry Reid to the position of Senate Majority Leader in 2006, the state’s quest to block Yucca Mountain seems more likely than ever to succeed. Although development continues, progress is glacial, and Congress has been, to put it mildly, slow to grant approvals. As recently as January of this year, congressional budget cuts forced the repository to fire nearly all its on-site employees, scaling back to a mostly administrative operation. When (someone) asked Senator Reid what would happen to the repository in the coming years, he minced no words. "It will never happen," he said flatly.
It should not matter that Harry Reid said Yucca will never open. Reid is arguably one of the most ineffectual Senate leaders of the last 100 years. He has no credibility; his words carry no weight.
The risk of storing nuclear waste onsite at nuclear plants outweighs whatever risk there may be in storing waste at Yucca Mountain. America has 104 nuclear power plants, spread across 39 states. It boils down to a decision to put the residents of one state at some slight, theoretical risk, or expose people in 39 states to obvious ongoing hazard.
Eventually Yucca will open, but that may only be the beginning of the fight to store nuclear waste in Nevada. As an RFTLC reader astutely points out, next will come protests over transporting of nuclear wastes over America’s roadways and railways. Expect people blocking roadways and chaining themselves to the tracks to protest nukes traveling through their town-or somebody else’s. The design of the shipping containers and other precautions greatly minimize any risk of radiation leakage from a transportation accident. But, as with a meltdown, nobody wants the accident to happen in his backyard.
The irony of Nevadans fighting the Yucca Mountain project does not escape
Meltdown’s author, who notes:
(Nevada, which has America’s dirtiest coal plant,) is unable to generate its own power and currently imports as much as 15 percent of its electricity from California and Arizona. Of course, since they produce 14 percent and 23 percent of their power at nuclear plants, respectively, that means Nevada, which likes to proclaim itself "nuclear-free," actually gets a considerable amount of its power from nuclear plants, too—but at markup prices that profit California and Arizona.
In some ways, the Nevadan attitudes reflect the attitudes of America. The Nevadans embrace the familiar but dirty old king coal, unaware or unconcerned that it is killing people and harming the environment. And maybe folks are more okay with nuclear power generation than they let on; provided the power plant is far enough away that it is no threat to them.
RFTLC believes that America must shift away from using fossil fuels to make electricity; the sooner the better. Renewables such solar and wind power would be this corner’s preference, but those technologies are still unproven and each has its own set of negatives. Nuclear power is availabe now. It proven; it is cheap and it is clean. And it is safe.
Twenty-four thousand people die each year from coal-related pollution. That is real, not theoretical. Projections of catastrophe due to a meltdown or radiation leakage from nuclear waste are theoretical. But a serious accident has not happened in over thirty years of nuclear power production. There has not ever been a single fatality from US nuclear power generation.
Perhaps Americans can learn something from the French, who understand the threats and the benefits and, having weighed each, choose nuclear power as a clean, inexpensive and, ultimately, safe source of energy…
Stay red…