I wasn't surprised by much of W's speech yesterday on energy "policy," outside of one thing - the call for more nuclear energy. What I'd have liked to hear were the answers to four questions:
1. How will nuclear energy be cost-effective: given the great cost of building these things, and even if the feds foot the bill for "risk insurance," won't consumers just get stuck with more expensive electricity?
2. How will anyone be convinced to put on of these things in their neck of the woods?
3. Who's going to hold on to the waste the plant generates for the however many thousand years it'll take to decay?
4. Will the NRC actually regulate, or are they just going to play ball with the industry? Again.
It'd have been nice to hear W push other solutions, such as this one by Climate Energy. Actually, it also would have been nice to hear any suggestion that we could use greater efficiency to save oil. God forbid.
Of course, all of this got pushed to the side of my brain when news came across that Tom Cruise is dating Katie Holmes. Wha?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For want of anything better to post, here's a breakdown of if I've been to the most populous 100 cities in the US, and if so for how...
-
As you may have heard, there's a new question facing all of us in Red Sox Nation. Now what? It's a valid question. Citizensh...
-
And finally, U!P!N! THE NEW UPN created a new Thursday night of comedies, and seems very proud of being the only network with a full two hou...
-
A couple of months ago I went on new insurance. For the first time ever, I was asked to get prior authorization from a doctor to get a presc...
2 comments:
You bring up some valid comments, but, I for one, couldn't be happier that W not only talked to the issue of nuclear power but led off his energy speech with it. I am 100% on side with the need to invest in alternative "green" energy sources. Despite the cost associated with developing some of these emerging technologies, we can't afford not to end this centuries old commitment to polluting our environment with coal and oil fired plants. Nuclear power, despite its stigma, remains the only commercially viable "green source" out there. Within 15 years, half of our nuclear plants will be decommissioned. That represents 15% of our countries power demand. Where is the shortfall going to come from? While I would hope it would come from hydroelectric, solar, biometric, or other green sources, the truth is the bulk of the shortfall (not to mention the increased demand) will come from more polluting fossil fuel plants. Let me address your questions.
1. Cost - thankfully, despite this country's aversion to anything nuclear, research and construction of nuclear plants and technologies has continued in the export market. GE has developed and built cost-effective plants for Canada, France and China, to name a few. The dinosaur plants of yesteryear are a thing of the past and the reason nuclear power plants continue to be so "costly" is because we continue to depend on 1970s technology rather than replace these plants with more cost-effective modern technology.
2. You'd be surprised. I tend not to apply labels to my political methodology. I routinely vote on both sides of the fence and probably best align myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But, under the Clinton years, Bruce Babbit single-handedly handcuffed the nuclear industry and stopped numerous projects from getting underway in communities that embraced the industry. Two projects in Texas alone were shut down by the DoI after more than 10 years and $9 million were invested by nuclear industries trying to build plants outside Dallas. Time and time again the regulatroy commissions rejected the plans despite community support and sent the companies back to conduct additional geological surveys, or other scientific research. Do you know what shut the projects down in the end? At the final committee vote, it was decided that the seismological surveys were insufficient to prove that the risk of a major earthquake was sufficiently small to prevent an accident. This isn't San Francisco, this is Dallas. The nearest fault plate is more than 1000 miles away and there has been no evidence of an earthquake in this area for 150,000 years. Oh yeah, too risky. Babbit shut down a project for a low-level waste repository in Northern California that the town actually lobbied the industry to bring for the jobs it would bring to the town by sneaking in some legislation claiming the proposed sight was a protected wildlife area. It is now the site of a major subdivision with more than 600 homes and a shopping mall. Great wildlife area! In my town of Salem, CT, we also lobbied to bring in a low-level waste repository. The company came to several town hall meetings answered all the questions of the townsfolk and was supported 78% in favor and only 15% against in a town referendum. The plant would have brought 60 jobs to the town, the county would have improved several roads and expanded our K-8 school, not to mention the tax dollars for the town, and the project was shut down by the feds. No reason was given, we were basically told we couldn't build the site there. Admittedly not every community would support a plant, nor should they. There are risks as there are with any industry, but there are plenty of communities that would welcome the plants as well.
3. This is a tough question. More than 97% of the "waste" generated by nuclear power plants is low level waste (waste that will radioactively decay to a non-radiaoactive state in less than 100 years). Unfortunately, the spent fuel will leave it's footprint for tens of thousands of years. I wrestle with this one myself and don't claim to have the answer. I firmly believe there are safe and effective means for storing this high level waste in a way to minimize its impact on the environment (Yucca Mountain). What we do know, by storing it on site because we can't come to a decision on what to do with it is wrong - and unsafe. I also believe that the footprint left on the world by greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuel power plants far outweighs the impact of storing nuclear waste, and if we continue polluting the environment the way we do, there won't be anything left to worry about. I agree with you fully, that we need to look for a better and cleaner way, something even cleaner than nuclear power.
4. You hit the nail on the head here. Regulatory reform is far overdue. I've got no answers but to say that US Naval Nuclear Power is a self-regulating system that works for our armed forces but would never be acceptable in industry. I simply wouldn't trust them and nor should you.
I know I won't convince anyone otherwise with my opinions. There is too much fear built up in society over anything with the word "nuclear" in it to make that happen. "We always fear what we don't understand". Not sure who said it, but its true. From my informed standpoint, nuclear power is a safe, cost-effective and non-polluting form of power generation that will fast become obsolete unless we begin to invest in new plants now. The average coal or oil burning plant releases more radioactivity to the environment from its smoke stacks than all of our nation's nuclear power plants combined. Given a commitment from government and an investment from industry to ensure proper scientific studies are conducted, safe storage facilities for spent fuel and other radiaoctive waste material can be a reality.
I am now stepping off the soapbox :-)
(First, Paul, I deleted what appeared to be a duplicate comment, if there was something new in there that I missed repost it, please.)
Good to get another take on this thing, especially with your expertise. Nice to have a nuclear engineer among the readership. :)
I suppose my main concern is less technical/environmentaly than historical. The fear that's out there (and likely much of my own) comes from how the dysynergy of the government and industry in bringing about nuclear power as a significant source of energy. Given how the current administration gets cozy with industry, it's hard for me to put the concern of a repeat performance out of mind, regardless of how improved the tech is.
Interesting story about the Dallas area reactors, though I wonder if the quake issue is somehow related to the New Madrid fault, which I assume is close enough to cause problems if there's a really big one (granted, it's no Diablo Canyon problem).
But I suppose all of the issues play second fiddle to the long-term waste storage issue. And given Harry Reid's position, Yucca Mountain isn't going to see any spent rods any time soon.
So, it looks like one of those issues where being on either side is depressing. Bring on Social Security!
Post a Comment