Some interesting banter on the last post so I though I would flow with it. It seems that the pro-nuclear camp is really really into nuclear power. It is not just on forms of media that I mentioned in the last post, but on blogs as well.I was wondering why certain people were pushing nuclear so hard. Then I came across some of the profit driven facts of the “new” nuclear age….
Profit.
Under recent federal legislation, the nuclear industry has been handed $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to build a new generation of nuclear plants. How is this corporate welfare letting the market decide? How is it allowing for fair competition for other forms of energy production? In addition, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry lobby, has hired the former head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to try to “greenwash” nuclear power’s dirty and dangerous image. This has been seen on the cover of Time magazine as well as the Economist.
The Pitch
Under the The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) is the Bush Administration’s plan for expanding the nuclear power industry in the U.S. and around the globe. If President Bush’s plan works as advertised, it would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, improve the environment by reducing CO2 emissions, encourage clean development around the world and reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.
More Profit
To achieve this President Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would include: a new generation of nuclear plants in the U.S., the reprocessing of nuclear waste and a fast reactor demonstration project that would use the reprocessed waste as fuel. Under GNEP, nuclear nations would sell non nuclear countries reactors and provide the nuclear fuel and then accept the radioactive waste back for reprocessing and eventually disposal. Profit selling, profit receiving and I’m sure there would be profit in maintenance as well.
Reduce Dependence On Foreign Oil How?
Expanding the use of nuclear power will have little or no impact on the U.S. addiction to foreign oil. Nuclear power plants generate two things: electricity and the radioactive materials to produce nuclear weapons. Since less than 3 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by oil, nuclear power’s role in addressing U.S. oil addiction is extremely limited.
The U.S. Department of Energy expects that percentage to drop to 1.68 percent by 2025.
Where Are The Miraculous Cost Savings?
General Electric (GE) promised to construct its new Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) in Japan for 1500/kw. The actual cost for the first reactor was $3,282/kw, more than twice what GE promised more than twice what the nuclear corporations’ claim that they can afford. Areva’s Evolutionary Pressurized Reactor (EPR) has not yet received approval in the U.S. However, construction of the EPR in Finland, only begun in 2005, is already a year over schedule. Due to major construction problems with the Finish reactor, Areva was expected to lose as much as $922 million of income in 2006.
From 1966 to 1972, Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) operated a commercial reprocessing facility in West Valley, NY. After a four-year shutdown, NFS determined that it was too expensive to bring the facility up to regulatory standards and so abandoned the site. The Department of Energy (DOE) originally estimated that the cleanup effort at the site could be completed by about 1990. However, in May 2001, the US General Accounting Office, (GAO) determined that clean up was not nearly complete and would take up to forty years to finish. GAO calculated that the West Valley cleanup costs would total about $4.5 billion.
Oh but wait there is miracle new technology…
FAST REACTORS
According the President Bush’s GNEP scheme, after the radioactive wastes are reprocessed they would be converted in reactor fuel for use in Advancer Burner Reactors (ABR). While these reactors do not even exist they are conceptually similar to fast breeder reactors without the uranium blanket for “breeding” plutonium. However, the experience with “fast breeder” reactors in the U.S. and elsewhere has shown that they are expensive and dangerous.
In November 1955, the first U.S. “power reactor” ever to produce electricity, the EBR-1, (experimental breeder reactor) melted down during testing. The public was not made aware of this meltdown until Lewis Strauss, head of the Atomic Energy Commission and the man who claimed nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter” was confronted by the Wall Street Journal and had to admit his ignorance of the accident.
Not to be dissuaded by the meltdown of the EBR-1, The Power Reactor Development Corporation, a consortium of 35 utilities headed by Detroit Edison forged ahead with the first commercial fast breeder reactor. The Fermi reactor was to be a scaled up version of the EBR-1. On October 6, 1966 the Fermi reactor also melted down. Oh, but those who push nukes say you can’t use examples from the past.
Things have changed. Really?
The U.S. is not the only country to experience accidents with fast breeder reactors. Even the highly touted French nuclear program proved incapable of making the technology work safely and economically. France’s “Superphenix” was permanently shut down in 1987 after leaking 20 tons of sodium coolant. The $10 billion dollar reactor only operated for 278 days in its 11-year history.
Japan has had no better luck with its fast breeder program. The Japanese “Monju” fast breeder reactor was shutdown in 1995 after three tons of sodium leaked causing reactor to over heat and burning holes in cooling pipes.
In addition to these major costs, there is also the uncalculated cost of maintenance, refurbishing, and then dismantling these very large facilities. Who do you think is paying for all of this and the corporate handouts and the guaranteed loans? Sorry, it’s you, the taxpayer. And no it can’t be built into the consumer cost, because then it couldn’t compete with oil, coal and current electric power.
The Danger
In his 2003 State of the Union Address President Bush claimed that “ the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.” Unfortunately, Mr. Bush’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership would only increase this danger. Dirty bombs are a dangerous threat in the hands of our enemies. What are dirty bombs made of? How much nuclear waste is transported via,: rail, highway, and waterway that is susceptible to falling into the hands of those who threaten our nation?
There is a direct correlation between nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs. In 2004, a report from Jane’s Intelligence Review concluded that an increase in the number of nuclear power plants worldwide would directly increase the risks associated with nuclear weapons proliferation. For India to create their nuclear weapon, they used reprocessed plutonium from radioactive fuel.
Then There Is Chernobyl
This caused enormous damage to the economy, environment, wildlife and humans. To whitewash this is to ignore the human suffering that resulted. These are real lives, real people. Not just statistics and an anomaly. The problem we call Chernobyl is not a thing of the past. Plans are now being made to export large amounts of highly radioactive waste to sites of nuclear accidents like Mayak, Semipalatinsk and even to Chernobyl. These plans are supported by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency. I seem to remember these guys being used as a source by someone in the last post's comments, sounds like they have peoples' best interest in mind?!?! But not to be dissuaded, I'm sure those in favor of nuclear energy have no problems ignoring these problematic implications and are happy to push forward with their embrace of nuclear energy, ignoring the facts and concerns of others (and being deeply suspicious of the integrity and intellectual ability of experts in the field who have concerns) but for those who are interested in learning more, I have linked to some interesting articles below.
Further Reading
Mirage and Oasis
An American Chernobyl
The Economics of Nuclear Power
Nuclear Fact Sheet
High Level Radioactive Fact Sheet
No Such Thing As A Safe Dose Of Radiation
Is Nuclear The Answer?
7 comments:
Wow. 18 billion. Why innovate when you can receive welfare for the maintenance of the status quo of antiquated technologies?
This is offensive to capitalism and the entreprenuerial spirit everywhere. Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket?
Regarding the selling and receiving of nuclear materials, it was written, "Profit selling, profit receiving and I’m sure there would be profit in maintenance as well."
Actually, these are often a form of foreign aid given to countries to bribe them from developing the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. That's why it is considered central to the nuclear non-proliferation negotiations with countries like Iran.
Regarding, "Reduce Dependence On Foreign Oil How?"
You are missing the big picture here. If we can move toward electric vehicles, this can have a big role to play. Are we simply destined to power our vehicles with foreign oil? For the time being, yes. But hopefully not in the future.
The sources you cite are all extrememly biased and not academic. They have an agenda and only use information to support those claims. Look at Greenpeace's list of nuclear accidents. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear/safety
The nuclear accidents are hyped and accidents at other power plants are ignored. People killed by a steam explosion? That happens far more at other types of power plants where workers are exposed to far more steam pipes. If you were to list all of the people killed at coal fired power plants (even ignoring accidents in the mines that feed them), the numbers would be far greater.
Nuclear can't compete with coal and fossil fuels costwise. However, it can compete economically with other types of power generation (like wind and solar). It is instructive to note that France, which generates over 75% of their electricity from nuclear reactors and has never had a lethal accident, has the lowest costs of electricity in Europe. Up front costs are high and shutdown costs are high, but operating costs are much less than for a typical power plant, making the total cost competitive. To throw out large numbers is useless without having other numbers to compare. Most forms of energy (other than coal) are very expensive.
There is no safe dosage of radiation? What kind of idiot would say that? In what context? What are we supposed to do now, walk around in lead suits. Never get an X-Ray done at the doctors or dentists. Live indoors and avoid the sun's radiation? Turn the lights off and avoid our radiation from our lightbulbs? Avoid living at higher elevations and the Colorado plateau? Throw out our smoke detectors? Here is a website that helps you estimate your yearly radiation dosage. What steps are you going to take steps to decrease your exposure?
http://newnet.lanl.gov/main.htm
If you want to convince people who disagree, you will probably have to cite some unbiased sources, instead of simply repeating ludicrously biased Greenpeace rhetoric. Despite your objections to the commenter in the previous thread calling himself an environmentalist, many are seeing the light on this issue.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4715740
MB
Below is an article that discusses the one way nuclear power plants can be used to wean the US from foreign oil while converting CO2 pollution at coal fired power plants to near zero. It was written for engineers, so it might be a bit too technical for the average reader, but most laypersons with a halfway decent science education can understand it. Including credits for cutting CO2 emmisions of $30/ton and assuming a 10% cost of money, the cost of synfuel production could be reduced to $1.86/gal. That assumes up front capital equipment costs of $3.6 billion and annual maintenance costs of over a quarter billion dollars.
http://www.tbp.org/pages/publications/Bent/Features/Su07Uhrig.pdf
Just one more example of how nuclear energy can help wean the US off of foreign oil, contrary to statements made on this blog.
MB
MB,
Once again, calling a source ludicrous because you don't agree with it doesn't strengthen your argument. Greenpeace uses scientific studies just like other organizations. And the Mirage and Oasis is just as studied out.
There are lots of studies on both sides of the debate concerning oil. And even if there is some long term viability there are still the other factors to be taken into consideration. Such as the numerous points of the post as well as the Economics of Nuclear Power document.
You want "unbiased" because you don't agree. If you wanted to hear what you already believe then another blog is the place for you. This is a place of dialogue. You can ignore the facts of the post all you like, and source someone who believes as you , but that once again leads back to the road of a monologue.
Like I said in the post:
I'm sure those in favor of nuclear energy have no problems ignoring these problematic implications and are happy to push forward with their embrace of nuclear energy, ignoring the facts and concerns of others (and being deeply suspicious of the integrity and intellectual ability of experts in the field who have concerns)
MB,
Just to add to the last post. I didn't mean to imply that you weren't welcome here when I said, "then another blog is the place for you." I just realized how that could be taken.
Both you and RobC have had some valuable things to say for the pro-nuclear camp. That has the potential to add to dialogue. The challenge of debate is to accept that there is a diversity of opinion, that is the beauty of democracy, and the freedom of speech and thought we share. The premise of democratic dialogue is to allow for diversity, if you feel that you are unable to see people with PhD's, professionals, scientists and environmentalists (who don't agree with nuclear energy) in this light then there can be no freedom of thought or discussion.
I have yet to label any of your or RobC's sources as "ludicrous," "idiotic," "deserving of ridicule," or a "liar." Yet these are words that keep appearing in the comments. Unfortunately, I will no longer allow this form of comment. This is not respectful dialogue. People are not stupid, or ill-intentioned because they disagree with you, that is not a valid argument.
Reilly,
There are sources that are trustworthy and unbiased, and there are sources that are biased and whose works need to be read with a grain of salt. I put nuclear industry sources and environmentalists in much the same boat. Both groups have an agenda and a reason to skew the results.
For instance, if I said that people needed to take preventative measures to protect themselves from radiation when stargazing, would you call that silly? A person is exposing themselves to unsafe levels of radiation when stargazing!!! Beware of the science museums that try and convince you otherwise. Stargazing is a dangerous activity!!!
People who say that there is no safe level of radiation exposure are saying just that. I'm sorry if my calling that idea idiotic offends you. I will refrain from using such language in the future. It really is tough to describe in respectful language why I would disagree with the idea that stargazing exposes me to unsafe levels of radiation, but I will try. How about this. I have met hundreds of scientists and engineers with a working knowledge of radiation. I've yet to meet one who thinks that stargazing (or nuclear energy) are inherrently unsafe because there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nosafedose.pdf
Police officers are in their cars exposed to the suns radiation for much of the day. When occupational health and safety experts decide what is a safe dose of radiation, they look at everyday exposure levels over a wide variety of fields and try to see if certain people have increased health risks. While it is impossible to completely eliminate radiation exposure, we can limit it to be a fraction of what people are exposed to in their everyday lives and then call that that safe. Oakridge National Laboratories (a source quoted by nirs) has a good primer on radiation dosage levels.
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/aser95/appa.htm
I especially like the following table which covers average dosages for people due to a variety of sources (like the potassium in our bananas).
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/aser95/tb-a-2.pdf
Also, regarding the cost effectiveness of nuclear energy, even your own sources admit that nuclear energy is cheaper than renewables (p. 38 of the Mirage and Oasis article). While I would question this when compared with hydro, efficient hydro power from large dams causes almost as much fuss among environmentalists as nuclear power, so I'm not sure that would be considered by the folks at greenpeace to be a viable alternative. Also, given that A) the authors of the Mirage and Oasis article are predicting the future and B) have a vested interest in skewing the results (since they make money off of small renewable projects), I think it is questionable that renewables will be as cheap as nuclear power in any time frame acceptable to environmentalists, let alone in the next 100 years.
Getting back to sources, the reason I quoted an academic source, as opposed to an article from an environmentalist or the small renewables industry or the nuclear industry, is that academics have much less motivation to twist facts to meet a particular agenda. They get paid to propose solutions. If nuclear energy is cheaper and more likely to make the proposed solution accepted, they will latch on and promote it as part of their larger proposal. So, when Dr. Uhrig, et. al. propose nuclear power as part of the solution for reducing the CO2 emmisions of coal power plants and weaning the US off of foreign oil, he is simply proposing the cleanest, cheapest, most feasible source for doing so. If another source of power could be proven to provide electricity with extremely low CO2 emmisions for less money, then all the better for his proposal. Without an ideological bias, he would switch in a heartbeat if the facts were to support such a proposal. Right now, though, renewables aren't close to matching nuclear power price-wise, so in the interest of selling synfuels as cost-effective, nuclear power is the source of choice. Fiscal and ideological biases skew conclusions.
MB
MB,
Your faith in radiation is... well... why don't you ask the police officers who now suffer from testicular cancer because they rested their radar guns in their crotches.
Okay, it seems like you don't have a problem with radiation. That only accounts for 2/10 of the argument. What about all of the other dangers of this energy path?
The consequences of a disaster are unimaginable. The 1986 explosion at Chernboyl Unit 4 has caused thousands of confirmed casualties---including a plague of cancers, birth defects and reproductive disease---and done at least a half-trillion dollars worth of damage. Money and peoples lives. Read the testimonies that I linked to. This can't be whitewashed.
Chernobyl's radioactive cloud was detectable all over the world, and did untold (though largely un-measurable) harm. But Chernobyl's worst radioactive fallout rained down on a relatively unpopulated rural area.
Today, dozens of American reactors, like Indian Point, are sited in regions that are very thickly populated. A study by the Sandia Laboratory warned that a reactor accident could kill 3400 people in the short-term, cause 45,000 long-term casualties and irradiate a land mass "the size of Pennsylvania."
If Nuclear energy is cheaper maybe that has to do with the massive corporate welfare they are receiving. Your speculative article on how nukes could get us off of oil, is just as easily projected into truly safe alternatives, especially if they were receiving the gov't handouts that nukes are now getting.
During the deregulation crisis of 1999-2001, the industry took more than $100 billion in "stranded cost" payouts from state and federal sources. Reactor owners argued that nuclear power was too expensive to compete in a deregulated market, and that they were owed compensation for having risked their capital on an experiment that failed.
Today the nuclear industry says all that is behind them, and that a "new generation" of reactors will somehow reverse a half-century of catastrophic economics. But in Finland, the first of these plants is already two years behind schedule and $2 billion over budget.
Judging by the input of you and RobC, I believe that you both want to find alternatives to the current situation. In seeking alternatives, it is my opinion that we should weigh out all the options. There are plenty of creative and industrious people in this country who are doing great work in advancing truly green technology that is sustainable, environmental, and can participate in the market economy when they are not being blocked out of the market by government subsidies
Post a Comment