Not Nuclear, Not Now
by on 02.17.05
After reading our recent post about the controversy over the potential use of nuclear power (could it be clean and efficient, or is it an accident waiting to happen?), reader Mikhail Capone dared to defy us! (Exactly what we were hoping for.) Providing a link to an article at uber-liberal (and equally lovable) TomPaine.commonsense by Patrick C. Doherty, that he says “debunks” the idea of nuclear “pretty well,” Mikhail tells us he’s made up his mind. Following, a few rational excerpts from the article. Like we said, everything’s up for debate, so let us know what you think, too.
“Any new reactors built in the next 10 years would merely replace aging reactors, doing nothing to reduce our oil dependence. In essence, the industry is merely fighting to preserve its 20 percent share of the domestic electricity market.
To do that, the industry is employing a cynical ‘bait-and-switch’ campaign. Industry advocates are promising the safety, cost and oil-replacing potential of generation-after-next “pebble-bed” reactors, but these designs still need years of research and development. In the meantime, the nuclear industry is working with its congressional allies…to merely replace 30 and 40-year old reactors…It’s all smoke and mirrors.
In reality, we won’t see pebble-bed reactors replacing oil for 20 years —which may be the Bush administration’s goal…”
“Nuclear power can’t deliver on these requirements [of clean and flexible energy sources]…Nuclear power does nothing to fix [our] fractured system. In fact, it would only reinforce this inefficient system by creating a new generation of massive plants located far from the customers they serve. Consumers would have little choice and the industry would have government over a barrel.
There are better answers. Technology and design advances have opened up a new way to organize our energy grid that encourages high-quality energy and healthy markets. Right now, small natural gas turbines combined with better grid design can capture much of the wasted energy by distributing clean generating capacity closer to consumers. Instead of putting one massive power plant tens of miles from the customers and taking five years to build, ‘distributed’ micro-turbine power plants of any size can drop in incremental capacity onto the grid where it’s needed when it’s needed...
The nuclear industry wants to abort that vision of a clean, efficient and distributed energy future before it is born…”
For the full article, please click on ::TomPaine.commonsense [by MO]
Wired magazine has had some great articles about the uses of Nuclear reactors in our new energy conscious world.
The most recent issue has one which also references an older article which talked about pebble-bed reactors.
I disagree with Mr. Doherty's statement that Nuclear power will unquestionably reinforce the inefficiencies of our current power distribution technology (centralized production, huge and unstable grids, etc) - though I do agree that current methods are inefficient and even dangerous.
There has, in fact, been work done to provide modular 'mini nuclear' generating stations that would fit with his 'ditributed' generation model.
http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/native/business_finance/pns_native_alaska_nukes.asp
http://www.primidi.com/2005/02/06.html
I also diagree that new construction would result in reactors that are essentially the same as the ones we built in the 1980s. Reactor technology has constantly been evolving, and some innovations that are nearly 20 years old now would make new reactor construction significantly different from what has been built in the past.
Breeder reactors are one:
http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Nuclear%20Waste%20and%20Breeder%20Reactors.htm
there are other advanced reactors as well:
http://www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm
Also, it should be noted that many of the problems of dealing with waste have been solved by a combination of new reactor design, and new disposal methods (such as vitrification: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/eternity/vitri1.html)
And check this out too - I guess Alaska has decided to go for the 'mini-nuke' plan:
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/household/alaskan-town-oks-mini-nuke-033409.php
making nuclear more distributive is a low priority issue. Make it a big deal if you want, but there are alot of problems with a bunch of mini nuclear sites some for the obvious reasons (more point sources for nuclear materials) and not so obvious (capital costs). There are alot of nuclear designs out there (almost every country has one). The US likes the enriched Uranium type utilizing water instead of heavy water or the CANDU design. I think this makes sense. What doesn't make sense is our Carteresque solution to waste -- storage RATHER than reprocessing. Reprocessing is good, because it makes the old fuel new again with a very little waste. FIRST let's get us reprocessing and back thinking nuclear could be an option rather than thinking SOLAR and WIND is the end all be all.
Advocates and opponents alike seldom get to the sustainability dimensions of nuclear power. I toss the three-fingered gauntlet.
On Social equity: the Holy Grail of pro-nuclear development is in Nevada. You don't need a DaVinci Code to find it, as its only an hour drive from LasVegas. Until the nuclear morgue is done, nothing new gets built, mini or supersized. No major backer places a bet on a 20-year ROI, with cash as tight as it is today, while waste disposal liability looms. True, we could have a parallel effort in nuclear waste residue management and reactor design improvement. But wait! Nevada is the wild west and GOP run. Property takings and all that. A swing far to the right blocks it as well as a "librul" majority ever could.
On resource efficiency: the fastest growing areas of the US happen to be seriously stressed for potable and industrial water. Atlanta, the entire Southwest, Colorado Basin, and California are in deficit and there is no sign of a turn around yet. Thats also where the power is most needed. As far as I can tell, air cooling of the reactors is not an option.
Second resource issue is uranium availability. Where are the major reserves? Is there even enough to take us to the end of design life for a new reactor built today, assuming major nuclear capacity is added? A single source indicates a thirty year horizon under a major nuclear power expansion scenario. I stand corrected, but lets face the future square on. Its not just the technolgy we need to look atk its the entire supply chain.
Third sustainability leg is economics. Show me a national nuclear generation program not underwritten by significant governmental backing and I'll show you a reason to direct that money to some renewable resources.
Again, the government can subsidizes billions into new reactors or produce the same amount of power with wind farms.
Oh and in reply to Joel's comment that they'd be the same reactors, I believe the poster meant that the current reactors are going offline so the new reactors wouldn't be displacing coal, just older nuke reactors.
Is this my moment of fame? ;P
Oh, and what's with the use of the word "liberal" in the U.S. ? I can never get used to that.
On one side you have conservative, and on the other you have progressive. Those two go together conceptually. But "liberal", to the rest of the world, just doesn't have that meaning.
GreenCow, yeah.. If you read the article, you'll see that the nuclear industry has seen very little (if any) growth since the Three Mile Island accident. Now those aging reactors from that era are going offline, and the new ones would only be replacing those.
Thanks for the comment GreenCow - you're right in seeing that I read the original post wrong. Good on you. I stand by my claim that the original poster painted a darker picture than was necessary - even if the new reactors are replacing old nuclear reactors, for the same size, cost to build, cost to run, safety risk - pretty much every metric you can apply to these things - the new 'replacement' reactors would be producing far more power and therefore displace some coal generation simply through the greater efficiency provided by these new reactors.
John's comments about the geographic problems are important too - Nuclear power NEEDS a huge cool water supply to operate, and this is another potential long term problem that needs to be considered. Everyone always says Nuclear plants don't pollute, but if they significantly change the temperature of surrounding water sources through cooling themselves, couldn't we consider this a type of 'heat pollution'?
Isn't anyone afraid of the consequences of government greed, expressed through the desire to be free of our reliability on middle east oil? if bush is so worried, why doesn't he encourage our spoiled citizens to hop on a bicycle instead of driving a car 2 blocks to 7 11 to pick up nachos and cheese? I don't want my children to die in ten years because of another chernobyl or three mile island. And think about the environment, isnt anyone worried that the scene that their grangchildren will see in years will be different from the one that they are seeing now?