Not In My Back Yard, Please: New Nuclear for NC?
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 09.23.07
Nuclear power is a pretty emotive subject. Perhaps surprisingly, when we asked our readers if nuclear has a place in our energy future, the results seemed to indicate a majority in support of at least some future nuclear capabilities. Yet a recent in-house discussion among TH writers put the majority of us marginally against further reactors, though the results were by no means conclusive. Meanwhile TreeHugger favourite Bill McDonough is all about nuclear reactors, he just thinks that the big yellow fusion-reactor sitting in our sky is superior to anything we could come up with. This author must admit he remains undecided – if nuclear really can help curb global warming, which is clearly our biggest current environmental crisis, he may be open to limited, and very strictly controlled, development of nuclear. However, it seems hard to stomach claims that it’s the only way when the HUGE potential of increased efficiency and clean renewables remain so woefully under-utillized and under-funded.
Ultimately, even if new nuclear is necessary and safe (and that’s a big if), most of us lived through the Chernobyl era and will therefore find it hard to think about the subject in purely rational terms. ‘Not in my backyard’ will remain a very common, and pretty understandable, response for many. It is with interest then, and some trepidation, that this TreeHugger notes that his backyard may well become a testing ground for the next stages in this ongoing controversy:
“Progress Energy would propose nearly doubling the size of a Wake County [near Raleigh, North Carolina recreational lake as it moves ahead with plans to seek a federal license for new Shearon Harris nuclear reactors.Harris Lake, created in the 1980s as the main cooling source for the Shearon Harris nuclear plant, would have to be raised about 20 feet to hold sufficient water to cool additional reactors. If Progress decides to build new reactors at the site, the fir t reactor would start operating in 2018, at the earliest. The proposal would be filed in January as part of the Raleigh utility's reactor license application with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The license application would also be reviewed by federal and state environmental agencies. As a precaution against drought conditions, Progress Energy also wants permission to pump water out of the Cape Fear River to supplement Harris Lake, said Joe Donahue, Progress' vice president of nuclear engineering and services.
If the reservoir drops elow a certain level, the NRC requires Progress Energy to stop operating the nuclear plant. Harris Lake is approaching record low levels now. Harris Lake was designed to accommodate four nuclear reactors, but the size of the reservoir was scaled back in the early-1980s when the company decided to build only one reactor. Expanding the 4,000-acre lake would inundate a road, a hunting area and Wake County's biggest public park, which has hiking trails and boat ramps. Harris Lake County Park is on Progress Energy property that the county is leasing. "Our biggest concern is they're going to flood about half of our park and inundate our facilities," said Chris Snow, director of Wake County's Division of Parks, Recreation and Open Space.”
Whether or not this author can be persuaded about the necessity of new nuclear, he doesn’t mind admitting that he’ll be doing his recreational hiking and boating elsewhere. So will any future children he may have if he has anything to do with it. Image credit: Hungry Blues blog.::News & Observer:: via Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News::
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Proper Nuclear Safety? Blah, Blah, Blah, Says John McCain. Literally.
- First Nuclear Fusion by 2011? Still No Silver Bullet for Environmental Problems
- This Month in Mother Jones: Rescuing the Economy and Saving the Planet
- Urban Design After the Age of Oil: Notes from Day 1
Two Years Ago in TreeHugger: New Prefabs
|
Quote of the Day: Craig Damrauer on the the New Math Of Global Warming
|
I live in the Raleigh area, and I agree about taking my hiking trips elsewhere. Also, isn't whether or not to use nuclear the wrong question? That is, if we're looking into nuclear as a way to power the future, aren't we asking the wrong questions about how we got here? How much energy we actually use? Sure, a few nuclear reactors now seem insignificant, nothing we can't handle...but what about when everyone is using it, and what about after 1000 years of using nuclear power, and on and on.
So I mean, I love the idea of nuclear energy as a means to reduce our carbon emissions. I hate it as a means to enable endless power consumption of things we don't need. Maybe if our nuclear reactor building could be coupled with the demand that people like Progress energy build electric tram/trolley/commuter train systems in areas that are powered by nuclear energy. In a state that just paid GoodYear 40 million dollars to supposedly keep them from going overseas, I doubt that kind of "burden" would be placed on a business.
Rather than worry about all these new reactors the nuclear power industry is threatening us with, worry about the 104 old ones still cranking away that are having their license rubber stamps by the NRC while nobody is paying any attention. 60% of these plants, according to a recent Waterkeeper report, are leaking strontium-90 and other radioactive isotopes into the ground water from cracks in their fuel rod cooling pools. Enriched uranium is the most toxic substance known to man, and it is man-made... the worst environmental pollutant of all. This young hip and green generation has been lulled into complacency by the nuclear industry which spent millions in schools telling kids nukes were clean and green. Wake up people! Thanks for posting about this issue, short of a personal reply to my letter addressed to treehugger staff a couple of days ago. Don't you get it? The pro-nuke bloggers are out in force... PAID by the industry? The nuclear issue is the new frontier... the last frontier in the environmental wars. It's the one that got away... it's the one we need to deal with noe if we are going to save the planet. Nuclear in any shape or form, in its present technological evolution, in both its peaceful or military applications, is unacceptable, intolerable, to a green world. If this new $50 billion bail out of the nuclear power industry, was instead spent on LEDs... we'd be home free... the nuclear culture is a culture of death. Stop so much as hinting that treehugger considers nukes an option... it's scary! It's almost insulting.
First, I am undecided about nuclear's future, though I have serious doubts. What I do know, is that America's 104 aging reactors that the NRC is now in the process of relicensing are time bombs waiting to go off. A bold statement, but lets look at a few facts.
1. The NRC states that their biggest concerns with these aging behemoths are aging management plans meant to address known corrosion, fatigue and degradation issues. In fact, Aging Management issues are the KEY focus of the License Renewal Process.
This is what the NRC and NEI do not want you to know. The industry has NO CLUE on how to deal with some of these aging issues, and the NRC knows it. Which is why they allow licensees to make false committments to future deliverable to get a license granted. These committments basically are saying, "We have NO CLUE right now, but when we get one, at some future date and time we'll address the subject.
FROM THE INDIAN POINT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION:
NUREG-1801, Section XI.M16 states: "No further aging management review is necessary if the applicant provides a commitment in the FSAR supplement to
(1) participate in the industry programs for investigating and managing aging effects
on reactor internals;
(2) evaluate and implement the results of the industry programs as applicable to the reactor internals; and
(3) upon completion of these programs, but not less than 24 months before entering the period of extended operation, submit an inspection plan for reactor internals to the NRC for review and approval." IPEC commitment can be found in Appendix A
So, the very aging management plans that license renewal makes the cornerstone of reveiw ARE NOT EVEN KNOWN, and will be developed and implemented at some future date and time.
2. Reactor Security-the NEI(Nuclear Energy Institute) used strong armed lobbying inside the highest offices at the NRC to keep key weapons used by both terrorist and some American gangs off the DBT list of weaposn that a nuclear security force has to defend against in the case of a terrorist attack.
These weapons include armor piercing munitions, mortars, should launched grenades (RPG) and the semi automatic 50 Caliber Rifle. WHY? Because inclusion of these weapons in the DBT would make over 80 percent of reactor security infrastructure OBSOLETE, and the reactor owners did not want to spend $40 million a reactor upgrading said infrastructure. Most infrastructure, such as guard towers are made with only bullet resistant glass, and could easily be taken out with a single, well delivered shot...in short, the guards are SITTING DUCKS.
It's no accident that the NRC further removed security from the SCOPE OF ITEMS that can be considered in relicensing these reactors.
50 percent of America lives within 50 miles of one of these aging reactors, lives within the Peak Fatality Zone should there be a successful terrorist attack on one of these facilities. Yet, the masses are wanting to embrace nuclear reactors as the savior of the world when it comes to global warming.
3. Global Warming. Stop buying into the nuclear industries lies. First, the process of getting uranium out of the ground and into a nuclear reactor is the MOST CARBON INTENSIVE industrial process in the world.
Secondly, the NRC and the nuclear industry fight every effort to have nuclear industry's contributions to Global Warming through thermal discharges included in the picture. Lets give everyone one point to consider. Indian Point as one example brings into their reactor 2.4 BILLION gallons of water a day, and then discharges it back into the Hudson River at 103-105 degrees. That comes out to 7.76 TRILLION gallons of heated water per year. What is the thermal contribution to Global Warming from this FACT?
Sherwood Martinelli
Vice President
FUSE USA www.fuseusa.org
Nuclear reactors and coal fired power plants are a bit like flying and driving, respectively. Accidents from the former always shocks us, and still, but if you look at the statistics, any way you put it, nuclear is the safer and more environmentally beneficial, by far. The Economist and Fortune 500 have ran great articles on why nuclear is making a huge comeback that won't be stopped, and perhaps people should read them to get it. I'd put links as I have them on my site but the TH spam filters always removes my whole comments with stories from other sources as if it's afraid of the competition or something. Anyway, if you're going around touting William McDonough so much, perhaps you should also listen to him on this issue considering he doesn't seem to have any doubts.
Poisoning water is a common problem with all reactors. The entire nuclear fuel cycle is one where it seems that the poisoning of our water remains hidden from view, where this contradiction is so great as to be overlooked in irrationality.
Poisoning water is the Achilles Heel of the nuclear industry. There is no safe method to mine uranium, it still poisons water whatever new technology the nuclear industry espouses as safe to the environment. Yet the public falls victim to the nuclear industry's outright lies and deceit as being conditioned to experience the worse first before improvements are made. In other words, we are all laboratory rats testing whether this or that technology is safe.
As Remy states, the nuclear industry is now proposing safer, new reactors, using the "now you see it, now you don't" hyperbole. He is saying that the older nuclear reactors at Indian Point, Vermont Yankee and Diablo Canyon as well as others strewn across the country are extremely dangerous, just waiting to show us how really dangerous they are. And at what cost? Your freedom to enjoy a safe environment, free from cancer-causing situations, free from unnecessary death!
Poisoning water is a common problem with all reactors. The entire nuclear fuel cycle is one where it seems that the poisoning of our water remains hidden from view, where this contradiction is so great as to be overlooked in irrationality.
Poisoning water is the Achilles Heel of the nuclear industry. There is no safe method to mine uranium, it still poisons water whatever new technology the nuclear industry espouses as safe to the environment. Yet the public falls victim to the nuclear industry's outright lies and deceit as being conditioned to experience the worse first before improvements are made. In other words, we are all laboratory rats testing whether this or that technology is safe.
As Remy states, the nuclear industry is now proposing safer, new reactors, using the "now you see it, now you don't" hyperbole. He is saying that the older nuclear reactors at Indian Point, Vermont Yankee and Diablo Canyon as well as others strewn across the country are extremely dangerous, just waiting to show us how really dangerous they are. And at what cost? Your freedom to enjoy a safe environment, free from cancer-causing situations, free from unnecessary death!
We are one of the first "green" solutions where people can actually save money…and you can actually make money. It is a beautiful thing!
click below.
lets all eliminate new nuclear plants by going solar with no upfront investments! click on my name!
Leta all consider doing solar to help augment the power industry so that no new nuclear plants a re- built. click below for more info.
First off I would like to condemn the previous commenter for spamming.
Secondly, living in NJ, and fairly close to multiple nuclear plants in NJ and the surrounding areas, including one within the prevailing winds, and the oldest running plant in the US (oyster creek). NJ produces 1/2 its power from nukes, and only 18% from coal.
And you know what, I much prefer the nuclear plants to having a coal one right next to me.
I'm all for solar, but do we need to spam this with three posts?
Buy an ad and support Treehugger please.
The problem is due to the large amount of cheap power demanded by consumers, the choice boils down to A) coal, or B) nuclear.
Choose wisely.
How about some articles or links to some solid LCA studies on nukes ... cradle to cradle energy net.
How much energy to mine, transport, refine, transport, process, guard, transport, build, store wastes, guard, deliver power, and decommission. With all of the little details like average fuel used for each worker's commute, energy used in the lengthy permitting process, risk analysis, disaster planning, etc.
Gimme the unadulterated info and compare it to smaller distributed renewables. Then show us the same for the money involved. Untill then I will continue to hold my vote on nukes.
And about Mr. "click on me": hasn't this guy been repeatedly warned about spam posting -- I think a final ultimatum if not an outright ban may unfortunately be due. Or has TH HQ been sleeping on this one?
BTW, most of us are aware of this [his] MLM company that is taking large deposits for solar power systems -- and they haven't even built their factory to make the product ! Anyone want tobuy a bridge ?? :-)
Anyone interested in nuclear power should read "We Almost Lost Detroit". Published in the 1970's, prior to 3-mile island and Chernobyl, it's eye opening. Nuclear power has its down and dangerous sides.
If you think you 'need' nuclear power, you're just greedy.
Anyone who thinks nuclear energy is dangerous needs to take a long hard look at coal mining.
Coal mining kills more people every year than have ever died to to nuclear power. When you factor in the air pollution and other issues, coal power is very dangerous.
"If you think you 'need' nuclear power, you're just greedy."
Good luck getting everyone in the US to reduce consumption enough that we can power down the coal plants without nuclear power. Even if the population doesn't continue to grow, there is no way to effectively supply this large amount of power without coal or nuclear.
Most of the world's energy right now comes from burning coal. Whether nuclear energy is safe or unsafe is a matter of containment technologies available and used. one has to remeber that no containment facility can ever, theoretically, cut out radiation fully. there is always going to be a risk.
it is however true that as of now nuclear based power is prohibitively expensive and dangerous when one considers the nuclear fallout related aspects.
however, its fairly ridiculous if you think about it, how we make energy. heat may not be stored, electricity may be.
this means that the heat generated inside a nuclear reactor must be converted to electricity. humanity does this using a technique which has not advanced in any major way for about a couple of hundred years. we use the dynamo principle. we heat up water, convert it into steam, use the steam to rotate turbines that exist within and electromagnetic field, thus generating current.
the point is, unless we figure out a better way of converting heat into electricity, there's just not enough fissionable material in the earth. and the residue is very very dangerous, as compared to the residue that we get out of coal. to say that coal mining kills a lot of people around the world every year is true. but mining for uranium is much, much more dangerous and much, much more expensive and life-threatening.
Nuke v coal -- the poster child for a false dilemma.
Some of these statements are false, hopefully not intentionally so.
Uranium mining is done open pit, so is far safer than underground coal mining. Open pit mining is pretty horrible in itslef, but some coal is open pit mined as well, and I see rail road car after railroad car of coal shipped year round non stop, and you rarely notice a shipment of new uranium to a nuclear power plant (yes, there are some in my area) because it occurs so rarely!
There is risk in everything, and reality is that nuclear has a far safer track record than coal for the same timespan. FACT!