Proper Nuclear Safety? Blah, Blah, Blah, Says John McCain. Literally.
by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 10.26.08
At a campaign stop in Iowa today, presidential candidate John McCain touched on the importance of expanding nuclear power operations in the US. In his speech, McCain seemed to appeal to his party's base when he drew laughs and cheers after saying the following:
“You know the other night in the debate with Senator Obama, I said his eloquence is admirable, but pay attention to his words—we talked about offshore drilling and he said he would quote ‘consider’ offshore drilling. We talked about nuclear power. Well, it has to be safe, environment, blah, blah, blah. And the fact is—”
This is where the crowd erupts in cheers, effectively cutting him off for a moment. He continues:
“Ask any navy veterans here, by the way, by the way, some of the greatest sailors come farthest away from the ocean, I found that to be true. Ask some of our navy veterans here, they’ll tell you, we’ve been sailing navy ships around the world for 50 years with nuclear power plants on them. I have news for Senator Obama: Nuclear power is safe. We ought to do it now.”
The logic, as I best understand it is as follows: Nuclear power is safe because some US navy ships carry nuclear reactors and have been sailing around for 50 years.
A critical assessment of that claim yields, at best, a severe lack of concern over nuclear power safety issues. Even though the statement was made at a campaign rally, where claims are notoriously bereft of hard policy, it demonstrates a few disconcerting aspects of John McCain’s philosophy towards nuclear power. Depending on how it’s interpreted, it displays either
1. A lack of a well considered plan of dealing with perhaps the most hazardous energy byproducts created by man, or,
2. A willingness to gloss over important details when rallying support for a plan, and appealing to an emotional element over a factual analysis when doing so.
Either one is alarming. And either could shed light on McCain's potential conduct at the helm of an administration. Nuclear energy has long been a focal point of McCain’s campaign. On McCain's website, he states that "nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power." But when he displays such nonchalance regarding the safe disposal of nuclear waste, it’s difficult to view his energy strategy as being as adequately nuanced as it should be—nuclear power is perhaps the most serious, complicated energy source there is. Reducing the difficulties harnessing it presents to such slogan-esque “Drill, Baby, Drill” rhetoric is simply inappropriate, and potentially dangerous.
More on John McCain's Nuclear Power Plans:
The Nuclear Option: McCain V. Obama on Nuclear Power
John McCain Reveals He's a Nuclear Power NIMBY
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- How to Find Green Energy Anywhere
- Has Obama's Inauguration Speech Been Leaked?
- How Much CO2 Would a Nuclear War Emit?
- Two Old Nuclear Reactors To Be Closed At Hamaoka, Japan
Downtown Houston Rediscovers Green with New Eco-Centric Park
|
Canadian Government an "Avid Cheerleader" for Asbestos (But Not In Its Own Backyard)
|
I agree. Personally I like nuclear, I do support it, I understand that it is safe is implemented properly, and I know as well as anyone who has looked into it that there are perfectly safe and cost-effective ways to dramatically reduce waste and to store what waste is produced.
But the way he nonchalantly glosses over all the important details- the difference between what we do now with nuclear power and what we should be doing- is frightening, and should give us all pause.
I often wonder if the American people have any idea of the further damage to its reputation these elections are doing around the world. Many of us are starting to wonder if there's a real America left, or is it all just being filmed on a Hollywood set?
what was that? nuclear energy safe?
after using energy from the plant for ONLY 20 YEARS, the spent nuclear fuel from the plant has to be dumped somewhere, and the government has to prohibit ANY LIVING THING from going near the dump for 10,000 years of radioactive decay
hmm...how is that safe?
what was that? nuclear energy safe?
after using energy from the plant for ONLY 20 YEARS, the spent nuclear fuel from the plant has to be dumped somewhere, and the government has to prohibit ANY LIVING THING from going near the dump for 10,000 years of radioactive decay
hmm...how is that safe?
The blah, blah, blah is not a lack of understanding or concern for safety of nuclear on McCain's part. Rather, it explains Obama's lack of understanding on nuclear issues. Obama says it has to be safe and we have to find ways of dealing with waste. As an engineer in this field, I can tell you we have ways of getting rid of the waste (the limits are only political, not technical, lets work together!) and nuclear is an incredibly safe technology.
It should be noted that the entire amount of high level waste generated over the lifetime of the current nuclear reactors would cover a football field only about 30 feet deep. The amount of waste is minimal, and it can be reprocessed and the volume reduced by 95%. I was recently at a reactor that has operated at over 1 GW for 25+ years. All of the waste the plant has ever created is stored within the plant itself occupying a volume less than a small environmentally-friendly home. A similar amount of power from fossil fuel resources would have output millions of tonnes of carbon.
We have also never had a civilian death caused by a nuclear power reactor in the United States. Three Mile Island was an unfortunate event, but it led to many changes and better (redundant and passive) designs to make plants even safer. Training is also vastly improved. Nobody was even injured at TMI and the containment worked as designed to prevent release to the public and operators. Chernobyl was completely different, caused by a faulty plant design (positive void coefficient), no containment structure, poor training, and bad decisions. Compare this to coal where there are thousands that die each year directly in coal mine deaths and probably millions of indirect health problems caused by the pollutants that exit the stack.
Nuclear is not our enemy. Nuclear can provide us with large amounts of carbon-free energy. On the other hand, coal is very polluting. A coal plant puts out more radiation than a nuclear plant due to the heavy elements in the coal itself released into the air during combustion, and it also produces CO2, mercury, and SOx and NOx.
Bash coal, not nuclear, and lets all do our part to practice energy conservation.
So McCain should know all about this. His state hosts the largest nuclear power plant in the US, some 45 miles west of Phoenix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station), cooled by sewage running from Phoenix.
It also happens to be the plant under strictest supervision by the NRC due to numerous safety violations.
It also happens to be in the flight path of the Phoenix airport, so you know it has to be safe.
So McCain should know all about this. His state hosts the largest nuclear power plant in the US, some 45 miles west of Phoenix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station), cooled by sewage running from Phoenix.
It also happens to be the plant under strictest supervision by the NRC due to numerous safety violations.
It also happens to be in the flight path of the Phoenix airport, so you know it has to be safe.
Not that I have anything against nuclear power, but I just couldn't stop laughing when I saw this caption:
http://punditkitchen.com/2008/10/10/political-pictures-barack-obama-john-mccain-cancer-nuclear-power-navy/
Maybe it means I'm a bad person, but You've got to appreciate the irony
An old man with old befuddled ideas - let's hope US voters don't saddle the globe with him.
wow... McCain really is on his own little ride there... Nuclear power IS safe. thats more or less true (btw more or less is still bad)... but even "safe reactors" need to dump their spent fuel somewhere... and yes nuclear power is a zero emissions source of energy... till the first spent fuel is brought out. Then all hell breaks loose.
Jeff says: It is now extremely safe.... with all the new tech for volume reduction, reprocessing etc... But I still would not say nuclear tech is safe... It's a Pandora's box made by man. If by ANY chance the radiation leaks out... there's going to be hell to pay. However safe the tech is, however little the waste is, it's still dangerous. and over a longer period of time, the waste sure as hell won't fit inside an environmentally green house.
France is working on the Fusion reactor... Now THATS clean energy.
OK great Nuclear is now safe.
We just need to store it somewhere and monitor it and guard it from terrorists for the next 100 ? thousand years.
Now lets figure out the net present value of paying those salaries for the next 100 thousand years.
Now lets figure out the cost of insurance for a system which if it ever went wrong could have long lasting and devastating consequences resulting in thousands of years of compensation for effected areas.
Clearly nuclear is not worth considering unless the government agrees to write laws excusing the plants from requiring insurance and mandating that future governments for the foreseeable future subsidise the waste disposal.
Why would governments do this ? Only to get nuclear weapons.
A similar analysis will show that carbon storage and sequestration is not a profitable proposition either, except the carbon dioxide has no half life, and there are no weapons of mass destruction bonuses.
Looks like McCain really cares about nuclear problems, lol
We should expand upon current nuclear technologies and improve their safety, while also investing in other technologies like wind, solar, etc. We can become energy independent only if we use a combination and not just one single source of energy for our needs. The thing with McCain is that he doesn't realize that energy production is an infrastructure that has to be efficient and produce less waste at every stage. And yes, we do have the technical (but not political, unfortunately) abilities to deal with nuclear waste, like the folks above stated.
Now, fusion might seem a bit far-fetched atm, but the only hitch with it really is that it requires more energy input than output. Who knows, maybe 20-30 years from now we'll see it as a viable, nonradioactive source.
McCain pushes all sources of energy.
He also had big words of praise for the Chevy Volt.
Obama is even more vague in his speeches. Just hope and change and free healthcare. 'A young man with' vague ideas, "lets hope US voters don't saddle the globe with him".
vsk
I also think (oddly, like Barack Obama) that there is a place for nuclear power. But it is very dangerous both in it's operation and the waste disposal, as others have pointed out.
And leaving that safety in the hands of people who childishly mock you when you talk about the real challenges, is just inviting an accident to happen. That's scary.
So, to the reflexive defenders of it, do you really think it's impossible that we'd never have "poor training, and bad decisions" in the united states? I think on average we have been incredible lucky.
If we're going to have it, at least let's put someone in charge who takes it seriously.
And when they talk of plants, are they going with same style plants we have or some possibly better/different like thorium or pebble bed?
Any ideas?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
I blogged about this after one of the debates. McCain mocked Obama for wanting safe disposal of waste. That day, RMI came out with some reports about how stupid nuclear is for energy or solving global warming.
Link to blog post
People are horrible at judging probability. There is risk in everything. So long as you understand the risks and mitigate them.
Spent nuclear fuel is more a risk to terrorists when it's sitting around at nuclear facilities across the country than it is in a properly secured repository.
Not to be offensive, but most of the comments on this site regarding nuclear material is willfully ignorant at best.
Radioactive products in coal are dispersed in the atmosphere. The dose of radiation you receive from coal emissions is orders of magnitude higher than what you would receive living near a nuclear reactor.
Blah blah blah? Tell these guys:
http://www.mathewingram.com/work/wp-content/chernobyl.JPG
Blah Blah Blah is a pretty dismissive tone to take with the millions of people with real concerns about the environment and nuclear safety. Rather than be reassuring and giving us facts, McCain is continuing the adolescent rhetoric of the Busch administration. He says his hero is Teddy Roosevelt, the first president to address environmental issues, but rather than summon some eloquence and raise the tone of this conversation, he dumbs it down and appeals to base intelligence.
We need facts. I believe the complete embodied energy of nuclear plus the risk make it not worth the effort, but I don't have facts to back that up. I detest the sort of language that McCain is using across the board, I thought he was higher than that. From "Joe the plumber" to "blah blah blah" he relies on people not understanding issues in order to gain traction through emotion. I don't want 8 more years of that. Obama doesn't have specifics for everything, but intelligence and tone count for a lot in president. This country and planet are at a crossroads, there is no more time to act like children and only be concerned with what we can get for ourselves. We need to care for each other, unite in our common values of hard work,fairness and responsibility, and solve the problems facing us as a United people.
This article is ridiculous. It is obviously written as an indirect ad for Obama. Obama pushes nuclear energy just as heavily as McCain. If you want to do proper reporting, cover the whole story not just one-half. This article should have pointed out that both candidates; from our two party, monopolized system; support nuclear power and thus, both candidates have some serious ideological flaws. A pandering politician can never be trusted to make the much needed changes for this country and they are both that; each with just a little different flavor. You want to truly elect a President that would make you proud? Start researching your independents. I'd begin with Nader.
McCain is correct and nuclear power is safe. Even Three Mile Island incident proved the safety system worked.
We live with managed risk all the time. People drive around in automobiles with 20 gallons of volatile fuel on board, enclosed in a tank which could easily burst in an accident.
Nuclear plant designs, especially today are well understood and designed with layers of safety in mind.
When solar and wind are economically viable for Joe Average, then we'll ween ourselves off nuclear and coal. Until that happens, we need nuclear plants.