Don’t Dismiss Nuclear Risks
Possibility of new nuclear plant highlights reasons for solar and wind power
With the recent settlement between the state of Maryland and Constellation Energy Group, the power company is once again championing Calvert Cliffs as the site of a new nuclear power plant. This is not a cause for celebration.
On July 13, Constellation submitted the first new application to build a nuclear power plant in the U.S. since Three Mile Island. But the company threatened to go elsewhere if Maryland lawmakers re-established state regulatory control on new power plants.
Fear of a growing energy shortage is leading to calls for more nuclear power plants. What many people are forgetting is that nuclear power is an expensive and risky investment, and there would be little interest in such projects without federal subsidies and incentives, including liability insurance, risk insurance for delays, production tax credits and loan guarantees totaling billions of dollars. In Florida, two proposed new reactors may cost $24 billion, with ratepayers expected to pay during construction. With wind power already more economical than nuclear power, and solar power soon to be, one critic predicts nuclear power plants will be “economically obsolete before they are built.”
Nuclear power cannot be brought online on the scale and time frame needed to replace coal. In 2007, 12 of 32 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide had been so for more than 20 years. Moody’s estimated that no more than two new nuclear power plants will come online by 2015. In addition to delays in finding suitable sites, dealing with community objections and getting permits, there is now a three-year backup in obtaining the core reactor vessel, which is forged by a single company in Japan.
There is no solution to the problem of nuclear waste, currently totaling 50,000 metric tons. Despite 20 years of study and a $9 billion expense, the repository site at Yucca Mountain is not close to having a permit. Were it to open, it would be full by 2012.
Pro-nuclear advocates tend to ignore the fact that nuclear power is the only energy source that carries the risk of radioactive contamination. This unique safety concern is exacerbated by a degraded safety culture shared by plant owners and by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that took too long to correct a dangerous erosion problem, which allowed container vessels to leak. The NRC has failed to resolve design flaws in sump pumps at Calvert Cliffs and other plants at risk of clogging in an accident. Moreover, the NRC’s inspector general has criticized the agency for failing to document criteria for plant recertification.
A British report last year outlined the growing risk of terrorist action against nuclear power plants. Whether by accident or terrorist event, a meltdown would be catastrophic. The Department of Energy in 1982 estimated that for each reactor at Calvert Cliffs, a meltdown would likely result in 5,600 fatalities, 15,000 peak injuries and 23,000 cancer deaths. It stands to reason that those figures would be greater now, given the growth in population and development of Southern Maryland.
Of course, nuclear power also increases the risk of arms proliferation. The fuels used by the reactors are the fissile materials needed to make nuclear bombs. Uranium enrichment increases the concentration of U-235 from 0.7 percent, as it exists in nature, to 3 percent (low enriched uranium, or LEU), which is used for fuel. Further enrichment to 90 percent (highly enriched uranium, or HEU) is necessary to make bombs like the one detonated over Hiroshima.
Iran was charged with violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for enriching uranium in secret. (The treaty permits nonnuclear nations to enrich uranium for civilian nuclear energy programs if done transparently.) The same technology is used for production of LEU and HEU, which underscores the contradiction of trying to stop nuclear weapons proliferation at the same time as promoting nuclear energy.
Plutonium is obtained by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. It is easier to steal because it emits no self-protecting gamma rays, unlike unseparated spent fuel, which is lethal at one meter even 50 years after production. The theft of just a few kilograms is all that is required to produce a bomb like the one detonated over Nagasaki. Currently, there is enough reprocessed plutonium from civilian nuclear power plants worldwide to make 60,000 nuclear bombs. The proliferation risk is staggering, and as nuclear power expands, so does access to weapons-usable material such as enriched uranium and reprocessed plutonium.
Global warming is a worldwide crisis. Coal-fired power plants are a major producer of CO{-2}, and we must find a way to replace them - but not with dangerous nuclear power. As in medicine, when a treatment is associated with rare but serious complications, we choose safer alternatives. Increased energy efficiency, conservation, solar and wind power are the safer alternatives.
Dr. Gwen DuBois, an internist at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, is a member of Chesapeake Physicians for Social Responsibility. Her e-mail is gdubois@pol.net.
Copyright © 2008, The Baltimore Sun
If Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Spian and Belgium can pledge to phase out nuke energy why can’t we all?
The the German parliament was presented with a scenario of going 100% renewable energy in 2002, and if a highly industrialised country like that can do it, why can’t the rest of us?
And don’t let any fool tell you its between coal and nukes.
Its between those two harmful technologies and renewable energy. A permanent global rolling outage and the light.
Germany was employing 30 000 people on nuke energy in 2002, now (sources vary) but between 120 000 and over 230 000 are employed on renewables at present and the number is growing daily.
Yes, some paper has reported that the Germans may face power outages this winter, but its not confimed, the Germans are smart engineers, and thats better than some terrorist group blowing up power stations and destroying the countryside and many peole for generations to come.
If there were no alternatives, we would have to build new nuclear reactors, even though they take a couple of decades to come on stream. But there really are alternatives, and very good they are too. The next generation of solar cells will provide a watt of energy for pennies; some parts of the world will be able to harvest huge amounts of energy from tidal turbines (upside down windmills that are driven by ocean currents); wind and waves are also proven generators. Doubtless new technologies will turn up as the price of oil rises inexorably. But the biggest impact by far, in the short term, is what we can - and should - achieve through energy efficiency. We really could run the world pretty much as we do on half the power. We need to begin there.
Finally! An article that presents the fact that nuclear power’s waste is nuclear weapons grade material!
I think solar, wind and wave (and let’s not forget hot-rock geothermal) could provide home, residential and businesses with plenty of energy in this country. Cheap energy. Clean energy. Energy that isn’t bound to long multi-national supply chains. Energy that isn’t tied to subsidies or bizarre taxation which by that I mean….free from political nonesense.
With clean generation of electricity comes with it the means to convert our transportation sector to a byproduce of this which is electric drivetrains, hydrogen or even compressed air as alternatives or supplements to oil. What will happen…oil as energy knocked out. Coal as a dominant energy player knocked out. The carbon from oil and coal will then be used for building rather than burning….true value applied without the massive waste.
The Guardian had a great article on how feed-in tariffs have worked in Germany and how nuclear is subsidized in various ways–never mind that future generations must deal with the waste. Lovelock’s position is critiqued…
Don’t miss this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/16/renewableenergy.windpower
“The fact is that the subsidies paid for fossil and nuclear energy are much higher - hundreds of millions of pounds a year - around 10 times more than has been spent on renewables over the past two decades,” he says. “And nuclear power stations, for instance, are even relieved from having to pay their huge insurance bill because the taxpayer picks it up. So this argument about renewables and subsidies doesn’t stand up.
brontoburger
“Finally! An article that presents the fact that nuclear power’s waste is nuclear weapons grade material!”
Did you bother to read the article or do you just interpret things the way you want to? Your statement is wrong.
The waste from a nuclear plant is almost all uranium and most of that U-238. This is the “unseparated spent fuel”. There are small quanities of plutonium, but greater amounts of strontium, cesium, cerium, and other mixed fisson products. These are the components the emit what the author mentions as “…self-protecting gamma rays which is lethal at one meter even 50 years after production.”
The plutonium when it is separated out and in the form of pure plutonium metal is quite stable and easy to handle, requiring only gloves. The thing is, only nations-states (and few of them) have the technology to do the separation.
The author states, “Currently, there is enough reprocessed plutonium from civilian nuclear power plants worldwide to make 60,000 nuclear bombs.” True enough. But the suggestion is that this stuff is just lying around someplace waiting for some terrorist to come along and pick it up. Does anyone here know where it is? Assuming it were just laying around, the terrorist would also need to find some fairly special explosives, cryton triggers, and a few other things (including some serious expertise) not generally available at the 7-11. A uranium bomb is a much easier gadget to produce.
The greater worry is the the theft of an existing nuke from Russia (something that is being worked on) or the advent of a hostile government in Pakistan. If we keep stepping on our dick in that part of the world, we might just create that which we most fear.
kendpotter: You are correct in your assertion that reactor waste is not necessarily weapons grade material… depending on the reactor design of course… a heavy water reactor does create plutonium… but again, as you said, the recovery and reprocessing of that material is not a trivial matter… As well, the creation of a plutonium based weapon is much more sophisticated than a simple “gun-style” uranium weapon… in fact, that vast majority of what you need to know to make a simple weapon is available online.
Also, you said: “The greater worry is the the theft of an existing nuke from Russia (something that is being worked on) or the advent of a hostile government in Pakistan. If we keep stepping on our dick in that part of the world, we might just create that which we most fear.”
I would add to that assessment, a false-flag event staged by either your own government, or a ‘friendly nation’ such as Israel. Remember the missing US nuke?
Al Queada will attack a nuke plant in this country soon. If they are successful they will hasten the decline of the USA.
Sorry Gwen DuBois, but nuclear power is not, as you state: “the only energy source that carries the risk of radioactive contamination ” Coal fired power plants spew radioactive waste into the air without any regulation or public awareness. Coal is composed of a slew of nasty toxins including uranium, sulfur, arsenic and mercury. In stark contrast to nuclear energy which does not contribute to air pollution, coal plants are the dirtiest and the most carbon intensive of all fuel sources.
The bottom line is that coal is the absolute worst energy source with no redeeming qualities. Nuclear power is not perfect but it has some profound positive aspects. But coal, our worst option, is growing at an alarming rate, while nuclear, a far superior option has been all but squashed.
The author’s glib comments about coal at the end of this article show a shortsighted dismissal of the problems with our worst fuel source, while problems with the nuclear industry are overblown throughout.
WHICH ENERGY? is a comprehensive report which discusses every concievable energy source including benefits and risks.
It is a mountain of reading and can be downloaded at:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ISIS_energy_review_exec_sum.pdf
I have found two ways to get into trouble on CD.
1. Suggest the US and other industrialized countries step up their nuclear programs to replace coal and oil. We need to get started right now!
2. Suggest that Iran give up (or least put on hold for a few months) its nuclear program. They use relatively little fossil fuel, and need nuclear power about as much as they need an al qaeda cell.
Nuclear has its risks, but they are manageable, and we live in a technological society with a huge population. The new designs are safer to operate. We know more than ever about emissions and the effects on humans and the environment. The expense and construction times can be controlled if their is a will to do so, and designers have plans for eventually reducing or “burning” high level wastes. (It is true that Yucca Mountain will barely hold what is waiting already plus what exisitng plants will generate over the next few years.)
Where’s Kem and Billy?
Andrew,
I am the fool that will tell you that its between coal and nukes. Renewables such as wind are not baseload power generation. Wind is great when it is blowing. It generally doesn’t blow during heat waves when electricity demand is highest.
The German energy minister, a Social Democrat, has requested from the EU that they be given extra CO2 emissions credits so that they can burn more coal. They want to build more coal plants to replace the existing nuclear plants. Is that a green appoach or what!
The Social Democratic party in Germany is under the control of the German coal industry and coal mining unions. (Think big oil’s control of the Republican party in the US).
Angela Merkel, the Prime Minister and Christian Democrat will call elections as soon as she thinks she would be able to form a government without either the Social Democrats or the Greens. Merkel and the Christian Democrats are pro-nuclear and, if she can form a majority government, the nuclear phaseout will be reversed.
The nuclear phaseout was conceived before global warming was seriously on the world’s radar. Coal, properly scrubbed, would not be too bad an alternative to nuclear if CO2 were considered benign.
Bill
Kendpotter,
You stated that the plutonium from reprocessed fuel can be handled by gloves. This is true but not for long.
Pure plutonium-239, weapons grade material made in special purpose reactors, can be handled indefinitely by hand.
Reactor grade plutonium which contains, in addition to Pu-239, several other isotopes is not as straightforward for handling. Reactor grade plutonium is a major heat source because of Pu-238. Ten pounds of reactor grade plutonium would give off as much heat as a 60 watt light bulb. Pu-241 also decays to Americium-241 which has a very hard gamma.
Many people do not recognize the difference between weapons grade and reactor grade plutonium and for some purposes it doesn’t matter. It is important to note, and frequently ignored, that reactor grade plutonium would not make a suitable nuclear weapon. In addition to the isotopes mentioned above, plutonium-242 decays by spontaneous fission and would flood a weapon with neutrons causing premature detonation (as in fizzle).
Reactors which are batch refueled and have high burn up fuel, like all the light water reactors in the US, are not a risk for the production of nuclear weapons. If the fuel is recycled, the plutonium can be reused in a reactor (as MOX fuel) but not in a weapon.
Bill
Billy
Wind is not the only renewable energy source.
German engineers are currently working on a ‘Combined Power Plant’ which links and controls 36 wind, solar, biomass and hydropower installations throughout the country, making the power supply as reliable as any large scale conventional power station.
Because of this pilot project, Germany feels that they will start to phase out coal and nuclear plants, and by 2020, will generate 40 percent of their power …
www.saljournal.com/rdnews/story/Brown-letter-4-3-08
How can 32 000 coal miners control the German government (in 2002 the nuclear industry there employed 30 000), Sources vary but there are now between 120 000 and 230 000 people employed in the renewables energy sector in Germany, and the numbers are growing daily.
“Nanosolar Inc., a global leader in solar power innovation, and Beck Energy, a leading integrator of large-scale solar power systems, today announced that they have won a highly competitive public selection process for a solar power plant located on a former landfill owned by one of the largest waste management companies in Eastern Germany.”
www.nlpwessex.org/docs/solardawn.htm
I understand Germany plans to be 100% renewable energy by 2050.
Andrew
26 Sep 2007 … In a speech this week, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clarke announced New Zealand’s intention to commit to 90% renewable electricity by 2025 …
www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=50075
Just come across this as well - Denmark - Renewable energy fact sheet http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/renewables/renewables_dk_en.pdf
Came across this as well:
“Wind and solar energy are expanding particularly rapidly in China, with production of wind turbines and solar cells both doubling in 2006. China is poised to pass world solar and wind manufacturing leaders in Europe, Japan, and North America in the next three years, and it already dominates the markets for solar hot water and small hydropower.”
From the book “Powering China’s Development: The Role of Renewable Energy”
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5496?gclid=CMvFlJyl55ICFQZrMAodiD3cxA
Andrew,
Renewable energy is being deployed. That is not debatable. It is just not, by itself, sufficient except in exceptional locations such as Iceland.
You cite Denmark. On a breezy day, Denmark is fully self sufficient in electricity from wind. Denmark’s wind, however, is 100% backed up by Sweden which generates mostly with hydroelectric and nuclear.
China is deploying solar, wind and hydroelectric. It is an incredibly power hungry country. It also has 6 nuclear plants currently under construction and will start 12 more within 18 months. It is also starting up new coal fired generating plants on average one per week.
Most renewable energy sources are complementary to nuclear power, not competitive. Geo-thermal, which in currently an insignificant electrical generation source except in Iceland, and hydroelectric are the only renewables that really compete directly with coal and nuclear for baseload generation.
Bill
That’s great that China is investing in wind and solar. However, they are also building new coal plants at the rate of 1-2 per week. Since wind doesn’t cancel out coal in terms of CO-2 production, the only thing to applaud here is that China is adding going to have lots more power. (Whoopee!) It has been often reported that the new coal plants going up around the world will completely obliterate any benefit from the Kyoto Treaty.
Also great that Germany plans to be 100% renewable by 2050. Unfortunately that is too late to do much good. Especially if they are ramping up coal now. Throwing out the carrot of decreased nuclear capacity to appease and delight environmentalists is a strange way to deal with global warming–the biggest threat to the planet.
How about the Gulf Stream?
It runs at a solid 2 to 4 knots, about 3 to 5 mph in spots 24/7. The full length of the east side of America could have 100% clean almost free energy. Probably enough for the whole country.
***Hard the fly a plane into a under water windmill.***
Solar,
miles of roof tops in every town and city doing nothing. Cover them with solar panels.
With these 2 simple things then the electric car wouldn’t need power plants to recharge them. Oh no what about the military needing the DU for weapons if no nuke plants we are at risk
Hollowpoint,
In most places, I think the Gulf Stream is too far off the coast and too deep for economic exploitation.
Where the climate is appropriate and the roof well positioned, your point is well taken on roof top solar. PV solar is a technology that scales down very well.
When a utility considers deploying PV solar, it compares the cost to other generating technologies but when a consumer considers deploying PV solar, he compares it to his purchase cost of electricity. Rooftop PV solar looks much better to the consumer than to the utility.
As for your commment on DU, there is no shortage of DU. If all the nuclear plants in the world shut down permanently tomorrow, there would be no shortage of DU. In addition to munitions, DU is used in radiation shielding and for high performance sailboat keels. If you have additional uses for DU, the Department of Energy would love to hear from you. They have it coming out their ears.
Bill
Billy:
What ever happened to the Argonne Labs fast reactor (IFR) that was desinged to run on DU and could also burn high level waste? The project was at least partially succesful, but was shut down.
Any chance that the prospect of thousands of years of free fuel (DU) with little or no waste just doesn’t appeal to the special interests?
BBR,
I’m not familiar with that particular reactor.
As with all real design work, any reactor is a series of compromises.
You can design a reactor to run on DU (with a fissile species to get you going). You will need a large fuel inventory and you would have to clean out your fission fragments frequently. Your heat transfer fluid would have to have a very low parasitic load.
If you wanted to, say, also burn your transuranics from recycling of fuel from our current fleet of reactors, you would have a lot more wiggle room and could tolerate more fission fragments in your reactor.
Conceptually, one of my favorite designs is a molten salt reactor. This design has not been actively pursued for about 50 years so it is not as mature as some of the other alternative reactors. The fuel in this design is not encapsulated. Your fertile and fissile material is added as a salt (usually a fluoride) and circulates with the coolant. The salt has a purification stream which pulls out fission fragments with either continuous or batch processing. The fuel remains in the reactor until it is consumed. Since the design does not have much excess reactivity, control is quite simple. Additional fuel is added as the fuel is consumed.
Most of the cheerleaders for molten salt reactors want to use thorium as a fertile material rather than U-238. This is feasible and has some attractive features but is not required. A molten salt reactor is very flexible as to the fuel used. A molten salt reactor is not strictly a fast reactor because they typically include some lithium and beryillium as salts and these tend to act as moderators. See www.energyfromthorium.com for more information if you are interested (fair warning-this is a geek site.)
Bill
Bill:
This will be a 30 second read for you.
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html
hollow point: Google “London Array”. They are building a 340 turbine wind farm in the shallows of the North Sea. The combined capacity will be about 1000 MWe (about 80-90% of a typical commercial nuclear reactor), and the wind blows there almost all the time.
Did you hear about the wind farm NIMBY problem off Cape Cod? Its a great spot but the Kennedy clan doesn’t want it to mess up their view.
Hollow point:
PS: You’re screen name gives me the creeps. You are aware that a hollow point bullet is designed to maximize damage to the victim. Creeped out!
Bill:
I have watched a few shows on it and it sounded like a good idea. If they can drill several thousand feet down for oil I am sure they can fix a windmill ( it doesn’t look like a land windmill.) The solar panels was on Discovery Ch. for green week.
bbr:
Sorry
Bill wait till my home made invention is finished. Heat your home for almost free and 100% clean
Hollow point,
Sounds good. I hope I will be allowed to use it. As an engineer, they will jail me if I break the first law of thermodynamics.
Bill
Bill
Serious deployment of renewable energy is very recent, in the past we dabbled in it, that is why I predict that in five years time it will make coal and nuclear energy look like mule waggons on modern motor highway.
ANOTHER DAY ANOTHER RADIOACTIVE LEAK:
LEAK AT TORNESS REACTOR, CHECK OUT Thomson Financial News Limited 2008
Group’s chief executive Bill Coley said that Unit 1 of the Torness reactor was shut down on Friday because of a “small leak”, but he did not give details of when it would come back on line.
He said that the company “elected to take the reactor offline” after seeing the leak, saying that the outage was planned.
The 1250-megawatt Torness reactor, near East Lothian in Scotland, is British Energy’s largest. Unit 1 represents half of the reactor’s capacity.
Friday’s problems at the reactor follow a total six-week outage in December and January and another week-long outage at Unit 2 in February.
edward.mcallister@thomson.com ejm/vs/ejm/ejb
Andrew,
Expansion of renewable energy is a welcome development.
Both wind and PV solar manufacturing are operating at capacity in the US and abroad.
In 2006 there were approximately 2,000,000 megawatt-hours generated in the US. Approximately 50% of this was coal and approximately 20% was nuclear. Of the non-combustion renewables:
Total:…………….. 2,000,000
Hydroelectric:……. 289,246
Geo-thermal:………. 14,568
Wind:………………. 26,589
Solar:………………….. 508
I don’t think shutting down coal or nuclear in 5 years is a realistic expectation.
Bill
Bill
Spain a few weeks ago got 40% of the countries electic needs from wind
I agree from a home owner point a solar cell roof it is more home owner than utility based. In a way are they not linked? If I use less power from the grid isn’t that the same as I supply some power to the grid? Since the grid has to supply less power to my home? I know cost is a factor but I don’t have to have the whole house plugged in at the same time. It is the same as a power out for 27 hours a few years ago due to ice. I used my genny that is not big enough to power the whole house but small parts at a time. Fridge until it turns off by itself, then freezer and all the time charging car/truck batteries. Then it was the heat some water and get washed up and cook some food, also used BBQ. Turn off the genny and use the batteries for lights. Heat was my woodstove that I can also cook on.
People will live inside the means. I know people who own hybrid cars. Now these cars can go up to almost 40 MPH ( 63 K) on battery alone. They map out a route ( probably before they bought) they can drive and keep it on battery as much as possible. Country roads, side strets etc. It is a contest for these people who get great joy out of beating the gas companies. It is the same with wind solar home power. Plus that is why they killed the electric car.
Bill
thanks for the number on power produced in the USA. Now it will be very easy to subtract the power produced by a solar cell and SQ. miles it would have to cover for the US to shut down all nuke/coal power plants.
Hollow point,
The numbers are from www.eia.doe.gov.
One caveat on the solar number: The generation numbers, I assume, are collected from the various utilities around the country. If you have solar PV on your home and are thereby avoiding or reducing what you buying from the grid, that is electricity generated but it is not recorded as such by your utility.
There are a whole lot more PV panels made and sold than are reflected in the generation numbers. I imagine a lot of that is either domestic/commercial on a building that avoids the grid or for remote off-grid applications.
Bill
PS: You are right on the hybrid. My wife drives a Prius and, particularly when I am permitted to drive it, we play with the mileage display to see how good we can get.
Well my invention as I call it should help some. There are no solar panels involved. I know others are working on something right now but it is higher tech. I will take the low tech that the average person should be able to do themselves if they can use house hold tools. It is just a hobbie I do, some work and others are well recyclable. I am not saying it will change the world start wars over it but if it makes a small change then that is a step.
“Billy_y4 April 19th, 2008 7:12 am
Kendpotter,
You stated that the plutonium from reprocessed fuel can be handled by gloves. This is true but not for long.”
Hi Billy,
You are of course correct. Pu-238 makes a great heat source in the depths of space. I was simplifying for the sake of the less technically inclined. I was ignoring aged Pu as well and the daughter products.
Americium is the element responsible for the largest single exposure ever received by a person who survived. Bill McCloskey (don’t know if I got the spelling right) had a column of the stuff blow up right in his face. He lived a number of years after the exposure dying of natural causes. I have the good fortune of being able to attend a seminar next week by the doctor that treated him.
Billy,
Is understanding the three laws of thermodynamics still required of a scientist? Do they take you card away and change the secret hand-shake?
I laughed right into my computer screen and had to clean it when I read your commment.
Thanks!!!
it’s a whole new level of being accountable, to the “Laws of the Universe”
I’ll bet geo has been frustrated at not being able to break them, too …
hoytdouglas said on at April 18th, 2008 9:10 pm: “Al Queada will attack a nuke plant in this country soon”
Al Qaeda doesn’t exist. It’s a fabrication