ImperiumWatch: Can He Walk on Light Water?
Obama's energy plan puts nuclear in the spotlight.
Comments (4)Thursday, February 25, 2010
President Barack Obama announced last week that he would offer $8 billion in loan guarantees for two new nuclear reactors and that more guarantees for nuclear power will be in the pipeline (the industry is pushing for $100 billion worth). The plan is to back nuclear power as a transitional energy source as the nation shifts to nonpolluting fuels.
What kind of economics underlies this plan? In the summer of 2007, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and four other large financial firms wrote the federal Department of Energy that nuclear plants were too risky to attract investment. The Congressional Budget Office says the risk of default on loans to the nuclear industry is 50 percent. So the industry wants the loans to be underwritten by the government—which means by the taxpayers.
Another unsolved problem relates to the magical thinking that's been invoked on behalf of the nuclear industry ever since its inception: the idea that if we don't have the technology to solve a problem today, we'll have it by tomorrow, so we plunge ahead before a crucial difficulty is eliminated. Build plants now and soon we'll have solved the waste problem! But 50 years and more after the industry got its start, the waste problem still rears its head, and no solution is in the offing.
Industry analyst Dan Scotto of Whitehall Financial told the Advocate, "I think right now if you talked to the industry, to someone who wasn't afraid to talk, they would say Yucca [the long-proposed waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev.] is never going to happen. Entombment [on-site burial at nuclear facilities] is the answer and every state is going to have to make their own decision as to whether they can live with that."
There's a disconnect, too, between the conference room logic that favors nuclear power and the experience of real people living in real time near nuclear plants. This week the Vermont state Senate votes on whether to let the Vermont Yankee plant near Brattleboro operate until 2032 under an extended license or shut it down in 2012.
The behavior of the plant's owner, Entergy of Louisiana, has hardly vindicated Obama's concept; the recent discovery of tritium in water near the plant has reportedly lost Yankee some support in the Legislature. And in New York State, authorities cite Entergy's delays in mounting adequate emergency alarm and evacuation systems (for which the government fined it $650,000) and leaks of tritium and strontium 90 into groundwater as two of several reasons they want to shut the Indian Point plant, located in the New York City area within 50 miles of 20 million people.
Another one-sided article by Ms. Kraft. Either there is a deliberate effort to ignore the counter arguments for the purpose of promoting a viewpoint, or there is absolutely no research involved. Or both, perhaps.
Matt has it right with respect to danger and storage. As I've offered before in comments here, the self-fulfilling prophecy of those who oppose nuclear power is all that prevents long term storage at Yucca Mountain. After BILLIONS of dollars spent in years of research (over 10 years) and more on preparation and construction to date, funding has been stopped by a White House action last year. With politics, it's hard to tell, but many suggest it was entirely due to the influence of those who also oppose nuclear energy in any form at all.
However, I disagree about Three Mile Island (TMI). The problem was a complex sequence of events that included human error as well as equipment malfunction. Design was a minor contributor. It was a perfectly out of control overheating (steam voiding) that did NOT result in a catastrophic situation of death and disfigurement. However, that is the impression that many still want to instill. In fact, the TMI incidence led to significant changes in reactor safety system design making even plant UNDER CONSTRUCTION retrofit many changes. Many thought and still think it was overkill as it contributes greatly to the increased costs. So, a valid argument is that it led to SAFER future plants.
Most articles, and not just this one, rarely provide information and data, but rather instill fear based on the dangers of radioactivity. Without even citing real world examples or history of negative events, they manage to create hypothetical catastrophes in the minds of readers. So, I will repeat again also that France has been producing upwards of 80% of its electricity from nuclear power for nearly 20 years. The safety record is as good as or better than any other form of central plant (fuel) production. That is true WORLDWIDE. The experience and facts simply stand by themselves.
Lastly, to not be conscious and diligent about safety and hazards, of course, would be foolish. So the concerns are valid. Policy and science must constantly evolve.
Matt,
It seems the link you provided on tritium at best only provides quantitative numbers for typical nuclear plant releases, and even that is not discussed in terms of concnetration / dilution. My impression was that you were using this link to show tritium is not harmful. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but the link doesn't seem to support your argument that it isn't. What it does say is that 'very small amounts of ionizing radiation is thought to minimally increase the risk of developing cancer, and the risk increases as exposure increases'. So there is clearly a risk of some sort. It's not clear how small or large that risk really is, though, until some number are provided - what is a 'very small amount'? Numerically, how does that risk increase with exposure? And how does it all relate to the concentration level of exposure to any one after it is released by a nuclear plant (Vermont Yankee or others)? Until the connections are made, it's just a word game for either side of the argument.
I am far from advocating the continuation of power production at VT Yankee just yet. However, to JT's point, without real data, those who oppose any nuclear power and also this plant have found tritium to be the crutch to lean on for instilling fear of a catastrophe. Levels from Yankee are higher than expected. Entergy, the current owner has an obligation to complete a thorough investigation and analysis, with a transparent disclosure to the public in the end. And at this stage, they are now bound given the ruling to disallow a new permit after 2012. They have stated that their pursuit has not ended, so we will see.
However, the reality is that tritium is present around such facilities to certain levels routinely. And to date, there are NO studies to indicate that proximity to such plants is either life threatening or contributing to increased health risks. But it is a convenient broad brush to wipe the entire industry as inherently detrimental to life.
Although this article covers more ground than just the tritium levels, it is thoroughly biased towards opposing nuclear power generation in total using the tried and true hypothetical issues. See my earlier post.
By the way, here is some more information about the sources and human exposure issues from the NRC.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html
Print
Email
RSS feedWe let our manufacturing sector dry up at our peril.
Andrew Bacevich's Washington Rules examines American orthodoxy and global warfare
Jill Stein is finally in the gubernatorial debates--and she's got a lot to say.
This week: No Contest in D.A.'s Race; No Free Lunch; Greenfield Needs Facts, Not Opinion; Of BP and Vermont Yankee; and Letter About Letters
Those radiation leaks are not any more life threatening than all of the environmental risks we deal with everyday. See http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/tritium/faqs.html
What's really risky is keeping radioactive material out in the open all around the country for any jihadist to turn into a dirty bomb. Yucca will be possible once Reid is defeated. If Nevada doesn't get all the waste, some other state will!
Thanks to an early lapse in nuclear safety at Three Mile Island and the China Syndrome, politicians get to use both sides of the nuclear energy debate for their selfish gain, while the rest of us pay more for energy, more carbon is released into the air, and more Saudis get rich!