12
Should we go nuclear?
President Obama supports the idea of increasing the country's nuclear energy. He even knows how to pronounce the word. But just as Obama is offering incentives for building new plants, one state has voted to get rid of its nuclear power.
On Wednesday, (Vermont) senators became the first legislators in the United States to vote on a nuclear plant's future. By a 26-4 vote, they opposed a 20-year extension of Vermont Yankee's license, which expires in March 2012...
The vote comes one week after Obama offered $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to build two new nuclear reactors in Burke, Ga., which -- if approved -- would be the first such nuclear plant construction in three decades.
Vermont Yankee didn't help its cause by lying under oath about tritium that's been leaking into groundwater near the plant. Tritium is radioactive and can be dangerous in large amounts.
Still, a misstep by one plant doesn't explain the decades-long US aversion to generating nuclear power. France derives more than than 75% of its electricity from nuclear. In the US, it's only about 20%. More facts about the French:
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.
Ironically, the French nuclear program is based on American technology. So why do the French embrace nuclear power and Americans, in general, do not? From PBS:
Claude Mandil, the General Director for Energy and Raw Materials at the (French) Ministry of Industry, cites at least three reasons. First, he says, the French are an independent people. The thought of being dependent for energy on a volatile region of the world such as the Middle East disturbed many French people. Citizens quickly accepted that nuclear might be a necessity. A popular French riposte to the question of why they have so much nuclear energy is "no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice."
Second, Mandil cites cultural factors. France has a tradition of large, centrally managed technological projects. And, he says, they are popular. "French people like large projects. They like nuclear for the same reasons they like high speed trains and supersonic jets."
Still, no country has solved the issue of how to dispose of nuclear waste safely and to satisfaction of its citizens. In the US, NIMBY is a strong factor. And, as our managing editor pointed out this morning, you can also blame Three Mile Island and The Simpsons.
Are you in favor of more nuclear power in this country?
Pages
There's 3 problems with nuclear power.
1. Nuclear power plants are major terrorist targets. Even if they don't manage to damage or blow up a reactor core itself, a hit from a plane, truck bomb, ship bomb or other method on a waste storage area at a nuclear site would have the same effect as a "dirty bomb" and potentially spread nuclear contamination across major US metropolitan areas. New York City is just downwind of an aging nuclear plant right on the Hudson river. I suggest people look at the photo essays and statistics from the Chernobyl meltdown to see what kinds of effects a major contamination leak can have on a population.
Moving the waste, in trucks or trains to reprocessing facilities or to some storage site like Yucca mountain would make even more amazing targets for terrorists as it's much harder to protect moving convoys than a stationary site. IEDs or any number of methods could turn a waste shipment into a civilian nightmare.
2. There has been no nuclear plant ever built in the world without massive government subsidies and very few that have ever been built on budget. Because of this terrible record of cost overruns, it is nearly impossible for nuclear power to attract private investment. It would be safer to invest in AIG! Like AIG, the taxpayers may well be left holding the bag for loan guarantees to the Georgia plants proposed by Obama. In the USA, France and around the world, Nuclear power is the most "Socialized" energy source in existence and many of its true costs are hidden from public view and are borne by taxpayers and rate payers. There's the massive increase in need for security at nuclear facilities (payed by federal taxes) and, even though the plant itself might operate for 20 or 30 years, its waste has to be housed, cooled and protected FOREVER. Do the math on taking care of waste for 25,000-- 50,000 years and nuclear power looks a lot less competitive.
3. Nuclear power isn't "Green." It merely substitutes one toxin (radioactive waste) for another (Greenhouse gases) ...and Uranium is just as finite a resource a oil or coal.
Meanwhile, we now have the ability to store solar power (as heat energy) in fluids and salts (at large generating facilities) and thus run turbines and generate electricity even at night. Hydro and other kinds of energy storage are also being developed for wind power so both it and solar are ceasing to be "intermittent" power sources. Unlike nuclear, these energy sources are truly "green" because they don't leave a toxic mess to infinite future generations to manage and pay for. If we're going to give billions of public dollars to energy technology investments, we should spend them on developing and scaling up solar and wind storage the same way we invested and focused on putting a man on the moon or developing the atom bomb.
Fact one, ‘King Coal’ kills over 25,000 Americans a year due to particulate pollution alone.-US EPA.
I would like to ask all the anti nukes who were against Vermont Yankees licenses renewal just how many Americans do they think they will be responsible for killing after Yankee closes down? There is no way the anti nukes can shirk their impending responsibility for the eventual death of hundreds if not thousands of American citizens. Fact two, once Vermont Yankee closes the Northeastern United States will rely more on ‘King Coal’ to produce its electricity.
With the closure of Vermont Yankee it will be impossible to reach the zero emission carbon levels that we need to achieve in the Northeast. In fact due to alternative energies expense and unreliability it is in all likelihood we will not be able to reach the low carbon levels that the Northeast currently achieves when Yankee is in operation. Yes the statuesque will change with the closure of Vermont Yankee. Unfortunately come the fall equinox of 2012 it will change for the worse.
Once again I ask the planet killing anti nukes to come out and take responsibility for future deaths that will be caused due to the closer of Vermont Yankee.
I would laugh about the insanity of it all if I were not already crying,
Jfarmer9
The era of power plants is coming to an end. Let them build without our taxes. Companies like Google are already using a fuel cell box, the bloom box, to help power their building. With one no bigger than an old TV, a home can be powered, rain or shine.
There may be one reason the French have done so well with nuclear power that we never hear mentioned. Maybe they are just smarter than we are. After all, they have universal health care and we can't even do that. Even the Carte Vitale for automated patient records. Will we ever get there?
We often hear claims about how the latest nuclear technology is much better that our old plants. But what do we know of new technology? We haven't built a new plant in more than 30 years, and we couldn't ever build one on budget then. So how have we learned how to do it better? Maybe we could hire the French to build one; they at least have experience in this century.
No discussion of nuclear power seems to be without a mention of the fearsome specter of nuclear waste, but its curious that this issue is allways raised. The spent fuel from a light water reactor, the venerable workhorse of the nuclear power fleet for the past half century, is some 60 tonnes per gigawatt/year; Enough to run an entire city. This takes up about an average space in a parking lot in a dry storage cask that is secure for centuries.
Why we need to address <i>any</i> permanent storage solution before the expiration of these dry storage casks require their resealing is a mystery. Discounting makes long term storage very affordable, and its entirely reasonable to assume that there will be either better disposal techniques in the next several centuries, or even more likely, a genuine use for the spent fuel. The wastes of nuclear power are quantified, internalized, and isolated from the environment. In the meantime, the wastes of countless other industries are often toxic forever, discarded directly into the environment, and externalized, yet completely ignored as an acceptable risk.
There are comments above stating that nuclear power is "safe". If that is the case, then why do they need government loan guarantees? Why do insurance companies list a nuclear power exclusion on most policys?
There are comments above stating radiation exposure is no big deal. In fact there is no safe level of exposure to radiation. Each extra dose you receive could be the triger for cancer or leukemia.
If nuclear power is green, why are they worried about leaks of tritium in 15-20 older plants across the country? And why have uranium mines with their radioactive tailings been such a problem to communities down wind?
If nuclear power is so cheap, why does it have to be subsidized by the government and why does it cost $12-15 billion (and rising of course) just for one new plant?
I live in Vermont and in my opinion, the Vermont Yankee vote was heavily influenced by the timing of the tritium leak and that Entergy came off looking downright incompetent. I think it was more a vote against Entergy than a statement on Nuclear power. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of folks in the state who oppose Vermont Yankee, but there are others who like cheap electricity and the jobs the plant provides as well.
For a very interesting take on why Nuclear Power is green and needed in this country, I highly recommend, Stuart Brand's latest book "Whole Earth Discipline." Brand was the editor and founder of Whole Earth Catalog and is as green as they come. He is a full-throated supporter of nukes (and GE food as well). It's an excellent read and very illuminating on this debate.
Pages
