Nuclear Power Debate
Popular Mechanics has an interesting little debate between Patrick Moore, environmental apostate, and Anna Aurilio, US PIRG luddite. Why those terms? Moore is a founder of Greenpeace who is now vocally in favor of nuclear power. Aurilio represents US PIRG and its unyielding anti-nuclear stance. Neither really presents any new arguments, but the debate does provide a primer on the two major schools of thought regarding nuclear power.
Nuclear energy is safe. In 1979, a partial reactor core meltdown at Three Mile Island frightened the country. At the time, no one noticed Three Mile Island was a success story; the concrete containment structure prevented radiation from escaping into the environment. There was no injury or death among the public or nuclear workers. This was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States. Today, 103 nuclear reactors quietly deliver 20 percent of America's electricity.
Spent nuclear fuel is not waste. Recycling spent fuel, which still contains 95 percent of its original energy, will greatly reduce the need for treatment and disposal.
Nuclear power plants are not vulnerable to terrorist attack. The five-feet-thick reinforced concrete containment vessel protects contents from the outside as well as the inside. Even if a jumbo jet did crash into a reactor and breach the containment, the reactor would not explode.
….
In a post-9/11 world, nuclear facilities will always be a tempting target for terrorists, and government studies have highlighted the weaknesses in our current safeguards.
Even without attackers, the danger of an accident is ever-present. The Davis-Besse plant in Ohio narrowly avoided a disaster in 2002 when inspectors found a hole that had corroded almost all the way through a pressure vessel, leaving just 3/16 of an inch of steel preventing the release of radioactive steam. Instead of clamping down, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission seems more intent on loosening safety rules to help aging plants keep operating for longer.
And when plants are operating perfectly, they're still producing high-level radioactive waste. No country in the world has solved the problem of how to dispose of it, and even the most optimistic advanced reactor designs will continue adding to the lethal mountain of waste already produced.
Really very predictable. Ms. Aurilio, however, makes the same, exact mistake that every proponent of renewable energy makes when discussing these issues. The inescapable fact is that while wind and solar can help offset some fossil or nuclear power the fact always remains that those plants must remain either running at lower efficiencies or in instant readiness to startup if the wind stops or it gets cloudy. I explained that particular false premise, that wind power could replace existing generation, way back not long after I started the Crabitat. You can find that essay here. We remain somewhat captive by the very nature of the technology. There is no magic bullet here. We must address the reality that baseload units are always necessary, and generating assets must remain in 100% reserve to back up intermittently available generation assets.
By James Aach, Friday, 15 September , 2006 @ 11:44 am
You noted that baseload units must always be available to back up preferred but intermittently available generation. Absolutely correct.
One of the things that concerns me the most in debating our energy future is that few of those involved in the discussion understand our energy present. I’ve worked in the U.S. nuclear industry for over 20 years and I can tell you that it is far different than what is portrayed in the media and by its advocates and detractors alike. (Not necessarily better or worse, just different. Incidentally, neither Mr. Moore nor Ms. Aurilio have ever worked in nuclear generation - or any kind of power generation at all.)
To provide the public with an entertaining and accurate inside look at modern electric generation andnuclear power, I’ve written a thriller novel on the topic called “Rad Decision”. It is available at no cost to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com - and they seem to like it, judging from the comments at the homepage.
“I’d like to see Rad Decision decision widely read.” - Stewart Brand, internet pioneer and founder of ‘The Whole Earth Catalog’, who has called for a second look at nuclear.
(If I’ve mentioned all this before at this site, please forgive the repetition -the subject just keeps coming up. Comments by me attached to the early chapters of RadDecision.blogspot.com echo the thoughts expressed above on intermittent versus baseload power, and provide some examples.)