The Nuclear Option /NYT

[TexasLawyer]

Fluff "it-can't-happen-here" piece on nuclear power generation.

The Nuclear Option

By WILLIAM SWEET
Published: April 26, 2006

TWENTY years ago, a huge plume of radiation spread west from the Chernobyl nuclear plant. <snip>

This kind of accident cannot happen in the so-called light water reactors used in the United States and most of Western Europe and Asia. In these reactors, the water functions not only as a coolant but as a "moderator": self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions cannot take place in its absence. This is a very useful passive safety feature. If coolant runs low, there is still a danger of a core meltdown, because the fuel retains heat; but the reactor will have automatically and immediately turned itself off.

Still, critics and opponents of nuclear energy have wondered whether utility companies are competent enough to manage anything so complex as a reactor. The question is a reasonable one. In the 1980's, some anti-nuclear groups joined with free-marketeers to promote electricity deregulation. They reasoned that if utilities were no longer guaranteed cost-plus returns on investments — the cushy sort of regulation that had prevailed for a century in the utility industry — they would stop investing in expensive nuclear power plants that were difficult to run.

<snip>

In 1986, the average American nuclear plant produced electricity barely 57 percent of the time. In 2004, the average plant was running productively more than 90 percent of the time.

This improvement has come just in time. The effects of global warming are disturbingly obvious, and yet the United States has fallen dangerously far behind its response. If we're to get into step with the world effort to reduce greenhouse gases, we are going to need to rely more, not less, on carbon-free nuclear energy.

William Sweet is the author of "Kicking the Carbon Habit: Global Warming and The Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy."


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/opinion/26sweet.html

[Atman]

1. Just remember...

You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor!

[Kellanved]

2. unless it's sodium cooled

Or - less spectacularly - gas cooled.

[Atman]

10. LOL! It's from an old SNL sketch

Back when Saturday Night Live was still funny, though not "original cast" funny. It was around the time "The China Syndrome" movie came out, about the reactor meltown. The plant foreman was taking off on vacation and was leaving instructions for his crew. The last thing he told them was, in the event of a meltdown remember one thing, the most important thing in the event of a meltdown... "You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor!"

Sure enough, there was a meltdown, and one of the crew called out orders to flood the reactor. The other crew member stopped him, incredulous..."Didn't you hear the boss? He said you can't put to much water in a nuclear reactor! What if you over-fill it?"

The first guy was equally incredulous..."No he didn't...he said, 'You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor!' So we need to just flood it, because you can't put TOO MUCH water in a nuclear reactor!"

As I recall, as with most SNL sketches, it went on far too long as the two argued about "you can't put too much water in" meant.

But it was funny, nonetheless.

[Selatius]

3. I believe we should seriously re-entertain the idea of nuclear power

Given the current situation with fossil fuels, at the very least, we should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power and compare it to the current reality we face today.

[TexasLawyer]

5. In theory nuclear power sounds great

but in practice-- these plants are a huge danger (see LTTE posted below), to say nothing of spent fuel disposal.

[Selatius]

6. Yeah, but if the Japanese/French/Germans can secure their plants...

so can we.

I concede though that unlike the Japanese/French/Germans, we piss off the world too much and create too many terrorists in the process. Maybe if we weren't so damn busy bombing third world countries into oblivion, we wouldn't have that problem.

As I said, we've got to weigh both sides of the issue.

[Kellanved]

9. Well, Germany has decided to pull out of nuclear energy

The decision is debatable. It's basically five things, which are often used in the argumentation:

a) costs: One Trillion Euro in research money and subsidies has yielded zero feasible designs (ok, the KONVOI; but that's neither a German style gas cooled deuterium moderated design, nor a German style thorium high temperature design, nor a German style sodium cooled fast breeder, nor a German style gas cooled fast breeder - all grants for new designs went into the crapper).

b) security. With the danger of international terrorism, nuclear plants are more dangerous than initially assumed. Especially as Germany is very densely settled and the liability sums are very limited.

c) final storage: no valid concept for that yet.

d) infrastructure and costs: no facilities for fuel processing; the actual costs for the needed infrastructure make nuclear one of the most expensive options.

e) post-chernobyl political situation.

[TexasLawyer]

4. My LTTE

Re: "The Nuclear Option," by William Sweet

NYT, April 26, 2006

Nuclear energy may be "carbon free" but its production is far from worry free. Even accepting that all 103 existing U.S. nuclear plants are well designed, these plants are nonetheless still vulnerable to infiltration, sabotage and organized attack. Mock attacks staged by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have revealed serious security problems at approximately half the operating plant sites, and highlight the problem with $15.00/hour guards with little to no military training.

Earlier this month, operators of the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant near Miami, Florida found a hole that had been deliberately drilled into the primary coolant pipe of the plant's pressurized cooling system. Despite ongoing FBI and NRC investigations, and a $100,000 award offered by Florida Power & Light for the person or persons responsible, the authorities have come up emptyhanded.

Frighteningly, among the "lessons learned" in the Florida case-- the realization that surveillance cameras should be set up to actually RECORD plant activities; and that better background checks should be done on employees and contractors entering the plant.

Until the nuclear industry can rid itself of these vulnerabilities (a goal which seems woefully distant at this point) this country will not be ready for more nuclear plants.

TexasLawyer

Just in case you haven't followed it, here is a link to information regarding the Turkey Point plant. The Pollyanna-ish attitude of the NRC director is truly breathtaking}

http://www.local10.com/news/8890046/detail.html

[Kellanved]

7. the chernobyl nuclear fuel didn't explode either

Granted, the RBMK design allows for scenarios not possible in western reactors. I'd even go so far as calling most western designs safe, if they are run in-line with regulations.

However, the "can't happen" line is bull. Explosive Hydrogen/Air mixtures can form, for instance due to a zirkalloy/water reaction during a meltdown - should an explosion happen, the criticality of the reactor during the explosion will make little difference.

[TexasLawyer]

8. you should write that in ti the NYT--

it sounds like you know what you're talking about. Much more than me, and much more than the industry shill who wrote the OpEd.

[megatherium]

11. Nuclear is not without danger. But the critical thing to consider

is that coal is not without danger either: The latest research says there will be a 2 to 3 degrees Celsius temperature rise by the end of the century, due to the expected increase to 500 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere (currently it is close to 380 ppm). All of the ominous changes that have happened already (drowning polar bears, bleached coral reefs, an increase in severe hurricanes, the imminent loss of the 12,000-year-old glacier on Kilamanjaro) reflect a temperature increase of less than 1 degree C. At 2 or3 degrees C, we would expect much of North American farmland to become too dry to farm, and a rise in the sea levels of 2 or 3 feet by century's end.

Now the alternatives to fossil fuel and nuclear are renewables: biomass, wind, solar. Proponents of nuclear argue that these are incapable of meeting our energy needs, or incapable of doing so within a plausible time frame or expense. But whatever solution we select, we need to do it soon. One or two dozen new nukes (which is what the industry is anticipating), or 5% renewable energy by 2025 isn't going to do it. There's a lot of coal left, and unfortunately it is substantially cheaper than renewables for baseline electrical generation.