New Uranium Boom
Nuclear Opponents Off-Base
By Richard Martin, 6-20-08
 |
|
 | |
| It's better than CO2 | |
|
Chip Ward, author of Canaries on the Rim: Living Downwind in the West, contributes a long essay on the new uranium boom in the West on TomDispatch (an invaluable left-leaning group blog that usually focuses on Iraq and U.S. military policy). It’s called “Radioactive Déjà Vu in the American West.” And while I have great respect for Ward and his work, he is so wrong in so many ways on this issue that it’s hard to keep track.
Ward basically rehashes all the traditional objections to nuclear power: mining uranium is dirty and a threat to public-health, it’s too expensive, it’ll never replace traditional forms of electric power generation, and there’s no place to store the spent fuel. In scathing fashion he reviews the inexcusable health damage visited upon the Navajo of New Mexico who mined uranium for nearly three decades – a public health disaster of shameful proportions to be sure. He even tosses in Manifest Destiny and off-road vehicles. And he concludes that “Big Nuke is Big Carbon’s mad-scientist cousin.”
I won’t detail the rebuttals to each of those objections, but a couple of them are worth spotlighting. Ward argues that the consequences of the last “uranium frenzy” in the West – huge tailing piles yet to be cleaned up, high levels of cancer among miners and “downwinders,” polluted groundwater, and so on – should prohibit new nuclear development in this country. He totally ignores what we’ve learned since then and the progression of technology around uranium mining and nuclear power. It’s like saying that after the Spindletop blowout, or the Exxon Valdez oil spill, we should have shut down the oil industry for good in this country.
In-situ leach mining, which Ward briefly considers, is a relatively safe and clean way of mining uranium that leaves no tailings and involves no human exposure to the radioactive material. It’s not foolproof, to be sure; but the Colorado legislature just passed a bill to require groundwater near in-situ mines to be maintained in its pristine condition during and after mining operations. That indicates that plenty of people believe it can be done without forever polluting precious water resources.
As the demand for uranium and for new nuclear power stations worldwide grows, the technology around the process advances at a rapid clip. That’s the way free markets work. To shut off those advances is to stand in the way of the continued progress of our energy-intensive society.
Also, Ward states that, because of fears about accidents and the expense of building new plants, “Wall Street won’t invest” in nuclear development. That’s simply not true. A host of new startups have sprung up around uranium mining and nuclear technology, and over the last five years, according to the authoritative equity investment site Seeking Alpha, “the WNA Nuclear Energy Index returned 33% annualized.” That’s compared to 11% a year for the S&P 500. Wall Street is investing heavily in nuclear power, and “the nuclear industry appears poised for stronger momentum in the years to come.”
Beyond specific counter-arguments, there’s one question I would like to ask Ward and other environmentalists with a visceral opposition to nuclear power: “Well, what would you suggest?”
We are in the pick-your-poison phase of the post-industrial era. If you choose against nuclear, you are choosing for continued burning of coal, more oil development on American land, and accelerating global climate change. Does Ward really think that proven, non-CO2-producing, small-scale nuclear power stations will be more expensive to build than so-called “clean coal” plants? Unless we are willing to go back to candlelight and charcoal fires, nuclear energy has to be part of the energy solution over the next 30 years. Oppositionists like Ward are confused about risk: they’d trade the uncertainty of nuclear development and its attendant risks (such as the potential leakage of stored nuclear waste into groundwater, which is infinitesimal and at any rate spread out over hundreds or thousands of years) for the certain destructive force of global warming. It’s a dangerous miscalculation.
“It’s getting hot out here in the West,” Ward remarks, “and we need a new story.” That story must include a chapter on nuclear energy.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf
Further, thermal energy designs are looking at closed loop air cooled systems for the future. West coast states with access to the infinite heat sink that is the Pacific Ocean have all but banned thermal generated energy. Instead, they buy their electricity from thermal plants in water starved neighbor states... like we aren't one nation in this together.
Hi Rick,
RE : "Well, what would you suggest?"
Well, according to the DOE Idaho could double our present electric consumption by 2030 with wind power. Add in geothermal and solar, and your "framing" of coal vs nukes is obsolete. Please visit http://www.MyIdahoEnergy.com for more details...Peter
Second, it admits it ignores all the HUGE subsidies for nuclear power from the Cheney Republican 2005 Energy Bill!! That includes the 80% loan guarantees and lots of tax money the nuclear lobbyists won. Let me quote from page 2/3 ...
"Recent Federal legislation, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT2005) (Public Law 109-58) and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) (Public
Law 110-140) suggest that certain energy-related tax expenditures are likely to increase.
Some of the most significant subsidy provisions in EPACT2005 concern nuclear power. Given that no new nuclear power plants are expected to produce electricity before the middle of the
next decade, this report provides no estimates for the value of these provisions. EPACT2005 also included mandates for the use of renewable motor fuels that were significantly expanded in
EISA 2007. EISA 2007 mandates are not considered in this report given its focus on historical and current tax expenditures."!!
As even the INL's Dr Rogers complained on PBS last month,Bush zeroed out the geothermal subsidies. The INL admits geothermal could provide 50% of the countries electric use! That's carbon free, meltdown free, renewable, and safer for National Security. University of Utah Geosciences Dept says geothermal could provide 5 times the USA's electric use, much more than INL admits, but both are good news for citizens and bad news for nukers.
Butch Otter and his Energy Czar Kjellander claim :Idaho has 3 N's in our future - Nuclear, Natural gas, or NOTHING." Score another one for nuclear lobbyists.
I use the same reference as Don Gillispie? Perhaps that is because its about the most current information one can gets, it's from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, it was prepared in reply to a congressional inquiry and it is what comes up in a google search. What is so curious about that?
I'm not going to split hairs about it. One thing is obvious from this data. Fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas get the largest government subsidies, not nuclear. Renewables get whopping subsidies too.
While your subsidy reference is from 2007, as I quoted that report yesterday, it does NOT include the HUGE nuke subsidy in the Republican's 2005 Energy bill! Again, your reference states "Some of the most significant subsidy provisions in EPACT2005 concern nuclear power. Given that no new nuclear power plants are expected to produce electricity before the middle of the next decade, this report provides no estimates for the value of these provisions. "
But I happen to agree that per kilowatt, wind power uses more cement and steel than nukes! I used a Nat'l Acadamy of Science reference for that when Buffet claimed he backed out of Payette because of the increasing cost of construction. ALL construction is going up, and I still feel it was the public rejection of his nuke scheme that melted down his plans. But despite this construction cost, wind is selling at about 7 cents per kw, and according to the Areva nuclear company, nuke power is 8-11 cents per kw.
But cement cost and use does not necesarily translate to CO2 emissions. In 5 years we can be running the cement factories from wind and geothermal power and eliminate the CO2 generation...Peter
"Coal-based synfuels (refined coal) that are eligible for the alternative fuels tax credit, solar power, and wind power RECEIVE, BY FAR, THE HIGHEST SUBSIDIES PER UNIT OF GENERATION, ranging from more than $23 to nearly $30 per
megawatthour of generation (Table ES5). Subsidies and support for these generation sources are substantial in relationship to the price or cost of electricity at the wholesale or enduser level. The average U.S. electricity price was about $53 per megawatthour at the wholesale level in 2006 and about $92 per megawatthour to end users in all sectors in FY 2007"
As to nuclear subsidies, you are confused in your interpretation of the quote you pasted. The nuclear subsidies are substantial, but they are also provisional. That makes them difficult to value in advance. For example, loan guarantees cost nothing unless they default. Delay insurance costs nothing unless regulatory delay occurs. Production tax credits apply only to the first few plants and only if operating by a date certain.
You are funny, Rickards. You think the richest man in the world - let me say that again- the richest man in the world was frightened away from a viable business decision by you after one public meeting which he didn't attend - a meeting which I thought went pretty good. It just kinda shows your simplistic understanding of what is going on in the world around you.
Yes Amos, I am a real simpleton according to you. I had already agreed the myopic review of subsidies ignored the decades of dominant nuclear subsidies, so it could paint renewables as pampered. Oregon taxpayers are STILL paying millions for defunct nuclear power projects, so I wouldn't dismiss the taxpayer's 80% loan subsidies so quickly. Gillispie can play the Enron CEO game and make off like a bandit. But please note, your added quote from the subsidy study does not mention geothermal power, that the INL admits could provide 50% of the nation's electric needs.
I had agreed with you that the cement and steel costs per kw is more for wind than nuclear power, so why did Buffet back out with the excuse of increased construction costs? We will need power from SOME source, won't we? I find it laughable that Buffet spent $13 million to start a nuclear division, reviewed 13 sites before deciding Payette was perfect, then hired ex-Sen McClure and ex-Governor Andrus to promote the project, and THEN, only after the December Payette meeting that applauded my presentation decided to review construction costs, deciding nuclear power is too expensive. I guess you are saying since Buffet "was not present" at the meeting, his CEO didn't report how the reception went! I had 5th generation Payette citizens helping me after that meeting, but us simpletons may be wrong. But let's assume Buffet made the decision based solely on the lack of profit nuclear power would provide him. You admitted in other blogs you bought stock in Gillispie's project, and made a 25% increase when your stock went from 20 cents a share to 25 cents. If Buffet is right about the lack of profit, how do you feel now the stock is just 18 cents, according to http://www.marketwatch.com ?? It was $1 per stock last July 5th! If you use their detailed graph on the right side of their report, you can see it crashed twice last week, hitting 9 cents at one point. Perhaps local Elmore and Owyhee stock holders saw Gillispie was lying through his teeth and bailed out, leaving Gillispie plowing his own funds back in to revive it to 18 cents.
The Price-Anderson act caps meltdown liability at $10 billion of damage to Idaho. I think our quality of life and our children's health is priceless,, but best of luck with your investment...Peter
I no longer own AEHI stock. I owned it two days and made 25% profit. It wasn't a big investment, and I wouldn't do it again. When IEC moved from Owyhee County to Elmore County I felt some doubts. I hope Gillispie is successful, but I'm not going to risk what little money I have on it.
You got some applause at the Payette meeting from a few dozen people who arrived at the meeting with a closed mind already opposed to nuclear power. And by the way, the statement that got the applause was misinformation. That will happen anywhere. It doesn't surprise anyone. You shouldn't let it go to your head. Multi-billion dollar business decisions are not made in one night using an applause meter.
MidAmerican Nuclear's concern has to do with the significant backlog in orders for major components from a single qualified supplier and the inability to lock in prices for advance orders. The global competition for nuclear components is fierce and growing daily. This is an extremely tough time to plan and build a nuclear power plant unless you were one of the early developers in the cue for heavy components.
To a slightly lesser degree, the same supply chain problems are plaguing wind development. But in wind development there are no regulatory qualification requirements and the quality control problems are starting to appear. For example, Indian turbine manufacturer Suzlon and Spanish turbine builder Gamesa are having to replace thousands of crack prone blades in U.S. turbines.
RE: The Payette meeting & your claim "And by the way, the statement that got the applause was misinformation."
Well, for da record, my final statement at Payette was "Let's adopt the laws that Oregon and California use to ban these unwanted nuclear power plants."
You can claim that is "misinformation", but those are real laws and there are no proposals for nuke plants in those 2 states. Both demand a certified waste repository with documented room for the deadly spent fuel.
If Yucca Mt Nevada waste dump is ever forced open, against the will of the people and Representatives of that state, it will be overfilled from the backlog of the first 50 years of nuke waste. We will need a whole new dump for the next generation nuke waste that Gillispie will create, and we will be stuck with, EVEN if reprocessing and breeder reactors are adopted.
So long Amos. "Buh-bye" :-) ...Peter
1) It is one of the most expensive ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
2)The nuclear industry does contribute to carbon dioxide emissions. No proven strategies exist for the permanent safe storage of nuclear waste. Nuclear power poses a very real health risk.
3)Nuclear power is uneconomic, unsustainable and unsafe.
Climate change is a serious problem which needs to be tackled in a way which safeguards the future for generations to come. Tackling climate change through the development of nuclear power is both expensive and just swaps one serious problem for another. Nuclear power cannot be considered to be a clean source of electricity.
The nuclear industry is hoping to use the Carbon Dioxide issue to save itself, because the economics of nuclear power has meant a rapid decline in the industry's fortunes. This is a desperate attempt to generate business from the misfortune of the problems we all now face.
A nuclear power station of standard size (1,250MW operating at 6,500 hours/annum) indirectly emits between 376,000 million tons (Germany) and 1,300,000 million tons (other countries) of CO2 per year. In comparison to renewable energy, nuclear power releases 4-5 times more CO2 per unit of energy produced taking account of the whole fuel cycle.
Also, with its long development time a nuclear power programme offers no short-term possibility for reducing CO2 emissions. Nuclear is a expensive dead technology. Let's move on to cost-effective energy efficiency and renewables.
>>>>>>>>>
Her conclusion? Every day spent burning coal for power translates into damaged lungs and ecosystem destruction. If the world wants to keep plugging in big-screen TVs and iPods, it needs a steady source of power. Wind and solar can't produce the "base-load" (or everyday) steady supply needed, and the only realistic -- and safe -- alternative is nuclear.
Wired News talked with Cravens on the phone from her home in New York.
Wired News: You don't argue that nuclear power is entirely safe, but that it's vastly better than coal and fossil fuels. Do we have to choose between them?
Gwyneth Cravens: I used to think we surely could do better. We could have more wind farms and solar. But I then learned about base-load energy, and that there are three forms of it: fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear. In the United States, we're maxed out on hydro. That leaves fossil fuels and nuclear power, and most of the fossil fuel burned is coal.
In the U.S., 24,000 people a year die from coal pollution. Hundreds of thousands more people suffer from lung and heart disease directly attributable to coal pollution.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In my most humble of opinion, nuclear power is the way to go to address a variety of environmental issues while producing the necessary power that people demand for their needs. In the US we don't have enough domestic power generation most of the time and are compelled to import power from Canada. I believe Mexico is also getting into the act. California can attest to the rolling blackouts to ration power during heat waves. Businesses are forced to shut down.
There is not a credible authoritative expert today in the US that will lay their credentials on the line and claim that alternate energy sources are sufficient to fill the gap between base-load power needs in the US, now and in the future, and what alternative energy sources offer. That's the fact that Gwyneth Cravens discovered. Richard is spot on with this column.
Contragulatins on re-framing the evidence on coal vs. nukes. What a solid wonderful reference on this lady who went on a tour of a nuclear facility and changed her "heart".
I went om a tour of INL with my citizen advisory panel of the CDC historical dose of accidental and intentional radioactive releases at INL, and it was slightfully diferrent than this ladies tour! The INL grabbed the executive director of Idaho's Environmental Energy Institute's arm, Chuck Brocious's arm, and marched him out to the the tour bus when he dared to take a geiger counter into "the tour."
After all the lies, the MD in charge of our citizen panel quit in protest!
But great reference by you! Please check the Utah Deseret Morning news article on my not so wonderful experiences with these idiots at
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635171595,00.html
...Peter
deseretnews.com
Utah
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Format for printingE-mail story
Preserving fallout data called vital for research
By Joe Bauman
Deseret Morning News
Peter Rickards is thrilled about Congress' passing a measure that requires preservation of military records on fallout from nuclear testing. He says he knows what might happen to the records if the government is not forced to keep them.
The provision, sponsored in the House of Representatives by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, became part of the Defense Department Appropriations Bill that has passed both chambers. Final action came Thursday.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, Rickards experienced the destruction of valuable fallout records while he served on a citizens advisory committee for a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study seeking to reconstruct radiation doses from nuclear material that had leaked from the Idaho National Laboratory.
"We had hundreds of boxes of documents earmarked for archiving that were destroyed right at the moment . . . right during their study," he said. "The DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) took boxes that were earmarked for archiving by the CDC and destroyed them."
Rickards, a podiatrist in Twin Falls, Idaho, has closely followed the fallout debate. He believes it's important to save whatever records still remain.
Although the National Laboratory, based in southwestern Idaho, did not produce atomic blast fallout, the Department of Energy facility did leak radiation. And fallout from nuclear weapons testing during the 1950s and '60s contributed to the overall radiation exposure in the region.
Winds blowing from the Nevada Test Site did not always deposit the radioactive dust near the NTS. A 1997 study by the National Cancer Institute says Montana and Idaho were slammed by fallout worse than other parts of the country, even harder hit than southwestern Utah, which is close to the NTS. Four of the five counties with most fallout are in Idaho and the fifth is in Montana, according to the institute.
Sorting out the history of radiation exposure is difficult, with researchers relying on scanty data. That's why Rickards and others feel it is imperative to preserve whatever information is available.
"The government does regularly dispose of older documents," he said, "and in this case they have a vested interest in destroying all of the great fallout data." That was data, he hastened to add, "which the CDC refused to use" in its study.
During many of the nuclear tests, according to Rickards, Defense Department aircraft tracked the plumes of atomic debris. They recorded where plumes went, levels of fallout, and where rain fell, he said.
Rain sometimes caused radioactive dust to fall from the plume.
Concerned about possible destruction of records, the National Academy of Sciences addressed the issue in a 2003 report reviewing a draft study by the CDC and the National Cancer Institute.
The report, "Exposure of the American Population to Radioactive Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests: A Review of the CDC-NCI Draft Report on a Feasibility Study of the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations." It is available on the Internet at books.nap.edu/books/0309087139/html.
The committee of the National Academy that reviewed the draft report recommended that Congress take action to protect the records.
"Data searches and cataloging will not be possible if the underlying records and related material are destroyed," the academy noted. "Recognizing that, DOE (Department of Energy) has placed a moratorium on the destruction of possibly relevant records.
"At present, there is no such moratorium on the destruction of DOD (Department of Defense) fallout-related records."
The academy recommended that the CDC "urge Congress to prohibit the destruction of relevant records held by federal agencies and the permit appropriate access to them."
Rickards said the destruction of DOE records was only for the duration of the Centers of Disease Control studies, "and needs to be made permanent."
Matheson's bill, the Department of Defense Historical Radiation Records Preservation Act, requires the department to "identify, preserve and publish" information in the records, says a release from Matheson's office.
"The NAS study found that both the Navy and the Air Force have important documents that should be archived," says the release.
Lynn R. Anspaugh, a research professor of radiobiology at the University of Utah, said preserving the records will help historians and scientists find answers about fallout.
Fallout is of interest to the country, Anspaugh said. "A lot of people think they were very much harmed by this activity."
The old records "really ought to be preserved for future scholarly activities," he said. Knowing the facts is better than "a lot of conspiracy theories and so forth," he said.
He has not heard about any ongoing effort to destroy the records and he would be a little surprised to hear of any such action. Anspaugh added, "I'm more concerned about neglect" of the information. Without protecting it, someday material "might get thrown out."
Anspaugh has been working with fallout research most of his professional life and was part of the first major reconstruction effort to calculate dosage to people living downwind.
"It's a difficult problem and I don't think we've seen the last word yet on what the actual doses were to people," he said.
F. Owen Hoffman, a Ph.D. environmental scientist who has worked with University of Utah researchers reconstructing fallout information, was pleased with the bill.
"I believe that it is imperative that these historic records be archived and preserved," he said in an e-mail note to the Deseret Morning News.
"Such monitoring records contain information of relevance to the scientific community and to those interested in full accountability of the public health legacy of the Cold War era."
Hoffman, based in Oak Ridge, Tenn., added that fallout records could be the basis for follow-up studies attempting to evaluate health risks from nuclear weapons.
Rickards said destruction of the fallout records would fit an unfortunate pattern, in which "the United States government is still refusing to take responsibility for the damage we have done to our own people."
According to Rickards, archiving Defense Department records could allow future researchers to reconstruct the impacts of nuclear testing.
"This is extremely important," Rickards said, because with the information protected, future researchers may be able to make much more detailed calculations of the harm caused by fallout. SNIP ...Peter
We know solar, wind, and energy efficiency are safe.
We know solar wind, and energy efficiency are clean.
We know solar, wind, and energy efficiency can meet our nation's energy needs.
We know wind and efficiency are already cheaper than nuclear of any kind, while solar is catching up fast and will be cheaper by the time any U.S. utility can license and build a reactor.
Let's go with what we know works.
The problem is that we want a zero-risk society. We have some conception that coal, gas, and oil are dirty, but they don't kill people and won't harm people 1 million years from now. But these conceptions are flat-out wrong. Nuclear power does entail some risks - but they are MUCH lower than any other method of creating baseload electricity.
Excuse me, but when some ex-protestor who went on a "tour" converted to pro-nuke propoganda, and she is now the poster girl for nukers, it is not "off-topic" for me to mention how the "tour" of INL went for my CDC panel!
Hi Chris,
You are free to mention just the "deaths" from Chernobyl, but that is intentionally ignorant of the THOUSANDS of thyroid cancers caused in children many miles away. Thyroid cancer has a 95% cure rate, which is why nukers only talk about the deaths caused. These kids are using thyroid supplements and have undergone gruesome cancer treatments, but they would prefer the thyroid gland God blessed them with.
Idaho is still stuck with the melted core ofThree Miles Island, so we have 240,000 years to see if that accident eventually kills any of us nobodies in Idaho.
You seem to think those opposed don't have any peer reviewed medical studies, and only accidents cause trouble, and you have faith in US containment? Let me share some official documents. The latest DOE study on containment admits they have not really studied if the containment can withstand an earthquake during a meltdown! The DOE admits to scenarios that could cause "catastrophic failure."!!
While US studies focus only on death rates, and blur adults in with children, the latest German study documents increasing childhood leukemia rates the closer kids live to a normally operating nuke plant! here are the references...Peter
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=18067131&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
Journal of Cancer 2008 Feb 15;122(4):721-6.
Leukaemia in young children living in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants.
Institute for Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, German Childhood Cancer Registry, Obere Zahlbacher Strasse 69, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
A case control study was conducted where cases were children younger than 5 years (diseased between 1980 and 2003) registered at the german childhood cancer registry (GCCR). Population-based matched controls (1:3) were selected from the corresponding registrar's office. Residential proximity to the nearest nuclear power plant was determined for each subject individually (with a precision of about 25 m). The report is focused on leukaemia and mainly on cases in the inner 5-km zone around the plants. The study includes 593 leukaemia cases and 1,766 matched controls. All leukaemia combined show a statistically significant trend for 1/distance with a positive regression coefficient of 1.75 [lower 95%-confidence limit (CL): 0.65]; for acute lymphoid leukaemia 1.63 (lower 95%-CL: 0.39), for acute nonlymphocytic leukaemia 1.99 (lower 95%-CL: -0.41). This indicates a negative trend for distance. Cases live closer to nuclear power plants than the randomly selected controls. A categorical analysis shows a statistically significant odds ratio of 2.19 (lower 95%-CL: 1.51) for residential proximity within 5 km compared to residence outside this area. This result is largely attributed to cases in previous studies of the GCCR (especially in the inner zone) as there is clearly some overlap between those studies. The result was not to be expected under current radiation-epidemiological knowledge. Considering that there is no evidence of relevant accidents and that possible confounders could not be identified, the observed positive distance trend remains unexplained.
_______________________________________
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6906/cr6906.pdf
find at p 147 or p 166/206 on webpages
4.7 Issues for Future Consideration
4.7.1 Leakage
A great deal has been learned about containment behavior and containment analysis methods in
the last two decades of containment research, but questions still remain. One of the most
important behavior questions is that it is not known with certainty whether a leakage failure will
reach an equilibrium state or if it will lead to a catastrophic failure.
_________________
4.7.2 Other Considerations
Many aspects of containment integrity have still not been addressed in the various containment
integrity research programs. Some of these topics are listed below:
• The behavior of the containment under elevated temperature and pressure loads has not
been thoroughly investigated. Most of the containment tests have ignored the effects of
temperature on the material properties and thermal induced stresses associated with
elevated temperatures.
• The effect of aerosols within the containment atmosphere during an accident has not been
investigated. Aerosols may plug holes in the containment that may lead to a higher
pressure capability, but have the potential to change the mode of failure from a possible
benign mode to a burst mode. This applies to unlined concrete containments and lined
containments when the liner has failed.
• Seismic loadings coupled with severe accident loads have not been investigated in any
detail.
Your typed post seemed like a legit rebuttal. Your extremely long, pasted-in old newspaper article had nothing to do with this topic. Please stay on topic. The topic is domestic nuclear power generation, not nuclear weapons program waste, downwinder health or INL. Thank you.
Ben
A child's thyroid gland does not care if the radioactive Iodine-131 comes from a peaceful nuclear power meltdown or an atomic bomb, does it Ben? You are free to lecture me on staying on topic, but please write to Bush instead and tell him to relax about Iran's nuclear power program, and lecture him that there is no link to weapons...Peter
The no nukes crowd has done much to make things worse, at least temporarily. Such as Frank Pallone getting Congress to ban seafloor disposal in places such as the Mariana and other trenches, six miles down. Use leaded glass and add six miles of water and you're set, especially if the trench happens to be subductive. But noooooo.
The flapola about Yucca et al is probably a good thing inasmuch as the good old market is probably going to come up with a means of reprocessing spent rods, recapturing stuff that would be wasted if permanently entombed. So thanks Peter and Company for that.
For da record, because I listen well to nuclear scientist, with an open mind, I have said for years it is ridiculous to try to permanently bury to potential fuel source in Yucca Mt or the ocean. In the future, they may actually have designed reactors that are as safe as their present speech teams claim they are! Maybe the reprocessing designs won't leak plutonium, and won't create more nuke waste, like they do now. So why lie to Nevada about the safety of this "waste"? It needs to be stored at the nuke plants in bunkers, and kept inspectable and retrievable.
But right now regular nuke power is more expensive than wind, at 8-11 cents per kilowatt according to Areva's Keystone report, and going up up up. The DOE admits reprocessing makes it MUCH more expensive. The "market place" is making solar cheaper, with the latest design hoping to be out by next year at 7 cents / KW.
This whole subsidized Republican attempt to revive the dead nuke biz is desparate to get that underway before the truly renewables make then un-needed relics...Peter
I was just reading today something from guru James Hansen where he's calling for a real fancy electric grid so that power can be shifted and stored for the intermittents. That'll cost. Big.
Never mind that until such a grid is established, through the backyards of any number of NIMBY's and BANANA's, you need replacement power that can spool up in a flash. As in what, gas turbines? Checked NG prices lately? Holy *$%^$#! I'm buying a thicker blankie and some new sweaters on sale.
The reality is, we need base load...and neither wind nor solar really provide either particularly well. I mean, I'm not the only one noticing that the shooting is best at sunup and sundown WHEN THE WIND DIES -- and when Mom is nuking breakfast in the AM and Dad's showering, never mind the brats. And when do the lights come on at home? In the evenings. When the sun sets, and the wind stops.
And while we're at it, what exactly is a "DPM?"
DPM means Don't Push ME! :-) But I am a podiatrist, a foot doc, Doctor of Podiatric Medicine.
I gotta run to racquetball, but if you check my website you will see we are already building a new western electric grid, with an EIS underway. The corporation want to cut through Idaho from Canada to Vegas so we can hook up the nuke power cluster planned at INL and all the new nukes planned for Elmore county etc. I was dumb enough to suggest we build it through the DOE mapped out areas of high wind, solar, and geothermal.
You'll also see the 2007 Stanford study on hooking up wind farms, making it as reliable a baseload as coal.
Raft River geothermal cost 6 cent/kw and is a steady baseload. I quote U of Utah on geothermal providing 5 times our countries electric power, but Bush cut geo funding!
Please visit http://www.MyIdahoEnergy.com ...Peter
Also, I cannot find anything on a nuke power cluster planned at INL. I can only find one nuke planned for Elmore County, etc.
When Elmore nuke pusher Gillispie wrote in the Statesman that he could sell his nuke power for 3 cents per kw, and renewables are nice, but Raft River geothermal costs 62 cents / kw, I contacted the CEO of the geothermal company to check him out.
I already knew that Areva's Keystone report said nukes cost 8-11 cents, so I supected Gillispie was lying. The CEO of US Geothermal referred me to the contract for 5 something cents/kw, found at http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/cases/elec/IPC/IPCE0717/20071009APPLICATION.PDF
The Id Power IRP from 2006 says they will try to outbid California for the merchant nuke planned for INL, which is planned online in 2023. They will allow multiple merchant nukes at INL under the Nuclear Power 2010 program. In 1989 I helped fight Sen McClure's plan to build 12-15 commercial High Tempature Gas Reactors, and sat through the EIS hearings called NPR, or New Production Reactors. McClure is the lobbyist Warren Buffet hired to promote the Payette merchant nuke plan in December, along with ol' Cec Andrus. I beat the snot out of them at the first Payette meeting. They said they quit that plan a month later, but funny how McClure is still on the payroll. They may show up at INL, or return to Payette with the wheels grea$ed better. The 2007 Idaho Energy plan INVITES merchant nuke power to Idaho, and will give then Areva style tax breaks, no doubt...Peter
When Elmore nuke pusher Gillispie wrote in the Statesman that he could sell his nuke power for 3 cents per kw, and renewables are nice, but Raft River geothermal costs 62 cents / kw, I contacted the CEO of the geothermal company to check him out.
I already knew that Areva's Keystone report said nukes cost 8-11 cents, so I supected Gillispie was lying. The CEO of US Geothermal referred me to the contract for 5 something cents/kw, but Id Power will add some on, found at http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/cases/elec/IPC/IPCE0717/20071009APPLICATION.PDF
The Id Power IRP from 2006 says they will try to outbid California for the merchant nuke planned for INL, which is planned online in 2023. They will allow multiple merchant nukes at INL under the Nuclear Power 2010 program. In 1989 I helped fight Sen McClure's plan to build 12-15 commercial High Temerpature Gas Reactors, and sat through the EIS hearings called NPR, or New Production Reactors. McClure is the lobbyist Warren Buffet hired to promote the Payette merchant nuke plan in December, along with ol' Cec Andrus. I beat the snot out of them at the first Payette meeting. They said they quit that plan a month later, but funny how McClure is still on the payroll. They may show up at INL, or return to Payette with the wheels grea$ed better. The 2007 Idaho Energy plan INVITES merchant nuke power to Idaho, and will give then Areva style tax breaks, no doubt...Peter
Life-cycle analysis is a mechanism for measuring the total environmental impact of various energy sources. Environmental researchers have evaluated total emissions from various energy sources. This includes emissions resulting from all aspects of each energy source—construction, operation, dismantling and disposal. The life-cycle impact of nuclear energy is among the lowest of any form of electricity generation, comparable with renewable technologies such as wind and solar power.
When Elmore nuke pusher Gillispie wrote in the Statesman that he could sell his nuke power for 3 cents per kw, and renewables are nice, but Raft River geothermal costs 62 cents / kw, I contacted the CEO of the geothermal company to check him out.
I already knew that Areva's Keystone report said nukes cost 8-11 cents, so I supected Gillispie was lying. The CEO of US Geothermal referred me to the contract for 5 something cents/kw, found at http://www.puc.idaho.gov/internet/cases/elec/IPC/IPCE0717/20071009APPLICATION.PDF
The Id Power IRP from 2006 says they will try to outbid California for the merchant nuke planned for INL, which is planned online in 2023. They will allow multiple merchant nukes at INL under the Nuclear Power 2010 program. In 1989 I helped fight Sen McClure's plan to build 12-15 commercial High Temperature Gas Reactors, and sat through the EIS hearings called NPR, or New Production Reactors. McClure is the lobbyist Warren Buffet hired to promote the Payette merchant nuke plan in December, along with ol' Cec Andrus. I beat the snot out of them at the first Payette meeting. They said they quit that plan a month later, but funny how McClure is still on the payroll. They may show up at INL, or return to Payette with the wheels grea$ed better. The 2007 Idaho Energy plan INVITES merchant nuke power to Idaho, and will give then Areva style tax breaks, no doubt...Peter
Wow, what a great attack propaganda strategy by the pro nuclear energy industry advocates. Intentionally raise passions and polarized the issue, it certainly makes sense. Expose all opposition as outrageous kooks whose passion, thoughts, opinions are unfounded and uneducated. Nuclear advocates have been working hard in Idaho to polarize the issue and isolate it from the largest population of the Treasure Valley, so they can divide and conquer the small community and claim is a small town issue.
Investment groups and its nuclear advocates seem to be making a giant push in the last months of the Bush administration and Larry Craig’s tenure to secure new sites for the nuclear industry so they can get a stronghold on being a single source electrical provider and suppress solar and wind as fantasy solutions.
If nuclear energy was going to save us, why hasn't it already?
Despite its real potential and I understand that nuclear power has evolved since the accident at Three Mile Island. Nuclear energy has not overcome a range of risks safety, nuclear proliferation, and waste to sustain its growth in the marketplace and very real potential to render my state unlivable is unthinkable
There are approx. $6 billion in wind farms on order or under construction in the US, versus zero new nukes; investors are seeing the reality of wind farms as far better bets than nuclear, in addition there's no liability to worry about creating regional power sources. So why with approx. 80% of the electricity in the Northwest produced by hydro power each year and new regional wind farms do we need nuclear.
Is this only a outsourcing planet were nuclear generated power be sent to large cites in bigger states?, then why not build it there if is so safe build it in the middle of Los Angeles or San Diego, walk the walk and construct this safe Nuclear Facility in largest population center on the west coast.
Are there no concerns for water rights, water in Idaho is a very critical issue, some years it is rationed and since water is the nuclear industry’s achilles heel it concerns me that this Nuclear facility will face operational issues that will require complete shut down or operating a partial capacity for years at a time during water rationing. In addition these plants release radioactive tritium into local groundwater and the effect on drinking water; agricultural irrigation water, Idaho’s aquifer, stream and rivers will be forever there and be found in our food sources and children’s bodies.
The issue of this nuclear facility in Idaho is not just a small community issue but a State of Idaho risk and the people must be allowed to vote on this substantial risk to Idaho’s environment and lifestyle.
Sorry to intrude on your intense conversation, thank you.
RE:Your claim "The only way to change this picture is with ramped up nuclear."
I guess you can ignore all the data I provide on how renewables can outproduce our needs, but for Dr Arjun Makajani's approach to stopping nukes AND coal visit http://www.ieer.org
Funny how most the pro-nukers don't believe in global warming, and want to ignore all the CO2 from uranium mining and fuel production, but they all LOVE the spooky sales pitch that nukes will save us from global warming...Peter
Even cap-and-trade carbon markets won't work. What confidence should we place in the capacity of markets to reallocate investment from old to new energy or, say, from arms expenditures to sustainable agriculture?
Exactly Zero.
And carbon trading, and even most carbon tax schemes, that focus on the consumer rather than the producer are just a shell game.
Ultimately, there are only three (and now four) things producing greenhouse gases:
1. Oil Wellheads
2. Gas Wellheads
3. Coal mine tipples
4. And now, tar-sand or oil-shale plants.
Tax and regulate these four little things and our global warming problems will be solved
-JonCheever
Base load power needs cannot be addressed by harnessing puffs of wind or sunshine sparkles.
RE: Base load power needs cannot be addressed by harnessing puffs of wind or sunshine sparkles.
Waht is your catch phrase to pooh-pooh geothermal as a baseload? U of Utah says it can provide 5 times our USA electric consumption, and the INL speakers admit less, but do admit geothermal can provide 50% of our 2008 USA needs!
AGain, see the 2007 Stanford report on hooking up wind farms to provide a steady baseload at http://www.MyIdahoEnergy.com ...Peter
A carbon tax is constant and predictable. It doesn't require the creation of a new energy trading market, and it can be collected by existing state and federal agencies. It's straightforward and much harder to manipulate by special interests than the politicized process of allocating carbon credits through cap-and-trade.
That will elect the other guy.
In the long emergency, all types of power will be developed. There's not going to be the niceties when people are starving and freezing and dying.
Nuclear, and hydroelectric, (and the fish be damned (!)), and coal and coal gasification and every other energy source are all going to be possibilities. It's gonna be hard to fly a fighter jet or an airliner, or drive a tank or a semi, on wind power.
If something has an environmental cost, it should have a financial cost as well; it becomes profitable, both for businesses and individuals, to do the right thing. What could be simpler.
Take the word of one of the nation’s most respected economists on this-- “The argument that taxes on carbon emissions would ruin an economy is fundamentally false. First of all, I don’t think it is going to have that much of an impact on the economy overall. Second of all, if you don’t do it, you can be sure that the economy will go down the drain in the next 30 years." Paul Volcker, former Chairman, US Federal Reserve, February 6, 2007
Let’s follow the lead of our nation’s leading economists, and truly reflect the costs of fossil fuels in a carbon tax. If we do, the surge in innovation in renewable energy and conservation will be breathtaking.