On Nuclear Power

 

                                        On Nuclear Power

        This is, in essence, a repost from several years ago following the continuing lunacy of too many world wide, such as Germany, decommissioning their safe, economical nuclear power plants and now facing the Russian gas shortage. Their Nuclear industry was by far the safest and most eco-friendly mode of electric power production, other than hydro, available, but "Green" politics got in the way. This is not a rant against environmental conscientiousness but rather a truthful look at a much maligned (due to ignorance) energy source. Generating electrical power with nuclear power plants is the second most economical (after hydro, which is location limited) means of energy in the world, much cheaper and more reliable than solar and wind. The original post begins below.    

        I am sick unto nausea of seeing a Pam Bondi lookalike exhorting me to vote "for energy," followed by a multi-ethnic panel of paid actors who parrot the same party line. What is saddening is that this is presented as if it was just a common sense, non-partisan, effort sponsored from the largesse of the energy industry. Make no mistake - we are held captive by these people to a degree. The fossil fuel purveyors are the money behind these ads. Dig deep enough into the background of this commercial (for that's what it is, in truth), and the Koch Brothers, frackers too numerous to mention, and the coal industry are lurking there.

        Sadly, we, as a nation of sheep, were frightened away from nuclear power by an accident which has had zero measurable effects on the general population or the environment over the subsequent 37 years other than the higher cost of electricity as the utility recouped their self-inflicted monetary loss over the following years. The site was called Three Mile Island, for those with short memories or too few years to remember. Within the same week, a film (The China Syndrome) scared the beJesus out of many who understood little of all that was wrong with it, conceptually.

      I worked in a nuclear industry, the  Submarine Navy, for 26 years as an educator and operator/supervisor. Our hundreds of thousands (more likely millions, by now) of nuclear accident-free operating hours under conditions far more challenging than stationary power generation, are testimony to the safety of the types of reactors used in US nuclear facilities. The Chernobyl tragedy was largely due to the type of reactor involved, and the lack of both judgement and training of those who initiated the event, not the nature of the use of nuclear power. Even the more recent Fukushima catastrophe in Japan was caused by inadequate backup provision for power, and a site location and design which would not have been licensed in the US, nor would a US plant have been at risk of a once in a lifetime tsunami. What passed unnoticed, is that no one died because of nuclear issues of any sort, but several were killed by the initial event (earthquake/tsunami) itself.

        Since its inception in 1948, the U.S. Navy nuclear program has developed twenty-seven different plant designs, installed them in 210 nuclear-powered ships, taken five hundred reactor cores into operation, and accumulated over 5,400 reactor years of operation and 128,000,000 miles safely steamed. For some perspective that's over 550 trips to the moon! Additionally, ninety-eight nuclear submarines and six nuclear cruisers have been recycled, with fuel reprocessed and reclaimed, minimizing waste.

        The U.S. Navy has never experienced a reactor accident. By comparison, there have been more than one hundred fatalities in the US involving Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) one of the "safe" fossil fuels hyped by the Energy Lobby. Between petroleum, LNG and Coal industry accidents, thousands have died, including the flattening of one square mile of Cleveland and 132 dead by an LNG explosion in 1944, and 362 in just one West Virginia coal mine explosion. This of course ignores the continuing litany of cancers caused by carbon fuel off gassing, especially earlier coal fired plants.

        Both solar and wind powers are attractive, no fuel, no carbon, options, but at great carbon and financial price for the initial installation, and for wind power, as the Danes are finding out, a lifetime intense maintenance commitment, in the current state of wind technology. Solar ...well, it only works when the sun is up, and current technology options for energy storage for later use are in their infancy. It will also almost assuredly be shown that while initial solar installations are less costly than wind energy, storage will be far more so. Hydro is of course fuel free, but requires significant altering of the natural course of rivers and the accompanying loss of various habitats, while having the obvious downside of needing high volume flows to maintain output. Hydro is also subject to the effects of changing weather patterns on the amount of water available. The record low levels in Lake Mead are exemplary. In the meantime, safe nuclear energy offers a far better alternative than coal (no carcinogens) and fracking (fewer drill induced earthquakes).

        "Be an energy voter" is partisan to the max while pretending not to be. Don't be suckered.