For once, I agree with John Stossell. There I said it. It
will likely never happen again, but his column today (correctly) touts Nuclear
power as a far better “green” energy source. What interested me is that he
significantly echoes this essay I wrote several years ago. The essay, significantly edited/updated, follows:
I am sick unto
nausea of seeing a Pam Bondi lookalike on TV 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 large 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. Note: hopefully there
is change on the horizon in the coal fields as mining unions have recently
committed to supporting retraining in clean energy fields.
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 other than the higher cost of electricity as the
utility recouped their self-inflicted monetary loss over the following years. A
film further exacerbated the resultant wave of “anti-nuke” sentiment. The accident site was Three Mile Island, near
Harrisburg, Pa, for those with short memories or too few years to
remember. The film was “The China
Syndrome.” A 37 year public health study in the wake of Three Mile Island was
closed after finding zero health effects attributable to the
accident on the populace of the region.
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 that 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 abysmally flawed type
of reactor involved, 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 would not have been licensed in the US, nor would a US plant
have been authorized for construction where there was a risk of even 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 27 different
plant designs, installed them in 210 nuclear-powered ships, taken 500 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, 98 nuclear submarines and six nuclear cruisers
have been recycled. The U.S. Navy has never experienced a reactor accident. By
comparison, there have been more than 100 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 a W.Va. coal mine explosion. This of course
ignores the 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 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. Oh, and by the way, their electricity costs around twice as much,
per kilowatt /hour as US averages!
Unfortunately,
but predictably, the farther north we
go, the shorter the daylight hours and in winter, when we need power the most
for "green" heating, they are shortest. Solar ...well, it only works
when the sun is up, and current technology options for energy storage for later
use are in their infancy. In truth, battery tech will almost surely never be
adequate for national power grid support. It will also almost assuredly be
shown that while initial solar installations are less costly than wind energy,
storage will be far more so. Battery technology is far from adequate in the
foreseeable future to support metropolitan areas with solar, if ever (can you
say Seattle?)
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 constant high volume flows to maintain output. Hydro is
also subject to the effects of changing weather patterns on the amount of water
available. The recent record low levels in Lake Mead, threatening Hoover Dam’s
ability to continue power production, are exemplary.
In the meantime, safe nuclear energy offers a
far better alternative than coal (no carcinogens) and fracking (fewer drill
induced earthquakes). Meanwhile Nuclear
is sustainable, safe, and yet the US is lagging in the development and
application of even safer and almost infinitely refuelable liquid salt cooled
(LSC) reactor plants, whereas India and China are pioneering such work. We (the
US Atomic Energy Commission) actually built an operating high power, small
profile LSC reactor at Oak Ridge in the 1960s. Sadly, after more than 6000
effective full power hours and proof of the technology, it was scrapped in
favor of fast breeders – because the military wanted more “weapons grade”
Plutonium. Fast breeders are
relatively safe, but considerably less so than Liquid Salt designs, which are
essentially fail safe and meltdown proof. Added to that, is the need for less
plentiful Uranium as fuel.
LSC reactors
can be fueled by plentiful thorium and we have, within our national borders, by
conservative estimates, over 500 years’ supply if all US power
production reactors used Thorium. Finally, there is much less nuclear waste
when thorium is used as a fuel in a liquid fluoride thorium reactor —up to two
orders of magnitude less. This eliminates the need for large-scale or long-term
storage. Recently Chinese scientists have claimed that hazardous waste will be
a thousand times less than with uranium."
Added to these
factors is the fact that Nuclear plants can be sited in remote locations and
produce only electricity and heat.
"Be an
energy voter" is partisan to the max while pretending not to be. Don't be
suckered.
No comments:
Post a Comment