Edwards Dropped The "A-Bomb" Last Night

[babylonsister]

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/16/edwards-dropped-the-quot-a-bomb-quot-last-night.aspx

Edwards Dropped The "A-Bomb" Last Night

One more point about the Democratic debate in Las Vegas last night, specifically relating to the discussion of plans to turn Nevada's Yucca Mountain into a nuclear waste repository. Obama, Clinton, and Edwards each stated their unequivocal opposition to this plan, arguing that science has already shown it to be unsafe. While even this point is highly contentious, what followed was even more problematic.

Edwards took time to clarify that he was the only one of the three to outright oppose nuclear energy. Considering Edwards's positions on global warming, energy independence, and "Big Oil", it is baffling that he would dismiss nuclear energy out of hand. As it stands, nuclear power is the only environmentally friendly, economic, and efficient source of energy that can help the U.S. wean itself off foreign oil. Solar and wind will never meet our demand, and bio-fuels are still years--if not decades--away from becoming viable.

Gwyneth Cravens's illuminating Power to Save the World: The Truth about Nuclear Energy dispels many of the myths about nuclear energy that Edwards' position helps prop up. For example, she notes coal plants emit more radiation than nuclear ones. (In fact, humans get more radiation from medical x-rays or flying round-trip from New York to L.A. than living near a nuclear plant). Also, Cravens argues that nuclear energy plants are almost completely risk-free regarding nuclear weapons proliferation (it's a different enrichment process) and potential terrorist attacks (U.S. plants are simply too secure). She also makes the argument that we likely have safe ways of disposing of nuclear waste, even at Yucca Mountain.

For all the empty "unity" rhetoric that inevitably is present during an election cycle, nuclear energy--if looked at with sober eyes--provides a real opportunity for the left and right to get together and tackle three of today's greatest challenges: national security, energy independence, and climate change.

--Adam Blinick

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. is nuclear power environmentally friendly?

unless it is unleashed. Accidents do occur at nuclear plants as we well know.

[babylonsister]

3. I was hoping more people would pipe up and explain, because

I'm clueless about this stuff. But I don't think coal is the answer, either. Talk about hurting the environment. Solar and wind would be the ideal answer, but I can't imagine nearly enough being harnassed at this point for those to be realistic.

[redqueen]

6. The projections that say "but we neeeeeed it!" don't bother

to even consider energy-saving measures. They just assume current trends will continue. It's irresponsible, IMO.

[bullwinkle428]

28. People mocked Jimmy Carter way back when for trying to urge conservation -

it seems like thirty years later, many people didn't learn a damned thing.

[redqueen]

29. Well as with global warming, there's a lot of conflicting information.

I don't know that the industry is behind all the sunshine & roses stuff... but it wouldn't surprise me.

[dbackjon]

7. All of the nuclear 'accidents' in the U.S.

Have released less radiation than the typical coal plant releases.

[mac2]

21. Neither are good

If you live in an area impacted, you would be less unconcerned over it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

34. yes

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/contaminated-evidence-nuclear-disaster-50-years-on-20071010

[sabbat hunter]

27. nuclear power accidents are

very rare.

They are certainly safer than conventional power plants, cleaner as well. (the waste from a coal plant is more toxic than the waste from a nuclear power plant)

Additionally you can recycle the "waste" from a nuclear power plant by reprocessing it into fuel again, medicinal uses, etc. If we reprocessed there would be little real "waste"

[Rosa Luxemburg]

33. not that rare

there's always something. They like to cover it up.

[sabbat hunter]

35. it is not easy

to cover up a nuclear accident. if there is radiation leak you cannot hide that. Alarms go off, geiger counters click, etc.

[redqueen]

2. Anyone who's been in the Environment/Energy forum knows what a hot-button issue this is.

No NEW nuclear plants is sound policy. They can't even make sure the existing ones are safely maintained.

[babylonsister]

5. So what's the agreed on alternative, or is there not a consensus? nt

[redqueen]

8. Far from a consensus!

It's very contentious...

[babylonsister]

11. OK, thanks. nt

[dbackjon]

10. Disagree

Our current nuke plants are safe and reliable. We need more. I am glad that a good portion of the power I use is nuclear.

[redqueen]

12. They had to shut down how many plants in CT?

[mac2]

16. Did you forget Three Mile Island and Chernobyl?

Nuclear radiation takes thousands of years to become useless. It also goes around the earth with the jet stream. Whole areas of the earth made barren and useless..water polluted from "accidents".

Old radiation sites are leaking into the water systems. Here in the MW a lot of nuclear waste has not been removed from land fills near the lake, etc.

We can use sun, wind, and less power to lessen our impact on the earth.

[dbackjon]

30. No one is forgetting them

Three Mile Island PROVED that U.S. nukes are safe. Pretty much everything that COULD go wrong, did. But the design keep the public safe - less impact on the environment that a like-sized coal plant.

Chernobyl was a faulty design, one that was never allowed to be built in the U.S. Using Chernobyl as an argument is faulty logic - the use of false fear - something that I only expect from Republicans.

[Dogmudgeon]

31. Nuclear reality

Chernobyl was the only bona-fide nuclear disaster, and its total release of radioactive material was far LESS than the average coal plant releases in one year. Since coal contains between 3 and 30 PPM (parts per million) of uranium and thorium, it is a significant source of radioactive emissions.

Even seawater, at 12 PPM, would raise NRC alarms.

The risks of nuclear power have been badly exaggerated, especially relative to the risks of other power sources. For example, cadmium is used to make new-generation solar cells. It is far more toxic than plutonium, and UNlike plutonium, it NEVER loses its full toxicity. And China currently is dealing with widespread cadmium poisoning events due to unregulated semiconductor manufacture.

Never the less, nuclear energy is not risk-free. Nothing is. There are also economic problems -- nuclear power is quite cheap but requires enormous up-front investment. And, it simply scares people, whether for good reasons or bad. I am sympathetic to those who fear nuclear energy, but we have to decide whether we will act from fear or intelligence. We were right in the late 1970s to demand accountability of the nuclear industry, but in the past 30 years the industry has been whipped into shape. Today, if a janitor in a nuke plant so much as breaks wind, there is a major inquest.

Yet the lion's share of our nuclear waste problems (such as the Hanford site) are from the early days of military nuclear technology, NOT civil power generation. Turning this into a political football is an exercise in futility. We ought to be focused on risk analysis and reduction in all areas of technology. (And, PS, I am quite against Yucca Mountain -- it's a boondoggle; the radioactive waste problem is not unsolvable as the residual radioactivity can be used for more power generation.)

My point? Simply that we have to take a scientific approach to our use of technology. Neither slippery "business leaders" nor uneducated "people's activists" -- egotists all -- should sway our thinking. The energy/environment problem is far too complex and critical for us to rely on our gut reactions, whether it involves power sources, global warming, or anything else. Exaggerating the risks of unpopular energy production methods while ignoring those of our favorites is a recipe for disaster. ALL energy technology should proceed or cease based on reality, not "coolness".

Ain't no simple answers to our problems. The work of which HRC speaks and the leadership promoted by BHO are merely the starting points of our future.

--p!

[TokenWasp]

13. Can't keep the old ones safely maintained...

So why the hell not replace them with new technology that is far safer?

This is a knee-jerk reacton to a real solution based on 30-year old performance data that in no way is indicative of modern technology.

[redqueen]

14. Was it really 30 years ago that however many plants in CT were shut down by the NRC?

I thought it was a bit more recent...

[TokenWasp]

18. When were they built...

...and wouldn't the fact that they were closed without incident tend to show that the operational safeguards work?

[redqueen]

20. Without incident?

No, I wouldn't say that.

[dbackjon]

4. Bad for EDWARDS!

Not a good point in his direction for dismissing Nuclear power as a clean bridge to new sources of power.

[redqueen]

9. Dissmissing nuclear power? We have lots of nuclear power.

All he said was no new plants. They won't even maintain the current ones.

[cali]

15. I think we need to take a closer look at the French model

As you probably know, they get almost all their energy from nuclear and they have a stellar safety record.

[mac2]

19. The French had a drought

Nuclear power plants use lots of water for cooling.

They had a drought and had to close them down. Many French died last summer from the heat and lack of air conditioning...power.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0711-04.htm

It is also a problem in Georgia from their drought. Google the article.

[redqueen]

17. And please do check this out! "Nuclear Costs Explode"

Nuclear Costs Explode
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jan/15/bz-nuclear-costs-explode

FPL, based in Juno Beach, said recently that the "overnight cost" of its two-reactor project would range from $12 billion to $18 billion, more than twice as high as Progress Energy's December 2006 estimate. Overnight estimates exclude the interest paid on the loan and are based on commodity prices when the estimate is made.

(snip)

What's more, Moody's Investors Service, one of three major rating agencies, said in October that new reactors would cost up to $6,000 per kilowatt of capacity to build. At that price, Progress Energy's two-reactor proposal would cost $13.2 billion. FPL's recent estimate was $3,100 to $4,500 a kilowatt.

"Moody's is closer to the reality we're seeing," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit group opposed to nuclear power. "Even before they start building, the costs are going up. Meanwhile, the cost for solar, wind and energy efficiency are on a downward trend."

(snip)

Meanwhile, the Nuclear Energy Institute has stopped offering cost estimates because many of its member companies, including Progress Energy, are in contract negotiations. Any projection from NEI could affect the outcome of those discussions, said Adrian Heymer, NEI's senior director of new plant deployment.

[Dogmudgeon]

32. The TBO article is the future of Wind and Solar, too

Concrete, metal, labor and land are required by nuclear reactors and other energy systems alike. The article points that out, especially in relation to coal-fired plants. In fact, all energy production will be similarly affected.

In addition, siting is much more expensive for non-nuclear energy. Wind farms and solar arrays take up a lot more space than nuclear, geothermal, or coal power plants. But that's just one piece of the puzzle. The costs of storing energy are never factored into solar/wind projects; in spite of claims to the contrary, nuclear waste disposal is part of EVERY reactor proposal I have read about since I can remember. None of these problems are insurmountable, but they are part of the equation.

So what it comes down to is trying to figure out how much any given energy production method costs. We also have a secondary problem, the construction market. We ought to be dealing with this in a "holistic" manner, not as a football game. Nuclear energy has a very good track record, but if it's possible to out-do it, we should. But the wishful thinking shown by corporate "Greenwash" (e.g., the endless full-color glossy and TV ads featuring windmills, solar arrays, cute children, and the corporate logo) is very misleading. I strongly suspect that reality will give us a less-sexy future than either the nuclear or "Green" industries have portrayed.

Collectively, our new awareness of our dilemma is less than a decade old. It is time for some new thinking, to dismiss nothing, but also to believe none of the hype. "The Solution" will be found in our collective intelligence and democratic action. And if a particular method of energy production succeeds or fails, so be it.

--p!

[harun]

22. Good show of spine by Edwards, I support adding many many

more nuclear power plants and moving all cars over to electrics.

[damntexdem]

23. Simple: nuclear power is not environmentally friendly, economic, or efficient.

The whole issue about Yucca Mountain is that use of nuclear energy generates nuclear waste that needs to be stored away from interaction with the environment for thousands of years -- an impossibility. We do not have ways to do ANYTHING, safely or not, over a period of thousands or tens of thousands of years.

Anyone who has paid excessive electrical bills because of nuclear power plants knows that nukes are not economical -- where I lived before, we paid rates 50% higher than a city 120 miles away, both served by the same company, but with different rate structures based on the building of a nuke plant years before by one of the formerly-separate electric companies.

Nuclear power will be part of the equation because plants already exist. The answer is not to build more of them.

[Jim__]

24. If I remember from last night, Edwards objection was mostly due to the nuclear waste problem.

Citing the article that supports the use of nuclear energy:

Gwyneth Cravens's illuminating Power to Save the World: The Truth about Nuclear Energy dispels many of the myths about nuclear energy that Edwards' position helps prop up. For example, she notes coal plants emit more radiation than nuclear ones. (In fact, humans get more radiation from medical x-rays or flying round-trip from New York to L.A. than living near a nuclear plant). Also, Cravens argues that nuclear energy plants are almost completely risk-free regarding nuclear weapons proliferation (it's a different enrichment process) and potential terrorist attacks (U.S. plants are simply too secure). She also makes the argument that we likely have safe ways of disposing of nuclear waste, even at Yucca Mountain.

Likely???? This is not a minor problem. The fact the we likely have a solution, an uncited one, is small comfort.

[redqueen]

26. No solution, but

"... the cost of concrete, steel, copper, labor and reactor technology has soared as energy companies move forward with plans to build more than 30 new reactors nationwide."

[The Traveler]

25. Nuclear power is not a viable option

At least, it is not one that can be presented as a "no-brainer". (Disclosure: I was a PhD candidate in Physics and then Mechanical Engineering at Ga Tech during the late 70s, when the nuclear power controversy was a very hot topic. 3 Mile Island and all that, ya know. I did NOT study nuclear power systems in any detail. I know more about the engineering of nuclear power plants than the layman, but far too little to be considered an expert. Caveat emptor definitely applies.)

One of the problems with nuclear power is that it is possible that the energy cost of producing and operating a safe nuclear power plant might just possibly exceed its gross output over the course of its operational life cycle. At least, back in the 70s those kinds of questions and arguments were all over the discussion of the nuclear power controversy. At the time, I had just switched from physics to mechanical engineering (I sold out). My field was high temperature plasmas ... I was looking at things like MHD ... so I wasn't really a participant in these debates. Not sure how that shook out, but ... to my amazement, it was a question the nuclear power advocates did not find easily dismissed.

The point is that in addition to the waste issues and operational safety issues, nuclear power plants may not contribute as much to the net energy picture as one might at first think. The manufacture of its components, their transport to the site, their assembly, and the operation and maintenance of the plant itself are not energy free items. I myself find it hard to believe that those energy costs exceed the total life cycle output of a reactor ... but it is certainly conceivable that one might have to run a reactor for several years before one hits "energy break even".

Even if that energy cost/benefit analysis looks favorable, which I expect it will, waste management and operational safety issues are still vast and valid concerns. While it is true that a properly functioning nuclear power plant emitts a very low level of radiation, the nature of that radiation (thermal neutrons and collision byproducts) is disturbing to anyone who owns DNA. (Emphasis ... emissions of a healthy American nuclear plant really are of no concern ... they really are very, very low.) Further, accident, manufacturing defect, operational screw up, natural disaster can all cause the release of really bad shit.

And that brings us to the next problem with nuclear power. 30 years ago, we had a government that was effective at enforcing regulation and organized labor was a willing contributor to the regulatory process. Organized labor helped keep management honest about construction quality and operational safety. At the very least, they tried. But even if we could reproduce those conditions today in America, it is unlikely that all other reactor-building nations will be equally successful. Thus, we can expect more Chernobyl type incidents in the future ...

We really need another technology base to provide a safer solution. And, fortunately, there are many options to consider.

[sabbat hunter]

36. nuclear is a definite option

Chernobyl used an very old unsafe design, one that has not been ever used in the USA.

Modern nuclear reactors are safer than other style power plants. You are more likely to have a gas leak/explosion at a gas fired plant, or all that toxic material from a coal plant.

Additionally, if we reprocess the "waste" there will actually be very little waste.



We need to use all options, other than fossil fuels, (including nuclear) to solve our energy needs. We need to use solar, wind, water, geothermal and nuclear. Together all of these can solve our problems.

[The Traveler]

37. Counter points

"Chernobyl used an very old unsafe design, one that has not been ever used in the USA."

True and true. However, if we have to resort to nuclear power other nations will also. It is unlikely that they will build reactors to our design standards in all cases. You will have a spectrum of designs and implementations and some of them will be more prone to accident than others. If you roll the dice often enough, you will come up snake eyes ... a large release of radioactive material is inevitable in the long run.

"Modern nuclear reactors are safer than other style power plants. You are more likely to have a gas leak/explosion at a gas fired plant, or all that toxic material from a coal plant."

Debateable. Highly. For one thing, the most modern American plant is 30 years old ... there has been some progress made in conventional power plant design in 3 decades. We don't know about the real performance and MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) of proposed newer nuclear plant designs because we haven't built them yet.

And in the larger view, the two classes of systems are highly similar ... both are big heat engines, ahd there are certain operational risks that go with that. The main difference between coal/gas fired plants and a nuclear site is the source of heat. The nuclear reactor heats a primary cooling loop which delivers heat through an exchanger to a secondary loop. The secondary loop drives a turbine, transforming the heat into kinetic energy in a manner entirely equivalent to the turbines of a coal fired plant. Consequently, the same issues of handling high pressure steam, etc. convey. The main risk with a nuclear plant is of course damage to the primary cooling loop system. The secondary loop can blow up and there will be minimal exposure to toxins or radiation. But if the primary loop leaks, you have a whole series of problems.

Quality control is essential in this case. The emissions of a blown up coal fired plant do not fatally contaminate vast areas for historical intervals of time. And it is in this context I observe that neither government regulation, nor management transparency, nor organized labor's ability to exert influence over the manufcature and construction processes have improved notably in 30 years. In fact, I submit these qualities are substantially degraded. I am therefore not all that confident that we have the wherewithal as a country to pull off this kind of development at this time. We pretty much have to rebuild a nuclear power construction industry ... and do this at a time when American manufacturing is gutted and organized labor (so crucial to the emergence of the nuclear power industry back in the 50s and 60s) is effectively emasculated. We cannot trust MBAs to supervise this kind of development.

"Additionally, if we reprocess the "waste" there will actually be very little waste."

It is unclear to me that has been established. Perhaps it has been. As I said in my original response, I am by no means an expert. But given the nature of said reprocessing there must of necessity be considerable left overs ... you're talking about extracting the remaining fissile material from a chunk of material that has already been fissed. Seems to me physics will impose certain serious limits on the efficiencies of such processes ... and the fissed out material remains deadly. So I remain skeptical on this point.

"We need to use all options, other than fossil fuels, (including nuclear) to solve our energy needs. We need to use solar, wind, water, geothermal and nuclear. Together all of these can solve our problems."

Agreed ... but there are even more options than you list and a little bit of research, caution, and foresight goes along way at times like these. I think those options that present the most risk should be pursued only after we have fully exploited the potential of the safer ones.