Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Bad Reactors. Rethinking your opposition to nuclear power? Rethink again.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:22 AM
Original message
Bad Reactors. Rethinking your opposition to nuclear power? Rethink again.
Bad Reactors

Rethinking your opposition to nuclear power? Rethink again.

By Mariah Blake

Reactor community - James Porto

Seven years ago, Finland was faced with a daunting energy dilemma. To keep its domestic industries up and running, it needed to double its electricity supply by 2025. At the same time, it had to cut carbon emissions by fourteen million tons a year to comply with its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The question was how to fill the gap without stifling its flourishing economy or increasing dependence on costly imports.

As it hunted for solutions, the Finnish government decided to consider a controversial option: building another nuclear power plant. It was not a new idea; in fact, the Finns had weighed and rejected it nine years earlier. But since then, officials reasoned, the situation had changed. Besides a new imperative to reduce carbon emissions, a new generation of nuclear reactors had recently come onto the market. None had been built, but the industry claimed that their simple, standardized designs and modular components would make them far easier and less expensive to assemble than their predecessors. In fact, a study by the Lappeenranta University of Technology, which used figures on par with industry estimates for capital costs, found that a new atomic plant could deliver electricity more affordably than any other large-scale energy option. A group of lawmakers appointed by Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen to study the issue also concluded that a single reactor could create a much greater drop in greenhouse gas emissions than the next cheapest option, building more gas-fired plants. This meant there would be less pressure on the government to enact other mechanisms, such as a gasoline tax, that might put a dent in consumer spending and hamper economic growth.

Based on these findings, in May 2002 the Finnish parliament voted to approve the construction of a new nuclear power plant, something no Western nation had done in more than a decade. In industry circles, the decision was heralded as a breakthrough. Areva, the French company selected to build the reactor, touted the project as "historic" and promised that it would open the door to a global nuclear renaissance. In the United States, the Heritage Foundation issued a white paper commending Finlands "rational approach to nuclear power," and the New York Times ran a story calling the nations choice "prescient." Tens of thousands of lawmakers and energy buffs from around the globe descended on Olkiluoto, where the reactor is being built, to witness the bold experiment taking shape.

A craggy peninsula, which sits at the end of a two-lane road lined with sagging barns, rusty tractors, and thick birch and pine groves, Olkiluoto is being transformed into a thriving showcase for the promise of clean, abundant nuclear power. Not far from the construction site is an airy 10,000-square-foot visitors center with a glass wall overlooking the cool blue waters of the Bothnian Sea. In addition to a restaurant and an auditorium, the center features an elaborate interactive exhibit on the merits of smashing atoms. There are imitation caves full of real yellowcake uranium and a life-size mock-up of the new reactors core, complete with hundreds of aluminum rods and the cobalt glow of Cerenkov radiation. All around, images of mossy forests paper the walls, and birds chirp over the speakers.

But the building site is far less serene. When I visited in November, it was teeming with lumbering backhoes, churning cranes, and workers doubled under sacks of concrete. Hundreds of metal shipping containers and canvas tents were scattered around a fifteen-acre hole blasted into the granite bedrock. Rising from one end of the pit was the containment building, a ninety-foot-tall tower with its top wrapped in scaffolding, which houses the reactor. From afar it looked like a solid pillar of concrete, but as I picked my way through stacks of rusty I beams and giant spools of cable, I noticed Bondo-colored patches scattered across its face. Eventually, I looped around back and crossed a rickety plywood bridge that led inside. The interior of the containment building was lined with a solid layer of steel that was crisscrossed with ropy welds. On this surface someone had scrawled the word "Titanic."

These marks are the last remaining hints of the problems that have plagued this thick outer shell, the last line of defense in case of a meltdown. The steel liner was hand forged using outdated plans by a Polish subcontractor, which had no prior nuclear experience. As a result, the holes for piping were cut in the wrong spots, and the gaps along the weld joints were too wide. Entire sections had to be ripped apart and rebuilt. And the containment liner is not unique. Virtually every stage of the construction process has been dogged by similar woes, from the nine-foot-thick foundation slab (the concrete was mixed with too much water, making it weaker than had been called for in the plans) to the stainless steel pipes that feed water through the reactor core (they had to be recast because the metal was the wrong consistency). To date, more than 2,200 "quality deficiencies" have been detected, according to the Finnish nuclear authority, STUK. Largely as a result, the project, which was supposed to be completed in 2009, is three years behind schedule and is expected to cost $6.2 billion, 50 percent more than the original estimate. And the numbers could keep climbing. "There are still some very challenging phases ahead," says Petteri Tiippana, STUKs assistant director for projects and operational safety. "Things will have to go extremely well if those responsible for building the project are to hit the new targets."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. It never ceases to amaze me that people aren't against nuke power simply because...
...the damn things are built by the LOWEST BIDDER...and NOT the BEST builder...It blows my mind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. ....and maintained by the lowest bidder...
Nuclear is inherently dangerous...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PVnRT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Everything in government is done by the lowest bidder
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
end of argument

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Wow. The Heritage Foundation needs to read this, I'm thinking. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
4. Aha! But what if I re-think my position a *third* time!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kokonoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
5. If this was built in America.
It would be 150% over budget.

But at least we would be comfortable that everything is perfect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
7. "delays will create $4 billion in indirect costs for electricity users"
"In the meantime, because the country expected the reactor to deliver a bounty of energy and didnt pursue other options, its facing a severe electricity shortage and will have to import even more from abroad, which will drive up power bills. Elfi, a consortium of Finnish heavy industries, has calculated that the project delays will create $4 billion in indirect costs for electricity users."

This boondoggle keeps getting more expensive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
8. Shoddy construction is really just a side issue
Its hard to imagine using "it might not get built right" as an argument against a new nuclear reactor. They have generally been built with the whole zero-failure full redundancy ethos as the space program. Not that I am for or against, but reactors can and have been built correctly, and one example of incompetence doesn't really reflect on the industry as a whole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
9. Ah, Nuclear Energy! The Stem Cells of the Left!
All we need now is a nuclear Terri Schiavo, and we get a free coast-to-coast concert!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
10. Rethinking whether to learn how to think. Don't bother.
If you can't think by now, you have a very low probability of ever doing so.

People who can think will try to save your useless lives in spite of yourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 18th 2017, 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC