Has Nuclear's Atom Finally Been Split? A Brief Look at Nuclear Energy's Drawbacks

An interesting discussion. (0.00 / 0)

I'm particularly interested in the 1985 testimony; if there was a 45% chance of a "severe" accident between 1985 and 2005, and one didn't occur (though the chance of that, if accurate, is greater than a coin flip and not "a miracle"), does that mean whatever threat he was concerned about has expired? I'm weary in general about using testimony from one person in 1985, given the technological advances in safety and disposal since then.

I'm also interested in the impact and the health effects of the leaks. The article you link to cites leaks at 48 out of 65 sites---an alarming number if taken at face value. But the article concedes that none of the leaks have ever come close to public drinking water supplies, and that even the three instances that did impact private drinking supplies, the amount that entered was so minute that it didn't exceed the EPA's strict drinking water standard.

Finally, the article concedes that if any of those leaks did enter a water supply, and did exceed those standards, it would take drinking it for "decades", and that "7 out of 200,000", or 0.0035%, would develop cancer.

I'm inclined to believe with the NEI that the health and public safety risk is next to zero, and the fact that, in all of our nuclear history, not a single person has been seriously injured or killed in a nuclear accident is a pretty strong safety record.

---

by: sspiker @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 14:52:08 PM UTC

Calls for Strict Regulation (0.00 / 0)

If nuclear power stays in our future, and I firmly believe that it will and must in the foreseeable future, at the very least we must have a strong regulatory apparatus administered by the federal government. One of the worst legacies of the Bush sell-out to industry years is that environmental regulation was turned over to the very people who were supposed to be regulated. The most obvious example was the 29 miners killed at the Massey coal mine, where the Mine Safety and Health Administration had allowed that mine to continue its operation even after 515 citations for safety violations.

We must demand that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and others closely monitor nuclear power, especially since it only exists because the federal government long ago limited corporate liability in nuclear accidents.

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 16:14:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So are you saying that Chernobyl and Fukishima aren't issues (0.00 / 0)

just because they weren't US accidents? Actually our reactors are older in most cases and without a serious ratcheting up of safety we are likely to face a disaster in the coming decade. My parents live within 70 miles of Indian Point which has had serious safety concerns before and where roughly 20 to 30 million people live within the danger zone if radiation is released and there is an inadequate infrastructure to evacuate them all at once.

SSpiker This is not an abstract danger.... It is real. We saw it in Russia, we saw it in Japan. We've had near misses here. Reliance on nuclear energy is not where we should be going....  

---

by: truthteller @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 18:36:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The really big issues with nuclear power are (4.00 / 1)

cost and disposal of nuclear waste. Also, it takes an exorbitantly long time (around 6 years) to build a nuclear plant, compared to just 3 years for wind or solar thermal or gas/oil combined cycle and 4 years for a coal plant.

On the cost front, the base overnight cost in 2010 for nuclear power was $4,567 per KW. This compares to $921 per KW for conventional gas/oil combined cycle, $2,019 for hydro, $2,251 for wind, $2,364 for geothermal, $2,625 for scrubbed coal, $4,333 for solar thermal, and $4,474 for solar PV. That's right, nuclear's one of the most - if not the most - expensive forms of power generation.

As for nuclear waste, right now it's mostly stored in cooling ponds right next to the power plants, since there's no permanent repository in the U.S. Definitely not optimal.

So, in addition to the issue of nuclear accidents - rare, but when they DO occur can be utterly disastrous (Chernobyl, Fukishima) - there are three other issues (cost, time to build, waste storage/disposal), all of which are highly problematic and pretty much kill nuclear power as a serious option in the U.S., even with heavy subsidies. That's probably why there hasn't been a new nuclear plant built in the U.S. in three decades.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 19:17:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't Forget.. (0.00 / 0)

Don't forget that there are nuclear reactors in California situated along earth quake faults. Plus, there are operating plants in the U.S. built in the same design as the Fukishima plants.  

---

by: Elaine in Roanoke @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 19:20:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chernobyl, definitely. (2.00 / 2)

USSR's infrastructure was in miserable shape in 1986, the operators were conducted an experiment they didn't get approved from the Soviet regulatory agency, and they continued with the test that led to the explosion even after issues arose. There's no chance of anything similar to the series of unfortunate events that happened in Ukraine happening here.

We still don't know the full extent of the damage in Japan, so I'm not as quick to judge what lessons we should take from that. It should be noted that, while earthquakes happen all the time in the U.S., it was the tsunami that was ultimately responsible for the meltdown.

I'm not arguing on "reliance" on nuclear energy. I like alternative energy as much as the next guy. But until those energy sources are feasible, then yeah, I think nuclear should be part of the answer.  

---

by: sspiker @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 20:18:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

See the #s I provided above, courtesy of EIA (4.00 / 1)

Clearly, renewable energy sources like wind and geothermal are ALREADY far more "feasible" than nuclear power, on several grounds: 1) cost; 2) construction time; 3) no significant waste disposal issue; 4) no significant safety issues.  Also, I'd point out that the costs of renewables are coming way down, fast, while nuclear costs are NOT coming down, at least not significantly or at the rate that renewable costs are coming down. In a few more years, renewables will simply blow nuclear out of the water on all levels, so to speak.

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 20:31:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

By the way, the "marginal" rating is (0.00 / 0)

for the ridiculous, fallacious "feasible" comment. Nice try slipping that Dirty Energy Industry piece of disinformation in there, though!  

Follow me on Twitter.

---

by: lowkell @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 20:33:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Response (0.00 / 0)

Unfortunately, the fact that no one has died from a particular energy source at this moment is not necessarily the best means of weighing the danger of the said energy source. Didn't proponents of nuclear energy use some of the same arguments in Japan?

As is noted in other comments, many of the reactors still on-line in the U.S. are quite old and have exceeded their original 40 year life-span. This increases the risk that these reactors pose to human life and the natural environment. We are dealing with a very dangerous source of energy, and the question that follows is, is it worth it?

I used the 1985 testimony to demonstrate the fact that even in 1985 there were warnings from government agencies, government and private scientists, and environmentalists about the dangers of a nuclear accident occurring in the US. Fast forward over 25 years later and it stands to reason that these risks have not grown worse.

I want a cheap energy source as much as anyone, but the price of a human error or natural disaster causing a nuclear incident is simply too great to ignore.  

Progressive86

---

by: Progressive86 @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 00:32:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]