LehiNephi's Journal: Nuclear Power - The US is Stupid

Nuclear power is one of my hot-buttons. While much of Europe has built many nuclear plants, the US lags. Why? There's a moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants in the US. While the reasons for the 1974 ban may have been valid at the time (and vindicated by Three Mile Island and Chernobyl), the most common concerns about nuclear power no longer make any sense.

What follows is a line-by-line look at some of the most popular objections to nuclear power, and why I don't think they're valid:

Concern #1: An accident like Three-Mile Island or Chernobyl could happen.
Why it's wrong: Chernobyl will never happen again. A combination of a seriously flawed reactor design and an operating staff unfamiliar with it caused the accident. Training today is leaps-and-bounds better than it was in the 80's. Some types of reactors now being researched can't melt down even in the worst of circumstances. Control systems and safety systems have also advanced way beyond anything available then. While Chernobyl was a very serious accident that impacted hundreds of thousands in some way, Three-Mile Island really wasn't a big deal. Yes, there was a partial melt-down of the contents of the reactor core. But aside from the coolant water that was released (and contained and stored elsewhere on-site) everything stayed in the core. The reactor maintained its structural integrity. No injuries occurred, and exactly one case of cancer was attributed to the accident.

Concern #2: It's dangerous to those who live nearby
Why it's wrong: Let's take Three-Mile Island, where some of the contaminated gases (hydrogen, and steam) were vented to the atmosphere. Testing of people living within a 10-mile radius showed a maximum exposure of 100 millirads (equivalent to 1/3 of a year of natural background radiation) and average of only 8 millirads of exposure (about the same as a chest x-ray). That's after radioactive gases were released after an accident. Under normal circumstances, practically zero radiation escapes.

Concern #3: We have to store the radioactive waste for 10,000 years
Response: Well that's only partially true. Yes, there is solid nuclear waste produced by the reactor, and it is highly radioactive. However, consider the following:
--1) 95% of spent fuel is unconsumed Uranium that can be reprocessed into new fuel. Although Great Britain, France, and Russia do so, the US has banned reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from civilian uses because of proliferation concerns. (me: this is stupid--it's far more likely to proliferate from Russia than the US in any case, and proper security can help prevent it anyway)
--2) actinides, the component of spent fuel that is responsible for the oft-quoted 10,000 storage time can also be reprocessed into new fuel. This reduces the total amount of waste down to about 3% of the original amount.
--3) The 3% left after reprocessing the unspent uranium and the actinides is called the Fission products. These are highly radioactive, but reach safe levels in around 300 years--a far cry from the 10,000 years you hear.

In addition, there is some amount of other 'stuff' like tools and clothing, that gets exposed to radiation and currently must be treated as hazardous. But it's not, really. Your morning cup of coffee is more radioactive. But your coffee grounds go to the landfill and this other stuff has to be stored.

Concern #4: Proliferation
Why it's wrong: Proliferation is gonna happen one way or another. There are enough nuts running around this world with nuclear programs that the likelihood of proliferation from a US facility is, by comparison, negligible.

Concer #5: Other alternative energy is better
Response: I personally love the idea of solar, wind, and water power. However, the economics currently just don't support it. A 1 GW nuclear reactor with all associated equipment, building, and infrastructure is not that big. A solar installation with that capacity, however, would be ridiculously huge. If we could collect 100% of the solar energy in an area and convert it perfectly to electricity, we would require an entire square kilometer to generate that much power. And it would only generate that much power when the sun is perfectly perpendicular to that spot. Although the efficiency of photovoltaic cells has been increasing, global demand has made supply extremely tight and prices are very high. Solar and Wind power both have the problem that we can't depend on them. Cloudy or windless days render them practically useless. Hydroelectric I like, but there are only so many places to put a dam, and there are lots of other environmental issues that must be worked.

Now, let's compare nuclear power to the status quo: coal-fired plants.
Coal: Huge amounts of CO2, sulphur, and naturally-occurring radioactive material (NORM) get released into the atmosphere to go....wherever. Things are improving, but the fact remains that you're burning stuff and releasing much of the remains into the atmosphere.
Nuclear: A few cubic meters of spent fuel per reactor, of which some 97% can be reprocessed. And we can very effectively control the remainder. We know exactly where it's going.

Yup, that's right. For all the concerns people have about radiation coming from a nuclear power plant, a coal-fired power plant produces (and releases!) far more.

The blame for all the misinformation can, I think, be laid squarely at the feet of those who misguidedly attempt to perpetuate myths that were mostly false when they originated and are all false now. What is so telling about the viability of nuclear energy is this:

The environmentalists that fought so hard against nuclear power 30 years ago? They now promote it.

Would I be willing to have a nuclear plant built behind my house. Absolutely.