Post by Brad on Dec 29, 2014 7:31:41 GMT -5
(Note: Though this is posted by a board administrator, it represents the opinion of the person in the by-line.)
American Energy
by Syd Ball
I’d like to address the U.S. energy situation – its problems and potential - and look at possible ways the Green Party could have a significant (positive!) impact on our energy future. I’ve worked at ORNL for over 50 years as a nuclear engineer, mostly on advanced reactors, but also some on desalination and energy conservation. My specialties are mainly in the areas of safety analysis and licensing, but there’s always much spill-over into other aspects of reactor design and operation.
One important benefit of work on ORNL reactor projects is the close collaboration we have with expertise in all the necessary related fields. The challenge is in putting it all together, ensuring that all the bases are covered.
My incentive for this letter stems from a discussion I had with Isa in which I complained about the fact that typically, almost universally, nuclear power is not included under the “green energy” umbrella, one clear example being TVA’s “green power switch” program. I understand (I think) many of the reasons for this, and would like to elaborate on them here.
Unlike fossil fuel plants, nuclear power plants (NPPs) do not generate greenhouse gases or other airborne pollutants and do not consume the earth’s non-renewable fossil resources. NPPs now produce about 20% of the U.S. electrical power. Those familiar with current data and analyses (and perhaps have taken a deep breath in Beijing) understand that the rapid growth in fossil consumption and the worsening of pollution and climate change effects will have major long-term negative impacts. So why not support NPPs, and especially advanced designs, to help lessen the impacts?
Here are some of the reasons we nukes have problems, and why we shouldn’t:
Current nuclear technology is not well-understood by the public. Examples are in the areas of safe storage of used (spent) radioactive fuel and its transport (across state lines) to repositories, NPP historical safety and its relation to safety of other power sources, and effects of radiation on human health.
Spent fuel can be safely stored – indefinitely – for example, in the Yucca Mountain repository. The technology exists, but the politics don’t. The same goes for transport of spent fuel.
NPPs have had an excellent overall safety record, in spite of the Fukushima disaster. While 18,000 people were killed (by the tsunami), the projected death toll – near term and long term – from radiation is zero, even counting the workers that went into the plants to mitigate the accident progression. With our advanced reactors’ inherent safety features, that tsunami would not have caused plant failures with radiation releases. Japan’s “worst nuclear power accident” was a criticality accident in a fuel manufacturing plant that killed two workers, gaining world-wide attention. That same week, a hydropower accident in Africa killed 300 people and went unreported. Surprisingly, the electrical power source with the worst safety record is hydropower.
Radiation effects are widely misunderstood and exaggerated due to the unfortunate promotion of the debunked claim that even a small amount of additional exposure will increase cancer probabilities. For example, if you take that supposed small incremental risk and multiply it by a large population number, you would calculate that several hundred deaths would result. Data shows conclusively, however, that small changes in exposures from varying background radiation sources or plane trips do not affect cancer probabilities.
Another major reason for lack of NPP support in the U.S. is political. The fossil industries (coal and oil) have huge population (political) bases, absent with nuclear.
Economics: NPP costs are weighted heavily toward construction, but are much less than fossil plants for operation. Delays in construction (licensing, funding source problems,…) greatly increase costs. Advanced NPPs would do much better. If external costs are factored in (such as from climate change, pollution, fossil depletion, wars fought for oil access,…), nuclear would turn out to be much cheaper. Our society’s screwed-up view of economics doesn’t help either. For example, the 2010 Goldman-Sachs bonus of $16 billion, if used to build 3 or 4 large NPPs, could have created many good jobs and clean electrical power for New England for 60 years (and paid back the initial cost).
I also have a few specific problems with the Greens platform (2012, Nuclear Issues).
If our NPPs were to be retired “in less than 5 years,” most of the power loss would have to be replaced via new fossil plants. Base load plants are necessary, and solar/wind sources would be insufficient.
Calling for electrical and/or hydrogen powered vehicles to replace gas/diesel appears to neglect the fact that more NPPs (or coal…) would need to provide the electricity, or in the case of hydrogen, more high-temperature process heat.
Nuclear medicine: Reactors are the main source of the most-used isotopes (Molybdenum-99 -> Technetium) for diagnostics and treatment.
Food irradiation (safe and well-established): long term food storage will become more useful with climate change impacts on crops.
Why oppose export of nuclear (power) technology? We’ve done that for years through IAEA and otherwise, with much mutual benefit. China’s nukes help reduce fossil emissions.
Advanced NPP designs should be supported in the U.S. (much as they are in other countries): avoid Fukushimas via passive safety, their higher temperatures enable process heat applications to many industries (U.S. process energy demands are comparable to electrical’s), better spent fuel storage options, desalination via use of discharge heat, higher efficiency, more siting options,...
U.S. position and credibility in energy development and climate change action needs fixing. The Russians are selling their reactors to many other countries – we’re losing out on a huge potential market by sitting this one out.
So how can the Green Party help the U.S. energy policy (and future)? Green Party understanding and acceptance of NPP benefits could greatly enhance public and political support. Current nuclear “deniers” would be more likely to respond to (i.e., believe) the Green Party than they would our “self-serving” claims by the NPP industry.
Syd Ball
Oak Ridge
American Energy
by Syd Ball
I’d like to address the U.S. energy situation – its problems and potential - and look at possible ways the Green Party could have a significant (positive!) impact on our energy future. I’ve worked at ORNL for over 50 years as a nuclear engineer, mostly on advanced reactors, but also some on desalination and energy conservation. My specialties are mainly in the areas of safety analysis and licensing, but there’s always much spill-over into other aspects of reactor design and operation.
One important benefit of work on ORNL reactor projects is the close collaboration we have with expertise in all the necessary related fields. The challenge is in putting it all together, ensuring that all the bases are covered.
My incentive for this letter stems from a discussion I had with Isa in which I complained about the fact that typically, almost universally, nuclear power is not included under the “green energy” umbrella, one clear example being TVA’s “green power switch” program. I understand (I think) many of the reasons for this, and would like to elaborate on them here.
Unlike fossil fuel plants, nuclear power plants (NPPs) do not generate greenhouse gases or other airborne pollutants and do not consume the earth’s non-renewable fossil resources. NPPs now produce about 20% of the U.S. electrical power. Those familiar with current data and analyses (and perhaps have taken a deep breath in Beijing) understand that the rapid growth in fossil consumption and the worsening of pollution and climate change effects will have major long-term negative impacts. So why not support NPPs, and especially advanced designs, to help lessen the impacts?
Here are some of the reasons we nukes have problems, and why we shouldn’t:
Current nuclear technology is not well-understood by the public. Examples are in the areas of safe storage of used (spent) radioactive fuel and its transport (across state lines) to repositories, NPP historical safety and its relation to safety of other power sources, and effects of radiation on human health.
Spent fuel can be safely stored – indefinitely – for example, in the Yucca Mountain repository. The technology exists, but the politics don’t. The same goes for transport of spent fuel.
NPPs have had an excellent overall safety record, in spite of the Fukushima disaster. While 18,000 people were killed (by the tsunami), the projected death toll – near term and long term – from radiation is zero, even counting the workers that went into the plants to mitigate the accident progression. With our advanced reactors’ inherent safety features, that tsunami would not have caused plant failures with radiation releases. Japan’s “worst nuclear power accident” was a criticality accident in a fuel manufacturing plant that killed two workers, gaining world-wide attention. That same week, a hydropower accident in Africa killed 300 people and went unreported. Surprisingly, the electrical power source with the worst safety record is hydropower.
Radiation effects are widely misunderstood and exaggerated due to the unfortunate promotion of the debunked claim that even a small amount of additional exposure will increase cancer probabilities. For example, if you take that supposed small incremental risk and multiply it by a large population number, you would calculate that several hundred deaths would result. Data shows conclusively, however, that small changes in exposures from varying background radiation sources or plane trips do not affect cancer probabilities.
Another major reason for lack of NPP support in the U.S. is political. The fossil industries (coal and oil) have huge population (political) bases, absent with nuclear.
Economics: NPP costs are weighted heavily toward construction, but are much less than fossil plants for operation. Delays in construction (licensing, funding source problems,…) greatly increase costs. Advanced NPPs would do much better. If external costs are factored in (such as from climate change, pollution, fossil depletion, wars fought for oil access,…), nuclear would turn out to be much cheaper. Our society’s screwed-up view of economics doesn’t help either. For example, the 2010 Goldman-Sachs bonus of $16 billion, if used to build 3 or 4 large NPPs, could have created many good jobs and clean electrical power for New England for 60 years (and paid back the initial cost).
I also have a few specific problems with the Greens platform (2012, Nuclear Issues).
If our NPPs were to be retired “in less than 5 years,” most of the power loss would have to be replaced via new fossil plants. Base load plants are necessary, and solar/wind sources would be insufficient.
Calling for electrical and/or hydrogen powered vehicles to replace gas/diesel appears to neglect the fact that more NPPs (or coal…) would need to provide the electricity, or in the case of hydrogen, more high-temperature process heat.
Nuclear medicine: Reactors are the main source of the most-used isotopes (Molybdenum-99 -> Technetium) for diagnostics and treatment.
Food irradiation (safe and well-established): long term food storage will become more useful with climate change impacts on crops.
Why oppose export of nuclear (power) technology? We’ve done that for years through IAEA and otherwise, with much mutual benefit. China’s nukes help reduce fossil emissions.
Advanced NPP designs should be supported in the U.S. (much as they are in other countries): avoid Fukushimas via passive safety, their higher temperatures enable process heat applications to many industries (U.S. process energy demands are comparable to electrical’s), better spent fuel storage options, desalination via use of discharge heat, higher efficiency, more siting options,...
U.S. position and credibility in energy development and climate change action needs fixing. The Russians are selling their reactors to many other countries – we’re losing out on a huge potential market by sitting this one out.
So how can the Green Party help the U.S. energy policy (and future)? Green Party understanding and acceptance of NPP benefits could greatly enhance public and political support. Current nuclear “deniers” would be more likely to respond to (i.e., believe) the Green Party than they would our “self-serving” claims by the NPP industry.
Syd Ball
Oak Ridge