Commentary
A harsh lesson about nuclear power
by George CrockerLake Elmo, Minn. — As nuclear nightmares unfold on top of chaos and catastrophe in Japan, we are forced to witness how terribly unforgiving nuclear power really is. It will get much worse if systems continue to explode and rupture, as seems probable.
More irradiated fuel in reactor cores and spent fuel pools will be exposed, and will melt and burn explosively. Radio-nuclides, including plutonium from MOX fuels made from nuclear bombs, will spew into the atmosphere and contaminate the global commons, causing premature death and disease throughout the world for hundreds of thousands of years.
How could this happen? Not by accident. Human folly, greed and arrogance are responsible for this horrific event.
While earthquake and tidal wave are natural forces, people built nuclear reactors next to tectonic faults and by the oceans, and not only in Japan. There, people decided that earthquakes could be withstood, and that sea-walls could be made big enough to keep tsunamis out. Not this time. In their arrogance, people had such confidence in their barriers and protections that they put back-up systems on low ground just inside the sea wall.
No, this horrific event is not an accident. It is the predictable result of a series of foolish, greedy, arrogant and, it turns out, really stupid human decisions.
It isn't as if there were no voices warning against this madness, year after year, for decades. In Japan, North America, Europe and wherever else nuclear power plants have been built, concerned and informed people have attempted to prevent or remove nuclear threats by pointing out hosts of scenarios that might lead to disaster, and by identifying multitudes of cost-effective, reliable, abundant, safe and clean options for providing electricity. But these alternatives would interfere with market share for energy cartels. So the madness continues, with blessings from politicians and from bureaucrats whose first priority is to keep their butts covered without rocking the boat.
Well, the boat's been rocked, and the butts are bare.
And it's not as if it can't happen here in Minnesota. Just because it took an earthquake and tsunami to breach barriers in Japan doesn't mean that any number of different scenarios are not capable of breaching them here. Critical reactor parts and components that we know are aging and deteriorating due to stress and neutron bombardment could break and fail, causing nuclear operators to lose control. Undetected corrosion could lead to disaster. A reactor operator, perhaps drunk or drugged or fatigued, could make a series of mistakes, leading to component malfunction and cascading failure. There are dozens of ways in which terrorists intent on inflicting massive damage could penetrate protective barriers and lay waste to reactors and spent fuel pools -- which, by the way, at Monticello as at Dai-ichi, is six stories up in the air.
It doesn't have to be like this. Nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of Minnesota's electrical generation capacity. Energy efficiency alone could displace most of that, if we were to finally get serious about replacing inefficient lights, refrigerators, motors and other un-controlled and obsolete equipment, and install the most efficient commercially available end-use devices to perform those functions. The boat's been rocked. Maybe now enough people will realize what their stake is in this energy business to make some changes.
----
George Crocker is executive director of the Minnesota-based North American Water Office, which describes its mission as "to phase in modern renewable energy and energy efficiency systems and technologies, and to phase out destructive electrical generation technologies and obsolete, abusive energy management practices."
Comments (16)
Good one George! in New Zealand we have managed to avoid the curse of the energy cartels, the cost effectiveness of nuclear energy has been growing in popularity, both with our politicians & economists! While i'm sad to see such an event in Japan - now the evil nature of this technology has come to light for all people. This event may save us from a similar fate? I have lived in America for 2 years & fear for its fate? With the whole world watching the Daiich plant, will we be watching the east coast of america next year?
Nuclear Power plant cannot be built without huge taxpayer subsidies in the form of government loan guarantees.
Investors are not willing to take the risk without taxpayers stepping in to guarantee they won't lose their shirt
It's just like the bank bailout scheme. Banks get to make risky bad decisions and the taxpayer gets to bail them out when they fail.
If private investors won't bankroll a nuclear power plant on its own...why should taxpayers be asked to foot the bill.
If the nuclear industry wants to build more nuclear power plants, let them come up with the money without taxpayers having to foot the bill.
We need nuclear, oil is a lot more dangerous, as we saw in the gulf not too long ago.
All techologies have risks and cost benefit tradeoffs. No one has ever died in the USA from a nuclear accident either at a power plant or in the nuclear navy. Compare this with coal, gas or hydro. Any talk of doing without nuclear power in the short run is irresponsible. It is a tribute to the workers that 104 nuclear power plants in the USA have such a stellar safety record. Most are more than 40 years ols and beyond the original useful life.
more people will suffer because of a lack of power than from the radiation, so pipe down you liberal moron .
WIth all due respect Mr. Crocker, your article is just that -- a crock. I understand your position just as I understood those that were against oil after the Gulf disaster. But please, do not use your platform to fear-monger (terrorism angle? Really?) It's not about greed and stupidity. EVERY energy source comes with risk and cost. A 9.0 earthquake (natural disaster if you will) is what led to the decline of the Dai-ichi plant, which would have been catastrophic to any other energy-producing establishment. The failure was due to location next to the fault - nothing else. The rebuild will be further inland. Once other (renewable) forms of energy are developed to compete financially with nuclear, we'll all cheer! But until then, I assume you'll be heading back to your tent somewhere in the woods where you use no electricity while donating every extra penny to "clean" power developers. If you use electricity and wonder why your bill is so high, imagine what it would be with out nuclear power! Somebody has to pay - either investors (with expectation of a return) or taxpayers (with expectation of lower utility costs). It's just that simple. I guess your portfolio has no nuclear energy stocks or funds? Really? Please reevaluate your position. I think the terms "arrogance", "foolish", and "madness" definitely belong in the article, however they should only be directed at the author.
As a member of the generation that is affected by the actions of my elders, it disgusts me, that anyone could turn such a blind eye to technology that has the potential to bring about such wide spread destruction, panic and needless expenditure of life. While an earthquake is by no means caused by human stupidity, the choice to build such a potentially destructive facility on a known fault line is. That "honest" mistake, that oversight into what might happen is disregarded, not just in Japan, but in numerous locations across the globe. Human arrogance has convinced the populous that nothing could ever go wrong. Energy Is "cheap" because the true cost of power is overlooked in almost every situation. If you were to factor in the cost of this disaster into the cost the average person had to pay for their energy, it could not be afforded. And that would drive the world to seek methods of production that did not take advantage of the populous, driving a smarter, better, more economically independent future, where I have a hope of telling my children, that we finally did it right.
I'm tired of people saying no one has ever died in a nuclear power accident. It's simply not true. It happened in Idaho in the SL-1 reactor accident in 1961. http://www.radiationworks.com/sl1reactor.htm The SL-1 accident was the first fatal nuclear accident in the United States. The men killed in the incident were two Army Specialists, John Byrnes, age 25 and Richard McKinley, age 22, and Richard Legg, a 25 year old Navy Electricians Mate. Richard McKinley was interred in Arlington National Cemetery. John Byrnes and Richard Legg were buried in their hometowns in New York and Michigan.
Bret Franks is right that every energy source comes with risks and costs, and I truly wish we could imagine what the cost of electricity would be without nuclear power. But ignoring most of those costs, as Mr. Franks does, and ignoring the fact that many generations into the distant future are forced to pay those costs, does not speak highly of Mr. Frank's analytical capacity.
I wish Mr. Burns were correct that more people will suffer from lack of power than from radiation, but the fact remains, according to the National Academies of Science, that radiation risk elevates as dose increases, and there is no safe dose. These events are responsible for a very large number of doses, many worse than others, for a very long time.
Anyone care to speculate on the dimensions of the abandoned sacrifice zone that will need to be established in Northern Japan?
I am intrigued Mr. Crocker (both of you) by your comments. If the "true costs" of energy are ignored, how do energy companies make profits? When will the cost reckoning day finally be? I can only assume you mean human costs, right? If renewable energy was inexpensive to harness, and our grid supported it, don't you think we'd all be jumping for joy? We'd find a way to transition. The nuclear power providers also provide other energy-based solutions. Our natural resources are finite, yet nuclear power is far more efficient.
Global warming is a real threat and fossil fuels are dirty business but you don't mention that, so I guess you in turn are the ignorant one - see how that works?
Judging by your article, it seems you would find it acceptable to eliminate an entire industry (nuclear power) if we could just become more energy-efficient (re: your 20% example). Hardly seems the right thing to do. Nuclear energy IS part of our global power solution. As demand continues to escalate, it would behoove us to have alternatives, so there would be plenty to go around to your so-called "cartels". Nuclear power should not be indicted for the issue in Japan. Care to speculate on the affected zone of the Gulf oil spill? Didn't think so.
But I assume you spoke out then, and you'll wield your pen to jump at the next opportunity to slant some other current event that aligns with your misguided theories. I respect MPR and your opinion, I just wish you were right. Keep on wishing you were.
Wow, that reeks of fear-mongering propaganda. Guess I'm not surprised considering the source.
"Anyone care to speculate on the dimensions of the abandoned sacrifice zone that will need to be established in Northern Japan?" No. When the facts are established, you'll see it's not as bad as the media and some individuals claim. I don't doubt some amount of radiation is out of the core, but aside from huge, natural events, I'm thinking the amount *not released* will be considered a great success on part of the containment design, even if it might be somewhat flawed. As for Linda G - are you referring to the test-reactor (not power plant) worker (~50 years ago) that *manually* took fuel out of a small core? I don't consider that an accident more than I consider grabbing a glowing, orange coal out of the firepit.
Energy companies make money, Mr. Franks, because the price of power is set by utility monopoly regulators. For you to not know this adds a truly entertaining dimension to you comments.
Nuclear power is efficient in the same way that a chain saw can efficiently cut butter. The waste of thermal heat from nuclear power is enormous (and waste tends to reduce efficiency, just so you know), which is one factor now causing so much trouble in Japan. Waste heat from waste fuel rods is not being dissipated as is required, and catastrophe is the consequence.
Global warming is a miss-characterization. What is occurring is global climate chaos, and this chaos is being driven by the same financial interests of the same electric utility companies that run the reactors. Both big coal plants and big reactors are part of an obsolete central-station era that saw economies of scale improving as power plants and power lines got bigger. So we biggerred them and biggerred them. Those days, fortunately, are over. Economies of scale now favor mass-production of the modern supply and demand-side technologies in factories, where each unit becomes cheaper to deploy as more units are produced. (Henry Ford taught us that, as most of us learned in grade school.) This is why it is now possible to cost-effectively phase out coal and nuclear power, unless, of course, that's where your money comes from. That's the rub.
Look, Mr. Crocker, I think I understand where you're coming from. However your pompous criticism is unwarranted and over-the-top as most respondents agree (yet you have the nerve to insult brilliant engineers and talk of human folly and greed?) Will you also criticize the founders of St. Paul when the spring floods roll in? Or all the other communities built near watersheds? Flooding does major damage annually, yet people such as yourself don't come out of the woodwork posing as causal supporters. Did you criticize the city of New Orleans for building on low land? NO will never fully recover from Katrina. So you see, it's all relative. You just chose to jump on your little soapbox now that the time arrived.
Global warming a mischaracterization? Biggerred? Your grade-school references are ridiculous, Mr. Scholar.
Let me get this straight - you believe that nuclear power is unnecessary and the risk is not worth the opportunity. So say that, then. But step off your white horse first - be objective, not exaggerative. Elk River is a short distance from Monticello and I feel ZERO threat for my family or community. Regulations have led to an otstanding safety record and also hesitancy to build new reactors. And I'm fine with that. With time comes discovery, and I don't live in the past. Lessons learned. I am certain you have never erred. Then again, what have you really contributed?
(Full disclosure - I have profited from nuclear power investments. And I bought more this week.)
"Nuclear power is efficient ..." You're reaching again Mr. Crocker. You well know nuclear energy is an efficient way to mass boil water, and the plant uptime % is nothing short of amazing. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal & stored energy: all are great, but when it comes to baseload, they are seriously lacking with what we have to work with in this day and age.
When it comes to environmentalists, activists, etc, you can usually count on two things. 1) They don't provide realistic solutions; typically one-sided rhetoric and statistics used in a narrow context are their weapons. 2) They don't win in the regulatory environment because the regulators judge the facts in their entirety and approve/disapprove a project based upon acceptable risks.
Glad you could join us again, there, Common Sense from Beautiful Minnesota. By any reasonable definition of "efficiency", I think you would agree, waste must be minimal. The more waste, the less efficient the system. But thermal waste at nuclear reactors is upwards of 65%, which is why they need cooling towers, and why thermal limits are required for receiving bodies of water. Coal plants have similar inefficiencies. In other words, most of the energy from burning coal and from exploding uranium atoms at reactors, is simply waste heat. To me , that doesn't seem very efficient.
Conventionally, of course, there are three categories of electric generators: peaking plants, intermediate plants that follow daily load duration curves, and baseload generators that operate 24/7, except when down for maintenance, refueling, or, as in Japan now, when they blow up. These categories, however, are products of the central-station era that is now slowly being replaced by mass-produced generation technologies that can be deployed in dispersed patterns, and hybridized so that discrete amounts of generation capacity can be dispatched on demand. The pace of deployment is currently limited primarily by market-share concerns of cartel interests, but these modern technologies will displace coal and nuclear generation as surely as cars replaced horses and buggies.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Most Shared
- Sheriff's deputy pleads guilty, will register as sex offender
- South Minneapolis congregation rallies after its church burns down
- Canada pledges $17.5M to fight Asian carp
- Investigation finds emotional abuse, neglect at Duluth group homes
- Some Minn. priests differ with Catholic church over marriage amendment
Latest News & Features
News Cut
with Bob CollinsIn The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock