The Road to Nuclear Hell
Today over at Hoover's Defining Ideas, I write that the road to nuclear hell is paved with good intentions, and faulty calculations of risk. I argue that the best way to reduce our risk of a nuclear disaster here in the United States is to replace our old nuclear reactors with new, state-of-the-art nuclear facilities. After all, the worst nuclear facility that could be built using today’s technology is likely to be far safer than the safest 40-year old plant now in service. Here's an excerpt from my article:
So powerful has that movement against nuclear power been that no new nuclear plant has been commissioned since the incident at Three Mile Island in 1978, which means that our aging nuclear plants remain active as their useful lives are extended with various repairs and upgrades. But that still leaves them far inferior to any new plant that could be put into service today. At the same time, the United States dithers on the designation and construction of any new site to deal with the growing risk of spent nuclear fuel (SNF), which is generated in ever-larger quantities, but remains stored in inferior facilities located onsite, near the nuclear facilities that have generated these rods.
This combination is, of course, just what magnified the serious dislocations in Japan. A lot of the local damage came from the direct hit to the country’s nuclear plant. But much of the radiation came from the fuel rods that overheated when they were no longer covered with the water needed to cool them down. In this instance, we should hope that a word to the wise would be sufficient, for our own policies have, in the name of abundant caution, created exactly the same risk in the United States.
... Forty years is too long to keep any nuclear plant in operation. But the only way to decommission these old plants is to put up some new power source. On that issue, of course, nuclear power is not the only option on the table. But in the United States, it may well be still the best.
...So how should the situation be improved? The first answer is simple: the worst nuclear facility that could be built using today’s technology is likely to be far safer than the safest 40-year old plant now in service. Switching out the old for the new makes perfectly good sense.
Second, there is just no reason to settle for today’s worst technology when we can contract overseas to hire people who have designed and built the best of the new plants now in service. On this score, as on so many others, the Obama administration has to put aside its juvenile "America First" position on international trade in order to allow foreign participation in these decisions.
Third, we have to learn how to streamline the regulatory process so that delay does not become the inevitable outcome when determined anti-nuclear activists wear-out overburdened government bureaucrats.
- Comment (11)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
The Space Shuttle was out of date in 1978. We ran them another 30 years after 2 major accidents. I fear the stupidity of our government will continue in the foreseeable future.
Jan '11
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
I once worked on a case dealing with an EPA investigation of a conventional power plant. The plant managers were terrified of making any major changes to the plant because significant changer trigger EPA investigation under the Clean Air Act (in fact, the question in the case was partially whether the changes that they had made were significant enough to do so).
Professor Epstein's critique works equally well against our regulation of conventional power. At least from what I saw, regulations gave managers and engineers the incentive to prefer a regulated, 40-year old technology over cleaner, cheaper new technology because the latter brought the threat of investigation, litigation, and sanctions. Walking into that plant was like stepping back in time.
Dec '10
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
On a port visit in Hawaii on my first submarine an elderly gentleman was on the boat for a tour. I was showing him around the Missile Control Center when he spied a piece of equipment used to ready missiles for launch. He grinned as he leaned on his cane and explained that he helped design the machine. Government moves very slowly to upgrade technologically.
May '10
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
I briefly studied nuclear engineering during the '70's, and even then the designers and engineers working on those plants were intensely unhappy with the old, and kludgy engineering and frustrated at their inability to use newer and better designs.
Regulation has long been the enemy of innovation and improvement. In a very new technology where the "state-of-the-art" is moving quickly, the government or extensively regulated industries are always well, behind, often several generations behind. Note the trouble FAA has had getting it's systems updated.
May '10
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
I agree that replacing old nuclear facilities would be smart. But I wonder how the old facility's energy production would be replaced during the interim between destruction and construction.
Dec '10
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
To Aaron Miller, you hit the nail on the head; we cannot do the decommissioning, then the demolition, then the new construction on an existing site, while keeping it in operation and we cannot build next door, first (on most projects). Good sites are very specifically located and next door is not usually an option. There are some terrible sites that should be decommissioned right away and replaced in better locations, but the existing good locations do not usually have acceptable alternative sites, nearby. I decommission and demolish environmentally sensitve structures for a living, so I know what a problem it can be when we are trying to plan around replacement facilities.
As to Professor Epstein's comment about, "...This combination is, of course, just what magnified the serious dislocations in Japan", it is so in an extra dimension. The Daiichi plant was already past its planned 40 year service life and they had lethargically tried to go for another 10 years. They were already shutting down individual reactors, but they had no replacements in place. This is a too familiar situation.
Oct '10
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
It's ironic that in one area where other nations are clearly more advanced than the U.S.--nuclear tech--this administration is America-first, but when it comes to matters of law, economics and foreign policy, they are all too ready to cede leadership to our sophisticated betters. Until France and Germany recognize that Khadafy merits forceful intervention, well, we'll see. They do? Right away!
Edited on Mar 22, 2011 at 4:04pmFeb '11
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
Meanwhile, France is generating something like 80% of its electricity from nuclear. It would be interesting to look at what cultural factors might explain which this energy source has proved more acceptable to the French than to the Americans.
Jul '10
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
Not just upgrading current facilities, but also eliminating the "gift" Jimmy Carter gave us could go a long way toward making things safer.
Allow Reprocessing of Spent Fuel!
By that simple change in our Nuclear Regulation we'd eliminate the "need" for Yuca Mountain, and Hanford Nuclear Waste Dumps.
Spent fuel has 95% of it's potential power still available and if it could be reprocessed we'd be able to do more with less in the Nuclear Field.
But since Carter bordered on Genius Intellegence (just like the current occupant of the White House, when he's there) his word on the Reprocessing Controversy was Gospel.
Now That's Government Logic!
Ben Hurst:
The plant managers were terrified of making any major changes to the plant because significant changer trigger EPA investigation under the Clean Air Act.
I just love this Logic too.
If you reduce emmissions from 15 parts per million to 7 parts per million you're promoting dirty air because it's not reduced to 5 parts per million.
Therfore; You Get Fined!
So let's just leave it at 15 parts per million for another 30 years.
You gotta laugh so it won't hurt.
Jul '10
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
CJ, this is fascinating. At some of the reactor sites that I know of, post-Three Mile Island pressure put an end to construction of additional planned reactors. Wouldn't these be very acceptable sites for new reactors, such as the NuScale modular design?
May '10
Re: The Road to Nuclear Hell
WIPP can handle everything you have left after reprocessing, which is also important to generate new sources of usable fuel. The latest complaint from the anti-everythings is that there isn't enough uranium to meet world-wide demand anyway, so do nothing except negawatts, windmills, and rationing.