(cross-posted at The Hill’s Congress Blog)
It is disappointing that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission missed this opportunity to help solve America’s nuclear reactor security problem. These new regulations, initiated by a section of the 2005 Energy Policy Act that I wrote, were supposed to significantly enhance our ability to secure nuclear reactors in the post-September 11th era. It does not do so. Instead, it reflects an inadequate, industry-influenced approach that sacrifices security in favor of corporate profits.
There two kinds of measures we can implement to harden existing reactors:
1.) Harden reactors to contain the radioactive stuff inside – for instance, more concrete and steel for the containment of the reactor vessel; putting the spent fuel storage pools in a hardened building; increase the protection for the control room and electrical connections to the backup diesel generators that supply power to the reactor in the event of a cutoff of external power.
2.) Add reliability and redundancy of the safety-related features in the event of fire or other potential disaster.
We are not just talking about preventing the aircraft from crashing per se. We are talking about minimizing the consequences of a radioactive release, ensuring that the safety features of the reactor can be operated after a crash, etc.
In the wake of September 11, Finland implemented a requirement that all new reactors are designed with the impact and consequences of an attack by a large commercial airliner in mind. Companies wishing to win the Finnish contracts have figured out a way to comply. How is it possible that the U.S. can’t do the same?
* * *
(For more on Rep. Markey’s work on nuclear security, please go to http://markey.house….)
Look Ed
<
p>
I don’t know what the hell you are talking about. So please, get back to mud slinging….it’s way more fun to talk about that. Instead of re-inforcing nuclear reactors with more steel and concrete.
<
p>
So please get with the program
I hope no new nuclear reactors are ever built, period. I wish we could eliminate the issue of requiring hardened containment for new construction by not allowing any more nuclear power plants. It is not the right solution for the global climate crisis, there are far better ones (first, serious conservation and efficiency, second, decentralized renewable energy generation – solar, wind, etc – and third, in the maybe-not-too-distant future, fusion).
<
p>
Barring that…dealing with current sites…it seems that the federal government has two choices: pay for it, or listen to more whining that it’s too costly to have all these regulations on businesses building nuclear plants. Now, I don’t know the profit margins of most nuclear power plants, but I do know that we’re either stuck with increased costs for startup (and I agree that nuclear plants need serious standards and regulations), or federal subsidies that can often result in corporate welfare. Frankly, neither option really thrills me.
Fusion has been expected in the maybe-not-too-distant future for a long time now. We won’t have prototype fusion generators for probably another 10-15 years (assuming that nothing causes unexpected delays). It will be another 10 years after that before we can really begin to produce fusion power plants. If we wait for fusion, it will be too late.
<
p>
Wind and solar are too unreliable to be the primary power sources. If we had a good way of storing huge quantities of energy, then we could use them more effectively, but for now we need something that we can actually control. We can’t realistically produce more than maybe 40% of our power from wind and solar. Wind and solar are good ways to eliminate the need for dirty peaking plants, but they can’t produce most of our power.
<
p>
Our current controllable options are hydro, nuclear fission, and burning things. The worst option is burning things. Hydro and nuclear have about the same environmental effect (both use large amount of steel and concrete, have a large footprint, and have no emissions when producing power). Hydro has the advantage that it is the most efficient way we currently have of storing large amounts of energy (pump the water back up) and we can change their power output very quickly (minutes instead of hours). Nuclear has the advantage that we can put them anywhere. We definitely want more hydro plants, but we just don’t have enough rivers that we can dam up to satisfy our energy needs (even with conservation). Which means we need more nuclear power.
<
p>
If we were serious about reducing greenhouse gases, we would want to shut down every coal power plant in the country over the next 5-10 years. The only way we can build enough capacity to replace them all is with nuclear. There is no real solution to global warming that does not involve nuclear power.
The waste product of traditional fusion processes is just helium. The waste product for fission is indestructable nondisposable environmentally-devasting radioactive cancer-causing junk. Most people who are opposed to the expansion of nuclear power are referring to traditional fission power plants.
Coal power plants put out more nuclear waste per unit of energy produced than nuclear power plants take in as fuel. Furthermore, coal power plants spew radioactive waste all over the planet, while nuclear power plants leave it in solid form at the power plant, where it can safely be shipped to a suitable storage site. If the nuclear waste products are reprocessed, they can be run through the power plant again. The non-reprocessable waste is tiny. New power plant designs use the fuel differently so that the waste is not very radioactive.
<
p>
Most people who oppose nuclear power plants don’t know what they’re talking about. If you are actually concerned about nuclear waste, you should be targetting coal power plants. Replacing every coal power plant in this country with a nuclear power plant would drastically reduce the amount of radioactive waste we produce every year (and most of it would be contained instead of being in the air and randomly deposited where the smoke falls). And it would cut our CO2 emissions substantially.
<
p>
Fusion power plants will also produce nuclear waste. The emissions are not radioactive, but the reactor is once you’ve used it. At least with the most recent design concepts I’ve read about. We won’t really know until the technology actually exists.
<
p>
Any real solution to global warming has to either include an expansion of nuclear power production or cutting our lifestyles back over 50 years (that’s the only way we can get enough out of conservation). Would you rather have nuclear power plants or give up dishwashers, laundry machines, microwaves, television, computers, and refridgeration?
Controlled fusion does not exist and no one can predict when/if it will ever be available. Unless/until it is, fission = nuclear power. Getting into a spin about people denegrating “nuclear power” just because, some day, the term could describe the fusion reaction, is not productive.
But not in its current state. If the only power plants possible with nuclear were the current state of affairs, I’d agree.
<
p>
But the fact of the matter is that there is nuclear technology that is safer and produces less radioactive waste with a shorter lifespan. The most hazardous substance produced as a waste product has a half-life of 15 hours. Furthermore, meltdowns are impossible, as the rate of fission actually decreases when the temperature goes up too much.
<
p>
It’s known as the Integral Fast Reactor, and it was canceled by Congress in 1994…
I have to drive by the Pilgrim station to get to my auntie’s house. After 9-11 I used to always see a military vehicle at the entrance with a couple of soldiers there. However, the last few times I’ve gone by, they haven’t been there. I know it was probably wasn’t a huge deal having them there, but it always made me feel better. Has the budget for nuclear plant security been cut or something?
Got to be honest Joe
<
p>
There will NEVER be enough money to properly guard every
<
p>
Power plant
Water Treatment facility
Sports Stadium
School
Hospital
Gov Building
Plane
Train
Bus
Bridge
Sky Scraper
Cargo Container
Subway
Cafe / Restaurant
Mall
<
p>
Etc.
<
p>
Do You???
The issue isn’t “guarding” nukes from airplanes, but rather requiring that they be designed to resist impact.
<
p>
Seems like a no-brainer.
Shouldn’t every single sky scraper in America be built to withstand such an impact?????
<
p>
Makes you think doesn’t it
<
p>
PS: There are thousands of people in the Hancock Tower right now.
Nuclear power plants are kind of big deals. I don’t know if you’re familiar with them, but they can be dangerous if someone should drive a van with explosives into it. Yeah, a little messy.
<
p>
If they can’t free up funding to make sure they’re secure, then we have a problem.
“Nuclear power plants are kind of big deals. I don’t know if you’re familiar with them, but they can be dangerous if someone should drive a van with explosives into it. Yeah, a little messy.”
<
p>
I imagine a van full of explosives could make any situation “messy”
<
p>
How about in front of the Fleet Center during rush hour
<
p>
or say a Van full of TNT in Downtown Crossing…not “messy” enough?
<
p>
How about anthrax in a sell out stadium??? Is that messy lol
<
p>
or even a few drops of Cyanide in a water treatment facility… messy no??? lol
<
p>
my friend you are a dreamer…..you can’t keep up with EVERY diabolical plot that is out there.
<
p>
the Republican solution is to not deal with any of them?
<
p>
Blowing up a nuclear power plant, contaminating a city’s water supply, and bombing a busy shopping center are crises of vastly different scale and scope. Implementing measures to secure the first two should be a no-brainer. Completely preventing the third is impossible (though hopefully the likelihood of such an attack can be reduced through various means).
<
p>
America is fortunate that it is not bordered by countries full of want-to-be suicide bombers. As such, we can focus more on the big targets and feel relatively safe about the smaller ones (as our enemies will likely want to maximize the impact of any strikes they are able to make).
<
p>
Yes, thousands of people work in tall buildings all over the country, but those buildings don’t leak radiation when they fall down.
<
p>
I know that the train I ride every day could be a target, but I’d rather know that the water that I and everyone in Boston drinks isn’t contaminated (any more than usual, that is…)
1.) “Blowing up a nuclear power plant, contaminating a city’s water supply, and bombing a busy shopping center are crises of vastly different scale and scope.”
<
p>
** But one common characteristic is…..they are all deadly. And like an ANIT WAR Activist I believe that if 1 life is lost it is the same as 1 million/billion. How do you value life?????
<
p>
2.) “America is fortunate that it is not bordered by countries full of want-to-be suicide bombers”
<
p>
** Let’s hope the “want-to-be suicide bombers” don’t vacation in Mexico.
<
p>
3.) “We can focus more on the big targets and feel relatively safe about the smaller ones”
<
p>
** And what small targets are you talking about??? Could that be say some I-93 overpasses and bridges with “lite Brite” sized, “Bomb looking” package attached to the support beams????? Don’t get me wrong . . . I’m not saying the terrorists over seas watch the news or anything….but if they did, I’m sure they may just draw some conclusions about “Turner Broadcastings” “Guerilla Marketing” campaign. I understand those packages have been there for 2-3 weeks.
<
p>
4.) “Thousands of people work in tall buildings all over the country, but those buildings don’t leak radiation when they fall down.”
<
p>
Oh sure, just asbestos. But what is more disturbing is it sounds like you lost your will. I’m not even talking about Iraq either. Just seemed like everyone was jazzed up after Sept 11’Th to be on high alert. Today . . . It only seems like guys like me care. And guys like you say things like. . . .
<
p>
“Blowing up a nuclear power plant, contaminating a city’s water supply, and bombing a busy shopping center are crises of vastly different scale and scope. Implementing measures to secure the first two should be a no-brainer. Completely preventing the third is impossible”
<
p>
Hear that Terorists – BOMB EVERY MALL AND SHOPING CENTER. Because we got people in this country that have completely given up.
<
p>
And PS:
<
p>
“I know that the train I ride every day could be a target, but I’d rather know that the water that I and everyone in Boston drinks isn’t contaminated”
<
p>
*** Smile and drink up…because you have George Bush to thank for that. : )
<
p>
In Summary: Bush is the kind of leader that tells guys like you to Protest all you want about his wire tap programs, he will do it anyway. Why . . . because he is going to keep this country safe wheather you like it or not. You are a baby and he is going to take care of you. You may not like it….but you will be safe.
<
p>
And you will do as your told
<
p>
Surely, surely, surely you jest. All lives are valuable, but 1,000,000,000 lives are more valuable than 1,000,000 lives are more valuable than 1 life. Seriously.
The commission ruled that reactors should not be safer because guarding nukes from terrorists is the military’s job.
<
p>
This is like–oh, help me out here–not enforcing fire codes because putting out fires is the fire department’s job? (Though a fire won’t kill half a million people (unless it is in the cable-spreading room of a nuclear plant, that is).) Not requiring vaccinations because healing sick people is the responsibility of doctors?
Additionally — and I know a legislature is certainly capable of juggling more than one ball at a time — aren’t there far greater issues related to safety and energy?
<
p> * Coal fired power plants emit far more radiation. * Nuclear waste storage on-site is inherently incredibly dangerous. * Global =cough= warming.
<
p>
So, do try to make our nuclear power plants safe. That’s a good thing. But, I hope that the amount of money spent is based on (a) current risk of damage, both “normal” and catastrophic, and (b) how much that risk can be reduced per dollar invested. Ad hoc and haphazard are no ways to mitigate catastrophe.
This isn’t about Congress appropriating funds to re-enforce nuclear containments. It is about the NRC failing to do its job as defined by Congress.
<
p>
To answer your question, though, the costs you ask about–emissions from coal plants, risk and emissions from radioactive waste, and global-warming effects of various energy sources–are born by large populations as externalities.
<
p>
We’d be better off if these and other externalities were internalized–if their costs were reflected in the cost of electricity and gasoline and so forth–even though doing that would make energy more expensive (and even though that would probably piss a lot of people off).
<
p>
Energy that reflects its true costs is better for the planet and, more crassly, for the economy than energy that is subsidized up the wazoo by outsourcing its true costs.
<
p>
People have all kinds of interesting individual responses to risk, but in this context risk is just another external cost that should be internalized.
<
p>
Your point about weighing the costs and benefits of regulation is well taken, but the NRC has been using cost-benefit analysis for decades when it suits the commission to do so. In this case, the agency has chosen not to do so.