Rachel's #918: THE MIRAGE OF NUCLEAR POWER

[Guest guest]

At 03:16 PM 8/2/07, you wrote:

>Los Angeles Times, Jul. 30, 2007

>[Printer-friendly version]

>

>THE MIRAGE OF NUCLEAR POWER

>

>By Paul Josephson

>

>In the last two weeks, the Chinese signed a deal with Westinghouse to

>build four nuclear power plants; a U.S. utility joined the French

>national nuclear juggernaut -- with 60 reactors under its belt -- to

>build stations throughout the United States; and the Russians neared

>the launch of the first of a dozen nuclear power stations that float

>on water, with sales promised to Morocco and Namibia. Two sworn

>opponents -- environmentalists and President Bush -- tout nuclear

>energy as a panacea for the nation's dependence on oil and a solution

>to global warming. They've been joined by all the presidential

>candidates from both parties, with the exception of John Edwards. And

>none of them is talking about the recent nuclear accident in Japan

>caused by an earthquake.

>

>These surprising bedfellows base their sanguine assessment of nuclear

>power on an underestimation of its huge financial costs, on a failure

>to consider unresolved problems involving all nuclear power stations

>and on a willingness to overlook this industry's history of offering

>far-fetched dreams, failing to deliver and the occasional accident.

>

>Since the 1950s, the nuclear industry has promised energy " too cheap

>to meter, " inherently safe reactors and immediate clean-up and storage

>of hazardous waste. But nuclear power is hardly cheap -- and far more

>dangerous than wind, solar and other forms of power generation. Recent

>French experience shows a reactor will top $3 billion to build.

>Standard construction techniques have not stemmed rising costs or

>shortened lead time. Industry spokespeople insist they can erect

>components in assembly-line fashion a la Henry Ford to hold prices

>down. But the one effort to achieve this end, the Russian " Atommash "

>reactor factory, literally collapsed into the muck.

>

>The industry has also underestimated how expensive it will be to

>operate stations safely against terrorist threat and accident. New

>reactors will require vast exclusion zones, doubly reinforced

>containment structures, the employment of large armed private security

>forces and fail-safe electronic safeguards. How will all of these and

>other costs be paid and by whom?

>

>To ensure public safety, stations must be built far from population

>centers and electricity demand, which means higher transmission costs

>than the industry admits. In the past, regulators approved the siting

>of reactors near major cities based on the assumption that untested

>evacuation plans would work. Thankfully, after public protests,

>Washington did not approve Consolidated Edison's 1962 request to build

>a reactor in Queens, N.Y., three miles from the United Nations. But it

>subsequently approved licensing of units within 50 miles of New York,

>Boston, Chicago and Washington, D.C. New Orleans had three days of

>warning before Hurricane Katrina hit and was not successfully

>evacuated. A nuclear accident may give us only 20 minutes to respond;

>this indicates that reactors should be built only in sparsely

>populated regions.

>

>Finally, what of the spent fuel and other nuclear waste? More than

>70,000 tons of spent fuel at nuclear power stations are stored

>temporarily in basins of water or above ground in concrete casks. The

>Bush administration held back release of a 2005 National Research

>Council study, only excerpts of which have been published, because its

>findings, unsympathetic to nuclear power, indicated that this fuel

>remains an inviting target for terrorists.

>

>And more than 150 million Americans live within 75 miles of nuclear

>waste, according to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

>Management. A storage facility that was supposed to open at Yucca

>Mountain, Nev., in 1989 still faces legal and scientific hurdles. And

>if Yucca Mountain opens, how will we transport all of the waste safely

>to Nevada, and through whose towns and neighborhoods?

>

>Industry representatives, government regulators and nuclear engineers

>now promise to secure the nation's energy independence through

>inherently safe reactors. This is the same industry that gave the

>world nuclear aircraft and satellites -- three of the 30 satellites

>launched have plummeted to Earth -- and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl

>and a series of lesser known accidents.

>

>Let's see them solve the problems of exorbitant capital costs, safe

>disposition of nuclear waste, realistic measures to deal with the

>threats of terror, workable evacuation plans and siting far from

>population centers before they build one more station. In early July,

>President Bush spoke glowingly about nuclear power at an Alabama

>reactor recently brought out of moth balls; but it has shut down

>several times since it reopened because of operational glitches. What

>clearer indication do we need that nuclear power's time has not yet

>come?

>

>Paul Josephson writes about nuclear power and teaches history at Colby

>College.

 

******

Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky

http://www.thehavens.com/

thehavens

606-376-3363

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05

[Guest guest]

Japan built their largest on an earthquake fault. Wonder where China will put its new ones, maybe low in a flood plain. The convoluted logic dictates that they put it there to take advantage of natural cooling from time to time.

 

-

The Havens

graffis-l ; stopthepoisons ; Health and Healing-

Friday, August 03, 2007 9:54 AM

Re: Rachel's #918: THE MIRAGE OF NUCLEAR POWER

 

 

At 03:16 PM 8/2/07, you wrote:>Los Angeles Times, Jul. 30, 2007>[Printer-friendly version]>>THE MIRAGE OF NUCLEAR POWER>>By Paul Josephson>>In the last two weeks, the Chinese signed a deal with Westinghouse to>build four nuclear power plants; a U.S. utility joined the French>national nuclear juggernaut -- with 60 reactors under its belt -- to>build stations throughout the United States; and the Russians neared>the launch of the first of a dozen nuclear power stations that float>on water, with sales promised to Morocco and Namibia. Two sworn>opponents -- environmentalists and President Bush -- tout nuclear>energy as a panacea for the nation's dependence on oil and a solution>to global warming. They've been joined by all the presidential>candidates from both parties, with the exception of John Edwards. And>none of them is talking about the recent nuclear accident in Japan>caused by an earthquake.>>These surprising bedfellows base their sanguine assessment of nuclear>power on an underestimation of its huge financial costs, on a failure>to consider unresolved problems involving all nuclear power stations>and on a willingness to overlook this industry's history of offering>far-fetched dreams, failing to deliver and the occasional accident.>>Since the 1950s, the nuclear industry has promised energy "too cheap>to meter," inherently safe reactors and immediate clean-up and storage>of hazardous waste. But nuclear power is hardly cheap -- and far more>dangerous than wind, solar and other forms of power generation. Recent>French experience shows a reactor will top $3 billion to build.>Standard construction techniques have not stemmed rising costs or>shortened lead time. Industry spokespeople insist they can erect>components in assembly-line fashion a la Henry Ford to hold prices>down. But the one effort to achieve this end, the Russian "Atommash">reactor factory, literally collapsed into the muck.>>The industry has also underestimated how expensive it will be to>operate stations safely against terrorist threat and accident. New>reactors will require vast exclusion zones, doubly reinforced>containment structures, the employment of large armed private security>forces and fail-safe electronic safeguards. How will all of these and>other costs be paid and by whom?>>To ensure public safety, stations must be built far from population>centers and electricity demand, which means higher transmission costs>than the industry admits. In the past, regulators approved the siting>of reactors near major cities based on the assumption that untested>evacuation plans would work. Thankfully, after public protests,>Washington did not approve Consolidated Edison's 1962 request to build>a reactor in Queens, N.Y., three miles from the United Nations. But it>subsequently approved licensing of units within 50 miles of New York,>Boston, Chicago and Washington, D.C. New Orleans had three days of>warning before Hurricane Katrina hit and was not successfully>evacuated. A nuclear accident may give us only 20 minutes to respond;>this indicates that reactors should be built only in sparsely>populated regions.>>Finally, what of the spent fuel and other nuclear waste? More than>70,000 tons of spent fuel at nuclear power stations are stored>temporarily in basins of water or above ground in concrete casks. The>Bush administration held back release of a 2005 National Research>Council study, only excerpts of which have been published, because its>findings, unsympathetic to nuclear power, indicated that this fuel>remains an inviting target for terrorists.>>And more than 150 million Americans live within 75 miles of nuclear>waste, according to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste>Management. A storage facility that was supposed to open at Yucca>Mountain, Nev., in 1989 still faces legal and scientific hurdles. And>if Yucca Mountain opens, how will we transport all of the waste safely>to Nevada, and through whose towns and neighborhoods?>>Industry representatives, government regulators and nuclear engineers>now promise to secure the nation's energy independence through>inherently safe reactors. This is the same industry that gave the>world nuclear aircraft and satellites -- three of the 30 satellites>launched have plummeted to Earth -- and Three Mile Island, Chernobyl>and a series of lesser known accidents.>>Let's see them solve the problems of exorbitant capital costs, safe>disposition of nuclear waste, realistic measures to deal with the>threats of terror, workable evacuation plans and siting far from>population centers before they build one more station. In early July,>President Bush spoke glowingly about nuclear power at an Alabama>reactor recently brought out of moth balls; but it has shut down>several times since it reopened because of operational glitches. What>clearer indication do we need that nuclear power's time has not yet>come?>>Paul Josephson writes about nuclear power and teaches history at Colby>College.******Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentuckyhttp://www.thehavens.com/thehavens (AT) highland (DOT) net606-376-3363

 

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05