Issue 12: Is It Time to Revive Nuclear Power?

Issue 12

Is It Time to Revive Nuclear Power?

Authors: Michael J. Wallace and the Editors of Public Concern

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. capital-intensive – refers to the initial costs of a project, which, in the case of nuclear energy, is very high.

b. nuclear versus nucleur (for our President) – nuclear refers to the process of creating energy and to cohesiveness, such as a family. Nucleur is not a real word. It might be confusing for some people because the nucleus of a cell is spelled with a ‘u’ and implies cohesiveness as well.

c. nuclear meltdown – Occurs when the control and cooling of the reactor core of a plant fails and the fission reaction and products can overheat the system, reducing the ability of the containers to contain the radiation. There is high risk of releasing high radioactivity to the environment.

d. deregulation – refers to the whole or part removal of government regulations on an industry, in this case the electricity industry, and includes the removal of price control. Prices are then left to be subjected by market forces.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

Michael J. Wallace, Executive Vice President of Constellation Energy, argues for the positive. He lists the many benefits to nuclear energy: (1) does not burn any fossil fuel, (2) does not emit air pollution or contribute to smog or haze, (3) does not depend on any foreign resource to fuel our country, thereby strengthening our independence, (4) does not emit carbon dioxide and therefore does not contribute to the ever-growing problem of global warming. He says that with the security measures in place to keep nuclear energy safe, the only problem remaining with nuclear energy is not having enough of it.

Nuclear energy satisfies 20% of all American energy needs, and has 103 reactors operating today. Nuclear reactors are currently operating at 90% capacity. Public opinion has increased in favor for nuclear power over the years, as well. 80% of Americans feel that nuclear power is an important part of our energy future and 67% favor its use. 60% agree that there should be new power plants built nearby existing power plants in order to satisfy our energy needs.

We rely too much on natural gas. Over the past five years, 90% of new generators were fueled by natural gas. Our over reliance upon this fuel leaves us vulnerable to insecurity both internationally and domestically. We cannot face the foreign affairs with the objectivity needed if we are reliant on another country’s export of oil. Also, we are vulnerable to price spikes and supply disruptions. We are putting all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak.

New nuclear power plants can offer stability in the market, by offering the vital energy at a set price to consumers, and by reducing the overwhelming demand for natural gas. Without the high demand for natural gas, users of natural gas do not have to pay for the higher competition and when supply is low, they are not paying higher. Nuclear power plants produce electricity that otherwise would be supplied by oil, gas, or coal and would therefore not have emissions that these technologies are subject to.

Unfortunately, it seems that the nuclear power industry requires funding through Congress. In 2006, the Administration pledged $56 million to the Nuclear Power 2010 Program, and they still need more to go ahead with building new plants. Nuclear technology is capital-intensive, but leaves the market with a price stability unfound in other energy technologies.

The negative argument, authored by the editors of Public Citizen, argues that nuclear energy is too unreliable and too risky to rely upon. They instead insist that we move to clean and renewable energy sources that are safe. They call for legislators to pursue energy that is safe and clean, sustainable, is regulated, and that in essence, places the citizens’ energy needs before the corporate need for profits.

They feel as though nuclear energy is unreliable (evidenced by the Northeast and Midwest blackout of 2003), over budgeted (e.g. the Grand Gulf in Mississippi) by tax-payers, and unsafe (Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island). The possible risks of a nuclear power plant are: (1) the rupture and degradation of the steam generator tube could cause a nuclear meltdown and at least sixteen occasions of this has occurred since 1975; (2) the degradation of reactor vessels and its components could lead to a loss of coolant and exposure to the reactor, which would lead to a meltdown (occurred in March 1987 at Turkey Point 4 in Florida but was prevented from a meltdown by a quarter inch of stainless steel); (3) overall cutting corners with safety and inspections on both parts of the energy companies and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission puts all of us at risk.

Nuclear reactors are powered off-site, and the blackout or any power loss causes the plant to go on emergency generators for safety operations while they shutdown. They have to have power to keep the coolant circulating to prevent the reactor core from overheating and thus, having a meltdown. Nuclear power plants rely on diesel fuelled backup generators. However, between the dates of September 2002 and August 2003, there have been fifteen reported failures of the backup generators. On seven of these occasions, the plant had to shut down. And on four of those occasions, all the backups failed all at once! Of the nuclear power plants that are subject to the power grid that failed in 2003, four out of nine had to be shut down because their backup power generator failed.

Why are the backup generators so important? According to the editors of Public Citizen, “[w]ithout emergency generators, steam and battery power provide a “last chance” means to cool a reactor and stave off a meltdown. The batteries can operate for between two and eight hours; but in the recent blackout, Detroit did not see full power returned until Saturday, August 16, over 36 hours after power first went out. Had the emergency generators failed during this timeframe – as they did in the aforementioned situations – a nuclear meltdown and widespread radioactive release is rendered not at all beyond possibility.” (p. 222) So grand power outages demonstrate a great risk of nuclear power.

If there were a power outrage, and if a meltdown were eminent, what response can the public have and how would they be aware of such an event? There are emergency sirens in place to alert the public; however, these are powered by the same power grid as the nuclear plant is on. Therefore, in a blackout, they would be rendered inoperable.

But, even with a warning, all the public can do is evacuate the area. Evacuation plans are formed by local emergency personnel. However, former Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director James Lee Witt found many of these evacuation plans to be inadequate in 2003. Even the local EMS services are not confident of their ability to aid the general public. One hundred seventy-five Indian Point-area first responders signed a petition to FEMA, voicing their concerns that their best efforts could not organize an evacuation or in any other way protect the public from a meltdown. The nuclear power plant at Indian Point is near New York City and a potential twenty million lives would be at stake.

Spent fuel, or irradiated fuel, is submerged in large pools of water. Irradiated fuel has more radioactivity on average yet is kept in a less secure tank than the original fuel. Also, the backup generators do not power these fuel pools. Without power, they cannot keep the water circulating and it can lead to the exposure of the fuel rods, which leads to a fire and meltdown. The greatest risk is when new irradiated fuel is added to the fuel pool from the reactor chamber. Most reactors refuel every eighteen months. If a blackout or other power loss were to happen during this time, the public would burden the risks.

The sixteen reactors that submitted applications to renew their operators’ licenses were accepted. But most of these reactors, they claim, are falling apart and need repair. Beyond that, most of the repair efforts have been akin to patching a hole on a submarine. The most reliable thing about a nuclear plant is that is it dangerous. And the irresponsible attitude of legislators and regulators is not helping the situation.

The push for the energy bills in the House and the Senate do not address the blackout danger and other dangers demonstrated by a nuclear plant. Yet, it allows for incentives to nuclear operators and research and development, and promotes the construction of new nuclear power plants. The House subsidizes $3.2 billion and the Senate provides $1.5 billion to the nuclear industry. This foolish attitude by the legislative branch of the United States government is costly to the taxpayer and puts its citizens at great risk.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

Nuclear energy does not produce the waste that burning fossil fuels does. In that, it seems a viable solution to our energy problem. We would not be caught up with the many problems in the Middle East – at least, not so much as we currently are. We could be a stronger country by relying more on nuclear power.

However, nuclear power is dangerous. The risks involved and the price for the initial building and security guards are great. Human mistakes with such a volatile substance would result horrendously.

What solution can we find? Is it possible to have nuclear energy, with all its benefits and shortcomings, to supply our nation’s ever-growing need? Is there a reason to have the plants so close to humans? Couldn’t we have the plants out in the middle of nowhere and feed our nation energy from nuclear power at a safe and secure distance?

Congress would have to be involved to look steadfastly at the nuclear corporations and the needs of the citizens it is supposed to protect from danger and greed, and say, “Well, we need this energy, but we also need to be safe from danger,” not weigh the greed more heavily than the needs of citizens.

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I’m finding this hard to stomach. I read the pro argument and was completely convinced of the value of nuclear energy. But then, I read the con argument and am appalled that they aren’t policing the situation any better. After reading both, I must say I’m still convinced on the value of hydrogen fuel and wind and solar power. I believe the reason we aren’t just powering our homes and businesses with solar and wind power and our cars with hydrogen is because of corporate and political greed. They can’t really regulate and control solar and wind power because it’s free – all the consumer needs is the equipment. It’s distressing to think that our lives, health, and safety are put at risk because some elite few want to make more money.