[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
re: re: Greenpeace
On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 10:40:48 -0700 (MST),
Christopher Beyer wrote:
>On a broader subject, I often hear strong voices in the radsafe
>community supporting nuclear power. In my more cynical moments I
>wonder if this support is based on a desire in the radsafe community
>for job security, career opportunities, and personal gain. Other
>times I think it is an enchantment with the power of technology.
I have been in the nuclear industry since 1967, in the military world,
the power reactor world, and now in the research world. I'm not
worried about job security, career opportunities, or personal gain -
at least, not very much. Everyone in this country should worry a
little bit about these things. It helps keep us anchored in reality.
I will admit to a certain attachment to the technology - it's the
cleanest, least invasive process we've ever found for generating
electricity in mass quantities. But, if we ever manage to harness the
fusion process, I'll be one of the first in line to call for
dismantling all of the fission-type power reactors in the world!
>My oposition to nuclear power is based on economic and environmental
>reasons. I do not believe there can be a full accounting of the costs
>of nuclear power because the cost of safely dealing with the waste is
>a great unknown. Every time I hear someone say that nuclear power
>costs x cents per kwhr, I know that this calculation is grossly
>incomplete since I believe all costs in the process should be taken
>into account. When these figures are given they can not take into
>account the cost of waste disposal, since this is not known.
>It seems that the realized cost of nuclear power has gone from too
>cheap to meter, to 10 cents/kwhr, to 15 cents/kwhr, to.......?? Any
>guesses what nuclear power really costs? A guess is all anyone could
>offer.
Chris, there will probably never be a FULL accounting of the costs of
ANY form of energy production, but I am convinced that the main reason
the cost of nuclear waste disposal is a "great unknown" is because
agitators, intervenors and pseudo-environmentalists insist on putting
roadblock after roadblock, pothole after pothole in the way. They
have done everything in their power to derail every attempt to build a
waste disposal facility, then use the issue of ever-larger waste
accumulations as a hammer against the industry, saying "But, what
about the waste?" Give me a break.
No one, least of all the nuclear industry workforce, wants to
irresponsibly dispose of radioactive waste. We all want to do the
right thing. The waste CAN be disposed of - SAFELY. The technology
is simple. It is real. It is here now. All we have to do is
implement it.
That said, let me also say that the current cost of dealing with
radioactive waste is greatly inflated. It is being driven primarily
by costly-to-implement regulations that may have been born of "good"
intent, but that are of dubious real value. And there are far too
many of them. Many of those regulations are simple knee-jerk
reactions to a public opinion that has been shaped by a very small,
very vocal, minority.
I believe that most (way more than half - more like 65-70%) of the
public doesn't HAVE an opinion of their own; they simply regurgitate
what they hear from the news pundits, who are in turn simply giving
voice to the drivel that is the "very small, very vocal, minority
opinion" - all in the ever noble effort inform the public (really, to
sell newsprint and air time...)
>I believe that the implementation of nuclear power was a tragic and
>costly historical mistake. I also think that the estimates of the
>cost of nuclear power do not adequately reflect the massive research
>and regulatory subsidies that the nuclear power industry has recieved
>since its inception.
I won't argue that our government played a very large role in the
development of nuclear power. It was born out of military necessity;
as to whether the necessity was real or perceived may be another
question. As it happens, nuclear power is an extremely efficient,
safe means of propulsion for Navy vessels, and has served us extremely
well in that capacity for the past forty years. I believe adapting
that process to shore based power stations was one of the more logical
extension of military technology.
>I also believe that if all the research, money, and political and
>military support that went into developing nuclear power, went into
>the development of sustainable energy(solar, wind,...) and
>conservation we could now have in place an economically and
>environmentally sound source of energy.
As to the use of wind power, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (among
others, including our government) put quite a lot of effort and
research bucks into wind generation facilities - without success. If
you've ever been to California, you might have seen the acres and
acres of "wind farms" located in the Altamont Pass and Tehachapi
areas, or the PG&E research station at Benicia. These are some of the
windiest areas in the entire country - in short, an ideal place to tap
the power of the wind. Unfortunately, sometimes it blows too hard
(shut them down, quick, before they come apart) or not hard enough
(they won't start) or not at all (ditto).
Hundreds and hundreds of those windmills now sit idle, in various
stages of dis-repair. Virtually none are generating power. Why?
Because the cost of building and maintaining the machines exceeds the
revenue they can generate, even when the utility is forced to buy all
of the power they could generate (at exorbitant prices, too - the
California Public Utilities Commission forced PG&E to pay more per
kilowatt-hour [on the order of $.13/kwh] to the wind turbine owners
than the utility could subsequently sell it for [on the order of
$.10/kwh.) Even considering the unrealistically high rates they were
paid for their power by the utility, the only time the wind turbines
were economically feasible was when the federal government gave tax
incentives - SUBSIDIES - to the builders. Once the tax incentives
went away, so did the wind turbines. Simple economics. Now they're
just an eyesore and a hazard to air navigation and freeway drivers
(rubber-necking - they ARE impressive to look at.)
I once read a comparison regarding energy production methods. I wish
I could locate it again. In that document, solar energy production
was compared to nuclear energy production (nuclear, yes, but it could
just as easily have been a fossil fueled plant) in terms of land used
for the process; The nuclear facility was a two unit site with a
capacity of 2.2 gigawatts occupying some 25 acres of land. According
to the report, in order to equal that amount of power output, a solar
collector array would need to occupy 64 square miles, or roughly
40,960 acres.
The production of that much power assumed conditions of full sunlight,
12 hours per day, 365 days per year and 100% conversion efficiency.
We will never, ever reach 100% efficiency - that is impossible. I
believe the current technology is about 15-20%, so lets make an
adjustment in the amount of land we'll need to produce 2.2 gigawatts
by solar methods - let's increase that land figure to somewhere
between 205,000 and 275,000 acres. As to sunlight for 365 days per
year - well, maybe in Arizona during a severe drought. Any place else
in this country, and their efficiency goes down fast (and the land use
goes up...)
Assuming you could build such an array, what is going to happen to the
land it is built on? There will not be a single ray of sunshine on
that ground, ever. What sort of effect will that have on the flora
and fauna that currently occupy those 250,000+ acres? It will likely
be totally barren. That's a fairly high environmental price to pay.
Maybe we should space them apart just a little, to let some of that
sunshine get to the ground for environmental purposes...let's go ahead
and double the amount of land we need to build our array...that way,
we'll only have half the impact per square foot! Now we're up to
500,000+ acres...
Now that we've got our half million acres set aside (how much do you
suppose that would cost?) where are all the solar collector arrays
going to come from? How much raw material will be required to produce
them? What quantity of acids and heavy metals and hydrocarbons and
other toxic materials will we use/create/waste in the process? How
many millions - or billions - of solar cells will we need? How long
will they last? How much do they cost? How many people will be
required to maintain them? When they fail, how do we dispose of them?
Are they a hazardous material? What do we do when it rains? How
about after the sun goes down - or, more likely, between about four in
the afternoon and ten in the morning? What if we don't all live in
Arizona? Like wind turbines, solar panels are power sources "when
able", not necessarily "when needed"...
Remember, all this - and much more - is just part of what it would
take to replace ONE nuclear plant site. And if you think nuclear
plants produce nasty, unconscionable volumes of waste and wreak untold
amounts of irreparable environmental havoc, I'd advise you to never,
ever set foot on the site of a coal fired power plant - or on one of
the many strip mine sites necessary to support that plant. Now, THERE
is an environmental mess you could sink your teeth into!!
*** The opinions expressed above are just my own thoughts; Nobody is
paying me to say them_ ***
Jack Topper
Radiation Assessment Group
Environmental Safety & Health Division
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory