Just when you thought it was safe to build 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 as John McCain wants, comes this word from France’s Independent Commission on Research and Information on Radiocactivity (CRIIRAD):
But the conservative francophile [how's that for an oxymoron?] said last year
“If France can produce 80% of its electricity with nuclear power, why can’t we?“
McCain seems to forget we are a much, much larger country than France. Heck, we already have more nuclear reactors than they do. To achieve McCain’s goal, we’d need 500 to 700+ new nuclear reactors plus 5 to 7 Yucca mountains, at a cost of some $4 trillion. Not to mention the soaring electricity bills Americans would have to suffer through, with electricity from new nukes projected at some $0.15 a kilowatt hour — some 50% higher than current national rates — not even counting transmission (or reprocessing).
The only thing scarier than the radioactivity hazard of nuclear power is the economic hazard, (see “Nuclear power, Part 2: The price is not right” and “The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power“).
But wait, you say, where in fact will McCain store all of his radioactive waste — assuming he doesn’t plan to ask plant workers to toss it out the car window? Don’t worry, yesterday he reiterated his desire to be like the French and reprocess, reprocess, reprocess:
Let’s put aside the 10% to 20% price increase reprocessing would add to the price of nuclear power — 1.5 cents to 3 cents per kilowatt hour on top of the 15 cents projected for new nukes.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel — extracting the plutonium and running it in special reactor — is just a bad idea, as detailed in the recent Scientific American, “Nuclear Fuel Recycling: More Trouble Than It’s Worth” by former Clinton science adviser and Princeton nuclear physicist Frank N. von Hippel. Von Hippel is one of the country’s top experts on the subject, and he explains the three big flaws of reprocessing:
- “Recycling plutonium reduces the waste problem only minimally”;
- “Extraction and processing cost much more than the new fuel is worth”; and
- Separated plutonium can be used to make nuclear bombs if it gets into the wrong hands, which means that a lot of effort has to be expended to “keep it secure until it is once more a part of spent fuel.”
But forget the facts — who doesn’t want to be like the French when it comes to nuclear power? Other than, maybe, the French nuclear workers:
On Wednesday alone, some 100 staff at the nuclear power plant of Tricastin in southeastern France were contaminated with low doses of radiation.
The incident followed another on July 7 at the same site, which shook public confidence in the safety of France’s nuclear industry…
The French nuclear safety body, ASN, said that in 2007, less than a 100 nuclear workers had been contaminated by radiation in France, where 80 percent of power is produced by atomic energy.
Oh, well, then, as long as its under a 100 nuclear workers contaminated, why should anybody care?
Related Posts:
- Nukes, Part 1.5: Nuclear Bomb
- McCain, NOT the candidate of change, says no to Boxer-L-W without giga-subsidies for nukes
- Sen. Isakson (R-GA) loves nukes AND mother nature! Then Boxer debates nukes with him.
- Nuclear Pork — Enough is Enough
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I love the Simpsons stuff. Very fitting.
Just because I made some of the same points in my February 5, 2008 blog piece:
LINK HERE
and also used the Simpsons graphics to illustrate what I thought of the nuclear industry, I know for a fact that no one at Climate Progress is reading my Creative Greenius blog and stealing from me. I only have a fews hundred regular readers.
But I do feel good about being right on the money regarding this issue and making the same points about how poor the performance of nuclear workers has been.
I read Climate Progress and learn so much from Joe Romm and the other great contributors and I want to say thanks for doing such a great job. You’re great teachers and terrific inspirations.
Let’s say that all those nuclear plants cost 4 trillion.
The United States carbon dioxide greenhouse gas contribution is around 25 percent of the worlds. (somewhere around 25 percent to makes this easier)
The carbon dioxide contribution of coal fired electricity plants to the United States total carbon dioxide contribution is around 40 percent. ( I saw it one year to be 38 percent, close enough)
Combine those 2 and United States coal plants contribute about 10 percent of the worlds CO2 greenhouse gases. An earilier article had an estimate that to reduce CO2 enough before 2050 might require 60 trillion dollars worldwide. (the 60 trillion dollars being about 1.5 percent of world wide GDP from now to 2050) 4 trillion dollars to wipe out 10 percent of the CO2 contribution seems to not completely out of line.
Maybe nuclear is more costly than wind and some of the other non-exhaustable energy sources, but can it still make a contribution?
“I know for a fact that no one at Climate Progress is reading my Creative Greenius blog and stealing from me” — Creative Greenius
I think that is supposed to be sarcastic, if not, I am sorry Creative Greenius, but it is quite possible for someone else to independently think of illustrating nuclear issues with Simpsons graffics, given that show’s frequent and always cynical take on the nuclear industry. It’s not a great leap of imagination.
Joe once again your exaggerated fear of nuclear power takes on absurd proportions. Of the 120 workers who were evacuated from the Tricastin facility after a radiation alarm had sounded, two were determined to have “extremely weak traces of radioactivity”. One would get “extremely weak traces of radioactivity”, from any number of medical tests involving radioactive tracers.
Joe you are over reaction is beyond hysterical.
Kirk Sorensen and I have explained to you how “spent nuclear fuel” from light water reactors, is perfectly good fuel in other types of reactors. Liquid Chloride Fast Reactors can burn practically all the so called “nuclear waste” found in “nuclear waste,” producing 100 times the power produced by conventional reactors. That would include 100% of the plutonium found in “nuclear waste.” Not only that but Liquid Chloride Fast Reactors are inherently safe and produce .2% of the waste produced by the conventional fuel cycle. Rather than producing plutonium the LCFR burns it. Developing the LCFR will cost a fraction of Yacca Mountain research, LCFR can be built in large numbers, at a frasction of the cost of conventional reactors, and could provide the United States all of its energy for thousands of years, using “spent nuclear fuel” and “depleted uranium.”
Please identify any exaggerated fears or any language that is “beyond hysterical.” As for the tremendous features of as yet uncommercial products, I’ve heard that tune for a long, long time from fusion to micro turbines. Call me when you have a commercial product.
Creative Greenius:
And I’m sure you didn’t read my June 18, 2007 post critiquing nuclear power using a picture from The Simpsons.
Joe – How right you are, but thanks to the link you provided I have read it now and I tip my hat to you, sir. Well done.
BTW, I wasn’t trying to be snarky or sarcastic in my original post, I was just feeling good about being on the same wavelength with someone who knows a lot more about the subject than I do.
As I pointed out in my February blog post, it’s not just France where the standards aren’t up to snuff. The crew at San Onofre here in Southern California has been subpar as well. The story continues and you can read about it in today’s L.A. Times:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-sanonofre31-2008jul31,0,5408458.story
Last but not least, it’s hard to give any credibility at all to someone like Charles Barton who tries to float the concept of “so called nuclear waste” while pushing a theoretical practice that even the nuclear industry won’t pay to prove.
Creative Greenius —
Just tweaking you. Keep up the blogging. In fact, you should be blogging more often!
Don’t conservatives (and libertarians) loathe big-government programs, big subsidies, big bureaucracy, and massive regulation? Don’t they attack pork at the drop of a hat?
An enduring mystery is the silence – total silence – of conservative politicians, and writers and bloggers, about the big government horror that is nuclear power. Nary a peep nor a whimper. Not even a cautionary aside. Even Andrew Sullivan hearts nukes.
Of course I do have a couple hypotheses about this anomaly. One is the simple seduction of power, especially the ultimate power of Einstein, E=MC2, the H-bomb. The seduction that Tolkien describes all through Lord of the Ring.
Two is just that conservatives love to rub greenies noses in it. “Well if you don’t want global warming you have to accept nukes.”
I can’t wait for the first conservative (small government, fiscal conservative) to break ranks. Reason and logic must prevail somewhere.
Mark,
I’ve tried to understand the different ways people things thru about government and their personal beliefs and opinions. Conservatives might not like big government, except in all the places that they do. Something about conservatives/libertarians would like 10 000 people to get a million dollars each where liberals would like a million people to get 10 000 a piece. Not much help to understand anything, but that’s what it looks like.
…and no one mentioned where all the uranium is going to come from.
May be McCain is planing to invade Russia to ensure that democracy continues to flourish there.
Joe, You state,
“Just when you thought it was safe to build 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 as John McCain wants, comes this word from France’s Independent Commission on Research and Information on Radiocactivity (CRIIRAD)”; thus clearly implying that nuclear power plants are not safe enough to build.
Next you quote a story from Reuters that contained an apparently inaccurately statement that “In less than 15 days, the CRIIRAD has been informed of four malfunctions in four nuclear plants, leading to the accidental contamination of 126 workers,” CRIIRAD head Corinne Castanier told Reuters in an interview.…”
But an examination of press accounts raised questions about how many worker were really exposed, and what the exact radiation exposure was. For example,Xinhua reports:
“Fifteen French workers were slightly exposed to nuclear radiation at Saint-Alban nuclear station in Iser province, but their health was unaffected, local media reported Monday.
A manager with France’s national power company said regular medical checks found traces of radiation materials in the workers’ bodies after they carried out routine repair and maintenance tasks at the nuclear station on July 18.
The manager said they were immediately sent to a hospital for further checks, which showed their organs, luckily, were not affected.
According to an AP report the “contamination was from “traces of radioactive elements”. This clearly indicates that the exposure was not dangerous.
Initial reports stated that “100 people were slightly contaminated near the French nuclear plant” at Tricastin.
“100 staff were contaminated with a low dose of radiation last week and a uranium spillage occured.” In none of these incidents did any of thew workers receive more than a harmless dose of radiation.
Joe, you are making a mountain out of a molehill when you refer to these minor industrial incidents as justification for your attacks on nuclear power.
Considering the virtually insignificant nature of the French reports, your argument rises to the level of anti-nuclear hysteria.
By the way I plan to vote for Obama.
[JR: I just love people who are so willing to dismiss irradiation of other people. If your family were "contaminated with a low dose of radiation last week" somehow I don't think you would be mollified to learn that China's pro-nuclear news service asserted "their health was unaffected." And I seriously Doubt you would be delighted to send them back to the same place to work day after day for years.
Low doses of radiation typically take a long time to have an impact -- and, of course, cumulative exposures have cumulative and even nonlinear impacts. I reported what was in the news. If that makes me hysterical, I guess that means the facts are hysterical world.]
Where will they get uranium from anyway
Where will they get uranium from anyway – Chris
4 1/2 billion ton of uranium in the sea, can be recovered for $100 a pound. That will provide the world with enough uranium last the world for a very longtime.
If your family were “contaminated with a low dose of radiation last week” somehow I don’t think you would be mollified to learn that China’s pro-nuclear news service asserted “their health was unaffected.” – Joe Romm
Joe, I will not repeat the words that passed through my mind when I read that comment. You have absolutely no idea what you are saying. My father was a nuclear chemist who did up close and personal research with some very nasty radioactive materials in the 1950′s. He use to order Plutonium from Los Alamos by the Kilo, for his research. Although my father was careful, he did receive much higher doses of radiation than any of the Fench workers. My father also went on to become an expert on nuclear and radiation safety safety. Despite his radiation exposures, he is still very much alive and active at the age of 96.
Joe if you are so concerned about people being exposed to radiation how come you never mention radiation from coal? According to a story in Scientific American, cola “fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.” http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste
Why do you never mention radiation from burning coal?
Another common energy related source of radiation is Radon in natural gas. My farther who studied the transport of radon by natural gas, concluded that radon is transported into consumer homes by natural gas, but at concentrations so low, that it posed no danger to residents. http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/01/cj-barton-sr-at-ornl-radon-in-home.html Never-the-less, with your even the slightest does is dangerous approach, your failure to notice the danger of natural gas born radon in the home as a source or radiation danger seems strangely remiss.
Joe, Your low doses over time assertion has been repeatedly falsified by empirical studies. You should know that all of the morbidity and Epidemiological studies show that nuclear workers live significantly longer than members of the general population. People are exposed to high levels or radiation by living at high altitudes, living over granite or shale, or by flying, yet research has not identified any radiation related health problems with any of these groups.
[JR: I don't waste time mentioning radiation from burning coal because I'm trying to get us off of coal. My "low doses" assertion has not been repeatedly falsified by empirical studies. I am aware that nuclear workers have fewer health problems than the general population -- that is the so-called healthy worker effect, which I'm sure you are aware of because you seem familiar with the literature. Everyone else can google it. My uncle was a nuclear physicist at MIT and then my family started a Radon gas testing company, which they later sold. I am quite familiar with the literature -- and yes, everybody should get their home tested for radon.]
Is Nuclear power good? Iraq. Iran. North Korea.
Nuclear power is seductive, but not good.
“My uncle was a nuclear physicist at MIT and then my family started a Radon gas testing company, which they later sold. I am quite familiar with the literature — and yes, everybody should get their home tested for radon. – Joe Romm”
Joe then it is inexcusable that you never mention radiation dangers from natural and other human sources, or or offer comparisons between them and radiation exposure from reactors. Joe you simply ignore evidence that low level radiation exposers from nuclear plants do not cause significant increases in radiation related illnesses like leukemia, or increases health problems in the neighborhood of American reactors. Your argument is simply an appeal to irrational fears, and by your own admission you should possess enough knowledge to understand the irrationality of those fears.
Ronald:
> Maybe nuclear is more costly than wind and some of the other
> non-exhaustable energy sources, but can it still make a contribution?
No. It hurts the effort.
Money (and time, and work) invested into new nuclear plants means that much less effort can be put into other alternatives. A nuclear installation is so much more expensive, and takes so much longer, than any wind or solar installation, that any money invested into new nuclear plants is effectively contributing to global warming, because it means that existing coal and natural gas plants stay online longer than they would if that money went into building out solar+wind.
See here:
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid467.php
or here:
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf
By the way, I think that $0.15/kwh figure is probably low. That may be what’s officially charge to customers, but, for example, utilities can start charging customers for that nuclear power years before a plant even comes online. Plus, the government subsidies for nuclear are absolutely enormous, far outweighing what’s given for wind or solar.
45 new nukes by 2030 is not very helpful. I doubt it’d even be enough to compensate for the nukes that have to be retired by then. Most nuclear powerplants in the US are really old. Even if they all get 20 year extentions that is going to be retired by 2028.
But then, McCain’s energy policy is all about ‘not very helpful’.