Nuclear power - a second look
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 24, 2011.
Recent events in Japan have forced me to reevaluate a position that I have extolled in this space several times over the past years: my support for nuclear power.
The earthquake and resulting tsunami that hit Japan on March 11 left in their wake, as of this writing, over 10,000 casualties and almost 13,000 missing. The earthquake itself was the seventh largest in recorded history, but even that dubious honor may be too low considering that scientists are still poring over data.
The tsunami swept away cars, trains, entire villages. Its effects were felt as far away as California, where it was predicted that millions of dollars in damage was done.
And right in the middle of both natural disasters are the sites of 14 of Japan's 55 nuclear reactors. The reactors at the Tokai and Onagawa sites did have issues and there were shutdowns, but the damage was relatively minor.
Some of the ten reactors at the Fukushima sites, however, were heavily damaged and are causing concern not only in Japan, but across the world.
There is an international nuclear event scale, which tries to put nuclear accidents into some perspective, according to the effects of the incident both on- an off-site. The Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979 is noted as a level 5 accident. An incident in the Soviet Union in 1957 is the only recorded level 6 accident. And the Chernobyl accident, in 1986, is the only one rated at the highest level, level 7.
Where the Fukushima incident will land on this scale is as yet unknown. Certainly it will be a level 5 incident and may already be a level 6. Everyone is hoping, and some are certain, that it will not become a level 7.
With the on-going issues at Vermont Yankee, and the shock of a minor earthquake, centered near Montreal, coming so soon after the Japanese disaster, many are wondering if what happened there could happen here. And even if reasonable people think that it cannot, can we take the risk? Should Vermont Yankee be completely shut down?
Should any nuclear power plant built along a major fault line, like several have been in California, be allowed to operate further? Should nuclear power be allowed to continue at all?
At times like these, with disaster so fresh in the media and the consequences still rubbing raw in our minds, it is reasonable to ask these questions. But because everything is so fresh, we must not jump to hasty conclusions.
Nuclear power, until we have more viable options in terms of safety, sustainability, low-impact, and absolute power output, is the best way for us to produce the energy that we need. The safety record of U.S. nuclear power plants is very good - issues at Vermont Yankee and incidents like Three Mile Island notwithstanding. The footprint of nuclear power plants is small compared to that needed to have a reasonable wind farm. The nuclear power plant generates electricity 24 hour hours a day, regardless of wind, tides, or sunlight, and without any carbon emissions. We cannot sustain our economy as we do now without them.
This is not to say that I accept nuclear without reservation. The issue of waste is a real and pressing one. I think we could solve much of it with reasonable and common sense recycling of nuclear material, but even that will not solve the waste issue completely.
Reactors the age of those at Vermont Yankee can continue to run safely past their design parameters. But even given that, the issues Yankee has had with leaks show that even if the reactor can continue, the infrastructure supporting it may not be able to.
President Obama has announced his administration's intention to continue to fund and support nuclear power, incorporating all the latest advances into new plants that are safer and more efficient than ever. Scientists continue to look for ways to make fission reactors more and more safe, always with an eye to the holy grail, the fusion reactor.
We must take lessons away from the Japanese disaster, build these lessons into new designs and close or retrofit old plants where necessary. What we cannot afford to do is abandon nuclear power completely - not now, and not in the foreseeable future.
Showing posts with label nuclear energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear energy. Show all posts
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Nuclear: The Life-Saving Alternative?
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on May 20, 2010.
Nuclear: The Life-Saving Alternative?
You may or may not have ever heard of Adam Carolla — he's a radio personality who also hosted The Man Show on cable's Comedy Central and co-hosted Loveline, a sex and relationship advice show, with Dr. Drew Pinsky. Recently, tech website Gizmodo.com asked Carolla his opinions on a topic I've written about here before: nuclear power.
Normally, I would not use someone like Carolla as entree into a column topic, but what he had to say, in just a few minutes, was spot-on (though crude — if you look for Carolla's video at Gizmodo, be sure to watch once the kids are in bed).
The interview was posted days after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and a month after the Massey coal mine disaster in West Virginia. Regarding nuclear power, Carolla asks this pointed question: after 11 people died drilling for oil and nearly 30 died digging for coal in just the last month, exactly how many people have died producing nuclear power in the United States in the past month, or year, or decade?
His answer is zero. If we were to choose a way to produce power solely on the safety of the workers behind that power, nuclear is the clear choice.
Now, Carolla was riffing, and didn't stop to think that uranium is also mined (albeit by non-Americans). There are dangers to uranium mining, not the least of which is exposure to radioactive dust and radon gas. But these are risks that can (and should) be mitigated. Coal miners, though, are never quite sure if they will emerge from the mine when the make their way in.
Environmentally, the threat posed by offshore oil drilling is no longer just a threat — it is about as real as it can get. So real, in fact, that President Obama is having second thoughts about his plans to allow more such drilling, as is California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Coal mining is no friend of the environment either, especially when the mountaintop removal method is used. Just think about that — removal of a mountaintop so we can burn the coal that the mountain is made of.
There are dangers, to be sure, in nuclear power. The last two years of news out of Vermont Yankee show that mistakes can and will be made; this is not to mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These lessons cannot be fogotten.
These are, however, extreme examples. Given what we have learned since the last nuclear power plant in the United States came on line in 1996, and what other countries have learned, we know we can build safe, effective plants that can not only produce massive amounts of power in a relatively small space, but which can also reuse their own fuel, recycling it instead of sending if off for permanent storage.
Our power needs are growing and will continue to grow. Just imagine if electricity was clean, bountiful, and cheap. Just imagine quantum-leap discoveries in battery technology that would make the electric car ubiquitous. Just imagine if we no longer need fossil fuels to produce electricity nor run our cars.
If we redouble our efforts to bolster our reliance on renewables, continuing to improve solar cell efficiency and continuing to build wind farms in the right places, that will help. But what will also help is for we, as a nation, to decide that nuclear power must be a part of that future, too.
------------
I want to take this opportunity to bid farewell, on these pages, to Mike Benevento. I have had the pleasure of writing opposite him for a year. Our point and counterpoint columns have reaffirmed to me that it not only possible to have civil discussions about matters we disagree on, it is absolutely essential.
In the end, we share a love for this country and its democracy. We both know that there are a few things that are essential to our freedoms: a free press, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and a system of government that allows for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power. Most likely, you reading this also share these values.
I look forward to debating the finer points of politics and the world with someone new. But be warned - you do have some large shoes to fill.
Nuclear: The Life-Saving Alternative?
You may or may not have ever heard of Adam Carolla — he's a radio personality who also hosted The Man Show on cable's Comedy Central and co-hosted Loveline, a sex and relationship advice show, with Dr. Drew Pinsky. Recently, tech website Gizmodo.com asked Carolla his opinions on a topic I've written about here before: nuclear power.
Normally, I would not use someone like Carolla as entree into a column topic, but what he had to say, in just a few minutes, was spot-on (though crude — if you look for Carolla's video at Gizmodo, be sure to watch once the kids are in bed).
The interview was posted days after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico and a month after the Massey coal mine disaster in West Virginia. Regarding nuclear power, Carolla asks this pointed question: after 11 people died drilling for oil and nearly 30 died digging for coal in just the last month, exactly how many people have died producing nuclear power in the United States in the past month, or year, or decade?
His answer is zero. If we were to choose a way to produce power solely on the safety of the workers behind that power, nuclear is the clear choice.
Now, Carolla was riffing, and didn't stop to think that uranium is also mined (albeit by non-Americans). There are dangers to uranium mining, not the least of which is exposure to radioactive dust and radon gas. But these are risks that can (and should) be mitigated. Coal miners, though, are never quite sure if they will emerge from the mine when the make their way in.
Environmentally, the threat posed by offshore oil drilling is no longer just a threat — it is about as real as it can get. So real, in fact, that President Obama is having second thoughts about his plans to allow more such drilling, as is California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Coal mining is no friend of the environment either, especially when the mountaintop removal method is used. Just think about that — removal of a mountaintop so we can burn the coal that the mountain is made of.
There are dangers, to be sure, in nuclear power. The last two years of news out of Vermont Yankee show that mistakes can and will be made; this is not to mention Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These lessons cannot be fogotten.
These are, however, extreme examples. Given what we have learned since the last nuclear power plant in the United States came on line in 1996, and what other countries have learned, we know we can build safe, effective plants that can not only produce massive amounts of power in a relatively small space, but which can also reuse their own fuel, recycling it instead of sending if off for permanent storage.
Our power needs are growing and will continue to grow. Just imagine if electricity was clean, bountiful, and cheap. Just imagine quantum-leap discoveries in battery technology that would make the electric car ubiquitous. Just imagine if we no longer need fossil fuels to produce electricity nor run our cars.
If we redouble our efforts to bolster our reliance on renewables, continuing to improve solar cell efficiency and continuing to build wind farms in the right places, that will help. But what will also help is for we, as a nation, to decide that nuclear power must be a part of that future, too.
------------
I want to take this opportunity to bid farewell, on these pages, to Mike Benevento. I have had the pleasure of writing opposite him for a year. Our point and counterpoint columns have reaffirmed to me that it not only possible to have civil discussions about matters we disagree on, it is absolutely essential.
In the end, we share a love for this country and its democracy. We both know that there are a few things that are essential to our freedoms: a free press, freedom of expression, freedom of speech, and a system of government that allows for the peaceful and orderly transfer of power. Most likely, you reading this also share these values.
I look forward to debating the finer points of politics and the world with someone new. But be warned - you do have some large shoes to fill.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Life After Vermont Yankee
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on March 11, 2010, under the headline "Vermont must seek new energy".
Life After Vermont Yankee
Though the plant is not dead yet, Vermont Yankee is getting close. The state Senate voted, by a wide margin, not to recommend the Public Service Board look into renewing Vermont's only nuclear power plant's license for 20 years past its 2012 license term.
Though next year's Senate could change its mind, a reversal seems unlikely. Vermont Yankee currently supplies one third of Vermont's power - what will replace that power once it is gone?
One suggestion is to reuse the Vernon site: as the current reactor is taken down, a new, modern one would be built alongside it. Given the political climate in this state, this solution seems unlikely. No new plants have been built in the US since 1996, and though Washington has plans to push new plants along, no one has seriously pushed Vernon as the site for a new reactor.
Today, with the green revolution in full effect, many are pushing for Vermont to take a bold step into that revolution, creating power using the latest green technologies.
The key to these technologies is the harvesting of energy that is already there, but which is being effectively wasted. Nature provides us with energy in many forms, including the sun, the wind, even gravity itself.
Solar is a technology with a long history, and from the local Hannaford to Hinesburg's NRG Systems, solar arrays are popping up everywhere. But is solar ready to provide power for one third of the state?
Briefly, no. Vermont is notoriously cloudy, and though solar can generate power without direct sunlight, its ability to do so is greatly reduced. Without great advances in the technology, solar will not be our solution.
We have been using gravity, in the form of water flowing downhill, to supply power for over one hundred years. Hydro power has great potential, but it also can do some serious damage. One third of Vermont's power comes from hydro, but the will to build more dams in the state does not seem to be there.
Fortunately, Hydro-Quebec harnesses the power of Quebec's northern rivers. Vermont currently contracts with Hydro-Quebec for one quarter of our power, and it seems likely that these contracts will not only be renewed but expanded. With Hydro-Quebec's recent forays into harnessing wind power, these contracts could fit nicely into our power portfolio.
Wind power recently got a boost from the town of Lowell, which approved a project at its recent town meeting. While government maps of Vermont show no part of the state as being suitable for solar power generation, the vast majority of the state is suitable for wind power generation. The biggest hurdle is getting towns to buy into the plans.
The best wind is atop our mountain ranges, a fact that is hard for some residents to swallow. Wind turbines can reach skyward hundreds of feet, marring the picturesque views. Many, however, would find a skyline interrupted by wind turbines to be even more picturesque. What wind needs is the will of the next generation. Though pretty views are important, power is, too.
There is one other, very intriguing possibility for our power needs. Relatively unique today, the concept of on-site generation is slowly gaining traction. This is what NRG Systems hopes to do - to produce enough of its own power that it need draw none from the grid.
Small-scale, on-site generation could be where the future lies, using the grid only as a backup. The Observer reported just last week about the small wind turbine that will soon be installed at Allen Brook School, part of AllEarth Renewables' push into the important residential market.
Also recently in the news is the BloomBox, a pair pf tiny cubes made of advanced materials that can reportedly power the average American home. The BloomBox uses an emissions-free reaction between natural gas (or any other combustible gas, like waste methane) and oxygen to produce electricity. Enormous data centers for Google and eBay are already using large-scale BloomBox installations to produce energy, quietly, cleanly, and with a very small footprint. Could a BloomBox be in your future?
The most likely answer is theat a combination of these technologies, and others not even invented yet, will be the future of Vermont's power. What seems pretty clear, though, is that we need to be planning for that future right now. While we will be able to live without Yankee, we won't be able to live without the power it provides.
Life After Vermont Yankee
Though the plant is not dead yet, Vermont Yankee is getting close. The state Senate voted, by a wide margin, not to recommend the Public Service Board look into renewing Vermont's only nuclear power plant's license for 20 years past its 2012 license term.
Though next year's Senate could change its mind, a reversal seems unlikely. Vermont Yankee currently supplies one third of Vermont's power - what will replace that power once it is gone?
One suggestion is to reuse the Vernon site: as the current reactor is taken down, a new, modern one would be built alongside it. Given the political climate in this state, this solution seems unlikely. No new plants have been built in the US since 1996, and though Washington has plans to push new plants along, no one has seriously pushed Vernon as the site for a new reactor.
Today, with the green revolution in full effect, many are pushing for Vermont to take a bold step into that revolution, creating power using the latest green technologies.
The key to these technologies is the harvesting of energy that is already there, but which is being effectively wasted. Nature provides us with energy in many forms, including the sun, the wind, even gravity itself.
Solar is a technology with a long history, and from the local Hannaford to Hinesburg's NRG Systems, solar arrays are popping up everywhere. But is solar ready to provide power for one third of the state?
Briefly, no. Vermont is notoriously cloudy, and though solar can generate power without direct sunlight, its ability to do so is greatly reduced. Without great advances in the technology, solar will not be our solution.
We have been using gravity, in the form of water flowing downhill, to supply power for over one hundred years. Hydro power has great potential, but it also can do some serious damage. One third of Vermont's power comes from hydro, but the will to build more dams in the state does not seem to be there.
Fortunately, Hydro-Quebec harnesses the power of Quebec's northern rivers. Vermont currently contracts with Hydro-Quebec for one quarter of our power, and it seems likely that these contracts will not only be renewed but expanded. With Hydro-Quebec's recent forays into harnessing wind power, these contracts could fit nicely into our power portfolio.
Wind power recently got a boost from the town of Lowell, which approved a project at its recent town meeting. While government maps of Vermont show no part of the state as being suitable for solar power generation, the vast majority of the state is suitable for wind power generation. The biggest hurdle is getting towns to buy into the plans.
The best wind is atop our mountain ranges, a fact that is hard for some residents to swallow. Wind turbines can reach skyward hundreds of feet, marring the picturesque views. Many, however, would find a skyline interrupted by wind turbines to be even more picturesque. What wind needs is the will of the next generation. Though pretty views are important, power is, too.
There is one other, very intriguing possibility for our power needs. Relatively unique today, the concept of on-site generation is slowly gaining traction. This is what NRG Systems hopes to do - to produce enough of its own power that it need draw none from the grid.
Small-scale, on-site generation could be where the future lies, using the grid only as a backup. The Observer reported just last week about the small wind turbine that will soon be installed at Allen Brook School, part of AllEarth Renewables' push into the important residential market.
Also recently in the news is the BloomBox, a pair pf tiny cubes made of advanced materials that can reportedly power the average American home. The BloomBox uses an emissions-free reaction between natural gas (or any other combustible gas, like waste methane) and oxygen to produce electricity. Enormous data centers for Google and eBay are already using large-scale BloomBox installations to produce energy, quietly, cleanly, and with a very small footprint. Could a BloomBox be in your future?
The most likely answer is theat a combination of these technologies, and others not even invented yet, will be the future of Vermont's power. What seems pretty clear, though, is that we need to be planning for that future right now. While we will be able to live without Yankee, we won't be able to live without the power it provides.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Vermont's Energy Future is Nuclear
This column originally appeared in the Williston Observer on April 10, 2008.
Vermont's Energy Future is Nuclear
Recently, I've been shopping around for a new car. It's been five years since I've done serious research into cars, and I fully expected that I'd find many environmentally-friendly choices out there.
I was woefully wrong. Hybrid technology seems to be stuck in a rut. A typical example: for $5000, a Nissan hybrid will buy you an underwhelming two highway MPG. They can also be hard to find. Saturn touts its hybrid SUVs in TV ads, but the local dealer expected to get two - two! - this year.
Toyota has the best hybrid out there, the Prius, and my father owns one. He loves it, and when I brought up my search at a family gathering on Easter Day, he bragged about getting over 50 MPG on trips to and from Rutland. Talk then moved from hybrids on a winding path to nuclear power plants in France.
Surely you've had those family discussions where one topic leads to another, and to another, and you end up on a path littered with discarded tangential conversations. Our detritus included hybrids, batteries, electric cars, electric heat and hot water, windmills, and Vermont Yankee.
We were all for reducing our carbon footprints, and we all agreed that going all-electric was a means to that end. But where would all that extra electricity come from? Only from new power plants. But no one wanted plants that burn gas, oil, or (evilest of evils) coal. Sadly, alternatives are scarce.
Solar has great potential, but annually, Burlington only gets 49% sunshine. Solar works, but only when the sun shines. Another problem is efficiency - right now, the best we can get is 30% efficiency from solar cells, and usually far less.
Wind also has great potential, but building wind farms in Vermont is problematic at best. I think the sight of several dozen wind turbines on top of surrounding mountains would be in keeping with Vermont's image. Many don't share this view and blanch at the thought of giant rotors marring their vistas. Here, too, we're at the mercy of nature. No wind, no power.
Hydro is a great alternative, but in Vermont, we have nothing of the potential of, say, the Hoover or Grand Coulee dams. Instead, more dams are being torn down than are being built.
So, wind and solar are too dependent on nature and NIMBY; hydro seems like a non-starter; we want to avoid gas-, coal-, and oil-fired plants; others, like geothermal and biomass, can't come close to our needs; and while there is a lot of room for improvement in efficiency, the trend seems to be an increase in electricity usage, not a decrease.
The only current technology left is nuclear. Vermont Yankee currently generates 35% of Vermont's power needs. Talk of decommissioning the plant is, frankly, absurd. If we lost Yankee, our statewide carbon footprint would skyrocket.
What we, as a state and a nation, should so is build more nuclear plants. I know this opinion puts me at odds with many of my liberal friends, but it is the only thing that makes sense.
There are valid concerns about safety, but let's face it, Yankee has operated safely for 35 years. Despite my complaints about the lack of progress in other areas, nuclear power technology has advanced substantially since Yankee came on line.
The U.S. currently gets 20% of its power from nuclear. There's potential for a lot more. France has embraced nuclear in a big way, with 80% of its power coming from nuclear plants. In Japan, nuclear accounts for a third of that nation's needs.
No new plants have been brought on line in the U.S. in a dozen years. We need more plants, and using the lessons France and Japan have learned, we can build plants that are safe, recycle used nuclear fuel to reduce waste, and supply us with clean power to charge those electric cars and heat our water.
The holy grail of power generation is fusion. Scientists are working on that but power plants may be 20 years away, if not more. Until then, nuclear is our best overall option.
In my best-case scenario, we all use CFLs in every socket; we have 85% efficient solar panels coating our roofs; we erect single-home windmills in our back yards and wind farms on our mountain ranges; and state-of-the-art nuclear plants are there to back it all up.
Vermont's Energy Future is Nuclear
Recently, I've been shopping around for a new car. It's been five years since I've done serious research into cars, and I fully expected that I'd find many environmentally-friendly choices out there.
I was woefully wrong. Hybrid technology seems to be stuck in a rut. A typical example: for $5000, a Nissan hybrid will buy you an underwhelming two highway MPG. They can also be hard to find. Saturn touts its hybrid SUVs in TV ads, but the local dealer expected to get two - two! - this year.
Toyota has the best hybrid out there, the Prius, and my father owns one. He loves it, and when I brought up my search at a family gathering on Easter Day, he bragged about getting over 50 MPG on trips to and from Rutland. Talk then moved from hybrids on a winding path to nuclear power plants in France.
Surely you've had those family discussions where one topic leads to another, and to another, and you end up on a path littered with discarded tangential conversations. Our detritus included hybrids, batteries, electric cars, electric heat and hot water, windmills, and Vermont Yankee.
We were all for reducing our carbon footprints, and we all agreed that going all-electric was a means to that end. But where would all that extra electricity come from? Only from new power plants. But no one wanted plants that burn gas, oil, or (evilest of evils) coal. Sadly, alternatives are scarce.
Solar has great potential, but annually, Burlington only gets 49% sunshine. Solar works, but only when the sun shines. Another problem is efficiency - right now, the best we can get is 30% efficiency from solar cells, and usually far less.
Wind also has great potential, but building wind farms in Vermont is problematic at best. I think the sight of several dozen wind turbines on top of surrounding mountains would be in keeping with Vermont's image. Many don't share this view and blanch at the thought of giant rotors marring their vistas. Here, too, we're at the mercy of nature. No wind, no power.
Hydro is a great alternative, but in Vermont, we have nothing of the potential of, say, the Hoover or Grand Coulee dams. Instead, more dams are being torn down than are being built.
So, wind and solar are too dependent on nature and NIMBY; hydro seems like a non-starter; we want to avoid gas-, coal-, and oil-fired plants; others, like geothermal and biomass, can't come close to our needs; and while there is a lot of room for improvement in efficiency, the trend seems to be an increase in electricity usage, not a decrease.
The only current technology left is nuclear. Vermont Yankee currently generates 35% of Vermont's power needs. Talk of decommissioning the plant is, frankly, absurd. If we lost Yankee, our statewide carbon footprint would skyrocket.
What we, as a state and a nation, should so is build more nuclear plants. I know this opinion puts me at odds with many of my liberal friends, but it is the only thing that makes sense.
There are valid concerns about safety, but let's face it, Yankee has operated safely for 35 years. Despite my complaints about the lack of progress in other areas, nuclear power technology has advanced substantially since Yankee came on line.
The U.S. currently gets 20% of its power from nuclear. There's potential for a lot more. France has embraced nuclear in a big way, with 80% of its power coming from nuclear plants. In Japan, nuclear accounts for a third of that nation's needs.
No new plants have been brought on line in the U.S. in a dozen years. We need more plants, and using the lessons France and Japan have learned, we can build plants that are safe, recycle used nuclear fuel to reduce waste, and supply us with clean power to charge those electric cars and heat our water.
The holy grail of power generation is fusion. Scientists are working on that but power plants may be 20 years away, if not more. Until then, nuclear is our best overall option.
In my best-case scenario, we all use CFLs in every socket; we have 85% efficient solar panels coating our roofs; we erect single-home windmills in our back yards and wind farms on our mountain ranges; and state-of-the-art nuclear plants are there to back it all up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)