SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Oregon's only foray into nuclear energy came to a final end in 2006 with the demolition of PGE's Trojan nuclear reactor. That nuclear power plant was plagued with problems and citizen activist groups fought to shut it down. In 1979, the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island galvanized public opposition and effectively halted new nuclear projects. But in recent years, the threat of climate change and the recognition of the need to reduce our carbon footprint seems to be changing attitudes about nuclear power. Nuclear advocates say technology has come a long way since the 1970's and that the key to supplying the nation's energy demands — without carbon emissions — is nuclear power.
Although billions of dollars in financing for new nuclear energy projects was cut out of the final version of the economic stimulus package, the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) just awarded Oregon State University a six million dollar grant to study new designs for nuclear reactors. A small start up in Corvallis, NuScale Power, is already testing its design at OSU and is meeting regularly with the NRC about its application for certification. If everything goes smoothly, a NuScale reactor could be generating electricity in just eight short years.
The Northwest already gets some power from the nuclear power plant at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington, but right now, Oregon has no nuclear power generation capacity.
How should nuclear power fit into our energy future? Is the reliability and relatively low cost of nuclear power worth the worry about hazardous waste and security? What are your hopes and concerns about nuclear energy providing your electricity?
GUESTS:
- Bruce Landrey: Senior director of development for NuScale Power
- Jeff King: Senior resources analyst for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council
- Greg Kafoury: Oregon attorney and activist
Tagged as: alternative energy · energy · nuclear
Photo credit: Куртис Перри/Flickr/Creative Commons
-
Mike L,
I can appreciate your concerns, the amount of misinformation reagarding nuclear power is tremendous so it is understandable people cling to misconceptions and invalid beliefs. Oil, coal, and natural gas companies do not like competition so it is no wonder people like Mr. Koufory are attempting to hold down the competition under the guise of the environment.
Unfortunately it is the height of human ignorance to not realize we release billions of tons of toxic metals, carbon, and radioactive uranmium particulate into the atmosphere every single year in this nation by burning coal to supply our power needs. We will keep doing this until we have an alternative, and we do but the coal industry doesn't want you to support it. Japan, Sweden, France and others have figured this out, nuclear power is environmentaly smart. I'm much more concerned about the toxic air I breath now compliments of our dependence on coal than nuclear waste that has not caused the death of one single American. Compare with how many people die yearly in oil and gas refinery accidents, coal mine accidents, not to mention the wildlife killed when an oil tanker sinks or the resparatory disease caused by our filthy air.
Nuclear is the cleanest available source of energy we can produce to meet our demands. If you are concerned about the environment and would like us less dependent upon foreign powers it's time to educate yourself on the one source of energy that can change that. Stop believing these talking heads backed by the oil and coal industries like Mr. Koufory.
-
Mike,
In fact, that is Oregon law. The voters passed Ballot Measure 7 in 1980, which states that before future nuclear power reactors can obtain a construction permit in Oregon, or be funded by Oregon private utilities for construction in other states (such as Washington):
1) there must be a permanent disposal site for the high-level nuclear waste from the proposed plants that is licensed to operate and a contract in place to accept the wastes from the proposed plants; and,
2) the voters must approve the proposed nuclear power reactor by a statewide vote in a regularly scheduled election.
In addition, Ballot Measure 9 in 1978 prohibits Oregon's private utilities from collecting money in advance for the construction of new power facilities and will only allow the reimbursement for construction costs after the power facilities become "used and useful." This same provision in Missouri law just caused a power company to cancel plans to build two nuclear power reactors there, due to the difficulty of obtaining financing for such a risky venture.
All I can say to any nuclear power reactor fan in Oregon is "dream on, broomstick cowboy."
-
I am for Nuclear Power. I agree that we need to take much better care to clean up after our waste. But we are an advancing people who need to step forward in using the clean abundant power source.
Oregon needs to reinvest in Nuclear power. And I do not think it is arrogant to think we can manage the waste in a safe effective way. We already have containers that can survive a train wreck with the locomotive plowing directly into the container. No leaks!
What will it take to make this a reality? I am think about that very hard.
-
If it can be cleaned up afterward, lets do it now. For some reason the nuke on the columbia hasn't been cleaned up yet, do you have any idea why? I'll tell you, it is TOO EXPENSIVE. It may never get cleaned up, mean while how many people have gotten cancer from nuclear waste form that nuclear plant? If we can clean it up, lets do it first, before we make another colossal mess. It seems in almost every nuclear case, the mines haven't been cleaned up, the power plant hasn't been cleaned up and the waste hasn't been cleaned up, what's up with this?
Don't believe me? The nuclear power promoters should be happy to take you on a tour of their mines, their decommissioned nuclear plants and their storage facilities, correct? They may cite “security issues” hinting that you could be a terrorist that could use information from the tour to sabotage their system to bring death and destruction to millions of innocent people, and there is lies the truth of nuclear power. How convenient that you, a concerned citizen who just wished to investigate the best energy source for you community is banned from any real investigation because anyone could turn their “safe” energy source into a terrorist weapon.
Not only that, how many people have gotten cancer because of the radio active steam that was released from the plant when it was running? They do it all the time, there are so called "safe amounts" of this steam, give me a break. It is kind of hard find out, kind of hard to prove who has cancer from it, it doesn't mean that people do not have cancer from it, it doesn't mean that people haven't died from the cancer they got from the plant operations.
Lets go back to where the uranium came from, it was likely stolen from indigenous people, that for economic reasons (localized depression) worked in the mines, mines that have toxic tailings in ponds that spill like they did in Arizona into the colorado river contaminating it with radioactivity.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uip.html
Lets set things right with these projects and these people BEFORE we embark on more misconceptions and nefarious deeds, it is only right, it is only fair, it is only wise and if someone tells you otherwise, do you know what they are doing? Take a wild guess.
-
I spent four years in the United States Navy. As a non-destructive test technician, I was trained in the use and handling of gamma ray radioactive sources. I spent two years aboard the nuclear powered carrier Nimitz. I became very interested in radiological accidents.
While I am not against nuclear power, per se, I am concerned because every serious nuclear reactor accident that I've studied, whether it was the SL1 accident, Three Mile Island, or Chernoybol, all of them, were not caused by design or equipment issues, but by human error.
These accidents were caused by worker fatigue, not following procedures, not beleiving instruments, bypassing safety equipment, unauthorized research, or pushing the reactor beyond its limits.My fear is not the reactor, as they are designed to operate safely, it's the companies and people operating them.
-
Mt understanding is that uranium, when it is found it is taken from the owners of land at the best possible rate, preferably without compensation, the natives are given well paying jobs in the mines but in the case of the Navajo, it commonly lead to premature death. Radioactive dust and and the background radioactivity is deadly. Presumably mountain top removal or some other destructive system would be used that would produce toxic tailings that would be an environmental disaster like with coal or so called clean coal.
The spent fuel rods would be an environmental disaster waiting to happen. Perhaps they would be sold to the military for armor pricing rounds or to refine into nuclear weapons or sell to Iran in order to justify starting a war with them.
Nuclear plants routinely release radioactive steam as if it just fine to do so. This would cause many cases of cancer and there would be no way for the average person to reasonably avoid this fall out. Would the nuclear power companies pay for medical treatment and lost wages and all associated costs that they would be foisting on to the general public, and what about those that didn't want to get cancer to begin with? How much is that worth?
Being thermal nuclear power plants, they will shut down in very hot weather, just when maximum demand for AC would be put on them. There will be very expensive service issues such as changing out the fuel rods and possible theft of generating units and material by terrorists.
All this simply to boil water? How about a parabolic trough solar water boiling electric generator?
I am contacting my state representatives to tell them my opinion; do not allow this in Oregon. It is about as smart as arming all teachers with firearms. -
Shody: You have many misconceptions about nuclear power. I suggest you read Gwyneth Craven's book Power to Save the World. You can also hear her talk in person at OSU on Feb. 24 at 3:30 pm if you're in Corvallis. Waste disposal will not be a problem if Obama allows Yucca Mt. to proceed. With the global warming concern, we will need to cut back on coal and natural gas plants, and wind and solar will NOT be able to meet our needs, even if we expand them greatly. They are just too unreliable--the wind doesn't blow nor the sun shine 24 hours per day. We need a steady source of reliable, not polluting power, and nuclear is our only hope.
-
"We need a steady source of reliable, not polluting power, and nuclear is our only hope. ringlejc — Wed Feb. 18th 12:34a.m."
Nuclear waste pollutes our environment for hundreds of thousands of years!
I can see a minimum number of nuclear plants for baseload but only a minimum and the rest ought to be something else. -
"Nuclear waste pollutes our environment for hundreds of thousands of years!'
Wind and solar rely heavily on batteries, lead and the toxic chemicals in batteries do not pollute? How many acres of land are you satisfied covering with unsightly space age polymers to generate wind and solar energy. Not to mention the millions of birds that are killed annualy by wind turbines and the animal habitat solar farms destroy.
I assume given your high level of concern over radioctive waste you do not expose yourself to solar radiation by going outside and do not mind breathing the toxic metals including uramium that is belched out of our current dependency upon burning coal.
Raidoactive waste is not without risk, nothing is even peanut butter, but compared to the risks we tolerate with our current power generation it is a vast improvement and much much cleaner for the air we breath.
-
I am sorry about my misconceptions. Perhaps you or Gweyneth could explain the how the concerns in these articles will be addressed in the future?
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uip.html
http://www.helencaldicott.com/about.htm
I am in favor of the nuclear industry being welcomed by the people in the links above, once that is done, lets talk, in the mean time what could you possibly say?
Coal and nuclear ARE SUBSIDIESED by the government, lets stop propping up this industry that IS KILLING US and instead MASIVELY SUBSIDIES CLEAN renewable sustainable energy JUST LIKE NEW YORK STATE is doing:
http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=2280
What about these other energy storage systems?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050907102549.htm
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
Because nuclear electrical generators are thermal nuclear systems, they are subject to over-heating in hot weather! Just when we have a peak in demand for AC equipment for cooling, that is when nuclear generators will have to power down??
We have wind, solar, wave and non dam hydro (propellers in the water, because the water behind the dam warms up, that is really bad for the salmon) and that is what we should build and build and build, now as long as the scientists recommend it.
Do you still think I have misconceptions? Perhaps it is you that has the misconceptions, did that ever cross your mind?
-
Dear Emily & David,
As Australian physician & activist Dr. Helen Caldicott has pointed out for decades in her passionate lectures opposing nuclear power generation: "There is really no such thing as 'nuclear energy.' All the power plants do is BOIL WATER--and this is a VERY dangerous way to boil water!"
Speaking as one of the activists myself who marched against Trojan--and who will march again in the future--I beg you to please make this point clearly at least once in your discussion today.
I'm dismayed at how many times I've listened to discussions where everyone seems to be operating on the erroneous assumption that somehow the nuclear process is itself generating electricity in a highly efficient way--which is completely false.
Thank you for journalistic due diligence in this!
Victor Cummings, Portland Teacher
victor100@comcast.net
-
There is simply no such thing as “Green” power generation.
So please take that out of the discussion.
There is no such thing as “Low Cost” power generation.
Again please take that out of the discussion.
Rational people will agree that power is necessary for our society to function.
So, the real question then becomes how clean of a power source regardless of what it is, are you willing to pay for?
-
I will believe it is "low cost" when the FULL cost of waste disposal and security in our terrorist-ridden world is factored into the cost of power generation. Actually, you might as well include the cost of handling legal, environmental and NIMBY chalenges as well.
I prefer the idea of a smart grid and distributed power generation combined with conservation of use.
-
Not sure where I fall on the issue, but I do have a few questions:
Can anyone offer believable assurances that unreasonable burdens from any project overruns won't wind up on our shoulders (remember WPPS?)?
Are there reasonable expectations that we have or will have technology to more efficiently use the reactions and their associated radiations other than just heat (to boil water as another person has already said)?
Can these things be located in areas of relative geologic stability for a change and the grid upgraded to handle carrying the loads wherever? And no, there is no place on the rim (WA, OR, Cal, or even Idaho that I consider stable).
Just a few, thanks for discussing this.
-
Please ask Mr. Landry what they do with their waste?
Thank you.
-
Please ask Mr. Landry what they do with their waste?
Thank you.
-
Has the City of Corvallis, which has resolved to be a "Nuclear Free Zone," weighed in on the operation of nuclear reactors on the OSU campus? Will the citizens of Corvallis have any voice in siting the new experimental high energy reactor? How will radioactive nuclear waste be stored onsite or transferred elsewhere?
-
20 years ago, I was employed at the Idaho Nuclear Energy Laboratory near Idaho Falls, ID, very likely where the reactor being described in this episode was designed. I worked at a facility that was being built to process spent nuclear fuel. But congress decided that such a facility was not needed and cancelled funnding for it. So today, we have a problem of nuclear fuel piling up at the plants around the country and no way to dispose of it. The facility I worked at would have delt with that issue.
Today I hear that there is talk about starting up the processing project again. Hopefully they will complete it this time. But meanwhile I feal cheated as I was very proud of the fact that I was helping to solve the country's energy issues. When the project was cancelled, my career took a very different path outside of the energy industry.
-
How does this differ from the Slowpoke reactor the Canadians developed in the late 60s?
-
how is this proposed solution different from Toshiba's modular nuclear generators proposed for a test installation in Alaska several years ago?
-
It's been stated that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases. However, it's obvious that mining uranium, transporting uranium, processing uranium, and processing radioactive waste will produce greenhouse gases. What is the carbon footprint of a nuclear power plant?
-
Foot print ?
Huge.. for initial construction,
but would you rather import Saudi oil or strip mine Coal ?
At least US workers would be employed.
Better than the "Drill baby Drill" drivel from the oil companys.
L.
-
I think we've learned from past mistakes, in how to deal with nuclear energy and nuclear fuel waste. It seems like these smaller scale modules would allow us to more safely transport and store the fuel waste until it can be recycled.
We have to decide between the lesser of various energy evils: smoke choking the air, dead salmon and other fish (from hydroelectric) or the possible radiation exposure from nuclear.
-
If we add up ALL the costs of nuclear power plants, we could then understand why it is too expensive to consider. To understand all the costs we must add them ALL up. We need to start with the cost of mining the element, of building the plants, the cost of human lives who are affected by the mining and the disposal of waste, the moth-balling of the nuclear plants given that they have a life of 20 years or less, the litigation from the life and environmental impacts, and the storing of the spent fuel that will outlast many generations and probably the storage facility.
Nuclear is a distraction, and if we go down that path we will not invest what we need to in renewable energy. Nuclear Power is not worth it!!!
-
Now add up ALL the costs to the other so called acceptable energy solutions, such as coal, natural gas, water, etc. And I do mean ALL costs, including the environmental impact. Coal polutes and destroys the environment (and don't foget the recent green coal fiasco in Tennessee, the cleanup cost is now approaching $500B), the carbon impact of gas, the damage to fish migration, the health issues, etc. At least with nuclear, the waste is contained in one place. And there are solutions to nuclear waste, however they are currently very expensive. But, as with all other systems, costs will likely come down over time as we improve efficiencies.
-
Private nuclear enterprises have always been indemnified and protected from the risks they take by federal government laws and regulations and I think that is wrong. They have socialized their risks and privatized their profits. They ought to be held completely liable or the government should own and run any plants. Nuclear power is too dangerous to leave in the hands of private business enterprises. Their unceasing demands for ever increasing profits is completely incompatible with public safety.
-
I am opposed to nuclear energy as a long-term solution to our energy needs for two reasons:
1. We have enough uranium ore to last about 60 years at current usage in this country, then we would be back to relying on foreign supplies. That would land us right back whereby we are now. At best, nuclear energy would perhaps buy us a little time to develop sustainable energy sources.
2. Storage of waste is the biggest problem. Waste elements have half-lives of up to half a million years. There is no real estate on the planet that is geologically stable for that long a time.
Michael Colvin - Portland
-
1. Uranium is not needed ... check out France !
2. Storage is a techinical problem..the Canadian Shield formation is older and stable by a factor of 100.
L.
-
Not true. We may have 60 years worth of RAW uranium, but the fuel actually used up in a nuclear plant before the fuel rods have to be changed is actually quite small. If the rods are reprocessed and the unused uranium is extracted, it can be made into new rods and reused. This solves two problems: it creates an almost endless supply of fuel, and it vastly reduces the amount of waste that is generated, as most of the material is simply reused. Again, it is expensive to reprocess, which is why it isn't favored now, but if you start comparing that against the total costs of other fuel sources, it doesn't look so bad any more.
-
Let's jut take off the table that old argument that wind and solar has to be subsidized, because in reality Oil is one of the most heavily subsidized energies in history! Most of our wars are fought for Oil by ships, tanks, and aircraft powered by oil!
And nuclear plants are heavily subsidized by putting the risks on the public. The public also pays for the research and development of nuclear plants. The publics pays for the storage of waste and the development of Yucca Mountain.
One time subsidies for wind and solar would ultimately save us many billions and help get us out of countries whose people hate us for grabbing their Oil.
-
Wow,
Have you got that right ! We will spend $billions on 6 lane freeways before a few million on mass transit. A 160 mph bullet train from Eugene-Corvallis-Salem to Portland on a 30 min schedule would cost less than the routine upkeep of the I-5 system over 15 years
L.
-
Dear Mr. Kafoury, I am greatly relieved by hearing a logical voice in opposition to nuclear energy. I am fearful, even horrified that there is a renewed discussion regarding the new and increased use of nuclear fuel to solve the carbon emission problem. Why would any responsible human choose to look backward in technology and burden generation after generation with the dangerous and costly polution from nuclear fuel?
My confusion and fear echo the anger I hear in your voice.
Dear Mr. Landry, how can engineers move forward with such dangerous and irresponsible technology without having to answer the ethical questions simultaneously? Could you not harness all of the same intelligence and university resources to step out of old boxes and look ahead to the wonderful challenges of new energy sources.
This is a tired saying but, how do you and Mr. King sleep at night knowing the costs of nuclear fuel when you support the continuation of such old and even wrong technology?
I appreciate the pubic forum on this dangerous issue.
-
Thank you for hosting this discussion. As a former nuclear power plant mechanical engineer, I am strongly in favor of having nuclear in our future energy mix. The nuclear industry has a very safe and reliable operational history in the post Three Mile Island era. Profound changes in the industry occurred after TMI, and I am proud to have been a part of the safe operation of the power plant where I worked.
I would not hesitate to live near or work in a nuclear power plant again assuming they maintain or improve current levels of regulation, oversight and safety focus. We should be very proud of the US nuclear industry.
Clearly we need low carbon footprint energy sources. Nuclear plants can be designed to withstand terrorist attacks, and can further protect us from terrorism by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels.
It's such a shame that Trojan was closed. What a terrible loss. (That is not the plant where I worked.)
We DO need to open a spent fuel storage facility. The nuclear industry has paid billions of dollars to pay for a facility, and the government has yet to open it. It needs to happen. Safe fuel storage is not a technical issue. It is a political one.
It irks me to hear your guest making assumptions about the financing of NuScale's plants. Once again, the activists are making unsubstantiated claims to try to bolster their position. I've seen this for years and years. Activists continue to make false statements, apparently out of ignorance, about the power plant where I worked, and the media continues to print them. Perhaps they should look at the facts and learn about the technology before making such statements. Only with factual data can we make intelligent decisions.
Again, thanks for having this discussion. I am strongly in favor of nuclear.
-
I welcome this discussion on nuclear energy. Why is it the anti-nuclear rhetoric includes "those guys" and "welfare kings" as I believe Greg said a couple of minutes ago.
The pro-nuclear people present a thoughtful discussion while the anti-nuclear seem like attack dogs.
I'd think a more interesting area of nuclear discussion is how do the new designs avoid the potential of nuclear accidents. Another interesting topic is what have been the advances in nuclear waste disposal that the NRC is ignoring, for example, waste recycling and actinide burners.
-
It seems we need a few attack dogs to keep radioactive waste out of our environment. No one is talking about Geothermal energy which should be a major direction here in the Northwest. It should be explored long before we decide to create 100,000 year toxic waste.
-
John,
The retoric is just a sample of the "You are good or you are evil" mentality of the Bush era. No grey areas, no thoughtfull discussion.
That is too hard and takes too much time.
-
What Mr. Landry is trying to get at (and the host does not seem to understand) is that nuclear power is one of the few power sources that can supply lots and lots of power.
It's a simple math power. Trojan was not an especially large plant -- it put out 1130 MW of energy. The Mojave Solar Park will be the largest solar plant in the world -- it will put out only 553 MW.
It's been over 15 years since I've heard Mr. Kafoury talk -- it's good to know he's just as annoying and mendacious as ever.
-
On the question of supplying "lots and lots of power," NuScale's entire business model is actually based on the opposite idea: scalable reactors that can be added together but that each will only provide 40 MW. You can read more here.
-
One of the current guests keeps pronouncing neclear as "nucular". What kind of "expert" in neclear technologies can not pronounce the word that they are an expert of?
-
This one made me laugh. I've heard nuclear executives for years say nu-cu-lar rather than nu-cle-ar. It very common in the nuclear industry and outside the industry, and it drives me crazy, but you can't judge someone on it.
By the way, it's spelled nuclear, not neclear.
-
It happens all the time. People who can visualize complex things often get tripped up with the wierdness of language. Don't be a Pedant.
-
Our real need is research and development of ways and methods to timeshift energy from when it is generated to when it is needed so that solar and wind can be most effectively used.
Small homescale Hydrogen fuel cells, storage, and generation can go a long way towards fulfilling our timeshifting needs. And provide the fuel to run future cars.
Hydrogen and timeshifting is the future in my opinion.
TIMESHIFTING.
-
What on earth is your definition of timeshifting? The production of Hydrogen consumes a lot of energy. Currently the primary energy used in the production of hydrogen is fossile fuels. Hydrogen is an excellent way to store and transfer energy to automobiles or other energy consuming items that can not be plugged in.
-
"What on earth is your definition of timeshifting? The production of Hydrogen consumes a lot of energy. Currently the primary energy used in the production of hydrogen is fossile fuels...."
Build many many windmills and generate hydrogen from home water supplies, store it in small homescale units, and then use it for auto fuel, home heating and electricity, purified drinking water, and as timeshifted electricity to put back into the "smart" grid. The electric and water utility lines are already in place, so what is needed are many windmills, homesized modular units, and a smartened up grid.
That would widely diversify power generation and storage, provide the long sought timeshifting, and essentially make moot any terrorist ideas of attack on our energy systems. A few nuclear plants for baseload and there you go.
-
I'm still trying to understand your definition of timeshifting. Is timeshifting referring to energy being transfered to a different storage medium for later use (in your example, converting electricity + water to hydrogen)? If that is the case, any battery is a timeshifting device. Pushing a bolder to the top of a hill would be an act of timeshifting.
-
Mr. Kafoury's insulting manner is an insult to the intelligence of your listeners, and a discredit to his cause.
-
Absoutely ! Rude ignorant and confrontive. No room for facts. Just opinion.
-
As a physicist, I have a relatively well informed view on the topic of nuclear power. Given that, I have to say that this discussion troubles me on a number of levels.
I think that my biggest issue is that Greg Kafoury is the only person who is speaking on the "cons" side of this issue. This is a problem for me because, unfortunately, he seems to express himself in a way that comes across as being extremist and bickering, rather than rational and reasonable.
Nuclear certainly has some significant down sides. However, it has some significant advantages, as well. All of this should be considered and discussed reasonably.
Truly, if we are going to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, we need to be open to a wide portfolio of energy solutions.
-
As the President says, no power source is perfect. We will need every low-carbon power source we can develop. Wind and solar must be pushed to the max but likely cannot be ramped up fast enough. We cannot do without nuclear for at least the next 50 years.
Waste and the requirement for breeder reactors (when we do enough of it) are the issues. I believe, however, that modern technology can make it sufficiently safe. Nothing can be perfectly safe and arguments to that effect are pointless.
Re waste: The Trojan site is small and demonstrably can be kept safe. Try looking at the coal strip mine near Centralia -- it's a huge desolate waste land. Waste disposal issues are purely political and knee-jerk opponents like Greg Kafoury and Ralph Nader are very much a part of that problem.
Greg Kafoury is all sound bites with little understanding of real issues:
- 3 mile island was not a core meltdown! I just heard him imply that it was. It really wasn't much of anything.
- Chernobyl started when they deliberately turned off all safety and control systems as part of a stupid test.
-
Thank you for making this point. Human error is far more to blame for Chernobyl.
-
I disagree that Three Mile Island wasn't much of anything. A melted core is a big deal, but the safety systems did their job and contained the mess. It's an example of the power plant design doing its job.
Chernobyl was all about human error. As this listener states, they turned off multiple safety systems before the plant went supercritical. The design of that power plant was vastly different than the plants in this county. It did not have the containment structure that prevented significant radiation release at Three Mile Island. That's hugely significant.
-
I get so tired of listening to people you have on your program that are so polorized on an issue that most of what they have to say contains little more than rash generalizations and inacuracies. Greg Kafoury is one of those people!
-
We might call or write to the programing staff about such bias.
L
-
I don't mean this as a confrontation, and I respect your right to your feelings, views, beliefs and thoughts... but I'd like to share if it's okay, that I strongly disagree with your assessment of not only this particular show, but the entire program in general. I find it an amazing show and actually began to be disappointed today in that I thought all the guests were going to be proponents...
Representatives of the nuclear industry are actually taught to be softspoken and non-threatening in voice and appearance. They have to be, because when we stop to consider the enormous threats we are faced with, on many levels, they know we need to be 'lulled' into a false sense of security. And they know it works. It's like any kind of marketing I suppose.
Yes it's true that Greg's voice and demeanor did not match that of the proponents, but why is that so wrong?
It does seem unfair to think we should not respect a person for showing feeling and emotion about a subject that is deeply and profoundly emotional for many... but in all reality, should be for most all of us... especially those who have been harmed by the industry and for those whose lands and resources continue to be under threat to 'fuel' those industries...
In some ways, we all breathe the same air and drink the same water and in a sense, we are all downwinders... what happens to others should be of concern to all of us, because it will eventually in some way effect us all...
The fact that a person presents as more emotional or upset doesn't necessarily make their voice any less valid...
Just a final thought which is somewhat related; a degreed or experienced mild mannered expert 'in the industry does not ensure either the truth or our safety... the internet is a beautiful thing, we are free to see the very real devastations due to this or any other industry for ourselves, if we are willing to, that is...
I hope we can consider ourselves in this together, because in the end I care as much about your life as mine and the lives of our children now and into the future...
-
I greatly appreciate the presence of Greg Kafoury in this discussion... (thank goodness for a voice of reason in this conv ersation, I was getting a little upset before he was introduced)
Talk focusing primarily on cost, building and 'carbon footprint' detracts from the enormous and true costs to envrionmental and human health in just the BUILDING of nuclear facilities alone...
Then there are the costs that come into play once this monster is brought into reality... What does it take before we learn?
There is NO SAFE STORAGE, during use or afterward.
I very much resent the deception of Jeff King. The nuclear industry intentionally chooses what appear to be 'soft spoken' and 'non-threatening' individuals who could sound like anyones own father... I urge everyone to look into the cost to the Dineh (Navajo) and Hopi nations. Why don't we ever talk about the cost to the Native American Nations, where almost ALL toxic dumps and mining operations are proposed. Researching the environmental destruction and poisoning of the people on reservation lands is how I first became familiar with the intentionally deceptive tactics of the mining and nuclear industry.
Does anyone wish to address the heartbreaking cost to our precious and dwindling water supplies?
In some ways, it's as though we haven't moved forward as intelligent and thinking human beings at all sometimes. I realize we have in many ways of course; that we are not hearing an indigenous voice in this show does suggest we are not living as we could.
LOL I just heard Greg say, "...the best place for uranium is left in the ground."
Thank you again for having him on, I was really just going to turn off my radio, which I rarely do, because I couldn't believe there was going to be such a one-sided conversation on such an enormously, life-threatening, subject. My husband just said I should have known Think Out Loud wouldn't do that :)
-
I have certain religious beliefs.. they don't get in the way of scientific facts.
Some people have _pseudo_scientific_ "beliefs" that don't get in the way of scientific facts.
There is not nuch difference.
L.
-
Why are we not discussing geothermal energy when we live in an area of geothermal wealth? It makes more sense than leaving our children another toxic waste pile.
-
Why are we not discussing geothermal energy when we live in an area of geothermal wealth? It makes more sense than leaving our children another toxic waste pile.
-
I was listgening to your broadcast about nuclear energy this morning. I was not suprised about the lack of openness the proponents of nuclear energy had on your show. One of the things that we need to understand about nuclear energy is obviously the waste. The main problem that I have with the waste is that it takes many thousands of years to get down to acceptable levels. And to this day, we really don't know that much more than we did thirty years ago, for example. So I think that it would be extremely beneficial for the proponents to enlist some scientific studies about today's nuclear power, who has it today, and find a way to make it so that the power companies can be held accountable if an incident like Three Mile Island or Chernobyl happens again
-
When a Portland City Club committee did their investigation of the Trojan plant, their conclusion was that the fuel storage pool, covered only with a thin tin roof, was a un-defendable terrorists target, among other awful things, so recommended to close it permanently. William Heironymus, Superintendent of Naval Shipbuilding, the man who built Admiral Rickover's nuclear fleet says all nuclear energy is "Alchemy" and no amount of money can make it safe. Admiral Rickover, concluding the same, asked the Senate to be put in charge of decommissioning all the navy's nuclear powered ships. Reagan fired him. Two years ago, a pineapple sized hole was discovered in the pressure vessel lid at the Davis Besse plant in Ohio. Corrosion had eaten from the outside all the way through the strong alloy lid down to the 1/2 inch stainless plate at the base of it. Stainless isn't strong. It was there to preclude corrosion from inside the vessel. It was bulging when they discovered it. Radioactivity speeds up corrosion, something no one knew when these plants were built. All the plants in the U.S. are terrorists targets, corroding away before our very eyes, disaster an eye blink away. This is insanity. Jerry Wilson, Chief Petitioner on Measure 6 to close the plant in '92.
-
Ohhh the sky is fallling.. When is the last time that France or any other nation has had a nuclular disaster aside from that "pilot error" crash in Russia !
30,000 people died in auto crashes in the US last year.
10 times that number in India.
Want to _save_ lives .. try driver safety classes and get off the nukes are bad dogma.
-
There are two considerations that keep responsible, farsighted people from supporting the creation of more nuclear waste - at this time.
1. Murphy's Law: If anything can go wrong - in the next 500,000 years - it will.
2. The absense of a glass log stream coming out of the Vitrification plant.
-
And the alternative to nuclear? Accept the billions of pounds of toxic metals, ash, and uranium currently released by our dependence upon coal?
I would rather face the possibility of an accidental exposure to radiation than continue breathing the radioactive ash from coal power plants.
Thanks to California's move to more solar and wind production inside the state, they now are forced to import more and more power from outside the state to meet their actual demand. Guess what? The imported energy by percentage comes mainly from new coal plants. Brilliant. As long as it's not in their backyard it's o.k. right?
Time to clean up the environment and wean ourselves from foreign energy. It's time to join Japan, Sweden, Germany, France and produce the smart clean power of the future.
-
I think we're asking the wrong question or looking at the energy needs of the future from the wrong perspective. Energy production is much more sustainable (and clean) when it generated at the user level. I think we need to look at the fact that our way of life in the US and Western Europe is not sustainable, not for us and definitely not for the rest of the planet to emulate. We need to change our economy of scale and look at local energy needs and production. Cottage-level energy production can supply our energy needs as well as be more sustainable for the planet.
-
No energy source is green, nuclear at least is reliable, greenhouse gas free, and can actually meet our demands.
Fact: Less than 3% of the electric demand in the US is supplied by wind and solar combined.
How many more thousands of acres in land are we willing to cover with unsightly, and resource depleting wind and solar farms?
How many birds must these wind turbines kill and make extinct before people will take notice and say enough?
How much animal, bird, and reptile habitat must we destroy with solar "hot spot" farms before people take notice and say enough?
I do not wish to come across as anti wind or solar, but an examination of the pros and cons makes it hard to justify any large scale expansion of these supplies when we have other alternatives which do not consume vast amounts of land and destroy habitat. Nuclear does not kill millions of birds annually, which wind turbines, coal, and fossil fuel plants do. This is a needless tragedy.
Fact: 50% of current electrical US power generation comes from coal fired power plants. Add fossil fuels and that figure climbs to nearly 70%.
How many more oil tankers need to spill millions of gallons of toxins into the sea before we take action and realize nuclear power is a better cleaner alternative?
The oil and coal companies have done a masterful job of scaring the hell out of people about nuclear power with various misinformation campaigns cleverly disguised through environmental messengers. Various environmental groups have even unwittingly helped to spread this false information. Avoid being a pawn of the coal and oil lobby and educate yourself on this issue. You might be surprised how your view about nuclear power changes.
If we put off nuclear power yet again our kids can certainly depend on several more decades of million upon millions of tons of coal ash spewed into the air we breath. By the way, coal ash contains yellowcake along with various other radioactive particulate, toxic metals such as mercury and lead. Nuclear is free of greenhouse gases whereas coal is one of the worlds largest contributors.
-
Those are all reasonable concerns you put forth dirtguy. I can not help, but notice you leave out some major parts to your analogy however.
1. Are we not in danger of destroying the earths climate "Global Warming" in the much more immediate future if we do not act on reducing greenhouses gasses? 500,000 years seems a bit dramatic when we have been told if we do not make sizable decreases in greenhouse gasses we need not worry about human beings in a few hundred years, let alone a thousand or ten thousand. If you do not believe in human caused global warming, that is fine for the purpose of this discussion and you would not be alone in that belief. That would explain your lack of urgency on this matter, if you do not see any danger by not drastically reducing greenhouse gasses then yes I get your reluctance to go nuclear.
2. Nuclear waste certainly is not to be taken lightly, but what about the current coal ash with _radioactive_ particulate that is not contained by glass or by any other means? Instead it is free to spread through the environment by the billions of tons worldwide each year. From your analogy above it is kind of like your car leaking invisible gas that goes around killing, except this is no analogy, toxic coal ash is already here by the billions of tons and growing and growing and growing.
Your points and analogy on their own make perfect sense, however when we understand the whole picture, nuclear looks far better than the current alternatives which are:
- Keep burning coal and spiting out greenhouse gasses, toxic metals, and_ radioactive _particulate to meet our demand.
- Watch the world heat up to the point of extinct species, maybe even humans because we do not take Al Gores warnings seriously and cut greenhouse gasses now!
Nuclear is the only current source that can replace coal and fossil fuel by any appreciable measure. That is a trade I would make in a New York minute. Sweden, Japan, France, Germany all understand this, have all increased nuclear power production, are less dependent on fossil fuel, and produce far less greenhouse gases because of it.
-
To respond to Joshua's comment about the solar farms; i read that scientists are experimenting with making solar farms out in space, where the energy is beamed down to earth via. microwaves and collencted and then used. Solar farms in space would be more efficient because on Earth, the atmosphere blocks much of the light energy, in space, that problem would not exist.
-
No energy source is green, nuclear at least is reliable, greenhouse gas free, and can actually meet our demands.
Fact: Less than 3% of the electric demand in the US is supplied by wind and solar combined.
How many more thousands of acres in land are we willing to cover with unsightly, and resource depleting wind and solar farms?
How many birds must these wind turbines kill and make extinct before people will take notice and say enough?
How much animal, bird, and reptile habitat must we destroy with solar "hot spot" farms before people take notice and say enough?
I do not wish to come across as anti wind or solar, but an examination of the pros and cons makes it hard to justify any large scale expansion of these supplies when we have other alternatives which do not consume vast amounts of land and destroy habitat. Nuclear does not kill millions of birds annually, which wind turbines, coal, and fossil fuel plants do. This is a needless tragedy.
Fact: 50% of current electrical US power generation comes from coal fired power plants. Add fossil fuels and that figure climbs to nearly 70%.
How many more oil tankers need to spill millions of gallons of toxins into the sea before we take action and realize nuclear power is a better cleaner alternative?
The oil and coal companies have done a masterful job of scaring the hell out of people about nuclear power with various misinformation campaigns cleverly disguised through environmental messengers. Various environmental groups have even unwittingly helped to spread this false information. Avoid being a pawn of the coal and oil lobby and educate yourself on this issue. You might be surprised how your view about nuclear power changes.
If we put off nuclear power yet again our kids can certainly depend on several more decades of million upon millions of tons of coal ash spewed into the air we breath. By the way, coal ash contains yellowcake along with various other radioactive particulate, toxic metals such as mercury and lead. Nuclear is free of greenhouse gases whereas coal is one of the worlds largest contributors.
-
There are two considerations that keep responsible, farsighted people from supporting the creation of more nuclear waste - at this time.
1. Murphy's Law: If anything can go wrong - in the next 500,000 years - it will.
2. The absense of a glass log stream coming out of the Vitrification plant.
-
Valid concerns dirtguy. People should not live near volcanoes. I disagree with you however, living in the N.W. is an acceptable calculated risk I am willing to accept.
If your were referring to nuclear power instead of volcanoes then I beg your pardon, but would liken your point to worrying about a comet colliding with earth and killing you some point in the future while you're sitting in a house fully engulfed in flames today. Hardly seems rational.
Considering the toxic ash, radioactive particulate, heavy metals, and greeenhouse gasses currently released by our alternative to nuclear, we are all sittting in a burnning house today. You can stay inside if you want, I prefer to get out.
-
Risk assessment paired with responsibility over time, is the issue.
Risking my own life means little in the broad scheme of things. Risking the lives of many in the current generation - who would benefit from our energy production choices - while tough, is also of little lasting consequence. [Society makes these kinds of choices when we go to war. Not easy, and not to be taken lightly, but the survivors regroup, and life goes on.]
Risking the lives of people who do not benefit from our choices, however, is criminal.
Put another way; I can drive my car as fast as I want on an empty road out in the dessert. When I go through town though I am more careful because it effects more people.
Now suppose I die while driving, my gas tank has enough fuel to last 500,000 years, it has an auto pilot that keeps it zooming around. It is immune to crashes it has with living things, and it also is invisible. I can now potentially devastate the lives of countless millions over hundreds of thousands of years. [Makes Hitler seem small time.]
Having those glass logs coming out of the Vitrification plant is the equivalent to being able to turn off the key of my vehicle when I die.
We can not assume anything about the capabilities of any future generation of humans. Economies are fragile things in the best of geologic times. Fragile too are our attempts to organize our tribally adapted species into large nation states that last more than a few hundred years.
The glass logs are the off switch. I hope to see many of them soon. -
Risk assessment paired with responsibilty over long periods of time, is the issue.
-
Comments are now closed.
When the nuclear industry can: 1) Complete the safe and permanent disposal of the last several rounds of nuclear waste, and, 2) Obtain private financing for this "low cost" endeavor then I will back nuclear power.
To me it's the height of human arrogance to imagine that we can safely manage waste that will remain poisoness for more than 20 times the length of humanity's written history.