Atomic Power Redux?
In the predawn hours of March 28, 1979, a pressure valve suddenly malfunctioned at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The accident started at the plant’s Unit 2 reactor when a small valve failed to close, causing cooling water to drain from the nuclear core. The core quickly began to overheat. Confronted by baffling and contradictory information, plant operators shut off the emergency water system that would have cooled the core.
With energy costs sky-rocketing, and America’s dependence on foreign, and often unstable, sources for our power needs, lawmakers and energy companies are once again contemplating atomic energy. On one hand, atomic energy is clean and environmentally friendly (see below), efficient, relatively inexpensive and, all things considered, relatively safe — there have been only 7 serious accidents at nuclear power plants in the past 57 years. There are presently 435 nuclear power reactors operating around the world. Sixteen of those reactors are in France, which derives 80% of its electrical power from nuclear sources.
Of course, nuclear power has it’s drawbacks, too. When there’s a problem at a nuke plant, it can be extremely dangerous and cause serious environmental and economic damage — not to mention potential health hazards when accidents occur. And, storing radioactive waste is a problem that still, after all these years, has yet to be sorted out.
With all that said, some sort of solution to our world’s growing energy needs must be found, and found soon. Is nuclear the answer? I don’t know if it’s the answer, but it’s certainly one worth considering. I find it to be far more palatable than strip-mining for coal, or drilling in the Alaskan ranges, especially since both of these energy sources deplete non-renewable resources, and the resulting pollution is a major source of the ”greenhouse” gasses that are at least partially to blame for climatic changes and environmental destruction on the planet.
Yeah. I’m a tree hugger.
But we also need to examine more clean and safe energy alternatives — wind, solar, hydrogen, etc. – to supplant our current energy sources before we’ve completely fouled this planet up.
Earth abides, but it sure takes time to heal…
What follows is an online version of the book Earth Abides by George R. Stewart. The text is hosted by scribd.com.
Post Revisions:
There are no revisions for this post.
I came across the latest new events for NUCLEAR POWER:
Nuclear Energy backed in Brazil
The President of Brazil - Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva - has given nuclear energy a big boost in Brazil. He pointed to the completion of the Angra 3 reactor and Brazilian achievements in uranium enrichment. President Lula also mentioned the possibility of developing nuclear powered submarines.
click here for more information
Progress for Westinghouse in Florida
The AP1000, Westinghouse’s flagship new reactor design, has been selected by Progress Energy as the design that would be used if plans for a nuclear power plant in Levy, Florida come to fruition. Progress are hoping that using the same design as is intended for a potential plant in nearby Harris would mean greater efficiencies.
click here for more information
I think storing radioactive waste has been pretty well “sorted out”. No-one has been hurt by it, after all. Getting finally rid of it is what hasn’t been done, except involuntarily in the case of a few sunken nuclear submarines. Not having retrieved them, we can’t be sure they won’t eventually leak their radioactivity into the whole ocean, but we can be sure this will be inconsequential if it happens, for the whole ocean already dissolved natural radioactivity equivalent to what millions of dissolved nuclear submarines might add.
Slight correction - you state that 16 nuclear plants are in France. It is actually 59 nuclear plants in France - second only to the 104 in the US.
GRL: Our current storage of radioactive waste is, in the grand scheme of things, short term. This stuff is “hot” for a very long time. Hopefully, we’ll have some alternatives for energy production in place before we run out of storage space.
KenG: The numbers I cited were nuclear plants as of 2004. Each plant may, or may not, have multiple reactors. For instance, the Three Mile Island plant in PA had, originally, two reactors at a single generating plant. Calvert Cliffs, in Maryland, has two operating reactors at a single generating plant.
I understand what you are saying but “plants” usually means “reactors” of “units” in the industry. A multiunit location is a “site”. In the future, 6 and 8 unit sites may be common.
To be correct, your statement “There are presently 435 nuclear power reactors operating around the world. Sixteen of those reactors are in France…” should read “There are presently 438 nuclear power reactors operating around the world. 59 of those reactors are in France…”
Sorry about the nitpicking, but I think it’s worth understanding how significant the French program has been in transforming their electric industry into a nuclear based program. This is especially important in light of certain “studies” that have recently been published suggesting it is impractical to significantly increase the US share of nuclear generation. If France can almost completely move to nuclear power and maintain the health of the economy while reducing CO2, why can’t the US do the same thing? After it’s not absolute numbers that matter, it’s share of the generation and GDP.
The terminology I used was basically from the web sites I got the information from. Most American lay-people understand that a “place the makes electricity” is a “power plant,” and that a “power plant” may contain multiple “generators.” Most of my readership is in the US, and I felt it best to stick with terminology my readers would understand.
That said … I am extremely impressed with the French program. I also feel that the US “reluctance” to convert to more alternative forms of energy is completely politically motivated — see my rant from July 5, last paragraph.
with an oil man in the whitehouse, alternative energy in this country is on the back burner…the WAY back burner. I’m skeptical about nuclear power, but open to learning more, because we have to do something different in this country soon. Now. Actually we should have started 20 years ago.
The way I see it, as long as your various levels of government take a billion in oil and natural gas tax every three or four days, you aren’t going to have much of anything but oil-and-gas men, and oil-and-gas women, in any government office. If Bush were really an oil man, the words “safe, clean nuclear energy” would never pass his lips.
Once that conflict of interest is sorted out, I predict, it will turn out that getting lots of nukes up and running isn’t that big of a deal. People who say they fear nukes over oil and gas don’t act accordingly; I suspect they want nukes over their back fences, but gas pipelines, etc., over yours, so you’ll pay the taxes they are accustomed to taking, and do the New Mexico- and Ghislenghien-style dying that they are accustomed to reading about in the paper.