.jpg)
From a commentary by Mark Z. Jacobson in the New York Daily News:
The powerful earthquake and tsunami that caused reactors at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant to shut down - releasing radiation and endangering workers and evacuees - have many Americans asking whether nuclear energy is worth the investment and risk.
I say not. In fact, it should not have taken a disaster of this kind to move us decisively away from nuclear and toward safe, clean, renewable energy. . . .
If the world's energy needs were converted to electricity for all purposes - and nuclear supplied such energy - 15,800 large nuclear reactors, one installed every day for the next 43 years, would be needed. The installation of even 5% of these would nearly double the current number of reactors, giving many more countries the potential to develop weapons. If only one weapon were used in a city, it could kill 1 to 16 million people.
***
Why do we need nuclear energy when we have safer, cleaner options that can provide greater power for a much longer period and at lower cost to society? These better options are called WWS, for "wind, water and sunlight." The chance of catastrophe caused by nature or terrorists acting on wind or solar, in particular, is zero.
During their lifetimes, WWS technologies emit no pollution - whereas nuclear does, since continuous energy is needed to mine, transport and refine uranium and reactors require much longer to permit and install than do WWS technologies. Overall, nuclear emits 9 to 25 times more air pollution and carbon dioxide than does wind per unit energy generated.
***
Some argue that nuclear is more reliable than WWS systems. This is not true. A nuclear reactor affects a larger fraction of the grid when it fails than does a wind turbine. The average maintenance downtime of modern wind turbines on land is 2%. That of France's 59 reactors is 21.5%, with about half due to scheduled maintenance.
Showing posts with label Nuclear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Say no to revving up rickety reactors
From a column by John LaForge of Nukewatch, a Wisconsin-based organization, in The Capital Times:
The owners of two 40-year-old nuclear reactors at Point Beach, on Lake Michigan north of Two Rivers, want to increase the power output for each unit by 17 percent -- from 1,540 megawatts to 1,800.
The gunning of rickety old nukes is getting a green light all over the region.
The Monticello reactor, 30 miles from Minneapolis, will boost its output to 120 percent of the original licensed limit -- from 613 megawatts to 684. Monticello’s been rattling along since 1971, and it rattles badly. In 2007, a 35,000-pound turbine control box (6 feet by 6 feet and 20 feet long) broke its welds and fell onto a large steam pipe that was cut open, causing the loss of so much pressure that an automatic reactor shutdown was tripped. Decades of intense vibration and poor welding were blamed for the crash. The reactor had been operating at 90 percent power. So why not push the limits to 120 percent?
In 2009 the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected claims that the accident record at the two Prairie Island reactors, south of Minneapolis, is so bad that its license extension should be denied. In May 2006, one of them accidentally spewed radioactive iodine-131 gas over 110 of its own workers, who inhaled it. Internal radiation poisoning is the kind for which there is no decontamination. Even so, the NRC could soon OK letting the Prairie Island jalopies run until 2033 and 2034, respectively, rather than shut them down in 2013 and 2014 as the license now requires.
Back in Wisconsin, Point Beach’s “extended power uprate” (EPU) plan was published in the Federal Register by the NRC Dec. 10. The draft environmental assessment and “finding of no significant impact” are hair-raising. The public has until Jan. 8 to comment.
Should we be skeptical? Point Beach has received two of only four “Red findings” -- the worst failure warning available -- ever issued by the NRC. In 2006, the NRC found that operators had harassed a whistle-blower who documented technical violations. In 2005, Point Beach was fined $60,000 for deliberately giving false information to federal inspectors. In May 1996, it was the site of a potentially catastrophic explosion of hydrogen gas that upended the 3-ton lid on a huge cask filled with high-level radioactive waste. The lid was being robotically welded when the gas exploded.
The owners of two 40-year-old nuclear reactors at Point Beach, on Lake Michigan north of Two Rivers, want to increase the power output for each unit by 17 percent -- from 1,540 megawatts to 1,800.
The gunning of rickety old nukes is getting a green light all over the region.
The Monticello reactor, 30 miles from Minneapolis, will boost its output to 120 percent of the original licensed limit -- from 613 megawatts to 684. Monticello’s been rattling along since 1971, and it rattles badly. In 2007, a 35,000-pound turbine control box (6 feet by 6 feet and 20 feet long) broke its welds and fell onto a large steam pipe that was cut open, causing the loss of so much pressure that an automatic reactor shutdown was tripped. Decades of intense vibration and poor welding were blamed for the crash. The reactor had been operating at 90 percent power. So why not push the limits to 120 percent?
In 2009 the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected claims that the accident record at the two Prairie Island reactors, south of Minneapolis, is so bad that its license extension should be denied. In May 2006, one of them accidentally spewed radioactive iodine-131 gas over 110 of its own workers, who inhaled it. Internal radiation poisoning is the kind for which there is no decontamination. Even so, the NRC could soon OK letting the Prairie Island jalopies run until 2033 and 2034, respectively, rather than shut them down in 2013 and 2014 as the license now requires.
Back in Wisconsin, Point Beach’s “extended power uprate” (EPU) plan was published in the Federal Register by the NRC Dec. 10. The draft environmental assessment and “finding of no significant impact” are hair-raising. The public has until Jan. 8 to comment.
Should we be skeptical? Point Beach has received two of only four “Red findings” -- the worst failure warning available -- ever issued by the NRC. In 2006, the NRC found that operators had harassed a whistle-blower who documented technical violations. In 2005, Point Beach was fined $60,000 for deliberately giving false information to federal inspectors. In May 1996, it was the site of a potentially catastrophic explosion of hydrogen gas that upended the 3-ton lid on a huge cask filled with high-level radioactive waste. The lid was being robotically welded when the gas exploded.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Alliant says no more coal plants ... for now and no nukes
From an article by Judy Newman in the Wisconsin State Journal:
Alliant Energy is giving up on the idea of building more coal-fired power plants "for the time being," Alliant chairman, president and chief executive Bill Harvey said Thursday.
In an interview after the Madison utility holding company's annual shareholders meeting, Harvey said Alliant subsidiary Wisconsin Power & Light will not ask for a new coal-fueled power plant to replace one proposed for Cassville that state regulators rejected in late 2008.
"I think it's politically ... too risky to think about building coal plants until climate legislation gets in place," Harvey said. "There's got to be substantial technological improvements before the country returns to building coal plants. That's certainly true for us," he said.
Thanks to adequate power available to buy on the electric transmission grid, Harvey said it will likely be two or three years before Alliant proposes building another natural-gas-fired power plant. That could happen sooner, though, if the economy recovers quickly or if climate change rules force the company to abandon its older coal-fired power plants sooner than expected.
As for nuclear power, Harvey said Alliant is not big enough to consider spending up to $10 billion to build a nuclear plant but it might buy part of a new one, if one is built. "We have to consider that. We have to consider all possibilities," he said.
Alliant Energy is giving up on the idea of building more coal-fired power plants "for the time being," Alliant chairman, president and chief executive Bill Harvey said Thursday.
In an interview after the Madison utility holding company's annual shareholders meeting, Harvey said Alliant subsidiary Wisconsin Power & Light will not ask for a new coal-fueled power plant to replace one proposed for Cassville that state regulators rejected in late 2008.
"I think it's politically ... too risky to think about building coal plants until climate legislation gets in place," Harvey said. "There's got to be substantial technological improvements before the country returns to building coal plants. That's certainly true for us," he said.
Thanks to adequate power available to buy on the electric transmission grid, Harvey said it will likely be two or three years before Alliant proposes building another natural-gas-fired power plant. That could happen sooner, though, if the economy recovers quickly or if climate change rules force the company to abandon its older coal-fired power plants sooner than expected.
As for nuclear power, Harvey said Alliant is not big enough to consider spending up to $10 billion to build a nuclear plant but it might buy part of a new one, if one is built. "We have to consider that. We have to consider all possibilities," he said.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Clash begins on lifting nuclear construction ban
From a news release issued by The Carbon Free Nuclear Free coalition, which includes Physicians for Social Responsibility, Clean Wisconsin, Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice, League of Women Voters Education Fund, Nukewatch, Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters, Peace Action Wisconsin, Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger, Citizens Utility Board, Coulee Region Progressives, Wisconsin Environment, and the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG):
Repeal of Wisconsin’s restrictions on new nuclear power reactors is “a gift to the dying nuclear industry that Wisconsin residents can’t afford,” a Carbon Free Nuclear Free coalition of 13 environmental, public interest and consumer groups said Tuesday.
At a holiday-themed State Capitol news conference, members of the coalition asked state lawmakers to “be nice, not naughty” by defeating the repeal, Assembly Bill 516, and supporting a state energy policy that would replace coal and nuclear power with renewable energy sources by 2050.
The coalition says that cost, safety, radioactive waste and environmental issues make nuclear power too expensive and too dangerous when renewable energy alternatives are now technically feasible and available.
“Clean renewables and energy efficiency are the gifts that really keep on giving -- clean air, clean water, affordable electricity and reduced carbon emissions,” said Jennifer Nordstrom, national coordinator of the Carbon Free Nuclear Free campaign.
“Wisconsin's nuclear plant law is one of the most sensible laws on the books,” Charlie Higley executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said. The law requires that, before any new nuclear power plant is built in Wisconsin, a federally-licensed nuclear waste disposal site be operating, and that the cost of building, operating, and decommissioning the nuclear plant and disposing of the nuclear waste is economically advantageous to ratepayers. “Cost is a major concern,” Higley said, “and removing this protection would be a mistake.”
From a news release issued by State Rep. Mike Huebsch:
Madison…State Representative Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem) blasted Wisconsin environmental advocacy groups today for walking away from an agreement reached by the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force to repeal the ban on new nuclear power plants.
In a Capitol press conference on Tuesday, the Citizens Utility Board, Clean Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Sierra Club announced their opposition to repealing the ban and modifying the law.
Rep. Huebsch noted that representatives of all three groups voted for the task force
recommendations, including the ban’s repeal, just last year and called their new position “the beginning of the unraveling” of the agreement.
Rep. Huebsch said that the groups’ decision to oppose an integral piece of the global warming legislation being readied for introduction by Governor Doyle and Democrat lawmakers jeopardizes their ability to enact the environmental policy for Wisconsin.
“The legislation isn’t even introduced yet and already members of the task force are reneging on their commitment,” Rep. Huebsch said. “They cannot remove fundamental portions of an agreement and then expect what’s left to be taken seriously.”
Repeal of Wisconsin’s restrictions on new nuclear power reactors is “a gift to the dying nuclear industry that Wisconsin residents can’t afford,” a Carbon Free Nuclear Free coalition of 13 environmental, public interest and consumer groups said Tuesday.
At a holiday-themed State Capitol news conference, members of the coalition asked state lawmakers to “be nice, not naughty” by defeating the repeal, Assembly Bill 516, and supporting a state energy policy that would replace coal and nuclear power with renewable energy sources by 2050.
The coalition says that cost, safety, radioactive waste and environmental issues make nuclear power too expensive and too dangerous when renewable energy alternatives are now technically feasible and available.
“Clean renewables and energy efficiency are the gifts that really keep on giving -- clean air, clean water, affordable electricity and reduced carbon emissions,” said Jennifer Nordstrom, national coordinator of the Carbon Free Nuclear Free campaign.
“Wisconsin's nuclear plant law is one of the most sensible laws on the books,” Charlie Higley executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, said. The law requires that, before any new nuclear power plant is built in Wisconsin, a federally-licensed nuclear waste disposal site be operating, and that the cost of building, operating, and decommissioning the nuclear plant and disposing of the nuclear waste is economically advantageous to ratepayers. “Cost is a major concern,” Higley said, “and removing this protection would be a mistake.”
From a news release issued by State Rep. Mike Huebsch:
Madison…State Representative Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem) blasted Wisconsin environmental advocacy groups today for walking away from an agreement reached by the Governor’s Global Warming Task Force to repeal the ban on new nuclear power plants.
In a Capitol press conference on Tuesday, the Citizens Utility Board, Clean Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Sierra Club announced their opposition to repealing the ban and modifying the law.
Rep. Huebsch noted that representatives of all three groups voted for the task force
recommendations, including the ban’s repeal, just last year and called their new position “the beginning of the unraveling” of the agreement.
Rep. Huebsch said that the groups’ decision to oppose an integral piece of the global warming legislation being readied for introduction by Governor Doyle and Democrat lawmakers jeopardizes their ability to enact the environmental policy for Wisconsin.
“The legislation isn’t even introduced yet and already members of the task force are reneging on their commitment,” Rep. Huebsch said. “They cannot remove fundamental portions of an agreement and then expect what’s left to be taken seriously.”
Monday, November 23, 2009
Report: Nuclear power will set back race against climate change
From a news release issued by Wisconsin Environment:
Madison, WI - Far from a solution to global warming, nuclear power will actually set America back in the race to reduce pollution, according to a new report by Wisconsin Environment. Leading environmental organizations, consumer groups and energy experts gathered today to release the report and call on state and federal leaders to focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy instead of nuclear power as the solution to global warming. . . .
Wisconsin Environment’s new report, Generating Failure: How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming, analyzes the role, under a best-case scenario, that nuclear power could play in reducing global warming pollution. Some key findings of the report include:
• To avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming, America must cut power plant emissions roughly in half over the next 10 years.
• Nuclear power is too slow to contribute to this effort. No new reactors are now under construction in the United States. Building a single reactor could take 10 years or longer. As a result, it is quite possible that nuclear power could deliver no progress in the critical next decade, despite spending billions on reactor construction.
• Even if the nuclear industry somehow managed to build 100 new nuclear reactors by 2030, nuclear power could reduce total U.S. emissions of global warming pollution over the next 20 years by only 12 percent -- far too little, too late.
• In contrast, energy efficiency and renewable energy can immediately reduce global warming pollution. Energy efficiency programs are already cutting electricity consumption by 1-2 percent annually in leading states, and the U.S. wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per year in wind farms. America has vast potential to do more.
• Building 100 new reactors would require an up-front investment on the order of $600 billion dollars – money which could cut at least twice as much carbon pollution by 2030 if invested in clean energy. Taking into account the ongoing costs of running the nuclear plants, clean energy could deliver 5 times more pollution-cutting progress per dollar.
• Nuclear power is not necessary to provide clean, carbon-free electricity for the long haul. The need for base-load power is exaggerated and small-scale clean energy solutions can actually enhance the reliability of the electric grid.
To address global warming, state and federal policy makers should focus on improving energy efficiency and generating electricity from clean sources that never run out – such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal power, according to Wisconsin Environment and the coalition groups that attended today’s event.
Madison, WI - Far from a solution to global warming, nuclear power will actually set America back in the race to reduce pollution, according to a new report by Wisconsin Environment. Leading environmental organizations, consumer groups and energy experts gathered today to release the report and call on state and federal leaders to focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy instead of nuclear power as the solution to global warming. . . .
Wisconsin Environment’s new report, Generating Failure: How Building Nuclear Power Plants Would Set America Back in the Race Against Global Warming, analyzes the role, under a best-case scenario, that nuclear power could play in reducing global warming pollution. Some key findings of the report include:
• To avoid the most catastrophic impacts of global warming, America must cut power plant emissions roughly in half over the next 10 years.
• Nuclear power is too slow to contribute to this effort. No new reactors are now under construction in the United States. Building a single reactor could take 10 years or longer. As a result, it is quite possible that nuclear power could deliver no progress in the critical next decade, despite spending billions on reactor construction.
• Even if the nuclear industry somehow managed to build 100 new nuclear reactors by 2030, nuclear power could reduce total U.S. emissions of global warming pollution over the next 20 years by only 12 percent -- far too little, too late.
• In contrast, energy efficiency and renewable energy can immediately reduce global warming pollution. Energy efficiency programs are already cutting electricity consumption by 1-2 percent annually in leading states, and the U.S. wind industry is already building the equivalent of three nuclear reactors per year in wind farms. America has vast potential to do more.
• Building 100 new reactors would require an up-front investment on the order of $600 billion dollars – money which could cut at least twice as much carbon pollution by 2030 if invested in clean energy. Taking into account the ongoing costs of running the nuclear plants, clean energy could deliver 5 times more pollution-cutting progress per dollar.
• Nuclear power is not necessary to provide clean, carbon-free electricity for the long haul. The need for base-load power is exaggerated and small-scale clean energy solutions can actually enhance the reliability of the electric grid.
To address global warming, state and federal policy makers should focus on improving energy efficiency and generating electricity from clean sources that never run out – such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal power, according to Wisconsin Environment and the coalition groups that attended today’s event.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The staggering cost of new nuclear power
From an article by Joseph Room on Center for American Progress:
A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour—triple current U.S. electricity rates!
This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today—and 10 times the cost of energy efficiency (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?”
The new study, “Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power,” is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former assistant to the chairman and to commerce counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.
This important new analysis is being published by Climate Progress because it fills a critical gap in the current debate over nuclear power—transparency. Severance explains:
A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour—triple current U.S. electricity rates!
This staggering price is far higher than the cost of a variety of carbon-free renewable power sources available today—and 10 times the cost of energy efficiency (see “Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?”
The new study, “Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power,” is one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country. It is by a leading expert in power plant costs, Craig A. Severance. A practicing CPA, Severance is co-author of The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power (Praeger 1976), and former assistant to the chairman and to commerce counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.
This important new analysis is being published by Climate Progress because it fills a critical gap in the current debate over nuclear power—transparency. Severance explains:
All assumptions, and methods of calculation are clearly stated. The piece is a deliberate effort to demystify the entire process, so that anyone reading it (including non-technical readers) can develop a clear understanding of how total generation costs per kWh come together.As stunning as this new, detailed cost estimate is, it should not come as a total surprise. I detailed the escalating capital costs of nuclear power in my May 2008 report, “The Self-Limiting Future of Nuclear Power.” And in a story last week on nuclear power’s supposed comeback, Time magazine notes that nuclear plants’ capital costs are “out of control,” concluding:
Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget.Time buried that in the penultimate paragraph of the story!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)