 | |||||||||||||||||||
|
This diagram demonstrates the nuclear fuel cycle. |
|
|
||||||||||||||||
Nuclear Power in these United States
On Aug. 8, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced a plan to provide over $2 billion in federal insurance incentives to companies willing to build the first new nuclear plants inside the United States in thirty years. Bodman made the announcement in Atlanta, after touring Georgia Power and speaking with its employees. Georgia Power has been one of the first to show interest in the program. They have already filed paperwork in anticipation of another reactor at the Vogtle Plant near Waynesboro, Ga., just 30 miles south of Augusta. There are already 17 existing plants throughout the southeast. Alabama and Georgia could see the first of the new, proposed plants.
According to the Associated Press, the Southern Company's nuclear group asked for federal regulators to approve a site in eastern Georgia that would hold two new reactors and nearly double Vogtle’s output of 2,430 megawats. The company hasn’t released information as to the cost of the project, though experts say that the reactors alone cost $4 billion.
The AP quotes Southern Company spokeswoman Carrie Phillips as saying the plant's owners haven't made a final decision whether to develop the new reactors. She said a permit would give the owners 20 years to decide.
The process of building a new plant is understandably arduous. First there is formal application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Then there’s public approval, regulatory scrutiny, financing, and engineering. The high cost associated with construction, as well as the near meltdown of Three Mile Island in 1979 has kept the United States from adding to its arsenal of 103 plants. Recently, however, nuclear power is regaining some of its credibility as an alternative to fossil fuels. With the rising cost of energy, some argue nuclear power is a viable, sustainable source of energy with less impact on the environment than its alternatives. Supporters of nuclear power show up in unlikely places, such as Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, who argues that nuclear power is an option whose benefits far outweigh its potential risks.
"In 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor .... Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear," Moore and former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman wrote in a recent Washington Post editorial.
Others argue that while nuclear plants may give off fewer pollutants, they create the threat of radioactive contamination, as well as produce waste that remains deadly for thousands of years. A large nuclear reactor produces 25-30 tons of spent fuel each year. This spent fuel does have marginal utility, and Regan legalized reprocessing in the 1980s. The spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety after tens -- even hundreds -- of thousands of years.
Waste is currently stored on site at both operating and decommissioned plants, more than 55,000 tons of it. The spent fuel rods are stored in steel lined pools or concrete casks, awaiting a final resting place. They are transferred and shuffled around to and from these various sites by rail and by truck. Moving solid nuclear waste happens all the time. More than most realize. The real concern is not that it’s being moved, but where it’s being moved to. Namely: Nowhere.
The best guess on the part of the government is to store most of the waste in a vast repository underneath Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. The Yucca Mountain Repository was scheduled to open in 1994.
"It's the most studied piece of real estate known to man," says Lou Long, technical support vice president of Southern Nuclear in Birmingham in a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution article.
According to that article, "utilities' customers have paid $20 billion -- $90 million paid by Georgia Power customers alone -- to develop Yucca Mountain for storage, $14 billion of which has been spent on studies."
After construction delays and suspicion of scientific forgery, the facility won’t be ready until as early as 2017. In addition, the Department of Energy wants the limit of 77,000 tons removed so that the repository might eventually take more than 115,000 tons of used fuel, and it wants Congress to order the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to assume that waste disposal is not a problem when it considers licenses for future power plants. This is all still up in the air. In the meantime, the spent fuel from our nuclear plants sits.
Yucca Mountain is located on federally protected land within the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada. It is 100 miles away from Las Vegas. In 1983, a ten-year study resulted in the DOE selection of nine locations in six states for consideration as potential repositories. The nine sites were then studied and results were reported in 1985. President Reagan approved three sites for intensive scientific study. The three sites were Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain. In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain. The Act provided that if, at any time, Yucca Mountain is found unsuitable, studies will be stopped immediately. If that ever happens, the site will be restored and DOE will seek new direction from Congress.
On July 23, 2002, George W. Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87, allowing the DOE to take the next step in establishing a safe repository in which to store nuclear waste of USA. The Department of Energy is currently in the process of preparing an application to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to proceed with construction of the repository. In March 2005, the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior revealed that several U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists had exchanged e-mails discussing possible falsification of quality assurance documents on water infiltration research. On July 18, 2006 the DOE agreed upon March 31, 2017 as the date to open the facility and begin accepting waste. The present prime contractor for the project is Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC.
There is vocal opposition from citizens in Nevada toward housing the waste. While this is written off by some nuclear proponents as a case of not wanting radioactive waste in the backyard, it does cause one to wonder, who does?
Dr. Daniel Sprau, Associate Professor & Program Director for Environmental Health Sciences at East Carolina University thinks there’s a better solution than burying radioactive waste for 100,000 years.
“Reprocessing can make far better use of spent fuel,” he said. “Smaller, local plants are another.” Smaller plants produce less waste and reprocessing can account for up to 90% of spent fuel. Other uses include desalinization, useful for those in coastal regions, and sterilization of medical instruments. Dr. Sprau, a proponent of nuclear power overall, also pointed out that sources of radiation from medical facilities pose a greater health risk than nuclear plants.
Within the past several weeks, reports that the Tennessee Valley Authority's three nuclear power plants leaked a radioactive form of hydrogen called tritium into the groundwater were released to the public, as documented in TVA papers and Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials. TVA provides electricity to approximately 8.5 million homes in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.
NRC officials quoted in The Chattanooga Times Free Press claimed the leaked tritium has not moved beyond TVA property and is not a public health hazard. According to an Associated Press article, NRC spokesman Kenneth Clark said if the leaked tritium reaches the Tennessee River, that body of water would dilute the substance until its concentration would not be a "health and safety issue for the public.''
Despite lacking a long term plan for spent fuel rods, Dr. Sprau remains optimistic about nuclear power. His recent trip to the site of the Chernobyl disaster actually bolstered his confidence. In Russia, he saw evidence of arrogant engineering and a lack of adequate containment in the RBMK (a Russian acronym for Reactor Bolshoi Moschnosti Kanalynyi "Channelized Large Power Reactor”) design. In his opinion, the US infrastructure is more advanced and far stronger. Support for this argument can be found in the outcome of the Three Mile Island incident, where virtually all radiation was retained inside the containment building, despite considerable melting of the fuel. Ironically, Three Mile Island is still a flag for many opponents of nuclear power. For instance, work at the Vogtle Plant was just underway when the Three Mile Island incident occurred. Construction was immediately postponed so that changes to plans could be made.
Environmental impact is cited on both sides of nuclear power debate. On one hand nuclear plants can provide energy to communities at a cheaper rate and with less carbon dioxide emission. On the other, more reactors mean more opportunity for meltdown or even terrorist attacks. Depending on whom you ask, we can’t afford to risk expanding nuclear power, or we can’t afford not to. That seems to be the real argument. Not whether or not there is a potential for disaster, but whether or not it’s worth the gamble.
According to the Associated Press, the Southern Company's nuclear group asked for federal regulators to approve a site in eastern Georgia that would hold two new reactors and nearly double Vogtle’s output of 2,430 megawats. The company hasn’t released information as to the cost of the project, though experts say that the reactors alone cost $4 billion.
The AP quotes Southern Company spokeswoman Carrie Phillips as saying the plant's owners haven't made a final decision whether to develop the new reactors. She said a permit would give the owners 20 years to decide.
The process of building a new plant is understandably arduous. First there is formal application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Then there’s public approval, regulatory scrutiny, financing, and engineering. The high cost associated with construction, as well as the near meltdown of Three Mile Island in 1979 has kept the United States from adding to its arsenal of 103 plants. Recently, however, nuclear power is regaining some of its credibility as an alternative to fossil fuels. With the rising cost of energy, some argue nuclear power is a viable, sustainable source of energy with less impact on the environment than its alternatives. Supporters of nuclear power show up in unlikely places, such as Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, who argues that nuclear power is an option whose benefits far outweigh its potential risks.
"In 40 years, used fuel has less than one-thousandth of the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor .... Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear," Moore and former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman wrote in a recent Washington Post editorial.
Others argue that while nuclear plants may give off fewer pollutants, they create the threat of radioactive contamination, as well as produce waste that remains deadly for thousands of years. A large nuclear reactor produces 25-30 tons of spent fuel each year. This spent fuel does have marginal utility, and Regan legalized reprocessing in the 1980s. The spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety after tens -- even hundreds -- of thousands of years.
Waste is currently stored on site at both operating and decommissioned plants, more than 55,000 tons of it. The spent fuel rods are stored in steel lined pools or concrete casks, awaiting a final resting place. They are transferred and shuffled around to and from these various sites by rail and by truck. Moving solid nuclear waste happens all the time. More than most realize. The real concern is not that it’s being moved, but where it’s being moved to. Namely: Nowhere.
The best guess on the part of the government is to store most of the waste in a vast repository underneath Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. The Yucca Mountain Repository was scheduled to open in 1994.
"It's the most studied piece of real estate known to man," says Lou Long, technical support vice president of Southern Nuclear in Birmingham in a recent Atlanta Journal-Constitution article.
According to that article, "utilities' customers have paid $20 billion -- $90 million paid by Georgia Power customers alone -- to develop Yucca Mountain for storage, $14 billion of which has been spent on studies."
After construction delays and suspicion of scientific forgery, the facility won’t be ready until as early as 2017. In addition, the Department of Energy wants the limit of 77,000 tons removed so that the repository might eventually take more than 115,000 tons of used fuel, and it wants Congress to order the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to assume that waste disposal is not a problem when it considers licenses for future power plants. This is all still up in the air. In the meantime, the spent fuel from our nuclear plants sits.
Yucca Mountain is located on federally protected land within the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada. It is 100 miles away from Las Vegas. In 1983, a ten-year study resulted in the DOE selection of nine locations in six states for consideration as potential repositories. The nine sites were then studied and results were reported in 1985. President Reagan approved three sites for intensive scientific study. The three sites were Hanford, Washington; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain. In 1987, Congress amended the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and directed DOE to study only Yucca Mountain. The Act provided that if, at any time, Yucca Mountain is found unsuitable, studies will be stopped immediately. If that ever happens, the site will be restored and DOE will seek new direction from Congress.
On July 23, 2002, George W. Bush signed House Joint Resolution 87, allowing the DOE to take the next step in establishing a safe repository in which to store nuclear waste of USA. The Department of Energy is currently in the process of preparing an application to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license to proceed with construction of the repository. In March 2005, the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior revealed that several U.S. Geological Survey hydrologists had exchanged e-mails discussing possible falsification of quality assurance documents on water infiltration research. On July 18, 2006 the DOE agreed upon March 31, 2017 as the date to open the facility and begin accepting waste. The present prime contractor for the project is Bechtel SAIC Company, LLC.
There is vocal opposition from citizens in Nevada toward housing the waste. While this is written off by some nuclear proponents as a case of not wanting radioactive waste in the backyard, it does cause one to wonder, who does?
Dr. Daniel Sprau, Associate Professor & Program Director for Environmental Health Sciences at East Carolina University thinks there’s a better solution than burying radioactive waste for 100,000 years.
“Reprocessing can make far better use of spent fuel,” he said. “Smaller, local plants are another.” Smaller plants produce less waste and reprocessing can account for up to 90% of spent fuel. Other uses include desalinization, useful for those in coastal regions, and sterilization of medical instruments. Dr. Sprau, a proponent of nuclear power overall, also pointed out that sources of radiation from medical facilities pose a greater health risk than nuclear plants.
Within the past several weeks, reports that the Tennessee Valley Authority's three nuclear power plants leaked a radioactive form of hydrogen called tritium into the groundwater were released to the public, as documented in TVA papers and Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials. TVA provides electricity to approximately 8.5 million homes in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.
NRC officials quoted in The Chattanooga Times Free Press claimed the leaked tritium has not moved beyond TVA property and is not a public health hazard. According to an Associated Press article, NRC spokesman Kenneth Clark said if the leaked tritium reaches the Tennessee River, that body of water would dilute the substance until its concentration would not be a "health and safety issue for the public.''
Despite lacking a long term plan for spent fuel rods, Dr. Sprau remains optimistic about nuclear power. His recent trip to the site of the Chernobyl disaster actually bolstered his confidence. In Russia, he saw evidence of arrogant engineering and a lack of adequate containment in the RBMK (a Russian acronym for Reactor Bolshoi Moschnosti Kanalynyi "Channelized Large Power Reactor”) design. In his opinion, the US infrastructure is more advanced and far stronger. Support for this argument can be found in the outcome of the Three Mile Island incident, where virtually all radiation was retained inside the containment building, despite considerable melting of the fuel. Ironically, Three Mile Island is still a flag for many opponents of nuclear power. For instance, work at the Vogtle Plant was just underway when the Three Mile Island incident occurred. Construction was immediately postponed so that changes to plans could be made.
Environmental impact is cited on both sides of nuclear power debate. On one hand nuclear plants can provide energy to communities at a cheaper rate and with less carbon dioxide emission. On the other, more reactors mean more opportunity for meltdown or even terrorist attacks. Depending on whom you ask, we can’t afford to risk expanding nuclear power, or we can’t afford not to. That seems to be the real argument. Not whether or not there is a potential for disaster, but whether or not it’s worth the gamble.
Tags:
