Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, October 27, 2008
Roy Innis :: Townhall.com Columnist
Nuclear Power Check
by Roy Innis
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Abundant, reliable, affordable energy makes our jobs, health, living standards and civil rights possible.

Remember that when you read about people losing their jobs or having to choose between heating, eating, paying the rent or mortgage, giving to charity, or covering healthcare, college, car or retirement costs. Remember it when Congress makes more hydrocarbon energy off limits – or puts more obstacles in the path of nuclear power that generates a fifth of America’s electricity.

I recently visited nuclear power plants and a fuel reprocessing plant in France, which gets almost 80% of its electricity from uranium. And I’ve read some shockingly ill-informed claims about nuclear power and its supposed alternatives. Here are some essential facts.

Reliability. Nuclear plants generate electricity over 90% of every year, shutting down only occasionally for maintenance, repairs and changing fuel rods. Wind turbines can be relied on just 30% of the time, on average – and just 10% of the time during hot summer days, when air conditioners are on high, but there’s barely a breeze.

Operational safety. Three Mile Island was the “worst accident in US history.” But it injured no one and exposed neighboring residents to the radioactive equivalent of getting a CT scan or living in Denver for a year. It led to major improvements in nuclear plant management, operation and training.

The Chernobyl disaster was due to its shoddy design, construction, maintenance and management. According to the World Health Organization, “fewer than 50” people died as a direct result of this massive meltdown and fire, and nearly all were employees and rescue workers.

Storage of used nuclear fuel. The Energy Department spent 25 years and $10 billion studying the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, before concluding that it will meet all safety standards. In fact, the largest expected annual radiation dose for someone living near this geologically stable site would be less than 1 millirem – compared to 1,000 millirem from an abdominal CT scan.

America’s 104 nuclear plants generate enough electricity for nearly 75,000,000 homes – and produce about 2,000 tons of “spent” uranium fuel annually. So Yucca will be able to hold all the used fuel from the past 50 years, plus another 35 years of used fuel, without expanding on the original design.

Spent fuel and other wastes (high-level defense wastes, plus low-level wastes like protective clothing) are solid materials. There is no liquid that can leak into rocks or groundwater. Liquid wastes, like water used in reactors, are treated and reused.

Transportation safety. Shipping containers are constructed from layers of steel and lead, nearly a foot thick, and carried on trucks or rail cars. (The 25 to 125-ton containers are too heavy to go in airplanes.) They’ve been slammed into concrete walls at 85 mph, dropped 30 feet, burned 30 minutes in 1475-degree fires, and submerged in water for hours. They haven’t broken or leaked.

Over 3,000 shipments of spent fuel have traversed 1.7 million miles, with no injuries, deaths or environmental damage. Only one significant accident occurred. A semi-truck overturned while avoiding a head-on collision, and the trailer and attached container crashed into a ditch. No harmful releases of radioactivity ever occurred.

That hasn’t stopped imaginative writers from saying “catastrophic” accidents could put “millions” of Americans at risk of exposure to “deadly radiation” or even death, especially if an airplane crashed a cargo of nuclear wastes into a city. They’ve been watching too many Hollywood movies, where every car accident becomes a raging inferno.

Theft and terrorism. The notion that spent (or even fresh) power plant fuel could be stolen and turned into a powerful bomb is likewise more Hollywood than reality.

Those pesky little atomic numbers and enrichment levels are confusing, but important. Weapons grade materials are plutonium, uranium 233 and highly enriched (better than 20%) U235. Power plant fuel is slightly enriched (under 4%) U235. Spent fuel is U238, which cannot cause a chain reaction.

Turning spent fuel into a bomb would require sophisticated reprocessing facilities, which terrorists are unlikely to have. Even a “dirty bomb” (radioactive materials around a non-nuclear explosive) would cause more fear than actual damage. And the US nuclear industry’s commitment to safety applies to plant design and management, shipping and storing wastes, and guarding against theft and terrorism.

The bottom line? We need the electricity that nuclear power provides, and we can get it safely. Just try to imagine life without all the things that require electricity. Remember the pain, inconvenience and financial losses you or people you know suffered when storms or blackouts knocked out the electrical power.

Consider the warnings of experts: We are dangerously close to experiencing major brownouts and blackouts in many parts of the United States, especially in our western states, because we haven’t built the power plants and transmission lines we need for a growing population that depends on electricity 24/7/365.

We need to conserve more, install more insulation and better windows, and use more efficient light bulbs, computers, servers, heaters and air-conditioners. We need more wind and solar power, where those sources make economic, practical and environmental sense. But we also need a lot more affordable, reliable electricity from nuclear power plants.

Ponder how far our heating, cooling, communication and other technologies have come in just 100 years – and where we’re likely to be 50 or 100 years from now. However, we’re not there yet.

Futuristic technologies – like solar generators orbiting above the Earth, beaming electrical power to urban receivers – for now are pure science fiction. They’ll be reality about when Scotty beams Captain Kirk back to the Enterprise. We need to work on them. But we need real energy for real people, today.

Otherwise, homes, factories, offices, schools and hospitals will go dark. Bread winners will go jobless. Energy prices will soar even higher. Families won’t have basic necessities, much less luxuries. And poor and minority citizens will see civil rights gains rolled back, because only energy and a vibrant economy can turn constitutionally protected rights into rights we actually enjoy.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Roy Innis is national chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), one of America’s oldest and most respected civil rights groups, and a life-long advocate of economic development rights for poor families and communities around the world.

News Articles On This Topic
 

And in California,
where we straddle between brown-outs and drought, we could solve several problems simultaneously: (1)4th generation nuclear power plants to create the electricity while (2) desalinating ocean water (very abundant!)for fresh water uses thus minimizing the need for directing fresh water down-state or from the Colorado River and (3) creating the hydrogen desired for the yet-to-be-developed-and- marketed hydrogen-fueled cars and meeting the CARB air-quality requirements plus (4) possibly creating high-quality fertilizer from the minerals extracted from the sea water.

If the radical environmentalists were serious about CO2 emissions, they would embrace nuclear power. They are not, thus they won't. Nor do I buy the CO2 boogey-man tripe but still believe nuclear is the best option.

Cutting carbon output?
With everyone trying to be the next one with an electric powered wonder car, do they even realize that nearly all of the electricity produced in this country creates carbon output? All you're doing is moving the carbon output from your tailpipe to a remote location. Nuclear, wind, solar. Time's a wastin'.

Roy...we heard that tune before
Too many Republicans now want the government to give American taxpayer's money to nuclear power companies and decide that they are going to be 'winners' in the energy supply marketplace.

American taxpayer's wealth was redistributed in the 1950's. The promise was that electrical power would be so cheap, that a watt-meter wouldn't even be needed on a house. Pay a flat fee of $2 a month and take as much 'juice' off the grid as you want. That's what was promised.

The only problem was that the nuke power industry got fat, lazy, and stupid sucking off the teat of the government sow.

Now, Republicans are planning the same 'great' idea. Once these companies get their taxpayer money, then a multi-million dollar bonus will be given to just too many power company executives. All they have done is garnish some taxpayer's monies and have produced nothing in the dreaded free market.
Slovenliness and stupidity will surely follow.

It's time to get the US government out of the picture when it comes to deciding who will be the winners and losers in the 'free' market.

When Republicans want to emulate Socialist/Marxist France, then you know they have shown their true stripes.

zapdoodat
OK, so let's do as T.J. Rogers of Cypress Semiconductor (and SunPower solar) prefers and eliminate all subsidies in the energy sector (or across the board-none for any sector. I'd be for that as long as American companies aren't penalized via the burdensome tax code vs foreign companies selling here). That way, the free market can play its normal role in picking the "winners" based on efficiency, cost and productivity. Watch his interview by Peter Robinson at National Review TV - Uncommon Knowledge. You may be surprised with his predictions.

By all means......VOTE!

VOTE!

Vote early. Lines will be long on election day. If you need to wait to vote until election day, go early.

AND PRAY!

Vote McCain and Palin in 2008!

Nuclear power & Chernobyl
Nuclear power. Chernobyl was a "fast" reactor designed to maximize Plutonium production. When Power is increased in a fast reactor the density of the water used to extract thermal energy from the core decreases and this makes more neutrons available for the chain reaction and can lead to uncontrollable increases in in the nuclear reaction leading to a nuclear explosion as in Chernobyl. Commercial and Navy nuclear power plants are thermal reactors that use water to Moderate and cool the reactor core. When power is increased the density of the water decreases and fewer neutrons are slowed down and the nuclear reaction is reduced so that runaway explosions can not happen. Chernobyl is an absolute red herring with regard to nuclear power generation

For Ben
Actually, Chernobyl was not a "fast" reactor and in fact fast reactors are not the preferred choice for producing plutonium, at least not weapons-grade plutonium. Chernobyl was an unusual graphite-moderated boiling water reactor with significant instability at low power levels. Nevertheless, it was the graphite, not the water, that provided the moderation (moderation meaning slowing the neutrons down to increase their probability of causing a fission in the U-235 or Pu-239 fuel). Also, the Chernobyl explosion was a steam explosion not a nuclear explosion. I speak with experience because I was a reactor operator at the United States' last operating plutonium production reactor, which was also graphite moderated (but not possessed of that low power instability).

On an aside, weapons grade uranium is not 20% U-235, but 93%. Weapons grade plutonium (which my reactor produced) is about 94% Pu-239 and 6% Pu-240. Commercial reactors produce significantly more Pu-240 which causes problems in bomb design.

It wasn't the industry
It wasn't the nuclear industry that promised electricity "too cheap to meter." It was an over-zealous press.

As for government support, all you really need to do is to get the government out of the way. Stop the silly BANANA's from making silly lawsuits that interfere with construction. The industry will take care of the rest.

(note: BANANA=Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything)

BO is a BANANA
Unfortunately BO as president will be in the pockets of the enviromentalists who will always claim that nuclear power is unsafe. They will be right of course but our highways and freeways are unsafe but we still all use them.

Nuclear power is not failsafe but is as safe as it is humanly possible to make power generation safe. (Don't windmills kill birds?) No nuclear plants will be built in the next four years if BO is prez and there will be no additional offshore drilling for the same reason.

We will of course all be using solar and wind power for electricity and be driving a fuel cell car built by union workers in America if BO is elected. "Dreams From My Father" indeed more like "Delusions of a Demented Mind!!" Some people believe in fairy tales others call the wind messiah!

The government is not the solution
The government is not the solution, it is the problem. The free market and American innovation is the solution. What the government needs to do is get out of the way. No subsidies (Like ethanol) and eliminate the BS regulations. Open up offshore drilling (safer than oil tankers). Eliminate boutique fuels that states require. Stop the little municipal bureaucracies that block property owners from putting up windmills, solar panels, and stop power companies from building power plants.

I DESIGNED NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.
They are designed and built for the utmost in safety and efficiency.
The first plant I worked on took 43 months from breaking ground to going on line. The second took ten years. Both plants were safe and efficient. The only difference was the amount of excessive paperwork that bureaucrats demanded.

Three Mile Island II safety system worked as it was intended to. The Emergency Reactor Coolant System went on when it was needed. There would not have been an incident if the plant personnel had not turned the ERCS off. Nobody has ever convinced that that was not sabotage paid for by anti-nuclear liberals in Hollywood.

Nuclear power plants would have been and would now be must less expensive if government had not and did not now take half the operating capitol of electric generating companies and every other business and waste the money. The engineering exists and can quickly be updated to the latest technology in short order.

Chernobly did not have half the safety systems that American plants have.

It's smart
Go nuclear, it's smart and could be very cheap on my pocket book without the air pollution.
Be stupid and go wind turbine, boondoggle tax payer rip off. Be dumb and buy electric car, another boondoggle tax payer rip off that does not take into account where batteries come from.

radioactive baloney
I went online to pay my electric bill. Florida Power and Light has an interesting website(s).
Anyway I clicked on the Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant link (south FL)
Kind of interesting the grass is green the wildlife is abundant, lots of crodiles, etc. FPL has at least three Nuclear Power Plants that I know of. Turkey Point, Indian River, and there is one in Jacksonville. Good clean efficient electricity. No air pollution
While no physicist Chernobyl was probably an accident waiting to happen.
I live in St Augustine and not that far from two of this power plants and I think FPL should build a couple more. Hell there ain't no power plant here must get power from Indian River
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.