Nuclear Reactions, Part 3

SOMETIMES, I DON’T REALIZE HOW HOT a topic is until I write about it — and get flooded with feedback. Clearly, nuclear energy is such a topic. Predictably, some of you clapped me on the back, some took me to task…

And both for what you thought I was saying: That nuclear power is The Answer to America’s (or the world’s) energy woes.

But I’d like to remind everyone reading this — pro, con, neutral, apoplectic or apathetic about nuke power — that I freely admitted in the first two parts of this series that I don’t know enough about nuclear energy generation to make an informed decision about its prospects. I never said atomic power was a panacea, or even that I believe it is. I only pointed out some realities about nuclear power generation so far in the United States…

First, that as far as I could discover from a good deal of research time, it has killed or sickened few, if any. Secondly, I reminded readers that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor nuclear energy, a fact that seems not to warrant much mention in the mainstream media’s portrayal of the debate. Also, I put a few numbers to some of the hazardous realities — both to humanity and the environment — of conventional American energy production. A side note on this:

One less-than-adoring reader observed that if I were to mention the tens of thousands of deaths related to coal mining, then injuries and deaths related to uranium mining should also be pointed out. Of course, I considered this when I wrote Part Two, in which I touched on the dangers of coal mining in my discussion of the human costs of American energy production…

According to my research, uranium mining was only recently resumed in the U.S. after being halted in the early ’90s. Since its resumption in 2001, domestic uranium mining has been predominantly “open-pit” — which is far less hazardous and manual-labor intensive that conventional underground mining (like for much of our coal). Long story short: I couldn’t find much on the dangers of modern uranium mining in America.

However, this reader’s letter spurred me to some further digging — which led me to some old newspaper stories and other sources indicating that uranium mining in Utah, Colorado and other places in the American Southwest (mostly in the 1940s and ’50s) may indeed have sickened or killed a number of miners and residents of mining communities. In fact, many of these people and their families have received payments under a 1990 law called the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.

Again, specific numbers were hard to come by — but since I’m nothing if not objective, I felt this was worth mentioning. Also, since the U.S. currently imports more than 80 percent of the uranium used by domestic reactors, the dangers of mining the metallic fuel in Russia, Australia, and other major supplier nations must be considered (finding hard info on this is another matter, however).

Lastly, I must once again thank Whiskey & Gunpowder readers for their voluminous feedback — pro, con and otherwise. Special thanks to the numerous bona-fide experts who wrote in to express support for this series, among them a former U.S. Navy nuclear submariner and numerous active and retired nuclear engineers…

Now, back to the business of neither defending nor exalting American nuclear power generation — but considering it as objectively as I can.

From Ukraine, With Bile…

Always on the tongue-tips of those who’d thwart the spread of nuclear power in America is the 1986 reactor meltdown and explosion at Chernobyl, Ukraine. Of course, this disaster embodied all of our worst fears about nuclear energy — and I, for one, would never try to minimize or understate the horrors those in surrounding territories (especially Belarus) have experienced for the last 22 years because of the accident. I also agree with nuke-power’s harshest critics on one point at least: We’ll likely never know the true extent of the incident’s impact…

However, even the most jaded of nuke-haters would have to grudgingly admit that in the history of nuclear power around the world, Chernobyl has been an anomaly, albeit one of the most terrifying sort. To make an informed assessment of the risks of nuclear power, one must look at the whole picture. That picture includes 31 nations that are generating nuclear power in 439 plants — apparently without significant loss of life or destruction of the environment so far, Chernobyl excepted.

Although I admit I have no data or expertise to base this on, I still think it’s a ridiculous notion to believe that a Chernobyl-type nuclear disaster is anywhere near as likely to occur here in the uber-regulated, hyper-litigious U.S. as in the run-down, cash-strapped, infrastructure-challenged, sacrifice-all-for-the-motherland former Soviet empire. I, for one, have little fear of a nuclear power disaster here in my own backyard — but would not be the least bit surprised to hear of another one in Russia or other zones within the former Communist bloc, or in environmentally unconscionable China.

Today, around 20 percent of U.S. electricity is derived from nuclear sources, while a full 30 percent of the E.U.’s electricity comes from nuclear power. Ditto this figure for ultra-green Japan — though they plan to ramp up to 41 percent by 2014 and 60 percent by 2050.

By all measures, however, France is foremost among nuclear nations. Nearly 80 percent of their electricity comes from the 59 active nuclear power plants on Gallic soil. They are also the largest net exporter of electricity in the world. And so far, France’s most serious nuclear accident happened not in a power plant, but in a nuclear particle accelerator — when three workers without proper protective clothing entered a contaminated area in 1992.

True, France and other nuclear-power-friendly nations face some future challenges in dealing with the waste — such materials can only be refined down and reprocessed to a certain degree, then what’s left has to be stored.

Or does it? As you’ll learn in a minute, there may be another solution to nuclear waste storage issues…

Further, it must be noted that nuclear waste products take up thousands (more likely millions) of times less space per kilowatt/hour of electricity generated than the toxic byproducts of coal-mining. Like radioactive nuclear waste, the oceans of black-water “slurry” coal mining generates cannot be processed for return to the environment. It must be forever stored in lifeless holding ponds, where it slowly leaches into the Earth — or occasionally bursts its dams and annihilates entire towns or river systems (Google: Buffalo Creek flood and Martin county sludge spill)…

This isn’t even to mention the tremendous reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) — even when those resulting from uranium mining are factored in — that nuclear power offers over coal-fired power plants, which are by far the world’s leading source of both electricity and GHG. Of course, this advantage depends upon the far-from-proven notion that GHGs are causing the ruination of Earth…

My point is the same as it has been all along in this series: For fear of making the nuclear power they hate seem more appealing, the mainstream media is loathe to point out anything positive about it anywhere on Earth, quick to overstate the impact of “disasters” like Three Mile Island, and silent about the REAL environmental horrors of coal mining (the toxic waste, not the CO2).

Space: The Final Landfill…

Everyone on either side of the nuclear debate agrees that the storage/disposal of high-level nuclear waste is a major issue. In the U.S., over 70,000 tons and counting of this hazardous material is currently being temporarily stored at over 120 sites in 39 states nationwide. The Government’s big plan for this waste is to bury it deep in the desert at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain. However, the date at which this facility becomes operational has yet to be determined.

Originally, the site was to be up and running by 1998. But now, 10 years later, the Yucca Mountain project remains stalled by legal wrangling and insufficient funding, and has yet to accept a single ounce of nuclear waste. The most optimistic projections had recently pegged its possible opening date at 2017. But according to a February 19 article in the Las Vegas Review Journal, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has now abandoned that target date, and is reluctant to set a new one…

This is not to mention concerns over the site’s suitability for long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste. Many have challenged Yucca Mountain’s location as being too close to major fault lines and to the local underground water table.

So what’s the solution, you’re asking?

Well, maybe I’m just a stupid rube, but I’ve been wondering for more than a decade why we don’t simply blow nuclear waste out into space…

I’m no rocket scientist, but it seems to me that if a pair of relatively simple and cheap solid rocket boosters can provide the bulk of the thrust necessary to propel the 2,250 ton mass of the Space Shuttle and all its fuel tanks and payload into outer space, similar units could certainly do the same thing for nuclear waste. By my math, less than 50 such launches could erase the half-century’s worth of the stuff we’ve accumulated. And one or two per year could dispose of our nation’s ongoing production of nuke waste, even if we were to double the amount of electricity we derive from nuclear sources.

I’m no accountant, but I’d be willing to bet that this would ultimately prove cheaper than building and maintaining a bunch of “Yucca Mountains” all over the U.S., such that the increasing use of nuclear power would necessitate. And even if it weren’t cheaper, I say it’s money well spent to jettison high-level nuclear waste from planet Earth forever. Now, I know what a lot of you may be thinking: What about a malfunction? Wouldn’t a mid-air explosion rain radioactive waste and debris down into the ocean and atmosphere?

I’m no engineer, but it seems to me that if we can build space shuttles that can repeatedly endure the intense heat and stress of lift-off and atmospheric re-entry, we can build a container for nuclear waste that can withstand whatever trauma an in-flight worst-case scenario might include.

All I’m saying is that the nuclear nations of the world should seriously and objectively look at the idea of deep-space nuclear waste disposal. I have a feeling that the reason why the U.S. government hasn’t already initiated such a program is because it certainly would be more expensive in the short run than Yucca Mountain. Currently, that project squeaks by on a relatively thrifty $400 million-a-year budget. Launching a deep-space disposal program would likely cost tens of billions of dollars…

In other words, it’s business as usual on The Hill: Do what’s cheapest now and let future generations deal with the consequences of our stinginess. This makes a kind of twisted Machiavellian sense, really. Why should politicians spend money they could be using to fund things that buy them votes and grab them headlines — things like welfare programs and subsidies for “green” energy boondoggles like ethanol — on something the public isn’t clamoring for, and that likely wouldn’t get them a drop of ink in the press?

After all, votes come from public opinion, which is driven by the mainstream media. And there are two reasons why the heads of most media outlets don’t want America (or the world) to find a real solution to nuclear waste. One, because by all indications, they simply hate and fear nuclear power. Two, because solutions rob them of stories. Think about it: If the nuke-waste problem gets solved, they can report it only once. But if nuclear waste continues to stack up at power plants and other sites nationwide, while Yucca Mountain’s opening date gets farther and farther away, they can milk the story dozens of times, from all kinds of angles…

This is too bad, because I’ll bet if we put our might and main into it, a deep-space waste disposal program could be up and running in just a few years.

The Scum of All Fears

“What about terrorists?” is one thing that’s always mentioned when the talk turns toward nuclear power. A legitimate question…

Per beefed-up Nuclear Regulatory Agency (NRC) security mandates after 9/11, nuclear power plants in the U.S. are now more secure than just about anything besides military bases. They’ve got barriers, cameras, armed guards, the works. It seems highly unlikely that a cell of terrorists could arm and equip themselves sufficiently to take control of one without prior detection of their plans by any number of law enforcement agencies.

A direct attack on a reactor stack or containment pool with an aircraft, however, remains remotely possible — though less likely now that pilots are armed, hand-held weapons are restricted on planes, and the military are on a higher state of alert to scramble intercepting fighters. Nuke plants are built to withstand hurricanes and earthquakes, but not jetliners. Opinions vary as to what exactly would happen should such an attack occur. Industry sources claim that the likelihood of an airplane penetrating the reactor core containment structure is low. NRC studies concur with this assessment…

Bottom line: Though theoretically possible that terrorists could enact a 9/11-type attack against an American nuclear power plant, it would take far more money, planning, skill, and coordination than may be possible today. Conversely, however, it would be relatively simple for terrorists to attack more conventional power-generation facilities — and with perhaps more disastrous results. Case in point:

I went fishing with a cousin of mine just three days ago on a major river in the American mid-Atlantic region, which I won’t name here. On the particular section of river we were fishing, there stands one of the largest non-federally-run hydroelectric dams in the U.S. It’s classified as a “medium height” dam, which means it’s around 100 feet tall.

The only thing preventing boats from reaching the face of this dam is a sign, some warning lights, and a couple of buoys. That’s it. If you wanted to risk the ticket, you could literally motor right up to the face of the dam. Also, a major road traverses the top of this dam, and a huge reservoir lay behind it. Similar to the situation below the dam, nothing except signs and rules are in place to prevent a boat from reaching the backside of the dam…

Now, let’s just say that a terrorist cell here in the U.S. wanted to try to wreak havoc with a major metro area’s energy infrastructure, annihilate numerous riverside towns, and kill a few thousand people or more. They wouldn’t need pilot training, a jumbo jet, guns or more than $50,000 or so to do it. All they’d need is a pair of cheap aluminum 20-foot boats with outboard motors, a rented U-Haul van of the largest size, 15,000 lbs. of ammonium nitrate/diesel-fuel bomb fixins, and three of their own who have a hankering for celestial virgins…

At a prearranged time, both boats, loaded with explosives, could motor to corresponding points at the top rear and bottom front of the dam at its mid-section. The truck-driver then cruises over the dam in his U-Haul bomb, stops on the roadway between the two boats, and ignites the whole deal simultaneously with radio-controlled detonators.

Again, I’m no engineer, but I’m betting three times as much of the same readily available ingredients that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols used to annihilate the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (along with 168 Americans) would do enough damage to cause that dam to fail. Take a minute to Google a picture of what that building looked like after 5,000 lbs. of fertilizer bomb got through with it and you’ll be as convinced as I am.

My point is this: Even if terrorists could successfully attack a nuclear power plant, there are thousands of other targets that are much more realistically within their scope — and with far greater odds of mass destruction and carnage.

But nobody in the media seems too worried about this, only the one-in-a-million chance of an attack on a nuclear power plant.

A Decent Start: 100 Years of Cleaner Energy

Critics frequently cite the finite world supply of uranium as a reason not to invest in nuke energy. According to March 2007 estimates from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the world supply of uranium would last around 200 years at current usage levels. This is not counting the extraction of uranium from seawater — which is technically possible, but not economically practical at the moment (it may be, however, in the future)…

But let’s say that nuke power expands radically around the globe (which is more or less inevitable), and this supply becomes realistically only around 100 years’ worth. That’s still a century of almost CO2-less electricity generation, which any politician can tell you is all the rage nowadays. If a few key governments would put a little effort into making deep-space waste disposal a reality, this could buy the world a lot of time to develop truly sustainable clean energy sources.

Again, I’m not being an advocate here, just calling it like I see it. I realize that there are some big “ifs” in this nuclear power equation. IF we can prevent disasters. IF we can contend with the waste. IF we can keep it secure. IF we can safely decommission aging plants…

One thing’s for certain, though: Some major nations worldwide with spotty records on pollution, the environment and security aren’t going to hold off on nuclear power because of its risks. Take a look at this map:

China, Russia, the Ukraine and Iran are all building plants. I have to think that these nations (and quite a few others) will be less concerned with reactor quality control, the environment and the responsible storage of nuclear waste products than we are here in the U.S. — or in France or Japan…

This means that America can either sit back and wait for other nations’ nuclear problems to pollute the world while we’re busy trying to figure out cleaner ways to burn coal — or we can be proactive in developing solutions to the problems that face nuke power, along with other nations that seem to know what they’re doing around an atom. That way, we can help indirectly ensure that the inevitable expansion of nuclear power doesn’t contaminate us all.

Either that, or we could go to war with nations we don’t think are going to handle nuke power properly. We could strike a pre-emptive blow for Mother Earth, as long as we don’t use nuclear weapons, of course.

Needless to say, I suggest this “option” only to be wry — though I wouldn’t put it past the militant fringe of the environmental movement to advocate it. After all, going to war for the Earth is the eco-terrorists’ MO…

No, as I see it, the most conscientious course for the planet is, once again, one in which the United States invests, innovates and leads by example.

Whether the “talking heads” and pundits like it or not.

Rebuking, not nuking,

Jim Amrhein
Freedoms Editor
April 17, 2008