Skip to main content

The Weather Channel and Nuclear Energy

In a post over at The Weather Channel's Climate Blog, Dr. Heidi Cullen, the channel's climate expert, is examining public acceptance of nuclear energy:
With nuclear power, it all boils down to waste disposal. Understandably, many Americans are nervous about waste disposal, with only 28 percent believing that radioactive waste could be safely stored out into the distant future. Interestingly, the survey found that almost two-thirds of the roughly 1200 surveyed, believe reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is worth pursuing. Reprocessing spent fuel, which is done in France, reduces the life span of most toxic wastes from 100,000 years to 1,000 years.

[...]

Because of the growing national concern about global warming, new energy policies will force us to factor in the cost both to the economy and the environment. Personally, I kind of like the notion of applying the Hippocratic Oath of ‘first do no harm' to our energy choices. The question is, can we get to a point where doing no harm to the environment doesn't do a lot of harm to our pocketbooks. That will ultimately be the test of good energy policy.
It's hard to find anything to quibble with here, though the industry contends that the used nuclear fuel currently being stored on-site at the nation's nuclear power plants is being cared for safely and securely.

Which is why my response to the back end of her post has to be that only a balanced energy portfolio can hope to achieve what she seems to be seeking. Over-reliance on any one source would be a mistake not only on grounds of cost, but also on grounds of energy security. Try as we might, there is no one perfect energy source that provides abundant and affordable electricity without some sort of environmental trade-offs. What we need to understand is that while there are tradeoffs, there are also ways to intelligently manage them.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Who cares what the common man thinks regarding reprocessing? He's not informed enough to have an opinion about it. I work with nuclear energy issues every day, and I don't have an opinion about reprocessing. Honestly it just doesn't matter what 1500 random people think about this.
Muckerheide said…
He's not informed enough to vote for President, Senator, Governor, State Rep or Mayor either, but that doesn't stop him electing these people with this same knowledge of reprocessing. :-)
Muckerheide said…
Heidi Cullen: "With nuclear power, it all boils down to waste disposal. Understandably, many Americans are nervous about waste disposal, with only 28 percent believing that radioactive waste could be safely stored out into the distant future."

Eric McErlain: "It's hard to find anything to quibble with here, though the industry contends that the used nuclear fuel currently being stored on-site at the nation's nuclear power plants is being cared for safely and securely.

"Which is why my response to the back end of her post has to be that only a balanced energy portfolio can hope to achieve what she seems to be seeking. Over-reliance on any one source would be a mistake not only on grounds of cost, but also on grounds of energy security. Try as we might, there is no one perfect energy source that provides abundant and affordable electricity without some sort of environmental trade-offs. What we need to understand is that while there are tradeoffs, there are also ways to intelligently manage them."

------------------

This is a non-response to the waste disposal non-problem.

Heidi should be (have been) informed by NEI (its predecessors and other responsible parties) by providing facts that waste constitutes no meaningful public "risk" to people now or in the future. Responsible scientists have been documenting that for 40 years. But of course, then there are the "political scientists," gov't agencies, consultants and industries who see only the $100s billions in cash flow that can be extracted from the ratepayers and taxpayers only by "necessary and sufficient" fear-mongering about radiation.

Sheldon Novick of the Sierra Club, in his (1977?) Sierra Club book, "The Electric War," said that "it's hard to see how, once the excess heat has decayed, well within one human lifetime, HLW is any more hazardous than all the other poisons produced by industry" (paraphrased from memory -JM)

In its formal (1978?) review of geologic disposal, the American Physical Society reported: "it's not possible for the radioactivity to return to the biosphere in a concentration significant to human health and safety." (paraphrased from memory -JM)

Of course, NO ONE could have imagined at the time that EPA could get away with a rad protection constraint at an insignificant dose level <1% of the variation in natural background radiation, to be complied using simple-minded computer jockey "models" that overstate results by orders of magnitude.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…