Skip to main content

The Right Context for Nuclear Energy

BeautyshotSometimes, we run into statements about nuclear energy that do not really cry out to be said. It’s not that any number of things, many quite trivial, don’t get said in the course of a given day, it’s that a little more thought might warn one away from speaking. For example:

“Sometimes it does but it’s a tricky thing to determine that concept [probably means context]. We can find many instances in which parties have tried to implement nuclear power in the wrong context, which leads to high costs and exposes populations to a greater risk of accident so it’s important to find the right context for nuclear energy.”

Okay, I guess, if awfully presumptuous. Let’s start with this and see where it goes.

“Nuclear energy has some specific requirements,” he said. “In Bolivia, which is a landlocked nation where it’s relatively arid so there’s no water cooling, it would be very difficult. In some cases, it’s a geographically imposed context. In others, it’s the size, or if a country has bad credit, because nuclear energy is very expensive.”

Wait, what? Bolivia isn’t looking to open a nuclear energy facility – and why would a country with bad credit – unless maybe it’s a home-grown industry – wait a minute - what?

All this was said by David Scott, executive director of economic and energy affairs at the Abu Dhabi Executive Affairs Authority. I’ve nothing against Mr. Scott, of course, but what is he talking about?

“It’s possible to put a plant in a location where it maybe doesn’t belong,” he said. “The accident in Fukushima is an example of that, where the design of the plant they deployed was not appropriate for the natural challenges of that site, so context is very important.”

Yet Fukushima Daini (and Onagawa, too), which was hit by the same earthquake and tsunami that crippled Fukushima Daiichi, rode out the natural assault. (Daiichi means number one, Daini number two – the facilities are neighbors.) And of course, Japan doesn’t have one facility, as Bolivia ill-advisedly would. Scott is being fantastically reductive here, constructing a dubious premise to accommodate a single instance – and the instance doesn’t really fit the premise – which is dubious, anyway. And so on.

Well, the conference at which he said this wasn’t a total loss.

Kristine Svinicki, a member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said the challenge of meeting rising demand, while balancing cost, safety, security and environmental protection, was leading many countries to consider deploying new nuclear power plants.

“But unlike safety, risk assessment for security does not generally involve a known set of verifiable scientific and engineering parameters,” she said. “So it is often a challenge to strike the necessary regulatory balance. But safety and security take priority over all other considerations.”

Sounds a bit like an amused response to Scott, doesn’t it? In any event, props to Commissioner Svinicki for an interesting take on risk assessment.

Comments

jimwg said…
re: article's accompanying photo.

Good report -- But why do even pro-nuclear blogs almost always pass off cooling towers as reactors?? Such ignorance belongs the providence of the science clueless and nuclear unwashed!

James Greenidge
Queens NY
Krista Hiles said…
That Nuclear accicdent in japan was a real disaster , main reason behind this waqs tsunami waves. The damage caused by the tsunami produced equipment failures, and without this equipment a loss-of-coolant accident followed with nuclear meltdowns and releases of radioactive materials.
I would suggest that
power plant development must be carried out very carefully and with all the precautions .
Don Kosloff said…
Perhaps because cooling towers have proven to be the most hazardous parts of nuclear power plants.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…