HR 6 - The Energy Independence and Security Act has a lot of good things in it (e.g., increasing CAFE standards to 35 mpgs by 2020, make alternative fuels widely available, and close tax loopholes for big oil companies), but it also has language that puts the risk of developing nuclear energy plants on the backs of taxpayers to move liability away from the banks that finance them and the energy companies themselves.
One of the reasons nuclear energy is more expensive than coal-fired or natural gas-fired energy is that the cost of building nuclear power plants is much more expensive and insuring them is highly problematic.
As the information below suggests, there is a high interest in increasing nuclear power in the US (it currently accounts for 1/5 of all electricity). However, with the environmental and human concerns about plant failures and disposing of nuclear waste, we need to carefully consider the wisdom of the public being the insurers of such projects.
From the Congressional Research Service
Nearly three decades after the most recent order was placed for a new nuclear power plant in the United States, several utilities are now expressing interest in
building a total of up to 30 new reactors. The renewed interest in nuclear power has
resulted primarily from higher prices for natural gas, improved operation of existing
reactors, and uncertainty about future restrictions on coal emissions. A substantial
tax credit and other incentives for nuclear generation provided by the Energy Policy
Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) are also likely to improve the economic viability of qualifying new reactors. New nuclear plant applications can also take advantage of
amendments to the Atomic Energy Act made in the early 1990s to reduce licensing
delays.
Currently, there are 103 licensed and operable power reactors at 65 plant sites
in 31 states, generating about one-fifth of U.S. electricity. Although no new U.S.
reactors have started up since 1996, U.S. nuclear electricity generation has since
grown by more than 20%. Much of this additional output resulted from reduced
downtime, notably through shorter refueling outages. Licensed commercial reactors
generated electricity at an average of 89.8% of their total capacity in 2006, after
averaging about 75% in the mid-1990s and about 65% in the mid-1980s.
Falling operating costs have helped renew the economic viability of the nation’s
fleet of nuclear power plants. From 1989 to 1998, 12 commercial reactors were
closed before reaching the end of their 40-year licenses. By the late 1990s, there was real doubt that any reactors would make it to 40 years. Since 2000, however, 44
commercial reactors have received 20-year license extensions from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), giving them up to 60 years of operation, and more
are pending.
The nuclear production tax credit in the Energy Policy Act could have a
significant impact on the economic viability of new nuclear power plants. Under
base case assumptions, new reactors are not competitive with either coal-fired or
natural gas-fired facilities. However, if new reactors are able to take full advantage of the nuclear production tax credit, nuclear power appears competitive with either natural gas-fired or coal-fired facilities.
Other factors will also be important in the commercial decision to invest in new
nuclear plants, such as fossil fuel prices and the regulatory environment for both
nuclear power and future fossil fuel-fired generation. If natural gas prices remain at historically high levels, future nuclear plants will be more likely to be competitive without federal tax credits. However, natural gas prices have been highly cyclical in the past, raising the possibility that nuclear costs could be undercut in the future.
Despite improvements since Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the 70's and 80's, nuclear power is very lethal causing between 600 to 5000 deaths annually. In addition, the plants are still not safe.
March, 1997
The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.
September 1999
Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.
2001
Five international accidents
August 2004
Mihama, Japan: nonradioactive steam leaked from a nuclear power plant, killing four workers and severely burning seven others.
July 2007
Kashiwazaki, Japan: radiation leaks, burst pipes, and fires at a major nuclear power plant followed a 6.8 magnitude earthquake near Niigata. Japanese officials, frustrated at the plant operators' delay in reporting the damage, closed the plant a week later until its safety could be confirmed. Further investigation revealed that the plant had unknowingly been built directly on top of an active seismic fault.
In the U.S.
May 1993
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown.
August, 1999
The Washington Post reported that thousands of workers were unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals over a 23-year period (beginning in the mid-1950's) at the Department of Energy's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky. Workers, told they were handling Uranium (rather than the far more toxic plutonium), inhaled radioactive dust while processing the materials as part of a government experiment to recycle used nuclear reactor fuel.
February 2000
New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there was a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety.
June, 2000
U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) led a field senate hearing regarding workers exposed to hazardous materials while working in the nation's atomic plants. At the hearing, which revealed information about potential on and off-site contamination at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, DeWine noted, "We know that as a result of Cold War efforts, the government, yes, our federal government, allowed thousands of workers at its facilities across the country to be exposed to poisonous materials, such as beryllium dust, plutonium, and silicon, without adequate protection." Testimony also indicated that the Piketon plant altered workers' radiation dose readings and worked closely with medical professionals to fight worker's compensation claims.
July, 2000
Wildfires in the vicinity of the Hanford facility hit the highly radioactive "B/C" waste disposal trenches, raising airborne plutonium radiation levels in the nearby cities of Pasco and Richland to 1,000 above normal. Wildfires also threatened the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the DOE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. In the latter case, the fires closely approached large amounts of stored radioactive waste and forced the evacuation of 1,800 workers. [See also 1986 and May 1997.]
March 2002
Workers discovered a foot-long cavity eaten into the reactor vessel head at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio. Borated water had corroded the metal to a 3/16 inch stainless steel liner which held back over 80,000 gallons of highly pressurized radioactive water. In April 2005 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposed fining plant owner First Energy 5.4 million dollars for their failure to uncover the problem sooner (similar problems plaguing other plants were already known within the industry), and also proposed banning System Engineer Andrew Siemaszko from working in the industry for five years due to his falsifying reactor vessel logs. As of this writing the fine and suspension were under appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment