Former 'No Nukes' Protester: Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Power

[The Straight Story]

Former 'No Nukes' Protester: Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Power

The only way to rescue our plug-hungry planet from catastrophic global warming is to embrace nuclear power, and fast.

That's the argument of Gwyneth Cravens, a novelist, journalist and former nuke protester. Her new book, Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy, is a passionate plea to understand, instead of fear, atomic power. In her book, Cravens is guided Dante-like through the entire life cycle of nuclear power -- from mining to production to waste disposal -- by one of the world's foremost experts on risk assessment and nuclear waste.

Her conclusion? Every day spent burning coal for power translates into damaged lungs and ecosystem destruction. If the world wants to keep plugging in big-screen TVs and iPods, it needs a steady source of power. Wind and solar can't produce the "base-load" (or everyday) steady supply needed, and the only realistic -- and safe -- alternative is nuclear.

Wired News talked with Cravens on the phone from her home in New York.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/12/nuclear_qa

[TheWraith]

1. Yes.

The risks of nuclear power are controllable. The risks of coal-based power are not. And we can't build enough wind turbines fast enough to fix the problem. It's that simple.

[walldude]

2. Fine.. then you won't mind if we store the waste

in your backyard for a hundred years or so...

[spanone]

4. i was just about to type the same thing.

:toast:

[Ezlivin]

28. Prove it

:)

[TheWraith]

15. If my choice is between that and a coal plant, I'll absolutely take the spent fuel rods.

The back yard isn't big enough, though. Stick it in the barn.

People forget, though, that spent fuel rods and most of their byproducts can be recycled. The only reason we don't do it is because it's cheap to buy new uranium.

[SlowDownFast]

26. Not a hundred years. More like 25,000 to 240,000 years.

The half-life of Plutonium-239, one particularly lethal component of nuclear waste, is 24,000 years.

The hazardous life of a radioactive element (the length of time that must elapse before the material is considered safe) is at least 10 half-lives. Therefore, Plutonium-239 will remain hazardous for at least 240,000 years.

[MadHound]

3. No, they aren't

The two biggest drawbacks of nuclear power are what to do with the waste, and human error. There is no comprehensive, effective, safe plan to get rid of the waste, and human error cannot be engineered out of nuclear power.

Also, given that it takes at least five years, from conception to initial firing, to build a nuclear power plant, yes, you can indeed put up enough wind turbines to match or exceed the output of a nuclear plant.

I really hate to see our current energy crisis being used as an excuse to push through this deadly technology. Rather than embracing such a critically flawed system as nuclear, we should learn our lesson and embrace clean technologies such as wind and solar, which can fulfill all of our energy needs.

[TheWraith]

12. You're perpetuating myths.

Have you actually done the math on wind and solar power? I have. To replace a single nuclear plant, you'd have to erect 3,000 to 6,000 1mW wind turbines. Do you know what that costs? A little north of $3 to $6 billion dollars, much the same as a nuclear plant, and taking much more time and space to build. Solar is even worse: to replace one nuclear plant, you'd need to completely cover 18.5 square miles, or about 12,000 acres of land, with solar panels. To completely replace our energy needs, you're talking about 3 million plus wind turbines, or 750,000 square miles of solar panels. There goes Nevada.

I'm tired of people talking about solar and wind power without knowing what the realities are, and then acting like the facts don't exist when confronted about it. Wind and solar are not a viable replacement, period. We can deploy them all we like, but we still need a denser point-source of energy.

[MadHound]

17. Have you ever seen a wind turbine go up?

Land based turbines generally take about a month to put up, and that's generally with a crew of ten-twenty people and a crane. Let's see, using the standard 3.5 mW turbine, that's really only somewhere between 1000 and 2000 turbines. That means that you have to employ 35-40 full time crews of twenty people, a max of 800 laborers. That is a little more of a work force than goes into building a nuclear plant, I grant you, but hey, we need jobs anyway, and a new industry that employs people at well paying jobs rather than McJobs is always a good thing.

Yes, I will also give that each turbine needs about $2000 worth of maintanence each year, roughly about million dollars, but hey, a nuke plant burns at least double that in fuel and waste costs alone, not to mention maintence and HP functions, a real non-factor with turbines.

Oh, and if wind got the sort of subsidies that nuclear got, the initial costs would be about half. It really is sad how badly nuclear is subsidized by our government.

And the safe lifespan for modern turbines and nuclear plants is about the same, thirty to thirty five years. I realize that there are nuclear plants running today that are older than thirty five years, but the little known, but sad fact is these plants really aren't safe. They are having leakage and structural problems. They really should be shut down, but there is a stubborn core that won't let nuclear die the death it deserves.

No, I've done the math, hell I used to work in the nuclear industry. But the fact is, wind and solar are the answer. Nuclear is too dicey, especially in the long run. And when you take the true costs, environmental, health, etc. into consideration, wind is much cheaper.

[TheWraith]

18. Let's break this down one thing at a time.

For starters, do you know the size of a 3.5 megawatt turbine? It's freaking enormous. We have a lot of turbines around here, and they're all more in the 1 meg range. That's still damn big.

But okay, let's take your figures for a second, generous though they are. Now multiply it to account for replacing all fossil fuel energy. You're still talking about adding hundreds of thousands of turbines that size.

Let's stipulate an installed cost of $1 million per megawatt for wind. That's a bit generous too, but we'll go ahead. So to replace the same capacity as a decent sized nuclear or coal plant--assuming an ideal wind-load--you're talking about $6 billion.

The average cost for nuclear plants, on the other hand, is about $500k per megawatt, or $3 billion for a 2 gigawatt facility, equivalent to that wind farm.

That's a pretty substantial difference. Plus, each turbine requires a lot of area, specifically clearence from other turbines and tall buildings. Building even just the ~1700 turbines you stipulate would require a LARGE amount of area. Say two acres per turbine, which is pretty stingy: even so, that's 5.3 square miles. A nuclear plant can be built on 0.02 square miles, making far less of a footprint on the local ecosystem.

It gets worse when you figure that we require 462 gigawatts continuously in the US. To generate that, you'd need at least 1.4 million 1 megawatt wind turbines, or half a million 3.5 mW models at a cost of a trillion and a half dollars, and around 4,400 square miles. Possible, but only just barely. Figuring at your numbers for the workforce, you'd also require between 3 and 7 billion man-hours of labor.

Enough nuclear plants to generate that much, on the other hand, would cost about $560 million, and could be fit onto 4.3 square miles--less than the area you'd need for a single 2 gigawatt wind farm.

Look, wind power has its advantages, but for all that, it produces less than one half of one percent of all our energy. That's not because of some evil nuclear power conspiracy, it's just the realistic economics.

[MadHound]

19. Before you go any further, I really suggest that you take a few to go and check out new turbine tech

3.5 mW turbines aren't that expensive to put up and operate, nor do they take up a couple of acres each:crazy: I've looked into these things, since I'm going to be putting up one myself at some point here in the relatively near future, and a 3.5 mW turbine costs around $20,000-$30,000 to buy and install. GE recommends that you allow a quarter acre for each turbine. You can go check this out at GE or other places on the net, just go do some googling.

You are also being disenginous when you state that a nuke plant only takes up 0.02 square miles. Your essentially saying that a nuclear plant is about the size of a basketball court. Again, I've worked at a nuke plant, and the footprint of the turbines alone is at least triple that size. In fact the entire facility that I worked at was sitting on about 13 square miles of ground. After all, you've got the cooling towers, waste pool, reactor chamber(which itself is the size of a basketball court or more), offices, various other buildings, parking, and buffer areas.

You need to stop pulling numbers out of thin air and do your research. If you would do so, you'd find that actually wind power is not only comparable economically, but given that it is clean, and produces no waste is a huge plus. And yes, wind can power this country. A 1991 survey of our harvestable wind energy found that there is enough in three states alone(N. Dakota, Texas and Kansas) to fulfill all of our electrical needs, including growth factor, through the year 2030. And that was using '91 tech, modern wind turbines are much more efficient, longer lasting and cheaper. That's not to say that we're going to pave over those three states with turbines, that just goes to show you the immense resource that we have at our disposal if we choose to use it.

Nuclear on the other hand is becoming increasingly expensive. One crucial factor that you need to consider is fuel costs. The US has squandered most of its uranium resources on bombs and such. Therefore we would have to import(same as with oil) much of our fuel. So rather than being bent over a fuel barrel by the Middle East, we would be bent over a fuel rod by S. Africa and Canada. Hmmm

I really think that you need to do some more research on this, and redo your math. Not only are your numbers wrong, but so are the conclusions that you draw from them.

[TheWraith]

39. Your figures are completely wrong.

For starters, would you care to provide a link to those $20-30k 3.5 megawatt wind turbines? I assure you that you won't be able to. Nobody can build, buy, and install a 3.5 mW rated turbine for that kind of money. If somebody told you they can, they're lying.

If they could do that, a turbine would pay for itself in about two weeks, and you could supply all the electrical power in the United States for the price of about $13 billion dollars. You don't need to know energy to know that that's bullshit.

As for size, large turbines tend to have blades running into the hundreds of feet in diameter. Unless you're really careful about the angles you install them on, you've got to account for at least 250+ feet of seperation between them. Plus for maximum efficency, you can't let them get into each other's slipstream, which is why they're typically deployed in horizontal lines or staggered formation.

"You are also being disenginous when you state that a nuke plant only takes up 0.02 square miles. Your essentially saying that a nuclear plant is about the size of a basketball court."

Don't be a jackass. 0.02 square miles is still over a dozen acres, which is the size of some operating US reactor facilities. Others are larger, taking up a whole 30-50 acres. But if 12 acres is the size of a basketball court, you must have some big players. Please try to get your math even remotely correct. It really completely destroys your credibility when you claim that MY numbers are made up.

http://www.google.com/search?q=0.02+square+miles+to+acres

"A 1991 survey of our harvestable wind energy found that there is enough in three states alone(N. Dakota, Texas and Kansas) to fulfill all of our electrical needs, including growth factor, through the year 2030."

And in theory, there's enough sunlight in a 100 mile by 100 mile square of Nevada to power the entire country. That doesn't mean that it's a viable solution.

"Nuclear on the other hand is becoming increasingly expensive. One crucial factor that you need to consider is fuel costs. The US has squandered most of its uranium resources on bombs and such."

And bombs can be down-converted for use in reactors. Not to mention that people like to forget that the price of uranium could triple, and it would still be the SMALLEST portion of the price of operating a reactor. Further, we have the capability to produce a lot more uranium than we actually are.

And out of curiousity, you'd rather continue burning coal than buy from Canada and Australia? Because that's the alternative.

[jpak]

27. Wrong - the last nuclear plants actually built in the US cost $5-6000 per kW

and up to $6.8 billion per unit (i.e., Watts Bar)

Furthermore, the US does not have the uranium resources to supply current reactor demand let alone an expanded nuclear program. Last year, US reactors used 62 million pounds of yellowcake, but US mines only produced 2 million pounds of uranium.

Renewables are our only truly sustainable low carbon energy choices...

[Pavulon]

30. PU..

Can be bred as well as reprocessed.

The SUN is a great example of a renewable resource. Gaining its energy from nuclear reactions..

FBR reactors negate your concern. Doubling times are our friend!

[MadHound]

34. FBR's still have the same problems that any nuclear reactor does

It is still subject to the same amount of human error. And while it doesn't produce the same amount of waste from fuel, it still produces the same, or more, non-fuel waste. Generally about three times the volume of the fuel waste.

So what do we do with the waste? Put it in the ground and let our children's children deal with it. But hey, we might have to yet deal with it in our lifetime, what with the fact that Yucca is sitting at the conjunction of three active faults.

And human error, oh my, yes there's been human error, everything from interment releases of radioactive steam and leaks of radioactive water into the ground, all the way up to those biggies, TMI and Chernobyl.

Why should we take these risks, and kick that can on down the generational road, when we can supply all of our electrical needs via alternatives? Yes, it will take a long while and cost a lot of money, but it will also help save this country's ass in the long run, while providing jobs and another emerging boom market for our economy.

If we, as a country had gone on a serious renewable energy program twenty eight years ago, we would have cut our oil usage by more than half, and that was using 1979 tech. We have the raw resources, we have the advanced tech, we have the means to switch over to an entirely renewable energy infrastructure. Don't you think it's time we started doing it?

[TheWraith]

38. Watts Bar cost more because it took 23 years to build.

Thanks in part to anti-nuclear activists. Part of the reason reactors are so expensive to build is because they have to fight off lawsuits and challenges by NIMBY types, with or without the support of the oil and coal industries.

As for uranium, that's a bogus argument for reasons that I've outlined at least a half dozen times to you personally, yet you completely ignore the actual facts. Most of our uranium mining operations were shut down, so we're producing far less than we could; major producers of uranium are Australia and Canada, extremely friendly nations for trade; and the Japanese are have designed a way to filter uranium out of seawater without the need for mining at all.

And you still haven't been able to rebut any of my facts.

[Pavulon]

25. Except the Industrial need

Aluminum smelting can consume hundreds of megawatts an hour. Most reactors provide 800 - 2100MWh output. Even if there is no WIND.

Bird choppers are not the answer. Nevada will have to take one for the team though.

[MadHound]

35. You obviously don't know much about renewable industries,

And even less about the problems with all nuclear reactors, no matter their type. And the fact that you're so willing to both write off the state of Nevada, consigning their residents to a nuclear hell, and are so willing to kick the nuclear waste can on down the road for future generations speaks volumes about your attitude and outlook on life, none of it good.

First of all, you need to go read the 1991 DOE survey of harvestable wind energy. They found that there are more than enough harvestable wind reserves to provide for all of our electrical needs, including aluminum smelting, for generations to come. You also might look into the geothermal work that countries like Iceland are doing with industries like aluminum smelting(and gee, we could even do that here).

Then there is solar, and hydro, and a raft of others to help supplement our energy infrastructure. I would suggest that you go do some research before you definitively declare our need for nuclear, because it has become painfully obvious from your postings on this thread that you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.

Oh, and your little ad hominem attack against wind, you know, that "bird chopper" comment. That also shows off your ignorance. There has been one(1) incident of a massive bird die off due to wind turbines, and that was a couple of decades ago in Altamont Pass CA. Since that one(1) incident, the wind turbine industry has done massive surveys on the ideal placement of turbines in order to forestall any more such bird incidents. Oh, and technologically they've lowered the tip speed on turbines, further minimizing the danger to birds. Stop buying into old, stale propaganda. It only makes you look foolish when you regurgitate it back up.

[spanone]

5. three mile island...chernobyl....just a few

[TheWraith]

13. A statement with as much to do with the current discussion as Exxon-Valdez.

Bypassing completely the fact that fossil fuels kill about as many people in a day as nuclear power has killed in all of human history, are you really aware of what you're talking about, or are you simply repeating mantras?

The Chernobyl accident was the combination of a grotesquely unsafe plant design that would have sent any qualified engineer screaming for the hills, lack of competance on the part of the operators, and an unsafe test being conducted which required them to deliberately circumvent all the safety protocols. If nuclear power were really as dangerous as people pretend, you wouldn't need such a rare combination of events to trigger a catastrophic accident. Never mind the fact that newer reactors have improved designs which make it just shy of impossible for unwanted criticalities to occur in the core.

Comparing all nuclear power to Chernobyl is like saying that there's terrorists under every rock because of 9/11. One rare convergence of events, speaking mostly to the idiocy of the people who were supposed to keep things safe, does not represent the day to day reality of the world.

[Dave From Canada]

16. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are examples of 30-40 year old technology. Step into the 2000's, or

at the very least the 90's.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Humans have been over estimating the safety of nuclear technology ever since

... we were painting radium on watch dials. Later we were x-raying childrens feet to see if shoes fit well. We keep "solving the problem" only to later admit that we did not "solve the problem" but "this time you can trust us we really solved the problem."

The problem with nuclear power will not be solved as long as humans are subject to human error and as long as money can buy corruption. There is no system that is fail safe when people who are capable of doing stupid things remain in the loop. People have off days. in fact they have really really off days when their minds are simply someplace else for all kinds of human reasons. And there is no automated system that is fail safe when people are involved in writing the programs. We lost some pretty complex and expensive space craft that smashed into Mars because of some really stupid programming errors that weren't caught during quality control.

Then of course there is greed. Sub contractors have sold below quality steel bars and bolts to nuclear plants during construction - they just paid off some people and falsified the records. Human nature hasn't changed in the last 30 to 40 years. The NRC gets bought off at a whole other level - through the political appointee pay off process when friends of the nuclear industry are in power. Suddenly certain major problems aren't critical enough to fix to require shutting down plants on an emergency basis - they can wait until the next scheduled maintance to be taken care of instead. Suddenly common sense requrements for the abiltiy to evacuate the public in case of an emergency no longer are common sense. Suddenly it is assumed that all those low paid school bus drivers will stick around to shuttle people away from a disaster zone rather than go home to evacuate their own families.

The problem with nuclear power is that the after effects of an "unthinkable accident" occurring frankly are near unthinkable. Radioactive clouds released from one cite can circle the globe, areas that include thousands of square miles can instantly be converted into permanent kill zones. Unthinkable accidents are only unthinkable until they happen. After they happen panels are convened to discuss how that ever was possible in the first place and what can be done to make sure "that it never happens again", until the next unthinkable accident happens again.

And before we get the matter of nuclear waste there is the matter of nuclear proliferation in an age of terrorism. I don't know if you have ever studied the NRC requirements for the level of security that nuclear plants and related nuclear fuel storgage areas are suppoesed to maintain. They are a joke. They assume that an attack on a nuclear plant would not be much more sophisticated than a major bank robbery, and that the weapons used during such an attack would be garden variety. They are a joke because of greed. The industry does not want to have to pay for the level of security actually needed. The government doesn't want to pick up the tab for the nuclear industry to provide adaquate security either because they are trying to down play risks and underplay the true costs on nuclear power.

[Union Thug]

6. Has she visited Chernobyl?

How about a tour? http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

[ShaneGR]

21. Good comparison, if you think all plants have 50 year old Russian Technology

And improper safety standards. Which they don't of course, but who's really counting.

[Union Thug]

31. So you're saying there is no risk?

The risks of nuclear power are too great, 50 year old technology or not; that's the bottom line for me. Chernobyl simply illustrates the scope of the risk. Frankly, I'd rather cook by a campfire and candle light than risk exposing my kids to the consequences of even a 'minor' nuclear accident.

[niyad]

7. anybody have the lyrics to kristen lems song "too cheap to meter"

http://cdbaby.com/cd/kristinlems6

[TheMadMonk]

8. One technology to deal with waste has existed from the very first days of nuclear power.

That technology is breeder reactors which apart from the capacity to turn worthless radio-isotopes into valuable nuclear fuel, can also transmute radioactive nuclear ash into stable materials.

And recently, technology with the same limited transmutation capacity has emerged in what will ultimately be a tabletop device. It can be used any number of ways. As a trigger for a basement sized micro-nuclear power plant, burning fuel only in tiny amounts far to small ever to suffer meltdown. To "incinerate" nuclear ash. Yes to make bombs. Any number of industrial, medical and scientific applications. It's too good not to happen.

It lets us entirely abandon the (at least slightly) risky practice of riding the ragged edge of criticality.

We're just going to have to deal with the fact that one day in the not too distant future it will be possible for virtually anyone to cook up enough plutonium or U233 for a bomb.

One mitigating factor is that abundant energy makes almost anything else possible. Water, food, fuel. Basic dissatisfaction with which to stir up general unrest is not a problem when everyone has a full belly, and time to scratch his balls.

[jpak]

14. Breeders never worked

Every one of them either suffered a meltdown or a serious sodium fire.

And none ever produced significant quantities of plutonium...

[Pavulon]

24. The BN-600

reactor is currently online. It has been generating power for 28 years.

Gas cooled fast reactors should be coming online soon.

[blues90]

9. I am against nuclear power plants

Just to cool the damn things you need water and we are running out of that , of coarse the need water to cool generators too but they won't explode it the cooling water stops for some odd reason . Besides where does the waste go into some leaking drum sunk in the ocean like most crap like this ends up .

I really am to old to care anymore I don't have children so if people want to radiate themselves rather than find a better way then go for it , in fact turn the entire planet to glass and let the bugs survive , we have been poisoning them for decades and ourselves in the process .

[Pavulon]

10. Nuke Plants are Cool

the navy has run them for 40 years with no incident. Millions of megawatts generated, no problems.

They make cheap, carbon free power and are used in france efficiently.

Nevada has a nice hole in the ground in which to dump waste. Once a better way to dispose of it is found, dig it up..

Cheers.

[blues90]

11. 40 years is not a long time

A hole in the ground , nice , how long has this been there waiting for a better way ? What are they going to do fire the waste into space and hope it does not come back someday .

All it takes is just one little mishap and the damage is not then worth the risk .

But that's just me and my ideas about nuclear power . Who is going to want one of these plants in their back yard ?

[Pavulon]

23. I do!

Because there is one in my back yard, large companies are moving data center operations out of southern california.

Because electricity costs a tiny fraction here of what it costs in so cal.

PBR and PWR reactors are quite safe.

40 years with millions of operating hours on numerous reactors is a good history.

Many advanced reactor design that basically prevent any criticality events and coolant failure is irrelevant.

Bury the waste in Nevada. France is using this technology to run their grid.

[blues90]

32. Well they say shipping oil on tankers is safe

and look what's happened , they said food is safe but look what's happened . Just who will regulate these wonderful nuclear power plants some screwed up bunch of private companies like the safe coal mines . It's all the same thing , one big illusion all with one big flaw just waiting to become tomarrows news while people are running with their skin falling off .

[gatorboy]

37. Where does France dump it's waste? n/t

[SlowDownFast]

29. Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of Yucca Mountain

Earthquakes In The Vicinity Of Yucca Mountain

Nevada ranks third in the nation for current seismic activity. Earthquake data bases are available that provide current and historical earthquake information, and these can be accessed to gain information on seismic activity in the vicinity of the proposed High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository site at Yucca Mountain, in southern Nevada. The data bases reviewed for the southern Nevada area were the Council of the National Seismic System Composite Catalogue and the Southern Great Basin Seismic Network.

Analysis of the available data indicates that, since 1976, there have been 621 seismic events of magnitude greater than 2.5 within a 50-mile radius of Yucca Mountain. Reported underground nuclear weapons tests at the Nevada Test Site have been excluded from this count.

The most notable event during this period was a magnitude 5.6 earthquake near Little Skull Mountain, about 8 miles southeast of the Yucca Mountain site, that occurred on June 29, 1992. This earthquake caused damage to a nearby Department of Energy field office building. This earthquake, and many after-shocks, occurred on a fault that had not previously been identified. The Little Skull Mountain earthquake and numerous others at about the same time in the western U.S. are considered to have been triggered by the magnitude 7.4 Landers earthquake, in California.

The only significant cluster of earthquake activity in the 50-mile radius area is in Rock Valley, about 12 miles southeast of Yucca Mountain. The data base also reveals that, in 1948, there was a magnitude 3.6 event on the southeast boundary of the Yucca Mountain site, in an area known to have a number of faults. Recently, there have been other events recorded beneath Yucca Mountain with magnitudes less than 2.5.

Earthquake activity is a safety concern both during operation, above and below ground, and after closure of a repository at Yucca Mountain.

The mountain ranges and valleys of the Basin and Range, including the Yucca Mountain area, are a result of millions of years of intense faulting and volcanism. Records of recent events indicate that faulting is an ongoing process in the vicinity of Yucca Mountain that is expected to continue long into the future. Thirty-three faults are known to exist within and adjacent to the Yucca Mountain site.

The 20-year record reported here is approximately the same period of time that the Department of Energy has been evaluating the Nevada Test Site and Yucca Mountain as a potential high-level nuclear waste disposal site.

[rAVES]

20. Nuclear power is fine.. just dont build one near my house...

I imagine is pretty much the general consensus on the matter... :P

[gatorboy]

36. And there's the rub.

But if you're not in a poor town, you more than likely won't have to worry about it.

[Selatius]

33. If we don't build nuke power plants, then people must stop using "big-screen TVs and iPods"

Let Americans be subject to the forces of the free market, while pushing the country to a more ecologically sustainable path. If energy prices become too high, then naturally Americans won't be driving SUVs and using big-screen TVs anymore, will they? They'll be using mass transit instead and watching smaller televisions. It's up to the government to provide new opportunities where old opportunities disappear, like implementing mass transit among other things.