By Johanna R. Thibault, Esq.
April 13, 2012
The New York Times published an article this week discussing the state of the nuclear renaissance characterizing the death of nuclear being "somewhat exaggerated." Blaming the Fukushima disaster, the low cost of natural gas, and the aftershocks of the 2008 recession for any downturn in the support for nuclear power.
Of these factors, the Fukushima incident is by far the largest culprit in nuclear power's apparent demise. After the earthquake and ensuing tsunami caused a near catastrophic nuclear meltdown in March of 2011, the so-called nuclear renaissance has been all but put on hold as we are reminded yet again of the dangers associated with nuclear power. A year later, Japan's nuclear industry remains largely shuttered, and in response to Fukushima, Germany has implemented the rapid termination of its nuclear power program.
However, despite this hesitation for new nuclear facilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did grant permission for development of two nuclear reactors at the Vogtle facility in Augusta, Georgia, which is the first license granted for a new nuclear reactor in over thirty years.
Unlike other countries, the U.S. has been determined to continue utilizing nuclear power as a significant source of power, yet has not supported the addition of new facilities since the late 1970's. Whether or not supportive of nuclear power, most are able to agree that this has created somewhat of a conundrum for the nuclear industry and the safety of our nation. For example, Vermont Yankee was authorized by the NRC to uprate its output to meet increased demand, and more recently its federal license was extended for another 20 years, while at the same time the physical plant has shown its age - most notably in the collapse of a secondary cooling structure.
After the Three Mile Island incident 33 years ago, the nuclear industry watched its support diminish. The unfortunate byproduct of this downturn and shift in perspective has been the continued operation of facilities throughout the country beyond the anticipated lifespan of their reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the industry itself, has been under scrutiny for allowing the continuation of these "second generation" facilities creating and reinforcing a widespread public view of unsafe conditions and the potential for catastrophic failures.
The new "third generation" and "third generation plus" facilities are, to the contrary, designed to be much safer. While the development of new reactors in the U.S. stalled for years, Westinghouse, GE, and other reactor designers have continued developing new designs for France, Japan, and more recently China. The Vogtle license approves the installation of two new AP1000 reactors, which are otherwise described as having an "advanced passive" design. Effectively, if the reactors at Fukushima had been of this design, the catastrophe would not have occurred. The design uses a system employing gravity and convection instead of power-operated pumps for its emergency cooling, which eliminates the need for power sources in the event of a natural disaster.
If the U.S. is going to continue its use of nuclear power as a source for its electrical power grid, it begs the question, should we be averse to the installation of these new facilities? Should government subsidies be permitted for use in supporting the industry by allowing it to replace the "second generation" facilities with the new and advanced designs like the AP 1000? Can the promise of new, safer technology overcome the stigma that nuclear has earned in light of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima?
April 13, 2012
The New York Times published an article this week discussing the state of the nuclear renaissance characterizing the death of nuclear being "somewhat exaggerated." Blaming the Fukushima disaster, the low cost of natural gas, and the aftershocks of the 2008 recession for any downturn in the support for nuclear power.
Of these factors, the Fukushima incident is by far the largest culprit in nuclear power's apparent demise. After the earthquake and ensuing tsunami caused a near catastrophic nuclear meltdown in March of 2011, the so-called nuclear renaissance has been all but put on hold as we are reminded yet again of the dangers associated with nuclear power. A year later, Japan's nuclear industry remains largely shuttered, and in response to Fukushima, Germany has implemented the rapid termination of its nuclear power program.
However, despite this hesitation for new nuclear facilities, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission did grant permission for development of two nuclear reactors at the Vogtle facility in Augusta, Georgia, which is the first license granted for a new nuclear reactor in over thirty years.
Unlike other countries, the U.S. has been determined to continue utilizing nuclear power as a significant source of power, yet has not supported the addition of new facilities since the late 1970's. Whether or not supportive of nuclear power, most are able to agree that this has created somewhat of a conundrum for the nuclear industry and the safety of our nation. For example, Vermont Yankee was authorized by the NRC to uprate its output to meet increased demand, and more recently its federal license was extended for another 20 years, while at the same time the physical plant has shown its age - most notably in the collapse of a secondary cooling structure.
After the Three Mile Island incident 33 years ago, the nuclear industry watched its support diminish. The unfortunate byproduct of this downturn and shift in perspective has been the continued operation of facilities throughout the country beyond the anticipated lifespan of their reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the industry itself, has been under scrutiny for allowing the continuation of these "second generation" facilities creating and reinforcing a widespread public view of unsafe conditions and the potential for catastrophic failures.
The new "third generation" and "third generation plus" facilities are, to the contrary, designed to be much safer. While the development of new reactors in the U.S. stalled for years, Westinghouse, GE, and other reactor designers have continued developing new designs for France, Japan, and more recently China. The Vogtle license approves the installation of two new AP1000 reactors, which are otherwise described as having an "advanced passive" design. Effectively, if the reactors at Fukushima had been of this design, the catastrophe would not have occurred. The design uses a system employing gravity and convection instead of power-operated pumps for its emergency cooling, which eliminates the need for power sources in the event of a natural disaster.
If the U.S. is going to continue its use of nuclear power as a source for its electrical power grid, it begs the question, should we be averse to the installation of these new facilities? Should government subsidies be permitted for use in supporting the industry by allowing it to replace the "second generation" facilities with the new and advanced designs like the AP 1000? Can the promise of new, safer technology overcome the stigma that nuclear has earned in light of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima?
We have a good safety record with nuclear power in the US. Of course there are always risks and costs associated with any power generation - Fossil fuels create greenhouse gases, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe current revolution in the production of natural gas and oil in the United States is making new nuclear power generation too costly.
http://cityplanningnews.com