jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (04/18/84)
The nuclear power debate continues... >> = Scott Renner > = Jon White >> b) According to Ralph Nader, nuclear plants are more polluting than >> their fossil fueled equivalents if you look at the total picture. That >> is, if you take into account the exposed tailings from uranium mines, >> the environmental impact of a nuclear plant is greater than a >> coal-fired plant. And when you begin to consider the possibility of an >> accident, well, I don't think that there's much of a contest. >Ralph Nader is a dangerous man; he says incredibly stupid things, and many >people take him seriously. This is the man that gave us the seat belt >interlock circuit. (Interlock circuit lobotomies were one of the most >popular auto repairs for the year or so that these devices were inflicted >upon us.) This is the man that with great fanfare switched from an >electric typewriter to a manual "to save electricity." (He saved perhaps a >quarter-cup of imported oil per year.) I don't think that Ralph Nader needs me to defend him from this sort of petty character assassination. Any person who is so active in so many areas of controversy is bound to garner some criticism, but knocking the man for making what is obviously a conciousness-raising symbolic gesture is a bit much. I have already given out the source of Nader's claim in an earlier article. He is citing research done by Robert O. Pohl, professor of physics at Cornell University. If you have any criticism for the claim that the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle alone is more polluting than the entire coal fuel cycle, direct it at Dr. Pohl. >Anyway, he's flat wrong about the hazards of nuclear power. Any facts to back up that statement? >The only viable alternitave *today* is coal, and coal is incredibly deadly. I >have misfiled the newspaper clipping, and so cannot give a reference >for this, but a statistical study analyzed death rates from respiratory >disorders vs air pollution from coal burning, and decided that coal >burning caused 100,000 deaths annually in the U.S. A favorite debating technique of the nuclear industry is to claim that coal is the *only* option if nuclear power is rejected, and then proceed on to show how bad coal is (without even mentioning the safety and economic problems of nuclear). I know that you would like to turn this debate into a coal vs. nuclear issue, but coal is only one of many options available. Refer to the end of this article for more on this point. It's true that coal is less than ideal for many reasons, but it is still superior to nuclear power in couple of major areas: 1. Economics. Coal can stand on its own two feet in the free market, whereas commercial nuclear power wouldn't even exist today if not for massive government subsidies. It is interesting to note that both Tim Sevener and I have emphasized this point, but none of the pro-nukers have seen fit to respond to it. Also, investing in nuclear power has become a bit risky. Last July, the Washington State Public Power Supply System (WPPSS or Whoops) defaulted on 2.25 billion dollars worth of bonds (the largest municipal bond failure ever). And nuclear plants are getting to be very expensive to build: for example, the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant had an original projected cost of 450 million, but so far has cost 4.4 billion. Its startup has been delayed due to a series of colossally stupid design and construction defects (NOT government red tape). Show me a coal-fired plant that has experienced problems like this! 2. Safety. The best unbiased assessment of the relative safety of these two technologies can be found in the policies of insurance companies. To my knowledge, all coal-fired plants are completely insured by private-sector insurance companies. But for some strange reason, the private sector has opted not to even come close to fully insuring nuclear plants. Herbert S. Deneburg, former insurance commissioner of Pennsylvania, used the government's WASH-740 update to calculate that even if a company were willing to insure a nuclear plant, the premium would exceed the operating costs of the plant (23.5 million 1974 dollars). >The environmental impact of coal burning is *huge* when compared to fission >power. In 1982 power plants burned 600 million tons of coal. Think of the >size of the strip mines needed for this. Think of the air pollution this >will cause. First of all, keep in mind that coal currently produces four and a half times as much electricity as does nuclear. Of course, there is definitely a need to use state-of-the-art mining techniques and pollution control technology, which will greatly reduce environmental impact. Pohl's study flatly contradicts your first statement. >Think of all of the ash -- more than 600 million tons -- that >must be disposed of somewhere. (It's poisonous -- it contains mercury, >arsenic, lead -- and somewhat radioactive, since the coal contains uranium, >and probably would require low-level waste storage if it came from a nuclear >power plant.) Maybe you can explain how get "more than 600 million tons" of ash from burning "600 million tons of coal"? Anyway, your information on the poisonous quality of ash doesn't jibe with a recent article in Time magazine on nuclear power, which claimed that "Coal ash is essentially inert and harmless (Feb. 13, p. 38)" >By contrast, the wastes from all of the nuclear power plants >to date would fit into a large barn. We can *afford* to store that sensibly, Gee, maybe we could store all that nuclear waste in a large barn in *your* backyard :-). Seriously, though, you are trivializing what is probably the most nagging problem of the nuclear industry. Those high-level wastes will remain physically hot (several hundred degrees) and dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Do you really believe that geological formations and human institutions will remain stable for that period of time? Needless to say, the notion is absurd. And emphasizing the volume of waste is ridiculous when you're referring to something as toxic as high-level nuclear waste. >whereas there's just so much coal ash that it gets stacked somewhere, and to >hell with what happens to the ground water. One possible way to dispose of the ash is to use it for filling in strip mines. I fail to see how compacted ash could be much more harmful in the ground than the original coal was. >> c) Nuclear power provides 4% of our nation's total energy needs (this is a >> 1977 figure, but it has got to be close to the current figure). I >> think that we could probably shut down most of the existing plants if >> we had an aggressive, national conservation effort coupled with a >> program to convert some of the literally thousands of existing dams to >> hydro-electric. >Nuclear power is used only to produce electricity. Nuclear power provides >over 12.6% of the nation's current electricity; in 1977, it provided 11.8%. >[Source: World Almanac & Book of Facts, 1984.] In parts of New England the >figure is as high as 50%. I still stand by my opinion that most of the nuclear plants could be shut down. Southeastern Canada (conveniently close to New England) has a vast oversupply of hydro-electricity that they would love to sell. We also have untapped hydro-power potential in that part of the country. In addition, we have huge domestic reserves of natural gas and existing pipelines that run all over the country. And don't forget that we already have excess generating capacity: "American utilities now have about 30% more generating capacity than they need, far more than the 20% to 25% generally considered sufficient to meet unusual weather-caused emergencies or to assist neighboring utility companies. (Time, Feb. 13, 1984, p. 37)." Most importantly, though, this country needs to get behind energy conservation in a big way. It is definitely our greatest resource, and can achieve remarkable results in a short period of time. To illustrate this point with a quick example: between the years 1972 and 1977, the Lockheed L.A. factory complex achieved a 59% energy reduction with practically no investment (Energy Future, p. 193). This was achieved mainly through what is known as better housekeeping. Any further debate should probably move to net.politics. Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/19/84)
{}
Jumping back into the fray, let me first say that I would be more than
happy to see all of the current nuke plants close. There are just too
many problems with them right now. On the other hand, I cannot see
them just locking the doors until there is an alternative source of
power to replace the lost KWs. Jon White argues that coal is a good
alternative to nukes. This is very true, however, the costs involved
in building new coal-fired plants, plus the environmental considerations
which must be met, are nearly prohibitive. Jon also stated that there
is a great deal of hydro-electric potential available in southeast
Canada which can be tapped to supply the Northeast US. I don't know
for sure, but I would think that the Canadians might not be too
enthusiastic about damning up their streams and rivers.
If Jon would like, I will build a coal-fired plant to end coal-fired
plants. It will be the most modern plant you can imagine. All
I need is a blank check to pay for everything. A BIG blank
check. All I will need to do is find an area that is near enough
to a good supply of the right kind of coal (there are differences
you know), where the population does not object, and the distribution
lines are available. Then, after 5 or 6 years of invironmental
impact studies, government agency paperwork, and planning, I will
begin construction (good for 3 or 4 more years). Then, after at least
8 years, I should be able to produce electricity. IF some other
cheaper method has not come along to make my plant obsolete the
day it opens.
The problem is not as easily solved as Jon imagines. I, myself, would
not be too anxious to invest in such a venture given that the costs
are so high as compared to the return on investment. The Government
had to give a tax break to investors just to get them to buy
utilities stocks. As it is, this type of investment is still not
such a good deal. Of course, the government could expand the
Tennessee Valley Authority to the entire country and go into the
energy business in a big way. But then, what happens to the
independent companies? Does the government buy them out or do
they try to compete with the government? The list of "what ifs"
could go on and on.
Just closing the nuclear plants tommorrow would not solve the problem
of available energy. New technology has to be fostered and developed.
The lines of protesters in front of the nukes would do better if
they were to form those lines outside the offices of those agencies
which are chartered to investigate new energy sources. Get the
agencies to get off their rumps and get busy. Get Congress to back
energy source investigation with bucks not platitudes. Apply
pressure to those who can do something about finding new energy
sources. It does very little real good to stop a few members of
the Plumbers Union from going to work, they get paid anyway.
Milling around in front of a nuclear plant is not getting new
energy sources found, and is probably counterproductive anyway.
That's all I have to say on the subject except, the pile of statistics
that have been bandied about on coal vs. nuclear do not convince
me one way or another as to who is right or wrong. Those figures
are munged to fit the argument and we all know it. Instead of
quoting from this expert and that expert, become an expert and
find us a new way to develop energy sources. Until then, I
am going to stick with the nukes we have (not that we need any
more though).
T. C. Wheeler