Nuclear power: what choice do we make? (March 28, 2011)

To be honest, I would have never thought that I would be writing a blog that reaches the conclusions that I am now expressing here.  What has changed my mind are the unfortunate and disastrous events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan, after the earthquake and tsunami of 2011.  I want to be very clear what my current conclusions are and my reasons for them.  So, here we go.

1.  I continue to believe that nuclear power can be an important and significant source of power for mankind.  The importance has risen over the years as the climate change consequences of burning fossil fuels are becoming more clear.

2.  An additional fact that makes nuclear power significant is the dwindling supply of fossil fuels and their geopolitical implications.

3.  Nuclear power can be safe provided that adequate precautions are taken to assure that the reactor fuel and the spent fuel cannot possibly cause any harm.

4.  Theoretically, we know how to take these precautions. Practically, this is a different matter.  As long as the basic motivation behind generating power is the profit motive, we need very strong laws and regulations that force the discipline necessary for safe operation.

5.  Recent events in Japan have shown that even the Japanese, known for being meticulous and detail-oriented, did not even anticipate such a tsunami as the one that just happened.  Furthermore, there is evidence that Tokyo Electric Power executives (owners of the Fukushima plant) were too much interested in protecting their hardware than cooling it with sea water.  The profit motive (or not losing too much) seems to have been a priority consideration.  This is evidence that our human and political systems are not robust enough to guard against a run-away chain reaction.  Do I really have the assurance that this balance is so different in United States or Europe?  I am not convinced.

6.  So I come to the conclusion that although theoretically nuclear power can be safe, our human and political systems get in the way.

7.  Another thing that gets in the way is that we can only plan for problems we can foresee.  The problem with nuclear power is that the consequences of an unforeseen problem can be so devastating that we can never be sure that we have thought of everything.  We can think of very few other inventions that have such dire consequences if a “mistake” is made.

I hope you see where I am coming from.  But I also want to tell you where I am going, i.e., if we are concerned with climate change, and we are not comfortable with nuclear power, where do we turn to to meet our energy demands?

I agree that we must keep a large array of options.  However, I think it just makes sense to exhaust everything we can do with renewable energy (wind, solar and hydro) before choosing an option that requires some sort of fuel.

So how do we make progress?  I would start right here in New York State and offer a generous program of incentives for solar and wind energy.  I would like to see small generation systems, all tied to the grid, all over the state.  These systems could be installed at homes, farms, businesses, and wherever else makes sense.  I would make sure that federal incentives also become available to assure that such systems will spread like wildflowers.  Just think of the jobs we can create in building and maintaining these systems.

New York can become the greenest state in the country.  We already have a leg up because of our unusually high level of hydro power.  We should capitalize on this and show the rest of the country that we can grow responsibly and leave a better future for our children and grand children.

Japan nuclear crisis, March 16, 2011.

Witnessing the events following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan has been heart wrenching.  I have been a supporter of nuclear power as a part of technologies we could use to meet our energy needs and at the same time be mindful of climate change and our national independence.  My support continues despite the events in Japan.  I would like to explain.

I have been surprised and disappointed in Japan’s (and Tokyo Electric Power’s) lack of preparedness for a possible tsunami.  30-ft (and more) waves following a tsunami are not unknown in that region of the world, and I had expected that such an event had been taken into account is the design and location of the Fukushima nuclear reactors’ auxiliary (diesel) power systems.  The response of the reactor systems to the earthquake, as far as I can ascertain at this time, was as it should have been.  However, the loss of power to continue pumping water into the hot reactor necessitated the use of the diesel-fueled auxiliary system.  The tsunami following the earthquake disabled this system leading the the unfolding crisis.

I would have thought that the Japanese, known to be detail-oriented and meticulous, would have been prepared for an unlikely but possible tsunami.  I was clearly wrong.  Not only Japan, but all of humanity will pay a price for this unpreparedness.  Before throwing in the towel and banning nuclear power completely, let’s examine a few facts:

1.  The only other alternative for Japan to produce electric power would have been fossil fuels.  It would all have to be imported, whether it is oil or coal.

2.  The reactors at Fukushima have been operating since 1971, about 40 years.  As far as I know, they have not had any problems or issues during that time.  They are an early design that have now been significantly improved from a safety and redundancy perspective.

3.  Consider the environmental and human consequences of oil drilling (remember the BP Gulf disaster) and the number of coal miners who lose their lives each year. Also, consider the billions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants that were not released into the atmosphere because no fossil fuel was involved.

So, let’s remember that, as long as we want to continue our style of living, and as long as our population continues to increase, we need some power to sustain ourselves.  These things that we want may be unrealistic and unsustainable.  That, however, is a different matter.

My conclusion thus far:  nuclear power remains an alternative that should be on the table.  We need the national will to develop a repository for spent fuel, as this still remains an unsettled and troubling problem.  And of course, we must learn from this recent Japanese disaster and consider the robustness of our safety systems and their back-ups.  Having said this, I also believe that we need to do more, much more, with renewable energy sources, such as hydro, wind, and solar.