The interesting thing about the anti-nuclear advocates I see is that they don’t seem to weigh the costs and benefits of our other options. They only seem to say “Ok, nuclear has some issues, so let’s not use it” - as if the status quo were perfect and problem free, and therefore identifying any new problems with the proposed solution would be a downgrade.
Realistically, there’s no way we could power our grid primarily with green energy. We need a base load generation that’s not subject to the variability of sunlight or wind. Plus we’re already getting power from the most stable, useful areas - so what we build from here on out will be inferior. Quite simply, you cannot say “let’s not do nuclear, let’s do solar” because it is not a viable option. It’s a cop out. They can be useful and take up some of the grid, but they will not be a baseload power source unless there’s a massive revolution in the field.
So what then do you propose? Do you think coal has fewer problems and more benefits? What do you view as the advantages of coal over nuclear? Or do you simply not think about it, and just dismiss nuclear without actually thinking about all of your options?
As an introduction I am a water and wastewater treatment engineer that worked for 27 years with coal, oil and nuclear power plants. While I am politically a liberal that has nothing to do with my opinions regarding coal versus nuclear power. Let me refute and argue several points that have already briefly been touched upon:
[ul]For the person close to Fermi who quoted a near meltdown - that near meltdown had to do with an experimental fusion reactor that was built on the site (by the US Government IIRC) and has nothing to do with Enrico Fermi 2.[/ul][ul]Regarding emissions of radioactive iodine, I would dare say that a potentially equal culprit in this issue is the airborne emissions from coal fired power plants. If you look at typical wind patterns in the US you will find that almost all emissions from the midwest (the primary source of coal fired power plants) are concentrated into a narrow north-south band of air as they move eastward and thus have tendancy to concentrate in the heavily populated eastern seaboard. Iodine is a trace contaminant of coal along with mercury, vanadium, arsenic and a host of other troublesome compounds.[/ul][ul]While everyone seems hell bent on discussing the pro and cons of costs for nuclear power plants I should ask when was the last major (over 1500 MW) coal fired generating station built in this country? Most new coal fired capacity has been in the form of more or less unregulated gas fired power units capable of producing somewhere in the 100-250 MW range. Power companies were quick to jump on this feature starting in the 80’s as a way to avoid the environmental issues associated with large (>1000 MW) units. Dare I say that any realistic cost estimates for large coal fired units would have to equally deal with NIMBY, the aforementioned solid wastes, and the greenhouse gases and other gaseous emissions from coal fired plants.[/ul][ul]Speaking of solid wastes generated by coal fired power plants, both bottom and fly ash from coal fired power plants were excluded from the list of regulated wastes under the original RCRA of 1980. This and the continuing stalling and delays brought about with regard to these huge volume wastes has been due in no small part to the contributions of the Edison Electric Institute (and their so-called research arm EPRI). Coal used in power plants can range from 8% up to >30% (for lignite) ash content. If it is high to medium sulfur eastern coal then any new power plant would undoubtedly have to provide complete scrubbing of the flue gas. If, on the other hand, western low sulfur coals are used there are additional issues associated with the large costs of transporting the coal, along with the problems associated with normally lower slagging (melting) temperatures of the ash and added complexities associated with facility (as examples, economizer and air preheater) design issues. Generally speaking it is not very efficient to design a boiler to burn a wide range of BTU and ash content coals. And BTW, it’s the Western coals that typically contain higher concentrations of some of the trace constituents such as arsenic, mercury, vanadium. etc. You could almost argue that coal fired generating stations have been goverment subsized since 1980 at a huge cost to the American public![/ul][ul]I was involved in writing operating procedures and system descriptions, during 1982-1984 for the Enrico Fermi 2 plant. The costs associated with obtaining an operating license for this facility were, in my opinion, absurd; however, the fact that the construction license was issued pre-TMI explains most of the problem. Along these lines it took the design team almost three years to deal with the issues raised by TMI even though many of the I&C flaws had already been addressed. Every single possible operating contigerncy had to be considered and a method for responding to it (I am not saying this was bad); however, having also worked on coals fired plants there has never been a similar level of effort to deal with accidental releases of potentially harmful solid, liquid or gaseous emissions. For example, the long term leaching potential of fly ash far outstrips the potential of leachate from hazardous waste landfills (I have been involved in determining leachare characteristics of eastern and western coal fired fly ashes along with several commercial hazardous waste landfills and the staggering truth of the matter once again comes down to the huge amounts of fly ash that is generated. These highly reactive fly ashes have been disposed of, for many years, in landfills that did not have to meet either Subtitle C or D RCRA standards.[/ul]
I will sign off at this time with above providing some food for thought in further postings.