Home

About Us

Contact Us

Nuclear Articles 

Nuclear Under Attack, January 13 2008

New Nuclear Threat. August 12, 2007

Chernobyl Revisited. July 16, 2006

Radiation Background. July 10, 2005

Exceptional Safety Record. May 15, 2005

Nuclear Endorsed by ASME. January 23, 2005  

Nuclear Update. October 31, 2004

New Type Nuclear Reactor. (Pebble Bed) August 10, 2003  

New Nuclear Threat.

There are 100 nuclear plants currently operating in the U.S. These plants generate 20% of the electricity used in the United States.

All but two of these plants will have to be shut down by 2050 when their licenses expire. These plants will have already received one 20 year license extension and it is extremely unlikely that a second extension will be granted.

This is a serious threat to the American economy.

The earliest that a new nuclear power plant can be built is around 2015 so that 3 new nuclear power plants will have to be built every year between 2015 and 2050 to merely replace the electricity that will be lost when the existing 100 plants are closed.

There is serious doubt whether 100 new plants can be built by 2050.

(Send an email to tsaugust@tsaugust.org and we will send you a list of all U.S. nuclear power plants and the status of their licensees.) 

While the logical replacement for nuclear plants is coal, many states and localities are fighting the construction of new coal fired power plants because they emit CO2.

If coal fired power plants can’t be built, the only other viable alternative is to build plants fired by natural gas (combined cycle). It will require around 250 of these newly developed large plants to replace the 100 nuclear plants being closed by 2050. Natural gas is in short supply and its cost is increasing rapidly as demand increases. While it is theoretically possible to build 250 new gas turbine power plants by 2050, consumers will pay about three times as much as they pay for electricity generated by nuclear or coal fired plants.

Wind is not a viable replacement for nuclear power plants. Nuclear plants are base load units, dispatchable for instantaneous demand.

Wind is intermittent and can not be relied on as base load units. In addition the scale of nuclear and coal fired power plants is such that replacing 100 plants with wind turbines is unrealistic. A 1.5 MW wind turbine (typical size of today’s units) is actually a .5 MW unit after considering its capacity factor. (The wind blows 33% of the time so units only operate 33% of the time.)

It would require approximately 200,000 wind turbines to replace the 100 nuclear power plants. Only 1,532 wind turbines were built in 2006 in the U.S., and manufacturers are essentially at capacity.

The unlikely replacement of all 100 nuclear power plants coupled with an inability to build coal fired power plants creates a threat to America’s continued prosperity.

In addition to the nuclear units being removed from service there is an ongoing need to build additional power plants to serve the 139 million additional Americans expected by 2050. These 139 million new Americans will want air conditioning, heating, lighting and jobs.

August 12, 2007

TSAugust

Note: Average size of wind turbines in 2006 was 1.6 MW with a total of 1,532 units installed in 2006. See Page 22, Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006

Chernobyl Revisited.

On April 26^th 1986, the world’s worst nuclear accident occurred at Chernobyl, in what is now part of the Ukraine.

Anti-nuclear forces have used Chernobyl as a rallying cry against nuclear energy; yet, the facts belie this hysteria'

A recent report by the United Nations establishes the known scientific facts concerning the damage caused by Chernobyl.

With respect to deaths caused by the accident: Twenty-eight workers died as a direct result of the accident: Two more died from injuries unrelated to radiation: One more death was thought to have been from a coronary thrombosis.

Nineteen more workers have “died between 1987 and 2002 of various causes; however their deaths are not necessarily — and in some cases are certainly not — directly attributable to radiation.." 

Among the general population of some 5 million people exposed to radioactive fallout the radiation doses were relatively low and there were no fatalities from Acute Radiation Syndrome.

The UN report states; “Among the more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases diagnosed in 1992–2002 in persons who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident, fifteen deaths related to the progression of the disease had been documented by 2002.” The remaining cases have a “favorable prognosis for their lives”. The report says that new cases of thyroid cancer will likely develop among this population but it is difficult to say how many.

The report also states; “increases [in deaths] would be very difficult to detect with available epidemiological tools, given the normal variation in cancer mortality rates. So far, epidemiological studies of residents of contaminated areas in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine have not provided clear and convincing evidence for a radiation-induced increase in general population mortality, and in particular, for fatalities caused by leukemia, solid cancers (other than thyroid cancer), and non-cancer diseases."

It also said; “eventually up to four thousand fatal cancers in addition to the approximately 100 000 fatal cancers to be expected due to all other causes in this population. Among the 5 million persons residing in other ‘contaminated’ areas, the doses are much lower and any projected increases are more speculative, but are expected to make a difference of less than one per cent in cancer mortality."

There is also no evidence or any likelihood of decreased fertility among the general population as a result of radiation exposure.

It is important to note that the health of all people who lived in the former Soviet Union is abysmal. The report states; “it is crucial to note that adult mortality has been rising alarmingly across the former Soviet Union for several decades. Life expectancy has declined precipitously, particularly for men, and in the Russian Federation stood at an average of 65 in 2003 (just 59 years for men). The main causes of death in the Chernobyl-affected region are the same as those nationwide — cardiovascular diseases, injuries and poisonings — rather than any radiation related illnesses."

The UN report continues; “Added to exaggerated or misplaced health fears, a sense of victimization and dependency created by government social protection policies is widespread in the affected areas.”

With respect to the area around Chernobyl, the radiation levels have declined to where a majority of the contaminated area is now safe for settlement and economic activity. However in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (an 18 mile radius around the reactor) and some other limited areas some restrictions will be required well into the future.

Though Chernobyl was a true disaster, the death and destruction was far less than being hyped by anti-nuclear forces.

In addition, an accident of this magnitude could not happen in the United States. The Chernobyl reactor design was flawed and totally different from those used in the United States. The Chernobyl reactor had no containment structure. The reactor was known to be unstable at low power, yet the crew undertook an experiment with safety devices turned off and this is what led to the disaster.

The accident at three mile island was totally contained, there were no deaths from radiation and no exposure to radiation above established limits among workers in the plant or among people outside the plant.

Source: The Chernobyl Forum is an initiative of the IAEA, in cooperation with the WHO, UNDP, FAO, UNEP, UN-OCHA, UNSCEAR, the World Bank1 and the governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The Forum was created as a contribution to the United Nations’ ten-year strategy for Chernobyl, launched in 2002 with the publication of “Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident — A Strategy for Recovery”.

July 16, 2006

Radiation Background..

The fear of radiation exposure permeates discussions on nuclear power.

Yet, everyday everyone on earth is exposed to radiation; from cosmic radiation, radiation coming from the environment around us and even our own bodies.

Every year, the average American receives approximately 360 millirems of radiation.

Some of the sourcesof this radiation include an annual dose of around 200 millirems from Radon gas in the home, another 30 from a mammogram or 10 millirems from a chest X-ray. If you live in Denver you receive a dosage of 81 millirems while if you live at the ocean you receive 28 millirems. Take an airplane ride from New York to San Francisco and you get another 5 millirems (one way).

Clearly radiation at these levels is not particularly harmful and everyone accepts them; almost without question.

Yet, suggest building a nuclear power plant and howls of protest about radiation will be heard.

Interestingly, living next to a nuclear power plant results in less than 1 millirem per year of radiation exposure.

But what about Three Mile Island, the worst nuclear accident in the United States? Here, 90% of the fuel rods ruptured yet there was little radiation exposure of the public: And, there were no deaths. “The maximum exposure to the nearest member of the public was little more than 1/3 of the NRC’s annual limit for the public." Additionally, no worker exceeded the commission’s current limit of 5 millirems per year for occupational exposure.

The fact that we are constantly exposed to radiation belies the way in which radiation exposure is regulated; using the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model. This model assumes that there is no safe level of radiation exposure, yet common sense tells us to question this assumption when we are already exposed to low levels of radiation; every day, 365 days a year.

The French Academyof Medicine said in July 2003 that “a linear no-threshold relationship has no scientific basis”.

This week, the National Academy of Science issued its latest report saying that the LNT is most likely the correct model; contradicting the French Academy of Medicine.

Clearly there is a disconnect between the French Academy of Medicine and our National Academy of Science.

LNT requires establishing regulations that limit radiation exposure to approaching 1% of natural background levels of radiation. Common sense would say that trying to reduce radiation levels to 1% of background levels is not logical: With background radiation levels varying by more than a factor of three within the U.S., so too would radiation levels after meeting the 1% requirement.

The mere fact that the government requires this regulation creates the impression that radiation is dangerous; which unnecessarily scares people.

In some respects the LNT issue is esoteric, but it does affect decisions related to storing and handling of waste materials and the cost of cleaning up existing contaminated areas, such as Hanford.

Regardless of how LNT is resolved, it is clear that low levels of radiation are an everyday fact of life and that these levels do not cause alarm except when the subject of nuclear power is raised…If low levels are of no concern on an every day basis, why should they be a concern when we discuss nuclear power?    

Source: A Brighter Tomorrow by Senator Pete V. Domenici

July 10, 2005

Exceptional Safety Record.  

There are 103 nuclear plants in operation in the United States: Not a single serious accident has occurred in 25 years since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.

As a nuclear accident, Three Mile Island was essentially a non-event: there were no deaths and no exposure to radiation above established limits among workers in the plant or among people outside the plant.

As an industrial accident it pales in comparison to Texas City where 600 people were killed.

The movie The China Syndrome and unrelenting scare tactics by opponents of nuclear power have distorted the actual safety capabilities of nuclear power: The China Syndrome was pure fantasy.

Since 1990, nuclear power generation in the U.S. has increased by the equivalent of building 25 new 1000 MW power plants…through improved capacity factors that have increased to 91%; and with upgrades.

Often overlooked is the superb safety record of the U.S. Navy that currently operates 103 reactors…the same number as commercial power plants. In fifty five years the Navy has never had a reactor accident and there has never been a release of radioactivity that has had an impact on public health.

These ships are welcome in 150 ports around the world. Over this period the Navy has operated 211 nuclear powered ships and nine prototype nuclear plants.

With 9/11 the foes of nuclear power generated new scare scenarios. But the Electric Power Research Institute examined the potential of damage from terrorist attacks: “The aircraft crash impact study, using a Boeing 767-400 as the model, found that no part of the engine, fuselage, or wings or the jet fuel, entered the containment building."

Transportation of nuclear waste is often cited as a dangerous activity, when in fact it has been extremely safe. The Navy has shipped more than 783 containers of high-level waste over one million miles without a harmful release of radiation. France has shipped 70,000 metric tons of spent fuel through densely populated areas without incident.

Since 1960 in the U.S., 2700 shipments of spent nuclear fuel have been shipped over 1.6 million miles. During this period there have been only eight accidents involving commercial spent fuel, all without the release of the radioactive content of the shipping casks.

While the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine can be cited as an example of where a nuclear accident caused deaths, 30 according to the UN report, the reactor design was flawed and safeguards were poor: This reactor design is not used in the U.S. and the reactor designs used here could not suffer the same outcome. In addition, operator training and safety regulations in the U.S. would not allow the negligent behavior of the operators that occurred at Chernobyl-4.

In preparing for a test of the Chernobyl-4 reactor in April 1986, a series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms, preceded a test of the unit at low power. Tests at low power were conducted despite the fact that these reactors were known to be very unstable at low power settings.

A UN report (UNSCEAR) in 2000 concluded there is no scientific evidence of any significant radiation-related health effects to people exposed to radiation other than possibly for thyroid cancer. Notably, there has been no increased risk of leukemia more than 10 years after the accident: Increases should have been evident shortly after exposure.

James Lovelock, one of the world’s most foremost environmentalist’s has said; “civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear—the one, safe, available, energy source—now."

Sources: 

A Brighter Tomorrow by Senator Pete V. Domenici.

UNSCEAR 2000 report Chernobyl - Annex J: Exposures and Effects of the Chernobyl Accident.

May 15, 2005  

Nuclear Endorsed by ASME. 

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) recently endorsed Nuclear power as safe and efficient.

“In 2002, 103 U.S. nuclear power plants averaged 91.2 percent capacity factor, and a record achievement of reliability.” As base load units they provide power at between 1 and 2 cents per KwHr.

The public is tending to accept nuclear power with recent polls favorable in this respect.

Spent fuel and fear are primary public issues.

Spent reactor fuel is currently stored on-site at the power plants; plans for permanent storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Utah are proceeding despite legal action to stop development of that site as permanent storage facility for spent fuel.

“New nuclear fuel has been processed, fabricated, and safely shipped across the U.S. for nearly 50 years. Spent fuel from U.S. nuclear ships is routinely and safely shipped to storage sites.”

Many original nuclear sites were developed with plans to house more nuclear plants than they do at present. This affords logical siting for new plants.

Traditional nuclear plants have had to install costly complex safety systems. New plants such as the Pebble Bed Reactor can forego many if not all of these devices. Operators of a Pebble Bed Reactor, for example, can walk away from the plant and it will shut itself down without incident.

The production of hydrogen and the desalinization of sea water, and other energy intensive processes, will require additional cheap, electrical energy in the future: This electricity can be provided by nuclear power plants.

The ASME 2003-2004 Public Policy Agenda called for supporting “development, construction, and deployment of additional nuclear power reactors to meet the nation's growing demand for electricity.”

January 23, 2005  

Nuclear Update.  

The University of Chicago recently completed a study on the economic viability of new nuclear power plants for the Department of Energy (DOE). (See Table I for cost comparisons.)

The study concluded:

• That nuclear power could be cost competitive with coal and natural gas after the first few new plants were built. The first few new plants would incur First-of-a-Kind engineering (FOAKE) costs and would have to pay a 3% premium for financing.

• The introduction of Green House Gas (GHG) policies could significantly increase the cost of coal and gas fired power plants which could make nuclear cost competitive even without government assistance for FOAKE costs.

• Nuclear could also be the most cost effective way to generate hydrogen for a hydrogen based economy.

Another recent DOE effort was the combined construction and operating license (COL) process for the development of advanced technology reactors through a government-industry, 50-50 cost-sharing initiative. The effort is part of DOE’s Nuclear Power 2010 program.

Thus far, three consortia involving sixteen companies have responded with initial proposals.

These Companies and the proposed reactor design are shown in Table II.

A third intriguing development has been Russia’s proposal to build nuclear reactors on barges. Around five years ago a factory to make unsinkable barge-mounted nuclear power plants for use at remote Russian cities in the Arctic was put on hold. 

As reported by Gordon Prather, “Each power plant would consist of two KLT-40 reactors, driving four steam turbine generators, producing 70 MWe.  The power plant is mounted on a 160-meter long un-propelled double-hulled ice-breaker-like steel barge that will also house the living quarters for the 60 crewmen.  The KLT-40 nuclear reactors are presently used in Russian nuclear-powered icebreakers and already have a repair-free life span of 110,000 hours.  They can operate continuously for periods of up to 9,000 hours in harsh Arctic conditions”.

These units could be towed to power deficient areas such as Indonesia, connected to a local transmission system and used to produce power. They could be leased and brought to countries that have fallen behind in their ability to generate power.

Unfortunately the KLT-40 reactor is an old inefficient design. There is no reason however that a new Modular Pebble Bed Reactor couldn’t replace the KLT-40 reactor and thereby create a modern, highly efficient system that doesn’t require a containment structure.

Finally, China is in the process of developing the Pebble Bed Reactor and may use that design as their mainstay for generating power in the future. (See TSAugust’s report America's Challenge, Part I, Page 20 for a description of the Modular Pebble Bed Reactor.)

October 31, 2004

New Type Nuclear Reactor. 

Construction of a Modular Pebble Bed Reactor has been approved by South Africa. Major benefits of this new technology are that it virtually eliminates the possibility of nuclear melt down, permits the safe storage of spent fuel on site for 40 years, and is believed to be less costly to construct than traditional light water nuclear reactors used in the United States.

The plan is to build modular units rated 165 MW where new modules can be added as needed.

Though the design is new it is based on German technology used in a 20 MW unit for twenty years and a 300 MW unit that ran successfully for several years before being shut down for political reasons.

Construction of this initial unit in South Africa will provide needed information on the design which could be the forerunner of new nuclear construction in the United States.

The Pebble Bed design is in the pre-certification process by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as are four other designs. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already certified three Advanced Boiling Water Reactor designs, though none are planned for construction in the U. S. at this time. Two ABWR units are in operation in Japan and one is under construction in Taiwan.

Sunday August 10, 2003

Copyright © 2002 - 2008 TSAugust