The Nuclear Safety Paradox

[wtmusic]

Westinghouse AP1000 with passive core cooling system

"A passive cooling system uses basic physics to work. Passive cooling systems do not require any outside intervention, like electric power, fuel, or other inputs. They work automatically, and always work because those principles of physics never change. Examples of passive cooling techniques include convection in the cooling fluid, air cooling, gravity-fed water cooling, etc). Such passive cooling will keep cooling the reactor from melting down for an extended period of time, when no outside power is available for pumping cooling water.

<>

So, why don't we have any of these new, safer designs in the U.S.? Largely because we can't get any new designs certified or built.

<>

The Paradox
I have come to believe that in the U.S., we have a Nuclear Safety Paradox - namely, that because of our concern for safety, we are keeping older, less safe designs in active service longer, because new designs have not, and are not, being certified and built. I realize that many of the people who are opposed to nuclear, and are attempting to block forward progress, truly feel that no nuke is good, no nuke can be safe. In contrast, I believe that most Americans, like myself, do have faith that engineers can create safer designs, in time. I also believe that, while there is probably some good opportunities to put solar and wind power to use in our country, we are not at the necessary technology level to try to deploy Wind and Solar on the scale necessary to completely replace nuclear. We may get there some day, or we may not, but we need much bigger advances in technology to get to a total renewable solution, compared to building safer nuclear reactors.

I've heard some people compare Fukushima Daiichi (and before that, Chernobyl) to the Titanic. They like to say that "The Titanic was a New, Safer Design - until it sank on it's maiden voyage." But we didn't stop designing or building ships because of the Titanic, and I think everyone would agree that large commercial ships have gotten much, much safer - both as a result of improved design, as well as improved operational practice, over the years. I truly believe that with iteration (that is, the design and construction of new generations of technology after learning lessons with previous generations), all technology gets better with time."

http://theenergycollective.com/meredith-angwin/60456/nuclear-safety-paradox-guest-post-jeff-schmidt?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[RC]

1. Recommended - although you can't tell because of the paranoid Luddites.

Basically the answer to why we don't have newer, safer nuclear poser is spelled out in the "Paradox" in the Opening Post.

Our problem of what to do with the waste is in the same paranoia. How can we solve the problems with our primitive first and second generation nuclear plants when there are paranoids Luddites, at all levels of government, throwing monkey wrenches at the logical, workable answers.
We have the next generation technologically advanced, much safer nuclear power, now, be we prefer global warming and all that entails.
Wind and solar may be find for small local power needs, but they can never be our prime energy source (coal, gas, nuclear) because they don't scale up all that well. They take up to much room for starts.

[bananas]

2. "faith-based engineering"

"because of our concern for safety, we are keeping older, less safe designs in active service longer, because new designs have not, and are not, being certified and built."

Wrong - the corporations which own the plants will try to suck every drop of profit from them they can.
They will try to keep them running as long as they can - until it's more expensive to fix than keep running.
Because they are insulated from full liability, safety is not their concern.
That's why the Nuclear REGULATORY Commission is supposed to create and enforce safety REGULATIONS.
The new designs have to be carefully analyzed before they can be certified and built.
Once the design is certified, the Nuclear REGULATORY Commission has to create REGULATIONS to make sure the plants is built and operated properly. That's another reason for the long certification process.

And she ignores the reason Entergy, Exelon, and Constellation decided not to build new plants - they are just too expensive.
As the CEO of Entergy put it, "the numbers just don't work" for new nuclear plants.

California has a moratorium on new plants until there is a permanent waste dump - because it's stupid to be generating waste with no place to put it.


"I believe that most Americans, like myself, do have faith that engineers can create safer designs, in time."

Well, in time, if they ever create safer designs, and solve the waste problem, and the cost problem, and the proliferation problem, then they can get back to us, and we'll see. I don't have faith they can do that.

Many Americans have become convinced that nuclear power companies can never be trusted to design, build, operate, dispose of the waste, and mine the ore safely and affordably.