[Rhodes22-list] The Hydrogen Economy - Part II

[jbconnolly at comcast.net]

I would rather be discussing sailing, but I feel compelled to weigh in.

My perspective is rather unusual.  I am a former engineer for (Navy) nuclear propulsion plants, and I worked for several years after that as a safety contractor for civilian nuclear plants.  For the last fifteen years I have worked as an environmental scientist doing environmental site investigation and cleanup for (mostly non-radioactive) hazardous waste sites.

On the nuclear side, it is well-known that the Three Mile Island was flawed in its basic design.  I believe that it was the only plant ever built to that design.  The hype associated with the reporting of the accident, along with contemporaneous movies (China Syndrome) and books "We Almost Lost Detroit" a rather sensational account of the Fermi plant near Detroit) have obscured the fact that there are many orders of magnitude difference between Three Mile Island and, say Chernobyl.  

Do not compare russian reactors to ours.  The RBMK (e.g., Chernobyl) design lacked any effective automatic safety systems or containment structure.  The basic design ensured that power increased when coolant levels dropped, so when it leaked, it then overheated and melted (practically inevitable, given the design) at which time nothing was there to stop radiation release.  Russians have always been more accepting of risk (at least risk to Ukranian peasants).    

It is also a fact that (U.S., and probably european) nuclear power plants are perhaps the most over-engineered mechanisms on the planet.  Overlapping and interlocking safety systems make it highly unlikely that even multiple simultaneous failures would cause a release of radiation.  Note that U.S. plants are also designed to withstand aircraft impact (assumed to be accidental, then) though the size of aircraft have generally increased since the plants were designed.  

On the environmental side, the most startling difference between electricity generated at a nuclear power plant and, say, a coal-fired plant is the enormous difference between the mass/volume of waste each generates, i.e., pounds versus tons per year.  The other difference is that the coal plant is allowed *under normal operation* to vent a large percentage of the waste it generates directly into the atmosphere, from which point it deposits toxic chemicals into your drinking water, the air you breathe, the yard where your children and grandchildren play, etc.  The relative degree of toxicity is not too difficult to comparatively assess, but, remember that the dose makes the poison.  If there is no exposure then, there is no risk.  

Nuclear plants, during normal operation, do an effective job of containing the waste they generate.  It is debatable, (and has been debated here without resolution), whether the proposed methods of dealing with radioactive waste are sufficient to prevent public exposure.  I believe that they are adequate for transport to and storage in Yucca Mountain.  By the way, the alternative is to keep them stored in less-secure locations dispersed throughout the country.  One example- the Maine Yankee plant in Wiscassett, ME (a nice cruising area, BTW, just to bring sailing back into this) has been decomissioned and largely demolished.  Soon, only the radioactive waste storage buildings will remain, and they wll be there for the foreseeable future, according to an article in the Portland Herald.  Is it better to store the waste there, or in a secure central location?    

No technology is without risk.  Nice, "clean" natural gas-fired plants require shiploads of LNG, that in an accident, could take out downtown Boston (at least according to the Coast Guard, FEMA and the Boston Globe).  It may comfort you that the risk of accident or attack has been stated to be low.  Alternatively, it may comfort you that you live elsewhere.  The  perceived cleanliness of natural gas may also not take into account environmental damage in the producing country.  It is my experience that proponents of "clean" technologies seldom take all the environmental impacts of a technology into account.  

Objective and quantitative risk assessment is part of what I do in cleaning up hazardous waste sites.  I also understand the emotional aspects of assessing risk.  It can be difficult to convince an intelligent well-meaning person that they shouldn't be afraid of what they fear.  Open dialogue over a long period of time is the only way.  I hope this dialogue continues.  

Anybody have a sailing story?

Jim Connolly


> Rummy,
> 
> The other 100+ nuclear reactors in the United states have been operating
> nearly continuously for up to 40+ years with excellent safety records.  A
> similar number of essentially identical reactors in France have been
> operating continuously for about as long, also with excellent safety
> records.  The safety systems at Three Mile Island did their jobs.  Although
> the reactor core was heavily damaged in the accident, there was no
> significant release of radiation to the environment and no one was injured.
> The Russian reactors, like the one that failed at Chernobyl, are an entirely
> different design and did not incorporate the sort of redundant safety
> systems used in US and French designs.  So, other than a really good example
> of what not to do, the Chernobyl experience is not relevant.  Given the
> record of hundreds of thousands of safe operating hours in the US & French
> reactors and the positive safety experience during the failure at Three Mile
> Island, what would it take to "prove" safe design?
> 
> It is my understanding the legal battles at the Yuka Mountain Repository are
> over whether the safe containment time is 10000 years or 100000 years.
> Since even the shorter time is twice as long as all of recorded human
> history, what would it take to "prove" either number?
> 
> A few of the oldest nuclear power plants have already been shut down &
> decommissioned safely.
> 
> Rummy, believe it or not, I do "get it".  The arguments over nuclear power
> have long since ceased being rational and data driven.  Since it is now an
> emotional, fear driven, movement with a very broad base of popular support
> in this country, I conclude that no amount of logical arguments will ever
> change the minds of a sufficient number of antinukes.  In the board rooms of
> power companies, the arguments against nuclear power are strictly economic,
> not technical.  The antinuke movement has made it so expensive and time
> consuming to go thru the permitting, licensing, & start-up processes, and
> fight the legal battles along the way; that, nuclear power plants have
> become uneconomical.  The same thing would happen to any technology that
> required a private company to invest several billion dollars and then have
> the investment sit idle for as long as a decade before generating cash flow
> with a significant possibility that the plant might never be allowed to
> start-up.  The reason why no nuclear power plants have been built in the
> United States for 25+ years is as simple as that.  It will require some
> equally traumatic event such as I described in my previous post to change
> enough attitudes.
> 
> Rummy, as far as me being a "techno type", you better believe it!  That's
> Mr. Nerd to you.  Like it or not, we live in an ever shrinking, technology
> driven world.  World population is at 6.2 billion souls and growing
> exponentially.  Third world economies, like China and India, are growing
> their economies and energy consumption at double and triple the rate of the
> United States.  We have long since passed the point at which world
> population could be supported without technology.  Rummy, there is no such
> thing as going back now.  You'd better learn to deal with it or consider
> moving to the backwoods of Montana.
> 
> Roger Pihlaja
> S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <R22RumRunner at aol.com>
> To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] The Hydrogen Economy - Part II
> 
> 
> > Roger,
> > You really don't get it do you. You sit in a laboratory or whatever it is
> > you used to do and work up theories and design new things, but you never
> > consider the long term consequences of your actions. You always leave that
> to
> > someone else.
> > There might be a small anti-nuclear movement in this country, but I
> believe
> > the American people are smart enough to rein in techno types like you
> because
> > you don't have all the answers. The bottom line to nuclear power is that
> > there  is no end to the bottom line. We will always have the price to pay
> for the
> > waste  and the left over, used up nuclear plants.
> > It simply does not make sense, and that's why you won't see another
> nuclear
> > plant built until you guys figure out solutions to the long term problems.
> >
> > Rummy
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list