Nuclear power still our nation’s best energy solution

By Quentin Wagenfield

----

In a June 12 guest column, Dr. Maureen McCue, coordinator of the Iowa Chapter of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, listed five reasons for opposing new nuclear power plants in Iowa. Her reasons are less than convincing, have no factual basis and contain misleading statements.

Reason 1. Nuclear power isn't cost competitive. She quotes an Energy Information Administration report stating most energy sources are all less expensive than nuclear. She doesn't mention that attempts to analyze lifetime costs contain many unknown variables. Another analysis by Jason Morgan, for Nuclear Fissionary, compares energy costs per kilowatt-hour. This methodology provides the fairest comparison. His results: nuclear, 4 cents; hydro, 3 cents; coal, 4 cents; wind, 8 cents; natural gas, 10 cents; petroleum, 10 cents; solar, 22 cents.

Reason 2. Nuclear plants are too risky. She mentions three nuclear plants that were canceled “for safety reasons.” Actually, none were closed for safety reasons. The Shoreham plant was in operating condition in 1984 through 1989 when it was closed because local communities refused to sign off on federally mandated evacuation plans. Construction was halted on the Bellefonte plant because of cost concerns in 2009. Construction may be resumed this year. Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project was an experimental project between the Atomic Energy Commission, other federal agencies, and the electric power industry. Cost overruns and the Senate's refusal to continue funding closed the project.

Reason 3. Irresolvable safety and security problems. No U.S. plants use or generate plutonium (atomic bomb material) in their operation. She quotes plant safety violation “near misses.” The 14 mentioned involve unreported minor problems, some as simple as oil leaks. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission safety measures against terrorist attacks are thorough, even requiring designs to withstand an aircraft flown into a plant. The 1986 Chernobyl disaster, caused by a sudden power surge not controlled by the manual operator, with accompanying meltdown and extreme radiation release, could not occur in a U.S. plant - a similar power surge would cause an automatic shutdown. Also, the poor plant design allowed the meltdown to escape and spread radiation. All U.S. plants have concrete and steel containment structures designed to hold a meltdown

Reason 4. Nuclear power is not emission free. A typical power plant emits a minute amount of radiation - typically 3.59 millirems annually, compared with an NRC estimate of 360 millirems annually from all sources. Strict local and federal guidelines now control radiation from uranium mining. Waste storage causes minimal radiation release - less than 1 millirem annually. Scientific American states that coal plant fly ash produces 100 times more radiation than a nuclear plant producing the same amount of energy.

Reason 5. Nuclear is not needed because of cheaper, safe and proven options. Many studies agree that the U.S. nuclear industry's safety record is the best. Nuclear can provide the power needed in the future from a small tract of land. For the same power, wind and solar require massive acreages. Nuclear power is constant. Wind and solar require a “base load” nuclear plant to iron out their variable output.

Quentin Wagenfield, retired from Rockwell Collins as a technical writer and programmer, is a freelance writer from Cedar Rapids. Comments: wagen@q.com