Comments on: Kentucky senator pushing for fair consideration of nuclear energy

By: ondrejch

ondrejch — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 02:15:58 +0000

Chernobyl accident is irrelevant, as was shown in TMI. Physics of the reactor is different, it does not run-away but shuts itself down on meltdown and containment prevents any significant radioactive emissions. Chernobyl style plants were banned everywhere in West and none but USSR deployed this risky technology, primarily developed for military uses, in commercial civilian sector. None also plans to build any plant like that, all the proposed plants are as safe as TMI, some are passively safe such that laws of physics prevent any meltdown in the first place.

That said, no energy production technology is risk-free in the real world. Nuclear energy is the risk-minimized technology for producing energy, measured in deaths per energy produced, by far if compared with any combustion technology and about 100x smaller than wind: ~10 deaths/TWyear for nuclear versus over 1000 deaths per TW year for wind. (http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html)

There is no other alternative for about 80% of the baseload electricity demand other than coal (+partially natgas) or nuclear in foreseeable future as demonstrated by Germany, the renewable energy leader, which plans to build 27 new coal plants to make up for the nuclear phase-out in 2020. (However looking at the demand in that region it seems that by 2020 they are going to need both…) Austria planning to build about 5 nuclear plants worth of capacity burning natural gas is another example that renewables just do not scale enough to even match with growing demand.

By: enochthered

enochthered — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 06:07:00 +0000

Alan;
Thanks for your comment. Allow me to respond:

“What happened at Chernobyl, and what (as the NRC reported) the accident demonstrated, was that radioactive iodine (RAI), if ever released from a reactor, forms an aerosol which can travel for hundreds of miles downwind threatening millions of people.”

Certainly true – it was a very significant issue at Chernobyl. But the key words of significance here are “if ever released from a reactor”.

A large-scale release and dispersion of radionuclides just cannot occur in modern Western reactors the way it did at Chernobyl.

“Yes, accidents are unlikely, but they can happen. And if one does, KI will be the first thing that will be required.”

Yes, accidents can happen – recall that dilemma which destroyed a commercial nuclear power reactor in the United States, at Three Mile Island in 1979.

Whilst the reactor was essentially destroyed, no significant source term of radioactive iodine was released into the environment, and stable iodine prophylaxis was not required for surrounding communities at all.

By: Don Kosloff

Don Kosloff — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 02:47:23 +0000

what the Chernobyl accident demonstrated is that you shouldn’t build overmoderated reactors with no containments.

By: Don Kosloff

Don Kosloff — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:17:52 +0000

The US National Cancer Institute (NCI)completed a comphrensive cancer mortality study (1990) of the populations around many aged nuclear facilities that demonstrated no negative impact from operation of the facilities. The study received the full support of two peer review panels, including a panel of seven non-governmental scientists led by Clark Heath, a vice president of the American Cancer Society. The study looked at 107 U.S. counties near nuclear facilities. Some of the 107 counties had higher mortality rates of certain cancers before than after any nuclear startup. For example, for children under 10, the overall risk of childhood leukemia in the 107 counties was slightly greater before than after any nuclear startup. The full three volume report, “Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities”, Stock Number 017-042-00276-1, is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.

By: Alan Morris

Alan Morris — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:45:27 +0000

While I certainly agree in the necesity to move towards nuclear power, the statement that “The Chernobyl disaster is absolutely irrelevant, it has absolutely no relevance at all, to the use of light water reactors in the commercial nuclear power industry in the United States today” is simply incorrect.

What happened at Chernobyl, and what (as the NRC reported) the accident demonstrated, was that radioactive iodine (RAI), if ever released from a reactor, forms an aerosol which can travel for hundreds of miles downwind threatening millions of people. Despite this, the NRC refuses to assure adequate supplies of potassium iodide tablets (KI) for anyone beyond 10 miles from US nuclear plants. This clearly gives the appearance of an indistry that places only secondary value on protecting the public.

Yes, accidents are unlikely, but they can happen. And if one does, KI will be the first thing that will be required. For the NRC to activly argue against its wide availability reflects poorly on the industry’s reputation, and gives ammunition to those who feel nuclear operators can’t be trusted.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:23:46 +0000

“Has any scientific, peer-reviewed, epidemiological study of health, death and disease, and the aetiology of any such abnormalities, in these counties ever been performed?

Is there any evidence, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any kind, that nuclear energy is a “hazardous means of producing electricity” which “increases cancer risk”?”

I don’t think there has been any research carried out on these topic in the UK, it would be interesting to see some.