PBS was allowed inside the slow and dangerous clean up of the Fukushima nuclear crisis. pbs.org
Blog
-
Geiger Readings for March 2, 2014
Ambient office = 78 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 87 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 84 nanosieverts per hourMango from Top Foods = 86 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 118 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 106 nanosieverts per hour -
Geiger Readings for March 1, 2014
Ambient office = 78 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 87 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 84 nanosieverts per hourOrange bell pepper from Top Foods = 86 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 118 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 106 nanosieverts per hourWild Salmon – Previously frozen = 125 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 103 – Washington State Bill 5991 to Consider New Reactors for State 2
Yesterday I started blogging about SSB 5991, a new bill in the Washington State Legislature that is calling for consideration of nuclear power for future energy generation in the state. I called into question the opening assumptions of the bill that nuclear power is safe, reliable, cost-effective and carbon free. Today I am going to dig deeper into the text of the bill.
The bill calls for establishing a task force with eight members from the Washington State House and Senate that serve on standing committees involved with energy issues. The task force will consist of four Democrats and four Republicans. The task force is to hold no more than four meetings with two of those meetings taking place at Hanford. This is an interesting provision. No more than four meetings could mean two meetings and at least two meetings must be held at Hanford. Three of the bills seven senate sponsors are from the Legislative Districts around Hanford. It seems to me that this bill is intended to bring more jobs to the Hanford area. This is a reasonable goal for Senators and Representative with respect to their Districts but there are better ways to add jobs than nuclear power.
The bill says that “In its deliberations, the task force must consider the greatest amount of environmental benefit for each dollar spent based on the life-cycle cost of any nuclear power technology. Life-cycle costs must include the storage and disposal of any nuclear wastes.” This is a laudable goal but in terms of the environment, Hanford is one of the most dangerously polluted places on the whole planet. They have been trying to clean up the waste left over from nuclear weapons development at Hanford for decades with no end in sight. Perhaps the best way to guarantee environment benefits is to spend the money on renewable forms of energy generation such as wind and solar.
Senator David Frockt, D-Seattle, raised the issue of the statement in the first section about nuclear power being safe, reliable, cost-effective and carbon-free. He said that these should be the findings of the task force and not assumptions taken for granted. I am surprised that this bill was passed by the Washington State House of Representative.
One of the main problems for a new Washington nuclear initiative is raising funds for construction of future reactors. As I have said before, financing new reactors is not easy in the current energy marketplace. The major player in power generation in Washington State is the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The BPA is not particularly interested in exploring nuclear power in the near future. “We have no plans to build any more [nuclear power plants],” said Doug Johnson, spokesman for BPA recently
The only reason anyone is still talking about new nuclear reactors is because the price tag is in the billions and there are a lot of middlemen looking to make a profit. I wonder who the corporate interests are who are supporting this nuclear proposal.
Columbia Generating Station at Hanford
:
-
Radiation News Roundup February 28, 2014
-
Geiger Readings for February 28, 2014
Ambient office = 87 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 86 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 81 nanosieverts per hourYellow bell pepper from Top Foods = 59 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 61 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 56 nanosieverts per hour -
Nuclear Reactors 102 – Washington State Bill 5991 to Consider New Reactors for State 1
I have blogged about the nuclear industry around the planet. I have also blogged about problems at Hanford in Washington State. Today I am going to talk about a new initiative in the State of Washington. A bill is working its way through the Washington State Legislature that calls for the consideration of building new nuclear reactors to provide future energy for the state’s electrical grid.
The bill was first introduced in January 8th of 2014. It is ” AN ACT Relating to studying nuclear power as a replacement for electricity generated from the combustion of fossil fuels; and creating new sections.” (not sure what the new sections part is about.)
The first section of the bill states that “The legislature finds that nuclear power is a safe, reliable, cost-effective, and carbon-free source of electricity.” I have a serious problem with this statement.
Nuclear power is not SAFE. The recent disaster at Fukushima should drive that point home. The design of the reactors at Fukushima is the same as the design of more than twenty of the 100 reactors in the United States. Engineers on the original design team for this type of reactor expressed concerns about their safety. Over twenty of the reactors in the United States are at risk for flooding in extreme weather conditions which will increase with climate change. Many of the nuclear reactors in the United States have had accidents and problems that could have threatened millions of people. Mining uranium is devastating to the environment and dangerous to plants and animals. Safe permanent disposal of nuclear waste is still a problem in the U.S.
Nuclear power is not RELIABLE. Nuclear plants in the U.S. often have to been shut down because of technical problems. Just refueling a reactor can shut down the plant for an extended period. Plants in the U.S. have had to be shut down temporarily because the cooling water they used had become too warm to be used due to global climate change.
Nuclear power is not COST EFFECTIVE. The world production of uranium is projected to decline over the next few years. There will not be enough to fuel all the existing reactors and reactors under construction in the next five years. The cost of electricity from cheap natural gas is undercutting the cost of nuclear power generation. A U.S. reactor had to be permanently closed recently because the owners could not operate the plant at a profit and could not find anyone to purchase it. Recently, a combination of wind and solar was found to be cheaper than a new nuclear plant in Colorado. While the cost of renewables will continue to decline, nuclear will continue to increase in price.
Nuclear is not CARBON FREE. A enormous amount of concrete has to be used to build a power reactor and it outgases carbon dioxide as it cures. Construction, mining, refining, transportation, and waste handling use large quantities of fossil fuels. It takes years for a nuclear power plant running constantly at full capacity to pay back the carbon debt for construction.
I take exception to what the bill assumes with respect to nuclear power. If the State of Washington wants to consider adding additional nuclear power to the mix of power generation in the state, they should start with accurate information in the wording of any bill that is proposed.
-
Radiation News Roundup February 27, 2014
-
Geiger Readings for February 27, 2014
Ambient office = 120 nanosieverts per hourAmbient outside = 83 nanosieverts per hourSoil exposed to rain water = 86 nanosieverts per hourBartlett pear from Top Foods = 91 nanosieverts per hourTap water = 108 nanosieverts per hourFiltered water = 96 nanosieverts per hour
