A pro-nuclear editorial, albeit by a Republican in Colorado, puts forth the well-known favorable aspects of nuclear power; a Democrat, who is also involved in the Serra Club management, misleads and misinforms about why nuclear won't solve the climate issues. The following is her article, wherein the i2M Editors annotate where merited.
Velma L. Campbell, MD, MPH is a physician specializing in public health, particularly occupational and environmental health. She is the vice-chair of the Sangre de Cristo Group of the Sierra Club. In her "counter-point" article, she opined immediately by asserting that "nuclear power is not a solution for anything except perhaps the nuclear industry’s desire for taxpayer dollars. [Bias Alert at the outset: she makes hollow claims without merit and/or evidence, typical of anti-nuclear claims (more)]
The nuclear industry sales pitch, such as presented to a largely invitation-only meeting in Pueblo on July 15, promotes “new nuclear” or advanced nuclear. But, so far, the only thing new is the packaging of the reactors. Even that is still experimental [Note: word choice suggesting untested and dangerous. The design and testing have been under way for years and the final licensing procedures are underway at present, especially for the new SMR plants, which will replace many coal-fired plants. One would think that the Serra Club might support such new technology to eliminate coal burning ....?] and on the drawing board, with NuScale working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on various elements of their design licensing.[There are many other companies in various stages of new technology (here)]
No operating commercial models have been built, and even if everything goes according to schedule, a pilot plant in Idaho is not expected to be completed until about 2030 — at a cost of $1.3 to $3.6 billion, which they have received from us taxpayers via the Department of Energy. According to widely available statistics of energy costs, nuclear is still the most expensive generation source.[Another Bias Alert - Claims and misinformation ...i.e., without evidence of generation costs]
NuScale corporation’s small modular reactors are, in fact, the same light-water nuclear reactors as used to generate power in other settings [Another Bias and Misinformation Alert - The SMRs are not "same" as previous plants.] They use uranium as fuel, requiring cooling water(?), and generating the same radioactive waste products. To generate power at the level of the coal-fired Comanche 3 power plant in Pueblo County would require at least twelve of the reactors NuScale is proposing. So instead of one large reactor, there would be twelve or more nuclear reactors, with a correspondingly greater probability of error or accidents.[Another Claim - Gross misinformation; new SMRs allow for expansion by adding [or removing SMR units depending on demand].
For NuScale, as with other nuclear reactors, even if their more experimental proposal for air-cooled versus water-cooled generating capacity is accepted by the NRC [Note: Author slips here by saying the SMRs are different, not the same ...], the waste extracted from the reactors every 12-24 months would have to be stored for five years per batch in a pool of cooling water, with the necessity of use and refreshment of this pool for the life of the plant. [Note: the waste volume is smaller. There is no longer an issue regarding waste handling, see Conca (here)]. A corollary of the waste fuel handling is that each of the twelve reactors must be opened and the radioactive fuel transferred and replaced every 24 months at the least, again with a multiplied probability for accidents or errors.[Note: unfounded fear pandering ... Conca (above)]
Because there is no long-term national repository for high-level nuclear waste, this waste will be stored on-site in the community where it was generated for many years. Because that waste has a half-life of more than 20,000 years (meaning at that point half of the radioactivity will be broken down), it will remain a burden to future generations for as long as any of us can imagine. [Note: unfounded fear pandering ... Conca (above)]
Although proponents present nuclear power as a ready, clean solution to the climate crisis, it is neither. The classic nuclear power plants with their iconic cooling towers are aging out of the system, following a long history of operational difficulties, environmental contamination, closure and clean-up issues — as well as the storage of radioactive waste, essentially, in perpetuity. The “new nuclear” is not new except for means to package it and is at least 10 years or more from even being ready for commercial construction.[Major Bias here ... misinformation, misrepresentation, and fear pandering without evidence supporting any of the claims, just anti-nuclear BS]
The proponents, including NuScale, want to put these plants into closed coal fired power plants, in communities often well within the zones of risk set by the NRC. Because that could rightfully raise community concerns, as well as increasing potential casualties in case of an accident, NuScale is asking the NRC to reduce the zones of protection around their nuclear reactors and radioactive waste sites because of the claimed lower risk for their still-experimental multi-reactor units. [Major Bias also here ... repeated misinformation, misrepresentation, and fear pandering without evidence supporting any of the claims, just anti-nuclear BS]
Is Colorado ready for an unproven energy “solution” that will not even be ready for testing for a decade? The answer is “no.”" [However, better read up - nuclear power will come to the rescue the climate and replace coal, wind, solar, and eventually natural gas (more), (more), (more), and (more).]
[Better reevaluate the Serra Club motives: https://i2mportal.com/search_resource.php?search_value=Serra+Club#page=1]
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
