Ramana reported in 2009, while working in India, on subjects now somewhat out-of-date that nuclear power is confronted with a number of challenges in the near term. One major constraint, Ramana indicates is that the economics of nuclear power are driven by both the high capital costs and financial uncertainties. [Bias Alerts: The economics should be compared to long-term hydroelectric dam projects, not short-term natural gas or renewable energy projects].
The second is concern [now a code word meaning an exaggeration or misrepresented view with no basis in fact] about catastrophic accidents; despite the development of newer reactor designs, the possibility of such an accident has not been completely eliminated [neither has the risk of commercial flights].
A third is to find a way of disposing nuclear waste that is technically feasible and politically acceptable to the public. [A misrepresentation: Nuclear waste (aka used fuel] is being stored on-site, and one day at a federal storage facility. The used fuel will be recycled by "breeder" reactors. Only a few anti-uranium mining and anti-nuclear groups exists in the world [more) and nuclear weapons proliferation is not a factor, which by introducing it clearly demonstrates Ramana's willingness to conflate issues in an attempt to confuse the reader by pandering to their induced fear of radiation.]
Another concern presented by Ramana is the safety of nuclear facilities. This has led to the development of several new reactor designs emphasizing passive safety, which are widely considered to have lower risks of accidents. Even for them, however, there is some likelihood of an accident.
According to some theoretical perspectives on safety, this likelihood cannot be reliably estimated, and major accidents will continue to be a normal part of operations. Other perspectives have highlighted the many organizational steps and individual practices that could lower the risk of accidents owing to the actions of operators and other personnel associated with nuclear plants. The question that remains is how to ensure that such organization and individual practices are put in place everywhere.10 [The findings in this reference have been discredited as being hyperbolic and unfunded fear pandering. as shown below, in part:
"Global warming demands a profound transformation in the ways we generate and consume energy. Because nuclear power results in few global warming emissions, an increase in nuclear power could help reduce global warming—but it could also increase the threats to human safety and security.[Bias Alert: Fear pandering. No Basis in fact, Except deaths did occur in the Chernobyl disaster (more)] The risks include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, and the death of hundreds of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian nuclear power system. [A Major Bias Alert: Pure fear pandering, without a basis, except Chernobyl (above)] Minimizing these risks is simply pragmatic: nothing will affect the public acceptability of nuclear power as much as a serious nuclear accident, a terrorist strike on a reactor or spent fuel pool, or the terrorist detonation of a nuclear weapon made from stolen nuclear reactor materials."[More of the same fear mongering.]
The demanding nature of continuously ensuring safe operations even in just one facility has been highlighted by HRO theorists. On top of this, it is found that operating procedures vary even between identically designed plants, not to mention country to country. Thus, theoretical perspectives on safety and accidents suggest that ensuring an adequate safety culture all around the world is a highly daunting challenge.
[Bias re Nuclear Safety: The point here is that nuclear power is already the safest form of energy production, and has been so for more than 50 years when compared to all other forms of energy [more). Pamana appears to be unaware that there are more than 440 nuclear reactors in the world (92 in the U.S.) and they too have been operating 24/7 (with downtimes for replacing fuel) Fear pandering continues to be introduced by Pamana without providing basis for this view, just opinions]
The disposal of nuclear waste continues to face social and political difficulties everywhere. The countries that have made the most progress have typically started with public consultations and made voluntary siting a necessary condition. Although this consensus seeking mode is believed to have a greater chance of success than top-down modes of decision making, the process is necessarily slow, and there is inadequate experience around the world to know if it will succeed in all existing and aspiring nuclear nations. [The Japan accident and meltdown in 2011 clearly demonstrated that personnel can manage such incidents. And, used fuel management is safer and easier than presented by many anti-nuclear pundits (more)]
SUMMARY POINTS ATTEMPTED By Ramana:
1. The economics of nuclear power, primarily determined by the construction costs of reactors, has been a key barrier. High construction costs are compounded by uncertainty and resultant financial risk. [Response: Costs and time for construction should be compared to hydroelectric dam projects, see (more).]
2. Reprocessing of spent fuel is more expensive than direct disposal until uranium prices grow several fold, even when the separated plutonium is used to fuel light-water or breeder reactors. ["Used Fuel" is safely stored and still useful, see (more)]
3. The use of passive safety mechanisms in nuclear reactors is expected to lower the risk of accidents, though residual hazards remain. Due to various structural characteristics of nuclear technology identified by Normal Accident theorists, the risk of catastrophic accidents will continue.[Basis: Total BS]
4. High Reliability Organization theorists have identified a number of demanding requirements that are necessary, though not sufficient, for nuclear facilities to be relatively safe. Getting organizations to adopt safer operating procedures will remain a challenge. [His "theorists" apparently are not aware of the decades of safe operations of more than 440 reactors, with more than 200 known nuclear construction projects currently underway, which does not include SMRs, which will likely be built in the thousands in the U.S., UK, and around the world (more)]
5. The best documented health impact of the Chernobyl accident is a dramatic increase in thyroid cancers. The total number of deaths attributable to the accident continues to be debated.[The actual history negates common anti-nuclear rhetoric (more)]
6. Getting local communities to accept a geological repository for nuclear waste in their neighborhood remains a challenge.[The "waste" aka used fuel is being handled (more)]
7. There has been intense but unsettled debate in recent years about whether nuclear power could be a solution to climate change. [There is no longer a debate .... it is already part of the solution !]
FUTURE ISSUES as indicated by Ramana:
1. There are reasons to expect both a reduction (for example, increased use of passive safety) and an increase (for example, increases in raw material prices) in the cost of construction of Generation-III and -III+ reactors. Construction experience could show which of these will dominate.[OK !]
2. Though widely used, PSA/PRA techniques continue to face structural limitations and find the modeling of human actions difficult. The implications of the widespread use of computer software for safety remains to be explored in detail.[BS]
3. Studies of safety practices and culture in nuclear facilities, especially in countries other than the United States and Western Europe, are need to study questions such as how operators and managers have reacted to accidents and near misses, what acts of omission or commission have been undertaken prior to these accidents that may have played a role in triggering or furthering the accidents, and safety perspectives among different levels of the organization.[Agreed, renewable energy systems are recommended for such countries (more)]
4. Many countries and organizations have promoted greater stakeholder participation to promote public acceptance of nuclear waste disposal sites. There is little research on whether such efforts do persuade reluctant members of the public to accept nuclear waste–related facilities near their homes.[NIMBY studies are common]
5. The question of whether nuclear power will synergize with or inhibit other proposed solutions to climate change, such as increased use of decentralized, renewable sources of power or dramatic improvements in energy efficiency, has not been explored adequately. [Such studies are underway, especially regarding possible micro-grids for employing SMRs and how they might tie into the major electrical grid].
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
