Nuclear Power: Economic, Safety, Health, and Environmental Issues of Near-Term Technologies - 2009

Nuclear Power Industry

Ramana opined in 2099 that prospects for a global expansion of nuclear power are confronted with a number of challenges in the near term. Three key ones reviewed here are the costs of nuclear electricity generation, the risks of a catastrophic accident, and dealing with radioactive waste. One that we
have not considered here is the association with nuclear weapons proliferation.

[Before continuing with this review, the reader should be aware that this 2009 report is a good example how misinformation was rampant during that period on nuclear power. Whether this was due to ignorance, subterfuge, or outright bias in support of wind and solar are up the reader to decide. In Ramana's conclusions, we will present the current thinking on the subjects discussed]

The economics of nuclear power continues to be a key constraint to its expansion. There is much uncertainty about how much it would cost and how long it may take to construct new nuclear reactors, but it is fairly clear that it will be expensive in the near term. The history of cost and time overruns with nuclear facilities continues with recent additions, such as the Olkiluoto-3 reactor. Nuclear power also faces several types of financial risk, all of which are
compounded by uncertainty in reactor construction costs and schedules. In many countries, these uncertainties have led to a situation where electric utilities and other agencies have not started on new nuclear construction, although they have continued to consider it as a potential option. There is relatively greater consensus on the economics of the back end of the fuel chain, and many studies have shown that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is more expensive compared to direct disposal.[More uncertainty introduced, but the financing issues have become less of a problem because they realized nuclear power was more like hydro-electric dam projects, where costs and extra time-to-build were to be expected. This allows such projects to operate for more than 50 years as opposed to wind and solar lifetimes of 15 years or so.]

A second concern 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. [Even more uncertainty introduced here, but the fact remains that nuclear power is the safest form of energy there is (more). Aside from Chernobyl, there has been no deaths resulting from Three-Mile Island or Fukushima incident. Management teams were able to handle even the meltdowns. The Russian accident was replete with Soviet mistakes and poor technology]

The question that remains is how to ensure that such organization and individual practices are put in place everywhere. 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. [More unjustified "concerns", without presenting anything of importance]

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.[There is no "concerns" for waste disposal. The Yucca Mountain site was geologically unacceptable, but in the meantime, storage on site has been accepted until a site can be built to house "used" fuel (not waste). See (here).]

Ramana concluded that:

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. [As indicated, these "concerns" are melting away, especially with the new technology or both large plants and SMRs (here).]
   
   
2. Reprocessing of spent fuel is more expensive than direct disposal until uranium prices grow severalfold, even when the separated plutonium is used to fuel light-water or breeder reactors. [The economics of nuclear power and reprocessing of "used "fuel are improving (here)].
   
   
3. The use of passive safety mechanisms in nuclear reactors is expected to lower the risk of accidents, though residual hazards remain [This is misinformation and intentional BS]. Due to various structural characteristics of nuclear technology identified by Normal Accident theorists, the risk of catastrophic accidents will continue. [Even more 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.[More misinformation, exaggeration, and fear mongering]
   
   
5. Getting organizations to adopt safer operating procedures will remain a challenge. The importance of doing so is emphasized in an old adage in the nuclear industry, “an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere.” [The reader should by now recognize the pattern of fear mongering and misinformation]
   
   
6.  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.[More of the same. Chernobyl is not relevant on the basis of the Soviet mistakes and bad technology, but Raman still inserts the subject here].
   
   
7. Getting local communities to accept a geological repository for nuclear waste in their neighborhood remains a challenge. [The NIMBY issues is declining in the US and the world as nuclear is now on the rebound (here)].
   
   
8. There has been intense but unsettled debate in recent years about whether nuclear power could be a solution to climate change. [Total and Final BS here]

FUTURE ISSUES

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. [Will be dealt with]
   
   
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. [Not true, software is no longer a problem. Human training has improved since 2009]
   
   
3. Studies of safety practices and culture in nuclear facilities, especially in countries other than the United States and Western Europe, are needed 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. [These issues have been developed over the years since 2009. Nuclear is still the safest form of energy]
   
   
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. [Contrived poppycock]
   
   
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. [The Ramana bias is finally revealed in tacit support of "renewable sources of power." Enough said? See (here) (here), (here), and (here)]