Four Mile Island

Soon, we shall be facing an energy crunch that will hit the economy as hard as the banking crisis, except it will keep hitting, and hitting, a little harder every year.

Of course the first reaction is to reach for a band-aid for this sucking chest wound, and right there at the top of the energy first-aid chest is build more nuclear power plants.

I'm not thrilled with the idea, but I wouldn't oppose it either, as long as we face reality full in the face.

1) I am worried about what we are going to do about the waste—but that's a problem we have to solve for the wastes that already exist. The incremental wastes from new plants will not change the nature of that problem, only the magnitude.

2) I'm far more worried about the fuel situation. The industry guide Uranium Resources Red Book predicts about 85 years of uranium supply, and that's only at today's world usage, not a vastly enlarged fleet. There may be another 200 years worth available if lower grades of ore can be exploited, but there are issues. The current uranium mining infrastructure has been on hold for a decade because much of the fuel burned in reactors today was originally mined for military purposes decades ago. Those weapons are now being broken down and the cores diluted to make power plant fuel. This is a very good thing, but it leaves us without enough mining capacity to take up the slack when the time comes. It's not clear a weakened mining sector—facing a world of diminishing fossil fuel—will be able to get to the lower grades of ore.

So on the surface, it appears that we have enough uranium resources to keep the present fleet going to end of life, and enough to fuel a replacement fleet for their 40-60 year life, but not enough to make nuclear the foundation of our energy mix going forward.

Still, I don't think it's going to happen.

The present US fleet of reactors is getting very long in the tooth. They have been getting extensions to their operating permits to run up to 20 years past their original design specifications. They have control rooms full of gauges and equipment plants full of sensors that are hard to replace since the last US plant was started in 1977 and completed in 1997, and sometimes the companies that made these critical parts are simply gone.

These conditions are ripe for another Three Mile Island like event.

Assume one is directly hurt in the incident (but there will be anecdotal reports for decades afterwords). Assume the radiation release, if any, will be below allowable levels. Assume there was no malicious intent, no operator negligence, and the safety systems do exactly what they were designed to do. It won't matter.

For most of us, we'll become aware though a news bulletin over the radio, or a tweet, or "Breaking News" headline on a website.

Then the 24 hour news networks will kick in 24/7. There will be reporters standing outside the plant breathlessly reporting the arrival of each official looking vehicle. There will be press conferences, followed by endless panels of experts speculating as to what happened, and why. It'll spread to the weather forecast - wind directions!! - fallout patterns!! and to the legal analysis shows - who's suing who? - what's the liability? should someone go to jail?

Don't even get me started on talk radio.

The result of such an even in the 24 hour saturated news environment would be the end of revival of nuclear power.

FYI: The Three Mile Island accident happened on March 28, 1979. CNN began broadcasting June 1, 1980.

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:03:54 PST - Link