-
-
The looming nuclear nightmare in the backwoods of North Carolina
Looking for weapons of mass destruction? Try the backwoods of North Carolina. The site is easy to find. You don't need infrared telemetry, informants, or a global positioning satellite. Just follow the railroad tracks deep into the heart of the triangle area to the gleaming cooling tower of the Shearon Harris nuclear plant, which rises like a concrete beacon out of the forest.
It may not look like much-a run-of-the-mill nuke, but inside the confines of the steel fence that rings the plant, resides one of the most lethal patches of ground in North America. Shearon Harris is not just a nuclear power-generating station, but a repository for highly radioactive spent fuel rods from two other nuclear plants owned by Progress Energy.
Those railroad tracks? They're for hauling nuclear waste. The spent fuel rods are carted by rail from the Brunswick and Robinson nuclear reactors to Shearon Harris, where they are stored in four densely packed pools, filled with circulating cold water to keep the waste from heating up. The pools are interconnected and enclosed within one building. That building is attached to the reactor itself. Together, they form the largest radioactive waste storage pools in the country.
All this makes Shearon Harris a very inviting target for would-be terrorists. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has fingered Shearon Harris as one of the most vulnerable terrorist targets in the nation.
Potential atomic terrorists don't have to steal plutonium, take a crash course in physics, or concoct a bomb to manufacture a radiological nightmare scenario in the heart of the Carolinas. All they have to do is penetrate the security fence of a lightly guarded commercial reactor and find a way to ignite the pools of high-level radioactive waste. The easiest method is to disrupt the circulation of the water system that keeps the pools cool.
The resulting fire would be virtually unquenchable. Moreover, because the water system that feeds the waste pools is also connected to the Shearon Harris reactor, a pool fire could also trigger a nuclear meltdown. And so it goes.
An uncontrolled pool fire and meltdown at Shearon Harris would put more than two million residents of this rapidly growing section of North Carolina in extreme peril. A recent study by the Brookhaven Labs, not known to overstate nuclear risks, estimates that a pool fire could cause 140,000 cancers, contaminate thousands of square miles of land, and cause over $500 billion in off-site property damage. Looking for weapons of mass destruction? Try the backwoods of North Carolina. The site is easy to find. You don't need infrared t... more -
Nuclear power is no solution to the climate crisis: exposing the myths
The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the grounds of economic criteria it offers poor value for money in displacing fossil fuel plant. Further, with its high cost, long construction time, high environmental risk and problems resulting from waste management, it is clear that nuclear power does not offer a viable solution to climate change. Rather a mixture of energy efficiency and renewable energy offers a quicker, more realistic and sustainable approach to reducing CO2 emissions. The nuclear industry is hoping that concern over climate change will result in support for nuclear power. However, even solely on the ... more
-
U.S.-India Nuclear Deal Spurs Pakistan Nuclear Pact With China
Islamabad and Beijing will set up a corporation shortly to build nuclear and coal-based power plants in Pakistan. The decision to form the China-Pakistan Power Plant Corporation was taken during Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s visit to China last month.
Sources said China had promised to help meet Pakistan’s nuclear energy requirements of 8,800 MW by 2030 by expediting the delivery of six plants of 300 MW each. Earlier, the country had assisted Pakistan in setting up the Chashma-1 and Chashma-2 plants of the same capacity.
The sources said that several joint working groups and studies were being undertaken by the two countries to speed up cooperation in different fields, particularly the energy sector.
“But side by side, Pakistan is building a $1.2 billion facility to develop capability to manufacture full-cycle nuclear fuel and power plants,” the sources said. They said the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) would establish the Pakistan Nuclear Power Fuel Complex (PNPFC) to attain 100 per cent indigenous capability to manufacture pressurised water reactors (PWR) and nuclear power plants.
Pakistan had taken the decision to set up the complex in the face of nuclear suppliers’ denial of the technology to all except favoured ones. They cited as example the US deal with India on civil nuclear technology sales. Islamabad and Beijing will set up a corporation shortly to build nuclear and coal-based power plants in Pakistan. The decision to form... more -
Nuclear energy heats up U.S. Presidential race
John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed.
Nuclear power -- controversial in the United States and throughout much of the world -- is on the agenda of all three US presidential candidates as they seek to diversify the country's energy mix and reduce dependence on foreign oil.
Interviews with top policy advisers to the three White House hopefuls reveal a varied approach to the technology that some observers see as a necessary answer to fighting climate change and others view as expensive and dangerous.
McCain, a Republican senator from Arizona who has wrapped up his party's nomination, is by far the most enthusiastic about the carbon-free fuel source, regularly calling for more nuclear power plants at campaign stops throughout the nation.
"I believe we are not going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and become energy independent ... unless we use nuclear power and use it in great abundance," he said in North Carolina on Monday.
McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said nuclear power faced an "uneven playing field" from years of political opposition.
"Sen. McCain would eliminate the political obstacles that hinder nuclear power, allow it to compete more effectively, and likely increase its share of the US energy portfolio," he said.
Nuclear energy accounts for about 20 percent of US electricity supply, a figure that could rise if regulations on carbon dioxide emissions are imposed, making greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear plants more attractive.
There are 104 operating nuclear reactors nationwide.
Obama, an Illinois senator and the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, shares McCain's belief that nuclear energy is part of the solution to climate change.
But he opposes new federal subsidies and would work to address concerns about safety and waste storage, senior adviser Jason Grumet said.
"Because of the fact that climate change is a species-challenging dilemma, we don't have the luxury to do anything but try to solve those real problems," associated with nuclear technology, he said.
Clinton, a New York senator, prefers using renewable fuels to fight climate change because of nuclear energy's risks.
"Hillary has real concerns about nuclear power because of the issues around safety, waste disposal and proliferation," policy director Neera Tandem said.
"She opposes new subsidies for nuclear power, but would continue research focused on lowering costs and improving safety." John McCain embraces it. Barack Obama wants to address its flaws. Hillary Clinton is cautious but not opposed. ... more -
Chernobyl reactor to be buried in steel coffin 22 Years later
KIEV, Ukraine - Twenty-two years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, work is under way on a colossal new shelter to cover the ruins and deadly radioactive contents of the exploded Soviet-era power plant.
For years, the original iron and concrete shelter that was hastily constructed over the reactor has been leaking radiation, cracking and threatening to collapse. The new one, an arch of steel, would be big enough to contain the Statue of Liberty.
Once completed, Chernobyl will be safe, said Vince Novak, nuclear safety director at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development which manages the $505 million project.
The new shelter is part of a broader $1.4 billion effort financed by international donors that began in 1997 and includes shoring up the current shelter, monitoring radiation and training experts.
The explosion at reactor No. 4 on April 26, 1986 was the world's worst nuclear accident, spewing radiation over a large swath of the former Soviet Union and much of northern Europe. It directly contaminated an area roughly half the size of Italy, displacing hundreds of thousands of people.
In the two months after the disaster, 31 people died of radioactivity, but the final toll is still debated. The U.N. health agency estimates that about 9,300 will eventually die from cancers caused by Chernobyl's radiation. Groups such as Greenpeace insist the toll could be 10 times higher.
The old shelter, called a "sarcophagus," was built in just six months. But intense radiation has weakened it, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and rain and snow are seeping through cracks.
Officials say a tornado or earthquake could bring down the shelter, releasing clouds of poisonous dust.
The first step, shoring up the sarcophagus, is almost complete, Ukrainian and EBRD officials say.
Later, the 20,000-ton arch — 345 feet tall, 840 feet wide and 490 feet long — will be built next to the old shelter and slid over it on railtracks.
~~~~~~~
But remember, nuclear power is safe according to our Congress. It can't happen here. What a tragedy this is. KIEV, Ukraine - Twenty-two years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, work is under way on a colossal new shelter to cover the ruins ... more -
Don't Dismiss Nuclear Risks
With the recent settlement between the state of Maryland and Constellation Energy Group, the power company is once again championing Calvert Cliffs as the site of a new nuclear power plant. This is not a cause for celebration.
On July 13, Constellation submitted the first new application to build a nuclear power plant in the U.S. since Three Mile Island. But the company threatened to go elsewhere if Maryland lawmakers re-established state regulatory control on new power plants.
Fear of a growing energy shortage is leading to calls for more nuclear power plants. What many people are forgetting is that nuclear power is an expensive and risky investment, and there would be little interest in such projects without federal subsidies and incentives, including liability insurance, risk insurance for delays, production tax credits and loan guarantees totaling billions of dollars. In Florida, two proposed new reactors may cost $24 billion, with ratepayers expected to pay during construction. With wind power already more economical than nuclear power, and solar power soon to be, one critic predicts nuclear power plants will be “economically obsolete before they are built.”
Nuclear power cannot be brought online on the scale and time frame needed to replace coal. In 2007, 12 of 32 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide had been so for more than 20 years. Moody’s estimated that no more than two new nuclear power plants will come online by 2015. In addition to delays in finding suitable sites, dealing with community objections and getting permits, there is now a three-year backup in obtaining the core reactor vessel, which is forged by a single company in Japan.
There is no solution to the problem of nuclear waste, currently totaling 50,000 metric tons. Despite 20 years of study and a $9 billion expense, the repository site at Yucca Mountain is not close to having a permit. Were it to open, it would be full by 2012.
Pro-nuclear advocates tend to ignore the fact that nuclear power is the only energy source that carries the risk of radioactive contamination. This unique safety concern is exacerbated by a degraded safety culture shared by plant owners and by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission that took too long to correct a dangerous erosion problem, which allowed container vessels to leak. The NRC has failed to resolve design flaws in sump pumps at Calvert Cliffs and other plants at risk of clogging in an accident. Moreover, the NRC’s inspector general has criticized the agency for failing to document criteria for plant recertification.
end of excerpt.
By Dr. Gwen DuBois With the recent settlement between the state of Maryland and Constellation Energy Group, the power company is once again championing C... more
-
related topics
Nuclear Meltdown
Contributors (30)
Nuclear Meltdown
