The reactor at the Fermi 2 nuclear power plant was shut down Monday afternoon after a coolant leak was detected, officials said.
I’m no expert on nuclear power, but I do know something about heat exchangers–vital components in all nuclear power plants. What happened in Michigan was that a heat exchanger developed a leak. No radioactive material escaped.
American nuclear power plants are the safest, most monitored facilities in the world. There are multiple safeguards in place, and alarms to indicate not only problems with the system, but with these safeguards. Instantly, a pressure differential in the cooling water system or a humidity sensor tripped an alarm and the system was shut down until the reason could be discerned and fixed.
Perhaps we’ve matured in this country. The headline on Drudge, once flashing red, is now gone. I had to do a Google search to find anything about the “nuclear accident” as something like this was once called. That eases my mind about our collective reaction to such events.
We live in a country which requires copious amounts of energy–just stating the obvious. We are consumers, every one of us, including the activists who whine about our level of consumption. We fight “wars for oil” and destroy the ozone layer by using things which create ozone-depleting vapors or increase the greenhouse effect with carbon monoxide and dioxide. Yet the very people who complain about such things are the same ones who would march and lie down in the streets if any community attempted to provide the cleanest, most efficient power production vehicle known to man–nuclear power.
“I don’t want an atomic bomb in my back yard.” Well, a nuclear power plant cannot explode. It can burn, and it can melt, and it would release nasty things if that ever happened. But it can’t explode. But the emotion trumps any logical discussion.
What about waste?
Yes, there is waste. Yes, it is radioactive. It is about as radioactive as natural uranium which is scattered underground throughout the western US. It can be easily contained and buried in such a way as to not even be detectable.
We have had nuclear power plants operating in this country for forty years. The only “accident” we’ve had in that time was Three Mile Island, which resulted in panic by the usual environmental suspects. Unnecessary panic:
Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem.
When politicians and activists complain that we have no energy policy (as did Hillary Clinton this week), someone needs to point out the safety record of nuclear power and demand that we build and use such generation capability until the time when the Holy Grail of alternative energy becomes known.
As an engineer, Bunker, I’m happy to read this coming from you.
“But the emotion trumps any logical discussion”
Perhaps that is why I loved this sign; “Why is it called common sense when it is so rare?”
Comment by DagneyT — January 25, 2005 @ 4:15 pm
I hate to disagree, Bunker. (How many times can I start a comment that way before you begin to suspect the opposite is true?) But you’ve overlooked something:
“American nuclear power plants are the safest, most monitored facilities in the world.”
Actually, as I understand it, there are safer, more monitored facilities, with safety and maintenance records that should be the envy of engineers everywhere.
Those facilities? The power plants of the U.S. nuclear sub fleet.
Those in the “reality-based” community always wish we behaved more like those sophisticated Europeans. Let’s start by emulating the French. Let’s embrace safe nuclear power.
See? I’m not REALLY disagreeable.
Comment by UML Guy — January 26, 2005 @ 10:17 am
I agree actually.
Considering the environmental and human damage that is caused by mining and burning coal around the world… and comparing that to the track record of Nuclear power?
How can you *not* think that Nuclear power is the only way to go until we stick a solar panel on the moon or cold fusion or something.
Emotion is the key though, and that’s why it’s so hard for people to accept Nuclear power as a real, viable alternative.
Heck, if people are so concerned about disposing of the waste, why not just pack it up an shoot it at the sun every once in awhile.
As they say… we have the technology. 😉
Comment by Chris Alemany — January 26, 2005 @ 11:25 am
Every single serious source of energy – coal, natural gas, petroleum – have pros and cons. The answer, it seems to me, is to diversify; have a little of each. Putting all our eggs in one basket is unwise.
Solar and wind are simply not realistic alternatives.
Comment by The Redhunter — January 26, 2005 @ 12:56 pm
All great responses. Especially about nuke subs. I didn’t even consider the submerged versions of nu-cu-ler power.
It troubles me most, I think, that there are many alternatives to the way we generate electricity, but those get pushed aside in the interest of keeping reservoirs filled for play, and nuclear (almost spelled it wrong!) generation abandoned out of paranoia–an irrational fear.
We can continue to burn things which send particulates into the air, or use a clean form of heat–neither of which pleases the folks like Greenpeace. Windpower can do some things well, but that energy cannot be stored (possible use for fuel cells), and places where it would have a positive effect are also off-limits–off the coast of Cape Cod, as an example.
Solar energy cannot generate enough power to make it worth the cost, although in some limited applications it can do some good. When I was in Albuquerque more than twenty years ago, Sandia was doing heavy research into its use. Still nothing.
Nuclear power is the best source for electrical energy we have. But people’s lack of understanding and knee-jerk reactions–well-played by environmental extremists–prohibit construction of more plants.
Comment by Bunker — January 26, 2005 @ 5:27 pm
I can’t take credit for the nuclear sub observation. I’ve seen it in lots of places. I think the first was a Heinlein “alternate future history” essay where a female African American Vice President unexpectedly became President; and one of the first things she asked in regard to the energy crisis was: “If nuclear’s ‘unsafe,’ why is the nuclear fleet’s safety rating so high?” Eventually, she approved a plan of mooring some of the sub fleet offshore as power plants. I don’t know if that’s practical or not; but I can see attractive aspects. In the incredibly unlikely event of an accident, you don’t have to worry about evacuating the surrounding city. Instead, you just kick in the engines and drive the nuke plant away from the populace.
It amazes me how many of the “pro-science”, “reality based” folks are so superstitious about nuclear power.
Comment by UML Guy — January 28, 2005 @ 12:52 am