SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relied on faulty analysis to justify its refusal to adopt a critical measure for protecting Americans from the occurrence of a catastrophic nuclear-waste fire at any one of dozens of reactor sites around the country, according to an article in the May 26 issue of Science magazine. Catastrophic consequences, which could be triggered by a large earthquake or a terrorist attack, could be largely avoided by regulatory measures that the NRC refuses to implement. Using a biased regulatory analysis, the agency excluded the possibility of an act of terrorism as well as the potential for damage from a fire beyond 50 miles of a plant.
[...] "The NRC has been pressured by the nuclear industry, directly and through Congress, to low-ball the potential consequences of a fire because of concerns that increased costs could result in shutting down more nuclear power plants," said paper co-author Frank von Hippel, a senior research physicist at Princeton's Program on Science and Global Security (SGS), based at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. "Unfortunately, if there is no public outcry about this dangerous situation, the NRC will continue to bend to the industry's wishes."
[...] The NRC analysis found that a fire in a spent-fuel pool at an average nuclear reactor site would cause $125 billion in damages. After correcting for errors and omissions, the researchers found that millions of residents in surrounding communities would have to relocate for years, resulting in total damages of $2 trillion—nearly 20 times the NRC's result. Considering the nuclear industry is only legally liable for $13.6 billion, thanks to the Price Anderson Act of 1957, U.S. taxpayers would have to cover the remaining costs.
[...] "In far too many instances, the NRC has used flawed analysis to justify inaction, leaving millions of Americans at risk of a radiological release that could contaminate their homes and destroy their livelihoods," said Lyman. "It is time for the NRC to employ sound science and common-sense policy judgments in its decision-making process."
Source: Phys.org
(Score: 4, Insightful) by idiot_king on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:24AM (8 children)
I've mentioned multiple times in the comments about the problems with nuclear energy. It's not the actual nuclear part that's bad, it's the waste products, every single time. They are just too much of a liability to leave around for future generations to clean up. We have clean energy now-- nuclear was a noble, but flawed, experiment in human history.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:37AM (4 children)
On the other hand, it seems they only disagree with the NRC because they think the NRC
They've assumed to their conclusion not based on likelihood, or the disagreement about actual risks, but rather because they believe the NRC is worried about costs. They seem give a greater weight to the risk simply because they think the NRC was hiding cost issues.
It seems like its similar to knifing someone in the parking lot of a bar is somehow more of a crime if you can imply there was some hatred involved. Not just any hatred will do, it has to be hatred of a "protected" group.
So it seems risk analysis has fallen afoul of political correctness.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:42AM (3 children)
It has nothing to do with political correctness or opinion. The NRC was basing their analysis on provably false assumptions to lowball the potential damages as a result of extensive lobby and cronyism on behalf of the nuclear industry.
When your potential damages after off by more than an order of magnitude it has a comparable effect on insurance costs, reasonable liability, and more. For instance as the paper mentions nuclear operators are only liable for $13.2 billion. That is absurd. That's not even a fraction of what we spend on significant oil disasters. They're effectively operating under a situation where if anything goes wrong then 99.34% of all the costs are left on taxpayers to shoulder the burden. This is crony capitalism and activity that should be borderline fraud. It's effectively insurance fraud in reverse by having the company responsible for liability dramatically understate any potential losses they could be responsible for.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:08AM
It's solved by ruining peoples lives and not compensating or helping them - problem solved. The powerful and rich can always arrange a comfort zone.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:13AM
So you make the same mistake these two professors do. Funny.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 28 2017, @01:11PM
Do you have a reason to believe your opinion is true?
You do realize that most significant oil disasters are cheaper than a billion dollars? As to the disaster costing two trillion dollars, an obvious solution is to make it cost less than two trillion through better response to the disaster than what is proposed. But if a society wishes to turn a $100 billion disaster into a $2 trillion disaster, then they should shoulder the additional cost. It is only fair since they're the problem not the actual disaster.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:20AM (2 children)
Another BIG problem is the management and bean counter people that simple don't grasp what's going on and thus make bad decisions.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Sunday May 28 2017, @08:34AM (1 child)
I am pretty sure they know what is going on.
What they are looking for is plausible deniability so they can do the more profitable thing.
They are looking for scapegoats. Privatize the profit fast, and socialize the flak.
Been there, seen that.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday May 28 2017, @01:22PM
I'm meant that they take bad decisions on security and efficiency of the operation. That they deny responsibility and wants a scapegoat when it goes wrong is another (bad) issue.