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.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:24AM (12 children)
if you figure in the cost of the disposal of waste.
I will assume for the sake of argument that a way to dispose of it can be found. How much will it cost? The half-life of plutonium is over twenty thousand years.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by ese002 on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:48AM
Plutonium isn't waste. It's fuel. If your concern is how to bury plutonium for 20,000 years, you're doing it wrong.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:50AM (3 children)
It's not just that. Uranium is a nonrenewable resource and its quantities are limited. Right now there are relatively few nuclear plants. But just to provide the power for the US you'd need in the ballpark of 400-500 nuclear plants. And that's at today's energy expenditures. Imagine what we could do if we bumped our energy production up a magnitude or two. That's completely reasonable as technology (and particularly electric tech) continues to improve. But to provide the energy there you'd be looking at hundreds to thousands of nuclear plants per state. Give me a break. But anyhow, the point is that as you increase the scale of nuclear uranium starts to become an issue. It's nonrenewable and heavily centralized. Should the handful of large holders of uranium decide to utilize their new found position of power and start to form an OPEC you'd see the cost of energy go even higher. Of course at scale waste disposal also becomes an even bigger issue and nuclear disasters would start to become an increasingly common occurrence - even at their nominal rates. And of course the nominal rates are meaningless. Because the problem of safety with nuclear isn't so much the technology itself, but the profit seeking people involved in it. Fukushima could have been prevented if safety had been prioritized. [nytimes.com]
This is all just so silly. When looking at the energy of the future, why in the holy hells would you tie yourself to a nonrenewable finite resource? That's at best kicking the can. Granted that can would go a very long ways, but when there are viable present tech alternatives it makes zero sense.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:09AM (1 child)
Well, AC, which is it going to be, 500 plants total or hundreds to thousands PER STATE?
Waste is a political problem, not a technical one. We could very easily join the rest of the nuclear world by constructing and using a fuel reprocessing facility that would have the two-fold benefit of getting more energy out of first-run fuel material and also drastically reducing the volume of dangerous waste by separating out the waste streams. Instead we be seal boots and rubber gloves in barrels and store it for 100 years in poorly managed facilities.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @10:40AM
Quoting exactly what I said:
400-500 nuclear plants to match energy production for the US at current energy levels. Bumped up 2 magnitudes of production that'd be 40,000-50,000 or hundreds to thousands per state. The reason this is relevant is that energy production, to date, has always been mostly supply constrained. That constraint is increasingly becoming a thing of the past and bumping our energy production up dramatically would allow an incredible modernization of society particularly as we push further towards an era of automation and electric energy. For a trivial example of this modernization - there are electric vehicles. The ~4TWh of energy we use per year is based upon nearly all vehicles still being powered by fuels as opposed to electric straight from the grid.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday May 28 2017, @06:22AM
Oh, come on. You only need to push a star down the stairs into a supernova state...
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:52AM
> The half-life of plutonium is over twenty thousand years.
The plutonium-239 you're talking about can be recovered and used as fuel. Shorter-lived isotopes such as caesium-137 and strontium-90 are enough of a problem: a rule of thumb is that they ought to be stored for 10 half-lives so that their radioactivity is ~0.1% or its initial intensity; for those isotopes that's hundreds of years.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:53AM (3 children)
We've never "disposed" of the waste. We've only stored it. And we've stored it in pools right next to the reactor sites. Dispersed in poorly guarded facilities around the country. Or mountains of low-level waste placed in barrels and shipped quietly to other facilities.
The actual weight of plutonium needing disposal could probably have been launched into the sun for the far less money than we've spent on the Space Shuttle and ISS over the years.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:03AM
Here, let me show you why we don't do this fancy idea of yours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNsJUmFrUCA [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @02:48PM
This person definitely seems to know what they're talking about.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 29 2017, @08:53AM
Personally, I don't see why a reactor producing 3m^2 of pyrex-encased HLW a year is a big thing. In particular given that we're digging holes hundreds of thousands of times bigger in order to get radioactive sources out in the first place.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:03AM
The nuclear waste will probably not be waste in the future because there's not enough raw material to go around. Circa 2035 the peak of uranium supplies vs consumption will occur. And then that waste will have to be used in accelerator power stations to get enough power. Thorium, liquid cores, generation-3, gas-cooled fast reactor, energy multiplier module (EMM) etc.. are other alternatives (though liquid core still needs uranium/plutonium.. etc).
But the waste should still be stored underground. All these temporary storage pools all over the country on the surface is really pure lunacy. All kinds of accidents can happen to them. In addition to that some areas are prone to earthquakes.
Nuclear technology is a mess but it can be handled provided the decision making and priorities are set by engineers and scientists. Not bean counters or hucksters. Their mind is weak and they are unsuitable for the task. And they have to much sway. Every decision maker that do these shortsighted priorities should be forced to settle in Fukushima or Chernobyl so they can get the right feedback on their decision making. Without imported food or water.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday May 28 2017, @07:05AM
it's got $25 billion.
However the courts have held that the fund [wikipedia.org] must stop collecting payments until a way is found to collect the waste.
Hanford is building a facility to convert military waste into glass, which is the safest way found so far to keep it from leaking all over the place. We need a facility just like that for civilian waste.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:50AM (5 children)
We've already had a couple of 'disasters', and they were no big deal. Everything was sufficiently contained.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:14AM (4 children)
The USA had an INES level 5 incident:
--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#Level_5:_Accident_with_wider_consequences [wikipedia.org]
There was a level 4 event too. From the same page:
Another was level 3:
Some events that haven't been assigned an INES level, in which radioactive materials were released:
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:39AM (2 children)
And no one on the street remembers anything of them. Nor has any reason to.
Meanwhile in Ukraine - remember Chernobyl disaster? - tourist groups are going to Pripyat to admire the luxuriant wildlife.
Nuclear fear is oversold. Louder bouts of crying wolf won't improve your credibility when the reality disagrees.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 29 2017, @08:59AM (1 child)
Wearing respirators.
Clue - if you need to wear a respirator, it's probably not a pleasant environment.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:18AM
Clue - if you need to lie, your argument is bullshit.
Another clue - it is a real dumb mistake for a liar to forget that Google exists. ;)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:41PM
Yes, well, you will find that your petrochemicals and coal spread their contamination much farther and wider [sgvtribune.com] and kill a lot more people on a yearly basis. And with nukes even the waste can be useful for a very long time. Either way the main problem is plain old corruption/incompetence, not the tech itself.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:58AM
Where everything is made by the lowest bidder and the quality is equivalent...
Because "it may not be good for you and you may even hate it, but at least with *this* guy here, you get three scoops of it instead of just the two"
This whole "it can't cost a thing" is what is going to kill us all. People need to realize that sometimes the "cost of doing business" is not something you skimp on...
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday May 28 2017, @10:49AM
Trump wants to cut $120 million for Hanford in budget proposal despite incidents [seattletimes.com]
Republicans, eh? The rascals.
When that contamination reaches the Pacific Ocean though, it will be a larger problem than just some internal American unsolved issue from the Cold War.
I don't know who said: "the solution to pollution is dilution", but I'm sure he or she must have been of a similar kind of mind-set as the USA government.