Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Power To Save The World

Power To Save The WorldGwyneth Cravens grew up in Albuquerque, New Mexico, the Sandia Mountains in the distance. With Sandia National Laboratories close by, she worried that the Soviets were going to bomb her home into oblivion. As she got older, like many Americans, she associated nuclear power with nuclear bombs and thus became anti-nuclear. After relocating to Long Island, she joined protesters in successfully preventing the Shoreham nuclear power plant from ever coming on line. It's now something she regrets.

In the early 90's, while visiting friends and family back in Albuquerque, she met Dr. D. Richard "Rip" Anderson, a scientist at Sandia National Laboratories, and his wife at a party. She struck up a conversation with him that would ultimately lead her over the next decade through a tour of the entire nuclear power industry: uranium mines, research labs in Idaho, Three Mile Island, power plants, old weapons test sites, and waste disposal sites. Although she didn't visit Chernobyl, there's a chapter that analyzes what went wrong and why it couldn't happen here. Cravens covers radiation, mining, fuel supply, politics and regulations, costs, risk assessment, waste storage, improvements in reactor design, safety, terrorism, baseline energy demand, and contrasts the nuclear industry with coal. The end result is: "Power To Save The World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy."

This is an amazing book. Cravens, a novelist by trade, is able to make a book about physics and engineering, which could be dull to non-technical readers, a compelling read. We're there as she makes her journey through the nuclear world. Vivid descriptions and colorful anecdotes break up the science lessons and statistical evidence presented to destroy the myths and allay the fears that people (including herself) have regarding nuclear power.

The most illuminating portion of the book for me was the fact that we are awash in radiation from natural sources. The universe, our planet, and everything we eat, exposes us to radiation. Had a banana lately? Anything with potassium in it harbors Potassium-40 atoms, which emits beta radiation. Feeling sick now? You shouldn't. Cravens tears apart the belief that radiation exposure is harmful at all levels as all the evidence shows that low level exposure is harmless and that there is a threshold that must be passed before damage occurs. However, regulations have been established that all radiation is bad, hence the great lengths that power plants and waste repositories must go through to insulate the public. For example, the EPA states that the neighbors of nuclear power plant must not be subjected to more than 15 millirems of radiation. All American nuclear power plants emit 1-2 millirem/year. By contrast, a chest X-ray exposes you to 10 millirem. Dental X-ray 29 millirem. A roundtrip flight from NYC to LA gives you 3 millirem. The granite in Grand Central Station exposes people to 540 millirem (assuming you were there round the clock). People living in Denver are exposed to 700 millirem/year (the higher the altitude, the less atmosphere there is to shield you, not to mention all that granite). Yet there are no cancer clusters among Grand Central workers, dental technicians, airline pilots, flight attendants, or the residents of Denver. By comparison, cigarette smokers who have a one pack per day habit expose themselves to 8,000 millirem/year. Tobacco plants, it seems, have an affinity for radionuclides.

While she defends the science of nuclear power and defends the engineering incorporated into structures, she doesn't brown nose the corporations that own the power plants. She acknowledges that they've miscommunicated, kept things hidden, and made poor strategic decisions. The industry is over regulated. And while that's forced workers to adopt a culture of safety (a good thing she argues) it's over the top. I worked for a chemical company that would've been shut down if it had to report every single little spill that happened. A few milliliters of a non-reactive substance is harmless. So too are the "accidents" at nuclear power plants that you read in the paper or hear about from shrill anti-nuclear groups. But even water leaks that don't come into contact with the reactor are required to be reported. Do you tell your health insurance company every time you blow your nose? In fact, if the chemical, oil, and coal industries had to live up to the standards imposed on the nuclear industry, they wouldn't be able to stay in business due to regulatory expenditures. "Cheap coal" would be an oxymoron.

There's just so much in this book. I could go on and on and on about the material in this book (especially about radiation) but time, space, and my kids prevent me from doing so. I strongly recommend that everyone read this book (it's in paperback now too) to get the facts about nuclear power. Or go to Cravens' website.

At the end of the book, Cravens visits a clinic to determine her level of exposure after ten years of researching her book. After visiting uranium mines, Three Mile Island, a couple nuclear power plants, nuclear research sites, bomb test sites, and waste repositories, her test results came back negative.

\_/
DED

Labels: , ,

4 Comments:

Anonymous fairlane said...

The waste is the concern, and what we do with it.

6/16/2008 10:17 AM  
Blogger DED said...

I've come to learn that the problem with nuclear waste has been exaggerated to a certain degree. We have safe solutions already in place that can be fully utilized NOW and will be of no harm to anyone for the duration of the waste's harmful life cycle. The problem is a matter of politics. It's covered in the book.

Yet nothing is being done now to deal with the slag leftover from burning coal. A 500 megawatt coal plant generates 16,425 tons of solid waste per year. That's doesn't include the gaseous emissions or airborne dust particulates. The solid waste contains heavy metals (arsenic, mercury, lead, etc) that, when in high enough concentrations, are known to poison the nervous system.

By comparison, an 850 megawatt nuclear power plant generates 25 tons of spent fuel. And this number can be reduced further by re-using the fuel.

Right now, we run fuel through a reactor once and then remove it. This is unnecessary. We can run the fuel through the reactor several times thereby extracting far more energy out of the fuel and decreasing the amount of waste leftover when the fuel is spent.

An FAQ on her website regarding nuclear waste, can be reached from here.

6/16/2008 4:17 PM  
Blogger fairlane said...

You still out there?

6/28/2008 10:28 AM  
Blogger DED said...

Yes. Sorry. Been too busy with Life to blog.

6/30/2008 9:34 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home