News Can the nuclear industry be trusted?

[Ken Natton]

For the government, as long as the information is true, then any concerns about generating unnecessary fear should be pretty minor. Given accurate information in a timely fashion, then panic is rare. For example, informing people that a tsunami could be arriving, possibly within minutes, would be more likely to generate panic than informing people that a nuclear reactor is leaking and emitting radiation that will probably reach the city in some form, but the government still notifies the public of the anticipated tsunami.

For the company, there's secondary concerns. Releasing accurate and timely information could generate long term fear, not only of the company involved, but the industry as a whole. It's only the company responsible for the leak that feels a need not to overstate the gravity of the situation, and its primarily their own self interest that they're considering; not the public. It's that known conflict of interest that generates an overall distrust of nuclear power companies response to problems with their reactors.

Bob, you put a very strong case and I don’t disagree with you per se. I’m not overestimating how bothered you are about what I think, but for reference I certainly do not accuse you of any failures of rationality or any failures of dispassion with these arguments.

I remain certain that not over stating the problem is a genuine and a right imperative for a government in this situation. It is not just a question of panic – I agree that panic is not generally the response. But there is a question of creating unnecessary levels of stress in people. Faced with a belief that the situation is very bad indeed, some people might take some very difficult decisions and act upon them. If it all then turns out that things weren’t really so bad the howls of indignation will be just as loud as they would have been if it had been found that there was a large scale attempt to disguise the truth.

I certainly accept that there is nothing irrational in the concern that commercial organisations might well attempt to manipulate the truth to their advantage. I know it is quite a different circumstance, but Enron has to be all the demonstration of that truth that anyone needs. But that is exactly why the nuclear power generation industry is entirely unsuitable for self-regulation. It has to be independent bodies that set the required safety standards, and independent bodies that monitor that those safety standards are being adhered to. And it is very clear that when a serious situation develops, be it an ‘act-of-God’ such as what has happened in Fukushima, or failures of human competence and failures of system such as Chernobyl, the monitoring of the situation as it develops and the task of informing the public of the situation must also bypass any commercial interests involved.

I cannot claim any certainty that such is how it actually is, either here in the UK or in the US. I do know from personal experience that the volumes of documentation and the degree of verification of adherence to standards of manufacture are unusually high when dealing with British Nuclear Fuels, the British organisation responsible for our nuclear power stations. The company I work for has sometimes made some fabrications for them and every weld, for example, is individually minutely inspected. And the fabrications we supply to them are not even directly involved in the critical part of the process. That is just how it is if you are dealing with BNFL.

 

[nismaratwork]

Bob, you put a very strong case and I don’t disagree with you per se. I’m not overestimating how bothered you are about what I think, but for reference I certainly do not accuse you of any failures of rationality or any failures of dispassion with these arguments.

I remain certain that not over stating the problem is a genuine and a right imperative for a government in this situation. It is not just a question of panic – I agree that panic is not generally the response. But there is a question of creating unnecessary levels of stress in people. Faced with a belief that the situation is very bad indeed, some people might take some very difficult decisions and act upon them. If it all then turns out that things weren’t really so bad the howls of indignation will be just as loud as they would have been if it had been found that there was a large scale attempt to disguise the truth.

Plutonium has been found in the soil in five different locations around Fukishima, and those are week old samples. TEPCO won't even say whether they may have come from the reactor, and the media is too stupid to realize what a spent fuel rod actually is. You have this also in the electrical corridors which are flooded with radiatioactive water (not the happy tritium laced aqua usual in a BWR), but again, no conclusions as to whether this is contributing to the environemntal exposure.

It would seem likely that a partial meltdown occurred in at least one reactor, for there to so much plutonium, and that raises questions about just what and how far melted down. None of this engenders trust, nothing that can be said will ease "stress", especially when the greatest source of stress is and was the tsunami damage. You treat people like mushrooms, and you save a little face in the short-term and pay LARGE on the backend.

I certainly accept that there is nothing irrational in the concern that commercial organisations might well attempt to manipulate the truth to their advantage. I know it is quite a different circumstance, but Enron has to be all the demonstration of that truth that anyone needs. But that is exactly why the nuclear power generation industry is entirely unsuitable for self-regulation. It has to be independent bodies that set the required safety standards, and independent bodies that monitor that those safety standards are being adhered to. And it is very clear that when a serious situation develops, be it an ‘act-of-God’ such as what has happened in Fukushima, or failures of human competence and failures of system such as Chernobyl, the monitoring of the situation as it develops and the task of informing the public of the situation must also bypass any commercial interests involved.

That is a good idea, and as we learned from the BP spill as well as this ongoing fun with TEPCO... that's never going to happen. Never. Ever. Never say never?... I'm saying never. So given that, what to do?

I cannot claim any certainty that such is how it actually is, either here in the UK or in the US. I do know from personal experience that the volumes of documentation and the degree of verification of adherence to standards of manufacture are unusually high when dealing with British Nuclear Fuels, the British organisation responsible for our nuclear power stations. The company I work for has sometimes made some fabrications for them and every weld, for example, is individually minutely inspected. And the fabrications we supply to them are not even directly involved in the critical part of the process. That is just how it is if you are dealing with BNFL.

You can fail to trust, and in fact fail to trust an untrustworthy organization that is NOT negligent. I don't trust many people or organizations, but I don't fail to trust them because I think everyone is constantly lying. Rather, I recognize much of what you've said to be accurate, but when the stakes are high, money is on the line either in terms of profits or sanctions... well... people lie, they massage the truth, they try to hide it for a while.

So, no industry can be trusted, no government, no person; it's just a question of when and how much to believe, coditionally.

"Trust is the color of death." (Robert Jordan)

 

[Birkeland]

The price of solar is dropping quickly NOW. Thin-film cells effectively produced by printers are in the works now.

If people would weren't constantly preaching the message of hopelessness and ignoring the REAL price of oil and other options like nuclear, we would be done by now.

While I certainly don't think that solar should be ignored and I think it has a role to play in helping offset peak use, I don't think it is "preaching a message of hopelessness" to point out that there is major issues with solar power being a major source of electrical power.

Even if solar power was 100% efficient we would have to cover Alaska with solar panels in order to provide all of the electrical energy just for the United States. At that assumes that there is energy storage during the night and cloudy weather, ect. Worldwide we would have to cover Russia, and that is based on consumption in 2008

Solar has its place, so does wind and geothermal, but while it will take some time to start production new nuclear plants, that's why it is important to start now.

 

[nismaratwork]

While I certainly don't think that solar should be ignored and I think it has a role to play in helping offset peak use, I don't think it is "preaching a message of hopelessness" to point out that there is major issues with solar power being a major source of electrical power.

Even if solar power was 100% efficient we would have to cover Alaska with solar panels in order to provide all of the electrical energy just for the United States. At that assumes that there is energy storage during the night and cloudy weather, ect. Worldwide we would have to cover Russia, and that is based on consumption in 2008

Solar has its place, so does wind and geothermal, but while it will take some time to start production new nuclear plants, that's why it is important to start now.

I could be wrong, but I believe he was referring to algael and bacterial biofuels as well.

 

[Birkeland]

I could be wrong, but I believe he was referring to algael and bacterial biofuels as well.

Yeah, I know I just focused on the comment about solar simply because I don't know enough about biofuels to have a view. I certainly think that biofuels and alage based fuels should be explored.

However, as far as energy production is concerned, my understanding is that electrical energy created from biofuels would basically be oil fired plants that use bio based oil vs fossil oil. In that case, aren't biofuels going to have just as many health issues as current power plants?

ignoring the REAL price of oil and other options like nuclear

I took that quote to also refer to health effects, which would indicate a preference for wind and solar in terms of electrical production, but I might have read too much into it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yeah, I know I just focused on the comment about solar simply because I don't know enough about biofuels to have a view. I certainly think that biofuels and alage based fuels should be explored.

However, as far as energy production is concerned, my understanding is that electrical energy created from biofuels would basically be oil fired plants that use bio based oil vs fossil oil. In that case, aren't biofuels going to have just as many health issues as current power plants?

I'm no expert here either, far far FAAAR from it, but unlike fossile fuels you're recycling free carbon and other elements, not introducing them from where they've been sequestered for eons. In addition, you get something that is basically vegetable oil, so the waste products are FAR more benign than refining and burning oil. You don't have the whole galaxy of petrochemical compounds in biofuels that you do in raw oil, or have to separate through refinement.

So, no to the health issue, it's not a source of greenhouse gasses that are not already present, but beyond that... I don't know.

I took that quote to also refer to health effects, which would indicate a preference for wind and solar in terms of electrical production, but I might have read too much into it.

Ahhhh, that's not an unreasonable assumption, but I can't speak so deeply for another. Certainly oil and coal are orders of magnitude more adverse to human, animal, and plant health than algael products, solar, or wind. By the same token, so is nuclear, but in extrema, nuclear is catastropic... there is no algael/solar/wind catastrophe.

This may help explain why I support nuclear as a means to phase out coal, with increased support for bio/solar... and maybe wind.

 

[BobG]

So, no industry can be trusted, no government, no person; it's just a question of when and how much to believe, coditionally.

"Trust is the color of death." (Robert Jordan)

This is why engineering courses include ethics courses and why even private companies have regular ethics training.

The root cause can be summed up as:

"Perfection - a beautiful fantasy that leaves you hating yourself"

People (and companies and government administrations) feel intense pressure to be perceived as outstanding at what they do. When they do screw up (which they will eventually), the first reaction is to fix the screw up before anyone else knows - and the ability to fix your screw ups before anyone knows is seen as a good quality by peers, in the movies, on TV shows, etc.

That attitude is also a recipe for digging yourself a really deep hole.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is why engineering courses include ethics courses and why even private companies have regular ethics training.

The root cause can be summed up as:

"Perfection - a beautiful fantasy that leaves you hating yourself"

People (and companies and government administrations) feel intense pressure to be perceived as outstanding at what they do. When they do screw up (which they will eventually), the first reaction is to fix the screw up before anyone else knows - and the ability to fix your screw ups before anyone knows is seen as a good quality by peers, in the movies, on TV shows, etc.

That attitude is also a recipe for digging yourself a really deep hole.

I can accept both premise and conclusion.

I answer with advice given to Nixon:

"Any fact that needs to be disclosed should be put out now or as quickly as possible, because otherwise the bleeding will not end." (Henry Kissinger)

 

[Al68]

By that logic it would be wise to fund both...

Why would we need to fund either? If a private company wants to build a power plant for profit, they can get private investors to fund it. That's the beauty of capitalism.

 

[Ken Natton]

You can fail to trust, and in fact fail to trust an untrustworthy organization that is NOT negligent. I don't trust many people or organizations, but I don't fail to trust them because I think everyone is constantly lying. Rather, I recognize much of what you've said to be accurate, but when the stakes are high, money is on the line either in terms of profits or sanctions... well... people lie, they massage the truth, they try to hide it for a while.

So, no industry can be trusted, no government, no person; it's just a question of when and how much to believe, coditionally.

"Trust is the color of death." (Robert Jordan)

Well Nismar, I do accept the possibility that your view is that of a hard-nosed realist, and mine is that of a hopeless idealist. But it is my sense that plenty of politicians are motivated by some genuine sense of public service and that plenty of high level business people have a genuine belief in the importance of operating responsibly, not just in making as much money as possible. Undoubtedly there have been many cases when motivations that had started honourably enough became corrupted by developing circumstances, and it is thus necessary to have systems and structures that are designed to prevent that, or at least to expose it when it happens.

But it is also my sense that the problem with your view is that it is essentially negative, and would tend to stand in the way of achieving very much. And it is my sense that we would not have arrived at where we are, were it not for the fact that most commercial organisations do tend to act responsibly. As I say, perhaps that is hopelessly naïve.

 

[Al68]

And it is my sense that we would not have arrived at where we are, were it not for the fact that most commercial organisations do tend to act responsibly.

As much as some people like to bash private companies, I'd like to see them try to come up with an example of one with as much corruption as the government that they think should regulate them.

 

[SixNein]

As much as some people like to bash private companies, I'd like to see them try to come up with an example of one with as much corruption as the government that they think should regulate them.

Who is funding the government's corruption?

 

[Al68]

Who is funding the government's corruption?

Taxpayers. Involuntarily.

 

[russ_watters]

Why would we need to fund either? If a private company wants to build a power plant for profit, they can get private investors to fund it. That's the beauty of capitalism.

While that sounds nice in theory, the reality is that the government has a heavy-hand in all things energy and the driver isn't energy/economic needs but politics. So they hold energy projects back with one hand and push them forward with the other. If the government got out of the energy business to the greatest extent possible, limiting itself only to necessary and reasonable oversight, I think energy would get cheaper and nuclear and other clean energy forms would expand without the need for a push-pull, help/hurt relationship with the government. Caveat: research funding can remain, but research is not deployment/implementation.

Nuclear in particular has one of the bigger help/hurt relationships with government, but one of the keys to making nuclear cheaper is exactly the same for nuclear and other forms of energy: site selection and permitting. We don't even have to talk about nuclear power to realize how big of a problem this is:

Cape Wind (all of this from the wiki) first applied for a permit in 2001, which means they had already done a bunch of the engineering, site selection/environmental study, economic feasibility study, etc for the project by that time. The government did some of its own study, releasing studies in 2008 and 2009. They received their permits in January of this year.

On the state level, they received permits in 2005 and had to fight for them until 2010.

Ten years of fighting to receive a permit for the otherwise most economically viable of the alternate energy sources. Ridiculous! And it's worse for nuclear power. How can you possibly expect to get funding to even develop a project if you have to tell your investors they have to wait more than 10 years before they even find out if the project will go, much less construct it, much less even begin to recoup the initial investment? The risk here is tying our own hands so we can't move forward with anything.

Now just streamlining regulation won't be enough for nuclear power because they have another problem: insurance. My understanding is that insurance companies won't insure them because of the small risk of an enormous failure (or probably more properly, the inability to calculate that risk due to lack of data). So the government insures them. This is something only the government can do and since the government is going to do it one way or another (any company would go bankrupt over a Chernobyl scale disaster, so they can't possibly pay), so just drop the idea that they need to deal with it. Or to avoid completely absolving them, cap their liability to the value of the company.

Some things I think need to happen:
1. Empower the DOE to actually make binding decisions, with potential legal challenges pre-addressed. That way, when the DOE decides a project should go, people can't sue to put it in limbo.
2. Related to #1, objections to a project should have a statute of limitations (say, 6 months) and the DOE rules on those objections.
3. Require the DOE to make a decision on applications in one year.
4. Give the DOE "trump card" status over local code officials.
5. Fund the DOE so it can actually do its job.
6. The federal government needs to stop breaking the law and finish the Yucca respostory. Breaking the "we'll deal with your waste" promise has big negative implications for nuclear power.
7. Drop the requirement that Nuclear plants be insured against widespread damage due to a catastrophic failure (or cap the damages).

[edit] RE: Insurance. I should have looked it up, but the current legislation appears to me to be pretty well crafted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price–Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act