The ongoing struggle to bring four reactors at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station under control has understandably shaken the recent bipartisan push for nuclear energy in the U.S. In the Senate, Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman suggested the country “put the brakes” on building more nuclear reactors until we can assess the outcome of whatever happens in Japan. In the House, Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who sits on the committee that oversees nuclear power, is calling for increased safety measures around America’s 104 nuclear plants, saying that “the tragic events now unfolding in Japan could very easily occur in the United States.” And the Los Angeles Times—whose readership includes those living near two nuclear reactors drawing much attention this week, Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo and San Onofre in San Diego County—has put itself in the fray, arguing that in light of Japan, the costs of nuclear power outweigh its benefits.
These are just the early mumblings of a debate likely to intensify as Japan’s nuclear situation develops and concludes, for better or for worse. Just as drilling fell into the political riflescope following the BP oil spill—and nuclear became untouchable in the wake of Three Mile Island—Fukushima has put the pressure back on the cyclically popular energy source. The media has applied the pressure, too. But it is vital that journalists remember to rigorously bolster their reports with context. Nuclear is a sensitive and inherently frightening topic; nuance and basic facts are extremely important.
So far, many of the reports on safety have observed that very credo. Most have noted the careful safety measures that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission takes—ensuring geologic seismic studies are done in areas in which reactors are to be built so that they may be built to withstand the strongest earthquake to have occurred there, for example—to counterbalance the more invested views of groups like the very quotable Union for Concerned Scientists. But that kind of balance and nuance has been less prominent in the political discussion of what becomes of America’s so-called “nuclear renaissance”—and that very term is one of the problems.
The state of the nuclear energy industry in America
Considering where we are in terms of nuclear energy, the basics that many reports have dutifully noted are: there are 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S., across thirty-one states, which are operated by thirty different power companies. Those reactors produce 20 percent of the nation’s electricity and account for more than 30 percent of the worldwide nuclear generation of electricity, making the U.S. the world’s largest producer. That’s a big deal. But ground has been broken on few new reactors since the seventies both because of prohibitive costs—private investors are reluctant to get involved in projects because of the risk that projects won’t go through to completion—and because of jitteriness in the wake of Three Mile Island.
The term “nuclear renaissance” has been used to characterize the current state of the industry in a number of stories this week concerning U.S. policy in the wake of Japan despite this lack of construction. The suggestion of a renaissance, though, stems from the idea that loan guarantees for nuclear in the Clean Energy Act, combined with a new preference for “greener” nuclear options over greenhouse-damaging coal energy, have put a number of new nuclear reactor projects in the pipeline. Thus, the “renaissance” of this sixties/seventies favorite technology. The press is now asking if events in Japan might have changed the course of that rebirth. But they’re not necessarily questioning the nature of the rebirth itself.
The AP published a story Monday headlined in the Times as “Japan’s Blasts Cast Doubt on Nuclear Renaissance,” Mother Jones asks, “Will Japan Disaster Halt a US Nuclear Renaissance?”, the Los Angeles Times says “Japan’s crisis may have already derailed ‘nuclear renaissance.’” The reports have generally been fair and measured—MoJo’s piece is particularly strong—exploring the potential impact of Japan on the nuclear debate rather than mongering fear about what Japan means for nuclear safety at home. But “nuclear renaissance” itself is somewhat troubling as a descriptor, as America is in something more like a pre-renaissance than the real, full-blown thing.
Renaissance...as in rebirth, but also enlightenment. Opposite of "dark ages." One wonders if "pre-renaissance" gets at your meaning. Still, good observation.
#1 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 03:41 PM
Even putting aside the risk of disaster and the unsolved problem of waste storage (a couple of huge considerations), nuclear power is an extremely dirty and expensive option. Journalism should provide much better information than it has in recent years on how expensive it is when government subsidies and loan guarantees aren't hidden behind an industry PR curtain. Uranium mining is dirty and dangerous for workers, and ever more dirty and expensive as more easily accessible ore sources are used up (peak uranium ala peak oil). Processing is energy intensive and often not mentioned in industry fairy tales about carbon-free nuclear power. The for-profit corporations, as suggested in this article, aren't stupid enough to invest in this without corporate welfare, but it should be also noted that insurance corporations aren't stupid enough to insure the nuke plants, so when the "it could never happen here" disaster does strike, the industry is off the hook for the costs of dealing with it, and the taxpayers will get the bill for this supposedly cheap, clean, green energy.
Let's hope some mainstream journalism outlets give a full view of the folly of nuclear renaissance.
#2 Posted by Tom Klammer, CJR on Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 05:32 PM
Joel,
I couldn’t agree more about the supposed nuclear renaissance in the US. So far its been a lot of talk and proposals and even under the most optimistic scenario the next 15 years will see the construction of perhaps as many as 10 large nuclear installation. Compare this with the 60’s and 70’s when the US was building, on average, 4 reactors a year. The reason is high capital cost coupled with an uncertain regulatory environment. If a utility gets the capital to construct one of these its business plan will have some very specific and hard timelines on when commercial operation will begin allowing the asset to begin generating revenue. Delays mean it takes the asset longer to pay for itself and makes the whole project less attractive. While I do feel that private non monopoly utilities are the best equipped and motivated to handle schedule delays the schizophrenic actions of the NRC and anti-nuclear groups, and the sympathetic judges they will most surely find, leaves a level of uncertainly that few generators are going to be eager to embrace. The incident in Fukushima only complicates this as antinuclear groups and their allies in the bureaucracy (NRC chief Gregory Jaczko in particular) will use the incident to slow nuclear development.
With that said though, small nuclear is one of those technologies with the potential to drive a real renaissance in the domestic nuclear industry. The largest single line item in a nuclear plant’s budget is its containment. The small nuclear reactors developed by Babcock & Wilcox and Hyperion Power (just to name a few) and currently awaiting NRC approval don’t need typical containment due to their size and design and avoid the issue of onsite spent fuel storage. Potentially, we will see nuclear power in place we never had it before like desalination plants, refineries, and chemical plants. This is the real renaissance and if the NRC doesn’t drag its feet, it will be here in a few years.
#3 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 11:31 AM
Cute anecdote for this story. When I began my career, I spent nearly a year under contract at a nuclear power plant generating billable hours for employer. One of the maintenance supervisors I got to know pretty well was a mortician back in the day and I asked him why he made such a dramatic career change. He told me it was actually a better fit than it looked like because the mortuary business was about the dead and the nuclear industry was dying.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 17 Mar 2011 at 11:37 AM