Click here to subscribe to
Planet-Profit Report, reporting on sustainable development in the Western United States.

The nuclear power renaissance

Countries across the globe are ramping it up

(Editor's note: This is the second part of an interview with energy expert Jim Graham, who brings a wealth of experience to his advocacy of nuclear power as a safe, clean and cheap source of power.  Read Part 1.)

PPR: How does U.S. nuclear power compare with the rest of the world?

Graham: In the U.S. there currently are 104 reactors, including two owned and operated by Xcel Energy in Minnesota. The U.S. reactors are built in over 20 different styles, which complicates matters greatly for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees them. Globally, there are 442 reactors in 30 countries today that supply 16 percent of world's power.
In the United States, there are 104 working reactors, and one under construction. Together, they supply about 19 percent of U.S. power.

Globally, it's a renaissance. Countries are ramping up. Everyone recognizes long-term, clean, economic, safe nuclear power. The United Emirates -- these are the oil people! -- just signed a contract for South Korea to build them four reactors. Nuclear power is expanding in Finland, Vietnam, the Philippines, Turkey. In Italy, where they abandoned nuclear power 20 years ago, they want to restart a program now. Twenty years ago, the Italians found nuclear power cost-prohibitive, because they could buy other power more cheaply.  

China has broken ground on over 28 new reactors since January 2010. A September 2010 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency said 65 countries without nuclear power plants "are expressing interest in, considering, or actively planning for nuclear power."  This was after a "gap of nearly 15 years" in such interest worldwide, they said. According to the IAEA in mid 2010, 20 new countries expected to have nuclear power on line by 2030.

PPR: Why aren't more reactors being built in the United States?

Graham: If you're going to have a successful nuclear power program, the reactors should be of cookie-cutter consistency -- all built the same way. It's easier to regulate, easier to maintain, easier to buy parts, etc. Right now, the permitting process for a nuclear power plant in the U.S. takes eight years, four years to get a permit, four years to build. If you built them all identically, it wouldn't take nearly that long.

In France, for instance, they have 58 reactors, all built alike by the same company. French reactors provide 86 percent of the power there, with the lowest carbon footprint of any industrial nation. They use no coal, some hydroelectric power, a little natural gas. Who runs nuclear power in France, Russia and Spain? The governments there. Who runs it in the U.S? Private enterprise. Why did the U.S. go down that road? The federal government said to the industry, "You guys build them however you want, and run them, and we'll police them."

PPR: In 1979, there was the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Penn. Equipment malfunctions, design problems and worker errors led to a partial meltdown of the reactor core, but only very small off site releases of radioactivity. Still, it was the most serious nuclear power plant accident in U.S. history, even if it led to no deaths or injuries. What is the legacy of Three Mile Island?

Graham: What it showed is that Western technology works. The TMI Reactor did what it was supposed to do, it destroyed itself. The plant was built to withstand a meltdown, and it did. The reactor was about twice the size of this conference table and about 20 feet high. It was set inside a concrete-and-steel structure for protection if something went wrong.There was no loss of manpower and no significant exposure to the environment. Financially, it was very bad for the reactor group, the plant's owners. On the positive side, it proved that all the safety procedures worked.

Another good thing that came out of it was that the industry formed the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, a self-policing organization that is much tougher than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and mandates continuous improvements in self-regulation. There's a mindset in the nuclear power industry of "I'm going to do this safely." You can do it safely, and the industry for the most part has that frame of mind. TMI also brought about sweeping changes in emergency response planning, reactor operator training, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations. It caused the NRC to tighten its regulatory oversight, with the result of enhancing safety.

On the other hand, a very hokey movie, “The China Syndrome,” came out 12 days before the TMI accident. The origin of the phrase is the fictional idea that molten material from an American reactor could melt through the crust of the earth and reach China. Coincidentally, in the film, a physicist says that the China Syndrome would render "an area the size of Pennsylvania" permanently uninhabitable. People who saw the movie thought that was what happened at Three Mile Island, and it wasn't what happened.
In my opinion, the industry handled the situation poorly and allowed many misconceptions about nuclear power to become embedded in the public's mind.

PPR: The accident at Chernobyl was much more serious. What happened there?

Graham: The Russian military had built the Chernobyl reactor to make material for weapons. Then they changed it to an industrial power reactor, but they didn't encase it in concrete and steel for protection. They didn't have the money or the time and they didn't think the extra safety measures were necessary. Local officials decided to do a safety check, an unapproved test of the reactor. There was a steam explosion -- all a reactor is really is a big steam and water plant -- and the top of the reactor blew off. Forty-two people died within a short period, within a few months.

PPR: If you had an unlimited marketing and public relations budget for selling nuclear power to the American people, what would you do?

Graham: I would start by educating the public in schools, at the lowest grade level possible. I'd get the truth out there in layman's terms, get facts out there so people can make an informed decision, and make all the information available to everyone in an open and honest way.  I firmly believe that. Right now, the nuclear power industry doesn't make enough for such a budget. We spend nowhere near as much on selling ourselves as the coal, oil, natural gas or wind energy industries. Ads on TV have some value, but I'd rather spend my money on schools. I'd have research centers with models of simulated reactors like the Japanese have all over Japan to educate their people here in the US.