Over the past few days it has been very interesting to read the divergent opinions on nuclear power here at my favorite place on the internet. I was especially surprised to find the range of opinion at a very progressive site like DailyKos. The reason I was so surprised is that it seemed to me that the vast majority on this site understand the problem of big corporations only caring about their own self interest (quarterly profits) and an almost complete disregard for the common good. There seems to be agreement on this for corporations in the insurance industry, financial industry, oil industry, coal industry, defense industry, but a significant portion of the folks on this site don't seem to apply the same view of the corporations in the nuclear power industry.
I have an interesting vantage point on the nuclear industry. I have worked in the air pollution and meteorology measurement industry for about 30 years and for the past decade or so was part of the emergency response team for a US nuclear power plant.
Follow me over the fold for my story on how my opinion on nuclear power has gone from mildly positive (with reservations about the waste issue) to completely negative.
I am a techno geek. I love technology of all types. I am one of those who often believe that most of our problems we face can be solved by smart humans developing new technology. I am also a strident environmentalist. I have dedicated my career to an environmental issue and live my life in as environmentally sensitive way as possible. I own an electric car that we use every day. I have solar panels on my house roof that completely power my house and charge my electric car. I built a solar hot water heater that provides most of our hot water from the suns heat. You get the idea.....
About ten years ago I started a new job with a governmental agency. I was assigned to be part of the technical team from our agency that supports the emergency response effort for our local nuclear power plant. The overall emergency response team is made up of both governmental workers and utility workers (who own the plant). The overall teams purpose is, in the event of a radioactive release, to analyze the plant data and meteorological conditions and try and predict where the radioactive plume will go and how strong it will be. That information is provided to the political leaders who then decide if an evacuation is needed, if people should stay put but stay inside, if agricultural products need to be quarantined, and if potassium iodine (KI) should be distributed to the population.
The team from our agency consisted of my boss, a co-worker, and myself. Our job is to monitor the meteorological conditions and make forecasts of how those conditions might change and provide this information to the decision makers. The overall emergency response team has practice drills a few times each year to allow us to practice our tasks and improve our procedures. I was quite impressed with my first drill. There are about one hundred people working together to try and provide the best information to the decision makers. The drills are put together by a drill team that comes up with a scenario that would likely result in a release of radiation. The drill team writes a script for how the scenario unfolds, creates fake plant data and meteorological data that is automatically fed into our computers. At the plant, there is another team of utility workers that are in a mock control room also practicing their response to the fake emergency.
On one of my first drills, the scenario was that terrorists flew an airplane into the power lines connecting the plant to the grid and also planted bombs in the back-up generators resulting in a loss of power, which caused the cooling system to not operate as intended. As the drill progressed, at about noon the loudspeaker calmly announced that radiation detectors had detected radiation outside the containment building and a radioactive release was in progress. Even though it is all fake, you could feel the tension in the room increase. Soon after the announcement utility workers ran a computer model to predict the path of the plume. The various technical teams congregated to analyzer the data and create the recommendation to the decision makers. The lead technical folks then headed to the big room filled with the decision makes and updated them on our analysis and recommendations. The decision makers asked questions and then decided to evacuate two small towns where the computer model predicted the plume to go and re-locate the evacuees to an area on the other side of our area where the model predicted would be safe. After a few more hours the loudspeaker announced that the drill was over.
The three of us from our agency stayed around and studied the computer model results from the drill and the more we looked at them the more we concluded that something was wrong.
When the plant was first licensed, the utility developed a complex computer model that would use the data from numerous wind sensors scattered across our area to predict where the plume would go. This was done because the area where the plant is located is in an area of complex terrain. The numerous mountain ranges and valleys in the area cause the winds to bend and turn in response to the terrain. A much simpler model that uses only the data from one wind sensor is typically sufficient where most plants are located because most plants are located in relatively flat terrain and the single wind sensor is pretty representative of the winds in the entire area.
After we got back to our office we talked more about the strange model results from the drill. We realized that the path the model predicted the plume to take would never occur in the real world. Ironically, we concluded that in the real world the plume would have most likely ended up going to the area where the evacuated population was sent. After discussing this, my boss decided he should contact the utility technical folks that run the model and see what they had to say. In this discussion my boss found out that a few years ago the utility decided that the more complex computer model was too complicated to use and they had replaced it with a simple model that only uses the data from one wind sensor located at the plant. My boss expressed his opinion that considering the complex terrain that the simple model was insufficient and that the more complex model should be used. They dismissed his concerns and sent him on his way.
My boss did not give up. He kept talking to anyone he could trying to find someone who would listen to our concerns. He got the brush off from everyone he talked to. No one would listen. After a couple years of this, my co-worker stumbled across a technical paper written by two meteorologists that worked for the utility that analyzed the complex model as well as the simple model. Their paper concluded, just as we had, that the simple model did not work well in our area of complex terrain and resulted in "significant misplacement of the plume". I thought this would get the attention of the utility, but once again they brushed us aside, even though it was their well regarded meteorologists that agreed with us. We went to the NRC and got a typical bureaucratic response. It turns out that their regulations only require a single sensor model as most of the plants are located in flat terrain. There is a small statement that additional sensors may be useful in areas of complex terrain, but it is not a strict requirement. It is important to realize that most at the NRC got their start by working for a nuclear power plant. There is a revolving door between the NRC and the nuclear industry where they just re-arrange the chairs and who sits where, but really they are all one big old boys club. Without the nuclear power industry there would be no jobs at the NRC. So we got no where with the NRC.
A few years ago my boss retired and handed the baton to me. I continued to press the utility on this issue and got no further than my boss. Then one day my retired boss called to tell me that he could not remain silent any longer and that he had gone to the local newspaper with the story and that the paper was about to do a front page story on the issue. I was sure that this would get the utility to fix the problem. Instead the utility sent our their PR team to spin the story that all is fine, don't worry we have everything under control as the utility is the expert. I represented our agency position at public meetings and was countered by a very slick PR barrage from the utility. Privately some of the utility's top experts thanked me for bring this up and told me to not let go until the utility fixes the problem.
Our agency director backed us up and starred down the utility. We went to meeting after meeting and still no movement from the utility. But our director stood firm and about a year ago the utility blinked and agreed to do everything we had asked for. The changes will be complete in about a month.
That brings me to why I shared this story. I don't understand why so many well meaning progressives are willing to believe and trust the nuclear power corporations. Do we believe what the financial corporations tell us? Do we believe the fossil fuel corporations when they tell us that climate change is a myth? Did we believe the tobacco corporations when their CEO's testified to congress that cigarettes do not cause cancer? So why do so many trust the nuclear power corporations? I am not sure why, but my guess is that many of these well meaning people realize that we are screwing up big time by our inaction on climate change and are looking for a quick solution.
I completely agree that we have wasted precious time on climate change and we need immediate action. It may even be too late, I hope not. But replacing one bad technology with another that is potentially very dangerous, and putting it in the hands of big corporations that have repeatedly demonstrated their complete disregard for the public good is crazy. In a perfect world with perfect humans operating a nuclear plant that worked for a perfect corporations that only considered the public good, might make sense (except for what about the waste?). But humans are not perfect even if they are really smart and corporations clearly are not concerned with the public good.
Another important perspective on the nuclear power industry is the Price Anderson Act The Price Andrerson act spreads out the liability in the event of a major accident across all power plants with a cap of about 12 billion. If the liability exceeds the cap congress can put further liability on the entire industry or put the liability on the taxpayer (any guesses on how that one would go? Does too big to fail ring a bell?). The Price Anderson Act says a lot about the safety of the nuclear power industry. The act was created because the plant operators were unable to get insurance companies to insure their plants. The act was originally designed to be a temporary measure and once the industry had demonstrated their safety, the insurance companies would be willing to insure them. That never happened, instead the insurance companies still refuse to insure them because they understand the risk. Without this act most believe there would never have been a nuclear power plant built in the US. So if the nuclear power corporations believe their plants are so safe, why can't they find an insurance company willing to take the risk? If insurance companies don't want to take the risk, why should we?
I believe that the nuclear industry has succeeded in a very successful PR campaign to split the environmental community. These big corporations are very good at these PR campaigns, look at what they have done with climate change, they have succeeded in convincing a majority of Americans that man made climate change is a myth when the science is quite clear of the opposite. They have done the same thing with nuclear power. They have convinced good people that it is the only hope to solve climate change. The reality is there are other options that do not place a potentially dangerous technology in the hands of big corporations. First, there is conservation which we have barely scratched the surface of and gives an immediate benefit. There are other technologies that smart creative humans are making rapid progress on as we speak. So I plead with my fellow kossacks that are in favor of more nuclear power to consider my story. Consider that my story only details one small aspect of nuclear power safety, and if the utility was so willing to brush this aside for over 8 years what other issues are out there that no one has stumbled across? Consider that the owners of the plants can not find an insurance company willing to take the risk. Also consider how big corporations behave, and are you willing to trust them with nuclear power? I will make you a deal, if you will honestly consider my questions, I will honestly consider any rebuttal you have in the comments. I will keep an open mind if you will too. Deal?