Conclusions and ongoing thoughts

When I first began this blog, I was under the impression that nuclear power was a relatively safe form of power in the modern world. There was, of course, one important caveat to that in my mind, and that is that safety protocols are absolutely critical. I, like most people, am well aware of the dire consequences that accompany incidents involving nuclear power. Through my research I learned a lot about opinions regarding nuclear power, and it isn't surprising that people's opinions are sometimes uninformed, or based entirely on the incidents that I have covered.

I wasn't surprised to learn that the biggest nuclear accidents were largely preventable, and caused mainly by human error. Whether the error was in operating procedures, or poor planning with regard to design and safety, it has become clear to me that the technology itself is relatively safe. Again though, it is absolutely imperative that all safeguards be taken in procedures and technology to assure safety.

I am amazed at the new designs for nuclear power generation that are coming out, sometimes referred to as generation IV reactors. These new endeavors could provide us with much-improved technology, that not only pollutes less, but provides an answer to the problem of radioactive spent fuel that has been building up for decades. Most of all, these new designs can add an element of safety not seen in recent years. Perhaps this new level of safety will be enough to convince even the naysayers that nuclear power is a clean and viable energy source for the future.

Still though, many questions linger for me, and many others regarding the safety of nuclear power. New designs are years or even decades away. So how do we assure that all protocols are being followed? How can we know that nuclear energy governing bodies are doing all they can to prevent another incident like Chernobyl or Fukushima?

For me, I am convinced that nuclear power is a safe form of energy, when all protocols are followed, and the best technology is being used. I have confidence in the nuclear energy plants being used in the United States, and in Europe. Sanctioning bodies in these two areas have become especially vigilant with regard to regulation and safety. It is, however, concerning to think about nuclear power being used in some other countries abroad. Even Japan, who would usually be considered a technologically advanced nation, was devastated by a nuclear incident just six years ago. The technology being used there was old, and ample precautions were not taken to assure safety. It is in these countries where the risk currently lies in my opinion.

Going forward, it is clear that renewable energies will not be able to supply the world's power needs at all times and in all places. Some form of non-renewable fuels will be needed, and nuclear seems to be the most viable alternative currently available, especially with our quest to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Newer designs, while still years away, offer promise for safe power well into the future. Research and development will hopefully continue towards that end. Perhaps the next step will be to educate people on the operations and risks of nuclear power. The more people that have knowledge on the subject, the safer we will all likely be.

The future of safety in nuclear power: What designs are on the horizon?

In my last post, I explored some of the world's worst nuclear power incidents, and their apparent causes. After reading numerous sources and official reports from international nuclear agencies and regulatory bodies, it seems like the lion's share of blame for these incidents lies in the procedures, or lack thereof, and with the plant operators themselves. Chernobyl was entirely preventable, even despite the outdated design that was being used in the reactors themselves. Better training and preparatory procedures mean that the blame also extends, in this case, to the upper levels of plant management, and Russian nuclear regulatory bodies. In the case of Fukushima, a clear lack of planning and infrastructure updates were directly responsible for the incident involving several reactor meltdowns. Plant oversight bodies and company executives were aware of potential weaknesses of the plant's design when it comes to natural disasters, and in particular, tsunamis. The nuclear technology itself did not fail. When the tsunami hit the power station at Fukushima, backup power generators were flooded out, resulting in a loss of cooling power to the reactors, ultimately leading to the meltdowns.

All of that being said, nuclear power is still something that needs the utmost in care and attention when it comes to the details. The consequences are beyond dire when things do go wrong. Many things have been learned in the history of these nuclear incidents, and most countries utilizing nuclear power have such extensive oversight that nuclear power is likely very safe. Many people arent convinced though, at least when it comes to the current types of reactors being used. Many people still think that no matter the level of oversight and safety being employed, the risk is too great. So are there any future technologies out there that would mitigate this risk? What future designs can increase safety, and maybe even help solve other problems affecting nuclear power.

One possibility for the future is actually a technology that was initially introduced over fifty years ago, called molten salt reactors, or MSRs. MSRs are starting to gain attention again, as newer technologies may be able to solve some of the problems that initially plagued the idea when it was first introduced. According to an article in the Progress in Nuclear Energy journal entitled "The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) in Generation IV: Overview and Perspectives," there are several potential advantages to the MSR design. Among those advantages are the fact that MSRs can actually use spent fuel from other nuclear power plants as their primary fuel. Due to their design, they can extract a significantly higher amount of energy from the fuel than the current pressurized water reactor designs currently in use. The article also states that MSRs generate much lower levels of nuclear by product than do current designs, leaving us with a much smaller waste problem, and in fact making use of the world's currently stockpiled spent fuel. Most importantly, the article points out the significant safety aspects of MSR designs. MSR reactors, due to their design, inherently will not meltdown, and indeed are self regulating. They need power put into them in order to sustain a nuclear reaction. In a worst-case scenario where all power was cut to the reactor, simple and full-proof mechanisms ensure that the reactor simply shuts down.

An article by the International Atomic Energy Agency summarizes the advantages of the MSR design in much the same way. The IAEA describes the MSR design as being highly efficient in power production, while generating less high-level nuclear waste. They also agree that MSRs can utilize already existing nuclear waste fuel as their own fuel, and that they offer a level of inherent safety not seen with today's commonly used reactor designs. Below is a basic diagram of the MSR design:

Below is a picture of an actual experimental MSR that was developed in the 1960s at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee:

Further research of this and other promising new reactor designs is occurring around the world, in Europe, Asia, and North America. The need for viable energy sources that do not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is obvious for both the near term and the long term. Renewable sources such as wind and solar may not always be viable alternatives, so it is critical that further research and development continue in the area of nuclear power. These new designs also show great promise from a safety aspect. It seems likely that current technology, along with ever-increasing safety measures, has made nuclear power a reasonably safe and viable power for today. That being said, increased safety from future designs will only help to ensure the survival of nuclear power for generations to come.

Work Cited

Serp, Jerome, et. Al. “The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) in Generation IV: Overview and         Perspectives.” Progress in Nuclear Energy 77 (2014) pp. 308-319. Accessed on 10 Apr. 2017. 

Major Nuclear Accidents and their causes

Nuclear power will be an important issue going forward, especially when other forms of energy begin to become more expensive, or their environmental impact becomes too great. When it comes to safety though, a great number of people only read the headlines about nuclear accidents, making assumptions about their causes. It is important to examine the major incidents involving nuclear power, and the causes behind them, so that we can better judge whether the safety and procedures exist to qualify nuclear power as safe or not.

Let's first look at what are likely the best known incidents involving nuclear power. Because of how recently it happened, the most prominent incident in many young people's eyes is the meltdown event that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan during March of 2011. The second event that the world is well acquainted with is the meltdown that occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine in 1986. So what caused these events to happen? Was it a failure of the technology, or was human error to blame? The distinction is important, because if the technology itself is inherently dangerous, then it may not be a viable alternative for future energy production. If, on the other hand, human error was to blame, then maybe we simply need to learn lessons from these events to teach us how to be safer in the future. Below is reactor number four at Chernobyl, shortly after a nuclear meltdown and explosion caused the biggest release of nuclear contamination in human history:

Below is the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in late March of 2011, after meltdowns and hydrogen explosions damaged its reactor buildings.

Lars Hogberg, of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, addressed these issues in his February 2013 article entitled "Root Causes and Impacts of Severe Accidents at Large Nuclear Power Plants." Hogberg concludes that among the root causes of Chernobyl were "Serious deficiencies in design", and, more importantly, numerous deficiencies in safety protocols, procedures, and actions on the part of plant operators, and their superiors. Hogberg notes that "these deficiencies showed that there was a general lack of safety culture in the political and organizational system, at the national level as well as locally." When discussing the incident in Japan, Hogberg finds that the Japanese regulatory authorities, and the owners of the power plant, were negligent in upgrading the plant to withstand the possibility of a tsunami of the size it encountered after the earthquake that put the meltdown events into motion. This lack of infrastructure upgrades directly resulted in the series of events at the plant ending with the meltdowns of several reactors. 

Similarly, a report on the World Nuclear Association's website summarized the post-incident reports of several regulatory agencies regarding the accident at Fukushima in 2011. They characterized the cause of the incident as the lack of appropriate infrastructure and facility design to withstand the tsunami. Their report on the Chernobyl incident also characterizes the main causes of the event as procedural failures among the plant operating staff, and several system design deficiencies. 

On one hand, both sources seem to characterize the causes of these accidents similarly. With regard to Chernobyl, both articles mention design deficiencies and procedural failures. Both articles regarding Fukushima also largely agree that design deficiencies are the cause of that incident. Perhaps where these sources differ slightly is in where they place the ultimate blame for the design deficiencies and procedures. It's sometimes hard to place blame on one level of organization. Is it the scientists that designed these systems in the first place, or a failure in the safety procedures and protocols in operating the equipment? In the case of Fukushima, blame could be placed mostly on the power company that operated the plant (TEPCO), for their lack of infrastructure updates to ensure safety from tsunamis.

In the end, it seems to me like there are both failures in the (old, outdated) technology, and failures in the procedures that are designed to enhance safety. I would have to say the lion's share of the blame should go towards plant operators, and those people that are responsible for putting into place the appropriate equipment and procedures to safely utilize the technology. It doesnt seem to me that the technology is inherently unsafe, but failures can clearly happen when the technology is old and outdated. Clearly the consequences are dire when anything fails though. These two sources have instilled in me the grave importance of proper procedures, operating protocols, and the need for companies to keep their sites up to date as far as safety features are concerned. So what needs to be done going forward from a procedural standpoint to ensure safety? Are there new forms of technology in nuclear power that are even safer than today's methods? In my next post, I will discuss the future of nuclear power, and what is on the horizon in terms of safety. Will it be enough to ensure nuclear power's survival?

Opinions regarding nuclear power

When discussing nuclear power, I think some people tend to form their opinions concerning safety based on the accidents that have happened in the industry. It's not surprising, when you think about it though. On a daily basis, we dont hear about the nuclear power plants that keep on running, with no incidents or abnormalities. We do, however, have intense news coverage when something does go wrong at a nuclear facility, and for good reason. Nuclear accidents can have ramifications for the entire world, as was evidenced during the 1986 Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine. While events like these can have an effect on public perception, it's also interesting to note the long term trends. We also need to establish a baseline for public perception before we can explore deeper.

According to a Nuclear Energy Institute report on public opinion, people in the United States are currently favorable towards nuclear power by approximately a two-to-one margin. Long term research, sponsored by the NEI, also shows a steady climb in favorability.

The same research also shows that the last time the majority was unfavorable towards nuclear power was in the years directly following the Chernobyl incident. Interestingly enough, NEI research data also shows that people living near nuclear power plants are more in favor of nuclear power than the remainder of the general public is, with roughly 83% of nuclear power plant neighbors saying they were "strongly in favor."

There are, however, conflicting surveys about the widespread approval or disapproval of nuclear energy. How do we explain the wide range of surveys with varying results regarding public opinion of nuclear power? Ann S Bisconti, the founder of Bisconti Rsearch, offers some reasoning for varying public opinions in her article entitled "Public Opinion on Nuclear Energy: What Influences It." Bisconti's research firm conducted the research studies for the NEI, mentioned above. Bisconti argues that context is very meaningful, and that the public's opinion is "highly changeable and easily influenced." Bisconti points out that unfavorable opinions of nuclear power tend to increase when other forms of energy are cheap and plentiful. She explains that currently, energy is not a prime concern of the American public, and that during such periods, people tend to shy away from nuclear power.

Bisconti also tackles another incredibly important issue regarding public perception of nuclear power, and that is that the public tends to be somewhat under-informed when it comes to nuclear power. Bisconti points out that when people are familiar with the details of nuclear power, they tend to be more in favor of it. This would absolutely help to explain the results of the above NEI-sponsored research study regarding the favorable opinions of people living near nuclear power plants. Bisconti points out that people living near these planets tend to take it upon themselves to be better informed on the subject.

With people's opinions of nuclear power varying so widely based upon their knowledge level, I will dedicate my next blog post to looking at some of the major nuclear accidents, their causes, and what we can do to prevent future accidents.

Nuclear Power: Is it Safe?

In this blog, we will be exploring the issue of nuclear power in the modern world. Is it a safe form of power generation for today's world? What about in the future? 

Nuclear power has been widely used for several decades now, having become a critical part of the power infrastructure of not only the United States, but many other nations from all around the world. The use of nuclear power entails several benefits that have all contributed to its widespread use. With the proliferation of fossil fuels for power generation came an unacceptable increase in the amount of pollutants being expelled into earth's atmosphere. With nuclear power, those emissions have been severely curtailed. Nuclear power also benefits from needing very little fuel in order to generate power. Uranium (and other types) fuel rods can fuel a reactor for decades, as opposed to the tons and tons of coal or natural gas that are needed on a daily basis to feed other forms of power plants.

With these inherent advantages though, come a whole host of other problems to deal with, and they all tend to have an increased element of risk when compared to simpler forms of power generation. Even though there are few if any direct pollutants in the day-to-day operations of a nuclear power plant, there are some long term considerations. Fuel for nuclear reactors can remain radioactive for decades or even centuries after its use. How to safely dispose of this fuel remains a highly contested topic in the field of nuclear power. So what is the best way to deal with the problem of spent fuel? Do we simply store these fuels over the long term, and wait for them to become less radioactive? Is there another way to use these fuels and extract even more energy from them in a safe manner?

Perhaps the greatest element of risk to nuclear power, in the eyes of the world, is the potential for a catastrophic meltdown of a reactor. Unfortunately, we've already seen several incidences of this, including the Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine, Three Mile Island in the United States, and the Fukushima Daiichi incident in Japan. These incidents varied in magnitude, but had the potential to be life altering events for significant portions of the world population. So what caused these incidents? Was it the nature of nuclear power itself, or was it the technology available at that time? Did human error play a significant role? If human error did play a significant role, what kinds of regulations and technology do we need to put into place to assure that this kind of incident never happens again? At the end of this paragraph is a video summarizing the Chernobyl disaster. 

From my perspective, I think these incidents have taught us a lot in regards to safety in the modern era. Clearly though, we still have much to learn, especially in the wake of the Japan earthquake just six years ago, which caused the meltdown at the Fukushima plant. Overall, I think we can make nuclear power safe for everyone, but it takes the best technology, the most careful planning, and careful oversight to ensure proper operation. I also think that as technology progresses, newer and safer forms of nuclear energy will become available, that not only allow us to use prior spent fuel, but operate in such a way that a meltdown incident is all but impossible. 

I dont think I'll have a hard time finding information on this subject from which to learn from. Nuclear power is so important that we cant help but continually research the subject matter, in order to ensure its survival in the future. There are numerous regulating bodies around the world that set standards and rules governing the use of nuclear power, and they should be a good place to start looking for information.