Just so we know who has written this article, a few excerpts about Mr. Josephson from his bio:
A Russian and Soviet history professor at Colby University, he specializes in the history of twentieth century science and technology.
His first book was a cultural and political history of the Leningrad physics community from 1900 until 1940. Paul has written two other books, both of which consider how the [U]topian dreams of scientists and political leaders have been misplaced.
Josephson has become a neo-Luddite who worries about the way in which modern people embrace SUVs, cell phones, weedwackers, jetskis, computers and so on, but rarely ponder the ethical, moral, social, or environmental costs of these extravagances, nor the way in which extravagancies have become necessities.
1. Accidents and population centers
Mr. Josephson states, "Worldwide standard operating procedures at nuclear power plants offer little margin for safety errors, and the industry is scrambling to check safety at each station."
No evidence is proffered for this very broad assertion.
Leaving out 50-year-old Soviet reactor designs, Western-designed plants have incredibly large tolerances for accident and human error. The well-known empirical evidence of these safety margins come from our worst accidents like 3 Mile Island and Fukushima. Despite either exceptional human error or natural disaster, the engineering behind these plants worked.
Modern nuclear power plant designs, based on decades more experience, will be even safer. Will they be perfectly safe? Of course not. But they will be very safe, far safer than driving, jumping on a trampoline or air travel.
"...most nuclear reactors are located near major population centers – Moscow, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Budapest, Kiev."
This is true- and without the 'nearby' nuclear power plants, those cities would likely not exist, either. Think about that for a moment... those power plants are there because people wanted them.
Data point: California has two nuclear power plants, which provide half of the electrical power used in the state. Without those two nuclear plants, what would California be like? Should we double the fossil-fueled power plants in California? Or should we cut the standard of living and economic output in half?
Citing the failures of decades-old designs or the stupidity of government managers does not lend support to the original argument.
2. Old reactors are dangerous
Citing this point in whole:It is now standard practice to extend the life of reactors from their design parameters of 25 years to 40 years and longer. It seems foolish at best to take such a gamble on complex technology that operates under high temperature and pressure. Any “unlikely” loss of coolant-capacities may result in explosions, meltdown, and significant release of radioactivity into the environment.It is standard practice to extend the licenses of these reactors. Like cars that are licensed year after year, these plants are subject to safety checks and constant monitoring. Their equipment is constantly being upgraded to improve output and safety- what is in use today is not the same equipment that was originally put in place.
Again, modern designs are even better and safer than what we now have. The fact there there are so few accidents indicates that "such a gamble on complex technology" is a good one.
3. No secure repository for spent fuel
Absolutely correct. There is no secure repository for spent fuel. By law, this is the responsibility of the US government, which has failed to provide such a repository... and why? Because people like Mr. Josephson have fought and argued against the creation of one.As a result, we are all less safe. This issue is not a failure of the Nuclear Power industry, but of fear-mongering activists.
4. Vulnerable to terrorism
Of course they are- but not nearly so much as office buildings, schools, shopping malls, pipelines, train stations, football stadiums or anything else. In the United States, nuclear power plants are very robust structures with containment buildings designed to resist the impact of a passenger plane or other disaster.Mr. Josephson might as well argue that Nuclear Power plants ought not exist because they are vulnerable to meteors. Concerns about terrorism are not a valid reason to avoid nuclear power.
5. Mother Nature's threat
Earthquakes and other natural disasters are valid concerns. It is also true that plants can be sited in places where the likelihood of disaster is low.There is no place in Japan or Southern California that is 'safe' from earthquake. Fukushima- built around 1970, using a 1960's design that had roots in 1950's US Navy technology- survived one of the largest earthquakes in human history. On the other hand, not one life has been lost due to release from the plant.
Once more, modern designs are better and safer than what we now have.
6. Costs outweigh benefits
Clearly wrong. If this was true, we would have no operational plants today. All power sources involve tremendous cost and risk, even the so-called renewable sources. $54 billion in loan guarantees (not subsidies) has been provided by government; $38 billion in similar guarantees have been provided for 'green' energy projects.One of these industries provides 20% of all electricity in the United States. Solar, and wind, together, provide less than half a percent.
This is not a valid argument.
7. Renewable energies are safer, cheaper
This may be true, though the statistics don't yet support such a statement. What is absolutely true: Renewable power is nonexistent. Many hundreds of billions of dollars- money we don't have- will be required just to provide any useful capacity.'Renewable' energy sources are in the future, just like fusion.
Mr. Josephson- with fallacious arguments and distorted facts- is clearly wrong. Nuclear power is currently the safest, cleanest way to generate the power needed by our modern, high-energy civilization.
