Nuclear is Our Future Pro-nuclear activist group

Rep. Nita Lowey, that eminent friend of nuclear power (joined by woo-woo John Hall as well as Eliot Engel, Maurice Hinchey, and Christopher Shays), is sponsoring a bill intended to make it even more unnecessarily difficult to build a nuclear power plant–or relicense one.

-Require that the NRC determine that plants are safe. In other words, add another piece of paper onto a process that already works.
-Require that the NRC certify that each nuclear power plant doesn’t have security vulnerabilities during the licensing process. In other words, the effects of a terrorist attack are the victims’ fault.
-Add another level of bureaucracy to the evacuation plans requirement, and expand the EPZ to 50 miles. More stakeholders can veto the plan under this proposal than possible today–any state within 50 miles or any federal agency involved in emergency management–increasing the likelihood of Shoreham-type politics.
-Require that the NRC do the same reviews for a renewal that they do for a licensing, most of which are completely pointless, since the design doesn’t change. In reality, all a renewal application should have to prove safety-wise is that a plant’s designed-in safety effects won’t be affected by aging.
-Require the NRC to determine in any relicensing that the population density around the plant hasn’t changed to the point where it is defined as “urban siting,” which is bad for some reason. In other words, shut down Indian Point.

Fortunately, the bill doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting past President Bush even if it did pass. But we’re going to have to watch out for this in a couple years, when either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be eager to prove that they’re tough on these “problems.” Indian Point is going to have a constant fight on its hands come 2009.

Oh, and four Democrats and one Republican do not a bipartisan coalition make. Maybe they put the “coal” in “coalition” (or the “mental” in “environmentalist”), but not much more.

Filed under Emergency Response, Perception, Physics, Politics and Regulation, Safety, Security and Terrorism, Their Actions

Posted on June 1, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

No, the fact that there’s another reactor doesn’t mean that an accident could reach farther than it can; no, the probability of core damage at the existing ones hasn’t gone up in the last 25 years (and in fact was way overestimated in the days before powerful computer models); no, the proposed new one isn’t more dangerous (and is in fact safer–because it replaces backup systems with physics–although the old one was good enough); and no, incidents (read: trash can fires in the manager’s office) aren’t indicative of anything nuclear. The article basically uses the old “aging-means-we-shouldn’t-build-new-ones” argument throughout; the good news is that we have at least a chance to be heard.
This isn’t Nazi Germany; we shouldn’t think we’re so marginalized that we can’t act like a counterculture.

Link (hat tip: Know_Nukes).

Filed under Emergency Response, New Build, Non Sequitur, Safety

Posted on April 30, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

That shouldn’t be too much of a problem in a technical sense. But, in a practical sense, it’s just another way to waste time and money and extend reviews out as long as possible.

Link.

Filed under Emergency Response, Politics and Regulation, Security and Terrorism

Posted on April 24, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

…a six-digit civil penalty. (explanation)

Filed under Emergency Response, Politics and Regulation

Posted on April 23, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Apparently, “children’s evacuation centers” aren’t outside the emergency planning zone by a wide enough margin. Can anyone spell “technicality?”

Link.

Filed under Emergency Response, Their Actions

Posted on April 20, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

The NRC has, of course, denied Entergy’s petition for time to fix Indian Point’s unnecessary and politically-motivated siren system. I personally don’t see what’s so hard about installing one, but it’s extremely expensive, and that money could go toward other things–like, say, protecting the public health and safety.

Filed under Emergency Response, Politics and Regulation

Posted on April 20, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

“With the NRC’s demonstrated lack of effective oversight and Entergy’s apparent disregard for public safety, renewing Indian Point’s licenses for another twenty years puts everyone living in the shadow of this plant at risk.”

-Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition

That doesn’t mean they can do things that are physically impossible.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Emergency Response, End Times, Missing the Point, Physics, Politics and Regulation, Safety

Posted on March 11, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

“Furthermore, by artificially limiting the liability of nuclear operators, the Price-Anderson Act serves as a subsidy to the nuclear industry in terms of foregone insurance premiums.”

-Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition

Insurance–specifically the amount required and the willingness of an insurance company to provide it–is a reflection on the costs to reimburse after the item is lost. These costs can be inflated if, say, there is a public perception that the insured item is dangerous, even if it isn’t. Just as no utility wants to be caught without insurance in case of an accident, no insurance company wants to be caught paying out billions for lawsuits for the next 20 or 30 years. Insurance isn’t dependent on the item but rather on the perception of the item, and has no bearing whatsoever on the item’s intrinsic value. In other words, inherently safe does not mean inherently insurable–inherently not-a-popular-punching-bag-for-ambulance-chasing-lawyers means inherently insurable. Similar arguments have been made in favor of segregation.
Oh, and the Price-Anderson insurance program is a federally-managed fund paid for by operators.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Economics, Emergency Response, Politics and Regulation, Safety, Security and Terrorism

Posted on February 25, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

“Written by the woman irrevocably associated with saving the lives of stricken thousands in the aftermath of the world’s worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl Heart – 20 Years On, is a timely reminder of the dangers of nuclear activity in the modern world.”

-Chernobyl Children’s Project

No, it’s a reminder of the dangers of abusing the worst reactor in the history of the world.

Filed under Chernobyl, Emergency Response, International, Safety

Posted on February 20, 2006 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Everybody wasn’t told that nothing happened! Oh No! We’re all gonna die!
If the International Walnut Growers Association doesn’t have a copy of every form relating to every discrepancy report at Torness in the last five years by Tuesday it will be the end of the world! We must notify everyone!

Oh, and it works nothing like Chernobyl, unlike what it says in the article. The Chernobyl reactor was a failed attempt to integrate weapons-grade plutonium production and nuclear power, resulting in a radically different and uniquely unsafe design. Even then, it took a harebrained stunt to cause the accident (in other words, had the plant been designed as all others were, the operators could abuse it to no end and there would have been no Chernobyl; conversely, if the operators hadn’t abused it, they could have built it as they did and nothing would have happened). Chernobyl was a case study in how not to manage a nuclear power plant, from the drawing board to construction to testing to operations.

Link.

Filed under Chernobyl, Emergency Response, International, Non Sequitur, Safety

Posted on December 31, 2005 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »