April 18, 2024
by Ace Hoffman
Yesterday evening (April 17, 2024) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held a live and online public meeting ("NOT a hearing" they reminded us at the start) regarding the possibility of restarting the Palisades nuclear reactor in Michigan, located only a few dozen miles from hundreds of thousands of people, along the banks of a source of drinking water and food for many millions.
Palisades was[/is] an old 800 Mw Combustion Engineering Boiling Water Reactor that opened in 1971 -- making it three years older than the Agency that regulates it. BWRs are the least efficient type of currently operating reactor (and that will remain true until/unless Small Modular Reactors come along, which promise to be even less efficient -- IF they ever come to fruition).
Palisades was shuttered in May, 2022. Later it was sold to a company that has been collecting decommissioned reactors all over the country, but which has suddenly decided to try to reopen Palisades and become a nuclear reactor operator. The NRC says this is the first time anyone has attempted to reopen a closed reactor, but is hopeful there may be more in the near future. For a variety of reasons, this is a terrible idea. For Palisades specifically, it's insane.
Generally yesterday's NRC meeting was horrible: It was poorly managed, and the NRC speakers were evading the real issues (the dangers, the risks, the costs, the alternatives).
But once the Q&A portion started, finally, there were some really terrific speakers opposing restart, especially the very first opposition speaker -- and it's a good thing she spoke early on, because she needed a bit more than the two lousy minutes the NRC was allowing each speaker. (And only one question per speaker, with no follow-up, unless they got back around to you (which didn't even come close to happening).)
Throughout the meeting it seemed as if the NRC was only there to defend themselves and the industry -- specifically Holtec (the current owner) and Entergy (the previous owner). Neither corporation was represented.
The NRC representatives had absolutely zero sympathy for anyone worrying about the mountains of nuclear waste that already sits at the Palisades site, which they are threatening to start adding to: "I sleep well at night" one NRC official said about that.
And as always, the NRC is completely ignoring how incredibly more dangerous "fresh" nuclear waste actually is, let alone the numerous and inherent dangers of an operating reactor. Both issues are, by themselves, perfectly good reasons to keep Palisades closed forever.
Since it closed almost two years ago, none of the waste currently stored at Palisades is "fresh" (recently removed from the reactor). Therefore, at Palisades, a considerable amount of the danger from spent nuclear fuel, if a breach does occur, has already subsided, because many of the most hazardous, short-lived isotopes have already decayed, at least somewhat. But it is still far from safe! And the NRC is also completely ignoring the fact that even spent nuclear fuel that is many centuries old -- and even many millennia old -- will still be extremely toxic, hazardous, useless, and difficult to contain.
Neither the NRC nor anybody else on the planet has figured out to safely manage nuclear waste yet and (spoiler alert!): They never will.
Perfect containment is an impossibility in this world, in this solar system, in this universe. Even a small asteroid impact can ruin your day -- and make the entire globe uninhabitable if it strikes a high-level nuclear waste dump such as currently exists at Palisades.
When one speaker mentioned that the previous plant operators had destroyed vital records, the NRC claimed they'd somehow recreated the data and therefore it wasn't a problem, never grasping the concept that destruction of records is likely to have been a systemic problem at the plant, not an isolated one.
And when another speaker complained that there had been numerous violations of NRC policy at the facility in the past, the NRC merely said their policy is not to let bad things happen, and if any company does anything against NRC regulations, they'll...give them a waiver after the fact.
Oh wait, they did say that, in essence, but they worded it differently, as in loudly saying: "They would be punished severely" then much more quietly adding: "...unless we applied a waiver." And they almost always can apply a waiver (after the fact) and when that's just not possible, the fine never fits the crime anyway.
The nuclear industry has had OVER 100 YEARS to figure out what to do about the waste problem. Nuclear promoters have known -- or could have known, if they'd wanted to -- how incredibly dangerous anything radioactive actually is, at least since the Radium Girls, if not longer. That scandal was more than 100 years ago. Over 100 years to realize how difficult this problem will be to solve. Over 100 years to fully grasp what an incredibly small quantity of radioactive nuclear "quap" (as H. G. Wells called it) is required to kill, disfigure, and otherwise harm a person or other living thing.
Recall that Vladimir Putin had nuclear whistleblower Alexander Litvinenko murdered with approximately less than 1/20th of a teaspoon of Polonium-210 -- and everyone near him was put in danger as his body decomposed right before our eyes. That's what radiation does. But in microscopic doses it merely does it on a microscopic -- but not harmless -- scale. Even the least powerful radioactive decay (for example, a Tritium decay) can destroy thousands of chemical bonds in the human body. One radioactive decay.
So there's just no excuse for making ever-more piles of radioactive nuclear waste that is so highly toxic and so impossible to isolate from humanity. And so worthless.
But instead, the NRC representatives ignored every issue the attendees brought up: The issue of the shifting sand dunes on which the reactor was built, as well as the risks from climate-caused large waves that are possible from the nearby Great Lake. They ignored threats from terrorism and war as well, despite ample current evidence that it is no longer reasonable to assume terrorism against nuclear power plants is somehow magically "off the table" (as if it ever actually was) and several wars are going on as we speak, requiring and/or getting huge U.S. materiel involvement.
And as always, the NRC completely ignored the cleaner better cheaper safer alternative energy sources, the likely embrittlement issues throughout the plant, the loss of trained personnel... The entire NRC staff was all-in on restart. When someone asked about their response to a recent General Accounting Office report which indicates the NRC needs to take competing advantages of alternative energy resources into account when balancing the options, the NRC spokesperson simply assured attendees that they hadn't had time to review the GAO report!
There's lots of offshore wind on Lake Michigan.
The NRC is hardly an unbiased regulator. Yet that's why they were cleaved from what became the Department of Energy in the first place -- to be unbiased (the DOE is an unabashed promoter of nuclear energy, much to its lasting shame). The NRC NEVER fulfilled their charter. If they had, we wouldn't have nuclear power at all, anywhere, and we'd all be better off for it.
The NRC "spokesliars" rambled on for over an hour, telling us how good they are at regulating and how to contact them later if you want your written comments to also be ignored. Then they left just one hour for the public they supposedly came to listen to -- and a lot of "our" time they took back for their lame responses. With dozens left to speak, they extended it by about 20 whole minutes so they could act like they cared.
The NRC didn't even bother to hire a professional facilitator like they should have -- and used to. This meeting was done on the cheap -- but the government has over eight billion dollars to give to Holtec for restart? What a sham!
But at least they showed up: After San Onofre closed down permanently in 2012 (at least the locals ASSUME it's permanent!), the NRC stopped showing up entirely: No more hearings despite a mountain of hot nuclear waste that will need constant attention for longer than human civilization has existed. And while we're at it, does anyone recall WHY San Onofre shut down long before its license expired?
NRC maleficence. And utility maleficence too, but I guess that's expected.
The utility (Southern California Edison) tried to slip in a new design for their steam generators as "like-for-like." They supposedly did this so that the NRC wouldn't scrutinize the changes they made to generate more income (changes which caused the reactors to fail miserably -- almost catastrophically -- a few months after installation). The NRC blithely let the utility scam them. But it's not like they didn't know how different the S.G.s really were -- they must have known -- its that neither the NRC nor the utility WANTED the necessary public disclosures, hearings and scrutiny, since the math just wasn't there to spend well over a billion dollars to upgrade the reactors rather than let them retire a few years prematurely and be done with it. And put the money into renewables.
Instead, with future governor Gavin Newsom's approval, the utility separated out about half a billion dollars worth of additional upgrades that would also be needed if operation were to continue (including reactor pressure vessel head replacement for both reactors) to make the total apparent cost for just the S.G. replacement portion somewhat under a billion dollars. But the new S.G.s were faulty. And any competent technical review would probably have caught the problems with the new design.
This year, at Diablo Canyon (California's only remaining pair of still-operating reactors) the NRC is helping California's pro-nuke Governor push for extending the reactor licenses to 60 years. Doing so would void an agreement the utility previously made with the public, the regulators and the state to shut those old decrepit reactors at the end of their planned 40-year life-span.
At first the extension was just going to be for five years "during a transition to renewables" but the NRC doesn't offer five-year license extensions, only 20 years at a time. So suddenly a closing, decrepit pair of reactors in one of California's most earthquake-prone areas might keep generating nuclear waste for 20 more years -- not five, and not closing when their license actually should expire.
It's an insane decision in today's renewables-rich environment. Nobody -- least of all California -- needs nuclear power over wind/wave/solar, and California has been proving that every day, generating more energy from those sources than it uses for part or all of nearly every day this year, in a trend that will only grow exponentially over the next few years -- with or without Diablo Canyon -- but much more so without it. And much safer without it, too. And much cheaper.
California can do MUCH better without Diablo Canyon, and Michigan can do MUCH better without Palisades.
So why does Gov. Newsom want to keep DCNPP open anyway? The claim, of course, is they want to keep it open for the environment: The nuclear industry has decided to claim to be "carbon free" even though it's a blatant lie when looking at the whole industrial cycle of uranium extraction, processing the uranium ore into nuclear fuel, reactor construction, operation, maintenance and the never-ending decommissioning phase. And the accident risk.
But the real reason Gov. Newsom is desperate to keep DCNPP open is because if Diablo Canyon closes, California will be nuke-free at last, and no place for Small Modular Reactors. California's current state statutes forbid "new" reactors, but there is a plan to either rescind that old ruling or, failing that, to call any site that has -- or had? -- an operating reactor license an "old" site that can replace its "old" reactor with "new" SMRs. Even if the reactor hasn't been there for decades!
Seriously demented thinking, but that's true with ALL nuclear reactor "wisdom." Most if it based on distorting the truth, when ignoring the truth isn't an option.
One last tidbit:
Considering what is happening at Palisades and at Diablo Canyon, the next time a community gets a reactor closed for ANY reason, it should be sure to require the control room be immediately destroyed so that restart becomes impossible. If they say they need to keep the control room to monitor to spent fuel pool or something, that's a bogus excuse. Don't buy it.
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California
The author has been studying nuclear energy and nuclear weapons independently since before Palisades opened...
Ace Hoffman's Nuclear Failures Reports
blogging about potential and ongoing nuclear disasters since 1996.
Thursday, April 18, 2024
Monday, March 25, 2024
Re: Agenda item 35 (Diablo Canyon NPP: A liability California doesn't need)
Date: March 25, 2024
To: San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors ( Boardofsups@co.slo.ca.us )
From: Ace Hoffman, Concerned Citizen
Re:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) is a eyesore, an environmental hazard, a security nightmare, and a long-term financial liability for Californians and America.
Diablo Canyon is a toxic nuclear waste-generating pair of machines, operating intermittently at best. Numerous major and minor repairs have been delayed as its owner awaits the final decision to either shut down permanently -- or waste billions of dollars keeping it operating for five, 20, or even 60 or more years. Or maybe only a day, if they're (we're) not so lucky.
And for what? To risk a Fukushima-level event here after an earthquake, tsunami, terrorist attack, operator error, or just because some old part wears out?
If you're NOT afraid of the nuclear waste Diablo Canyon continues to generate -- as some of DCNPP's more strident (and less informed) supporters have claimed -- then why not TAKE THE WASTE from all the other old, closed reactors across the state? Citizens around San Onofre have been trying to get the three-million-plus pounds of high-level, toxic, nuclear waste located in San Clemente, California, in a densely populated part of the state, moved away for more than a dozen years, with zero success.
Besides eliminating the production of ever-more nuclear waste, another reason to shut down DCNPP is simply this: It's in the way. It's in the way of renewable energy solutions that are far MORE reliable, and far cheaper, and many orders of magnitude SAFER.
California has already implemented a lot of renewable energy. Much of it is not even counted in cumulative state totals for energy production because it doesn't leave the site where it is produced (which is a very reliable way of obtaining electricity, by the way). But even so, renewable energy in California far outstrips nuclear's portion, and nearly every day now, for at least part of the day, renewables in California produce MORE energy than California is using at the time! And we've only scratched the surface of what can and should be done here with regard to renewables.
There are those who claim that DCNPP is "baseload" energy for California and therefore we "need" it. Neither statement is true. Every major facility that requires uninterrupted power, that regularly uses DCNPP's power, has other backup systems in place BECAUSE DCNPP is NOT a reliable source of baseload power.
There's just no getting around it: Modern rechargeable batteries, pumped hydro storage, inertial turbines and dozens of other options are available right now for emergency backup. Furthermore, grid improvements -- which have been known to be needed and which are coming throughout the state -- make "baseload" provided by unreliable behemoths as archaic and illogical as nuclear power has always been.
Moving forward with nuclear power -- without a solution for the waste problem and without a fair and equitable insurance system is irresponsible. The federal Price-Anderson Act, which has recently been extended, LIMITS the liability of nuclear corporations and the government to what might easily be a paltry single-digit portion of the real costs. After a severe accident at DCNPP, California citizens would individually have to "eat" most of the financial damages from an accident at Diablo Canyon (as well as eating, drinking, and breathing the poisons that might be released).
San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station suddenly shut down permanently when one of their brand-new replacement "like-for-like" steam generators suddenly sprung a leak. No one in California should ever consider nuclear power as "reliable baseload."
California doesn't need nuclear power. In fact, NOBODY needs nuclear power. The jobs are better in other industries, and there are plenty of them. Shut DCNPP down ASAP, and keep it shut. Before something happens that we'll all regret...
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA 92010
The author, an independent researcher, has studied nuclear issues for more than 50 years...
To: San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors ( Boardofsups@co.slo.ca.us )
From: Ace Hoffman, Concerned Citizen
Re:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) is a eyesore, an environmental hazard, a security nightmare, and a long-term financial liability for Californians and America.
Diablo Canyon is a toxic nuclear waste-generating pair of machines, operating intermittently at best. Numerous major and minor repairs have been delayed as its owner awaits the final decision to either shut down permanently -- or waste billions of dollars keeping it operating for five, 20, or even 60 or more years. Or maybe only a day, if they're (we're) not so lucky.
And for what? To risk a Fukushima-level event here after an earthquake, tsunami, terrorist attack, operator error, or just because some old part wears out?
If you're NOT afraid of the nuclear waste Diablo Canyon continues to generate -- as some of DCNPP's more strident (and less informed) supporters have claimed -- then why not TAKE THE WASTE from all the other old, closed reactors across the state? Citizens around San Onofre have been trying to get the three-million-plus pounds of high-level, toxic, nuclear waste located in San Clemente, California, in a densely populated part of the state, moved away for more than a dozen years, with zero success.
Besides eliminating the production of ever-more nuclear waste, another reason to shut down DCNPP is simply this: It's in the way. It's in the way of renewable energy solutions that are far MORE reliable, and far cheaper, and many orders of magnitude SAFER.
California has already implemented a lot of renewable energy. Much of it is not even counted in cumulative state totals for energy production because it doesn't leave the site where it is produced (which is a very reliable way of obtaining electricity, by the way). But even so, renewable energy in California far outstrips nuclear's portion, and nearly every day now, for at least part of the day, renewables in California produce MORE energy than California is using at the time! And we've only scratched the surface of what can and should be done here with regard to renewables.
There are those who claim that DCNPP is "baseload" energy for California and therefore we "need" it. Neither statement is true. Every major facility that requires uninterrupted power, that regularly uses DCNPP's power, has other backup systems in place BECAUSE DCNPP is NOT a reliable source of baseload power.
There's just no getting around it: Modern rechargeable batteries, pumped hydro storage, inertial turbines and dozens of other options are available right now for emergency backup. Furthermore, grid improvements -- which have been known to be needed and which are coming throughout the state -- make "baseload" provided by unreliable behemoths as archaic and illogical as nuclear power has always been.
Moving forward with nuclear power -- without a solution for the waste problem and without a fair and equitable insurance system is irresponsible. The federal Price-Anderson Act, which has recently been extended, LIMITS the liability of nuclear corporations and the government to what might easily be a paltry single-digit portion of the real costs. After a severe accident at DCNPP, California citizens would individually have to "eat" most of the financial damages from an accident at Diablo Canyon (as well as eating, drinking, and breathing the poisons that might be released).
San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station suddenly shut down permanently when one of their brand-new replacement "like-for-like" steam generators suddenly sprung a leak. No one in California should ever consider nuclear power as "reliable baseload."
California doesn't need nuclear power. In fact, NOBODY needs nuclear power. The jobs are better in other industries, and there are plenty of them. Shut DCNPP down ASAP, and keep it shut. Before something happens that we'll all regret...
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, CA 92010
The author, an independent researcher, has studied nuclear issues for more than 50 years...
Thursday, February 1, 2024
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant should be closed ASAP, NOT extended!
February 1, 2024
Dear Readers,
Today I spoke at a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) online webinar seeking public input regarding extending the license for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) another 20 years.
Various local government electeds insisted they were speaking on their own behalf, but all were in support of extending the license of the plant. Many highly qualified people spoke in opposition to the extension, a few insisted that Unit 1 should be closed immediately due to embrittlement issues.
At the high point there were a little over 100 people attending the online webinar including several dozen NRC employees, plus phone links. The meeting lasted over three hours: There were still about 70 people online when it ended, plus however many were on the telephone link.
Due to technical difficulties (Microsoft Teams isn't particularly user-friendly) a number of people were unable to speak (mostly microphones that could not be unmuted, but one pro-nuker had a serious problem with an "open" microphone). I was almost unable to unmute too, but at the last minute, 40+ years of prior personal computer experience saved me. (Truly the last minute: The host had tried various things for at least 10 minutes to unmute me, and there was only one more speaker after me, and the hearing was already running overtime!)
After introducing myself and stating that I was speaking for myself, and mentioning that I'm "nearing 70" and have had "two cancers and a stroke" I added that I too (like many of the pro-nukers who spoke) have "toured" a nuclear power plant, although I added that it was about 40 years ago, and was Connecticut Yankee, not Diablo Canyon. I described it as follows: "It was clean."
Then I explained that the rest of my remarks (shown below) were written while listening to the rest of the hearing today, and began to read what I had just written. About 2/3rds of the way through I offered to stop and submit the rest in writing, but the host kindly permitted me to finish. (I decided not to read the last two paragraphs anyway.)
For those living near the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor, there will be a second NRC hearing next Thursday evening, in person, near the plant. Details are available at the NRC web site. I'm sure it will be crowded with plant workers who don't want their jobs to dry up and who have convinced themselves that low radiation doses are harmless, or even beneficial. (This is NOT the position of any official U.S. government agency, as far as I know. They all subscribe to the LNT (Linear, No Threshold) theory of radiation damage. The truth is much more complicated, of course, but LNT is probably a good approximation.)
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
P.S. I forgot to mention that both my cancers have been cured thanks to modern medicine, and the stroke, last year, was "mild." I'm basically in good health. Except for the hernia...well, and a few other things, but nothing life-threatening...except age...and an ongoing pandemic. Will the "public" hearing have high-energy UV air cleaners? HEPA filters (which were originally designed to filter...radioactive particles!)? Will they hand out N-95 masks at the door? Will they wear them themselves?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 1, 2024
It is amazing to hear the pro-nukers try to justify the continued existence of nuclear power plants.
Forty years ago, they said we need nuclear power because of political turbulence in the Middle East. But America generally exports far more fossil fuels than it imports.
Thirty years ago, they said we need nuclear power because we were going to run out of fossil fuels, but more fossil fuels are being pulled out of the ground than ever before.
Twenty years ago, they said we need nuclear power because wind and solar power "aren't there yet." But had we invested in them, they would have been there then.
Ten years ago, they finally -- FINALLY -- started to say we need nuclear power because of climate change -- an excuse with no more validity than any of the other excuses.
And now, they say [DCNPP] will save money while we switch to...something, but they assure us nothing is cheaper than electricity from nuclear power (meanwhile, it is, in fact, the world's most expensive energy). They say nuclear power is "baseload" because wind and solar are "intermittent" but ignore not only the sudden losses of such enormous amounts of power, but also the regular removal of this "baseload" power for required fuel replacement and rearrangement -- those outages might start at a scheduled time, but are often extended for unplanned lengths of time when unexpected problems are discovered during the inspections that always accompany the outages. Hardly reliable!
And [DCNPP's] emissions include not only regular radioactive emissions, but also significant fossil fuel use in the nuclear fuel cycle and during the operation of the reactor (several tens of megawatts of power come in to every reactor while it is operating, which are often generated with fossil fuels (and of course, the diesel generators burn fossil fuels if they're needed).
There are enormous risks of enormous emissions: ONE accident can release more nuclear effluents into the environment than all previous nuclear accidents in the United States to date. And there have been bad ones, but nothing like what is possible. Any time. Any day. Any reactor.
There is no reason to compare the emissions of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant with emissions of fossil fuels as an excuse to keep DCNPP open.
The question of emissions MUST include a calculation that includes the risk of accidents and their potential emissions. Because accidents do happen. They have happened, they are happening as we speak, and they will continue to happen.
Accidents have occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Santa Susanna, SL-1, the loss of the Scorpion and the Thresher, lost bombs at Palomares, lost bombs off the coast of Georgia, and thousands of other nuclear accidents have already occurred around the world, each with global consequences.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's own oversight failures have caused huge financial losses and risked causing catastrophic accidents, such as when San Onofre Nuclear [Waste] Generating Station (near where I live) installed poorly designed replacement steam generators that the NRC let them consider "like-for-like" when they were substantially and significantly (and poorly) redesigned. The intent of the redesign was to increase profit for the power plant's owner, Southern California Edison. Instead it cost them billions of dollars and risked destroying all of Southern California.
In Ohio, multiple years of poor inspections on the part of the NRC resulted in a "hole in the head" of the nuclear reactor at Davis-Besse, a problem that was inevitably going to cause a meltdown -- the Reactor Pressure Vessel Head (RPVH) was completely rusted through, and the stainless steel liner was all that was holding back a meltdown -- and it was bulging out. The problem was discovered by a fortunate event: A worker leaned against a control rod during a fuel replacement, and the rod bent over!
DCNPP Unit One is KNOWN to be at severe risk of destruction from embrittlement, as has been mentioned several times in this hearing.
Clearly, the main purpose of extending the DCNPP license, either for the five years Pacific Gas and Electric claims they plan to extend the run of the plant, or for the 20, 40, or even 100 total years of operation that the NRC claims are possible for a nuclear power plant... is profit for the corporation. And kudos for Governor Gavin Newsom, a sly pronuker with an eye on the White House.
Diablo Canyon will be 40 years old soon. Other things that tend to fall apart after decades -- despite regular maintenance -- include buildings, pipelines, dams, computer centers, vehicles, ships...everything wears out.
And there isn't any reason to risk keeping DCNPP open anyway. Renewable energy includes widely distributed sources including, but not limited to, offshore wind, onshore wind, rooftop solar, industrial-level solar, geothermal, and so on. There is also a phenomenal opportunity within California for increased energy efficiency, which requires adding NO new energy sources. DCNPP could be closed just by increasing energy efficiency within the state.
Most importantly, after nearly a full century of being told that there is, will be, could be, or might be a solution to the problem of storing nuclear waste, even today we heard -- on the NRC's own hearing looking for comments from the public -- that we could simply rocket nuclear waste "to the sun" where it could harm no one. To call that preposterous, considering the accident rate of launches, hardly does it justice: Financially it's absurd too!
NRC thanked the person for his comments, which were strongly in support of keeping the DCNPP reactors open.
In reality there is no solution to the waste problem, and the nuclear waste from DCNPP will probably stay on site at DCNPP for centuries, if not forever. Nuclear waste is extremely hazardous -- millions of times more hazardous than nuclear fuel that has never been used in a nuclear reactor is. Yet making ever-more of this nuclear waste, without ANY solution to the waste problem, seems to be the only thing the NRC ever endorses.
The NRC could have already rejected PG&E's license application -- and ALL extensions to ALL nuclear power plant licenses -- because the NRC cannot guarantee safety to any reasonable degree of assurance. The NRC has no record to go on. There have been numerous accidents, releases, and near-misses over the years. Nuclear reactors -- let alone nuclear waste containers left out in the open -- are NOT protected against airplane strikes. They are not protected against numerous earthquake scenarios, tsunami scenarios, terrorism scenarios, operator error scenarios, intentional operator actions that can destroy the reactor...or common-mode failures where more than one or two things happen to go wrong at the same time. It is well known that the NRC has not, and CANNOT, evaluate such complex interactions of problems -- problems that can lead to catastrophe.
Lastly, continuing to operate the DCNPP actually BLOCKS clean energy solutions that do NOT produce millions of pounds of the most toxic substance on earth.
There is absolutely no safe and reasonable way to operate a nuclear power plant.
There are truly clean alternatives that are not based on burning fossil fuels.
Close DCNPP now. Don't wait until there is an accident, don't wait for the license to run out, and absolutely DO NOT extend the DCNPP license for a day, let alone for 20 years. The risks are too great and the alternatives are far cheaper, cleaner, more reliable (NOT LESS), and best of all: Safer.
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
The author, a computer programmer, has studied nuclear power and nuclear weapons independently for more than 50 years, including interviewing numerous scientists, and collecting over 500 books on nuclear topics.
Dear Readers,
Today I spoke at a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) online webinar seeking public input regarding extending the license for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) another 20 years.
Various local government electeds insisted they were speaking on their own behalf, but all were in support of extending the license of the plant. Many highly qualified people spoke in opposition to the extension, a few insisted that Unit 1 should be closed immediately due to embrittlement issues.
At the high point there were a little over 100 people attending the online webinar including several dozen NRC employees, plus phone links. The meeting lasted over three hours: There were still about 70 people online when it ended, plus however many were on the telephone link.
Due to technical difficulties (Microsoft Teams isn't particularly user-friendly) a number of people were unable to speak (mostly microphones that could not be unmuted, but one pro-nuker had a serious problem with an "open" microphone). I was almost unable to unmute too, but at the last minute, 40+ years of prior personal computer experience saved me. (Truly the last minute: The host had tried various things for at least 10 minutes to unmute me, and there was only one more speaker after me, and the hearing was already running overtime!)
After introducing myself and stating that I was speaking for myself, and mentioning that I'm "nearing 70" and have had "two cancers and a stroke" I added that I too (like many of the pro-nukers who spoke) have "toured" a nuclear power plant, although I added that it was about 40 years ago, and was Connecticut Yankee, not Diablo Canyon. I described it as follows: "It was clean."
Then I explained that the rest of my remarks (shown below) were written while listening to the rest of the hearing today, and began to read what I had just written. About 2/3rds of the way through I offered to stop and submit the rest in writing, but the host kindly permitted me to finish. (I decided not to read the last two paragraphs anyway.)
For those living near the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor, there will be a second NRC hearing next Thursday evening, in person, near the plant. Details are available at the NRC web site. I'm sure it will be crowded with plant workers who don't want their jobs to dry up and who have convinced themselves that low radiation doses are harmless, or even beneficial. (This is NOT the position of any official U.S. government agency, as far as I know. They all subscribe to the LNT (Linear, No Threshold) theory of radiation damage. The truth is much more complicated, of course, but LNT is probably a good approximation.)
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
P.S. I forgot to mention that both my cancers have been cured thanks to modern medicine, and the stroke, last year, was "mild." I'm basically in good health. Except for the hernia...well, and a few other things, but nothing life-threatening...except age...and an ongoing pandemic. Will the "public" hearing have high-energy UV air cleaners? HEPA filters (which were originally designed to filter...radioactive particles!)? Will they hand out N-95 masks at the door? Will they wear them themselves?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 1, 2024
It is amazing to hear the pro-nukers try to justify the continued existence of nuclear power plants.
Forty years ago, they said we need nuclear power because of political turbulence in the Middle East. But America generally exports far more fossil fuels than it imports.
Thirty years ago, they said we need nuclear power because we were going to run out of fossil fuels, but more fossil fuels are being pulled out of the ground than ever before.
Twenty years ago, they said we need nuclear power because wind and solar power "aren't there yet." But had we invested in them, they would have been there then.
Ten years ago, they finally -- FINALLY -- started to say we need nuclear power because of climate change -- an excuse with no more validity than any of the other excuses.
And now, they say [DCNPP] will save money while we switch to...something, but they assure us nothing is cheaper than electricity from nuclear power (meanwhile, it is, in fact, the world's most expensive energy). They say nuclear power is "baseload" because wind and solar are "intermittent" but ignore not only the sudden losses of such enormous amounts of power, but also the regular removal of this "baseload" power for required fuel replacement and rearrangement -- those outages might start at a scheduled time, but are often extended for unplanned lengths of time when unexpected problems are discovered during the inspections that always accompany the outages. Hardly reliable!
And [DCNPP's] emissions include not only regular radioactive emissions, but also significant fossil fuel use in the nuclear fuel cycle and during the operation of the reactor (several tens of megawatts of power come in to every reactor while it is operating, which are often generated with fossil fuels (and of course, the diesel generators burn fossil fuels if they're needed).
There are enormous risks of enormous emissions: ONE accident can release more nuclear effluents into the environment than all previous nuclear accidents in the United States to date. And there have been bad ones, but nothing like what is possible. Any time. Any day. Any reactor.
There is no reason to compare the emissions of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant with emissions of fossil fuels as an excuse to keep DCNPP open.
The question of emissions MUST include a calculation that includes the risk of accidents and their potential emissions. Because accidents do happen. They have happened, they are happening as we speak, and they will continue to happen.
Accidents have occurred at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Santa Susanna, SL-1, the loss of the Scorpion and the Thresher, lost bombs at Palomares, lost bombs off the coast of Georgia, and thousands of other nuclear accidents have already occurred around the world, each with global consequences.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's own oversight failures have caused huge financial losses and risked causing catastrophic accidents, such as when San Onofre Nuclear [Waste] Generating Station (near where I live) installed poorly designed replacement steam generators that the NRC let them consider "like-for-like" when they were substantially and significantly (and poorly) redesigned. The intent of the redesign was to increase profit for the power plant's owner, Southern California Edison. Instead it cost them billions of dollars and risked destroying all of Southern California.
In Ohio, multiple years of poor inspections on the part of the NRC resulted in a "hole in the head" of the nuclear reactor at Davis-Besse, a problem that was inevitably going to cause a meltdown -- the Reactor Pressure Vessel Head (RPVH) was completely rusted through, and the stainless steel liner was all that was holding back a meltdown -- and it was bulging out. The problem was discovered by a fortunate event: A worker leaned against a control rod during a fuel replacement, and the rod bent over!
DCNPP Unit One is KNOWN to be at severe risk of destruction from embrittlement, as has been mentioned several times in this hearing.
Clearly, the main purpose of extending the DCNPP license, either for the five years Pacific Gas and Electric claims they plan to extend the run of the plant, or for the 20, 40, or even 100 total years of operation that the NRC claims are possible for a nuclear power plant... is profit for the corporation. And kudos for Governor Gavin Newsom, a sly pronuker with an eye on the White House.
Diablo Canyon will be 40 years old soon. Other things that tend to fall apart after decades -- despite regular maintenance -- include buildings, pipelines, dams, computer centers, vehicles, ships...everything wears out.
And there isn't any reason to risk keeping DCNPP open anyway. Renewable energy includes widely distributed sources including, but not limited to, offshore wind, onshore wind, rooftop solar, industrial-level solar, geothermal, and so on. There is also a phenomenal opportunity within California for increased energy efficiency, which requires adding NO new energy sources. DCNPP could be closed just by increasing energy efficiency within the state.
Most importantly, after nearly a full century of being told that there is, will be, could be, or might be a solution to the problem of storing nuclear waste, even today we heard -- on the NRC's own hearing looking for comments from the public -- that we could simply rocket nuclear waste "to the sun" where it could harm no one. To call that preposterous, considering the accident rate of launches, hardly does it justice: Financially it's absurd too!
NRC thanked the person for his comments, which were strongly in support of keeping the DCNPP reactors open.
In reality there is no solution to the waste problem, and the nuclear waste from DCNPP will probably stay on site at DCNPP for centuries, if not forever. Nuclear waste is extremely hazardous -- millions of times more hazardous than nuclear fuel that has never been used in a nuclear reactor is. Yet making ever-more of this nuclear waste, without ANY solution to the waste problem, seems to be the only thing the NRC ever endorses.
The NRC could have already rejected PG&E's license application -- and ALL extensions to ALL nuclear power plant licenses -- because the NRC cannot guarantee safety to any reasonable degree of assurance. The NRC has no record to go on. There have been numerous accidents, releases, and near-misses over the years. Nuclear reactors -- let alone nuclear waste containers left out in the open -- are NOT protected against airplane strikes. They are not protected against numerous earthquake scenarios, tsunami scenarios, terrorism scenarios, operator error scenarios, intentional operator actions that can destroy the reactor...or common-mode failures where more than one or two things happen to go wrong at the same time. It is well known that the NRC has not, and CANNOT, evaluate such complex interactions of problems -- problems that can lead to catastrophe.
Lastly, continuing to operate the DCNPP actually BLOCKS clean energy solutions that do NOT produce millions of pounds of the most toxic substance on earth.
There is absolutely no safe and reasonable way to operate a nuclear power plant.
There are truly clean alternatives that are not based on burning fossil fuels.
Close DCNPP now. Don't wait until there is an accident, don't wait for the license to run out, and absolutely DO NOT extend the DCNPP license for a day, let alone for 20 years. The risks are too great and the alternatives are far cheaper, cleaner, more reliable (NOT LESS), and best of all: Safer.
Ace Hoffman
Carlsbad, California USA
The author, a computer programmer, has studied nuclear power and nuclear weapons independently for more than 50 years, including interviewing numerous scientists, and collecting over 500 books on nuclear topics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)