|
Featured BlogadUser loginNavigationAbout KnoxViewsUpcoming events
Other KnoxViews blogs
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 154 guests online.
|
Watts Bar 2Submitted by R. Neal on Wed, 2007/04/18 - 11:24am.
TVA is set to reactivate Browns Ferry Unit 1 next month and is seeking approval for completing Watts Bar Unit 2. What do you think about TVA's record on nuclear power generation? Should they be in the nuclear power business? Will nuclear power help solve our energy problems, or is there too much risk? Read more after the jump... TVA held a public hearing last night inviting public comment on the environmental impact statement for completing the Watts Bar Unit 2 nuclear power facility. The Knoxville News Sentinel has this report. According to the article, TVA has already written off $1.7 billion on the project in 2001. It took 23 years to complete Watts Bar 1 at a cost of $6.9 billion. (Which I believe is more than TVA has spent on pollution controls at its coal-fired power plants during its entire existence.) TVA is also set to restart Browns Ferry Unit 1 next month. Browns Ferry was shut down in 1985 when it was discovered that the plant's construction did not match the blueprints. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), TVA "has maintained BFN Unit 1 shut down and in a layup condition since 1985 when it voluntarily shut down and maintained shutdown of all three BFN units due to poor performance (i.e., significant enforcement actions, several operational events, equipment failures, and management's inability to identify and correct problems)." Units 2 and 3 were restarted in the 1990s. Prior to that, a 1975 fire that started when a candle being used by engineers to locate an air leak ignited insulation around some wiring shut down the entire reactor cooling system and all it's redundant backups. The event nearly led to a reactor core meltdown, but improvised measures prevented a Tennessee Valley Chernobyl. More recently, in April of 2004 the NRC served TVA with notice of a Severity Level III violation at Browns Ferry involving improper welds in the reactor "torus" (a suppression chamber surrounding the reactor as part of its containment system). Even more recently, in April of this year the NRC cited a contractor at Browns Ferry for "deliberate misconduct" leading to a 2004 safety violation that exposed workers to radioactive contamination. Given TVA's nuclear power safety record and their massive debt related to cost overruns for nuclear power facilities including some that were scrapped, should TVA be in the nuclear power business? Are there better alternatives (such as the pebble bed reactor)? And what about nuclear waste disposal? I'm on the fence. Properly designed, constructed, and operated, it seems like nuclear power is a good source of abundant, clean (in terms of air pollution and carbon emissions) electrical power. Other countries are able to use it safely and effectively. But there is the waste storage/disposal problem. And safety concerns. What do y'all think? ( categories: )
|
SearchFree ClassifiedsLocal websites:
State websites:
Regional websites:
National websites:
Government websites:
Media websites: |
Given that regimes of a certain ideological bent can't even properly inspect a freaking peanut butter factory, I have my reservations.
I wouldn't be opposed to significant increases in research funding into safer technology, though.
I don't know enough about the industry to say who should be running nuclear power plants, but someone should be. It beats breathing out of a smokestack.
Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.
Maybe we could outsource oversight to the Swiss. Or something.
Don't know about TVA for safety, but they're mired in debt that we will be paying for a long time because they spent way too much on this technology that they've always wanted to unleash, yet real investors and insurance companies--you know--the real free market--has deemed nuclear power as a bad risk. Still.
At least I pretty much trust the Europeans and the Japanese to run their nukes with reasonable safety. They don't have the capitalistic pressures for short term profits, cost efficiency, etc.
Also, nukes aren't carbon free. Mining, disposing, and transporting of fuel and other operations, not to mention the awesome amount of fossil fuels and GHG intensive concrete used to construct the plants, results in carbon emissions. I've seen somewhere that they are effectively about half as bad as burning fossil fuels, and that is surely an improvement. I can't even reference whether that estimate is correct, but the transport issues make it certain that claims of zero GHG, as Lamar! and others have made, are misleading to say the least.
Here is one referenced link.
Also they make good terrorist targets and did we say they're too expensive?
Post new comment