Our reader Jim Fry responded to a request by this knucklehead for an article on something I know almost nothing about. Jim does a concise job of cluing us in on the ‘logistical symphony’ required to keep our nuclear power plants operating. I had no idea that so many more primitive technologies were required to facilitate the lighting and quenching of our god candle.
Without reasonably assured electrical power system stability and assurance of continuity of power delivery, current nuclear plants across the planet need to be promptly decommissioned. While I’ve always felt all nuclear fission projects constitute unacceptable risk to all life, several factors aggregate into a solid case for their complete decommissioning.
I’ve been engaged as an Electrical Engineer, Project Manager and Claims Consultant, predominantly in the Utility field, for my entire thirty year career. Having worked for and with Utilities, Municipalities, Design Firms, Equipment Manufactures and Contractors, I’ve witnessed the best and worst of designs, equipment, installations, operation, maintenance and several appreciably dangerous incidents (equipment failures) and facility outages. As I present my observations and facts about Nuclear Energy, the Construction industry and the fragility of the Electrical Power Distribution Systems (the “Grid”), my intent is to share my experiences as an industrial insider and clearly define inherent risks related to continued utilization and expansion of nuclear energy across the planet (as it is presently designed and constructed). My intent is to clearly communicate the risks, so readers may be equipped with clear information regarding the nature of nuclear power today, without adding to the bevy of sensationalized and emotional DoomPorn, which is raging across the internet and media streams.
As demonstrated by a multitude of nuclear plants which have had serious incidents, most notably Chernobyl and Fukushima, when continuous cooling of the fuel rods isn’t available, uncontrolled release of radioactive materials is inevitable and no known or implemented mitigation mechanisms are sufficient to reasonably prevent appreciable and deadly contamination of our environment. The cooling of fuel rods at nuclear plants requires continual electrical power and personnel capable of executing all aspects of maintaining and operating the cooling equipment.
Decommissioning of all current Nuclear Plants is an absolute for me, for reasons I’ll be presenting. There simply isn’t any margin for negotiation or compromise, because the probable outcome of continuing to use these plants is known to be deadly, across both the medium and long term. They also present the worst risk I’ve identified related to various collapse and upheaval scenarios. Regardless if there are single incidents or multiple contemporaneous events, regardless if these are the result of human endeavors or geological and weather based phenomenon, the cards are stacked against Fukushima being the last appreciable uncontrolled emission of radiation and we’re going to all be collectively poisoned by that atrocity for the rest of our lives, as will our progeny and theirs.
Electrical power is generally produced in centralized locations, in large facilities and then transmitted across overhead lines to the final use locations. These lines are predominantly overhead and often they are moderately exposed to failure via weather, predominantly via high winds on all lines, along with breakage from branches and ice on smaller and lower lines. Across the United States and most other countries, various Electrical Utility power providers distribute their power through a network of interconnected lines and systems. Often the power produced by one company will be distributed across lines owned and maintained by a different company, a mechanism sometimes referred to as “wheeling”. As examples, much of the power utilized in Los Angeles comes from Canada (Hydro based electric, via Bonneville Power) and northern Utah (Coal based electric, via Intermountain Power), across several hundreds of miles of power lines.
Whereas many utilities producing power used to own and maintain their own distribution lines, this is no longer the case for many (at least in the US), due to legislative revisions to power and energy regulations, which were extensively modified in the 1980s and 1990s. Electrical production and distribution has become very big business, with high profile companies like Enron in the mix, resulting in extensive financial trading and market forces now impacting the cost and availability of electrical power. Back in 2002, California experienced extensive power shortages and outages, which were asserted to be the direct result of manipulation of availability, based upon energy company profit motives. Once reliable delivery is sacrificed for profit, is it reasonable to presume reliability of essential electricity to cool nuclear fuel rods during crises? A natural response may be to presume that businesses will step up, professionally, during a crisis to preserve, protect and promote the common good, however price gouging and inventory retention during Katrina and other similar incidents offer ample evidence to the contrary, where greed often trumps the collective good.
To ensure sufficient electrical power to cool nuclear fuel rods requires a harmony of factors acting in concert which we may take for granted. These are:
1. sufficient electrical power production (usually provided by each Nuclear Plant, unless it has been powered down for maintenance or has experienced an incident shutting it down),
2. sufficient electrical power delivery (to the point of required use),
3. sufficient trained personnel to maintain and operate the equipment,
4. sufficient maintenance and replacement of equipment,
5. sufficient quality of equipment and ultimately,
6. sufficient management and decision making regarding all facets of plant operations.
What could possibly go wrong?
The key requirements always come back to production, delivery and use. The logistics are staggering when deeply analyzed. While they have mostly worked through the fifty plus years we’ve had appreciable nuclear power, our current state of affairs must be factored into any reasonable analysis of current safety issues. For the concluding paragraphs, I’ll avoid terrorism and sabotage, because I’m convinced many terrorism incidents, and most infrastructure incidents, are false flags which serve to validate the Industrial Security Complex, for the purposes of control and profits by both corporations and governments. Excluding terrorism, the wild cards are fiscal, civil and logistical (including weather and geological impacts).
Uncontrolled Emission Wild Cards
Fiscal
Should any country with nuclear power experience appreciable fiscal meltdown, where significant employees fail to show up for work, how will nuclear plants be managed?
Beyond the direct plant employees, these facilities require a continual influx of products to remain operational, including a stable external electrical power system connection, replacement parts, chemicals (for water treatment), diesel fuel (for backup power systems) and similar items. With just in time manufacturing and delivery, a relatively newer phenomenon, an extended fiscal crisis may deeply impact the logistical symphony necessary for keeping nuclear power plants operating as designed.
Geological/Weather
As demonstrated by so many appreciable weather and geological events, tornadoes, hurricanes, flooding and earthquakes all have appreciable potential to impact the intended operations of multiple nuclear plants, often aggravated by their close proximity to rivers, lakes and oceans. Fukushima demonstrated that less than optimal placement (if there is such a thing) along with insufficient design safety margins increase the risk from inception, leading to extensive unknowns regarding how various installations will fare under anticipated magnitudes of earthquakes and various weather events.
If the San Andreas or New Madrid fault zones were to experience large quakes, as an example, how many radiation releases might occur?
The fact is, no one may reasonably estimate this because the variables are too complex, beyond being nearly assured that there would be one or more.
Can the world and our environment tolerate even another single Fukushima?
While we’re not certain of all the causes of the extensive marine life die-offs in the Pacific, the radiation is present and measurable, which simply must be a contributing factor, if not the primary driver.
Civil Disruption
While the previous two potentials are appreciable, as we’ve seen in Baltimore, Ferguson and around the world in heated and violent contention between populations and the governments which attempt to control populations, when sides clash and violence erupts, there is very little business as usual conducted while the drama unfolds. If enough unrest erupts as has happened before, such as in 1967 and 1968, will there be enough employees willing to go to work at the nuclear plants versus seeking to be close to their loved ones and families, along with all of the previously delineated logistics required to keep them all operating safely?
There are ninety-nine (99) licensed US reactors (excluding military and research units) and an estimated total world-wide quantity of four hundred thirty-five (435), with an estimated seventy-one (71) being built.
Why are we building more? Why aren’t we decommissioning, them all? Is it reasonable and prudent to continue down this slope, toward an inevitable catastrophe, worse than those we’ve already inflicted upon life on this planet?
For an interesting yet disturbing review, various nuclear plant incidents may be found at the website Energy News by clicking on the link below.
link › enenews.com
On many fronts I agree with you and have seen first hand what happens when the grid goes down even for a short amount of time. One question though.
How do you propose we make up the loss of electrical power by decommissioning all our near power plants? Or do you believe we simply need to lower the amount of power we use?
Okay, Inspector, you have just inquired of the hominid sharpening his new stone, as to how the gods expect to make rain. I will ask Mister Fry about this.
My apologies, Inspector Ratchet, both for the potential that your sister may be *that* nurse, along with failing to notice your inquiry sooner.
From my career in industrial power and my passion for complementary "alternative" power, my perspective is that if we were to eliminate nuclear contributions from our energy profile that we'd be more inclined to develop cleaner, safer and more efficient replacements (since we'd be further incentivized to do so) and we'd be induced (through lowered availability and more costly power) to more optimally use the energy available to us. While some feel that conservation isn't sexy, I find it wildly seductive because it is really optimization. We're collectively incredibly wasteful with all forms of energy (including our attention, wealth, time, et al) and as we evolve, I trust we'll grow more mature as a species using all of our precious resources, be they human or those provided by (our pillaging of) nature.
The ultimate point I seek to convey is that nuclear is simply too dangerous to use upon a planet full of geological and social disruptions. While every power source has inherent risks and waste products, I'd rather see coal and oil used before nuclear. However, I feel deeply that many innovated energy sources have been sequestered by the predominant energy businesses and their tactics. Energy has always been the lifeblood of industrialization, resulting in it being utilized as path towards wealth, power and sociopolitical controls. If the wars for oil (the pillaging of other peoples' resources) and the attempts to squash most forms of complementary energy were reduced or stopped, we'd have a much, much different energy equation on the planet. The "soft costs" of most big energy, those not paid for directly, such as the military, regulations (which are mostly monopolistic), environmental damages, etc., when factored into the true cost/price, also make other forms of energy much more attractive, price wise.