I wrote a post last year in July about why Gen X has been programmed to hate nuclear power. If you'd like to read it, it's here: Sometimes Wy: Can Gen X Go Nuclear? This post was a bit light-hearted and full of Gen X nostalgia.
I also wrote an open letter to the NY Governor Kathy Hochul and local representatives here: Sometimes Wy: NIMBY This post focused on a lot of information I found on-line through researching "new" modular nuclear reactors.
So why am I writing another one? Because apparently my area of Northern NY may possibly think that bringing a nuclear reactor to this area is a Great Idea! It'll bring jobs; good, high-paying jobs! It'll be a boost to the economy! It will solve all our problems! It will fill in our potholes, open our abandoned malls, restaurants, and retail stores! It will bring the Canadians back! OK, so I exaggerate some of this. (Let's face it, until we get a new President, most Canadians are staying in Canada.) But this idea is like a lot of ideas that have been proposed over the years for this area. Every single one of them fell through despite the fact that these were supposed to be a "magic bullet" to solve all our problems. A super-collider, a racetrack, a roof-top highway, the continuous bailouts of Alcoa, and crypto currency have all been the "big ideas" that produced all the same reactions mentioned. Economy, jobs, local people working! We got bubkus except for the bailouts of Alcoa which have only kept our economy the same.
I feel I may be becoming a bit obsessed with the nuclear topic. I suppose that's what happens when talk continues of placing a nuclear power plant in your backyard. But since the Iran War began, and nuclear weapons and enriched uranium became topics of conversation, maybe we should also talk about Nuclear Power. I am, in general, leery of any advancement in this technology. Its shortcomings do not balance out its advantages from my research.
What I'm interested in is the fact that there's so much pushback on renewable energy but not apparently for nuclear energy. At least, not at the top leadership levels in local communities. Our NYS Assemblyman Scott Gray is a proponent for bringing a nuclear power plant to this area, his district. He maintains that our communities are eager for this opportunity. There has been one public information lecture about nuclear power plants that he organized. I did not attend. But I heard from attendees that there were industry spokespeople explaining newer development in nuclear reactors and science. There was no Q&A.
This past week, there was a presentation on nuclear energy in Potsdam given by a group of Clarkson students. They presented many different ways that a nuclear power plant would impact this area. The main focus seemed to be on the local effects of having a nuclear power plant. A lot of what I heard were things I had already found out through research, but they also provided different angles of what would be impacted like environment or human health. They answered questions but I had way too many to get answered. There were many people in attendance and the majority of them seemed of the same opinion: NO nuclear. In fact, several were so adamant as to be downright rude about it. When opened to the audience, it seemed like more people simply wanted to say their peace and didn't have questions. I had plenty of questions but asked only one. (I'm rather surprised I asked at all, as I usually don't like to speak up.)
I was more interested in the nitty gritty of how "new" nuclear plants were different that traditional ones. That's the growing argument: that new modular reactors are safer and more compact than traditional ones. They are being touted as better than the old. My questions are what makes them different? Is the technology better? Do these new reactors use as much water as the old ones? Why is the nuclear energy industry pushing these new reactors, if they aren't any better than the old ones? I feel like these new modular reactors are simply a rebranding of old technology. Yes, they take up less space; not as large as a traditional reactor. Yes, they are safe and have automatic emergency shutdowns that don't require a human being to instigate. (I suppose that's a good thing? Do we trust AI to do that?) Yes, they take less time to build than a traditional reactor.
HOWEVER,
(Let me add a little caveat here as well: We, meaning the United States, doesn't have a SINGLE ONE of these modular nuclear reactors built or working. IN fact, there are only 2-3 of them actively working in the WORLD. And according to Google AI, there are 127 designs being considered for construction across the globe, mostly for fueling data centers. Corporations like Google and Amazon are already trying to buy up access to nuclear reactors to corner the market on their energy.)
They still generate radioactive waste. It is, as I learned this past week, much less than I thought. But it is still RADIOACTIVE WASTE. This waste is stored on the reactor site because this country never built an underground nuclear repository. Mostly because Congress wouldn't pay for it and states didn't want hazardous materials being trucked across their highways to get from the East Coast to some desert in Nevada. If we can store radioactive waste in steel barrels coated in a foot of concrete that won't crack when a semi-truck runs into them at 60mph, why are we worried about transporting them on a highway?
Nuclear reactors produce the raw ingredients to make nuclear weapons. The limiting factor of weapon production is making the raw materials. Enriched uranium and plutonium come from nuclear power plants. Will the state pay for the security of these materials? Will companies invest in added security to be certain these materials are not sold to other countries or stolen? Will such "security" be subsidized by tax dollars from the state? We can't pay to get enough corrections officers in our prisons in this state but we're gonna piss away tax dollars to guard nuclear waste?
Modular reactors may be smaller, but they will not take up any less space. The perimeters around nuclear reactors are set. You can't just build a house or a data center next to a nuclear plant. There is a set radius around the site, a buffer zone. That doesn't change regardless of the reactor, unless the regulations change. So, these "smaller reactors" still take up a lot of land.
Regulation hasn't exactly been this administration's strong point. The Federal Government has been deregulating a lot of environmental laws and opening up public lands for development. It has eased up on Clean Air and Clean Water. If there's money to be made in the nuclear industry, you can bet this federal administration will cut regulations to help them profit.
How much water do these things use? Where does that water from cooling tanks go? Water becomes contaminated, too. It's stored on site until deemed "no longer a safety threat to the public". Water is used to cool radioactive fuel rods. Fuel rods are sunk in these tanks for 5 years! Indian Point has been decommissioned. This nuclear facility has been granted (by a judge in NYS) the permission to dump all its water into the Hudson River. I'm sure it's been tested. I'm sure any "contaminants" or "radioactivity" are well within acceptable low levels. I'm sure that water won't harm the ecosystems of the Hudson. I'm sure that an environment that is already under stress from climate change, years of acid rain, and corporate misuse of dumping "waste" won't have any problem sucking up just a little bit more.
How many jobs will this plant really bring to the North Country? Will these be jobs that local folks can perform or are these jobs that will be recruited from elsewhere because they require certifications or proper training? I've heard a lot about these being long-term, high paying jobs. For who exactly? Can Homer Simpson really be hired and retained at these high paying jobs without an engineering degree or as a skilled tradesman? What are the numbers?
The one thing that may actually discourage a nuclear plant in this area is our proximity to Native Lands. A few miles downstream of Massena, NY is the reservation of the Akwesasne Mohawks. They also live over in Canada across Cornwall Island. The Akwesasne released a statement when nuclear was first bandied about that under no circumstance would they allow a reactor within so many miles of their land. (Sorry, I forget the specific number.) See, they have even more reason to be skeptical about this "new" technology. Massena has been home to major industry including the still operating Alcoa plant, which houses the longest running smelter in the US. While only a downsized Alcoa plant remains, the toxic material that these industries released into the waterways remain. And the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe are downstream. PCB, metals, hydrocarbons, as well as forever chemicals were present in the watershed for many years, and it continues to be cleaned up. Clean up began back in the late 1980's and continues to this day. The lack of respect for their sovereignty is overwhelming. If they cannot be brought into the conversation, NYS may very well have a lawsuit. More taxpayer money down the drain.
So yeah, we definitely want to put more stress into an already stressed ecosystem.
Since we're talking about the St. Lawrence River, did you know that we have a fault line nearby? Let's build a power plant that stores its own radioactive waste in an earthquake zone! Seriously, we have only had maybe one major earthquake in my lifetime. But water shifts around when the ground moves, right? Will it splash out of those tanks? Will it escape into the ground water? Will any storage barrels underground crack or collapse?
See how many questions I have?
Considering how the Federal Government lies to the public about just about everything, can the public be blamed for wanting specific answers. I'm done hearing about jobs and economic rebound. I want to hear that we're willing to invest in renewable energy. Maybe that means CONSERVATION of energy. Maybe we don't need all those new AI data centers. Maybe we don't need to be on our devices, phones, laptops, and computers 20 hours a day. Maybe we can turn the lights off in major buildings and switch to battery power for security lighting. (Considering that we have the technology to record with night vision cameras and infrared, heat signatures, maybe the security of buildings and businesses can be thought about differently. Not to mention that its a great help to migrating birds!)
I suppose I've rambled on long enough. It's my third post on the subject and probably won't be my last. But if anyone reading this can answer any of these questions that I have, I really do want to know. If these new reactors are indeed "not so bad", I'd love to hear about it. Or if anyone can give me some sources of good, solid, impartial information about the nuclear industry, I'd appreciate that, too.
-Wy
No comments:
Post a Comment