An interesting article at ReliablePlant.com about safety improvements at US commercial nuclear plants after the TMI partial core meltdown 30 years ago. Yes, the title of this article is true, but there is more:
When it comes to safety, added layers of protection only enhance nuclear energy’s capability to provide clean, efficient power, with performance levels increasing steadily over time. In 2008, U.S. nuclear plants surpassed coal, natural gas, oil and all other fuels that make electricity by operating to more than 90 percent of their total rated capacity. Nuclear plants also generated approximately 805.7 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity last year, enough to serve the total year’s electricity needs of one-fifth the U.S. population.
A great example is Arkansas Nuclear One where workers have gone a mind-boggling nine years and 23 million man-hours without a loss work time accident.
Nearly 23 million hours worked over a span of almost nine years without a lost time accident is a remarkable feat for any industrial facility. That is exactly what Arkansas and Nuclear One employees have accomplished and the meter is still running. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration recently approved ANO’s continued participation at the voluntary projection program star level, the program’s highest rating, a status ANO has maintained for 12 years and a nuclear industry record.
I get so sick of anti-nuclear claims that nuclear plants are unsafe!
#1 by Jason Ribeiro on May 6, 2009 - 10:47 PM
I think many of the more rational anti-nuclear preachers out there realize that claiming nuclear plants are unsafe is an easily rebutted point. Their focus of attack is now centered on cost, proliferation, and “waste”.
New US nuclear plants will be expensive, but should be less when more get underway. When I did my homework on costs/energy, it became quickly obvious that ALL energy choices are expensive, especially on a grand scale. The issue then should be which choices are most economic to produce clean baseload quality power over the life of the investment. Despite being expensive, nuclear wins in that evaluation by a long shot.
As far as proliferation goes, we have yet to see any easy or widespread connection between civilian nuclear plants and weapons construction. And indeed the process of efficient Pu 239 reactor production is very different from what goes on at a nuclear generating station.
The so called “waste” or partially spent fuel is probably the least of all concerns IMO. We know how to store it safely at reactor sites and have plenty of room and security there to do so. No one is in any danger from it. The best aspect about this material IMO is that there should be no rush to figure out the ultimate fuel cycle plan. We have plenty of time to continue to use the once-through cycle. Meanwhile the current storage systems are safe and are not going anywhere. The whole waste policy act ought to be either rewritten or scrapped entirely for a new plan.
The tide is slowly moving in favor of nuclear energy fortunately. We just need to continue to spread the truth!