Advertisement

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Nuclear Power

Reactions: Disappointed in nuclear power editorial

December 19, 2024 | A version of this story appeared in Volume 102, Issue 39

 

ACS 2023 IRS Form 990 available

The American Chemical Society’s 2023 IRS Form 990 is now available on the ACS website. To access the information, go to www.acs.org/acsirsform990. Please scroll toward the bottom of the page to access the 2023 form and related Guide to Schedule J for explanatory information regarding ACS executive compensation. If you have any access problems, please contact tax@acs.org.

Letters to the editor

I was very disappointed to see the editorial supporting development of new or reenergized nuclear power plants (Nov. 18, 2024, page 2).

Whatever happened to concerns about safely storing spent-but-still-dangerous fuel for 25,000 years? Why is this not part of the cost analysis?

I grew up in the “too cheap to meter” glory days of nuclear power, but I thought we had matured in our thinking. For decades I lived too close to Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania. Moreover, I visited Chernobyl in 2013 before the new sarcophagus was finished, and I also toured the abandoned city of Pryp’yat’, 150 km north of Kyiv. Our tour guide assured us that despite his Geiger counter’s screaming, it was perfectly safe as long as we did not stay long. I turned to my wife and assured her that there is no safe level of ionizing radiation.

We used to comfort ourselves with the thought that the Chernobyl accident was the fault of poor reactor design. The Fukushima accident in 2011 clearly demonstrated the fallacy of that thinking.

I have no doubt that climate change will make our world unrecognizable, but let’s not rush to simple-sounding solutions again and further poison the world at the same time.

Just say no to nuclear power!

Scott Sieburth
La Mesa, California

 

Re the editorial from page 2 of the Nov. 18 edition, which promoted nuclear power, I was disappointed to see that several key points that argue against this were ignored. The first of these is the fact that the US has a $16.1 billion cap on insurance coverage for nuclear spills and accidents. The estimated cost to build a new plant (not including the cost to clean up a damaged plant) is currently between $14 billion and $30 billion. An individual in the US cannot buy insurance to cover their damage resulting from a nuclear accident.

Today, the US has no place approved to permanently store spent nuclear fuel. The temporary sites being used now are an ongoing unsolved problem with serious consequences for the future. Extreme weather events, earthquakes, tsunamis, and terrorist acts could easily free the material, which is typically kept near water, typically an ocean or a river, which increases the areas likely to be impacted by a release. A spill upriver on a major waterway (e.g., the Mississippi in Minnesota) would be spectacularly bad for all the communities downstream.

As the editorial points out, chemical plants are leading candidates for siting new small modular nuclear power plants. Such plants can provide both electrical and thermal energy, nicely matching the power needs of a chemical plant. But these plants are prone to chemical releases, fires, and explosions. During an emergency (perhaps one with an external cause), the presence of a nuclear power generator would raise the threat level considerably. Cleanup after such an event would be an entirely different effort. This should disqualify such sites.

The impact of uranium mining is also ignored. The south side of Grand Canyon National Park has very few places where a campground could be located with water access. There is a hiking trail in the canyon connecting the two most popular entry points on the south side (Bright Angel and Hermit’s Rest). This trail passes a conveniently located canyon with a stream, but it cannot be used as a water source because the water has passed through a now-abandoned uranium mine and is radioactive.

After we have a solution to the waste disposal problem and insurance companies agree to cover personal damages resulting from nuclear spills, we should consider nuclear power, but not until then.

William V. Dower
Austin, Texas

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

0 /1 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.