Senator Sharon Brown has a brand-new idea for power generation. Nuclear something something!
In an era when carbon emissions are becoming a major concern and clean energy is a popular cause, Washington is poised to become a center for the development of one of the greenest technologies around. Clean, safe, abundant, all it needs is a bit of encouragement from the state and a willingness to understand that today’s nuclear power is like nothing before.
First off, I’m glad to see some Republican is acknowledging that carbon emissions are a problem. We may disagree on many things, but at least we can agree that humans are causing global warming. Oh? What? She voted with all but one of her GOP colleagues that we aren’t sure if humans cause global warming.
Also, unless you have some uranium lying around, you’re going to have to mine it. And that isn’t exactly a zero emissions proposition.
Yes, nuclear power. We’ve come a long way since the days of tie-dyed T-shirts and no-nukes concerts and the reactor technology of the 1960s and ‘70s. The new generation of reactor design is safer, simpler and potentially cheaper than anything we have seen to date. Export potential is enormous, to a Third World now electrifying with coal. Washington is uniquely suited to become a center for the development, design and export of this small modular nuclear-reactor technology, and we have a small window of opportunity to establish leadership and make this industry our own.
Export potential? I feel like that’s something to explore a bit. But no. Instead we have more discussion of the fashion sense of the 1960’s than of how that would happen.
Anyway, you could get me on board with one minor amendment. I propose we store the waste in her district. Since it’s so clean or whatever, I’m sure she wouldn’t mind. Or maybe just ask the Feds to deal with it and everything will be fine.
I have sponsored a series of bills in the Legislature this year that demonstrate our interest in this most promising industry. Senate Bill 5113 would require the state Department of Commerce to coordinate and advance the siting and manufacturing of small modular reactors. SB 5093 would establish a nuclear-education program in our high schools. SB 5091 would declare nuclear power a form of alternative energy that qualifies under the state‘s voluntary Green Power program. For those concerned about storage of spent nuclear fuel, we have passed a memorial asking the federal government to develop a nuclear-waste repository, once and for all. These measures all cleared the Senate — some with broad bipartisan support.
Oh cool. The Federal Government through Democratic and Republican governments, for decades and decades hasn’t been able to come up with a good solution. But now we’re asking them to develop a repository and so that’s that solved. PS, can the repository be in Richland?
Small modular nuclear reactors are quite a bit different from the big-reactor designs of the ‘70s. Instead of using a single built-in-place reactor core, they utilize a series of interchangeable and replaceable small reactors. A dozen together might be half the size of one of the big reactors of old. These small reactors use a more modern design with fewer moving parts, reducing risk of failure. And when one reactor goes offline for regular maintenance or repair, other modular reactors at the same facility can take its place and keep up the flow of power.
OK, great. We haven’t exactly solved the waste issue yet.
There are many exciting technologies being proposed. Planning is under way for a first-of-its-kind modular reactor in Idaho that will begin serving the Utah power market within a decade — most likely at the Idaho National Laboratory, with support from Washington’s Energy Northwest. Technology isn’t the holdup — federal and state permitting procedures must be developed, and there is ramp-up time involved in developing facilities capable of producing the required components.
Look, we’ve literally asked the Federal government to do something about nuclear waste, so now we have to hurry.
Now imagine if those manufacturing facilities were located here. Imagine if the next reactor were located at Hanford – Washington’s own nuclear industrial site, adjacent to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the talent base in the Tri-Cities. It could power Hanford’s new glassification plant, where legacy high-level defense waste will be converted to solid-glass form – and that by itself could spare us the need to consume 45,000 gallons of diesel fuel every day.
Hanford: Where nuclear waste was never a problem.
On a national level the states of Oregon, Idaho and Utah are becoming players. Nowhere in that conversation is our state, yet we have the intellectual capital and the resources. It is easy to see the possibilities. Successful companies plan for how to get from point A to point B — Washington should do the same for energy. Nuclear power is poised for a resurgence for economic and environmental reasons, and the question is whether we will seize the opportunity or let it slip away for lack of vision. It is better to lead, instead of looking back 10 years from now saying “woulda, coulda, shoulda.”
Couldawouldashoulda had all that nuclear waste of our very own.
YLB spews:
I grew up hard core anti-nuke and at one time I was as glib as this blog post..
A lot of progress is being made in renewables and energy storage needed to make renewables work really well but it still represents a tiny portion of energy production. No I’m not including hydro because hydro is highly environmentally destructive.. I’d like to see a future where damns are coming down like it did on the Elwha.. I’d also like to see a future where gigantic wind turbines don’t visually pollute the landscape. Solar, I don’t have too much of a problem with on roofs. When it’s deployed like wind, gobbling acres of once open land, I have more of an objection.
The Chinese are way AHEAD of us on this…
Combine that with continued progress on energy efficiency in buildings and transportation and we have a shot at a sustainable future..
Yes, now I support better nuclear power.. Fukushima style old school stuff should be shut down obviously.
Roger Rabbit spews:
@1 Nuclear reactor technology may be improving, but the nuclear industry is just as untrustworthy, dishonest, heedless of safety, and corrupt as ever. That, by itself, is reason enough to avoid nuclear power like the plague — no matter how good the technology gets.
seatackled spews:
Mine it? Why can’t we just apply for all that uranium we confiscated from Iraq?
Hobby shooter spews:
How about we burn all those bombs with which we’ve already saddled ourselves? They are radioactive waste that’s already sitting around, waiting to do great harm. Burn them in reactors, and we could harvest the energy without generating additional waste or additional mining related harm.
the sound of a wet fart spews:
I prefer our current approach of pumping all the nuclear waste from our coal plants into the air and letting it settle wherever.
Sloppy Travis Bickle spews:
The NRC report’s conclusions also show that Nevadans’ intense opposition to the Yucca project is unreasonable, unambiguously harmful to the country and should end. In a rational world, the NRC’s report would result in Nevadans backing down, Congress restoring funding and the Obama administration pushing Yucca along. This could fit neatly into the administration’s plan for nuclear waste, which foresees moving waste off reactor sites to interim storage facilities, then to a permanent repository when it’s ready. There’s no technical reason that the permanent repository shouldn’t be Yucca Mountain.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....story.html
Perhaps in 2017. Reid has two more years to off himself doing something in the gym.
tensor spews:
WPPSS, there they go again!
The Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) was started in the 1950s as a means to guarantee electric power to homes and industry in the Northwest. Well-meaning officials believed that building nuclear power plants was the best way to supply clean and cheap electricity to customers. Events and human inadequacies produced the largest municipal bond default in U.S. history. The system’s acronym, pronounced “whoops,” came to represent how not to run a public works project.
Wishful thinking did great work on this one:
Several factors combined to ruin construction schedules and to drive costs to three and four times the original estimates. Inflation and design changes constantly plagued all the projects. Builders often got ahead of designers who modified their drawings to conform to what had been built. Safety changes imposed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission increased costs too, but the biggest cause of delays and overruns was mismanagement of the process by the WPPSS. The directors and the managers of the system had no experience in nuclear engineering or in projects of this scale. System managers were unable to develop a unified and comprehensive means of choosing, directing, and supervising contractors. One contractor, already shown to be incompetent, was retained for more work. In a well-publicized example, a pipe hanger was built and rebuilt 17 times. Quality control inspectors complained of inadequate work that went unaddressed.
Republicans like to tell us how only persons who have run a business should legislate on issues like the minimum wage. Once I see Senator Brown’s degree in Nuclear Engineering, I might begin to consider her proposal.
Zotz spews:
Roger has it exactly right:
No one with a profit motive should ever be allowed to run a nuclear power plant.