The Nuclear Option

Right now, with oil and gas prices low and coal in over-abundance, most “alternative energy” options based on renewable non-resource-consuming systems have slipped back, way back, in our international priorities. But in addition to the massive environmental, political and economic damage to the never-ending accumulation of greenhouse gasses, does anyone doubt that the world will inevitably face a reinstatement of the deterioration in the supply of fossil fuels such that our ability to meet demands for electricity will once again face critical cost and supply issues? More people, rising development in countries that once lagged behind and an increasing global dependence on electricity for growth. A perfect storm.

With the accord between China and the United States setting new fossil fuel standards, clearly we are going to see quantum leaps in the output and affordability of increasingly-efficient solar panels and wind-power generation. But demands for electricity, particularly as vehicles embrace electrical versus diesel/gasoline-driven standards, will outstrip the capacity of these alternative energy systems to meet demand. As we wait for the potential of fuel cell and cold fusion systems to develop viable mass commerciality – if this even happens – eyes are constantly turning toward the nuclear power option.

But when people even think about that choice, visions of Ukraine’s Chernobyl (still an uninhabited wasteland) decimated by a 1986 meltdown and Japan’s still-leaking Fukushima nuclear power plant (equally uninhabitable) trashed by the 2011 tsunami come to mind. Chernobyl is stable but the area around it useless, while Fukushima is still costing hundreds of millions of dollars to continue the containment efforts, pollution continuing in dribs and drabs. The question of what to do with older nuclear plants, many shut down in the aftermath of Japan’s disaster, and whether there is “safe” nuclear power is anything more than an empty promise are hotly debated.

One American company, Westinghouse, has pushed its power-generating design teams to focus on designing a “completely” safe nuclear power system. They believe that the AP-1000 system (pictured above) meets that criterion.

“During normal operations, the AP-1000 works much like any other pressurized water reactor, by boiling water and spinning turbines. In times of crisis, however, blind natural forces such as gravity, convection and gas pressure take over: valves open and close on their own; water from overhead tanks floods critical areas and gases that might explode are let out. According to Westinghouse, zero operator assistance or external power is needed for the first 72 hours following a breakdown of normal operations, during which time the reactor essentially shuts itself down.” FastCompany.com, January 9^th. Is that enough? The AP-1000 would have prevented both Chernobyl and Fukushima, so that’s a good sign, but of course, there is always the unexpected, from sabotage and military strikes to some natural force we just have not calculated.

Given the climate change impact of continuing the wanton use of fossil fuels, is the move to build new and better nuclear power generation systems worth the risk? Increasingly, governments are seeing no other viable alternatives. But safety and the need for more electricity aren’t the only variables that governmental deciders face. In addition to local discomfort at the possibility of one or more nuclear plants in their backyards – particularly in smaller, more densely-populated countries – there is the external political pressure not to use American or Western technology for ideological reasons, no matter now superior or effective an American technology might be.

Bulgaria, a former Eastern Bloc nation clearly in the Soviet orbit, was literally forced to shut down older Soviet-era nuclear power plants (in Kozlodui) as a condition of joining the European Union. It was a slap in the face to the older Russian (Soviet) designers. But today Bulgarian policy-makers see demand for electrical power, their vision of fuel for economic growth, exceeding current capacity without adding a new power plant. They want to add the AP-1000 to the facilities that have been closed, meeting that need in the time required to build that facility.

Enter Mr. Putin. Furious at Bulgaria’s defection to the EU as well as NATO and still believing that Bulgaria’s popular sentiments still cherish their traditional ties to Russia, he is putting pressure on his perceived Sofia comrades to reject the possibility of a U.S.-designed system and entertain a Russian system, purportedly not remotely as safe as the Westinghouse alternative, instead. Putin believes that Bulgaria can be brought back into the Russian orbit. “The move toward an American plant has been a long time coming. When it first opened in 1974, Kozlodui was the first nuclear power plant in Soviet-dominated Southeast Europe, a testament to the country’s status as the USSR’s most loyal satellite. Now Bulgaria is a member of both the E.U. and NATO, but Russia isn't prepared to give up its influence here—an influence still so strong that Western leaders still sometimes worry Bulgaria might end up as a pro-Russian ‘trojan horse.’

“Western analysts charge that the Kremlin is using a complex subversive strategy to infiltrate Eastern Europe, essentially a mix of economic soft power, media spin and aggressive courting of diverse political groups—some as far apart as the far left and the far right. Energy politics is a large part in it: Bulgaria, like most of its neighbors, imports most of its oil and gas from Russia.

“But Russia’s alleged plans are only half of the story. The U.S. and the E.U. have also helped turn energy in this part of the world into a ‘geopolitical football’ by aggressively interfering into the plans of different countries to build large energy infrastructure projects—not just nukes but gas and oil pipelines, too.

“The most recent example of this was the South Stream gas pipeline, which was projected to carry 63 billion cubic meters of Russian gas a year to Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Italy. Alarmed by events in Ukraine and seeking to curb Russian influence, the U.S. and the E.U. pushed back against the project and forced Bulgaria to suspend work on it in June, citing anti-monopoly regulations. Many Bulgarians saw this decision as unfairly victimizing them. Then on December 1 Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that he was terminating the project, essentially blaming Bulgaria for his decision. This shook the fragile grip on power of the recently elected pro-Western government in Sofia.” FastCompany.com.

Tackling the greenhouse gasses vs. growth issue is never easy. Even when the notion of overcoming the strong resistance to nuclear power is no longer the issue, raw politics – political greed, if you will – threatens whatever progress can be made in particularly vulnerable geopolitical circumstances. We truly need to create stronger dialog tos stem the disastrous impact of the continuing build-up of greenhouse gasses that deeply and negatively impact us all. It doesn’t help that the new chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe, doesn’t even believe there is such a thing as man-induced climate change, despite overwhelming agreement in the scientific community that such human impact is completely clear. Time is not on our side.

I’m Peter Dekom, and the complex secondary battles that will determine the quality of our environment, perhaps even human survivability, are so predicated on the political greed or profound ignorance and denial of total amateurs with little or no concern for the impact of their malfeasance.