nuclear-news

Oyster Creek concerns transcend drywell issue

Oyster Creek concerns transcend drywell issue APP.com 15 Feb 09

The focal point of most of the safety concerns at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant recently has been the drywell, a steel barrier surrounding the plant’s reactor vessel that is supposed to contain radiation in the event of an accident. The fear is that the 40-year-old drywell is continuing to erode to the point it could buckle, creating a potentially cataclysmic accident.

That concern is well-warranted. Thanks to the tenacity of citizen activists, approval of a 20-year license renewal is being held up pending further analysis of the drywell’s structural integrity…………………….

But that issue has tended to obscure broader concerns about nuclear power — issues that argue strongly against the renewed push to increase the nation’s dependence on it. The point was underscored at a forum last week sponsored by the Ocean County League of Women Voters. Two experts on nuclear waste, Paul Gunter of Nuclear Watch, and Frank von Hipple, a physics professor at Princeton University, expounded on the topic.

They addressed two major issues: the vulnerability of Oyster Creek’s spent fuel pool to a terrorist attack and the ongoing failure to find a safe, practical way to dispose of the huge amounts of nuclear waste being generated by the nation’s, and the world’s, reactors……………………… even if the drywell passes muster, the plant as a whole, and nuclear power, likely never will. Despite claims by the industry that nuclear power is efficient and affordable, it benefits from huge indirect federal subsidies, and the economics are growing worse.

According to the current issue of FP magazine, it costs $5 billion to $9 billion to construct new plants, takes nine to 12 years to build them once they are approved and requires 2,400 people to operate them. For nuclear energy to even maintain its current 15 percent global share of electricity through 2030, a 1,000-megawatt reactor — nearly double that of Oyster Creek — would have to be built every 16 days for the next 21 years.

Extending the life of Oyster Creek is a bad idea. Counting on nuclear energy to supply the electrical needs of future generations is economic and environmental suicide.

Oyster Creek concerns transcend drywell issue | APP.com | Asbury Park Press

February 16, 2009 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, USA