“They leave to future generations the task, and most of the cost, of making safe sites that have been polluted half-way to eternity.”
– James Buchan
A line from an article in my local newspaper caught my eye. After describing a three-day meeting of small, “modular” nuclear-reactor developers from around the world hosted by Oregon State University in Corvallis, Oregon, where I live, the author commented that the event was not open to the public.
One wonders why. Perhaps the meeting was closed to insulate “those in the know,” the nuclear experts and entrepreneurs, from the uninformed populace. The latter might waste the former’s precious time with frivolous questions about the safety of this “new generation” of nuclear reactors – none of which has ever been built – and the wisdom of the developers’ plans to situate them all over the country and the world.
After all, why should those in the know engage with the public when they’re already engaged with people whose opinions actually matter through their connections in Washington and other capitals? That’s where the hundreds of millions of dollars in development grants and the green lights for implementation are to be found.
Since the opportunity for public discourse at the OSU meeting was “overlooked,” I thought I would take this opportunity to ask a few questions that you might also want answers to – before you find yourself living next to a nuclear reactor.
What are these small modular reactors (SMRs)? They are designed to power an average-sized town, not a metropolitan area. Therefore, they would require much less fuel than the lumbering earlier reactors – a factor that some think makes them safer.
The “modular” in SMR means that rather than being built on site, the reactors would be built in a factory, then shipped to a site, installed and then loaded with radioactive fuel. This would certainly make them cheaper and faster to set up.
However, it also means there would be much more handling and transporting of nuclear fuel as trains and trucks that currently supply about 80 nuclear power plants around the U.S. would potentially supply hundreds. Of course, each train would carry only enough fuel to “wipe out a town,” so why should we worry?
The next major benefit claimed for SMRs is that they will employ “passive cooling systems” that eliminate the need for most of the pumps and pipes that tend to fail in traditional nukes. Can one ask if such systems are 100 percent fail safe? Is any lower level of risk acceptable?
Statistically – comparing the number of nuclear power plants and their years of operation to the number of their minor and major accidents – nuclear power has one of the worst safety records of any industry.
But the industry wants you to believe that, based on their calculations, SMRs will be truly different, truly safe. Who are you to start asking silly questions at your ecological house?
Philip S. Wenz, who grew up in Durango and Boulder, now lives in Corvallis, Oregon, where he teaches and writes about environmental issues. Reach him via email through his website, www.your-ecological-house.com.
