By Karl Grossman
“Hypocritical!” That’s how State Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele of Sag Harbor describes the recent announcement of the Long Island Power Authority that it is increasing the amount of nuclear power it uses.
LIPA, created as a way to stop the Shoreham nuclear power plant, should “sell its stake” in the upstate nuclear plant, Nine Mile Point II, from which it intends to get more power, “and focus on alternative, sustainable energy sources—not nuclear,” says Mr. Thiele.
Moreover, how LIPA plans to get more power from Nine Mile Point II is fraught with danger. The long-troubled nuclear plant in Scriba would get an OK from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do what the NRC calls “uprate.” The NRC defines “uprate” as “increasing the maximum power level at which a commercial nuclear power plant may operate.”
To Long Island native Jim Riccio, nuclear policy analyst at Greenpeace USA, that is a concept inviting disaster. “The notion is to run these old reactors harder and faster than ever—not based on safety but based on maximizing corporate profits,” says Mr. Riccio.
An “uprate” at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, for instance, has resulted in a series of serious mishaps caused by the severe vibrations from running the plant at an increased power level and a “30 percent increase in radioactivity at its fence lines,” said Mr. Riccio. He was returning last week to Washington, D.C. from Vermont where the “uprate” and its consequent problems have led to a major new drive to shut down Vermont Yankee.
“It’s too bad the new management of LIPA has forgotten the hard lessons learned about nuclear power as a result of Shoreham,” said Mr. Riccio, an attorney from West Islip.
Not only has LIPA forgotten the lessons of nuclear power from Shoreham, its new leadership is unaware of the facts about atomic energy. When LIPA was set up with the power to eliminate the Long Island Lighting Company if LILCO persisted with Shoreham, LIPA’s leaders were safe-energy advocates, knowledgeable veterans of the Shoreham fight. The LIPA board was supposed to be an elected body. But that provision was rescinded and LIPA board membership became based on political appointment.
The current LIPA chair, Howard Steinberg, an appointee of former Governor Pataki, with no experience in energy, told Long Island Business News that the scheme to “uprate” Nine Mile Point II by 15 percent is “a good deal for LIPA and the ratepayers” because nuclear power is “the cleanest, cheapest source of energy around.” The all-appointed LIPA trustees unanimously backed the “uprate.”
Nine Mile Point II has had a terrible record ever since coming on line in 1987. The NRC’s website, in a section covering inspections of U.S. nuclear plants, tells of inspections at it over the past two years finding “Degraded Service Water Pumps,” “Inadequate Maintenance Practices,” and other problems each described as “more than minor.”
Even Matthew Cordaro, a former LILCO vice president, warned in Long Island Business News of continued LIPA “nuclear plant ownership,” noting: “There could always be an accident.” Among U.S. nuclear plants, Nine Mile Point II, of which LIPA has kept the 18 percent interest LILCO held, is a prime candidate—and what an accident it could be.
The NRC, in its “Calculation of Reactor Accident Consequences-2” report, also on the Web, projects the impacts of a major accident at every nuclear plant in the U.S. and for Nine Mile Point II estimates tens of thousands of fatalities, injuries and cancer deaths and $134 billion in property damage. Who would be liable? If LIPA insists on continuing with Nine Mile Point II, it would include LIPA and we on Long Island.
LIPA should divest itself of Nine Mile Point and fully embrace its charter when created of being about safe, clean renewable energy technologies. These technologies are here. The cover of the current issue of the Scientific American is devoted to: “A Plan for a Sustainable Future. How to Get All Energy from Wind, Water and Solar Power by 2030.” The important article is based on a 2009 Stanford University study that determines that the “very best energy options” are “wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelecrric power—all of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight…Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all poorer options, as were oil and natural gas.” It declares: “A large-scale wind, water and solar energy system can reliably supply the world’s needs, significantly benefiting climate, air quality, water quality, ecology and energy security…The obstacles are primarily political, not technical.”
And LIPA must have an elected board. Mr. Thiele says “there’s now bipartisan support in the State Legislature for an elected LIPA board”—for which he has long battled. LIPA must strive democratically for safe, clean energy.
Popularity: 2% [?]
To the editors of The Sag Harbor Express,
This article by Karl Grossman is so full of misrepresentations and distortions of the truth that I feel the editors of The Sag Harbor Express have overlooked their responsibility to provide non-biased information to the public. I hope this is not a trend. I do not want to start reading articles or editorials about the health benefits of smoking or how fast food can make you skinny.
The underlying fact is Karl Grossman, Fred W. Thiele, and Jim Riccio are anti-nuclear activist who will stop at nothing especially the truth in trying gain monetary support from the few remaining NIMBYs(Not In My Back Yard) left in this country. These planet killers would not be satisfied even if Nine Mile Point II was brand new. This can be seen in their past planet killing activism that prevented Shoreham nuclear power plant from opening. This action caused us to rely more on king coal and thus the defeat of Shoreham nuclear plant allowed thousands upon thousands of kilotons of CO2 and other harmful substances like mercury to be released into the environment. I myself would have trouble sleeping at night if my action caused such environmental calamity but everyone conscious is different. I hear Eichmann did not have any trouble sleeping at night either.
What the editors do in allowing these individuals a platform is to give legitimacy to their fear mongering diatribe. Note that Grossmans’ entire article is written in order to provoke fear. For instance, Grossman sites a few instances of safety concerns in order to promote the idea that there will be a Chernobyl type accident at Nine Mile Point II that will cause “tens of thousands of fatalities.” The notion that this Chernobyl type scenario is remotely possible with western containment building standards is so outrageous it does not deserve comment. But that is what Grossman is all about. He uses fear to make the remote not only possibly but factual. This is the way the anti-nukes must campaign since the science does not back up their planet killing philosophy.
The only solution that Karl Grossman, Fred W. Thiele, and Jim Riccio offer to replace coal is renewable energy sources all of which are non-base load except for Hydro electric and geothermal both of which have been almost completely taped out as additional electrical resources in the US. The fact is that wind and solar are intermittent power sources. They must be backed up on a one to one ratio with carbon producing natural gas plants or the electrical grid will collapse ie…brownouts. I am sure Grossman knows this but it shows to what extremes he will go to in preventing the truth from being told about nuclear power.
In sum Grossman will say anything and do anything regardless of the facts in order for his fear mongering carbon producing planet killing anti-nuclear diatribe to be heard. This is why the editorial board should not pander to Grossmans and his other planet killing collogues. The paper must base articles and editorials on the truth over that of fear. Integrity is something The Sag Harbor Express owes its readers.
Let’s save the planet with 200 new nuke plants now,
Jfarmer9
Seriously, where did this guy study to be a journalist? McPreparitory college?
Number of people or animals harmed by nuclear radiation from a power plant inside U.S. borders in the last 50 years: Zero.
Number of people or animals harmed by or at coal-powered plants and coal mines: innumerable.
Listen, I love science and I do think we’ll work these things out over time. However, until photovoltaic cell technology becomes more efficient and/or a green alternative sources of oil like algae become more feasible the most logical answer to our problems lies in increased use of nuclear power. Updating our current plants will make them safer and increase output to levels that might actually stop the next oil-spike from ruining our economy (btw, every US recession of the last 40+ years has been preceded by a spike in international oil prices.
Ross,
That was an excellent comment you made about oil price spikes driving the US economy into recession. There are 100 of years of supplies of U-235 to be found in this country alone and 1,000 of years of TH-232. If we are to become energy independent in this country we need to get more cars and houses off oil and onto a nuclear powered electrical grid.
As for our long haul trucks I propose that we use our limited resource of natural gas to power these vehicles. This is one the reasons I am not in favor of the US allowing utilities to be heavily reliant wind and solar power. When the electrical grids reliance on wind solar exceeds 5% you must use huge quantities of natural gas. It is simple fact that when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine you must turn on a natural gas plant in order to prevent brown outs.
Hey don’t get discourage when reading anti-nukes like Grossman. More and more people are seeing the light and ignoring Grossman and his cronies. I liked reading that that Stewart Brand the long time anti nuclear activist has come on over to the good guys side. He now thinks the benefits of nuclear power far out way its problems. Hurray for the eco pragmatists. Remember the ability to change ones mind is one of the fundamental reasons why the US is the greatest country in the world. Well friend let me leave you by saying this.
Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,
Jfarmer9