« Confessions of a Brainy Babe | Main | Functional is the New Holistic »

Go Nuclear! A Flat Rock Nuclear Expert Says America Can't Afford Not To.

photo by Brent FleuryIt’s hard to say how much the Three Mile Island accident of 1979 changed nuclear power in America. In March that year, a core meltdown in a nuclear power station outside Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, released radioactive gases into the air that a plant manager said could be seriously harmful to the general public. (Later investigations found that the amount of gas released was relatively harmless.) Within days, more than 100,000 people fled the area.

In 1978, Donna Hastie, who now lives in Flat Rock, had moved up to a management position in a nearby Pennsylvania nuclear plant, Beaver Valley Power Station. Hastie has three master’s degrees—one in medical technology, another in business and a third in nuclear chemistry—and not long after the accident, she was asked to take over as Beaver Valley’s director of emergency preparedness. But this was no small task, considering the accident had caused such a countrywide panic. In 1978, she recalls, her plant’s emergency procedures were about 33 pages long. By 1980, the emergency manual barely fit into four thick binders. "After Three Mile Island, it was such a change in our culture, and in the nuclear field," she says.

In Hastie’s view, that was the beginning of the trouble. Compared to other global citizens, she says, Americans are still particularly wary of nuclear power. France, for example, gets nearly 90 percent of its energy from nuclear power plants, and China, she says, is "building power plants five at a time." The U.S. currently has 104 active reactors, according to the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Energy Institute, and those generate around 20 percent of our energy (the majority still comes from coal). "In a global economy, your hands are tied behind your back if you limit yourself to fossil fuel plants," she says.

So what’s the holdup? Public perception. "I can’t tell you how many power plant demonstrations I have lived through," says Hastie, who, after her five-year stint in emergency preparedness, spent 15 years at the Institute of Nuclear Power, an industry group in Atlanta. Hastie says she toured every nuclear facility in America before she retired last year. These days, she’s on to other projects—like gardening and raising money for the Hendersonville Symphony—but she does occasionally step back into her old role as a nuclear power advocate, giving a presentation, for example at the Hendersonville Lion’s Club. "I didn’t get much pushback from the crowd," she says. "The Energy Department predicts a 21 percent rise in demand by 2030. With the depleting of our natural resources, nuclear right now is about our only option." — J.M.

 

Posted on Saturday, September 19, 2009 at 09:09PM by Registered CommenterVerve-acious | Comments2 Comments

Reader Comments (2)

"Go Nuclear" is one of the most one sided, biased and misleading stories to be published in a long time in our region. Completely omitted are issues of the long term storage of highly radioactive waste, health and environmental impacts, national security issues, the Price-Anderson Act, for example, and - most importantly today - the economic impacts of 'going nuclear'. We simply cannot afford the existing nuclear systems, let alone build more. American Taxpayers have subsidized the combined nuclear industries to the tune of an estimated 3 trillion dollars so far. Wall Street will NOT invest in new nuclear. No private company will provide insurance (hence the Price-Anderson Act). The billions more in taxpayer and ratepayer money the industry wants for new nuclear systems would be far and away better invested in energy efficiency and clean energy sources, as multiple studies, such as the one just released from Georgia Tech today, all demonstrate. So, even if one irrationally believes that nuclear power is safe, the bottom line is that we cannot afford it, there is no known upper limit to the long term costs and we have far better investments we can make for our money that will create many more jobs. The ratio of new green jobs to nuclear power jobs - for the same money spent - is estimated to be nearly 100 to 1. We do not need new nuclear power nor can we afford it. We have enough debt and problems with existing nuclear plants. Thank You.
September 23, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterNed Ryan Doyle
"Our only option" for the future...VERVE, Ms Hastie and just about EVERYONE is missing it: the most abundant, easy to obtain and most PROFITABLE source of energy in the world -- and we here in the USA have the most of anyone -- that is power that is being WASTED. We use about three times more power per dollar in our economy than the high-tech Japanese...and about 2 times more energy per dollar of GNP than the highly developed European countries.

Nuclear on the other hand is THE MOST EXPENSIVE form of energy when the full life-cycle costs are factored -- and has the potential to terrorize / and yes, kill people. There are many statements in this article that are not factual -- including the statement that the Three Mile Island accident released gas that was "relatively harmless." Dr. Steven Wing of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill reanalyzed the data collected 5 years after the accident and found 400% increases in all cancers including lung, prostate, breast in those who were in / under the primary plume of gas -- 4 times more IS HARMFUL!

Investment in systemic energy efficiency (stopping the waste of power) that is installed and delivered to homes, businesses and industry is cheaper, faster, more profitable and does not involve the potential for catastrophic radiation events.
September 24, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterMary Olson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.