No Nuke No More

News Flash: They are closing the San Onofre nuclear power plant for good.

While those farther that 50 miles from the plant have probably read the headline and passed on to more interesting articles in the newspaper, our left-of-left Senator, Barbara Boxer is doing a victory dance that would put most players in the NFL to shame. She is joined by most of those living in San Clemente -- especially those within earshot of the alarms that were going off at the San Onofre power plant. These would be the people whose already pricey home values just rolled up faster than the meter on a California gas pump.

Those on the political left and those on the right have historically taken opposite positions on the use of nuclear energy. As near as I can tell, the Left is populated with those who sleep with a night-light on in fear of monsters climbing from under their beds or out of their closets. They seem deathly afraid that nuclear plants are destined to one day shoot up giant mushroom clouds and irradiate or vaporize the neighborhood. The Right, on the other side of the coin, is all for essentially free energy.

While that is a simplified characterization of a deeply complicated subject, it is clear that both sides may have valid points. As of 16 January 2013, the IAEA report there were 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in 31 countries. Of these, there have been at least 99 (civilian and military) recorded nuclear power plant accidents from 1952 to 2009. The most prominent of these were Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986; Three-mile Island, Pennsylvania in 1979; and Fukushima, Japan in 2011.

Although 99 out of 439 may not be terrible odds, the failures in these reactors can range from relatively benign, as in San Onofre, to catastrophic, as in Chernobyl, where human habitation may not be allowed for several millennia. That doesn’t necessarily mean all nuclear plants are fundamentally a potential disaster in the waiting. Since the first nuclear power plant went on-line on June 27, 1954, at Obninsk, USSR, there have been huge strides in scientific advancement of the technology of nuclear fission and the construction of safe power plants. Of the 99 failures, operator errors, shoddy materials, or faulty design of the plants caused most. Each failure resulted in advancing the design of safety features or procedures.

Apparently, San Onofre was the victim of shoddy material. Could replacing the defective and potentially defective parts have rectified the problem? The question is moot now. The plant’s owner, Southern California Edison grew tired of the approval delays and loss of revenue and decided to padlock the plant.

It’s not often that you will see me joining Barbara Boxer in celebrating any kind of victory in which she is involved, but I am anything but sad to see a nuclear plant shut down. No, I don’t sleep with a nightlight on. I am not even slightly concerned about the safety of the plants. My main concern is with the disposal of spent nuclear fuel.

When contained, nuclear energy appears to be “clean” and “free” energy. Folks, “free” energy ain’t exactly free, and it’s anything but clean. While most of the energy used on this planet comes either directly (Solar) or indirectly from the sun, nuclear and geothermal energy originate right here on Terra. Of these two forms, only nuclear fission produces waste that is seriously dangerous for thousands of years. It’s kind of like fly paper; once you touch, it you can’t get rid of it.

Although scientists and academics are hard at work on solving the waste problem, we still wind up burying the spent fuel in bunkers underground. And while some greedy operators make money shipping this deadly cargo to third-world countries, others put it right in our own back yards. As far as I’m concerned, this is totally unacceptable. Until they come up with a reasonable plan to dispose of nuclear waste, I will be joining Barbara Boxer in a victory dance every time they shut down another nuclear reactor.