Although Oregon is on track to eliminate nearly a third of it’s emissions, there are still important steps that the state needs to take to effectively combat climate change.
Thanks so much for writing about this, Jared. Worth noting that small-scale nuclear development is happening right here in Oregon with NuScale power and others.
The following is a letter to the editor I wrote that was published in the Oregonian on August 6.
The July 21 article on Oregon’s 100% clean energy target very briefly mentions that “Pacific Power is exploring a small-scale nuclear reactor in Wyoming.” It is ironic that the most promising technology for a next generation of nuclear power, the small modular reactor (SMR), developed at Oregon State University, is being given no consideration as a pathway for clean energy in Oregon. An SMR cannot be built in Oregon because a state law prohibits the construction of nuclear energy plants until a federal facility for nuclear waste is developed. And even if this requirement is met, any proposed nuclear plant would need to be approved by a vote of Oregon residents. This law was passed as an initiative in 1980 during a wave of anti-nuclear sentiment. So, the first SMR built in the U.S. will be constructed by an Oregon company NuScale, not in Oregon but in Idaho, for a Utah utility. The urgent challenge of global warming has caused a growing number of nuclear opponents to reconsider this resource of carbon-free energy. Some states with restrictions like Oregon’s are beginning to modify them. Nuclear energy has significant problems with cost, safety, and waste disposal. But in my opinion, these problems, while difficult, are all solvable. If one or more SMR’s were built in our state, many of the problems meeting the 100% clean energy target mentioned in this article would go away.
Well written and well argued. But safety isn't the only concern about nuclear power. It's very costly, especially if designed to be safer than earlier designs and if the externality of dealing with spent fuels is taken into account. I'd like to see more analysis of the costs and benefits of nuclear versus solar + battery storage technologies, with a forward looking attempt to identify the benefits of investing in a safer version of nuclear versus investments in more widely distributed solar and wind energy generation system with improved battery storage. You're right about moving to more reliance on non-fossil-fuel electrical power, beginning with electric vehicles. That's one of our best paths forward. And I like you point about the value of a successful demonstration project at the (small) state level.
Jered is a 100% wrong, nuclear energy is not clean energy. There is no safe mode of disposal or storage of the byproduct waste from a nuclear power plant. Where people get that its clean because of low emissions is totally bonkers. Have you all never read anything about our own Pacific NW ongoing decades long nuclear waste disaster, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation/Manhattan Project and developed the atomic bomb. It is only a matter of time before nuclear waste that has contaminated the ground water to reach the beautiful Columbia River. Do your research and/or check out the grassroots organization Columbia Riverkeepers.
Of course the world governments want nuclear energy because otherwise cannot not build a nuclear warheads. Sounds like a lose-lose quandary to me.
This young man gives short-shrift to safety issues with his blasé analogy of air crashes to nuclear power plants. Nuclear accidents produce results that are much more far reaching and longer lasting than any air accident; problems that affect tens and hundreds of thousands of people - not just a few hundred. Ask Russians who are still dealing with Chernobyl 35 years later. Ask Japan which is still dealing with Fukushima 10 years later and will be for many years to come. He completely ignores the waste disposal problem associated with nuclear power. The idea that we can be eco-friendly while at the same time despoiling the environment with refuse that, for thousands of years, will kill us is ludicrous. As Fukushima has shown us, safety is relative in regards to nuclear power plants. Any natural disaster - hurricanes, earthquakes, strong tornadoes, even massive flooding - could turn your "safe" nuclear plant into a disaster with far reaching and long lasting results. Oregon is not geologically stable. There are dozens of earthquake faults throughout the state. Building for these conditions would add, exponentially to the cost of a "safe" nuclear facility. The results of the lasting effects of accidents, the widespread area of any disaster, the difficulty of waste disposal, and the enormous cost do not make nuclear power a viable option. There are better ways to get what we need.
Thanks so much for writing about this, Jared. Worth noting that small-scale nuclear development is happening right here in Oregon with NuScale power and others.
The following is a letter to the editor I wrote that was published in the Oregonian on August 6.
The July 21 article on Oregon’s 100% clean energy target very briefly mentions that “Pacific Power is exploring a small-scale nuclear reactor in Wyoming.” It is ironic that the most promising technology for a next generation of nuclear power, the small modular reactor (SMR), developed at Oregon State University, is being given no consideration as a pathway for clean energy in Oregon. An SMR cannot be built in Oregon because a state law prohibits the construction of nuclear energy plants until a federal facility for nuclear waste is developed. And even if this requirement is met, any proposed nuclear plant would need to be approved by a vote of Oregon residents. This law was passed as an initiative in 1980 during a wave of anti-nuclear sentiment. So, the first SMR built in the U.S. will be constructed by an Oregon company NuScale, not in Oregon but in Idaho, for a Utah utility. The urgent challenge of global warming has caused a growing number of nuclear opponents to reconsider this resource of carbon-free energy. Some states with restrictions like Oregon’s are beginning to modify them. Nuclear energy has significant problems with cost, safety, and waste disposal. But in my opinion, these problems, while difficult, are all solvable. If one or more SMR’s were built in our state, many of the problems meeting the 100% clean energy target mentioned in this article would go away.
Well written and well argued. But safety isn't the only concern about nuclear power. It's very costly, especially if designed to be safer than earlier designs and if the externality of dealing with spent fuels is taken into account. I'd like to see more analysis of the costs and benefits of nuclear versus solar + battery storage technologies, with a forward looking attempt to identify the benefits of investing in a safer version of nuclear versus investments in more widely distributed solar and wind energy generation system with improved battery storage. You're right about moving to more reliance on non-fossil-fuel electrical power, beginning with electric vehicles. That's one of our best paths forward. And I like you point about the value of a successful demonstration project at the (small) state level.
Jered is a 100% wrong, nuclear energy is not clean energy. There is no safe mode of disposal or storage of the byproduct waste from a nuclear power plant. Where people get that its clean because of low emissions is totally bonkers. Have you all never read anything about our own Pacific NW ongoing decades long nuclear waste disaster, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation/Manhattan Project and developed the atomic bomb. It is only a matter of time before nuclear waste that has contaminated the ground water to reach the beautiful Columbia River. Do your research and/or check out the grassroots organization Columbia Riverkeepers.
Of course the world governments want nuclear energy because otherwise cannot not build a nuclear warheads. Sounds like a lose-lose quandary to me.
This young man gives short-shrift to safety issues with his blasé analogy of air crashes to nuclear power plants. Nuclear accidents produce results that are much more far reaching and longer lasting than any air accident; problems that affect tens and hundreds of thousands of people - not just a few hundred. Ask Russians who are still dealing with Chernobyl 35 years later. Ask Japan which is still dealing with Fukushima 10 years later and will be for many years to come. He completely ignores the waste disposal problem associated with nuclear power. The idea that we can be eco-friendly while at the same time despoiling the environment with refuse that, for thousands of years, will kill us is ludicrous. As Fukushima has shown us, safety is relative in regards to nuclear power plants. Any natural disaster - hurricanes, earthquakes, strong tornadoes, even massive flooding - could turn your "safe" nuclear plant into a disaster with far reaching and long lasting results. Oregon is not geologically stable. There are dozens of earthquake faults throughout the state. Building for these conditions would add, exponentially to the cost of a "safe" nuclear facility. The results of the lasting effects of accidents, the widespread area of any disaster, the difficulty of waste disposal, and the enormous cost do not make nuclear power a viable option. There are better ways to get what we need.