Eyes Wide Open to Nuclear Power
Thirty-four years ago, I was just opening my eyes
to the world. But they were not open to the energy
sector -- much less to what happened at Three Mile
Island 34 years ago or that I would one day cover
this segment of the American economy.
The so-called nuclear renaissance got its wind about
a decade ago. That’s when the scientist and energy
policymakers started to give the early warnings
about global warming. It’s before the whole shale
gas rush and it’s before coal started getting
clobbered. Until recently, many people were willing
to give nuclear energy a fresh look. After all, the
fuel form is relatively emissions free and the
uranium used to fire the reactors is ample.
But two years ago, disaster struck. And this time,
the tsunami that caused the meltdown at Fukushima
was caught on film. Parts of the world have said
“no” to nuclear power as a result. But here, the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency has licensed four new
reactors: Two to Southern Company and two to SCANA
Corp’s South Carolina Electric & Gas Co., all of
which are three decades in the making.
What now? Nuclear energy's potential comeback in the
United States and in the developing world may spawn
another kind of resurgence -- the types of protest
that occurred in the aftermath of Three Mile Island,
the most significant nuclear incident in American
history.
By nearly all accounts, the accident on March 28,
1979 is one of the primary impediments to a nuclear
revival. While the thought of radiation escaping
into the atmosphere is well-appreciated, it is the
function of policymakers and utility officials --
and the reporters assigned to cover them -- to
effectively communicate their message so as to
properly inform the public.
Fears of a "hydrogen bubble" in which radioactive
material could devastate the surrounding
Pennsylvania towns were palpable. But neither
government nor industry could organize a response to
quell the unease. Reporters, meantime, gravitated
toward those with the most hyperbolic views.
"There was so much speculation and it was all fueled
by people who didn't have a background in nuclear
technology," says George Koodray, who managed a
radio news station near the plant. Koodray, who now
is a communications pro in New Jersey, says he has
since spent years trying to "undo the damage" that
he helped create.
"There were dramatic images of corporate
conspiracies -- all supported by events within a
time period in which there were oil interruptions
and a blockbuster movie called `China Syndrome,'
Koodray adds. "Reporters back then were exposed to
atom bombs and mushroom clouds and they felt that
the plant could go off like a nuclear bomb."
Even before the scare, India successfully tested a
nuclear device in 1974 and gave rise to fears over
global nuclear proliferation.
The same trepidation is around today. But there is
now a strong emphasis on reducing greenhouse gas
emissions while trying to diversify the nation's
energy mix. It’s a more difficult sale now than it
was just five years ago. That’s because natural gas
supplies once thought inaccessible are there for the
taking. And combined cycle natural gas plants are
now a lot less expensive.
But the nuclear industry has successfully argued
that a diversified portfolio is good public policy,
particularly one that does not involve fossil fuels.
So, the U.S. government is offering billions in
incentives to expand nuclear energy. Southern
Company and its partners are to get an $8.3 billion
loan guarantee, which should allow them to have
their first reactor operating before the end of the
decade.
Real Panic
The industry must still explain what went wrong in
Unit 2 on March 28, 1979 and what it has learned in
the intervening years. Around 4 a.m. that day,
following a loss of feed-water flow, a primary
coolant system relief valve lifted and failed to
shut. This resulted in a loss of primary coolant,
uncovering the reactor core and causing a partial
core meltdown. While the matter took 14 years and $1
billion to clean up, the second of the two units,
Unit 1, remains operational today.
Faulty equipment meant to detect the malfunction is
partially to blame. But a lack of emergency training
along with disparate communications compounded the
whole mess. By 7 a.m. that same morning, panic had
arisen over a "hydrogen bubble" that could explode.
The terror only escalated when the facility's owner,
Metropolitan Edison, told the public it didn't feel
as if it had to report every nuance of the
situation. Pennsylvania's governor also complained
that he was unable to get answers, all of which led
to five frightful days in which areas as far as 300
miles away from Harrisburg were advised they might
need to evacuate. Calm would not prevail until
President Carter came to reassure the people.
"There was a clamor to get out of D.C.," says Jeff
Dennard, president of his own consulting firm in
Warwick, R.I. In 1979, he headed media relations for
a former congressman from New Mexico before going on
to run a communications division for the parent of
Three Mile Island. "It felt like every person for
themselves."
The fright was no doubt bona fide. But the reality
is that hydrogen in the core could not explode;
rather, it would safely combine with oxygen. And
while state leaders and utility officials can be
faulted for not having emergency preparedness plans,
many in the media failed to give knowledgeable
sources a proper forum -- experts, who from day one,
were saying radiation levels were not harmful.
The press, unfortunately, is often behind the curve.
It's a problem partly of its own making as many
organizations are more intent on focusing on the
sensational instead of matters of real substance. In
the case of Three Mile Island, more journalists
should have departed from the herd. Reporters should
have been talking not just to activists but also to
nuclear scientists and engineers who could separate
fact from fiction.
The goal is to get to the truth, not obscure it.
Conflicting messages from a variety of sources
contributed to the public's fear. And while
radiation was released from the plant, it never
presented any dangers to the surrounding areas --
all confirmed after endless environmental
investigations and legal challenges. Despite the
melting of about one-third of the fuel core, the
reactor vessel contained the damage and no one was
hurt or killed.
The PR Battle
Winning the ongoing PR battle is atop the nuclear
industry's agenda. As such, General Electric, Areva
NP and Westinghouse are developing state-of-the art
reactors that have multiple safety measures and are
designed to cope with any sudden loss of cooling.
The nuclear industry is known for its technicians
and not its media savvy. It must continue to evolve
and work toward a culture of openness and
accessibility. It must allay legitimate worries and
plan for the "unthinkable." While no company can
replicate a potential disaster, preparing and
practicing for them can mitigate damages. Those at
the top must demonstrate empathy and communicate all
known facts to address concerns.
"There's a natural tendency when we talk about
things that are potentially catastrophic to hide the
bad news," says communications expert Dennard. "If
there is bad news, get it out as fast as you can and
as factually as you know at that moment. Don't get
out anything if you do not know."
Three Mile Island taught the nuclear industry, along
with the rest of corporate America, to disseminate
information during a crisis in a coherent and
forthright manner. That apparent inability coupled
with the preconceived ideas that reporters had
toward nuclear power helped to increase the
emotional intensity in March 1979.
Reasoned Dialogue
A reasoned dialogue is now more difficult given
Fukushima. Still, a more cohesive international
strategy is required — one where technological and
safety features are universally shared through
multilateral treaties. Currently, 435 reactors exist
in 30 countries that generate 14 percent of the
globe’s electricity, says the World Nuclear
Association.
And more are on the way: China now has 26 nuclear
reactors under construction and is planning six more
by 2020. Russia is building 10 more. At the same
time, India and Pakistan are moving forward as is
Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.
The Japanese, meanwhile, had 54 reactors that
supplied a quarter of its electric power, all before
the disaster. At one point, all had shut down,
although a few now operate. The country, meanwhile,
is contemplating its energy future.
As for the United States, regulators are
recommending that the existing reactors here get
routinely inspected while they must also be reviewed
every 10 years for seismic and flooding risks.
Plants, too, must show that they have full-proof
backup power to chill spent fuel pools. Industry
here says that it has invested billions updating its
plants, all of which would help mitigate a
Japan-like situation.
“To have backup generators in place where they can
be washed up or destroyed seems to me to be a
systemic failure,” says George Frampton, who was the
lead investigator during Three Mile Island, in a
talk with the reporter in the days after the
Fukushima disaster. “Clearly, if they could all be
taken out by a wave, the system was not fail-proof.”
The Japanese disaster has caused the global
community to pause and to consider how to do better,
necessary considering that 60 nuclear plants are
under construction in 14 countries. Meantime,
Germany is vowing to dismantle its program while
Italy and Switzerland are saying they will cut back.
The Fukushima disaster has been incredibly worse
than anything ever imagined at Three Mile Island.
Yet, the two events share a common thread, which is
that even in the most stressful of times, calmer
heads prevailed. As for Japan, brave folks entered
the facilities to cool them while in Pennsylvania,
level-headed public officials were able to reassure
a scared public.
So many factors go into deciding whether to invest
and build a nuclear plant. But the one matter that
must take place before any of that is to occur is
successful public outreach. Here, much has changed
over 34 years. But more needs to be done, especially
in the wake of Fukushima.
EnergyBiz Insider has been awarded the Gold for
Original Web Commentary presented by the American
Society of Business Press Editors. The column is
also the Winner of the 2011 Online Column category
awarded by Media Industry News, MIN. Ken Silverstein
has been honored as one of MIN’s Most Intriguing
People in Media.
Twitter: @Ken_Silverstein
energybizinsider@energycentral.com
Note: Parts of this column were written by this
author in 2007 and repeated here again today,
although it has been updated to take into account
the events in Japan two years ago as well as the
licensing of four new reactors in the United States,
and the shale gas rush that has occurred.
Copyright © 1996-2013 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energycentral.com
To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energybiz.com
http://www.energybiz.com/article/13/03/eyes-wide-open-nuclear-power&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=EB_DAILY&utm_term=Original-Member