Turkey Point Represents Zero-Emisson Potential Of Nuclear, Nexus Of Climate And Financial Risks

[hatrack]

EDIT

You could make the argument, as FPL does, that the hypersaline plume is a smaller threat to south Floridians and their environment than the rising seas that surround them. Keeping Turkey Point running, and keeping operating costs low to compete with natural gas, may seem worth it to avoid piling on to the country’s carbon emissions and the threat of climate change. But environmentalists and nuclear safety advocates worry that Turkey Point is vulnerable to the very catastrophe it’s meant to avert. During the 2019 public comment period for Turkey Point’s license renewal, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended that the NRC evaluate how climate change might impact the plant before extending its license. The agency suggested specific additions to the environmental review that would scrutinize the potential impact of hurricanes and rising seas on Turkey Point’s reactors, canals, and supporting infrastructure.

But nuclear regulators once again said that wasn’t their job. “Evaluation of potential climate change impacts, including sea level rise, flooding, and storm surge on nuclear power plant operations and physical infrastructure are outside the scope of the NRC’s license renewal environmental review,” the NRC wrote in response to the EPA. It argued that it had already considered those risks in other sections of the report, anyway. “What they don’t look at is, ‘Well, we licensed this plant back in the 70s and maybe things have changed since then,’” said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Maybe we should think harder about whether the plant should still be where it is. But they don’t ask that question. It’s not part of their review.”

To be clear, there’s no reason to think the seas will simply swallow Turkey Point any time soon. Its reactors are elevated 20 feet above sea level, and they’ve already survived major hurricanes. Even so, the plant’s crucial cooling canals are roughly at sea level, and it can’t run if they become flooded. There’s also the very small chance that a combination of higher seas, stronger hurricanes, and bigger storm surges could lead to a one-in-a-million disaster that damages the plant.

“It is always possible to put together a scenario that lies outside of what has been considered,” said the NRC’s Burnell. “You have to therefore start trying to figure out the reasonableness of such a scenario. Is it worthwhile to devote time and resources to considering something that far out on the edge?”

EDIT

https://qz.com/1947873/us-green-energy-efforts-hinge-on-aging-nuclear-plants/

[NNadir]

1. Good old Ed Lyman.

This is a guy who's been prattling on about how "dangerous" nuclear energy is since the 1990's.

Since 1990, if we assume, really, really, really, really conservatively that 5 million people die each year from air pollution - the data for current death tolls is 1-2 million per year higher, we can estimate that 150 million people died from air pollution during his illustrious career as chief fool for the Union of Concerned "Scientists."

This would be the equivalent of wiping out Great Britain almost two times, not that Ed Lyman gives a shit.

Despite all his "warnings" over 3 decades of prattling, the number of people killed by nuclear accidents in the United States is pretty close to zero, if not zero exactly.

This compares favorably with dangerous natural gas explosions, deaths from benzene exposure from pumping gasoline, oh, and climate related events.

Of course, Ed is very positive that climate change will finally make his dreams come true and fuck up Turkey Point, which is why he has spent an entire career making sure climate change came to pass.

Personally, I hold Lyman, whose head has been up his ass all during the time those 150 million people died from air pollution - dangerous fossil fuel and biomass waste - to be a kind of criminal fool.