West Wing, nuclear, and blah blah blah

Sunday's West Wing was rather ham-handed with its nuclear critique

Posted by David Roberts at 8:07 AM on 24 Jan 2006

I just watched West Wing from this past Sunday. It was, to say the least, overtly anti-nuclear.

(Incidentally, WW is a strange case, TV-wise. It started out great under Sorkin, then declined precipitously once he left, hitting its nadir in last year's season, the sixth. But this season it's come roaring back, with a presidential campaign inserting new blood and pulling the action outside the White House. It's been absolutely top-notch television lately. Naturally, NBC, noting that quality was on the rise, cancelled it. Bastards. Now where was I?)

I have mixed feelings about nuclear myself -- mostly bad -- but I gotta say WW was pretty ham-handed with it. The Republican candidate, Vinnick, had a few lines to make the pro-nuclear case, but on the whole everyone on the show took it as accepted fact that nuclear is not safe to have in populated areas.

They were also pretty ham-handed with the critique of Bush's handling of Katrina. From the moment something goes wrong, President Bartlett is in total control, even micromanaging the personnel and technical details of trying to repair the nuke facility. He asks if enough buses are available to evacuate the area (cough) and prompted to appoint a czar to coordinate the government agencies, says, "You're looking at him" (cough). A little overboard.

The Nuclear Energy Institute is obviously not an unbiased source, but many of the technical flaws they point out in the episode -- here and here -- I've seen echoed by other people in various discussion rooms and such. (Various other discussions of the episode are linked here.) It sounds like the show botched the technical aspects pretty badly.

If you'd like to listen in on an intelligent discussion of nuclear power, check out the discussion of the Peter Schwartz/Ralph Cavanagh debate over at The Long Now. There are also good discussions of nuclear power on Worldchanging here, here, and here.

My reservations about nuclear aren't particularly of the technological sort. Instead ... well, I pass the mic to Jamais Cascio:

One problem I see is that many who do have intimate operational knowledge of nuclear power seem to think that the debate focuses solely on technical issues -- a perspective undoubtedly derived, at least in part, from the 1970s version of the nuclear debate, which *did* emphasize operational safety. Today's version of the discussion is quite different, and looks primarily at issues of governance, industrial behavior, material safety after it has left the power production cycle, plant security (vis-a-vis intentional external attack), and honesty about costs.

Basically, a lot of the educated opposition to expansion of nuclear power in the US comes down to the fact that the industry has not historically behaved in ways that engender trust. Personally, I am much less worried about the technology -- which I understand relatively well, albeit not with the insights of hands-on work -- than I am about the organizations that own, operate and oversee the plants. I recognize that nuclear can, in principle, be done safely and efficiently -- but evidence suggests that we wouldn't get safety and efficiency, we'd get cut corners, dishonesty, and more money spent on lobbying the regulators than on abiding by regulations.

Jamais also makes the point, with which I agree wholeheartedly, that most nuclear advocates seem to be operating on the assumption that clean energy and conservation cannot scale to cover our energy needs. That assumption is frequently based on bogus premises or bad math.

Let's just all agree to set a carbon cap and some tight safety and transparency regulations and let any source of power that can a) come under the cap, and b) obey the regulations duke it out on a level playing field. Shall we?

For story: West Wing, nuclear, and blah blah blah
11 Comments | Post a Comment

Yay West Wing, Boo Dave

That was the best episode of WW I've seen, though I don't like the show as much as my wife. The anti-nuke stuff was great, exactly what enviros should be applauding. Taking any kind of a pro-nuke position is highly anti-environmental, because nuclear power requires mining and processing uranium, both very ecologically and environmentally destructive activities, and because nuclear power contaminates the planet with radioactive waste. These are major harms even without the safety issue, which is relatively minor, since we don't know if another accident will happen. (Of course, if it does, it becomes rather major.)

Enviros should be promoting solar and wind on small, local scales (solar panels on every roof, windmills on the property of every commercial building, etc.), not Frankenstein stuff like nuclear. As to the argument that we can't get "enough" power out of those sources, our rejoinder should be that people will just have to use less energy.

Jeff Hoffman

by jdhlax at 8:55 AM on 24 Jan 2006

Our thoughts are one in the same.

So, this is what it feels like to have a mind meld.

I also watched the show and was wriggling my eyebrows for the same reasons. That is the problem with knowing too much on any given subject, TV never gets the facts right (neither do newspapers). Never watch an episode of ER with a real doctor sitting in the same room.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 9:16 AM on 24 Jan 2006

Whoops.

" ham-handed with the critique of Bush's handling of Katrina"

This just in: "The White House was told in the hours before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans that the city would probably soon be inundated with floodwater, forcing the long-term relocation of hundreds of thousands of people"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/national/nationalspecial/24katrina.html?_r=1

Remind anyone of "Al qaeda to attack within the US" in aug. of 2001?

and....I refer you two to the Rocky Mountain Institute page on nukes. Hehey.

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid305.php

Meld this!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 9:30 AM on 24 Jan 2006

West Wing

At NEI, we've spent plenty of time looking over RMI's research, and much of it doesn't pass muster. Try the following links to see what I mean:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/08/bad-data-leads-to-bad-conclusions.html

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-bad-data-from-amory-lovins.html

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/09/revisiting-rmis-bad-data.html

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/10/revisiting-rmi-and-amory-lovins.html

Eric McErlain Nuclear Energy Institute

by emcerlain at 10:02 AM on 24 Jan 2006

I am also unimpressed with RMI

having recently read some of their literature.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

by biodiversivist at 10:48 AM on 24 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

Wheeew em.

Lots of links to click, but no coherent argument?

(I must confess I stopped at the 5th content free link.)

RMI actually sets out a position that can be understood and addressed on their nuclear power page.

If you have a point to make, just make it! Don't be afraid.

Meanwhile back in the world of corporatism, nuclear power marches on!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11005719/from/RS.1/

"RALEIGH, N.C. - Anti-nuclear activists and a major power company were gearing up for a prolonged battle after the company, Progress Energy Inc., picked the site where it will seek to build the first nuclear reactor in the United States in more than 30 years."

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 11:08 AM on 24 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

RMI's data

Far from being "content-free" David's analysis is pretty clear: Because the methodology of RMI's research is flawed, the conclusions simply can't be trusted.

Eric McErlain Nuclear Energy Institute

by emcerlain at 12:00 PM on 24 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

Well

That's very different then...never mind.

I will check out that proof that their methodology is flawed.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 12:26 PM on 24 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

Nuclear accidents can happen

Last Sundays's episode of "West Wing" about a radioactive release from a fictional nuclear plant was a frightening scenario, but not entirely outside the realm of possibility. California's operating nuclear plants are located on eroding and earthquake active coastal bluffs. Since 9/11/01, the administration has warned U.S. Citizens that nuclear power plants and adjacent onsite high-level radioactive waste storage facilities are at risk of terrorist attacks.

The twin operating reactors at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are soon to undergo stam generator replacement that will require cutting 28 by 28 foot holes in each containment dome. And as most southern Californians are aware, the San Onofre nuclear station is adjacent to a 10 lane freeway, state park, shipping and air corridor and a heavily used rail system - all placing this site at particular risk. This is a project opposed by San Onofre's co-owner, SDG&E.

Aging reactors with radioactive and embrittled components on our seismically active and vulnerable coast give Californians a cause for real concern. If a radioactive release were to result from a nuclear accident, no matter the cause, is our state prepared for a nuclear disaster? Bad news there:FEMA is the responsible agency for all disasters. We have only to look at the example of Hurrican Katrina and then add the additional risk of radioactivity in the air, water and soil to strike real fear into our hearts.

The only examples of nuclear evacuations are Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In both cases, the authorities took days to inform the public that there had beena radioactive release. Seventeen cities in Ukraine remain ghost towns
and hundreds of thousands remain displaced. In this era of increasing secrecy, there is little reason to believe that next tme will be different.

Hundreds of tons of high-level radioactive waste have been produced at California's nuclear plants since operation began in the early 1980's. Thousands of tons will be left on our coast long after the last kilowatt is produced. Licenses for California's nuclear plants expire in the mid 2020's, but both utility owners are beginning to prepare for license renewal applications.

While Los Angeles does not have its own nuclear reactor, it is located 1/2 way between California's operating reactors. Evacuation, if ever necessary, will seriously impact the City of the Angeles. In addition, if the radioactive waste from these reactors ever leaves our state, it will travel through LA on heavily used freeways and dilapidated rail systems. One only has to look at the front page of today's LA Times to see how safe trucking this radiaoctive waste will be on our roads.

Reactor communities have waited over 50 years for the federal government to fulfill its promise of permanent offsite storage for radioactive waste. For years, SCE, SDG&E and PG&E ratepayers have paid for the construction of a permanent offsite facility. To date, all that exists is a giant hole in the Nevada desert.

Is continuing down the nuclear path the least expensive option? No, nor is it the safest. The total price tag for construction of the San Onofre Nuclear Station and the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant was in excess of $11 billion for 4000 megawatts and that was in 1985. In addition, both utilities need to replace steam generators and that cost will exceed $1.5 billion. Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission approved $3.2 billion for 3000 megawatts. Clearly, nuclear power is not economical.

California is the only state in the nation with a law that prohibits the construction of new nuclear plants until there is a permanent solution to the offsite storage of high-level radioactive waste. The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility invites Californians to join us in reducing the risks to our state, our economy and to keep the "West Wing" scenario from becoming a reality.

Rochelle Becker, Executive Director
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
www.a4nr.org
PO 1328
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93406

by Rochelle Becker at 5:13 PM on 24 Jan 2006

What Was GE Thinking?

What do we make of the fact that NBC, which airs "West Wing", is owned by GE, one of the world's biggest makers of nuclear power plants? Was running this episode an exercise in editorial freedom or idiocy?

by makower at 8:44 PM on 24 Jan 2006

Flawed methodology?

From your link em:

"Nuclear power plants' capacity factor (how efficient a plant generates electricity) is the highest of any fuel source (90.5%). Renewables are in the 30% range, natural gas for cogeneration is about 40%."

"capacity factor" is not equivalent to... "how efficient a plant generates electricity"

Efficiency is the ratio of electrical energy output from a generating system compared to
heat energy input to that system.

Capacity factor measures how many kwh (kilowatt hours) a system produces in a given time period compared to how many kwh that the rated power of the system would produce in that same time period under continuous operation.

(The rest of this discussion is posted here to save space.)

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/1/25/1721852.html

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

by amazingdrx at 1:47 AM on 25 Jan 2006
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.