Visit to a nuclear power plant

      Today's article will diverge somewhat from my usual practice of commenting on items in the day's news.  Instead, my inspiration comes from my recent experience over the past few days.  

      I had the unique opportunity to visit the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Plant, located near Cordova, Illinois.  It's about two hours west of Chicago, right on the bank of the Mississippi River.   (Yes, Louisiana folks, up here a thousand miles from the Gulf of Mexico, the Mighty Mississippi does indeed run through these parts.  And in fact it keeps going northward for a few hundred more miles!)  My side job is writing software for valve testing equipment, and we went up there to install a computer system.  

      The Quad Cities plant is composed of two completely autonomous units.  Together, they can generate over 1,800 megawatts.  The first unit came online in February 1973.  It's all inside a massive, imposing, rectangular-shaped concrete structure that looks like it could withstand anything man or nature throws at it.

      To get into the plant, we had to go through about seventeen or so (I lost count) security gates and barricades, each with heavily-armed security guys watching your every move.  As one might expect, an escort is required to monitor you every second - even for a trip to the restroom.  And you thought airport security was invasive!

      Once inside, you are issued an electronic radiation monitor gizmo that you clip to your shirt.  If it senses that you've been zapped too much, it screams out an alarm.  I was told that if that happens, you will definitely become the center of attention.  Fortunately, our accumulated absorption for the day was wall below the threshold.

      Getting to our valve tester required traversing the turbine area.  This was a ginormous, cavernous room full of huge, complex-looking, extremely LOUD machinery.  You had to wear ear protection. There was also about a zillion miles of pipes and conduits, plus countless knobs and valves and switches and stuff everywhere you looked.  Then I looked UP, and saw that I was just on the first floor!  There were about four more floors of all these noisy contraptions above us - plus, as was explained to me - a few more floors of it down underground below us.

      Later in the day we got a brief tour of some of the other parts of the plant.  The actual electrical generators were way up on the top floor, accessed via elevator.  They were inside these enormous blue, rectangular-shaped structures.   They were every bit as loud as the turbines a few floors below, but it was a different type of noise; more of a high-pitched whine, as opposed to the booming roar of the turbines.

      Then we got a brief tour of the actual reactor.  Or actually, just the rounded concrete shell that surrounds the reactor core.  These concrete walls were EIGHT FEET thick!  Oh, and the outer walls of the building added another four feet of concrete protection to the outside world.   

      It was explained to us that nearly every single component and piece of equipment at the plant has a backup, plus a backup for the backup, and so on, for a whopping total of FOUR levels of redundancy on most of it.  Nuclear paranoia, in the flesh.

      Exiting the turbine and reactor areas involved yet another rigorous set of screening procedures to check your radiation exposure, above and beyond what the sensor on your shirt measures.  You had to step inside this big chamber thingy - it sorta reminded me the scanning booth at the airport.  You put your hands inside these special slots, and then it did some more radiation measurements on you.  Then a recorded voice tells you to turn around, put your hands in another special slot, and you get scanned again.   A green light flashed when the system determines you're Ok. 

      But you're still not done!  There's still several more security and radiation checks before you can go your own way. 

      Is nuclear power a viable and cost-effective option for supplying the energy demands of our growing economy?  That is a very complicated question.  ALL options for generating power have their pros and cons.  Despite claims to the contrary, there is no "silver bullet" energy alternative that has no negative side-effects.  Nuclear power certainly has its unique set of issues that involve accidents, terrorism, economics, and waste disposal.

      Yet, power plants like Quad Cities have been chugging along for nearly five decades now.  Yeah it cost a pile of money at first to build the dang thing, but two generations of Illinoisans have had the luxury of inexpensive, reliable electricity that's actually a lot cleaner than its fossil-fuel-derived cousin.  And it works without a dammed-up river or a sea of towering windmills.  It bears noting that people who live near, and benefit from, nuclear power tend to have a more positive attitude about it.

      To answer the above question, let's put it in context with some of the following:  Is it cost-effective to build a computer network that connects the world?  To build a 50-plus-story building?  To build a factory that makes cars, food, clothing, electronics, furniture?  Is it cost-effective to build a megaton ship for cargo, oil, or cruising passengers?  Or a 400-passenger intercontinental aircraft?  To build a hospital, with state-of-the-art medical equipment and beds for hundreds of patients?  To build and establish a bank, insurance company, investment firm, or stock exchange that can handle billions of dollars?

      The amazing thing is that the free market can, and does, do these things, earning profits for those who invest the money to make it happen.  Or at least, the free market CAN do it if government gets the heck out of the way.

      In the United States, the energy industry is one of the most government-intense of all.  The government, at federal, state, AND local levels, is very heavily involved both in funding and regulation.  (Other contenders are medicine, transportation, and finance.)  According to Wikipedia, energy subsidies just at the Federal level are about $21 Billion a year.  About 9% of that goes to nuclear. 

      Those subsidies, by the way, include a taxpayer bailout if something goes wrong.  This creates what ethicists call a "moral hazard":  if you screw up, somebody ELSE pays the bill.  Doesn't exactly give the owners much incentive to work hard to PREVENT screw-ups.

      And these are just the tax-supported monetary contributions.  All the rules and regulations imposed on the energy industry fills up an entire library.  I got to witness first-hand how intense all these rules can be.  Do we really need four layers of redundancy on every friggin component in the enter plant?  Do we really need about seventeen separate security checks at every door and gate?

      Yes I know what you're thinking:  nobody wants another Chernobyl or a Fukushima or a Three Mile Island, or a yet-to-occur terrorist attack on a nuclear plant.  But there's a limit, and a balance.  All this excessiveness doesn't come cheap.  How much safety and security is REALLY needed?  

      So is nuclear power cost-effective?  The only way to answer it is:  get the government out of way.  Make the owners 100% liable for any and all damage their plant causes, and 100% responsible for costs of disposing of their waste.  Then the owners and customers can figure out where the supply and demand curves meet, and negotiate the price.  Then we'll know.