The Argument

One of the cons expressed by anti-nuclear activists is the number of suitable locations available for a nuclear plant. These writers argue from a practical and moral viewpoint, first expressing concern about placing reactors near large population centers. Then pointing out the large water requirements of water cooled reactors, which limits optimal locations.

What They Get Right

Currently the US nuclear fleet consists exclusively of water cooled reactors (WCRs). The IAEA estimates 96% of global civilian power reactors are WCRs on their website. While there has been research about different cooling methods going on since at least the 60s, for now it is true that new nuclear reactor sites require close proximity to water.

The moral and safety concerns about placing a nuclear plant in close proximity to large populations is also something that should be considered. Safety should be as close to guaranteed as possible – and tail risk events should be considered and planned for.

While anti-nuclear pundits are technically correct on both these issues, they don’t seek a compromise. It is true nuclear reactors need to be near water and there are serious questions to consider before placing one near people. However, the argument that nuclear power plants don’t have enough locations is fairly easy to poke holes in.

Where the Argument Goes Wrong

The requirement for water is real, and there is a lot of water in the United States. Let’s take a look at a map of the currently operating reactors in the US.

Many are located near the coast or on a large lake, and many other’s appear to be located in the middle of the country. In reality, these plants are located on rivers or moderately large lakes, which supply all the water needed and more. Water is not the only thing of geographic importance when siting a nuclear plant, and it is clear we are nowhere near running our of suitable sites due to this criteria.

The writers who claim nuclear reactors must be located in places without any risk of drought, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, flooding, or other potential disasters simply ignore the facts. Diablo Canyon is located along a fault line in California, a state known for its earthquakes and droughts, but has operated without a hitch (except for the one caused by activists temporarily shutting it down) for forty plus years. There are two nuclear plants in Florida on the Atlantic Coast side, which is known for experiencing hurricanes.

In fact, nuclear plants are specifically designed to withstand all sorts of natural and man made disasters. Ukraine still has four operating nuclear plants, despite a multi-year war, troops sheltering at reactors, and reports of shelling.

Fukushima failed after getting hit with a tsunami and earthquake, but crisis could have been averted and the plant shutdown correctly during the disaster, if there had not been significant safety and oversight failures within the public-private relationship, the WNA writes in this piece. In summary, operators were warned that a large tsunami could cause significant problems at Fukushima. To mitigate risks they could moving backup generators uphill, sealing lower parts of the building, and have more backup pumps on site – they did none of these things.

I wouldn’t suggest putting a nuclear reactor on a volcano, but with proper planning and incorporation of new data, nuclear reactors are extremely resistant to natural and man made disasters. This is seen in the absence of natural disaster caused melt downs, outside of Fukushima’s earthquake, tsunami, operator caused shitstorm.

The safety and ethics argument is slightly harder to tackle, but comes down to this: Most of us are not experts in radiation or engineering and have no idea what is truly safe or not for a nuclear plant. There are thousands of experts who dedicate their lives to studying radiation risks, and testing nuclear plant designs. Dozens if not hundreds of these experts have to sign off on new plant designs, blueprints, construction permits, and safety checks. The US has been operating a fleet of close to 100 reactors, many for fifty plus years, and has had one accident due to human operations error.

If these scientists dedicated to studying the technology tell me it is safe to put a nuclear power plant somewhere, I believe them, not the writer for Greenpeace. I truly believe the anti-nuclear writers believe what they are doing is right, but they are simply not as well informed as scientists and engineers.

So, in the end how close is too close for a nuclear reactor and a city? We’ll never know without looking into studies that measure radiation from nuclear power plants, or lack there of. Our next article will tackle the science behind nuclear reactor radiation impact, and generally accepted safe levels of radiation for our bodies.