Lieberman: “Put the brakes” on new U.S. nuclear power plants
The risk of partial meltdown at a stricken nuclear power plant in Japan increased on Monday as cooling systems failed at a third reactor, possibly exposing its fuel rods, only hours after a second explosion at a separate reactor blew the roof off a containment building….
Operators fear that if they cannot establish control, despite increasingly desperate measures to do so, the reactors could experience meltdowns, which would release catastrophic amounts of radiation.
It was unclear if radiation was released by Monday’s explosion, but a similar explosion at another reactor at the plant over the weekend did release radioactive material.
The situation in Japan is moving quickly and getting worse. The above is from a Monday morning NYT piece.
Here is the AP story, “10K dead in Japan amid fears of nuclear meltdowns” from 4:05 EDT Sunday.
The estimated death toll from Japan’s disasters climbed past 10,000 Sunday as authorities raced to combat the threat of multiple nuclear reactor meltdowns and hundreds of thousands of people struggled to find food and water. The prime minister said it was the nation’s worst crisis since World War II.
Nuclear plant operators worked frantically to try to keep temperatures down in several reactors crippled by the earthquake and tsunami, wrecking at least two by dumping sea water into them in last-ditch efforts to avoid meltdowns.
The nuclear savvy French “recommended its citizens leave the Tokyo region of Japan on Sunday, citing the risk of further earthquakes and uncertainty about the situation at its damaged nuclear plants.”
It looks like people are right to leave the area as rapidly and orderly as possibly. The NYT reports at 10:07 EDT, “Radioactive Releases in Japan Could Last Months, Experts Say“:
As the scale of Japan’s nuclear crisis begins to come to light, experts in Japan and the United States say the country is now facing a cascade of accumulating problems that suggest that radioactive releases of steam from the crippled plants could go on for weeks or even months….
But Pentagon officials reported Sunday that helicopters flying 60 miles from the plant picked up small amounts of radioactive particulates “” still being analyzed, but presumed to include Cesium-137 and Iodine-121 “” suggesting widening environmental contamination. In a country where memories of a nuclear horror of a different sort in the last days of World War II weigh heavily on the national psyche and national politics, the impact of continued venting of long-lasting radioactivity from the plants is hard to overstate.
Here’s AP’s 5:52 EDT Sunday update, on how “180K flee as Japan’s nuke-plant crisis intensifies“:
Japanese officials warned of a possible second explosion Sunday at a nuclear plant crippled by the earthquake and tsunami as they raced to stave off multiple reactor meltdowns, but they provided few details about whether they were making progress. More than 180,000 people have evacuated the area, and up to 160 may have been exposed to radiation….
Operators have lost the ability to cool three reactors at Dai-ichi and three more at another nearby complex using usual procedures, after the quake knocked out power and the tsunami swamped backup generators….
Up to 160 people, including 60 elderly patients and medical staff who had been waiting for evacuation in the nearby town of Futabe, and 100 others evacuating by bus, might have been exposed to radiation, said Ryo Miyake, a spokesman from Japan’s nuclear agency….
Officials, though, have declared states of emergency at the six reactors where cooling systems were down – three at Dai-ichi and three at the nearby Fukushima Daini complex. The U.N. nuclear agency said a state of emergency was also declared Sunday at another complex, the Onagawa power plant, after higher-than-permitted levels of radiation were measured there. It said Japan informed it that all three reactors there were under control.
A pump for the cooling system at yet another nuclear complex, the Tokai Dai-Ni plant, also failed after Friday’s quake but a second pump operated normally as did the reactor, said the utility, the Japan Atomic Power Co. It did not explain why it did not announce the incident until Sunday….
This sounds a lot like Three Mile Island, in terms of authorities holding back information.
Hidehiko Nishiyama, a senior official of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, indicated the reactor core in Unit 3 had melted partially, telling a news conference, “I don’t think the fuel rods themselves have been spared damage,” according to the Kyodo News agency.
A complete meltdown – the melting of the radioactive core – could release uranium and dangerous contaminants into the environment and pose major, widespread health risks.
The steel reactor vessel could melt or break from the heat and pressure. A concrete platform underneath the reactor is supposed to catch the molten metal and nuclear fuel, but the intensely hot material could set off a massive explosion if water has collected on the platform. Radioactive material also could be released into the ground if the platform fails.
Here’s a video from ITN:
And here’s the Lieberman story from Reuters:
The United States should “put the brakes on” new nuclear power plants until fully understanding what happened to the earthquake-crippled nuclear reactors in Japan, the chairman of the U.S. Senate’s homeland security panel said on Sunday….”I don’t want to stop the building of nuclear power plants,” independent Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said on the CBS program “Face the Nation.”
“But I think we’ve got to kind of quietly put, quickly put the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan as a result of the earthquake and the tsunami and then see what more, if anything, we can demand of the new power plants that are coming on line,” Lieberman added.
Lieberman, an influential voice in the U.S. Congress on domestic security matters, described himself as a “big supporter of nuclear power because it’s domestic, it’s ours and it’s clean.” He also touted “a good safety record” with nuclear power plants in the United States.
Nuclear power is controversial because of its radioactive waste, which is now stored on site at reactor locations around the country. Remembering the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania, many Americans still harbor concerns about nuclear power’s safety.
U.S. President Barack Obama has argued that the United States must increase its supply of nuclear power to meet its energy needs and fight climate change. In February 2010, Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to build the first U.S. nuclear power plant in nearly three decades.
The government backing will go to help Southern Co build two reactors at a plant in the U.S. state of Georgia….
Lieberman noted there are 104 nuclear power plants in the United States, and that about 23 of them are built according to designs similar to the nuclear power plants in Japan that are now the focus of the world’s concern.
How reassuring! (See Could it happen here? GOP budget cuts would lead to furloughs at tsunami warning centers, undermining their ‘ability to react’).
This post has been updated several times.
Related Posts:
- Intro to nuclear power
- Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost “” $10,800 per kilowatt! “” killed Ontario nuclear bid
- Nuclear Pork “” Enough is Enough
- Exelon’s Rowe: Low gas prices and no carbon price push back nuclear renaissance a “decade, maybe two”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Air pollution, primarily from coal-fired power plants and automobiles, kills 10000-20000 Americans each year and hundreds of thousands worldwide. Nuclear power has killed three American workers at a nuclear facility, and that is it. While nuclear safety is an issue, it is a small one. One list I like to post sometimes is the following:
For every American civilian killed by a terrorist,
300 Americans are killed in car accidents
50 of these are not in a car at the time of the accident
100-200 are killed by air pollution
150 are murdered
75 of those by guns
30-50 are killed by food borne disease
1 is killed by lightning
Of course, I am trying to make a different point when I post this, but I could always add at the end “and less than .01 American is killed by anything related to nuclear power”
Sidenote: Take all news announcements from TEPCO with a grain of to much salt
On August 29, 2002, the government of Japan revealed that TEPCO was guilty of false reporting in routine governmental inspection of its nuclear plants and systematic concealment of plant safety incidents. All seventeen of its boiling-water reactors were shut down for inspection as a result. TEPCO’s chairman Hiroshi Araki, President Nobuya Minami, Vice-President Toshiaki Enomoto, as well as the advisers Shō Nasu and Gaishi Hiraiwa stept by September 30, 2002.[3], and the utility “eventually admitted to two hundred occasions over more than two decades between 1977 and 2002, involving the submission of false technical data to authorities”.[4] Upon taking over leadership responsibilities, TEPCO’s new president issued a public commitment that the company would take all the countermeasures necessary to prevent fraud and restore the nation’s confidence. By the end of 2005, generation at suspended plants had been restarted, with government approval.
In 2007, however, the company announced to the public that an internal investigation had revealed a large number of unreported incidents. These included an unexpected unit criticality in 1978 and additional systematic false reporting, which hadn’t been uncovered during the 2002 inquiry. Along with scandals at other Japanese electric companies, this failure to ensure corporate compliance resulted in strong public criticism of Japan’s electric power industry and the nation’s nuclear energy policy. Again the company made no effort to identify those responsible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tokyo_Electric_Power_Company
Shaun Burnie, an independent nuclear energy consultant and former head of nuclear campaigns at Greenpeace, said the presence of a percentage of fuel core loaded with plutonium Mox fuel in the No 3 reactor posed a grave threat to the surrounding area.
“Plutonium Mox fuel increases the risk of nuclear accident due the neutronic effects of plutonium on the reactor,” Burnie told the Guardian. “In the event of an accident – in particular loss of coolant – the reactor core is more difficult to control due to both neutronics and higher risk of fuel cladding failure. In the event of the fuel melting and the release of plutonium fuel into the environment, the health hazards are greater, including higher levels of latent cancer.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/13/japan-second-nuclear-reactor-threat-fukushima
14 mins ago … Radiation level up at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuke plant
Japan’s Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO) (9501.T) said on Monday the electric utility has reported a rise in radiation levels at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant to the government.
The cooling system of the plant, located 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo, was damaged by Friday’s massive earthquake and tsunami, forcing the operator to release radioactive air to reduce pressure inside reactor container vessels.
The exact radiation level on the site was not immediately available, a TEPCO spokeswoman said. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/13/us-japan-quake-radiation-idUSTRE72C3X120110313
Revelation of Endless N-damage Cover-ups
the “TEPCO scandal” and the adverse trend of easing inspection standards http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit92/nit92articles/nit92coverup.html
TEPCO is the fourth largest electric power company in the world according to wikipedia.
The number of deaths (excluding chernobyl) is insignificant compared to people killed on roads or other things. The problem is that when a “meltdown” occurs, the reactor is ruined. This is a financial problem, not a safety problem. So far the hysteria is laughable.
Here is an interview with a Canadian nuclear technologist who worked at the affected nuclear power station during the earthquake and just returned home. He says there were 4 ft of exposed (uncooled) nuclear fuel when they were evacuated because of loss of cooling. He also barely escaped the tsunami and gives an eye-witness account:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=1840304301
Perhaps you’d like to reword your post, harvey. I’m unclear as to your point. Is it the number of deaths (10,000) is insignificant so therefore….??….not a big deal(?).
Are you saying the number of deaths from nuclear accidents (not including one of the biggest nuclear accidents) is insignificant? What happens if you include Chernobyl? Does that change your point?
Are you also saying that since it is a financial problem, it is not a safety problem? Having your car crash because of faulty brakes ruins the car (financial problem), but you don’t need to fix those faulty brakes (safety problem) because car crash deaths insignificant compared to other causes of death.
??
Tsunami footage http://video.l3.fbcdn.net/cfs-l3-snc6/81489/34/1605260179420_2624.mp4?oh=ac31b4d8738221641ba490396dc19636&oe=4D7F9F00&l3s=20110313100648&l3e=20110315101648&lh=0a6cfa5eeaecd6dc12abf
Please go look at the expert summaries of the situation at Brave New Climate. One by Joseph Oehman, at MIT, the other by Barry Brook. The situation is serious but not catastrophic. Messy but not Chernobyl
CNBC analysts believe that the Japanese tsunami is good news for the US economy. Perhaps, they believe that there is a lot of instant rebuilding to be done in Japan, but they forget that this rebuilding draws down on the natural wealth of the planet, thereby hastening humanity’s end point. Watch Disaster Capitalists at their blatant worst…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX80vWJhtMk
“This is a financial problem, not a safety problem.”
That’s hardly good news for the nuclear industry.
The financial problems are, of course, what have been killing nuclear in the US all along.
Witness enters a restricted zone around the reactor
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.welt.de%2Fpolitik%2Fausland%2Farticle12809036%2FAugenzeuge-dringt-in-gesperrte-Zone-um-Reaktor-ein.html&sl=de&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
This story is simply false scare mongering and not worthy of this site. Somebody ought to feel some remorse.
[JR: In case you hadn't noticed, I just combined the headlines from two AP stories. Now I've made that clearer.]
Here is a well done account which takes the realities of those old nuclear reactor designs into account.
Fukushima Nuclear Accident – a simple and accurate explanation
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
Not in that link is the explanation of the (ordely) evacuation as required under Japanese law; nobody fled. [Shameful headlineing, that.]
[JR: While I'm often critical of the media here, the AP is not known for false scare mongering, but rather bend-over-backwards even-handed reporting.]
David B. Benson, “is simiply false scare mongering”
What exactly? Nuclear is not sustainable and the world learns this now the hard way. Contamination for ever.
The propaganda of the atom lobby is costing lives. The area around the hot zone is in chaos and people panic because people get radiation illness.
Latest Earthquakes Magnitude 2.5 or Greater in the United States and Adjacent Areas and Magnitude 4.5 or Greater in the Rest of the World – Last 7 days
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.php
David B. Benson, Just over an hour ago, I just posted a comment to you over on the previous Climate Progress thread covering the Fukushima Oichi nuclear accident. Here is the first part of my comment:
Our lives depended on the backup diesel generator at the nuclear plant!
David B. Benson posted a link to bravenewclimate.com on March 11, 2011 at 10:30 pm, and claimed “useful links to knowledgeable news sources” about the Japanese nuclear plant problems.
David, I spent several days at Brave New Climate, a pro-nuclear site run by Barry Brook, and I wouldn’t trust Brooks’ analysis and views. I certainly wouldn’t consider Barry Brook a knowledgeable news source; he is clearly biased which damages the accuracy of his analysis.
Here are some excerpts from my most recent post on the Fukushima nuclear accident on that site:
Prior to the Fukushima Oichi nuclear accident, I believed that fears of failures of nuclear power plants leading to destruction of the plant, atmospheric radioactive material releases, releases of radioactively contaminated water into the sea, and reactor meltdown were overblown.
NOW, I have serious doubts. the responses by Barry Brook, and the nuclear apologists on this thread have completely destroyed my trust in their evaluations of risks and costs of nuclear energy.
Lets look at some of my original questions, and responses from Barry Brook and a commenter Finrod, and compare to the Current Analysis of each issue:
http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/11/japanese-nuclear-plant-earthquake-tsunami-cripple-cooling-system/#comment-331358
Greenpeace on nuclear power
As officials and technicians in Japan battle to prevent reactor meltdowns, the debate over nuclear power has been reopened.
Al Jazeera speaks with Jan Beranek of Greenpeace. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzNQa9x9h-0&feature=player_embedded
Prokaryotes @14 — Determine the amount of uranium in the oceans; nuclear fission looks sustainable to me as I’ve looked into the matter.
Chemical contaminatiion can be for a very, very long time. Radioactivity always decays away, albeit at varying rates depending upon the species.
@15 — Find an authoritive report of the first clause of your second sentence. As it is, I don’t believe you.
To those who say that the number of people killed in auto accidents is far greater than the number killed by nuclear power: So far it is.
The difference between the two is that auto accidents are common and each one is small. We have a very large number of auto accidents every year, and none of them causes more than a handful of deaths.
By contrast, nuclear accidents are uncommon and potentially very large. We have not had a total meltdown yet, but if we do, it will change your calculations drastically. A single nuclear accident can kill or sicken millions of people, and can permanently contaminate an area as large as the state of Pennsylvania. A single act of nuclear terrorism could do the same.
To illustrate this simple mathematical point, let’s imagine that nuclear reactors are well enough designed that there is one total meltdown for every 50,000 years of nuclear power reactor operation. So far, the odds of our having a major accident have been small (with less than 500 reactors operating for an average of maybe a few decades each). But if the world builds 5,000 reactors, we will average one total meltdown every decade.
Basic arithmetic: it makes no sense to say that nuclear power plants are safe and we can build as many as we want, because they have only killed a few people SO FAR.
I guess that we should find comfort in Senator L. bothering with the soft soap, i.e., “putting the brakes on”. Like we did with deep water drilling, eh?
Let’s face it, public opinion only matters in terms of “consumer confidence”, not energy policy.
You cannot hide the radiation on a small island with 130 million people.
Clearly the AP reporters, along with many others, fail to understand that there is no possibility of anything serious happening with the reactors in some difficulty beyond those units becoming just inoperable liabilties which take a long time to clean up.
[JR: Then why did the French embassy tell its citizens to leave Tokyo? Were they duped too?]
No long term contamination outside the internal pressure vessel. Some of plant workers have been taken to hospital as a precaution, but the only death was the unfortunate crushed by a falling crane during the earthquake.
Now over 10,000 are dead in Japan; the Sendai region is in ruins; a dam failed and an oil refinery “blew up”. Yet somehow the fact of all this escapes the story writers who then focus on a fairly small aspect of the whole catastrophy.
Sorry, but as this linked account
bravenewclimate.com/2011/ 03/ 13/ fukushima-simple-explanation/
states: There has not been one single (!) report that was accurate and free of errors …
Poat #5 | harvey says:
March 13, 2011 at 7:27 pm
The number of deaths (excluding chernobyl) is insignificant compared to people killed on roads or other things. The problem is that when a “meltdown” occurs, the reactor is ruined. This is a financial problem, not a safety problem. So far the hysteria is laughable.
***
Yes. Well. You and this guy would get along famously, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX80vWJhtMk
Charles Siegel @17 — In Western design reactors, total meltdowns are totally contained. Read the link in my previous post.
In the meantime, how many coal miners die each year?
[JR: Far more die in car accidents. So what? Nuclear has priced itself out of the market to replace coal or oil.]
“Yes. Well. You and this guy would get along famously, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX80vWJhtMk”
—————————-
Larry, Mr. drill…drill… drill, Kudlow is one of the best examples of what corrupt capitalist sentiment is all about. The two women on each side of him are his light weight maids of the echo chamber mostly there to back up his pithy pontifications about the supremacy of the free market system over all other forms of human endeavor or concern.
A further note, there is no problem with a total reactore melt down, other than the fact the reactor is now unusable. The problem is if the CONTAINMENT building fails to hold the melted nuclear puddle.
These containment buildings are very well designed to reduce any possible criticality occuring EVEN IF containment is lost.
Note: Cherynobl had *NO* containment building.. silly ruskies, and was a poor design.
[JR: For any new nukes, U.S. taxpayers would be on the hook for the unusable reactor.]
David B. Benson “nuclear fission looks sustainable to me”
The products of nuclear fission, however, are on average far more radioactive than the heavy elements which are normally fissioned as fuel, and remain so for significant amounts of time, giving rise to a nuclear waste problem. Concerns over nuclear waste accumulation and over the destructive potential of nuclear weapons may counterbalance the desirable qualities of fission as an energy source, and give rise to ongoing political debate over nuclear power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
Radioactive Releases in Japan Could Last Months, Experts Say
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html
In the meantime, water recedes 2 meters / 5 meter sea level change and evacuation issued, reactor block III of fukushima I gives of smoke and a explosion sound was reported, reports NNK live picture http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3&hpt=C2
Here is a well written article regading the state of the Fukushima nuclear reactors.
Efforts to manage Fukushima Daiichi 3
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Venting_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_3_1303111.html
i’d rather listen to French govt here than the finnish one, warning about ‘jumping on the graves’ on nuclear issues in finnish domestic politics. with the record of cover ups in nuclear accidents i’m not very trustful of finnish pro-nuke people.
Prokaryotes @28 — Well, the French recycle once-through fuel rods as do the Russians. But more is possible and coming; its called an Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) and many countries have efforts to design and build one. Even the US (where the original research was done) seems to have a small DoE effort underway. The result will be that about 98% of the energy is finally extracted and the remaining actual waste need only be kept isolated for 200–300 years. That waste is only about 2% of the original mass, so there is little difficulty in finding suitable storage sites.
NHK reports that No 3 at Fukushima has just suffered a hydrogen explosion, ME
Another good reason to go solar…
Nuclear industry propaganda has been effective even among Climate Progress commenters. Actually, nuclear power is a total joke: dangerous on multiple levels, finite, financially unfeasible, and designed to maintain control of power generation by banks, utility companies, and multinational engineering firms. This is without even considering disposal issues- which are not solvable- and the problem of production of weapons compatible plutonium that will last for thousands of years. the only question is whether terrorists or governments will grab and possibly use those awful weapons. Now, we’re hearing that Chernobyl was the Russians’ fault, that Three Mile Island was no big deal, and that Japan is going to be just fine, and that the alarmists need to shut up. It’s not just that they are worse than the fossil fuel companies: they are the same, because they serve each others’ purposes. Nuclear is doomed to fail, enabling people like the Kochs to pump gas, oil, and coal into our air for many more decades if we let them.
Obama could rise to the occasion here, and announce to the country and the world that the time has come for truly clean and renewable power. The people would support this effort. Between the Executive branch and the public, our pitiful excuse of a Congress could be shamed and defeated on the most important issue in human history.
Instead, the President is still saying “all of the above”, including nuclear, gas and “clean coal”. It might just have be up to the people after all.
The US has an historic opportunity to lead here. We are the ones who detonated the bombs in Japan, a country whose suffering is heartbreaking and undeserved. The Japanese are ready to go forward, and so is Germany, Scandinavia, and the rest of the world. If we don’t take this opportunity to do the right thing, any remaining claims to global leadership or even influence will disappear forever.
The cloud smoke almost resembles a mini mushroom cloud …
[JR: Then why did the French embassy tell its citizens to leave Tokyo? Were they duped too?] I didn’t state anything about duping. Also, I’m not responsible for the excitable French; I doubt the ambassador understands much about nuclear reactors in general and BWRs in particular.
There is a very high level of actual fear in Japan at this time, it seems from other reports. One can hardly blaim them, what with the most serious earthquake of modern history.
[JR: ... Nuclear has priced itself out of the market to replace coal or oil.] I seriously doubt that either is the case given the concern for carbon dioxide emissions. Somehow funders found the $$ to start 13 new NPP construction projects in 2010:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Build_up_of_nuclear_construction_0401111.html
David B. Benson, why would we need this if we can deliver all we want with renewables?
Joy Hughes @34 — Solar is fine when the sun shines. What are you going to do at night or when it is cloudy?
You have to factor in new scenarios of a developing situation, france had to import electricity and shut down plants almost every year due to heat waves.
David B. Benson, “What are you going to do at night or when it is cloudy?”
Because you have a grit system which does the load balance via different kind of energy sources. Such as hydro, geothermal or wind when the sun is “Bad”. But this is no longer an argument which is valid, because you have efficient solar technology which works even under cloudy conditions. So why do you only factor in latest research but not for the other energy forms?
And now CNN reports potential mass radiation leak and warnings are issued to stay indoors.
Watching Anderson Cooper on CNN who is 100 km from the latest reactor explosion wondering which way the wind is blowing. It would be greatly appreciated if the bloggers telling us how safe nuclear energy is would reveal their credentials and whether they are paid to speak for the industry. A hopelessly naive hope, I know.
“In Western design reactors, total meltdowns are totally contained.”
I am sure that there are also absolutely foolproof plans to prevent terrorism. http://preservenet.blogspot.com/2006/01/terrorists-love-nuclear-power.html And I am sure that there are foolproof plans to transport wastes safely to the place where they are disposed of. And I am sure that we have a designated a perfectly safe place to dispose of those wastes.
Nuclear power plants are so safe that no insurance company would insure a one if it were not for the $375 million liability limit in the Price-Anderson Act.
If insurance companies are smart enough to avoid the risk, we should all be smart enough to avoid the risk.
“In the meantime, how many coal miners die each year?”
Go back and reread the simple mathematical point I made in my previous comment. I am in favor of phasing out use of coal as soon as possible, but by repeating the example of coal miners, you show that you do not grasp that simple bit of mathematics.
When the first news reports came out, we had Hillary Clinton saying this: “You know Japan is very reliant on nuclear power and they have very high engineering standards but one of their plants came under a lot of stress with the earthquake and didn’t have enough coolant”
I think the first part of Clinton’s comment is accurate. Japan is a technically sophisticated nation, with a lot of experience with nuclear energy. That they could get into a difficult safety situation with several reactors speaks volumes about the difficulty of making such plants completely fail safe. Even if they do manage to get out of this with a negligible release of radioactive material, it seems that at least two or three of those reactors are done for good. That represents a significant economic loss for a country so dependent on nuclear power.
Here is one post where someone with experience at TMI suggests that all 11 of those shut down reactors will never run again: http://www.cringely.com/tag/hillary-clinton/
Imagine the economic impact if the US lost 20% of it’s electrical generation capacity to a single natural disaster!
That said, I don’t see the point in spinning up speculative worst case scenarios based on incomplete or cryptic news reports about radiation releases, unless one’s primary agenda is fear mongering for political advantage. We will know soon enough the true extent of the event.
NHK unconfirmed video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vP8-uEZSw
David Benson says, “radioactivity always decays away, albeit depends upon the species.”
Yes, about 1/2 of the U235 in the earth when it was made 4 1/2 billion years ago has already decayed away.
Joe,
I thought shoving in the control rods would calm down a nuclear plant. That reactors were built with enough graphite rods to absorb excess neutrons.
Am I forgetting how it works? Could you ask your experts?
Thanks.
Reactor #3 at Fukamishi (sp?) exploded 10:30 EDT, presumably excess hydrogen like #1.
Prokaryotes @37 — Every rising plume of hot gas spreads out once cooled. For thunderclouds its called the anvil head.
@38 & 41 — Ok, design me such a grid using currently actually available technology; no coal, natgas or (for you) nuclear allowed. David MacKay seems to have such a planning tool set up for use to design the grid of the future in Britian:
http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/2011/03/public-debate-about-2050-pathways.html
It is possible to do this at great co$t. The cost comes way, way down once a significant proportion of the power is provided by nuclear (since I’ll not allow coal and natgas only if you twist my arm.)
Joe,
Another question: What % of the energy need to build and provide nuclear fuel (EROI) is provided by a nuclear reactor? i.e, how much more energy do you get back compared with the fossil fuel you burned in making fuel? if you count waste disposal (but who counts, much less does it?) ?
David B. Benson “Ok, design me such a grid using currently actually available technology”
The key technologies are available, proven and field-tested
Deserts span the Earth north and south of the equator. With the help of High Voltage Direct Current transmission lines, clean solar and wind energy can be transmitted over thousands of kilometers to the consumption centers of the world. Transmission losses amount to only three percent per 1,000 km and slight additional costs of about 1-2 cent per kilowatt-hour, compared to the significantly higher efficiency of the solar-thermal power plants coming from the higher and longer insolation.
Concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) plants offer a noticeable advantage when compared to photovoltaics: Different to electricity, large amounts of thermal energy can be stored easily with minimal losses, thus they can provide energy on demand – day and night. In this manner, CSP plants are capable of both reliably producing large quantities of power and, if they are part of a network with other renewable energies, compensating fluctuations of wind and photovoltaic energy. Hence they also contribute towards stabilizing the electricity grid. As a result, CSP plants allow greater use of fluctuating renewable energy sources within the electricity mix.
DESERTEC is a holistic concept
DESERTEC is a comprehensive concept, combining energy security and climate protection with fresh water generation, socio-economic development, security policy and international cooperation. This is due to the fact that in most cases the best locations for producing clean power from deserts lie in less developed regions of the world.
With the help of the DESERTEC Concept, these regions can deploy their potential for the generation of clean energy and fresh water and thereby build a foundation for their economic and sustainable development. Many countries of the world have such a large energy potential, that they not only are able to meet their own demand, but are also capable of helping supply the consumption centers in other countries.
http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/
Hydrogen Explosion At Fukushima Number 3 Reactor (March 14)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx6IS0vrZOk&feature=youtu.be
Merkel says that Germany will not build any more nukes and will not extend the life of those that exist, ME
>[JR: ... Nuclear has priced itself out of the market to replace coal or oil.]
Does this include China? They seem to march to the beat of a different drummer…
Stock market “tanks” in Japan, where it is Monday morning:
Tokyo Electric Power untraded on “no bids”.
P&C Insurers also getting killed:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-14/japanese-stocks-plummet-most-untraded-at-open-after-strongest-earthquake.html
Prokaryotes @50 — Yes, I already know about the so-called key technologies. But you have yet to design and co$t your grid. I’ll even let you have some demand management as this very town is right now being equipped with so-called smart meters.
I’ve been though this exercise, quite thoroughly. I want you to do the whole thing so you will see for yourself just how very much more co$tly its would be without a sizable nuclear component.
PurpleOzone,
I was always told that once the reactor “scrammed”, and the control rods dropped, the reactor would be OK. But this is wrong.
Apparently the fission of uranium stops, but the nuclear intermediates continue to decay for several days generating heat. This means the reactor must be cooled with massive heat transfer for at least 3-4 days before the reactor cools enough to prevent damage to the zirconium alloy covering the fuel pellets. If the cooling capability is interrupted, and the cladding is not covered by the water in the reactor, then the fuel cladding can heat up enough to fail, likely by splitting, and eventually even melting. This can happen in less than ninety minutes if the coolant water flow stops.
Once the fuel cladding is damaged, all bets are off. If the fuel pellets pile up at the bottom of the reactor, the temperature will climb, and the heat is sufficient to melt through the primary containment vessel. This can happen just from the decay heat, and even if the fission reaction of U235 has stopped! This is why the “real” nuclear experts claim there could still be a partial meltdown (melt the fuel cladding) or possibly a full meltdown (less likely) of the Fukushima reactor until the core is stabilized and cooled.
All of this means the plant safety depended on a continual significant cooling capability, with a large heat sink, for several days after the reactor shut down.
Unfortunately the plant lost power when the tsunami wave flooded the backup diesel generators, and the reactors were damaged, likely due to a partial meltdown. This partial meltdown means the water circulated through the rest of the power plant (heat exchangers, boiler feed pumps,a and steam turbines have been contaminated with radioactive materials, and this resulted in a buildup of hydrogen from the degradation and reaction of water in the reactor with the zirconium alloy used to clad the fuel. This hydrogen is contaminated with radioactive cesium and iodine, and in Unit 3, possibly plutonium.
The explosions at the top of the secondary containment buildings on the Unit 1 reactor several days ago, and the Unit 3 reactor today, where caused by the buildup of hydrogen.
The entire plant safety depended on the backup diesel generators located on the seashore, and the inlet seawater pumps, both damaged by the tsunami.
To me this is unbelievable… what a Mickey Mouse design, and what an obvious design flaw. Clearly other power plants could have similar problems.
Saw the video and wondering why the explosion at #3 was directed mostly upwards, maybe some internal structure failed on top & directed the flaming blast up. didn’t look similar to the #1 blast, which was directed more evenly, with white steam extruding the building first.
David B. Benson, there are today nations which are soon 100% renewable energy. And because you thought it through is no argument against it. There is really no reason to have nuclear plants and certain risks, even terror threats and the waste issue. You could do the same with clean tech and at the same time with almost no risk involved comparable to the nuclear option.
Mr. Benson sees sustainability and I’m sure that satisfies him, but he is a gambler, a balancer of risk, someone who will not have to pay the price should things go wrong.
True, nuclear power is neat, exciting, fantastic, other worldly, ruled by the knowledgeable, the dream of lots of engineers and scientists, but why does our U.S. budget need to provide it billions of dollars in loan guarantees to jolt it back into an operable industry? A few lobbyists wielding enormous power have almost succeeded in making this massive gamble a reality again.
When there is a nuclear accident, it doesn’t get better.
Be sure to see Chernobyl accounts at: http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/
Nuke radiation keeps on harming for more than 24,000 years.
And reading a bit of history of Three Mile Island
http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman03242009.html
Even today, the US government does not know how much radiation was released. The devices that measure that were all melted.
David B. Bensen, you are going off half-cocked and uninformed about the absolute need for nuclear and don’t really understand how a combination of renewables with hydro and supplemental natural gas can provide all our electricity without nuclear. Lets not fight that argument yet, lets understand what is happening with nuclear now, at least on this discussion thread.
Regarding nuclear plants, I spent a lot of time at Brave New Climate, and your experts there have made a ton of easily spotted mistakes. Before this experience, I was generally supportive of the nuclear industry position that NPs could be built and operated safely, and I thought the problems were primarily cost and nuclear waste related.
Not anymore. These plants failed in a number of ways, and say what you like, I trust the Japanese operators and regulators more than any other country on the planet, perhaps excepting Germany and Sweden. Certainly the Japanese are likely better regulated than the USA, so these failures are one big shock to me. Nukes in other countries like Russia, Korea, China etc. where the regulatory environment isn’t as high quality are worrisome. And in spite of what are likely very competent Japanese companies and regulators, these plants failed in so many ways, I think even you are nervous.
I think this is why you have gone off with emotional bursts on this site. Even you must realize these failures indicate some real problems with nuclear plant safety.
Scott @58 — I’ve balanced the risks against the costs and benefits. I would rather not have nuclear power plants (NPPs), but there is this thing called reality which stands in the way of pipe-dreams; there are no shortcuts to providing on-demand, reliable electic power.
The structure of the electric power industry in the United States makes it difficult to finance large projects (no big hydro being built in the USA, no more big coal burners, only NPPs). Other countries manage this financing somehow.
I have hopes that the small modular NPPs making their way through NRC approval will end up being much easier to finance.
David B. Benson “Ok, design me such a grid using currently actually available technology”
Jacobson and Delucci did exactly that in the November 2009 issue of Scientific American. They calculated how much renewable energy we would need in 2030 in order to furnish essentially 100% of the world’s energy needs with a combination of wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal.
They calculated in expected population size, increase in standard of living, available solar/wind/geothermal sources. They included an analysis of materials needed. They calculated how much of each we would need to build per year. They provided for both electricity and transportation energy needs.
Don’t forget that Cesium-137 is sealed inside the fuel rods. If they’re in the air, that means the fuel rods have been exposed, indicating that they broke or that a partial meltdown has occurred.
malcreado
>>[JR: ... Nuclear has priced itself out of the market to replace coal or oil.]
>Does this include China? They seem to march to the beat of a different drummer…
A very major cost driver for nuclear is cost of financing. To build a new reactor with private money can double the cost of produced electricity.
China is sitting on a huge pile of cash. They can build reactors with public money and do not have to account to anyone for the economic opportunity lost.
The thing that one should watch is how many new reactors China includes in their future ‘five year plans”. China is run by people who are demonstrated to be ‘not dummies’. As they look at the cost of nuclear vs. the cost of renewables I expect they will also back away from building reactors. Look for China to start experimenting with storage in the near future as they work their way to a better energy solution.
#59 Bob Wallace
“They calculated how much renewable energy we would need in 2030 in order to furnish essentially 100% of the world’s energy needs with a combination of wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal.”
Did they also calculate how many “Energizer” batteries it would take to run the equipment sold by Caterpillar and Deere, which amounted to a combined total of $69 billion in the most recent quarter.
This equipment is needed to produce food and runs on diesel for the time being.
David Bensen
Costs for CSP plants should come down drastically with economy of scale, so I think it’s hard to make comparisons with today’s numbers.
@harvey
“The problem is that when a meltdown occurs, the reactor is ruined. This is a financial problem, not a safety problem. So far, the hysteria is laughable.”
You seem to be ignoring that large areas around the reactor are unusable for a long time. You might want to check out some of the effects of Chernobyl, at this link. I assure you, it is not laughable, unless you think genetic mutations and suffering are funny.
http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl
What it really boils down to is that there will always be human error, as we have seen in the oil industry with tanker spills, out of control wells etc.
The World Council for Renewable Energy)WCRE) has issued a statement:
WCRE Press Release, March 13th, 2011
“World Council for Renewable Energy (WCRE)
insists on a global ban on new nuclear power,
phase-out of current plants – and a decisive,
immediate move to a 100% renewable world
The Chairpersons of the WCRE express their
shock and sorrow, and their full sympathy and
solidarity with the people of Japan.
The awesome power of plate tectonics
triggered on 11 March 2011 a series of massive
earthquakes and subsequent destructive flood
waves off the Sendai, Japan, coast. In the
Miyagi prefecture port town of Minamisanriku
alone 10,000 are missing – one glimpse of a
tragedy of global proportions.
This momentous event now raises the
additional specter of a hitherto unthinkable
and manmade catastrophe: a series of nuclear
meltdowns – due to the entirely unnecessary
reliance on nuclear power. The lies that have
been told to the Japanese public since the
construction of these plants have now been
fully unmasked. And this mask has now fallen
world-wide.
The WCRE insists on the global and
coordinated move to finally outlaw all nuclear
power. After Harrisburg, Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl and Fukushima it is time to wake up
and terminate reliance on and trade in this
incredibly dangerous technology. No matter
how small the risk of a similar event may be in
any country – it can never be excluded. And
when it does take place, as it inexorably will
follow the mathematical laws of chance, it is
brings with it immeasurable and uninsurable
damage risks, virtually guaranteeing
generations of fatalities and tragedy among
the yet unborn.
Those who falsely argue that nuclear power
brings with it a calculable and acceptable risk
because there is no alternative are guilty of
cynical cruelty against humanity. They also
accept the risk of a global economic collapse.
Studies have shown that this is virtually certain
to result from a nuclear meltdown of any
atomic plant in Japan – this coming Monday
Tokyo Electric Power Plant is reported to begin
controlled black-outs in Tokyo, one of the
three primary global financial hubs, besides
New York and London.
It is “five past twelve” when it comes to turning
away from toxic, deadly non-renewable energy
resources, one of the very banes of humanity.
It is high time for the immediate and
unwavering turn to a fully renewable world:
there is no country that cannot be provided
with renewable energy alone. The path to a
global nuclear and fossil-fuel free world is
practical, affordable and safe, builds
prosperity – and, above all, strengthens
resilience in the face of natural disasters”.
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
US carrier near Japan goes through radiation plume -
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14plume.html?_r=1&src=tptw
Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, said that the United States should not overreact to the Japanese nuclear crisis by clamping down on the domestic industry indefinitely.
…
“My thought about it is, we ought not to make American and domestic policy based upon an event that happened in Japan,” Mr. McConnell said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/science/earth/14politics.html?hp
By the same reasoning, if there were a model of car whose brakes kept failing when it was driven in Japan, McConnell would go right ahead and buy one to drive in the United States. Obviously, he would not let his decision about what to do in American be influenced by events that happened in Japan.
I think McConnell must be competing with Michelle Bachman to see which Republican legislator can make the stupidest statement.
Bob Lang
“Did they also calculate how many “Energizer” batteries it would take to run the equipment sold by Caterpillar and Deere, which amounted to a combined total of $69 billion in the most recent quarter.
This equipment is needed to produce food and runs on diesel for the time being.”
Jacobson and Delucci calculated the amount of energy we would need to replace fossil fuels on our grid and in our vehicles.
That we now run farm equipment on diesel does not mean that we much continue to do so. Farming loves torque. Electric motors deliver torque. I
If we don’t develop ‘all day’ batteries for farm equipment we certainly can develop swappable battery packs. Stopping every couple of hours for a five minute battery swap would not be a big issue. Drivers need a pee break even with liquid fuels.
If you look around on the web you will find that we already run very large mining equipment with electricity. This is existing technology.
Since Nuclear power is uninsurable in total without significant public underwriting, may I present a simple solution. Those that want Nuclear Power underwrite the insurance. Those that want Renewable Power learn to live within the limitations of that source.
There are those that are morally opposed to abortion and they have de-funded anything that provides that service. Surely the same can be done for nuclear power.
The ‘last-ditch’ experiment at reactors 1&3 at Fukushima with ad hoc core-cooling by injecting seawater appears (to a layman) to have a cumulative counter productive downside.
Inside a kettle limescale is deposited even by fresh water, which weighs only marginally over 1,000kgs /m3. Seawater weighs around 1,025.6 kgs /m3, due to the salts and other chemicals it contains. When seawater is boiled, these materials are left behind, mostly as deposits on interior surfaces nearest to where the water converts to steam. (Experiments with seawater boilers for early steamships were shortlived for this reason).
Given that hundreds if not thousands of cubic metres of seawater have been injected into reactors 1 & 3, it follows that they may now contain many tonnes of accretion within the pressure vessels (thereby reducing their effective volume and thus raising pressure and temperature), and potentially also within feedwater pipes (thereby cutting rates of cooling water inflow and so again raising the core temperature).
Unless those deposits are somehow being ejected from the pressure vessel – (by some process that was not designed into the plant as seawater is nowhere proposed as the working coolant), this process will inexorably assist the rise of temperature towards the point of the vessels’ failure.
So are the engineers actually gambling that the fuel will have cooled before the vessels are so clogged that insufficient coolant can be supplied ? Or am I missing some ameliorating factor ?
Joe – as a skeptical physicist, what would your opinion be on this ?
Regards,
Lewis
61 — “The thing that one should watch is how many new reactors China includes in their future ‘five year plans”.”
They’ve already announced ~$430 billion for nuclear over the next 20 years, and their next 5 year plan includes lots of environmental legislation including a carbon tax on heavy polluters.
“If you look around on the web you will find that we already run very large mining equipment with electricity. This is existing technology.”
I worked at a large open-pit molybdenum mine in the 1970′s that was completely run by electric power. Of course, the power was generated from natural gas, so it wasn’t really sustainable, but it certainly proves the concept.
There was a 4180V electric line running around the pit. We ran 7 shovels off that. I can’t remember how the giant trucks that carried the ore to the nearby mill were powered, but they were definitely electric because I had to help troubleshoot and fix the SCR’s that controlled them.
The technology has definitely improved since then!
J Bowers – one swallow doth not the spring make….
Let’s see where China goes over the next few years with their plans. They’ve recently significantly turned up the rate of solar and wind installation.
China is starting to experience rising labor costs and inflation. Perhaps they will need to revisit how free they are with their cash as time goes along.
Perhaps their population might “grow a pair” and object to reactors in their midst. It’s not likely that the government will be able to keep Japan’s problem from its people.
Workers at a flooded northern Queensland sugar mill can continue their clean-up after capturing a 3 meter crocodile lurking inside the mill.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201103/s3162993.htm
There’s no need for them to hurry though, as much of the state’s $2.5 billion sugar cane crop lies horizontal, rotting in the fields post cyclone Yasi.
http://m.smh.com.au/environment/weather/sugar-cane-growers-brace-themselves-for-another-hit-20110202-1advw.html
Indeed, 72 of the state’s 73 shires are currently declared disaster zones, in what Premier Anna Bligh has labelled a “summer of sorrows”.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201103/s3163169.htm
The whole of Australia is now required to foot the bill for repairs, as it comes to light that Queensland’s state government had not insured the infrastructure that is now gone. It appears that Queensland’s roads are uninsurable, and have been for quite some time. Too risky.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/8849711/qld-rejected-disaster-insurance-xenophon/
Although most Australians don’t mind chipping in to help, many are wondering how long it will take to wash it all away again. Many towns are having to deal with multiple separate flooding events. The mayor of flood and cyclone ravaged Ingham states,
“Our road network, we were just getting on top of it, getting it back from the 2009 floods, and now we’re back worse than what we were in 2009.”
“This is the worst wet season we’ve ever had that I can remember, and people in their eighties can remember”.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201103/s3163137.htm
Things are relatively quiet in the south for now. Flash flooding through the streets of Melbourne on Sunday only generated a handful of calls to emergency services.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/13/3162767.htm
But vetinarians are becoming concerned about a “mystery horse virus” that is sickening horses throughout the flood affected areas of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201103/s3163126.htm
Mosquito blooms are being held to blame, the same mosquitos causing a surge in the number of human cases of Murray valley encephalitis, Ross river virus, Barmah forest virus and dengue fever in flood affected zones throughout the country.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/qld-floods/a/-/article/8931424/surge-in-mosquito-borne-illnesses-in-vic/
If we head west across the country, we see lake Eyre, filling from the north and from the south, which for the third year in a row makes this a highly unusal event.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/10/3159986.htm
This is great news for the locals of course. Flora and fauna are booming in an almost pristine environment. It’s too bad for them though that cane toads are now riding the floodwaters toward the lake, in what will eventually become an ecological disaster.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/18/3115271.htm
These cane toads are evil incarnate. Massive swathes of wetland ecosystems throughout Australia’s top end have already been devastated in their relentless march across the continent. They are currently infiltrating the northern regions of Western Australia, and so are the deadly monsoon troughs. Residents of the remote town of Warmun are wet and hungry, awaiting helicopter rescue after their town was washed away yesterday.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/13/3162814.htm
There’s no flooding in Australia’s south west of course. Not only has Perth just had it’s driest year on record, it’s also just had it’s most devastating bushfire event ever.
http://www.news.com.au/national/more-than-100-flee-perth-bushfire/story-e6frfkxi-1226000957393
Although I’m not sure how long that record will stand. New fires are now burning on the outskirts of the city.
The Fire and Emergency Services Authority (FESA) said in a statement the Carabooda fire was out of control and unpredictable and moving northwest at 600 metres per hour, with embers likely to be blown onto homes.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8171686/bushfires-on-perths-outskirts
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/13/3162823.htm
I don’t think I want to read the news tommorrow.
Bob Wallace #67 – ‘If you look around on the web you will find that we already run very large mining equipment with electricity.’ Bob, can you point me to large mining equipment run on batteries, as opposed to mains electricity?
I did some work on the idea of running farm equipment on batteries following an article by George Monbiot in the Guardian, basing it on the weight and power capacity of a battery powered car, and worked out that the combine harvester would either go for ten minutes or sink.
For all those interested in the harm caused by Chernobyl, read the UN multi-agency report from September 2005. This article in the WP references it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/05/AR2005090501144.html
Roddy -
Fairchild International
Battery powered scoop/haulers.
http://www.fairchildint.com/prod_scoops35cwh230ac.html
R.A.Warren Equipment Ltd.
“The company successfully introduced its Trojan battery powered mining and tunneling locomotive line, available in sizes from 2.5 tonnes to 6 tonnes. At the present time, there are approximately 200 units in operation. ”
http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/srch/nvgt.do?sbPrtl=&prtl=1&estblmntNo=334232030000&profile=cmpltPrfl&profileId=1482&app=sold&lang=eng
RE: farming and flying and the energy system of the future.
There may be applications which are not well suited for electricity. It’s hard to imagine that battery development will reach the point in the next ten years at which batteries could power a large airplane across oceans. Batteries may never reach that capability.
As well, there may never be a time at which we will see battery powered combines roaming the vast wheat fields of the Midwest.
We may need a liquid fuel for some limited number of jobs. But that does not have to be fossil fuel. We are already flying jets using biofuel rather than petroleum-based fuels. But those jobs are likely to be a small portion of our overall transportation/mobile needs.
The point is, we have existing technology to allow us to abandon both fossil and nuclear inputs. We have no need to either continue ruining our entire planet via out of control climate change nor to endanger large portions of our planet via a nuclear accident.
Thanks, I’ll take a look.
continuing radiation leaks may make area surrounding plants uninhabitable and subject downwind Japanese cities to harmful exposure
– http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/japan-fukushima-nuclear-reactor.html?_r=1
The RMB-1000 reactor complex at Chernobyl did have a containment building, it was simply not as robust as it should have been. The reactors were very similar to the reactor at Hanford and they even made containment improvements. That said, they weren’t up to the containment standards of modern reactors, by and large.
We don’t know much about the actual toll of Three Mile Island because of the actions of the governor of Pennsylvania at the time.
But anyway, the claim that “Chernobyl didn’t have a containment building” is false. The reactor complex did have a containment building, and they’d even modified the design of the reactor they imitated at Hanford in the US to provide more containment.
This series by someone connected to Daily Kos from 2009 is pretty good, I think:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/25/713037/-Three-Mile-Island,-Ten-Thousand-Days-Later-
Also this is a good summary:
http://www.elsidsgreenspace.com/Dead_city_-_junk_science.html
I would include http://www.ratical.com/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO14.html
Harvey Wasserman may seem biased or cherrypicking but (a) that’s what happens when investigations are shut down or turned into whitewashes – you can’t know for sure and you don’t fit the narrative and (b) no moreso than the industry-friendly sources that are cited by nuclear advocates.
Also. whatever you think of Matt Wald’s work on renewables, the coverage of the fukushima reactors with Hiroko Tabuchi is pretty darn good.
As I seem to have become a non-person on this site I guess it is only fair to let you know that your site will be advised to become the same for my students. You really should not moderate out of existence academics, it is not a wise thing to do. Goodbye!
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20110311112544990&title=OK%2C%20let%20us%20go%20through%20what%20he%20wrote&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=908175#c908199
Also this followup:
Mike Roddy, thank you for that crystal clear analysis at #35. I have reposted it since you haven’t your own blog!
Beesaman -
you aren’t a non-person on this site – everyone has posts moderated (regardless of how long they’ve been posting here and of their views) and posts do occasionally get lost due to gremlins.
So please feel free to continue contributing.
Regards,
Lewis
Swiss suspend nuclear plant process
Energy Minister Doris Leuthard has decided to suspend all current requests to build new replacement nuclear power stations in Switzerland.
Announcing the move on Monday, the minister said that she had asked for safety at all existing plants to be reexamined following two post-quake and tsunami explosions at a site in Japan.
“Safety and the wellbeing of the population has utmost priority,” said the minister
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss_news/Swiss_suspend_nuclear_plant_process.html?cid=29718696
Vic 78, While Premier Anna Bligh may call this Australia’s Summer of Sorrows, she continues to refer to the multiple disasters as “natural” when they are anything but!
http://www.desdemonadespair.net/2011/03/video-rain-to-continue-in-north.html
Best of luck to you Vic, and to us all…
Since we are all so impressed with what the French think, it is a good idea to have a look at the Japanese Embassy site, which contains a ‘latest information’ page on the nuclear accident situation.
http://www.ambafrance-jp.org/
From that page, it also directs you to Radiation Measuring site that gives data across the country. Miyagi and Fukushima are currently reported as “Under Survey”. But points further south are normal: no signs of “widening environmental contamination” here. And for those conspiracy theorists out there: yes, it is possible that they are not reporting the correct numbers, but quite why they would do that, I am not sure.
http://www.bousai.ne.jp/eng/
Weather forecast in japan, next 2 days rain and slight snow.
The explosion at no 3 was very powerful. An orange fireball is briefly visible. The plume looks to be of pulverized concrete dust and a darker material. Large assemblies can be seen dropping back out of the cloud from hundreds of feet in the air. This was not just the weather cover on the refueling deck that got lifted.
I admire everyone’s restraint around the globe when they talk about this. Everyone rushes to point out that the authorities tell us the “reactor is intact” “containment is in place” “this is not Chernobyl”.
Meanwhile, the radioactive debris cloud is drifting downwind.
It’s pretty clear that the equipment at the plant which maintains the supply of cooling water was heavily damaged by the tsunami. Not just the power for the pumps, but all the rest of the systems needed. Pools tanks exchangers turbines seawater feeds. With all this equipment wrecked, even with pumps running, they don’t have full capacity to move the heat away. Something like that anyway–we will see the full report eventually. But they have been fundamentally unable to move enough heat out of the reactors, and they have failed to keep the cores covered. That there are multiple core failures means that there is a MASSIVE design flaw in how these facilities were built. One reactor could be considered a fluke, two reactors failing in the same mode is design failure. This large of a design flaw coupled with the size of this event will have a huge impact on the how the world looks at nuclear power in years to come, thats given.
But the question that needs to be asked right now, how would one rule out a 0.5 kiloton nuclear explosion at no. 3?
There are a lot of radiation numbers being thrown around at the minute and comparisons with other disasters. This primer helps to give some perspective:
http://www.benlovejoy.com/journeys/chernobyl/radiation/index.html
I’m hopeful from what I’ve read that the Fukashima plants will hopefully be contained without too much radioactive emissions outside of the immediate area. Not at all certain, but hopeful. The local citizens may need to be rehomed but with any luck we may escape the very worst scenario where Tokyo and other cities are impacted.
That to me is not going to be the key death knell to the renewable industry. The negative PR of such a visible disaster will be a big influence, but I think the overwhelming result of this incident will be an increased awareness of the insurance, decommissioning and disaster-preparedness for a nuclear plant, which will dramatically shift the economic assessment of how much a plant will cost. Governments will be more reluctant to subsidise and insure plants, and that will drive the cost per kWh up dramatically, making nuclear economically unnattractive compared to a lot of the alternative energy market.
whoops, I meant the death knell to the nuclear industry, not the renewable industry, which will probably benefit from this regrettable incident.
Alternative ways of powering farm equipment could work, just think outside the box.
How about nat. gas or ammonia?. What about electric by beaming power to the combine from a central tower or some type of grid system?
Don’t underestimate human cleverness.
97# ha ha, nice try :)
Lewis C (#74)
To re-enforce your comment about mineral scale, the NRC diagram of a boiling water reactor includes a huge de-mineralizer in the inner loop of the water that passes through the reactor. Mineral build up is a chronic problem in normal operation.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/bwrs.html
Recent press coverage diagrams of reactors leave out the demineralizer.
I live about 40 miles from three boiling water reactors, and would like to see them retired well within their safety life. The oldest is 35 years old. They have changed ownership several times and I worry about the business tendency to push depreciated assets closer to safety limits.
Like other nuclear plants of their design, there is no long term solution for spent fuel disposal or reuse, so even an orderly shutdown of the reactor would not be the end of it.
There was an earlier post on a recent thread (Prokaryotes?) that asserted that at least one of the Fukushima reactors was due to be retired. Is there a direct source for that?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/03/13/japans-nuclear-crisis-lessons-for-the-us/realism-about-costs-and-benefits
Here’s an excerpt from “Realism about Costs and Benefits” in the current NYTimes’s “Room for Debate” about lessons from Japan’s nuclear crisis:
Michael Golay, professor of nuclear science and engineering, MIT:
“It has long been recognized that earthquakes stronger than what nuclear reactors could be expected to survive safely are possible, although unlikely (the recent Japanese earthquake is the fifth strongest ever recorded globally). Earthquakes are of particular concern because their motions are imposed upon all components of a facility simultaneously, thereby exacerbating the likelihood of multiple safety system failures (Japanese plants consist of several reactor units.)
“It has also been recognized that comprehensive protection against all seismically-associated nuclear risks would be very expensive, if even possible. Utilizing cost-benefit judgments, every nation with nuclear power has set the strongest earthquake that its nuclear plants must survive intact considerably below the level of the Japanese earthquake.
“In considering the nuclear hazards of strong earthquakes, it’s useful to note the results of a study, which I led from 2001 to 2004, for Tokyo Electric Power Company. The study addressed whether to devote resources to provide robust public protection from nuclear risks that could arise in the event of strong earthquakes or to focus such efforts and researches on the direct effects of the earthquake.
“We concluded that any earthquake strong enough to damage the reactor, and thus expose the public to harmful radiation, would be much more dangerous to the public in its direct effects, and that it would be more beneficial to devote efforts and resources to general preparedness.
“Such preparations are now aiding those in Japan who have been affected directly by the quake and tsunami. Those preparations are also helping to prevent radiation-related public health effects in the current crisis. This is mainly because much of the surrounding population near the power plants has been evacuated, and because the Japanese authorities will likely have the time and resources to treat persons who might become contaminated and to prevent contamination.
“With events still unfolding in Japan, it is impossible to be confident about the degree of the damage to the different nuclear units, nor can one know what future radioactive releases there might be.
“But thus far, the physical effects on the public from the damage to the nuclear plants appear limited. However, this is one of the most serious episodes in the history of nuclear power, with several units ruined. Also, the concerns aroused may well delay expanded use of nuclear power worldwide. If so, the greatest nuclear-related harm of the Japanese earthquake may be the lost opportunities for nuclear power in reducing climate change.”
“There was an earlier post on a recent thread (Prokaryotes?) that asserted that at least one of the Fukushima reactors was due to be retired. Is there a direct source for that?”
It should have been retired this week, but a 10 year extension was just about to be issued or was issued.
CBS reported about the retirement at 1:23
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7359462n&tag=related;photovideo
A comment:
The containment vessels in this family of reactors have a very high failure rate under stress, on the order of 90%. They just granted these plants 40-year extensions last month(Fukushima). http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-core
In February 2011, Japanese regulators granted an extension of ten years for the continued operation of the reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Operating_history which cites this article http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/03/12/general-as-japan-quake-power-plant_8352691.html
Chad @ #1 -
You forgot to mention the number of Americans killed by solar power accidents – 0
David B. Benson -
You remind me of the BOP salesman meeting with the TransOcean and BP salesmen.
By ERIC TALMADGE and MARI YAMAGUCHI, Associated Press Eric Talmadge And Mari Yamaguchi, Associated Press – 9 mins ago
SOMA, Japan – Water levels dropped precipitously Monday inside a stricken Japanese nuclear reactor, twice leaving the uranium fuel rods completely exposed and raising the threat of a meltdown, hours after a hydrogen explosion tore through the building housing a different reactor.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110314/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis
A tide of bodies washed up along Japan’s coastline, crematoriums were overwhelmed and rescue workers ran out of body bags as the nation faced the grim reality of a mounting humanitarian, economic and nuclear crisis Monday after a calamitous tsunami.
Millions of people were facing a fourth night without water, food or heating in near-freezing temperatures in the northeast devastated by an earthquake and the wave it spawned.
Meanwhile, a third reactor at a nuclear power plant lost its cooling capacity and the fuel rods at another were at least briefly fully exposed, raising fears of a meltdown. The stock market plunged over the likelihood of huge losses by Japanese industries including big names such as Toyota and Honda.
http://www.kaj18.com/news/japan-faces-rising-death-toll-crisis-sets-in/
There is no movie yet grim enough to cover this triple whammy scenario.
In light of the disaster in Japan, we face two options:
A) we can shake our fists at Nature and continue to build nuclear plants, perhaps with better safeguards, or
B) we can use our minds to tap into the deluge of energy that is pouring on our heads from that vast nuclear reactor that is 93 million miles away.
A truly wise species would possess the humility to choose option B. Then again, pretensions aside, our species hasn’t been particularly wise so far, has it?
@ Beesaman:
Everyone here gets moderated at some point, it happens to me all of the time. With site being busier than usual (or so it seems to me from over here) it becomes even more likely for a post to be delayed or lost.
————————————————————————
@ Everyone asking about running farm equipment on electricity.
Don’t forget about synfuels and bio-fuels too.
The US Navy is already using algae to make bio-fuel that is mixed 50/50 with regular deisel and there are many other types available that don’t impact on the food supply.
Here is a recent announcement of a gasoline replacement from cellulose materials.
BESC scores a first with isobutanol directly from cellulose
So even if electricity couldn’t run farm equipment directly, which it seems it can, there are still non-fossil fuel ways to run machinery as well. The isobutanol (octane rating of 100) production I linked to above can be blended at any ratio with regular gasoline without modifying the engine and it may even be able to replace gasoline entirely without even having to modifications.
Those interested in developments at the nuclear plants, as analyzed by nuclear engineers with experience at similar facilities, should check out “All Things Nuclear” at UCS (http://tinyurl.com/4p7sfvu).
One of the key issues here at present is that the disabled reactors have lost their heat exchange systems, preventing the transfer of heat without exchange of radioactive fluids. Consequently, seawater is being forced into the reactor vessel to cool the core, but as this water boils the only way to relieve the pressure is to vent the vessel, which results in release of radioactivity beyond the containment. From what I’ve read, it is not presently clear if the seawater injection is actually covering the entire core in water, as the high internal pressure interferes with the seawater injection process.
Imagery of no 3
http://www.digitalglobe.com/downloads/featured_images/japan_earthquaketsu_fukushima_daiichi_march14_2011_dg.jpg
Nuclear test ban agency has valuable radiation monitoring data from Japan nuclear accident — but can’t share them
An international agency set up to monitor for nuclear tests is collecting extensive data on the levels of radionuclides in the air in and around Japan and the Asia-Pacific and transmitting this daily to its member states. The data would be of enormous public interest as it would provide a far fuller picture of the extent and spread of any current or future radioactive release from the major Japanese nuclear accident now under way. But none of these data are being released to the public, Nature has learned.
The worldwide network of radionuclide particulate monitoring stations is operated by the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), a Vienna-based body setup to build a verification regime for a global ban on the testing of nuclear weapons, so that this is operational when enough of the organization’s member states have ratified the treaty for it to enter force. The organization monitors radionuclide, seismic, hydroacoustic, and infrasound characteristics at stations across the globe to check for the tell-tale signals of a nuclear bomb test.
The CTBTO has 60 radionuclide particulate monitoring stations currently in operation, and two of these are in Japan, near Tokyo, while there are dozens of others, often on islands, throughout the Asia-Pacific region (see map). These stations monitor the air continuously, and so will have extensive data on any radionuclides detected during the ongoing nuclear disaster that followed the 9.0-magnitude earthquake, and destructive tsunami, that hit Japan on 11 March.
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/03/exclusive_governments_withhold.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nature%2FySfs+%28The+Great+Beyond%29&utm_content=Twitter
Mike Roddy:
“Nuclear is doomed to fail, enabling people like the Kochs to pump gas, oil, and coal into our air for many more decades if we let them.”
That makes a lot of sense to me.
David B. Benson “@15 — Find an authoritive report of the first clause of your second sentence. ”
Emergency cooling effort failing at Japanese reactor, deepening crisis
“They’re basically in a full-scale panic” among Japanese power industry managers, said a senior nuclear industry executive late Monday night. The executive is not involved in managing the response to the reactors’ difficulties but has many contacts in Japan. “They’re in total disarray, they don’t know what to do.” http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Emergency-cooling-effort-failing-at-Japanese-reactor-deepening-crisis/articleshow/7705671.cms
Please respect FT.com’s ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article – http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cdc71436-4e59-11e0-98eb-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1GbcRbhdA
The International Atomic Energy Agency said Japan had requested “expert missions” to help tackle the escalating nuclear crisis. In Washington, the White House said two officials from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission were already in Tokyo giving assistance. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cdc71436-4e59-11e0-98eb-00144feab49a.html#axzz1GbcOLl61
Bob Wallace:
“If you look around on the web you will find that we already run very large mining equipment with electricity. This is existing technology.”
some diesel locomotives, turn the wheels using electric motors, run from batteries, charged by diesel generators.
the locomotives use electric motors, I believe, because only an electric motor can deliver the torque needed.
While true, no one cares because the reactors are so old. Except to look for reactors that are similarly designed being built, which doesn’t seem to be happening. That standard would have had the Soviets decommission the RMB-1000s, since the US and the world eventually figured out Hanford-style reactors were inherently extra-dangerous.
But anyway, the point is with old reactors you’ll get nowhere saying they have design flaws because the designs are from the 1970s or early 80s. Or not nowhere – you might be able to get a push going worldwide for refurbishing old nukes and building better containments and maybe development assistance to do so.
Not that *I’d* mind pricing nukes out of the market, but if we can’t come up with a fix that would have prevented this, and if there’s not proven significant deaths or health effects from this disaster, probably this will have less effect (the design part) than you’d think.
By comparison, with a modern industry-standard complex, non-nuke components like the Chernobyl engineers were testing – as they well should have been – wouldn’t be dependent on stopping and starting the reactor, and even if they were, they wouldn’t endanger the reactor.
Even if this was another Chernobyl in effects it wouldn’t have the same political fallout because normal operation (testing) didn’t cause it, which is not true at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. It would more militate where you built reactors, not whether.
The modern reactors are safer than the TMI one or the ones at Chernobyl or the Fukushima, although they’re not like the ones in the brochures – IVth gen reactors are vaporware.
http://www.truth-out.org/tokyo-electric-build-us-nuclear-plants-the-no-bs-info-japans-disastrous-nuclear-operators68457
Unlike Barry Brooks and David Benson,Palast doesn’t claim to be an expert on nukular safety because he slept at a Holiday Inn.
Hey Davy,when you cast that ethnic slur on the French awhile back (“unlike the excitable French” rolls eyes in amused disgust)were you scarfin’ down a plateful of “Freedom Fries” while typing it in? Maybe you could share with us the copy of the republican talking points you were given before coming here. I find it a tad too coincidental how all the nuke industry apologists flooded the various sites posting critical articles.
23 US reactors share design with failed Japan nukes
Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/reactors-114501-mark-failed.html#ixzz1Gc67AVc6
Japan crisis: meltdown alert raises spectre of nuclear nightmare
Japan’s nuclear crisis deepened as engineers fought to prevent a meltdown in what is now the second worst nuclear accident in history.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8382139/Japan-crisis-meltdown-alert-raises-spectre-of-nuclear-nightmare.html
Fukushima, 8200 micro sievert outside the plant reported, the equivalent to the exposure someone gets within a year. Now northerly winds reported, CNN live http://edition.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream3&hpt=T1
Latest report from http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/default.aspx.
At:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Possible_damage_at_Fukushima_Daiichi_2_1503111.html
Last two pars:
Kan has requested that evacuation from a 20 kilometer radius is completed and those between 20-30 kilometers should stay indoors. He said his advice related to the overall picture of safety developments at Fukushima Daiichi, rather than those at any individual reactor unit.
Shikata added that radiation levels near the reactors had reached levels that would affect human health. It is thought that the fire had been the major source of radiation.
Note: WNN is nuclear industry aligned, but uses reviewed and authoritative sources and seems to try to present information in a neutral manner. I only discovered them several days ago.
-Chernobyl-Fukushima-Three Mile Island !?
only the Master can solve the Problem – read “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”
http://german.about.com/library/blgzauberl.htm
Meltdowns will have now more often-
do not worry Humans will survive – but reduced and > watch “the hills have eyes 2″