Via the GWPF – After Tsunami Disaster, Expect Nuclear Delays & Global Run On Cheap Fossil Fuels
Forget wind. Forget solar. Forget green energy. Japan’s nuclear disaster will only intensify the global race for cheap fossil fuels while most future energy R&D will go into nuclear safety. –Benny Peiser, 14 March 2011
Any potential switch away from nuclear power is likely to favour gas-fired generation, the most practical low carbon-emission alternative. –David Musiker, – Reuters, 14 March 2011
Nuclear power should have a part to play in cutting carbon emissions. But safety fears could kill its revival – at least in the west. Although support for new nuclear construction has been creeping up in the US and Europe, it remains brittle. Even one serious accident could shatter it. –Financial Times, 14 March 2011
Germany’s federal government intends to check the operating time of each of the 17 German nuclear power plants. The question of coal energy is newly emerging. –Die Welt, 14 March 2011
Cost remains the biggest obstacle for any revival of nuclear energy. Momentum for a nuclear comeback also has been slowed because other energy sources remain less expensive. Natural gas is cheap, especially with the expansion of supplies from shale rock, and there’s been no legislative action to tax carbon emissions. — Jia Lynn Yang, The Washington Post, 13 March 2011
Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that delays in offshore oil and gas drilling permits are “ridiculous” at a time when the economy is still rebuilding, according to attendees at the IHS CERAWeek conference. –Darren Goode, Politico, 11 March 2011
Other headlines:
Japan’s crisis may have already derailed ‘nuclear renaissance’
The world has seen a surge of nuclear reactor projects recently, and President Obama has made a push for nuclear power. But the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 (Daiichi) nuclear plant may abruptly halt those efforts.
The nuclear crisis in Japan, even if authorities are able to bring damaged reactors under control, has cast doubts on the future of nuclear power as a clean-energy solution in the United States and around the globe, – Los Angeles Times, 14 March 2011
Japan Earthquake Holds Lessons and Warnings – Science Insider, 11 March 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmm….
this is what happens when the media has no clue on what’s going on. For an excellent overview check
https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/
One of the worst earthquakes in history, and of 55 nuclear plants only 11 damaged. And it’s still too early to understand the extent of the damage. I’d say that’s pretty damn amazing, and something to build upon for the future.
Should have used CANDU!!!!!!!!
@Joe Kirklin Di S: Media and clue should never be used in the same sentence without an odd number of negating clauses. Yours had 1 so it’s ok.
Amazing what a literary arts degree will get you when technical stuff is needed
telegraph now reporting the fuel rods are exposed in no.3.
This site has lots of, IMO, correct technical info:
http://bravenewclimate.com/
Can there be a pecking order among headless chickens?
So how do the mainstream media (MSM) establish any sort of reliability standard when it comes to reporting on scientific or technological issues, anyway? It’s become unavoidably obvious that they don’t get above the “ignoramus” level when discussing nuclear power systems.
Would anybody care to assemble a “Media Idiot Glossary” listing all the ways in which these bloody fools expose their stupidity in science reporting?
I propose that we start with the expression “partial meltdown.”
The doubts that Fukushima cast are the result of fear, fuelled by grandstanding opponents of nuclear power. What is needed is perspective. To begin with, BraveNewClimate carries a simple explanation of the Fukushima situation here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
And surprisingly, there is bipartisan support for rational perspective. Here are posts from the British left-wing blog Spikedonline, and the right-wing journalist James Delingpole. They are on the opposite sides of the political spectrum, but in this they take remarkably similar lines:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10292/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100079664/did-climate-change-cause-the-japanese-earthquake/
Here’s the 2005 UN perspective of the consequences of the Chernoble meltdown:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article563521.ece
At that point, they found that 56 people had died as a result of the disaster, and estimated that over time, perhaps 4000 premature deaths in total might be attributable to it. And even that estimate was carefully couched:
‘Total eventual deaths due to radiation could reach 4,000, including those of evacuees, a statistical prediction based on estimated doses they received. But, “as about a quarter of people die from spontaneous cancer not caused by Chernobyl radiation, the radiation-induced increase of only about 3 per cent will be difficult to observe”.’
Perhaps. And this from the UN, which has a tendency to hype risk consequences.
In fact, there are many deaths that result from non-nuclear energy sources – oil rig explosions, hydro dam accidents, gas and oil pipelines, even windmills, the darlings of the urban greenies.
Fukushima is not even in the same league as Chernoble. The reactors are better-designed and well contained. The overheating problem is so far under control, and expert assessment is that the control measures will succeed.
No clue, indeed… Here is a good description of what is going on:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
And for REAL news, WNN is nuclear news without the hysteria:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html
Our news media are generally perverse. They take troubles caused by a tsunami and treat them as a reason for being suspicious about nuclear power in general. The rational response would be to focus on the special safety needs of nuclear facilities built in areas that are prone to flooding by tsunamis. Obviously, a nuclear plant in Nebraska is safe from tsunamis.
Why do we not hear about the safety record of the French? Doesn’t the French nuclear program provide some powerful evidence for the safety of nuclear power?
14 passengers died in a bus accident in New Jersey this week. This is more deaths in a single incident than those who have died in the history of the US nuclear power industry.
Should we immediately stop driving buses as a result. No. However, the nuclear power industry is tarnished due to the invisibility of radiation, and the connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear power generation.
No matter what happens in Japan, this could be a serious blow to the entire global nuclear power industry.
@ur momisugly Tucci78 says:
March 14, 2011 at 6:16 am
Can there be a pecking order among headless chickens?
So how do the mainstream media (MSM) establish any sort of reliability standard when it comes to reporting on scientific or technological issues, anyway? It’s become unavoidably obvious that they don’t get above the “ignoramus” level when discussing nuclear power systems.
Would anybody care to assemble a “Media Idiot Glossary” listing all the ways in which these bloody fools expose their stupidity in science reporting?
I propose that we start with the expression “partial meltdown.”
I was watching Anderson “Catastrophe” Cooper last nite on CNN and he actually admitted he flunked science. As if we didn’t know that already. 😉
An accurate explanation without the hype
http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/53461/fukushima-nuclear-accident-simple-and-accurate-explanation
I knew nuclear power is not save…
(unless they use thorium, but I’m not sure how far they are with implementation. Does somebody know?)
Also, as it stands at the moment, it uses a lot of water for cooling which causes
1) more GHG
2) the returned warm water (minus O2& CO2) kills all the fish and other ocean life
better go for coal (minus (CO, SO2 and heavy metals) or even better, gas.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Hindsight would dictate that an earthquake zone like Japan is the wrong place for an uranium pile. Thorium piles might be safe though. I do not know much about these so let the engineers decide. Nuclear power is fine in places like France, UK, some parts of America and many others which do not have such large quakes. So keep them away from subduction zones.
Curiousgeorge says:
March 14, 2011 at 6:55 am
I was watching Anderson “Catastrophe” Cooper last nite on CNN and he actually admitted he flunked science. As if we didn’t know that already. 😉
=============================================
lol, it’s starting to become clear as to why they believe big Al. He only did poorly in science, as opposed to failing.
yes i am not sure the public is going to buy this safe and sophisticated technology BS any more, what it looks like to the average Joe is that the nuclear experts started throwing buckets of sea water on it to cool it after the lid blew off.
IMO, these safety concerns would be greatly reduced if we could just develop the safer fuel… Thorium. Accelerator driven systems can be turned off like a switch, and although they require extra energy to drive the process, it might finally satisfy the safety concerns.
OH BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MELTDOWN?!?
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE MELTDOWN!?!?
It is both a sign of human technological maturity and an endless source of humor that so many people love to find new reasons to get hysterical outside of religion and superstition. It’s also quite sad, but why feel shame at how other humans represent their species? Best to laugh at them and vote against them whenever possible.
BTW, Fox News this morning is painting a ridiculously grim picture, saying fuel rods in a separate reactor are now “fully exposed”.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
indeed
Forget the science and engineering behind nuclear plants. The public, the politicians, the banks, the insurance companies will be done with them. Fortunately, we are swimming in natural gas, and that is what our future electricity is going to come from.
The New Yorker’s “Editor’s Choice” includes a 2003 piece written by Elizabeth Kolbert:
Indian Point Blank
How worried should we be about the nuclear plant up the river?
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/03/030303fa_fact
@HenryP: Actually, there was a Scientific American piece many, many years ago when they were still talking about science, that showed that the fish loved the Ct. River water warmed by a nuke plant. All thermal steam based generation including geothermal releases water vapor to some extent in their cooling towers. I fail to see your point. Sorry.
“Obviously, a nuclear plant in Nebraska is safe from tsunamis.”
Earthquakes, too. You’d think that, after Bodega Bay, the world’s fascination with combining nuclear powerplants with fault lines would have ended. You’d have to protect against tornados in Nebraska. Build the plant underground in what amounts to a massive tornado shelter, I suppose.