Some quotes & news bytes on the nuclear energy Tsunami

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.

@Joe 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.

telegraph now reporting the fuel rods are exposed in no.3.

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.”

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

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.

An accurate explanation without the hype
http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/53461/fukushima-nuclear-accident-simple-and-accurate-explanation

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.

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.

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”.

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.

@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.

I’d like to see a post about the thorium reactors that Mike Smith advocated here recently. There’s no reason to think that new reactors would still use 40-year-old designs.

If gasoline (petrol) was discovered/invented now, it would be deemed far too dangerous for use. My maternal grandfather was a pioneer motorist in NZ and most of his contemporaries saw him as unhinged due to his championing of the Horseless Carriage.
The great mass of humanity are frightened by what the are ignorant of; my generation grew up under the shadow of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the mechanics of nuclear power were a closed book to most of us, therefore the 1940s Atomic Bomb was the mental construct of atomic power and still is for most who are frightened of it due to their own ignorance.
But, given time, we grow up and learn stuff. ‘The Wizard of Oz’ movie scared me witless at the age of five; now I know the storylines I apreciate the movie as a wonderful piece of alegorical storytelling, but the movie is wildly unsuitable for five-year-olds who don’t have the maturity and concepts to understand it.
Many journalists and alarmists are not very adult.

I watched the late news in Canada cover the situation at the reactors in Japan. The first night the CBC had a sound byte from Michio Kaku, the string theorist, who is Japanese American (presumably, from a media perspective, this makes him qualified), then they had an interview with a guy from ‘Friends of the Earth’ whose qualification appeared to be that he was available. Geography was not this guy’s long suit: he warned of a potential radioactive plume (implying it would reach North America – 5,000 miles to the East). CTV had no scientist, just an environmentalist.
Last night CBC had an environmentalist, then an extensive interview with the guy running Bruce Power who is an expert on nuclear reactors. CTV had one or two more environmentalists.
I was impressed that CBC at least managed to find one person who knew something about the situation and nuclear reactors. Nonetheless, the coverage has been strongly directed towards the opinions of unqualified environmentalists, rather than the well informed.
All this goes to show that the media are, at a minimum, pig ignorant. Not just about science, but in general. Its a shame, really.

Natural gas is (should be) the future of sensible energy for the next two centuries.

What amazes me is that an estimated 10,000 people are dead as a result of the earthquake and tsunami and the press is focusing on the troubles at a nuclear plant which, as near as can be determined, has not harmed anyone and is being safely shut down .
Perverse.

I think Algeria just announced 1000tcf of shale gas under their country, Poland 80tcf etc etc.
The world uses 2.9tcf per yeat.
NG is the fuel for the next 1000 years.
Already the US plastic industry (which was moving overseas) is expanding because cheap NG is a good feedstock.

I’d be willing to bet that far more off duty nuclear workers were killed in the tsunami than will ever be killed by radiation from the plants.

The problem with nuclear power plants is that they are designed by technicians who are thinking in operational efficiency as the standard for the design of the plants , whilst the safety of the citizen should be paramount in the nuclear design . Technicians are tending to put complicated technological solutions above simple common sense thinking , which probably is less influenced by cost efficiency thinking. Two examples from other industrial designing may elucidate the difference here . Based upon staying competitive in the market-place , mainly in the eye of the consumer , cars are manufactured in all sorts of attractiveness for the consumer and not like the famous trabant from a complete technological point of view with the lowest possible costings .
40 years ago i coordinated the design of a horsestall for the b747 and we incorporated nearly all available experience and asked all experts in this field to improve the original design . The result was a horsestall , which was 100% safe for the horse and a dream for every horse-owner , but a technological very average design . It could be improved by any engineer who looked with an eye for best technical solutions . That is exactly what our competition did and they went absolutely no place as we kept nearly all the business by guaranteeing a safe journey for all horses that we carried . Yes put the customer first and let the technicians do the job there after . The reactor would have cost probably double the price , but human life would not have been in danger .
Sometimes setting some absolute standards may look a bit overdone , but there will always be a moment that murphies law is being played out .

mkelly says:
March 14, 2011 at 7:45 am
“Senator Lieberman (I-Conn) has called for a moritorium on nuc plants.”
Senator Lieberman called for a temporary moratorium on nuke plant construction until the ‘lessons learned’ from Japan could be digested.
Since there are no nuclear plant currently under construction all it really means is a possible temporary delay in the start of construction of Vogtle Unit #3. Site prep is going on at Voglte #3 but actual full scale construction wasn’t expected to be commence before late this year anyway.
Congressman Markey who is the biggest pain in the nuclear industry’s backside has called for a temporary moratorium on construction of nuclear plants in ‘seismically active’ locations. The last I checked no one in California is looking to build a nuclear plant anytime soon anyway.
There are going to be ‘lessons learned’, nothing wrong with pausing to learn those lessons.

R. Gates says:
March 14, 2011 at 8:44 am
Like it or not, perception vs. reality is what trumps, and nuclear power will take a hit from this event. Alternative energy, especially solar will be a big winner,
Living as I do in a three storey house, whose upper floor outside windows have not been cleaned in the 25 years that I have owned it, because of the perception of window cleaners that the elevation might be too dangerous to justify the financial return, I have accepted the reality that at the age of 71, I am unlikely to install solar panels that readily accumulate a green algal bloom, on the surmounting roof.
This despite my govt. charging me a renewable tax with which to bribe me by paying many times the going rate for any power that might be produced.
In my experience very few people in the UK are aware of the annually increasing Renewable Obligation tax on their power consumption, but when they are, the retribution on the incumbent party will be swift and sure.
Needless to say, I spend some of my time informing a number of incredulous acquaintances and I hope all UK sceptics do the same.

R. Gates says:
March 14, 2011 at 8:44 am
“Like it or not, perception vs. reality is what trumps, and nuclear power will take a hit from this event.”
That is the call to action of the MSM. It is perverse. If the media had reported the facts or, failing that, had simply supplied reasonable perspective, nuclear power would not be an issue in this matter.
This particular perversity demands some specifics. The MSM’s approach is to adopt the story line that they can expect to cause the greatest reaction from the fearful, the hysterical, and the programmatically hysterical. They behave as if Al Gore were the one editor watching over all of them. Now, that is dangerous. If ever there was a use for the Precautionary Principle, it is here. The media must realize that their hysterical reporting prepares the ground for disaster.
The MSM are creating the news, not reporting it. That is what you get when postmodern ideology drives home the message that reality is socially constructed.

bubbagyro says:
March 14, 2011 at 8:29 am
“As to the heating of the coolant water and harming fishes? Facts are completely contrary to that speculation. I live in Florida, and our reactor nearby is a haven for fish and manatees.”
I live in the world and my experience there has shown me that every heat source in a river or coastal area is a magnet for fish and all aquatic creatures.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
Why not get the news from the IAEA – the monitoring authority?
3 reactor is cold and the other two are now getting there.
Hit by an earthquake, sunami both sets of redundant generators wiped out and still shut down keeping the safety of the general public held above there own – These guys deserve a medal!
The explosions are because they vented extreemely hot steam into the buildings to alow for short half life elements to decay before releasing the steam into the atmosphere. Of course steam that hot tends to break into hydrogen & oxygen which is rather explosive. Knowing that it was likely to blow if released inside they still took the risk rather than exposing any public to short lived radioactive elements.
Fly more than twice a year or eat to many bananas and you’ll get a bigger dose.

Theo Goodwin says:
March 14, 2011 at 9:23 am
R. Gates says:
March 14, 2011 at 8:44 am
“Like it or not, perception vs. reality is what trumps, and nuclear power will take a hit from this event.”
That is the call to action of the MSM. It is perverse. If the media had reported the facts or, failing that, had simply supplied reasonable perspective, nuclear power would not be an issue in this matter.
______
Governments, Corporations, and individuals all assess risk vs. reward ratios on decision they make. Yes, the MSM color that perception to one degree or another, but perceived problems with nuclear safety, real or not, will alter those risk vs. reward ratios. As, alternative energy sources, especially renewable solar (which is growing by leaps and bound in terms of efficiency vs. cost) appear to offer a higher reward for a lower risk and lower cost, you will see the shift that direction, MSM or not. Solar energy stocks are soaring today, and and their sales are booming this year. The price of oil plus now this nuclear issue in Japan are all pushing these alternative energy stock and sales higher higher. That’s where the momentum is, and is likely to continue to be for quite some time, MSM hyperbole or not…

“All this goes to show that the media are, at a minimum, pig ignorant. Not just about science, but in general. Its a shame, really.”
I’m wary of giving them the “benefit” of stupidity. While they take a position that is easy to defend through ignorance, part of me feels that they know very well what they are doing. As Rahm Emmanuel so eloquently put it, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
Environmentalist reactionaries are a lot easier to put up on-screen next to looped images of fire, destruction, and dismay. When you’ve got an optic of a skyline with a large plume of smoke rising, the desired audio to put with it is an agitated voice describing either how terrible the situation is, or how potentially terrible the situation could be. Putting on an actual expert in the field telling you that everything is going according to plan / procedure simply doesn’t make for nearly as entertaining a television product.
Besides, for years and years now, we’ve been told through fictional entertainment that expert scientists are generally lying, evil, and in the pocket of whatever global-industrial complex is making their Gulfstream payments. Is he in a suit or a labcoat? He’s lying. Is he in plaid flannel with dishelevel hair and a 5:00 shadow? THAT’S the guy with the truth!

The bbc are almost crying with relief, they finally found a catastophist who`ll spout any b******s that supports the bbc catastophist,anti everything agenda.
He tells us it`s as bad as chernobyl many people will made ill and there is a likelyhood of a nuclear explosion.
Then againBusby was also the National Speaker on Science and Technology for the Green Party of England and Wales.
From wiki
Christopher Busby (born 1945) is a British scientist and activist known for his work on the health effects of ionising radiation. In addition to his academic appointments he is the director of Green Audit, an environmental consultancy agency,[1] and scientific advisor to the Low Level Radiation Campaign which he set up in 1995.[2] Busby was also the National Speaker on Science and Technology for the Green Party of England and Wales,[3][4] and the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risks, based in Brussels.No particular axe to grind there then!
Of course the bbc failed to mention that they, and he sing loudly ad nauseum off identical hymn sheets.
And he is indeed still wearing that ridiculous beret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

The late Michael crichton,
States of fear,
In a speech Crichton claims:
But the shock that I had experienced reverberated within me for a while. Because what I had been led to believe about Chernobyl was not merely wrong-it was astonishingly wrong. Let’s review the data.
The initial reports in 1986 claimed 2,000 dead, and an unknown number of future deaths and deformities occurring in a wide swath extending from Sweden to the Black Sea. As the years passed, the size of the disaster increased; by 2000, the BBC and New York Times estimated 15,000-30,000 dead, and so on …
Now, to report that 15,000-30,000 people have died, when the actual number is 56, represents a big error. Let’s try to get some idea of how big. Suppose we line up all the victims in a row. If 56 people are each represented by one foot of space, then 56 feet is roughly the distance from me to the fourth row of the auditorium. Fifteen thousand people is three miles away. It seems difficult to make a mistake of that scale.
But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences? Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate.
The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000. That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error.
But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that “the largest public health problem created by the accident” is the “damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information … [manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state.”end of quote
Is this true? How many really died from the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl?
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/video-speeches-independent.html

R. Gates says:
March 14, 2011 at 9:51 am
Theo Goodwin says:
March 14, 2011 at 9:23 am
R. Gates says:
March 14, 2011 at 8:44 am
“Yes, the MSM color that perception to one degree or another, but perceived problems with nuclear safety, real or not, will alter those risk vs. reward ratios.”
Color their perception to a degree? R, they are flat-out scare mongering. They are turning a non-event involving nuclear reactors into a nightmare the size of Armageddon. They are replacing fact with their perception. They are lying or, perhaps, they are incomprehensibly stupid.
By the way, R, you have never actually responded to anything I have said when commenting on your posts. Would you please address what I say and the words that I use when I comment on your posts? We do want an even playing field, right?

It’s a pity that we can’t find a way to store solar power that’s as efficint as plant life.

The BBC is as usual giving too much air time to Greenpeace with their myopic view of nuclear energy to quote the Goons ” we’ll all be murdered in or beds” again.
It is most likely that when all this is over the the Japanese will have lost 3 possibly 4 reactors and that the consequent release of nuclear material will be minimal. Was anybody actually harmed by the 3 mile Island incident? yet it features large in American history and condemned fission reactors for a generation. Nobody in their right mind will build a Chernobyl type reactor again ( or indeed one like the UK’s Windscale reactor). Of course we should continue to research nuclear power and look to safer and more efficient reactors ( Candu type: intrinsically safe or the Thorium cycle like China) but lets not condemn nuclear power because in the 6th strongest earthquake and Tsunami 4 reactors died with minimal effect on human health. In terms of loss of life and damage to the environment coal is much worse and dare I say so might be those inefficient windmills

jorgekafkazar says:
March 14, 2011 at 10:15 am
R. Gates says: “…Alternative energy, especially solar will be a big winner, and with cheaper, more flexible, and more efficient solar coming on-line, this will be the biggest winner in the next few years.”
Solar power is the wave of the future. And always will be.
________
Not the future…it’s happening now…big time. Some amazing advances in the technology are right at our doorstep with decreasing costs and increasing efficiences that are truly amazing. See for example:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-graphene-electrodes-solar-cells.html
Solar power will be a part of every home and every office energy system mix in the near future. Going “off grid” for at least some of the power in homes and offices will be the norm, with atachment to the smart-grid to get credit for your excess power also a part of the mix.
_______
Theo Goodwin says:
March 14, 2011 at 10:42 am
“Yes, the MSM color that perception to one degree or another, but perceived problems with nuclear safety, real or not, will alter those risk vs. reward ratios.”
Color their perception to a degree? R, they are flat-out scare mongering. They are turning a non-event involving nuclear reactors into a nightmare the size of Armageddon. They are replacing fact with their perception. They are lying or, perhaps, they are incomprehensibly stupid.
_____
The media have always been sensationalist, so the issue of nuclear safety is just one easy mark for them the make money on by attracting readers and viewers. This is nothing new. There is no changing it, so why whine about it? Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and now Japan have become iconic reasons for the public to be generally hesitant about wanting a nuclear power plant in their neighborhood. For better or worse, right or wrong, nuclear power is going to take a hit from this latest event. Bemoan the MSM as sensationalist all you want, but it will do you no good. Solar power is a rising star that is getting better and better every day in cost vs. benefit ratios and this event, rightly or wrongly, will only boost that momentum for solar.
By the way, R, you have never actually responded to anything I have said when commenting on your posts. Would you please address what I say and the words that I use when I comment on your posts? We do want an even playing field, right?

Solar power ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
Or more MSM scaremongering ?
Chernobyl ?
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html
“In its final conclusions on the health effects of the Chernobyl accident, the UNSCEAR report stated the following:
“The number of thyroid cancers (about 1,800) in individuals exposed in childhood, in particular in the severely contaminated areas of the three affected countries, is considerably greater than expected based on previous knowledge. The high incidence and the short induction period are unusual. Other factors may be influencing the risk.”
One of these factors are what are called “occult” thyroid cancers, those detected at autopsies by histological studies, and which do not cause visible clinical disturbances during the person’s lifetime. These occult thyroid cancers occur en masse all over the world. For example, in Canada their incidence is 6,000 per 100,000 population; in Poland it is 9,000; in the United States 13,000; and in Finland 35,000. The highest incidence of thyroid cancers in children found in Russia, before the Chernobyl accident, was 26.6 per 100,000; in Belarus, 17.9; and in Ukraine, 4.9. Thus, the potential for the discovery of “excess” thyroid cancers, after the intense health screening that took place after the accident, is enormous”

Before this incident I thought melt downs lioek happened at Chernobyl were always catastrophic, watching the Japanese meltdowns I am learning that modern technology keeps all the mess in a sealed flask and meltdowns from now on will be minor events that do not impact on the environment. These events make me more inclined to accept nuclear energy as part of the mix.
Even my Japanese wife, who gets emotional when nuclear power is mentioned, has understood that meltdowns can be controlled and dealt with safely; she is flying to Japan on Friday and is more concerned about this earthquake triggering a Tokyo earthquake while she is there than being poisoned by radioactive cesium.
This could be good for the nuclear industry, it wipes out bad memories of Chernobyl

Two generations ago, perhaps less, MSM would have reported entirely differently. The paucity of scientifically minded (let alone qualified) journalists today is demonstrated by the utter trash that some reporters spew out, which, unfortunately, is believed by the ever-growing multitude of like-minded members of the public, much to the ghastly delight of the water melons.

http://twitpic.com/49ilxu – semi-relevant AlGore cartoon.

R. Gates says:
March 14, 2011 at 11:27 am
Solar power is the wave of the future. And always will be.
________
Not the future…it’s happening now…big time. Some amazing advances in the technology are right at our doorstep with decreasing costs and increasing efficiences that are truly amazing.
=========================
It doesn’t matter how efficient they become – well actually, the upper theoretical limit is 100% – because they will never capture more energy than arrives from the sun. So to take your scenario to the extreme, and you could by thousands of square metres that you can unroll like a carpet for a few dollars, where can you put it? Roof top panels yield derisory amounts of power. My leisure centre has covered every square centimeter of the roof with hundres of square metres. I check the power readings every time I go there – all those hundreds of metres have never generated more than 3kw – about enough to boil the kettle.
But if you unroll thousands of square kilometres all over the countryside, you will kill everything that depends on sunlight. See what the Greens will have to say about that.

R. Gates says:
March 14, 2011 at 12:14 pm
“Solar energy technology is evolving rapidly. We are on the cusp of many cheaper, more efficient technologies that will make replacing a solar panel as easy and cheap as replacing a window in your house.”
Jimmy Carter’s 1980 State of the Union Address
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/speeches/su80jec.phtml
Our Nation will then have a major conservation effort, important initiatives to develop solar power
Affordable solar power has been ‘just around the corner’ for 30 years.

R. Gates says:
March 14, 2011 at 8:44 am
Nuclear is taking a hit, via WAGS in the press as to what is going on inside vessels that cannot be viewed.
Depends on the end result. The current problem is with old reactors. Once built, they tend to become monoliths and are not easily given up to new units which are far safer.
I would look for Thorium reactors to come of age given pressing needs.
But, you are correct that for now, Nuclear takes a hit.

R. Gates alternative sources of energy will only catch on if only as easily accessable as the flip of a switch. As someone already mentioned there is only so much solar energy per square meter. Oh another thing there is life out in those so called bare desolate deserts.

The nightmare of nuclear power gets worse:
“Japan’s nightmare gets even WORSE: All THREE damaged nuclear reactors now in ‘meltdown’ at tsunami-hit power station”
Japan calls for U.S. help cooling the reactor
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365781/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-All-3-Fukushima-nuclear-plant-reactors-meltdown.html#ixzz1GcLhBa2v

If 1/50th of the money that has been put into developing hot nuclear energy had been put into developing low energy nuclear reaction, LENR, most of the problems with energy production would go away. And there would be no more real life horror movies from nuclear energy. Instead the government says it doesn’t work. The government also says “greenhouse gases are pollution”. ;O)
For those who don’t know what LENR is this documentary will give an introduction to it:
“Fire from Water, hosted by Scotty from Star Trek”

Julian in Wales says:
March 14, 2011 at 12:07 pm
This could be good for the nuclear industry, it wipes out bad memories of Chernobyl
Man, the opposite is happening. Everyone is reminded of Chernobyl and how much of a nightmare nuclear energy is. If this thing in Japan is contained why are they scrambling with desperate measures? There’s safer ways to make electricity.
The only reason the Navy hasn’t had any nuclear power accidents is because of the vigilance they have in watching over it. That is the vigilance of a soldier. But that vigilance is paid for by tax dollars. With budget cuts that MUST take place in the next decade in America there is going to be less soldiers. There are cheaper and safer ways to make electricity.

I read tonight, with some astonishment, an acknowledgement from Geoffrey Lean (for it is he), in an otherwise fairly predictable article, that shale gas was a likely contender against nukes now … fell off me chair, nearly. Maybe he was too exercised about nuclear to bother carping …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/8379926/Japan-earthquake-Nuclear-power-under-fire.html
‘Natural gas, one of the causes of the initial decline in nuclear, is becoming cheaper with the development of new technologies to wring it from shale rock. And the failure of the Obama administration to get climate legislation through Congress has dealt the US industry a particularly severe blow: the defeated “cap and trade” proposals were expected to spur the construction of another 100 reactors. ‘

nc says:
March 14, 2011 at 2:41 pm
R. Gates alternative sources of energy will only catch on if only as easily accessable as the flip of a switch. As someone already mentioned there is only so much solar energy per square meter. Oh another thing there is life out in those so called bare desolate deserts.
____
The idea that solar energy can only be useful by vast arrays of solar panels in the desert is pretty old school. New technologies right around the corner will allow your roof, walls, windows, sidewalks…really almost anything anywhere to become a solar energy source. These are also vastly more efficient than the first and second generation solar cells and this efficiency, combined with new low energy use technology such as organic LED’s etc. will allow many people to begin to go “off grid” for much of their power. This decentralization of electric power is big deal and will be something to pay attention to.

Well what do you know, a third explosion reported.
A third explosion in four days rocked the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant…..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110314/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis
So is someone going to tell me again everything is okay?

There was serious damage to an adjacent reactor from the second explosion. There is a report that there is beginning of melt down in that newly damaged reactor. I’m looking for confirmation.
So someone tell me this is not a friggin nightmare.

harrywr2 says: March 14, 2011 at 9:07 am
Congressman Markey who is the biggest pain in the nuclear industry’s backside has called for a temporary moratorium on construction of nuclear plants in ‘seismically active’ locations. The last I checked no one in California is looking to build a nuclear plant anytime soon anyway.
————————————————
California has a law on the books that no new nukes shall be built until the waste storage problem is solved. Since the waste storage “problem” is political and not economic, technical, or safety related, it’s gonna be a long time before California sees additional cheap safe reliable power. I’ve been watching the addition of 740 MW of wind turbines a few miles of my house, and they turn about 1/3 of the time. That does not meet the definition of reliability.

Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
March 14, 2011 at 2:58 pm
“The nightmare of nuclear power gets worse:”
No, Amino, the nightmare at that particular nuclear facility in Japan gets worse. Focus on the facts, please. The facts are all at this particular nuclear facility in Japan.
The only criticism of the nuclear industry that can be inferred from this particular problem is that the nuclear industry sometimes places nuclear plants in the wrong place. No one expects a nuclear plant to survive the conditions created when a tsunami destroys all its resources and so devastates the region that resupply and repair are all but impossible. To generalize from this particular situation to the entire nuclear industry is simply unjustified.

Theo Goodwin says:
March 14, 2011 at 5:53 pm
No one expects a nuclear plant to survive the conditions created when a tsunami destroys….
You mean they didn’t plan for this scenario? How many other scenarios have not been planned for in nuclear power plants?
There will always be nightmare scenarios like this in nuclear power. There will always be something that was not planned for. Hot nuclear is the most dangerous way to make electricity. There are safer ways.

Unfortunately more bad news
cooling effort at one reactor failing
The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power, said late Monday that repeated efforts to inject seawater into the reactor had failed, causing water levels inside the reactor’s containment vessel to fall and exposing its fuel rods
link to article
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Emergency-cooling-effort-failing-at-Japanese-reactor-deepening-crisis/articleshow/7705671.cms

It quite clearly is a nightmare…it may or may not be “catastrophic” (only time will tell) but it clearly is a nightmare for the Japanese people. The people in Japan are going through the worst nightmare that most of them will ever experience, and the nuclear meltdowns are certainly part of it. To try and minimize this nightmare they are going through is quite an insult to that nation.

Is the nuclear situation part of the nightmare? Yes of course, but the comment you just quoted was specifically reffering to whether the reactor incidents occuring right now are a nightmare and even I, with 10 seconds of reading, can understand that the comment was directed solely at quoted passage where “nightmare” in this case is inferring that the whole situation with the reactors has been blown out of proportion – and it has.
Whether or not the issues here have been overstated or not has no bearing on the devastation that was caused by this earthquake and I saw no attempt to belittle or diminish what is happening in Japan or what the people are going through, only pointing out that irrational fear and knee jerk reactions should not be tolerated.
The media is kicking this into a frenzy with no purpose than to scare the crap out of people and by this, are contributing to the overall “nightmare” that is this earthquake. By attempting to put the issues in perspective and having people understand the risks through better understanding can only assist in helping people and stopping the spread of unwarranted fear and overall lessen the nightmare which at this point in time is the best thing that can be done and far more helpful then in perpetuating a higher level of danger then there actually is.

“nightmare” is probably too strong – but the developments on reactor #2 aren’t good.
According to WNN, there is damage to a system associated with the containment.
BWRs are designed to vent excess steam from the reactor into a toroidal structure which is connected to the containment. This is normally kept part full of water, and used to condense the steam.
It seems that this is no longer holding “above atmospheric” pressure, suggesting it’s leaking somewhere. However, at the time that pressure dropped, it wasn’t singificantly overpressured, so the cause isn’t obvious. There was a spike in radiation readings outside the plant (which subsequently reduced) at about the same time, suggesting venting.
At the same time, there’s the ongoing problem of getting the exposed rods covered with water. According to media comment, it’s now about the top 1/3rd uncovered. There is some fission product contamination being detected in the steam release, suggesting at least some fuel damage (BWR fuel is designed to spend at least some time exposed, with stam cooling).
What would be telling is an indication of reactor vessel pressure.
There’s no indication at the moment of a breach of the reactor presure vessel.
This is now a matter of timing. Normally, BWRs are opened up for refuelling about 4-7 days after coming off line, in a refuelling outage. At that time, in normal circumstances, decay heat production is low that pressurisation isn’t required in the reactor, and there’s adequate heat removal possible without boiling. pobviosly, no-one’s about to lift the lid on reactor #2 without having a good idea as to the condition of the fuel.
I know we’ve some people who post on WUWT who have significant Light Water Reactor experience, and even specific BWR backgrounds, If any of those read this, can they advise:
Can excess steam be vented via filtration without using the wetwell for condensation?
Is it possible to isolate the wetwell from the rest of the containment?
Is that 4-7 days figure right?
During a refuelling outage, it is usual to flood the entire containment? I ask this because, on the numbers as I see them, within a day or two, provided the fuel can be covered, if the RPV can be submerged, it ought to be able to achieve adeqate heat removal without further pumping, relying just on convection from the RPV walls.

And to add to the earlier – WNN’s facebook page is reporting that a fire occurred reactor #4, now extinguished. Reactor #4 is on cold shutdown, so does not present a danger, but the fire may be the cause of the spike in radiation readings
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150106273137499

Japan has asked the US for help to stop the American-designed reactors plunging into uncontrollable meltdown. The latest blast occurred after cooling water dropped repeatedly in unit 2, with the nuclear fuel rods partially exposed – risking an overheat of up to a temperature of 2,200 degrees Celsius. Damage to the hermetically-sealed reactor container dramatically increases the risk of serious radiation leaks…… A top Japanese official said the fuel rods in all three of the most troubled nuclear reactors at Daiichi appeared to be melting……Specialists are now considering spraying water directly on the damaged container in an attempt to cool it externally.
Link to story at SkyNews
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Japan-Quake-And-Tsunami-Plea-For-US-Help-After-Second-Explosion-At-Nuclear-Plant/Article/201103215951706?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15951706_Video_Japan_Quake_And_Tsunami%3A_Plea_For_US_Help_After_Second_Explosion_At_Nuclear_Plant

Michael Crichton, ‘Is this the end of the world? No, this is the world.’

Anthony,
There is power generation technology that is so efficient that the difference in hemispheres has a big effect on the power output.
It harnesses individual energy and not the current nonsense of bulk energy harvesting.

“Does anyone not think it strange that days after supposed full control rod insertion, these reactors are taking a lot of cooling? ”
No, not particularly. It normally takes 4-7 days after operation heat production in a BWR to drop sufficiently for the reactor to be depressurised for refuelling – and when the lid isn’t taken off temperatures will still be about 80C. I posted the numbers on another thread, but for Unit #1, after a week or so it’ll still be generating about 5MW.
The good news is, at that point, heat removal by natural convection from the outside of the reactor vessel is entirely sufficient.
On a different point, I’m starting to get a little irritated by the IAEA, who are jumping just a little too much to the media’s tune. They’re not admitting it, but they started one scare this morning, when they were still telling the BBC about a fire in the #4 reactor fuel pond, some time AFTER they’d already been told the fire was nothing to do with the pond/fuel, and had already been put out.
And now it turns out that the 400mSv/hour reading that’s been made so much of wasn’t at the plant boundary, as is usual. It was one “hot-spot” between two reactors. The radiation level at the plant boundary was about 12mSv, and by 06:00 GMT was 0.6mSV/hour. Still high, but three orders of magnitude different.

http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/14/even-candles-kill-many-more-than-nuclear-power/

Alan Wilkinson says:
March 14, 2011 at 11:35 pm

Forced evacuation of such large areas surrounding a plant are not experienced in other kinds of major industrial accidents excepting such extreme events as Bhopal. Yes, the loss of life due to the tsunami is far, far worse than will be caused by this nuclear disaster. It is, nevertheless, a nightmare for very many thousands of people who cannot accept assurances from their leaders and experts at face value when these assurances have successively proved unreliable – to the point when even the media you deplore are leaving over safety concerns.

A couple of problems here. With 500,000 people evacuated into emergency shelters overcrowded and very lacking in supplies, refrigeration, medical care, electricity, and heating the elderly and those with other health problems are going to experience far greater mortality rates.
Nuclear accidents are even more insidious in that it’s hard to tell what will happen with cancer rates among those exposed over the next several decades. Even a small uptick amongst a large population can add up into a great loss of life.
So between the stress of large scale evacuation and some smaller number of permanent displacements into less than adequate facilities, emotional and physical stress, and long term uptick in cancer rates the death toll from the nuclear accidents could easily equal or exceed the number killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami. Then again maybe not. One thing is for sure though – it’s far too early to tell. They have hardly even begun locating the dead or clearing out the emergency shelters. In fact the emergency shelters are still filling up as the evacuation zone around the nukes keeps expanding as they fail to quench the meltdowns and other plants get added to the critical list.

Eli Rabbet of all people actually has started an interesting discussion on the situation with some very intelligent links for a change. http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-15-march-summary/
Kind of neat seeing some intelligent fish out of water in the comments.

David,
There is no such thing as risk free energy or a risk free existence. Risks have to be quantified and acceptable levels of risk determined. It would be nice if everything was simple and risk free, then even that would lead to other risks, like your mother-in-law living forever 🙂

Alan Wilkinson says:

March 14, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Larry, with due respect I think your position is quite untenable. Clearly a tsunami was foreseeable and it was unreasonable to think a facility on the sea front was immune to flooding via breach of a sea wall – so flooding of the electrical control room as well as diesel generators was foreseeable. Likewise disruption of electrical and transport links subsequent to an earthquake of sufficient local severity to cause automatic shutdown. Moreover modern design improvements to nuclear power stations highlighted the deficiencies inherent in this one long ago.

Yes you are correct the likelihood of a tsunami was foreseeable, that is why they designed in protection for a 6.3 meter tsunami. Unfortunately they got a bigger one.
We learn from experience. In the period from 1850-1862 there were over 600 boiler explosions in England that killed hundreds. As a result of that sort of experience standards of construction and operation changed so that today we routinely operated super heated steam plants at 1000 psi plus pressure levels and boiler explosions are rare. Same thing happened with bridge construction (we are still learning lessons here regarding on going maintenance requirements). The same will happen with coastal nuclear facilitates, elevated cooling water storage will become mandatory, sea wall protection will change from perhaps the 90% likely tsunami to 1.2x the 90% likely tsunami. Off site pumping facilities set back from the shore will be required, etc. etc. etc.
There is not a single major technology you can think of that did not go through the exact same learning process, ranging from natural gas or producer gas piped to homes, to nuclear power, they all have had problems as the technology got more wide spread and matured.
Larry
Larry

“Many journalists and alarmists are not very adult.”
Don’t kid yourself. They are cold, calculating adults. They see in real time that viewers switch channels when a qualified scientist gives factual no-nonsense information.
On the other hand, when Michiu Kaku speaks….ratings climb.
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=13138100
A very simple formula.

What usually happens in this sort of situation, is that the emergency responders get tunnel vision regarding one issue (the reactor core heating) and lost focus and touch with the issue of the spent fuel rod cooling pool also needing water level management.
My guess is that as a result it got over looked until bad things happened. Exhausted crews working long hours under high stress make those sort of mistakes unless their response system provides crew rotations or an outside reviewer that during shift turn over takes a fresh look at what has been done and what still needs to be done.
This is why the incident command system was developed, so there is a systematic process to make sure secondary issues don’t get lost in the shuffle and come back and bite you later as major issues. Large complex disasters are too big for any central control system to manage, they must be managed near the site, with a constant review and planning cycle to catch missed issues and anticipate the next crisis before it happens.
I am sure the Japanese will discover all sorts of interesting systemic issues in managing a disaster this complex.
This is in no way a criticism of their response, just an unfortunate learning process that every emergency management community goes through periodically as they lose focus on what is important.
As always it is the poor grunt in the field that puts it all on the line and eventually through extraordinary effort, courage and willingness to push through to completion that gets the final job done. All the folks with boots on the ground at the reactor site should be commended for their efforts, but as always there are (or should be) lessons learned that will make the next emergency of this magnitude resolve more efficiently.
America should pay very close attention to these lessons or we will at our peril re-learn them when we have “our” major earthquake and tsunami in the north west and California. It is not a question of if but when we will face exactly the same sort of challenge.
Larry

Kev-in-Uk:
I agree with your comments re an inadequately designed the cooling system. An emergency generator on battery power backed up with a diesel engine sounds like far too little redundancy, given the savage consequences of failure. As you say, cooling must be possible, independent of a power supply in an emergency, and so the new generations of reactors (III and IV) have been designed with passive safety systems, such as cooling tanks placed on top of the reactor building and the use of convection. This together with the potential of using Thorium eventually changed my opposition to nuclear power. I must say as well, that the fact that the plant in question has withstood an 9.0 earthquake and a ten metre tsunami has not changed my new position, on the contrary, I believe it’s quite impressive. These reactors have been let down solely by their power dependent pumps (that is as far as we know, of course).
But if the management of the power company was led purely by the bottom line in deciding what to do, neither you nor I can say with any surety right now. Given that the usage of seawater has rendered these reactors irreversibly unusable, one must assume that company orders will have revolved around attempting other measures first. Whether they tried for too long and worsenend the problems, whether it was irrelevant what they tried or whether they swiftly abandoned measures designed to save the reactors and sacrificed them in order to deal with the emergency, it’s simply to early for any judgement on that.
Fair enough, though Kev, I misunderstood your criticism being pointed at the management not the staff battling the emergency. It’s certainly not unthinkable that greed and/or incompetence might eventually be found to be the crux of the worsening situation. Still disagree on the information policy by the government. I think they did exactly what was needed. I’d expect my government to evacuate in a timely manner, and to me it doesn’t matter whether they call it a precaution or whether they say “run for your lives”, I’d go in any case, but to the local government it could change an orderly evac to panic induced, unmanageable chaos, especially given that the area in question is already a disaster zone.

Maren
I would concur with the apparent competence of the installation being able to withstand the earthquake and the Tsunami (the latter to a lesser degree because of the cooling system failure) as being commendable. However, as an engineer, I would be looking for all possible ‘failures’ in either design or operation to provide pointers for design and implemenation at other existing and future sites.
It happens in aeronautical engineering – flights crash, lessons are learned – service schedules altered, parts changed, etc, etc – all to try and make future flights safer. Obviously, people tend to forget how ‘safe’ nuclear power is in real terms, but that nothing is perfect, and with so ‘few’ major incidents it can be somewhat overhyped in the public eye.
I’m still not convinced on the press release line though. I feel they probably knew they had issues from the start and were trying to ‘break it gently’ – it’s just how it seemed – especially with all the initial ‘it’s nothing serious’ stance. I am sure most folk whenever they hear their prime minister say ‘it’s not serious’ – the first thing they think is ‘yeah right!’ – I mean, if it was just some minor official saying it, you might believe them – but when the top guys come out to speak it’s usually a sign of intent!
I guess I am just too damn cynical, but I do agree that only time will tell.

hotrod (Larry L) said
“If they had pre-plumbed stand pipes reaching to the ground, that would feed water directly to the cooling pool fitted with standard fire engine hose connectors, they could have simply hooked up a fire engine and pumped any source of water to top off the pool.”
That seems a rather low tech solution. Buckets next?
Andy

That seems a rather low tech solution. Buckets next?
Andy

Don’t under estimate low tech.
Most heavy rescue of the trapped in collapsed buildings are rescued with ropes, pulleys, sledge hammers, simple hammer drills, sledge hammers feather and wedge splitters — technology that were in use during Roman times.
The guiding principle of emergency response is KISS — Keep It Simple Stupid!
Larry