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
On a biz trip this morning I listened to Limbaugh. He has commented on same specific info sent him by Dr Spencer we know.
He also said the death rate for wind turbines is many times as high as nuclear.
Then he was gratefull since we have never had a nuclear accident in the Navy vessels. As we speak, a great aircraft carrier is near Japan and serving helicopters loaded with water. The carrier desalination services are 400,000 gallons per day.
Aircraft carriers can also deliver electricity, lodging, medical care and so much more.
Rush I rarely listen to. He said Japan will rebild this community before we will have our trade center area rebuilt.
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.
How well do these anti-nuclear advocates think a coal mine and it’s workers would survive a level 9 earthquake or a gas or oil storage facility? One of the biggest blazes was in an oil refinery. Nuclear has the advantage of being compact and relatively easy to over-engineer for safety.
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.
Many thousands could still die as a result of these “accidents”. Not from the radiation release but from lower standard of living and increased poverty due to nuclear plants not being built.
In this regard the fear mongering about the nuclear plants may kill more people than the Tsunami.
So lemme get this straight. A 30-odd year old nuclear plant survives an earthquake 100 times more powerful than it was designed for, it fails safe, is managed according to a plan, and that’s somehow an indictment of nuclear?
If fear of potential future fatalities is the concern, forget nuclear accidents; think about earthquakes and tsunamis. How about we abandon the entire west coast of the US and Canada before the Cascadia fault lets go, as it very well might within a generation. No, I didn’t think so.
R. Gates says:
“Like it or not, perception vs. reality is what trumps…”
And Gates’ perception of non-existent CAGW trumps his thinking process.
True dat.
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.
I guess GE is to blame. It is their mess. They are the new BP and Halliburton. We need to sequester 25 billion from them to pay for destruction.
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…
Someone on another blog commented that if ignorance of basic science were a fissile material, the AP along could power the US.
Fox News is going on about “a possible meltdown,” repeating it three times in thirty seconds. SIGH. I’ll stick with reading the TEPCO press releases for my news, thank you.
“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!
Am I alone in thinking that this might be good for nuclear? The fear of the unknown is always worse than reality. Up until now all sorts of horrendous outcomes could have been postulated as a consequence of an earthquake or sunami. Now we have power plants that have withstood both of these at levels never before experienced. And these are the old generation plants which could surely be improved upon now. It puts my mind at rest at least.
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
It really sucks that the “China Syndrome” thing is keeps popping up. Given what happened, the designs are doing what they should do. I mean really, first a near 9 quake, then a tsunami, it is kinda hard to get the portable generators on site with all that is going on, and you can’t keep making power when there is no use for it.
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.
I`d prefer thorium, the lights stay on after dark.
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
Nuclear is safer than solar, in which solar cells during manufacture generate tons of toxic waste and utilize poison gases, such as chlorine and fluorine. What if the fluorine gas escapes from a tanker en route? What happens if an earthquake (many solar manufacturing plants are in California near faults) breaks containment at a solar cell manufacturer? How many must die before we abandon this hazardous, deadly business? Death from chlorine gas poisoning is excruciating and fast.
I live on an island in the Gulf of Mexico where we have 300 days of sun a year. Even with that favorable environment, the economics does not work out. Of all the well-to-do people here, I have not seen one solar cell house yet, although I have heard of a couple. They are not durable. The improvements in efficiency in the last ten years are pitiful. Without 50% efficiency, and they are far from that—if it is even do-able—they never last past the pay-back life. They cannot withstand even a moderate hurricane. The list goes on.
We get most of our power here from the Nuke on the mainland. The manatees and dolphins are all for it.
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?
jorgekafkazar says:
March 14, 2011 at 10:15 am
“Solar power is the wave of the future. And always will be.”
In Central Florida, I run my hot water heater on solar power. That means cold showers December through February. How much good is solar power going to do in New York City?
It’s a pity that we can’t find a way to store solar power that’s as efficint as plant life.
Theo, I’m curious about solar panels in a hurricane path. Were you affected by any of those hurricanes that came through and across central Fla a few years ago? If you were, how did your panels do? My sister also had solar panel water heating, but she wasn’t in the paths of any of them.
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
SfrNfr says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/14/some-quotes-news-bytes-on-the-nuclear-energy-tsunami/#comment-620232
1) I have heard several reports of sealife being damaged by nuclear plants. True, I will have to look for it. You think this is not so?
2) The point I was making is that, apart from the safety hazards, nuclear power releases a lot of H2O (g) which is a much stronger GHG then CO2. If indeed CO2 is a GHG. That still has to be proven (to me,
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok)