From the Global Warming Policy Foundation
Throughout the history of Japan, its cities have been destroyed again and again by war, fire and earthquake. After each catastrophe, the Japanese have rebuilt, bigger and better. One hopes and expects that they will do the same again. –Lesley Downer, The Daily Telegraph, 15 March 2011
The Japanese disaster “will put new nuclear development on ice,” said Toronto energy consultant Tom Adams, the former executive director of Energy Probe. He said the nuclear industry was already facing challenges, noting that vast shale gas resources in North America and other parts of the world were starting to make cheaper gas-fired plants the electricity generators of choice. – Eric Reguly, The Globe and Mail, 15 March 2011
Neither new nuclear, coal with carbon capture and sequestration, wind nor solar are economic. Natural gas is queen. It is domestically abundant and is the bridge to the future. – John Rowe, The Globe and Mail, 15 March 2011
Obama’s energy plan relies heavily on nuclear power to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions harmful to the climate as well as to reduce dependence on imported oil. The president proposed tripling federal loan guarantees to $54.5 billion to help build new reactors in the 2012 budget plan he sent to Congress. — Jeremy van Loon and Mark Chediak, Bloomberg 15 March 2011
President Barack Obama’s energy agenda appears to be jinxed. While Japan’s nuclear meltdown may be an ocean away, the industry has quickly become the latest example of a policy in peril not long after the White House embraced it. –Darren Samuelsohn, Politico, 15 March 2011
Despite Japan’s crisis, India and China and some other energy-ravenous countries say they plan to keep using their nuclear power plants and building new ones. With those two countries driving the expansion — and countries from elsewhere in Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East also embracing nuclear power in response to high fossil fuel prices and concerns about global warming — the world’s stock of 443 nuclear reactors could more than double in the next 15 years, according to the World Nuclear Association, an industry trade group.—The New York Times, 14 March 2011
New data suggests Israel may not only have much larger gas resources than believed, but also the 3rd largest deposit of oil shale in the world. As a consequence of these new estimates, Israel may emerge as the third largest deposit of oil shale, after the US and China. –Dore Gold, The Jerusalem Post, 11 March 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dave Springer says: (March 16, 2011 at 12:43 am)
Cheap clean renewable almost everything imaginable is what we get when the technology (synthetic biology) is mature.
Sounds good, Dave… and exciting!
Dave Springer says: (March 16, 2011 at 1:36 am) to me: “Can’t handle the truth?”
You’re stretching there, Dave. In the context in which the remark was made it was way over the top. Things get out of hand, the plundering of a single asbestos company to make big bucks for the promoters with the victims the also-rans is a nice case in point. There has to be a balance (and my heavy smoking for 50 years and continuing does not convince me smoking will not harm others).
This is the point where even the forever changing of climate on Earth has been wrangled into something unique to our time, and therefore worth paying a price in cash and loss of freedoms to have some bandits fix for us.
For those interested in a status update from TEPCO they recently posted an updated series of events as to what has happened so far and the response:
Latest source readings of radiation were:
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http://www.tepco.co.jp/cc/press/betu11_j/images/110316e.pdf&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhguM296MMwiOdTJmcqR9bdYvUgfCA
Thankfull radiation levels have approached half of what they were in the last post and there has been no radiation spike for almost 12 hours.
No further incidents since the spike in radiation that temporarily forced the skeleton crew to retreat earlier. Hopefully this is a good sign…
The prospects for massive radioactivity releases from this disaster are close to 100% imo.
The problem is the spent fuel pool in reactor 4, which appears to be drying as its cooling water boils away. The hydrogen fires in this shut down reactor building must mean the water in the cooling pool has started to decompose from reacting with exposed spent fuel rods, producing that hydrogen.
That spent fuel pool contains several reactor cores worth of old fuel rods, heavily contaminated with volatile fission products such as cesium. These volatiles will be vaporized as the rods overheat and will leak out through the numerous holes in the walls and roof. There is several times the Chernobyl amount of cesium in that pool and it will be boiled off fairly rapidly.
The ray of light is that the wind is offshore and expected to stay that way for a few days, so hopefully the worst of the contamination will drift out to sea, rather than contaminating large areas of the countryside.
“Who keeps track of such things? Is there data for these effects from previous large quakes? I’ve also come across the idea that the weight of water now being held in massive damns in the US has a similar effect of changing the earth’s axis.”
Your link was wrong. The correct link is:
http://news.discovery.com/earth/japan-earthquake-time-sped-up-110314.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1
As for “who keeps track of this”, it’s not radically difficult Newtonian physics, just large numbers. Take your example of a dam’s retention of water altering the Earth’s spin. A large amount of water gathered at a higher point than previously, as is the case with a dam, is similar to a figure skater twirling at a certain speed, and then holding a small weight in her hand and twirling with the same effort. Her mass has increased by that small weight, and, by being at her hand instead of at her center of effort (somewhere in her hips, I would imagine), she spins fractionally faster.
The same principle is seen in steam engine governors, those little rotating balls on hinged arms. The faster the engine turns, the more they try to fly out. If they fly out far enough, a valve releases pressure and the engine slows. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_%28device%29).
Similarly, if a chunk of the earth’s crust is thrust away from the core 30 metres due to an earthquake, you’ve got that much more mass held “away” from the center of effort, and this changes all the recorded numbers.
Personally, I have yet to see if this slight change in rotational speed will be compensated for by the GPS constellation, which is predicated on the Earth rotating at a known speed. I have heard that parts of Japan have physically moved up to four metres from where they were on March 10th, so I can only assume that was figured out by static GPS beacons in the ground.
Did anyone hear the total b******t from the leader of the Greens on the Biased Broadcasting Corporation this morning?
She seems to think that “renewables” will provide all the power we need and that nuclear power is very very dangerous! Her wild assertions were not challenged by either of the presenters who would not let the scientist even finish a sentence as he was continually interrupted by Ms watermelon i cant remember her name; i was too busy throwing up!
The results of the earthquake and tsunami are simply heart wrenching. Lest anyone think I’m anti-nuclear, I am not. I am in favor of using best practices, which I don’t believe we’ve done in the past.
I love the idea of getting everything from the sun, but it’s not going to happen as long as all the schemes are subsidized. Not now, not ever. When people/entrepreneurs can start businesses, on their own funds (with real investors) and no government funds, then there is a chance that we’ll get what people are talking about, but not before.
Michael R
Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Greenblog? And you’re telling me about histrionics.
I won’t be seeing me on your “side of the fence”.
I won’t be seeing me on your “side of the fence”.
typo
You won’t be seeing me on your “side of the fence”.
Shows you what 24/7 lamestream media hype can do, stop people from thinking.
Take Japan’s quake … Deaths by nuclear exposure — None reported. Deaths by earthquake and tsunami … now over 3,000 and expected to be over 10000.
Haiti earthquake deaths estimated over 220,000. Indonesia deaths were reported(?) to be over 500,000.
Folks we need earthquake control quick. As far as glacial melt, updates are your friend, not science fiction movies set on scissor jacks.
Folks in Miami need to stop riding bikes due to bike riders in Lake Tahoe skidded to the ground when hitting black ice and snow. This is the logic of anti-nuclear morons who point to our plants far from any coast. Also, no more fire, too dangerous, do you know how many deaths occur due to fire every year? How many die each year from the local nuclear power plant?
Nuclear power is melting down? Go tell that to the rest of the world.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html
Maybe not, but I am able to both acknowledge when sources are not the most trusted and will at least post the sources when I make a claim. I see you do not share that trait with much of what you post so maybe try less judging of “my side of the fence” before removing the mud your already standing in hmm?
I also note that despite me both claiming and backing it up (whether you like the research or not) you have
1: Disregarded it on principle; (wheres your source)
2: Disregarded it by putting your fingers in your ears and going “la la la”. (oh that source who cares)
There are a lot of people at the moment that use the same tactic in their discussions on climate change, is it meant to instill confidence?
In fact as much as I really do not like going to wikipedia, even they have a whole section on it:
Thats more than 2/3 of the supposed death attributable to Nuclear in one year alone followed by a lovely gridded box at the bottom which contains death totals for China per year due to accidents at mines and plants for fossil fuels:
2000 2,863
2001 3,082
2002 4,344
2003 4,143
2004 3,639
2005 3,341
2006 2,945
In 6 years, in one country, just for getting the fossil fuels, that a total of 24, 357 deaths. And we have not gotten to air pollution or follow on effects from the use of fossil fuels in any other aspect. Indeed I haven’t even left China
I understand that we do not have a huge choice at the moment in having to use Fossil Fuels. There is also some aspects of Fossil Fuels which I also think are exaggerated or under-publicized in much the same way Nuclear tends to. My whole point on the matter is that it is at best naive and at worst ignorant to use the argument of “how dangerous it is” point to how many people have died that refuse to acknowledge the human cost of bringing our current power into our houses.
I saw someone in another thread getting pissed because he perceived someone to be “belittling” the cost of human life in the Japan earthquake, isn’t that the very same thing you are trying to do now?
At the end of the day all I am trying to point out is that if we judge Nuclear to be too unsafe and we use the judgment of loss of life to do so, then how about we judge them both fairly and rationally. I mean, I thought the overriding principle is to save lives?
(Incidentally I used the green link because it was the only source I could find that actually made an attempt to catalog the total deaths based on the myriad of individual sources – something I note is not the case when searching for how many people have died to Nuclear Power plants)
Attention readers: Michael R is either thick or just plain intentionally misleading by repeatedly posting the conditions at Fukashima II (Daini) and NOT Fukashima I (Daiichi). Maybe he just doesn’t understand their are two facilities named somewhat closely.
I gave him an opportunity to gracefully correct his error/misinfo further upthread, so a thorough trashing had been warranted.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/15/newsbytes-gas-burning-bright-as-nuclear-renaissance-melts-down/#comment-621541
mods take note.
.
March 16, 2011
If you believe Michio Kaku, “We’re very close now to the point of no return. It’s gotten worse. We’re talking about workers coming into the reactor perhaps as a suicide mission and we may have to abandon ship.”
http://abcnews.go.com/International/japan-nuclear-crisis-rising-radiation-levels-halt-fukushima/story?id=13146516
On the other hand some are saying things are under control. So who do you believe?
Michael R
You should already know to not trust Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Since you would have ever quoted from them in the first place says something about you. This is my last comment in our exchange.
mods – pls post this version!
Michael R, take note:
Fukashima I (Daiichi) – (site w/problems)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Fukashima II – (Daini)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_II_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Daiichi has the ongoing series of problems.
.
You, well, I think Michael R, has wires crossed –
It would help if you could keep the players, sites straight.
See post above ref Fukashima I and II
The Japanese are no more going to switch to gas-fired power generation than they are going to switch to coal-fired generation, and for the same reason: they’d have to import all of the fuel.
****
Legatus says:
March 15, 2011 at 10:09 pm
But, you say, what about the explosions? The explosions are purely caused by the publics irrational, not to say just plain stupid, fear of even small and completly harmless amounts of radiation. The plants, due to this irrational fear, shut the steam inside the plant, to try and avoid bad publicity (result, even more bad publicity). Due to the way things work in reactors, this resultes in some of the water being converted into oxygen and hydrogen, result, explosion. They could have released it right into the air with no danger, since the half lives of the radioactive parts are so short (seconds for N16, the major source) that it cannot hurt anyone even if it started out radioactive enough to do so (which it didn’t, although it lasts such a short time I don’t think one could even detect if it did). Thus, this irrational fear, and the current desire of plant officials to coddle this irrational fear, are what caused the explosions.
****
That’s what I’ve noticed. If the units had simply been able to vent the outer-building “shell”, the hydrogen would have simply dispersed upward instead of accumulating in the top of the shell (just waiting for an ignition source). Much less chance of a big explosion, then.
A very simple design problem to correct. The rest of the plant design has worked as intended.
Perhaps Mike Smith or someone could do an article on the thorium reactors Mike advocates at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/14/nuclear-power-perspective/ . How do these work? Why are they safer? What do they cost?
“A very simple design problem to correct. The rest of the plant design has worked as intended.”
I’m pretty sure whatever bright engineer decided to put the diesel back up gensets on the ground floor instead of above the water level of a worst-case tsunami didn’t intend for the system to melt, or be well on its way to melting.
Ditto for the insufficient battery backups.
I find it interesting that the buildings (aside from being flooded at ground level) of Daiichi did pretty well…until they blew up.
There have been other designs that essentially are self-extinguishing without pumps or backup, but this isn’t one of those.
****
Alchemy says:
March 16, 2011 at 7:32 am
I’m pretty sure whatever bright engineer decided to put the diesel back up gensets on the ground floor instead of above the water level of a worst-case tsunami didn’t intend for the system to melt, or be well on its way to melting.
****
I agree — there are other obvious problems. The diesel backups & their fuel supplies should’ve been put well above any possible flood level. Still, relatively simple to correct.
Overall, the plants should not have been built at sea level in a high-risk earthquake zone — they should’ve been elevated above any possible tsunami. Still, they survived a 9.0 earthquake mostly intact.
No I was not trying to mislead and incidentally from Amino’s noise and other arguments had not even seen your posts.
I said from the beginning that there was a lot of confusion over the status of the Plant (Daiichi). Way back over a day or so I had not initially noticed that there were two (there is not a lot of press over Daini).
After realising there were two, I endeavored to ensure posting links for the correct one and I had been intending on ignoring Daini because it was not an issue – and indeed was checking titles to try to ensure that it was the correct plant however from what I can see on the last update it appears that the copy pasted sections are from Daini’s update.
The problem is I work upwards with facts (build upon them). I had initially made a mistake that I didn’t catch and as a result everything else was based upon that.
On the strange side, I couldn’t even double check that release to make sure because the press release that I quoted has vanished. In addition, because the latest releases are in Japanese, I have been translating on order to get most recent info and unfortunately in those the name of the plant is not translated (it appears as :Current status of 福島第二原子力発電所) which didn’t help me.
Consequently, assured that I had verified the correct plant all posts stemmed from that one.
The descriptive updates appear to combine multiple plants in one, I must have missed the change in title part way down, apologies. What I was saying originally would be true (I was trying to convey better information) it’s just the basis for it appears to be wrong.
I most certainly have no intention of misleading anyone, was just trying to convey most recent information.
The latest update – (and just to be sure we are talking about Daiichi) this starts it off:
The current radiation levels, as far as I can determine (they are once again in Japanese) are being posted for the correct site.
Hu McCulloch,
Thorium reactors are unproven, they require considerably more reprocessing and they produce U233 which is as good as PU239 for nuclear weapons.
Major downsides.