From the Global Warming Policy Foundation
The nuclear emergency is Japan will be a disaster for global warming activists. For a start, Japan’s own emissions will most likely rise in the medium term, now that so many nuclear plants – one of the most greenhouse-friendly power sources – have been knocked out: ‘Analysts think Japan will compensate for the shutdown of its 10 nuclear reactors by relying more heavily on traditional fossil fuels.’ —Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, 16 March 2011
Carbon dioxide emissions in Germany may increase by 4 percent annually in response to a moratorium on seven of the country’s oldest nuclear power plants, as power generation is shifted from nuclear power, a zero carbon source, to the other carbon-intensive energy sources that currently make up the country’s energy supply. –Sara Mansur, Breakthrough Institute, 15 March 2011
It was only a matter of time before environmentalists would point toward Japan, say, “We told you so,” and then declare a moral victory for anti-nuclear activism. Merely for the sake of argument, let’s pretend they are right. Eliminating nuclear power might be a nice experiment. But there is one big problem: Environmentalists are trying to eliminate all the other alternatives, as well. All sources of energy pose some sort of risk or cost. Risk-free, cost-free energy is a complete myth and simply does not, and will not, exist. Groups that never propose realistic solutions are simply not worth taking seriously. — Alex B. Berezow, RealClearScience, 15 March 2011
The main problem with energy supply systems is that for the last 100 years, governments have insisted on meddling with them, using subsidies, setting rates, and picking technologies. Consequently, entrepreneurs, consumers, and especially policymakers have no idea which power supply technologies actually provide the best balance between cost-effectiveness and safety. –Ronald Bailey, Reason Online, 15 March 2011
For all the emotive force of events in Japan, though, this is one issue where there is a pressing need to listen to what our heads say about the needs of the future, as opposed to subjecting ourselves to jittery whims of the heart. Most of the easy third ways are illusions. Energy efficiency has been improving for over 200 years, but it has worked to increase not curb demand. Off-shore wind remains so costly that market forces would simply push pollution overseas if it were taken up in a big way. A massive expansion of shale gas may yet pave the way to a plausible non-nuclear future, and it certainly warrants close examination. The fundamentals of the difficult decisions ahead, however, have not moved with the Earth. —Editorial, The Guardian, 15 March 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rick: Wait just a minute….what would a tsunami do to an offshore windfarm?
Good question. For that matter, what would the quake do to an onshore windfarm? Here is a link to a site with pictures of Japanese turbine installations. The one shown is in Fukushima (I think. Can’t read Japanese.) Maybe some of our commenters will find a way to determine how this unit has fared.
http://homepage1.nifty.com/cubo/wind/japan/nichidai.htm
Nomen Nescio writes:
“Yes, the events in Japan are so far from normal (8.9 quake with 23 foot tsunami) that it would have been miraculous had nothing gone wrong at any of the many reactors in Japan. And yes, the anti-nuclear folks seem to forget this fact.
But the events did in fact happen, and things did in fact go wrong at some of those reactors.”
Excuse me, but the problem that Japan faces at this moment is the result of a bad decision about the site of a nuclear facility. There is not some other problem. If the facility were to explode in a nuclear fireball, that hypothetical reality would be totally irrelevant to correcting the mistake that caused the existing problem at the nuclear facility. Japan is prone to tsunamis because it is especially vulnerable to earthquakes, given that it is located over the conjunction of several major fault lines. In such a location, Japan should refrain from constructing a whole bunch of things anywhere near its coast lines. It should refrain from constructing population centers there. It should refrain from constructing depots of all kinds there. It should refrain from constructing nuclear weapon launch sites there. I hope you get the idea.
The Japanese decision makers who should be held responsible for the existing problem are not the people who designed the facility but the people who decided on its location, and that latter group will include more politicians than nuclear engineers or executives. We need to identify the responsible actors correctly, not simply run around yelling “nuclear catastrophe.”
The mistake that led to the existing “crisis” has nothing to do with the safety of nuclear facilities. It has everything to do with the location of nuclear facilities. Why are you trying to change the subject to a non-issue, assuming that you do not work for our now White Hot Fury MSM?
One thing is for sure, the public in the USA and EU will want energy on demand no matter what happens in future. As long as there is enough oil, gas or coal they will vote with their health. If wind and solar are not up to the task they will vote with their health. It’s as simple as that.
oeman50 says:
March 16, 2011 at 11:34 am
“I must applaud the Germans for guarding their nuclear units against tsunamis in central Europe by shutting down seven of them and costing a few billion Euros. Way to go for being proactive! /sarc off”
Yeah. How long before Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, or Lithuania decides that Germany is ripe for annexation? Actually, some strategically located propaganda in German newspapers would probably do the job. /sarc off
No doubt the Greens are having a field day – ‘Told you so – ya-di-ya-di-ya..’ – but of course back in the real world we have to generate electricity in HUGE quantities worldwide, and fairy breath and butterfly wings just don’t cut it….
Current contribution to demand in the UK:
Nuclear – 19%.
Wind – 1%.
What do the incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl & Fukushima all have in common?
They were all functioning just fine until a shutdown was initiated (Three Mile Island & Chernobyl were scheduled events).
That was the first thing that popped into my mind when Germany announced that for safety reasons, it was going to shut down all the older reactors. I’m no expert in the field, but it seems to me the safest thing to do would be to begin the requisite investigations and allow the running reactors to continue running until they were scheduled for a shutdown or significant risk was determined.
Even here on WUWT we have this spectacular loss of perspective. How many would have been killed if they had all been coal fired plants? How about oil? How about Natural gas or hydro electric? In all of these cases the deaths and injuries would almost certainly have been much larger and all of the plants would have been affected rather than the oldest 25%.
This is not good news for those of us who think AGW is overblown. Some form of nuclear power is the best long term solution for most of our energy needs. Natural gas is much more dangerous and is valuable as a feed stock.
I especially love the panic over radiation doses of 2microsieverts per hour like Drudge was featuring yesterday. A lot of us have higher levels in our homes. Everyone who goes on an airplane flight or lives in th mountains or goes to a spa certainly hasa higher doses. If you recieved 57 years worth of this dose all in one hour there is a fairly good chance you would get a tummy ache.
now that so many nuclear plants – one of the most greenhouse-friendly power sources –
Who thinks that that statement is correct? and how do we figure that? These plants use enormous amounts of coolwater that produce a lot of warm water that produces a lot of water vapor which (apparently, reportedly) is a strong GHG.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
Apart from that, the warmer water also reportedly causes damage to sealife
(not so?)
In this situation the Tsunami would have likely wasked bits and pieces of the wind farm ashore as the earthquake itself would have already bent, twisted and mangled them. If you locate them far off shore how do you transmit the power without huge transmission loss. If they aren’t in shallow water you have vastly higher installation costs. To top it all off wind has to be backed up 100% by other sources which do the actual generation most of the time. Any such back up generation is less safe and less environmentally friendly than even these ancient nukes.
RockyRoad says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:47 am
Rick says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:36 am
Wait just a minute….what would a tsunami do to an offshore windfarm?
Not that anybody would really notice…..
Depends on the distance “offshore”. In many cases, the windfarm is far enough out that the tsunami (“harbor wave” by definition) isn’t much of a wave at all. I’d say unless the wind farm were on or next to the shore line, the impact would be minimal.
In Nova Scotia ANY wind farm is near the shore!
You seem to have confused “entrepreneur” with “rent-seeker.” In today’s culture of corporatism, it’s easy to understand how you can make that mistake. True entrepreneurs follow the market. Rent-seekers try to create the market through favorable regulation and legislation (Al Gore and GE are prime examples).
The market for wind-power without mandates, tax-breaks and subsidies? Near nothing, because in it’s present state, wind power is unreliable and expensive. Few people would voluntarily choose to use it.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
March 16, 2011 at 9:36 am
“It is unfortunate that the concept of ‘nuclear power stations’ is limited to pressurised light water reactors. They are risky and evidently dangerous when failing.
There are at least two competing nuclear technologies that have been proven to work and there would have been a drastically different outcome had either of them been used in Japan. I am of course referring to CANDU (U235) and Thorium-flouride reactors.”
Apparently light water reactors have stood firm for 50 years and amongst several hundred units running for all those decades only one has had all its security feature fail to create a disaster.
So how do you figure light water reactors with less are more dangerous than any other designs and technology? I think everyone need to remember that back then in the 50’s-80’s nobody really knew which design and technology would be the best 50 years later.
The japanese power plants that is stressed out today are from the 70’s which mean they started planning process in the 60’s.
However building new ones in the future ought to be for re-using spent nuclear fuel, we should recycle everything of course, and preferably using reactor designs that produce less radioactive waste, or rather stuff that breaks down faster.
John T says:
March 16, 2011 at 12:04 pm
“That was the first thing that popped into my mind when Germany announced that for safety reasons, it was going to shut down all the older reactors. I’m no expert in the field, but it seems to me the safest thing to do would be to begin the requisite investigations and allow the running reactors to continue running until they were scheduled for a shutdown or significant risk was determined.”
Merkel does it because public opinion here in Germany is in total nuclear panic mood; Geiger counters sell like fresh bread (cheap junk), every TV channel has a discussion round with a nuclear “expert” from Greenpeace. And our media mistranslates stuff they read in English language news mistranslated from Japanese sources. Cem Özdemür, the current figurehead of the Green party in Badem-Württemberg, said German peak electricity usage was only 80 Giga Byte (*) [sic] so we could easily switch off nuclear… you get the figure.
(*) = http://www.nathanaelfalk.org/2011/03/cem-ozdemir-verbaucht-stom-in-gigabyte.html
May I humbly request that all mentions of CO2 increases are put into perspective by linking to total CO2 emissions. As human activities are reckoned to release only approx 4% of overall CO2, any human-derived increases should be divided by 25. Thus a 4% increase (which probably sounds alarming to Warmists searching for things to be alarmed about) becomes, “a 4% increase, which is 0.16% increase of total emissions (from that country)”. That’s much less worrying!
NoAstronomer @ur momisugly March 16, 2011 at 10:12 am
“The entrepreneurs know *exactly* where the money (and perceived safety) lie – windpower. The market is completely swamped right now. Companies are queuing up to build wind farms world wide.”
I actually disagree with this statement. Industry has figured out that the biggest subsidies and lowest risk (wind power is mandated and gauranteed in my home state of Oregon) is in wind. A close study of Reason.tv on this subject shows that by far the largest subsidies per MWhr are in wind an solar.
http://reason.tv/video/show/tilting-at-wind-turbines-shoul
If you dont have time for the video, take a look at the graphic:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/energy-subsidies.jpg
In Oregon, we have a wind farm that is 90% taxpayer funded, with the wind energy developer having 10% skin in the game with a gauranteed market for the power paid for again by the energy consumer, representing a potential of 30% ROI (for the developer).
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/03/post_20.html
Read it and weep.
I submit that Ronald Bailey has it right.
“The main problem with energy supply systems is that for the last 100 years, governments have insisted on meddling with them, using subsidies, setting rates, and picking technologies.”
Thought for the day: “If I had a dollar for every time capitalism was blamed for problems created by government … I’d be a fat film-maker wearing a baseball cap.”
Japan has been talking about getting out of Kyoto/Cap and Trade. Maybe this will be the straw on the camel’s back that gets them to come to their senses. Same for Germany. Let’s see what happens to prices of good produced in those countries if they try to go anti-nuke while on C&T agendas.
“In fact the size of industry is already well past the point where the democratic governments in the developed world can cut subsidies because to do so means increasing unemployment.”
This is untrue from two perspectives. The most obvious refutation is that the number of jobs ‘created’ are actually very small, and come at a high price. More indirectly, what subsidies are actually doing is taking wealth from the public and using it to spend on creating electric power at a higher cost. Apart from the fact that the net effect of this is to destroy value rather than add value, it also commits the fallacy of the ‘broken window’.
French economist Bastiat used the anecdote of a child who broke a window and wins the acclaim of the onlookers for the jobs created in the glazier business. Bastiat was quite correct in pointing out that the fallacy arises because the onlookers are basing their conclusions on what they can see – the work being given to the glazier. What remains unseen is the fact that the person who has to pay for the window no longer has the money. What they do not see is that money no longer being spent on something else.
The argument that wind farm subsidies create jobs is just another example of this fallacy. The proponents point to the jobs created (rather few actually – it would probably be better to pay people to dig ditches), but ignore, or do not understand that because the public no longer have that money to spend on goods and services they value, other jobs are lost.
If governments are afraid to cut subsidies because they are afraid it will increase unemployment, then they are economically ignorant, and are probably followers of Paul ‘the US hasn’t stimulated enough’ Krugman. Let us members of the public show a bit more intelligence.
1 ton thorium, 200 tons uranium or 3,500,000 tons of coal. Choose wisely.
If Thorium is really so promising we might see in the near future Japan engaging in cooperation with China in its development.
Would be a mutual benefit for both countries, put them on a progress path and solve their energy supply problems whilst making nuclear really safe.
It threatens the AGW-movement for sure, as our friend Monbiot has of course realised:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/mar/16/japan-nuclear-crisis-atomic-energy
First off, Japan has only lost about 10% of it’s electric generating capacity. That will be taken care of within a year or so. Second, it’s not many “plants”, it is at most 6 reactors at one plant. Third, there is far too much hysteria over the small amount of radiation coming from this plant. Practically the entire left coast of the US is ready to OD on potassium iodide, if they haven’t already. I’ve already heard people freaking out over an irrational fear of radioactive salmon from Alaska, and glow in the dark veggies from CA.
Get a grip people. Read some literature on radiation for God’s sake.
I think this is an Ideal solution to most power requirements that are safe and affordable, and will satisfy MOST people from both sides of the climate debate.
President Obama please it check it out.
Here is an American Company that looks like a winner to me: Hyperion Mini Power Reactor.
THIS SEEMS TO BE THE WAY A SMALL INEXPENSIVE NUCLEAR POWER MODULES THAT DOESN’T NEED HUGE EXPENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE, OR LARGE SCALE TRANSMISSION LINES. THE MODULES CAN BE PIGGY BACKED FOR LARGER POWER REQUIREMENTS. CAN BE QUICKLY BUILT ON AN ASSEMBLY LINE BASIS, INSTALLED AND RUNNING IN A SHORT TIME FRAME. – What’s not to like?
The Hyperion Mini Nuclear Power Module (HPG) = 25 megawatts = 25 000 kilowatts
Clean, Safe, Affordable Power where you need it, when you need it.
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/product.html
The Hyperion Mini Power Reactor. It is a small, safe transportable reactor module that is set up and in operation quickly.
Hyperion Power’s Mini Power Reactor, is a liquid metal-cooled fast reactor, and offers unique safety features and efficiency. The Hyperion does not need water to cool the reactor. Water is not used as coolant; it cannot go “supercritical” or get too hot. The Hyperion only needs a water supply to create Steam or hot water for heating or for the Steam turbines that will generate the electricity. Hyperion can be ganged or teamed together; the modules can produce even more consistent energy for larger projects.
Housed in a permanently sealed container just 1.5 meters wide by 2.5 meters tall, it’s small enough to be transported by truck, rail or ship. Meeting all the non-proliferation criteria of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), each unit produces 70 megawatts of thermal energy or 25 megawatts of electric power— enough to provide electricity for 20,000 average American-size homes or the industrial equivalent for seven to ten years depending on usage. Nuclear-based power plants can produce heat or electricity 24/7 with no greenhouse-gas emissions.
Offering a cost-efficient source of clean, emission-free, baseload energy, the Hyperion Power Module will provide crucial independent power for military installations; heat, steam, and electricity for mining operations; and electricity for local infrastructure and clean water processes in communities around the globe.
Who would have thought that the benefits of generating electricity from huge nuclear power plants… could ever be provided in a small, compact, energy module The size of a shipping container, that can be transported by truck, rail or ship to remote locations wherever reliable electricity and heat for communities, industry, military, mining or any application where heat and energy is needed?
Once sited safely in its underground containment vessel, an HPM is monitored but does not require a battery of operational personnel. It just quietly delivers safe, reliable power – 70 MW thermal or 25 MW electric via steam turbine – for a period of 7 to 10 years. A factory fresh module is shipped to quickly and simply replaces the reactor package.
. Hyperion power is also cheaper than fossil fuels and, when you consider the cost of land and materials, watt to watt, Hyperion’s innovative energy technology is even more affordable than many developing “alternative” energy technologies.
Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail. Like a power battery, Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and are delivered factory sealed. They are never opened on site.
Even if one were compromised, the material inside would not be appropriate for weapon proliferation purposes.
Further, due to the unique, yet proven science upon which this new technology is based, it is impossible for the module to go supercritical, “melt down” or create any type of emergency situation.
If opened, the very small amount of fuel that is enclosed would immediately cool. The waste produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling.
Conceived at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the HPM intellectual property portfolio has been licensed to Hyperion Power Generation for commercialization under the laboratory’s technology transfer program. Inherently safe, the HPM utilizes the energy of low-enriched uranium fuel and meets all the non-proliferation criteria the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). Three factories, spread across the globe are planned to produce 4,000 units of the first design.
Please forward this info.
Ted.
@ur momisugly 1DandyTroll
So how do you figure light water reactors with less are more dangerous than any other designs and technology? I think everyone need to remember that back then in the 50′s-80′s nobody really knew which design and technology would be the best 50 years later.
+++++++++
I make inputs to national standards from time to time and safety is usually involved. On the driving principles of safety is that when safety requires the presence of something, rather than its absence, it is less safe.
Pressurised light water reactors require the presence of high pressure water (or gas) in order to remain safe, even when shut down (rapidly). Anything that goes wrong with any part of the containment system allows the pressure to drop or the water to escape. The truth of that principle is surely made plain this week in Japan.
CANDU reactors are only hot when there is heavy water inside the array of fuel rods. The Pickering Nuclear Power Station east of Toronto uses this approach. The water is placed in something like a giant chicken feeder where there is a large container of water filling a ring around the base. With a chicken feeder, removing some water from the ring allows a bubble to rise and a little water from inside replenishes the water removed from the ring. In the CANDU reactor there is no cap on top so the water tries to fall out immediately. It is kept in position by means of air pressure pumped into the cavity surrounding the whole assembly, pushing the water up.
If anything goes wrong, the air pressure is released. The heavy water falls into and through the trough. The reactor is thus immediately shut off, is safe and does not continue to generate heat as the U235 can’t do that without the moderating influence of the heavy water. If Pickering is hit by an earthquake and tsunami and the entire plant is broken open, it will simply shut off. It does not require the presence of a power, a back-up generator, batteries, intact piping, water and alert controlling engineers in order to remain safe.
The Banana Index:
The hyping of the Three Mile Island event on TV thoughout the week is typical of people’s misunderstanding of exposure to radiation. The exposure of the public from TMI radiation was equal to eating a banana (bananas have Potassium 40 in them). CNN has it that ‘No one died!” at TMI. Well, eating a banana doesn’t usually kill people.
I just returned from Ulaanbaatar where ‘greens’ shriek about ‘uranium contamination and radiation from burning coal’. The matter was studied to death and here is so little radiation that it pales in comparison to standing outside, or walking into a concrete building. Standing outside in the natural and continuous cosmic ray showers exposes you to 18 microsieverts. If you step into a building it increases to 26 microsieverts because the stones crushed to make concrete contain uranium (granite does, you know…). The radiation received from living in a building in Ulaabaatar is the equivalent of eating a banana every two weeks.
Just because we can measure something does not mean that is is dangerous. Did we not evolve in the radon gas filled radioactive granite caves of our troglodyte forebears?
Since the true objective of green policies is the destruction of the civilization that has given us the highest overall standard of living in history, the tsunami and its aftereffects do not “threaten the global warming movement,” but instead further it.