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.
In the open ocean the wave length of a “tsunami” will be very long and its wave height not tall at all. An object such as a small ship or a properly anchored platform would hardly notice the passage of this wave. Because of the lack of surface features of these waves, tsunami detection uses, among other systems, anchored seafloor bottom pressure recorders (BPR) and companion moored surface buoys for real-time communications, called “ Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART)”; see
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/dart/dart.shtml
Crispin in Waterloo writes:
“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?”
One of the great mysteries of this age, the Yuppie and post-Yuppie age, is the total and complete disappearance of memory and of historical imagination. Each and everyone of my students was born yesterday. My meagre hunch is the self-esteem movement. If you are totally focused on your own wonderfulness, you are not going to think about your growth up from primal sludge.
I hope that someday an explanation of this memory loss phenomenon will be published in some great and wonderful book. I do not expect to live long enough to see its publication.
HenryP says:
March 16, 2011 at 12:16 pm
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?)
Not so
The warm ‘cooling water’ outflows from nuclear plants in Florida are havens for wildlife. In the recent cold that killed many manatees it was the nuclear power plants that kept them alive. Along with many other warm water fish and amphibians.
Patrik refers us to Monbiot who writes:
“Several writers for the Guardian have made what I believe is an unjustifiable leap. A disaster has occurred in a plant that was appallingly sited in an earthquake zone; therefore, they argue, all nuclear power programmes should be abandoned everywhere.”
I am at a loss for words. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that Monbiot and I have agreed on an argument. Monbiot, I tip my hat to you. You have a cogent criticism of critics of nuclear energy. (Though, I did state this argument a few days ago.) Now, if he will only come out against the hysteria and panic fostered by the utterly childish MSM, I will salute him.
@Crispin in Waterloo
“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.”
Safety is the concern of those overly worried about their own anxiety.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for safety, however all the safety feature, be it a computer systems or a nuclear power plants, is because our knowledge to design stuff only goes so far, which isn’t especially far, that’s why we go above and beyond and try to imagine the unimaginable and imagine ourselves that we fix that to.
When you don’t know the dangers, or pressed for time, you don’t imagine the need for “safety” or you disregard it. When you enough to know it is dangerous but don’t know how to offset it with the basics . . .
But, and even though my argument will stand, doesn’t mean the light water reactors are safe. Observable fact has it that for more than 99.5% of the times the safety features worked. But you want to argue that they haven’t based solely on the Fukushima power plants problem, who’s vital safety measures has worked even though most became null and void due to the tsunamis. The plants was neither designed to stand against a 9.0 earth quake nor a 30 feet tsunami, let alone 200 hundred 5+ earthquakes in less ‘an a week plus a bunch of other tsunamis.
Would you have wanted a Canadian CANDU plant with a less sturdy structure in Fukushima instead, just because you considered it to be more safe? But what do I know, maybe the CANDU reactors are void potential radiation leaks and disasters and so even safety features just because they’re considered more safe?
The light water plants still stands in Japan and they were built in the 70’s, designed in the 60’s. Until the CANDU plants, or some fabled nuclear reactor plant, are as numerous as has stand against time and the same forces, nature and economical, as the light water plants has, you can’t really say they’re more safe just because the few existing ones are safe in a safe place.
But like I said no body would complain if everyone switched to CANDU’s, or the fabled ones, but then only mostly because of all the money switching hands, safety never comes first not even for simple computer users like yourself I imagine. 🙂
All of the problems are basically the same problem – getting enough water in there to keep things from getting too hot. The moral of the story would seem to be to build these things underwater in future. That way they fail safe. The entire structure can be easily flooded with water in the event of a serious emergency by simply opening some valves. And if the emergency involves an explosion you won’t even need to do that.
Theo Goodwin says:
March 16, 2011 at 11:49 am
Spot on.
Re
“March 16, 2011 at 10:09 am
Of course as has also been noted the CO2-GW sect are also (still?!) promoting the total lie that CO2-GW encourages earthquakes. This link usefully exposes that deceitful drivel- http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7394
For more on solar-lunar earthquake links and the dangerous times we live in please see- http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=326&c=5
Thanks, Piers”
Please plot solar activity or “lunar activity” against the same earthquake plot. I take it that if you don’t get any correlation you will admit your “earthquakes are caused by the sun” theory is a lie too?
Theo Goodwin,
at 11:49 you responded to my post.I suppose I should apologize for not writing more clearly My intention was to suggest we all get a grip before we go off on tirades either for or against nuclear power, and to refrain from placing blame until some questions are answered.
But apparently it’s been plenty long enough for you to have not only determined the exact cause of the failures here, even though most of the rest of us haven’t even learned the extent of those failures, but you have also determined that it is politicians who are to blame. Bravo!
And no, I do not work for the MSM. In fact if you read my second post you will have seen that it is because of the hype that I wrote in the first place.
Finally, while most of the hype is coming from the anti-nuke leaning members of the media, those who declare nuclear energy to be safe, period, if not for the politicians, are of no more use to me. Why can’t we say, ONCE THE DUST HAS SETTLED, let’s look at things and figure out what went wrong and what went right and how to improve in the future, even if siting of these plants is indeed one of those things that went wrong.
Thank God I’m not one of your students.
For various strange and mysterious unknown reasons, the current US Administration and ABC News (US) track closely. One might think they are working together. For example, on Tuesday (March 15) ABC had a report on counterfeit goods like pharmaceuticals and DVD’s. As reported on CNET the same day, the White House is asking Congress to tighten up intellectual property rights for things like pharmaceuticals and movies (on DVD’s). Possibly reflecting CNET’s focus on technology, they highlighted:
The White House announced they still support nuclear energy. On Tuesday’s ABC World News, Nightline, and today’s Good Morning America (link), they were trying to ratchet down the radiation hysteria by showing the radiation we are normally exposed to, from bananas, air travel, granite and marble, red Fiestaware… Sure seemed like they had read the banana post and comments. They likely owe Anthony an “inspired by a post on” credit, if not royalties.
Tonight on World News, the WH clarified the President’s position. He favors small modular reactors. To get a feel for what it sounded like they were describing, well, you can read the long-winded, well-detailed, and mysteriously perfectly-timed virtually-an-ad comment by the enigmatic “Ted” above.
(BTW, will posting on YouTube become a possible felony?)
There has been little said about the very large Onagawa nuclear plant, which was much closer to the epicenter of the earthquake, and like Fukushima is placed right on the shoreline. It seems to have survived intact. It is much more modern (1995) than Fukushima (1970); some of the problems at Fukushima may be associated with its age.
Curiousgeorge says:
March 16, 2011 at 2:42 pm
‘First off, Japan has only lost about 10% of it’s electric generating capacity.’
It’s more like 20%. At least 8 fossil plants are down as well.
The first backup power for a nuclear power plant is a nearby fossil plant(The grid).
Then on site diesel. Then batteries.
Some dumb questions
It looks like they are having trouble keeping the spent fuel pools cooled.There has to be a reason why.The line about generators doesn’t cut it anymore.They could have a thousand generators there in an hour I assume.
Why can’t they drop ice in?I know the ice would melt instantly,but if they poured enough in?What about liquid nitrogen?Or would that create an explosion?
I have the feeling that this crisis is going to drag on for days,it looks to me like a battle is going on with neither winning.I hope I’m wrong when I say it could go either way.I wonder how much radiation will be released if the cooling fails?Has the cooling they have been doing lessened the radiation?
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
Is the IAEA being alarmist?Or are they downplaying?
@Noelene says:
March 16, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Is the IAEA being alarmist?Or are they downplaying?
——
REPLY
I highly recommend keeping an eye on this site, it seems to be the best of the nuclear industry information sources:
http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/default.aspx
We have multiple system failures building up to a catastrophe, I don’t think the most alarmist scenarios presently being discussed will turn out to be dire enough. I sincerely hope I am wrong in this.
The tsunami damage following the earthquake seems to be primarily responsible for all of the system failures, rather than the earthquake itself. Right now, the loss of coolant in spent fuel pools is an unpleasant complication that makes the situation far worse, as these don’t have even minimal containment. Bad…very bad.
@Noelene
The spent fuel area is on an upper floor of the building. Spent fuel rods are stored immersed in a pool to stop them overheating. A crack in the pool would be all it takes to make a big problem.
The issue with generators is that the electrical switch room where generators would normally be plugged into the plant electrical system is in the basement, and the basement is currently full of sea water. That is a nasty problem which a thousand generators won’t fix.
@Ian H says:
March 16, 2011 at 7:18 pm
—–
Thanks, Ian, good response. This is a decent article about newest developments, note the graphic which generally shows the location of the spent fuel pools:
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Helicopters-Douse-Quake-Damaged-Nuclear-Plant-with-Water–118135934.html
There is DEEP division within the environmental movement.
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.
Power plants are always by large flowing water, to achieve the cooling. A nuclear reactor works by generating heat, which means cooling in essential. Japan is short of the big rivers which suffice in other countries, and anyway the big rivers tend to have big towns.
You can’t build a major nuclear power station inland in Japan.
In fact you can’t build much inland, because a) it is quite mountainous, and b) major industrial cities need cheap transportation, which come from being coastal (or riverine).
There are lots of things the Japanese do wrong, but building their cities and power stations on the coast is not in that number. Large cities worldwide are generally coastal, unless the country has navigable rivers. Power stations likewise.
Aren’t pebble bed reactors considered fairly safe since they shut down if the pebble bed overheats?
“or walking into a concrete building.”
Ouch! I usually try to find a door instead.
Jim K;
Just to make it clear, the energy of a tsunami in the open ocean (deep water) is in the speed and length of the wave; it is very small in height, just a few inches.
When it approaches shore, it is forced to slow, and then the water piles up into a deep (high) wave.
So offshore rigs (whether oil or wind, etc.) in deep water are rarely harmed by tsunamis.
Henry@IanW
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2384887073&topic=2148
Thanks Ian
Looks like a lot will be learned from this incident,like don’t put power access in basement for one.
There was hype in some cases about Fukushima. In most cases there hasn’t been enough information on the overall picture. There really was danger of meltdown more than once. That was not hype. And there was a 40% chance that if meltdown did happen it could penetrate the cement and steel casing. That is the catastrophe many could say would have been Chernobyl-like. That was real also. It also was not hype.
Yesterday the entire core of #4 was removed and placed in a spent fuel cooling pool. The water in that pool boiled off leaving the spent fuel and the core of #4 exposed. The spent fuel pool at #3 also boiled down. It is not clear yet how this happened. This is where the increased radiation that lead to evacuation came from yesterday. This is also where all the fears of a scenario worse than Chernobyl and a radioactive cloud came from yesterday. (Michio Kaku was quoted this morning about the point of no return being near.) They are not allowing people to get in close to these pools. That is why the helicopters are being used. It is being reported that the helicopters are dumping water on a reactor. But that is not true. The water is being dumped into the boiled off pools. A police water cannon used for crowd control has been called in also to spray water in from a distance. As soon as the pools are filled with water humans can go back in. The filling of the pools may be done by now. I don’t know. I haven’t heard an update.
There is good news.
There is wire rigging from the grid being run to the site to supply power for pumping water to all rods for cooling. The picture could change much for the good then.
What is more good news is that some power is on in #6. This also could provide power for pumping water. They are also attempting to run wiring from #6 to #5 since #5 is only running on battery power. If those batteries run down they will find themselves with a similar problem that #1 to #4 are in now.
There is a nuclear ‘cloud’ but it is not as strong as some are saying it is. The winds are blowing west to east so it is all being blown out to the ocean. If all fuel can be cooled the danger level will go dramatically down
Let’s all pray for that.
More details can be heard at the link here. It will begin download after clicking on it:
http://k002.kiwi6.com/hotlink/sv7uwgz99w (there is an audio glitch in the interviewers end of the phone, but not and the nuclear engineers end)
It is an interview with a Navy nuclear engineer (ret). He has given the best updates, by far.
There are 5 interviews with him at this link, scroll down:
http://georneys.blogspot.com/
CRS, Dr.P.H
That article seems a bit alarmist.
The IEAE says that reactor 4 is at 84 degrees,but NISA says 56.
http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110317-1.pdf
So maybe the brave men are winning.
Is it only no 4 that has power problems,they seem to have cooled the other 3 ok.
what temperature do they have to be at to be declared controlled?