Guest post by Michael Dickey (cross posted from his website matus1976.com)
The decline of nuclear power has had a significant effect on global carbon emissions and subsequently any anthropogenic global warming effect. To see the extent of this influence, let us first take a look at total U.S. carbon emissions since 1900.
According to the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, from 1900 to 2006, US carbon emissions rose from 181 MMT (million metric tons) to 1,569 MMT.
Taking a look at US electricity generation by type, according to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. generates 51% of its power from coal, and cumulatively about 71% of its power from fossil fuel sources.
Comparing the energy source to Carbon emissions, the burning of coal to generate electricity alone emits more CO2 than any other single source, about one-third of the total.
As the US Electrical Generation by Type figure shows, about 20% of the U.S. electrical supply comes from nuclear power. Let us now imagine that the U.S. never built any nuclear power plants, but instead built more coal plants to generate the electricity those nuclear plants would have generated.
According to the Energy Information Administration, since 1971, 18.6 billion MW•h (Megawatt hour) of electrical power have been generated by nuclear sources (1). According to the US Department of Energy, every kW•h (kilowatt hour) of electricity generated by coal produces 2.095 lbs of CO2 (2).
As the calculations in the table above show, every MW•h of electricity generated by coal generates 2,095 pounds of carbon dioxide. For 18.6 billion MW•h at 2,095 pounds of CO2 per MW•h, this amounts to 39.0 trillion additional lbs of CO2, or 17.7 billion metric tons. Finally, converting the 17.7 billion metric tons of CO2 to carbon results in 4.842 billion, or 4,842 million metric tons of carbon.
What all this shows is that had this power been generated by coal plants, an additional 4,842 million metric tons of carbon would have been released into the atmosphere. Breaking this calculation down by year, what would this have made our carbon emissions record look like?
Again in blue we see the real world US carbon emissions, but in green we see what the carbon emissions would have been if all the electricity generated by our nuclear infrastructure had instead been generated by coal power plants.
In all, carbon emissions would have been 14.6% higher, with 1,782 MMT of carbon released without nuclear power plants, while only 1,552 MMT are released with our current nuclear infrastructure. This is why many leading environmentalists, such as James Lovelock (author of the Gaia Hypothesis) are vocal supporters of nuclear power.
But this chart is not entirely fair to nuclear power, because the growth of nuclear power was severely derailed by environmentalist hyperbole and outright scaremongering. Because of the attacks by environmentalists on nuclear power, many planned power plants were cancelled, and many existing plants licenses were not renewed. The result, according to Al Gore himself in “Our Choice” was:
“Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage…Thus, only about one-fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating.” (3)
Let us take a look then at U.S. carbon emissions if the U.S. had simply built and operated the power plants that were originally planned.
Yup, that’s right people: if the US had simply built and operated the nuclear power plants it had planned and licensed, it would today be producing not only less carbon emissions than it did in 1972, but would in fact be emitting almost half the carbon emissions it is now.
But let’s not forget that the very planning and licensing of nuclear power plants was drastically affected by the anti-scientific opposition. Looking again at the Energy Information Administrations figures, the average sustained growth for nuclear generating capacity was increasing by about 28.8 million Megawatt hours for a 20 year period from 1971 to 1989
Here we see a chart taken from the EIA data which shows the growth of real nuclear generating capacity in blue, and the projected growth in red, had the growth of the previous 20 year period been sustained (remember, this is still only about one-fourth of the intended capacity). In this graph, any year which produced less than the average of the previous 20 years was increased to that average of 28.8 million MW•h.
Now let’s take this projected growth and imagine the U.S. had actually built a nuclear infrastructure at this level. What would our carbon emissions look like?
Incredibly, U.S. carbon emissions today would be almost one-fourth of what they are currently. These numbers are estimated by taking the average yearly increase from 1971 to 1989 in nuclear generating capacity and projecting it to the current day, and since these numbers are only one-fourth of the original planned capacity, the result is multiplied by four. In case you think my numbers are fanciful, let’s see if there are any countries out there that did not get entirely persuaded by the anti-nuclear hysteria, and how that affected their carbon emissions.
After the energy crisis of the 70s, France, which was highly dependent on imported oil for electricity production, decided to divest themselves of Middle Eastern oil dependence. Lacking significant fossil fuel deposits, they opted for a nuclear infrastructure. Today nuclear power generates about 78% of France’s electrical power supply, and it is today the world’s largest exporter of electrical energy. France alone accounts for 47% of Western Europe’s nuclear generated electricity (3).
While we do not see the production in France dropping to half of its 1970s levels as we would have in the U.S. had it continued the transition to a nuclear infrastructure, nevertheless the 40% reductions are close and tremendously significant.
Consider from the presented information what the total potential nuclear generating capacity for the US would be if it sustained the high level growth and achieved its planned capacity.
By the year 2000, the US nuclear infrastructure could have been generating 100% of the domestic electrical supply. This is not an extraordinary claim considering, again, that France generates 78% of electrical energy from nuclear power.
Extrapolating this to the global climate, let’s take a look at the global carbon emissions levels and compare them against a world where the U.S. sustained the first two decades of its nuclear infrastructure growth perpetually and ultimately achieved the original planned capacity.
In green, we see the existing global carbon emissions levels and in purple is the U.S. carbon emission levels if it continued to adopt a nuclear infrastructure. In red then, as a result, we see the global carbon levels would have been almost 15% lower than current levels.
I invite readers to extrapolate then where the total global carbon emissions would be if all the post-industrialized nations had adopted nuclear power – as their natural technological progressions would have dictated – if it were not for the hijacking of this process by anti-scientific hyperbole by scaremongering environmental activists. Many organizations – such as Green Peace, still ardently oppose nuclear power. And these levels, mind you, are only about one-tenth of what the Atomic Energy Commission was projecting based on demand during the 60s, where at its height 25 new nuclear power plants were being built every year, and the AEC anticipated that by the year 2000 over 1,000 nuclear power plants would be in operation in the U.S.. Today only 104 operate.
Let us project an educated guess as to what the resulting reduction in carbon emissions would have been had the European Union (which in 2005 generated 15% of their electricity with nuclear) Japan (34.5% nuclear) and finally, going into the future China and India as they fully industrialize.
All of these facts lead to one conclusion: if manmade global warming is a real problem, then it was in fact caused by environmental alarmism. That is not to say that some environmentalism has not been good, but this atrocious abandonment of reason hangs as an ominous cloud over everything environmentalists advocate. Rational environmentalists, such as James Lovelock, who want a high standard of living for humans and a clean planet are quick to change their minds about nuclear power. Irrational environmentalists who actually do not desire wealthy, comfortable lives for all people on the planet–as well as a clean planet–actively oppose nuclear power. Nuclear power is a litmus test for integrity within the environmentalist community.
If you want to spur the economy, stop global warming, and undermine the oil-fueled, terrorist-breeding, murderous theocracies of the world, the solution is simple: build nuclear power plants.
– Sources –
Energy Information Administration – http://www.eia.doe.gov/
US Electrical Generation Sources by Type – http://www.clean-coal.info/drupal/node/164
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
CDIAC US Carbon Emissions – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/emissions/usa.dat
CDIAC France Carbon Emissions – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/fra.html
(1) – “18.6 billion MW•h (Megawatt hours) of electrical power have been generated by nuclear sources” – Energy Information Administration – http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec8_3.pdf
(2) – “every kW•h of electricity generated by coal produces 2.095 lbs of CO2” – US Department of Energy “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from the Generation of Electrical Power in the United States” – http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/environment/co2emiss00.pdf
(3) – Al Gore (2009). Our Choice, Bloomsbury, p. 157.
(4) – “France alone accounts for 47% of western Europe’s nuclear generated electricity” – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 2008 World Nuclear Industry Status Report, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/reports/2008-world-nuclear-industry-status-report/2008-world-nuclear-industry-status-re-1
“Acids”, do you look under your bed every time you come home, to check for gremlins?
There is nothing mysterious about these big self-propelled pumps. And no, the Japanese have nothing comparable, that’s why they have to be flown in.
http://www.pmw.de/cps/rde/xchg/pm_online/hs.xsl/9419_ENU_HTML.htm
“Since Tuesday, 22.3.2011, a 58-metre Putzmeister large-boom pump has been pumping water for cooling at the atomic power plant in Fukushima.
A few days ago, the Japanese operator decided to use another four Putzmeister machines at the damaged reactor blocks in Fukushima: Two 62-metre-high machines with 6 arms (M 62-6) and two 70-metre-high machines (M 70-5). All the machines are from Germany. The two 70-metre pumps are to be taken from construction sites in the USA. The first machine will probably be flown from Stuttgart to Japan on 31.03 in an Antonov wide-bodied aircraft, and the other machines will be flown in during the following days. Initially, they will probably pump water; later they will be used for any necessary concreting work.”
Francisco says:
March 31, 2011 at 5:58 pm
phlogiston says:
March 31, 2011 at 4:06 pm
But it was maniacally idiotic management, incompetent operators and Soviet industrial oplitics that combined to cause the accident. Not a design flaw of the RBMK. Other RBMKs have run safely for decades in Russia and eastern Europe.
=================
The old siren song goes on and on and on.
The plants are all very safe.
OK this debate drives each side to exaggeration as usual. No, nuclear power is not safe. Being a human being is not safe. It is impossible to generate a large amount of electical power at a single industrial installation in a manner without dangers. The point that frustrated many of us is that there is a specially irrational vendetta against nuclear power. The risks are there but the evidence for health risk at the low radiation doses that affect most people after a nuclear incident is weak and contradictory. The public attitude to nuclear technology is not rational.
The constructive response is to learn lessons from incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
jakers says:
April 1, 2011 @ur momisugly 9:42 am
Heroic plant workers are resigned to radiation death
http://www.foxnew.com/world/2011/03/31/japans-nuclear-rescuers-inevitable-die-weeks/?test=latestnews#
Doug Badgero replies:
April 1, 2011 @ur momisugly 11:42 am
jakers
An article sourced from a mother of one of the workers………powerful evidence indeed.
Yes indeed, powerful evidence. The workers have been saying that since the beginning when they first went in. There’s been a lot of coverage about it, they are resigned to their fate.
“Japanese Workers Send Messages to Families As They Battle To Save Japan” AFP, Reuters, Yahoo!7 March 18, 2011, 2:35 pm
Absent credible evidence of a massive coverup I will continue to rely on the information coming from the IAEA and my 25 years experience as a radiation worker.
Obviously, these radiation workers must be much less experienced than you and know nothing about the real neglible effects to worry their families with such talk.. tsk
Hmm, you will rely only on information coming from the IAEA and without credible evidence you won’t believe in a coverup.
So, why are you relying on evidence from an organisation created to promote the use of nuclear energy, the International Atomic Energy Agency, a branch of the UN? –
quote: ..the position of the IAEA, set up through the UN in 1957 “to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy,” and its 1959 agreement with WHO. There is a “need to change,” it says, the IAEA-WHO pact. It has muzzled the WHO, providing for the “hiding” from the “public of any information “unwanted” by the nuclear industry.
“An important lesson from the Chernobyl experience is that experts and organizations tied to the nuclear industry have dismissed and ignored the consequences of the catastrophe,” it states. unquote
What is “it” ? – The Book which is scaring pro-nuclear apologists, which sunspot posted April, 1 @ur momisugly 2:03 am.
The above extract from an article about the book: http://www.napf.org/articles/db_article.php?print&article_id=141
From which: quote Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences. It is authored by three noted scientists:
Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president; Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and Dr. Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. Its editor is Dr. Janetter Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long-involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.
The book is solidly based–on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports–some 5,000 in all. unquote
The article goes on to give Alice Slater’s opinion on The Book [representative in NY of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation] –
“Aided by a corrupt IAEA, the world has been subjected to a massive cover-up and deception about the true damages caused by Chernobyl.”
You, and the others here arguing that nuclear is safe and death and health effects from nuclear radiation exaggerated, can follow sunspot’s link and read the book and decided whether or not you agree with her, do let us know.
Meanwhile you can read this: http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/HoloVsNoProb.html
From which, quote: On May 21, 1991, the IAEA released a 60-page summary of the conclusions reached by these traveling experts (IAEA 1991-a). The report itself was withheld and not made available for examination by the press or by independent analysts. unquote.
It then gives examples of what the Press made from this Summary, and continues, quote:
It is a scandal for the IAEA Summary to be treated respectfully by the press as a scientifically valid study of radiation health effects from Chernobyl. The IAEA study was pre-destined to find no provable health differences between the study’s so-called exposed and so called unexposed groups — and hence no provable radiation-induced health effects — because the IAEA used two groups which experienced only a negligible dose-difference. unquote.
So, what do you do now? The source you rely on, IAEA, is proved corrupt, and you now have the credible evidence of a massive cover-up you required.
This isn’t anyone’s opinion which y’all can dismiss or denigrate, you can go to the report itself and see how the statistics were used to lie about this, to deliberately deceive the public.
What I find interesting is that the Japanese nuclear workers are in no doubt as to their fate, while others here ‘in the radiation business’ turn out to be educated by the contrived deceit of the nuclear energy government/industry alliance and so ignorant of the effects to be expected from exposure.
Myrrh,
Neither their nor your ignorance on this subject is my responsibility.
I haven’t commented on this issue because of ‘the fog of war.’ There are reliable reports, and completely unreliable reports. Time will sort them out as the fog lifts.
Until then, here is another view, for what it’s worth.
“Hey Germany, you can pumping water? We can’t do no water pumping here. We so technically challenged. We still rubbing sticks for making fire. You know how water pumping?….. Oh? Ya? You got any big ones? ……….. No, we can afford it. We don’t got no housing problem for 17 years. That just baboon telling you that. We got plenty money to pay for using your big water pumping. Send it over!”
“Hey America, what you say? You can do water pumping too? We can’t do no water pumping. We don’t got that in Japan. We still using Dixie cups and string for talking our far away family. You can do that water pumping over there? ……… Ya? You can do it too? …….. Okay! We want the biggest one you got!……… Huh? No, that little tsunami was no expensive. We got so much money. Earthquake and tsunami not so bad. You should try one some time. Send over that biggie!”
Myrhh, the Belarus study you referred to has been confirmed by no other scientific health reviews. It was smacked down earlier in this thread. The rest of your entire post is nothing but unsubstantiated claims made by you. Your ad hominem condemnation of the IAEA simply proves the vacuousness of your statements. You offer not a single shred of evidence that what they publish is not accurate. Hence, you either have evidence you haven’t told us, or you’re lying your face off.
Which is it?
Doug Badgero
If you are so confident then why are you here? If I was really as confident as you seem to be I wouldn’t waste one moment of my time here.
Exactly, we simply do not have reliable information to evaluate, (it is highly probable that even the “experts” on scene do not have reliable information yet.)
It will take weeks or months of followup examination to get a good picture of what did happen and how it happened. Until then we are all just howling at the moon.
The one thing that is certain, is that historically the anti-nuclear folks have consistently blown radiological incidents completely out of proportion, and their worst case scenarios are so far out of bounds compared to the real after the fact analysis, you can almost use them as a negative indicator of the one situation that you can be quite sure will not develop.
Larry
If some would kindly explain to me what Amino Acid’s problem is, I’d be grateful. Can’t make heads nor tails of what appears to me as gibberish.
Doug Badgero says:
April 1, 2011 at 6:24 pm
Myrrh,
Neither their nor your ignorance on this subject is my responsibility>
? Your ignorance is your responsibility.
But that’s the best you can come up with in response to showing you that there is credible evidence of widespread cover-up you asked for? And to boot, in the very organisation you say is your source of information on the subject?
What you are responsible for is the message you promote here.
Now that it is shown your source of information is deliberately deceitful and is organised to con the public, then your continuing to promote their deceit can no longer be claimed to be done in ignorance. If it ever was.
Your very next utterance downplaying the effects of Chernobyl, or the dangers to the health of the Japanese and others affected by the Fukushima, or in general the downplaying of the dangers of nuclear radiation coming from these reactors, broke and unbroke, and the dismissal of the observed health problems and the denigration of those who protest at the cover-up and deceit, will be done in the knowledge that you also have proof of the duplicity of the nuclear industry because you’ve been given it here. And we here know you know.
You can no longer claim ignorance, or pretend to ignorance, about the true motives of those promoting your industry. Although I have naturally, and because I have no proof otherwise, not presumed that you are knowingly part and parcel of the monstrous propaganda machine churning out this deceit, doesn’t mean I have ignored the possibility that you could be. If you are likewise with the general public duped by an industry which has no regard for people, then I’m sorry, but I hope you will decide to investigate this further. The example of the method used by the IAEA shows it knows what it needs to do to hide the true results, they’re certainly not ignorant of this who organised the disinformation.
Colin says:
April 1, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Myrhh, the Belarus study you referred to has been confirmed by no other scientific health reviews. It was smacked down earlier in this thread.
I’ve posted enough from the ground level from people who have to deal with the real effects. That it was “smacked down” by an unthinking, illogical and irrational, comment is supposed to prove what?
The rest of your entire post is nothing but unsubstantiated claims made by you. Your ad hominem condemnation of the IAEA simply proves the vacuousness of your statements. You offer not a single shred of evidence that what they publish is not accurate. Hence, you either have evidence you haven’t told us, or you’re lying your face off.
Which is it?
Nope, what my post proves is that your view is vacuous and you’re the one using ad hominem instead of dealing with the facts presented. The IAEA is shown to be deliberately manipulating studies to make it appear there is no problem, that’s a fact. I have presented the evidence. You can look it up for yourself. And you can check out the other references.
Until you do, you’re p*ss*ng in the wind. The fall out from you isn’t coming my way…
re the concret pumps, it’s hard to see what other option there is but to eventually bury the whole thing.
These are very clear pictures taken from a drone above the site:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372589/First-clear-pictures-true-devastation-Fukushima-nuclear-plant-Japan-flies-unmanned-drone-stricken-reactor.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
What is there to do there? The cooling systems must be inoperable beyond repair. As water keeps being pumped in, highly radioactive water keeps coming out which they can’t possibly contain, and the best that can happen is that it goes into the ocean, I suppose. Tepco keeps receiving orders to “review” the sea water radiation readings near the site downward. The top of the reactors buildings are wide open and the little plumes that keep coming out must not be exactly refreshing breathng material (unless you are a nuclear groupie), otherwise they would not need to send drones to take pictures. The whole thing keeps spilling out crap in gaseous and fluid form through all its orifices. And this will go on indefinitely, I guess, unless they somehow manage to bury it under a lot of concrete — a daunting task, to be sure. But then again maybe they can’t start burying it until it cools down sufficiently. And how long will that take, with no cooling systems? Months? Years?
So yes, I suppose those “monster” concrete pumps that are being sent over there will have to be used for their main purpose eventually. The sooner they can do it, the better. The longer it takes, the more radioactive stuff will keep coming out.
They are going to need a very powerful PR team and a lot of media and government collaboration to convince the public that this fouling orgy is not too serious a problem for the environment, and does not have any bearing on the remarkable cleanliness and purity of nuclear power.
Washington Post today:
Radioactive water found leaking into sea from pit at Japan plant
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/radioactive-water-found-leaking-into-sea-from-pit-at-japan-nuclear-plant/2011/04/02/AFtwIkOC_story.html
By David Nakamura, Saturday, April 2, 12:40 PM
TOKYO — Authorities discovered highly radioactive water leaking from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant into the ocean Saturday, the latest sign that the desperate strategies being used to cool the overheating reactors could be creating new problems.
The toxic water had pooled by an almost eight-inch-long crack in the concrete wall of a pit at the No. 2 reactor where power cables are stored, Japan’s nuclear regulatory office said. The radioactivity level in the air above the water was measured at 1,000 millisieverts per hour, four times the maximum level that workers can be exposed to under Japanese
[snip]
=============
The March 26th online edition of Mainichi Daily News reported that the International Commission of Radiological Protection (ICRP) “has recommended the Japanese government temporarily raise the annual limit of radiation exposure for the general public in light of the ongoing crisis at the quake- and tsunami-crippled nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture. http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110326p2a00m0na005000c.html
[…]
the European Union has just recently raised the legal thresholds for radioactive contamination of food coming from the affected regions of Japan. The organizations warn that the EU has elevated the threshold for cumulated radioactivity from caesium-134 and caesium-137 from 600 becquerel per kilogram to 12.500 becquerel per kilogram for determined products imported from Japan, which amounts to an almost twenty-fold increase of the formerly established values. (8) With regard to the above mentioned “base threshold” of 600 becquerel per kilogram it must be said that any food item measured by the Munich Environmental Institute back in 1989 which would have amounted to 30, 20 or to even 15 becquerel per kilogram would already have been cause for concern, and anything beyond 100 becquerel per kilogram would have been considered unsuitable for consumption.
http://www.cmaq.net/fr/node/43701
Michio Kaku recommended weeks ago that the reactors be entombed in concrete. We already have the experience of Chernobyl to learn from.
I quoted a press release from the pump manufacturer above. These monster pumps, the biggest and most powerful in the world, are used to deliver water directly where it’s needed. They have always had this capability and the manufacturer advertises them for this secondary use. Later they will probably switch to pumping concrete to create a “sarcophagus” around the ruins.
Why Acids thinks “[t]here’s something going on at Fukushima that we are not being told about” is a mystery to me… unless he is one of the millions of tinfoil-hat-wearing Americans who feel they are being victimized by “the elite”, “Bilderbergers”, etc.
I really feel sorry for the Japanese in this problem. Instead of spending 1 billion a week in Libya America should be spending it rather in Japan to help end this terrible problem. The Japanese are really in a bad way now. They should be freed up from Fukushima to focus on the displaced people, and clean up from the tsunami.
From Amino Acids in Meteorites on April 2, 2011 at 1:24 pm:
Your concern really shines through in your sterling commentary, quite reminiscent of WWII US war propaganda. I’m certain any Japanese citizens reading your words would be quite impressed with how deep you feel their pain.
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
it was a joke. [snip]
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
Catch a clue son
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
April 2, 2011 at 2:08 pm
I was responding to bbgun’s comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/30/anti-nuclear-power-hysteria-and-it%E2%80%99s-significant-contribution-to-global-warming/#comment-634245
kadaka ,
I am going to ask to you re-address your comment toward me. Your comment is a mischaracterization of me that has come from a misunderstanding of what I said. What I said in that comment was sarcasm directed at bbgun.
You can understand that now, can’t you? I should have labeled the comment as humor and sarcasm. Though I thought the sarcasm was so obvious that no one could have took it any other way.
From bbgun on April 2, 2011 at 1:18 pm:
Kaku, who was appearing prominently on ABC News (US), was also shouting since Day One that this was a “true China Syndrome.” The timing is also worth noting. As I found here: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/17-11
The “Chernobyl option” was ABSOLUTELY NEEDED and must be IMMEDIATELY DEPLOYED, it is the ONLY CHANCE. Way back on March 17. Now it is April 2.
The “Chernobyl option” was not used. Teams on the ground, consulting with real experts worldwide, continue to plod forward into territory that is practically uncharted due to the incredible rarity of these events, learning as they go. The reactors are not as dangerous, there will be no further meltdowns. From World Nuclear News comes info that the tsunami likely filled the trenches at Fukushima Daiichi, and engineers have plans to deal with the contaminated water.
When the site gets cleaned up some more and better stabilized, it looks like there can be a cleanup like at TMI, where the contaminated equipment was broken up and hauled away with the area reclaimed. In the meanwhile there could be some new structures built around the equipment to protect them, for which the concrete pumps may be utilized.
I have a reliable indicator of the situation. I listen to what “theoretically a physicist” Michio Kaku says it is and what (very very most likely) will happen, and I know it is not nor will become that bad. It’s worked so far.
Dr. Richard Besser has been handling the medical side of this for ABC News, tirelessly explaining about the relative risk of radiation and the radioactive substances mentioned. I caught one segment where Besser and Kaku were sitting side by side. Besser spoke calmly, as a professional. Then Kaku launched into his spiel. Besser looked over at Kaku. “Disdain” might be a strong enough term to describe that look.
From Far Labs, a Vivid Picture Emerges of Japan Crisis
New York Times, April 2, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/science/03meltdown.html
A few excerpts:
For the clearest picture of what is happening at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, talk to scientists thousands of miles away
Thanks to the unfamiliar but sophisticated art of atomic forensics, experts around the world have been able to document the situation vividly. Over decades, they have become very good at illuminating the hidden workings of nuclear power plants from afar, turning scraps of information into detailed analyses.
[…]
Governments and companies now possess dozens of these independently developed computer programs, known in industry jargon as “safety codes.” Many of these institutions — including ones in Japan — are relying on forensic modeling to analyze the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi to plan for a range of activities, from evacuations to forecasting the likely outcome.
“The codes got better and better” after the accident at Three Mile Island revealed the poor state of reactor assessment, said Michael W. Golay, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
These portraits of the Japanese disaster tend to be proprietary and confidential, and in some cases secret. One reason the assessments are enormously sensitive for industry and government is the relative lack of precedent: The atomic age has seen the construction of nearly 600 civilian power plants, but according to the World Nuclear Association, only three have undergone serious accidents in which their fuel cores melted down.
Now, as a result of the crisis in Japan, the atomic simulations suggest that the number of serious accidents has suddenly doubled, with three of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi complex in some stage of meltdown. Even so, the public authorities have sought to avoid grim technical details that might trigger alarm or even panic.
“They don’t want to go there,” said Robert Alvarez, a nuclear expert who, from 1993 to 1999, was a policy adviser to the secretary of energy. “The spin is all about reassurance.”
See also:
Cleanup Questions as Radiation Spreads
New York Times, March 31, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/asia/01clean.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fscience%2Findex.jsonp
Excerpt:
As it struggles with the crisis at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, the Japanese government now faces another problem spawned by the disaster: whether and how to clean up areas that have been heavily contaminated by radioactivity.
On Wednesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said a soil sample from Iitate, a village of 7,000 people about 25 miles northwest of the plant, showed very high concentrations of cesium 137 — an isotope that produces harmful gamma rays, accumulates in the food chain and persists in the environment for hundreds of years.
The cesium levels were about double the minimums found in the area declared uninhabitable around the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine, raising the question whether the evacuation zones around Fukushima should be extended beyond the current 18 miles. On Thursday, the Japanese government said it had no plans to expand the zone.
Experts said the Japanese government must also decide what to do about the cesium contamination in the village, especially since radiation releases from the plant could continue for months. [snip]
jakers said on April 1, 2011 at 9:42 am:
As mentioned here:
The “noble death of a warrior in battle” concept has long been noted in Japanese culture, as arguably exploited during WWII, and also found in many other cultures as well. If thinking they are “bravely fighting onwards to the death” helps them get through another grueling exhausting shift, I’m not going to begrudge them that.
The safety level was only recently raised to 250 millisieverts – http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/h5n1/2011/03/fukushima-safety-team-neglects-risk.html
There are at least 2 puzzling things about this post:
(1) The numbers shown don’t pass the “smell test”. In particular, the “U.S. sustained nuclear growth” scenario shows CO2 emissions cut by 75% relative to current levels. Since electrical generation accounts for only about 40% of our CO2 emissions, it is a little difficult to fathom how this would have been possible. I.e., even 100% conversion of electricity generation to nuclear wouldn’t do it…We’d have had to made significant inroads into converting our current use of fossil fuels for transportation, heating, etc. into electrical use. In fact, transportation alone accounts for ~30% of our emissions, so even if we’d completely foresworn off fossil fuels for EVERYTHING but transportation, we wouldn’t be there. (See here for numbers: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads11/US-GHG-Inventory-2011-Chapter-2-Trends.pdf , particularly Table 2.1.)
(2) There is no actual evidence presented that the only, or even the major , barrier to greater adoption of nuclear power was “environmental alarmism”. I am not claiming that this didn’t play some role, but everything that I have seen shows that the economics of nuclear was the main problem (even with some subsidization of the risks)…And, I remember seeing cross-national comparisons to Japan and France that showed that the reason for the economics of nuclear being different than in those two countries was not that nuclear power was any cheaper there but rather that fossil fuels were more expensive (presumably due to some combination of fewer domestic sources, less subsidization, and higher taxation of fossil fuels).
This post seems like more of a “hit job” on environmentalists than a sober and reasoned analysis of why nuclear has not made a greater contribution in the U.S. (I will say that I personally, while not completely unconcerned about the risks of nuclear power, am happy overall when I look at my electric bill and see that most of my electricity has come from the local nuclear power plant and not from fossil-fuel-fired plants.)