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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Natural gas being relatively cheap, and the prospect of huge new supplies being made available from shale will continue to make the prospect of new nuclear facilities being built unattractive to investors. They require huge loan guarrantees from the government, and the money for those is very tight, especially now. Estimated costs for a new 1,100 MW plant run between 6 – 9 $Billion, but cost overruns run rampant in the industry, meaning they could easily be double that. Some of the cost overruns, of course are due to delays caused by opposition to their construction. It is estimated that only about four new nuclear plants will be on line by 2020. The issue of what to do with nuclear waste hasn’t been resolved, which is a cause for concern. Safety doesn’t appear to be much of an issue, and C02 is of course, a non-issue. Overall, a go-slow approach is probably the best one. Possibly in 20 years or so, and with new technologies nuclear could become more attractive.
Original poster said
“If you want to spur the economy”
which must be hard to stomach if you are a TEPCO executive or shareholder at present
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12916254
when there is a real big disaster, such as the banking disaster of recent times, then socialism rears it’s head and greedy capitalism has to be “helped”.
Japanese economy is being worsened by this nuclear plant at a time it can ill afford it.
And there is no timeline yet for when things can get better.
Andy
Colin says:
March 31, 2011 at 4:55 am
When I went to school in the 1960’s I was taught: critical mass = nuclear explosion.
We used to hide under the tables… “duck and cover”…. a big fear as a child.
As I update my knowledge I see my science teacher’s lesson from that era was incomplete. People remember what they were taught. This nuclear thread really shows the depth of misconception that is present in the general knowledge base. This must clearly be what is adding to the polarized attitudes. But some of us were taught wrongly and even some current explanations in the media are clearly wrong.
I asked the questions because I didn’t understand. This blog helps correct the misconceptions. Brutal frankness is great as long as it’s the truth. But when information is contradictory, somebody must be wrong. Truth trumps.
Colin, some Questions for Clarity….
So once the Reactor + Moderator has reached critical mass, it stays at critical mass even with the loss of the moderator ? And that is why it melts ? Because it doesn’t need the moderator any longer except for cooling ? And when it melts into a glowing blob, does it stay at critical mass ?
also back to the pile of nuclear pellets in the desert… I put a tub of water on top of that sand dune and used my robot to fill the tub with those loose new fuel pellets.
Now what happens…?
Despite Flying Orc’s ridiculous comments that ‘Chernobyl is not that bad'( stupidity of a shocking nature on this site)the situation is actually at panic level. Which will be the first country that will have a large un-liveable zone for 24,000 years or maybe 15 million years depending upon which half-life we use? How many other countries will be able to take in the world’s nuclear refugees? It was time to prepare for this long ago and it wasn’t done. It needs to be done now because it will happen inevitably.
_Jim says:
March 31, 2011 at 7:28 am
So the fuel rods “ignite” and “start burning” when they reach critical mass using the water and then are self sustaining without it….? like a house is OK until a fire starts then it’s hard to put out… the house has reached “critical mass” and the fire is self sustaining until the fuel is exhausted… Is it like that?
I get so sick of the blasted hysteria.
How come everyone forgets all the nuclear bombs exploded above ground in the fifties and sixties at White Sands and Trinity???
There were over 900 atmospheric and underground nuclear test in the USA alone. There were 12 high-altitude nuclear tests during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s off the coast of California at Johnston Island.
From 1945 until 2008, there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted worldwide.
From: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/Testing.shtml
Starvation from not enough energy is a heck of a lot more lethal than a well built Nuclear reactor!
IANAL nor a nuclear physicist (previously a disclaimer was issued); this critical mass ‘business’ you bring in is outside my scope as it relates to use of nuclear fuel in a reactor … other than that, please see my previous post where I offered a simple ‘black-box’ analogy giving observed relative cause and effect (what a large part of science is composed of, along with quantifying the associated parameters).
.
Has there ever been a default on a loan?
.
kbray:
I have worked in nuclear power all of my life. Spent fuel produces heat but NOT due to fission. The heat is produced due to the radioactive decay of products of fission………the fission fragments. When a U-235 atom fissions it splits in two, this results in two atoms with smaller atomic numbers and masses. The decay of these elements and their daughters is what results in the “decay heat” after shutdown. Two of the elements in this decay chain are Cs-137 and I-131 they are typically the elements that cause the problems when a Fukishima or Chernobyl occur. This decay heat is produced whether a moderator is present or not.
kbray and Jim:
The term critical simply refers to whether the reaction is self sustaining. That is one fission in one generation is producing exactly one fission in the next generation. Remember a fission produces energy but power is energy per time; e.g. 1 watt is 1 joule per second. Super critical means power is rising, critical means power is stable and sub critical means power is dropping. There are many things that effect this “change in reactivity”; rod position, moderator temperature, fuel temperature, soluble poison concentration, etc. Adjusting these parameters and steam flow to the turbine is how we raise and lower reactor power. Note: I am speaking from a PWR perspective but the basics shouldn’t change much except BWRs don’t use soluble poisons during normal ops.
Dear 1DandyTroll,
I don’t know the source of the 1 in 17,000 year probability. However, if it restricted to the plant’s machinery itself, then an event like the Fukuyama earthquake/tsunami would be another independent cause of failure, and the 70% estimate would have to be increased.
Also, it is likely that the 1/17000 probability is an a priori engineering estimate. As such, it would be based on some known equipment failure rates and some guesses. It would not be based on actual failure rates.
The important point is that we have experienced four significant failure in 40-50 years, so we know that with the existing stock of reactors we can expect a significant failure every 10 years or so. If the the planned/suggested reactors were built, the time between failures might become smaller. It depends on the design. Some of the newer designs have much smaller failure probabilities than our existing reactors.
That said, two of the four failures (TMI and Chernobyl) were due to human error, and Fukuyama was due to a very large earthquake. Human error can be reduced by clever engineering (human factors stuff) but not eliminated. Earthquakes on the scale of 8 to 9 occur on the Pacific rim every ten years or so. But good siting can reduce the problem there. But what about New Madrid? So, I think that once every 10 years or so will be the normal rate of failure of nuclear power plants for long into the future
Anyway, probabilities are not the real issue. The real issue is “risk.” This is the “product” of the probability of an accident and the severity of its impact. In the case of nuclear power, the probability of any single plant experiencing a failure during its service life (40 years or so) is small: 0.235% for an annual rate of 1/17000. However, the impact is severe. Any utility considering a nuclear power plant will focus its attention on the impact. This will likely prevent it from building such plants. One failure would bankrupt the company and destroy its share holders equity.
As many people here have commented, fear of nuclear power is also an issue. But this fear drives the politics. And regardless of what engineering fixes are proposed, the fear/politics will not allow the plants to be built. The relatively benign accident at TMI (no deaths, no injuries, trace levels of emissions) killed nuclear power in the US for a generation.
Nuclear power is effectively dead.
Unfortunately, for a modern (as opposed to medieval) civilization, that leaves only fossil fuels. Solar, wind and wave power have surprisingly small capacity factors; wind is on line only about 10% of the time (Texas’ experience). This means that each wind/solar installation needs 1 kW of standby generating capacity for each kW of wind/solar. Since wind/solar is so much more expensive and used so little, there is no point to building it. Present day wind/solar/wave installations are parasitic on the existing capacity surpluses.
So, regardless of whether you believe in AGW and CO2, the industrial world will continue its CO2 emissions, and the developing world will greatly add to it. AGW, Climategate, deniers, etc et al, all irrelevant.
Charles Perrow’s book “Normal Accidents” (Basic Books, 1984) is still relevant to this discussion. He addresses TMI in some detail.
_Jim says:
March 31, 2011 at 10:10 am
Has there ever been a default on a loan?
The program only started in 2005, so that’s a bit of a red herring. In any case, the CBO has estimated the “risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high—well above 50 percent.” Wall street won’t touch them. Obama is seeking an expansion of the loan program, from $20B to $56B. So, in future years the taxpayers could be on the hook for as much as $28B of that. Time will tell.
Gail Combs says:
March 31, 2011 at 10:03 am
I get so sick of the blasted hysteria. …
Sounds like your pining for the good old blow-em-up days.
Well, lucky for us, high altitude tests were not conducted off the coast of California.
Johnston Island is a low sand and coral island, 717 miles W.S.W. of Honolulu.
Doug Badgero says:
March 31, 2011 at 10:11 am
I have worked in nuclear power all of my life. Spent fuel produces heat but NOT due to fission. The heat is produced due to the radioactive decay of products of fission………the fission fragments.
No, spent fuel still contains uranium, just not enough to be as efficient as new fuel rods.
“Any utility considering a nuclear power plant will focus its attention on the impact. This will likely prevent it from building such plants. One failure would bankrupt the company and destroy its share holders equity.”
Which is why in the US Congress exempted the plants from required insurance. There is a pool to cover the first, I think $12 billion, then the US taxpayer picks up any damages above that.
Jakers,
“No, spent fuel still contains uranium, just not enough to be as efficient as new fuel rods.”
Please do not assign statements to me which I did not say. I repeat, the heat produced in spent fuel IS NOT FROM FISSION. IT IS FROM THE RADIOACTIVE DECAY OF THE PRODUCTS OF FISSION. Spent fuel contains lots of uranium and some plutonium too. However, there is not enough and it is not in the correct configuration to produce any sensible heat due to fission. Any more than uranium ore produces any sensible heat due to fission.
Video interview with Chris Busby, Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk
http://lightonhawaii.com/2011/03/30/fukushima-worse-than-chernobyl-expect-large-exclusion-zone-in-northern-japan/
And the following article by Dr Tom Burnett on March 27 is something else. Burnett insists, in the comments section to his own article, that he is a big proponent of nuclear power, but only “safe nuclear” power. He also insists that the situation in Fukushima is going to dwarf Chrenobyl, that the meltdown cannot be stopped at this point, and describes what he suposes will happen when/if it reaches the water table below.
When the Fukushima Meltdown Hits Groundwater
http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/03/when-the-fukushima-meltdown-hits-groundwater/
In the comments to that article, Burnett gives the following replies regarding moderators and other topics.
“The problem here, and at Chernobyl, and in most of the reactors currently in use and in production, is that they are not CANDU or PWR reactors. They are Generation I and II BWR reactors. They don’t work the way you describe.”
And later:
To address your point directly: moderators only work on non-critical fuel piles. Once criticality is reached no moderator can physically contact it without burning or vaporizing. At that point human-induced moderation becomes impossible and the pile must reach equilibrium with the earth through processes of which we really know virtually nothing.
But we do know, from 2.000+ nuclear tests, and hundreds of active reactors, that the world is not going to end because one, or all four F-D-I reactors melt down.
We also know that s critical fuel pile at 5,000 degrees C is impervious to everything except something hotter – a supercritical fusion device – or the center of the earth – or an eventual self-entombment in it’s own lava cyst inside the lithosphere unless the pressures become so great, or some other natural reaction occurs which causes it to go supercritical and detonate as a thermonuclear device – I do not believe that is possible.
Back in the Hyman Rickover days you had to be a nuclear physicist to run a nuclear reactor. Now you don’t. You can go to any of several schools which teach you how to control what you CAN control – and each lesson invariably ends with: “But this can’t happen because……..”
If you ask “What would happen if a MAG9.0 EQ hits my 6.9 containment and then my aux power goes out?”, you get one of two answers (1) that will never happen, or (2) You are fvcked.
I believe the instructors who answered truthfully are in a tiny minority – because it serves no purpose to train operators to try to deal with events they cannot deal with.
There is a line – it is dictated by profit vs risk. Anything which passes that line is neither planned for, nor considered in ANY phase of the plant operation. That is why Tokyo Power seems helpless. They are. This contingency was not part of their plan and they have no way to adapt to it.
Blaming them is useless. They did not approve the plant design. Blaming GE is pointless. Their containments are designed for MAG6.9EQ events. The plant – and ALL gen I and II AND III plants are designed to withstand a MAG6.9EQ. No planning for a subsequent tsunami which might be generated over a 6.9 is required. In California, NO requirements exist – but the Gen 1 and II GE containments are still manufactured to 6.9 standards. But so are the new GEH (GE-Hitachi) and the Westinghouse Gen III+ containments.
They will ALL fall to shit in a MAG9.0EQ event. Fuhgeddaboudit.
So what do we have? We have a situation. We started it but we can’t stop it. However, the earth can stop it and will at some point. We simply have to live with the consequences of our actions until that time. Did we learn anything? Yep. Put nuclear reactors on ships. Is that a good idea in the long run? No. Since when has that deterred us?
Francisco says:
March 31, 2011 at 1:25 pm
And the following article by Dr Tom Burnett on March 27
Are you taking seriously an article?
Hawaii News Daily is also known as Dope Smokers Daily.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
March 31, 2011 at 7:24 am
phlogiston says:
March 31, 2011 at 12:57 am
This is a classic media trick
I’m sure they have a bag of nuclear power tricks.
I said this before, if you want to be heard you have to be careful with exaggeration. The radiation there is way too high. Why don’t you guys just admit that?
The radioactivity in the sea off Fukushima is from two isotopes of iodine, I-131 (8 day half life) and I-133 (20 hour half life). It follows from this that they will be a source of marine contamination worldwide for thousands of years.
K-Bray, it remains at critical mass. The amount of critical mass is determined by the amount and concentration of fissile material. If the fissile content is low, then you need an enormous amount of fuel and a highly efficient moderator. If the fissile content is pure, like a nuclear weapon, then you need no moderator at all and only a small total mass.
The rate of reaction is adjusted by moving control rods in and out of the reactor. They adjust the rate of reaction by absorbing neutrons. At a certain point, so many neutrons are absorbed that the reaction is no longer self sustaining and it ceases. All reactors have two sets of rods; the control rods used to regulate reactor power, and the shutdown rods. Either set is capable of shutting down the reactor under any operating condition, with one exception. Light water reactors must have power in the building, because the rods must be driven into the reactor. This is not the case with CANDUs because their reactor calandrias are not pressurized.
Even though the nuclear reaction has been stopped, there is still a lot of thermal heat in the reactor. This all comes from the fission fragments in the fuel, all of which are highly radioactive. So, there must still be coolant circulation to remove this decay heat. Otherwise, this heat will eventually boil off all the water and start to melt the fuel. This is much less of a problem in CANDUs. Because the reactor is so big, and has such low power density compared to PWRs and BWRs (it’s a consequence of using natural rather than enriched uranium for fuel), the reactor can in fact radiate most of the heat into the surrounding building structure, and thus greatly reducing cooling requirement.
Now to your pile of fuel pellets. It all depends on the concentration of fissile material and the amount of the fissile material. If you don’t have enough fissile material for a critical mass, then absolutely nothing happens. If you have enough fissile material but at low concentration and no moderator, nothing happens. If you have enough fissile material and a moderator but the material is separated, nothing happens. If you have enough fissile material but its surrounded by things which absorb neutrons, (which is most of the substances in the universe), then nothing happens.
A nuclear reaction is something that is not that easy to produce by accident.
It has happened in nature. Because the decay rate of U-238 is much slower than that of U-235 (the fissile part of uranium), the proportion of U-235 was much higher eons ago than the 0.7% it is today. At a site called Oklo in Africa, volcanic activity about a billion years ago created a rich deposit of uranium. Water got into the deposit and it started a chain reaction. Drawn by the heat, microbes started growing in the water, turning it saline and increasing the moderator efficiency and the rate of nuclear reaction. There were about two dozen nuclear reaction sites in this uranium deposit. They functioned for about 40-50 million years before depleting most of the U-235 content. What’s interesting about it is that even though it was thoroughly penetrated by flowing water, none of the fissile products moved more than two metres from where they were created.
Such a geologic event is impossible today, because the concentration of U-235 is too low. However, radioactive decay accounts for most of the thermal heat coming from the core of our planet and providing the heat radiating naturally from the ground.
Bob Sykes, please stop spreading misinformation. Chernobyl failed because of a critical design flaw in which the shutdown system initiated the steam explosion. The operators may have created the situation, but at no time were they violating their operating requirements and instructions. The RBMK was a fatally flawed reactor design.
Francisco, do you even understand what a moderator is and what it does in a fission reaction?
Francisco says:
March 31, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Blaming them is useless. They did not approve the plant design. Blaming GE is pointless. Their containments are designed for MAG6.9EQ events. The plant – and ALL gen I and II AND III plants are designed to withstand a MAG6.9EQ. No planning for a subsequent tsunami which might be generated over a 6.9 is required. In California, NO requirements exist – but the Gen 1 and II GE containments are still manufactured to 6.9 standards. But so are the new GEH (GE-Hitachi) and the Westinghouse Gen III+ containments.
They will ALL fall to shit in a MAG9.0EQ event. Fuhgeddaboudit.
So what do we have? We have a situation. We started it but we can’t stop it. However, the earth can stop it and will at some point.
It must be a big disappointment for people with your agenda, that a force 9.0 earthquake, near the surface a few km from several half-century old first generation nuclear power stations, and followed by a tsunami that took out the auxiliary power of these power stations, has produced such a minor catastrophe – relative to the potential nuclear meltdown about which you anti-nukes no doubt endlessly fantasize. Where are the thousands of deaths? Where are the vast tracts of uninhabitable land. Where is your dreamed-of apocalypse?
The same thing happenned after Chernobyl – the catastrophe to which the eco-apparatchiks become instantly emotionally wedded, turns out to be so disappointingly trivial in the cold light of day that they have to strive to find ways of amplifying the perception of disaster – evacuating citizens from regions of ever lower and lower measured radiation levels until they reach the variation range of background radiation. Broadcasting as scientific fact idiotic peasant folklore about depression and toothaches and varicose veins being caused by radiation.
If the Japanese are rational about the real radiological and radiobiological situation, life will be pretty well back to normal around Fukushima after 18 months.
You wont get another chance like this one so you had better milk it for all its worth.
Colin,
I can tell you know a considerable amount about nuclear power but the operators at Chernobyl did violate procedures and bypass protective features. It is true that the rod followers added positive reactivity that contributed to the overpower excursion and steam explosion but the operators had bypassed the auto scram system. If memory serves from the WANO report the scram was initiated manually a few seconds after it would have occurred automatically. They had also removed too many of the rods from the core so that the available rods didn’t have enough “bite” as they initially began to move into the core. I do agree though the design was fatally flawed. It was poor understanding of the reactor kinetics of the plant they were operating that caused those design flaws to surface so violently.
Colin says:
March 31, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Bob Sykes, please stop spreading misinformation. Chernobyl failed because of a critical design flaw in which the shutdown system initiated the steam explosion. The operators may have created the situation, but at no time were they violating their operating requirements and instructions. The RBMK was a fatally flawed reactor design.
Colin I agree with everything in your last post except the conclusion that the RBMK was grossly flawed and unsafe in design. Although there is inherent danger in using a graphite moderator in the RBMK (the most efficient moderator and resulting in the best plutonium yield), the design is basically sound. However there was flagrant and catastrophic human error which led to the explosion.
The accident began 3 years before April 1986, when the reactor was commissioned. Big bonusses and promotions and other Soviet governmental perks were on offer if the Chernobyl station was completed on time – in time for the May day communist jamboree of 1983. But one thing was not ready in time – the inertial power backup system needed in case of power failure. So it was swept under th carpet – not completed, and the fact concealed. The reactor opened on time, everyone got their bonuses and perks.
Three years later and a Moscow manager finds out that the inertial power backup is still not installed. He goes ballistic and demands that the backup system is put in place immediately. The plant operators explain that the reactor is near the end of its 3 year cycle and soon to be refuelled, so better wait till after refuelling. (An accident just before refuelling results in the maximum release of radioactivity). Moscow Murdock will have none of it – “dont care – do it now”. So the order is given for the inertial power backup system to be installed and tested – 3 years after it should have been in place, and just before refuelling with a maximum load of radioactive decay products in the reactor.
For the installation and test it was necessary to power down the reactor to simulate a loss of power. But a nuclear reactor doesnt like having its power level changed (this is why nuclear power is ideal for baseline electricity, not peak). So it turns out to be difficult to get the reactor to reduce power to the necessary low level. But we’ll return to this later. First – the intransigent, impatient and irresponsible order to go ahead immeiately with the inertial system istallation came near the end of the month of April. In the Soviet union, economic activity was run on the basis of “normi” or targets – 5 year targets, year targets, month targets. The end of every month was a hectic pressured time for managers to attain their targets. So when the Chernobyl station chief informs the localpower users that, on the day of April 25, power availability will be reduced due to the procedure, all hell breaks loose. Irate managers demand that maximum power is maintained all day to allow them to meet their targets for April.
So the installation and test are postponed to the night. The experienced and competent day shift, who had originally been designated to conduct the risky and delicate operation, go home. They are replaced by the night shift – a much less qualified and competent bunch. So – back to the power down. First the power output has to be reduced to a low level. Again – not what a reactor likes. As the power is reduced it falls to far to a very low level – much lower than planned. (The operators were I believe comrades Bevisich and Buttheddovich). This causes the problem of xenon poisoning – buildup of xenon 135 which efficiently absorbs neutrons, slowing the nuclear reaction and making it hard to restart the reactor. A fw hours wait and the problem would resolve itself. But the operators either did not uderstand xenon poisoning, or were driven by apopleptic managers who would not take no for an answer, so the reactor had to be powered back up to full power. The new day and full industrial end-of-month demand were waiting. So the operators put the accellerator to the floor – so to speak – and removed all the control rods of the reactor. To do this they had to physically disable the reactor’s safety lock – they did this.
The result is that power returned rapidly leading to voids in the coolant and a criticality based catastrophic explosion.
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.
For more on the xenon poisoning at Chernobyl:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/xenon.html
Please; at a boundary between a landmass and a large body of water, which way do you suppose the ‘water’ (underground) runs? (Hint: It is still down hill, therefore, contamination of the Pacific ocean, the largest ‘sink’ in the world, is the result)
Have you seen a topographic map of the Fukushima area along the coast, and seen the underlying rock structure?
I could buy these kinds of arguments for an inland site, but not the Fukushima sites …
.
phlogiston says:
March 31, 2011 at 3:29 pm
“It must be a big disappointment for people with your agenda, that a force 9.0 earthquake, near the surface a few km from several half-century old first generation nuclear power stations, and followed by a tsunami that took out the auxiliary power of these power stations, has produced such a minor catastrophe – relative to the potential nuclear meltdown about which you anti-nukes no doubt endlessly fantasize. Where are the thousands of deaths? Where are the vast tracts of uninhabitable land. Where is your dreamed-of apocalypse?
The same thing happenned after Chernobyl – the catastrophe to which the eco-apparatchiks become instantly emotionally wedded, turns out to be so disappointingly trivial in the cold light of day that they have to strive to find ways of amplifying the perception of disaster – evacuating citizens from regions of ever lower and lower measured radiation levels until they reach the variation range of background radiation. Broadcasting as scientific fact idiotic peasant folklore about depression and toothaches and varicose veins being caused by radiation.”
======================
You are presuming apocalyptic wishes I’ve never had. What I wish for is that this thing could go away *immediately*, better yet, that it had never happened at all. I wasn’t even giving much thought to nuclear power until this prompted me to start looking.
What is a “big disappointment” to me is the vast choir of meretricious or deluded louts like you trying frantically to minimize a very grave mess, caused by an industry you swear is extremely safe, but which simultaneously no entity on this planet will insure, except tax payers, who are never asked. And who go on drivelling endlessly about how Chernobyl was just a “trivial” non-event who killed only a few people and all the rest of the claptrap you keep jiving about.
Maybe you could engage Tom Burnett in the comments section. He is answering anyone who posts reasonable comments or questions. I certainly hope his “best case scenario” comes to pass. He describes it as follows:
“No one has ever asked me for the BEST possible scenario, but you are pushing the boundary. Best case: all the reactors and buildings and fuel rods melt together and sink 100 kilometers into the lithosphere. Problem solved.”
http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/03/when-the-fukushima-meltdown-hits-groundwater/
“If the Japanese are rational about the real radiological and radiobiological situation, life will be pretty well back to normal around Fukushima after 18 months.”
http://www.knowthelies.com/?q-node/4977
“Our Children are dying. Help!”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13349
But of course, all that is become “normal” –
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/technical/factsheets/health.html
@_Jim
March 31, 2011 at 4:30 pm
=============
I haven’t seen any maps. Aparently there is a water table not too deep below the plant. If the thing stops in the rock underneath before it gets to the water table, that won’t stop the problem but it would be a fairly good outcome. If it gets to the water table, the assumption seems to be it would create a fairly large explosion.
Well, at least according to Burnett, in one of his comments:
***quote**
I would have to see the blueprints, but at least one containment is breached and it’s not going to be fixed. IF that blob of critical mass makes it to the water table, the reaction will not be to cool off the core – it will be to convert water to H and O2 – which will explode. Period. And that process may well continue multiple times and could easily draw in the other three damaged fuel cores and the ~600,000 depleted fuel cells laying around.
This is still not an apocalyptic event.
IF, however, the core stops before it hits the water table, it will probably encase itself in a molten ball and remain in that state without exploding – however, as water seeps in, it will flash to steam and continue ejecting particulate matter into the atmosphere – and water (no one is quite sure how at the moment, but it is happening).
I would not like to be the person who takes the job of mitigating the problem. Unless the reaction is stopped, there is no short-term solution and there is no long-term solution. So WORST CASE, NOT MY PREDICTION, is a million pound blob of fissile material sitting in a fissure in the water table ejecting Hydrogen particulate matter.
***end of quote***
http://hawaiinewsdaily.com/2011/03/when-the-fukushima-meltdown-hits-groundwater/