UPDATE: Obama Administration, Senators Stand Behind Nuclear Power Amid Japan Meltdown Scare

With additional reporting by Sam Stein

UPDATE: A spokesman for the Obama administration told the Huffington Post on Sunday that the president was waiting to get more information on the deterioration of Japan’s nuclear power plants before making any policy decision about the White House’s domestic energy approach. That said, the president continues to view nuclear power as a component of a broader policy needed to meet the nation’s needs, provided it is “produced safely and responsibly.”

“The administration’s first priority right now is to support Japan, as well as American citizens in Japan, as they respond to and recover from this event, and we continue to monitor the situation and provide assistance,” said Clark Stevens, a White House spokesman. “The president believes that meeting our energy needs means relying on a diverse set of energy sources that includes renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power. Information is still coming in about the events unfolding in Japan, but the administration is committed to learning from them and ensuring that nuclear energy is produced safely and responsibly here in the U.S.”

******

WASHINGTON -- As Japan braces for the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, Sens. Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell said on Sunday morning they are still open to expanding nuclear power capabilities in the United States.

Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the top Democrats in the Senate, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he is "still willing to look at nuclear" despite the catastrophic events in Japan.

"We are going to have to see what happens here -- obviously still things are happening -- but the bottom line is we do have to free ourselves of independence from foreign oil in the other half of the globe," he said. "Libya showed that. Prices are up, our economy is being hurt by it, or could be hurt by it. So I'm still willing to look at nuclear. As I've always said it has to be done safely and carefully."

Both sides of the debate over nuclear power have used recent global events in their arguments, with supporters of nuclear power claiming upheaval in the Middle East shows its necessity. A recent earthquake in Japan, however, demonstrated the possible dangers of nuclear power. The earthquake damaged two nuclear reactors, which workers are now working to cool to prevent core meltdowns that devastated Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

McConnell, the Senate's leading Republican, told Fox News Sunday that he stands behind his support for nuclear power despite the devastation in Japan.

"I don't think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy," McConnell said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) offered a slightly different take on the issue, telling CBS' "Face the Nation" that he believes the United States should halt permits for new nuclear power plants until they can determine what went wrong with nuclear reactors in Japan. Still, he said he supports nuclear power in the larger sense.

"The reality is that we're watching something unfold and we don't know where it's going with regard to the nuclear power plants in Japan right now," he said. "I think it calls on us here in the U.S. naturally not to stop building nuclear power plants but to put the brakes on right now until we understand the ramifications of what's happened in Japan."

Comments

[SayLessDoMore]

01:41 AM on 03/18/2011

I got some GREAT arguments in response to my March 13 post suggesting that nuclear power can be both safe and "green" if regulated rationally ...e.g.:

--------

James Jr Tankersley ...

“Calling the current generation of nuclear power "green" is rather absurd when you consider your 800-pound gorilla (virtually permanentl­y radio-acti­ve waist). (sic)

There are green designs ... but they are they are not [what] the US nuclear industry is currently pursuing [1].

Pebble Bed Reactor [2] designs are immune to meltdown, and Thorium fuel [3] is relatively clean. That actually is relatively green nuclear technology­. But again, this is not the technology currently proposed for the next generation of nuclear power in the US. [1].

[1] http://www­.world-nuc­lear.org/i­nfo/inf41.­html
[2] http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/P­ebble_bed_­reactor
[3] http://en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/T­horium_fue­l_cycle”

--------

MrBadExample ...

Bull puckey. It's cleaner than coal, but it's only 'green' if you count the way it generates energy. ...[F]actor in the mining and refining of fissile uranium (which leaves you with 200 pounds of radioactiv­e 'depleted' uranium for every pound of fissile fuel) and the huge waste stream of irradiated materials ... there's very little that's 'Green' about nuclear power.

--------

Was a bunch more, but we get limited space. PLEASE ... let's pursue the scientific, apolitical, debate and advocacy.

[only livin boy in NY]

07:38 AM on 03/16/2011

waaaay behind

[libertarian5467]

02:36 PM on 03/15/2011

At the risk of being a little technical for the lay public, I have some figures below on relevant radiation dosimetry.

This is a technical area, and I have provided annual limits and risks derived from EFFECTIVE DOSE (which is a tissue weighted, quality factor adjusted), the "common" way of expressing radiation risk per NRC.

After the most recent explosion, it appears, according to the AP, that 11,930 micro sieverts (mi-Sv) per hour was initially released NEXT TO THE PLANT. This is 1.193 mSv (milli-Sieverts) / hour. At 6 hours, the radiation levels already dropped to 496 micro sieverts per hour, which is ~0.05 mSv/hr.

I am not sure what the radiation readings are in the public, but I assume they are very small (follow the usual exponential drop-off).

To give perspective, the ANNUAL OCCUPATIONAL limit for plant personnel, according to NCRP Report 116, is 50 mSv. I doubt anyone has reached this threshold (which is also VERY conservative) given the small amount of radiation released.

The ANNUAL limit for PUBLIC exposure is 5 mSv for "infrequent exposure" (e.g., Nuclear incident).

The "TOTAL DETRIMENT" RISK (of fatal cancer, non-fatal cancer, and severe genetic effects) for workers is 0.000056 per mSv (Table 7.1 of NCRP 116) (for public, it is 0.000073 per mSv), so can see EXCEEDINGLY SMALL HEALTH RISK.

DISCLAIMER: I have a BS and MS in nuclear engineering. I do not work (have never) in the nuclear industry.

[Jena Jena]

04:34 AM on 03/20/2011

Japan isn't reporting the facts and are downplaying radiation levels, so it's impossible to predict anything at this point.

[libertarian5467]

01:36 PM on 03/20/2011

You are contradictory: you say you cannot predict anything at this point but you are making claims on other posts that nuclear power will continue to cause cancer.

Of course, this is a ridiculous assertion in its own right - there exists NO scientific evidence that US nuclear reactor have caused even a SINGLE case of cancer!

[ultrabop]

10:06 AM on 03/15/2011

http://www.truth-out.org/tokyo-electric-build-us-nuclear-plants-the-no-bs-info-japans-disastrous-nuclear-operators68457

Nuclear disaster: must read: they're planning on installing the same fraudulent back up systems in Texas.

[urthsong]

08:54 AM on 03/15/2011

Last night, the Ed Show provided statistical info on the terrible harm done in the aftermath of TMI in '79. My uncle, living 10 miles from TMI, lost all his farm animals and then died of cancer. Governor Thornburgh once told of how close it had come, especially after they were able to access the room two years later. He credited President Carter, who had served on a nuclear submarine, with rapidly pulling together the team that prevented the TMI disaster from melting down which would have made a huge swath of the northeastern US permanently uninhabitable. A couple of years ago, an engineer who has worked at two of the ten nuclear power plants within what he called "striking distance" of my home in Delaware informed me that between the ten plants, there had been a history of over 100 red alerts which he told me was very serious. Don't forget the amassing storage of spent rods, lethal for 45,000 years, saved on each plant site that we still have no way of safely getting rid of. Meanwhile, plans are moving forward to construct off-shore wind farms along the northeast seaboard which, when in full operation, will be able to supply a great deal of our power, certainly all of Delaware's. Now, if we can follow northern Europe's lead to encourage entrepreneurial investment in the installation of solar collectors and wind generators, we might be able to phase out nuclear power plants before any more accidents.

[Big Game Hunter]

06:15 AM on 03/15/2011

Put them in places that don't have Earthquakes, preferably in Red States. Problem solved.

[Saro]

06:07 PM on 03/14/2011

Power generation is a dangerous business. Coal plants produce not just respiratory problems in a population, but dump large quantities of radiation into the environment from coal ash (and that's when they are working correctly!). I don't think I need to remind anyone here that coal miners don't exactly have the safest job out there, either. Neither do people working on oil rigs. People kill themselves all the time falling off of roofs (for solar installations) and out of windmill towers. Per amount of energy produced, nuclear power is still the safest way to generate power out there (besides perhaps geothermal, but that can't be done just anywhere). It's big news when Three Mile Island releases enough radiation into the air to kill approximately 0.5 people, but thousands die every year from air pollution and nobody bats an eye, because it's too diffuse to trace back to the source.

Nuclear power comes with drawbacks, it's true. The question is, are those drawbacks worth it, compared to our other options? I'd argue that yes, they are.

[spqesq]

08:03 AM on 03/15/2011

I'm sorry. Did you just make the argument that nuclear was safer than residential solar panels? Good luck with that.

[Saro]

10:37 AM on 03/15/2011

Per amount of energy produced? Absolutely.

And it's not just installation, either. Solar power only works half the time, which means you need to invest in some serious, large-scale battery production to store energy for the downtime. Do you have any idea how toxic batteries are to produce, or what that production does the environment?

Nuclear power is easy to demonize because the costs and screw-ups are highly visible and publicized, but people really need to take into account the things that are unseen about other forms of energy production before they come to a knee-jerk conclusion.

[libertarian5467]

02:48 PM on 03/15/2011

It's not even a discussion. Nuclear power IS safer. This is backed by solid science. Nuclear power is demonized because when people hear the word "nuclear," they think of Hiroshima and a nuclear explosion. The lay public is ignorant and apt to make emotional, irrational decisions.

Case in point: the public now embraces MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), but only after the name was changed from NMRI (nuclear magnetic resonance imaging) (purely a name change). This is because people hear the word "magnet" and automatically think positive.

[SisterAnn]

04:05 PM on 03/14/2011

Our leaders would make better prostitutes than leaders of a country. You need a few morals and scruples to lead a country right.

[SisterAnn]

03:57 PM on 03/14/2011

Every time the oil companies go up, causing gas to go up, I figure out some other way to save gas and electricity. I bought some small energy efficient TVs this week. The 20 year old TVs were hot to touch which probably meant they were using a lot of electricity. One bit the dust, and the other wasn't clear.

[snowballinhell]

04:05 AM on 03/17/2011

Hi friend SisterAnn. Not sure where you live, but have you looked into solar cookers for saving energy? See this link: http://www.solarovens.net/

[pceasy]

03:56 PM on 03/14/2011

We're not supposed to F with this stuff period. Politicians like Mitch and Chuck are bought and sold by corporations. This is really scarey. Corrupt governments and corporations will cut corners. We need to stop this period. This is not a left or right issue. This is an earth issue.

[Jim Steinberg]

01:59 PM on 03/14/2011

How many sickening nuclear power examples do we need? Nuclear plants make no sense -- unless you fancy gut-wrenching disaster and human tragedy like this in Japan. And others, of course, before it. When do we wise up?

[DrStrangelov]

03:24 AM on 03/16/2011

We wise up when we realize that all things in our modern society come with risk. Just the mere fact that you are reading this blog on a computer, where the computer is plugged into an outlet, and electricity is being pumped from that outlet (possibly from a nuclear reactor) is proof enough that you have bought into it all. Until you are willing to go live in a cave, you have no complaint.

[Jena Jena]

04:49 AM on 03/20/2011

Just the mere fact that you can read this and respond is proof enough you can write to congress and demand change and lobby against nuclear power. There you go.

[wired]

01:35 PM on 03/14/2011

Meanwhile in Germany: "And it's for these reasons that we have decided to suspend the recently agreed extension of the life-spans of Germany's nuclear power plants," Merkel said. "This is a moratorium. And this moratorium will be valid for three months. ..."

The Obama admin. is to the right of the German CDU. And Americans will vote for him again and again and again. The Obama "Libs" have already forgotten the Guantanamo "promise", the drone killings, and much more extremist right wing stuff this US admin. produces.

[tiredofthesameoldstuff]

03:45 PM on 03/14/2011

So you would rather the Republicans win. Liberals need to grow a back bone and stand up to the gop bullies.

[DrStrangelov]

03:24 AM on 03/16/2011

How much money are the Germans losing for this 3 months? They will wise up.

[Texas Boy]

11:30 AM on 03/14/2011

The current disaster in Japan is certainly an extreme case. The reactors automatically shut down, but the tsunami took the backup generators offline, so the cooling pumps aren't working. And it is saying a lot that so far, the 40 year old technology in those plants has averted a severe release of radiation and total meltdown. Hopefully, the nuclear reactions can be stabilized and the cores cooled with sea water to avert total disaster.

That said, I think some areas of the US can benefit from nuclear power plants, given that there is improvements in the technology over the last 40 years. I think it may be good to replace some of our older plants with more modern plants. Decommissioning some of the older plants. This would be a test of the newer technologies before building up new, non-replacement nuclear plants.

In sunny parts of the country, heat from the sun can be focused through mirrors to heat water and turn turbines, and in windy area, wind generators should be deployed. Both of those options should be explored in appropriate parts of the US over any expansion of of nuclear facilities.

I think nuclear will need to remain a part of our electrical grid in the US for areas that do not get enough sunlight or wind to make alternatives possible, until more efficient technologies are developed.

[tiredofthesameoldstuff]

03:48 PM on 03/14/2011

The reactors were likely damaged by the quake. Several workers at the plants were injured in fact there was a death when the quakes hit.

Only the Japanese enginnering saved them from having several chernoblys when the quake hit. If the same had happened in the US we would have already had those cherobyls since our building codes and enginnering standards are lower then the Japanese.


Plus they have to release radioactive steam for months and that will not be cheap because people will not only have to worry about the radiation poisoning but the enviormental damage.

Japan was already skittish on nuclear power this might push them to abandon nuclear power if not heavily invest in solar to the tune of several hundred billion.

[kengault]

11:04 AM on 03/14/2011

The earthquake in Japan was on Friday. The president's weekly radio address was on Saturday. What did he talk about? The impact of gas prices on American families. Anything about Japan? Nope.

[spqesq]

11:22 AM on 03/14/2011

Nothing in Catholic Church either. After Hait, a predominantly catholic nation, all you heard about from the pulpit was second collection this and compassionate giving that. This week? Nothing. Not even a moment of silence or offeratory prayer or Japan. Nada.

[kengault]

11:54 AM on 03/14/2011

So your comparison was meant to....do what? It's like the little kid who says don't look at me. Do you always point the finger elsewhere?

[tiredofthesameoldstuff]

03:53 PM on 03/14/2011

You might not be aware of this but Obama did send the military over there to help.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-12/us/quake.response_1_japan-self-defense-force-japanese-authorities-helicopters?_s=PM:US

"On Friday, President Barack Obama pledged to help the island country. "I offer our Japanese friends whatever assistance is needed," he said. "Today's events remind us how fragile life can be."

[Shivaite]

10:42 AM on 03/14/2011

I am no fan of nuclear power, but accept the realities regarding our power needs. Compared to oil, nucular (sound presidential?) is the lesser of the 2 evils, under some scenarios.

That being said, building nuclear plants on an island that records over 1,000 tremors a day ( yes Japan), is totally irresponsible.

It was just a matter of time before this happened.

Heartbreaking myopia from a country whose corporations were so forward looking.

[Watchman56]

03:47 PM on 03/14/2011

nuclear power is only clean to a point. A Few nuclear meltdowns can do more damage to the environment. Not to mention all the nuclear waste.

[DrStrangelov]

03:26 AM on 03/16/2011

not if there is containment. Blame Harry Reid for killing Yucca. The French solved their waste issue. Are you willing to admit the French can do something we can not do?