On Sunday morning I got an email from a friend who works for a municipal utility -- I was expecting documentation on how to design incentives for utilities to help their customers save money instead of wasting electrons and carbon. So I was shocked when I opened it and discovered an early alert that the nuclear problems in Japan were much worse than being reported at that time, and that my friend was certain the reactor had already melted down.
He had started his career at the Brown's Ferry TVA nuclear power plant -- and he told me that the Fukushima reactors were twins of Brown's Ferry and that, based on his knowledge of the plants, the initial description of the problems was not plausible. Only a meltdown, perhaps partial, perhaps complete, could explain the damage being reported. And the reported injection of seawater, he said, required a breach in the containment vessel, and meant serious long-term releases of radiation. He also reported that if really bad radiation released occurred, the plume could travel across the Pacific and hit the West Coast with dangerous levels of radiation in a week to ten days. We now know that my friend was right -- there has been a partial meltdown at Fukushima, the seawater emergency fix does mean that there will be large, long-term releases of radiation, and this morning we have just learned that the fuel rods at one reactor have been exposed to air again, making a complete meltdown once again possible.
The global response has been revealing. The German government put on hold its plans to extend the operating life of its seventeen nuclear power plants. Switzerland, Italy, and Poland all announced they were reconsidering their nuclear-expansion plans.
Here in the U.S., Senator Joseph Lieberman called for the nation to put its plans for a nuclear revival "on hold." Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey called for a moratorium of siting new nuclear reactors on seismically active areas and called for reactors in seismically active zones to be retrofitted with stronger containment systems.
A very different tune was coming from nuclear backers like Michigan Representative Fred Upton. Saturday night, Upton announced that his next hearing on the nuclear issue would focus on the question of "why it takes so long to go from start to finish on a new nuclear reactor. Why does it take us 10-12 years and it takes the French and the Japanese four to five years?" Upton asked, as the GOP leadership argued that nuclear should be part of its "all of the above" energy solution.
But the most startling comment came from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who opined, "My thought about it is, we ought not to make American and domestic policy based upon an event that happened in Japan." McConnell has apparently overlooked the fact that the Fukushima Plant has essentially the same -- highly troubled and vulnerable -- Mark 1 reactor design as Browns Ferry and other plants in the U.S., or that, when Chernobyl melted down, the radiation did not stop at the Soviet border. Taken literally, McConnell's view suggests that the United States should never protect itself against a risk until an equivalent disaster has actually happened in this country. In other words, if a plane crashes in Europe, we shouldn't fix the stabilizers on the U.S. fleet even if we know they're defective! McConnell also went on record against learning from domestic disasters, saying that "I don't think right after a major environmental catastrophe is a very good time to be making American domestic policy," and arguing that the decision after Three Mile Island (which, recall, happened in Pennsylvania) to stop building more U.S. nuclear plants had been a mistake.
And overall, the U.S. media continued the drumbeat for a nuclear revival that has characterized Washington inside-the-beltway opinion for two years now. The media downplayed the possibility of a similar problem at a U.S. reactor. In the New York Times, John Broder quoted almost exclusively from pro-nuclear voices on whether the technology makes sense. In the San Francisco Chronicle, veteran science writer David Perlman reassured readers that experts have concluded that "a similar disaster would be highly unlikely here."
The expert logic Perlman cited focused on two differences: Our coastal reactors are on bluffs (and are therefore tsunami proof) and earthquakes as strong as the 8.9 Japan tremor are not expected here, even on California's San Andreas fault.
Well, not so fast, experts.
First, the San Onofre nuclear power plant in California is less than 100 feet above sea level. That's not high enough to be safe from a major tsunami, as the Japanese experience showed. Second, the most dangerous earthquakes anticipated in the U.S. are not in California, but along the New Madrid fault in Missouri, where quakes greater than 8.0 are expected, not as often as in California, but still too often for comfort. And unlike California quakes, which are relatively localized in their impact, New Madrid quakes affect huge areas -- and the nuclear plants in the Midwest have not really been designed for the possibility of an ultra-large quake in the region.
But really, the big issue is not whether the next U.S. nuclear disaster will look just like Japan's. Japan's did not look like Chernobyl, nor did Chernobyl look like Three Mile Island. Brown's Ferry almost melted down because of an accident with a candle! They all had one thing in common -- something went wrong, and the cooling systems in the reactors failed. Every nuclear power plant in the world, and every plant currently under construction, shares that vulnerability. Exactly what goes wrong -- what takes down the cooling system -- is unpredictable. It won't happen the same way twice. That's not reassuring -- it's terrifying.
My friend who had started his career at Brown's Ferry closed his second email to me saying that he hoped he was wrong. He wasn't, and his email shows why we shouldn't listen to experts who tell us "it can't happen here." My friend pointed out that "total loss of AC power, which they had, coupled with an earthquake and a tsunami is not a design basis that many plant owners or operators contemplate." He's right. That's the problem with nuclear technology. There are too many "worst-case" scenarios to include them all in a design basis or an operating plan. How many different forms could a terrorist attack take? And how many of those are adequately taken into account in the design of nuclear reactors? (Answer: very few.)
The problem with building nuclear power plants is not that they are likely to have an accident -- they aren't. In that sense, they're relatively safe. But the magnitude and consequences of even a single such accident are simply too large to warrant even a small risk. Several hundred miles of Japan's coastline were totally devastated by the tsunami. But the big worry facing the country, and the world, today is confined to two tiny sections of that devastation -- the nuclear power plants.
Follow Carl Pope on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlPope
Adam Hamilton: Japan's Earthquake and the Will of God
The SVTC warns that solar panel production creates many of the same toxic byproducts as those found in semiconductor production, including silicon tetrachloride, dusts, and greenhouse gases like sulfur hexafluoride. These byproducts arenât anything to scoff atâ silicon tetrachloride, for example, makes land unsuitable for growing crops. And for each ton of polysilicon produced, four tons of silicon tetrachloride are generated.
There are steps that the solar industry can take to minimize toxic risks, however. The SVTC recommends that manufacturers test materials for toxicity before using them. Additionally, the group asks manufacturers to ramp up takeback programs.
But getting solar panel manufacturers to take back their products after 25 years (the average lifespan of silicon-based panels) could prove difficult, especially since other electronics manufacturers that make products with much shorter lifespans canât get their takeback programs off the grounds
The only way manufacturers will aggressively pursue recycling and anti-toxicity campaigns is if we stop giving the solar industry a free pass and start demanding accountability.
With this Japanese earthquake, the nuclear industry did the right thing in evacuating & making sure that those who live near the plant weren't harmed. Those who live near nuclear or atomic plants understand the risks & the nuclear industry educates them on what to do in worst case scenarios. Yet posters are condemning them though they were proactive. Nations are reviewing their nuclear plants & policies & there will be hostility from anti-nuclear groups. But atomic power isn't going away. What the earthquake will do is force the nuclear industry to come up with more cogent plants. BP was negligent in their 2010 oil spill, yet BP is still in business & people are still buying BP gas.
Yes, they are all bad.
One killing through pollution while the other kills through radiation means both need to go. It's not a reason to keep them both, or the one that kills fewer at higher cost.
--- http://en.Âwikipedia.Âorg/wiki/CÂadmium_telÂluride_phoÂtovoltaics
Where are the demonstratÂÂÂions against cadmium-teÂlluride-baÂsed photovoltaÂicsÂ? I guess some technologies get the 'Sergeant Schultz' treatment. So much for consistency.
An investigation by staff from the Public Service Commission concluded that the collapse of the turbine and failure of a second at the 65-turbine Altona project were a result of incorrect wire installation. That prevented the turbines from going into an automatic shutdown mode when they lost power.
The commission's new certification requirement will be part of the application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity, which all wind projects 80 megawatts and larger must receive. That requirement would exclude Acciona's proposed St. Lawrence Wind Farm in Cape Vincent, which is planned for 79.5 megawatts.'
-- http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100517/NEWS03/305179988
Sorry, you can't escape risk altogether. Even alternative energy generation facilities can fail. In this case, apparently nobody was killed or injured---but it's only a matter of time.
Just look at the 'nuclear apologists' on here spinning the catastrophe as a 'minor calamity being exploited by the mythical Left Wing for their nefarious ends.'
France ceased production of nuclear facilities due to the inherent danger 20 years ago and has no plans to built another. Sarcozy's comment that he would 'review that strategy' is one reason he has no chance of being re elected.
RIP, nuclear energy.
Almost every1 killed in this earthquake were by all other means, yet why are people condemning the nuclear industry for doing the right thing in this situation & making sure people who live near the plants are not injured or killed? To anti-nuclear groups it doesn't matter if the nuclear industry did the right thing because arguments against nuclear are based more on a religion or politics & little with science.
The nuclear topic is not going away. Since the Ukraine continued to build nuclear powerplants after Chernobyl & what happened there was worst case scenario, the nuclear industry will continue after this. The arguments against nuclear are based on religion & politics that in order to be an environmentalist you have to be anti-nuclear & this goes back to the 1970s. But more environmentalists now support nuclear or have become neutral. The EDF is now neutral after being against this. What happened in Japan isn't changing most people's views on nuclear 1 way or the other. What BP did was negligence & BP got alot of criticism, yet BP did not go out of business & many BP stations in the U.S.
Wow!! You must live an exciting life inside your brain.
Your post sounds great, but WHERE is the evidence that the US is ANYWHERE close to acting like adults, and using evidence and science to make our lives better?
Even if it ever happened before, it surely is NOT happening now.
Faith in the genius of humanity? We're still stuck on telling people who they can or can't marry.
We can't get past the tiniest insignificant problems. We have exactly zero hope attacking the really big ones.
All the people in the world in Texas? Seriously?!?
Is that something like how may angels you can fit on the head of a pin?
I'm with rdenning. Too many people, not enough sense in the ruling classes is hurtling the human race toward its destruction. I give civilization about 100 years as we know it, maybe less.