The events in Japan as they relate to issues of nuclear energy have been an urgent and important clarion call to all regarding the safety of our nuclear facilities and the role nuclear energy will play in our energy future. It is an issue of vital importance to the nation given its impact on global warming, national security and the economy. It is an issue that needs be examined openly and not simply left to those who are pre-programmed to present us with the familiar saws railing against nuclear energy with the tailwind of current events at their back.
Almost the first out-of-the-box of nuclear energy dismissal was Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) who on March 13, but two days after the tsunami hit Japan, set forth a list of nuclear policy objectives ranging from a call to imposing a moratorium on siting new reactors to requiring a review of the U.S. Department of Energy's loan guarantee program, without which the construction of new facilities would be brought to a screeching halt. All points certainly to be put on the table, but Markey's haste to be out front bespeaks where he is coming from. His views were more succinctly enunciated but a week later on March 20th speaking to 'Face the Nation', he was quoted: "the nuclear industry as an electrical-generating part of our mix for the future" would likely "meet its maker" in light of the recent tragedy in Japan. Coming from the ranking member of the house Energy and Commerce Committee one can well imagine what lies ahead.
Then we have Mr. Gregory Jaczko, head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission testifying before the Energy and Commerce Committee about the nuclear situation in Japan. His testimony was broadcast around the world and fueled growing criticism of Japan's government handling of events while frightening all who were paying attention. The New York Times would banner headline its first page on March 17, "U.S. Sees 'Extremely High' Radiation Level at Plant, Focusing on Spent Fuels Impact" and went on to write "More Dire Appraisal of Crisis Creates Split With Japan." In these situations perhaps it is best to err on the side of caution. Yet in the retrospect of now twelve days since Jaczko's testimony, it would appear the Japanese assessment was closer to the mark. Interestingly Gregory Jaczko worked as a Congressional Science Fellow on Representative Markey's staff. Jaczko also seved as Senator Harry Reid's science policy advisor. And therein lies the rub.
Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev), probably more than anyone in public office has slowed down to a virtual halt the expansion of nuclear power in the United States (not a single nuclear power plant has been built here since the late 1970's) by forcing the shutdown of the multi-billion Yucca Mountain, Nevada repository project for nuclear waste. In doing so he enormously complicated the siting of new plants and the safe handling of spent fuels, an issue now again in laser-like focus in response to the Japanese disaster.
Without a program to effectively deal with nuclear waste, pools holding spent fuels at nuclear plants in the United States are even more heavily loaded than those at the Japanese reactors. Yet no plan has emerged to replace the Yucca Mountain repository, (NYTimes: "Japan Nuclear Crisis Reviving Long U.S. Fight On Spent Fuel" 03.24.11).
Certainly at Harry Reid's insistence, President Obama told his Department of Energy to withdraw their application for the construction license for Yucca Mountain facility that was submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). When the Energy Department sought withdrawal of their license application last June, a panel of three administrative law judges maintained there was no provision in law to do so and rejected the NRC's request to withdraw.
The issue was automatically appealed to the full five member NRC . With one commissioner having recused himself the NRC voted 2-to-2 leaving the commission deadlocked thereby failing to override the panel of judges ruling. Thus the administrative judges' ruling was left to stand. However Commission Chairman Jaczko has refused to bring the matter to a final vote, continuing to leave the issue unsettled, much to the consternation of many in Congress, not to speak of the utility industry and raising the question altogether, to whose benefit?
Solution to the waste disposal problem has been under endless examination. Some years ago this writer proposed, at risk of being pilloried, siting such a facility in northern Alaska much in keeping with the effectively resolved Russian depots on the Novaya Zemlya archipelago in the Northern Arkhangelsk region (please see "Nuclear Waste: 'Not in My Backyard!' Then Whose?" 07.07.06)
Another crucial initiative that could play a major role and has in many national nuclear programs such as that of France as but one example, is the reprocessing of spent fuel to recover plutonium produced in uranium powered reactors for reuse as reactor fuel. It is an issue that has been off the table in the U.S. since the 70's when Jimmy Carter banned the process because of proliferation concerns (please see "Climate Change and Nuclear Energy: America's Missed Opportunity", 12.13.09).
Certainly the benefits and risks inherent in a nuclear energy program are enormous. It is important for the nation's future when all is said and done, in spite of the current reaction to events in Japan, that the benefits attributable to nuclear energy are given temperate and fair consideration in all policy assessments.
NUCLEAR!
They only have 13 plants generating only 6.6 gigawatts of electricity now but are already building 27 more and have approve to build 50 more to get to 40 gigawatts of power by 2015 and they have bigger plans to build 100 more on top of that to generate 86 gigawatts of electricity by 2020!
With all this cheap electricity they can build inexpensive solar panels for us so we can all reduce CO2 emissions. Isn't that wonderful!!!
www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com
… “The reason we are concerned is that they are detecting water outside the containment area that is highly radioactive and it can only have come from the reactor core,” Lahey added. “It’s not going to be anything like Chernobyl, where it went up with a big fire and steam explosion, but it’s not going to be good news for the environment.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear-reactor
So, how are you going to spin this?
The deaths and injuries due to natural gas and oil in Japan's recent earthquake are of the second type. People such as Markey seem to believe that the few hundred million or billion dollars per death that government gets, in royalties and -- where applicable -- excise taxes on fossil fuels are somehow laundered, and in seeking to prevent nuclear energy from preventing those deaths and that revenue, he isn't being extremely unpleasant. Sounds silly when you lay it out like that, doesn't it.
What is critical for the future of mankind and survival of the earth is that we approach these environmental, economic, business, social and energy needs with global and national justice for all mankind and not just for the Advantaged. It is an Opportunity for the World, but if not dealt with fair and equal the World will be lost in continual battle of the haves and have not’s. At this stage Nuclear Energy needs to be examined. Not in a rush to solve the world problems, but as a necessary aid in the survival of mankind and the overall health of the planet, Mother Earth.
It is not technology, but who benefits from the technology GAIN that is important. Example abound right here in America with the Alternative Energy.
The Big Corporate Advantage for Stock Traders who pay 0 tax will swallow every new technologica advantage and stifle new technological advance for CASH at the expense of Sweat, Genius and Talent and the whole earth will suffer, rather than benefit
So now we only have to deal with half-truths huh? When you get back after your tour of duty helping with the reactor remediation - Then we can talk.
And we are suppose to trust these decisions to the Corporate Stock Trading power that could not even mention this to the PUBLIC.
You reject _EVERY_ alternative.
Nuclear power is risky, but far less polluting than coal. Continuing to use or increasing the use of coal, will certainly lead to much increased climate change, and to economic suffering, and starvation for vast numbers of people world wide. In fact the problem of climate change presents an existential threat to the human species.
The main threat from Nuclear is in weapons. With the appropriate controls we can limit the risks of proliferation. Regardless of the risk, it is much less to be worried about than the inevitability of catastrophic global warming.
Nuclear would at best be a stop gap measure until alternative cleaner renewable sources of energy are available.
This is a matter of being practical in understanding what can and can't be done in the present political climate. Extreme ideologues who make out that the accident in Fukushima is a major disaster, before the information is available, do no service to the cause of preventing anthropogenic global warming.
BETTER is not WORSE
Since the nuclear industry was shut down by the anti-nukes, the burning of coal has tripled in the US and now spread like a cancer into China, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and horrific environomental destruction by coal pollution.
The anti-nuclear movement has been the single greatest destroyer of the planet, of all time.
Too bad the N industry was not successful in that goal. We would all be better off now.
It is now an established fact that AGW poses a much greater threat to us than the tiny amounts of contamination from Nuclear accidents like at Fukushima, and is even greater than the threat of Nuclear war. This is because AGW has already started, and is inevitable.
Nuclear needs to be operated within the framework of non-proliferation treaties. Coal burning and exporting nations may need to be economically isolated in the future.
It's in the air.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/28/us-japan-radiation-water-idUSTRE72R6AQ20110328?pageNumber=2
It's in the sea.
And half of Honshu has received at least some contamination... Areas around the Fukushima plant, extending beyond the evacuation zone are very likely unihabitable.
A compact, inexpensive, green, Low Energy Nuclear Reactor (LENR) invented by Andrea Rossi is in production.
It uses non-radioactive Nickel, not radioactive Uranium, as fuel.
Power cost is projected at one penny per kilowatt hour.
No nuclear waste is produced.
Other new technology might employ used nuclear fuel to run large engines to generate electricity and reduce the danger on-site.
See Cold Fusion at www.aesopinstitute.org to learn more. These are Black Swans, highly improbable developments with huge impact.
A one Megawatt heating plant has been approved in Greece, opening in October. A similar plant is possible in the USA.
A nuclear scientist has said when these small modular units, which can be linked like solar panels to produce any desired power level, begin producing inexpensive electricity it will start a "stampede".
Several competitive designs are being developed. Early regulatory approval has been received in Greece and may prove possible here.
These technologies will cost-competitively undercut any need for new Uranium fueled nuclear plant production and allow the replacement of existing installations as rapidly as mass manufacturing and concerned parties will permit.
These revolutionary designs have no possible chance of a meltdown!
They can become a building block for decentralized energy generation.
Big is fragile and ugly. Small is still beautiful.
A video of the initial demonstration of the Rossi reactor in Italy a few weeks ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCdxpt86fv4&feature=related