iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Robert Alvarez

Robert Alvarez

Posted: March 12, 2011 01:29 PM

Meltdown: The Japanese Earthquake and Fukushima Reactors


We shouldn't have another nuclear catastrophe to realize there are better, much safer ways to make electricity.

In the aftermath of the largest earthquake to occur in Japan in recorded history, thousands of residents living within 12 miles of six reactors at the Fukushima nuclear station have been advised to evacuate and people living within 15 miles of the plant are advised to remain indoors.

Plant operators have not been able to cool down the core of at least two reactors containing enormous amounts of radioactivity because of failed back-up diesel generators required for the emergency cooling. In a race against time, the power company and the Japanese military are flying in more than a dozen emergency generators. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton announced yesterday that the U.S. Air Force has provided cooling water for the troubled reactors. Complicating matters, Japan's Meteorological Agency has declared the area to be at high risk of being hit by a tsunami.

The plants were operating at full power when the quake hit and even though control rods were automatically inserted to halt the nuclear reaction, the reactor cores remains very hot. Even with a fully functioning emergency core cooling system, it would take 24 to 48 hours for the reactor cores to cool and stabilize. If emergency cooling isn't restored, the risks of a core melt, and release of radioactivity into the environment is significantly increased. Also, it's not clear if piping and electrically distribution systems inside the plants have been damaged. If so, that would interfere with reactor cooling. The government's nuclear safety agency has reported that radiation levels in one of the reactor control have made it making it virtually uninhabitable.

Early on Japanese nuclear officials provided reassurances that no radiation has been released.
Unfortunately, a large explosion destroyed the reactor building at unit 1, which might be due to the generation of hydrogen from overheated fuel cladding. Significantly, higher radiation levels are also being reported at the plant boundary -- large enough to prompt a major evacuation over a large area in the U.S. The presences of cesium-137, is clear evidence that radioactive fuel debris is escaping into the environment. These events point strongly to a reactor core melt. Radiation levels at the site are about 10,000 times above normal.

In a desperate effort, reactor operators are attempting to divert and pump seawater into the reactor. Even if the reactor remains intact, the Fukushima explosion indicates that the containment has failed and there is now a direct path for radioactive releases directly into the environment. According to Arnie Gunderson, a former U.S. nuclear power plant operator: "events over the last day indicate that volatile radioactive elements such as xenon, krypton, cesium, iodine, and strontium are already being released from the Fufushima nuclear reactor. The fuel rods have lost their integrity and, EVEN IF the reactor maintains its integrity, [radioactive materials] are being released into the environment through open relief valves on top of the reactor. Whether or not there is a meltdown, enormous quantities of radioactive gases will continue to be released through the failed nuclear fuel."

But the devastating Japanese quake and its outcome could generate a political tsunami here in the United States. For instance, in California it may become impossible for the owners of the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon reactors to extend their operating licenses with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The quake is also likely to further deflate the "nuclear renaissance" balloon.

These two reactors are sitting in high seismic risk zones near earthquake faults. Each is designed to withstand a quake as great as 7.5 on the Richter scale. According to many seismologists, the probability of a major earthquake in the California coastal zone in the foreseeable future is a near certainty. The U.S. Geological Survey reports the largest registering 8.3 on the Richter scale devastated San Francisco in 1906.

"There have been tremblers felt at U.S. plants over the past several years, but nothing approaching the need for emergency action," reported Scott Burnell, a spokesman at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission told Reuters today.

As the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe approaches next month, the earthquakes in Japan serve as a reminder of the extreme risks of nuclear power, when things go seriously wrong. The Chernobyl accident required nearly a million emergency responders and cleanup workers. More than 100,000 residents from 187 settlements were permanently evacuated because of radioactive contamination. And an area equal to half of the State of New Jersey was rendered uninhabitable.

The U.S. and Japanese reactors have extra measures of protection that were lacking at Chernobyl, such as a secondary concrete containment structure over the reactor vessel to prevent escape of radioactivity. In 1979, the containment structure at the Three Mile Island reactor did prevent the escape of a catastrophic amount of radioactivity after the core melted. But, people living nearby were exposed to higher levels of radiation from the accident and deliberate venting to stabilize the reactor. Also, within one hour the multi-billion dollar investment in that plant went down the drain.

In the meanwhile, prospects to cool down the cores of the Japanese reactors are dimming. We shouldn't have another nuclear catastrophe to realize there are better, much safer ways to make electricity.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 302
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
05:10 PM on 03/20/2011
Solar cells covering 3% of the Arizona desert could power the entire U.S. and the ful is absolutely Fred.
RealistBC
Micro-bios must pass muster.
09:19 PM on 03/20/2011
Some recent study determined that Kansas had enough wind to power the entire nation. Add this to Arizona's solar days, and there is now plenty of capacity. Anything additional in other states would merely be insurance against power poverty and would help shut 104 toxic poison plants.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
IsotelusMaximus
Appalachian American
01:38 PM on 03/20/2011
What was the point of this article? To provide a mess of "what-ifs" and "might-happens"? The author then ends his editorial abruptly by hinting at a miracle source of energy but fails to even name it?? I wish we could get away from this type of fear-mongering and move on to rational debates.
03:22 PM on 03/20/2011
isotopelusetc - the blog was neede. There are rational, effective methods of generating electricity which do not threaten to destroy the earth and make it uninhabitable. The thing is you have to foot the bill. This means paying more for electricity and using a lot less. It was not for nothing that Ronald Reagan took down the solar panels Carter put up on the Whie House. Had Reagan left them in place they would have paid for themselves but they were too radical and the fossil fuel industry didn't like them. Neithr did the nuclear industry. Use less. Pay more. I mean do you really need all the stuff you buy. America is like a nation of hoarders who simply throw away the stuff and restock. It all takes a whole lot of energy.
08:06 PM on 03/20/2011
Pinki ,are you ok? do you realize what you are saying?
I worked in solar energy and realized it generates miniscule energy; the only people who can afford solar energy are rich folks with specially constructed architectural houses.
Wind power? ok, who is stopping that? Let me ask you this, can you live without electricity for say one week? How would you blog??
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
IsotelusMaximus
Appalachian American
09:33 PM on 03/20/2011
The author failed to provide any alternatives. That's all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClarcKing
Citizen
09:55 AM on 03/20/2011
Scholars who profess that nuclear energy must be abandoned have another agenda, that includes population control. Nuclear energy is absolutely necessary for immediate economic recovery and to ensure the survivability of future generations.

Fiscal experts, Academia, political-financial think tanks, Globalization, etc., have created a world financial-economic order that is in disintegration. Cut backs and austerity is all we hear from these "authorities". The results are a very vulnerable population subject to the danger of deterioration of the public's physical infrastructure.

The Fukushima accident/malfunction caused by an magnitude 8 earthquake, is being exploited. The facility is under control. New 4th generation nuclear facilities, that burns its' waste, is easily shut down, must be installed throughout the United States, as we can see what happens when we become concerned about costs, without the input of the bigger picture.

The United States must activate its' economic platforms, create the necessary higher order of existence humanity demands; The Nuclear Fueled Energy Economy, the Hydrogen Economy will undergird economic recovery. Construct the interstate maglev rail system, Construct the water harvesting and distribution system proposed in the NAWAPA plan. These measures and more will employ 7-8 million Americans, reversing our crisis.

Economic recovery can be replicated throughout the world,saving and elevating humanity.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:46 PM on 03/20/2011
This is a good example of the lack of foresight, vision, and concern for all life on this planet with regard to the risks of nuclear energy.The long-term catastrophic consequences of ANY mistake or failure in generating nuclear energy cancel out the immediate gratification it provides, especially with a substance as deadly as plutonium, with a half-life of 24,000 years. Fukushima is not under control or containment; experts say this will take WEEKS (and that's a conservative estimate).
01:01 AM on 03/20/2011
OK - Currently nuclear energy accounts for approximately 20% of this country's overall energy production with coal leading the pack at 45%. Exactly what "better and safer ways" are there to replace the 20% and at what cost? In the history of American nuclear energy there has been one incident with zero loss of life. The incident in Japan was the result of one of the largest earthquakes ever recorded along with a tsumani of epic proportions. To simply say we need to eliminate nuclear energy is utter nonsense.
12:15 AM on 03/18/2011
What was the initial damage to the Fukushima Nuclear Reactor done by the earthquake
photo
Boobuzuela
Satire identical to actual Republican positions
04:33 PM on 03/20/2011
Nobody is answering that question. We have no idea if any primary steam or coolant pipes were broken, loss of containment, or anything at all occurred.

If containment was lost I would have expected a steam explosion at the time of the breach, not a day or so later.

My guess is that structural damage to the buildings from the earthquake caused water leakage from the spent fuel ponds. If not, later explosions did, although a BBC writer suggested the Tepco operators may have "stolen" water from the spent fuel ponds to try and cool the reactors.

My belief is that the reactor explosions were steam / loss of containment explosions, not hydrogen venting explosions, as we've been led to believe.
08:20 AM on 03/14/2011
Sorry folks, but with the demand for electricity accelerating, as much as I wish renewables could meet the demand, it highly unlikely that wind, solar, or geothermal will be able to.That being said, its also time to face the fact that it is not safe to operate the older "light water" closed loop water cooled reactors in areas the may see high seismic activity or any other force of nature that could cause a meltdown. Three designs come under the heading of "newer" that could help make nukes safer. The first uses current generation fuel in a different reactor and fuel configuration called Pebble Bed. Better, but still has waste that takes 10,000 years of storage to be safe. Second, Fluidic Salt Thorium reactor, which has a much more abundant fuel and cheaper fuel cycle, and produces waste that only takes 300 years to become safe and is very hard to make weapons grade materials from. Third - Electrostatic fusion. Born from DOD research just published a few years ago, this technology come from Busard and his team, produces no radiation, requires no containment vessel or heavy construction, simply stops working if conditions are not right for operation, and can be built on a smaller scale than existing nukes. Before his death in 2007, Busard was trying to get funding to build a full scale reactor at a cost of 200 million. You tube has lectures given to Goggle about the second and third types of reactors, check them out.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
12:26 PM on 03/14/2011
Yeah, how can I get a job shilling for the nuclear power builders like you?

GE pays pretty good I would think.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:55 PM on 03/13/2011
Nuclear waste, oil-spills ... now tell me:

What is the "fallout" from solar energy?
How much will it cost compared to the above?

Hmmm ...
10:24 PM on 03/13/2011
Any solar cell or manufacturing or wind turbine metals plant in the area would have now contaminated vast areas of land and drinking water forever with toxic chemicals and waste.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Phytoresearcher
05:51 AM on 03/14/2011
Are you serious? Where did you get this nonsense? You must be referring to strip mining, not renewable energy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
12:27 PM on 03/14/2011
That is just so much bull and nonsense.
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
03:59 PM on 03/13/2011
There is a very real potential for a mega-tsunami hitting the US that would affect the entire East Coast of the Americas beginning in the Canary Islands.

http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~ward/papers/La_Palma_grl.pdf
click link, then search La Palma for studies.

http://www.rense.com/general56/tsu.htm


The Indian Point nuclear plant is sited on the Hudson River estuary 35 miles north of mid-town NYC. If a mega-tsunami were to hit the east coast it would be channeled and magnified into the Hudson and up to Indian Point, that also sits nearly on top of the Ramapo Fault; the combination of location and potential mega-tsunami are an unacceptable risk to millions; the plant should be de-commissioned now. Obviously other nuclear plants would be hit by this potential Mega-tsunami as well.

How much longer will our leaders remain blind to this threat? How much longer will the nuclear industry be allowed to hide facts, raise limits of what is "considered" dangerous levels of radioactive exposure, and influence the supposed nuclear watch-dog (more like lap-dog), the NRC, to their advantage at great risk to the public?

http://njmonthly.com/articles/lifestyle/living-on-the-fault-line.html

http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease091116indianpointthyroid.pdf
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Angie Cordeiro
We do all things through Grace which empowers us.
07:12 PM on 03/13/2011
I'm doing all I can by promoting Randy Powell and Marko Rodin's work.
03:56 PM on 03/13/2011
...and Iran wants to build nuclear reactors in one of the most seismically active areas on Earth.
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
03:49 PM on 03/13/2011
It is astonishing and alarming (but expected) that the nuclear industry and their supporters/shills are out in force on these boards pushing deliberate disinformation and outright lies. The tone of these supporters is that of a wise person explaining elementary "facts" to ignorant children. The truth is that nuclear power is an inherently dangerous and very expensive way to produce power (only due to subsidies and liability limits from the Price-Anderson Act of 1957 can it profitably exist) and has led to increased cancer-rates and deaths from so-called "minor" releases of radioactive elements and contamination of ground-water and water bodies from leaks. It is the height of irresponsibility to intentionally hide the facts and lie to people regarding the grave (pun intended) dangers of nuclear power production.

"a landmark study on the 1979 Three Mile Island radiation release has found that people near the nuclear reactor are suffering from extremely high rates of cancer"; a 600-700% increase in leukemias. http://www.albionmonitor.com/9703a/3milecancer.html

The Indian Point nuclear plant on the Hudson River in NY Indian Point, 35 miles north of NYC, is leaking radioactive water into a huge pool underground, into the groundwater & Hudson River, and there has been an “epidemic of thyroid cancer rates” in people living near the plant.
http://www.ipsecinfo.org/Leak_Sept_2005.htm

http://www.radiation.org/press/pressrelease091116indianpointthyroid.pdf
08:11 PM on 03/13/2011
People don't realize that with the way we subsidize the energy( Nuclear, big oil and gas), our energy cost are highly inflated. The true cost of our energy is much higher when you take into account that our tax dollars go to this corporate welfare. Why aren't some of these billions going into newer technologies? If we subsidized solar and other emerging technologies like cold fusion we could save a lot of money in the long run, with out all the worry of being killed or poisoned, like we are now.
Maybe we need to look at some of these newer safer technologies before wasting billions and billions of dollars on something that we can't be sure won't have huge repurcussions down the road.
Check this out
.http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
12:30 PM on 03/14/2011
Well said, Batguano. It is the most expensive way to produce electricity by far and the most dangerous to living things.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RRK70
02:32 PM on 03/13/2011
It's not just earthquakes and tsunamis, it's people.   Even with the best and brightest minds focused on a singular task, using multiple layers of redundancy and access to vast resources, NASA still has encountered failures with the space shuttle. 

And now we have people assuring us that corporations with limited budgets and driven to make a profit can exceed the capabilities of NASA while ensuring safety and profitability?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:19 PM on 03/13/2011
for all the uninformed, gabbling about how expensive rooftop solar is and exclaiming about "payback" taking 3-10 years, i ask you this - when will your oligarchical, ever increasing power bill "pay for itself?" right. never. so, you pay the same bill to yourself for 10 years that you've been paying to Big Energy, then you pay no bill for 30 years. how can that possibly be considered "expensive?"

compare it to the return on your 401k over the past 15 years. to the return on your car, or, for most people nowadays, the return on their homes. what's the return on those $250 blue jeans? that bottle of wine? rooftop solar is about the only purchase people look at and demand "payback" on - this is a function of DECADES OF BIG ENERGY PROPAGANDA, nothing else.

it's just ridiculous to be talking about widespread radiation poisoning, power outages that will lead to thousands of DEATHS, dead miners/drillers, permanently destroyed ecosystems, poisoned drinking water, airborne pollution, etc. and say "rooftop solar is expensive."
08:52 AM on 03/14/2011
Roof top solar is great for residential applications, but until it reaches break even or better with grid power, based on what the consumer sees in his bill, it won't get much footing in the greater market without subsidies. Many over the horizon technologies may make this happen, but even if all your points are valid, your swimming upstream in the rapids unless you find a way to make panels that are more space efficient, less silver use intensive, and most importantly cost per Kw competitive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
12:36 PM on 03/14/2011
That's nonsense as well. If solar power on my roof nets me all the power I use in 24 hours, then a million homes do the same and the power company simply becomes a backup/nighttime support.

And that is why almost all installs are being thwarted now. The power companies are trying to stop the end of their monopoly.

BTW, Stanford University produced the first Full Light Spectrum solar cells last week. These panels will produce 3 or 4 time the power of the house where they're installed.

Nyah.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
12:31 PM on 03/14/2011
Well said, Sheila.
02:08 PM on 03/13/2011
"These two reactors are sitting in high seismic risk zones near earthquake faults. Each is designed to withstand a quake as great as 7.5 on the Richter scale."

Considering this very recent history, I wonder if these things will ever be built strong enough.

New Zealand 2-21-2011 6.3 Magnitude
New Zealand 9-04-2010 7.1 Magnitude
SouthWest Pakistan 1-19-2011 7.2 Magnitude
San Francisco Bay Area 1989 6.9 Magnitude
San Francisco Earthquake 1906 8.0 Magnitude
Sumatra Earthquake (Indonesia), 2007 8.5 Magnitude
Valdivia Earthquake(Chile), 1960 9.5 Magnitude
10.0 Magnitude Never Recorded

Maybe we should build nuclear plants to withstand 20 Magnitude quakes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
larrystalcup
11:32 PM on 03/13/2011
maybe we should't build them at all!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
01:57 PM on 03/13/2011
I can't believe the Japanese would build a nuclear power plant near a fault! Look I'm a fan of nuclear power! But build them on large floating platforms that are safe from earth quakes, Tsunamis, and at the end of their service life seal them and sink them near a tectonic plate to return them to the mantel of the earth where this waste can be taken care of!
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
04:04 PM on 03/13/2011
Are you serious? Sink nuclear power plants into the ocean where the waste can be "taken care of??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
07:34 PM on 03/13/2011
I did say sealed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
02:00 AM on 03/14/2011
You really should sink them on the subducting plate because volcanoes don't usually form in these regions. Sediment should cover it quite nicely helping to seal it even better!

Regions to consider would be off Columbia and Peru where you have a nice subducting plate in combination with some nice rivers to add sediment.
12:03 PM on 03/13/2011
The 1986 nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl in Ukraine spread radioactivity and death over eastern Europe and despair in the Western world’s nuclear power industry. Chernobyl, along with the non-lethal accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, sent the industry into decades of decline.

Enviro-groups will predictably leverage the new enviro-hysteria of “Fukushima” to stop the expansion of nuclear power in America. Just as they have used the examples of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as pejoratives against the U.S.’s current 104 nuclear power plants that provide about 18% of our electricity. Nuclear power expansion is necessary in America for economic, security and environmental reasons. The energy from one pound of uranium is equivalent to 1.3 million pounds of coal energy. Nuclear power produces none of the greenhouse gases associated with global warming.

Just as the “green screams” of “BP” demonized our oil production and oil independence, listen for the next enviro-groups’ rallying cries of “Fukushima” to demonize our nuclear energy production and energy independence.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alvdh1
01:55 PM on 03/13/2011
Hey Paul,

Did you here that 200,000 people were evacuated from areas surrounding a wind farm in the Northeast due to static electricity fears? Or, did you here about the 100,000 people evacuated in the Southwest because the solar farm is overheating? The antithesis of you lame green comments is the onslaught of nuclear minimizers coming from industry sycophant's such as yourself - especially when no one is certain of the outcome from the Japanese nuclear plants. To start the minimization parade at this juncture is typical of the nuclear industry vying for massive government subsidies to build toxic power plants.

America can neither afford this boondoggle technology nor does it need it for environmental reasons when energy efficiency could eliminate 60 percent or better of our electrical needs. In addition, we have in excess of 236,000 megawatts of spare capacity in the U.S. right now. All of the nuclear and coal fired power plants could be phased out through energy efficiency, conservation, combined heat power, solar, wind, geothermal and fuel cells. None of these technologies require mass evacuations even as a precautionary measure.

Where do you suppose the 200,000 evacuated Japanese have been moved to in light of the destruction associated with the quake and tsunami. Obviously, you see this dislocation as a mere inconvenience to a country reeling from disaster. If the reactors do have a complete meltdown, they wont be coming back to Fukushima to live.
batguano
As Long As Grass Grow, Wind Blow & The Sky Is Blue
03:18 PM on 03/13/2011
Excuse me Paul, but the Three Mile Island accident WAS lethal, even if that inconvenient truth does not fit with your pro-nuclear narrative, and people will continuing to die from the enormous increases in cancer rates directly linked to the release of radioactive elements. We were lied to then and we are being lied to now by the supporters of nuclear power as "the only alternative".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-wasserman/people-died-at-three-mile_b_179588.html

The Three Mile Island disaster caused increased cancer & deaths; with leukemia rates up 600-700%: "a landmark study on the 1979 Three Mile Island radiation release has found that people near the nuclear reactor are suffering from extremely high rates of cancer". http://www.albionmonitor.com/9703a/3milecancer.html

Ridiculing anti-nuclear truths and activists will not change the facts that nuclear power production is deadly to man, animal life, and the environment, and costs much more when all is taken into account than changing to sustainable non-lethal, environmentally damaging/destroying forms that have been pushed for profit at the expense of people.