When it comes to the safety of nuclear power plants, I am biased. And I'll bet that if President Barack Obama had been with me on that trip to Chernobyl 24 years ago he wouldn't be as sanguine about the future of nuclear power as he was Tuesday in an interview with a Pittsburgh television station: "Obviously, all energy sources have their downside. I mean, we saw that with the Gulf spill last summer."
Sorry, Mr. President, but there is a dimension of fear properly associated with the word nuclear that is not matched by any oil spill.
Even 11 months after what has become known simply as "Chernobyl" I sensed a terror of the darkest unknown as I donned the requisite protective gear and checked Geiger counter readings before entering the surviving turbine room adjoining plant No. 4, where the explosion had occurred.
It was a terror reinforced by the uncertainty of the scientists who accompanied me as to the ultimate consequences for the health of the region's population, even after 135,000 people had been evacuated. As I wrote at the time, "particularly disturbing was the sight of a collective farm complete with all the requirements of living: white farm houses with blue trim, tractors and other farm implements, clothing hanging on a line and some children's playthings. All the requirements except people."
Back then, working for the Los Angeles Times, I had been covering the nuclear arms race, and my invitation to be the first American newspaper reporter to visit Chernobyl came from one of Mikhail Gorbachev's top science advisers, Yevgeny P. Velikhov, whom I had interviewed on arms control issues.
Velikhov had led the effort to contain the damage at Chernobyl, risking his health in the immediate days after the incident by flying low over the contaminated reactor site in a helicopter, as well as by scaling the sidewall of the damaged reactor to more accurately evaluate the situation.
His point in arranging my visit was to demonstrate the terrifying consequence of a "peaceful" nuclear explosion, let alone one resulting from a weapon designed to inflict mass destruction. It was an argument he advanced with the military in his own country about the folly of nuclear war-fighting scenarios: "After two weeks of discussion with the army corps, I asked how you wish to survive a nuclear war if you have no possibility to clean this small piece of nuclear garbage."
This was a sentiment echoed by Harvard physicist Richard Wilson, who also made that Chernobyl trip, and who pointed out that with nuclear weapons "one is dealing with a technology designed to explode that is also under the control of human beings."
An important lesson that should be reinforced by the ongoing disaster in Japan is to worry more about the elimination of those nuclear weapons designed to explode, and another is to be concerned about the prospect of sabotage of nuclear power plants. This last is a reason to rely less on nuclear power in a world made volatile not only by natural disasters but through the concerted efforts of those who can fly airplanes into targets of their choice. At the very least, the expense of properly maintaining the internal safety and external security of power plants should be considered in any cost-benefit analysis of their usefulness as an alternative source of energy.
I know there will be an attempt to sell us the argument that the odds of a catastrophic earthquake and a catastrophic tsunami occurring together in an area containing a nuclear power facility are incredibly low, that the Japanese plants in question were of inadequate design and, as in the case of Chernobyl, that "human error" was at fault. Despite the earlier accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, there was a strong tendency to present the Chernobyl disaster as a warning sign not about nuclear power in general but rather the particular failures of a rotting Soviet economy.
After the Japanese experience, such cavalier dismissal of the intrinsic problems of nuclear power is no longer plausible. Recall that it was Obama himself who in October 2009 celebrated Japan as the model for nuclear power expansion: "There is no reason why, technologically, we can't employ nuclear energy in a safe and effective way. Japan does it and France does it, and it doesn't have greenhouse gas emissions. ..."
As journalist Kate Sheppard points out in Mother Jones online:
Nuclear power is part of the "clean energy standard" that Obama outlined in the State of the Union speech in January. And in the 2011 budget the administration called for a three-fold increase in federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants, from the $18.5 billion that Congress has already approved to $54.5 billion. "We are aggressively pursuing nuclear energy," said Energy Secretary Steven Chu in February 2010 as he unveiled the budget. ... In Monday's White House press briefing, press secretary Jay Carney said that nuclear energy "remains a part of the president's overall energy plan."
Trust me, this is not the way we want to go.
But for a plentiful, sustainable, renewable, and, yes, clean supply of electricity, NOTHING can compete with a breeder reactor. We get 20% of our electricity from an annual consumption of 50 tons of actual fissile uranium. We throw away the rest of the 25,000 tons.
Solar energy is dilute. Southern California Edison has the best access in the country to sunshine, and plans to get about half a baseload coal fired generator's worth from photovoltaic roofs and mirrors in the Mojave desert.
Nuclear fuels are the fossilized energy of vast ancient stars which consumed nearly ALL of their mass to produce them. It took the sun, and various cataclysms, 64 million years to produce our fossil hydrocarbons. Our profligate energy consumption has made a significant reduction in that stored quantity, in less than three centuries.
Coal is a million times filthier than nukes, because it requires a million times as much fuel, and it emits gases instead of solid waste.
There are natural heat engines, the size of a couple of Eastern States, and of stratospheric height, which convert solar energy into wind. They are called hurricanes.
The most effective use of wind power is the airlines' use of the jet streams. Wind turbines can hardly do as well as the ancient sail-powered ships did at their zenith.
Diffuse energy sounds good to me. We can see which is most reliable.
Since they are obviously built by private enterprise, there is no stopping the owners of that enterprise to sell the company, merge, rename etc. which makes it easy to wriggle out of liability for faulty design, construction etc.
The Fukushima plants are 'faulty design' as they neglected the possibility of a tsunami.. A search on the net for who pocketed for nuclear plants coughed up these names as suppliers: Westinghouse, CBS Corporation, Siemens, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL), Toshiba, Hitachi, and General Electric.
In 2006 or 2007, there was a debate here in Australia to have nuclear power stations, which someone said was promped by Westinghouse's third generation reactor, and for which three wealthy men in Melbourne had aquired the franchise. The technicalities are completely beyond me, but we should not have a debate divorced from who makes money from nuclear power stations, especially when they influence lawmakers to limit liabilities, meaning they dump the rest on the taxpayer.
http://www.cbscorporation.com/portfolio.php?division=96
It is also important to note that General Electric owns NBC, therefore it is unlikely that we will receive any anti-nuclear information from these news sources either.
I visited the GE website and found their page titled "Facts on the Nuclear Energy Situation in Japan. The page is clearly trying to quell fears that may hurt their business.
http://www.gereports.com/facts-on-the-nuclear-energy-situation-in-japan/
This is not the case. The facility sat behind a tsunami barrier wall, but the tsunami was so big that it washed over the wall and damaged the diesel generators that would have powered the cooling system. Also, the reactors have their spent fuel cooling pools well above ground to protect from tsunami. If the cooling pools had been at ground level like many plants away from oceans, the wave would have washed the spent fuel assemblies across the country side.
To what degree (if any) are the earthquakes / tsunamis derived from anthropogenic sources ? No one knows. The only proven truth is, the rules have changed and what was assumed to be true in the past no longer holds true.
This Earth's atmosphere was modified by the organisms that evolved with it, beginning 3.5 billion years ago. Logically, anything that modifies the ability of the web of living organisms that created and maintain these systems a state of dynamic homeostasis is going to have repercussions that surpass our ability to comprehend at present.
This much is know to be true: We are biological creatures living in a biological world and any powerful technology that depends on principles that don't neither depend on nor adhere to the Earth's life-support systems is capable of producing results that deviate far from what the biosphere can support.
Nuclear energy produces trash capable of destroying all life and the technology required to contain it DOESN'T EXIST AT PRESENT AND PROBABLY NEVER WILL.
$$$$ mean nothing in the context of the biological reality we live in and form part of. Wake up! We don't have to do this.
http://www.newsinferno.com/health-concerns/radiation-exposure-environmental-contamination/nfs-nuclear-plant-blamed-for-radioactive-contamination-in-tennessee%E2%80%99s-nolichucky-river/
As I watch the footage about Japan, and I say a prayer for them, I want my president to wake up..are you not receiving accurate information????
- So is the Internal Combustion Engine. Car engines contain explosions many many times per minute.
That does not render them "unsafe" - the technology adequately contains them. It's likely that in the face of a Richter level 9 earthquake, there's NO human technology that will prove to adequately contain a nuclear reactor.
The solution is rather obvious: zone the reactors to places where earthquakes are not likely to occur. Generate the power elsewhere and transmit it to its destination. We can't give up on nuclear power at this stage because there simply are no viable alternatives.
While it is indeed advisable to not build these monstrosities on fault lines, the simple fact is that just denying a nuclear power plant the electricity it needs to operate is a major threat to its safety.
Yes we can give up on nuclear power.
Windmills and solar collectors are not going to cut it.
Nearly 7 billion people on this planet and with all of the fossil fuels we use today, we still have over 1/3 of the population without constant electicity and running potable water.
If individuals want to put a solar panel on their house, that's one thing, just remember that if your house burns down, the fire department will not be able to put it out.
However if you want to re-industrialize the United States and industrialize the third-world, to increase their standard-of-living, then nuclear power is the only wat to go.
Panels cannot power a massive steel plant or major city hospital that needs power 24/7.
Common sense says we need consistent reliable power if we wish to remain a modern civilization.
And it's not just to provide for today's society but we need to constantly develop the latest technologies so we can power a aircraft for further and further joourneys into space.
The current generation is always supposed to leave a better future for the next generation despite the trajic deaths that happen every so often due to natural or man-made disasters.
It is inherently much safer. Uses Nickel as fuel. Power cost is projected at one penny per kilowatt hour.
See Cold Fusion at www.aesopinstitute.org to learn more.
A one Megawatt heating plant is scheduled to open in Athens, Greece, in October.
A scientist has said when these modular units, which can be linked like solar panels to produce any desired power level, begin producing cost-competitive electricity it will begin a "stampede" .
At least one competitive design is being developed. It may prove superior. Since it is well understood by the inventor, early regulatory approval seems possible.
These developments could undercut any need for new Uranium fueled nuclear plant production.
And these designs have no possible chance of a meltdown!
Small is still beautiful.
It is transmuted into copper in the Rossi reactor.
Miniscule amounts of Nickel powder are utilized.
See lenr-canr.org for scientific papers where Nickel has been employed as a nuclear fuel.
The Rossi reactor is increasingly likely to prove to be a Black Swan.
To understand more about it I suggest three sources of information:
Cold Fusion at www.aesopinstitute.org
lenr-canr.org A huge feast of scientific papers will be found here.
Cold Fusion Times An industry newsletter.
All have substantial information that is not otherwise easily available.
quoted "Trust me, this is not the way we want to go."
theres a old saying with the manhatten project
" we know not what weve done"
nuke power is not the way to go.
1. We slowly strangle our environment with hydrocarbon power (which will eventually run out anyway).
2. We risk the dangers of nuclear power (which are somewhat minimal with proper precautions, this current incident is somewhat of a perfect storm).
3. We quickly advance in safe an renewable energy (to meet our current energy needs; we need to advance unrealistically quickly)
4. We live in a society that uses almost no energy.
I understand your concerns but it really seems like #2 is the best way to go until #3 becomes feasible.
It seems that you have not fully considered the dangers associated with nuclear power. The human health effects alone are enough to make anyone shy away from the use of nuclear energy. To begin with, we do not need to witness a disaster to see the negative health effects associated with nuclear power. The mining of the various elements that go into producing nuclear power is detrimental to the health of workers, and so is the low exposure to radiation they encounter. By continuing to use nuclear power we are risking the lives of the workers as well as nearby residents.
Over the past fifty years there have been a number of accidents and problems with nuclear power plants. Luckily only the Chernobyl disaster was destructive enough to garner world attention. We should also note that even Chernobyl was hardly a disaster when compared to the potential danger posed by nuclear energy. It does not seem to be a question of "if" another catastropher will occur, but when and where it will occur.
In my opinion the benefits of using nuclear power are far outweighed by the risks. We must invest far more time and energy into developing safe and renewable energy sources. While many fear the costs associated with this they are certainly lower than the cost of a large scale nuclear meltdown.
The benefits FAR outweigh the risk. A lot of countries don't have a choice in the matter, like Japan. They don't have spare land to put solar panels and wind turbines which are just as vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis that anything else. They need to use nuclear because there is no viable alternative to meet their energy demands.
But it turns out that the USA has already developed, and stupidly abandoned, a safe, proliferation resistant, meltdown-proof breeder reactor that would get two centuries' worth of ALL our energy demand, using only the uranium and plutonium that is lying around in storage already. It was called the Integral Fast Reactor, and it burned its own long-lived neutron-capture products, leaving as waste only the small quantity of fission products from the fuel actually consumed.
First and foremost, Chernobyl had no containment vessel. Each of the affected Japanese reactors has three redundant containment vessels.
Chernobyl, because there was no containment vessel, exploded and cast about ten tons of the reactor and material into the air. The Japanese explosion was of accumulated hydrogen, a natural by-product of the reaction, and was not a nuclear explosion nor an explosion in the reactor. The safety systems are working as well or better than can be expected considering they withstood two extraordinary events within minutes of each other.
Anyone who wishes can find ample explanation of how the plants work, the process, the backup precautions, and what is actually happening. Yes, there is some radiation being leaked and that's bad but its not a harbinger of any pending apocolypse. do a little research or listen to Scheer's distortions. The media will chase headlines with sensationalism rather than actually dispense facts. try this;
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fear-the-media-meltdown-not-the-nuclear-one/
http://www.wonuc.org/xfiles/chern_02.html
The USA possesses the best so far design for sustainable, renewable energy. It's a breeder reactor, which means it should get at least a hundred times as much energy per ton of uranium mined as the designs currently in use. It was designed to be proliferation resistant, terrorist proof, self contained, and meltdown proof. It certainly proved, in the very month of the Chernobyl meltdown, that it was meltdown proof even when it was deliberately deprived of power (first test) or secondary cooling (second test).
The Clinton administration, at the behest of people who should know better, like the Sierra Club,
canceled the program in fear of the dreaded plutonium, which is what we wickedly used to bomb Nagasaki less than a week after demonstrating to Japan that we had the world's most horrific terror weapon.
Such fear and ignorance (or is it guilt?) will hand our lead to Japan, France, Russia, China, or perhaps even Iran.
Biofuels and wind power are the technology of the eighteenth century, and were abandoned because they could not keep up with humanity's profligate numbers and demands. We have consumed since then a significant fraction of the fossil fuels that the sun produced over 64 million years of the carboniferous era.