In the past, renewable sources of energy, such as solar, wind, bio-fuels, and geothermal, had been relegated in comparison with the pre-Fukushima rush for nuclear energy. Indeed, Japan went so far as to plan for 50% of its power to come from nuclear by 2030, in a nation where people have grown accustomed to not having to open doors because electric motor-driven doors open automatically, and there is similar use or wastage of power, depending on the perspective of the beholder.
The tragic calamity that has gripped Japan, starting from the horrendous tsunami and subsequent radiation leaks, has not just impacted the nuclear plans of Japan, but the entire nuclear energy industry of the world. Germany has already announced that it will give up nuclear power in its entirety. Pressure is on countries like India that had major nuclear power goals, to now take a closer look in the light of the experience of Fukushima. In India, however, it is not so much its natural disasters, which pale in comparison to the near-continuous cycle of Japan's earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons, volcanoes, landslides, and other calamities that the industrious Japanese people have had to deal with over centuries. But rather, perhaps the even more dangerous possibility of man-made criminal and terrorist actions that could trigger a nuclear cloud release from a reactor, and ensuing nuclear fallout, that my late statistician father researched the probability predictions of at the University of California, Berkeley, half a century ago. And, the possibility of accidents en route for nuclear wastes that are being transported by rail or road.
In the meantime, disposal of nuclear waste has become controversial, as has the cost of commissioning and later de-commissioning nuclear power plants. Caribbean countries have called for an immediate end to shipment of nuclear waste through the Caribbean Sea and emphasized how much the ocean is integral to their tourism and fishing based economy, which in fact is also the case for the island nation of Japan.
Further, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid has successfully kept nuclear waste away from his home State of Nevada's vast Yucca Mountain, which was for decades contemplated as a potential dumping ground.
The post-Fukushima Japanese store shelves that display unsold meat and fish following news of contaminated fodder having being used as feed, and continuing tainted fluids being released into the ocean around the stricken nuclear power plants, are just one category of losses suffered by small and large businesses. As for families and communities, the losses have been severe, beyond the untold suffering of the tsunami/radiation affected.
But nowhere has a full costing been done. And that enables a fuzzy debate to continue with polarized intellectuals berating one another, as Prof. Jitsuro Terashima, Chairman of the Japan Research Institute, points out. He calls for reducing dependence on nuclear energy through a revision in Japan's Strategic Energy Plan. Meanwhile, Prof. Hiroshi Komiyama, Chairman of the Mitsubishi Research Institute, has strongly advocated a low-carbon future through enhanced use of renewable energy.
There is no question that Japan and most other nations with abundant sunlight should utilize solar energy much more through high efficiency photovoltaic and thermal routes. Indeed, Dr. Kazuo Inamori, the founder of Kyocera, for instance, has been a pioneer in this respect.
It is time to support renewable energy with Japan's low cost of capital to reduce the risks of nuclear power and alleviate the impending electricity shortages as Japan and indeed the world comprehensively contemplate a post-Fukushima energy future.
Brendan DeMelle: Controversial Energy Subsidy Report Made Public By Watchdog Group
will reveal even more problems with nuclear energy, thereby making the choice of
renewable energy ubiquitous. Most countries, even the most industrial,
cannot afford the total cost of nuclear power: too many un-quantified risks.
Responsible policy makers should sponsor those studies to ensure that
a sound comparison can be done between the various sources of electricity.
Let the public decide on the basis of informed consent.
1. Standardization as best as one can do for multiple companies, multiple utilities, multiple AE firms
2. Get the intervenors out of the equation. Let them have their say early on, then stew foo them.
3. Smaller scale
4. Streamlined licensing
5. Fuel Recycle
All of these efforts will make nuclear more cost effective.
Oh and dont forget Number 2. Those intervenors want to make it costly with the delay tactic. Time is money.
However, since the lower house of Congress succumbed to the Tea Party this last January, alternative energy stocks have plummeted. The Reactionary Party, aka the Republican Party, is attacking many of the programs that could have benefited America, and mankind.
Why is there so little information on the flooded nuke plants in Nebraska?
Conservation is not going to make the demand for electricity go down.
Its a non-starter in the USA
B. They always tell you the sky is going to fall if we abolish nuclear power. They are ludicrously wrong. We will do just fine without it. The only sky that will fall will be the huge profits of the corporatists who have arranged the whole nuclear ponzi scheme.
This is the way of technology and progress - things get improved over time.
You are arguing over a 40 year plant with a 50 year old first generation technology.
But in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of the god who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this land and over the red man. Your destiny is a mystery to us for we do not understand what will happen when the buffalo are all slaughtered! The wild horses are tamed! What will happen when the secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills is blotted with talking wires? Where will the thicket be? Gone! Where will the eagle be? Gone! And what is to say goodbye to the swift pony and the hunt? Where are our Young men! Gone! This is the end of living and the beginning of survival. So we will consider your offer to buy the land.
-GREAT Original American Leader
This opinion piece is nothing more than the same old anti nuclear fear mongering diatribe that I have come to expect from the Huffington Post. The shame of it is this time it is coming from a man of academic intellect who should know better. I am absolutely positive Sunil Chacko knows all to well that his anti nuclear argument is solely based on his ability cherry pick the facts about the Fukushima incident. I anticipate this type partial deliberation to come from an anti nuclear zealot. I certainly didn’t expect the intellectual integrity of man like Mr. Chacko to be tarnished by persuasion methods that are more analogous of what one would hear from a used car salesman.
If we observe these missing facts we will see why the statement that Fukushima Daiichi incident should be calculated into the cost of producing and maintaining all nuclear plants does not hold water. The crutch of Mr. Chacko argument is obvious. He thinks that the Fukushima incident taints the safety all reactors including those of the 3rd and 4th generation which are yet to be mass produced. Simply put Mr. Chacko view is not held up by most experts. In fact most “…experts note that a third-generation facility would not have led to the current problem even if it had been hit by a tsunami.” (5/18/11 Asia News) 4th Generation reactors are even safer having more passive safety systems than that of 3rd generation reactors.
appears to attempt to prevent even a basic costing of the risks attributable to each type of energy generated. Nuclear energy is often shrouded in "national security" and therefore even when accidents short of catastrophic occur at nuclear power plants, they are not reported to the public. The author of this insightful Huffington Post article did not prescribe categories to be included in the full costing of the risks -- that would be for a consensus of proponents and opponents of nuclear power to define. But a full costing of all the risks is essential. The catastrophic consequences of Fukushima can be replicated in countries like India that cannot afford even a fraction of the potential problems. Over a quarter century after Bhopal, it is clear that India had not assessed the risks properly of that tragedy caused by systems that too were not supposed to fail. Now India, for example, at least has a chance to learn from the Japanese national crisis that does not seem to end.
Oh no, Bhopal, your house will collapse!
Oh no, Bhopal, this plane could crash!
Oh no, Bhopal, the machines will rebel and enslave us all!
The meltdowns are going to cost peoples lives and homes and property which can never be recovered.
That is NOT safety.
Further it can be shown that the Fukushima Daciihi reactors were an abnormality among our worlds 500 reactors. There are clear reasons why three of Daciihi reactors failed while all of the nearby Dannii reactors were all able to be placed into a cold shutdown. According to the Wall Street Journal article, ‘Design Flaw Fueled Nuclear Disaster’ July 1, 2011, if TEPCO would have invested a few million dollars more into Daciihi the secondary power systems would not have failed. The NRC has concluded that all of the US’s ‘old’ reactors of a similar design do not have this same design flaw.
I am not trying to give Mr. Chacko a “polarized intellectual berating” but a man of his knowledge should know better. This is especially true when Mr. Chacko talks about financing and the total cost of energy sources. Many experts including intellects like Bill Gates have noted that they can reduce utility costs by half with the development of 4th generation reactors. (Bill Gates TED Conference 2010) With such a massive reduction of energy costs billions of the worlds poorest would be able to rise above the poverty line and join the middle class. I ask Mr. Chacko an expert in financing what renewable energy source has ever or will ever be able to make that claim.
Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,
Jfarmer9
We can and should use it, but we should not delude ourselves about how much of the pie it's going to make.
Use Waste bio fuels to "backup" solar and wind, and stop the mindless dumping.
Win Win Win.
Cheaper too.
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/08/01/solar-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy/
http://www.ncwarn.org/2010/07/solar-and-nuclear-costs-the-historic-crossover/
http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf
http://www.grist.org/article/2011-06-16-german-rooftop-solar-price-averages-less-than-4-per-watt
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=sunergy-offers-5-cent-solar-billing-2009-12
Nukes can't even compete in the market without massive subsidies even 60 years later.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html nuke get 132% subsidies. 5-8 cents per KWH.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2008/05/09/202621/nuclear-subsidies-enough-is-enough/ 100B$ in subsidies
The NRC specifies requirements. That is their function.
If the industry satisfies requirements, what more can the NRC do? They are not chartered to be adversarial or an advocate. They just specify the requirements and make sure compliance to requirements are met.
1. Nuclear power has killed fewer than 100 people in 50 years of operating close to 500 reactors worldwide.
2. Try to guess how many amateur solar panel technicians will fall off their roof and break their necks trying to fix somthing that at best, doesn't work 70% of the time.
3. The cost of rooftop solar in hand down the most expensive form of energy available. Nuclear is at worst the second cheapest behind only coal, which historically is the only beneficiary of a nuclear plant shutting down along with natural gas.
Once again you post another ‘absurd’ comment that relies upon sources that do not stand up to peer-review. Thus Alvdh1 you are the ‘lying liar’. I also find it highly ironic that an anarchist like your self is using Wall Street to make your point. The only reason why Wall Street has a hard time investing fully in nuclear power without loan guarantees is because they can not wait for 20 years to get their return. Capital markets have always had this flaw. But as you may already know nuclear power plants once built are very cheap to run thus it is only a matter of time before they will run as the cheapest form of power.
Now lets compare that to solar and wind which relies on forced subsides in which states make utilities buy renewable energy. Also tax breaks and direct government subsides are what have made almost all renewable energy sources possible. The one thing that Wall Street has made abundantly clear is that there would not be wind or solar production if these sources were to compete in a free and open market. This also includes all the solar panels and wind that come from China at a discount due to their heavy government subsides.
Once again Advl1 I have a deal for you. You stop telling your lies about clean, safe, and efficient nuclear power and I will stop telling the truth about you.
Telling it as it is,
Jfarmer9
Nuclear energy is compact, clean, reliable and safe. No one has been killed due to radiation from Fukushima Daiichi. Only a tiny handful of workers have experienced any actual physical impact, roughly equivalent to a bad sunburn after wading through contaminated water without proper protection.
The biggest beneficiaries of the purposely spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about nuclear has been the liquified natural gas (LNG), coal and oil suppliers that are experiencing sales booms and price increases while perfectly safe reactors are kept shutdown by irrational fear. Do you ever wonder if those suppliers are actively supporting the FUD campaign?
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
I see you are out and about again sharing your preposterous nuclear nonsense with the uninformed.
Your absurd claim of clean nuclear power doesn't even come close to to passing muster as a lie. Instead it is a bald face lie coming from someone who knows better. 80 million curries of radiation have been released from Fukushima between March 12 and the beginning of June. Contaminated vegetables have been banned, contaminated beef has been sold and eaten, contaminated fish have been sold and eaten, contaminated tea produced south of Tokyo has been intercepted by the French this week and radiation hot spots have been detected outside of the evacuation zone. Highly susceptable children to radiation exposure have been tested with high leveles of radiation in their urine and you have the audacity to claim that nuclear power is clean. To further your imbecilic commentary that nobody has died ignores the long term cancer consequences that the exposed people, especially children, in Japan face in the coming years. Your ignorance on the subject is shameful and premeditated for the sole purpose of preserving your poison factories.
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/06/16/scientific-experts-fukushima-potentially-worse-20-chernobyl-governments-hiding-truth-28221/
http://enenews.com/fukushima-already-chernobyl-levels-continues-release-significant-amounts-radiation-former-energy-dept-official
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/home/2011/7/22/radioactive-tea-from-japan-seized-at-french-border.html
The only thing that is ‘absurd’ on this comment board is you. As always Alvd1 you continue to cherry pick your facts in order to promote renewable energy sources that are so inefficient that not only will they break down in twenty years but also leave huge amount of hazardous waste.
http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/03/are-your-solar-panels-toxic
It is absolutely ‘shameful and premeditated’ for you to once again post sources that do not stand up to peer-review. I do not know why you are so anti nuclear and the fact is I don’t care. The thing I care about is that you continually spread propaganda that is tantamount to junk science.
Alvdh1 I bet that you do not even work. I suspect that you sit around all day and are bitter at the world so thus you continually try to bring down others who are trying to build it. Alvdh1 I got a deal for you. You stop telling your lies about clean, safe, and efficient nuclear power and I will stop telling the truth about you.
Viva the Nuclear Renaissance,
Jfarmer9
And if an earthquake and or tsunami hits solar all that is lost is the array, NOT lives and property.
Think about that, AR.
My answer is: I am not opposed to solar, and I have thought about it.
You wrote:
'safe clean and reliable solar'
This gets right to some issues.
It's not really safe. It's safe in a certain meaning of safe. Rooftop solar installation and maintenance suffers from all the safety issues of roofing, which is one of the most dangerous of the construction trades. Are we to believe that it will be made safer somehow by relying on unskilled (eg homeowner) labor? I doubt it.
It's not really clean. It's clean for the end user, but its waste stream is not clean. Its industrial processes can produce highly toxic byproducts that not all manufacturers are disposing of responsibly. China is manufacturing quite a lot of the materials and end products, and there is plenty of evidence that their processes are not clean and that they are not particularly concerned with making them clean.
It's not really reliable. You'd be out of luck if you weren't tied to the grid, as we have discussed. Solar needs backup. What is powering your home when your solar grid is not producing?
All that said, it has a role to play, but it will be a marginal one. Until the fundamental problems with this power source are addressed (intermittence, RE stocks, etc.) it will remain fundamentally a distraction from the important question:
What is supplying the bulk of baseload power?