Don't look now, but one of the biggest and most famous industries in the world, nuclear power, once seen as the lynchpin of the future, is reeling yet again after huge political setbacks in Japan and France.
Last year's disaster at Fukushima is having an even bigger effect than the Chernobyl disaster of the '80s. The latter could be blamed on the backward old Soviet Union. But Fukushima happened in future-oriented Japan.
May has seen the shutdown of all 54 nuclear reactors in Japan. Nuclear power had provided one-third of Japan's electric power.
Then came the defeat of French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
In the wake of the Fukushima disaster, Japan has just made itself nuclear energy-free for the first time in more than 40 years. But the country hasn't prepared for the adjustment.
The new French administration plans to cut the nation's use of nuclear power by one-third by 2025. Currently, France relies on nuclear power for 75% of its electricity. (The US gets 20% of its electric power from nuclear.) New Socialist President Francois Hollande's plan would cut that to 50%. He also plans to shut down Fessenheim, France's most famous nuclear plant, which is located in an area of seismic activity on the Rhine River.
Before these developments, Germany and Switzerland both decided to phase out nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster.
These are huge developments in the energy economy, and a stunning reversal for a technology that once epitomized the future.
When former House Speaker Newt Gingrich emerged as a leading presidential candidate last year, I went back and read through some novels of the future by Isaac Asimov that he and others, such as left-liberal economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, cite as major influencers of their youth.
Isaac Asimov's Foundation Trilogy, which Asimov began writing in 1941, is set in the far future. It revolves around the fall of the galactic empire and the rise of a discipline called psychohistory, the story element that so attracted Gingrich, Krugman, and others, in which human history can supposedly be predicted by a form of mathematical sociology. One thing that was so amusing to me in the stories, which are charming, is how nuclear power was constantly presented as a totem of advanced civilization, almost to the point of fetishism, with leading characters even having nuclear-powered personal devices.
By the '80s, of course, nuclear was no longer such an element of faith among futurists. But it had become a staple of the Soviet bloc, with its penchant for centralization, and was well-established in Western countries as well. Such as, well, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, and France.
I spoke at anti-nuclear rallies in the '80s and knew the late German Green leader Petra Kelly well, but I'm open to nuclear power being part of the energy portfolio.
The news flow keeps going in the opposite direction, however, even though the greenhouse effect leading to climate change was advanced by nuclear advocates as a rationale for new expansion.
Nuclear power plants are expensive to construct, despite decades of massive subsidies for fission nuclear power, now a very mature technology. And the biggest subsidies are not the direct financial subsidies, which dwarf those given to renewable energy (as do subsidies for fossil fuels, a long mature industry), but the indirect but very real subsidies of socializing risks posed by radioactive waste and potential accidents and construction costs by shifting those to ratepayers and taxpayers.
And nuclear plants may be vulnerable to cyber-warfare, an increasing concern of defense strategists. Hacking in to take down a wind farm is not catastrophic, aside from the power loss, which can be made up. Hacking in to take down a nuclear power plant is a very different matter.
Looking beyond the problems with fission reactors, nuclear fusion may hold great promise in the future. But that future is still very far off.
Here in California, we had tremendous debates about nuclear in the 1970s and 1980s. Then, during his first two terms in office, Governor Jerry Brown rejected utility plans to build dozens of nuclear plants across the state, focusing California instead on conservation and renewable energy. The state's moves on energy efficiency were highly successful, and have served as a model for many governments in the US and around the world.
After Brown left office the first time, renewable energy efforts lagged. But when his former chief of staff, Gray Davis, became governor in the late '90s, he revived them, with a 20% Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Then Arnold Schwarzenegger amped them up tremendously, in the process enacting California's landmark climate change program.
Now Brown, back as governor for an historic third term, is pushing forward to the target of one-third of the state's electric power coming from renewable sources by 2020, a target first set by Schwarzenegger. I expect Brown to win another term in 2014, which would place him at the helm of these efforts through January 2019, the year before the 33% Renewable Portfolio Standard is to be reached.
Brown says that the target won't be easy to meet, but that it will be met.
Though California turned away from the big nuclear path decades ago, with the Rancho Seco plant outside the state capital shut down by public vote in 1989 (with stars such as Demi Moore and Bruce Willis involved), the state does have two commercial nuclear power plants, at Diablo Canyon on the Central Coast and at San Onofre on the South Coast. With the big push for renewables, they won't need to be replaced.
Diablo, as it turned out, is near an earthquake fault, which hasn't been a problem so far.
San Onofre has been more problematic. It's presently in a de facto shutdown state.
Its utility owner and operator, Southern California Edison, had predicted a June re-start of the plant, but has now backed away. The dual-reactor plant has been off-line for more than three months, due to unusual levels of wear and erosion on relatively new tubes carrying radioactive water.
This isn't the first time that the plant has gone missing in action.
I reported during the height of California's electric power crisis in March 2001 that a major unreported failure at San Onofre pushed the plant offline and would cost the state big bucks to make up for the lost power on the exorbitant spot market that then existed under the state's failed deregulatory scheme. Why did it cost the state? Because Edison, like the other private utilities, had to be bailed out by the state, which was forced to take over the purchase of electric power.
"Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back." Bill Murray's quip in Ghostbusters marked the shift away from nuclear's talisman-of-the-future status.
It will be interesting to see if San Onofre's absence makes any difference this summer.
How will things turn out for Japan?
Former California State Controller Steve Westly, who served on the Secretary of Energy's advisory board and warned the administration about Solyndra, travels in Asia and, though pleased by the move away from nuclear and towards renewables, worries that Japan's dramatic move may be too sudden, with potential problems this summer. Germany, in contrast, is phasing out all its nuclear plants over time, not simply shutting them down all at once.
Of course, nuclear power, despite its problems, is not the energy issue that has so fatefully driven the US down the wrong path.
Our failure as a society to develop and implement cleaner and greener energy systems in the nearly 39 years since the Arab oil embargo is the principal reason why the US is so fatefully embroiled in the Islamic world.
Both the political and media cultures in the US have failed to maintain a focus on the needed transition from the old energy economy to the new.
Much of our geopolitical quandary is driven by this failure, which has led to a heavy-handed big presence in the Islamic world, and to an emphasis on nuclear technology which inspires others to want the same.
As in, say, Iran. Which, strikingly, has not been dissuaded in the least from its insistent course by the Fukushima disaster, or by the tough sanctions imposed on it due to its deeply suspected designs on nuclear weapons.
Absent our addiction to the old energy economy, of course, much of this, maybe most of it, wouldn't be happening.
As for nuclear's future, once so bright and shiny that it was a staple of pop futurism, it appears to be blinking out. With the advanced industrial world still on shaky financial footing after the great global recession, and nuclear a major presence in the power portfolio, few countries will follow Japan in promptly and simply shutting down their nuclear plants.
But where, outside of Iran, will new nuclear power plants be contemplated? Wherever that may be, it looks to be increasingly few and far between.
Meanwhile, the imagined nuclear-powered personal devices of Asimov's Foundation future look positively quaint, especially compared to the solar-powered watch I'm wearing now. The future is a lot closer than many may fear, or like to think.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
William Bradley Huffington Post Archive
Erich Pica: San Onofre: We Can't Ignore the Warning Signs
Rev. Jim Ball: The New York Times Gets Played By Climate Deniers
Karl Grossman: Nuclear Rubberstamp Commission
Harvey Wasserman: Will You Pay as New Reactors Jump $900 Million in Just Three Months?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpxaJN0TT3U
About one hour into the video, it is revealed that Areva exports the bulk of its spent fuel waste to Tomsk, Russia. Far less than 10% of nuclear waste is actually reusable. Claims of nuclear recycling are bogus as are the nuclear shills who are heavily invested in the nuclear industry. They will lie and say anything to keep their careers and income intact. The undisputed facts expose their fraud.
U-238 is included in fresh fuel to stabilize the chain reaction. As the fuel heats up, U-238 absorbs proportionately more neutrons without undergoing fission. The process is called doppler broadening and provides a negative feedback to improve reactor stability. A small percentage of the U-238 is bred into plutoinium-239 which can fission. This new plutonium can extend the lifetime of the fuel and provide additional energy. Over 90% of the original U-238 leaves the reactor unchanged.
come on by
These explain how we can do it without Nuclear:
The High Frontier by Gerard K. O'Neill,
Colonies In Space by A. Heppenheimer.
The Third Industrial Revolution by G. Harry Stine
The Space Enterprise by Philip Robert Harris
Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis
Future Nuclear is no better, since Solar is faster to construct, not RISKY and has no decommissioning cost UNLIKE Nuclear...
Pilgrim nuclear power plant owner Entergy Corp. sent half of the facility’s employees home Wednesday morning after giving the union a final contract offer Tuesday night, a union official said.
“They actually allowed what they deem essential personnel in and they’re sending non-essential personnel home,” said Dan Hurley, president of Utility Workers Union of America Local 369. “We’re concerned they’ve taken such a dramatic step.”
Read more: http://www.patriotledger.com/topstories/x738804753/Half-of-Pilgrim-nuclear-workers-sent-home-amid-contract-dispute#ixzz1v39pBl4l
Stop me if you've heard this one.
You and Progress Energy walk into a bar. Progress says it's going to order $24 billion worth of drinks, but they won't arrive until 2024. Oh, and you have to pick up the tab — even if the server drops the tray and the drinks never arrive at all.
If you sense you are the punch line in this joke, you're right. And, yes, you have heard it before.
Twice before, actually.
Last week, Progress raised the projected cost of the new nuclear plant it wants to build in Levy County and delayed its expected completion date.
It was the third such cost increase in five years. The price jumped from $17 billion in 2008 to as high as $22 billion in 2011 and now up to $24 billion today. The company doesn't expect to start producing power at the plant until 2024, eight years later than it originally thought.
And it's possible the plant won't be built at all.
But Progress' customers are still paying for it each month. Expect an extra $3.45 a month on your bill next year all the way through 2017. That's a total of $207 during the next five years, if you don't have a calculator handy.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-05/news/os-progress-energy-rates-beth-kassab-050612-20120505_1_nuclear-plants-nuclear-reactors-progress-energy
Actually, the price went up since.
TVA: Browns Ferry not yet ready for re-inspection
TVA says its Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, which has been under a federal safety warning for a year, isn't yet ready for an inspection.
According to the Chattanooga Times Free Press (http://bit.ly/JIBZEU ), the utility's chief nuclear officer, Preston Swafford, told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday that TVA won't invite inspectors until the agency is confident the plant is ready to pass inspection. Swafford said he didn't know when that would be.
http://www.wtvm.com/story/18434465/tva-browns-ferry-not-yet-ready-for-re-inspection
Thanks Safety Regulators!
...........•Reducing power does not provide a remedy for the underlying structural problems that are creating the vibration that has damaged and will continue to damage the tubes deep inside the San Onofre steam generators
•Reducing power will not change the pressure inside or outside the tubes—previously damaged tubes will continue to vibrate damaging surrounding tubes and tube supports and worsening the existing damage
•Lower power might create a resonate frequency at which vibration might increase without notice causing further damage
•Historical evidence at other reactors has shown that operating at lower power has not been an effective solution
http://ecowatch.org/2012/new-report-reveals-scale-of-steam-generator-failures-at-nuclear-plant/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/fukushima-who-profits-who-pays/blog/40463/
Gets really good about half-way through.
snip
The nationalisation of TEPCO, together with a legal practice called “channelling of liability” in which all liability related to the Fukushima nuclear disaster has to be channelled to TEPCO, means Japanese taxpayers and ratepayers will foot most of the bill.
An infuriating aspect of this story is that in a recent presentation by General Electric (GE)about its “success” over the past 50 years, there was not a word about the Fukushima disaster and nothing approaching an apology.
It is a privilege to be able to lend personal support to the Fukushima Evacuate Children Lawsuit. There is no better measure of the moral health of a society than how it treats the most vulnerable people within it, and none or more vulnerable, or more precious, than children who are the victims of unconscionable actions. For Japan, and for all of us, this is a test that we must not fail. (Noam Chomsky 12 Jan. 2012)
http://fukushima-evacuation-e.blogspot.com/2012/04/court-documents-and-statements-etc.html?spref=tw
Nuclear Power Regulators Scale Back Emergency Readiness Efforts http://huff.to/L5Er69 via @HuffingtonPost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/san-onofre-power-plant-study_n_1518000.html
So many Nuclear Blogs, so little time
here: http://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/53997/stop-worry
ing-about-spent-fuel-pool-fires-zirconium-tubes-do-not-burn"
Nope can't happen ROFLMAO,
wonder if he is still drawing SMR plans with crayons?
Japan Gov’t Papers After 3/11: Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 at boiling point — It is empty — Heat caused fire
Kyoto Professor: 100+ years of aftershocks “relatively close” to Fukushima Daiichi — “May also affect volcanic activity in the area”
@ http://enenews.com/
Yet another recent poll showed that Americans really support clean energy, across political affiliations (though, there’s clearly more support on the left).
The ORC International survey, conducted for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI), found that 76% of Americans (58% of Republicans, 83% of Independents, and 88% of Democrats) want to see ”a reduction in our reliance on nuclear power, natural gas and coal, and instead, launch a national initiative to boost renewable energy and energy efficiency.” (And who knows what the remaining 24% are smoking?)
Not only that, the public has clearly picked up on the fact that corrupt politics is a key reason we don’t have more of that. 82% of Americans (69% of Republicans, 84% of Independents, and 95% of Democrats) agree with this statement: “The time is now for a new, grassroots-driven politics to realize a renewable energy future. Congress is debating large public investments in energy and we need to take action to ensure that our taxpayer dollars support renewable energy– one that protects public health, promotes energy independence and the economic well being of all Americans.”
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/15/76-of-americans-want-clean-energy-instead-of-nuclear-natural-gas-coal/
AP IMPACT: Evacs and drills pared near nuke plants
Without fanfare, the nation's nuclear power regulators have overhauled community emergency planning for the first time in more than three decades, requiring fewer exercises for major accidents and recommending that fewer people be evacuated right away.
The revamp, the first since the program began after Three Mile Island in 1979, also eliminates a requirement that local responders always practice for a release of radiation.
At least four years in the works, the changes appear to clash with more recent lessons of last year's reactor crisis in Japan.
Under the new rules, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which run the program together, have added one new exercise: More than a decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, state and community police will now take part in exercises that prepare for a possible assault on their local plant.
Still, some emergency officials say this new exercise doesn't go far enough.
And some view as downright bizarre the idea that communities will now periodically run emergency scenarios without practicing for any significant release of radiation.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/16/ap-impact-evacs-and-drills-pared-near-nuke-plants/#ixzz1v1gGjvVo
Case in point, Near SORE (San Onofre Reactor Emergency) they don't even have buses to EVAC school children from the nearby elementary school...
That is just a quick sample...