Lesson of Fukushima: No-Nukes or Pro-Nukes?

Nuclear Waste Train Crash

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 13:01:38 +0100

If you're concerned about an train carrying nuclear waste having an accident I suggest you watch the youtube video "Nuclear Flask Endurance Testing in USA." These things are designed to survive the worst accidents and then some. - Thomas

such a good discussion topic! i wish we had talked about this in our discussion unit in alpha.

Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:04:56 +0100

I think nuclear power is ok, but not a permanent solution. A few years ago, we had a train crash in the town where i live. Right in the downtown area. luckily no one was hurt and everything was cleaned up within a few days. But I shudder to think what would have happened, had that train been carrying nuclear waste. All of the radio-active material has to be transported, especially in such a large country such as the usa, before it gets buried in some mountain somewhere. that's what i'm worried about. There is no 'safe' way to get rid of it. There are better ways to get energy. - Charlotte

Descent into rhetoric

Sat, 02 Jul 2011 19:33:32 +0100

I wanted to make a tangential comment on the difficulty of speaking in favor of nuclear power these eco-style sites. I will lead by saying that as a nuclear trained officer aboard a nuclear powered submarine, I don't live under any illusions that this technology is bullet proof. The Navy works hard to ensure I understand the risks and how I would protect you in the worst-case-scenario situation you have heard about on the news. Also, as a result, I have a relatively low level of knowledge about the details of commercial plants' operation since they are rather different from the plants that I am trained on. However, I think that as a group of "thinking" environmentalists, you have showed up to the argument with rather little knowledge and an awful lot of smear campaign propaganda. If you think that people aren't talking about the waste disposal problem, you aren't reading the right stuff. It has been a central topic in the nuclear community for years, as indicated by the attempt at a facility at Yucca mountain, which actually passed in 2002, but got canceled by the Obama administration. The amount of fear mongering here really bugs me. "one of the most poisonous forces this world has ever known" -Joel This is a broad brush statement with no significant meaning. It's like when a used car salesman tells you you're getting a "great deal". No frame of reference, no qualification, just good ole fashioned fear of things you don't understand. "Go take a few deep breaths of the radioactive vapor that has been released and then tell us how "not serious" it is." -Rico What is the purpose of this statement except to incite irrational fear? Does Rico know the risks of inhaling radioiodine? I think it is more likely that he heard, like most of us, radiation was bad for you and uses that single fact in a vacuum to call out what he perceives as huge risks to the population while not even realizing that he likely has consumed far more radioactive nuclides in the organically grown bananas he has for breakfast than the reactors in Japan ever released. If you want to be a successful "thinking" eco-site, you should look for real information, not just the rhetoric the narrow-minded "environmentalists" are using to fight the narrow-minded "big businesses". There are people with ulterior motives on both sides of this issue, so don't just accept what you are told. I can't really invest my time in trying to counter these point by point, I just hope to add some perspective to a pretty one-sided argument. So I think you should look at how costly wind turbines, hydroelectric plants, and biofuel facilities are to construct and maintain relative to their energy output before you try to indict nuclear plants for their "prohibitive" costs. Because it is important. I like hiking and animals and trees just like the next guy, and I want to keep them and us around both, but scare tactics and generalizations won't accomplish that no matter how good the science is. Or alternatively, you could consider changing the name of the site to ecosheep. That could work too, and would take less time. - Jacob Platfoot

Safety - what's an acceptable magnitude of risk?!

Mon, 23 May 2011 16:08:28 +0100

Hi, I'm really shocked by the discussion of safety without any mention of the magnitude of the risks. What is the size of the area around Chernobyl that is uninhabitable? Is it wise to be drastically increasing the small chances of technical or intentional (terrorist or sabatage) failure making one or more large cities or large areas of valuable land uninhabitable by continuing to increase the number of these monstrosities? What would be the impact of a Katrina scale disaster if a city the size of New Orleans (or Tokyo or NYC) was made permanently uninhabitable? If we keep building these things its inevitably going to happen. The chances of winning the lottery are minuscule but if you purchase enough tickets it will eventually happen. Regardless of your opinion on this issue problems like windmill blades coming off or towers falling down are clearly not relevant to this discussion. - Mitch

Science Teacher

Sun, 10 Apr 2011 11:58:12 +0100

Matt is correct. It astounds to observe that in so many discussions on Nuclear Energy, the hundreds of thousands of year storage issue is very seldom present. When you factor in these costs it is simple off the scale ridiculous to consider Nuke as an option. Bill McDonough of "Cradle to Cradle" design philosophy calls this "intergenerational remote tyranny". Putting of the cost and dangers associated with the byproducts of fission is a design failure and should be cast of hand as an option. Our nuclear reactor is safely 93million miles away radiating all the energy we need. 10 Biilion plus to build a 30-40 year lasting reactor with poisonous waste lasting a million years??? Those supporting this only goes to prove that just because you have book knowledge and are college educated does not mean you have wisdom and common sense. - Todd

who pays for 1million year disposal?

Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:22:46 +0100

The real "hidden" cost of Nuke. Is that no power company has to cover the cost of either long term storage. The US government has agreed to handle all the waste of US built reactors, including those in other countries during the Atoms for piece. Anyone know what it cost to store something for 1millions years? Oh and if a big "mistake" happen, the company goes under and leave the cost of the whole mess to the government. It is just another corp welfare program, the corp gets all the benefit and the government (tax payers) take all the risk. It is a sweet deal when you can get it. - Matt

Nuclear Power.

Sat, 02 Apr 2011 15:18:50 +0100

I think what happened to Japan was horrible. And I think they need as much help as they can get. I talked to me history teacher about this. We talked for a while about Japan. Then I asked him if Nuclear Power was good for the environment or not he said it is, But the thing that came to his mind that could be bad is that when pipes and stuff need to be replace they just bury them in the ground in a medal box hoping nothing leaks or goes bad. I have to agree that concernes me. I think they need to find a better way to dispose of the stuff. That is not only good for the environment but keeps us safe as well. - Alyssa

Simple

Mon, 28 Mar 2011 04:56:56 +0100

It's quite simple really. Governments are not doing anywhere near enough currently to move from fossil fuels to renewable sources. If they have to pass on nuclear power, which is cheaper than pure renewables, then they will end up doing even less. This isn't acceptable, so we'll just have to deal with the problems of nuclear power, because the risks from climate change are more potentially catastrophic than a nuclear meltdown. They will impact far more people. - David Wood

Nuclear should Stop, not Stop-Gap

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 10:32:58 +0100

Safety is only one concern (although a major one that is clearly not resolved). But to suggest that Nuclear can be used as a stop gap is totally backwards. Nuclear power is one of the most expensive sources of energy available, way more expensive than wind and second generation solar (not to mention biomass, CSP, tidal, geothermal and EFFICIENCY!!). And this price will only increase, because Nuclear power is NOT renewable and as supplies of uranium dwindle (with some analysts saying production has already peaked) the outrageous costs will only increase. So why would we waste our money on an energy source that is won't last and is already more expensive than renewable alternatives. Furthermore we haven't accounted for the costs and safety risks associated with the waste, which is still a glaring and enormous unresolved problem. Despite huge research investment we still have no viable long-term storage solution, because there's nothing we can build that will last hundreds of thousands of years. And let's be frank, nuclear waste is a huge liability because it is one of the most poisonous forces this world has ever known and it lasts for 100's of generations. There's no way we can account for that cost and it seems horribly short sighted as it non-renwable nature would only make it a stop gap. Renewables and EFFICIENCY!! are cheaper, quicker to implement, safer, recyclable and are inevitable for the future energy production. It makes no sense to use stop gaps that cost more, have a greater environmental cost and will become obsolete in our lifetimes. . - Joel

Is nuclear power worth it

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:52:14 +0100

Nuclear power plants as previously developed and newly designed appear to be prohibitively expensive to construct, maintain and operate. I believe that we need to take a closer look at construction costs on a lifetime energy generated per dollar spent basis, given the very high volume of concrete, steel and other expensive materials required. A closer look at the lifetime costs of continuous safety related maintenance and the cradle to grave cost of plant and fuel management is also warranted. Furthermore, a comprehensive look at the embedded energy (fossil fuel supplied) within associated fuel mining, processing, shipping, storage as well as the embedded energy within construction and materials (especially concrete) may reveal a hidden weakness in our assumed low carbon footprint for nuclear power. When nuclear power plants are decommissioned can we recycle or otherwise reuse construction materials? Do we need to seal off decommissioned nuclear power plants well into the future, denying future generations of potentially valuable uses for such real estate? Finally, I believe that nuclear power plant efficiencies are well below what can be achieved with more conventional thermal plants and may very well, in combination with above considerations, especially construction and maintenance costs, make this power source a very poor competitor. The risks associated with failures just add another layer of non-competitiveness to the equation, that only the government (we taxpayers) can begin to cover. However, I believe that all of our current power sources need to be looked at and carefully analyzed (on a level playing field) to be able to begin to chart our future energy supply options. - Dan Steele

nuclear or sustainable/renewable ?

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:24:10 +0100

Safety is only one concern relating to the nuclear industry, economical efficiency and the fact that Uranium is a very rare element and is a non renewable resource are also very important considerations. Although I am sure that nuclear still has a future,as a stop-gap energy source and for research, we must develop renewable energy resources rapidly if we are to have a reasonable, safe and technological future. Concentrated solar power ( C.S.P.) has by far the greatest potential for worldwide energy supplies in the future, with Wind, Wave, Tidal and Photovoltaic Solar for more local (i,e; U.K. usage) - mark spencer

NONUKES

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 14:44:22 +0100

There is STILL NO SAFE PLACE to store burnt out elements! NO country has a solution yet, but we continue to create this radioactive trash... In the US< the GOVERNMENT is - by contract - responsible for this chore - good move on the part of the powerplants and whoever makes the money! And the question/problem remains - wher to put the trash SECURELY!!! Unless there is an answer, ABANDON all ideas of this NOT RENEWABLE energy concept!!! NOW would be a good time, even though it should have happened after Three Mile Island OR Chernobyl.. - Sandy

...

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:58:08 +0100

Even though I am a high-tech person, I see nuclear reactors as dangerous, costly (most people don't realize that billions are subsidized from our tax money to support them), and totally unnecessary, since there are so MANY clean, renewable, safe, and inexpensive alternatives, which we already have the technology to put into practice. There are several forms of solar extraction, geothermal, heat-differential, tides, and the state of Nevada alone would have enough potential WIND power to provde electricity for the entire world! New solar breakthroughs are occurring constantly, and our only problems with free, clean and renewable energy systems, lie with the greedy powers that be, who want to extract every cent they can from us energy users. - Rex K. Thomas

Damage

Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:23:26 +0100

You say "earthquake-proof reactor cannot be built". What evidence do we have that indicates the problems were due to the quake itself? Did the tsunami cause most of the damage here, including destruction of critical infrastructure that powers the plant in order to keep the cores cool? - Another Comment

...

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 23:42:43 +0100

"even at this point, there has not been a serious release of radioactive material"?? Go take a few deep breaths of the radioactive vapor that has been released and then tell us how "not serious" it is. - Rico

...

Mon, 21 Mar 2011 14:02:39 +0100

You write "even at this point, there has not been a serious release of radioactive material, and the area around the plants has been able to be evacuated safely." I live in Tokyo and have been very upset at all the folks back in the United States who have been insisting that we here are in great danger from the radioactive particles being released. Even if this ends with a Chernobyl type conclusion we here in Tokyo are in little immediate danger. However, this is not true for many others including my in-laws dairy farm which already is being told by the government that it will not be able to sell its milk. Events may have changed between when you wrote and when you published. This event will have a huge impact on agriculture well beyond the 50 mile radios surrounding the power plant. While this blog looks at the costs of making the reactor safe, there is also the cost of safely disposing of the waste. This is another matter which concerns me because a very large waste facility is being made in close proximity to my summer house in Nagano. While we have been given assurances the facility will be earthquake proof. The same was said of Fukushima until ten days ago. Nearly every inch of land in Japan is subject to the possibility of a massive magnitude 9 quake. Add to the seismic activity population density and topography make me wonder whether of not safe nuclear power is cost effective here in Japan. My hunch is that Fukushima will not be Japan's 3 Mile Island because the Japanese feel that their lack of natural resources give them no other alternatives than to continue creating new reactors. For Japan this should be the chance to consider new alternatives. This is after all a country which seems to be an endless source ingenuity. - CrappyCartoons

...

Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:58:06 +0100

It seems to me that the real risk is developing nations turning nuclear. How would Indonesia or Venezuela (both are planning on building nukes) cope with a similar disaster? If the nuke companies in Venezuela follow the safety record of their oil companies I wouldn't be too optimistic. - Lance

Ever read the "exit interview" with the man who stated the Nuke Navy?

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 18:35:57 +0100

His said that will it was "save" for the Navy. After all, he could have you shoot if you started f%^king it up. And the Navy would spent what was need to make it. He was against commercial nuke. He felt that the lowest bidder and loose management would make them unsafe. Try to lower the cost each year would force you to make unsafe picks. Plus there is the issue of even getting a good design built. Most people don't know the the most expensive coal power plant build in this country is "Zimmer". Close to Cincinnati it was to be a nuke, but after a inspector went "missing" and then a lot of the weld x-ray validate test were faked, they had to switch to coal. It was that of not be able to charge power user for the money already spent on the plant. Yes you can build safer Nukes than are out there, yes you can improve existing plant. But that all cost money, and if not forced it doesn't happen. Come on, the plant in Japan was right on the coast, in a very quake'y area. It was only a matter of time before a large wave came in. But in 40 years did they build a dike around it? No, because it cost money. - Matt

...

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:27:35 +0100

The promblem is that reactors are such concentrated centers of power and as such subject to major risks. The future is in networking small local sources of power. Unfortunatly this isn't so interesting for big capital. - Piers Headley

@Sarah

Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:08:07 +0100

I wasn't referring to volcanic geothermal plants. Hot rock geothermal has no relation at all to volcanic energy extraction. - Mike