The terrible quake in Japan has caused trouble in the world's largest nuclear power plant (see article below). It reminded me of an advertisement on tv in Canada, saying that nuclear power is safe, clean and affordable. All three claims are blatant lies and at least the claim for safety is further ridiculed by what happened in Japan.
For those of you who want to learn a bit more about nuclear energy than what those working for the industry and in the governments say, I very much recommend "Nuclear Power is not the Answer" by Dr. Helen Caldicott.
The world's biggest nuclear facility has reported two radioactive leaks following the earthquake [EPA]
Authorities are investigating a new possible radioactive leak at a nuclear plant hit by an earthquake in northern Japan, the Kyodo News agency has said.
The news came hours after the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant, said to be the world's biggest facility, announced a water leak.
A spokesman for the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power, declined to comment.
The government, sensitive to nuclear accidents after its atomic bomb experience during World War II, said safety standards at all nuclear reactors in the country will be reassessed.
A local official said the magnitude 6.8 quake on Monday tipped over some 100 steel barrels sealed to store radioactivity-contaminated gloves and clothes within the plant.
Radioactive waste
Shoji Iida, a spokesman for Kariwa village where the nuclear facility is located, said they did not know exactly how many containers were found open. He said 800 litres of oil also spilled inside the facility, but there was no radiation risk.
Kensuke Takeuchi, a spokesman at the nuclear plant, confirmed that barrels of low-level nuclear waste had tipped over but did not give further details.
"We're currently investigating the situation and plan to deal with it as smoothly as possible," Takeuchi said, while refusing to offer further comment.
Another spokesman, Manabu Takeyama, said "at this point in time, there is no danger of grave effects on the environment or human health from the plant".
Contaminated water
Late on Monday, Tokyo Electric admitted that water containing a "small amount of radioactive material" had leaked from its nuclear plant near the quake epicentre, but downplayed the potential danger.
Following the incident, Japanese officials on Tuesday called for a review of safeguards at the reactor where a fire blazed for hours spewing thick black smoke out of the electricity-supplying part of the facility.
Akira Amari, Japan's economy, trade and industry minister, warned Tokyo Electric on Tuesday over the delay in putting out the fire.
"This may cause people to distrust nuclear power," Amari said. "We will not have the plant resume operations without confirming safety."
Tsunehisa Katsumata, the company president, admitted that there was "weakness in our extinguishing measures".
Japan, which has few natural energy resources of its own, relies on nuclear power for nearly 35 per cent of its needs, the second highest figure after France.
Arthur, as always there are different versions of the "truth". The power may be safe while the reactor is secure and produce no harmful emissions in when operating normally. I think the bigger threat is lack of solution for disposal of depleted fuel rods. Burying them for future generations to deal with is not a good enough strategy for me.
As far as accidents like the one you describe or the Chernobyl incident - these really should not be taken in a narrow scope but rather considered in cumulative terms over time. I think it would take a pretty major disaster to cause anywhere near the long term global damage of continuing to use fossil fuels.
Either way, let's hope safer and more viable options come up. The real long term issue may not be the technology used but rather making the switch from a growth-based economy to a sustainable one. As long as we keep growing, any solution is just temporary (unless it ends up killing us all )
It reminded me of an advertisement on tv in Canada, saying that nuclear power is safe, clean and affordable. All three claims are blatant lies and at least the claim for safety is further ridiculed by what happened in Japan.
I spent a significant portion of my life operating nuclear reactors (land and submarine based). They present unique challenges, some of which Guy touched on, but your statement is more flamboyant than objective or informative, imo.
How are you defining "unsafe?" I don't have stats, but I'd be willing to bet a hefty sum that oil and coal harvesting have caused more environmental damage and more human deaths than nuclear power. While nuclear accidents may be more exotic, it's difficult to compare the damage cause by a Chernobyl type accident to that caused by a Valdez type accident.
Reading is a good way to educate one's self on the topic, as you suggest. But if you only read/suggest books that forward the views expressed in Dr. Caldicott's, the outcome is predictable. It's not really informing yourself as much as it's looking for ways to validate your preconceived notions. True education requires exposing your mind to more than one side of the story. Any recommendations on books exploring the benefits of nuclear power?
There are no consequence-free choices in the world. And given the choice between nuclear power and other significant energy sources, I'll take nuclear and work to manage the consequences by working on ways to continuously improve safety and address waste recycling.
By the way, the sun is responsible for more deaths than other form of energy. Solar energy may be clean, safe and affordable...but only if you don't consider that the sun is also responsible for tens of thousands of deaths worldwide, each year. I'm working on a new book: Melanoma is not the Answer!
When the world comes up with a reasonable, safe means of storing the waste for the next 10,000 or is it 20,000 years, I'll happily sign on. In the meantime we're cleaning up Hanford, the shut-down power plant resting directly atop a major earthquake fault in Humboldt Bay CA with its rods still in place and lots more. Ooops. I forgot all the mine tailing piles and settling ponds in Utah and Colorado left over from the 50's and 60's, now being cleaned up at taxpayer expense. They're costing more to clean up than the uranium was ever worth. Are those costs being figured into "cheap" nuclear power along with millenia of waste storage costs? Not.
Hank, there are technologies available to re-process spent fuel, and re-use the extracted enriched plutonium again in reactors for power generation. Just the fact that the US hasn't gotten around to doing so cannot be used to beat up on nuclear power.
For what is worth, for every tonne of uranium used in nuclear reactors, *TWICE* that amount of radioactive waste (which includes uranium, thorium, and other radioactive elements) is released into earth's atmosphere every year by burning coal in coal-fired power plants.
Our dependence on technology and huge amounts of power is always going to come with consequences, regardless of the power source used. Even a power source as "benign" as windmills have some environmental liabilities. As long as we remain so energy hungry/inefficient, it's a matter of selecting the lesser evil and IMO, fossil fuels remain the "largest evil."
I watched an interesting program the other night that discussed photovoltaic power generation. Our current silicone-based technology is only 11 to 14% efficient because it only converts portions of the infrared spectrum into electricity. It was summized that if the efficiency of such devices could be increased to about 50%, photovoltaics could become a viable "decentralized" source of energy - the typical home would have enough roof area to generate its own needs, including the recharging of electric vehicles. One thing is certain; our disproportionately large dependence on fossil fuels will have to come to an end soon, and our energy needs will need to come from a greater mix of the other available energy sources. Mastering conservation in the mean time is certainly a step in the right direction.
Ashutosh is correct about the radioactive emmissions from coal fired power plants. They spew far more radioactive materials into the atmoshpere than nuclear power plants do, and they contribute heavily to general atmospheric pollution and greenhouse gasses. Spent fuel management is a serious problem for reactor facilities. The only option available now, onsite storeage, is not viable for the long term. The Yucca Mountain facility, chosen two decades ago to be the final resting place for the nation's spent fuel, was not geologically sound for such a use. Thank God we weren't stupid enough to go through with it.
Ashutosh is also correct in that spent fuel can be reprocessed to extract fissile plutonium for use in new reactor fuel, but the only plants capable of producing that plutonium in significant quantities are the DOE Savannah River facilities in South Carolina. That plutonium is used for nuclear weapons, not reactor fuel. Sadly, the fissile plutonium is not significant in terms of the radioactive hazard of spent fuel. Even after the plutonium is extracted the radioactive hazard remains the same. Our commercial facilities are light water reactors which rely on water to moderate the neutron flux to a point to optimize the cross section for fission producing neutron absorption by U235 in the fuel rods. Breeder reactors, those that produce more plutonium fuel than they consume, are graphite moderated. The graphite shifts the neutron flux to a higher average velocity which promotes non-fission absorption by uranium, ultimately leading to the formation of fissile plutonium 241.
Safety systems in US commercial nuclear power plants are triple-redundant. If water has to get from here to there, there are three separate, independent ways to make it happen (sometimes more if you are creative). Designs are inherently safe. It takes multiple instances of operator stupidity to make a US plant unsafe (TMI is a good example of that - I know the operators that were on shift when the accident occurred). Reactor containment buildings are built to withstand the impact of a 747 flying at 400 mph. I wouldn't like to test that theory in light of 911.
In the interest of full disclosure, in a former life I was a nuclear engineer, reactor engineer in a BWR facility, and shift technical advisor (post TMI requirement to maintain an engineer in the control room at all times). I later managed the radioactive waste disposal program for a commercial site in south Florida. I left the industry in 1996 for a less stressful life.
As somebody that working in the energy market (Fossil Fuels) - you tell me what the alternative is - wind ( well its exactly that), hydro ( we don't all live in areas with high rain fall - and we don't want to have to dam all those areas every 2 miles), tidal ( the waves on the way out), Fossil Fuels (Guys Covered that), Fusion ( well that presently fiction) or just hot air ?
As Jim pointed out, as long as we continue to consume energy, there are going to be consequences.
Breeder reactors, as Kelly points out are the key - India is banking on them big time. I hope they succeed, since India has an extremely strong civilian nuclear program that reprocesses spent fuel and re-uses them in reactors. Moreover, India relies on PHWRs (Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors) that generate spent fuel, which can be cooked with Thorium in breeder reactors to produce sufficiently large amounts of reactor grade Uranium.
USA relies a lot on LWR (light water reactors) that are not very conducive to good waste management.
Practically all energy sources I have heard of have problems.
The massive hydro-electric dams that Hydro Quebec builds are usually touted as the safest and cleanest form of environment-safe power generation. But even these dams produce extremely huge amounts of methane gas from the remains of submerged plant life in their reservoirs - directly contributing to the greenhouse effect.
Even solar powered energy is extremely environment-unfriendly. The process through which the solar cells are manufactured are extremely hazardous and contribute a lot to enviromnental pollution. The manufacture of a single solar cell itself consumes huge amounts of energy.
I believe that the only viable solution for mankind - is the reduction in energy consumption, and a very quick shift to mass rapid transportation amongst other things.
There are plenty of sources of info on the web providing statistics on the mass/volume of waste generated by nuclear and coal-based power plants. If you ignore the ones that have a specific agenda, you'll read that coal based energy yields thousands of times more waste per MW of generated energy than nuclear. The numbers vary of course, but the gap is huge regardless.
Some of that extra waste is radioactive as Ashutosh points out; all of it contains some nasty substances, including mercury. And while the thought of radioactive waste sites isn't pretty for sure, is that better or worse than distribution of emissions into the atmosphere?
IMO, a significant amount of the bias against nuclear power is attributable to the fact that the byproducts remain onsite and must be manually disposed of in a manner that creates a lot of visibility. And, the average Joe isn't aware of the composition of traditional power plant emissions, beyond CO2 of course. If trucks had to haul away the ash and emissions produced by coal-based power plants instead of just releasing it to the atmosphere and letting it distribute globally - and they had to list the radioactive/chemical composition on the side of the truck hauling it - perspectives would change rapidly.
Thanks all for a very informative discussion - I've learned a lot so far (primarily how dumb I am on the subject!). It's very distubing to know that the US is recycling the waste currently to produce more atomic weapons! Like we need more of them! I guess being able to destroy the entire world only a few times over isn't enough for us. I'm as conservative as they come but that's really troubling.
I didn't know about the nuclear waste emitted by coal plants! Fortunately not too many people think of coal plants as THE thing for the future anymore.
Since we have 50 years of commercial nuclear power generation, we can compare this method to fossil fuels. I would look at statistics before sensational arguments. The generation of electricity by fossil fuels kills many people each year. Given a choice between the two methods of generation, I would rather have the poisoned concentrated and controlled (as in nuclear waste) rather than spread over the earth.
I fear for the environment if we don't produce substantially more electricity from nuclear in the near future. Cleaner ways of power generation just aren't ready on the scale that is needed. The newer reactor designs are impressive. It's good to see some non-polarized environmentalists understanding the need to use more nuclear power.
It's a cool summer day in Chicago, so this message is brought to you by nuclear generated electricity. Amazing I'm still alive.......
Posted by Kent Staubus on July 21, 2007 at 6:07 PM
I didn't know about the nuclear waste emitted by coal plants! Fortunately not too many people think of coal plants as THE thing for the future anymore.
In addition to the nuclear waste, don't forget the mercury. That alone is doing more damage than any nuclear plant is likely to. As it is now it's not recommended a person eat fish daily.
China alone is bringing one new coal fired plant on line a week. Currently, 40% of the tonnage hauled by U.S. railroads is coal. The only triple track line in the country is Wyoming, to haul coal, and it's still too low a capacity.
I just don't see solar energy being a factor in my lifetime. Eventually, maybe. I live in a high density wind energy area, and even here the thinking is it will never provide more than 5% of needs. All possible rivers are already dammed. The only technologies we have for the forseeable future either burn something or are nuclear. Nuclear is clearly the lesser of the two evils. I do think we could convert our power generation from coal to nuclear in a reasonable amount of time, say 15 years. This would dramatically cut emissions. Perhaps the newer plants could even be built underground.
The world population is exploding, and I don't see that slowing. Most all of the growth is in the third world where people tend to be very poor and uneducated. The governments are most often corrupt and inept. China has made some attempts to limit family size, but these seem to be falling flat in the extensive rural areas. I see no end to the building of cheap coal plants in China or India. Nuclear is the only technology that can realistically replace it in the next two decades. The load of coal emissions will likely outpace the population growth as more parts of the world increase their affluence and desire for electricity. Touting solar, wind and etc. while ignoring nuclear is the ostrich approach, I'm afraid.
We're (South Africa) are currently looking at pebble bed reactors as a supposed safe generation of power. For me though, as mentioned above by other posters, it's the waste that's an issue. Yes, storage can be controlled. For certain isotopes they would 'only' need to be stored for a couple hundred years. For other's though storage needs to be over a manner of thousands of years.
Here's the rub. We have trouble figuring out human history over the last 2000 years and it gets murkier the further we go. Think back to Rome and its collapse. Not to be pessimistic but history repeats itself. Those storage facilities that are controlled now may very well be forgotten completely in a thousand, or even a hundred years.
That said I have to agree with Jim that the biggest problem is the current usage of power. More than half the problem is solved if we can only be a little more conscientious of our energy usage. I'm sure everyone here has seen or read (or at least heard of) 'an inconvenient truth'. Certainly it was partisan in many respects, but had a solid point.
This thread has been very interesting to read. A lot of people are rightly concerned - and they sit on both sides of the fence with often equally compelling and valid arguments for and against. Scared as I am of endangering a generation I'll never know, as the plane descends through thick smog, leaving pollution smears on its wings, I wonder whether that future generation is perhaps safer dealing with waste that they have forgotten, than with a planet completely devastated by carbon emissions and our complete inability to control our capacity to consume energy
For certain isotopes they would 'only' need to be stored for a couple hundred years. For other's though storage needs to be over a manner of thousands of years.
Emil, this is not the only option. Run all the spent fuel including isotopes through a fast breeder reactor and it will convert all the isotopes too into U-233 which can be used as primary fuel to drive more PHWRs. You don't have to store spent fuel.
That I didn't know Ashutosh. Surely not all the waste can be reused? Otherwise why would it continue to be one of the problems that has to be overcome? Is it a technically difficult or exorbatantly expensive process? The waste issue is something I'd like to read more about. Do you have some links to share perhaps?
Emil, from what information I have in the open sources, countries haven't explored this option too much because digging for more uranium seemed to be a much more cheaper option than building a "breeder reactor" (which by definition breeds more fissile material than it consumes).
The other option was mastery of technology - most countries that tried their hand at breeder reactors achieved a "doubling time" of approximately 10-15 years. Recent reports from the Indian Department of Atomic Energy indicate that they have achieved a doubling time of two years.
India is the only country that is serious about this, since it is deficient in naturally available uranium but has tons of monazite sand (which is basically thorium), so it runs it's reactor grade uranium, spent fuel and thorium in breeder reactors to obtain U-233 to drive the new generation AHWR (advanced heavy water reactors).
A good place to begin is with the IAEA released papers and articles. Here is another article: http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/22/stories/2006022203421000.htm
Great discussion! One of the things that scares us all, I think, is the extent and type of the immediate and long term damage to both the environment and people that can be caused by a plant accident like Chernoble . The US dodged that bullet in the case of Three Mile Island, but the total costs of that particular emergency are truly large, unknown and unknowable (one of them is the antipathy to nuclear energy in the US). If you are interested in social costs, take a look at my website (threemileisland.org). People who lived then in central PA still see it as a defining moment. So just how is the industry managed in India? What sort of regularion or is this a government run industry entirely? In other words, how are they managing the safety issues?
Recently research in Germany found that children living close to nuclear power plants get significantly more cancer and leukemia than away from plants. In a radious of 5 km, 77 children developed cancer, 37 of which had leukemia. On average, for a similarly sized group (strangely enough the paper in which I read this doesn't say how big the group is) away from plants, the numbers were 48 for cancer and 17 of those leukemia. The research started in the 1980 and continued until 2003, so plenty of time has been taken to get the results.
I am very curious what this news will do. Will it be the drop in the bucket that will make us abandon nuclear energy, or will be just ignore it and continue on this road to potential disaster for all and (seemingly) certain disaster for some?
Posted by David Bostedo on December 11, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Arthur, I can't really comment on the overall topic, since I don't know much (so this thread has been very educational). However, I'd really like to see the full numbers from that study; It would be easy to draw incorrect conclusions for 2 reasons - 1) small sample sizes aren't significant, and 2) correlation does not equal causation. I'd assume the analysis was pretty intense with such a serious issue, but I've seen some studies that weren't exactly thorough on both points.
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 11, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Hey David, et al,
I don't have the full study in front of me, but a similar study was done years ago in the US, with even more compelling results. Natiowide, each and every spike in the number of cancer cases in the US was laid over a map of the country with nuclear power plants marked. The 2 lined up perfectly.
I don't go along with the whole argument of nuclear energy being 'safe' or anything similar. Certainly technology has made it more accessible, and the possibility of accidents is smaller than it was, but the costof an accident is no less. And nobody still has an answer with what to do with the spent rods. Probably just ship them into space .. outta sight, outta mind, right? We can't keep them here; nobody knows how to notate a sign in any language that's gunna last 10 000 years to warn 'Danger'.
Lonna, the mass killing potential of a nuclear power plant accident is also shared by hydro-electric dams. A single burst could wipe off entire cities, just like a nuclear power plant can.
Carl, as I've mentioned before, there is a way to process spent fuel - it's just that the US hasn't done anything about it for a long time. Recently the US administration has launched the GNEP - the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - you can find excellent details about it on this website - it's purpose is to use the spent fuel amongst other sources to provide green-house gas free electricity.
Arthur, did the report analyze the incidents of cancer and leukemia also analyze people's eating patterns, or the places where they work? Why is it that incidents of cancer are really high only in the Western world?
Nuclear is considered bad simply because of the nuclear bomb, there is no other reason. Just like the studies that wanted to prove that smoking could lead to death - instead of smoking 10 cigarettes a day, what if you eat 10 chocolates a day or drive around 10 times or ate at McDonalds 10 times? The probability of dying is much higher in those cases than that in the case of smoking. Yet people associate the worst with smoking since they see this ugly smoke coming out of people's mouths.
About hydro-power plants (which a lot of people tend to campaign for as the best alternative clean energy) - they are the single largest source of methane emissions, in addition to carbon dioxide emissions, and in some cases emitting more such greenhouse gases than power plants running on coal and oil.
Ashutosh--true enough and that would be catastrophic, but it would not make the area (and its surroundings for who knows how far from epicenter, uninhabitable safely for hundreds or thousands(?) of years. My point is that while the human cost of a dam failure would be enormous, the long term damage to the environment of a nuclear accident would be even more tragic. Day before yesterday USA Today did a piece on the risks of nuclear power which includes significant discussion of the state of safety precautions in our already existing plants. (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-12-11-nuclear-plant-safety_N.htm?POE=click-refer)
NRC and the industry do not have an outstanding record, even since Three Mile Island. I am not anti-nuclear, but I am not sure that, given the social and economic organization of the United States, we can make them even as safe as have other countries. Again how have those who have seemed to solve some of safety issues organized the substantial oversight that is necessary, I believe, to make them truly safe. Could the United States learn something from the organizational structures others have developed as well as learning a better technology? Could we learn something even from our own Navy which has a remarkable record of safety in many ways.
Posted by Curtis Knight on February 11, 2008 at 7:32 PM
I'm not a nuclear engineer, but the knowledge I do have says that a safely run nuclear power plant is no more hazardous to the environment than any other large-scale energy source.
I spent approx 3 years working at the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Oregon. While I was there I learned a few things about nuclear power and why we store the waste product the way we do:
- 4 spent fuel rods can be recycled to make 3 good ones. That's a 75% recycle rate.
- In 1991, the estimate given to me was that there were enough buried spent fuel rods in the country to power all the nuclear plants in the US for approx 300 years.
- Unfortunately, the Carter administration, in its infinite wisdom decided that all that nuclear waste shouldn't be stored in one (or a few) facility awaiting processing for fear of it falling into the wrong hands. So, instead, we bury it and wait for it to leak into the ground water so we can hit the panic button and scream that nuclear power is unsafe.
Posted by mark miller on March 3, 2008 at 12:08 PM
I don't doubt that nuclear power can be run relatively safely and that we can make pretty good strorage facilities. 'Relative' meaning in comparison to the harm that comes from burning fossil fuels- that is the tradeoff. But there are a couple of points that are of big concern to me. For one, the Third World will certainly latch onto nuclear, now that we are giving them all the technology they want anyway. But how safe will they be? That's a scary thought. Many people around the world have zilch regard for the environment or the well-being of others, and for that matter couldn't care less about us or how we feel. They got it, and now it's their turn to run with it. We can't controll their sense of responsibiltiy.
Secondly, I think we are in an energy crossroads right now, as fossil fuels wane, we're grasping for a new direction. Nuclear energy seems like the direction now. (There's plenty of coal, but how much of that do we really want to burn?) What will happen is we will make a decision now, for current needs, that will have lasting impact on the earth for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. The nuclear waste by-products that are not recycled have very long half-lives. These are in addition to already existing fissile materials- to make it clear, the net amount of radioactive material on the earth increases- we add to the total supply with nuclear plants. They can't be destroyed; we can only hope and promise ourselves they will be safely stored (forever!), recycling some too. But there is no way that can be assured for say 200 years, a thousand years, a hundred thousand, that future generations will practice the same care we, at this time, established for them- no way. It's like saying, we created this mess two hundred years before you were born, but "it is your ongoing repsonsibility to abide by our demands upon you". So, with this in mind, let's say within this century, a hundred years of advancing technology, we do develop another non-nuclear energy source that solves all our needs. Let's say it is fantastic, , something that we could never have dreamed of in the early part of the 21st century, clean and what we had wished we had before we launched full scale into nuclear. But unfortunately, there will be a hundred years of accumulated nuclear wastes that must be maintained safely for eternity. Mankind is not that reliable. For this reason, I am skeptical that nuclear will be a wise direction, though I do think the world will go totally nuclear, anyway, since it's the easiest choice for the moment.
Just a note on what Guy said about growth- I believe it is theoreticallly possible to grow economically, without growing physically. The US was at one time on a trend to zero population growth. But, I think what we are doing, is blowing money hand over fist, and in so doing we need to grow the heck out of the economy to catch up. In order to do that, while we borrow from the future, we need a vast, young work force to keep the economy rolling. So, we have the highest immigration rates in history, and pay them to have more and more babies. So, we grow physically leaps and bounds, and I think this is the way the West will evolve this century.
Mark, that's very well said. That particular part of the storage problem is not often addressed. Your words make it clear how extremely shortsighted and selfish the use of this energy source really is. No, we have to do lots better than nuclear. Too bad that many in power do want to push nuclear forward and so keep their eyes averted from viable alternatives.
Well, thanks. It's interesting to ponder these giant trends and the direction the world takes for better or worse, and more likely worse, since it's the easy route.
I was very disappointed when the people in the Sacramento area voted to shut down Rancho Seco nuclear power plant , I would not even had hesitated in live near it. Wait a minute , i did !! I have a few friends that worked there and said it was very very safe . It cost millions of dollars to build it and even more to tare it down . So many fingers are pointed at the power companies , but those same people don't have a better answer and they cry like a baby every time thier bill goes up . Those darn evil electric companies , how dare them !!
Discussion
30 repliesFor those of you who want to learn a bit more about nuclear energy than what those working for the industry and in the governments say, I very much recommend "Nuclear Power is not the Answer" by Dr. Helen Caldicott.
LINK TO THE ARTICLE BELOW ON ALJAZEERA.NET
Japan quake triggers nuclear alert
The world's biggest nuclear facility has reported two radioactive leaks following the earthquake [EPA]
Authorities are investigating a new possible radioactive leak at a nuclear plant hit by an earthquake in northern Japan, the Kyodo News agency has said.
The news came hours after the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant, said to be the world's biggest facility, announced a water leak.
A spokesman for the plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power, declined to comment.
The government, sensitive to nuclear accidents after its atomic bomb experience during World War II, said safety standards at all nuclear reactors in the country will be reassessed.
A local official said the magnitude 6.8 quake on Monday tipped over some 100 steel barrels sealed to store radioactivity-contaminated gloves and clothes within the plant.
Radioactive waste
Shoji Iida, a spokesman for Kariwa village where the nuclear facility is located, said they did not know exactly how many containers were found open. He said 800 litres of oil also spilled inside the facility, but there was no radiation risk.
Kensuke Takeuchi, a spokesman at the nuclear plant, confirmed that barrels of low-level nuclear waste had tipped over but did not give further details.
"We're currently investigating the situation and plan to deal with it as smoothly as possible," Takeuchi said, while refusing to offer further comment.
Another spokesman, Manabu Takeyama, said "at this point in time, there is no danger of grave effects on the environment or human health from the plant".
Contaminated water
Late on Monday, Tokyo Electric admitted that water containing a "small amount of radioactive material" had leaked from its nuclear plant near the quake epicentre, but downplayed the potential danger.
Following the incident, Japanese officials on Tuesday called for a review of safeguards at the reactor where a fire blazed for hours spewing thick black smoke out of the electricity-supplying part of the facility.
Akira Amari, Japan's economy, trade and industry minister, warned Tokyo Electric on Tuesday over the delay in putting out the fire.
"This may cause people to distrust nuclear power," Amari said. "We will not have the plant resume operations without confirming safety."
Tsunehisa Katsumata, the company president, admitted that there was "weakness in our extinguishing measures".
Japan, which has few natural energy resources of its own, relies on nuclear power for nearly 35 per cent of its needs, the second highest figure after France.
As far as accidents like the one you describe or the Chernobyl incident - these really should not be taken in a narrow scope but rather considered in cumulative terms over time. I think it would take a pretty major disaster to cause anywhere near the long term global damage of continuing to use fossil fuels.
Either way, let's hope safer and more viable options come up. The real long term issue may not be the technology used but rather making the switch from a growth-based economy to a sustainable one. As long as we keep growing, any solution is just temporary (unless it ends up killing us all
Guy
I spent a significant portion of my life operating nuclear reactors (land and submarine based). They present unique challenges, some of which Guy touched on, but your statement is more flamboyant than objective or informative, imo.
How are you defining "unsafe?" I don't have stats, but I'd be willing to bet a hefty sum that oil and coal harvesting have caused more environmental damage and more human deaths than nuclear power. While nuclear accidents may be more exotic, it's difficult to compare the damage cause by a Chernobyl type accident to that caused by a Valdez type accident.
Reading is a good way to educate one's self on the topic, as you suggest. But if you only read/suggest books that forward the views expressed in Dr. Caldicott's, the outcome is predictable. It's not really informing yourself as much as it's looking for ways to validate your preconceived notions. True education requires exposing your mind to more than one side of the story. Any recommendations on books exploring the benefits of nuclear power?
There are no consequence-free choices in the world. And given the choice between nuclear power and other significant energy sources, I'll take nuclear and work to manage the consequences by working on ways to continuously improve safety and address waste recycling.
By the way, the sun is responsible for more deaths than other form of energy. Solar energy may be clean, safe and affordable...but only if you don't consider that the sun is also responsible for tens of thousands of deaths worldwide, each year. I'm working on a new book: Melanoma is not the Answer!
For what is worth, for every tonne of uranium used in nuclear reactors, *TWICE* that amount of radioactive waste (which includes uranium, thorium, and other radioactive elements) is released into earth's atmosphere every year by burning coal in coal-fired power plants.
I watched an interesting program the other night that discussed photovoltaic power generation. Our current silicone-based technology is only 11 to 14% efficient because it only converts portions of the infrared spectrum into electricity. It was summized that if the efficiency of such devices could be increased to about 50%, photovoltaics could become a viable "decentralized" source of energy - the typical home would have enough roof area to generate its own needs, including the recharging of electric vehicles. One thing is certain; our disproportionately large dependence on fossil fuels will have to come to an end soon, and our energy needs will need to come from a greater mix of the other available energy sources. Mastering conservation in the mean time is certainly a step in the right direction.
Ashutosh is also correct in that spent fuel can be reprocessed to extract fissile plutonium for use in new reactor fuel, but the only plants capable of producing that plutonium in significant quantities are the DOE Savannah River facilities in South Carolina. That plutonium is used for nuclear weapons, not reactor fuel. Sadly, the fissile plutonium is not significant in terms of the radioactive hazard of spent fuel. Even after the plutonium is extracted the radioactive hazard remains the same. Our commercial facilities are light water reactors which rely on water to moderate the neutron flux to a point to optimize the cross section for fission producing neutron absorption by U235 in the fuel rods. Breeder reactors, those that produce more plutonium fuel than they consume, are graphite moderated. The graphite shifts the neutron flux to a higher average velocity which promotes non-fission absorption by uranium, ultimately leading to the formation of fissile plutonium 241.
Safety systems in US commercial nuclear power plants are triple-redundant. If water has to get from here to there, there are three separate, independent ways to make it happen (sometimes more if you are creative). Designs are inherently safe. It takes multiple instances of operator stupidity to make a US plant unsafe (TMI is a good example of that - I know the operators that were on shift when the accident occurred). Reactor containment buildings are built to withstand the impact of a 747 flying at 400 mph. I wouldn't like to test that theory in light of 911.
In the interest of full disclosure, in a former life I was a nuclear engineer, reactor engineer in a BWR facility, and shift technical advisor (post TMI requirement to maintain an engineer in the control room at all times). I later managed the radioactive waste disposal program for a commercial site in south Florida. I left the industry in 1996 for a less stressful life.
T
Breeder reactors, as Kelly points out are the key - India is banking on them big time. I hope they succeed, since India has an extremely strong civilian nuclear program that reprocesses spent fuel and re-uses them in reactors. Moreover, India relies on PHWRs (Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors) that generate spent fuel, which can be cooked with Thorium in breeder reactors to produce sufficiently large amounts of reactor grade Uranium.
USA relies a lot on LWR (light water reactors) that are not very conducive to good waste management.
Practically all energy sources I have heard of have problems.
The massive hydro-electric dams that Hydro Quebec builds are usually touted as the safest and cleanest form of environment-safe power generation. But even these dams produce extremely huge amounts of methane gas from the remains of submerged plant life in their reservoirs - directly contributing to the greenhouse effect.
Even solar powered energy is extremely environment-unfriendly. The process through which the solar cells are manufactured are extremely hazardous and contribute a lot to enviromnental pollution. The manufacture of a single solar cell itself consumes huge amounts of energy.
I believe that the only viable solution for mankind - is the reduction in energy consumption, and a very quick shift to mass rapid transportation amongst other things.
Some of that extra waste is radioactive as Ashutosh points out; all of it contains some nasty substances, including mercury. And while the thought of radioactive waste sites isn't pretty for sure, is that better or worse than distribution of emissions into the atmosphere?
IMO, a significant amount of the bias against nuclear power is attributable to the fact that the byproducts remain onsite and must be manually disposed of in a manner that creates a lot of visibility. And, the average Joe isn't aware of the composition of traditional power plant emissions, beyond CO2 of course. If trucks had to haul away the ash and emissions produced by coal-based power plants instead of just releasing it to the atmosphere and letting it distribute globally - and they had to list the radioactive/chemical composition on the side of the truck hauling it - perspectives would change rapidly.
I would very much like to suggest this read which offers some interesting insights in the claims of safety, efficiency, affordability etc. of nuclear power: http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/index.cfm/Page/Article/ID/2684
I fear for the environment if we don't produce substantially more electricity from nuclear in the near future. Cleaner ways of power generation just aren't ready on the scale that is needed. The newer reactor designs are impressive. It's good to see some non-polarized environmentalists understanding the need to use more nuclear power.
It's a cool summer day in Chicago, so this message is brought to you by nuclear generated electricity. Amazing I'm still alive.......
In addition to the nuclear waste, don't forget the mercury. That alone is doing more damage than any nuclear plant is likely to. As it is now it's not recommended a person eat fish daily.
China alone is bringing one new coal fired plant on line a week. Currently, 40% of the tonnage hauled by U.S. railroads is coal. The only triple track line in the country is Wyoming, to haul coal, and it's still too low a capacity.
I just don't see solar energy being a factor in my lifetime. Eventually, maybe. I live in a high density wind energy area, and even here the thinking is it will never provide more than 5% of needs. All possible rivers are already dammed. The only technologies we have for the forseeable future either burn something or are nuclear. Nuclear is clearly the lesser of the two evils. I do think we could convert our power generation from coal to nuclear in a reasonable amount of time, say 15 years. This would dramatically cut emissions. Perhaps the newer plants could even be built underground.
The world population is exploding, and I don't see that slowing. Most all of the growth is in the third world where people tend to be very poor and uneducated. The governments are most often corrupt and inept. China has made some attempts to limit family size, but these seem to be falling flat in the extensive rural areas. I see no end to the building of cheap coal plants in China or India. Nuclear is the only technology that can realistically replace it in the next two decades. The load of coal emissions will likely outpace the population growth as more parts of the world increase their affluence and desire for electricity. Touting solar, wind and etc. while ignoring nuclear is the ostrich approach, I'm afraid.
Kent in SD
Here's the rub. We have trouble figuring out human history over the last 2000 years and it gets murkier the further we go. Think back to Rome and its collapse. Not to be pessimistic but history repeats itself. Those storage facilities that are controlled now may very well be forgotten completely in a thousand, or even a hundred years.
That said I have to agree with Jim that the biggest problem is the current usage of power. More than half the problem is solved if we can only be a little more conscientious of our energy usage. I'm sure everyone here has seen or read (or at least heard of) 'an inconvenient truth'. Certainly it was partisan in many respects, but had a solid point.
This thread has been very interesting to read. A lot of people are rightly concerned - and they sit on both sides of the fence with often equally compelling and valid arguments for and against. Scared as I am of endangering a generation I'll never know, as the plane descends through thick smog, leaving pollution smears on its wings, I wonder whether that future generation is perhaps safer dealing with waste that they have forgotten, than with a planet completely devastated by carbon emissions and our complete inability to control our capacity to consume energy
E
The other option was mastery of technology - most countries that tried their hand at breeder reactors achieved a "doubling time" of approximately 10-15 years. Recent reports from the Indian Department of Atomic Energy indicate that they have achieved a doubling time of two years.
India is the only country that is serious about this, since it is deficient in naturally available uranium but has tons of monazite sand (which is basically thorium), so it runs it's reactor grade uranium, spent fuel and thorium in breeder reactors to obtain U-233 to drive the new generation AHWR (advanced heavy water reactors).
A good place to begin is with the IAEA released papers and articles. Here is another article: http://www.hindu.com/2006/02/22/stories/2006022203421000.htm
I am very curious what this news will do. Will it be the drop in the bucket that will make us abandon nuclear energy, or will be just ignore it and continue on this road to potential disaster for all and (seemingly) certain disaster for some?
I don't have the full study in front of me, but a similar study was done years ago in the US, with even more compelling results. Natiowide, each and every spike in the number of cancer cases in the US was laid over a map of the country with nuclear power plants marked. The 2 lined up perfectly.
I don't go along with the whole argument of nuclear energy being 'safe' or anything similar. Certainly technology has made it more accessible, and the possibility of accidents is smaller than it was, but the costof an accident is no less. And nobody still has an answer with what to do with the spent rods. Probably just ship them into space .. outta sight, outta mind, right? We can't keep them here; nobody knows how to notate a sign in any language that's gunna last 10 000 years to warn 'Danger'.
Cheers
Carl
Carl, as I've mentioned before, there is a way to process spent fuel - it's just that the US hasn't done anything about it for a long time. Recently the US administration has launched the GNEP - the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership - you can find excellent details about it on this website - it's purpose is to use the spent fuel amongst other sources to provide green-house gas free electricity.
http://www.gnep.energy.gov/
Arthur, did the report analyze the incidents of cancer and leukemia also analyze people's eating patterns, or the places where they work? Why is it that incidents of cancer are really high only in the Western world?
Nuclear is considered bad simply because of the nuclear bomb, there is no other reason. Just like the studies that wanted to prove that smoking could lead to death - instead of smoking 10 cigarettes a day, what if you eat 10 chocolates a day or drive around 10 times or ate at McDonalds 10 times? The probability of dying is much higher in those cases than that in the case of smoking. Yet people associate the worst with smoking since they see this ugly smoke coming out of people's mouths.
NRC and the industry do not have an outstanding record, even since Three Mile Island. I am not anti-nuclear, but I am not sure that, given the social and economic organization of the United States, we can make them even as safe as have other countries. Again how have those who have seemed to solve some of safety issues organized the substantial oversight that is necessary, I believe, to make them truly safe. Could the United States learn something from the organizational structures others have developed as well as learning a better technology? Could we learn something even from our own Navy which has a remarkable record of safety in many ways.
I spent approx 3 years working at the Trojan Nuclear Plant in Oregon. While I was there I learned a few things about nuclear power and why we store the waste product the way we do:
- 4 spent fuel rods can be recycled to make 3 good ones. That's a 75% recycle rate.
- In 1991, the estimate given to me was that there were enough buried spent fuel rods in the country to power all the nuclear plants in the US for approx 300 years.
- Unfortunately, the Carter administration, in its infinite wisdom decided that all that nuclear waste shouldn't be stored in one (or a few) facility awaiting processing for fear of it falling into the wrong hands. So, instead, we bury it and wait for it to leak into the ground water so we can hit the panic button and scream that nuclear power is unsafe.
Secondly, I think we are in an energy crossroads right now, as fossil fuels wane, we're grasping for a new direction. Nuclear energy seems like the direction now. (There's plenty of coal, but how much of that do we really want to burn?) What will happen is we will make a decision now, for current needs, that will have lasting impact on the earth for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. The nuclear waste by-products that are not recycled have very long half-lives. These are in addition to already existing fissile materials- to make it clear, the net amount of radioactive material on the earth increases- we add to the total supply with nuclear plants. They can't be destroyed; we can only hope and promise ourselves they will be safely stored (forever!), recycling some too. But there is no way that can be assured for say 200 years, a thousand years, a hundred thousand, that future generations will practice the same care we, at this time, established for them- no way. It's like saying, we created this mess two hundred years before you were born, but "it is your ongoing repsonsibility to abide by our demands upon you". So, with this in mind, let's say within this century, a hundred years of advancing technology, we do develop another non-nuclear energy source that solves all our needs. Let's say it is fantastic, , something that we could never have dreamed of in the early part of the 21st century, clean and what we had wished we had before we launched full scale into nuclear. But unfortunately, there will be a hundred years of accumulated nuclear wastes that must be maintained safely for eternity. Mankind is not that reliable. For this reason, I am skeptical that nuclear will be a wise direction, though I do think the world will go totally nuclear, anyway, since it's the easiest choice for the moment.
Just a note on what Guy said about growth- I believe it is theoreticallly possible to grow economically, without growing physically. The US was at one time on a trend to zero population growth. But, I think what we are doing, is blowing money hand over fist, and in so doing we need to grow the heck out of the economy to catch up. In order to do that, while we borrow from the future, we need a vast, young work force to keep the economy rolling. So, we have the highest immigration rates in history, and pay them to have more and more babies. So, we grow physically leaps and bounds, and I think this is the way the West will evolve this century.
I agree with you 100 %.
I was very disappointed when the people in the Sacramento area voted to shut down Rancho Seco nuclear power plant , I would not even had hesitated in live near it. Wait a minute , i did !! I have a few friends that worked there and said it was very very safe . It cost millions of dollars to build it and even more to tare it down . So many fingers are pointed at the power companies , but those same people don't have a better answer and they cry like a baby every time thier bill goes up . Those darn evil electric companies , how dare them !!