3-Readings

Readings:

The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in [|Japan] underscores – yet again – the need to abandon nuclear power as a panacea for energy independence. Experts may never determine what caused all of the emergency cooling safety systems at Daiichi to fail completely. But they have learned that they are nearly [|powerless to bring the smoldering units under control]. In the meantime, significant amounts of radioactive gas have vented, and partial meltdowns of at least two reactors have occurred. Indeed, nuclear power will never live up to industry promises. As a whole it is ultimately unsafe, an accident waiting to happen, and far more expensive than proponents admit. [|Colby College] professor [|Paul Josephson] gives seven reasons why we should abandon nuclear power and instead turn to solar, wind, and other forms of energy production that won’t experience such catastrophic accidents.
 * Japan nuclear crisis: Seven reasons why we should abandon nuclear power **

1. Accidents and population centers
Worldwide standard operating procedures at nuclear power plants offer little margin for safety errors, and the industry is scrambling to check safety at each station. But can it reliably prevent another accident? Accidents are difficult to predict and have immediate far-reaching consequences, compounded by the fact that most nuclear reactors are located near major population centers – [|Moscow], [|Boston] , [|Chicago] , [|Los Angeles] , [|Budapest] , [|Kiev]. It is nearly impossible to evacuate hundreds of thousands of people in a timely fashion, even with advance warning of several days – as [|hurricane Katrina] demonstrated in [|New Orleans]. Officials at the Japanese nuclear plant did not think to have closed-circuit cameras inside the buildings to chart an [|accident for which they never fully planned]. But we can be certain of the following. Officials belatedly warned surrounding residents of the danger to their lives, belatedly began to issue potassium iodide tablets to protect them, and belatedly [|expanded the evacuation zone around the station]. Now at least 100,000 people have had to leave the area, and at least 100,000 more have been forced to live inside of sealed houses. At [|Chernobyl], as well, the authorities only ordered evacuation after a shocking delay.

2. Old reactors are dangerous
It is now standard practice to extend the life of reactors from their design parameters of 25 years to 40 years and longer. It seems foolish at best to take such a gamble on complex technology that operates under high temperature and pressure. Any “unlikely” [|loss of coolant-capacities may result in explosions], meltdown, and significant release of radioactivity into the environment.

3. No secure repository for spent fuel
Utilities and reactor operators still store spent fuel and other nuclear waste in and around reactors, since [|no truly secure, permanent repository] has been built. In the [|US], 70,000 tons of spent fuel sits at 103 reactors around the country within 75 miles of 125 million people. In [|Russia], 50,000 tons of spent fuel remains at power stations.

4. Vulnerable to terrorism
Reactors around the world – 55 in [|Japan], 103 in the [|US] , 40 in [|Russia] , and so on – are also [|vulnerable to terrorism]. For example, a [|National Academy of Sciences] report in 2005 indicated that pools holding spent fuel stored at these reactors might not withstand a determined attack. The industry is now touting – and building – “floating” nuclear power stations that would operate on barges; clearly protection of these stations would be difficult.

5. Mother Nature's threat
As the nuclear crisis in [|Japan] has shown, even the best-prepared facilities can neither predict nor withstand the most severe natural disasters. Exacerbating the inherent dangers of nuclear power, s [|everal plants have been built on active seismic faults] : [|Diablo Canyon] in [|California], Metsamor in [|Armenia] , and [|Fukushima] in Japan. Diablo Canyon in California is designed to withstand a 7.5 magnitude quake, but experts have raised serious concerns – even before Japan’s 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami – that the plant’s safety would be threatened by a tsunami or high-magnitude earthquake. The [|Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant in Armenia had to close] abruptly in 1988 because of a devastating earthquake. It was restarted seven years later to cope with the country’s energy shortage, but has since been condemned by the [|European Union] as deeply unsafe and vulnerable to accident.

6. Costs outweigh benefits
For fifty years, engineers have promised “too cheap to meter” energy, the construction of inherently safe reactors, and solution to waste disposal. Instead, a typical reactor, based on the experience of the advanced French industry, now costs a minimum of $6 billion. The [|Obama administration approved $54 billion in subsidies to the nuclear industry] to jumpstart construction in the US. Reactor costs do not include transmission, waste disposal, fuel costs, or the great costs of remediating such accidents as [|Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima Daiichi]. These billions of dollars will buy only more risk to the general population.

7. Renewable energies are safer, cheaper
With each accident – [|Three Mile Island], [|Chernobyl] , [|Fukushima Daiichi] – [|the nuclear industry] has followed the same pattern: hesitation to inform the public about the dangers as matters go from bad to worse followed by assertions that none of the world’s other reactors can face the same fate. Yet none of these risks and dangers exist with other, [|renewable forms of energy] – [|wind energy], solar energy – and conservation. If they are costly now in terms of power generation, they end up being less expensive and safer, while Fukushima Daiichi has already entered the lexicon of terrifying nuclear accidents.

March 16, 2011 | [|10 comments]
 * What Japan's nuclear crisis means for all of us **

Earthquake and Tsunami damage, Japan-March 16, 2011: This is a satellite image of Japan showing damage after an Earthquake and Tsunami at the Dai Ichi Power Plant (credit: [|DigitalGlobe] ). By Tyler Bryant and Ian Hanington Our hearts go out to the people of Japan, who have suffered and continue to suffer in the wake of the recent terrible earthquake and tsunami. To make matters worse, the horrendous natural disaster has been compounded by a human crisis in the making. The world is watching as reports emerge about the shutdown of nuclear power plants and subsequent radiation leaks. Our immediate concern should be for the people of Japan, but at the same time, people here can't help wondering how this will affect us. Health authorities have assured us so far that the radiation leaks do not pose a danger to people on this side of the Pacific Ocean. While we will continue to monitor the situation and keep abreast of the most credible information we can find, we also see this as further reason to take a hard look at our energy use and sources. It was almost a year ago that people were calling the David Suzuki Foundation in the wake of the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Some people have rightly pointed out that the damage and danger from fossil fuel energy can be more deadly than that of nuclear. But as events in Japan are showing, nuclear is far from a benign source of energy. When disaster strikes, it can be devastating to human health and the economy. The need to properly assess the impacts of our energy options and to promote a sustainable future is more important than ever. We have developed and put into use a technology before we know all the consequences. Energy production to satisfy our electricity consumption has consequences and tradeoffs. Climate change caused by burning fossil fuels is a threat to our planet, nuclear disasters and nuclear waste are potentially significant threats to our health and ecosystems, and even renewable energy sources can have impacts. It's time we took a close look at our energy use and energy sources in order to find better ways of providing for our needs. We can all start doing our part by using less energy. The David Suzuki Foundation has also joined with the Canadian Academy of Engineering and the Trottier Family Foundation to consider Canada's energy options as part of the Trottier Energy Futures Project. What can we do to limit our strain on this energy production system? How is our energy use leading to overinvestment in potentially dangerous energy sources? And how can we factor in energy sources with fewer environmental impacts? These are some of the questions that the Trottier Energy Futures Project will attempt to answer as it develops a sustainable energy future for Canada. We look forward to working with Canadians to determine what this system should look like and what we can do to get there. For now, we must not forget the people of Japan, and we must do all we can to help, including donating money through the Red Cross and other organizations. Japan is probably better prepared than any country to deal with the effects of natural disasters, and we can all learn from the example set by people there. But all of us need to do more to prepare, and that includes looking at the consequences of our energy systems, in light of both natural and human-caused disasters. Oil spills and the damage they do to plants, animals, and habitat; nuclear waste and radiation; pollution from coal plants; climate change — the costs of our current energy use are far too high. We need to consider the alternatives. We will continue to watch the situation in Japan. In the meantime, here are some useful website links for helping the people of Japan and for learning more about the situation there. [|Take a geologic journey] with The Nature of Things for details of what is happening in New Zealand and Japan, and what will happen on the west coast when the Big One hits.

=5 early lessons from Japan's nuclear crisis= March 17, 2011 | By Mark Hibbs, Special to CNN = = Japan is desperately racing to prevent three power reactors from melting down after last week's devastating earthquake and tsunami. This is an almost unthinkable challenge. A similar accident happened at one reactor at Three Mile Island many years ago, but Japan's rescue effort is taking place in near-battlefield conditions on a site that is truly a no-man's-land. The nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini power stations were automatically shut off after the earthquake. But with external power lost and local backups damaged by the tsunami, emergency cooling systems failed to work. This has forced Japanese authorities to improvise and find other ways to keep the reactors cool, prevent pressure from building up inside the vessels holding the fuel, and prevent the reactor cores from melting significantly. Without full knowledge of everything Japanese authorities have done since the crisis began, it is too early to properly evaluate the country's response. But even as we wait for all the facts, there are early lessons that we all can take from the nuclear crisis in Japan: -- The world should be building and operating modern nuclear reactors. Countries should build and operate nuclear reactors that use the latest and safest technology available and licensing standards need to be improved regularly. The reactors at Fukushima are 40 years old and would never be given a green light for new construction by Japanese regulators today. But China and India, two rising powers that plan to invest considerably in nuclear energy, are continuing to use 25-year-old designs for new construction. In February, the Japanese government was prepared to permit the oldest of the Fukushima reactors to operate for another 10 years after its license expired this year. -- Countries should not be over-reliant on nuclear energy. Last week's earthquake and another one in 2007 knocked out 15 of 17 reactors operated by Tokyo Electric Power Company on its two sites in northern Japan. If a country greatly depends on nuclear power for electricity, a major nuclear accident can trigger an electricity supply crisis. Policy makers can also face significant pressure to continue operating reactors even under unsafe conditions if the country is over-dependent on nuclear power. -- Relying on nuclear energy requires significant know-how and resources. With the threat of global warming and burgeoning energy demand around the world, nuclear power has gained favor. Dozens of countries have announced an interest in starting nuclear energy programs, and existing operators are looking to bump up their operations. But Japan's crisis underscores that generating electricity by using nuclear fission requires the best know-how, infrastructure, management experience and resources available. New plants must meet essential preconditions for safety and international cooperation should ensure that plants can withstand possible emergencies. -- Companies and countries must plan for the worst. Both earthquakes that set back Tokyo Electric were stronger than had been expected. There is a clear need to re-evaluate how seismic risk analysis is done to make sure that nuclear power plants are built to weather the worst threats they could face. -- Safety concerns must not take a back seat to energy production or prestige. For many newcomer nuclear countries -- especially those facing dire energy needs -- the temptation may be great to get new nuclear power plants on line as fast as possible. Critical aspects of nuclear programs that won't contribute to profits or generate power, such as spent fuel and waste management and emergency preparedness, cannot be neglected by governments and industry leaders aiming to achieve fast results or save money. Given the global impact of nuclear disasters, it is in all of our best interests to ensure that nuclear operators can effectively handle unpredictable and even extreme external events that impact their installations. It will take time to fully understand the extent of the crisis in Japan, but there are steps that can be taken today that will make the world's nuclear programs safer.

Nuclear power remains far safer than coal. The awful events in Fukushima must not spook governments considering atomic energy [|Comments (469)]
 * Japan nuclear crisis should not carry weight in atomic energy debate **

The Chinese government today suspended approval of new atomic power plants. Photograph: Tyrone Siu/Reuters The nuclear disaster unfolding in [|Japan] is bad enough; the nuclear disaster unfolding in [|China] could be even worse. "What disaster?", you may ask. The decision taken today by the Chinese government to [|suspend approval of new atomic power plants]. If this suspension were to become permanent, the power those plants would have produced is likely to be replaced by burning [|coal]. While nuclear causes calamities when it goes wrong, coal causes calamities when it goes right, and coal goes right a lot more often than nuclear goes wrong. The only safe coal-fired plant is one which has broken down past the point of repair. Before I go any further, and I'm misinterpreted for the thousandth time, let me spell out once again what [|my position] is. I have not gone nuclear. But, as long as the following four conditions are met, I will no longer oppose atomic [|energy]. To these I'll belatedly add a fifth, which should have been there all along: no plants should be built in fault zones, on tsunami-prone coasts, on eroding seashores or those likely to be inundated before the plant has been decommissioned or any other places which are geologically unsafe. This should have been so obvious that it didn't need spelling out. But we discover, yet again, that the blindingly obvious is no guarantee that a policy won't be adopted. I despise and fear the nuclear industry as much as any other green: all experience hath shown that, in most countries, the companies running it are a corner-cutting bunch of scumbags, whose business originated as a by-product of nuclear weapons manufacture. But, sound as the roots of the anti-nuclear movement are, we cannot allow historical sentiment to shield us from the bigger picture. Even when [|nuclear power] plants go horribly wrong, they do less damage to the planet and its people than coal-burning stations operating normally. Coal, the most carbon-dense of [|fossil fuels], is the primary driver of human-caused climate change. If its combustion is not curtailed, it could kill millions of times more people than nuclear power plants have done so far. Yes, I really do mean millions. The Chernobyl meltdown was hideous and traumatic. The [|official death toll so far appears to be 43 – 28 workers in the initial few months then a further 15 civilians by 2005]. Totally unacceptable, of course; but a tiny fraction of the deaths for which climate change is likely to be responsible, through its damage to the food supply, its contribution to the spread of infectious diseases and its degradation of the quality of life for many of the world's poorest people. Coal also causes plenty of other environmental damage, far worse than the side effects of nuclear power production: from mountaintop removal to acid rain and heavy metal pollution. An [|article in Scientific American] points out that the fly ash produced by a coal-burning power plant "carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy". Of course it's not a straight fight between coal and nuclear. There are plenty of other ways of producing electricity, and I continue to place appropriate renewables above nuclear power in my list of priorities. We must also make all possible efforts to reduce consumption. But we'll still need to generate electricity, and not all renewable sources are appropriate everywhere. While producing solar power makes perfect sense in north Africa, in the UK, by comparison to both wind and nuclear, it's a waste of money and resources. Abandoning nuclear power as an option narrows our choices just when we need to be thinking as broadly as possible. Several writers for the Guardian have made what I believe is an unjustifiable leap. A disaster has occurred in a plant that was appallingly sited in an earthquake zone; therefore, they argue, all nuclear power programmes should be abandoned everywhere. It looks to me as if they are jumping on this disaster as support for a pre-existing position they hold for other reasons. Were we to follow their advice, we would rule out a low-carbon source of energy, which could help us tackle the gravest threat the world now faces. That does neither the people nor the places of the world any favours.
 * 1.** Its total emissions – from mine to dump – are taken into account, and demonstrate that it is a genuinely low-carbon option
 * 2.** We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried
 * 3.** We know how much this will cost and who will pay
 * 4.** There is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be diverted for military purposes

Most experts agree that Japan would be hard pressed to close all of its 54 nuclear reactors anytime soon, especially given that these plants provide over a third of the nation’s electricity supply and 11 percent of its total energy needs. Japan relies so much on nuclear power because it has so few other domestic sources of energy to draw upon. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Japan is only 16 percent energy self-sufficient, and much of this comes from its now-wounded nuclear power program. Despite producing only trifling amounts of oil domestically from fields off its west coast, **Japan is the third largest oil consumer in the world behind the U.S. and China**, as well as the third largest net importer of crude oil. Imported oil accounts for some 45 percent of Japan’s energy needs. Besides bringing in a lot of oil, Japan is the world’s largest importer of both coal and liquefied natural gas. Against this backdrop of imported fossil fuels, it’s no surprise that Japan has embraced nuclear power; worldwide, only the U.S. and France produce more nuclear energy. Factoring in that it would take decades to ramp up capacity on alternative renewable energy sources—right now hydropower accounts for three percent of Japanese energy usage and other renewable sources like solar and wind only one percent—and that Japan must import just about all its fossil fuels, it becomes obvious that the country will need to rely on nuclear power for some time to come, despite the risks. “Supplying the same amount of electricity by oil, for example, would increase oil imports by about 62 million metric tons per year, or about 1.25 million barrels per day,” says Toufiq Siddiqi, a researcher with the nonprofit East-West Institute. He adds that at the current price of oil per barrel (roughly $100), switching out nuclear for oil would cost Japan upwards of $46 billion per year. “Further, it would take almost a decade to build enough new oil, coal or natural gas-fired power plants to provide the equivalent amount of electricity, and tens of billions of dollars per year would be required to do so,” he concludes. In the short term, the easiest way for Japan to make up for its reduced nuclear output is by importing more natural gas and other fossil fuels, sending its carbon footprint in the wrong direction. What’s less clear is whether Japanese policymakers’ pre-existing plans to increase the country’s nuclear capacity—the stated goal is to generate half of Japan’s electricity via nuclear power within two decades as part of a larger effort to trim carbon dioxide emissions—will still be followed following the Fukushima accidents.
 * Can Japan Do Without Nuclear Energy? **
 * The Fukushima plant failures are likely to impact the always evolving energy mix worldwide as well, not just within Japan.** Many analysts expect the nuclear disaster in Japan to cause a shift toward the increased use of natural gas worldwide. Of course, the downside for the environment is that natural gas is a fossil fuel and its use contributes significantly to global warming. While solar and wind power can take up some of the slack, these and other renewables are at least decades away from the scalability needed to power a significant share of a modern industrial society’s energy requirements.