Fukushima - It's Not Over

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Floyt
...

The former makes me think you are living on some planet made from cotton candy, wafting in the gentle breezes of short-term optimism. "Exceptionally safe" technologies do not engage in melt-downs and do not produce vast amounts of poisonous materials left to future generations for effectively all eternity..

Once more typical anti-nuke rhetoric without a shred of support or evidence.

"vast amounts"........spare us the total crap - this is a science forum not a hand wringer convention.

"exceptionally safe"....show us it's not.....or go whack at some other windmill with the puerile blanket fearmongering and let people who actual understand the subject discuss the reality.

Do you know what dioxins are? How long does mercury persist.? Arsenic? lead??

You clearly have no idea of the rigor nuclear power undergoes nor of the lack of rigor that allow other "vast amounts of poisons" into the environment.

These are real risks...

After 20 Years Of Poisoned Babies, EPA Will Finally Cut Coal ...
thinkprogress.org/.../after-20-years-of-poisoned-babies-epa-will...‎
by Brad Johnson - in 2,641 Google+ circles
Dec 16, 2011 - Long-delayed rules to limit toxins like mercury and arsenic from coal-burning power plants will be approved today, after twenty years of delay ...

not phantom nonsense you would have us go running into the closet to hide from.

It isn't that controlled fission events are intrinsically safe, no one is claiming that. What we're telling you is that we're doing it as safe as it is humanly possible to do it and in far excess to any other industry I know anything about.

Exactly. The only comparable hi-tech vital industry is the airline industry also with a rigorous safety structure and exemplary safety record.

Floyt - tell us why the cofounder of Green Peace - a scientist.....is a now a nuclear proponent.....do you think perhaps he understands things a bit better than you?

Tell us why towns with nuclear facilities overwhelmingly support expanding those facilities whereas towns with fossil facilities don't want any more.

According to you, the nuke proximity dwellers should be running far far away in fear of their lives.....you think maybe they also understand far better than you???

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, and 1.25 million deaths from car traffic per year. So I assume we should ignore those coal-related fatalities, because they are clearly just laughable in comparison?

Could we reduce the number of traffic fatalities by building more coal power plants?

??? You tell me...

Um, no? I certainly don't see how. So why should we compare the number of deaths due to coal to the number of traffic fatalities?

On the other hand nuclear power is a direct substitute for power from coal. No number is particularly meaningful by itself: we need to compare it to something. So, what is the alternative to nuclear power? In the world we live in, it's coal.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If nuclear power were exceptionally safe, you'd think that they'd be able to get commercial insurance instead of relying on the government to insure them.

 

[Diogenes]

If nuclear power were exceptionally safe, you'd think that they'd be able to get commercial insurance instead of relying on the government to insure them.

Right, private insurance companies are the way to judge industrial safety rather than inspections, drills, training, maintenance...you know, the daily operations stuff.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Right, private insurance companies are the way to judge industrial safety rather than inspections, drills, training, maintenance...you know, the daily operations stuff.

Actually, yes. The daily inspections, drills, training and maintenance are all irrelevant if what you're doing is intrinsically unsafe. Insurance companies have people that they hire that determine the cost/benefit ratio of whether they want to insure a particular industry or not. Why do you doubt the free market analysis on this particular field?

 

[Diogenes]

...Why do you doubt the free market analysis on this particular field?

Some of the attitudes in this thread, naturally. What insurance company would want to risk being associated with any industry with such public perception filters in place? The litigious liability from paranoia alone has got to be crazy.

Is it easy for abortion clinics to get insurance?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Some of the attitudes in this thread, naturally. What insurance company would want to risk being associated with any industry with such public perception filters in place? The litigious liability from paranoia alone has got to be crazy.

Is it easy for abortion clinics to get insurance?

I don't know. Is it easy for abortion clinics to get insurance? Do abortion clinics get insurance?

 

[tyr_13]

Actually, yes. The daily inspections, drills, training and maintenance are all irrelevant if what you're doing is intrinsically unsafe. Insurance companies have people that they hire that determine the cost/benefit ratio of whether they want to insure a particular industry or not. Why do you doubt the free market analysis on this particular field?

Wait, what? You've somehow, someway, conveniently forgotten everything you've personally argued about the flaws of the private insurance industry for healthcare and are now doing an appeal to authority to it in order to attack nuclear power. The hell?

 

[Diogenes]

I don't know. Is it easy for abortion clinics to get insurance? Do abortion clinics get insurance?

That's the thing.

Overall, though, using the "free market" to evaluate engineering safety sounds to me like letting an Italian court prove the vaccines cause autism.

 

[Roboramma]

If nuclear power were exceptionally safe, you'd think that they'd be able to get commercial insurance instead of relying on the government to insure them.

That's a reasonable point. Perhaps the payout in the case of a disaster is simply too much for any particular insurance company to absorb? In which case, who will insure the insurance company?

 

[GlennB]

That's a reasonable point. Perhaps the payout in the case of a disaster is simply too much for any particular insurance company to absorb? In which case, who will insure the insurance company?

Then there's the irrational/exploitative side of 'compensation culture'. A trivial leak sees a million people downwind claiming fortunes for 'emotional distress' about long-term health worries....

 

[Roger Ramjets]

That's a reasonable point. Perhaps the payout in the case of a disaster is simply too much for any particular insurance company to absorb? In which case, who will insure the insurance company?

So the question is, how much are the insurance companies insurers willing to pay out? Or is it more a matter of risk? If the risk is very low then the premiums should be affordable, and it wouldn't be a problem.

The World Trade Center was worth $2.3 billion. It turns out that those buildings were not airplane proof. Do you think they were insured? The MS Allure of the Seas cost $1.2 billion to build, and carries 5,400 passengers. It might sink. Do you think she and her passengers are insured? Hurricane Sandy caused $108 billion worth of damage. Are US insurance companies now refusing to cover properties on the East Coast?

If a nuclear power plant needs capped insurance with government assistance because no private insurance company is willing to take the risk, then it is not viable in a free market. It doesn't matter why it's uninsurable - if it's a case of public misperception then that's a PR problem that the power company has to solve. Nuclear proponents tell us that power plants are safe and the risk is very low, but insurance companies don't believe them. The general public might have a wrong impression, but underwriters don't base their assessments on public opinion. If the insurance companies are wrong it's not our fault.

The ongoing problems at Fukushima are proof that insurance companies are not wrong. Although the chances of a disaster are low, Fukushima has shown that the difficulty and cost of containment may be much higher than the experts think.

If we want to go totally nuclear by 2025 then we need to build a new power plant every 2.4 days. That alone is a significant risk increase, but if it was left up to the free market without strict regulations the risk would skyrocket. Imagine reactors being built by the lowest bidder, cutting costs by using substandard materials or unsafe designs, not paying insurance because it's too expensive (and so lessening the incentive to keep risk low).

At present the nuclear power industry cannot remain viable without government assistance, which is the same issue that renewables have been chastised for. One difference is that a worn out solar panel or wind turbine can easily be dismantled and recycled, without having to worry about what to do with nuclear waste that may take thousands of years to 'cool'. This is not just public perception - it is a fact that nuclear plants cost a lot to decommission - just as it is a fact that nuclear has a much higher potential to cause catastrophic damage (even if the risk is low). The history of nuclear power plant production has shown that private industry alone is unable to take on the burden.

Perhaps the problems with nuclear are overblown. Perhaps new reactor designs will be much safer, cheaper, and produce less waste. And perhaps they can be deployed more rapidly to eclipse other renewable energy sources - but it will take government action and taxpayers' money to get there. For that reason alone I doubt that it will happen. Not because taxpayers are afraid of nuclear, but because they don't like paying taxes.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

A trivial leak sees a million people downwind claiming fortunes for 'emotional distress' about long-term health worries....

How many have collected?

People get irrational about a lot of things, and lawyers and the news media are waiting to exploit them. But that doesn't get you very far in court. Here's an example of one that made it:-

Dow Chemical ordered to pay millions in Colo. nuclear contamination lawsuit

Judge John L. Kane ordered Midland-based Dow Chemical Co. to pay $653 million and Rockwell International Corp. $508 million in compensatory damages, but capped the amount to be collected at $725 million.

And here's the interesting bit,

Among violations documented by state and federal officials was the outdoor storing of barrels of waste oil and solvents contaminated with plutonium. State health officials have said some of those barrels leaked, contaminating the surrounding soil that later blew downwind.

The $7 billion, 10-year clean up at the plant was declared completed in October 2005.

$725 million in compensatory damages, but $7 billion to clean up the mess! If that's a 'trivial' leak...

 

[Diogenes]

...But that doesn't get you very far in court....

Which still requires using counsel which still costs money.

 

[Floyt]

Ignoring most of macdoc's hostility, but a couple points.

Are you guys not aware that your definition of "exceptionally safe" translates as something being in constant need of extreme vigilance because it is exceptionally dangerous, then pointing to that vigilance while exclaiming "look how much effort is put into safety"? - ladling a large capacity for human error on top, then claiming that nothing really bad has happened yet. All the while producing some of the most damaging and long-lived industrial residues known to man.

When someone can show us an efficient and safe method of dealing with the accumulation of radioactive waste, "exceptionally safe" might start to become something other than a meretricious redefinition of "kept under control with enormous effort while postponing the bills".

(As such, to indulge in a short detour to the actual topic brought up by the OP, trying to downplay or conceal the inevitable screw-ups in handling the beast fits the corporate line nicely, but is a disservice to everyone else.)

Floyt - tell us why the cofounder of Green Peace - a scientist.....is a now a nuclear proponent.....do you think perhaps he understands things a bit better than you?

I'm going to go out on a limb here - without looking it up, I predict that any such statement would have been based not on an assessment of nuclear technology as "safe", but of the currently implemented alternatives as more damaging. Wrong?

The environmental impact of coal energy by now is too unambiguous and too immediate to allow for much evasion (of the type enjoyed by the nuclear lobby). It's clear we need to shift away from it. Some settle for nuclear power because they think that the global community can't be tasked with doing so in a sustainable, long-term way, and would rather apply the quick fix than do it the unpopular way. I disagree.
Bargaining a reluctant choice of the lesser of two evils into an endorsement is probably a sign of bad faith, however.

Tell us why towns with nuclear facilities overwhelmingly support expanding those facilities whereas towns with fossil facilities don't want any more.

Because like you they don't like the damage done by the current infrastructure, and like you they like the fast, easy, lucrative way out that shifts the burden of dealing with the fallout onto someone else. It's not actually something to be proud of.

Solar, wind, and hydro energy are quite capable of meeting global energy demands (we can descend into Source Wars here if need be). Implementation will however take longer and come with certain changes in consumer habits - both in contention for the status of bête noire in PR. I know where you are coming from; it's just that I find the position contemptible.

 

[Diogenes]

...
Solar, wind, and hydro energy are quite capable of meeting global energy demands (we can descend into Source Wars here if need be). Implementation will however take longer and come with certain changes in consumer habits - both in contention for the status of bête noire in PR. I know where you are coming from; it's just that I find the position contemptible.

Contempible? My. So here is your actual point. I agree, though hydro has been ecologically disruptive to populations that depend on rivers like salmon...unless you're talking hydrothermal (which has strict geological constraints)...and those have been and are being worked around seemingly pretty well. I'm not sure why you felt you needed to assume I'd argue that point. I've done the same back-of-the-envelope calculations that you may have had done.

You'll not agree, as your connotative dance you did prior to what I quoted attests, that nuclear power is viable, apparently and is superior to fossil fuel power generation systems. Waste is an issue but, obviously, much easier to handle than emissions from said fossil fuel plants. Since you've already judged the industry me pointing out the safety records that I actually know...from the US Navy...is futile...though I'll point out that France has failed to become a nuclear waste wasteland. Few industries can match the diligence, overengineering and attention to detail. The airline industry, as macdoc mentioned, and there's BSL (biosafety level) 3 and 4 facilities.

Though if you have ideas for solar or wind-powered aircraft carriers I'd be happy to hear them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

it gets more effective, the more you dilute it?
and it will cure all illnes that have the same symtoms like radiation has on your body?

Homeopathic hair tonic, eh?

 

[macdoc]

Hey Floyt this is what happens to polemicists.....they get shot down in flames by scientists...

JAPAN'S beleaguered Fukushima Daiichi nuclear facility made headlines again this week, when some 305 tonnes of radioactive water leaked from a storage tank at the complex. This prompted Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority to upgrade the situation from 1 to 3 – a "serious accident" on the 8-point International Nuclear Event Scale.

The crisis reopened questions about how to deal with the flood of radioactive water accumulating at Fukushima. There is a radical option: to filter out as much radioactive material as possible, dilute what's left, and dump it in the Pacific.
This idea was put forward in April by a delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) after a visit to the site. But the Japanese government and local fishermen are opposed, fearing the waste would destroy their fisheries. A look at the numbers suggests that such fears lack firm justification.
For now, it is unclear whether any water from last week's leak actually reached the Pacific. The Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), which owns the plant, recorded high levels of radioactivity in a drainage ditch that runs to the sea from the tank, but could not detect anything in the seawater itself.

Other parts of Fukushima are certainly leaking. From samples of seawater, Jota Kanda of Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology estimated last year that about 0.3 terabecquerels (TBq) of radioactive material are leaking into the sea each month.

Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts says the Kanda estimate is probably the best he is aware of, and closely matches figures released on 21 August by Tepco, of 0.1 to 0.6 TBq per month for caesium-137 and 0.1 to 0.3 for strontium.

He points out that the north Pacific contains an estimated 100,000 TBq of caesium-137 from H-bomb testing in the 1960s, so the fallout from Fukushima is adding only a fraction of that. Total discharges from the Sellafield nuclear plant in the UK released 39,000 TBq over 40 years, he says.

Buesseler says that during his own sampling survey in waters 30 to 600 kilometres from Fukushima in June 2011, three months after the meltdown, the highest levels he found were 3 Bq of caesium-137 per litre of seawater. By comparison, the natural weathering of rocks results in about 10 Bq of radioactive potassium-40 making it into each litre of seawater.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...himas-radioactive-water-be-dumped-at-sea.html

Got it now.....you ARE fear mongering with no basis in fact.

Nuclear is not an "easy way out" - it's an expensive choice and there is simply no way renewables can replace coal in any decent time frame and replacing the base load of coal with both gas and nuclear in as short a time frame as possible is critical to mitigate the more extreme aspects of rapid AGW.

Your fearmongering is very very counterproductive to the task and leaves you with no credibility.

The Green Peace founder shifted his stance when he, as a practicing scientist, examined the facts...not the nonsense put forth by anti-nuke factions.

You are dodging behind "exceptionally safe" which I stand behind because it is.

ALL technology carries risk - donkey's kill more people annually than airlines....donkey's are dangerous....but useful. Airlines require a hugely expensive infrastructure to maintain that safe travel.
Nuclear energy requires money and oversight to maintain safe energy production.

Get it now?

The reward of nuclear is decades upon decades of silent, safe, steady electrical power and by moving forward with 4th gen technologies like the IFR humans extract 95% more energy from the fissile material already mined and manufactured AND reduce the life span and physical amount of residual waste.

In addition the IFR deals with the retirement of the nuclear arsenal - a critical function and eliminates or reduces the need for uranium mining mining which does indeed have some negative aspects as does all mining.

You want pie in the sky all renewables.....I got news for you .....ain't gonna happen.

Sweden is the most advanced nation towards carbon neutral and after looking at the reality - they chose to maintain their nuclear facility as a part of that plan.
Do you really think you know more than those scientists and engineers??

You'll get scant support for unthinking anti-nuke rhetoric on this forum

 

[lenny]

The World Trade Center was worth $2.3 billion. It turns out that those buildings were not airplane proof. Do you think they were insured? The MS Allure of the Seas cost $1.2 billion to build, and carries 5,400 passengers. It might sink. Do you think she and her passengers are insured? Hurricane Sandy caused $108 billion worth of damage. Are US insurance companies now refusing to cover properties on the East Coast?

I think these are great questions.

What was the breakdown and total payed via insurance/reinsurance companies in these cases? (Or would be?). Are these capped or wd companies go bust?!?

 

[Floyt]

[snip]

Sorry for "getting to the point" late; there's half a dozen of them mixed up here. We seem to agree that of the three vastly simplified options (stay with fossil fuels, go nuclear, go renewable) the first is clearly the worst, and we need to figure out which of the other two to focus on. But actually I assumed that as a given.

I remain unconvinced on the safety issue.
In ascending order of weight of argument:

1) comparing nuclear energy safety to fossil energy safety misses the point, as the latter is not in the running; and defining safety by effort necessary to ensure it is misleading.

2) if a nuclear reactor has 3x the safety infrastructure of a coal plant, that does not make up for doing 10x the damage when things do go wrong (numbers are complete ass-pull).

I admit that if backed into the AGW corner, this might still be a bullet we could decide to bite, because uncertain doom is better than certain doom.

3) there is no convincing solution to the inherited liability of nuclear waste.

Accepting this is much worse, as it means forcing the gamble on our descendants. To me this is essentially where the question is decided.

4) focusing on a high-risk, high-inherited liability technology is unnecessary when safe, sustainable alternatives exist, are being rapidly improved, and have been shown to be able to meet reasonable demand.

This trumps all the previous ones, and makes me impatient with people who think bickering about 1) is the slam-dunk to settle the argument.

Admittedly this thread is about a 1) topic, so maybe I should have kept out.

---

Though if you have ideas for solar or wind-powered aircraft carriers I'd be happy to hear them.

Those don't quite figure as "vital" on my list of decision criteria. I'd be surprised if they really did on yours?

---

(I'm sorry if that looks like evasion, but I have a relatively low capacity for tolerating the type of slavering aggressiveness displayed by macdoc, and will be ignoring him. I'm aware that this counts as "giving up" on this forum, but I value my equanimity above being right on the internet.)