Tonight the NHK news covered the trip to Kagoshima by the Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Yoichi Miyazawa to attempt to convince the governor and legislature of the prefecture to restart the Sendai nuclear plant.
The Kagoshima governor Yuichiro Ito seems likely to accept the government's request and the legislature is expected to vote in favor of it this week. If all goes well, the plant will restart early next year.
As Sendai will be the first restart since 3/11, it's likely there will be local and national opposition and global media coverage of the event when it takes place.
It seems ironic that Kagoshima, which I once thought to be possibly the most backward place on Earth outside of Queensland, is showing such unexpected progressive spirit.
Kyushu Electric Company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars implementing the safety recommendations of the NRA, including building walls to keep out a 15-metre tsunami.
Since the NRA gave approval for the plant to be restarted in September, resistance to the restart has centered around perceived weaknesses in the evacuation plans for local municipalities in the event of something going wrong. Professor Emeritus Hirotada Hirose of Tokyo Women's Christian University claimed the evacuation plans would not work and that:
"The restart of the reactors might be so worrying that people might not be able to concentrate on their work or live comfortably"
He should try being married.
An editorial in the Japan Times this week complained that the restart was coming too soon and picked out the evacuation plans for special criticism, saying
"Iodine pills are supposed to be given in advance to residents living within 5 km of the plant. At present, fewer than 70 percent of them have received the pills. It has not yet been decided what to do with visitors who happen to be in the area when a nuclear accident takes place, as well as new residents"
A cynic might suggest that in the event of a tsunami big enough to swamp 15 meter seawalls, visitors to the area might be thinking about other things than iodine pills, but whatever.
When I read of things like this opposition, I just shake my head at humanity. I can only think there are some serious issues with our ability to assess risk. If there really was a tsunami large enough to damage the Sendai nuclear plant, tens of thousands of people will already have drowned. An accident at the local nuclear plant is the last of your worries, and would probably cause as much damage to the local population as the 'nuclear disaster' 3 years ago in Fukushima. That is, none.
Monday, 3 November 2014
Sunday, 26 October 2014
The Nuclear Vision
 |
| "There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only...whisper it." |
And while the worst nuclear accident in decades killed or harmed no one and caused no off-site damage whatsoever, unlike myself most of the world wasn't particularly impressed. On the contrary, the response to Fukushima was an extraordinary overreaction of fear and repulsion. This has set back the development of nuclear power, because governments are affected by this narrative of fear, and in addition are captive to a lesser or greater extent to the influence of the fossil fuel industry.
But let's imagine that governments and people could make much more rational decisions, decisions based not on ideology and fear and the influence of entrenched forces but on sound principles of utilitarianism, scientific rigor, economic cost and environmental sustainability.
A world in which 60%... no, 80%...hey, why not, 95% of the electricity is supplied by nuclear energy. What would such a world be like?
For starters, electricity would be much less expensive. One of the great criticisms made of nuclear power is that it is very expensive.
And this is 100% correct. Compared to coal, oil and gas plants, nuclear plants are expensive to finance and take a long time to build.
Yet simultaneously, nuclear reactors are incredibly cheap. This contradiction can be resolved when it is noted that the significant costs associated with nuclear technology don't in any real way reflect any particular engineering restraints. The costs are imposed by humans, and consist of multiple layers of bureaucracy, political opposition and redundant layers of 'safety' measures that often bear no relation to real issues of risk management. The construction and planning costs imposed by the Japanese Nuclear Regulation Authority on idle reactors that want to restart - amounting to up to $1billion per reactor - are a good example of this.
So nuclear plants currently cost much more than they should. There may be some sinister (read: fossil-fuel backed) forces behind this. In fact, some argue that the current costs imposed on the construction of nuclear plants is the only way to keep the price high enough that other sources of power have any hope at all of competing. Restrictions and standards of safety are imposed on nuclear construction, for example, that would never be allowed in the fossil-fuel industry, despite its incomparably worse safety record.
So let's imagine that nuclear plants can be built with construction costs that reflect real engineering challenges and accurate measures of risk. We now have extremely cheap electricity. It's safe, it's cheap, it's reliable. It's base-load power that your society needs.
Yet this is only the beginning, the absolute baseline, in terms of efficiency and cost. One of the most promising things about nuclear technology is that current reactors only use about 5% of the energy in the uranium fuel. The other 95% is just part of the 'waste'. Unlike the case of the fossil-fuel industry, with a development curve that is reaching its technological peak in the face of dwindling supplies of fuel, nuclear technology has just begun to develop.
Most plants in operation today are Generation 2 plants, constructed in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Fukushima Daiichi was a Gen 2 plant. They can produce power, but are obsolete compared to the demands of this century. Generation 3 plants are currently being constructed in several countries, including the very impressive AP1000, with units being built in Virginia, USA and China.
Generation 4 plants are being designed. These wonderful things will be able to burn much more or all of the fuel in uranium, will be built will full passive safety, and will burn what is now nuclear 'waste'. In fact, current stocks of nuclear waste can provide the world's electricity for hundreds of years to come. There are many Gen 4 designs. You can see Bill Gates waxing lyrical about his Traveling Wave Reactor here.
As the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the bulk of the world's CO2 emissions, global warming will be mitigated to the full extent that is possible in this reality, especially if we also dare to dream that gasoline-powered cars will be completely replaced by electric vehicles.
This electricity will also be supplied without the massive costs, unreliability and environmental impacts associated with 'renewable' energy. No threats of brownouts or blackouts, no need for draconian energy conservation measures, no imposition of wind turbines where they aren't wanted, to decimate local bat or bird populations. No toxic waste left over from old solar panels. No hydroelectric dams built in wilderness areas. And most of all, no deceptions continued by the government on energy policy, where the public is sold greenwashed renewable projects while the bulk of actual power is produced by the fossil fuel industry.
It's virtually impossible to overstate the importance of fossil fuels being abandoned. Cities cleaner and purer than you can imagine. 2 million lives a year saved because air pollution is drastically reduced. No more mercury in the oceans, poisoning our seafood supply. No more acid rain, scorching forests from China to Poland. No more face mask in news bulletins from Beijing. No more mine explosions killing 200 or 300 people at a time in Szechuan province.
And while I suspect that Middle East politics is so fiendishly complicated and intractable that nothing short of divine intervention would resolve everything, few would object to the assertion that oil is a factor. There is a reason that 12 years ago both North Korea and Iraq were suspected of building nuclear weapons, and that now North Korea has nuclear weapons that nobody seems too bothered about, while Iraq is a bombed-out anarchic failed state overrun by militants who behead people for fun.
Imagine if fuel could be imported completely from stable democracies like Australia and Canada. Imagine if The United States had no need to maintain oil supplies from the Middle East. Imagine if you could extract enough fuel from seawater to power your civilization for millions of years, because you can.
Monday, 20 October 2014
Solar Power begins to reach its limit in Japan
There has been discussion this week about the government re-thinking the Feed-in-Tariff system (FIT) in electricity supply, which was intended to boost the amount of renewable energy added to the electricity mix in Japan.
The FIT system forces utilities to buy all the electricity produced by solar energy suppliers, regardless of how convenient it is and at a significant premium in price, which is then passed on to consumers.
In September, Kyushu electric and 5 other utilities announced they would no longer be purchasing electricity under the FIT system, citing the need to prevent blackouts from overloaded transmission systems.
An Advisory Panel for the Industry Ministry is considering how to deal with the issue.
The problem is that solar electricity is inherently unreliable. Production ranges from 0% to a capacity able to swamp transmission systems. Solar power cannot be stored, so must be used or lost. If utilities want the capacity to deal with these surges, more money has to be spent on the infrastructure - to deal with power that works about 35% of the time, and delivers absolutely nothing for about 12 hours a day.
There may be a place for solar power in the grid, but the weakness of a power source that cannot provide reliable baseload power is obvious. Every single watt producible by solar power must be backed-up 100% by another power source - and in Japan at the moment, that means fossil fuels with their associated massive environmental costs.
The FIT system forces utilities to buy all the electricity produced by solar energy suppliers, regardless of how convenient it is and at a significant premium in price, which is then passed on to consumers.
In September, Kyushu electric and 5 other utilities announced they would no longer be purchasing electricity under the FIT system, citing the need to prevent blackouts from overloaded transmission systems.
An Advisory Panel for the Industry Ministry is considering how to deal with the issue.
The problem is that solar electricity is inherently unreliable. Production ranges from 0% to a capacity able to swamp transmission systems. Solar power cannot be stored, so must be used or lost. If utilities want the capacity to deal with these surges, more money has to be spent on the infrastructure - to deal with power that works about 35% of the time, and delivers absolutely nothing for about 12 hours a day.
There may be a place for solar power in the grid, but the weakness of a power source that cannot provide reliable baseload power is obvious. Every single watt producible by solar power must be backed-up 100% by another power source - and in Japan at the moment, that means fossil fuels with their associated massive environmental costs.
Tuesday, 5 August 2014
Nuclear Waste Storage in Australia? Yes, please.
Recently former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke has called for Australia to store the world's nuclear waste.
In a speech at the indigenous Garma festival in the Northern territory, Hawke claimed he had already gotten a favourable response from the Northern Territory chief minister.
Arguing that Australia's outback has lots of open space and some of the most geological stable land on the globe, Hawke pointed out the significant economic gains Australia could make from such storage. He also pushed the idea that indigenous communities could be transformed by this as much of the resulting money could be funneled into addressing serious issues in the country's aboriginal communities.
Unsurprisingly, the suggestion produced a raucous response, much of it negative. The comments section of this Guardian article gives a sense of the lively debate; pro-storage commentators seem to be rather outnumbered.
However this is an incredibly good idea.
Australia could store this stuff, at little cost after the initial investment, and rake in some serious money. That money could be used for anything, though there is no doubt that indigenous people would be fair claimants to a large chunk, being owners of the land being used.
Environmentally the idea is completely sound. Anybody in any doubt of this should start by reading this. Nuclear waste if properly stored is completely safe and much much less dangerous than other industrial wastes (heavy metals, chemical solvents etc), which are routinely kept in the middle of cities. There is in fact no reason to put nuclear waste out in the desert 100s of kilometers away from the nearest hamlet, other than the fact the anti-nuclear lobby has convinced the public it is excessively dangerous.
The only irony is that in fact nuclear waste doesn't need long-term storage; it should be recycled, which would reduce its volume (and its radiation) by about 95%
Australia, in fact, should by all rights be leading the worldwide nuclear wave. We are blessed with vast amounts of uranium (about a third of the world's known deposits), a high level of development, and a history of energy resource export. We should be exporting the world's uranium, building our own nuclear plants, and happily accepting the waste.
The 'Greens', sadly but not unexpectedly, are outraged, as can be seen in the Guardian article.
Now if they actually were green...
In a speech at the indigenous Garma festival in the Northern territory, Hawke claimed he had already gotten a favourable response from the Northern Territory chief minister.
Arguing that Australia's outback has lots of open space and some of the most geological stable land on the globe, Hawke pointed out the significant economic gains Australia could make from such storage. He also pushed the idea that indigenous communities could be transformed by this as much of the resulting money could be funneled into addressing serious issues in the country's aboriginal communities.
Unsurprisingly, the suggestion produced a raucous response, much of it negative. The comments section of this Guardian article gives a sense of the lively debate; pro-storage commentators seem to be rather outnumbered.
However this is an incredibly good idea.
Australia could store this stuff, at little cost after the initial investment, and rake in some serious money. That money could be used for anything, though there is no doubt that indigenous people would be fair claimants to a large chunk, being owners of the land being used.
Environmentally the idea is completely sound. Anybody in any doubt of this should start by reading this. Nuclear waste if properly stored is completely safe and much much less dangerous than other industrial wastes (heavy metals, chemical solvents etc), which are routinely kept in the middle of cities. There is in fact no reason to put nuclear waste out in the desert 100s of kilometers away from the nearest hamlet, other than the fact the anti-nuclear lobby has convinced the public it is excessively dangerous.
The only irony is that in fact nuclear waste doesn't need long-term storage; it should be recycled, which would reduce its volume (and its radiation) by about 95%
Australia, in fact, should by all rights be leading the worldwide nuclear wave. We are blessed with vast amounts of uranium (about a third of the world's known deposits), a high level of development, and a history of energy resource export. We should be exporting the world's uranium, building our own nuclear plants, and happily accepting the waste.
The 'Greens', sadly but not unexpectedly, are outraged, as can be seen in the Guardian article.
Now if they actually were green...
Wednesday, 13 November 2013
Fukushima Refugees - Will they return or won't they?
Some interesting news tonight on the NHK 7 o'clock.
It seems there is some new government policy being formulated regarding Fukushima refugees and whether they will be allowed to return and, if so, when.
As I understand it, there are 80,000 refugees currently receiving compensation payouts. According to tonight's news, 25,000 don't know whether they will be allowed back at all.
The most polluted area is around the town of Namie. Tonight it was reported that the level of radiation was 4 microsieverts/hr. It was also stated that some areas are over 50 mSv/year. Since 4 microsieverts an hour only adds up to about 35 mSv/year, something is a little out already, but, whatever.
It's worthwhile noting that adverse human health effects have never been reported in areas with 35 or 50 mSv of radiation a year. In fact, the lowest level at which negative health effects have ever been observed is 100 mSv, and that was in a single dose (at Hiroshima and Nagasaki), not a very low dose spread out over an entire year. But that's a topic for another day.
So what is the Japanese government now considering while they prevent stressed and elderly residents from returning to completely safe homes in the clean and fresh countryside? Under the new proposals, some residents may never be able to return, and will receive sizable compensation payouts (paid from taxpayers funds) instead.
And because the Japanese government will obviously still have too much money left over, there are additional plans for further decontamination work, which (surprise surprise) has been unable to significantly reduce decontamination in many areas.
Since tens of millions of dollars have already been spent on decontamination efforts, successfully reducing radiation levels from completely safe to 'not significantly' lower than that, what's a few million more spent?
It seems there is some new government policy being formulated regarding Fukushima refugees and whether they will be allowed to return and, if so, when.
As I understand it, there are 80,000 refugees currently receiving compensation payouts. According to tonight's news, 25,000 don't know whether they will be allowed back at all.
The most polluted area is around the town of Namie. Tonight it was reported that the level of radiation was 4 microsieverts/hr. It was also stated that some areas are over 50 mSv/year. Since 4 microsieverts an hour only adds up to about 35 mSv/year, something is a little out already, but, whatever.
It's worthwhile noting that adverse human health effects have never been reported in areas with 35 or 50 mSv of radiation a year. In fact, the lowest level at which negative health effects have ever been observed is 100 mSv, and that was in a single dose (at Hiroshima and Nagasaki), not a very low dose spread out over an entire year. But that's a topic for another day.
So what is the Japanese government now considering while they prevent stressed and elderly residents from returning to completely safe homes in the clean and fresh countryside? Under the new proposals, some residents may never be able to return, and will receive sizable compensation payouts (paid from taxpayers funds) instead.
And because the Japanese government will obviously still have too much money left over, there are additional plans for further decontamination work, which (surprise surprise) has been unable to significantly reduce decontamination in many areas.
Since tens of millions of dollars have already been spent on decontamination efforts, successfully reducing radiation levels from completely safe to 'not significantly' lower than that, what's a few million more spent?
Wednesday, 6 November 2013
692 million dollars a week
Since all but two of Japan's nuclear power plants have been shut off since the Fukushima accident, Japan's utilities have had to pay huge sums of money for imported fuels to burn in order to replace the energy the nuclear plants would have generated.
In fact, according to Bloomberg in this fiscal year TEPCO and eight other power companies will pay 3.6 trillion yen more in fuel costs. These companies have been importing huge amounts of oil, LNG and coal.
This works out to an astounding 692 million dollars a week.
3.6 trillion yen is about 36 billion dollars, depending on the exchange rate. This increase in fossil-fuel imports is also forcing Japan to have a third annual trade deficit in a row.
Of course Japan can completely afford that. It's not like they any problems with massive debt or anything like that, is it?
In fact, according to Bloomberg in this fiscal year TEPCO and eight other power companies will pay 3.6 trillion yen more in fuel costs. These companies have been importing huge amounts of oil, LNG and coal.
This works out to an astounding 692 million dollars a week.
3.6 trillion yen is about 36 billion dollars, depending on the exchange rate. This increase in fossil-fuel imports is also forcing Japan to have a third annual trade deficit in a row.
Of course Japan can completely afford that. It's not like they any problems with massive debt or anything like that, is it?
Friday, 27 September 2013
TEPCO applying to start up reactors
TEPCO today formally applied for safety assessments from the NRA for two of its reactors at the currently idle Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant in Niigata prefecture. The nuclear plant is the largest in the world, with a total of 7 reactors capable of producing 8.2 gigawatts of power - enough to power a small country.
TEPCO is desperate to get some of its reactors started up again as it is currently haemorraghing cash while its reactors are idle. It is due to receive 380 billion yen in loans from the government later this year just to keep ticking over, and it is estimated that turning on 2 reactors could cut fuel costs by 200-300 billion a year.
However it's not clear when or if the NRA will judge the nuclear plants to have fulfilled the new stringent guidelines that are now in place. Among other things, it seems that these days nuclear plant operators seem vulnerable to the accusation that their nuclear plants lie over active geological faultlines. Of course it doesn't help that the definition of 'active' seems to be very generous indeed.
In another entry into the irony files, NHK tonight featured a lengthy broadcast about the new IPCC report on global warming, just after the stories about TEPCO.
The phrase 'a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is needed' was uttered. Oh dear.
TEPCO is desperate to get some of its reactors started up again as it is currently haemorraghing cash while its reactors are idle. It is due to receive 380 billion yen in loans from the government later this year just to keep ticking over, and it is estimated that turning on 2 reactors could cut fuel costs by 200-300 billion a year.
However it's not clear when or if the NRA will judge the nuclear plants to have fulfilled the new stringent guidelines that are now in place. Among other things, it seems that these days nuclear plant operators seem vulnerable to the accusation that their nuclear plants lie over active geological faultlines. Of course it doesn't help that the definition of 'active' seems to be very generous indeed.
In another entry into the irony files, NHK tonight featured a lengthy broadcast about the new IPCC report on global warming, just after the stories about TEPCO.
The phrase 'a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is needed' was uttered. Oh dear.
Wednesday, 18 September 2013
"Tainted" rainwater dumped at Fukushima
During Monday's typhoon, massive amounts of rain fell on the Fukushima plant. Some of the rainwater accumulated in the barriers that surround the storage tanks holding contaminated water, and staff allowed about 1000 tons of rain to sluice out into drainage ditches and into the sea. The level of radioactivity in this water was minute - according to the Japan Times 24 becquerels per liter or less - which is thousands of times less radioactive than some of the water being stored in the tanks.
Even this discharge is viewed by some as disastrous. What anti-nuclear activists think might be done with rainwater falling on a damaged nuclear site was never made clear, especially as such rainwater is less radioactive than coffee or Brazil nuts or bananas or any of a hundred different mundance substances.
Although, to be honest, I do know what they would like to be done with it. I think people like Arnie Gundersen and Chris Busby would like all the rain captured and stored, so that they can then proclaim that the amount of contaminated water stored on site has increased by thousands of tons...
Even this discharge is viewed by some as disastrous. What anti-nuclear activists think might be done with rainwater falling on a damaged nuclear site was never made clear, especially as such rainwater is less radioactive than coffee or Brazil nuts or bananas or any of a hundred different mundance substances.
Although, to be honest, I do know what they would like to be done with it. I think people like Arnie Gundersen and Chris Busby would like all the rain captured and stored, so that they can then proclaim that the amount of contaminated water stored on site has increased by thousands of tons...
Monday, 16 September 2013
Massive typhoon ... causes no damage to anything nuclear
Japan today was lashed by a large typhoon that hit the island of Honshu. There are a few people dead, others missing.
There's a chance this may turn into another fearmongering session (depending on the news cycle) because TEPCO released water that had accumulated between storage tanks due to the excess rainfall. The radiation level was lower than the accepted level so TEPCO just released it into the sea. It remains to be seen if this becomes a fearful news item.
It's worth making the point that nuclear reactors are much more resistant to natural disasters than non-nuclear facilities, due to layers of stringent engineering. Despite claims to the contrary, for example, it seems clear that the earthquake of 3/ll damaged Fukushima Daiichi not all.
Nuclear plants on board submarines have continued to operate after collisions with undersea mountains, other vessels etc.
Anti-nuclear activists love to press the meme that nuclear power plants are vulnerable to natural disasters like earthquakes or typhoons. They would do better to worry about non-nuclear facilities like dams and oil refineries, which can sometimes fail catastrophically.
There's a chance this may turn into another fearmongering session (depending on the news cycle) because TEPCO released water that had accumulated between storage tanks due to the excess rainfall. The radiation level was lower than the accepted level so TEPCO just released it into the sea. It remains to be seen if this becomes a fearful news item.
It's worth making the point that nuclear reactors are much more resistant to natural disasters than non-nuclear facilities, due to layers of stringent engineering. Despite claims to the contrary, for example, it seems clear that the earthquake of 3/ll damaged Fukushima Daiichi not all.
Nuclear plants on board submarines have continued to operate after collisions with undersea mountains, other vessels etc.
Anti-nuclear activists love to press the meme that nuclear power plants are vulnerable to natural disasters like earthquakes or typhoons. They would do better to worry about non-nuclear facilities like dams and oil refineries, which can sometimes fail catastrophically.
Saturday, 14 September 2013
Fukushima Mutant Fish to Destory Tokyo!
Over the last few weeks there have been a stream of fearmongering articles in the press detailing leakage of contaminated water from Fukushima Daiichi.
The most feverish have described a leaking storage tank said to have discharged up to 300 tons of contaminated water into surrounding soil. Apparently a seal on the tank has failed and water has slipped out, over a rainwater dam and seeped into the ground. The water has been described as highly radioactive - up to 1800 mSv/hour.
Well, 1800 mSv/hour seems a lot, until you read that the vast bulk is beta radiation which only goes 1-2 meters through the air and is stopped by paper or clothing. The reading is so high because the measurement was made right next to the source. In fact, what the fearmongering articles do not say is that this water is nothing special - it's just the same water that has been leaking on and off since March 11 2011, without anybody caring too much, and completely insignificant next to the radiation releases of March and April 2011, which themselves have not impacted anybody's health in any observable way.
For some reason it is only now that these irrelevant figures are being bandied about. The water has not affected worker health in any way and no contamination has been detected offsite. Indeed, there is no special reason to believe that any of this water has entered the Pacific Ocean at all.
Even if it did, any radiation in the water would be swamped by the natural background radiation that exists in every ocean around the world; its impact would be negligible, and, if measurable at all, only because humans are extrememly adept at creating instrumentation that can measure minute traces of radioactive products that would otherwise not be noted by anyone and have no effect on anything.
This hasn't stopped massive overreactions in differernt parts of the world. The Korean government, for example, has banned seafood imports from a bunch of Japanese prefectures based on fear of these leaks. Even my otherwise harmless aunt in Sydney is afraid of the water in Fukushima!
The nuclear debate is filled with ironies that frustrate those who approach the issue rationally. Beta radiation is chump change. So far from these leaks being a real problem, probably the best thing to do with the entire quantity of waste water being stored at Fukushima is to filter out what you can, and just dump the rest into the Pacific!
This New Scientist article points out exactly that.
The most feverish have described a leaking storage tank said to have discharged up to 300 tons of contaminated water into surrounding soil. Apparently a seal on the tank has failed and water has slipped out, over a rainwater dam and seeped into the ground. The water has been described as highly radioactive - up to 1800 mSv/hour.
Well, 1800 mSv/hour seems a lot, until you read that the vast bulk is beta radiation which only goes 1-2 meters through the air and is stopped by paper or clothing. The reading is so high because the measurement was made right next to the source. In fact, what the fearmongering articles do not say is that this water is nothing special - it's just the same water that has been leaking on and off since March 11 2011, without anybody caring too much, and completely insignificant next to the radiation releases of March and April 2011, which themselves have not impacted anybody's health in any observable way.
For some reason it is only now that these irrelevant figures are being bandied about. The water has not affected worker health in any way and no contamination has been detected offsite. Indeed, there is no special reason to believe that any of this water has entered the Pacific Ocean at all.
Even if it did, any radiation in the water would be swamped by the natural background radiation that exists in every ocean around the world; its impact would be negligible, and, if measurable at all, only because humans are extrememly adept at creating instrumentation that can measure minute traces of radioactive products that would otherwise not be noted by anyone and have no effect on anything.
This hasn't stopped massive overreactions in differernt parts of the world. The Korean government, for example, has banned seafood imports from a bunch of Japanese prefectures based on fear of these leaks. Even my otherwise harmless aunt in Sydney is afraid of the water in Fukushima!
The nuclear debate is filled with ironies that frustrate those who approach the issue rationally. Beta radiation is chump change. So far from these leaks being a real problem, probably the best thing to do with the entire quantity of waste water being stored at Fukushima is to filter out what you can, and just dump the rest into the Pacific!
This New Scientist article points out exactly that.
Thursday, 12 September 2013
How to lose your faith in the environmental movement.
The Greens have always suffered from a bad image outside the urban middle-class. They are seen as supported by lefty latte-sipping yuppies, a charge I've always thought rather harmless (what's wrong with drinking latte anyway?) A more serious accusation in my view is the common opinion that the Greens are watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside. Another way of saying this is that if you dig through the envirnomentally-friendly exterior, the Greens are rabid socialists who are bent on destruction, and desperate to start waving red flags around before seizing control of the state and returning control of the means of production to the workers. Followed by bloodbath.
While I don't think there's much truth in this, it appears to me now incontrovertible that the Green movement is compromised by ideology. The Autralian Greens embody this as much as anybody. Their ideology is 100% in line with a vague 'harmony with nature' position that is never really thought through, and which in many cases actually causes conflict with efforts to improve our environment and work towards a sustainable global future.
The regrettable blindness of the Greens is demonstrated in a video debate which featured, amongst others, the leader of the Greens Christine Milne, and the nuclear advocate Ben Heard. The video can be seen here and her answers clearly demonstrate that the Green oppositon to nuclear power is ideological and not rational. The same applies to her clearly unrealistic hopes for renewable energy to produce massive amounts of reliable power in the future.
I have seen and fought the whole Fukushima debacle from the very beginning and it gets my goat to see it brought up as a negative. Even more disconcerting is the realisation that the ultimate source of the Green objection to nuclear power is the natural fallacy. When the natural fallacy is allowed to overrule scientific reality, well, it's all downhill from there.
The whole thing is so regrettable because environmentalists should be rushing to support and demand nuclear power. There is hardly anything in the world which could have such a beneficial effect upon the Earth's environment as the widespread adoption of nuclear technology.
While I don't think there's much truth in this, it appears to me now incontrovertible that the Green movement is compromised by ideology. The Autralian Greens embody this as much as anybody. Their ideology is 100% in line with a vague 'harmony with nature' position that is never really thought through, and which in many cases actually causes conflict with efforts to improve our environment and work towards a sustainable global future.
The regrettable blindness of the Greens is demonstrated in a video debate which featured, amongst others, the leader of the Greens Christine Milne, and the nuclear advocate Ben Heard. The video can be seen here and her answers clearly demonstrate that the Green oppositon to nuclear power is ideological and not rational. The same applies to her clearly unrealistic hopes for renewable energy to produce massive amounts of reliable power in the future.
I have seen and fought the whole Fukushima debacle from the very beginning and it gets my goat to see it brought up as a negative. Even more disconcerting is the realisation that the ultimate source of the Green objection to nuclear power is the natural fallacy. When the natural fallacy is allowed to overrule scientific reality, well, it's all downhill from there.
The whole thing is so regrettable because environmentalists should be rushing to support and demand nuclear power. There is hardly anything in the world which could have such a beneficial effect upon the Earth's environment as the widespread adoption of nuclear technology.
Tuesday, 10 September 2013
Whatever happened to climate change in Australia?
From what you might have been reading or hearing about in Australia, climate change might as well have stopped, as it was barely mentioned during the election campaign. Far from being the great moral challenge of our generation it seems no longer to exist at all...
This is very curious because it was climate change and how Australia should best address it that has been the churning engine of the country's insane politics over the last 6 years.
First it was Kevin Rudd who first opened the game with his pulse-raising claim, then let everybody down when he couldn't actually follow through and implement an emissions trading scheme (ETS). To further compound the irony, the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, faced rebellion within his party when he supported an ETS and eventually lost the leadership to Tony Abott, with the rivalry pivoting around this issue. The madness continued when Rudd's public backflip on the policy helped contribute to his image of unreliability when in turn led to the leadership spill and his loss of prime ministership to Julia Gillard.
But all that constitutes only half of the craziness. The Labor party was heavily damaged by the backstabbing of Rudd by Gillard, and barely squeaked into power in the next election by negotiating with independents. Gillard had promised never to introduce a carbon tax in her government, but then found herself in a hung parliament in which her party could only retain power by allying itself with the Greens, who demanded a carbon tax leading to an ETS as their price for support. This unfortunate situation helped cement her image as untrustworthy, a supposed character flaw which the oppostion, led by Abott, harped on relentlessly. The Greens exacted their price and the Clean Energy Bill did eventually became law in November 2011, but has been controversial the whole time.
Gillard's declining popularity and the looming disaster of the upcoming election led to a comeback by Kevin Rudd, but that seemed to have done almost no good at all in reversing Labor's fortunes, and Tony Abbott is now prime minister. It's no secret he is a climate change skeptic and one of his policy stands is a repeal of the Clean Energy Bill. He plans to replace it with a $2.5 billion 'direct action' policy which nobody (let alone Tony Abbott) seriously believes will achieve anything.
All of this raises the question of why the Australia electorate has lost interest in climate change. Well, that's a question for another day.
The last and greatest irony of this whole debacle is that ETS schemes and carbon taxes are almost completely ineffective at mitigating climate change. This entire drama has been unnecessary.
Only nuclear power can both massively reduce emissions and keep global living standards rising.
There's no getting around that fact.
This is very curious because it was climate change and how Australia should best address it that has been the churning engine of the country's insane politics over the last 6 years.
First it was Kevin Rudd who first opened the game with his pulse-raising claim, then let everybody down when he couldn't actually follow through and implement an emissions trading scheme (ETS). To further compound the irony, the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, faced rebellion within his party when he supported an ETS and eventually lost the leadership to Tony Abott, with the rivalry pivoting around this issue. The madness continued when Rudd's public backflip on the policy helped contribute to his image of unreliability when in turn led to the leadership spill and his loss of prime ministership to Julia Gillard.
But all that constitutes only half of the craziness. The Labor party was heavily damaged by the backstabbing of Rudd by Gillard, and barely squeaked into power in the next election by negotiating with independents. Gillard had promised never to introduce a carbon tax in her government, but then found herself in a hung parliament in which her party could only retain power by allying itself with the Greens, who demanded a carbon tax leading to an ETS as their price for support. This unfortunate situation helped cement her image as untrustworthy, a supposed character flaw which the oppostion, led by Abott, harped on relentlessly. The Greens exacted their price and the Clean Energy Bill did eventually became law in November 2011, but has been controversial the whole time.
Gillard's declining popularity and the looming disaster of the upcoming election led to a comeback by Kevin Rudd, but that seemed to have done almost no good at all in reversing Labor's fortunes, and Tony Abbott is now prime minister. It's no secret he is a climate change skeptic and one of his policy stands is a repeal of the Clean Energy Bill. He plans to replace it with a $2.5 billion 'direct action' policy which nobody (let alone Tony Abbott) seriously believes will achieve anything.
All of this raises the question of why the Australia electorate has lost interest in climate change. Well, that's a question for another day.
The last and greatest irony of this whole debacle is that ETS schemes and carbon taxes are almost completely ineffective at mitigating climate change. This entire drama has been unnecessary.
Only nuclear power can both massively reduce emissions and keep global living standards rising.
There's no getting around that fact.
Sunday, 8 September 2013
Tokyo gets Olympics despite Fukushima
Yesterday the IOC awarded the 2020 Olympics to Tokyo.
The Japanese delegation to Buenos Aires, where the decision was made, was forced continually to defend Tokyo from the accusation that it was in danger from Fukushima radiation. Even prime minster Shinzo Abe had to answer questions from IOC delegates and reassure them that radiaton levels in Tokyo were lower than in Paris or New York.
While it's some comfort to know that IOC delegates were not disturbed enough by Fukushima misinformation to vote against Tokyo, it is far from ideal that the issue had to be raised at all.
It is hard to imagine anything in the universe that will affect the Tokyo Olympics less than radiation from Fukushima Daiichi. Radiation from the accident is measurable now only in parts of Fukushima prefecture itself. Athletes will receive massively more radiation in the international flights going to Japan than from radiation in Tokyo. The irony is that genuine (or at least measurable) threats to health in a big city, such as smog, went completely unmentioned by the IOC or journalists covering the announcement. On the other hand, if actual contamination - in the form of air pollution - were taken seriously, perhaps the Beijing Olympics, for example, would not have been held at all.
The Japanese delegation to Buenos Aires, where the decision was made, was forced continually to defend Tokyo from the accusation that it was in danger from Fukushima radiation. Even prime minster Shinzo Abe had to answer questions from IOC delegates and reassure them that radiaton levels in Tokyo were lower than in Paris or New York.
While it's some comfort to know that IOC delegates were not disturbed enough by Fukushima misinformation to vote against Tokyo, it is far from ideal that the issue had to be raised at all.
It is hard to imagine anything in the universe that will affect the Tokyo Olympics less than radiation from Fukushima Daiichi. Radiation from the accident is measurable now only in parts of Fukushima prefecture itself. Athletes will receive massively more radiation in the international flights going to Japan than from radiation in Tokyo. The irony is that genuine (or at least measurable) threats to health in a big city, such as smog, went completely unmentioned by the IOC or journalists covering the announcement. On the other hand, if actual contamination - in the form of air pollution - were taken seriously, perhaps the Beijing Olympics, for example, would not have been held at all.
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
The Possible Future
“In 20 years the West’s third world bankrupt ghg spewing economies will be running on 40 cents a kwh wind and 90 cents a kwh solar but getting all its energy from 17 cents a kwh gas, while the BRIC country’s zero GHG populace will be laughing at our dumb butts while running their prosperous country on penny a kwh Gen IV nuclear.”
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
TEPCO's yearly financial report - drowning in crap
Today Japan's electricity providers released their end-of-year financial reports. All but 2 are in arrears, because of fuel costs for 'thermal' power generation (ie, greenhouse-gas intensive fossil fuels). Costs have been rising both because the importation of LNG has become more expensive in general, and because of the weakening yen. These costs are on top of the extensive expenditure needed to keep their nuclear power plants maintained in the hopes of eventual restart.
TEPCO announced a massive loss of 685 billion yen (6.8 billion dollars). In addition to running their power plants on imported fossil fuels, the electricity provider has also had to deal with the situation at Fukushima (408 million dollars) and pay compensation claims for the evacuees and cleanup (another 11 billion dollars!).
It hardly needs saying that the vast bulk of this expenditure is unnecessary. As the accident neither killed or harmed anybody, evacuation and its associated problems were avoidable. Costs of decommissioning Fukushima Daiichi would of course be considerable, but nothing like the massive losses that have been incurred as a result of Japan turning its back on nuclear power.
TEPCO announced a massive loss of 685 billion yen (6.8 billion dollars). In addition to running their power plants on imported fossil fuels, the electricity provider has also had to deal with the situation at Fukushima (408 million dollars) and pay compensation claims for the evacuees and cleanup (another 11 billion dollars!).
It hardly needs saying that the vast bulk of this expenditure is unnecessary. As the accident neither killed or harmed anybody, evacuation and its associated problems were avoidable. Costs of decommissioning Fukushima Daiichi would of course be considerable, but nothing like the massive losses that have been incurred as a result of Japan turning its back on nuclear power.
Monday, 15 April 2013
Nuclear power -saving millions of lives.
James Hansen was NASA's former point man on climate change and is famed for his testimony on the issue for congressional committees in America. Recently he has become a high-profile advocate for the more widespread adoption of nuclear power, both in the fight against global warming and because of its other obvious advantages over fossil fuels.
The health dangers of burning coal are well-documented; coal pollution kills between 1 and 2 million people annually. On the other hand it has long been known that nuclear power is a much safer way to produce electricity. The number of people killed by nuclear power is orders of magnitude fewer than the number killed by coal, even with the most pessimistic of unproven assumptions.
But until now nobody has tried to estimate the number of lives saved by nuclear power. James Hansen and co-author Pushker Karecha have published a new paper with NASA's Goddard Institute that has put a figure on this. The study is a masterpiece of understated but hugely important findings. The most important finding is that from 1971 until now, nuclear energy has prevented 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths, including 160,000 in Japan alone.
And depending on how many nuclear plants are built and on what fuel it replaces, nuclear power will prevent between 420,000 and 7.04 million deaths by 2050.
These statistics do not take into account damage and deaths caused by climate change. If used to prevent global carbon dioxide emissions by substituting for the burning of coal, nuclear power could be even more effective at death prevention.
This is the kind of story that many so-called environmentalists chose to ignore. Others such as James Hansen have accepted that the only realistic way to both address the world's energy needs and reduce global carbon dioxide emissions is through the embrace of nuclear technology.
The health dangers of burning coal are well-documented; coal pollution kills between 1 and 2 million people annually. On the other hand it has long been known that nuclear power is a much safer way to produce electricity. The number of people killed by nuclear power is orders of magnitude fewer than the number killed by coal, even with the most pessimistic of unproven assumptions.
But until now nobody has tried to estimate the number of lives saved by nuclear power. James Hansen and co-author Pushker Karecha have published a new paper with NASA's Goddard Institute that has put a figure on this. The study is a masterpiece of understated but hugely important findings. The most important finding is that from 1971 until now, nuclear energy has prevented 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths, including 160,000 in Japan alone.
And depending on how many nuclear plants are built and on what fuel it replaces, nuclear power will prevent between 420,000 and 7.04 million deaths by 2050.
These statistics do not take into account damage and deaths caused by climate change. If used to prevent global carbon dioxide emissions by substituting for the burning of coal, nuclear power could be even more effective at death prevention.
This is the kind of story that many so-called environmentalists chose to ignore. Others such as James Hansen have accepted that the only realistic way to both address the world's energy needs and reduce global carbon dioxide emissions is through the embrace of nuclear technology.
Friday, 12 April 2013
More from the Japan Times
The J.Times is turning into a battlefield over the nuclear issue. This may be good for its circulation, but it demonstrates neatly part of the whole problem: the media benefits by keeping an artificial controversy alive. If decisions were made on a rational basis, and newspaper articles were fact-checked against the scientific consensus, there would be no 'battleground'.
So in the last few weeks,
I wrote a letter in reply to this misinformed piece, which makes the common fundamental mistake of supposing that the Fukushima accident is part of Japan's decline, rather than the country's nuclear retreat being the problem.
So in the last few weeks,
I wrote a letter in reply to this misinformed piece, which makes the common fundamental mistake of supposing that the Fukushima accident is part of Japan's decline, rather than the country's nuclear retreat being the problem.
Nuclear retreat signals decline
In his March 12 Community page article, “Do dire predictions for Japan factor in a rush for the exits?,” Colin P.A. Jones makes a tragic error, an error repeated all too often in the media by those critical of both nuclear power and Japan’s general direction. He sees the government’s response to the Fukushima accident as symptomatic of a deeper malaise in Japan itself. This is wrong for two reasons.
For one, the government’s handling of the situation, despite problems, has been praised by international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency. If anything, authorities were overcautious in response to an accident that resulted in zero deaths or injuries. More importantly, far from the Fukushima accident illustrating the government’s misplaced priorities, Japan’s retreat from nuclear power is part of its general decline.
This irony is not lost on observers of Japan’s economic and diplomatic rival, China, which has displayed a much more pragmatic and rational approach to nuclear energy.
Following the accident at Fukushima, that country launched a nationwide safety review. Construction resumed last year, and there are now 30 plants under construction.
China’s nuclear boom is emblematic of the country’s economic and technological growth, and those plants will provide power to the nation’s factories, many of which, by the way, are busy making things once made in Japan. By comparison, Japan seems obsessed with navel-gazing and is even considering a permanent return to the evils of coal, oil and gas.
It’s enough to make anyone “rush for the exits.”
I thought at first the letter had dissappeared without making much of a splash, but in fact it elicicited this counter-letter. The author brings up the issue of '13,000' deaths caused by the evacuation, when in reality people who died in the evacuation were killed not by radiation, but by Fear of Radiation, a very different beast indeed.
Then, like every other person opposed to nuclear power he is faced with the dilemma of how to deal with its ability to generate electricity without producing carbon emissions. In response he chooses to deny the reality of global warming.
When it comes to the issue of climate change, nuclear power has the incredible ability to mitigate global warming while still providing colossal amounts of energy. This is a truly game-changing capability. Every person opposed to nuclear power must either ignore this ability, an indefensible hypocrisy, or argue the route of climate change denialism.
This is a stark choice indeed.
For one, the government’s handling of the situation, despite problems, has been praised by international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency. If anything, authorities were overcautious in response to an accident that resulted in zero deaths or injuries. More importantly, far from the Fukushima accident illustrating the government’s misplaced priorities, Japan’s retreat from nuclear power is part of its general decline.
This irony is not lost on observers of Japan’s economic and diplomatic rival, China, which has displayed a much more pragmatic and rational approach to nuclear energy.
Following the accident at Fukushima, that country launched a nationwide safety review. Construction resumed last year, and there are now 30 plants under construction.
China’s nuclear boom is emblematic of the country’s economic and technological growth, and those plants will provide power to the nation’s factories, many of which, by the way, are busy making things once made in Japan. By comparison, Japan seems obsessed with navel-gazing and is even considering a permanent return to the evils of coal, oil and gas.
It’s enough to make anyone “rush for the exits.”
I thought at first the letter had dissappeared without making much of a splash, but in fact it elicicited this counter-letter. The author brings up the issue of '13,000' deaths caused by the evacuation, when in reality people who died in the evacuation were killed not by radiation, but by Fear of Radiation, a very different beast indeed.
Then, like every other person opposed to nuclear power he is faced with the dilemma of how to deal with its ability to generate electricity without producing carbon emissions. In response he chooses to deny the reality of global warming.
When it comes to the issue of climate change, nuclear power has the incredible ability to mitigate global warming while still providing colossal amounts of energy. This is a truly game-changing capability. Every person opposed to nuclear power must either ignore this ability, an indefensible hypocrisy, or argue the route of climate change denialism.
This is a stark choice indeed.
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
The NRA approves new safety guidelines - Human incredulity tested.
The Japanese Nuclear Regulation Authority today approved a new set of safety guidelines for nuclear power plants, possibly as a test of human wastefulness, overreaction and incredulity.
The draft guidelines, which will be finalised by July, include requirements for the construction of earthquake-proof command centres that have food and supplies to last a week without outside aid. Also required is the installation of filters designed to release pressure from containment vessels but filter out radioactive substances in the case of accident. The most absurd rule (in my view) is that plants build seawalls that can protect the site from the maximum predicted tsunami height.
Plant operators have estimated that upgrading existing reactors to comply with these guidelines will cost about 10.8 billion dollars.
Is it really possible that such overreaction can take place as a consequence of an accident that killed or injured noone? It's like some kind of surreal dream.
The seawall requirement I find to be particularly irksome. It was not the lack of a suitably high seawall that caused the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, it was simply the fact that generators that powered the cooling systems were not placed above flood level, leading to the meltdowns.
Building massive seawalls around every seaside nuclear plant in Japan will achieve nothing except the enrichment of concrete and fossil fuel companies. That Japan is ordering plant operators to prepare for a tsunami event that occurs every 800 years yet is easily mitigated by placing generators on higher ground is bad enough. Worse is the naked disrespect for actual people's lives this demonstrates. If the NRA really prioritized human safety, it would mandate the construction of seawalls around residential areas. In the current plans, the only thing that will happen in case of a disastrous tsunami is that the nuclear plants will be untouched while nearby residents drown in their thousands, which indeed is what happened in Fukushima two years ago.
Perhaps the NRA should consider the human implications of the construction of a 20-metre seawall.
The draft guidelines, which will be finalised by July, include requirements for the construction of earthquake-proof command centres that have food and supplies to last a week without outside aid. Also required is the installation of filters designed to release pressure from containment vessels but filter out radioactive substances in the case of accident. The most absurd rule (in my view) is that plants build seawalls that can protect the site from the maximum predicted tsunami height.
Plant operators have estimated that upgrading existing reactors to comply with these guidelines will cost about 10.8 billion dollars.
Is it really possible that such overreaction can take place as a consequence of an accident that killed or injured noone? It's like some kind of surreal dream.
The seawall requirement I find to be particularly irksome. It was not the lack of a suitably high seawall that caused the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, it was simply the fact that generators that powered the cooling systems were not placed above flood level, leading to the meltdowns.
Building massive seawalls around every seaside nuclear plant in Japan will achieve nothing except the enrichment of concrete and fossil fuel companies. That Japan is ordering plant operators to prepare for a tsunami event that occurs every 800 years yet is easily mitigated by placing generators on higher ground is bad enough. Worse is the naked disrespect for actual people's lives this demonstrates. If the NRA really prioritized human safety, it would mandate the construction of seawalls around residential areas. In the current plans, the only thing that will happen in case of a disastrous tsunami is that the nuclear plants will be untouched while nearby residents drown in their thousands, which indeed is what happened in Fukushima two years ago.
Perhaps the NRA should consider the human implications of the construction of a 20-metre seawall.
Monday, 8 April 2013
Radioactive ... water!
Wide news coverage today over new leaks from the storage tanks at Fukushima Daiichi.
It seems there have been leaks from two water tanks built to store contaminated water used in the cooling of the three stricken reactors. Last Friday one of the pools leaked 120 tons of contaminated water. Last night a further 3 liters leaked from another storage tank.
The Japan Times weighed in with a fairly measured piece that reported the larger of the two leaks poured 710 billion becquerels of radiation into the environment (apparently the ground under the tank). What they didn't attempt to include however was any assessment of what 710 billion becquerels might mean. Which is, basically, not a lot. Once diluted in the largest body of water on the globe - the Pacific Ocean - this radiation will be far below natural background levels. It will still be detectable over large areas, but only because scientists have the means to measure extraordinarily low concentrations of radioactive particles from artificial sources.
Essentially this leak, like all the other leaks since the end of March 2011, is not an issue that seriously concerns nuclear scientists. What is far more interesting than yet another minor hiccup in a huge industrial clean-up is the usual overreaction on the part of the anti-nuclear press.
Just the comments after this cherry-picked rubbish piece should give pause to any skeptical thinker. There is an unbelievable level of confirmation bias and unwarranted extrapolation that, well, you just don't find on pro-nuclear sites. The level of groupthink is truly depressing.
It seems there have been leaks from two water tanks built to store contaminated water used in the cooling of the three stricken reactors. Last Friday one of the pools leaked 120 tons of contaminated water. Last night a further 3 liters leaked from another storage tank.
The Japan Times weighed in with a fairly measured piece that reported the larger of the two leaks poured 710 billion becquerels of radiation into the environment (apparently the ground under the tank). What they didn't attempt to include however was any assessment of what 710 billion becquerels might mean. Which is, basically, not a lot. Once diluted in the largest body of water on the globe - the Pacific Ocean - this radiation will be far below natural background levels. It will still be detectable over large areas, but only because scientists have the means to measure extraordinarily low concentrations of radioactive particles from artificial sources.
Essentially this leak, like all the other leaks since the end of March 2011, is not an issue that seriously concerns nuclear scientists. What is far more interesting than yet another minor hiccup in a huge industrial clean-up is the usual overreaction on the part of the anti-nuclear press.
Just the comments after this cherry-picked rubbish piece should give pause to any skeptical thinker. There is an unbelievable level of confirmation bias and unwarranted extrapolation that, well, you just don't find on pro-nuclear sites. The level of groupthink is truly depressing.
Tuesday, 19 March 2013
Fukushima Daiichi without power - kind of
Last night cooling systems at Fukushima Daiichi malfunctioned, leaving the spent fuel pools of reactors 1, 3 and 4 without circulating cooling water for several hours. TEPCO announced that the problem was due to malfunctioning power distribution boards.
According to what I can make of the NHK news site and the TEPCO press release, cooling has been restored to fuel pools 1 and 4; and TEPCO plans to restore power to spent fuel pool 3 this evening and the shared spent fuel pool tomorrow morning.
While temperatures in the affected pools rose slightly, there has been no increase in radiation.
The NHK 7pm news focused on the gap of 3 hours between the loss of power and the announcement to the media by TEPCO 3 hours later, which is being treated as very suspicious in the Japanese media. Interestingly, it also took 3 hours for the Nuclear Regulation Authority to make an announcement, and there was also, somewhat confusingly, video of the NRA chairman Shunichi Tanaka lamenting the delay.
A TEPCO spokesman said "It was considered that the information should be confirmed before being released to the public."
But this is merely the latest incident in a long list of the minor technical issues that have occurred during the clean up of what is, after all, a major industrial accident. I have to tell you, the TEPCO website is not exciting reading.
Of more interest to the skeptical observer is how the incident is being protrayed. This post by ENE 'news' (read: fearmongering) demonstrates my point nicely. It is merely some phrases from a Kyodo news piece cherry picked to provide an impression of imminent destruction. Let's have a closer look:
Kyodo at 2:29p ET: “Tepco hasn’t been able to work out steps to ensure bringing system back online” at Fukushima Daiichi — No ‘major’ changes in radioactivity
The original Kyodo piece has the words 'As of 1.45 a.m.' added onto the beginning of the sentence, which temporally limits the damage to a technical hiccup, instead of giving the impression that TEPCO has been struggling and failing for an extended period (days? weeks?).
The inverted commas around 'major' lend doubt to the word. They give the impression that TEPCO is fudging or lying, that 'no major changes' may in fact be something much more serious and sinister. Neither that ENE piece or any other repeat later Kyodo observation that radiation readings have not been abnormal in any way.
I could go on for hours about that website. After reading it, I am mostly left with the impression that people are way to uncritical. Is it really too difficult, for example, to find and read the original Kyodo article?
According to what I can make of the NHK news site and the TEPCO press release, cooling has been restored to fuel pools 1 and 4; and TEPCO plans to restore power to spent fuel pool 3 this evening and the shared spent fuel pool tomorrow morning.
While temperatures in the affected pools rose slightly, there has been no increase in radiation.
The NHK 7pm news focused on the gap of 3 hours between the loss of power and the announcement to the media by TEPCO 3 hours later, which is being treated as very suspicious in the Japanese media. Interestingly, it also took 3 hours for the Nuclear Regulation Authority to make an announcement, and there was also, somewhat confusingly, video of the NRA chairman Shunichi Tanaka lamenting the delay.
A TEPCO spokesman said "It was considered that the information should be confirmed before being released to the public."
But this is merely the latest incident in a long list of the minor technical issues that have occurred during the clean up of what is, after all, a major industrial accident. I have to tell you, the TEPCO website is not exciting reading.
Of more interest to the skeptical observer is how the incident is being protrayed. This post by ENE 'news' (read: fearmongering) demonstrates my point nicely. It is merely some phrases from a Kyodo news piece cherry picked to provide an impression of imminent destruction. Let's have a closer look:
Kyodo at 2:29p ET: “Tepco hasn’t been able to work out steps to ensure bringing system back online” at Fukushima Daiichi — No ‘major’ changes in radioactivity
The original Kyodo piece has the words 'As of 1.45 a.m.' added onto the beginning of the sentence, which temporally limits the damage to a technical hiccup, instead of giving the impression that TEPCO has been struggling and failing for an extended period (days? weeks?).
The inverted commas around 'major' lend doubt to the word. They give the impression that TEPCO is fudging or lying, that 'no major changes' may in fact be something much more serious and sinister. Neither that ENE piece or any other repeat later Kyodo observation that radiation readings have not been abnormal in any way.
I could go on for hours about that website. After reading it, I am mostly left with the impression that people are way to uncritical. Is it really too difficult, for example, to find and read the original Kyodo article?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)