...in the battle of rational energy policy, that is.
Japan still has all but 2 of its 54 nuclear reactors in shutdown. Meanwhile the Nuclear Regulatory Authority, denigrated by some as being in cahoots with the nuclear industry and thus untrustworthy when it comes to safety, is actually threatening public safety by not allowing as many plants to restart as possible. It's guidelines that have been imposed nationwide are unnecessarily and prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.
Politically and economically, Japan is falling further and further behind a rising China. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the two countries' divergent energy policies. Following the accident at Fukushima, China temporaily halted construction of new nuclear plants pending a nation-wide safety review. Construction cautiously resumed in October 2012, and there are now 30 plants under construction, which will add another 33 GW of production. By 2020, when the total capaciy of China's units will reach 58 GW, the country will have the third largest nuclear fleet in the world, behind the U.S. and France. China is developing its own technology and is now a world leader with the accelerated development of the ACPR1000, as well as the world's first commercialization of 4th-generation nuclear technology that uses a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor.
Yet in the face of this revolution in energy production on the part of its rival, Japan is seemingly obsessed with navel-gazing and is in danger of turning away from nuclear altogether. In fact it is returning to pollution-intensive fossil fuels which immeasurably enrich the coffers of oil, gas and coal companies. Every time an anti-nuclear protest interrupts the traffic in downtown Tokyo, oil and gas company executives open another bottle of champagne. The mothballing of nuclear power in Japan is costing 10s of billions of dollars yearly and is causing the country's ballooning trade deficit, which didn't exist before 2011.
It is no wonder this country is becoming an economic and political backwater.
Japan's untenable position is further demonstrated almost nightly with alarmist reports on television about P.M. 2.5 drifting over from China. This particulate matter is largely created by China's coal-burning power plants, which provide electricity for China's rapidly expanding industries...many of which produce things which were once made here in Japan. It is a serious problem which the Chinese government is genuinely addressing through the best means available - rapid expansion of the nuclear industry. It is truly interesting that anti-nuclear 'envirnomentalists' are nowhere to be found when the issue of PM 2.5 is raised...an irony which does not escape the observant among us.
Wednesday, 13 March 2013
Tuesday, 12 March 2013
Commemorating Two Years of Madness and Paranoia!
Yesterday was the two-year anniversary of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that led to the nuclear accident at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
The media of both Japan and Australia marked the occasion with a veritable orgy of fear-mongering and exaggeration, plus a fair dollop of outright lies.
The Sydney Morning Herald led the way with this quite extraordinarily disingenous piece by Helen Caldicott. She got quite carried away about the forthcoming cancers at Fukushima, without even mentioning the recent WHO report which stated that ... there probably won't be any.
The Japan Times made only the slightest effort at balance. There were articles about families living in substandard housing after fleeing the radiation, the dubious links the Nuclear Regulation Authority has to the nuclear industry, and of anti-nuclear rallies all around the nation. Worst of all, there was a dreadful (and, I suspect, almost completely fabricated) propaganda piece about an accident at the Byron nuclear plant in Illnois. Among other outright lies it contained the claim that the accident resulted in several deaths and illnesses. In actuality, there have been no fatalities caused by radiation in the American nuclear power industry since its inception 60 years ago.
Hardly noticeable among all the negativity was a short piece reporting that radiation levels around Fukushima have dropped by half in the last year...
The media of both Japan and Australia marked the occasion with a veritable orgy of fear-mongering and exaggeration, plus a fair dollop of outright lies.
The Sydney Morning Herald led the way with this quite extraordinarily disingenous piece by Helen Caldicott. She got quite carried away about the forthcoming cancers at Fukushima, without even mentioning the recent WHO report which stated that ... there probably won't be any.
The Japan Times made only the slightest effort at balance. There were articles about families living in substandard housing after fleeing the radiation, the dubious links the Nuclear Regulation Authority has to the nuclear industry, and of anti-nuclear rallies all around the nation. Worst of all, there was a dreadful (and, I suspect, almost completely fabricated) propaganda piece about an accident at the Byron nuclear plant in Illnois. Among other outright lies it contained the claim that the accident resulted in several deaths and illnesses. In actuality, there have been no fatalities caused by radiation in the American nuclear power industry since its inception 60 years ago.
Hardly noticeable among all the negativity was a short piece reporting that radiation levels around Fukushima have dropped by half in the last year...
Wednesday, 27 February 2013
China invades Japan!
With P.M. 2.5 that is.
Tonight NHK news broadcast only the latest and most alarming story about air-borne particulate matter drifting over from China and polluting pure, pristine and increasingly prissy Japan. Concerns have focused almost exclusively on particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers in size, said to be particularly dangerous to health and particularly prevalent in the pollution coming over the sea. Cities near the coast monitor particulate levels and warn people to stay indoors and close windows when the pollution level is above a certain level, while children are said to be especially at risk.
There are several elements to this story. One is the undercurrent of anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan, where ill-feeling, always present to some degree, is currently heightened with the confrontation at the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed both by Japan and China.
But of most interest to me is the lack of ability on the part of Japanese authorities to connect the dots. Particulate matter is drifting over from China because of the massive coal-burning that is constantly taking place there, driving the country's industrialization and powering the factories, many of which are making things that used to be made in Japan. China uses a colossal amount of power, and this amount is increasing every year. Nuclear power is an obvious candidate to replace this coal-burning, and indeed China does have an expanding nuclear industry, it's just that the country's needs are growing so fast it will be a long long time before coal usage is reduced.
Meanwhile Japan's own levels of pollution are increasing because all but two of the country's nuclear plants are in shutdown. Would it be too embarrassing for Japanese authorities to acknowledge the pollution-reducing abilities of nuclear power?
Oh yes.
Tonight NHK news broadcast only the latest and most alarming story about air-borne particulate matter drifting over from China and polluting pure, pristine and increasingly prissy Japan. Concerns have focused almost exclusively on particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers in size, said to be particularly dangerous to health and particularly prevalent in the pollution coming over the sea. Cities near the coast monitor particulate levels and warn people to stay indoors and close windows when the pollution level is above a certain level, while children are said to be especially at risk.
There are several elements to this story. One is the undercurrent of anti-Chinese sentiment in Japan, where ill-feeling, always present to some degree, is currently heightened with the confrontation at the Senkaku Islands, which are claimed both by Japan and China.
But of most interest to me is the lack of ability on the part of Japanese authorities to connect the dots. Particulate matter is drifting over from China because of the massive coal-burning that is constantly taking place there, driving the country's industrialization and powering the factories, many of which are making things that used to be made in Japan. China uses a colossal amount of power, and this amount is increasing every year. Nuclear power is an obvious candidate to replace this coal-burning, and indeed China does have an expanding nuclear industry, it's just that the country's needs are growing so fast it will be a long long time before coal usage is reduced.
Meanwhile Japan's own levels of pollution are increasing because all but two of the country's nuclear plants are in shutdown. Would it be too embarrassing for Japanese authorities to acknowledge the pollution-reducing abilities of nuclear power?
Oh yes.
Monday, 4 February 2013
Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority: What Gives?
I'd like to comment on one of the 'only in Japan' aspects of the nuclear energy issue, the kind of thinking that infects other areas of Japanese life, from education to sports to just about anything. This is the Japanese tendency towards excessive cautiousness, past the point of irrationality.
Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority was set up in the politically chaotic months after 3/11 as an attempt to address the perceived in adequacies of the former Japanese nuclear watchdog, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency. Inaugurated in Sept last year, the chairman is Shunichi Tanaka.
While the ostensible purpose of the NRA is to regulate and ensure the safety of Japan's nuclear power plants, one could be forgiven for thinking that its real intent is to prevent any of them being used ever again. Such is the slew of useless, outdated, unnecessary and downright environmentally criminal regulations drafted by the NRA.
Some of the safety measures now mandated for nuclear plants in Japan include the installation of multiple power sources near each reactor; on-site storage of multiple power-supply and fire-fighting vehicles; relocation of pumps, generators and storage tanks to high ground; and the installation of filtered venting equipment at each reactor. In addition, each power plant needs to start the construction of an emergency disaster response center that must be earthquake, tsunami and radiation proof. The list of requirements goes on and on; a more complete description can be found here.
Few people seem to be questioning the real outcome of these measures, which is the extended delay in restarting Japan's nuclear fleet. In fact, it is very possible that many plants will never restart at all, due to the tremendous costs involved in meeting all of these new standards, which have been estimated at over $100 million per reactor unit.
These measures are intended to prevent a 'disaster' like that in Fukushima ever happening again. This 'disaster' was the consequence of geological events that occur about every 800 years, and was preventable by relatively simple planning or plant modification, and which nevertheless caused no deaths or serious injuries at all.
The new NRA's new strict regulations and recommendations have generated scores of news stories on NHK news and other media. For the last several months there has been continual coverage especially of the effects of the NRA's new larger evacuation zone around a nuclear plant in case of accident. The new zone is now 30km in radius whereas the old zone was 10km. The new radius around every nuclear plant in Japan encompasses several million people across the country. Local municipalities have been thrown into a frenzy drafting up new evacuation plans for each locality, all of which of course will be completely useless in the event of a real emergency.
Rather than questioning the necessity of this new expanded evacuation zone, the media has been covering the effect it will have on local people. For example, two days ago on NHK news there was a report on the number of islands affected by the new rules...yet local authorites have yet to secure boats for 15 of the islands.
NHK even interviewed a priest at a picturesque shrine on one of the islands inside the new evacuation zone. 'There is no boat to leave the island and residents will have to find a way to evacuate on their own,' he laments. It never occurred to the priest to ask whether an ill-informed and unquestioning bureaucrat in Tokyo has the authority to order him to leave his own Shinto shrine in the event that a nuclear power plant 20km away released a puff of radiation equivalent to, say, 1% of normal background levels.
Arguably the most important outcome of this media blitz is the construction of an image of nuclear plants as troublesome, expensive and above all dangerous. To the casual viewer, nuclear power necessitates much more stringent safety measures than other kinds of industrial activity, despite the fact that in reality nuclear power is much, much safer than other forms of large-scale energy production.
These excessive regulations on the part of the NRA can be seen as an expression of the Japanese tendency towards overcaution, even paranoia. Other examples include people wearing helmets on the street during the Skylab paranoia; English language schools teaching 'Emergency English' after a tourist was shot in America when he misunderstood the word 'Freeze'; and schoolkids being prevented from making snowballs in the playground because 'one may contain a rock'.
Thursday, 31 January 2013
Renewables, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
In an example of the kind of story that people who oppose nuclear power hate to read or consider, Japanese Prime Minister last week reneged on Japan's promise to cut greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2020, because of Japan's future reduced reliance on nuclear power.
For the large number of well-meaning people who believe that renewable power (chiefly wind and solar) can take up the slack if fossil fuel usage is reduced, this kind of information must induce a level of cognitive dissonance that could cause an aneurism. Much easier to just ignore it. That is why articles like that receive relatively little coverage in the Japanese (indeed, the world) press while the announcement that TEPCO is releasing a little treated water sparks outrage.
The belief on the part of many people that renewable power can replace both fossil fuels and nuclear is rarely critically examined. The connection between rising emissions and a nuclear-less energy production industry is rarely made.
When the need for nuclear power is overtly pushed by scientists, even scientists who are famous for their contribution to climate change study, the result makes the green left very uneasy indeed. Known as NASA's point man of climate change, James Hansen is one such scientist. For decades he has researched climate change and has been informing governments about it. As such he is revered by green movements around the world and vilified by climate change deniers, but when it comes to his scientifically-backed assertions about how to deal with the problem, his green supporters just tune him out. In what I find to be an extraordinary document, clear and concise, Hansen lays out the case for why renewable energy, although being an important part of the mix, is never going to make the big time, and that people who believe otherwise may as well believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
For the large number of well-meaning people who believe that renewable power (chiefly wind and solar) can take up the slack if fossil fuel usage is reduced, this kind of information must induce a level of cognitive dissonance that could cause an aneurism. Much easier to just ignore it. That is why articles like that receive relatively little coverage in the Japanese (indeed, the world) press while the announcement that TEPCO is releasing a little treated water sparks outrage.
The belief on the part of many people that renewable power can replace both fossil fuels and nuclear is rarely critically examined. The connection between rising emissions and a nuclear-less energy production industry is rarely made.
When the need for nuclear power is overtly pushed by scientists, even scientists who are famous for their contribution to climate change study, the result makes the green left very uneasy indeed. Known as NASA's point man of climate change, James Hansen is one such scientist. For decades he has researched climate change and has been informing governments about it. As such he is revered by green movements around the world and vilified by climate change deniers, but when it comes to his scientifically-backed assertions about how to deal with the problem, his green supporters just tune him out. In what I find to be an extraordinary document, clear and concise, Hansen lays out the case for why renewable energy, although being an important part of the mix, is never going to make the big time, and that people who believe otherwise may as well believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Perceptions of safety, illusions of danger
A few days ago TEPCO announced that it would be releasing contaminated cooling water into the ocean, water that has been treated to remove radioactive substances so that it is below the legally permissible level of radioactive contamination.
This is necessary because water has been accumulating from efforts to continue cooling the three melted down reactors and the radiation will be reduced through a new process that removes 60 different kinds of radiactive substances. The resulting release will be orders of magnitude less radioactive than is necessary to cause harm to humans, and will then be diluted by nothing less than the Pacific Ocean, so that the radioactivity will be diluted billions of times more, to way, way below normal background levels of radiation in seawater.
You will not be able to find a respectable scientific source stating that this release will endanger the environment in any way. Yet the Japan Times article, as well as other pieces in the net, is followed by comments implying some kind of crime being committed by TEPCO.
This small example neatly illuminates much of the difficulty the nuclear power industry faces in dealing with public perception of safety. The excessive standards of safety and reporting forced on the industry do little to allay fears. On the contrary, they seem to merely enforce the perception that nuclear power is dangerous. Coal power plants, which emit radiation as part of their normal operations, never make any announcements about this at all. Behind all this is the false assumption that nuclear power is inherently more dangerous than other forms of energy production.
That this assumption has nasty add-on effects should hardly be surprising. One of the most important is that the extraordinary standards of safety that are forced upon nuclear power result in massive cost overruns in plant construction. ANS cafe has an extraordinarily informative post on this topic, finding that much of the cost of plant construction originates in unrealistic and self-defeating standards of Quality Assurance.
It is ironic that 'cost' is one of the main reasons given by anti-nuclear campaigners as to why nuclear power cannot provide electricity for the entire world. If those anti-nuke proponents were willing to rationally compare safety standards in terms of health effects across differenct forms of energy production, the costs of nuclear power plant construction could drop dramatically. Construction costs in China, for example, are a fraction of those in the West, much of which cannot be explained merely by the lower cost of labour.
This is necessary because water has been accumulating from efforts to continue cooling the three melted down reactors and the radiation will be reduced through a new process that removes 60 different kinds of radiactive substances. The resulting release will be orders of magnitude less radioactive than is necessary to cause harm to humans, and will then be diluted by nothing less than the Pacific Ocean, so that the radioactivity will be diluted billions of times more, to way, way below normal background levels of radiation in seawater.
You will not be able to find a respectable scientific source stating that this release will endanger the environment in any way. Yet the Japan Times article, as well as other pieces in the net, is followed by comments implying some kind of crime being committed by TEPCO.
This small example neatly illuminates much of the difficulty the nuclear power industry faces in dealing with public perception of safety. The excessive standards of safety and reporting forced on the industry do little to allay fears. On the contrary, they seem to merely enforce the perception that nuclear power is dangerous. Coal power plants, which emit radiation as part of their normal operations, never make any announcements about this at all. Behind all this is the false assumption that nuclear power is inherently more dangerous than other forms of energy production.
That this assumption has nasty add-on effects should hardly be surprising. One of the most important is that the extraordinary standards of safety that are forced upon nuclear power result in massive cost overruns in plant construction. ANS cafe has an extraordinarily informative post on this topic, finding that much of the cost of plant construction originates in unrealistic and self-defeating standards of Quality Assurance.
It is ironic that 'cost' is one of the main reasons given by anti-nuclear campaigners as to why nuclear power cannot provide electricity for the entire world. If those anti-nuke proponents were willing to rationally compare safety standards in terms of health effects across differenct forms of energy production, the costs of nuclear power plant construction could drop dramatically. Construction costs in China, for example, are a fraction of those in the West, much of which cannot be explained merely by the lower cost of labour.
Friday, 18 January 2013
Hopefully the Prime Minister takes my advice
The Japan Times this week has published my letter to the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, where I invite him to consider reason and common sense when it comes to the nuclear issue in Japan.
My little letter was sandwiched between two rabidly anti-nuclear opinion pieces. One is an emotionally-charged use of the 'nuclear waste is bad' argument. One could, of course, use 90% of it and just change the topic to 'not using nuclear power'. At least that way the charge of generational betrayal would be appropriate. Regarding the issue of waste, suffice it to say that 95% of nuclear waste can be recycled, and the disposal of the remainder is not so much a safety or technical issue as a political one.
The second piece is a somewhat random scare piece about the accumulation of strontium-90 in childrens' teeth. It's notable for its complete lack of claimed health effects - leading the reader nonplused as to what it was written for. I suspect the editor demanded scientific references for the supposed ill-effects of the reported strontium-90, and the authors were unable to come up with any.
One thing for sure. Now that I have read many, many anti-nuclear articles I am no longer afraid of trying to get my own stuff published. These writers may or may not be professional journalists, but if they are, they are professionals who are either deliberately deceitful or have an extraordinarily poor understanding of the scientific method.
My little letter was sandwiched between two rabidly anti-nuclear opinion pieces. One is an emotionally-charged use of the 'nuclear waste is bad' argument. One could, of course, use 90% of it and just change the topic to 'not using nuclear power'. At least that way the charge of generational betrayal would be appropriate. Regarding the issue of waste, suffice it to say that 95% of nuclear waste can be recycled, and the disposal of the remainder is not so much a safety or technical issue as a political one.
The second piece is a somewhat random scare piece about the accumulation of strontium-90 in childrens' teeth. It's notable for its complete lack of claimed health effects - leading the reader nonplused as to what it was written for. I suspect the editor demanded scientific references for the supposed ill-effects of the reported strontium-90, and the authors were unable to come up with any.
One thing for sure. Now that I have read many, many anti-nuclear articles I am no longer afraid of trying to get my own stuff published. These writers may or may not be professional journalists, but if they are, they are professionals who are either deliberately deceitful or have an extraordinarily poor understanding of the scientific method.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)