The meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi plant one year ago was all the more terrible because it struck Japan as a natural disaster was unfolding.
Around 20,000 people were killed by the earthquake and tsunami. Countless more were injured or forced to flee their homes. Instead of being able to concentrate on responding to this natural disaster, the Japanese authorities had to divert resources to the Fukushima plant.
150,000 people were forced to evacuate their homes. A 20km exclusion zone remains around the plant. High levels of radiation have been recorded in staple food products, such as rice, beef and baby formula. The Japan Centre for Economic Research calculated that compensation and decommissioning would cost between $520bn and $650bn. This will be largely picked up by Japanese taxpayers.
Across the world, the nuclear industry has stalled. Costs are soaring and governments, such as Germany, are phasing out reactors and instead building renewable energy plants.
This year, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have the opportunity to overhaul Britain's electricity system with a new Energy Bill in parliament. They should use the Fukushima anniversary to challenge some of the vested interests that are serving us so badly.
Even before the tragedy in Japan, major investors, such as Citigroup, were questioning the economics of nuclear new build. Now the economics look even worse. The French Audit Court concluded that the new French reactor design was too costly and could not be built in time to solve France's energy crisis. No wonder President Sarkozy was so keen to offload those same reactor designs to David Cameron at a recent meeting in Paris.
The front-runner in April's presidential election, Francois Hollande, has promised to phase out one-third of France's nuclear fleet by 2025. And as European politicians have turned increasingly against nuclear, they have started taking energy efficiency seriously. In Germany politicians plan to reduce electricity demand by 25% by 2050 through energy efficiency.
But the coalition government here in Britain is planning for electricity demand to double over the same period, even though Ministers accept that energy saving is cheaper and greener than building new power stations. The new Secretary of State for Energy Ed Davey is up against the 'big six' energy utilities which, unsurprisingly, want greater demand for energy, because they profit from selling more heat and electricity, not less.
The world is on the verge of a renewable energy boom. More money was invested in renewable electricity generation worldwide in the last two years than in conventional power. This is driven by Germany but similar investment in Britain could benefit manufacturing here and create much needed jobs.
But first the government has to face down the vested interests and vociferous lobbying of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. The big question is whether they will set Britain on a course to be a leader in the global race for affordable, modern, clean energy? Or will they turn their back on Britain's renewable energy resources and the potential for thousands of home-grown jobs?
Frances Beinecke: "All of the Above" Can't Deliver All the Benefits the Clean Energy Economy Can
How Fukushima is leading towards a nuclear-free Japan
Fukushima residents plagued by health fears of nuclear threat in their midst
Japan Earthquake Anniversary: Fukushima Meltdown Risk Early Known, Documents ...
Nuclear power is trillion dollar cancerous disasters, million year cancerous wastes, and civilization ending proliferation.
rooftop pv solar is cheaper than nukes, wind and waste are half the cost of nukes and waste can backup solar and wind.
There is only 30 years of world's energy available from nukes power source, uranium,
Solar wind and waste are INFINITE!!!!! Forever, till the earth is swallowed by the sun 7 billion years from now!
Solar wind and waste are clean and safe. once the world has mined the minerals needed to make them, we can recycle them forever. Unlike nukes and fossil that must destroy more and more of the earth for their fuels.
Waste bio char empties our dumps, is carbon negative using the char as fertilizer, produces heat, electricity bio oil and bio gas.
Together with efficiency and plug in hybrid commuter vehicles, this is carbon, land and water negative. creates artificial reefs, is distributed, lowering grid loads, uses the same fossil generator infrastructure but with clean fuel without radioactive heavy metals.
Solar panels are 85 cents per W retail! less than 50 cents to make! and getting cheaper.
Solar cheaper than nukes and energy source amounts: http://cleantechnica.com/2011/08/23/solar-power-intro-3-key-solar-power-points-top-solar-power-news/
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm
Then see what subsidies you can get, there are lots of them: http://www.dsireusa.org/
My big gripe is you can't seem to make anyone happy over energy creation. I thought the green movement was also opposed to turbines, dams and solar panels everywhere, or is it the snobs? We could be more realistic and challenge the big guys to deliver on clean coal, to push for full proof nuclear power stations. And people like Nottingham university who want wind turbines can erect them on their site rather than on untouched land.
You'll be long dead before the finance costs of its new construction, or the likely costs of the recovery from the next accident, come due.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/03/16/more-to-the-story-on-nuclear-power-and-cheap-natural-gas/
That, says Lorenzini, has given NuScale a major jolt of credibility with potential customers.
“We’re backed by a blue-chip company that has nuclear experience,” he said. “Everybody knows with them behind us we have the ability to deliver our product.”
And for its part, Fluor believes it’s backing a winner. If NuScale’s technology wins NRC approval, it will mean a big payday for both firms.
“Both Fluor and NuScale have potential clients interested in SMR technology and its advantages for providing base-load power generation,” Fluor spokesman Brian Mershon said.
“We believe that NuScale’s technology is best of class, and we hope to provide full engineering, procurement and construction services for clients’ nuclear power generation needs in the future.”
Read more: http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/back-in-the-race/article_f77f6092-5405-5c02-86b5-e1c9cbca121c.html#ixzz1pfwcKYCR
http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/back-in-the-race/article_f77f6092-5405-5c02-86b5-e1c9cbca121c.html
It would be more correct to say that it struck because there was an inadequate risk analysis of the dangers from a tsumani leading to an inadequate reactor design. Japan has a long history of large Tsunamis so there is no excuse.
This reactor is located on the same side of Japan as one of the world's most active undersea plate boundaries. Not only was it badly placed but did not have the systems in place or was of a design that would prevent core meltdown from a large tsunami. The risk analysis should have included loss of mains power and flooding of local back-up generation equipment to keep the core temperature down and seen as inadequate. There are designs of reactor that do not rely on active cooling. Alternatively the back-up power generation could have been protected from flooding. There are many ways of coming up with an adequate design that would have stood an extremely large Tsunami..
I suspect they wanted a cheap design which a proper risk analysis would not have given them so did not look too deeply.
Upgrading 1960's nuclear power plants is expensive - billion-dollar expensive. They knew what to do, how to do it and that it should be done. It was just far to expensive to ever contemplate. Which is why it was never attempted.
Modern nuclear power plants are about 1000 times safer than 1960's technology reactors with a hodge-podge patchwork of new technologies added over the decades, by different corporations and maintenance teams. Fukushima Daichi had some 1960's tech, 1970's tech, 1980's tech, 1990's tech... are you getting the idea? It was already on "borrowed time".
If we have the choice of shutting down 1950's, 1960's, 1970's and 1980's nuclear power plants BEFORE they fail, and replacing them with brand-new smaller, modular nuclear power plants - then that is an astronomically-safer option, than allowing all those old plants to be run into the ground.
See my blog on that exact topic:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/john-brian-shannon/modular-nuclear-reactors_b_1308276.html
Small and unobtrusive, modular nuclear power plants have simple redundancy built right in, such as gravity-feed cooling, etc...
Cheers! JBS
We still fly in vintage planes, drive vintage cars, and yes they crash and people die. Its a risk based world we live in.
There is no cheaper, cleaner, commercially viable solution to this energy shortfall - one that will bring down energy bills and CO2 emissions and that can be implemented now - than renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Solar power would be a far wiser alternative for Iran. Abu Dhabi, Iran's neighbor, is already investing heavily in solar. Iran should do the same.
People need to see the alternatives spelled out clearly and simply. We are passed the stage of appealing to our emotions. It is time to talk facts and figures.
You want wind-power? Where, when, what quantity, how much will it cost, how many jobs will it create? What form and amount of subsidy is required?
With respect to energy saving or other forms of generation we need the same data.
And we need it to be concise and clear. And we need it to be the same from every environmental movement and the green Party.
We do not need links to big documents. We need short sharp articles that keep us informed so that policies - easily understood are easily propagated.
What are all your green press officers and new media folk doing? Get with the program.
Here are some worthwhile links for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/john-brian-shannon/modular-nuclear-reactors_b_1308276.html
http://johnbrianshannon.com/green-energy/
http://twitpic.com/8r3njw/full
http://johnbrianshannon.com
Very best regards, JBS
http://www.palmsprings.com/services/wind1.html
"Wind Energy as a Significant Source of Electricity"
R. Gerald Nix
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
"Wind energy is a commercially available renewable energy source, with state-of-the-art wind plants producing electricity at about $0.05 per kWh. However, even at that production cost, wind-generated electricity is not yet fully cost-competitive with coal- or natural-gas-produced electricity for the bulk electricity market. The wind is a proven energy source; it is not resource-limited in the United States, and there are no insolvable technical constraints. This paper describes current and historical technology, characterizes existing trends, and describes the research and development required to reduce the cost of wind-generated electricity to full competitiveness with fossil-fuel-generated electricity for the bulk electricity market. Potential markets are described."
Cheers! JBS
One is to many, when will we learn? just how bad does it have to get before we do.
If the brave men at fukushima had not been prepared to risk their lives the whole industry would be finished along with most of japan and great many innocent human beings across the hemisphere.
- LED bulbs use 80% less power and last 25 times longer.
- A super insulated house needs virtually no heating or cooling.
- A heat reflective window rejects up to 97% of the sun's infrared light in the summer et reduce air conditioning costs.
- A solar water heating system can save 50-75% of the water heating cost.
- A ice storage air-conditioning system will use 30%-50% less energy than conventional air-conditioning system. It makes ice at night, and uses that ice during the day to cool the building.
- In a car, replacing steel by aluminium can reduce the body mass by around 40 % without compromising safety.
- A propeller-driven aircraft cuts fuel bills by 30%.
- Tankers fitted with sail will burn between 10% and 60% less fuel.
- Freight trains are using 3 times less fuel than trucks.
Double stack freight trains are 5 times more efficient than trucks.
Freight barges are using 9 times less fuel than trucks.
It takes 30.000 years for the waste to be safe?
How many people died from the Fuushima 'Meltdown' ?
How many people died from the tsunami?
Why, why are there people so worried about the effects of nuclear power station waste, when they do not give a damn about two or three generations down the line?
Nuclear power is and always was our only real option for energy in an ever expanding world population.
There Is and never was any such thing as 'green' energy.
There is and never was such a thing as the much bandied about word 'Sustainable;
The only 'Green' product is made from stone!
Wake up and smell the coffee people!
You cannot sustain an ever increasing population or ever increasing economy on 'Sustainable' !!Pleae go to...cugerbrant.co.uk and see what you are hiding from!!
Nuclear energy is currently our only choice. It will prove a useful stopgap while realistic green technologies are perfected (current estimates are currently 30 years). Nuclear power is green (based solely on emissions) and climate change is not just a buzzword, it's a real problem that needs real solutions. Nuclear power (in the short term) is the answer! But this model needs to be rolled out with strict global policy and in order for the effective reduction in emissions. There IS such a thing as green, it just has not been backed effectively by governments! You want proof? Ask me, I believe my position in life enables me to have an unbiased opinion...
The only reason I seem critical is because of all the 'Green wash' with self interest in jumping on the green bandwagon I read about.
To my mind, nuclear power needs conformity worldwide to enable good regulation, safety and control.
Please read my comments on ‘Green wash’...Http://cugerbrant@live.co.uk
You will see where I am coming from.
It was these that exploded at Fukishima.
People here in Australia are still dying from the British nuclear tests at Maralinga. My dad was a victim.
Forget nuclear
The adage ‘Fire is a good slave but a bad master’ also applies to nuclear power. Can you see where I am coming from?
nuclear are not renewable and require something called uranium to be mined. Those mines don't work on electricity so they need fossil fuels to run. The concrete for the reactor takes lots of construction energy as well. At the end the amount of electricity nuclear produces is clean but is not offset by all the pollution created while building it. Nuclear waste then lasts 30,000 years or whatever.
Epic fail. On every level it's a Ponzi scheme of "renewable" energy.
The $40 Billion or whatever cost overrun the taxpayer has to put up (as they are uneconomic otherwise) would be better spent making homes and commercial properties self sufficient via thermal geo exchange.
Convert 100,000 homes a year only costs about $2 billion a year on a $20,000 geothermal installation. Those jobs are local and cannot be exported because you physically live there. Now how about that same $40 Billion instead going to the actual taxpayer dwellings and not the Ponzi private operations of a dying idea? That would be even ethical.
As well it would build an industry rather than a dependency, as each home would then be resilient to long term costs. Power companies wouldn't be needed at the same scale and the power lines won't need to be replaced because there would be lower load.
Solutions work and exist. Mental energies fixated on the 20th century are a loss
The construction energy is a small part of the power produced by any power plant. If this was not the case, it would never pay for itself (nuclear likely won't, but not for this reason).
Ground-source heat pumps are no much good in the UK, as houses are typically packed too closely. Air source heat pumps are fine.
I had read a lot about UK designs on wave generation but not heard much lately. Being surrounded by water and given the temperature differential between surface and depth has a lot going for it versus other countries that have to drill. As this is only dealing with a temperature difference it's not adding to or subtracting from the environment on the same scales as destructive systems.
A $2 Billion investment to 100,000 homes makes a faster difference
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1056051--parties-keep-quiet-on-ontario-s-nuclear-future
With the Ontario FIT program for renewables, all of your energy costs will be paid by ratepayers in 20 years or less, as we would expect from any energy source that that doesn't mandate huge taxpayer subsidies to get power plants built. Up front bills for up front costs, unlike nuclear which requires huge public subsidies to be paid back over 40 - 60 years (in some instances, over time periods longer than the operating lifetime of the power plants).
There are no problems there, it is a smooth operation. I used to live nearby, there is no noise, or unsightliness due to it's location. It also has a very informative website.
http://www.palmsprings.com/services/wind1.html
Cheers! JBS
We can all cut back until we're powering our i-Pads from rubbing our hands - it does not address the real issue. It's just yet another incentive to make a profit out of misery.
Hey folks.. funny how this came about shortly after there were concerns over the purported "facts" for global warming.
From Guardian: Daniel Green, chief executive of HomeSun. "According to a report from Element Energy to be published in the next few weeks, the Fits cost around £220m yearly but generate £280m in taxes (jobs and VAT). Why cut a programme that is making money and making the green revolution accessible to everyday consumers?"