Skip to main content

The Japan Quake, Nuclear Energy and the Daily Kos

By Eric McErlain
As you might imagine, I've been monitoring a lot of stories from around the Web about the situation in Japan. And as you might surmise, while an incident like this is always a cause for concern, it's not a cause for hysteria -- unless of course we're talking about the usual suspects.

One of the more egregious examples out there right now has to be this diary over at Daily Kos that mixes just enough truth with anti-nuke talking points to drum up all the fear and hysteria you might need.

But then again, even in the wake of the over the top analysis, there are a number of readers who are digging in and fighting back. Here are a few samples:
First, allow me to qualify my post by saying that I find the parent diary to be a fairly obnoxious throwback to the type of thinking from the 1970s that bought us another 30 years worth of CO2-spewing coal power, and the fact that it rocketed to the top of the recommended list speaks to Kossack's relative lack of detached analysis on the topic.

[...]

Waste disposal is expensive, yes, but its danger is highly overstated.

First, any byproducts that last for "thousands of years" aren't very radioactive to begin with (otherwise they would disintegrate much faster).

Also, you make it sound like nuclear waste gets dumped in streams, like mine tailings. It doesn't. The Yucca Mountain site was chosen for its geological stability and isolation from groundwater. The relative mass of spent nucler fuel (compared to say, coal slag) is tiny.

We have a similar plan in Canada in the works, basically to bury it a mile deep in a formation that hasn't moved for millions of years. The biggest obstacle to getting it done right now is public acceptance.

[...]

Two hundred have been killed in a Brazilian jetliner crash.

How many people are killed in coal mines every year? How many are injured, maimed or killed on offshore drilling platforms or by gas pipeline explosions, or are hit by coal trains?

What kinds of poisons leach out from the mines; from the oil fields, from the fly-ash disposal pits. What happens when petroleum coke is burned?

We ignore the dangers of everyday life and then use speculation as evidence that nuclear power is unsafe.
There's plenty more where those came from. If you choose to stop by and participate in the debate, please be courteous.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more