Skip to main content

Editorial Round Up

By

Nicholas Kristof over at the New York Times offers a tribute to the Fukushima workers:

The selflessness, stoicism and discipline in Japan these days are epitomized by those workers at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, uncomplainingly and anonymously risking dangerous doses of radiation as they struggle to prevent a complete meltdown that would endanger their fellow citizens.

[…]

I hope that some day Japan will erect another symbol of loyalty and dedication to duty: a statue of those nuclear plant workers.

I do too. There have been many, many heroic deeds performed throughout Japan over the last week – perhaps the Fukushima workers can stand as a symbol of the “selflessness, stoicism and discipline” displayed by so many.

Kristof has a larger point to make about what Americans could learn from the Japanese, but I found that part less interesting – the ideal combination of human qualities has yet to settle on one culture. But making it a personal project to adopt qualities one admires is never a bad idea. Read the whole thing for Kristof’s whole argument.

---

More, from the Santa Rosa (Calif.) Press Democrat:

While many within 50 miles of the facility have fled the area, an estimated 180 workers were still at the site late last week. Wearing protective gear, they have been pumping seawater into the heated reactors, trying to run new power lines, dumping water from helicopters and doing whatever is possible to try to prevent fuel rods from overheating. They’ve been working in short shifts inside the plant to limit their exposure to radiation. Japanese authorities had to raise the maximum radiation exposure limits to allow them to do so.

Dreadful cartoon illustrating it though.

---

The Knoxville News weighs in:

Nuclear power is essential to the future energy needs of the country. Safety is essential to the future well-being of area residents. The Obama administration has a responsibility to review and, where necessary, improve the safety of the nuclear power plants in our midst.

This seems to be the prevailing theme in many editorials. Nothing to disagree with here. Var897Here’s another example, from the Greensboro News-Record:

But over-reacting now could jeopardize steady progress the nation has made toward reducing unhealthy air pollution linked to dated coal-fired power plants. Environmentalists blame thousands of deaths on emissions from their smokestacks. The timing couldn’t be worse for the Obama administration, which seeks congressional funding for a low-emission nuclear system to replace the dominant coal-stoked facilities.

You could call this the somewhat pessimistic version of the theme. The concern and interest is more than appreciated and a lot of editorials, however they come at, all focus on the qualities that nuclear energy brings to the energy conversation.

Labels:

Comments

Fred Z said…
What I find ironic about the Kristof comment is that this sort of selfless heroism is actually far more commonplace than we routinely acknowledge. Every day across the globe millions or tens of millions of people do necessary jobs that involve daily risk to life. People rock.
March 21, 2011 at 9:03 AM
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