Skip to main content

The Second Earthquake

Rokkasho World Nuclear News reports what happened after this morning’s earthquake in Japan.

The Ministry of Economy Trade and Industry (Meti) said that seawater pumping to cool the reactor cores of Fukushima Daiichi 1, 2 and 3 continued after a brief evacuation on a tsunami warning.

That’s good.

The single reactor at Higashidori is offline for maintenance and its full core load of fuel is within the used fuel pond. When power from the grid was disrupted, cooling was maintained by emergency diesel generators. The Rokkasho reprocessing plant also lost grid power and is currently maintained by its diesels.

And that’s what’s supposed to happen in these circumstances. All good.

---

Polls have been showing some, but not dire, slippage in support for nuclear energy. One should always wait until a crisis is over before polling the crisis, because attitudes are going to be all over the place. It’s hard to really pin down attitudes while the news is full of both fully and half-baked assertions.

The Atlantic’s Nicholas Jackson writes about a social media tool that acts somewhat as a pollster:

Social Radar, a tool developed by Infegy that monitors activity on social media, was used to build a comprehensive report on the feelings surrounding nuclear energy by analyzing conversations across multiple platforms on April 1. The report, released this morning, "shows dramatic shifts and complex attitudes in the public's perception of nuclear energy before and after a massive 9.0 earthquake hit  Japan and caused ongoing problems at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant on March 11, 2001," according to a press release that accompanied the report's publication.

That’s not exactly something you needed a tool to figure that out. But it gets more interesting:

After analyzing more than 40 million "online conversations," Infegy concluded that public perception of nuclear energy prior to the earthquake was high; it took a sharp turn on the 11th. Seventy-six percent of online conversations concerning nuclear energy were positive leading up to March 10, according to the report. By March 13, 62 percent of all conversations were negative. A few days later, public sentiment had evened out a bit, with Infegy's analysis showing a near 50/50 split between negative and positive perception.

I’d probably avoid the idea that social media users are reflective of “public sentiment,” since it’s an amorphous group that does not provide a true cross section of the population. Still, the pattern is the same here as for polls – negative when the events in Japan were at their most active, with moderation following. Jackson is surprised by this:

The most shocking thing about these findings is that the public's perception of nuclear energy has returned so quickly to the positive. And it could be on the rise.

Actually, not the least bit surprising. The news always stresses the worst case scenarios, as it does in any such event, but when these fail to happen, there’s nothing left with which to gin up fear. And nuclear energy ceases to be frightening. See the posts on Pew, Gallup, and Harris for more on polls and polling.

The Rokkasho reprocessing plant.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...