Japan's Nuclear Crisis and Its Impact on the Nuclear Industry
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-17/japans-nuclear-crisis-and-its-impact-nuclear-industry-0
Japan's crisis prompts new questions about the safety of nuclear power. An update on efforts to contain the risks in Japan and how the disaster could affect the nuclear power industry worldwide.
Guests
Chip Pardee
Chief Operating Officer for Exelon Generation, the nation’s largest owner and operator of nuclear plants.
Ellen Vancko
Nuclear Energy and Climate Change Project Manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists
Charles Ferguson
President of the Federation of American Scientists
Angie Howard
Former executive with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Now a consultant for companies involved in nuclear and science technology.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I think the nuclear industry is the logical successor to the fossil fuels profit center for the wealthy elite. It has the security state and contained toxicity going for it as a means of social control.
People who parasite off percentages love extorting exorbitant prices.
Technology is not neutral in shaping the political system through the imposition of controls and hierarchy. Decentralized power generation is more compatible with democracy. If you want all the political power in one place, put all the power generation capacity in one sector of society.
Decentralized power generation is the demise of empire and concentrated wealth. I knew Obama was a traitor to the public when he embraced new nuclear power generation and bigger transmission lines. The same enormous expenditures would translate to solar panels on every roof, a solar grill on every patio and a wind turbine in every yard. If a calculator can run on sunlight then so can a cellphone.
(I will not talk to the "Popular Science" brainwashees who think they can safely haul a mini-nuke plant on a flatbed truck. Cast off the jackpot profit motive and restore your sanity.)
Either this latest accident will result in a humane awakening or it will result in a universal police state and a dark age. Money is a polite fiction of the social contract, but radioactive contamination is an unalterable and permanent reality for all people.
Fukushima, Nagasaki, Hiroshima
All the good bodies
Have already been found
We came too late
To sensible conclusions
About nuclear energy
No reality show can fix it
No evangelist can turn it
To their advantage
Profitic passages are expurgated
From subsequent editions
All the good bodies
Have already been found
Predicting the end of the World
And causing the end
Are now merged into the same event
We could hear it approaching, and ran away
Now all the good bodies
Have already been found
Your header "Japan's nuclear crisis prompts new questions...", is a good "grabber", but incorrect. There aren't any "new" nuclear power questions. However, some old ones are now being answered.
One to which we should all be paying attention, assuming the eventual meltdown is controlled, is the amount Japan's government will ultimately tax its people for damages and reparations, to go with the loss of several nuclear facilities. The US Congress and several Presidents have implemented laws limiting the liability of nuclear plant owners and operators, thereby transferring the risk/cost to the US taxpayers. We will soon answer what these "contracts with America" cost when earthquakes or tsunamis hit nuclear plants.
Will we decide the risk is still worthwhile - or do we even have a choice, given the effects of burning fossil fuel, and a world population of 7.5 billion by 2050?
Your header "Japan's nuclear crisis prompts new questions...", is a good "grabber", but incorrect. There aren't any "new" nuclear power questions. However, some old ones are now being answered.
One to which we should all be paying attention, assuming the eventual meltdown is controlled, is the amount Japan's government will ultimately tax its people for damages and reparations, to go with the loss of several nuclear facilities. The US Congress and several Presidents have implemented laws limiting the liability of nuclear plant owners and operators, thereby transferring the risk/cost to the US taxpayers. We will soon answer what these "contracts with America" cost when earthquakes or tsunamis hit nuclear plants.
Will we decide the risk is still worthwhile - or do we even have a choice, given the effects of burning fossil fuel, and a world population of 7.5 billion by 2050?
Right on, Pancake Rankin! I agree with your post 100% And Shame on President Obama for endorsing nuclear power and shame on all those nuclear lobbyists on the hill this week doing spin/damage control while north eastern Japan is rapidly devolving into a nuclear exclusionary zone before our very eyes.
I would like to know where spent fuel from nuclear power plants is usually stored?
If a power plant were decommissioned, what would happen to the site?
If spent fuel must be kept on site indefinitely, wouldn't that site have to be maintained as a nuclear storage facility -- no longer providing power to the citizens of that region, yet requiring funds to maintain it as a nuclear waste storage site?
What kind of maintenance and security would be needed to protect such a site from environmental leakage and terrorism and who would pay for it, the State in which the site is located or the US Government under some kind of military procurement?
"We will decide (if) the risk is still worthwhile..."
Hey, fire1fl, nobody from the Big House has invited us plebes to decide anything. That's the pertinent issue. By expertise they claim us not qualified to decide our own fate. But the rational choice is plain and easy, (if we were allowed).
Pancake said it all:
Money is a polite fiction of the social contract.
Nuclear contamination is permanent and irreversible.
(Also implied) Sustainable sources of energy are not to the advantage of oligarchy and empire.
(Conclusion) We can live democratically (and well) with decentralized infrastructure which is feasible but not presently pursued.
(We can gradually arrive there but must start today to gradually shift out politics and technology which are wed for eternity.)
(Nostrum) Civilization is not compatible with the police state and wealth concentration resulting from a nuclear economy.
Why don't we start building THORIUM reactors?
Also cbrock: How much does decommissioning cost? (Multiply that by 104.)
Chipster: "I have to be careful... (what I admit although a rational answer would be simple and obvious). I should have started my conversation with sympathy (for our investors). The only lobbyist was me, Diane. (Isn't that why I'm here?)"
caferris: You've been reading too much "Popular Science."
Thorium is not exactly a magic buzzword anymore.
Operator training is not the problem in Japan. The demise of the reactors began with an extended loss of electricity needed to power cooling systems. What measures have been taken to prevent this from happening in the U.S.?
In addition, the main reason for inaccessibility to the reactors at present appears to be the radiation emanating from used fuel rods held in dried-up storage pools directly above the reactor vessels. Are U.S. storage ponds located at a safe distance from the reactors?
I don't find Mr. Pardee of Exelon very convincing about why it couldn't happen in the US. When asked why he talked about training, updated procedures, and updated regulation. This implies that Japan, which is even more at risk and has much higher cultural and political proclivity toward regulation, has been sitting on its hands for the past 30 years. How about a real answer?
The Huffington Post is reporting the following:
The California Diablo Canyon plant, which sits less than a mile from an offshore fault line is not required to have an emergency response plan for earthquakes because the commission is satisfied that the plant's structure will be able to withstand an earthquake in the area -- calculated as a maximum magnitude of 7.5.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/16/california-nuclear-emergency-re...
Just building the plants is Kamikazee! But we can't say "suicide mission." What kind of etiquette is that?
I agree with mcrawlins, the disaster has got little to do with operator training and upgraded procedures. The gentleman did not address at all the question whether U.S. plants are prepared to cope with an extended power outage as we saw happening in Japan.
Angie Howard's information is so dated and inaccurate (Ex: exaggeration of warhead reprocessing) then why is she your guest. Let the audience call her out. Diane knows what it's like to be without a voice. She should allow us one to save our planet, and not enable the corporate shills.
Oh boy, nothing is safe, so we should dance on the ledge of the Empire State Building!
Nuclear safety? I have two words: Homer. Simpson.
Nuclear Power is not considered a renewable energy source. Please correct your guest, the nuclear industry spokesperson.
Thank you.
Yesterday on News Hour there was a story related to Nuclear safety. I was shocked to see that a Nuclear power Plant was built on the shore I believe was in Florida. Does that make sense.
Second, the story as well as your programs fail to highlight a current problem with the nuclear Plant in Vermont. This is relevant and current.
Thirdly, in retrospect I now believe that all this Global Warming is, is about promoting a new economy and particularly with the promotion of Nuclear Industry.
Fourth, no offense but since NPR was intimidated back in 2007-2008 by the ex-chief of Voice of America I have noticed and increase of business donors and you, NPR, superficially or avoiding the true story-in particular Mr. Kojo.
Now that you are hooked on the money they are threatening to cut-off your funds-you should have seen that coming.
Diane,
This is a very lopsided panel that you've arranged for this discussion. Seriously, scientists and people actually educated in nuclear power? Where are the fanatical Serra Club activists or Greenpeace cultists?
How can you have a "serious" discussion about nuclear power without the proper, misinformed extremists shouting hyperbolic talking points? Just look at the comments from the peanut gallery, clearly no one is listening to actually learn about nuclear power, we want you to properly reinforce our irrational fear and paranoia!
The space shuttles were retired because there was a one in ten chance of fatal failure. This protected a crew of seven. Nuclear plants the same age have licenses extended repeatedly when millions of lives are at risk. We can't afford new space vehicles, but supposedly can build more future sarcophaguses.
Hi Diane, I am a Solar Energy company in Michigan. I notice in Japan that some homes still retained there solar panels...Then that brought the thought that IF a PV solar system was installed on the roof of the reactor I believe the out come could have been different? I know the battery system was only 6 hours , That could be expanded and powered by PV??
Mike Linsea 269-664-5435
Also the Question comes Is this an example of the Power companies would look like they endorse the Solar industry??
We need to get beyond this energy infighting...
The situation was addressed in such an extremely superficial manner that the program seemed about three minutes long.
More facts and less polite squabbling, please.
What a timely discussion, We should remember that any and all Nuke plants built on the margin of the Pacific Ring of Fire where plates are in collision can be, and most likely in their liftetime, will be in danger of impact from a major or even minor quake. As for the faults, there will be a continued breaking of the rock strata as any piece of crustal margin adjusts to the constant pressure of dynamic movement in the Earth's crust. We must build smaller and less vulnerable reactors much like what the US Navy uses on its vessels. They are easier to maintain and much less costly and the footprint in more adjustable to the demands of site and construction, not to mention cost. The economics in the short run are always in favor of the contractor building it and less for the customer.
As for coal, we are constantly hearing about reducing carbon. Lets be clear, the movement is about carbon dioxide, sulfides, NOx gases, and mercury. These are the things to discuss about coal, but carbon dioxide is not the primary culprit. We must utilize wisely what we now have for an advanced society while we develop and explore the future energy needs on the possibility of alternative energy to realistically meet those needs.
I truly enjoy your show and the Neuroscience Engineer you had on yesterday was awesome. Keep up the good work.
Question for nuclear facility experts:
In the event of a U.S. regional or national catastrophic prolonged power grid failure, what are the typical contingency plans for providing power to run those nuclear plant cooling towers?
Greetings sly apologist rkiliansmith:
It is not as if nuclear ships have not been lost at sea and not completely recovered. At present the British Navy is admitting problems and dangers with its nuclear submarine fleet. Think how insane it is to put a nuclear reactor on a floating platform that might be attacked in the event of war or armed conflict. The smallness of nuclear devices makes them more dangerous and not less because of terrorism and state terrorism. Will we disperse these little ones and police them like land mines?
No clean coal has yet been demonstrated, no matter the pollutant. Maybe the main danger from CO2 is methane release from minor heating with methane being a more powerful greenhouse gas. I can't believe any person wouldn't understand that burning (oxidation) of a chunk of carbon would not produce CO2.
By advanced society do you mean an energy wasting injustice system, or do you mean a well-informed public in a democracy?
Yep, the Brazilian brain surgeon in the repeat broadcast was a really sincere nice man who had his stuff together. The same cannot be said of the nuclear damage controllers on air today.
It is astounding that in today's discussion no one, in or out of the industry, addressed the issue of the spent rods and the problems they present in this catastrophe.
At one point on television it was stated that the operational life of the rods is about one year. I have no idea how many rods are in a given unit.
The big problem world wide is there is no acceptable solution to the safe disposal of these rods. Presently can we calculate just in the United States with 104 installations what is the annual accumulation of spent rods? This is a prime safety factor impacting today's calamity and the continuing use and development of nuclear energy throughout the world, I believe.
Is it wise for a nuclear facility to be running off its own power -- if that is indeed what it was doing -- with no hardwired backup to a cable that gets power from another power plant? Diesel generators only last so long on a tank of gas, and in this case were not adequately protected from water inundation and so suffered subsequent failure. But even if they had been fully functioning, the crisis in Japan after the earthquake and tsunami may have prevented diesel fuel to be delivered to the site.
Furthermore, they keep talking about Fukushima 1 as just a power plant, like any other non-nuclear power plant. But it is not just a power plant. It is also a nuclear waste storage facility. And at least one of the reactors could also be considered a type of nuclear waste recycling bin because it was using nuclear waste (plutonium, etc.) from France as fuel. Considering all the functions this plant was asked to perform, it was irresponsible of the owners and the government to allow it to have only one back-up power source.
I fully agree with mcrawlins. It defies credulity to suggest that the Japanese have not kept up with training, updated procedures, and updated regulation. I'm disappointed that Diane didn't call him on that assertion. And I find it difficult to have much faith in anything else he said given his propensity to color the facts.
All USA need a earth quake and more 111 nuclear plants start the same stuff Japan have.