Today Japan's electricity providers released their end-of-year financial reports. All but 2 are in arrears, because of fuel costs for 'thermal' power generation (ie, greenhouse-gas intensive fossil fuels). Costs have been rising both because the importation of LNG has become more expensive in general, and because of the weakening yen. These costs are on top of the extensive expenditure needed to keep their nuclear power plants maintained in the hopes of eventual restart.
TEPCO announced a massive loss of 685 billion yen (6.8 billion dollars). In addition to running their power plants on imported fossil fuels, the electricity provider has also had to deal with the situation at Fukushima (408 million dollars) and pay compensation claims for the evacuees and cleanup (another 11 billion dollars!).
It hardly needs saying that the vast bulk of this expenditure is unnecessary. As the accident neither killed or harmed anybody, evacuation and its associated problems were avoidable. Costs of decommissioning Fukushima Daiichi would of course be considerable, but nothing like the massive losses that have been incurred as a result of Japan turning its back on nuclear power.
Tuesday 30 April 2013
Monday 15 April 2013
Nuclear power -saving millions of lives.
James Hansen was NASA's former point man on climate change and is famed for his testimony on the issue for congressional committees in America. Recently he has become a high-profile advocate for the more widespread adoption of nuclear power, both in the fight against global warming and because of its other obvious advantages over fossil fuels.
The health dangers of burning coal are well-documented; coal pollution kills between 1 and 2 million people annually. On the other hand it has long been known that nuclear power is a much safer way to produce electricity. The number of people killed by nuclear power is orders of magnitude fewer than the number killed by coal, even with the most pessimistic of unproven assumptions.
But until now nobody has tried to estimate the number of lives saved by nuclear power. James Hansen and co-author Pushker Karecha have published a new paper with NASA's Goddard Institute that has put a figure on this. The study is a masterpiece of understated but hugely important findings. The most important finding is that from 1971 until now, nuclear energy has prevented 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths, including 160,000 in Japan alone.
And depending on how many nuclear plants are built and on what fuel it replaces, nuclear power will prevent between 420,000 and 7.04 million deaths by 2050.
These statistics do not take into account damage and deaths caused by climate change. If used to prevent global carbon dioxide emissions by substituting for the burning of coal, nuclear power could be even more effective at death prevention.
This is the kind of story that many so-called environmentalists chose to ignore. Others such as James Hansen have accepted that the only realistic way to both address the world's energy needs and reduce global carbon dioxide emissions is through the embrace of nuclear technology.
The health dangers of burning coal are well-documented; coal pollution kills between 1 and 2 million people annually. On the other hand it has long been known that nuclear power is a much safer way to produce electricity. The number of people killed by nuclear power is orders of magnitude fewer than the number killed by coal, even with the most pessimistic of unproven assumptions.
But until now nobody has tried to estimate the number of lives saved by nuclear power. James Hansen and co-author Pushker Karecha have published a new paper with NASA's Goddard Institute that has put a figure on this. The study is a masterpiece of understated but hugely important findings. The most important finding is that from 1971 until now, nuclear energy has prevented 1.8 million air pollution-related deaths, including 160,000 in Japan alone.
And depending on how many nuclear plants are built and on what fuel it replaces, nuclear power will prevent between 420,000 and 7.04 million deaths by 2050.
These statistics do not take into account damage and deaths caused by climate change. If used to prevent global carbon dioxide emissions by substituting for the burning of coal, nuclear power could be even more effective at death prevention.
This is the kind of story that many so-called environmentalists chose to ignore. Others such as James Hansen have accepted that the only realistic way to both address the world's energy needs and reduce global carbon dioxide emissions is through the embrace of nuclear technology.
Friday 12 April 2013
More from the Japan Times
The J.Times is turning into a battlefield over the nuclear issue. This may be good for its circulation, but it demonstrates neatly part of the whole problem: the media benefits by keeping an artificial controversy alive. If decisions were made on a rational basis, and newspaper articles were fact-checked against the scientific consensus, there would be no 'battleground'.
So in the last few weeks,
I wrote a letter in reply to this misinformed piece, which makes the common fundamental mistake of supposing that the Fukushima accident is part of Japan's decline, rather than the country's nuclear retreat being the problem.
So in the last few weeks,
I wrote a letter in reply to this misinformed piece, which makes the common fundamental mistake of supposing that the Fukushima accident is part of Japan's decline, rather than the country's nuclear retreat being the problem.
Nuclear retreat signals decline
In his March 12 Community page article, “Do dire predictions for Japan factor in a rush for the exits?,” Colin P.A. Jones makes a tragic error, an error repeated all too often in the media by those critical of both nuclear power and Japan’s general direction. He sees the government’s response to the Fukushima accident as symptomatic of a deeper malaise in Japan itself. This is wrong for two reasons.
For one, the government’s handling of the situation, despite problems, has been praised by international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency. If anything, authorities were overcautious in response to an accident that resulted in zero deaths or injuries. More importantly, far from the Fukushima accident illustrating the government’s misplaced priorities, Japan’s retreat from nuclear power is part of its general decline.
This irony is not lost on observers of Japan’s economic and diplomatic rival, China, which has displayed a much more pragmatic and rational approach to nuclear energy.
Following the accident at Fukushima, that country launched a nationwide safety review. Construction resumed last year, and there are now 30 plants under construction.
China’s nuclear boom is emblematic of the country’s economic and technological growth, and those plants will provide power to the nation’s factories, many of which, by the way, are busy making things once made in Japan. By comparison, Japan seems obsessed with navel-gazing and is even considering a permanent return to the evils of coal, oil and gas.
It’s enough to make anyone “rush for the exits.”
I thought at first the letter had dissappeared without making much of a splash, but in fact it elicicited this counter-letter. The author brings up the issue of '13,000' deaths caused by the evacuation, when in reality people who died in the evacuation were killed not by radiation, but by Fear of Radiation, a very different beast indeed.
Then, like every other person opposed to nuclear power he is faced with the dilemma of how to deal with its ability to generate electricity without producing carbon emissions. In response he chooses to deny the reality of global warming.
When it comes to the issue of climate change, nuclear power has the incredible ability to mitigate global warming while still providing colossal amounts of energy. This is a truly game-changing capability. Every person opposed to nuclear power must either ignore this ability, an indefensible hypocrisy, or argue the route of climate change denialism.
This is a stark choice indeed.
For one, the government’s handling of the situation, despite problems, has been praised by international bodies like the International Atomic Energy Agency. If anything, authorities were overcautious in response to an accident that resulted in zero deaths or injuries. More importantly, far from the Fukushima accident illustrating the government’s misplaced priorities, Japan’s retreat from nuclear power is part of its general decline.
This irony is not lost on observers of Japan’s economic and diplomatic rival, China, which has displayed a much more pragmatic and rational approach to nuclear energy.
Following the accident at Fukushima, that country launched a nationwide safety review. Construction resumed last year, and there are now 30 plants under construction.
China’s nuclear boom is emblematic of the country’s economic and technological growth, and those plants will provide power to the nation’s factories, many of which, by the way, are busy making things once made in Japan. By comparison, Japan seems obsessed with navel-gazing and is even considering a permanent return to the evils of coal, oil and gas.
It’s enough to make anyone “rush for the exits.”
I thought at first the letter had dissappeared without making much of a splash, but in fact it elicicited this counter-letter. The author brings up the issue of '13,000' deaths caused by the evacuation, when in reality people who died in the evacuation were killed not by radiation, but by Fear of Radiation, a very different beast indeed.
Then, like every other person opposed to nuclear power he is faced with the dilemma of how to deal with its ability to generate electricity without producing carbon emissions. In response he chooses to deny the reality of global warming.
When it comes to the issue of climate change, nuclear power has the incredible ability to mitigate global warming while still providing colossal amounts of energy. This is a truly game-changing capability. Every person opposed to nuclear power must either ignore this ability, an indefensible hypocrisy, or argue the route of climate change denialism.
This is a stark choice indeed.
Wednesday 10 April 2013
The NRA approves new safety guidelines - Human incredulity tested.
The Japanese Nuclear Regulation Authority today approved a new set of safety guidelines for nuclear power plants, possibly as a test of human wastefulness, overreaction and incredulity.
The draft guidelines, which will be finalised by July, include requirements for the construction of earthquake-proof command centres that have food and supplies to last a week without outside aid. Also required is the installation of filters designed to release pressure from containment vessels but filter out radioactive substances in the case of accident. The most absurd rule (in my view) is that plants build seawalls that can protect the site from the maximum predicted tsunami height.
Plant operators have estimated that upgrading existing reactors to comply with these guidelines will cost about 10.8 billion dollars.
Is it really possible that such overreaction can take place as a consequence of an accident that killed or injured noone? It's like some kind of surreal dream.
The seawall requirement I find to be particularly irksome. It was not the lack of a suitably high seawall that caused the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, it was simply the fact that generators that powered the cooling systems were not placed above flood level, leading to the meltdowns.
Building massive seawalls around every seaside nuclear plant in Japan will achieve nothing except the enrichment of concrete and fossil fuel companies. That Japan is ordering plant operators to prepare for a tsunami event that occurs every 800 years yet is easily mitigated by placing generators on higher ground is bad enough. Worse is the naked disrespect for actual people's lives this demonstrates. If the NRA really prioritized human safety, it would mandate the construction of seawalls around residential areas. In the current plans, the only thing that will happen in case of a disastrous tsunami is that the nuclear plants will be untouched while nearby residents drown in their thousands, which indeed is what happened in Fukushima two years ago.
Perhaps the NRA should consider the human implications of the construction of a 20-metre seawall.
The draft guidelines, which will be finalised by July, include requirements for the construction of earthquake-proof command centres that have food and supplies to last a week without outside aid. Also required is the installation of filters designed to release pressure from containment vessels but filter out radioactive substances in the case of accident. The most absurd rule (in my view) is that plants build seawalls that can protect the site from the maximum predicted tsunami height.
Plant operators have estimated that upgrading existing reactors to comply with these guidelines will cost about 10.8 billion dollars.
Is it really possible that such overreaction can take place as a consequence of an accident that killed or injured noone? It's like some kind of surreal dream.
The seawall requirement I find to be particularly irksome. It was not the lack of a suitably high seawall that caused the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, it was simply the fact that generators that powered the cooling systems were not placed above flood level, leading to the meltdowns.
Building massive seawalls around every seaside nuclear plant in Japan will achieve nothing except the enrichment of concrete and fossil fuel companies. That Japan is ordering plant operators to prepare for a tsunami event that occurs every 800 years yet is easily mitigated by placing generators on higher ground is bad enough. Worse is the naked disrespect for actual people's lives this demonstrates. If the NRA really prioritized human safety, it would mandate the construction of seawalls around residential areas. In the current plans, the only thing that will happen in case of a disastrous tsunami is that the nuclear plants will be untouched while nearby residents drown in their thousands, which indeed is what happened in Fukushima two years ago.
Perhaps the NRA should consider the human implications of the construction of a 20-metre seawall.
Monday 8 April 2013
Radioactive ... water!
Wide news coverage today over new leaks from the storage tanks at Fukushima Daiichi.
It seems there have been leaks from two water tanks built to store contaminated water used in the cooling of the three stricken reactors. Last Friday one of the pools leaked 120 tons of contaminated water. Last night a further 3 liters leaked from another storage tank.
The Japan Times weighed in with a fairly measured piece that reported the larger of the two leaks poured 710 billion becquerels of radiation into the environment (apparently the ground under the tank). What they didn't attempt to include however was any assessment of what 710 billion becquerels might mean. Which is, basically, not a lot. Once diluted in the largest body of water on the globe - the Pacific Ocean - this radiation will be far below natural background levels. It will still be detectable over large areas, but only because scientists have the means to measure extraordinarily low concentrations of radioactive particles from artificial sources.
Essentially this leak, like all the other leaks since the end of March 2011, is not an issue that seriously concerns nuclear scientists. What is far more interesting than yet another minor hiccup in a huge industrial clean-up is the usual overreaction on the part of the anti-nuclear press.
Just the comments after this cherry-picked rubbish piece should give pause to any skeptical thinker. There is an unbelievable level of confirmation bias and unwarranted extrapolation that, well, you just don't find on pro-nuclear sites. The level of groupthink is truly depressing.
It seems there have been leaks from two water tanks built to store contaminated water used in the cooling of the three stricken reactors. Last Friday one of the pools leaked 120 tons of contaminated water. Last night a further 3 liters leaked from another storage tank.
The Japan Times weighed in with a fairly measured piece that reported the larger of the two leaks poured 710 billion becquerels of radiation into the environment (apparently the ground under the tank). What they didn't attempt to include however was any assessment of what 710 billion becquerels might mean. Which is, basically, not a lot. Once diluted in the largest body of water on the globe - the Pacific Ocean - this radiation will be far below natural background levels. It will still be detectable over large areas, but only because scientists have the means to measure extraordinarily low concentrations of radioactive particles from artificial sources.
Essentially this leak, like all the other leaks since the end of March 2011, is not an issue that seriously concerns nuclear scientists. What is far more interesting than yet another minor hiccup in a huge industrial clean-up is the usual overreaction on the part of the anti-nuclear press.
Just the comments after this cherry-picked rubbish piece should give pause to any skeptical thinker. There is an unbelievable level of confirmation bias and unwarranted extrapolation that, well, you just don't find on pro-nuclear sites. The level of groupthink is truly depressing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)