DITCH THE NUKES AND GO GREEN

[dothedd]

Lessons From Fukushima: The End Of The "Nuclear Safety" Paradigm
By Tommaso Dorigo | February 28th 2012 04:17 AM

Today Greenpeace issued the 52-page report "Lessons from Fukushima". In it the Japanese nuclear catastrophe is analyzed in detail, and its causes and consequences exposed. The report correctly focuses on a few crucial issues: the lack of accountability for the disastrous consequences of nuclear incidents, the lack of a correct approach to the potential risks involved in the production of nuclear energy, and the failure of proper emergency planning.

The document is very instructive to read. I found appalling the description of the many cover-ups of which TEPCO, the company running the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant, is responsible. These cover-ups, which attempted to avoid public concern over the claimed safety of the plants, have now been disclosed, but of course it is too late. The Japanese have already learned the lesson the hard way on March 11th last year.

Of special interest is reading about the fact that the tsunami danger had been largely predicted -I would say announced: one reads, for instance:
In its annual report, which have been made public since 2001, the Japan Energy Safety Organization (JNES) had predicted possible damage that a tsunami could cause to Mark 1 nuclear reactors at the Fukushima plant. One report said that if a breakwater expanding up to 13 m above sea level was hit by a 15 m high tsunami, all power sources would be knocked out - including outside electricity and emergency power generators. In such a situation, the repoirt said, cooling functions would be lost and the reactor core would be 100% damaged -a meltdown, in other words. The breakwater at the Fukushima n.1 plant was 5.5m high.

Even more ironic -if one can still have the power of appreciating irony when dealing with such dramatic and recklessly profit-driven risk management- is the following paragraph:
In a unfortunate twist of fate, TEPCO informed NISA [the Nuclear and Industry Safety Agency in Japan] that the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant could be hit by a tsunami exceeding 10 meters while the plant was only designed to withstand a tsunami of 5.7 meters, just few days before the earthquake and tsunamy triggered the three meltdowns of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear station. After the accident, it was revelaed that the warning came from a in-house TEPCO 2008 study that company officials had dismissed as "unrealistic".

In the end, one is bound to ask whether we can still talk of nuclear safety, or rather of nuclear risk. The report takes a clear stand in favour of the latter, and justifies this by plain math:

By 2011 the world had accumulated just over 14,000 years of reactor operating experience. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety guidelines state that the frequency of actual core damage should be less than one in 100,000 years. Hence, with more than 400 reactors operating worldwide, a significant reactor accident would be expected to occur approximately once every 250 years.

But, as the report clarifies, in those 14,000 years we have witnessed five core accidents: the Three-Mile Island one in 1979, the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and the three reactors in Fukushima in 2011. Even considering the latter as a single accident, one is left to compare an observed rate of 3/14000, or one disaster per 4700 year per plant (equivalent to about one disaster per 12 years in the current situation) to the prediceted one-per-250 years. So the real question to me is, when is the next disaster going to happen ? Probably not far in the future. There is a 10% chance that it will occur in the next year or so -and it might be the plant next door.

Another way to look at it is with Poisson statistics. If one were to take at face value the core damage rate of 1-in-100,000 years IAEA standard, allegedly fulfilled by modern-day plants, one might compute the The probability that a rate of 0.14 produces 0, 1, or 2 events is then

P(0-2;ì=0.14) =
= P(0)+P(1)+P(2) =
= exp(-0.14) + 0.14*exp(-0.14) + 0.14^2*exp(-0.14)/2

which equals 0.999588: so the probability of getting three or more core incidents is 1-P=0.000412. In other words, the probability that the nuclear plants work by the stated standards of the IAEA is less than half a permille. The "null hypothesis" that the IAEA rate is what exists in the 400 operating plants is discarded by any of the typical test sizes -be it 0.10, 0.05, or even three sigma. Food for thought.probability of getting three or more accidents in 14,000 years of operation by simple math: the predicted rate is 14000/100000=0.14 events, while the actual rate is 3 events.

[The Virginian]

With the abundance of natural gas in the Americas there is no need to build Nuclear Reactors. It's not that I find Reactors objectionable if they are needed but rather I have to ask why build something so expensive when we have a 200+ year supply of cheap natural gas? It just does not make sense, practically or economically. I was going to buy stock in SO until I found out they were approved to build a Nuclear Plant. That shows a lack of fiscal responsibility in my eyes.

[dothedd]

MOTHER NATURE, by nature, has boundless capabilities to render nuclear unsafe as an energy resource, and IMO has the potential of being the most poisonous, and contaminating fuel on the planet.

The total negative consequence of Japan’s recent nuclear plant disruption will not be known for decades.


10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/nuclear_energy.html


marinedebris.noaa.gov/info/japanfaqs.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2075110/First-Japanese-tsunami-debris-washes-West-Coast-9-months-disaster.html

[Virgil Showlion]

The math checks out for debunking the IAEA estimate.

The fact that the actual rate is one disaster per plant per 4,700 years hopefully isn't lost on anyone, though. Only three such events having occurred should give you a fair idea of just how many nuclear reactors are in use.

[bimetalaupt]

Mar 1, 2012 15:03:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The math checks out for debunking the IAEA estimate.

The fact that the actual rate is one disaster per plant per 4,700 years hopefully isn't lost on anyone, though. Only three such events having occurred should give you a fair idea of just how many nuclear reactors are in use.

Virgil Sovereign,
Yes BUT the next generation (Generation 4) will be safer then the current generation and will not need the amount of water as they can run on H2 or make it.

I also think the FLAT Top USS ford with its latest system will have a 50 year life of the energy and will not be needing to be refiled. Several of the generation after that will use spent fuel to power them.

Just a thought,
Bruce

[dothedd]

Thanks, Virgil for your input!

Mother Nature at work:

Updated: Feb 28, 2012 4:50 PM EST

Ohio nuclear plant owner: Weather caused cracks
TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) - The owner of an Ohio nuclear plant along Lake Erie says a lack of exterior weatherproofing coating caused concrete to crack in the outer shell protecting the plant.

FirstEnergy Corp. told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the exterior cracking at the Davis-Besse (BEHS'-ee) plant near Toledo traces back to a 1978 blizzard when wind, rain and a drastic temperature drop caused moisture to penetrate the concrete. The Blade newspaper (http://bit.ly/woM18U ) reports the utility says the moisture caused the concrete to freeze and expand, prompting the cracks found in October.

FirstEnergy is proposing it could apply a weatherproofing coating and make sure the cracks haven't spread. It also proposes a long-term monitoring plan.

The NRC allowed the plant to begin producing electricity again in December after the first cracks were found.

Mother Nature, and .. Human Error!

[dothedd]

Madison’s Abandoned Nuclear Power Plant at Marble Hill

madisonindiana.us/madisons-abandoned-nuclear-power-plant/

[dothedd]

Electrical Fire Knocks Out Spent Fuel Cooling at Nebraska Nuclear Plant

The safety of spent fuel pools, as at the Fort Calhoun plant outside Omaha, has been an issue since the accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant

By John Sullivan and ProPublica | June 9, 2011
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=electrical-fire-knocks-out-spent-fuel-cooling-nebraska-nuclear-plant

[Virgil Showlion]

I realize that reactors designs are improving as time goes on, Bruce, but the problems thus far seem to have been due to totally unexpected contingencies.

Chernobyl was due to huge pressure from the Soviets to increase output, prompting the plant operators to disable safeties across the board. Fukushima was caused by an unexpectedly severe Tsunami combined with falsified engineering reports about damaged reactor housing. The Three Mile Island incident was caused by a combination of multiple mechanical failures, human error, and bad indicator lights (of all things).

The circumstances in each case were unique, and I expect that if (when) another reactor meltdown occurs, the causes will be just as unexpected and resistant to counter-engineering.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very pro-nuclear. I just don't think we've seen the last nuclear accident of this quarter-century.

[dothedd]

Skeptical crowd questions safety at Browns Ferry nuclear plant

Published: Wednesday, June 01, 2011, 9:05 AM
Updated: Wednesday, June 01, 2011, 10:03 AM

blog.al.com/breaking/2011/06/skeptical_crowd_attends_meetin.html

"Because the tornado cut outside power to Browns Ferry, it had to rely on diesel generators for electricity to run the reactors' cooling systems. That was the same kind of backup system that failed at Fukushima when it was hit by a tsunami triggered by an earthquake. At Browns Ferry after the tornado, one of the generators was shut down when it started leaking oil. Backup systems can fail. Stuff happens."

[dothedd]

A GREAT RESOURCE: fairewinds.com/

Later,

dot

[bimetalaupt]

Mar 1, 2012 16:29:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I realize that reactors designs are improving as time goes on, Bruce, but the problems thus far seem to have been due to totally unexpected contingencies.

Chernobyl was due to huge pressure from the Soviets to increase output, prompting the plant operators to disable safeties across the board. Fukushima was caused by an unexpectedly severe Tsunami combined with falsified engineering reports about damaged reactor housing. The Three Mile Island incident was caused by a combination of multiple mechanical failures, human error, and bad indicator lights (of all things).

The circumstances in each case were unique, and I expect that if (when) another reactor meltdown occurs, the causes will be just as unexpected and resistant to counter-engineering.

Don't get me wrong. I'm very pro-nuclear. I just don't think we've seen the last nuclear accident of this quarter-century.

V.S.,
WE are at the point where it is going to cost huge funds to go either to plasma or recycling wasted hot Uranium. I like plasma.. It powers my algae farm!! We are also selling a lot of wood chips to Germany.. You should see the exports At Port Arthur of wood pellets.
Anyway you look at it we have the hot stuff to do something with, might as well us it to power the next generation (4th Generation) nuclear power plant. I can use the hot water waste to cook my algae slurry.
Did I say mesquite wood burns very hot!!! and we make pellets from it and ship it to Germany!! because they are getting out of the nuclear.
Just a thought,
BiMetalAuPt

[wyouser]

It may be worthwhile for policymakers to obseve developments in Germany as they wove away from nuclear and expand "green" alternatives. According to DWTV some cities have mandated the installation of solar panals on ALL roofs inside thwe cities. This is causing massive rent increases causing large numbers of folks to leave as they cannot pay the increased rents neccessary to pay for the uprades. Does this portend ever larger government expenditures for programs like LEAP here? Bruce, I remain intrigued with the algae possibilities going forwward.

[Virgil Showlion]

I've never seen a biomass proposal that made dollars and sense. If you think can make it happen with an industrial waste product that would otherwise be discarded, maybe you'll get lucky. As far as investing in it, my green bux are going elsewhere.

[bimetalaupt]

Mar 2, 2012 17:58:10 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I've never seen a biomass proposal that made dollars and sense. If you think can make it happen with an industrial waste product that would otherwise be discarded, maybe you'll get lucky. As far as investing in it, my green bux are going elsewhere.

V.S. Our cost for the oil is down to $95.8/bbl.. add to that what we really want.. Protein for cows, extracts of B.Braunii rich in Beta carotenes and 6-omega oil.. I have been working on the business plan for three days now..but the return on capital is only 4.8%. Will not cover CAPX with a beta of 1.5. with oil at 125 (Brent heavy) or 108( WTI).

Great Point,
BiMetalAuPt

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

BTI I swear, you should factor in MASSIVE amounts of alge from a massive lake with massive agriculture runoff problems.. Just my thought..

for you all your hard work!

I see what your point about the tread is DOT. The CURRENT reactors are a big problem. I think what Bruce is saying is that all this HOT waste is out there and the new 4th gen plants will burn that shit off and make some nice slurry for algae and clean oil. We HAVE to do something with the uranium and fuel rods that are in place today, the best thing to do is build safer plants that will use it to power homes and business.

Have you looked at Thourum DOT?

[bimetalaupt]

Mar 2, 2012 23:26:00 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

BTI I swear, you should factor in MASSIVE amounts of alge from a massive lake with massive agriculture runoff problems.. Just my thought..

for you all your hard work!

I see what your point about the tread is DOT. The CURRENT reactors are a big problem. I think what Bruce is saying is that all this HOT waste is out there and the new 4th gen plants will burn that shit off and make some nice slurry for algae and clean oil. We HAVE to do something with the uranium and fuel rods that are in place today, the best thing to do is build safer plants that will use it to power homes and business.

Have you looked at Thourum DOT?

Yes,
Right out here in the oil patch..Odessa,Tx we are building a thorium Reactor..Start the reaction off with 239PL that make more Thorium-232 reactive to U-233.. the first of the 4th generation Thorium Cycle reactor

Existing thorium energy projects

The German THTR-300 was the first commercial power station powered almost entirely with Thorium. India's 300 MWe AHWR CANDU type reactor will begin construction in 2011. The design envisages a start up with reactor grade plutonium which will breed U-233 from Th-232. After that the input will only be thorium for the rest of the reactor's design life.[37]

The primary fuel of the HT3R Project near Odessa, Texas, USA will be ceramic-coated thorium beads. The earliest date the reactor will become operational is in 2015.[38]
Just a thought,
BiMetalAuPt

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Also, these plants could be used to get rid of the current Uranium stockpiles as well..

Is Thorium the Biggest Energy Breakthrough Since Fire? Possibly.
www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/09/11/is-thorium-the-biggest-energy-breakthrough-since-fire-possibly/

What if we could build a nuclear reactor that offered no possibility of a meltdown, generated its power inexpensively, created no weapons-grade by-products, and burnt up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles? And what if the waste produced by such a reactor was radioactive for a mere few hundred years rather than tens of thousands? It may sound too good to be true, but such a reactor is indeed possible, and a number of teams around the world are now working to make it a reality. What makes this incredible reactor so different is its fuel source: thorium.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

It seems like Thorium is really taking off. The safety issue is front and center, with the recent crisis in Japan that shouldn't be a surprise. I thought these were some pretty promising trends emerging.. It's the LEGO BTI!!!!

Small Reactors Make a Bid to Revive Nuclear Power
Can small, LEGO-like reactors help create better prospects for the nuclear industry?
www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=small-reactors-bid-to-revive-nuclear-power

Nuclear Energy Accidents May Become Thing of Past
www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2012/04/18/nuclear-energy-accidents-may-become-thing-of-past/

Let there be thorium
www.cottagecountrynow.ca/opinion/letters/article/1338058--let-there-be-thorium

Chinalco hits thorium bonus with copper discovery
www.heraldsun.com.au/business/in-the-black/chinalco-hits-thorium-bonus-with-copper-discovery/story-e6frfinf-1226332145123

[dothedd]

Mar 1, 2012 16:38:54 GMT -5 dothedd said:

A GREAT RESOURCE: fairewinds.com/

Later,

dot

March 25, 2012
Tokyo Soil Samples Would Be Considered Nuclear Waste In The US

While traveling in Japan several weeks ago, Fairewinds’ Arnie Gundersen took soil samples in Tokyo public parks, playgrounds, and rooftop gardens. All the samples would be considered nuclear waste if found here in the US. This level of contamination is currently being discovered throughout Japan. At the US NRC Regulatory Information Conference in Washington, DC March 13 to March 15, the NRC's Chairman, Dr. Gregory Jaczko emphasized his concern that the NRC and the nuclear industry presently do not consider the costs of mass evacuations and radioactive contamination in their cost benefit...
CONTINUED: www.fairewinds.org/

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Tired to check out that link... Looks like food imports to Japan are going to go through the roof... That's why we need to decommission old plants and get onto the new gen that get rid of old rods and use ones that won't melt down...

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

We have captured the plutonium signature, I would imagine that this makes it easier to make things like re processing happen. Plus thorium looks like it might catch on.

Scientists take a giant step forward in understanding plutonium
www.physnews.com/physics-news/cluster243839226/

Nuclear transmutation is a cool idea for a hot problem
www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428662.700-nuclear-transmutation-is-a-cool-idea-for-a-hot-problem.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=energy-fuels

Nuclear alchemy: Thorium promises power from waste
www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428661.400-nuclear-alchemy-thorium-promises-power-from-waste.html

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Hey dot,

I came across this article the other day and I thought of this thread. It's truly amazing what nature is capable of. Climate change due to human activity? More like a bunch of kids peeing in the same water they drink. Imagine, all we have to do as a species is grow up and respect ourselves, each other, and our environment where we live.

God Bless,



3 Years After Fukushima, Life Returns in the Sea

[tyfighter3]

H2O, isn't it worderfull. A cure-all over time if you let it do it's work.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Ty! Good to hear from ya my friend. No doubt hey? Good ole nature. Also thought this was interesting..

Tsunami cleanup project finding less debris than predicted

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

How about a better way to deal with "radioactive waste?"

-My Turn: Time to take fresh look at nuclear recycling
-Consider nuclear fuel recycling in U.S.

[bimetalaupt]

Oct 14, 2014 23:18:42 GMT -5 Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger said:

How about a better way to deal with "radioactive waste?"

-My Turn: Time to take fresh look at nuclear recycling
-Consider nuclear fuel recycling in U.S.

Thorium cycle from London

www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21600656-thorium-element-named-after-norse-god-thunder-may-soon-contribute

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Yeah, , best way to get rid of the "waste" is to burn it with Thorium. I thought the point about how Jimmy C decided not to recycle nuclear byproducts is the reason we have waste. Essentially, a non issue that was turned into a big problem because of a politician. Typical?