IN an article entitled ‘Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power’ environmental activist and Guardian columnist, George Monbiot, explains why he favours nuclear over many renewable…
“A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.
“Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I’m not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.
Read more here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks Jen, good to see that a green supporter and AGW believer accepts that for base load power in Britain there is no other viable alternative to nuclear. Pity he did not consider Thorium although I believe a British government backed committee is looking its viablity and how it can be introduced. While Australia has plenty of cheap coal and gas the country should also be considering a Thorium nuclear plant somewhere mainly to become familiar with the technology but also to replace all the money being absolutely wasted on solar and wind generation.
All I hope is that Monbiot is genuine and really does believe in nuclear power.
Just listened to the Bolter tease the revelation of all time out of silly Flannery.
What a whacko this bloke is pushing this whacko religion, but let me explain.
He now says the whole world could cease emitting co2 today and it might not make any difference to the climate for a thousand years.
Please read Bolt’s column tomorrow for a transcript of this bizarre interview or listen to the interview on his site later today.
So the world spends countless trillions forever and not even a dozen generations into the future would notice the difference in the climate.
Best have a look at this article in The Guardian:
“George Monbiot is wrong. Nuclear power is not the way to fight climate changeRenewable energy is a safe, clean source which will become cheaper as we invest in it”
Share166 Comments (386)
Jeremy Leggett The Guardian, Thursday 24 March 2011
See also Amory Lovins
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/insidenova/2011/03/nuclear-lovins.html
Parallel arguments about a fast-arriving future, where we don’t boil water with radioactive fuel.
Lovins has been working on energy efficiency (negawatts) since the 1970’s, and has probably done more in the past 30+ years than any other single individual on the planet.
His opinions are well worth everyone’s serious consideration. Visit http://www.rmi.org.
AND lessons to be learned from Fukushima
Guest Post by Dr. William Hannum. Bill worked for more than 40 years in nuclear power development, stretching from design and analysis of the Shippingport reactor to the Integral Fast Reactor. He earned his BA in physics at Princeton and his MS and PhD in nuclear physics at Yale. He has held key management positions with the U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), in reactor physics , reactor safety, and as Deputy Manager of the Idaho Operations Office.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/25/preliminary-lessons-from-fukushima-for-future-nuclear-power-plants/
Conclusions:
The major lesson to be learned is that for any water-cooled reactor there must be an absolutely secure supply of power sufficient to operate cooling pumps. Many other lessons are likely to be learned. At this early point, it appears that design criteria for fuel storage pools may need to be revised, and hydrogen control assessed.
Given the severity of the challenge faced by the operators at Fukushima, and their ability to manage the situation in such a way as to preclude any significant radiation related health consequences for workers or the public, this event should be a reassurance that properly designed and regulated nuclear power does not pose a catastrophic risk to the public—that, overall, nuclear power remains a safe and clean energy sources
What surprises me most is that people have not noticed, or having noticed, have not bothered to put two and two together here.
These reactors at the Daichi plant at Fuskushima are all BWR’s, ranging from Mark ones to mark fours I think.
The design is that the spent rods cooling pools are inside the containment structure, not the containment vessel itself where the reactor sits, but inside the Concrete bunker.
Those spent fuel rods, all of them back around 1% enrichment and lower, are kept in cooling ponds because of the inherent heat.
Those cooling ponds are half way up the internal structure.
Now, the number four reactor where the problem arose with the spent fuel rods, because remember, the Number 4 reactor was offline for maintenance and refuelling, which is done on average every 18 months or so.
Hence, those rods had been removed from the reactor, hence still having a large amount of inherent heat.
The hydrogen explosion in the Number three reactor alongside caused major masonry damage as that concrete bunker blew out. This masonry damage breached Number 4 at around the area of the spent rods pool, hence cooling water was lost, and the heat overload is what caused the problem here as those less than 1% enriched rods started to overheat from the continuing small reaction taking place within the rod assemblies of fuel rods, keeping in mind that the control rods in these spent fuel rod assemblies are still in place.
The rods are kept inside this structure until they cool sufficiently and are further depleted to around 0.7% enrichment, the same as for the raw ore still in the ground.
The rod assemblies, once cooled and depleted are then removed from the pool inside the concrete structure to a dry storage facility, or to a reprocessing facility.
Here’s the point I’m making, and sorry to take so long getting to it.
As I mentioned, the rod assemblies are kept on site.
In later versions of this original BWR design, Advanced BWR, Simplified BWR, and Economic Simplified BWR, those storage pools are at ground level and are further protected again, and the same also applies for PWR reactors.
Now, current design for most new reactors of the most used, the versions of BWR and PWR, those rod assemblies once removed from the reactor itself, and then removed at a later date from the cooling pool, can be stored onsite, inside the main concrete structure, and wait for it, for the life of the plant, which in most cases is 50 years, can be relicensed out to 60 years, and then relicensed out to 75 years.
The rod assemblies can be kept inside the main structure for the life of the plant, if there is no reprocessing facility for them to be sent to or a dry storage facility, and keep in mind that after that cooling period those fuel rods are back lower than that 0.7% enrichment level.
Tony.
Tony, do you have link to this?
Must admit I lost focus near the end, are you saying the spent rods should be kept where they currently are or there should be a new design for storage?
No, what I am saying here is that in the most recent plants, either in planning, already in construction, and in retrofitted plants of existing reactors, and the most recent BWR ones I mentioned, and the PWR are the most common existing plants, those fuel rod assemblies are being kept on site at the plant in the concrete containment structure, isolated from the containment vessel.
They go from new rod assemblies which are placed in the reactor during the refuelling process every 18 months. The depleted assemblies are removed from the reactor and placed in the cooling pools where they reside for two refuelling cycles, around three years, and from there, once fully depleted, are placed in the dry storage area.
They’re already doing this now in those newer reactors.
Keep in mind this Plant in Japan was a First Generation BWR.
Keeping those dry depleted assemblies on site, and keep in mind those fully depleted Assemblies are back at 0.7% enriched, the same as for the existing ore in the ground, means that all those fuel rods are kept inside the structure.
That way, you can wait for the debate to finalise on whether you construct a dry storage site, as in the U.S. at Yucca Mountain, or whether you send them to a reprocessing plant.
Original processing only has 5 steps from the dirt to the ore, to the powder to the ceramic to the insertion of those pellets into the rods and then to the assemblies themselves, and typically that is from 3 to 5% enrichment, again typically that 3%.
BWR is Boiling Water Reactor, and PWR is Pressurised Water Reactor.
I’m only speaking here of the existing technologies for already existing plants.
Tony.
This is well worth reading.
http://familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9075/pub_detail.asp
Nuclear power will one day power Africa, and the world – helping to lift billions out of poverty and ensuring that billions more continue to enjoy living standards that poor nations also deserve to have.
Dr. Kelvin Kemm holds a PhD in nuclear physics, is currently CEO of Stratek and lives in Pretoria, South Africa. He also serves as a scientific advisor to the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow.
I’ve written a thorough rebuttal of Monbiot’s pieces supporting nuclear power on:
http://cooltheearth.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/why-george-monbiot-is-wrong-on-nuclear-power/