That’s the title of my piece in today’s Fin, an expanded version of my post here earlier this week
No nuclear renaissance
As the crisis in Japan continues to worsen, advocates of nuclear power have hastened to offer reassurance that their preferred power source is still a viable option in the race to replace carbon-based sources of energy. The earthquake and tsunami represent an extreme worst case, unlike to be observed in less seismically active areas than Japan.
So far at least, the worst case outcomes of a core meltdown and Chernobyl-style release of radioactivity have been avoided. Although some radioactive steam has been omitted, the total health risks remain far below those of coal-fired power, even disregarding CO2 emissions.
As Ziggy Switkowski observed yesterday, “We will learn from the tragic Japanese experience how to build more robust reactors, how to ensure multiple layers of protection work properly, how to better contain radioactive gases,”
All these points are valid, but, unfortunately, irrelevant. The attempt to restart the nuclear industry, sometimes optimistically called the ‘nuclear renaissance’ was already on the edge of failure before this crisis. Even with the best possible outcomes from the current crisis, nuclear power is off the agenda for a decade or more, at least in the developed world.
The nuclear renaissance was launched in the United States by George W Bush with the Nuclear Power 2010 program, unveiled in 2002. This was followed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which authorized $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. All of these initiatives were carried on and extended by the Obama Administration, which proposing to triple federal loan guarantees.
The initial reaction was highly positive, with dozens of proposals being announced. By the end of 2008, 26 proposals had been received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But by the end of 2010, more than half of these had been abandoned, and ground had been broken on only two sites, with a total of four reactors. In October 2010, Constellation Energy pulled out of a joint venture with French firm EDF, saying that more loan guarantees, with less stringent conditions, were needed. Similar problems have emerged in France, Finland and other developed countries, where construction projects have encountered delays and massive cost over-runs, with the result that plans for expansion have been scaled back sharply.
Even assuming the best possible outcome from the Japanese crisis, the economic case for nuclear power, already fragile, has been severely, and probably fatally, damaged. At least eleven reactors have been taken off line. Three of the reactors at the Fukushima site have already been rendered permanently inoperable by the pumping of seawater into the storage pools and three others may follow. The evacuation of 200 000 people, at a time when the earthquake and tsunami have already stretched resources to the limit, will have massive costs, running into the billions unless the situation is resolved rapidly.
Doubtless, as Switkowski has argued, the failures in cooling and containment systems that gave rise to the present crisis can be overcome and reactor designs modified to improve safety. But safety doesn’t come cheap, and redesigns mean delay. With no prospect of any further increases in subsidies and loan guarantees, it seems likely that most of the proposals for new nuclear power plants in the US will be abandoned. And, if only for reasons of diversification and speed of construction, the lost Japanese reactors will probably be replaced by gas-fired plants, with some renewables.
But why are the economics of nuclear so bad? In part, it is simply a matter of technology. Nuclear power has turned out to be more expensive than its advocates have expected, while alternative sources of energy, particularly gas, have become cheaper. Even solar photovoltaics, long seen as impractical, are now cost competitive with nuclear on some calculations.
But the crucial problem for nuclear power has been fear. Fears about safety have meant that nuclear power plants have been held to much higher safety standards than alternatives like coal, which routinely spew pollutants of all kinds into the atmosphere.
More important than these fears, however, is the fear and ignorance displayed by those who have obstructed the most important single factor needed for nuclear power to become viable – a price on emissions of carbon dioxide. Some claim, like Lord Monckton, that climate science is a plot to restore the fortunes of global communism. Others like Cardinal Pell, who apparently believes that nitrogen is a greenhouse gas, say that, having ‘studied this stuff a lot’, they are qualified to overrule the experts.
Ironically, many opponents of climate science pose as defenders of nuclear power. In reality, they are its deadliest enemies.
John Quiggin 
From the Australian, reporter Peter Alford, Mar 17th 2011:
Okay now…this is serious.
I don’t usually rely on the nOz for my news but this writer has been calling the disaster correctly as it unfolds, so I have chanced it, so to speak.
If nuclear power station developers have to now take into account the further costs of new containment mechanisms, building on high ground away from the naturally easiest water source, building back up reservoirs for existing (old) nuclear plants and possibly for newer, constructing higher level containment facilities for spent fuel rods, low level waste that is generated daily, and on top of all that, having new designs that can be further adapted to tighter safety regulations during their long working life. All those factors, as if that wasn’t enough, will most likely cripple the financial case for future investment in nuclear power. Finally, is it really wise to have multiple reactors housed together, or multiple stations in the same localities: that has proven to be a recipe for magnifying the magnitude of disaster when exposed to common causes, eg placing stations on the same patch of coast exposes all of them to the same tsunami one happens, or having them on the same faultline, etc. On the other hand spreading them out increases the likelihood of other risks eventuating.
No doubt a rash of “research papers” from self-labelled thinktanks will pepper the interweb with lovely propaganda; we’ll have to wait quite a while later for the more cautious and well throught through academic articles to come out the other end of peer-review. I’m confident that academic articles will be amply provided with data supporting the case for burying nuclear on financial considerations alone; environmental issues, which includes the psychological impact upon people living near them (the human dimension is not insignificant), I wager will make it a slam dunk for diverting money away from nuclear and into renewable energy resources.
There are at least as many opinions as pundits, maybe more. The poor quality of reportage by the govt and private operator has led to a lot of second guessing which doesn’t instil confidence.
Opinion http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201103160136.html
@rog
thanks for that Rog.
wouldn’t it be good if there was a news industry that took the what/why/when/where /how and who (verified,updated and with mistakes immediately corrected) as a given.
and any opinion clearly defined as such.
sigh.
Price of PV
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-2011-03-15
This piece is a bit damp. People really do not want to hear the usual (and obvious) criticisms they probably agree with. They want an alternative.
Unless strong light is shone on the need to resource development of various sustainable alternatives, and the nexus with population pressure, the nukaholics will simply get their way by default.
JQ, Your article is actually far too kind to nuclear power than the merits of its case deserve. I wonder if this reflects your real views or if felt compelled to understate or omit certain of your objections to nuclear power in order to ensure publication in the Fin Review or at least not alienate its readership?
I recommend you read Michael Dittmar’s report at;
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24414/
Go the bottom of this linked article and find the links for the four chapters of Micheal Dittmar’s report. Once you follow these links you can then look at the PDFs by clicking one more link for each.
I suspect (on no evidence, but this is the internet) that not only will be there be no nuclear renaissance, but public support for GHG mitigation will fall too. The public will say that they will prefer to take their climate chances with coal-fired electricity (indeed, not even their chances really; more their children and children) than get cancer from nuclear power. The logical and factual fallacies with this line of thinking are obvious but that won’t stop a populist politician, someone like Tony Abbott, saying “the lesson from Japan is that we should leave our electricity generation just as it is”.
Preposterous, illogical, dishonest? Of course. But it is simple and easily swallowed.
Uncle Milton, you could have added that they’ll eventually get back to pushing nuke as well, once they feel the public’s attenuated collective attention span and limited capacity for recollective memory has let Sendei slip into history.
They wouldn’t admit they were wrong over Iraq, Climate change and other environemtalmatters, over the GFM in 2007 and recently events in the middle east, even when caught redhanded, so the best we can hope for is to make enough noise now, while the light of day is still shone on them, to force into place some sort of rudimentary planning to cope with the more obvious risks in ecological and pol economic matters, alike.
I see that the Fin didn’t print the sentence about Pell.
I wonder if Switkowski is goig to try to get his old Telstra job back?
Are Lord Monckton and Cardinal Pell really representative of nuclear advocates? Are they even nuclear advocates?
I think the major cost barrier to nuclear is the barriers erected in response to fear, much of it irrational. Those that recognise this (looking at you JQ) and who regard themselves as being above irrational positions (looking at you JQ) should articulate the case against fear rather than accepting irrational fear as a rational reason to oppose. Those of us who argue against irrational fear may still fail but that doesn’t mean we should refuse to even make the case.
@TerjeP
Lookin at you Terje P and Fran Barlow for the irrational positions you accuse JQ of having with regards nuclear when both of you are irrational pro nuclear advocates despite the very best evidence to the contrary. I suspect if it was you running away from one, you wouldnt be above changing your mind Terje P so until that day comes I doubt you would.
..but personally I dont have much respect for deathbed catholics.
@Alice
Alice, Terje and Fran will just repeat what Barry Brook says without expending a lot of critical thought inbetween. You are basically wasting your time.
Brook has provided these pearls of expert advice this week;
“there is no credible risk of a serious accident‘”
“The only reactor that has a small probability of being ‘finished’ is FD unit 1. And I doubt that, but it may be offline for a year or more.”
“There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity. By “significant” I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on – say – a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation”.
It is the blind optimism tinged with what can (quite fairly) be described as a slight touch of arrogance, that is the main problem with the nuclear industry.
Maybe it would be best to build the plants under the sea.
@iain
Barry Brook is a dangerous zealot.
No nukes, is good nukes.
Hi Alice, I agree with you about Barry Brook. I wish people with his intellect would apply themselves to finding solutions to creating a sustainable society.
Most nuclear zealots are more concerned about maintaining their own creature comforts than the well being of the ecosystem as a whole, including the Human race.
I loved Paul Watson’s comments last night. ” Worms are more important then Humans because worms don’t need us but we need worms”
At 55 yrs old I could be an ecowarrior. If I was single.
A truly sustainable society may resurrect research into more benign forms of nuclear power in the future, such as Thorium reactors. It’s much more likely that true renewables with storage will be our future energy sources.
Setting aside the experience of some or thousands or millions of people in Japan under present circumstances in north-east Japan, fear doesn’t seem to be a problem for anybody except those who banked on a nuclear renaissance.
“Are Lord Monckton and Cardinal Pell really representative of nuclear advocates? ” Not necessarily all of the nuclear advocates, IMHO, but definitely those who believe they were ‘authored’ – ie the people of ‘the book’.
@Donald Oats
“No doubt a rash of “research papers” from self-labelled thinktanks will pepper the interweb with lovely propaganda; ”
I can’t wait for the obligatory ‘research paper’ explaining how the whole problem was caused by over-regulation in the industry and everything would have been just fine if the government had butted out completely and it had been left totally to the market.
Of course, to be followed by one of those papers explaining that over-regulation and gold-plating of the safety aspects of the facilities resulted in too few casualties – that is, fewer casualties than they deem would have been optimal in their alternative market Nirvana. I must admit I haven’t seen one of that species of paper coming out recently. They used to be so plentiful.
Those folk in ‘think-tanks’ are such lazy fellows. Same monotonous predictable tunes played over and over and over again.
Anyway its almost worth watching the sequence through to the increasingly alarmed posts in bravenewclimates blog on the disaster,
eg
Stephanie says “Barry.You did not answer the question in the video. “If the core is exposed, how far can the radiation spread?”
No answer.
Barry says ““They are not, Ron — the repositioning would have nothing to do with the trace levels of radioactivity they might be able to detect.”
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=59065
Seventh Fleet Repositions Ships after Contamination Detected
Ron says – “Note – I’m not an alarmist but facts are facts.”
* Greg Campbell says “Radiation 33 times normal level measured in Utsunomiya, Tochigi. This is ~50 miles SW of the site. (How long till this whole page gets pulled?)”
* Fallingwater says “Uh oh… I’m hearing news of a 400 milliSievert (not microSievert) reading somewhere. Not sure where it’s coming from, if the reactor vessels are still intact. The pool?”
Its also frankly alarming to see Terjes comment (and I am lookin at you)
“The design criteria isn’t “nobody gets hurt in worst case scenario” but “core remains contained” and public isn’t harmed. From a design perspective it isn’t unreasonable that some people get hurt under this scenario or that some parts of the building get’s damaged. Although both those things are obviously regrettable”.
Bravenewclimate is falling apart.
Barry Brook has had a significant change of heart In sum, this accident is now significantly more severe than Three Mile Island in 1979..
..My initial estimates of the extent of the problem, on March 12, did not anticipate the cascading problems that arose from the extended loss of externally sourced AC power to the site, and my prediction that ‘there is no credible risk of a serious accident‘ has been proven quite wrong as a result.
Alice – I did not accuse JQ of being irrational. I accused him of pandering to the irrational fears of others and suggested that he should instead uses his energies to dispell irrational fears rather than accommodating them.
@TerjeP
Terje, you say, “I think the major cost barrier to nuclear is the barriers erected in response to fear, much of it irrational.”
With this statement you have created an almost haiku-like compression of meaning. Unfortunately, it is not a compression of wisdom.
Your statement implies all of the following.
1. Fear of something harmful is irrational.
2. The call for safety rules against possible harm is irrational.
3. The major cost barrier to nuclear power is the requirement for safety and this requirement is irrational.
4. No other major cost barriers to nuclear power, economic or technical, exist. Only the requirement for safety raises a major cost barrier.
5. Even the rules that allowed poorly designed reactor and cooling pond complexes to sit in a severe quake zone on a shore near the deepest fault marine trench in the world, are rules that are too strict and costly and we whould relax these rules even further.
Actually I am beginning to suspect you are an undercover anti-nuclear agitprop. Really, you couldn’t produce better propaganda to discredit the pro-nuclear position if you tried. The sheer Poe’s Law-like beauty of it is awesome! Love your work m8! 😀
One issue that I have not heard canvassed yet in any media is the issue of local sea contamination and littoral zone contamination. Given that sea water is being indiscriminantly pumped and dropped all over the site, all of this must be running to the sea. Much of this will wash up and down the coast and contaminate the littoral zone. The local seas and sea bottom will also be highly contaminated. The Japanese can probably forget about fishing along this coast for the next decade or two at least. Given that many of the villages hit by the tsunamis were fishing villages this implies further great problems down the track as any re-built villages could not rely on resuming the fishing industry.
Correction. I should have said “all of this (seawater) that is not steamed off will run to the sea.”
I have a fear that is rational; that the safety of this plant is beyond the control of the government and the operator and this lack of control can be applied to any other plant in the world.
@Ikonclast
Lol! More seriously, you have to give pro-nuclear advocates on this site 10 points for chutzpah. It’s been amazing to watch the intellectual implosion. If they can’t be right, at least they’ll be certain. How these people could allege irrationality on the part of opponents during a major nuclear catastrophe is beyond me. This isn’t a silly thing we’re all getting worked up about. This isn’t an irrational public over-reaction, this event is what scientists technically call a data point. As a result of this new piece of information, we should all now revise downwards our beliefs about the inherent safety of the nuclear option. To do otherwise is truly irrational.
@iain
Yes, Barry Brook et al provides an excellent example of why we cannot go down the nuclear path.
All they can muster is an endless chant proclaiming safety, based also on a in-house industry/government mindset that provides only miniscule information to the public. Brook has started censoring contributions to guide consideration of issues on the BNC blogsite.
The nuclear society and nuclear culture is just as toxic as is coastal Japan north of Tokyo.
If they cannot design safe space shuttles (2 blew up), safe oil wells, airline engines that don’t disintegrate midflight, how on earth can they pretend they can design safe nukes?
When nukes go wrong they wipe-out huge swathes of society and jeopardise the health of large sections of the community. When the space shuttles blow-up they only kill 7 [NASA has well earned its tag “Need Another Seven Astronauts”]
We have had 3 major nuclear calamities since 1979 and we always hear how future nukes will be safer. If the safer nukes emerge but in greater number the net risk stays the same.
So there is no reason why we should not expect once nuclear calamity every 7-10 years on average. This cost as an insurance premium needs to be put into the cost comparison with the massive deaths and costs to society when a wind turbine falls over or a solar hot water heater ruptures.
So the question is: what is the cost to Japanese society of the nuke calamity, including the cost of the emergency response, rebuilding 3-4 units, cleanup and the evacuation of 20 km zone? What happens when this is added onto the $per KW calculation for this cheap and clean energy source ????
@sam
I couldn’t agree more, sam.
No – not Ben.
Just the software playing tricks.
It really doesn’t you know.
As has been widely reported, various countries in the EU have announced a general review of their nuclear power industry, including cancellations of new plants.
China has done the same:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/17/3167082.htm?section=justin
These reactions are rational in the sense made clear by sam @28 above.
On this occasion, the behaviour of shareholders corresponds to the notion of rational in sam@28.
@Freelander
LoL! Free market rules, ok? 😛
Seriously though, these few nuclear reactors have shut down parts of Japan that were not particularly affected by the earthquakes and tsunamis, greatly compounding the scale of the disaster there. At some point they may have to have to bite the bullet and order some potentially suicidal missions to refill the pools, pull some spent fuel rods out of there (like, where would they move them to) or to concrete over the whole thing – just like Chernobyl – what a complete farce wrapped in tragedy.
Apart from the military, I can’t think of any other industry where you could go to work in the morning to be told to die for the company (except it will be couched in much more patriotic language than that). Apart from breaking all manner of OH&S rules – or is it Health and Wellbeing, in today’s lingo – it should be the TEPCO executives and their top tier of management, the Rethuglican-style talking heads, and a few ministers to boot, who get to go on the one-way trip to seal of the reactor(s).
Meanwhile, the New York Times is painting a bleak picture:
Finally, the question I keep asking: where has the low level waste gone? Did the earthquake and tsunamis disperse it, or is it safe and sound on site at the badly damaged nuclear power stations?
Somehow a misspelling of “Ikonoclast” as “Ikonclast” has appeared in the thread above. I assure JQ that this is me, it is inadvertant and clearly is in no way a sock puppet attempt.
On the positive side for nuclear science we must note the following.
1. Nuclear research pure and applied should continue. It would be anti-science to shut down nuclear research and I’m sure nobody is seriously advocating this anyway.
2. There are many applications of nuclear technology other than stationary electric power generation. Risk – benefit analyses should proceed on a case by case basis.
3. Research reactors and/or reactors for the production of radioisotopes will continue to be required for the foreseeable future.
4. The world’s current fleet of commercial power nuclear reactors will take 20 or 30 years to decommission. In this period, they can be employed to “burn” and deplete military grade stockpiles.
Realpolitiks also tells as that (unfortunatley) military applications of nuclear technology will be with us for the foreseeable future.
The reality is that, without very major advances (which appear unlikely given the fundamental and intractable nature of problems in this field), nuclear power generation and the associated fuel and waste cycle is spectacularly unsafe and uneconomic compared to other stationary power generation solutions. The physical, economic and political realities of this situation will enforce the only logical and feasible outcome despite all pro-nuclear vested interests and crackpot lobbying.
Now we get the recognition by one of our active nukaholics – Barry Brook [BNC blogsite]:
This should put to bed any claims from the nuclear proponents that they have the information and others do not know what they are talking about etc etc. Our nukaholics have rolled-out their usual and well-practiced slanders of hysteria, but have yet to provide any substantiation.
Remember the Tsunami + earthquake disaster has always been predicted by the Anti nuclear activists [see for ex. Caldicott, Nuclear Power is not the answer to global warming…., MUP, 2006, p87)
Now we must consider the flow of information.
If at 6:55 on 16 March the water level inside the reactor cores of units 1, 2, and 3 were all at least 1.4 metres below the top of the fuel rods, according to Brook, when was this information provided by TECO, the Japanese government or IAEA?
Anyway, it is all over now, I suppose the only useful thing we wait for now is news that power has been connected to all pumps and all pumps and pipes are functioning.
Notice too, how we get reports of radiation readings but never accompanied with wind direction. Of course you will get low readings by moving your monitoring west, if the breeze blows east.
Again the access to, and flow of, information is the key determinate and one of the key reasons (along with commercial competitive pressures) this form of energy production must be closed down.
The BNC website initially practiced tactical censorship and other tactics to try to contain the political meltdown washing over their heads, but this may have ceased now ?????
The Japanes earthquake sent a destructive Tsunami onto Papua New Guinea, destroying a hospital and causing 2 consequential deaths of feeble patients during evacuation. Presumably their are other instances throughout the Pacific but our media seems not to be concerned or bothered.
Terje:
That should read as:
Terje:
Terje, could you explain what you do actually mean with your claim:
It seems like you are refering to the safety regulations, and that you think they are irrational regulations. Please clarify what you actually mean.
O dear, I spoke too soon.
I thought the BNC censorship was relaxed, but I was wrong. The reference to anti-nuclear activists long predicting the earthquake-Tsunami scenario, was censored.
BNC – bloody nuclear censorship.
But they need such strategies to foist their industry onto society at large.
When the sh*t his the fan, the fan keep working:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-rigg/battleproof-wind-farms-su_b_837172.html
@jakerman
Thank you for the link @41. The behaviour of the share price for wind farm companies, relative to other companies, in Japan is again logically consistent with rational (Bayesian) decision making. (Whether the resulting prices are ‘efficient’ in the sense of Fama is another question.)
@Chris Warren
Well it seems Dear Professor Barry Brooks has really done a Greenspan put and an about face
First he says (per Rog’s post above..
“..My initial estimates of the extent of the problem, on March 12, did not anticipate the cascading problems that arose from the extended loss of externally sourced AC power to the site, and my prediction that ‘there is no credible risk of a serious accident‘ has been proven quite wrong as a result.”
Then he censors his own site per Chris Warren at post 40.
He is just working out how to do an about face on the “mistake”…just like Greenspan. If this isnt evidence of an arrogant zealot I dont what is.
Selective information for you from bravenewclimate for Barry’s little proteges in the blogosphere. As long as you keep telling him how fantastic he is (and note – professor Brook is not a nuclear scientist. He is an environmenatal scientist).
Thanks for the environmental help (not).
Jackerman – designing and constructing with the inclusion of safety features probably adds little to the cost of nuclear and is in general quite rational. But irrational fear that leads to political interference during transition from paper to operation, or the mere risk of such interference, can in my estimate be a killer. It is reasonable to regulate but make sure the regulation delivers certainty for both the public and the investor rather than disrupting it.
Terje – name the unreasonable regulation.
TerjeP, re:
And
Are you saying that “political interference during transition from paper to operation, or the mere risk of such interference” is”the major cost barrier to nuclear”? Or am I still misreading your claim?
Perhaps some examples would clarify.
Terje @ 45,
You clearly don’t understand the chaos of failure and human inability to cope with it. Its what makes economies collapse, aircraft fall out of the sky, and nuclear reactors to spew their guts out occaisionally. Proceedures and regulations only work when everything is predictable and undercontrol. Humans solve complex problems at a slow pace. Adding more humans tends to slow down the problem solving pace when everything is spiralling out of control. Exactly what we have just witnessed.
@rog
The unreasonable regulation Terje is fumbling around for and cant or state, was the regulation that allowed the power companies to build it in Fukushima in the first place. The second unreasonable reglation was the one that permitted the firm to operate the damn thing beyond its decommission date. Its the same unreasonable regulation Merkel is trying on in Germany (extend the life of the nuclear power plants past their decommision dates). There is plenty of unreasonale regulation but dont expect Terje to recognise whats unreasonbale and what is not.
@Donald Oats
Looks like nuclear power not only requires significant government subsidies to be viable but requires significant personal personnel subsidies as well. I don’t think it would be easy finding employees willing to be so expendable in France, the UK or US nowadays. Maybe still in Germany. Heroic efforts, but a horrible death.