It’s time again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. In keeping with my attempts to open up the comments to new contributors , I’d like to redirect discussion, and restatements of previous arguments, as opposed to substantive new contributions, to the sandpit(s). As always, civilised discussion and no coarse language please.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
Finally on 16 May, the nuclear industry comes clean(er) and TEPCO admits that a Fukushima nuclear reactor suffered a complete core meltdown in the first hours after the Japanese earthquake.
See:
at:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Fukushima_fuel_melt_confirmed-1605115.html
This just shows how misconstrued those nuclear pundits infesting “Brave New Climate” were in their months-long project of denial, confusion and dissimulation.
The BNC website provides a huge resource for those willing to deconstruct the false farragos rancid business interests always let loose on the public – be they chemical companies, oil companies, nicotine companies or nuclear dreamers.
Of course TEPCO always knew their core had melted. If they did not have the necessary skill to even assess this, then they had no right running the technology. In fact one wise poster on BNC actually analysed the public information and correctly reached the obvious conclusion. It is a joy to go back now and replay the denials he was immediately hit with.
BNC is now peddling the idea that radiation is relatively harmless, so the skullduggery continues.
As his sock puppet, I’d just like to remind everyone that Tony G is a troll, banned for idiocy among other things
Speaking of BNC they have an article up that is rather devastating to arguments for more wind power.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/05/21/co2-avoidance-cost-wind/
@TerjeP
If it is on the BNC website – its probably just junk. With all the uncertainties involved BNC is merely exploiting the paper – to run interference against environmentalists. Anyway the arguments have been exhausted now.
Mark Diesendorf has exposed many of these “Greenhouse Mafia Fallacies” in his book:
Climate Action A Campaign Manual for Greenhouse Solutions (UNSW Press:2009).
It has been mentioned many times before – renewable power will cost more than fossil or nuke in the short-term, but not in the long-term when all costs are included.
@TerjeP
All the more reason to suspect wind power actually has some value if BNC is pushing the article. Poor Barry, Fukushima really blew a hole in his one man and his pet true believers “nuclear is safe” crusade didnt it?.
Still I suppose Tepco needed dupes like those who frequent BNC to believe its lies at the start of the accident “the core has not melted down”, “the situation is under control”
bla bla lie lie.
I dont suppose Barry has gone back to congratulate the one poster who actually surmised the core had melted down long before Tepco let anyone know?
@Chris Warren
Chris just to be precise about what Barry said at the time back in the early days of the crisis
“There is no evidence that the molten fuel has melted through the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel. The latest TEPCO analyses suggest the molten fuel is submerged in water at the bottom of the pressure vessel.”
Of course now Barry says in response to a commenters post (a particularly diligent poster called uvdiv)
” Thanks, as I noted in the post, I was reproducing there what my nuclear engineer friend had said — he may or may not be correct.”
(Would that be a nuclear engineer employed by the nuclear industry? Perhaps someone in the nuclear industry is getting Barry all his information complete with industrygrownbias?)
Oh and this from Barry “The reality, as I know you appreciate, is that none of this can be confirmed or denied in the near future.”
It has been confirmed by Tepco, in case Barry hadnt noticed.
The point was also made by an observant poster at BNC that Fukushima will result in an exclusion zone of a couple of hundred square miles….about 100,000 to 200,000 people (at the very very least)….and perhaps up to one million people.
Time to join the environmentalists Barry and do something positive.
@TerjeP
Terje, your acknowledgement that BNC is associated with “devastating” arguments made me smile.
@TerjeP
Also, whilst you and Barry are still evidently confused, you may want to peruse what the real experts have to say about renewable energy:
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srren-spm-fd4
Greece and the EU. According to a report in the week-end 21-22 May 2011 issue of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, the European Investment Bank (EIB) is discussing a type of Marshall Plan for Greece with the aim of assisting the development of small and medium enterprises in Greece that are not linked to tourism. The time horizon for this policy is 10 to 15 years. There are also plans to privatise some government owned enterprises with the expectation of reducing the government debt by Euro 50billion.**
The report brings out some issues that are totally unrelated to macro-economic policy debates regarding ‘austerity’ versus government spending and monetary policy. For example, the report notes that Greece has made least use of the EU funds for structural investment*. One of the reasons is that the administrative arrangements in Greece did not allow them to make claims. For example, the assistance of agricultural businesses (often small and medium sized) requires evidence of landownership. Apparently, in some regions of Greece such documents are not kept. The EIB has already sent staff to Greece to assist local government areas to develop the administrative structure.
Source: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/geld/griechenland-marshall-plan-fuer-ein-marodes-land-1.1099950
* Examples of structural investment projects for which funds are available are transport infrastructure and house and building insulation for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency.
** Perhaps those who tend to react against the word ‘privatisation’ may wish to talk with Greek-Australians who have some direct knowledge of the public sector in Greece before they verbally react. In this context, it may also be helpful to recall our host’s position on this topic – it depends …..
@Chris Warren
The same information is reported in the week-end edition of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Is the smh asleep?
Germany: From 17 to 4 nuclear power plants. As at Saturday, 20 May 2011 there are only 4 nuclear power plants operating in Germany (7 permanently shut down, 6 under inspection). As a consequence, solar and wind power provide twice as much electricity as nuclear power.
Source: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/atomkraftwerke-in-deutschland-da-warens-nur-noch-vier-1.1099891
So how many people died at Fukushima from radiation? Compared that to the 20,000 or more killed by the earthquake and tsunami. Most of the fuel stayed put despite a Richter 9 quake and tidal wave that reached 25 metres height in some places. That kind of punishment should be less damaging to more recent reactor designs.
I’m in the unfortunate position that I can’t pretend renewable energy keeps the show on the road. I must keep my electricity use down to what a few solar panels provide and if I want heat I have to go out in the forest to cut wood. One day I’ll be too old for that sh-tuff so I hope it will all be sorted out by then. Cheap energy on demand that is.
@Ernestine Gross
No the The Oz bogan papers are filling their dwindling sheets with celebrity antics, criminals antics and politicians antics as per usual. Claudia Schiffer is wasting away..the Ibrahim family has some nasty friends. Gillard says Abbott is the love child of Palin and Trump. Abbott replies play the ball not the man. Hockey claims Abbott hung him out to dry. Albanese says Abbott stands for nothing. Miranda is pleased that a socialist (DSK) got arrested. There must have been a boatperson article there somewhere..Did I miss anything else? the RBA must have said we have to look out for wages rises causing imminent inflation.
@Hermit
The trick is to plan for old age, eg
http://www.planetpurl.com/planetpurl/patterns/mens-sweaters-knitting-patterns
@Hermit
Chernobyl – 1 million+ deaths (New York Academy of Sciences – Report on Chernobyl – 2009).
Fukushima – potentially more.
Alice you quote Barry Brook above as follows:-
I’m not sure what early claim by Barry you are seeking to criticise but the claim of his that you quote is entirely consistent with what we now know. The fuel has melted (Barry said it was molten) and it now sits at the bottom of the reactor vessel (Barry claimed it did not melt through the bottom of that vessel). Nothing he said in the passage you cite has turned out to be anything other than accurate.
Where Barry Brook and others (me included) were overly optimistic was in not paying enough attention to the cooling ponds where spent fuel was stored. Even so the nuclear accident remains a hiccup compared to the Tsunami disaster that initiated it. The nuclear accident has magnified the tsunami death toll by roughly 0.000%.
@Alice
No and no. The argument that nuclear power is safe in comparison to other means of electricity generation is not materially altered by what happened in Japan.
terje
3 posts and three errors. The 3-strike rule should now apply.
You are just rehashing old dead arguments, and spreading the same misinformation.
@TerjeP
Terje you just cant help taking a deliberately denialist stance on nuclear and many other matters can you? I suspect you are more contrarian than libertarian.
Oh and Terje – the damn thing is leaking isnt it ie Tepco is mooting that the moltern fuel created holes in the vessel which the radiative water is leaking out of. Wait another ten weeks to hear Tepco trickle out more facts about meltodwns and leakages.
Anyway, enough. Brave new climate and its disciples nauseate me with the nonchalance that they yada on about costs of nuclear when 100K to 200K people will be displaced (at the least), the land rendered unproductive for god knows how long.
A pox on pro nuclear fanatics and industry stalwart mouthpieces like Barry Brook.
Terje, I recall you use this blog-site to try out some of your ideas (or that of others before you accept them).
You don’t seem to have read the link given in Chris Warren’s initial post because the news is that it was not the tsunami which caused the significant meltdown at Fukushima 1 but the earthquake. This is important news.
Your argument that nuclear power is cheaper than renewabls cannot be empirically verified because, to the best of my knowledge, the costs of the former are incalculable (therefore no private insurance).
The relative safety argument is akin to that of cigarettes – death is not imminent and not only smokers are affected. Tobacco is low-level radio-active. There is a substantial tax on cigarettes and there is prohibition of smoking cigarettes in many public places.
The solution to the AGW negative externality problem is not to create a bigger one.
Peddling the myth that the nuclear disasters in Japan have not affected risk assessments world-wide is not obviously compatible with promoting ‘freedom’. Isn’t it people’s choice as to what type of risk they are prepared to take on and when?
Ah Germany, the role model for clean energy aspirants. Renewables currently make up 17% of their generation mix. That only leaves 83% non-renewable. Solar subsidies will have reached 79 billion euros by 2013. The place isn’t even that sunny. Their electricity is still more expensive and carbon intensive than nearby France. Like Australia’s Latrobe Valley they can’t seem to shake off brown coal. How come they don’t shut down those power stations? Rather than running nukes with 2% imported fuel costs they think it is a good thing to get gas from Siberia, more like 50% operating costs from imported fuel. When Germany has 20c per unit retail electricity that is 80% carbon free other countries should take note. The evidence suggests they will never get close.
@Hermit
Presumably the Germans are aware that the 2% imported nuke fuel “costs” are current accounting costs only – not the real economic costs.
The 17% is a snapshot. There real aspect is to have an increasing trend even if this costs extra money.
Wonderful free for all on weekend reflections! Although. TerjeP looks isolated in his support for nuclear power. I did say I’d accept (not actively support) nuclear power in Australia if;
1. We stopped exporting uranium except to non-proliferaton signatories who were rated democracies and very stable in both geological and political terms.
2. The nuclear power stations were placed in the outback (probably outback Sth. Aust.)
3. They were privately funded and fully privately insured with no subsidies of any kind.
4. Strict safety and spent fuel regulations were in place and enforced vigorously.
5. All CO2 emissions in construction, operation and maintenance were fully carbon taxed.
NB: I doubt anyone would build a plant on those terms. Still, they are fair terms for that sort of power.
TerjP never replies when I say something that applies logic and free market principles. His support of the free market always seems conditional on special deals for the businesses he advocates. That’s par for the course for right wing capitalists.
Without sounding like a Trot, I am a little bit more militant than Ikonoclast when it comes to nukes. Nuclear power plants (eg AP-1000) are anathema. The only way nukes can be considered is as breeders that chew-up existing waste. Even so this still creates some nuke waste and a nuke accident threat, plus breeders still provide a target for terrorism.
However as we have this god-awful pile of radioactive muck to deal with, the breeder concept may have a temporary part to play.
Ikon’s point 1) should be “We stopped mining or exporting uranium”.
Point 2) should be “Nuclear power stations should be placed nowhere, however one or two breeder reactors could be built overseas to replace decommissioned existing nukes”
Point 3) They be publicly finded and controlled (by international agency) with no involvement of commercial considerations. Whatever subsidy is needed should be paid as it goes to the defence of the environment.
Point 4) The smaller quantity of highlevel waste is still a major problem.
Point 5) The CO2 emissions for breeders be offset by the closure of, and cancellation of, several AP-1000’s.
Provided a few breeders are constructed by a public agency, or an international agency, and the research and monitoring is run by public universities, research bodies including defence scientists, to cover costs – not produce returns, then the best environment for strict safety and environmental protections arises.
I see no role for a free market or capitalism, in this issue whatsoever.
The irony is that a true free market* with no subsidies, especially no military subsidies. would never build a nuclear power station.
* A true free market is not a corporate capitalist, military-industrial complex, subsidised market by the way. The latter is what we have in the west.
Ikonoclast – insisting that nuclear power plants must be in the South Australian outback may be your opinion but it is not an application of free market principles or logic.
In some ways the logic of your opinion is a bit like saying that we should not have an airline industry unless airplanes never fly over land and airports are never built near cities and that airlines must have unlimited liability insurance. In short not that logical at all.
@Ikonoclast
Is this Terje for real?
I think you should cease and desist discourse with this man as evidenced by his last post. This modus operandi is quite jejune to say the least.
@Christopher Dobbie
I agree Chris. There is not much point in giving air to Terjes continued denialism (quaint but terribly wrong and ongoing contrarianisms – I was rather amused when Terje referred to the “John Quggin style posters” in here recently – perhaps Terje does not recognise himself as one of the most frequent “john Quiggin style posters”??).
Terje is well and truly self evidenced by Terje to most sensible souls in here.
If he must be a muse then so be it. But be aware there is only so much time.
Yes let’s just make third person references rather than actually engage in conversation. That way we can appear sophisticated and refined without having to actually do any thinking. Bravo Mr Dobbie.
As someone who is lukewarm on nukes, Fukushima actually improves my confidence in them a bit. Despite pretty much the worse case scenario happening, combining with some obvious (in hindsight) highly significantly safety deficiencies and terrible management; the overall consequences are comparatively minor.
@Christopher Dobbie
What was it like being in Harry Potter?
@Christopher Dobbie
What was it like being in Harry Potter?
24 May 2011 Last updated at 02:18 GMT
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13497656]
@TerjeP
The Sth. Aust. outback is where the uranium mines are TerjP. It is logical to site the nuclear power station near the uranium mines along with enrichment facilities and thus have the whole fuel processing cycle in one remote place. Thus uranium ore or fuel or spent fuel does not have to be railed or trucked long ditances on pubic trunk routes; a massive safety feature I would say. Frankly, I thought that was so obvious I did not need to spell it out.
Power transmission is the lesser problem (compared to that above) and power could go into the S.A. , Victorian (where it would save brown coal use) and NSW grids. It is actually quite logical if you think about it.
As I said, I am not in favour of it but would not oppose it if all the conditions I nominated above were met.
Footnote:
“Long-distance transmission of electricity (thousands of kilometers) is cheap and efficient, with costs of US$0.005–0.02/kWh (compared to annual averaged large producer costs of US$0.01–0.025/kWh, retail rates upwards of US$0.10/kWh, and multiples of retail for instantaneous suppliers at unpredicted highest demand moments).[7] Thus distant suppliers can be cheaper than local sources (e.g., New York City buys a lot of electricity from Canada). ” Wikipedia.
@TerjeP
Terje I wonder that you object to the use of the third person? Sometimes I would swear there were a distinct two of you. I am not referring to sock puppeteering either. I am referring to how often one of you contradicts the other!
Ikonoclast – I think you have made a very respectable point. I think you are wrong but I at least the point is a good one and I think it deserves an answer.
We can split your concern into two related considerations. They are not entirely independent considerations but it is helpful to think of them as such at least for a moment. One is the safety factor associated with moving around nuclear material and the other is the economic consideration relating to moving around fuel versus transmitting electricity. I’ll deal with the second of these points first.
If we look at how the electricity industry in Australia evolved we find that historically power stations were built in cities close to the centre of demand for electricity. We still have iconic remants of this age in Sydney such as the inoperative White Bay Power Station which is heritage listed. However this era has long since passed and a major reason was the evolution of high voltage power transmission. Essentially you could move coal from remote coal fields to Sydney by rail, burn it locally and produce electricity or you could burn the coal remotely and move the electrity along a transmission line. In short for the same equivalent energy it is far more efficient to transmit electricity long distances than to truck coal long distances. There were of course other benefits such as improved air quality near cities but as ever the economic was a major driver.
However the nuclear fuel used in a nuclear power plant is different from the fossil fuel used in a coal fired power station in one extremely important way. And that is weight. Whilst uranium is very heavy element, heavier than lead, the energy yield for a tonne of uranium is huge relative to the energy yield in a nuclear power plant.
Consider two hypothetical power plants. Each with a power rating of 1GW and running continuously for a year at peak power. One is a coal fired power station and the other is light water reactor using nuclear grade fuel (enriched uranium). They both boil water to make steam and turn a turbine and generate electricity. Assuming they both have heat to electricity conversion efficiency of say 40% then over a year here is how much fuel they each consume.
Coal = 2.5 million tonnes.
Nuclear = 23 tonnes.
If the nuclear plant was of the fast breedor variety then the fuel requirement would be radically smaller again at under one tonne. However even at 23 tonnes the nuclear power plant can be easily fuelled with a single delivery on 1 January and not need refueling until the end of the year. Whilst the coal plant needs a constant supply of fuel all day, day in day out.
This change in fuel quantity requirement radically shifts the economics. Suddenly transmitting the energy as electricity down a transmission line does not have the economic advantage relative to trucking the fuel. In fact trucking the nuclear fuel avoids the massive capital cost associated with building the power line and the associated energy losses due to transmission line resistance.
With coal fired power plants the rule is build them close to the mine that provides the fuel. With nuclear power plants the rule is build them close to the demand for electricity. At least if your primary concern is energy efficiency and economics.
Your second point is one of safety. There is no argument that moving nuclear fuel entails some risks. In practice the risks are extremely low. We move far more dangereous materials by truck all the time. For instance we move highly explosive petrol and gas in trucks as a mater of routine. We drive personal vehicles that are filled with highly explosive petrol. Uranium isn’t explosive. Transporting uranium is more akin to moving around trucks that are carrying bars of lead.
Transporting nuclear waste is more of a concern because of radioactive isotopes created during nuclear reaction. However nuclear waste is usually cooled for many years or decades before being transported. The risks are real but small and manageable. I don’t know of anybody that has ever died due to the transport of nuclear fuel but people die in the electrity transmission industry quite often and people die on the roads in car accidents all the time. People die doing mundane things like installing solar panels on roofs. Risks are everywhere but need to be kept very much in perspective.
In summary nuclear power stations should be built near cities and major centres of demand for electricity. Building vast transmission lines to remote outback uranium mines is ridiculously uneconomical and a waste of money. If you really want them outside of the city then the logical place would be near coal fields where transmission lines have already been established.
p.s. In thinking about transporting uranium it is worth reflecting on what this would look like. The following picture shows what this non explosive and rather mundane substance looks like.
@TerjeP
I enter this argument on a provisional basis only. I am not really in favour of nuclear power. I am just stating my position on the “rules of the game” if nuclear power were adopted in Australia. I won’t repeat arguments I made earlier but just reply to TerjeP’s last posts above.
On balance, it would still be best to site the reactor in a remote locality near the mines and enrichment facilities. In my opinion, the immediate economic argument for siting near a city is not compelling. (Savings on transporting fuel versus transmitting electricity). The safety argument and the broader economic risk element is compelling.
The safety gain from remote siting of the nuclear power station is highly significant. There are no chances of transport accidents with nuclear materials in inhabited areas. The broader risk reduction factor is also significant. If a nuclear power station near a major city does melt down then an area where millions of people live will become unsafe to inhabit perhaps indefinitely. This is an enormous cost as Japan is now discovering (albeit with regional population centres, not a major city).
On balance, the slight overhead of higher transmission cost is more than offset by all other gains in remote-locating the actual power station. I would be baffled as to why a nuclear advocate would not accept this position which would promise the best chance of making nuclear power politically palatable whilst scarcely compromising it’s economic viability. In fact, such siting might significantly reduce insurance risk premiums and make the project more viable.
Footnote: A photo of inert plastic explosive looks mudane too. You cannot judge safety issues by an appeal to a simplistic argument of the “it looks harmless enough” variety.
Double Footnote: In fact, I recall a nice passage from philosopher David Hume where he makes exactly that point; that one cannot judge the properties or propensities of a material or object by its outer appearance.
By its outward appearance and going by previous experience, that round disc could be made of iron, lead, uranium or any solid painted with grey paint. If it is uranium it could be refined, depleted U238, pure, impure etc. etc.
Without full provenance on that photo, I am afraid it is no evidence for anything at all and even with provenance proven it does not satisfy any test that goes beyond appearances.
Ikonoclaust – as I understand it there is currently no transmission line that will move electricity from South Australia to the eastern states. Yet all of Victoria could be powered for a year using around 200 tonnes of nuclear fuel in a conventional light water reactor. That is less than one ute load per day. If it’s a fast breader reactor than that becomes one or two ute loads of fuel per entire year. It would be economic madness to build a dedicated transmission line instead of trucking the fuel. Even if you decide you want the nuclear plants away from the cities you would still be better off putting it in a regional area within a few hundred kilometres of the electricity demand and where there is already transmission capacity.
p.s. Insurance risk premiums are not that big a cost component for nuclear power. It is a low risk technology.
p.p.s. New York city gets 30% of it’s electricity from the two reactors at Indian Point. These are just 60km north of New York city. The reactor are around 35 years old and not what you would build today but the concept of putting nuclear power close to a major city is a reality in many other countries.
Ha, ha, ha. Your statement is true if one looks at the P&L statements of nuclear power plants but it is not true when the question is asked from the perspective of the global economy. In particular, there is no evidence that without a ‘big’ government, the industry would exist at all.
Your choice, TerjeP: Do you want ‘big’ government or renewable energy and ‘smaller’ government.
What insurance covers Fukushima?
Seems to me that a huge cost has been borne by the community and Japanese government.
What Japanese insurance covered all these…
Japanese Nuke Accidents
What insurance system is even conceivable to cover the cost of this latest development ….
More Evacuations?
Is there industry insurance against a terrorist attack?
Even if I conceded (which I don’t) that government subsidies (implicit or explicit) were necessary for nuclear power and that this is what we should do that does not necessitate a large government sector. So it’s a false choice.