Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact
 

Japan's Tipping Point

By Mark Pendergrast
October 27, 2011   |   56 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

56 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 56
October 27, 2011
Good comments on Renewable Energy in Japan. I visited earlier many cities in Japan under an Invitation. I could see bright future for Renewables in Japan.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
Wind Energy Expert
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
Comment
2 of 56
October 28, 2011
Japanese 'tipping points' have been complex & recurring for hundreds of years, even before the Meiji Period (1868-).

Before exploiting the Fukushima disaster for the benefit of 'renewable' power investors, it's nice to at least read the 17 Oct. New Yorker (p46-) and perhaps view the BBC documentary and some of these other relevant writings...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vywZ84mixs
http://tinyurl.com/69yyh37
http://tinyurl.com/63pe99a
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5298-safety-on-thecheap
http://tinyurl.com/45mvlz7
http://tinyurl.com/3avkq62
www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/asia/27collusion.html

Then round out that with, say...
Sustainable Energy ? Without the Hot Air, David MacKay, UIT
Cambridge, England, 2009 (free PDF available).

The New Yorker piece ends with a remarkable event -- up & down the tsunami-whacked coast, stone tablets were thrown up to visibility. Their hundreds-of-years-old inscriptions bore a common alert, roughly: 'Do mot build closer to the water than this'.

While it may appear that the Fukushima nuclear disaster, from which no one has died, may provide an opening for so-called renewables, it's a straw man. TEPCO management has been kicked out for fraud, has been guilty of poor design, poor operations & poor corporate citizenship for many years. The Fukushima reactors are 50+ year-old designs, improperly protected from basic natural threats & scheduled for de-commission. To base a push for renewables on something equivalent to grandma in a wheelchair no longer able to live upstairs is wrong & as easily exploded as the reactor buildings were.

The 'tipping point' -- basic, traditional Japanese culture of closed groups, including corporations, ruled as hierarchical families, is in clearer question now. That >20,000 are dead & hundreds of thousands are displaced, not from radiation, but from not having a wise government, is what's doing the tipping. Renewables aren't a solution.
No image available
Comment
3 of 56
Anonymous
October 28, 2011
Maybe you should look at Germany as the major global industrial power where this tipping point has already been reached.
Germany's government has decided to close all nuclear plants and are close to produce over 35% of their energy using renewable energy resources.
Please have a look at: http://www.gtai.com/homepage/industries/renewable-energies/
Comment
4 of 56
October 28, 2011
Thanks for comments thus far on my first blog. I will add another soon that clarifies what I'm trying to say, but let me respond briefly to Dr. AlexC above. First, I urge him to read my short book on Japan before jumping to conclusions. But we appear to be in fundamental disagreement about whether renewable energy is a viable path forward for Japan. It is and should be, for all the reasons those who visit this website know all too well. Regardless of what you think of nuclear power, Japan is not going to build any more reactors for at least 20 years -- this according to Tokyo University's Takao Kashiwagi, one of the most ardent nuclear supporters, who told me this in person. So where will Japan get its power? Imported and increasingly expensive fossil fuel that worsens climate change, or a big push for renewable energy. I call that a tipping point.
Comment
5 of 56
October 28, 2011
I see the facts of energy consumption as a factor of where it comes from. Even if we forget about carbon release and global weather issues, the fact remains that burning fossil fuels is a finite energy source. Turning to renewable energy is the proper first step towards whatever solution will be figured out in the future. Fossil fuel is finite. At some point fossil fuel will be precious. Then where will we find the money to consume energy? I'm curious where Japan will go now, for energy.
Comment
6 of 56
October 28, 2011
Great article Mark. I had a brother who served in South Korea and he fell deeply in love with Japan on R&R, for the exact reasons you spoke of. I hope that I too might find the time and money for a visit someday.
I agree, Japan is a micro chasm of the planet. But look closely at her surroundings. With some of the new wave power generation systems under development today, for the price of a nuclear power plant, I would bet they could put quite a dent in their energy needs. With a forever solution to clean power. And now is the time to begin that process, not after the next nuke plant is built.
Comment
7 of 56
October 28, 2011
Wow, facts sure stir things up! And MarkP, I did ask you to send me your book to review -- not heard back yet!

MarkH brings up the worry that scientists & engineers have had for many decades, but those exploiting energy sources ignore -- finiteness. Folks who go gaga over today's fashionable 'renewables' could do well to actually read what many wise people have been saying for over 100 years -- find the 1970s reports to Congress & US administrations, or even the report JFK requested from a few Nobel folks...
http://tinyurl.com/6xgpkfa

Then do read folks like MacKay, who actually knows what he's talking about. Or Eerkins, or Malhotra, or...

Would I win if I bet none of you other than MarkH bothered to even look at the links I passed above?

If anyone wants to claim responsible behavior re energy & climate, they have to do more than just display dismissiveness on blogs. We really have no time to waste on that.

So, back to Japan. Having worked with the largest Japanese company & having a friend who was the 1st GE safety engineer at Fukushima's construction, events we saw on 11 March were foretold long ago. The traditions of Japanese bureaucracies led to both the nuclear disaster & the far larger community destruction & deaths.

Why aren't you caring about 20,000+ tsunami deaths & hundreds of thousands of people & businesses uprooted by Japanese govt. recklessness in land use? For decades they ignored scientists & even old stones saying the eastern lowlands of Japan are dangerous to develop. What makes you think exploiting just poor design/placement of a nuclear plant is grist to promote your unscientific ideas about 'renewable' power sources?

That arrogant exploitiveness is mind boggling. Where were you years back when geologists made clear warnings? Where were you when TEPCO & NISA were accused of negligent behavior?

Japan has little land, but some 'renewables', including sun & nuclear.
Comment
8 of 56
October 28, 2011
Now to MarkP's "we appear to be in fundamental disagreement about whether renewable energy is a viable path forward for Japan" -- you should get, from my last line above, a different assessment.

Japan has to take great care with its small land endowment & it's coasts & waters. Distributed solar PV & hot-water (DG) is quite the reasonable path, as it is here in Calif., and as various environmental groups advocate -- Sierra Club, UCS, etc. (gave up counting how many I'm a member of).

If anyone wants to read more about realities of 'renewables' & how far behind the climate/emissions 8-ball we've lazily allowed us to get, here's something...
www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/TEAC3.html (2nd 2011 paper)

So, having ignored the 1962 options, which would have given the US 700GWe of emissions-free power by 2000, we can calculate from IPCC data how many millions of folks we're committing to far worse than Katrina, Japan's tsunami, Thailand's floods, etc.

What 'renewables' are oft touted can't cut our debt, which is now well over 1GWe per week of installed, emissions-free power. The Chinese, fortunately, are aware of the reality & know wind power can't do it, nor can massive, remote solar arrays. DG solar can efficiently address peak loads, as Calif. is encouraging & China is doing. And, China is moving ahead with about 50 new nuclear plants, as well as safe, sustainable molten-salt nuclear -- taking our 1960s inventions to heart!

So, what's renewable in the true sense? Not wind at 700tons/MW of fossil-fuel-processed steel, concrete, roads, lines... Not massed, remote solar. Not even geothermal. But for those who consider geothermal renewable, study its source -- nuclear power within the earth. So in fact, nuclear power is renewable in the true sense -- as renewable as the sun, since it stems from fusion events occurring before our sun existed, and lasting beyond our sun's death in ~4 billion years. Reality.
Comment
9 of 56
October 28, 2011
Finally (such fun) for Germany. The German political choice to try to close their safe nuclear plants has been admitted, by German scientists, to have the effect of fully negating all the emissions reductions Germany has ever achieved -- something to be proud of? Is that something Bangladeshis, soon to lose lands & livelihoods despite not creating those emissions, should applaud? Or, should Germany now be charged a proper CO2 tax, as their nuke closures cause 50 megatons of new emissions to be released each year?

Germany had fully 1/2 of all solar arrays ever built a few years back. Their weather negated much of its usefulness, but their extreme subsidies gave great profits to the few who were involved in the sham. Despite Germany & France (and England, Sweden...) using 1950s style nukes, they caused no deaths, no disasters. We do know that emissions from coal burning kill people and, because of what's called NORM in the US, coal emissions are allowed over 100x the radiation of any nuke plant.

So, since proper nukes have killed no one outside Russia, how is it that people cheer Germany now increasing emissions that actually do kill people? How is it that we accept deaths for windmill installers (2 here this year), but seem to grasp for anyone to die from nukes so we can say "no nukes"?

That's Homo Sapiens thinking? It undercuts any arguments for 'renewables' when the arguer fails to admit nuclear power is safer than any other mass power source in human history. Why? Because most people dealing with it are educated and responsible. Are coal-mine operators like that? Are gas-transmission companies like that? We've 8 bodies and 32 missing houses just 15 miles from here that testify to how educated & responsible our own PG&E is.

So, again, despite ~440 old-fashioned nukes worldwide, nuclear power deaths, even adding Chernobyl, don't even approach deaths by escalator. Our descendents may indeed laugh at us.
Comment
10 of 56
October 28, 2011
DrAlexC,

Boy I sure wish I had your confidence in the powers that be in regard to nuclear energy. With a half life of several thousand years, how can you guarantee that some future radical entity will not dig this stuff up and use it to eradicate their enemies, not that the human race has ever shown that kind of disregard for others ...
Comment
11 of 56
October 29, 2011
Ok, let's 1st understand radioactive elements from reactors -- they're just unhappy, because they're neutron rich. They want to come back down the periodic table to more stable nuclei, like Bismuth. In fact, 213Bismuth is a perfect anti-cancer weapon, only available from reactors & the decay of 233Uranium. On its way to stable 209Bismuth, 213Bi emits an alpha particle (Helium nucleus) that zaps a cell if it's right next to it. Attaching 213Bi to an antibody that sticks to cancer cells thus does the most precise anti-cancer work we could want, for the hardest cancers to cure.

There are 3 ways for a radioactive atom to become happier -- emit an electron (beta particle) an alpha particle, and/or a gamma ray (photon stronger than Xrays). The 1st two kinds are stopped by skin, paper... They're only a danger inside us, as the use of 213Bi must exploit. Gamma rays can be a problem, depending on their energy, but are shielded by metals. So a reactor has little radiation outside it inner core where fission is occurring. By subsidy law (NORM), coal plants can have >100 times the radioactive emissions of a nuke plant.

So, unhappy atoms have half lives which indicate the opposite of their danger -- a long half life means a pile of the atoms decays by 1/2 slowly, over many years, emitting an alpha, beta and/or gamma once in a great while. A short half life means "stay away", but you don't have to stay away long -- 131Iodine decays by 1/2 in a week. That's why the Russians were nasty after Chernobyl -- Iodine pills would have eliminated most all thyroid problems that occurred.

238Uranium has a 5 billion year half life -- it's in your kitchen counter, your house foundation, your fireplace... 235Uranium drives present water reactors & has a much shorter half life, but still not dangerous. Natural reactors have existed a billion or so years ago in Gabon, because they had enough 235U still around, plus water from rain, to sustain fission. Google Oklo Gabon...
Comment
12 of 56
October 29, 2011
...continuing. Short half-life elements are busy emitting stuff for a short while, thus are dangerous, but fading fast. Long half-life atoms aren't a concern, unless they decay into other short half-life elements on the way to happy Bi or Lead. That's where the issue of storing Uranium (235/238) heavy reactor products comes in. These "transuranics" may have decay products that have short 1/2 lives. Scientists in the 1960s wanted to avoid making transuranics, except we wanted one in particular for the Cold War -- Plutonium.

Now we don't need it, so other reactor designs & fuels, like Thorium, avoid most all transuranics -- meaning, no bad waste-storage problem.

The other side of fission reactors is what the Uranium fissions into -- pairs of daughter atoms, like Xenon, Hafnium. Strontium, Cesium. These are generally very unhappy atoms -- they just got blasted out of a neutron-rich nucleus and are about half its mass, with about half its neutrons -- much more than Strontium, Cesium, etc. normally have. So these daughters are hot, with short half lives. This is the stuff that's supposed to stay inside a reactor & does in reactors that are not pressurized & can't explode. They add about 7% of the reactor's power, as they quickly decay toward Lead & Bismuth.

Fukushima & Chernobyl, etc. reactors are pressurized, could have steam explosions & even can generate hydrogen for more explosions (which we saw on TV). We didn't & don't want that, which is why pressurized water, solid-fuel reactors were supposed to be gone by 2000 -- our fault worldwide, not just TEPCO's.

Fortunately, that's changing -- too late for much global warming, but changing.

Point is, despite the oddity of our reactors today, radiation deaths come nowhere near escalator deaths, gas-line deaths, windmill deaths... Why?

Ma Nature ain't dumb. DDT & PCBs last about forever (ask Dow & GE) as poisons. Fission products head to Pb & Bi...
Comment
13 of 56
October 29, 2011
...Fission products are either salable (3He, 99Mo, 213Bi...) or easily stored until happily safe. A full-scale, liquid-fuel nuke will produce pounds/year of such short-lived wastes, not tons -- there's no such thing as 'spent fuel', all fuel stays in the reactor. That was the plan in the '60s.

But, back to radiation's meaning. Nature, not being dumb, has provided every living thing's cells with the ability to correct errors in DNA/RNA & proteins produced from those codes. The reason -- genetic codes are redundant.

Every second, every one of our several trillion cells is doing DNA correction, as necessary. This is why getting a dental Xray, flying cross country, or living next to Fukushima is unlikely to cause cancer. It explains why so few neglected victims of Chernobyl's foolish design/management have died.

Since chemical agents are far more common & sure to damage genetics, Nature's DNA repair is really directed toward making up for destructive things like breathing oxygen or eating foods that produce oxidants. Remember those fruits high in anti-oxidants gang!

Radiation is as prevalent as granite counter tops in the USA & bananas on top of them -- bananas concentrate Potassium -- good for heart & bones. 40Potassium is naturally radioactive, staying inside our bones & tissue for over a billion years, as its daughters slowly emit beta & gamma radiation, to become Argon or Calcium.

Chemical & radiological challenges have been around since earliest known life 3+ billion years ago. Nature obviously had to evolve a defense. DNA repair is just one such, and is why even highly exposed nuclear workers don't simply fall over dead -- if repair or cell self-destruct mechanisms can keep up with chemical/radiological stress, survival is likely.

So burning coal, gas, oil, or operating a geothermal plant are all more dangerous than being a nuclear-plant worker, X-ray technician, etc. Respect potential threats as does Nature.
Comment
14 of 56
October 29, 2011
WOW! DrAlexC,
You make perfect rational argument. Do you have any books? I'd like to read them.

The problem I see is "NO NUKES" is a religion, and we all know how hard it is to change someone's mind to their religion.

I fully agree with using proper nuclear energy for dispatchable base load. That does not deter me from promoting personal energy systems that fully offset all energy needs through the month.

Thanks for that link. I'll read it in full.

Human anomalies of safety are all around us. The same people who detest modern nuclear energy drive their autos at 60mph past other autos going the opposite direction at 60mph with just a painted line on the road to shield them from certain death.
Earthbilly
www.earthbilly.com
Comment
15 of 56
October 29, 2011
Thanks MarkH, here are some recent books...

Radiation and Health, T. Henriksen, H. Maillie, Taylor & Francis, New York, USA, 2003.

Radiation and Reason, W. Allison, York Publishing, York, UK, 2009.

http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/Abstract/2011/07000/
Toward_Improved_Ionizing_Radiation_Safety.9.aspx

Comparative Radiation Sources (includes Fukushima, Chernobyl)…
http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/

FYI, this is the kind of thing many around the world are now looking at, to finally address our slacking off 49 years ago this month...

http://climatecolab.org/web/ guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/ 4/planId/15102

www.thoriumremix.com
Comment
16 of 56
October 29, 2011
DrAlexC -- I did send you a review copy of JAPAN'S TIPPING POINT. Did you not receive it? Email me at markp508@gmail.com and I'll send it again if you still do not have it. I have family visiting today and have to travel for the next two days but will be back in gear and will post another blog when I get back. It is not a "religion" with me to say "No Nukes," but I would rather pursue safer renewable energy options. I live in Vermont, by the way, where the aging Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor keeps leaking tritium, and the owners are suing the state for attempting to close them down. I trust atoms more than I trust the people who play with them. I'll be blogging more about renewable options for Japan in a few days.
Comment
17 of 56
October 29, 2011
Mark, yes I started reviewing your book and hope to finish over the weekend. My main complaint so far is the title, which exploits Fukushima as the basis for Japanese power issues, yet Fukushima is only a symptom of a far larger, longer, more pervasive cultural problem. That's what actually needs addressing. An "Occupy Tokyo" movement would show a needed change. Bets?

As for Vt Yankee, again, poor management can do damage with anything. You're lucky you don't have PG&E, because they actually kill people with their energy management. Again, picking on nukes makes no sense, given NORM. If someone wants to end radiation & other pollution, build more nukes & close coal plants & maybe some geothermal, and forget wind -- that needs lots of coal, etc. to make & maintain.

My cousins live in Newfane, so get to Vt. most every year. One cousin is Japanese.
Comment
18 of 56
October 29, 2011
Hi:

LOL.. I love coming to threads that Dr AlexC is into heavily.
The famous words, "...and no deaths from Nuclear Energy!!"
I wish SNL or like entity would do a skit on this phrase. You can have all the DR. C's types walking in front with a bunch of geekie PR jotting slaves writing down the rhetoric, "Nuclear has not caused any deaths in Japan". They can be walking down this trashed street by the ocean front. In the background behind them as they walk, people are holding their necks and chests as they fall over dead, with no hair, skin sores and an after glow. LOL... I think it could make a strong political statement addressing the continued link between the WHO and the IAEA, the filtering out of real world data, etc.. that has accompanied all the nuclear accidents to date as well as the general lies which surround the whole Nuclear industry...
Anyway, just visiting....

.....Bill
.....EOL
Comment
19 of 56
October 30, 2011
DrAlecc said ..."Ok, let's 1st understand radioactive elements from reactors -- they're just unhappy, because they're neutron rich. "

I see. So,in that form of logic, lets understand lead traveling faster than the speed of sound, its just ...unhappy, so I must therefore be so damned stupid that I would allow it to become 'happy' by ripping through my flesh! Of all the stupid, idotic, dense moranic things I have ever read on the net that one takes the cake Sarge! I hope that Drs degree you have is in pencil sharpening.
Comment
20 of 56
October 30, 2011
I have two friends retired from the Navy after 18-20 years as nuclear engineers. One of which was aboard three different submarines during his 18 years. He has all his hair, beautiful children, and is healthy and promoting both green energy and nuclear power. Talking about living in close proximity to a power plant, that takes the cake. So I think it's time to look deeper into the truth about nuclear power.

Tim, you are bombarded by radiation constantly if you live on the earth. Some granites and gneisses are truly hot. Yet we live with these rocks as building materials and counter tops.
Comment
21 of 56
October 30, 2011
The same old propaganda from nuclear power enthusiasts never sounds any better regardless of the repetition. The claim that people have not died is especially false, since delayed deaths are just as dead as immediate ones. Funny there is mention of Japan's heavy importation of food, when land as far as 75 miles from Fukushima is now restricted from food production. The last thing people need is ever greater loss of usable land especially on an island. The ocean and geothermal resources of Japan are huge, and very little of that has been utilized for electric production. Wave and tidal power is still new, but this is where Japan should spend the money that would otherwise be wasted on nuclear power. None of Japan's wind turbines were destroyed by the tsunami and earthquake. No exclusion zones will ever be created by renewable energy systems. No farm land will be contaminated for generations to come. Nuclear energy is not carbon neutral, as mining fuel processing and transportation all add carbon emissions to the process. The issue of nuclear waste has not been dealt with and this remains a plague on society for all generations to come. Reprocessing has not effectively reduced the waste, nor has it been done economically. The US reprocessing operation was shut down in less than a decade, and Selefield is also being closed, as it cannot sustain itself economically, and has created far too much contamination. France has also not shown a good record in dealing with it's waste. No country has responsibly dealt with the waste issue.
Sending a check to an environmental organization looks good on paper, but does not get the job done. It is our choices day to day that make us environmentalists, and that requires low impact, sustainable systems over the long term. Nuclear does not fit in with responsible and sustainable energy production. http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/18/offshore-wind-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy-eu-climate-chief-says/
Comment
22 of 56
October 30, 2011
The lessons of Fukusmima cannot be written off as a local event, due to local mismanagement. The same excuses were used with Chernobyl, and imply that nuclear reactors are perfectly run elsewhere. that has not been the case. If it was not operator error, it was natural disaster, it could be any loss of grid power that creates the next disaster. a terrorist attack has not yet occurred on a nuclear site, but they are all vulnerable. the recent AP reports as well as warnings form the UCS and others have shown patterns of cost cutting and neglect at many sites. Unresolved leaks and ground water contamination are all problems that the NRC allows to continue. the NRC has never refused a re-licensing. Cancer clusters have been found around reactors, and contamination of air and water continues to add to the background radiation levels of people far removed from the reactor sites. No nuclear disaster is only a local event, when radiation spreads throughout the atmosphere and oceans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/22/japan-nuclear-disaster-radiation-levels

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/16/editorial-fukushima-nuclear-dirty-tricks

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20110828a4.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892120/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jul/14/greenpolitics.science?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

The last two sites are about the existence of cancer clusters down wind from nuclear power, where even normal operation includes radiation releases, often without public knowledge. Genetic damages affect generations to come and they get no benefit from the electricity that was produced by nuclear power in earlier times.
Comment
23 of 56
October 30, 2011
Really. I have several friends who shoot high powered rifles, and none of them have been ripped up by flying lead. So, based on your idiotic logic, again, lead does not kill people when it strikes their chest. I can not believe you people are actually stupid enough to believe I would believe this unadulterated crap! Unaraum 239 is down right deadly after depleted damn it, and your idiotic reference to 'gee, I've never seen it kill anyone' is outright assinine! It explains why you would invest so much money into radioactive energy science ... Just curious, how do you justify the storage of this material by the way? Are you suggesting uranium 239 is safe to put in your livingroom?
Comment
24 of 56
October 30, 2011
aligatorhardt, "The same old propaganda from nuclear power enthusiasts never sounds any better regardless of the repetition."
I am confused. Can you explain why it is that people have such a hard time understanding the points about which you have written here? It is all verifyable with a little research. I am going to cut and paste your post on my desktop and repeat it. Can I attach your aligatorhardt handle or would you prefer I not?
I am not convinced that either you nor I am that intelligent, but I am absolutely sure Mark and people like him are not too bright! Un ******* believable; Gawd, give me strength!
Comment
25 of 56
October 30, 2011
Thank you Tim for the acknowledgment. Feel free to use these posts as they are public property once posted. I have many more links in my library. It is a shame that some visit this site solely for the purpose of spreading false propaganda, and never have any positive contributions. The best evidence of the value of renewable energy is the huge effort that outdated vested interests expend in fighting it.
Comment
26 of 56
October 30, 2011
It is not just Germany that has planned for an end to nuclear power. Switzerland and Italy have also decided to stop adding nuclear power, and work toward replacing those that now exist, and others like Austria are happy that they never built nuclear power. worldwide, around 2/3 of people surveyed want an end to nuclear power. In Japan 3/4 of the people are against nuclear power. The claim that China is still building nuclear power is true, but they are also the number one installer of renewable energy, and are struggling to provide modernization across their huge population. While politicians are swayed by bribes from nuclear power companies, the people are not seeing economic advantages, with all nuclear power facilities raising rates to the customers, and even those that do not get built still charge customers with no refunds for unfinished plants. Home ownership of solar power and community wind projects offer the end of constantly rising electric bills. Without government support nuclear power has never paid it's own way, and the waste issue has not been paid for.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/us-nuclear-nrg-idUSTRE73I7E620110419

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html

http://www.pogo.org/investigations/nuclear-security/nuclear-power.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/us-siemens-idUSTRE78H0JG20110918
Comment
27 of 56
October 30, 2011
Wowser dowser -- so WillH & TimG don't care about the over 20,000 Japanese killed by the tsunami because they were told they could live safely in homes & businesses allowed to be built where their ancestors even left stone tablets telling them not to live? Really? Breathtaking myopia.

And, is it disappointing to you guys, including Alligator, that no one was killed by the poorly designed & managed TEPCO nukes? Are you hoping your ignorance of radiation & biology will somehow not be spotlighted when, perhaps, just perhaps, a few highly exposed workers actually pass away? Looking forward to that? Trying to figure out why even Chernobyl's poor management & design couldn't kill enough people to even be a blip on the normal mortality rate in that region?

So, since you want to claim mystic knowledge beyond the sciences of physics & biology, go right ahead, but start counting deaths when the windmills go up -- remember every one of them requires coal to make its steel and petroleum combustion to kiln its cement, yadda, yadda. It's so funny how wind folks can't seem to count their dead the same way they hope to find someone who actually dies from a nuke plant. It's the same kind of accounting Morgan Stanley, Goldman, etc. used (and still try to use).

The reality around the world, as MarkH implies, is that nuclear power, despite old designs, despite poor management, despite even serious accidents, has been safer than any form of power generation devised by man. Yes, including windmills -- tell the two families here in Calif. you don't care their two relatives died on the wind job this year. I dare you to man up to that, Gator. Or, just man up to a real name.

Facts are tough. eh?
Comment
28 of 56
October 30, 2011
And, to illustrate the ignorance some folks accept when displaying an opinion: 'Unaraum 239' from TimG, isn't even an element. Thanks for showing why your words can be ignored, TimG!

Now, back to Gator -- looking at his 'damning' web links, we see things like:

'Of the 95 people diagnosed with cancer in Burnham since 1989, more than half took part in sea-based activities'

'...no scientific link has yet been established between low-level radioactive discharge of the type from Hinkley Point and cancer.'

BNFL, which 'is decommissioning one of the reactors at the Hinkley site, dismissed Busby's findings, adding that his previous work had been 'heavily criticised' by health experts.'

So, old Gator, different cancers in different places where the nuclear technology is the same, means what? It could mean folks in Hinkley and the other places do different things, eat different things, breathe different pollutants, drink more or less... 'no scientific link has yet been established' means exactly what it says. Only a dishonest. manipulative person would say it meant 'it's the nukes!'

As a supporter of the UCS myself, you also need to be honest in what they say. They are officially unbiased. Their concern is that nuclear plants, like all other sources of power, are safely built & run. They aren't anti-nuclear, because their 'S' stands for 'scientists'. Scientists aren't blindly opinionated and willing to mislead others, as you seem able to let yourself do.
Comment
29 of 56
October 30, 2011
And, finally, we see Gator & TimG complimenting themselves for shared willingness to avoid facts and fib to others.

Indeed, Germany & a few others see political gain in saying 'no nukes', but their own scientists warn that added fossil emissions will actually kill people, and not just within their boundaries.

So, who's being 'responsible'? As they admit, Germans going no-nukes will negate all their emissions reductions to date and add 50 megatons of CO2 per year that needn't be added. This is to be respected? Perhaps Gator & TimG might cooperate on letter to others in the world most affected by emissions, like the Bangladeshis. The two amigos could explain why the writers' ignorance of nuclear power should be accepted, along with the new emissions, sea rise, etc. that the writers' ignorance accepts.
Comment
30 of 56
October 30, 2011
'Mr'alexc. You are a dolt. I heard gator guy speak nothing of the beauty of fossil fuels as you suggested. The whole issue here is renewables, not enslaving the world to another horrendous idea like nuclear fission. And I hardly believe you have any compassion for the Bangladeshis when you have so much love for a science that burns the flesh off a human body when control is lost. What a guy you are.
Comment
31 of 56
October 30, 2011
TimG, you do yourself in -- calling names is a clear sign of weak argument. Maybe Fox News has an open slot for you?
;]

So not only did you lose credibility by displaying no interest in learning what you seem not to know about science & reality, like physics & biology, you even show lack of ability to manage facts & intelligent discourse.
Comment
32 of 56
October 30, 2011
Call em as I see em! ;-P
Confusing a solid truth as a weak arguement is the sign of a weak mind! Maybe it is radiation poisoning ?
Comment
33 of 56
October 30, 2011
You don't disappoint Tim! Just remember to avoid those dental Xrays, plane flights, bananas, and, well everything -- especially what your doctor advises!
Comment
34 of 56
October 30, 2011
Really. Mralexc, are you suggesting dental xrays, plane flights, bananas and well everything are equivalent to a nuclear power plant leak? Are you stupid or simple or both?
Comment
35 of 56
October 30, 2011
I find it very telling that a person would try and editorialize site links to discourage someone from reading them. I use no such tactics, I encourage readers to examine the evidence on both sides, that of scientific bodies, and the personal opinions on U-tube or whatever. Don't accept anyone's word without verification. I am satisfied with my references. Some attempt to put words or thoughts in my mouth, but my words are on the page. Anything else is the words of the author that wrote them. I am concerned with tsunami deaths, and all other tragedies, but natural events are not controllable, however the tragedies we create through our own actions are certainly preventable. We have many ways to make electricity, why choose the most expensive and the most dangerous? Coal power has not been overlooked. Coal use should also be replaced by renewable energy.
Germany may be using more dirty power since reactors have been taken offline, but that is a temporary situation, and since they already have achieved 21% renewable power, they are ahead of other countries on emissions. Japan has many nuclear plants offline and their population has made adjustments and found that they can get along without 2/3 of their reactors. their increased fossil fuel use is also temporary, until renewable energy replaces it. We do not need to suffer the harms or expense of nuclear power. We have just begun to find all the ways we can take advantage of natural forces, while keeping a high safety standard. New techniques and devices are coming out frequently, and we already have more than enough solutions.
Comment
36 of 56
October 31, 2011
Amazing how Gator & Tim just hang onto that 'orange in the cage'!

Putting up links as if they support what you say, Gator, is indeed "editorializing" them. When someone actually reads them & points out what they really say, which anyone can read, that's doing what you should have done before fibbing about them.

But human nature is indeed our biggest problem. You two just underscore that with every sentence.
Comment
37 of 56
October 31, 2011
Let's underscore beliefs by deed instead of word. Currently I can make liquid fuel to power internal combustion engines, use the sun and wind to weld steel and run a complete steel fabrication shop, use sun and wind to run a sawmill and a complete wood working shop. Heat and power my home and water without any outside power source. Saw firewood with electricity, and have two years of food ready for any natural disaster. If the grid power failed for any reason, my lights would not blink; I could continue to have a productive lifestyle.

I thought it was time to look into nuclear energy without the chip on our shoulder placed there by our misinformed piers. I thought this forum would be a great place to bring up ideas for thought. It is very interesting that many use the same tactics, so detested and ridiculed, when others of a different energy faith speak out.

Let's be clear that I would risk my life to insure your right to your belief in this free society. That does not give one the right to belittle or degrade another for their freedom of choice. Let us please stay on a positive track to knowledge and wisdom.
Comment
38 of 56
October 31, 2011
Hear, hear, Mark.

My old '70s K-car (Fukushima), started leaking gas, even sitting in the garage. Should I: a) say all cars (nukes) are bad things? or b) fix it? or c) get a new car (safe nuke)?
Comment
39 of 56
October 31, 2011
And if your K car kills everyone in a 25 mile area due to radiation poisoning? Just in case I missed something you two, Dr and Mark, was there no radiation leaks in Japan this summer?
Comment
40 of 56
October 31, 2011
;] ;] Not only were you not reading about radiation & biology earlier Tim, no radiation has killed anyone in Fukushima yet, and may well not -- disappointed? But keep talking trash!

Actually, Pinto & pickup-truck gas tanks killed more folks than nuclear power including Chernobyl, ever have. But that's fine if you're happy breathing those NORM emissions from coal, gas, geo, etc.
;]
Comment
41 of 56
October 31, 2011
Oh, I get it now! Physical damage that will *eventually* kill someone does not count! Silly me! Let me ask you a question. Do you believe the people who were 'not killed' at Chernoble were a clever story put on by anti nuke people? Those anti nuke people are so damned clever, arent they?

As long as autos kill more than nuclear accidents, we should allow them, right? Of course!

If I can come up with a cube of depleted uranium, would you be willing to set it on your living room table? Oh, thats right, the government **keeps these things under close guard so people do not kill themselves or others** Those silly government people expect us to believe this stuff is really dangerous! Silly cows!
Hey! I gots a real good idea! Lets build a thousand more of these nuclear power things and *prove* they are not deadly! Douaa!
Comment
42 of 56
October 31, 2011
Aaaah Tim, still not disappointing, but apparently disappointed that Ma Nature gave us, and Chernobyl/Fukushima victims, the cellular ability to correct radiation damage, as well as oxygen-breathing damage. You really seem to wish those kids around Chernobyl didn't have a 99.5% survival rate now don't you?

As to your 'cube of depleted uranium' -- if you knew what you're talking about, you'd know what 'depleted' means and would have been quietly studying what you don't want to know.

But, your apparent need to be 'withholding' (to quote the psychologist's diagnostic manual) doesn't mean anyone wants to convince you of anything. My purpose is to just expose misinformation, so others aren't misled.

If you could get some depleted Uranium, which is sitting all over Kentucky in canisters, you'd realize it was no more dangerous than the Uranium in your granite counters or home stonework. You may even have a painting or some glassware that used non-depleted U for pigmentation -- now that's dangerous!

Oh yeah, better give up those bananas too.
;]

Don't read any of this Tim, ol' boy!...
http://www.xkcd.com/radiation/
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/know-your-nukes-understanding-radiation-risks-in-japan.ars
Comment
43 of 56
November 1, 2011
Aucune n'est pire aveugle que ceux qui ne seront pas voir.

Fear not DaveF, the adults in the world will make up for your repeated emissions.
;]
No image available
Comment
44 of 56
Anonymous
November 1, 2011
DrAlecC :

I have been a member of EcoPower CVBA since 2006 (google it). They supply my home with 100% renewable sourced electricity day and night. I pay for that privilege 20 cents per consumed kWh. They source it from wind, run-of-river hydro, biomass and bio gas installations, solar PV, waste refuse cogen plants. They went from 1 to 35 000 members in 7 years.

Those paid 20 euro cents per consumed kWh is the same price that my neighbors are paying to get their nuke and fossil fuel generated electricity piped into their home.

Who is screwing who here ?

I also added a 4.2kW solar PV installation on the roof of my home, that now covers 100 percent of my current yearly electricity consumption. My home's ground/water heat pump converts 1kWh in electricity consumption into 3kWh of hot water for my home heating and hot water needs.

Yes, my home is very well insulated although not of the passive house model, but requiring very little extra heat to be comfortable.

And my underground 4000 gallon rainwater collecting tank allows me to cover 98% of my water needs on a yearly basis. I only use city water to cook and drink, since laundry, toilets, car + home cleaning, and showers being done with soft collected and filtered rainwater.

My turbo diesel car is using the normal diesel fuel found at the local Total fuel station, diesel fuel consisting of a 10% biodiesel and a 90% fossil fuel derived mix.

My country (Belgium) just decided to close most of it's nuke plants, too old after a 40 years life. They will invest in renewable and natural gas plants; given that we have a carbon emission market forcing us to cap our carbon emissions.

Screw your nukes : we have now a big problem with the waste generated by those plants, and the government want to bury them in salt mines. Out of the eyes is out of the mind ? Not in my backyard.

regards,

me and myself.
Comment
45 of 56
November 1, 2011
Me and myself, you are a serious threat to DrAlexs investment portfolio. After all, 99.5% of the people survive after a plant meltdown ... after a couple of months. Seriously disfigured and sick, but still alive. So who will miss a few Russians or Japanese anyway? The portfolio is solid damn it! Yoo haa ...

The doc is a pure, unadulterated idiot looking to convince people that nuclear energy is safe.
Comment
46 of 56
November 1, 2011
I think the point is if a fusion reaction can be created without dangerous trans nuclei and little to none radioactive waste, and it creates its own fuel without mining, shouldn't that be looked at as an improvement? And possibly the fact that all the nuclear plants now in service were supposed to be replaced with this type of reactor but couldn't because of political pressures to dismantle the civilian nuclear industry by valid but displaced fears of the old style reactors? Witch in turn raised costs and cut suppliers to unmanageable levels? Making it impossible to build safer reactors? And forced the industry to allow outdated reactors to continue to function? It seems the old argument and political reaction may have caused most of the problems with reactors in use.
I think this line of reasoning should be looked into. It also mutes and supersedes all argument describing the old style reactors. Point of fact, it verifies the new designs be looked into.
Comment
47 of 56
November 1, 2011
*it verifies the new designs be looked into.
*
I agree Mark. Unfortunately the nuclear power industry has proven to be inept, so they are bound to be mistrusted. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

This cold fusion stuff really intrigues me however. I truly hope this is the real thing. Before we destroy the planet with radioactive isotopes (if they really exist... <;-P )and carbon.
Comment
48 of 56
November 1, 2011
I also hope for some type of 4H to He fusion as a possible solution, and junk all fission. Till then we can diversify into every form of safe clean energy we can think up.
The other end of the wish list is to research dark energy and dark matter, (I hate that label). If the power to act on gravity is right under our noses, may be an interesting field to study.
Comment
49 of 56
November 1, 2011
Fusion is a nice idea but is unlikely to become a reality in the foreseeable future, if ever.
Comment
50 of 56
November 1, 2011
Oops, Anonymous is back & Tim is flustered: "pure, unadulterated idiot" -- might read typical blog rules Tim, unless folks are supposed to ignore your words.

Good Anonymous has solar PV, because he should remember that that's one of the key things I've long advocated as a Sierra Club member. Maybe Anonymous' memory is just convenient? As to his Belgian politicos choosing "natural gas plants", will they also begin paying a Carbon tax they needn't have? Or, will they try to avoid it and the reality that burning gas is >90% worse than nukes/hydro & 55% as bad as burning coal? Aw, what do Belgians care about Bangladeshis or Maldivians...?

MarkH & TimG both seem to misunderstand fusion, especially with Hydrogen isotopes -- their neutron flux is 100x that of fission and so any containment suffers great transmutation of its constituent elements. But what do I know, it was just my grad study in college!?
;]
TimG doesn't even bother to study or read before spouting about things like: "destroy the planet with radioactive isotopes (if they really exist... <;-P )" -- what does that mean, Tim? Don't you realize most of the earth is molten because of vast quantities of radioactive isotopes throughout our planet that you're so generously concerned about? Guess you missed that part of Science class, eh Tim?

And we end up with MarkH on Dark Energy/Matter -- fitting.

But, all feel free to attend an honest assessment of fusion with us, next week...
http://www.ieee4life.org/

Might learn something, Tim & Mark (even the secret Belgian too)!
;]
Comment
51 of 56
November 1, 2011
Hi Mark,
I was under the impression that this device was fusion. It is not?
Comment
52 of 56
November 1, 2011
If the Belgian's and the Swiss say forget nukes, then I say forget it too. I love Interlaken. Lucky for me a best friend lives there and I visit almost every year. I won't do anything just cause the Germans say so, they are rude, but great hosts, and build a good inverter.
Comment
53 of 56
November 9, 2011
Hi Mark,
it is an interesting subject. Japanese culture is full of contradictions. When you say ... make rapid change difficult, I think of the acquisition of Artemis Intelligent UK digital displacement in hydraulics for wind turbine by Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi has been using gearbox drivetrain and they are the first in the wind power industry to accept hydraulic transmission for the drive train. Their target is UK Round 3 project in Scotland.
What I can explain to myself is Mitsubishi has a vision that others are missing.
Comment
54 of 56
November 9, 2011
Hypernova Drive, I am glad to hear that you feel Mitsubishi Heavy Industry has a vision for wind turbines that others are missing. I wrote about Mitsubishi favorably in Japan's Tipping Point and plan to blog about the company when I get around to wind power in the near future. Stay tuned.
Comment
55 of 56
November 9, 2011
All might want to read the Wall Street Journal, today...

ASIA NEWS NOVEMBER 9, 2011: New Panel to Probe Nuclear Disaster
By YUKA HAYASHI

And, Mitsubishi HEavy Industries isn't named that for no reason (having worked for them over here) -- that 700 tons of coal, limestone, aggregate, steel, etc. indeed takes lots of fossil fuel to mine, refine, fabricate, transport, erect, build roads & transmission lines for and to maintain.

Aaaahhh, wind.
;]
Comment
56 of 56
November 9, 2011
DrAlexC makes a good point that wind turbines currently require a lot of fossil fuel to put into place. This is not unique to Mitsubishi, of course. But over the long run, I believe that the net impact will be beneficial and a move away from fossil fuels. Is that something you would argue with Alex? I'm curious what you did for Mitsubishi when you worked for them. By the way, I am having a bit of a disaster with Amazon. They have Japan's Tipping Point listed for sale at $100, when I intended it to sell for $10. And it will apparently take weeks for them to change it.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Mark Pendergrast

View Mark Pendergrast's Profile
About: Mark Pendergrast is an independent scholar and author of books and articles. His books include JAPAN'S TIPPING POINT: Crucial Choices in the Post-Fukushima Wor... more »

Recent Blog Posts

Japan's Tipping Point Blog 5: Biomass
Japan's Tipping Point Blog 4: Solar Hot Water
Japan's Tipping Point Part 3: Solar Photovoltaic Panels
More »

Advertise With Us

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access Featured Total Access Partners
 
Konica Minolta Sensing Americas, Inc Latin American Wind Energy Association (LAWEA) Prudent Living, Inc. Solar FlexRack Met Office Yingli Green Energy Americas, Inc. American Wind Energy Association
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters