Our Magazines Article Archives
 

The Dangers of Energy Generation

By Elisa Wood, Contributor
May 25, 2011   |   12 Comments
In the aftermath of the Fukushima-Daiichi incident it should be recognised that all forms of generation involve risk — although wind and solar are among the safest.

Do you like this magazine?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

With 26,000 subscribers and a global readership in over 170 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine is targeted at those who make growth happen in renewable industries. Covering policy, technology, finance, markets and more, Renewable Energy World magazine covers all technologies and all markets. Published six times per year, a special Directory of Suppliers Issue is published in July/August which is distributed year round at key renewable energy events worldwide.

12 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 12
May 26, 2011
Thank you Clee,

For injecting some sense into the conversation.

I don't know why renewables advocates are so vocally opposed to nuclear energy. It's ultra-low carbon energy, which can be implemented everywhere... but it's far more expensive than wind energy (at least double the cost/MWh), and is subjected to an eventual price spike (peak uranium will likely happen within 30 years)...

So while being clearly much greater benefit to the planet compared to coal, nuclear power would only be preferred in regions that have poor renewable resources - such as the American Southeast. In those regions, it's costly... but nuclear power is a hell of a lot better than coal.

The panicmongering BS propaganda that this site indulges in to demonize nuclear is intellectually insulting.
Comment
2 of 12
May 26, 2011
Cree, Facts don't lie. On June 15, 1896: Waves as high as 100 feet (30 meters), spawned by an earthquake, swept the east coast of Japan. Some 27,000 people died.Estimated at 8.4 magnitude, this earthquake was well over the 7.9 magnitude design criteria you state was used for the Fukushima plants. Oh by the way that happened only 6 years before the beginning of the 20th century, so your statement about Japanese earthquakes of the 20th century driving the design criteria really seems a bit like cherry picking the facts. There can only be two possible explanations for the fact that six large plants were built in a row at the edge of one of the world's most dangerous earthquake/tsunami zones. Human error or greed. I would guess that both played their part which is what makes some technologies a much graver threat than others. We will never eliminate human error and greed so for our own good we need to utilize technologies that spread the energy density over wide areas in very diffuse/distributed ways. Otherwise we will continue to see larger and larger energy calamities that will overtime significantly impact the livability of the planet. That's the hard truth.
Comment
3 of 12
May 26, 2011
Hi:

OK article... nothing new though...
Wind, Solar and Geo are by 'nature' (no pun) safer and more resilient than any fuel based system. So in a way touting this fact is a bit like taking conscious credit for how tall you are.
As for the other commenters (1&2), people who find empathy in downplaying the human fallout, past and future from disasters are usually people who have so far walked through life with little personal tragedy or adversity. For them, actuarializing any event seems perfectly fine and correct.

.....Bill
Comment
4 of 12
May 26, 2011
Clee; None of the nuke plants in the direct path of the tsunami survived. Your 80% survival claim is like saying that all disaster impacts are national in physical scope. Get real. Bottom line is nuke plants cause electrcity to cost more. Even tho many costs are hidden by govt subsidies, just as coal power costs are hidden in massive national medical burdens. It is pushed on a dependent public because it is profitable for the rich and supports centralized corporate control. The corporate dream is a social pariah. Corporations fear distributed energy like the plague, which it may be for them, if they continue to refuse to adapt. I like this article for pointing out the broader overview of safety . Concentrated energy venues will constrain risks to more massive events. Distributed energy = distributed risks, and more evenly distributed wealth.
Comment
5 of 12
May 26, 2011
I believe the vulnerability lies with the power lines, switchgear and breakers used to transmit the power. These would have been washed away by the tsunami. Also, I am not so sure wind turbines would fair particularly well in a tornado or major hurricane. Also, the major failure mechanism for wind turbines lies with the blades and reduction gearing, with most failures to date caused by the cyclic forces created by the variability of wind.

Solar power would fare poorly in most major environmental disasters.

I believe the right question is not safety per se, but the ability to of the generating source to survive the natural events associated with where the plant is located. In that respect, the wind turbines did well in an earthquake and subsequent tsunami.

The tsunami killed tens of thousands in Japan but no member the public has been killed by the failure of Fukushima. The financial cost is and will be staggering, however. Therein lies what I believe is the real question. Is nuclear power ultimately cost effective?
Comment
6 of 12
May 26, 2011
Nuclear power supporters would be better off to say nothing, than to completely ruin their credibility (self imagined) by making obvious false statements. It was loss of backup power and poor planning that created the meltdowns at Fukushima. The nuclear power industry cannot even exist without tax payer support, and even with all the subsidies, they still will not spend the money on safety. If there is any hope for the future of nuclear power, there must be an end to the industry capture of regulatory bodies, specifically the NRC. The previous regulatory body was replaced by the NRC for the same reason. To put backup power generators in the basement of a coastal facility is just stupid. Most of US reactors only have 4 hour battery backup and 12 hours of diesel fuel. Dry caste storage is the approved method for storing older nuclear fuel, but to save money there are huge amounts of old fuel in overcrowded pools at every location. There continue to be lesser incidents that could result in disaster, We have been pushing our luck for too long.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5791247/how-a-fukushima+level-disaster-would-affect-you-in-new-york-la-or-chicago
No image available
Comment
7 of 12
Anonymous
May 27, 2011
Phil writes: "Get real. Bottom line is nuke plants cause electrcity to cost more. "

He fails to say WHAT it would cost more than though. If he means coal then this is probably true if we ignore the climate change dangers--which would be unwise. Once one factors in concerns for atmospheric CO2 generation, nuclear power would seem to be much less dangerous than coal-fired generation. If you want to design an energy system that does not use either coal or nuclear power the cost is going to be much much higher than it is now--contrary to Phil's imprecise claim. It is simply not possible to generate most of our electricity from intermittent sources such as wind and solar energy without enormous additional costs and improved technologies that would change that situation are not likely to arise in the near future. An irrational retreat from nuclear power is only going to slow the rate at which newer generation methods are able to displace coal and this will be bad for the environment.
Steven
Comment
8 of 12
May 27, 2011
The problem is not technology. The problem is nature, including human nature. Give humans too much power and sooner or later we screw it up! Why don't we just be realistic about what we can manage. For example, although Thorium reactors are much safer and cheaper and less dangerous and less polluting than uranium or plutonium reactors, nobody uses them. Why, because you can't use them for making atomic weapons. Let's face it, power corrupts and huge amounts of it in too concentrated form attracts all the pirates of the universe to see what cheap tricks they can pull to get rich and powerful. These folks are running the world at the moment and they are running it into the ground. Wake up and smell the radionuclides!!
No image available
Comment
9 of 12
Anonymous
May 30, 2011
Jonathan writes in comment #10: "Thorium reactors are much safer and cheaper and less dangerous and less polluting than uranium..."

and "Fireofenergy" writes in comment #11: "but the molten salt reactors, if ever developed, are simply irresistible from an unlimited energy and rather safe point of view...." and "In light of this, we'all should demand a ban to the very inefficient, and dangerous light water reactor...."

Well, there are no approved designs for the reactors they prefer and it would be more than a decade before any new designs could be developed. We should be working toward better reactors, but what we have now is already better than using coal so banning them would be irrational and counterproductive. Utopian edicts don't work well in the real world.
Steven
Comment
10 of 12
June 4, 2011
So some are saying large investment generation plants are the only answer. Some favor distributed energy sources with distributed investment, maintenance, profitability, and risk. Once we get beyond the "love story" of capitalism, it seems like a far better deal. It strikes fear into wall street investment brokers to consider a nation of energy producers spread out beyond their margin absorbtion, and that means the politicians they support fear it also.
I don't claim to be an expert, but with one good eye and a fair separator and medeocre typing ability I can see this situation that seems obscure to many. Insisting on a huge money tide to fix this multi=faceted problem seems ripe for corruption and little else. Give all the people a fair deal and guaranteed firmness on energy prices and new investment will flow.
Let wall street brokers go to China and see how they do parasitizing their industrial economy like they have been doing here.
No image available
Comment
11 of 12
Anonymous
June 9, 2011
Off shore installations barely notice tsunami's in deep water; it's when they reach the sloping bottom that they rear up to become a massive wave. This is a well known phenom. or off shore buoys would be swept away as would oil & gas platforms.

Siting a nuke on a susceptible shore line probably exceeded the expectations of the designers in regard to the operation of the cooling systems.

Gloating about the invincibility of off shore wind turbines is a bit premature; I'd wait until they survive a cyclone.
Comment
12 of 12
June 9, 2011
If peak uranium fuel can happen in 30 years, as Mr. Doty says, it makes little sense to become dependant upon it for power. A scientist working for NASA has designed an interplanetary propulsion system that would operate on nuclear power, and for a long enuf time, perhaps more than a generation. I'm guessing a fair sized amount to travel to and explore another solar system. It could work. We now have many nuclear military ships, right? I mention this because the political "leadership" bodies in the USA seem so be counting on another habitable planet to occupy as they promote allowing the trashing of this one. Save the uranium. It is not a good terestrial fuel.
After all, Japans power dependance, as ours, is a thing we make. It is not forced upon us by an unknown force to be "lost" at a later time. Poor planning merely reveals unrealistic goals established by insane minds, voted into office by other insane minds. I believe our government system would work if we respect it instead of trying to subvert it or cheat it for special gains.
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
ISSUE COVER IMAGE: About Renewable Energy World

With over 50,000 subscribers and a global readership in 174 countries around the world, Renewable Energy World Magazine covers industry, policy, technology, finance and markets for all renewable technologies. Content is aimed ... more »

 

Elisa Wood

View Elisa Wood's Profile
About: Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry's top magazines and newsletters. A correspondent for McGraw-Hill/Platts Energ... more »

Advertise With Us

HelioSage Magnum Energy Inc. Renewable Energy World Africa US Solar Institute Solar Electric Power Association SkyFuel Met Office
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