Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Robert Rapier on Jun 29, 2011 with 229 responses

Worldwide Nuclear Industry Woes Deepen

The following guest post is from OilPrice.com.

——————————–

The year 2011 will go down for the nuclear industry worldwide as an annus horribilis.

First came the March Fukushima nuclear disaster, with operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) belatedly acknowledging that three of the facility’s six reactors did, in fact, suffer core meltdowns.

On 20 June Moody’s Investors Service obligingly cut its credit rating on TEPCO to junk status and kept the operator of Japan’s crippled nuclear power plant on review for possible further downgrade, citing uncertainty over the fate of its bailout plan. TEPCO is Japan’s largest corporate bond issuer and its shares are widely held by financial institutions. TEPCO shares have plummeted 80 percent since March, dragging its market capitalization below $9 billion. Following the Fukushima crisis, including a round of emergency loans from lenders and $64 billion in outstanding bonds, TEPCO now has around $115 billion in debt versus equity of about $35 billion. It’s enough to make any self-respecting Japanese salaryman commit hara-kiri.

Farther to the west, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is closely monitoring conditions along the Missouri River, where floodwaters were rising at Nebraska Public Power District’s Cooper Nuclear Station and Omaha Public Power District’s Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant. Flooding could complicate the restart of the Fort Calhoun plant, shut in April for refueling, as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expects record water release from the federal dams along the Missouri River to continue until mid-August. The failure on Friday of a Missouri River levee in northwest Missouri offered the imperiled plants a brief reprieve from possible flooding, although Nebraska officials nervously expect the river’s waters to rise again.

Completing the trifecta and adding to the perfect storm is news of a work stoppage at Israel’s secretive Dimona nuclear power station. The only thing that Dimona officials fear more than publicity is bad publicity and Israel’s Channel 10 is reporting that Dimona employees have decided to enact work sanctions after ongoing negotiations have failed to bring an end to a dispute over their work conditions. Beginning Sunday, external workers will not be allowed to work in Dimona, and the union may shut down the core completely in the coming weeks if their demands are not met. The labor dispute is between the Treasury and the reactor’s managers, who are demanding salary reimbursement comparable to that of nuclear researchers.

And the hits just keep on coming.

The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission is preparing to make a presentation to a special session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna to outline new steps to supervise Israel’s two nuclear reactors, the 24-megawatt Dimona reactor and a 5-megawatt Center for Nuclear Research reactor at Nahal Sorek and the handling of their nuclear waste. Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission head is leading the Israeli delegation.

It is likely to be a contentious meeting. The United States provided the Nahal Sorek reactor to Israel in the 1960s as part of the Atoms for Peace Program. The reactor is under IAEA supervision and is visited by international inspectors twice a year.

Dimona, on the other hand, was supplied to Israel by France in 1958 and is widely believed to provide fissile material for Israel’s nuclear weapons program. Buttressing these concerns is the fact that Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to allow IAEA inspectors to supervise or even visit Dimona. Israel’s protestations over the benign nature of Dimona’s activities received a worldwide blow in 1986 when a technician at Dimona, Mordechai Vanunu, revealed an account of Israeli covert nuclear weapons production there, complete with photographs, to London’s Sunday Times. An infuriated Israeli government subsequently kidnapped him in Rome, returning him to Israel for trial on charges of treason and espionage in a closed court, where he received and served a 18-year sentence, 11 of them in solitary, for having the temerity to reveal Israel’s covert nuclear military program to the world.

According to an Arab diplomatic source speaking to Kuwait’s KUNA news agency, Arab nations are demanding that the IAEA inspect Israel’s nuclear facilities at an international nuclear security conference, which opened at IAEA headquarters in Vienna on Monday. Arab nations maintain that Israel’s unmonitored nuclear program, led by Dimona’s aging reactor, pose an unacceptable risk to Middle Eastern nations without proper IAEA supervision. Further upping the ante, the diplomatic source stated that the participating Arab delegations are renewing calls for Israel to sign to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as well opening its nuclear facilities to regular IAEA supervision. In the wake of Fukushima such calls are certain to receive a more sympathetic hearing.

Between Vienna and labor woes, its enough to make an Israeli nuclear official wish for something more manageable, like a plague of locusts.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Worldwide-Nuclear-Industry-Woes-Deepen.html

By. Dr. John C.K. Daly for OilPrice.com. For more information on oil prices and other commodity related topics please visit www.oilprice.com

  1. By Rufus on June 29, 2011 at 10:35 pm

    There’s an old saying: If you choose to live next to the water, sometimes you’re going to live “IN” the water.

    This Has to be a “year of learning” for the Nuclear Industry – if there’s going to Be a Nuclear Industry.

    [link]      
  2. By Russ Finley on June 30, 2011 at 12:25 am

    40,000 deaths annually from car crashes, 0 from nuclear accidents. Which should we ban?

    [link]      
  3. By rrapier on June 30, 2011 at 6:54 am

    Russ Finley said:

    40,000 deaths annually from car crashes, 0 from nuclear accidents. Which should we ban?


     

    But people have a very special fear of radiation. I think Fukushima changed the nuclear picture drastically.

    RR

    [link]      
  4. By doggydogworld on June 30, 2011 at 8:28 am

    40,000 deaths annually from car crashes…..

    How many car crashes render million acre swaths of land uninhabitable?

    More seriously, Robert is correct. People fear a silent, invisible, unfamiliar and uncontrollable threat such as radiation immeasurably more than a tangible, well-known and seemingly controllable threat such as a car wreck. Nuke fans tend address this is two ways:

    1. By calling the vast majority of voters, who control the future of their industry, irrational fools

    2. By lying to these people and claiming nuclear plants are designed to be so safe that no threat exists

    I hope I don’t have to point out the futility of the first approach. The second is more successful until a Three Mile Island, Chernobyl or Fukushima comes along and blows a 20 year hole into your credibility. I don’t know if nuclear can overcome the fear hurdle, but if it is to happen the marketing program needs to improve a hundred fold. A plant design that doesn’t cost $8m/MW would also help.

    [link]      
  5. By Kit P on June 30, 2011 at 9:27 am

    “This Has to be a “year of learning” for the Nuclear Industry – if there’s going to Be a Nuclear Industry.”

     

    Did not learn any thing new Rufus. People with ‘special fear of radiation’ will continue to articulate that fear. What we have to do to protect people from harmful radiation has not changed.

     

    “belatedly acknowledging that three of the facility’s six reactors did, in fact, suffer core meltdowns.”

     

    As soon as the tsunami flooded cooling water pumps, core damage was inevitable. I suspect that the damage caused by the tsunami will cause all 6 reactors at Fukushima 1 to be decommissioned. Another 4-6 old reactors in Japan will likely be decommissioned as a result of the cost of upgrades for the new seismic requirements. Two old reactors in Japan were decommissioned as a result of the 2007 earthquake.

     

    Japan has bad natural disasters all the time. I have been researching the tsunami in Japan. At 101 tsunami evacuation sites, this tsunami washed over them. Tens of thousand of people died because they thought they were safe. Three died at the nuke plant when the tsunami hit.

     

    At nuke plants we have emergency plans to protect the public when the engineering features fail because of human error or natural disasters. It is better to keep fission products in the plant than move people living around the plant away from the fission products.

     

    For people in the oil industry with ‘special fear of radiation’ let me tell not to breath the smoke when your refinery is on fire. Smoke is much more dangerous than fission products. If fact there was a big refinery fire as a result of the tsunami.

     

    Did Dr. John C.K. Daly write about that? The tsunami in Japan is going to have implication on the cost of coal and LNG too. Higher energy cost are going to run on the order of $98 billion/yr for Japan.

     

    “Flooding could complicate the restart of the Fort Calhoun plant”

     

    There is big difference between flooding at the nuke plant and flooding around the nuke plant. Natural disasters happen and it would appear that the nuclear industry handles them better than society in general.

     

    “And the hits just keep on coming.

    The Israeli Atomic Energy Commission is preparing to make a presentation to a special session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna to outline new steps to supervise Israel’s two nuclear reactors,”

    This kind of give some insight into the thinking (or lack of same) of the author. Behind every anti-nuke is the lack of understand between commercial nuclear power for making electricity and nuclear weapons programs. Let me explain! Nuclear weapons are very effective as weapons. Nuclear power is very effective at safely making electricity.

    [link]      
  6. By Kit P on June 30, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Here we go!

     

    “How many car crashes render million acre swaths of land uninhabitable? ”

     

    The land around Fukushima 1 is not uninhabitable. People have been evacuated to reduce the risk of exposure.

     

    “irrational fools”

     

    Your words doggydogworld. Let me hear your rational argument. Many animals were not evacuated, are they suffering from radiation sickness?

     

    “By lying to these people and claiming nuclear plants are designed to be so safe that no threat exists ”

     

    The record says we are telling the truth. What threat are you specifically worried about? If you are suggesting that we in the nuclear industry are dishonest, could you be more specific. Yes, we understand that large exposure to radiation is harmful but we have never threaten to drag doggydogworld into the reactor compartment.

     

    If you have ever been in a car, gone swimming, smoked a cigarette, or consumed an alcoholic beverage; please do not suggest that nuclear power plants are a threat to you. I know people who snort cocaine and lecture me about the risk of radiation. It is easy to explain. Society will not take my kids away for working at a nuke plant. Fitness for duty regulations require certain behaviors. However, if you get arrested for snorting cocaine, you may be explaining to a judge why you should keep your kids and your employer why you should keep your job. For good matter too.

     

    “I don’t know if nuclear can overcome the fear hurdle, ”

     

    I used to live on a ship with two reactors. The US navy puts thousands on ships with reactors. Most of the sailors had no experience with radiation safety before joining. You over come fear with training and knowledge.

     

    Furthermore, doggydogworld I have no legal obligation to address your fear. Regulations require those who produce energy to do it safely. I promise you that LWR for commercial nuclear power will not hurt with radiation. Educating yourself to not have irrational fear is your responsibility.

     

    “but if it is to happen the marketing program needs to improve a hundred fold. A plant design that doesn’t cost $8m/MW would also help. ”

     

    Here is the deal doggydogworld, no one is marketing a nuke plant at you. There are public retaliations campaigns geared to overcoming irrational fear especially in communities that want nuke plants. Utilities that own nuke, coal, and NG plants know how much it cost to build and make electricity. If a utility thinks a nuke is the most economical choice, they will ask for proposals. Then the utility will have to justify the cost to the PUC.

     

    Independent of the economic process is the safety and environmental regulation that is handled by the NRC and EPA. In the US, public participation is encouraged. I have seen the irrational fools present their views. If you go to a meeting in a place like Seattle, the irrational fools look normal. If you go to a city like Richland Washington, they will sound just like what they are irrational fools. The difference is that communities with nuke plants hear the rational arguments.

     

    The bottom line is that the nuclear industry has lived with and overcome ‘special fear’ for more than 40 years. The basis of ‘special fear’ is nuclear weapons. You can call me tell me I am lying about nuke plants blowing up like a weapon but I understand the nuclear physics that makes that impossible.

     

    [link]      
  7. By Wendell Mercantile on June 30, 2011 at 11:53 am

    People fear a silent, invisible, unfamiliar and uncontrollable threat such as radiation immeasurably more than a tangible, well-known and seemingly controllable threat..

    Doggy,

    I’d much prefer living across the road from a nuclear power plant than a coal-fired power plant, or next to a mountain-top removal coal mine.

    Even if you include those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more people have died in the last three centuries because of coal mining and the pollutants burning coal pumps into the atmosphere than from nuclear power. In December 1952 in one week alone, more than 12,000 died in London and another 100,000+ were made seriously ill and probably had their lives shortened when an inversion layer trapped the pollutants from the coal-powered power plants and furnaces of London.

    More people have died from many things (cigarettes for one, plus automobiles which has already been mentioned) than have ever died from nuclear power.

    [link]      
  8. By Jackson on June 30, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    I read somewhere that there is a nuclear reactor at a college somewhere that was built in the 1960′s. It is a learning tool for the students. If a reactor built in the 60′s is safe enough for students, then the ones built with today’s tech must be very safe.

    What gets me is this part of the article. Israel’s nuclear program is a threat but Iran’s isn’t? I haven’t heard Israel telling the world that they want to wipe a country off the Earth. I wouldn’t let the IAEA in either if they are that biased.

    Arab nations maintain that Israel’s unmonitored nuclear program, led by Dimona’s aging reactor, pose an unacceptable risk to Middle Eastern nations without proper IAEA supervision.

    [link]      
  9. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    “It’s enough to make any self-respecting Japanese salaryman commit hara-kiri.” – Robert Rapier

    A more appropriate anecdotal blade in reference to nuclear weapons and nuclear power is the Sword of Damocles.  As Fukushima has most recently again shown us, there is only a fine hair between “safety” and nuclear catastrophe.

     

    [link]      
  10. By Wendell Mercantile on June 30, 2011 at 4:25 pm

    I read somewhere that there is a nuclear reactor at a college somewhere that was built in the 1960’s. It is a learning tool for the students. If a reactor built in the 60’s is safe enough for students, then the ones built with today’s tech must be very safe.

    Jackson,

    More than one university has nuclear reactor for research and educational purposes. To name a few: Penn State, University of Missouri – Rolla, Purdue University, Idaho State, Ohio State, Oregon State, Texas A&M, and one in the engineering building at the University of Wisconsin not far from their football stadium.

    [link]      
  11. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    “Safety” as defined by the nuclear industry . . .

    AGING NUKES, PART 1 of 4: Nuke regulators weaken safety rules   June 20, 2011

    “Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation’s aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them, an investigation by The Associated Press has found.”

    Author interview on Democracy Now!

     

    [link]      
  12. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    “But people have a very special fear of radiation.” – Robert Rapier

    There is a well-founded fear of the dispersal of radioactive particles into the environment where they can be inhaled or ingested via accumulations in the food chain.

    [link]      
  13. By Wendell Mercantile on June 30, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    …there is only a fine hair between “safety” and nuclear catastrophe.

    Rate Crimes,

    That’s true with most things. I assume you drive a car. Have you ever driven down a two-lane highway at 65 mph, just a matter of 4-5 feet from onrushing traffic going the same speed? Talk about “fine hairs,” do you realize how close to disaster you are each time a car going the opposite direction goes by? You don’t know if they’ve been drinking, or are talking on their cell phones. Just the slightest twitch because of a lack of attention or slowing of reactions and you’d be history.

    Ever flown in a commercial airliner at 39,000 ft? In a thin aluminum tube pressurized like a balloon, above 80% of the atmosphere, filled with thousands of gallons of volatile jet fuel, and equipped with jet engines with turbines spinning at 10,000 rpm and exhaust gases of 700 degrees F. You probably have. Guess what? You survived that only because a number of things functioned perfectly. Another of those “fine lines” between safety and catastrophe.

    [link]      
  14. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    …there is only a fine hair between “safety” and nuclear catastrophe.

    Rate Crimes,

    That’s true with most things. – Wendell Mercantile

    Yours is a poor argument, Wendell. Your examples have only immediate, local effects. Though, in their aggregate the effects can be societal. The affects of nuclear catastrophe are, at least, regional; more likely the physical, economic, psychological, biological, and societel affects of nuclear catastrophe are national, or even global, as well as being long-term. The affects of the aggregate of multiple nuclear catastrophes are too horrible to contemplate.

    [link]      
  15. By Wendell Mercantile on June 30, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    …too horrible to contemplate.

    So is the effect of someone crossing the center line and running headlong into my family at 65 mph. Yet you and I and millions of others have overcome that fear.

    With the proper education and counseling you could also overcome your fear of nuclear power.

    [link]      
  16. By jackson on June 30, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    I read somewhere that there is a nuclear reactor at a college somewhere that was built in the 1960’s. It is a learning tool for the students. If a reactor built in the 60’s is safe enough for students, then the ones built with today’s tech must be very safe.

    Jackson,

    More than one university has nuclear reactor for research and educational purposes. To name a few: Penn State, University of Missouri – Rolla, Purdue University, Idaho State, Ohio State, Oregon State, Texas A&M, and one in the engineering building at the University of Wisconsin not far from their football stadium.


     

    Thank you, exactly my point – old, 1960′s nuclear reactors are considered safe enough to be used by students in large population areas and have caused no disasters.  You would think that these points would come up at least once in all the coverage.

    Another example of political media bias are hurricanes and the recent BP oil debacle.  Hurricanes routinely travel through the Gulf of Mexico every year.  For decades there have been 100′s (1,000′s ?) of oil rigs drilling in the Gulf.  Yet in all those years how many oil disastors have been caused by those hurricanes?  This was never pointed out during the BP debacle and the debate (what debate?) about the safety of drilling in the Gulf.

    Yes you could argue that nuclear power plants can’t pull up anchor and move.  Still I think that given the number of oil rigs and how large an area a hurricane can cover vs a natural disaster occuring next to a nuclear plant,  its still a valid example.

    [link]      
  17. By Kit P on June 30, 2011 at 5:12 pm

    “What gets me is this part of the article. Israel’s nuclear program is a threat but Iran’s isn’t?”

    Jackson the IAEA is not looking at safety but weapons production. Nuclear reactors fall into three general categories. Electricity production, research, and weapons production. Plutonium from a weapons production reactor can be used to make weapons. Plutonium from a power reactor can not be used to make weapons; however, power reactors have a large inventory of fission products. If you stand next to a large inventory of fission products even for a short time, you will die.

    Lesson #1 of nuclear safety: Do not stand next to a large inventory of fission products.

    Nuclear safety is so easy that in the history of commercial light water reactors in the US has been hurt by radiation.

    Many people including me have a ‘special fear’ of the water. My wife will not go into the water if see can not see the bottom but I think that has something to with snakes where she swam as a kid. However, my fear can not dictate the actions of others. Nobody should go swimming or boating because of a common fear?

    No of course not! In fact I an avid boater and love white knuckle sailing. I am also an avid promoter of water safety.

    I am also an avid promoter of nuclear safety.

    [link]      
  18. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    “A plant design that doesn’t cost $8m/MW would also help.” – doggydogworld

    That is a very rough estimate of capital costs.  When one considers that while profits accumulate to the ‘private’ owners of nuclear plants, the enormous risks fall on the shoulders of the American taxpayer via the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

     

    [link]      
  19. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    …too horrible to contemplate.

    So is the effect of someone crossing the center line and running headlong into my family at 65 mph. Yet you and I and millions of others have overcome that fear.

    With the proper education and counseling you could also overcome your fear of nuclear power.

    Missing the central point of my critique of your previous argument, you now employ the last resort of poor discourse: the thinly-veiled ad hominem.  C’mon Wendell, you can do better than that.

    After the recent, stark, confirming evidence, it is now impossible to disregard the enormous risks involved in nuclear energy.  Both fear and blindness can be either rational or irrational.  My concerns are rational.

    [link]      
  20. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 5:25 pm

    “Yet in all those years how many oil disastors have been caused by those hurricanes?  This was never pointed out during the BP debacle and the debate (what debate?) about the safety of drilling in the Gulf.” – jackson

    The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was not caused by weather conditions.  However, after the disaster there was repeated mention of the dangers of increased damage from the oil spill that might arise from a hurricane.  The the disaster only briefly brought to greater attention the high risks that come with drilling in the gulf.  BAU except on the occassional anniversary of disaster.

    [link]      
  21. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 5:32 pm

    “I am also an avid promoter of water safety. I am also an avid promoter of nuclear safety.” – Kit P

    A self-proclaimed “nuclear safety expert” who conflates recreational water safety with nuclear safety is an excellent argument showing that nuclear safety is an illusion.

    Nuclear power report: 14 ‘near misses’ at US plants due to ‘lax oversight’  March 18, 2011

    “Nuclear plants in the United States last year experienced at least 14 “near misses,” serious failures in which safety was jeopardized, at least in part, due to lapses in oversight and enforcement by US nuclear safety regulators, says a new report.

    While none of the safety problems harmed plant employees or the public, they occurred with alarming frequency – more than once a month – which is high for a mature industry, said the study of nuclear plant safety performance in 2010 by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a Washington-based nuclear watchdog group.”

    “Fission Stories”: A Weekly UCS Series on Nuclear Power Safety

     

    “Sooner or later, in any foolproof system, the fools will exceed the proofs.” - Arnie Gunderson

    [link]      
  22. By Kit P on June 30, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    “With the proper education and counseling you could also overcome your fear of nuclear power.”

    Wendell your fear of a head on collision is based on knowing that the consequences are indeed horrible. Just as the consequences of war, nuclear or other wise, are indeed horrible. However, fear of radiation is based on hyping the unknown.

    The consequences of severely damaging 3 LWR and venting the containment is no longer unknown. With proper emergency management, no one was hurt.

    One of the interesting things about human nature is the inability to not look at a train wreck or a car accident. We want to see what happened but are hoping to see no mangled bodies.

    [link]      
  23. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Fukushima report shows nuclear power can never be safe and cheap  June 20, 2011

    “The first ‘independent’ review of the Fukushima nuclear disaster was published today and it does not make reassuring reading.

    Japan is perhaps the most technologically advanced nation on Earth and yet, time after time, the report finds missing measures that I would have expected to already be in place. It highlights the fundamental inability for anyone to anticipate all future events and so deeply undermines the claims of the nuclear industry and its supporters that this time, with the new generation of reactors, things will be different. “

    [link]      
  24. By Kit P on June 30, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    “There is a well-founded fear of the dispersal of radioactive particles into the environment where they can be inhaled or ingested via accumulations in the food chain.”

    There are a lot of old Hollywood movies that provide the foundation for the fear but fear of low doses of radiation are not based on science. Very high exposures to radiation causes radiation sickness and a small increase risk of cancer. This not based on nuclear weapons use or accidents from reactors. It is based on intentionally exposing people to radiation as part of medical treatment.

    [link]      
  25. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    Kit P said:

    “There is a well-founded fear of the dispersal of radioactive particles into the environment where they can be inhaled or ingested via accumulations in the food chain.”

    There are a lot of old Hollywood movies that provide the foundation for the fear but fear of low doses of radiation are not based on science. Very high exposures to radiation causes radiation sickness and a small increase risk of cancer. This not based on nuclear weapons use or accidents from reactors. It is based on intentionally exposing people to radiation as part of medical treatment.


     

    The “doses of radiation” is not what was previously stated.  The statement addressed radioactive particles.

    [link]      
  26. By jackson on June 30, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Rate Crimes said:

    “Yet in all those years how many oil disastors have been caused by those hurricanes?  This was never pointed out during the BP debacle and the debate (what debate?) about the safety of drilling in the Gulf.” – jackson

    The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was not caused by weather conditions.  However, after the disaster there was repeated mention of the dangers of increased damage from the oil spill that might arise from a hurricane.  The the disaster only briefly brought to greater attention the high risks that come with drilling in the gulf.  BAU except on the occassional anniversary of disaster.


     

    My point was that this information is important to the discussion about drilling in the Gulf and the press ignored it.  How can we make good decisions if we don’t have all the information?

    Quick (very quick) research:

    -There were 70 true offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico in 1953.

         ( http://features.blogs.fortune……f-mexico/)

    -Today there are 239 of which 106 are contracted (not quite 100′s or 1,000′s)

         (http://www.rigzone.com/data/ri…..sp?rpt=reg)

    -Since 1979 there have been 3 major rig accidents that spilled oil: Ixtox-1979-140 mill and Mega Borg-1990 5.1 mill gallons, BP-2010-4.9 mill

         (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D….._oil_spill and http://oilonthebeach.blogspot……tory.html)

    -There have been 86 hurricanes from 1953 to 2009 (only found
    ones that hit land, don’t know how many did not go through gulf)

         (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/t…../E23.html/)

    -The Coast Guard estimated an approx 7 million gallons of oil were
    spilled from various sources during Katrina. 

         (http://oilonthebeach.blogspot……story.html)

    We have been drilling in the Gulf for 58 years.  There have been
    somewhere between 70 and  239 rigs active at one point or another during
    that time. 

    There have only been 3 man-made disasters including the recent BP.  The BP was actually the
    smallest of the three.

    There have been 86 storms since 1953.  None caused an oil rig disaster.  Oil was spilled by various sources during Katrina, not a rig.

    When you look at these facts, it doesn’t look as risky drilling in the gulf as we’ve been lead to believe.  Remember, the argument is not about if we should or shouldn’t, its about having all the information before we decide.

    [link]      
  27. By Kit P on June 30, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    “A new study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found 14 “near misses” at U.S. power plants last year, ”

    Please define what a near miss for safety is? By my count there were zero.

     

    Of course there were no “near misses” at US nuke plants last year. A deviation from perfect is not a ‘near miss’. For example, one of the things listed was damage during maintenance to the containment building. The fuel has been off loaded to the spent fuel building. If the NRC lets the the plant start up without doing a good review of the repair, then it would be indicate a lack of over sight. The NRC is presently reviewing it. Not a near miss for safety.

     

    Several of the other ‘near misses’ involve security. Not a ‘near miss’.

     

    Once again we have inference of lack regulation when the actual evidence suggest very detailed and rigorous regulation of nuke plants.

     

    [link]      
  28. By Kit P on June 30, 2011 at 7:23 pm

    The “doses of radiation” is not what was previously stated.  The statement addressed radioactive particles.

     

    Particles is it? Maybe Rate Crimes would like to explain why his fear of particles is ‘well founded’?

     

    [link]      
  29. By Wendell Mercantile on June 30, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    …the thinly-veiled ad hominem.

    Rate Crimes~

    Thinly-veiled ad hominem attack? What is “ad hominem” about concluding from your many posts that you fear nuclear power? Reaching that conclusion is perfectly reasonable based on your posts. I’m not abusing or belittling you, instead simply stating the only conclusion to which logic points.

    [link]      
  30. By rate-crimes on June 30, 2011 at 10:07 pm

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    …the thinly-veiled ad hominem.

    Rate Crimes~

    Thinly-veiled ad hominem attack? What is “ad hominem” about concluding from your many posts that you fear nuclear power? Reaching that conclusion is perfectly reasonable based on your posts. I’m not abusing or belittling you, instead simply stating the only conclusion to which logic points.

    From your statement above, it ir rather obvious that you don’t understand the meaning of ’ad hominem‘.

    Perhaps also, your definition of fear differs from the norm?  Or, should we conclude that you fear rational thought?  From such conjectures, you should be able to recognize that continuing with additional ad hominem attacks leads nowhere.  Instead, address the issues with valid arguments.

    One begins to wonder if you and ‘Kit P’ inhabit the same body.  You both seem incapable of resisting ad hominem arguments.

    What does it mean, in your terms, to “fear” nuclear power?  Is your definition of fear expressed best by no more than your poor analogy of automobile transportation?

    If there is anything to be feared, it is that the nuclear industry believes that catastrophe is impossible, or even only highly unlikely.  Those responsible for safeguarding nuclear power should be the most skeptical by nature.

    [link]      
  31. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 6:45 am

    Nuclear Hubris: Christian Parenti On What Japan’s Nuclear Disaster Means for the U.S. Energy Industry   June 30, 2011

    Christian Parenti he discusses his recent article, Nuclear Hubris: Could Japan’s Disaster Happen Here?, about what the meltdown of three nuclear reactors in Japan means for the expansion of the nuclear power industry United States. “I think its important to problematize atomic power because some in the Green Movement look to it as a solution,” says Parenti. “But there is no way that this economy can create enough power from atomic energy in a cost-efficient manner in the time necessary.” Parenti argues the focus on developing atomic power diverts funds from the transition to clean technology and pushes the world closer to global warming — a topic he explores in his new book, Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence.

    [link]      
  32. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 6:54 am

    The “doses of radiation” is not what was previously stated.  The statement addressed radioactive particles.

    “Particles is it? Maybe Rate Crimes would like to explain why his fear of particles is ‘well founded’?”  – Kit P

    It isn’t arcana. Anyone can do just a little research on radon gas, for example.

    [link]      
  33. By doggydogworld on July 1, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    Doggy,
    I’d much prefer living across the road from a nuclear power plant than a coal-fired power plant, or next to a mountain-top removal coal mine.


     

    Wendall, I did live across the road from a nuke, figuratively
    speaking. For a decade I lived just outside of Diablo Canyon’s Emergency
    Planning Zone 2.  I never gave it a second thought except when I used
    the handy calendar PG&E handed out to meet their evacuation plan
    dissemination requirement or was surprised by the monthly siren test.

    I
    don’t have a problem with nuclear power. I understand it, the
    risks and rewards and more common failure modes. I know LWRs are not nuclear bombs. But nuclear power policy is political, and the politics are not favorable.
    The industry is often its own worst enemy, placating people with promises they can’t back up (e.g. “this reactor can’t melt down, even the backup systems have backups” or “even in the unlikely case of accident no radiation would escape containment”). And nuclear proponents are often 10x
    worse, battering even the most rational detractors with ad homs, non sequiturs, logical leaps, discredited hormesis studies and the like.

    [link]      
  34. By Wendell Mercantile on July 1, 2011 at 9:28 am

    Anyone can do just a little research on radon gas, for example.

    Radon is a naturally occurring element and is part of the decay sequence of other radioactive elements. It’s an inert gas, and if you occasionally open the windows and ventilate your house, it presents no problem.

    From your statement above, it is rather obvious that you don’t understand the meaning of ’ad hominem‘.

    OK, I’ll stipulate we have different understandings of ad hominem. For some reason, you think I’m attacking you personally to avoid addressing your apparently substantial fear of nuclear power.

    [link]      
  35. By Kit P on July 1, 2011 at 10:26 am

    “The industry is often its own worst enemy, placating people with promises they can’t back up (e.g. “this reactor can’t melt down, even the backup systems have backups” or “even in the unlikely case of accident no radiation would escape containment”). ”

     

    I have been working on LWR for 40 years now and doggydogworld no one in the LWR industry has made those promises or said what you have said we said. Before you call other people a pack of dishonest people check your facts. I see you have backed off a bit so let me explain LWR.

     

    All reactors can and will melt down releasing fission products and destroy a lot of equipment. The is why LWR ‘backup systems have backup’. If you look at any FSAR you will see thousands of pages discussing this. Clearly we all know the dangers of radioactive material.

     

    Furthermore, we have never said no radiation would escape containment. Containment buildings are designed to limit the release to very safe levels after an accident.

     

    For the record, what happened in Japan was a natural disaster that was a ‘beyond design basis’ accident. Some things that occur very infrequently like the magnitude of a 1000 tsunami or an airplane crash are designed to different criteria. Think about it a moment. Are our schools and office building designed to even come close to the safety requirements of a nuke plant.

     

    So while we think we are safe at nuke plants, we also consider is something might happen. We know that melting down the core will release I-131 which is a gas at those temperature. If it becomes necessary in a ‘Severe Accident’ to vent the containment, we know that the steam will also carry I-131. Precautions must be taken to limit the exposure of children because I-131 concentrates in the thyroid.

     

    In Japan, they did a good job of protecting people from harm. No one was harmed by radiation.

     

    “I lived just outside of Diablo Canyon ”

     

    Last time we were in California there was a big fire at Big Sur. It made it hard for my wife to breath in San Jose. The primary difference between smoke and radiation is that you can see the hazard with smoke and with radiation you need a meter.

     

    The promise that is easy to keep is that we will not harm you making your electricity.

     

    [link]      
  36. By Kit P on July 1, 2011 at 11:10 am

    “It’s an inert gas”

     

    Wendell is correct and more precisely it is not a particle nor is it a fission product. Since it is not a particle, it can not be filtered out.

     

    “it presents no problem ”

     

    Generally not a problems but if you live in certain places and have well water, radon can be a problem. However, the EPA has totally exaggerated this issue.

     

    When you are considering how to protect people from radiation exposure from radioactive elements (vice radiation from an x-ray machine), it matters if is an inert gas, chemically reactive gas, or particulate. It matters how it is absorbed in the body or if it is external exposure.

     

    It does not matter if its radioactive material, PAH, PCB. lead, or arsenic there is science behind the setting exposure limits to protect people from environmental hazards. Since the science is complex, there are some people who say scary thing, to further whatever their agenda is.

     

    My agenda is to keep people safe. Tell me what the exposure compared to the regulatory limits. In Japan they exceeded regulatory limits so more comprehensive monitoring was required to protect people.

     

    “If there is anything to be feared, it is that the nuclear industry believes that catastrophe is impossible, or even only highly unlikely.  Those responsible for safeguarding nuclear power should be the most skeptical by nature.”

     

    Again no one including me is saying that a catastrophe is impossible. What I am saying is that the principles of radiation safety have been applied and no one was hurt be radiation.

     

    Did good emergency planning avert catastrophic loss of life. No, 24,000 are dead and missing because of the tsunami. I am also not seeing any evidence what happened at the nuke plants is a catastrophe unless that word loses all meaning.

    [link]      
  37. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 11:35 am

    Wendell Mercantile stated:

    Anyone can do just a little research on radon gas, for example.

    Radon is a naturally occurring element and is part of the decay sequence of other radioactive elements. It’s an inert gas, and if you occasionally open the windows and ventilate your house, it presents no problem.

    From your statement above, it is rather obvious that you don’t understand the meaning of ’ad hominem‘.

    OK, I’ll stipulate we have different understandings of ad hominem. For some reason, you think I’m attacking you personally to avoid addressing your apparently substantial fear of nuclear power.

    OK, you don’t understand the meaning of ‘ad hominem’.

    From a few seconds of searching on Google…

    “Radon is a chemical element that is colorless, tasteless, and odorless and a byproduct of the elements radium and uranium when broken down. When uranium decays it becomes radium and from this form it becomes radon gas.

    Radon gas itself is not dangerous to humans unless this gas decays and produces the radioactive particles polonium and lead. These chemicals are extremely radioactive. In fact, radon is the single contributor of background radiation dose to an individual.

    Radon has been found to be one of the lead causes in lung cancer in the United States which is only second to smoking. What cause the cancer are the radioactive particles. When polonium and lead is inhaled, these particles become stuck in the bronchi, lungs and trachea. Cells in this area then are disrupted by the radioactive polonium and lead particles then cell mutation starts and in which eventually leads to lung cancer.”

    This is just one example of why the inhalation or ingestion of radioactive particles is a concern.

    [link]      
  38. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 11:42 am

    “For the record, what happened in Japan was a natural disaster that was a ‘beyond design basis’ accident.” – Kit P

    You’re just repeating your stale, apologetic saw.  How many other unforseeable disasters, natural or not, will be beyond “design basis”?  Oopsy daisy!

    Expert: Japan nuclear plant owner warned of tsunami threat

    “A seismic researcher told CNN Sunday that he warned the owner of the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant two years ago that the facility could be vulnerable to a tsunami.
    The owner, Tokyo Electric Power Company, appeared to ignore the warning, said seismologist Yukinobu Okamura.

    TEPCO has not responded to Okamura’s allegation.”

    [link]      
  39. By biocrude on July 1, 2011 at 11:50 am

    @ Wendell & Kit,

    Here is a question I haven’t seen a good answer for:  ”What the heck are we going to do with the spent fuel rods in the US and worldwide?”  

     

    “Altogether, some 65,000 metric tons of waste uranium fuel is stored around the United States, with another 2,200 or so tons produced annually, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s trade group.

    The U.S. industry had counted on the creation of the long-term waste repository at Yucca Mountain, which the federal government has already spent $10 billion to prepare.

    But this plan was frozen by President Obama’s administration last year amid opposition from local politicians, including his fellow Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and concerns about the site’s proximity to fault lines.”

    Reuters article here

     

     

     

    [link]      
  40. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 11:55 am

    “I am also not seeing any evidence what happened at the nuke plants is a catastrophe unless that word loses all meaning.” – Kit P

    It is a gross perversion of the word catastrophe to limit it to only an immediate loss of life.  To not recognize the catastrophic impacts of the historic Fukushima catastrophe is a gross insult, particularly to the Japanese.

    A search for “Fukushima” and “catastrophe” returns 1,590,000 hits on Google.

    A search on Google for “Fukushima” and “nuclear” and “catastrophe” returns about 13,500,000 results.

    [link]      
  41. By Wendell Mercantile on July 1, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    Rate Crimes,

    You forgot to mention that learning how to use polonium as an initiator in their “Gadget” was one of the more important discoveries made at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project.

    [link]      
  42. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    Rate Crimes,

    You forgot to mention that learning how to use polonium as an initiator in their “Gadget” was one of the more important discoveries made at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project.


     

    Thank you for providing us with an excellent example of a non sequitur.

    [link]      
  43. By Wendell Mercantile on July 1, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    Here is a question I haven’t seen a good answer for: ”What the heck are we going to do with the spent fuel rods in the US and worldwide?”

    Bio~

    That is a good question, and one of the most critical issues facing nuclear power. I don’t have a good answer, and still favor using Yucca Mountain — but that has become a political impossibility largely due to Harry Reid.

    [link]      
  44. By Wendell Mercantile on July 1, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Thank you for providing us with an excellent example of a non sequitur.

    My pleasure. Since you were telling us of the dangers of polonium, I’d thought you’d like to know it was essential to developing the atom bomb. Even more dangerous than you thought, eh?

    [link]      
  45. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    Here is a question I haven’t seen a good answer for: ”What the heck are we going to do with the spent fuel rods in the US and worldwide?”

    Bio~

    That is a good question, and one of the most critical issues facing nuclear power. I don’t have a good answer, and still favor using Yucca Mountain — but that has become a political impossibility largely due to Harry Reid.


     

    Harry Reid and the citizens of Nevada:

    Yucca Mountain wouldn’t be enough for 72K tons of spent nuclear fuel at US plants

     

    From the Clark County, Nevada Nuclear Waste: FAQ:

    Q. Who opposes Yucca Mountain?
    A.
    Clark County, the State of Nevada, and the cities of Boulder City, Henderson, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Mesquite have all gone on record as opposing this project.

    Q. What do people in Southern Nevada think about Yucca Mountain?
    A.
    Clark County-commissioned opinion polls consistently indicate a majority of Southern Nevadans oppose the Yucca Mountain Project.

    Q. What is Clark County’s position on Yucca Mountain?
    A.
    The county has passed resolutions opposing the Yucca Mountain Project since 1985.

    [link]      
  46. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 12:25 pm

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    Thank you for providing us with an excellent example of a non sequitur.

    My pleasure. Since you were telling us of the dangers of polonium, I’d thought you’d like to know it was essential to developing the atom bomb. Even more dangerous than you thought, eh?


     

    Not as dangerous as is your style of argumentation.

    [link]      
  47. By Kit P on July 1, 2011 at 1:09 pm

    “Here is a question I haven’t seen a good answer for: “What the heck are we going to do with the spent fuel rods in the US and worldwide?” “

    Biocrude it is more of a political issue than a political issue technical problem. To move forward in the US, we will need a new POTUS and Senate Majority Leader. I worked on the Yucca Mountain project about 10 years ago which is a good technical solution.

    The amount of waste is very small compared to coal or NG. For the fist few years spent fuel is stored in pools for cooling and shielding. After that they can be stored in dry cask storage on site.

    In France, the spent fuel is recycled with the fission products glassified. That waste is only hazardous for about 300 years and is a much smaller volume. I suspect we will do the same thing eventually.

    The bottom line is not that the problem has not been solved but better solutions are being debated.

    [link]      
  48. By Kit P on July 1, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    “Expert: Japan nuclear plant owner warned of tsunami threat” “

    Although Rate Crimes refuses to respond to either my response or Wendell’s response, I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.

    Sadly 101 tsunami evacuation sites were also hit. People who ran for their lives but stopped when they thought they were safe, died anyway.

    “It is a gross perversion of the word catastrophe to limit it to only an immediate loss of life. To not recognize the catastrophic impacts of the historic Fukushima catastrophe is a gross insult, particularly to the Japanese.”

    The point here is that the natural disaster was the catastrophe. It seems just a bit odd to focus on radiation exposure that occurred days after the event that was horrific. The reason you can find so many google hits is that many have irrational fear of radiation not that any was hurt by radiation.

    [link]      
  49. By Wendell Mercantile on July 1, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Not as dangerous as is your style of argumentation.

     

    I will not tolerate such a sniveling, below-the-belt, ad hominem attack. Laugh

    [link]      
  50. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    “ I did some more research.” – Kit P

    Care to share your sources?

    [link]      
  51. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    “The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    So, your claim is that if TEPCO had heeded the warnings of a potential tsunami ‘beyond design basis’, but based on historical precedence, and if TEPCO had relocated the emergency generators, and perhaps even hardened them, then the fuel pool explosions and core meltdowns would still have occurred?

    Are you so intent on blaming nature?

     

    [link]      
  52. By Wendell Mercantile on July 1, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    Are you so intent on blaming nature?

    We can say with 100% surety, that someday a meteorite, comet, or asteroid will strike the earth causing a catastrophe beyond anything we can comprehend. We know it will happen. It’s a foreseeable event, but we don’t know when and it’s impossible to predict the scale.

    Some things really are “Acts of God,” beyond our control and for which we cannot plan.

    [link]      
  53. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    “The reason you can find so many google hits is that many have irrational fear of radiation not that any was hurt by radiation.” – Kit P

    You seem stuck on a repetitive theme of “radiation” (not to mention your other pet term, ”irrational”).  What was stated was, “A search on Google for ‘Fukushima’ and ‘nuclear’ and ‘catastrophe’ returns about 13,500,000 results.”  The term radiation was not a term used in the search, because the discussion was centered on the issue of the meaning of the term ’catastrophe’ and your attempts to distort that meaning.

    As for “radiation”, we understand that, at least in your world, “radiation” is a localized phenomenon that you can highlight in order to deny harm coming from nuclear catastrophe, while conveniently ignoring the broad dispersal or radioactive particles into the environment.

     

    [link]      
  54. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 2:53 pm

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    Are you so intent on blaming nature?

    We can say with 100% surety, that someday a meteorite, comet, or asteroid will strike the earth causing a catastrophe beyond anything we can comprehend. We know it will happen. It’s a foreseeable event, but we don’t know when and it’s impossible to predict the scale.

    Some things really are “Acts of God,” beyond our control and for which we cannot plan.

    Wendell, you repeat your earlier error of conflating local and global catastrophies.

    Your thoughts are not very profound, nor are they useful.  In fact, because your blather follows immediately after a very clear question, must we assume now that you blame “Acts of God” for positioning back-up generators in the path of a tsunami?  Where are the boundaries of responsibility?

    [link]      
  55. By Kit P on July 1, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    “So, your claim is that if TEPCO had heeded the warnings of a potential tsunami ‘beyond design basis’, but based on historical precedence, and if TEPCO had relocated the emergency generators, and perhaps even hardened them, then the fuel pool explosions and core meltdowns would still have occurred?”

    No that is not my claim. My claim is the facilities would have been damaged because the tsunami was greater than the historical precedence.

    Since all the reactors survived the earth quake without a LOCA, it would have taken only a relatively small SBO to maintain control power. If you can keep the core covered with a few hundred gpm from RCIC, venting the containment only releases slightly radioactive steam. I will just have to wait for more information before second guessing what happened in Japan.

    I will say that this event would not have happened at US plants. Maybe something else could happen. Rate Crimes if you are smarter than everyone in the nuclear industry let us know what that is! If a magnitude 9 earthquake hits Kansas and causes a 45 foot tsunami, there will be a lot surprised people. The ones that survive are going to be digging people out of rubble. Rate Crimes and the AP are going to be concerned about the status of the core.

    [link]      
  56. By Wendell Mercantile on July 1, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    …must we assume now that you blame “Acts of God” for positioning back-up generators in the path of a tsunami?

    Absolutely — if a tsunami of that magnitude was unprecedented and could not have reasonably been foreseen. That’s the core question, “Based on the information they had available, should they have reasonably been able to foresee the magnitude and effect of the tsunami in March?”

    [link]      
  57. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    “That’s the core question, [...]” – Wendell Mercantile

    Did you really just employ the phrase, “core question”, in reference to Fukushima?!

    [link]      
  58. By Kit P on July 1, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    “while conveniently ignoring the broad dispersal or radioactive particles into the environment.”

    After the release of fission products, I-131 is what we are concerned with as far as broad dispersal. I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.

    Again I will use the words ‘irrational fear’ because it that describes Rate Crimes who describes the mechanism of harm without providing any measurable evidence that he is being harmed.

    “radioactive particles into the environment”

    That is not really a problem because that is just the way nature is and how we evolved. For example Radon-214 decays with a 9.208 MeV Alpha particle to Polonium-210 which decays to lead 5 with a.407 MeV Alpha particle. Not much has changed since we lived in caves.

    The only the that has changed is irrational fear created by Hollywood. Since there is no evidence significant levels of contamination or evidence of harm, I will keep ignoring it. Ignoring the insignificant is what rational people do.

    [link]      
  59. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 5:52 pm

    “That’s the core question, ‘Based on the information they had available, should they have reasonably been able to foresee the magnitude and effect of the tsunami in March?’” – Wendell Mercantile

    That may be your “core question”, but we can only hope that the rest of us are asking how it is possible to prevent such a catastrophe from ever again happening.

     

    [link]      
  60. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    Exactly, what level of contamination of radioactive particles that would cause harm is that?

    [link]      
  61. By Kit P on July 1, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    “Exactly, what level of contamination of radioactive particles that would cause harm is that? ”

     

    Rate Crimes brings up radioactive particles as an issue that he is concerned with yet can not cite any examples of harm. Of course that is because there are not examples of harm.

     

    We do know that I-131 is associated with increased but easily treatable thyroid cancer. As a result of Chernobyl there was approximately 1800 additional cases of thyroid cancer which could have been prevented if the corrupt USSR had a priority of protecting children instead of the communist party.

     

    You know the loons are out hunting for a smoking gun but can not even find a stray dog with symptoms of radiation exposure.

    [link]      
  62. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    Kit P said:

    “Exactly, what level of contamination of radioactive particles that would cause harm is that? ”

     

    Rate Crimes brings up radioactive particles as an issue that he is concerned with yet can not cite any examples of harm. Of course that is because there are not examples of harm.

     

    We do know that I-131 is associated with increased but easily treatable thyroid cancer. As a result of Chernobyl there was approximately 1800 additional cases of thyroid cancer which could have been prevented if the corrupt USSR had a priority of protecting children instead of the communist party.

     

    You know the loons are out hunting for a smoking gun but can not even find a stray dog with symptoms of radiation exposure.


     

    Just answer the question.

    [link]      
  63. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    “out hunting for a smoking gun” – Kit P

    Did you just use the phrase, “smoking gun”, in reference to Fukushima?!  What is it with you nuclear fetishists and your Freudian metaphors?

    [link]      
  64. By Kit P on July 1, 2011 at 7:47 pm

    Speaking of misinformation.

     

    “then the fuel pool explosions ”

     

    The derivative of this is some DC suit and anti-nuke who gets promoted to Chairman of the NRC. In the DC NRC world off the wall scenarios and computer models trump common sense and experience. The NRC has a concern with spent fuel pools draining, the fuel overheat, hydrogen being generated, and then an explosion occurs. It is the job of the NRC to come up with scenarios like this and the job of people like me to make sure it does not happen.

     

    The problem is the US government embarrassed the Japanese government by telling Americans they should evacuate to 50 miles. There are rumors that the NRC suits failed to listen to technical people who only wear ties when the suits are around.

     

    What happened is that hydrogen being vented from the containment leaked through valves into the refueling floor. While blowing the sheet metal building that sits on top of the concrete structures is spectacular, the concrete stainless lines pools is military bunker rugged. Spent fuel assemblies are designed resist seismic forces in the flow regime of the reactor. Furthermore, I-131 has decayed away.

     

    Turns out the spent fuel is not damaged. Just sitting their with gravity holding it down. Of course maybe Rate Crimes is worried about a selective loss of gravity accident (SLGA). In a SLGA, heavy fuel bundles float out off the fuel building since the roof is gone, float over the Pacific. Then near Rate Crimes’ house the SLGA releases ‘particles’ that now obey the laws of gravity to get in his lungs.

     

    [link]      
  65. By Kit P on July 1, 2011 at 7:59 pm

    “Just answer the question. ”

     

    Rate Crimes the question is this; you think something is a problem but do not know why. It is a question that answers itself. There is no problem, just Rate Crimes making up stuff.

    [link]      
  66. By Wendell Mercantile on July 1, 2011 at 9:13 pm

    Did you really just employ the phrase, “core question”, in reference to Fukushima?!

    It was either that or ‘critical’ question.

    [link]      
  67. By rate-crimes on July 1, 2011 at 11:02 pm

    “Just answer the question. ”

     

    Rate Crimes the question is this; you think something is a problem but do not know why. It is a question that answers itself. There is no problem, just Rate Crimes making up stuff. – Kit P

    No, the question is stated clearly in comment #61 above.  You are being asked to substantiate your claims; both here and from comment #51.  We await your answer…

    [link]      
  68. By Kit P on July 1, 2011 at 11:48 pm

    “We await your answer… ”

     

    Same answer. Rate Crimes you say you are concerned about about ‘particles’ then demonstrate that you do not know a particle from a bumble bee. If you have a reason to be concerned about something, please articulate it.

    [link]      
  69. By rate-crimes on July 2, 2011 at 12:01 am

    So, you refuse to provide your sources for,

    “I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    And, you refuse to provide your understanding of what level of contamination of radioactive particles would cause harm.

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    [link]      
  70. By russ on July 2, 2011 at 11:30 am

    @ Kit P – You will never satisfy Rate Crimes as he already has all the answers – they are provided in his ‘little green book’.

    The ‘little green book’ means Rate Crimes and his little friends don’t need to think – just turn to the appropriate page and parrot what it says. A complete description of greenpeace, ewg, sierra club etc.

     

    [link]      
  71. By Kit P on July 2, 2011 at 11:47 am

    I have provided links to sources many times. Rate Crimes you seem to have no interest in discussing them. In any case, if I provided a ‘chart of the nuclides’ from which I derived the radioactive properties, no one would understand it unless they have a had a college course in modern physics discussing particle physics.

     

    “And, you refuse to provide your understanding of what level of contamination of radioactive particles would cause harm.”

     

    What do you not understand Rate Crimes? I have explained it many times. You avoid harm, by avoiding exposure just like you avoid getting hit by a car by not running in front of a car. It is just common sense like radiation safety.

     

    Wendell cited 40,000 traffic deaths when talking about traffic safety. We could talk about the 50 coal miners who die every year and compare it to 500 in China and how they reduced it from 5000 a few years ago.

     

    The point here Rate Crimes is you have to cite the statistic to start a discussion not just some concern that you have. I did think of two example of harm caused by ‘particles’. The first was a medical device in Brazil that was not properly disposed of. Some people were hurt (as in they died) by confusing radioactive material for glitter. The case study is interesting from the standpoint of how irrational fear makes the economic consequences worse.

     

    It is the fear mongering that causes the ‘catastrophic’ anxiety not the actual properties of radioactive material. So Rate Crimes nest time some of your looney friends and the Democratic Underground tell you they found one radioactive ‘particle’ (atom) per 10,000,000 trillion atoms of urine, ask the what the harmful levels are?

     

    The second source of particulate is is burning coal. Since new regulations addresses that, I see no point in debating that.

     

    The rule of law is why the woes of nuclear power are not getting worse in the US. Call it ‘special fear’ if you want to be politically correct but when file your ‘concerns’ in court you have to have something to counter the prima facie evidence that nuclear power is not safe. The record of commercial nuclear power speaks for itself, no one has been hurt.

     

    One example is terrorist flying an airplane into a nuke. This has been called a ‘beyond design basis’ event by the NRC. The owner of the nuke plant has to show that the containment building (which would be acting a shield) could reasonably withstand crash. The design basis of the containment building must withstand a tornado, earthquake, ect. So if you could show that the calculations were wrong you could shut down the nuke plant. After 911, think changed on this issue. We looked at the possibility of something happening that could create a ‘beyond design basis’ event. This is why the NRC was able to determine quickly that US plants were ready for something like what happened in Japan.

     

    Anti-nukes have declared victory on Yucca Mountain but the legal process is still pending.  If Reid and POTUS had provided some actual evidence, I would be worried about the outcome.

     

    [link]      
  72. By Kit P on July 2, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    “You will never satisfy Rate Crimes as he already has all the answers ”

     

    I know that Russ but there are other out there that may have the same questions. It is also good practice for answering questions. When I was developer biomass a some crack pot driving an old red PU with the back for of aluminum to be recycled, nailed me with the ‘what about dioxin’ question. I said I would send an email and then left in old red PU with the back for of aluminum to be recycled.

     

    Later I was asked the same question by a local environmental activist. I was able to explain how our process would not produce dioxin. Show people that you are able to protect the environment and maybe they will be on your side.

     

    The radon issue comes up a lot where we live. My neighbor test his house and it was over the EPA guideline. He asked what to do. I said quit smoking. He said he quit 25 year before. I then said stop worrying, you have done what is important.

     

    I know people my age who were coal miners or asbestos workers but like me never smoked. Chest x-rays and testing confirm exposure but they are other wise in good health.

     

    The biggest environmental risk is poverty. The biggest industrial safety risk is unemployment. Protecting people from radiation is an easy task.

    [link]      
  73. By Wendell Mercantile on July 2, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    What is it with you nuclear fetishists and your Freudian metaphors?

    Do I detect here a whiff of an ad hominem attack?

    [link]      
  74. By russ-finley on July 2, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Rate Crimes said:

    There is a well-founded fear of the dispersal of radioactive particles

    into the environment where they can be inhaled or ingested via

    accumulations in the food chain.

    The fear is irrational. Here, take a look at the American public’s ability to think rationally. Count the number of times the word “belief” is used:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…..sled-world

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/envi…..te-beliefs

    http://biodiversivist.blogspot…..ument.html

    [link]      
  75. By rate-crimes on July 2, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    “I have provided links to sources many times”- Kit P

    Yet, it seems to be terribly difficult for you to provide references and figures in these recent cases:

    “I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    [link]      
  76. By rate-crimes on July 2, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    What is it with you nuclear fetishists and your Freudian metaphors?

    Do I detect here a whiff of an ad hominem attack?

    Please take it as a kindly suggestion to avoid terms such as “smoking” and ”core” while Fukushima continues to struggle with melted cores and smoking ruins.

    [link]      
  77. By rate-crimes on July 2, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    Japan’s radiation dilemma: Leave or live in fear June 28, 2011

    Radiation fears have turned students into shut-ins with windows firmly shut. Girls sweat through kendo (sword-fighting) practice. Meanwhile, what used to be outdoor drills are now held indoors. In the school gym, the soccer team can barely squeeze in games, sharing cramped quarters with the track and field squad.

    “My job is to watch over these kids and help them thrive,” said Yoshinori Saito, principal of the school. “But under these conditions, I can’t do my job properly. I’m angry and frustrated that there’s nothing I can do.”

    The government is trying to do something. Cesium-laden topsoil is now being removed from playgrounds. But in a city of 300,000, it’s simply impossible to get rid of it all. So parents who can are voting with their feet.

    At the Soramame daycare center, there are just a few kids left. Most of the children have moved out of town with their parents. The founder, Sadako Monma, told me she vows to carry on. But she can’t pay her rent anymore.

    “The rest of the world must be thinking, “What on earth is wrong with Japan? Where’s the sense of crisis?’” she said “Why isn’t our government protecting us?”

    Akiko Murakami, meanwhile, is losing sleep over the worst-case scenario.

    “My biggest fear is my children’s health,” she said. “I’m worried that after 10 years or 20 years, something would happen to their health; they would come down with cancer or I don’t know what. And if that happens, I would be the person responsible.”

    And those fears are moving the family closer toward leaving their home behind.

    [link]      
  78. By Wendell Mercantile on July 2, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    Please take it as a kindly suggestion to avoid terms such as “smoking” and ”core” while Fukushima continues to struggle with melted cores and smoking ruins.

    Rate~

    Suppose I eat an apple out of hand. What should I then call the part I don’t eat and throw away? Do you have a euphemism for that?

    [link]      
  79. By rate-crimes on July 2, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    Please take it as a kindly suggestion to avoid terms such as “smoking” and ”core” while Fukushima continues to struggle with melted cores and smoking ruins.

    Rate~

    Suppose I eat an apple out of hand. What should I then call the part I don’t eat and throw away? Do you have a euphemism for that?


     

    The seeds of a new fruit tree.

    [link]      
  80. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 4:52 am

    Revealed: British government’s plan to play down Fukushima    June 30, 2011

    British government officials approached nuclear companies to draw up a co-ordinated public relations strategy to play down the Fukushima nuclear accident just two days after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan and before the extent of the radiation leak was known.

    Internal emails seen by the Guardian show how the business and energy departments worked closely behind the scenes with the multinational companies EDF Energy, Areva and Westinghouse to try to ensure the accident did not derail their plans for a new generation of nuclear stations in the UK.

    “This has the potential to set the nuclear industry back globally,” wrote one official at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), whose name has been redacted. “We need to ensure the anti-nuclear chaps and chapesses do not gain ground on this. We need to occupy the territory and hold it. We really need to show the safety of nuclear.”

    Officials stressed the importance of preventing the incident from undermining public support for nuclear power.

    The Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, who sits on the Commons environmental audit committee, condemned the extent of co-ordination between the government and nuclear companies that the emails appear to reveal.

    “The government has no business doing PR for the industry and it would be appalling if its departments have played down the impact of Fukushima,” he said.

    Louise Hutchins, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, said the emails looked like “scandalous collusion”. “This highlights the government’s blind obsession with nuclear power and shows neither they, nor the industry, can be trusted when it comes to nuclear,” she said.

    [link]      
  81. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 5:00 am

    Japan Decrees New Exhaust Areas near Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant  July 1, 2011

    The authorities have registered high levels of radioactivity more than the legal limit of 20 millisievert per year, established by the Government in Ryozenmachi, Kamioguni, Shimooguni and Tsukidatemachi districts.

    The government promised will provide financial assistance to those families who agree to leave their houses, said a Japanese official.

    More than 85,000 inhabitants were evacuated within a radius of 30 km around the plant. Since the disaster, they live in makeshift shelters, hoping they will be able to go back home one day.

    In addition, a study on ten children living in a town in Fukushima, at 62 miles Fukushima, revealed the presence of small amounts of radioactive substances in the urine, announced a citizens’ association and a nongovernmental organization from France (NGO).

    All samples collected in May, from these kids, aged between 6 -16 years old had tracks of cesium 134 and cesium 137, elements that were present in a concentration between 0.4 – 1.3 Becquerel per liter, said, in a statement, ACRO (Association for Control of Western radioactivity), created in France, following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986.

    Analyses were performed in a laboratory in France at the request of civic associations in Fukushima.

    These results should make Japanese authorities to constantly measure internal contamination of people who were exposed to radioactivity in the area and those living in contaminated territories, said ACRO.

    This also confirms the idea that the 20 millisievet limit established by the authorities in Japan for delimitation of the exhaust has a too high level, said the association.

    [link]      
  82. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 5:12 am

    Fukushima ‘still a ticking time bomb’  June 21, 2011

    Famed physicist Michio Kaku says Japanese officials still don’t have control of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

     

    [link]      
  83. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 5:39 am

    Nuclear Safe? 3 Mile Island, Fukushima, Chernobyl just ‘bumps along the way’

    At 5:58 in the video, the nuclear lobbyist, John Ritch, says, “Democracy does not produce great results”.

    One must wonder what political system he might suggest does consistently produce “great results”.  One thing can be certain, we have witnessed a nation based on a form of democracy bring the nuclear age into being.  We have also recently witnessed an island nation, based on its own form of democracy, shaken to its social and economic foundations by an unprecedented nuclear catastrophe of historical proportions.

     

    P.S.  Is this tripe an example of the best thinking the nuclear industry can produce?

    [link]      
  84. By Kit P on July 3, 2011 at 9:45 am

    “Fukushima ‘still a ticking time bomb’ June 21, 2011

    Famed physicist Michio Kaku says Japanese officials still don’t have control of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.”

     

    This is 100% fear mongering and out right lies. All the reactors affected by the earthquake immediately scammed and were in hot shutdown. Depending on technical specifications, this is called Mode 4.

     

    Japanese officials were 100% accurate in their reporting.

     

    If there is a reason, this design of reactor can cool down at 100%/hour. Cold shutdown, Mode 5, is when the temperature of the reactor is below boiling 100 degree C Thermal stress is the reason to limit the CD rate. The reason to get the reactor below the boiling point is that recirculating hot water in hear exchangers is better than putting steam with I-131 into the containment. No really!

     

    Ability to control reactor power was never an issue. When control power was lost, the ability to cool down was lost. We know what happened next. The responsibility of the folks at the nuke plant is to protect workers and public to defend every wild claim that is made. So what is the actual condition now.

     

    “No. 1 plant: 3.6 m³/hr, feed nozzle 118C, lower head 102C

    No. 2 plant: 3.5 m³/hr, feed nozzle 113C, lower head 128C

    No. 3 plant: 9.0 m³/hr, feed nozzle 154C, lower head 125C “

     

    Not in cold shut down yet bun only a lunatic would call it ‘a ticking time bomb’. CNN puts lunatics on the air because sells more advertizing. Journalists are really morally challenged or stupid but most likely both.

     

    The lying ‘Famed physicist Michio Kaku’ also misused the the term ‘hot spot’. We use the term ‘hot spot’ to designate locations with a higher level of radiation. For example, the decay heat removal pumps at Rancho Seco had a ‘hot spot’ on the stagnate suction pressure gauge piping where Cobalt 60 has collected. I routinely toured the pump room and listen to how the pumps were running while avoiding standing next to the ‘hot spot’. My dosimeter almost always read less than 1 mrem.

     

    In the navy, I routinely toured the reactor compartment when the reactor was not critical. My dosimeter almost always read less than 1 mrem because I knew where the ‘hot spots’ were and practiced ALARA. Just because there is a ‘hot spot’ does not mean

     

    Identifying ‘hot spots’ and wearing dosimeter are two tools of ALARA. This is evidence that precautions are being taken to limit the radiation exposure to children. Spinning the opposite for American TV is fear mongering.

     

    [link]      
  85. By Kit P on July 3, 2011 at 10:14 am

    “P.S.  Is this tripe an example of the best thinking the nuclear industry can produce? ”

     

    John Ritch is a goverment suit and not a nuclear safety expert nor is he part of the nuclear industry. Again typical tactic of anti-nukes is to ask misleading questions derived from bold face lies.

     

    “He is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and holds a Master’s Degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar.”

     

    Like most of the suits at the IAEA they are focused on ‘Non-Proliferation’ of nuclear weapons. We can only hope John Ritch is more successful with Iran and North Korea than his predecessor.

     

    “We have also recently witnessed an island nation, based on its own form of democracy, shaken to its social and economic foundations by an unprecedented nuclear catastrophe of historical proportions. ”

     

    It was a historic earthquake, that shook Japan. It was historic tsunami that caused the catastrophe responsible for loss of life. It does look like Japan will have to turn off some advertizing lights and maybe adjust their work schedule a bit but it sure looks to me like Japan is doing fine. Maybe they are not watching CNN to lard how terrible things. If fact it looks like Japan is doing better handling the natural disaster than California did with the Grey Davis debacle.

    [link]      
  86. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 11:14 am

    “John Ritch is a goverment suit and not a nuclear safety expert nor is he part of the nuclear industry.” – Kit P

    John Ritch is the Director General of the World Nuclear Association, formerly the Uranium Institute.

    From the WNA website: “WNA’s role is to support the global nuclear energy industry”

    The many members of the World Nuclear Association include Entergy Nuclear, Pinnacle West, Rio Tinto, Areva, and TEPCO.

     

    [link]      
  87. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Kit P, you still haven’t provided references for your earlier statements:

    “I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    [link]      
  88. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 11:51 am

    “All the reactors affected by the earthquake immediately scammed [emphais mine]” – Kit P

    The count of freudian slips is mounting!

    [link]      
  89. By Kit P on July 3, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    “The count of freudian slips is mounting! ”

     

    I did not know we were keeping score! You have me now, I miss spelled ‘scram’. Notice the use of an anti-nuke tactic, misdirection. I give the reasons that Rate Crimes source, Famed physicist Michio Kaku’, is a fat BS artist; and Crimes checks my spelling.

     

    Aside from spelling, would like to comment on mt rebuttal?

     

    “support the global nuclear energy industry ”

     

    I stand behind my statements about statements about John Ritch. Rate Crimes wants to infer something about the nuclear industry because John Ritch and I do not think that damaging the 3 reactor cores is a big deal when compared to 24,000 people dying.

     

    Making electricity with LWR is not dangerous. The dangerous part of the claim of anti-nukes is that the core could be damaged and release ‘dangerous fission’ products killing many people. The damage was spectacular but no one was hurt.

     

    If something is dangerous you should be able to explain why and all Rate Crimes can not do that?

    [link]      
  90. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    We’re stilll waiting for references:

    “I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    [link]      
  91. By Kit P on July 3, 2011 at 3:28 pm

    We’re 

     

    What do you mean by ‘we’? I have done my best to answer any questions people might have. I suspect no one is reading our exchanges anymore.

    [link]      
  92. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    “ I have done my best to answer any questions people might have.” – Kit P

    Then, “your best” is a failure to provide references for:

    “I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    Your best is very poor.

    [link]      
  93. By Wendell Mercantile on July 3, 2011 at 5:51 pm

    Even I am beginning to have empathy for Kit P.

    [link]      
  94. By paul-n on July 3, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    Back in comment # 55, Rate Crimes said;

    Your thoughts are not very profound, nor are they useful.

    I think, Rate Crimes,  you should say that, out loud, while standing in front of a mirror, and then, perhaps, you might have a profound and useful thought – likely your first.

    It seems that you are merely interested in continuing an argument, for argument’s sake, and the result is, as Kit P has suggested, that “no one is reading these exchanges anymore”.  These exchanges are like like watching a teacher with a child who does not want to learn anything, and, quite frankly, are painful to read.

    In Rate Crimes we have an anonymous  blogger, who hides behind a terrible moniker, refuses to give his real name, and keeps on digging up, breathlessly, any media reference to Fukishima, regardless of how meaningless it may be.  Quantity of media snippets means nothing here  we deal in hard facts.

    We come to this blog to have meaningful discussions on energy issues, and, learn something in the process.  The signal to noise ratio on this blog is very good – except when Rate Crimes gets going – then the noise is such, that just like a tv with bad reception, you simply have to turn it off, and hope the next time you try that the cause of the disturbance is gone.  

     

     

    [link]      
  95. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 9:39 pm

    “we deal in hard facts” – Paul N

    Great!  Perhaps you can provide some viagra for these limp statements…

    “I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    [link]      
  96. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    “we deal in hard facts”- Paul N

    What is too often seen here is dealing in “hard facts” such as . . .

    “John Ritch is a goverment suit and not a nuclear safety expert nor is he part of the nuclear industry” – Kit  P

    John Ritch is the Director General of the World Nuclear Association, formerly the Uranium Institute.

    From the WNA website: “WNA’s role is to support the global nuclear energy industry”

    The many members of the World Nuclear Association include Entergy Nuclear, Pinnacle West, Rio Tinto, Areva, and TEPCO.

    [link]      
  97. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    “ any media reference to Fukishima, regardless of how meaningless it may be” – Paul N

    Perhaps you might dare to be specific about which references to the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe are “meaningless” and which are not?

    [link]      
  98. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    “Japanese officials were 100% accurate in their reporting.” – Kit P

    Really?  “100% accurate”, you say?  To which “Japanese officials” do you refer?

    [link]      
  99. By rate-crimes on July 3, 2011 at 11:06 pm

    Let’s be clear.  Paul N, Kit P, and perhaps Wendell, would rather attack an “anonymous blogger” than give any consideration to the Director General of the World Nuclear Association stating that, ”Democracy does not produce great results”.

    Nuclear Safe? 3 Mile Island, Fukushima, Chernobyl just ‘bumps along the way’

    [link]      
  100. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 6:59 am

    “You have me now, I miss spelled ‘scram’.” – Kit P

    It is more than a little peculiar, and well worth notice, that out of all the many words you typed in your screed attacking Michio Kaku, you miraculously transformed ‘scrammed’ into ‘scammed’, and in the very first sentence of your diatribe!

    [link]      
  101. By Wendell Mercantile on July 4, 2011 at 10:02 am

    …you miraculously transformed ‘scrammed’ into ‘scammed’, and in the very first sentence of your diatribe!

     

    Rate Crimes,

    You are now needlessly picking at nits. Kit P misspells stuff all the time, and as far as I can tell he never proofreads before hitting “send.”  You are imagining something that’s not there, and need to step back and take a couple of deep breaths.  Enjoy the holiday and report back tomorrow. Cool 

    [link]      
  102. By Kit P on July 4, 2011 at 10:22 am

    Paul

     

    I can see that you put a lot of thought into your last post. This is not to say that you do not put a lot thought into most of your posts. I have to say the second sentence because someone one might infer criticism when none is intended. I am a blunt person and say it like I see. I do not infer criticism, I smack people right in the head with it.

     

    I have given a lot of thought about the perception people have nuclear power. Many of my mentors in life were people who blew things up in war and then went on to use the same skills to put missiles in space. Fear of nuclear war was not and is not irrational. I could no more convince my father that my job in the navy was not dangerous than my wife that the snakes we have in the backyard are harmless.

     

    We all have some sort of irrational fear, it is just a matter of not letting it control your life. In any case, there is no reason to let the irrational fear that others have control energy policy. There are some hazards that are common enough that some show no fear. We have all seen the idiot at the gas station who is smoking while filling his tank with gasoline. Many of know that the normal oxygen level is 21% and water freezes at 32 degrees F. No one ask for a reference if say check the O2 level before going into a confined space or be careful the road are icy.

     

    While it is not common knowledge, I happen to know that particulate radioactive are not a particular hazard. I am sharing years of training and experience. Rate Crimes claims are like telling me that the roads are icy on a hot summer day and demanding a reference to prove him wrong. It is a tactic not real concern.

     

    So happy 4th. One of my experiences growing up was Jess and Walt would bring home some aluminum perchlorate from the missile plant and see who could launch a garbage can higher. Try that in the nanny state these days. Anyhow, 30 year later Walt tells me he surprised that I would work in a dangerous nuke plant. Walt had retired from doing dangerous things and done a study on the computer at the nuke plant and decided it was not reliable. Well duh! (we did not say ‘duh’ back then.) We do not use the computer for safety, who do you think we are NASA?

     

    Walt being a reasonable person was satisfied when I explained how the analog control system worked. The point being that concerns can be addressed if the concern is not just a debating tactic.

     

    Then you have people who are against nuclear power. They have a list of reasons. The can tell you every drop of water spilled anyplace that has radioactive material. They can distinguish between graphite moderated reactor to produce plutonium and LWR to produce electricity. Twenty years after the US stopped making material for nuke bombs, they are not happy with how we are destroying weapons material.

     

    “would rather attack an “anonymous blogger” than give any consideration to the Director General of the World Nuclear Association stating that, ”Democracy does not produce great results”.

     

    John Ritch was speaking as the head of WNA which is an association that provides information about nuclear power world wide. Many industries have association to promote their interest. John Ritch was doing his job.

     

    Rate Crimes inferred something about the entire nuclear industry to which I responded. When you attack people without clearly giving a reason Rate Crimes it makes it hard for us to know what you want us to consider.

     

    Considering ‘democracy’ it would appear that Rate Crimes took John Ritch’s statement out of context made a wild leap of logic to denigrate a whole industry. Big surprise! John Ritch was talking about the decision in Germany. I do not know much about the political process in Germany or Japan for that matter. I focus on the US unless there is some lesson to be learned. Except for feed in tariffs for renewable energy, I do not see much to learn from Germany energy policy.

     

    John Ritch said no was killed by radiation in Japan. I will further add no one was hurt by radiation from nuke plants in Japan.

     

    “It is more than a little peculiar, and well worth notice, that out of all the many words you typed in your screed in support of nuclear power, you miraculously transformed ‘scrammed’ into ‘scammed’, and in the very first sentence of your diatribe. ”

     

    One of the tactics of anti-nukes is to trivialize the debate. I state nuclear power is not dangerous and no one hurt by radiation, Rate Crimes finds my spelling ‘a little peculiar’.

     

    The non trivial part of the debate is that Rate Crimes lied when he present a link that was false. He compounded the lie by refusing to admit he lied but chose to discuss spelling.

     

    Here are the facts. Rate Crimes can continue his lie or tell me how the facts are wrong.

     

    When the magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck, all reactors shut down automatically with a scram signal as designed. When a scram occurs, the first thing the reactor operator checks is to see if he has indication of all control rods inserted. BWR control rods are hydraulically driven into the core from the bottom of the reactor vessel unlike a PWR that are gravity driven from the top of the core.

     

    Since there was a concurrent loss of offsite power (LOOP), operators would have been check that EDG were running and emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) were maintaining reactor level. After the plant has stabilize in hot shutdown, the shift supervisor and the regulators want to know the cause of the scram and if it has been corrected. With a magnitude 9.0 earthquake, the cause is apparent. Then a damage assessment begins. Again it was apparent that the grid was badly damaged so the plants would cool down to cold shut down.

     

    Are any of my facts wrong Rate Crimes? Please admit you were mistaken and your intent was not to propagate a lie. I will not even bother to proof read gibving you lotts of opportunites to make fun of my writen skills and avoid honest debate.

    [link]      
  103. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Yes, Wendell, he also misspelled, “miss spelled”.  Freud would have a field day with Kit P.  He never ceases to entertain.  Enjoy your 4th.

    [link]      
  104. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 10:27 am

    “John Ritch was speaking as the head of WNA which is an association that provides information about nuclear power world wide. Many industries have association to promote their interest. John Ritch was doing his job.” – Kit P

    Nuclear Safe? 3 Mile Island, Fukushima, Chernobyl just ‘bumps along the way’

    At 5:58 in the video, the nuclear lobbyist, John Ritch, says, “Democracy does not produce great results”.

    I would like to know what alternative he proposes or imagines.

    I would also like to know why in reaction to my original post, you stated,

    “John Ritch is a goverment suit and not a nuclear safety expert nor is he part of the nuclear industry. Again typical tactic of anti-nukes is to ask misleading questions derived from bold face lies.” – Kit P

    [link]      
  105. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 10:39 am

    “One of the tactics of anti-nukes is to trivialize the debate. I state nuclear power is not dangerous and no one hurt by radiation” – Kit P

    You trivialize by constraining harm to only the immediate, apparent effects of radiation.  You consistently ignore the probabilities of future harm due to exposure from the wide dispersal of radioactive particles.  You consistently trivialize the very real economic and social damages of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe.

    [link]      
  106. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 10:41 am

    BTW, we’re stilll waiting for references:

    “I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    [link]      
  107. By Kit P on July 4, 2011 at 11:44 am

    Five minutes after my post Rate Crimes writes,

     

    “I would also like to know why in reaction to my original post, you stated, ”

     

    I think I have already answered your question.

     

    I did have a serious questions on the that Rate Crimes did not address,

     

    “Are any of my facts wrong Rate Crimes? Please admit you were mistaken and your intent was not to propagate a lie.”

     

    I can see Rate Crimes is just interested in propagating lies.

     

    “You trivialize by constraining harm to only the immediate, apparent effects of radiation.  You consistently ignore the probabilities of future harm due to exposure from the wide dispersal of radioactive particles.”

     

    Another lie. I have explained many times the risk of chronic long term exposure. The risk of low doses is insignificant. Many studies have been done to establish this. If the fact is that something is small is not to trivialize it.

     

    “You consistently trivialize the very real economic and social damages of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe. ”

     

    Another lie. I have explained many times the natural disaster caused enormous damage including at nuke plants. I have even talk about two similar nuke plants that were decommissioned after the 2007 earthquake because it was not economical.

     

    “trivialize the very …social damages of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe.”

     

    It is rather hard not to trivialize social damages after 24,000 are killed or missing all which occurred before any damage. Maybe if idiot journalist stopped running around Geiger counters fear mongering there would be less social damages. Furthermore, Rate Crimes has not really offered any evidence of social damages just bad journalism.

     

    As in the case of radiation not harming people, my observation is that the Japanese are doing very well on the social front handling the natural disaster. Rate Crimes claims to have some knowledge of the country but he does not share his knowledge just links obvious lunatics.

     

     

    [link]      
  108. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 12:01 pm

    BTW, we’re stilll waiting for references:

    “I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    [link]      
  109. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 12:11 pm

    “I would also like to know why in reaction to my original post, you stated, ”

    “I think I have already answered your question.” – Kit P

    No, you didn’t.  What you just did is selective editing.  The entire question was,

     

    I would also like to know why in reaction to my original post, you stated,

    “John Ritch is a goverment suit and not a nuclear safety expert nor is he part of the nuclear industry. Again typical tactic of anti-nukes is to ask misleading questions derived from bold face lies.” – Kit P

    John Ritch is the Director General of the World Nuclear Association, formerly the Uranium Institute.

    From the WNA website: “WNA’s role is to support the global nuclear energy industry”

    The many members of the World Nuclear Association include Entergy Nuclear, Pinnacle West, Rio Tinto, Areva, and TEPCO.

    [link]      
  110. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    Kit P,

    Your fundamental premise — that the natural disaster experienced along a wide swath of Japan’s northeastern coast cannot be separated from the ensuing nuclear catastrophe at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station that continues nearly four months later, and is likely to continue for many years, at mounting social and economic costs  – is wrong.  In this context, any ”facts” that you create based on that premise have little value.

    [link]      
  111. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    “It is rather hard not to trivialize social damages after 24,000 are killed or missing all which occurred before any damage.” – Kit P

    Fukushima children test positive for internal radiation exposure    June 30, 2011

    [link]      
  112. By Kit P on July 4, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Trivial or not trivial?

     

    “Trace amounts of radioactive substances have been found in urine samples”

     

    Since everyone in the world has trace amounts of radioactive substances have been found in urine, it is trivial. Actually it is a public relations gag by the anti-nuke loons and not a serious attempt to protect children.

     

    Milk and bananas are two examples of foods that are higher to radioactivity than other foods. Milk is 10 times more radioactive than rain water. Should we worry about milk and bananas.

     

    Trivial!

    [link]      
  113. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    “Milk and bananas are two examples of foods that are higher to radioactivity than other foods. Milk is 10 times more radioactive than rain water. Should we worry about milk and bananas.” – Kit P

    Bananas are radioactive—But they aren’t a good way to explain radiation exposure

    The problem is that this system implies that all radioisotopes are created equal—That there’s no difference between 520 picocuries of Potassium-40 and a similar intake of, say, radioactive iodine. And that simply isn’t true.

    It took all of 30 seconds to find a debunking of Kit P’s latest steaming pile.

    [link]      
  114. By rate-crimes on July 4, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    BTW, we’re stilll waiting for references:

    “I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    [link]      
  115. By PeteS on July 5, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Actually, I wouldn’t mind seeing Kit P’s answers to Rate Crimes’s questions. Kit P’s answers are generally complete bluster. I don’t fault them for being 10-year-old level of English — lots of intelligent people can’t write. But they are generally stream-of-consciousness diversionary rubbish. To pluck a random example:

    “I have provided links to sources many times. Rate Crimes you seem to have no interest in discussing them. In any case, if I provided a ‘chart of the nuclides’ from which I derived the radioactive properties, no one would understand it unless they have a had a college course in modern physics discussing particle physics.”

    I don’t have a qualification in physics, but as an interested lay person I wouldn’t have the slightest problem with a “chart of nuclides” and would be very interested in what “radioactive properties” Kit P was proposing to derive. If nothing else, it would demonstrate that he knew something about the subject in a way that his writing to date hasn’t.

    And regarding the “sources” that Rate Crimes was asking about, one of them concerns research that Kit P claims to have done in the last couple of days, so his protestations that he has “provided links to sources many times” can’t possibly cover what is being asked for.

    [link]      
  116. By Kit P on July 5, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    “Bananas are radioactive—But they aren’t a good way to explain radiation exposure”

    No, but the ‘Banana Equivalent Dose’ is a good way to explain exposure. Dose is dose. The following is an example of a good but simple explanation.

    Harm is done to cells by absorbing too much energy. If you burn your skin with hot water it can have the same harm as burning you skin by getting sunburn at the beach.

    A unit of energy exposure from radiation is the Rad. To correct for living cell damage, we use a correction factor based on the damage different types of radiation cause. A corrected unit of exposure is REM. Your total dose is the sum of external penetrating radiation and all of the radioactive material you have absorbed in your body and may decay in your body in sensitive organ like the lung or thyroid.

    To measure internal dose we can do a whole body scan or take blood or urine sample. Based on nuclear properties found in the ‘chart of nuclides’ and chemical/physical properties, we calculate internal exposure.

    If I get 1 mrem from eating a banana every day, it is the same as getting me 1 mrem doing a reactor compartment tour in the navy. My occupational exposure would be 1 mrem because it does not included natural and medical sources.

    “Actually, I wouldn’t mind seeing Kit P’s answers to Rate Crimes’s questions.”

    Well PeteS I suggest you go back and read some of my ‘bluster’. However, despite the petty insults I will explain it in a different way in the hope that if I confuse you with my writing skills, you will ask a respectful question.

    As a hypothetical example based on what has been reported, some shift workers might have received a dose of 15 Rem external radiation. Internal dose from I-131 might be another 5 Rem for a total of 20 Rem.

    I am not concerned with the low dose of 20 Rem because it will not cause any immediate harm and the long term risk is very small.

    Hypothetical let say other sources of internal exposure result in 0.00001 Rem of additional exposure. This hypothetical exposure is below regulatory limits.

    So total exposure for the operator is 20.00001 Rem for the operator and 0.00001 Rem for Rate Crimes.

    I am still not concerned but PeteS if you are concerned you will have to provide a link to the reason you are concerned so I can give you something like this:

    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/…..-1204.html

    to find something like this:

     

    http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/…..m-137.html

    Here is a case where a journalist demonstrates not understanding something, that saying it is not true.

    “The problem is that this system implies that all radioisotopes are created equal—That there’s no difference between 520 picocuries of Potassium-40 and a similar intake of, say, radioactive iodine. And that simply isn’t true.”

    Followed by Rate Crimes writes,

    “It took all of 30 seconds to find a debunking of Kit P’s latest steaming pile.”

    Actually all I said was that Bananas are radioactive. All Rate Crimes did was find an ignorant journalist.

    PeteS writes,

    “so his protestations that he has “provided links to sources many times” can’t possibly cover what is being asked for.”

    I read lots of stuff Pete. mostly for my own interest. If you are interested in what happen in Japan try the internet. I will try to be a civil as you want to be but it does not seem that your are really interested in the topic or being civil.

    Please answer this, why should I go back and find a link when the tactic is to ask questions and not the bigger issue.

    [link]      
  117. By rate-crimes on July 5, 2011 at 3:23 pm

    “find an ignorant journalist.” - Kit P

    Fukushima children test positive for internal radiation exposure    June 30, 2011

    “This won’t be a problem if they don’t eat vegetables or other contaminated products,” Nanao Kamada, professor emeritus of radiation biology at Hiroshima University, told reporters. “But it will be difficult for people to continue living in these areas.”

    [link]      
  118. By rate-crimes on July 5, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    BTW, we’re stilll waiting for references:

    “I did some more research. Turns out listening to this guy would not have mattered. The actual tsunami was worse than the warning. The damage would still have occurred.” – Kit P

    “I am not concerned with radioactive particles because the levels of contamination below a level that would cause harm.” – Kit P

    [link]      
  119. By rate-crimes on July 5, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    “Actually all I said was that Bananas are radioactive.” – Kit P

    No, “actually” you compared the radioactivity in bananas and milk to caesium-134 and caesium-137 in the urine of Japanese children.  False equivalency.

    [link]      
  120. By rate-crimes on July 5, 2011 at 3:53 pm

    “Actually all I said was that Bananas are radioactive.” – Kit P

    No, “actually” you compared the radioactivity in bananas and milk to caesium-134 and caesium-137 in the urine of Japanese children.  False equivalency.

    [link]      
  121. By rate-crimes on July 5, 2011 at 4:01 pm

    “Please answer this, why should I go back and find a link when the tactic is to ask questions and not the bigger issue.” – Kit P

    Perhaps, because you regularly blurt ”bold face” Laugh misstatements peppered with insults such as,

    “John Ritch is a goverment suit and not a nuclear safety expert nor is he part of the nuclear industry. Again typical tactic of anti-nukes is to ask misleading questions derived from bold face lies.” – Kit P

    Not to mention that your fundamental premise — that the natural disaster experienced along a wide swath of Japan’s northeastern coast cannot be separated from the ensuing nuclear catastrophe at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station that continues nearly four months later, and is likely to continue for many years, at mounting social and economic costs  – is wrong.

    [link]      
  122. By russ-finley on July 6, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    Rate Crimes,

     

    Most of the data you’re garnering from the news media is highly sensationalized to attract readership as well as inaccurate. Take a lesson from a recent article by Robert:

     

    Over the years I have had some enlightening interactions with the news media. I have gradually developed the view that many in the media believe their role is more to entertain than to inform. My naive younger self believed that the media generally presents objective information, hich is important to ensure that a well-informed general public makes rational choices. A public that is well-informed about energy issues can elect leaders who legislate sound energy policy. A public that is consistently misinformed on energy issues will elect leaders who legislate the kind of policies that have led us to where we are today.

    Many politicians lie, pander, and promote misinformation to get elected. I have come to the conclusion that many media outlets do the same to sell papers. The casualty in both cases is a citizenry whose views on energy are perpetually distorted, and that leads to a perpetually dysfunctional energy policy.

     

    [link]      
  123. By russ-finley on July 6, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    Rate Crimes said:

     

    ….the enormous risks fall on the shoulders of the American taxpayer via the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

     

    Not too different from when the government stepped in to protect the airlines after 9/11 from $15 billion in law suits with the  “Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act”

    That is one of the roles of government–to take up the slack when a disaster threatens to overwhelm an important industry.

     

     

    [link]      
  124. By russ-finley on July 6, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    Rate Crimes quoted:

     

    While none of the safety problems harmed plant employees or the public, they occurred with alarming frequency – more than once a month – which is high for a mature industry, said the study of nuclear plant safety performance in 2010 by the Union of Concerned Scientists, …

    The UCS press secretary told me in a comment on my blog that the UCS is not against nuclear power. They just want it properly regulated and are leery of excessive government subsidy. The UCS is not a big organization and are not all scientists (experts in a field of science) and certainly are not experts on nuclear power. They certainly are not experienced engineers.

    Safety problems occur dozens of times every day in the airline industry, which is certainly mature. It too is regulated by a government agency and it also has a conflict of interest when it comes to cutting costs.

     

    [link]      
  125. By Wendell Mercantile on July 6, 2011 at 11:39 pm

    Safety problems occur dozens of times every day in the airline industry, which is certainly mature.

    You don’t even want to know how many air traffic control “deals” (as when a controller says to the watch supervisor, “Oh-oh, I think we’ve got “a deal” here.”) happen each day across the U.S.

    [link]      
  126. By rate-crimes on July 7, 2011 at 6:23 am

    Russ Finley said:

    Rate Crimes said:

     

    ….the enormous risks fall on the shoulders of the American taxpayer via the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

     

    Not too different from when the government stepped in to protect the airlines after 9/11 from $15 billion in law suits with the  “Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act”

    That is one of the roles of government–to take up the slack when a disaster threatens to overwhelm an important industry.


     

    False equivalency.  The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act was first established in 1957.  It has now been pushing the risks of supposedly private companies into the public sector for half a century.

    Why do you think the nuclear industry is “an important industry”?

    Perhaps, the industry represents important investments in existing systems.  But, how important can an industry be when it likely would not exist if not for the enormous subsidies provided by the taxpayers.

    The nuclear industry provides only a small portion of power generated in th U.S.  A portion that has been surpassed by renewables.

    Furthermore, we currently import more than 90 percent of the uranium used to power our reactors.

    [link]      
  127. By rate-crimes on July 7, 2011 at 6:31 am

    Russ Finley said:

    Rate Crimes quoted:

     

    While none of the safety problems harmed plant employees or the public, they occurred with alarming frequency – more than once a month – which is high for a mature industry, said the study of nuclear plant safety performance in 2010 by the Union of Concerned Scientists, …

    The UCS press secretary told me in a comment on my blog that the UCS is not against nuclear power. They just want it properly regulated and are leery of excessive government subsidy. The UCS is not a big organization and are not all scientists (experts in a field of science) and certainly are not experts on nuclear power. They certainly are not experienced engineers.

    Safety problems occur dozens of times every day in the airline industry, which is certainly mature. It too is regulated by a government agency and it also has a conflict of interest when it comes to cutting costs.

     


     

    Russ, you could easily have discovered the UCS policy on nuclear power on their website.  You need not wait until they submit to your blog.

    Of course, they are not against nuclear power.  Nuclear power is just a technology.  It is the implementation and operation of nuclear power that deserves analyses.

    You can read the UCS’s expert analyses of nuclear in their “Fission Stories“. 

    [link]      
  128. By rate-crimes on July 7, 2011 at 6:36 am

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    Safety problems occur dozens of times every day in the airline industry, which is certainly mature.

    You don’t even want to know how many air traffic control “deals” (as when a controller says to the watch supervisor, “Oh-oh, I think we’ve got “a deal” here.”) happen each day across the U.S.


     

    False equivalency.  Wendell, you are repeating your regular error of conflating sudden, localized tragedies with long-term, regional nuclear catastrophes.  Both deserve attention.  Both can be tragic.  Yet, it is a nuclear catastrophe that can reshape the future of a region for generations to come.

    [link]      
  129. By rate-crimes on July 7, 2011 at 6:42 am

    “Most of the data you’re garnering from the news media is highly sensationalized to attract readership as well as inaccurate.” – Russ Finley

    No, it’s not.  Some inaccuracies may exist, no doubt.  However, references have been provided.  You would do better to address the specific inaccuracies instead of making broad, unsubstantiated, fuzzy, sensational statements.

    [link]      
  130. By rate-crimes on July 7, 2011 at 6:45 am

    President of Japan Nuclear Operator May Resign Over E-Mails   July 7, 2011

    The president of Kyushu Electric Power, Toshio Manabe, told reporters that he must take responsibility for the e-mails, which were sent by employees of subsidiaries who posed as regular citizens supporting the restart of two local reactors.

    [link]      
  131. By Kit P on July 7, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    “UCS is not against nuclear power”

    Russ of course they are anti-nukes. In my opinion they are the most competent of anti-nukes. However, if your only output is misleading information aimed at ignorant people; you are really not contributing to safety. I have no problem with honest ‘watchdog’ organizations; too bad we have none. There were no serious safety issues presented in the USC report. Please feel free to identify one of the issues that you think might me a safety issue and I will happy to explain it. If you look at the number serious safety issues in the mature nuclear industry, it has trended to zero.

    “The nuclear industry provides only a small portion of power generated in th U.S. A portion that has been surpassed by renewables.”

    The power industry refers to the ‘electric’ power industry. In the US, nuclear power provides the lowest cost of the 20% significant sources of electricity while natural gas provides the highest cost. If you think replacing 20% of the electricity supply produced at $2/MWh with $100/MWh generation will not be important, think again.

    Except for the last few years, renewable energy has always been larger than nukes because renewable energy includes things like firewood. The US nuke industry produced more electricity in 2010 than ever before. The US nuclear industry has a record year and renewable energy is doing better too. What is the problem?

    [link]      
  132. By Wendell Mercantile on July 7, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    What is the problem?

    The problem is that many people — such as Rate Crimes for one — have a deep fear of nuclear power.

    [link]      
  133. By rate-crimes on July 7, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    “If you look at the number serious safety issues in the mature nuclear industry, it has trended to zero.” – Kit P

    Fukushima Daiichi.

    [link]      
  134. By rate-crimes on July 7, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    “The problem is that many people have a deep fear of nuclear power” – Wendell Mercantile

    As was said previously, nuclear power is just a technology.  It is the implementation and operation of nuclear power that deserves careful analyses.

    [link]      
  135. By Kit P on July 7, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    “Fukushima Daiichi.”

     

    Rate Crimes you are aware that those nuke plants are in Japan? If you would like to discuss what you think was the biggest safety issue in the mature US industry we can discuss it.

     

    Second, the cause of the damage to rectors in Japan was historic natural disaster not a poor safety culture.

     

    It is interesting how Rate Crimes is still talking about safety when the safety of nuke plants was proved by not hurting anyone despite meting down three cores.

     

    “It is the implementation and operation of nuclear power that deserves careful analyses. ”

     

    Well of course, and it is. How does explain Rate Crimes irrational fear? Rate Crimes most likely has never bothered to read an FSAR for a nuke plant to see if his concerns are addressed.

    [link]      
  136. By rate-crimes on July 7, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    New Exposé Reveals Nuclear Regulatory Commission Colluded with Industry to Weaken Safety Standards  June 24, 2011

    Three U.S. senators have called for a congressional probe on safety issues at the nation’s aging nuclear plants following a pair of new exposés. In a special series called “Aging Nukes,” the Associated Press revealed that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear power industry have been working in tandem to weaken safety standards to keep aging reactors within the rules. Just last year, the NRC weakened the safety margin for acceptable radiation damage to reactor vessels. The AP report also revealed radioactive tritium has leaked from 48 of the 65 U.S. commercial nuclear power sites, often into groundwater from corroded, buried piping. Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard—sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.

    [link]      
  137. By rate-crimes on July 7, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    “If you would like to discuss what you think was the biggest safety issue in the mature US industry we can discuss it.” – Kit P

    Self-proclaimed nuclear ‘safety experts’.

    [link]      
  138. By rate-crimes on July 8, 2011 at 10:30 am

    “Rate Crimes most likely has never bothered to read an FSAR for a nuke plant to see if his concerns are addressed.” – Kit P

    Ah, I hadn’t noticed this latest, limp attack of yours.  You are, of course, again wrong.

    [link]      
  139. By Kit P on July 8, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    What RC linked from the DEMOCRACY NOW web site.

    “Leaks from at least 37 of those facilities contained concentrations exceeding the federal drinking water standard—sometimes at hundreds of times the limit.”

    Very scary but later on the same loon says,

    “The EPA sets a limit for how much can be in drinking water. None of the leaks have entered drinking water in amounts that would violate the EPA limit so far.”

    RC has linked journalists interviewing other journalists.

    Of course, in the real world no one is working to reduce safety standard at existing US nuke plant. There is no reason to because the nuclear industry has the best safety record in the power industry while complying with existing regulations. Regulations and standards do evolve over time as better ways of doing things are found. If anything, standards are being stronger.

    Fifty years ago, the industry was designing reactors based on certain assumptions about aging. During the life of the plant monitoring programs verify those assumptions. If a piping system design for 40 years has erosion/corrosion greater than expected, a decision must be made. Some nuke plants shut down at around 30 years in the 90s because it was not economical to repair them when NG was $2/MMBTU. Now that NG is $4/MMBTU, replacing piping and components to make the nuke plant last 60 years is economical.

    Designing a nuke plant to last 40 years was a design goal not a standard. If we can exceed the goal while meeting the standards; then that is a very good thing especially if you are buying electricity from that nuke.

    Key performance indicators are used to track important safety issue. The trend is very positive. The story missed by AP is how nuke plants are exceeding standard by a wider margin every year.

    When investigative journalist and watch dogs have to make up stuff to report on that is a good sign about safety.

    [link]      
  140. By rate-crimes on July 8, 2011 at 1:56 pm
    [link]      
  141. By Kit P on July 8, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    ‘with very little onsite inspection and verification. ‘

     

    Each of the 104 nuke plants has a two full time resident inspectors.

     

    “In one instance, both the renewal application for Millstone Unit 2 in Waterford, Conn., and the supposedly independent NRC review described corrosion control with identical language.

    From the Millstone application: “The number of planned and unplanned replacements has generally trended downward over the past several years due to the establishment of the Flow-Accelerated Corrosion program and following the recommendations identified in NSAC-202L.”

    From the NRC review: “The project team reviewed operating experience for the applicant’s Flow-Accelerated Corrosion program. The number of planned and unplanned replacements has generally trended downward over the past several years due to the establishment of the Flow-Accelerated Corrosion program and following the recommendations identified in NSAC-202L.””

     

    What is the problem? Reducing the failure rate of components and making things last longer is a very good thing. It does not matter how you say it. Journalists care about writing style not regulators.

     

    Car tires are a lot better than they used to be. How stupid would the AP sound if the wrote an ‘expose’ about tires lasting twice as long safety officials agree based on reviewing the data?

     

    I find it amazing that the AP can spin a huge positive into a negative.

     

    “Peter Lyons, a physicist and recent NRC commissioner, said several features of plants are extraordinarily hard to replace and could limit their lifetimes. They include reactor vessels, electric cables set in concrete, and underground piping. ”

     

    New reactors design life is 60 years. One of the features is the ability to easily replace the reactor vessel and steam generators. And yes, we are now thinking they will last 100 years. What a legacy that would be.

     

    [link]      
  142. By rate-crimes on July 8, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    “Car tires are a lot better than they used to be. How stupid would the AP sound if the wrote an ‘expose’ about tires lasting twice as long safety officials agree based on reviewing the data?” – Kit P

    A self-proclaimed nuclear ‘safety expert’ is drawing parallels between car tires and nuclear reactors.

    You need to listen to how you sound.

     

    [link]      
  143. By Kit P on July 8, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    The parallel is between components of a nuke plant and components of an automobile. It is difficult for me dumb down to your level RC.

     

    I have an old PU truck but have changed the oil regularly. Although it is much older than with more miles than the manufacture promised, I will driving it. When the battery dies, I will buy a new one. It just keeps running.

     

    Nuke plants just keep running too. Good thing!

    [link]      
  144. By rate-crimes on July 8, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    “I have an old PU truck” – Kit P

    Now, your comparison to nuclear reactors is an old truck!  Who is putting the safety of their reactor into your hands?!

    Of course, that’s the same group that needs juvenile FLA’s like “STAR”.

    Your utter lack of subtlety and apparent inability to manage complexity should concern anyone who believes you have a role in nuclear safety.

    Woes, indeed.

    [link]      
  145. By rate-crimes on July 8, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    X

    [link]      
  146. By Kit P on July 9, 2011 at 8:43 am

    “Now, your comparison to nuclear reactors is an old truck! ”

     

    Very good one too. If you maintain mechanical and electrical, it will be useful for a long time. My truck is very reliable just like old nuke plants.

     

    “Of course, that’s the same group that needs juvenile FLA’s like “STAR”. ”

     

    We all can not be cool like RC. When I drive my POS PU, I practice being aware if my surroundings. I judge thing by how well they work and not how sophisticated it is.

     

    “Your utter lack of subtlety and apparent inability to manage complexity should concern anyone who believes you have a role in nuclear safety. ”

     

    Another accusation that will not be supported by any facts. RC goes from one accusation to the next without bothering to understand. Here are the facts about the reliability of nuke plants,

     

    Out of 104 reactors, three are not operating at full power during the peak summer heat waves.

     

    http://nuclearstreet.com/

     

    How many power industry provide that kind of data. Furthermore, nuke plants are so reliable that I can tell the reason they are not operating. Columbia Generating Station is in a refueling outage that includes replacing the main condenser. Right now the PNW has a large amount of hydro from spring run off. It is an example of how power plants are always modernizing equipment. Crystal River damaged the containment building while replacing steam generators. It is another example of how power plants are always modernizing equipment. The utility is considering tearing down and rebuilding the containment building at a cost of more than a billion dollars. If that happens it will be a sure indicator that the reactor vessel can last 80 years. Fort Calhoun has completed a refueling outage and is waiting for flood waters to recede before starting up.

     

    The nuke industry brags about performance. Safety too, commercial nuclear power in the US has yet to hurt any of our customers. 100% safety record and 99% availability when you need us. Top that!

     

    [link]      
  147. By russ-finley on July 9, 2011 at 11:45 am

    False equivalency. The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act was first established in 1957. It has now been pushing the risks of supposedly private companies into the public sector for half a century.

     

    False equivalency. Nuclear energy has been providing affordable, zero emission, low carbon energy to the public sector for half a century.

     

    Why do you think the nuclear industry is “an important industry”?

     

    Because it provides 20 percent of all of the electrical power for the most energy hungry country on the planet.

     

    Perhaps, the industry represents important investments in existing systems. But, how important can an industry be when it likely would not exist if not for the enormous subsidies provided by the taxpayers.

     

    Thanks to pork barrel politics, the government subsidizes everything. It is only a matter of degree. The oil industry receives enormous subsidies as does solar, wind (which most certainly would not exist if not for the enormous subsidies provided by the taxpayers), and on and on. Calling the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act  a subsidy is like calling federal funding for roads a subsidy for oil (which actually has been done).

     

    The nuclear industry provides only a small portion of power generated in th U.S. A portion that has been surpassed by renewables.

     

    Actually not. Read the comments below this article: EIA Report: Renewables Surpass Nuclear Output

     

    Furthermore, we currently import more than 90 percent of the uranium used to power our reactors.

     

    Trade is a good thing. Just got back from a farmer’s market.  Fanning the flames of xenophobia to support an argument, not so good.

     

    [link]      
  148. By russ-finley on July 9, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Russ, you could easily have discovered the UCS policy on nuclear power on their website. You need not wait until they submit to your blog.

     

    Really?

     

    Of course, they are not against nuclear power. Nuclear power is just a technology. It is the implementation and operation of nuclear power that deserves analyses.

     

    Nobody is arguing against continued improvement of nuclear (or car –40,000 deaths annually, or airline, etc) safety.

     

    You can read the UCS’s expert analyses of nuclear in their “Fission Stories”.

     

    I already did (and it does not profess to be expert analysis –your enhancement). Here is a quote from one article:

     

    Kudos to the NRC for taking pro-active steps last year to make Fort Calhoun better protected against this year’s flood.

     

    Nobody (including the UCS) is arguing against continued improvement of nuclear (or car –40,000 deaths annually, or airline, etc) safety.

     

     

    No, it’s not [the lay press is not inaccurate]. Some inaccuracies may exist, no doubt. However, references have been provided.

     

    See my original comment.

     

    You would do better to address the specific inaccuracies instead of making broad, unsubstantiated, fuzzy, sensational statements.

     

    You would do better to address the specific inaccuracies instead of making broad, unsubstantiated, fuzzy, sensational statements.

     

    Japan nuclear crisis should not carry weight in atomic energy debate

    Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power

    The double standards of green anti-nuclear opponents

    The unpalatable truth is that the anti-nuclear lobby has misled us all

    Nuclear opponents have a moral duty to get their facts straight

    Why must UK have to choose between nuclear and renewable energy?

    Reframing Nuclear Power as an Ally of Renewable Energy

    The UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) is Always Right

    Enhanced Renewable Grid (NERG)

    Nuclear Reactor May Kill 192,000 Annually!

    Is it wise to exclude nuclear from the mix?

    Parsing The Nuclear Cost Argument

    Dirty, Baseload, Centralized, Renewable Energy

    The Nuclear Argument

     

    As was said previously, nuclear power is just a technology. It is the implementation and operation of nuclear power that deserves careful analyses

     

    As was said previously, nobody is arguing against continued improvement of nuclear (or car –40,000 deaths annually, or airline, etc) safety.

     

    [link]      
  149. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    “False equivalency.” – Russ Finley

    Apparently, you lack an understanding of what comprises a false equivalency.

    “Nuclear energy has been providing affordable, zero emission, low carbon energy to the public sector for half a century.” – Russ Finley

    The ostensibly private nuclear power industry provides electricity to all economic sectors while pushing the risks into the public sector via the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act. 

    Combining “zero emission” and “low carbon” in the same sentence is illogical.  Nuclear power is not zero-emission.   Throughout its life-cycle, nuclear power has low carbon emissions relative only to high carbon emitting sources.  We now have a half century of nuclear waste – much of it in vulnerable storage – with no active plan for its long-term management.

    “[The nuclear power industry is important] Because it provides 20 percent of all of the electrical power for the most energy hungry country on the planet.” – Russ Finley

    The rate schedule structures in the state where the largest nuclear power plant is located defeat the value of independent investments in energy conservation.  Energy conservation measures could replace much of the existing nuclear generation.  The “most energy hungry country on the planet” imports over 90 percent of the uranium used to power its reactors.

    [link]      
  150. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    “See my original comment.” – Russ Findley

    See my original comment.

    [link]      
  151. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    “Furthermore, we currently import more than 90 percent of the uranium used to power our reactors.” – Rate Crimes

    “Trade is a good thing. Just got back from a farmer’s market.  Fanning the flames of xenophobia to support an argument, not so good.” – Russ Finley

    The hyperbole of “xenophobia” is your own creation.  The issue is not any particular source.  The issue is that sources are not guaranteed, many are distant, and that supply is vulnerable to disruption and increasing competition.

    [link]      
  152. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    “As was said previously, nobody is arguing against continued improvement of nuclear (or car –40,000 deaths annually, or airline, etc) safety.” – Russ Finley

    This seems to be an unnecessary statement supporting a goal shared by all; but it does carry an implicit false equivalency between safety for systems whose worst failure incidents result in temporary, localized tragedies, and nuclear power whose worst failure incidents result in global, long-term catastrophes.

     

    [link]      
  153. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Japan’s Kan says nuclear clean-up could take decades    July 9, 2011

    Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan said Saturday it will take decades to clean up and decommission the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant after the world’s worst atomic accident since Chernobyl.

    [link]      
  154. By Kit P on July 9, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    “The UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) is Always Right”

     

    Russ I see you slipped in some links to your own blog which are not too bad. AS far as the UCS, they only deserve credit for being more subtle when the tell lies.

     

    “A lot of people think we’re anti-nuclear power. We’re not. But we are critics of the nuclear industry. We think they could be doing a much better job on waste and safety and we question the wisdom of giving the industry billions of dollars in federal loan guarantees.”

     

    The nuclear industry has a perfect record on handling high level radioactive waste. It is industry’s job to safely store waste until the federal government assumes control of the waste.

     

    These days the NRC regulates both commercial facilities and DOE facilities to similar criteria. If the nuclear industry was allowed to take over from DOE, we would get the job done much faster. DOE is very good at spending ratepayer provided funds.

     

    The commercial industry has always had ties in the community. DOE has been shrouded in secrecy and self regulations. The USC also has its roots in being anti-nuclear weapon.

    [link]      
  155. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    Japan’s Kan says nuclear clean-up could take decades    July 9, 2011

    Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan said Saturday it will take decades to clean up and decommission the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant after the world’s worst atomic accident since Chernobyl.

    [link]      
  156. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 3:18 pm

    “It is industry’s job to safely store waste until the federal government assumes control of the waste.” – Kit P

    Keep nuclear waste on site? States sue to block     February 15, 2011

    Three northeastern states are suing federal regulators for allowing the storage of radioactive waste for up to 60 years at the nation’s nuclear power plants.

     

    A very hot potato.

    [link]      
  157. By Kit P on July 9, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    “Throughout its life-cycle, nuclear power has low carbon emissions relative only to high carbon emitting sources.  ”

     

    Actually, nuclear has lower LCA than either solar or wind.

     

    “We now have a half century of nuclear waste – much of it in vulnerable storage – with no active plan for its long-term management”

     

    Actually wind and solar have about the same LCA hazardous waste as nuclear. What is nuclear waste vulnerable to? RC does have an active imagination. There is a long term plan for nuclear waste. We will get back to it when get a new POTUS.

     

    “Energy conservation measures could replace much of the existing nuclear generation.”

     

    Not really but it would not be hard to replace wind and solar with conservation. I have no problem with RC conserving and riding a bicycle but I do not want to conserve. I like my all all electric house and long hot showers.

     

    [link]      
  158. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Japan’s Kan says nuclear clean-up could take decades    July 9, 2011

    Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan said Saturday it will take decades to clean up and decommission the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant after the world’s worst atomic accident since Chernobyl.

    [link]      
  159. By Wendell Mercantile on July 9, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    Three northeastern states are suing federal regulators for allowing the storage of radioactive waste for up to 60 years at the nation’s nuclear power plants. New York’s attorney general, Eric Schneiderman, on Tuesday said the decision violates requirements for a review of health, safety and environmental hazards. Connecticut and Vermont are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

    Their decision to file a lawsuit has more to do with fear and political posturing than the actual danger of extending the storage period from 30 to 60 years.

    It’s fairly easy to make a case that it would actually be safer to leave the waste in situ, than to pack it up and transport it by truck or rail to other sites — sites far away from the Northeast.

    Of course, then the attorney generals of those three states couldn’t tell the voters they were “fighting for them” trying to get that “dangerous stuff” out of their backyards. It’s a case of pure political fear-mongering.

    [link]      
  160. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    “the actual danger of extending the storage period from 30 to 60 years.” – Wendell Mercantile

    The storage period and the amount being stored both increase.  Both time and accumulation accelerate the risks.

     

     

    [link]      
  161. By Kit P on July 9, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    “It’s a case of pure political fear-mongering. ”

    You are correct Wendell and on site storage and transportation gets plenty of debate. However this statement is misleading.

     

    “It’s fairly easy to make a case that it would actually be safer to leave the waste in situ, than to pack it up and transport it by truck or rail to other sites — sites far away from the Northeast. ”

     

    Storing on site and transportation is both done equally safely. It is something that has been done safely for 50 years.

     

    “Both time and accumulation accelerate the risks. ”

     

    Risk of what? Think there is any risk that RC will quantify the risk or how you can accelerate it.

     

    [link]      
  162. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    radiation warning symbol

    [link]      
  163. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    “Risk of what? Think there is any risk that RC will quantify the risk or how you can accelerate it.” – Kit  P

    Mathematically, increasing the time and increasing the amount both increase the risk.  Of course, if you live in a ’risk = zero’ world, then risk remains zero.

    If ”nuclear safety experts” claim that risk = zero, then another acceleration factor must be included in the general equation.

     

     

    [link]      
  164. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    Into Eternity (2010)

    Every day, the world over, large amounts of high-level radioactive waste created by nuclear power plants is placed in interim storage, which is vulnerable to natural disasters, man-made disasters, and to societal changes. In Finland the world’s first permanent repository is being hewn out of solid rock – a huge system of underground tunnels – that must last 100,000 years as this is how long the waste remains hazardous.

    [link]      
  165. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    “It is something that has been done safely for 50 years.” – Kit P

    Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant operated without catastrophe for forty years.

    [link]      
  166. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    Worldwide Nuclear Industry “Whoa!!” Deepens

    [link]      
  167. By rate-crimes on July 9, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    Radioactive beef found around Fukushima nuclear plant   July 9, 2011

    The cows, which were raised and shipped just outside of the 20-kilometre no-go zone around the plant, all showed high levels of radioactive caesium,ranging from 1,530 to 3,200 becquerel per kilogram, compared with the legal limit of 500.

    According to a Tokyo official, it was the first time excessive levels of radioactive caesium have been found in meat.

    [link]      
  168. By Wendell Mercantile on July 9, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    …a huge system of underground tunnels – that must last 100,000 years as this is how long the waste remains hazardous.

    100,000 years? Oh, my! Guess what, the earth is about 4,540,000,000 years old and is filled with stuff that is much more hazardous than nuclear waste, and has been in place longer than 100,000 years. (100,000 years is ~0.0000022% of the age of the earth.)

    Sounds to me as though those crafty Finns are being prudent* to carve tunnels out of solid, geologically stable rock to store their nuclear waste. Instead of being fearful, you owe them a tip of your hat.
    ____________
    * Much more prudent than we have been in handling Yucca Mountain.

    [link]      
  169. By thomas398 on July 9, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    I’m not familiar with the Finnish nuclear waste disposal plan or with the particulars of their republic.  However one would assume its easier to build nuclear storage facilities in states with highly centralized governments. 

    Yucca mountain is highly unpopular in the state with both political parties.  Sharon Angle wanted the facility to be a “nuclear reprocessing facility”  but not a waste repository (whatever that meant).  The citizens of Nevada should have a say on this issue, especially if people in FL,CA, and MA can weigh in on (comparatively temporary endeavors) offshore oil/wind. 

    There’s a real disconnect when politicians are for Yucca but oppose nuclear waste transportation through their congressional district/state.

    [link]      
  170. By rate-crimes on July 10, 2011 at 6:42 am

    “Sounds to me as though those crafty Finns are being prudent* to carve tunnels out of solid, geologically stable rock to store their nuclear waste. Instead of being fearful” – Wendell Mercantile

    The Finns are storing their waste very near where it is produced.  They are not transporting it from dozens of locations spread across a continent to a remote location that is often a thousand miles from where the nuclear waste is produced.

    The general mathematical equation now becomes:

    distance x time x amount x ’inept ”nuclear safety expert” factor’ = risk

    [link]      
  171. By rate-crimes on July 10, 2011 at 6:56 am

    Man freed after arrest for collecting radiation-contaminated rubble in Fukushima   July 8, 2011

    A man has been freed after being held on suspicion of collecting rubble allegedly contaminated with radiation from the crippled Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant without permission, the Mainichi has learned.

     

    Police and other authorities concerned are asking the central government to quickly write a law to regulate contaminated waste to prevent the spread of radioactive materials through dumping.

    Not all the collectors will be caught.  Eventually, someone will try to use irradiated materials for new construction.

    [link]      
  172. By rate-crimes on July 10, 2011 at 7:25 am

    “The citizens of Nevada should have a say on this issue” – Thomas398

    Yes, but in Nevada shouldn’t the issue be decided at the craps table?

     

    [link]      
  173. By Kit P on July 10, 2011 at 8:52 am

    “which is vulnerable to natural disasters, man-made disasters, and to societal changes. ”

     

    So what is not? Spent nuclear fuel is not particularly hazardous. All I have to is not stand next to it without shielding or eat it. How hard is that? We all accept risk as part of using energy because using reduces the risk of dying.

     

    For example let us look at gasoline. Gasoline is hazardous . Every time we fill up our POV we are exposed to the hazard of being burned to death and increased risk of cancer. Most states let untrained people pump gas. Since fatal accidents are rare, we can assume that precautions are adequate to reduce the risk.

     

    Since the risk of pumping gas is insignificant, we accept the risk on a societal basis.

     

    Our gasoline supply ‘vulnerable to natural disasters’ is as we saw in Japan. A large refinery fire killed a few people and released huge amounts of toxins and carcinogens into the air.

     

    The fact is that spent fuel is the least hazardous of things associated with making electricity. There is not one single case harm from spent fuel following US regulations.

     

    The concern is not that something is hazardous because because everything is hazardous but can it be done safely. The answer is yes.

     

    “* Much more prudent than we have been in handling Yucca Mountain. ”

     

    Have you ever been to Finland Wendell? The geological repository will be covered with a glacier soon. However, Yucca Mountain is in the desert in the Great Basin which is a wasteland next to where nuclear weapons were tested underground. I suspect the Fins would have selected Yucca Mountain if that was a choice.

     

    “The citizens of Nevada should have a say on this issue, especially if people in FL,CA, and MA can weigh in on offshore oil/wind.”

     

    Well they do have a say. All federal projects are required to have an EIS which includes public participation. I have yet to hear a substantive objection. It is also a national issue. Some of the high level nuclear is from defense programs.  In fact feel free to provide your comments to the NRC Thomas.

     

    I have spent a lot of time in Vegas working in Yucca Mountain. My favorite place did not have room service. I would go out and hike in Red Rock Park and read my book under a shade trees around a natural spring. I wonder how many would ever visit such a place without reliable transportation.

     

    Nevada’s economy is based on gambling and drinking by tourists who travel there. This is not sustainable from either an an energy or water point of view.

     

    The plans in Finland for spent fuel appear to be very good just keep in mind that there are many solutions and all of them are easier that coal waste.

     

     

    [link]      
  174. By Kit P on July 10, 2011 at 9:36 am

    “Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant operated without catastrophe for forty years. ”

     

    The natural disaster was indeed a historic ‘catastrophe’ but certainly not in the sense of release of radioactive material from the three cores. In fact it is RC that continues to provide evidence that it was not a ‘catastrophe’. For example,

     

    “A man has been freed after being held on suspicion of collecting rubble allegedly ”

     

    Rubble! The nuke plant did not cause rubble. Collected used brick is certainly indicative a thrifty and industrious person but not one afraid of ‘catastrophe’ contamination.

     

    “Eventually, someone will try to use irradiated materials for new construction. ”

     

    Contaminated not ‘irradiated’ but in any case this the ‘nanny state’ protecting people from small risks they are not worried about. If people are concerned it is easy enough to measure. For example,

     

    “More than six times the legal limit of radioactive caesium has been found in beef ”

     

    Now that is what I am talking about! This is a first for RC. A link with actual numbers in it and Greenpeace BS at the end. They measured and found what they expected they might find. They presented the information in a useful format for a rational person to determine the risk.

     

    Rufus and I will be happy to eat the steaks from contaminated cows assuming it tastes better than American beef raised on a carefully controlled corn diet. Having a heart attack is my backup plan getting cancer. Or I could ride my bike on narrow mountain after cheerleaders practice. Gosh officer I was texting my bff Jill when ….

     

    Not being a fear-mongering sissy, I know the difference giving milk with I-131 to children and me eating a steak with low levels of cesium a few times.

    [link]      
  175. By russ-finley on July 10, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Apparently, you lack an understanding of what comprises a false equivalency.

    Riiight …

    The ostensibly private nuclear power industry …

    The government subsidizes everything. It is only a matter of degree. The oil industry receives enormous subsidies as does solar, wind (which most certainly would not exist if not for the enormous subsidies provided by the taxpayers), and on and on. Calling the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act a subsidy is like calling federal funding for roads a subsidy for oil (which actually has been done).

    …provides electricity to all economic sectors …

    By “all” you mean government as well as private? How enlightening …thank you for that.

    …while pushing the risks into the public sector via the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act.

    You’ve been using this act as an example of a subsidy to the nuclear industry. Calling something that the government has not paid for a government “subsidy” is nonsensical. From Wikipedia:

    $12.6 billion (as of 2011) is industry-funded as described in the Act. Any claims above the $12.6 billion would be covered by a Congressional mandate…

    And calling the “potential” for the taxpayer to fund the cleanup of an accident a “risk” is creative word play (deliberate deceptive manipulation) as well, although I realize that none of your arguments are original. Because you are for the most part parroting the anti-nuclear party line you can’t really accept full responsibility for that deception.

    Combining “zero emission” and “low carbon” in the same sentence is illogical.  Nuclear power is not zero-emission. 

    If by emissions, you meant the steam from the cooling towers, you would be right. Unlike fossil fuel plants, nuclear plants emit no emissions ..ah, other than steam.

    Throughout its life-cycle, nuclear power has low carbon emissions relative only to high carbon emitting sources.

    …and also not true:

    We now have a half century of nuclear waste – much of it in vulnerable storage – with no active plan for its long-term management.

    I’ve always found it ironic that anti-nuclear groups always try to use that as a reason to end nuclear power generation while simultaneously lobbying against the recycling of that waste to greatly reduce its volume, as well as lobbying against the implementation of an active plan for long-term management of what little would be left over after reprocessing:

     

    The rate schedule structures in the state where the largest nuclear power plant is located defeat the value of independent investments in energy conservation.

    If renewable energy were also inexpensive, it too would defeat the value of independent investments in energy conservation …I’m a big fan of solar but spending $60 thousand dollars to displace my home’s power use is a “risk” that even I am not willing to take at this time.

    Energy conservation measures could replace much of the existing nuclear generation.

    No doubt, and I’m all for improved energy efficiency, but that argument is equally valid for renewable energy.

    The “most energy hungry country on the planet” imports over 90 percent of the uranium used to power its reactors.

    I repeat, trade is a good thing …fanning the flames of xenophobia to support an argument, not so

    good.

     

     

     

    [link]      
  176. By Wendell Mercantile on July 10, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    The Finns are storing their waste very near where it is produced.

    Rate Crimes

    Sounds like those crafty Finns are even more clever than I thought. Think about it, doesn’t it make sense to build their reactors at a geologically stable sites where one can also dig deep tunnels in the bedrock to safely store the waste? We should be so clever — and so lucky to have the geology to do that.

    [link]      
  177. By russ-finley on July 10, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    The hyperbole of “xenophobia” is your own creation. 

    The hyperbole of “xenophobia”..? LOL.

    The issue is not any particular source. The issue is that sources are not guaranteed, many are distant, and that supply is vulnerable to disruption and increasing competition.

    Read “The World is Flat.” Practically everything you own was entirely or at best partially imported from “distant” lands and is “vulnerable to disruption and increasing competition.” Where do you suppose most of our solar panels will eventually come from? There is enough nuclear fuel in our atomic weapon stock pile alone to last many decades, not to mention in our unprocessed waste. Trade is good for all involved. There are no guarntees in life, other than death and taxes.

    This seems to be an unnecessary statement [nobody is arguing against continued improvement of nuclear (or car –40,000 deaths annually, or airline, etc) safety] supporting a goal shared by all

    It would have been an unnecessary statement were it  not for your insinuation that the likes of the UCS are calling for an end to nuclear power generation instead of improvement of nuclear (or car –40,000 deaths annually, or airline, etc) safety.

    … but it does carry an implicit false equivalency between safety for systems whose worst failure incidents result in temporary, localized tragedies, and nuclear power whose worst failure incidents result in global, long-term catastrophes.

    Your statement carries an implicit false equivalency in that the reach (local or not) is irrelevant. What counts are lives  lost per unit energy generated, and by that measure, nuclear energy is one of, if not the safest. Twenty two thousand people were killed by the Japanese quake, a real tragedy. I’m guessing you are referring to the Chernobyl power plant, which continued to produce power after the incident until 2004 and created Europe’s largest wildlife presere (herehere, and here)? The Fukishima accident killed no one and will go a long way to further improve safety for existing and future designs.

     

     

    [link]      
  178. By Wendell Mercantile on July 10, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Your statement carries an implicit false equivalency in that the reach (local or not) is irrelevant.

    You go Paul. Trump Rate Crimes with his own “false equvalency” card. If Rate Crimes were ever to be hit by a bus (and I truly hope he won’t), he could have “False Equivalency” carved on his tombstone as an epitaph.

    [link]      
  179. By russ-finley on July 10, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    You go Paul. Trump Rate Crimes with his own “false equvalency” card. If Rate Crimes were ever to be hit by a bus (and I truly hope he won’t), he could have “False Equivalency” carved on his tombstone as an epitaph.


     

    I don’t blame your for confusing me with Paul, since our views rarely diverge. Paul summed-up our anti-nuclear jihadist troll early on here. He’s quite the sterotype.

     

     

    [link]      
  180. By Wendell Mercantile on July 10, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    My apologies.

    You go, Russ. Hoist Rate Crimes on his own petard of “false equivalency.”

    [link]      
  181. By paul-n on July 11, 2011 at 2:25 am

    Yes, go to it Russ, even though Wendell has mistaken me for you (or you for me, I’m not sure which, and it doesn’t really matter) – you have more patience with Rate Crimes than I do.

     

    The funny thing is that when RC comments on non nuclear stories, he is quite coherent, but on this topic, he has a real chip on his shoulder.

    Best hopes for reality,

    Paul.

     

    [link]      
  182. By Kit P on July 11, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Here is an example of how the US may be different than other countries.

    “In the USA, nuclear plant control room operators routinely spend one of every five or six weeks in full time training. Each training week is typically composed of 20 hours of simulator time and 20 hours in the classroom, and includes both written examinations and evaluated scenarios in the simulator.”

    TEPCO Did Not Adopt a Key Lesson Learned from the Accident at Three Mile Island

    http://thisweekinnuclear.com/?p=1339

    Plant specific simulators are also important design tools for new reactors along with 3-D computer models. For example, EGP (emergency guideline procedures) can be run on the specific simulator. If an operator has to manually open a valve, the 3-D computer models can trace the operator’s steps.

    Without picking on RC too much he is an example of an anti-nuke with a ‘cause’ and not real concerns. Subjects like spent fuel, plant aging, or uranium mining are used as arguments to support the ‘cause’ not concerns to be addressed. On that topic,

    A Tale of Two Nuclear Opponents

    http://ansnuclearcafe.org/

    [link]      
  183. By rate-crimes on July 14, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    Assessing nuclear risk in the aftermath of Fukushima   July 11, 2011

    More than two months after the accident, Tepco’s market cap is less than $7 billion while substantial liabilities accrue.

    At the time of writing, only 4.9 gigawatts of Tepco’s nuclear generation is operating (around 18% of installed capacity). The power shortfall will be covered by record purchases of liquefied natural gas (LNG). The 2011 replacement power costs alone have been estimated at ¥700 billion ($9 billion). The decommissioning cost for the six reactors is estimated at ¥1 trillion ($12 billion). To shore up its finances, the company is planning to liquidate assets.

    Almost immediately after the accident, Moody’s and other rating agencies began a series of rating downgrades, with Moody’s recently lowering Tepco to junk status. In one report the ratings organisation underscored the unlimited nature of Tepco’s exposure:

    “A key development is that under the announced scheme [the Japanese government announcement of May 13] Tepco will assume primary liability for those amounts above the nuclear insurance payments, which are limited to ¥120 billion per power plant from the government, as set by the Atomic Energy Damage Compensation Law.”

    [link]      
  184. By Wendell Mercantile on July 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    More than two months after the accident, Tepco’s market cap is less than $7 billion while substantial liabilities accrue.

    That’s why the earthquake and resulting tsunami are called “natural disasters.” Disasters and their results are — by definition — not good things, but they are also part of living on the earth (Pompeii 79 AD, Lisbon 1755), and test the resiliency of the human race.

    [link]      
  185. By rate-crimes on July 14, 2011 at 6:57 pm

    “they are also part of living on the earth (Pompeii 79 AD, Lisbon 1755), and test the resiliency of the human race.” – The Hysterical Historian

    The Pompeii Nuclear Generating Station was buried by volcanic ash.  Fortunately, the 18th century Lisbon Nuclear Generating Station was in shut-down for refueling when the earthquake struck.

    Only today can we magnify the “test” of “the resiliency of the human race” with core meltdowns, toxic plumes, the dumping of radioactive water, and long-term evacuations.  Thank you very much.

    [link]      
  186. By Kit P on July 14, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    “and long-term evacuations ”

     

    Life is so hard but not for the thousand who died, RC check out the cholera deaths after the earth quake in Haiti. Huge numbers living in deplorable conditions and not one core damaged.

     

    As they said in France, let them eat beef. 

    [link]      
  187. By rate-crimes on July 14, 2011 at 9:56 pm

    “As they said in France, let them eat beef.” – Kit P

    Laissez-les manger du boeuf radioactif! 

     

    [link]      
  188. By Wendell Mercantile on July 14, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    Laissez-les manger du boeuf radioactif!

    Le évolution va prendre soin d’elle, Monsieur.

    [link]      
  189. By rate-crimes on July 15, 2011 at 10:46 am

    Wendell Mercantile said:

    Laissez-les manger du boeuf radioactif!

    Le évolution va prendre soin d’elle, Monsieur.


     

    Voulez-vous accélérer l’évolution maintenant?   Encore un autre de vos épreuves radioactives pour l’humanité?

    [link]      
  190. By Wendell Mercantile on July 15, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Combien de temps pensez-vous de la race humaine a sur notre chère planète? Même sans radioactivité, pensez-vous qu’on peut évoluer assez rapidement pour faire toute la différence dans notre durée de vie attendue? Qui sait, peut-être même la radioactivité ajoutée d’accélérer l’évolution et prolonger notre séjour sur terre.

    [link]      
  191. By rate-crimes on July 15, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Police Arrest Undocumented Worker at Arizona Nuclear Power Plant  July 15, 2011

    On Monday, July 18, less than a dozen of the workers of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station arrived for their shifts.  The INS has published an apology for the subsequent nuclear meltdown.

    [link]      
  192. By rate-crimes on July 18, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Confessions of a Nuclear Power Safety Expert    June 14, 2011

    “Nuclear today only generates about 12 percent of the developed world’s electricity. By instituting an energy efficiency program,” Silvi suggests, “we could fill the gap caused by shutting them all down and put this malevolent genie back into the bottle.”

    “Human history is full of madness, full of catastrophes. Imagine if we had nuclear reactors when we fought wars in the past. If you try to consider all the events that might happen over the years, you start to ask, ‘What are the benefits of such an effort, especially when you have opportunities to get electricity in many other ways?’”

    [link]      
  193. By Kit P on July 18, 2011 at 9:36 am

    A couple snips from RC latest loon fest.

     

    “continue with nuclear power, there will definitely be worse accidents,” ”

     

    “but the end result would have been horrific ”

     

    The record natural disaster killed a lot of people and seriously damaged a lot of stuff. Included in the damage was the cores of three nuclear reactors. Understand the hazard associated with radioactive material, actions were take to prevent anyone from being hurt.

     

    The premise of fear of radiation is that it is a horrific death. While the issues in Japan are very serious, the results were not horrific.

     

    “Even if we could affordably, say, pay to reinforce the plant to withstand a hit from a plane or missile, ”

     

    Not if, that is what we have done more than 100 times in the US.

    [link]      
  194. By Wendell Mercantile on July 18, 2011 at 11:45 am

    …put this malevolent genie back into the bottle.”

    Malevolent genie? That statement pretty much shows “nuclear power safety expert” Cesare Silvi’s bias doesn’t it?

    Certainly there must be controls and regulations on the nuclear power industry to ensure it operates safely and that shoddy operators don’t take risky shortcuts, but nuclear power is not “malevolent.” With the proper regulation, one could just as easily say it is a “benevolent” genie.

    [link]      
  195. By rate-crimes on August 3, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Tokyo Professor: Fukushima Nuclear Fallout Equal To 20 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs  August 2, 2011

    Japanese Professor Kodama expresses anger over the gross negligence of the Japan government estimating the Fukushima nuclear fallout is equivalent to 20 Hiroshima atomic bombs.

    [link]      
  196. By Kit P on August 3, 2011 at 10:49 am

    RC is back. Some college professor is agree because of the fiction he has created for himself. Go figure!

     

    Contrary to popular belief, fall out from atomic bombs is not dangerous. We used to do it all the time. As a child, my estimated exposure from above ground testing at the Nevada Test Site (aka Yucca Mountain) far exceeds my occupational exposure from 20 years of working at nuke plants (I have a desk job now).

     

    Of course the reason fallout is not hazardous is that the large amount of energy released disperses the relatively small amount of fission products over a wide area.

     

    At Fukushima, a large amount of fission products were released over a much smaller area in a slow predictable path. No one was hurt because there was time to evacuate people to prevent expose.

     

    Apparently no animals were hurt either. There are no reports of animals suffering radiation sickness. No picture of stray dogs with hair falling out.

    [link]      
  197. By rrapier on August 3, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    This is an important and timely enough issue that it will be the first chapter I complete for my book. If you look at historically what Chernobyl did to the nuclear industry — set it back by years — you can expect that this will do the same. But eventually people will come back around. What would kill the nuclear industry completely is an accident like this every 10 or 20 years. But two decades is probably about the amount of time that people will again start to feel that another accident is unlikely.

    RR

    [link]      
  198. By Kit P on August 3, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    Which nuclear industry was set back?

    Not the one I worked in. The US is the world leader in producing electricity followed by France and Japan. Chernobyl did not affect LWR with containment buildings. The only graphite moderated reactor still operating in the US was DOE’s N-Reactor at Hanford.

    Chernobyl was a product of a corrupt society and helped bring down the USSR.

    Since nobody was building Chernobyl type graphite moderated reactor without containment buildings, there was nothing there to be set back.

    [link]      
  199. By rrapier on August 3, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    Kit P said:

    Since nobody was building Chernobyl type graphite moderated reactor without containment buildings, there was nothing there to be set back.


     

    There is a lot you don’t understand about your own industry and about people’s perceptions of it. Perhaps if you pick up my book when it is published, you will learn a few things. If you don’t believe the nuclear industry had a set back after Chernobyl, you don’t know your history very well. Another setback is underway right now. I make the case in the book.

    RR

    [link]      
  200. By Kit P on August 3, 2011 at 8:25 pm

     

    “There is a lot you don’t understand about your own industry and about people’s perceptions of it. Perhaps if you pick up my book when it is published, you will learn a few things. ”

     

    Of course there is a lot I do not know about the nuclear industry. With a 104 nuke plants operating in the US producing 20 % of the electricity, there is a lot to know. If you consider the approximate 440 reactors in the world that generate electricity, there is even more that I do not know.

     

    So do not take this the wrong way because in general I do not buy book by authors from whom I will only learn what there perceptions are. In the energy industry, we measure things like the amount of power produced. Facts that can be checked.

     

    It is a cause and effect thing. The down turn in the US economy. Demand for electricity is down as is the fuel cost for NG. When the average cost of generating electricity was $80/MWh and world LNG was $16/MMBTU; US nuclear utilities were flush with cash to invest in more nukes.

     

    I do care what the CEOs of Duke, ENTERGY, SCANA, Southern Company, EXELON, PP&L, FPL, UNISTAR, Constellation, and TVA think. Fukushima has not resulted in a setback for the US nuclear industry.

     

    I while back I disagreed with RR on the effect of Fukushima on US industry. Just last week EXELON CEO Rowe said the same thing in effect during a quarterly investors call. When pressed, he stated that it is a good time not to have a fleet of large coal plants.

    [link]      
  201. By rrapier on August 3, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    Kit P said:

     

    So do not take this the wrong way because in general I do not buy book by authors from whom I will only learn what there perceptions are. In the energy industry, we measure things like the amount of power produced. Facts that can be checked.


     

    Right, and you said there were no set backs. I provide facts — that can be checked — that shows how wrong you are.

    Now you have shifted your tune to “no setback for the U.S. nuclear industry.” That remains to be seen. Let’s see how many new nuke plants we build over the next 20 years.

    RR

    [link]      
  202. By rate-crimes on August 4, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    Japan town retreats from nuclear project near Fukushima plant  August 4, 2011

    Japan’s Minamisoma City, about 20 km north of the crisis-hit Fukushima nuclear plant, became the country’s first city since the crisis to pull back from plans to host a future nuclear plant by giving up a windfall from government subsidies, as safety concerns cast doubts over nuclear power’s future.

    [link]      
  203. By rate-crimes on August 4, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Sellafield will remain a threat to Ireland  August 4, 2011

    After just 10 years of operation – and at the cost of a vertiginous £1.4bn to the British taxpayer – the mixed-oxide fuel plant nestled on the edge of bucolic west Cumbria is to be decommissioned.

     

    [link]      
  204. By rate-crimes on August 4, 2011 at 12:24 pm

    “So do not take this the wrong way because in general I do not buy book [sic] by authors from whom I will only learn what there [sic] perceptions are.” – Kit P

    Of course, that includes nearly every informative book ever published.

    [Perhaps you should try reading: it might improve your grammar.]

    [link]      
  205. By Kit P on August 4, 2011 at 1:07 pm

    “I provide facts — that can be checked”

    RR was discussing ‘people’s perceptions’ which indeed are not facts that can be checked. For forty years I have been listening to ‘people’s perceptions’ of nuclear power. It would be more accurate call them ‘people’s misconceptions’. It is a fact that some actors think nuclear power is dangerous. However, a fact that can be checked is that no one has been hurt by radiation from commercial power plants in the US.

    What did we learn from recent events in Japan? The perception that people were safe from a tsunami was wrong. Tens of thousands died as a result. The perception that core meltdown would inure and kill thousands was wrong. No was killed, no one was injured, and no one was harmed.

    A fact that can be checked!

    “That remains to be seen. Let’s see how many new nuke plants we build over the next 20 years.”

    Let me start with what I know best, the US. Currently there are 6 large nuke plants under construction in the all scheduled to come on line this decade. Events in Japan have not changed those schedules. That is a fact.

    China has the most aggressive new build program with 10+ large reactors. Events in Japan have not changed those schedules. That is a fact.

    Finland, France, and South Korea have not changed those schedules. That is a fact. In fact no country where the new build was past the debate stage has reversed course or even slowed down because of events in Japan.

    That is a fact. If fact that is a very amazing fact too. It is not to amazing that journalists have not noticed.

    I will also point there is a difference between what they say and do. When people figure out that it will cost a city a billion more a year for each large nuke that gets closed, then they make a deal for just 5 more years until all those solar panels get built. Then five more years, then 10 more years.

    Work in the US nuclear industry to get nuke plants to last 60 years is winding down. The work is to get new plants in other courtiers and in the US to last 80 years.

    So it is not just how many new plants get built but how many do not have to be replaced.

    Those are not perceptions but facts. Facts that can be measured.

    [link]      
  206. By Kit P on August 4, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    “Of course, that includes nearly every informative book ever published.”

    Journalists write books to make money by pandering to shared misconceptions. PaulN recently provided a link to a ‘free’ online book that would be informative for someone who is ignorant of how electricity is produced.

    While RR may be able to write a book on energy that would be informative to some, the chapter of GTL might be informative to me but the nuclear chapter would not.

    [link]      
  207. By rrapier on August 4, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    Kit P said:

    Those are not perceptions but facts. Facts that can be measured.


     

    You are dead wrong if you think perceptions can’t be measured. We measure perceptions all the time. How do you think we elect a president? Based on the strength of his resume?

    While RR may be able to write a book on energy that would be informative

    to some, the chapter of GTL might be informative to me but the nuclear

    chapter would not.

    You are wrong about that. Based on what you have stated here, you are definitely going to learn some new things. These things are backed up by references. Factual things. You already stated that Chernobyl was not a set back. Another time you stated that there has been no nuclear comeback, because there was nothing to come back from. Both of those positions are dead wrong and I have facts — not perceptions but actual actions that were taken based on perceptions — that shows that you are wrong.

    You can continue to wallow in ignorance and think you are the oracle of nuclear power. You are not. That has been amply demonstrated.

    RR

    [link]      
  208. By rrapier on August 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm

    Rate Crimes said:

    Japan town retreats from nuclear project near Fukushima plant  August 4, 2011

    Japan’s Minamisoma City, about 20 km north of the crisis-hit Fukushima nuclear plant, became the country’s first city since the crisis to pull back from plans to host a future nuclear plant by giving up a windfall from government subsidies, as safety concerns cast doubts over nuclear power’s future.


     

    RC, that can’t possibly be correct. Kit has already told us that not even Chernobyl set the nuclear industry back. And Kit clearly knows more about this than anyone else. So this minor little incident in Fukushima can’t possibly alter future plans for nuclear plants, because that would be considered a set back.

    RR

    [link]      
  209. By rrapier on August 4, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Kit P said:

    Let me start with what I know best, the US. Currently there are 6 large nuke plants under construction in the all scheduled to come on line this decade. Events in Japan have not changed those schedules. That is a fact.


     

    Please list these new plants. Then we can track them, and see what you “know best” (and whether you know the difference between a new plant and an addition to an existing plant).

    RR

    [link]      
  210. By Kit P on August 4, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    “Please list these new plants. ”

     

    Vogtle Units 3 & 4 Construction Update Video – Georgia

    http://nuclearstreet.com/nucle…..07273.aspx

     

     

    Summer Units 2 and 3 – SC

    http://nuclearstreet.com/nucle…..-0845.aspx

     

    Watts Bar Unit 2 – Tennesse

     

    Bellefonte – Alabama

    [link]      
  211. By rrapier on August 4, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    Kit P said:

    “Please list these new plants. ”

     

    Vogtle Units 3 & 4 Construction Update Video – Georgia

    http://nuclearstreet.com/nucle…..07273.aspx

     

     

    Summer Units 2 and 3 – SC

    http://nuclearstreet.com/nucle…..-0845.aspx

     

    Watts Bar Unit 2 – Tennesse

     

    Bellefonte – Alabama


     

    None of which are grassroots plants, as I suspected. They are all additions to existing nuclear plants. Of course Bellefonte can be considered grassroots, but it certainly isn’t new. Construction has been off and on there since the 80′s.

    So, I will repeat what I said. If you think this hasn’t been a setback, let’s see how many new nuke plants get built in the U.S. in the next 20 years. Expansion of an existing plant is a different matter for very obvious reasons, and in fact nuclear capacity did continue to slowly increase after Chernobyl. But the setback is the difference in where things would have been and where they actually ended up due to the incidents.

    I can tell you how many grassroots nuclear plants will be built in the U.S. in the next 20 years. Exactly the same as the number of new refineries that will be built.

    RR

    [link]      
  212. By rate-crimes on August 4, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    Cameco Sinks As Sales Drop Post-Fukushima  August 4, 2011

    As the nuclear energy and uranium businesses recover from the crisis that was the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, Cameco posted second-quarter earnings that reveal big drops in revenue and profit.  Despite hitting expectations, Cameco’s earnings sparked a sell-off given a more bearish look on their industry, even given long-term enthusiasm.

    [link]      
  213. By paul-n on August 5, 2011 at 4:30 am

    Is Rate Crimes a Web Bot?  Will he/it actually contribute anything useful to this thread?

    [link]      
  214. By Kit P on August 5, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    “None of which are grassroots plants, as I suspected.”

    I just cited the next 7000+ MWe of new nuclear generating capacity to come on line in the US. None of which has been ‘setback’ by events in Japan.

    The first choice for building any type of power plant is to pick a ‘brownfield’ rather than a ‘greenfield’. The electricity generating industry does not use the term ‘grassroots plants’ which is why there are none.

    The basic disagreement I have on the this topic with RR is that he substitutes his logic for that that the utility mangers logic in determining how to proceed. RR also has a really bad case of not understanding terminology.

    “Expansion of an existing plant is a different matter for very obvious reasons”

    The correct term is power uprate. While there has been 104 operating reactors in the US for many years, the output has been expanded by making design changes approved by the NRC after public comment.

    The most likely immediate of events in Japan would be the shutdown of smaller, older reactors because the cost of modifications such as more battery capacity for backup control systems. Again we are not seeing any ‘setback’ from Japan in the US.

    “and in fact nuclear capacity did continue to slowly increase after Chernobyl.”

    RR you do know that Chernobyl is like in a different country? The USSR is not the United States. Before Chernobyl, I left my job starting up nuke plants to work at an operating plant. Starting up a nuke plant is a fun job but were running out plants to startup.

    The reason we build power plants is too make electricity not to provide Kit with a fun job.

    “But the setback is the difference in where things would have been and where they actually ended up due to the incidents.”

    Exactly, there was not setback because things in the US are exactly where they would have been in the US as if Chernobyl never happened. The US is not the USSR nor is it Italy, places that did suffer a setback because of Chernobyl. It is easy to tell the difference, count the number of reactors not operating because of Chernobyl USSR and it Italy.

    “I can tell you how many grassroots nuclear plants will be built in the U.S. in the next 20 years. Exactly the same as the number of new refineries that will be built.”

    Six new reactors for sure in the next ten years.  People like to play silly games about what is going to happen in the next 20 years.  I might have agreed with RR 10 years ago but today the number is between 6 & 30.  Odd enouhg the number depends on the demand for power and cost of fossil fuels.

     

    [link]      
  215. By rrapier on August 5, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    Kit P said:

    “None of which are grassroots plants, as I suspected.”

    I just cited the next 7000+ MWe of new nuclear generating capacity to come on line in the US. None of which has been ‘setback’ by events in Japan.


     

    Here you confuse your perception of what is going to happen with facts. Facts can be measured. What you think will happen is not a fact.

    The first choice for building any type of power plant is to pick a ‘brownfield’ rather than a ‘greenfield’. The electricity generating industry does not use the term ‘grassroots plants’ which is why there are none.

    I of course meant to say “greenfield.” I do know the terminology; it’s the same terminology as in the chemical, oil, or renewable energy businesses. That’s what I get for stopping to argue with you in the middle of doing half a dozen other things.

    The basic disagreement I have on the this topic with RR is that he substitutes his logic for that that the utility mangers logic in determining how to proceed. RR also has a really bad case of not understanding terminology.

    No, you have a really bad case of arguing out of both sides of your mouth. You criticize perception, and then substitute perception and call it fact.

    “Expansion of an existing plant is a different matter for very obvious reasons”

    The correct term is power uprate.

    No, if I talk about a new power plant, people know what I am talking about. Unless of course they are simply playing with semantics and calling an expansion to a plant a new plant. Or their reading comprehension is exceptionally poor, and when I said “new nuke plants” they thought I meant “no new capacity.” But I can assure you, most people read the comment correctly. When you have to misinterpret my comments to argue with me, it is clear you have no argument.

    “and in fact nuclear capacity did continue to slowly increase after Chernobyl.”

    RR you do know that Chernobyl is like in a different country?

    So, Chernobyl didn’t impact countries outside the Ukraine? Unless that’s what you are saying, you have no point. Shoddy logic.

    “But the setback is the difference in where things would have been and where they actually ended up due to the incidents.”

    Exactly, there was not setback because things in the US are exactly where they would have been in the US as if Chernobyl never happened.

    Or check the rate of increase of nuclear power before and after Chernobyl. Remember, it was your lack of comprehension that read my comment on there being a set back to the nuclear industry as “a set back for the nuclear industry in the U.S.”  You then proceeded to argue with yourself. I can show without a doubt that the nuclear industry was set back by Chernobyl — even though the Ukraine is a different country. Gasp! Your mistake — and this is often a mistake you make — is in using your small piece of the world and thinking that is the world.

    “I can tell you how many grassroots nuclear plants will be built in the U.S. in the next 20 years. Exactly the same as the number of new refineries that will be built.”

    Six new reactors for sure in the next ten years. 

    What did a hypocrite say about perception again? That is your perception. Don’t mistake that.

    People like to play silly games about what is going to happen in the next 20 years.  I might have agreed with RR 10 years ago but today the number is between 6 & 30.  Odd enouhg the number depends on the demand for power and cost of fossil fuels.

    Once again, that is your perception on what it depends upon. I can tell you that it also depends on politics.

    Really, Kit, you are once again showing everyone that you are the King of Inconsistent Thinking. You simply argue your points in a vacuum, with no concern that you just argued a different point using completely different logic. Criticize perception, and then make all of your points based on perception. Hard to believe that you are for real.

    One thing this exchange has shown me is that you will learn a lot from the book. You seem to be totally oblivious to how Chernobyl impacted anything, and thus are oblivious as to how a disaster at a nuclear plant with reactors designed by General Electric might impact anything. Of course it already has (but maybe not in Kit’s tiny slice of the world). You are simply in denial. (I of course wasn’t stupid enough to think the BP blowout wouldn’t slow down deepwater drilling, and said as much right after the incident. Had you been in the oil industry, I am sure you would have denied by pointing to all of the future projects that were scheduled).

    RR

    [link]      
  216. By Kit P on August 5, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    “Will he/it actually contribute anything useful to this thread? ”

     

    No Paul but that does not mean there is not useful if you read past the headlines.

     

    “But most countries involved in nuclear continue to believe in it.  According to Cameco, India, China, France, Russia, South Korea, the U.K., Canada, and the U.S. “and almost every other country with a nuclear program are maintaining nuclear as a part of their energy mix.”  Others are also diving into nuclear energy, with Saudi Arabia announcing plans to build 16 new reactors by 2030.”

     

    I always love when people provide links repeating what I already said.

     

    “Facts can be measured. What you think will happen is not a fact. ”

     

    RR if you went to the parking lots at six in the morning of the 6 plants I listed a month before the natural disaster in you would have seen construction workers arriving. If you went this week, you would see the same thing. Furthermore, all of the CEO of utilities have reiterated that they are maintaining the schedules.

     

    These are facts that have happened, not perceptions, not predictions.

     

    “and thus are oblivious as to how a disaster at a nuclear plant with reactors designed by General Electric might impact anything. ”

     

    First of all the natural disaster was in Japan where 25,000 were killed. Some equipment was damaged at the nuke plants which lead to core damage but that has yet to hurt anyone.

     

    For the record, GE does not design the ultimate heat sink (UHS) or emergency diesel generators (EDGs) at nuke plants. While I have extensive experience with GE reactors, I also have experience with the UHS (two plants, one PWR & bwr) and EDG (US Navy).

     

    “oblivious”

     

    Being well informed is the opposite.

     

    “I of course wasn’t stupid enough to think the BP blowout wouldn’t slow down deepwater drilling ”

     

    Duh! There was a slowdown. Of course it would be stupid to say the was a setback in the US nuclear industry if none occurred. At at every nuke, at every nuke vendor, at every nuclear regulator, at INPO, EPRI, WANO, and dare I say it every watch dog organization; everyone started to look to see if operating nukes should be shut down.

     

    Clearly the country that has more volcanoes than the US had a setback. RR offers an unfounded opinion and he thinks I am stupid because I do not accept it.

     

    “BP blowout”

     

    Readers here know that I invested time to read detailed reports on the BP blowout and last coal mine accident. I am interested in what we can learn. Unfortunately we live in a society where are young have a short attention span and when the lessons are available to be learned, it is not news worthy anymore.

    [link]      
  217. By rrapier on August 5, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    Kit P said:

    “Facts can be measured. What you think will happen is not a fact. ”

    These are facts that have happened, not perceptions, not predictions.RR if you went to the parking lots at six in the morning of the 6 plants I listed a month before the natural disaster in you would have seen construction workers arriving. If you went this week, you would see the same thing. Furthermore, all of the CEO of utilities have reiterated that they are maintaining the schedules.


     

    It is also a fact that the nuclear power industry was slowed down following Chernobyl. You chose to argue about this point, but to do so you had to wander away from the point I made. Then you started talking

    about perceptions, while offering us nothing but perceptions. It isn’t my perception that Italy reversed their decision to build new nuclear plants. So you seem to believe that I am writing an opinion piece for my book. I am not. These are facts.

    “oblivious”

    Being well informed is the opposite.

    You obviously aren’t well informed about the point I made. You chose to argue with me when I said there was a setback to the nuclear industry over Chernobyl. You were wrong, and you are wrong if you believe this won’t be a set back. If my initial point was that the U.S. will see a slowdown in capacity additions, then your points might be valid. But it wasn’t, you just chose to argue against that point I never made.

    “I of course wasn’t stupid enough to think the BP blowout wouldn’t slow down deepwater drilling ”

    Duh! There was a slowdown.

    That’s what I said.

    RR offers an unfounded opinion and he thinks I am stupid

    because I do not accept it.

    No, you are stupid because you choose to pick arguments over stuff you are dead wrong about, and instead of simply conceding the point you try to change it to something that you think you can be right about. I don’t know if stupid is the right word, but there is clearly something wrong with you. This isn’t the first time you have done that. Someone make a point, and you start arguing against a different point. I suspect it is just because you like to argue, and so if there isn’t anything that is really disputable, you dispute something different that wasn’t said.

    Readers here know that I invested time to read detailed reports on

    the BP blowout and last coal mine accident.

    That certainly didn’t stop you from sharing your opinions prior to reading those reports, did it?

    While your style of argumentation makes discussing things with you always a waste of time, let’s review how you started this off:

    Which nuclear industry was set back?

    Since nobody was building Chernobyl type graphite moderated reactor
    without containment buildings, there was nothing there to be set back.

    There are two implications there. One, the nuclear industry was not set back, which is demonstrably wrong. Second, since this incident took place in Chernobyl, there was no reason to believe it would set back nuclear power that was not based on this design. Of course it did, because the part you miss is that people’s perceptions impact decisions. So you were wrong on both counts, and yet still chose to pick an argument.

    RR

    [link]      
  218. By rate-crimes on August 13, 2011 at 9:15 am
    Paul N said:

    Is Rate Crimes a Web Bot?  Will he/it actually contribute anything useful to this thread?


     

    You set the bar pretty high with such scintillating comments as, “Is Rate Crimes a Web Bot?  Will he/it actually contribute anything useful to this thread?”  Or, is your comment simply a lame attempt at comic relief?

    [link]      
  219. By rate-crimes on August 13, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Japan Held Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril   August 8, 2011

    “But the forecasts were left unpublicized by bureaucrats in Tokyo, operating in a culture that sought to avoid responsibility and, above all, criticism.”

    [link]      
  220. By rate-crimes on August 13, 2011 at 9:25 am

    Using the same, stale arguments, and even identical words, it would appear that ‘Kit P’ is actually Lord Hutton . . .

     

    Lord Hutton: Fukushima ‘changed the game’ for nuclear   August 9, 2011

     

    . . . or one of a clone army.

    [link]      
  221. By rate-crimes on August 13, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Japan lifts evacuation warning order near damaged Fukushima nuclear plant   August 10, 2011

    The title of this article sounds encouraging.  The first sentence reads: 

    “Up to 25,000 people who left Fukushima in Japan after the nuclear plant meltdown are set to return home.”

    The article then states the reality:

    “The warnings will be lifted next month in some areas outside a 12-mile exclusion zone around the plant [emphasis mine].”

    [link]      
  222. By rate-crimes on November 2, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    and deepen . . .

    Fukushima nuclear plant could take 30 years to clean up  October 31, 2011

    Much of the early decontamination work has been performed by local authorities and volunteers, although neither has found a satisfactory means of storing the waste. The central government is not expected to take control of the cleanup operation until a decontamination law is passed in January.

    The decommissioning report was released as another government panel set up to determine the cause of the accident said it would invite opinions from three overseas experts early next year.

    The panel has already come under fire after it emerged that of the 340 people it has interviewed so far, not one was a politician involved in the handling of the crisis.

    [link]      
  223. By rate-crimes on October 28, 2011 at 11:18 am

    New report: Fukushima released twice as much radiation as government estimated  October 27, 2011

    The Fukushima nuclear disaster released twice as much of a radioactive substance into the atmosphere as Japanese authorities estimated, reaching 40 percent of the total from Chernobyl, a preliminary report says.

    [link]      
  224. By Walt on December 10, 2011 at 3:52 pm

     

    This is disturbing:

     

    http://oversight.house.gov/ima….._Daley.pdf

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wi…..man-jaczko

    [link]      
  225. By rate-crimes on February 7, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Walt said:

    This is disturbing:

    http://oversight.house.gov/ima….._Daley.pdf

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wi…..man-jaczko

    Reshaping a regulatory body that has been captured by an industry can be both difficult and frustrating.  The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is chaired by Darrell Issa, who wrote the letter to which you link.

    Darrell Issa

    In February 2011, the Watchdog Institute, an independent nonprofit reporting center based at San Diego State University, published an investigation alleging that as leader of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Issa built a team that included staff members with close connections to industries that could benefit from his investigations.[42] For instance, several had ties to big oil billionaire brothers, David and Charles Koch, whose companies could benefit from changes in regulations. The Huffington Post also published the Institute’s investigation.[43]

    It’s the politics that are disturbing.

    [link]      
  226. By rate-crimes on February 7, 2012 at 11:42 am

    The Atomic States of America (2012)

    In 2010, the United States announced the first new nuclear power plant construction in over 32 years. The ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ was born, and America’s long-stalled expansion of nuclear energy was infused with new life. On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake hit Japan and caused chaos at the Fukushima Power Plant. That accident sent ripples all the way to the US and suddenly the fierce debate over the safety and viability of nuclear power was back in the public consciousness. Our documentary takes the viewer on a journey to reactor communities around the country. This film exposes the truths and myths of nuclear power, and poses the question of whether or not man can responsibly split the atom.

    [link]      
  227. By rate-crimes on February 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm
    [link]      
  228. By Rate Crimes on April 6, 2012 at 10:21 pm
    [link]      
    • By Russ Finley on April 6, 2012 at 11:36 pm

      A good example of one reason nuclear power plants (and airliners) are have such impressive safety records–adequate safety regulations and the enforcement of them.

      [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!