Nuclear Power

[BetweenTheStaves]

I leave this thought with you. If Japan did not have any nuclear power stations then where would they get their energy from? Please don't say renewables etc as they would have either been destroyed in the earthquake or swept away in the tsunami.

[Lateralthinking1]

A very fair question which I can't answer directly. However, I would make these points.

Of all the countries that would have the scope to address levels of consumption, Japan is one of the most obvious. Not only does Tokyo revel in its brash 24 hour lighting and heating etc. The fact that the country has some of the most densely populated areas in the world should in itself provide lots of opportunities for smart energy saving designs. Their genuinely brilliant workforce could be devoting more time to those than mobile phones etc and could be helping the rest of the world in the process.

The fact that 70% of the terrain is virtually uninhabitable should permit wind technology to be located in areas where people do not object to what it looks like. The fact that there is coastline all around the country might suggest that at least some wave technology was possible, perhaps particularly to the west. There is too an argument for greater collaboration between international neighbours. For example, to the north, the Russians are close by.

And bear in mind Japan has 55 nuclear installations and was about to add another two at Fukushima. This would have been the equivalent to Great Britain having 38. Would even the most ardent enthusiasts of nuclear power here really want to see 38 nuclear stations between the Shetland and the Scilly Isles?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Lateral, I agree with all that you say on alternative strategies..
Human greed and irresponsible breeding remain the primary. The philosophy seems to be - we'll carry on behaving just as we are doing and someone else can sort it out.

[Lateralthinking1]

Eine, thanks. On 11 March, No.10 announced that it was standing ready to assist Japan in any way that it could. Here we are at 23 March and it appears that nothing much has been done except to provide advice to British nationals. This seems peculiar given all the emphasis that has been placed on humanitarianism in the middle east. You would have thought that there might have been some Government effort to help coordinate health and emergency response teams and provide a means for volunteers to sign up to it in line with its wish to promote voluntary work. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/stat...dle-east-61941

Yesterday, the BBC reports, "an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) senior official, James Lyons, said he could not confirm that the damaged reactors were "totally intact" or if they were cracked and leaking radiation. "We continue to see radiation coming from the site... and the question is where exactly is that coming from," Mr Lyons told a news conference". This link, which confirms that the drinking water in Tokyo is now unfit for babies, sets out the position at the six reactors, as comprehended. Surely no one in their right mind would ever again have six reactors operating side by side and certainly not in an earthquake zone near to the sea. I doubt if two should be. It isn't just a question of ability to locate and manage problems but about the possibility of aftershocks exacerbating problems and halting problem solving. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12825342.

We have already accepted on this thread, I think, that people will not be in agreement on the principle of nuclear power. However, there should be scope for some common sense agreement on how it is best to take it forward if it has to be. While safety checks are being made here, and other countries like Germany have taken more drastic action, what concerns me is all the absolutely vital stuff that no politician anywhere appears to have mentioned at all. Things like the need to review with immediacy the working procedures, the composition and the scope of the IAEA, ie to place demands on Governments, particularly on planning, and the equally obvious need for it to be required to review its guidance to others in this regard. - Lat.

(In fairness to myself, and to manage some of the more aloof comments that have been posted here, I should perhaps say that between 1991 and 1997 I was a part of the British delegation to the UN Committee on the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods which was responsible for updating the UN Recommendations in that field. In truth, I was on a national average salary and have no scientific background. While the UN Recommendations covered the packaging of nuclear materials, this was viewed as such a specialist area that nuclear experts had forums of their own. I was essentially just the Secretary responsible for producing the British delegates' report of the discussions (flammables, gases, etc) and a bag carrier.

However, the Chairman was British and my manager so we worked closely. I also had close links with HSE representatives, and certain foreign delegations, particularly the Australians, the Finns and the Japanese, took part a little in the "diplomacy" and made a very occasional contribution in discussions. Most of my thoughts and comments emanate from me rather than my working experience and I am certainly not in any sense an expert but I'm not exactly someone who has spent most of his time climbing onto the Houses of Parliament and waving environmental flags).

[BetweenTheStaves]

....Surely no one in their right mind would ever again have six reactors operating side by side and certainly not in an earthquake zone near to the sea. .....

You are correct of course but don't forget that these reactors are 40 year old technology. The other reactors built to more modern designs shut-down properly and according to plan. The simple matter is that the world needs nuclear energy to continue to develop. Unless anyone is suggesting that we revert back to coal and give up on the ice-caps all together? The International Atomic Energy Agency said the world currently has 442 nuclear reactors. They generate 372 gigawatts of power, providing 14pc of global electricity. Nuclear output must double over twenty years just to keep pace with the rise of the China and India.

An interesting bit in the paper today about alternative fuels to uranium such as Thorium.

[Frances_iom]

..Surely no one in their right mind would ever again have six reactors operating side by side and certainly not in an earthquake zone near to the sea. .

Can I again remind you that the reactors were apparently undamaged by the earthquake (the 4th largest on record i.e. within the last 100yrs), the subsequent damage has been due to lack of cooling water - that there were 2 sets of pumps (ie a backed up system which co-locating reactors allows more easily - being near the sea is good both for construction purposes and also to act as a heat dump if the turbines need be taken off line quickly (due to faults in distribution) - the tsnami did the damage as an 8m+ wave was not expected - and had never been before seen I think certainly within living memory (a 7m wave had been designed in)which took out all pumps + power distribution.
The Iodine (I presume this is the cause of tap water radiation) was probably deposited after the first fire and is only now making its way into the distribution system - if you read the official reports on Chernobyl re health it was the shortlived radio iodine that caused the problems and radiological limits decreased to give a better safety margin, potassium iodide tablets would have avoided much of the post Chernobyl thyroid cancers - obviously it is not welcome - I don't know anything about the water supply to Tokyo but thought they would have more than one source - also I don't know if the usual domestic activated charcoal filter would reduce the level further.

I don't know about energy consumption levels in the region - judging from the imediate reaction to power cuts industry (car maunufacture + semiconductors) are a major consumer - Japen (or at least Tokyo region) is a major user of energy efficient public transport, turning off the lights is more of a gesture than a useful saving.

[Lateralthinking1]

Yes, according to Wikipedia:

1. In terms of per capita electricity consumption, the average person in Japan consumed 8,459 Kilowatt-Hours in 2004 compared to 14,240 for the average American. In that respect it ranked 18th among the countries of the world. Its per capita electricity consumption increased by 21.8% between 1990 and 2004. 2. Of alternative energy sources, Japan has partially exploited geothermal energy. It had six geothermal power stations with a combined capacity of 133,000 kilowatts in 1989. In addition, although it only makes a minor contribution to the total, Japan was the world's second largest producer of photovoltaic electricity until overtaken by Germany in 2005. 3. In 2003 Japan was the 5th largest producer of carbon emissions, generating 5% of the world total. It ranked 36 in the list of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita. Reports indicate Japan is having difficulty in meeting its 6% reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol in part because Japanese businesses are already very energy efficient.

I agree that this indicates that it is is not absolutely terrible. Thoughts might include (a) Big increase in consumption in just 14 years (b) Could diversify on alternative technologies (c) Carbon emissions high given the population (d) Carbon emissions high given that there is widespread nuclear power (e) Scope for improvements in domestic energy usage? (f) Uranium is imported so nuclear is not import-free. My BBC link has mysteriously disappeared (as had the No 10 one although I have found the statement on a different document and put it in). I thought that the BBC had mentioned possible cracks to reactor 2 but I could be wrong. Certainly concerns were expressed by officials about its intactness on 15 March and similarly on reactor 3. The outer shell of reactor 1 has been damaged. Here is the latest from the IAEA website: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/...iupdate01.html.

Frances, you made the very good point about Heysham being gas-cooled. Surely the Japanese should have had similar arrangements with plants being predominantly inland? I recognise that this all looks clearer after the event but seeing that Kyoto is where it is, it isn't as if this is North Korea. There is a great deal of openness there as well as awareness and expertise. I find it extraordinary that all of those international delegates could have been there and have been so narrowly focussed that no one had the nous to say "hold on a minute but....." It now seems to me that the debate about climate change - is it or isn't it real and caused by us? - needs to develop. At the moment, both sides have a sort of religious zeal about their positions which could have encouraged tunnel vision. As a matter of curiosity, are you a scientist in this field? Of course, you don't have to say.

[Dave2002]

This page has the ongoing updates from Japan - http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/
The latest status report (24th March) is this one - http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_i...300951089P.pdf

[Dave2002]

>>>>the average person in Japan consumed 8,459 Kilowatt-Hours in 2004 compared to 14,240 for the average American

Ah, those average people! Currently our mean household usage seems to be running at about 900 Watts, so that translates into 7884 KwH. However there are 3 of us here, so our consumption would seem to be 31% of the average Japanese person in 2004 and about 18% of the average American (US?) in the same year.

PS: Wikipedia source - per capita - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ion_per_capita

Total consumption - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ty_consumption

Another source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...ion-per-capita

Of course taking the total consumption and dividing by the population will give higher values than simply measuring domestic consumption due to industrial and other activity.

[Dave2002]

>>>An interesting bit in the paper today about alternative fuels to uranium such as Thorium.

I was only very recently alerted to the possibility of using thorium.

Further investigation would seem to suggest that there is something in this. India has a working reactor, and China is intending to develop reactors based on it. There is a quick intro in the blog page here -

http://inventorspot.com/articles/unclear_nuclear_try_thorium_nuclear_energy_without_side_effects

and of course it's not too difficult to find more with a few searches.

[Lateralthinking1]

Bloomberg: "One of the reactors in the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant may have been relying on flawed steel to hold the radiation in its core, according to an engineer who helped build its containment vessel four decades ago. Mitsuhiko Tanaka says he helped conceal a manufacturing defect in the $250 million steel vessel installed at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 4 reactor while working for a unit of Hitachi Ltd. in 1974.'"

Reuters: “Radiation at the crippled Fukushima No.2 nuclear reactor was recorded at the highest level since the start of the crisis, Japan’s nuclear safety agency said on Wednesday. An agency spokesman said 500 millisieverts per hour of radiation was measured at the No.2 unit on Wednesday. Engineers have been trying to fix the plant’s cooling system after restoring lighting on Tuesday.”

[johnb]

Although the UK media seems to have got bored with Fukushima (Boy's Own escapades are much better copy) the situation there is very serious. I get the impression that TEPCO have been clinging on by their finger nails and that things are gradually deteriorating. Now there seems to be a lot of concern about serious damage to Reactor No 3 (it was in the Turbine Building of Reactor 3 that the workers suffered serious radiation through standing in highly radioactive water).

There is a thread in the Nuclear Engineering section of the www.physicsforums.com that I have been keeping an eye on. As with any forum there is a range of expertise but many of the contributors seem to be extremely knowledgeable in this field.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480200&page=71

[Lateralthinking1]

Interesting forum. I have read elsewhere that there are already minor levels of radiation over Europe from Japan. Some have also questioned whether salt water can do anything but clog and corrode. Surely, if so, this is not a lesson only being learnt now? I am of the firm view that there is an imposed news blackout here. This does not bode well in any sense for the future. If lessons are to be learnt, they are obviously unwilling to learn the most basic one.

[johnb]

Interesting forum. I have read elsewhere that there are already minor levels of radiation over Europe from Japan.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were traces over Europe. However, they will be totally irrelevant as far as public health is concerned. (Good for spurious media scare stories though.)

Some have also questioned whether salt water can do anything but clog and corrode. Surely, if so, this is not a lesson only being learnt now?

What would have suggested the guys working for TEPCO did, sit back and let the reactors and Spent Fuel Ponds heat up? Yes, from what I can gather, there are issues with corrosion due to salt and also with the amount of salt and calcium carbonate accumulating in the reactors (and also prossibly affecting the seating of the valves) but I would guess that the people there had little choice but to do what they did. Perhaps the sodium chloride can be flushed out if they get the cooling system going. The CaCO3 is a very different matter though.

(It seems to be difficult for very knowledgeable people to get a handle on what is actually going on - so a layman like me has no chance.)

I am of the firm view that there is an imposed news blackout here.

I really do not believe that to be the case. IMO it is just that the slow drip feed from Fukushima doesn't excite the media in the same way as the Libyan adventure.

Having said that, the flow of information from the Japanese authorities, and from TEPCO in particular, has been fairly poor. I realise that they themselves will often be confused but they also have a tradition of operating behind closed doors, which is not good in this situation.

This does not bode well in any sense for the future. If lessons are to be learnt, they are obviously unwilling to learn the most basic one.

Obviously there has to be a reassessment in the nuclear industry and a serious investigation to learn lessons but that is quite different from a blanket ban on nuclear power.

[Lateralthinking1]

I am not sure that I know why many nuclear plants are located by the sea. Is it the case that if the water cooling systems break down, there is an alternative water supply or rather for enabling only comparatively small amounts of land to be adversely affected in the event of a radiation leak?

The siting of some gas-cooled reactors inland, ie Heysham, would appear to suggest it is the former. This must mean that "Plan B" in the event of emergencies at water-cooled reactors - ie the sea is the answer - was always based on something of a fantasy. It is at best a very hopeful and naive alternative solution.

Oh, and some are saying that it all should have been covered in concrete days ago like Chernobyl. The suggestion is that this hasn't been done because it would symbolically be a huge blow to the nuclear industry. Hence, they would rather risk lives.