Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Calamity Reveals Folly of Nuclear Power
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and now Fukushima—names that will forever remind us of the folly of nuclear power.
Akira Kurosawa, Japan’s greatest filmmaker ever, made a movie called “Dreams” twenty years ago that dealt with a post-nuclear-power apocalypse in Japan. His country is now uncomfortably close to the scenario he depicted in his film.
The unfolding nuclear calamity shows us how misguided the domestic and global push for nuclear power has been.
Among the culprits is none other than President Obama.
“President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget outlines a plan for reviving the country’s nuclear power industry, calling for $36 billion in government-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors and setting aside more than $800 million for nuclear energy research,” The Hill reported last month. “Obama has said that nuclear power is a key component of the country’s energy future.”
He must be regretting his Pollyannaish view of nuclear power, though there seems to be a reluctance to officially admit a fundamental rethink on the issue.
“The president believes that meeting our energy needs means relying on a diverse set of energy sources that includes renewables like wind and solar, natural gas, clean coal and nuclear power,” said Clark Stevens, a White House spokesman. “Information is still coming in about the events unfolding in Japan, but the Administration is committed to learning from them and ensuring that nuclear energy is produced safely and responsibly here in the U.S.”
The nuclear energy lobby has been in full p.r. mode the past few years, capitalizing on concerns about climate change to push its agenda.
“The nuclear power industry is seeing its fortunes rise,” Diane Farsetta reported in The Progressive in 2008. “… Thanks to its persistence, a growing number of commentators and policymakers see nuclear power as the solution to global warming.”
And its propaganda has succeeded in pulling the wool over the American people’s eyes. A 2010 Gallup poll revealed that almost two-thirds of respondents endorsed nuclear energy.
“Support edged up during the past two years, passing 60 percent this year for the first time,” UPI reported. “The 28 percent of Americans who now say they ‘strongly favor’ nuclear power also is the highest measured since 1994.”
As if this domestic blitz is not enough, the U.S. nuclear industry is peddling its wares abroad, too. A dubious nuclear deal that India and the United States signed a few years ago had as a major motivation a huge moneymaking opportunity for American multinationals. The agreement legitimized Indian nuclear weapons and, in return, gave U.S. firms access to the Indian market.
“When India completed a nuclear power cooperation deal with the United States in October 2008, it threw open a $ 270 billion market for nuclear reactors,” reports the Inter Press Service.
Among the companies salivating at the prospects has been General Electric. But there’s a potential hitch now.
“The nuclear disaster in Japan’s quake-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant could not have come at a worse time for the U.S.-based General Electric Co., which is holding its corporate executive council meeting in the capital as part of its plans to seek a major share in the $150 billion expansion of India’s nuclear industry over the next decade,” reports The Hindu, a major Indian daily. “The Fukushima plant, which has seen two explosions in the last four days after being hit by a massive earthquake and Tsunami, has a reactor installed by GE.”
The Japanese nuclear mishap has laid bare the perils of nuclear power. Indian activists are vowing to redouble their efforts in opposition to a nuclear plant being built with French help in an earthquake-prone region. And here at home, legislators like Congressman Ed Markey and Senator Joe Lieberman are calling for a slowdown.
It’s too bad that it takes a disaster of this magnitude to teach us the risks associated with nuclear energy. Those risks are way too high. We have no future with nuclear power.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
13 Comments so far
Show AllJapan Facing Biggest Catastrophe Since Dawn of Nuclear Age
It is unclear whether or not complete meltdowns can be avoided- including further breakage of containment- and substantial and deadly leakage of radiation.
At this point, the only thing that is clear is that nuclear power is not a viable source of energy for the future. Not only is it not cost effective, requiring expensive public subsidies and loan guarantees to build new plants- it is dangerous and unnecessary. Renewable sources of energy can meet the world's current and future energy needs.
Disasters like this will increase in frequency as developed nations continue to engage in riskier and riskier efforts to exploit non-renewable forms of energy. While there is no direct connection between the Gulf disaster and the tragedy in Japan, the essential connection is nonetheless clear- the willingness to take inordinate risks to feed an insatiable appetite for energy. It is important to not let governments justify these pursuits under the guise of "national security" or economic growth. The real cause is the unbridled pursuit of profit and the ability of corporations to externalize environmental costs- completely avoiding responsibility and risk to shareholders.
The tragedy that is ensuing in Japan pales in comparison to the unfolding tragedy caused by climate change. Again, mankind will be shown the limits of technology and the devastation that may occur if nature is ignored. Those politicians who prefer the comforts of corporate largess while deceiving their constituents and/or stubbornly refusing to accept the truth of nature - will be harshly judged by their children and their children's children. These judgments are not merely my own- but are shared by the vast majority of the world's climate scientists.
None of this in any way diminishes the suffering and pain that is occurring. We should as a world reach out to the Japanese and recognize that their tragedy is truly ours. Please give in any way you can...
Nothing will stop the behemoth (India-US) nuclear accord from gathering steam. We need to partner with Indian anti-nuclear activists in ending this nightmare accord, which is a huge win for U.S. multi-nationals and not a lot more (besides greasing the grubby palms of a few Indian politicians).
Hmmm
Was this crisis created by design? Many of the Japanese reactors were built on known fault lines. Here in the US a large number of reactors have been built on known fault lines. Gosh are known fault lines the ONLY place you can build reactors?
Second GE was the prime contractor on all the plants that failed. So the question you should be asking first is was this a problem with nuclear power plants in general or was it a design/engineering/contruction problem? Instead before getting any of the facts you are already condeming the entire concept of nuclear power. I wonder how much money do you receive from fossil fuel related sources? You have a clear bias.
Third why are we building dirty nuclear power plants? Thorium reactors are far cleaner, less dangerous and far less expensive to build. Oh and yes the technology has been around for decades. Westinghouse built a prototype back in the 70's. India and China will have 2 units on line within 5 years. Bye the way neither one is being built on known fault lines. Regardless of one's opinion, lets get the facts before YOU SHOUT HANG HIM!!!
ddearborn,
You ask, "Was this crisis created by design?" The short answer is both yes and no. Like many things it isn't so black and white.
You have the magnitude of the earthquake and the resulting tsunami. Could they have had more reliable backup and safety systems? Absolutely, but this is also the largest recorded earthquake in Japan's history. The spent fuel pools full of used rods. Should they have been there? No, but then these pools were not designed for permanent storage. The fact that every nuclear plant has literally tons of spent fuel in ponds is as much a failure of governments (NIMBY syndrom) as it is the corporations that own or operate the plants.
Then we have the weak secondary containment building without any sort of automatic venting system for over pressurization. This is a flawed design, either to reduce construction costs or because of an over confidence in the overall design and safety of nuclear power.
Why are many of these plants sitting on or near active fault zones? Simple answer is that every area on the Pacific rim (both in Asia and North / South America) is quite seismically active so for Japan there really wouldn't be anywhere to put one away from a fault. Why the coast (or near rivers and lakes)? Cooling (easy access to water).
As far as GE goes, it shouldn't be any surprise that they built these things. (I'm not defending GE btw) Very few companies design and build nuclear reactors or power plants and back in the 1970's there were even fewer choices. This also answers why a boiling water design instead of a thorium reactor. When these plants were being planned and designed many technologies were still in development or were still prototype and not yet approved by any of regulatory agencies. And thorium reactors are cleaner but certainly not clean by any sense of the word. They still produce uranium and plutonium and other radioactive byproducts but not in huge quantities. This alone precludes the dream some have of building thousands of small thorium reactors to power our cities.
Even today thorium reactors are experimental (nobody has built a full scale operational reactor for producing commercial electric power).
What we need to do is learn to deal with less power and bring online as much solar and wind as possible. These plants - all of them need to be shut down, but until we have replacement power online that can't happen.
BTW; I'm not one of those people who know nothing about nuclear power or are afraid of radiation. As a former occupational Rad worker I know my lifetime dosing (monitored for Beta/Gama and Neutron) and am quite familiar with radiation monitoring and dosages. The risks involved with civilian nuclear power just far outweigh any possible benefits. As I wrote a day or two ago, a catastrophic accident every 20-25 years which we now have is simply unacceptable. That alone should put the nail in nuclear power's coffin.
@
Thanks for the informative post.
"What we need to do is learn to deal with less power and bring online as much solar and wind as possible. These plants - all of them need to be shut down, but until we have replacement power online that can't happen."
It seems like your analysis could also be used to justify the construction of new, supposedly radically safer and more rigorously managed nuclear plants to at least partially replace the old, defective plants (hopefully) being shut down.
Fewer than 600 nukes ever in operation.
Over 1% catastrophic failure rate.
Never again! Shut 'em down!
The problems with nuclear energy have to less to do with design and much more to do with fundamental issues that won't change..
1)They produce way too much energy for the task at hand. Huge amounts of water are needed to cool them down to a safe level. If this fails, not even a natural disaster but a problem with electricity suppply they overheat and become extremely dangerous.
2)Their fuels and waste products are extremely dangerous, toxic and persistant. Mining disturbs the environment, creates dangerous wastes.
3) They are NOT carbon neutral. Large amounts of conventional energy are needed to process fuels, run pumps etc.
4) Waste disposal is a problem that has yielded no safe answers in nearly 3/4 of century. These dangerous waste products sit in piles all over the country, a significant danger to health, and the environment.
5) The plants themselves represent a significant human health and environmental risk.
6)It's very expensive technology that cannot pay for itself and must be heavily subsidized.
Nothing like the human race going out with a bang!
To live up to my reputation as un-apologetic cynic:
After having completed my own personal study of Al Gore, his surprisingly poor 64% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters, his strong affinity with the nuclear power industry, and his self-serving book about global warming, I came to the conclusion that Gore's primary concern with global warming is not so much that it will damage the environment (look at his votes! Even John Kerry has over 95% lifetime pro-environment score). No, my conclusion is that Al Gore and some friends could make a lot of money off it.
I suggest checking out "Tale of two Houses" on Snopes? It'll give you and idea as to just how Green Al Gore really is.
MAKE NUCLEAR POWER THE NEW HINDENBURG!
SHUT THEM ALL DOWN - PLANTS -SUBMARINES - BOMBS.
They will kill us all if we don't.
Nuclear electrical generation would be "too cheap to meter..." ---Lewis Strauss, 1954, early member of the Atomic Energy Commission, a man instrumental in discrediting J. Robert Oppenheimer, chief scientist of The Manhattan Project who had serious reservations about the human capacity to deal with nuclear power. Strauss had no objection to J. Edgar Hoover's tapping Oppenheimer's phones, despite the latter's legendary contributions and top security clearance.
So it goes...the entire nuclear industry is vested in the lies and deceptions that grew out of the post-WWII Cold War, and the DNA of all of humanity has been adulterated as a result (starting with 1950s atmospheric nuclear testing, an issue important to JFK's defeat of Nixon in 1960).
At very low levels, "background" radiation, a mutagen, perhaps contributes to Evolution, but at higher levels radiation becomes entropic to all life forms.
If I were living in Japan right now I'd be overdosing on potassium pills (regardless of the doses of iodine pills to salvage adrenal function), as the radioactive cesium 137 sitting in those "depleted" rods threatening to burn into the atmosphere if their cooling water boils off has a valence that enables the cesium to substitute for potassium in human (mammalian) metabolism (an issue rarely mentioned in the Media).
Nuclear advocates can argue until we are all dead that newer nuclear power plants are safer than the older ones, but the older ones are still there, REcommissioned when they should be DEcommissioned, leaking, rotting, and threatening to explode.
Nuclear power is the heroin of the lie of human "progress." It is the ultimate "fix." We are the junkies. And most of us don't even know where the needle is, given the lies of the haystack Media.
-30-
OMR,
Beautiful writing, tragic context.
Iodine for iodine; potassium for cesium - so the third would be strontium, going to the bones, should we eat mega-doses of calcium?
Iodine / potassium / calcium: The new post-Fukushima multi-mineral anti-cancer preventive supplement blend?