In the following list, “March 11th” have got another item.
“Below is a calendar that shows the threat that humanity faces from the atom bomb and the nuclear fuel cycle.”
March
1-1954: Fall-out of US nuclear weapons test “Bravo” contaminates the inhabitants of the Pacific island of Rongelap.
2-1994: Breakdown of cooling system at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
3-1992: Technical failure at Novovoronezh nuclear power plant (Russia)
4-1977: Kozloduy nuclear power plant affected by an earthquake (Bulgaria)
5-
6-1985: Emergency cooling system out of order at the Grohnde nuclear power plant (Germany)
7-
8-1972: Radioactive water has to be pumped out of the Indian Point nuclear power plant (USA)
9-1992: Fire at Kola nuclear power plant (Russia)
10-1956: A B-47 plane disappears with nuclear weapons on board in the Atlantic Ocean
11-1958: A B-47 plane loses nuclear bomb in South Carolina (USA)
12-1981: Tornado washes nuclear waste from Moruroa into the lagoon (Pacific)
13-1986: US nuclear submarine runs aground and suffers damage
14-1961: A B-52 plane crashes with nuclear bombs on board in California (USA)
15-1989: Technical failure of fuel roads at Pickering nuclear power plant (Canada)
16-
17-1984: Emergency cooling system at San Onofere nuclear power plant fails (USA)
18-1987: Fire and release of radioactivity at Australian nuclear research facility
19-
20-1977: Temperature increase at Rancho Seco nuclear power plant (USA)
21-1984: Soviet nuclear submarine collides with US aircraft carrier “Kitty Hawk”
22-1975: Fire in reactor at Browns Ferry nuclear power plant (USA)
23-
24-1992: Incident with radiation leakage, shut-down of reactor at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
25-1992: Technical failure at Leningrad nuclear power plant (Russia)
26-1991: Refuelling accident at Wuergassen nuclear power plant (Germany)
27-
28-1979: Partial core meltdown at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant (USA)
29-1992: Failure of shut-down system at Ignalina nuclear power plant (Lithuania)
30-
31-1992: Automatic shut-down due to failure of pump system at Kalinin nuclear power plant (Russia)
The thing with coal mining is that it can be done safely if safety standards are being observed. It seems to me that nuclear energy is much more difficult control. Look how these spent fuel rods suddenly became a big problem. There is still controversy about the final Chernobyl body count (including long term cancer deaths) but on the high side we are talking six figures.
The economic and human impact of Fukushima is just staggering even though the number of deaths to date is quite low. I think you cannot deny that a mining desaster, while deplorable has a much lesser impact than what we see for example in Fukushima.
Lesson to be learned: Finding non-fossil forms of energy is not easy. Let’s be mindful of our precious resources and let’s improve energy efficiency and stop shipping most we consume halfway around the globe.
The biggest issue is that we’re using too much electricity.
But nuclear power can’t be ruled out just because most of the population has an irrational fear of it.
Yes, there have been accidents, but on that basis we should ban the car first.
I think one of the problems of nuclear power is that it has much more potential risks than coal mining. If nuclear plants were attacked by terrorists we could not do anything. It could also kills future children once it explodes. These are totally different.
Despite the concern about nuclear, it has proven safer than coal fired thermal and hydro. That is a significant point I think. The bigger problem with nuclear is the economic one. What are the economic costs of the damage to the Fukushima reactors? Enormous versus a thermal station.
Also, if Japan did not have nuclear, it would either have more thermal stations, more coal burning thermal stations, or simply have a much lower standard of living, poorer infrastructure, poorer hospitals, and the cost in lives of the recent earthquake, tsunami might have been much worse (example Sumatra).
Hey! how come that list didn’t feature Chernobyl? Anyhow, to plug my video, here is me visiting the abandoned city of pripyat, in the exclusion zone near chernobyl.
Yuriythebest:
This is an awesome video. Wow. Memories.
I was actually in Ukraine a few weeks after that accident (but nowhere near Chernobyl). I remember how it was - we didn’t trust anything the government was saying (neither the Soviet, nor the US government).
There was a lot of fear. We didn’t know if it was safe to eat the food, or drink the milk. Or the water.
Later, in grad school, I took a course in nuclear reactor safety, and we picked apart everything about that accident. As I recall, it wasn’t anyone’s fault really. Just one bad decision after another. And bad luck.
I think whether nuclear is safer than coal/hydro fired thermal is not that simple. It depends on how you evaluate those risks. Those are different.
There are also differences between nuclear plants around the world. For example, Hamaoka nuclear plant, which is located in epicenter of expected Tokai earth quake, is much more dangerous than other nuclear plants. It seems so difficult to say which is more dangerous though.
“The bigger problem with nuclear is the economic one.”
Mr. Solomon (whom you cited above) actually opposes nuclear on economic grounds.
“Also, if Japan did not have nuclear, it would either have more thermal stations, more coal burning thermal stations, or simply have a much lower standard of living, poorer infrastructure, poorer hospitals, and the cost in lives of the recent earthquake, tsunami might have been much worse (example Sumatra).”
Yes, energy is very central to our lives and our standard of living. Even if nuclear were perfect that would do little to solve our liquid fuel issues (the coming decline in oil production). So shouldn’t we be more mindful and do everything we can to use less oil rather than continue business as usual and hope for the best?
Steve wrote: “Also, if Japan did not have nuclear, it would either have more thermal stations, more coal burning thermal stations, or simply have a much lower standard of living, poorer infrastructure, poorer hospitals, and the cost in lives of the recent earthquake, tsunami might have been much worse (example Sumatra).”
Fridemann ‘argued’: "“Also, if Japan did not have nuclear, it would either have more thermal stations, more coal burning thermal stations, or simply have a much lower standard of living, poorer infrastructure, poorer hospitals, and the cost in lives of the recent earthquake, tsunami might have been much worse (example Sumatra).”
By doing this Friedemann, you switch the focus of the current discussion, IMO but not defeat Steve’s argument. I take it that you have agreed with the argument. (I agree).
Btw, I have not find where Mr. Solomon “actually oposes nuclear on economic ground”, as you say, though I might have read not attentively.
I am sorry Fridemann, you argued : "Yes, energy is very central to our lives and our standard of living. Even if nuclear were perfect that would do little to solve our liquid fuel issues (the coming decline in oil production). So shouldn’t we be more mindful and do everything we can to use less oil rather than continue business as usual and hope for the best? "
Mr. Solomon and his organisation “Energy Probe” oppose nuclear on economic grounds, but you’re right, the article Steve cited didn’t mention that. You can go to their website to find out.
Japan is resource-poor, and doesn’t have much choice but to use nuclear. However, Japan is also very energy-efficient and interested in renewable energy. I heard that the government wants to rebuild Ishinomaki as a carbon-neutral eco town. Maybe this disaster will result in Japan rededicating itself to renewable energy. If any major country can achieve a renewable energy base, I bet it’s Japan.
In Japan the nuclear plants are called thermal plants. There are two reasons they don’t like the N-word, really don’t like it at all. It is a very sensitive issue having a forward deployed ‘nuclear’ aircraft carrier stationed in Japan because we use the N-word. I myself am an advocate of nuclear energy. One problem we have is we poorly educate the public about nuclear power. When something happens, such as of late in Japan, not even the reporters are able to speak intelligently about what is going on. I read silliness like, “tanks with stored compressed water” and “the fuel rods were temporarily melted.” Additionally, there is a history of not informing the public for one reason or another, perhaps we are protecting them in light of their ignorance? But the public shouldn’t trust us till they are educated and we have a track record of proper reporting.
