• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Dr. Michio Kaku : Fukushima : From Fashpoint 05-09-12 : Reactor 4

Free episodes:

And I ask again, what are your solutions? Natural gas powered plants emit far, far (far) less than coal powered plants. And nuclear power supplies well, a lot of power to many, many people in the U.S. and Europe.

I don't have a solution other than to stop the insane disregard for our health and safety.

Let's ignore the incredible dangers of nuclear energy because whatever the cost, we need to the power! What an incredibly convincing argument Kim.

Power plants do emit water vapor, called steam, which itself provides, well, for Heavens sake, do some research. I don't mean that personally, but in the general sense of honest scholarship as addressed in my final paragraphs:

I think if you reread my account the big fuss was about radioactive steam Kim. Radioactive steam.
 
Also Kim, I just wanted say that I in no way have meant to insult or offend you or any member of your family personally. I can't help but think that was already understood though.
 

How can a thing which offers such a small return in terms of energy for the people, be allowed to cause such pain and suffering. The cleanup bill will surpass any "profit" this plant ever made.


These poor people

Anyone who can watch this video, and then smugly declare its "beyond safe" is beyond redemption as a member of the human race.
Go and tell these poor bastards the technology is "beyond safe"

Offensive is too small a word to describe the smug assertions weve seen here.

Thats the only offensive insulting shit ive seen here, the smug pontificating insistance despite the horrific reality we see playing out here, that this technology is "beyond safe"
 
Hi, Mike. I see even when I was traveling and not posting to the forum you brought up my son's "beyond safe" phrase, though as is usual with many of your posts, out of context, which tendency to contextual destruction I have pointed out in other threads. And I see in your post above that it appears again.:)

I have never discounted the tragedy of what has happened in Japan, in fact have stressed its tragic proportions, but have remained a distinct counterweight to the hyperbole expressed on this and other threads about it, hyperbole and stridency lacking in fact and purporting to express the horrific proportions of radioactivity, deaths, injury, long term effects, evacuations (of Japanese populations and American soldiers), and many other egregious errors. The amount of radioactivity released has been consistently downsized and still is. Things do change, and I addressed the hyperbolic and anachronistic nature of many of the posts on this subject where unreliable, unattributed, and spurious "sources" are summoned pell mell, helter skelter, and willy nilly to the defense of this hyperbolic and strident tone. Those contrary views and evidence can be read on my other posts.

This video you post paints a quite different picture than your conjecturing that the Australian Navy would be sinking ships transporting millions of Japanese refugees, and another poster's view that the guns would come out. I quoted you and him exactly and addressed those comments in another post.

The people in the video are protesting the reopening of another plant, as is their right in a democracy, as Japan is. The fact that Japan is resuming nuclear power production paints a bit different picture than what you intend. Where are the "poor people" exactly in this video? Where is footage of people really dying, suffering, etc., that you maintain? Again, the Japanese people did suffer indeed, and I don't discount that.

And again, as I have asked you and Rick before, what, exactly and specifically, are your solutions to energy production in the world and in the U.S.?

And I need to get over to that thread about the Indiana/Michigan radiation "incident" you and Rick commented on. Needless to say, ahem, that was a big mountain out of a molehill that seems to have not been covered by mainstream media and quickly became an incident involving black helicopters and massive explosions. It would seem that passage of time and actual facts would cause you to go over there and offer some remediation.;)

Your use (again and again) of my son's phrase points to more of a raw feeling at being presented with contrary evidence and views than it does with presenting any facts, as evidenced by your repeating it over and over. My son, who is a nuclear engineer, and has worked in natural gas and nuclear plants, was talking to the unbelievable redundancy of the safety features inherent in American nuclear plants.

And it amazes me in this forum how the United States is the object of such scorn at times and of such adulation. Its culture, movies, technology, education, politics, and I could go on and on and on, permeate the world, for good and bad. But let's look at Australia's energy production, Mike.

Coal burning plants produce over 80% of Australia's energy, and natural gas, which is far, far cleaner, a comparatively tiny amount. Australia exports uranium. I wonder where that goes, and I'm not saying it should cease exporting uranium, not at all, but from your posts it would seem you would be in the streets protesting that daily down under. In the United States nuclear power generates over 20% of its electricity, natural gas nearly one fourth, and coal less than half. With all the talk of global warming, perhaps your own country has some introspection to indulge in.

My only purpose when I post in this forum is to address facts, and I do the research. It doesn't mean that I am always exactly right, but I do think my history on the many subjects I have posted on is one of reason, research, reading, rationality, and 'rithmetic.' I serve here as a counterweight to claims made as fact and "buttressed" by mountains of scissor work and glue that is often unattributed and unsourced, or often (very often) just meandering, bewildering, puzzling, head shaking spilling out of opinion on everything under the sun, and when it becomes too much I think I have a right to address it, because often (very often) this opinion is clearly labeled as fact. Kim:)
 
And again, as I have asked you and Rick before, what, exactly and specifically, are your solutions to energy production in the world and in the U.S.?

Are you suffering from some misconception that I am required to provide a solution to arguably one of the largest problems facing the human race, namely the energy crisis, before I can point out that nuclear energy is not the solution and more to the point a very large problem in itself? You are being ridiculous. There are several alternatives in the works and you can read about them at your leisure if you so desire. Here is one for example.

You keep blathering on about the alleged safety in the face of two global nuclear disasters that have destroyed the lives, the livelihoods, and the actual habitat of so many and will continue to do so for how long? I'm sure you are content in the knowledge you have been assured it is perfectly safe. Pardon me if I don't buy it. Just keep repeating "unbelievable redundancy" until the true meaning of those words seeps in.
 
Arnie Gundersen: What the Nuclear Industry Doesn't Want You to Know - July 10, 2011
Orig. Title: "Why Fukushima Can Happen Here: What the NRC and Nuclear Industry Dont Want You to Know"

 
Hi, Rick. No, by no means do I labor under any "misconceptions," least of which is that you are "required to provide a solution." It just follows that your own research into this topic would lead you to suggest some solutions or ideas as to what you would do, or even what your own research says would be solutions. I read the article you linked to, and watched both of your videos. And I'm not "blathering on." That is not being honest. And you have used strident and hyperbolic language that is at odds with facts.

My posts are probably infuriating, and I mean that seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. But they are painstakingly clear about facts.

The aftermath of Fukushima is, indeed, not as dire as has been stated. Tragic, yes, my Heavens, but I have never denied that the tsunami caused a true tragedy. But the situation as portrayed on the forum is simply not true.

And yes, Arnie Gundersen. I am well aware of him, have been for a long time. I don't want to go into details, but to hold him up as any authority is a great mistake in my opinion. Dispassionate research has made that clear to me, but again, that's my opinion. Well, not just my opinion, but some real research on your part will cause you to see that he is not impressive. That's all I will say about him.

And that is not a case of my scientist is better than your scientist.

And you keep mixing Fukushima and United States nuclear plants. I know it angers you very much to hear the word redundancy as it relates to the safety protocols and safety technology and equipment (and I don't mean radiation suits!) inherent in an American nuclear plant, but I have actually read about them, and they are impressive, despite your ridicule of them. And my son cannot be discounted as a reliable source of information with years of experience in nuclear and natural gas plants. Do you know how these safety protocols work? It is very fascinating.

And again, no requirement, but what has your own research come up with as to how American nuclear power plants should be shut down? I mean, I assume you want them all to stop operating right now. Or, am I wrong? If so, then what? These are legitimate questions, Rick, not meant to get you angry.

Also, global warming is an issue here, as I've stated before. The U.S. gets over 20% of its electricity/power from nuclear plants, one fourth from natural gas plants, about half from coal burning plants (chief emitters), and the rest from wind, solar, etc. And yes, I liked the article you linked to, and I hope that technology comes to fruition. But until it and a lot of other alternate sources come into play, what do you suggest based on your research be done in the interim? What about France, which gets nearly 80% of its energy from nuclear plants? And the UK? And little Belgium, which has a surprisingly high figure? I'll leave you to research other countries. So, what do you suggest?

I've really tried to write this in a way not to inflame you. I'm curious about your suggestions, but do I require them of you? No, I don't, of course. Kim:)
 
COVERT, MI -- Palisades nuclear power plant was shut down shortly before 7 p.m. Tuesday to repair a leak in the plant's safety injection/refueling water tank, according to a release from Entergy Corporation, the plant's owner.

The tank holds up to 300,000 gallons of borated water that floods the reactor during refueling outages. It is also the source for the safety injection system to remove heat from the reactor when there is a loss of coolant.

According to Palisades spokesman Mark Savage, the leak was first discovered several weeks ago.

The Palisades operations department has been monitoring and analyzing tank leakage twice every day over the past several days, according to a press release. But this afternoon around 1:41 p.m. the tank was declared inoperable.

The plant was removed from service at 6:49 p.m.

Savage declined to speculate as to when the plant will be back up running.

Repair work will include draining the tank, locating the leak, repairing the leak, refilling the tank and returning the plant to service.

In the past year, Palisades has been downgraded by the NRC, which has classified it as one of the four worst performing nuclear plants in the United States and prompted increased inspections in recent months.



classified it as one of the four worst performing nuclear plants in the United States and prompted increased inspections in recent months

I hope we dont start seeing a thing called CLG or combat loss grouping in these older plants.
CLG happens in a military unit where loss's start of as a trickle, then suddenly a mass grouping of loss happens as the units collective damage reaches a critical point.

Again, anyone who can look at what happened in Chernobyl and now Japan and pompusly declare they are "beyond safe" is beyond stupid, it doesnt matter where they are, when (not if) they go boom the results as we have seen....... well there is nothing "safe" about the results.

Is there some "special" laws of physics that make a reactor meltdown "safe" in the US ?

The technology, the mechanisms the fuel is the same no matter where its located.
All the regulation in the world wont prevent an unforseen accident, regulation didnt prevent 3 mile island from a partial meltdown, it didnt save chernobyl from a meltdown, it didnt prevent fukushima...... Accidents happen, and in the case of these devices the results are catastrophic.

US reactors are not somehow magically immune from the possibility of a meltdown, neither the russians or the japanese expected their meltdowns, they both had regulations and safety protocols.....but it happened anyway.

Im sure they too said their reactors were "beyond safe"........ they were wrong
 
Hi, Mike. Please read my reply to Rick just above. I ask you the same questions. What do you suggest be done about nuclear plants in the United States and the world? What would your first step be? Shut them down? And then what?

Australia burns coal for 80% of its power needs. That contributes to global warming.

I've done research on this shutdown of the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan. It was shut down to repair a leak. Your news article does not provide a fair lead-in for the rest of your post. But first: the very fact that the plant is shut down evidences the safety protocols that are in place. Plants in the U.S. catch heck if ANYTHING happens that doesn't follow the strict, strict protocols. I mean, any little thing and all heck happens, and it makes the news (the real news). This is how it should be. Then it often enters the conspiracy websites.

The non sequiturs following the article are telling:

1. What does this CLG have to do with Palisades or any American nuclear plant? Nothing that I can see. A round peg in a square hole. So you must have some specific one after the other events in mind? You imagine some cascading sequence of events that results in catastrophe. Based on your research, please describe step by step such a sequence of events comparable to this CLG, the actual physical things one by one that would result in your catastrophe.
2. Special law of physics that makes a meltdown safe? What does that mean? That's an honest question. Physics are physics and that's what nuclear power plants do, physics, and that includes the backups of the backups of the backups (and it goes on, trust me) of safety technology
3. Yes, accidents happen, so what else is new in the world? We can only do our best, and best is darn good. Again, what are your solutions based on your own research? And accidents are built in to nuclear power plant safety in the U.S.

I mean these as honest questions. If you're going to make such declarative statements, what are your suggestions? I just asked for specifics in my questions in this post, not trying to make you angry. Kim:)
 
Kim you are a VERY VERY stupid person, and thats not an insult.
Thats a fact.

In the same way its not an insult to say shit smells bad, it just does ,its a fact.

Your posts make this same point over and over again, you are a blithering idiot, again obvious to all, not an insult, simply a correct evaluation based on your demonstrated ignorance.

There is no point in answering your questions, no point.

Its been observed and said by others, there is no debating you.

I may as well try to debate with a hamster, its a pointless exercise

I occasionally click the show ignored content to see if the level of Epic Fail you exhibit has gotten deeper, i'm never disappointed.

You dont get it, you're an idiot, your posts make that very clear.

I have no interest in discussing anything with an intellectual hamster, back to your wheel little fella, and leave the thinking to those better equiped for it
 
It may cost up to $1 billion to dismantle one reactor, so the potential total of $150 billion. Where does the money come from?

The US is kicking the can down the road by extending the license and doing nothing, for up to 60 years, even after the reactor is shut down. (See the New York Times article from March this year.)

Very broadly speaking, there are three main ways (pdf) to decommission a nuclear reactor. The first option is to remove the fuel, disassemble the surrounding structure and find a safe place to store all the different radioactive bits. One problem with this option? Not every country in Europe currently has proper waste facilities set up, Pearce reports.

Alternatively, workers could simply take out the fuel, drain the plumbing and then lock up the reactor, letting the isotopes decay until the plant itself is less radioactive. After 10 to 80 years, the whole structure will be easier to dismantle. The third option, meanwhile, is to bury the reactor in a “tomb” of concrete and hope that no one cracks the structure open for the next 1,400 years. The U.S. Department of Energy took this approach for two old reactors at Savannah River in South Carolina.

These sorts of headaches could be one reason why the United States is taking a different approach to its aging plants. The GlobalData report notes that U.S. utilities and regulators have announced plans to extend the lives of 71 nuclear reactors by another 20 years. Between now and 2030, only five U.S. commercial power reactors are expected to be decommissioned. (That’s in addition to the 28 commercial reactors that the United States has already shut down.)

Granted, the United States still has plenty of challenges — as Matthew Wald recently detailed for the New York Times, funds for decommissioning are lagging here, as well. But those problems are somewhat smaller than what Europe will be facing in the next two decades.



Europe Has 150 Nuclear Reactors to Decommission in Two Decades | EXSKF

Again when you add up ALL the costs associated with these plants, It really doesnt make cents...... to generate electricity this way, there is nothing cheap or clean about it.
 
Something to think about......
If the companys that ran these radioactive time bombs cant afford to decommision them, who pays ?
Are they not "to dangerous to fail", thats right the taxpayer will be left with the resulting bill from the "bailout" that will be required.



WASHINGTON — The operators of 20 of the nation’s aging nuclear reactors, including some whose licenses expire soon, have not saved nearly enough money for prompt and proper dismantling.

Decommissioning a reactor is a painstaking and expensive process that involves taking down huge structures and transporting the radioactive materials to the few sites around the country that can bury them. The cost is projected at $400 million to $1 billion per reactor, which in some cases is more than what it cost to build the plants in the 1960s and ’70s.
Mothballing the plants makes hundreds of acres of prime industrial land unavailable for decades and leaves open the possibility that radioactive contamination in the structures could spread. While the radioactivity levels decline over time, many communities worry about safe oversight.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/science/earth/as-nuclear-reactors-age-funds-to-close-them-lag.html?_r=1

And of course the older they get the greater the risk of CLG, ie multiple failures all at once

Even the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s chairman is uneasy about the prospect of a 60-year wait.

Ie "regulations" dont cover this aspect

Bruce Biewald, an economist who specializes in electricity economics at Synapse Energy, a Boston consulting firm, said the mothball strategy carries risks that could outweigh benefits. Proponents say “it’s like magic — compound interest on the one hand and radioactive decay on the other,” he said. (Because radioactivity levels decline over time, deconstruction workers would ultimately be exposed to less contamination.) But future investment returns could prove bleak, Mr. Biewald warns, and anticipated deconstruction costs could easily rise.

three members of Vermont’s Congressional delegation pointed out that 55,000 gallons of contaminated water spilled out of a mothballed plant in Illinois after a pipe froze.

No wait that CANT have happened since regulation and backups would have prevented it.
But of course it did happen...........

Twelve reactors across the country have been retired in the last three decades, all on short notice, because of a design or safety flaw that the economics did not justify fixing. The low price of natural gas, a competing fuel, makes the economic lifetime of existing reactors uncertain.

Natural gas a better solution ?....... Ya think ?
 
I was also astonished to hear that many Japanese political leaders were not aware of the potential global catastrophe because they were not told anything about it by TEPCO. I find it difficult to understand their mindset. Why would the Japanese political leaders think it appropriate to depend on one source (with an obvious and inherent conflict of interest) to judge what issues have resulted from the Fukushima accident and who is most appropriate to handle it? As a result of this myopia, Japan’s leadership lacks a clear picture of the situation and has little idea where it is steering its country and people.
Let me clarify briefly why Fukushima Dai-ichi remains an enormous danger for which no scientists can recommend a solution at the moment.
[...]
  1. In reactors 1, 2 and 3, complete core meltdowns have occurred. Japanese authorities have admitted the possibility that the fuel may have melted through the bottom of the reactor core vessels. It is speculated that this might lead to unintended criticality (resumption of the chain reaction) or a powerful steam explosion – either event could lead to major new releases of radioactivity into the environment.
  2. Reactors 1 and 3 are sites of particularly intense penetrating radiation, making those areas unapproachable. As a result, reinforcement repairs have not yet been done since the Fukushima accident. The ability of these structures to withstand a strong aftershock earthquake is uncertain.
  3. The temporary cooling pipes installed in each of the crippled reactors pass through rubble and debris. They are unprotected and highly vulnerable to damage. This could lead to a failure of some cooling systems, causing overheating of the fuel, further fuel damage with radioactive releases, additional hydrogen gas explosions, possibly even a zirconium fire and fuel melting within the spent fuel pools.
  4. Reactor No. 4 building and its frame are serious damaged. The spent fuel pool in Unit 4, with a total weight of 1,670 tons, is suspended 100 feet (30 meters) above ground, beside a wall which is bulging outward. If this pool collapses or drains, the resulting blast of penetrating radiation will shut down the entire area. At the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power station, the spent fuel pools alone contain an amount of cesium-137 that is 85 times greater than at Chernobyl.
Japanese Diplomat: It is speculated that melt-throughs at Reactors 1-3 might lead to ‘unintended criticality’ or steam explosion
 
Every day that goes by that we don't hear news about some concerted effort by the United Nations to address this issue I get more concerned. But honestly, how do you encapsulate or entomb the things at this point? They are so unapproachable by humans or robots that a huge amount of tunneling underneath (I saw a figure of 80 feet) the reactor buildings would have to be done. Is that even possible given the location? One of the plans is to move the spent rods out of the storage pools and into casks, but if the areas are unapproachable how do you do that? It makes you really wonder if there is anything that can actually be done. How will they be able to contain the cores? How will they be able to physically move the spent fuel rods in the pools? All the while tons of radioactive water is being dumped into the ocean and radioactive material is being released into the atmosphere on a daily basis.

I have been hoping that the United States and Russia would start addressing the issue in a truly aggressive manner but it just looks like it is not going to happen.

Bear in mind they have yet to properly contain and decontaminate Chernobyl. If the Chernobyl disaster is still ongoing after all this time, how long is Fukushima going to be in the process of containment and cleanup?

Question: Given the amount of money projected to be spent and lost as a result of the Fukushima disaster, how much did the average Fukushima Daiichi Kilowatt hour cost to produce over the life of the plant? Even though we don't have the numbers to do the calculation would you estimate that average Kilowatt hour cost to be a good buy?
 
Back
Top