Skip to main content

Home/ Open Intelligence / Energy/ Group items tagged biodiversity

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Jan Wyllie

Full Meltdown: Fukushima Called the 'Biggest Industrial Catastrophe in the History of M... - 0 views

  • Fukushima has three nuclear reactors exposed and four fuel cores exposed," he said, "You probably have the equivalent of 20 nuclear reactor cores because of the fuel cores, and they are all in desperate need of being cooled, and there is no means to cool them effectively.
  • TEPCO has been spraying water on several of the reactors and fuel cores, but this has led to even greater problems, such as radiation being emitted into the air in steam and evaporated sea water - as well as generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive sea water that has to be disposed of.
  • "They are pouring in water and the question is what are they going to do with the waste that comes out of that system, because it is going to contain plutonium and uranium. Where do you put the water?"
  • ...13 more annotations...
  • The water picks up enormous amounts of radiation, so you add more water and you are generating hundreds of thousands of tons of highly radioactive water."
  • "They recalculated the amount of radiation released, but the news is really not talking about this," he said. "The new calculations show that within the first week of the accident, they released 2.3 times as much radiation as they thought they released in the first 80 days."
  • a nuclear waste advisor to the Japanese government reported that about 966 square kilometres near the power station - an area roughly 17 times the size of Manhattan - is now likely uninhabitable.
  • far more radiation has been released than has been reported.
  • "We have 20 nuclear cores exposed, the fuel pools have several cores each, that is 20 times the potential to be released than Chernobyl,"
  • the exposed reactors and fuel cores are continuing to release microns of caesium, strontium, and plutonium isotopes. These are referred to as "hot particles".
  • "We are discovering hot particles everywhere in Japan, even in Tokyo," he said. "Scientists are finding these everywhere. Over the last 90 days these hot particles have continued to fall and are being deposited in high concentrations. A lot of people are picking these up in car engine air filters."
  • Clearly people in Fukushima prefecture have breathed in a large amount of these particles. Clearly the upper West Coast of the US has people being affected. That area got hit pretty heavy in April.
  • Why have alarms not been sounded about radiation exposure in the US?
  • Nuclear operator Exelon Corporation has been among Barack Obama's biggest campaign donors, and is one of the largest employers in Illinois where Obama was senator
  • Using nuclear power to produce electricity in Japan is a product of the nuclear policy of the US
  • Gundersen worries about more earthquake aftershocks, as well as how to cool two of the units. "Unit four is the most dangerous, it could topple," he said. "After the earthquake in Sumatra there was an 8.6 [aftershock] about 90 days later, so we are not out of the woods yet. And you're at a point where, if that happens, there is no science for this, no one has ever imagined having hot nuclear fuel lying outside the fuel pool. They've not figured out how to cool units three and four."
  • "With Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and now with Fukushima, you can pinpoint the exact day and time they started," he said, "But they never end."
    • D'coda Dcoda
       
      Actually, this is exactly what I expected given the history of nuclear energy and the history of inadequate safeguards, ignoring safety regulations, etc.
  •  
    A "NEVER ENDING DISASTER" - A new rendition of Hofstadter's Law about how things take longer than expected ... it's always worse than expected, even when you expect the worse.
D'coda Dcoda

Dark horse tipped to lead RWE's nuclear phase-out [04Aug11] - 1 views

  • Dutch energy executive Peter Terium is the most likely successor to RWE chief executive Jürgen Grossmann, according to company insiders cited in German news reports. Grossmann, whose contract expires at the end of September 2012, defended RWE's investments in nuclear power plants vigorously but unsuccessfully against government plans to phase out atomic energy by 2022. The 59-year-old's lobbying earned him the nickname "Atom-Rambo" and even prompted Germany's Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union to award him the dubious title of "Dinosaur of the Year 2010."
  • News that Peter Terium, 47, is likely to be the fresh face to replace Grossmann surprised many observers. But the dark-horse candidate has been with RWE since 2003. He first RWE Supply & Trading and later oversaw the takeover of Dutch energy company Essent, which he currently heads.
  • Reinventing the wheel Hubertus Bardt, an energy and environmental policy expert at the Cologne Institute for Economic Research, said Grossmann shouldn't be faulted for aggressively defending his company's substantial investment into nuclear power
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Other potential successors to Grossmann are RWE chief commercial officer Leonhard Birnbaum and chief operating officer Rolf Martin Schmitz. Whoever lands the top job is likely to face a turbulent time. "One large challenge will be the task of bringing RWE's image - and the image of other energy companies - back into a positive light," a labor union representative told Reuters. "We expect a new orientation towards international and national energy politics from the new RWE chief."
  • "Jürgen Grossmann is very well known as someone who fought for the future of nuclear power plants," he told Deutsche Welle. "But the fact is that he was fighting for the future of his company, and for the investment his company has made over decades."
  • Nevertheless, Grossmann in June characterized the political movement to phase out nuclear power as reckless, saying consumers would be hit with higher electricity prices and expressing fear that a slump in RWE stock value could leave the company vulnerable to a hostile takeover. According to Bardt, Grossmann's stance runs counter to broader societal trends and political activity.
  • "He has been very, very prominent in a position advocating longer use of nuclear power, which in the end was not successful," Bardt said. "So that may be a problem in terms of public relations and of public acceptance of RWE." Bardt added that RWE and companies like it needed to "find new markets and new business opportunities."
D'coda Dcoda

Why the Fukushima disaster is worse than Chernobyl [29Aug11][ - 0 views

  • This nation has recovered from worse natural – and manmade – catastrophes. But it is the triple meltdown and its aftermath at the Fukushima nuclear power plant 40km down the coast from Soma that has elevated Japan into unknown, and unknowable, terrain. Across the northeast, millions of people are living with its consequences and searching for a consensus on a safe radiation level that does not exist. Experts give bewilderingly different assessments of its dangers.
  • Some scientists say Fukushima is worse than the 1986 Chernobyl accident, with which it shares a maximum level-7 rating on the sliding scale of nuclear disasters. One of the most prominent of them is Dr Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician and long time anti-nuclear activist who warns of "horrors to come" in Fukushima.
  • Chris Busby, a professor at the University of Ulster known for his alarmist views, generated controversy during a Japan visit last month when he said the disaster would result in more than 1 million deaths. "Fukushima is still boiling its radionuclides all over Japan," he said. "Chernobyl went up in one go. So Fukushima is worse."
  • ...17 more annotations...
  • On the other side of the nuclear fence are the industry friendly scientists who insist that the crisis is under control and radiation levels are mostly safe. "I believe the government and Tokyo Electric Power [Tepco, the plant's operator] are doing their best," said Naoto Sekimura, vice-dean of the Graduate School of Engineering at the University of Tokyo. Mr Sekimura initially advised residents near the plant that a radioactive disaster was "unlikely" and that they should stay "calm", an assessment he has since had to reverse.
  • Slowly, steadily, and often well behind the curve, the government has worsened its prognosis of the disaster. Last Friday, scientists affiliated with the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said the plant had released 15,000 terabecquerels of cancer-causing Cesium, equivalent to about 168 times the 1945 atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the event that ushered in the nuclear age. (Professor Busby says the release is at least 72,000 times worse than Hiroshima).
  • Caught in a blizzard of often conflicting information, many Japanese instinctively grope for the beacons they know. Mr Ichida and his colleagues say they no longer trust the nuclear industry or the officials who assured them the Fukushima plant was safe. But they have faith in government radiation testing and believe they will soon be allowed back to sea.
  • That's a mistake, say sceptics, who note a consistent pattern of official lying, foot-dragging and concealment. Last week, officials finally admitted something long argued by its critics: that thousands of people with homes near the crippled nuclear plant may not be able to return for a generation or more. "We can't rule out the possibility that there will be some areas where it will be hard for residents to return to their homes for a long time," said Yukio Edano, the government's top government spokesman.
  • hundreds of former residents from Futaba and Okuma, the towns nearest the plant, were allowed to visit their homes – perhaps for the last time – to pick up belongings. Wearing masks and radiation suits, they drove through the 20km contaminated zone around the plant, where hundreds of animals have died and rotted in the sun, to find kitchens and living rooms partly reclaimed by nature.
  • It is the fate of people outside the evacuation zones, however, that causes the most bitter controversy. Parents in Fukushima City, 63km from the plant, have banded together to demand that the government do more to protect about 100,000 children. Schools have banned soccer and other outdoor sports. Windows are kept closed. "We've just been left to fend for ourselves," says Machiko Sato, a grandmother who lives in the city. "It makes me so angry."
  • Many parents have already sent their children to live with relatives or friends hundreds of kilometres away. Some want the government to evacuate the entire two million population of Fukushima Prefecture. "They're demanding the right to be able to evacuate," says anti-nuclear activist Aileen Mioko Smith, who works with the parents. "In other words, if they evacuate they want the government to support them."
  • Aid Fukushima: The UN's Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported bilateral aid worth $95m Chernobyl: 12 years after the disaster, the then Ukrainian president, Leonid Kuchma, complained that his country was still waiting for international help.
  • But many experts warn that the crisis is just beginning. Professor Tim Mousseau, a biological scientist who has spent more than a decade researching the genetic impact of radiation around Chernobyl, says he worries that many people in Fukushima are "burying their heads in the sand." His Chernobyl research concluded that biodiversity and the numbers of insects and spiders had shrunk inside the irradiated zone, and the bird population showed evidence of genetic defects, including smaller brain sizes.
  • "The truth is that we don't have sufficient data to provide accurate information on the long-term impact," he says. "What we can say, though, is that there are very likely to be very significant long-term health impact from prolonged exposure."
  • Economic cost Fukushima: Japan has estimated it will cost as much as £188bn to rebuild following the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis. Chernobyl There are a number of estimates of the economic impact, but thetotal cost is thought to be about £144bn.
  • Safety Fukushima: workers are allowed to operate in the crippled plant up to a dose of 250mSv (millisieverts). Chernobyl: People exposed to 350mSv were relocated. In most countries the maximum annual dosage for a worker is 20mSv. The allowed dose for someone living close to a nuclear plant is 1mSv a year.
  • Death toll Fukushima: Two workers died inside the plant. Some scientists predict that one million lives will be lost to cancer. Chernobyl: It is difficult to say how many people died on the day of the disaster because of state security, but Greenpeace estimates that 200,000 have died from radiation-linked cancers in the 25 years since the accident.
  • Exclusion zone Fukushima: Tokyo initially ordered a 20km radius exclusion zone around the plant Chernobyl: The initial radius of the Chernobyl zone was set at 30km – 25 years later it is still largely in place.
  • Compensation Fukushima: Tepco's share price has collapsed since the disaster largely because of the amount it will need to pay out, about £10,000 a person Chernobyl: Not a lot. It has been reported that Armenian victims of the disaster were offered about £6 each in 1986
  • So far, at least, the authorities say that is not necessary. The official line is that the accident at the plant is winding down and radiation levels outside of the exclusion zone and designated "hot spots" are safe.
  • Japan has been slow to admit the scale of the meltdown. But now the truth is coming out. David McNeill reports from Soma City
D'coda Dcoda

Nuclear Energy in South Africa [4Sep11] - 0 views

  • Dr. Yvres Guenon from AREVA gave a good pitch at the recent SANEA talk on “The nuclear program is a true opportunity for South Africa. He started off stating that we weren’t alone in the energy epidemic; “don’t think you are the only country with bad decision makers” he said. Europe is in the same boat. In the past countries went coal as it was the only option, but in the future it will be about finding the ‘right mix’ of energy producers. Guenon’s solution is to include nuclear power in that mix.
  • The argument was a fair one – nuclear does have financial benefits to it. The cost might be a bit hefty in the beginning; but most (if not all) energy providers are. The one thing about nuclear is that the price of energy thereafter doesn’t change. What you pay today for your electricity will stay that way for the next 50 – 60 years. In his presentation he included a diagram that showed nuclear was the least in greenhouse gases. Europe doesn’t have many options for energy development but here in South Africa, where we are blessed with sun and the south-easter wind, we have a variety. Even though we can include renewable in our mix, Guenon showed that solar costs 10 times more than coal and wind was four times more.
  • Guenon’s main purpose of his presentation was also the job development and therefore economy improvement, that comes from nuclear power. As nuclear involvers building an entire plant consisting of a variety of technologies and includes a variety of industries there is huge potential in employment and expansion in industries. Other energy producers, such as solar or wind, involve a slice of professions and specific exclusive industries. Nuclear touches on engineers, technicians, welders, management and a wide variety of workers. When asked about the chances of an accident, Guenon simple answer was “about the same chance of a meteorite landing in your lounge.” It creates abundant energy at a fraction of the price, while creating job opportunities and improving the economy; all of this and to top it off – no coal. On the outside it seems to provide the answer to all our problems. So what’s the catch? “Dr Guenon!” A hand shot up in the audience. “What about waste?”
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Guenon that in France they have chosen to repossess the fuel, reduce the toxicity level as much a possible by running it through a chemical process (twice) and then putting it into a storage container which can hold it up to 300 years. The concept is that the technology currently is only a few decades old. Hopefully in a few more decades, or longer, research and technology improvements will find a solution to how to completely deal with the built up waste. It wasn’t mentioned if that was the case for the proposal in South Africa, nor was it mentioned what would happen if the container had a leak.
  • Here in South Africa there is another side to the plant. One proposed site for building the nuclear plant is only a few kilometres outside Cape Town in Bantamsklip Location, location, location Bantamsklip is within 50km of one of Cape Town’s biggest ‘holiday’ towns; Hermanus. Known for its unspoilt natural beauty, the area is the biodiversity core area of the Cape Floral Kingdom and is one of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The proposed site contains 800 plant species and 22 red data species, 6 of which grow no where else in the world.
  • The nuclear power plant will be right by Agulhas National Park, and on the edge of a threatened marine ecosystem. Due to the beauty of the area, it is a high tourist attraction. In another article [Age of Stupid] a woman from the U.K. refused to have wind plants built on her neighbours farm as it ‘spoilt the view,’ which frustrated a lot of the environmentalists in the audience, as if we don’t start investing in renewable energy there won’t be much of a view to enjoy.
  • In this case, however, ‘spoiling the view’ with a nuclear power plant doesn’t only mean damaging the tourism in the area, but also threatening protected species like Blue Cranes, due to the overhead power line collisions; also threatening the marine sanctuaries of the Southern Right Whales and Great White Sharks. According to Barry Clark who did a review of the Marine Impact Study for the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] for the proposed nuclear power station; continuous lowlevel dosing with chlorine is proposed as a means of reducing biofouling on the seawater intake pipes. Clark questions “the impacts of this are dismissed as being ‘very localised and are considered unlikely to have a significant negative impact on the receiving environment’ the source of which is the previous EIA for the Koeberg Power Station.
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20 items per page