Group items tagged

Indonesia has signed contracts for 2.3 gigawatts of plants, Bloomberg New Energy Finance data show. A gigawatt is about equal to the output of a new atomic reactor, and requires $2 billion to $4 billion of investment. “There’s a remarkable opportunity for Indonesia to increase the amount of power generated from geothermal,” says Stephen W. Green, former head of Chevron’s Indonesia and Philippines operations and now its vice-president of policy, government, and public affairs. “There are synergies between oil and geothermal and it makes sense for us to exploit that.”

Unocal negotiated Indonesia’s first foreign-partnership geothermal license in 1982 with the help of U.S. President Barack Obama’s late stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, who worked for the U.S. company as a government liaison. Chevron acquired Unocal in 2005. At the plant in Java, which lies inside a nature preserve, hot water and steam are pumped from as deep as 10,535 feet below the earth’s surface through 34 miles of pipes to turn turbines to make power. Each well takes as much as 90 days to drill and costs up to $7 million, Chevron says. The company is now planning additional plants in Indonesia, including a potential 200-MW facility in South Sumatra.

And the effects start appearing in 2~3 years. We didn’t understand from the beginning where the hot spots were. But after checking later the areas where a lot of children got sick, in Belarus probably the radioactive substances were easily carried by the wind because the flat level ground, but it became clear that in areas 20~30 km from the plant there were places contaminated about just as much as Chernobyl. Kamakura is about 300 kilos away from Fukushima in a straight line. Based on the results of the investigations made after the nuclear accident in Chernobyl, in Europe the fact of assuming that 800km from the nuclear plant might be contaminated has been made taken into consideration as a basic rule for safety.

In Chernobyl, because contaminated farm products were made served in school lunches, about 70% of the children suffered from various kinds of health damages. Those (health problems) were not limited to their generation, and when those children became parents their problems passed to their children too. Because radioactive substances have similarities with nutrients like calcium, the mammals will feed a lot of them to their babies. Radioactive substances get easily out of their bodies by milk – hence, there were many cases when after giving birth to their first baby, a large quantity of radioactive substances were passed to the (first born) child and the mother’s health improved, but those children had serious congenital disorders (became people with serious disabilities).

She has been visiting Chernobyl for 25 years and help children to accept in Hokkaido for one month etc.. Currently, the radiation levels in some parts of Kanto area are 3 mSv/year. Annotator’s comment: According to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the numerical values announced by the local government prove only the emission of gamma rays. The iodine and the cesium decay while emitting beta rays. If we have to deal strictly with gamma rays emissions, the degree of contamination can be understood, but we can’t measure the level of individual external exposure. Besides, the numerical values detected at the monitoring posts are measured at 10m above the ground level or even more.

Besides, there is no country who would buy things from a country that loosens it’s standards. The gov and Tepco spread misinformation (misinform the population). They should think about requesting the farmers give up growing farming products which are contaminated, give them compensation, and provide them new and safe farmlands.

n case of Chernobyl, party members, doctors and a nurses, teachers could afford to evacuate, because they could keep sustaining themselves even if they moved, but the poor people could not afford to evacuate. The symptoms which appeared at children who remained were the following: Headache nosebleed diarrhea thyroid problems not growing taller hard to recover after catching a cold swelling of the lymphatic glands, easily get sick with pneumonia kidney pain renal cancer

[that I have a] (because while radioactivity leaves the body, the urinary tract is affected) pain in the back side of the knee arthralgia wounds that take a long time to cure asthma hair loss problems with their hair growing alteration in visual acuity poor appetite poor concentration fatigability/easily getting tired cardiac pain (cardialgia) low resistance to diseases. The school lessons were shortened to 25 minutes, and because their kidneys became week, there are primary school children who wet their beds.

Even after becoming adults, the following cases were recorded: increase of myocardial infarcts an increase in the nr of sudden deaths death of young people in their 30th Accumulation of cesium in heart – even if eliminate from their bodies it (cesium) enters the body again after eating being exempted from the military service for having small holes in their hearts Regarding their children, the following medical cases were recorded - Brain damage, proved by the fact that they were slow in eating their meals.

Mothers of many children who were different from the other normal children give them to adoption, even if they didn’t have renal surgery or health problems, or a handicap. This kind of things are happening. (Source) German Translation

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED CAPITAL AND OTHER COSTS   The estimated capital costs and other costs for decommissioning the nuclear plants, restoring the sites, building out renewables, wind and solar energy balancing plants, and reorganizing electric grids over 9 years are summarized below.    The capital cost and subsidy cost for the increased energy efficiency measures was not estimated, but will likely need to be well over $180 billion over 9 years, or $20 billion/yr, or $20 b/($3286 b in 2010) x 100% = 0.6% of GDP, or $250 per person per yr.     Decommission nuclear plants, restore sites: 23 @ $1 billion/plant = $23 billion Wind turbines, offshore: 53,300 MW @ $4,000,000/MW = $213.2 billion   Wind turbines, onshore: 27,900 MW @ $2,000,000/MW = $55.8 billion Wind feed-in tariff extra costs rolled into electric rates over 9 years: $200 billion  Solar systems: 82,000 MW @ $4,500,000/MW = $369 billion Solar feed-in tariff extra costs rolled into electric rates over 9 years = $250 billion. Wind and solar energy balancing plants: 25,000 MW of CCGTs @ $1,250,000/MW = $31.3 billion Reorganizing European elecric grids tied to German grids: $150 billion

RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARGETS   In September 2010 the German government announced the following targets:   Renewable electricity - 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 Renewable energy - 18% by 2020, 30% by 2030, and 60% by 2050 Energy efficiency - Reducing the national electricity consumption 50% below 2008 levels by 2050.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany   Germany has a target to reduce its nation-wide CO2 emissions from all sources by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-85% below 1990 levels by 2050. That goal could be achieved, if 100% of electricity is generated by renewables, according to Mr. Flasbarth. Germany is aiming to convince the rest of Europe to follow its lead.

A 2009 study by EUtech, engineering consultants, concluded Germany will not achieve its nation-wide CO2 emissions target; the actual reduction will be less than 30%. The head of Germany's Federal Environment Agency (UBA), Jochen Flasbarth, is calling for the government to improve CO2 reduction programs to achieve targets. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,644677,00.html   GERMAN RENEWABLE ENERGY TO-DATE   Germany announced it had 17% of its electrical energy from renewables in 2010; it was 6.3% in 2000. The sources were 6.2% wind, 5.5% biomass, 3.2% hydro and 2.0% solar. Electricity consumption in 2010 was 603 TWh (production) - 60 TWh (assumed losses) = 543 TWh http://www.volker-quaschning.de/datserv/ren-Strom-D/index_e.php  

Wind: At the end of 2010, about 27,200 MW of onshore and offshore wind turbines was installed in Germany at a capital cost of about $50 billion. Wind energy produced was 37.5 TWh, or 6.2% of total production. The excess cost of the feed-in-tariff energy bought by utilities and rolled into electricity costs of rate payers was about $50 billion during the past 11 years.   Most wind turbines are in northern Germany. When wind speeds are higher wind curtailment of 15 to 20 percent takes place because of insufficient transmission capacity and quick-ramping gas turbine plants. The onshore wind costs the Germany economy about 12 eurocent/kWh and the offshore wind about 24 eurocent/kWh. The owners of the wind turbines are compensated for lost production.   The alternative to curtailment is to “sell” the energy at European spot prices of about 5 eurocent/kWh to Norway and Sweden which have significant hydro capacity for balancing the variable wind energy; Denmark has been doing it for about 20 years.   As Germany is very marginal for onshore wind energy (nation-wide onshore wind CF 0.167) and nearly all of the best onshore wind sites have been used up, or are off-limits due to noise/visual/environmental impacts, most of the additional wind energy will have to come from OFFSHORE facilities which produce wind energy at about 2 to 3 times the cost of onshore wind energy. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61774/wind-energy-expensive

Biomass: At the end of 2010, about 5,200 MW of biomass was installed at a capital cost of about $18 billion. Biomass energy produced was 33.5 TWh, or 5.5% of production. Plans are to add 1,400 MW of biomass plants in future years which, when fully implemented, would produce about 8.6 TWh/yr.   Solar: At the end of 2010, about 17,320 MW of PV solar was installed in Germany at a capital cost of about $100 billion. PV solar energy produced was 12 TWh, or 2% of total production. The excess cost of the feed-in-tariff energy bought by utilities and rolled into the electricity costs of rate payers was about $80 billion during the past 11 years.   Most solar panels are in southern Germany (nation-wide solar CF 0.095). When skies are clear, the solar production peaks at about 7 to 10 GW. Because of insufficient capacity of transmission and quick-ramping gas turbine plants, and because curtailment is not possible, part of the solar energy, produced at a cost to the German economy of about 30 to 50 eurocent/kWh is “sold” at European spot prices of about 5 eurocent/kWh to France which has significant hydro capacity for balancing the variable solar energy. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46142/impact-pv-solar-feed-tariffs-germany  

Hydro: At the end of 2010, about 4,700 MW of hydro was installed. Hydro energy produced was 19.5 TWh, or 3.2% of production. Hydro growth has been stagnant during the past 20 years. See below website.   As it took about $150 billion of direct investment, plus about $130 billion excess energy cost during the past 11 years to achieve 8.2% of total production from solar and wind energy, and assuming hydro will continue to have little growth, as was the case during the past 20 years (almost all hydro sites have been used up), then nearly all of the renewables growth by 2020 will be mostly from wind, with the remainder from solar and biomass. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010??cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-March30-2011   Wind and Solar Energy Depend on Gas: Wind and solar energy is variable and intermittent. This requires quick-ramping gas turbine plants to operate at part-load and quickly ramp up with wind energy ebbs and quickly ramp down with wind energy surges; this happens about 100 to 200 times a day resulting in increased wear and tear. Such operation is very inefficient for gas turbines causing them to use extra fuel/kWh and emit extra CO2/kWh that mostly offset the claimed fuel and CO2 reductions due to wind energy. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent  

Wind energy is often sold to the public as making a nation energy independent, but Germany will be buying gas mostly from Russia supplied via the newly constructed pipeline under the Baltic Sea from St. Petersburg to Germany, bypassing Poland.   GERMANY WITHOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY   A study performed by The Breakthrough Institute concluded to achieve the 40% CO2 emissions reduction target and the decommissioning of 21,400 MW of nuclear power plants by 2022, Germany’s electrical energy mix would have to change from 60% fossil, 23% nuclear and 17% renewables in 2010 to 43% fossil and 57% renewables by 2020. This will require a build-out of renewables, reorganization of Europe’s electric grids (Europe’s concurrence will be needed) and acceleration of energy efficiency measures.   According to The Breakthrough Institite, Germany would have to reduce its total electricity consumption by about 22% of current 2020 projections AND achieve its target for 35% electricity generated from renewables by 2020. This would require increased energy efficiency measures to effect an average annual decrease of the electricity consumption/GDP ratio of 3.92% per year, significantly greater than the 1.47% per year decrease assumed by the IEA's BAU forecasts which is based on projected German GDP growth and current German efficiency policies.

The Breakthrough Institute projections are based on electricity consumption of 544  and 532 TWh  in 2008 and 2020, respectively; the corresponding production is 604 TWh in 2008 and 592 TWh in 2020.   http://thebreakthrough.org/blog//2011/06/analysis_germanys_plan_to_phas-print.html http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2007/germany2007.pdf   Build-out of Wind Energy: If it is assumed the current wind to solar energy ratio is maintained at 3 to 1, the wind energy build-out will be 80% offshore and 20% onshore, and the electricity production will be 592 TWh, then the estimated capital cost of the offshore wind turbines will be [{0.57 (all renewables) - 0.11 (assumed biomass + hydro)} x 592 TWh x 3/4] x 0.8 offshore/(8,760 hr/yr x average CF 0.35) = 0.0533 TW offshore wind turbines @ $4 trillion/TW = $213 billion and of the onshore wind turbines will be [{0.57 (all renewables) - 0.11 (assumed biomass + hydro)} x 592 TWh x 3/4] x 0.2 onshore/(8,760 hr/yr x average CF 0.167) = 0.279 TW of wind turbines @ $2 trillion/TW = $56 billion, for a total of $272 billion. The feed in tariff subsidy for 9 years, if maintained similar to existing subsidies to attract adequate capital, will be about $150 billion offshore + $50 billion onshore, for a total of $200 billion.    

Note: The onshore build-out will at least double Germany’s existing onshore wind turbine capacity, plus required transmission systems; i.e., significant niose, environmental and visual impacts over large areas.   Recent studies, based on measured, real-time, 1/4-hour grid operations data sets of the Irish, Colorado and Texas grids, show wind energy does little to reduce CO2 emissions. Such data sets became available during the past 2 to 3 years. Prior studies, based on assumptions, estimates, modeling scenarios, and statistics, etc., significantly overstate CO2 reductions.  http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent   Build-out of PV Solar Energy: The estimated capital cost of the PV solar capacity will be [{0.57 (all renewables) - 0.11 (assumed biomass + hydro)} x 592 TWh x 1/4]/(8,760 hr/yr x average CF 0.095) = 0.082 TW @ $4.5 trillion/TW = $369 billion. The feed in tariff subsidy, if maintained similar to existing subsidies to attract adequate capital, will be about $250 billion.   Reorganizating Electric Grids: For GW reasons, a self-balancing grid system is needed to minimize CO2 emissions from gas-fired CCGT balancing plants. One way to implement it is to enhance the interconnections of the national grids with European-wide HVDC overlay systems (owning+O&M costs, including transmission losses), and with European-wide selective curtailment of wind energy, and with European-wide demand management and with pumped hydro storage capacity. These measures will reduce, but not eliminate, the need for balancing energy, at greater wind energy penetrations during high-windspeed weather conditions, as frequently occur in Iberia (Spain/Portugal).  

European-wide agreement is needed, the capital cost will be in excess of $150 billion and the adverse impacts on quality of life (noise, visuals, psychological), property values and the environment will be significant over large areas.    Other Capital Costs: The capacity of the quick-ramping CCGT balancing plants was estimated at 25,000 MW; their capital cost is about 25,000 MW x $1,250,000/MW = $31.3 billion. The capital costs of decommissioning and restoring the sites of the 23 nuclear plants will be about $23 billion.   Increased Energy Efficiency: Increased energy efficiency would be more attractive than major build-outs of renewables, because it provides the quickest and biggest "bang for the buck", AND it is invisible, AND it does not make noise, AND it has minimal environmental impact, AND it usually reduces at least 3 times the CO2 per invested dollar, AND it usually creates at least 3 times the jobs per invested dollar, AND it usually creates at least 3 times the energy reduction per invested dollar, AND it does all this without public resistance and controversy.   Rebound, i.e., people going back to old habits of wasting energy, is a concept fostered by the PR of proponents of conspicuous consumption who make money on such consumption. People with little money love their cars getting 35-40 mpg, love getting small electric and heating bills. The rebound is mostly among people who do not care about such bills.

A MORE RATIONAL APPROACH   Global warming is a given for many decades, because the fast-growing large economies of the non-OECD nations will have energy consumption growth far outpacing the energy consumption growth of the slow-growing economies of the OECD nations, no matter what these OECD nations do regarding reducing CO2 emissions of their economies.   It is best to PREPARE for the inevitable additional GW by requiring people to move away from flood-prone areas (unless these areas are effectively protected, as in the Netherlands), requiring new  houses and other buildings to be constructed to a standard such as the Passivhaus standard* (such buildings stay cool in summer and warm in winter and use 80 to 90 percent less energy than standard buildings), and requiring the use of new cars that get at least 50 mpg, and rearranging the world's societies for minimal energy consumption; making them walking/bicycling-friendly would be a good start.   If a nation, such as the US, does not do this, the (owning + O&M) costs of its economy will become so excessive (rising resource prices, increased damage and disruptions from weather events) that its goods and services will become less competitive and an increasing percentage of its population will not be able to afford a decent living standard in such a society.   For example: In the US, the median annual household income (inflation-adjusted) was $49,445, a decline of 7% since 2000. As the world’s population increases to about 10 billion by 2050, a triage-style rationing of resources will become more prevalent. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1

* A 2-year-old addition to my house is built to near-Passivhaus standards; its heating system consists of a thermostatically-controlled 1 kW electric heater, set at 500 W, that cycles on/off on the coldest days for less than 100 hours/yr. The addition looks inside and out entirely like standard construction. http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses

Seafood, anyone? One of the problems of the release of radioactivity into a maritime environment is that is represents a cumulative food chain, from plankton consumed by larger organisms, as evidenced by mercury contamination of swordfish, none of whom swam around ingesting globules of the silvery metal. IRSN estimated that of the total amount, 82 percent had flowed into the sea by 8 April, adding that the Pacific was polluted at exceptional speed because the devastated Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant (NPP) is situated in a coastal area with strong currents. If the IRSN report contained any good news, it was that the impact of the cesium-137 contamination on marine life in remote waters is likely to lessen later this year.  

The radioactive silver lining? Radioactive cesium-137 has a half life of roughly 30 years, so if the IRSN estimates are accurate, then my 2041 the Pacific’s aquatic life will only be subjected to a mere 13.55 quadrillion becquerels of radiation. This is not to suggest that Japanese will shortly be keeling over from consuming their sushi but rather, that for better or for worse, a significant amount of cesium 137 has entered the Pacific’s aquatic environment, and the long-term effects of low-level exposure on the population consuming Pacific seafood are unknown. Numerous tests since 1945, when before it  was believed that only massive bursts of radiation were hazardous to human health, have documented the insidious effects of long-term, low level radiological exposure to humans. Fukushima sits at the nexus where the Kuroshio Current, running northward off the eastern coast of Japan, collides with the cold subarctic Oyashio Current that flows southwards, circulating counterclockwise along the western North Pacific Ocean. Their interaction produces the North Pacific Current, a slow warm water eastwards flowing current between 40 and 50 degrees north in the Pacific Ocean. In the eastern northern Pacific, the North Pacific Current divides into the southern flowing California Current and the northern Alaska Current.

Soon after the Fukushima disaster, a spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at its annual meeting in Vienna said that most of the radioactive water released from the devastated Fukushima No.1 nuclear plant was expected to disperse harmlessly in the Pacific Ocean. Another expert in a BBC interview also suggested that nuclear sea-dumping is nothing to worry about because the "Pacific extension" of the Kuroshio Current would deposit the radiation into the middle of the ocean, where the heavy isotopes would sink into Davy Jones's Locker.

The current is a relatively narrow band that acts like a conveyer belt, meaning radioactive materials will not disperse and settle but should remain concentrated   Soon thereafter, the IAEA backtracked, revising its earlier implausible scenario. In a newsletter, the atomic agency projected that cesium-137 might reach the shores of other countries in "several years or months." To be accurate, the text should have been written "in several months rather than years."

chemicals dissolved in the water have already started to reach the Pacific seaboard of North America, a reality being ignored by the U.S. and Canadian governments.   It is all-too easy for governments to downplay the threat. Radiation levels are difficult to detect in water, with readings often measuring 1/20th of the actual content. Dilution is a major challenge, given the vast volume of sea water. Yet the fact remains that radioactive isotopes, including cesium, strontium, cobalt and plutonium, are present in sea water on a scale at least five times greater than the fallout over land in Japan.

Japan along with many other industrial powers is addicted not just to nuclear power but also to the products from the chemical industry and petroleum producers. Based on the work of the toxicologist in our consulting group who worked on nano-treatment system to destroy organic compounds in sewage (for the Hong Kong government), it is possible to outline the major types of hazardous chemicals released into sea water by the tsunami.   - Polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs), from destroyed electric-power transformers. PCBs are hormone disrupters that wreck reproductive organs, nerves and endocrine and immune system.   - Ethylene glycol, used as a coolant for freezer units in coastal seafood packing plans and as antifreeze in cars, causes damage to kidneys and other internal organs.

- The 9-11 carbon compounds in the water soluble fraction of gasoline and diesel cause cancers.   - Surfactants, including detergents, soap and laundry powder, are basic (versus to acidic) compounds that cause lesions on eyes, skin and intestines of fish and marine mammals.   - Pesticides from coastal farms, organophosphates that damage nerve cells and brain tissue.   - Drugs, from pharmacies and clinics swept out to sea, which in tiny amounts can trigger major side-effects.

Start of a Kill-Off   Radiation and chemical-affected sea creatures are showing up along the West Coast of North America, judging from reports of unusual injuries and mortality.   - Hundreds of large squid washed up dead on the Southern California coast in August (squid move much faster than the current).   - Pelicans are being punctured by attacking sea lions, apparently in competition for scarce fish.   - Orcas, killer whales, have been dying upstream in Alaskan rivers, where they normally would never seek shelter.

Ringed seals, the main food source for polar bears in northern Alaska, are suffering lesions on their flippers and in their mouths. Since the Arctic seas are outside the flow from the North Pacific Current, these small mammals could be suffering from airborne nuclear fallout carried by the jet stream.   These initial reports indicate a decline in invertebrates, which are the feed stock of higher bony species. Squid, and perhaps eels, that form much of the ocean's biomass are dying off. The decline in squid population is causing malnutrition and infighting among higher species. Sea mammals, birds and larger fish are not directly dying from radiation poisoning ­ it is too early for fatal cancers to development. They are dying from malnutrition and starvation because their more vulnerable prey are succumbing to the toxic mix of radiation and chemicals.

The vulnerability of invertebrates to radiation is being confirmed in waters immediately south of Fukushima. Japanese diving teams have reported a 90 percent decline in local abalone colonies and sea urchins or uni. The Mainichi newspaper speculated the losses were due to the tsunami. Based on my youthful experience at body surfing and foraging in the region, I dispute that conjecture. These invertebrates can withstand the coast's powerful rip-tide. The only thing that dislodges them besides a crowbar is a small crab-like crustacean that catches them off-guard and quickly pries them off the rocks. Suction can't pull these hardy gastropods off the rocks.

hundreds of leather-backed sea slugs washed ashore near Choshi. These unsightly bottom dwellers were not dragged out to sea but drifted down with the Liman current from Fukushima. Most were still barely alive and could eject water although with weak force, unlike a healthy sea squirt. In contrast to most other invertebrates, the Tunicate group possesses enclosed circulatory systems, which gives them stronger resistance to radiation poisoning. Unlike the more vulnerable abalone, the sea slugs were going through slow death.

Instead of containment, the Japanese government promoted sea-dumping of nuclear and chemical waste from the TEPCO Fukushima No.1 plant. The subsequent "decontamination" campaign using soapy water jets is transporting even more land-based toxins to the sea.   What can Americans and Canadians do to minimize the waste coming ashore? Since the federal governments in the U.S. (home of GE) and Canada (site of the Japanese-owned Cigar Lake uranium mine) have decided to do absolutely nothing, it is up to local communities to protect the coast.  

The situation is totally out of control. Government has been stating they were going to make the best to settle it down, but it doesn’t seem to be their “best”. Tepco requested 1 trillion yen of financial support from government. Now that government is a sponsor of Tepco, they should take more lead of them.

Tepco still hasn’t paid their sub-contract companies or makers for the past / current construction cost. Most of the stakeholders will have to withdraw soon. If major earthquake or tsunami hit the plants, it will be the real catastrophe. That is why we need to be in hurry.

The coastal levee is not endurable enough, the pipes of water purifying system will be cluttered everywhere. The buildings may fall apart. Even if they keep the emergency power, it will be nothing if they lose the buildings. Because the core problem has not been solved, decontamination will be a total waste of energy. We need to think more about how to solve the problems.

The decontamination done by the local authorities is both uncoordinated and thoroughly inadequate. The subcontractors they are using are badly instructed, risking their own health and spreading the radioactive contamination instead of removing it. We found radioactive run-off water from a decontamination process leaking directly into the environment. And because there is no storage site for radioactive waste from decontamination work, the waste is buried directly on people’s property, sometimes only a few meters away from their houses. The Japanese government doesn’t know how to deal with the massive contamination caused by the nuclear disaster. Instead of protecting people from radiation, they are downplaying the risks by increasing the allowed radiation levels far above international standards. And professors like Dr. Yamashita, who make statements like ‘If you smile, the radiation will not affect you’ are being employed as official advisors on radiation health risk.

Uncertain reports daily fuel the fears. One day people hear of a leak through which radioactive water is pouring into the sea, poisoning the fish that are a staple of everyone's diet. Next, there are stories of emissions of radioactive xenon gas and then a reading of radioactive cesium in powdered milk - enough for the Meiji Company to recall 400,000 cans of it this week "so people can feel their infants are safe".

At City Hall, Koshin Ogai, a young tax official, shared his fears. Ogai, originally from Osaka in western Japan, moved here a few years ago after marrying a local woman but sent his wife and their two children to his parents after explosions at the Fukushima first spread the fear of radiation. "I don't permit them to come back," he said. "I don't think the record here is safe." But what about all those assurances about the levels of radioactivity having fallen well within safe limits, I asked him. His answer was prompt. "The government is a liar." And how, I pressed, could he as a government employee, talk so frankly? "I work for the local government," he said, not the national government." One reason Ogai does not hesitate to express such views is that his top boss, Mayor Katsunobu Sakurai, gained fame after the tsunami for pleading with the government to assist with food and medicine.

By now the city is on its way to partial recovery. Shops have slowly come to life, schools reopened in October and rail services resumed this month going north. Encouraging though such signs may appear, they suggest only partial recovery. Business is slow. Only a few people drift in and out of food stores. A number of restaurants remain closed or on limited hours. As for the railroad, the trains are not expected for many years to go south to Tokyo, once a three-hour run through a densely populated region. "The railroad fears radioactive substances passing by the Fukushima plant," said one person to whom I spoke. "They can't enter the area."

Going north, the trains can only go as far as Soma, about 30 miles up the coast. Beyond that, on the way to the important port city of Sendai, the tsunami tore up the tracks

Mayor Sakurai is still asking volunteers to help while accusing central government officials and contractors of moving too slowly. People say TEPCO, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, is slow to provide compensation.

The lobby of the City Hall now is crowded with people looking for relief payments while Ogai fends off complaints about taxes the city is still levying on residents.

Ogai may be more concerned about the expense of monthly flights from Sendai to Osaka to see his family. "I request compensation from TEPCO. I often call the call center of TEPCO." The operator says, 'I am not sure'," said Ogai. "That is always the answer" - about as vague as responses to when TEPCO will finish cleaning up the nuke plant or what will be the impact of radiation on people 10, 20 or 30 years from now.

Epidemiologist Joseph Mangano, MPH MBA, said: "This study of Fukushima health hazards is the first to be published in a scientific journal. It raises concerns, and strongly suggests that health studies continue, to understand the true impact of Fukushima in Japan and around the world

Internist and toxicologist Janette Sherman, MD, said: "Based on our continuing research, the actual death count here may be as high as 18,000, with influenza and pneumonia, which were up five-fold in the period in question as a cause of death. Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults."Dr. Sherman is an adjunct professor, Western Michigan University, and contributing editor of "Chernobyl - Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" published by the NY Academy of Sciences in 2009, and author of "Chemical Exposure and Disease and Life's Delicate Balance - Causes and Prevention of Breast Cancer."The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issues weekly reports on numbers of deaths for 122 U.S. cities with a population over 100,000, or about 25-30 percent of the U.S. In the 14 weeks after Fukushima fallout arrived in the U.S. (March 20 to June 25), deaths reported to the CDC rose 4.46 percent from the same period in 2010, compared to just 2.34 percent in the 14 weeks prior. Estimated excess deaths during this period for the entire U.S. are about 14,000.

Philip Verleger, an economist who specializes in oil markets, says even if environmentalists convince Obama to block the Keystone XL pipeline, it won't stop the growth of production in the Canadian oil sands. "With prices around a hundred dollars a barrel globally, that oil is going to make it to the market somehow," Verleger says. "The development may be slowed for a year or two. But one can move the oil west on the existing Kinder Morgan pipeline. They could expand pipelines east. Those pipelines already exist, and they can be expanded."

Fracking a ‘Dirty Bomb’

TMI also can’t explain why the thyroid cancer rate for the four counties flanking Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in New York was 66% above the national rate in 2001-2005. Other, more subtle sources may also be contributing to hiked thyroid cancer rates, like leaking nuclear power plants and hydraulic fracturing, both of which contaminate air, soil and groundwater with radiation and other nasty chemicals. Indeed, remarking on this, Mangano (who recently co-authored a controversial study with toxicologist Janette Sherman suggesting a link between Fukushima fallout and US cancer deaths numbering from 14,000 to 20,000) said:

From 1970-1993, Indian Point released 17.50 curies of airborne I-131 and particulates…. [That] amount exceeded the official total of 14.20 curies released from the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. In 2007, officials that operate the Indian Point plant reported levels of I-131 in the local air, water, and milk, each of which is a potential vector for ingestion. Iodine-131, or I-131, is a radioactive isotope produced by nuclear fission

Radiation isn’t released into the environment only via nuclear plants and bombs. Geologist Tracy Bank found that fracking mobilizes rock-bound uranium, posing a further radiation risk to our groundwater. She presented her findings at the American Geological Society meeting in Denver last November.

Because of some 65 hazardous chemicals used in fracking operations, former industry insider, James Northrup, calls it a “dirty bomb.” With 30 years of experience as an independent oil and gas producer, he explains: The volume of fluid in a hydrofrack can exceed three million gallons, or almost 24 million pounds of fluid, about the same weight as 7,500 automobiles. The fracking fluid contains chemicals that would be illegal to use in warfare under the rules of the Geneva Convention. This all adds up to a massive explosion of a ‘dirty bomb’ underground.

It said that each contingency was possible at the time it was written, and could force all workers to flee the vicinity, meaning the situation at the plant would unfold on its own, unmitigated.   Using matter-of-fact language, diagrams and charts, the report said that if meltdowns spiral out of control, radiation levels could soar.   In that case, it said evacuation orders should be issued for residents within and possibly beyond a 170-kilometer radius of the plant and “voluntary” evacuations should be offered for everyone living within 250 kilometers and even beyond that range.   That’s an area that would have included Tokyo and its suburbs, with a population of 35 million people, and other major cities such as Sendai, with a million people, and Fukushima city with 290,000 people.

The report further warned that contaminated areas might not be safe for “several decades.”   “We cannot rule out further developments that may lead to an unpredictable situation at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, where there has been an accident, and this report outlines a summary of that unpredictable situation,” says the document, written by Shunsuke Kondo, head of the commission, which oversees nuclear policy.   After Kan received the report, he and other Japanese officials publicly insisted that there was no need to prepare for wider-scale evacuations.

"The Fukushima nuclear accident, the turmoil in parts of the Middle East and North Africa and a sharp rebound in energy demand in 2010 which pushed CO2 emissions to a record high, highlight the urgency and the scale of the challenge," van der Hoeven said.

Some key trends are pointing in worrying directions, the agency told reporters today. CO2 emissions have rebounded to a record high, the energy efficiency of global economy worsened for second straight year and spending on oil imports is near record highs.

World Energy Outlook's central New Policies Scenario, which assumes that recent government commitments are implemented in a cautious manner, primary energy demand increases by one-third between 2010 and 2035, with 90 percent of the growth in non-OECD economies. In the New Policies Scenario, cumulative carbon dioxide emissions over the next 25 years amount to three-quarters of the total from the past 110 years, leading to a long-term average temperature rise of 3.5 degrees C. "Were the new policies not implemented, we are on an even more dangerous track, to an increase of six degrees C. The IEA projects that China will consolidate its position as the world's largest energy consumer. It consumes nearly 70 percent more energy than the United States by 2035, even though, by then, per capita demand in China is still less than half the level in the United States. The share of fossil fuels in global primary energy consumption falls from around 81 percent today to 75 percent in 2035.

In the WEO’s central New Policies Scenario, which assumes that recent government commitments are implemented in a cautious manner, primary energy demand increases by one-third between 2010 and 2035, with 90% of the growth in non-OECD economies. China consolidates its position as the world’s largest energy consumer: it consumes nearly 70% more energy than the United States by 2035, even though, by then, per capita demand in China is still less than half the level in the United States. The share of fossil fuels in global primary energy consumption falls from around 81% today to 75% in 2035. Renewables increase from 13% of the mix today to 18% in 2035; the growth in renewables is underpinned by subsidies that rise from $64 billion in 2010 to $250 billion in 2035, support that in some cases cannot be taken for granted in this age of fiscal austerity. By contrast, subsidies for fossil fuels amounted to $409 billion in 2010.

Short-term pressures on oil markets are easing with the economic slowdown and the expected return of Libyan supply. But the average oil price remains high, approaching $120/barrel (in year-2010 dollars) in 2035. Reliance grows on a small number of producers: the increase in output from Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is over 90% of the required growth in world oil output to 2035. If, between 2011 and 2015, investment in the MENA region runs one-third lower than the $100 billion per year required, consumers could face a near-term rise in the oil price to $150/barrel.Oil demand rises from 87 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2010 to 99 mb/d in 2035, with all the net growth coming from the transport sector in emerging economies. The passenger vehicle fleet doubles to almost 1.7 billion in 2035. Alternative technologies, such as hybrid and electric vehicles that use oil more efficiently or not at all, continue to advance but they take time to penetrate markets.

The use of coal – which met almost half of the increase in global energy demand over the last decade – rises 65% by 2035. Prospects for coal are especially sensitive to energy policies – notably in China, which today accounts for almost half of global demand. More efficient power plants and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology could boost prospects for coal, but the latter still faces significant regulatory, policy and technical barriers that make its deployment uncertain.Fukushima Daiichi has raised questions about the future role of nuclear power. In the New Policies Scenario, nuclear output rises by over 70% by 2035, only slightly less than projected last year, as most countries with nuclear programmes have reaffirmed their commitment to them. But given the increased uncertainty, that could change. A special Low Nuclear Case examines what would happen if the anticipated contribution of nuclear to future energy supply were to be halved. While providing a boost to renewables, such a slowdown would increase import bills, heighten energy security concerns and make it harder and more expensive to combat climate change.

The future for natural gas is more certain: its share in the energy mix rises and gas use almost catches up with coal consumption, underscoring key findings from a recent WEO Special Report which examined whether the world is entering a “Golden Age of Gas”. One country set to benefit from increased demand for gas is Russia, which is the subject of a special in-depth study in WEO-2011. Key challenges for Russia are to finance a new generation of higher-cost oil and gas fields and to improve its energy efficiency. While Russia remains an important supplier to its traditional markets in Europe, a shift in its fossil fuel exports towards China and the Asia-Pacific gathers momentum. If Russia improved its energy efficiency to the levels of comparable OECD countries, it could reduce its primary energy use by almost one-third, an amount similar to the consumption of the United Kingdom. Potential savings of natural gas alone, at 180 bcm, are close to Russia’s net exports in 2010.

In the New Policies Scenario, cumulative CO2 emissions over the next 25 years amount to three-quarters of the total from the past 110 years, leading to a long-term average temperature rise of 3.5°C. China’s per-capita emissions match the OECD average in 2035. Were the new policies not implemented, we are on an even more dangerous track, to an increase of 6°C.“As each year passes without clear signals to drive investment in clean energy, the “lock-in” of high-carbon infrastructure is making it harder and more expensive to meet our energy security and climate goals,” said Fatih Birol, IEA Chief Economist. The WEO presents a 450 Scenario, which traces an energy path consistent with meeting the globally agreed goal of limiting the temperature rise to 2°C. Four-fifths of the total energy-related CO2 emissions permitted to 2035 in the 450 Scenario are already locked-in by existing capital stock, including power stations, buildings and factories. Without further action by 2017, the energy-related infrastructure then in place would generate all the CO2 emissions allowed in the 450 Scenario up to 2035. Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.

There’s the MOX factor to consider too, the addition of MOX fuel is not included in the model. MOX fuel in reactor 3 may have played a role in the speed of the meltdown and adds plutonium and related isotopes into the releases different than what would be seen with uranium fuel. The report in English, includes a series of PowerPoint slides at the end. *This report also talks at length about ways radiation is absorbed by people, they may not be included in the Japanese language report.