Platts Energy Week Discusses Jaczko’s odd announcement about reactor safety
Note (April 13, 2020): Originally, this post included an embedded video, but that resource is no longer available. The post has been revised to refer to an April 8, 2013 article by Matt Wald of the New York Times that provide the context originally provided by the video. End Note.
In April 2013, Gregory Jaczko, the former Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, made public remarks that caused a flurry of responses from the US nuclear industry. Here are some quotes from a New York Times article that provide some background information.
Headline: Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed
WASHINGTON — All 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the United States have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and they should be replaced with newer technology, the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said on Monday. Shutting them all down at once is not practical, he said, but he supports phasing them out rather than trying to extend their lives.
Dr. Jaczko made his remarks at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington in a session about the Fukushima accident. Dr. Jaczko said that many American reactors that had received permission from the nuclear commission to operate for 20 years beyond their initial 40-year licenses probably would not last that long. He also rejected as unfeasible changes proposed by the commission that would allow reactor owners to apply for a second 20-year extension, meaning that some reactors would run for a total of 80 years.
Dr. Jaczko cited a well-known characteristic of nuclear reactor fuel to continue to generate copious amounts of heat after a chain reaction is shut down. That “decay heat” is what led to the Fukushima meltdowns. The solution, he said, was probably smaller reactors in which the heat could not push the temperature to the fuel’s melting point.
The side session where Jaczko made his remarks was titled Fukushima Nuclear Accident: Shortcomings of Safety Regulation and Lessons Learned and was organized by Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation.
Jaczko’s stink bomb and the nuclear industry’s reaction to it was discussed on a Platts Energy Week episode. Dr. Jaczko declined the invitation to participate in the discussion to more fully explain his sharply critical statements.
Bill Loveless, the host of Platts Energy Week and James Acton, a nuclear policy specialist with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace talked about Jaczko’s remarks.
Bill Loveless: Gentlemen, it’s not every day that you hear a former regulator raise such serious concerns about the industry that he once oversaw. James, what do you make of that?
James Acton: Good morning Bill. I know I am here because the Chairman made his remarks at an event organized by the Carnegie Endowment and I should just clarify to start with that these were remarks made to a reporter after a side event organized by a different organization. But more substantively, they were pretty surprising comments that Chairman Jaczko made, and I disagree with them for reasons that I am sure we are going to get into in depth during this interview.
But the one thing that I want to put up front is that I think that the nuclear industry needs to find a more constructive way of engaging with its critics. Playing the man rather than the ball, which again we’ve seen from the industry in the last few days as they’ve sought to attack Chairman Jaczko is not in the long term good of the nuclear industry. And people like me who believe that nuclear energy is a necessary part of addressing climate change need to come out and say that the nuclear industry has to learn to engage more constructively with its critics.
While I strongly agree that the nuclear industry needs to constructively engage its critics, I also believe that there are occasions when “playing the man” is a necessary part of the game, especially one as important as the future of nuclear energy.
Dr. Jaczko has carefully constructed a resume that looks impressive in an author blurb. He has powerful friends that will ensure that his words are widely promoted – heck, I am helping promote them.
If everyone who favors the use of nuclear energy takes the high road and only addresses the statements that he makes instead of investigating his motives for making them and pointing out that his resume is no where near as strong as it might appear, a huge quantity of time and money will be expended and the prospects of the nuclear energy revival that is critical for the prosperity of humanity will dim.
It is terrific for the Nuclear Energy Institute to respond to Chairman Jaczko’s remarks with a statement like Marv Fertel made very soon after the remarks became public.
U.S. nuclear energy facilities are operating safely. That was the case prior to Greg Jaczko’s tenure as Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman. It was the case during his tenure as NRC chairman, as acknowledged by the NRC’s special Fukushima response task force and evidenced by a multitude of safety and performance indicators. It is still the case today, particularly as every U.S. nuclear energy facility adds yet another layer of safety by implementing lessons learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
However, I think it is also necessary for people who have been watching the Jaczko saga for many years to share information about the man who made the statements so that the industry does not have to bend over backward or spend additional money on yet more fail safes and back up systems.
Dr. Jaczko’s main complaint was that large nuclear reactors generate a substantial quantity of heat even after they have been shut down. His statement, as described in Matt Wald’s New York Times article titled Ex-Regulator Says Reactors Are Flawed seems to indicate that it is a topic new enough to Dr. Jaczko that he only began thinking about it after the events at Fukushima.
Asked why he did not make these points when he was chairman, Dr. Jaczko said in an interview after his remarks, “I didn’t really come to it until recently.”
“I was just thinking about the issues more, and watching as the industry and the regulators and the whole nuclear safety community continues to try to figure out how to address these very, very difficult problems,” which were made more evident by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, he said. “Continuing to put Band-Aid on Band-Aid is not going to fix the problem.”
Dr. Jaczko cited a well-known characteristic of nuclear reactor fuel to continue to generate copious amounts of heat after a chain reaction is shut down. That “decay heat” is what led to the Fukushima meltdowns. The solution, he said, was probably smaller reactors in which the heat could not push the temperature to the fuel’s melting point.
What Dr. Jaczko does not seem to understand is that nuclear energy professionals have been working on designs and operational procedures aimed at safely handling decay heat since the earliest days of nuclear power development. There is a whole subset of the profession that are thermal hydraulics specialists who spend a good portion of their careers developing models, making calculations and envisioning alternative cooling scenarios depending on available equipment.
It is not a Band-Aid on Band-Aid approach so much as it is a snug-fitting pants, belt, and suspenders approach that ensures there are many alternative methods of ensuring safety. By both design and by procedure, nuclear plants are well protected against core damage.
The public safety is even more protected than the cores, since even if there is a core damage event, the probability of any harm to people is lowered by additional layers of protection like containment buildings and the tendency of many isotopes to dissolve in water and to plate out on plant equipment rather than leak into the environment.
If the concern had been raised by almost any other member of the public, addressing the concern as I did above is the right approach. However, when the concern comes from a man who served as a Commissioner on the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 7.3 years and who served as Chairman of that Commission for almost four years, a body check or hard tackle is also in order.
Dr. Jaczko has a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, not in nuclear engineering. After completing his dissertation which involved producing computer models of the low energy behavior of baryons and mesons, he proceeded immediately to Washington, DC to join the staff of Rep Ed Markey, a man who has consistently opposed nuclear energy ever since his first election in 1976. Greg Jaczko served on Markey’s staff for 18 months (6/99 – 12/2000) on the Professional Staff Committee on Environment and Public Works (3/2001 – 8/2001) and on the staff of Senator Harry Reid (8/2001-1/2005).
In January 2005 he was appointed to be a commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That appointment was the result of a political maneuver by Senator Reid to block at least 100 judicial appointments; the price of releasing that block was putting Jaczko on the commission so that he could block the completion of the Yucca Mountain waste repository.
He was, by no means, an expert in nuclear safety. In fact, he had no experience or education on the topic whatsoever. His mentors in Washington are people that have made no secret of the fact that they would like to halt all nuclear energy production, even in the face of hydrocarbon supply constraints and global climate change.
Jaczko’s commentary should be dismissed as coming from a man with an agenda and without any professional credibility. If he feels insulted because he gets personally attacked, perhaps he should rethink the impact of his own attacks on the integrity and competence of an entire profession who have dedicated their lives to the important task of creating safe, reliable, emission-free energy.
In my opinion, effective response to criticism is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Different critics require different responses and different subjects of the criticism can respond in different ways. It is often worthwhile for someone to aim at the archer, even while others are shielding themselves or dodging the arrows.
One final note: Though I am a longtime proponent of smaller reactors, partly because removing decay heat is easier if there is less initial heat to begin with, I am not impressed by Jaczko’s mention of smaller reactors or newer technology. He made no effort during his time as Chairman to speed up the process of reviewing new reactors and he did not initiate any changes that would overcome existing regulatory obstacles, like an annual fee structure where every reactor pays the same $4.7 million per year, no matter how large or small.
Like many people that do not want nuclear energy to displace fossil fuel in the market, Dr. Jaczko apparently favors reactors that do not actually exist. Instead, he is aiming at those that are already generating 800 billion kilowatt-hours of clean electricity every year.
Rod, is there ANY way we can mob together and knock down media and web doors to push someone to get YOU up on their panel?? Where or who can we call??
My sincere sympathy lies with the runners and the people of Boston & USA.
Such a terrible senseless act makes me feel helpless about the nature of mankind.
My condolence to all those who were hit.
This was a lunatic attack.
But realize that a real terrorist(group) wants to surpass Bin Laden.
That can be reached by changing Oyster Creek or Indian Point NPP into a fast developing Fukushima at the moment there is a good wind directed towards NYC & Manhattan.
A 200 ton (freight) plane diving on the dome at the fuel rod (un)loading bay at max speed will be enough. The spent fuel pool will lose its water, so the radio-active cloud will develop fast.
As the plane crashes the dome:
– and the wind blows, fire extinguish gas (e.g. halon) won’t work;
– (emergency)cooling pumps won’t work (the one that survive will not survive the kerosene fire).
So core melt down will follow…
As some NPP’s may exhaust a fast developing cloud in order to prevent precision targeting of the pilot, a GPS fly path with very small support ground transmitter (activated at the last moment by the plane, in order to avoid early detection) can be used.
Btw. This also opens options for unmanned attacks.
Remember that 99,7% of the radio-active cloud of Fukushima was blown into the ocean. So it will create a desolated NYC / Manhattan for the next ~100 years!
This will cripple the USA for many years.
So the terrorist will earn far more eternal fame than Bin Laden!
I think Jazko’s statement even did not go far enough.
From the mish-mash of terms you use it appears you don’t have much understanding about what you claim.
And just why would the spent fuel pool lose its water?
Why won’t fire extinguishing agents work?
Why won’t the pumps work?
Why will the cloud develop fast?
Why will NYC be desolate for ~100 years?
I think you statement is uninformed FUD and goes to far into the land of fantasy.
“why would the spent fuel pool lose its water?”
At Oyster Creek it is up high in the dome, just as in Fukushima.
At the place where the plane strikes.
So a leakage will empty it.
Luckily there was no leakage at Fukushima .
So they had days, before the spent fuel rods would cook it dry, to organize fire pumps. If the pool leaks dry, radio-active clouds will develop within 1-4 hours (depending on the last fuel exchange).
From security viewpoint it is a design fault, but understandable if you look at the economics (ease of handling). As often, security was sacrificed in order to have a more economic NPP. Newer NPP’s do not have that.
This is one of the reasons these old NPP’s are dangerous
(Germany closed them after Fukushima).
Why won’t fire extinguishing agents work?
Why won’t the pumps work?
Those are one of the reasons you don’t want to penetrate the dome (e.g. by using depleted uranium) but want to crush it.
The open air and wind makes those agents ineffective, against the kerosene started fire.
Why will the cloud develop fast?
Just as with an airbag in a car, there are tools to generate those extremely fast.
Implementation at NPP’s is discussed in Europe, so I thought that US NPP’s may have them already as the plane attack danger is bigger in the US.
But it seems not.
Why will NYC be desolate for ~100 years?
The plume exhausted will be a little smaller to that of Chernobyl & Fukushima (Japan was lucky that ~99,7% went to the ocean) and bigger than that of Mayak/Kyshtym. But it has the same long living radio-active particles.
All three disasters now have huge exclusion zone’s where it is forbidden to live because of the ongoing radio-activity. While Kyshtym was 56 years ago and Chernobyl is 27 years ago, there are no plans for re-inhabitation. Projections are that it will takes ~100-300 years before that.
Note that the authorities at Chernobyl and Mayak do not care much regarding the health of their people (e.g. check life expectancy).
Even while Kysthym was only a minor , the cloud still made a huge stretched area dangerous to live in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster
Note that the Hiroshima bomb had none, or hardly any, of these long living radio-active particles. So you cannot compare that.
The same Fukushima with zéro casualties due to radiation ?
And évacuation zonés with lower radiation Level than Denver ?
I can live with the facts. Can you live with the fear of snake oil?
Suggest you read the recent LSS report regarding the effects of low level radiation. Those turn out rather badly for the concerned people after >20years: http://www.rerf.jp/library/archives_e/lsstitle.html
Or read about the correlation between background radiation levels and premature death: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/meta-review-of-42-studies-even-the-lowest-level-radiation-is-damaging-to-human-health.html
Then you will also note that low level radiation start to harm visible (often deadly) after >20 years. Just like (low level) asbestos, nicotine, sun burn, micro particles (fine dust), mercury, etc. etc.
So the many Fukushima death will come. Estimations in Europe regarding Chernobyl are rising all the time now (~965.000 death).
My explanation is that the tissue (body) gets exhausted when it has to repair more than usual (DNA / RNA / Proteïn) and faults accumulate…
But I do not know whether it is a real valid explanation.
The Russians left the large area at Mayak definitively (now ~56 years desolated).
Chernobyl (~27years ago); no plans to re-inhabitate the huge exclusion zone.
Note that regarding the health of their population, the authorities of those countries are not oversensitive at all (e.g. check life expectancy).
I do not want to continue with oil, etc.
Germany chose a better way. Between 1990-2002 they developed a transition scenario towards 100% renewable that they are executing: http://energytransition.de/2012/10/key-findings/
With that scenario they became net exporter of electricity and by far the most flourishing economy with low unemployment and zero budget deficit.
I suggest that you check their developments, as those:
– Do not add new heat to the earth as NPP’s do; and
– Deliver no risk to cripple a country with a disaster (e.g. desolated NYC); and
– do not parasite on our grand-children for managing the radio-active waste.
As a bonus they deliver also more employment.
Wikipedia has an overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
Ah, yes … nothing like resting your claims on a paper written by a guy who has been found guilty of scientific fraud in his native Denmark. That’s why he has to work in France these days.
His work is sloppy, biased, and almost completely crap, and this “review” is no exception.
That guy (Anders Møller) is not the prime author.
That is Timothy Mousseau, a biologist at University of South Carolina.
But as the study is just office work (review of 46 studies and applying statistical calculations), you can easily check their work.
I assume that the peer reviewers did that before such a prominent scientific journal from the Cambridge Philosophical Society, publishes such results. Especially as they knew that these results will generate a lot of critics from pro-nuclear!
Denmark, having no nuclear, is not interested in that type of work.
So he (Anders Møller) had move to France to find money that supports that type of research.
Anders Møller was accused, but never found guilty of fraud.
Who cares? The publish a lot of papers together. One is as bad as the other.
In any case, a single paper that cherry-picked 46 articles (out of 5000) that happened to support the authors’ predetermined conclusions hardly counts as ground-breaking or even responsible science. It’s just a data dredge.
Call me not impressed.
Møller is primarily known for his work on birds and trees. The anti-nuclear junk science that he publishes is just a sideline of his. Are you telling me that there are no birds or trees in Denmark?!
In 2003, Møller was found to have fabricated data in a 1998 paper on oak leaves. This was the official decision of the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty. While a subsequent investigation in France failed to conclude that he was guilty beyond doubt (which is why he is still allowed to work in France today), it didn’t exonerate him either.
The guy’s a sloppy scientist and a fraud, and most of his scientific peers know it.
Bas – Do you mean the report that failed to find any statistically significant elevated relative risk below 0.18 Gy of exposure. Doses don’t even begin to be considered “low level” until they are below 0.10 Gy.
Can you please stop citing studies that you don’t understand and misinterpreting their results? You’re taking stupid to a whole new level.
To make it easier, just view the video that is halfway the Washington blog page at you tube:
Or, read LSS report no.14:
I copy from the summary:
“… dose range with a significant ERR (Excess Relative Risk) for all solid cancer was 0 to 0.20 Gy, and a formal dose-threshold analysis indicated no
Don’t come up with insinuations regarding the authors as those reports are reviewed before publication by scientists of the best universities USA and UK have (Stanford, US; Cambidge, UK; etc).
Bas – I don’t need to watch any videos, because unlike anti-nuke lemmings, I do more than just watch stupid videos or read an abstract, I actually read the frigging paper.
I refer you to Figure 5 of the paper, which shows the dose ranges that were examined by the researchers. Sure, the range of 0 to 0.20 Gy was the lowest dose range to show a significant ERR, but you and the abstract neglect to mention is that there were 9 other dose ranges (about two-thirds of the ranges examined) below the 0.20 Gy limit that failed to show a statistically significant ERR. The largest of these dose ranges was 0 to 0.18 Gy — or for something like gamma rays, a dose of less than 180 mSv.
Recall, that the upper limit on what is typically considered to be “low dose” is 100 mSv. This is almost twice that.
As for the “dose-threshold analysis,” well, first of all they use a linear model for dose response, which is questionable, but let’s assume that this is OK. Sure, their best estimate for a threshold in this linear model is 0 Gy, but the upper bound of this estimate is 0.15 Gy, even under the (weak) statistical significance limit of a 95% CI. (See the second column on p. 235.)
In other words, based on their data, they can’t say with any statistical certainty that there’s not a threshold as high as 150 mSv.
Aging anti-nuke dinosaurs who don’t know statistics and don’t read scientific papers shouldn’t be commenting on them and definitely shouldn’t be using them to support their anti-nuke dogma.
@Brain: “… best estimate for a threshold … is 0 Gy, but the upper bound … is 0.15 Gy… can’t say with any statistical certainty that there’s not a threshold as high as 150 mSv.”
There is more evidence that support the LSS no threshold conclusion.
E.g. studies regarding exposed medical workers, the background radiation study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121113134224.htm
Your statements resemble those from the asbestos industry:”no proof that low level asbestos contamination harms”. They succeeded in delaying the total asbestos ban in NL with ~20years (total ban at 2000) which cost us >20.000 death. With asbestos that proof was more easy as that generate an unique, easy recognizable cancer after >20years (good registration system).
LSS has the same problem as astronomers had until a few years ago.
They couldn’t prove the existence of exo-planets because their instruments were not accurate enough.
The issue is that radiation caused illnesses now can only be detected by statistical instruments. That makes measurement of the effects of low level radiation expensive.
Note that your postulated threshold level went down every time measurements became more accurate.
The few studies with an outcome that allow for a threshold explanation are flawed. They:
– cover only short time frames, while it is widely known that most harmful effects of low level radiation show only after >20years (just as with asbestos, nicotine, etc)
– concern bio’s (e.g. selected flies) with very stable DNA.
Now you postulate 150mSv for a one-time exposure.
That equals ~300mSv for long time exposure.
That implies average threshold of ~4mSv/year (~av. life expectancy).
That is far lower than others postulate for the threshold (~100mSv/year)!
So it seems to me that the new, <1mSv/Year, standard of the UN linked Codex Commission is still rather high.
That standard implies US and EU also have to lower their radiation limits by a factor ~10, just as Japan did and Germany is discussing.
Bas – I see. So the “more evidence” is the same cherry-picking paper written by the guy who was found guilty of scientific dishonesty. Don’t you ever get tired of shoveling the same manure over and over again?
It’s pretty obvious that you must realize that you’re losing this debate, because you’re now using the standard dishonest debating tactic of tossing out red herrings. In case you haven’t noticed, we’re not discussing talking about asbestos or planets. We’re talking about radiation — a rather weak carcinogen.
I didn’t postulate anything. I merely stated the upper bound of confidence in the paper that you cited. Now, you’re dishonestly trying to put words in my mouth!
Your problem is that you spend too much time reading crackpot websites (like radical.org), so you don’t know what is going on in mainstream science. The recent trend has been moving away from linear-no-threshold (LNT) as a valid model for low doses and low dose rates.
Just recently, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) decided to drop the idea of collective dose — i.e., “multiplying low doses by large numbers of individuals to estimate numbers of radiation-induced health effects” — for populations exposed to lose-dose or low-dose-rate radiation. (This methodology is where your number of cancers from Chernobyl and Fukushima come from, by the way.) In doing this, they join the Health Physics Society, which officially dropped collective dose in a position statement first issued in the mid-nineties.
Collective dose naturally arises from the LNT model. If the LNT model accurately reflects what happens in nature, then collective dose should be OK — it’s just how the math works out. Nevertheless, the experts in the field have dropped it as being unrealistic.
If there’s anything wrong with the limits set in the US and the EU, it is that they’re probably unrealistically too low.
Bas, could you enlighten us all with the probability of these events occurring? It is nice to entertain these anti-nuclear fantasies, but one must look at the other half of the equation to come to a realistic conclusion of risk: the actual probability of these events occurring.
The best part is about a plane entering in contact with a nuclear plant And the NPP actually being impacted.
Hey! What about China Syndrome part deux ?
Living in the year 2000.
What would be your probability estimation that the twin towers would be brought down by some terrorist?
New terrorists, of course not the lunatic figure(s) at Boston, will want to make a real impact better than …
And by now there are a lot more of those then in 2000, thanks to all the drone attacks, etc.
So you need to be prepared for the inconceivable.
@Smilin: … probability of these events …”
In the year 2000: What would have been your estimation the WTC towers would be brought down next year?
The issue is that a real terrorist will want to do better than Bin Laden, and earn eternal fame.
And Oyster Creek offers a great opportunity if he has the patience to wait for the right wind and do his preparations careful.
Took some time to think about the chance.
Taken into account the visibility and the growing number of adversaries the US creates (drone attacks killing families create people that want spend their life in order to revenge their honor), I estimate the chance that such an educated attack wil be executed at ~2%/year.
Chance that it will be a full success (surpassing Bin Laden) ~50%.
So chance that NYC (or other major city) will become desolated ~1%/Year.
Regarding NYC, I think Oyster Creek will be the preferred target as that will be considered to be the most vulnerable one.
With the right wind, the longer distance is not such an issue.
Note that >10 times more will be intercepted by FBI etc. before the attack is launched, as those attackers act less professional.
Significant releases at either Indian Point or Oyster Creek (for whatever imagined reason) would be unlikely to affect the NYC area. Indian Point is considerably north of NYC. Given prevailing westerly winds, you’d likely see small impacts in CT and perhaps eastern Long Island. Oyster Creek is quite far south of NYC. Westerly winds would bring fallout over Barnegat Bay and perhaps affect my old stmping ground of Barnegat Light, NJ. In summer there is a sizable population there, but the other nine months of the year it is pretty much of a ghost town.
The attacker will wait for stable winds in the right direction .
He also wants wind in order to minimize the effect of the fire extinguish gas, that may be released in the ruins of the dome, if that equipment survives the crash (don’t know whether US reactors have installed that; sometimes even the most simple things are not there).
With those winds Oyster Creek is nearby enough.
Just look at the contaminated area of Mayak and realize that that was only a minor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ostural-Spur.png
Cow chips. Since the nearest large population centers to Oyster Creek are Trenton (almost due west), Philadelphia (southwest) and New York (almost due north), he’d have to wait a long, long time for “stable winds in the right directions). Oyster Creek is just inland from the coast. The winds are either from the west or on-shore, but the on-shore winds would likely take any effluent into the pine barrens to the west of the plant which are the most sparsely populated region of New Jersey. The winds almost never blow due north, and when they do they are very light. The strongest southerly winds I have ever experienced in that area were during Hurricane Bob, and, believe me, no terrorist is going to be flying planes in a hurricane like that one.
OTOH, maybe it would be good if they tried. It would be a good way to get rid of them.
“As some NPP’s may exhaust a fast developing cloud in order to prevent precision targeting of the pilot” – I’ve seen individual operators do this after a burrito dinner, but never an entire NPP.
“So it will create a desolated NYC / Manhattan for the next ~100 years!” – I keep forgetting how Hiroshima and Nagasaki, atomic bombed less than 68 years ago, have remained uninhabitable wastelands to this day.
“I think Jazko’s statement even did not go far enough.” – I’m sure he’s thrilled in having a fan base like you.
The radio-active waste of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs was very minor and short living compared to the waste of Chernobyl and Fukushima (while >99% of that waste went towards the ocean).
@Atomikrabbit: “…fast developing cloud in order to prevent precision targeting …
never an entire NPP …”
Here, in Europe, there is some talk about installing that type of protecton equipment.
Apperently in USA not (yet).
Bas is a troll who has been soundly trounced over at Depleted Cranium, recently. The fact that he turns up here after having all his misconceptions carefully and patiently explained away over there, certifies that he is nothing but a time wasting, information vandalizing troll. Or a paid information vandal.
The aircraft scenario would be different for Indian Point than for Oyster Creek because the former is a twin reactor Westinghouse PWR and the latter a GE BWR. The spent fuel pools for the former are located in building separate from the Containment Buildings. Additionally, their location makes them very difficult if not impossible targets to hit with an aircraft (I worked there and have seen the area). So an aircraft impact on either IP2 or IP3 spent fuel pools is non-credible. However, an impact may occur on the Containment Domes. Studies from EPRI have show that penetration of Containment is very improbable due to the roundness of the structure and the thickness of the steel reinforced concrete measured in feet of thickness.
As for Oyster Creek, please correct me if I err, but it’s a BWR Mark I Containment that uses an elevated spent fuel pool. I worked at a similar facility in upstate NY. For an aircraft pilot to be able to accurately target such a small area would frankly be miraculous (in its most negative sense). Additionally, Primary Containment (I.e., the upside down concrete “light bulb” structure that contains the reactor pressure vessel) should be able to survive an aircraft impact given that much of the destruction would be absorbed by Secondary Containment. Of course, the metal structure of the torus or suppression pool could be damaged, but this is below Primary Containment in the lowest part of Secondary Containment, so again, I don’t think this is credible. I write this having once stood next to the torus at the James FitzPatrick plant which is surely similar to Oyster Creek.
I do agree, however, that an aircraft impact would make a mess of things, but worse could be done by an aircraft impacting the Kensico Dam in Westchester County, or the chemical tanks off I-95 in Trenton, NJ.
Based on this, I conclude that Bas’s fears are unwarranted. PS, the events at Fukushima were caused by sea water flooding of the EDG intakes which resulted in loss of power when the LPCI batteries died after 8 hours or so – no electricity to keep the electronics for the governors of the RCIC steam turbines energized. The new ESBWR and AP1000 designs obviate this concern by total passive cooling for 72 hours without offsite or EDG electrical power. Additionally – and Rod Adams can correct me if I err – passive cooling is probably employed in Bechtel’s m-Power and Nuscale’s modular PWRs. I think Nuscale immerses its integral pressurizer-steam generator-reactor in a huge pool of water – 10 can fit therein.
I must correct you. You are talking about a B&W mPowerTM reactor. Bechtel is a member of the Generation mPower LCC, but is responsible for the steam system and balance of plant, not the NSSS.
Let’s hope you are right.
Looking at the power of MV and (1/2)MV2 of 200 ton at 800 km/hr, I doubt that.
Here is the 2002 EPRI Report at NEI’s web site on aircraft impact analysis:
I don’t know if there is an updated version of this, but basically it confirms what I wrote based on personal observation / experience. However, I am not a structural engineer, so perhaps I ought to leave such matters to the experts such as those at EPRI.
Why won’t the anti-nuclear groups and the uncertified media darlings feeding your belief and nightmares ever sit down to a podcast roundtable debate with nuclear pros like Rod Adams on AtomicInsights or Will Davis at Atomic Review or environmentalist Ben Heard at DeCarbonize Australia among others? You call anyone who supports nuclear energy industry-paid reckless and heartless irresponsible lackeys, yet your anti-nuclear champions won’t walk their talk going toe-to-toe with non-media flunkie debaters. Why? Their lies and FUD would be eaten up alive, that’s why. Bad for book sales and their ego’s fawning following. Don’t question me — Email and ask them why not. The door’s ALWAYS open to them to debate, but I should live so long. For me that’s all I have to know about the quality of your views and assertions — and fears.
@James:”….won’t the anti-nuclear groups and the uncertified media darlings feeding your belief and nightmares ever sit down…”
Sorry, I don’t know the situation in USA regarding that, but do know the situation in Germany (I am Dutch and lucky that I had to learn German and French also).
In Germany they had many hot debates, especially in the aftermath of Chernobyl (1986 – 2000). Those escalated at a few occasions into physical.
To their excuse it should be noted that parts of Germany were hit hard by Chernobyl (clear peaks in stillbirth, etc) despite being thousand miles away (rainfall at the wrong moment, just as in Lapland/North Sweden).
After 2000 the debate vanished as the parties agreed more or less on one of the many transition scenarios that were studied.
Parliament accepted the ‘transition laws’ in 2002.
There was a short flicker up in 2010 after right-wing parties won the election and Merkel (their ‘boss’) tried to postpone the closure of NPP’s, but that was killed by Fukushima (some here say, the nuclear industry kills itself because of their many lies) .
In 2011 even all (six) parties in parliament agreed to the scenario…
Now the only debate is whether to speed up the transition scenario.
The ‘greens’ want to go faster (as costs are less then predicted), the right wing not.
The energy companies want a slow down, as they loose position/market. Their bosses play the grid reliability card.
It is remarkable that I see only their statements at English sites.
Bas wrote, “…it should be noted that parts of Germany were hit hard by Chernobyl (clear peaks in stillbirth, etc) despite being thousand miles away…”
Please provide reference to reputable source documenting this, and explain why other factors (e.g., more fossil fuel pollution) would NOT be a contributor to still-births, but radioactive release from Chenobyl would be.
I have other words to say about this statement that won’t be said here. Its blatant hypocrisy is astounding.
@Paul: “…Please provide reference to reputable source documenting this…”
I saw some studies highlighting the phenomenon specifically around Berlin and in Bayern (the two most affected German regions).
This delivers a short overview:
A publication in the Lancet (the prominent medical journal):
Lüning, J. Scheer, M. Schmidt, H. Ziggel: Early infant mortality in West Germany before and after Chernobyl. Lancet. 1989 Nov 4;2(8671): 1081-1083.
A further site:
You can find more with google.
Thank you for the links. I confess that I am not a statistician, but rather a digital I&C engineer. Nevertheless, even if we stipulate that an increase in infant mortality was observed in areas where radioactivity from Chernobyl was deposited, the following questions have to be answered:
(1) Did every area affected by radioactive deposit undergo an increase in infant mortality, and at what levels of radioactivity, and with what isotopes? Perhaps the details of the text at the web links you provided give this data.
(2) How can this effect be separated from the effect produced by deposit of toxins into the atmosphere from fossil energy use that increased after the Chernobyl accident as countries responded with fear and hysteria in de-nuclearizing themselves? I would think that the deleterious effects of the release of pollutants from fossil energy use would mask any effect that exposure to radiation would have.
Concerning the health effects of the Chernobyl accident, the World Nuclear Organization states the following at:
In February 2003, the IAEA established the Chernobyl Forum, in cooperation with seven other UN organisations as well as the competent authorities of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. In April 2005, the reports prepared by two expert groups – “Environment”, coordinated by the IAEA, and “Health”, coordinated by WHO – were intensively discussed by the Forum and eventually approved by consensus. The conclusions of this 2005 Chernobyl Forum study (revised version published 2006i) are in line with earlier expert studies, notably the UNSCEAR 2000 reportj which said that “apart from this [thyroid cancer] increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.” As yet there is little evidence of any increase in leukaemia, even among clean-up workers where it might be most expected. However, these workers – where high doses may have been received – remain at increased risk of cancer in the long term. Apart from these, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) says that “the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”
Sorry for commenting again, but something just occurred to me. Coal fired power plants release more radioactivity in the form of uranium and thorium nd radium that occur naturally in coal than nuclear power plants of equivalent electrical output. Germany increased production of electricity from coal as it started to de-nuclearize itself. So how do we know that this hypothetical increase in infant mortality post-Chernobyl was caused by radioactivity released from Chernobyl and NOT by radioactivity released from coal fired power plants?
Again, the effects of fossil energy pollution – mainly in the chemical toxin area (e.g., mercury and other metal releases, not to mention particulate pollution) – have a far greater impact on overall human health and mortality – including that of infants – than nuclear energy, even including the sad effects of Chernobyl.
@Paul; answers to your questions:
(1) Did every area affected by radioactive deposit undergo an increase in infant mortality, and at what levels…
Every area with raised radio-activity and with good measurement, did.
The amazing thing is that e.g. peaks in stillbirth (a.o. also down syndrome, death within one month after birth) were measured with highly statistical significance in areas where the raised level was <1mSv.
It was also shown that those phenomena correlated heavily with the level of radio-active contamination (e.g. Cesium) in the blood of the mother .
Note that the condition 'good measurement' exclude most East-European countries. Certainly those around Chernobyl (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine) as in those countries authorities more or less allow only studies that support their position (~good news; no harm) and you can buy their opinion for a rather low amount.
Here you find a summary of the first (most will show coming years, if money for measurement is available) radiation effects:
(2)… effect be separated from the effect produced by deposit of toxins … from fossil energy use that increased
In almost all countries there was no fossil fuel increase.
Only in Russia/Ukraine may be as Chernobyl stopped (partially other NPP’s took over).
In Germany NPP’s also could continue as the public more or less accepted the dangerous Russian design story at that time. The first NPP closures were in 2003 and 2005.
UNSCEAR/IAEA/WHO “…no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after …
Apparently the Japanese radiation experts do not believe those statements as they did not follow their recommendations to evacuate only a two mile zone at Fukushima. Neither to not lower the max. radiation limits.
Here also, no serious radiation expert believes those statements..
Chernobyl shows to much research results that show the contrary. Not only raised (serious) illness figures, etc. But also a rise of the Chernobyl death toll estimations. Those did rise during the last decades until almost a million now (not sure it will stick there, as most harm of the low level radiation still have to come as shown by LSS).
Their statements are meant to reassure the public, so nuclear can continue. That is in line with the explicit target of the IAEA: ‘promote peaceful nuclear’.
Note that regarding radiation, WHO has to follow the IAEA due to the 1959 (cold war) agreement.
A remark about Lapland (N.Sweden) ~1500mile north of Chernobyl.
It seems that part of the Saami people (those living in the area that got rainfall at the wrong moment) even now cannot eat their reindeer’s or drink their reindeer milk (Swedish government feeds them). It bothers me as I got an extremely warm welcome there.
Btw. That also applies for some small areas in the UK (regarding cattle).
Bas – If you’re going to repeat the same lies over and over on this blog, I’m going to repeat my correction of it.
Geez … Is there any lie that you won’t swallow without a moment of critical thought?
The agreement, which can be found on the Internet, actually protects “the right of the World Health Organization to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting and co-ordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects.”
In other words, because of this agreement, the IAEA is prohibited from interfering with any health-related research conducted by the WHO, including research into the health effects of exposure to radiation, whether it is related to anything “nuclear” or not.
You need to stop listening to websites like radical.org and Greenpeace. They have been lying to you for all these years.
@Brian: Of course that is not explicitly / openly said. But look at their actions regarding radiation and read e.g. Article 1, member 2 (shortened here):
… it is recognized by the WHO that the IAEA has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and co-ordinating research and development and practical application of atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world
without prejudice to the right of the WHO to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting and co-ordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects
So the WHO recognizes all rights of the IAEA, and
the IAEA recognizes nothing!
The ‘without prejudice …” just allows the WHO to continue normal work.
So it is clear who is leading the way here (if you have little knowledge of international legal treaty language).
Bas – Yes, I see what you mean. If the World Health Organization were thinking of designing and building a new type of nuclear reactor for generating electricity or heat, then you’re correct. The IAEA has the primary responsibility to lead the way. /sarcasm
Perhaps you don’t know what “without prejudice” means?
It’s a legal term that means that, in the agreement, the WHO doesn’t dismiss or detract from their existing right to do health work or research. In other words, the one thing that the WHO didn’t agree to in this document is to allow the IAEA to interfere in any of the health-related research as you have falsely claimed.
You were wrong (twice!). Please just admit it like an adult and drop this silly canard. You’re only making yourself look more foolish.
@Paul; answer to your additional post.
“Germany increased production of electricity from coal as it started to de-nuclearize itself. So how do we know that this hypothetical increase in infant mortality post-Chernobyl was caused by radioactivity released from Chernobyl and NOT by radioactivity released from coal fired power plants?”
The increase in stillbirth and infant mortality started in 1986/1987.
The first NPP’s closed in 2003 and 2005 (after the transition agreement became law).
So there is no relation.
A related issue is whether the closure of 8 NPP’s in 2011 and the new coal plants can cause such effect.
The closure of the 8 NPP’s is compensated by the grow of wind and solar. Both now have a capacity of ~30GW each, while the max. Germany needs is ~60GW. So they are now capable to supply all electricity in Germany if both wind and sun cooperate.
Wind and Solar capacity is still fast growing in Germany, so you can expect that they will be capable to absorb the stop of the next NPP’s in 2015, 2017, etc.
The new coal plants use an advanced version of the fluid bed low temperature burning technology (in the nineties NL had a trial plant). Those pollute only marginal more compared to gas plants (so they can be build near cities) and, by far most important, they can be up- and down-regulated fast.
These new plants replace the old coal plants that cannot be up- and down-regulated fast. This fast up-/down-regulation of capacity is essential for the success of the German transition.
“Both now have a capacity of ~30GW each, while the max. Germany needs is ~60GW. So they are now capable to supply all electricity in Germany if both wind and sun cooperate.”
Installed capacity means little if your primary energy source is not available. You can have the most powerful automobile engine in the word and it will do nothing but sit in your garage if you don’t put fuel in the tank. Germany can install all the wind and solar they want, but if the capacity factor is in the range of 10% or so, they’ll either have to do without power nine times out of the ten that they need it, or overbuild by a factor of ten in locations other than Germany, or burn coal and natural gas to make up the significant slack that wind and solar leaves. Right now Germany and a good portion of Europe is at the mercy of three things: sun, wind, and Russian natural gas. If I were you, I wouldn’t want to have to rely on any of those for my security and well-being.
… capacity factor is in the range of 10% or so, …or overbuild by a factor of ten…
They overbuild within Germany and their part of the North-Sea.
From the 33GW solar now, 30GW are PV panels on roofs. They use ~4% of their roofs for that. So even with the present 15% yield panels (30% is coming), they can overbuild 10 times (600GW) with solar alone without needing any land. They also build more wind mills in Germany or in their part of the North-Sea.
Storage is less easy. They have a multi-level approach:
– upgrade pumped storage to >30 GW (40GW is not difficult)
– install electric => gas (P2G) and electric => liquid fuel convertors
Research projects started ~2000.
The first are now building trial factories.
– Other alternatives (batteries, hot salt, etc.)
Gaps are also filled by their new fluidized bed lignite power plants that in the end (~2050 when the gaps are small) will burn only waste and biomass.
There are also ideas to connect to the Spanish wind mills as those run (almost always) the moment the wind mills at the north-sea have no wind. So both countries can profit from an high capacity power line.
Sorry for the late response.
Overbuilding solar is a wasteful use of resources. Since it was encouraged and enabled by feed-in tariffs that provide payments from captive customers who have not even been born or who do not even own their own roof, the excess capacity is an unwelcome burden on society. Sure, the initial spurt in installation SEEMS to have resulted in economic benefits, but the costs were not paid by the generation that received the benefits; they were passed into the future. There will be a time when the party is over, but the hangover will be a drag on prosperity because the value of the electricity produced over time will be substantially lower than the cost of the delayed payments to the well-off who installed systems yet still demand grid service when the sun is not shining.
It doesn’t matter how “advanced” their coal plants are. If you generate power by combustion of a carbon-based fuel, you’re going to get CO2. You can’t avoid it. It is fundamental to the process. If you don’t get it, it means you aren’t burning anything. The laws of chemistry and physics are not suggestions. They absolutely must be obeyed.
If you want to generate usable power in any quantity with any kind of economy, you’re likely going to have to use a steam cycle. To generate steam in useful quantities at the quality and pressure needed to drive a turbogenerator, you need high temperatures. Again, the laws of thermodynamics are not subject to human wishes and desires. No matter how you slice it, you need a sizable delta T.
Combustion of carbon-based fuels at those temperatures in the presence of air also generates nitrous oxides. You can’t avoid it unless you go to pure oxygen combustion, which is ridiculous for utility-scale boilers.
Coal always contains sulfur at various concentrations. The best flue gas desulfurization systems have anywhere from 70-80 percent efficiency. Often FGDs are not available because of operational and maintenance issues. But you run your plant anyway with some kind of bypass in place. Even when you’re done your FGD produces huge amounts of sludge. I have stood on the property of a large coal-fired plant that had SO4 scrubbers. The sludge pond behind the plant was about a mile long and almost as wide.
You are no friend of the environment if you applaud the German nuclear phase-out in favor of burning more coal and natural gas. Both are devastating to the environment.
Agree that fluidized bed power plants produce CO2.
But if their fuel is waste & biomass, that does not add up to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere (Kyoto protocol). At the place of the harvested trees, new trees are planted, etc. (almost all woods in W-Europe are production woods since ~1970).
Regarding the fluidized bed process I suggest you read some literature.
DOE has a good, though somewhat outdated, basic overview:
Biomas, aka wood, was found to be an inadequate and environmentally unsustainable fuel source in the early 1800s, when there were a lot more forested lands and a lot fewer people. Nothing that humans have invented since that time has improved the fundamentals that underlying the limitations. Photosynthesis is about as inefficient as it ever was, growing seasons are limited by weather, and the energy density of the most concentrated biomass – seasoned wood – remains about 1/3 that of decent coal.
Advocation biomass and fluidized bed lignite over nuclear reveals your fellow traveler status in the church according to Amory Lovins, David Brower, Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome. You want to depower society; I am working hard to mPower it. We have nothing in common.
By the way, it is time to warn you about our collective lack of interest in repetitive posting of misinformation and links from discredited sources like Mousseau, Busby, Gundersen, Yablokov, Greenpeace, and Srorm-Smith (or traceable to Storm-Smith). You are irking me and a number of other contributors.
One more thing – I have no idea why you think that the Life Span Study (LSS) of Atomic Bomb Victims can possibly illuminate and discussion about the health effects of chronic exposure to low level radiation. The population being studied was not exposed to that kind of radiation; mathematical manipulation, no matter how sophisticated or well-funded cannot change that fundamental part of the study design.
“Biomass, aka wood, … environmentally unsustainable fuel …”
Agree. Biomass includes also waste. That will become a main fuel for the new lignite using power plants at ~2050.
Of course that is by far not enough.
But that will change gradually during the period to 2060 as the overcapacity of wind/solar/storage will grow so much, that biomass only has to fill small gaps.
Just calculate. Now: wind + solar capacity =64GW. Build up in last 5 years >7GW/a. Assume that continues with 6GW/a => in 2063 wind+solar capacity >360GW = >6 times more than max. need (Germany’s consumption decreases despite economic growth).
That implies that (with the planned enhanced storage capacities) only a small share is left for biomass in the electricity production (and no share for less renewable). Just to fill the gaps.
” Advocation biomass and fluidized bed lignite … fellow traveler status … to Amory Lovins, David Brower, Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome. … working hard to mPower it … nothing in common.”
Sorry, I do not know those guy’s.
The Club of Rome report was an irresponsible arrogant mistake.
I do not advocate fluidized bed. I only explain that it is far better than stick with the old lignite plants, and the important role of fluidized bed (burning biomass) in (the transition towards) 100% renewable.
We both work hard to power society.
We only have different views regarding the permanent situation in which energy is really cheap without harming anybody (or the climate) now and the generations after us.
Btw. My hope is that fusion will really deliver a leap forwards; energy far below 1cent/kWh. I believe that ~1cent/kWh is the end price where the solar (incl storage) evolution will bring us.
“… links from discredited sources like Mousseau, Busby, Gundersen, Yablokov, Greenpeace, and Storm-Smith.. .”
Some of them publish in prominent, peer reviewed, journals. So I do not quite understand your objection unless you think those journals (and/or reviewing peers) are biased .
I cannot remember to have used links to Gundersen, Greenpeace, and Storm-Smith.
Anyway, I will try to avoid to link to publications by the names you stated.
“… why you think that the Life Span Study (LSS) … can possibly illuminate … health effects of chronic exposure …
I assume governmental bodies, such as EPA, base themselves for the conversion on well accepted scientific studies, or at least well underpinned constructions. I saw a few studies that indicated that more chronic exposure may be more harmful than one-time. I can spend a separate post on this, if you like.
But please, can you link research that support your total different point of view regarding the danger of permanent low level radiation?
Those are important as otherwise your view will not even be considered by those bodies, as they contain scientific schooled staff.
You are not making any sense. If power prices decline to a penny per kilowatt-hour, how will people and companies that have built all of that over capacity of wind and solar pay off the loans for their investments?
Are you honestly unaware of the fact that “waste-to-energy” plants already operate at low capacity factors because there is too much demand for too little suitable waste material? Try a search for something like “Sweden import waste fuel” to see some history of coverage on the issue. The issue is growing and indicates just hoe limited “waste” is as a fuel resource.
But please, can you link research that support your total different point of view regarding the danger of permanent low level radiation?
There is a whole category of posts here on health effects. The More link at the top of the page leads to the Archive page. Those posts are full of links showing how human physiology responds and repairs itself when in the presence of chronic low dose radiation.
There is an entire peer reviewed journal call Dose-Response full of papers on the topic.
Here is a quote from the 2010 report of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
There is also some evidence that the reduction in cancer risk for a given exposure at low doses and low dose rates as compared with that at high doses and high dose rates is associated, at least in part, with cellular capacities in dealing with DNA damage after radiation exposure. An adjustment factor known as the dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor is often used to take into account the comparative reduction in effect due to low doses and dose rates; however, in the 2006 report of the Committee a linear-quadratic model was used directly for extrapolation to estimate risks at low doses, and so no dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor was applicable.
Even the BEIR series of reports acknowledges that low dose rates are less damaging that high dose rates, leading to the logical conclusion that the same total dose is more damaging if received all at once compared to being accumulated over a long time.
Sorry, I was a little inattentive in the last sentence and question of my previous post. Please read those as:
I saw a few studies that indicated that chronic exposure may be more harmful than one-time. I can spend a separate post on this, if you like.
Please, can you link research that support your different point of view regarding the conversion of one-time exposure towards permanent low level exposure?
If power prices decline to a penny per kilowatt-hour, how will people …that have built all of that over capacity of wind and solar pay off the loans for their investments?
It will take ~50 year before solar reaches that low levels.
In Germany investment in PV panels is returned in ~10-15years (depending on many factors). So that is a non-issue.
Remember PV prices went down from ~€20 in 1980 down to ~€1 now.
Agree waste becomes scarce if used as major part of energy supply, which Oslo does. If the story is true it is unusual bad planning by the Norwegians.
Germany wants to use it to fill the gaps / to secure electricity supply if other means (wind/solar+storage) fail; <10% of their electricity production.
In Germany investment in PV panels is returned in ~10-15years (depending on many factors). So that is a non-issue.
I’m confused. Where does investment payback come from if not from the sale of the product of that investment? If you consider forced repayment of investment by captive customers to be separate from the sale of the product, you are simply being dishonest. You’re also wasting my time; I thought we were engaging in an honest discussion.
BTW what is your rationalization to the recent statements by Siemens that Energieweinde is doomed to failure?
… Where does investment payback come from if not from the sale of the product of that investment? If you consider forced repayment of investment by captive customers to be separate from the sale of the product, you are simply being dishonest. ….
Sorry, I do not quite understand your issue.
~95% of the solar investors are households, etc. putting solar on their roof.
If a German household invests now, payback comes in two ways:
– a decrease of grid electricity consumption (~25cnt/kWh)
– a pay-out from the electricity delivered to the grid (~15cent/kWh).
Often size of solar is chosen between 50%/50% – 25%/75% (=>negative electricity bill).
As investor I am not interested who does which part in the pay-out.
Only whether pay-out is secure. And that it is in Germany for 15 years (enough to earn my money back with a nice interest).
Btw. In NL the feed-in rate is equal to the rate you pay for consumed electricity (=22cent/kWh) up to the volume that you consumed or 5000kWh (whatever is the lowest). That seems even better for small consumers. But there is no guarantee for the next years and government here is notorious unreliable with this type of arrangements.
The feed-in of 16cent contains subsidy paid for by other consumers.
But that is still far less than the huge liability subsidies that nuclear gets. And those are even paid by citizens that do not use electricity at all!
The German system stimulates other consumers to install also solar. If everybody does that, than the rest, that do not install solar will have a sky high electricity price…
So that is an instability in the German system, which require careful management. So they now adapt the feed-in rate on monthly basis.
This winter they even had discussions whether to affect the guarantees (feed-in rates) for installed solar. So when distress arises even German guarantees are not rock solid.
The argument was that those that installed solar in second part of 2012 earn to much (feed-in rate to high) as the cost of solar came down far.
…rationalization to the recent statements by Siemens that Energieweinde is doomed to failure?..
Siemens has no position in solar. They have excellent position in gas plants.
In NL an operator decided recently to ship all core parts of a complete new power plant to China, as we have over-capacity (big loss).
The same for Germany.
Bad planning of the operators (did not believe the price fall of solar or so).
So Siemens does not sell any gas plant in Germany for the next xx years
So you see their boss refuting coal and now also renewable as that takes the role as the main electricity producer gradually:
Btw: I in the role of Siemens would also have invested in development of advanced gas plants. As those seem more flexible to adapt to the fast changing demand due to wind/solar.
But gas plants are far more expensive here and they are not renewable. So they are out (for the time being)…
But that is still far less than the huge liability subsidies that nuclear gets. And those are even paid by citizens that do not use electricity at all!
Again, you are not making any sense. No one has ever paid any real money out of their pocket for the phantom of “liability subsidies”. The only nuclear accidents that caused any harm to the public were Chernobyl and Fukushima. In both cases, the vast majority of the harm was caused by overreaction to radiation fear. Governments forced people to abandon safe homes and property; the property was not damaged by the nuclear power plants or by the materials released in the accidents.
Even if you take those accidents into account, there have been huge public benefits produced by the use of nuclear energy. James Hansen recently released a peer reviewed paper that quantified the health benefits of using nuclear instead of coal as being a total of 1.8 million lives saved during the nuclear power plant operating era.
In addition, please point to a single citizen in a developed country that does not use any electricity at all. Please do not forget that even those who live off of the grid consume products that include electricity as an important raw material in the production process.
As investor I am not interested who does which part in the pay-out.
Only whether pay-out is secure. And that it is in Germany for 15 years (enough to earn my money back with a nice interest).
I guess that is a big difference between you and me. I care very deeply how I earn my money and think all of the time about the people who are paying the bills that enable me to live well. Perhaps that is because I spent some time as a general manager in a small factory. I remember how hard some of my less fortunate employees worked for every dollar they made and I remember that our electricity bill was greater than the sum of the paychecks of our two highest paid workers.
… point to a single citizen in a developed country that does not use any electricity at all ..
This is not about using electricity! Feed-in subsidies are only paid by customers that are connected to the grid. Nowadays there are in Germany groups of consumers (villages) that have organized themselves to be independent of the grid. In NL we have an island that is busy into that direction (own windmill, solar, storage).
No one has ever paid any real money out of their pocket for the phantom of “liability subsidies”
Sorry, I should have explained better. The law restricts liability of Nuclear Power Plants (NPP) to ridiculous low amounts and ridiculous short time frame.
Result is that the citizens near Chernobyl and Fukushima get no compensation for their damage from the NPP. Even governmental costs (=tax payer’s money) are not compensated by the NPP.
So they pay huge amounts out of their pocket.
Same with the costs for radio-active waste storage after the first ~100 years.
The NPP should have an insurance that compensates for that real damage.
You can calculate that the premium of such an insurance should be ~€200million/a per NPP (~10cent/kWh). That premium will show big differences depending on the safety of the concerned NPP, etc.
So law does grant each NPP that yearly premium. For now that is paid invisible by citizens nearby and the tax payer, who give the NPP a free (premium: zero) insurance. But that money becomes very visible when::
– accident strikes; then they pay all huge costs;
– waste storage after ~100year still has to be taken care of. Those costs then will be paid by our grand-grand-children.
… the vast majority of the harm was caused by overreaction …
That does not change the damage amount. Same reactions occur if disaster strikes Oyster Creek while winds are to NYC, causing a damage of several trillion dollars.
… public benefits …by the use of nuclear energy. … health benefits of using nuclear..
Nuclear doesn’t bring health benefit (except, probably temporary, hormesis).
The claim is, that it harms less than coal, gas, etc.
I didn’t read his paper but I assume he did not fully calculated e.g. PV panels in his study.
Each electricity production method should pay all it’s costs.
It is insane (communist) that one method (nuclear) gets huge subsidies permanently. That upsets healthy competition between different methods.
Of course coal & gas should also compensate all costs they cause.
Same with other fuels such as those for planes, etc.
Only temporary subsidies e.g. in order to introduce a new, better method are ethical.
If all those costs are taken into account renewable,such as PV panels, may turn out to be very competitive.
Your estimate of the value of liability insurance is absurd. Let’s run a simple calculation for the US, home to 100 operating nuclear plants. If each paid $200 million per year for insurance, there would be an income to some insurance provider of $20 billion per year. For round numbers, let’s say that virtually all of those plants have operated for 30 years without a single event that has resulted in any claims. That means that there would be a pot of $600 billion worth of payments plus all of the interest those payments would have generated over the years of just sitting in a bank account.
Our system here is pretty logical. Each unit carries a policy that provides $375 million. In the event that amount is exceeded, all operating units kick in up to $111 million more for a per event for a total coverage amount of $12 billion.
I’m pretty sure that if there was ever an accident that exceeded that coverage, no citizen would have to cover their own losses.
Japan had similar statements before Fukushima.
I stated, insurance costs can be much lower if NPP’s show to be more safe.
But part of the (also US) NPP’s are flawed regarding security. E.g:
– they cannot withstand a simple attack by a big plane, let alone if somebody (Korea? Iran?) uses bombs.
– they have not fully separated emergency systems.
That simple state of the art requirement, is one of the demands of the Finnish regulator that causes the major extra costs and delays in building their new NPP (which was announced by the contractor as being far more safe..).
– Some still even have hot spent fuel pools high up in the reactor dome. While Fukushima showed how dangerous that is.
History shows that on average NPP disasters happened ~1:6000 NPP years. And smaller accidents far more often (in line with statistics), also in US.
Those 12billion covers <1% of the damage that a big plane diving on Oyster Creek NPP with stable winds to New York City, causes.
You state: "… sure that if there was ever an accident that exceeded that coverage, no citizen would have to cover their own losses…
So who pays the 99% of the damage if that happens?
I think tax-payers and citizens that have to live in a raised radiation environment. Chernobyl showed that even a rise of ~1mSv/year already create a significant rise on still birth, Down syndrome, etc:
@Paul; I left a problem open regarding Chernobyl:
“Why so many stillbirth (and Down syndrome, etc) with so little rise of radiation level?
How come that is totally not in line with risk models of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)?”
I found a 2008 UK/German study that addresses that problem and clears at least part:
The study concludes that:
– used physical dosimetric is not adequate, for in utero exposure
– the ICRP standards need to be revised (lower limits).
Oh Bas, just when I thought you couldn’t sink any lower, you cite an article written by Chris Busby?!!
The guy’s a complete crackpot! Nobody with any background in the field takes him seriously. Furthermore, the article is published in a journal with no impact factor to speak of and that is put out by an advocacy group.
Bas, you seem to specialize in junk science. My advice: stop drinking the kool-aid.
Thanks, Brian M., Wayne SW, etc. I cannot keep up with the level of disinformation being spewed forth.
@Brian @Paul; Do not know whether you opened it.
The co-authors are 3 Germans from university of Munich, Bremen and Berlin.
It is based on the results of ~100 referred studies.
I checked some info with the original studies; nothing wrong.
E.g. figure 3 showing the peak in stillbirth after Chernobyl, is identical to the original one.
It is the only article I found that:
– shows results ~ in line with the latest report of the famous LSS; and
– shows something of a reason why there is such a discrepancy with the optimistic UNSCEAR statements regarding Chernobyl and the many research results that show the opposite.
Those deliver also some insight regarding the motives of the Germans to undertake such a gigantic long term transition.
Of course you can declare that those 90% Germans are crazy and disqualify all authors that show another opinion than yours.
But that delivers nothing, only widens the gap.
And it is not the purpose of these meeting places…
Bas – Ah … so one of the authors is from Munich. Well, that changes everything! /sarcasm
Actually, it does not. So the crackpot Busby has a few crackpot friends. Big deal. Do you think that the UK somehow has a monopoly on crackpots? What you perhaps don’t realize is that sociopaths such as this tend to travel in packs, forming their own little echo chambers and writing articles for pseudo-scientific journals that are published by an advocacy group instead of a credible organization. Anyone who is proud to have been president for a decade of a kooky organization like the “German Society for Radiation Protection” is definitely a crackpot.
Let me provide a small example of just how absolutely awful and unscholarly this “study” is. On page 26, the authors claim that their “results are supported by other low dose ﬁndings following X-ray diagnostic examination; a survey in 1980 found that 50% of U.S. women suffering from a stillbirth had been X-rayed during pregnancy.” The natural question that follows is what percentage of women who had live births had been X-rayed? Was it 50%? More? Less? The authors don’t tell us, so there’s nothing to compare their single figure with.
Aside: When critically reading one of these “scientific” papers, it is just as important to listen to what they don’t tell you as it is to analyze what they do tell you. That’s how you spot the crackpots trying to pull a fast one on you.
In this case, however, when you go to the source that they cite. They haven’t even given the correct figure! Only 23.4% (less than half of 50%) of women with a stillbirth outcome had been X-rayed. These clowns couldn’t even get the number right!
It’s true that a higher percentage of women who had stillbirths had been X-rayed than women who had live births, but the same trends were observed for ultrasound treatments. Does this mean that radiation (X-rays) and ultrasound both cause babies to be stillborn?
Not at all. From the data in the article, it is clear that women with better access to health care tended to get more ultrasounds or X-rays. These women also tended to be older and therefore more likely to have difficulty with their pregnancies. Thus, when it comes to exposure to medical X-rays and ultrasound, the authors of the paper note that “these higher exposure rates may be associated with attempts to detect fetal demise.”
Nevertheless, Busby and his dishonest colleagues would like you believe that X-rays cause stillbirths and will even stoop to misrepresenting a paper to support their allegation. This is the kind of liars and con-men that they are.
I feel so dirty after looking at the Busby article. There are too many journals for guys like Møller to submit to for publication.
Here is NEI 07-13 from the US NRC’s ADAMS Library. It is about the methodology to be employed for analyzing aircraft impact:
It’s a lot more complicated that p=m*v and ke=(1/2)*m*v^2. Because the report is 50+ pages long, I haven’t had time yet to read and digest it this early in the morning.
Jaczko may have a book deal. That’s why he “declined” to participate in the Platts Energy Week discussion. I’m trying to verify the info I got. Will keep everyone posted.
If it’s true, what a predictable loser. What a stereotype. He’ll join HC as the richest person in nuclear.
Thanks for your links regarding the safety of NPP’s for aircraft impacts.
Sorry that it took me some time to read and think about the value / significance.
They create some issues:
1 – If the NPP’s are resistant, you convince by showing the calculations. Those will then convince that a plane attack makes no sense. But the documents have some vagueness (security reasons). The same I remember from ~2008 regarding the Japanese authorities showing statements and tests that their NPP’s are really resistant against earthquakes and tsunami’s!
2 – During the preparation of the EU stress test after Fukushima, there was long discussion about the size and speed of the plane to be considered.
The NPP operators in the EU vetoed anything more than a light sport plane flying at cruise speed (in the final report you cannot find anything about size & speed of plane, also the discussion is removed).
Most EU NPP’s are ~copies of the US designs (GE, Westinghouse)…
So how come that the same old designs in the US can withstand bigger and faster plane?
3 – At nextgov.com (recent White House article about clean up) I read:
“….but the commission has yet to issue such a requirement. It has also refused to require that reactors be protected from airplane attacks…”. That doesn’t fit!
4 – Same in articles of the union of concerned scientists of 2005/2006: No protection!
Based on these I estimate that older NPP’s, such as Oyster Creek, are not resistant against an aircraft attack such as the one I described in this blog.
The only thing that may diminish the devastation in NYC:
The wind often doesn’t blow a longer time towards it.
Bas, I won’t be PC nor polite in stating that you are a boor. Worst, at least a boor spewing rants to the gullible and clueless doesn’t effect lives. Greenpeace and other green groups are loose in Africa trying to scare my kin into dumping nuclear power which they have wisely considered as a way of electric and water generation and a way to avoid ravaging their heritage of land and landscapes with “renewables”. There are towns and villages in the deep interior denied the long storage benefits of irradiated foods because pious Greens have been “advising” food donating governments and organizations with off the wall poisoning stories. I don’t want to hear about how “humane” and land loving Greens are supposed to be. They’re just white knight wannabes looking for evil dragons to slay to cluck that they saved the world. When it comes to their demonizing and condemning nukes over -openly proven- far more deadly power sources they are hypocrites and a half with a Big H. None of your specious slanted uncertified stats and fearlaced Doomsday “facts” can alter the historical fact that nuclear power even in its very worst day has injured less people in its history worldwide than most any other industry, and that NO internationally regarded medical body eats the mutant tales Greenpeace spews to its robots — and those countries that nuclear most. The only reason Greens have gotten as far as they have FUDing people over is because there’s a whole lot more ignorance in the world than enlightenment. You better do something to exorcise that nightmare nuclear ghost haunting you mister, because it’s worst than unhealthy when you deny reality and proven fact and record anymore. You’re not educating us with truth; you’re preaching green snake oil. The pity is that the people on this site are keen enough to puke your rants, and you’ll move on and find one of the clueless who’ll swallow it whole, hook line and sinker. I pity them, not you.
I believe the phrase James may be searching for is, “Green Power, Black Death.” The most economic, environmentally friendly, and safe source of energy is nuclear. Many of us have more than 30 plus years of experience in working in and around reactors. If this technology were as unsafe and as dangerous as the individuals like Bas claim, then we all should be dead. In the meantime, denying this technology to people in third world countries dooms them to an unending cycle of disease, poverty, starvation and death, and frankly that is immoral and unjust. The level of prosperity that a society has can often be measured in the availability of low cost energy. And there is enough uranium and thorium in Earth’s crust to support a population of billions more than are already born at a level of energy consumption equal to the average American without devastating the environment. But I suspect that individuals like Bas can’t stand that possibility lest everyone be prosperous, healthy and well fed.
@Paul W Primavera
Well said. The importance of clean, affordable power to do good work and to live abundantly is why I get up so early every morning to try and share atomic information with a few personal thoughts.
I think the common fear of both Greens and hydrocarbon focused financial, economic and political interests is that you and I are correct; atomic fission from thorium and uranium is a gift that will uplift billions of people with an energy source that is not only cleaner and more reliable, but is also cheaper than coal. For the petroleum pushers who like to sell higher priced energy to markets without any alternative choice, that prospect makes them tremble in their mansions and boardrooms. For the Greens who think that mankind is a plague rather than the creative, problem solving species it really is, the prospect of making such a tool accessible shakes the foundations of their own religion.
Let’s keep working to share the positive side of atomic energy. The truth cannot be obscured forever.
I think we share a lot:
– the same targets; clean affordable / cheap power for all.
– about mankind; we are indeed creative, problem solving species.
– our thinking that CO2 producing energy (coal, petroleum, gas) is no long term solution.
But I believe we differ about:
– the dangers of Atomic energy and the related costs due to those.
I believe that is in part because I have seen more about the harm Chernobyl
– the viability of a society using only renewable energy, the target of the German ‘Wende’ or transition.
I believe that is in part also because I see from nearby (live in NL) the changes in Germany (I’m there several times a year paragliding, etc).
Btw. I do not consider myself as a green, having two cars, etc. Never belonged to them, and do not agree with most of their idea’s.
Now, my question;
If I continue to put up my arguments (you have seen some), will you exclude me?
I do not exclude people because of their arguments. I exclude them when their comments have no content and when they continuously attack the credibility of people who have backed up their arguments with verifiable data.
My feelings about nuclear and the other alternatives also come from my personal experience as well as my education and professional training.
I have lived for many months in a 100% nuclear environment with a single, reliable reactor providing not only propulsion but all of the clean water, clean air, refrigeration, air conditioning, lighting, and computers used by a crew of 150 people. That submerged submarine demonstrated how clean and safe a well designed, well maintained and well operated nuclear plant can be. I depended on that reactor for my life; I even hugged it a few times in thanks for helping to get us all home safely.
I’ve also been fortunate enough to have been an OPB (other people’s boats) sailor since the late 1970s. Just yesterday I served as the race committee for a couple of races on our local Smith Mountain Lake. As a sailor you spend many hours focused on the wind, measuring its velocity and attempting to predict its direction. It is a great sport and quite a challenge. One of my own take aways from that experience is I would never try to cook dinner, wash clothes or operate a computer from a wind turbine. The wind varies way too much.
As a sailor who has navigated off shore with just a sextant and star tables, I have also paid close attention to the sun and clouds. Again, I recognize just how unreliable and ever changing that power source is.
On both sailboats and submarines I have learned a lot about storage batteries.
BTW – do you believe there is any hope for solar or wind to power refineries to produce fuel to power your car?
@Bas : Your comments are very welcomed, I just hope they will stay informed and based on verifiable claims.
It sounds like you underestimate how well informed the author of this site is about Chernobyl, and it would be interesting to check on what precisely you base yourself for your information about it’s harm, there was much discussion here about almost every document about the subject.
You might be interested in reading the guest post of the head of Poland’s radiological protection lab at the time of Chernobyl : https://atomicinsights.com/2006/05/atomic-guests-chernobyl-fear-of-unknown.html
I would be very interested about which change you saw in Germany that made you convinced energiewende is working well. Certainly they are some positive change, for example the effort on better insulation. However they are also reports that in many case the economic cost will take a unreasonable amount time, severals tens of years to be recovered by the savings.
Also I have a hard time thinking of Germany as a model when I see that an absolute ecological horror such as this continues to expand :
In France, that get quite easily criticized by some, we have not built a single coal plant in the last 30 years.
For Germany, the list of the the most CO2 intensive plants in Europe is telling : http://carma.org/plant/detail/49187
It actually beats the biggest in both the US and Australia for CO2 emissions.
Thank you! I now understand your trust in nuclear far better.
Friend of mine served in a Dutch submarine. He told me they could hear the Russian ones already from far. Interesting that such small things are so decisive.
Your question:”do you believe there is any hope for solar or wind to power refineries to produce fuel to power your car?”
The answer has two components;
1 – Future costs & capacity of wind & solar: I do only PV panels, as those are reliable predictable.
2 – (Conversion of) electricity so it really can drive cars.
1 – Check the graph’s Scientific American published: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/16/smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-law-apply-to-solar-cells/
As the writer expects; for 2011 and 2012 that 7%/year price drop was far to conservative. In the EU prices went down with ~30%/year.
Investment cost now near €1 /W (PV panels only).
So in 10 years ~50cent/W => cost price ~5cent/kWh.
Technical, the path and options towards 2 – 4 cent / kWh are clear.
Just time & investment (thanks to the chips industry).
Note that the SA article did not consider fundamental new technologies such as graphene.
With the new high yield panels (now ~15%, then ~30%), roofs here can produce ~4x the electricity households need.
E.g. Germany has ~1.3 million rooftop installations, while they have ~40 million roofs. The existing rooftop installations have a capacity of ~30GW (half of Germany peak need).
So there is rooftop room for really huge increases.
If you enter older dates at this page, you can see the yearly change in German solar production: http://www.sma.de/en/company/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany.html
2 – Cars
Electric: We need a new generation of batteries; far more kWh/kg.
May be combinations of one molecule thick materials (such as graphene) deliver a solution. I cannot judge how long that will take.
Fuel made out of electricity:
I consider hydrogen as to dangerous.
But there are hopeful developments (some already in alpha production phase).
An intermediate solution: http://www.solar-fuel.net/en/the-challenge/developing-storage-capacities/
Other P2G offer more final solutions (no mined gas needed).
At 2/3 down on this excellent Nature page, one of the best is described:
http://www.nature.com/news/renewable-power-germany-s-energy-gamble-1.12755 (in NL many cars drive on LPG gas. Their range is only slightly less as those on patrol).
In Scotland a project for the conversion of (wind) electricity into liquid car fuel, also seems to become a success (alpha stadium).
3. – My opinion
– We should move towards unlimited amounts of energy at a price level >1000 times lower (<1 cent/MWh). That may allow us future necessary things such as beaming materials into space, etc.
My hope is for nuclear fusion (ITER is a small trial pilot in building phase; will not reach alpha stadium), so we should spend more money for that.
That is long term.
– For the short term we should spend more research developing solar panels towards 70% yield at prices of <1cent/kWh.
Same for promising P2G projects, such the German one.
– While following a strong GHG reduction path (Germany only country that surpasses Kyoto targets), the world can do well without nuclear for the next 100 years.
* The last 50 years there have been:
– only marginal improvements regarding nuclear fission (e.g. LFTR design is ~50 years old); and
– a few bad developments, showing the industry doesn't live up its promises (e.g. BWR was sold with chance for accident of <1:100.000 years).
In my eyes it is also very bad that there are still no real perspectives for real improvements regarding long living radio-active waste (only reducing volumes, using it as fuel, as in 1960 with breeder designs).
I find that situation parasite on our grand- grand-children.
The studies regarding the influence of low level radiation also do not enhance fission's chance.
E.g. LSS report no.14; showing a possible threshold is at least below 4mSv/year (in the summary stating no sign of any threshold);
The studies about enhanced rates of stillbirth and Down syndrome at places that got only slightly enhanced (~0,5mSv) radio-activity from Chernobyl (in line with LSS report no. 14 as it is known that a fetus is xx times more vulnerable than an adult, due to its high rate of cell division); etc.
I am especially pessimistic regarding fission since it seems that the industry went into denial mode regarding those results (denigrating authors, etc.), and started some blind promotion campaign.
Exactly the same as the cigarette and the asbestos industry did.
A bad thing as it shows to be not trustworthy, just as the cigarette and asbestos industry.
It seems to me that you believe in miracles associated with batteries and solar energy and you deny actual facts associated with nuclear.
What is the consequence of the effects shown in the LSS with doses in the low range? How large of an increase in our already substantial risk of getting cancer is there? Do you really worry about that tiny risk increase?
I personally believe that future generations will be far less accepting of our actions to continue burning up all of their valuable hydrocarbon inheritance than they will for bequeathing them carefully stored and refined used nuclear fuel that is ready to be put into a recycling process so that they can extract the 96% of initial stored energy that the material still contains.
Who cares what “the industry” has done with the technology so far? What really matters is the potential that the technology has to be vastly improved. I can guarantee that we will see reactors obtaining twice as much energy per unit of mined fuel well before solar panels will double in collection efficiency or before batteries double in watt-hrs/kilogram.
” believe in miracles …with batteries and solar energy and you deny … facts associated with nuclear.”
Agree batteries will take long time. But not solar. That is a matter of effort, adapting the present instruments / machines (thanks to the chip industry).
Only the use of graphene asks fundamental steps, but that was not covered by the Scientific American article
“What is the consequence of the effects shown in the LSS with doses in the low range? … Do you … worry about that tiny risk increase?”
With 10mSv/year during 10 years, the chance on premature death is ~1% (it is not only cancer, as radiation harms more).
This depends strongly on age. You and me are far less susceptible as we are relative old. Our cells do not divide as often as with the youngsters, and we may live anyway not the ~20-50years before it shows. A fetus in the uterus is even much more susceptible than a youngster.
This implies that an authority, advised by radiation experts, will evacuate all e.g. 200.000 people in an enhanced radiation environment of say 10mSv/year. He doesn’t want to be accused to be responsible for the death of >6000 people (half life of Caesium-137; 30 years).
The US too, otherwise it will deliver many interesting trials.
That implies that the huge damage of Chernobyl due to evacuation, will also apply for any NPP disaster in populated areas. Note that Fukushima went exceptionally well, as almost all radiation went towards the ocean.
My personal worry about risk is less relevant, as I’m not average regarding risks. When I climbed Eiger North Face ~5% of the climbers that started seriously in the years before, did not survive the climb.
Knowing we were better than the average, that the weather and circumstances were bad, I found my estimate of 1% to die on the climb acceptable. In hindsight that 1% was fairly optimistic.
I also found statistics that ~50% of all Eiger N-Face climbers died in the mountains in the 10years there after. It didn’t stop me, even while >50%of my climbing friends died there.
“… future generations … less accepting … burning up … hydrocarbon inheritance than … bequeathing … stored … Nuclear”…”
Germany is not only on the road to stop burning hydrocarbon, but also to leave no new radio-active waste.
They will have banned hydro-carbon completely for electricity production before 2070. No atomic country comes even near!
Future generations will not be grateful that they have to pay for the storage of our dangerous waste. The bigger issue is that mankind may not be stable enough to manage that store during a million years.
In a war, attacking that store and/or NPP’s may be very attractive.
“…Who cares what “the industry” has done … What really matters is the potential … to be vastly improved. … reactors obtaining twice as much energy per unit of mined fuel …”
Only small part of the cost price of produced electricity by NPP’s is fuel costs . So doubling efficiency will help only marginal.
The min component, the investment, is rising. I estimate that the new, more safe NPP in Finland will have a cost price of €12cent/kWh despite the liability subsidies regarding accidents and long term waste storage.
As such prices cannot compete at all against solar/wind (incl. storage) within 10-20 years, NPP owners now require long term price guarantees from the government .
The real problem is that there are even no new ideas that can bring fission nuclear much farther.
Btw. same with commercial planes (still fly only 900km/hr), and with cars (in practice even slower).
“… before solar panels will double in collection efficiency …”
>30% is already used in space-craft, etc.
Just read the diagram in here: http://optics.org/news/4/3/5
I think it is a matter of ~5 years before those start covering roofs in significant numbers.
Man, you are really going after Oyster Creek. What did Oyster Creek do to you that you have it in so much for? That plant has been there since 1969 and has harmed absolutely no one. It has generated hundreds of millions of MW-hrs of electricity without emitting a single molecule of greenhouse gas. The times I have been there I have seen no indication that it cannot withstand an aircraft impact. The reactor containment is fully intact and its integrity has been maintained over the years. The SPF is very robust and fully protected by the shield building. The site area is very small in terms of its visual footprint. Any approach from air it would be difficult to pick out and target against the surrounding terrain. It is located in a relatively low population zone. Winds are almost always unfavorable for transport of any kind of release into a populated area. You’d be wiser to spend your time going after much more vulnerable and dangerous facilities to the public safety, things like dams, fertilizer plants, or the Bayway refinery in Linden.
@Wayne:”… wiser to spend your time going after much more vulnerable and dangerous facilities … things like dams, fertilizer plants, or the Bayway refinery in Linden.”
I’m a little surprised you know Bayway. Is it still Exxon?
I spent many pleasant meeting days at their local HQ in Linden.
Yes, Bayway would be a nice one for a small terrorist but by far not enough for a big thinking real one.
Do you know a NPP more vulnerable and better suited to empty NYC/Manhatten?
I’m sure a real Bin Laden like terrorist then will choose that one!
Did you know that the Cosmo oil refinery in Chiba burned for weeks after it was damaged by the March 11 earthquake? It is right on the outskirts of Tokyo, and exposed over 25 million people to totally uncontained carcinogens. That caused more health effects and posed a far, far greater danger than anything related to the Fukushima plants.
You probably didn’t know that, or hear about that. Did you ever wonder why?
There is no NPP “more vulnerable and better suited to empty NYC” anywhere, Oyster Creek and Indian Point included, because they are not “vulnerable”. NPPs are the hardest of hard targets. Much easier to target tall buildings. Why don’t you go after skyscrapers? A properly airmed aircraft impact can cause a lot a damage even in low-rise neighborhoods like in the case of Belle Harbor, Queens. Why don’t you go after above-ground housing? You could eliminate all those dangers by having people go back to living in caves.
I vaguely remember reading about a long burning refinery after the quake.
Fukushima caused a damage of ~$300 – 1000billion, to be paid by the citizens in the surroundings and the tax-payers. A great push off.
I estimate the (smaller) refinery damage is (almost) all paid by the refinery owner.
Health damage Fukushima.
WHO concludes to ~50 death from Chernobyl and based on that predict few death through Fukushima.
They ignore the results regarding Chernobyl’s low level radiation and
ignore even the widely known fact that low level radiation starts to harm health after >20 years (recently also shown by LSS).
Just as low level nicotine, asbestos, sun burn (also radiation), etc.
Just a few research results from the many:
– About increased levels of stillbirth in Germany, 1000miles away: http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/ibb/homepage/hagen.scherb/CongenMalfStillb_0.pdf
Check the diagrams.
The extra risk is not much ~1:1000 birth in Germany’s rel. high dose areas.
But it affects millions, not only in parts of Germany but also (not in the study, but more contaminated) those in Belarus, etc.
There are similar results regarding Down syndrome, etc.
– Intelligence dip in Swedish children: http://www.nuwinfo.se/en/almond-edlund-palme20070811.html
– Here an easy reading presentation: http://acsir.org/2_Ionizing_radiation_genetic_effects_Scherb_Voigt_TIES_2009.pdf
Note that you hardly find results from the most contaminated areas as those are in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia:
– Those governments want positive messages only (and control that).
– They did not have the accurate easy accessible (computer) registration systems, such as those in W-Europe.
Based on the studies and e.g. LSS report no 14, expert estimations regarding the (future) death from Chernobyl rose toward 0.1 million – 6 million (green peace).
Almost all radiation death still have to come, due to the delayed effects of low level.
Have you ever heard of the Women of Chernobyl who refused the government’s order to relocate from their ancestral homes.
More than 25 years after the accident, living off of the land in the “dead zone” they remain healthy and happy, especially when compared to the people who blindly accepted that the government orders were correct.
You “vaguely” remember the fire because the fossil fuel advertisement supported media did not see fit to tell you about the fact that the refinery was dumping toxic materials into the atmosphere at an uncontrolled and unmeasured rate for more than 10 days after the earthquake and tsunami. They did, however, use the dramatic photographic footage as the backdrop for stories about the event that they really wanted the public to remember – all of those frightening images of the little hydrogen pops that lasted just fractions of a second at the nuclear plant.
…Women of Chernobyl…
This Telegraph story takes you away. Superior compared to the story I read in the NRC, my newspaper.
It were somewhat elderly (>48 years) people that came back.
People that are x times less vulnerable to radiation.
No young people or babies or fetus (in the uterus) came back.
~80% of the 1200 that returned, are gone in the 25 years.
That seems a lot. But life expectancy in those countries is rather low.
Smoking Gun: ExxonMobil admits plan to take advantage of Fukushima..
I think many commercial companies did. Also those that try to sell extra safety equipment. Standard business practice.
“Almost all radiation death still have to come, due to the delayed effects of low level.”
It has been 27 years since Chernobyl. How long do we have to wait until all these people start dying from the low level radiation they supposedly received? I’m not being humorous here. I am asking because the anti-nuclear/Greenpeace/Chernobyl watching crowd keeps moving the goalposts.
First it was within the first 5 years there will be hundreds of people dying from Chernobyl. Then it was within the next 10 years thousands will die directly due to Chernobyl. Then it was “just you wait…. people will start dying like flies from the radiation received. We know they will because LNT and Hiroshima tells us they will.” We have also been told it is a conspiracy between the WHO, IAEA, the Russian and US governments keeping the death certificates secret.
We are now 27 years after the event and there are only studies about how many people are going to die but not actual deaths that can be proven beyond those already documented. The only people who truly died from Chernobyl so far were the tragic deaths of the first responders that were ill-equiped for the job or cleanup crews that were also ill-equipped due to lack of Russian planning and Russia’s inability to accept outside help.
At some point in time the goalposts need to stay fixed and the Chernobyl death watchers need to stop their ghoulish grave watching.
What we need to discuss is how many people were affected by the stress of the event itself due to fear, affected by bad emergency planning and the effect of the anti-nuclear crowd trying to fit the data to their model of the world. That is the same discussion we should be having about Fukushima.
These people who were dislocated from their homes have a stigma attached to them because of the FUD from the anti-nuclear crowd. That is wrong, harmful and has added unnecessary stress to their lives beyond any that the dislocation could have caused.
Instead we are forced to watch, read or otherwise have crammed down us that it is okay for the anti-nuclear crowd to wait with baited breath for death certificates indicating people died from radiation to prove their decades of FUD have been correct. Is the Greenpeace world headquarters going to start cheering like the winning crowd at a football game if suddenly there are hundreds of deaths attributable to Chernobyl? Some will I suspect.
And as if that isn’t enough they claiming nuclear exceptionalism by bleating that the nonexistent monolithic nuclear power industry must cleanup its own accidents whether it is caused by a natural event never seen in recent history or and event caused due to human error or accident. But the anti-nuclear types are hypocritical because they are accepting of the fact that every fossil fuel accident in history has required tax dollars to clean up. And with the case of the Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez spills combined those clean up costs are in the billions at this stage.
And for those that normally read my posts, if I appear a little more strident then normal it is because I getting fed up with the Chernobyl canards. We need to pay attention to history to learn from it but this constant focus on the Chernobyl death watch is not helping anyone or anything. Especially since it has stigmatized not just one group of people in one country but now 27 years later it has stigmatized another group who are dealing with dislocation on an entirely different scale due to the tsunami.
I may be spitting in the wind at this point but having arguments with those that are waiting for death certificates to prove their point is really raising my blood pressure.
Well, eventually, everyone who was alive during the Chernobyl accident will be dead and Greenpeace will be able to claim a 100% mortality rate. 😉
You think that I’m kidding, don’t you?
Okay you got me there. >:/
… How long … wait until … dying from the low level radiation…
Agree with your feelings. I too want clarity. Final figures. So we have something real to reckon with.
But it takes a long period of debate and research before we reach that.
Asbestos causes an unique lung cancer, easily recognizable by physicians. Even one fiber does, as post mortem showed. It took ~50 years before general recognition and ban. Due to the delay we still have ~2.000 death/year in NL (we had only small asbestos processing).
Even now Canadian mines do not accept those facts.
Unfortunately, we have no tool that proofs somebody died due to radiation. Only correlations. Even that is difficult due to the time lag.
E.g. my climbing friend got sun burn at a spot on one wrist at age 18 while climbing. At age 52 he developed skin cancer at that spot.
Present lab studies do not show how many times DNA/RNA/Cell repair mechanisms operate well, neither whether/how it stacks faults, etc.
Recently I was at the inauguration presentation of a friend who leads pioneering modeling cancer research. It made me realize how complex these mechanisms are (three interacting mechanisms involving DNA, RNA and protein cell level).
While progress is fast, they have problems with limited computer and storage capacity: a million Terra bytes needed.
This implies we have to rely on expensive epidemiological studies.
We must be grateful that US government started the Life Span Studies in 1950, involving the best universities of US, Japan, UK.
Their latest report delivers info regarding low level radiation: http://www.rerf.jp/library/archives_e/lsstitle.html
That shows the long delay before low level radiation harm comes.
Regarding threshold it shows:
– the best estimation is; no threshold;
– there is no threshold at more than 5mSv/year.
Those are in line with other (recent) studies.
I assume that also was a trigger to Japanese experts & government to follow the UN linked Codex new radiation limits (10x lower) in 2012.
… first 5 years … hundreds of people dying from Chernobyl …
Even if you regard only countries with better registration systems (lower radiation contamination) those and far more death’s (your thousands) are shown. Just a few studies:
– An overview presentation with references: http://acsir.org/2_Ionizing_radiation_genetic_effects_Scherb_Voigt_TIES_2009.pdf
… goalposts need to stay fixed …
The last LSS report from 2012 (67 years after); showed new significant findings.
“… dislocated … stigma … because of FUD from anti-nuclear …”
Japanese government and experts were pro nuclear (still are in part).
Knowing the Japanese, I feel sure their experts agreed to the evacuation decision.
No US authority (incl. you) would have decided to leave the population there.
I see the US trials with all publicity already. All the evidence your opponents deliver will burn you down completely. To get an impression, check: http://ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/HEofC25yrsAC.html
“… nuclear to cleanup its own accidents … fossil fuel accident … required tax dollars … the Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez spills …”
BP compensates all ($50billion?) costs. Exxon the same.
So nuclear should be obliged to do the same and all (huge) liability subsidies should be lifted. Just as with all other industries.
I have no problem with death numbers or damage through nuclear.
I do have a problem that nuclear leaves compensation to the tax-payer, as well as the cost regarding other major liability, and even the cost to repair their own damage (if those turn out to be major).
Nuclear must have an adequate insurance, and pay for it.
At insurance companies as far as those can go and for the rest at the government (as that has to pay in case of major damage).
Your “studies” have already been shown to be put together by people and organizations prejudiced against nuclear power, not actual data gathering that can be independently verified. So no matter how many links you provide, I am not going to follow them. Brian Mays has shown you several times that your sources to be wrong and agenda driven not fact based.
This is not a closed minded issue on my part, this is an issue of already-been-there-done-that. This is not the first discussion I have had with someone like yourself about Chernobyl and not the first time I have seen those links or organizations. Also my comments have nothing to do with the actual evacuation efforts after Chernobyl or Fukushima. That is an attempt to change the discussion to one of your own making, not a point I was discussing.
Everyone has anecdotal cancer stories they can tell. I have some of my own. However I do not use them as they are not instructive or indicative of the issues being discussed here.
Chernobyl was a significant event. Such a significant event leaves a trail that can be followed if there were significant deaths even considering the population at the time that had to be relocated. Millions have been spent on studies, conferences, seminars, discussions, etc, yet no measurable number of people whose deaths can be directly attributable to Chernobyl except for those officially acknowledged. Only studies based on LNT that indicate what that number MIGHT be, not what it actually is are being thrown around.
LNT is not a physical fact but a regulatory construction created in the 1950’s when our abilities to understand radiation were still in the infancy stages. So studies based on the LNT theory need to be questioned when not backed up by actual population counts.
This one man-made gamma ray = one damaged cell = cancer talking point is a false methodology. That is straight from the Caldicott/PSR anti-nuclear book. That talking point does not acknowledge the realities of cell self-repair and cell death functions that are taught in every Health Physics class.
If one gamma ray = one damaged cell = cancer talking point were completely true then every human being who has ever worked at a nuclear power plant, including myself would become cancer victims. That is not reality.
Why don’t the anti-nuclear groups want to fund a study of nuclear power plant workers? Why do they want the scope of the current NAS study to be focused only on the public who live and work miles away from the reactor, not the ones directly working near the reactor who would be most at risk? Nuclear workers are human beings as well and the physical nature of radiation affects us the same as it does the public. We don’t have special abilities or receive special equipment to prevent exposure that we wear all the time. Could it be that if nuclear power plant workers were studied rigorosly the whole LNT regulatory construct would fall apart?
So don’t talk to me about cancer gestation time or that gestation time due to man-made radiation is different than natural radiation. Those are anti-nuclear talking points as well and go to my point about anti-nuclear people trying to move the goal posts when their models are shown to be wrong.
Radiation is radiation. Doesn’t matter the source. The only things that matter are the initial rad levels, time, distance and shielding. We are a long way from the sun and have the natural shielding of the earth’s atmosphere so the effects of its radiation are minimized. However stay out in the sun too long over one’s life span and it is possible (not guaranteed but possible) that a person MAY end up with skin cancer.
I was sunburned as well to the point of almost requiring doctor’s care but I am not a candidate for skin cancer due to my family history and several decades later I do not have skin cancer (see I have anecdotal stories as well). So just because someone has had a sunburn does not automatically mean cancer is in their future especially several decades after the fact. Just because someone was exposed to radiation from a nuclear reactor does not automatically mean they will die from cancer.
And what major industry does not require tax-payer monies for their cleanup? Name one that does not. The sole purpose of the EPA superfund is to use taxpayer money to cleanup chemical waste dumps, refinery and fossil fuel dumps, toxic metal dumps, etc, etc etc that have been left behind by companies, some who declared bankruptcy just get out from under the cleanup costs. The superfund has paid billions to cleanup toxic metal dumps, chemical dumping grounds etc over the years and the environmental groups champion that as a success story of public-government cooperation.
However when the same concept is discussed about nuclear power sites (which by the way is the only industry legally required to put money into their own decommissioning fund), the wagons are circled. “Oh no.. we can’t have a Superfund for nuclear power. That would be wrong since nuclear power is a crime against the environment and a crime against humanity.”
So the constant harping about nuclear exceptionalism by anti-nuclear groups based on some false idea that commercial nuclear power and only commercial nuclear power must pay for cleanup is hypocritical to the extreme. Additionally Fukushima cleanup costs will ultimately be a small percentage of the total tsunami bill. But the media and anti-nuclear groups focus only on the nuclear cleanup costs not the entire tsunami cleanup costs.
Nuclear power is the only industry in the US that has a significant insurance pool for major accidents. That insurance fund will see a major increase on a world wide scale due to Fukushima if the IAEA has its way. One of the forgotten aspects of the Gulf of Mexico event was the action item to force drilling/fossil fuel companies to create their own insurance pool similar to that used for the nuclear industry.
At the time of the Gulf event, the legally required payouts for cleanup by fossil fuel companies in a major catastrophic event was ridiculously low, below $100K if memory serves. At which point the taxpayer is forced to pick up the billions to return the environment to some agreed upon condition which won’t be entirely clean. Alaska is still dealing with oil on its shores during extreme storms and Exxon Valdez was decades ago.
So what happened to that political talking point? Why isn’t Greenpeace lobbying to have Exxon, Chevron etc fund a common insurance fund similar to the Price-Anderson act? Could it be that it would affect their greenwashed donations from the same companies? Greenpeace is a $370 million organization on a world wide scale. That amount of money is not from individual donors. Individual donors can not fund hundreds of millions at a level of $100-200 apeice. It requires corporations to fund hundreds of millions of dollars. Those corporate donations are then used as tax write-offs and for public media greenwashing campaigns.
I question the $50 billion figure you are quoting about BP. That amount is approximately how much they have taken as a charge against their income statements for the accident. That is not the amount they have directly paid to cleanup costs. BP is vigorously defending themselves against further claims after paying the US government about $4 billion in fines. So how much BP money has made it to cleanup efforts versus how much money went to pay lawyer fees, penalties, or into the US treasury for unspecified purposes? How many tax dollars will need to be used to keep the cleanup effort going for the next several decades. Those are the questions to answer if you can.
So you can keep posting links to anti-nuclear fringe groups that have little scientific support if you want but it won’t sway my opinion that the Chernobyl watchers and others like them are hypocritical to the extreme.
@jmdesp ; Sorry for the late response.
“…interesting to check on what … you base yourself for your information..”
Read e.g. the response to Wayne that I just posted.
Your link: That polish guy claims not substantiated things and suggest a lot.
E.g: “… mortality rate of survivors … at 1.09%, was much lower than the mortality rates for the whole population of Belarus of 1.4%, Russia’s 1.38%, and Ukraine’s 1.65%”
That is in line with what can be expected, as:
– The liquidators (army personnel) were a select, more fit/healthy, group.
– The damaging effects of low level radiation show after >20years – 60years as the famous LSS shows, as well as studies regarding medical staff involved in radiation, etc.
That is also in line with low level sun burn (also radiation), nicotine, asbestos, amalgan, etc.
E.g: “…LNT assumption was used by Chernobyl Forum to estimate 4000 to 9336 future cancer deaths..” Just some rough figure:
100mSv creates ~0,5% cancer death and ~1% premature death. Using LNT:
~300 million had a raised level of ~0,1mSv/year during ~20 years (initial more, later less). That translates to 3.000 premature death/ year during 20 years = 60.000 deaths.
About the same that the Torch study by eminent scientist at the time concluded.
I do not know exactly why scientists raised those death figures to ~a million.
I assume the Forum followed the idea that relative high radiation levels => visible damage).
“… hard time thinking of Germany as a model when I see … ecological horror..”
Indeed, the pictures look unworldly.
But you should look at the bigger picture / figures. And those are good.
“…. In France … we have not built a single coal plant in the last 30 years…”
That is nice. Last year I biked through France north => south towards Santiago de Compostella. I saw France was lagging behind a lot with PV panels compared to Belgium and even NL (while situated more favorable for that). And also lagging with wind mills compared to Spain…
Hope that gets better as that really deliver a sustainable future without para-siting on our grand-children..
Wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
This is someone who thinks that Christopher Busby is a credible source.
Well, the liquidators were not strictly army, but let’s ignore that for a second. Jaworowski was talking about the few people who received high acute doses — enough to cause radiation sickness — not the hundreds of thousands of liquidators. The best epidemiological work that has been done to follow-up the Chernobyl accident was performed by Ivanov et al., who found far fewer incidences of cancer than would be predicted by the LNT model.
The LSS tells us almost nothing about the consequences of low-dose or low-dose-rate exposure to radiation by the way.
Ha ha ha! Eminent scientist?! Oh, that’s rich. I’ll have to remember that joke. The Torch study was written by a bunch of activists who were commissioned by Germany’s Green Party. There was no science there. It was a political propaganda piece, pure and simple.
It’s easy. Once you have committed to following the LNT-idea of collective dose, if the number of people included in the calculation increases faster than the dose becomes vanishingly small, then the imaginary body count rises, often ridiculously so. That’s just how the math in this con game works.
Yes. Thank goodness that much of the French countryside still remains pretty and unspoiled.
Of course you do, because you’re an insane fanatic, who has been thoroughly brainwashed by “green” propaganda coming out of the Netherlands and Germany. Furthermore, your dogged persistence at spouting nonsense has earned you the title of “super troll” that someone awarded you on another blog. Congratulations.
…fewer incidences of cancer than would be predicted by the LNT model …
Logical, as low level radiation start to harm after 20 years extending to 60 years (check the LSS).
Just like so many other low level harmful things.
I think that the body repair mechanisms becomes exhausted sooner.
That applies even for top endurance sportsmen that do their sport many years.
Contrary to the usual ideas, they die on average a few years earlier than expected taking into account their usual healthy life style after their top sport period.
…why … raised those death figures to ~a million…
… Once you have committed to following the LNT-idea of collective dose…
LNT was used with the original estimation.
So still no good explanation.
Bas – As usual, your knowledge of cancer is as poor as your knowledge of everything else. Leukemia, particularly in children, begins to show up within five years. If there’s a signal, one would expect to see it there. This is one of the things that investigators always look for.
You still have no idea how the con game is run, do you? I take it that math is not your strong point.
Don’t worry. Even if I took the care to explain it to you over and over until you understood it, you would refuse to believe it anyway. So why waste the effort? Everyone else can see what I’m talking about, and that’s what is important.
Regarding: “leukemia, particular in children,” you are right.
The video halfway this page shows that leukemia acts starts much sooner compared to solid cancers: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/meta-review-of-42-studies-even-the-lowest-level-radiation-is-damaging-to-human-health.html
In line with this, leukemia is one of the harms of Chernobyl that showed already. It was even in Japan Times: E.g.:http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2012/11/09/news/exposure-to-low-level-radiation-can-cause-leukemia-u-s-ukraine-study-of-chernobyl-cleanup-workers-finds/#.UXuVm515VmU
LNT: Do I read correctly that you think the Torch study did not use LNT? So what do you think?
And how come that Chernobyl death estimations are raised so much. Now ~965000 (Greempeace even ~6 million now, while the old estimation was ~200.000)?
Bas – Why do you keep pointing to that terrible paper by the two frauds? You seem to be obsessed with it. Have you ever been diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder?
Yes. People exposed to over 1 Sv of radiation are at increased risk for developing leukemia. This is not news. It says almost nothing, however, about the risk for low-doses (say < 0.1 Sv), and what it does say is the usual “extrapolate down from high doses using a straight line through the origin” nonsense that is done with the LSS data.
No, you don’t read correctly. Here, I’ll try to explain. Let’s hope that skills at understanding simple algebra are better than your reading skills.
To get a phantom body count with LNT, one uses the following formula:
N = R × E × P
where N is the number of deaths (or cancers), R is the risk factor, E exposure to the putative hazard, and P is the size of the population that is exposed.
R is set by quasi-realistic models put out by organizations like the ICRP and is a constant. E represents the amount of stuff that manages to escape into the environment as a result of the accident and also has a fixed value. Therefore, if you want to increase N, you must increase P. The ultimate coup against reason, of course, is to declare the entire world exposed to the hazard so as to take P as high as 7 billion, but even setting P to the size of the population of a continent is enough to get satisfactory results for Greenpeace.
The reason that this defies common sense is that the exposure per individual, E/P, becomes negligibly small — so small that one could claim that he has counteracted the excess risk due to Chernobyl by avoiding a single airline flight or refusing to smoke a pack of cigarettes.
How does the “Torch” study calculates the E factor ?
I have the suspicion it relies on the assumption that once it’s out, most of the radioactivity ultimately will “touch” people. But actually they are lot of reason why a major part instead will end up at places where it never will reach anybody, like sea water.
This means that even if the low dose risk hypothesis were correct, the risk they calculate is still incorrect as the E factor is wrong.
Bas above claims 0,1mSv of exposure for 300 millions people during 20 years. At least here in France there’s a network of radioactivity measurement all over the country, and the amount of Cesium it finds is tiny, so it definitely proves the real exposure is a lot lower than that.
I intended to include some numbers in previous comment, but I left them out.
So in the 2010 French radioactivity measurement report, over 721 food test, only 13 found Cesium (8 of which in fish), at a average level of 0,07 Bq/Kg. Amount of Cesium in the air is at an average of 0,2 μBq/m3 (below detection level for most instrumentation).
You forgot the first step: arbitrarily inflate the amount that actually manages to escape the plant. And sure enough, that’s exactly what they did. In particular, they assumed that:
43% of the core’s caesium-137 was released, 30% higher than official estimates;
65% of the core’s iodine-131 was released, 16% higher than official estimates
But that is just the beginning of the ridiculous exaggerations. Next, they up the collective dose to 600,000 person-Sv. Why 600,000? Why not? I can only guess that they took the very upper end of the range of estimates that had been published (50,000 person-Sv to 300, person-Sv) and doubled it for good measure.
Note that this exposure is widely distributed. Over half went to “Europe” — i.e., the parts of Europe that were not close to the plant, like Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Over 10% of the damage was distributed to “the rest of the world” — the ultimate coup against reason that is oh so useful for gaming the system, as I mentioned above.
Thus, the junk-science manifesto is able to claim a body count that is an order of magnitude higher than even the rather conservative, hypothetical over-estimates by E. Cardis and the WHO. For their next trick, perhaps they’ll pull a rabbit out of a hat.
TORCH is a crackpot report that was purposefully designed to play to ideologues, demagogues, and idiots — the usual peanut gallery that buys into the anti-nuke propaganda. No credible scientists take it seriously.
Comments are closed.
Recent Comments from our Readers
@Cyril R What was Tesla’s learning rate starting at the first Roadster? How much do you think that first unit…
A new engine or turbine product line doesn’t just cost triple a unit. That’d make it pointless. Yet this is…
Cyril First of a Kind (FOAK) applies to products whose parts and method of assembly are new, not just products…
The problem with the FOAK argument is that FOAK LWRs were built half a century ago for under $300/kWe. And…
I kind of wonder if there aren’t some smart Canadians looking across the border and rubbing their hands with glee.…