Tag Archives: nuclear power

Indian Point Nukes North of New York City: How much iodine 131 for us?

23 Mar

There are two nuclear Power Plants less that 30 miles north of New York City, putting them in one of the most densely populated regions in the world. Here’s an old piece by Charlie Keil on why they should be shut down. And here’s a new piece in The New York Times reporting that the Governor, Andrew Cuomo, wants the plants shut down:

For Mr. Cuomo, the new discussion about Indian Point represents the latest chapter in a family history of grappling with nuclear power. The concerns he has expressed about Indian Point, particularly the possibility of trying to evacuate millions of residents around the facility, can be traced back decades: his father, former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, brokered a deal to shut down the Shoreham nuclear plant on Long Island in 1989 because of similar worries.

When he ran for governor last year, Mr. Cuomo said in a policy book that as governor, he would seek to “find alternative sources of energy generation to replace Indian Point nuclear facility because it is too dangerous to continue operating.”

Meanwhile, officials in Tokyo are worried that radioactive iodine (iodine 131) in the water puts infants at risk. They’re 140 miles from plants from plants whose current status is a bit of a mystery:

But it was not entirely clear why the levels of iodine were so high, said a senior Western nuclear executive, noting that the prevailing breezes seem to be pushing radiation out to sea. “The contamination levels are well beyond what you’d expect from what is in the public domain,” said the executive, who insisted on anonymity and has broad contacts in Japan.

 

Tags:

Ralph Nader on what you can do about OUR nukes

21 Mar

In writing about Nuclear Nightmare in the USA, Ralph Nader recommends these steps:

1. Demand public hearings in your communities where there is a nuke, sponsored either by your member of Congress or the NRC, to put the facts, risks and evacuation plans on the table. Insist that the critics as well as the proponents testify and cross-examine each other in front of you and the media.

2. If you call yourself conservative, ask why nuclear power requires such huge amounts of your tax dollars and guarantees and can’t buy adequate private insurance. If you have a small business that can’t buy insurance because what you do is too risky, you don’t stay in business.

3. If you are an environmentalist, ask why nuclear power isn’t required to meet a cost-efficient market test against investments in energy conservation and renewables.

4. If you understand traffic congestion, ask for an actual real life evacuation drill for those living and working 10 miles around the plant (some scientists think it should be at least 25 miles) and watch the hemming and hawing from proponents of nuclear power.

Tags: ,

Amory Lovins on Lessons from Fukushima

21 Mar

Writing at RMI Outlet, the blog for the Rocky Mountain Institute, Amory Lovins draws lessons from Fukishima, noting that the US has 6 plants identical to those and 17 very similar to them. And he notes that that pouring money money in the nuclear swamp will “reduce and retard climate protection.” Thus:

Each dollar spent on a new reactor buys about 2-10 times less carbon savings, 20-40 times slower, than spending that dollar on the cheaper, faster, safer solutions that make nuclear power unnecessary and uneconomic: efficient use of electricity, making heat and power together in factories or buildings (“cogeneration”), and renewable energy. The last two made 18% of the world’s 2009 electricity (while nuclear made 13%, reversing their 2000 shares)–and made over 90% of the 2007-08 increase in global electricity production.Those smarter choices are sweeping the global energy market. Half the world’s new generating capacity in 2008 and 2009 was renewable. In 2010, renewables, excluding big hydro dams, won $151 billion of private investment and added over 50 billion watts (70% the total capacity of all 23 Fukushima-style U.S. reactors) while nuclear got zero private investment and kept losing capacity. Supposedly unreliable windpower made 43-52% of four German states’ total 2010 electricity. Non-nuclear Denmark, 21% windpowered, plans to get entirely off fossil fuels. Hawai’i plans 70% renewables by 2025.

He further notes that:

Japan, for its size, is even richer than America in benign, ample, but long-neglected energy choices. Perhaps this tragedy will call Japan to global leadership into a post-nuclear world. And before America suffers its own Fukushima, it too should ask, not whether unfinanceably costly new reactors are safe, but why build any more, and why keep running unsafe ones. China has suspended reactor approvals. Germany just shut down the oldest 41% of its nuclear capacity for study. America’s nuclear lobby says it can’t happen here, so pile on lavish new subsidies.

Tags: ,

“Our Friend the Atom” and He is Us

18 Mar

One idea that I’ve seen here and there in discussions of the nuclear emergency in Japan goes like this: “Why the coverage of the nukes? After all, thousands have already died from the earthquake and tsunami, 100s of thousands are homeless, and whole towns have been wiped away. All that damage far exceeds anything so far caused by those collapsed plants and any damage likely to be caused by them. Why not more coverage of the big story?”

The question, I believe, is a good one. And the answer, I suspect, goes like this: The earthquake and the tsunami were caused by Nature. We can take preventive measures, but we can’t predict or control them (though we’re working on prediction). Those atomic plants, however, they are Us. To say we can’t control them is to say that we can’t control ourselves. If we can’t control ourselves, are we any better than animals?

The issue of control is crucial. The difference between an atomic explosion and an atomic power plant is one of control: WE CONTROL what happens in the power plant. We can turn it on, turn it off, and make it go faster or slower. It does our bidding. Of course, it also creates dangerous radiation, which we must control. If we don’t, the radiation causes disease, cancer, mutations, strange unnatural beings, monsters (Gojira).

Continue reading →

Tags: , , ,

Over the Rainbow and Thru the Woods to Safe Nukes, NOT

15 Mar

Over at the NYTimes Peter Wynn Kirby has kicked off a nice discussion of nuclear disaster in Japanese pop culture, which is what put me in mind of Gojira. The staff here at TPUSA has been reading through the discussion and found one comment to be particularly potent. It’s by Bert from Philadelphia:

Nuclear power is perfectly safe if it is place in a location that we know in advance will be unmolested by earthquake, terrorism, uprising, tornado for the next half century. And that it is made of pure unobtainium* so that the parts never break or wear out unexpectedly. And the software that runs it is bug free. And the operators will never be inattentive, sick, drunk or drugged up, or having sex instead of watching the gauges.

*Jeez, I hope James “Avatar” Cameron hasn’t trade-marked that term.

Tags: ,

No Nukes, because we Know Nukes

14 Mar

The current nuclear emergency in Japan underlines the need to transition to local power sources that are safe and sustainable. Writing in Artvoice, Michael Niman explains:

Global warming could radically transform the planet into something much less inhabitable. Peak oil could radically change society—and the change won’t be pleasant to live through. But nuclear power—now here’s something with the potential to render the whole planet uninhabitable. Nuclear waste is deadly—extremely deadly—for hundreds of thousands of years after it’s produced. We’ve produced hundreds of tons of this crap already and still have no clue what to do with it other than assuming we’ll have the wherewithal to babysit it for the next quarter of a million years through whatever chaos comes our way.

Tags: ,

Newer Entries →