There is a lot of confusion and conflicting information coming out of Japan right now, but I’m glad to say that the nuclear situation has not deteriorated overnight as much as I feared. The power company says the containment has suffered no significant change as a result of the most recent explosion, which is very welcome news. Twenty-three workers at the plant have had to be decontaminated, but the “heightened” levels of radiation seen in the metropolitan areas are still minute and not dangerous. To illustrate how much confusion there still is: There have been conflicting reports as to whether the radiation levels reported at the plant are in millisieverts or microsieverts (the latter is a thousand times less dangerous), little indication as to whether heightened radiation levels at the plant are around the reactor or outside the reactor structure, and no strong indication whether they derive from venting of gases that are easily dispersed and carry no long-term hazard, or from aerosols of cesium and iodine, which are indeed problematic.
It is becoming clear, however, that the biggest problem has been the lack of backup power — the tsunami destroyed the on-site diesel-powered plants. Attempts to get in more emergency power have been faltering at best, leading to the coolant problems that have led to the potential/partial meltdowns (I am still unclear whether meltdown has actually taken place). As such, it is a failure in a second-order safety feature that has led to the problems. I am unaware of any other incident in which backup power has failed for so long, but the circumstances in which it did remain extraordinary.
So when the New York Times says this —
With the United States poised to expand nuclear power after decades of stagnation, it will be important to reassess safety standards. Some 30 American reactors have designs similar to the crippled reactors in Japan. Various reactors in this country are situated near geologic faults, in coastal areas reachable by tsunamis or in areas potentially vulnerable to flooding. Regulators will need to evaluate how well operators would cope if they lost both primary power and backup diesel generators for an extended period.
This page has endorsed nuclear power as one tool to head off global warming. We suspect that, when all the evidence is in from Japan, it will remain a valuable tool. But the public needs to know that it is a safe one.
— I think they have got it broadly right. The sort of checks they are talking about should not take too long. Backup power facilities may need to be strengthened in some cases, but I see no reason for this to interfere with the normal running of the plants. Future design will certainly take backup power into account. The events in Japan as yet provide no reason for America to abandon its nuclear program. Let us reiterate what has so far resulted from this second-worst nuclear-power incident ever:
• Zero deaths from radiation.
• Zero release of radiation levels of a danger to human health, except for brief periods for those working within the plant compound (not Public exposure). These workers would be well protected and monitored to avoid excessive accumulated doses.
• Minimal injuries (about a dozen) as a result of the hydrogen explosions.
• No significant or lasting environmental impact whatsoever.
• A major evacuation, which has no doubt been distressing for all involved.
• 8–10 of Japan’s 55 nuclear reactors known to have varying levels of damage that will impact their ability to provide electricity. The remainder will no doubt require inspection, but would appear to be relatively undamaged.
When the Times says that “the public needs to know” nuclear power is safe, that is Steven Chu’s job. I repeat my question: Where is he?
Finally, we should note that there was also a renewable-energy disaster in Japan, but it has so far gone unreported, except in the trade press:
A dam in the Fukushima prefecture of Japan was breached following the recent earthquake and tsunamis which have devastated the country.
According to media reports, the dam broke on Friday, with a wall of water washing away 1800 homes downstream.
I have not noted the usual suspects calling for all hydroelectric dams to be shut down, or even for an urgent review of their safety.
To give you an idea of the extraordinary event that must have occurred, comparable plants in the US have five back-up diesel generators, with roughly thirty days of diesel fuel on-site.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
This sums it up Ian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcuse me Iain.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Iowa legislature was debating a bill to ease restrictions on building nuclear power plants. Last week it was a sure bet. Last night it was killed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I have not noted the usual suspects calling for all hydroelectric dams to be shut down, or even for an urgent review of their safety."
Because radiation is scarrrrrrrrry!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was sitting here in Tokyo and rubbing all three of my eyes wondering what the hell you were saying in the last post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm willing to bet everything I own that more people will die as a direct result of media fearmongering (suicides and heart attacks) than from radiation from these plants.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseProbably working out B-ball brackets with the Preshizzle.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGotta love those sober, analytical Iowa legislators.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"To illustrate how much confusion there still is: There have been conflicting reports as to whether the radiation levels reported at the plant are in millisieverts or microsieverts (the latter is a thousand times less dangerous), little indication as to whether heightened radiation levels at the plant are around the reactor or outside the reactor structure, and no strong indication whether they derive from venting of gases that are easily dispersed and carry no long-term hazard, or from aerosols of cesium and iodine, which are indeed problematic."
<=== THAT is why Chu hasn't said anything yet. At this point it is all speculation. The conservative position is to wait and see, not go off half-cocked one way or the other. There will be plenty of time in the weeks down the road to see if the problem here was a fundamental design flaw, bad planning (TEPCO has a history of poor nuclear safety and cover-ups), or just a combination of really bad luck with circumstances that are unlikely to happen again.
Here's the most important point, though - Chu's credibility rides on his ability to accurately interpret this and then broadcast that information to the public. If Chu comes out right now and says everything will be fine, and then there is a significant and harmful radiation release, his credibility is shot and even if it's the sort of accident that is very unlikely to happen in the US, people won't believe him. If, on the other hand, he waits until the situation is resolved, then even if a bad release happens he still has the opportunity to explain why it's unlikely to happen here. People want honest appraisals one way or another, not reflexive defenses of the system (which is what you seem to be offering). I'm a big supporter of nuclear power (I grew up within a 10-mile evacuation zone of a plant in central PA (not TMI) and feel the good far outweighs the potential bad), but this has to be handled right. If you start saying all is well and then more bad things keep happening, that's the surest way to sink the public's trust in what you have to say.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLife is surreal in the extreme. Today I wondered what one wore to work on the day the world may or may not be poised on the brink of nuclear disaster.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Japanese reactors are old General Electric designs which were viewed with disfavor by the NRC even when they were new in the early 1970's.
The Idaho National Labs has for decades produced all the reactors for the US Navy. In the mid-1980's, they produced a fail-safe light water reactor and made extensive emergency testing upon it. In one case they shut off the light water coolant, and the reactor safely shut itself down without damage. Later on they fired it back up and it operated normally.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@port1080
Saying you do not know enough is not the same as saying nothing.
It’s perfectly appropriate for Steven Chu to say ‘there is not enough information at them moment to make any accurate statements about the Japanese situation, as more is known I will promulgate further analysis’. By saying nothing, the narrative is allowed to be written by the media (who may be well meaning but is woefully ignorant on nuclear physics). Unfortunately the media is not gathering opinion from the best personnel, they have ‘experts’ pontificating yet these experts have degrees in political science and international relations, I think we need expert opinion from nuclear engineers types, please.
This is a perfect opportunity for the Executive Branch to show some executive leadership and provide structure for the national dialogue. By saying nothing, the dialogue is allowed meander on its own course. This allows the cynical to declare ‘perhaps this is the plan; allow the left leaning media to dictate a dialogue that tends to push Americans away from nuclear energy’. The common sense approach in the NYT as written above should give some reassurance but the administration’s prior foibles from the gulf spill to the international arena will give some pause.
Now is the time for the President and his cabinet to step up to assist an informed public in making fact based critical decisions about our vital energy infrastructure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe reactor complex actually survived an earthquake significantly stronger than it was designed to handle, and the reactors immediately shut down. There's very little chance that there could be a true meltdown that breaks the reactor containment at this point. The reactors themselves are toast, but the engineering systems worked.
As to the backup systems. The diesel generators went offline due to the tsunami, but the battery backup worked to keep the reactors cool enough to prevent breach. There are several good articles on the actual events on the Web; a good with with common-languate explanations is at the Register in the UK.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusedittoheadadt: In defense of the Iowa legislators, even though I disagree with them. They are coming down to the end of the session. They had to either pass the bill now, or kill the bill now. They couldn't wait a few weeks to see how things shake out. Hopefully we will be able to get the same bill reintroduced next year, when passions are calmer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseport1080: Your willingness to find excuses for Chu remains undiminished.
While there is a lot that is still unknown, there is much that is known. Whether the radiation is milliseverts or microseverts, it is still very low. He can make that point instead allowing people to think that the radiation leaks are at dangerous levels.
It is known that there has been no breach of containment and few experts believe there will be any breaches. He can tell people that.
He can remind people that these reactors are a 40 year old design, and newer designs are much better and much safer.
He can tell people that these reactors were hit by a combination of 9.0 earthquake and 30 foot tsunami. Few if any US reactors face such challenges.
There is a lot Chu can say to reassure the public without getting outside of what is known. The fact is that he is falling down on the job, and no amount of excuses by you or anyone else will disguise that fact.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseChu, Holder, Obama, Clinton - with all the disaster going on in the world, our leadership is disappearing. The whole bunch should resign, be impeached, or stay disappeared, except that Joe Biden is in the wings waiting to step in - God Forbid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"port1080: Your willingness to find excuses for Chu remains undiminished."
? This is the first time I've made any comment here about Chu. You may be confusing me with someone else.
"While there is a lot that is still unknown, there is much that is known. Whether the radiation is milliseverts or microseverts, it is still very low. He can make that point instead allowing people to think that the radiation leaks are at dangerous levels."
The point is, right now we don't know that they're not. All the data suggests that it's low, but considering PEPCO's propensity to lie about such things, who knows? The first day after the accident, we were told everything was completely under control. That was obviously not true. Why should Chu say something is true that he has no way of confirming?
"It is known that there has been no breach of containment and few experts believe there will be any breaches. He can tell people that."
Actually, my understanding is that one of the reactors may have had a containment breach - see here: External Link
"He can remind people that these reactors are a 40 year old design, and newer designs are much better and much safer."
Fair enough, but it's worth pointing out that many US reactors are also of a 40 year old design (and all are at least 30 years old, since no new reactors have been built since TMI). That shouldn't stop us from building new reactors (if anything, it should push us to build them faster), but it doesn't help assuage the fears of people who currently live next to those old reactors.
"He can tell people that these reactors were hit by a combination of 9.0 earthquake and 30 foot tsunami. Few if any US reactors face such challenges."
The bigger point is that these reactors were hit by an event that wasn't supposed to happen...so saying that all US reactors are built to sustain "any damage that can be predicted" doesn't really answer that problem - because this level of disaster wasn't predicted, or predictable.
"There is a lot Chu can say to reassure the public without getting outside of what is known. The fact is that he is falling down on the job, and no amount of excuses by you or anyone else will disguise that fact."
You haven't convinced me. What exactly should he be saying right now, that wouldn't make him look like a shill for the nuclear industry? Think about this as someone who is skeptical of nuclear power, who is very afraid of it, and who has little understanding of it and probably can't be educated - those are the people that government officials need to convince, one way or the other. What would you tell someone like that, how would you best convince them that nuclear power plants are safe, when all they are currently hearing on the news is continued problems? Do you really think that right now, in the midst of the crisis (before we have any clue what the ultimate resolution will be) is the time to risk your credibility?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem with nuclear power is that one of its strengths - the slow-motion way in which a crisis takes place, allowing countermeasures and evacuation - is a public relations nightmare, because it encourages a media circus to camp outside the gates stirring up anxiety.
It seems to me that these particular plants must have some design flaw that prompted three of them to experience problems simultaneously. I know they weren't designed for a 9.0 quake, but they should have been designed to shutdown safely no matter what. The defense in depth wasn't quite deep enough.
Also, like the BP Deepwater Horizon panic, what is especially vexing to the ordinary public is the idea that, even after weeks and months, we were powerless to do anything. Saying (probably correctly) that what happened here is extremely unlikely will not mollify the public anymore than saying that the drowning of New Orleans was a once in a century event. When it happens, statistics go out the window.
What the nuclear industry needs is an international crisis management team that has the material, knowledge (and maybe robots) necessary to hastily construct a Chernobyl-like sarcophagus anywhere in the world on short notice, should all the defenses at a plant fail. If they can build a bridge across the Rhine overnight under enemy fire, I have to think this is not beyond the realm of possibility.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't want to do this but I am going to have to slam Drudge here.
Drudge is guilty of overly hyping the nuclear threat. He now has a radiation detector (which is actually showing levels well within the safe zone) in what looks like Shibuya, Tokyo with the headline in red "RADIATION LEVELS SORE". I could do without a media induced panic. I know a total disaster is great for ratings and web page views and even pushing some political agendas (some I don't think Drudge favors), but it is not helping the situation on the ground here. The media needs to report fact and not wild speculation, it is not a joke.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse