TEPCO Prez to UK - Fukushima "a warning to the world"

[kristopher]

Fukushima nuclear disaster is warning to the world, says power company boss
Exclusive: UK government must learn from Japan's catastrophe as it plans a new generation of plant, nuclear chief claims

Simon Tisdall in Tokyo
The Guardian, Tuesday 19 November 2013 13.10 EST

The catastrophic triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in March 2011 was "a warning to the world" about the hazards of nuclear power and contained lessons for the British government as it plans a new generation of nuclear power stations, the man with overall responsibility for the operation in Japan has told the Guardian.

Speaking at his Tokyo corporate headquarters , Naomi Hirose, president of the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco), which runs the stricken Fukushima plant, said Britain's nuclear managers "should be prepared for the worst" in order to avoid repeating Japan's traumatic experience. "We tried to persuade people that nuclear power is 100% safe. That was easy for both sides. Our side explains how safe nuclear power is. The other side is the people who listen and for them it is easy to hear OK, it's safe, sure, why not?

"But we have to explain, no matter how small a possibility, what if this [safety] barrier is broken? We have to prepare a plan if something happens … It is easy to say this is almost perfect so we don't have to worry about it. But we have to keep thinking: what if …"

British ministers recently agreed a commercial deal with the French state-owned energy company EDF Energy to build the UK's first new nuclear reactor in a generation at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The agreement included the UK government providing accident insurance.

Tepco's Fukushima Daiichi facility on the coast about 124 miles (200km) north-east of Tokyo, comprising...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/19/uk-government-new-plant-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-warning

[enough]

1. Amazing to hear so much truth spoken through so much falsity. Or vice versa.

It's enough to make you think the situation has driven those supposedly in control into some sort of not very well controlled madness. He keeps trying to behave as if the catastrophe is in the past, as does the writer of the article.

[GliderGuider]

2. So he finally had his Come-to-Jesus moment? Good for him...

A day late and a few trillion yen short, but there it is.
I hope Britain listens.

[NNadir]

3. Yeah, because killing with coal gets no attention.

A few million dead from ordinary operations is not sexy.

If I were invested in the end of the world, I'd vote for Britain listening to this crap too.

There are apparently people who find this pop crap sexy, apparently people who've never been to an autopsy and looked at lung tissue.

How many people did Fukushima kill again? Five minutes worth of air pollution? Two minutes? Zero minutes?

[GliderGuider]

4. Do you have a way for the dangers of coal, oil and gas to get some action?

If so I'm all ears. If not, I'll take what I can get, and if that involves hampering the growth of any energy technology, I'm all for it. Because aside from the specific dangers of any given technology, I think that the fundamental problem civilization faces is an excess of Gibbs free energy sloshing around.

Unfortunately, I think all other forms of energy (renewables, nuclear and hydro) tend to be additive to the base of fossil fuel energy rather than displacive - that's what the data seems to show at this point. That means we're going to burn all the carbon we can, regardless of what other energy baubles we deck the Christmas tree with - and damn the consequences. So even cutting down any of the marginal players is a good beginning.

The Prophets of the God of Energy Salvation, of course, disagree...

So, how do we cut fossil fuel use by 90% in 20 years if the public decides that they really don't like the nuculars? I don't think wind and solar are going to have the horsepower to do it, and that's what it will take to keep even a corner of the planet recognizable.

[kristopher]

6. Renewables (wind, water, geothermal and solar) does "have the horsepower".

It isn't the technology that's lacking.

[GliderGuider]

7. Preach it, brother! nt

[PamW]

10. Actually it IS the technology!

kristopher,

Actually it IS the technology. The fact that you don't understand why is immaterial.

The National Academy of Sciences has said it, and climate scientist Dr. Hansen and colleagues have said it.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

[kristopher]

5. They obviously won't listen.

They've shown themselves willing to do anything at all to get those reactors, it is pretty clear that their decision-making process is impervious to outside influence.

[FBaggins]

8. Sorry... you're the ones that aren't listening.

To you, the "lessons of Fukushima" may be "stop using nuclear power"... but that's clearly not what he's saying.

His message is something that any nation launching a new wave of nuclear construction should pay attention to.

[kristopher]

11. He's saying that Fukushima was a man-made disaster

And that those who want to build nuclear plants need to accept that the "what if" mode during decision-making needs to include the reality that melt downs and releases of radioactive materials are NOT an impossibility.

In other words, if you build a nuclear plant, be prepared to deal with a disaster.

If you want to interpret that as "don't stop using nuclear power" that is your choice.

[FBaggins]

12. And why is that a problem? To some extent is was.

Not that that means that it wasn't the tsunami that was the direct cause of the disaster... but yes, they've learned that they made mistakes (many of which were standard parts of the same generation of BWRs in the US) - Getting backup generators to the plant only to find that the connections are incompatible? They never practiced? Having a micro-managing national executive driving some decision making (and without the staff or resources that were designed to assist him in exactly this type of event)? Seawall apparently lower than a maximum predicted tsunami?

And that those who want to build nuclear plants need to accept that the "what if" mode during decision-making needs to include the reality that melt downs and releases of radioactive materials are NOT an impossibility.

Nobody has said that they are.

In other words, if you build a nuclear plant, be prepared to deal with a disaster.

Which is already part of the UK plan and has been built into newer reactor designs for decades. But "disaster" doesn't have to mean "largescale radiaoctive release endangering the public".

If you want to interpret that as "don't stop using nuclear power" that is your choice.

There's no need to "interpret" it at all since he was explicitly talking about how to plan for the next generation of reactor construction... not whether to build it.

[PamW]

9. Zeppelin Prez to World: - Hindenburg a "warning to the world"

The President of the German Zeppelin company could have written the same thing back in 1937.

The crash / fire of the Hindenburg occurred on May 6, 1937.

The President of the Zeppelin company could have told the world that the crash of the Hindenburg was a harbinger of terrible things to come.

He could have advised mankind to give up this terrible notion of flying. It's just plain stupid.

"If God had meant Man to fly; he would have given him wing".

What a foolhardy endeavor this whole business of flying is. What a waste of effort.

Sure, the world would be a better place if mankind had given up on flying.

Just because TEPCO didn't follow best practices that the rest of the nuclear industry follows...

Just because TEPCO built / operated a plant that couldn't be licensed in the USA....

Just because TEPCO IGNORED the advice of their reactor vendor General Electric...

The rest of the world has to give up on a technology because TEPCO bungled it and paid the price for its errors.

The rest of the world has to suffer because of TEPCO's blunders?

I don't think so.

PamW

[caraher]

13. The dangers of analogies

I think that actually, the Hindenburg disaster indeed proved the death knell for a flying technology. When was the last time anyone booked a ticket on a hydrogen-filled airship? I think that's the analogy someone who doesn't already agree with you would find most apt. There are other ways of flying; similarly, there are other ways of generating electricity.

I don't think likening a nuclear power station to the Hindenburg provides a compelling argument either for or against fission.