A Fukushima on the Hudson?: The Growing Dangers of Indian Point

[marmar]

from TomDispatch:




A Fukushima on the Hudson?
The Growing Dangers of Indian Point

By Ellen Cantarow and Alison Rose Levy


It was a beautiful spring day and, in the control room of the nuclear reactor, the workers decided to deactivate the security system for a systems test. As they started to do so, however, the floor of the reactor began to tremble. Suddenly, its 1,200-ton cover blasted flames into the air. Tons of radioactive radium and graphite shot 1,000 meters into the sky and began drifting to the ground for miles around the nuclear plant. The first firemen to the rescue brought tons of water that would prove useless when it came to dousing the fires. The workers wore no protective clothing and eight of them would die that night -- dozens more in the months to follow.

It was April 26, 1986, and this was just the start of the meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, the worst nuclear accident of its kind in history. Chernobyl is ranked as a “level 7 event,” the maximum danger classification on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. It would spew out more radioactivity than 100 Hiroshima bombs. Of the 350,000 workers involved in cleanup operations, according to the World Health Organization, 240,000 would be exposed to the highest levels of radiation in a 30-mile zone around the plant. It is uncertain exactly how many cancer deaths have resulted since. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s estimate of the expected death toll from Chernobyl was 4,000. A 2006 Greenpeace report challenged that figure, suggesting that 16,000 people had already died due to the accident and predicting another 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus still to come. A significant increase in thyroid cancers in children, a very rare disease for them, has been charted in the region -- nearly 7,000 cases by 2005 in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine.

In March 2011, 25 years after the Chernobyl catastrophe, damage caused by a tsunami triggered by a massive 9.0 magnitude earthquake led to the meltdown of three reactors at a nuclear plant in Fukushima, Japan. Radioactive rain from the Fukushima accident fell as far away as Ireland.

In 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency had, in fact, warned the Japanese government that none of the country’s nuclear power plants could withstand powerful earthquakes. That included the Fukushima plant, which had been built to take only a 7.0 magnitude event. No attention was paid at the time. After the disaster, the plant’s owner, Tokyo Electric Power, rehired Shaw Construction, which had designed and built the plant in the first place, to rebuild it.

Near Misses, Radioactive Leaks, and Flooding

In both Chernobyl and Fukushima, areas around the devastated plants were made uninhabitable for the foreseeable future. In neither place, before disaster began to unfold, was anyone expecting it and few imagined that such a catastrophe was possible. In the United States, too, despite the knowledge since 1945 that nuclear power, at war or in peacetime, holds dangers of a stunning sort, the general attitude remains: it can’t happen here -- nowhere more dangerously in recent years than on the banks of New York’s Hudson River, an area that could face a nuclear peril endangering a population of nearly 20 million. .........(more)

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176122/tomgram%3A_cantarow_and_levy%2C_could_nuclear_disaster_come_to_america/#more

[NNadir]

1. Shutting Indian Point, as is the case with shutting any nuclear plant, will kill people.

The conceit of anti-nukes is that it is perfectly appropriate for 7 million people to die each year from air pollution because they're overly active and mindless imaginations are fixated on disaster movie scenarios.

The survey of causes of mortality on this planet, which includes data from the half a century of commercial nuclear operations does not include deaths from nuclear power plants.

A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 ( Lancet 2012, 380, 2224–60: For air pollution mortality figures see Table 3, page 2238 and the text on page 2240.)

Nowhere in that paper is any issue related to nuclear energy listed as a major cause of death, but nonetheless, we have all kinds of very, very, very, very, very dangerous fools running around claiming that nuclear energy is "unsafe."

Unsafe compared to what? 50 million deaths every 7 years?

The problem with anti-nukes is that they insist that everything else can kill at will unless nuclear energy is perfect. Nuclear energy need not be perfect, it need not be without risk, to be vastly safer than everything else. It only needs to be vastly superior to everything else, which it is.

The hatred of the technology developed by the finest minds of the 20th century, nuclear energy, is as stupid as creationism, except that belief in creationism probably kills far fewer people than anti-nuke fear and ignorance.

Have a nice weekend.

[phantom power]

6. +1e6

[kristopher]

15. As usual, the conclusion you offer isn't supported by the data.

Given current industry dynamics there is no reason to think that shutting down Indian Point will result in increased emissions of any kind. It's possible, but highly unlikely.

[FBaggins]

18. As usual... your keyhole-narrow focus has forced you to defend the ridiculous

There is no possible support for a claim that shutting down Indian Point would not result in increased emissions (or even that it would not necessarily do so).

Indian Point produces much more electricity than all non-hydro renewables sources in the state combined. Of course shutting it down would result in increased emissions. The excess capacity in the state comes from natural gas and recently idled coal plants.

[kristopher]

19. With the Clean Power Plan in effect

That power is effectively required to be replaced with either renewables or energy efficiency.

[FBaggins]

20. Laughable spin

Does legislation have the power to alter reality?

They don't have the ability to replace it with renewables for many years... and (as with Germany) if they tried, it would only replace nuclear instead of fossil fuel that would otherwise have been shuttered... still leaving an emissions gap from the decision.

From 2012-2015, NY installed a mere 110 MWs of wind capacity. Are they going to increase that more than 50-fold in the coming 3-4 years?

The Clean Power Plan is one of the reasons that it won't be shut down.

[kristopher]

21. Yes legislation has the power to alter reality.

That's exactly what it's for. The effect of the CPP on removing the nuclear plant would be to up the amount of renewables/energy efficiency they are obligated to bring online. It isn't complicated. That, in turn, would certainly result in a more robust effort. To say that it somehow can't be done is as false as the claim you make about Germany.

The configuration of the energy system is a matter of will. Nothing else. If the plant is a danger (and just by its location and age it is reasonable to consider shutting it down) it can be replaced with renewable energy and energy efficiency.

[FBaggins]

22. There's that active imagination again

It's far more rational to say that the effect of the CPP is that they won't remove the nuclear plant, because they can't cut fossil generation and offset nuclear generation at the same time.

To say that it somehow can't be done is as false as the claim you make about Germany.

There's nothing false about it. Virtually all of the progress that they've made in reducing emissions since 2009 has been undone by their course reversal on nuclear power (that is... their emissions in 2015 were virtually identical to 2009). They were on track to hit their 2020 emissions targets - and now they aren't. And they still have half of their nuclear power yet to shut down.

Hardly any of their new renewables generation capacity was added in response to the nuclear phaseout... it was supposed to be replacing fossil generation.

Q.E.D.

[Baobab]

2. One possible effect of solar flares and loss of the ultimate heat sink - is multiple

meltdowns all around the world. The chance may be fairly high, I think its many orders of magnitude higher than terrorism, we narrowly missed a very powerful CME in 2012. the last such solar storm that did hit the Earth was in 1859 - the "Carrington event"

It would be bad enough for the solar storm to take the global power grid out, for months or even years, but the *lasting* damage caused by multiple nuclear meltdowns could set civilization back centuries or even make large parts of the planet uninhabitable.

This is a terrifying risk we take by not having multiple redundant power systems in place to keep the spent fuel pools cooled in the event of a disruption in the national power grids due to a CME like the carrington event in 1859. We narrowly missed one in 2012.


http://www.resilientsocieties.org/images/Petition_For_Rulemaking_Resilient_Societies_Docketed.pdf

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/lowres-Severe-Space-Weather-FINAL.pdf

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/21jan_severespaceweather/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9020059.stm

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/16jul_ilws/

[Lodestar]

3. A High-Pressure Pipeline Next to a Nuclear Power Plant. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

http://www.thenation.com/article/a-high-pressure-pipeline-next-to-a-nuclear-power-plant-what-could-possibly-go-wrong/

[whitefordmd]

7. The pipeline is nearly 1/4 of a mile away from the nuke plant

Causing me a massive shrug of the shoulders. The risk is nearly zero that the pipeline could affect the power plant in a way that causes a leak

[Lodestar]

8. When YOU live within a 1/4 mile of this infrastructure I'll give your opinion

more weight. But in the meantime I think one needs to err on the side of
safety for those who DO live in the area.

[whitefordmd]

11. My opinion is not changed by where I live

it is based on knowledge of the risks associated with gas line distributions systems and nuclear energy plants.

Those living in the area are in far greater danger of getting hit by lightning.

[wtmusic]

4. How Anti-Obama. How Pro-Fossil Fuel.

"FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Announces Actions to Ensure that Nuclear Energy Remains a Vibrant Component of the United States’ Clean Energy Strategy

As detailed in the Climate Action Plan, President Obama is committed to using every appropriate tool to combat climate change. Nuclear power, which in 2014 generated about 60 percent of carbon-free electricity in the United States, continues to play a major role in efforts to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector. As America leads the global transition to a low-carbon economy, the continued development of new and advanced nuclear technologies along with support for currently operating nuclear power plants is an important component of our clean energy strategy. Investing in the safe and secure development of nuclear power also helps advance other vital policy objectives in the national interest, such as maintaining economic competitiveness and job creation, as well as enhancing nuclear nonproliferation efforts, nuclear safety and security, and energy security.

The President’s FY 2016 Budget includes more than $900 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) to support the U.S. civilian nuclear energy sector by leading federal research, development, and demonstration efforts in nuclear energy technologies, ranging from power generation, safety, hybrid energy systems, and security technologies, among other things. DOE also supports the deployment of these technologies with $12.5 billion in remaining loan guarantee authority for advanced nuclear projects through Title 17. DOE’s investments in nuclear energy help secure the three strategic objectives that are foundational to our nation’s energy system: energy security, economic competitiveness, and environmental responsibility."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/06/fact-sheet-obama-administration-announces-actions-ensure-nuclear-energy

[wtmusic]

5. There are no growing dangers, but nice try.

Antinukes (aka, pawns of natural gas) are pulling this same crap in California with Diablo Canyon.

Guess what? It's not flying.

Turns out the Nuclear Renaissance is real, and thanks to Californians for Green Nuclear Power and SaveDiabloCanyon.org (Michael Shellenberger's new crusade), Diablo Canyon's desalination facility is being expanded.

Also turns out a lot of people need fresh water, and they aren't falling for the 1970s "China Syndrome" goofiness anymore.

[Lodestar]

9. "the nuclear renaissance is real"?

Those who are against nukes are by default "pawns of natural gas"?

What fantasy world are you living in? Only a "pawn" of the nuclear industry
could come up with this stuff.
Apparently you don't live in Japan....(renaissance indeed...lol).

Nuclear renaissance? Failing industry is running flat out to stand still

Despite the endless rhetoric about a 'nuclear renaissance', there are fewer power reactors today than there were a decade ago, writes Jim Green. The one country with a really big nuclear build program is China, but no one expects it to meet its targets. And with over 200 reactor shut-downs due by 2040, the industry will have to run very hard indeed just to stay put.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987010/nuclear_renaissance_failing_industry_is_running_flat_out_to_stand_still.html

[NNadir]

10. Despite the endless nonsense, nuclear energy remains, by far, the world's largest...

...climate change gas free energy.

It does this with 30 year technology, despite endless attacks by dumb people who are only notable for having never opened a science books in their long pathetic lives.

Nuclear energy needs no "renaissance" to out produce the useless junk we just spent two trillion bucks on, the useless, so called "renewable energy" failure.

For the record, more people have clearly been killed by the coal and gas related air pollution devoted to running computers so dumb people can run off at the mouth about Fukushima, than have been killed by radiation at the event.

Actually, the largest killer in that event, was the roughly 15 to 20 thousand people who died from drowning and collapsing buildings, but we never hear stupid anti-nukes advocating the end of coastal cities because they're "too dangerous." (For the record, in the last 15 years, destruction in coastal areas from tsunamis is approximately a quarter of a million people.)

But in terms of loss of life, the energy form that anti-nukes couldn't care less about, dwarfs drownings from tsunamis.

Seven million people die every year from air pollution.

Seven million.

I have met zero anti-nukes who give a shit about those seven million deaths each year, 50 million every seven years.

That takes place not just in Japan, not just in the Ukraine, but every where. Every living thing on the face of this planet is contaminated with dangerous fossil fuel waste, and yet, and yet and yet...

...we still have assholes muttering about "Japan."

Nuclear energy saves lives. The most credible estimate that it saved 1.8 million in its half a century of commercial practice.

It might have saved tens of millions more if instead of crying over Fukushima, Chernobyl and the like - which combined did not kill as many people as will die in the next 24 hours from air pollution - the dumbass anti-nuke community had focused on stuff more their speed: Seances and bad disaster movies.

Have a nice evening.

[Lodestar]

12. Ha...was wondering when you'd show up.

Oh, I forgot that one....being anti-nuke also assumes that by default one would prefer fossil fuels
and pollution. Hey now there's an effective argument. At it's heart these issues are less
about the benefits or ill-effects of these industries on the earth and its inhabitants than they are
about profits.
And that's where the real change has to happen first.

Lobbying and legislation against alternative energies and programs, purchasing and squashing young 'green' energy companies and their patents, using social media shills to kill promotion or discussion of alternatives, does not make for a "renaissance". It's oppressive and a death wish.

But hey, thanks for keeping this thread bumped so everyone can read the OP.

[wtmusic]

13. No, being anti-nuke requires you accept fossil fuels, pollution, and climate change.

The idea windmills and solar panels will ever make a meaningful contribution to the world's energy is pixie dust. Always has been, with the blessing of Exxon-Mobil. Or maybe you can show me an exception?

[kristopher]

16. No it doesn't.

v Nuclear produces less than 3% of global final energy consumed and the forecast is for negative growth.

^ Renewables produce about 20% of global final energy consumed from about 1.6TW of capacity, and and that number is expected to double to about 3.5TW by 2025. The snowball is gaining momentum. ^

[wtmusic]

14. Japan Inches Closer to Nuclear Revival as 3rd Reactor Starts

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-28/japan-inches-closer-to-nuclear-revival-as-third-reactor-restarts

Sometimes the truth just sucks.

[kristopher]

17. You're right. Sometimes the truth just sucks. Take your slant here...

What has happened is that in order to serve corporate interests, the rightwing government of Japan is trying and ram nuclear down the throats of an unwilling populace. Public sentiment and the government then approved a transition to renewable energy after Fukushima, but the new rightwing government changed the plan with no public input.

The result? A long term stalemate that requires Japan to escalate consumption of fossil fuels. By now, if they'd pursued to original program they'd have built enough renewable generation and storage to almost completely compensate for the lost reactor capacity. They'd have also started well on the path to complete decarbonization of their economy.


Instead, because of the efforts to push nuclear on an unwilling population here we sit racking up CO2e by the ton.

It's the same thing in Britain where a conservative government destroyed a great renewable build program and an absolutely superb energy efficiency program so that they could preserve the rate base for several new reactors that they wanted to build but which every sane person knew was far too expensive by unit of electricity to ever get off the ground.

Again - massive quantities of unnecessary CO2e flow into the world just to serve the corporate masters that want to have a stranglehold on a nation's energy production.

Fuck those fairy tales you and Nnads tell about nuclear. It's a zombie industry.