MIT Update 3/20 3:30PM EST - Stabilisation at Fukushima Daiichi

[wtmusic]

"Workers on site have succeeded in increasing the stability of the Fukushima Daiichi reactor units with units 5 and 6 now in cold shutdown. Pressure built up within unit 3 but a more significant venting does not seem necessary now.

External power has now been connected to unit 5 and 6, allowing them to use their residual heat removal systems and transfer heat to the sea. This has been used to cool the fuel ponds and bring the units to cold shutdown status, meaning that water in the reactor system is at less than 100ºC.

An extended operation to refill the fuel pond took place at unit 3, with the Hyper Rescue crew spraying for over 13 hours. Radiation levels 500 metres north of the reactor showed a decrease from 3.44 millisieverts per hour to 2.75 millisieverts per hour, indicating a measure of success in refilling the pond. A similar operation is planned for later today at unit 4 and the surface temperatures of the buildings appear to be below 100ºC."

http://mitnse.com/

[Poll_Blind]

1. Good signs...

PB

[Lucinda]

2. Good to hear some progress.

[leveymg]

3. Good news. Now, let's get on with the process of decommissioning all those other plants

and investing in solar/wind/renewables and efficiencies.

[jpak]

4. 2.75 mSv/hr x 24 hours = 69 mSv The average dose for Chernobyl workers was 76 mSv

and they showed a significant increase in leukemia rates

[FBaggins]

6. The dose for the workers and firemen at Chernobyl was 800 to 16,000 mSv - not 76.

Probably higher. All of the dosimeters were overexposed (which, btw, means they were MUCH higher than 76) so the only way to come up with an estimated dose was with biological dosimetry estimates.

If you're stretching "workers" to include the hundreds of thousands of "liquidators", the first batch was supposedly exposed to at least 250 mSv and that was just an estimate (Why will I not be shocked if this is suddenly the ONLY report from Chernobyl that you think was OVER estimated?)

Keep in mind as well that there's a difference between the "dose" that's really a converted activity measure (that is... how much radiation is in the area and what an unprotected man would receive), and the ACTUAL absorbed dose a person received. If they're wearing protective gear, they aren't going to GET anything CLOSE to 2.75 mSv/hr.

Nor are they working 24/7.

[jpak]

7. That is not what the research sez

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x280610

yup

[FBaggins]

10. Wrong.

That's not what a researcher estimates

Could the workers who got leukemia have higher dose rates than the ones who didn't? What's her estimate based on?

And that ignores the fact that you just presented it as "the workers at Chernobyl" when it was really a subset of a group of liquidators that were there AFTER the main events.

But let's play along and assume that you were absolutely correct. The rate of leukemia in this group is higher than the average population. You don't say what "significant" means, so let's say the rate doubles. There have so far been about half a dozen Japanese workers reported with dose rates at or above the level you cited. These aren't guesses or estimates decades later... they're measured exposure rates.

What's the average leukemia rate in the population? Asians have about a 8 in 100,000 chance of getting it (about half that of dying from it).

You've gone from posting claims that this could be worse than Chernobyl to now arguing whether six people might have a fraction of a percent higher chance of getting leukemia later in life?????

All while 20,000 people appear to have actually dies from the earthquake/tsunami.

Doesn't that cause you to rethink anything???

[jpak]

12. I believe the researcher that actually compiled that data and did the epidemiological analyses

not hack rants on the intertubes

yup

[FBaggins]

14. I believe her too. SHE said it was just an estimate.

She has no way of knowing how close it is OR how one group compares to another.

And as has happened half a dozen times in this incident... You don't seem to appreciate what the numbers mean.

[jpak]

16. email her - tell her how wrong she is

:rofl:

[FBaggins]

18. Did I say she was wrong?

If you don't make a definitive statement... you can't be "wrong".

She made a guess.

There have been other studies that showed much higher rates. YOU presented the group as "the workers at Chernobyl" and that was just plain wrong. I don't need to email her because you were the one who made it up. The people who were at Chernobyl who compare to the group at Fukushima (plant workers and fire fighters) had exposure rates many MANY times higher than what you claimed.

Dosimeters don't cap out anywhere near the levels you're talking about.

Chernobyl is also hardly the only study that has been done on the effects of radiation. Decades of research have failed to show any statistically significant increase in cancer rates at exposure levels below 100 mSv.

But again... I don't feel the need to argue at all. I get a huge kick out of how you started with claims that this disaster that was going to kill thousands and prove once and for all that Chernobyl can happen any time anywhere and had already released 1/10th of the radiation that Chernobyl had. We also watched claims that once the torus went on that one unit and they evacuated most of the workers at the plant, the 50 who stayed knew that they were dead men walking. There was no stopping this disaster. The others would never return...


...and now you're left trying to set up arguments for ten years from now that maybe one of those workers at the plant was exposed to enough radiation that it's the reason he has cancer.

If it weren't for the 20,000 other people who dies in the disaster, the entertainment in your desperation would be too good for words.

[kristopher]

13. Counting the impact.

You are engaging in what is known as "data trimming" in academics, I call it spin or cherry picking.

For example, who is to blame for the people who have died because help was unavailable due to the risk of a total meltdown centered in the area most affected and most in need of help.

It has been discussed on Japanese TV that relief has been and is being dramatically impeded by this crisis, in its 9th day.

I'm sure the 80yo woman and her grandson that were rescued today will be comforted by your faith in the technology that left them buried in the rubble of their lives.

[FBaggins]

15. Lol.

So now your nuclear disaster is boiling down to "rescue workers that could have saved others are tied up dealing with a nuclear plant" ???

I guess that never happens with other technologies.

So let's see if I got this straight. You think that Chernobyl killed hundreds of thousands of people and Fukushima made an old woman wait to be rescued. Got it. So much for "could be worse than Chernobyl" eh?

[kristopher]

17. Your attempt to spin human suffering is beyond the pale.

Chernobyl has killed hundreds of thousands - and two and a half decades later, it isn't over - more will certainly die.

Have you ever met anyone dying from leukemia?

The pretense that the immediate casualties are all that can be expected is expected from you, but the "LOL" about the fate in store for an as yet unknown number of people is as vile a perspective as I ever hope to encounter. You are truly the voice of the nuclear power industry.

Your words deserve to be preserved:
By FBaggins
"Lol. So now your nuclear disaster is boiling down to "rescue workers that could have saved others are tied up dealing with a nuclear plant" ??? I guess that never happens with other technologies.
So let's see if I got this straight. You think that Chernobyl killed hundreds of thousands of people and Fukushima made an old woman wait to be rescued. Got it. So much for "could be worse than Chernobyl" eh?"

[FBaggins]

19. It's you that is spinning human suffering.

And what's beyond the pale was your craven attempt to use the disaster to influence public opinion while ignoring the REAL disaster and now you're grasping at people who definitely were injured by a natural disaster and trying to dishonestly "score" them as victims of these reactors too. You're worried that there aren't going to be enough for your argument so (as usual) you need to invent some. It's you guys that are left trying to scare people with water contamination levels that fall within EPA guidelines for safety. Or radiation levels in a major city that don't equal eating a banana. Or pretending to be worried about food (that won't even be eaten) a tad over a contamination level that's designed to be safe for annual consumption levels - when you could eat it all year and add not one hundredth of a percent to your chance of cancer.

Chernobyl has killed hundreds of thousands

That's bull and you should know it... but now really isn't the time.

Have you ever met anyone dying from leukemia?

Yep. Including one who was close to me. What's your point? You think that an internet post that claims that maybe a handful of people will go from a one in 12,000 chance of getting a particular cancer to 1 in 10,000 or 5,000 is supposed to mean something different if I know someone with that?

Do you know anyone who ever died of dysentery or hunger? How about a 25ft wall of water or a house falling on them? You've spent a great deal of time concentrating on this nuclear incident when people were dying all over the place.

The pretense that the immediate casualties are all that can be expected

I didn't say that. I have no doubt that five years from now you'll believe some liar online who claims that there are really thousands upon thousands of hidden deaths from the reactors. There will be dozens of radiological studies done by major japanese universities and hospitals, but you'll claim that they're all part of the big lie. Someone on infowars (or similar) will point out that the estimated death toll from the tsunami mysteriously jumped from 10,000 to 20,000 right around the time (insert reactor timeline event here) and this is really why they all died, but the Japanese government covered it up to avoid exposure. Then some kid will ride a bike around the exclusion zone (a motorcycle won't work because it'll be so small) and take pictures of trees and bushes and homes damaged by the earthquake/tsunami while convincing you that it's really all the radiation.

Oh yes... I can see the future Kristopher meltdowns quite clearly. Be sure to bookmark this post.

[girl gone mad]

5. Japan has an enormous mess on their hands.

As much as I love nuclear physics, I have to force myself to stop thinking about this one sometimes.

[james0tucson]

8. Everything will be fine

I have no doubt everything will be as ok as possible, but I'm pretty surprised that nobody conjectures "worst case scenarios" that include one or more 7+ quakes at the site, or something like a light artillery attack against what's left of the reactor by an enemy of Japan. Frankly I'm a little surprised that North Korea hasn't taken this opportunity to exploit Japan at a weak moment, and it's just dumb luck that they haven't had another big quake or severe weather.

[kristopher]

11. It is impossible to predict what will cause a worst case scenario

The supporters of nuclear power attempt to categorize these accidents as being a result poor planning that causes a failure "that didn't need to happen". That is true.

From that, the logic they present fails for they conclude that by addressing the specific technological flaw, they have identified the only relevant "lessons learned" and they attempt to imply that future designs will correct ALL of nuclear power's potential for failure.

When pressed they will acknowledge that more accidents are going to happen, and will then make the argument that "well, it is worth it because we donn't have any alternatives".

There is ZERO PEER REVIEWED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT ASSERTION. Renewable energy sources are fully capable of replacing both coal and, as they retire as scheduled, our nuclear fleet.



This is a list compiled by former NRC Commissioner Bradford; The Six Myths of the nuclear industry, he calls it. I say that since the nuclear industry leaders are well aware the claims are false, it is more appropriate to label the claims as either propaganda or lies.

1. nuclear power is cheap;
2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;
4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable; 5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;
6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.

This is an example showing that it is the problems with nuclear power are rooted in the nature of nuclear power extraction itself. Its worst case scenarios are simply to dangerous to "improve" by deploying a large numbers of reactors (they want between 2000 - 8000 new reactors globally) and testing them in the laboratory of our communities.

6 Myths
1. nuclear power is cheap;
2. learning and new standardized designs solve all past problems;
3. the waste problem is a non-problem, especially if we’d follow the lead of many other nations and “recycle” our spent fuel;
4. climate change makes a renaissance inevitable;
5. there are no other large low-carbon “baseload” alternatives;
6. there’s no particular reason to worry that a rapidly expanding global industry will put nuclear power and weapons technologies in highly unstable nations, often nations with ties to terrorist organizations.


http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/vessel-head-degradation/images.html

Davis Besse: Incident history

Over the years of its operation, the plant has experienced several incidents, none of which have resulted in exposure to dangerous levels of radiation.


On September 24, 1977, the reactor, running at only 9% power, shut down because of a disruption in the feedwater system.<4> This caused the relief valve for the pressurizer to stick open. As of 2005, the NRC considers this to be the fourth highest ranked safety incident.<5>

Loss of feedwater event
On June 9, 1985, the main feedwater pumps, used to supply water to the reactor steam generators, shut down. A control room operator then attempted to start the auxiliary (emergency) feedwater pumps. These pumps both tripped on overspeed conditions because of operator error. This incident was originally classified an "unusual event" (the lowest classification the NRC uses) but it was later determined that it should have been classified a "site area emergency".<6>

Tornado
On June 24, 1998 the station was struck by an F2 tornado.<7> The plant's switchyard was damaged and access to external power was disabled. The plant's reactor automatically shut down at 8:43 pm and an alert (the next to lowest of four levels of severity) was declared at 9:18 pm. The plant's emergency diesel generators powered critical facility safety systems until external power could be restored.<8><9>


Erosion of the 6-inch-thick (150 mm) carbon steel reactor head, caused by a persistent leak of borated water.



Reactor head hole

In March 2002, plant staff discovered that the boric acid that serves as the reactor coolant had leaked from cracked control rod drive mechanisms directly above the reactor and eaten through more than six inches<10> of the carbon steel reactor pressure vessel head over an area roughly the size of a football (see photo). This significant reactor head wastage left only 3/8 inch of stainless steel cladding holding back the high-pressure (~2500 psi) reactor coolant. A breach would have resulted in a loss-of-coolant accident, in which superheated, superpressurized reactor coolant could have jetted into the reactor's containment building and resulted in emergency safety procedures to protect from core damage or meltdown. Because of the location of the reactor head damage, such a jet of reactor coolant may have damaged adjacent control rod drive mechanisms, hampering or preventing reactor shut-down. As part of the system reviews following the accident, significant safety issues were identified with other critical plant components, including the following: (1) the containment sump that allows the reactor coolant to be reclaimed and reinjected into the reactor; (2) the high pressure injection pumps that would reinject such reclaimed reactor coolant; (3) the emergency diesel generator system; (4) the containment air coolers that would remove heat from the containment building; (5) reactor coolant isolation valves; and (6) the plant's electrical distribution system.<11> Under certain scenarios, a reactor rupture would have resulted in core meltdown and/or breach of containment and release of radioactive material. The resulting corrective operational and system reviews and engineering changes took two years. Repairs and upgrades cost $600 million, and the Davis-Besse reactor was restarted in March 2004.<12> The U.S. Justice Department investigated and penalized the owner of the plant over safety and reporting violations related to the incident. The NRC determined that this incident was the fifth most dangerous nuclear incident in the United States since 1979.<3>

Criminal prosecutions
On January 20, 2006, the owner of Davis-Besse, FirstEnergy Corporation of Akron, Ohio, acknowledged a series of safety violations by former workers, and entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. The deferred prosecution agreement relates to the March 2002 incident (see above). The deferment granted by the NRC were based on letters from Davis-Besse engineers stating that previous inspections were adequate. However, those inspections were not as thorough as the company suggested, and as proved by the material deficiency discovered later. In any case, because FirstEnergy cooperated with investigators on the matter, they were able to avoid more serious penalties. Therefore, the company agreed to pay fines of $23.7 million, with an additional $4.3 million to be contributed to various groups, including the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Habitat for Humanity, and the University of Toledo as well as to pay some costs related to the federal investigation.
Two former employees and one former contractor were indicted for statements made in multiple documents and one videotape, over several years, for hiding evidence that the reactor pressure vessel was being corroded by boric acid. The maximum penalty for the three is 25 years in prison. The indictment mentions that other employees also provided false information to inspectors, but does not name them.<13><14>

2008 discovery tritium leak
The NRC and Ohio EPA were notified of a tritium leak accidentally discovered during an unrelated fire inspection on October 22, 2008. Preliminary indications suggest radioactive water did not infiltrate groundwater outside plant boundaries<15>

2009 unintentional discharge of firearm
In November 2009, a plant security officer was using the restroom and his firearm discharged while in the holster. The officer sustained a non life threatening wound to his calf. No cause was found for the discharge.<16>

2010 Replacement reactor head problems
After the 2002 incident, Davis-Besse purchased a used replacement head from a mothballed reactor in Midland, Michigan. Davis-Besse operators replaced the original cracked reactor head before restarting in 2004. On March 12, 2010, during a scheduled refueling outage, ultrasonic examinations performed on the control rod drive mechanism nozzles penetrating the reactor vessel closure head identified that two of the nozzles inspected did not meet acceptance criteria. FirstEnergy investigators subsequently found new cracks in 24 of 69 nozzles, including one serious enough to leak boric acid. Root cause analysis is currently underway by the Department of Energy, First Energy, and the NRC to determine the cause of the premature failures.<17> <18> Crack indications required repair prior to returning the vessel head to service. Control rod drive nozzles were repaired using techniques proven at other nuclear facilities. The plant resumed operation in 2010. The existing reactor vessel head is scheduled for replacement in 2011.<19>


Future

The facility's original nuclear operating license expires on April 22, 2017. On August 11, 2006 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) submitted a letter of intent (Adams Accession No. ML062290261).<20> The submission date for the application is August 10, 2010. This initiates a long process that results in an application approval or revocation. Public hearings<21> are a vital part of any application review and information on this process can be found on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) website at NRC.gov. <4>. The site map contains many valuable links <22>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis-Besse_Nuclear_Power_Station#cite_note-21


This page was last modified on 16 March 2011 at 22:20.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

That is a sketch of the facts. Below, the is the 28 page policy analysys by the Union of Concerned Scientists puts them into a meaningful framework built around the relationship between the industry and its regulators.

Davis-Besse: One Year Later
Nearly one year ago, on March 6, 2002, workers repairing a cracked control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzle at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Ohio discovered a football-sized cavity in the reactor vessel head.1 Their finding is linked to two other discoveries 15 years earlier. On March 13, 1987, workers at Turkey Point Unit 4 in Florida discovered that a small leak of borated water had corroded the reactor vessel head. Their revelation prompted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to require all owners of pressurized water reactors,2including Davis-Besse, to take specific measures to protect plant equipment from boric acid corrosion. On March 24, 1987, the NRC learned that control room operators at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station in Pennsylvania had been discovered sleeping while on duty. That revelation prompted the NRC to issue an order on March 31st requiring Peach Bottom Unit 3 to be immediately shut down.3

The three findings spanning 15 years are intertwined. Turkey Point demonstrated that a small amount of boric acid leaking onto the reactor vessel head corrodes carbon steel at a high rate. Had the FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, the owner of Davis-Besse, remembered Turkey Point’s lesson, the serious damage at Davis-Besse would have been averted. Peach Bottom demonstrated that a pervasive safety culture problem creates unacceptable conditions for operating a nuclear power plant. Had NRC remembered either Turkey Point’s or Peach Bottom’s lesson, they would have issued the order they drafted to shut down Davis-Besse. It would have been the first shut down order issued by the agency since the Peach Bottom order. But both FirstEnergy and the NRC forgot the past and relived the wrong event from March 1987 by having yet another reactor vessel head damaged by boric acid corrosion.

Many individuals, from both within and outside the NRC, have accused the agency’s move towards risk- informed decision-making as the reason for its failure to issue the order to shut down Davis-Besse. On the contrary, the NRC’s handling of circumferential cracking of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles as reported by the Oconee nuclear plant in February 2001 was a successful demonstration of proper application of risk-informed decision-making with the sole and significant exception of its mistake in not issuing the shut down order for Davis-Besse. But even that mistake, as bad as it was, does not impugn the risk-informed decision-making process for the simple reason that the NRC deviated from that process. Had the NRC adhered to its risk-informed decision-making process, it would have issued the shut down order for Davis-Besse and capped off a stellar example of how this process can and should be used.

In February 2001, the NRC learned of a new aging mechanism, the circumferential cracking of stainless steel CRDM nozzles based on inspection results from Oconee. The NRC properly reacted to this finding by revisiting the nuclear industry’s inspection regime for CRDM nozzles. It determined that the existing inspection regime did not provide adequate assurance that circumferential cracks would be identified and repaired. The NRC did not require all plant owners to immediately address this inspection shortfall, which would have imposed an unnecessary regulatory burden on those plants with low susceptibility for the problem. Nor did the NRC allow all plant owners to address the shortfall at their next regularly scheduled refueling outage, which would have imposed an unnecessary challenge to safety margins at those plants with high susceptibility. Instead, the NRC applied risk-informed decision-making by issuing Bulletin 2001-01 in August 2001 to all owners of pressurized water reactors. This Bulletin required the high susceptible reactors to resolve the inspection shortfall by December 2001, the medium susceptible reactors to resolve the inspection shortfall at their next regularly scheduled outage, and merely collected information from the low susceptible reactors.

Only two reactors with high susceptibility for circumferential cracking of CRDM nozzles did not conform to the inspection requirements...

At this point, the NRC abandoned its risk-informed decision-making process.....

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/davis-besse_retrospective_030303db.pdf

[CRH]

9. Radiation report in German might contest these levels, ...

At the below link the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) is releasing data daily on the levels of radionuclides around Japan. The Swedish government is releasing this information, for those that can read German.

My German is near non existent, but for March 20, 2011 they have a 25 by 25 kilometer box in Japan measuring 10 Milli-Sieverts mSI, far higher than the MIT source is stating for 500 meters from the plant.

Does anyone read German well enough to determine what this other radiation report is saying? Where specifically is this box located, and does it bring into question the MIT readings?

http://www.zamg.ac.at/aktuell/index.php?seite=1&artikel=ZAMG_2011-03-20GMT10:21

~~ snip ~~

Die Farbskalierung zeigt derzeit insgesamt 5 Farben. Mit „Area E“ werden Gebiete gekennzeichnet, die derzeit mit einer Effektivdosis von ca. 10 Milli-Sievert pro Stunde belastet werden, was aufgrund der Daten in einer 25x25 km2 Box eine Maximalabschätzung ist. Die „Area A“ (violette Farbe) begrenzt eine Region mit einer maximalen Belastung von 0,3 Mikro-Sievert pro Stunde. Dieser Wert entspricht der Dosisleistung der mittleren globalen Hintergrundbelastung.

Strahlungsdaten/CTBTO

Die reviewten Strahlungsdaten der CTBTO zeigen, dass die Werte in Takasaki/Japan nach einer Spitze Mitte letzter Woche nachher zurückgingen. Das ist durch die Windverhältnisse erklärbar. Die Strahlenwerte in Petropavlovsk waren am 15. und 16. 3. konstant, mit Jod-131 Werten im Bereich von Milli-Bq pro m3. Einem nicht reviewten Report zufolge erreichten die Strahlenwerte in Sakramento/Kalifornien am 17.3. ebenfalls das Niveau von Petropavlovsk. Insgesamt liegen die Werte in Russland und Kalifornien damit um 4 Größenordnungen unter den in Japan gemessenen. Eine gesundheitliche Relevanz besteht nicht.

~~ end excerpt ~~
on edit: spelling (Sievert)

[wtmusic]

22. Apparently it's yet another confusion of millisieverts and microsieverts.

(BTW, at the bottom of our linked page, the report is available in English as a PDF)

Here's a link to MIT's take on the CTBTO data:

"A Misleading Map of Radiation Spread

The New York Times website has published an alarming interactive map that shows a massive plume of radiation moving across the Pacific and reaching Southern California tomorrow. The map was created by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization, an arm of the United Nations. The text around the map explains—in bold type—that the map does not indicate levels of radiation, and that the plume would be so dilute by the time it reaches the U.S. that it would have "extremely minor health consequences." But unfortunately, the picture is going to be far more powerful than the words. For a dispassionate look at the health impacts of radiation, see our story today.

<>

Yesterday in Japan, at the gate of the severely damaged Fukushima plant, radiation levels were at a few millisieverts per hour. The levels rapidly drop to a few microsieverts moving away from the plant. Judging by the scale of the map, the yellow sections—the most intense—would likely correspond to microsieverts. Radiation sickness doesn't set in until a person has received a dose of about 1 sievert—a million times more than a microsievert. But, of course, this is all a guess, because the map doesn't provide the data. All it gives is relative concentrations, and those are misleading."

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/26538/?p1=Blogs

Good catch though. I've seen this mistake made at least twice already in media reports.

[bananas]

20. That website has a lot of credibility problems

Salon wrote an article on it:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/15/josef_oehmen_nuclear_not_worried_viral/

Some other person pointed out problems with it:
http://geniusnow.com/2011/03/15/the-strange-case-of-josef-oehmen/
http://geniusnow.com/2011/03/16/mitnse-com-where-theres-smoke/
http://geniusnow.com/2011/03/17/update-on-mitnse-com-and-josef-oehmen/
http://geniusnow.com/2011/03/18/in-which-we-find-that-yes-mitnse-com-is-an-mit-student-site/

[kristopher]

21. The entire department has been identifid as having conflict of interest issues

The paper from the Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics, looked at the relationship of the nuclear industry to a series of studies that have, over time, demonstrated an unmistakable trend towards significant underestimation of the costs associated with the quasi-governmental "nuclear industry".

Unfortunately MIT' nuclear energy sector is squarely in the middle of it with their 2003 study that was used to justify the current subsidy structure the industry has secured.

This graph illustrates the problem. Note that the present costs are estimated by industry to be approximately $8000/kw and that is almost certainly an underestimate.

ETA: The MIT prediction was that the price would decline to $1500/Kw. They are at the very bottom of the chart. The cause identified? They uncritically accepted the data and claims of the nuclear industry as gospel.



Sci Eng Ethics DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y
Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette

Abstract

Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research.

Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using ‘‘overnight’’ costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes.

If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.