Tag Archives: Chernobyl

Chernobyl, the Soviet Union, the United States and COVID-19

The Soviet Union did not collapse due to actions President Reagan or the actions of any President of the United States In fact, President Roosevelt, via the Lend Lease Act during WW II, helped the Soviet Union and Great Britain withstand the onslaught of Nazi Germany. It helped win the war. (History.com, OurDocuments.gov, FDRLibrary.org.)

The Soviet Union, according to Mikhail Gorbachev, collapsed after and as a direct result of the meltdown at Chernobyl. Andropov, Gorbachev, and other members of the Central Committee realized that not only could they not hide the truth, but that the Soviet system was failing and doomed to failure. This is discussed in detail at Slate and at Faultlines.

Continue reading →

Nuclear Power – State of the Art in 2013

The Fires of Fukushima

The Fires of Fukushima

Back in the 1960’s Nuclear Power was pitched as “Too Cheap to Meter.” Today  the state of the art can be summarized in 15 words:

Chernobyl, Fukushima, San Onofre, Fort Calhoun, Indian Point, Radioactive Waste, Evacuation Plans and Emergency Response. Continue reading →

Nuclear Power and Russian Roulette

Follow LJF97 on Twitter Tweet After Chernobyl, Hans Bethe, pictured at left, said “the Chernobyl disaster tells us about the deficiencies of the Soviet political and administrative system rather than about problems with nuclear power” (PBS).  Dr. Bethe is right.  Managing nuclear power and our energy infrastructure is not limited to physics and engineering. It also involves economics, human ecology, national security and systems dynamics. It is logical to conclude that because the Chernobyl disaster was a hydrogen explosion in a badly designed nuclear power plant brought about by Soviet style mis-management, nuclear technology can be implemented safely. However, the data from Three Mile Island and Fukushima suggest that nuclear power, when implemented safely, is too expensive to compete with alternatives (hence the industry needs loan guarantees here in the USA). We need to think about energy in the context of Systems Dynamics, as discussed in “Thinking in Systems,” by Dr. Donella Meadows, also pictured at left, of MIT, Dartmouth, and the Sustainability Institute.

Similar arguments have been advanced after Fukushima. “As long as we don’t build them near earthquake faults, especially earthquake faults near oceans …” While the probability of an accident is low (altho business as usual does raise some concerns) the probability of an accident that occurs being catastrophic is very high!

Looking at Indian Point, which is on an earthquake fault, and thinking about systems, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima …

The area within a 50 mile radius of Indian Point includes New York City, Westchester, Rockland, and Nassau counties of New York, western Connecticut, and northern New Jersey. About 20 million people live there. Entergy says it’s “Safe, Secure, and Vital.” Others – who live near the plant – say it’s not safe, not secure, not vital, and Should Be Closed!

Continue reading →

Fukushima: Worse than Chernobyl?

This seems to be worse than Chernobyl. Chernobyl was a meltdown at one reactor. There are reports of “partial melt-downs” at three reactors at Fukushima Dai-Ichi and “States of Emergency” at 9 out of 17 reactors at three sites northeast of Tokyo: 3 at Fukushima Dai-ichi, 3 at Fukushima Daini and 3 at Onagawa. I expect the others at Dai-ichi to be shut down.

“The chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission gave a far bleaker appraisal on Wednesday of the threat posed by Japan’s nuclear crisis than the Japanese government had offered. He said American officials believed that the damage to at least one crippled reactor was much more serious than Tokyo had acknowledged, and he advised Americans to stay much farther away from the plant than the perimeter established by Japanese authorities.

“The announcement opened a new and ominous chapter in the five-day-long effort by Japanese engineers to bring the six side-by-side reactors under control after their cooling systems were knocked out by an earthquake and a tsunami last Friday.”

– David Sanger, Matthew Wald, and Hiroko Tabuchi, NY Times, “U.S. Calls Radiation ‘Extremely High,’ Sees Japan Nuclear Crisis Worsening

Also in the NY Times, William Broad reports “Scientists Project Path of Radiation Plume” … “A United Nations forecast of the possible movement of the radioactive plume coming from crippled Japanese reactors shows it churning across the Pacific and touching the Aleutian Islands on Thursday before hitting Southern California late Friday [March 18, 2011].”

It is important to remember that this is not just radiation, but particles carried on the wind that are emitting radiation.

Buy iodine. It may be bad for your blood pressure, but then again so are meltdowns, even those half-a-world away.

The damage to north-east Japan is not incalculable. A small number of people were killed.  A large number of cancers will develop. A significant percentage of  Japan’s electric capacity – 9 out of 17 nuclear power plants – is down. An area of 2,826 to 7,850 square miles – a radius of 30 to 50 miles – around Fukushima Daiichi must be closed.  Radioactive material is flushed from the damaged reactors into the Pacific. The heavy metals will sink to the ocean floor and eventually get buried in sediments. This will be bad for fish, dolphins, etc., however, there will be no humans there to fish …

Three questions:  Indian Point, Oyster Creek, and Vermont Yankee are of the same design as Fukushima Daiichi.  Why did the NRC just relicense Vermont Yankee? Why does the NRC not pull the licenses from Oyster Creek and Indian Point? Should we not decommission all nuclear reactors with all deliberate speed and replace them with a clean, renewable, sustainable energy topology?

Summary:

  • Fukushima Dai-ichi 1, 2, 3: Partial meltdowns.
  • Diani 1, 2, & 4: Equipment failure, including cooling system failure.
  • Onagawa 1, 2 and 3: High levels of radiation.

Details: (AP courtesy of the Boston Globe)

Dai-ichi Unit 1: Some uranium fuel pellets in the core have melted. Workers are trying to prevent total meltdown, have released steam in attempt to lower pressure in reactor vessel. A hydrogen explosion blew away much of the containment building. The reactor core is said to be intact. The cooling system has failed; large amounts of seawater is being pumped into reactor vessel to try cooling the severely overheated uranium core. Offsite radiation has been reported.

Dai-ichi Unit 2: Cooling system failure. Officials say fuel rods have been fully exposed, at least twice. An attempt to channel seawater into the reactor failed due to stuck rod, so officials were trying to spray cool water on the top of the reactor vessel. Explosion occurred early Tuesday [11/15] at this reactor. Partial meltdown believed to have occurred.

Dai-ichi Unit 3: Hydrogen explosion on Monday [11/14]. Radiation believed released. Cooling system failure so jury-rig of seawater pump to cool the unit. Partial meltdown said to have occurred.

Daini units 1, 2 & 4: Cooling system breakdown or failure. Retained offsite power, but operators were experiencing equipment failures and increased pressure inside the containment vessels. There have been problems with residual heat removal systems.

Onagawa units 1, 2 & 3: Higher-than-permitted radiation levels detected. When the levels fell, they said the radiation could have been from a release at the Dai-ichi units.

Third in a series on the economics, ecological economics, finance, logistics, and systems dynamics of nuclear power in the light of the ongoing catastrophe at Fukushima.

Index to the series

  1. Earthquake, Tsunami and Energy Policy, March 11-13, 2011. Here.
  2. After Fukushima, Wall Street Bearish on Nuclear Power. March 14, 2011. Here.
  3. Fukushima: Worse than Chernobyl? Here.
  4. Fukushima: GE Mark 1: Unsustainable by Design. Here.
  5. Is Fukushima Dai-icha Worse Than Chernobyl? Here.

Deepwater Horizon – the Chernobyl of Deep Water Drilling?

Oil from the Deepwater Horizon

Oil from the Deepwater Horizon

Fifth in a series I wish I didn’t have to write (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

After 42 days (six weeks) the Deepwater Horizon Well is still gushing an estimated 70,000 barrels per day. It has probably gushed around 2.94 Million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, about 123.5 Million gallons – 123,500,000 gallons.

2.94 Million Barrels. 123.5 Million Gallons. That’s a huge amount of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, but according to Nationmaster.com, the US consumed at a rate of 21 Million Barrels per Day in 2007. The U.S. Daily Burn is 7 Deepwater Horizon spills.

Arial view of the Kingston Spill Site, 4/19/10

Arial view of the Kingston Spill Site, 4/19/10

It’s one tenth of the 1.2 billion gallons (1,200,000,000 gallons) of coal fly ash that on 12/22/08 flooded the Clinch and Emory Rivers and 3,000 acres near Kingston, Tennessee with arsenic, mercury, lead, and other toxic heavy metals. (Official EPA, NY Times, I Love Mountains)

That’s a fraction of the up to 6 million barrels per day of Kuwaiti oil Saddam burned after his rout in “Desert Storm” in 1991. And those fires burned for 6 Months (I Love Green).

And less than 0.667% of the 18 Billion Gallons of oil process waste Chevron Texaco allegedly dumped into the rain forests of Ecuador between 1964 and 1990. (click here and here).

An abandoned oil pool and production flare outside of Lago Agrio, Ecuador. ©Ivan Kashinsky – Time Magazine

Abandoned oil pool and production flare, Lago Agrio

It’s more than the consensus estimate of 250,000 barrels of oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez into the Prince William Sound, which after 21 years, remains degraded (click here and here).

So what’s different?

Let’s look at these again:

  • Deepwater Horizon: 70,000 barrels a day, 40 days, 2.8 million barrels (and counting), Gulf of Mexico, 2010.
  • TVA Kingston: 1.2 billion gallons, toxic sludge, upstream of Kingston, Tennessee, 12/22/08.
  • Chevron Texaco: (alleged) 18 Billion Gallons (428.6 million barrles) of Oil Process Waste, Rainforests of Ecuador, 1964 to 1990.
  • Oil Fires of Kuwait: 6 Million Barrels per Day, up to 6 Months, 1991.
  • Exxon Valdez: 250,000 barrels, Prince William Sound, 1989.

Exxon Valdez

Exxon Valdez in the Prince William Sound

So what’s different?

It’s not the Ecuadorian rainforest, the Kuwaiti desert, the backwoods of Tennessee (excuse me Bubba, but to the Yankees of Wall Street and the Brahmins of Boston, Kingston, Tennessee is backwoods) or a remote body of water off the coast of Alaska. It’s the Gulf of Mexico. That’s not our backyard; it’s our playground. The Gulf coast of Florida from Pensacola to Georgia is (soon will be was) known as the “Emerald Coast.” I was there. The beaches are (were) beautiful. In the morning, before the people came out to play you could see dolphins swimming in the waters. It’s our fishing hole: 25% of our seafood, 70% of our shrimp, came from the Gulf.

This isn’t the first fishing ground to die. We used to get Little Neck clams from the Long Island Sound, halibut and shad, even sturgeon, from the Hudson River, and Maryland crab from the Chesapeake. But this is the biggest, the most sudden and the most dramatic.

This is a singularity. The oil is on beaches, bays, bayous, and marshes of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Georgia. Some may be in the Gulf Stream, and if so will wrap around Florida and head up the Atlantic past the Outer Banks, the Chesapeake, the Jersey Shore, Fire Island, The Hamptons, Martha’s Vinyard, Cape Cod, and the rocky shores of Maine.

It’s not that BP wanted this to happen. They sell oil because we buy oil. The problem is that neither BP, nor the government, nor anyone, really knows how to stop it. The engineers are saying things like:

“This is interesting. I’ve never seen this before. What do you think we should do?”

“I don’t know, what do YOU think we should do?”

When engineers say things like that grab your hat and run like hell.

The Deepwater Horizen accident might do for oil what 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl did for nuclear power. (However, the biggest difference is that we are more dependent on fossil fuels than we were on nuclear power, and Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island made crystal clear to the people on Wall Street that their billion dollar investments could quickly turn into multi-billion liabilities.)

So along with your hat, coat, and camping gear, grab some solar modules.

I monitor an investment list-serve that is approaching this from a pure capitalist investor perspective, and they’re asking “Should you get out of oil?”

With oil still flooding into the Gulf and BP PLC’s failure to do anything about it, shivers are running down the spine of those who considered offshore oil a lucrative investment. Now with the planned ban on offshore drilling in the US, what will happen to the industry? What are the consequences for our economy as a whole?  More importantly, what does it mean for YOUR portfolio?

When the investors, albeit the “contrarians,” are saying “Business as usual is bad for our wallets” it means the paradigm is shifting.