Panic in the 1970s about the dangers of nuclear energy, was equally as great as the current global warming panic.

The press and Hollywood was obsessed with TMI for many years.

...since nuclear power plants do not emit greenhouse gases.

So, what exactly is coming out of those cooling towers, then? Fairy dust?

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with nuclear energy. I just have a hard time with the mischaracterization of what constitutes a "greenhouse" gas.

The leakage from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear plant, which went operational sometime between 1985 (when the first unit came online) and 1997 (when the seventh and last unit came online), demonstrates that the engineering decision to site a major nuclear plant in an earthquake-prone zone was flawed. Yesterday's 6.7 quake is certainly not "large" by Japanese standards. The failure of the plant's containment demonstrates that the design and construction of the plant was manifestly inappropriate for its site.

The three major concerns raised about nuclear power have never been seriously addressed. These are:

1. Safety in the presence of natural and human-made hazards
2. Waste disposal
3. Fissile material propagation

If it weren't for these three problems, nuclear power would be an ideal option. If it weren't for the bombing, Baghdad would be a great place to live.

When the nuclear power industry and various governments demonstrate effective solutions to these three problems, nuclear power will be a very attractive option. When the same players demonstrate a genuine committment to discovering a solution these problems, they will find more support among the public.

So long as the players lie, distort and deceive about these, they will continue to be mistrusted.

Today, it appears to be convenient for the Bush administration to claim to support the proliferation of nuclear power. Of course, the "axis of evil" is presumably excluded from this claimed desire.

What portion of the federal budget, under the control of the Bush adminstration for nearly seven years now, has been allocated towards discovering solutions for these problems? The Bush adminstration and GOP had six years of complete control of the budget priorities and process. How much did they dedicate towards solving these problems?

Like so many other issues, this appears to be another example where the Bush adminstration (and its right-wing supporters) finds talk far easier than substance.

Perhaps the federal government might pay rather more attention to the nuclear power question, and rather less attention to the illegal immigration "problem".

So, this guy thinks at least 1000 new plants are needed JUST TO MAKE A DENT in GW. Bear in mind that the typical modern plant built today would produce 1000 MegaWatts each (1 Million MegaWatts total).

Yet the AGW proponents claim that we can solve the problem simply by building windmills, solar panels and adding 10-20 mpg to automobiles. Mind you that the typical windmill produces only 0.5 MegaWatts.

LUDICROUS !!! ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS !!!

Either go nuclear and build 1000 plants in the next 15 years, not 50 years like this guy said, OR GET USED TO THE HEAT BABY !!!

Yes, I do beleive that nuclear plants are by far better than any other electrical producer we currently have in the world.

On the otherhand, I personally do not believe that man is contributing much at all to global warming. I have sturdied both meteorology and climatology all my life as a hobby. I believe that the CO2 increase is a natural function and also believe that that the issues being discussed now are basically political.

I believe we are on the cusp of an impending ICE AGE. This is coming within the next 75-150 years. I'd be interested in your response to this. Thanks for letting me make a comment.

John

Hmmm....Since nuclear power plants do not emit GHGs, can someone smarter than me please tell me what all of that white stuff is coming out of the cooling towers in the pictures?

I like how the environmentalists are already against this.

Reply, Darren, most of that white stuff is just water vapor. Brett Anderson

An earthquake in Japan early Monday caused a nuclear plant to leak radioactive water into the bay. No more sushi for me!

According to TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Company), the leak was a whopping 1.5 litres. No indication of the amount of radioactive materials in the 1.5 litres of water.

The smallest area behind the breakwater next to the power plant is 1900 by 1300 feet. Assuming that the area is only 6 feet deep (a fairly conservative assumption), the total volume of water behind the breakwater is slightly less than a half billion litres of water. So the concentration of contaminated water in that area is approximately 3.45e-9 litres contaminated water per litre of sea water. I doubt if you can detect the radiation.

Reply, Thanks for the update on that situation Paul. Brett Anderson

There are a few inherently safe reactor designs being tested right now. My personal favorite is the pebble-bed helium reactor. This reactor uses helium as the primary heat transfer medium, which means a leak will just make you talk funny for a while. Helium, being a noble gas, can't be made radioactive by casual exposure. A further plus, a leak means that the reactor stops once the helium leaks out, so no "China Syndrome" can happen.

The major problem is going to be dealing with the Luddites who wet their panties every time they hear the word 'nuclear'. You know, the ones that are the reason why CAT and MRI exist as names, and who believe that microwave ovens make food radioactive. I'm to the point that if these people want the rest of us to live like cavemen, they should lead the way. "No Nukes!" means no one has to sell you electricity -- pull the meters and let them freeze/swelter in the dark.

Is it a real solution to global warming? Absolutely not! The Sun doesn't care how we produce our power so going 100% nuclear wouldn't make a difference in the warming. I've always been a nuclear advocate however for pollution reasons. It's the cleanest power producing technology around that is realistic. I would rate it alongside hydro power for environmental impact.

bt,

Welcome back from your sabbatical. Read my second post to get a "feel" for the extent of the containment failure of the reactor. Might want to wait until all the facts are in next time before going off on a rant.

Toodles!!!

Darren,

Good point.

I wonder if any studies have been done of the greenhouse contribution from the massive amount of water vapor emitted from nuclear power plant cooling towers?

Given that water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it is entirely possible that a large increase in nuclear power generation will lead to an increase in world wide temperatures.

Additionally, we could take the electricity from nuclear power plants and use it to make hydrogen for hydrogen powered cars - thereby adding more water vapor to the atmosphere from burning hydrogen.

On the flip side, a large nuclear accident could lead us into nuclear winter and the feedback trigger an ice age.

Should a liberal be more neurotic about Al (ManBearPig) Gore or Carl (ice age by 1990) Sagan?

When an economically useful product can be developed to utilize nuclear power plant fuel wastes (and at some point in time it will) the biggest strike against nuclear power plants will be removed. The lack of new nuclear plants in the US for the past 30 years rivals the space programs not having men on the moon or other celestial objects since the early 1970's as the worst squandering of technological advancements.

Today, it appears to be convenient for the Bush administration to claim to support the proliferation of nuclear power. Of course, the "axis of evil" is presumably excluded from this claimed desire.

What portion of the federal budget, under the control of the Bush adminstration for nearly seven years now, has been allocated towards discovering solutions for these problems? The Bush adminstration and GOP had six years of complete control of the budget priorities and process. How much did they dedicate towards solving these problems?

RELPY: Ah, I see Dr. Guilt has crawled out from his enviro-lunatic asylum! Hey Tom, thanks for showing your true colors yet again, which you tried to cover up with all of your junk science techno-babble. Remember, old buddy! The 1970s??? TMI??? And I'll bet you were right there protesting in full force, too! With your pony tail and wire rimmed glases, weren't ya? You people are really the limit!

If it weren't for the bombing, Baghdad would be a great place to live.

REPLY: Um Excuse me but, did someone bring up the war??? I thought this was a non-political unbiased Global Warming Blog. Yeah, a great place to live under a brutal dictator. But that's OK Tom, we know Saddam was your friend! I laugh at you!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Whilst i agree that during production nuclear energy can be a competative option to fossil fuels despite the safety aspects, how much in the way of carbon does it actually cost to develop and construct a modern day power station? If you take into account the amount of carbon it takes to build, and add on the amount of carbon it takes to decommission one of these giants, would they still be as competative?

Brett:

Uh, Thanks... I kinda knew what it was. I was merely pointing out, through my sarcasm, that water vapor is a fairly potent contributor to maintaining heat within the atmosphere. This is in direct comment to the article in which it is pointed out that nuke plants are "clean" energy and do not emit GHG (typical of many dolts in society and the media, it seems that in the author's view, the only real GHG, unstated for effect I presume, is the dreaded CO2).

Comments already are outlining the objections of those who are most concerned about GW. Sure nuclear power is great but for these issues.... Meanwhile, nuke plants have been operating for 25 years in relative obscurity. I say again, GW is no longer about what may or may not be happening to the climate as much as it is about controlling how humans exist within it. Whereas the topics of choice in the past were global cooling and pollution, it now is GW.

Nice to see you back BT, and in rare form as well. Clearly, everything is the fault of Bush and his misplaced priorities. Thanks for reminding us. I was beginning to forget that. Say, did you hear that Mass. is going to be flooded soon? I read that in an article here on the blog. I think that Bush, Cheney and Halliburton are right now filling buckets full of water to dump into the streets to help it along. Kinda like what he did to New Orleans but not quite the same.

I know this is positively astonishing -- even shocking -- but it seems that Tokyo Electric Power slightly understated the amount of radiation released during and after the quake. According to Reuters:

Officials at the world's biggest nuclear power plant admitted on Tuesday there had been more radiation leaks after an earthquake in Japan that killed nine people and forced thousands from their homes.

Read on for the really interesting part:

But while TEPCO had initially said that the lethal earthquake had not caused any leaks, it revealed later on Monday night that 1,200 liters of radioactive water had sloshed into the sea from its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Niigata.

So the "1.5L" release that Paul so carefully analyzed has turned out to be wrong by three orders of magnitude.

But there's more:

The company added that the quake was stronger than its reactors had been designed to withstand.

Ah, I see. Did FEMA design this facility? Since when is a 6.7 quake big for Japan? Whatever margin was designed into these reactors was obviously inadequate.

Then on Tuesday, a TEPCO official told a news conference that checks of 22,000 drums containing nuclear waste at a warehouse had found about 100 had fallen over and "several" lost their lids.

So we see the solution to the hazardous waste problem deployed by this facility -- TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DRUMS. Drums that can fall over and lose their lids. Would this be another triumph of modern engineering?

Only about half the drums had been inspected so far, and it was not immediately clear from the official's comments whether there was any impact on the environment or people.

So we have a modern facility that is unable to withstand a moderately-large earthquake and that stores its waste in good old-fashioned drums -- to the tune of more than FORTY THOUSAND in its brief operating life. Even the Hanford Site does better than THIS!

Oh, but the fun isn't over yet:
Also on Tuesday, the company admitted that a small amount of radioactive materials -- cobalt-60, iodine and chromium-51 -- had been emitted into the atmosphere.

I wonder just how those are supposed to have been released. The company admits they were released into the atmosphere, so they were apparently gaseous. The fact that the amounts were claimed to be small doesn't matter (see yesterday's reported 1.5L release) -- these materials are not supposed to escape at all.

Finally, perhaps the nuclear power proponents among us might want to become just a bit more familiar with the technology they advocate. The signature cooling towers, as depicted in the image in the header, emit water vapor -- and they should emit nothing more. The coolant (generally water) transfers heat from the reactor core and turbines to the cooling tower, where that heat is extracted by evaporation. The resulting water vapor is exhausted through the hyperboloid stack. In addition to the improved construction efficiencies of the hyperboloid stack, the distinctive shape also creates a venturi effect that raises the "effective stack height" by increasing the exit velocity of the water vapor on its way out the stack. If the outside air is itself cool and humid, the water vapor exhausted from the stack will condense into fog. The entire process should be both harmless and completely clean.

It would seem that climatology is not the only area in which Paul and Darren might benefit from doing a bit more homework.

Water vapor stays in the atmosphere for about nine days. Excess turns to rain. CO2 remains for about 100 years.

BT:

So let me get this straight...Apparently fog and water vapor is an acceptable form of a GHG to the AGW crowd? Isn't vapor better at retaining heat? Please forgive me, I need to study more.

Since you are a proponent of the peer-review process, I was taken aback at your play-by-play of all of the problems from this earthquake considering that every single aspect commented upon was designed using peer-reviewed methodologies. By the way, the systems emplyed at TMI in the 70's were even more peer-reviewed than they are now since modeling schemes were more archaic then. Since the peer-review process here obviously failed, why should anyone buy into peer reviewing system as a viable methodogy for determining fact?

We cannot discount the problems of nuclear power -especially in earthquake prone regions. Nor can we ignore the problems of waste disposal. That said, if AGW is a real problem that could lead to catastrophic climate changes in the near future, then we must look at nuclear power as a real option. The other thing that must also be recognized is the fact that the Federal Goverment would have to heavily subsidize nuclear power, as the initial investments would be quite high. Anyone who follows the workings of the Fed know that when huge subsidies are involved corruption soon follows.

On the bright side, nuclear power usage would lead to a drastic lowering of our oil imports (power generation accounts for 55-60% of our oil consumption). Since Congress is hell bent on crafting some time of AGW mitigation laws, I think we as a nation should have a "healthy debate" (something that goes beyond the Screamfests seen on cable) on the Pros/Cons of nuclear power.

Brett, Brookline, Anyone?

SHOW ME PROOF that CO2 is the cause. You can't? Why not? I thought I heard that the debate is over? PS - Don't point me to the IPCC, that crap holds less water than Intelligent Design, which BTW has consensus as well!

Brookline, how would you like to be forced to tithe all the Christian churches in America? Christians make up a vast majority of people in the country. They have consensus that Jesus is YOUR god and YOU MUST live by their rules or we are all doomed.

Who cares that NO PROOF can be made available to assure you that this expensive allegiance is worth your while. They cannot prove that you will go to heaven, they cannot prove that the Bible was the work of a god, but they sure as hell can tell you all about the bad that will happen to you provided you don't start believing and paying your DUES.

You mentioned in a previous thread something about peer review. Agreeing with one's findings is far less than being able to repeat the experiments to draw those conclusions oneself. Oh, nearly forgot, there are no experiments for AGW. How nice, you AGW'ers can join the same folks who tell me I can't buy beer on Sunday and have a party.

Brett, "Most of the white stuff is JUST water vapor"? Hmmm. According to my calculations, Water Vapor is not only a more powerful GHG it is vastly more abundant that ALL OTHER GHG's combined. Just an observation.

Regards,

Steve

bt,

You state: revealed later on Monday night that 1,200 liters of radioactive water had sloshed into the sea from its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Niigata.

So the "1.5L" release that Paul so carefully analyzed has turned out to be wrong by three orders of magnitude.

So, instead of 3.45e-9 litres of contaminated water/litre of sea water, it's 2.86e-6 litres of contaminated water/litre of sea water. WOW I can see why you are so concerned. However, the radiation is more than likely not even detectable.

Oh, and thanks for the lesson on nuclear power generation and cooling towers. Gosh, us hayseeds would never be able to figger sumthin lik that our fer ourselves. We shur r luky 2 hav sum1 lik u 2 edumacate us hicks.

Mark,

While Water Vapor may only stay in the atmosphere for 9 days, the total that goes thru the Water Cycle is 220 trillion cubic meters (metric tons) per year so over 100 years that equals 22 quadrillion cubic meters. Which will have absorbed and released 600 times the energy that CO2 does in the same period.

Sooo, what's your point?

Brookline,

Perhaps you know of someone in climatology that can explain not only how, but how much CO2 contributes to GW in addition to Water Vapor and CH4. Not predictions, no what if's, Steady state today, how much does each contribute. I don't care about deltas until we have a baseline.

Regards,

Steve

So let me get this straight...Apparently fog and water vapor is an acceptable form of a GHG to the AGW crowd? Isn't vapor better at retaining heat? Please forgive me, I need to study more.

Sigh. Yes, Darren, you do need to study more. Mark answered this quite succinctly in his comment immediately prior to yours.

Since you are a proponent of the peer-review process, I was taken aback at your play-by-play of all of the problems from this earthquake considering that every single aspect commented upon was designed using peer-reviewed methodologies. By the way, the systems emplyed at TMI in the 70's were even more peer-reviewed than they are now since modeling schemes were more archaic then. Since the peer-review process here obviously failed, why should anyone buy into peer reviewing system as a viable methodogy for determining fact?

Peer-review is a process for reviewing scientific papers prior to publication. It is not an engineering methodology. Nobody claims that peer-review is perfect