Nuclear zombies (2)

Nuclear energy is cheaper than other energy. This claim is irrational because nuclear cost intentionally ignores substantial hidden costs associated with spent fuel management, various research and development, and insurance.

You can read the cost analysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

But some analysis is listed here. Different operational cost make cost different for each country.

UK energy costs for different generation technologies in pounds per megawatt hour (2010)

Technology	Cost range (£/MWh)
New nuclear	80-105
Onshore wind	80-110
Biomass	60-120
Natural gas turbines with CO2 capture	60-130
Coal with CO2 capture	100-155
Solar farms	125-180
Offshore wind	150-210
Natural gas turbine, no CO2 capture	55-110
Tidal power	155-390

California levelized energy costs for different generation technologies in US dollars per megawatt hour (2007)

Technology[14]	Cost (USD/MWh)
Advanced Nuclear	067  67
Coal	074  74-88
Gas	313  313-346
Geothermal	067  67
Hydro power	048  48-86
Wind power	060  60
Solar	116  116-312
Biomass	047  47-117
Fuel Cell	086  86-111
Wave Power	611  611

============

Levelised energy costs for different generation technologies in Australian dollars per megawatt hour (2006)

Technology	Cost (AUD/MWh)
Nuclear (to COTS plan)[16]	040  40–70
Nuclear (to suit site; typical)[16]	040  75–105
Coal	028  28–38
Coal: IGCC + CCS	053  53–98
Coal: supercritical pulverized + CCS	064  64–106
Open-cycle Gas Turbine	101  101
Hot fractured rocks	089  89
Gas: combined cycle	037  37–54
Gas: combined cycle + CCS	053  53–93
Small Hydro power	055  55
Wind power: high capacity factor	055  63
Solar thermal	085  85
Biomass	088  88
Photovoltaics	120  120

=============

German

Energy source	Costs of electricity production in euros per megawatt hour
Nuclear Energy	107.0 – 124.0
Brown Coal	88.0 –   97.0
Black Coal	104.0 – 107.0
Domestic Gas	106.0 – 118.0
Wind Energy Onshore	49.7 –   96.1
Wind Energy Offshore	35.0 – 150.0
Hydropower	34.7 – 126.7
Biomass	77.1 – 115.5
Solar Electricity	284.3 – 391.4

============

The earth is full.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?ref=thomaslfriedman

The earth is full

This is not science fiction. This is what happens when our system of growth and the system of nature hit the wall at once. While in Yemen last year, I saw a tanker truck delivering water in the capital, Sana. Why? Because Sana could be the first big city in the world to run out of water, within a decade. That is what happens when one generation in one country lives at 150 percent of sustainable capacity.

“If you cut down more trees than you grow, you run out of trees,” writes Gilding. “If you put additional nitrogen into a water system, you change the type and quantity of life that water can support. If you thicken the Earth’s CO2 blanket, the Earth gets warmer. If you do all these and many more things at once, you change the way the whole system of planet Earth behaves, with social, economic, and life support impacts. This is not speculation; this is high school science.”

Radiation effects: a note to myself

How 20 mSv is calculated?

ICRP determined that for the occupational dose limit, an approximate lifetime dose of 1 Sv (100 rem) is tolerable. This correlates to an annual average dose of 20 mSv (2,000 mrem). To allow for flexibility, the ICRP also recommended that the dose limit should not to exceed 50 mSv (5,000 mrem) in any single year. In summary, the ICRP limits for occupational workers are 20 mSv (2,000 mrem) per year, averaged over defined periods of five years, with the further provision that the dose should not exceed 50 mSv (5,000 mrem) in any single year.

Likewise, the ICRP examined the correlation between annual effective dose and the attributes of detriment, as listed above, due to exposure for individuals aged 0-75 years. Based on the data, the ICRP estimates that doses rising above 1 mSv (100 mrem) per year will justify the introduction of protection actions for members of the public.

A radiation dose of 100 millisieverts a year is the lowest level at which any increase in cancer is evident, the London-based WNA said on its website.

A cumulative dose of 1,000 millisieverts would increase the incidence of fatal cancer by about 5 percent. A single dose of 1,000 millisieverts causes temporary radiation sickness and decreased white blood cell count, but not death. A single dose of 5,000 millisieverts would kill about half those receiving it within a month.

Q: How do radioactive materials contaminate food?

A: Atomic bomb tests in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s released I-131 into the atmosphere that was blown thousands of miles away. Animals grazing on pastures contaminated with I-131 had the radioactive material in their milk, which poisoned some children. People exposed to I-131 may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-15/health-effect-of-radiation-poisoning-questions-and-answers.html

Q: What risk does Cesium-137 pose?

A: External exposure to large amounts of Cs-137 can cause burns, acute radiation sickness and even death. Exposure to Cs-137 can increase the risk for cancer because of exposure to high-energy gamma radiation. Internal exposure to Cs-137, through ingestion or inhalation, allows the radioactive material to be distributed in the soft tissues, especially muscle tissue, exposing these tissues to the beta particles and gamma radiation and increasing cancer risk.

Q: How do radioactive materials contaminate food?

A: Atomic bomb tests in Nevada during the 1950s and 1960s released I-131 into the atmosphere that was blown thousands of miles away. Animals grazing on pastures contaminated with I-131 had the radioactive material in their milk, which poisoned some children. People exposed to I-131 may have an increased risk of thyroid cancer.

Sever radiation effect: 1,100 rad

Severe blood changes will be noted and symptoms appear
immediately. Approximately 2 weeks later, some of those
exposed may die. At about 300 – 500 rad, up to one half of the
people exposed will die within 60 days without intensive medical
attention. Death is due to the destruction of the blood forming
organs. Without white blood cells, infection is likely. At the
lower end of the dose range, isolation, antibiotics, and
transfusions may provide the bone marrow time to generate new
blood cells and full recovery is possible. At the upper end of the
dose range, a bone marrow transplant may be required to produce
new blood cells.

Damage to fertilised eggs 

One very important fact to remember is that radiation increases the spontaneous mutation rate, but does not produce any new mutations. Therefore, despite all of the hideous creatures supposedly produced by radiation in the science fiction literature and cinema, no such transformations have been observed in humans. One possible reason why genetic effects from low dose exposures have not been observed in human studies is that mutations in the reproductive cells may produce such significant changes in the fertilized egg that the result is a nonviable organism which is spontaneously resorbed or aborted during the earliest stages of fertilization.

[All texts are copied from various source.]

Nuclear weapon and reactor has different goal but the secondary effect of radiation poisoning is same: a same radioactive material produced by weapons or reactors have same impact on people if the exposed dosage is same.

Neclear zomibes in Japan (1)

Nuclear promoters are in business consultants or big business  folks. Currently Japan is not ready to give up nuclear energy right away because it has been focusing on nuclear so much in the past without thinking about safety issue seriously.

Nuclear zombies in Japan argues that anti-nuclear nuclear energy movement is naive and irrational. They argue Japanese economy is too intimately entrenched with nuclear energy. Unfortunately that may be currently the case. This strong nuclear dependency was a product of political decision when the risk associated with nuclear energy was not well understood. Many scientific advance in different fields discovered more risks to nuclear safety. Nuclear technology did advance but fundamentally, the force of nature can easily overwhelm any safety measures.

There are many irrational people in both side. Some people are against nuclear energy without any understanding of its consequences. But many people are willing to sacrifice to their nuclear dependency. And thanks to the advance in renewable energy in recent years, we have more alternative sources of energy than we had in 1986.

Nuclear zombies must to solve the following problems  before they can have their favourite radiating reactors back on their table.

1) Stop corruption in nuclear management in technical and maintenance. Prevent human errors and unexpected technical problems without leading to catastrophe. Fukushima is horrible but it was lucky that nuclear reactors did not exploded more destructively.

2) Fix problems by really fixing the problems instead of not reporting them or looking other way around.

3) Prepare for all the natural disasters known in the past. Revisit their safety assumption and revise and improve rectors accordingly. Japan cannot find appropriate safe sites for nuclear plants nor nuclear spent fuel treatment and storage spaces.

4) Find a way to handle spent fuel. A large, seismically stable country may build some storage lasting over 10000 years but Japan cannot afford to gamble a such risk.

5) Nuclear is too expensive to cover risk of the all the operations including spent fuel management. Private companies cannot possibly operate it without governmental guarantee. Nuclear is economically a dumb investment.

6) Build a nuclear plant close to its predominant users if residents want. Toronto and Antwerp and many cities have one, for instance. Geological situation is different but if that is an excuse then reconsider the energy strategy instead of cheery picking a vulnerable economically depressed place that is economically dead place without nuclear money.

7) Nuclear power plant technology is too closely related to development of nuclear weapons historically and even currently: see Iran and Saudi as well as N. Korea. Does Japan really want to sell it to other countries? Promoting nuclear plants is irresponsible and it is equivalent to exporting Fukushima.

 

Fukushima has already created an unsafe area of size larger than Biwako and  radiation level there is too high if normal nuclear regulations are enforced.

I would argue nuclear zombies lack any imagination and  any consideration beyond next 5-10 years, and they are mainly focusing their financial interests, and try to exploit as much revenue as possible.

At this point, any one who like to promote nuclear energy in Japan is irrational.

Current antinuclear movement will not end: more alternatives are avilable now compare to 1986.

I read some blog comments by nuclear zombies who like to continue to develop current nuclear energy as usual despite of the current situation: some desperately manage to say because of.

People in general are not thinking about Thorium nuclear energy whose half life is ~ 300 yr and does not produce nuclear bomb quality west. If that technology becomes feasible, it can become a viable option. That is totally different from nuclear power plant Japan already has. Thorium reactors in China and India probably use mix of plutonium and thorium so that is not something we like to use. Clean thorium reactor is still under development. (Kyoto university is developing it, among others.)

Russia/Ukraine are seismically stable and Chernobyl accident is not related with any external natural hazards other than human brain malfunction and the bad reactor design. And they are big countries. So they may have more space to waste. If Russians lived in Japan, they would use nuclear plants more wisely.

Japan on the other hand is most seismically active land; 10% of all earthquakes in the globe occur in Japan. Tsunamis are very common in geological time scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Quake_epicenters_1963-98.png

Also Japan dose not have any practical strategy for nuclear spend fuels. Fast breading reactors are now dead zombies which cannot even die properly any more. Rokasho storage space will be filled up soon.

Italy, Germany and Swiss decided to say goodbye to the nukes. Germany is a extreamly serious country and methodologically harvested renewable energy, so they now can rely more on renewable energy. France and other countries with nukes do provide electricity to Germany but EU as a whole has the will and strategy to tackle these challenges. France itself likely reduces nuclear dependency since many of its nuclear power plants are located sessimiscally active locations. A French science magazine I bought has detail risk analysis: general conclusion is that French nucears can suffer a similar nutural disaster Fukushima.

Saudi is doing nuclear partly because they like to have nuke weapons. Also getting proper cooling water seems to be difficult for them.  If they really care about energy, Saudi should make use of solar energy.