By Fareed Zakaria, CNN
We are all watching Japan's nuclear fallout with ever-increasing alarm.
The Japanese government and all countries that are helping out in that country are trying to focus first and foremost on containing this crisis, protecting workers, and limiting exposure. That’s correct. The next step will be learning lessons from these events for the future of nuclear power.
When we get to that stage, I think it's very important to consider all the facts, put this terrible event in context, and let reason rather than emotion play the larger part in our judgment.
It's difficult not to get spooked by terms like "meltdown," "radiation clouds," and "radioactive leakage." But let's remember that nuclear reactors have operated peacefully, quietly, and safely for decades in countries from Japan to France to the United States.
Over the last five decades, there has been just one nuclear accident that caused any deaths at all - at Chernobyl, and that was a poorly designed reactor, unlike any of the ones in the United States or Japan. It had almost no safety codes or procedures.
The accident at 3 Mile Island in the United States did not actually kill anyone. There was no significant radiation leakage because in the US – as in Japan – all reactors have steel or concrete containers to prevent such leakage. That's why there were no illness resulting from radiation after the 3 Mile island accident.
And the new plants that have been built in the last decade are safer – the OECD says 1,600 times safer than the old ones. And the 3rd generation reactors being planned now, which will be built later, are safer even than those.
Now, all energy sources have their risks when being extracted.
Oil and coal have far worse safety records than even decades-old nuclear plants. The BP oil spill, for example, was triggered by an explosion that instantly killed 11 workers and then poured 4 millions barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
In a thoughtful article in Slate, Will Saletan does the math and finds that if you add up all the deaths caused by oil explosions and the like, the rate of death per unit of energy extracted is 18 times worse for oil than it is for nuclear energy. With hundreds of people dying in mining accidents, coal is also much more likely to kill people working on it or around it than nuclear. And none of this counts the millions of people who get diseases and die a premature death thanks to pollution.
I know there is something about nuclear power that worries us. But it's important not to make huge public policy decisions based on perception rather than reality.
When a plane crashes and hundreds of people die, we immediately panic and worry about flying. But we tend to forget that almost 50,000 Americans die every year in accidents on highways, making the act of getting into your car by far the most dangerous thing that an American will do every day.
We need all the sources of energy we can find. No one source is going to satisfy the world's energy needs. Every one has some costs and some benefits. Nuclear energy can be scaled and it is clean.
We need to design the safest possible plants with the maximum number of back-up procedures. So far, that is the lesson we should draw from this tragedy in Japan.
 |
Post by: |
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Fareed,
Your statement on Nuclear Energy in fact did NOT include all the facts as you suggested we do.
Have you read Stephanie Cooke’s article entitled Nuclear power is on Trial
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/19/cooke.nuclear.history/index.html or her book "In Mortal Hands - A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age" that directly disputes what you claim and does a much deeper analysis on the nuclear events that have caused people to lose their lives.
You state all energy sources have their risks when they are being extracted. What is the risk when using Solar energy or Wind Energy? What is the risk when extracting Wave energy? There is not toxic risk or biproduct when using these clean forms of energy. Why, if you are really interested in discussing all the facts, do you not consider these.
Do you know the reason why the United States stopped building Nuclear Reactors? From your report I do not believe you do.
It is not because nuclear reactors are unsafe. It is because we have no way of disposing of the nuclear waste byproduct produced by Nuclear Reactors, i.e., the radioactive water, pipes, turbines, and every other piece of mechanical or construction material that becomes radioactive.
It is because of the problems with the Super Fund sites and Yucca Mountain.
Why don’t you consider discussing those facts if you truly want to discuss all the facts as you espouse.
I challenge you to allow me to come on your program with a recognized Nuclear Radiation expert to debate the full spectrum of issues that need to be considered in a dialog relating to building new nuclear reactors.
Actually, per kW-hr delivered to the grid, solar generates as much toxic waste as nuclear. The solar panels themselves have toxic materials that can't just be thrown into your local dump. And the current death rate from wind farms is about 0.15 per TW-hr (http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html) about the same as coal.
I'm for a diverse energy portfolio including solar, wind AND nuclear but to determine the best time and place to deploy different technologies we have to evaluate each technology by the same set of objective criteria. We can't have a separate criteria for nuclear just because people can't see radiation.
Lois Tyli said
"Actually, per kW-hr delivered to the grid, solar generates as much toxic waste as nuclear. The solar panels themselves have toxic materials that can't just be thrown into your local dump. And the current death rate from wind farms is about 0.15 per TW-hr (http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html) about the same as coal.
I'm for a diverse energy portfolio including solar, wind AND nuclear but to determine the best time and place to deploy different technologies we have to evaluate each technology by the same set of objective criteria. We can't have a separate criteria for nuclear just because people can't see radiation."
Lois,
Whomever you are, you are a hack and your comments are pure propaganda at it's best. I work in the wind and solar industry and none of your facts are true. Certainly NO ONE has been killed by wind energy. It's just a blatant like. America wake up to the propaganda from folks like Lois..
Lois, having examined the web link you provided it's clear that those are the death rates of people WORKING on wind turbines, nothing to do with the toxic byproducts from wind turbines. When people do construction of any kind there are accidents, that is just life. Name one area of construction where there are NO accidents. You are are a hack indeed...
There is no reasonable comparison between producers of energy that are radioactive and those that are not. The concern about radioactivity is its ability to not only kill but poison people, plants, water, animals and the surrounding area for decades. Additionally, the waste produced is a concern. We are saying to generations 100's of years from now thanks for looking after our nuclear waste–we really needed the electricity and had no alternatives.
The production of solar panels uses many harsh, known carcinogens. To argue that Lois' statement about that is incorrect just shows plain ignorance. The production of solar panels as it stands now is loaded with pollutants as well as being ridiculously inefficient, the amount of energy required to produce the panels compared to the relative energy they can harness is laughable. There lies the problem with both solar and wind for the time being. One nuclear plant can provide power to hundreds of thousands, the largest solar plant on the East coast in Florida can't even provide sufficient power to 50K even though it spreads over a massive area. The only recorded deaths due to nuclear events from a power plant, Stephanie Cooke is not the authority nor the record keeper on the issue, came from Chernobyl in a nation where things were never built to any codes and government ran entities did not admit failure/mistakes for fear of retribution, and an obviously overstressed, poorly thought out plant. Chernobyl was a massive screw up by the Ukranian SSR and not nuclear power. France and Japan and the US do indeed use large amounts of nuclear power and have for decades without any significant problems. Everyone is all for switching power forms, but to suggest that solar or wind have the capability of replacing conventional forms at this present time shows a real lack of intelligence on the subject matter.
very good response Colin, i agree with you about the propaganda that is being released against alternative energies. When it all boils down to it, no gov't, corporations want to give anything away for free. If people were allowed alternative, affordable energy sources, we'd worry less about paying for power and more about other things we need to take care of. Just as with oil, there are alternatives that GM has infamously bought patents the prevent the release of clean, green vehicles. All in order to keep the massive amounts of money to these greedy corporations. No thanks to the Gov't.
Hi, Colin. You work in the wind and solar power industry? I'm the prince of Spain. Pleased to meet you.
Colin R,
So I guess this person didn't die from wind power?
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/parents_of_technician_killed_i.html
The turbine went out of control and he died while trying to fix it. Deaths happen from all sources of energy. That is just the first example I found when searching. I remember reading about a few other stories of wind turbines going out of control and destroying themselves (there was a video of one online not too long ago where it was just spinning crazy fast and developed an oscillation which eventually caused the turbine blades to pitch enough that they hit the superstructure and it literally exploded with 20 or 30 foot sections of the turbine blades flying hundreds of feet away and impaling themselves into/thru a building). There was also a turbine that went out of control in my own state of NJ and caused an electrical fire from the energy it was generating in the building it was attached to. So don't say there have been no deaths from wind, because there have been.
France currently supplies over 75% of their power needs via Nuclear. Can anyone name ONE country that supplies over 75% of its power needs with Wind, Solar, or any combination of the two?
Of course you can't. These power forms are in their infancy, and are extremely inefficient. They are just nowhere close to having the scalability necessary. If you covered every square foot of Nevada with Solar panels, then you may come close to providing 30% of the current power requirements of the US. Far less by the time such a fantasy array could be built, as global demand is increasing 2.4% per year.
In 50 years, we may have solar panels that are 50% efficient, or gargantuan offshore wind farms, but right now Nuclear is the best option we have. Replace the older plants with the new fault proof designs, and build new ones. The amount of waste produced is insignificant with reprocessing and the newest reactor designs.
Every accident that is caused by Nuclear power plants will come under strict scrutiny by all govts. concerned.
But the problem is how forth coming will the govts. be and how openly will they disclose information. USA seems to have covered up many things that have come to haunt them at later stages and thats when we have credibility problems.
So I say we wait and see how the Japanese crissis pans out and then make decisions based on rationality.
@Lois
You asked me for a scenario of how radiation could contaminate the water supply further down in your posts:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/23/japan.nuclear.crisis/index.html?hpt=C1
It is sad but I don't expect this real scenario to sway you in any way. Japan has a devastating and very long battle in front of them because of the nuclear disaster. The earthquake and tsunami were bad enough, and they were natural... than man made it worse with nuclear reactors.
fary eed ,get your facts straight you only smart in some things and a moron in many things ,you only trying to fit in the big white corporate world .you are an idiot sir just like lois
Just like the chinese court eunuch of old, fareed is mostly easily understood as a smiling administration sycophant.
"I know there is something about nuclear power that worries us."
That is the sum of counterpoint Fareed allows in the above piece. Coincidentally, I was just thinking to myself, "I know there is something about Fareed Zakaria that worries us." Unlike FZ, I decided to think about it for another moment or two, and lo, I realized that it is his utterly facile argument style which is worrisome, wherein he doesn't even seem to have the energy to build the merest straw man of an opposing view. Yet another quite anemic job of punditry I have to say. We just get these one sentence toss-offs where large important points are completely ignored.
I want to like nuclear energy. I also want to like Fareed. I worry about human error and geologic instability and the potential for radioactive pollution in the first case, and I worry about human error and logical instability and the potential for intellectual pollution in the second.
Fareed reminds me of arrogant engineers who breezily insist they've created something indestructible when in fact they've only managed to convince themselves that they've created something indestructible. Occasionally, the engineers get to learn how wrong they were. Does Fareed ever?
Oops, just reread your post. I dislike FZ for his lack of argumentative rigor. It seems you dislike him because he's...Asian? Which makes him an Obama stooge? I really have no idea what your characterization means.
Finally some common sense!
Fareed didn't mention solar or wind I'm guessing because they are not truly viable sources of energy in a large part of the US. And a backup system is still needed because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. To build a wind plant of just a few hundred megawatts takes eight times the land mass required for a similar coal plant...and that's about the same for solar. How many acres of wildlife preserve or pristine forest will we dig up and destroy for these thousands of acres?
There are three major ways to keep the lights on..also your plasma TV, computer, charge your electric car, etc.: Coal, Nat Gas, and nuclear. Sorry Greenies, that's the hard reality....and there's a downside to all of them. Coal is dirty, hazardous to mine, and mountain top removal is deplorable. Nat Gas burns clean, but ask a few landowners in Pennsylvania about their water supplies polluted by frack water. (Watch the documentary "GasLand")
Oh, by the way...yes Virgina, coal CAN and IS being burned cleanly as we speak...scrubbers, SNCR and SCR systems, fabric filters have been used for decades to help reduce fossil emissions, especially from coal. And there are new technologies being developed...I know because I worked in an energy-related field for forty years.
I would like nothing better than to have a truly viable energy source that would do away with ALL fossil fuels and nuclear...but that's science fiction, my friends. Maybe after we are all dead and gone it will happen...but I need to live today, AND keep the lights on.
I suggest you ALL listen to Fareed's article again and THIS time, try...just try to be open minded and realistic.
Oh, one parting shot: The US is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal. Why on earth would we completely turn our back on a resource that we have in abundance? As I said above, coal CAN and IS being burned in a relatively clean manner all over the country. This is NOT the 1950's or the Industrial Revolution years when coal smoke went straight up a short stack into the atmosphere and blackened buildings and spread flyash all over cars and trees and plants. I remember the 1950's...so again I know.
So Greenies....the next time you protest the permitting of a new coal or nuke plant, remember your lights, plasma TV's, computers, your electric car, etc. and just THINK, THINK , THINK!
RTH,
You are so very misinformed about wind energy. When you consider the aggregate effect of wind energy systems all around north america and you factor in solar PLUS the ability to forecast these intermittent energy resources (which we now have the capability to do) you would realize that wind energy can support a very large portion if not ALL of the energy needs of our great nation. Even if the wind blows or the sun shines "when it's not needed" for instance at night, if people switched to electric vehicles they could charge their vehicles during those hours so long as a wind and sloar energy FORECAST was provided (which is an area I work in). As for your comment about wind energy taking up land area from wildlife, most wind farms are situated on open land areas like farms, praries or water. Occassionally they are situated on mountain tops but they certainly do not kill any significant amount of wildlife – certainly not compared to coal or nuclear which produce. Occasionally birds will fly into them but this is actually not that common, only in certain areas. All those things you mention have been overblown by opponents of wind energy, it is I am afraid, propaganda....
'And a backup system is still needed because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. To build a wind plant of just a few hundred megawatts takes eight times the land mass required for a similar coal plant...and that's about the same for solar. How many acres of wildlife preserve or pristine forest will we dig up and destroy for these thousands of acres
Thats the whole point of a smart grid. Wind farms are planned around a area that has above average wind for starters, they are not just slapped down any old where, and a smart grid enables proper distribution of energy.
Secondly, Practically ever house in this nation has a roof that is just begging for solar panels. All this talk about we need wide open countryside for a solar farm is only part of the story. We have entire cities with unused roof tops that can be used to help lessen the demand. They are currently developing solar roofing slates, solar film to put on windows, and even paint that can generate solar electricity. If we use ALL the renewable options open to us there is no reason why they cannot be viable solutions.
Specious argument. Corn can grow at the feet of a giant wind farm. Every roof top in America should be covered with solar panels. Nuclear power is wrong. The problem isn't source, it's greed. We want more power than we require.
@Colin
I think you overestimate the smart grids capabilities, our capability to forecast wind and react to this forecasting. Wind power will be fantastic eventually, but the technology to implement it is still a decade away. The control systems involved in planning wind power storage and activating backup energy supplies will be incredibly complex, since wind is a highly stochastic (random) system. It is pointless to elaborate too much on this on a message board, but I recently heard a lecture by Sean Meyn, one of the leading researchers in this field from University of Illinois, detailing the challenges that lie ahead before wind power or solar power become practical power sources. Dr. Meyn has several books and journal on these topics that you can look into if you are interested.
"When you consider the aggregate effect of wind energy systems all around north america and you factor in solar PLUS the ability to forecast these intermittent energy resources (which we now have the capability to do) you would realize that wind energy can support a very large portion if not ALL of the energy needs of our great nation."
Not entirely true. Wind doesn't always blow. This directly translates into not being able to support the energy needs of the nation. Using forecast models would force us to change our energy use, which makes this not comparable to the output of a traditional coal-fired plant.
"Even if the wind blows or the sun shines "when it's not needed" for instance at night, if people switched to electric vehicles they could charge their vehicles during those hours so long as a wind and sloar energy FORECAST was provided (which is an area I work in)."
Again, this forces people to change their lifestyle based upon when energy is available. Grids are already overloaded during the summer months with the use of AC – using a less powerful method of energy transfer (wind) and adding the need to support the charging of electric cars would be a very, very serious strain on thinner resources like wind, especially since it's only available at a specific time.
"As for your comment about wind energy taking up land area from wildlife, most wind farms are situated on open land areas like farms, praries or water. Occassionally they are situated on mountain tops but they certainly do not kill any significant amount of wildlife – certainly not compared to coal or nuclear which produce."
Oftentimes the best places to put wind farms are in remote locations, which requires a lot of trucking of parts and machinery, and the construction of power transmission towers to get the energy to a place it's needed. This is very energy and labor intensive.
Forecasts are called so because that's what they are – forecasts; aka, guesses. They aren't always right. In fact, many times they're very wrong. Take a look at weather forecasting, which is in a very similar field to wind forecasting. Fluid flow and thermodynamics are very difficult to predict reliably on earth-size scales. Why should I know? I'm an aerodynamicist.
About solar cells:
Solar cells are pretty good lately. However, they have too many drawbacks, and their energy efficiency isn't good enough to yet justify mass production and use. They're built in expensive facilities with harsh chemicals. Good cells with decent efficiencies are difficult to care for and very fragile. Often they're coupled with battery systems which aren't too green themselves. How would I know? I've built a solar car.
Nuclear energy is a very viable alternative to coal and gas without the reliability pains of wind and solar. The anti-nuclears here keep talking about radiation and the waste getting into the environment...but it's only happened once in the history of nuclear power; and that once was a direct result of very, very, very poor engineering. Waste storage is non-issue if countries other than france got off their rear ends and invested in using the still-radioactive waste to generate energy for us to use, while converting the waste into harmless elements. France's grid is a very good example of near-ideal nuclear power which is safe and as environmentally friendly as things get. This is not to say that nuclear energy can't be augmented by hydro and wind, but sources like wind and solar are clearly not ready (if they ever will be) to bear the brunt of our energy needs; nuclear is.
Oh boy, Colin...
Here's a few tidbit facts for you to digest:
"Occassionally they are situated on mountain tops but they certainly do not kill any significant amount of wildlife"
- American Bird Conservancy estimates that 100,000 to 300,000 birds are killed annually. Sounds like a significant number to me.
Solar Energy has 4 issues at the moment – 1 – It takes several decades to pay back the cost of building a solar panel (The amount of energy to produce a photovoltaic cell + the actual dollar cost investment of building and setting a panel up). In that process it uses oil and electricity to produce the panel as well.
2 – average life span of a panel is about 20 years, 30 in some areas. That's a significant cost every 20-30 years to rebuild all the panels.
3 – No true storage capacity. Currently the US smart grid does not store energy in case of downtimes which would be necessary with solar and wind energies.
4 – Efficiency rate is abysmal for solar panels (below 20% for even the best most expensive cells). We need the efficiency rating to be improved before making this a main energy source.
Solar makes up for .02% of the world's energy sources. It is not a big player till we resolve the 4 points above first.
Like others have said, all energy sources have consequences, and also like others have said, wind and solar have great potential, but those are infant technologies which need more time. Ultimately our goal should be Nuclear Fusion for energy. And the best way to learn how to make and control nuclear fusion is with experimentation. France is a good example of how we should deal with Nuclear technology. No new plant has passed approval in the US since the 80s, and that is quite sad IMO and a good reason why our plants are of the older designs and the US public is not aware of the great new designs engineers have build in the last 2 decades. We are limiting ourselves because the general population has a fear of the unknown driven by the media's innate business of more fear = more ratings, so pump them full of it! There's a big world outside that cave...
"American Bird Conservancy estimates that 100,000 to 300,000 birds are killed annually. Sounds like a significant number to me."
That is insignificant, it's not even big enough for a rounding error, it's just statistical noise. Let's take a look at the estimates of things that really kill birds in the US::
Glass windows/tall buildings: 100 million to 1 billion a year
House cats: 100 million a year
Cars/trucks: 50 to 100 million a year
Electric transmission line collisions: 174 million a year
Agriculture (pesticides): 67 million a year
Communication towers: 4 to 10 million a year
Hunting: 100 million a year
Mr. Marlowe–Wind, wave and solar do impact the environment, if only on a one-time basis. The extraction, transportation, refining of raw materials and the subsequent environmental costs of manufacturing, transporting and placing the machines required by these sorts of installations are not benign. Furthermore, to use these three energy sources in lieu of coal, gas, oil or nuclear will demand some method of energy storage (solar does not work well at night and the only place where the wind blows continually is in the halls of Congress).
Creating and using the massive storage systems will also bring environmental considerations. Battery and capacitor banks contain a wide assortment of rather nasty component chemicals and materials; underground compressed air storage can interrupt ground water channels, affecting wells and water deposits; flywheel systems require continued maintenance with bearing replacement and lubrication.
In short, there is no system that is entirely without consequences. Taken as a whole, nuclear can be made to be no more evil than the three systems you propose. Design a common, standard power plant and reactor such that components are interchangeable. Establish a training system that is designed to train, test, and validate all operating employees, providing annual competency testing and advanced training as new processes come on line. Thoroughly vet all employees who have access to the nuclear facility and also do complete psychological and personality evaluations to insure that employees are mentally stable. Lastly, adopt the French Method of fuel recycling and central storage to eliminate storing spent fuel on-site.
Wizard,
You are again misinformed my friend. I work in wind energy and I can tell you there are many incredible benefits over coal and nuclear with little if any downside. The continued propaganda campaign against wind energy is really lame and pathetic. People can charge electric vehicles at times when the wind is high and demand would otherwise be low – all they need is a forecast. Nuclear waste is NOT safely stored ANYWHERE. That is just a blatant lie.
How fare are you nuclear energy proponents going to take your propaganda? Are you going to try to convince us that radiation is "good for us"?
@Armydoc08: As all others who just spew propaganda you don't back up your statements with facts and references. What are those harsh carcinigans you claim are created in the production of solar panels and how do they compare to Cesium 137 and radioactive byproducts produced by nuclear reactors? Compare apples to apples my freind.
Compare apples to apples please:
"Wind, wave and solar do impact the environment, if only on a one-time basis. The extraction, transportation, refining of raw materials and the subsequent environmental costs of manufacturing, transporting and placing the machines required by these sorts of installations are not benign."
Yes they are benign or negligable compared to anything relating to a nuclear reactor. They are created once and produce no toxic byproduct.
Storing energy is as easily done as heating water and using the heat or warmth later... the point being there are multiple ways of cleanly storing the energy for use later...
"underground compressed air storage can interrupt ground water channels, affecting wells and water deposits;" – are you serious? Do you know how long the water supply remains contaminated from racioactive byproducts from a nuclear reactor?
"flywheel systems require continued maintenance with bearing replacement and lubrication." How do you compare that with 40,000 years of maintenance for nuclear waste?
"Taken as a whole, nuclear can be made to be no more evil than the three systems you propose." You are either dillusional or a nuclear energy lobbyist because that is the most blatantly ignorant statement I have ever heard uttered by another human being.
William Marlowe said: "As all others who just spew propaganda you don't back up your statements with facts and references. What are those harsh carcinigans you claim are created in the production of solar panels and how do they compare to Cesium 137 and radioactive byproducts produced by nuclear reactors?"
In addition to the toxic waste associated with any mining and metal fabrication, specific to solar there are things like c-Si, a-Si, CdTe, CIS, CIGS and GaAs. Check out http://svtc.org/wp-content/uploads/Silicon_Valley_Toxics_Coalition_-_Toward_a_Just_and_Sust.pdf. And you can read about a town in China devastated by a solar panel manufacturers waste at http://stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Solar_11.2.pdf and in an archived article in the Washington Post.
Let's see Cs-137's half life is about 30 days. The toxic wastes above NEVER decay. Regarding health effects, William, if you do a little research (the EPA and NRC websites are good places to start) and have some understanding of the technical terms, you will likely find you'd much rather eat a bit of plutonium than be contaminated with silicon tetrachloride.
@Lois Tyli
1) Silicon Tetrachloride can be disposed of with high temperatures with the final form being carbon. Plutonium, which one simple atom is enough to kill a human being if ingested, cannot be disposed of and has to be stored and contained for thousands of years. There is not simple or complicated justification for manufacturing any more of this toxic poison on this planet and I will never stop fighting the creation of such.
“In addition to the toxic waste associated with any mining and metal fabrication, specific to solar there are things like c-Si, a-Si, CdTe, CIS, CIGS and GaAs.”
2) All of this can be disposed of with high temperatures and transformed into carbon that is no longer toxic. In China they chose not to do this. That is Human Error
You are misinformed, ill-informed, and illogical in your argument for nuclear reactors. I believe you are an attorney or other nuclear energy lobby. If you care to really debate this in a public forum i will meet you anywhere in the world to do so as long as it is in front of a public audience either on TV or in person. You will lose because there is NO logical argument that Solar, Wind, Wave, or Geothermal is not safer and more sustainable than nuclear energy.
That is a fact you and others like you will eventually have to admit and accept.
William, how do you propose we get these high temperatures? Coal? Oil? Electricity generated by either of those or nuclear.
Very well written – don't understand where Fareed is coming from other than trying to grab some headline.
Be it Nuclear Power or Nuclear War – either one is a Sword of Damocles hanging over the worlds head.
I have somewhat ignored paying any attention to nuclear power, and the pluses and minuses of this form of energy, but with this tragedy in Japan, and having taken a closer look at the locations of these ticking time bombs all over the world it has gotten my attention. I think there needs to be an awakening in the world as to what the true ramifications are of nuclear power. This stuff just doesn't go away.
If human civilization is lucky, nuclear won't go away, until a more efficient means of producing power (fusion via helium 3?) becomes available.
I'm not sure why I had to post this 3x to get it up but anyhoo...
William said, " Plutonium, which one simple atom is enough to kill a human being if ingested" and then he challenged me to a public debate. I'd be happy to debate you, William, but first you must swear to ingest as much pure caffeine as I ingest plutonium. Dr. Bernard Cohen challenged Ralph Nader, or anyone else, to the same and surprisingly, no one took him up on it. Dr. Cohen's impeccably referenced report on how far less toxic Pu is compared to how it portrayed by the media and antinuclear activists is at http://www.fort freedom.org/p22.htm but you might find Dr. Richard Muller's words on the subject easier to understand http://www.smart planet.com/technology/blog/science-scope/plutonium-is-1000x-less-toxic-than-botox-and-other-science-facts/6535/ (remove spaces in the links). That's all I can contribute today. Cheers!
"and then he challenged me to a public debate. I'd be happy to debate you, William, but first you must swear to ingest as much pure caffeine as I ingest plutonium."
I accept your challenge and will ingest, mean eat, one atom of pure affeine and you must ingest, eat, one atom of plutonium. You wil die, I will not.
I am ready to do this. Tell me when and where?
Clarification:
I am referring to the radioactive plutonium used in nuclear reactors.
I will ingest one atom of caffeine and you will ingest one atom of radioactive plutonium used in a nuclear reactor as fuel.
Now lets see you follow this up and accept this challenge.
I think it is safe to assume that my boy Fareed strongly supports the expansion and investment of clean forms of energy i.e. wind, solar, thermal, etc. He is just being REALISTIC, as he's always shown to be. The fact is, we are going to need the safest forms of nuclear energy to keep this country running like everybody wants it too i.e. dishwashers, car washers, tvs , computers, nintendo wiis, xboxs. Our energy demands in the US far exceed those of other countries and cannot be met with only clean forms of energy. To think we are going to dramatically expand clean energy to cover all of our energy demands is simply naive. I support the expansion of clean forms of energy but the fact is, realistically speaking we are going to need nuclear energy.
I'd realistically predict that in 25 years or less the US will stop using energy at the rate it does because it wont be so readily available. Even uranium has a limit – some figures say 30-50 years left. So just how long can we REALISTICALLY keep our lifestyle going? After we've used all available resources on relentless gluttony shouldn't there at least be enough energy left to clean up the filthy disaster we leave behind?
Any assessment on energy consumption that figures our life-style should or can be sustained is far from realistic – it's complete madness. The truth of this will be born out in our lifetime.
We can get 50 years or more out of what we have stored as 'nuclear waste' in the country currently. Time to follow Canada and Frances lead on breeding/reprocessing.
Attn : Freed
I agree with most what you mentioned, except that BIG lessons must be learnt from this nuclear incident, i.e:
- How can we stop / kill this godzilla when it goes out of control !!!
- We should not just think that historically nuclear has been the safest of power sources, but what to do if unexpected happened, e.g
the cooling-system gets destroyed due to human-error, accident, war, sabotage, terrorist-activity.
What has been an eye-opener is : this thing once starts, will not stop (heating), if cooling cannot be restarted then it WILL become a MOJOR catastrophe. Just imagine if all efforts to cool the Japanese reactors fail, can you the kill this giant by bombing, you bury it in concrete, but the site will continue to smolder for god-knows how long and emit radiations miles around the incident-area.
Attn : Freed.
I would like to suggest following:
- generate nuclear energy from the RADIATION emitted by uranium, rather than through nuclear fission.
- make smaller size (packaged) nuclear reactors which can easily be ported / handled
- design nuclear-reactors that work on fuel that can be controlled / killed in case of an accident REMOTELY, without having to work on site, like what Japanese are doing now.
The fact is, in the last fifty years, the US has had one major incident involving a nuclear reactor. The recent event in Japan was a disaster of biblical proportions, with the 4th largest earthquake in recorded history followed by a massive tsunami. Despite the power of the earthquake and how close the reactors were to its epicenter, the reactor structures were not seriously damaged by the quake and they were shutting down properly when the tsunami struck. Even then the tsunami didn't damage the reactor structures. It knocked out the backup generators, which led to the subsequent problems with the cores. If the generators had been properly protected from the impact of the tsunami we wouldn't even be talking about these reactors today. And these were not brand new reactors by a long shot. Some in the US were built using the same specifications. Given that, I think Zakaria is correct. While our sense of caution should be heightened by what has happened in Japan, it would be a mistake to overreact and not take all the facts into consideration before making a judgment about the safety of nuclear power. If we don't start using more of it to produce power and continue to rely heavily on oil, the impact on the Earth will be more devastating than any earthquake or tsunami.
I will say again, the issue is not whether there will be an accident, as there will be, it is an eventuality with human beings, The real issue is the safe storage of nuclear waste. There is no safe or affordable way of doing so at this time and until there is there should be no more plants that generate more of this toxic byproduct. No exceptions.
The recent earthquake should not be used as an example of the worst our planet can do. It is said we live by geologic (and astronomic!) consent, subject to removal at any time. The caldera that is Yellowstone National Park is rising. When (NOT if) it blows there will be boulders raining down across the Northern Hemisphere, with North America obviously taking the brunt.
The problem with radiation pollution is that for all intents and purposes it lasts forever. Sure, if Yellowstone blows we might have other worries than radiation, but if humanity does survive, which it should be able to, there will be likely hundreds of new "forever" radiation hot spots at destroyed power plants and missile sites around the globe.
Yellowstone is only one of a double fistful of worst case scenarios that are a question of when and not if. Massive solar storms, meteors like the one that leveled Siberia a hundred years ago, volcanoes, the list goes on. And then you get more mundane severe disasters like the one in Japan. We haven't been keeping records very long. Our modern civilization is brand new. A hundred years ago, a massive meteor could hit the Earth and hardly anyone noticed. Now, it could plunge the world into anarchy.
These nuke plants need to be built so strong that if they do get wiped out, it will be by something so big there won't be anyone left to complain about the mutations anyway. And that costs money. Want to guess if corners will be cut?
William, while the alternatives you have mentioned dont have much of a negative effect, the sheer magnitude of facilities that would be required to use these alternatives gives a next to impossible task. In the early 2000's the department of energy gave a proposal for alternative "clean" energy sources. The Maximum amount of energy they could get this to is 30% , (currently 2-3%), at the cost of over 600 billion dollars. now where does that other 70% of the energy come from? fossil fuels. And to add to the fact there is roughly 50 years of oil in the ground, then were on reserves we need a replacement of sustainable energy, and im sorry to say but nuclear is our best option. New reactors (CANDU and the like) are almost 100% safe, with 100% control rods and no plutonium used meaning no self fissile fuels. And the next generation of reactors will be thorium reactors with 99% recyclable fuels, higher energy output and can the fission can be interrupted by saline solution.
Nuclear disasters are absolutely terrible but to get rid of it would render humanity extinct within 200 years.
First your numbers are dated.
Second nuclear energy only currently serves 19.4% of US energy and Solar could take its place entierly and generate up to 50% by 2022. Reference Deparment of Energy
Wind can generate up to 20% by 2025: Reference Department of Energy
We have not even begun to tap wave and geothermal.
There are alternatives and we are not researching them. They will create jobs and an entier new industry for the US to export to the rest of the world. We should do it before another country does, like China.
Bravo Mr Marlowe, BRAVO!!! Nuclear waste is an enormous problem, it is as of yet unresolved. Tossing it into space is not an option either. Time to RETHINK alternative energies, we need to place our priorities on R & D to make renewable alternative energy sources safe, efficient and inexpensive. We are harming all life and the planet, we must STOP this insanity.
@Armydoc08 – you are quite right, one nuclear plant can provide enough power to hundreds of thousands. BUT...ONE nuclear catastrophe can destroy the world, and THAT makes pursuing nuclear power down right stupid, foolish and ultimately counterproductive, to say the least.
If by 'catastrophe' you mean nuclear war, then *maybe*. If you mean a worst-possible scenario at a single nuclear power plant, then get real. I suppose you never heard of Chernobyl. I think the world is still standing.
And the solution to nuclear waste is simple: What we call 'nuclear waste' in this country, is called nuclear fuel in France and Canada. It is reusable in the proper type of reactor. We have to get rid of our disposable culture mindset and reprocess!
I doubt you are an expert yourself. The waste was not the main reason the U.S. quit building nukes. It became cost prohibitive due to licensing requirements and all of the costly government required beauracuracy for obtaining the many permits needed for the design to be certified and the plant to be built. The government made it too expensive. And now the Japan incident has brought out all of the misinformed armchair anti-nuclear experts. Those being the hypocrites who condemn nuclear power yet have no problem every day using the electricity they generate!
It was the storage of nuclear waste in Super Fund sites that spawned all the regulations and oversight that you characterize as beauracracy, that stopped financial investors and insurance companies from being able to insure these investors.
How do you insure something that will create radioactive waster that will have a half-life of 40,000 years that could get into a water supplay and exterminate all life on this planet?
We shouldn't be storing that waste at all. We should be reprocessing it in breeder reactors. Wikipedia states it well:
"the breeder reactor can employ not only the recycled plutonium and uranium in spent fuel, but all the actinides, closing the nuclear fuel cycle and potentially multiplying the energy extracted from natural uranium by more than 60 times. Nuclear reprocessing also reduces the volume of high-level nuclear waste and its radiotoxicity, allowing separate management (destruction or storage) of nuclear waste components."
William Marlowe's reply says it all (see above).
In addition, we as a nation have utterly failed to develop ANYTHING like a comprehensive energy policy that would have brought us to a clean, effective, sustainable and market ready alternative. The Arab Oil Embargo in the '70s was our wakeup call and we ignored it to our peril. Also, anyone with any understanding of energy management realizes that this always starts with conservation and efficient management of energy. We waste energy like we think it will never end. It will and we might if we ignore this.
Plutonium is one of the most hazardous substances known to man. We are literally playing with fire while living in a dream world of denial. Big business trumps America's safety, economic prosperity and our very existence for their short term benefit.
Dont believe that we can't supply our nations energy needs with just solar, wind and storage. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory showed that this could be done if we had our wind power spread sufficiently across the continent and we invested in new transmission INSTEAD of new nuclear and coal. This is because the deficits in wind energy in one region can easily be offset by surpluses in other areas – geographical dispersion. When you factor in a new intermittent resource of solar the dispersion effect is even more prominent and the energy smooths even more dramatically. Now factor in plug-in electric vehicles and new storage technology as well as forecasting software that is already in use and boom – there you have it you are already there: A truly smart grid running on pure renewable energy
Yes it's possible a wind turbine had a mechanical failure and killed someone who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sh*t happens, machines are not indestructable. But a wind turbine only has a few seconds to self-destruct and possibly injure someone under extremely rare circumstances – certainly not 24,000 years
Solar power can satisfy 10 thousand times the world energy demand.....and it is getting cheap!
Colin R – Your post is nothing but ad hominem, name calling, and a ludicrous argument from authority fallacy to finish it off. There are so many fallacious arguments thrown out on these CNN boards that I am beginning to think people fall for them. I could sit here and call you names, and not address a single substantive issue just as easily as you do with Lois. Does it prove anything? Does it convince anyone? It certainly shouldn't.
William,
I don't think anyone is saying that nuclear energy is perfect. But this report here was strictly in the context of the current events in Japan. Sure, there are problems with nuclear energy, but Fareed is just arguing that the risk of a nuclear meltdown in the current state of Japan should not be a reason to discourage further development or end/reduce development.
As for other sources of energy such as solar and wind – they may not be as risky as nuclear energy, but those forms of energy are in very prototypical stages. On the other hand, fossil fuels and nuclear energy are consumed on much wider levels at this stage in time.
And for that last statement? Is this just some attempt for publicity? Or a joke?
I am not advertising anything or trying to get publicity for myself but rather to promote a real debate and reals discussion about why we should not be building any more nuclear reactors. No one is considering investing extensivly, into clean forms of energy which are mature and ready to generate as least as much if not more than the 19.4% nuclear power does today in the US
Thee is a diversion from discussing this because big oil and nuclear lobbyist's do not want this discussed because they know they will lose.
How are wind/solar/hydroready to be a general power supply? In all but the rarest of areas they will be spotty in the power they provide (the wind doesn't always blow and save parts of the West the sun doesn't always shine)? They make for excellent bandages/helpers, but systems reliant on something as uncertain as the weather or proximity to flowing water will never supplant more certain power generation.
Dang it, I said my last post would be it for today, but this was too easy to pass up and only took a second.
William said, "I challenge you to document an insurance company willing to insure a new nuclear reactor."
http://www.nuclearinsurance.com/
Enjoy and good night!
ANI – does not have any customers. Anyone can put up a website and claim to be anything they want.
http://www.nuclearinsurance.com/
Nick, The elephant in the room is still the fact that nuclear, oil, gas and coal, are all REALLY stupid ways to boil water. But since Nukes are in the spotlight right now, consider this: This heavily subsidized "clean" source of energy has cost taxpayers worldwide hundreds of billions of dollars, and has it's hand out again. According to UCS estimates, between $65 billion and $147 billion is sought in the near term... http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nuclear_power/Nuclear-Subsidies-in-APA-and-ACELA.pdf Do we still have our heads so buried in the sand as to think that an equivalent investment in efficiency, superinsulation, smart grids and renewable power is a poor idea? The government pays little more than lip service to renewables and efficiency. Nuclear subsides dwarf renewables subsidies. 40 years later we still regurgitate the same tired excuse, "clean technologies aren't ready..." "prototypes", Tell that to Germany. The country is well on it's way to net-zero energy. Is Germany a prototype...?
Exactly what subsidy are U.S. nuclear power plants receiving now? And the UCS really can't be considered an objective source of data. For instance, they begin their estimation of subsidies to nuclear way back with the Manhattan project and the development of nuclear bombs. If you apply that same logic to, say, natural gas and wind turbines, wouldn't you have to start way back with the development of military planes? After all, modern NG plants are basically huge jet engines and the advancement in the design of wind turbine blades also came with improvements of military jets. I believe the "historic subsidy" would then be comparable to nuclear.
Again, my point is that we should evaluate each energy technology with the same set of objective criteria to decide what to deploy and where. We can't have a separate standard for nuclear.
Brian,
You say Germany is "...well on it's way to net-zero energy". Really? True, they are leading most of the industrialized west in renewable and clean energy usage, but they still have a lonnggg way to go toward net-zero energy. They currently have 17 nuclear power plants, 7 of which were temporarily shut down immediately following the Japan nuclear catastrophy in order to run safety checks on them. Frau Merkel promptly turned around and declared that in order to compensate for the 7 shut down nuclear sites, they will need to reactivate several coal-burning plants in the country. The green party, of course, is screaming bloody murder over this, but she had no choice–she refuses to replace the energy source shortfall by buying it from external sources (which are also not clean-burning) and they simply don't have the clean energy sources to replace what they lost from the nuclear site shutdowns.
@Lois Tyli
"Exactly what subsidy are U.S. nuclear power plants receiving now? "
No bank or financial institution will fund the building of a new nuclear reactor because of the enormous risk to life and property nor will any insurance company insure their operation or the storage of nuclear byproducts for 40,000 years. That is why to build any new nuclear reactors in the future will require the United States government to lend the money and insure the company that does so. I thought people like you wanted to lower the deficit?
"Again, my point is that we should evaluate each energy technology with the same set of objective criteria to decide what to deploy and where. We can't have a separate standard for nuclear."
Fine, let the private sector fund all future energy companies and don't ask for government loans. We shouldn't have a seperate standard for nuclear.
Just like the chinese court eunuch of old, fareed is mostly easily understood as a smiling administration sycophant!!
William Marlow said: "No bank or financial institution will fund the building of a new nuclear reactor because of the enormous risk to life and property nor will any insurance company insure their operation or the storage of nuclear byproducts for 40,000 years. That is why to build any new nuclear reactors in the future will require the United States government to lend the money and insure the company that does so. I thought people like you wanted to lower the deficit?"
First, you never answered my question about what subsidies nuclear power is receiving right now or how that compares to subsidies for other energy technologies.
Second, you're just plain wrong on the rest. The issue isn't that companies can't get funding to build new nuclear, it's that, given the size of the companies, they can't afford the interest rate of the loans. If your market cap is $25 billion and you want to build a $6 billion plant, you aren't going to get a favorable interest rate. Government backed loan guarantees are NOT a subsidy. They allow companies to get more favorable interest rate, similar to a parent co-signing on a car loan for a teenager. The companies pay the government's administrative cost AND a risk premium similar to mortgage insurance.
The plants can't be insured? Wrong again. Each plant carries around $300 million in property and liability insurance.
Then William says, "I thought people like you wanted to lower the deficit?" Huh? People like me? I guess you're resorting to making personal assumptions now?
Then William says: "Fine, let the private sector fund all future energy companies and don't ask for government loans. We shouldn't have a seperate standard for nuclear." Alrighty, as long as we're fair across the board for every energy technology–no subsidies, any climate regulation takes into account all sources of known pollutants as well as GHGs, that environmental and health regulation treats hazardous substances according to actual toxicity and health effects, etc. How do you think a world like that will play out?
@Lois Tyli
First, you never answered my question about what subsidies nuclear power is receiving right now or how that compares to subsidies for other energy technologies.
Here are your answers:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf68.html
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/pnucpwr.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
http://www.globalsubsidies.org/en/subsidy-watch/commentary/gambling-nuclear-power-how-public-money-fuels-industry
“The plants can't be insured? Wrong again. Each plant carries around $300 million in property and liability insurance.”
I challenge you to document an insurance company willing to insure a new nuclear reactor.
“Alrighty, as long as we're fair across the board for every energy technology–no subsidies, any climate regulation takes into account all sources of known pollutants as well as GHGs, that environmental and health regulation treats hazardous substances according to actual toxicity and health effects, etc. How do you think a world like that will play out?”
A whole lot more healthy for the human life form and less profit for the corporate entity.
How do you like them apples?
Journalists are reacting before knowing the facts. Many people/agencies like to cash on unproven fears. Here is the data:
Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)
Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro – world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)
First, this is not the issue. The issue is we cannot safely dispose of nuclear waste as I documented above.
Second, I know the reference you got this information from and it is dubious at best.
That is not the issue. You are off topic. Fareed is stating a direct effect of different types of energy production directly causing death. But in doing so he is burrying the lead, and ignoring (being incredibly short sided) the long lasting affects a nuclear accident such as Chernobyl and the "partial meltdown" in Japan will have on it's unborn population. Thousands of children will be born in Japan like in bellarus, Minsk, numerous small villages in Russias Ukraine with disgusting and irrepairable birth defects because of cesium-137 a radioactive particle seen to the body as potassium and quickly digested and worked into muscle fibers. Once into body of the parents it begins to change or retard the chromosomes and DNA as it works it's way through the body. This of course is completely silent and the parents have no idea that they're children are likely going to born with a hole in their heart, a cleft pallette, disfigured, or miscarried if they're lucky. So yes Fareed you are right as far as directly caused deaths by Nuclear power production there have been few. It's the indirect death tolls from cancer, heart disease, and birth defects make nuclear power accidents such a bummer, and really do require the closing of these so called "safe" reactors. BTW "partial meltdown" is a term used to calm the masses. A meltdown, is meltdown, is a meltdown. Any fuel rod spent or otherwise that heated up to the point that it's now corium in the bottom of the reactor or containment vessel has released cesium-137. It's up to the disaster if it's vented into the air which in both Chernobyl and Japan venting and explosions did occur.
Finally please quit telling people the radiation in Japan is equivalent to X amount of chest X-Rays. Last I checked you don't breath or consume chest x-ray particles into your body, the affects of this disaster will be seen for many more years to come.
And the Union of Concerned Scientists is clearly the most unbiased even-handed organization to whom you would look to get your facts.
Next time you choose to raise wind, solar and tidal energy, have the foresight to determine how much you would pay for your energy you consume, not to mention the subsidies that these energies enjoy today, despite which they are unlikely to meet our energy needs reliably anytime soon.
Fareed Zacharia needs to think a little longer term and define what he means by clean energy. Nuclear energy as it exists today is not clean. It has a huge waste problem and that waste last for thousands of years in a state that is toxic and lethal to humans and most living things. We have not solved the nuclear waste storage problems in the USA, far from it. The nuclear industry who largely tries to control the talk about nuclear energy rarely mentions the lethal and toxic waste stream from their product and it is largely hidden from public view. Out of site out of mind seems to be the MO of the nuclear industry. Nuclear energy is just another big business in the energy sector trying to externalize costs and risks while internalizing the profits (see the BP Gulf Oil spill). We subsidize the nuclear energy sector because no insurance company or bank would do it in the private sector. It's too risky. That should make the American government think more than twice about what they are doing. Perhaps we should subsidize the wind, tide, solar and geothermal energy sectors for 90 years like we have the nuclear industry and see how they do before we think about adding more nuclear to the mix. It is incomplete reporting to say that nuclear is "clean" energy when it clearly is not. Fareed did not even mention the downside risk and growing costs associated with the storage / security of the nuclear waste stream which will last for thousands of years. If in those thousand years just a small amount of that waste gets into the wrong hands how that could be used in a dirty bomb to create a national calamity. Think about that risk and costs of security over just a few hundred years not to mention the thousand years we will probably have to be paying for the security and storage of this waste stream. Nuclear energy is hardly clean or green.
The disposable of nuclear waste is not as big an issue as you make out. First, a few inches of lead will stop almost all radiation escaping from a storage vessel. Second, waste is disposed of very, very carefully. The major issue with nuclear power is a meltdown.
Meltdowns have the capability of doing extraordinary damage. Chernobyl is a prime example. However, the likelihood of a meltdown is ridiculously low. Zakria rightly points out that we've had no dangerous nuclear accidents outside of Russia (which had a Chernobyl and a submarine meltdown). Three Mile was a close call but it was wholly contained and so posed no threat to the surrounding environment. People opposed to nuclear power would do well to read up on how the Chernobyl accident occurred – essentially due to gross incompetence that would never happen in Japan or America. Assuming decent safety regulations, nuclear power is quite safe.
Taking a long term perspective, people need to come around to the idea of nuclear power. In 50 years we should be capable of stable nuclear fusion – a source of energy which will dwarf coal, oil, wind, thermal, tidal, solar and wind energy combined. It will also leave zero waste (that's right – zero pollution and zero nuclear waste) and is fuelled by water or helium – giving us an infinite source of energy. This is how the sun gets its fuel and is by far the most efficient source of energy known to science. America, along with Japan, Russia, China, Europe, etc are currently building a reactor in France that will be producing energy (for experimentation) in 2018 and operational by 2040. Nuclear fission is a great, clean source of energy to use until we can develop the technology to utilize fusion.
You use alot of words like "assuming" and put out phrases such as "incompetence that would never happen in Japan or America" despite the fact that power companies have failed to adhere to regulations concerning nuclear facilities in the past.
TY: There is a vast difference between the safety breaches experienced in the Soviet Union and those in Japan or America. Go read up on the Chernobyl disaster if you want to see serious safety breaches (the meltdown was caused almost solely by human error). If that ever happened in a democratic country the leading party would get kicked out the next day. Nuclear power is safe in an advanced country where political parties are accountable for their actions.
And for the record, Fukushima and Three Mile released tiny, tiny amounts of radiation compared to Chernobyl. The claim that thousands of Japanese children will be born with defects is both blatantly false and wholly unfounded.
@Damien
"The disposable of nuclear waste is not as big an issue as you make out. First, a few inches of "lead will stop almost all radiation escaping from a storage vessel. Second, waste is disposed of very, very carefully."
Rarely have I read or heard such an enlightening explanation as... "very,very carefully" Lead itself is hazardous material and if it gets into the water table very bad things happen. Ever heard the concern about lead in paint, or lead in water?
Things break down in time... they decay and fall apart and the contents inside seap into the water supply....
So Tim, what is the disposal plan for the toxic waste generated during the production of solar panels and the solar panels themselves? And what subsidies was the nuclear industry receiving in 1921 and who was receiving them?
Again, my point is that we need all these energy technologies. But we must use the same set of objective criteria to evaluate when and where to deploy each one.
@Lois Tyli
You continue to say you want one standard and yet everything done to build, operate, and maintain a nuclear reactor and its radioactive byproducts requires a seperate standard because it is so risky and toxic.
:what is the disposal plan for the toxic waste generated during the production of solar panels and the solar panels themselves?" Please document what toxic waste is generated during the production of solar panels? There is no toxic byproduct produced by creating solar energy. Compare that with the radioactive byproducts of a nuclear power plant during the production and generation of power and we would require a seperate scale to measure the two...
Again, you require a seperate standard for nuclear power than others yet claim it should be measured with the same objective criteria. People are not fooled by your wordsmitthing which does not make sense when looked at closely.
@William: In case you missed my reply above, I'll repost it here.
William Marlowe said: "As all others who just spew propaganda you don't back up your statements with facts and references. What are those harsh carcinigans you claim are created in the production of solar panels and how do they compare to Cesium 137 and radioactive byproducts produced by nuclear reactors?"
In addition to the toxic waste associated with any mining and metal fabrication, specific to solar there are things like c-Si, a-Si, CdTe, CIS, CIGS and GaAs. Check out http://svtc.org/wp-content/uploads/Silicon_Valley_Toxics_Coalition_-_Toward_a_Just_and_Sust.pdf. And you can read about a town in China devastated by a solar panel manufacturers waste at http://stanford.edu/group/sjir/pdf/Solar_11.2.pdf and in an archived article in the Washington Post.
Let's see Cs-137's half life is about 30 days. The toxic wastes above NEVER decay. Regarding health effects, William, if you do a little research (the EPA and NRC websites are good places to start) and have some understanding of the technical terms, you will likely find you'd much rather eat a bit of plutonium than be contaminated with silicon tetrachloride.
Don't think I've ever read or listened to a dumber or scarier opinion than this except on FOXnews.
Dumber...lol
You obviously know nothing of nuclear power.
I could list out scientific facts of why nuclear power is green power and key to combating many environmental issues the world faces today. But rather than listening to the majority of scientists who argue for nuclear power, it seems most would rather listen to people who have never studied the subject and have only a superficial knowledge of it.
I would say Fareed's opinion treads too carefully on this delicate issue. For one thing, the Japanese had 1 full week to cool their reactors but did not do so. Another quick example is he is correct that Chernobyl had no safety measures and such, but in addition, the technology used was fundamentally different than the what is used today.
The point is – we have to listen to facts, data, and experts. And Fareed has listed some. Don't dismiss them as "dumb" or "scary" when you yourself have never explored the facts of the other side of the issue.
Fox News on the other hand – to your point – has never had facts, data, nor experts to back up any of their stories.
@Pena
I find your post very concerning. The facts speak for themselves and Fareed did NOT, contrary to what you say, present the full spectrum of alternatives we have for energy. There was no mention of solar, wind, wave, or geothermal.
Nuclear energy is not green and not safe and that is obvious to most people but very obvious for those who work around it.
Visit http://www.eqquera.com there is interesting concept that might work in the future.
I agree with William that the real problem with nuclear power is the inability to safely dispose of the radioactive products generated. There is no solution to safely storing over the long time periods the hot fission products that are accumulating everywhere on our earth. The release through intentional (terrorist) or unintentional (human error and catastrophic acts of nature) is inevitable, rendering large areas of the earth uninhabitable for hundreds of years. So, saying that US nuclear power is clean and has not yet killed anyone is fallacious; it is unimaginatively dirty and will eventually kill and render sick multitudes of people sometime in our future. You can bet on it.
Exactly. Thank you for voicing your opinion on this important issue.
You are wrong. There are designs which do not produce anywhere near the same amount of harmful waste. There are other designs which will extract energy from existing spent fuel. There are reprocessing plants which will again reduce waste. There are breeders where waste will generate even more energy. It's just that the nuclear energy program has been entangled with national "strategic programs", which explains the prevalence of the worst design of all.
ANY nuclear waste is too much nuclear waste. Nuclear reactors produce radioactive byproducts such as the radioactive water, pipes, turbines, and all other material exposed to radiation that cannot be recycled or disposed of safely. That is a fact.
William Marlowe,
You are terribly misinformed. In almost all cases, decontamination is a primary requirement of decommissioning a nuclear power plant. The property is available for reuse after decontamination.
Fareed,
I watch your show *every* week. Loved your book. Always admired your insights. But dude... OMG, Seriously?!? That is your analysis on this event?!? Could you possibly make a more shallow argument?
I may have just lost all respect for your insight. On the other hand, I should probably not act in haste. Maybe I can learn from this experience... so in the future if you make another shallow argument.. it won't seem so bad as compared to your argument above. Yeah.. That's it. I will just learn from it.
Jeez,
bill
Well put. Thank you for weighing in on this important issue.
All this judgement, without a single rebuttal.
I find his comparisons lacking tact and poorly thought out. Bill.....I agree with you wholeheartedly. People are "spooked" by the concept of meltdown? No....they die.
Chernobyl wasn't the only accident that caused any deaths.
There were 3 (I think I heard 3) killed in the explosion at the Daiichi plant + 2 missing.
3 ppl died at a small reactor called SL-1 which was located in Idaho in the 1960s.
Also, don't forget the unknown number of cancers caused by exposure to radiation by uranium miners, workers making plutonium pellets, and people living near waste disposal sites (I'm thinking of Chelyabinsk Russia)...
I feel that I'm opposed to nuclear power – but I can say I don't know if I am right. Obviously, fossil fuels are dangerous too. Everything has a price. All I know is this comes with a very high price. I'll never believe it's as safe as the corporations tell us it is. And the radiation lasts so long. But then again, global warming is no less dangerous.
Excellent points.
New nuclear fuel rods have low radiation levels and they emit primarily alpha radiation, which does not travel far and is easily stopped (glove/skin/piece of paper will stop it). It is after they undergo nuclear fission in a reactor that they become more radioactive. I would doubt worker injuries/cancers is any different than any other industrial mining or manufacturing. Fresh fuel rods are very reactive, which is why they get stored in poison racks, but their low radioactivity is why you see them being inspected out in the open.
We get exposed to radiation all the time, in fact the human body has about 90 mg of uranium in it absorbed from the natural environment (WHO). The natural environment hits us with radiation all the time (air, sun, rocks, water, etc.). And lets not forget ionizing smoke detectors...
Correct my previous post, I meant 90 ug of uranium in the human body.
And that post was in regards to julie's comment, "don't forget the unknown number of cancers caused by exposure to radiation by uranium miners, workers making plutonium pellets,"
Building reactors on or near fault lines...... Hold judgment? What do we use as a model for safety then? Japan? Are we not way past due to take a serious look at reactors in vulnerable areas and re-evaluate their importance even if the chances of a disaster are slim? The problem with nuclear is that once a disaster occurs, the consequences can be enormous, widespread and long lasting. And, talk about security risks. Spent fuel rods are vulnerable to attack, in addition to their toxic longevity. We can do much better than this and need to get subsidies back in place for a conversion from fossil fuel and nuclear power to solar, wind, etc. Not easy, but critical to our future generations. The banks and insurers have run away from nuclear... What does that tell you? WE pay and bear the burden. What happened to all the big government opposition? We create big government when we allow this risky technology to be subsidized by our tax dollars. Time to move on.
Thanks for sane and well thought out commentary on the role of nuclear power in the modern society. It is good to know that while most of the international media was salivating at the prospect of showing their audiences around the world reactors melting down and spewing radiation all over Japan, there is at least one commentator has shown some reasonable thinking.
I have always respected Fareed's opinion until today. It was ill-informed, one sided, and lacking all the facts even though that is what he suggested doing.
Until he considers how to dispose of nuclear waster and conders alternative energy in his thought and discussion he is not presenting a balanced and thoughtfull opinion. Case closed.
Could not agree more. Thank You.
How are you going dispose of nuclear waste?
Why not consider alternative energy that does NOT produce a toxic byrproduct?
Can't you agree more with the latter?
You can profitably reduce waste by reprocessing.
It's called vitrification. In essence, you convert the waste to glass. The glass is non-reactive, and can be stored in that form for thousands of years.
There's also something called transmutation. In this process, an element is converted into a different element. *ALL* of the high level waste that is generated can be transmuted into low level waste that can be easily landfilled or vitrified. Transmutation is easilly accomplished in a breeder reactor.
Speaking of breeder reactors, here is a factoid: they produce more fuel than they consume. It's like filling your tank up 1/2 way, driving all week and having a full tank. So, not only are they fuel effciient but they can remove the waste problems we have now.
Wind power has many disadvantages. It doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow. It kills birds. People find them unsightly and don't want them around. So does tidal power. It only works when the tides come inor out. It kills fish and other marine animals. It disrupts the currents in the area, which can lead to even more marine death. Please, stop implying that these energy sources are "safe". They are not. They are also, at best, minor contributors to the world energy pool – for the reasons I just mentioned.
Perhaps you should educate yourself before you speak out of ignorance. It just makes you look foolish.
@Artemis1313
“It's called vitrification. In essence, you convert the waste to glass. The glass is non-reactive, and can be stored in that form for thousands of years.”
That is not correct. There would be no reason to store the glass for thousands of years if it was not radioactive.
Glass is basically sand or silica. It still can be radioactive.
“There's also something called transmutation. In this process, an element is converted into a different element.
*ALL* of the high level waste that is generated can be transmuted into low level waste that can be easily landfilled or vitrified. Transmutation is easilly accomplished in a breeder reactor. “
This process gets rid of the fuel but generates more radioactive byproducts in the process of doing so that cannot be safely disposed of.
“Wind power has many disadvantages. It doesn't work when the wind doesn't blow.”
That is true.
“It kills birds.”
How many birds do you think are killed by wind turbines compared to air planes?
“People find them unsightly and don't want them around.”
Put them where there are no people. I find them beautiful.
“So does tidal power. It only works when the tides come inor out.”
That is not true. They work with every single wave.
“It kills fish and other marine animals. It disrupts the currents in the area, which can lead to even more marine death. “
On what are you basing this statement? Provide credible reference.
“They are also, at best, minor contributors to the world energy pool”t mentioned.
This is another false statement brought to you by the oil, coal, and nuclear lobby.
Thank you for sharing your common sense assessment of energy risks. You're right; we can't let emotions rule over science and logic. Nuclear plants are safer than coal, oil, and gas.
I found his assesment one sided and lacking clear objectivity when it comes to including all of the alternatives avaialbe. I also found his comparison of plane crashes and car crashes absurd. If radioactivity seaps into the water supply it could kill millions. IF a nuclear reactor melts down it could kill milliions and no plane crash or car crash can do that.
The facts remain: There is no safe way of disposing of nuclear waste byproducts and eventually seap into our water supply. We do not need to create more nuclear waste to create more energy. We have real long term alternaties that do NOT produce any toxic byproducts. Please people. Do some research into the Super Fund, Yucca Mountain and alternative energy. Your childrens lives could depend on decisions you make today
Hi William, I'm curious because I haven't heard any info at all on this in the news and it seems you've put more throughtful efforts into your arguments than most news folk anyway, how does the toxic material get out of the spent fuel cansiters and into people? We've heard in Japan how there are small amounts in some food and water now, but I don't believe any of that is from the long term canisters, just the reactors themselves and potentially the fuel pools. Thanks for the input!
William,
Please give me a credible scenario in which radioactivity seaps into groundwater and kills millions. Be sure to take into account that water naturally has radioactive isotopes in it, that in some areas the natural radioactivity in the water is 10X higher than what can be discharged from a nuclear plant, and that all nuclear facilities monitor groundwater and seapage as do local, state and federal agencies.
Also please give me the credible scenario in which millions of people die from a nuclear meltdown, taking into account the current design of reactors worldwide and the fact that reactors have in fact melted down with less than 100 attributable deaths total (that would be 0 at TMI and 56 at Chernobyl. Before you tell me that thousands of people died and children were born deformed in Ukraine, please read the UN report at http://chernobyl.undp.org/english/docs/strategy_for_recovery.pdf. No, 4000 people have not died from thyroid cancer–it has been estimated that as many as 4000 additional thyroid cancer cases MAY be found as a result of the accident. As unfortunate as that is, and as strongly as I feel that Chernobyl should never have happened, thyroid cancer is treatable)
Last, please let me know which energy technology produces NO toxic by-products keeping in mind the effects of mining, manufacturing, special coatings, chemical treatments, heavy metal concentrations, etc.
@Annie
“ how does the toxic material get out of the spent fuel cansiters and into people?”
There are multiple toxic byproducts produced by a nuclear reactor. The immediate such as Cesium137 and radioactive iodine can be released in small particles in steam and smoke and larger particles in explosions. These particles come back to earth in rain into the dirt, water, clothing etc and contaminate what they come in contact with or are ingested by human beings. This contamination if in dirt or water then gets into the animal and human food supply and then is ingested by humans and can be extremely toxic, cause forms of cancer, and even death.
In the form of storage in which radioactive nuclear waste is stored in canisters in the ground, in time they rust, decay or come apart and the contents seeps into the water supply via stream runoff, rivers, lakes, soil etc. This type of material does not become nontoxic for several thousands of years so eventually the canisters will fall apart by normal process of decay.
Toxic wastes often contain carcinogens, and exposure to these by some route, such as leakage or evaporation from the storage, causes cancer to appear at increased frequency in exposed individuals. For example, a cluster of the rare blood cancer polycythemia vera was found around a toxic waste dump site in northeast Pennsylvania in 2008.[6]
People encounter these toxins buried in the ground, in stream runoff, in groundwater that supplies drinking water, or in floodwaters, as happened after Hurricane Katrina. Some toxins, such as mercury, persist in the environment and accumulate. Humans or animals often absorb them when they eat fish.[7]
Toxic wastes containing organic carcinogens can be destroyed by incineration at high temperatures, which is expensive. However, if the waste contains heavy metals or radioactive isotopes, these must be separated and stored, as they cannot be destroyed.
@Lois Tyli
“Please give me a credible scenario in which radioactivity seaps into groundwater and kills millions.”
In the form of storage in which radioactive nuclear waste is stored in canisters in the ground, in time they rust, decay or come apart. Even though they are stored in concrete containers feet thick these eventually will decay and fall apart. Remember radioactive waste has a half-life of over 40,000 years. The contents seeps into the water supply via stream runoff, rivers, lakes, soil etc.
Nuclear waste takes the route, such as leakage or evaporation from the storage buried in the ground, in stream runoff, in groundwater that supplies drinking water, or in floodwaters, as happened after Hurricane Katrina. Such toxins, such as mercury, or radioactive isotopes in water persist in the environment and accumulate. Keyword there is “accumulate”, meaning to become greater in number and density. Humans or animals often absorb them when they drink water, or eat animals or plant life that has absorbed them. If a large population, say a million people in a large city consumes animals and plant life and water that is toxic it can cause cancer and even death.
Do you doubt this could possibly happen?
Toxic wastes containing organic carcinogens can be destroyed by incineration at high temperatures, which is expensive. However, if the waste contains heavy metals or radioactive isotopes, these must be separated and stored, as they cannot be destroyed.
I am not interested in debating what most scientists accept as fact from the cancers and deaths caused by Chernobyl. It is not worth my time to try and convince someone that clearly is an attorney working for the nuclear lobby.
William gives this scenario for millions dying: "In the form of storage in which radioactive nuclear waste is stored in canisters in the ground, in time they rust, decay or come apart. Even though they are stored in concrete containers feet thick these eventually will decay and fall apart. Remember radioactive waste has a half-life of over 40,000 years. The contents seeps into the water supply via stream runoff, rivers, lakes, soil etc."
First, you STILL haven't given a scenario for MILLIONS dying. Checkout the DOE's reports about a deep geologic repository on how long it would take for any toxic substances to reach groundwater, even assuming that the STEEL containers (not concrete, William, check some sources) completely vaporize and compare that to the half-lives and toxicity of the remaining isotopes. There is no way to get to a million deaths.
Plus, you're assuming that the industry just dumps fuel and walks away. The entire point of a repository is to monitor the site to make adjustments if necessary and to make the contents retrievable–it is likely that future generations will want the energy still stored in used fuel. If you would like to argue that we can't predict that future generations will take proper care of it, then how can you assume they'll take care of similarly toxic hazardous waste from other industries and technologies?
William goes on: "Toxic wastes containing organic carcinogens can be destroyed by incineration at high temperatures, which is expensive."
Oooo...I guess that poses NO risk to the surrounding community!
William says: "However, if the waste contains heavy metals or radioactive isotopes, these must be separated and stored, as they cannot be destroyed."
Right. And nuclear is not the only industry that generates toxic heavy metals and radioactive isotopes. Would you like to ban all of those, too? Plus, nuclear fuel can be recycled to reduce the amount of highly radioactive waste.
Then William says: "I am not interested in debating what most scientists accept as fact from the cancers and deaths caused by Chernobyl."
Would you please point me to sources of "most scientists" that disagree with the hundreds of scientists from around the world that made up the UN's Chernobyl Forum?
Then William resorts to his form of personal attacks: "It is not worth my time to try and convince someone that clearly is an attorney working for the nuclear lobby." Bwahahahaha. An attorney. Just wait till I tell Mom.
Again, this is completely wrong.
@Lois Tyli
I gave you a credible scenario and you still deny it is possible.
“First, you STILL haven't given a scenario for MILLIONS dying. Checkout the DOE's reports about a deep geologic repository on how long it would take for any toxic substances to reach groundwater, even assuming that the STEEL containers (not concrete, William, check some sources) completely vaporize and compare that to the half-lives and toxicity of the remaining isotopes. There is no way to get to a million deaths.”
The steel containers are encased in concrete. They will rust and the concrete will fall apart in 40,000 years. This could lead to many more than millions dying even to entire species. The steel conti
“The entire point of a repository is to monitor the site to make adjustments if necessary and to make the contents retrievable–it is likely that future generations will want the energy still stored in used fuel.
And at what cost? How is this sustainable? Who is going to pay for this in a thousand years and are we not taxing future generations for generating energy we consume?
“If you would like to argue that we can't predict that future generations will take proper care of it, then how can you assume they'll take care of similarly toxic hazardous waste from other industries and technologies? “
There is no other toxic waste that last as long as radioactive nuclear waste.
“Oooo...I guess that poses NO risk to the surrounding community! “
no it does not. It becomes carbon.
“Right. And nuclear is not the only industry that generates toxic heavy metals and radioactive isotopes. Would you like to ban all of those, too?”
Yes.
I repeat it is not worth my time to try and convince someone that clearly is an attorney working for the nuclear lobby.
@both sides of the argument;
I just had a thought. It's probably been discussed elsewhere, or considered too dumb for discussion, but I haven't seen it, so please feel free to enlighten me!
My thought is, has it been considered to send (either sell or pay, depending on the economies of the processes) our used fuel to other countries that allow reprocessing? I know that radioactive material is processed overseas from recent stories on the great lakes shipments (http://sierraclubgreatlakes.blogspot.com/2011/03/action-alert-radioactive-waste-shipment.html), and other fun facts like that Australia exports uranium but doesn't allow plants to be built there, so does the international political logic (I know, oxymoron) follow that we can do the same with used fuel?
I know there are ups and downs to reprocessing (you get more useful energy out of the fuel, but you make more plutonium – not sure on the cost/risk/benefit though), but regardless of whether you think a foreign government should or shouldn't do, as things stand right now, could they? Or do they already? It seems like it wouldn't be a stretch since the US is working with the UK to blend down nuclear weapons into MOX fuel (I think... I thought I read this on Wikipedia, but I can't find the article now).
Complete bull. A meltdown in any currently operating plant is unlikely to kill anyone other than emergency staff. If that.
Decontamination is carried out routinely for decommissioned plants. Yucca mountains storage would be unnecessary if it weren't for self-defeating anti-nuclear activism.
Do you believe it is okay to build reactors near fault lines? Just curious. The Japanese felt comfortable with it. Just checking to see what standards people apply in their thinking that there is no cause for alarm or overreaction. If radiation *were* being spewed all over Japan, would you then compare it to a hypothetically worse, more widespread disaster in order to trivialize the severity of this one? What level of nuclear accident is acceptable? Sheltering in home and not drinking tap water 10 miles from the plant? Twenty? Fifty? Avoiding the area for 10 years? 20? 50? Given that there are, were and will be other options to a power source that presents these types of tragic problems, it is difficult to comprehend the "it ain't really so bad" attitude. Keep in mind that this is still a disaster in progress. Let's hope they can somehow get all that material cooled very quickly.
Very well put. Thank you.
When complaining about building reactors near fault lines, remember that it was *not* the earthquake that damaged the reactor, it was the resulting tsunami, which was way beyond what people expected. There are ways to be able to handle that, which people are looking into.
But Japan has been planning for this earthquake for some time. They have much more strict building codes than we in the US have. Also remember that there were a total of three nuclear power plants (excluding both Fukushima-I and Fukushima-II) that were impacted by the earthquake. The other two- Onagawa and Tokai suffered damages as well, but have remained stable.
Correction: two other plants, excluding Fukushima. My bad.
The technology that Japan uses is an old one that produces waste of Plutonium rather than dioxide. Japan has plenty of ocean and wind resources that can be used to generate electrical power but these alternatives are not used. They have More than 30 nuclear plants running and more under construction. It is estimated that Japan has enough Plutonium stored away to produce 4000 nuclear bombs/warheads. We do not know the rest of the story yet. But it is quite reasonable for Japan to do so because their neighbors North Korea, Russia, and China all have nuclear power. If you were they would you not do something to strengthen yourself instead of being slaved by the US for subjective conditional protection?
As I stated before. There is no safe way of disposing of nuclear waste byproducts that will stay around, decay, and eventually seap into our water supply. We do not need to create more nuclear waste to create more energy. We have real long ter alternaties that do NOT produce any toxic byproducts. Please people. Do some research into the Super Fund, Yucca Mountain and alternative energy. Your childrens lives could depend on decisions you make today.
We are all concerned citizens and start brining up issues. You need to tell the world the risk involved which they probably already know. The issues on the table is not safety – as you can see a crater-rich nation Japan putting 30 nuclear reactors on these craters are obviously creating disasters – the issue is politically sensitive nation's security as an excuse to be in the arm race. Why don't we give up all nuclear warheads? No kidding.
The alternatives, however, have been explored and researched. The problem with the wind generation is that it does not generate the amount of power required with what little space they have access to. I also know that Japan has also been researching ways to use geothermal power sources, as well, as they live on top of a volcano.
Those, however, are being shaken off as well.
The big problem with power production in Japan can be helped if you remember it like this: the whole nation is roughly the same size as California, but has *at least* three times the population. If you present another way to produce power, you still have to consider how much output it will have, and if they're able to handle the needs of the country.
While I totally agree with Mr. Zakaria's pragmatic and thoughtful assessment, I would like to add this slightly dated yet still completely relevant and perhaps even more persuasive argument on behalf of further investment in Nuclear Power.
Montgomery Burns: [very badly disguised with a fake moustache] Hello, my name is Mr. Snrub. And I come from, uh... someplace far away.
Montgomery Burns: [to himself] Yes, that'll do.
Montgomery Burns: [back to Mayor Quimby] Anyway, I say we invest that money back in the nuclear plant.
Waylon Smithers: I like the way Snrub thinks.
[everyone looks suspiciously at Mr. Burns, then Smithers fires a rope a the roof, helping Mr. Burns to escape]
The analysis is balanced and well thought through. Its great to see a factual and reasonable assessment of the current nuclear disaster in comparison to Chernobyl and 3 mile island. You are absolutely on the mark here. A lot of journalists have been doing nothing but fear-mongering during the last couple of days and it is sad to note that despite the containment of radiological material in the Japanese reactors and the subsequent analysis that the levels of radiation are not harmful to human health, this event will cast a gloomy shadow on future energy policy with regard to nuclear power. States that were considering nuclear power will stall their efforts. I guess this would be a reasonable move since this would give some time for states to asses things for themselves but ultimately this event will slowdown the adoption of nuclear power even further.
What I fail to understand is that a lot of people seem to be protesting against (safely) using nuclear energy to generate electricity while the same kind of outrage is not seen when people talk about nuclear weapons. Keeping a stockpile of nuclear weapons is far more irresponsible than building a nuclear power plant. The former relies on the uncontrolled fission of material while the latter relies on controlled fission. I just hope that the people on the street protesting against nuclear power plants would also show the same outrage and disgust at their respective governments for stockpiling nuclear weapons and force their governments to disarm their stockpiles ASAP. This should be a global priority in view of the state of the post "war on terror" world we live in.
The issue we are discussing is nuclear energy and not nuclear disarmamment. Although I agree with please allow this discussion to stay focused on one topic, nuclear energy.
As I stated before. There is no safe way of disposing of nuclear waste byproducts that will stay around, decay, and eventually seap into our water supply. We do not need to create more nuclear waste to create more energy. We have real long ter alternaties that do NOT produce any toxic byproducts. Please people. Do some research into the Super Fund, Yucca Mountain and alternative energy. Your childrens lives could depend on decisions you make today
Yes, but the very products used and sourced from power plants can make proliferation of these materials available on the black market for construction of nuclear weapons. So, I AM against both. They are different, but symbiotic, in a very bad way.
How much do we spend on cancer research each year? Are we really interested in a cure ... really? If we are really interested in a cure then why are we promoting a strong source for it? In the Pacific Northwest there is a very high incident of Thyroid Cancer & MS. There is also a long standing law suit against the Hanford Nuclear Agency … source of nuclear waste storage that release / vented nuclear energy waste into the atmosphere that just so happen to land in our area. Now, it was years before people caught on and Hanford admitted doing this … in the meantime countless individuals contracted cancer in our area and are still dealing with the result of “Clean nuclear energy.” This is not an emotional tug on anyone’s heart strings …
What you are suggesting is that Nuclear Energy is safe … OK … it’s safe for a certain point in time under certain circumstances … perhaps in certain areas … wonderful! Now, deal with the waste and … forever wonder if the next generations will do as good as we did in keeping it contained. That, is not fair to assume …
What is out of control is OUR expectations on energy. In the last 120 years we have been on a binge … never before did the world’s population somehow come to believe that we needed this much energy and quite honestly use it so recklessly! The world got along somehow with another way of existing … for millions of years …perhaps it’s time to figure out a different way to go about life here in Planet Earth.
All those who have assumed we can get the Genie back into the bottle in the Japanese crisis better start speaking of a way to do this and stop promoting something that one cannot simply go over to the wall and simply unplug.
Cure the present situation if you want anyone to support you … cure those suffering from cancer now from past nuclear releases. If you’re so sure … cure first … then we will be behind you!
Well said. Thank you
Yes, William. Agreed.
25000 years. Think about it.
25000 years is how long the exclusion zone for Chernobyl will remain in effect.
No politics, or apologetic changes this fact.
Those who believe these outcomes are acceptable should be required to live in the exclusion zone.
This Op-Ed would carry more weight if you penned it at a permanent residence in Pripyat.
It's only glowing a little now. 8-10 REM exposure per year if you stay indoors. For the year.
Let me know if you need a room there, I can hook you up.
Do you have a source for this number? The half-life of Cesium-127 is only 30 years.....
We, the people, will shut all nuclear down now that we are able to focus our attention on it. Too bad American corporate media cares more about General Electric than the rest of us.
Zakaria's poorly reasoned piece sent me immediately to see what responses it got. It is a tribute to his readers that the majority of them posted logical, reflective comments. At the very least it's patronizing when he implies that people who are concerned about real safety problems are really only reacting to the sound of terms like "meltdown" and "radiation cloud." Sorry, Mr. Zakaria, it's the real consequences of these terms that concern us, not the sound of the words.
The true fear mongering is the propaganda line that, if we don't use nuclear, coal, oil, we will be unable to supply our energy needs. This is a made-up fear and is self-limits by implying that myriad other options for energy sources don't exist. Solar and wind combined with natural gas, geothermal – a surprisingly useful source around the country, not just in typically "hot" zones like Yellowstone – are all available now and very safe. They solve the fuel dependency issue, which nuclear does not, and are no more expensive than nuclear. That's not because they're cheap – they're not- but because nuclear is so outrageously expensive that private investors won't touch it without 100% subsidies.
Please listen closely to your readers. They show the common sense lacking in your editorial.
Cyntia and others who wax eloquent about solar power and wind power , should know that there is no way these renewable sources can replace the grid . At best , they can supplement the grid and make people happy that we have done something 'green' and met our responsibility to the planet . I for one wouldn't want to be on a life support system powered by solar / wind or even travel in a train powered by solar / wind / what have you . ( "conductor , when can we reach NY ? "...."Sir , we will get there when we get there...so please shut up and enjoy the view on this fifth day of our journey" !! )
Why do we have to ride a train? I was born with two feet! Unlike some radiation victoms..... But thats a low blow. The best solution is to give up the strappings of modern life and get used to a hard life, cause we are growing soft.
I will NOT shut up Sir. I do not want nuclear radioactive waste ruining the planet that I and several other billion people live on in the name of corporate profits and mass consumption. There are better ways and we are finding them. Man will evolve into a more intelligent life form contrary to people like you.
Very well said. Thank you.
There is an aspect that has not been touched upon anywhere, that I know of, other than in limited economic terms.
The lighter elements up to iron are continually being created within stars such as our own Sun by the process of nuclear fusion (starting with hydrogen atoms). When creating light elements up to the weight of iron, fusion releases energy, which makes it relatively easy for them to get created. These light elements are very abundant in the solar system (on planets and asteroids, etc.). The energy from this fusion process is what the sun bathes us with, day in and day out.
Elements heavier than iron are extremely difficult to make. The reason is that fusing two atoms to something heavier than iron requires that energy be expended instead of gained (this energy is what is released again in nuclear fission reactors). As a result, it happens generally only when a heavy star has used up most of its light fuel and created a lot of iron (and a bunch of other elements lighter than iron in the process). At that point, the star will collapse. If the star is heavy enough, the energy of the collapse will cause it to quickly create large amounts the heavier elements. Then it explodes, releasing a lot of all this material, but leaving behind a neutron star or a black hole. This explosion is called a supernova. Supernovae are very seldom (the last one in the Milky Way was in 1680).
In short, the fuel in nuclear fission reactors will not be renewed until some heavy star explodes after consuming the nuclear waste we generate in the reactors. Even oil and coal are very renewable resources (millions of years) in comparison. They are, in fact, being created today underground.
Some people estimate that the current uranium resources are able to sustain us for some 50 years. Others, in the nuclear industry, mention 4 or 5-digit numbers. In either case, the numbers are small enought that, when thinking about our distant descendants, using these very special metals for energy generation seems a horrible waste, especially given the enormous amounts of energy coming directly from the sun in the form of light. This resource (sunlight) is, of course, also not renewable, but it's being wasted by the sun anyway, so why not use that waste heat instead of a very limited supply of precious metals that cannot be replaced at all.
@Allan
While I appreciate your effort to use reason where others are being silly, I think your argument falls apart, for several reasons.
You say "when thinking about our distant descendants, using these very special metals for energy generation seems a horrible waste", however, we cannot save radioactive substances for our distant descendants–they will undergo radioactive decay. Either we use them now while they are still useful, or they will never be used.
Also, the wide range of estimates of nuclear fuel reserves is due to their being different types of nuclear reactors. For some designs, we have enough known fuel to last 50-100 years, depending on what percentage of our energy demand is met by nuclear power. For other types of reactors, we have about 10,000 years of fuel, again with the same rate of use factor.
Let's say our energy dependence on nuclear power increases by a factor of 10, so our supply of fuel only lasts for 1,000 years. Do you really think we could have a global technological society that uses that much power, for 1,000 years, that would be incapable of 1) cracking practical nuclear fusion as an energy source, or 2) mining radioactive fuel from other bodies in the solar system (moon, asteroids, etc), 3) figuring out how to use the strong force to generate electricity, 5) finding currently unknown reserves of radioactive materials within the Earth, or 4) some other as yet unknown option due to unforeseen advances in particle physics and technology? That seems rather unlikely to me.
Earthbound solar (and solar derivatives–wind, wave, hydro) can never be a total power solution for such a society. As you use more and more Earth-bound solar energy, you will start to have serious negative effects on the environment. For example, what happens when you take the light energy that was previously used to help heat the surface and air and convert it to electricity? On a small scale, nothing much. But approach global scales, and the effects could be quite devastating. Space-based solar could be an answer, so long as it isn't using any light that would otherwise hit the Earth.
(Not directed at you anymore, but generally) Anybody using Chernobyl in this debate is doing nothing but spreading irrational fear. Chernobyl did not have a containment vessel; western reactors, even of the day, did. And so do all modern reactors, plus other increased safety measures. Once the situation in Japan calms down, engineers will evaluate what went right and what went wrong, and the lessons learned will be incorporated into new designs, making them even safer.
As in any new technology, from cars to planes to rockets to nuclear power, our technology will continue to improve, learning the lessons from past accidents.
There are currently about 104 reactors in the U.S. Replacing all of them with 770 AP100 plants would be enough to produce all of our current electricity, and all of our gasoline–assuming constant demand. If we build out for peak demand, we may need say 1,075 such plants (and then off-peak there would be a lot of power available for even more uses). That neglects all current solar, hydro, wind, etc. It would mean no more coal, no more ethanol, nor more natural gas for electricity, no more oil used for gasoline (does not include diesel, lubricants, plastics, and other oil derivatives).
There are certainly risks with proliferation and long term storage (though some designs can reuse most of their own waste as fuel), though those risks are manageable. Nuclear power deserves a rational debate, not one based on fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
"however, we cannot save radioactive substances for our distant descendants–they will undergo radioactive decay. "
Albeit at a much, much slower rate than occurs in a nuclear reactor.
"Do you really think we could have a global technological society that uses that much power, for 1,000 years, that would be incapable of ....."
History shows us that human civilization is hardly a steady, smooth progression upwards, but rather has its ups and downs. I don't think i very wise to put complete, blind faith in our descendants to handle the nuclear legacy according to our present designs. The risk is far too great.
"As you use more and more Earth-bound solar energy, you will start to have serious negative effects on the environment. "
Mere speculation, and quite specious and fallacious at that. The amount of energy consumed by the human race is but a mere fraction of a percent of the energy the earth receives from the sun, and per Newton (energy is neither created nor destroyed), most of this energy would eventually be released back toward the earth as heat.
"Chernobyl did not have a containment vessel;"
Yes it did, except it was made of graphite rather than steel and concrete. How certain are we that the latter is infallible? How long does steel and concrete last? How well does it stand up to earthquakes, terrorist attacks, warfare, or any other unforeseen event? Over a long enough timeline, everything becomes a likelihood, and again the consequences are far too grave.
"Nuclear power deserves a rational debate..."
Yes, I agree, not a foolishly optimistic one.
@David
"
"Chernobyl did not have a containment vessel;"
Yes it did, except it was made of graphite rather than steel and concrete. "
Where did you hear that the containment vessel was graphite? Graphite was NOT the containment vessel; it was used as a reaction moderator. If you are here to debate about nuclear reactors and use Chernobyl as an example against nuclear power, then maybe you should study the other side of the argument first.
Mr Zakaria,
Please study before reporting. I saw you on tv a few min ago and I was amazed, you sound like a mouthpiece for the nuclear industry. Look up Santa Susanna in Los Angeles (among many other nuclear leaks) and then come back and tell us it's safe. You dont know anything about this subject, I was amazed and let down, usually I watch CNN and have respect for the integrity of your tv news broadcast. Please get educated.
Fareed, you've set up a false choice between nuclear and fossil fuels. Given how important you consider infrastructure and R&D, you should not have ignored renewable energy. While the US government squabbles over just how many billions to give to the oil and nuclear industries, other nations are taking the initiative and leaving us in the dust. We are missing out an incredible opportunity as a nation and a species.
Additionally, you omitted the elephant in the room with nuclear power. Serious accidents can make entire CITIES unlivable for decades, perhaps centuries. Are you willing to risk taking New York City or Miami off the map? And regardless of how safe the reactors are made to deal with natural disasters, they are exploitable by terrorists and enemies of the state. Tt's like building the exhaust port on the Death Star into the design of our cities. It makes no sense.
Well put Walter. I like the Death Star analogy...
Fareed,
Your opinion is lacking in unbiased facts and very shallow in its analysis. No mention was made of alternative/renewable energy, even though worldwide installment of renewable forms of energy is growing exponentially. Additionally, while we have been producing electricity from nuclear power for barely half a century, the risk we take in its implementation is far too great. The risks of nuclear energy manifest themselves in the long term, but we've only experienced nuclear energy in the short term. Nuclear waste remains catastrophically hazardous for tens of thousands of years; plutonium has a half-life of 24,500 years! Is there any man-made containment vessel that has been proven to be sufficient to contain radioactive waste for this length of time? Were it not for the self-sacrifice of thousands of Red Army reservists, Chernobyl would have resulted in a catastrophe that could of eliminated half of Europe and most of the Soviet Union. The most minuscule of nuclear emissions are difficult to pinpoint even under the most intense oversight, nearly impossible to clean up completely, and likely to escape notice as the causative agent of the thousands of horrible consequences it can precipitate.
Nuclear energy is a fool's bargain, and has no place on our home soil. Until we can figure out how to locate it in a safe place, such as the Moon, for instance, nuclear energy should remain as a back-burner theory only.
I may understand, if someone still is behind atom power. But then, take all arguments on the table and not just some selected numbers which telling only the half of truth. I have only listened a few times before such a poor argumentation on atomic energy as at yesterdays GPS. Even when the time is limited and the comment has to strike, an argumentation which nothing more than counts the numbers up of deaths in comparison to other energies is just really poor. No word about the suffer of contaminated people, generations after nuclear accidents, through dna destruction (go and see the exhibits of badly mutated fetus born around Chernobyl), no word about countrywide useless terra, ether eligible for cultivation nor for growing up humans. Where was just one word about the unsolved long term problem of bearing used fuel rods? Only nearsighted pragmatic points than substantial and sustainable standpoints. Think, there will be more than one or two generations to live after us on an appropriate planet. But you act as there is no alternative, but wasting fuel and build up power plants, which are a common threat and a burden for generations.
Nuclear power is just another example for unsustainable politics, which hasn`t to do with smart economize. Better support alternative energies for sustainable jobs and health.
I would agree with nuclear power if the CEOs of the companies who push this technology where forced by law to give their lives in case of an emergency as the one we are looking at right now... but even then, the price to be paid for such an accident is not only an aconomical price, is an enviromental price... I am not willing tu support a technology with the potential of rendering entire areas unhabitable for thousands of years!!
In my oppinion, we should as a society quit being confortable in trusting nuclear power and isntead get on going on see how we cann progress on more efficient and less damaging technology...
If you are willing to house nuclear waste in your basements for thousands of years, fearing it could re-surface one day and give cancer to future generations, fine for you.
I will do all wat is in my power to stop such abomination.
Fareed,
Unfortunately you are going to aregue logic with people who do not want to address fact but just want you to agree with their forgon conclusions. What you should have mentioned is that the other forms of energy that the public wants (solar and wind) are unreliable and expensive that they are not viable to maintain power on the grid in a consistant method, which is why they haven't been exploited on a larger scale. I've heard mention of the use of natural gas; however, this too becomes overly expensive when the electric utilities contract millions of cubic feet of natural gas to power the production of electricty, and the cost of the remaining gas is prohibitive, or doesn't the public remember Rev Jesse Jackson echoing "do we heat or do we eat." As far as coal and oil these too are very expensive and have large scale toxic by products such as mercury, which is alrady in the food chain or has the public not heard of how toxic methylmercury is? I just wish the public would come to an understanding that this isn't the Emerald City and Shangrla doesn't exist. Nobody stopped buying BP products or even Exxon products after the Gulf disaster. What about all the Toyota recalls?
"Do we heat or do we eat?" Can we not have both?
Plenty of people stopped buying BP, I for one no longer get gas there. Renewable energy is a viable solution. Several reports from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the DOE, ISO RTO Council, FERC all show this is the case. California is leading the way with providing 33% of their capacity with renewable energy all while you nay-sayer were talking about how it "wasn't possible". Several European countries are even further ahead and China is BANKING on building its new energy infrastructure on wind and solar energy. In fact China is now leading the way in new solar panel development. So where are your facts now?
China also plans to build more than 100 Nuclear Reactors over the next 20 years:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125683823531916471.html
The key is diversification. There is no magic bullet to our planet's energy demands and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. Each approach to energy has risks which much be managed.
@Colin R
"Plenty of people stopped buying BP, I for one no longer get gas there."
This comment here just shows how you do not understand how the energy industry moves. Not buying from a BP gas station is NOT hurting BP, it is hurting the owner of the BP gas station.
A BP oil rig may be producing oil and sending it to Hovensa, Exxon, Motiva, etc. for refinement. A BP gas station can get is gas from any of the above refineries. This also means buying gas at Exxon or Shell could mean you are using gas from BP oil. It's sneaky, like using beef stock in soup for a vegetarian.
It all is bought on an open market from the lowest seller. Again, not buying gas at a BP gas station just hurts the owners of the BP gas station, which are most likely residents of your local community.
William Marlow
When they shutdown all the nuclear reactors can I have your postal address so I can have you personally subsidize my utility bill when it 90 degrees and 90%RH and people are dying from the heat? Talk is cheap, electricity ain't. Not implying that we run ruff shod over any disaster but your alternatives to nuclear power ain't gonna cut it. Perhaps your next suggestion will be an equivlaent to a "Final Soultion" for an over populated planet?
Hawaii is going to get nearly 40% of its energy from wind and solar and they are looking to become completely energy independent.
Once this is accomplished perhaps you will insist that Hawaii doesn't exist. Also your statement on the "final solution" is totally inappropriate hyperbolic garbage
William Marlowe & everyone who agrees with him,
One final comment "you are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem". After this past summers BP oil spill accident and concurrent with the massive Toyota recall did you sell all of your automobiles and start riding your bicycle to work and every where else? Do you have solar panels installed on the roof of your house? Do you have CFC light bulbs installed in every lamp in your home? Do you cut your grass with a push mower? Do you shovel your snow instead of using a blower? When it becomes how this summer will you live in your basement to escape the heat instead of using your air conditioner?
Well put.
I'll definitely both go to the basement AND turn on the air conditioner this Summer. It gets really hot in this radiaton suit. I don't mow the lawn anymore since the ozone layer disappeared. I have hand crank charging lights that I also attach to my bicycle when I ride only at night and only when I've remembered to clean my oxygen mask. And the city won't let me attach solar panels to this bridge I've been living under since the economy went to Hell. They block the ad space they've been selling to the cellphone companies and their brain tumor causing "smart phones".
I have been trying to get the city to hand shovel the snow around my bridge. But they refuse to park the Toyota Nuclear snow plow they got such a deal on from giving tax breaks to big corporations.
Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it to, either you have juice or you have black outs. Solar and Wind ain't cheap as everybody has been suckered into believing because the sun shines and the wind blows
@Dempsey
“One final comment "you are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem".”
Very ignorantly put.
“After this past summers BP oil spill accident and concurrent with the massive Toyota recall did you sell all of your automobiles and start riding your bicycle to work and every where else?”
No. No one is saying we should stop using oil until alternatives are developed.
“Do you have solar panels installed on the roof of your house?”
I live in an apartment.
“Do you have CFC light bulbs installed in every lamp in your home? “
Yes.
“Do you cut your grass with a push mower? “
I live in an apartment.
“Do you shovel your snow instead of using a blower?”
We don’t have snow.
“When it becomes how this summer will you live in your basement to escape the heat instead of using your air conditioner?”
In Hawaii we don’t need air conditioning and we don’t need a heater.
Hawaii is about to get nearly 30% of its energy from wind and solar and they are looking to become completely energy independent which basically means all-renewables (certainly greater than 50%). Once this is accomplished perhaps you nay-sayers will insist that Hawaii doesn't exist...
Slight correction – 40% Renewable Energy by 2030...
SOURCE: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=HI06R&re=1&ee=1
Do you hear that nay-sayers?
Why was there no mention of solar, wind, or thermal energy. Waves could light ALL our cities. The only problem is that Zacharia has an agenda to push so he wont mention these CLEAN and CHEAP methods of producing energy. There just isn't enough money the elite can take from the people if they implement these simple processes of creating energy, its too cheap to be able to charge a premium. Shame on our leaders.
As stated above- solar panels have very toxic materials in them, and they can't be disposed of without special precautions. Then there are the processes to actually mine the raw materials to make solar panels. While it is certainly a cleaner solution than fossil fuels, the process to be able to collect solar energy in the first place is not as clean as people make it out to be.
I read a posting on another site that said if we are not smart enough to design batteries or a storage method to even out and use solar and wind power, then we have no business messing with nuclear reactors. I have to say, I wish I had said that.
Trader John – We are in fact working on this kind of technology. Large scale storage solutions such as Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) is being built as we speak as are other storage solutions like large scale flywheel storage (see Beacon Power – http://www.beaconpower.com/)
I agree with Fareed. One thing that has been overlooked in comparing the relative safety of Nuclear power is what would have happened to a hydro dam if it sustained a 8.9 earthquake or a tsunami. I doubt there is a dam built that could withstand this.
How many lives would be lost if Boulder dam was hit by a quake of this magnitude? What about the big dams in China or elsewhere? Yes - the nuclear reactor problem is serious and perhaps a few people will die (I hope not), but compared to many other options for generating power they have survived extremely well.
There was one in the Japanese quake, but for some reason, it's not being widely discussed. Here's some coverage from Australia. Definitely written with a pro-nuclear slant, but it has an interesting perspective:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-fall-victim-to-nuclear-phobia-20110320-1c24t.html
I am dumbstruck that Zacharia would think, much less write something as ignorant as this article. Canada's nuclear plant has now leaked into Lake Ontario. What does it take, Zacharia......what does it take for us to get that clean energy is what we need. What does it take? 20,000 Japanese people dead and/or unaccounted for this week doesn't faze you. It didn't happen to you or your family. I guess that's why. We are an ignorant species. This is not to even mention the BP oil spill and all the havoc it has wrought on our Gulf States.
You could drink the water from that "canadian leak" directly from the pipe. It had trace radiation compunds in it that were less than 1 percent of the level that's completely legal in drinking water.
Really Keith? Straight from the pipe? Really?
I hate stupid people who manage to absorb a little knowledge and begin to think they are smart. I also hate people who will say anything if paid enough. Hard to tell which this author is. You cannot continue to make energy plants that you still cannot properly deal with. Stop poisoning the damn planet. Dadly, humans would rather continue to destroy their world than make some sacrifices. May the dolphins treat the Earth more kindly when it's their turn, which shouldn't be too much longer at the current rate of greed and selfishness.
I'm sure you're living and working completely without sucking any power from the grid, right?
Actually, I pay the higher rate for the option to get my electricity from greener sources. If I was given the option of having zero nuclear produced electricity, I would take it even if ti cost twice as much. Thank you for your insightful contribution to this discussion.
Has anyone considered the PRISM FAST REACTOR it uses the spent fuel rods of water cooled reactors. They use up to 90% of the fuel rods while the water cooled reactor uses only about 5% of the rods the rest is waste. PRISM FAST REACTOR could be built on existing nuclear plants on a small scale to use up the waste from the water cooler reactors. PS They cool down much faster.
I'm confused because this is completely contradictory to what I heard a couple months ago. One nuclear accident and everyone is saying it'll be ok and we shouldn't rush to judgement. One oil accident and oil is the worlds most evil product and we have to stop using it immediately before there is another accident. Sounds kind of hypocritical to me.
One oil accident? Just one little teenie weenie slip-up? Confused you are my friend...
Is it just me, or does Fareed's argument for nuclear energy hinge on the idea that there are worse things than nuclear energy? There are also worse things than genital warts, but I still don't want genital warts.
Hate to say I told you so, but I would have thought it would be intuitively obvious, for you there is something worse than nuclear power because without it you wouldn't have internet access so we wouldn't be reading your posts.
Dempsey, I'm not sure that made any sense. Have you previously told me this? If not, how can you possibly say "I told you so"? My state does not have a nuclear power plant and the closest one across state lines was closed down some time ago. Our power is primarily hydro and wind. I've never experienced a blackout period due to lack of nuclear energy. I think your genital warts may have spread to your brain.
Besides, I can just post this with my phone and recharge my phone with my camping solar charger.
Fareed, your comment has a big flaw. Yes, many people die on accidents, at coal mines and travel, but none of them leave catastrophic consequences as radiation. Radiation can affect millions of people and damage also those who can not defend themselves, like fetuses. It can cause cancer and ruin the life of people for a long time. Yes, we need energy source. Either find new harmless ways to generate power or much better protect the catastrophic failure of reactors.
Peter, your argument has an even BIGGER flaw, in that you assume accidents that release significant amounts of radiation are the norm. You do realize every year, THOUSANDS of sailors in the US Navy submarine fleet spend MONTHS living less than 2,000 feet from an active nuclear reactor, don't you? Where are the increases in birth defects among the children of sailors, and the increases in cancer rates among the sailors themselves?
Why don't you do more research into matters instead of contributing to general ignorance?
Do you know anything about the tritium release into the Connecticut River by Vermont Yankee that was deemed "safe" or the contents of the soil in the surrounding area having high concentrations of radioactive emissions? There have been many studies indicating the rate of birth defects and other cancers are significantly higher in areas where nuclear energy is being used. I am not going to list them now because I am at work but a simple google search will point you to them. Over a long enough time frame these toxins do accumulate in the body and lead to major illnesses – it just doesn't happen overnight which allows the merchants of doubt such as yourself to continue to promote your false science. Frankly I don't even know why any of this is debatable while people are suffering already in Japan from radiation related illnesses in a worst-case scenario that people like yourself insisted was "impossible" only a few weeks ago. Impossible until it happens that is...
Don't rush to judge nuclear power, is he kidding?? We have had decades to form a judgment. Some of us have studied and been learning about this issue for longer than Zakaria has been alive! It is no rush to judgment to say that nuclear power is unsafe, unnecessary, and just one more expression of how the greedy value money over life.
Give me a break. Which corporation is funding you? I live 9 miles from a plant that is the exact same model as the one in Japan and has been running for 40 years. Now they want to relicense for another 20. Rust never sleeps. We have had tritium in the water. How about promoting conservation and solar? This is a ridiculous argument. We re making decisions that are now on a geological timeline and will affect generations for thousands of years.
This has been a good education for me, reading others input. Let’s not stop here ... for those of us who do not support nuclear energy in its current form ... let’s do as we suggest ... I installed an outside cloths line ... walked to outings yesterday ... starting taking 2 – 3 minute showers instead of the usual 5 to 10 minute ones. We can't stop here with words and great thoughts ... we must start action to lower the usage ... NOW! The generations to come will respect us more if we hand a someplace to them that they don’t have to work their butts off to maintain.
As for the folks who support nuclear energy in its present form ... please go NOW to the sites of spills and leaks ... reach in and scoop up the radioactive waste and put it in a safe containment vessel and store it someplace that you can afford.
As for the cost of nuclear energy … if you’re not figuring in the cost of mining … and the illnesses that took place afterwards … all of the hardware that has been contaminated in its process … the hauling it around and making a mess here and there … then the storage cost … how can you even use words with meaning to say it’s cost effective and cheap?
Real critical thinking and doing is what will win the day … cancer victims are not impressed with great words.
Why can't we just recycle nuclear waste like all the other countries that do it? It makes nuclear energy that much more efficient and also helps eliminate that problem of storing waste.
The mistake many on this message board is that Fareed Zakaria is not saying that Nuclear is 100% safe, nor that it does not create waste. The point he is trying to make (extremely briefly) is that, after any catastrophe, there is an extreme overreaction period where people ignore facts and operate almost completely on emotion. We can have a discussion regarding the pros and cons of different energy sources by looking at all the facts. Regarding nuclear, we can examine the effects of the producion of nuclear waste. But that is not what the discussion currently is about, and that is what Zakaria is attempting to point out.
Look, people.... it's the TITANIC. It's UNSINKABLE. Just look at the thing, it's huge, it's bigger and more awesome than any of these other boats that keep sinking. It's perfectly safe, and the best way to traverse a sea full of pointy glaciers. Those life boats are just there for show, because we all know that this ship can't go down.
Look, people...it's someone who lacks the technical knowledge (or general intellect) to form a reasoned argument in opposition of nuclear power, so they resort to silly, inaccurate metaphors.
"We need all the sources of energy we can find. No one source is going to satisfy the world's energy needs. Every one has some costs and some benefits. Nuclear energy can be scaled and it is clean.
We need to design the safest possible plants with the maximum number of back-up procedures. So far, that is the lesson we should draw from this tragedy in Japan."
This guy scares me to no end – Hello – Nuclear – the byproducts last forever!!!!!
@Scared Stiff – Wrong. Radioactive substances have different half-lives which (biologically speaking) are inversely proportional to the danger they pose.
Radiation is just sub-atomic particles that are being ejected from the nucleus of an unstable atom. It's nature's way of stabalizing an atom. Once the atom is stabalized, the substance poses no danger.
Substances with half-lives in the billions of years have almost no ill effects on humans, because (this is massively simplified, to suit your below-average intellect) they are shedding harmful radioactive particles at a much slower rate, whereas substances with half-lives of two or three hours are extremely toxic to humans, because they are shedding radiactive particles at a much faster rate. However, the ones with lower half-lives stabalize quicker, and thereafter become harmless.
Educate yourself, please.
I may be ignorant – so this is from wikipedia
True or False?
Of particular concern in nuclear waste management are two long-lived fission products, Tc-99 (half-life 220,000 years) and I-129 (half-life 17 million years), which dominate spent fuel radioactivity after a few thousand years. The most troublesome transuranic elements in spent fuel are Np-237 (half-life two million years) and Pu-239 (half life 24,000 years).[20] Nuclear waste requires sophisticated treatment and management to successfully isolate it from interacting with the biosphere. This usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.[21] Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal options, though there has been limited progress toward long-term waste management solutions.[22]
So why did all those folks living near Chernobyl develop thyroid cancer?
I have a BA in biochemistry and your comments are atrociously misinformed.
Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years. Therefore, by your argument plutonium is "not harfmul". Too bad the vast majority of scientific evidence shows otherwise.
Nice Try
Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years. Therefore, by your argument plutonium is "not harfmul". Too bad the vast majority of scientific evidence shows otherwise.
You simplistically think that all nuclear and fossil fuels could be eliminated right now and the loss made up with wind and solar and other supposedly safe technologies. What a dream. Certainly those alternative energy technologies are fine for what they are and should continue to be developed (although I notice a lot of "green" folk don't want all those ugly windmills near their home). But we are a long, long way from those sources supplying our appetite for power.
If we shut down every nuke plant today, guess where the power would have to be made up from? Fossil fuels – causing greenhouse gases, which many of you would say is the greatest threat to humanity. All you hypocrites who oppose nuclear power should cut your electricity by 20%. Turn off your iPods and computers, electric coffee makers, etc.If you are using the power, you are part of the problem.
Nuclear waste could be effectively and safely stored in indestructible casks (have you seen the videos of those casks being struck by speeding trains and other forces?) in Yucca Mountain or other stable geological areas. Your political opposition keeps it in spent fuel pools at the reactor sites. Law of unintended consequences.
I'd rather see us shut down all fossil plants and replace them with new technology nuclear plants with passive safety features (several of which are or will soon be under construction in the US and elsewhere). It would be much better for the planet.
Far more people have died in coal, gas, and oil fired power plants. Not to mention nulcear submarines that have operated since the 1950's with ZERO deaths or injuries. Nothing is 100% safe but the data shows that nuclear is the safest. Also note the the Japanese plants are 30-40 years old. A new car is safer than a 30-40 year old car. A new furnace is way safer than a 30-40 year old furnace. What we need to dela with is why do countries allow these plants to operate for so long. They need replacement. Forget solar and wind: they can help with the entire energy profile but are not powerful or reliable enough to provide the energy the world needs.
How fare are you nuclear energy proponents going to take your propaganda? Are you going to try to convince us that radiation is "good for us"?
Colin R,
Actually, radiation is not only good for you, it's essential for life. If you've even eaten a banana, slept next to someone, or flown in a plane then you've received more radiation than you would by standing next to a Nuclear Power Plant. These are simply the facts. If you want to debate the politics of nuclear waste, then that's legitimate, but let's not pull this towards silly hyperbole.
Colin your post is so ignorant I have to guess you're about 15 years old. First of all, the sun's radiation is what gives us heat, and secondly, if you've ever known anyone who has had cancer and survived, I'm sure radiation played some part in that! Like everything else in nature, radiation is VERY good, **in certain doses**. Hey! I read about a woman who died during a radio station stunt after drinking too much water. Are you anti-nuclear people going to say water is toxic and should be banned?
If you don't have a background in science, shut your mouth when scientific matters are being discussed.
Age 37,
Bachelors Degree in Biochemistry, Masters in Computer Science (GPA was 3.9). Work in renewable energy field.
Please do not insult my intelligence.
I am happy to refer you to a body of scientific work I have worke and researched on renewable energy.
Not interested in your propaganda
Colin R,
In general, listing your credentials on an anonymous message board is pointless since they's no way for another to verify it. It's best to let your intellect speak for itself by intelligently responding to other people's arguments. You should try it.
John,
There are people here (perhaps yourself?) trying to tell us that radiation is healthy for us. This is obviously propaganda and quite frankly its scary to those of us who are rational thinkers. I mean think about it, how far do you want to take this argument?
"Make sure to get your daily dose of uranium"
Seriously? Really?
If the argument itself was made at an intellectually honest level then I will respond accordingly. But that isn't what is being done. There are so many examples of wind-energy opponents and their lobbyists flooding townhall meeting and comments on web pages like this one with some of the most misinformed propaganda all to instill fear and cause people to behave irrationally.
My statement is not hyperbole, I am not the one telling people to poison themselves
A daily does of Uranium? No, that would just be silly.
However, I would advise you to get your daily does of Potassium, which I guarantee contains measurable doses of radiation (hence the banana reference above).
Look, nobody in their right mind would argue that too much radiation, just like nearly anything else, is bad for you. But under almost every conceivable condition the amount of radiation we're talking about for a Nuclear Plant is far, far below any dangerous levels.
Nuclear Power has legitimate drawbacks, as do all sources of energy. So I would rather talk about those legitimate concerns (i.e. the Waste) then made up ones.
@Colin R
"Age 37,
Bachelors Degree in Biochemistry, Masters in Computer Science (GPA was 3.9). Work in renewable energy field."
At your age you should very well know that GPA means nothing in regards to intelligence or knowledge, which makes me think these credentials are not real or you are just that pretentious. I am also unsure of how a Masters in Computer Science makes you an expert on the risks of nuclear energy. I know a Doctor in English but they still go see a Doctor of Medicine when they are sick.
It is not what has happened, but what could happen that frightens us (with the exception of people who live in the Kiev area, of course, then what has happened is also pretty scary). I think the spill showed us the worst we can expect from oil. It's horrible and nasty of course. But nuclear reactors have the potential to render huge areas uninhabitable, poison the ground and water for generations and increase rates of cancer all over the globe. Chernobyl has poisoned its cooling pond as radiation seeps into it. But Fukushima's next to the ocean.
What if they have to evacuate Tokyo? Can you imagine the global ramifications? Economic disaster, among other things.
Colin,
I doubt seriously you work in the "wind and solar industry" or you would know that what I said was true. Did you even look at the link I provided for the wind numbers? It is a website of a wind proponent! And for solar there are:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/greater-oversight-needed-solar-panel-manufacturing-disposal.php
Please let me know if you need more links. Again, I'm not saying we abandon wind and solar as energy sources, but they have their pros and cons like any other technology.
Lois,
Let me repeat to you so you understand...
I work for a prominent Wind Energy Company. I do not wish to reveal my personal identity here any more than you do
My specialty area is in grid integration and forecasting of wind energy and renewable energy policy. I have authored numerous documents related to these subjects, many of which are public including work for the DOE, ISO RTO Council
I have a masters degree in computer science and an undergraduate degree in biochemistry and I a know my science, thank you very much.
Yes you referenced a "wind energy site" but it did not logically back your argument. The accidents listed on that site were "on the job" – as in people who were working on wind turbines.
You are either a hack or someone who has been coopted by them.
The vast majority of negative publicity regarding wind turbines and wind energy is purely hyperbolic propaganda by people who are ignorant of the facts and haven't studied renewable energy thoroughly enough. I don't care if you don't believe me – I have nothing to prove to you
Colin, you have nothing to prove yet cite your professional and academic background? Interesting. It's also interesting that you continue to deny that there have been some deaths as a result of problems with wind turbines that were NOT workers. How can you explain the children that were killed by a dislodged blade? Here is another link that shows it has NOT been only workers killed http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm. Not to mention that dismissing worker fatalities is awfully callous of you. A better argument for you, and one that would make you appear rational instead of delusional, would be to argue that there are very few deaths attributed to wind and the industry is working to improve the safety record. Again, my point is NOT that we abandon wind as an energy source, but that we look at all energy technologies objectively. None are without risks, including wind.
@Lois Tyli:
You are becoming insulting and attacking on a personal nature of which you condemned me earlier for doing. This gentleman obviously knows his expertise yet you still want to argue with him.
Your statements about being open minded and fair and balanced are like Bill O'Riely.
We are tired of your lame lobbyist arguments.
We want sustainable clean Solar, Wind, Wave, and GeoThermal and will not be silenced by you and your lobby.
The main problem with nuclear is disposal of waste product...the main problem with almost all energy generation is transmission......Nobody wants any of it in their 'backyard'......but if the lights go out......forget about it!
Yes nuclear energy is dangerous. The accident rate is low, but the severity of accidents can be widespread. Much of the damage is delayed so it is "out of sight, out of mind" to people reading a news article on the Internet.
And it is also true these other things are dangerous: flying in an airliner, driving to work, and also all the other sources of concentrated energy have serious drawbacks.
The appalling thing is that searching for the word conservation on this article page, with this long string of comments, NOTHING comes up. I would expect the party line from Zakaria on behalf of CNN, but among the commenters, really? Nobody has mentioned here the only solution to the energy crisis: we have to dramatically reduce our energy consumption. Jimmy Carter said that in the 1970s, and they ran him out of town on a rail. We were almost ready to move from mass denial to something more constructive, but then came Ronald Reagan and more boom times. Cheap energy for all! But it's a sucker trap. The longer we go on wasting energy, the weaker our communities become and the harder they're going to fall when the crunch comes. Just like a junkie, we're weaker and less motivated this time around.
The basic problem is that concentrated energy is dear in nature. We found we can get around that for a few decades by exploiting fossil fuels, but the rapid exploitation has brought us many other problems not the least of which is that we no longer know how to get along without these fuels.
Technology isn't going to save us, because just like our bloated economy, the massive industrial enterprise we think of as "technology" is itself heavily dependent on cheap abundant concentrated energy. To think we "just" have to use electric cars is to claim you have a perpetual motion machine. Nuclear energy is extremely intensive of conventional energy resources, not to mention the professional and regulatory infrastructure that's sure to deteriorate as the economy contracts further.
The longer we persist in denial, the more nuclear accidents we can expect to see.
You might not see posts about energy efficiency and conservation because basic economic princlples preclude that as a stand alone solution (if people use less, demand drops, price drops, people use more, price rises). If you'd like, look up Jevon's Paradox on Wikipedia if you are interested in learning about this theory, or Amory Lovins if you prefer your own view. Maybe both for a comprehensive view!
Thanks Annie! I am familiar with Jevon's Paradox (the idea that technology for more efficient use of a resource tends to increase, rather than decrease, its use. Oil is a great example, and in fact I think Jevon's paradox is a great argument against nuclear power. Let electricity be expensive, and people won't waste it so much.
I haven't heard of Amory Lovins, but will look into his ideas. A quick scan of the Wikipedia article on him suggests that he is interested in maintaining the basic premise of the automobile, which I don't think is sound. But his idea of using energy close to where it's produced (refined, really) has a lot of merit.
While we're making references, I have enjoyed some really thoughtful writing at James Greer's Web site, http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/. He was involved in the appropriate technology movement of the 1970s.
Fareed needs to stay out of Sci-Tech commentary, and stick to politics or whatever else he wants to spout off on. He has no credentials to brouch this subject.
@Scared Stiff – This from someone that several posts up, actually wrote "Radiation lasts FOREVER".
Maybe YOU should stick to history, or philosophy, or whatever liberal art you obviously studied in college. You aren't exactly well-versed in science.
The other thing to consider is that if it werent for the tsunami this wouldn't have happened. In the united states, all of the plants on the california coast (like 2-3) have backup generators that would not be wiped out by tsunamis even larger than the one in japan. This is good, especially considering that by the time a tsunami is triggered in japan and gets to the coast it is very small. Here's another fact to consider: 1 kilogram of Uranium produces more energy than 3000 TONS of coal
Colin,
So you did look at the site–but you obviously didn't look at the raw data provided. Not all of the deaths were construction related. Several accidents, including one which killed children playing nearby, were a result of detached turbines.
And I'm sure the families of dead coal miners appreciate your perspective that workers just don't count in evaluating the pros and cons of energy technologies.
Fareed,
Stop regurgitating the Economist's editorial (Mar 19th issue) and come up with something original once in a while.
~SB
Take the money which will be spent on building another Nuke plant ($Billions ?) and sink it into alternative energy research at our top notch research universities. This is the USA we can do this, we have the ability to overcome any obstacles.
Just make sure that there is no involvement from any of the "Power Monopoly's" to be able to manipulate this endeavor.
There's exactly 0 dollars being spent by the Federal Government on new plants. The 38 Billion you are hinting at is for loan guarantees only.
That being said, I'm all for more money being spent on alternative energy research, we just need to find a way to pay for it.
How about taking the foreign aid to oil producing nations, and using that for alternative energy research??
In general, we don't provide foreign aid to oil producing nations because they have no need for it. We give them enough "aid" already from buying their oil....
Fareed – Stop listening to the nuclear industry PR machine. There are constant accidents either being covered up or getting no mention in the press: http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/chernob/rep02.html
Stop listening to the Environmentalist PR machine....
Most of the things on that list are events like "Nuclear Power Plant X starts up in country Y" or "Nuclear Power Plant X automatically shuts down". Also, what do Nuclear Weapon Events have anything to do with Nuclear Power Plants? They're almost entirely different technologies.
John Q, I'm afraid that it's not the environmentalist PR machine, it is the entire public. John Q. Public is actually more opposed to nuclear power than you are. Environmentalists have no PR machine, and their collective grassroots voice holds less sway than one tenth of one percent of the power in federal politics. If they had any pull, the DoE and EPA would not be run by former industry execs and VP Cheney getting away with writing our energy policy in a closed door session with soon-to-be-indicted ENRON execs.
Fareed – is misinformation worse than no information at all? I'm not rushing to judgement. I have studied nuclear power since I was sixteen when my friend father Sr. Engineer Art Werden was helping to build the San Onofre Nuclear power plant in the mid-sixties. He and others resigned when, in test phase, they fond the company dumped the waste in barrels 30 miles out in the ocean. Nuclear Power is a terrible business – just asked Wall Street. That's why no one is eager to get in it without government subsidies and complete indifference to the waste material. France reprocessess 92% of their nuclear waste (the US does not – to expensive) YET France can't find a way to deal with what's left over.
Fareed, it's you who needs to study up. You are woofully lacking in information. Not good for a journalist.
Two things Chernobyl has proven, Nucear Power is not safe and you can't trust the government.
Chernobyl killed thousands and if the meltdown had hit ground water, it would have been millions in Russia and across europe.
Look at how familar the Chernobyl Documentary is to whats happening in Japan.
The risks are not worth it. People need to WAKE UP!
Yo Tyler – you may want to take a look at this!!
Fareed, I usually find myself in agreement with you and respect your typically thoughtful analysis, but in this case you have it dead wrong. One must look at the POTENTIAL danger as well as the history. The disaster we're seeing now is still the result of a semi-contained tragedy. Eventually, murphy's law assures that some nation and some time in the future, despite all the best efforts and safety intents, will experience a meltdown that will affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Whether that's the result of an act-of-god, or terrorism, or simply human error, makes no difference. The reality is that no oil spill can make a state-wide area uninhabitable for decades. No other energy extracation method can so dramatically affect the reproductive capabilities of the human race. The fear is so intense for the very reason that nuclear radiation is one of the most potent dangers facing humans. Fareed, at times you must respect that human fear is not misplaced, but very real. We need no more apologists for the nuclear energy industry, nor any more excuses not to pursue more environmentally friendly sources of future power.
While I agree with Mr.Zakaria that the dangers of Nuclear power is hugely overblown, it's AMUSING to see Mr.Zakaria projecting himself as an AUTHORITY on every issue under the sun be it the economy or energy, the environment, healthcare, terror etc. etc. We see him being interviewed (stage managed) by some INVISIBLE, or his HAND-PICKED people on CNN all the time just to establish himself as an authority, unlike most other respected commentators. What Mr. Zakaria surely excels in is skimming the issues/recommendations from already published studies & reports, and present them as his original ideas, in many cases without ever referring to the source documents/studies. He does that through some CATCHY & SENSATIONAL titles designed to grab reader’s attention and imprint his stamp of authority, literally as a GOSPEL!
On the contrary, with regard to his most passionate issues concerning his Muslim faith, Mr. Zakaria extensively quotes from dubious or biased studies, including several from leading institutions, to buttress his arguments in favor of Islam. In pursuance of this overall agenda of making Islam palatable to gullible Americans, Mr. Zakaria goes about liberally trashing anyone perceived to be even remotely opposed to Islam (NOT just radical Islam!), including the US, Europe, Israel, Russia.
Mr. Zakaria’s style smacks of a much greater ambition of reaching stellar eights in the public service arena to carry on with this overall Islamic agenda. In fact such efforts reached a crescendo when a web site propped up (from nowehere!) during the Bush-Kerry presidential campaign, appealing to the future US president to appoint Mr. Zakaria as the “Secretary of State”. Mr. Zakaria himself gave credence to that appeal when he said In an article published in 2003 in the New York magazine when he said: "My friends all say I'm going to be secretary of state. But I don't see how that would be much different from the job I have now."
No wonder a lot of Americans are seeing though Mr. Zakarai’s overall agenda and do NOT buy his, what outwardly appear to be very fair & balanced assertions. Most Americans have come to realize that they need to exercise a lot of caution while ingesting his CHERRY-PICKED facts, while paying MOST ATTENTION to NOT what he says, but what he DOES NOT SAY at all!!!
Amit-Atlanta-USA
I have the opposite opinion. I think he's wrong on nuclear power, but he's absolutely most opposed to a radical Islamic agenda. Didn't you see how he reacted to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai? He has am informed and sensible approach to business and international policy. But there's zero chance he'll ever be in politics. First of all, he's never announced any ambition to do it, and second, he is far too liberal on foreign policy to ever be let near the stuff. Liberal meaning anyone one inch left of the very Israel-centric Clinton.
Fareed,
Fact – Nuclear Plants Produce TOXIC WASTE that you just don't take to the local landfill- as we have seen in Japan – The plant is in MAJOR Trouble- It has caused Radioactive contamination of Milk & Spinach in the area.My Judgement- GET RID OF THESE PLANTS & Work on Solar/Wind/ Hydro That do NOT have the potential of killing thousands if hit by a major Earthquake/ Tsunami
Okay Jim, if we get rid of all nuclear plants right now, do you pledge to cut your electric consumption immediately by at least 20%?
Didn't think so. You are part of the problem.
Hydro may have killed hundreds or thousands in Fukushima. I haven't seen anything on CNN yet about it.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/dont-fall-victim-to-nuclear-phobia-20110320-1c24t.html
although, this is an opinion piece. A little more googling will probably turn up the actual news releases on it.
"We need all the sources of energy we can find."
So, basically, we will stop at nothing to sustain our obese economy and wasteful civilization?
With that attitude, we "need" more energy than we can ever find, considering we will use up all we can get our hands on no matter how much it is.
That's right. Despite appliances and consumer electronics using less electricity with each generation, we are using more than ever. Every outlet in my house is filled with cords waiting to charge cell phones, mp3 players, cameras, you name it. Large plasma TV's use almost triple what similar sized CRT's used. If I could get all that on solar cells, I would limit myself to what I could charge in one day, knowing that as long as I didn't draw from the grid I had a very small carbon footprint. As long as it comes from this giant limitless pool (until something like Sendai happens), we aren't likely to worry about our use on a daily basis.
If nuclear power is so safe then WHY ARE THE COMPANIES INVOLVED INSISTING ON DAMAGE LIABILITY CLAUSES? It's ridiculous to compare the deaths from power plants that use fossil fuels to nuclear power plants. Nuclear power has not been widely adopted yet. And puleeeez stop emphasizing the BP disaster that just killed 11 people. That's nothing compared to the horrendous damage that would be caused by a nuclear meltdown – indirect death to hundreds of thousands of people, and many children suffering from birth defects.
This is where I get my information on Nuclear Power.
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/
Shame on you Fareed! You are such a rare, true voice in the media, but I am afraid that you are missing a bigger picture here, which you are usually so good at researching and communicating. The discussion of nuclear energy has never fully addressed what to do with the nuclear waste and its associated costs. Every time something happens with nuclear energy plants and their associated facilities, we are told that "this is a unique experience" "this could not happen again" "this would not happen here" yet our US reactors include facilities on fault lines, close to our bread basket and miles from the largest of our metropolitan areas. Imagine a 9.0 earthquake in California taking out the cooling capabilities of the Diablo reactor and the trade winds that might blow the particulates directly over CA's Central Valley. Name an oil accident that has created an area that is unable to be used for the next 300+ years? There are no easy answers, but we must weigh the long term when assessing the entire situation. Whole systems thinking must be used, not profit-based, lobbyist-influenced decision-making processes.
Fareed,
I believe the lesson from Japan is that nuclear power plants need to be designed to shut down safely in the event of a "total station blackout" i.e. the total loss of all electrical power.
To design a machine that becomes dangerous due to the loss of electric power is a mistake. We see it is also a mistake to believe that backup generators are a solution.
The design of the plant must be such that it is inherently safe without electric power.
Mark
And that is what the new passive safety features plant designs do. Natural forces like convection and gravity are used to provide critical core cooling for days after an accident without the need for electrical power to activate valves and pumps.
The public has real concerns with safety, but the main problem with nuclear power is not even the safety issues, it's political. There are many countries, mostly on the hit list of the US Dept of State, that will simply not be allowed to have it. Will we let Cuba have a reactor? Will Iran be allowed enough plants to meet its needs? What about Haiti? And how do we propose those people get their power? There is no chance the US will sell electricity to Cuba at a fair price if getting cables across the sea was even feasible. Iran does not want to be beholden to Russia or Pakistan for their electricity, and they have a right to self-sufficiency.
Even though there is no chance Cuba would build or use a nuclear weapon, nuclear power is a right the US claims for itself and will deny to its adversaries because of its symbolic (occasionally real) connection to weapons. Unless we say it's safe for nations we don't like to have it, it is hypocritical to claim the public is stupid for opposing it on its symbolic (occasionally real) connection to meltdowns.
Shame on us! Shame on us … are you listening to all of this … you’d think we were all from the middle east!
Now is the time for real thinking and action … Japan doesn’t need or is helped by rhetoric …
All of you in favor of nuclear energy … tells us please how do we now clean up the mess, especially now in Japan … I’m being serious here … please tell all of us how to do that … if you have a plan let us know and I will be there to help! If you are like the rest of the folks on the front line … it appears they do NOT know how to clean it up.
For those who are against nuclear energy … how do we now take serious the present situation and change the way we go about TODAY’s use of energy!
This is not the time to win an argument … let’s put our cards on the table and make a solution today!
As for questions regarding other sources of energy such as dam’s and such … you can take a dam out, let the rivers return to what they were before …
The dam’s and everything else out there including alternative sources of energy are aimed at us maintaining our present usage of energy … we need to change the equation … those of us with a scientific leaning understand the cause and effect matter … let’s change the equation … as Anthony DeMello S.J. states so clearly in his book Awareness … our first lesson is that we don’t want to wake up … I don’t want to take shorter showers, don’t want to walk to here and there, don’t want to use the outside cloths lines … OK … so now I know part of the problem … it’s me! I get it … I’m changing … how about you?
Couldnt agree more!! It amazes me that we here in America seem to have an idea that everyone should have the same choices as us but dont know what that would really mean. If everyone lived like americans then the world would always be low on energy and fuel. Our greed is only surpased by the corporations that cultivate it. We must find a way to cut energy usage here at home if we are ever to afford everyone the ability to have power at their disposal.
Great points Mike. One factor that makes it hard to jump from awareness to action is that for the past decades we've built our living environment on the assumption of cheap energy. Homes of a hundred years ago had real resources, a back yard garden, viable workshop, and people had the skills to do for themselves much more than today without much transportation. Yes of course back then running a household was more labor, and less leisure time for hordes of the affluent to invade my town for ski vacations.
America's residential-only housing developments and strip malls make it much harder to go to lower energy consumption levels, even if the will is there. I'm not saying it can't happen, because it will happen, but it's going to be hard. I guess that makes denial seem like a pretty attractive alternative. But as problem solving tools go, denial is right there with hope, prayer, and political promises.
Ahhhh the beauty of radiation..... your cancer comes years later and affords the possibility of "other factors" causing it. Hence nuclear is EXTRA safe. GET A GRIP!! Einstein makes a crucial discovery suddenly bombs are made and blown up everywhere for testing and then cancer hits the scene HARD. We are made to believe that nuclear power plants should be housed in massive amounts of steel and concrete and protective materials in order to be safe. But countries are and have been testing nuclear weapon for decades now in open air everywhere on your planet. Ever heard of half life? These particles dont just go away, they make it into the chain of life one way or another and remain for a very long time.
I think that cancer has hit the scene "hard", as you put it, is primarily because of an increase in our ability to detect and identify cancers at such early stages now. In days passed, no one knew why grandpa keeled over at 52.
Half-life refers to the amount of time it takes radiocative material to rdecay to half the mass it is at at a given time. Some radioactive particles have half-lives of milliseconds, while others have half lifes of many trillions of years. In the end its good to think that the final product after that time is harmless tho!
So it seems split overall on the views of Clean vs unclean....nuclear vs coal.....solar and winds vs others and so on. But out of all this is a more overall view of needing MORE.
Seems the consumerist view has struck the electrical outlet in the wall.
We need more in the states so it is cheaper
We need more in other countries so they can have just a little
We need more in order to let everyone live like you
We need more so that we can sustain more people
We need more for companies to make more money
No one want to give up anything in order to let others have MORE, just find a way to produce more. And somehow its a good thing because it creates need and forms a market to get money out of.
So what happens when you cant afford to buy the energy your sold? What happens if markets fall and your money is useless, how will you get your lights then? Seems absurd here but it is a real worry and possibility many places on the globe.
One thing Im sure of is there are discoveries yet to be made in the way making energies. The last 50 years have been dedicated to hot fusion after E=mc2. Only small amounts of money, in comparison to nuclear, are spent for research on alternative methods of energy. Maybe all the "MORE" should be turned into study, MORE knowledge, more funding, more diverse ways of making energies, more choices.
Of course I live in the states and have the luxury of saying these things, but the MORE debate the better. We cant keep letting corps and govt tell us what our limits are.
I think we need to be more realistic about how we can provide for our energy needs and have the lowest global impact. Solar, wind and water energy are great in theory, but until we make major advances in the technology, it wont be the most economical (and economical is not the same thing as lowest cost) solution for even our current energy needs. Technology in general is moving towards less mechanical and more towards electrical in how we solve our daily problems. Just take electric cars, for example, which if ever fully implemented across the entire country would skyrocket the current demand. I see nuclear energy as the next stepping stone in being able to rely on cleaner forms of energy. The jump from coal to wind, water, solar is just too great of a leap given our current level of global knowledge. Until we can find more efficient ways to store electricity and effciently power the devices that use that electricity, we'll be stuck where we are at. Nuclear enery is not the ultimate "solution", but in comparison, it seems to me to be the most economical of our current solutions.
I also think Fareed's example of reaction to aircrashes as a good comparison to reaction of this incident in Japan following this horrible natural disaster.
Overall, the best solution would be to change all of our lifestyles to be as close to zero-consumption as possible, but for the majority of the world, you may as well wish that we can fly to neptune or something.
New generation of nuclear power plants are safer than this one at Sendai that was taken out by an act of God.
No one wants to point to the fact that this power plant and other first generation facilities like it have faithfully provided power and livelihood for a generation of people in Sendai, 30 or more years of prosperity for that entire nation, not to mention that the sturdy nuclear power backbone meets more than a quarter of the nation's energy needs.
Fourth generation plants operating in Europe are less vulnerable to this sort of failure and is the model that US is looking to evolve to meet our needs. Secretary Cho has made it clear that without nuclear power we will be fighting wars in foreign lands and polluting the world ad infinitum.
So, accidents happen, we sure learn from them, and build better systems yet.
Do these "better systems" do a better job of dealing with nuclear waste product? Even if an earthquake, tsunami, or the hand of God don't set the radiation free, it's still got to go somewhere eventually. And I don't think into the planet is a very good location...unless it's into the part of the planet known as the backyards of the CEOs of the energy companies.
I think it is safe to assume that my boy Fareed strongly supports the expansion and investment of clean forms of energy i.e. wind, solar, thermal, etc. He is just being REALISTIC as he always has shown to be. The fact is we are going to need the safest form of nuclear energy to keep this country running like everybody wants it too i.e. dishwashers, car washers, tvs ], computers, nintendo wiis, xboxs. Our energy demands in the US far exceed those of other countries and cannot be met wind just clean forms of energy. To think we are going to dramatically expand clean energy to cover all of our energy needs is simply naive. I support the expansion of clean forms of energy but the fact is realistically we will need nuclear energy.
IT IS HIGH TIME THAT THE WHOLE WORLD SHOULD START THINKING SERIOUSLY TO BAN NEUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY IN ALL FORMS...................................................THE PROCESS MAY BE NOT PRACTICAL IN ONE INSTANCE BUT CAN BE VERY WELL REHABILATED BY OTHER TECHNOLOGY THROUGH A TIME BOUND PROGRAM WITH COMMITED WILL AND STRINGENT TARGET DATE.
I had a dream last night. Strangers had entered my house, and one of them had pulled 2 lounge chairs together, opened a small window, lit a cigarette. She sat putting her feet up and began to smoke while on her cellphone. I tried to tell her she couldn't do that in my house, that we were allergic, but she just continued like she was too busy talking on her cellphone to pay attention to me. Then I went over to my bed and found a puddle of oil about an inch thick on my sheets, and thats what gave me a clue as to what my dream was about.
The EARTH is OUR HOME and strangers are polluting it!
I'm sorry, but there is NO EXCUSE for this bad behavior! Calling Nuclear Energy CLEAN is not even laughable! Saying it's fine to drill in deep water where it is extremely difficult to control a spill IS CRAZY, not to mention irresponsible!! WHY ARE WE PUTTING UP WITH THIS! We are being overrun with people whose interests are opposed to our own and they are ruining where we live, and WE ARE ALLOWING THIS?!
We all have to live on the earth together, and we've discovered how small it really is. Lets get behind energy like the Bloom Energy Box, Wind, & Solar. There is a point where you can intellectualize all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. We are polluting ourselves to the point where everyones health is going to suffer. Lets just STOP!
Let me guess, you are one of the first people to call and complain to the power company if your electricity goes out for more than an hour or so. You want your electricity, and you want it now. You are the problem. If you want nuclear energy and fossil fuels gone then we'll start by cutting you off from the grid and take away your vehicle. Now.
Sure, we'd all like for all our energy needs to be met with no risks at all. But to think that humans can do that now, or anytime soon, is folly. You should lead a movement to stop using all electricity until it can all be provided by alternative sources (solar, wind, etc.) that you consider to have sufficiently low risk to the planet. Here's a hint: you will be dead and gone before it ever happens.
Glenn
No sense trying to debate, opinions already made by a buch of hipprocrites.
Have you also had these dreams regarding all the military action in Iraq, Afganstan and now Libya. Afterall the biggest single form of pollution is War, totally decimates the geography.
Is there any subject Mr. Zakaria is not an expert about? Like so many pundits he feels compelled to expound about anything and everything in the news, whether he has the expertise or not..
The simple fact is ALL FORMS OF ENERGY HAVE DRAWBACKS- SOME MORE THAN OTHERS. As long as the world fails to deal with the underlying problems of overpopulation and the squandering of energy we will continue to abuse our planet with dire ultimate consequences.
The nonsense displayed here about wind and solar is typical of the ignorance surrounding global warming that is perpetuated by economic interests and those foolish enough to be conned. Wind, solar and even natural gas (which we have in abundance) and hydrogen all are least negative solutions to our needs. But as long as powerful oil and coal interests hold sway over the airwaves and our government we will continue to fiddle while our house burns and the toxic fumes eventually kill us.
Other facts:
Co-Founder of Greenpeace Envisions a Nuclear Future
Source: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa
Nuclear power is the primary source of electric power in France. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world.[1]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
Good one Freddie. And I just wish people would stop thinking that we can replace multi-gigawatt power plants with wind turbines. Talk is easy especially if your un-informed. How many wind turbines will it take to do the job of a 2.8 Gigawatt power station? Anyone? Anyone? Buler?
Answer: You can't. First off at full wind, you might get 850KW per turbine. To achieve 2.8 GW that takes 3294 wind turbines at full tilt! And since the wind don't always blow and you can't store the power – the correct answer is:
No amount of wind turbines can do the job – serve the BASE LOAD – that a nuclear power plant can provide.
Wind and solar are perhaps fine for peaking power, but that's it. Wind and solar are really snake oil in the scheme of power generation. Now I am all for continuing to improve thees technologies – along with new nuclear plants – to meet the energy need of the future.. So please STOP WITH THE WIND AND SOLAR as direct replacement for nuclear. Its a stuipid statement, and all who say it are just showing off how much you don't understand.
P.S. Way to go Mr. Fareed. You hit the nail(s) on the head!
My family and I live close by a nuclear plant and I am ok with it, base on this. There is not a single procedure to obtain energy that does not involve any risk of any kind. This is the only place that I can afford to live, creating fear about nuclear disaster doesn't help. When we purchase the house, we were all aware of the risk that we were taking. We hope the media stop creating panic and instability. We would rather have a nuclear plant that is active than having a nuclear plant that is abandon and no one is taking care of it. Practically when something happen in a nuclear plant doesn't make any difference to leave 2 miles away or 35 miles away like NYC.
I think the nuclear question should consider thorium reactorsm which when perfected are the safest.
Woe fallen dogs, you hate humans because we were created with Great Authority, Amen thy Father is Married Unto Us, He is Allmighty!!! ye corrupted yourselves now shall you have no glory but shame of guilt and treason, I challege any fallen Angel thy Lord shall grant thy harvest for us humans against thy wicked, i hope ye enjoyed world war 2 not this time!
JESUS CHRIST IS LORD OF lords. KING of kings. And a Powerful Holy Ghost porn is mans threat for survival it dumbs thy mind because we have chakras, we humans need to be in thy ChristConscience which of course is thy Earth Conscience God is a Mighty Creator, and its Amazing he is Here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THANK YOU, FAREED!!!!
May your intelligent response be heard!!!
Actually the more I read these posts the more convinced I am becoming that in one singular aspect there is some truth, you're absolutely right, shut all the G-damn M-F nuclear plants down tonight. Turn them all off, and with it will go every form of electric light, heating, air conditioning and YES your God precious internet. Don't bank on Solar or Wind to bail you ass out because there isn't enough wind farm or solar farms to sustaing a major metropolitan area, let alone several. We'll all go back to the M-F dark ages, maybe we'll even be able to stirr up the likes of the "Black Plague" because all the sanitation will back up in our sewers. There will be a cornucopia of smells the like of which you never had between sewage and everything else that gonna rot like everything you would want to eat in your refrigerator.
Armydoc,
" Everyone is all for switching power forms, but to suggest that solar or wind have the capability of replacing conventional forms at this present time shows a real lack of intelligence on the subject matter."
Armydoc, what shows a real lack of intelligence is your stance on the spent fuel rods, which you ignore. Until you can answer that, you have no answer for anything. Killing kids and grandkids for generations to come isn't a solution to your desire for dirt cheap electricity.
Mr. Zakaria:
In the future, if you want to write an article that sounds more fact based, and not an advertisement for the nuclear power industry, you should not make statements like "Over the last five decades, there has been just one nuclear accident that caused any deaths at all.." which are totally untrue. Just a quick google search gives 4 workers killed in 2004 in Japan, 3 workers killed in the US 1961 (I guess that makes the 50 year cut off date we can let that slide), 2 workers killed in Slovakia in 1976, 2 workers dead in Japan in 1999. Of course 5 workers have already died in the Fukushima accident, and who knows all 200 workers rotating in may die early from radiation poisoning. You statement should be revised to: "apart from Chernobyl, there have been no nuclear accidents in the last 50 years that have killed anyone not employed by the nuclear industry."
pointless article to keep people from obtaining free energy. Fareed we know you had to have your articles approved by the editor and now we see what you are just apart of the greedy corporations that prevent people from getting energy sources. What do you mean hold judgement on nuclear plants? I guess it went over Fareeds head of how dangerous nuclear reactions are.
Free energy? There is no such thing. Green energy is the most expensive to produce.
It is what we don't know about events at nuclear plants that worries me. For example, in Ohio there was an event where the water to keep the core from melting was shut off by an employee. The next shift supervisor caught it within 3-4 minutes. Now, here is where it comes. Instead of reporting the event to the Atomic Energy Commission as required by law, the supervisor reported it to the owners. Only through sleuthing by newspapers did it come out that the event occurred. Now that we've all watched the events in Japan, we all know what water to the core means to the safety of the reactor. Unfortunately, even with millions of lives at stake, money will rule. Like other companies, eventually monkeys will end up running the company. Therefore you want to invest in a company that can be run by monkeys or keep it simple stupid. Unfortunately, with nuclear energy there just seems to be no way to KISS. That's what bothers me.
I'd love to see some live TV round table discussions about the topic raised by Fareed and by the other commenters:
I have three simple points I'd like to see included in the discussion that I didn't see in my skim through of these comments:
1. What about a realistic look at ways we can decrease our use of power . . . including real statistics about the reductions that individuals or business's can make. My guess, without facts, is that the biggest user is business and industry . . . which likely demotivates individuals from bothering to make their personal sacrifices which are deemed to insignificant to matter. It would be interesting to know the facts on this. (Side point, obese population . . . try walking or riding your bike to the grocery store?)
2. Yes all types of energy have their relative pros/cons. My question about nuclear, gas, coal etc is whether or not these sources are priced in a way to account for their RELATIVE immediate and long term environmental harm/impact. Of course this is impossible to do with 100% accuracy, but I think the point is worth inclusion in the discussion.
3. I live in the Pacific Northwest. We use hydro power which wasn't mentioned in the list. Hydro power also has its cost and benefit, though I'm not sure what the current percent of power is provided by it. But, my guess is that it is a large enough source that it merits inclusion in the discussion.
Final point, people who are strongly opinionated destroy their own creditbilty through name calling and vitriole. Its much more effective to contradict or counter someone elses views with facts than nastiness.
Hydro can be good, the problem is you need a source near you to be able to produce, not all areas have the same benefit. I live in Minnesota, and we get a large amount of energy from Hydro and Nuclear, the hydro plants are clean, but are not safe and have many side effects as well to animals in the habitat and can be deadly as well. Look back 2 years ago, there was a hydro powered plant in Siberia that killed over 70 people.
And it's nice to talk about reducing our power, but the reality is, folks won't. We can talk the talk, but a majority of folks don't want to lower their standard of living. They want to be clean, but if it costs them more or inconveniences them, then forget about it. And I'll admit, I am one of those folks. I would rather have cheaper energy from nuclear than I would more expensive from hydro or wind because I still live paycheck to paycheck like most other folks.
All power sources have downsides. There is no way to create something by taking from the environment without impacting it. Pick your poison, we're going to do it one way or another. Take your poisons with solar, take your bird deaths with wind, take the fish effected from hydro, take coal mining accidents from coal power, etc.... We're going to have negative consequences regardless.
In this environment sounds like a good argument to ban hydro plants because they kill people too.
At the risk of sounding condecenting, your TV show couldn't happen because when all the nukes shut down won't be enough juice to power your TV.
So it seems split overall on the views of Clean vs unclean....nuclear vs coal.....solar and winds vs others and so on. But out of all this is a more overall view of needing MORE.
Seems the consumerist view has struck the electrical outlet in the wall.
We need more in the states so it is cheaper
We need more in other countries so they can have just a little
We need more in order to let everyone live like you
We need more so that we can sustain more people
We need more for companies to make more money
No one want to give up anything in order to let others have MORE, just find a way to produce more. And somehow its a good thing because it creates need and forms a market to get money out of.
So what happens when you cant afford to buy the energy your sold? What happens if markets fall and your money is useless, how will you get your lights then? Seems absurd here but it is a real worry and possibility many places on the globe.
One thing Im sure of is there are discoveries yet to be made in the way making energies. The last 50 years have been dedicated to hot fusion after E=mc2. Only small amounts of money, in comparison to nuclear, are spent for research on alternative methods of energy. Maybe all the "MORE" should be turned into study, MORE knowledge, more funding, more diverse ways of making energies, more choices.
Of course I live in the states and have the luxury of saying these things, but the MORE debate the better. We cant keep letting corps and govt tell us what our limits are.
Something to keep in mind, none of the options are a silver bullet. Another thing using the size and output of the current largest windfarm, you'd need a windfarm nearly the size of Rhode Island to generate the amount of electricity of one of the Japanese reactors. Its impractical for them to try to use it, which is why they went nuclear.
Your confusing all the hipprocrites with fact. They'll drive to the next antinuke rally in the cars powered by BP gas after recieving the antinuke rally notice from their internet email and then text message the information to all their frinds from their cell phones.
The US exploded 100 open-air nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert from the 50's to 1963 (continuing underground tests until 1993) and now in the modern digital age concerns over a couple of smoking reactors half a world away fill our living rooms. Anyone for irony?
Ok, say we don't rush to judge nuclear energy itself. How about if we rush to judge the standards, systems and protocols in place to make nuclear energy as safe as possible?
That's fair, but we also need to judge our policy with it as well. Are some of those standards, systems and protocols due to the fact that we haven't built any new nuclear technology domestically in nearly the last 30 years? We're way behind on nuclear technology for efficiency. Take a look at Gen 3 and Gen IV is in development as well, which is extremely safe and efficient (as well as a heck of a lot cleaner).
Dear Friends:
ScaredStiff, William Marlowe, Justin, JohnS, Santosh, Tim McGuire, Carole, Bill, Cynthia RW, John Delmos, WalterE, David, Dumpsey, SusanB, JEC.
I do agree with all of you on one thing.......Mr.Zakaria should stop projecting himself as an AUTHORITY on everything under the sun! While he may be somewhat on the right path on the nuclear issue, he has this tendency of making OVER-REACHING ASSERTIONS through some BRAZENLY SHALLOW ANALYSIS based on SIMPLISTIC ASSUMPTIONS! I have read most of Mr. Zakaria's articles, and what I see in him is a calculated effort of SKIMMING already published articles, studies and presenting them as his original ideas, literally as GOSPEL! So, while he comes out as VERY FAIR & BALANCED to an average reader who can't read between the lines, an in-depth reading reveals an unmistakable hidden agenda! Nowhere is this effort more glaring as his push at making Islam palatable to gullible Americans.
PLEASE READ MY COMMENTS ABOVE to understand Mr.Zakaria's overall agenda (in a nutshell).
GG1000: With regard to dangers of Nuclear energy, while it appears to be overblown (BTW, I am no expert!) as you succinctly put it, the world is more scared of what COULD happen, as opposed to what HAS already happened, given the potential environmental impact of a nuclear fall-out over thousands of years. Given such a scary scenario it absolutely makes sense for countries like Japan etc. that are prone to large scale natural disasters to refrain from building Nuclear power stations unless they can VERIFIABLY protect them against the worst imaginable natural threats.
And, surely rather than leaving such recommendations to people like Mr.Zakaria, it's best that we let renowned scientists to dwell on them!
Anchorite: I can assure you my views on Mr.Zakaria’s Islamic agenda and trashing America are NOT based on wishful biased thinking, but based on a detailed analysis of his writings. As I mentioned here, you always needs to read between the lines (with specific attention to what he does NOT say at all) to understand Mr. Zakaria.
I have scores of very detailed comments on several of his stories on Time dot com, Newsweek etc. If interested you may read them – make sure to click on “more” at the bottom of the page to see all feedback.
a) “Are America’s Best Day’s Over – March 3rd, 2011
b) “Why there’s no turning back in the middle east – Feb 17th, 2011-03-21
c) “How Democracy can work in the Middle East”, Feb 3rd, 2011
d) “How Russia created its own Islamic TERRORISM problem” Jan 28th, 2011
e Newsweek: "Learning to live with RADICAL ISLAM! Feb 28th, 2009
f) Newsweek – “Jihad against the Jihadis” – “How MODERATE Muslim leaders waged war on extremists and WON!” – Feb 12th, 2010
g) Newsweek – "Beyond Bush" – June 11th, 2007
h) Newsweek – “The politics of rage – Why do they hate us” Aug 22nd, 2007
i) Fareed Zakaria GPS – Mr. Zakaria’s comments on 9/11 VICTORY Mosque controversy – Aug 22nd, 2010
Read these articles VERY CAREFULLY to see how Mr.Zakaria cherry picks facts while disregarding other ominous signs to push his overall Islamic agenda, and trashing America & Americans.
Amit-Atlanta-USA
Looks like we have learned more from these educative discussions than Mr. Zakaria's overly simplistic assertions!
Regarding Nuclear apartheid, the US would not like to see several countries incl. Cuba, Haiti, many central American, Asian and African states to have nuclear power simply b'coz most of these countries are just not stable and are either under/until recently been ruled by maverick dictators. With more such unstable countries (notably Pakistan, and N.Korea) having access to nuclear material and the still flourishing black market of reprocessing technology, the risk of a nuclear war, or a nuclear terror attack only increases phenomenally.
Having said that, the US has not always been effective in denying nuclear technology to several of these countries, due to competing interests from countries like France, Russia, China and even Pakistan (clandestinely though!).
Finally, the fact remains that even though we do have several alternative energy options, nuclear power (Fusion power, once it's realized) is the one & only source that can rid humanity of power woes for ever. Until such time, while events such as in Japan, US, USSR may only dampen the quest for nuclear energy temporarily, it cannot stop that completely, and neither should it be. What is needed are greater safeguards/penalties for countries seeking to unilaterally withdraw from the NPT regime, after having the technologies in place.
Amit-Atlanta-USA
I am still amazed at the inability of the public and the media to distinquish between a cooling tower and a reactor containment building. Such technological illiteracy!
"Over the last five decades, there has been just one nuclear accident that caused any deaths at all."
How about the SL-1 accident in Idaho, killed 3 in 1961.
Oh, but you see... thats part of the way the propaganda works... 5 decades.. the SL-1 accident happened in January of 61, so Fareed is correct, but he isn't exactly telling the whole truth.
Tsunami... bad reactor design... possibly crazy people in the control room... the techno-utopian crowd will claim we can engineer around all the hazards, but I bet they're wrong.
Zakaria tells us, "Oil and coal have far worse safety records...The BP oil spill, for example, was triggered by an explosion that instantly killed 11 workers". Even though this is a true statement, The reason we had these catastrophes is because shortcuts were taken and corners were cut. Leading to these problems. In all these cases it was human error at fault.
Reactors on the other hand, leave a lasting legacy for future generations to deal with. Oil spills and coal mines my kill the workers in or near them but won't harm the population around them, whereas nuclear plants have the potential for killing millions of people and destroying a large area of land for decades or more.
I did NOt come to this conclusion through emotions, but through a long period of thought and consideration... long before Japan's plant failed.
"Oil spills and coal mines my kill the workers in or near them but won't harm the population around them, whereas nuclear plants have the potential for killing millions of people and destroying a large area of land for decades or more."
To the first point:
Oil Spills and Coal mines do plenty of long lasting damage to both the environment and the people around them. Think of the Exxon Valdez Spill, the Prudhoe Bay Spill, the Gulf Oil Spill, etc. As for coal mines, the run off from coal produces acid that generally destroy any habitat around it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_mine_drainage
And then of course, there's the small matter of the massive carbon output to the atmosphere...
To your second point, how exactly could a Nuclear Plant kill millions? Chernobyl is the the high bar for how bad a nuclear plant can fail and the United Nations committee established to investigate it's impact on human health (not exactly a pro-nuclear group) was only able to link 57 deaths to the immediate disaster and perhaps 1, 000 of so deaths from secondary exposures. Granted, the secondary exposures are difficult to determine since the Soviets shipped everyone off....but that's still a very far way from "millions".
Look up Centralia, PA.
Burning since 1962! Yeah, coal doesn't leave any lasting impact on the environment my ***. You just don't know because the media didn't tell you. And right now, the media is telling you Nuclear bad!!!! Durr... better follow your overlords...Rather have a nuclear plant near my house than a coal one that's for certain.
After the decades of nuclear power being pushed upon us by industry and government paired with the intentionally glacial pace of clean energy development by the same until very very recently, it is not a rush to judgment to FINALLY decide that nuclear power is neither safe or clean as we have been told. How many accidents do we need? Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the numerous smaller accidents that aren't usually reported too widely... how many people have to die before we decide that nuclear is a bad idea? How much spent nuclear material do we have to figure out a transportation and storage system for? Multi-millenia storage, I might add. Look into the facility that was being built in Carlsbad NM. It turned out after millions had been invested and years of work done to be unfit for high level waste due to a huge pocket of salt water no one noticed. Its still being used to store low level waste, though... clothing that has been contaminated, for example. Yes, there is just that much waste outside of fuel and cores themselves. Its not a rush to judgement... its a long overdue dawning of lucidity and sanity.
We should not overreact to what has happened in Japan. With better planning for the worst case scenario this all could have been prevented. By simply putting the back-up generating system in a watertight space and making sure the power supply to the coolant pumping system was watertight none of this would have occurred. Despite the strength of the earthquake structural damage was nil. Nuclear is still an excellent option, the public's ignorance and fear notwithstanding. Ignorance and fear are also what prevent us from dealing with the nuclear waste disposal issue.
Wind, solar, nuclear, oil... I sure wish more people would think about conservation but somehow conserving resources and frugality of any sort is just not seen as an American value. Typical example: Every day I see people take elevators and escalators to go up or down one flight of stairs. After work they go to the gym to use an electric stair master. Everyone complains about the cost of energy but no one will (literally) lift a finger to turn off a light when they leave a room. Everyone complains about the cost of gas but that doesn't keep them from buying gas guzzlers. I don't know that it is uniquely American but Americans certainly do want to have their cake and eat it too while showing no restraint and no self discipline. The only thing Americans seem to excel at anymore is whining and passing the blame.
@Eric
"In the future, if you want to write an article that sounds more fact based, and not an advertisement for the nuclear power industry, you should not make statements like "Over the last five decades, there has been just one nuclear accident that caused any deaths at all.." which are totally untrue. Just a quick google search gives 4 workers killed in 2004 in Japan, 3 workers killed in the US 1961 (I guess that makes the 50 year cut off date we can let that slide), 2 workers killed in Slovakia in 1976, 2 workers dead in Japan in 1999. Of course 5 workers have already died in the Fukushima accident, and who knows all 200 workers rotating in may die early from radiation poisoning. You statement should be revised to: "apart from Chernobyl, there have been no nuclear accidents in the last 50 years that have killed anyone not employed by the nuclear industry."
Doesn't your information make the point? Even if you're statistics are correct, the sheer infrequency of fatalities as compared to other forms of generating power, or even commonplace elements of life such as driving cars, would suggest that the impact of nuclear on public health and safety is extremely small, relatively speaking. Thirty years after TMI, generally regarding as the worst nuclear accident in the US, there is no evidence of ANY deaths or detrimental health affects, and this is with sufficient time to evaluate the long-term effects of radiation. Should we also discontinue the use of automobiles and stop federal spending on roads, because cars just aren't safe enough? How many innocent pedestrians or cyclist get killed each year by automobiles. Why don't we just require everyone to walk or ride their bike? This would dramatically improve public health and safety, while reducing our energy needs and impact on the enivonment, wouldn't it?
Today, we need all forms of energy, including "renewables". We should begin reducing our dependency on carbon fuels unless an economic way of capturing carbon can be developed, so as to prevent the further build-up of green-house gases. Nuclear provides us with an opportunity to significantly reduce our carbon footprint while future forms of energy can be developed. It's a sensible and essential part of the puzzle.
Despite the fact that Nuclear Power is harmful due to waste management and can contaminate water, land, air, and even human cells. How much electricity does America waste? If about 20% of America's electricity comes from Nuclear Power and America waste about 20% of its electricity, whats the point in even having such VILE forms of energy and waste? I don't know much about this subject to warrant any cause for debate. Whats the point if we know we can destroy ourselves, our earth, our whole way of life. It doesn't matter how safe you try to make something there are too many variables in life that can cause something to go wrong. I had a buddy from the navy tell me that on nuclear subs fires happen because they forget to change the lent traps. That's scary when you think about it. Nuclear subs catching fire because people can't do the laundry. Nuclear Power in any form is something to worry about.
“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.”~Albert Einstein
This really is almost too dang easy.
William says: "The steel containers are encased in concrete."
>No, you're talking about some ONSITE storage designs. Not containers that would go into a deep geologic repository. Show me ONE credible source that says concrete containers will be used in a repository. Your insistence on this point alone discredits you in this discussion but I'm having some fun here.
Then William says: They will rust and the concrete will fall apart in 40,000 years.
>Rust possibly but most likely not. You don't put a repository where there is much water and you load it such that the heat from the containers evaporates any water that might get in there.
Then William says "This could lead to many more than millions dying even to entire species.
>I find it laughable that you criticize others for "propaganda" without sources to back them up yet you provide none. I asked you before, after 40,000 years, or even just 300 years, what radioisotopes are left and what is their toxicity? There are plenty of analyses out there about this. Some assume absolutely everything fails (fuel cladding, containers, mitigative measures) and a nearly impossible amount of water intrusion in a known geologic formation and so many unlikely events that you wait for them to say that space aliens suck the waste out of the ground with giant straws and put it in the nearest aquifer, and the risk to the public is STILL not millions of people dying. I'll grant that the number in that scenario is not zero. If you're such an expert, why not go find one of these studies and tell us what the real number is? And then be sure to compare it to other known toxins we use now that could end up in groundwater in 40,000 years.
William asks: "And at what cost? How is this sustainable? Who is going to pay for this in a thousand years and are we not taxing future generations for generating energy we consume?"
>Now those are legitimate questions but, as I keep saying, we need to ask the same questions for each energy technology. In an honest informed debate, given our available options right now, nuclear fares well.
William goes on: "There is no other toxic waste that last as long as radioactive nuclear waste."
>William, are you at all familiar with the concepts of radioactive decay and half-lives? Because that statement is ludicrous. Radioactive by-products, by their definition, become less toxic with time. Other toxins do not decay and NEVER become less hazardous.
William replies that hazardous waste incinerators pose no risk..."It becomes carbon."
>Then why does the EPA regulate their emissions and the NIH do studies on the resulting health hazards? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10416945
To me asking if he wants to ban all industries that generate toxic heavy metals and radioactive isotopies William replied "Yes." I can only take that to mean that he does not drive a car, own a computer or other electronics, use ANY electricity at all, actually he must not use anything with any mined material, doesn't believe in smoke detectors, doesn't used CFL bulbs
I repeat it is not worth my time to try and convince someone that clearly is an attorney working for the nuclear lobby.
whoops, hit the wrong key, but I think you get my drift. And then William goes for the personal attacks again. I'm sure those will convince people of your point of view.
@Lois Tyli
“Now those are legitimate questions but, as I keep saying, we need to ask the same questions for each energy technology. In an honest informed debate, given our available options right now, nuclear fares well.”
Then please answer them.
“William, are you at all familiar with the concepts of radioactive decay and half-lives?”
Yes, as I have demonstrated in multiple postings. Are you now saying I am wrong on those also?
“Radioactive by-products, by their definition, become less toxic with time. “
Yes, depending on the isotope. U235 is 50,000 years, Cesium 137 30 years, radioactive iodine 8 days.
“Other toxins do not decay and NEVER become less hazardous.”
This is not correct. All elements and compounds on this earth decompose or decay. It is only a matter of time. You have only to look at the life span of the sun to know this.
“Then why does the EPA regulate their emissions and the NIH do studies on the resulting health hazards? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10416945”
Because did not take the expense to dispose of it properly as the EPA documents in the same article if you had read it in full.
I repeat it is not worth my time to try and convince someone that clearly is clearly ignorant, ill-informed, rude, and obviously not open to rational discussion and is working for the nuclear lobby.
I take back the part about you being attorney because I do not believe you possess the intellect or IQ to achieve such.
I am sorry I insulted attorneys in comparing you with them.
My guess on why nuclear energy causes so much fear:
1. Nuclear energy industry is the only one which tells you how likely you are to die from it's accidents.
2. Radiation is easy to detect in extremely small quantities.
3. The energy density of fissile material is plain scary.
4. We imagine that radiation exposure for any length of time and in any amount is fatal.
5. We do not understand radioactive dispersion, as it cannot be expressed linearly.
6. We imagine that all radioactivity lives on for thousands of years.
7. We immediately start fearing the worst case scenario for any accident. In case of nuclear accident, the worst case is quite horrifying, even if it is vanishingly unlikely.
Excellent!
What about....
Cold Fusion?
or to really push the envelope....
The Hutchison Effect?
Dont these 2 things alone hint at other more vast energies....?
Wake up and focus on knowledge. The key is not pushing the limits with what we have.
It is findin the things we have yet to see.
Meanwhile learn to leave smaller footprints
To put things into some perspective for everyone that is making a huge stink about nuclear energy in the wake of what has happened in Japan:
Yes, the situation at Fukushima Daiichi is bad. No one in their right mind would deny that.
However, the death toll from the partial meltdowns that have occurred there are officially zero (possibly in the very low single digits unofficially). On the other hand, the death toll from the 9.0 earthquake and 30-foot tsunami that caused this whole crisis stands at 6,500 and is rising fast. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost everything. Let's face it, when it comes to efficiently destroying lives, the earthquake/tsunami wins hands down over the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi.
The nuke crisis in Japan is not another Chernobyl, and short of an F-15 Strike Eagle flying in and dropping a bunker-buster on one of the reactors in order to catastrophically destroy the reactor vessel, it won't be another Chernobyl.
Had this been a modern reactor design, there would be no concern whatsoever. Modern reactor designs are quipped with passive cooling systems that will automatically keep the reactor in a safe state if outside power is lost, unlike the ancient designs at the FD plant which require an outside power source at all times to power the cooling systems (hence the need for backup generators in case of an power-loss emergency, which were subsequently swamped by the tsunami). If the passive cooling were to somehow fail, the Gen III reactors even have integrated 'worst case' designs that allow the core to melt down into a holding pit that contains enough volume and neutron poisons to ensure the reactor remains cannot achieve criticality.
Unfortunately, few of these modern designs have been built thanks to the anti-nuke lobby. This has forced many older plants to soldier on longer than intended and has forced us to rely on environmentally damaging sources such as coal and gas.
The reactors at Fukushima Daiichi are 40 years old. They were designed in the 1960's. when the technology was still in its relative infancy. Would you drive a car designed in the mid 1960's and expect it to be even remotely as safe as a modern car? Of course not!
Even with that, the safety record at the plant in question was pretty darn good up until the point when it was clobbered by an almost inconceivable 9.0 earthquake and 30-foot tsunami. Even still, things would be okay had they not made one fatal mistake when they built the plant – they put the backup diesel generators at ground level and built walls around them that they figured were higher than any possible tsunami. They simply guessed wrong.
Nuclear energy is currently the only way to generate large quantities of power without also generating large quantities of greenhouse gases (Oh, and by the way, the waste from coal fired plants not only is rich in greenhouse gases, but is also rich in toxic, radioactive heavy metals which infiltrate the soil and water table around said plants very easily. Clean coal my a$$!).
Wind and solar are clean ways to supplement a power grid, but they just don't kick out enough juice to meet the power needs of heavy industry & large population centers. They are an important part of a clean energy system, but a heavy lifter such as nuclear energy is needed in tandem to make it truly viable and reliable.
What about nuclear waste, you say? Most countries recycle 95% of their nuclear waste into new fuel. Currently the US does not follow this practice, which is idiotic. Japan and most other major users of nuclear power do. Even without that, the actual amount of waste, while highly toxic, is very small compared to the massive amount that coal plants generate.
I personally am all for the building of more plants. I live near two nuke plants that date back to the 1970's, and I'd certainly prefer to see those two plants replaced with modern designs. Before that happens, I would love to see the four coal plants in the vicinity shut down and replaced with modern, safe nuclear reactors.
Nuke, solar, & wind working together can provide a clean & sustainable power grid. We just need to get our heads out of our butts & make it happen.
Thanks for the excellent insight MP.....appreciated!
Amit-Atlanta-USA
This is a rather dumb article from what I thought was a reasonably intelligent guy. The dumbness is in comparing the risks of oil and coal to the dangers of nuclear power. Simply put, anyone, can put a piece of coal in their pocket or oil in a canister and carry it around without affecting themselves or their progeny. Nuclear energy has many risks during its use and produces waste that exists long after this generation would die off. We, as a generation, are generating nuclear waste that will be around for thousands for years. Are we sure that our future generations will be safe from this waste? Maybe given a perfect world with perfect people nuclear energy might work. But we know that people are not perfect and they make mistakes. Most people would get by with breaking rules and skimming regulations when they can. Fareed, coming from India, should know that a lot of people are corrupt and mostly focus on immediate profits. It is people like him who should look at the bigger picture and think about what is good for humanity. If we actually stop and think, we will know that nuclear energy is neither good in the present nor in the future.
Why store it? With recent reprocessing and breeder reactors, you can essentially reuse the same fuel repeatedly.
I agree that nuclear power plants still are more or less necessary, but I hope the technology will develop so that solar energy, for example, can take over for nuclear power.
However, there will be more earthquakes in Japan due to it's extremely bad position – along the ring of fire. The risk of more tsunamis and earthquakes hitting that area is huge. Just look at the history – Japan has been hit a several times before.
I believe a sort of restriction should be set up, regarding where to put those nuclear power plants, since along the coast in an area like that obviously is not the brightest idea...
http://facethefacts.blog.com/2011/03/15/nuclear-power-plants-necessary-or-a-safety-risk/
Analogously, everyone could fly in small planes with few seats and a lot of room, instead of large efficient jumbo jets where people must compete with their luggage for leg room. Less resources would be used to create the small planes, per plane, but they would use up considerably more time and energy per person needing to fly. However, an accident would only risk a few people rather than hundreds.
It's primarily an economic question. People are not willing to pay for the flight cost of a small spacious plane any more than they want to pay for expensive energy. Large planes are built for several times the cost that they could be built for to keep them safe; we must find the same balance with nuclear power.
Yea, and there's NO oil in the Gulf either!
Sorry, I spoke too soon! I guess there is!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110322/ts_yblog_thelookout/officials-remain-baffled-over-source-of-oil-slick-as-louisiana-coastline-is-oiled-again
And let's also remember that we have 700 tons of spent fuel that will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years that we have no idea what to do with. But I guess being a talking parrot for the global capitalist agenda pays too well to put those kinds of facts on the table.
Reprocess! Or sell to France, India.
Sigh, the enviromentalists would rather believe the hype the news media puts out than the facts on nuclear power. Having worked in the nuclear industry for 37 years I would still rather have a nuke plant next to me than a coal or oil plant. In our area we have wind (over 1000 wind turbines), some solar, hydro (the best renewable), coal and nuclear. If we could build a new nuke plant they would see how improved these plant would be over the 20-40 year old plants that are running. Waste? Let us recycle the fuel like France and Japan does and there would be less waste. Don't get me started about the "beautiful" wind turbines covering our hills and plains.
It is sad how many commenters here make such ignorant claims as 1 plutonium atom will kill you. If you eat it, it will not stay in your body long. Most plutonium isotopes have very long half lives, so single atoms do not even emit radiation in your lifetimes.
Tobacco is radiactive and smoking it deposits lead and polonium in your lungs. Coal contains radiactive isotopes that are release in the air when you burn it. There is a good chance that you have natural radiactive elements under your house, and you are inhaling radiactive radon. Everytime you fly on a plane you are exposed to much higher levels of cosmic radiation. Bricks emit radiation.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/plutonium.html
"Harry Reid has said that he would continue to work to block completion of the project, and is quoted as having said: "Yucca Mountain is dead. It'll never happen."
Use your brain. If something stays radiactive for a very long time, it is not that radioactive. To stay radioactive, it has to not release radiation. Fuel rods can be recylced and re-used. By making laws to block fuel rod reprocesing, people are putting us all at great risks for the sake of their hidden agendas. They are creating a problem so they can complain about, steal a lot of money, and do nothing about it (Yucca Mountain).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
Solar panel production has posioned the soil in many places in China.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9889848-54.html
I've been trying to look into the laws about reprocessing. I keep hearing mixed thoughts though. Some people claim there is a law preventing it. Others say the law doesn't and it is strictly economics.
The real thing is the solution to nuclear waste is reprocessing though, not burying it in a mountain.
My advice to Fareed: Hold the handle of a casket of a little child, mother, father, grandmother, or grandfather, who dies due to radiation. Hold on to a fragile ecology (birds, pets, fish, sea urchin) who have no capacity to rationalize what not to eat or places to avoid. Hold on to the fact that your opinion on this matter won't be embraced by those who understand that our DNA should never be compromised by the industrial machine and the profits it has its eyes constantly fixed on. Hold on to the reality that the human race can, and in fact, has found alternative ways to provide energy. In conclusion, nuclear power may have been 'safe' as you call it, and as far as we, the public, is aware; however, it is preposterous to ask us to withhold judgment against something that can make landmasses uninhabitable for centuries. If I am not mistaken, Japan doesn't have that much land to sacrifice, does it? A rhetorical question, of course.
Fareed wil do that, once you hold the handles of caskets for the multitudes that coal, oil, gas kills every day. Day before, 45 perished in a coal mine blast in Balochistan.
After all the hoopla, where do you think we will be when the Japanese incident is out of the news? There will be tiny amounts of radioactivity that will have entered the biosphere locally, and the health consequences will be too small to measure. There will have been some workers at the plant who have absorbed some larger than usual doses of radioactivity, but these will be comparable to ones from medical procedures and likely not fatal. Like Chernobyl, the end results will be emotional - the trauma induced on the local population.
Nuclear still faces problems - spent fuel storage and reprocessing - that must be overcome. There will be lessons learned that will prove expensive - hardening the spent fuel storage facilities. But Americans are a bold and inventive people. Our best choice is to burn carbon if the side-effects can be avoided of foreign dependence and climate change. That doesn't seem realistic at this stage. The renewables are niche markets worth pursuing because they are new and exciting, and they give us the moral high ground. But they are difuse and intermittent. I don't want grandma's heart-lung machine dependent upon them yet.
The hard reality is that nuclear is our best realistic option on today's table that meets the public's need for large scale, carbon free power. So the question is not whether it should be used, it is how can we harness this energy source to provide us with economical and worry-free energy. There will be trade-offs that won't satisfy everyone, but I don't see any better alternatives when one asks the questions: compared to what? at what cost? reliable data to back up statements?
Given below is a news item on the frequency of Richter 9 earthquakes and resulting Tsunamis from an expert in seismology; very relevant to this discussion on Nuclear energy dangers and their location in natural disaster prone areas. While this does not mean that we can go ahead and start building more reactors in such areas, at least it's an indication that the fear is overblown.
Sendai: Tsunamis that hit north-east Japan last week are likely to strike the region once every 1000 years, suggests an expert.
Roger Musson, a leading seismologist, has said that there were similarities between the last week's event and another giant wave that hit the Sendai coast in 869AD.
It is not unusual for undersea earthquakes to generate tsunamis in this part of Japan. Offshore quakes in the 19th and 20th centuries also caused large walls of water to hit this area of coastline.
But previous research by a Japanese team shows that in the 869 'Jogan' disaster, tsunami waters moved some 4km inland, causing widespread flooding.
The researchers said that such gigantic tsunamis occur in the area roughly once every 1,000 years. Musson, who is the head of seismic hazard at the British Geological Survey (BGS), suggested the latest tsunami was comparable to the event in 869.
"I would imagine it would be about the same, because it is hard to think that there would be any larger earthquakes than this in this part of the world," the BBC quoted Musson as saying.
The BGS seismologist acknowledged there had been other notably large earthquakes in the region in 1933 and in the 1890s.
But he said: "There is a convenient little fact to remember... if you know how often Magnitude 9 earthquakes are, you will get Magnitude 8 earthquakes roughly 10 times as often and Magnitude 7 earthquakes approximately 100 times as often."
However, another researcher said they would be cautious to draw conclusions about the frequency of such events, given how seismically active this region is.
About 10 years ago, a team led by Koji Minoura, from Japan's Tohoku University, analysed sediments from the Sendai and Soma coastal plains that preserved traces of the tsunami in 869.
Their results indicated that the medieval tsunami was probably triggered by a Magnitude 8.3 offshore quake and that waters spread more than four km from the shore.
They also found evidence of two earlier tsunamis on the scale of the Jogan disaster, leading them to conclude that there had been three massive events in the last 3,000 years.
Amit-Atlanta-USA
I haven't heard anyone ask what the impact of the radiation fall-out will be on the oceans around the reactors, and the impact on fish, which we will all eat?
Worst case:
Minute marine life very close to Fukushima Daichi may succumb. Some will pass up to the food chain. Some whales may bio accumulate significant contamination. Stop eating whales from the ocean near north Japan for a few years, just to be completely safe. Is that too hard? I am not a marine life expert, so get a second opinion if you are seriously worried.
By the way, are you okay with eating the fish from the Gulf?
Quote: ""Over the last five decades, there has been just one nuclear accident that caused any deaths at all – at Chernobyl,...""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll
There seems to be a "slight" discrepancy between the statement by FZ and the factsheets in Wikipedia.
I'll let everyone jump to his or her own conclusions
Fastbreak,
I am surprised at all the deaths from radiotherapy!
Rooftop solar does make sense. Ours produces between 60 and 70% of the electricity used in the home. Yes, it was expensive to install, but on energy savings alone, and assuming no price increase, the break even point on the out-of-pocket costs is around seven years. Granted, the out-of-pocket costs are the result of substantial subsidies in the form of a federal tax credit and a state rebate. But, as with anything else, as economies of scale kick in and as more efficient panels can be made, costs will go down (incidentally, labor costs to install were more than half of the total expenses, and here in northern Illinois, putting just about any construction worker to work is sorely needed).
Nuclear has its place, but it is not the panacea its proponents want it to be. The risks are really immense. The waste product issue is unanswered. The costs per kwh generated are by far the most expensive of any of the three major forms of generation. Those costs are only going up when the "occassional" disaster is factored into the equation.
If a fraction of what the country is willing to spend on nuclear was devoted toward developing solar and wind, both of those technologies would quickly develop, and be able to substantially contribute to an overall power grid that works towards being green, and towards getting away from fossil fuel dependancy – a dependancy, in the case of oil, that should include at least some of the expenses of our wars when calculating what it really costs.
Well, probably Japan has the safest standard for many including nuclear plants in the world, but this accident happened even though unbelievably huge earthquakes and tsunami caused this event.
Probably Japan's plat was the safest, but 3/11 tragedy proved that natural disaster could be far beyond human technology. This happened in not poor or undevelopped countries but Japan!!
If the same happen to the US, the situation could be worse.
I do not think we should stop building new nuclear plants because we need and they are relatively clean.
However, we should know true knowledges without getting confused by the medias which tell us only the worst case of Fukushima. We should learn from Fukushima, and we should make even safer plant.
I have read every single post in this thread and have been contemplating the nuclear matter for some time, consuming all information and opinions available. I am not an expert, but a concerned citizen.
I have two simple questions for proponents of nuclear power:
1) Is it possible, at all, that another disaster such as Chernobyl could happen in any operating nuclear plants, or in future plants yet to be designed and built?
2) If such an event were to occur, are we willing to leave the result as heritage to our descendants, for any justification we should see fit to provide?
I think the answer to the first question is "yes", and the answer to the second question is "no". Therefore, all cost-benefits aside, I cannot in good conscience approve, support, or quietly abide nuclear power generation.
Many other arguments, on both sides, are compelling – when taken in part. But holistically, I believe the two questions I have offered are entirely sufficient to quell any dissent on the matter, in that a given person will answer yes+yes, no+no, yes+no, or no+yes, and no further discussion is required about the facts – at this point we have gotten to the heart of the matter and identified the fundamental difference between the "pro" and "con" camps.
If it is true that "nothing is better", than "nothing" it is to be, indeed...
... but fortunately, that's not really true. Right?
Even the worst risks from alternative sources, when given the same test, answer "yes" and "yes" – that is, I would leave my descendants with the worst oil disaster imaginable (for example) for the justifications we will offer them. Along the spectrum of preferability, there is a "yes" somewhere for all the other sources except nuclear.
Here're my own calculations:
According to Wikipedia, humans use approximately 150,000 TWh of energy (not just electricity) every year.
At 250 days of sun for 8 hours a day, a "1-watt solar panel" generates 2KWh of electricity per year.
Divide these two figures (demand by production) and you get a required supply of 75 trillion 1-watt panels.
Real panels come in larger denominations, such as industrial KW panels. So we would need 75 billion such real-world panels.
You can buy – no bulk discount or economy of scale – a solar panel at $1.76 per watt. Double this cost for all overhead.
Total expenditure: less than $250 trillion, for 100% of the world's energy needs, not just electricity. If they last for 25 years (minimum lifetime of a solar plant at >80% of rated capacity) then the cost is $10 trillion per year.
That is equivalent to 13% of annual GWP ($10 trillion out of $75 trillion); we currently spend 10-14% of GDP on energy depending on who you ask.
I think this sounds like a fine plan to me.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7706
You're right, Fareed, let's hold off on the judgment for now.
Fareed's "Take" on nuclear power sounds like it came straight from the Nuclear Energy Institute. Talking points! Corporate PR blather that is designed to prevent a serious discussion about nuclear power in the U.S. And that's precisely what the industry wants - no discussion. Just tell us that since no one has been killed (directly) by one of the (many) nuclear plant accidents over the past 40 years that it's safe. Oops! Sorry. This is not about how many people have died (or will die) so much as it is about the industry's ability to safely operate an aging fleet of plants that include nearly 3 dozen similar to Fukushima's. I have lost a huge amount of respect for Fareed Zakaria (and for CNN) for running a commercial for the nuclear industry, masquerading as informed commentary from an independent journalist.
Wow Fareed, very SELECTIVE information here. Suspiciously so. I usually agree and respect your opinions and insights. But after this blatant commercial for the Nuclear Energy Institute, you have soiled yourself.
How about how many innocent victims result from radioactive leaks? Do your research and see what horror STILL EXISTS in Russia to this day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Nuclear energy is NEITHER CLEAN OR SAFE. That is the truth. There's no other way to spin it.
Hi, just read through your info and would like to subscribe for extra, do you have a rss feed?
You got quite a few more people excited than I now have been able to. I hope we end up with more people o board and also moving here in all of your right direction.beats studio ferrari headphones
I will be able to see the diehards here in the home really attending to all your point of holding out as well as not raising all your debt ceiling. beats by dr dre
if you have monster pro spotted an especially famous Da Vinci painting you want, you should make monster beats michael jackson contact with an artist who's an expert within this field.
Greenblatt presents profitable » How To Write and Publish Short Story Fiction For Free Or Pretty Darn Close posted at profitable, saying, "Fiction is a really hard market to break into but it is harder
This is an excellent blog post. You get my vote and I will bookmark this weblog right now.
People who choose the michael jackson beats pre-filled cartridges have a 2-piece justbeats solo ecigarette. The reason being the cartridge has already been justin bieber solo attached to the atomizer successfully. The connector is known as "cartomizer". Pre-filled cartridges have a definite E-liquid solution.
HPV which causes genital warts monster beats lamborghini shouldn't be taken lightly. The issue is that monster beats ferrari at times you won't just end up getting genital warts, monster beats red sox you could get cancer.
Thanks , I have just been searching for information about this topic for ages and yours is the greatest I've discovered till now. However, what concerning the conclusion? Are you sure concerning the supply?|What i don't realize is in truth how you're now not really a lot more neatly-liked than you might be right now. You're very intelligent.
How long time have you been disturbed by the rings of cell phones around you, but you have nothing to do with the boring situation? As a man, born into this modern society, we have been gifted with the right appropriate for many different things, especially something related with the science and technology, such as the internet's controller-computer which has been used globally. Besides, another important one belongs to the mobile phones world. No matter where on the street, in the market or at home, you will see a cell phone everywhere. What's more, cell phone calls almost follow you all the time, no matter you are having a dinner or hold a important meeting or some other essential occasions cell phone calls are not needed. But the truth is human beings seem to be able to do nothing without a cell phone beside them. Step by step, one after another one, cell phones is replaced into new ones. You will know the magic power of Iphone. How many guys are crazy about this modern device?
Although cell phones really benefit us a lot, especially on the area of communication. We make calls or send messages to know the information of our friends. We listen to music or watch videos to relax ourselves or even we surf the internet with the gadget, which is OK. But there still some places and some situations phones are not welcomed. What should you do when facing with the situation? You will ask another device for help- cell phone jammer which is specially designed for temporarily blocking the transmission of signals between the cell phone and its nearby base station. When you turn on the button and see the light on, there will be the sign of "no service "or "no signals" on the screen of cell phones, which means that you have successfully finished the whole process. When you need to use your mobile phone as normal, just turn it off.
Until now, the cell phone jammer has been widely used, such as examination rooms, jails, courts, meeting rooms, libraries, theatres, churches, gas stations, hospitals and so on. In a word, where there needs secret or silence, there it will be. If you find you are troubled by the dins of phones for a long time, it is your time to change your life into a better one. Go directly and get a cell phone signal blocker now.
As for how to buy cell phone jammer, following are some tips to be remembered. Firstly, make sure your local frequency before you buy one. Because different areas have different frequencies, so need a suitable cell phone jammer to match. Secondly, buy one from online stores, you know it is illegal in many countries to deal with the business about jammer, but not online, so it is wise to choose one from http://www.alljammers.com a great online store. Thirdly, make sure the quality and price of the product when you decide to purchase, can make a comparison before your decision. Also some other details you need to know.
塩水の水族館は、家庭へ素敵な付加を作る、と老いも若きも問わずへエンドレス魅了の源であることができます。海水水槽での生活が可能な別の魚や植物の生命は、エキゾチックで美しいの両方で、海での生活に豊かな導入を提供しています。魚や植物は、しかし、深い青色で見つけることができ、それは自宅の水槽にこれらの他の要素を組み込むことを試みるために水族館の所有者のためのますます一般的になっているだけではありません。
http://www.pradafactory.com/ プラダ
http://www.pradafactory.com/ プラダ バッグ
http://www.pradafactory.com/ プラダ 財布
プラダ: http://www.pradafactory.com/
Hi there, simply turned into aware of your weblog through Google, and located that it's really informative. I am gonna watch out for brussels. I will be grateful in the event you proceed this in future. Many people can be benefited out of your writing. Cheers!
Woah this weblog is magnificent i like reading your posts. Keep up the good work! You realize, many individuals are looking round for this information, you could aid them greatly.
Great put up, very informative. I ponder why the other experts of this sector don't realize this. You should proceed your writing. I'm confident, you've a huge readers' base already!|What's Going down i'm new to this, I stumbled upon this I have found It absolutely helpful and it has aided me out loads. I'm hoping to give a contribution & aid different users like its helped me. Great job.
I'm really impressed along with your writing skills as smartly as with the format on your weblog. Is this a paid topic or did you modify it yourself? Either way stay up the excellent quality writing, it is uncommon to see a nice weblog like this one nowadays..
I'm really inspired along with your writing skills and also with the format in your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you customize it your self? Either way keep up the excellent high quality writing, it's uncommon to see a nice blog like this one nowadays..
My brother suggested I may like this website. He was once totally right. This publish truly made my day. You cann't imagine simply how a lot time I had spent for this information! Thank you!
game