« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Nuclear Meltdown — Among the Press

Thank you, media. You are forcing the immediate shutdown of 7 of Germany’s 17 nuclear plants (41%), two of them permanently within a year or two. You’ve stopped two new Swiss power plants in their tracks. New plants within the US (none have been built in thirty years) will also likely be put on hold, despite perhaps being one thing that Obama has done right.

While Libya’s people are being slaughtered, Yemen is in revolt, and Bahrain has its own riots, all I hear about are the gloom and doom of nuclear catastrophe.

Japan’s Fukushima power plants are in deep trouble, no doubt. I commend the brave workers who are trying to contain the disaster there (and, yes, it is a disaster). But there have not been and won’t be any nuclear explosions. When the talking heads mention “1,000 times normal radiation,” they don’t mention that it has been brief and only within the confines of the plant. Nor do they mention that “normal” is what anybody would be exposed to naturally any day of the week. Nor are they quite explicit that the explosions that have happened at the plant are due to build-up of flammable gas (admittedly, produced by the situation), not any actual nuclear explosion.

To put things in perspective, the USGS puts the equivalent of Japan’s 9.0 (Richter scale) earthquake at the power of 25,000 nuclear bombs. THAT was natural. Earth’s work, not Man’s.

Japan has experience: Nagasaki’s atomic bomb would have rated a 5.0 (474 tons of TNT). The 1906 San Francisco quake would have rated 8.0 (15 megatons). 9.0 is equivalent to 474 megatons of TNT.

What the media SHOULD be commenting on is that despite the greatest natural disaster in 250 years (Lisbon earthquake, 1755), and resulting failures of perhaps three backup systems, this nuclear plant may be in dire straits but has not contributed a whit to the devastation of nature.

COMMENTS

  • Death_of_the_Donkey

    can our nuclear industry survive in the free market or do they require government subsidies/financing/insurance (I genuinely ask the question)? I have no problem with nuclear power, but only if it can survive on its own in the free market (ie I don’t want government on the hook if something like what is happening in Japan hit here).

  • ehosterman

    privately undaer an insurance pool adminstered by American Nuclear Insurers. This arrangement was mandated under the Price- Anderson act. The act requires this shared pool and limits liability.

    http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps54-bi.pdf

  • donnybrooke

    hit here, then the last thing I would be worried about (monetarily) would be a nuclear power accident. It would make Katrina look like a mild summer breeze!

    Imagine a 9.0 earthquake along the San Andreas fault in Los Angeles or San Francisco and a resulting tsunami along the California coast. The nuclear power industry would be fine, but the monetary costs of rebuilding California would bankrupt the USA (if it isn’t already).

  • Common_Cents

    than government subsidy.

    I also see a broad assault on nuclear in the lame stream media. There is newer technology that is being hampered by smear campaigns focusing on older technology.

    Secondly, I think we have plenty of areas to locate nuclear facilities that won’t be subject to tsunamis and major earthquake faults.

    Of course our options will be reduced now and nuclear will suffer blunt force trauma by the media and the left.

    Nuclear? nah, too dangerous
    coal? nah too dirty
    oil? nah, harry reid says it makes you sick!

    wind? sure but not in limousine liberal back yards

    solar? sure, just throw in a little fairy dust.

    I hope we wake up from fantasyland soon.

  • GreyCloak

    Yes, nuclear power plants can survive on their own, but they need the insurance against liabilities provided by Federal law. Lawsuits are endemic to the industry: more than thirty years ago, while reactor vessels were sitting on a driveway and actual fuel was at least a year away, ONE lady’s lawsuit shut down construction for six months “because she was being irradiated!”

    If you like your pocketbook, the cost of nuclear-generated electricity is ONE FOURTH that of coal or gas plants, and no CO2 is ever emitted. Extra costs DO occur in building plants: workers and materials have to be specially certified; and the design parameters of US plants are far in excess of those in most of the rest of the world. A basic design parameter is that the structure should be able to resist the impact of a 747 falling from the sky!

    Coal is dirty: the stack gas from a coal-fired plant closely resembles the atmosphere of Venus. While emissions are commonly “scrubbed,” coal contains wonderful things like sulfur and mercury.

    Gas-fired plants are cleaner, but natural gas is just another form of carbon (with hydrogen).

    If you have 51 minutes to spare, a recent Bloomberg’s Intelligence Squared debate is well worth watching.