Interesting question, CH.  And timely, too.  In the area I live in there's been some controversy about wimd farms.  Residents are claiming that the noise they make is a health hazard.  They're asking for more studies to be done on health risks associated with living close to such places.  Meanwhile within a few minutes drive is a nuclear power plant that provides jobs, power, etc etc etc to this area and beyond. 

My humble opinion is that wind turbines might have been a lot less worrisome than nuclear plants in the earthquakes and tsumanis that have taken such a toll on Japan.  I could be wrong but I don't think the chances of meltdowns in wind turbines are quite so high, nor would they be quite so drastic.

With current technology wind and solar can not provide enough power---unless we are willing to drastically change how we live (one article I read suggested something along the lines of 1950's or 60's Europe) to only use that much power.

In the end it is that simple.  We need the power from some source.  In a densly populated small country like Japan your options are greatly limited (although offshore wind is an option, it has been done in the North Sea)

I think we need more nuclear power plants.  But not ones that work by fission of Uranium.  Thorium reactors are safer, the fuel is far more plentiful in nature, and Thorium power generation produces shorter-lived radioactive byproducts.

Candu reactors are far safer than the Breeder Reactors used in Japan (and the U.S.)

The water in a Candu Reactor is a part of the reaction, not a coolant. If the water drains off or evaporates, the reaction stops immediately. Heavy Water reactors cannot have meltdowns or dangerous overheats.

"Heavy" water (Deuterium Oxide) is different from normal H2O in two respects. First - it has an extra neutron in the molecule. Second - it retains 100 times less radiation than regular water (which isn't much for retaining it to start).

Korea's power system is based on Candu reactors which they now build themselves under licence. They have more Candu reactors than the rest of the world put together. They have never had any problems.

Storage of spent fuel is really not much of a problem because the volume is so small. 50 years of spent fuel rods in Ontario are all presently stored in a few "swimming pools" Although much safer methods are now under construction.

If we can get rid of the politics and falsehoods, Canada has the answer for the need for safe, clean nuclear power.

Yes, I work in the industry.

By the way, thousands die every year mining coal and producing oil and gas.

Every source of power includes costs and risks as well as benefits and challenges.  The big question about nuclear power should be related to its cost effectiveness and the poor record of AECL in projecting the costs of construction, maintenance, and durability of its reactors is an additional concern.  While I respect the contributions Judd has made on other posts, Judd left out that the storage issue is not just related to the spent fuel rods.  The storage issue includes other materials that get contaminated with radioactive material.  Personally, I would rather see fuel rods and other materials reprocessed rather than stored -- I don't understand the need to store them rather than reprocess them.

Coal-fired thermal plants release more radioactive material as well as heavy metals than most nuclear plants.

All mined minerals result in large volumes of overburden and waste rock which present a variable amount of risk and harm to the environment.  I would like to see an environmental fee system in place that would result in realistic costing of all mined products.

There is already legislation in place requiring that all mines form a "closure" plan when they open that involves returning the mined land to pretty much the state it was in before it opened.  They are then legally required to follow that plan when mining operations end.

Is that the sort of legislation you're looking for, Jim?

No, the ongoing operations of most mines result in contamination of air and water leaving the mine site during the operating stage, and, unless there are recent changes unknown to me, most mines and fossil fuel activities do not pay any kind of fee for this contamination.

As far as the legislation about returning the mine site to close to the original conditions tends to be poorly enforced.  In the oil and gas business, a common practice is for the original operator of a well to sell the well after the major part of the reserve has been depleted.  This turns into a series of relatively short extractions and resales until it ends up with a company that goes out of business before the site can be restored.  The Alberta government has hundreds or thousands of abandoned wells that have become the responsibility of the public to clean up with some assistance from a fund established by the industry.

I support nuclear power.

However, in the aftermath of the tsunami in Japan I think we're all praying for and hoping for people to be okay. I'm watching the news pretty closely!

Nuclear Power Plants are a mystery to me. Sure I know the basics but if I ever had to oversee one, well I'd be lost. They're like God, I'm content when they're working and mystery is acceptable, except when something goes wrong.

During Japan's crisis I want to scream at the powers that be and wonder at the foolishness of harnessing such power while I sit under my electric lights and cook my supper in my heated home. My hypocrosy is showing big time. Fact is I've bought into the whole idea of it just by flicking my switches. I would have a hard time getting off "the grid" now and I doubt the government has any better ideas how to implement it now either. The best I think we can do, now that pandoras box has been opened, is to be more accountable for the existing structures by reassessing their safety and then think seriously about other alternatives before we continue to build more.

I have a question for some that are probably more in the know than I am. We have tapped into the power of Niagara Falls, is this a resource that is cleaner? I see Japan is very mountainous, have they already tapped into this resource also? Wiki says they have over 42 Nuclear Power Stations and around 3 geothermic plants.

I wonder about further exploration of geothermal energy but also wonder if drilling exremely deep holes in the earth which allow gases to escape, however minimal, is a good idea.   Also wonder if deep drilling of offshore oil wells is upsetting the earth's balance.

Many happy people and countries today because oil prices have dropped, followed by drops of gasoline prices - up to 4cents today.

Keeping autocratic governments in power has its merits, even as human lives and democracy are sacrificed.

They're supposed to.  The issue is one of the (lack of) enforcement of existing rules, rather than the absence of rules.

As far as I know, this is more of a problem with our Wild West oil wells than it is with other mining operations.  As it stands, the closure agreement is legally binding on the company that originally formed it.  If that legal obligation is not being enforced, then again the problem is one of enforcement rather than of lack of environmental protections written into law.

Regarding Japan's situation: Nuclear power isn't for everywhere. In a tectonically-stable area such as Southern Ontario, it's a pretty safe source of power. On the west coast, it would be much less so. In Japan, the most earthquake-riddled country in the world, nuclear power is an awful idea.

Azdgari,

This is completely sane stuff.  The Japanese could be working with solar power at a neighbourhood level.  It would fuel the community at the very least basic structure and would feed into the public grid. This has to be the case for the West Coast of BC as well and we need to intigrate solar and hydro energy.

There is a long way to go in the research of clean energy, but I think we can agree that from the mining of uranium or any form fissuring mineral sources,  to the dispersion of its/their tailings, nuclear energy is the opposite of clean or green energy, regardless of how safe engineers can make the actual plants.

I suppose it depends on where you set the bar for "clean".

By the way, hydroelectric flooding vastly concentrates water-borne methylated mercury.  Methylmercury is an extremely dangerous compound, which strongly bioaccumulates and harms both humans and wildlife.

Meanwhile, solar cells take a lot of energy to make, and they do need to be replaced after a while.  I'm all for solar when possible, but it's not a perfectly clean solution either.

I'm a cautious supporter of nuclear power. I do think that when properly managed and handled, it can be a good source of energy. The problem is that "properly managed and handled" is a lot easier in theory than in practice, esp. when one deals with disposal of radioactive waste or reactors in locations where things like tectonic forces or severe weather need to be accounted for.

The cost overruns are, to my mind, a separate issue from nuclear. You can overrun on just about anything and it wouldn't surprise to see large scale solar and farming run into budget issues as well.

In the end, there is only one 100% clean way to meet our energy needs and that's to reduce them. I do what I can at home by turning off lights, shutting off my computers' UPSes at night so that the PCs are really off, and so on. However, reducing the energy needs of a heavily industrialized society like Ontario or Japan enough to completely wean us off nukes isn't likely going to happen so we need to either find other sources of power or figure out how to make the nukes work safely and cleanly.

Mendalla

The plant that is in trouble didnt' have a big issue with the earthquake.  It withstood that quite well.  Initially it was amazing to see the buildings looking exactly the same whiel everything around them was destroyed.

It was the unexpectedly large wave that cause the problems.  All the seawalls in Japan were built to hold back 6 meters of water or something.  not 15 meters.

Of course in hindsight, having a backup generator on the ground floor of an area that could possibly get flooded was pretty stupid.  But we all see so clearly in hindsight.

I am impressed with how the country is working and coping and how calm and logical everyone is.  Nice to not see looting and everyman for himself.  And the workers who are trying to save the plant are real heors to me.  Putting the greater good of the country and the people ahead of their own safety.  can't get much braver than that

C. Montgomery Burns supports nuclear power.

If we rely on nuclear power, we require thousands of nuclear plants all over the world. The chance of at least one having a meltdown in any given decade is pretty strong. That means we can expect ten or so in a century, camage that would be there for a as long a future as we can imagine.

We already have massive dumps of nuclear waster, much of it just dumped in poor countries that can't stop it. It is poisoning our world now and will for countless years.

So put together what we have now - then add what we would get by increasing reliance on nuclear power.

I don't think that's a good idea.

Jim Kenney has a point - but not a big one. Canada still stores all of it's nuclear waste on the generator sites. This includes all waste other than spent fuel which is stored until it is safe then re-used. Whats left over that can't be reused is - literally - dust, for the most part, that is vacuumed out of the containment during shutdowns.

Waste in Canadian reactors is a surprisingly small problem.

Storing nuclear waste in third world countries?   Ridiculous! It would be too much of a security risk. They could either be sold to Iran for re-processing or reappear in dirty bombs. No nuclear power other than North Korea or Iran is that stupid.

BTW - South Korea's power grid is largely based on their extensive use of Candu reactors that they build under license. They are slightly more expensive but far safer and more reliable than the Breeder Reactors built by most other countries.

When nuclear power was in it's infancy, the Canadian and American Scientific communities  chose different routes to the end of nuclear power by agreement. The Soviets (of course) followed the American direction. That's how Canadian Heavy Water Reactors are entirely different from Breeder Reactors, much safer, but less popular.

That's also why the Ontario reactors were so expensive to build in the past - they were all FOAK (first of a kind) designs that were as much research projects as they were power generators, and were designed by engineers who thought they had blank cheques to work with (true in the sixties and seventies).

Not just governments, but private companies have dangerous waste material to dispose of. They have dumped the stuff off Somalia. That's why fishermen in Somalia suddenly because pirates. Their livings had been destroyed.

My daughter worked in Africa. Not far from her was a so-called "death coast" with great hills of dangerous waste of all sorts dumped not from local users but from western ones.

Judd,

since you work in the industry, perhaps you could avail yourself of a wonderful opportunity to enlighted us WCers (teach us how to fish) on such things as:

o just what is radiation?

o what determines a safe dose?

o what are common, everyday sources of radiation?

o  what different kinds of reactors are there?

So you saw that episode on the Pirates of Somalia as well? :3  That spoke to me of, again, how interconnected things are and what happens when the rule of law disappears.  Utter chaos.

EDIT:  Maybe this also could illuminate past-and-present foreign policy choices of countries (including the US) -- countries need to be strong enough to enforce their soverignity and we are all connected, so...

I didn't see the Pirates of Somalia. My TV viewing  is pretty much restricted to Criminal Minds. My wife is addicted to a British series "MI5".

Oh, and I found a show - can't remember the name - that is much like the Gerry Springer show, but much less tasteful.

Graeme is quite correct that all kinds of industrial waste is dumped on third (and second and first) world countries. While governments are obsessive about nuclear waste (something about securitry), chemical pollutants are fair game.

This is critical to my arguments because safety is judged by arbitrary and differing criteria. It is quite OK to endanger millions with the risk of cyanide poisoning from the production of lead-free gasoline as in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Montreal, and Quebec City, but a storm of hysteria accompanies the transport of decommissioned steam generators with incredibly negligeable radioactivity.

Thousands of workers die in coal mines around the world every year - albeit, the majority are working illegal "pirate" mines (a widespread problem, including Cape Breton). Most "natural" gas contains large amounts of Hydrogen Sulfide when it emerges fron the ground - deadly at 50 parts per million.

Wood? Are you kidding?

Horse and buggy? Combining livestock and humans in dense concentrations causes  diseases.

Radiation limits are obtained by measuring the dosages (both long and short term) that cause health problems, then dividing them by 100. IN the nuclear industry, the exposure of all workers are monitored by the Federal Government.

While we wring our hands about the Japanese nuclear reactors, perhaps we should remember that they were subjected to a combination of natural disasters that were the world's worst. One newspaper published a story from a scientific group that said it was the equivalent of a nearby underground nuclear explosion of over 100 Megatons.

Food from the endangered area has now appeared on the market. It has measurable levels of radiatio - probably not harmful in a snack or tow; but dangeous as a regular part of the diet.

Interesting that people think of such situations as extremely rare. Most people will remember only Three Mile Plains, Chernobyl, and this one. Few remember the close call at Chalk River about 1960. Few remember the prime minister who fired the nuclear safety commissioner who wanted to temporarily close Chalk River because of safety cncerns. It is almost certain that many near misses never get reported at all.

Near misses in Canada are reported by law.

Then the press takes them and blows them out of proportion.

Innawhimsey:  here are some more answers to your questions.

-kinds of radiation

--electromagnetic -- high energy versions of visible light including Ultra violet and x-rays;  may include gamma rays -- I don't remember if these are particles or waves; this radiation is harmful because it has enough energy to change the chemistry of molecules.  When DNA molecules are changed, a potential result is cancer.  At high enough doses, this radiation can cause burns, death, or even vaporization.

--particles:  these include particles (neutrons, electrons or protons) moving at high speeds causing damage when they collide with molecules.

--radioactive particles are particles that can split releasing high energy particles, usually neutrons and bursts of electromagnetic energy; common examples include radioactive Iodine and radon, a radioactive element found in the soil, concrete, and other materials.  Radon may be the second most important cause of lung cancer after smoking.

--background radiation is the high-energy electromagnetic radiation coming from material on the earth, in the air, and from the sun and stars;  This radiation is fairly even and is more intense at higher altitudes as there is less atmosphere to absorb the radiation from outer space.  It varies locally depending on the materials in the soil and what kinds of structures are around.  Our cells are programmed to continually repair most of the damage caused by this radiation, though they fail at times.

--there are several kinds of nuclear reactors, but the most common ones are light-water reactors such as the ones in Japan and most of the ones in the US and Europe, and heavy water reactors such as the CANDU reactors.  Heavy water is water made by separating deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) from the rest of the hydrogen in water, usually sea water.  This deuterium is used to make water with a molecular mass of 20 instead of 18.  This increase in mass results in water with a higher boiling point and a change in resistance to the passage of high energy neutrons, I believe -- Judd, perhaps you can identify the difference it makes here.

I have heard the Japanese reactors described as breeder reactors, but I believe this is probably an error as breeder reactors are one special kind of light water reactor designed to produce more fuel than it consumes.  Again, I need to call on Judd to clarify this.

I hope this helps.

I am perhaps using the wrong word. I see it as two basic types of reactors.

First is the Heavy Water reactor - where water is a part of the reaction. The fuel is lowered into  pool of water and the exothermic reaction takes place. The water is also used for steam. If the water is removed, the reaction cannot continue. More than one fuel can be used - treated Uranium and recycled atomic bomb components being two. Heavy Water (deuterium oxide) is used for the water as it absorbs 100 times less radiation, making it even safer. This method was developed in Canada, and is far safer as meltdowns cannot take place. I have worked on these reactor components  for 25 years.

Second are the solid fuel reactors where all the reaction components are solids and water is used as a coolant and source for steam. The fuels may be different, but the principle remains the same. While my knowledge of them is less, they all share the common risk of meltdown or runaway reactions if the coolant is removed.

These are the ones I called Breeder Reactors as a group - perhaps out of ignorance, although I believe the initial research in the U.S. was on them. I did work on them for a total of two years, including "hot" nuclear work in a shut down reactor. I am very familiar with their Worker Safety Procedures.As I am working off the top of my head I may well have misnamed some of these reactor types, but the principle is common.

THe Chalk River Reactor is not used to produce power and is much different, and much smaller than reactors that produce power.

When the Pickering Nuclear Reactors were shut down, this is because of a report giving them a marginal pass in safety with considerable suggestions by an American auditor. Despite the mass hysteria promoted by the press, there was and is never a danger to the public. This auditor prefaced his excellent report by saying that, had he used the safety standards from his U.S. home, the power station would have easily passed. He then said that he used the much more stringent Canadian standards, resulting in the marginal approval and recommendations. This doesn't mean the American standards are lax, but ours tend towards overkill.

Thanks bunches!!!  :3

I came across an interesting article, taking a look at various energy sources versus deaths per TWH.  Guess which one has the lowest #?  The highest #?

Is coal the highest?

 Thanks Judd!  I knew there were different types, I didn't really know what made them different though.  I also didn't know which ones were where.

Here are some good examples of radiation doses, from a comic (but is pretty ledgit numbers):

xkcd.com/radiation/

I am concerned that the stats for nuclear power seemed to assume that there are few or no deaths related to radiation exposure by miners, processors, or the people living near the sites of old uranium mines such as Uranium City.

They are all monitored by law. Everybody who is exposed to radiation is monitored, including X-ray techs. The old uranium mines are checked regularly. THe more radioactive anb object is, the easier it is to find, Geiger counters are incredibly sensitive.

I believe that radioactivity is also mapped and monitored fron space by several countries. It's easier than Google World showing my house from space.

They are all monitored by law. Everybody who is exposed to radiation is monitored, including X-ray techs. The old uranium mines are checked regularly. THe more radioactive anb object is, the easier it is to find, Geiger counters are incredibly sensitive.

I believe that radioactivity is also mapped and monitored fron space by several countries. It's easier than Google World showing my house from space.

I have a hard time with nuclear energy as a good, clean source of energy - mostly because of the long-term effects.  Let's face it, as wonderfully regulated and anal as the government is right now about watching over radioactive matter, nuclear waste will take EONS to fully break down.  I absolutely agree that solar, wind, geothermal, etc. are not in a position to take over at the moment, and that continued dependence on fossil fuels will only speed up the treadmill until they're gone... but nuclear can't be the only other option, can it?

On the other hand, one of the advantages of nuclear plants became clearer to me a couple years ago when the Chalk River plant closed.  My husband is a PhD student in material chemistry, and he was furious.  Apparently the isotopes that were extracted/collected at the Chalk River plant were crucial to many top pieces of medical and chemical research around the world.  By shutting down the plant, it meant that our own research laboratories had to import the isotopes from other sources, where supply and demand had pushed the prices up to the extreme.  "Of all the plants to close," he muttered.  I could hardly blame his frustration.  For your information, the plant has reopened and is making up for lost time... but I imagine few people rated "medical isotopes" as a major Canadian export.

And thus, I am torn.  I am all for supporting research into medical and scientific fields of study... but I worry about the long-term effect of such plants, and if my great-grandchildren are going to have clean up my mess.

Thorium reactors have the advantage that they can be used to "burn up" nuclear waste from Uranium reactors.

I agree that Thorium is a superior technology. Uranium fission was a good starter technology, but it's well beyond it's usefull life. There are better ways. We don't build computers with charcoal forges.

Ahh the old Commodore 64

I remember it well.

I check news from Japan (There are some sources in English). What I'm reading from there suggests a worse situation than is being reported to us. There is also considerable comment from some engineers, still living, who designed those plants. Several of them resigned from those jobs because they saw dangerously flawed designs being forced on them, presumably to boost the proft margin of the builders.

 Good Article from Bulletin of Atomic Scientists

I can find no escape from Fukushima Daiichi. Words I hoped never to read in a news report, like loss of coolant accident (LOCA), exposed core, hydrogen explosion: Here they are....

We must explain, over and over, the concept of "afterheat," the fire that you can't put out, the generation of heat from fission fragments now and weeks from now and months from now, heat that must be removed. Journalists are having such a hard time communicating this concept because it is so unfamiliar to them and nearly everyone they are writing for. Every layman feels that every fire can be put out. 

Read it at

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/reflections-fukushima-time-to-mourn-to-learn-and-to-teach

Hey,

welcome back, ((((EasternOrthodox))))!

Thank you, InnaWhimsey.  I enjoy your whimsical comments.

But the reactor in Japan is looking worse and worse.  Although the first stage of shut down is complete (the control rods have stopped the main source of fission), they have lost coolant and cannot bring it to "cold shutdown."

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has a daily update at

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/tatsujiro-suzuki/daily-update-japan

Latest sounds pretty bad

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) reported that plutonium (plutonium 238, plutonium 239, and plutonium 240) was found in soil samples taken from five spots within the site. The radioactivity level is the same level as that of fallout from nuclear tests; however, it is believed that two out of the five samples, which detected plutonium 238, are believed to come from this accident.

On the necessity of getting those power plants back online, to avoid more deaths that possibly could exceed those of the earthquake & tsunami combined.

There are also reports of groundwater showing radiation. If so, that's just the start of much worse.

graeme

Thanks for the link.  I heard about the 50/60 Hertz split the other day.  How strange.

Today's news, from WSJ, does not sound too good

...a calculated choice between bad and worse: To meet their goal of keeping reactors cool enough to forestall a nuclear catastrophe, officials appear willing to risk letting some highly radioactive water spill out of vents that are positioned some 50 to 70 yards from the sea.

Here is where I appeal to Judd as someone who can probably best access the information:  How much radioactive material is dumped into the atmosphere each day or week or year by the coal-fired thermal electric plants?  What is the maximum amount of radioactive material that can be released by  one of the reactors that is in trouble?  Ocean currents will distribute this radioactive material over the next few years as broadly as air distributes the radioactive material from coal-fired power plants.

Good questions.  I doubt radioactivity from coal-fired plants could match this, but I am not an expert.  

Here is a discouraging article (especially to us Ring of Fire dwellers)

The unfolding nuclear crisis in Japan seems not to be caused by a tragically flawed reactor design, as with Chernobyl, or an operational lapse, as with Three Mile Island.  Few if any nuclear power systems could have survived the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami without major damage. Lessons will be learned from this disaster that can mitigate damage to nuclear facilities from future earthquakes, but not eliminate the risk entirely.

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/earthquake-90-what-magnitude-might-mean-japans-future

Slightly more encouraging from the same group:

But what of the consequent calamities at four of the six nuclear reactors at Fukushima Daiichi? That too has been a huge disaster but more in industrial than human terms. At the time of this writing there is still no authenticated report of a single member of the public having died because of the radioactivity released, and there have been no reported deaths among the exceptionally brave workers at Fukushima Daiichi, although two people were reported missing as of March 17. Undoubtedly, reports of radiation casualties will emerge in the coming days, but these deaths will likely pale in comparison with the number of people crushed or swept away by the tsunami and earthquake. The crisis at Fukushima Daiichi is not a nuclear "apocalypse," as the European Union's energy commissioner, Germany's chancellor, and Germany's foreign minister recently dubbed it.

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/fukushima-industrial-disaster-not-nuclear-apocalypse

Here's a little information that might help

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/radiation-dosage-ch...

Good chart.  Thanks for the link.

It is confusing that they keep changing the units.  It used to be REMs, now we are hearing about SIEVERTS.

10mSv = 1 rem

I think ehey just wanted to name something for an American.

10mSv = 1 rem

I think ehey just wanted to name something for an American.

Oops - He was a Swede.