It has taken less than three days for Japan’s notoriously dishonest and evasive nuclear industry to concede the seriousness of the crisis affecting the Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini plants NE of Tokyo with six and four reactors respectively. But the ferocious debate over nuclear power that has erupted in the media outside Japan is completely missing several key points.
The first is the failures of “fail safe” cooling processes at each plant is a risk analysis bet gone wrong by Japan’s nuclear power regulators and the Fukushima plant owner Tokyo Electric. And secondly, the calamities unfolding at the nuclear plants will not kill anything like the 10,000 or perhaps far more people now officially believed to have died in the massive tsunami that ravaged low lying areas of Honshu’s northern Pacific coast on Friday afternoon after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurred near Sendai at 2.46pm local time.
This is likely to be true even if several completely uncontained meltdowns of reactor cores were to occur, despite the extreme seriousness of such events.
When the tsunami overwhelmed the separate coastal locations of the Fukushima Daini and Fukushima Daiichi plants, they had already begun shutting down in an automated response to the earthquake, the most powerful ever directly recorded in Japan.
It was the fail-safe back-up cooling processes that failed, because they had deliberately been designed and built to withstand severe yet less extremely severe natural disasters.
This was a money saving risk analysis bet by Japan’s nuclear regulators and the owners that a combination of such an extremely violent earthquake and following tsunami would not occur in its lifetime.
That bet nearly came off. The older Daiichi plant has only weeks to run on its 40-year operating licence and half of its reactors were already offline and are reported to be undamaged in their shut down state.
Until about 9am local time on Saturday, Tokyo Electric, the Japanese government, and nuclear apologistas worldwide were insisting that there had been no meltdowns in the reactors, that there was no risk to public safety and that mass media comparisons to the Chernobyl melt down in 1986 were flawed, which in terms of design is certainly true.
It was even claimed that only if such desperate measures as flooding the reactor cores with sea water took place would the situation be serious.
Shortly afterwards it became apparent that nuclear fuel rods exposed by falling levels of coolant in the Daiichi No 1 reactor were initiating partial meltdown with the release of “slightly” radioactive steam from the reactor bloc and admissions that caesium contamination had been found outside the plant, indicating that the outer layer or cladding of the uranium rods had crumbled and been ejected into the environment during the “harmless” steam releases.
Then the outer retaining walls and roof of the Daiichi No 1 reactor were violently blown to smithereens, a process the Chief Secretary for the Cabinet, Yukio Edano, described as a “roof collapse”.
While the Japan government continued to evade the seriousness of the situation, it was flying in emergency consignments of unspecified coolants, possibly additional supplies of boric acid, which absorbs neutrons and thus acts as a liquid alternative to control rods in a reactor core in which fuel rods and control rods have been partially melted or otherwise damaged to the point where they cannot be used.
The language of officialdom began to shift rapidly from benign soothing evasions to urgency throughout Saturday and yesterday until this morning when Prime Minister Naoto Kan specifically referred to the nuclear plant situations as “grave.”
It appears that up to seven reactor cores, the total that were active in the Fukushima complexes, have been or are about to be flooded with seawater and injected with boric acid, both previously described by nuclear apologistas as “desperate measures” not justified in the post-tsunami crisis. Yet these measures will, according to nuclear scientists, irreparably damage the reactors in the course of shutting them down when all else has failed.
As of this morning the smallest figure given for the number of people in hospital for radiation exposure is 90 and the population at large is being given potassium iodine tablets which will pre-empt the absorbing by the thyroid gland of radioactive iodine particles. The confirmation that radioactive iodine particles had escaped from the Daiichi complex came yesterday afternoon, some 24 hours after the authorities grudgingly conceded the presence of caesium fallout.
In the drip feed of disclosure coming from Tokyo Electric and the government, it is now publicly confirmed that the fuel rods in the Daiichi No 3 unit, which is of most immediate concern and at risk of an explosion, use a combination of plutonium oxide and uranium oxide, not just the uranium that was being used in Daiichi No 1.
The fission process using only uranium fuel does produce plutonium, however the addition of plutonium oxide at the start of the process lifts the output of a reactor while substantially adding to the lethality of the sort of failure that the nuclear industry regulator and Tokyo Electric knew was possible but gambled would not occur.
This morning there was an elevated radiation level emergency declared at the Onagawa nuclear plant, which comprises three reactors, and is 120 kilometres from the NE outskirts of Sendai, compared to about 240km for the nearest Fukushima plant.
These fluctuations at Onagawa are now attributed to fallout from the Fukushima “releases” which is not comforting to those in Tokyo or elsewhere in Japan but is an inevitably that adds to the far more visible and immediate aftermaths of the tsunami.

121 thoughts on “Nuclear myths erupt in Japan”
geomac
March 14, 2011 at 10:24 pmNo-one died in a Nuclear explosion. No-one is going to die from radiation. No-one died from any horror-movie melt-down.
Calm-Dow
Does this comment refer to the article or to the nuclear industry as a whole ? If its about the article then that story has yet to unfold. There are about 90 people that have been hospitalised so far in relation to the nuclear plant. I don,t know there condition is or what the medical complaints are but even a doctor wouldn,t say everything is ok , calm down. A ludicrous comment if about the article and an absurd one if about the industry.
baal
March 14, 2011 at 11:08 pmIt seems to me that the reason why pro-nukers are so keen to downplay danger elements and say the meltdowns prove their fail safeguards are really successful is because they are the ones really terrified of nuclear power. It’s called whistling in the dark.
Flower
March 14, 2011 at 11:34 pm@ Zut Alors: “why not use a little lateral thinking here and reduce the amount used/required by consumers. We all witness flagrant waste of energy every day and night.”
Exactly. How very odd is the fact that Australia’s regulators have imposed water restrictions on its citizens for decades but none on energy use?
Mark Duffett
March 14, 2011 at 11:51 pm@MRJ, “Why are you and your ilk (like Bravenewclimate) so willing to grasp on next-gen nuclear power as the saviour of mankind’s insatiable appetite for power, yet dismissive of any other technology?”
If you were truly familiar with BNC, you’d know the answer to that. And technosolar actually does require a fair bit of water to stay optimally dust-free in desert environments, by the way.
Are you willing to bet civilization that it isn’t?
Oooh, you know how to provoke a man. “Ignorance and pessimism and Ludditism” are of course the defining characteristics of anti-nukes.
Otherwise, what Geoff Russell said.
Flower
March 15, 2011 at 2:04 am@Geoff Russell: “Based on recent experiences in Australia, having insulation put in your roof is far more risky than living next to a nuclear power station during one of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded.”
Give it a rest Geoff Russell. The risk was a result of crooks in the insulation industry. There are heaps of rotting carcasses of morality in the nuclear industry too – the myriad of details lodged in my archives and available on request.
The following information, I can assure you, will not be found on Brave New Climate. Funny that. “And why not?” asks the Australian public. “Look at our collective face,” says the Australian public. “Do you see silly?”:
“The state Department of Environmental Conservation denied Indian Point’s request for a water quality certificate because it said the plant was killing a billion aquatic organisms each year and violating state laws that call for minimizing impacts on the Hudson River.”:
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100404/NEWS/4040341
Climate Change
March 15, 2011 at 7:38 amIt was interesting hearing Julia Gillard on Q&A last night. She said that nuclear was not ALP policy, which we know, but its on agenda at ALP conference.
Whats more interesting is that she floated that Australia could harness all the power it needs and will need from renewables. Tide, Wind, Solar, Thermal. I may have missed one.
Is this true?
jeebus
March 15, 2011 at 7:40 amI’m seeing a lot of personal attacks from both sides in here, along with selective use of facts drawn from who knows where. I’m personally skeptical about whether nuclear power is right for Australia, but it’s mainly because I have more questions than answers.
Perhaps Ben could gather some questions from commenters then find some qualified people to answer them?
Here’s my list –
How much will it cost to set up the industry here? Licensing the technology from foreign companies, procuring the equipment, setting up supply lines, and training/hiring the scientists & technicians to run it all?
What are the hidden costs to taxpayers in terms of subsidies and industry support? Compare how much other nuclear countries pay in grants, tax breaks, debt guarantees, military contracts, supporting infrastructure, decommissioning and waste storage.
How long will it take to recoup the investment, and would the sums still work if we factor in likely continued price drops and increases in efficiency from renewables each year?
What will be the competitive implications in the electricity market of centralizing generation into fewer, larger sources, and would the government have a vested interest in helping a nascent nuclear industry over its competitors?
What are the safety risks and costs involved in war scenarios, terrorism, natural disasters, and rising ocean levels?
LizzieA01
March 15, 2011 at 8:50 am@climatechange you did miss one: geothermal.
Like nuclear it is baseload, and cheap (free) to run once it is going. All the cost is in the setup.
Unlike nuclear it has minimal clean-up costs and a much lower risk of massive human and environmental damage.
We should be SERIOUSLY looking at the various hot rock technologies that are currently being investigated along the East Coast… but to do any of this will take a carbon price, and possible assistance with the extremely high cost of drilling.
*sigh*
Climate Change
March 15, 2011 at 8:53 amHi @ Lizzie,
Yes mentioned thermal.
But will these power sources, power Australia now and in the future if you turn coal generation off?
LizzieA01
March 15, 2011 at 9:26 am@Jeebus
I work in the electricity industry, and I can tell you that the cost of establishing a nuclear industry here in Australia will be prohibitive.
Recent studies done on Gen 4 Nuke Power (currently under construction in Canada and France) suggest that the LRMC (long run marginal cost) of a nuclear power plant in a country with the infrastructure already established is similar to that of large scale solar (with batteries) and certainly more expensive than wind. The LRMC is a standard industry measure used to calculate the cost of operations over the life of a power station, including the amortisation of capital cost and capacity factor (the % of time the plant will run in a year – so baseload is 95-100%, wind in Australia 35 – 40%, solar 45-60% etc). The lives of power stations are technology specific and will vary, but the standard for nuclear is 40 years.
The recouping of investment is essentially done over the life of the plant: in this case 40 years, hence the need for regulatory certainty. Current wholesale power prices in Australia are in the region of $40/MWh/pa (flat all hours average), hence a nuke would need a carbon price north of $100/tonne to get the power price high enough to justify a build. Nuke is not eligible for RECs at the moment so is reliant on a pass-through % into the power price. This means that it would be best built in Victoria where the average tonne of Co2-e per MWh is higher than any other state (very close to 1 tonne / MWh here compared to 0.8 in NSW). This would move over time and reduce as very green generation comes on ands changes that balance, so a nuke would need a guarantee or “top-up” from government in order to be viable over 40 years.
Re your question on centralising generation: generation in Australia is already fairly centralised on a state by state basis, usually clumped around coal resources. The issue of centralisation is probably worth another post in its own right, but suffice to say that the transmission infrastructure required for any nuke is HUGE. As 50% of current household bills is for transmission and distribution, the add-on cost of transmission for nuke would be prohibitive.