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”
Meski
March 15, 2011 at 12:09 pm@Ronin: I’m not really surprised that it failed. You can’t engineer for everything, even if you say you are. A lvl 9 earthquake and tsunami? Yeah, right.
I’m pro-nuclear. THat doesn’t mean I don’t keep potassium iodine tablets around.
twobob
March 15, 2011 at 12:14 pmBoy I hope that they do get the whole thing under control and can effect a cool shutdown.
I find it amazing that there are any advocates of nuclear energy in Aus.
Even if we had the water and the location and we never had one single natural disaster that affected it it would still be an unacceptable idea.
No human society has ever lasted for as long as nuclear waste must be looked after.
No human society has ever lasted for as long as nuclear waste must be looked after.
No human society has ever lasted for as long as nuclear waste must be looked after.
No human society has ever lasted for as long as nuclear waste must be looked after.
No advocate has touch that one with a stick. Ignore it and the nuclear waste will not just go away.
Spain has developed solar power that provides for base load requirements and that will not provide a legacy that our grandchildren’s grandchildren must look after.
The solution is solar and for emergency or other special requirements use a coal fired back up.
Nuclear is madness, sheer bloodyminded, myopic, uncaring, foolish, stupidity, to put it mildly.
Ben Sandilands
March 15, 2011 at 12:15 pmOn developments this hour, I doubt there are enough potassium iodine tablets in the country. Matters seem to gone totally out of control. Serious radiation reported from Ibaraki, half way to Tokyo too.
LizzieA01
March 15, 2011 at 12:15 pm@Mark Duffett. Thanks, it is of course difficult to put the financial & economic arguments for and against various types of technology into a blog comment, so for the sake of brevity assumptions cannot be expounded.
Re the capacity factor assumptions I outlined for wind and solar it is all about location, location, location…. For example, a “good” windfarm in coastal SA or Vic will get 40% annual capacity factor (in fact I understand from AEMO data that a couple of existing windfarms in SA are achieving a consistent 45%, as is one in WA). There are proposed windfarms in NSW and QLD that would be lucky to achieve 35%.
I agree that the 1:1 replacement of coal for nuclear would be better from a transmission point of view as nuke needs 500kV transmission lines. That means that the existing locations would need to be La Trobe valley (Loy Yang specifically) and the Hunter Valley. The issue with these locations would ultimately be the distance from fuel source, and the associated shipping requirements for uranium. This would require a raft of policy and regulatory changes which would need to be driven by a huge amount of political goodwill at both a state and federal level… if we can’t even get our act together on a carbon price this seems very unlikely.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the closest green equivalent to nuke is geothermal. Money should be spent on understanding the barriers to entry for this technology into the Australian electricity market so that we are able to do a direct comparison to nuclear. Having done some consulting work for a potential geothermal generator I understand many of the costs and can say that sans transmission the costs of geothermal are projected to be on par with a CCGT, however that assumes that the right “seams” are struck with only 3 goes at drilling – as that is the most expensive and risky part of the “build”.
As for the cost to the industry, we are getting close to the point of needing to renew a huge amount of electricity industry infrastructure anyway… Victoria in particular has amongst the oldest energy infrastructure in the country, and much of it can’t keep going for more than a decade. So we are faced with a need to replace just to maintain existing capacity, let alone meeting growth. I think once that is taken into account the trillion dollars from beyondzero plans (which I do not necessarily believe are economically feasible anyway) should reduce significantly.
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 12:51 pmTwobob, that may not be true for much longer. See http://www.ge-energy.com/prod_serv/products/nuclear_energy/en/downloads/FINAL_GEA17816_PRISM%20Facts_Ad_%282%29.pdf
If we don’t start making revenue out of storing nuclear waste soon, we’ll miss the opportunity, as the stuff goes from being a liability to being the next big commodity.
To illustrate the hysteria around all things to do with “radiation”, I even remember public health scares against microwave ovens when they first came out, because they “irradiated” your food. The same thing today limits take-up of induction cooking hotplates for homes without gas–a method of electric cooking that is more energy efficient, more useable, and safer than gas, but people won’t go near it because it uses “electromagnetic waves”. At times like this you learn more about people than you do about technology.
ronin8317
March 15, 2011 at 1:06 pmIn the event of an accident, the authorities almost always lies. It happened with the BP Deep Horizon, the Qantas A380 engine explosion, and now the Fuskushima nuclear plant. The facts of the event will only come out months later after some pain staking investigation work. Right now, I doubt even the engineers working at the site knows what is going on.
Whether nuclear power is a viable power alternative is another matter. Personally I believe that the Thorium reactors holds a lot of promise : there are more Thorium than Uranium in the world, it can’t produce weapon-graded plutonium, the waste remains radioactive for 500 years instead of 10,000, and it has an ‘off’ switch which makes nuclear meltdown VERY unlikely. Indian is building a Thorium based nuclear plant right now, however the technology still needs a bit more developing to match Uranium.
Captain Planet
March 15, 2011 at 1:20 pmThe whole world’s energy needs at the present time are in the order of 15- 20 TeraWatts.
For this to be met entirely by nuclear power, allowing for projected expansion of energy needs, the world would have to build a full sized nuclear power station every two days, for the next forty years, non stop. With a lifespan of 40 years per plant, in 2050 we could then breathe a huge sigh of relief, and start replacing all the aging plants…… at the rate of one every day.
in 2008, not one single new nuclear power plant was commissioned.
in 2009, there were two.
That’s a long way short of one every two days.
Nuclear power plants cost around $6 million per MegaWatt of generation capacity, making it one of the most expensive forms of power generating plant you could build.
On Levelised Cost of Energy terms, Nuclear power comes in at around 12 cents per kWh, almost exactly the same cost as hydroelectric, biomass and geothermal power, and fractionally less than wind. Solar thermal still has a way to go but all projections are that within 5 years it will be cheaper than nuclear.
Getting back to that 15 – 20 Terawatts of energy demand …. The Sun pours 120,0000 TeraWatts of energy on the earth 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and is likely to continue to do so for the next 10 billion years. Yep, that’s 10,000 times the entire world’s energy needs.
Economically recoverable Uranium, on the other hand, is likely to run out entirely within 30 years, and certainly within the next 200 years even by the most wildly optimisitic estimates, at CURRENT rates of usage. If we could somehow miraculously speed up the 20 year lead time to build a new nuclear power station, snap our collective fingers and hey presto! the whole world is nuclear…… We would run out of uranium in less than 3 years.
Some solution that turned ou tot be.
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 1:30 pmCaptain Planet, some of the myths you repeat have been busted so many times I won’t even bother. (But you’ve got to love the way Greens make a close study of anti-AGW mythmaking as a way of brushing up on their own anti-nuclear mythmaking.) However, your main argument is an all-or-nothing straw man anyway. Only a fool would propose that the entire world use one and only one way of generating electricity.
twobob
March 15, 2011 at 1:44 pmActually only a fool would be advocating the storage of nuclear waste in their own country, or are you a yank fc?
I notice that you fc are just the same as all others and refuse to address the fact that ;
No human society has ever lasted for as long as nuclear waste must be looked after.
Did you miss that point in your blind advocacy, myopic, uncaring, greedy, foolish, exuberance for accepting ultra toxic pollution?
freecountry
March 15, 2011 at 1:52 pmTwobob, I posted a link which directly challenges your refrain. Did you read it?