On The Fukushima Nuclear Situation
A reader suggests that we should have a post about the current Fukushima nuclear power plant situation, calling for me to bring this whole thing into perspective.
I reply…
Thanks so much for the note. I deeply appreciate the trust and respect you have placed in me. But the truth is that I don’t have any greater insight into the extent and ramifications of this disaster than anyone else, and thus I feel that I have no value to add here.
Of course, I could point out that the millions of people (of whom I’m only one) who have been warning the world about the dangers of nuclear power were right — as if that makes anyone feel better. It goes without saying that I’m not into that. In the last few days, I’ve had people from all over the world emailing me about this, a few of them obviously in tears as they wrote. The world is in a state of shock and mourning, as well it should be.
I’m reminded of the BP oil spill, where some of my friends simply couldn’t understand why I wasn’t “capitalizing” on it. In truth, there’s nothing to capitalize on. It’s a disaster, period, and I think that more or less everyone understands this.
Like Chernobyl, the radius of the circle we draw around Fukushima will be hotly debated. And like the BP oil spill, industry spokespeople will attempt to minimize their culpability and the damage to the credibility of the nuclear program as a whole.
But, to the point: Does the disaster bring us all closer to an understanding of the imperative to migrate to clean energy? I hope so. Can I explicate it any further or better than what you’re seeing and reading? No, sorry.
In the last year, we’ve had the BP situation, the $8.6 billion judgement against Chevron in Ecuador, the bloodshed in Northern Africa in reaction to the exploitation that was enabled by oil money, and now, the nuclear catastrophe in Japan. If this succession of events fails to make the case for renewable energy, I hate to imagine what will.
Again, I appreciate your trust and friendship. But, outside of offering my most sincere sympathies, I’m out of words. I’m afraid the facts speak for themselves.
What a bewildering series of epic disasters….
This world was made as a separation from the truth. The ego is born in it. It is illusion we made in thot. The idea we can learn better by studying an illusion harder or more intently will make, at best, a more preferred illusion. There are many non-hidden costs to the illusion. All will bring pain and suffering and death in the end. Yet the answer is ready for all to see. It is not in this world you think you see because it is not of this world. Only by looking beyond this illusion can one see another world, where all is clearer and happiness is your right.
This world is a trick of the mind. It will fall away when you decide to forgive it and not see it at all. Many will raile in protest of what I’ve written. That is OK. The world you see with your bodies eyes may be your choice. But there is seeing of the mind and it is not what you think at all.
The mind is a biodynamic computer that has the ability to reconfigure itself. It functions depending on the operating system it chooses to arrange the thoughts it chooses to use and value. They decide what it sees and what is real. Your view of the world you see with the bodies eyes is an inner perception of an outer condition. You arrange miltitudes of facts to support your beliefs about it. None of it is real.
Mr. Craig,
As Milton wrote in his poem PARADISE Regained “MORE THINGS ARE WROUGHT BY PRAYERS THAN THE MORTAL world EVER DREAMS OF ” My sincere prayers go out to JAPAN on this day of a World tragedy.
As a TECHNOLOGIST I wish we devote more time and money to research on Nuclear Energy and make it safe before using it, as this is the only technology suited as a short term means for the global demand for Energy.
Yes, you should make your report
Wish you luck
Shrinivas
Craig,
you are right. With every incoming news headline our hope in a good ending for the peolpe in Japan and the world decreases, leaving us so helpless. It is paralysing that four power plants are about to meltdown and all we can do is learning from it. And hope this disaster will finally brings us all closer to an understanding of the imperative to migrate to clean energy.
Anyone who wants “renewable/alternative” energy to become the main source of all energy, needs to remember one thing. Oil did not become the “standard” overnight. For any “changeover” to take place, conservation needs to become commonplace.
Second, there needs to be replacement, not a just a straight change. Too often the problem of replacing what is in place already, is just taken care of with “hand waving.” Like it or not, the current system is there because it works, and is needed now.
Mass transit works only in highly population dense areas, that is, at best *10%* of the country. Too often, solutions are like replacing generators of MegaWatt capacity, with D cells. The East and West Coasts are not the whole country. Solutions have to work as well in D.C., as they do in Missoula Mn.
Forcing the wrong solutions on a nation of 300+ Million, can result in an enormous death toll, and destruction of everything. Good solutions have to be easy to use, as cheap (or cheaper) than current solutions, and work everywhere.
You are absolutely right. We need a national, federal committment to alternative energy, perhaps like the committment we all made to send a man to the moon, back in the 60s.
Indeed some years ago in a CNN documentary You Have Been Warned
impact of rising energy cost and natural disasters impact upon the World economy. It simply horrible is should be a Wake -Up call.
For an accurate and indepth look at the situation in Japan (without media hype) google DR. Joesf Oehmen…read it more than once,read it until it’s fully understood. Then watch out for all of the “chicken littles” infront of a TV camera or immitation journalists who rant with no knowledge of the subject(nothing new here). Maybe Jessie Jackson will visit Japan and solve their porblems.
Just my opinion, but the intense focus on the validity of nuclear power at this stage of the tragedy seems almost insensitive. The natural events have led to death and injury to many tens of thousands of people and may financially cripple an already disadvantaged nation. The nuclear site damages are still evolvoing. The facts are not even known, and the utility consistently contradicts itself. Even when the time comes to analyze the facts, the design of the system in Japan must be compared to current designs and current procedures.
I’m not a fan of nuclear power mainly due to its cost and the fact that in nearly every instance, taxpayers and not private insurers must back the owners and utilities in case of serious events. However, it strikes me as more emotional than rational the way many have jumped to paint the entire industry with a brush whose color we can’t even determine – ?? – not sure that’s a great analogy. But, in essence, it seems way too early to draw any conclusions about the current state of design and therefore the current risks. The future risks are even more obscure just yet.
However, to entirely abandon nuclear power may or may not be very costly and very risky. I say that because there is little evidence yet that we can smoothly transition to the level of renewable energy penetration necessary to replace the ageing nuclear systems on top of the organic growth of RE to meet demand. Hypothetically, if the demand for certain renewable techonlogies tripples overnight, what happens to material costs, for one example? Without getting into the weeds, already there is concern about price and availability of rare earth materials and silicon to name two.
It just seems premature to draw conclusions. Asking questions and planning the future analysis makes sense, however.
Nuclear power is not going away any time soon.
Engineering design specifications for earthquake damage prevention and mitigation will have to be strengthened considerably.
We need base line power generation that coal and nuclear can provide.
Those who want to pull back and limit our future to solar and wind will need to be forthcoming in how we can fill in the valleys when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
The power grid structure will need to be overlaped and computer controlled to share energy across geographic and political borders if we have to depend on intermittent sourcing.
We can’t get new power lines through without a lot of bitching from “environmentalists” who do not live off-grid in tents around campfires. Even solar panels in the dessert face opposition from the folks who think the dessert tortise will become endangered.
We need a national energy policy that points us toward a future with clean power that does not reduce our grid to that of a 3rd world country. Nuclear power can be part of that future if we apply the lessons we will learn from Japan to the U.S. reactor safety protocol.
Larry Lemmert Wautoma, WI
Larry,
Iagree in toto with you.
The root cause was the earthquake of 8.9 Magnitude.
Was it natural ? My opinion says no it is MANMADE.
MAN in his search for a better life on earth is fiddling with disaster. The oil that is fueling the world economy is crude that is removed from the eart core. I understand that sea water replaces the oil removed. Weight wise and geo thermal wise this is not wise.
In my country India eartquake has become prominent in HUGE DAM areas because of the impounding of huge mass of water.
This is the price we pay for the development of our economy .
Currently we have no immediate solutions.
Regards
Shrinivas
Craig I could not agree with you more. I hope the disaster in Japan won’t have any negative influence on the speed of EV becoming avalable.
Regards Oktavian
“Capitalizing” on this disaster is not very human-like. But we must point out that where you build the nuclear plants and what do you do with the nuclear waste, makes one question whether this is a feasible form of energy production. We should take a stance not to build any more nuclear power plants and focus our attention on a military-like campaign to unite the best-in-class of renewable energy, especially solar, wind, wave and biofuels on one platform or in one area.
Keep up the good posts, wish you the best in your endeavors.
Ira
Tampa, FL
Sadly, it’s not that simple. I live in New England, a progressive stronghold politically speaking, and it is near impossible to get wind farms, biomass, and certain solar facilities built. Onshore wind and solar are not sufficiently efficient here, in addition. And where wind resources are quite plentiful, offshore, there is huge resistance. Search the web for Cape Wind, which has been contested for approximately 10 years if you don’t know about it already. All the policies in the world will not reduce the NIMBY tendencies, nor the efforts of those who do not see the upside of bringing the renewable energy industry to a greater level of maturity. Just as an example, the full capital cost of Cape Wind will be increased by nearly 10% due to the cost of delays, both legal at time value of money.
Hello everybody,
in light of unthinkable disasters such as this one we really need to understand them in order to learn from them and ultimately prevent them. With regards to your comments and requests you will be happy to know we have posted a summary of the situation here: http://2greenenergy.com/fukushima-nuclear-power/11800/
best regards
VM
Obviously we have to pay more attention to safety at nuclear power plants. I don’t see doing so as being insensitive to the suffering of the Japanese people, but rather, as a matter of facing reality.
As I see it, we are stuck with nuclear power; no other available technology will eliminate the pollution which occurs with burning fossil fuels and also prevent climate change resulting from CO2 emissions while still providing sufficient power at a cost that is politically acceptable. Total safety is never possible; a meteorite could strike a nuclear plant, and there would be nothing we could do to prevent such an unlikely event from causing a disaster. However, there is much we can do to improve safety, and we should.
In the Japanese situation, the back-up Diesel generators required for emergency cooling were knocked out of commission by the tsunami. Perhaps the same thing could occur at the two California San Onofre nuclear reactors since they are on the coast; that should be looked into.
All reactors should have a totally passive emergency cooling system, i.e., one which would not require power to operate. The new Westinghouse design has such a feature and, had they been available when the Japanese built their reactors, they wouldn’t be having these problems.
It would be better if we shifted away from uranium reactors and used liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) instead. They have a number of advantages, including lower cost and improved safety. The Chinese are working to develop them to use instead of uranium reactors and, unless we get on the ball, they will get ahead of us. For more information on LFTR technology, check the following links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU3cUssuz-U&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSzEjWz5T44&feature=player_embedded#at=16
may God have mercy on the world the best solution to this devastating situation is to seek Divine intervention psalm 46: 1-5
Please read this gives the full technical details updated by MIT http://mitnse.com/
U.S. Fears Japan’s Crisis Could Be Worse Than Chernobyl
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-send-special-nuclear-team-japan-nuclear-regulatory/story?id=13148044&page=2
These are engineering challenges. Can be handled if the International Scientific and Engineering community assistance is allowed into Japan right at the beginning. Even now as the plants can no longer usable best is to cover with sand bags and pour concrete as the last resort before situation becomes uncontrollable. The decision makers have to be properly convinced first!
Disasters are often “black swan” events but also cases of poor engineering. Standards will improve. US plants may get delayed. But a lot of nuke plants will be built in the world.
In the mean-time the world must press ahead on all viable renewable sources of energy (& clean water). Coal pollution is killing more people than nuke power plants have or likely will.
It seems utterly wrong that the Japanese people should be put through this when all they want to do is start picking up the shattered pieces. Too early to say what the long-term historical consequences will be in terms of future energy supplies, but FWIW In think this may be a game changer. Meanwhile let’s all hope they get on top of the situation at Fukushima soon with no further damage or drama.
I’m putting solar on my house today. I’m done with power companies .
If you want to be done with power companies, fine. Then don’t connect to the grid to provide power when the sun is not shining and your batteries have become discharged.
It seems pretty obvious by now that the six reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were not designed for an 8.9 quake and subsequent tsunami, nor did the design anticipate the cascade of failures that followed (and are following). This lack of disaster preparedness at the design level cannot be countenanced no matter what the cost, and costs in this instance were apparently a decisive factor: according to The New York Times (3-17-11 A12), these are Mark I reactors, a cheaper, “less robust” design. And officials thought this was a good idea in a seismically active area?
I’ve been writing about energy issues for nearly 30 years and I believe nuclear power plants can function safely. But the worst-possible scenario must be respected and the plant designed, built, operated, and disaster-planned against such an occurrence.
As others have said, we’ll need nuclear energy for the foreseeable future. Let’s make sure we do it right.
While it may be proper to discuss the misinformation being spread about the Japanese reactors, or to question the opportunism of using events in Japan (and elsewhere) to make a case for alt-power, all of that misses the point.
Even under the worst case economic scenario for the next 4-5 decades, the increase in demand for electrical power will be such that existing conventional sources, planned conventional sources, AND the rosiest projections for alt-power, will barely be sufficient to meet that demand.
I’m not talking about all the power you want at reasonable prices, I’m talking about barely enough generating capacity to keep brownouts and rolling blackouts from being a fact of everyday life.
For alt-power to meet, and hopefully someday exceed the rosy projections needed to meet its portion of future demand, virtually every one of the alternative technologies still need dramatic advances to be grid-friendly and commercially scaled.
One example of this is the concept of using existing wind turbine electric generation technology to electrolyze hydrogen from ambient air at the turbine site, thus converting wind energy into a storable, controllable, grid-friendly power source.
Rather than using events in Japan to wag a disapproving finger at nuclear power, or to make a case for forcing not-ready-for-prime-time alternatives into existence, this episode should give alt-power promoters the wake-up call to stop pushing incomplete technology, and start building the mousetrap that actually works better in real-world use.
Considering the awesome power of nature, and the fragility of the façade that mankind has assembled upon the surface of the planet, this is a horrendous example of why rapid expansions of compassion, cooperation and wise planning are all desperately needed among our species.
Concerning the continued use and proliforation of fission for energy production… the costs are excessive, the free market won’t support it, the private insurers won’t ensure it, and the carbon trade off (given the entire plant cradle to grave energy use from construction and fuel refining to decomissioning) is within a few points of nil. Whatever safety measures are put in place, the industry will always lobby to minimize them (like the agreement that a simultaneous failure of external grid power and deisel generators is ‘non-credible’ as has just been proven in Japan with abhorrant results). As long as we have a plant design where human error/natural disasters/terrorism can release a deadly carcenogenic genie over the land for centuries, we should only use other alternatives. Thorium reactors are still in their infancy and unproven; I’ve yet to see a thorium grid project floated.
A series of 100 solar thermal plants 10 miles on a side across our sunbelt, each equipped with molten salt energy storage, can supply all our electricity needs day and night in all seasons – this isn’t fantasy, it’s well proven, safe, and fairly simple technology using abundant resources: concrete, steel, glass and salt.
Such a large scale project as that string of solar plants is not at all beyond our national capacity. We took people to the moon and back – several times. The space shuttles are each assembled from about 2.5 million parts. Just 400 Americans have more wealth than 155 million of us combined. The hurdles in front of a green grid (leafy green, not glowing green) aren’t tecnological or financial – they’re political and ethical. Is our national will incapable of a wise decision?
Thought and action – combine them for your children!
Got email this morning warning that as easy energy becomes more depleted and/or insufficient, new energies will involve more and more risk and cost. I replied that is likely unless we do what some of us have already done, namely, REDUCE SUBSTANTIALLY how much energy we use while simultaneously converting at least some of what’s left to renewables. As I have commented before, I converted my own office to OFF-GRID – PV + batteries – after first cutting my power needs by 75%. We’ve also added solar space and water heating, but only after first adding a huge volume of insulation and airtightness, also reducing our hot water use, both done to reduce the cost of our required solar.
ASES and SEIA both said on NPR that current solar and wind (implemented w/o storage or simultaneous load reductions) are not reducing baseload electric demand (i.e. coal & nuke gens). Having talked to a few operators of baseload (coal-fired) generators in my region, all describe their units as usually operated “flat-out” for as long as 2 yrs uninterrupted between maintenance cycles. So our current focus on just “supply-side” RE is leaving us fully dependent on coal (and nuke in other regions) for baseload electricity. Even in KY with the lingering recession, while industrial electricity use is down several % points, commercial and residential electricity use is up, and not by a small %. Amazing that even in recession we are growing our electricity demand. This is crazy and unnecessary.
Almost every major book or article about renewable energies prior to 2000 talked abt reducing energy use and demand before or while transitioning to renewables. However, none of our current popular programs are following this advice. While building programs like LEED and EnergyStar aim for 30% or less reductions, these are predictions, not actual outcomes. Neither program actually asks new designs to limit how much load they exert on the grids. In Cincinnati, I’ve seen LEED-certified homes built to min-code standards. LEED is achieved with grid-tied storage-free PVs + geothermal HVAC. In other words, no actual reduction in energy use, just some fancy high-cost offsets. This is an awful avoidance of the opportunity we have when building something new, where we could actually build-in huge reductions in how much energy is needed. I
‘ve suggested in writing to DOE and USGBC about focusing more on limiting grid-connected load, but so far I’ve gotten no response. In my own designs, I impose voluntary limits on electric HVAC, namely how many kWs or amps per sf of conditioned space. Since my home’s electric utility system is “winter-peaking”, its system peaks occur before sunrise on cold winter days, which is typical in northern heating-dominated regions as well as rural areas where AC is less dominant. Best way to cut electric load in this situation is to reduce heating load, not installing grid-tied PVs without storage. My utility recently announced it wanted 200 mW in new gen capacity (coal-fired). That’s equivalent to 40,000 all-electric homes each with 5 kW less resistance heating behind their heatpumps. Only 44% of KY homes have ngas, Tennessee homes only 36%. The result is huge amounts of electric heat. And yes, there is high-load resistance electric behind every heatpump, even geothermal heatpumps, since heatpumps in cold climates seldom handle the entire heating load.
So while we’ll likely need lots of coal and nuke power for a long time, the only way to affordably transition away from so much of it is to reduce our loads. This isn’t new information, but it’s not being said by our current leaders and RE groups. I was shocked to see that in Ohio where RE subsidies are rampant, close exam of the PUC’s own predictions show it expects demand for electricity to grow 30x the hoped-for implementation rate of PV over the next 15 yrs. We should be focusing on how to reduce that rate of growth. We should measure progress not by how much RE we implement, but how much less energy we need, personally and collectively. Reduce both usage AND load AND emissions.
As for EVs, I recently created a chart comparing efficient oil-fired with electric vehicles. Since electricity is cheaper in KY than gas per energy content, many EV proponents like an EV’s low cost per mile. And EV retailers advertise “zero emissions”, misleading consumers and advocates. In my coal-fired region, CO2 per mile goes way up with even the most efficient EV, compared to a 30+ mpg oil-fired vehicle. Most new EVs are heavy behemeths trying to compete with oil-fired luxury models. It’s our supposed desire to ride around in living-room luxury that is making most of our current EVs rather poor options for those of us who want to move away from oil but also lower CO2 emissions.
I cut my own driving by one-third and improved my vehicle avg mpg by almost two-thirds since the oil crisis of the 1970s. This means I’ve cut my transportation oil use and CO2 by whopping amounts, yet I’m just driving a manual transmmission non-hybrid compact. This shows how progress doesn’t even need particularly high or expensive technology.
If huge numbers of Americans simply did as I and many of my clients have, we’d have regularly dropping demand for energy, far lower energy cost and much cleaner energy already. The onus for this does require choosing to live, act and buy with focus on becoming much less dependent on such high amounts of energy.
Aside from all that, we should also acknowledge that putting multiple nukes or high numbers of solar panels in high-risk earthquake or tsunami zones is just plain stupid. If TEPCO had sited 10,000 mW of PVs in the same place, all the expensive PVs would have been washed out to sea by that scale of tsunami. So the greatest fault is the initial design and siting of those nukes, especially having so many in the same high-risk location! These were bad decisions regardless of the technology, even if the recent cooling failures hadn’t occurred. Shows either recklessness or blind trust in technology and experts. Americans, all technologies have achilles heels and no experts know how to predict the future accurately. Stop putting so much blind trust in high tech and expertise. Become a participant in solutions which you understand and can enact at your own levels.
Many times it is not the Technical Experts who take the decisions.
There are political corrupted leaders who creat the problems.
All safety reports are normally bypassed/manipulated inorder to make quick bucks.
Lokking at all the possibilities I strongly recommend not to go for Nuclear Power Plant anywhere in the world.
Eventhough we have excellent knowledge on fire , still fire accidents are occuring (whatever may be the reason) but fortunately the losses due to fire are much less compare to the failure of Nuclear Power Plants.
P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@gmail.com
If molten salt solar energy can supply all of our energy needs, why have multiple projects never moved past the demonstration scale?
Please spare us any of the conspiracy theories.
Just because something works in a lab or a demo project, doesn’t mean it can be scaled up to real-world application.
Touch-screen technology was virtually non-existent 20 years ago. It didn’t require government intervention or a taxpayer cash infusion to get to the point where a major portion of the world’s population uses that technology today on a daily basis.
So yes, the problems are technical and financial. Questioning the politics, ethics and wisdom of those who disagree with a position indicates the inability to make the argument on the technical merits.
Stop with the “Field of Dreams” and get busy on the “Better Mousetrap.”
For the children!
When ever there has been conversation concerning nuc’s the one thing usually brought up isn’t their over all safety (until now) but what to do with the waste. I read a statement somewhere that is so profound : We will never get rid of nuclear energy- even if we shut down all the plants in the world; the waste already created will require many life times of management, even into those distant times where the unknown rules. We don’t even know if the containment will last the half life. Nuclear issues are here forever.
I like the “mouse-trap” analogy! Because we don’t ask scientists and engineers to design them, then incentivize corporations with huge subsidies to implement them for us. We don’t lobby for tax breaks or grants to buy them.
While presenting on efficiency opportunities a couple years ago, one attendee said he didn’t like the light given off by a CFL. I responded by asking him if he preferred the increased pollution from coal associated with the increased electric demand to operate incandescent bulbs. He had no come-back.
I replaced over 70 incandescent bulbs in my home with CFLs and LEDs. This represented over 3.1 kW of reduced electric demand, implemented at abt 6 cents per watt on average. I admit I never turn all those bulbs on at one time, so I didn’t actually achieve 3.1 kW in load reduction. However, I visit many homes and businesses regularly, seeing an astounding number of both old and new inefficient lights. One homeowner had black lampshades with 200 watt lightbulbs. I suggest CFLs but she said none were bright enough. DUH! So I suggested replacing the shades. She refused.
Americans, learn to think about the costs of generation. New coal-fired powerplants cost over $3 per watt just to build, before any fuels or salaries are added to operate them. PVs cost $4 or $5 per watt just for the panels, before installation costs. There are many very low cost and consumer-scale energy solutions which reduce powerplant load and our own utility bills! Some solutions don’t reduce our own bills much, but are way cheaper than powerplants when measured in $ per watt. In other words, CFLs at 6 cents per avoided watt (relative to incandescents) are 50 times lower cost than coal-fired powerplants even if you only use the bulb for a few minutes per day (not enough to get much of a personal payback). If it’s cheaper than coal-fired, it’s certainly cheaper than PV or nuke!
Somehow we need to embrace energy load reductions as like mousetraps, stuff we can and should be doing en masse all around our nation. “De-watt” and “down-watt” ought to be new popular phrases. Or “de-amp” or “down-amp”. One of my Ohio students recently moved to Riverside CA where there’s an unavoidable customer charge per 100-amps at the main. One county rural electric coop in Ohio has recently begun charging per amp at the main if over a certain amount. Just consider that our “grid” is a 100% real-time thing, in that generators much crank out all the watts you need RIGHT NOW, whenever you want it. So use as few watts as you can, especially during utility peak periods.
Had to laugh recently when I heard a presenter tell abt a “net-zero” home with a roof full of PVs (4 kW I think) and a solar thermal water heating system. Home was all-electric. I about fell off my chair when she said the backup water heater was “tankless”. Americans, a tankless electric water heater uses abt 3x as many amps or watts as a standard tank model. Sure, it has no tank heat losses so saves the consumer money. But it puts 3x as much electric load on the utility. More than that, in the net-zero home being presented, it was almost 3x as much electricity as the PV system could put out on the sunniest day.
This shows how important it is to use less AND demand less. In electricity, use is kWhs. Demand is kWs. A kW is how much electric for one second. Many utility rates (esp commercial and industrial) bill for kWs and kWhs. So pay attention to both. In a real-time situation, if you want to reduce demand for generation, reduce your watts. It’s often as simple as turning stuff off and using only the lowest-watt lightbulbs. If recharging your EV, pick the slower charge rate and find out how to avoid your local utility’s peak demand period. These are all mousetrap-scale consumer decisions we can all make!
In Greater Cincinnati, served by Duke Energy for electricity, the largest powerplant (coal-fired) is Zimmer, rated at 1300 mW. That’s 1,300,000,000 watts or 1.3 billion watts. I read somewhere that Duke serves over 800,000 households in the area. Divide the powerplant watts by number of households: 1.3 billion divided by 800,000 = 1625 watts. If 800,000 households organized and cut 1625 watts, or 1.625 kW, the system would lose enough electric load to shut that plan off. Without any brownouts or blackouts. We need to think like this. Identify the powerplants you want to turn off or shutdown, do the math, then figure out how many people have to cut how much. Many repeating small amounts add up to huge amounts!
Regarding the CFLs, as I understand it, “Power Factor” (it’s a deeply geeky concept, Wiki it if you want to know more) makes the CFLs less efficient than their published watt rating implies. I’m skipping the CFLs for the most part and going right to LEDs. Pricey, yes, but better in the long run.
Smart reductions in power consumption, without going total hairshirt, do represent a big opportunity to reduce demand, and also some realistic applications for alt-power.
Why connect the motor load of an attic fan to the grid, when a decent PV connected directly to the fan motor (no batteries) will power the device whenever it needs to run? Or how about using a home-scale wind turbine to directly pump well water into a cistern?
Just as there are alt-power generation technologies that are incompatible with grid demands, there are more than a few devices that don’t necessarily require grid-spec power.
These concepts aren’t as sexy as 100 miles of solar panels, nor do they score political points, but they do offer real-world potential.
“Appropriate technology” was once a popular phrase among us energy experts. It meant trying to use the lowest-scale and least complicated energy solution for every application. As you say, using a PV-powered attic fan instead of a nuke or coal-fired generator on the grid. Similarly, I used a small PV to run a DC pump for my solar water heater instead of an AC grid-connected coal-powered pump. Even more simple and inexpensive, I’ve worked in my office all day today and not turned on even 1 lightbulb even though they are all efficient bulbs. I prefer DAYLIGHT which is very low-cost solar energy. Nice light levels and color too!
Got a call last night by one of my old high school friends calling from DC, asking me if I recalled godzilla in the old movies. Godzilla was an creature created by radioactivity, as we recalled. We both wondered why nobody’s talking about radioactivity increases in the sea? But seeing those sometimes quirky videos of heavily-suited nuke-plant workers trying to deal with the situation made me also think of how humans tried to deal with godzilla. Seemed like humans just couldn’t deal with godzilla. Now it seems like those out-of-control nukes are beyond the abilities of the nuke-plant workers. Made me think of how ‘inappropriate technologies’ those nukes may be. As one person posted above, that Mark I unit is piled full of ‘spent fuel’, more rods in 1 place than would even be in a working reactor. Watched a program last night which said it takes more than 10 yrs for the rods to cool down (temperature-wise) enough to be moved off-site. Then another many centuries before the high grade radioactivity degrades. Adds to the question of “appropriate technology” since it’s unlikely we’ll even be using fision nukes in the 31st century, yet we’ll need to monitor and guard these spent fuels to keep them from getting into hands of terrorists. Seems a few magnitudes more risky than multi-trillion-dollars deficit spending. Suggests the current corporate and political culture just hasn’t much foresight or concern for the future.
My business is abt individuals and small businesses, not corporations or politics. There is so very much we can do at the grass-roots level to lower our use, demand and pollution, whether it’s our homes or buildings or vehicles. If we could implement millions of small reductions at the grass-roots levels, we’d need far less of the big-scale solutions. Even hang-drying laundry instead of using the coal- or nuke-fired dryer saves 4 or 5 kW in demand. What’s a clothesline cost? $5 or $10? So many low-cost solutions…
The power factor of some CFLs is as low as 50%, meaning they exert as much as double the demand as the watt rating on the package. Still less than incandescent. And power factor is not just a problem with CFLs. If you have one of those “Kill-A-Watt” meters, it can measure the power factor for you, easy.
BTW, power factor is only a problem with AC power, not ever a problem with DC. I wired my off-grid office for both AC and DC. My most continuous power use is computers, small bulbs, all-in-one office machine and phone answering machine. ALL WANT DC POWER!!! Those little black boxes convert 120 volts AC down to small volts DC. Like my Dell laptop wants 19 volts DC. I have batteries, being off-grid. So I actually save a few watts by using a “step-up voltage converter” which takes 12 volts DC and pushes it upto 19 volts DC. This saves energy because otherwise I’d need to convert the battery DC to 120 AC then back to 19V DC. I eliminate 1 step, saving a few watts. Same thing with the answering machine. And no power factor issues. Appropriate technology 001, with many small solutions adding up to bigger savings in how much solar and batteries I needed to buy.
Imagine all the battery-power mowers and yard tools which could be directly charged on PV without any grid connection! I charge every electric yard tool I have directly, no grid. Heck I even charge our household MP3s, cellphones and beard trimmer with PV, no grid. I don’t even own an AC cellphone charger. Imagine if all 110,000,000 American households did stuff like this! I’m not kidding, there are countless tiny ways to cut dependence on the grids, and they’d all add up if we all did them. Consider the opposite, like all the tiny electric loads we’re regularly adding, especially little stuff we now charge everyday. Most of that is DC stuff. If 110,000,000 households add just 10 watts of teeny tiny loads, that’s 1100 mW of new powerplant demand! Nukes, coal-fired gens or even grid-connected PVs are inappropriate technologies for teeny tiny DC loads like cellphones or MP3. But most folks are doing it, and the utilities keep on building more powerplants to keep up. Crazy.
Okay, if the battery pack were drained out of juices, all it takes is to send a nuclear power submarine or a carrier close enough to the coastline and bring a power cable to fire up the generator.
Hi Craig:
Its the same old, same old really from the nuke side….
Horrible actually, way beyond words, even images for the human element…
As far as the Nuke side, no surprise… It was just a question of time before another accident… You cannot make any reactor safe because the energy is in the fuel. That is why it is called a fuel. Solar, wind , geo, tidal, etc have no potential energy, that is why they are inherently safe. No matter how you design, there will be some set of circumstances that will come together and cause a catastrophe. Its not whether it will happen, simply when, where and how bad.
But, in this country, money has been promised which is way more important than human lives, unfortunately … Base load can be accomplished with a combination of all renewables and storage, that is fact. But, that is not where the money has been allocated. RE subsidies in this country are still just the “tip” paid to the waitress, not the main bill. Until it is, it will just keep dribbling along…..
…..Bill
Hi craig
WE should soon come out with equations for every man caused disaster . The same Physicst ,Scientist will be the best to let us know the end result because only they know what quantities ,chemicals and by products they have injected to this system and they can come up with a equation that tells us in case of a worst case scenario accident this nuclear plant will generate xxx atomic energy and that will inject into the sea xxx atoms that will futer cause a fusion that will melt down to xxx and for the atmoshere xxx will be the fallout and the a introduction of uranium238 and hydrogen and water will not only cause radition but deplete the nitrogen levels causing a new exodus of chain reactions man does not need comin in the form of rain and is dry swept by the winds at high speed all over the region not specifically to japan
Sometimes i wonder why we have to spend hundreds of hours upto University and then be part of a group that enginer so much destruction and death beter not to school ,be green plant vegetables or grow trees for a living
I am glad I am happy with God’s own nuclear power plant, the sun & wish others would see that as well. Veils need to be pierced so the sun can shine in though, as much as our energy, mental, spiritual and probably financial needs to be directed towards positive outcome in Japan. One world. Go for clarity!
Excellent thoughts Craig – well done. I like your humility and I share in your sadness, and the world’s.
we have to introduce the solution it is the time for rethinking ? it is time to sow real capacity
The failure of these Nuclear Power Plants teach us that we should never plan any new Nuclear Power Plant in the world anywhere.
May be we should plan to have Nuclear Power Plant on moon using robot technology.
P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@gmail.com
Just as nuclear industry spokespeople try to minimize their culpability and the damage to the credibility of the nuclear program as a whole, most RE and all anti-nuclear spokespeople try to make it worse than it is. It is funny to me how every environmental expert and Greenpeace member, 90% of which are uneducated in the issue, are also nuclear plant and radiation experts. Just as renewable energy has its place to fill so does nuclear power, and if less money is spent convincing these uneducated people, with time to waste complaining all the time, that nuclear power is safe, more money can be spent making these plants even safer than they already are. If they use the time they waste to actually contribute to some economy instead of sitting in front of the TV they can also improve and not try to break down technologies. I am glad to hear that you see this as a disaster, because I am sure that most RE companies are seeing this disaster as an opportunity to spread nonsense about nuclear power and capitalize.
When you read the news and watch interviews on TV, the people that are spreading the bad news are almost doing it with a smile on their face, probably laughing, seeing it as a personal victory against the nuclear industry, saying “Ha ha, I have won”. But, in all honesty the nuclear issue is the smallest component of the disaster. If you look at the pictures the only buildings standing are the nuclear buildings. Everything else is destroyed. Why are sky scrapers not built with the same purpose, to keep it standing through any disaster, we could have avoided for example 911 and saved much more lives than what the nuclear industry has taken to date. Many lives in this disaster would have been saved.
Hi Gerhard:
WE all are not uneducated, pal… I have been in the hard science all my life.
Nukes still standing??? !,,, I should hope so!!!
RE capitalizing on this situation!! They had better!! That’s what the other side has been doing, !!! And far, far worse…
The fact is simple, if anyone of those plants goes completely to _HIT, the area will be uninhabitable !!! Name one other conventional or RE energy source on the planet where that is physically possible???
ANSWER >!!!!!!!!!!!!!
…and if that doesn’t happen, it will be a combination of LUCK and the fact that faceless 50+ people have decided to commit suicide to help to avoid it. If I had my way, I would pickup all those people like you, who tout the reasonableness of Nuclear energy, and drop you into the #3 reactor and let you take a good deep breath of Cesium 137 and Plutonium 239. Then on your death bed, as you lie there with Radiation poisoning so severe, it has you looking unrecognizable, we will see if your view has changed…
END OF DISCUSSION>>
…..Bill
PS: I had put greater than, less than symbols around some words in my last comment. Those words did not show up. You can figure out what they were…
…..Bill
Hi Craig and rest of collaborators,
My short contribution is just a reflexion on the real cost of nuclear energy; what is hapenning in Japan should boost the debate on this. Pro – nuclear people use to say the this energy is “safe”, cheap, and environmentally friendly (due to the zero CO2 emmissions). The cost is low since the investment and running costs of nuclear wastes storrage facilities are not included. On the other hand, the more safety in a nuclear plant, the more capital expenses. The sooner this electricity achieves its real cost, the sooner the RE sector will achieve the required percent in the world energy supply
Craig, sadly like so many issues, media assessment of the damage to the Nuclear facilities in Japan will have less to do with objectivity and analysis and everything to do with hysterical ideology and sensationalism.
It was always obvious that building a power generating station, let alone and Nuclear facility, on a major fault line was problematic. Even with the best engineering in the world, construction is questionable.
In fact, the newer power stations have withstood the earthquake very well. (a fact carefully not mentioned by critic’s). Siting of the axillary cooling diesel power generators proved to be an error. The age of the facility, obsolete technology, and sheer scale of the disaster blocking access to the facilities, has made containment more difficult.
But what’s this got to do with today’s Nuclear power construction? Most of the opponents of nuclear power use very dishonest arguments. It would be like saying we should build cars today, because back in the 1920’s windshields were not made from safety glass.
Modern nuclear facilities are very, very safe.
The world has a stark choice, nuclear or burn more coal! Oh, sorry, I forgot the another alternative is starve, and descend into economic chaos and warfare.
Solar and Wind are simply not sufficiently developed technologies. Geo-thermal is more promising but has major developmental problems before it could even begin to replace fossil fuels.
Careful exploitation of Nuclear power will prove useful until newer technologies can be developed.
Waste disposal can be managed with relative ease by storage in the great, stable wastelands of the salt tables.
Like it or not, nuclear power is the power of the immediate future.The question is, how to make it cheaper, more efficient, and safer.