And it's not like this is all about the US at all, it's not.
But...
Regarding those reactors--there have been many reports saying that these in Japan are just like ones we have here in the States, made by GE. As a nation and an industry we've already come to the conclusion that we don't need to do anything different regarding nuclear reactors and that same industry, it seems, even though the Japanese reactors haven't even cooled yet:
NRC: Japan nuke crisis does not warrant US changes
ROCKVILLE, Md. – The nuclear crisis is Japan, while severe, does not warrant any immediate changes in the U.S, a top U.S. nuclear official said Monday.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's executive director for operations, Bill Borchardt, said officials have "a high degree of confidence" that operations at the 104 nuclear reactors in 31 states are safe. He said inspectors at each of the plants have redoubled efforts to guard against any safety breaches.
Gosh, I feel better already. A "high degree of confidence..."
I have to ask, however, doesn't this firm conclusion seem a bit hasty to you?
I have to ask, however, doesn't this firm conclusion seem a bit hasty to you?
It does me.
I mean, how can you come to any final conclusions right now when we haven't even had the opportunity to see what actually happened? (Check out that 2nd link, below, for instance, and see the safety issues and problems the Fukushima plant had, over time that was apparently overlooked and hidden. Pretty fascinating stuff. Fortunately for us, over here in Amerika, that kind of stuff NEVER takes place, I'm sure).
And before you scoff, here's something I found fascinating about the 4 reactors in Japan. It's pretty simple, too.
In these four plants, the electric generators for the place, for backup and everything, were in the basement.
Keep in mind that they're next to the ocean.
No one ever took into consideration to maybe get those up, out of the basement--or never design it that way in the first place--JUST IN CASE THERE WAS A FLOOD from the ocean. Or a tsunami.
I can hear it now: "Say, did anyone ever think about what would happen if they basement flooded and we need those electric generators to cool the rods in the core?"
So I mention this now because there are those 2 reactors in California, right along the ocean and right along those pesky fault lines and they are supposedly just like these reactors.
Has anyone asked if the backup generators are in the basement?
And if they are, can we move them?
And maybe as soon as possible?
Could we maybe look into that?
Could we maybe look into that?
Have a great day, y'all.
Link to original story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110321/ap_on_re_us/us_us_japan_nuclear
Additional link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110321/wl_nm/us_japan_nuclear;_ylt=AqR_1NtsN900p4j63C9YAVFH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTMwMjd1b29lBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwMzIxL3VzX2phcGFuX251Y2xlYXIEY2NvZGUDZ21wcmRlBGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDMwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2hpc3RvcnlvZnNhZg--
Additional link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110321/wl_nm/us_japan_nuclear;_ylt=AqR_1NtsN900p4j63C9YAVFH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTMwMjd1b29lBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTEwMzIxL3VzX2phcGFuX251Y2xlYXIEY2NvZGUDZ21wcmRlBGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDMwRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2hpc3RvcnlvZnNhZg--
Posts
14 comments:
We shouldn't be having knee-jerk reactions based on what happened in Japan--that sort of reaction will be more likely to make things worse. How many reactors do we have in earthquake- and tsunami-prone areas? I'd hope we have been looking into these sorts of things already, and have already taken all steps that are reasonable for the location. We probably shouldn't have reactors in NYC, or over the San Andreas Fault--but we also need to be reasonable, and understand that while nuclear has some hazards that need to be guarded against, so do all other sources of energy, and so does not using energy.
If there are steps we should be taking and aren't, people need to be fired.
There are too many people who hear 'radiation' and freak out, regardless of the actual severity, or the danger in relation to ordinary non-radioactive hazards. http://xkcd.com/radiation/
No, I agree, certainly--we shouldn't have any knee-jerk reactions.
That said, we should definitely, absolutely make sure things like, as I said, no electric backup generators are in basements along oceans, for starters, and we should see to it that the Nuclear Regulatory Agency isn't too cozy with who they are to be regulating and that these people and their reactors are doing their safety checks, etc. That seems to be both intelligent and prudent to the point of wise.
Since when do you suddenly have this ironclad faith in your government employees doing their jobs thoroughly and with no collusion with the people they are to be overseeing?
Conversely, there are also too many times when necessary government oversight gets lax and unnecessary accidents and/or other consequences happen.
I wasn't saying run around like a chicken with your head cut off. I'm saying let's calmly and intelligently look into the proper functioning of these 104 reactors in the country, that's all.
I'm afraid of a tragedy being used to further an agenda. There are some people against any sort of energy use that actually works in large scale.
We should ensure that all power plants are safe--but we also need to understand that no power plant will be perfect. How many deaths and injuries can be attributed to nuclear in the US, vs how many can be attributed to coal or natural gas, including the mining or pumping of both?
Rules need to take into account the design of the reactor, and its placement. We don't need protection for tsunamis in Kansas, some modern designs default to 'off', so they don't need power to keep the core under control--they shouldn't need the same strict rules on emergency fuel supply. There are at least some people who are against nuclear power and will add more and more 'safety' restrictions until it becomes infeasible to build a plant. (same goes for conventional power plants, to a slightly lesser extent)
I'm not "afraid of a tragedy being used to further an agenda", I just don't want anyone, of any opinion or viewpoint, to use a tragedy to further some agenda. That's just blatant exploitation so we agree on that.
The fact is, Sevesteen, solar power, especially supplied by photovoltaic cells, just makes too much sense. It's the way we need to grow and change. I think Pres. O needs to take the $54B he allotted for nuclear this next year and apply that instead to solar. It's cleaner by a long shot, it's nearly endlessly renewable, etc.
But that's me.
I think solar can help, but 'practical solar' has been just around the corner for as long as I can remember, and I think that will remain the case for technical rather than political reasons. I hope you are right and I'm wrong here.
I have not paid close attention lately-but an awful lot of solar never recovered the energy used to mine the materials, manufacture the panels and transport it to where it is used. Where it will be most useful first is off-grid, where it doesn't have to be cheaper than traditional, just cheaper than running a wire through the forest.
We shouldn't be allocating federal funds to solar, wind, ethanol or nuclear. We should set reasonable (and not forever changing) safety standards, an enforcement mechanism if necessary, and then get out of the way. There really isn't a way to know what to subsidize until after the fact--there are too many possibilities, the chances of political pressure lining up to support the best one are tiny.
We need an energy policy. ONE energy policy. As you said, not ever-changing.
It won't happen but that's what we need.
One set of rules not costantly changing isn't the same as a centrally planned energy policy. Where has a planned economy worked? It will wind up being set by politics rather than science and engineering-ehanol, for instance. Or do you mean something else by 'one energy policy?
Whoa... Easy there, cowboy.
You went from "energy policy", which makes sense--you have to know where you're logically going, right?--to "planned economy". Those are two hugely different things, at least in my book.
And yes, anything having to do with this HAS to be based on science and technology (which, incidentally, wouldn't have happened with that last chuckleheaded president since he was so against science and had popular ideas trump science, time and again, as has been documented, in his administration but that's another matter. Anyway, that kind of stuff, as you said, shouldn't happen. We can't allow that to happen. If it starts, we need to correct it).
Check out my next post within the hour. It shines some light on this, purely coincidentally.
What do you mean by energy policy then? A single policy would have to be centrally planed to be single, and energy makes a huge fraction of our economy. Not a big leap to call that centeally planned.
A plan, where we decide how we're going to wean ourselves off oil and fossil fuels and transfer over to clean, renewable, solar and wind sources. We'll clean the environment AND get out of the Middle East, both important goals for the country.
Watch that next post.
How do we make the plan in a way that avoids another ethanol boondoggle, or that doesn't also promote non-energy agendas? How do we enforce the plan if not everyone agrees with it? What happens when technology changes direction faster than political fads?
First, we start investing in more solar and green technology, period, as China is doing and has done, especially on photovoltaic cells and making them less costly.
Second, we just have to push, from within, so no one promotes "non-energy agendas". That would be true with any topic--non-issue agendas have to be left out, simple as that.
Third, this is what government and politics and collaboration and compromise are all about--we get everyone in the room (without letting the energy companies dictate the goals, agenda or outcome) and hash out what makes the best sense for the entire country and for our energy and energy policies. Once done, we have to stick with that until other situations arise.
Finally, technology and science will always, always outpace government, as we keep finding out. We'll just have to work within the limitations of people and our governments and try to act nimbly but carefully and wisely. It won't be easy but Germany, at least, seems to be doing it.
First, we start investing in more solar and green technology, period, as China is doing and has done, especially on photovoltaic cells and making them less costly.
What do you mean by 'we' here--private investors? Taxpayers? How is this different than promoting ethanol--picking a particular technology before it is mature, promoting it at the expense of others because it benefits your district?. Solar may be the future--but it may also stay just out of reach, or only remain viable when subsidized. Maybe solar and wind can work with better battery technology--or maybe the battery technology itself could store off-peak power from existing plants.
What happens to the energy companies and their shareholders if their ideas of managing their property doesn't match the government's? Do we nationalize? What are the chances that we will *finally* eliminate the influence of corporate money on legislation?
There are so many points to make here it's not funny.
By "we" I mean the US--yes, you'll hate this--the taxpayers.
As I said earlier, we taxpayers are already supposed to be giving $54B this year for nuclear power. Again, we should take that and dump it in solar and solar research. The country that develops and so, "owns" solar is going to be in charge for the foreseeable future as, again, China knows. They're going after this big time.
Let me just say that ethanol and/or biofuels--initiated and supported by that last knucklehead in the White House--is so monumentally stupid it's hard to describe. Any time you tie a food source to fuel, you've made a huge mistake as my Political Science professor told us in class back in the late 70's and as poor people and countries are finding out now, since we're pushing this nonsense.
The true costs of using coal, oil and other fossil fuels, particularly when you add in either the pollution and its cleanup or the costs of it killing us--because it does, you know--OR the costs of obtaining oil from the Middle East alone make solar in virtually all forms far more reasonable and affordable. Ignore the real costs of fossil fuel and sure, it's cheap, same as if you ignore the true costs of nuclear power. Japan's finding out we can't do that.
"What happens to the energy companies and their shareholders if their ideas of managing their property doesn't match the government's?"
Great question.
We put the benefits of the nation ahead of that of the corporations.
If/when we do true, stringent and accountable campaign finance reform in effect so your Congressperson and mine cannot and do not any longer accept "campaign contributions" from corporations, their lobbyists and the wealthy, and we'll go a long way toward getting their influence and buying power back out of our government.
But I've said that time and time again, as you know.
Post a Comment