Will Japan change Minnesota's repeal of nuke power ban?
Posted at 8:19 AM on March 12, 2011
by Bob Collins
(15 Comments)
Filed under: Disasters, Energy
Like the rest of the world, we're watching the situation with the Japanese nuclear power plant, which exploded overnight. It does not appear at this point that it was a nuclear reaction.
The English-language Russia Today had its cameras trained on the plant when the explosion happened:
Late last night, there were claims that it was possible the nuclear core would melt. The BBC explains:
You can think of the core of a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), such as the ones at Fukushima Daiichi, as a massive version of the electrical element you may have in your kettle.It sits there, immersed in water, getting very hot.
The water cools it, and also carries the heat away - usually as steam - so it can be used to turn turbines and generate electricity.
If the water stops flowing, there is a problem. The core overheats and more of the water turns to steam.
The steam generates huge pressures inside the reactor vessel - a big, sealed container - and if the largely metal core gets too hot, it will just melt, with some components perhaps catching fire.
In the worst-case scenario, the core melts through the bottom of the reactor vessel and falls onto the floor of the containment vessel - an outer sealed unit.
In the absense of a Chernobyl-type disaster in decades, nuclear power has been making a comeback. In Minnesota. One of the first bills pushed by the new majority at the Minnesota Legislature was the repeal of the state's ban on new nuclear power plants.
A House-Senate conference committee has been meeting in recent days to work out an agreement on the bill, which -- if one is reached -- would then go to the governor.
Now the question is whether what's happening in Japan rejiggers the debate.
Discuss.
Comments (15)
I think it will depend mostly on how it all turns out.
If they get power to the cooling pumps in time to avoid meltdown, then little or no bad publicity. If there is a big radiation event, especcially one injuring people, it will be a big factor.
Minnesota lies in the middle of a big dead craton meaning an earthquake here would literally shake the science world. The only thing we would have to worry about would be making the reactors to withstand tornadoes, which shouldn't be hard. I've been pro-nuclear for years and I hope we build more. Just look at european countries like france at how well nuclear power can work.
If I recall, Prairie Island unit 1 and the Japanese reactor are the same age. We may not have earthquakes, but this is a reminder of how high the stakes are with this type of power and a demonstration that important parts do age (sometimes more quickly than expected). This also overshadows the fact that we have zero solutions for storing the radioactive waste "permanently." Aren't there better ways to boil water?
If nothing happens I doubt it will change the minds of the nay sayers. Japan is the only country that has experienced a nuclear attack and yet they are not so afraid that it prevented them from moving forward in spite of living in a high risk area. They are leaders in the production of mini-nukes and will soon bury us with their technology once again. I am more interested in how these little reactors stood up.
Nuclear "waste" is not "waste" --- it is actually Unused FUEL that has been only slightly contaminated by a small amount of short-lived fission products. This remaining fuel can be safely and cleanly extracted and recycled, leaving no remaining "waste" to be stored.
Conventional nuclear reactors tap only about 1% of the fission energy available in the uranium fuel. Burying this so-called "spent" fuel is equivalent to just throwing away the remaining still perfectly usable 99% of the uranium. The current U.S. ban on reprocessing "spent" fuel is equivalent to filling your gas tank, burning only one cup of of fuel, and then burying the remaining nearly 12 gallons of usable fuel back in the ground where it will at best do no one any good, and at worst may eventually leak out. Such a policy is not merely wasteful of perfectly good fuel, but quite stupid.
By reprocessing the "spent" fuel to remove the short-lived fission products, and recycling the remaining 99% of the unconsumed fuel for another go through the reactor, the remaining 99% of the fission energy still in the unconsumed fuel may be extracted, leaving only short-lived "waste" that will decay to little more than natural background levels in no more than ~200--300 years --- and even this so-called 'waste" may itself have many practical uses.
The technical issues of on-site reprocessing and recycling of "spent" nuclear fuel were all completely solved by workers at Argonne National Laboratory in the 1980s and a pilot plant was scheduled to be built in the early 1990s, but the project was scuttled by Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary (formerly from Minnesota, and an utterly implacable opponent of nuclear power) precisely because this technology would have made nuclear power safer, cleaner, cheaper, and more efficient at a time when O'Leary was trying her level best to shut down every nuclear reactor in the U.S. and permanently ban all non-military uses of nuclear energy.
For details on how to safely and cleanly recycling nuclear fuel in order to extract its full energy potential leaving only short-lived products, please see the following article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=smarter-use-of-nuclear-waste
I've heard people say we should shut down the nuclear plants asap. My question is what would happen to the power grid if we did ? Do we have enough alternative ways to make power now ?
Would we have to use more coal for a while ?
I would ask every individual to consider the mix of technologies they would like to fill our nations energy infostructure. I am not a proponent of nuclear energy I consider myself an environmentalist. However, given the alternatives nuclear looks very good for the population, the environment, and the economy.
My opinion:
Renewable 30% I would like more but don't see it happening.
Fossil fuels 30% The goal is less but we can't afford to ignore cheap high quality fuels.
I like conservation but believe that energy consumption is directly tied to our economy.
Nuclear 40% please tell me what other options we have?
As a physicist, I can confidently say that potato chips and the 75mph speed limit on freeways are much more dangerous to human health (on a societal scale) than nuclear power.
No one cries in public about all the people who have died this winter because of icy roads. That number is certainly much, much higher than the number of people who have died from nuclear accidents in the same timeframe...
The number of people that have died due to coal mining and its repercussions throughout human history likely rivals casualties sustained from the splitting of the atom, including the bombs. Sensationalism and mob mentality is a sad part of the human condition.
Leaving the use of nuclear energy to the "experts" may be the worst thing we can do. I am old enough to say that I have lived through a large portion of the atomic age. My greatest fear with nuclear energy is how we, as a civilization, will remind future generations to come of the toxins we have stored on our planet. The last time I checked some of the by products of nuclear power generation have 1/2 lives that are longer than modern man has been around. How will we adequately communicate how toxic the nuclear waste we have generated and stored to the generations of humans who will live 500, 1000, 10000 years after we are gone? I am fairly well educated and have trouble understanding the English language used by Shakespeare. My home is 200 miles from Hanford, Washington and 150 miles from Arco, Idaho. The toxins are in my backyard now. Any one who wants to use nuclear power can have my share of the waste and bury it in their backyard.
No apologies for the rant. The mess in Japan just
adds credence to fact that we humans are, quite possibly, the stupidest creature on this planet. We poison our environment, kill our children, and work really hard at killing each other. We have earned our rewards.
Nuclear Power is awful. No place to put the Waste, and it stays around for millions of years.
We could spend 1.2 trillion a year on Solar Power, Wind, Hydro, etc. and provide for our energy needs. But no, we spend 1.2 trillion a year making bombs, tanks, jets, chem weapons, and battleships....
To the (person) saying Potato Chips are more dangerous than Nuclear Power Plants, I suggest taking a trip to Chernobyl. Oh that's right you still aren't allowed within 20 miles of the Facility, 25 years later!!!!
Minnesota's future.
http://www.grcade.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2217
@stormy Jones
Chernobyl was such a catastrophe because of their poor structural design and lack of back-up power needed to provide cooling to fuel rods. They voluntairly shut down power to the plant to test the back-up diesel generator system, but it took nearly a minute to kick in. On top of that, no protective gear was worn by those who helped contain the burn
The largest estimate I have found was that 600,000 people have ever died prematurely because of all atomic radiation(both accidental and intentional(atomic bombings)) in the last 100 years... however potato chips (heart attacks) claim nearly 500,000 lives each year in the United States alone
potato chips should be banned before nuclear power is banned, in the past 65 year 600,000 died from radiation and clear over 50 Million have died world wide from heart disease.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4591
Humans are in the whole, not capable of harnessing nuclear energy.In addition to the present Japan catastrophe, humans caused the disasters at Chernobyl and at 3 Mi. Isl.
Leave nuclear alone, it will always find our errors, and the amount of money spent, lives lost both now in in the future will outweigh the few cents/KWH that we are foolish enough to think is a savings.
Conservation speaks for itself.
| March 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Let's be careful out there!
- What 'civic leadership really is'
- Math we can't do
- Foreclosures: Better but still not great
- Minnesota kid falls short in Geographic Bee, still a winner
- The best bee
- When the high school prank isn't so bad
- How to kill a wolf
- Is your appetite killing the ocean?
- Getting the Busy Signal
Categories
- Add category
- Art or Eyesore?
- Arts
- Aviation
- Bridges and roads
- Coffeeshop Chronicles
- Crime and Justice
- Disasters
- Economy
- Energy
- Five by 8
- Floods
- Floods 2011
- Fresh Eye on the Radio (with Mary Lucia)
- Health
- History
- Icons
- Life
- Marketing and advertising
- Media
- Music
- News
- News Cut on Campus
- Northwest Airlines
- People doing good
- Politics
- Race
- Regional history
- Religion
- Schools
- Science
- Sports
- Surveys and trivia
- Tech
- The jobs we do
- The political conventions
- The Quiz
- The Unemployed series
- Things that are puzzling
- War
- Weather
- What's the Story Here?
- When people do good
- wildlife
- You Should Meet...
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock