Synopsis: Local residents and most Americans seem to have been stunned by the Japanese nuclear disaster, with so many people—116 million in the United States and 465,0000 locally—having a nuclear plant in their "backyards." But they are awakening to what it all may mean, starting to recognize the dangers and beginning to ponder alternatives, thanks to an explosion of information that is offering real answers about nuclear energy.
At first, local residents as well as Americans in general who live in the vicinity of nuclear power plants, seemed to be stunned by news of the disaster at the Japanese Fukushima nuclear plant last March 11. It was so far, yet so close because of all the 64 nuclear plants scattered around the U.S.
The reaction was muted—because of or in spite of the fact that four million Americans live within 10 miles of a nuclear plant and 116 million of them live within a 50-mile radius. (That comes out to 26,000 living within 10 miles of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant and 465,000 within a 50-mile radius of the plant.)
The 50-mile radius just happens to correspond to the evacuation area that U.S. nuclear officials had recommended for Americans living in the vicinity of Fukushima to observe.
Locals and Americans exposed to the risks of a nuclear calamity didn't seem to know what to do. Since they had been told for so long by the nuclear energy industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, most politicians and nearly all of the media that U.S. nuclear plants were safe, why would they be fearful? And, anyway, what could be done about the hazards they live with? A classic case of an unsolvable problem?
How do you replace 20% of the energy in the U.S. provided by nuclear plants? Maybe in decades, but if people are worried about the now, it is hard to see that reliance on nuclear power changing any time soon—at best. So the danger can't be reduced or eliminated right away—apparently, that is, because that question hasn't really been investigated.
But the silence has been shattered over the past month or so. There has been a groundswell of awakening about what a Fukushima-type catastrophe could mean in the U.S. As of last week, the latest death count in Japan was 15,217 with 8,666 missing in the vicinity of Fukushima. No one seems to be counting the injured—the figures apparently are not to be found on the Internet— in part, perhaps, because there is no counting exposure to radiation and the consequences for untold years in the future.
On a local listserv, a member recently wrote, referring to Fukushima and Diablo Canyon, "Isn't this what PG&E continually says we are safe from here on the Pacific Coast? Heard too many times from their 'experts': it can't happen here."
Another responded, "Right. My thoughts exactly. I would really like to know what the projections were for this area in terms of the size of the quake expected and what timeframe and what standards the reactors were built to. I just don't think the science is that accurate when it comes to earthquakes and don't like being a lab animal while the science is being perfected. Nor do I believe that the reactors can withstand the pressure that they are supposedly built for."
Then a little later, the listserv turned to calls for action: "This is a good time to put pressure on government officials to make an all-out effort to encourage nonpolluting, renewable energy sources, especially wind and solar. I have sent emails today to Feinstein, Boxer, and Capps making that argument. In addition, I have emailed Obama, Biden, and—perhaps most important—the Secretary of Energy not only making the pitch for clean energy but also urging that Diablo Canyon not be relicensed." And the discussion about Diablo Canyon on the listserv grows.
What woke everybody up? Maybe it was the Internet, which is where a growing and significant number of people get their news worldwide. (Perhaps the Slo Coast Journal had a hand in it locally.) By and large, it wasn't the mainstream media (the New York Times excepted), although nine days after Fukushima, Newsweek magazine wrote about "How to Save California."
Yet, in recent weeks, even the corporate media have started to acknowledge that nuclear energy is undergoing something of a renaissance—but far different from the resurgence that had been predicted (mostly by its supporters) prior to Fukushima.
The wake-up call almost certainly came from the eye-opening developments in the aftermath of Fukishima, such as reports that:
—The Japanese government last week admitted that the Fukushima plant did, in fact, experience a meltdown of at least one of its reactors, even though that had been denied for more than two months.
—The destruction at Fukushima was caused by the earthquake—not the tsunami, which had been blamed until just last week.
—The U.S. government is once again considering trying to build a depository for nuclear waste from plants because storage of nuclear waste is once again being shown to be much more hazardous.
—Doubts are growing that relicensing of existing U.S. nuclear plants will not be affected by Fukushima.
—Some nuclear scientists say the means to predict nuclear accidents at U.S. plants are unreliable.
—Diablo Canyon and San Onofre are considered the most vulnerable to major quakes among nuclear plants in the U.S.
—United States Geological Survey (USGS) geologists report they found a new fault near Diablo Canyon, which could even be beneath the plant.
—A coalition of 10 California legislators have sent a letter to the U.S. Energy Department, warning that the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre plants may be more vulnerable to earthquakes than officials admit, and called for hearings on the two plants.
—The Southern California Earthquake Data Center released a map of area fault zones, showing the gaps in information in seismic knowledge about faults near Diablo Canyon.
—Critics have long painted the Nuclear Regulatory commission as well-intentioned but weak and compliant, and incapable of keeping close tabs on an industry to which it remains closely tied.
—Waste pools at U.S. nuclear plants may be an even greater risk than those at Fukushima were.
—U.S. plants may be at greater risk than previously thought because recent inspections have found serious problems with emergency equipment, the NRC has been routinely waiving fire rule violations at nearly half the nation's commercial reactors, a study conducted by one Congress member's staff contends the NRC has not factored modern geologic information Into reactor safety and it has been revealed that the Department of Homeland Security has limited authority to counter terrorist attacks.
—Ways to increase safety at nuclear plants drawn from lessons learned at Fukushima have been proposed, including keeping pools of waste away from reactor cores to avoid greater chances of calamities.
—A post-Fukushima nuclear accident has already occurred in the U.S.: a large amount of radioactive tritium was accidentally released into the Mississippi Rivert, the NRC reported.
—The media are increasing their coverage of nuclear plants issues in the U.S. but little of it is critical reporting.
—Calls for closure of U.S. nuclear plants are increasing but no practical plans to do it soon seem to have surfaced.
—Significant state and federal plans to expand the availability of renewable energy sources in the U.S. have been already adopted, other countries are making renewables a top priority, and experts predict that the prospect of even greater opportunities to expand renewables—including investigation of bold and unconventional techniques—are on the horizon.
—The cost of renewables is significantly lower than nuclear and other sources of energy.
—Other countries like Japan, Germany and China are turning away from nuclear energy. Rooftop solar for all new buildings in Japan may be in the works. The German government just agreed—on Monday May 30—to phase out all nuclear plants by 2022.
Following are more detailed reports of where nuclear energy seems to be headed nearly three months after the March 11 disaster in Japan.
Fukushima Aftermath
March 16, 2011 (HUFFPOST Green): China's Cabinet said Wednesday the government will suspend approvals for nuclear power stations to allow for a revision in safety standards.
May 12, 2011 (Reuters): The disaster at the Fukushima plant in Japan convinced German Chancellor Angela Merkel that nuclear power would never again be a viable option for her country. Now Merkel has embarked on the world's most ambitious plan to power an industrial economy on renewable sources of energy. (Journal note: She is considered to be conservative and pro-business.)
May 12, 2011 (Truthout.org): The Chinese Communist Party has decided to launch a crash program to produce green energy, a field where it reportedly already has a commanding lead over the U.S.
May 13, 2011 (SLO Tribune): A presidential commission looking for safe ways to dispose of the nation's nuclear waste said it is considering a plan to build one or more storage sites to replace a long-planned nuclear waste dump in Nevada. The 15-member commission, created by President Barack Obama, did not identify any proposed site for nuclear storage.
May 15, 2011 (Reuters) - Californians have long had an uneasy relationship with their two nuclear power plants, and the crisis in Japan raises new doubts about how long nuclear power will survive in the earthquake-prone state. The first test of the Golden State's support for nuclear power is coming soon, as the nuclear plants perched on the scenic but fault-laden California coastline since the early 1980s begin the process for 20-year
license renewals. After the 9.0 quake and tsunami compromised reactors in Japan, lawmakers and activists have been quick to call for more seismic safety measures and monitoring for California's plants, considered the most vulnerable in the United States to major quakes.
Of the 104 operating U.S reactors, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed 62 licenses and denied none. That may not happen this time, however.
"The NRC has typically rubber-stamped these license renewal applications, but it's hard to see them turning a blind eye now," said Matt Freedman, an attorney with consumer group The Utility Reform Network in San Francisco. "The NRC will take a harder look and perhaps require additional measures, some of which will be expensive, to get those licenses."
May 16, 2011 (Washington's Blog): Japan, Germany and China have turned away from old nuclear plant designs, leaving plans to build new ones in limbo. The Swiss government just decided to phase out the country's existing nuclear plants, possibly by 2034, and seek alternative energy sources to meet its energy needs after an estimated 20,000 people took part in an anti-nuclear demonstration in north Switzerland. The protesters reportedly also came from Germany, Austria and France.
May 26, 2011 (Pakistan Observer): In a belated acknowledgment of the severity of Japan's nuclear disaster, the Tokyo Electric Power Company has said that three of the stricken Fukushima plant's reactors likely suffered fuel meltdowns in the early days of the crisis.
May 26, 2011 (Asahi.com): Data from the Fukushima nuclear power plant indicates that the March 11 earthquake—not the tsunami—damaged piping for the emergency core cooling system at the No. 3 reactor, leading to a meltdown, experts said. Tokyo Electric Power Company, the plant's operator, has insisted that a tsunami far exceeding expectations led to the accident at the plant, and that shaking from the magnitude-9.0 earthquake did not cause serious damage to crucial equipment.
Dangers at Nuclear Plants
April 21, 2011 (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists): The risk-assessment method that engineers currently use to predict the probability of a severe nuclear accident is unreliable and creates a false sense of security.
March 3, 2010 (Santa Barbara Independent): . . . a team of United States Geological Survey (USGS) geologists revealed a new offshore fault—hitherto unknown—even closer to the nuclear facility than Hosgri (fault). The new fault, they estimate, is 15 kilometers long, 12 kilometers deep, and located 1,600-1,800 feet directly offshore from Diablo Canyon. Based on these measurements, they've estimated the Shoreline Fault packs a maximum payload of 6.5 on the Richter scale. But Tom Brocher, the chief geologist who led the USGS team that discovered Shoreline, said much remains unknown about the exact location, dimensions, and dynamics of the new fault. "Within that uncertainty factor, you could get it [the fault] underneath the plant," Brocher said. He stressed there's no evidence to indicate the fault is actually under the plant. "This is all speculative," he cautioned. "But it's plausible. It's possible. It's not really pushing the data hard to do it."
March 15, 2011 (Orange County Register): In an eerily prescient missive sent just days before natural disasters crippled Japanese nuclear reactors, California lawmakers warned federal officials that the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants may be more vulnerable to quakes than officials care to acknowledge. "Given the uncertain seismicity of their respective locations, Diablo Canyon and San Onofre present unique logistical challenges regarding the long-term, on-site storage of nuclear waste," wrote a coalition of 10 California legislators, urging the U.S. Energy Department's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to hold hearings in the Golden State. "California is at a critical moment in its nuclear history," they wrote.
March 25, 2011 (received) (Southern California Earthquake Data Center): The map showing faults in the Southern California region (including the Central Coast) includes the Hosgri Fault Zone, which the map shows has faults close to Diablo Canyon. The Hosgri is listed as having a possible 7.5 earthquake potential, which PG&E is reportedly discounting. The site says the last major "rupture" was in 1927, and the interval between major ruptures is unknown. However, it adds, "The earthquake of 1927 is poorly located and may not have occurred on the Hosgri fault zone."
May 7, 2011 (NY Times): Critics have long painted the (Nuclear Regulatory) commission as well-intentioned but weak and compliant, and incapable of keeping close tabs on an industry to which it remains closely tied. The concerns have greater urgency because of the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, which many experts say they believe was caused as much by lax government oversight as by a natural disaster.
May 11, 2011 (ProPublica): The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is routinely waiving fire rule violations at nearly half the nation's 104 commercial reactors, even though fire presents one of the chief hazards at nuclear plants. The policy, the result of a series of little-noticed decisions in recent years, is meant to encourage nuclear companies to remedy longstanding fire safety problems. But critics say it is leaving decades-old fire hazards in place as the NRC fails to enforce its own rules.
May 12, 2011 (NY Times): Despite repeated assurances that American nuclear plants are better equipped to deal with natural disasters than their counterparts in Japan, regulators said recent inspections had found serious problems with some emergency equipment that would have made it unusable in an accident.
May 15, 2011 (Rep. Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts): NRC Has Not Factored Modern Geologic Information Into Reactor Safety. California has a historical record of eight earthquakes of magnitude 7.3 or greater since 1700, including earthquakes close to both the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre nuclear power plants.
May 17, 2011 (NY Times): Emergency vents that American officials have said would prevent devastating hydrogen explosions at nuclear plants in the United States were put to the test in Japan — and failed to work, according to experts and officials with the company that operates the crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant. The failure of the vents calls into question the safety of similar nuclear power plants in the United States.
May 19, 2011 (HomelandSecurityToday): A May 5 "intelligence brief" prepared by a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official at the Pacific Regional Information Clearinghouse (PacClear) in Hawaii, warned Al Qaeda might try to cause the meltdown of certain vulnerable nuclear power plants in the US and Europe by replicating the failure of the electric supply that pumped cooling water to the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan.
May 25, 2011 (NY Times): The threat of a catastrophic release of radioactive materials from a spent fuel pool at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant is dwarfed by the risk posed by such pools in the United States, which are typically filled with far more radioactive material, according to a study released by a nonprofit institute. The report, from the Institute for Policy Studies, recommends that the United States transfer most of the nation's spent nuclear fuel from pools filled with cooling water to dry sealed steel casks to limit the risk of an accident resulting from an earthquake, terrorism or other event.
Safety Measures
April 25, 2011 (The Energy Collective): Fourteen Ways to Increase Safety at Nuclear Plants Drawn FromLessons Learned at Fukushima, written by a doctor in mechanical engineering in the U.S. Examples: spent fuel pool (SFP) cannot be in proximity of the reactor core, For nuclear power plants located in or near earthquake zones, we cannot expect structural volumes and 'channels' to maintain structural integrity. We should also expect the immediate ground underneath these structures to be porous (earth). Thus design of these volumes and channels should be such that they minimize connections to other (adjacent) volumes from which contaminated (liquid) effluents can flow. There is a need for standby back-up power, via diesel generator and battery power, at a minimal elevation of 100 feet/31m. (Journal note: the Diablo Canyon plant is reported to be 85 feet above the ocean.) and some distance from the plant (thus remotely located). This is needed to offset loss of off-site power for plants subject to environmental water ingress (foremost tsunami). Spare battery power should also be kept off-site and in a confirmed 'charged' state.
May 15, 2011 (Union of Concerned Scientists): Protection of U.S. critical infrastructure and hazardous facilities against terrorist attacks should be one of the fundamental missions of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Surprisingly, the Department's authority in this area is quite limited.
Questions About Nuclear
April 13, 2011 (Damian Carrington's Blog in the Guardian): Unsure about nuclear power? Here's the five questions you must answer to decide. Twenty five years on from Chernobyl, the heated debate on nuclear power remains resistant to cold facts: simply too few are known. But making your own judgments on five key questions will lead to your answer:
1. Do you think the global community can prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, if not, do you think it can prevent a nuclear weapon being used?
2. Is the hazard of climate change greater than that posed by a nuclear disaster?
3. Is global political will too weak to create a low-carbon energy future that does not involve nuclear power and in time to avert climate chaos?
4. Is nuclear power vital to ensuring the security of energy supply?
5. Can the full costs of nuclear truly be calculated?
April 13, 2011 Washington's Blog: As Reuters reported, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has publicly been saying American reactors are safe, while privately expressing doubts.
May 12, 2011 (New York Times): The staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission acknowledged that the agency's current regulations and disaster plans did not give enough consideration to two factors that had greatly contributed to the continuing Fukushima Daiichi crisis in Japan: simultaneous problems at more than one reactor and a natural disaster that disrupts roads, electricity and other infrastructure surrounding a plant.
May 12, 2011 (Rep. Ed Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts): Fukushimi Fallout: Reglatory Loopholes at U.S. Nuclear Plants report. . . . flawed assumptions and under-estimation of safety risks are currently an inherent part of the NRC regulatory program, due to a long history of decisions made by prior Commissions or by the NRC staff that have all too often acquiesced to industry requests for a weakening of safety standards. (Page 17: Case Study: Diablo Canyon
Accidents
5/6/11 (Natural News): Workers at the Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant in Port Gibson, Miss., last Thursday released a large amount of radioactive tritium directly into the Mississippi River, according to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and experts are currently trying to sort out the situation. An investigation is currently underway to determine why the tritium was even present in standing water found in an abandoned unit of the plant, as well as how much of this dangerous nuclear byproduct ended up getting dumped into the river. Many also want to know why workers released the toxic tritium before conducting proper tests.
Media
May 10, 2011 (CNBC): "Nuclear Meltdown" video . . . a magnitude 8.9 earthquake hit Japan's northeast coast followed by a mega tsunami. The country suffered widespread devastation. And in the aftermath of the disaster, nuclear reactors in Fukushima began to disintegrate, one exploded and the Japanese Government announced a "nuclear emergency." With 20% of all nuclear reactors built in earthquake zones, can nuclear power ever be truly safe? Nuclear Meltdown details the unfolding disaster at Fukushima. We find out exactly how it happened and why. Aired on May 18 and 22.
May 12, 2011 Brad's Blog: The Tokyo Electric Power Co. (Tepco), which operates the troubled Fukushima nuclear plant admitted that a nuclear meltdown occurred at the plant. We should make clear that the "meltdown" in question did not just happen yesterday. Rather, it appears to have occured in March after the quake and tsunami, but is only now being admitted to by TEPCO...
May 14, 2011 (Extra! One): . . . might imagine that the Fukushima disaster would prompt a more critical look at domestic nuclear power ambitions; instead, U.S. corporate media seemed largely to sympathize with the industry. (But in a radio interview, she said the media are picking up on the story more and more.)
Advocacy:
April 2, 2011 (Mothers for Peace): Sign petition calling on President Obama to reverse his support of nuclear power, stop loan guarantees to the nuclear energy industry, shut down nuclear facilities operating in seismically-active areas of the U.S., establish a moratorium on building new nuclear reactors and invest in clean, renewable energy.
May 5, 2011 (Green Party of USA): Green Party of California makes major announcement urging immediate closure of nuclear power plants at Diablo Canyon and San Onofre to 'promote safety' for humans and environment.
May 6, 2011 (Nuclear Information and Resource Service): Send a message to your Senators and tell them to wake up: not one more taxpayer dime for nuclear power—small, large or in-between!
May 15, 2011 (Sierra Club): The disaster has reignited the debate over nuclear power in America and around the world. The Sierra Club has unequivocally opposed nuclear energy for more than three decades: Nukes are dirty, unsafe, deadly, and costly. Some in Washington, D.C., though, are still saying we should build more of them. Please tell your U.S. senators that a "nuclear revival" has no place in America's clean-energy future.
May 18, 2011 (Nuclear Information and Resource Service): Please call your Congressmembers today and urge them to reject President Obama's request for $36 billion more in taxpayer loans for new nuclear reactors and instead to end the Title 17 nuclear loan program and rescind the funds currently in this program for new reactors and uranium enrichment plants—including money already conditionally offered for two new reactors in Georgia.
May 25, 2011 (New Times): Alliance for Nuclear Responsiblity, A4NR, David Weisman: Our state has requested PG&E to do the latest, advanced 3-D studies on both old and new earthquake faults beneath Diablo Canyon BEFORE granting any ratepayer funding for license renewal applications. We even approved giving them money for the study! And yet, for over a year, PG&E's application has been sitting at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). PG&E has opposed and fought the requirement to do the studies. PG&E has not even applied for the permits required to begin the underwater studies.
No date (Nuclear? No Thanks): 6 Reasons Against Nuclear Energy. Europe does not need nuclear power. As various scenarios show, Europe's future energy needs can be met from other sources while still drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit climate change. Europe needs massive investments in renewable energies as well as in cutting back energy waste through increasing efficiency. The technology is available & affordable — and creates many more jobs than any nuclear power scenario.
Renewables
May 10, 2011 (Scientific American): Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's leading climate change research organization, released its first-ever detailed analysis of alternative energy technologies, concluding that use of renewables worldwide could reach approximately 43% in 2030 and as much as 80% by 2050, if fully supported by governments. Omitted as an alternative technology was nuclear energy, whose producers and supporters in the past have sought to identify with the development of renewables, claiming that nuclear emits no greenhouse gases.
May 14, 2011 (Extra!): As for renewables' ability to meet U.S. energy needs, "There is no bar except lobbyists, guts and old thinking," according to nuclear engineer Arjun Makhijani, president of the nonprofit Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and author of its report, "Carbon Free and Nuclear Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy."
May 16, 2011 (Scientific American): For years scientists and engineers have touted some fantastic schemes: satellites that beam solar power to receivers on land and wind machines that hover in the atmosphere, generating electricity. Down on earth researchers have recently received substantial government or private funding for a remarkable variety of long-shot technologies in a few key areas: machines that could convert sunlight and carbon dioxide into fuel that displaces gasoline, and raising energy efficiency significantly by magnets that revolutionize air conditioners and by shape-memory alloys that boost mileage in cars. As with any unprecedented experiments, the failure rate is very high at present. But the search for the big new energy discovery is on.
May 22, 2011 (The White House): "President Obama's Plan to Win the Future by Producing More Electricity Through Clean Energy" by doubling the share of clean electricity in 25 years. Currently, 40 percent of our electricity comes from clean energy sources, the plan says, and President Obama is calling for a national goal of doubling the share of clean energy to 80 percent by 2035.
May 25, 2011 (Reuters): All new buildings may come with solar panels in Japan soon. Prime Minister Naoto Kan recently announced that Japan would abandon its plan to build 14 new nuclear reactors in the face of the Fukushima tragedy. He said that his country needed to "start from scratch" and create a totally new energy policy, and he said a focus would be placed on two things greens the world over love — clean, renewable energy and energy conservation. That may include a requirement to put solar panels on all new buildings by 2030.
