Tell me it ain't so, surely there has to be a way out, an alternative, anything will do, anything at all except the dread thought of being in bed (so to speak) with little Georgie 'Moonbeam'. Oh God, 'there is no alternative'!
I had better explain but first let me draw your attention to an excoriating post by Richard North (who else?!) entitled Barriers to Understanding in which he tears into the media for their wildly simplistic and sensational, to say nothing of their blithe and almost totally ignorant, coverage of the Japanese nuclear power station story. If I had a fiver for everytime they use the word "meltdown" I could afford to build myself a nuclear shelter!
Two things have intervened in the media coverage of the Japanese nuclear plant crisis to make it misleading to the point of incomprehensible.
The one is the frequent use of the Chernobyl disaster as a comparator, where there are absolutely no comparisons with the incident at Fukushima. The second is the childish refrain of "meltdown" by scientifically and technically illiterate journalists, who seem to be incapable of understanding what is happening, yet seem determined to spread their own incomprehension far and wide.
I had better confess that you could not write down what I know about the workings of a nuclear power station on the back of a postage stamp because I know nothing! However, what I do know with absolute certainty is that the number of deaths caused by nuclear power as opposed to coal or gas is miniscule. As today's Spectator (no link yet) points out, the scare-mongering does not fit the facts to hand:
Such hyperbole ignores how surprisingly well Japan's nuclear power stations have held up so far. Despite one of the most ferocious earthquakes in recorded history and a 30ft wave, a handful of old nuclear reactors have remained largely intact and released only small quantities of radiation into the environment.
Even so, the 'Greenie' maggots have come crawling out of the woodwork to inveigh against the whole concept of nuclear power. But not so, little Georgie Monbiot, in The Guardian who makes his position clear:
"What disaster?", you may ask. The decision taken today by the Chinese government to suspend approval of new atomic power plants. If this suspension were to become permanent, the power those plants would have produced is likely to be replaced by burning coal. While nuclear causes calamities when it goes wrong, coal causes calamities when it goes right, and coal goes right a lot more often than nuclear goes wrong. The only safe coal-fired plant is one which has broken down past the point of repair.
Well, setting aside his antipathy to coal, at least he sees the advantages of nuclear power:
Even when nuclear power plants go horribly wrong, they do less damage to the planet and its people than coal-burning stations operating normally.
And when they do go wrong the death toll is minimal: none at all at Three Mile Island, and a total of 43 from Chernobyl. Compare that to the coal mining industry in just China alone where, according to Wiki, some 20,00 miners a year are killed.
Perhaps, 'Field Marshal' Cameron should stop playing with his toy tanks and instead start thinking how he can get us unhooked from our fix on middle east oil and Russian gas. I suggest he starts with some new nuclear power stations - fast!
Coal does cause deaths: so does every other form of energy use; non-use of energy would cause even more. Still, even though I'm firmly anti-anti-nuclear, I admit that my own instinct would have been to build coal-fired plant in Japan - earthquakes and tsunamis are less of a risk to them than to nukes, to natural gas plants and to hydro dams. Be that as it may, I suspect that Angela Merkel's response is an example of how not to do it.
Posted by: dearieme | Friday, 18 March 2011 at 17:02
One slight problem with how you're viewing Japan's ability to "create" it's own self-resourced energy needs. Japan has very few if any, of it's own naturally occurring resources - minerals, hydrocarbon-based deposits, specialty metals etc, etc.
One obsevation from just prior to Pearl Harbor (WWII) - "our" Roosevelt started buying up all of Japan's oil supplies. The only way out (to them) seemed to launch attacks which would disrupt Mr. R's plans. Just how much DM, coal was Japan producing from it's own lands prior to WWII? How much now?
Admittedly - History (in Japan especially) is replete with earthquakes and the Japanese created word "tsunami" - placing the cooling pumps below sea level was a damn fool design feature. It was not necessarily a damn fool idea to place the reactors themselves on the shore - cooling is water dependent.
For Japan to be "energy self-reliant" a nuclear component was a must. Unfortunately, rather than just go with uranium - some "smart-guy" decided to add some plutonium.
Posted by: JK | Friday, 18 March 2011 at 21:09
From what I remeber of the Chernobol incident, The design of that reactor would never have passed muster in the West. It would have failed in the first shocks. Most likly with less casuties than are being predicted in the MSN.
If it has not happened buy now with in a week of two 4every reactor will have it's emergency power system upgraded.
Posted by: hank | Saturday, 19 March 2011 at 00:41
"Just how much DM, coal was Japan producing from it's own lands prior to WWII? How much now?" It doesn't matter - Britain doesn't produce enough coal for its own use, nor France, nor ....
Japan could import from Queensland for heaven's sake.
Posted by: dearieme | Saturday, 19 March 2011 at 10:41
Well DM, that was the intent just prior to Pearl - Japan didn't have a UK. Queensland would've been a nifty acquisition - had the American carriers been anchored in port.
Posted by: JK | Sunday, 20 March 2011 at 06:36
Well, despite the media producing litters of kittens every 24 hours the Japs appear to be coping with their nuclear alarums and their 30-40 year old power stations seem to have weathered the greatest test they could have endured. No doubt certain things went wrong, they always do, but they, and we, will learn. Meanwhile, the 'Kaiserin' pretends that windmills will power German industry and that the Russians will always sell their gas to their old 'friends', the Germans.
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 20 March 2011 at 09:32
You doesn't need to acquire Queensland - just buy their bloody coal. For Japan to be "energy self-reliant" is just childish babble - since she can't be self-sufficient in food or transport fuel or a thousand other essentials.
Posted by: dearieme | Sunday, 20 March 2011 at 12:13