Thursday, March 11, 2021

FUKUSHIMA 10 YEAR ANNIVERSARY

 

Normally, anniversaries are a cause for celebration; this one for Fukushima is not.

I remember the day very well, since it was near my birthday, and all the events that followed.  Watching the various news feeds generated the eventual facts that this was a most serious event.  I was stunned at the reporting by Fox News and the other nuclear pontificators that this was nothing to worry about, that it won’t have any human or environmental health impacts, and that it would not deter the continued use and development of nuclear power in Japan and the rest of the world.  How wrong they were! With 54 reactors constructed in Japan, only 3 are currently in operation.  The following quotation is by one of the many experts in the anti-nuclear battle.  I leaned very heavily on his research and information over the past 40 years, and he has always been right on.  He best describes the current status.

 “March 11 is the 10th anniversary of the Fukushima accident; it’s really not over yet, since the site continues to produce vast amounts of contaminated water. There is also no real answer for what will be done with the molten cores of the reactors when they are eventually extracted. The cost of decommissioning will run into hundreds of billions of dollars; it will take decades.   The most immediate threat is the official plan to discharge about 1.3 million metric tons of radioactively contaminated water – about 340 billion gallons – containing tritium, strontium-90, carbon-14 and other radionuclides. This is the quickest and cheapest method of dealing with it; it is also the dirtiest option by far, in my view.  The proposed plan seems to be in violation of the 1972 London Anti-Dumping Convention, which unequivocally bans the dumping of radioactive waste in the seas. (Item 6 in Annex I, where the banned items are listed, states “Radioactive wastes or other radioactive matter.”) The Biden administration should join China, South Korea, Chile, and the Fukushima region’s fishing community in protesting the plan.  All of them should demand that TEPCO, the power plant’s owner, do a global environmental impact statement comparing the ecological and health consequences of all alternatives, including the option of extracting the tritium and storing it for several decades till it is almost all decayed away. That is the least that TEPCO and the Japanese government can do before taking irreversible action to dump on their neighbors and a part of their own food supply.”    Arjun Makhijani  3/7/21

Thirty-five years after the Chernobyl meltdown, not much progress has been made in fully “decommissioning” that site.  A big cover has been placed over the destroyed reactor building, and much of the melted fuel remains at the bottom of the rubble.  It seems the plan is to just let things remain where they are, and not go to the trouble and expense of extraction, packaging, and transporting the wastes to someplace else where it will just sit and be monitored.  The cover will protect the building for about a hundred years, and then something else will be proposed.

 Again, I ask the question “How expensive is nuclear power?  What is the TRUE cost of the back end requiring decommissioning and cleanup, whether from an accident or malfunction, or just the eventual end of life for reactors, fuel facilities, and the other huge and dirty part of their infrastructure?  What is the incalculable cost of waste disposal?

 A couple of items making the current news cycle include the beginning of the decommissioning of the tiny1.8MW nuclear reactor in Alaska.  Constructed in 1962 to power a military base, it shut down in 1972.  After the spent fuel and much of the highly radioactive materials were removed over the years (the actual cost is unknown,) the final decommissioning of the site has been authorized to begin, costing $67 million, and will take 10+ years to complete. 

 In Hanford, the mega-project for the vitrification of the 56 million gallons of high-level waste is undergoing testing and start-up.  Built by Bechtel for over $27 billion after many cost overruns and 20 years of delay, the government is hopeful that it will work…we all hope so!  What it will do is process the liquid soupy waste left over from the reprocessing of high-level wastes from which Plutonium was extracted that has been sitting in the tank farm since the ’40s and ’50s.  Vitrification does not solve the nuclear waste problem.  What it does is de-liquify the sludge and mix it with sand at high temperature producing “glass logs” which encapsulate the high-level radionucleotides.  The “logs” are very radioactive, and will be added to the stockpile of spent fuel that will ultimately be disposed of…Yucca Mountain…a monitored retrievable site in Texas or New Mexico, or ???  They probably will remain on-site at Hanford for perhaps forever; only now the waste is solidified, rather than in a leaky liquid form.  There is very little mention of the radioactive and other toxic wastes produced in this process, and how they will be dealt with.  This project is supposed to take 30 years.  No mention as to how much it will cost to run the show, or deal with the waste stream.  Of note are the 600,000 gallons of similar wastes stored at the defunct nuclear site in West Valley, New York, or the thousands of gallons in Buffalo, or any of the contaminated locations throughout the U.S.  Will the government/industry eventually build another of these smelters on-site, or will they ship this highly dangerous stuff to Hanford?  Or will it remain in-situ for ?????

 The nuclear industry continues the many paths of trying to stay relevant in the energy game.  The “new” technology promises to be SAFER and CHEAPER.  And yet, the question of the cost of the back end is never addressed.  The new Plutonium cooled sodium reactors are still dreamed on the drawing boards, whose pilot projects have failed on all levels here and in other countries, would require REPROCESSING, producing a horrendous stream of liquid high-level wastes which are difficult and expensive to deal with.  However, it continues a huge cash flow from the taxpayer and ratepayer coffers to the huge corporations and their profits.

 Let the sun shine…power to the people!

Monday, March 8, 2021

Seismic Shift in Energy Policy

 The past number of weeks has been amazing in terms of pushing the new “Green Revolution,” or whatever you want to call. It.  The new administration seems to be serious in its understanding of the implications of climate change and is altering policies to move forward.  The record cold and snow in Texas only amplified the call that a new energy future is on it's way, pointing out the failures of the grid, reliance on resources that had not been appropriately put in place, and the overwhelming proof once again, that the bottom line in energy production and utility distribution is making money, at the expense of ratepayers and taxpayers. 

Fox News blamed renewables 128 times in a 48-hour period.  Although SOME wind turbines were frozen and not available, the main problem was not the shutdown of wind turbines, but that the ERCOT(the main utility) failed to properly upgrade most of their equipment to meet the increased stresses brought on by climate change.  80% of the Texas grid is fed by natural gas.  One of the four nuclear power plants shut down due to freezing in its cooling water supply pumps.  Gas wells, gas pipelines, and a lot of their infrastructure froze, creating a loss of pressure in the grid, which triggered a whole domino effect on the supply of electricity to the grid while demand was soaring.  Peak demand which the delivery system was unable to deliver.  Even at $9/kwh! 

 It will take years of legal, financial, political, and technological battles to sort through who is to blame, and who suffers the consequences.  ERCOT is saying it is not responsible for the $16 billion energy price-tag, and that ratepayers are stuck…read the fine print…changing this would “upset the power market structure.” Bank of America supposedly made hundreds of millions of dollars in that one week!  Who else?  Not the ratepayers. What the future hold is anybody’s guess, but there will be a shift in how the grid in Texas, as well as the other grids in the east and west, adapt to their aging infrastructure, and the increasing problems brought on by the escalating climate change. In a way, this is a blessed event focusing attention on what the scientist and other experts have been warning about for years.  A recent report has shown that the rates PG&E (my utility) charges its ratepayers have doubled since 2005, not so much because of the price of generation, but for infrastructure upgrades brought on by climate change.  The rates will continue to rise due to the years of mismanagement, bankruptcies, and political failure to recognize reality.  Many people complain about the projected costs of the Green Revolution…it is very expensive, but it is money that has to be/and will be spent regardless of which direction we go.  The age of the climate deniers is over…it is now the ignorant renewable deniers that will need to be educated and forced to move forward.  The business “complex” is already beginning the shift, with both old and new companies seeing a growth model with technology, manufacturing, jobs, and profits. 

 An interesting segment by 60 Minutes on NASA exposed a lot on the implications of how policy, technological development, and appropriations of tax-payers monies interact on the political stage.  NASA is developing a rocket to take astronauts to the moon.  It is very expensive, with major companies like Boeing involved.  Price overruns, delays, major setbacks…all part of the industrial “complex” which taxpayers have little say in.  Private companies, such as SpaceX, are far ahead and have developed the technology at 1/10th the cost.  Why not shift to the cheaper private sector?  Congress controls the purse strings and appropriates to those entities with the biggest lobby fleet, and congressional pull.  Jobs for industries in their home state, and donations for their buddies.  We see the same issues with all aspects of our economic functions, especially with energy.  Who can make the most money, regardless of any equability for society and the environment?  This is especially true of the nuclear industry.

 The coming transitions will take time, and will rethink the huge grid we are currently dependent on.  Small, local, microgrids, appropriate local renewable generation, energy storage, and efficient energy use will all be dealt with in the future.  The promise is a cleaner, environmentally friendly, cheaper, and more equitable energy system.  The innovations and ideas already developed will only lead to what a lot of scientists and policy-makers have hoped identified as possible and ideal.  And it is affordable while still producing jobs and a profit.