Japan Quake Reveals Fatal Flaws of Nuclear Power
The whole world is horrified and saddened at the death and destruction wrought by an earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan.
But the horror continues with the escalating fears of nuclear meltdown at three 1970s-era Japanese reactors. Such an event could eclipse the damage and destruction already wrought by Mother Nature.
This is nuclear power’s Achilles’ heel and shows why it is sheer folly to pour resources into building and maintaining nuclear reactors in the U.S.
Despite the assurances of our elected officials and the industry, there is no way to guarantee the public’s safety when a natural disaster or terrorism strikes commercial reactors. The Japanese are arguably the best prepared to deal with earthquakes, yet they failed to adequately plan for the impact of a tsunami.
This demonstrates the difficulty in planning for both the “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns” that impact nuclear reactors from natural disaster and terrorism. There are alternatives. Had Japan invested in rooftop solar and wind turbines to the degree it spent maintaining and building nuclear reactors, the country wouldn’t be grappling with the potential of a full-scale nuclear meltdown.
U.S. policymakers should watch events in Japan closely and understand the implications to public safety of committing U.S. taxpayer resources to building new nuclear plants. We call on the federal government to do the following:
- Immediately stop activity relating to relicensing aging U.S. reactors;
- Halt all activity geared toward building new reactors; and
- End federal subsidies – such as loan guarantees – for commercial nuclear power, which total $500 billion to date.
Instead, the U.S. should focus on developing wind power and assisting families in the installation of rooftop solar systems.
We went through a similar debate shortly after Sept. 11, but quickly forgot. We can’t afford to forget again.
Tyson Slocum Directs Public Citizen’s Energy Program
Please visit our website to get the facts on nuclear energy.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
is the best solution for clean, widespread power. You only look at Chernobyl and Japan, examples of what can go wrong if you improperly build or operate nuclear power plants (Chernobyl didn't have a containment facility AND the operators turned off safety measures to experiment a new way of making power for cost-efficiently; the fuel for back up plants and safety measures in Japan was above ground, something that would not be tolerated today because of tsunami risks).
Instead of looking at countries that got it wrong like the USSR and Japan, let's look at a country that is doing it right. France, for example, gets 78.8% of its electric power from nuclear energy . When was the last time we've heard of a French nuclear accident like a meltdown? It has never happened.
Now I agree with the article that more work needs to be put into wind and solar power. Spain and Germany are proof that these forms of power are also sustainable ways to produce electricity. But don't bash nuclear power because of inept building on the part of the Soviets and the Japanese.
Yes, it can happen here, and, it will. The only thing that is not certain about the prospect is the timing. When seems to be the only thing that we cannot be certain of.
And, yes, if it happens along the San Andres fault line, a great number of people will die. Can our nuclear reactors survive a 9.0 Richter quake? I really don't know. To err on the side of caution here might just be warranted, though.
Design nuclear reactors to survive a 10.0 Richter quake, and, a 9.0 might just be survivable. I have never found a reactor design for a 10.0 quake, so, if anyone has one, I would be very interested in checking it out.
The reality, though, is that should such an event occur, the death toll from all of the other events associated with it would cause a huge amount of death and destruction. The nuclear radiation would just add the icing on the cake, so to speak.
It would be a really good idea to retrofit existing reactors with an oversized convection cooling system that is designed to survive such an event and cool the core. No electricity is required for such a system, just natural convection cooling. Would add to the cost of a system, but, you can ask the Japanese about the cost of not doing so, when they recover and are able to respond.
Anyway, our thoughts and prayers go out to the people of Japan as they wrestle with this huge national catastrophe.
we need to diversify our energy portfolio. Look up the Desertec Industrial Initiative, a huge alternative energy project valued at over $800 billion being undertaken by a consortium of European companies (mostly German) to provide alternative energy to not just Europe, but to the Middle East and North Africa. If the Europeans can do it, without a dime of government invest, all from the private sector, why can't the Americans do it?
Build solar plants where the weather is constantly sunny (deserts), wind turbines where wind is constantly blowing (off-shore), hydro-electric at some big rivers, and nuclear plants in places where disasters are rare. My home is powered by Duke Energy in upstate SC, which is a nuclear plant as well as a hydroelectric plant. We need more of these in America.
We do need more solar, wind, hydroelectric, and, yes, if we must have a nuke or two, make them designed to ride through a 10 Richter shaker or two and keep on kicking out the terawatts.
Like I have said in a previous blog or two, I have not ever got hold of a reactor design which can withstand a 10.0 Richter shaker, but, I am always willing to be surprised.
Maybe some day, one will be engineered. Till then, I maintain that the closest safe distance from my house for a nuclear reactor is about 93 milllion miles.