Post by Ex_Nuke_Troop on Apr 13, 2014 21:44:41 GMT
New Scientist : There's more to fear from nature than nuclear power
16 March 2011
Magazine issue 2804. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Editorials Topic Guide
Read more: "Special report: After Japan's megaquake"
OVER the past half-century, the risks of nuclear energy have been demonstrated by a succession of accidents: the UK's Windscale fire of 1957; the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, in 1979; and the radioactive plume that drifted across Europe after the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl in Ukraine.
To that list we now have to add the blasts, fires and meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear station in northern Japan (see "Fukushima throws spotlight on quake zone nuclear power"), events which are still unfolding as New Scientist goes to press. As the world anxiously looks on, soul-searching about the future of the nuclear industry - which appeared to be on the brink of a renaissance - has begun.
The evacuation of approaching 200,000 people, along with reports of high radiation levels, of burning spent fuel, and apocalyptic footage of plumes of debris erupting from the stricken plant, will revive a question that seemed to have been retreating from global concerns: how safe is nuclear power?
For Japan, the implications are clear. While seismologists ponder whether megaquakes around the world can be linked (see "Tsunami survival: Emergency shelters needed"), they are unanimous on one point: earthquakes do cluster locally. Aftershocks can be as bad as the original jolt, and can come months later. Japan should remain on high alert.
Indeed, the disaster should give any seismically active country with nuclear power plants serious pause for thought. That the emergency has prompted a rethink of nuclear programmes in other countries is understandable, and the instinctive response of many will now be to condemn nuclear power out of hand.
But to do so would be to miss one of the clearest lessons of Fukushima. It is an old plant: the reactors there are 1960s designs. And that should remind us that it would be unwise to extend the lifespans of vintage plants in order to postpone politically tricky choices about whether to build new, safer ones.
It is also important to remember that Fukushima is not typical of reactor sites around the world. It was shaken by a megaquake that was exceptional even for Japan. In less seismically active regions nuclear plants will not face the same design challenges.
Though the crisis at Fukushima is not over, it is almost certain that the loss of life and destruction caused directly by the earthquake and tsunami will dwarf any harm from the damaged reactors. Advocates of nuclear power might even argue that the ad hoc efforts to avert catastrophe should be considered a success, given that the quake was far more severe than any that these reactors were designed to withstand.
We shall see how true that is from the post-mortem on how well the Tokyo Electric Power Company really coped. Either way, the disaster reminds us that we must consider how nuclear plants will perform in all high-impact, low-probability events - not just quakes but volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts too.
Yet wherever we set the safety bar, we have to accept that there are forces of nature that lie beyond our control, and which can humble even a wealthy, technologically advanced economy with some of the most sophisticated emergency planning anywhere. Natural disasters can unleash more destructive power than any likely nuclear accidents. Over the decades we have probably seen the worst that can happen. The fallout from Chernobyl and the rest is not a pretty sight, but it pales into insignificance compared with the devastation earthquakes and hurricanes inflict.
That's something worth bearing in mind as we face the fact that rising global temperatures will amplify nature's ability to cause havoc. We should be nervous at the thought of what may lie in store in decades to come.
While it is relatively simple to detect radioactive material down to the very last atom, and model the way in which it can spread and decay, we still can't accurately predict the impact of carbon emissions on the global climate system in the coming century. Computer models of the long-term impact of fossil fuel generation suggest that we may face a number of threats: desertification, crop failures, the spread of disease, species extinction, sea level rise and wars for control of drinking water and habitable territory. Emissions may even trigger a flip, pushing the planet's climate system into entirely unknown territory.
Against this background, we cannot ignore the contribution to curbing carbon emissions that nuclear power offers in the short term. Looking further ahead, the global setback for nuclear energy that will undoubtedly follow Fukushima can only encourage investment in alternative low-carbon and non-carbon energy. The power of nature will always trump technology, so let's try not to make it any more potent than it need be.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928042.900-theres-more-to-fear-from-nature-than-nuclear-power.html
16 March 2011
Magazine issue 2804. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Editorials Topic Guide
Read more: "Special report: After Japan's megaquake"
OVER the past half-century, the risks of nuclear energy have been demonstrated by a succession of accidents: the UK's Windscale fire of 1957; the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, in 1979; and the radioactive plume that drifted across Europe after the 1986 explosion at Chernobyl in Ukraine.
To that list we now have to add the blasts, fires and meltdowns at the Fukushima nuclear station in northern Japan (see "Fukushima throws spotlight on quake zone nuclear power"), events which are still unfolding as New Scientist goes to press. As the world anxiously looks on, soul-searching about the future of the nuclear industry - which appeared to be on the brink of a renaissance - has begun.
The evacuation of approaching 200,000 people, along with reports of high radiation levels, of burning spent fuel, and apocalyptic footage of plumes of debris erupting from the stricken plant, will revive a question that seemed to have been retreating from global concerns: how safe is nuclear power?
For Japan, the implications are clear. While seismologists ponder whether megaquakes around the world can be linked (see "Tsunami survival: Emergency shelters needed"), they are unanimous on one point: earthquakes do cluster locally. Aftershocks can be as bad as the original jolt, and can come months later. Japan should remain on high alert.
Indeed, the disaster should give any seismically active country with nuclear power plants serious pause for thought. That the emergency has prompted a rethink of nuclear programmes in other countries is understandable, and the instinctive response of many will now be to condemn nuclear power out of hand.
But to do so would be to miss one of the clearest lessons of Fukushima. It is an old plant: the reactors there are 1960s designs. And that should remind us that it would be unwise to extend the lifespans of vintage plants in order to postpone politically tricky choices about whether to build new, safer ones.
It is also important to remember that Fukushima is not typical of reactor sites around the world. It was shaken by a megaquake that was exceptional even for Japan. In less seismically active regions nuclear plants will not face the same design challenges.
Though the crisis at Fukushima is not over, it is almost certain that the loss of life and destruction caused directly by the earthquake and tsunami will dwarf any harm from the damaged reactors. Advocates of nuclear power might even argue that the ad hoc efforts to avert catastrophe should be considered a success, given that the quake was far more severe than any that these reactors were designed to withstand.
We shall see how true that is from the post-mortem on how well the Tokyo Electric Power Company really coped. Either way, the disaster reminds us that we must consider how nuclear plants will perform in all high-impact, low-probability events - not just quakes but volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts too.
Yet wherever we set the safety bar, we have to accept that there are forces of nature that lie beyond our control, and which can humble even a wealthy, technologically advanced economy with some of the most sophisticated emergency planning anywhere. Natural disasters can unleash more destructive power than any likely nuclear accidents. Over the decades we have probably seen the worst that can happen. The fallout from Chernobyl and the rest is not a pretty sight, but it pales into insignificance compared with the devastation earthquakes and hurricanes inflict.
That's something worth bearing in mind as we face the fact that rising global temperatures will amplify nature's ability to cause havoc. We should be nervous at the thought of what may lie in store in decades to come.
While it is relatively simple to detect radioactive material down to the very last atom, and model the way in which it can spread and decay, we still can't accurately predict the impact of carbon emissions on the global climate system in the coming century. Computer models of the long-term impact of fossil fuel generation suggest that we may face a number of threats: desertification, crop failures, the spread of disease, species extinction, sea level rise and wars for control of drinking water and habitable territory. Emissions may even trigger a flip, pushing the planet's climate system into entirely unknown territory.
Against this background, we cannot ignore the contribution to curbing carbon emissions that nuclear power offers in the short term. Looking further ahead, the global setback for nuclear energy that will undoubtedly follow Fukushima can only encourage investment in alternative low-carbon and non-carbon energy. The power of nature will always trump technology, so let's try not to make it any more potent than it need be.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928042.900-theres-more-to-fear-from-nature-than-nuclear-power.html
so whats happening in the Solomons, is haarp missing its mark?