Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumNBC investigative report: U.S. Nuclear Agency Hid Concerns, Hailed Safety Record as Fukushima Melted
BY BILL DEDMAN
In the tense days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan on March 11, 2011, staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission made a concerted effort to play down the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis to Americas aging nuclear plants, according to thousands of internal emails reviewed by NBC News.
The emails, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, show that the campaign to reassure the public about Americas nuclear industry came as the agencys own experts were questioning U.S. safety standards and scrambling to determine whether new rules were needed to ensure that the meltdown occurring at the Japanese plant could not occur here.
At the end of that long first weekend of the crisis three years ago, NRC Public Affairs Director Eliot Brenner thanked his staff for sticking to the talking points that the team had been distributing to senior officials and the public.
...
There are numerous examples in the emails of apparent misdirection or concealment in the initial weeks after the Japanese plant was devastated by a 9.0 earthquake and 50-foot tsunami that knocked out power and cooling systems at the six-reactor plant, eventually causing releases of radioactive material:
- Trying to distance the U.S. agency from the Japanese crisis, an NRC manager told staff to hide from reporters the presence of Japanese engineers in the NRC's operations center in Maryland.
- If asked whether the Diablo Canyon Power Plant on the California coast could withstand the same size tsunami that had hit Japan, spokespeople were told not to reveal that NRC scientists were still studying that question. As for whether Diablo could survive an earthquake of the same magnitude, "We're not so sure about, but again we are not talking about that," said one email.
- When skeptical news articles appeared, the NRC dissuaded news organizations from using the NRC's own data on earthquake risks at U.S. nuclear plants, including the Indian Point Energy Center near New York City.
- And when asked to help reporters explain what would happen during the worst-case scenario -- a nuclear meltdown -- the agency declined to address the questions.
As the third anniversary of Fukushima...
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/u-s-nuclear-agency-hid-concerns-hailed-safety-record-fukushima-n48561
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)But it's coal, oil and natural gas that are killing the biosphere. That makes fossil fuel a more urgent planetary issue than nuclear power.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The logic that carbon justifies nuclear isn't possible to support because we have a BETTER alternative - faster to deploy, less expensive, safer, cleaner, and with no risk of nuclear proliferation. The only thing nuclear does is slow the inevitable transition to sustainable, renewable sources of energy, while meeting a meager 2 1/2% of global energy consumption.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)If we don't deal with the carbon, nothing else will matter.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Only a fool would support it. Seriously why the hell do you think the likes of Roger Ailes and ALEC embrace nuclear - to end carbon?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I accept your argument wrt coal, but the others? Half the world's energy-related CO2 comes oil and gas - essentially automobiles, space heating and gas peakers. How does getting rid of nuclear power address that?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)We've gone down this road a thousand times before and you already know the answers, so why the games?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Globally, in 30 years? That's why I'm still harping on it. We're not doing anything even approaching that level of urgency.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)We are literally decades ahead with renewable deployment of where year 2000 projections put us. If you want a faster transition, then work for it instead of standing in the way every chance you get. The world has the capability to put us on a completely different trajectory re carbon emissions within ten years.
But here you are yet again, trying to justify a the dead end technological twins of nuclear and coal, while sneering at the amazing progress renewables are racking up.
ReInventing Fire - a soup to nuts plan for changing the way the world meets all of its energy needs; details included.
http://www.rmi.org
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Pointing out that the desired end-state (a world inhabitable by humans with a functioning global civilization) is not achievable. Not obstructionism, just realism.
Oh, and I haven't "pumped" nuclear since Fukushima.
Good luck.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Tell yourself what you want, but you are actively working against change.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I'm being only slightly ironic or sarcastic here. the road we are on will lead, sooner rather than later, to a collapse of global civilization. Along with that goes a collapse in fossil fuel and nuclear power, as well as in things like land use and cement production. That seems to me to me to be the surest and safest way out of this planetary coffin corner we've found ourselves in. Certainly a surer bet than you building and defending castles in the RMI sandbox.
We're done. Let it go.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The solution is the problem.
How much acid did you do when you were reading 1984?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Nobody who matters notices anything that goes on here that doesn't directly reference Obama.
I'm not sure what you think you're gaining with your stout and acidic defense of pipe dreams on this blog, and why it would matter to you (or anyone) that people like me express contrary opinions here. Nothing I say here makes any difference. Nor does anything you say. It's all just chit-chat.
But FYI, there are a lot of folks with my opinion out there in the real world. More and more all the time.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)If it's so meaningless why are you wasting your time trying to peddle all that junk science you keep churning out?
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I like chit-chat. Plus, it gives me a chance to explore my thoughts before I take them out into the real world.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Nipsy Russell.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... and that is All Renewables All The Time. That is his only acceptable position. There is really no sense engaging him if you don't totally agree. You will just be a shill for the anti-renewable industry.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Just chit-chat, you know?
Besides, I'm not a shill for the anti-renewable industry, I'm a shill for the anti-civilization industry.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Module Costs Dip Below 50 Cents per Watt in JinkoSolars Strong Q4
JinkoSolar of China just hit the U.S. SunShot goal of sub-50-cents-per-watt solar modules.
Eric Wesoff
March 4, 2014
Vertically integrated Chinese solar manufacturer JinkoSolar announced its "third straight quarter of profitability" along with net profitability for 2013 with a Q4 gross margin of 24.7 percent. Even some Chinese module makers are seeing good days return.
The company had a great quarter with strong margin and geographical diversification -- but the more interesting news came from Arturo Herrero, Jinko's Chief Strategy Officer. During Monday's earnings call, Herrero noted, "Basically, if you look at our Q2 to Q4, our ASP is around $0.63. Our non-silicon cost is, I think, $0.39, and plus the silicon cost of $0.09, it is around the $0.48 mark."
Shyam Mehta, Senior Solar Analyst at GTM Research, notes, "I believe this is the first time in human history that a module company has recorded cost under 50 cents per watt -- although the cost may go back up a bit in 2014."
In fact, a forecast from one of Mehta's recent reports shows top Chinese manufacturers making solar modules for 36 cents per watt by 2017. "There was a reaction from some people that our projection for 36 cents per watt is crazy. To that, I offer the point that our forecast only implies an annualized reduction of 6.3 percent from 50 cents a watt today," he said. "It's not exactly a game-changer; it's 14 cents. But the industry has had a mental block because people didn't think we could produce modules for less than 50 cents per watt."
Greentech media: http://preview.tinyurl.com/lkqjm2e
Here's a link to 2010 DOE presentation on solar, see slide 11. The OP price is within $0.02 of the module cost predicted for 2030.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/pdfs/dpw_lushetsky.pdf
This presentation makes it extremely clear just how fast the global energy landscape is changing.
WAKE UP PEOPLE!
Teslas Giga Battery Factory Threatens the Auto, Utility and Building Controls Markets
Cheaper batteries will allow mainstream pricing of Teslas EVs in six yearsand lots more.
Henry Fords massive factory scale and vertical integration cut the cost of internal combustion-based cars by more than half, made Ford Motor Company the (then) biggest car company in the world, and helped bolster the American middle class in the process. A hundred years later, Chinas use of scale economies and vertical integration made it the global market leader in solar PV in less than a decade -- and reconfirmed the power of scale and vertical integration.
But what does Teslas Giga factory really mean? Lets start with the obvious: cheaper batteries will allow mainstream pricing of Teslas EVs in six years. Thats consistent with Musks vision to put an EV in every garage. Mainstream pricing will turn Tesla into a massive company.
Sure, Teslas competitors are big and confident -- just like Apples competitors when Steve Jobs announced his vision to put a PC on every desktop. As was the case with Apple in 1976, Tesla wont need to worry about cannibalizing sales of existing products. Competitors with smoke spewing from their corporate tailpipes face a far more complex transition. Just as Digital Equipment Corporation failed to make the turn from mini computers to PCs, some big and famous car companies might not make the curve in the road to EVs.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Teslas-Giga-Battery-Factory-Threatens-the-Auto-Utility-and-Building-Contr