2004 warning call to Japan re: Game of Nuclear Roulette

[robdogbucky]

Sunday, May 23, 2004

Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette

By LEUREN MORET
Special to The Japan Times

"Of all the places in all the world where no one in their right mind would build scores of nuclear power plants, Japan would be pretty near the top of the list...

...The 52 reactors in Japan -- which generate a little over 30 percent of its electricity -- are located in an area the size of California, many within 150 km of each other and almost all built along the coast where seawater is available to cool them. However, many of those reactors have been negligently sited on active faults, particularly in the subduction zone along the Pacific coast, where major earthquakes of magnitude 7-8 or more on the Richter scale occur frequently. The periodicity of major earthquakes in Japan is less than 10 years. There is almost no geologic setting in the world more dangerous for nuclear power than Japan -- the third-ranked country in the world for nuclear reactors...

...After the greatest nuclear power plant disaster in Japan's history at Tokai, Ibaraki Prefecture, in September 1999, large, expensive Emergency Response Centers were built near nuclear power plants to calm nearby residents. After visiting the center a few kilometers from Hamaoka, I realized that Japan has no real nuclear-disaster plan in the event that an earthquake damaged a reactor's water-cooling system and triggered a reactor meltdown...

...When I asked ERC officials how they planned to evacuate millions of people from Shizuoka Prefecture and beyond after a Kobe-magnitude earthquake (Kobe is on the same subduction zone as Hamaoka) destroyed communication lines, roads, railroads, drinking-water supplies and sewage lines, they had no answer. Last year, James Lee Witt, former director of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, was hired by New York citizens to assess the U.S. government's emergency-response plan for a nuclear power plant disaster. Citizens were shocked to learn that there was no government plan adequate to respond to a disaster at the Indian Point nuclear reactor, just 80 km from New York City..."

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fl20040523x2.html


One interesting factoid held out by Dr. Moret in this article is her assertion that any of the exising nuke plants can be converted to use natural gas, of which there are abundant reserves on the planet, especially in the old USSR, so for Japan to do it, it would not bve that difficult to convert, and at a cost of 20-30% of the cost of building a new nuke plant or a new natural gas fired plant.

In the words of Carnac or one of the other classic Johnny Carson personas, somehow emblazened on my brain as a kid from falling asleep in front of the old Tonight Show no doubt;

"I did not know that!"

Why not start switching them all now instead of going through the very dangerous charade of believing everything the operators now claim and not try to get another 40 years out of the decaying nuke sets around the US?



Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[RC]

1. Minor problem with natural gas.

Japan would have to import it. That was why they went nuclear in the first place. Because they have to import most of their energy.

[robdogbucky]

3. Trans Siberian Pipeline was done in a short period of time.

From 1982 to 1984.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Pipeline

It transports gas to Europe. I'm sure that there is a will and a way to do it to supply Japan with natural gas. The article spoke to how easily the conversion is compared to the cost and risk of continuing to operate antiquated plants.

If they can get the gas from near the north pole in Siberia they can devise a way to get that to Japan.


But it looks like more natural gas to Japan is a foregone conclusion:


Natural gas will stay cheap, even if Japan needs more of it
Posted by Nin-Hai Tseng, writer-reporter
March 16, 2011 11:33 am
The U.S. has a glut of natural gas supplies, so don't expect Japan's crisis to impact domestic prices. If the U.S. takes a new direction on nuclear energy policy, however, prices will likely move higher.


"...Japan has shut down 11 nuclear reactors, and with several plants out of operation, it's widely expected that the East Asian island will need additional supplies of liquefied natural gas and other fuels to generate electricity. Nuclear power provides a quarter of Japan's electricity, and the expectations are that cargoes of LNG from Europe and other parts of the world will re-route to meet additional demands from Japan as it starts recovering from the disaster.

And indeed, spot prices have risen higher since the earthquake. Deutsche Bank says Europe is perhaps most vulnerable because it is increasingly dependent on imports of natural gas. Analysts predict from 5 billion to 12 billion cubic meters a year of LNG supplies could now be diverted away from Europe and into Japan, driving spot prices higher in the region's gas hubs. Deutsche added that it could be a "a game-change for the EU gas market..."

...And it's not as if the U.S. would export the excess supply, since the country lacks the infrastructure to easily liquefy large amounts of the gas to sell abroad. Qatar, Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia are the biggest LNG exporters and will likely fill any void for Japan, CLSA says.

In the long-term, however, the wild card that could send prices higher even in the U.S. is extra scrutiny of nuclear power that could result in more regulations and added costs, says Anuj Sharma, an analyst at Pritchard Capital Partners in Houston. As workers in Japan try to avert a nuclear disaster, many policymakers question nuclear safety. On Monday, for example, the Swiss government officially suspended plans to build nuclear plants. And in the U.S., Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut has called to "to slow things down" on new plants at least until safety is further explored."

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/03/16/natural-gas-will-stay-cheap-even-if-japan-needs-more-of-it/



Natural gas, other fuel for Japan: Who'll supply them?
Natural gas and other conventional fuel imports will rise after Japan's nuclear disaster. Asian exporters of natural gas, coal, and oil should see the biggest boost.

By Associated Press / March 22, 2011

SINGAPORE
Japan's nuclear crisis could reverberate through global energy markets for years to come, pushing up prices as suppliers look to take advantage of a surge in demand for non-nuclear fuels from the world's third-largest economy...

...It appears that the shutdown nuclear plants will be out of action for at least three years, if not forever," said Ravi Krishnaswamy, energy analyst with consultancy Frost & Sullivan, referring to half a dozen plants. "We're likely to see prices for both coal and natural gas increasing in the short and longer term."

Natural gas prices in Europe and Asia have jumped since the disaster. Last week, Royal Dutch Shell PLC said it would divert LNG and fuel oil to Japan while Qatar, the world's largest gas exporter, promised to meet any increased requirements.

"Diversion of gas supplies from regular customers in Europe to Japan is bound to drive up gas prices in Europe," Krishnaswamy said.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0322/Natural-gas-other-fuel-for-Japan-Who-ll-supply-them

[Wilms]

4. They have to import nuclear fuel as well.

That's why they're big on reprocessing.

No easy answers...but we're going to hear a lot about renewables there, and elsewhere, in the coming years.

I hope.

[kristopher]

6. Renewables are the most likely substitute

They can increase usage of existing FF capacity and bulk it up as needed with natgas. No matter what they will not shut down nuclear across the country overnight, so we are talking about a stepped approach where they have time to move.

I'm convinced the use of renewables as an economic driver is going to be the prime mover of the decisions that are taken about future energy supply. They need the economic boost and the public is going to be willing to pay for it. This article by Gipe (highly informed on renewables) is a good look at the possibilities.

...As Japan expands the evacuation zone around the damaged Fukushima 1 nuclear plant from 20 km to 30 km and Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) skirts the edge of bankruptcy, the country confronts a stark choice: undertake a massive construction program to replace the nuclear reactors with more of the same, or, instead, follow a new, less risky, and potentially more strategic path toward rapid renewable energy development. The stakes are high and the fight is already intense as Japanese elites debate the future of their electricity system, and literally, the future of their country.

However, it is clear now that if Japan were to follow the path blazed by Germany, it could more than replace the electricity generation lost by the damaged plants at Fukushima in less time than it would take to build new reactors.

Germany alone added as much new renewable generation in less than five years as Japan lost at Fukushima. Wind energy alone generates more electricity in Germany than the doomed Japanese reactors once did.

If Japan were to develop renewable energy at the same pace as Germany has over the past decade, it could add 120 TWh per year of new renewable generation. It could add significantly more, if it kept up with Germany's blistering pace of solar energy development over the past five years.

Using a system ...

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/04/what-feed-in-tariffs-could-do-for-japans-electricity-shortage

[Wilms]

9. Interesting chart in that article.

It looks like Germany runs a more efficient operation, at least in terms of GDP...though not necessarily an a per-capita basis.

Still, I get the sense Japan might be able to sacrifice a few light bulbs and gadgets, and some outdoor digital signage and lower their energy consumption profile. At least for the short-term, they're already doing that and figuring how to get industry stood up.

I've got my fingers crossed they'll out-pace Germany and Portugal in the introduction of renewables, while beginning to decommission nuclear plants, and refusing to invest in the construction of newer "safer" designs.

[Turbineguy]

2. Switching to conventional

fossil fuel would be low thermal efficiency. But they could change out the turbines as well.

[flamingdem]

5. Leuren Moret is a curiousity, she's a believer in Haarp among other things

but she does a certain amount of education on the nuclear topic.

Overall sadly she does more harm than good because it allows space to call all those
against nuclear power loopy conspiracy theorists.

Sometimes I wonder if people like Moret are CIA plants meant to discredit the anti-nuke movement.

Tin Foil hat theory of my own!

Haarp is the most schizoid conspiracy theory I've ever heard but many go for it?!?

[robdogbucky]

7. I agree she has a lot of varied opinions, but she has been a persecuted whistleblower

So, I cut her some slack on that part of it. She has felt the wrath of the system she worked for. Her data and opinions on DU and the harm it is doing all over the middle east, and how that has also contributed to contamination all over the globe, has been spot on in my opinion. That she was this aware of the risks in Japan's program back in 2004 is enough to me on this point alone. Did you read the whole article? Just curious in light of present dispersions on her about the HAARP thing and some other things, how this effort stacks up? Did she not try to alert the Japanese to what is obvious now?

I know you are talking about the video spot she did with the alternative news guy up in Vancouver. That is where she went off the rails on that particular theory on HAARP. Others not so much. They have been using DU munitions in Libya as well and I don't think the American people realize all the things that are done in our name.

I think of it like I do the "May 21 is the end of the world," folks. They can't win, if they are wrong about the end of the world coming then they will be a laughingstock, and quickly forgotten like the last 10 or so doomsdayer/rapture types. And if they are right there will be no one left to tell "I told you so." How can they win?

I think for Dr. Moret, she has struggled mightily and has taken some blows but continues to fight out there and do good work for the radiation education group of scientists that I think are mentioned at the end of the article in the blurb. She also mentioned the two whistleblowers in Japan are unemployable because of the good they tried to do and in some limited forms, actually did do some good.

Dr. Moret can't win. If she is proven wrong on anything she will be villified in the wingnut category. If she's right and eventuallly even more terrible disasters of this type occur (I mean how many do we need before we get the point of Godzilla?), there could be so much suffering, her opinions will disappear in the dust. There is no doubt she is courageous and in the vein of Arne Gunderson and Dr. Chris Busby, are continuing to educate the public with data the industry would like to suppress. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

I would rather know what is going on, even if TPTB work mightily to suppress the truth and make it harder and harder to find.



Just my dos centavos

robdogbucky

[flamingdem]

10. She was right about Fukushima

but I wonder what made her depart from scientific thought as she has ... she uses logic in some areas and speculation in others ... could it be a Bay Area religion kind of thing? Hard to say. Yes, I saw the videos and she gets out there in those but again, mixed with good information. Did you see her latest 2 part lecture on youtube?

[flamingdem]

11. This is a good one by her

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsYGE6wru9s

I'm getting hooked. These are like science fiction stories. She is something.

This one is about how Google is in cahoots with the Pentagon, about controlling us, and about controlling the human genome!

[robdogbucky]

12. Curious, what do you know about HAARP?

Federal Court restricts global deployment of Navy sonar
posted 08/28/03
PRESS RELEASE: A federal judge ruled August 26, 2003 that the Navy's plan to deploy a new high-intensity sonar system violates numerous federal environmental laws and could endanger whales, porpoises and fish. In a 73-page opinion, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte barred the Navy's planned around-the-world deployment and ordered the Navy to reduce the system's potential harm to marine mammals and fish by negotiating limits on its use with conservation groups who had sued over its deployment.

The sonar system, known as Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active sonar (or LFA), relies on extremely loud, low-frequency sound to detect submarines at great distances. According to the Navy's own studies, LFA generates sounds up to 140 decibels even more than 300 miles away from the sonar source. Many scientists believe that blasting such intense sounds over large expanses of the ocean could harm entire populations of whales, porpoises and fish. During testing off the California coast, noise from a single LFA system was detected across the breadth of the North Pacific Ocean...

...The mass stranding of multiple whale species in the Bahamas in March 2000 and the simultaneous disappearance of the region's entire population of beaked whales intensified these concerns. A federal investigation identified testing of a U.S. Navy mid-frequency active sonar system as the cause. Last September, mass strandings occurred in the Canary Islands as a result of military sonar, and in the Gulf of California as the likely result of an acoustic geophysical survey using extremely loud air guns...

..."The court properly ruled that the permit to deploy the LFA system violates federal law," said Andrew Sabey, a partner with the international firm of Morrison & Foerster, which is representing the plaintiffs NRDC, the Humane Society, the League for Coastal Protection, the Cetacean Society International, and the Ocean Futures Society and its president, Jean-Michel Cousteau. "The marine environment is an invaluable resource that we all must share," said Jean-Michel Cousteau. "I am very pleased that good sense has prevailed. The court has taken an extremely valuable step to protect a part of our life support system from destruction."

http://sanjuanislander.com/groups/center_for_whale_research/sonar.shtml



Then there is this:

HAARP (High fre-quency Active Auroral Research Program) is to be a major Arctic facility for upper atmospheric and solar-terrestrial research. Scheduled for completion in 2002, HAARP is being built on a DoD-owned site near Gakona, Alaska. Principal instruments include a high power, high-frequency (HF) phased array radio transmitter (known as the Ionospheric Research Instru-ment, or IRI), used to stimulate small, well defined volumes of ionosphere, and an ultrahigh frequency (UHF) incoherent scatter radar (ISR), used to measure electron densities, electron and ion temperatures, and Doppler velocities in the stimulated region and in the natural ionosphere. To further the scientific capabilities and usefulness of the IRI and ISR, HAARP is supporting the design and installation of the latest in modern geophysical research instruments, including an HF ionosonde, ELF and VLF re-ceivers, magnetometers, rio-meters, a LIDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) and optical and infrared spectro-meters and cameras which will be used to observe the complex natural variations of Alaska's ionosphere as well as to detect artificial effects produced by the IRI.

Is HAARP Really Unique?

Ionospheric research facilities have been in continuous use since the early 50's to investigate fundamental physical principles which govern the earth's ionosphere, so that present and future transmission technologies may take into account the complexities of the ionosphere. At the present time the US operates two ionospheric research sites, one in Puerto Rico, near the Arecibo Observatory, the other (known as HIPAS) in Alaska near Fairbanks. Both of these employ active and passive radio instrumentation similar to that being built at HAARP. Interest in the ionosphere is not limited to the US: a five-country consortium runs the European Incoherent Scatter Radar site (EISCAT), a premier world-class ionospheric research facility located in northern Norway near Tromsø. Facilities also are located at Jicamarca, Peru; near Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod ("SURA") and Apatity, Russia; near Kharkov, Ukraine and in Dushanbe, Tadzhikistan. All of these installations have as their primary purpose the study of the ionosphere, and most employ the capability of stimulating to a varying degree small, localized regions of the ionosphere to discover in a controlled manner what nature produces at random. HAARP also will have such a capability, but what sets HAARP apart from existing facilities is the unusual combination of a research tool which provides electronic beam steering, wide frequency coverage and high effective radiated power collocated with a diverse suite of scientific obser-vational instruments.

Who is Building HAARP?

Technical expertise and procurement services as required for the management, admin-istration and evaluation of the program are being provided cooperatively by the Air Force (Phillips Laboratory) and Navy (Office of Naval Research and Naval Research Laboratory). Since HAARP consists of many individual items of scientific equipment, both large and small, there is a considerable list of commercial, academic and government organizations which are contributing to the building of the facility by developing scientific diagnostic instru-mentation and by providing guidance in the specification, design and development of the IRI. Advanced Power Tech-nologies, Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of E-Systems, Inc. which is wholly owned by Raytheon Corporation, was awarded the contract to design and build the IRI, based on a proposal submitted in response to an RFP issued by the Office of Naval Research and published in the Commerce Business Daily. Other organizations which have contributed to the program in-clude the University of Alaska, University of Massachusetts, UCLA, MIT, Stanford Uni-versity, Clemson University, University of Tulsa, University of Maryland, Cornell University, SRI International, and Geospace, Inc.

http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/haarp/WEATHER.html



"...HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other U.S. military documents put it more clearly -- HAARP aims to learn how to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." Communicating with submarines is only one of those purposes...."

http://haarp.net/



I don't know about you, but HAARP damage is a real possibility, especially with the insanity of world leaders.

[upi402]

8. agree. The Sundance Channel airing 'Waste: Nuclear Nightmare'

cool