[tokenadult]

The author of the submitted article, Richard Muller, is the developer of a Physics for Future Presidents course at UC Berkeley, author of a book with the same title as the course, and author of a new book Physics and Technology for Future Presidents: An Introduction to the Essential Physics Every World Leader Needs to Know

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9226.html

that is well worth a read. In other words, Muller has been thinking about how to apply the facts of nature to the contentious issues of public policy for a long time, and has a good sense of economic and political trade-offs in policy- making. The article submitted here is a great example of clear thinking on a scary issue, and I endorse it as well worth reading and thinking about.

P.S. I have just been to Colorado Springs, Colorado, transiting the Denver, Colorado airport to get there, and I am not worried about increasing my cancer risk by returning to the Front Range each year for the business that brought me there.

http://www.epsiloncamp.org/

I checked some of the statements made in other comments in this thread since posting this, and I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country.

P.P.S. I live in one of the states of the United States in which an exceptionally large percentage of electricity is generated at nuclear power plants. Both plants are located along the Mississippi River, as is most of Minnesota's population centers. Electricity is unusually inexpensive here, and health statistics are unusually good here, compared to other parts of the United States.

[veidr]

You are correct that the shuttering of the plants has been bad for everybody. Power is already more expensive and another rate increase (10% or so) is imminent. The air is dirtier. The whole place is a lot more uncomfortable (to comply with mandatory energy cuts, the Tokyo office in which I am typing this very post no longer has any climate control on weekends... I have a frozen gel-pack wrappped around my head and sweat is still running down my back).

As a resident and rational human being, I want those gigawatts back. Modern Tokyo is an especially sad place without enough power.

But I want the gigawatts without the staggering incompetence and the gross negligence and the collusion and collossal failure of oversight. I want the nuclear plants to be equipped with modern emergency procedures that don't start with faxing a fucking paper form to City Hall.

And despite all the controvery and debate, I don't hear much about fixing those things. In terms of whether to turn the juice back on, those things are the problem, more than the accident itself. And that is the point that the well-written article by Dr. Muller misses.

Yes, it is rational for a thinking person to be open to using nuclear energy, despite the inherent risks. I think it is rational if, say, we really do a decent job of trying to mitigate those risks, to have functional regulatory oversight, and make decisions in a reasonably transparent, fully informed, democratic manner.

But when you feel (as I think the public here feels) that there is just no way that part is going to happen, then it becomes less rational to support the nukes.

Personally I love nuclear power. What a fucking thing! Incredible! And, it makes the 1 MW·h or so I personally use each month cheaper and even potentially cleaner.

So in theory sure, I support nuclear energy initiatives. I think you are right, it does make sense for Japan to be open to that.

But instead in Japan (and elsewhere, probably) I think the question actually is: "Do you support nuclear energy in the absence of competent oversight, with reliance on the for-profit provider's self-inspections, with safety precautions that are insufficient to protect from predictable natural disasters, and outdated fax-machine-based emergency procedures?"

The answer to that is less easy.

[chmars]

Coping with summer heat is actually possible without air conditioning. I know because I live now in a country where air conditioning is virtually inexistent in spite of summer temperatures comparable to Tokyo's (although usually less humid).

Insulation is a major factor and probably a main reason why you consider air conditioning in Tokyo that important: Insulation is virtually virtually virtually, i.e. air conditioning becomes more of a necessity and waste more energy. In the winter time, on the other hand, heating in Japan is very inefficient as well. During my last stay in Japan, I was happy to see at least some new building with better insulations, that is a beginning!

Another factor are long commuting times in Tokyo, another contributing factor to energy consumption.

And there is of course always the possibility of a siesta. The Japanese have somehow a reputation for Coping with summer heat is actually possible without air conditioning. I know because I live in a country where air conditioning is virtually inexistent in spite of summer temperatures comparable to Tokyo's.

Insulation is a major factor and probably a major reason why you consider air conditioning in Tokyo that important: Insulation is virtually inexistent, i.e. air conditioning becomes more of a necessity and waste more energy. In the winter time, on the other hand, heating in Japan is very inefficient as well.

Another factor are long commuting times in Tokyo, another contributing factor to energy consumption.

And there is of course always the possibility of a siesta. The Japanese have somehow a reputation for long and busy workdays, however, most of it is inefficiently spent office time. A siesta would therefore easily be possible or just try to be more efficient and spend less time in a warm office.

Do I like to work in a warm office in the summer? No but coping with summer heat is much easier than with winter cold … I hope the Japanese will get the priorities sooner or later right, despite the lamentable state of the country (and that began not with Fukushima). and busy workdays, however, most of it is inefficiently spent office time. I often compare the Japanese with the Italians in regard to their work ethic although the Italians at least admit that they are not efficient … anyway, a siesta at least would easily be possible or just try to be more efficient and spend less time in a warm office.

Do I like to work in a warm office in the summer? No but coping with summer heat is much easier than with winter cold … I hope the Japanese will get the priorities sooner or later right, despite the lamentable state of the country (and that began not with Fukushima).

[snogglethorpe]

Japan reduced energy usage fairly significantly in the summer following 3/11, to cope with the energy shortage from the missing nuclear plants. Remember, they started with rolling blackouts, and eventually got things to the point where they could cope without them.

They did this using a lot of the simple things you suggest, turning off stuff (many places got downright dim), reducing cooling, people wearing less clothing, reduced train frequency, etc.

Unfortunately this summer they seem to have given up all of that, and are simply burning a lot more oil generating electricity. I'm not sure why they didn't try to maintain the "save electricity" campaigns, because they actually were effective (some of that, no doubt, due to the implied threat: "if you don't, back to the rolling blackouts!").

[I think the "Japanese heating is inefficient" is a bit misleading -- Japanese houses are traditionally pretty poorly insulated, but they're also not very large, and tended to use localized heating (everybody huddling around a heater) instead of keeping the whole place toasty. The ultimate expression of this, of course, is the kotatsu, which reduces heating needs to a well-insulated 0.2 m^3 space focusing on everybody's feet! :) Newer buildings tend to be better heated, and hopefully they can match that with better insulation.]

[nacker]

"I can't find any confirmation that the country-wide shutdown of nuclear plants in Japan has been anything other than bad for the country. While Japan continues to need electricity (for life-saving medical technologies, among other uses), and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the other nuclear plants in the country."

OK, I don't know if anyone else finds this to be a strange statement, but I do.

First, no one is saying that shutting down 50 of 52 nuclear power power plants, providing 30% of Japan's electricity supply is an economic benefit. Would that even make sense?

But "bad for the country" is a very different proposition.

"Japan has shut down over 95% of the power plants which produce radioactive waste which lasts for thousands of years."

Bad for the country?

While Japan continues to need electricity (for SHORT TERM CONVENIENCE) , and until other sources of electricity become less expensive, it makes sense for Japan to be open to restarting the PRODUCTION OF ENERGY WHICH RESULTS IN RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS).

Yeah. Right.

What IS good for the country? Short term consumption, or long-term sickness, death and mutation? What would Hoppe say, in terms of a time preference analysis?

[jacques_chester]

The concept of a half-life explains why LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS is a bit of an overselling of the situation.

The more radioactive a substance is, the shorter its half life. That is, the sooner it will become less radioactive. And vice versa: if a substance has a long half life, it will simply emit less energy per unit of time.

It's just inverse formulae. Nothing magical.

But people imagine high-powered radioactivity lasting for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. It just doesn't happen like that.

[nacker]

Jacques, I feel reluctant to disagree with you, because to search out the supporting references is a bit of a chore, but I had a good education in physics, I was a very good student, and I am confident that lethal for thousands of years is not overselling of the situation. If anything, thousands of years is underselling, as hundreds of thousands would be more accurate.

[fixedit]

Let me help you with that. Jacques is correct in his description of activity. I just checked my radiation detection text book to make sure (that would be embarrassing wouldn't it!)

However, "lethal" is a bit of an ambiguous term when applied to the waste from the nuclear power generation. After cooling down, the fuel assemblies will most certainly be emitting ionizing radiation that will be detectable for hundreds of thousands of years, as you suggest. This does NOT mean it is "lethal" for this time period. UNLESS you open one of the assemblies and make an industrial waste smoothie. Most of the long lived isotopes contained in the assembly will be deadly as heavy metals. So there is still danger, but it is easily manageable, just like the waste from many other industrial processes (like making solar panels, or batteries for hybrids for instance).

[maxharris]

but I had a good education in physics

Really? If that were true, you'd be able to answer him easily with facts and explanations that draw on those facts to provide an integrated understanding of reality.

I have a friend that just graduated from a nuclear engineering program. He is well-educated in physics.

[slurgfest]

Your angry capitalization does not substitute for understanding of where the waste will go and what the actual health impact would be. We have actually had some time to see how this goes, what are the results so far?

[nacker]

Oh please. I'm sorry you interpret my capitalization as "angry". It's a typing style I'm used to. I'm 52, and I've been on the net since the late 80's, if you want to suggest a simple italicization trick for HN, please let me know.

As far as the rest of your question, I am completely dumbfounded, gobsmacked, and bewildered as to WTF you are saying.

[pessimizer]

Surround what you're typing by asterisks. It feels awkward to me after spending a long time _underlining_ things, but it certainly looks better.

[nacker]

But Holy Skeet, youngsters, I'm now off to the "Why time appears to speed up with age" thread!

No time to lose!

[nacker]

Like this?

Thanks!

[damienkatz]

> RADIOACTIVE WASTE THAT IS LETHAL FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS

Honest question, isn't the fuel also lethal, and decaying it makes it less lethal? I understand storing the waste might be somewhat problematic, but is it really that hard to put it somewhere safe?

[nacker]

Damien, to be honest, once radioactive fuel is "in the country", as far as I know, feeding it into a reactor produces more radioactive waste than the original material.

But I could be wrong about that. I'm sure some of the nuclear experts, and captains of industry, and Wall Street apologists whose jobs depend on it would be able to give you a more scientific answer ;)

As far as I am aware, the safest policy for "the country", whatever that territory might be, is to get any radioactive material "outside" ASAP.

Also, as far as I am aware, there is no shortage of governments who are willing to be the hosts of such long-term poisons/weapons material, which doesn't really say much for them morally, does it?

[rdl]

Reprocessing some kinds of nuclear waste actually reduces long-term radiation levels. TRUEX, from Argonne National Laboratory, can remove (and then burn up) transuranic alpha emitters, and basically you end up with short-lived high activity isotopes (safely stored above ground for decades in fuel ponds on-site) and long-lived low-activity isotopes (fairly similar to the natural ores, and could be stored underground long-term, or in subduction zones in the mantle). The problem is that doing this has a proliferation risk, but I have zero fear of the Japanese developing a nuclear weapon, and as far as the US, UK, FR, CN, RU doing so, well, that ship sailed in the middle of last century.