PBT Consulting

JAPAN'S AMBITIOUS RENEWABLE ENERGY GOALS AFTER THE GREAT EARTHQUAKE AND FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR PLANT MELTDOWN

The No.3 nuclear reactor of the Fukushima Di-Ischi nuclear power plant is seen burning after a blast following an earthquake and tsunami in this handout satellite image taken March 14, 2011 (Click Image To Enlarge)

On March 11, 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck off the coast of Sendai, Japan, triggering a large tsunami. The earthquake and ensuing damage resulted in an immediate shutdown of 12,000 MW of electric generating capacity at four nuclear power stations.   Other energy  infrastructure such as electrical grid, refineries, and gas and oil-fired power plants were also affected by the earthquake, though some of these facilities were restored.  Between the 2011 earthquake and May 2012, Japan lost all of its nuclear capacity due to scheduled maintenance and the challenge facilities face in gaining government approvals to return to operation. Japan is substituting the loss of nuclear fuel for the power sector with additional natural gas, low-sulfur crude oil, and fuel oil.

Image of the massive tidal wave that slammed into the Fukushima Dai-Ischi nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011 (Click Image To Enlarge)

Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) Co.'s crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant No. 3 reactor in Fukushima prefecture, northern Japan is seen in this still image taken from a video shot by an unmanned helicopter on April 10, 2011 (Click Image To Enlarge)

Click HERE to view some impressive images of the destruction of the Fukushima Dai-Ischi nuclear power plant one month after the nuclear plant disaster of March 11, 2011.

The sociological and economic aftershocks from the devastation of Fukushima will reverberate through Japan for decades. Of the 52 nuclear plants operating before the disaster, only two continue to run, and the consensus is that Japan will not again resort to nuclear generation for the foreseeable future. That puts enormous pressure on utilities to replace lost capacity with other fuel sources and to better manage demand.

Japan's Nuclear Power Plants - Operating, Under Construction and Pre-Construction - Prior to the Great Fukushima Earthquake (Click Image To Enlarge)

Because Japan has always depended on imported fossil fuels, especially liquefied natural gas and oil, there is now a surge in interest in renewables, particularly solar and wind. And in order to manage demand and integrate intermittent and distributed generation, it is suddenly essential to rethink the grid.

The challenge is not to improve reliability.  The Japanese grid is among the most reliable in the world. If the average American loses power for eight hours a year, the average Japanese endures just five minutes of darkness, according to Matt Wakefield, senior program manager, information and communications technology at EPRI.

But the Japanese grid isn’t very smart. Meters, especially residential meters, are still mostly read by meter readers, and while some level of smart metering is deployed, it’s mainly been to establish consumer-to-utility communication to replace these human meter readers. There are a number of pilot projects, but the two-way communication capability that we associate with smart, AMI metering in the United States is at a very early stage of deployment in Japan. The 
challenge, then, is to deploy the components of a truly smart grid in order to enable integration of intermittent renewable resources and the ability to dynamically manage demand.

Japan Total Energy Consumption by Source - Year 2010 - EIA International Energy Statistics (Click Image To Energy)

The challenge is urgent. With the sudden loss of virtually all of its nuclear generation, a significant amount of total generating capacity disappeared. Estimates range as high as 30 percent, according to the World Nuclear Association, and as low as 13 percent to 18 percent by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), but whatever the absolute figure, the loss is very serious. And while some demand was also lost in the wake of Fukushima, much of the industrial capacity that was destroyed has been rebuilt.

Since the earthquake, Japan has handled the loss of capacity mainly through voluntary usage curtailment. The country’s utilities have always relied on a voluntary program with their industrial customers to reduce usage on an emergency basis, but such requests were rare. During the first summer after Fukushima, they asked for reductions and demand decreased significantly, according to EPRI’s Wakefield. That says a lot about the ability of utility companies in Japan to communicate with their customers, but it also speaks to what Clyde Prestowitz, the founder and president of the Economic Strategy Institute and a former counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in the Reagan administration, calls Japan’s homogeneity.  Prestowitz said.

“Everyone is on the same team and everyone is part of the same village. So they work hard to get electricity to the whole village in a way that simply wouldn’t happen in our society.” 

But voluntary curtailment of electric usage is a stopgap measure. Lost capacity must be replaced and then keep pace with expected industrial expansion. Although much of the now dormant nuclear capacity is probably safe, restarting those plants is unlikely. There was, naturally, a high level of concern about nuclear energy from the beginning in Japan, but citizens basically trusted the government and utility executives, who championed it. As the facts about the failure to protect against an eventuality like Fukushima emerged, as well as the lack of transparency about the extent of the disaster, that trust was lost, according to Prestowitz. The result is profound ground-level opposition to nuclear power. Because nuclear was seen as the answer to Japan’s long dependence on imported carbon-based fuel, the obvious alternative now is renewable sources, and any move toward greater efficiency and renewable, distributed generation depends on deploying advanced, smart grid technology.

Japan’s former ruling party, which was replaced in December by the center-right Liberal Democratic Party, conducted a wide-ranging re-examination of national energy policies. According to Jeffrey A. Miller, the energy attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, a key concern has been to replace nuclear with other fuels, especially renewables. To hasten the move toward renewables, the government enacted a feed-in tariff as an incentive for new investments in solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and small-scale hydroelectric. At the same time, Miller says, Japan is fully committed to creating more agile power grid configurations that enable real-time monitoring, control and demand response capabilities, and distributed power generation and energy storage by way of fuel cells and batteries.

Cumulative PV Solar Energy Capacity Installed Worldwide by Country - Year Ending 2012 - EPIA (Click Image To Enlarge)

The Japanese plan is very aggressive; the goal for solar alone is 28 gigawatts by 2020 and 53 gigawatts by 2030,with about 80 percent of that being rooftop installations, according to EPRI’s Wakefield. That compares with U.S. solar capacity of about 2 gigawatts today. The goal by 2020 is to produce 20 percent of total capacity with renewables.

Global Installed Wind Power Installation by Region - Year Ending 2010 - GWEC (Click Image To Enlarge)

The pace at which they want to move creates real challenges, notes Jack Azagury, managing director of smart grid s0ervices for Accenture, one of the global firms Japan is working with in its efforts to upgrade the system, and so does the scale involved. “Tepco alone [the utility that serves Tokyo] has 27 million meters. No AMI system operating in the world has that many. So the question is, can they scale the hardware, the network, the software to drive performance
of 27 million meters?” said Azagury. He also thinks utilities and the government need to launch an education campaign in order to avoid possible consumer resistance, such as that which has met some smart-meter initiatives in the United States.

While the feed-in tariff is helping support the move to renewables, full smart grid deployment depends to a large extent on being able to make a good business case for the investment in infrastructure and developing smart appliances that could drive down peak and overall consumption.   Azagury believes that sustained, broad consumer acceptance depends on set-it-and-forget-it solutions, because consumers don’t want to interact with their energy provider every day. They want something that is convenient and works and gives them the savings they want. International standards for smart appliances adopted this past December by the Consumer Electronics Association should encourage manufacturers to make more of their appliances smart-grid ready, and the communications technologies to integrate appliances with either a WiFi or cellular system are actually evolving a bit more rapidly than the appliances themselves, says EPRI’s Wakefield. But appliances are long-term investments for most people, so even when smart-grid-enabled appliances are widely available it will take time for them to be deployed.

The twin goals of integrating renewables and managing demand hinge on a smartly upgraded and expanded grid, which requires discipline and serious financial investment. But to flourish today — and tomorrow — depends on meeting the demands of a new energy economy.  Japan has clearly articulated its commitment to greener, cheaper, more efficient energy, and while the new government will no doubt revisit the issue, it’s likely the country will continue to vigorously move forward to implement what is likely to be the most sophisticated national grid in the world.

COMMENTARY:   As we approach the two-year anniversary of the March 11, 2011 Great Earthquake, Japan has not yet adopted a new national energy policy after the earthquake and tsunami in March 2011 that devastated the country, and destroyed the nuclear facility in Fukushima causing the worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl in 1986.

This, however, is not surprising given that developments in energy capacity and infrastructure are normally measured in decades, and not in years and months. Also, Japan does not move quickly on substantive issues like this.

The new Japanese government that took office following a lower house election on Dec 16 now expects a new national energy policy to evolve over the next three years.

Following the Fukushima disaster there have been no significant power blackouts in Japan due principally to higher than forecast excess generation capacity, significant efforts around energy conservation by households and industries, and re-starting older fossil-fuel based generation plants.

Forty-eight of Japan’s 50 nuclear reactors remain off-line today. The new independent Nuclear Regulatory Authority (NRA) is expected to finalize revised safety standards by early summer, that the operators of the reactors must comply with. A period where all reactors may be off-line again may emerge in late summer.

The implications of the Fukushima disaster continue to be felt around the world particularly for the nuclear energy industry.  

Lithuania rejected nuclear power through a recent national referendum and Bulgarians also refused to endorse the further development of nuclear energy in their country due to a low turnout in another national referendum. Costs have escalated dramatically for new nuclear facilities, in some cases doubling, and in other cases taking over 10 years to construct twice the original planned time-scales.

France recently completed an assessment indicating that the economic cost of an accident similar to Fukushima at any of its 58 reactors might be in excess of $500 billion (almost 20% of French GDP).

Nevertheless, other countries, many close neighbors of Japan, continue to pursue civilian nuclear strategies such as China, India, Russia, South Korea. Several Mideast countries are also using their petro-dollars to finance alternative energy sources in preparation for oil and gas depletion that may in the long run be inevitable.

Its natural gas imports have now risen to almost 90 million metric tons annualized or over $70 billion with much of the pre-3.11 increase used to make up for its lost nuclear capacity. 

Two new receiving liquefied natural gas terminals are now planned for Fukushima and Aomori prefectures. Costs for construction of these facilities can run up to $5 billion.

Japanese gas importers have for the most part contracted to import natural gas at prices that are linked to crude oil prices. As oil prices have continued to rise and the Japanese currency has recently weakened, this has resulted in significantly higher local currency import costs.

Japan may now be spending $250 billion per year on imported oil, gas, and coal. Increased use of fossil fuels may over time undermine Japan’s GHG emissions reduction targets that are now under review with a new Japanese CO2 emissions reduction policy position expected to be announced in November 2013 by the Ministry of Environment (MoE).

It remains to be seen whether Japan’s considerable investments in overseas oil and gas exploration assets by its large trading companies and its exploration and development companies can bring these fuels back to its own shores at reasonable prices given the recent very large escalation of exploration and development costs globally.

Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Today

Radiation levels in the abandoned communities near Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have fallen 40% in the past year. Inside the wrecked facility, construction workers rush to complete state-of-the-art equipment that will remove dozens of dangerous radioactive nuclides from cooling water. Soon, a steel shield will be driven into the seabed to prevent contamination from the plant from leaking into the Pacific Ocean.

Almost two years after a deadly tsunami crashed into the plant, crippling its backup power supply and triggering the world's worst nuclear crisis for a quarter of a century, the gravest danger posed by Fukushima Daiichi has passed.

But for all the signs of progress since the Guardian visited the atomic facility a year ago, the biggest, and most complex, nuclear decommissioning operation the industry has ever seen has barely begun.

The pipes, cables and other equipment strewn across the plant's grounds this time last year are now functioning components in a complex, technologically fraught mission to cool the crippled reactors, while experts struggle to figure out how to extract the melted nuclear fuel lying deep inside their basements.

The three reactors struck by meltdown and hydrogen explosions two years ago were brought to a safe state known as "cold shutdown" in December 2011, nine months after the tsunami left almost 20,000 dead or missing along Japan's north-east coast.

Now, Japan is about to embark on a clean-up that could cost at least $100bn – on top of the cost of compensating evacuees and decontaminating their abandoned homes.

Fukushima Daiichi's manager, Takeshi Takahashi, conceded that decommissioning the plant could take 30 to 40 years.

Mr. Takahashi told a small group of visiting foreign journalists on Wednesday. 

"Even though we are still faced with a difficult task, we'll keep pushing on with the decommissioning process.  It will take a long time to complete our work, especially on the three reactors that suffered meltdown, but we'll do our best to keep them stable."

The clean-up operation will begin at building No 4, where the fuel rods inside survived unscathed after it was hit by the tsunami, then badly damaged by a hydrogen explosion.

By the end of this year, Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) says it will begin removing fuel assemblies from the reactor building's storage pool and placing them in a nearby cooling pool, where they will remain for four years before being stored in even safer dry casks in a purpose-built facility on higher ground.

In total, workers will have to extract more than 11,000 new and used fuel assemblies from seven badly damaged storage pools. Work to remove melted fuel won't begin until 2021, and the entire decommissioning project is expected to take up to 40 years.

Courtesy of an article appearing on pages 28-29 in the March/April 2013 issue of Energy Biz Magazine, an article dated June 4, 2012 appearing in the EIA Country Analysis Briefs, an article dated February 12, 2013 appearing in RenewableEnergyWorld.com and data provided by the Global Wind Energy Council, an article dated March 5, 2013 appearing in Japan Today, an article dated April 18, 2011 appearing in TotallyCoolPix.com and an article dated March 6, 2013 appearing in The Guardian

U.S. ARMY GENERAL WARNS: THE WHOLE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE IS AT RISK OF BECOMING LARGELY UNINHABITABLE

Satellite image of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant spews highly radioactive contaminated smoke from fires after the great earthquake and tidal wave that hit the plant (Click Image To Enlarge) 

You may have entertained the idea of an improbable civilization ending events such as a ‘global killer’ asteroid, earth crust displacement or massive solar storms, but what if there existed a situation right now that was so serious that it literally threatened our very existence?

According to a host of scientists, nuclear experts and researchers, were are facing exactly such a scenario – and current efforts may not be able to stop it. 

When the Fukushima nuclear plants sustained structural damage and a catastrophic failure of their spent fuel cooling systems in the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami in 2011, it left the government of Japan, Tokyo Power and nuclear regulatory agencies around the world powerless to contain the release of deadly radiation. A year on, the battle for control of Fukushima continues to no avail.

Fukushima nuclear reactors on March 17, 2011 (Click Image To Enlarge)

Reactor #4 is the most dangerous of all six nuclear reactors at the Fukushima Nuclear Power complex because it is the most heavily damaged.  It contains the most nuclear fuel, enough in fact, that should those nuclear fuel rods catch fire due to lack of cooling water, those fires could not be put out, and the fires would continue to burn until all the fuel has been consumed.  

Aerial view of Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Plant. Note that the roofs of two of the reactors have been completely blown off (Click Image To Enlarge)

In the meantime, the burning fuel rods would release more Cesium 137 nuclear fallout than was released in all above ground nuclear tests since World War II.   This would be a catastrophe for Japan.  It would mean the evacuation of all cities and towns near to the Fukushima nuclear power plants, including the city of Tokyo and its over 40 million people.  Easterly tradewinds would also carry all that Cesium 137 across the Pacific Ocean to the west coast of North America.  Just watch the following video: 

 

Here's a video broadcast in Japan in April 2012 that was translated into English, but for some reason did not get widespread news circulation in the U.S.   If you listen to the narrator closely, it paints a truly horrific picture of just what could happen if 11,000 nuclear fuel rods in and around nuclear reactor #4 at Fukushima were to catch on fire.  It would make Chernobyl look small by comparison.  According to a highly secret study by the Russian government.  Nearly 1 million Russians have either died from the Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe.  Be prepared to be scared out of your wits.

  

It’s estimated that tens of thousands of people in Japan and the whole of North America have been affected, with reports indicating that children in Japan and the U.S. are already being born with birth defects, as well as thousands who have already succumbed to radiation related illness.   

Most Contaminated food areas of North America (based on fallout wind spread patterns charted by European scientific research agencies) in order of likely intensity of contamination, starting with the most contaminated:

• Entire Pacific Coast (note that much of the produce in North America comes from this region, especially California)
• Northern U.S. States close to Canada, and Canadian areas close to the U.S. (including Toronto etc.)
• Eastern States
• Central States of the U.S., and Far Northern areas of Canada

As we initially followed the breaking news during the first thirty days of the accident, we suggested the Fukushima disaster would be worse than Chernobyl. Not even we could have imagined how much worse it would be.

If current estimates are correct, Fukushima has already released as much radiation into the atmosphere and Pacific Ocean as Chernobyl, and the potential for a disaster at least ten times worse is highly probable in the event of another earthquake or accident that leads to a collapse of the cooling structures which are above ground and have already suffered significant damage.

According to U.S. Army General Albert N. Stubblebine (ret.) of the Natural Solutions Foundation, the situation is extremely serious and poses a significant danger to our entire civilization. Since TEPCO and the Japanese government have refused the entombment option (as the Russians did with Chernobyl) the world is at the mercy of nature. A mistake here would cause the deaths of tens of millions of people across the globe.

If there ever existed a threat that could cause the end of the world as we know it, it’s the ongoing and unresolved nuclear saga in Japan:

When the highly radioactive Spent Fuel Rods are exposed to air, there will be massive explosions releasing many times the amount or radiation released thus far. Bizarrely, they are stored three stories above ground in open concrete storage pools. Whether through evaporation of the water in the pools, or due to the inevitable further collapse of the structure, there is a severe risk. United States public health authorities agree that tens of thousands of North Americans have already died from the Fukushima calamity. When the final cataclysm occurs, sooner rather than later, the whole Northern Hemisphere is at risk of becoming largely uninhabitable.

Fact. On March 11, 2011, Fukushima Daichi nuclear power station with six nuclear reactors suffered cataclysmic damage that some believe was a man made event,and the resulting Tsunami. Hydrogen explosions…at least one nuclear explosion… and then subsequent deterioration of the visible plants at five of those reactors have created a threat situation unparalleled in human history.

Fact. Despite denial and cover-up, the reality has emerged, that enormous amounts of radioactive material has been spewing into the atmosphere, polluting the groundwater, and the food of Japan, and entering by the tens of millions of gallons the waters of the Pacific.

There’s no way to sugarcoat these facts. Denying them, blocking them out, pretending that they are not real is of no help to you and your family, and it leaves you totally unprepared for a danger that the Natural Solutions Foundation has been warning about since the first day. As of three weeks ago the levels of radiation inside of the spent fuel pools of unit no. 2 are too high to measure. Get that… too high to measure. And, the water there is evaporating, meaning that heat and radiation could easily build to very high levels.

Very simply put, if this much Cesium 137 is released, it will destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugulistic debate over nuclear power plants.

This is an issue of human survival.

We can play the denial game all day long and pretend that, because the mainstream media is not reporting on it, there is no threat, but the facts are quite clear.

This is, without a doubt, the most immediate threat faced by the world. It’s so serious, in fact, that the Japanese government has considered and put into place evacuation plans for the whole of Tokyo – some 40 million people. Reports are also emerging that suggest a collapse of the spent fuel pools would be so serious that the entire country of Japan may have to be evacuated. The entire country – that’s 125 million refugees that will cause an unprecedented humanitarian disaster.

Before you argue that these are the ravings of just alternative media conspiracy theorists and fearmongers, consider the assessment put forth by Robert Alvarez , a senior policy adviser to the Secretary for National Security and the Environment for the US Department of Energy:

The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.

The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors.  Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo.  In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters.

The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of  the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).

It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site, have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.

Regulatory agencies all over the world are warning of the potentiality of a further degradation of the Fukushima nuclear reactors and spent fuel pools, and the subsequent nuclear fallout that would follow.

If these reactors go – and they could at any moment for any number of reasons – we’re looking at a situation for which you simply cannot stock enough food, or water, or supplies. Radiation would spread across the entire northern hemisphere and would be impossible to contain.

While we’ve argued in the past that there is no place we’d rather be than in the United States of America in the event of a socio-economic collapse or global conflict, if these spent fuel pools collapse, then an international exit strategy may be the only option.

Because details are sparse and research limited, it is difficult to predict what nuclear fall out from Japan may look like. The following map may be of some help, as it details the estimated fallout pattern resulting from a nuclear war between Russia and the United States. You’ll note that, while most of the world would be irradiated, the southern hemisphere would be your best bet to avoid the brunt of it:

Beachfront property in Antarctica sounds quite appealing right about now.

COMMENTARY:    

A NUCLEAR WAR WITHOUT A WAR

The Fukushima disaster in Japan has brought to the forefront the dangers of Worldwide nuclear radiation.

The crisis in Japan has been described as "a nuclear war without a war".  In the words of renowned novelist Haruki Murakami:

"This time no one dropped a bomb on us ... We set the stage, we committed the crime with our own hands, we are destroying our own lands, and we are destroying our own lives."

While the long-term repercussions of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster are yet to be fully assessed, they are far more serious than those pertaining to the 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine, which resulted in almost one million deaths (New Book Concludes - Chernobyl death toll: 985,000, mostly from cancer Global Research, September 10, 2010. 

All eyes are now riveted on the Fukushima Daiichi plant, with news coverage both in Japan and internationally failing to fully acknowledge the impacts of a second catastrophe at TEPCO's (Tokyo Electric Power Co  Inc) Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant.

The shaky political consensus both in Japan, the U.S. and Western Europe is that the crisis at Fukushima has been contained.

The realties, however, are otherwise. Fukushima 3 was leaking unconfirmed amounts of plutonium. According to Dr. Helen Caldicott,  

"One millionth of a gram of plutonium, if inhaled can cause cancer".  

An opinion poll in May 2011 confirmed that more than 80 per cent of the Japanese population do not believe the government's information regarding the nuclear crisis. (quoted in Sherwood Ross, Fukushima: Japan's Second Nuclear Disaster, Global Research, November 10, 2011)

THE IMPACTS IN JAPAN

The Japanese government has been obliged to acknowledge that "the severity rating of its nuclear crisis ... matches that of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster".  In a bitter irony, however, this tacit admission by the Japanese authorities has proven to been part of  the cover-up of a significantly larger catastrophe, resulting in a process of global nuclear radiation and contamination:

"While Chernobyl was an enormous unprecedented disaster, it only occurred at one reactor and rapidly melted down. Once cooled, it was able to be covered with a concrete sarcophagus that was constructed with 100,000 workers. There are a staggering 4400 tons of nuclear fuel rods at Fukushima, which greatly dwarfs the total size of radiation sources at Chernobyl." ( Extremely High Radiation Levels in Japan: University Researchers Challenge Official Data, Global Research, April 11, 2011)

WORLDWIDE CONTAMINATION

The dumping of highly radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean constitutes a potential trigger to a process of global radioactive contamination. Radioactive elements have not only been detected in the food chain in Japan, radioactive rain water has been recorded in California:

"Hazardous radioactive elements being released in the sea and air around Fukushima accumulate at each step of various food chains (for example, into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). Entering the body, these elements - called internal emitters - migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, continuously irradiating small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years often induce cancer". (Helen Caldicott, Fukushima: Nuclear Apologists Play Shoot the Messenger on Radiation, The Age,  April 26, 2011)

While the spread of radiation to the West Coast of North America was casually acknowledged, the early press reports (AP and Reuters) "quoting diplomatic sources" stated that only "tiny amounts of radioactive particles have arrived in California but do not pose a threat to human health."

"According to the news agencies, the unnamed sources have access to data from a network of measuring stations run by the United Nations’ Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization. Greg Jaczko, chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told White House reporters on Thursday (March 17) that his experts “don’t see any concern from radiation levels that could be harmful here in the United States or any of the U.S. territories”. 

JAPAN IS NOW A PUBLIC HEALTH DISASTER

Japan as a nation state has been destroyed. Its landmass and territorial waters are contaminated. Part of the country is uninhabitable. High levels of radiation have been recorded in the Tokyo metropolitan area, which has a population of  39 million (2010) (more than the population of Canada, circa 34 million (2010)) There are indications that the food chain is contaminated throughout Japan:

"Radioactive cesium exceeding the legal limit was detected in tea made in a factory in Shizuoka City, more than 300 kilometers away from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Shizuoka Prefecture is one of the most famous tea producing areas in Japan.

A tea distributor in Tokyo reported to the prefecture that it detected high levels of radioactivity in the tea shipped from the city. The prefecture ordered the factory to refrain from shipping out the product. After the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, radioactive contamination of tea leaves and processed tea has been found over a wide area around Tokyo." (See 5 More Companies Detect Radiation In Their Tea Above Legal Limits Over 300 KM From Fukushima, June 15, 2011)

Japan's industrial and manufacturing base is prostrate. Japan is no longer a leading industrial power. The country's exports have plummeted. The Tokyo government has announced its first trade deficit since 1980.

While the business media has narrowly centered on the impacts of power outages and energy shortages on the pace of productive activity, the broader issue pertaining to the outright radioactive contamination of the country's infrastructure and industrial base is a "scientific taboo" (i.e the radiation of industrial plants, machinery and equipment, buildings, roads, etc). A report released in January 2012 points to the nuclear contamination of building materials used in the construction industry, in cluding roads and residential buildings throughout Japan.(See FUKUSHIMA: Radioactive Houses and Roads in Japan. Radioactive Building Materials Sold to over 200 Construction Companies, January 2012)

A "coverup report" by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (May 2011), entitled  "Economic Impact of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Current Status of Recovery"  presents "Economic Recovery" as a fait accompli. It also brushes aside the issue of radiation. The impacts of nuclear radiation on the work force and the country's industrial base are not mentioned. The report states that the distance between Tokyo -Fukushima Dai-ichi  is of the order of 230 km (about 144 miles) and that the levels of radiation in Tokyo are lower than in Hong Kong and New York City.(Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Impact of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Current Status of Recovery, p.15). This statement is made without corroborating evidence and in overt contradiction with independent radiation readings in Tokyo (se map below). In recent developments, Sohgo Security Services Co. is launching a lucrative "radiation measurement service targeting households in Tokyo and four surrounding prefectures".

"A map of citizens' measured radiation levels shows radioactivity is distributed in a complex pattern reflecting the mountainous terrain and the shifting winds across a broad area of Japan north of Tokyo which is in the center of the of bottom of the map."

Radiation contamination readings map by Japanese "citizens" of localities within 144 miles of Fukushima (Levels of radiation contamination: red = very high, yellow = high, light blue = moderate, dark blue = above normal)  Click Image To Enlarge 

AREAS WHOSE FOOD PRODUCTS MAY NOW CARRY RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT

According to Dr. Robert J. Gilbert, a former U.S. Marine Corps Instructor in Nuclear-Biological-Chemical Warfare Survival, since leaving the service in 1985 he has conducted independent research into the Geometric basis of modern science and new technologies.

Clearly, in light of his background, Robert Gilbert is someone worth listening to on the subject of radiation dangers from the recent nuclear disaster in Japan. Here’s an excerpt from a page on his Vesica.org website, dealing with the subject:

The Entirety of the Northern Hemisphere around the world is affected by fallout, as well as the Pacific Ocean.

Most Serious:  Japan, Pacific Ocean, and Pacific Rim States

Expected spread of nuclear fallout from Fukushima nuclear catastrophe (Click Image To Enlarge)

Most Contaminated food areas of North America (based on fallout wind spread patterns charted by European scientific research agencies) in order of likely intensity of contamination, starting with the most contaminated:

• Entire Pacific Coast (note that much of the produce in North America comes from this region, especially California)
• Northern U.S. States close to Canada, and Canadian areas close to the U.S. (including Toronto etc.)
• Eastern States
• Central States of the U.S., and Far Northern areas of Canada

SAFEST AREAS OF ORIGIN FOR FOOD PRODUCTS

The majority of contamination is in the northern hemisphere and the Pacific Ocean region.  Most of the Southern Hemisphere has little to no fallout (the exception is the Southern Hemisphere in the Pacific; Australia for example is finding radioactive fish in the ocean, so although they may not get much atmospheric fallout they are affected by the massive contamination of the Pacific Ocean.)

Also note that radioactive contamination is being found on non-food products being imported from Japan.

Safest Areas of Origin for food products:

• Central America (avoid items from the Pacific Coast area of Mexico)
• South America
• Africa

Europe is also far less contaminated that North America, although it is also experiencing significant fallout; so it is a better source for products than North America, however not as good as Southern Hemisphere sources.  (However some South American produce may contain high levels of pesticides not allowed to be used in the U.S. or Canada.)

ITEMS OF SPECIAL CONCERN FROM AFFECTED AREAS

Most affected:

All Ocean-Derived Products from the Pacific Ocean: the Fukushima accident dumped millions of times the normal background levels of radiation into the Pacific, where it is affecting the entire ocean (most toxic near Japan and bordering areas, but now reaching to the US West Coast: debris from the Tsunami in Japan is also expected to start washing up on the West Coast in the near future.)  There are already reports of Pacific Fish showing radioactive contamination.
This indicates a need to be cautious regarding:

• All Pacific Ocean Fish
• Sea Salt or Ocean Minerals derived from the Pacific
• All Pacific Seaweed and Sea Vegetables (order Atlantic Ocean seaweed at www.theseaweedman.com ) 
• Milk and all Dairy Products (butter, cheese etc.) from all animals: Cows, Goats, and Sheep (Dairy products have the most intense immediate absorption of radiation from fallout). Radioactive contamination of milk has been found throughout the United States, especially on the West Coast.
• Any plant with a large surface area exposed to the air while growing:  The most intense radiation absorption in plants is through rain falling directly on the leaves  of the plant, where it is directly absorbed.  Rainwater absorbed through the earth into the plant is already of much lower radiation intensity due to the filtering affect of the soil.  All broad leaf plants and plants with large surface areas grown in the open air (rather than in greenhouses) are the most contaminated, for instance Salad Greens, Spinach, Cabbage etc.  Contaminated crops in California (carrying radioactive iodine and cesium) have already been confirmed by UC Berkeley.  [Carrots and other root vegetables are less contaminated due to growing underground.]
• Water from Rainwater or Open Lake type catchments: instead drink bottled water, or water from underground wells or other underground sources (radiation is greatly reduced when the particles have to travel through the ground.)

If the extent of radioactive fallout in the Northern Hemisphere worsens due to exposing the fuel rods in some of the Fukushima reactors to air, then even more Cesium 137 will be released into the environment.   Cesium 137 is really bad because once it gets into the soil or water supply, the radioactivity can be passed onto the entire food chain as plants absorb the radioactivity from water and meat producing animals become radioactive as well.   As humans we will absorb radioactivity from the air we breath and that's pretty bad just by itself, but allowing additional radioactivity to get into our bodies through the food chain means a catastrophe.   Let's hope that the Japanese finally dome the affected damaged reactors ala Chernobyl, and take proper measures to insure that the remaining nuclear reactors are protected against lost of cooling water.   

Radiation readings taken earlier this year show that so far the nuclear fallout from Fukushima is "minimal" or "within safe limits," and that water, dairy and agricultural crops, although containing higher levels of radiation contamination, are not sufficiently high enough to cause a health hazard to humans.  However, what these readings do not disclose is the ticking timebomb from reactor #4 that exists at the Fukushima nuclear power plant.  

On May 28, 2012, it was reported that Blue Fin tuna, which annually migrate over 6,000 miles from the coastal waters off of Japan to the west coast of the U.S., had radiation levels 10 times normal for Cesium 134 and 137.  This is still considered safe for food consumption, but the evidence is clear:  the Fukushima nuclear fallout has contaminated the oceans and all sea life could be in peril of radiation contamination.  

Courtesy of an article dated May 25, 2012 appearing in SHTFPlan.com and an article dated April 20, 2012 appearing in InfoWars.com and an article dated January 25, 2012 appearing in GlobalResearch.ca

FORMER CANADIAN DEFENSE MINISTER: U.S. DELIBERATELY HIDING THE TRUTH ABOUT UFO'S AND ET'S, SPENDS TRILLIONS ON BLACK PROJECTS

 

If a previous minister of national defense of a big country started talking publicly about his belief that some UFOs are interplanetary vehicles carrying visitors to Earth, would you believe him or not?

Well, stepping up to the plate is the Honorable Paul Hellyer, a former deputy prime minister of Canada and the longest serving current member -- ahead of Prince Philip -- of the Queen's Privy Council, which is made up of "prominent Canadians appointed to advise the queen on issues of importance to the country."

 

In the above video recorded on April 2008 at X-Conference at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer, exposes the truth about a deliberate U.S. government cover-up of the existence of UFO's & extra-terrestrial beings.

As Canadian minister of national defense in 1963, Hellyer was responsible for integrating and unifying the Royal Canadian army, navy and air force into a single organization, the Canadian Armed Forces.

And yes, he is extremely outspoken about UFOs and alien visitors to Earth.

Hellyer told AOL News.

"Oh, I'm absolutely convinced of it. These things were not invented here. And I think people have to get accustomed to this new reality.  We lived too long in a sense of isolation, thinking that Earth was the center of the cosmos, that we were the only species and, therefore, probably the most advanced. And when we come to the realization that we're not any of those things, then I think we should be aware of it, learn to live with it and certainly try to take advantage of anything that we can learn from visitors from anywhere."

Hellyer, 87, is also known for his activities involving world issues, including monetary reform, the Middle East and environmental concerns.

This week, he's presenting his views on UFOs at the International UFO Congress in Scottsdale, Ariz.

When Hellyer was Canada's minister of national defense, he says he never discussed UFOs with other high-ranking officials.

"I got periodic reports on sightings and I looked at them very casually, and it was decided that about 80 percent of them were natural phenomena of one sort or another, and the other 20 percent roughly were unexplained, and therefore unidentified.  You know, this is the kind of thing that sometimes they don't tell politicians about, and I have no doubt that there were probably people in my employ who would have been more knowledgeable than I was at the time."

While spending last Thanksgiving north of Toronto, Hellyer and his wife spotted an unidentified flying object and recount what they saw.

"The two of us stood there transfixed for 20 minutes, looking up at this thing moving first in one direction, and then another. By process of elimination, we determined it wasn't a star or satellite and it wasn't the space station, so there was really no explanation for it other than it was, in fact, a UFO."

Hellyer's analytical mind raced as fast as the object he was looking at.

"It looked like a star, but it maneuvered in a way that stars don't. I must admit that when I saw this one, I wondered whether it was extraterrestrial or American. And I guess the thought that occurred to me was that if it is American, then they have learned some pretty big secrets about acceleration, because it accelerated at a pace that nothing I've ever known about that was built here is capable of."

Trusted political and scientific sources whom Hellyer has talked to have suggested that the United States has developed new forms of energy at top-secret "black operation" installations, using reportedly extraterrestrial technology.

In his book "Light at the End of the Tunnel: A Survival Plan for the Human Species" (AuthorHouse), Hellyer claims that an American "shadow government" is behind this activity.

Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences said.

"That is my belief. I do not have proof of that, but I believe that they have developed energy sources, and publicly I'm saying that if they do not exist in commercial form, that extraterrestrials would certainly give us that information if we would ask them for it and stop shooting at them. Paul Hellyer's story is an important contribution to the literature of modern Western civilization. His experience in government, his interest in exopolitics and the issues of sustainability of civilization are significant areas of current discourse." 

 

In the above video, Apollo 14 astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell, spoke at the Disclosure Conference held at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C.  Dr. Mitchell talks about what he knows about the Roswell UFO incident and existence of UFO's and extra-terrestrial lifeforms.  There are two parts to the video.

While Hellyer believes -- as many people do -- in an ongoing cover-up of UFO information, there are those of equal or higher credentials who say otherwise. Case in point: retired Army Col. John Alexander -- another speaker at this week's International UFO Congress -- who acknowledges the reality of UFOs but says there has never been a cover-up of the facts and that UFO disclosure has already taken place over many decades.

 

In the above video uncovered by Grant Cameron & Neil Gould  of former U.S. President Bill Clinton'a speech held at the Expolitics Conference on September 14, 2005, the former President answers questions regarding UFO's, Roswell and Area 51. 

On the topic of disclosure of all facts relating to UFOs, Hellyer is pretty adamant.

"Basically, I'm a full-disclosure person. People keep talking about transparency and still not telling the truth, and this applies in various other areas as well as UFOs, and it's just about time that we started getting open with each other and trying to get along and live together."

If Hellyer was Canada's minister of defense today, would he be as up-front with his UFO beliefs?

He replied.

"I would probably be open-mouthed about it and I might get fired for it.  I've always been pretty open and direct, so unless there was some reason which I can't conceive of, I wouldn't try to hide the existence of the extraterrestrials and their presence."

COMMENTARY:   I suppose it's possible to have a wacked out, mental retard working at the highest levels of government.  Hell yes, it is possible.  We had George Bush running the U.S. government for eight years.  He claimed he was in contact with God.  Richard Nixon's suspicions of others bordered on lunacy.  He even kept an "Enemy's List" and secretly recorded telephone conversations which eventually got him impeached.   Lyndon Johnson did the same thing.  Many of those recorded telephone conversations are finally being disclosed.

However, even at 87 years of age,  I find Paul Hellyer quite sane, intelligent, frank, honest and very serious when he says that the U.S. has been deliberately covering up the truth about the existence of UFO's and extra-terrestrials for decades.  What's even more astounding is that former Presidents, cabinet members, senator's and congressmen are completely "out-of-the-loop" about what the government knows about UFO's and extra-terrestrial beings and we are spending on so-called "black" projects.  Everything is on a need to know basis.  Sounds like a familiar story doesn't it?  

In a blog post March 1, 2011, one of my earliest on the subject of UFO's and extraterrestrials, I profiled Paul Hellyer, who claimed that the U.S. is deliberately hiding the truth about the existence of UFO's and extraterrestrials, has back-engineered UFO craft and energy propulsion systems, and U.S. scientists and military personnel are coooperating with and working along side one or more species of extra-terrestrials to developed advanced weapons and other technologies that could provide mankind unlimited free energy sources and eliminate the damage to our environment from greenhouse gases from fossil fuels. 

The year 2011 will be referred to as "The Year of the UFO", due to the sheer number of UFO sightings and number of witnesses to these sightings, including NASA astronauts, military and commercial pilots, military personnel, and even a few politicians, have reached epidemic proportions.  The Mutual UFO Network or MUFON, which tracks and keeps accurate records of UFO sighting repots, reported that over 1,000 UFO sightings were reported in the month of August 2011.  This is twice the usual number of 500. 

In the old days you would see a lone UFO, typically saucer-shaped, and just a few witnesses to the sighting.  Today, we are seeing fleets of UFO's some of them numbering in dozens, and sometimes accompanied by a larger UFO which is often been referred to as "The Mothership".   Sightings have been reported everywhere, and witnesses to an individual sighting can number in the hundreds and even thousands. Witnesses have sighted UFO's in just about every continent, and some recognizable patterns  are beginning to develop:

• Commonly sighted UFO's appear to have a noticeable bright halo around their saucer-shaped perimeter.  (Search YouTube under London UFO's, Mexico City UFO's, Hawaii UFO's, Fukushima UFO's, Chile UFO's, among just a few).  
• When UFO's appear at night, witnesses say they appear as a very bright star.  The "Jerusalem UFO" is an excellent example.  It was recorded by several different witnesses and videos are on YouTube and have been seen by thousands. 
• They fly at lower altitudes where they are clearly visible by the human eye.
• They fly at high speeds, sometimes nearing 4,000 mph and often make crazy 90 degree turns that a regular military pilot could not perform. 
• A jumbo-sized "Mothership" often accompanies a group of UFO's.
• They fly in waves or even formations of 3-5 UFO's, sometimes forming patterns like triangles.  It is rare to see just one UFO. 
• Some UFO's have been known to hover over an area for several seconds to as long as 10-20 minutes.
• They are appearing over large metropolitan areas, in broad daylight, and in greater frequency is if they purposely want to be seen.

The media has become more active in covering UFO sightings.  The Jersualem UFO has caught worldwide media attention because it appeared over the Dome of the Rock, one of the holiest spots for Jews, Christians and Muslims in the world.   Some individuals are claiming it has a religious significance, but what that may be, remains to be seen.

-

Everyday more highly creditable individuals are coming forward, many of them claiming they have seen UFO's and/or extra-terrestrials, and accusing the U.S. government of deliberately hiding the truth about UFO's and extra-terrestrials.  Individuals within the government with inside knowledge of UFO's and extra-terrestrials claim that the truth is being withheld because it would cause panic.   

 

Several nations (The U.K., Mexico, Belgium, The Netherlands, and several South American nations) have already began the serious process of releasing their classified records of UFO sightings and reports of extra-terrestrials.  When government officials like Mr. Hellyer step forward, then you know its time our government came clean.    

-      

Courtesy of an article dated February 25, 2011 appearing in The Huffington Post

 

NORTH KOREA';S RUTHLESS AND RECLUSIVE DICTATOR KIM JONG-IL IS DEAD FROM A HEART ATTACK AT 69 YRS OF AGE

A Nation In Mourning

North Korea displayed the body of ruler Kim Jong Il in a glass coffin surrounded by red flowers Tuesday, and his young heir was one of the first to pay respects — a strong indication that a smooth leadership transition was under way.

As the country mourned for a second day with high-level visits to Kim's body at a memorial palace and public gatherings of weeping citizens, state media fed a budding personality cult around his youngest known son and anointed heir, Kim Jong Un, hailing him as a "lighthouse of hope."

Kim's body was wrapped in red cloth and surrounded by blossoms of his namesake flowers, red "kimjongilia." As solemn music played, Kim Jong Un — believed to be in his late 20s — entered the hall to view his father's bier, surrounded by military honor guards. He observed a moment of solemn silence, then circled the bier, followed by other officials.

Kim Jung Un (fourth from right) bows to his deceased father

Outside one of the capital's main performance centers, mourners carried wreaths and flowers toward a portrait of Kim Jong Il. Groups were allowed to grieve in front of the portrait for a few minutes at a time.

U Son Hui, a Pyongyang resident, told The Associated Press. 

"We will change today's sorrow into strength and courage and work harder for a powerful and prosperous nation, as our general wanted, under the leadership of the new General Kim Jong Un." 

The announcement Monday of Kim's death over the weekend raised acute concerns in the region over the possibility of a power struggle between the untested son and rivals, in a country pursuing nuclear weapons and known for its unpredictability and secrecy.

Mourners cry as they meet the body of North Korean leader Kim Jong il

But there have been no signs of unrest or discord in Pyongyang's somber streets.

With the country in an 11-day period of official mourning, flags were flown at half-staff at all military units, factories, businesses, farms and public buildings. The streets of Pyongyang were quiet, but throngs of people gathered at landmarks honoring Kim.

Kim's bier was decorated by a wreath from Kim Jong Un along with various medals and orders. The body was laid out in the Kumsusan Memorial Palace, a mausoleum where the embalmed body of Kim's father — national founder Kim Il Sung — has been on display in a glass sarcophagus since his death in 1994.

The Dictator:  Kim Jong-il

Kim Jong Il, the dictator who used fear and isolation to maintain power in North Korea and his nuclear weapons to menace his neighbors and threaten the U.S., has died, North Korean state television reported early Monday.

His death opens a new and potentially dangerous period of transition and instability for North Korea and northeast Asia. Mr. Kim in September 2010 tapped the youngest of his three sons, Kim Jong Eun, to succeed him, and North Korean state television on Monday said the younger Mr. Kim will lead the country.

 

North Korea's transition of power will be closely watched by the world as the country prepares for leadership under Kim Jong Eun. The WSJ's Deborah Kan and Seoul reporter Evan Ramstad discuss what this could mean for stability in the secretive nation.

Mr. Kim, who was 69 or 70 years old, according to varying accounts, died during a train ride on Saturday, a weeping television announcer said. He was believed to have been in ill health since suffering a stroke in 2008, and North Korean media said he experienced an "advanced acute myorcardial infarction," or heart attack.

South Korean shares tumbled along with other Asian markets in early trading Monday on concerns about potential instability in the region. South Korea's Kospi Composite down 3.1% in late-morning trading after initially dropping 4.4%. South Korea's currency, the won, fell sharply against the dollar.

 

Asia Today: North Korea's reclusive leader Kim Jong Il has died according to North Korean TV reports. The WSJ's Deborah Kan and reporter Alex Frangos talk about what this means for the secretive nation.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said late Sunday that the administration is "closely monitoring" reports of Mr. Kim's death, that President Barack Obama had been notified and that U.S. officials are in close touch with South Korea and Japan.

"We remain committed to stability on the Korean peninsula, and to the freedom and security of our allies," Mr. Carney said.

South Korea put its military on "high alert" and President Lee Myung-bak convened a meeting of the national security council after the news of Mr. Kim's death, the Associated Press reported.

The son of North Korea's founder, Kim Jong Il ruled the reclusive country for nearly two decades. See highlights from his life and career in this timeline. (Click Image To View Interactive Chart)

In Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda called an emergency meeting of his National Security group to assess the situation. Japan has been among the countries most worried about North Korea's military ambitions and nuclear tests.

Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa said on the way into the session on Monday.

"I've issued instructions (to the defense ministry) to do everything to establish an alert, monitoring stance." 

Meanwhile, roughly 20 minutes before its daily noon newscast, state broadcaster China Central Television broke in with a special report on Mr. Kim's death. It was a three-minute bare-bones account that echoed the facts from North Korea's official media, plus a chronology of the major events of his life, intercut with stock footage. Several minutes later, it aired the program again.

The state-run Xinhua news agency offered a similar just-the-facts report.

Click Image To View Interactive Chart

Kim Jong-il Rises To Power

Mr. Kim took power after the death in July 1994 of his father, Kim Il Sung, who founded North Korea in 1948. The country, a declining communist industrial power when he took control, fell into abject poverty under his rule. However, Mr. Kim continued to command attention and relevance in the world by building nuclear weapons and selling other arms.

He staked his legitimacy on his father's 46-year rule. Kim Jong Il never called himself president of North Korea. Instead, he bestowed on his father after death the title of "eternal president," while he took lesser titles such as chairman of national defense and general secretary of the main political party.

Mr. Kim suffered a stroke-like illness in August 2008 and was incapacitated for two months, forcing him to begin to groom a successor.

Click Image To View Interactive Slideshow

The Successor:  Kim Jong Eun 

In 2009, reports surfaced that Mr. Kim had chosen Kim Jong Eun to carry on the family's regime. Those reports were confirmed in September 2010, when Mr. Kim appointed his son, who is believed to be 27 or 28 years old, a four-star general in the North Korean military and to high-level posts in the ruling political party.

In October 2010, his first public image was released by North Korean state media, showing a striking resemblance to his father and grandfather, Kim Il Sung, the North Korean founder.  

Since the public appointment, Kim Jong Eun has frequently been seen following his ailing father on "on-spot" inspections.

"We must fight with greater resolve to overcome today's crisis, behind comrade Kim Jung Eun's leadership, for another great victory for the Juche revolution," an announcer on North Korean state television said in announcing the elder Mr. Kim's death. Juche is North Korea's state ideology, which emphasizes independence and self-determination.

Kim Jong Il, far right, and Kim Jong Eun, third from right, salute while watching a military parade in September.

Although a succession plan has been laid out, conditions aren't as favorable as they were in 1994 for continuing the family's control. North Korea is much poorer and less stable now. A famine from 1995 to 1997 killed two million to three million North Koreans, aid agencies estimate, and sowed distrust in the government. North Koreans have learned more about the outside world in recent years, thanks to increasing use of cellphones and availability of DVDs.

What Kim Jong-il's Death Means To Rest of World

The potential for instability in North Korea poses difficulties for the rest of the world because the country in recent years made significant progress in the development of nuclear weapons. It conducted tests of nuclear explosives in 2006 and 2009 and is believed to possess a small number of nuclear bombs, though none that can be transported by missiles.

For its neighbors South Korea and China, Mr. Kim's death brings an additional risk: the prospect for a greater outflow of North Koreans into their countries if instability occurs.

When Mr. Kim came to power in 1994, North Korea was still trying to recover from the collapse of its economic sponsor, the Soviet Union. Famine overtook the country, but Mr. Kim relied on his father's formula for controlling North Korea's roughly 24 million people.

North Korean Embassy staff in Beijing lower their national flag on Monday to mourn Kim Jong Il's death.

He limited their access to information, ability to travel and earn wealth. And he maintained a system of gulag-like prison camps, massive in scale and horrific in condition, to instill fear.

China eventually took over as North Korea's main benefactor. Prodded by Beijing, Mr. Kim experimented with economic liberalization in 2002 by allowing some markets to form. But by 2008, Mr. Kim grew fearful that economic freedoms were eroding the power of his regime. He ordered crackdowns that included a confiscation of private savings in late 2009.

Mr. Kim also resisted efforts by China, the U.S. and other countries to persuade him to give up the nuclear-weapons research that his father started in the 1970s. The research climaxed in October 2006 when North Korea first tested a half-megaton nuclear device. It tested a more powerful nuclear explosive in May 2009, leading to stiff sanctions by the United Nations Security Council that further damaged the economy.

In 2010, North Korea revealed progress in turning enriched uranium into a source of fuel for nuclear weapons, further aggravating other countries.

This undated picture released by North Korea's official Korean Central News Agency on Nov. 2 via the Tokyo-based Korean News Service shows Kim Jong Il inspecting Korean People's Army unit 789.

Over the past year, Mr. Kim repeatedly reached out to China for more economic and security assistance and lashed out at the three countries long considered to be North Korea's main enemies: South Korea, Japan and the U.S.

COMMENTARY:   Yesterday, when I heard the news that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il had died from a heart attack I knew I had to pay my respects with a stupendous blog post.   

Like most Americans, we knew very little about Kim Jong Il, other than what we read about him in the newspapers or seen on television.  So, I view this as a great opportunity to educate myself and you on the little midget dictator.  

Official North Korean Announcement of Kim Jong-il's Death

Thanks to Google Translator, here's the original news release that was run by the state run North Korean newspaper @uriminzokkiri via Twitter announcing the death of Kim Jong Il, and translated into English using Google Translator:

"(December 19, Pyongyang KCNA) -

12:00 o'clock today, the great Leader of Korea Kim Jong-il by comrades want casually demise was a great press release was issued doe.

Lt's General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea Democratic People's Republic of KPA lt's Defense Committee, who is the commander in chief, the Great Leader Kim Jong-il was a boy you like the death of his comrades facing the county ten million hyeongeon now is in the grip of grief that can not be.

Perform the transition from a socialist powerful nation-building feats ever open phase, and the revolution of Korea overlapping challenges and triumphantly through the ordeal, and at a time when Kim Jong -minded sport he died of the WPK and the revolution is the maximum loss of 70 million Koreans, liberal world Most of the people is a great sorrow.

Kim Il Sung University in Pyongyang, including height, enshrined in many places in the great President Kim Il Sung statue of a comment bibun Among the nation's parents have lost a great citizen come to the locked gakgyecheung Kim moknotah comrades are singing ohyeol breaks down.

They wash with tears pouring nyeom also without making the pain of loss and sorrow that is struggling with.

"Even if only some time ago with the development of the country Thriving happy life of the people than the fire in order to be energetic activity Burley pontoon Announcing the Great General, that he believed that lest we are not alone. "

"Our country does not she, sir you, sir, leaving the leadership of the revolution, sir, love leaves us only one who thought that life is nice, do not you."

Chest pain and sorrow slicing the sky just like to sit down this vision, people more firmly in the hearts of every one always trying to get somewhere and rakgwan confidence of victory, is the tragic vow.

KPA Military Jeongilguk (Male, 43 years old):

"We follow the leadership of Comrade eun sad turn today's crisis with strength and courage win the naemyeo subject of the revolution to win even more great new haegal eoksege will struggle." 

Who work in Cabinet heoseongcheol (Male, 55 years old), the "eun-minded than his revelation of our revolution today raeil must prevail," he stressed."

NOTE: Neat translation, isn't it.  What a crappy translator Google has, but I am sure you can figure it out.     

North Korea Mourns Kim's Death

The news of the North Korea's leader death has put the 24-million population on the verge of insanity, hyped up by unceasing TV broadcast of mass mourning throughout the country. ­North Korea's national flag is flying at half-mast today on every flagpole in the country.

 

Now that's what I call a whole lot of crying.  Kim Jong-il's son Uen has big shoes to fill.

North Korea's New Leader: Kim Jong-un

Kim Jong-Il's successor is his youngest son, Kim Jong-un. It's time to meet the most powerful twenty-something in the world: an enigmatic basketball fanatic and four-star general with a bad case of fat cheeks and an itchy trigger finger.

In some ways, Kim Jong-un is just your normal millenial:  After a stint away at school in 1998, he moved back home with his parents. Although in Kim's case the school was a Swiss boarding school, and his time back home was spent studying at North Korea's premier military academy and being groomed to succeed his father. Kim Jong-il apparently chose Kim Jong-un to succeed him over his two older brothers because they're seen as too soft and irresponsible to lead.

Unlike most people his age (including his nephew) Kim Jong-un is definitely not on Facebook. Kim has been kept so tightly under wraps—he was enrolled at his Swiss boarding school under a fake identity—that the world didn't really know what he looked like until he was "unveiled" at a military parade last year, a newly-minted four star general.

Kim Jong-Un likes to pass the time playing basketball and video games, and launching sudden military strikes against South Korea. It's thought that Kim Jong-un coordinated the bombardment of a South Korean island and the sinking of a South Korean warship last year to prove his military prowess and cement his role as the Great Successor. But he's not all business: F ormer classmates told the Washington Post Kim was obsessed with basketball, had a stash of expensive Nikes and "spent hours doing meticulous pencil drawings of Chicago Bulls superstar Michael Jordan." His taste for consumer goods has survived: Last year, a train full of televisions and watches thought to be gifts for Kim was derailed on its way way from China.

According to a former cook of Kim Jong-Il's who goes by the name Kenji Fujimoto:

"Dressed in a military outfit, the young Jong-Un glared at me with a menacing look when we shook hands."  

The first time they met, Fujimoto wrote in Kim Jong-Il's Chef:

"I can never forget the look in his eyes which seemed to be saying, 'This one is a despicable Japanese.'"

Kim Jong-un, like his father, is a serious chubster. Maybe he bulked up like Robert De Niro inRaging Bull to look more like his fat grandfather, North Korea's founder Kim Il-Sung, whom he's reportedly purposely styling himself after right down to the flat-top hairstyle. Or maybe it's some unspoken rule among North Korea's regimes that all its leaders have to be exceptionally rotund, to underscore the the millions of its citizens who have starved in famines.

Looks like Jim Jung-un is a real work of art thanks to dad.   Any kid that can move from civilian to four-star general, that is just plain impressive.

President Obama better not count on peace talks with this vicious, cold-blooded, and mean-spirited chubby dictator any time soon. 

The North Korean Military

North Korea has the fourth largest military in the world with 1.1 million military personnel, behind China (2.25 million), U.S. (1.55 million) and India (1.35 million).  South Korea's military ranks #6 with 687,000 personnel in uniform.   North Korea i a military state without equal.  On a per-capita basis, North Korea has more people in the active military than any other country by a wide margin. 

North Korea's annual military budget in 2009 was only $5 billion, compared to $24.5 billion spent by South Korea, and the $800 billion spent by the U.S.     Most of North Korea's armaments are supplied by the Russia and People's Republic of China, but are outdated.

Click Image To Enlarge

North Korea is superior to South Korea in the following aspects of their military:

• No of Active Military Personnel:  1.1 million versus 687,000
• Reserve Military Personnel:  4.7 million versus 4.5 million
• Main Battle Tanks:  3,500+ versus 2,750
• Artillery Pieces:  17,900+ versus 10,774
• Air Force Fighters and Attack Aircraft:  540 versus 467 (But So Korea has the more modern aircraft supplied by the U.S.)

South Korea has a big lead in surface naval warships (47 versus 8), but lags behind North Korea in patrol craft (329 versus 79), submarines (63 versus 13) and small landing craft (224 versus 36).    

North Korea's nuclear bomb program is super-secret, but according to the U.S. and IAEA nuclear experts,  the country has sufficient weapons grade uranium to producce between 2 to 3 nuclear bombs and is it is developing long-range ballistic missles to deliver nuclear warheads to Alaska and even Hawaii.  A rogue nation like North Korea, with a nuclear arsenal, run by a much younger dictator like Kim Jong Uen means a big problem for decades to come.   

Communist countries are known for their huge military parades.  This video celebrates the 75th anniversary of the ruling North Korean party and shows its military forces on display.  North Korean forces have a very odd way of marching, which has got to hurt after a while. 

  

North Korea Is A Tourist Paradise   

North Korea is apparently a very popular tourist destination, if you are not from the West.  If you are from China or Russia, no problem.  North Korea is a great place to visit, but get used to frequent blackouts in your hotel.   

Click Image To Enlarge

But, North Korea is a crazy fucking country. 

Click Image To Enlarge

Courtesy of an article dated December 19, 2011 appearing in The Wall Street Journal, an article dated December 19, 2011 appearing in Gawker

 

NUSCALE PROGRESSES WITH SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR REACTORS

Corvallis, Oregon -- Some investors and entrepreneurs are braver than others.  It's one thing to create the best iPhone app that mimics flatulence -- but to fund and join a large energy startup takes a certain level of testicular fortitude.  Building a new automobile or solar factory or fuel cell is expensive and difficult and stands only a small chance of survival.

And if that startup happens to be developing a new take on light water reactors (that's nuclear reactors, son), well, that's a different animal altogether.

Although there are a few nuclear technology startups (Kurion, TerraPower, Hyperion, General Fusion, Tri-Alpha), the company with the clearest near-term chances of success seems to be Oregon's NuScale.  This is not to diminish the work being done at the other firms.  It's simply that NuScale's market-entrance strategy seems to better take into account the intricacies and glacial time-scale of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval.

Investor Maurice Gunderson of CMEA has labelled the small modular reactors (SMRs) designed by NuScale as one of the "game-changing" technologies in energy (along with utility-scale energy storage and fusion).  CMEA is an investor in NuScale, along with Vulcan Capital and MKG, the Michael Kenwood Group.

We have reported on NuScale and SMRs numerous times, and we've covered the strong case that SMRs, small modular reactors, have made in their own favor.
 
Under the SMR concept, reactors can be built in factories and shipped to the site instead of being expensively and riskily built on-site. Rather than engineer and build reactors capable of producing over one gigawatt of electric power, SMRs can produce 10 megawatts to 350 megawatts of electricity (or heat). SMRs operate in similar fashion to conventional reactors or fossil fuel plants; nuclear fuel builds heat, which creates steam, which in turn is used to spin a turbine.

It is anticipated that SMRs will cost about the same to construct per kilowatt as large nuclear plants and will produce electricity at the same cost as a conventional nuclear plant (in the 6 to 8 cent/kWh range).  SMRs are not new. The U.S. Army has built and operated small nuclear power plants in the past and the military uses small reactors to power naval vessels.  But the incremental construction scheme of SMRs can change the financial and safety picture.

The sheer enormity of the undertaking and the level of commitment of this project were driven home at a NuScale-sponsored event I attended on the Oregon State University campus earlier this month.  Remember that this is a startup project, not a multinational; most startups don't have to consider purchasing 8,490 tons of rebar or nuclear source term security issues.

More than 85 people from all layers of the nuclear ecosystem gathered to check in on NuScale's progress to date.  One of the factors contributing to NuScale's progress and credibility is their access to a small-scale (electrically powered) nuclear integral test facility at OSU in which the technology can be run through its paces.  One can essentially put a hole in pipe in a nuclear system and safely simulate failure behavior. 

Dr. Jose Reyes, the CTO at NuScale, has experience at the NRC, and that knowledge is absolutely crucial in bringing this regulation-intense project to reality.  Dr. Paul Lorenzini, the CEO at NuScale Power, is both a lawyer and a nuclear engineer, relevant skills for this prodigious effort.

One of the distinctions of the NuScale design is that it employs passive cooling, making the design safer and less complex with no pumps and no back-up pumps.  The technology used by NuScale is proven, and in many cases, borrows from existing LWR designs.  This is crucial as it allows the NRC to stay well within their comfort zone. 

That's allowed NuScale to make real progress on the regulatory and political side, where, in the words of Reyes, the CTO, "We've seen huge changes in the acceptance of small reactors," and, in the words of the CEO, "in how much of a recognition of the role small reactors can play there is."  On a related note, the Obama administration continued to support nuclear technology with a $2 billion conditional loan guarantee from the DOE last week to help finance AREVA’ s Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility near Idaho Falls, Idaho.

Reyes described the unit as a "stainless steel thermos, under water, underground."  The firm has addressed safety issues throughout the design process: "Seismic isolators give remarkable seismic robustness," according to the CTO, and it is "walk-away safe" because of the water cooling design. 

It is arguable that regulatory and political advances are as important as technical innovation in a project of this nature.

"You don't have to be a rocket scientist" to understand the value of SMRs, according to Lorenzini.  He claims that the economics are validated along with the "incremental build-out option." Lorenzini stated, "The DNA in nuclear is economies of scale, but we asked 'how can we build a small plant to capture the economies of small?'"  NuScale uses factory manufacturing, passive design and the ability to deliver the unit via barge, rail or truck.

NuScale has leveraged an existing supply chain with proven industry leaders like EPC firm Kiewit. The speaker from Kiewit said that they see "SMR construction looking more like conventional power plants."

"What has held it back is that nobody believed you could reach the price point," said Lorenzini. 

On the subject of price, Jay Surina, the CFO of NuScale Power, estimated the cost at under $4000 per kilowatt at the 540 megawatt level -- a number that rivals or beats the price of existing "cathedral-style" nuclear plants.

According to the firm, a 540-megawatt power plant constructed from 12 of NuScale’s 45 megawatt reactors could produce power for 6 to 9 cents a kilowatt-hour on average over the plant’s lifetime, said Bruce Landrey, NuScale’s VP of business development. 

NuScale hopes to submit design certification documents to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Q1 2012, and it will take about three years for the agency to complete its review.  According to NuScale, approximately 95 percent of the regulatory basis for the NRC design review of a multi-module NuScale plant already exists. Using standard and proven computer codes, controls, components, control rod drives and enrichment levels, and fuel assembly design makes the approval process easier for the NRC and faster for all concerned. According to Lorenzini, there is a huge market for reactors in the 300-megawatt to 500-megawatt range.

About 20 percent of U.S. electricity comes from nuclear sources.  Other nations like China, India and France will rely on nuclear for baseload power to an even greater degree going forward.  We can't just wish it away. 

Nuclear remains a financial and safety challenge and nuclear's detractors make good arguments -- everyone from Amory Lovins and his Rocky Mountain Institute to NIRS, the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, are able to point out the cost overruns and safety concerns.  More valid objections here.  I could go on.

Perhaps NuScale and SMRs can help the industry address some of nuclear's historic financial and marketing impediments.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CONSTRUCTION PLAGUED BY COST OVERRUNS, LONG DELAYS AND LACK OF PRIVATE FUNDING

The nuclear plant might be one of the most advanced technologies ever invented, but their underlying budgets sound like something straight from the age of the pyramids.

"Sixty percent of the costs of building a plant in the U.S. come from labor," said Lucas Davis, a professor at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley during a session at the Commonwealth Club today.

While the nuclear industry says it will intensely scrutinize the failures of Fukushima to prevent future catastrophes, it must also grapple with one of its chronic problems -- namely, cost.

The budget for nuclear plants -- historically speaking -- exceed expectations and completing the plants often takes longer than expected. Davis, in fact, said he couldn't even think of one project that has come in on time and/or under budget. The cause of the overruns comes in part from the sprawling nature of these projects. The years it takes to build plants takes a toll, too: the accumulated interest soars into the hundreds of millions. Industry critics on other occasions have also blamed a military-industrial complex mentality that tends to underestimate the difficulties.

If the nuclear industry could hit its targets, "that would change everything," said Davis. "But for 60 years, the industry has said costs will go down but the empirical evidence is mixed."

The problem is even worse now than in the '60s and '70s because nuclear plants have since become infrequent events. No new commercial reactors have been built in the U.S. for more than three decades.

Areva, the French nuclear giant, wants to complete a reactor in Finland by 2012. The original budget was $3 billion. The final budget will be closer to $5 billion, admitted Jacques Besnainou, CEO of Areva's U.S. group.

"In Europe, we didn't build one for 20 years. We lost the supply chain. We lost the engineers," Besnainou said. "The initial costs were too low."

Besnainou, however, said that the cost issues shouldn't hold up new plants. Cost, he asserted, isn't the central issue anyway. Because nuclear plants can provide power for 40 to 60 years, they are cost-effective over the long term. Existing nuclear reactors, in fact, are cash cows, said Jeff Byron, the former California Energy Commissioner, because utilities have paid off the costs a long time ago.

The problem is getting the money up front to build them. Banks are skittish about backing new plants. As a result, the U.S. government, and other governments, need to step in and finance the first few plants through programs like the existing DOE loan guarantee program. Once Wall Street sees that the nuclear industry can live up to its promises, private money will step in.

"The issue is not cost. It is financing. You have to compare it to the Hoover Dam," Besnainou said. "You wouldn't say we cannot build highways because they are too expensive.

"Foreign oil -- that is expensive," he added.

New strategies could also help cut costs. In China, for instance, a company working with Areva on a plant managed to lay down the cement pad in a single pour. That saved one month of construction time, said Besnainou. Recycling fuel -- something the U.S. does not do but most other nations do -- would also ameliorate many of the problems revolving around the storage of spent fuel. (Besnainou also asserted that the world has around 200 years' worth of uranium reserves and that that number would climb if recycled fuel were added to the mix.)

Extending the life of the existing reactor fleet, he added, is also not a long-term option. The 104 commercial reactors in the U.S. provide 20 percent of the power in the country; the fleet of U.S. plants is the oldest in the world with most of the reactors dating back 40 or so years. Right now, the majority of nuclear reactor owners are seeking permits to extend their operating permits from 40 years, the standard license, to 60 years, but it's a stopgap.

"I don't think the fleet will get extended to 80 years," he said. "Like all of us, they will retire."

Fun fact: One pound of uranium can provide the same amount of energy as 100,000 pounds of coal.

Still, even if the nuclear industry can hit its mark, it may still not be a good option financially. Power from new plants will cost 10 cents a kilowatt hour, said Davis, and that's assuming that the new plants cost $4,000 per kilowatt in capital costs, a figure that comes from a recent MIT report. The DOE estimates that the capital costs my be closer to $7,000 a kilowatt.

New natural gas plants can produce power for 5 cents a kilowatt hour. And natural gas may stay below $5 per million BTUs, a relatively low price, through 2022 thanks to large deposits being unlocked through fracking. 

COMMENTARY:  I have covered the nuclear power industry for quite sometime, even leaned towards nuclear, something I had not done because of the costs and radiation hazards from potential accidents.  That horror became reality when on March 11, 2011, an earthquake measuring 9.1 on the richter scale struck off the coast of Japan.  The earthquake caused major destruction in areas closest to the epicenter, but the huge tsunami wave that battered Japan's eastern coast was the most damaging killing 13,116 deaths as of April 11, 2011 with an estimated 10,000 civilians still missing.  

On 11 March 2011 the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant was disabled by the earthquake and subsequent tsunami wave.   Units 4, 5 and 6 had been shut down prior to the earthquake for planned maintenance. The remaining reactors were shut down automatically after the earthquake, and the remaining decay heat of the fuel was being cooled with power from emergency generators. Then, the subsequent tsunami disabled emergency generators required to cool the reactors. Over the following three weeks there was evidence of a partial nuclear meltdown in units 1, 2 and 3; visible explosions, suspected to be caused by hydrogen gas, in units 1 and 3; a suspected explosion in unit 2, that may have damaged the primary containment vessel; and a possible uncovering of the units 1, 3 and 4 spent fuel pools. Radiation releases caused large evacuations, concern over food and water supplies, and treatment of nuclear workers. The spent fuel pools overflowed and have been slowly emptied into the Pacific Ocean, where they have contaminated the waters for hundreds of square miles.

 

Those terrible memories have put an end to my temporary love for nuclear power, and has for most intended purposes put nuclear on hold for the immediate future until the condition and safety of our 104 nuclear reactors is determined.

The people of Japan are still coping with the post-earthquake disaster and radiation.  Let's pray for them.

Courtesy of an article dated April 8, 2011 appearing in GreenTechMedia

By TwitterButtons.com  

LESSONS LEARNED FROM JAPAN'S NUCLEAR DISASTER, MAYBE NOW WE WILL GET SERIOUS ABOUT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

An earthquake-and-tsunami zone crowded with 127 million people is an unwise place for 54 reactors

The 1960s design of five Fukushima-I reactors has the smallest safety margin and probably can't contain 90 percent of meltdowns. The U.S. has six identical and 17 very similar plants.

Every currently operating light-water reactor, if deprived of power and cooling water, can melt down. Fukushima had eight-hour battery reserves, but fuel has melted in three reactors. Most U.S. reactors get in trouble after four hours. Some have had shorter blackouts. Much longer ones could happen.

Overheated fuel risks hydrogen or steam explosions that damage equipment and contaminate the whole site--so clustering many reactors together (to save money) can make failure at one reactor cascade to the rest.

Nuclear power is uniquely unforgiving: as Swedish Nobel physicist Hannes Alfvén said, "No acts of God can be permitted." Fallible people have created its half-century history of a few calamities, a steady stream of worrying incidents,  and many near-misses. America has been lucky so far. Had Three Mile Island's containment dome not been built double-strength because it was under an airport landing path, it may not have withstood the 1979 accident's hydrogen explosion. In 2002, Ohio's Davis-Besse reactor was luckily caught just before its massive pressure-vessel lid rusted through.

Regulators haven't resolved these or other key safety issues, such as terrorist threats to reactors, lest they disrupt a powerful industry. U.S. regulation is not clearly better than Japanese regulation, nor more transparent: industry-friendly rules bar the American public from meaningful participation. Many presidents' nuclear boosterism also discourages inquiry and dissent.

Nuclear-promoting regulators inspire even less confidence. The International Atomic Energy Agency's 2005 estimate of about 4,000 Chernobyl deaths contrasts with a rigorous 2009 review of 5,000 mainly Slavic-language scientific papers the IAEA overlooked. It found deaths approaching a million through 2004, nearly 170,000 of them in North America. The total toll now exceeds a million, plus a half-trillion dollars' economic damage. The fallout reached four continents, just as the jet stream could swiftly carry Fukushima fallout.

Fukushima I-4's spent fuel alone, while in the reactor, had produced (over years, not in an instant) more than a hundred times more fission energy and hence radioactivity than both 1945 atomic bombs. If that already-damaged fuel keeps overheating, it may melt or burn, releasing into the air things like cesium-137 and strontium-90, which take several centuries to decay a millionfold. Unit 3's fuel is spiked with plutonium, which takes 482,000 years.

Nuclear power is the only energy source where mishap or malice can kill so many people so far away; the only one whose ingredients can help make and hide nuclear bombs; the only climate solution that substitutes proliferation, accident, and high-level radioactive waste dangers. Indeed, nuclear plants are so slow and costly to build that they reduce and retard climate protection.

Here's how. Each dollar spent on a new reactor buys about two to ten times less carbon savings and is 20 to 40 times slower, than spending that dollar on the cheaper, faster, safer solutions that make nuclear power unnecessary and uneconomic:

• Efficient use of electricity. 
• Making heat and power together in factories or buildings ("cogeneration"). 
• Renewable Energy - Half the world's new generating capacity in 2008 and 2009 was renewable.  In 2010, renewables, excluding big hydro dams, won $151 billion of private investment and added over 50 billion watts (70 percent the total capacity of all 23 Fukushima-style U.S. reactors) while nuclear got zero private investment and kept losing capacity. Supposedly unreliable windpower made 43 percent to 52 percent of four German states' total 2010 electricity. Non-nuclear Denmark, 21 percent windpowered, plans to get entirely off fossil fuels. Hawai'i plans 70 percent renewables by 2025.

The last two made 18 percent of the world's 2009 electricity (while nuclear made 13 percent, reversing their 2000 shares)—and made over 90 percent of the 2007 to 2008 increase in global electricity production.

In contrast, of the 66 nuclear units worldwide officially listed as "under construction" at the end of 2010, 12 had been so listed for over 20 years, 45 had no official startup date, half were late, all 66 were in centrally planned power systems—50 of those in just four (China, India, Russia, South Korea)—and zero were free-market purchases. Since 2007, nuclear growth has added less annual output than just the costliest renewable—solar power—and will probably never catch up. While inherently safe renewable competitors are walloping both nuclear and coal plants in the marketplace and keep getting dramatically cheaper, nuclear costs keep soaring, and with greater safety precautions would go even higher. Tokyo Electric Co., just recovering from $10-20 billion in 2007 earthquake costs at its other big nuclear complex, now faces an even more ruinous Fukushima bill.

Since 2005, new U.S. reactors (if any) have been 100 percent-plus subsidized—yet they couldn't raise a cent of private capital, because they have no business case.  They cost 2-3 times as much as new windpower, and by the time you could build a reactor, it couldn't even beat solar power. Competitive renewables, cogeneration, and efficient use can displace all U.S. coal power more than 23 times over—leaving ample room to replace nuclear power's half-as-big-as-coal contribution too—but we need to do it just once. Yet the nuclear industry demands ever more lavish subsidies, and its lobbyists hold all other energy efforts hostage for tens of billions in added ransom, with no limit.

Japan, for its size, is even richer than America in benign, ample, but long-neglected energy choices. Perhaps this tragedy will call Japan to global leadership into a post-nuclear world. And before America suffers its own Fukushima, it too should ask, not whether unfinanceably costly new reactors are safe, but why build any more, and why keep running unsafe ones. China has suspended reactor approvals. Germany just shut down the oldest 41 percent of its nuclear capacity for study. America's nuclear lobby says it can't happen here, so pile on lavish new subsidies.

A durable myth claims Three Mile Island halted U.S. nuclear orders. Actually they stopped over a year before—dead of an incurable attack of market forces. No doubt when nuclear power's collapse in the global marketplace, already years old, is finally acknowledged, it will be blamed on Fukushima. While we pray for the best in Japan today, let us hope its people's sacrifice will help speed the world to a safer, more competitive energy future.

COMMENTARY:   Recently, I have mostly for additional nuclear power investments or subsidies because I felt nuclear power technology was relatively safe, cost-effective and reliable--available 24/7, 365 days, something you cannot say about solar and wind.  

The Fukushima nuclear reactor catastrophe has changed that perception.  The above articles makes a pretty good case why future nuclear reactor investments should not be made.  However, some studies show that nuclear energy is feasible.  

• A recent MIT study, makes the case that nuclear power is cost-effective and the there is a plentiful supply of uranium.  
• In my blog post dated February 21, 2011 titled, "The Looming Aging Crisis of America's Nuclear Power Plants - Built To Last 40 Years, Can They Last For 80 years",  I cite a Nuclear Fissionary study that calculated the total cost of electricity production by kilowatt hour, and although the construction cost of a nuclear power plant is running $6,000 per kilowatt, the weighted average operating costs per kilowatt make nuclear power a bargain when compared to renewables, namely solar and wind.   Please refer to the following graphs and charts.  

Many countries have placed a moratorium on new proposed nuclear power projects, cancelled other or temporarily stopped construction of others, I am afraid that this will become the situation again.   The danger of long-lasting radiation contamination due to nuclear fallout caused by unpredicable accidents like Fukushima, makes you pause and re-evaluate the whole nuclear power thing.   Personally, solar and wind is the way to go.  They are expensive, but you can build solar and wind farms relatively quick when compared to building nuclear power plants, they produce clean energy, and this a much better alternative tio combat CO2 gas emissions and stave off global warming.  This is much better alternative over importing oil, which is strangling our economy.  Time is of the essence, the world is already at "peak oil", and we will probably run out of oil by 2050, a scary proposition.   I have a feeling that after this fiasco, that goverments eveywhere will expidite investments in alternative energy. 

Courtesy of an article dated March 28, 2011 appearing in GreenTechMedia

By TwitterButtons.com  

SETH GODIN'S COMPARISON OF DEATHS CAUSED BY DIFFERENT ENERGY SOURCES, COAL IS WORSE THAN NUCLEAR

 

The Fukushima meltdowns may have derailed hopes that American will be upping its investments in nuclear energy anytime soon. And no wonder: It wasn't but a couple days after the tsunami that you regularly saw misguided "environmentalists" claiming there's no way we can prevent disasters like the one that struck Japan.

But the fact is, these arguments aren't based in fact, and this simple, utterly powerful infographic by famed business writer Seth Godin illustrates why. What you see are the deaths per terawatt hour of energy produced:

Shocking, huh? The data it's drawn from is about as reliable as it gets: The World Health Organization's figures on worker deaths in various industries. As Godin writes:

Vivid is not the same as true. It's far easier to amplify sudden and horrible outcomes than it is to talk about the slow, grinding reality of day to day strife. That's just human nature. Not included in this chart are deaths due to global political instability involving oil fields, deaths from coastal flooding and deaths due to environmental impacts yet unmeasured, all of which skew it even more if you think about it.

This chart unsettles a lot of people, because there must be something wrong with it. Further proof of how easy it is to fear the unknown and accept what we've got.

We're betting that the tragedy in Japan sets back nuclear energy in the U.S. by at least a decade. But make no mistake: That's not because of science or facts. It's because of politics, and an irrational fear we have of nuclear power that's a relic of the 1950s.

Do you have an opinion about nuclear power? About the relative safety of one form of power over another? How did you come to this opinion?

For every person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die due to coal, adjusted for the same amount of power produced... You might very well have excellent reasons to argue for one form over another. Not the point of this post. The question is: did you know about this chart? How does it resonate with you?

I think that any time reality doesn't match your expectations, it means that marketing was involved. Perhaps it was advertising, or perhaps deliberate story telling by an industry. Or perhaps it was just the stories we tell one another in our daily lives. It's sort of amazing, even to me, how much marketing colors the way we see the world--our reaction (either way) to this chart is proof of it.

Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources

I (Seth Godin) wrote this back in 2008 and with one new death that is somewhat nuclear energy related (a death at one of the japanese nuclear plants following the 8.9 earthquake) the statistics are not changed. Japan should have had sealed backup diesel generators or updated some of their designs. However, nuclear still compares very, very well to the other energy sources. The air pollution data is mainly from the World Health Organization and the european study Externe. The World Health Organization compiled peer reviewed health studies on air pollution from many institutions. Occupational health and safety statistics track the deaths of workers in the different industries. 

Energy Source                    Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average             161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China                     278
Coal – USA                        15
Oil                               36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                        4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                   12
Peat                              12
Solar (rooftop)                 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                            0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                           0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world incl Banqiao)      1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                         0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

COMMENTARY:  The problem with this comparision of deaths caused by different energy sources, is that they are just estimates, and deaths can occur any number of ways and they occur over lengthy periods of time.   For example, of the 400+ workers asked to work on the Chernobyl disaster, only one is alive today, and she is having a variety of health issues related to exposure to radiation.  

Precautions to prevent the safety of nuclear power plant workers and civilians are extremely tight, and thankfully, there haven't been that many nuclear accidents other than the highly publicized Three Mile Island (US) nuclear reactor near meltdown, Chernobyl (Russia) and the Dai-Ichi nuclear reactor plant at Fukushima, Japan.   Those are the three major ones.   It is beginning to look like the Dai-Ichi nuclear reactor plant at Fukushima, Japan may match Chernobyl for nuclear fallout intensity.

We all know that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan that killed 250,000 Japanese instantly.  At least three to four times more died due to radiation poisoning in the after-math of the explosiions, and countless more died from the effects of radiation exposures.

The key difference between deaths caused by nuclear energy and other sources of energy, is the fear factor that nuclear fallout and exposure to radiation causes civilians.  Radiation can go through four feet of concrete.  Simply closing the window or door doesn't stop being exposed to nuclear radiation.  That's the difference between smoke or carbon emissions from coal plants, gas and oil.   

You don't know the total number of casualties for years or decades.  With nuclear fallout the ground, buildings, flora, water, everything that was exposed to nuclear radiation, remain dangerous for decades or thousands of years.  It leaves a permanent scar on the landscape that will always be there for many, many years.   

If you were to compare FEAR by different energy sources, nuclear energy would be the big black bar.

Courtesy of an article dated March 25, 2011 appearing in Fast Company Design and an article dated March 13, 2011 appearing in NextBigFuture

By TwitterButtons.com  

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY, AND LOCATION OF EVERY NUCLEAR REACTOR IN THE WORLD

As the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis slowly comes under control, global attention is turning to broader existential questions about nuclear power. Despite providing 6% of the world's power without emissions and fatalities from their nuclear facilities, countries like Germany is planning to cutback on nuclear power plant development and China has temporarily suspended all new nuclear reactor approvla.

How is this going to affect nuclear power around the world? If we wanted to turn off all the nuclear plants, how easy would it be? New Scientist, using the World Nuclear Association's Reactor Database, has made the following interactive map of the world's nuclear power plants (minus a few in South America and South Africa0.  The colors of the dots represent different types of plants. helpful interactive map of the world's nuclear power plants (minus a few in South America and South Africa). The colors of the dots represent different types of plants.

Powered by Tableau

 

France, as you can see, is operating more than 50 reactors, which makes sense: it gets 39% of its total power output from nuclear. The U.S., for comparison, gets just 9% of its energy from its more than 70 reactors.

The map also shows nuclear plants currently under construction, which gives a good sense of the countries that have, up to this point, been investing in nuclear power. The U.S. is working on just one nuclear project currently, a second reactor at the already operational Watts Bar power plant in Tennessee. Russia has four under construction; India has five. But China, despite its new hesitation, takes the lead with nine reactors under construction.

Fears of a Fukushima repeat--or worse--aside, there is a lot of emissions-free power coming from nuclear power plants, and a lot of money being invested in building more, probably too much for them to simply go away. If, after the last two weeks, you're very frightened of living close to one, use this map to avoid them.

COMMENTARY:   In numerous blog posts, I have extensively covered nuclear energy technology, and provided the latest data and stats about the numbers of reactors around the world, including the number of units in operation, under construction, and under development, and controversies surrounding this industry. You can find links to the most recent articles HERE, including links within the articles to older blog posts. 

I noticed that some of the stats of the numbers of nuclear reactors by country are incorrect.  The U.S. has 104 nuclear reactors in operation, France has 68, and Japan has 54.  I would check the database for exact numbers.    

The problem with nuclear reactors is that when things go wrong, they really go wrong, and the effects will last for centuries.  On the other hand, they are very efficient at producing electricity, can operate 24/7, 365 days a year, and are the most economical source of energy, but expensive to build, take a long time to approve, many reactors are reaching their lifecycles, and the reactor technologies are different.  The other problem, which is of concern around the world is allowing rogue nations access to nuclear technology that can be used for evil rather than good.  

Courtesy of an article dated March 23, 2011 appearing in Fast Company and PBT Consulting Blog

By TwitterButtons.com  

DID THE TSUNAMI AND FUKUJIMA NUCLEAR REACTOR CRISIS PUT AN END TO U.S. NUCLEAR EXPANSION? YES, KIMOSABE

The disaster in Japan reminds us of the fragility of our lives and our infrastructure in the face of Mother Nature. My heart goes out to the people of Japan and the families of those who have lost loved ones.

 

Information, a person finder, and a way to donate can be found here. Another great technical resource is here.

According to the NRC, "All the available information indicates weather conditions have taken the small releases from the Fukushima reactors out to sea away from the population. Given the thousands of miles between the two countries, Hawaii, Alaska, the U.S. Territories and the U.S. West Coast are not expected to experience any harmful levels of radioactivity." 

And here's an article that claims the opposite.

Within hours of the disaster, I started receiving press releases from environmental groups attributing the tsunami to global warming -- which only serves to make global warming activism look ridiculous.

And then came the barrage of press releases condemning nuclear power. One press release actually said "WE TOLD YOU SO." (Capital letters theirs.)

And no doubt, the situation at up to three nuclear reactors in Japan is critically serious. According to reports, the reactor core has been exposed at at least one of the sites and seawater is being used to prevent a meltdown. It's a dire situation that will result in further environmental degradation and health effects. There's no doubt about it -- nuclear power is dangerous stuff.

Forbes reports that former commissioner at the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Peter Bradford (he was at the post during the Three Mile Island incident), said, “I’ll be quite surprised if the events at Fukushima are ultimately considered to be less serious than TMI,” adding that more people have already been exposed to high levels of radiation in Japan than were exposed at TMI.

But here's the reality check: coal, natural gas, and oil have killed far more people than nuclear power. Coal miners perish, the act of fracking natural gas pollutes water tables, and coal plants poison our air and water. 

Energy production and hydrocarbons are a dirty, dangerous business and there are human and environmental costs to be paid to extract and unleash the power contained in these materials. It's one of the costs we pay for our enhanced existences that we achieve via ready access to power.

It's just that nuclear power plant failures are point source events and make for dramatic television and easy scapegoats for alarmists. There are more than 100 operating nuclear plants in the U.S. producing hundreds of gigawatts of baseload power. We can't do without them -- at least not just yet. And using the disaster in Japan as a rallying cry for anti-nuclear sentiment is a shameless argument.

And one more note -- producing solar panels, fuel cells, and batteries, and while we're at it, computers and mobile phones, is also a toxins-intensive business. If a tsunami floods electronics and solar factories, there is an inevitable release of arsenic, gallium, cadmium and other nasty elements into the environment. Maybe that's a reason not to pursue solar power or use a cell phone.

I absolutely agree that energy policy in the U.S. and across the globe should focus on improved energy efficiency and the rapid deployment of renewable energy sources. If renewables can reach scale and cost targets, let's use renewables instead of nuclear power.

In the meantime, existing nuclear power plants are a reality and must be made safer and more reliable.

COMMENTARY:  U.S. nuclear is now DEAD, and you can quote me.  What has happened in Japan is probably a worst case scenario, but will have lasting affects for decades.  No telling how many Japanese will die from prolonged radiation fallout or Americans will eventually die from the fallout carried across the Pacific.

It doesn't matter that oil, coal and natural gas have killed far more people.  Radiation can last for decades and centuries.  You may not die from radiation fallout right away, but radiation accumulates in your body, and eventually affects your DNA, causing cancerous tumors, leukemia and your entire immune system finally shuts down and kills you.  250,000 Russians died from Chernobyl, and continue to die.

Yes, the U.S. nuclear power industry is dead, and there is no bringing it back after the Fukujima nuclear reactor disaster.  America should move rapidly to increase investments in alternative energy from solar to wind, cold fusion energy and free energy power generation. 

American's needs to get off of its addicted to oil, and we need to put a stop to the huge amount of money paid to politicians by the automotive and oil industries.  

Courtesy of an article dated March 13, 2011 appearing in GreenTechMedia

By TwitterButtons.com