“The Only Reason Nuclear Is Attractive”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she might run for another term next year, but for our purposes, this stands out from a recent interview:

And here's her lengthier discussion on the safety of nuclear power in the wake of the recent killer Japanese earthquakes. Feinstein said while she believes nuclear energy can be a safe form of power, "we have to be eternally vigilant'' on safety issues.

Feinstein said "there has to be longterm storage'' for nuclear waste, and said that "I think there ought to be regional waste storage sites."

Regional waste storage sites is an idea we’ll be hearing more about in the coming months – I expect a House hearing I’m covering later this week will discuss them – and it’ll be interesting to the hear the various views about them.

Video at the link.

---

Almost a month after Fukushima Daiichi, the Washington Post has weighed in again on nuclear energy. After noting that public support as reflected in polls has waned but not fallen off a cliff and that policymakers have not turned tail, the Post concludes:

The only reason nuclear is attractive, some insist, is concern over global warming. Yet, even if that is the only cause, it is compelling. As of now there is no other proven, scalable low-carbon source of electricity that produces the reliable, “always on” power that utilities require. America may never get as much of its electricity from nuclear plants as France, which generates 80 percent of its power that way. But if it is serious about cutting carbon emissions, the United States should keep nuclear on the table.

“The only reason.” People tend to forget, because the recession has lingered so long, that the demand for electricity had been rising steadily. And I think it’s fair to say, will rise again – in the U.S., of course, but throughout the world as well. Nuclear energy not only produces a lot of energy in a relatively packed space but also can also encourage energy security.

But we know all that. What the Post knows is that emission free base load energy is something one tosses aside with considerable hesitation. Although it isn’t the bravest show of support imaginable, it’s fair enough.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

"Nuclear energy rarely kills and causes little illness"

The Washington Post makes a point that is easy to lose sight of while all eyes are turned to Fukushima Daiichi:

History suggests that nuclear power rarely kills and causes little illness. That’s also the conclusion engineers reach when they model scenarios for thousands of potential accidents.
Making electricity from nuclear power turns out to be far less damaging to human health than making it from coal, oil or even clean-burning natural gas, according to numerous analyses. That’s even more true if the predicted effects of climate change are thrown in.

For sake of comparison:

Compared with nuclear power, coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution among members of the public, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness, according to a study of the health effects of electricity generation in Europe.

The article goes into how the study calculates its figures, but the main issue here is that other forms of electricity production can cause harm simply in the course of producing electricity. Nuclear energy has no capacity at all for doing that. All the nuclear plants in the world have been going along, some as long as 40-odd years, with no harm to the public and with a sterling record of avoiding industrial accidents (here in the U.S. particularly).

The article really puts this all in perspective. Read the whole thing - great job by David Brown.

Three Mile Island. Number of deaths from 1979 accident: none.

News Coverage: The Post and the Times (NYC and LA)

How are our major newspapers reporting on the situation in Japan today?  The New York Times still has it at the front of its site, but Libya and Syria have the lead positions.

The story leads with comments for the International Atomic Energy Agency:

The world’s chief nuclear inspector said Saturday that Japan was “still far from the end of the accident” that has stricken its Fukushima nuclear complex and continues to spew radiation into the atmosphere and the sea, and acknowledged that the authorities were still unsure about whether the nuclear cores and spent fuel were covered with the water needed to cool them and end the crisis.

That would by Yukiya Adano, head of the IAEA and Japanese himself. It seems odd not to lead with TEPCO or the Japanese government, but maybe Adano gave the most dramatic comments.

The Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said Saturday that a test of seawater taken on Friday from a monitoring station at the plant showed the level of iodine 131 to be 1,250 times the legal limit. That was 147 times the level recorded on Wednesday, the agency said.

Fair enough. But:

Japanese authorities played down the news. Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director general at the safety agency, said he expected the iodine to dilute rapidly, minimizing the effect on wildlife, and pointed out that fishing had been suspended in the area after the earthquake and tsunami.

“There is unlikely to be any immediate effect on nearby residents,” he said.

“Played down?” That sounds oddly American-centric. By our standards of reporting, everything the Japanese say must sound “played down.” Maybe Nishiyama just told the truth as he knew it and left it at that.

Although the Times, especially reporter Matt Wald, have done a very good job with this story since it began, the Gray Lady seems to be struggling a bit to fill column inches with it. Not bad, but a little distended.

---

The Washington Post leads with radiation found in the waters off Fukushima:

Radioactivity levels soared in the seawater outside the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, safety officials reported Saturday, igniting fresh concerns about the spread of highly radioactive material and the risks involved in completing an already dangerous job.

A little hyped, but okay. I don’t think anyone doubted from the first day of this situation that there were not risks involved in completing the job. Unlike the Times today, the Post aims to track positive progress as well as worrisome developments:

As of Saturday, some signs of progress were evident at the plant: Fresh water was being pumped in to cool the first three nuclear reactors, rather than seawater, which can ultimately impair the cooling process. And the lights were turned on in the control room of the second reactor.

I believe only Unit 4 lacks lighting now.  The Post then runs over the event of the last few days.

---

The Los Angeles Times also leads with seawater:

Radioactivity levels are soaring in seawater near the crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant, Japan's nuclear safety agency said Saturday, two weeks after the nuclear power plant was hit by a massive earthquake and tsunami.

“Are soaring” or “have soared?” We won’t really know until more readings are taken and hopefully, they will come down. But, okay.

The L.A. Times quotes Nishiyama, but instead of commenting on his underplaying the news, tries an opinion:

Despite that reassurance, the disclosure may well heighten international concern over Japanese seafood exports.

Which is true – it may or it may not. And that’s about it for L.A. Times, which reviews the last few days in a couple of paragraphs and ends. This struck me as almost curious, as Los Angeles is, of the three cities, closest to Japan. But sticking to the facts as known at the moment and moving on seems a good approach to the news of the day. I’ll take it.

It’s a newsboy.