IEEE: Fukushima gives credence to anti-nuclear argument — Clear that nuke power will decrease in coming decades — Will not positively contribute to reducing greenhouse gases

Published: January 3rd, 2012 at 12:03 pm ET


The Biggest Energy Story of 2011, IEEE Spectrum, Jan. 2, 2012:

  • [Fukushima] gave credence to the anti-nuclear argument that all reactors are subject to worse-than-expected mishaps, and that sometimes, somewhere, the people responsible for operating and regulating reactors inevitably will turn out to be unfit for their jobs
  • Decades ago, an environmental activist named Richard Morgan wrote a book called “Nuclear Power: The Bargain We Can’t Afford.” Today that title seems more prescient than ever

Suspect Claims [Emphasis Added]

  • Nuclear energy can do more than any other technology to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions [False – SOURCE]
  • Taking all environmental ramifications of competing technologies into account, nuclear is probably the cheapest source of baseload electricity [False – SOURCE]
  • The volume of nuclear wastes is tiny compared to all the waste products of coal combustion [Volume is not the concern, rather toxicity periods measured in millenia]
  • Per megawatt capacity, the geographic footprint of reactor complexes is small compared to those of wind or solar complexes [See volume above]
  • In fast developing countries like China and India […] nuclear prospects still positive [See recent protests in India]

Logical Claims

  • Despite all those benefits, the even more obvious risks of nuclear energy have come to dominate perceptions in the rich countries
  • It’s clear now that net nuclear generation will decrease in the coming decades as older reactors are taken out of service
  • On balance nuclear will not make a positive contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in North America, Europe, or Japan
Published: January 3rd, 2012 at 12:03 pm ET


Related Posts

  1. Time: Can Japan’s Anti-Nuclear Protesters Keep Reactors Shut Down? — Things starting to change in their favor — Country’s mood shifting away from nuclear power September 28, 2011
  2. The Economist: Japan is without nuclear power for first time in 50 years — “A silent majority speaks” — Analysts say anti-nuclear party could soon vault to national prominence May 3, 2012
  3. Wife of Japan’s Pro-Nuke Prime Minister: “I’m opposed to nuclear power” — “My heart aches to see him selling nuclear power overseas” June 11, 2013
  4. AP: Link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power is “becoming increasingly clear” says Japan professor — Nuclear power industry not thrilled people are talking about it July 31, 2012
  5. Japan gov’t: Agency funding project to monitor online info about Fukushima crisis — Around the clock monitoring of “blogs on nuclear power” and “Twitter accounts” August 1, 2011

14 comments to IEEE: Fukushima gives credence to anti-nuclear argument — Clear that nuke power will decrease in coming decades — Will not positively contribute to reducing greenhouse gases

  • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

    BUT last sentence in original article: “Only in fast developing countries like China and India are nuclear prospects still positive.”


    • arclight arclight

      i love enenews!! πŸ™‚

      “China and India are nuclear prospects still positive”

      total rubbish! sell your shares in NUKDIRE now!! πŸ™‚

    • Grampybone Grampybone

      I remember when they tried to approve a south Indian nuke plant after 3/11 and there were riots in the streets. Positive nuclear outlook my ass.

    • ion jean ion jean

      China didn’t care on Xmas 1968 that the rest of the world had agreed to chill out on the atmospheric nuke testing for awhile…the rest of us swallowed a bunch of that…they will always have this “we must play catch-up” mentality…India, like Japan, has some brilliant scientists…hopefully they will proceed with caution.

      By that time, 1st world countries will have survived the Anti Nuclear populist revolution, so we’ll probably have to send the military in to stop them, or more peacefully…

      Start a new reality show called “Kid Swap”, kinda like an exchange program…send them children from Chernobyl (bless their souls) to raise and they’ll have to send their own kids to live in Chernobyl region for a week…

      If they go for that, they can buiLd an NPP (but they have NO soul!)

  • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

    Well, to be fair, it’s a great article overall. It’s just so embarrassing that all those smart-brainers suddenly recognize what others told them 30 years ago….

    On Dec. 30, they published another interesting one about renewables!

    “In the U.S., 2011 marked another year with exactly zero offshore wind turbines in the water — but news on Cape Wind and other projects suggests we’re getting closer. And around the world, offshore development continues apace. (…) What will 2012 bring? A number of massive solar and wind power projects are under construction now, and others in the deserts of the U.S. and North Africa as well as coastal areas around the world will soon follow. We’ll have another year of perspective on Fukushima and nuclear energy, and the hiccups in the quest for “clean coal” may place that project into clearer focus. And you can be sure that when that first offshore turbine starts spinning in U.S. waters — sometime in 2012, hopefully! — we’ll join the celebration here.”

    *B&B wishes they would just leave the bloody coal alone, though

  • the yeoman the yeoman

    well, that was awfully white of them,
    written with a heavy heart I’m sure.

    you known, I’m sure the folks at IEEE are very nice but they seem to have little understanding of the life sciences. I’m afraid they are not alone.

    It’s funny global warming seem like a walk in the park compared to how much vaporized Pu we’ve put into the atmosphere.

    I suspect 2011 will come to be known as the year meiosis ended.


    • BreadAndButter BreadAndButter

      I’m afraid that global warming is nowhere even near a walk in the park in comparison. It’s just that a lot of people still have not fully understood the consequences of climate change.

      • the yeoman the yeoman

        Global warming doesn’t unravel DNA.

        Something else to ponder B&B. Where are nuclear power plants built? Close to water I beleive. Wonder what impact rising ocean levels will have? Sir you assume too much.

        In my humble opinion, we’ve put more then 10 pounds of Pu in the atmosphere, therefore most likely, we will not be here to keep those death machines cool. Cockroaches are not up to the task.

        put them together and what have you got…..

        I mean that in the nicest way πŸ™‚

        • This video explains in simple language why it only takes one particle of radiation to kill you or give you one of 2,600 radiation caused genetically linked diseases.

          Imagine a radiation filled particle inside or next to the cell in the video, breaking ONE genetic strand in ONE cell in your body, or in the body of your child. Because of these genetic damage, the cell turns cancerous.

          That is how it works.. Once a cell turns cancerous, from genetic damage, it multiplies and voila, you may die… from a dose of radiation that the nuclear industry cannot even measure because it is so low and they say it is so ‘safe’.

          Arnie Gunderson said that everyone in the US inhaled 5-10 HOT radioactive particles per day, when FUKU was blowing up. Now the dose is lower, but FUKU is still ‘exhaling’ radiation, despite the claim of ‘cold shutdown’.

          In Japan they were inhaling 100 plus HOT particles a day.. Just one of these in the right spot, at the right time; that is enough.. THE END.

          Class dismissed.

          Have a nice day.

          • They knew all of the dangers of radiation way back in 1920… Watch this video.

            But when do you hear about this stuff, on corporate owned mass media?

            This video experiment involved X rays, which doctors claim is safe… Well it does not look like it is ‘safe’, based on what these fruit flies are experiencing. Even the cell cultures are good evidence of supposedly ‘safe’ radiation being very dangerous.

            We are not even talking about hot plutonium or uranium particles being breathed into the body here.. This is just X rays..


            Class dismissed

            Make it a greener day.

      • the yeoman the yeoman

        Love ya B&B

        Lets work together to Shut Them Off

  • unspokenhermit

    Whether is contributes to reducing greenhouse gases or not, we do not want Nuclear plants.

    I just found this new study, produced independent organization Datapoke, concerning the estimated concentrations of radionuclides at upper altitudes. The report indicates concentrations orders of magnitude higher than those physically recorded at near surface level.

    The report includes dispersion images but I can’t figure out how to post them here. Can anyone post the dispersion images?

  • arclight arclight

    ieeeee lets talk ICRAAAPeee for a moment and discuss nuclear funded medical and “learning” institutions…

    Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: Why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. arghhh!!

    (emphasis added)

    Mark P. Little, DPhil, Richard Wakeford (recent fecked up, funding expedition to fukushima, fame), PhD, E. Janet Tawn, PhD, Simon D. Bouffler, PhD and Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, DPhil

    Linear means not accurate in mathematical terms

    ICRP is therefore β€œlinear” as stated by these illustrious statisticians! Especially that fecker wakeford!! (in his own words πŸ™‚ )