A nuclear power plant in Japan is failing - part has already exploded. The melt down of the core is being discussed.
It's been my nightmare since realising the folly of Sizewell and nuclear power as a teenager living in Suffolk.
If that melt down happens - and I sincerely hope it does not - then we're not just heading for one of the biggest ecological disasters in human history. We're also heading for a massive humanitarian disaster. And if Tokyo is as disrupted as I fear - it being only 200 miles or so a way, we face potential global financial melt down.
If there is no one to deal wih the counter party to debts in a global financial system it stops. Banks can't work through that.
Don't think nuclear melt down in Japan is some minor issue.
It's massive. For the world.
I am very, very worried.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Indeed the meltdown of the core of the reactor is being discussed.
That discussion seems to be going on mainly amongst those who don’t understand light water reactors. Meltdown would imply a loss of coolant but the coolant is also the reactor moderator so if the coolant goes the reaction shuts down.
The cores were scrammed as soon as the events occurred.
The diesel-powered pumps that feed coolant to the core to remove residual heat then failed due to water ingress, leaving batteries to power the pumps. These failed after a while and portable generators were/are being brought in to power the pumps.
There should be no risk of a full reactor core meltdown, and only a small risk of a partial meltdown.
I, personally, await reliable news and prefer to pay no attention to the MSM.
I was only reading a short while ago that the next Nuclear disaster is overdue – well its here,our only hope is that there will not be a melt-down.Should it happen in mid Europe the effects would be devastating.The Germans are running down their Nuclear plants,but it won’t help them much if one blows say in France or UK.And they are being built fast and furious,its big money!!!!!Ever looked at the map which shows where the Nuclear waste is being dumped – don’t if you have a weak heart!
“I was only reading a short while ago that the next Nuclear disaster is overdue ”
I’m sorry, but how would that work out? Nuclear disasters are like trains? There was one due at quarter past 2010 so it should be along any minute? That’s like saying you haven’t broken your leg for 20 years so another break is long overdue & ignoring the fact that you go to considerable trouble not to break legs.
Nuclear ‘disasters’ to date = 1. Chernobyl deaths 57 at plant. No reliable evidence of other fatalities due to contamination. There was NO significant release of radio-active material at Three Mile Island.
So from a unique event how do you arrive at a predictive interval for nuclear disasters?
Richard. You state….
“If there is no one to deal wih the counter party to debts in a global financial system it stops. Banks can’t work through that.”
Are you referring the the carry trade (think not) or Govt. Bonds, or other?
One of the things that I’ve found from experience is not to speculate on things that I do not have a detailed knowledge of. Nuclear physics and its associated engineering strike me as such areas. Speculating on nuclear “meltdown” of a reactor and the impact on the rest of the world and its financial system on the basis of limited knowledge (unless Richard, you have a degree in nuclear physics/engineering) strikes me as scaremongering and commenting on events for the sake of getting your (in my opinion) biased opinion in the public space. If I were you, I would think about the impact of the tsunami on the east coast of Honshu island where in one town, it is reported that 10,000 people are unaccounted for. That is the real disaster and humanitarian catastrophe here!!!!
@Tim Pearson
The big issue in banking is the vast quantity of meanigless trades that require settlement
If Tokyo can settle it’s fine
If it can’t then there’s crisis
And if it’s bank and insurance sectors are rendered insolvent without the nuclear risk – and that’s possible too – then the risk is just as big
The chance of financial meltdown from this earthquake coming as it does on a world economy hardly able to take shock is enormous
And I note Naked Capitalism noted the risk too http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/03/guest-post-japanese-russian-and-indonesian-volcanoes-erupt-3-japanese-nuclear-reactors-in-danger-1-is-leaking-and-may-melt-down-within-24-hours.html
I think that a sign of agreement
@Richard
I watch a nuclear reactor blow up and it’s quite inappropriate to worry? Or think of the consequences
Only a fool (at best) could write something so stupid (I use the words advisedly)
I don’t believe a reactor cannot be damaged in such a blast
I don’t believe this is a minor issue
I don’t believe we can afford this risk on top of all the other risks
I don’t believe that we can afford such Black Swans
The reality is those Swans really far too predictable – and yes Don was right to say so
And those engineers who say ‘don’t worry’ are the same as those economists who said don’t worry pre 2008
They’re wrong
When will you realize the paradigm needs to change? Must change? Is changing?
“And those engineers who say ‘don’t worry’ are the same as those economists who said don’t worry pre 2008”
So which are you, and accounting expert, and economic expert or an engineering expert. I expect that you aren’t all three.
Certainly you aren’t an expert on banking operations. All booked trades will be recorded on fault tolerant systems by each counterparty and all banks and securities firms in the more developed economies are required to have Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery procedures that address exactly this sort of incident. I daresay that Japanese banks have fretted over earthquakes and worse over the years, but managing risk is what they do.
@Nigel
I make no claim to be an engineer
Despite that I’m quite capable of assessing that buildings blowing up that contain profoundly toxic substances do create risk. Isn’t that amazing? I guess you’re saying you can’t
No doubt that explains why you’re a banker. As they’ve proven time and again, risk is no their forte
No doubt this will be another occasion when we find that to be true. Let’s remember, according to bankers’ risk assessments the crash could not have happened
That may be why they pretend it did not – but the rest of us – let’s called us those possessed of some wisdom – know better
The reactor did not blow up.
The explosion was in the turbine building.
The reactor core is now being cooled by seawater injection.
You want the power, any power, then some risk exists.
Renewables ?
One of lifes jokes, for every renewable watt generated another watt
has to be available from other sources for when the renewables are
not generating. Never mind the fact that the generating companies
are forced to buy the power, which cost they then pass to us.
@John
Reuters say it was the reactor building
And Reuters now say another reactor is overheating
So much for your credibility
Richard,
You may or may not *believe* certain elements of this incident, but therein lies your problem. Simply, you don’t understand the subject, but are of a mind to bloviate regardless.
Have a skim through this – http://bit.ly/ePr7ji – it might help clear up a few issues for you.
J
The reactor is contained within a several-metre thichk “containment vessel”, which is contained within another steel-framed lightly-clad building.
Various theories are floating about as to what exploded, but the official line is that various gases/steam was released from the reactor into the building, which then exploded. Others have pointed-out that the alternator exciters in the generator building (attached TO the reactor building) are cooled by hydrogen.
As the radiation levels are not rising, and are not anywhere near dangerous, the reactor containment has not been breached.
Not bad really, especially after a ‘quake that moved Japan 8 feet from where it was previously, shifted the precession of the entire globe 10 inches and increased the earths rotation by 1.6 microseconds, caused (so far) several thousands of people to die.
AND they are old reactors….circa 1970 ish.
The new generations being built are safer still, and the thorium type reactors proposed by India and China are incapable of being damaged by loss of coolant.
I could go-on about wind turbines:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
But that is just more media !
@Jeremy
I read that
And it says they do not know what is happening
And it says there has been radiation leakage
And it says it does not know what the damage may have been
And sea water is being used as a coolant – and presumably pumping straight back to sea plus radiation
So I stand by my informed opinion based on human reaction to this – based on the fact that people in Japan will panic about the risk – and quite reasonably so – and say that such reassurance is utterly useless – and that the impact on Japan and Japanese society will be very significant indeed
To put it another way – quite reasonably the reassurance you provide has the credibility of reassurance that all was well in RBS from Fred Goodwin in 2008. Even if technically survival of the risk is possible – the real consequences suggest the risk should not be taken again
That’s an opinion I have on banks
And it’s an opinion I have on nuclear power plants that are ‘safe’ when they blow up
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12723092
Seems better commentary to me
There is a mystery at the heart of the nuclear energy generation story. Why did they stop researching molten salt reactors which consume far less scarce resources and are automatically fail-safe?
Actually, you got that wrong. I am an engineer by training (Masters from one of our leading universities) and a military engineer, but I also know quite a lot about banking operations, and frankly it doesn’t matter whether the root cause of a business disruption is a natural or unnatural disaster or a millenium bug, banking operational procedures are designed to handle them as a routine matter. They worked during 9/11 which hit right at the heart of the financial system on Wall Street, so a major shutdown in Tokyo should be handled just as easily.
@Carol Wilcox
Weird isn’t it?
Suddenly nuclear power is as safe as banking
Staggering
Just add salt water
Maybe some very big bonuses would help too
@Nigel
9/11 was nothing compared to this
9/11 wasn’t nothing, and I hope on behalf of my 5 friends who died working in the WTC that even a spineless jerk like you might have the guts to apologise for that statement.
Sadly I was thinking a similar thing (to your original comments) as I heard news from Japan this morning. As you point out, the Japanese nuclear plants don’t need to meltdown for an insurance-market crash to cause economic mayhem.
The concerns over radiation releases add another even worse dimension to my fears.
Richard,
Until the facts are known I suggest you are overstating the situation based on the lack of facts.
Plus may I also suggest that the Japanese don’t panic! They get things “sorted” as they say in UK!
This will be ironically a boost to Japanese morale and their economy. That is what happened after KOBE and will happen again. They handled Hiroshima, they can handle this one.
I suppose UK should consider going back to coal rather than moving forward with nuclear.
The skeptics like you will have a field day, but the countries that move forward with nuclear power will be the ones that resolve their energy problem!
Richard,
I don’t see how catastrophising helps here.
Why don’t we stick to the facts about the Engineering of a Fission Nuclear reactor. Contrary to Hollywood, the things are designed to Meltdown. They are even designed to explode spectacularly – outwards.
Now if you’re interested in getting some balance I can recommend this piece of solid prose written by somebody who does look after nuclear reactors
The Japanese designed that plant to withstand an 8.2 magnitude earthquake. That it dealt with an 8.9 earthquake (7 times larger on that exponential scale) and held together pretty well is a testament to Japanese engineering. They put a solid safety margin in there.
The real tragedy is the loss of thousands of lives along the coast of Japan in the most terrible fashion.
Let’s not belittle their memory with scaremongering.
@Nigel
I am sorry you take offence
I do not think you do credit to your late friends by being abusive
I did not in any way seek to undermine the loss – but objectively this is much worse than 9/11
More people have died
The damage is on a much wider area
The nuclear dimension is massively worrying and could considerably increase the physical, social, economic and environmental impact – even if the actual damage is limited (and evidence of melt down is growing)
So I was not being a jerk
I made a simple observation of fact
Your abuse was uncalled for
A few rebuttals to some very strange interpretation of a simple statement of “if a certain series of events happen, which are possible, then the consequences will be huge.
1. Richard isn’t saying it will happen. The statement is “exploding nuclear reactors doesn’t look good… if it happens then…”
2. “The Experts” in this case are unique. First, they all come from a very small group who basically know each other either directly or through peer review, and are therefore naturally defensive of each others work. Secondly, they, of course, tell us their work is quality, and we should all move on.
3. This is a multi trillion dollar industry that is looking to expand exponentially in the next few years. Governments and participants (scientist and corporations) all have much invested in the same “nothing to see, move along now”.
4. The statements do not argue against nuclear for the future (I, for one, am all for it). But to be all for it does not mean I am not aware of risk.
5. Nigel – you are a twit! My niece died in a snowplow. It was not nothing. But it is nothing compared to 9/11. That was the comparison. Your appeal to “don’t touch that subject” is emotional extortion #fail!
6. The nuclear industry is incredibly safe, with a few minor hiccups. But when Nuclear power stations start exploding after an earthquake, you will find your average nuclear scientist or engineer taking a good hard look at it. Possibly being a little bit concerned that exploding power stations are not part of the design. Therefore, it would be reasonable as a non-scientist to think so.
7. “Trust us, we know what we are doing”. When a few people run such a large risk to the rest of society and only they know the consequences of their actions, one needs to be a moron to not think that is a “risky” situation.
8. Calling this scaremongering. Dumb. If this was in a national Tabloid, out to the general public, I would agree. But these articles carry a specific audience and as such an audience that can extrapolate and interpret relative risk in an intelligent way….
or not.
@Michael Hardy and @Neil Wilson
I thought I’d take advice on this issue so I rang my father. He was a pretty senior engineer in the Generating Board at one time, then then a very senior one in the Eastern Electricity Board and was pretty heavily involved with Sizewell, Bradwell and other nuclear power plants as a result
I opposed that involvement. It made our relationship interesting. We still don’t agree on many such issues – but respect each other’s views and discuss them calmly and rationally
Based on his knowledge I asked if it looked like a melt down. He agreed, it did. But he also said these things can have varying impact. The fact that the problem did not appear to be contained as yet worried him deeply though
He was damning of the positioning of the plants – he considered it reckless irresponsibility
Was it reasonable of me to think that this required full scale crisis management – because major risk existed? Yes, he said. Anything else would be completely irresponsible. Of course safety systems exist – but who knows if they work in practice? People don’t blow up nuclear power plants to try these things out – the best they can do is simulate – and that’s guess work
Was I catastrophising then? He thought not.
I don’t always agree with him. And it’s only another opinion – but candidly, I think to assume right now all’s OK is the height of irresponsibility
I stick by my opinion – hoping (it’s n more than that) that things may work out better than I fear
In the meantime – this still looks to be of massive consequence
And to say otherwise is to stick your head in the sand
@Tim Pearson
Thanks for this….I agree …except on nuclear power
But – as I note – my father who spent his life wedded to it agrees with my position
And of course I might be wrong – but note much of what I referred to was the human reaction to fear of this situation arising – and I have noted the Japanese do fear in a big way. They’re still wearing swine flu masks on the Underground I note
Ask yourself this. You’re a parent in north Tokyo – 140 mailes from that plant – would yo feel OK with your children at risk?
I think many won’t
I think it’s reasonable to think that
Whether their fear is rational is irrelevant – people are not rational
Only economists and fools think they are
@Richard Murphy
Yes, I mis-stated your position on nuclear power – error for not re-reading the article. Working on an aging memory. I was attempting to point out that ones position on nuclear power was materially irrelevant to the risk assessment in this case.
Your further clarification of points is noted.
As an aside, seems the Bank of Japan shares your views.
CNN – http://bit.ly/dIihOk
@Tim Pearson
Looks like QE on a grand scale – and right too
I don’t think a person needs to be a nuclear physicist to know that nuclear power is not safe. In the same way you don’t need to be an aeronautical engineer to know that flying is not safe.
Planes can crash, and reactor cores can leak.
No amount of concrete is indestructible.
“In the same way you don’t need to be an aeronautical engineer to know that flying is not safe.”
Compared to most other forms of transport flying is very safe. Certainly several times safer than driving. Like wise nuclear power has risks but they’re tiny compared with the risks of other forms of energy generation For instance wind power will have a fatality record by now. Accidents, equipment failures. All industries have them. Coal mining is inherently dangerous. People are lost on oil rigs. Nothing can be 100% safe.
Incidentally, the radioactive release in Japan will still be less than the radioactive substances put out by a coal fired station every day.
A complete explanation:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/
And the worlds worst nuclear “accident” (Chernobyl) killed less people, directly, than a bad month on the UKs’ roads. As for indirectly (radiation)….not so clear….have a read:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html
And more on radiation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/
After a lifetime welding, and several years welding TIG, I have enough thorium inside me to cause any radiation detector to have kittens.
Some reading this will be exposed, in their homes, to radiation levels above those received by the Japanese living near the damaged reactors:
“The radioactive gas radon is a hazard in many homes and workplaces. Breathing in radon is the second largest cause of lung cancer in the UK resulting in up to 2000 fatal cancers per year”
http://www.hse.gov.uk/radiation/ionising/radon.htm
Actually, driving your car is several hundred times more dangerous than flying in a passenger aircraft, although only a few hundred times more dangerous than flying in a general-aviation aircraft !
About 31 million people have been killed world wide since the motor car became widely available ca 1900.
I think a lot of nuclear power and commercial flying will have to be undertaken to catch that sad total-unless I`m greatly mistaken?
@JohnM
You, like others here, make the fundamental error of assuming people are rational
I predicted chaos precisely because they are not
And because I’m right on that issue (so yes, people are more frightened of flying than driving although the stats show this is irrational) your basis of argument is irrelevant
If people behave irrationally – and they do – meltdown can follow even when meltdown in the technical sense is not as important a people think
But your comments show precisely why existing structures don’t work – because they fail to reflect the human condition
@Richard Murphy
Sorry, but you’re statement:
“If that melt down happens – and I sincerely hope it does not – then we’re not just heading for one of the biggest ecological disasters in human history.”
is completely flawed. If the core of a nuclear reactor melts down then you end up with a layer of core material across the base of a containment shell, a dead powerplant and a very large bill to get the thing working again.
No fluffy creatures will be harmed. And certainly no whales.
The Japanese have quite a lot of evidence of the effect of radiation on people and living creatures. If you remember they had two A-bombs dropped on them. It isn’t as catastrophic as Hollywood likes to portray- holidays in Spain are more dangerous. Not that stops the media scaring people with it in a bid to control minds.
The problem is that uninformed statements like this call into question everything else you say. Is it actually based on evidence and science or is it just an emotional outburst based on a ‘nightmare’.
And that is disappointing.
@Neil Wilson
You really don’t get it, do you?
I know that rationally what you say may be true
But I’m human
And like the vast majority of people I reject utterly your rationality – – because I don’t believe it – because I don’t trust it – precisely because there’s no way I can know whether I can believe it – so I won’t – because the alternative is too bad to consider
This is not rational
It is human
And you can say all you like in your defence – but it just shows a lack of understanding of the human condition. We don’t do stats – even those of who understand them, at least a bit. We therefore don’t do your probabilities. We do fundamental uncertainties
You’re not recognising the latter
I am
That’s why I’m recognising the zeitgeist and you’re not
And please don’t ask me to change – rationality is not the basis of human living
Here’s my experience of the human element in nuclear power generation. A few years ago I was working on a software project and one of the contractors was boasting about how he made up the test results when he was working at Heysham. I got up and told him he was absolutely disgusting. The rest of the male-only team just kept quiet.
@Carol Wilcox
At which point I note that this thread seems to no longer be taking us anywhere useful so I am closing comments