It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global support for nuclear energy drops after Fukushima

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Yahoo news quoting Reuters story on new IPSOS global poll:
Yahoo news


NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) – Support for nuclear energy has plummeted following the Japanese earthquake and tsunami that crippled the Fukushima power plant with 62 percent of people around the globe opposed to it.

Nuclear energy now lags behind solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, natural gas and coal as a preferred energy source with critics strongest in Germany, Italy and Mexico, according to a new Ipsos/Reuters poll released on Wednesday.

The survey of nearly 19,000 people in 24 countries also showed that nearly three-quarters of people think nuclear energy is only a limited and soon obsolete form of energy.

"Clearly, the Fukushima disaster had a massive impact on world citizens," said Henri Wallard, deputy chief executive officer at Ipsos. "Virtually everyone had heard about this and it had a big impact in terms of diminishing the support for nuclear energy."

Ninety five percent of people around the globe were aware of the accident at the Fukushima plant in March, having seen news coverage or pictures, which sparked a 26 percent jump in new opponents to nuclear power.

And nearly 70 percent of people questioned said they believe all nuclear plants are vulnerable to unforeseen events.

But surprisingly in Japan, 45 percent of people still view nuclear power as a viable energy option and 71 percent support its modernization.

"The Japanese people still show some realism," said Wallard "They believe they will continue to use nuclear energy in the energy mix for some time."

Support for nuclear power was strongest in India, Poland and the United States where the majority of people supported it.

Thirty eight percent of people overall said they agree with the modernization of electricity production via nuclear power.

In addition to losing confidence in nuclear power, 45 percent of people questioned admitted they are avoiding at least one product exported from Japan including fish, seaweed, fruit, rice and noodles because of the Fukushima accident.

Overall, slightly more than half of people said they thought Japanese officials' communications about the Fukushima disaster were honest and timely, but reactions varied from a low of 17 percent in South Korea to a high of 90 percent in India.

In Japan only 28 percent of people thought official news about the accident was conveyed honestly and even fewer thought it was timely.

"The Japanese people are quite critical in terms of the honesty and timeliness of the communication," said Wallard.

The poll was conducted in April in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.


Could it be possible that people are waking up to the idea that nuclear energy isn't as "clean" as the nuke guys said? Does the public opinion matter? With the military industrial complex wedded to nukes I highly doubt we'll see the end of nuke anytime soon, more likely a heightened PR campaign of epic proportions to combat the new "threat" of anti-nuke sentiment world-wide.

Given that TEPCO successfully 'managed' public opinion from day one, convincing a large part of MSM and the world that the situation was controlled while we had/have 3 raging meltdowns and to this day is keeping the story (mostly) off the radar, I'd say that whatever the public may think about nuclear power we're in so deep we can't get out. Where will the depleted uranium for all those bullets come from after all? A large 'mobilization' of the mainstream against nuke is not in evidence, although there are pockets here and there, and some governments getting out that can afford to based on prior successful implications of renewables to take up the slack (Germany).




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Forgive me but capitalism has gotten to my head.

Buy low, sell high.

It's that time to invest in nuclear stock (and other alt energy)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
Forgive me but capitalism has gotten to my head.

Buy low, sell high.

It's that time to invest in nuclear stock (and other alt energy)


Yes, but I don't think we've seen the bottom yet. The story is still being written on this one I think...



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Lets hope this lot doesn't get off the ground then! This just leaves me spitting nails!


www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertwog

But surprisingly in Japan, 45 percent of people still view nuclear power as a viable energy option and 71 percent support its modernization.
Could it be possible that people are waking up to the idea that nuclear energy isn't as "clean" as the nuke guys said? Does the public opinion matter?
That doesn't seem to be the case in Japan, of all places. The people in Japan seems to be more sympathetic toward nuclear power than in other countries in the poll, even as some people's kids are wearing dosimeter badges to see if they are getting 20 times the exposure of a nuclear plant worker, and Japan's leaders are canceling plans for more nuclear power plants.

I don't have the 2011 figures but just for example:
www.iaea.org...

All told, as of March 2008, there are 439 nuclear power plants around the world, while 35 more are under construction. The USA has the most with 104, France is next with 59, then Japan with 55 and Russia has 31 and seven more under construction.

The expansion in nuclear power generation is centered in Asia. A total of 20 of the 35 plants under construction are in Asia, while 28 of the last 39 plants connected to the grid are also in Asia.
My guess is, most of the plants under construction are going to be finished, and go into operation. But NRG wrote off $331 million investment where construction had already started on two new plants in Texas:

Prospective nuclear units in the United States

Following the March 2011 Fukushima I nuclear accidents, NRG Energy has decided to abandon already started construction on two new nuclear power plants in Texas.... NRG has written off its investment of $331 million in the project.
Anything that was just in the planning stages, where construction hasn't started yet, could be in jeopardy of being canceled.

Japan to Cancel Plan to Build More Nuclear Plants

June 2, 2011 Update – Saudi's to build new reactors, Germany cancels Nuclear Program

Prospective nuclear units in the United States


As of March 2010, U.S. regulators were expecting applications to build 26 new nuclear power reactors.
Nobody's updated the Wiki to say how many of those applications have been withdrawn, but I'm pretty sure some have been, probably in relation to Fukushima. If we make the industry buy insurance instead of making taxpayers foot the excess liability insurance, none of them will be built because they won't be able to pay their insurance bill. The entire nuclear industry is grossly underinsured, and that's the only reason they can even consider to build more nuclear power plants.

Apparently Saudi Arabia isn't fazed and plans to move ahead with new construction. I suspect China may do that too. Obviously Germany won't. So it's kind of a mixed reaction.

By the way, did you see the most amazing result in the poll? Over half the people surveyed think that there has been timely and accurate information released about the accident? How is that possible, when we already know that was not the case? I'll bet if you polled ATS members you wouldn't get that result!!!! ATSers know better!!


edit on 23-6-2011 by Arbitrageur because: added link



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
---
By the way, did you see the most amazing result in the poll? Over half the people surveyed think that there has been timely and accurate information released about the accident? How is that possible, when we already know that was not the case? I'll bet if you polled ATS members you wouldn't get that result!!!! ATSers know better!!


England also appears to be going ahead as well...New UK nuclear plant sites named, after all, why let a little thing like Fukushima deter them? Reality is after the north sea drilling came up dry and now that Russia has wrapped up natural gas England is in a pickle and has very little choice. Should have invested in renewables... Germany is looking pretty smart right now.

And as per above.. truly amazing miracle of PR baby, and the power of denial. Do you really want to believe when believing means you'll have to pack up your whole life and move to another country? Add to that, and SFA437 says it well right here... normalcy bias www.abovetopsecret.com....[edit by]edit on 24-6-2011 by Wertwog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:16 PM
link   
The problem isn't nuclear power, it's how we've been creating it.

From what I've been reading Molten Salt Reactors are both safe to operate and generate very little waste.

But they don't help with weapon manufacturing, so the technology was shelved.

Molten Salt Reactors also can't ever go into meltdown.

I'm no expert, so I'd love to hear from someone more familiar with these MSR's.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
From what I've been reading Molten Salt Reactors are both safe to operate and generate very little waste.

But they don't help with weapon manufacturing, so the technology was shelved.

Molten Salt Reactors also can't ever go into meltdown.

I'm no expert, so I'd love to hear from someone more familiar with these MSR's.
They sound pretty good. The only concern I have about them was the cracking and embrittlement problem that was unexpected, which was observed on the test reactor built back in the 1960's:

en.wikipedia.org...

One unexpected finding was shallow, inter-granular cracking in all metal surfaces exposed to the fuel salt. The cause of the embrittlement was tellurium - a fission product generated in the fuel. This was first noted in the specimens that were removed from the core at intervals during the reactor operation. Post-operation examination of pieces of a control-rod thimble, heat-exchanger tubes, and pump bowl parts revealed the ubiquity of the cracking and emphasized its importance to the MSR concept. The crack growth was rapid enough to become a problem over the planned thirty-year life of a follow-on thorium breeder reactor. This cracking could be reduced by adding small amounts of niobium to the Hastelloy-N.
They say the niobium reduced the cracking but they don't say it was eliminated.

It's still ran on plutonium and uranium so leaking through cracks would be a bad thing.

And I'm not sure what they mean by a "criticality accident", but it sounds like they might not be as safe as you think. Even after it was shut down in 1969 there was concern about a criticality accident in 1994:


After shutdown the salt was believed to be in long-term safe storage, but beginning in the mid-1980s, there was concern that radioactivity was migrating through the system. Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident, as well as a potentially dangerous build-up of fluorine gas — the environment above the solidified salt is approximately one atmosphere of fluorine. The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called "the most technically challenging" activity assigned to Bechtel Jacobs under its environmental management contract with the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations organization. In 2003, the MSRE cleanup project was estimated at about $130 million, with decommissioning expected to be completed in 2009.
And decomissioning sounds like it was hard, but I suppose it's never easy.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes, I don't know much about these, but does raise some questions.

With molten salt floride and thorium as a moderator.
en.wikipedia.org...


The half-life of thorium-232 is about 14.05 billion years. It is estimated to be about three to four times more abundant than uranium in the Earth's crust.

this wiki says


- much cleaner: as a full recycle system, the discharge wastes from the reactor are predominately fission products, most of which have relatively short half lives compared to longer-lived actinide wastes.
- This can result in a significant reduction in the containment period in a geologic repository (300 years vs. tens of thousands of years) can "burn" some problematic radioactive waste (with transuranic elements from traditional solid-fuel nuclear reactors)

Leads me to think that perhaps the thorium, or it's byproducts is part of the "problematic radioactive waste" that would get burned off.

Thorium Energy Insitute paper


Waste--In theory, LFTRs would produce far less waste along their entire process chain, from ore extraction to nuclear waste storage, than LWRs. A LFTR power plant would generate 4,000 times less mining waste (solids and liquids of similar character to those in uranium mining) and would generate 1,000 to 10,000 times less nuclear waste than an LWR. Additionally, because LFTR burns all of its nuclear fuel, the majority of the waste products (83%) are safe within 10 years, and the remaining waste products (17%) need to be stored in geological isolation for only about 300 years (compared to 10,000 years or more for LWR waste). Additionally, the LFTR can be used to "burn down" waste from an LWR (nearly the entirety of the United States' nuclear waste stockpile) into the standard waste products of an LFTR, so long-term storage of nuclear waste would no longer be needed.

Also they seem to run hotter than most other nukes, but this actually increases their safety.
Thorium Energy Insitute paper


Safety--LFTRs are designed to take advantage of the physics of the thorium cycle for optimum safety. The fluid in the core is not pressurized, thus eliminating the driving force of radiation release in conventional approaches. The LFTR reactor cannot melt down because of a runaway reaction or other nuclear reactivity accidents (such as at Chernobyl), because any increase in the reactor's operating temperature results in a reduction of reactor power, thus stabilizing the reactor without the need for human intervention. Further, the reactor is designed with a salt plug drain in the bottom of the core vessel. If the fluid gets too hot or for any other reason including power failures, the plug naturally melts, and the fluid dumps into a passively cooled containment vessel where decay heat is removed. This feature prevents any Three Mile Island-type accidents or radiation releases due to accident or sabotage and provides a convenient means to shut down and restart the system quickly and easily.


Other downsides may be that thorium appears to be more expensive (but this may just be a supply chain issues), and that the reactors may be more expensive to build and produce approx. 50% less power than your standard LWR. Don't know how far along they are in the development cycles to actually getting one built.

Still nuclear yes, still radioactive yes, potential yes - possibly. Unless these designs get swept up in the anti-nuke fallout might be good to invest in thorium.

edit on 24-6-2011 by Wertwog because: slight correction



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Russia finds nuclear safety faults after Fukushima



MOSCOW — Russia's nuclear power plants are dangerously under-prepared for earthquakes and other disasters, said a state review conducted after Japan's Fukushima accident and obtained Thursday by AFP.

The unusually candid survey was presented to a council chaired by President Dmitry Medvedev on June 9 and initially reported on its website by the Oslo-based Bellona environmental organisation. Russia has until now steadfastly defended its 10 nuclear power plants and 32 reactors against criticism.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on April 30 pronounced the country's nuclear safety system "the best in the world". But the State Council review revealed more than 30 weaknesses including reduced disaster safety standards and a lack of a clear strategy for securing spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste at many plants.

"The strength (stability) of engineering structures of most nuclear power plants does not meet current regulatory document requirements for stresses that occur from extreme natural impacts," the report said. More...


16.7% of Russia's power is nuke and plans to double it's output by 2020 www.world-nuclear.org.... Wonder what the plan is now.



posted on Jul, 3 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Just for grins, I found this astrology article about the movement of Uranus into Aries for the first time since 1927, and lo and behold what happened the very day of this?


On the day Uranus entered Aries, on March 11, Japan experienced the terrible 9.0 earthquake and the tsunami, setting off the dangerous nuclear reactors. (Uranus rules explosions and earthquakes, and was in harsh angle to Pluto, ruling plutonium and nuclear fission.) Also, later in the same month, March 2011, NATO approved the military action of the allies on Libya in a surprise attack.


astrologyzone.com...

Just thought it was an interesting coinkydink



posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I really don't know what to say to that. Never been into astro-guessing much myself


A tidbit I came across -- it's from mid June but should still be fairly relevant.

More than 80 per cent of Japanese want nuclear reactors scrapped - commissioned by Kyodo News

en.trend.az...


More than 80 per cent of Japanese want the country's 54 nuclear reactors scrapped in the wake of this year's nuclear disaster at the Fukushima plant, a poll showed Sunday, DPA reported.

According to the poll, conducted by a nationwide opinion survey body organized by Kyodo News, 82 per cent wanted the reactors to be decommissioned either gradually or immediately, while just 14 per cent said the operations should continue, reflecting the public's mounting distrust of nuclear energy.

The country has 54 nuclear reactors including six at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. The plant was severely damaged by the March 11 earthquake and tsunami and has since leaked radioactive substances into the environment.

Of the 82 per cent, 9 per cent said the reactors should be decommissioned immediately while 19 per cent wanted scrapping to start with ones undergoing periodic inspection.

Ninety-four per cent said they were "deeply" or "to some extent" concerned about the safety of nuclear power plants after the crisis. Just 43 per cent said they had felt the same way beforehand.

Meanwhile, 84 per cent said Japan should rely more on renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, followed by 45 per cent who wanted more hydraulic power generation and 31 per cent who wanted more natural gas. Only 7 per cent said the country should depend more on nuclear power.

edit on 10-7-2011 by Wertwog because: added a missing part of the quote



posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Another very sad testimony to how terrified people in Fukushima are and how the authorites are ignoring their pleas. If the Gov doesn't start appearing to care, the Japanese people may just awaken....




posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertwog
 


So shameful.

I hope this does wake the Japanese people and stirs them into action.

Politeness only gets you so far when fighting the system.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
3

log in

join