NBC investigative report: U.S. Nuclear Agency Hid Concerns, Hailed Safety Record as Fukushima Melted

[kristopher]

U.S. Nuclear Agency Hid Concerns, Hailed Safety Record as Fukushima Melted
BY BILL DEDMAN

In the tense days after a powerful earthquake and tsunami crippled the Fukushima Daiichi power plant in Japan on March 11, 2011, staff at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission made a concerted effort to play down the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis to America’s aging nuclear plants, according to thousands of internal emails reviewed by NBC News.

The emails, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, show that the campaign to reassure the public about America’s nuclear industry came as the agency’s own experts were questioning U.S. safety standards and scrambling to determine whether new rules were needed to ensure that the meltdown occurring at the Japanese plant could not occur here.

At the end of that long first weekend of the crisis three years ago, NRC Public Affairs Director Eliot Brenner thanked his staff for sticking to the talking points that the team had been distributing to senior officials and the public.

...

There are numerous examples in the emails of apparent misdirection or concealment in the initial weeks after the Japanese plant was devastated by a 9.0 earthquake and 50-foot tsunami that knocked out power and cooling systems at the six-reactor plant, eventually causing releases of radioactive material:

- Trying to distance the U.S. agency from the Japanese crisis, an NRC manager told staff to hide from reporters the presence of Japanese engineers in the NRC's operations center in Maryland.

- If asked whether the Diablo Canyon Power Plant on the California coast could withstand the same size tsunami that had hit Japan, spokespeople were told not to reveal that NRC scientists were still studying that question. As for whether Diablo could survive an earthquake of the same magnitude, "We're not so sure about, but again we are not talking about that," said one email.

- When skeptical news articles appeared, the NRC dissuaded news organizations from using the NRC's own data on earthquake risks at U.S. nuclear plants, including the Indian Point Energy Center near New York City.

- And when asked to help reporters explain what would happen during the worst-case scenario -- a nuclear meltdown -- the agency declined to address the questions.

As the third anniversary of Fukushima...

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/fukushima-anniversary/u-s-nuclear-agency-hid-concerns-hailed-safety-record-fukushima-n48561

[grahamhgreen]

1. Dirty & dangerous tech from a bygone era.

[GliderGuider]

2. So is fossil fuel.

[kristopher]

3. Nuclear and coal are two sides of the same corrupting coin.

[GliderGuider]

4. Politically, I agree.

But it's coal, oil and natural gas that are killing the biosphere. That makes fossil fuel a more urgent planetary issue than nuclear power.

[kristopher]

5. They are functionally equivalent and act together to stop change.

The logic that carbon justifies nuclear isn't possible to support because we have a BETTER alternative - faster to deploy, less expensive, safer, cleaner, and with no risk of nuclear proliferation. The only thing nuclear does is slow the inevitable transition to sustainable, renewable sources of energy, while meeting a meager 2 1/2% of global energy consumption.

[GliderGuider]

6. As long as we deal with the carbon.

If we don't deal with the carbon, nothing else will matter.

[kristopher]

7. Nuclear is cutting off your livable world nose to spite your carbonaceous face

Only a fool would support it. Seriously why the hell do you think the likes of Roger Ailes and ALEC embrace nuclear - to end carbon?

[GliderGuider]

8. How does nuclear power support gasoline and natgas sales?

I accept your argument wrt coal, but the others? Half the world's energy-related CO2 comes oil and gas - essentially automobiles, space heating and gas peakers. How does getting rid of nuclear power address that?

[kristopher]

9. How do you think a completely new way of structuring our energy system gets rid of them?

We've gone down this road a thousand times before and you already know the answers, so why the games?

[GliderGuider]

10. So the answer is electric cars, electric/geothermal space heating and a rework of all grids then?

Globally, in 30 years? That's why I'm still harping on it. We're not doing anything even approaching that level of urgency.

[kristopher]

11. You were just pumping nuclear - what's that plan again?

We are literally decades ahead with renewable deployment of where year 2000 projections put us. If you want a faster transition, then work for it instead of standing in the way every chance you get. The world has the capability to put us on a completely different trajectory re carbon emissions within ten years.

But here you are yet again, trying to justify a the dead end technological twins of nuclear and coal, while sneering at the amazing progress renewables are racking up.

ReInventing Fire - a soup to nuts plan for changing the way the world meets all of its energy needs; details included.

http://www.rmi.org

[GliderGuider]

13. Not standing in the way, so much as

Pointing out that the desired end-state (a world inhabitable by humans with a functioning global civilization) is not achievable. Not obstructionism, just realism.

Oh, and I haven't "pumped" nuclear since Fukushima.

Good luck.

[kristopher]

14. I phrased it correctly.

Tell yourself what you want, but you are actively working against change.

[GliderGuider]

15. Actually, accelerating BAU may provide the surest resolution to the global crisis.

I'm being only slightly ironic or sarcastic here. the road we are on will lead, sooner rather than later, to a collapse of global civilization. Along with that goes a collapse in fossil fuel and nuclear power, as well as in things like land use and cement production. That seems to me to me to be the surest and safest way out of this planetary coffin corner we've found ourselves in. Certainly a surer bet than you building and defending castles in the RMI sandbox.

We're done. Let it go.

[kristopher]

16. Right, GG - you are advocating BAU but you aren't part of the problem...

The solution is the problem.

How much acid did you do when you were reading 1984?

[GliderGuider]

17. I have no control over anything. And anyway, this is just a run-of-the-mill political blog.

Nobody who matters notices anything that goes on here that doesn't directly reference Obama.

I'm not sure what you think you're gaining with your stout and acidic defense of pipe dreams on this blog, and why it would matter to you (or anyone) that people like me express contrary opinions here. Nothing I say here makes any difference. Nor does anything you say. It's all just chit-chat.

But FYI, there are a lot of folks with my opinion out there in the real world. More and more all the time.

[kristopher]

18. Why does it matter to you then?

If it's so meaningless why are you wasting your time trying to peddle all that junk science you keep churning out?

[GliderGuider]

19. It's chit-chat.

I like chit-chat. Plus, it gives me a chance to explore my thoughts before I take them out into the real world.

[kristopher]

20. Riiiiiiight....

Nipsy Russell.

[GliderGuider]

21. :-)

[oldhippie]

22. GG, it's pretty obvious to all that kristopher has only one answer ...

... and that is All Renewables All The Time. That is his only acceptable position. There is really no sense engaging him if you don't totally agree. You will just be a shill for the anti-renewable industry.

[GliderGuider]

23. I know. I've been tweaking his argument for a long time now.

Just chit-chat, you know?

Besides, I'm not a shill for the anti-renewable industry, I'm a shill for the anti-civilization industry.

[grahamhgreen]

24. And also more expensive than unlimited energies like wind:

?1

[kristopher]

12. Jinko Solar Hits DOE SunShot Target w/ Modules < $0.50/watt

Module Costs Dip Below 50 Cents per Watt in JinkoSolar’s Strong Q4

Module Costs Dip Below 50 Cents per Watt in JinkoSolar’s Strong Q4
JinkoSolar of China just hit the U.S. SunShot goal of sub-50-cents-per-watt solar modules.


Eric Wesoff
March 4, 2014

Vertically integrated Chinese solar manufacturer JinkoSolar announced its "third straight quarter of profitability" along with net profitability for 2013 with a Q4 gross margin of 24.7 percent. Even some Chinese module makers are seeing good days return.

The company had a great quarter with strong margin and geographical diversification -- but the more interesting news came from Arturo Herrero, Jinko's Chief Strategy Officer. During Monday's earnings call, Herrero noted, "Basically, if you look at our Q2 to Q4, our ASP is around $0.63. Our non-silicon cost is, I think, $0.39, and plus the silicon cost of $0.09, it is around the $0.48 mark."

Shyam Mehta, Senior Solar Analyst at GTM Research, notes, "I believe this is the first time in human history that a module company has recorded cost under 50 cents per watt -- although the cost may go back up a bit in 2014."

In fact, a forecast from one of Mehta's recent reports shows top Chinese manufacturers making solar modules for 36 cents per watt by 2017. "There was a reaction from some people that our projection for 36 cents per watt is crazy. To that, I offer the point that our forecast only implies an annualized reduction of 6.3 percent from 50 cents a watt today," he said. "It's not exactly a game-changer; it's 14 cents. But the industry has had a mental block because people didn't think we could produce modules for less than 50 cents per watt."

Greentech media: http://preview.tinyurl.com/lkqjm2e

Here's a link to 2010 DOE presentation on solar, see slide 11. The OP price is within $0.02 of the module cost predicted for 2030.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/pdfs/dpw_lushetsky.pdf

This presentation makes it extremely clear just how fast the global energy landscape is changing.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!


Tesla’s Giga Battery Factory Threatens the Auto, Utility and Building Controls Markets

Cheaper batteries will allow mainstream pricing of Tesla’s EVs in six years—and lots more.

Tesla’s Giga factory aims to reduce the cost of lithium-ion batteries by 30 percent in three years and 50 percent by 2020. This big, bold move invites historical comparison.

Henry Ford’s massive factory scale and vertical integration cut the cost of internal combustion-based cars by more than half, made Ford Motor Company the (then) biggest car company in the world, and helped bolster the American middle class in the process. A hundred years later, China’s use of scale economies and vertical integration made it the global market leader in solar PV in less than a decade -- and reconfirmed the power of scale and vertical integration.

But what does Tesla’s Giga factory really mean? Let’s start with the obvious: cheaper batteries will allow mainstream pricing of Tesla’s EVs in six years. That’s consistent with Musk’s vision to put an EV in every garage. Mainstream pricing will turn Tesla into a massive company.

Sure, Tesla’s competitors are big and confident -- just like Apple’s competitors when Steve Jobs announced his vision to put a PC on every desktop. As was the case with Apple in 1976, Tesla won’t need to worry about cannibalizing sales of existing products. Competitors with smoke spewing from their corporate tailpipes face a far more complex transition. Just as Digital Equipment Corporation failed to make the turn from mini computers to PCs, some big and famous car companies might not make the curve in the road to EVs.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Teslas-Giga-Battery-Factory-Threatens-the-Auto-Utility-and-Building-Contr