Will Japan’s nuclear problems hurt plug-in car viability?
Will nuclear failures in Japan hurt plug-in viability?
The end of nuclear-powered plug-ins?
Is nuclear power safe? That argument has raged for decades, and the possibility of a renewed embrace of nuclear power in the US seemed to be gaining popularity, even in some green circles. In fact, some have viewed nuclear power as a key enabling technology for plug-in vehicles.
However, the ongoing disaster in Japan is renewing nuclear fears, and the idea of nuclear-powered plug-in electric cars could be over.
With a number of US nuclear reactors built on the same technology as those failing Japanese reactors up for license renewal, calls for shutting these US plants down are already brewing in anti-nuclear circles. Similar nuclear discontent is also brewing in other green-focused countries, such as Germany.
Unfortunately, whether nuclear power is, or can be made, safe might be irrelevant. For now, the US has to utilize its current nuclear power plants as some 20 percent of US base load comes from nuclear power. Certainly, a more stringent licensing renewal process can be imagined, but a quick replacement of 20 percent of US electricity generation isn’t going to happen over night.
Nevertheless, when it comes to new nuclear power plants fear is primed to rule, and numerous political forces are certain to seize upon the Japanese situation to sell the dangers of nuclear power. And nothing sells better than fear.
Certainly, plug-in electric cars are not dependent upon nuclear power, but new sources of clean electricity are critical to long term plug-in success. The debate about where that electricity comes from is now certain to be even more complex, but it couldn’t come at a better time. Ever more a comprehensive US energy policy equally focused on today as tomorrow seems critical to US economic viability.
Hopefully, the tensions in the Middle East coupled with the catastrophe in Japan will push the US into a serious energy policy conversation because the status quo is certain to only lead to US-based catastrophes.
btw – i’m not against nuclear power, but i’m not convinced it is the perfect solution to energy issues. the waste is a serious issue, and if you recycle the waste as does France, then the nuclear weapon potential increases. that sort of proliferation worldwide is a bit unsettling. i’m not saying that’s a deal killer, but it does cause pause.
that sure is a cruel irony, larry.
fortunately, i think japan will rebound. i think their kaizen-driven mentality will turn this crisis into an opportunity. the loss of life, obviously, is a terrible catastrophe, but japan will move forward.
well.. you can’t look at all those villages turned into kindling wood and not recognize the huge tragedy that has befallen the Japanese people.
I don’t know where all those people are going to go but for now the cruel irony is that those wiped out villages no longer need electricity.
My understanding is that passive cooling reactors are technologically possible and a couple being built but the big problem is that Nuke electricity costs 20% more than coal/gas/wind electricity.
but.. I think passive cooling is the way to go if Nukes are going to be sited where they are vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis.
Aiden,
I’m quite sure there are many Japanese whom disagree that this wasn’t a catastrophe – although you are right that the nuclear radiation damage alone might not be a catastrophe.
Still, how many people have been contaminated? Radiation in food and water? According to the French, pretty much the world’s experts on nuclear power, the Japanese have understated the damage thus far. Then there is the economic impact, which is going to be a disaster according to the reports I’ve seen.
Nevertheless, my choice of the word “catastrophe” was based on the whole picture emerging in Japan, not just the nuclear issues.
Great take Larry. Sadly, worse case scenarios do happen.
Was watching some new Atlantis research in Spain. Tsunami’s going 60 miles inland. 100 foot waves. These things have happened in the past and will happen again.
but why would you site a nuclear plant in an area known for earthquake and tsunami without having a gravity-feed failsafe cooling capability in the first place?
Do this.
Take the 9.0 earthquake and 20+ foot wave and model it on the entire U.S. coastline and see what happens – especially with Nukes.
The problem with 1 in a million odds is how series the consequences are.
If the consequences of a 1 in a million scenarios are bad enough – should you not build and harden per the threat?
How many people in the U.S. that live near a Nuke continue to have no concerns after this?
What this tells us – is not whether or not Nukes or safe or not – but that worst case scenarios are not impossible.
Nuclear power is SAFE. Ironically, while this article says ‘nothing sells better than fear,’ by using the word ‘catastrophe’ and nuclear ‘failures’, it implies that the Japanese nuclear plants malfunctioned. They didn’t. A TSUNAMI destroyed back-up power generators, as well as the power lines supporting other generators. Without power, you don’t have cooling. With no cooling, you’ve got overheating–and a possible meltdown.
Yes, there was radiation leaked. But to call it a ‘catastrophe’ is hyperbole. The levels at the plant did shoot up, but went down just as fast. The Japanese public has never been exposed to dangerous levels as of yet. It is not a catastrophe, and although the situation may worsen, it will probably never be one.
As far as the U.S., it is extremely unlikely for a plant to be hit by a tsunami, or the power generators or lines. What happened in Japan is one in a million.
Too much emphasis on one disaster is always a danger; it also seems unwise to ignore completely a nuclear meltdown in Japan and its implications for a “nuclear renaissance” elsewhere. Obviously, not everywhere is an earthquake.