Quote of the Day
Beware the ides of March.
William Shakespeare
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update
The active reactors at the time of the earthquake were #1-#3. Reactors #4-#6 were undergoing maintenance. However, the reactors have spent fuel rods in coolant pools. There is still some residual activity in the rods, hence it is critical to make sure the coolant level covers the rods. Failures during the crisis has resulted in exposure of the rods for #4, and the plant workers have had to deal with related fires. Radiation levels have been spiking and ebbing within the facility which has resulted in the 50 or so workers leaving the facility during peak radiation periods. Earlier Wednesday morning workers were evacuating with radiation levels climbed with a white cloud above reactor #3, which some are speculating may indicate a possible breach in the containment vessel (which, if true, would be a very disturbing development).
A Discussion of the Oehmen Viral Post on Fukushima and BWR
I am sure that some readers may suggest I'm inconsistent in calling out others when I myself am highly critical of Obama. I want to make clear that I stand by my criticisms of the President. I separate my political differences which are opposite his almost across the board from personal appraisals. I don't agree with his legal or political philosophy, although I think he's competently representing his point of view; I do think he's charming, charismatic, articulate, intelligent, an effective campaigner and a gifted orator. I also think he lacks administrative experience, leadership, political and negotiation skills, is too defensive (e.g., Bush bashing), condescending and self-involved, and doesn't seem to realize his own limitations.
On the other hand, I never questioned Obama's birth citizenship, never liked the McCain campaign's use of Bill Ayers, and my issue with Obama on Rev. Jeremiah Wright was Obama's implausible denial of Wright's radical sermons. (I never believed for a second that Obama shared or approved of Wright's polarizing rhetoric or approach; I always thought his best response would have been to say that he liked some sermons of Rev. Wright better than others, and there was a different side to Jeremiah Wright than we saw or heard in those infamous clips.)
In any event, when I first discussed Dr. Josef Oehmen's article earlier this week, I chose it not because (unknown to me) Dr. Oehmen's post had gone viral or because I was looking for expertise from a theoretical physicist. I had some exposure to nuclear reactor concepts from my time in the Navy, but I found what I was seeing or hearing in the media was incomplete, flawed and sensationalized. Now there's a lot of stuff on boiling-water reactors (like the Fukushima reactors) on the Internet, but not in the context of the Japanese reactor failures. Dr. Oehmen did a reasonably good job; at the time I didn't feel a need to paraphrase what he wrote. I simply called attention to certain salient points from my perspective.
Let me cite a relevant example of poor media discussion from commenter oxstu:
(L)ast night CNN had on Glenn Sjoden, a nuclear engineer from the Georgia Institute of Technology. The host was clearly irritated that Sjoden wasn’t promoting a nuclear apocalypse and cut him off numerous times, once to ask how he could know the Japanese government wasn’t just making up radiation levels. Eventually the host cut Sjoden off for good, saying, “Let’s go to someone who can really answer questions about nuclear questions: Bill Nye “The Science Guy.” [Nye, a science populist with a bachelors degree in mechanical engineering,] asserted that Cesium was an element used in control rods.
Cesium, iodine, strontium, and argon, of course, are products of nuclear fission, i.e., released from the inside of fuel rods made possible if the high melting point rod barrier (Zircaloy) is compromised, e.g., through prolonged exposure due to low coolant levels. Unlike other radioactive particles, these have longer lifetimes and can be harmful if ingested (hence, why people are wearing face masks and taking stable iodine). Boron, a fission neutralizing substance, is used in control rods (which is why I and others refer to boric acid added to coolant as "liquid control rod").
I suspect people with an agenda (e.g., anti-nukes) want to discredit the message by shooting the messenger. Consider the commenter Just the Facts: "An expert on business supply chain management has no business whatsoever making irresponsible conclusive remarks such as “The plant is safe now and will stay safe.”" This is not to say some can't nitpick with some of the discussion and the author's perhaps overstating the case for safety (I think that was in response to alarmist rhetoric); clearly the fact the nuclear incident has been reclassified by French safety agency ASN as an event 6 (between Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) from earlier assessments of an event 4 is salient. NOTE: The MIT Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering has edited and updated Dr. Oehmen's original post here.
On the safety point, let me point out a current CNN post:
"At present, the long-term impact on public health from the crisis appears minimal, [director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University David] Brenner said."I think, at this point in time, there's no real evidence that there are health risks to the general population," he said. [Let me point out he did note significant risk to workers at the plant.]
The commenter and other nitpickers are taking Dr. Oehmen's remarks out of context. For example, one of the points he makes right after that safety message is that some cesium and iodine were being released, but only a minor amount and makes reference elsewhere to filtering processes. Clearly a term like "safety" must be taken in context; for instance, a floor may normally be safe, but if salient facts surface or change, e.g., I wax the floor, that assessment will change. You can quibble about "will stay safe"; I think if someone asked him, what if the scrubbers or filtering don't work, they have problems injecting coolant into the pressurized vessel or the vents got stuck, he might have revised his wording. At worst, Dr. Oehmen probably needed a good editor--if he had any idea the article was ever going beyond his relatives.
There are a number of alleged exposes of Dr. Oehmen similar to the anonymous commenter above, even to the point of suggesting that he is the front of the nuclear power industrial complex and raising doubts about its authenticity for being hosted outside of MIT (the students explain that the university is trying to control for the large amount of traffic to its official site and in fact, the link to the externally-hosted blog is on a university webpage). Dr. Oehmen's identity can be confirmed through the university's directory.
First, Dr. Oehmen didn't post the item; he wrote it to family members (in Australia or Japan), and a cousin posted it. Second, the post doesn't suggest or imply he was affiliated with the NSE Department (when I published an article while in academia, I always identified my department); he was not claiming to present original research. There is other information on boiling-water reactors on the Internet--clearly available to various media sources. I suggest the reason the post went viral is because of deficient reporting. Third, Dr. Oehmen does have a mechanical engineering background; every professional engineer I know seems to know about nuclear power plant designs (e.g., I have a brother whom is a chemical engineer, and I remember having a discussion with him on the topic on the way to our grandfather's funeral several years ago). Fourth, there have been up to 442 nuclear plants in operation (obvious Japan's statistics have changed for the present). About two-thirds of the 65 nuclear plants under construction (with new, improved designs) are in China and Russia. I hardly think that the future of nuclear power in an energy-starved world is going to be decided by issues of a decades-old power plant which somehow managed to stand after one of the worst earthquakes ever recorded. There will be plenty of time for post-audits after the event, but I'll simply point out a key point of failure had nothing to do with the power plant but with the safeguarding of the backup external power supplies driving the coolant pumps. (I'm not sure what contingencies, if any, the engineers had in mind if water level exceeded the 10-meter wall.)
Minor Corrections
I've made some edits to earlier commentaries on the Fukushima this week. In yesterday's opinion I was aware of others challenging Dr. Oehmen's academic credentials to write about nuclear reactors (see above), so when Glenn Beck went out of his way to point out Dr. Oehmen is not a physicist, I took it in that critical context. I now believe that his intent was simply to disclose Dr. Oehmen's background for context. I'm not sure that Dr. Oehmen would have ever thought of explaining nuclear power plant principles using M&M's... I'm surprised Beck didn't bring in a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts to illustrate the concept of a torus....
Knee-Jerk Energy Policy?
Sen. Lieberman, Chancellor Merkel: Thumbs DOWN!
President Obama and Sen. McConnell: Thumbs UP!
The US has more nuclear power plants than any other nation, most of them east of the Mississippi. But only one new one is in development--for the first time in years since Three Mile Island. So when Senator Lieberman (I-CT) said on Face the Nation Sunday:
The reality is that we’re watching something unfold. We don’t know where it’s going with regard to the nuclear power plants in Japan right now. I think it calls on us here in the U.S.—naturally not to stop building nuclear power plants, but to put the brakes on right now until we understand the ramifications of what’s happened in Japan.
I groaned. It's not just the carbon-free emissions that are the likely motivations for President Obama's advocacy (although, to be sure, a number of progressives are anti-nukes); it has been an efficient, effective fuel source for decades and allows a more flexible utilization of our carbon-based fuels (e.g., using compressed natural gas in vehicles. The Fukushima incidents are the result of highly unlikely events. We are a knee-jerk nation: a bridge in Minnesota collapses and now we decide to inspect every bridge. A shoe bomber fails in his attempt, or an underwear bomber is foiled, and everybody is automatically screened. A single deepwater oil spill incident--we don't issue permits for new well. Levees after Hurricane Katrina fail--and we start looking at all levees. So nuclear power plants have problems after highly unusual natural disasters, and we're looking at putting a pause on nuclear power--yet again. For one thing, we need to be more proactive versus reactive. But I think statements, like Senator Lieberman's, is more about political posturing, trying to mitigate an anti-nuke backlash. I know that the anti-nukes will do some fear-mongering, especially since it looks like 3 decades of no new nukes were finally coming to an end.
But mollifying the anti-nuke crowd is not leadership; it's surrender. You would have thought after California ran into brownouts a decade ago after innumerable environmentalist attacks on construction of new power plants (of just about any type) and the irony of a resource-rich country forced to import natural resources from other countries, which not only adds to the trade deficit but exports American energy jobs with it!
As for German Chancellor Merkel, who had wanted to extend nuclear plants another decade, it's all about trying to shore up a difficult election environment against the anti-nuke Greens and other opposition; the Germans are majority anti-nuke, according to some polls. There is a desire to ramp up renewables from the current 16% or so market share. I think Chanceller Merkel is making a tactical, if not strategic error: I don't think she picks up any anti-nuke votes; if anything, she may demoralize those whom realize that unrealistic green energy goals and no nukes will explode the average German's energy costs...
President Obama is holding firm in his support, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell emphasized the foolhardy nature of changing energy policy based on an incident under abnormal conditions. In fact, Gallup showed a year ago a nearly 2-to-1 majority support in favor of nuclear energy, and recent industry polls have shown public support exceeding 70%.
Political Humor
A few originals:
- President Obama golfed during BP oil spill crisis; he also golfed during the current Japan natural disaster crisis. He's working on his handicap for November 6, 2012.
- Qaddafi's mercenaries have turned the tide against the Libyan rebels, whom are unable to escape the onslaught from the Libyan Air Force. Qaddafi notes in Africa they have real tigers but President Obama, whom has called for Qaddafi to step down, was born in Hawaii and is a paper tiger.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
America, "Sandman"
