As reported in the New York Times the Fukushima Disaster now joins Chernobyl (April 26, 1986) as only one of two level-7 disasters in global history. Japanese officials said that the reactor had released one-tenth as much radioactive material as the Chernobyl accident in 1986, but still qualified as a 7 according to a complex formula devised by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Continued from Japanese Officials on Defensive as Nuclear Alert Level Rises

Japan’s new assessment was based largely on computer models showing very heavy emissions of radioactive iodine and cesium from March 14 to 16, just after the earthquake and tsunami rendered the plant’s emergency cooling system inoperative. The nearly monthlong delay in acknowledging the extent of these emissions is a fresh example of confused data and analysis from the Japanese, and put the authorities on the defensive about whether they have delayed or blocked the release of information to avoid alarming the public.

Seiji Shiroya, a commissioner of Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission, an independent government panel that oversees the country’s nuclear industry, said that the government had delayed issuing data on the extent of the radiation releases because of concern that the margins of error had been large in initial computer models. But he also suggested a public policy reason for having kept quiet.

“Some foreigners fled the country even when there appeared to be little risk,” he said. “If we immediately decided to label the situation as Level 7, we could have triggered a panicked reaction.”

The Japanese media, which has a reputation for passivity but has become more aggressive in response to public unhappiness about the nuclear accident, questioned government leaders through the day about what the government knew about the accident and when it knew it.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan gave a nationally televised speech and press conference in the early evening to call for national rebuilding, but ended up defending his government’s handling of information about the accident.

“What I can say for the information I obtained — of course the government is very large, so I don’t have all the information — is that no information was ever suppressed or hidden after the accident,” he said. “There are various ways of looking at this, and I know there are opinions saying that information could have been disclosed faster. However, as the head of the government, I never hid any information because it was inconvenient for us.”

Junichi Matsumoto, a senior nuclear power executive from the plant’s operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, fanned public fears about radiation when he said at a separate news conference on Tuesday morning that the radiation release from Daiichi could, in time, surpass levels seen in 1986.

“The radiation leak has not stopped completely, and our concern is that it could eventually exceed Chernobyl,” Mr. Matsumoto said.

But Hidehiko Nishiyama, deputy director general of Japan’s nuclear regulator, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said in an interview on Tuesday evening that he did not know how the company had come up with its estimate. “I cannot understand their position,” he said.

He speculated that Tokyo Electric was being “prudent and thinking about the worst-case scenario,” adding, “I think they don’t want to be seen as optimistic.”

Mr. Nishiyama said that his agency did not expect another big escape of radiation from Daiichi, saying that “almost all” the material that is going to escape has already come out. He said that the rate of radiation release had peaked in the early days after the March 11 earthquake, and that the rate of radiation had dropped by 90 percent since then.

The peak release in emissions of radioactive particles took place following hydrogen explosions at three reactors, as technicians desperately tried to pump in seawater to keep the uranium fuel rods cool, and bled radioactive gas from the reactors in order to make room for the seawater.

Mr. Nishiyama took pains to say — and other nuclear experts agreed — that the Japanese accident posed fewer health risks than Chernobyl.

In the Soviet-era accident at Chernobyl, a burning graphite reactor pushed radioactive particles high into the atmosphere and downwind across Europe. The Japanese accident has mostly produced radioactive liquid runoff into the ocean and low-altitude radioactive particles that have frequently blown out into the ocean and fallen into the water as well.

he Nuclear Safety Commission ordered the use of a computer model called Speedi — short for System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information — to calculate the amount of radiation released from the plant, said Mr. Shiroya, the commissioner on the safety agency, who is also the former director of the Research Reactor Institute at Kyoto University.

To use the model, scientists enter radiation measurements from various distances from a nuclear accident. The model produces an estimate of the radioactive material escaping at the source of the accident.

Speaking at a news conference, Mr. Shiroya said those calculations were complex, and it was only recently that researchers had been able to narrow down the amount to within an acceptable margin of error.

“At first, the calculations could have been off by digits,” Mr. Shiroya said. “It was only when there was certainty that the margin of error was within two to three times that we made an announcement,” he said, later adding, “I do not think that there was any delay.”

Even so, some people involved in the energy industry have been hearing about the results of the Speedi calculations for days. A senior executive said in a telephone interview on April 4 that he had been told that the Speedi model suggested that radioactive materials escaping the Daiichi complex were much higher than Japanese officials had publicly acknowledged, and perhaps as high as half of the releases from Chernobyl.

Mr. Nishiyama and Mr. Shiroya said separately on Tuesday that that estimate had been wrong. But their two government agencies also released different figures for the level of emissions so far, and there appeared to be a degree of supposition embedded in the numbers.

Mr. Nishiyama’s agency said that emissions totaled 370,000 terabecquerels; a terabecquerel is a trillion becquerels. The agency’s figure is 20 percent of the former Soviet Union’s official estimate of emissions from Chernobyl.

But most experts say that the true emissions from Chernobyl were 1.5 to 2.5 times as high as the Soviet Union acknowledged. Mr. Nishiyama’s agency appears to have assumed that true emissions from Chernobyl were twice the official figure, and so calculated that the current nuclear accident had released 10 percent as much as Chernobyl.

Mr. Nishiyama’s agency is part of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, which promotes the use of nuclear power. Mr. Shiroya’s commission, which is independent from nuclear power operators and their equipment providers, issued an estimate that emissions totaled 630,000 terabecquerels.

Although Mr. Shiroya did not provide a comparison to Chernobyl, that works out to 34 percent of the official Soviet estimate of emissions and 17 percent of the unofficial higher estimate.

Mr. Shiroya also said there was a threefold margin for error involved. The outside estimates of total releases would range from as low as 6 percent to as high as 51 percent of the unofficial totals from Chernobyl.

In light of what has gone down in Japan nuclear experts are hunkering down to ensure we never have another Fukushima or Chernobyl anywhere else.

Many people in the U.S. are starting to point fingers and start the ‘i told you so’ when it comes to nuclear energy;  but to that we say, “don’t get scared now.”  If anything, we should be using the situation in Japan as a warning and an opportunity to ensure our systems are prepared for natural disasters.

As reported by Politic365.com,  the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industry, has added an entire section on its website dedicated to providing an understanding of what is going on in Japan and how it can be prevented in the future.

At a time when it’s easy to just throw in the towel on nuclear energy, they are providing information as to the value of this energy source when coupled with appropriate precautions and safety-checks.  This approach is important because nuclear energy is not only a key source of energy in this country, but it provides jobs to a lot of Americans.  In these economic times, those jobs are so very important.

Even though the full extent of damage to these reactors is still unknown, the events represent a significant challenge to the structural integrity and safety of the plant. As more is learned about the Japanese events, more long-term corrective actions will be developed.

As reported by NEI, senior executives representing all U.S. nuclear power plants are taking the following actions at each of their sites:

1. Verifying each company’s capability to mitigate conditions that result from severe adverse events, including the loss of significant operational and safety systems due to natural events, fires, aircraft impact and explosions. Specific actions include testing and inspecting equipment required to mitigate these events and verifying that qualifications of operators and support staff required to implement them are current.

2. Verifying that the capability to mitigate a total loss of electric power to a nuclear power plant is proper and functional. This will require inspections verifying that all required materials are adequate and properly staged and that procedures are implemented.

3. Verifying the capability to mitigate flooding and the impact of floods on systems inside and outside the plant. Specific actions include verifying required materials and equipment are properly located to protect them from flood.

4. Performing walk downs and inspection of important equipment needed to successfully respond to fire and flood events. Identifying the potential that the equipment’s function could be lost during seismic events appropriate for the site and develop mitigating strategies for potential vulnerabilities

In the meantime, NEI and other professionals in the field are lending their support and expertise to the people of Japan.  Hopefully, the collaborative effort will help mitigate the risk of a complete meltdown.

For more information on NEI and nuclear energy please visit the NEI website.

The amendment to “sack the czars” ignited protests from Democrats who called it a political attack masquerading as a principled spending cut. It is among hundreds of amendments in the Republican budget package being assembled to fund the government for the next seven months while slashing $60 billion.

One of amendment’s top targets is U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern, Obama’s chief treaty negotiator at the U.N. global warming talks. It also defunds Obama’s climate adviser, a post formerly held by Carol Browner, and several other “czar” positions that Republicans decry as unaccountable to Congress.

“There’s actually a czar still trying to impose a cap-and-trade regime,” Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), the amendment’s author, claimed on the hectic House floor yesterday. “You’ve got a global warming czar that’s running around spending taxpayer money promoting a policy that would destroy jobs.”

House Republicans also debated a controversial amendment last night designed to strip EPA’s ability to make or enforce rules regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Rep. Ted Poe (R-Tex.) offered the measure at 12:42 a.m. It would defund the EPA program for seven months. The amendment will be voted on today.

“This amendment will put an end to any back-door attempt to go around Congress and circumvent the will of the people,” Poe says in a statement on his website.

These amendments came on the third day of debate around the spending bill. The House began hacking away at the more controversial of the 500-plus amendments yesterday, triggering ad hoc debates on things like Internet regulations, child sex crimes and Asian carp. Tired House aides relived scenes of colleagues dozing with open mouths in desk chairs and meals of early morning fried chicken, the effects of working past midnight for three days…  [click here to continue]

By Phil Kerpen

In last year’s budget, President Obama called for Congress to enact cap-and-trade legislation, using a slush fund to disguise the cost of the program.  But cap-and-trade was decisively rejected in the 2010 election, so this year President Obama’s budget simply funds the EPA to move forward with regulating greenhouse gases on its own – against the clear wishes of voters and without any legitimate legislative basis.

Congress must take responsibility, step in, and stop this power grab.

One day after the election, President Obama told us this was coming:  “Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way.  It was a means, not an end.  And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

Now his budget makes clear how the skinning of the cat – by which he means American energy consumers who will suffer skyrocketing prices – will move forward.  It’s on Page 146 of the Obama budget: “The administration continues to support greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the United States in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.”  Those just happen to be the same levels required by the failed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.  In other words, Obama is telling the EPA to just pretend the bill passed and regulate away… [to read the rest of this article, click here]

Majority Leader Harry Reid recently said he’s looking to Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to hash out details on the plan which would increase the nations’ reliance on cleaner burning sources of energy, including solar and wind, and perhaps folding in “clean coal” and nuclear power.

If clean coal and nuclear are indeed included in the new legislation, that could mean billions of investment dollars for continued research on ways to produce cleaner and cleaner coal and safer nuclear power.  Additionally, there will inevitably be investment in the expansion of the energy industries resulting in jobs.

In recent statements Harry Reid also noted the CES bill could include tax breaks, rebates and low-interest loans for energy renovations in buildings and homes; but that the details of the legislation are being worked out by Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Specifically, the $8 billion loan guarantee is for new nuclear reactors to be built at an existing plant in Burke, Ga. It would be the first nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades, according to the White House.

Obama’s energy legislation remains stalemated in Congress. He warned that if the United States didn’t act, it will “fall behind. Jobs will be produced overseas, instead of here.”

He said that 56 nuclear power plants were being built around the world, including 21 in China.

He called Tuesday’s announcement “a very positive step” that “the United States is back in the business” of building more nuclear-generating facilities.

As the race for mayor in Chicago heats up, the pressure is on when it comes to a “clean power” ordinance. Hopeful Rahm Emanuel is the only candidate that hasn’t said ‘yes’ to a measure aimed at cleaning up or closing two coal-burning plants that researchers have blamed for causing asthma and deaths. Five of Emanuel’s rivals in the mayoral race, including ex-Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, answered “yes” on a questionnaire from environmental groups asking if the candidates support the ordinance.

Emanuel, President Obama’s ex-chief of staff, issued a 49-word statement in which he stated he’s all for cleaning up the plants, as oppose to closing them.  While many groups such as Greenpeace do not feel Rahm goes far enough by supporting a clean up, others believe in this economy it’s the best choice.  Any choice that means saving jobs is a right choice to us!

Potential Job Boom in Nuclear Energy as Industry is poised for Enormous Grow

One sure thing for future employment is in nuclear.  Now with three decades past the partial meltdown of a reactor at Three Mile Island and further expansion of nuclear power at a standstill, years of stagnant hiring comes to, as the American Physical Society, an independent group of physicists put it, “a greatly reduced interest among undergraduates in nuclear science and engineering programs.  This quote is from a recent report by the Society finding that the number of college nuclear engineering programs has dropped from 66 in the early 1980s to 30 in 2008.

Nuclear energy produces 20 percent of the nation’s electricity and is largest source of emission-free electricity.  Many people in the nuclear power industry have recognized the potential work force problem and are taking new steps to help answer those questions about pursuing a career in the field.

Meanwhile, scary as it seems, the nuclear industry is preparing for an eventual shortage of workers.  For thirty years the industry employed a very stable work force and not much growth, there wasn’t much growth within the industry, and thus, not much hiring.

A large reactor facility offers 400 to 700 positions once the plants are up and running, according to statistics from the Nuclear Energy Institute, which contends that nuclear plants generate about $40 million each year in payroll.

The interest in attracting know-how and education is growing into action.  For example this past November Entergy New Orleans, a subsidiary of the New Orleans-based power provider Entergy Corp., hosted a free, three-hour workshop on nuclear power production for Orleans Parish public school math and science teachers. The program, called Power Path to Nuclear Energy, offered training, curriculum materials and the potential for bringing guest lecturers into the classroom in an effort to spur an early interest in nuclear science in sixth through 12th-grade students.

That takes the competition for intellect down to the 11 year olds.  Entergy has a lot at stake, its the second-largest nuclear power generator in the U.S., and it is among more than a dozen companies considering building upward of 30 new nuclear plants, including one in Louisiana. Entergy is pressing on even though its plan was put on hold last year after the company failed to strike a deal with the manufacturer of its 1st choice reactor.

Even if companies don’t get the kid, the materials and assistance help raise knowledge and awareness about nuclear power over an important part of the community – the youth.  John Wheeler, head of work force development for Entergy quoted in an article in The Times Picayune said,  “You’re reinforcing math and science skills at the same time. It would be great if a student chose to go into the nuclear power industry, but if they choose to do something else with their career, eventually, if it’s in the science and technology field, that’s good for everybody.”

Louisiana State University is also in the effort with one of the remaining collegiate programs.  The university has began to offer students the opportunity to enroll in nuclear engineering as a minor, a move intended to provide training in specialized skills like nuclear power plant design and operation. So far, 13 students have enrolled, according to Warren Waggenspack, Associate Dean for Academic Programs at LSU’s College of Engineering.

In an understatement Waggenspack says, “The technology has advanced significantly in the intervening years. There are good engineering challenges that some of these kids want to address in providing good, safe nuclear power.”

Wheeler points out another issue, “We’re still going to have to replace the existing work force that is aging out.”  Most U.S. reactors facilities are old enough that the operating staff is closing in on their retirement years while the facilities have another generation of useful life remaining.

But even though Louisiana has caught on, the nuclear industry could be poised for enormous growth, if only government would get out of the way or reverse course and help with growth.  That may be far too much to expect with the current Federal administration, their choice of the NRC chairman shows a total lack of sense for economic growth, jobs, energy security or public safety.

Change is likely two years away, a very short time in policy, but 10 percent or so of a career. Waiting for policy change is a huge waste of U.S. intellectual power, especially as much of the research for a massive renaissance is already on the shelf.

It’s very encouraging to see Entergy getting out there.  That kind of self interested leadership is what will play a major role in reversing the policy course.  Polls show the population has adjusted to nuclear power, even as most are still in the dark about the potential, and realize the importance to the national energy security.

At the same time, right now, the rest of the world is charging on with reactor construction contracts while the U.S., with doubtless the best technology available dawdles and dallies about getting nothing done.  It’s a classic case of bureaucratic ineptitude from well-intentioned governmental interference.

Obama Places Energy Investments at Center of Economic Argument

By JOEL KIRKLAND of ClimateWire

n a State of the Union address that focused like a laser beam on the U.S. economy, President Obama last night called on Congress to slash federal spending but invest more in developing cleaner sources of energy.

“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment,” the president told a joint session of Congress.

The Space Race analogy has been a handy White House tool for galvanizing support from entrepreneurs and companies interested in renewable energy. For much of his first two years, Obama had cloaked an appeal for legislation aimed at cutting industrial greenhouse gas emissions across the economy in a push to create jobs in the wind and solar power industries.

But today, the climate legislation is dead, and there is almost zero chance of a resurrection anytime soon.

With Republicans wielding greater influence on Capitol Hill, Obama last night dragged his energy and climate agenda toward the center. In that context, it became about reinventing the American economy and creating jobs in a more competitive world. It also meant reaching out to every corner of the energy industry except for oil.

“The competition for jobs is real. But this shouldn’t discourage us,” Obama said. “It should challenge us.”

Obama proposed doubling, to 80 percent, the share of electricity generated from “clean energy” sources by 2035. Under a White House plan that must pass Congress, new standards for electricity generators would incentivize investments in renewable resources, nuclear power, natural gas, and in technology that strips carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. In theory, those investments would translate into U.S. jobs.

Nudging lawmakers, Obama said, “Clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they’re selling.”

Obama proposed a five-year freeze on discretionary spending to slash $400 billion from the federal deficit, and he proposed corporate tax reforms. But he warned against overreaching on spending cuts, particularly in research and development.

‘Clean energy,’ an expanding term

Obama signaled a different approach to energy earlier this month, when he visited a General Electric plant in Schenectady, New York. There, alongside GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, who Obama recently tapped to lead an advisory panel on job creation, the president toured GE’s expanding campus. Inside the giant factory hangers, GE produces wind turbines and electric batteries, but also natural gas turbines and gasification technology for coal plants.

That day, the White House made it a point to highlight GE’s $750 million contract to build steam and natural gas turbines for India’s Reliance Power.

A former official in the George W. Bush administration said yesterday, on the condition of anonymity, that it sent a subtle signal to some in energy circles that the scope of “clean energy,” as defined by Obama, is expanding.

Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy, a San Francisco-based solar project developer, came to Washington this week to meet with other clean energy business executives and financiers. Yesterday afternoon, as the White House started leaking tidbits of information about Obama’s upcoming speech, Harris said he hoped the president would reach out to spend-thrift members of Congress but keep the focus on zero-emissions renewable technology.

“The key mission for me coming out here was to figure out what’s a viable political strategy that can be connected to a meaningful policy,” Harris told ClimateWire. “We need to remind everybody here in Washington that renewable energy isn’t a partisan issue.”

FOR THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE— CLICK HERE

When the new Congress convened in Washington this month, jobs and economic growth were immediately identified as legislative priorities.

In a welcome indication of their seriousness, members of both parties have called for regulatory relief as necessary for creating a strong and sustained economic recovery.

In his first floor speech as House Majority Leader, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) proclaimed, “We are going to cut spending and job-killing government regulations, and grow the economy and private-sector jobs.”

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) has proposed a regulatory “pay as you go” system, drafting legislation to require federal agencies to identify and eliminate one regulation for each new regulation they want to add.

Congress’ new emphasis comes in response to the Obama Administration’s aggressive agenda of regulatory expansion. Federal agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) most prominent among them, continue proposing new rules that drive up business costs and discourage employers from putting Americans back to work.

Check out the rest of this article by CLICKING HERE.