"The region lies on the "Ring of Fire" — an arc of earthquake and volcanic zones that stretches around the Pacific Rim. About 90 percent of the world's quakes occur in the region." --
Who had the brilliant idea to build a nuclear power plant there... :\",
To be fair, it's not like Japan has much of a choice. Nuclear really is their best option. Japan has only a couple of coal mines, and they've deliberately tried to avoid being entirely dependent on China for coal imports. This limits the use of coal power plants (not to mention environmental consequences). They have limited area, which limits hydropower options (though the steep topography partly makes up for that). Wind and solar are limited in their utility for "baseline" power.
The US has nuclear power plants on the "ring of fire" as well, for whatever it's worth (e.g. Diablo Canyon in CA, and I think there's one in Washington, as well).
It has many of the same problems as wind and solar, though. They're great as a significant part of the energy input, but you still need something else for times when there's no wind/waves/sun.
Where there are nuclear power plants along Japan's eastern coast (close to the subduction zones), they're mostly in the north.
Japan has two subduction zones. The Japan Trench in the north, where the Pacific plate subducts, and the Nankai Trough in the south where the Philippine Sea Plate subducts.
These two subduction zones are very different. They're on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of earthquake behavior.
Before the Tohoku earthquake in 2011, we had never observed a magnitude 9 earthquake on a subduction zone like the Japan Trench in the north of Japan. (The Japan Trench usually has frequent magnitude 7's. Damaging but not devestating.) All of the previous magnitude 9's were on subduction zones similar to the Nankai Trough in southern Japan.
Furthermore, southern Japan has a 1300 year written historical record of large earthquakes and tsunamis occuring every ~200 years (they're not regular, but that's another story). The last two were in 1944 and 1946. In contrast, northern Japan has just as long of a record, but no records of very large earthquakes and tsunamis. (There's some sedimentological evidence of a very large tsunami in northern Japan ~2000 years ago, but prior to this, we assumed that it must have originated somewhere else.)
Therefore, southern Japan has the highest hazard for large tsunamis, and northern Japan has a much lower risk. Northern Japan's risk is now higher than we thought it was, but southern Japan is still more likely to have the next big tsunami.
Notice that there are very few nuclear power plans on the east coast of southern Japan. Instead they're on the west coast, away from the main tsunami hazard. That's why.
At any rate, the Tohoku earthquake really turned what we thought we know about very, very large earthquakes on its head.
Japan has very few natural energy resources which is the main reason they embraced nuclear power in a big way. Otherwise, they would have to import many more tons of hydrocarbons.
>The ash is more radioactive than most nuclear waste is and there's a whole lot more of it to contain.
The question is if it's safer to be next to a nuclear meltdown or a burning coal plant, not whether portions of the waste of both plants during normal operations are more or less radioactive than each other.
Except that the place is covered in geothermal hotspots.
I don't know if any are sufficiently large to reduce the need for nuclear, but Japan is a country where the greatest natural energy resource appears (to an outsider) to be dedicated to providing really nice baths.
Japan's relatively cold (in geothermal terms) due to its tectonic position. (It's counter-intuitive, but forearcs have relatively low geothermal gradients for such tectonically active areas.)
The main areas of geothermal potential are localized around the volcanic arc. Most of this land is inside of national parks.
Compare this to areas like Iceland or most of the African rift, where you have a very high regional geothermal gradient. Anywhere you can find deep permeability, you'll have potential for geothermal power generation.
Japan certainly has a lot of geothermal potential, and hasn't utilized most of it yet, but it's not as simple as it seems at first glance.
That's a great summary. I remember having the first WTF of my life at around age 4 or 5, sitting in the ofuro in Tokyo (giant wooden bathtub) when a very minor temblor hit.
I used to keep up with research in the area, mostly from a friend who did time at the Lamont-Doherty lab in upstate New York. For people who like to dig into academic papers, some slightly watered down for general consumption but most not, their website is great
Wow, really? These questions are like criticism of people who live in flood zones. Yeah, we should all avoid water like the plague. We don't need it to drink or grow crops or foster basic transportation. Have you ever looked at a map of "disasters"? You cannot escape them. It is a case of pick your poison. Which type of risk scares you less?
Japan is a densely populated, urbanized, modern country. It requires substantial electricity. That electricity has to come from somewhere.
Nuclear disasters like the one at Fukushima affect the entire globe, not only Japan. If the country is geographically unfit for nuclear plants, then no nuclear plants should be built there, period. Otherwise the entire region's safety is compromised, not just Japan's.
Have an upvote. However, I see no reason why Japan should put the needs of "the world" first. If you do not have energy security/self sufficiency, you do not have national security. America is endlessly criticized for sending soldiers to the Middle East. The world knows the real reason we did that is because we are highly dependent on foreign oil. Who would you like Japan to invade in place of having nuclear power?
Not all countries are equally endowed in terms of natural riches. This does not mean that everyone should get themselves on equal footing with everyone else by any means necessary. I hope that we will gently steer towards sincere and meaningful global cooperation, where "national security" will be a non-issue. I know this is an unrealistic view given the current state of world politics, but I can't help but dream out loud sometimes.
I do a lot of "tilting at windmills." It is an extremely hard row to hoe. If you want to make real change in the world, you need to bring a great deal more to the table than good intentions. It helps to come up with viable, realistic solutions. And then there are huge challenges in implementing them.
But feel free to dream of a better world. I desperately wish I lived in a better world. Sigh.
Financial disasters like the one in the US in 2008 affect the entire globe, not only the US. If the country is morally unfit for advanced banking, then no advanced banking should occur there, period. ... ?
Japanese have no say in CO2 emissions by any other country, including ones relying on coal plants. Yet they suffer from the externalities of it.
Tragedy of commons. WWI -> League of Nations, WWII -> UN ... How about establishing a world government without WWIII this time. Though what the frak i'm talking about if we can't even stop a government from butchering tens of thousands of their own people (like Sudan, Siria)
Not entirely true. You can always offer to provide them electricity at a lower cost than they would get from the nuclear plants. There is a cross-country marketplace for electricity in the EU, and probably nobody will stop you to sell such thing to Japan.
http://squid314.livejournal.com/292620.html has a good post on the actual danger of Fukushima. Pollution from other baseline sources like coal cause many more deaths than any nuclear accident.
When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly.
Coal plants standard operation affects the entire globe. If a country cannot regulate the pollution of coal, then no coal plants should be built there.
I'll take the bait. Can Japan scrap all their remaining nuclear plants and just rely on the entire globe to cheaply bring it the power it needs to grow ?
To be serious, "[it] affect the entire globe" could be generalized to so many things from so many countries, from drug research to farming, fishing, industrial wastes etc. Having everyone put aside short sighted gains and be on the same page to do The Right Thing to reap long term benefits feels so utopian it's depressing.
It would be more realistic to push for more secure, better engineered, more efficient and reliable nuclear plants. Companies from all over the globe would get behind that.
>You cannot escape them. It is a case of pick your poison.
This is the law of averages, and it is not a law, it is a flaw in the way people think.
No matter whether you think that you'll go when it's your time to go and not a second before, and that none of the decisions that you make will affect when that will happen - it's still more dangerous to live on the inside of an active volcano than on a plain in central Illinois, you shouldn't drive the wrong direction on the freeway, and you should always wear a helmet on your motorcycle, even during short trips.
You seem to have chosen to intentionally misinterpret my remark. In Florida, hurricanes. In the plains, tornadoes. On the coast, tsunamis and flooding. On the west coast of the u.s., earthquakes. And if you eliminate forest fires, you a) increase the odds the next one will be far worse and b) interfere with the reproduction of some pine trees whose seeds need high heat to open.
Yes, your choices matter. No, there are no perfectly safe places anywhere.
Nowhere is completely safe but I think that Northern Europe is pretty much safe from all those things. There is occasionally some localised flooding if you are in the wrong place and we can get occasional strong winds (less than proper hurricanes). Of course past performance is no guarantee of future results...black swans... etc. but there are places in the world at very low risk of serious natural disasters.
Northern Europe has harsher winters than I care for. You can freeze to death in the snow...etc. And the odds are long against me moving there any time soon. I can readily go anywhere in the continental U.S.
I have actually seriously considered such things. I have previously lived in Europe. I have been willing to consider living potentially anywhere in the world. There are substantial obstacles for the average person for up and moving wherever the fuck place name you pulled out of a hat.
For the climate issue try the UK then or somewhere in France. Moderate winters and summers in the UK. Within the US I'm sure there is somewhere with modest risks although perhaps many of those places are too cold for you in the winter.
I'm not saying that you should move and it may be that the earthquakes of SF [replace hazard and location as appropriate] are a reasonable risk for other advantages and can be managed sufficiently with construction techniques. However, not every place on the planet is at equal risk of natural disasters.
I think you and I are framing this issue differently and I hate conversations focused on who "wins" by making the other person "lose." There are trade-offs involved no matter where you live as an individual. I have thought long and hard about those trade-offs and I am reasonably confident I have found my least worst answer for the foreseeable future for me personally. That is a separate issue from the question of what kind of power is a realistic, viable option to serve the interests of a specific country and what trade-offs a country needs to consider when trying to provide for all the needs of its people and its own needs as an entity. Context matters and these are always complicated issues. It generally does not work to let a single consideration take too much priority in a complex situation, though there are exceptions.
>You seem to have chosen to intentionally misinterpret my remark.
Not intentionally.
>No, there are no perfectly safe places anywhere.
No one is arguing that there are perfectly safe places anywhere, so I'm not sure who you're making that point to. People are making the case that there are safer ways to do things, and more dangerous ways to do things, so we should choose the safer ways.
This has absolutely noting to do with your very astute point, but I really wish the term "fault line" hadn't somehow wound up in popular culture.
Faults are never lines. They're irregular surfaces that sometimes form lines at their intersection with the earth's surface (they also sometimes form circles or don't intersect the surface at all).
...Okay, I'll stop ranting about things that only geologists care about...
48 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadWho had the brilliant idea to build a nuclear power plant there... :\",
The US has nuclear power plants on the "ring of fire" as well, for whatever it's worth (e.g. Diablo Canyon in CA, and I think there's one in Washington, as well).
It has many of the same problems as wind and solar, though. They're great as a significant part of the energy input, but you still need something else for times when there's no wind/waves/sun.
If you look at the distribution of Japan's nuclear power plants, they actually tried to put them in the safest areas: http://www.oecd-nea.org/press/2011/NEWS-02.html
Where there are nuclear power plants along Japan's eastern coast (close to the subduction zones), they're mostly in the north.
Japan has two subduction zones. The Japan Trench in the north, where the Pacific plate subducts, and the Nankai Trough in the south where the Philippine Sea Plate subducts.
These two subduction zones are very different. They're on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of earthquake behavior.
Before the Tohoku earthquake in 2011, we had never observed a magnitude 9 earthquake on a subduction zone like the Japan Trench in the north of Japan. (The Japan Trench usually has frequent magnitude 7's. Damaging but not devestating.) All of the previous magnitude 9's were on subduction zones similar to the Nankai Trough in southern Japan.
Furthermore, southern Japan has a 1300 year written historical record of large earthquakes and tsunamis occuring every ~200 years (they're not regular, but that's another story). The last two were in 1944 and 1946. In contrast, northern Japan has just as long of a record, but no records of very large earthquakes and tsunamis. (There's some sedimentological evidence of a very large tsunami in northern Japan ~2000 years ago, but prior to this, we assumed that it must have originated somewhere else.)
Therefore, southern Japan has the highest hazard for large tsunamis, and northern Japan has a much lower risk. Northern Japan's risk is now higher than we thought it was, but southern Japan is still more likely to have the next big tsunami.
Notice that there are very few nuclear power plans on the east coast of southern Japan. Instead they're on the west coast, away from the main tsunami hazard. That's why.
At any rate, the Tohoku earthquake really turned what we thought we know about very, very large earthquakes on its head.
"why the heck would they put a nuclear power plant there?"
Not sure what their power options were at the time it was built though.
The ash is more radioactive than most nuclear waste is and there's a whole lot more of it to contain.
The question is if it's safer to be next to a nuclear meltdown or a burning coal plant, not whether portions of the waste of both plants during normal operations are more or less radioactive than each other.
Heavy metals from the ash would be a lot more hazardous in the short term than the radiation unless you were standing on top of the reactor.
Except that the place is covered in geothermal hotspots.
I don't know if any are sufficiently large to reduce the need for nuclear, but Japan is a country where the greatest natural energy resource appears (to an outsider) to be dedicated to providing really nice baths.
Japan's relatively cold (in geothermal terms) due to its tectonic position. (It's counter-intuitive, but forearcs have relatively low geothermal gradients for such tectonically active areas.)
The main areas of geothermal potential are localized around the volcanic arc. Most of this land is inside of national parks.
Compare this to areas like Iceland or most of the African rift, where you have a very high regional geothermal gradient. Anywhere you can find deep permeability, you'll have potential for geothermal power generation.
Japan certainly has a lot of geothermal potential, and hasn't utilized most of it yet, but it's not as simple as it seems at first glance.
I used to keep up with research in the area, mostly from a friend who did time at the Lamont-Doherty lab in upstate New York. For people who like to dig into academic papers, some slightly watered down for general consumption but most not, their website is great
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/topics/earthquakes
Japan is a densely populated, urbanized, modern country. It requires substantial electricity. That electricity has to come from somewhere.
But feel free to dream of a better world. I desperately wish I lived in a better world. Sigh.
Who's going to police/enforce that? (I'm afraid to ask...)
Non-Japanese have no say whatsoever in Japan's nuclear industry. They only suffer the "externalities."
Tragedy of commons. WWI -> League of Nations, WWII -> UN ... How about establishing a world government without WWIII this time. Though what the frak i'm talking about if we can't even stop a government from butchering tens of thousands of their own people (like Sudan, Siria)
When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly.
To be serious, "[it] affect the entire globe" could be generalized to so many things from so many countries, from drug research to farming, fishing, industrial wastes etc. Having everyone put aside short sighted gains and be on the same page to do The Right Thing to reap long term benefits feels so utopian it's depressing.
It would be more realistic to push for more secure, better engineered, more efficient and reliable nuclear plants. Companies from all over the globe would get behind that.
This is the law of averages, and it is not a law, it is a flaw in the way people think.
No matter whether you think that you'll go when it's your time to go and not a second before, and that none of the decisions that you make will affect when that will happen - it's still more dangerous to live on the inside of an active volcano than on a plain in central Illinois, you shouldn't drive the wrong direction on the freeway, and you should always wear a helmet on your motorcycle, even during short trips.
Yes, your choices matter. No, there are no perfectly safe places anywhere.
I have actually seriously considered such things. I have previously lived in Europe. I have been willing to consider living potentially anywhere in the world. There are substantial obstacles for the average person for up and moving wherever the fuck place name you pulled out of a hat.
I'm not saying that you should move and it may be that the earthquakes of SF [replace hazard and location as appropriate] are a reasonable risk for other advantages and can be managed sufficiently with construction techniques. However, not every place on the planet is at equal risk of natural disasters.
Thank you for engaging me in good faith.
Not intentionally.
>No, there are no perfectly safe places anywhere.
No one is arguing that there are perfectly safe places anywhere, so I'm not sure who you're making that point to. People are making the case that there are safer ways to do things, and more dangerous ways to do things, so we should choose the safer ways.
With this: http://strangesounds.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/US-FAULT...
(for those who miss the significance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone
"The zone had four of the largest North American earthquakes in recorded history, with moment magnitudes estimated to be as large as 8.0," )
This has absolutely noting to do with your very astute point, but I really wish the term "fault line" hadn't somehow wound up in popular culture.
Faults are never lines. They're irregular surfaces that sometimes form lines at their intersection with the earth's surface (they also sometimes form circles or don't intersect the surface at all).
...Okay, I'll stop ranting about things that only geologists care about...
> Diablo Canyon Power Plant is an electricity-generating nuclear power plant at Avila Beach in San Luis Obispo County, California.
> It was built directly over a geological fault line, and is located near a second fault.