Nuclear Energy: Arnie Gundersen Going International

[wtmusic]

"Arnie Gundersen has been making money by spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt about nuclear energy for more than a decade. His career has received a measurable boost since March 11, when a large earthquake and powerful tsunami successfully peeled off most of the many layers of protection at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station.

Ever since that day, Gundersen has been giving scary interviews in a variety of media outlets that include a number of dire predictions. He claimed that the spent fuel pool for unit 4 had gone dry and that he had the video to prove it. That claim remains available on his web site, so he is apparently standing by his early evaluation despite all evidence that contradicts his claim.

He has been working with a PR firm to create a series of popular YouTube videos that build on his decade or more as a classroom teacher and as a former nuclear services salesman – he looks so calm, studious and trustworthy as he uses a variety of visual aids to convince his viewers of the provably false statement that Fukushima was worse than Chernobyl."

http://theenergycollective.com/rodadams/59725/arnie-gundersen-going-international

[JDPriestly]

1. Arnie Gunderson has the courage to warn.

There are lots of reassuring voices. And in the case of Fukushima, Gunderson is proved right over and over.

TEPCO has issued so many calming, reassuring statements to the press -- and had to retract nearly every one of them. The retractions never get as much attention as the reassurances == which are actually lies.

Nuclear energy requires huge investments, involves great health risks and needs to be replaced ASAP.

Nuclear energy is not the answer for the future. It is just too dangerous, and as the world becomes poorer and shorter and shorter on resources, the nuclear reactors we have already built are going to become harder and harder to maintain, less and less economical and efficient and more and more dangerous.

We need a green energy plan for the future.

[TheWraith]

2. Yes, if by "proved right" you mean "proved not to be right."

This is the same guy who's trying to foment public hysteria over "five hot particles per day!11" and similarly science-free nonsense.

[nebenaube]

7. So, let us see your credentials.

Really, unmask yourself and show us your degrees.

[flamingdem]

3. What an incredibly stupid article about Gundersen considering he's the only

scientist who has spoken out and educated the public during this crisis.

Some amateurs are very envious of him and insist on putting him down I guess... meanwhile where's the corium? And what happens when it hits the water table, nuke geniuses?

[wtmusic]

8. No one who's qualified would embarrass himself like Arnie is

but having so many goofballs around to worship him must be encouraging, not to mention the fat checks he receives from feeding morons his prurient drivel.

I'm sure you can point out one claim that Adams makes which is faulty. No? Didn't think so. :D

[bananas]

9. Great post by Rod Adams: "Stop Worrying About 'Spent' Fuel Pool Fires. Zirconium Tubes Do Not Burn"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x288023

Stop Worrying About 'Spent' Fuel Pool Fires. Zirconium Tubes Do Not Burn

Posted March 20, 2011 by Rod Adams

The contents of this post were incorrect. I acknowledge the error and apologize.

What an idiot!
:rofl:
Gundersen gave a demonstration of how Zirconium tubes really do burn - using a real Zirconium tube: http://www.fairewinds.com/content/nuclear-engineer-arnie-gundersen-demonstrates-how-fukushimas-fuel-rods-melted-and-shattered
It was also posted in the Political Videos forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x572365

[JDPriestly]

13. The nuclear industry has lots of money. It has invested so much

in its reactors that it cannot afford to face the truth.

The reactors in place are aging and becoming more dangerous.

Chernobyl and now Fukushima. That is two reactors that either have caused or will cause many premature deaths. I just want the truth about what is going on, and, having seen how the Russians and Ukrainians lied about Chernobyl and how the Japanese have lied about Fukushima, I do not trust people who assure me that nuclear energy is safe.

I just don't believe them. If it were safe, we would not be lied to so often, so much, about it.

[flamingdem]

14. That's right, it's psychological denial, their belief in a happy nuke future is now destroyed

along with their fat cat salaries.

[wtmusic]

17. Who's in denial?

"May 22--DALTON, Ga. -- The South's biggest electric utility is moving ahead with plans to build America's first completely new nuclear reactor in a generation despite questions raised by the recent nuclear meltdown at an earthquake-damaged plant in Japan.

Southern Co. Chief Executive Officer Tom Fanning said his company has the size, strength and long-term commitment to sustain the $14 billion investment it estimates will be required over the next decade to build two new reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga.

The new Westinghouse-designed AP1000 reactors Southern plans to add at Vogtle are designed to be safer and are located in a more stable area than is the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi power plant on Japan's coast, Fanning said."

http://seekingalpha.com/news-article/1139055-georgia-nuclear-plans-move-ahead

[JDPriestly]

20. Greed and ignorance are the only reasons for increasing the use of nukes.

[SpoonFed]

29. Hahaha

Who's in denial?

Uh... you? But I find your fact-less blind rage at those pointing out the nukefilthenergy problems rather amusing, so please continue.

[wtmusic]

16. Everyone wants the truth.

If you believe the World Health Organization, about 4,000 people will die as a result of Chernobyl. That's tragic, and it doesn't justify lying. But for the amount of power Chernobyl generated, that's a tiny fraction of how many people would have died if that same power was generated from coal. And nuclear's investment is a tiny fraction of the coal industry's.

"The reactors in place are aging and becoming more dangerous." That's true, and it's largely because of the moratorium on new nuclear since the Shoreham debacle. Shoreham was killed by a combination of fear, ignorance, and politics in the wake of Chernobyl, and was a total loss financially. Whether the reason for its failure was rational or not, investors don't want to lose their money. Would you?

[JDPriestly]

19. I'd rather save money and keep control of my own energy production

and use through investing in solar. If we focused on solar the way we did on developing the bomb and then nuclear reactors, we would be much better off.

We have to make a choice. Nuclear is the least attractive choice. Coal and oil give the user some control. Nuclear gives a huge corporation control. And don't tell me about smaller, more local reactors. The opportunities for accidents increase with every use of nuclear that someone thinks of.

No to nuclear.

[wtmusic]

21. How does coal and oil give the user some control?

[JDPriestly]

22. They don't. Wind and solar are the answers for the future.

[wtmusic]

23. I would think the greedy corporations would have hopped on the bandwagon then

but they aren't. Why not? If wind and solar are so promising, why hasn't the big money gotten behind them?

Rhetorical question, but T. Boone Pickens might be someone to pose it to.

[JDPriestly]

24. Because wind and solar put the generation of energy and the monthly checks

for energy production in the hands of the home- or business-owner who puts solar or wind energy on their personal property.

Nuclear energy requires massive corporate investment and assures massive corporate revenues from energy consumers on a steady basis for many years. Profits, profits, profits.

I am certain of this, because I heard this from the horse's mouth way back in the 1970s in London at the First International Energy Conference. The horse's mouth was a speaker who identified himself as representing the Canadian nuclear energy industry.

Nuclear energy insures to huge corporations a steady stream of money. That is why they prefer it to solar or wind.

Money and power and control and political influence. Those are the things that nuclear offers to the elite. Solar and wind alternatives do not generate the same money, power, control and political influence to that wealthy 1% elite at the top of the heap.

So when you post about nuclear energy, I hear the voice of that "representative of the Canadian nuclear energy industry" once again. I will never forget that. It opened my eyes.

Here is a reference to that conference:

1973 - Pilgrim Edward W. Simon was chairman of the President’s Oil Policy Committee from February to December of 1973 (oil crisis started in October in the midst of the Yom Kippur war). He also was an administrator of the Federal Energy Office since December 1973 and was charged with the responsibility of minimizing the effects of the energy crisis and preventing future crises (decided the oil prices and the distribution). Together with Pilgrim Henry Kissinger he was the most important speaker of the 1974 International Energy Conference. In 1973, Henry Kissinger first informed the Pilgrims about the creation of an "International Energy group", which became the International Energy Agency.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_pilgrimsociety01.htm

My boss sent me to the session on alternative energy because he did not want to go.

[wtmusic]

25. Then the same massive corporate revenues would be available to panel makers.

If everyone in the US had solar panels, we would have huge massive corporations making panels, insuring them a steady stream of money. Money and power and control blah blah blah. These are the things that panels would offer the elite.

What's the diff?

Nuclear is preferred to solar and wind for many reasons, chief being:

1) The sun goes down at night. Sometimes, for many days at a time, it's cloudy.
2) The wind occasionally stops blowing.

I'm fairly certain that no matter how much money you invest in R&D those things won't change.

You wouldn't want to have to turn off your computer at night, would you? :shrug:

[JDPriestly]

26. But panel makers will have to compete with each other, and with more

research, panels, like computers will increasingly provide more energy at lower prices.

Nuclear plants have a monopoly in the areas in which they provide the energy. There is no meaningful competition.

They demand a sort of ransom for their product just like the salt merchants demanded during the Middle Ages.

Considering the dangers of nuclear energy, we should quickly convert to other types of energy, including solar, wind and tide.

It's a matter of investing in our future. We will either invest in a safe future or a risky one. And, especially considering the difficulty of dealing with nuclear waste and the serious accidents that have occurred, there can be no question that solar is safer than nuclear, and will become cheaper over the next years.

If our country does not get on the solar (wind and tide) wave, we will be left behind.

As for storage, the development of more reliable storage for energy is another area in which research should be speeded up. I remember how quickly we were able to get to the moon once we, as a nation, decided that was our goal.

If we make developing clean and safe alternative energy, which thus far means solar, wind and tidal energy, a national goal and really put our best researchers, our money and hearts into it, we will lead the way for the rest of the world.

But if the greed and carelessness that inspires the nuclear industry is allowed to have its sway, our society will meet a sad end.

[wtmusic]

27. I hear that "man on the moon" argument frequently

but the difference is there were no theoretical limits to putting a man on the moon.

There are theoretical limits to solar and wind power. Neither creates a lot of power to begin with, and efficiency losses in storage make it a non-starter. We not only don't have the technology - we may never have the technology.

And we don't have time to find out.

[JDPriestly]

28. We had the time to find out back in 1974.

But greedy corporations allowed the time to run out, dreaming of some magical way to dispose of nuclear waste -- and, of course of the steady stream of revenue that nuclear energy produces.

Nuclear energy with its waste, the huge investments required to build it, and its risks made so evident by the Fukushima disaster, is a technology with a dismal perhaps cataclysmic future.

We should try to invest in solar. It is the cleanest energy we could develop. Here in Southern California, the possibilities of solar energy with some tidal and wind energy are quite realistic. And wind energy, if properly researched, could become a big, big factor in the rest of the country.

The big question is energy storage. But then, remember, oil started as just a seeping substance. And now we have offshore drilling at unbelievable depths in horrible conditions. If we can drill oil wells in the hostile oceanic conditions, we can develop solar and wind and tidal energy as well as batteries that will make other forms of energy too costly and obsolete.

If we want life to survive on our planet, we have to end our use of nuclear energy.

At this point, most of the voices defending nuclear energy are working in or profiting in some way from nuclear energy. They are captured and committed but terribly wrong.

[kristopher]

30. Where do you get the idea that "The big question is energy storage"?

Seriously. Where did you get that idea?

[JDPriestly]

32. From you or one of the other DUers posting on this thread.

In 1974, MIT made the presentation on solar energy. At that time they were fueling a house in Massachusetts with it and supplemented with natural gas on days with really bad weather. We don't have many of those days in Southern California and across several states in the Southwest.

At the very least, our part of the country should be switched to primary dependence on solar energy.

[kristopher]

33. It wasn't from me, I already know that energy storage isn't an obstacle at all.

There are two things to keep in mind in order to properly understand the role of storage.

First, there are lots and lots and lots of practical, inexpensive storage options available that have never been tapped simply because the economics of large-scale, centralized thermal power generation are oriented around a profit through growth model, not a model that rewards the most efficient use of energy.

Most utilities have traditionally been controlled monopolies. The make profit on a cost plus basis. That means the more they can justify spending on power plants, the more money they make overall since 6% of 100 million is more than 6% of 10 million.

Once you restructure around an economic model that has increased rewards for load shifting, then energy distribution through time (storage) becomes a profitable niche worth exploiting. We already have a range of inexpensive technologies that can do the job of large scale storage for grid management. Things like compressed air storage, pumped hydro or thermal batteries have a reasonable round trip efficiency of around 70-80% and they don't cost an arm and a leg to build.

The second thing to remember is that the tendency to continue thinking large scale can lead you astray. Distributed generation is best conceptualized from the user up, rather than from the power source down. For example, heating systems offer a huge opportunity for cost effective energy storage if there is an economic reward attached. The same thing goes for home battery packs modeled on EV battery packs. Time of day pricing is one example of a change that would help bring about the spread of these systems.

Just with things like that, like designing home heating systems to have 72 hours of buffered heat or using some of the battery capacity of electric plug-in vehicles, we can exploit most of the energy storage niches.

The key element is this - as more renewables are brought online, the spots where these technologies are profitable will increase and they will get built as the local system dictates the need. We are quite a bit away from that point, however. Right now and for the next few years, the system can pretty much soak up all of the renewable electricity we will be able to build. At some point, however, the system will be overproducing enough renewable electricity in off-peak times to make it profitable to store more and more of it. If we have the right policies in place we can ensure that the full range of possible solutions are not road-blocked by rules written to ensure the continued profitability of coal and nuclear plants.

[JDPriestly]

34. Great information. Thanks. Kristopher.

I was responding to another DUer or at least thought I was, but I'm so happy to have the information you are providing.

I am a firm supporter of solar energy for Southern California. Wish I could afford to put panels on my own house. If and when we have to replace our water heater, we will probably try to go solar.

The next few months will probably be very hot here. And of course we get very little rain and lots and lots and lots and lots of sunshine. Lack of water is a problem. Lack of sunshine is not.

It is probably hard for people in, say, Seattle, to imagine relying on solar energy. But here in Los Angeles it makes a lot of sense.

In the Northwest, they have water -- and could also use some tidal energy. The Pacific is relatively, well -- pacific, down here.

[kristopher]

45. You're welcome; but don't underestimate solar in northern areas

Germany is a case in point.
New Jersey is another.

But I believe your point was that each area does have its particular strengths and weaknesses that will determine the nature of the need for storage, right?

[JDPriestly]

46. Yes, kristopher. I can't wait to make these changes in our energy economy.

I worked for a company that was trading oil on the spot market in 1973-74. I am very aware of how volatile and how easily manipulated that market is. I am also aware of the repercussions for peace in the world that our dependence on oil causes.

That is why I am so fervently interested in our developing solar energy here in the Southwest. There is no excuse for our failure to be at least 50% solar already. We have an abundance of sun here.

[Nihil]

36. So if "Coal and oil give the user some control" isn't true, why did you say it in .19?

I don't disagree on most of your other points but coming out with
such blatantly incorrect statements that even you can't defend just
a few posts later really doesn't instill confidence in the rest
of your output and suggests you were trying for the pure hyperbole
approach rather than through reasoned argument.

:shrug:

[FBaggins]

15. Going on three and a half months now

Just wondering... how long does it take for corium to "hit the water table" when the reactor is built by the sea?

At what point do you get a clue and think "hmmm... if that were true it would have happened by now"??? :rofl:

[CJvR]

35. HERETIC!

Do you doubt the unholy power of corium? Even now it, with the power of re-criticality, is drilling it's way through the feeble containment structure like a diamond drill and when it gets through it will destroy the world! REPENT SINNER!!!

[flamingdem]

4. Yep, jealous amateurs. Rod Adams, author worked on a submarine, NOT A PRO

About Rod Adams Rod Adams gained his nuclear knowledge as a submarine engineer officer and as the founder of a company that tried to develop a market for small, modular reactors from 1993-1999. He began publishing Atomic Insights in 1995 and began producing The Atomic Show Podcast in 2005.

[kristopher]

5. Adams is the sleaziest scumbag in the circlejerk of nuclear blogging liars.

He is one creepy SOB.

[flamingdem]

12. + trying to lift himself by tearing down Gundersen = major whining loser nt

[wtmusic]

18. Still waiting for you to point out something Adams has said that's untrue. nt

[kristopher]

31. Every characterization he makes of Gundersen is false.

It is smarmy, slimy, scummy, backbiting drivel.

And anyone that thinks Adams is in any way worthy of respect is, well...

[FBaggins]

37. So now I guess he's STILL still waiting.

What a shocker.

So, for instance, you maintain that pool #4 did boil dry?

[kristopher]

38. Is that what Gundersen said? If so, what was the complete context?

Adams lies as easily as he breathes.

[FBaggins]

39. See for yourself

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=285210&mesg_id=285210

[kristopher]

40. Why not directly answer the question so everyone doesn't have top watch the video

and then put the video in the context of the events?

[FBaggins]

41. Because the paycheck you sent last week bounced?

IOW, why ask a question that requires someone else to do your work for you?

You know very well that he said multiple times that pool #4 was dry and that he misidentified objects in a video as being the tops of racks that hold spent fuel that were now "in air".

The "context of events" was that he made up events as he went along - and was wrong.

[kristopher]

42. That's your claim. Now provide specific quotes in specific context so that it can be verified.

[FBaggins]

43. So you're saying that flamingdem was lying in that thread?

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/new-images-reveal-nuclear-fuel-rack-exposed-air

"This picture is undated, but when it was taken, it clearly shows that there is no water in the pool. If you look, there’s a green, a long, green device. That’s the refueling bridge. Normally that glides along on rails above the pool, and the pool is that crystal-clear water that you’re used to seeing. Well, after the explosion it has collapsed and is lying in the pool. Between seconds thirty-three and thirty-seven on this video you can see little boxes. The little boxes are just to the left of that green bridge. The boxes are in air. Those boxes are the top of nuclear fuel racks. They’re supposed to be under thirty feet of water. They’re not."

[kristopher]

44. Are you Rod Adams?

Here are his comments in full context. Please show where his comments are unreasonable or extreme in any way. He says basically the same thing the physics professor from the University of Tokyo was saying at the time on NHK.

"What happened at Fukushima was, when the whole site lost power, at Fukushima 4, there was no reactor operating. All the fuel had been removed and was in the fuel pool. Normally, the pools are cooled; however, they lost power, so there was no longer any cooling. It appears that the pools boiled dry. The roof blew off the building. That indicates that hydrogen was built up from something called a zircoloid-water reaction that had to occur at temperatures over twenty-two hundred degrees (2200 degrees C). After that, the Fukushima staff has been attempting to pour water into that reactor. You can see in this picture that, up the side of the building is a hydraulic device, it’s actually designed for pumping concrete, that is pumping water up and over the roof and pouring water into the nuclear fuel pool.

This picture is undated, but when it was taken, it clearly shows that there is no water in the pool. If you look, there’s a green, a long, green device. That’s the refueling bridge. Normally that glides along on rails above the pool, and the pool is that crystal-clear water that you’re used to seeing. Well, after the explosion it has collapsed and is lying in the pool. Between seconds thirty-three and thirty-seven on this video you can see little boxes. The little boxes are just to the left of that green bridge. The boxes are in air. Those boxes are the top of nuclear fuel racks. They’re supposed to be under thirty feet of water. They’re not.

What that means to me is a couple things. First off, the top of the nuclear fuel is exposed. Perhaps all the nuclear fuel is exposed, but certainly the top is. You can see steam coming up, but not from the top of the fuel. down further in the cavity there is steam coming up. So, the water that they’re spraying in is hitting the nuclear fuel and creating steam, but it’s not filling that swimming pool. The water has two purposes: cooling, but also shielding. That means the fuel is unshielded. That emits gamma rays, and the gamma rays go up into the sky, bounce off of air molecules through something called “sky shine,” and rain back down on the site as a background radiation that’s much higher than normal. That makes work on the site really difficult, and it makes work on that refueling pool almost lethal.

The other thing it means to me is that the nuclear fuel itself is extraordinarily hot, and the plutonium inside can become volatile. I spoke yesterday, in the earlier update , about cerium being discovered offsite and plutonium being discovered, and the fact that the nuclear fuel pool does not have water in it, to me, indicates that it might be a clean path for those heavy elements to be escaping from the building and being discovered offsite. I would recommend, based on this, that the evacuation zone should be pushed back further because of these heavy elements being released, as well as the cesium that was also in those racks. It does have some serious consequences. As this situation develops, and perhaps, more clear pictures are available, I will update you again."

[izquierdista]

6. All right, this Adams is an asshole

(1) Lists lots of unprovable claims that he has liberal credentials for an "appeal to authority" argument.
(2) May have nuclear experience, but has no clue how hazardous spent fuel rods are.
(3) Refers to 50 years of safe operations -- but neglects a few weeks of not-so-safe events.

In fact this whole Energy Collective site appears to filled with wankers.

[Fledermaus]

10. Arnie Gundersen has done a wonderful job. That's why the pro-nukes hate him.

[flamingdem]

11. Agree. Arnie has proven he is the man in the know on this disaster nt