Hey guys, been a while since I posted here. I’m curious about Japanese nuclear energy, though. With the current crisis alerts of one of their reactors perhaps coming close to a meltdown, I did wonder, who the hell would build a nuclear power plant in such a seismogenous area? As a form of energy it generally enjoys very lavish subsidies, and given that the risks associated with it are high (and consequently, insurance premia too I’d imagine)? How was it financed? I can already see the hysteria that’ll surround this given that the energy provider is, in name, a private corporation. My intuition is that subsidies were behind this.
Those plants were build 40 years ago and nature did nearly everything what it could in that area, so this is actually made me feel that nuclear power is more safier than I thought.
Yes exactly Chyd. An 8.9 earthquake and they’re still pretty much ok? That’s amazing. Newer plants would be much safer and more soundly built.
I’m pretty much sold on the benefits of nuclear energy and I think it’s going to be our next major source of power, but I’m curious about the subsidies it enjoys all the same.
I heard that the newer ones actually shut down without electricity, whereas older models would have overheated. Indeed the greatest field test for nuclear energy, though I’m sure many will see things differently.
I found this:
The government’s nuclear energy budget hovers around 500 billion yen ($4.5b). Private R&D investment (27 billion yen ($247m) in 2003) is well below 10% of government spending on nuclear energy, so clearly the government has provided huge subsidies to the nuclear industry. Without these subsidies, the industry wouldn’t have survived.
The 2004 nuclear energy budget was 465 billion yen ($4.2b). If the 37 billion yen ($335m) allocated to accelerator and fusion-related work is deducted, this comes to 428 billion yen ($3.9b). Nuclear power generation in 2004 was 282,442 million kWh, so the government’s subsidy to nuclear energy works out at 1.5 yen/kWh (1.38 cents/kWh). (Japan’s nuclear energy policy is based on the fuel cycle, so the government’s spending on the nuclear fuel cycle is included in this figure.)
from:http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit113/nit113articles/nit113cost.html
As others have said, this was a very old plant regardless (much less safe than newer plants), and in spite of the intensity of the earthquake is still doing reasonably fine. Despite this, I have little doubt that “progressives” and other assorted statists who seem to get off on high costs will use this to screech and moan about yet another aspect of the private sector.
By the way Jon, the username is great. One of my favorite games of all time.
This is correct. I will not go into the specific physics, but modern nuclear reactions require energy to continue versus energy to remain stable. You would quite literally have to deliberately force a meltdown.
The nuclear threat in Japan is wildly overstated by the media for hysteric viewership. I do not know what specific process these Japanese reactors employ. However, Japan is one of the most highly advanced technological societies on Earth with a historical aversion to the risks nuclear reactions incur. I find it highly unlikely that they use the much less safe Russian methods to drive their cores.
There shouldn’t be any significant problem with the plant, except for property damage to the plant itself, in any event. I have some experience in the field, and as one might expect, reactor plants are designed for extremely high levels of safety, given the public’s general ignorance about the topic. For instance, the plant I trained on was designed to be safe even if subjected to an 8 point earthquake, during a catagory 5 hurricane, and a 17" shear in the piping (ie a whole side of the plant decided to fall off). ‘Meltdown’ is only likely due to sabotage.Otherwise you get a Three Mile Island type incident, where the core is irreparably damaged, and the containment area is massively contaminated. I could go on more, but I am sure no one wants a science/engineering lesson 
I know from what I have read about this plant is that it is an older Boiling water plant, unlike the more modern pressurized water reactors, and this is having problems as the water is boiling, not circulating and overpressurizing the chamber- thus the venting, and the pouring on of seawater to maintain the cover over the pile.
SkarnkailW feel free to elaborate.
Anyway nirgraham answered my question. I had the intuition that it’d be subsidised because comparable programmes exist in France and the US. It should silence any “progressives” who try pin this on “market” negligence as subsidies skewer risk/reward calculations. And yeah, the comments on the plant’s resilience are good too.
Thanks James, I quite love him as a villain, as well as his cold, logical view of things.
Bah. It’s just anti-nuclear scare nonsense. As long as the outer containment isn’t broken (which it isn’t), there’s essentially no chance of a “meltdown”; there’s a “core catcher” in the bottom that’s designed to spread out and poison the fuel if it really did melt, but it’s been shut down for days now. This is not Chernobyl.
I’m just wondering what factors might’ve impacted the firm’s ability to assess risk. Subsidies are one way of significantly lowering costs associated with nuclear energy.
I don’t buy the subsidies thing. People keep saying that about oil, too. How do you know the positive (for the oil/nuclear industry) effects of any subsidies outweighs the negative effects of restrictions and controls? I rather suspect it’s the other way around.
In essence, melt down refers to the fuel elements themselves melting. This occurs due to decay heat (from residual fission products that build up during operation). Because of this decay heat, the core must be cooled well after plant shutdown. However, in pressurized light water reactors, even if the fuel melts, the core is designed to prevent the fissile material from pooling in the bottom of the vessel and reaching critical mass on its own. The Chernobyl plant was designed around diffierent components and was less stable due to it.
I was a nuclear operator for the US Navy, and although their plant designs are different than civilian ones (due to constant power demand, vice a need for varying power levels on demand), the princilpes are basically identical, and as far as I know, most nuclear plants are of the Pressurized Water type, just because of their track record for safety.
In any event, worst case scenario (that is feasible), is that they lose the ability to cool the plant, and thus the fuel elements melt, which would massively contaminate the coolant, and with leaks very probable (given they are having trouble cooling it as we speak), the radioactive water would basically fill the containment area. This would make the area inside the dome uninhabitable for some period of time, based on the extent of the damage. But as long as the containment itself is intact, the only people exposed should be the plant workers who were in the plant during the earthquake itself, and any more they send in.
From what I have read, the containment held through the earthquake. Right now I am imagining they are trying to save as much equipment as possible, as well as reputation. You can imagine how a plant experiencing ‘meltdown’ in Japan would affect the industry, given its history.
On the topic of subsidies, from what I have heard (this is hearsay, since I am not in the civilian power side now, or in the past), it is mostly loan guarantees. A plant is a big investment, and is massively hampered by environmental regs, NIMBY, etc. They also do take multiple years to build (especially since we haven’t built new ones in so long), so the companies involved want guarantees, since the political climate can change on a dime, and they don’t want to be out billions of dollars.
Just wanted to add some additional clarifying information. I am only following the story tangentally, so I am not 100% on Japan’s plant design. I would assume it is similar to ours (given our relative control of their defense, etc), and because PWRs are the height of 50s technology. An additional complicating factor is that Japan has very high population density, which prohibits an additional layer of safety US plants use, namely large areas of unoccupied land around the plant. Most facilities take up miles, but the plant itself is relatively small. This would lead to any failure of the containment causing a significant risk of public exposure to contamination or radiation.
Lastly, hydrogen explosions are expected in this scenario (and have happened according to the news), this is due to the buildup of hydrogen in the vessel without the ability to vent (which may have been lost due to the loss of power, or damage during the earthquake). Typically engineers put a huge safety margin on the containment, which assumes the worst of all worlds type scenario, so I would imagine the containment was designed to contain these subsequent events. I only hope the operators have a handle on this, the ones at Three Mile didn’t.
Subsidies are also granted in the way of restricting the liabilities of possible damages. In most countries of Europe the operating company only needs to pay up to 100 to 300 million EUR. Compared to the possible damages in a Chernobyl scenario (more than 4 trillion), nearly nothing. But it gets better. France (75% of its energy is nuclear) has only 84 million, and Lithuania (even more 76% nuclear) only 3.3 million EUR! The rest of the damages have to be payed by the taxpayer.
In Europe only Germany (and Austria but there is no nuclear power plant) has unlimited liabilities for the operating companies. And it seems the USA also does enforce the liablity of the operating companies when I understand the Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act correctly. (Link 2: Price-Anderson Act Provides Effective Liability Insurance at No Cost to the public)
I am not so sure but how would an ancap society handle nuclear power? Wouldn’t there be any because you cannot find someone who would insure you at approximately $4 trillion?
I have done a bit more reading on the issue, and it looks like this is probably GE’s baby. The japan plant is a boiling water type, and I am not familiar with the design specs on it. The plant may not have been engineered with the Ring of Fire in mind, and that does not bode well at all. Still, it should not be Chernobyl style, but it may expose a lot more people to radioiodine and other fission products. And it looks like the Government of Japan is doing its best to save face, as well.
I am still fairly new to Ancap, so I don’t feel fully qualified to answer on how such a society would use Nuclear power, but I will give it a shot. I would imagine facilities for fission would not be located near any major city or population center, and would minimize liability that way, such as in deserts or underground (Yucca Mtn, etc). Transmission costs would be a significant hampering problem, and the industry definately would have developed differently. Of course our scientific advancement would be probably greater, so we might have already jumped past fission to fusion by now, which can be much safer, as radioisotopes are typically only generated during operation, and none are stores on site.
A helpful link I hope:
http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/
and something I hope pans out: