Nuclear Japan

I must admit that I have been paying more attention to the drama around Japan's nuclear reactors than to the number of deaths from the earthquake and tsunami (1,800 last count). I have learned a lot about nuclear reactors during all of this - relying on Physics for Future Presidents (by Richard Muller), the New York Times, and especially the Wall Street Journal.

Throughout all of this, I still think nuclear power can be a very useful energy source. And I think the danger is overrated (while the negative aspects of other fuel sources underrated). In Muller's book, he says that the number of excess cancer deaths* from cancer at Chernobyl is 4,000. Note that Chernobyl is the only full nuclear meltdown. The number of excess cancer deaths from Three Mile Island is 1. Compare that to Bhopal's chemical plant leak which killed 5,000 people instantly and may total 20,000 deaths.

I could be wrong, but from reading the news accounts, it doesn't seem like anyone will die immediately - either from explosions or radiation poisoning. And since a full meltdown (ie nuclear fuel melting through the containment structures) still seems unlikely, I think estimated deaths from cancer due to exposure will also be very low.

The bottom line to me is that we can make these technologies safer - and I think that will be the ultimate change that happens as a result of these partial meltdowns. I think we'll systems with much better back-ups, like longer battery power in the case that diesel generators fail and cannot be brought back online.

* Muller used the linear hypothesis when estimating excess cancer deaths.

Batteries

Apparently tonight is a learning night. I came across this really good article in the Economist on the state of electric cars.

Journal on Nuclear Power

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent article on the current state of nuclear power. The amazing thing is that it seems really balanced and objective. The bottom line is that there are technological improvements, but some are as yet unproven and many years away. But for now, cost is a major concern, waste is still an issue and safety is less of an issue - with the exception of terrorism.

What Contradiction?

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - LOWER GAS PRICES
Free America from dependence on foreign oil and create a cleaner environment with initiatives for energy-efficient technologies and domestic alternatives such as biofuels. End tax giveaways to Big Oil companies and enact tough laws to stop price gouging.

I saw the above on the HouseDemocrats.gov site under their "Six for '06" plan. I have to say that the above paragraph is the stupidest thing I have ever read and it makes me want to slap someone. Seriously, if there are two things that don't go together at all, it is energy independence and lower gas prices. Basically, what the Democrats tried to do with this was say two very popular things without thinking through how those two interact.

The only thing that will force us to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is if prices stay high. I am sick and tired of political parties that are incapable of saying what voters don't want to hear. We need high prices because we need to change our habits. This is the same unfortunate mentality that Bush tried to use after September 11, 2001 when he told Americans to go about their business - only the military would have to sacrifice. Voters need to realize that they will have to sacrifice in some situations to make progress possible. But neither Democrats nor Republicans are capable of saying that.

I can't wait for the next Democratic talking points:

"Increase government spending - Cut Taxes"

"Smoke, drink, eat unhealthy foods - Live much longer"