The Economist (March 6)
“Though understandable,” the knee-jerk reaction following the Fukushima disaster “was wrong.” Nuclear power has numerous drawbacks, but “well-regulated nuclear power is safe” and essential given the climate crisis. Nuclear provides constant generating capacity to support a reliable grid. Furthermore, “nuclear provides such capacity with no ongoing emissions, and it is doing so safely and at scale around the world.”
Tags: Climate crisis, Disaster, Drawbacks, Emissions, Fukushima, Generating capacity, Grid, Nuclear power, Reaction, Reliable, Safe, Scale, Understandable, Well-regulated
Bloomberg (March 11)
“It’s been five years since the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl shook Fukushima. Roads have been rebuilt and electricity has been restored. But life has still not returned to normal for many of the prefecture’s residents.”
Wall Street Journal (March 9)
Five years have passed since the nuclear meltdown, but “Fukushima still rattles Japan.” The nation must debate the controversial “reopening of reactors” that have largely been shuttered since the accident, even as “costly cleanup and decommissioning” are scheduled to continue for decades at Fukushima.
Tags: Cleanup, Controversial, Decommissioning, Fukushima, Japan, Meltdown, Nuclear, Reactors, Reopening, Shuttered
Washington Post (August 20)
“If you care about climate change or air pollution, you cannot casually write off nuclear power, which produces virtually no carbon dioxide emissions while generating a tremendous amount of reliable power.” Renewables simply can’t fill the gap quickly enough. Without nuclear, burning additional fossil fuel is the alternative. “No one concerned about climate change should be willing to take it off the table…. The right response to Fukushima is to make sure reactors meet high safety standards, not to make the fight against global warming much harder.”
Tags: Air pollution, Climate change, CO2, Emissions, Fossil fuel, Fukushima, Global warming, Nuclear power, Renewables, Safety
Bloomberg (November 11)
“Oceanographers have detected isotopes linked to Japan’s wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant off California’s coast, though at levels far below those that could pose a measurable health risk.” While the origin of the isotopes is clear, it is equally clear that the minute levels are absolutely safe, registering about 1,000 times below the EPA’s limits for drinking water.
Tags: California, Drinking water, EPA, Fukushima, Health, Isotopes, Japan, Nuclear plant, Oceanographers, Risk, Safe
The Economist (November 5)
“Once the Fukushima nuclear plant is stable, the government should temporarily nationalise its operator.” The Economist believes the government must “act fast to nationalise Tepco, and hold it temporarily in public ownership as it clears out the old management and oversees the clean-up. Then it should reprivatise a thoroughly reformed utility.”
Tags: Clean-up, Fukushima, Government, Management, Tepco
The New York Times (July 24)
Since Fukushima, “Americans have asked whether something just as horrible could happen here.” The odds of an earthquake/tsunami combination are low, but “the possibility that something equally unexpected and unplanned for could exceed current defenses at American plants cannot be discounted.” Regulators and operators should take stronger preventive measures. More specifically, they should follow the “thoughtful and common-sense recommendations” made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) task force that was assembled to review America’s nuclear preparedness in light of Fukushima.
Since Fukushima, “Americans have asked whether something just as horrible could happen here.” The odds of an earthquake/tsunami combination are low, but “the possibility that something equally unexpected and unplanned for could exceed current defenses at American plants cannot be discounted.” Regulators and operators should take stronger preventive measures. More specifically, they should follow the “thoughtful and common-sense recommendations” made by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) task force that was assembled to review America’s nuclear preparedness in light of Fukushima.
Tags: Fukushima, NRC, Nuclear, Regulators, U.S.
Wall Street Journal (June 16)
More “Fukushima fallout” landed in Italy where voters “rejected government efforts to restart the domestic nuclear industry.” The Wall Street Journal thinks this is a bad decision. Nuclear technology is “advanced and safe.” Instead, Italy will be dependent on other European nations for electricity. “That’s their choice, but it doesn’t mean it’s a wise one.”
Washington Post (April 15)
Prime Minister Naoto Kan writes thanking the U.S., other governments, NGOs and private citizens for their acts of kindness as Japan recovers from the Great East Japan Earthquake. With over 28,000 dead or missing, Kan’s current “top priority” is bringing the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear situation “under control at the earliest possible date.” Though struck by a staggering earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe, Kan believes “this difficult period will provide us with a precious window of opportunity to secure the ‘Rebirth of Japan.’”
Boston Globe (March 27)Boston Globe (March 27)
Japan is impacting debate on nuclear energy worldwide. The Boston Globe criticizes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for granting the 38-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a 20-year license extension, saying last week’s decision “defies common sense.” The Globe criticizes the NRC for being “too close to the industry it regulates” and for not postponing the decision “until the lessons of Fukushima can be fully understood.”
Japan is impacting debate on nuclear energy worldwide. The Boston Globe criticizes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for granting the 38-year-old Vermont Yankee nuclear plant a 20-year license extension, saying last week’s decision “defies common sense.” The Globe criticizes the NRC for being “too close to the industry it regulates” and for not postponing the decision “until the lessons of Fukushima can be fully understood.”
Tags: Fukushima, NRC, Vermont Yankee
