Harley Davidson Birthday Card

FUKUSHIMA I (2 nd part): replacement of short-term nuclear capability lost

Now that the situation of the reactors at Fukushima I seem a little more controlled, and before reflect on how it may affect the disaster to the global nuclear industry, it may be worthwhile to step out of those who question the current energy mix in Japan or even predict a more or less immediate cessation of nuclear generation in the country, with some data help us put the problem into its proper context.

I. - Some energy magnitudes

Japan is relatively small and very mountainous umbrella 126.4 million inhabitants, most of them urbanites needs and habits of modern consumer. " Also lacks natural resources, so you have to be imported. In fact, is the third largest importer of oil (4.4 million bbl / d), the first liquefied natural gas (92 Bcm), the first coal (181 million tons in 2009) and the third largest producer of nuclear energy (1,015 TWh) behind the United States and France.

The following charts show in more detail the primary energy consumption and end of Japan, where you see how far the country's dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil:

This has 28 refineries that process with joy all that imported oil to fuel their transport and also and this is important, for electricity generation, which still relies on 12% of fuel, as seen in the following graph:

The graph shows, therefore, that conventional thermal generation is intensive coal, gas and to a lesser extent but very striking, in oil. All of them generating CO 2 (especially coal) and subject to the vagaries of the price (especially fuel).

We can also see in figure's importance in the country's nuclear generation, which covers more than 30% of electricity demand. In fact, Japan has with 54 nuclear reactors (only France, with 58, and the U.S., with 104, have more).

With these data on the table, we can get an idea of \u200b\u200bthe voracity of this little monster energy industry that is Japan, and that the eventual replacement of even a part of its nuclear facilities would not be easy and "throw" certainly strongly generating fossil sources of CO2. Deepen it.

II .- How much energy should be replaced and with what sources?

The earthquake and tsunami have been decommissioned reactors 4 plants representing about 10 GW of generation capacity nuclear power (equivalent to more than 200 000 bbl / d of oil). Especially

have been affected Onagawa plants (2.2 GW) and the Fukushima Daiichi (4.7 GW), although the former appears not to have suffered incidents that potentially affect the population, as it happened to the second.

should be noted, incidentally, that only 4 of 54 plants have been affected by the worst earthquake in U.S. history, and only one with serious injuries and radioactive emissions abroad.

However, it will need to replace the nuclear power is removed from the system. And to know how, it might be interesting to look back a little:

In July 2007 another earthquake (of "only" 6.8 on the Richter scale) struck the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant (8.2 GW) , which is just the same height but in Fukushima west coast, causing it to stop automatically. At that time, the plant was stopped 12 months in which production was replaced primarily from fueóleo generation (71% fuel, 21% gas, 8% coal).

What can happen in the present case, assuming periods of similar nuclear power cut in the previous case? Well, according to consultancy WoodMackenzie energy, and taking into account that energy to replace would be 50% higher, most likely this would be done through increased gas production (about 18 million cubic meters a day more) and fuel (about 110 000 bbl / d), but also with coal (40% fuel, 40% gas, 20% coal).

The estimate warns us of something that seems obvious to many people: the replacement of the lost energy is not performed, at least in the short term by renewables, but fossil sources of elevated CO 2 .

a positive note against earthquake of 2007 is the estimate given more weight to natural gas compared to fuel the "mix of substitution" today. The estimate seems well supported if we take into account that the earthquake and tsunami have beaten more severely the country's refining capacity, which in LNG regasification capacity: 6 are affected refineries, with that of Sendai (145 000 bl / d) which has suffered more damage.

According to preliminary estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA) was halted more than 30% of the country's refining capacity, although it is expected that only a short time is out of service 13%. Have also been seriously affected several northeastern ports, important for entry of goods, including oil, such as Hachinohe.

however, has only been affected Shinminato regasification terminal, one of the more than 20 that are operating in the country. In this context, the LNG is positioned as a key to replace the lost nuclear generation, at least in the short term. This can strain the world market prices for LNG, particularly in Europe, since it is likely a detour to Japan's international shipments of LNG in the coming months.

III .- In conclusion ...

Reality is stubborn, and when one (usually also concerned about Climate Change) calls for the abandonment of nuclear power in a country like Japan, you have to understand what you are asking and what is possibly going to then passed, at least in the short to medium term.

longer term, much will depend on the evolution that has been termed "nuclear debate" around the world. But this will be another chapter, dear reader ...

(Sources: IEA, Thompson Reuters, WoodMackenzie)

Whistler End Of Ski Season 2010

Fukushima I (1 ª part): 50 brave and 500 demagogues

... because the 50 technicians struggle day after day to control a situation of extreme gravity, in Europe and elsewhere our politicians, with Merkel at the helm, engaged in demagoguery to the issue of nuclear power plants. We know what moves to Merkel: the next election. So closes 3 nuclear power plants for 3 months in an attempt (¡!), (I understand that vain) to carry off a handful of votes uninformed.

For once it is recognized that Zapatero's reaction has been sensible and measured, which is surprising given the profile of the character.

And while Europe generated a debate that is absurd to suggest at this time, in Japan our 50 brave face an unprecedented event, possibly something unthinkable until recently: the simultaneous catastrophic failure 4 reactors at once, in a devastated environment that barely electricity.

are nothing useful nor the interventions of some nuclear experts these days trying to make believe that it is not so serious and the situation is more or less controlled. I insist that the loss of cooling of 4 reactors at the same time, failure of all redundant safety systems (in the nuclear outweigh that of other industries), is something we've never had to face, and therefore it must be concluded that the situation is grave and its possible outcome still very uncertain.

That does not mean that we are facing another Chernobyl, as one hears. The Japanese plant is modern in design, structure withstood remarkably well the greatest earthquake in history, the characteristics of negative reactivity of the reactor allowed to stop the fission reaction well, the vessel and the containment building fulfill its role in a first time (it still met, though with greater difficulty) and protocols for the disposal of the population are being met with diligence.

But as is necessary to explain to the general public, even without nuclear chain reaction within the nuclear fuel still occurring radioactive decay reactions that generate much heat, so it is necessary to refrigerate. When power fails, the coolant pumps which have to introduce the diesel self feed prepared for that purpose and the big problem, the real problem Fukushima I on which there will be time to think, is that these engines were destroyed by the tsunami. Yes, they were protected by a wall antitsunamis, but clearly this was not enough. The question of whether the Probabilistic Safety Analysis of the plant was properly made, it makes sense. But it makes sense to raise it now, and compare the situation in Japan with the European Central? In my opinion, no.

is a matter of priorities: what Japan needs now is help, all technical and financial assistance you need, because the situation is hopeless (water spraying from helicopters showed how desperate, as their effectiveness is ridiculous except perhaps for the spent fuel pools and only to gain time). Because if the core melts (fuel elements begin to "melt", bend and mix with the structural elements), will form an amalgam and radioactive metal at the bottom of the vessel that in that moment becomes unmanageable: the best you can cool the surface, but not within it, that if the temperature continues to rise release potentially explosive gases.

Of course, the plant is finished, the problem is that subsequent monitoring of a molten core leaves us few options other than confinement in some sort of enclosure to be built around him, and that construction will be extremely difficult and the personnel in charge of her work in a high radiation area which I have not clear how they will be protected.

But that comes later. It is now essential to try to avoid it. And then come the hour of questions, review protocols and how that will influence the future of the nuclear industry. But this, for the next entry.

bloggers