Japan’s plan to dump nuclear waste into the pacific ocean may not be safe
civilbeat.org
civilbeat.org
Edit: spelling of tritium
Exactly. And if the quantities Japan are talking about are correct (860 TBq / trillion becquerels), this is a huge fuss about nothing. France's La Hague nuclear reprocessing facility discharges many times more tritium than that into the English Channel every single year as part of it's normal operations!
https://www.greenpeace.org/static/planet4-japan-stateless/20...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/fukushima-reac...
> In addition to high levels of hazardous radionuclides such as strontium-90, TEPCO on 27 August 2020 acknowledged for the first time the presence of high levels of carbon-14 in the contaminated tank water
> Greenpeace said it had confirmed with Tepco that the system was not designed to remove carbon-14
Maybe there are updates on this matter but I couldn't find anything online.
"C-14 also cannot be removed by ALPS, but its concentration is far lower than its regulatory standard for discharge."
Source: https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/decommissi...
This is a complete non-issue.
You don't dive into this in a single sentence, but I do want to raise the point that fossil fuels, while they are bad are better than the alternatives for many countries, especially developing ones. Let's consider some alternatives.
Wood and animal waste: for developing nations that need any energy they can get, they will burn these 2, which are massively worse than fossil fuels, and no where near as energy dense.
Coal: massive step up from the above. Yes it burns dirty, but there are capture methods to make coal cleaner.
Natural gas: one of the best out there. Low emissions and again, energy dense. Turned into LNG, it's easy to transport and use elsewhere.
Nothing... This is the point that I think lots of people miss. Having access to energy dense materials like coal or LNG are a major factor in bring developing nation people out of poverty. Not having these "dirty" energy sources that kill some is way worse than not having it at all (more people will die without the energy).
People need to be reasonable and realize that rich nations can go nuclear and renewable, but we still need to allow developing nations to have access to the others, even encourage it. That means first world nations need to produce more LNG and supply it wherever possible. Sadly many want to stop all fossil fuel production.
Also known as biomass. These are a renewable resource and massively better than fossil fuels when it comes to climate change. Obviously you need to ensure they are burnt in a controlled environment (not dumping smoke into people's kitchens, for example), but in the right circumstances they are vastly preferable to coal and gas.
Developing countries need not repeat the same mistakes as the developed world. We have better technology and far more options now.
Once you factor in all the processing of certain biomass, specifically I recall a European nation, the UK perhaps, was burning wood product. Wood is significantly less energy dense than coal for instance... If your workers are driving to and from work, if you're cutting it down with two stroke chainsaws, loading it into trucks, packing it into trains... I think these factors were all removed from calculations to conclude it's "carbon neutral".
And for some reason, probably wrongly, I'd like to imagine leaving the trees up is more beneficial (even if the fuel is a byproduct of industry), but I can imagine during a tree's lifecycle there's a "peak sequestration" age/size they're maybe targeting.
UK biomass is estimated to have a total-lifecycle carbon footprint of 230g CO2 per kWh. This is much worse than wind, solar, or nuclear. But still a very significant improvement on burning coal and natural gas! Compared to coal, it's about a 4x improvement.
And won't they decay, releasing the CO2, anyway? IIRC, I think I heard decay referred to as "slow fire."
The only bad aspect of biomass fuel that I can think of is that people might be tempted to cut down established forests to get it.
Let's not forget the simple logistical difficulty of using biomass. It is not as energy dense, which makes moving its own weight around more expensive too.
"The net energy ratio between energy output and input was 10.41.. Energy used for hauling hog fuel represented the largest part (36.27%) of the total energy input. The net energy ratio decreased 0.11 with each additional transportation mile
the net energy ratios reported here were on the high end of this range as energy input for possible active drying, storage, and final delivery was not included. " [0]
"The energy content was taken at 137,000 BTUs per gallon for diesel, and 125,000 BTUs per gallon for gasoline (Adams 1983)...
output: the mean HHV ranged from 8,946 to 9,105 BTUs/pound " [0]
A gallon weighs about 6 pounds, so it seems like pound-for-pound (pine-tree) biomass is less than half as productive as gasoline.*
Honestly, I was expecting worse. But over doubling energy costs isn't negligible, especially for poorer countries.
*this is at a glance work, not an actual deep dive
[0] Net energy output from harvesting small-diameter trees using a mechanized system Fei Pan Han-Sup Han Leonard R. Johnson
FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNAL VOL. 58, NO. 1/2 William J. Elliot
They can only do so if we help them. Providing the technology FOR FREE.
Human race is slowly outgrowing the concept of money. Current system does not fit into the future we have ahead of us. And quite a bit of high profile ppl see that and are afraid of losing power.
When you burn non-renewables, i.e. stuff dug up from the ground, you're adding pollution into the atmosphere.
Pollution that changes the climate.
Per BTU heat output, natural gas outputs more than half as much CO2 (about 60%) compared to coal. That's not "low emissions" by any stretch.
Plus, the entire natural gas distribution system is leaky to an extent that is not fully understood yet. Recent reports suggest it is very leaky. Leaking...methane, which is 80-200x worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Uranium has been extracted from seawater before. It's not economically practical, but it can be done, because seawater has uranium in it already. Tritium is also already in there.
Issues of concentration at the point where it is put into the ocean can be an issue, but once dispersed this won't turn the pristine, 0.0000000...% radioactive ocean into a radioactive hellscape, it represents an impercetible percentage increase of what is already there. That doesn't mean we shouldn't think about the implications, but "thinking about the implications" shouldn't start from incorrect understandings of the nature of the current world.
Earth is an amazing environment. It does an incredible job of giving us a low-radiation environment, compared to most of the rest of the universe which ranges from "dangerous" to "radioactive wasteland". But it's not perfect and we are not at a flat 0 even here.
And here is a good example of this in action. The optimal way to connect a nuclear power station to the grid is with a big overhead power line. Except that you would have to build it in a scenic area. Millions of people have a heuristic that make them believe thag powerlines damage the environment. There is no scientific basis for that. But you put the cable underground anyway at huge expense. The objective is to generate electricity, not deploy an absolutely optimal solution. And a piece of infrastructure built in the world has hundreds of issues like that. The only solution we have to that is politics.
Personally I don't disagree that nuclear is probably needed at least short term, but it's not a a reason to ignore or deny the problems it causes, some of them are hard to solve, and probably some also even hard to anticipate.
> In the 10 years since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident, public trust in the government and the power company has suffered. As the decommissioning process will last at least another 30 years or more, the Japanese government should reconsider how it makes decisions about decommissioning and reconstruction. Public concern related to the government’s recent announcement that it will release treated water into the sea is the tip of iceberg. It is the responsibility of the Japanese government and nuclear industry to manage this process successfully on behalf of all citizens of Japan and the world. The accident is not over yet."
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/whats-wrong-with-japans-anti...
Also, the ad hominem attack on people wasting their time on this kind of study is really weak. We should want proper reviews of all large scale industrial processes that release into the ocean. That does not preclude nuclear power.
Would that be like saying "carbon dioxide is already present in the atmosphere"?
There is sure a lot of water in the ocean, but it's still possible to poison stuff locally, wherever you drop the stuff is going to have higher concentration, at least for a short while.
>The process for releasing typically dilutes to a standard level before releasing into the ocean/ other water way. So when it's released, it's already at a level you could swim in (drink?), there's no process for it accumulating into a more concentrated form in the ocean, and it has a half-life of 12 years.
The future is bright whether you see it or not. Take a vacation, find a less stressful job, start enjoying life.
Definitely not. There's a good argument to be made nuclear power in the 'global North' is relatively safe today. At the same time you will be hard pressed to find evidence that nuclear power was safe in the past or is safe today in politically unstable environments.
First of all, that isn't the same claim the post above to you was making. Second, [1]here's a chart showing the cleanest and safest power sources, backing up the claim made in the comment above yours. Nuclear is cleanest, and on safety it's close but falls behind the renewables (still 2-3 orders of magnitude safer than the fossil fuel sources).
Here's a different metric that entails both: Market price to ensure a nuclear power plant against damages. Why are they so high as to make nuclear power creation uneconomical? A market inefficiency?
It's very hard to explain away. So my point is: It's not black and white unfortunately, and it's both a technological and societal effort to make nuclear power safe.
Yes. The nonrenewable energies (coal, natgas, oil) in my source are constantly emitting carbon dioxide, an unpriced negative externality. This cost is entirely socialized - insurers don't pay for it, producers and users don't pay for it - it's largely being shifted to future residents of planet earth, with a small fraction of the cost starting to be felt now, and paid by government (emergency relief). Has both high cost and high (100%) risk. Insurers don't take on any of this. Compare that with nuclear, where the negative impact is risk of meltdown - high cost but low risk - and insurers are the ones taking it on.
There are two explanations I can think of:
> Compare that with nuclear, where the negative impact is risk of meltdown - high cost but low risk - and insurers are the ones taking it on.
This may be one reason. The risk of a 'meltdown' is actually so high cost but very low risk, that the corresponding distribution has no first moment. The 'expected cost' is infinite. I've heard folks use it as a real-world example of a Cauchy-type distribution, for more info see [1].
Another explanation might be that there is some sort of recency bias. But that would mean the cost was estimated correctly for the past - which is not what you would want to hear either.
You make a good point that externalities for fossil fuels are not priced in either, but that doesn't explain the phenomenon here. And I'm not arguing for or against the use of nuclear power - societies have already agreed to socialise the cost. I'm pointing out it's not as black and white ("nuclear power is and has always been safe") as some HN commenters may think.
But that's unrelated to the insurance cost of nuclear power. Either 'the market' (i.e. the people most knowledgeable to pricing the risk) are off or HN commentators don't see the whole picture?
I'm just pointing out nuclear power is no blanket solution to climate change (it may well be part of the solution), and that there are non-negligible risks that we have to consider as societies (and different societies already are dealing with the risk differently). For some reason HN tends to be a bit defensive when that is pointed out.
This line of thinking is what brought about our current environmental clamities. Everybody says: Look, what I am doing to the environemnt is just a tiny, tiny bit of what others are doing. The end result is a massive destruction of the ecosphere. Every dumping of waste into the ocean is a liablity.
> the safest and cleanest way to produce electricity.
Only if you hand pick studies in favour of your opinion. The wast will be around until the end of humanity. No one really knows whether the optimists, who want to store it away "forever", will succeed. If not, ...
The problem by elevating the seriousness of flushing a toilet, is that it dilutes more severe cases where one could do an actual impact.
To get back to the original issue: the OP told us that the dumping of Tritium does less harm than other discharge and thus we should look elsewhere for improvements. As I understand this sentence, he means we should not worry about it at all. This is out of proportion: he could have claimed that we should worry less about it, but it does not follow, that we should totally ignore it.
(granted I don't know where the 760 TBq figure came from either, I'm just trying to get some clarity)
As far as I can figure out it probably does not.
If the title had said "a million tons of tritium" it would be wrong, but it didn't.
The legal limit for tritium emissions for a nuclear plant in the US is a total of 0.2kg per year according to NRC. A metric ton is 1000kg. In order to get a million tons you would need 5x10^9 nuclear plants all releasing their maximum amount of tritium. If the amount would then be as diluted as in the article, ie 860,000 tons water for every 2.1 gram, you would then need 4*10^18 tons of water. There isn't enough water on earth to do so.
The article's title makes it sound like they're just going to dump the Elephant Foot directly into the pacific. It's clearly a sensationalistic anti-nuclear title edit.
It’s one of the least dangerous radioisotopes out there, so I’m not particularly fussed, but it is incorrect to say water can’t be radioactive.
To start, seawater has more things than water. Both Hydrogen and Oxygen have isotopes that can decay and emit radioactivity, so yes, water can definitely be radioactive, by definition. For a relatively short time because is not plutonium of course, but it can be.
And, unlike Plutonium, the problem is that life beings are mostly made of water and we didn't coevolved with a such rare element as tritium is in nature. Water is freely allowed to enter and travel and has granted access to every part of the human body. We trade a big danger for other, but this does not mean that radioactive water can't harm us.
"Is not a danger" here means "we don't know and, as long as liability is impossible to be traced back to us, we don't care".
http://thedailychrenk.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/simptox...
The entire pdf is a worthy read.
It usually would fall in conspiracy theory territory, expect TEPCO did bullshit their facts and numbers at several critical occasions already, and the gov stays in lockstep with TEPCO.
[0] https://www.greenpeace.org/japan/sustainable/story/2019/07/2...
https://thebulletin.org/2021/05/whats-wrong-with-japans-anti...
The issue is not so much tritium, but rather that claims of removal of some 60+ other radionuclides (products of fission of uranium) to below regulatory standards remain questionable.
> "TEPCO and the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry have acknowledged that more than 70 percent of the treated water at Fukushima contains 62 other nuclides that are higher than regulatory standards. Therefore, treated water may pose significant risks to the environment and public health and could damage Fukushima’s fishing and agricultural industry. The environmental, social, and economic impacts of releasing the treated water to the sea must be more carefully assessed."
Sounds a lot better than
760 trillion berequel of tritium in 1,000,000 tons of water.
I just copied the numbers I saw elsewhere in this thread.
Edit: Hey, look, somebody wrote a book with the latin thing I said as its title, whose contents I probably summarized the thesis of without even reading.
https://www.amazon.com/PAX-JAPONICA-Resurrection-Takeo-Harad...
I wouldn't rely on that alone. I'd say they are more clean than concerned about ecology. You don't see thrash in streets or in forests, that's true. But their recycling is almost non-existant, they burn almost all the waste. They use (thick) packaging in absurdly high amounts (to an european eye). They have fishery and whaling issues…
The prefectural governments did not publish the results and did nothing in response to these surveys. The participants who had donated hair samples were not informed of their result, even when they requested it”
We're relying on mostly the same people, minus the pragmatic ones who went to bluer skies, to now make trade-offs related to how much Japan's willing to pollute the surrounding seas relative to the economic and politic situation.
-
[0] https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/chiji/kaiken20180820.h...
1. Scientists: Japan’s Plan To Dump Nuclear Waste Into The Pacific Ocean May Not Be Safe
2. A panel of scientists has identified critical gaps in the data supporting the safe discharge of wastewater into the Pacific
3. Independent scientists are questioning Japan’s plans to dump just over 1 million tons of nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean, following a review of the available evidence
4. Last year Japan announced that wastewater from the Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, destroyed in March 2011 following the Tohoku Earthquake and tsunami, would be dropped into the Pacific in 2023
5. “So these are all the things we need to consider.” Confusing The Masses The Pacific Islands Forum convened its panel of experts – specializing in policy and different scientific disciplines – because of the highly technical nature of Japan’s plan
6. But panel scientist Robert Richmond, director of the University of Hawaii Kewalo Marine Laboratory, says the panel unanimously believes that critical gaps in information remain
7. Through phytoplankton, Richmond says, the radioactive element could then find its way into the greater food system as the microscopic plants are consumed by mollusks and small fish, which are later consumed by other fish and eventually humans
8. The IAEA is expected to deliver reports from its site visits in the next two months, according to its website, and would release a fully comprehensive report before any water is released
> Japan’s plans to dump just over 1 million tons of nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean
But it omits to say that this is actually extraordinarily diluted: we're talking about around 20 grams of pure tritiated water.
The radioactive core is moving and will eventually be in contact with the water. It may already be. Does anyone know?[1]
If a dump of water used for cooling is a concern (and it is for me personally and I am open to learning it is not), is our situation not far more grave given eventual contact with the water and this source multiplied by however many world water cycles of contact will occur over the crazy long half life that hot core has?
[1] I saw some discussion on this early on and struggle to find it and or current info I trust today. Hoping others here know more.
Tritium, the thing ONE of the scientists is concerned about, is an isotope of hydrogen. It's barely radioactive, and it has half life of about 12 years. You may know it as the stuff that illuminates watch faces and sights. It's used in many other industrial applications and as far as radioactive elements goes
If you read the actual article you may see it's classic fear mongering:
The panel of multi-disciplinary scientists, hired by the intergovernmental Pacific Islands Forum, has not found conclusive evidence that the discharge would be entirely safe, and one marine biologist fears contamination could affect the food system.
TL;DR: They couldn't say something could happen, so they said that they can't conclude nothing will happen. Which is exactly what everybody knew before. One of them said that something COULD happen, but he doesn't know how.
GP was probably referring to the low energy of the decay (18 keV per decay) which is much lower than other common radionuclides found in waste. For example, Cs-137 releases 600 keV per decay, and Sr-90 releases 576 keV followed by 2274 keV. Tritium is a much lower energy decay, per atom.
However, when made internal, as in food?
Though it might be nice to see Godzilla IRL... at least until he/she squishes you with gigantic irradiated feet.
If only fossil plants were required to pay for burying their waste deep underground. Then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
[1] https://www.nrc.gov/waste/decommissioning/finan-assur.html
[2] https://www.ocregister.com/2019/02/01/billions-pile-up-in-nu...
Just look up the amount of water in the Pacific and then divide into the amount of waste water being discussed - the ratio is insanely tiny and nearly unmeasurable. The biological effects are far smaller because of this ratio than if you kept it concentrated on land.
NHK WORLD PRIME Fukushima: The Curse of Groundwater https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/ondemand/video/3016120/
Side note, seems like this could be sold to some research labs, no? Seems like if you need tritium using this rather than ocean water would be a good thing.
But hey, they can just drain the water into the ocean right?!?!
They both seem to have a standard of zero risk without comparison to the alternatives. (Yes, there are adverse events with vaccines, and even with the risk of those adverse events, they do far more good than harm).
There is overwhelming evidence for safety, but they keep bringing up theoretical risks and point to events in the past (see issues with rotavirus vaccine) to spread FUD. Thins ends up hurting everyone.
Even if China allow them to dump the water into the Gobi desert, it'd still cost billions of dollar to build and operate the pipeline. It'd never happen.
"it could affect all the life that live there and consequently human life that feeds of it" is not supported by any science, it's just fear, the same fear that leads us to keep running coal power plants that kill people on a daily basis.
Potassium-40 in the oceans: 530 gigacuries.
Monks: opinion that requires authority