Fukushima Daiichi: Pictures, Graphs & Information



[Graphics Courtesy Wash Post, Tepco]

Japan Ponders Nuclear Power: Probably Has No Choice

Japan's central government is reconsidering its policy on nuclear power, which calls for the construction of 14 new reactors by 2030.  People living in the coastal towns that host nuclear stations are also rethinking the dangers, with governors in at least three prefectures calling for drastic safety overhauls or freezing plans for more reactors.

Japan currently has 54 operating nuclear reactors with a total installed generating capacity of around 49 GW, making it the third-largest nuclear power generator in the world behind the United States and France. (EIA)

For Japanese towns, a move away from nuclear power would come at a cost. The towns receives plant-related subsidies that account for alsmost half of many of their annual budgets. Anytime a new reactor gets built, a town receives money from Tokyo. Towns use these subsidies to build roads, libraries, hospitals, schools and sports facilities.

Before the Fukushima plant’s partial meltdown clarified the hazards of nuclear power, many considered the plants to be completely safe.

Japanese utilities are now drafting new safety measures, particularly for plants sitting directly on ocean coasts.  These safety measures put the threat of tsunamis at the top of the list.  So utilities intend to move  backup generators to higher elevations as protection against tsunamis. They will secure extra cooling equipment. And they will build taller breakwater walls. (Wash Post, 4/14/2011)

Clean Energy Standard

President Barack Obama is promoting a Clean Erengy Standard (CES) that sets a goal of deriving 80% of the nation’s overall electricity generation from “clean energy” sources by 2035. On March 30, 2011 the President introduced an additional energy goal for the nation – a reduction of oil imports by one third within 10 years.

Introduction of Congressional legislation is pending.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) released a white paper on March 21 requesting broad public comment on the idea of developing such a standard. The paper poses 36 crucial questions that may ultimately decide the success or failure of CES legislation, including:

■ What energy sources should qualify as “clean”

■ What is the most appropriate timetable for implementing a standard

■ How would consumers be protected from burdensome rate increases

■ How much new transmission is needed to meet clean energy goals

■ How should transmission costs be allocated

■ What effect might s CES have on “current dispatch order of existing generation…which has been driven by minimization of consumer costs, historically.” (ISO Newswire, 4/11/2011)

EPA Clean Air Settlement with TVA

EPA Landmark Clean Air Act Settlement with TVA to Modernize Coal-Fired Power Plants and Promote Clean Energy Investments

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced a settlement with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at 11 of its coal-fired plants in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The settlement will require TVA to invest a TVA estimated $3 to $5 billion on new and upgraded state-of-the-art pollution controls that will prevent approximately 1,200 to 3,000 premature deaths, 2,000 heart attacks and 21,000 cases of asthma attacks each year, resulting in up to $27 billion in annual health benefits. TVA will also invest $350 million on clean energy projects that will reduce pollution, save energy and protect public health and the environment.

Once fully implemented, the pollution controls and other required actions will address 92 percent of TVA’s coal-fired power plant capacity, reducing emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) by 69 percent and sulfur dioxide (SO2) by 67 percent from TVA’s 2008 emissions levels. The settlement will also significantly reduce particulate matter and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Uncontrolled releases of harmful air pollution like sulfur dioxide from power plants can affect breathing and aggravate respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, especially in sensitive populations like children and the elderly.

Communities near TVA’s facilities will directly benefit from $350 million in environmental projects designed to reduce harmful air pollution and promote energy efficiency. These investments will advance environmental justice by reducing pollution in overburdened communities and reducing energy costs for low-income communities. TVA is required to spend $240 million on energy efficiency initiatives including a Smart Energy Communities project that will focus on energy efficiency in low-income communities. TVA will retrofit low-income housing with the most cost-effective energy efficiency technologies – reducing air pollution, energy use and saving residents money. TVA will also spend $40 million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through renewable projects such as hybrid electric charging stations and $8 million for a clean diesel and electric vehicle project for public transportation systems.

TVA will also provide $1 million to the National Park Service and the National Forest Service to improve, protect, or rehabilitate forest and park lands that have been impacted by emissions from TVA’s plants, including Mammoth Cave National Park and Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

TVA is an independent, corporate agency of the United States created as part of the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933, and is headquartered in Knoxville, Tenn. TVA operates 59 coal-fired boilers at 11 plants in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee and operates other energy production facilities, including hydroelectric plants. TVA also provides wholesale power to 155 municipal and cooperative power distributors and direct service to 56 large industrial and government customers, supplying power to approximately nine million people across Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and small portions of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.

The settlement also requires TVA to pay a civil penalty of $10 million, with Alabama and Kentucky receiving $500,000 each and Tennessee receiving $1 million. The states of Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina, and three non-governmental organizations, the National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and Our Children’s Earth Foundation, have been involved in development of this settlement and are signatories to a companion consent decree that will be lodged in federal district court in the Eastern District of Tennessee.

This is the 22nd Clean Air Act New Source Review settlement in the coal-fired power plants sector. Reducing air pollution from the largest sources of emissions, including coal-fired power plants, is one of EPA’s National Enforcement Initiatives for 2011-2013. The initiative continues EPA’s focus on improving compliance with the new source review provisions of the Clean Air Act among industries that have the potential to cause significant amounts of air pollution.

EPA is accepting public comments on this agreement for a 30-day period from the date notice of the agreement is published in the Federal Register. (EPA)

More information on this settlement

President Obama’s Framework for Deficit Reduction

The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity

and

Shared Fiscal Responsibility

FACT SHEET

"The Path To Prosperity"

Restoring America's Promise

Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution

House Committee On The Budget

Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin

http://www.budget.gop.gov/

Establishing Liability for Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster

The Deepwater Horizon spill began April 20, 2010 when the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded above a BP well (Macondo) being drilled in mile-deep water. Over three months, 4.1 million barrels gushed into the Gulf of Mexico.

The scientific effort to understand the spill's impact is one of the largest research projects of its kind ever. It is tackling questions of liability that might not be answered for years.  But scientists say it's far too soon to make definitive conclusions about the scale and scope of the marine disturbances. Scientists disagree about the scale of deep-sea damage. This uncertainty, which may not be resolved for years, is paving the way for the next phase of the Deepwater Horizon disaster: an intense debate over the actual damage caused by the spill and who, if anyone, should pay.

The government has named several companies in addition to BP as potentially liable for paying environmental damages. They include Transocean Ltd., which owned the drilling rig, and two owners of minority stakes in the well—Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and an arm of Japan's Mitsui & Co., MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC.

Click On Map To Enlarge

Federal law requires the U.S. government to document a spill's environmental damage—a process called a Natural Resource Damage Assessment—and requires companies found responsible to pay to fix the damage. If the government and the companies can't agree on a settlement, the fight can end up in court.

The long-term human toll is perhaps the hardest to gauge. The U.S. has launched a study to monitor 55,000 former cleanup workers for up to a decade, looking at everything from skin rashes to increased cancer risk. (WSJ, 4/13/2011)

Hitachi & Toshiba Submit Fukushima Decommisioning Plans

Center Recommending Sarcophagus

Hitachi Ltd. submitted a long-term plan to decommission the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant once plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. has successfully cooled the reactors and brought them under control. Hitachi submitted the proposal to Tepco on April 8, after compiling it with help from its nuclear business partner General Electric Co. and two other U.S. companies, Exelon Corporation and Bechtel Corporation. Hitachi estimates that such a process could take about 30 years to complete.

Hitachi's plan includes taking the fuel rods out of the reactors and spent fuel pools, cleaning all the highly contaminated facilities, taking care of nuclear waste and eventually dismantling the reactors and buildings. But where will they take the raddioactive materials?

Toshiba submitted a long-term plan for decommissioning the Fukushima plant to Tepco on April 4. The Japanese company, which drew up the plan with help from Babcock & Wilcox Company and Shaw Group Inc., said its proposal would take at least 10 years to complete.

The Center's plan would seal the site in one month. (WSJ, 4/13/2011)

Iran's Nuclear Program

Iran is proclaiming significant gains in its nuclear program.  They claim to have successfully tested advanced centrifuges for enriching uranium and are less than a month away from starting the country’s first commercial nuclear reactor.  The combined development of nuclear bomb making capability with the development of the Middle East's first commercial nuclear power plant has some countries concerned.  Put Israel at the top of that list.

The linkage does not help the commercial nuclear industry.  Nuclear weapons discussion is to the nuclear industry what saying 'bomb' in a security line is to the airline industry.  So Iran linking its nuclear weapons program to their commercial nuclear power plant is anathema to global expansion of the commercial nuclear industry.

Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant

Yet Iran notes the hypocrisy of the West in providing nuclear technology assistance to India, which is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).  Although Israel has nuclear weapons, they are not a signatory to the NPT either and they are not planning to build commercial nuclear power plants.  Iran is a signatory to the NPT.  Iran wonders why the West approves of India and Israel having nuclear weapons, but opposes Iran having nuclear weapons.  It might have something to do with Iranian leadership calling for the destruction of Israel.

Regardless of world opinion, Iran is preparing to speed up its production of enriched uranium. The apparent progress has prompted some experts to redraw their forecasts for how quickly the country could build an atomic arsenal if it chose to do so.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that, "Not only should we be able to use all our capacities and potentials in nuclear technology, we should also export nuclear know-how.” That would be a clear violation of the NPT in regards to nuclear weapons.  Such statements might also explain why the West opposes Iran's commercial nuclear power plant program, even as Iran is a signatory to the NPT.

Iran quietly notified U.N. inspectors in January that it was moving forward with plans to phase in hundreds of  sophisticated centrifuges — models dubbed IR-2M and IR-4 — at its main enrichment plant in the city of Natanz.

Fereydoun Abbasi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, has announced that Iran’s first commercial nuclear reactor, at Bushehr, will begin operating as soon as May 5 after technicians overcome problems with the reactor’s fuel. He disclosed the start of a new production line for uranium oxide, the material from which nuclear fuel rods are made.

Natanz has more than 8,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium, ostensibly for nuclear reactor fuel. But those machines have been notoriously unreliable and prone to attack. In late 2009 and early 2010, a computer worm known as Stuxnet penetrated the computer system at Natanz. Although the cyber attack appears to have damaged as many as 1,000 machines, Iran has moved quickly to replace broken equipment and has continued to process uranium at a steady pace.

Iran, which began enriching uranium on an industrial scale in 2007, is now thought to possess enough low-enriched fuel to make at least two bombs if the material were processed further. The country has consistently maintained that it does not intend to make nuclear weapons. (Wash Post, 4/11/2011)

Why Is Japanese Government Being Dumb About Fukushima?

The obsession over comparing the Fukushima Daiichi disaster to Chernobyl should not distract the Japanese government from following the Russian example of sealing the site.  The obsession over assigning a risk level to the facility should not distract the Japanese government from entombing the entire site.  Every day that the Japanese government allows radiation to be released from that site is a crime against Japan and an insult to other nations.  Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan should take our advice and insist that the Japanese begin operations to seal that site immediately.

The U.S. EPA has detected elevated levels of radiation in the United States.  That is completely unacceptable.  Seal the site.  Seal it now.

Japan’s nuclear agency belatedly raised the severity rating Level 5 on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES), indicating an “accident with off-site risk,” to Level 7, a “major accident” on a par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. A Level 7 accident, according to the INES scale, is typified by a “major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects.” The scale was established by the IAEA about 20 years ago, but its guidelines leave much room for interpretation.

The new rating follows a recent report by Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission estimating the total amount of radiation released by the facility. Since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, damaged reactors and spent fuel pools at Fukushima have released 370,000 terabecquerels of radiation into the environment, the commission reported. That’s 14 times less radioactivity than was released at Chernobyl. A becquerel is the measure of the radioactive decay of one unstable atom; a terabecquerel is a trillion becquerels.

Tepco, owner of the facility, and the Japanese government have been bamboozling the International Atomic Energy Agency into believing that conditions have been better than they actually are at the site.  Three massive hydrogen explosions at Daiichi reactor buildings should have been a major clue that the situation at Fukushima was completely out of control.  You don't have to be a nuclear physicist to come to this conclusion.  Seal the site.  Seal it now. The site cannot be salvaged.  (Wash Post, 4/13/2011)

FY 2011 Budget Cuts

The $38 billion in budgets cuts approved by Congress and signed by President Obama include:

THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The measure would cut about 15 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency budget, weakening a program that provides money to states to reduce water pollution. Lawmakers in the House had sought to remove as much as 30 percent of the agency’s $9 billion budget, which would have been the largest cut in 30 years. But under the final bill, the EPA can move forward with plans to regulate greenhouse gas pollution at major power plants and other sources, and to enforce pollution restrictions affecting the Chesapeake Bay.

The EPA's 2011 budget would be reduced by 15% from 2010 spending, taking it to $8.7 billion. The EPA's budget rose to $10.3 billion in the 2010 fiscal year, after years in which its funding hovered between $7.5 billion and $7.7 billion.

THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

The budget deal would not make cuts in an Energy Department program that provides loan guarantees to renewable energy, electric power transmission systems and biofuels projects that begin construction by Sept. 30, 2011.

The Energy Department would be given an appropriation of $170 million to cover the credit subsidy that was previously covered by fees charged to the recipients of the loan guarantees.

There would be other “minor cuts,” including $140 million in research and development on fossil energy -- an area where the administration had already proposed cuts for fiscal year 2012. The deal is expected to cut $16.5 million from programs developing technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants and $6.3 million from nuclear energy programs. Science programs are also expected to be cut by $15 million.

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

The Department of the Interior could soon be prohibited from enforcing rules that protect animals such as wolves. A plan to close millions of acres of western wilderness to development will likely be scrapped. A program that helps recover endangered species was slashed by $25 million, a 31 percent cut. And a wildlife grant that helps states manage at-risk species before they become endangered would be sliced by $28 million, also a 31 percent cut.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

The Women, Infants and Children program - which provides food and infant formula to low-income families- would receive $504 million less than it did last year. Funding to assist farmers and ranchers to develop conservation plans would be cut by more than $300 million. Rehabilitation programs for fragile watershed areas would be cut by $165 million and wetlands protection programs would lose $176 million.

Another $323 million would be cut from research programs that do everything from predict America’s consumption trends to develop alternative energy sources using agricultural by-products.

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

The Department of Transportation would see a $2.9 billion decrease in funding. A spokesman for the Federal Railroad Administration released the following statement:

Currently, the Federal Railroad Administration has $2 billion available for high-speed intercity passenger rail projects across America. The Obama Administration looks forward to working with states eager to build the foundation for a world-class rail network that will provide 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail in the next 25 years. In FY 2010, Congress appropriated $2.5 billion for High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail. The six-month CR contains $0 for high-speed rail in 2011 and rescinds $400 million of the funding appropriated for the program in FY 2010. As a result, there is currently $2 billion in high-speed rail funding available, down from the $2.4 billion previously available. Last week, 24 states, the District of Columbia and Amtrak submitted 98 applications with funding requests totaling more than $10 billion.

The budget measure contains no funding for high-speed rail in 2011, and would rescind $400 million from the $2.4 billion previously available in 2010 funding. Last week, 24 states, the District of Columbia and Amtrak submitted 98 applications with fundingrequests totaling more than $10 billion. (Wash Post, 4/12/2011, WSJ, 4/13/2011)

California Passes Bill For 1/3 of Energy From Renewables

Jerry Brown

California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation Tuesday requiring the state to obtain a third of its electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal power by 2020.  The California bill is the latest attempt by the state to bolster its clean-technology industry and improve the environment. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, signed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, required a reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020.

The Center is pursuing a biomass energy project in California.

California's three largest investor-owned utilities failed to achieve an earlier state target to garner 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by the end of 2010, hitting 18% instead, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.  The utilities avoided penalties because they had made a good faith effort. They entered into contracts to buy a sufficient quantity of green-generated electricity from independent suppliers but the suppliers couldn't generate enough power.

Two of the three biggest utilities said they backed the new law. The third, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., opposed the measure over restrictions on where utilities can obtain power, among other concerns.

Utilities won't be required to reach goals set by the new law no matter what the cost, said Democratic state Sen. Joe Simitian, who sponsored the measure. Utilities may be granted exemptions if renewable-energy prices, or the difficulty of moving it to the state's grid, make costs excessive. (WSJ, 4/13/2011)

Fukushima Disaster Raised to Maximum Level 7: Evacuees

Evacuees Wonder About The Future at Evacuation Centers

Japanese authorities have raised their rating of the severity of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear crisis to the highest level on an international scale, on a par with the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.  Officials with Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission reclassified the ongoing emergency from Level 5, an “accident with off-site risk,” to Level 7, a “major accident.” A Level 7 accident, according to the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale, is typified by a “major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects.”  Previously only Chernobyl had been given a 7 rating. The 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania was rated a Level 5 incident.

According to the Kyodo news agency, the Nuclear Safety Commission reported Monday that the plant, at one point after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, had been releasing 10,000 terabecquerels of radioactivity per hour. A release of tens of thousands of terabecquerels per hour corresponds with the leakage level that the IAEA uses as a minimum benchmark for a Level 7 accident.

The crisis has prompted the evacuation of tens of thousands within 19 miles of the plant. Some 150,000 Japanese now live in evacuation centers because their homes were destroyed by waves or contaminated by radiation. They live in unsanitary conditions and stress is mounting because evacuees are worried where they will live in the future. Most shelters now feature heat and running water and three good meals a day. Few evacuees have found other places to go.

According to statistics from Japan’s national police agency, the March 11 disaster collapsed 47,776 buildings. Another 11,030 partially collapsed. Some 84 burned down. Another 2,736 were flooded above floor level.

Combined, Japan’s hardest-hit prefectures — Miyagi, Iwate and Fukushima — have requested 60,000 prefab homes. Japan’s prefab construction association said it can build 30,000 within the next two months; the other 30,000 within the following three months. But for now, the construction association faces a problem: Local authorities still don’t know where to put the new buildings. So far, land for 8,000 has been secured. (Wash Post, 4/12/2011, Wash Post, 4/11/2011)

EPA & NRC Appear Before Senate Environment On Nukes

Full Committee and Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety joint hearing entitled, "Review of the Nuclear Emergency in Japan and Implications for the U.S.”

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

02:45 PM EDT

EPW Hearing Room - 406 Dirksen

Witnesses

Panel 1

Lisa Jackson

The Honorable Lisa Jackson - Statement

Administrator

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Gregory Jackzko

The Honorable Gregory B. Jaczko - Statement

Chairman

Nuclear Regulatory Commission




Panel 2

The Honorable Sam Blakeslee - Statement
State Senator
California’s 15th District

Mr. James D. Boyd - Statement
Vice Chair
California Energy Commission

Mr. Lewis D. Schiliro - Statement
Cabinet Secretary
Delaware Department of Safety & Homeland Security

Mr. Curtis Sommerhoff - Statement
Director
Miami-Dade County Department of Emergency Management

Mr. Charles G. Pardee - Statement
Chief Operating Officer
Exelon Generation

Dr. Thomas B. Cochran - Statement
Senior Scientist, Nuclear Program
Natural Resources Defense Council

House Votes To Bar EPA On Climate Regs But Senate Rejects

The House voted 255 to 172 on April 6 to end the Obama administration’s program to regulate industrial air emissions linked to climate change.  The measure would also nullify a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that gave the agency the authority to issue regulations to curb those emissions.

The Senate on April 5th came up 10 votes short of the 60 votes needed to avert a filibuster on a bill similar to the House legislation.

Forty-six Senate Republicans and four Democrats voted to support a GOP amendment blocking the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. One Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, sided with the remainder of the Democrats and the White House in opposing the amendment to the small-business bill that needed 60 votes to pass.

The Senate defeated four amendments that would have permanently or temporarily prevented the environmental agency from policing greenhouse gas emissions, including one measure that was virtually identical to the House bill. That amendment, sponsored by Senators Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, both Republicans, drew four Democratic votes but remained well short of a filibuster-proof majority.

President Obama threatened to veto any measure that would hinder the administration’s efforts to restrict emissions that scientists say are warming the atmosphere and leading to potentially devastating changes in the global climate. (NYT, 4/7/2011, Politico, 4/6/2011)

GE To Build Biggest Photovoltaic Panel Factory in USA

General Electric Compnay is planning to build the biggest photovoltaic-panel factory in the U.S. The plant will employ 400 people when it opens in 2013 and produce thin-film solar panels sufficient to generate 400 megawatts of electricity annually, or enough to power 80,000 homes a year.

SolarWorld AG of Germany currently operates the largest solar-panel manufacturing plant in the U.S., a Hillsboro, Oregon, facility that produces panels capable of generating about 350 megawatts annually. GE's panels will be based on a different technology.  (WSJ, 4/8/2011)

EPA's New Energy Star Standards for Light Fixtures

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced updated standards for light fixtures to qualify for the Energy Star label – an efficiency program that has saved consumers money on their energy bills while contributing to cleaner air and protecting people’s health since 1992. Effective October 1, 2011, to qualify for the Energy Star label light fixtures will need to increase efficiency 30 percent above currently qualified fluorescent-based fixtures. In 2013, performance requirements will increase further, providing 40 percent higher efficiency compared to currently qualified models.

Light fixtures that earn the Energy Star save consumers money on their energy bills and reduce the costs and hassle associated with bulb replacement. The bulbs in Energy Star qualified fixtures last at least 10 times longer than standard light bulbs. The fixtures will continue to meet other strict performance requirements that ensure quick start-up and high quality light output, as well as reduced toxics in the fixture materials. Additionally, the fixtures will come with a 3-year warranty, which is above the industry practice.

Consumers can expect to see a range of technology options qualifying under the new Energy Star requirements -- including fluorescent and LED lighting -- each held to the same high standard. In order to earn the Energy Star label under the new requirements, product performance must be certified by an EPA-recognized third-party, based on testing in an EPA-recognized laboratory. In addition, manufacturers of the products must participate in verification testing programs run by recognized certification bodies.

Energy Star was started by EPA in 1992 as a market-based partnership to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency. Today, the Energy Star label can be found on more than 60 different kinds of products as well as new homes and commercial and industrial buildings that meet strict energy-efficiency specifications set by EPA. Last year alone, Americans, with the help of Energy Star, saved $18 billion on their energy bills while reducing greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 33 million vehicles. (EPA)

More information on light fixtures

More information about the Energy Star program

EPA Ongoing Monitoring of Fukushima Daiichi Radiation in USA

As a result of the incident with the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, several EPA air monitors have detected very low levels of radioactive material in the United States consistent with estimated releases from the damaged nuclear reactors. EPA has stepped up monitoring of precipitation, milk, and drinking water in response to the Fukushima events. The detections in air, precipitation, and milk were expected, and the levels detected have been far below levels of public-health concern.

Today, EPA released its latest RadNet results, which include the first results for drinking water. Drinking water samples from two locations, Boise, Idaho and Richland, Washington, showed trace amounts of Iodine-131 – about 0.2 picocuries per liter in each case. 
Earlier precipitation samples collected by EPA have shown trace amounts of radioactivity, so EPA has expected to find results such as these in some drinking water samples. Similar findings are to be expected in the coming weeks.

To see results from these samples, please visit:

Drinking Water Data

In addition, results of EPA’s precipitation sampling and air filter analyses continue to detect very low levels of radioactive material consistent with estimated releases from the damaged nuclear reactors. These detections were expected and the levels detected are far below levels of public-health concern. For the latest sample results please visit:

Latest air monitoring filter data

Latest milk sampling data

Latest precipitation sampling data

(EPA)

TEPCO & Japanese Government Stupid Over Fukushima

What Are They Doing?

And Why Are The So-Called 'Fukushima 50' Being Celebrated?

The Center is calling for the immediate entombing of the Fukushima Daiichi site.  We have called for a sarcophagusing of the site since the hydrogen explosion at the first reactor building.  What is Tepco trying to do by exposing workers to high levels of radiation?  To what end?  Are they trying to somehow salvage an unsalvagable site?  We find it disgusting that workers are being needlessly exposed to deadly levels of radiation for no good reason.  The western press is even trying to portray the workers as noble kamikazes. 

There is nothing noble about it.  Just as the kamikaze pilots were stupid for making such a needless sacrifice.  Fukushima is NOT Three Mile Island, which still operates to this day.  It is a dead site that will have a 12-mile dead zone around it forever.

Sarcophagus.  Now. 

The Chernobyl disaster resulted from a badly executed test, rather than a tsunami, which led to the explosion at Chernobyl. Open to the air, a graphite fire burned for 10 days, spewing huge amounts of radioactive material; at Fukushima, with a different type of reactor, graphite is not used as a moderator so such a graphite fire could not happen. However, radiation has gotten airborne from the Daiichi reactors and Tepco will dump thousands of tons of highly radioactive water into the ocean.  Damn.  But what else would you expect after spraying thousands of tons of water onto the site to try to cool it down?  Sometimes when engineers and scientists make these types of decisions in the service of big business and big government, it makes us wonder.  Amateurs just might do a better job.  If Tepco and the Japanese government do not know what to do, then put the Center in charge.  We will have a sufficient sarcophagus in place within a month, or sooner.

The Japanese government should enlist assistance from other nations to dump boron, sand, cement, concrete, steel, dirt, rubble and every other material needed to permanently seal that site.  This should be a military operation headed by the Japanese government that works around the clock to cover the site.  We will assume that a sarcophagus about 500 feet high should be sufficient to shield the site.  The U.S. EPA has detected radiation in the United States from that site.  Americans on the West Coast are taking iodine pills.  Maybe it is time for President Obama to insist that the Japanese should seal that site  because it is posing a threat to Americans.

The response to the Fukushima Daiichi disaster is making us angrier every day.  And until they install a sarcophagus, we will remain angry. We understand this aspect of Japanese culture that blindly adheres to big business and big government methodology -- for it is what has made their society great.  But at moments such as this, someone must step forward and hit the big boys over the head with a two-by-four.  Sarcophagus.  Now.  (Wash Post, 4/3/2011)

EPA Assists 32 Locales With Sustainable Community Planning

EPA Selects 32 Locations for Assistance with Sustainable Community Planning

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today named 32 communities in 26 states as the initial participants in the Sustainable Communities Building Blocks program. The communities will receive technical assistance during a day-long session that will help them achieve their sustainable planning goals. Sustainable planning helps safeguard the environment and spur economic development while also improving Americans’ health.

EPA selected the 32 communities from 354 applicants through a competitive process in consultation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). During a day-long session with EPA-funded, private-sector experts, participants will focus on a specific sustainability tool such as zoning code reviews, walkability assessments, or economic and fiscal health assessments. They will also learn about additional environmentally responsible, economically healthy development techniques and general sustainable community strategies.

Sustainable Communities Building Blocks is coordinated through the Partnership for Sustainable Communities, a joint effort between EPA, HUD, and DOT to coordinate federal actions on housing, transportation, and environmental protection. This interagency collaboration achieves efficient federal investments in infrastructure development, facilities, and services that meet multiple economic, environmental, and community objectives.

The selected communities are: Bemidji, Minn; Bluffton, S.C; Cambridge, Md; Chelmsford, Mass; Deerfield Beach, Fla; Dover, N.H; Erie County, N.Y; Essex, Conn; Fitchburg, Wis; Granville, Ohio; Helena, Mont; Hellertown, Pa; Jersey Shore, Pa; Kayenta Township, Ariz; Lincoln, Neb; McKinney, Texas; Muskegon, Mich; Nashville/Davidson, Tenn; Northampton, Mass; Oak Ridge, Tenn; Oklahoma City, Okla; Portland, Maine; St. Louis, Mo; Pike’s Peak Council of Governments, Colo; Ranson, W.Va; Reedsburg, Wis; Renton, Wash; Rockport, Texas; Shelburne, Vt; Spencer, N.C; Syracuse, N.Y; and Wichita, Kan.

More information on the Building Blocks program

More information on the Partnership for Sustainable Communities

EPA Monitors Find Radiation In USA Air and Rainwater

As a result of the incident with the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, several EPA air monitors have detected very low levels of radioactive material in the United States consistent with estimates from the damaged nuclear reactors. EPA says that these detections were expected and the levels detected.

Elevated levels of radioactive material in rainwater are a result of the nuclear incident after the events in Japan since radiation is known to travel in the atmosphere - precipitation samples collected by EPA in the states of California, Idaho and Minnesota have seen elevated levels of radiation.

In addition to iodine-131, EPA monitors have also identified trace amounts of other isotopes - - consistent with releases from the damaged Japanese nuclear reactors. (EPA)

Results from these precipitation samples

Wind Turbines: Direct Drive vs. Gearbox

Direct Drive

For years, wind turbine manufacturers have been searching for ways to make direct drive turbines competitive with gearbox turbines. Direct drive technology has been praised for its design, which is less complex than gearbox technology, leading to easier operations and maintenance. This appeal has made direct drive especially coveted for use in offshore wind developments. However, the stigma of a bigger price tag and a heftier machine had disqualified direct drive from being a major competitor in the wind turbine sector – until recently. In the last two years direct drive undergone a number of developments, including changes in direct drive magnets and generator arrangements, that have led to a lighter, more affordable direct drive model.

Gearbox

In traditional gearbox-operated wind turbines, the blades spin a shaft that is connected through a gearbox to the generator. The gearbox converts the turning speed of the blades—15 to 20 rotations per minute for a 1 MW turbine—into about 1,800 rotations per minute that the generator needs to generate electricity.  The multiple wheels and bearings in a gearbox suffer tremendous stress because of wind turbulence and any defect in a single component can bring the turbine to a halt. This makes the gearbox the highest-maintenance part of a turbine. Gearboxes in offshore turbines, which face faster wind speeds, are even more vulnerable than those in onshore turbines.  Removing the gearbox from the wind turbine eliminates the technically most complicated part of the machine, therefore improving reliability. But the downside to using direct drive instead of a gearbox system has been twofold: cost and weight.

GE has incorporated a 6-meter diameter permanent magnet generator in its 4 MW direct drive units. The two main bearings transfer axial and bending loads from the rotor to the bedplate for a higher reliability than the previous generator.

Siemens has also made a change in regards to the generator. In the past, direct-drive machine rotors have been located inside the system. Siemens is now inverting the machine so the rotor is on the outside.  As a benchmark, Siemens plans to release its 6 MW direct-drive prototype later this year, which will be one of the largest permanent magnet machines ever built. It could be a game-changing machine when it becomes available in bulk numbers four to five years from now. The 6 MW machine is expected to be popular with offshore wind farms due to its robustness and lower-maintenance requirements.

The direct drive machines were designed for a 20-year lifespan and to be serviced twice a year, most older models are serviced annually. (Power Gen Worldwide, 3/1/2011)

Center Promotes Proposed Biomass Plant in Sacramento

Center President Norris McDonald and Center consultant John McCormick traveled to Sacarmento to brief legislators and agency representatives on the proposed biomass plant on Catalina Island.  The Center, through its subsidiary Green Electric, is seeking to fuel its plant with wood from wildfire areas on the mainland of California, which will simultaneously mitigate wildfires.  This renewable energy project fits very well with California's Renewable Fuels Standard, global warming mitigation goals, Biomass Action Plan 2011 and its ongoing air pollution reduction goals.

The Center representatives were in Sacramento from March 28th - March 29th and met with Assemblymember Sandre Swanson, representatives from the California Energy Commission, staff at the California Environmental Protection Agency (Air Resources Board), a deputy commissioner at the California Department of Insurance and the State Geologist at the California Geological Survey. The meetings were very productive and informative.  The Center briefed them on the Green Electric Biomass Project and the discussions highlighted the need for additional biomass electricity production in the State of California.

Catalina Island Scoping Visit 1