Tag: nuclear

Posted on

Fukushima Commemoration

The date of 2021-3-11 is marked by an event that according to science should not have been realistically expected by anybody. The probability of a meltdown of a nuclear reactor due to an earthquake and tsunami in Fukushima were simply beyond a “normal” statistical probability. And yet, it did happen. The consequences are still visible and the nuclear waste has to be dumped somewhere and lots of contaminated water has to be dealt with as well. 90.000 persons had to evacuate the area. Many of them have no interest in returning to the devastated area. Moreover, the psychological damage to the perceived security causes continuous trauma. The psychiatrist Ryoji Arizuka, interviewed for the French newspaper Liberation, reports that victims find it easier to cope with the “natural disasters” of the exceptional earthquake (9.0 on Richter scale) and the tsunami than with the man-made disaster of the meltdown of the nuclear reactor. Whereas the former disasters can be attributed to external forces, the latter example of a the explosion of the reactor is due to a failure to estimate the risk (technical, human and political) of an explosion properly by engineers and subsequently by politicians.
The commemoration of Fukushima by its governor Masao Uchibori in 2026 is a reminder that more risky technological progress comes potentially with higher costs to society as well. These “risks for societies” will have to carried by some selected regions. Solidarity with people who carry disproportionate amounts of risk should be “addressed” right from the beginning of the decision to use a risky technology, as an attempt to “internalise” the likely costs to society, eventually. Perceived cheap technology turns out to be very costly using different probabilities of associated even unlikely risks. (Image: Global stone project). 

Posted on

Dysprosium 66

Dysprosium figures as Nr. 66 in the periodic table (short: Dy). This metal was given this Greek name, which translates to “hard to get”. Although more common than gold on earth, Dysprosium is part of the so-called rare earths on earth. Since it is very temperature resistant before becoming fluid and at the same time having good isolation properties, for example against radiation in combination with lead, the nuclear energy industry has a definite use case.
Additionally, wind turbines, electric vehicles and some smart phones use these characteristics of the metal only known to us since the late 19th century.
The major exploitation happens in China and, therefore, the recent tariffs have complicated the trading. Prices tend to rise and products that contain Dysprosium are likely to become more expensive. However, there is the other side of the coin, which means recycling and reuse of Dysprosium is also more interesting to companies. Hence, the price increase will likely enhance circularity of the metal from obsolete products into newer ones. In this respect it is good news that smartphones receive longer updates of their operating systems and security as of 2025-6-20 in the EU. This will also reduce the amount of rare earths needed in the production of the rapidly changing technical specifications of smart phones and tablets. Repairing the devices makes more economic sense before “programmed” obsolescence.
(Image: extract from Willem van der Vliet (attributed), The money counter. early 17th century, Brussels MRBAB).

Posted on

Nuclear War

In the last few years we have witnessed a new surge in the investment in nuclear energy on the global level (IEA). Ever since the foundation of the initiative “International physicians for the prevention of nuclear war” in the 1980s, there have been relentless reminders of the devastating effects of such a war. In 2023 we are all aware of the real risk of attacks on the biggest nuclear power plant located in Ukraine. Nevertheless we continue to invest heavily in power plants that constitute a massive risk at times of war between irresponsible nations. Besides the publication of many high quality papers in The Lancet there is regularly space to keep the awareness of the dangers of nuclear war at a high level. Too many politicians shield themselves from dealing with such realistic dangers in the interest of supposed cheap and save energy for all. Both is no longer the case. Nuclear energy is expensive and unsafe in peace and horrible in war times. We cannot afford to abstract from these rising risks. The hype about anything nuclear like in the 1980s is grossly displaced (image of book below).

Posted on

Fukushima

Ein Bericht über die Explosionen von 2 Blöcken des Kernkraftwerks Fukushima lassen uns Menschen ziemlich dumm aussehen. Wir glauben, alle möglichen katastrophalen Ereignisse vorhersehen zu können und werden doch wieder des besseren belehrt. In der Buchserie der Presses Universitaires de France (PUF) erschien in 2022 “Un récit de Fukushima” in dem der Direktor des Atomkraftwerkes vor der Untersuchungskommission berichtet, wie genau die verschiedenen Ereignisse Erdbeben und Tsunami mit der Verkettung von offensichtlichen menschlichen Fehlentscheidungen einhergingen. Planungsfehler, wie zu tief liegende Notstromaggregate, da rasch überflutet, sowie Kosteneinsparungen bei Vorsorge gegen als unrealistisch eingestufte Risiken (so starkes Erdbeben, Tsunami) haben die Katastrophe ermöglicht. Nach Tschernobyl haben wir nun Saporischschja fürchten gelernt. Das Atomkraftwerk Mykolajiw steht wohl als nächster Schrecken auf der Liste. Neben Planungsfehler, Kostensparen und menschlichem Versagen kommt nun die Gefahr von Nuklearkatastropen auf die Liste des Kriegsarsenals. Nicht als Bombe, wie wir bisher annahmen, sondern als nicht schützbare Infrastruktur, die kaum zu verstecken ist. Der nächste Tabubruch ist realistischer geworden. Die Kosten für Abwehrraketensysteme neben jedem Atomkraftwerk wohl etwas teuer und eventuell ineffizient. Wer befasst sich mit derartigen verbotenen Gedanken? Die Schrecken des 21.-ten Jahrhundert könnten sich als noch schlimmer gestalten als wir zu denken wagten. Atomkraft: die Geister, die ich rief, ich werd’ sie nicht mehr los.
Also eine dezentrale Energieversorgung durch Wind und Solar mit 100.000-den von kleinen Anlagen, in Gärten und auf Dächern erscheint als realisierbarer Lösungsansatz. Warum sagt das kaum eine/r? “Everyday for future” its easy. Mehr grüne Energie für Frieden = Greenpeace mal anders.

Posted on

Fukushima, Nuclear Waste and Fusion

7 years on from the Fukushima disaster promising research from a team including Physics Professor Thomas Heine reports that Cu(I)-MFU-4l is a material that “could significantly enhance our ability to treat radioactive waste”. The original paper appeared recently in Nature Communications LINK .

3He and tritium which are used as fuel in fusion reactor technology are produced at the same time. The battle about the energy provision of the future is still on. My teaching and research on “Society and Technology” takes on such challenges. The “Open Society” needs “open science and technology” to advance on major challenges. Open access is also part of this process. This is surely a nice additional topic for the University Study Course “Society and Technology” Thomas Heine and myself taught when we were both at Jacobs Universtiy Bremen.