Japanese Nuclear Problems

Here’s an overview of the nuclear power crisis in Japan. History will probably overtake this post within a day, but I thought people might like a general picture of the problems.

The worst hit plant is Fukushima Dai-ichi, located about 180 miles north of Tokyo on the east coast of Japan’s main island of Honshu. It is a set of six boiling water reactors, meaning that the water heated by the nuclear reaction is not pressurized, so it boils. This is an important point, which I will get to later.

Three of the six reactors were operating at the time the earthquake hit. They all immediately shut down. That means that a number of rods were dropped into each reactor core, these rods absorbing radiation and stopping the reaction. The problem is that the cores of these reactors don’t immediately cool down, so the cooling water needs to circulate through them for another week. During a normal shutdown the cooling water pumps run on electricity from the utility grid. This being absent, the pumps are powered by diesel generators on site. In this case, the generators were swamped by the tsunami, so the pumps fell back on batteries, the problem being that the batteries can only power the pumps for 8 hours.

Adding to the problem, each reactor has a pool of water holding used fuel rods. These pools need to have water circulated through them to keep the spent rods cool, although to a lesser extent than the reactor cores. Some of these pools lack circulating water due to the multiple failures and are starting to boil off their water. The danger is that if the spent rods are exposed they could catch fire and spew radioactive particles into the air.

Already there have been releases of radiation. Units 1, 2, and 3 are all at risk, with the cores of all three having been exposed several times and partially melted. The pool on Unit #4 is at risk of exposure. Local residents have been evacuated, and even outside the evacuation zone people have been ordered to stay indoors.

Those explosions you may have seen on television were from hydrogen produced when steam reacted with the superheated casings of the nuclear fuel rods. The hydrogen vented out of the steel and concrete containment vessel and into the building around it. Usually any gas that gets vented into this building gets run through filters to remove radioactive particles and is then blown off, but the venting system was overwhelmed and the hydrogen built up and detonated. Now any radioactive gas that gets vented from those primary containment vessels goes directly into the atmosphere.

Japanese utility workers have been flooding the cores of reactors 1-3 with seawater in an attempt to keep the cores cool. Apparently they have also been mixing some boron containing compound into the water as well. Boron absorbs the neutrons that maintain a nuclear reaction, so this gives double duty, cooling and slowing the reaction at the same time.

There is presently a problem in the #2 reactor, in that the operators can't open the pressure relief valves. The pressure has built up to the point where they are unable to pump water into the core. Unless the valves open on their own, this can't end well.

Key concept: Flooding a boiling water reactor with seawater and boron is a permanent shut down. The Japanese authorities decided that the situation was bad enough to write off these reactors forever.

Second key concept: A small percentage of the fuel rods in reactor #3 are mixed oxide, or MOX, meaning that they contain plutonium as well as the usual uranium. This raises the probability of containment failure, because the plutonium helps to keep the reaction going and because it tends to create more gas when the core gets uncovered. It also poses a higher cancer risk than pure uranium.

Third key concept: These reactors are 40 years old, of a type called the General Electric Mark 1. There have always been questions about the probability of catastrophic failure with this design. This is, by the way, the same age and design as our own Entergy/Vermont Yankee plant in Vernon, as well as 22 other plants in the U.S.

A good site for ongoing information about the Fukushima plant, with excellent explanations of the technology, is at the Union of Concerned Scientists website.

On Being a Suit

A while back I wrote a piece about buying a formal business suit and the language of suits. I may have just experienced the consequences of that language barrier.

Periodically I have lunch with my friend the Broker. He is always dressed well, in the uniform of a financial advisor; a conservatively cut grey suit, white shirt and tie. (I should note that the only conservative thing about him is his suit.) I am dressed for whatever I happen to be doing that day. This often means jeans, a flannel shirt, a Johnson Wool work jacket, and work boots.

We often go to a good Chinese restaurant in Burlington, where the food is miles above your usual American/Chinese industrial fare. I never really consciously registered it before this, but the waitstaff have always been friendly and personable. I have worked in a restaurant kitchen myself, so I do my best to treat restaurant staff with respect and friendliness, and it comes back to me.

The other day I decided to dress the part for our lunch, since we would actually be discussing financial issues. I donned a Brooks Brothers suit (charcoal pinstripe), shined my formal black shoes, and put a neat knot in my tie. The Broker and I strode into the restaurant looking like serious financiers. The hostess approached us and – how to put it – ice crystals formed in the air in front of her. She was unfailingly polite, but it was as if we were wearing Klan robes. She never hinted at a smile in any of our interactions. Our waiter was solemn and deferential, and seemed nervous, as if we were about to attack him. The Broker and I were our usual cheerful selves, but all the good will hit a glass wall and slid to the floor. I had never experienced this kind of reaction at this restaurant, or any restaurant, for that matter.

I mentioned my impressions to the Broker later in an email and got this response:

Yeah, I felt the cold glare from that hostess. The Russian waiter seemed more like he was miscast in the wrong movie. After years of people sure they've got my number because of the suit, I get a certain sort of secret pleasure in brandishing it. I've found, ironically, that it can get the most negative reaction from those who most vehemently profess their liberal open-mindedness. Try it sometime, now that you are an initiate.

I guess we did look like bankers at a lunch meeting, cheerfully engineering the next financial collapse and how to extract our outrageous bonuses from it. Usually we look like a successful businessman and his not-so well off brother-in-law.

I related the story to a friend who is a manager at a non-profit. He told me about a workshop he had just attended which was about giving good presentations. The instructor noted that researchers had found that 60% of an audience’s impression of the speaker came from clothing and general appearance. Maybe 15% came from the actual content of the presentation. Bloviate how you will, but wear the right costume for the crowd.

Of course, this makes me wonder how many snap judgments I have inflicted on people based on clothing. Perhaps fewer than most people, given my own performance as a clothing chameleon. But still, most of our judgments happen before we have a chance to consciously register them. People who research these things find that we make emotional snap judgments and then quickly construct intellectual justifications for them post hoc.

I also wonder whether the clothes really did make the man. That is, did I subtly change my behavior because of the clothes I was wearing? Did I come across as arrogant or distant because I was unconsciously “brandishing” my suit?

Get dressed at your own risk.

Letting it Hang Out

I have just witnessed a few things that have struck me as hubris. In this case, it’s the hubris of the moneyed class that enjoys a parasitic relationship with the corporate species.

Here’s an article (There Goes the Fig Leaf) by Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, noting that the VP of the American Petroleum Institute has announced a new initiative of direct campaign donations to candidates. The key line: "At the end of the day, our mission is trying to influence the policy debate." The fig leaf in question was the near-transparent fiction that campaign contributions were designed to influence voters, not the decisions of members of congress. It was supposed to be about promoting a particular candidate, not particular results. So much for that. The executives of API are now willing to advertise that they are engaged in deliberate, continual, strategic bribery.

The attack on unions in Wisconsin is another lost fig leaf. Governor Walker has been justifying his anti-union bill on the grounds that there is a 130 million dollar state budget deficit. This, directly after promoting and passing legislation giving corporations various tax breaks totaling 140 million dollars. Wisconsin municipalities also lose $700 million a year in special-interest property tax exemptions, money that has to be made up out of state funds. You do the math. Done?

Add to that the not-quite-secret surprise in the bill: A provision would allow the state to sell off its heating plants to private companies without competitive bidding or any of the usual oversight. The probable beneficiaries would be the Koch brothers, billionaire supporters of far-right causes and major donors to Governor Walker’s reelection campaign. Did Walker and his crew think that nobody would read through the bill? Or was it just that they didn’t care if somebody read that part?

Look back at my last post, which was a brief about ditching that 100 billion dollar spending cut in favor of actually enforcing tax laws on millionaires. Enforcing the law to get $100 billion, as opposed to cutting heating assistance and the like, is a no-brainer. The problem is that it would force those big campaign donors to obey the law.

The final straw is a petulant little act by House Republicans – the return of plastic tableware in the House cafeteria. When the Democrats were in control of the House they switched the disposable cups, plates, and other utensils to biodegradeable materials. Not a huge deal, but a nice gesture. The GOP, under Boehner, has changed the rules and gone back to Styrofoam and other plastics. Really? It is a miniature version of Reagan stripping a perfectly functional solar hot water system off the White House back in 1980 – a petty mix of spite and symbolism.

The key to success for the corporate conservatives is to distract the voting public from the structural changes they are making while selling them a bucketful of irrelevant emotional narrative. They also get a lot of mileage out of personal attacks. It works because humans are naturally focused on personalities, tribal membership, and emotional stories.

Now imagine a magician so contemptuous of his audience and so convinced of his own powers that he stops trying to distract them from his semi-hidden moves. Imagine that he goes so far as to narrate the truth of his tricks: “Now I’ll slide the coin down my sleeve, and presto, it seems as if it appeared out of nowhere. Now you applaud.” That is roughly where we are right now. The corporate conservatives are walking around with the fronts of their trousers open, saying “What are ya gonna do about it?”

My hope is that, as in ancient Greek drama, hubris is followed by nemesis. I have some small amount of hope, because deception is the conservative movement’s only real armor. Back in the time of the old Soviet Union, Soviet citizens all knew that the official line was a lie, but they kept quiet to avoid a train ride to Siberia. Our present system is much more sophisticated. We are allowed to debate vigorously in public – within corporate-defined boundaries, or else on subjects that don’t concern the economic powers. We have all the window dressing and symbolism appropriate to a functional democracy. However, if the general public gets corporate naughty bits waved in their faces too often they might actually notice that they’ve been distracted. Witness the uprising in Wisconsin. And hope that it spreads. And help it spread. 

$100 billion, found

This one is going to be short.

The GOP controlled house just passed a budget (soon to be voted down by the Senate, if not vetoed by the White House) that cuts $60 billion in spending. The cuts include programs such as heating assistance for the poor. These cuts are down from the intended $100 billion.

Here's the alternative: Give the IRS the funding and the special mandate to go after millionaires who are hiding their assets in secret foreign accounts. These millionaire tax cheats are costing us - you guessed it - roughly $100 billion a year in lost tax revenue. That's billion with a b.

It won't be a tax hike, just the prosecution of criminals and collection of taxes due under present law.

You're welcome. Glad to be of service, Mr. Boehner.

Mubarak Reaches Sell-by Date

Being an aging dictator is a high risk proposition. Just look at the numbers.

Augusto Pinochet ruled  Chile 17 years till he reached age 74.

Ferdinand Marcos ruled the Phillipines 21 years till age 69.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled Iran 26 years till age 60.

Francisco Franco ruled Spain 36 years till age 83. (And he’s still dead)

If you look at Wikipedia’s list of longest ruling non-hereditary leaders you’ll find  that Fidel Castro tops the list at 49 years, followed by Chiang Kai-shek and Kim Il Sung at 47 and 45 years, respectively. After that the list quickly drops into the 30s, with most presidents-for-life not making it past 35.

Hosni Mubarak has ruled Egypt for 30 years and he is 83. That by itself puts the odds against him.

Damn. You get to your golden years, the Swiss bank accounts are brimming, you’re ready to hand the kleptocracy over to Junior, and a bunch of tweeting, instant-messaging, street-protesting Tunisians goes and sets a bad example for your own poverty-stricken serfs.

In case you have been living in a cave or have been on your honeymoon, the streets of Cairo are full of protesters, Mubarak’s national party headquarters building has been set on fire, police have disappeared from most of Cairo, and Mubarak has just fired his entire cabinet and appointed a vice president for the first time in 30 years. The Obama administration is making non-committal noises about peace, love, and reform, which must strike Mubarak as a betrayal. There is even a rumor going around that the U.S. government has been aware for a year that things were about to go pear-shaped for our ally.

The capper is that the Egyptian army seems to be slipping from Mubarak’s grasp. The protesters have been cheering the army as their comrades, and the army, in turn, hasn’t been shooting at the protesters. I found a telling piece of raw footage online that shows a three-way confrontation between police, protesters and a trio of armored personnel carriers. When the police fire their shotguns over the heads of the protesters the armored vehicles form a cordon between the two groups. Soldiers then gently herd the protesters behind the vehicles, apparently to protect them. There was a report of a tank officer telling the crowds that the army’s job is to protect Egypt and Egyptians, not a particular administration. That kind of behavior should put a twist in Mubarak’s guts. Mubarak and most of his ministers came from the army, and have been maintained by army support for the past three decades.

The question now is whether the upper level military officers are both able and willing to turn this around. I’m doubtful on both counts. The rank and file seem too chummy with the protestors. I’ll bet that Mubarak gets the word from the brass inside of a week, two at most. The military leadership will then say “We meant to do that all along” and see what they can salvage with a new government.

This is significant for several reasons. With Mubarak gone, Egypt is in play in terms of both government and allies. Will it be secular or theocratic? Probably secular, because that is what Egyptians are used to, but it’s not 100% certain. What is certain is that Egypt’s position towards Israel and the U.S. will shift. The average person in the streets of Cairo does not love Israel, despite long standing policy. As usual, the U.S. supported the cooperative dictator to the end. This will not endear us to the new government. And then there is the fact of an incident becoming a trend. First Tunisia, then Egypt, then perhaps Yemen? Ali Abdullah Saleh is 65 and has ruled Yemen for 32 years. He is seeing some Tunisia-inspired protests as well. King Abdullah of Jordan is responding to protests (inspired by Egypt) by subsidizing basic commodities and giving pay raises to the army and civil servants. There again, Israel must be getting nervous. Jordan borders Israel and is the only country in the region aside from Egypt that has normal relations with them. Algeria’s military-appointed government is seeing unrest, and if that succeeds we’ll be seeing another Islamic state.

Tunisia has done it and Egypt is probable. Yemeni’s are dirt poor and fed up, without much to lose at the moment. The protests in Jordan and Algeria are small so far, but when Mubarak goes they could get inspired. At the very least we are going to see some frantic appeasement by nervous Middle Eastern governments. I’ll be interested to see how far this will go.