Between 75,000 and 175,000 Japanese citizens rallied in Tokyo yesterday to protest the restarting of idled nuclear plants. National Geographic describes the growing movement:

The first rally in March was modest: a few hundred citizens joined against nuclear power, marking the anniversary of the earthquake- and tsunami-triggered Fukushima Daiichi disaster a year earlier. But in recent weeks, since [Prime Minister Yoshihiko] Noda decided to restart two of Japan’s 54 idled nuclear reactors, the protest has swelled into a mass demonstration blocking the streets of Japan’s political center.

Building on their Friday night momentum, protestors on Monday staged their largest rally yet, with tens of thousands of people congregating at Yoyogi Park, and then marching in three groups through the capital.

Photo by mpeake.

A month ago, an independent commission placed blame for the Fukushima disaster on human error, noting that it “could and should have been foreseen and prevented.” The reactor that has been restarted is at the Ohi nuclear plant (adjacent to scenic Obama Bay).

Protestors… argue that safety is taking a back seat to economic considerations. The Ohi plant’s safety is based only on provisional standards; promised safety measures — higher sea walls, filters, and a quake-proof building — won’t be ready for many months. To address concerns of communities surrounding the Ohi plant, the evacuation zone in the event of an accident has been expanded to include neighboring prefectures, but there is still no accompanying evacuation plan. Residents worry an accident could contaminate the region’s largest freshwater source, Lake Biwa, and seismologists have warned that authorities failed to take into account active fault lines around Ohi, including one small fault that runs directly below one of the reactors.

Here’s a news report on yesterday’s protest from NHK World, the international arm of the Japan Broadcasting Corporation.

Japan’s Fukushima disaster was one of the worst nuclear accidents in history, rendering a large area of the country uninhabitable for the immediate future. The meltdown was triggered by last year’s earthquake and tsunami, but don’t go blaming nature, says the commission tasked with assessing the crisis. According to a new report, the tsunami may have been the least significant contributor to the disaster.

The earthquake and tsunami of March 11, 2011, were natural disasters of a scale that shocked the entire world. Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster — that could and should have been foreseen and prevented. And its effects could have been mitigated by a more effective human response.

These are the first words in the official report of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, the introduction to the message from the commission’s chair. Apparently he decided on the direct approach.

The report suggests a number of ways in which human error made a horrible situation much, much worse. Just a few of the excoriating lines:

The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. …

We conclude that TEPCO was too quick to cite the tsunami as the cause of the nuclear accident and deny that the earthquake caused any damage. …

Had there been a higher level of knowledge, training, and equipment inspection related to severe accidents, and had there been specific instructions given to the on-site workers concerning the state of emergency within the necessary time frame, a more effective accident response would have been possible. …

The Commission concludes that the situation continued to deteriorate because the crisis management system of the Kantei, the regulators and other responsible agencies did not function correctly.

Reading this, it becomes clear that Murphy’s Law is also in effect in Japan.

As mentioned in their critiques of TEPCO above, the commission suggests that the earthquake did more damage to the Fukushima reactors than has been understood. Given that fault lines are nearly ubiquitous in Japan (Fukushima was built near 14 of them), it’s hard to feel terribly confident that future disasters can be prevented. The New York Times notes precisely that:

 … by suggesting that the plant may have sustained extensive damage from the quake — a far more frequent occurrence in Japan — the report in effect casts doubts on the safety of Japan’s entire fleet of nuclear plants.

Especially worrisome given that last month, Japan restarted two of the reactors that had been taken offline after Fukushima.

The commission spelled out its concern over lax regulatory supervision, suggesting a complete overhaul.

The Commission has concluded that the safety of nuclear energy in Japan and the public cannot be assured unless the regulators go through an essential transformation process. The entire organization needs to be transformed, not as a formality but in a substantial way. Japan’s regulators need to shed the insular attitude of ignoring international safety standards and transform themselves into a globally trusted entity.

Yeah, we can see how a regulatory agency with an “attitude of ignoring international safety standards” might not be terribly effective. One thing is for sure:

Replacing people or changing the names of institutions will not solve the problems.

A mantra which can basically be applied to any situation where anything has gone wrong ever. Sometimes, it’s even heeded.

Sometimes the jokes write themselves.

Here’s the setup. Masataka Shimizu was the president of Tokyo Electric Power until last May. He was the head of the company when its Fukushima nuclear plant was crippled by last year’s earthquake and tsunami, and he led Tepco’s much-criticized response.

Last May, he resigned his position. So who hires a man whose leadership failures appear to have contributed to the irradiation of large areas of Japan? To a $26 billion drop in his company’s value?

And here’s the punchline. From a BBC report:

On Monday, Mr Shimizu starts his new role as an external board member at Fuji Oil Company.

Ah, yes. The oil industry.

Tepco and Fuji Oil Company’s parent, AOC Holdings (AOCHD), have a close relationship. Tepco is AOCHD’s biggest shareholder, with an 8.7% stake.

There is public anger that Mr Shimizu has a new job so soon after the Fukushima disaster.

Mr Shimizu’s new employer says the firm is keen “to use his profound experience in the energy sector,” but did not comment further on his role or his salary.

“Profound experience,” indeed.

On the other hand, Japan is also moving to become a solar power heavyweight. A boom in the country’s solar market may soon move it past Germany and Italy to be the second-largest in the world. Bloomberg reports:

Industry Minister Yukio Edano set today a premium price for solar electricity that’s about triple what industrial users now pay for conventional power. That may spur at least $9.6 billion in new installations with 3.2 gigawatts of capacity, Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecast. The total is about equal to the output of three atomic reactors. Solar stocks rallied.

In other words, the Japanese government set a higher price for solar-generated electricity in an effort to spur generation. In 2011, Japan got 1.6 percent of its energy from renewables and added 1.3 gigawatts of new solar. The addition of as much as 4.7 gigawatts this year would nearly double the country’s existing solar output — but still not produce enough to completely replace nuclear in its energy mixture.

But it might be enough to take those two reactors back offline.

The International Energy Agency recently issued its annual progress report [PDF] on clean energy. Here’s the five-cent version:

The transition to a low-carbon energy sector is affordable and represents tremendous business opportunities, but investor confidence remains low due to policy frameworks that do not provide certainty and address key barriers to technology deployment. Private sector financing will only reach the levels required if governments create and maintain supportive business environments for low-carbon energy technologies. [my emphasis]

Progress is inadequate — relative to the goal of limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees C — on virtually every low-carbon technology except onshore wind and solar (click for a larger version of this chart):

What will it cost to turn this around and hit the 2 degrees C target? A good chunk in the short term and negative dollars in the long term:

Globally, the near-term additional investment cost of achieving these objectives would amount to USD 5 trillion by 2020, but USD 4 trillion will be saved through lower fossil fuel use over this period. The net costs over the next decade are therefore estimated at over USD 1 trillion. More impressively, by 2050, energy and emissions savings increase significantly as CO2 emissions peak, and begin to decline from 2015. In this timeframe, benefits of fuel savings are also expected to surpass additional investment requirements for decarbonising the energy sector. [my emphasis]

This is key to understanding both the difficulty and the promise of the so-called Third Industrial Revolution. The up-front investments are huge. Personally, I’m an optimist — I think savings will exceed costs by 2020. Either way, though, we’re talking about enormous investments made on the basis of faith and projections. Machiavelli said it best:

It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.

We are asking the governments of the world to spend trillions of dollars to construct a new order with which they have virtually no experience and only the barest familiarity. It’s a heavy lift.

Here are the IEA’s big recommendations:

1. Level the playing field for clean energy technologies by pricing energy appropriately and addressing energy systems holistically (this latter is a particular challenge).
2. Unlock the potential of energy efficiency by tightening standards and enlisting the help of energy providers (utilities).
3. Accelerate energy innovation and public RD&D.

We know what needs doing. Let’s do it!

Many in Congress talk of getting “big government off the backs of private industry.” Here’s an industry we’d like to get off the backs of the taxpayers.

As a senator who is the longest-serving independent in Congress, and as the president of an independent and nonpartisan budget watchdog organization, we do not necessarily agree on everything when it comes to energy and budget policy in the United States. But one thing we strongly agree on is the need to end wasteful subsidies that prop up the nuclear industry. After 60 years, this industry should not require continued and massive corporate welfare. It is time for the nuclear power industry to stand on its own two feet.

Nuclear welfare started with research and development. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, since 1948 the federal government has spent more than $95 billion (in 2011 dollars) on nuclear energy R&D. That is more than four times the amount spent on solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, biofuels, and hydropower combined.

But federal R&D was not enough; the industry also wanted federal liability insurance too, which it got back in 1957 with the Price-Anderson Act. This federal liability insurance program for nuclear plants was meant to be temporary, but Congress repeatedly extended it, most recently through 2025. Price-Anderson puts taxpayers on the hook for losses that exceed $12.6 billion if there is a nuclear plant disaster. Government estimates show the cost for such a disaster could reach $720 billion in property damage alone, so that’s one sweetheart deal for the nuclear industry!

R&D and Price-Anderson insurance are still just the tip of the iceberg. From tax breaks for uranium mining and loan guarantees for uranium enrichment to special depreciation benefits and lucrative federal tax breaks for every kilowatt-hour from new plants, nuclear is heavily subsidized at every phase. The industry also bilks taxpayers when plants close down with tax breaks for decommissioning plants. Further, it is estimated that the federal costs for the disposal of radioactive nuclear waste could be as much as $100 billion.

Even with all of those subsidies, the private sector still will not agree to finance a new nuclear plant, so wealthy nuclear corporations recently secured access to $18.5 billion in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. Maybe the Wall Street banks agree with the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated the risk of default on nuclear loans at above 50 percent. The nuclear industry’s financial troubles are not new. In the 1960s and ’70s, 100 reactors were cancelled due to cost overruns. Things were so bad that Forbes called it “the largest managerial disaster in business history.” Despite this history, some want to dramatically increase federal loan guarantees for nuclear plants.

It is shocking that the nuclear industry continues to receive so much federal support at a time of record debt. Of course, nuclear subsidies benefit some of the wealthiest and most powerful energy corporations in America, which may explain the persistence of nuclear welfare.

For example, Exelon, which takes in $33 billion in revenue annually, is the leading operator/owner of nuclear reactors in the United States. Entergy, with revenues of more than $11 billion annually, is the second largest. Together, these two companies own or operate almost one-third of U.S. reactors, and based on their revenue they are doing pretty well. Why do they need federal welfare year after year after year? Will it ever end?

Well, as Secretary of Energy Steven Chu confirmed at a recent Senate hearing, without federal liability insurance and loan guarantees, no one would ever build a new nuclear plant. Whether you support nuclear energy or not, we should all be able to agree that with record debt, we cannot afford to continue to subsidize this mature industry and its multi-billion-dollar corporations. If the nuclear industry believes so fervently in its technology, then nuclear companies and Wall Street investors can put their money where the mouth is. Let them finance, insure, and pay for nuclear plants themselves.

Today marks the 26th anniversary of the Chernobyl explosion, the worst nuclear disaster the world has ever seen. Ukraine officials are gifting the nuclear site with an odd sort of birthday hat — a massive containment cap, or “Chernobyl sarcophagus.”

An international drive has raised funds from governments towards building a new permanent covering to slide over a temporary concrete-and-steel shelter that was hastily erected after the disaster and is now dangerously crumbling.

The 20,000-tonne arched structure, known as the New Safe Confinement, is designed to last for a century and spans 257 meters.

The shell, which will cost about 1.5 billion euros (nearly $2 billion), is absolutely massive: It’s big enough to cover all of New York’s Statue of Liberty.

Construction is expected to be completed in 2015, but let’s hope the structure is put up lickety split — even 26 years later, Chernobyl is still a veritable pool of noxious contaminants.

Street artists have started covering walls within the no-go zone of Chernobyl with advertising from the world’s nuclear power companies — and a portrait of America’s favorite family with a nuclear safety officer dad.

It’s pretty effective, as art goes. Areva’s slogan — “Our energies have a future, a future without CO2″ — takes on a whole new meaning when it’s wheatpasted to the crumbling plaster of what was once a school until the town’s children were irradiated by the worst civilian nuclear disaster in history.

Skip to 1:06 if you’ve had enough ruin porn and you just want to see the Simpsons mural.

Radiation is an effective treatment for some serious illnesses, but it’s not generally applied to the common cold — unless you bought a metal tissue box from Bed Bath & Beyond. In January, the retailer recalled tissue boxes from 200 stores because they had been contaminated by radioactive metal.

A spokesperson said there had never been any health danger from the radioactive boxes, which had apparently somehow come in contact with medical-use cobalt-60. The recall came “out of an abundance of caution.” But with an abundance of caution in play, how do you end up importing and vending irradiated products?

The trouble is that scrap metal collectors don’t usually go out with a Geiger counter, so dangerous scrap from medical or military instruments may be mixed in with the innocuous stuff. It’s not just tissue boxes — there have also been nuclear elevator buttons in France and radioactive reinforcing steel in Taiwanese apartment blocks. The U.S. mostly catches and denies dangerous imports, which mainly come from India and China; between 2003 and 2008, more than 150 product shipments were turned away from port because of radiation. But occasionally, apparently, something slips through.

Short of going shopping in a hazmat suit with detecting instruments, what can you do? Well, for starters, sit tight — an upcoming nuclear summit in Seoul is set to establish new rules for scrap handlers, plus setting limits on consumer products with radiation levels too low to be technically considered harmful, but high enough to be dangerous with long exposure. And if anyone complains to you about “regulation” and “big government” because of these rules, just hand them a tissue from your new metal box.

Meet the modern-day, post-apocalyptic Dr. Doolittle. Naoto Matsumura lives right inside the Fukushima evacuation zone in the town of Tomioka, just 10 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The reason he’s stayed in the poisoned region post-nuclear meltdown is so that he can take care of all the abandoned cows, pigs, dogs, and cats.

By all accounts, Tomioka is the apocalypse now: deserted, layered in radioactive dust, buried debris. But the devastation is most evident in Matsumura’s gruesome descriptions of what he’s encountered since — and what he continues to discover. Dogs and cats left to die slowly and agonizingly of starvation. Caged birds with withered feathers. An emaciated cow and her calf, crying weakly in a corner of a barn.

The way that Matsumura lives is nothing short of amazing — and terrifying. All other people have abandoned this radiation-loaded region, so he seldom gets any contact with any creature that doesn’t have a tail or hooves. Matsumura lives without running water and electricity, and he only leaves Tomioka when he needs to buy more food for the hundreds of animals that he cares for.

Matsumura is the ultimate crazy cat lady, and he may pay the ultimate price for his kindness: Long-term exposure to high levels of radiation like those in Tomioka means an almost-certain death. Already, tests show that Matsumura’s body is “completely contaminated” with radiation poisoning.

Matsumura could certainly be labeled many things, from soft-hearted humanitarian to kooky loner to totally and completely insane. But despite what people may think of him, you have to admit: He’s earned the hundreds of furry friends he’s made over the past year.