The shutdown of Japan’s nuclear fleet because of the casualty-free Fukushima meltdown will produce more scenes like this:
That was the Cosmo oil Chiba refinery, east of Tokyo, after it exploded during the March 11, 2011 earthquake. It only took a couple of weeks to put that fire out.
Who knows how many people were burned to death when the refinery exploded during the quake. Lucky for those who prefer fossil fuels to nuclear, the world’s media, encouraged by multinationals like Greenpeace, couldn’t have cared less about that particular consequence of the quake. They were fixated on the Fukushima nuclear plant—which, 3437 days after the meltdowns, still hasn’t killed a single soul.
I’m guessing an LNG terminal would behave similarly during a quake of similar magnitude. Only the fire would be bigger.
Which brings me to Greenpeace’s position on nuclear and natural gas. A senior Greenpeacer recently published an article in the Huffington Post Canada encouraging South Korea to get off nuclear. As per the Greenpeace standard operating procedure, he trotted out the usual PR line about using renewables and efficiency to cover the billions of kilowatt-hours that would be lost from the grid if the South Koreans were to follow his advice.
He knows full well that renewables and efficiency cannot cover the gap left by a nuclear phaseout. He knows full well that it will be gas that covers it. And I guess he’s comfortable with that.
Well, I’m not comfortable with more scenes like the one in the video above.
See also “Greenpeace’s pork-fueled Brave New World”