Here are the graphs depicting the evolution of the main parameters of Fukushima NPP1 reactors (unit1 to unit3) since the accident. . Data is taken directly from NISA’s press releases, and can also be retrieved on the following online Excel workbook. The later will always have the latest data, but I’ll add periodic snapshots to this post for those that can’t view it.

Wind power proponent and author Paul Gipe estimated in Wind Energy Comes of Age that the mortality rate for wind power from 1980–1994 was 0.4 deaths per terawatt-hour. Paul Gipe's estimate as of end 2000 was 0.15 deaths per TWh, a decline attributed to greater total cumulative generation.

Hydroelectric power was found to to have a fatality rate of 0.10 per TWh (883 fatalities for every TW·yr) in the period 1969–1996

Nuclear power is about 0.04 deaths/TWh.

But this does not mean Fukushima is now on a par with Chernobyl. Indeed, as Bloomberg notes, the data so far suggests that Fukushima has released only one-tenth as much radioactive material as Chernobyl did.

It's also important to note that the upgrading does not mean that the situation is getting worse. Rather, it is a reassessment of what has already happened. The largest releases of radioactive material occurred in the first days after the earthquake, and the amount released every day has generally been decreasing as various leaks have been plugged.

One way of looking at the drama that has unfolded around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors is as a narrative with one central plot, and a number of sub-plots distracting the attention.

A new analysis of wind energy supplied to the UK National Grid in recent years has shown that wind farms produce significantly less electricity than had been thought, and that they cause more problems for the Grid than had been believed.

Another similarity between Japan's current crisis and the recent financial crisis is that the false risk assessment was largely due to the asymmetric distribution of social welfare and individual cost implied by more effective risk mitigation. Both Lehman Brothers and Tokyo Electric Power Company were able to increase their profits as long as the risk they were willing to accept did not materialize. Their management certainly benefited as long as everything went well. When crisis hit, however, the cost of the meltdown exceeded the companies' equity and thus had to be socialized.

...

As in finance, ensuring that the originator of a risk pays the cost seems to be the most sensible approach. If each nuclear-power plant was obliged to insure against the risk that it imposes on society (within and outside the country of its location), it would face the true economic cost of its activities.

As the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster approaches, the BBC's Daniel Sandford has been given rare access to the contaminated reactor block.

Considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, the site in Ukraine is still a dangerous place to visit.

The disaster occured on 26 April 1986 at reactor number four when a power outage surge led to a series of explosions and a plume of radioactive smoke.

This is a joint post, by Chris Goodall of carboncommentary.com and Mark Lynas. We make no apologies for length, as these issues can really only be properly addressed in detail.

How risky is nuclear power? As the Fukushima nuclear crisis continues in Japan, many people and governments are turning away from nuclear power in the belief that it is uniquely dangerous to human health and the environment. The German government has reversed its policy of allowing the oldest nuclear plants to stay open and Italy has reportedly abandoned its efforts to develop new power stations. Beijing has stopped approving applications for nuclear reactors until the consequences of Fukushima become clear, potentially affecting up to 100 planned new stations. The mood towards the nuclear industry is antagonistic and suspicious around the world. We think this reaction is short-sighted and largely irrational.

In this article, that for some reason mostly focuses on the bleeding obvious -- that Tepco are not going to be able to use reactors 1 through 4 at Fukushima Daiichi -- there is also this:

There has been some public mistrust regarding the official data, with fears exacerbated by occasionally contradictory announcements. But Jan van de Putte, a Greenpeace official, said Wednesday that its scientists’ findings largely correlated with the official Japanese data.

“There is no contradiction between Greenpeace data and local data,” he said. “The contradiction is between the data, and action to help people” in the affected areas.

Information about the incident at the Fukushima Nuclear Plants in Japan hosted by http://web.mit.edu/nse/ :: Maintained by the students of the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at MIT.