Japan just hit by magnitude 8.9 earthquake

AnthonyCea said:
There goes the nuclear industry argument that nuclear power is safe and is the solution to our energy future !!

Don't allow the liars in the nuclear power industry to fool you folks, because that is their business, they are born pathological liars.
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't spot this edit earlier and now I see your anti-nuclear agenda, which I don't have a problem with, as I am no fan of nuclear power.

However, I would be very careful in holding up this situation as an example of nuclear power not being safe, for many reasons not least the fact that this was a fairly old plant, nearing the end of its life, which appears to have survived the 5th or 6th (depending on sources) largest earthquake ever recorded since records began over 100 years ago.

With modern plants being designed even better and to withstand even worst situations, if anything, this would actually demonstrate that the nuclear option is fairly safe. Even if it does go pear-shaped the chances are that deaths, including any long terms ones, will be tiny compared to those caused by the tsunami itself or a hydro-electric dam bursting and wiping out towns and villages 'down-stream'.

My main concerns towards nuclear power is not so much about how safe the plants are, but the transportation and storage of nuclear waste.
 
DoctorWatsOn said:
*snip*
Click to expand...

New nuclear plants come with a convection system designed into them, so that should this situation occur, eg primary and backup cooling fails, they can still be cooled.
Personally I think nuclear is the way forward for many countries, as a generally safe way to generate large ammounts of power.
 
Slavik said:
New nuclear plants come with a convection system designed into them, so that should this situation occur, eg primary and backup cooling fails, they can still be cooled.
Click to expand...

Aye, this new 'convection system' was explained in some detail earlier today on the BBC News Channel by a number of different scientists, I believe this came about after the accident at Three Mile Island back in 1979 and IIRC this particular plant came 'online' in the early 70s and so doesn't have that system.

Personally I think nuclear is the way forward for many countries, as a generally safe way to generate large ammounts of power.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, as a long-term anti-nuclear person, but with a growing population / growing requirements for power / climate change / disappearing oil & gas reserves, I would tend to agree with you - the worrying bit in your statement remains 'generally safe'. :(
 
DoctorWatsOn said:
Aye, this new 'convection system' was explained in some detail earlier today on the BBC News Channel by a number of different scientists, I believe this came about after the accident at Three Mile Island back in 1979 and IIRC this particular plant came 'online' in the early 70s and so doesn't have that system.

I hate to say it, as a long-term anti-nuclear person, but with a growing population / growing requirements for power / climate change / disappearing oil & gas reserves, I would tend to agree with you - the worrying bit in your statement remains 'generally safe'. :(
Click to expand...

Indeed, was interesting to listen to them on the subject.

I am under no illusions that nuclear energy will ever be 100% safe, the nature of the substances used to generate the power means thats impossible. However mitigating the risks do bring the odds much more in our favor.
 
No matter what way you look at this it is very sad. I complain about snow blizzards here in Canada but I don't think Ill ever complain again. We are not subject to really any other adverse weather conditions, no earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes nothing like that. My heart and prayers goes out to all those affected. :love:
 
LOL, that is what I get from the Nuclear industry and folks who think Nuclear Power is safe, nuclear waste can last for over 100,000 years !!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=998&bih=618&q=yucca mountain nuclear waste repository&aq=1&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=yucca moun

It is not the way forward, it never has been and never will be, only those who are selfish will lodge this argument, those who have no care for future generations, only their own.

Solar is the way forward, power from the ocean is the way forward, wind power is the way forward, water current power is the way forward.

Nuclear power is death to the earth and to humans, if you feel it is safe we can bury it in your back yard, I always told the guys who advocated Bush's oil wars on forums to step to the front lines, but they only talk and were happy that little girls were sent to the front lines in Iraq to fight for them while they sat in easy chairs stuffing their fat faces !!
 
AnthonyCea said:
LOL, that is what I get from the Nuclear industry and folks that think it is safe, nuclear waste can last for over 100,000 years !!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=998&bih=618&q=yucca mountain nuclear waste repository&aq=1&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=yucca moun

It is not the way forward, it never has been and never will be, only those who are selfish will lodge this argument, those who have no care for future generations, only their own.

Solar is the way forward, power from the ocean is the way forward, wind power is the way forward, water current power is the way forward.

Nuclear power is death to the earth and to humans, if you feel it is safe we can bury it in your back yard, I always told the guys who advocated Bush's oil wars on forums to step to the front lines, but they only talk and were happy that little girls to were sent the front lines in Iraq to fight for them !!
Click to expand...

The nuclear waste are stored in containers, which contain the radiation, so no exposure outside of the container.
 
LOL, and you fall for that crap !!

Do some research and find out that there is no real solution !!

The French encase the waste in glass !!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=998&bih=618&q=French encase nuclear waste in glass&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

http://www.japannuclear.com/nuclearpower/program/waste.html

HLW Disposal Method

What then is the ideal method of disposing of high-level radioactive waste? Various methods exist, none without drawbacks; the most significant of which are usually related to risk of accidents or the challenge of political complexities. The most agreeable HLW disposal method involves burying waste deep underground, and this is currently a central feature of research and development programs throughout the world.


Underground disposal offers a number of distinct advantages. To begin with, it is relatively unsusceptible to dramatic shifts in climate. The risk of inadvertent excavation is also minimal, since radioactive waste would be buried several hundred meters under the ground. As the remarkable condition of numerous fossils attest, subterranean burial sites are a superior form of preservation over immense time periods.

With underground disposal, vitrified (formed into glass) waste is cooled for 30 to 50 years in above-ground storage facilities. It is then inserted into metal containers (called overpacks), buried deep underground in stable bedrock, and encased in a buffer layer of viscous shock-absorbing material. This manner of burial minimizes the risk of radioactive material leaking into surrounding groundwater and penetrating neighboring strata. The underground burial location is chosen with a view towards creating a natural barrier, so that even if radioactive material were to leak from the site, the rate at which it would spread would be limited by its absorption into the surrounding ground. This combination of artificial and natural barriers is thought to be sufficient to ensure the safety of underground disposal of high-level radioactive waste for many, many years.


Japan's HLW Disposal Program

Japan's current high-level radioactive waste disposal program has formed a private consortium to handle the effort. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan (NUMO) was created in October 2000. Over the ensuing years, NUMO will be responsible for carrying out assessment studies for site selection, developing and demonstrating reliable disposal technologies, reflecting the opinions from local communities, and obtaining confirmation from the government for the selected site. The goal is for a site to be operational sometime between 2030 and the mid-2040s.


Japan is not alone in this endeavor. Similar underground disposal programs are already underway around the world. The United States, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada are among those countries currently researching and developing underground facilities. Of all countries, the United States is perhaps furthest along in this process at its site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
Click to expand...

 
AnthonyCea said:

*snip*
Click to expand...

Nearly EVERY SINGLE energy commision in the world agrees that there is no way to provide enough electricity for the world by renewable sources.

As for the waste? Well the US was producing a reactor called an "integral fast reactor" which would work off the waste of other nuclear plants, and even off its own waste products. The stuff that cannot be used is in minimal quantities and is very short lived.

Estimates said that these plants would be able to produce the worlds power for 2000 years using only the current waste we have lying around.

This was a very real technology. But it was cancelled because of the "risk" of proliferation. It also cost more to cancel the project than it would have cost to finish it.

ps. This debate should be split off into another thread.
 
At this point you guys are doing more moderating than posting, so I will just bow out of the thread, that is usually the end result of this syndrome.
 
Back to the plants in Japan.

My husband has been explaining a few more things to me.

Besides the fact that the plant is old, it did have ECCS in place. ECCS stands for Emergency Core Cooling Systems. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary/emergency-core-cooling-systems-eccs.html
Also, the rods were housed in a primary container inside the secondary container. The secondary container was the one that blew this morning.
Next, the reason the diesel back up generators failed, they got wet...they were never designed to operate WET. The backup generators to the diesel generators were not designed to last as long as the diesel generators. They were only designed as a TEMPORARY backup to the backup.
Plants designed today are far safer than ones designed 40+ years ago and unfortunately, every time one fails, the nuclear companies who design power plants learn from the failures and figure out how to avoid failure again.
Each country handles their spent fuel in their own way. Currently, the US handles it by storing spent fuel on site of each plant.
The World Nuclear Organization is a valid source for current information on world nuclear information.
 
Slavik said:
Nearly EVERY SINGLE energy commision in the world agrees that there is no way to provide enough electricity for the world by renewable sources.

As for the waste? Well the US was producing a reactor called an "integral fast reactor" which would work off the waste of other nuclear plants, and even off its own waste products. The stuff that cannot be used is in minimal quantities and is very short lived.

Estimates said that these plants would be able to produce the worlds power for 2000 years using only the current waste we have lying around.

This was a very real technology. But it was cancelled because of the "risk" of proliferation. It also cost more to cancel the project than it would have cost to finish it.

ps. This debate should be split off into another thread.
Click to expand...
The fast reactor is what I was just going to make a post about...since you brought it up I will skip to my point of it...their is no process for requiring power plants to use re-purposed fuel even though about 90% of the energy is never extracted from the uranium or what have you. You get that...we are storing 900% of what we use for energy as waste product. The only reason is that the re-purposed fuel is about 6 times the cost factor to produce energy but in the end if done to 100% extraction the waste will be a smaller problem then the waste we all pump out of our cars everyday.

A body or panel should require these power production plants to re-purpose all of their waste or get shut down. I am not against the use nuclear power, it is better than depleting all of one resource and moving on and if there was another option currently, I am sure we would be doing it. I mean money is printed and made up and means nothing in comparison to anything we are talking about here in this thread. It sucks that doubt on secondary topics take away from what this thread is topically about. No more off-topicals from me here, just wanted to post here where it is relevant and not create a thread about nuclear energy.

I am awaiting news updates here from our members in the area and sit hoping they bring back news of revival.
 
DoctorWatsOn said:
The story broke on the BBC news when I was having breakfast, around 8am this morning, it's now gone 5pm in the UK. There was a few hours of worry before it was confirmed that the reactor remains fairly stable and they now plan to cool it with sea water.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
Click to expand...
I have to admit that seeing the building just disappear like that is both amazing and scary. Blink of an eye and it's just gone.
 
Onimua said:
I have to admit that seeing the building just disappear like that is both amazing and scary. Blink of an eye and it's just gone.
Click to expand...
For some reason...that seams to be an unfortunate circumstance of nature when flexing it's powers of creation and destruction.
TheVisitors said:
Japan confirms that a meltdown "maybe" taking place.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-japan-quake-meltdown-20110312,0,2889362.story

Japan seems to not want to admit that this is happening. Either to keep face or to help prevent a large scale panic. America has volunteered to help evacuate as many as possible.
Click to expand...
I don't know what to make of this and avoiding speculation would be wise I think in this case...if people would like to evacuate that would be great if it is a "maybe" but covering up something like that is a crime against humanity and I doubt they would keep a lid on something like this and sentence people to death. If it is possible at all though for this to become critically uncontainable I would think the only honorable thing to do would be for the United Nations as a whole to join in the effort of evacuation readiness. I mean if maybe is good enough for an answer to meltdown maybe is a good enough reason to have airlift away from the zone ready and not call it in with a ticker counting. I really don't know other than that any more I can add about this. Please oh please let this be conjecture.
 
Top Bottom