Fukushima Nuclear Plant Accident

[marharth]

I don't know why everyone's opinions on nuclear power instantly changed...

 

It has been well know for years something like this could happen.

[MarkInMKUK]

Well, it's fairly obvious that the Japanese are going to be taking a long hard look at Nuclear energy at this point, when they have to decide how to replace the reactors. Maybe geothermal energy would work for them - they're on a thermal hot-spot so have heat not too far down, and are surrounded by the ocean to act as the "cold" end. The Japanese could really set a new environmental target up for the rest of the world that way. And if you get a quake, the worst that happens is the geothermal stuff breaks - no toxic or dangerous substance leaks (apart from typical machine-levels of oils, etc.). Expensive? Yes. Efficient? Well, maybe. Free power once it's built? Almost. Green? Apart from "heat pollution" into the ocean, certainly.

 

And "Peak Load"? In the UK most of our peak load isn't air conditioning - we use windows most of the time! The power use chart is directly linked to TV channels - when one of our soaps (Coronation Street) finishes at night, the peak power soars as several million kettles get turned on for a cup of tea.

Edited March 31, 2011 by MarkInMKUK

[Skevitj]

Yeah, that was another point which I probably should have included: The actual base and peak loads are unique to individual areas. ie, I'm an Aussie, air-conditioning is needed (although stupidly used). Our base load is actually tiny, due to the sheer size of the state: Pretty much all our big base load consumers (mines and processing plants mostly) have their own individual generators since trying to grid connect the entire state is financial suicide.

 

It's probably not as severe in other countries as it is here, but something like >80% of the grid generation capacity we have is actually consumed less than 10% of the time. Not sure on the exact numbers, but they're in the ballpark.

 

 

Geothermal could work, but it is very highly dependent on the area, and even more so on a proactive government. Most of the reports I've seen have one being there, but not the other. At any rate, It's expensive, high risk and with a relatively long payback time. 3 factors which make it's development very difficult. At least it fulfills the same role as nuclear. I'm not sure what the weather patterns are like, but offshore wind-farms are another one which have some potential, assuming they can built to withstand seismic activity in the area.

[Vindekarr]

I wasnt suggesting going all solar, or all-anything, what we do need to avoid is stuff that can blow up and irradiate half the continent, do you atleast agree that the risk of horrific fallout is a bad thing?

[Skevitj]

Define "horrific fallout"? What's happening in Japan at the moment is a severe over reaction due to media misinformation, not a disaster (Obviously, I'm only talking about the nuclear situation). One of the more comprehensive charts I've found: here. 30km away and the total radiation level is equivalent to a jet flight, 100km and it's so small it's lost in the noise. We are living on a giant nuclear reactor remember. Note: They use LOG scales, not linear, so while it looks like it's almost as bad as Chernobyl, it's barely ~1% of the radiation output.

 

3-Mile Island's "massive" radiation release was barely detectable and had no detectable impact, even those next to the plant. The impact of Chernobyl was terrible, sure, but it isn't possible nowadays since it was due purely to an ancient reactor design being operated in an idiotic fashion.

 

Even the Fukushima reactor is an older design. There are newer designs which prevent any chance of accidents like this occurring such as ones which use helium gas, which doesn't become radioactive like water/steam drastically reducing the contamination rick of a coolant leak, and newer core designs which can only operate if coolant is present, actually shutting themselves down instead of going into meltdown if coolant flow is lost. Either of these developments would've rendered the Fukushima incident a non-event.

 

Using the faults of older technologies as an argument against technological advancement doesn't achieve anything useful.

[Vindekarr]

Horrific fallout is any fallout! Fallout = bad, very bad, bad!

 

And how many of the world's reactors are cutting edge? 3? bottom line is people will always seek ways to costcut, and considering what a last concern safety is with other powerplants, I doubt neuclear is any diferent.

 

Secondly, I dont especialy give a damn how small or large the fallout is, it's still bleedin' well not good!

 

Point is what we really need is an energy source that wont either blow up, irradiate you and give three heads, or damage the planet's ecology to the point we cant inhabit it. Now, me, I dont think fission provides that, and Im SURE someone, somewhere, has a reactor that provides limitless energy and produces rainbows and daisies as biproducts, but Im just as damn sure that the reactors that will be built where you and I live will not be such machines.

 

Safety is something that costs a major premium, and we all know how governments hate premiums, let alone corporations. If you want to believe that we're headed for a world with magicaly super safe fission plants everywhere that have smiley faces on them and puff out rainbows, be my guest, but for my part, Im going to remain a cynic, cynicism keeps you alive.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Vindekarr

[Skevitj]

Coal plants and mines can blow up just as easily, and they release radiation at a far higher rate than a nuclear plant will, most probably even including any leaks like the Fukushima reactor. They're also one of the main reasons some people are panicking at the future outlook for this planet's ecology.

 

So would you rather live in a city at a high altitude or one under a low level fallout cloud? Would you rather live in a brick house in the country, or in the city? Radiation doesn't care what it's source is, if the level is safe, it's safe, whether it's naturally produced or artificially. There is no practical difference between any of the options.

 

You can hardly say that safety is a low priority with nuclear power when you look at just how strict the regulations and warning limits around it are. That said, I can foresee potential problems with countries like China, this is purely speculation, but mass producing nuclear reactors most probably using older designs is bound to cause problems. That said, given the number they have against the number of accidents they've reported (none?)... On a slightly different note, the capital cost of a nuclear plant is so high, with the immense cost/time to expand/repair it actually forces safety to be a major consideration, since even a small problem can turn a viable plant into a very expensive write-off. This is in contrast with coal and gas, which have a relatively low capital cost, meaning delays in production aren't an overly big issue.

 

Believe it or not, I'm not actually a supporter of nuclear power, fission or fusion, it's possibly the only truly non-renewable resource around, but attempting to reduce it's use as a knee jerk reaction, meaning it has to be replaced with a technology which is arguably worse is not going to solve anything. The simple fact is, in a capitalistic society there are very few, if any, supplies around capable of competing and that's not likely to change in the near future, meaning our only real option is to work at improving existing tech while simultaneously looking for a replacement.

Edited March 31, 2011 by Skevitj

[brokenergy]

Do you know that we are talking about a plant that is 40 years old, would have been shutdown this month, and belongs to a company who cut corners on safety? Compare that to one built in Europe recently? Safety standards have gone up since 40 years ago and nuclear power is here to stay. Sorry to burst anti-nuclear crowds' bubble.

[ita]

Also, it took one of the most powerful earthquakes in recorded history along with a massive tsunami wave to put the plant out of commission. Cut corners or not, I'd say that's pretty impressive for a 40 year old building.

[marharth]

Also, it took one of the most powerful earthquakes in recorded history along with a massive tsunami wave to put the plant out of commission. Cut corners or not, I'd say that's pretty impressive for a 40 year old building.

If it wasn't for the tsunami the plant would have been fine.

 

The tsunami knocked out the backup system, the earthquake alone would have just shut down the plant.