Fukushima Nuclear Plant Accident

[WizardOfAtlantis]

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.

And that's where the human stupidity factor comes in.

 

The entire country is known for tsunamis and earthquakes. So where do they put a nuclear power plant? Right on the coast so it's sure to be hit by a tsunami sooner or later. Add in constant earthquakes in the area, and it's simply a roll of the dice for when it will happen in combination.

 

And new generation plants? Like the French ones who were dumping radioactivity into the rivers every week for a month a year ago?

 

All nuclear safety is a lie. It's an oxymoron and an impossibility. Accidents will happen, it's just a matter of time, and when they do, the Death Material will spread. There isn't even a way to clean the byproducts of this kind of energy production. You cannot have nuclear safety if the fuel you have used can't even be safely disposed of. People need to stop fooling themselves so they believe their world is safer than it actually is.

 

 

[ita]

Make that all safety is a lie. Nothing in the world can ever be designed and built in a way that guarantees 100% safe operation.

 

Nuclear power is bad (though breeder reactors are more fuel efficient and thus less evil) and produces nasty byproducts. We all know that.

 

We can go on and on about alternative energy sources but until someone actually develops a clean source of energy that works and produces energy non-stop, free of any dangerous byproducts, the fact remains that in many cases nuclear power and non-renewable energy sources are the only viable options for providing a reliable supply of electricity.

[csgators]

The fear is overblown, people die everyday in car accidents and no one wants to ban the car. We must admit to ourselves that a certain amount of death is deemed tolerable by society to achieve certain ends. Electricity is right there with transportation in its importance and people need to keep in mind that without that power/transportation even more people would die.

[Vindekarr]

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.

And that's where the human stupidity factor comes in.

 

The entire country is known for tsunamis and earthquakes. So where do they put a nuclear power plant? Right on the coast so it's sure to be hit by a tsunami sooner or later. Add in constant earthquakes in the area, and it's simply a roll of the dice for when it will happen in combination.

 

And new generation plants? Like the French ones who were dumping radioactivity into the rivers every week for a month a year ago?

 

All nuclear safety is a lie. It's an oxymoron and an impossibility. Accidents will happen, it's just a matter of time, and when they do, the Death Material will spread. There isn't even a way to clean the byproducts of this kind of energy production. You cannot have nuclear safety if the fuel you have used can't even be safely disposed of. People need to stop fooling themselves so they believe their world is safer than it actually is.

 

Aye mate. Frankly lads, saying "oh but it wasnt the neuclear's fault" is sounding a bit childish to me, point is, no matter how much of a pro-nuke zealot you are, you cant deny that nuke plants have the worst safety rating of any modern powerplant. And when those accidents happen the results are catastrophic, rendering a swathe of land uninhabitable, spreading mass panic, and potentialy irradiating nearby communities.

 

Heliostats? they work fine if you're in a sunny part of the world, Spain's having enormous success with them. Worst case scenario? pipe bust, huge plume of steam so hot it can burn the flesh from your bones in an instant. Hydroelectric? again, if you've got the river to do it, they work great. Worst case scenario? dambust, but that's never actualy occured. Coal? produces some radiation, harmful to the environment. Worst case scenario? explosion or fire. Nuke fission plant? worst case scenario? meltdown, irradiates a large amount of land, with massive casualties.Has happened many times.

 

I just cant understand how you could possibly be pro-nuke in this modern age, sure, the other options are flawed, but atleast they cant slaughter the entire population of a city when, rather than if they go wrong.

 

And secondly, I dont know where you got your info from, but some Russian plant officials are saying this could well be a lot worse than chernobyl, in terms of impact, it's being uprated to a 7/7 disaster rating as we speak.

[marharth]

I do not think that nuclear energy is safe at all.

 

It is safer then coal, and it is safer then oil though.

 

 

Off coast drilling is worse then a nuclear meltdown in many ways, and the burning of oil has terrible environmental effects.

 

Look back at the 10 or so other posts that mention coal.

 

 

 

The thing is that all of our main energy sources now days are not safe.

 

We should really do more research on fusion reactors.

 

Geothermal energy would also be extremely helpful.

[lostone1993]

I don't trust nuclear fission not saying it is a dead end, but after leaning it is pretty much a controled nuclear bomb, Plus as a product of some the worst things, correct me if wrong but the waste can be used in dirty bombs. On top of that the dump sites are out of the way and usally unguarded/lightly. also the barrels that hold stuff don't last it eventually breaks through and leaks into the enviroment Edited April 3, 2011 by lostone1993

[Vindekarr]

I don't trust nuclear fission not saying it is a dead end, but after leaning it is pretty much a controled nuclear bomb, Plus as a product of some the worst things, correct me if wrong but the waste can be used in dirty bombs. On top of that the dump sites are out of the way and usally unguarded/lightly. also the barrels that hold stuff don't last it eventually breaks through and leaks into the enviroment

 

Not to mention how corrupt the waste dumping industry is.

[Ultimatepurge]

I sure hope this fukushima business makes people pour some more cash into alternative fuel.

We're headed for peak uranium, peak oil and peak coal. Some argue these have already been reached!!

[marharth]

I don't trust nuclear fission not saying it is a dead end, but after leaning it is pretty much a controled nuclear bomb, Plus as a product of some the worst things, correct me if wrong but the waste can be used in dirty bombs. On top of that the dump sites are out of the way and usally unguarded/lightly. also the barrels that hold stuff don't last it eventually breaks through and leaks into the enviroment

If we were to make a perfect fusion reactor (pretty much a small scale artificial star) then there would be no waste product.

[Skevitj]

Nuclear power actually has the best safety record of any power generation industry. There has only ever been one significant accident where harm has occurred (three in total over how ever many years), and while far more severe on a local scale than any coal/oil/gas plant related accident, it's completely drowned out in the scheme of things.

 

On a slightly different note: The actual earthquake caused very minor damage to the plant. We're talking about one of the top 10 earthquakes on record and it barely scraped the paint on a >40year old complex. The reactors were all in the process of being shutdown shortly after, possibly minor damage to the cooling system (currently unknown), but nowhere near enough to cause the events which unfolded. By the time the tsunami struck, the majority of the reactors were either shut down, or in the final stages of shut down, but even when shut down they still require continuous low level cooling. The loss of external power to the plant, which was being used to maintain cooling was what caused the problem. As a problem, it is limited solely to a few older plants which are coming out of commission either now or in the near future. The majority of the plants in China, US and France are based on designs which render loss of external power a non-event. (Majority of info from UCS)

 

 

The issue of waste storage is certainly a big one, Breeder reactors can work on that regard, by reducing the amount of fuel consumed, as well as producing a lower level waste, but the issue of waste is still there. The simple fact is there is no waste free alternative which meets the requirements, we either screw over a localized area with radioactive waste storage, or screw over everyone to a lesser extent with CO2 emissions. Alternatively we could agree to only have power during the day/when windy and switch to solar/wind, or fork out a car worth in cash to buy the storage needed to power a house (no air-con or hot water though) for a short while after it browns out.

 

Fusion isn't a viable alternative by any stretch of the imagination. Ignoring the fact we're yet to control it on any scale, or even generate more energy than consumed, it requires a very specific and impractical fuel source, and is just a controlled neutron bomb (in terms of output) in the same way current fission plants are just controlled U235 bombs. 1H fusion hasn't ever been achieved by any method on any scale and the theoretical conditions for it to occur are mighty far away from anything resembling current reality.

 

As a replacement for nuclear, geothermal is probably the best bet, but the same seismic activity in the area which puts other supplies at risk would have an even most severe impact on any geothermal plant. If output problems are going to be common place, support for it wont last long. Wave and Tidal power is another which has the potential to replace nuclear, however it is yet to be proven commercially on the scale needed to even replace one plant, and it still has it's vulnerabilities.

 

EDIT: I don't know where you got your "worse than Chernobyl" info from, but the only source where I've seen anything like that was some guy's personal blog where he claimed that the core venting was one of the cores exploding (Chernobyl style) instead of just a deliberate, controlled vent to release pressure (which it was). If one of the cores did explode, then yes it has the potential to be worse, but there has been no evidence so far that that situation is probable.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Skevitj