If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Cooling plant fails at yet another Japanese reactor. I'll be in my bunker   (cnn.com) divider line 472
    More: Followup, doses, nuclear reactors, Explainer, Japanese, presumptions, fuel rods  
•       •       •

6133 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Mar 2011 at 5:25 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



472 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-03-14 05:14:43 AM
WlN
 
2011-03-14 05:29:33 AM
I heard a report that sailors on the USS Ronald Reagan got a month's worth of radiation in an hour.
 
2011-03-14 05:30:03 AM
Unless you live in Japan, I wouldn't sweat it, FailedGeographymitter.
 
2011-03-14 05:30:26 AM
Why don't they start with the seawater flooding? All efforts seem to end up there anyway.
 
2011-03-14 05:31:11 AM
Damn. Now the best time to breath the best air in your life.
 
2011-03-14 05:33:21 AM
In before Godzirra!
 
2011-03-14 05:35:00 AM
...Only, When the Wind Blows
 
2011-03-14 05:36:26 AM
DAMNIT.
 
2011-03-14 05:36:28 AM

mikdeetx: I heard a report that sailors on the USS Ronald Reagan got a month's worth of radiation in an hour.


We begin glowing in five minutes.
 
2011-03-14 05:36:52 AM
BREAKING:

*** USS RONALD REAGAN BEING MOVED AWAY FROM COAST OF JAPAN DUE TO RADIATION CLOUD 100 MILES OFF THE COAST OF JAPAN ***
 
2011-03-14 05:37:06 AM

bingethinker: Unless you live in Japan, I wouldn't sweat it, FailedGeographymitter.


Woosh.
 
JJR
2011-03-14 05:37:38 AM
yeah Fukushima
 
2011-03-14 05:38:15 AM
BREAKING:

*** 17 NAVY SAILORS SUFFER RADIATION EXPOSURE ***
 
2011-03-14 05:38:33 AM

aphexcoil: BREAKING:

*** USS RONALD REAGAN BEING MOVED AWAY FROM COAST OF JAPAN DUE TO RADIATION CLOUD 100 MILES OFF THE COAST OF JAPAN ***


Link (new window)
 
2011-03-14 05:38:38 AM

JJR: yeah Fukushima


What did you just say about my shima?
 
2011-03-14 05:40:36 AM
It should be noted that while Nuclear power plants are built with 50 year old technology radiation detection equipment is very recent and often state of the art. Picking up such minor amounts is splicing hairs on what counts as radiation exposure, as is, and given the nature of the US Navy's nuclear training they would be blowing the cover on the Japanese if they were lying. Fast.
 
2011-03-14 05:41:35 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: aphexcoil: BREAKING:

*** USS RONALD REAGAN BEING MOVED AWAY FROM COAST OF JAPAN DUE TO RADIATION CLOUD 100 MILES OFF THE COAST OF JAPAN ***

Link (new window)


Thanks AmericanGuy -- forgot to post the source
Link (new window)
 
2011-03-14 05:43:01 AM

NuclearScientist: It should be noted that while Nuclear power plants are built with 50 year old technology radiation detection equipment is very recent and often state of the art. Picking up such minor amounts is splicing hairs on what counts as radiation exposure, as is, and given the nature of the US Navy's nuclear training they would be blowing the cover on the Japanese if they were lying. Fast.


Wouldn't receiving one month's worth of background radiation in a few hours 100 miles off the coast of Japan constitute some level of "concern?" Just curious ...
 
2011-03-14 05:43:04 AM
From AverageAmericanGuy's link:

There was no indication that any of the military personnel had experienced ill effects from the exposure, the New York Times reported.
 
2011-03-14 05:44:24 AM

aphexcoil: NuclearScientist: It should be noted that while Nuclear power plants are built with 50 year old technology radiation detection equipment is very recent and often state of the art. Picking up such minor amounts is splicing hairs on what counts as radiation exposure, as is, and given the nature of the US Navy's nuclear training they would be blowing the cover on the Japanese if they were lying. Fast.

Wouldn't receiving one month's worth of background radiation in a few hours 100 miles off the coast of Japan constitute some level of "concern?" Just curious ...


No. The amount you receive as background radiation in a month is beyond minimal. You receive the same amount on a long distance airline flight.
 
2011-03-14 05:44:24 AM
"Most experts aren't expecting a reprise of the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, which killed 32 plant workers and firefighters in the former Soviet Union and at least 4,000 others from cancers tied to radioactive material released by the plant."

I think they missed a zero in that figure.

"Officials are working to prevent such a calamity by injecting seawater and boron into the affected reactors -- even though salt and boron will corrode the reactors, rendering the Daiichi plant inoperable.

"Essentially, they are waving the white flag and saying, 'This plant is done,'" Walsh said. "This is a last-ditch mechanism to try to prevent overheating and to prevent a partial or full meltdown.""

Whatever happened to flooding the plant with graphite as a neutron absorber? is it already too late for that?
 
2011-03-14 05:46:19 AM

thespindrifter: "Most experts aren't expecting a reprise of the 1986 Chernobyl meltdown, which killed 32 plant workers and firefighters in the former Soviet Union and at least 4,000 others from cancers tied to radioactive material released by the plant."

I think they missed a zero in that figure.

"Officials are working to prevent such a calamity by injecting seawater and boron into the affected reactors -- even though salt and boron will corrode the reactors, rendering the Daiichi plant inoperable.

"Essentially, they are waving the white flag and saying, 'This plant is done,'" Walsh said. "This is a last-ditch mechanism to try to prevent overheating and to prevent a partial or full meltdown.""

Whatever happened to flooding the plant with graphite as a neutron absorber? is it already too late for that?


Graphite has this nasty habit of lighting on fire and retaining extreme contamination amounts. It's part of what made the Chernobyl incident so deadly.

Water is a great neutron moderator. It's what the reactor uses at operation, and your control rods really handle the rest.
 
2011-03-14 05:46:23 AM
I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.
 
2011-03-14 05:47:05 AM
davidphogan

bingethinker: Unless you live in Japan, I wouldn't sweat it, FailedGeographymitter.

Woosh.


Smugness makes a sound now? I got the joke. It just wasn't very funny.
 
2011-03-14 05:47:45 AM

Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.


Fail Safe and Fail Proof are entirely different. Look what it took for them to fail. By perspective, every other construction subject to the damage long since gave out and is polluting the environment in equally tragic ways.
 
2011-03-14 05:47:47 AM

NuclearScientist: aphexcoil: NuclearScientist: It should be noted that while Nuclear power plants are built with 50 year old technology radiation detection equipment is very recent and often state of the art. Picking up such minor amounts is splicing hairs on what counts as radiation exposure, as is, and given the nature of the US Navy's nuclear training they would be blowing the cover on the Japanese if they were lying. Fast.

Wouldn't receiving one month's worth of background radiation in a few hours 100 miles off the coast of Japan constitute some level of "concern?" Just curious ...

No. The amount you receive as background radiation in a month is beyond minimal. You receive the same amount on a long distance airline flight.


What is the typical daily exposure to radiation for a person in REMS, RADS, Svs?

What measurement do scientists use today? Sv?
 
2011-03-14 05:48:54 AM
What ever happened to those Thorium fueled reactors? Didn't anyone ever run with the idea?
 
2011-03-14 05:50:11 AM

aphexcoil: NuclearScientist: aphexcoil: NuclearScientist: It should be noted that while Nuclear power plants are built with 50 year old technology radiation detection equipment is very recent and often state of the art. Picking up such minor amounts is splicing hairs on what counts as radiation exposure, as is, and given the nature of the US Navy's nuclear training they would be blowing the cover on the Japanese if they were lying. Fast.

Wouldn't receiving one month's worth of background radiation in a few hours 100 miles off the coast of Japan constitute some level of "concern?" Just curious ...

No. The amount you receive as background radiation in a month is beyond minimal. You receive the same amount on a long distance airline flight.

What is the typical daily exposure to radiation for a person in REMS, RADS, Svs?

What measurement do scientists use today? Sv?


America uses the REM. Seiverts is a Medical designator.

I believe the monthly exposure is something like .0015microSv a month.

Have to drive to work. Be back in soon.
 
2011-03-14 05:54:17 AM
Sooooooooooo, another explosion at another reactor, and a 3 metre high tsunami on the way. Sorry Japan. You don't deserve this.
 
2011-03-14 05:54:45 AM

NuclearScientist: Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.

Fail Safe and Fail Proof are entirely different. Look what it took for them to fail. By perspective, every other construction subject to the damage long since gave out and is polluting the environment in equally tragic ways.


No they used to say any problem and these nuclear power plants would just shutdown. That was a lie!!

Stop spinning this bullshiat.

The have said time and time again plants like San Onofre are safe from Earth quakes. Now it seems that is total bullshiat.
 
2011-03-14 05:55:26 AM

NuclearScientist: Fail Safe and Fail Proof are entirely different. Look what it took for them to fail. By perspective, every other construction subject to the damage long since gave out and is polluting the environment in equally tragic ways.


This. If people are looking to this to be the example of why we shouldn't pursue nuclear power, they either have safety expectations that go way beyond unrealistic straight into the impossible or preconceived notions they're attempting to warp the evidence to support.

There are plenty of reasons to remain skeptical of nuclear power and oppose its use, but this is not among them.
 
2011-03-14 05:56:00 AM
Funny every time a nuclear plant disaster happens the apologists comes out and says "Well this can never happen again" and then it does.

Stop lying.
 
2011-03-14 05:56:53 AM

that bosnian sniper: NuclearScientist: Fail Safe and Fail Proof are entirely different. Look what it took for them to fail. By perspective, every other construction subject to the damage long since gave out and is polluting the environment in equally tragic ways.

This. If people are looking to this to be the example of why we shouldn't pursue nuclear power, they either have safety expectations that go way beyond unrealistic straight into the impossible or preconceived notions they're attempting to warp the evidence to support.

There are plenty of reasons to remain skeptical of nuclear power and oppose its use, but this is not among them.


So earth quakes can't happen in the US?

Is that what your saying? That makes no sense.
 
2011-03-14 05:57:27 AM

Corvus: NuclearScientist: Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.

Fail Safe and Fail Proof are entirely different. Look what it took for them to fail. By perspective, every other construction subject to the damage long since gave out and is polluting the environment in equally tragic ways.

No they used to say any problem and these nuclear power plants would just shutdown. That was a lie!!

Stop spinning this bullshiat.

The have said time and time again plants like San Onofre are safe from Earth quakes. Now it seems that is total bullshiat.


The plant was safe from earth quakes. The earth quake didn't cause the problems they are having, the tsunami knocking out the backup generators is what caused the problems at the plant.
 
2011-03-14 05:58:04 AM
Stop playing this up, people. Yeah, it's gonna suck for the rescue workers that have to get in there and solve this problem, but solve it they will. I think that the only people shouting "disaster!" are the alarmists and the yellow journalists.

However, Now that subby's breached the containment on this particular topic, I fully expect these brave people shutting down what's left of the nukes to be wearing orange toques to go with their thrilling heroics.
 
2011-03-14 05:58:14 AM

that bosnian sniper: NuclearScientist: Fail Safe and Fail Proof are entirely different. Look what it took for them to fail. By perspective, every other construction subject to the damage long since gave out and is polluting the environment in equally tragic ways.

This. If people are looking to this to be the example of why we shouldn't pursue nuclear power, they either have safety expectations that go way beyond unrealistic straight into the impossible or preconceived notions they're attempting to warp the evidence to support.

There are plenty of reasons to remain skeptical of nuclear power and oppose its use, but this is not among them.


you are saying radioactive pollution is just as bad a wind turbines breaking?


Really?


I can't believe this bullshiat.
 
2011-03-14 05:58:59 AM

Corvus: So earth quakes can't happen in the US?

Is that what your saying? That makes no sense.


Stow your alarmist BS and trying to shove words into my mouth to fit your argument.
 
2011-03-14 05:59:40 AM

ongbok: Corvus: NuclearScientist: Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.

Fail Safe and Fail Proof are entirely different. Look what it took for them to fail. By perspective, every other construction subject to the damage long since gave out and is polluting the environment in equally tragic ways.

No they used to say any problem and these nuclear power plants would just shutdown. That was a lie!!

Stop spinning this bullshiat.

The have said time and time again plants like San Onofre are safe from Earth quakes. Now it seems that is total bullshiat.

The plant was safe from earth quakes. The earth quake didn't cause the problems they are having, the tsunami knocking out the backup generators is what caused the problems at the plant.


Ok fine. California can have Tsunamis too.

It was a lie. They promised that these thing would never fail like this. It was bullshiat.

It's funny how you apologists each give a different excuse.
 
2011-03-14 06:01:45 AM

that bosnian sniper: Corvus: So earth quakes can't happen in the US?

Is that what your saying? That makes no sense.

Stow your alarmist BS and trying to shove words into my mouth to fit your argument.


Ok explain yourself then.

Alarmists? having thousands of people evacuated because of radiation is the REALITY. It's not making things up.

It's the reality is people are being evacuated because of radiation danger. Not that the reactor shutdown with no problem.
 
2011-03-14 06:02:07 AM

Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.


You don't normally plan for a 9.0 earthquake followed shortly by a Tsunami strong enough to go 4km inland. These plants were over-engineered, and nature went and one-upped them.
 
2011-03-14 06:03:28 AM
Barker at Japanese baseball game: "Iodine...iodine here...get your red hot iodine..."
 
2011-03-14 06:03:38 AM
What I want to know is, how many plants built since this older design was kaboshed now use the default "drop down" safety feature where the rods fall back into the containment shielding if the SHTF? And of those, how many at the Savannah River site are of that design? I ask because Savannah is damned close to Charleston, and Charleston is WAY overdue for another "Big One".
 
2011-03-14 06:04:14 AM

Corvus: having thousands of people evacuated because of radiation is the REALITY. It's not making things up.


As a precaution. To date, there aren't credible reports of health-threatening levels of radiation. Would you rather they waited to evacuate?

I tend to agree with you, but you're sounding hysterical.
 
2011-03-14 06:04:37 AM
I hope to god it doesn't happen to san onofre

It'll ruin one of the best breaks in the state

www.emagazine.com

*The break being trestles that you can see directly north of the plant in that picture
 
2011-03-14 06:04:39 AM

that bosnian sniper: Corvus: So earth quakes can't happen in the US?

Is that what your saying? That makes no sense.

Stow your alarmist BS and trying to shove words into my mouth to fit your argument.


Should we tell those evacuated their house in Japan because of radiation and the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan are being "alarmists" and should STFU and go back to the radiation?


How is saying what could happen there (or has happened at many nuclear disasters) could happen here being "alarmists"?
 
2011-03-14 06:05:36 AM

aphexcoil: Wouldn't receiving one month's worth of background radiation in a few hours 100 miles off the coast of Japan constitute some level of "concern?" Just curious ...


The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:
Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem
Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem
Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem
Thyroid uptake study - 28,000 mrem to the thyroid
Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

So 1 months worth would be 30mrem, which is 1/10th the radiation received from a dental xray.

Source(new window)
More perspective info (new window)

So I'll go with concern yes, panic no.
 
2011-03-14 06:05:52 AM
Wow, Corvus, you sure have a shaky grip on the facts. Despite all that has gone wrong, there is NO danger of a major radiation release from the Japanese plants. The situation IS under control. The WORST case is that the plants will be wrecked and safely decommissioned. If anything, the events we are seeing is the best advertisement for the safety of these plants you could ask for.

In short, you are a nut.
 
2011-03-14 06:06:34 AM

Corvus: ongbok: Corvus: NuclearScientist: Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.

Fail Safe and Fail Proof are entirely different. Look what it took for them to fail. By perspective, every other construction subject to the damage long since gave out and is polluting the environment in equally tragic ways.

No they used to say any problem and these nuclear power plants would just shutdown. That was a lie!!

Stop spinning this bullshiat.

The have said time and time again plants like San Onofre are safe from Earth quakes. Now it seems that is total bullshiat.

The plant was safe from earth quakes. The earth quake didn't cause the problems they are having, the tsunami knocking out the backup generators is what caused the problems at the plant.

Ok fine. California can have Tsunamis too.

It was a lie. They promised that these thing would never fail like this. It was bullshiat.

It's funny how you apologists each give a different excuse.


What's your problem? These reactors were built when? In the 70's? I'm not sure what type of reactors these are, but technology has improved greatly since then.

There was a farking 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami. That's going to screw up anything. Yet you're going to sit there and rail against nuclear power when you're a party of the problem by using your electric appliances, computer, playstation, etc.

Don't sit there and tell me that we can run every device with wind turbines tomorrow. Yeah, we're going green one step at a time, but it's not something you can just switch out in a year. Do you know how many wind turbines you'd need to replace a nuclear power plant? I believe the best wind turbine produces around 2.5 Mw/h. A modern nuclear plant can put out 1,000 times that.

If you're going to complain about nuclear power, maybe we should take your house off the grid completely so you can sleep better at night knowing that, not being a consumer of electricity, you're no longer part of the problem.

No one is apologizing for anything. We live in a world where occasionally shiat happens.
 
2011-03-14 06:06:37 AM

Corvus: Funny every time a nuclear plant disaster happens the apologists comes out and says "Well this can never happen again" and then it does.

Stop lying.


No. They say it won't happen again, and it doesn't. Something new happens. This particular event is a learning experience, and I guarantee that the military will now coordinate more closely with the nuke sites to ensure that their portable generator technology will be compatible with that of the reactors. I'm also sure that structural engineers will be analyzing exactly how the Tsunami wiped out the diesel generators, and designing a new plan to ensure that post-tsunami, the new generators will work.

That's the thing about the humans in charge of designing this kind of stuff. They learn from their mistakes. Unlike people who post on Fark.
 
2011-03-14 06:07:01 AM
Corvus: How is saying what could happen there (or has happened at many nuclear disasters) could happen here being "alarmists"?

It's just the tone you are using.
 
2011-03-14 06:07:20 AM

Timdesuyo: Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.

You don't normally plan for a 9.0 earthquake followed shortly by a Tsunami strong enough to go 4km inland. These plants were over-engineered, and nature went and one-upped them.


But they do happen. And California could have an earthquake on that scale. And major disaster hit the US not infrequently.

Sorry I missed all the "thousands of Japan houses evacuated because of solar, wind and geothermal plants disasters" would you show me those links.


So you are admitting if a major disaster hits the US we could be talking about leaking major radiation in the US.

You admit that is very likely.
 
2011-03-14 06:07:55 AM
Ok. That last bit wasn't fair. There are plenty of people on Fark who learn from their mistakes. It's just one troll beating a dead horse here that had my undies in a bunch.
 
2011-03-14 06:08:07 AM
I knew there was a reason I had the runs.

\other than the spoiled milk I drank
 
2011-03-14 06:08:14 AM

Timdesuyo: You don't normally plan for a 9.0 earthquake followed shortly by a Tsunami strong enough to go 4km inland. These plants were over-engineered, and nature went and one-upped them.


Really? Because I thought it was common knowledge that the Japanese have been expecting a massive and devastating earthquake for decades now. So, when you look at it that way, they obviously under-engineered, because they were expecting the earthquake, and the back-up generators failed.

It reminds me of all the people claiming 'we never thought someone would use a passenger jet as a weapon' on 9/11. Contingency plans suggest otherwise.
 
2011-03-14 06:08:51 AM
Corvus

You aren't a recently created troll (9 years is a lot of foresight) and you seem to be a reasonable person.

You say you used to like facts, so here are some:

- These plants are 50 year old designs, installed 40 years ago.
- These plants were affected by both the third largest earthquake in recorded history and a huge Tsunami
- Nuclear power generation does carry some risk and consequence.
- The risks and consequences of nuclear power are lower than those of coal and oil
- The cost and capacity of nuclear power make it a better alternative for the bulk of energy production in the world.

We are polluting ourselves to death on other energy sources, man. Nuclear isn't perfect, but it's optimal. So unless you want to start walking and eating what you can grow in your yard, I suggest you accept it.
 
2011-03-14 06:08:54 AM

thespindrifter: Corvus: How is saying what could happen there (or has happened at many nuclear disasters) could happen here being "alarmists"?

It's just the tone you are using.


Tired of being lied to by the nuclear power people. I used to be pro-nuclear power but I have realized all the things they have said about it being clean, cheap and safe are all lies.

I am tired of them lying.
 
2011-03-14 06:09:22 AM

Corvus: Ok explain yourself then.


No. It's a complete waste of my time to do so.

There have been no fewer than seven or eight threads about this very topic which have encompassed educated, thoughtful opinions on both sides backed by evidence, both theoretical and actual, most of which are still on the main page. Anything I have to add as a layman and pro-nuclear advocate has already been said ad nauseum, and if you wish to get a sense of my opinion you're more than free to look in the archives and threads on the main page.

Moreover, you've demonstrated yourself in this thread alone to jump to conclusions that best-fit your preconceptions, to the point of disregarding evidence and misinterpreting the words of myself and others. You've already made up your mind, based upon educated, rational beliefs or not, and no degree of input I can add at this juncture will persuade you otherwise. Arguing with you would do nothing but grant your conduct and opinions more credibility than they deserve.
 
2011-03-14 06:09:29 AM

beerbaron: Wow, Corvus, you sure have a shaky grip on the facts. Despite all that has gone wrong, there is NO danger of a major radiation release from the Japanese plants. The situation IS under control. The WORST case is that the plants will be wrecked and safely decommissioned. If anything, the events we are seeing is the best advertisement for the safety of these plants you could ask for.


No, the worst case is they have a complete meltdown and it breaches the containment vessel. If you believe the official reports then this isn't very likely to occur.
 
2011-03-14 06:09:55 AM

Chair5768: aphexcoil: Wouldn't receiving one month's worth of background radiation in a few hours 100 miles off the coast of Japan constitute some level of "concern?" Just curious ...

The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:
Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem
Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem
Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem
Thyroid uptake study - 28,000 mrem to the thyroid
Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

So 1 months worth would be 30mrem, which is 1/10th the radiation received from a dental xray.

Source(new window)
More perspective info (new window)

So I'll go with concern yes, panic no.


Wow, I had no idea that a tooth X-ray was 20 times greater than a chest X-ray. 300 mrems is quite a bit of radiation.
 
2011-03-14 06:10:04 AM

Corvus: ongbok: Corvus: NuclearScientist: Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.

Fail Safe and Fail Proof are entirely different. Look what it took for them to fail. By perspective, every other construction subject to the damage long since gave out and is polluting the environment in equally tragic ways.

No they used to say any problem and these nuclear power plants would just shutdown. That was a lie!!

Stop spinning this bullshiat.

The have said time and time again plants like San Onofre are safe from Earth quakes. Now it seems that is total bullshiat.

The plant was safe from earth quakes. The earth quake didn't cause the problems they are having, the tsunami knocking out the backup generators is what caused the problems at the plant.

Ok fine. California can have Tsunamis too.

It was a lie. They promised that these thing would never fail like this. It was bullshiat.

It's funny how you apologists each give a different excuse.


The thing is in the U.S we have enough areas to build a nuke that have access to a large enough water supply that can be used for cooling that won't be threatened by a tsunami. What happened in Japan was a one two punch of natural disasters. That plant took a direct hit from two disasters back to back and hasn't gone into full meltdown which is amazing. Considering a plant built 40 years ago can withstand that type of punishment and still not go into full meltdown a newer plant should do just fine.
 
2011-03-14 06:10:06 AM

aphexcoil: What's your problem? These reactors were built when? In the 70's? I'm not sure what type of reactors these are, but technology has improved greatly since then.


Funny the promised they were safe then.


The ones we are using in the US are this old and they have promised they all safe.

Was that a lie?
 
2011-03-14 06:10:38 AM

Corvus: Timdesuyo: Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.

You don't normally plan for a 9.0 earthquake followed shortly by a Tsunami strong enough to go 4km inland. These plants were over-engineered, and nature went and one-upped them.

But they do happen. And California could have an earthquake on that scale. And major disaster hit the US not infrequently.

Sorry I missed all the "thousands of Japan houses evacuated because of solar, wind and geothermal plants disasters" would you show me those links.


So you are admitting if a major disaster hits the US we could be talking about leaking major radiation in the US.

You admit that is very likely.

images.starcraftmazter.net
 
2011-03-14 06:12:02 AM

Chair5768: aphexcoil: Wouldn't receiving one month's worth of background radiation in a few hours 100 miles off the coast of Japan constitute some level of "concern?" Just curious ...

The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:
Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem
Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem
Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem
Thyroid uptake study - 28,000 mrem to the thyroid
Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

So 1 months worth would be 30mrem, which is 1/10th the radiation received from a dental xray.

Source(new window)
More perspective info (new window)

So I'll go with concern yes, panic no.


Were they only exposed for an hour?
 
2011-03-14 06:12:10 AM

Corvus: aphexcoil: What's your problem? These reactors were built when? In the 70's? I'm not sure what type of reactors these are, but technology has improved greatly since then.

Funny the promised they were safe then.


The ones we are using in the US are this old and they have promised they all safe.

Was that a lie?


Out of the 10,000+ people that have died so far, remind me how many of them were from radiation?
 
2011-03-14 06:12:24 AM
Corvus: Tired of being lied to by the nuclear power people. I used to be pro-nuclear power but I have realized all the things they have said about it being clean, cheap and safe are all lies.

As opposed to the mercury fallout from coal, or the ever-increasing expense of oil and gas? Look, it's the best we've got for now, and it keeps getting better; the only real danger is from these 40 - 60 year old plants with the outdated designs. The real tragedy here is that the failed plants were already scheduled for replacement.
 
2011-03-14 06:14:02 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Chair5768: aphexcoil: Wouldn't receiving one month's worth of background radiation in a few hours 100 miles off the coast of Japan constitute some level of "concern?" Just curious ...

The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:
Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem
Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem
Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem
Thyroid uptake study - 28,000 mrem to the thyroid
Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

So 1 months worth would be 30mrem, which is 1/10th the radiation received from a dental xray.

Source(new window)
More perspective info (new window)

So I'll go with concern yes, panic no.

Were they only exposed for an hour?


No, I believe it was the better part of a day. So I guess it was around 30 times normal background radiation.
 
2011-03-14 06:14:41 AM

aphexcoil: Wow, I had no idea that a tooth X-ray was 20 times greater than a chest X-ray. 300 mrems is quite a bit of radiation.


I might be wrong, but the weighting factor of a tooth is less than your chest. Meaning the energy can be lower but with a higher equivalent mrem.
 
2011-03-14 06:14:42 AM

Corvus: that bosnian sniper: Corvus: So earth quakes can't happen in the US?

Is that what your saying? That makes no sense.

Stow your alarmist BS and trying to shove words into my mouth to fit your argument.

Ok explain yourself then.

Alarmists? having thousands of people evacuated because of radiation is the REALITY. It's not making things up.

It's the reality is people are being evacuated because of radiation danger. Not that the reactor shutdown with no problem.


And if, in the end they are able to shut it down with nothing beyond a little steam released, will you agree that a 40 year old plant took an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and a direct hit from a tsunami with no real harm?
 
2011-03-14 06:16:28 AM
What's the REM to RAD conversion factor? (i.e. 1 RAD = ? REM)
 
2011-03-14 06:16:46 AM

MexicanNerd: Corvus

You aren't a recently created troll (9 years is a lot of foresight) and you seem to be a reasonable person.

You say you used to like facts, so here are some:

- These plants are 50 year old designs, installed 40 years ago.


So are many in the US they have promised repeatedly that are safe.

- These plants were affected by both the third largest earthquake in recorded history and a huge Tsunami


Which a disaster close to this magnitude has a decent chance of occurring in the California or another part of the US.




- Nuclear power generation does carry some risk and consequence.


Then be honest about it. STOP LYING AND SAYING THEY ARE ALL SAFE!!!





- The risks and consequences of nuclear power are lower than those of coal and oil


Hmm never said to use coal and oil. good strawman!!


- The cost and capacity of nuclear power make it a better alternative for the bulk of energy production in the world.


Lie - you are not counting costs of dismantling the plants and other costs that people have to pay as "taxes" for years after the plant goes away. Unlike many other technologies once the plant is done the materials can not be recycled.


We are polluting ourselves to death on other energy sources, man. Nuclear isn't perfect, but it's optimal. So unless you want to start walking and eating what you can grow in your yard, I suggest you accept it.


LIE - There are lots of options cleaner than nuclear. I actually run my house mostly on solar (about 90%), so to tell me it's a dream is laughable.
 
2011-03-14 06:18:03 AM

aphexcoil: Corvus: aphexcoil: What's your problem? These reactors were built when? In the 70's? I'm not sure what type of reactors these are, but technology has improved greatly since then.

Funny the promised they were safe then.


The ones we are using in the US are this old and they have promised they all safe.

Was that a lie?

Out of the 10,000+ people that have died so far, remind me how many of them were from radiation?


So then being safer than a earthquake or Tsunami makes nuclear power "safe"?
 
2011-03-14 06:18:19 AM

I think they missed a zero in that figure.


Depends on who's science you want to go with. The World Health Organization, UNICEF, UNDP, and the UN / International Atomic Energy Agency Chernobyl Forum put it around 4000 extra deaths from Chernobyl. Or you go with Greenpeace, who stand fairly alone in still claiming its in the hundred to hundreds of thousands.

Now, if you go with the former, its not to say that Chernobyl wasn't a disaster, but what most people don't realize is that thyroid cancer people got is about the best cancer you can get in terms of chance of survival (if you have to get cancer).
 
2011-03-14 06:18:24 AM
aphexcoil:
Wouldn't receiving one month's worth of background radiation in a few hours 100 miles off the coast of Japan constitute some level of "concern?" Just curious ...


Yeah, but if you RTFA, you will note that the exposure was received by a helicopter crew flying through a plume. The distance from the plant was not given. But let's assume the were at 30,000 feet, even though helicopters can't fly that high, Just to be extra hysterical and make Corvus happy.
 
2011-03-14 06:18:46 AM

Timdesuyo: You don't normally plan for a 9.0 earthquake followed shortly by a Tsunami strong enough to go 4km inland.


You do in Japan. Large earthquakes and tsunami's are a fact of life in that part of the world.
 
2011-03-14 06:19:38 AM

aphexcoil: No, I believe it was the better part of a day. So I guess it was around 30 times normal background radiation.


Ever heard of the Banana measurement? Each banana you eat has 3.6mrems.

So... eating ten bananas would be worse than an hour there. Just a though.

/Brazil nuts have almost twice that!
//Go after the guy with the monocle!
 
2011-03-14 06:20:19 AM

KyngNothing: And if, in the end they are able to shut it down with nothing beyond a little steam released, will you agree that a 40 year old plant took an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and a direct hit from a tsunami with no real harm?


No because I am logical.

Saying one power plant shutdown ok while many have failed doesn't make ALL nuclear power plants safe.


It only takes on example to prove "all nuclear power plants are safe" is wrong.

Nuclear energy is not safe. When they told us that they were ALL "fail safe" that is not true.


Sorry that is the reality.
 
2011-03-14 06:20:38 AM
I wish Boeing would stop lying with all that "Airplanes are safe" bullshiate.
 
2011-03-14 06:21:07 AM

Corvus: Then be honest about it. STOP LYING AND SAYING THEY ARE ALL SAFE!!!


What's your definition of "SAFE?" Planes are "safer" than automobiles, but planes can and do crash. Walking from your car to your house in a storm is generally "safe," but people occasionally get hit by lightning.

A nuclear power plant is usually "safe," but an occasional 9.0 magnitude earthquake can fark them up.

What should we do about that? Take the skyscrapers down and hide in a cave because mother nature might want to take out a large area?

What difference does it make whether you drown, burn, get crushed or get irradiated? Like I said earlier, shiat happens -- but nuclear plants are pretty safe in my opinion.
 
2011-03-14 06:22:02 AM

aphexcoil: AverageAmericanGuy: Were they only exposed for an hour?

No, I believe it was the better part of a day. So I guess it was around 30 times normal background radiation.


IIRC, the winds favour the Japanese in blowing the radiation out over the ocean so despite the Reagan detecting those elevated levels of radation 100miles away the evacuation zone in Japan might be sufficient. At least, I hope that's the case; still, as long as they get this under wraps within the next couple days the level of radiation that the Japanese will be exposed to, at those levels, won't be measurably harmful. (it will slightly increase the chances of contracting cancer)
 
2011-03-14 06:22:38 AM

mikdeetx: I heard a report that sailors on the USS Ronald Reagan got a month's worth of radiation in an hour.


Which is still nothing.
 
2011-03-14 06:23:02 AM
Everything's ok as long as CNN keeps coming with the disaster music videos.

Disaster music videos? Really?
 
2011-03-14 06:23:21 AM

Corvus: No because I am logical.

Saying one power plant shutdown ok while many have failed doesn't make ALL nuclear power plants safe.


He said "a 40 year old plant". Not ALL plants.

Stop, seriously, just stop.
 
2011-03-14 06:23:44 AM

aphexcoil: Corvus: Then be honest about it. STOP LYING AND SAYING THEY ARE ALL SAFE!!!

What's your definition of "SAFE?" Planes are "safer" than automobiles, but planes can and do crash. Walking from your car to your house in a storm is generally "safe," but people occasionally get hit by lightning.

A nuclear power plant is usually "safe," but an occasional 9.0 magnitude earthquake can fark them up.

What should we do about that? Take the skyscrapers down and hide in a cave because mother nature might want to take out a large area?

What difference does it make whether you drown, burn, get crushed or get irradiated? Like I said earlier, shiat happens -- but nuclear plants are pretty safe in my opinion.


Nice strawman.

No we should use alternatives that are better and are actually safe.


If you could make a building that could survive a 9.0 and it would be as cheap or cheaper and cleaner, why wouldn't you do it?

My argument is "They said these were fail safe" - That was a lie.


funny some people are saying it was the Tsunami not the earthquake. I wish you guys would get your stories straight.
 
2011-03-14 06:24:14 AM

gibbon1: Timdesuyo: You don't normally plan for a 9.0 earthquake followed shortly by a Tsunami strong enough to go 4km inland.

You do in Japan. Large earthquakes and tsunami's are a fact of life in that part of the world.


Uhh... I'd suggest getting up in front of the Japanese Parliament tomorrow and suggesting that, but I'm pretty sure this is an ITG thing.
 
2011-03-14 06:26:10 AM

LordOfThePings: Corvus: No because I am logical.

Saying one power plant shutdown ok while many have failed doesn't make ALL nuclear power plants safe.

He said "a 40 year old plant". Not ALL plants.

Stop, seriously, just stop.


So you are saying the US has no old plants this old?

We have been promised all along they were fail safe. Is that the case or not?


Can new nuclear plants handle disasters like this?

Funny half the apologists here seem to be saying no.
 
2011-03-14 06:26:15 AM

Corvus: It only takes on example to prove "all nuclear power plants are safe" is wrong.


Who is arguing they're 100% perfect? They're just the most cost-effective option out there, when all costs and benefits are weighed. Er, at least to most people. Obviously not you.
 
2011-03-14 06:26:56 AM

Corvus: Nice strawman.


The strawman is your argument that you were promised risk-free nuclear power.

Back it up or STFU & GBTW.
 
2011-03-14 06:28:28 AM
Last reply to Corvus

Most people defending nuclear power here will readily admit it's not completely safe, but rather that it is MUCH safer than the other current mainstream options for power generation (coal and oil). You don't get something for nothing.

It must be nice having your house powered by solar. You're probably in the top 5% richest portion of the world (pretty certain you're in the top 1%).

However, not all people have the means to power their home from solar power. More importantly, YOUR HOUSE IS NOT THE TOTAL OF YOUR ENERGY CONSUMPTION.

It takes a lot of power to make the stuff you consume regularly and even more to ship it from one place to another. When you move to 100% solar in your house and buy NOTHING, then we can talk. And let me know how much it cost you.

Wind, tide, even solar should be considered for a current portfolio of energy generation and they should hopefully rise in predominance as our technology advances. However, they are not enough right now.

See capacity and cost per MW in chart below:

upload.wikimedia.org

So, in the meantime, we should push to stop building any new coal plants, stop invading countries for oil and start building nuclear plants. The are SAFER & CHEAPER than the current alternatives.
 
2011-03-14 06:28:35 AM
I don't think people like Corvus won't be happy until we all live in hunter-gatherer tribes subsiding on berries and the occasional animal carcass. Of course, since such societies cannot support more than 1% of current world population, I guess some sacrifices will have to be made :(

Newsflash: Wind and solar WILL NOT be able to replace all coal, oil, and nuclear plants. And long-term, nuclear will be the most prevalant of those three options.
 
2011-03-14 06:28:38 AM

Corvus: aphexcoil: Corvus: Then be honest about it. STOP LYING AND SAYING THEY ARE ALL SAFE!!!

What's your definition of "SAFE?" Planes are "safer" than automobiles, but planes can and do crash. Walking from your car to your house in a storm is generally "safe," but people occasionally get hit by lightning.

A nuclear power plant is usually "safe," but an occasional 9.0 magnitude earthquake can fark them up.

What should we do about that? Take the skyscrapers down and hide in a cave because mother nature might want to take out a large area?

What difference does it make whether you drown, burn, get crushed or get irradiated? Like I said earlier, shiat happens -- but nuclear plants are pretty safe in my opinion.

Nice strawman.

No we should use alternatives that are better and are actually safe.


How about you answer my question and tell me what your definition of "safe" is?

Is the requirement that no one ever dies or becomes seriously ill from a nuclear power plant?

Is the requirement that a nuclear plant never malfunction despite no one getting harmed?
 
2011-03-14 06:29:15 AM

Petit_Merdeux: Corvus: Nice strawman.

The strawman is your argument that you were promised risk-free nuclear power.

Back it up or STFU & GBTW.


So you agree nuclear power is not safe?
 
2011-03-14 06:29:34 AM

Corvus: So you are saying the US has no old plants this old?


Take a breath.

KyngNothing asked if you would agree to a simple piece of factual evidence (probably to gauge your level of rationality, which is obviously quite low). You continued your ranting. If you want to convince anybody of anything, you have to calm down.

Unless you're trolling, in which case, well done.
 
2011-03-14 06:29:35 AM

Corvus: Can new nuclear plants handle disasters like this?


The EPRs being built now in Finland and France are equipped with "Core Catchers" that are designed to handle a molten core that has lost all cooling and eaten through the 15 cm of steel containing it.

So, yeah, they can.
 
2011-03-14 06:30:19 AM
Corvus et al...

You can immerse yourself in knowledge or you can keep up a ridiculous Chicken Little routine because it makes you feel good. It's your decision.

/got the link from a guy who designs nuclear reactors
 
2011-03-14 06:31:11 AM

KyngNothing: And if, in the end they are able to shut it down with nothing beyond a little steam released, will you agree that a 40 year old plant took an 8.9 magnitude earthquake and a direct hit from a tsunami with no real harm?


Corvus: No because I am logical. Saying one power plant shutdown ok while many have failed doesn't make ALL nuclear power plants safe. It only takes on example to prove "all nuclear power plants are safe" is wrong. Nuclear energy is not safe. When they told us that they were ALL "fail safe" that is not true. Sorry that is the reality.


Very nice, KyngNothing. Quick, clean, and shows how irrational Corvus is being in one swift motion.

::golf clap::
 
2011-03-14 06:33:28 AM
Why did they build them so close to one another? If one goes there is no way for them to prevent the other ones from going. Now they might have back to back meltdowns. And that will be some serious leakage.

Anyone know how long these suckers take to cool down with sea water?
 
2011-03-14 06:33:32 AM

Corvus: Ok fine. California can have Tsunamis too.


Oh, and no. Not like this. This was a subduction zone quake, possible to strike the NW US, Alaska, and BC, but not California. Oregon, Washington and Alaska have a combined 0 nuclear plants on their coasts. If they were to build new plants inland is easy enough anyway, why risk a tsunami risk?

California plants it's pointless to bring up. They could get a major earthquake, but a 30 foot surge is almost impossible because of the way the coastline is laid out.

And either way, they'll learn from this and adapt. It's what humans do.
 
2011-03-14 06:34:20 AM

Corvus: Can new nuclear plants handle disasters like this?


The plant handled the earthquake just fine, which is a testament to safety regs 40 years ago. There were no breaches, no leakage, no building issues AFAIK. When the tsunami hit the plant, it knocked out the 6 generators that supply power to its systems - and which also recharges the backup batteries. THAT is the issue plants around the world will be considering in the days and weeks to come.

These facts have been all over the news, and all over previous Fark threads, all weekend. Go back and read these threads, as there are some Farkers posting there that have direct knowledge of all things nuclear. Very informative stuff.
 
2011-03-14 06:34:55 AM

Corvus: LordOfThePings: Corvus: No because I am logical.

Saying one power plant shutdown ok while many have failed doesn't make ALL nuclear power plants safe.

He said "a 40 year old plant". Not ALL plants.

Stop, seriously, just stop.

So you are saying the US has no old plants this old?

We have been promised all along they were fail safe. Is that the case or not?


Can new nuclear plants handle disasters like this?

Funny half the apologists here seem to be saying no.


Whoever said they were 100% safe? There is always a risk with everything, but the risk have been minimized with nuke plants. If it took 2 very serious natural disasters to damage this plant to the point it has to be decommissioned, then I say the nuclear people told us the truth and they are relatively safe.

It sounds to me that you read into something somebody said about nuclear power and told yourself it was 100% safe. Now that there is a issue with one, the reality that you created for yourself is crashing and you can't handle it.
 
2011-03-14 06:35:23 AM

Petit_Merdeux: Corvus: Can new nuclear plants handle disasters like this?

The EPRs being built now in Finland and France are equipped with "Core Catchers" that are designed to handle a molten core that has lost all cooling and eaten through the 15 cm of steel containing it.

So, yeah, they can.


My understanding is that the reactors in Japan, although old, are equipped with core catchers.

Either way, I was very opposed to nuclear energy until I actually educated myself about it. (Lived north of TMI and was pregnant, in Germany when Chernobyl blew). Frankly, with what I've read about the designs and looking at the actual safety record, I'd much rather live next to a nuclear plant then a coal-fired plant any day.

/my .02 cents
 
2011-03-14 06:36:01 AM

MexicanNerd: It must be nice having your house powered by solar. You're probably in the top 5% richest portion of the world (pretty certain you're in the top 1%).

However, not all people have the means to power their home from solar power. More importantly, YOUR HOUSE IS NOT THE TOTAL OF YOUR ENERGY CONSUMPTION.


Ahh more strawman.

A) I am not saying "All the world must use green energy". I am saying the places like the US should.

B) The cost - It costs me LESS to pay back the loan then it would of cost to pay my electric bill.

C) Yes but it's the power that I HAVE A CHOICE OF. Sorry I do not control or have a say on the power others use for me. I know you somehow think that is hypocritical but it is reality.


You saying "The rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy" is a pretty silly argument to make.
 
2011-03-14 06:38:33 AM

Timdesuyo: Stop playing this up, people. Yeah, it's gonna suck for the rescue workers that have to get in there and solve this problem, but solve it they will. I think that the only people shouting "disaster!" are the alarmists and the yellow journalists.


[Thats_racist.gif]
 
2011-03-14 06:38:59 AM

Corvus: My argument is "They said these were fail safe" - That was a lie.


I'm starting to agree with you. We've been told "well, meltdowns won't happen because stuff automatically shuts off now." But now, with this incident, we find out that yes, stuff "shuts down," but it's still dangerous for many days after, and might still meltdown anyway. Up until this moment, I was a supporter of Nukes. But now I'm rethinking my position. I'm not fullon "Corvus" yet, but I'm getting there.

This plant in question, 40+ years old, and scheduled for decommish, and then someone decided to "extend" it for another 10 years. What was that? greed? ignorance? Great! An industry run on greed controlling such dangerous technology? Where do I sign UP??

/I know humans will eventually solve the power issue.
//just hope it's in my lifetime.
 
2011-03-14 06:39:07 AM

Corvus: So you agree nuclear power is not safe?


Calm down before you shoot up a crowd.
 
2011-03-14 06:39:37 AM
Might the white hot core produce glowing yellow embers?

Is the rising sun going to set on scorched earth?

Will japan lead the world in bio luminance research?

Was the calculated nuke cook time for local shellfish adjusted for sea level?

Do you use red or white wine with radio active fish?

What is the half life of people exposed to the radiation?

Will car parts made from the recycled disaster salvage set off radar detectors?

Is Japan looking at above ground particle accelerators?

Is it Japans destiny to become the nuclear smelting pot civilization?

When is the projected time for the movie to come out?
 
2011-03-14 06:39:41 AM
I'm waiting for a republican to say this is why we should be pumping for oil in the gulf, or something....This is Obama's fault.

More on subject though... damn ( hope they wiggle out of this bad situation in Japan. I knew a girl from Japan back in college that lived up around those parts. Once asked her about earthquakes and she turned a bit pale just thinking about them. Said she really hated them.
 
2011-03-14 06:39:51 AM
Corvus: You saying "The rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy" is a pretty silly argument to make.

lolWUT?
 
2011-03-14 06:41:56 AM

ongbok: Whoever said they were 100% safe? There is always a risk with everything, but the risk have been minimized with nuke plants. If it took 2 very serious natural disasters to damage this plant to the point it has to be decommissioned, then I say the nuclear people told us the truth and they are relatively safe.


Umm the nuclear industry:


Clean and Safe Energy Coaltion (new window)

The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition (CASEnergy Coalition) supports the increased use of nuclear energy to ensure an environmentally clean, safe, affordable and reliable supply of electricity. Nuclear power enhances America's energy security and economic growth, helps attain cleaner air and improves the quality of life, health and economic well-being for all Americans.

Another front group which is doing all this "It can never happen here" spin.
 
2011-03-14 06:41:56 AM

Corvus:
A) I am not saying "All the world must use green energy". I am saying the places like the US should.

B) The cost - It costs me LESS to pay back the loan then it would of cost to pay my electric bill.

C) Yes but it's the power that I HAVE A CHOICE OF. Sorry I do not control or have a say on the power others use for me. I know you somehow think that is hypocritical but it is reality.


A) Not everyone lives in sunny Colorado, Wyoming, etc. Not everyone is going to live in a windy area. Some people do and it might work well for them.

B) What good is getting solar panels in a place like Seattle? See A. Not everyone would have that option.

C) I want reliable power on the cheap that does the least amount of damage to the environment that can be delivered anywhere. That's nuclear right now.
 
2011-03-14 06:42:16 AM

EchoMike: You can immerse yourself in knowledge or you can keep up a ridiculous Chicken Little routine because it makes you feel good. It's your decision.


Excellent read! Thanks!
 
2011-03-14 06:42:31 AM
You know, it is really irritating to me to see people out there saying that Japan should have planned for this as it is a "fact of life" here...

If it were a normal "fact of life" for seriously massive earthquakes and tsunami to happen I am pretty sure this wouldn`t have been the first in 100+ years.

Earthquakes and tsunami ARE a fact of life and a regular occurrence. Earthquakes and tsunami of THAT SIZE simply are not. If they were, people sure as hell wouldn`t have been living along the coast.

People planned for something huge... And something even larger came along, together with bad luck.
 
2011-03-14 06:43:00 AM

Corvus: So you agree nuclear power is not safe?



Sure. Neither is air travel.
 
2011-03-14 06:43:03 AM
The Japs sure aren't very good with back up systems.
 
2011-03-14 06:43:08 AM

Corvus: My argument is "They said these were fail safe" - That was a lie.


All right, one last response before this clown hits the ignore bin. Here is a highly-pertinent quote in relation to what you said:

NuclearScientist: Fail Safe and Fail Proof are entirely different. Look what it took for them to fail. By perspective, every other construction subject to the damage long since gave out and is polluting the environment in equally tragic ways.


Which was a response to your original statement. The definition of fail-safe (new window) is that "in the event of failure, responds in a way that will cause no harm, or at least a minimum of harm, to other devices or danger to personnel". I bolded the operative part, here. The very point is that should equipment fail, it will fail in the safest way possible, not that it is impervious to failure. You're conflating that and fail-proof, and moreover you're outright refusing to acknowledge that conflation because it undermines your entire argument.

Thus far, the 40-year-old reactors involved have catastrophically failed in the safest way possible in the worst-case-imaginable nightmare scenario for nuclear power. That is the very definition of fail-safe. In automobile terms, this is roughly equivalent to surviving a head-on collision with a freight train.
 
2011-03-14 06:43:15 AM

Martman888: Corvus: You saying "The rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy" is a pretty silly argument to make.

lolWUT?


The argument was "other people in the world can't afford solar... so lets not do it in the US!" it makes no sense.
 
2011-03-14 06:43:32 AM

Corvus:
A) I am not saying "All the world must use green energy". I am saying the places like the US should.


Technically speaking, nuclear power IS green/sustainable power...
From Wiki:

"Sustainable energy is the provision of energy that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainable energy sources are most often regarded as including all renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectricity, solar energy, wind power, wave power, geothermal power, plant matter, and tidal power. It usually also includes technologies that improve energy efficiency. Conventional fission power is sometimes referred to as sustainable, but this is controversial politically due to concerns about peak uranium, radioactive waste disposal and the risks of disaster due to accident, terrorism, or natural disaster."
 
2011-03-14 06:47:03 AM
Can't help myself.

Corvus: A) I am not saying "All the world must use green energy". I am saying the places like the US should.


I didn't say the US was in the top 5%... I said you, personally were. For sure as hell not everyone in the US can afford to install solar panels. Their credit is shot to shiat thanks to the banks.

Secondly... stop looking at energy as a domestic problem. It's not. Global Warming, Violent wars and pollution are global concerns.

Don't be such a little mind.
 
2011-03-14 06:47:50 AM

Tamyu: You know, it is really irritating to me to see people out there saying that Japan should have planned for this as it is a "fact of life" here...




I bet they didn't plan for the Rapture, either.

Then again, they're Buddhists, so they wouldn't need to I guess.
 
2011-03-14 06:49:35 AM

Corvus: Martman888: Corvus: You saying "The rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy" is a pretty silly argument to make.

lolWUT?

The argument was "other people in the world can't afford solar... so lets not do it in the US!" it makes no sense.


Solar is not 100% safe. They have to use a lot of nasty, corrosive, carcinogenic chemicals to make the panels. What if there is a disaster, fire what ever at the plant and those chemicals leak. It would end up contaminating the area for years and making people sick. So lets not have any solar power either.

And do we even have to talk about the dangers of oil and coal.
 
2011-03-14 06:49:36 AM

aphexcoil: Corvus:
A) I am not saying "All the world must use green energy". I am saying the places like the US should.

B) The cost - It costs me LESS to pay back the loan then it would of cost to pay my electric bill.

C) Yes but it's the power that I HAVE A CHOICE OF. Sorry I do not control or have a say on the power others use for me. I know you somehow think that is hypocritical but it is reality.

A) Not everyone lives in sunny Colorado, Wyoming, etc. Not everyone is going to live in a windy area. Some people do and it might work well for them.

B) What good is getting solar panels in a place like Seattle? See A. Not everyone would have that option.

C) I want reliable power on the cheap that does the least amount of damage to the environment that can be delivered anywhere. That's nuclear right now.


A) Wrong. Solar actually does real well in places not sunny. in fact it can do BETTER in places less sunny because when they get hot their production drops.

Germany is the largest producer of solar energy and it is not a very sunny country.

B) see A - and there is wind and other alternatives which you are ignoring.


C) this is a lie. I pointed out earlier and magically everyone ignored it. Nuclear energy is not cheap. The US government has wasted millions on looking at waste storage. Also costs like dismantling the stations after they are old is not figured in the cost and this is expensive. I pay a "tax" for this and will be paying one for years if not decades. Everyone else will be too that is why they are pushing for new nuclear now before everyone starts seeing "Nuclear plant dismantle taxes" on their electric bills and find out the real costs.

Solar becomes CHEAPER the more people use it. ever year the technology gets better and better. Why not invest in what is safe, clean and cheap now instead of investing in a unsafe, unclean technology that we are lied about again and again?
 
2011-03-14 06:50:26 AM

Petit_Merdeux: Corvus: So you agree nuclear power is not safe?


Sure. Neither is air travel.


Eating food is dangerous too. You never know what sort of bacteria or fungus could be growing on it. Plus, you can choke while consuming it.

As for the nuclear power plants issue, I agree that they should update some of the older plants. The problem, around here anyway, is people have such a kneejerk reaction (a la Corvus) to the issue that they will not allow new plants to be built. So, we're stuck with old ones that are slightly less efficient and slightly less safe.
 
2011-03-14 06:51:08 AM

Petit_Merdeux: Tamyu: You know, it is really irritating to me to see people out there saying that Japan should have planned for this as it is a "fact of life" here...



I bet they didn't plan for the Rapture, either.

Then again, they're Buddhists, so they wouldn't need to I guess.


shinbutsu shūgō to be exact.
 
2011-03-14 06:51:34 AM

ongbok: Corvus: Martman888: Corvus: You saying "The rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy" is a pretty silly argument to make.

lolWUT?

The argument was "other people in the world can't afford solar... so lets not do it in the US!" it makes no sense.

Solar is not 100% safe. They have to use a lot of nasty, corrosive, carcinogenic chemicals to make the panels. What if there is a disaster, fire what ever at the plant and those chemicals leak. It would end up contaminating the area for years and making people sick. So lets not have any solar power either.

And do we even have to talk about the dangers of oil and coal.


That's not true. When the panels are damaged they don't leak like that. To pretend it's remotely as bad or worse then a nuclear meltdown is really being silly.
 
2011-03-14 06:52:28 AM

ongbok: Solar is not 100% safe. They have to use a lot of nasty, corrosive, carcinogenic chemicals to make the panels. What if there is a disaster, fire what ever at the plant and those chemicals leak. It would end up contaminating the area for years and making people sick. So lets not have any solar power either.


Yep, solar power is clearly just as dangerous as nuclear radiation spreading across the land.
 
2011-03-14 06:53:59 AM
When I think about all of the above ground nuke test in the 50s and 60s from various nations around the world, I have to wonder about people on the west coast of North America panicking about Japanese nuke reactors today.
 
2011-03-14 06:54:37 AM

Corvus: ongbok: Corvus: Martman888: Corvus: You saying "The rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy" is a pretty silly argument to make.

lolWUT?

The argument was "other people in the world can't afford solar... so lets not do it in the US!" it makes no sense.

Solar is not 100% safe. They have to use a lot of nasty, corrosive, carcinogenic chemicals to make the panels. What if there is a disaster, fire what ever at the plant and those chemicals leak. It would end up contaminating the area for years and making people sick. So lets not have any solar power either.

And do we even have to talk about the dangers of oil and coal.

That's not true. When the panels are damaged they don't leak like that. To pretend it's remotely as bad or worse then a nuclear meltdown is really being silly.


I said the plant. The panels have to be made somewhere. If there is an accident at the plant and chemicals leak they would cause a lot of problems.
 
2011-03-14 06:54:42 AM
Damn, I can't believe how hard people here have been trolling throughout this whole ordeal - dear lord.
 
2011-03-14 06:55:03 AM

MexicanNerd: Can't help myself.

Corvus: A) I am not saying "All the world must use green energy". I am saying the places like the US should.

I didn't say the US was in the top 5%... I said you, personally were. For sure as hell not everyone in the US can afford to install solar panels. Their credit is shot to shiat thanks to the banks.


Untrue - You get a loan and you pay it back just like you electric bill. In fact some solar panels places will install them FREE you just pay them for the energy. NO UPFRONT COST WHATSOEVER.


Almost any home owner in the US can afford to do so.
 
2011-03-14 06:55:56 AM

Corvus: Martman888: Corvus: You saying "The rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy" is a pretty silly argument to make.

lolWUT?

The argument was "other people in the world can't afford solar... so lets not do it in the US!" it makes no sense.


Except! ... It wasn't. The argument was that nuclear is cheaper and safer than the other alternatives. You cannot just crazy-eyed interpret what people say (this includes both nuclear regulatory agencies who do in fact admit risk yet still understand enough to know that it is a dangerous world we live in as well as posters on Fark) in the most absurd conceivable fashion and run with it as if it will lead to a real debate.


Also, not particularly in response to Corvus, but from a personal level I grew up with coolant towers visible from my backyard. Never worried about it because I was compelled to understand the basics of reactor design by the looming hyperbolic structures over the treelines. Really, they are safe and cheap, in the same way that air travel is. Science!
 
2011-03-14 06:56:33 AM

sugarhi: Damn, I can't believe how hard people here have been trolling throughout this whole ordeal - dear lord.


i52.tinypic.com
 
2011-03-14 06:58:19 AM

ongbok: I said the plant. The panels have to be made somewhere. If there is an accident at the plant and chemicals leak they would cause a lot of problems.


like any similar like plant. Wow.


So nuclear we only count the energy production plant but solar we must count the entire chain.


Do we get to count the all the plants that build everything in making a nuclear generator to including the fuel? Or only get to do that for solar?

Last I checked what nuclear uses to power is not the safest thing on earth.
 
2011-03-14 06:59:29 AM

Martman888: Except! ... It wasn't. The argument was that nuclear is cheaper and safer than the other alternatives.


This is a lie. I have pointed it out multiple times.
 
2011-03-14 06:59:44 AM

ThisNameSux: ongbok: Solar is not 100% safe. They have to use a lot of nasty, corrosive, carcinogenic chemicals to make the panels. What if there is a disaster, fire what ever at the plant and those chemicals leak. It would end up contaminating the area for years and making people sick. So lets not have any solar power either.

Yep, solar power is clearly just as dangerous as nuclear radiation spreading across the land.


Well, how many broken solar panels would you expect every year if they were common? Compared to nuclear meltdowns, which are what, once every 2 decades? Maybe more.

I love the idea of solar, but the tech still needs time to develop to make it cheap and effective.

/Though ongbok was talking about leaks at the plant...
 
2011-03-14 07:00:20 AM

Corvus: Almost any home owner in the US can afford to do so.


What about people in apartments? Industrial uses?
 
2011-03-14 07:00:48 AM
Corvus,

You are getting hysterical.

Let's just agree that you're wrong and over-exaggerating the dangers of nuclear power. One day we might get thorium based fuel reactors or possibly even fusion based reactors. We won't get there with ignorance fueled paranoia.
 
2011-03-14 07:01:05 AM

Martman888: Also, not particularly in response to Corvus, but from a personal level I grew up with coolant towers visible from my backyard. Never worried about it because I was compelled to understand the basics of reactor design by the looming hyperbolic structures over the treelines. Really, they are safe and cheap, in the same way that air travel is. Science!


How is evacuating thousands of people because of radiation disaster "safe"?

Funny many people here who are pro-nuclear are admitting that it's not safe. Are they wrong?
 
2011-03-14 07:01:38 AM
Also, I hope you guys are right, and they're safe as houses, because:

Link (new window)

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.
 
2011-03-14 07:02:01 AM

Corvus: Martman888: Except! ... It wasn't. The argument was that nuclear is cheaper and safer than the other alternatives.

This is a lie. I have pointed it out multiple times.


But that was the argument. Debate the merits of it, sure, but that was the argument. Not "the rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy". Cognitive dissonance much?
 
2011-03-14 07:02:45 AM

aphexcoil: Corvus,

You are getting hysterical.

Let's just agree that you're wrong and over-exaggerating the dangers of nuclear power. One day we might get thorium based fuel reactors or possibly even fusion based reactors. We won't get there with ignorance fueled paranoia.


So what is happening in Japan right now is a lie?


Funny how people are trying to spin that what is happening in Japan now is not actually happening.

How is pointing out what is actually happening is "exaggerating"?
 
2011-03-14 07:04:07 AM

Martman888: Corvus: Martman888: Except! ... It wasn't. The argument was that nuclear is cheaper and safer than the other alternatives.

This is a lie. I have pointed it out multiple times.

But that was the argument. Debate the merits of it, sure, but that was the argument. Not "the rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy". Cognitive dissonance much?


Fine I may have misunderstood his argument.

But to pretend the US doesn't have resources to move solar or other alternative energies is still not true.
 
2011-03-14 07:04:50 AM
It's easy to tout solar as the save-all, but a large enough natural disater can render solar useless also, vis-a-vis The Year Without A Summer. Just as a tsunami can be a biggest-in-1000-year levels, so can problems with the sun and the atmosphere due to volcanic eruptions combined with aberrent weather.

Again, Wiki:

"...As a result of the series of volcanic eruptions, crops in the above-cited areas had been poor for several years; the final blow came in 1815 with the eruption of Tambora. Europe, still recuperating from the Napoleonic Wars, suffered from food shortages. Food riots broke out in the United Kingdom and France, and grain warehouses were looted. The violence was worst in landlocked Switzerland, where famine caused the government to declare a national emergency. Huge storms and abnormal rainfall with floodings of the major rivers of Europe (including the Rhine) are attributed to the event, as was the frost setting in during August 1816. A major typhus epidemic occurred in Ireland between 1816 and 1819, precipitated by the famine caused by "The Year Without a Summer". It is estimated that 100,000 Irish perished during this period. A BBC documentary using figures compiled in Switzerland estimated that fatality rates in 1816 were twice that of average years, giving an approximate European fatality total of 200,000 deaths..."

Solar would have been useless for at least a year during this event.

NOTHING in this world is 'safe' or 'perfect'. Just good for now.
 
2011-03-14 07:05:13 AM
The sadest thing to me about this whole situation (well, maybe not the saddest but it's up there) is that there are people like Corvus who get excited when tragedy happens. I bet he popped a goddamned boner and jizzed himself every time a report came in that a nuclear plant was having trouble.
 
2011-03-14 07:05:55 AM

Seussie: Also, I hope you guys are right, and they're safe as houses, because:

Link (new window)

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.


But aren't you reading the thread, "it can't happen here", just because.
 
2011-03-14 07:05:57 AM

Corvus: ongbok: I said the plant. The panels have to be made somewhere. If there is an accident at the plant and chemicals leak they would cause a lot of problems.

like any similar like plant. Wow.


So nuclear we only count the energy production plant but solar we must count the entire chain.


Do we get to count the all the plants that build everything in making a nuclear generator to including the fuel? Or only get to do that for solar?

Last I checked what nuclear uses to power is not the safest thing on earth.


The point that I was making is that solar has risk also and isn't 100% safe either. But because there is a small risk that there could be an accident that can cause massive environmental damage and health issues, nobody is saying that we should not pursue solar power like you are with nuclear power because of an issue at one plant that is being handled.

And you really to stop lying and saying that the nuclear power people lied to us and said that nuclear is 100% safe. Nobody ever said that.
 
2011-03-14 07:06:28 AM

Seussie: Also, I hope you guys are right, and they're safe as houses, because:

Link (new window)

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.


Can your house atomize an F4 Phantom?
 
2011-03-14 07:06:39 AM

Corvus: Martman888: Also, not particularly in response to Corvus, but from a personal level I grew up with coolant towers visible from my backyard. Never worried about it because I was compelled to understand the basics of reactor design by the looming hyperbolic structures over the treelines. Really, they are safe and cheap, in the same way that air travel is. Science!

How is evacuating thousands of people because of radiation disaster "safe"?

Funny many people here who are pro-nuclear are admitting that it's not safe. Are they wrong?


You argue like Bill O'Reilly... Safety in this sense is statistical, not the no-failure-ever bullshiat you're peddling. Of course, any sane man will admit that nuclear power generation is not "Safe" 100% of the time if your definition for safe is that nothing bad ever happens. However, safety is statistical and long term, and as people have pointed out, these Fukushima reactors in particular have failed in just about the best possible way for the worst possible scenario. The world is dangerous, grow up and deal with it.
 
2011-03-14 07:06:50 AM

Corvus: aphexcoil: Corvus:

...

C) this is a lie. I pointed out earlier and magically everyone ignored it. Nuclear energy is not cheap. The US government has wasted millions on looking at waste storage. Also costs like dismantling the stations after they are old is not figured in the cost and this is expensive. I pay a "tax" for this and will be paying one for years if not decades. Everyone else will be too that is why they are pushing for new nuclear now before everyone starts seeing "Nuclear plant dismantle taxes" on their electric bills and find out the real costs.

...



They've already got an optimal storage facility built. It's called Yucca Mountain (probably something about nuclear waste storage after that). It might have cost millions, but it's done now and too late to regain that money. It'll hold a lot of waste, and is in a perfect spot. EXCEPT, alarmists in Nevada don't want waste stored in their state, so they cock-blocked it. So it's pretty much empty right now.
 
2011-03-14 07:07:27 AM
Oh, and thanks very much to NuclearScientist for the TF sponsorship. I've been curious what it looks like on this side.
 
2011-03-14 07:07:53 AM
Corvus: This is a lie. I have pointed it out multiple times.

This is the classic sign of an Internet troll, and a sociopath. It's fine if you want to say "I disagree" or "That's counter to these facts: A, B, C" or even "I don't believe you" but just countering everything with "You lie!" makes it obvious you're either a raving loon or a 12 year old.

Don't bother calling me a liar; I won't read it.
 
2011-03-14 07:08:49 AM

PH Neutral: The sadest thing to me about this whole situation (well, maybe not the saddest but it's up there) is that there are people like Corvus who get excited when tragedy happens. I bet he popped a goddamned boner and jizzed himself every time a report came in that a nuclear plant was having trouble.



Corvus is the target market for the Bubble Headed Bleached Blonde @ 5
 
2011-03-14 07:10:32 AM

PH Neutral: The sadest thing to me about this whole situation (well, maybe not the saddest but it's up there) is that there are people like Corvus who get excited when tragedy happens. I bet he popped a goddamned boner and jizzed himself every time a report came in that a nuclear plant was having trouble.

Nice of you making personal attacks against me.

That's usually what people do when they have no logical reply to make.

You think people should be attacked if they question safety of nuclear power plants in the US or their costs?\

I wish thousands of people were not being evacuated from their homes because of nuclear radiation and I don't want to see it happen here.

That's not "being happy about a disaster" that's learning lessons from history.
 
2011-03-14 07:10:34 AM

Corvus: Seussie: Also, I hope you guys are right, and they're safe as houses, because:

Link (new window)

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.

But aren't you reading the thread, "it can't happen here", just because.


Give a reason it can. Explain where a 9.0 quake followed by a super-tsunami is going to come from for any of those plants.

Maybe some other disaster can happen, but can you at least back up something you say with something other than your word? You seem like a total nut the way you choose to call everything a lie rather than attempting to make your point constructively.
 
2011-03-14 07:10:46 AM

Corvus: aphexcoil: Corvus,

You are getting hysterical.

Let's just agree that you're wrong and over-exaggerating the dangers of nuclear power. One day we might get thorium based fuel reactors or possibly even fusion based reactors. We won't get there with ignorance fueled paranoia.

So what is happening in Japan right now is a lie?


Funny how people are trying to spin that what is happening in Japan now is not actually happening.

How is pointing out what is actually happening is "exaggerating"?


I never said everything was peachy-keen in Japan with the nuclear reactors. There are some issues that need to be worked out. However, you're taking one data point and globalizing it into something greater than what it is.

Here are the facts:

* Nobody has died from radiation leakage
* 10,000+ people have died from the tsunami and the earthquake

Are coastal areas always safe? No? Then why did we build so many cities on them? Because it's economically the best decision (for transportation, trade, etc.)

Are nuclear plants always safe? No? Well they're the best economic decision for power *AS OF RIGHT NOW*

What are you suggesting? I really want to know what you are suggesting? Should we just turn off all the nuclear plants? You want to cover half the U.S. in solar panels and increase global warming due to the extra heat generated from absorption of energy from the sun? Did anyone do a study on that?

We know the dangers and benefits of nuclear technology because it is a tried and proven science.
 
2011-03-14 07:11:00 AM
raab:
Can your house atomize an F4 Phantom?

Why, no, no it can't!

/good one
 
2011-03-14 07:11:24 AM

Corvus: That's usually what people do when they have no logical reply to make.


www.thelibertyvoice.com
 
2011-03-14 07:12:27 AM

Corvus: I can't believe this bullshiat.


You'll get over it.
 
2011-03-14 07:13:38 AM

Asplenium: Corvus: aphexcoil: Corvus:

...

C) this is a lie. I pointed out earlier and magically everyone ignored it. Nuclear energy is not cheap. The US government has wasted millions on looking at waste storage. Also costs like dismantling the stations after they are old is not figured in the cost and this is expensive. I pay a "tax" for this and will be paying one for years if not decades. Everyone else will be too that is why they are pushing for new nuclear now before everyone starts seeing "Nuclear plant dismantle taxes" on their electric bills and find out the real costs.

...



They've already got an optimal storage facility built. It's called Yucca Mountain (probably something about nuclear waste storage after that). It might have cost millions, but it's done now and too late to regain that money. It'll hold a lot of waste, and is in a perfect spot. EXCEPT, alarmists in Nevada don't want waste stored in their state, so they cock-blocked it. So it's pretty much empty right now.


Yes the plant that was killed. Millions (probably billions) of tax payer dollars gone to wasting in the planning of it (no I am not saying building the facility that electricity consumers paid for).

There is still no location.
 
2011-03-14 07:14:20 AM

Tamyu: You know, it is really irritating to me to see people out there saying that Japan should have planned for this as it is a "fact of life" here...

If it were a normal "fact of life" for seriously massive earthquakes and tsunami to happen I am pretty sure this wouldn`t have been the first in 100+ years.

Earthquakes and tsunami ARE a fact of life and a regular occurrence. Earthquakes and tsunami of THAT SIZE simply are not. If they were, people sure as hell wouldn`t have been living along the coast.

People planned for something huge... And something even larger came along, together with bad luck.


There is a huge chance a earth quake of this magnitude will happen on the west coast in the next 20 years.

Humans suffer from the herd mentality. They naturally group together and build where it's convenient for them. Safety is not the first concern.
 
2011-03-14 07:14:21 AM
Jesus Christ. Corvus, when the hell did you go off your rocker? God help you if you're trolling.

/A lot of people are dead. This isn't the place to have some stupid 'my energy is safer than your energy' dick-waving contest for fark's sake. Stow it already and stop making yourself look like a gigantic ass.
/Still haven't heard about a friend of mine who might have been in Sendai. Getting really tired of people ranting about shiat they don't know jack about while waiting.
 
2011-03-14 07:15:17 AM

Corvus: Yes the plant that was killed. Millions (probably billions) of tax payer dollars gone to wasting in the planning of it (no I am not saying building the facility that electricity consumers paid for).

There is still no location.


Because of people getting hysterical about nuclear power. Just like you.
 
2011-03-14 07:15:35 AM
Interesting article from the NYT: Radioactive Releases in Japan Could Last Months, Experts Say. So, take into account when making your arguments please, that it looks like the best case scenario right now involves releasing radioactive steam repeatedly, and that steam will become more and more contaminated as time goes on.

What really ticks me off is how every step of the way, nuclear proponents say "well, this is the worst thing that can happen, it won't get any worse" and anyone that dares look forward to see what might happen beyond that point is 'fearmongering'.

The situation is getting worse every day, and I sincerely look forward to the day that it stops getting worse, because a nuclear disaster isn't worth any 'I told you so' smugness.
 
2011-03-14 07:15:43 AM

davidphogan: Give a reason it can. Explain where a 9.0 quake followed by a super-tsunami is going to come from for any of those plants.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-03-14 07:16:20 AM

Corvus: Seussie: Also, I hope you guys are right, and they're safe as houses, because:

Link (new window)

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.

But aren't you reading the thread, "it can't happen here", just because.


Corvus. Imagine that the Fukushima #1 reactor was in your back yard. Now imagine that you somehow survived both the tsunami and earthquake, and an evacuation order was issued.

You GTFO.

You get dosed with a month's worth of radiation in a day.

The reactor is still contained. No damage to anything.

Working as designed, I'd say.
 
2011-03-14 07:17:50 AM

davidphogan: Corvus: Yes the plant that was killed. Millions (probably billions) of tax payer dollars gone to wasting in the planning of it (no I am not saying building the facility that electricity consumers paid for).

There is still no location.

Because of people getting hysterical about nuclear power. Just like you.


Yeah Nevada is the home of Hippie environmentalists. That's a laugh.


Why doesn't a "real 'merican" state like Texas decide to put it there?

Oh wait those states don't want it either. Maybe they should of had a plan before they made the problem.
 
2011-03-14 07:18:27 AM

Corvus: davidphogan: Give a reason it can. Explain where a 9.0 quake followed by a super-tsunami is going to come from for any of those plants.


I already explained that California's coast doesn't have a subduction zone of the type that can cause a quake/tsunami combo like this.

Still, I'm sure they'll be doing a thorough review now so just in case something impossible (as far as geology is understood today) happens, they won't make the same mistakes that happened in this case.
 
2011-03-14 07:18:54 AM
I'm thinking of going into therapy. There must be something wrong with my head to be participating in threads like these....
 
2011-03-14 07:19:04 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: Seussie: Also, I hope you guys are right, and they're safe as houses, because:

Link (new window)

General Electric-designed reactors in Fukushima have 23 sisters in U.S.

But aren't you reading the thread, "it can't happen here", just because.

Corvus. Imagine that the Fukushima #1 reactor was in your back yard. Now imagine that you somehow survived both the tsunami and earthquake, and an evacuation order was issued.

You GTFO.

You get dosed with a month's worth of radiation in a day.

The reactor is still contained. No damage to anything.

Working as designed, I'd say.


Well why are they evacuating houses? Why did the USS Reagan have to move if everything there is safe?
 
2011-03-14 07:19:14 AM
It's so sad that this disaster has shaken Corvus away from his long held belief in nuclear power.

I has a sad.
 
2011-03-14 07:19:51 AM

Corvus: Yeah Nevada is the home of Hippie environmentalists. That's a laugh.


Who mentioned hippies?

Corvus: Why doesn't a "real 'merican" state like Texas decide to put it there?

Oh wait those states don't want it either. Maybe they should of had a plan before they made the problem.


Okay, now you're just making it obvious you're trolling. Way too over the top.
 
2011-03-14 07:20:32 AM

thespindrifter: What I want to know is, how many plants built since this older design was kaboshed now use the default "drop down" safety feature where the rods fall back into the containment shielding if the SHTF? And of those, how many at the Savannah River site are of that design? I ask because Savannah is damned close to Charleston, and Charleston is WAY overdue for another "Big One".


The reactors at SRS have all been deactivated. There has not been a planned nuclear criticality there since the end of the cold war and there has never been an unplanned nuclear criticality. The biggest risk on any of the Department of Energy sites is the loss of negative pressure in the contaminated buildings resulting in a slow radiation leak. That would be nothing compared to a reactor meltdown.
 
2011-03-14 07:20:33 AM
blogs.technet.com
 
2011-03-14 07:20:39 AM

Corvus: Asplenium: Corvus: aphexcoil: Corvus:

...

C) this is a lie. I pointed out earlier and magically everyone ignored it. Nuclear energy is not cheap. The US government has wasted millions on looking at waste storage. Also costs like dismantling the stations after they are old is not figured in the cost and this is expensive. I pay a "tax" for this and will be paying one for years if not decades. Everyone else will be too that is why they are pushing for new nuclear now before everyone starts seeing "Nuclear plant dismantle taxes" on their electric bills and find out the real costs.

...



They've already got an optimal storage facility built. It's called Yucca Mountain (probably something about nuclear waste storage after that). It might have cost millions, but it's done now and too late to regain that money. It'll hold a lot of waste, and is in a perfect spot. EXCEPT, alarmists in Nevada don't want waste stored in their state, so they cock-blocked it. So it's pretty much empty right now.

Yes the plant that was killed. Millions (probably billions) of tax payer dollars gone to wasting in the planning of it (no I am not saying building the facility that electricity consumers paid for).

There is still no location.


Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and blame people with your mentality on that one. If people don't want the money to be wasted (and who would want that), just let them store waste there. It's a perfect site, people are just getting NIMBY about it. Could be the 'State over Country' attitude that some Americans seem to have.
 
2011-03-14 07:22:35 AM

davidphogan: I already explained that California's coast doesn't have a subduction zone of the type that can cause a quake/tsunami combo like this.


Umm you know California was on a tsunami watch for this earthquake.

California can have earthquakes. California can have Tsunamis.

Are you trying to say San Onfre is impossible for any leaking radiation from any earthquake?


Because many peo-nuclear people in this thread were saying that was not true before.

I would be feeling a lot better but half of the people it's:

We are all safe in the US. Impossible to happen here!

And the other apologist saying:

It can happen here, nothing is safe.

Which is it?
 
2011-03-14 07:22:52 AM

Corvus: Well why are they evacuating houses? Why did the USS Reagan have to move if everything there is safe?


Nobody is saying it is "safe."

Stop thinking in black and white terms. Things can fall anywhere on the scale between "cuddling with fuzzy puppies and kitties" and "omgomgomg we're all gonna die armageddon!!1!"

Wipe the froth off your mouth and go take a nap or something before you hurt yourself.
 
2011-03-14 07:25:23 AM

Asplenium: Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and blame people with your mentality on that one. If people don't want the money to be wasted (and who would want that), just let them store waste there. It's a perfect site, people are just getting NIMBY about it. Could be the 'State over Country' attitude that some Americans seem to have.


To pretend Nevada is a hippy environmentalist state pretty much makes you look foolish.

Once again why doesn't Texas or some other state with out the "Nevada hippies" take it?

And the reason is irrelevant. The point is nuclear is expensive and many of the costs are hidden. Solar and most other alternative fuel becomes cheaper every year.
 
2011-03-14 07:25:59 AM

Asplenium: Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and blame people with your mentality on that one. If people don't want the money to be wasted (and who would want that), just let them store waste there. It's a perfect site, people are just getting NIMBY about it. Could be the 'State over Country' attitude that some Americans seem to have.


Hell, if money is the issue then why not start up reprocessing facilities (AFAIK we don't have any in the US) then use Yucca Mountain as a repository for unprocessable waste, and a strategic nuclear fuel reserve and a storage site until we can get fourth-generation nuclear power plants online?

Yeah yeah NIMBY hippies whatever I know, but the anti-nuke sentiment in the US is just ridiculous.
 
2011-03-14 07:26:13 AM

davidphogan: Corvus: Yeah Nevada is the home of Hippie environmentalists. That's a laugh.

Who mentioned hippies?

Corvus: Why doesn't a "real 'merican" state like Texas decide to put it there?

Oh wait those states don't want it either. Maybe they should of had a plan before they made the problem.

Okay, now you're just making it obvious you're trolling. Way too over the top.


He's probably trolling, but there are likely others reading these posts who are curious so why not:

Nevada's geography is ideal to store nuclear waste. It's dry, which helps from a ground water contamination angle. Plus it's far from coasts, which protects itself from a lot of potential problems, like natural disasters or 'enemy invasions'. The exact location of Yucca Mountain is far from cities (to please alarmists), and has a good chunk of altitude to it (again for the ground water thing).

There are probably a ton of other reasons, but I'm doing all this from memory.
 
2011-03-14 07:27:00 AM

ByOwlLight:
Wipe the froth off your mouth and go take a nap or something before you hurt yourself.


While I agree he's become a little unhinged, I do think this is a discussion we should be having. If because of the disaster unfolding in Japan we should wait, ok. If not in this thread, fine. But I really would like some answers on safety and current nuclear practices.

/still on fence, but I was very pro nuke before this.
 
2011-03-14 07:27:38 AM

ByOwlLight: Corvus: Well why are they evacuating houses? Why did the USS Reagan have to move if everything there is safe?

Nobody is saying it is "safe."


Yes they are. They are doing it in this very thread.

davidphogan is making that very argument. Is he wrong?

Also I showed above a link from the Nuclear industry front group declaring how safe nuclear energy is. People ARE saying it's safe.
 
2011-03-14 07:28:34 AM

Corvus: Yes they are. They are doing it in this very thread.

davidphogan is making that very argument. Is he wrong?

Also I showed above a link from the Nuclear industry front group declaring how safe nuclear energy is. People ARE saying it's safe.


It's 100% safe
 
2011-03-14 07:28:51 AM

Corvus: davidphogan: I already explained that California's coast doesn't have a subduction zone of the type that can cause a quake/tsunami combo like this.

Umm you know California was on a tsunami watch for this earthquake.

California can have earthquakes. California can have Tsunamis.

Are you trying to say San Onfre is impossible for any leaking radiation from any earthquake?


Because many peo-nuclear people in this thread were saying that was not true before.

I would be feeling a lot better but half of the people it's:

We are all safe in the US. Impossible to happen here!

And the other apologist saying:

It can happen here, nothing is safe.

Which is it?


It's incredibly safe but there is a very, very remote chance that a problem could happen as a result of an earthquake. There's also a chance that a meteor could strike the earth and wipe out all life on the planet, but I'm not shiatting my pants in fear about that either.

And yes, California can get earthquakes, but not of the type that occurred causing a tsunami of this size. For that you have to go a lot farther up the coast than any nuclear plants that currently exist.

And again, US engineers will learn from this, and make things that much safer.
 
2011-03-14 07:29:02 AM
We are all safe in the US. Impossible to happen here!

And the other apologist saying:

It can happen here, nothing is safe.

So which is it?
 
2011-03-14 07:29:25 AM
Dude, Corvus is hilarious. He's like the Bevets of alternative energy.
 
2011-03-14 07:29:36 AM
Corvus,

Read this. This guy is from MIT and knows his shiat. Just take a coffee break and read it, please.

Link (new window)
 
2011-03-14 07:29:51 AM

Corvus: Asplenium: Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and blame people with your mentality on that one. If people don't want the money to be wasted (and who would want that), just let them store waste there. It's a perfect site, people are just getting NIMBY about it. Could be the 'State over Country' attitude that some Americans seem to have.

To pretend Nevada is a hippy environmentalist state pretty much makes you look foolish.

Once again why doesn't Texas or some other state with out the "Nevada hippies" take it?

And the reason is irrelevant. The point is nuclear is expensive and many of the costs are hidden. Solar and most other alternative fuel becomes cheaper every year.


I never mentioned hippies. At all. You might have inferred that, but I never attempted to imply it.

Plus, I'm not American. So maybe there is a big hippy movement in Nevada that I'm unaware of. Stranger things have happened.
 
2011-03-14 07:30:40 AM

epoc_tnac: What really ticks me off is how every step of the way, nuclear proponents say "well, this is the worst thing that can happen, it won't get any worse" and anyone that dares look forward to see what might happen beyond that point is 'fearmongering'.


No, the fearmongering comes in when that "look forward" is based on speculation (note the use of COULD), and when it's used as ammo for the NIMBY folks who lack perspective.

Perspective check:

EVEN WITH the damage done to Fukushima, there's still less radioactivity floating around from the damage than there would be from a coal-fired plant.

EVEN IN THE WORST POSSIBLE CASE SCENARIO, which would be the core completely melting down, the radiation would still be contained. The damage would be primarily economical.

There have been a grand total of 99 significant accidents in the history of nuclear energy. (Significant meaning either loss of life, or more than US$50k damage).

The one everybody likes to point at, Chernobyl, can not happen again. The design has changed in such a way that what killed chernobyl could not possibly kill another reactor. Full stop.

Three Mile Island? Another famous incident. Not a single death, and two different studies could not find any evidence that the small amount of radiation released was responsible for any health effects.

In short, of the realistic power generation options available, Nuclear is the only one that combines relative safety with environmental concerns and scalability. Solar and geothermal fail on scalability, wind fails on the last two (hopefully not for too long), coal fails on safety.

I would be perfectly comfortable to live with a nuke plant in my back yard. If the damn thing can take a tsunami AND a magnitude 9 earthquake and remain intact enough to only give me less radiation than a farking x-ray, I cannot find anything to be scared over.
 
2011-03-14 07:31:21 AM

Corvus: Yes they are. They are doing it in this very thread.

davidphogan is making that very argument. Is he wrong?

Also I showed above a link from the Nuclear industry front group declaring how safe nuclear energy is. People ARE saying it's safe.


I'm saying it's relatively safe. There's a chance of a problem, but we can learn from bad things that happen to.

Your response seems like the equivalent of banning airplanes after 9/11 because people can just drive instead.
 
2011-03-14 07:31:47 AM

davidphogan: And yes, California can get earthquakes, but not of the type that occurred causing a tsunami of this size. For that you have to go a lot farther up the coast than any nuclear plants that currently exist.


So you are saying the only possible way is for an earthquake followed by a tsunami just like this?


I don't believe that.


davidphogan: It's incredibly safe but there is a very, very remote chance that a problem could happen as a result of an earthquake. There's also a chance that a meteor could strike the earth and wipe out all life on the planet, but I'm not shiatting my pants in fear about that either.


But if we could do something to prevent it with cleaner, safer and cheaper energy why should we not do it?
 
2011-03-14 07:32:07 AM
SO FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI No. 2 is DRY! Fuel rods are no longer submerged, Link (new window)
 
2011-03-14 07:32:13 AM

Seussie: While I agree he's become a little unhinged, I do think this is a discussion we should be having. If because of the disaster unfolding in Japan we should wait, ok. If not in this thread, fine. But I really would like some answers on safety and current nuclear practices.

/still on fence, but I was very pro nuke before this.


Discussion I'm fine with. Slinging a bunch of bullshiat to work people up over something I'm not. Not for this.
 
2011-03-14 07:32:53 AM
I got my degree in Nuclear Physics at Fark University thread #6030976.
 
2011-03-14 07:33:02 AM

Tamyu: Earthquakes and tsunami ARE a fact of life and a regular occurrence. Earthquakes and tsunami of THAT SIZE simply are not. If they were, people sure as hell wouldn`t have been living along the coast.

People planned for something huge... And something even larger came along, together with bad luck.


Exactly. The plant was designed to cope with a 8.2 quake. It's held up against something 5 times that size (remember Richter is logarithmic) Link (new window). It was also designed to cope with a 6.5m tsunami ... unfortunately the wave was over 7m. Link (new window)
 
2011-03-14 07:33:17 AM

Corvus: But if we could do something to prevent it with cleaner, safer and cheaper energy why should we not do it?


I want a citation that there's a cleaner, safer and cheaper energy source available. Back that claim up.
 
2011-03-14 07:33:24 AM
god hates hello kitty why?
 
2011-03-14 07:34:04 AM

davidphogan: Corvus: Yes they are. They are doing it in this very thread.

davidphogan is making that very argument. Is he wrong?

Also I showed above a link from the Nuclear industry front group declaring how safe nuclear energy is. People ARE saying it's safe.

I'm saying it's relatively safe. There's a chance of a problem, but we can learn from bad things that happen to.

Your response seems like the equivalent of banning airplanes after 9/11 because people can just drive instead.


NO

Driving is much slower. It is impractical alternative. I am saying to replace it with a cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives that will out the US in the forefront of technology.

China government is spending almost 1 trillion dollars in green energy. The US is going to be left behind.
 
2011-03-14 07:34:08 AM

Corvus: But if we could do something to prevent it with cleaner, safer and cheaper energy why should we not do it?


Because everything else. EVERYTHING. Is FAR more dangerous than nuclear power. I am talking riding on the tea cups at Disney Land. MORE DANGEROUS!!!
 
2011-03-14 07:35:10 AM

Corvus: Well why are they evacuating houses? Why did the USS Reagan have to move if everything there is safe?


Standard procedure in the event of ANY problem with a nuclear reactor. Even if the amount of radiation being released is absolutely miniscule (we're talking hundredths of a percent above background), you try to get away from it because radiation damage is cumulative.

Someone over on SA actually crunched the numbers and determined that you would have to basically be outside 24 hours a day for 6 weeks or so, while drinking the nearby water in order to recieve even the beginnings of radiation sickness.
 
2011-03-14 07:35:34 AM

Corvus: NO

Driving is much slower. It is impractical alternative. I am saying to replace it with a cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives that will out the US in the forefront of technology.

China government is spending almost 1 trillion dollars in green energy. The US is going to be left behind.


I want a citation that there's a cleaner, safer and cheaper energy source available. Back that claim up.
 
2011-03-14 07:36:17 AM
So several reactors are essentially melting down, but the containment on all of them has remained intact and no major* amount of radiation has been released...

So everybody panic?

*major as in more radiation than you'd receive from a few x-rays
 
2011-03-14 07:37:13 AM

Corvus: So you are saying the only possible way is for an earthquake followed by a tsunami just like this?


I don't believe that.


Believe it. The only reason the reactors are failing is because of the one-two punch. Geological sensors immediately shut down the reactors the moment there was a hint of a tremor, while backup generators are meant to continue circulating coolant in order to get rid of the decay heat.

Only problem was, the tsunami wiped those out.
 
2011-03-14 07:37:51 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: Well why are they evacuating houses? Why did the USS Reagan have to move if everything there is safe?

Standard procedure in the event of ANY problem with a nuclear reactor. Even if the amount of radiation being released is absolutely miniscule (we're talking hundredths of a percent above background), you try to get away from it because radiation damage is cumulative.

Someone over on SA actually crunched the numbers and determined that you would have to basically be outside 24 hours a day for 6 weeks or so, while drinking the nearby water in order to recieve even the beginnings of radiation sickness.


So you are implying people on the USS Regan are being pussies about it?


People are still being evacuated during a crisis where resources for taking care of people is heavily limited. To pretend that is no big deal to add thousands of more people to shelters is ridiculous.
 
2011-03-14 07:38:58 AM

Corvus: So you are implying people on the USS Regan are being pussies about it?


No, I said it's standard operating procedure that you get the hell away from radioactivity if reasonably possible, even if it's minor.

Did you read the first paragraph at all?
 
2011-03-14 07:39:02 AM

Corvus: It is impractical alternative. I am saying to replace it with a cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives that will out the US in the forefront of technology.


Solar, wind and tidal are also impractical alternatives due to their high cost and their inability to cope with capacity demands.

To repeat myself:

upload.wikimedia.org

Please note this does not mean they shouldn't be used for supplemental.
 
2011-03-14 07:39:02 AM

Corvus: So you are implying people on the USS Regan are being pussies about it?


People are still being evacuated during a crisis where resources for taking care of people is heavily limited. To pretend that is no big deal to add thousands of more people to shelters is ridiculous.


You do realize that you're dancing on the graves of actual dead people in order to push an agenda, right?
 
2011-03-14 07:39:13 AM
Okay, there were a lot of points I wanted to make but it looks like most of my fellow rational farkers have either made them or did their best to come close.

One thing I want to say which hasn't been addressed is that the USS Ronald Reagan is a Nuclear Powered naval craft subject to the US Navy's Nuclear Power Program. The USNNPP is not subject to the NRC, but instead governed by the NRRO(Naval Reactor Regulation Organization). It is a combination of civillian and military individuals who essentially provide a more focused and direct regulation of the Navy's Nuclear standards.

Due to this fact they are closely monitored for radiation exposure, and cannot risk contamination of their equipment including the ship itself because it cannot be distinguished from the products of its own reactors. Also, they likely have no provision for exceeding their own dosage regulations from external nuclear sources and cannot risk violations of their own rules.

Given the training for nuclear operation that engineering members of the aircraft carrier have they would normally shrug off such exposure levels, however, in this case it's a matter of rules and strategic avoidance more than aversion to actual danger.
 
2011-03-14 07:39:18 AM

Corvus: So you are implying people on the USS Regan are being pussies about it?


People are still being evacuated during a crisis where resources for taking care of people is heavily limited. To pretend that is no big deal to add thousands of more people to shelters is ridiculous.


I want a citation that there's a cleaner, safer and cheaper energy source available. Back that claim up.

Seriously, your entire argument hinges on it. Back it up.
 
2011-03-14 07:39:36 AM

Seussie: While I agree he's become a little unhinged, I do think this is a discussion we should be having. If because of the disaster unfolding in Japan we should wait, ok. If not in this thread, fine. But I really would like some answers on safety and current nuclear practices.

/still on fence, but I was very pro nuke before this.


I agree that this is a good discussion to have, and sadly, the trolling in preventing it from occurring.

People are posting a lot of interesting and informative links. Too bad I have to dig through all the crazy to find them.

/was on the fence, but thus far I am impressed by how well this worst case scenario seems to be playing out. Still scary, though.
 
2011-03-14 07:39:56 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: So you are saying the only possible way is for an earthquake followed by a tsunami just like this?


I don't believe that.

Believe it. The only reason the reactors are failing is because of the one-two punch. Geological sensors immediately shut down the reactors the moment there was a hint of a tremor, while backup generators are meant to continue circulating coolant in order to get rid of the decay heat.

Only problem was, the tsunami wiped those out.


So all nuclear reactors in the US are perfectly safe from any possible similar level of major disaster like this?


Funny that's not what many of the other pro-nuclear people in this thread are saying?
 
2011-03-14 07:40:09 AM

that bosnian sniper: There are plenty of reasons to remain skeptical of nuclear power and oppose its use, but this is not among them.


If anything, this should be reassuring: It took the 5th most powerful earthquake ever recorded, *PLUS* a tsunami to cause this, and they've still been able to keep radiation releases to a minimum, and due to siting what radiation that is released is mainly going out to sea with the prevailing winds.

To put it in better perspective: The ecological and human health effects of this will most likely be *FAR* less than the Gulf oil spill last year.

Once we move away from pressurized water reactors (and the abominable and unsafe RBMK graphite moderated 'dry' reactors that the Russians use) and go over to more passively safe nuclear reactor designs, even an earthquake and tsunami won't cause a problem.
 
2011-03-14 07:40:41 AM

Corvus: So all nuclear reactors in the US are perfectly safe from any possible similar level of major disaster like this?


Funny that's not what many of the other pro-nuclear people in this thread are saying?


I want a citation that there's a cleaner, safer and cheaper energy source available. Back that claim up.
 
2011-03-14 07:40:55 AM
xaldibar: The reactors at SRS have all been deactivated. There has not been a planned nuclear criticality there since the end of the cold war and there has never been an unplanned nuclear criticality. The biggest risk on any of the Department of Energy sites is the loss of negative pressure in the contaminated buildings resulting in a slow radiation leak. That would be nothing compared to a reactor meltdown.

That's good to know. Sadly, my closest local threat, the Cedar Key/Crystal River station, is also one of the biggest rad waste depositories in America, and we're down wind. A really concentrated terrorist attack on the storage facilities would mean potential aquifer contamination in a worst-case scenario. There's just no getting away from the threat that comes with the promise.

Sadly, what most people don't seem to know is that there are a lot of places around here that glow in the dark naturally; it would seem that fossil beds, of which we have megatons, are rich in Uranium, and therefore Radon. Well, that's not counting all the people with those pretty new granite counter tops. Just can't get away from the stuff.
 
2011-03-14 07:41:30 AM
I'm playing fallout New Vegas, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...
 
2011-03-14 07:42:12 AM

Ender's: Corvus: So you are implying people on the USS Regan are being pussies about it?


People are still being evacuated during a crisis where resources for taking care of people is heavily limited. To pretend that is no big deal to add thousands of more people to shelters is ridiculous.

You do realize that you're dancing on the graves of actual dead people in order to push an agenda, right?


Nice personal attacks.


What I am doing is called learning from history. I don't want a similar disaster to harm people in the US.

I find it really disgusting for you to make such a personal attack.

Also it's disgusting the other nuclear apologists in this threat don't denounce people like you making person attacks just because someone once some questions to be answered.
 
2011-03-14 07:42:13 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Why don't they start with the seawater flooding? All efforts seem to end up there anyway.


Too damned corrosive, especially at extremely high temperatures.
Why it is a last resort
 
2011-03-14 07:42:24 AM

Theory Of Null: Why did they build them so close to one another? If one goes there is no way for them to prevent the other ones from going. Now they might have back to back meltdowns. And that will be some serious leakage.

Anyone know how long these suckers take to cool down with sea water?


The reactors are close to each other so the support systems can be grouped together for efficiency. Just because one suffered a cooling loss didn't automatically make the other ones subject to the same event. As for "serious leakage", not hardly. Each core has its own containment systems around it; even if one suffered a full scale meltdown (nothing like that is taking place btw) the others would not be affected. If either core has had a meltdown, it's probably within the center of the fuel core and involving only a few rods.

Using seawater will cool them down, but it's not so much the type of water as the flow rate, and no one knows what that is.
 
2011-03-14 07:43:46 AM

davidphogan: Corvus: So all nuclear reactors in the US are perfectly safe from any possible similar level of major disaster like this?


Funny that's not what many of the other pro-nuclear people in this thread are saying?

I want a citation that there's a cleaner, safer and cheaper energy source available. Back that claim up.


Scroll up buddy. I am tired of repeating things again and again so they can be ignored. Most alternative energies are as cheap if not cheaper and become cheaper each day. Nuclear power hides costs which I have explained in detail above.
 
2011-03-14 07:44:02 AM

Corvus: Also it's disgusting the other nuclear apologists in this threat don't denounce people like you making person attacks just because someone once some questions to be answered.


I've asked you nicely five times to prove what your entire argument hinges on. Instead you're using a tragedy to push your own agenda. You're really in no shape to say anyone is disgusting right now.
 
2011-03-14 07:44:52 AM

Corvus: Scroll up buddy. I am tired of repeating things again and again so they can be ignored. Most alternative energies are as cheap if not cheaper and become cheaper each day. Nuclear power hides costs which I have explained in detail above.


Prove it. I have your claims, and you seem to be pushing an agenda. I want some sources.
 
2011-03-14 07:45:10 AM

Corvus: I find it really disgusting for you to make such a personal attack.


*shrug*

It's the truth.
 
2011-03-14 07:45:30 AM

that bosnian sniper: Asplenium: Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and blame people with your mentality on that one. If people don't want the money to be wasted (and who would want that), just let them store waste there. It's a perfect site, people are just getting NIMBY about it. Could be the 'State over Country' attitude that some Americans seem to have.

Hell, if money is the issue then why not start up reprocessing facilities (AFAIK we don't have any in the US) then use Yucca Mountain as a repository for unprocessable waste, and a strategic nuclear fuel reserve and a storage site until we can get fourth-generation nuclear power plants online?

Yeah yeah NIMBY hippies whatever I know, but the anti-nuke sentiment in the US is just ridiculous.


As it stands there are two problems here.

1) The Government was given money to build Yucca mountain and put it into service by utility companies which use or support nuclear power. Bitter feuds with Nevada state legislators has delayed the implementation of the site and the government as since declared all of the money given it to be gone.

2)Nuclear Fuel reprocessing is illegal in the United States because originally we were supposed to have it done by other countries as part of trade agreements. Most of those countries have moved on to bigger and better things but because we signed it into law we're stuck. Also, it was signed into law because the technology that would reprocess the fuel was considered unsafe at the time and rather than outline safety requirements it was made illegal precluding any advances in technology from alleviating the problem.
 
2011-03-14 07:45:44 AM

Martman888: Corvus: You saying "The rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy" is a pretty silly argument to make.

lolWUT?


Come on, you have to admit that is a pretty silly argument.
 
2011-03-14 07:45:49 AM

Corvus: davidphogan: And yes, California can get earthquakes, but not of the type that occurred causing a tsunami of this size. For that you have to go a lot farther up the coast than any nuclear plants that currently exist.

So you are saying the only possible way is for an earthquake followed by a tsunami just like this?


I don't believe that.


No. For instance, a big ass meteor could come and hit the plant wherever you build it, and level it no matter how strong you build it.

The odds of course, are infinitesimal that something like that would happen, however, it is possible.

Now if we want to use that as the yardstick that we build everything to withstand, we might as well call it quits and go back to living in caves.

Everything in life carries risk. You mitigate it where possible. You look both ways before crossing the street, however if you truly never want to get hit by a car, you then need to lead a life where you never cross the street.

When they were building this thing, they sat down and crunched the numbers and decided what was the biggest quake\tsunami they could reasonably expect to happen in the plants lifetime, padded the numbers a bit, and built it to that standard. If they wanted to build it to survive a 9 with a 10 foot tsunami, they probably could have, but it would have cost a ton more, defeating the purpose of building it to begin with. Even then, a 9.1 earthqauke with a 11 foot tsunami could have come along, and everyone would have been saying the same thing. Or nothing could have happened in its lifetime, and everyone would be saying "why did they waste all that money building it when the odds were so low"
 
2011-03-14 07:45:57 AM

Corvus: Nuclear power hides costs which I have explained in detail above.


This chart does not hide costs, it includes system-wide lifetime costs.

I'll keep posting it if you need me to, since you seem to have a thick skull.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-03-14 07:46:42 AM

LiquidSky: Exactly. The plant was designed to cope with a 8.2 quake. It's held up against something 5 times that size (remember Richter is logarithmic) Link (new window). It was also designed to cope with a 6.5m tsunami ... unfortunately the wave was over 7m. Link (new window)


Thank you.
Too many people seem to think that there were no plans or designs considering this "fact of life".

In terms of the quake itself - the size was well within the design for 8.2 (the 8.9 was epicenter, not the actual shaking at the plant, which was a 7 something). The plant did what it was supposed to, successfully, in response to the earthquake. Or at least it started to...

The size of the tsunami is what has caused all the trouble. But even that would not have caused the problems it has if it had not followed such a huge earthquake. It was the combination of the earthquake (which didn`t cause anything that was not planned for) followed by the tsunami (which screwed everything up related to the normal shutdown procedure).

It was horrifically bad luck.
 
2011-03-14 07:46:43 AM

Corvus: Most alternative energies are as cheap if not cheaper


Read MexicanNerd's chart direct from the DOE. You are wrong.

Corvus: What I am doing is called learning from history. I don't want a similar disaster to harm people in the US.


Agreed. Looking at the maps of active plants in the USA now, the only ones that jump out at me are in California, it being in both a tectonic hotspot as well as one that gets a lot of wave activity.

upload.wikimedia.org

You bet your ass the people who run and design these things are learning from history.
 
2011-03-14 07:46:44 AM
So:

Is Nuclear power not really safe?

Or

Impossible to happen here?

I am hearing both from the pro-nuclear group. But interesting they don't argue with themselves even though they have opposing views.
 
2011-03-14 07:46:52 AM

Corvus: What I am doing is called learning from history. I don't want a similar disaster to harm people in the US.


You don't appear to be learning. As I and others have tried to point out to you, you are mainly equating a precautionary measure, evacuation, with an actual harming people disaster.
 
2011-03-14 07:46:57 AM

LineNoise: Now if we want to use that as the yardstick that we build everything to withstand, we might as well call it quits and go back to living in caves.


To be fair, you can get flooded in a cave, so that's out.
 
2011-03-14 07:48:06 AM

Corvus: Scroll up buddy. I am tired of repeating things again and again so they can be ignored. Most alternative energies are as cheap if not cheaper and become cheaper each day. Nuclear power hides costs which I have explained in detail above.


I've been following this whole thread, and you have not given any evidence whatsoever. I want to know your side so as to be better informed, but from here all I see is crazy.

Please post your evidence.
 
2011-03-14 07:48:09 AM

TsukasaK: You bet your ass the people who run and design these things are learning from history.


So then we are shutting down all the plants that are now considered "unsafe" that we have been promised for decades were 100% safe?


I haven't herd anyone mentioning shutting down these plants, have you?
 
2011-03-14 07:48:11 AM
TsukasaK: Standard procedure in the event of ANY problem with a nuclear reactor. Even if the amount of radiation being released is absolutely miniscule (we're talking hundredths of a percent above background), you try to get away from it because radiation damage is cumulative.

We've come a long way from the days of having outdoor viewing parties for H-bomb tests, and parking our entire fleet in the fallout zone from the Bikini Atoll tests. Although I have noticed one thing-- even though most smoke detectors still contain Americium, it would seem that Coleman-style lantern mantles are no longer made with Thorium; it's very hard to even find generic ones made with it anymore. Not sure how much of that is because of the world-imfamous "Radioactive Boy Scout" incident & Homeland Insecurity.
 
2011-03-14 07:48:34 AM
*******************************************
*
You all owe it to yourself to read this *
*******************************************


Link (new window)
 
2011-03-14 07:48:39 AM
I'm not even going to lie, I'm hoping for a full scale melt down just for the epic lulz the thread will contain. Go go go uranium.
 
2011-03-14 07:48:48 AM

Corvus: Ender's: Corvus: So you are implying people on the USS Regan are being pussies about it?


People are still being evacuated during a crisis where resources for taking care of people is heavily limited. To pretend that is no big deal to add thousands of more people to shelters is ridiculous.

You do realize that you're dancing on the graves of actual dead people in order to push an agenda, right?

Nice personal attacks.


What I am doing is called learning from history. I don't want a similar disaster to harm people in the US.

I find it really disgusting for you to make such a personal attack.

Also it's disgusting the other nuclear apologists in this threat don't denounce people like you making person attacks just because someone once some questions to be answered.


It's not so much a personal attack when he's right.

Stop "jumping to new talking points" instead of backing up your conclusions with facts, or expect to garner more ridicule. It's your own philosophy to arguing with people on Fark, is it not?

/Nice non-confrontational manner you've taken on in this thread, really.
 
2011-03-14 07:48:53 AM

Corvus: So:

Is Nuclear power not really safe?

Or

Impossible to happen here?

Or

Am I pushing my agenda, ignoring other users, and dancing on the 10k missing or dead in Japan?

 
2011-03-14 07:49:16 AM

Corvus: So:

Is Nuclear power not really safe?

Or

Impossible to happen here?

I am hearing both from the pro-nuclear group. But interesting they don't argue with themselves even though they have opposing views.


No, you're trolling. Your entire argument is one you refuse to back up.
 
2011-03-14 07:49:28 AM
Also look at the grand scheme of things. I think its safe to say the death toll from the earthquake itself is going to be 10k plus. Even if this power plant goes worst case, you are probably only stacking a few hundred on top of that over everyones lifetime.

Yea, it sucks, but in the grand scheme of things, its just gravy on the whole thing.
 
2011-03-14 07:50:16 AM

Corvus: davidphogan: Corvus: Yes they are. They are doing it in this very thread.

davidphogan is making that very argument. Is he wrong?

Also I showed above a link from the Nuclear industry front group declaring how safe nuclear energy is. People ARE saying it's safe.

I'm saying it's relatively safe. There's a chance of a problem, but we can learn from bad things that happen to.

Your response seems like the equivalent of banning airplanes after 9/11 because people can just drive instead.

NO

Driving is much slower. It is impractical alternative. I am saying to replace it with a cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives that will out the US in the forefront of technology.

China government is spending almost 1 trillion dollars in green energy. The US is going to be left behind.


The Chinese are also building nuclear plants. They are combining green energy with nuclear to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. In order to reduce their need for fossil fuels they have to use nuclear because there is no way that green energy will be able to provide enough energy. This is something that should be done here also, but alarmist like you want to throw away nuclear energy because your fear causes you to refuse to educate yourself about it therefore you remain fearful and ignorant about it.
 
2011-03-14 07:50:28 AM

Corvus: I am hearing both from the pro-nuclear group


Well that's your first mistake, assuming that everyone who thinks nuclear is OK is part of some organized group.

This just in: Different people, different knowledge, different stands. This isn't like the Republicans where there's a narrative to be pushed.
 
2011-03-14 07:51:15 AM

Corvus: So:

Is Nuclear power not really safe?

Or

Impossible to happen here?

I am hearing both from the pro-nuclear group. But interesting they don't argue with themselves even though they have opposing views.


Okay, I'll try this angle:

Define 'safe' in your terms.
 
2011-03-14 07:51:30 AM

Snarfangel: Martman888: Corvus: You saying "The rest of the world is poor so the US and Japan must use nuclear energy" is a pretty silly argument to make.

lolWUT?

Come on, you have to admit that is a pretty silly argument.


Oh yeah, absolutely it would be, if anyone actually made it. But Corvus has already granted that "Fine [he] may have misunderstood his argument."

That was my point in posting "lolWUT?" Because no one had made such an absurd argument in the first place, so it was even *more* silly to argue against the fabrication of it having been made.
 
2011-03-14 07:51:32 AM

Ender's: LineNoise: Now if we want to use that as the yardstick that we build everything to withstand, we might as well call it quits and go back to living in caves.

To be fair, you can get flooded in a cave, so that's out.


Not if its on top of everest. Bonus: good wind up there for power. We may have to trim our population a bit to all fit though.
 
2011-03-14 07:51:42 AM

Corvus: So then we are shutting down all the plants that are now considered "unsafe" that we have been promised for decades were 100% safe?


Please point out which "unsafe" plants you would like to see shut down. (Actually, give your metric for "unsafe" while you're at it.)

Then, while you're doing that, explain what you'd like to do about the multi-megawatt hole that would leave in the power grid.
 
2011-03-14 07:51:44 AM

LordOfThePings: Corvus: What I am doing is called learning from history. I don't want a similar disaster to harm people in the US.

You don't appear to be learning. As I and others have tried to point out to you, you are mainly equating a precautionary measure, evacuation, with an actual harming people disaster.


Umm I did explain.

They are still being evacuated. These are impacting resources that are being used for others that have had their homes destroyed. This is a major problem to have thousands evacuated while the whole country is being impacted.

If it's perfectly safe why are they being evacuated? That makes no sense. Even if it is a precautionary measure that means there is a possible of a much more dangerous problem to occur. Which means it is not safe.
 
2011-03-14 07:51:52 AM
So Nuclear power is a reasonable method if you can limit liability from a massive catastrophe, right? I mean it's not like you can build these reactors if the technology isn't stable. What I mean by that is, these things have to work under any condition AND you need to secure them against worst case scenarios including natural disasters and terrorist attacks... or just enemy attacks.

So Japan, a country that does not have the room for solar farms, wind farms, or other renewable energy farms goes nuke... I'm guessing they didn't go tidal because that technology isn't prove, or it's not reliable/it is expensive to maintain?

The truth is these reactors are doing well given their situation. It is a massive failure across the board, but the containment structures are still in place and, barring a complete meltdown and irradiation of the water table, the crisis is, to an extent, manageable.

So there's an argument against nuclear on the basis of cost, but we're talking about an island nation here, albeit a large island: space is at a real premium... even to the extent that alternatives aren't practical.

I don't really see the problem. No one can plan for something like this... actually you can, and it seems that the modern systems for nuclear power plants do, which is why this hasn't destroyed the surrounding area already.
 
2011-03-14 07:52:32 AM

Corvus: That's not true. When the panels are damaged they don't leak like that. To pretend it's remotely as bad or worse then a nuclear meltdown is really being silly.


In a tornado, a flying solar panel could easily decapitate someone. And not just a big F5 monster, but a little F1.

And don't get me started on hurricanes.
 
2011-03-14 07:52:46 AM
Here it is for those who don't like links

By: Dr Josef Oehmen, a research scientist at MIT, in Boston

I am writing this text (Mar 12) to give you some peace of mind regarding some of the troubles in Japan, that is the safety of Japan's nuclear reactors. Up front, the situation is serious, but under control. And this text is long! But you will know more about nuclear power plants after reading it than all journalists on this planet put together.

There was and will *not* be any significant release of radioactivity.

By "significant" I mean a level of radiation of more than what you would receive on - say - a long distance flight, or drinking a glass of beer that comes from certain areas with high levels of natural background radiation.

I have been reading every news release on the incident since the earthquake. There has not been one single (!) report that was accurate and free of errors (and part of that problem is also a weakness in the Japanese crisis communication). By "not free of errors" I do not refer to tendentious anti-nuclear journalism - that is quite normal these days. By "not free of errors" I mean blatant errors regarding physics and natural law, as well as gross misinterpretation of facts, due to an obvious lack of fundamental and basic understanding of the way nuclear reactors are build and operated. I have read a 3 page report on CNN where every single paragraph contained an error.

We will have to cover some fundamentals, before we get into what is going on.

Construction of the Fukushima nuclear power plants

The plants at Fukushima are so called Boiling Water Reactors, or BWR for short. Boiling Water Reactors are similar to a pressure cooker. The nuclear fuel heats water, the water boils and creates steam, the steam then drives turbines that create the electricity, and the steam is then cooled and condensed back to water, and the water send back to be heated by the nuclear fuel. The pressure cooker operates at about 250 °C.

The nuclear fuel is uranium oxide. Uranium oxide is a ceramic with a very high melting point of about 3000 °C. The fuel is manufactured in pellets (think little cylinders the size of Lego bricks). Those pieces are then put into a long tube made of Zircaloy with a melting point of 2200 °C, and sealed tight. The assembly is called a fuel rod. These fuel rods are then put together to form larger packages, and a number of these packages are then put into the reactor. All these packages together are referred to as "the core".

The Zircaloy casing is the first containment. It separates the radioactive fuel from the rest of the world.

The core is then placed in the "pressure vessels". That is the pressure cooker we talked about before. The pressure vessels is the second containment. This is one sturdy piece of a pot, designed to safely contain the core for temperatures several hundred °C. That covers the scenarios where cooling can be restored at some point.

The entire "hardware" of the nuclear reactor - the pressure vessel and all pipes, pumps, coolant (water) reserves, are then encased in the third containment. The third containment is a hermetically (air tight) sealed, very thick bubble of the strongest steel and concrete. The third containment is designed, built and tested for one single purpose: To contain, indefinitely, a complete core meltdown. For that purpose, a large and thick concrete basin is cast under the pressure vessel (the second containment), all inside the third containment. This is the so-called "core catcher". If the core melts and the pressure vessel bursts (and eventually melts), it will catch the molten fuel and everything else. It is typically built in such a way that the nuclear fuel will be spread out, so it can cool down.

This third containment is then surrounded by the reactor building. The reactor building is an outer shell that is supposed to keep the weather out, but nothing in. (this is the part that was damaged in the explosion, but more to that later).

Fundamentals of nuclear reactions

The uranium fuel generates heat by nuclear fission. Big uranium atoms are split into smaller atoms. That generates heat plus neutrons (one of the particles that forms an atom). When the neutron hits another uranium atom, that splits, generating more neutrons and so on. That is called the nuclear chain reaction.

Now, just packing a lot of fuel rods next to each other would quickly lead to overheating and after about 45 minutes to a melting of the fuel rods. It is worth mentioning at this point that the nuclear fuel in a reactor can *never* cause a nuclear explosion the type of a nuclear bomb. Building a nuclear bomb is actually quite difficult (ask Iran). In Chernobyl, the explosion was caused by excessive pressure buildup, hydrogen explosion and rupture of all containments, propelling molten core material into the environment (a "dirty bomb"). Why that did not and will not happen in Japan, further below.

In order to control the nuclear chain reaction, the reactor operators use so-called "control rods". The control rods absorb the neutrons and kill the chain reaction instantaneously. A nuclear reactor is built in such a way, that when operating normally, you take out all the control rods. The coolant water then takes away the heat (and converts it into steam and electricity) at the same rate as the core produces it. And you have a lot of leeway around the standard operating point of 250°C.

The challenge is that after inserting the rods and stopping the chain reaction, the core still keeps producing heat. The uranium "stopped" the chain reaction. But a number of intermediate radioactive elements are created by the uranium during its fission process, most notably Cesium and Iodine isotopes, i.e. radioactive versions of these elements that will eventually split up into smaller atoms and not be radioactive anymore. Those elements keep decaying and producing heat. Because they are not regenerated any longer from the uranium (the uranium stopped decaying after the control rods were put in), they get less and less, and so the core cools down over a matter of days, until those intermediate radioactive elements are used up.

This residual heat is causing the headaches right now.

So the first "type" of radioactive material is the uranium in the fuel rods, plus the intermediate radioactive elements that the uranium splits into, also inside the fuel rod (Cesium and Iodine).

There is a second type of radioactive material created, outside the fuel rods. The big main difference up front: Those radioactive materials have a very short half-life, that means that they decay very fast and split into non-radioactive materials. By fast I mean seconds. So if these radioactive materials are released into the environment, yes, radioactivity was released, but no, it is not dangerous, at all. Why? By the time you spelled "R-A-D-I-O-N-U-C-L-I-D-E", they will be harmless, because they will have split up into non radioactive elements. Those radioactive elements are N-16, the radioactive isotope (or version) of nitrogen (air). The others are noble gases such as Argon. But where do they come from? When the uranium splits, it generates a neutron (see above). Most of these neutrons will hit other uranium atoms and keep the nuclear chain reaction going. But some will leave the fuel rod and hit the water molecules, or the air that is in the water. Then, a non-radioactive element can "capture" the neutron. It becomes radioactive. As described above, it will quickly (seconds) get rid again of the neutron to return to its former beautiful self.

This second "type" of radiation is very important when we talk about the radioactivity being released into the environment later on.

What happened at Fukushima

I will try to summarize the main facts. The earthquake that hit Japan was 5 times more powerful than the worst earthquake the nuclear power plant was built for (the Richter scale works logarithmically; the difference between the 8.2 that the plants were built for and the 8.9 that happened is 5 times, not 0.7). So the first hooray for Japanese engineering, everything held up.

When the earthquake hit with 8.9, the nuclear reactors all went into automatic shutdown. Within seconds after the earthquake started, the control rods had been inserted into the core and nuclear chain reaction of the uranium stopped. Now, the cooling system has to carry away the residual heat. The residual heat load is about 3% of the heat load under normal operating conditions.

The earthquake destroyed the external power supply of the nuclear reactor. That is one of the most serious accidents for a nuclear power plant, and accordingly, a "plant black out" receives a lot of attention when designing backup systems. The power is needed to keep the coolant pumps working. Since the power plant had been shut down, it cannot produce any electricity by itself any more.

Things were going well for an hour. One set of multiple sets of emergency Diesel power generators kicked in and provided the electricity that was needed. Then the Tsunami came, much bigger than people had expected when building the power plant (see above, factor 7). The tsunami took out all multiple sets of backup Diesel generators.

When designing a nuclear power plant, engineers follow a philosophy called "Defense of Depth". That means that you first build everything to withstand the worst catastrophe you can imagine, and then design the plant in such a way that it can still handle one system failure (that you thought could never happen) after the other. A tsunami taking out all backup power in one swift strike is such a scenario. The last line of defense is putting everything into the third containment (see above), that will keep everything, whatever the mess, control rods in our out, core molten or not, inside the reactor.

When the diesel generators were gone, the reactor operators switched to emergency battery power. The batteries were designed as one of the backups to the backups, to provide power for cooling the core for 8 hours. And they did.

Within the 8 hours, another power source had to be found and connected to the power plant. The power grid was down due to the earthquake. The diesel generators were destroyed by the tsunami. So mobile diesel generators were trucked in.

This is where things started to go seriously wrong. The external power generators could not be connected to the power plant (the plugs did not fit). So after the batteries ran out, the residual heat could not be carried away any more.

At this point the plant operators begin to follow emergency procedures that are in place for a "loss of cooling event". It is again a step along the "Depth of Defense" lines. The power to the cooling systems should never have failed completely, but it did, so they "retreat" to the next line of defense. All of this, however shocking it seems to us, is part of the day-to-day training you go through as an operator, right through to managing a core meltdown.

It was at this stage that people started to talk about core meltdown. Because at the end of the day, if cooling cannot be restored, the core will eventually melt (after hours or days), and the last line of defense, the core catcher and third containment, would come into play.

But the goal at this stage was to manage the core while it was heating up, and ensure that the first containment (the Zircaloy tubes that contains the nuclear fuel), as well as the second containment (our pressure cooker) remain intact and operational for as long as possible, to give the engineers time to fix the cooling systems.

Because cooling the core is such a big deal, the reactor has a number of cooling systems, each in multiple versions (the reactor water cleanup system, the decay heat removal, the reactor core isolating cooling, the standby liquid cooling system, and the emergency core cooling system). Which one failed when or did not fail is not clear at this point in time.

So imagine our pressure cooker on the stove, heat on low, but on. The operators use whatever cooling system capacity they have to get rid of as much heat as possible, but the pressure starts building up. The priority now is to maintain integrity of the first containment (keep temperature of the fuel rods below 2200°C), as well as the second containment, the pressure cooker. In order to maintain integrity of the pressure cooker (the second containment), the pressure has to be released from time to time. Because the ability to do that in an emergency is so important, the reactor has 11 pressure release valves. The operators now started venting steam from time to time to control the pressure. The temperature at this stage was about 550°C.

This is when the reports about "radiation leakage" starting coming in. I believe I explained above why venting the steam is theoretically the same as releasing radiation into the environment, but why it was and is not dangerous. The radioactive nitrogen as well as the noble gases do not pose a threat to human health.

At some stage during this venting, the explosion occurred. The explosion took place outside of the third containment (our "last line of defense"), and the reactor building. Remember that the reactor building has no function in keeping the radioactivity contained. It is not entirely clear yet what has happened, but this is the likely scenario: The operators decided to vent the steam from the pressure vessel not directly into the environment, but into the space between the third containment and the reactor building (to give the radioactivity in the steam more time to subside). The problem is that at the high temperatures that the core had reached at this stage, water molecules can "disassociate" into oxygen and hydrogen - an explosive mixture. And it did explode, outside the third containment, damaging the reactor building around. It was that sort of explosion, but inside the pressure vessel (because it was badly designed and not managed properly by the operators) that lead to the explosion of Chernobyl. This was never a risk at Fukushima. The problem of hydrogen-oxygen formation is one of the biggies when you design a power plant (if you are not Soviet, that is), so the reactor is build and operated in a way it cannot happen inside the containment. It happened outside, which was not intended but a possible scenario and OK, because it did not pose a risk for the containment.

So the pressure was under control, as steam was vented. Now, if you keep boiling your pot, the problem is that the water level will keep falling and falling. The core is covered by several meters of water in order to allow for some time to pass (hours, days) before it gets exposed. Once the rods start to be exposed at the top, the exposed parts will reach the critical temperature of 2200 °C after about 45 minutes. This is when the first containment, the Zircaloy tube, would fail.

And this started to happen. The cooling could not be restored before there was some (very limited, but still) damage to the casing of some of the fuel. The nuclear material itself was still intact, but the surrounding Zircaloy shell had started melting. What happened now is that some of the byproducts of the uranium decay - radioactive Cesium and Iodine - started to mix with the steam. The big problem, uranium, was still under control, because the uranium oxide rods were good until 3000 °C. It is confirmed that a very small amount of Cesium and Iodine was measured in the steam that was released into the atmosphere.

It seems this was the "go signal" for a major plan B. The small amounts of Cesium that were measured told the operators that the first containment on one of the rods somewhere was about to give. The Plan A had been to restore one of the regular cooling systems to the core. Why that failed is unclear. One plausible explanation is that the tsunami also took away / polluted all the clean water needed for the regular cooling systems.

The water used in the cooling system is very clean, demineralized (like distilled) water. The reason to use pure water is the above mentioned activation by the neutrons from the Uranium: Pure water does not get activated much, so stays practically radioactive-free. Dirt or salt in the water will absorb the neutrons quicker, becoming more radioactive. This has no effect whatsoever on the core - it does not care what it is cooled by. But it makes life more difficult for the operators and mechanics when they have to deal with activated (i.e. slightly radioactive) water.

But Plan A had failed - cooling systems down or additional clean water unavailable - so Plan B came into effect. This is what it looks like happened:

In order to prevent a core meltdown, the operators started to use sea water to cool the core. I am not quite sure if they flooded our pressure cooker with it (the second containment), or if they flooded the third containment, immersing the pressure cooker. But that is not relevant for us.

The point is that the nuclear fuel has now been cooled down. Because the chain reaction has been stopped a long time ago, there is only very little residual heat being produced now. The large amount of cooling water that has been used is sufficient to take up that heat. Because it is a lot of water, the core does not produce sufficient heat any more to produce any significant pressure. Also, boric acid has been added to the seawater. Boric acid is "liquid control rod". Whatever decay is still going on, the Boron will capture the neutrons and further speed up the cooling down of the core.

The plant came close to a core meltdown. Here is the worst-case scenario that was avoided: If the seawater could not have been used for treatment, the operators would have continued to vent the water steam to avoid pressure buildup. The third containment would then have been completely sealed to allow the core meltdown to happen without releasing radioactive material. After the meltdown, there would have been a waiting period for the intermediate radioactive materials to decay inside the reactor, and all radioactive particles to settle on a surface inside the containment. The cooling system would have been restored eventually, and the molten core cooled to a manageable temperature. The containment would have been cleaned up on the inside. Then a messy job of removing the molten core from the containment would have begun, packing the (now solid again) fuel bit by bit into transportation containers to be shipped to processing plants. Depending on the damage, the block of the plant would then either be repaired or dismantled.

Now, where does that leave us? My assessment:

The plant is safe now and will stay safe.
Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else.
Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plants' chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again.
There was some limited damage to the first containment. That means that some amounts of radioactive Cesium and Iodine will also be released into the cooling water, but no Uranium or other nasty stuff (the Uranium oxide does not "dissolve" in the water). There are facilities for treating the cooling water inside the third containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed there and eventually stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage.
The seawater used as cooling water will be activated to some degree. Because the control rods are fully inserted, the Uranium chain reaction is not happening. That means the "main" nuclear reaction is not happening, thus not contributing to the activation. The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a long time ago. This further reduces the activation. The bottom line is that there will be some low level of activation of the seawater, which will also be removed by the treatment facilities.
The seawater will then be replaced over time with the "normal" cooling water
The reactor core will then be dismantled and transported to a processing facility, just like during a regular fuel change.
Fuel rods and the entire plant will be checked for potential damage. This will take about 4-5 years.
The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse)
(Updated) I believe the most significant problem will be a prolonged power shortage. 11 of Japan's 55 nuclear reactors in different plants were shut down and will have to be inspected, directly reducing the nation's nuclear power generating capacity by 20%, with nuclear power accounting for about 30% of the national total power generation capacity. I have not looked into possible consequences for other nuclear plants not directly affected. This will probably be covered by running gas power plants that are usually only used for peak loads to cover some of the base load as well. I am not familiar with Japan's energy supply chain for oil, gas and coal, and what damage the harbors, refinery, storage and transportation networks have suffered, as well as damage to the national distribution grid. All of that will increase your electricity bill, as well as lead to power shortages during peak demand and reconstruction efforts, in Japan.
This all is only part of a much bigger picture. Emergency response has to deal with shelter, drinking water, food and medical care, transportation and communication infrastructure, as well as electricity supply. In a world of lean supply chains, we are looking at some major challenges in all of these areas.
 
2011-03-14 07:53:19 AM

aphexcoil: What's the REM to RAD conversion factor? (i.e. 1 RAD = ? REM)


The rem/Sievert is weighted to reflect the relative effects different types of radiation have on living tissue. Generally speaking, alpha radiation is about 20 times as damaging as beta or gamma radiation, but alpha isn't harmful unless a source is ingested.
 
2011-03-14 07:53:27 AM

TsukasaK: Well that's your first mistake, assuming that everyone who thinks nuclear is OK is part of some organized group.


At least we're not shills anymore!
 
2011-03-14 07:54:06 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: So then we are shutting down all the plants that are now considered "unsafe" that we have been promised for decades were 100% safe?

Please point out which "unsafe" plants you would like to see shut down. (Actually, give your metric for "unsafe" while you're at it.)

Then, while you're doing that, explain what you'd like to do about the multi-megawatt hole that would leave in the power grid.


I didn't say that.


But we shouldn't trust these people who said they were perfectly safe before and leave us in this situation.

I am tired of "learning from their mistakes".
 
2011-03-14 07:54:10 AM
Corvus, what exactly is your main concern?

The place no longer being livable?

The exposure of people in the area? or out of it?

The ability to the plant to no longer function?

The probability of this occurring here?

Like what is the worst case scenario for you?

I'm not really sure what you are so getting worked up over?
 
2011-03-14 07:54:53 AM

Corvus: If it's perfectly safe why are they being evacuated?


OK, then, let's hear it. How do you define safe? You've ignored this question several times, and others have offered their explanations.
 
2011-03-14 07:54:59 AM

NuclearScientist:

As it stands there are two problems here.

1) The Government was given money to build Yucca mountain and put it into service by utility companies which use or support nuclear power. Bitter feuds with Nevada state legislators has delayed the implementation of the site and the government as since declared all of the money given it to be gone.

2)Nuclear Fuel reprocessing is illegal in the United States because originally we were supposed to have it done by other countries as part of trade agreements. Most of those countries have moved on to bigger and better things but because we signed it into law we're stuck. Also, it was signed into law because the technology that would reprocess the fuel was considered unsafe at the time and rather than outline safety requirements it was made illegal precluding any advances in technology from alleviating the problem.


Interesting, thanks for the info. I'll probably read up more on this when I've got more time later on today.

Glad that you're being frequent with your postings; having a dedicated expert is quite informative.
 
2011-03-14 07:55:21 AM

Snarfangel: Corvus: That's not true. When the panels are damaged they don't leak like that. To pretend it's remotely as bad or worse then a nuclear meltdown is really being silly.

In a tornado, a flying solar panel could easily decapitate someone. And not just a big F5 monster, but a little F1.

And don't get me started on hurricanes.


Yes that is totally equivalent to thousands of people being evacuated because of radiation leaks.

It's exactly the same.
 
2011-03-14 07:55:27 AM

Corvus: I didn't say that.


Yes you bloody well farking did, it's in my reply to your post that you quoted!

So then we are shutting down all the plants that are now considered "unsafe" that we have been promised for decades were 100% safe?

Your words.

What is your metric for "unsafe"? Explain please.
 
2011-03-14 07:56:12 AM

TsukasaK: Believe it. The only reason the reactors are failing is because of the one-two punch. Geological sensors immediately shut down the reactors the moment there was a hint of a tremor, while backup generators are meant to continue circulating coolant in order to get rid of the decay heat.

Only problem was, the tsunami wiped those out.


Yup. If there was one critical failure to blame here, it was a failure of imagination. Which is understandable, considering how unimaginable the situation really is.

NuclearScientist: 2)Nuclear Fuel reprocessing is illegal in the United States because originally we were supposed to have it done by other countries as part of trade agreements. Most of those countries have moved on to bigger and better things but because we signed it into law we're stuck. Also, it was signed into law because the technology that would reprocess the fuel was considered unsafe at the time and rather than outline safety requirements it was made illegal precluding any advances in technology from alleviating the problem.


I'd forgotten about that angle. I thought there were also some issues brought up regarding nonproliferation, though. That could have just been political grandstanding, as far as I know.

Thanks for the TF, by the way. Much appreciated.
 
2011-03-14 07:56:16 AM

ongbok:

The Chinese are also building nuclear plants. They are combining green energy with nuclear to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. In order to reduce their need for fossil fuels they have to use nuclear because there is no way that green energy will be able to provide enough energy. This is something that should be done here also, but alarmist like you want to throw away nuclear energy because your fear causes you to refuse to educate yourself about it therefore you remain fearful and ignorant about it.


Also, don't forget that the chinese are still building the system more or less from the ground up. It isn't like they are replacing an existing system that powers the entire country.

So if you give a guy who never had electricity before, or at least reliable electricity power, he isn't going to flip out that it costs 3x as much as he was used to. He also isn't going to have a house full of appliances that draw a ton of power to begin with. You have far more options on the table.

In the US it is sort of like requiring a guy with a 67 mustang to retrofit it with abs, airbags, traction control, a catalytic converter, and demand it gets 60mpg as a hybrid. Is it possible? Sure. But its going to cost you a hell of a lot more than just going out and buying a prius, especially if you expect the guy to be able to use that car while the conversion process is underway.

And at the end of the day, the guy who owned it is going to probably be pretty pissed, because he isn't left driving a 67 mustang anymore, and it cost him an assload of money to do.
 
2011-03-14 07:56:31 AM

Corvus: Yes that is totally equivalent to thousands of people being evacuated because of radiation leaks.


You seem to conflate preventative evacuation with actual damage. The two are distinct and separate concepts.

Define "unsafe" please.
 
2011-03-14 07:56:44 AM
Nothing in life is 100% safe. You could get hit by a meteor in your bed, or a tree limb fall on your car on the way to work. Human error can occur in any technologically advanced power plant, resulting in damage and loss of life.

These nuclear plant mishaps, though, show that the design works as expected. The control rods have shut down the nuclear reaction in the cores, the cooling systems are preventing them from full scale meltdowns. The containment systems have kept nearly all the radiation from escaping into the environment; only radiation deliberately released has escaped so far.

Those systems work; the problems have been with getting the water to circulate through the cooling systems because of a lack of power. Main power out, secondary power out, battery power out, temporary emergency generators have to be brought in. But throughout all this, the design features are working as expected; there've been no surprises with the design or the procedures.

Seems to me that these old reactors are as safe as can be expected, given the catastrophic events that took place around them.
 
2011-03-14 07:56:50 AM

Corvus: I am tired of "learning from their mistakes".


Oh? What was the last nuclear incident you or your family were involved in?
 
2011-03-14 07:57:07 AM

Snarfangel: Corvus: That's not true. When the panels are damaged they don't leak like that. To pretend it's remotely as bad or worse then a nuclear meltdown is really being silly.

In a tornado, a flying solar panel could easily decapitate someone. And not just a big F5 monster, but a little F1.

And don't get me started on hurricanes.


And let's not talk about how the total, catastrophic disintegration of a wind turbine can send gigantic death blades zooming through the air. The big ones reach 240mph at the tips when spinning properly. Imagine them careening out of control!

/Oh, but they're 100% safe, those things
 
2011-03-14 07:58:21 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: Yes that is totally equivalent to thousands of people being evacuated because of radiation leaks.

You seem to conflate preventative evacuation with actual damage. The two are distinct and separate concepts.

Define "unsafe" please.


If you being evacuated because of a threat that means it is unsafe or can become unsafe. I would call that "unsafe".


If I need to possibly be evacuated for it, it is "unsafe".
 
2011-03-14 07:58:58 AM

Corvus: Yes that is totally equivalent to thousands of people being evacuated because of radiation leaks.

It's exactly the same.


The nucular is so scary to you, isn't it?
 
2011-03-14 07:59:20 AM
www.internetargument.com
 
2011-03-14 07:59:31 AM

Ender's: Corvus: I am tired of "learning from their mistakes".

Oh? What was the last nuclear incident you or your family were involved in?


The "taxes" I pay in nuclear dismantling fee I will be paying for decades that was a hidden cost of nuclear power.
 
2011-03-14 07:59:36 AM

Corvus: If you being evacuated because of a threat that means it is unsafe or can become unsafe. I would call that "unsafe".


If I need to possibly be evacuated for it, it is "unsafe".


So you're basically a gigantic pussy then?
 
2011-03-14 07:59:56 AM
 
2011-03-14 08:00:16 AM
There are cleaner alternatives to Nuclear, Coal, Gas. Biodiesel generating stations being one I favor. The unfortunate reality is that they cannot generate electricity at the anywhere near same efficiency of nuclear, gas or coal. SO lots of small ones or extremely large ones are needed. Very expensive to implement, so, not very feasible at this time without huge taxpayer investment.

Political reality at the moment prevents this.

Nuclear energy is a necessary bridge to greener alternatives. I personally, am completely unaware of any promise of 100% safety from nuclear ever being made to me in my 51 years on the planet.

However, clean coal really is a pipe dream.

Natural gas only burns clean because they strip all the pollutants from collected gas before putting it in the pipeline (and usually vent these dirty gasses to the atmosphere or landfill the toxic sludge)

We're not in a position to begin large scale bio diesel production.

I don't think we have any choice but to invest in nuclear as a bridge to other technologies. But when we do, we should use the inherently safe Molten salt or Thorium pebble bed designs that are proven.

It should also be noted that not all radiation is equally dangerous. Corvus is lost in mis-knowledge. Not grasping that some of the radiation released will be very short lived and not a health risk, like the noble gasses. Other radiation released we already know how to treat successfully so there is little health risk, like the Cesium and Iodine that was released.

As long as the containment vessel remains in tact (already verified and also easily verifiable), then nothing really dirty or long lived will be released.

Corvus is passing along a lot of emotional reaction that is based upon supposition with little factual substance. The best recommendation I could possibly make to Corvus is....

Turn the damn TV off.
 
2011-03-14 08:00:17 AM

ronaprhys: Corvus: Yes that is totally equivalent to thousands of people being evacuated because of radiation leaks.

It's exactly the same.

The nucular is so scary to you, isn't it?


not really. I am just tried of being lied to about it's safety and costs.
 
2011-03-14 08:00:30 AM

Corvus: If you being evacuated because of a threat that means it is unsafe or can become unsafe. I would call that "unsafe".


If I need to possibly be evacuated for it, it is "unsafe".


So if I was on a plane, in a building, or some other place and it's possible that a chemical was released so they decided to disembark/evac us just in case, that's unsafe?

Do you cower at the thought of a spoiled banana being in your house?
 
2011-03-14 08:01:02 AM

Corvus: Snarfangel: Corvus: That's not true. When the panels are damaged they don't leak like that. To pretend it's remotely as bad or worse then a nuclear meltdown is really being silly.

In a tornado, a flying solar panel could easily decapitate someone. And not just a big F5 monster, but a little F1.

And don't get me started on hurricanes.

Yes that is totally equivalent to thousands of people being evacuated because of radiation leaks.

It's exactly the same.


Yes, because these radiation leaks totally happened all by themselves. One of the worst natural disasters in recorded history had absolutely nothing to do with it.

/You know, the idea of millions of solar panels being whipped through a Cat 5 hurricane is a bit frightening to contemplate.
 
2011-03-14 08:01:21 AM

Corvus: If I need to possibly be evacuated for it, it is "unsafe".


So you never had an enema, then.
 
2011-03-14 08:01:39 AM

X-boxershorts: Corvus is passing along a lot of emotional reaction that is based upon supposition with little factual substance. The best recommendation I could possibly make to Corvus is....

Turn the damn TV off.


Umm I don't watch TV.

Emotional? I am just asking question. It seem like other people are the ones attacking me for asking some questions.
 
2011-03-14 08:02:02 AM

Corvus: not really. I am just tried of being lied to about it's safety and costs.


If you're being lied to, you're not paying attention. That's not our fault - that's your problem.
 
2011-03-14 08:02:54 AM

Corvus: If you being evacuated because of a threat that means it is unsafe or can become unsafe. I would call that "unsafe".


Did you again miss the whole bit about standard ops? You would have to stand outdoors, 24 hours a day, for weeks, with no protection, in order for your exposure to even scratch the surface of being a health problem.

Don't want the slightly elevated background radiation? Then stay in your farking house and don't get it.
 
2011-03-14 08:03:14 AM
Just in case no one's posted this: https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans- nuclear-reactors/

Just read it, rather interesting and seemingly educational.
 
2011-03-14 08:03:24 AM

ronaprhys: Corvus: If you being evacuated because of a threat that means it is unsafe or can become unsafe. I would call that "unsafe".


If I need to possibly be evacuated for it, it is "unsafe".

So if I was on a plane, in a building, or some other place and it's possible that a chemical was released so they decided to disembark/evac us just in case, that's unsafe?

Do you cower at the thought of a spoiled banana being in your house?


So the USS Reagan is just a bunch of pussies? Because they have evacuated.

Yes. If I am being evacuated it is because someone deems something to be unsafe or a possibility of becoming unsafe. That is the reason for evacuations.
 
2011-03-14 08:03:57 AM

X-boxershorts: There are cleaner alternatives to Nuclear, Coal, Gas. Biodiesel generating stations being one I favor. The unfortunate reality is that they cannot generate electricity at the anywhere near same efficiency of nuclear, gas or coal. SO lots of small ones or extremely large ones are needed. Very expensive to implement, so, not very feasible at this time without huge taxpayer investment.

Political reality at the moment prevents this.

Nuclear energy is a necessary bridge to greener alternatives. I personally, am completely unaware of any promise of 100% safety from nuclear ever being made to me in my 51 years on the planet.

However, clean coal really is a pipe dream.

Natural gas only burns clean because they strip all the pollutants from collected gas before putting it in the pipeline (and usually vent these dirty gasses to the atmosphere or landfill the toxic sludge)

We're not in a position to begin large scale bio diesel production.

I don't think we have any choice but to invest in nuclear as a bridge to other technologies. But when we do, we should use the inherently safe Molten salt or Thorium pebble bed designs that are proven.

It should also be noted that not all radiation is equally dangerous. Corvus is lost in mis-knowledge. Not grasping that some of the radiation released will be very short lived and not a health risk, like the noble gasses. Other radiation released we already know how to treat successfully so there is little health risk, like the Cesium and Iodine that was released.

As long as the containment vessel remains in tact (already verified and also easily verifiable), then nothing really dirty or long lived will be released.

Corvus is passing along a lot of emotional reaction that is based upon supposition with little factual substance. The best recommendation I could possibly make to Corvus is....

Turn the damn TV off.


I think I just developed a spontaneous crush.
 
2011-03-14 08:05:11 AM
Nuclear power is a lot safer than wind turbines. If giant space robots ever attacked earth, the could tear a windmill from the ground and use it like a giant weed whacker taking out everything in its path. Think about it.
 
2011-03-14 08:05:19 AM

NuclearScientist: that bosnian sniper: Asplenium: Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and blame people with your mentality on that one. If people don't want the money to be wasted (and who would want that), just let them store waste there. It's a perfect site, people are just getting NIMBY about it. Could be the 'State over Country' attitude that some Americans seem to have.

Hell, if money is the issue then why not start up reprocessing facilities (AFAIK we don't have any in the US) then use Yucca Mountain as a repository for unprocessable waste, and a strategic nuclear fuel reserve and a storage site until we can get fourth-generation nuclear power plants online?

Yeah yeah NIMBY hippies whatever I know, but the anti-nuke sentiment in the US is just ridiculous.

As it stands there are two problems here.

1) The Government was given money to build Yucca mountain and put it into service by utility companies which use or support nuclear power. Bitter feuds with Nevada state legislators has delayed the implementation of the site and the government as since declared all of the money given it to be gone.

2)Nuclear Fuel reprocessing is illegal in the United States because originally we were supposed to have it done by other countries as part of trade agreements. Most of those countries have moved on to bigger and better things but because we signed it into law we're stuck. Also, it was signed into law because the technology that would reprocess the fuel was considered unsafe at the time and rather than outline safety requirements it was made illegal precluding any advances in technology from alleviating the problem.


Yeah, thats law is really stupid and is holding us back. We have been safely separating nuclear fuel since the early 50's. If we dont change the law we are going to end up sending it all to Carlsbad and burying a good energy source.
 
2011-03-14 08:06:00 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: If you being evacuated because of a threat that means it is unsafe or can become unsafe. I would call that "unsafe".

Did you again miss the whole bit about standard ops? You would have to stand outdoors, 24 hours a day, for weeks, with no protection, in order for your exposure to even scratch the surface of being a health problem.

Don't want the slightly elevated background radiation? Then stay in your farking house and don't get it.


Once again:

People are being evacuated during a time of crisis (for important reasons or not). This puts a drain on resources and most likely possible a cause of more deaths because of these lack of resources.

Why do you guys keep ignoring this?
 
2011-03-14 08:06:05 AM

Corvus: So the USS Reagan is just a bunch of pussies? Because they have evacuated.


You make yourself look like such a damned fool when you say this.
 
2011-03-14 08:06:43 AM

ThisNameSux: Nuclear power is a lot safer than wind turbines. If giant space robots ever attacked earth, the could tear a windmill from the ground and use it like a giant weed whacker taking out everything in its path. Think about it.


So you can't assure me that wind power is 100% safe from giant space robots. I'm tired of being lied to about wind power and it's vulnerability to giant space robots.
 
2011-03-14 08:07:40 AM
Corvus:
Emotional? I am just asking question. It seem like other people are the ones attacking me for asking some questions.


Asking questions you say.

So then we are shutting down all the plants that are now considered "unsafe" that we have been promised for decades were 100% safe?

I am hearing both from the pro-nuclear group. But interesting they don't argue with themselves even though they have opposing views.

Stop spinning this bullshiat.

But if we could do something to prevent it with cleaner, safer and cheaper energy why should we not do it?


Yes. Leading, baiting questions loaded with false assertions (that you seem to have dropped instead of actually retracting, despite having been proven wrong).

You are either a really sh*tty troll or another ignorant NIMBY.
 
2011-03-14 08:07:53 AM

Corvus: So the USS Reagan is just a bunch of pussies? Because they have evacuated.

Yes. If I am being evacuated it is because someone deems something to be unsafe or a possibility of becoming unsafe. That is the reason for evacuations.


Your being a pussy is completely different. The rest of us here seem to understand the difference between potential and actual safety concerns - as well as the reason for reacting to the potential.

You, obviously, do not. Again, this is not our problem. Better make damn sure you check those mushrooms before you put them in your salad. They might have some dirt on them - and goddess knows that a speck of dirt could lead to all sorts of things. Dogs and cats living in harmony, rock musicians getting haircuts, Beiber announcing that s/he's a hermaphrodite, etc.
 
2011-03-14 08:07:53 AM

Corvus: X-boxershorts: Corvus is passing along a lot of emotional reaction that is based upon supposition with little factual substance. The best recommendation I could possibly make to Corvus is....

Turn the damn TV off.

Umm I don't watch TV.

Emotional? I am just asking question. It seem like other people are the ones attacking me for asking some questions.


Very valid explanations have been made by folks who have done this their entire adult lives and you ignore them because it doesn't fit your bias.

Yes, emotional.
 
2011-03-14 08:09:13 AM

Corvus: Emotional? I am just asking question. It seem like other people are the ones attacking me for asking some questions.


www.dickipedia.org


Fun fact, that pic is linked from dickipedia.
 
2011-03-14 08:09:20 AM
Does anyone know for sure if these plants have a core catcher or not? I'm reading conflicting information from multiple reliable sources.
 
2011-03-14 08:09:22 AM
What is real scare is the lack of skepticism in the pro-nuclear side.

Look at this thread. About 50% of the pro-nuclear people are saying "No problem. Nuclear is 100% safe" and the other side is saying "It's not safe, disasters can happen but what are you going to do" (pretending there is not alternatives which exist).


Why aren't these two sides debating each other and trying to educate the other?


Because they don't care if it's true are not. They just care if people are "pro-nuclear" and don't care if it's based on truths or not.
 
2011-03-14 08:09:22 AM

aphexcoil: The third containment would then have been completely sealed to allow the core meltdown to happen without releasing radioactive material.


Can someone explain how this seal is accomplished? A lot being glossed over in the passive voice there. Thanks in advance.

NuclearScientist?
 
2011-03-14 08:09:42 AM

Corvus: It was a lie. They promised that these thing would never fail like this. It was bullshiat.


I am no expert on the subject but it sounds like the plant *was* designed to accommodate failures like we are seeing.

To use your car as an analogy, your primary safety mechanism is driving safely, when that fails, you have a seat belts and should those fail, you have airbags and should those fail, the steering wheel and dash boards are designed to absorb shock.
 
2011-03-14 08:10:13 AM

aphexcoil: Does anyone know for sure if these plants have a core catcher or not? I'm reading conflicting information from multiple reliable sources.


Unsure, but that link was VERY good. Thank you.
 
2011-03-14 08:10:48 AM
I remember seeing a forum post on some religious website where someone argued that because cells contain DNA, and DNA is an acid, we would melt if what what scientists say are true... which means evolution is a lie.

This thread is the same thing. It's pointless arguing someone without scientific background a scientific/engineering issue productively if they think that 1. they're right, and 2. they already know all they need to know. No one's opinion will be changed in this thread.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
 
2011-03-14 08:11:24 AM

Corvus: "No problem. Nuclear is 100% safe"


"No problem. Nuclear is 100% safe"

I don't recall reading anyone making this point, at all, in this thread.

On this point, you are full of shiat.
 
2011-03-14 08:11:49 AM

X-boxershorts: Corvus: X-boxershorts: Corvus is passing along a lot of emotional reaction that is based upon supposition with little factual substance. The best recommendation I could possibly make to Corvus is....

Turn the damn TV off.

Umm I don't watch TV.

Emotional? I am just asking question. It seem like other people are the ones attacking me for asking some questions.

Very valid explanations have been made by folks who have done this their entire adult lives and you ignore them because it doesn't fit your bias.

Yes, emotional.


No. they haven't

I can't get a straight answer if these plants are safe or not.

Half of the people are saying they are and this can't happen here and many are saying something like this could happen here.

It seems weird to me I can't get a straight answer. It seems to me if it was based on "valid explanations" they would be contradictory.
 
2011-03-14 08:12:28 AM

FlatulentCosmonaut: ThisNameSux: Nuclear power is a lot safer than wind turbines. If giant space robots ever attacked earth, the could tear a windmill from the ground and use it like a giant weed whacker taking out everything in its path. Think about it.

So you can't assure me that wind power is 100% safe from giant space robots. I'm tired of being lied to about wind power and it's vulnerability to giant space robots.


That's not accurate. We could cope with giant space robots through counterattack. The real problem is if we get a robot invasion AND an alien invasion at the same time.
 
2011-03-14 08:12:43 AM

Corvus: What is real scare is the lack of skepticism in the pro-nuclear side.

Look at this thread. About 50% of the pro-nuclear people are saying "No problem. Nuclear is 100% safe" and the other side is saying "It's not safe, disasters can happen but what are you going to do" (pretending there is not alternatives which exist).


Why aren't these two sides debating each other and trying to educate the other?


Because they don't care if it's true are not. They just care if people are "pro-nuclear" and don't care if it's based on truths or not.


Look at this thread. About 1% of the anti nuclear people are saying "But what about the .00001% bad chance of something happening" and the same guy is saying "It's not safe, despite data that says otherwise" (pretending there is alternatives that exist, despite having been shown a DOE report that says nothing comes close to nuclear.)

Why isn't this person trying to educate himself? Why does he continue pushing busted-ass arguments that have been debunked multiple times in this single thread?

Because he doesn't care if it's true or not. He just cares if they're "anti-nuclear" and don't care if its based on truths or not.
 
2011-03-14 08:12:57 AM

X-boxershorts: Corvus: "No problem. Nuclear is 100% safe"

"No problem. Nuclear is 100% safe"

I don't recall reading anyone making this point, at all, in this thread.

On this point, you are full of shiat.


Scroll up. Already covered this. Tired of getting the same questions again and again then they ignored when I support my statement.
 
2011-03-14 08:12:58 AM

Corvus: TsukasaK: Corvus: So then we are shutting down all the plants that are now considered "unsafe" that we have been promised for decades were 100% safe?

Please point out which "unsafe" plants you would like to see shut down. (Actually, give your metric for "unsafe" while you're at it.)

Then, while you're doing that, explain what you'd like to do about the multi-megawatt hole that would leave in the power grid.

I didn't say that.


But we shouldn't trust these people who said they were perfectly safe before and leave us in this situation.

I am tired of "learning from their mistakes".


Nobody ever said they were perfectly safe. It has always been known that there is a risk that goes along with them. So stop telling this lie about being told they were 100% safe. Better yet show me who said they 100% safe and there would never be any problem with them and show me when and where they said it. Go ahead find it I'm going to make my breakfast so you have a some time.

Also to answer your question about why are they evacuating people from around the plant, it is because nuclear isn't 100% safe and this is part of the DR plan, that all of the citizens knew about, that was developed in case something happened, whatever the risk of exposure is.
 
2011-03-14 08:13:00 AM

Corvus: TsukasaK: Corvus: If you being evacuated because of a threat that means it is unsafe or can become unsafe. I would call that "unsafe".

Did you again miss the whole bit about standard ops? You would have to stand outdoors, 24 hours a day, for weeks, with no protection, in order for your exposure to even scratch the surface of being a health problem.

Don't want the slightly elevated background radiation? Then stay in your farking house and don't get it.

Once again:

People are being evacuated during a time of crisis (for important reasons or not). This puts a drain on resources and most likely possible a cause of more deaths because of these lack of resources.

Why do you guys keep ignoring this?


Probably because you've ignored most of what people have been trying to explain to you.

However, yes the evacuations are a drain on resources. To be fair I have no idea just how many resources are being used. Is it the Government just telling citizens to get to a safezone, or are they actively shuttling people out of the area?

Plus, they've got an international spotlight on them and if they didn't evacuate people it might not look good. Probably from people of your mindframe yelling.
 
2011-03-14 08:14:19 AM

Corvus: Tired of getting the same questions again and again then they ignored when I support my statement.


You mean like how you keep pushing the "CHEAPER SAFER ALTERNATIVES!!!" line despite having been cited to the contrary at least four times this thread?

Gets old, doesn't it?
 
2011-03-14 08:15:02 AM
files.sharenator.com
 
2011-03-14 08:15:12 AM
i.imgur.com
People get blasted with radiation every time they go outside.

The engineers in Japan are not as stupid as some people think. The nuclear plant explosions are from hydrogen gas. The core didn't blow up like it did at Chernobyl. It is still sealed inside a metal vessel. In this reactor type, if it has no water the nuclear reaction stops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor (new window)
 
2011-03-14 08:15:28 AM

TsukasaK: Why isn't this person trying to educate himself? Why does he continue pushing busted-ass arguments that have been debunked multiple times in this single thread?


What "busted ass argument".


People ARE being evacuated at a time of crisis.

Answer me this:


Where do you think these people who are being evacuated are going?

What resources do you think they will use?

Is there a possibility of more people dying because they are using these already limited resources?

If they are being evacuated doesn't that mean there is a real possibility of a situation that is harmful to occur?
 
2011-03-14 08:16:30 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: Tired of getting the same questions again and again then they ignored when I support my statement.

You mean like how you keep pushing the "CHEAPER SAFER ALTERNATIVES!!!" line despite having been cited to the contrary at least four times this thread?

Gets old, doesn't it?


Were was I cited the contrary 4 times?

Please copy and paste those.
 
2011-03-14 08:16:53 AM

Corvus: X-boxershorts: Corvus: X-boxershorts: Corvus is passing along a lot of emotional reaction that is based upon supposition with little factual substance. The best recommendation I could possibly make to Corvus is....

Turn the damn TV off.

Umm I don't watch TV.

Emotional? I am just asking question. It seem like other people are the ones attacking me for asking some questions.

Very valid explanations have been made by folks who have done this their entire adult lives and you ignore them because it doesn't fit your bias.

Yes, emotional.

No. they haven't

I can't get a straight answer if these plants are safe or not.

Half of the people are saying they are and this can't happen here and many are saying something like this could happen here.

It seems weird to me I can't get a straight answer. It seems to me if it was based on "valid explanations" they would be contradictory.


SAFER is the word you really need to start using.

Safer than coal (yes they are).
Cleaner than natural gas (yes, really is).

You keep using terms with finite maxims. And that's wrong.
There IS NO 100% safe power generation technology available on the planet at this time.

Even solar has production pollution issues.

SO "safe" is very misleading.

It really comes down to a question of risk vs reward. And Nuclear offers the best (at this time) tradeoff of risk vs the reward of power generation efficiency.
 
2011-03-14 08:17:04 AM

that bosnian sniper: TsukasaK: Believe it. The only reason the reactors are failing is because of the one-two punch. Geological sensors immediately shut down the reactors the moment there was a hint of a tremor, while backup generators are meant to continue circulating coolant in order to get rid of the decay heat.

Only problem was, the tsunami wiped those out.

Yup. If there was one critical failure to blame here, it was a failure of imagination. Which is understandable, considering how unimaginable the situation really is.

NuclearScientist: 2)Nuclear Fuel reprocessing is illegal in the United States because originally we were supposed to have it done by other countries as part of trade agreements. Most of those countries have moved on to bigger and better things but because we signed it into law we're stuck. Also, it was signed into law because the technology that would reprocess the fuel was considered unsafe at the time and rather than outline safety requirements it was made illegal precluding any advances in technology from alleviating the problem.

I'd forgotten about that angle. I thought there were also some issues brought up regarding nonproliferation, though. That could have just been political grandstanding, as far as I know.

Thanks for the TF, by the way. Much appreciated.


No problem. I'm at work, now, so the frequency of my posts is going to drop significantly. Still keeping up by phone.

I was given a TF subscription for providing rational and informative arguments against trolls. You deserve the same.
 
2011-03-14 08:17:33 AM
No one has 100% guaranteed me that I am safe from Corvus hitting me with a car, therefore society should ban Corvus.

This solves many problems at once.
 
2011-03-14 08:17:54 AM

TigerStar: People get blasted with radiation every time they go outside.

The engineers in Japan are not as stupid as some people think. The nuclear plant explosions are from hydrogen gas. The core didn't blow up like it did at Chernobyl. It is still sealed inside a metal vessel. In this reactor type, if it has no water the nuclear reaction stops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor (new window)


But they are still being evacuated. They are still using up the already limited resources that need to be provided to save the thousands of others who have had their homes destroyed.
 
2011-03-14 08:18:28 AM

Corvus: Funny every time a nuclear plant disaster happens the apologists comes out and says "Well this can never happen again" and then it does.

Stop lying.


Would you like some cheese with your whine?
 
2011-03-14 08:18:35 AM

Corvus: What "busted ass argument".


This one:

Corvus: (pretending there is not alternatives which exist).


DOE says otherwise. Nothing beats nuclear.

And this one:

Corvus: The "taxes" I pay in nuclear dismantling fee I will be paying for decades that was a hidden cost of nuclear power.


DOE report included those costs.

And this one:

Corvus: I am saying to replace it with a cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives that will out the US in the forefront of technology.


Same report says no such thing.

I'm not answering any of your questions until you start behaving honestly.
 
2011-03-14 08:18:48 AM

Corvus: No. they haven't


Yes they have. It's just that you're being purposely obtuse on the subject. Again, that's your problem.

I can't get a straight answer if these plants are safe or not.

Yes you can. Here's the problem. If someone says they're safe you say, "A-ha - then this failure could never have happened!" and if they say every damn thing will fail under catastrophic enough conditions then you say, "I told you they weren't safe an no one believed me!"

All this proves is that you're too stupid to breathe.

Half of the people are saying they are and this can't happen here and many are saying something like this could happen here.

It seems weird to me I can't get a straight answer. It seems to me if it was based on "valid explanations" they would be contradictory.


Pretty sure Iowa is safe from a magnitude 8.9 quake AND a tsunami of epic proportions. It's the combo that did things in.

Seriously - do a minor bit of research because right now you look so stupid that you probably choke while chewing gum.
 
2011-03-14 08:18:56 AM

ImpendingCynic: No one has 100% guaranteed me that I am safe from Corvus hitting me with a car, therefore society should ban Corvus.

This solves many problems at once.


but I don't go around promising you are safe from that ever happening now do I?
 
2011-03-14 08:19:36 AM
History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men...
 
2011-03-14 08:20:35 AM

ronaprhys: Pretty sure Iowa is safe from a magnitude 8.9 quake AND a tsunami of epic proportions. It's the combo that did things in.


Funny because other pro-nuclear "experts" in this thread disagree.


Funny that none of you seem to debate each other on the matter.
 
2011-03-14 08:21:37 AM
Shut. Down. Everything.
 
2011-03-14 08:21:42 AM

Corvus: aphexcoil: Corvus: aphexcoil: What's your problem? These reactors were built when? In the 70's? I'm not sure what type of reactors these are, but technology has improved greatly since then.

Funny the promised they were safe then.


The ones we are using in the US are this old and they have promised they all safe.

Was that a lie?

Out of the 10,000+ people that have died so far, remind me how many of them were from radiation?

So then being safer than a earthquake or Tsunami makes nuclear power "safe"?


It is safe enough to build 400+ nuclear power plants which humans have already done.
 
2011-03-14 08:21:43 AM
Corvus?

jkshaws.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-03-14 08:22:54 AM
Corvus: Were was I cited the contrary 4 times?

I just recounted; it was 3 times.

And that would be

Here:

MexicanNerd: Corvus: Nuclear power hides costs which I have explained in detail above.

This chart does not hide costs, it includes system-wide lifetime costs.

(DOE chart)

I'll keep posting it if you need me to, since you seem to have a thick skull.



And here:

MexicanNerd: Solar, wind and tidal are also impractical alternatives due to their high cost and their inability to cope with capacity demands.

To repeat myself:

(DOE chart)



Aaand for the first time here:

MexicanNerd: Last reply to Corvus

Most people defending nuclear power here will readily admit it's not completely safe, but rather that it is MUCH safer than the other current mainstream options for power generation (coal and oil). You don't get something for nothing.

It must be nice having your house powered by solar. You're probably in the top 5% richest portion of the world (pretty certain you're in the top 1%).

However, not all people have the means to power their home from solar power. More importantly, YOUR HOUSE IS NOT THE TOTAL OF YOUR ENERGY CONSUMPTION.

It takes a lot of power to make the stuff you consume regularly and even more to ship it from one place to another. When you move to 100% solar in your house and buy NOTHING, then we can talk. And let me know how much it cost you.

Wind, tide, even solar should be considered for a current portfolio of energy generation and they should hopefully rise in predominance as our technology advances. However, they are not enough right now.

See capacity and cost per MW in chart below:

(DOE Chart)

So, in the meantime, we should push to stop building any new coal plants, stop invading countries for oil and start building nuclear plants. They are SAFER & CHEAPER than the current alternatives.


And that's not counting the shiatload of times me and other posters have asked you to go read the damn chart.
 
2011-03-14 08:22:59 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: What "busted ass argument".

This one:

Corvus: (pretending there is not alternatives which exist).

DOE says otherwise. Nothing beats nuclear.

And this one:

Corvus: The "taxes" I pay in nuclear dismantling fee I will be paying for decades that was a hidden cost of nuclear power.

DOE report included those costs.

And this one:

Corvus: I am saying to replace it with a cheaper, safer, cleaner alternatives that will out the US in the forefront of technology.

Same report says no such thing.

I'm not answering any of your questions until you start behaving honestly.


Sorry where are the "citations" you promised proving me wrong.


Sorry you taking my quotes and saying "No" is not people giving I citation I am wrong.
 
2011-03-14 08:23:39 AM

Corvus: Funny that none of you seem to debate each other on the matter.


We're too busy debating the terminally ignorant. We should probably stop wasting time on that, eh?
 
2011-03-14 08:24:46 AM

Corvus: Sorry where are the "citations" you promised proving me wrong.


RIGHT HERE. IN LARGE TYPE SO YOU DON'T CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOK IT:



upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-03-14 08:25:15 AM
Corvus: but I don't go around promising you are safe from that ever happening now do I?

Why are you still here?

Why is anyone still talking to this baby?

/You should sell insurance or work for Faux News; you're a great sensationalist.
 
2011-03-14 08:25:56 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: The "taxes" I pay in nuclear dismantling fee I will be paying for decades that was a hidden cost of nuclear power.

DOE report included those costs.


No it didn't it doesn't have the dismantling fees. Nor does it contain the costs overhead of storage.
 
2011-03-14 08:26:51 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: Funny that none of you seem to debate each other on the matter.

We're too busy debating the terminally ignorant. We should probably stop wasting time on that, eh?


Yeah, I just put the closed minded idiot on ignore.

I can only tolerate willful ignorance for so long.

And this tie dyed, need a bath, liberal hippy engineer is eternally grateful for the many knowledgeable folks on FARK that gave him a world class layman's education in nuclear energy technology.
 
2011-03-14 08:26:53 AM

Corvus: Funny because other pro-nuclear "experts" in this thread disagree.


Funny that none of you seem to debate each other on the matter.


No - no one in this thread seems to disagree, just you. Quote me these disagreements.

Also, find us quotes where anyone is guaranteeing that nuclear is 100% safe under any and all conditions. Actual quotes. Should be easy for someone like you that's so educated on the dangers.
 
2011-03-14 08:27:09 AM

Corvus: But they are still being evacuated. They are still using up the already limited resources that need to be provided to save the thousands of others who have had their homes destroyed.



Good lord. I go to lunch and come back to find you stretched tighter than Jenna Haze.
 
2011-03-14 08:27:16 AM
Err, actually, we HAVE been told that nuke plants are 100% safe, took me seconds on Google.

Money quote under the little map:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11381773

Look, I appreciate that nuke engineers are smart and hard workers.

I also knew one back in the 80's, and the problems he dealt with daily weren't from hippies, or ecoterrorists, they were from his pointy-haired boss, who had...unique...ideas about servicing the main coolant pumps.

He quit, and runs a marina now...well outside any likely fallout paths.
 
2011-03-14 08:27:21 AM

TsukasaK: Corvus: Sorry where are the "citations" you promised proving me wrong.

RIGHT HERE. IN LARGE TYPE SO YOU DON'T CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOK IT:


So one image is "4 citations"?

It doesn't seem to cover the dismantling costs.
 
2011-03-14 08:27:52 AM
Corvus - Do you see it yet??? I know that it's hiding and not making itself obvious but do you see??

One more time for good measure...

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-03-14 08:28:21 AM
I'm off to bed. Corvus has put me in a foul mood what with the realization that i've spent the last hour debating either a fool or a troll, can't decide which at the moment.

So, whatever. You "win", I guess.

~Nite
 
2011-03-14 08:28:43 AM

ronaprhys: Also, find us quotes where anyone is guaranteeing that nuclear is 100% safe under any and all conditions. Actual quotes. Should be easy for someone like you that's so educated on the dangers.


Ummmm, I may have jokingly said that deep in the thread. However, I was 100% not serious and trying to get silly with his inherent silliness.
 
2011-03-14 08:28:45 AM

LordOfThePings: aphexcoil: The third containment would then have been completely sealed to allow the core meltdown to happen without releasing radioactive material.

Can someone explain how this seal is accomplished? A lot being glossed over in the passive voice there. Thanks in advance.

NuclearScientist?


That is almost a misrepresentation. It implies that the containment isn't all ready completely sealed. What that containment structure consists of(steel casing shrouded by barred concrete much like a blast bunker) is almost completely sealed at any given moment. The plant regularly tests it to be able to withstand pressurization and hold pressure(representing no leaks) to a certain degree(depending on the design).

The sealing is to isolate any of the penetrations into this containment, that is, piping and cable runs for the operation of equipment and processes inside. These are all ready closed off from the environment, but by cutting them off they keep all possible breakages contained within.

Does this answer your question?
 
2011-03-14 08:29:56 AM
You can trust the media to give you the facts. Don't panic everything is under control.
 
2011-03-14 08:30:33 AM

Corvus: Sorry I missed all the "thousands of Japan houses evacuated because of solar, wind and geothermal plants disasters" would you show me those links.


Hydroelectric disasters are far far more deadly and with much less warning.
 
2011-03-14 08:30:36 AM

ByOwlLight: Snarfangel: Corvus: That's not true. When the panels are damaged they don't leak like that. To pretend it's remotely as bad or worse then a nuclear meltdown is really being silly.

In a tornado, a flying solar panel could easily decapitate someone. And not just a big F5 monster, but a little F1.

And don't get me started on hurricanes.

And let's not talk about how the total, catastrophic disintegration of a wind turbine can send gigantic death blades zooming through the air. The big ones reach 240mph at the tips when spinning properly. Imagine them careening out of control!

/Oh, but they're 100% safe, those things


Then don't go farking standing around under them. Would you lounge around at a farking coal plant? Let us know when, and where, exactly, you have had the opportunity to approach a wind turbine.

.
 
2011-03-14 08:30:42 AM
I'm all for green energy, but it's not ready to provide baseload electricity to any significant portion of the US. Nuclear is. And when you replace, say, a coal plant that devours trainloads of coal daily and shiats pollution constantly, with a traveling-wave reactor run on spent fuel, it's so many different types of win it's unbelievable.

The US has enough "spent" fuel sitting around waiting to be shoved into someone's not-backyard, to power the US for about 200 years with these new reactor designs. Kinda crazy not to pursue that. And if we could design a reactor 40 years ago that is withstanding an epic earthquake/tsunami fine just fine, I betcha we can do the same or better today as far as safety goes.
 
2011-03-14 08:32:22 AM

CTaylor80: I'm all for green energy, but it's not ready to provide baseload electricity to any significant portion of the US. Nuclear is. And when you replace, say, a coal plant that devours trainloads of coal daily and shiats pollution constantly, with a traveling-wave reactor run on spent fuel, it's so many different types of win it's unbelievable.

The US has enough "spent" fuel sitting around waiting to be shoved into someone's not-backyard, to power the US for about 200 years with these new reactor designs. Kinda crazy not to pursue that. And if we could design a reactor 40 years ago that is withstanding an epic earthquake/tsunami fine just fine, I betcha we can do the same or better today as far as safety goes.


We could but nobody wants to pay for it.
 
2011-03-14 08:32:23 AM

Chair5768: aphexcoil: Wouldn't receiving one month's worth of background radiation in a few hours 100 miles off the coast of Japan constitute some level of "concern?" Just curious ...

The U.S. national annual background dose for humans is approximately 360 mrem. A mrem, or millirem, is a standard measure of radiation dose. Examples of radiation doses from common medical procedures are:
Chest x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 15 mrem
Dental x-ray (3 inch diameter area) - 300 mrem
Spinal x-ray (14 x 17 inch area) - 300 mrem
Thyroid uptake study - 28,000 mrem to the thyroid
Thyroid oblation - 18,000,000 mrem to the thyroid

So 1 months worth would be 30mrem, which is 1/10th the radiation received from a dental xray.

Source(new window)
More perspective info (new window)

So I'll go with concern yes, panic no.


So if I'm doing the math right, when I had a thyroid uptake test, I was exposed to something like 280 times the radiation that's been detected in Japan. That really puts things in perspective. It's not nearly so scary as the doom and gloom panic that the media keeps screaming about. Actually, it's not scary at all, and if what happened in Japan is the worst case scenario for nuclear power plants not named "Chernobyl", then people really need to stop freaking out.
 
2011-03-14 08:32:58 AM
TsukasaK:


Here is one for you:

From 1943 to 1999 the U.S. government paid nearly $151 billion, in 1999 dollars, in subsidies for wind, solar and nuclear power, Marshall Goldberg of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a research organization in Washington, wrote in a July 2000 report. Of this total, 96.3 percent went to nuclear power, the report said.
 
2011-03-14 08:33:07 AM

Ender's: ronaprhys: Also, find us quotes where anyone is guaranteeing that nuclear is 100% safe under any and all conditions. Actual quotes. Should be easy for someone like you that's so educated on the dangers.

Ummmm, I may have jokingly said that deep in the thread. However, I was 100% not serious and trying to get silly with his inherent silliness.


It'd be funnier than shiat if that's what he quoted. I'm a bit surprised that he's actually capable of using the intrawebs.

Honestly, it reminds me of Old School where the geek is telling the dean, "It's an interesting anomaly. As stupid as they look they're actually quite good with paperwork.".

That's the exact feeling I get with him.

I'm off - time to catch my flight. Enjoy poking the tard if you'd like to continue.
 
2011-03-14 08:35:06 AM

Snowblind2010: Corvus - Do you see it yet??? I know that it's hiding and not making itself obvious but do you see??

One more time for good measure...


Once again were are the costs of plant dismantling?

Did this factor in the billions of subsidizes as tax payers?
 
2011-03-14 08:35:24 AM

Petit_Merdeux: Corvus: But they are still being evacuated. They are still using up the already limited resources that need to be provided to save the thousands of others who have had their homes destroyed.


Good lord. I go to lunch and come back to find you stretched tighter than Jenna Haze.


albom.qatarw.com
 
2011-03-14 08:36:31 AM

NuclearScientist: Does this answer your question?


Mostly, thanks.
 
2011-03-14 08:36:33 AM
"No one has ever built a contemporary reactor to contemporary standards, so no one has the experience to state with confidence what it will cost," said Stephen Maloney, a utilities management consultant. "We see cost escalations as companies come up the learning curve."
 
2011-03-14 08:36:45 AM

Corvus: TsukasaK: Corvus: If you being evacuated because of a threat that means it is unsafe or can become unsafe. I would call that "unsafe".

Did you again miss the whole bit about standard ops? You would have to stand outdoors, 24 hours a day, for weeks, with no protection, in order for your exposure to even scratch the surface of being a health problem.

Don't want the slightly elevated background radiation? Then stay in your farking house and don't get it.

Once again:

People are being evacuated during a time of crisis (for important reasons or not). This puts a drain on resources and most likely possible a cause of more deaths because of these lack of resources.

Why do you guys keep ignoring this?


Um ... you're thinking like a decent/normal person. Try to think like a businessman/politician. Evacuation is a smart business/political move. If a civilian were injured by fallout, the Japanese Prime Minister is never gettting elected again, and the nuclear industry will face a massive publicity crisis. Deaths due to lack of resources caused specifically by the evacuation would be very, very hard to prove. As it stands, they can still spin it to a positive (e.g., plant survives massive earthquake with minimal damage to civilians, not to mention heroic workers risking lives to keep people safe.) The major powers have high motivation to be over-cautious.
 
2011-03-14 08:37:26 AM

Corvus: Snowblind2010: Corvus - Do you see it yet??? I know that it's hiding and not making itself obvious but do you see??

One more time for good measure...

Once again were are the costs of plant dismantling?

Did this factor in the billions of subsidizes as tax payers?


From the report:

"Levelized cost is often cited as a convenient summary measure of the overall competiveness of different generating technologies. Levelized cost represents the present value of the total cost of building and operating a generating plant over an assumed financial life and duty cycle, converted to equal annual payments and expressed in terms of real dollars to remove the impact of inflation. Levelized cost reflects overnight capital cost, fuel cost, fixed and variable O&M cost, financing costs, and an assumed utilization rate for each plant type.3 For technologies such as solar and wind generation that have no fuel costs and relatively small O&M costs, levelized cost changes in rough proportion to the estimated overnight capital cost of generation capacity. For technologies with significant fuel cost, both fuel cost and overnight cost estimates significantly affect levelized cost. The availability of various incentives including state or federal tax credits can also impact the calculation of levelized cost. The values shown in the tables below do not incorporate any such incentives. As with any projections, there is uncertainty about all of these factors and their values can vary regionally and across time as technologies evolve.
 
2011-03-14 08:38:13 AM

Corvus: "No one has ever built a contemporary reactor to contemporary standards, so no one has the experience to state with confidence what it will cost," said Stephen Maloney, a utilities management consultant. "We see cost escalations as companies come up the learning curve."


Where are we on the green learning curve ??
 
2011-03-14 08:38:20 AM
Nuclear subsidies in the Senate proposal include five-year accelerated depreciation; tax credits for investments and production and eligibility for the advanced energy tax credit; an increase in government insurance against regulatory delays; access to private activity bonds; and a $36 billion increase in loan guarantees, bringing the total to $56 billion.
 
2011-03-14 08:39:06 AM

Corvus: "No one has ever built a contemporary reactor to contemporary standards, so no one has the experience to state with confidence what it will cost," said Stephen Maloney, a utilities management consultant. "We see cost escalations as companies come up the learning curve."


Wake up sheeple?
 
2011-03-14 08:39:18 AM

PghThermal: Corvus: "No one has ever built a contemporary reactor to contemporary standards, so no one has the experience to state with confidence what it will cost," said Stephen Maloney, a utilities management consultant. "We see cost escalations as companies come up the learning curve."

Where are we on the green learning curve ??


The problem is nuclear costs go up, year to year. Solar costs go down each year.
 
2011-03-14 08:41:26 AM
ruh-roh? (new window)
 
2011-03-14 08:43:34 AM

Corvus: aphexcoil: What's your problem? These reactors were built when? In the 70's? I'm not sure what type of reactors these are, but technology has improved greatly since then.

Funny the promised they were safe then.


The ones we are using in the US are this old and they have promised they all safe.

Was that a lie?


You're the most annoying person I've seen online in weeks.

/Has nothing to do with your position on this.
 
2011-03-14 08:43:44 AM

Corvus: If it's perfectly safe why are they being evacuated? That makes no sense. Even if it is a precautionary measure that means there is a possible of a much more dangerous problem to occur. Which means it is not safe.


Maybe they want to avoid being washed away by a tsunami?
 
2011-03-14 08:43:49 AM
Guess who they want to back the loans of Nuclear Power plants:

THE TAX PAYERS!!

Testimony Before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

The huge cost of nuclear power means that taxpayers will have to provide nuclear loan guarantees to finance new projects if the president and Congress are serious about building new reactors.


The US tax payer will be on the hook and bail them out when they fail.


More socialized risk with privatized reward.
 
2011-03-14 08:44:10 AM
Yup, not fake.

static.infowars.com
 
2011-03-14 08:46:51 AM

Corvus: More socialized risk with privatized reward.


Do you like your 30-year fixed-rate mortgage? Then you like socialized risk. Get rid of government risk sponges, and you'd better be able to pay for that house in 3 to 5 years, like they used to before Fannie and Freddie.
 
2011-03-14 08:47:46 AM

Corvus: Guess who they want to back the loans of Nuclear Power plants:

THE TAX PAYERS!!

Testimony Before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

The huge cost of nuclear power means that taxpayers will have to provide nuclear loan guarantees to finance new projects if the president and Congress are serious about building new reactors.

The US tax payer will be on the hook and bail them out when they fail.


More socialized risk with privatized reward.


I think electricity is the best use for taxpayer money I have seen in years. Better than throwing Priuses at people.
 
2011-03-14 08:47:48 AM

Corvus:

The huge cost of nuclear power means that taxpayers will have to provide nuclear loan guarantees to finance new projects if the president and Congress are serious about building new reactors.

The US tax payer will be on the hook and bail them out when they fail.


More socialized risk with privatized reward.


You're crazier than a tea-bagger.
 
2011-03-14 08:47:52 AM
Breaking News from AP:

The fuel rods were totally exposed.
 
2011-03-14 08:48:13 AM
DOE Delivers Its First, Long-Awaited Nuclear Loan Guarantee (new window)

That remains less than the Nuclear Energy Institute's goal of $100 billion, an amount it describes as "a minimal acceptable loan volume." Still, Mr. Fertel said in his financial briefing that "'strong political support' understates our position."

Federal loan guarantees cut nuclear construction financing costs by allowing the utilities to sell bonds at a lower interest rate. But at the same time the guarantee means that "the U.S. Treasury, and therefore the taxpayers, are on the hook for the value of the loans should they go bad," Mr. Cooper said.


Welcome to Financial Institution Collapse II Nuclear Electric Bugaloo!!
 
2011-03-14 08:49:06 AM

aphexcoil: Corvus:

The huge cost of nuclear power means that taxpayers will have to provide nuclear loan guarantees to finance new projects if the president and Congress are serious about building new reactors.

The US tax payer will be on the hook and bail them out when they fail.


More socialized risk with privatized reward.

You're crazier than a tea-bagger.


Umm that was text from a congressional hearing. You want me to link it?
 
2011-03-14 08:50:02 AM
explosion (new window)


video (new window)
 
2011-03-14 08:50:50 AM

Corvus: Welcome to Financial Institution Collapse II Nuclear Electric Bugaloo!!



DVDA now.
 
2011-03-14 08:53:23 AM

Corvus:
Umm that was text from a congressional hearing. You want me to link it?


I believe you. What I want you to do is calm down and admit that nuclear power is what we have right now so we might as well accept it and do what we can to improve the technology and make it even better.

I'm starting to think you own stock in "Green Energy" companies.
 
2011-03-14 08:54:20 AM
Here are those "liberals" at fox business talking about the nuclear loan guarantees that the US Tax Payer will be responsible for:


The U.S. nuclear industry's chief policy group anticipates $36 billion of additional federal loan guarantees to develop next-generation reactors in the budget plan President Barack Obama is expected to release next week.

"Congress approved $36 billion last year and this year it could be the same," with additional provisions in the appropriations bill introduced next year, Marvin Fertel, chief executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute, said in an interview.


Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/02/10/nuclear-industry-optimistic-loan-g uarantees/#ixzz1GZtbdExe


Even though many of these plants go bankrupt before being built the US tax payer will be om the hook.
 
2011-03-14 08:56:02 AM

aphexcoil: Corvus:
Umm that was text from a congressional hearing. You want me to link it?

I believe you. What I want you to do is calm down and admit that nuclear power is what we have right now so we might as well accept it and do what we can to improve the technology and make it even better.

I'm starting to think you own stock in "Green Energy" companies.


No it's not. we can build alternative sources just as easy instead of new nuclear facilities.

Nuclear costs more every year. Why invest in a technology that becomes more expensive every year when we could invest in a technology that becomes cheaper every year?
 
2011-03-14 08:56:40 AM
Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.

Also, as a "random dude on the internet" let me say the following:

All six units had been "shut down" as of March 12:00 at midnight JST. Of the six, units 3-6 are fine. Unit 1 is the one that you saw in the little white after-explosion, that's the one they're dumping sea water and boron into (boron absorbs neutrons which are propogating the reaction.)

Part of the reason Japan was hesitant to pull the trigger is because the boron solution means the plant will never run again, a la 3 mile island. Japan gets a LOT of their power from these nuclear plants.
 
2011-03-14 08:56:40 AM

Corvus: But we shouldn't trust these people who said they were perfectly safe before and leave us in this situation.

I am tired of "learning from their mistakes".


Then you'll live in a dangerous world.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
 
2011-03-14 08:58:15 AM
sigh...
 
2011-03-14 08:58:59 AM

BarrRepublican: Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.

Also, as a "random dude on the internet" let me say the following:

All six units had been "shut down" as of March 12:00 at midnight JST. Of the six, units 3-6 are fine. Unit 1 is the one that you saw in the little white after-explosion, that's the one they're dumping sea water and boron into (boron absorbs neutrons which are propogating the reaction.)

Part of the reason Japan was hesitant to pull the trigger is because the boron solution means the plant will never run again, a la 3 mile island. Japan gets a LOT of their power from these nuclear plants.


Do you mean plant or "reactor?" I don't think using boron would end the entire plant, just that particular reactor. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine how it would affect separate reactors.
 
2011-03-14 08:59:16 AM

BarrRepublican: Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.


Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

I can handle the truth.

It seems like the nuclear supporters can't.
 
2011-03-14 08:59:52 AM

aphexcoil: admit that nuclear power is what we have right now


Corvus: No it's not.

Too bad Vaudeville is dead. You two could tour.
 
2011-03-14 09:00:02 AM

aphexcoil: BarrRepublican: Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.

Also, as a "random dude on the internet" let me say the following:

All six units had been "shut down" as of March 12:00 at midnight JST. Of the six, units 3-6 are fine. Unit 1 is the one that you saw in the little white after-explosion, that's the one they're dumping sea water and boron into (boron absorbs neutrons which are propogating the reaction.)

Part of the reason Japan was hesitant to pull the trigger is because the boron solution means the plant will never run again, a la 3 mile island. Japan gets a LOT of their power from these nuclear plants.

Do you mean plant or "reactor?" I don't think using boron would end the entire plant, just that particular reactor. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine how it would affect separate reactors.


Each reactor has its own 'plant'.
 
2011-03-14 09:00:07 AM

BarrRepublican: Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.

Also, as a "random dude on the internet" let me say the following:

All six units had been "shut down" as of March 12:00 at midnight JST. Of the six, units 3-6 are fine. Unit 1 is the one that you saw in the little white after-explosion, that's the one they're dumping sea water and boron into (boron absorbs neutrons which are propogating the reaction.)

Part of the reason Japan was hesitant to pull the trigger is because the boron solution means the plant will never run again, a la 3 mile island. Japan gets a LOT of their power from these nuclear plants.


Reports are out now saying they are using the seawater/boron mixture on all three reactors at Fukushima that were operating when the earthquake hit. That's three reactors gone that will need replacing.
 
2011-03-14 09:01:24 AM
Japan...the only country to get nuked 4 times, twice by US...twice by themselves

/Sorry...way too soon
 
2011-03-14 09:03:01 AM

Proud2B_American: Japan...the only country to get nuked 4 times, twice by US...twice by themselves

/Sorry...way too soon


Ya cause it could be more than twice...
 
2011-03-14 09:04:00 AM
So if the japanese reactors melt down, will they have an African Syndrome?
 
2011-03-14 09:05:34 AM

NuclearScientist: aphexcoil: BarrRepublican: Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.

Also, as a "random dude on the internet" let me say the following:

All six units had been "shut down" as of March 12:00 at midnight JST. Of the six, units 3-6 are fine. Unit 1 is the one that you saw in the little white after-explosion, that's the one they're dumping sea water and boron into (boron absorbs neutrons which are propogating the reaction.)

Part of the reason Japan was hesitant to pull the trigger is because the boron solution means the plant will never run again, a la 3 mile island. Japan gets a LOT of their power from these nuclear plants.

Do you mean plant or "reactor?" I don't think using boron would end the entire plant, just that particular reactor. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine how it would affect separate reactors.

Each reactor has its own 'plant'.


Interesting. I always thought a Nuclear plant was the entire collective site, of which you had separate reactors. Learn something new every day.
 
2011-03-14 09:06:18 AM
I'm all for thorium reactors to be built. Corvus will be relocated and used as a failsafe radiation sponge. That is all.

/hates alarmists
//hates alarmists who run around playing chicken little every time something bad happens
///stfu, troll
////plonked.
 
2011-03-14 09:07:04 AM
Core INTACT (new window) after big badda boom.
 
2011-03-14 09:07:20 AM

MorphOSX: I'm all for thorium reactors to be built. Corvus will be relocated and used as a failsafe radiation sponge. That is all.

/hates alarmists
//hates alarmists who run around playing chicken little every time something bad happens
///stfu, troll
////plonked.



The cost of using Corvus is too high.
 
2011-03-14 09:08:52 AM

BarrRepublican: Part of the reason Japan was hesitant to pull the trigger is because the boron solution means the plant will never run again, a la 3 mile island. Japan gets a LOT of their power from these nuclear plants.



Boron is fine. PWRs like TMI use it in every day operation as a chemical shim.

It's the salt water that is going to retire this plant.
 
2011-03-14 09:09:07 AM

Corvus: Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.


If you were an engineer you'd understand -- and recognize -- that "safety" is not an either-or function, but rather a relative statement based upon cost and risk versus benefit. Flowing from that, you'd understand no credible, authoritative source would use absolute statements in regards to safety to describe anything. Your one source -- the nuclear energy industry -- is a statement affirming a commitment to maximized safety, not absolute safety.

You'd also know what a fail-safe is. And I'd like to think you'd be able to recognize a precautionary measure opposed to a cover-up when you see it.
 
2011-03-14 09:09:14 AM

aphexcoil: Petit_Merdeux: Corvus: But they are still being evacuated. They are still using up the already limited resources that need to be provided to save the thousands of others who have had their homes destroyed.


Good lord. I go to lunch and come back to find you stretched tighter than Jenna Haze.


fap.
 
2011-03-14 09:09:29 AM
Reports are now coming out (Reuters, CNN, AP) that Reactor #2 had the core either fully or nearly fully exposed before they could get the coolant water flowing again. IOW, the pool of water the reactor core sits in within the steel containment vessel had nearly completely boiled away. A valve had failed that shut off the coolant water flow, and the water level dropped before they got it working again.

This may be the worst off reactor of all three if that's happened.
 
2011-03-14 09:09:46 AM
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nuclear power is totally safe now that meltdowns are impossible.
 
2011-03-14 09:10:09 AM

that bosnian sniper: Corvus: Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

If you were an engineer you'd understand -- and recognize -- that "safety" is not an either-or function, but rather a relative statement based upon cost and risk versus benefit. Flowing from that, you'd understand no credible, authoritative source would use absolute statements in regards to safety to describe anything. Your one source -- the nuclear energy industry -- is a statement affirming a commitment to maximized safety, not absolute safety.

You'd also know what a fail-safe is. And I'd like to think you'd be able to recognize a precautionary measure opposed to a cover-up when you see it.


His degree is in FUD Engineering, and he fails hard at it.
 
2011-03-14 09:10:24 AM

Corvus: BarrRepublican: Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.

Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

I can handle the truth.

It seems like the nuclear supporters can't.


firteendesign.com
 
2011-03-14 09:10:52 AM

aphexcoil: I believe you. What I want you to do is calm down and admit that nuclear power is what we have right now so we might as well accept it and do what we can to improve the technology and make it even better.



From the congressional testimony for the Nuclear guaranteed Loan program:
Building a nuclear reactor today will involve dealing with tremendous financial uncertainty. Cost projections for nuclear plants keep rising because of variability in material costs, complex new technology, limited suppliers for key parts, and inevitable delays in construction projects. The projected cost for two new reactors in Canada shot from $7 billion to $26 billion in just two years. A new reactor built by Areva in Finland has run into widely publicized challenges, with construction costs going up at least 50 percent since construction began three years ago. And costs for two new reactors at the South Texas Project in the United States have ballooned from $5.4 billion to an estimated $18.2 billion since 2007. Neither of these reactors has been built, so there's no way to predict what the final cost will be. But cost overruns are virtually certain in nuclear construction, which greatly increases the risk that the nuclear companies will default on their loans. Private lenders are well aware of the risks involved in building new reactors, which is why they're unwilling to finance the projects without significant government support.

The US tax payer is going to be on the hook for these nuclear power plants that get more and more expensive every day and have huge cost overruns.
 
2011-03-14 09:11:07 AM

Corvus: BarrRepublican: Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.

Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

I can handle the truth.

It seems like the nuclear supporters can't.


I KNEW IT!

Only an engineer could be such an annoying twat.

Let me guess. Software? Electrical? I bet software.
 
2011-03-14 09:12:53 AM

fluffy2097: I KNEW IT!

Only an engineer could be such an annoying twat.

Let me guess. Software? Electrical? I bet software.


Sanitation?
 
2011-03-14 09:13:09 AM

fluffy2097: Corvus: BarrRepublican: Engineers lie to people like Corvus because Corvus can't handle the truth of most man-made things in this world.

Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

I can handle the truth.

It seems like the nuclear supporters can't.

I KNEW IT!

Only an engineer could be such an annoying twat.

Let me guess. Software? Electrical? I bet software.


Hey, don't slam all us engineers like that. We're not all annoying twats.

/civil engineer (was a nuclear engineering student long ago)
//not an annoying twat
 
2011-03-14 09:13:42 AM

Muta: fluffy2097: I KNEW IT!

Only an engineer could be such an annoying twat.

Let me guess. Software? Electrical? I bet software.

Sanitation?



Hamster care.
 
2011-03-14 09:14:45 AM

Corvus: aphexcoil: I believe you. What I want you to do is calm down and admit that nuclear power is what we have right now so we might as well accept it and do what we can to improve the technology and make it even better.


From the congressional testimony for the Nuclear guaranteed Loan program:
Building a nuclear reactor today will involve dealing with tremendous financial uncertainty. Cost projections for nuclear plants keep rising because of variability in material costs, complex new technology, limited suppliers for key parts, and inevitable delays in construction projects. The projected cost for two new reactors in Canada shot from $7 billion to $26 billion in just two years. A new reactor built by Areva in Finland has run into widely publicized challenges, with construction costs going up at least 50 percent since construction began three years ago. And costs for two new reactors at the South Texas Project in the United States have ballooned from $5.4 billion to an estimated $18.2 billion since 2007. Neither of these reactors has been built, so there's no way to predict what the final cost will be. But cost overruns are virtually certain in nuclear construction, which greatly increases the risk that the nuclear companies will default on their loans. Private lenders are well aware of the risks involved in building new reactors, which is why they're unwilling to finance the projects without significant government support.

The US tax payer is going to be on the hook for these nuclear power plants that get more and more expensive every day and have huge cost overruns.


Dude, nobody is listening to you because you're basically yelling at everybody. It doesn't matter how valid your arguments are or are not, it's a matter of tone. Maybe you ought to sit the next couple plays out and come back when you've calmed down a little bit?
 
2011-03-14 09:15:36 AM

Muta: Sanitation?


No way in hell.

I've only ever seen his particular brand of mental illness Software and Electrical engineers. I suppose it could also extend to mechanical engineers but since they have to deal with the real world I bet it's much less common.

Someone who works as a garbage man has obviously chosen socializing instead of academics, and would never even be capable of the sheer asshattery of an engineer.
 
2011-03-14 09:16:25 AM

that bosnian sniper: Corvus: Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

If you were an engineer you'd understand -- and recognize -- that "safety" is not an either-or function, but rather a relative statement based upon cost and risk versus benefit. Flowing from that, you'd understand no credible, authoritative source would use absolute statements in regards to safety to describe anything. Your one source -- the nuclear energy industry -- is a statement affirming a commitment to maximized safety, not absolute safety.

You'd also know what a fail-safe is. And I'd like to think you'd be able to recognize a precautionary measure opposed to a cover-up when you see it.


I have replied to this many times already:

A) a precautionary measure still means there is a potential risk exists.

B) The precautionary measure is still impacting people and could cause more deaths just not directly. The resources are already stretched beyond their capacity. To pretend that evacuating thousand of people to shelters that already full will have no impact to efforts to save others is a joke.

I have pointed this out many times. people seem to want to ignore these points.
 
2011-03-14 09:16:43 AM

Corvus: The have said time and time again plants like San Onofre are safe from Earth quakes. Now it seems that is total bullshiat.


The Japan plants WERE safe from quakes. It was the Tsunami that knocked out the backup cooling system. And the backup to that system. And still they're doing an OK job of keeping the thing from going Chernobyl. Plus, this systems failure is teaching us important lessons that can be applied in the future.
 
2011-03-14 09:16:54 AM

AlephNull: I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nuclear power is totally safe now that meltdowns are impossible.


Well, if i understand this...after an unprecedented disaster to a country that relies heavily on nuclear power....and at nuclear power plants that were set to be retired as being old (in years and design)...and after 2-3 partial meltdowns...there really is no radioactive damage to speak of.

So...considering the scope of the problems brought on by the earthquakes and tsunami, the nuclear side of things is being handled rather well despite a breakdown in the safety of the cooling system.

Call me when the nuclear plants end up like Chernobyl (which is unlikely as Chernobyl didn't have secondary shielding like this one does.

But it is serious in that they need to contain it. The question really seems to be can they contain it and save the plant. In the case of 1 or 2, the answer is no. They can contain, but lose the plant.

Not exactly end of the world stuff here.
 
2011-03-14 09:16:57 AM

Bendal: Hey, don't slam all us engineers like that. We're not all annoying twats.

/civil engineer (was a nuclear engineering student long ago)
//not an annoying twat


Please don't get me wrong. Lot's of engineers are awesome. Even software engineers. What I'm saying is that when you run across one of the bad apples, they are a completely different kind of animal from your run of the mill jackass.
 
2011-03-14 09:17:59 AM

Muta: fluffy2097: I KNEW IT!

Only an engineer could be such an annoying twat.

Let me guess. Software? Electrical? I bet software.

Sanitation?


Given the shiat flowing out of his mouth, I'd buy that.
 
2011-03-14 09:18:07 AM

Petit_Merdeux: BarrRepublican: Part of the reason Japan was hesitant to pull the trigger is because the boron solution means the plant will never run again, a la 3 mile island. Japan gets a LOT of their power from these nuclear plants.


Boron is fine. PWRs like TMI use it in every day operation as a chemical shim.

It's the salt water that is going to retire this plant.


PWRs are designed to function that way.

BWRs are not.

Boron will kill a BWR, in fact, they're designed that way.
 
2011-03-14 09:18:11 AM

that bosnian sniper: Corvus: Funny since I am an engineer. But whatever.

If you were an engineer you'd understand -- and recognize -- that "safety" is not an either-or function, but rather a relative statement based upon cost and risk versus benefit. Flowing from that, you'd understand no credible, authoritative source would use absolute statements in regards to safety to describe anything. Your one source -- the nuclear energy industry -- is a statement affirming a commitment to maximized safety, not absolute safety.


Hell, I'm a classicist and I understand that.
 
2011-03-14 09:18:40 AM

fluffy2097: Let me guess. Software? Electrical? I bet software.


Come on. You're forgetting the favorite whipping boy of the engineering field: Industrial.
 
2011-03-14 09:18:52 AM

SoCalSurfer: I hope to god it doesn't happen to san onofre

It'll ruin one of the best breaks in the state



*The break being trestles that you can see directly north of the plant in that picture


The loss of a great surfing break would be about at the bottom of my who gives a shiat o meter if San Onofre had a meltdown.
 
2011-03-14 09:22:58 AM
The only thing I know is this:
1.- Japan got hit by a large earthquake and an even larger tsunami
2.- While you can be expecting anything, you can't be truly ready for everything.
3.- Without the enforcement of their own government regulations, things would've been worse.
4.- So far, more people are dead/missing from the GIANT TSUNAMI OF DEATH than the nuclear power plant.
 
2011-03-14 09:23:05 AM
and her comes the personal attacks.

Fine I will leave. it doesn't seem like anyone one wants to have a real discussion about this. I keep getting the same question over and over and then I respond and the person just ignores my points or my questions when they don't fit in their personal worldview".


I think it's really sad to start attacking someone personally when they challenge your view about things. But oh well.

From my experience it usually means the person is not actually being their opinion on facts and it's based on more "tribal" identification.
 
2011-03-14 09:23:39 AM
For some reason, I just feel dumber after having participated in this thread. It's as if 100,000 of my brain cells cried out and were suddenly silenced by Corvus' deafening ignorance.
 
2011-03-14 09:24:03 AM

Petit_Merdeux: Come on. You're forgetting the favorite whipping boy of the engineering field: Industrial.


I don't have enough data on them to make a determination. I've hung around a LOT of Software and EE's though.

/99% of them are cool.
//But that one percent... Wow.
 
2011-03-14 09:24:24 AM

NuclearScientist: Boron will kill a BWR, in fact, they're designed that way.



BWRs are designed to be ruined by boron?
 
2011-03-14 09:24:55 AM

aphexcoil: For some reason, I just feel dumber after having participated in this thread. It's as if 100,000 of my brain cells cried out and were suddenly silenced by Corvus' deafening ignorance.


I have to agree. After two badges I think this thread deserves one the most.
 
2011-03-14 09:26:23 AM

Petit_Merdeux: NuclearScientist: Boron will kill a BWR, in fact, they're designed that way.


BWRs are designed to be ruined by boron?


Let me clarify: One of the designed safety systems is a reactor kill boron injection.

So, in a way, the answer to your question is yes.
 
2011-03-14 09:27:13 AM

Corvus: I think it's really sad to start attacking someone personally when they challenge your view about things.



When you try to explain things to some one and they scream,

"YOU'RE LYING YOU NUCLEAR SHILL THIS INDUSTRY IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!11111one!!!11"


you needn't take that person seriously anymore.
 
2011-03-14 09:27:42 AM

Corvus: and her comes the personal attacks.

Fine I will leave. it doesn't seem like anyone one wants to have a real discussion about this. I keep getting the same question over and over and then I respond and the person just ignores my points or my questions when they don't fit in their personal worldview".


I think it's really sad to start attacking someone personally when they challenge your view about things. But oh well.

From my experience it usually means the person is not actually being their opinion on facts and it's based on more "tribal" identification.


It's not what you say, It's how you say it.

You talk like a douche, You make it impossible for anyone to take you seriously, and nobody cares if you think you're clever.

You Might have a point but all I could read you saying is.
"everything my opponents say is a lie. lie lie lie lie lie lie lie." It's irritating and it's not effective debate.

Go see a shrink and work that shiat out or ask a significant other to elbow you in the stomach every time you act like a dick and tell you what you're doing wrong.
 
2011-03-14 09:27:45 AM

I_C_Weener: AlephNull: I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nuclear power is totally safe now that meltdowns are impossible.

Well, if i understand this...after an unprecedented disaster to a country that relies heavily on nuclear power....and at nuclear power plants that were set to be retired as being old (in years and design)...and after 2-3 partial meltdowns...there really is no radioactive damage to speak of.

So...considering the scope of the problems brought on by the earthquakes and tsunami, the nuclear side of things is being handled rather well despite a breakdown in the safety of the cooling system.

Call me when the nuclear plants end up like Chernobyl (which is unlikely as Chernobyl didn't have secondary shielding like this one does.

But it is serious in that they need to contain it. The question really seems to be can they contain it and save the plant. In the case of 1 or 2, the answer is no. They can contain, but lose the plant.

Not exactly end of the world stuff here.


Yeah, about my thoughts. It's bad, but not *that* bad. Sure hope it stays that way.

I was mostly trolling Co... someone.
 
2011-03-14 09:30:38 AM

Corvus: Timdesuyo: Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.

You don't normally plan for a 9.0 earthquake followed shortly by a Tsunami strong enough to go 4km inland. These plants were over-engineered, and nature went and one-upped them.

But they do happen. And California could have an earthquake on that scale. And major disaster hit the US not infrequently.

Sorry I missed all the "thousands of Japan houses evacuated because of solar, wind and geothermal plants disasters" would you show me those links.


So you are admitting if a major disaster hits the US we could be talking about leaking major radiation in the US.

You admit that is very likely.


yeah... we would also be talking about a major disaster hitting the US.

Are you farking obtuse?
 
2011-03-14 09:31:16 AM

NuclearScientist: Let me clarify: One of the designed safety systems is a reactor kill boron injection.


You are talking about killing the nuclear reaction, which boron does in sufficient quantities. You can replace the core and clean the system up and start up again in that case. Or maybe you can't. I don't know as my specialty is PWRs.

You get salt water in the system, then you are talking corrosion and permanent disabling of the plant.
 
2011-03-14 09:35:36 AM

TheHumanCannonball: So if the japanese reactors melt down, will they have an African Syndrome?


Hot like Detroit
 
2011-03-14 09:35:36 AM

Corvus: and her comes the personal attacks.

Fine I will leave. it doesn't seem like anyone one wants to have a real discussion about this. I keep getting the same question over and over and then I respond and the person just ignores my points or my questions when they don't fit in their personal worldview".


I think it's really sad to start attacking someone personally when they challenge your view about things. But oh well.

From my experience it usually means the person is not actually being their opinion on facts and it's based on more "tribal" identification.


Audio only, video is sh*tty. (new window)
 
2011-03-14 09:35:41 AM
So much for "aphexcoil's" worst case scenario not involving core exposure.
 
2011-03-14 09:37:02 AM

Petit_Merdeux: Corvus: I think it's really sad to start attacking someone personally when they challenge your view about things.


When you try to explain things to some one and they scream,

"YOU'RE LYING YOU NUCLEAR SHILL THIS INDUSTRY IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!11111one!!!11"

you needn't take that person seriously anymore.


yeah, Except I did not do that.
 
2011-03-14 09:39:48 AM

Petit_Merdeux: NuclearScientist: Let me clarify: One of the designed safety systems is a reactor kill boron injection.

You are talking about killing the nuclear reaction, which boron does in sufficient quantities. You can replace the core and clean the system up and start up again in that case. Or maybe you can't. I don't know as my specialty is PWRs.

You get salt water in the system, then you are talking corrosion and permanent disabling of the plant.


Your clean up project would be extensive to the point of cost ineffectiveness, which is essentially the same as your seawater injection. Varying degrees, sure, but the boron-kill nature of the plant is considered to be a sign of intent to abandon.

Could it be cleaned up and restored? Sure. So could your seawater incursion.

Does that make more sense?

My specialty is also PWRs. I work with about 50 people who have first hand knowledge of BWRs and am consulting with them for info. Also, I have worked with BWRs and their design, just not to the extent that I have with a PWR.

I know someone was unsure if the Fukushima Daiichi plants had a core catcher. The answer is yes.

Any other questions?
 
2011-03-14 09:43:13 AM

tforbes: Corvus: Timdesuyo: Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.

You don't normally plan for a 9.0 earthquake followed shortly by a Tsunami strong enough to go 4km inland. These plants were over-engineered, and nature went and one-upped them.

But they do happen. And California could have an earthquake on that scale. And major disaster hit the US not infrequently.

Sorry I missed all the "thousands of Japan houses evacuated because of solar, wind and geothermal plants disasters" would you show me those links.


So you are admitting if a major disaster hits the US we could be talking about leaking major radiation in the US.

You admit that is very likely.

yeah... we would also be talking about a major disaster hitting the US.

Are you farking obtuse?


Which then you don't want to add evacuating thousand on top of resources already being stretched to the limit.

In Japan now they have to deal with ten thousands of additional people being evacuated because of these incidents.
 
2011-03-14 09:46:31 AM

NuclearScientist: Does that make more sense?



Yes. Thanks.
 
2011-03-14 10:00:26 AM

TheHumanCannonball: So if the japanese reactors melt down, will they have an African Syndrome?


Interestingly, very view places have an antipod.

upload.wikimedia.org

/ not being pedantic, just thought it was interesting.
 
2011-03-14 10:03:15 AM

NuclearScientist: Petit_Merdeux: NuclearScientist: Let me clarify: One of the designed safety systems is a reactor kill boron injection.

You are talking about killing the nuclear reaction, which boron does in sufficient quantities. You can replace the core and clean the system up and start up again in that case. Or maybe you can't. I don't know as my specialty is PWRs.

You get salt water in the system, then you are talking corrosion and permanent disabling of the plant.

Your clean up project would be extensive to the point of cost ineffectiveness, which is essentially the same as your seawater injection. Varying degrees, sure, but the boron-kill nature of the plant is considered to be a sign of intent to abandon.

Could it be cleaned up and restored? Sure. So could your seawater incursion.

Does that make more sense?

My specialty is also PWRs. I work with about 50 people who have first hand knowledge of BWRs and am consulting with them for info. Also, I have worked with BWRs and their design, just not to the extent that I have with a PWR.

I know someone was unsure if the Fukushima Daiichi plants had a core catcher. The answer is yes.

Any other questions?


Yes...

How does Freddy Kruger wipe his butt?
 
2011-03-14 10:04:55 AM
NuclearScientist:
Whatever happened to flooding the plant with graphite as a neutron absorber? is it already too late for that?

coming from the Navy's nuclear power program:

ok well, boron is what is used to neutralize a reactor, and they're doing just that. I just think they should have done it quicker.

and for the radiation exposure... here's some info to make you think.
Cosmic radiation is about 200 mrem per year.
You emit 40mrem per year internally. (1/1000th of potassium is k40-highly radioactive, but your body needs it)
Sleep in bed with your S/O? add 20mrem
Do you fly? 2mrem per 1hr trip.
Add 1mrem for every 100ft in altitude above sea level you are.
Have smoke detectors in the house? 10mrem each.
Add 1mrem for every 10 bananas you eat (the most radioactive of the foods)
Have an xray this year? add 53mrem
Are you an astronaut? ad about 15,000-20,000mrem to that number PER MISSION.
Watch 2hrs of tv a day? 2mrem
CT scan this year-1800mrem for full body scan
wanna add 40mrem per year? sleep with someone next to you in bed.
Do you like to breath? add 200mrem from the radon in the air.
Smoke? add 250mrem.
Do you eat food? add between 20-50mrem.
Sheetrock in the house? 30mrem
Cross the street 3 times-1mrem from the asphalt decay:1mrem
10 extra calories consumed for overweight person: 1mrem.
Living near an normal power plant increases your exposure by 1mrem.
After this explosion, there is about 100mrem of radiation.
For radiation the long term effects are an increase in the cancer rate.
After hiroshima, of the 80,000 survivors, 500 were said to have died over the next 50 years from the bomb's radiation effects.
Annual allowable worker's radiation exposure: 5,000mrem.


In terms of poisonous levels:
A one time exposure of >600,000mrem has a 80% death rate in 3 months
A one time exposure of ~450,000mrem has a 50% death rate in 3 months
 
2011-03-14 10:08:08 AM

tota1pkg: Sleep in bed with your S/O? add 20mrem


tota1pkg: wanna add 40mrem per year? sleep with someone next to you in bed.


Someone other than your S/O, I guess.
 
2011-03-14 10:14:04 AM

CygnusDarius: The only thing I know is this:
1.- Japan got hit by a large earthquake and an even larger tsunami
2.- While you can be expecting anything, you can't be truly ready for everything.
3.- Without the enforcement of their own government regulations, things would've been worse.
4.- So far, more people are dead/missing from the GIANT TSUNAMI OF DEATH than the nuclear power plant.


Why isn't Congress doing something to prevent another wave power catastrophe?
 
2011-03-14 10:15:58 AM

tota1pkg: NuclearScientist:
Whatever happened to flooding the plant with graphite as a neutron absorber? is it already too late for that?

coming from the Navy's nuclear power program:

ok well, boron is what is used to neutralize a reactor, and they're doing just that. I just think they should have done it quicker.

and for the radiation exposure... here's some info to make you think.
Cosmic radiation is about 200 mrem per year.
You emit 40mrem per year internally. (1/1000th of potassium is k40-highly radioactive, but your body needs it)
Sleep in bed with your S/O? add 20mrem
Do you fly? 2mrem per 1hr trip.
Add 1mrem for every 100ft in altitude above sea level you are.
Have smoke detectors in the house? 10mrem each.
Add 1mrem for every 10 bananas you eat (the most radioactive of the foods)
Have an xray this year? add 53mrem
Are you an astronaut? ad about 15,000-20,000mrem to that number PER MISSION.
Watch 2hrs of tv a day? 2mrem
CT scan this year-1800mrem for full body scan
wanna add 40mrem per year? sleep with someone next to you in bed.
Do you like to breath? add 200mrem from the radon in the air.
Smoke? add 250mrem.
Do you eat food? add between 20-50mrem.
Sheetrock in the house? 30mrem
Cross the street 3 times-1mrem from the asphalt decay:1mrem
10 extra calories consumed for overweight person: 1mrem.
Living near an normal power plant increases your exposure by 1mrem.
After this explosion, there is about 100mrem of radiation.
For radiation the long term effects are an increase in the cancer rate.
After hiroshima, of the 80,000 survivors, 500 were said to have died over the next 50 years from the bomb's radiation effects.
Annual allowable worker's radiation exposure: 5,000mrem.


In terms of poisonous levels:
A one time exposure of >600,000mrem has a 80% death rate in 3 months
A one time exposure of ~450,000mrem has a 50% death rate in 3 months


Point of Information, you quoted me as asking a question that I didn't ask but answered. You're quoting me quoting someone else.

Thanks for posting the info for others' benefit, though. I'm quite familiar with it all ready.
 
2011-03-14 10:28:09 AM
If these reactors meltdown, will Sarah Palin be able to see Japan from her back yard?
 
2011-03-14 10:40:56 AM

Corvus: tforbes: Corvus: Timdesuyo: Corvus: I remember how everyone used to promise us these plants were all fail safe. I guess that was a lie.

You don't normally plan for a 9.0 earthquake followed shortly by a Tsunami strong enough to go 4km inland. These plants were over-engineered, and nature went and one-upped them.

But they do happen. And California could have an earthquake on that scale. And major disaster hit the US not infrequently.

Sorry I missed all the "thousands of Japan houses evacuated because of solar, wind and geothermal plants disasters" would you show me those links.


So you are admitting if a major disaster hits the US we could be talking about leaking major radiation in the US.

You admit that is very likely.

yeah... we would also be talking about a major disaster hitting the US.

Are you farking obtuse?

Which then you don't want to add evacuating thousand on top of resources already being stretched to the limit.

In Japan now they have to deal with ten thousands of additional people being evacuated because of these incidents.


You said you were leaving, you were wrong about that too.
 
2011-03-14 10:41:00 AM
Corvus:

I know how you feel.
 
2011-03-14 10:42:00 AM

LordOfThePings: tota1pkg: Sleep in bed with your S/O? add 20mrem

tota1pkg: wanna add 40mrem per year? sleep with someone next to you in bed.

Someone other than your S/O, I guess.


in bed as opposed to like next to and touching someone. however the point remains that the numbers are insigificant.
 
2011-03-14 10:42:15 AM
Also, why don't we use banana-powered reactors since there so much radiation in them?
 
2011-03-14 10:47:17 AM

NuclearScientist: tota1pkg: NuclearScientist:
Point of Information, you quoted me as asking a question that I didn't ask but answered. You're quoting me quoting someone else.

Thanks for posting the info for others' benefit, though. I'm quite familiar with it all ready.


sorry about that... bored waiting quoting on the cell phone is difficult.
 
2011-03-14 11:11:44 AM

tota1pkg: NuclearScientist: tota1pkg: NuclearScientist:
Point of Information, you quoted me as asking a question that I didn't ask but answered. You're quoting me quoting someone else.

Thanks for posting the info for others' benefit, though. I'm quite familiar with it all ready.

sorry about that... bored waiting quoting on the cell phone is difficult.


I'm in the same boat.

(Pun not intended.)

Using a cell phone cuts down on the technical info I can disseminate. Not quite sure how you managed.
 
2011-03-14 11:14:24 AM

Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dog: Also, why don't we use banana-powered reactors since there so much radiation in them?


Radioactive material is 'in' them. Radiation comes out of them. Quibbling, I know.

In any case, Potassium while radioactive is not fissible. Good question, though.
 
2011-03-14 12:13:37 PM

Corvus: Untrue - You get a loan and you pay it back just like you electric bill. In fact some solar panels places will install them FREE you just pay them for the energy. NO UPFRONT COST WHATSOEVER.


Almost any home owner in the US can afford to do so.


Got an address where I can read about this? I've got 30 acres and ideal siting for solar and/or wind.
 
2011-03-14 12:42:57 PM

MexicanNerd: Corvus: Nuclear power hides costs which I have explained in detail above.

This chart does not hide costs, it includes system-wide lifetime costs.

[energy costs chart]

I'll keep posting it if you need me to, since you seem to have a thick skull.


What's up with Geothermal power?
Everybody in thread has been saying wind, solar, and tidal, but Geothermal is the only other 90% capacity on the chart, and (if I read it correctly) is overall less expensive than nuclear? Why isn't that being brought up more? Does the technology not exist? If it doesn't, where did they get the estimates from?

And, Corvus, given this:

Corvus: If you being evacuated because of a threat that means it is unsafe or can become unsafe. I would call that "unsafe".


If I need to possibly be evacuated for it, it is "unsafe".


...and this:

Corvus: Yes. If I am being evacuated it is because someone deems something to be unsafe or a possibility of becoming unsafe. That is the reason for evacuations.


...your definition of "unsafe" is a tautology, ie, "It is unsafe because they are evacuating, and they are evacuating because it is unsafe."
 
2011-03-14 01:28:32 PM

JackieRabbit: If these reactors meltdown, will Sarah Palin be able to see Japan from her back yard?


If these reactors meltdown, you'll be able to see them from the Eiffell Tower.
 
2011-03-14 01:29:27 PM
Don't worry sheeple!!!

This is all just a viral marketing campaign for the new Godzilla movie!
 
2011-03-14 01:43:08 PM

Garbonzo42: What's up with Geothermal power?
Everybody in thread has been saying wind, solar, and tidal, but Geothermal is the only other 90% capacity on the chart, and (if I read it correctly) is overall less expensive than nuclear? Why isn't that being brought up more? Does the technology not exist? If it doesn't, where did they get the estimates from?


It should be brought up every single day. The only objections are nonsense that's been (from what I understand) disproved about it "causing earthquakes."

If that was true Iceland should be earthquake central.

The reason that it's not brought up more, along with wind and solar, is that nuclear has become a penis substitute for Republicans. It's a macho thing.
 
2011-03-14 03:10:05 PM
bigdave, it's not just Republicans...Obama has pledged billions of taxpayer money for the nuclear industry.

djh, just Google...there's several U.S. firms out there that will install solar for ya for free. But try to shop around, some are probably fly-by-night tax break harvesters...look for one where you can acutally SEE something they've built.
 
2011-03-14 03:18:02 PM

thespindrifter: "Officials are working to prevent such a calamity by injecting seawater and boron into the affected reactors -- even though salt and boron will corrode the reactors, rendering the Daiichi plant inoperable.

"Essentially, they are waving the white flag and saying, 'This plant is done,'" Walsh said. "This is a last-ditch mechanism to try to prevent overheating and to prevent a partial or full meltdown.""

Whatever happened to flooding the plant with graphite as a neutron absorber? is it already too late for that?



Nobody uses pencils anymore. They tried throwing in keyboards and mouses, but it didn't work.
 
2011-03-14 03:23:53 PM

bigdavediode: Garbonzo42: What's up with Geothermal power?
Everybody in thread has been saying wind, solar, and tidal, but Geothermal is the only other 90% capacity on the chart, and (if I read it correctly) is overall less expensive than nuclear? Why isn't that being brought up more? Does the technology not exist? If it doesn't, where did they get the estimates from?

It should be brought up every single day. The only objections are nonsense that's been (from what I understand) disproved about it "causing earthquakes."

If that was true Iceland should be earthquake central.

The reason that it's not brought up more, along with wind and solar, is that nuclear has become a penis substitute for Republicans. It's a macho thing.


I was more asking why the alternative energy people weren't bringing it up more, especially if the data in MexicanNerd's chart is accurate.

I don't particularly care what Republicans think about this (or any) issue.

So, again, what is the deal with Geothermal? Why isn't it being touted as the be all end all for our energy woes?
 
2011-03-14 03:37:29 PM

Garbonzo42: So, again, what is the deal with Geothermal? Why isn't it being touted as the be all end all for our energy woes?


Availability. There are not enough sources. Where possible, though, it should definitely be used.
 
2011-03-14 03:43:26 PM

Garbonzo42: So, again, what is the deal with Geothermal? Why isn't it being touted as the be all end all for our energy woes?



Per that chart we are at 90% capacity for geothermal. There is little geothermal that hasn't been tapped, and the untapped locations tend to be like Yellowstone, not exactly places environmentalists want you to construct power stations.
 
2011-03-14 03:46:35 PM

PunGent: bigdave, it's not just Republicans...Obama has pledged billions of taxpayer money for the nuclear industry.


I would be fine with that if it was only for research (ie. fusion and other methods) but not as loan guarantees of taxpayer money for private businesses to make an uneconomical power source profitable.
 
2011-03-14 03:47:47 PM
There's so much hype over this that it's hard to fathom.
 
2011-03-14 03:50:57 PM

Jeng: Per that chart we are at 90% capacity for geothermal.


No, that's the "capacity factor" -- "The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated at full nameplate capacity the entire time."

Huge swaths of the US remain untapped for geothermal. In fact, most of the left coast.

www.nationalatlas.gov
 
2011-03-14 04:45:03 PM
MexicanNerd, Jeng thank you for your responses, I misunderstood what the capacity column meant on the chart.

Since Geothermal is location limited, I guess it falls back into the 'impractical for large scale' box with the rest of the non-nuclear alternative energy types.
 
2011-03-14 06:42:18 PM

Garbonzo42: Since Geothermal is location limited, I guess it falls back into the 'impractical for large scale' box with the rest of the non-nuclear alternative energy types.


Please look at the geothermal map above.
 
2011-03-14 07:00:52 PM
I can't wait for the meta-stories about how the media covered the nuclear reactor-ageddon. I'm sure that will be entertaining. In the meantime, I hate nuclear energy. But, I recognize that it is a necessary evil while we work on becoming Amish. Nuclear energy isn't renewable, and as we can plainly see, it is dangerous. But, it is probably safer than oil and coal. Let's work on making this renewable shiat a more viable option. How 'bout it folks?
 
2011-03-14 08:09:32 PM
I've been sucking your radioactive coal fumes here in Western Pennsylvania, so I'm getting a kick out of this.
 
2011-03-14 08:18:45 PM
Someone was saying something about a badge, here you guys go:


img863.imageshack.us
 
2011-03-14 11:29:45 PM

Jeng: Garbonzo42: So, again, what is the deal with Geothermal? Why isn't it being touted as the be all end all for our energy woes?


Per that chart we are at 90% capacity for geothermal. There is little geothermal that hasn't been tapped, and the untapped locations tend to be like Yellowstone, not exactly places environmentalists want you to construct power stations.


You can do SMALL-scale geothermal just about anywhere, using natural temperature gradients, usually drilling a couple hundred feet max.

That's where we should be putting our dough, imho.
 
2011-03-15 09:56:38 AM

that bosnian sniper: they either have safety expectations that go way beyond unrealistic straight into the impossible


Wait.

These events aren't "real", nor are they "possible"?

Well, that's a relief!

Because, until you corrected me, it seemed to me that in the long term (which strikes me as the correct mindset to have, given the half-lives of the fuels and wastes) events like these are more correctly termed as "inevitable".
 
2011-03-15 10:19:01 AM

Deucednuisance: These events aren't "real", nor are they "possible"?

Well, that's a relief!


Are you telling me that a 9.0 earthquake and a seven-meter tsunami and a complete infrastructure failure, which in turn led to crippling personnel shortages and inability to find replacement equipment, is an inevitability that should have been expected to the point failure is guaranteed to not have occurred?
 
2011-03-15 10:32:05 AM

PunGent: You can do SMALL-scale geothermal just about anywhere, using natural temperature gradients, usually drilling a couple hundred feet max.


You're thinking of heat extraction, ie. geothermal heating, versus electricity generation which requires deeper drilling, but your point is a good one.
 
2011-03-15 10:34:10 AM

that bosnian sniper: Are you telling me that a 9.0 earthquake and a seven-meter tsunami and a complete infrastructure failure, which in turn led to crippling personnel shortages and inability to find replacement equipment, is an inevitability that should have been expected to the point failure is guaranteed to not have occurred?


In an earthquake zone tsunamis and earthquakes often go together.

So, yes, it would be nice if these plants were buttressed to withstand these events, which are inevitable. In fact California is overdue for an earthquake.
 
2011-03-15 11:04:44 AM

bigdavediode: So, yes, it would be nice if these plants were buttressed to withstand these events, which are inevitable. In fact California is overdue for an earthquake.


Yes we're all aware of your personal crusade against the one nuclear power plant actually in the danger area of a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami that's still in operation and due for decommissioning anyhow. We all agree that's something that ought to be looked at.

Can you change the record, please?
 
2011-03-15 11:45:47 AM

EchoMike: got the link from a guy who designs nuclear reactors


I knew one nuclear reactor designer. I say "knew" because he passed away last month. (RIP, Clint!)

He regretted his career choice, and held the position while I knew him that nuclear was an unsustainable energy source for two reasons:

1) While you can over-engineer containment, Nature can always out-do your best efforts, as events in Japan have reminded us. (I wish he were still alive, I'd like to hear what he'd have to say about this.) This being the case, the use of such dangerous materials is too risky.

2) We've never built anything that has lasted a few thousand years. Yes, we're getting better all the time, but he could not accept the hubris that allowed some to think that we can build waste containment facilities that will last millennia.

I understand that nukes can operate with little visible impact for years. Heck, my home is powered by the Calbert Cliffs plant. (Although the rate of erosion of the cliffs, themselves, gives me pause.) But the notion that we can build for the ages eventually struck Clint as absurd.

I'm just a layman. But when someone who traveled the world building these things says these sorts of things, I just have to believe that there's good reason to entertain some skepticism about nukes.
 
2011-03-15 12:32:36 PM

that bosnian sniper: Are you telling me that a 9.0 earthquake and a seven-meter tsunami and a complete infrastructure failure and volcanos erupting and giant moths and lizards and turtles invading and the invasion of space aliens and the emergence of Cthulhu and a host of rapacious tentacle monsters, which in turn led to crippling personnel shortages and inability to find replacement equipment, is an inevitability that should have been expected



In Japan? Hell yeah! Duh!
 
2011-03-15 01:00:58 PM

that bosnian sniper: Yes we're all aware of your personal crusade against the one nuclear power plant actually in the danger area of a catastrophic earthquake and tsunami that's still in operation and due for decommissioning anyhow. We all agree that's something that ought to be looked at.


Google "New Madrid Fault".

There's more than "one".

I'm not a "no nukes, ever, anywhere" guy, but I do think they've been a bit oversold.

And without taking the time to find cites in this dying thread, I seem to remember that the Yucca Mountain facility was shut down for reasons other than NIMBY, of which the primary one was "whoops, the site isn't as impermeable to water, nor as geologically inactive as we first thought".

Which, of course, gets me wondering why waste vitrification hasn't taken off. Seems like the optimal approach that's been put forth so far.
 
2011-03-15 02:55:16 PM

Deucednuisance: Google "New Madrid Fault".


Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Those midwestern tsunamis are a real biatch. My bad.
 
2011-03-15 03:14:53 PM

that bosnian sniper: Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Those midwestern tsunamis are a real biatch. My bad.


Fair enough. I was under the mistaken impression that the fault extended further south. Folks were talking about the 1811/1812 quakes in New Orleans when I lived there. And I read your post too quickly and missed that important word "and".

So, my bad, actually.
 
2011-03-15 03:21:50 PM

Deucednuisance: So, my bad, actually.


No problem. It's way too easy at this juncture to forget the current radiological crisis is the result of multiple factors working in tandem to produce the most-negative effect at the worst-possible time. Had any of those factors been absent, the crisis most likely would not be turning out as it is.
 
2011-03-15 04:02:19 PM

that bosnian sniper: Deucednuisance: So, my bad, actually.

No problem. It's way too easy at this juncture to forget the current radiological crisis is the result of multiple factors working in tandem to produce the most-negative effect at the worst-possible time. Had any of those factors been absent, the crisis most likely would not be turning out as it is.


Luckily multiple factors, such as, say, an earthquake combined with human error, or an earthquake combined with cheaper-than-designed construction will not happen again.
 
2011-03-15 04:45:12 PM

bigdavediode: that bosnian sniper: Deucednuisance: So, my bad, actually.

No problem. It's way too easy at this juncture to forget the current radiological crisis is the result of multiple factors working in tandem to produce the most-negative effect at the worst-possible time. Had any of those factors been absent, the crisis most likely would not be turning out as it is.

Luckily multiple factors, such as, say, an earthquake combined with human error, or an earthquake combined with cheaper-than-designed construction will not happen again.


Well, until more is known about the accident and its timeline, attributing the disaster or its severity to human error is mostly speculation. The only known factor at the moment of which I'm aware is the plant being past its intended operational lifetime considering it was slated for decommissioning two months ago and got its contract extended. Human error may very well turn out to be a significant factor, admittedly, but for the moment its still within the realm of speculation.

That said, still keep in mind that design is 40 years old, and obsolete.
 
2011-03-15 05:00:06 PM

that bosnian sniper: Well, until more is known about the accident and its timeline, attributing the disaster or its severity to human error is mostly speculation. The only known factor at the moment of which I'm aware is the plant being past its intended operational lifetime considering it was slated for decommissioning two months ago and got its contract extended. Human error may very well turn out to be a significant factor, admittedly, but for the moment its still within the realm of speculation.


I wasn't speculating. I'm talking about confounding factors. The next time it won't be tsunami, it will be an operator error. Or a poor quality of cast iron. Or a corroded containment vessel. Or other factor combined with multiple factors leading to a catastrophic failure. That's how failures work.
 
2011-03-15 11:43:35 PM

that bosnian sniper: Had any of those factors been absent, the crisis most likely would not be turning out as it is.



But it is, Blanche, it is turning out as it is!

i.ytimg.com
 
Displayed 472 of 472 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report