Japanese N-Plant Explosion

[adoucette]

Radiation doses at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant continue to decrease and dose rates at the site boundary ranged from 1 millirem to 3 millirem per hour on March 18

TEPCO completed installing high voltage cables from a nearby transmission line to reactors 1 and 2 and electrical power is expected to be restored to reactors 1 and 2 later today. Priority is being given to restoring power to residual heat removal and cooling water pumps at the reactors. TEPCO expects to extend power cables to reactors 3 and 4 by Monday.

After apparent success with adding water via high pressure spraying equipment at SFP 3, TEPCO will attempt to add water in a similar manner to SFP 4 later today.

Two diesel generators are now up and running and supplying electrical power to Reactors 5 and 6 allowing a residual heat removal pump to providing cooling to the SFP at reactor 5 and they now report that temperature in the spent fuel pool at reactor 5 is decreasing.

 

[iceaura]

As far as I can tell, the only reason people have deflected the original discussion into one of correct predictions is to once more invoke Challenger Logic arguments in support of building nuclear power plants.

The discussion of risk, how it is estimated, and how it is considered whn designing and siting nuclear power plants, is still available, if anyone's interested.

As far as radiation monitoring, I can't find out whether the IAEA has deployed the monitors it was still arranging to deploy yesterday. If the pattern of past incidents is followed, even if deployed they will be inadequate - they will, for starters, assume a more or less even dispersal of exposure at some large granular scale, in both time and space. They will then, as with TMI, evaluate the effects of the presumed exposure under similar assumptions.

Perhaps they will do better this time. Or perhaps we will continue to be fortunate, and no major radiation blow has or will occur.

But it would be really too bad if the risk, the vulnerability, were then forgotten - the foolishness of the denial we see throughout now should become clearer over time, rather than fogged as in the past.

 

[ULTRA]

I find the constant denial funny as a marginalised and minority view. They never learn because they can't admit thier error, but nobody takes thier views seriously. There will be wide ranging safety reviews now because of this.

 

[ElectricFetus]

As far as I can tell, the only reason people have deflected the original discussion into one of correct predictions is to once more invoke Challenger Logic arguments in support of building nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is not the space shuttle, in the space shuttle case there was nothing to compare, no alternative. The present alternatives to nuclear power are inherently less safe than nuclear power and kill more people then nuclear power has or ever will.

 

[chimpkin]

Since it does appear the Japanese have managed to keep the situation from going worse-case (wipes forehead)...

I *sort* of got into a discussion on another thread wherein I maintain that that renewable-energy harvesting technology isn't mature, and therefore concluding it never can and never will provide for our power needs is premature.


Extremely so when you look at some of the concepts for harvesting tidal power-not bore barrages, but just ordinary tides, and balloon turbines-seriously-the POC on that is a 4 Kw-producingballoon.

To me, renewables should always be the first choice. Not that they are problem-free, but that they are likely to represent the least damage...maybe with the exception of old-school hydro dams( it seems like a series of smaller dams would be cheaper and safer in many cases-also cause less displacement?)

Having looked into Fast Breeder Reactors...well, I think I'm actually willing to consider that they ARE better than a coal-fired powerplant-coal kills. People don't think about how coal kills-it kills people like me through asthma attacks...and it incites heart attacks. Not to mention being dangerous and destructive to mine...and adds to our greenhouse gas burden.
Light Water Reactors have been superseded, really, by the FBR's. We should not be building LWR's.

I don't know that widespread use of carbon capture's gonna happen if we go to coal-it raises cost and lowers the amount of sparkies we can get out of a given amount of coal. Gub'mints are generally too cheap to do the right thing unless forced to do so.

I also get really peeved that Passive Solar construction principles aren't in widespread use. No offense to Me-gi-Kal, because he does just make what the customer wants...but I would love to see codes that make buildings suited to keep a comfortable temperature with little or no energy input.

Mainly because the U.S. customer is too dumb to realize that such a house or office building can look very inviting, or even that such a thing exists. If more people live in such houses and work in such buildings, it's going to reduce grid demand and outages.

Basically, the justification for using nuclear is that it's the best solution we have. To that I say...if you say FBR's...I'll give that a tentative maybe, for the moment.

But I refuse to say that for certain and for ever until we've really made a good-faith effort to mature renewable harvesting. IMO, we have not, not hardly.

Edited to add: I found this-and hope it's not considered spammy to re-link it...tidal power concepts-tidal power has lots of potential, mostly untapped: http://webecoist.com/2008/11/09/hydroelectric-wave-tidal-power/

 

[ElectricFetus]

Since it does appear the Japanese have managed to keep the situation from going worse-case (wipes forehead)...

I *sort* of got into a discussion on another thread wherein I maintain that that renewable-energy harvesting technology isn't mature, and therefore concluding it never can and never will provide for our power needs is premature.


Extremely so when you look at some of the concepts for harvesting tidal power-not bore barrages, but just ordinary tides, and balloon turbines-seriously-the POC on that is a 4 Kw-producingballoon.

To me, renewables should always be the first choice. Not that they are problem-free, but that they are likely to represent the least damage...maybe with the exception of old-school hydro dams( it seems like a series of smaller dams would be cheaper and safer in many cases-also cause less displacement?)

Having looked into Fast Breeder Reactors...well, I think I'm actually willing to consider that they ARE better than a coal-fired powerplant-coal kills. People don't think about how coal kills-it kills people like me through asthma attacks...and it incites heart attacks. Not to mention being dangerous and destructive to mine...and adds to our greenhouse gas burden.
Light Water Reactors have been superseded, really, by the FBR's. We should not be building LWR's.

I don't know that widespread use of carbon capture's gonna happen if we go to coal-it raises cost and lowers the amount of sparkies we can get out of a given amount of coal. Gub'mints are generally too cheap to do the right thing unless forced to do so.

I also get really peeved that Passive Solar construction principles aren't in widespread use. No offense to Me-gi-Kal, because he does just make what the customer wants...but I would love to see codes that make buildings suited to keep a comfortable temperature with little or no energy input.

Mainly because the U.S. customer is too dumb to realize that such a house or office building can look very inviting, or even that such a thing exists. If more people live in such houses and work in such buildings, it's going to reduce grid demand and outages.

Basically, the justification for using nuclear is that it's the best solution we have. To that I say...if you say FBR's...I'll give that a tentative maybe, for the moment.

But I refuse to say that for certain and for ever until we've really made a good-faith effort to mature renewable harvesting. IMO, we have not, not hardly.

Edited to add: I found this-and hope it's not considered spammy to re-link it...tidal power concepts-tidal power has lots of potential, mostly untapped: http://webecoist.com/2008/11/09/hydroelectric-wave-tidal-power/

Yeah Notice what I said:

"Nuclear power is not the space shuttle, in the space shuttle case there was nothing to compare, no alternative. The present alternatives to nuclear power are inherently less safe than nuclear power and kill more people then nuclear power has or ever will."

 

[ULTRA]

... kill more people then nuclear power has or ever will."

Proof please. You don't know that, unless you've taken to fortune telling. Yet more rubbish.

 

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

I couldn't agree more. Utter brainlessness. Go away, get out of my thread. I only want people here who knowsomething about the disaster and you, Dwayne are not one of them. Go find some other thread to spread your ignorance.

ULTRA Along with the other post,by Believe, if you did not understand the post I wrote you yourself have a long way to go before understanding Nuclear Reactions, and Isotope Chemistry.

I certainly will leave you to discuss your conversation in this topic.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

[ULTRA]

ULTRA Along with the other post,by Believe, if you did not understand the post I wrote you yourself have a long way to go before understanding Nuclear Reactions, and Isotope Chemistry.

I certainly will leave you to discuss your conversation in this topic.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

No, I'm good. I have a sound understanding chemistry, biochemistry and biology from years of study at college and university. I also worked in a number of commercial labs, and finished by running my own. I'm not impressed by pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. Try it on someone else - they might believe you. I call it intellectual dishonesty.

 

[chimpkin]

The present alternatives to nuclear power are inherently less safe than nuclear power and kill more people then nuclear power has

I'm going to ignore the "never will" part-neither you nor I work for Dionne Warwick's Psychic Friends' Network...
And tentatively agree. Which is a seismic shift in my own thinking.

This does not mean that I accept "Oh, well, we should just be happy with nuclear then..." which is the attitude that I seem to get from a lot of people... because, well...production of radioactive waste that remains hot for 5K years...is not a legacy I like leaving lying around for future generations to care for, alright?

So I think of Breeder reactors as the...least-worst of a series of BAD alternatives...and renewable development as where we ought to be placing the bulk of our societal capital.

Now...nukes for long-range space-travel? quite possibly the only way to fly...but that's way different.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dwayne is (one of) our resident nutcase(s).
He's not yet managed a post that has anything worthwhile (or sensible) in it, but posts so infrequently he hasn't earned a permaban.
Here's a sample of his inanity.

 

[chimpkin]

Dwayne is (one of) our resident nutcase(s).
He's not yet managed a post that has anything worthwhile (or sensible) in it, but posts so infrequently he hasn't earned a permaban.
Here's a sample of his inanity.

Hey, I resemble that remark!:crazy::grumble:
Yes, Dwayne's posts don't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
If he actually annoyed me, I'd put him on ignore.

 

[Dywyddyr]

He doesn't make sense, but he is utterly convinced he's right.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Proof please. You don't know that, unless you've taken to fortune telling. Yet more rubbish.

Coal power kills thousand every year in air pollution cause disease, up to 24,000 in the USA alone die an early death thanks to coal.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-10-10.asp

The study, based on analysis by a consulting firm used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), finds some 90 percent of these premature deaths could be prevented by currently available emissions control technology.

Oh goody even with the latest technology it would only kill 2400 a year! Makes me wonder what kind of filtering systems they got in china on their coal plants.

Some 2,800 of these deaths were from lung cancer, according to the report.
In addition, pollution from coal-fired power plants causes some 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks each year, 554,000 asthma attacks and some three million lost work days.
The study finds the annual total health costs associated with soot from power plants tops $167 billion.

I bet that price is not considered in the electric bill. The world wide deathtoll is ~170,000 annually: http://www.green-blog.org/2008/06/1...icity-generation-kill-170000-people-annually/

“The report found that the “true cost” of coal-based electricity was 4-5 times the “market price”

Well well I wonder if nuclear would look competitive against that electric bill.

Coal, gas and oil burning all produce toxic agents such as carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, volatile organic components and heavy metals, notably mercury (Hg) (see: http://dar.csiro.au/…/urbanpollution.html). Sulphur (S) content varies and mercury (Hg) pollution from combusted petroleum and natural gas is about 10 times less than that which derives from coal (66 Mg/y in the US); however this estimate was based on Hg from US fuel oil of 1,500 kg/y whereas the US EPA estimates Hg from fuel oil at 10,000 kg/y (10 Mg/y: http://www.epa.gov/…/.pdf).

Well burning oil and natural gas aren't doing us much better.

Hell coal power even release more radioactive material then nuclear power:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

 

[ULTRA]

Ok D, thanx for the heads-up.

 

[ULTRA]

Coal power kills thousand every year in air pollution cause disease, up to 24,000 in the USA alone die an early death thanks to coal.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2004/2004-06-10-10.asp

The study, based on analysis by a consulting firm used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), finds some 90 percent of these premature deaths could be prevented by currently available emissions control technology.

Oh goody even with the latest technology it would only kill 2400 a year! Makes me wonder what kind of filtering systems they got in china on their coal plants.

Some 2,800 of these deaths were from lung cancer, according to the report.
In addition, pollution from coal-fired power plants causes some 38,200 non-fatal heart attacks each year, 554,000 asthma attacks and some three million lost work days.
The study finds the annual total health costs associated with soot from power plants tops $167 billion.

I bet that price is not considered in the electric bill. The world wide deathtoll is ~170,000 annually: http://www.green-blog.org/2008/06/1...icity-generation-kill-170000-people-annually/

“The report found that the “true cost” of coal-based electricity was 4-5 times the “market price”

Well well I wonder if nuclear would look competitive against that electric bill.

Coal, gas and oil burning all produce toxic agents such as carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, particulates, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, volatile organic components and heavy metals, notably mercury (Hg) (see: http://dar.csiro.au/…/urbanpollution.html). Sulphur (S) content varies and mercury (Hg) pollution from combusted petroleum and natural gas is about 10 times less than that which derives from coal (66 Mg/y in the US); however this estimate was based on Hg from US fuel oil of 1,500 kg/y whereas the US EPA estimates Hg from fuel oil at 10,000 kg/y (10 Mg/y: http://www.epa.gov/…/.pdf).

Well burning oil and natural gas aren't doing us much better.

Hell coal power even release more radioactive material then nuclear power:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

Irrelevant. Not what I asked.

 

[chimpkin]

Makes me wonder what kind of filtering systems they got in china on their coal plants.

Filtering systems? We are China! we need no decadent Western luxuries!

(from : http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1105&MainCatID=11&id=20101120000052)

Someone pointed out that the price we pay at the pump doesn't include sending our military in to occupy other countries...

 

[chimpkin]

@ Fetus...basically, none of us can know for certain what might happen in the future(I believe that's what Ultra was getting at) You can plan for eventualities, minimize risk...and still have the unexpected happen, as the Japanese have found out.

So, utilizing a process that creates very toxic material of any sort is something that we should avoid doing if possible-as a society. Radioactive material=toxic material.

It makes less of it, true, and that may make enough of a difference to us that we end up making that choice...but I'd like to find better options.

The risk profile is better with the FBR's...but with them you get nuclear bomb proliferation worries, and there's still risk...it's not negligible, just reduced.

My wife and I talked about this... and what my Smarter Half said was "It's kind of all-or-nothing, with nuclear. Nuclear is extremely safe...right up until it affects 100, 000 people."

There's still problems with radioactive contamination affecting farming and forest products from Chernobyl...I remember reading how wild boar has to be tested for radioactive material before it can be marketed-pigs eat mushrooms and truffles, which apparently tend to absorb radioactive metals.

We can make MUCH better reactors now...but even they do not completely eliminate the waste issue.

 

[ULTRA]

In a stable country, with stable neiboughs and a stable tectonic profile, nuclear energy is reasonably safe. Start adding in multipliers and the chances of leakages, accidents, meltdowns and corruption grows. It's very simple logic. Anyone who can count can understand it. In Britain, we qualify on all counts, but still managed to irradiate the Irish Sea causing international tension. And that was a fast breeder reactor at Sellafield. Blind faith in any technology is just that, blind. I live less than 3 miles from an old PWR. Most of the time, I hardly even know it's there - it's had a reasonable safety record. Not perfect, but that would be unrealistic. But good enough that I still live here. In fact, the hot water plume in the estuary is good for attracting fish, and our local oysters are world renowned.

 

[ElectricFetus]

@ Fetus...basically, none of us can know for certain what might happen in the future(I believe that's what Ultra was getting at) You can plan for eventualities, minimize risk...and still have the unexpected happen, as the Japanese have found out.

How many nuclear meltdowns would it require to equal and exceed the deathtoll of coal, oil and gas power? Even Chernobyl high estimates (green peace places it at ~100,000), don't match just one year of coal powers death toll ~170,000 world wide. We would need to have more than one of those every years for nuclear to kill more than coal does, not including all the pollution from natural gas and oil!

So I say let the unexpected happen as it does, the present rate of nuclear disasters that happen "unexpectedly" and there cumulative deathtoll are nothing compare to the completely expected and preventable death toll from other power sources, Even if nuclear power represented 100% of are electricity it rate of nuclear disasters would still be nothing in comparison to other fossil fueled baseline power sources.

There's still problems with radioactive contamination affecting farming and forest products from Chernobyl...I remember reading how wild boar has to be tested for radioactive material before it can be marketed-pigs eat mushrooms and truffles, which apparently tend to absorb radioactive metals.

Again that is merely due to the fears of people, radiophobia, take Scottish sheep that every year are forbidden from being eaten because of fallout from chernobyl, if you were to eat a lamb chop from one of those sheep every day for a whole year your total dosage would still be far less than a chest x-ray!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/29/sheep-farmers-chernobyl-meat-restricted

We can make MUCH better reactors now...but even they do not completely eliminate the waste issue.

The waste issue is minor, all the high level nuclear waste in the world would not even fill up an average stadium to the first row of seats! And with Fast breeder reactor or with sub-critical reactors we could consume all of that waste for power into short term waste that will not need some kind of longer term storage site. We would only need a few FBR and even less SCR to due the job so nuclear weapons proliferation concerns can be abated.