Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

Worztron

shadowninty wrote: »

Windmills can collapse but more importantly damage wildlife if they screw up, Dams can burst (killing hundreds), Geothermal (blowouts, gases, seismic events), Solar (roof related deaths)
Dont know about wave.
All of these pale in comparison to fossil fuel generated power, just like the risks of nuclear.
People forget about the scale of this disaster too. Third ever largest recorded earthquake. Coast sunk by one meter in many areas. Brutal.

There are dangers in many things, thousands are killed worldwide every day in traffic accidents -- should everyone stop driving?
If renewable energy is done right instead of the current anemic approach to it; then accidents can be reduced to a minimum or cut out all together.
Fossils fuels took hundreds of millions of years to create, they will not last forever. If you were living in the area of Japan that is now contaminated with radiation; would you still be so pro nuclear?

Solair

I just do not see the economics of nuclear making any sense though.

The construction cost of the plants is usually massively under estimated and they seem to cost a fortune to maintain and tweak. Take a look at the UK's "Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors" (AGR). That project was MASSIVELY over-budget, with just about everything that could go wrong going wrong in the construction phase and it ended up going wildly over-budget.

The fuel-reprocessing costs are enormous.
The fuel disposal costs are enormous.
The environmental costs should the unthinkable happen are enormous.
The security costs are enormous.
The plants all ultimately have to be decommissioned and the decommission costs are enormous, running into tens of billions!

The UK's old Magnox fleet of reactors has cost a fortune to decommission. The last two are due to go off line in 2012.

Nuclear powers, like the UK, France, the US, the exUSSR always had an ulterior motive for nuclear power i.e. plutonium production. In fact, the first UK nuclear power plant at Sellafield, Calder Hall, was primarily a plutonium production plant, it just generated power on the side. It was a nice cover story though!

Then there was also a lot of secrecy surrounding the technology as it had military / weapons production possibilities, so it's questionable as to whether the design of some (not all) of these plants was as good as it could have been if things had been open to public scrutiny.

It was only really in the 1970s/80s that nuclear power for purely commercial reasons became a reality.

However, it's also worth noting that states seem to have absorbed the cost of these programmes. Again, there was a lot of prestige in being a "Nuclear Power" in the 1970s/80s and states seemed to be wedded to the idea of keeping this stuff going despite the economics.

You'd really have to wonder about the economic logic of the industry.

If we pumped the kind of money that went into the development of nuclear into renewables, they might actually be viable by now.

I just think as a technology, nuclear fission power generation is not really all it's cracked up to be by its proponents.

Smarter use of power, more renewables, better transmission grids etc etc are the way to go.

Coles

The latest Fairewinds presentation. Worth watching.

Edit:- Essential watching.

shadowninty

Worztron wrote: »

There are dangers in many things, thousands are killed worldwide every day in traffic accidents -- should everyone stop driving?
If renewable energy is done right instead of the current anemic approach to it; then accidents can be reduced to a minimum or cut out all together.

Same with nuclear!

Worztron wrote: »

If you were living in the area of Japan that is now contaminated with radiation; would you still be so pro nuclear?

Thats a good question. I dont have an answer to that. I wouldnt like to have to leave my home for months (will probably be over a year). That said I´d like to think I´d see the bigger picture (scale of the situation, idiocy of fuel storage, plant designs), and not be protesting the construction of much more modern plants. I´d reckon I´d be completely terrified of a load of Japans plants and completely use fate in the government however.

Hope you find my answer honest.

Worztron

jsd1004 wrote: »

Its horrible when you have no electricity. http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

That is a real downer about the birds and bats. Is there a way to prevent them flying at the turbines? I presume it is more of a problem for bats.

Solair

Worztron wrote: »

That is a real downer about the birds and bats. Is there a way to prevent them flying at the turbines? I presume it is more of a problem for bats.

Some kind of ultrasonic device to warn them?

Worztron

Solair wrote: »

Some kind of ultrasonic device to warn them?

Great idea. Green energy is paramount but should not interfere with wildlife.

Thrill

TEPCO reported possibility of huge tsunami to gov't before March 11

TOKYO, Aug. 24, Kyodo


Tokyo Electric Power Co. calculated in 2008 that a tsunami higher than 10 meters could hit its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant but has since taken no countermeasures, officials at the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency said Wednesday.


A manager at the utility, known as TEPCO, reported the calculation to the agency verbally on March 7 this year before the magnitude-9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami hit the plant on March 11, the officials said.


The agency instructed TEPCO to adopt countermeasures.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/08/110690.html

Coles

Why Fukushima is Worse than Chernobyl, The Independent (UK)

George Monbiot is not happy. @GeorgeMonbiot"Unscientific, hysterical rubbish in Independent abt Fukushima. Should be ashamed of such myth-making. "

It must be painful for Monbiot to remember the nonsense article he wrote in the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe.

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power, - The Guardian, March 31st 2011.

andrew

Coles wrote: »

Why Fukushima is Worse than Chernobyl, The Independent (UK)

George Monbiot is not happy. @GeorgeMonbiot"Unscientific, hysterical rubbish in Independent abt Fukushima. Should be ashamed of such myth-making. "

It must be painful for Monbiot to remember the nonsense article he wrote in the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe.

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power, - The Guardian, March 31st 2011.

In fairness, that Independant article is rather hysterical. They quote a single guy saying that up to a million people could die, without any backup, and then say that 'some scientists' say that up to a million could die. Further, they quote another person who they admit is 'alarmist' who says that Fukushima is worse only because it's lasting longer, and Chernoby went up in one go.
Chernobyl burned for like a week, and released far more radiation. Fukushima has been going on for less time, but the radiation released is smaller, and mostly into water, which obviously isn't as harmful to human health. In addition, AFAIK it's not true to say that a short high exposure to radiation is safer than a long term lower level of exposure.

ed2hands

Monbiot is flogging his book (pro-nuclear)at the moment so won't hesitate to throw his two-cents in at every oportunity.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/world/asia/22japan.html?_r=3

Guy:Incognito

So considering we are not on a fault line and not likely to suffer a tsunami or any other major earth shattering disaster, what are peoples problems with a properly run nuclear plant here?

blackdog2

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So considering we are not on a fault line and not likely to suffer a tsunami or any other major earth shattering disaster, what are peoples problems with a properly run nuclear plant here?

The properly run bit, it is ireland we are talking about

Solair

blackdog2 wrote: »

The properly run bit, it is ireland we are talking about

I wouldn't want nuclear power here, but i don't the i that's a fair comment on our ability to run things safely. There are loads of examples of exemplary safety records in industrial settings in Ireland from the pharmaceutical, bio tech, and electronics industries, and power generation, aviation etc etc

irishgeo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So considering we are not on a fault line and not likely to suffer a tsunami or any other major earth shattering disaster, what are peoples problems with a properly run nuclear plant here?

you really do some research. Ireland been hit by tsunami before from the Lisbon earthquake.

also its in danger of been hit by one once half the island falls in to the Atlantic, i think its one of the canaries island. also we could get a huge underwater landslide in the mid atalntic ridge.

Solair

The biggest radiological risks to us are probably Sellafield and its French equivalent, Cap de l'Hague.

The closest power station is the soon to close Wyfla Magnox station near Holyhead. It's a huge, two reactor, graphite moderated, gas cooled, natural uranium fueled facility. It was the last of the magnox stations built and is due to go off line soon.

As it was quite late, it is probably a fairly safe, modern installation, but, as far as I am aware none of the British gas (CO2) cooled plants have secondary containment!! It was considered unnecessary as there is no possibility of steam explosions as its gas cooled and contains no pressurised water. They are also apparently capable of passive cooling in the event of power loss (station blackout).

However, the site is earmarked for the development of a next generation European pressurised water nuke plant.

SO, regardless of what are policies are, we have a nuke site within a few minutes of central Dublin and we are probably buying power from it via the interconnections!

shadowninty

These plants are surely much safer then Chernobyl given the EU´s stand on such plants.
The EPR looks fairly good and is apparently safer then previous generation designs (I dont know if this is inherent to its mechanics or what).

Solair

It's hard to know. The British AGR and Magnox designs are unique to the UK. The EU or standardised design has little relevance to them.

I know concerns about containment were raised by South Korea when North Korea used old, now publicly available, British magnox designs.

The Russians thought Chernobyl type reactors were perfectly safe too. They were excellent engineers and certainly had no desire to have nuclear accidents!

andrew

Solair wrote: »

The Russians thought Chernobyl type reactors were perfectly safe too. They were excellent engineers and certainly had no desire to have nuclear accidents!

There's an interesting documentary (can't think of the name), it's a minute by minute reconstruction of the Chernobyl incident, focusing on the guy who ended up getting most of the blame. It was on BBC. Anyway, it explains that the Soviets did indeed know that RBMK design was defective. Being the secrecy loving progress-at-all-costs Soviets that they were however, they just covered up the design flaws and figured it'd be grand, rather than fix them.

Solair

It's something that would concern me about a lot of older reactor designs. They were initially dual purpose - civilian power generation and military plutonium production for weapons. Hence their design was shrouded in full cold war military secrecy and paranoia.

The UK magnox design was developed from plutonium production reactors too!

PWR reactors come from a heritage of submarine power system designs scaled up for commercial power generation.

If we are stuck with nuclear power, it has to be fully transparent and modern with safety being the absolute driving force of all decision making.

Military priorities were the risk in the past, corner cutting and profit drives are the risks now!

shadowninty

Solair wrote: »

It's hard to know. The British AGR and Magnox designs are unique to the UK. The EU or standardised design has little relevance to them.

The EPR is not an EU Government design, it is just a cross Union project (which we need more of in the engineering field).
What I was referring to was EU regulations - RMBK reactors are not allowed operate in the Union! (Lithuania had to shut theirs down, they got compensation), so I would assume if a nuclear facility in the UK posed such a risk it would be shut down

Cathaoirleach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIyK0CN785s

Hal Emmerich

Plutonium and strontium found 50 miles from Reactor, first time discovered outside the immediate area.

TOKYO—Trace amounts of plutonium were found as far as 28 miles from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant, the first time that the dangerous element released from the accident was found outside of the immediate area of the plant.

The science ministry report issued Friday comes just as the government lifted one of its evacuation advisories, underscoring the difficulty of restoring normalcy and assuring the safety of residents around the crippled plant.

The government also reported a rare detection of strontium, another highly dangerous element, far from the crippled reactor, in one spot as far away as 50 miles. Most of the radioactive material discovered to date in the communities surrounding Fukushima Daiichi has been cesium or iodine.

The report said that the radiation from plutonium and strontium was "extremely low" compared to the high concentration of cesium, advising that the government maintain its focus on measuring and clearing the areas of cesium.

Toshiso Kosako, a Tokyo University expert on radiation said in an interview that the level of plutonium found was "miniscule and poses no health risk."

Still, the latest discovery is a potentially disturbing turn, as it shows that people relatively far from the plant could be exposed to more dangerous elements than had been previously disclosed.

While neither plutonium nor strontium emit powerful gamma rays like cesium and iodine, both deposit in the body—strontium in the bones, plutonium in the bones and lungs—and can cause cancer of leukemia once inhaled or ingested.

Both isotopes also have long half lives: it takes about 29 years for some forms of strontium to reduce by half, while plutonium isotopes have half-lives ranging from 88 years to over 24,000 years.

That makes them highly toxic in the body as they continue to emit alpha rays, and immensely difficult to get rid of in the environment.

The half-life of one of the most common iodine formations is eight days, while that for much of the cesium released is 30 years.

Specifically, Plutonium-238 believed to have been emitted from the damaged Fukushima reactors was found in soil samples from six separate locations, ranging from 0.55 to 4.0 becquerels per square meter. Samples from Iitate, a village located 28 miles from the power plant, registered 0.82 becquerels of Plutonium-238 and 2.5 becquerels of Plutonium-239 and -240. Iitate was evacuated earlier this year.

The finding comes from the science ministry's analysis of 100 soil samples taken within a 50-mile zone from the damaged plant between June and July.

Plutonium had previously been detected in Japan after atmospheric nuclear tests, sometimes at higher levels than were found from the June-July samples, a science ministry official said. However, the ministry cites higher-than-usual level of Plutonium-238 found in the soil samples from the six locations as evidence that plutonium release was not limited to the plant's compound.

Strontium-89 and -90 were also found in almost half of the 100 samples, in one case as far as the edge of the 50-mile zone registering measurement of 500 becquerels per square meter of Strontium-89 and 130 becquerels of Strontium-90.

Separately, reflecting the mounting costs of cleaning up from the accident, government agencies have requested about ¥400 billion, or about $5 billion, to cover the cost of cleaning up after the nuclear accident in the budget for the next fiscal year, beginning in April 2012, local media reported.

Saila

Hal Emmerich wrote: »

Plutonium and strontium found 50 miles from Reactor, first time discovered outside the immediate area.

TOKYO—Trace amounts of plutonium were found as far as 28 miles from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear-power plant, the first time that the dangerous element released from the accident was found outside of the immediate area of the plant.

The science ministry report issued Friday comes just as the government lifted one of its evacuation advisories, underscoring the difficulty of restoring normalcy and assuring the safety of residents around the crippled plant.

The government also reported a rare detection of strontium, another highly dangerous element, far from the crippled reactor, in one spot as far away as 50 miles. Most of the radioactive material discovered to date in the communities surrounding Fukushima Daiichi has been cesium or iodine.

The report said that the radiation from plutonium and strontium was "extremely low" compared to the high concentration of cesium, advising that the government maintain its focus on measuring and clearing the areas of cesium.

Toshiso Kosako, a Tokyo University expert on radiation said in an interview that the level of plutonium found was "miniscule and poses no health risk."...

another alarmist bump :rolleyes:
did you miss the part where it said extremely low dose, as in 'safe'

Hal Emmerich

Saila wrote: »

another alarmist bump :rolleyes:
did you miss the part where it said extremely low dose, as in 'safe'

Nope, I was just wondering what's going on since hadn't heard anything in months and this is the latest, 1 hour old news from there.

I'm sure it wouldn't cause leukemia if inhaled though.......:rolleyes::rolleyes: (two, just for you)

Saila

I'm sure it wouldn't cause leukemia if inhaled though....... (two, just for you)

there is a known cure for it in that situation, a tin foil hat and hemp trousers

Overheal

surely a contender for the largest disaster thread on boards.

That is, threads about a disaster, not disasters of a thread. Though it might get a special mention in the latter category at some point.

Oranage2

Overheal wrote: »

surely a contender for the largest disaster thread on boards.

That is, threads about a disaster, not disasters of a thread. Though it might get a special mention in the latter category at some point.

Now i don't want to come across as one of those 'topper' people that mention Africa to top anything you say but didn't the 04 tsunami kill 200 thousand, the Japan one only something like 15k

Statistician

Saila wrote: »

another alarmist bump :rolleyes:
did you miss the part where it said extremely low dose, as in 'safe'

So there is a safe dose of plutonium now, is there?

Any amount of plutonium is cause for alarm. I certainly would not be happy living in an environment that has any levels of plutonium.

Overheal

Oranage2 wrote: »

Now i don't want to come across as one of those 'topper' people that mention Africa to top anything you say but didn't the 04 tsunami kill 200 thousand, the Japan one only something like 15k

I was referring to postcount, not casualties.