Failsafe nuclear power stations fail in Japan. - Page 2

You lack the scientific understanding of nuclear power to make such a sweeping judgment here. You don't understand the risk. Your fears are unfounded. This is the equivalent of the ignorant anti-evolution crowd trying to dictate what's in the science curriculum at public high schools.

Except you don't actually know the consequences. A pebble bed reactor CANNOT meltdown. So, what are the consequences?

A 40 year old nuclear reactor survives a 9.0 earthquake. What are these alleged consequences?

If you want to decommission all old nuclear power plants and replace them with the new meltdown proof designs, fine. Even then, you're going quite overboard. A 40 year old nuclear reactor nearing the end of its useful life survived a fucking 9.0 earthquake.

Let's do a little homework on this subject, shall we?

According to Wikipedia's list of earthquakes in Japan (with a magnitude of 6.5 or higher), we find the following that are greater than 7.0:

1. June 28, 1948 (7.1)
2. March 11, 2011 (7.1) -- an aftershock from the 8.9 on the same day
3. September 10, 1943 (7.2)
4. August 16, 2005 (7.2)
5. March 9, 2011 (7.2) -- a foreshock from the 8.9 two days later
6. December 21, 2010 (7.4)
7. March 27, 1927 (7.6)
8. June 16, 1964 (7.6)
9. June 12, 1978 (7.7)
10. January 18, 1586 (7.8) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
11. June 5, 745 (7.9) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
12. December 31, 1703 (8.0) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
13. October 28, 1891 (8.0) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
14. November 29, 684 (8.0–8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
15. December 20, 1946 (8.1)
16. September 1, 1923 (8.3)
17. November 15, 2006 (8.3)
18. December 23, 1854 (8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
19. December 24, 1854 (8.4) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
20. March 2, 1933 (8.4)
21. June 15, 1896 (8.5) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
22. October 28, 1707 (8.6) -- this may be a guesstimate since the Richter scale and modern seismographic equipment didn't exist then
23. March 11, 2011 (8.9)

Excluding the recent one, in the last 100 years this what's happened (greater than 7.0):

1. September 1, 1923 (8.3)
2. March 27, 1927 (7.6)
3. March 2, 1933 (8.4)
4. September 10, 1943 (7.2)
5. December 20, 1946 (8.1)
6. June 28, 1948 (7.1)
7. June 16, 1964 (7.6) - Niigata
8. June 12, 1978 (7.7) - Miyagi
9. August 16, 2005 (7.2) - Miyagi
10. November 15, 2006 (8.3)
11. December 21, 2010 (7.4)

Of those, only 3 (in bold above) were even close to where these nuclear power plants are now located (Fukushima Prefecture). All other earthquakes were much further away and would not have affected this plant if it existed at the time of the earthquake. This plant has also been in operation since 1971. Despite the two earthquakes in nearby Miyagi prefecture (1978 and 2005) of magnitudes greater than the 7.0 specification it was built for (7.7 and 7.2) it isn't until now that there has been a problem.

What it looks like to me is that they:

1. located this plant in the area least likely to be impacted my major earthquakes to begin with,
2. spec'ed to to a fairly high level in keeping with probabilities,
3. balanced this with the undoubtedly exorbitant costs to make it withstand anything, anytime, and
4. have provided the Japanese people with consistent, economical electricity for 40 years...almost to the day as it turns out) without an incident like this until now

I got banned, for 2 weeks (several years ago) for returning an insult at someone who insulted me. The person who insulted me was not banned. I am hardly likely to report such to the "moderators" on account of the the double standards on display here.


This was not an unprecedented event. Larger earthquakes have occurred in modern history, such as Chile, Alaska and Indonesia...on the Pacific Rim... and Japan happens to qualify.

Damaging tsunami can be generated by earthquakes considerably smaller than what happened in Japan. Sometimes, a major quake wont generate one, other times a smaller quake will. The size of a tsunami depends on a huge number of geographical variables re. the quake. Coming to think about it, despite the loss of life and huge damage, they dodged a bullet. Imagine if the epicenter of a quake that powerful was located under a major metropolitan area... like Tokyo or Osaka? The city which was damaged the most was 80 miles away... and the damping effect of that distance on the severity of the shaking is considerable. Tokyo is 230 miles from the epicenter... and got shaken severely... tall buildings were still swaying in downtown Roppongi half an hour afterwards.

Just up the road from me is Diablo Canyon nuke. It's not in the best shape, and its built within a few miles of several (known) faults which could generate a 7 if they ruptured fully.

There are many unknown faults... The Northridge quake of 1994, 2800 times weaker than the recent Japan quake.... (a mere $30 billion in damage)... was caused by a previously unknown fault.

You're wish casting!

You design a nuclear power facility, in an earthquake prone area, bearing in mind a worst case scenario... not a "hope for the best and keep our fingers crossed" outlook.....

A much smaller quake, say a 7.5 or 8.0 right underneath a nuclear power plant is a scary proposition. Even a 6.x at a shallow depth can cause massive damage.

"Public Safety" = "Commie talk"? Still?

Nuclear power IS clean tech. Your failure to understand the science does not change that.

Nukes in places which are seismically quiet/inactive are not going to get wrecked in an earthquake. What is such a great problem in designing a nuke in earthquake prone regions with the anticipated worst case scenario in mind? And... one's up against Murphy's law as well. Just do the job properly and don't scrimp on safety.

But... there are new technologies which are inherently far safer than the "boiling water reactor" affected in Japan.

Come to think of, I'm sure you're quite right. That's probably exactly how the design sessions went.

In the future the people with years or decades of experience planning, designing, building and maintaining nuclear power plants should consult...you.

I don't know.

Why don't you and Hands Sandon tell us all. You are both clearly experts in the subject. Surely you can tell us precisely what more can and should have been done...how much it would cost and so on.

Go ahead...

What? Is there a point that I missed here? Racism and what?

http://www.space.com/11115-japan-ear...arth-days.html

An example of how powerful the quake was.

But it didn't. If it had survived, then there would be no concern about it and we would only be watching news about the quake, tsunami and the rescue efforts.

There are 160+ people being treated for radiation exposure (including rescuers and medical staff who are urgently needed elsewhere), and the situation at the plant continues. Desperately needed helicopters and rescuers are being diverted to the nuclear power plants. A special medical team as well. There was a slight scare an hour or so ago when yet another plant showed high levels of radiation outside the plant, but the thinking goes that it was actually blown there from the Fukushima plant.

People where I live (well south of the quake area but just just up river from a nuclear plant) were today discussing the fact that the main issue here with the nuclear plants is that valuable resources (including planning resources to the highest levels) that need to be being directed at rescue efforts (there are 10,000 people missing) are being directed towards the power plants. The world media (and the local media as well) are spending tremendous amounts of air time on the nuclear issue.

There is talk around me (amongst Japanese) that nuclear power has no place here in the country after this disaster. At least one TV channel is discussing this point as well.

---

At least 3 nuclear power plants (possibly some oil and coal-fired ones as well) are shut down for safety reasons for the near future. There was just an announcement that there is a 70% chance of a 7.0 or greater aftershock within the next week. Rolling blackouts are being discussed from Tokyo north.

---
Sorry. The blackouts start tomorrow morning. One guest on a news show is tearing into the government for this right now. There was no announcement about considerations for all-electric homes (something pushed here over the past few years), people with medical needs, old people and the cold. The blackouts are simply to allow factories to return to work.

First, I still think you are sensationalizing this whole situation. Second, how many lives will the pollution from coal or oil cost? Third, you haven't put forth any kind of counterargument against meltdown proof plants which use new nuclear technology--not the 40 year old technology which still survived a 9.0 earthquake. The current radiation levels outside the plant are above the safety limit but do not pose an immediate threat.

Fuck this shit.

Cant we get Lundy to ban earthquakes, tsunamis, and meteor impacts.?

They really insulted me this time.

There was just an announcement: everyone evacuated from the area around the plant will be tested for radiation exposure. That is almost 120,000 people. The medical staff is needed elsewhere.

Three reactors are showing signs of trouble.

The media is spending a tremendous amount of time on the nuclear problem.

Randomly switching channels just now, four out of six were discussing the nuclear issue. The other two soon switched to it.

----

The number of dead is now listed as likely being over 3000.

Almost ten thousand still missing... from one town.

The media is focusing on the nuclear situation because ignorant knee-jerkers eat that shit up. You know, ratings?

Does anyone have any information on the differences in cost and design to build modern nuke plants to survive a 9.0 earthquake and its aftershocks?

Because that's the only real argument here.

Amazing before and after the tsunami pics.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...r-tsunami.html

I found it interesting and telling that they are adding boron to the cooling sea water. They may have reason to think the neutrons are escaping at a higher rate either because the existing neutron shielding is failing or they anticipate it too. Maybe it can moderate the reaction but how could that be?

The simple fact, is that a magnitude 9.0 earthquake releases so much energy - its about 450 Megatons of TNT, that there is nothing you can do in the design to mitigate.

Ok, maybe you could enclose the whole thing in a stainless steel precipitation hardened sphere 100 metres thick machined out of a solid billet to prevent any seams. Then you would dangle it over a 100 mile deep hole filled with water incase you needed to drop it into the centre of the earth - Is that realistic?

Its like asking to design an aircraft hanger that will withstand a direct hit from the most powerful nuclear bomb created. Its just not possible. You might get lucky, but its the law of diminishing returns vs probability. A magnitude 9, really isn't all that probable - even for Japan.

Thats why they designed to magnitude 7. Thats all that realistically can be achieved. Remember that the Richer Scale is logarithmic. 9 is many thousands of times more powerful than 7. Its total distruction.

You take the chance that if you want the power station, that a magnitude 9 doesn't hit too often in its vicinity. Japan has not had a mag 9 in its recorded history, and it wouldn't be possible to design anything to withstand a magnitude 9, so why bother?

I never posted that. You did not "rejoice" as far as I can tell. But you did use this unspeakable disaster to push anti-nuclear views. Just admit it.

I didn't mean to imply that you would Sammi. I was just having some fun because MarkUK has such an interesting sig.

The reality is that all engineered structures are trade-offs between cost, strength, and probabilities. There could be criticism if these plants had cost 10 times more to be engineered for a disaster that never happened as well. The trade-offs here seem reasonable and short of people with an agenda, that outcomes, be they good or bad, reflect the right set of trade-offs in a world where there are always trade-offs.

It's only where there is a world where there are no trade-offs and we want utopia where this is unacceptable.


Except the areas that are seismically inactive seem prone to hurricanes, tornadoes and power failures due to extreme weather.


As with most efforts of this nature, they will test people who have no business being tested simply because the rate of failure, as evidenced by the discussion here is less than zero.


Again great points. These structures are built on something. If that something hits certain extremes, then there is nothing that can mitigate that.

+1 on this.

This is ultimately the point. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect knowledge and information. As we go along we gain more knowledge and understanding and learn to solve problems that occurred in the past so they won't (or are less likely to) happen in the future. But it is still an imperfect world that always involves trade-off choices and decisions.

I've been trying to teach my kids this for a couple of decades. When they were young they didn't understand this concept and would often react emotionally even to the point of a tantrum shouting "that's not fair!" As they've grown and matured, there's less of this.

This business of understanding trade-offs (sometimes referred to by saying TANSTAAFL) seems to be lost on a great number of people who, admirably, desire and seek a perfect Utopian world but, frustratingly, fail to realize we don't have one (and never will).

This situation with the nuclear plant may in fact turn tragic (on topic of the tragedy of the multiple major earthquakes and tsunamis that have already occurred.) But, unless we find evidence that they deliberately were negligent here (quite doubtful on this particular issue especially in Japan), we're going to have to accept the fact that a complete set of decisions was made that may ultimately end in a bad way, but were the right choices to make at the time they were made.

Going forward some will say they shouldn't have any nuclear plants at all in earthquake-prone areas. Fine. What will they use instead? Many of the same people are stridently anti-coal also. "Solar and wind are the answer!" they will say. Or not...when you are trying to consistently and reliably provide energy for millions of people so they can live their lives.

Your house CAN explode. It has a natural gas pipeline in it And a hot water tank ( a boiler just like a nuke plant without the fuel rods). You better leave.

And we all know that utopia is just that... unattainable. Resorting to framing the discussion in black and white fashion is wholly unrealistic (despite being politically "fashionable" especially in the last 10 years).

The backup generators are there to maintain a nuclear plant in the event of a problem.... the type of problems that result from an earthquake and/or tsunami. So why locate the generators where they are vulnerable to the after-effect (tsunami) of the event (earthquake) they were intended to protect against? () And when it comes to these old types of reactors, which can prove hazardous if in an interruption of power, perhaps a multiple redundant backup system would be prudent? Hindsight is easy... but WTF?

This is nowhere near your notion of "utopia"... How many modern systems of technology have multiple backups in the event of failures? Ask your local Boeing dealer...

Nuclear power could have been the energy savior in a post fossil fuel world. It will take a huge PR effort now to convince the general public that they *can be* safe... and convincing people that the new generations of nuclear technology is a different ball of wax (safety wise) compared to the kind of reactors in trouble here.

Does anyone here make multiple backups of their data? probably not, by the sound...

That's all well and fine sammi_jo. But I'm still waiting for you and Hands Sandon, what with your years of training, education and experience in planning, designing, building and maintaining nuclear power plants (especially those in earthquake zones) what precisely should have been done differently and what the cost of this would have been.

Do you have specific knowledge that can help us understand specifically what should have been done differently?

It looks like you're just hand-waving with a bunch of questions that might be valid and might not be valid trying to create the appearance of gross negligence here.

What you are essentially implying is that Utopia/perfection could have been achieved here but wasn't.

And if there were a 9.0 quake under his home it would likely fail and collapse on him possibly causing his death and those in his home. And if the gas line ruptures, which is quite likely under such extreme circumstances it could explode damaging the homes around his. What a utterly useless and dangerous outdated design this home sounds like.

A technological system that is a fraught with as much potential hazard as an old fashioned nuclear power station in an earthquake prone region, with only one backup system, located in the most vulnerable place, right on the ocean at almost sea level... is pushing one's luck. Tsunami bait?

Well the truth of the matter is that no design would withstand the stress of an 8.9 or 9.0. However that being said solar or wind wouldn't blow up ( a gas line ) and damage a large area or ( Nuclear ) release a radioactive cloud. I'm thinking in the future both of those older technologies will be on the way out. Safer types of nuclear power like fusion and harnessing the energy of the sun ( and also wind some of it to charge the batteries of our electric cars at stations http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/better-place/ and http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421111353.htm ) will be the way we will go. This disaster unfortunately clearly illustrates what's wrong with those outdated technologies ( and yes I currently use gas in my home but that doesn't mean my grandkids will in theirs ).

You've already been told that there was more than 1 backup system that failed. How many backup systems do you think is acceptable?

You've already been told that in thew worst case scenario, this type of reactor will never explode from meltdown, but will simply melt through its primary casing, into its second casing - If that were to fail as well, it would melt into the earth - Causing localized pollution only. No one is claiming that is a good scenario, but its the worst that can happen.

For a supposed expert, as you lead us to believe, - Do you really not know why they build nuclear reactors on the shore line? Would it be better if they built them at the top of Mount Fuji?

You seem to suggest that these diesel generators should be located miles away in the event of requirement - How are you going to transmit this power to the pumps? I suppose youre going to lay a network of 500 mile long Mag 9.0 proof, stainless steel cased outer protective environment, 2 metres thick on earthquake proof damped stilts, from generator to pump?

How many of these networks are you going to lay to each cooling pump to ensure enough redundancy if some of them take a direct hit from a mag 9.0 quake.

Hadn't we better have an array of cooling pumps all over the country, just incase some of them fail as well. Perhaps we can build a network of reinforced cooling pipes all over the country, just in case.

We'd better employ an army of engineers, ready to connect any of these powerlines to the diesel generators, just in case. Perhaps we should mount them all on 20m high stilts, and have a team living up in the air to avoid a very unlikely tsunami, ready to jump into action.

Prepare to pay $100 every time you put your iPod on charge

Yes, that is the essential truth of the matter.



Probably true...but then it won't provide the energy required as efficiently as these current technologies do.



These aren't outdated technologies (I'm speaking broadly here about things like coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear...not the specific technology employed in this plant which I have read is not the latest in nuclear technology.) They are present day technologies that are efficiently and economically and (mostly) safely providing energy to hundreds of millions of people so their lives will be better off.



I bet they will.

MJ once develop those other technologies ( especially fusion ) those other ideas will seem really backward and dangerious. Let me copy paste the simple truth about the difference between fission and fusion : [QUOTE
Why are fusion reactors considered to be safer than fission reactors?
Fusion reactors are very much safer because--

1) They can't "run away"

2) They leave few radioactive products when worn out.

3) They have no radioactive spent fuel.

4) They don't become dangerous if anything fails, they just stop

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_fu...ixzz1GVXJUdRx][/QUOTE]

And fusion produces much more energy at the same time.

Once they are developed, yes. You are attempting to predict the future. Great! That's fine. Perhaps you are even right. We won't know until we get there of course...and there may be many more barriers to getting there than we current realize. But, as for the present...this is what we have now. I truly applaud all those who freely undertake to research and invent new technologies (in energy or other areas) to enable us to have all the energy we need and want, inexpensively and safely. However: