Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems

[Corsair 115]

They're scared of cancer that might take years to develop.

Considering that cancer is plenty frequent even without nuclear power, I'm not sure what significance one ought to attach to the fear. Hell, many people still smoke and the risk of cancer that poses has been known for years.

 

[Greediguts]

For those interested, here is the english version of the Tokyo Electric Power Company website ( TEPCO ) which is providing news updates on the nuclear plants.

 

[Kuko 4000]

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breaki...reactor-shell-breached-French-watchdog-agency

PARIS--The concrete vessel around the No. 2 reactor at Japan's Fukushima plant, designed to contain radioactive debris, is "no longer sealed," Andre-Claude Lacoste, head of France's Nuclear Safety Authority (ASN), said on Tuesday.

Lacoste was speaking at a press conference in which he also said the accident at Fukushima now rated six on a seven-point international scale of gravity, placing it second to Chernobyl as the world's worst nuclear disaster.

The ASN is being briefed by the Japanese authorities and by a specialist in Japan from France's Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety (IRSN), according to the agency.

Japan disagrees and says that there's no reason to change the rating from 4 to higher.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/fear-the-media-meltdown-not-the-nuclear-one/?print=1

Fear the Media Meltdown, Not the Nuclear One (UPDATED)

 

[lomiller]

CNN is reporting they may have suspended emergency operations and evacuated all personal. They are trying to confirm this, possibly just a bad translation

 

[sol invictus]

As has been pointed out numerous times before, there is sufficient nuclear fuel supplies on Earth to sustain modern civilization for tens of thousands of years at a minimum. Unconventional oceanic uranium can last us for millions of years.

Do you have a source for that first claim? My understanding was that nuclear fuel reserves would only last a century or two (not counting oceanic uranium, which might be impossible to extract in a net-energy-positive way).

To you point, even if the reactor went through a full meltdown, which is very ver unlikely, the fuel would still be contained by the containment vessel surrounding the reactor.

Burning spent fuel rods could - at least potentially - be worse than a meltdown.

 

[lomiller]

Do you have a source for that first claim? My understanding was that nuclear fuel reserves would only last a century or two (not counting oceanic uranium, which might be impossible to extract in a net-energy-positive way).

He's talking about oceanic uranium on the basis that small amounts have been extracted from seawater under laboratory conditions. Proved reserves are good for about 90 years at current use rates.

Burning spent fuel rods could - at least potentially - be worse than a meltdown.

In this case it would be as the spent fuel isn't inside a containment vessel.

 

[Elle]

Hi,

Can any of the experts here explain, or point to a good explanation on fallout? What precisely it means and how/if it figures in here?

Specifcally:

- the radioactive gas believed to have leaked (from the hydrogen explosions if any, from the fire in the spent fuel pool, from the controlled vapor release they were trying to relieve the pressure with) - is any of that technicaly called fallout? In my mind it's not what I think of as fallout because fallout from nuclear bombs was particulate mater, though wikipedia didn't make that clear.

- What's the realistic best case and worst case scenario from that?

- If there is a full meltdown (I know there shouldn't be if they can keep the seawater going but it looks like an uphill fight against a downhill domino effect over there), will there be fallout from it?

- What's the best/worst case scenario of that?

I have a third-or-fourth-hand interest in the nuclear industry through work at the moment, and with the little bit of knowledge from that I've been lurking here and curating the saner and more accurate news for another online forum, but there's some areas where I'm out of my depth.

 

[manofthesea]

Is reactor no.4 the only reactor with spent fuel rods stored outside of 'containment'?

edit, just heard AC state that 5 and 6 also have.

What about 1, 2, and 3?

 

[Roboramma]

Do you have a source for that first claim? My understanding was that nuclear fuel reserves would only last a century or two (not counting oceanic uranium, which might be impossible to extract in a net-energy-positive way).

I believe the first claim is based on new designs that are capable of burning spent fuel, and thus getting a lot more of the energy out of it.

As to the Uranium in sea water my initial thought (which could obviously be wrong) is that since the price of the fuel is such a small part of the total price of nuclear power, it seems very unlikely to be "impossible to extract in a net-energy-positive way".

I remember (and one poster above pointed out) that some Japanese scientists have done it (get uranium out of sea water) through a process that is expensive but not necessarily too expensive.
Here's what I was able to turn up with google: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=DB27A7D7C09E5DBE9EFC7BE3E3FF7846.d03t04
which suggests that we still haven't figured out how to do so economically.

This sounds more promising: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v280/n5724/abs/280665a0.html

 

[jayh]

Thinking of the social ramifications of this:

I suspect this is the best thing that's happened to the coal industry in years.

I suspect also this will force a split between those whose main concern is reducing carbon and the tree huggers who are mainly driven by a hatred of modernity.

 

[let`s talk]

General Electric designed all 6 reactors in the first place. They should clean up.

 

[Skwinty]

General Electric designed all 6 reactors in the first place. They should clean up.

Using that logic, then General Electric should have received all the income the plant has generated for the last 40 years.

 

[JihadJane]

Thinking of the social ramifications of this:

I suspect this is the best thing that's happened to the coal industry in years.

I suspect also this will force a split between those whose main concern is reducing carbon and the tree huggers who are mainly driven by a hatred of modernity.

...or love of life.

 

[macdoc]

 

[macdoc]

I believe the first claim is based on new designs that are capable of burning spent fuel, and thus getting a lot more of the energy out of it.

a) - it does not require a new design to recycle fuel - MOX is and has been in use. It is expensive compared to mining new uranium currently - so it gets stored.
There are hundreds of years of power stored in the cooling ponds. 95% of energy remains and can be extracted for use - reducing the already tiny volume of fuel waste by 90% and a much shorter half life.
It also is needed to deal with decommissioned weapons.

b) several designs in including the Canadian CANDU require only a small amount of "starter" uranium and can then be fueled with thorium where there are thousands upon thousands of years of known reserves. This is the path that India is pursuing as it has a great deal of thorium.

The greatest damage will be caused by irrational fears that leave coal plants in place instead of replacing them with nuclear. At least our own government has resisted the nonsense and is continuing to both close the last couple of coal plants and maintain plans for expansion of nuclear facilities.

Anti-nuke idjits be damned

Nuclear reactors safely supply 45% of our power in Ontario and has done so for decades and will continue. It supplies 16% of the world's electricity, 90% in France with the lowest carbon footprint of first world nations and is vital to the Japanese as well who get 30% + of their power from nukes.

There is no safer nor compact source for industrial nations that do not have extensive hydro power to exploit.

Coal gets a free ride.....nuclear gets the nutjobs.

 

[let`s talk]

Using that logic, then General Electric should have received all the income the plant has generated for the last 40 years.

like Ford all the income you get by driving their car. lol.

 

[jayh]

like Ford all the income you get by driving their car. lol.

But Ford does not have to replace your car if you crash it or lose it in an earthquake.

 

[Flo]

Anti-nuke idjits be damned

Nuclear reactors safely supply 45% of our power in Ontario and has done so for decades and will continue. It supplies 16% of the world's electricity, 90% in France with the lowest carbon footprint of first world nations and is vital to the Japanese as well who get 30% + of their power from nukes.

Listening to the French media, you'd think that every single reactor is at risk of being knocked down and washed away within the next few hours weeks months, as if earthquaques were contagious and tsunamis could climb all the way to the Alps summits ...

 

[1337m4n]

Because the consequences of a serious nuclear accident aren't confined to one country and can last for decades?

Unless your use of the word "consequences" includes "media-induced fear and panic", this is blatantly false.

I've never seen a scrap of evidence that cancer rates in Chernobyl's fallout area ever deviated from the norm by a statistically significant amount.

In other words, there's no evidence anyone died from Chernobyl outside of the 34 killed directly by the explosion.

In contrast, ask yourself how many people die yearly because America is too scared to use nuclear energy so it has to constantly butt its nose into the Middle East for their oil.