Merged 8.8 quake in Sendai, Japan

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have been thinking, and was wondering if someone more knowledgeable could answer a question for me.

On first glance, one of the critical mistakes that seems to be made with this powerplant is to stick it right on the coast in an area that is Tsunami prone (the word itself is Japanese!).

But then it occurred to me; a nuclear powerplant needs water right, as a coolant. Without it, it seems meltdown is pretty much a certainty. Do they pull water from the mains, or do they have an isolated source on site that they just recycle or something?

Seems to me, if they use mains supply, there's a real danger in the event of a large earthquake of that supply being interrupted by damaged water systems. Even if the pipes to that particular plant did not fail, damage elsewhere in the system could drop water pressure to the point that it's unusable.

(I believe loss of water pressure has proved a major problem for firefighting efforts in multiple historic disasters including the Kobe quake, the Christchurch quake, and 9/11).

Wouldn't it therefore make sense to locate a nuclear power station in close vicinity to a large natural source of water, in the event of the unthinkable? Like, I don't know, the sea? And wouldn't the threat of having zero coolant due to water mains failure be worse than having to resort to dumping sea water on the plant because a Tsunami damaged the site?

Does this seem plausible, or have I missed something?

The location would not have been as problematic if they had a back up cooling system in place that wasn't wiped out by the damage. There were 3 pump failures, the usual one, the back up diesel generator and the battery operated pump. And I believe how the spent fuel was stored was not ideal either.


Perhaps this has been posted somewhere:

Fukushima Nuclear Accident – a simple and accurate explanation

For the first hour, the first set of multiple emergency diesel power generators started and provided the electricity that was needed. However, when the tsunami arrived (a very rare and larger than anticipated tsunami) it flooded the diesel generators, causing them to fail.
One of the fundamental tenets of nuclear power plant design is “Defense in Depth.” This approach leads engineers to design a plant that can withstand severe catastrophes, even when several systems fail. A large tsunami that disables all the diesel generators at once is such a scenario, but the tsunami of March 11th was beyond all expectations. To mitigate such an event, engineers designed an extra line of defense by putting everything into the containment structure (see above), that is designed to contain everything inside the structure.
When the diesel generators failed after the tsunami, the reactor operators switched to emergency battery power. The batteries were designed as one of the backup systems to provide power for cooling the core for 8 hours. And they did.
After 8 hours, the batteries ran out,... [snipped a lot of details worth reading]

During this time, mobile generators were transported to the site and some power was restored. However, more water was boiling off and being vented than was being added to the reactor, thus decreasing the cooling ability of the remaining cooling systems.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,751135,00.html

03/15/2011

Germany Cripples Itself With Nuclear Angst

… snip …

Some 100,000 demonstrators took to the streets in 400 towns and cities across Germany on Monday demanding the closure of German reactors. … snip …

The public fear is so great that Chancellor Angela Merkel, intent on avoiding defeat for her party in three state elections this month, pulled the plug on Monday on the most important policy of her second term in office, the extension of nuclear reactor lifetimes by an average of 12 years beyond the originally scheduled phase-out date of 2021.

Just 48 hours after the explosion at reactor No. 1 at the Fukushima Daiichi plant on Saturday, Merkel caved, ordering a three-month moratorium on the extension. The seven oldest of Germany's 17 power stations, the ones that went into operation before the end of 1980, will be shut down immediately pending a three-month safety review.

Germany gets 29% of it's electricity from nuclear power. So I imagine that shutting down half it's plants is going to put a big dent in the availability of electricity in Germany. And what effect will that have on their economy?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,751135,00.html



Germany gets 29% of it's electricity from nuclear power. So I imagine that shutting down half it's plants is going to put a big dent in the availability of electricity in Germany. And what effect will that have on their economy?

Never thought I'd say this, but BaC has a point. It's pretty much going to cripple them if they aren't careful.

 

[BeAChooser]

Never thought I'd say this, but BaC has a point. It's pretty much going to cripple them if they aren't careful.

And consider this. We exploded 2 nuclear bombs in Japan. What measureable effect did that have on the US? Imagine how much less it had in Germany. Sometimes leftists are just funny to watch.

 

[Rolfe]

And consider this. We exploded 2 nuclear bombs in Japan. What measureable effect did that have on the US? Imagine how much less it had in Germany.

Good gracious, what a sensible point!

Rolfe.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I'm curious Rolfe, are you pro or anti nuclear?

 

[Rolfe]

Balanced precariously on the fence.

Well, violently opposed to nuclear weapons, would prefer that nuclear power wasn't necessary but realise there's a case to be made for it, and very much in favour of the use of radioisotopes in a medical context.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Never mind how many a-bombs the US detonated in Japan.
Have you any idea how many have been tested in Nevada?

 

[quadraginta]

And consider this. We exploded 2 nuclear bombs in Japan. What measureable effect did that have on the US? Imagine how much less it had in Germany. Sometimes leftists are just funny to watch.

Good gracious, what a sensible point!

Rolfe.

Not to mention over nine hundred test bombs in Nevada, at least a hundred of which were above ground. Plus sundry spots from Alaska to Mississippi, and another hundred in the Marshall Islands.

And that's just the U.S. program. 1,054 tests by official count (involving at least 1,151 devices, 331 atmospheric tests.)

There's also the Soviet Union, 715 tests (involving 969 devices) by official count; France, 210 tests by official count (50 atmospheric, 160 underground); the UK, 45 tests (21 in Australian territory); China, 45 tests (23 atmospheric and 22 underground); India, 6 underground tests; Pakistan, 6 underground tests; and North Korea, two tests;

...

... that we know about.

--------------------------------------

@ BAC.

You were doing good until you went into the political rant mode. What makes you think it is only "leftists" that are paranoid about nuclear dangers?

 

[quadraginta]

@ Sam

I see we were thinking along the same lines.

 

[BeAChooser]

Never mind how many a-bombs the US detonated in Japan.
Have you any idea how many have been tested in Nevada?

There you go.

Why I believe that at the time I even lived downwind of some of them.

Still glowin ...

 

[dudalb]

Never thought I'd say this, but BaC has a point. It's pretty much going to cripple them if they aren't careful.

I wonder what people In germany will feel when they see their power bills go through tthe roof because The German Power companies will have to buy their power from other countries..France in Particular...who will make them pay through the nose for it.

 

[Puppycow]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,751135,00.html



Germany gets 29% of it's electricity from nuclear power. So I imagine that shutting down half it's plants is going to put a big dent in the availability of electricity in Germany. And what effect will that have on their economy?

Major overreaction by the Germans.

 

[Kestrel]

Major overreaction by the Germans.

When people are afraid they demand that politicians overreact.

For example, Japan banned all imports of US beef after one case of Mad Cow disease was found in the US.

 

[Christian Klippel]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,751135,00.html



Germany gets 29% of it's electricity from nuclear power. So I imagine that shutting down half it's plants is going to put a big dent in the availability of electricity in Germany. And what effect will that have on their economy?

As of now, there will be no dent. For one, we export some of the electricity we produce (we also import some, but a little less, so the net-value is still pointing in the "export direction"). Then, we have some reserved in capacity that are not fully used yet.

So, there will be no power shortage. However, what will happen is that the coal and gas plants will increase the electricity production to make up for the loss of nuclear energy. This will obviously increase the demand for coal and gas, as well as increase the generation of a lot of pollution. While we have sophisticated filtering systems in the coal plants, they are not working at their maximum possibilities, and not all plants have good filters either.

What also will happen is that we can no longer fullfill the demands of the countries who previously bought electricity from us. So they will go to other countries and buy there. This will simply increase the amount of coal, gas and nuclear plants in those countries instead.

After all, there is always the exact amount of electricity produced that is demanded. If some demand can't be served at one point, it will be served from another.

So the bottom line is that the overall situation will not change at all, the "problem" is just moved from here to elsewhere. And i'm not sure that environmental and safety standards are the same or better than what we have here, especially in the eastern region of Europe.

What will also change is that the existing plants have to operate under much higher load, increasing the wear and tear massively, which in the mid- to long-run will mean more plants failing. And of course we won't have much reserves of our own any more, so in cases where there is a high demand, we need to buy much more electricity from other countries, making us much more dependent on their goodwill. Not to mention the dependency on foreign coal and gas.

Gerhard Schröder and his Russian buddies from GazProm are already having a field day due to this situation. Schröder was our former Chancellor, who also is responsible for the decision that we stop using nukes and have to get rid of them. Coincidence?

Oh, and in the average energy-mix for electricity we have 22.9% coming from nuclear on average. However, the base-load contribution of nukes is as high as 45+% here.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Why are you (kind of) against nuclear power?

(I assume this is true since you say you would prefer it wasn't necessary).

 

[jayh]

Major overreaction by the Germans.

unfortunately the US NRC is starting to sound like that too:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/16/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=T1

 

[jayh]

As of now, there will be no dent. For one, we export some of the electricity we produce (we also import some, but a little less, so the net-value is still pointing in the "export direction"). Then, we have some reserved in capacity that are not fully used yet...

Yes people still be getting their electricity, nothing will change except the amount of coal burned... but no one will see that.

 

[Christian Klippel]

I wonder what people In germany will feel when they see their power bills go through tthe roof because The German Power companies will have to buy their power from other countries..France in Particular...who will make them pay through the nose for it.

Our Electricity bills are through the roof already. Being cheap you can get down 13 to 14 Euro-Cent per kW/h. Average is something around 18 or 19, if i remember correctly. High-mark is at 21 or 22.

Mind you that this includes a renewable-energy premium of 3.5 cents per kW/h, to subsidize them. Plus increased net-management costs that in good part increased because of the upgrades needed to the infrastructure to handle it.

If you are operating a photovoltaic station of about 30kW/p, the average you get is somehwere around 43 Euro-Cent per kW/h fed into the grid. This value depends on the year at which the PV system went online, and is slowly decreasing. In 2004 it was over 57 Cents, and is now somewhere around 28 cents. Not only is this amount guaranteed for the following 20 years after going online, no, the energy companies are forced to buy it from at that price too.

Also, the building of such system (Solar, Wind) is subsidized, with cheap credits on top of it, as is the building of plants and companies that produce the technology for that.

Funny to consider that, given the fact that the anti-nuke folks always bring the tired old argument that nukes are subsidized too. Yes, they are, to a small extent. And yes, in absolute numbers the nukes get more. But they conveniently drop the fact that you can not compare absolute numbers. One has to compare that by the cost per kW/h unit. Doing that will immediately show that it is in fact the renewables that get much, much more.

Greetings,

Chris

Edit: Of course said premium has to be paid by _everyone_, no matter if they have a contract for using 100% renewable energy or the regular energy mix.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Why are you (kind of) against nuclear power?

(I assume this is true since you say you would prefer it wasn't necessary).

Who? Me? Would help to quote the person you are asking

Greetings,

Chris