Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems

But those reactors survived the earthquake, it was the tsunami that really messed them up.

Again, the reactors survived both the quake and the tsunami. What hurt them was the loss of the back up generators.

You could rebuild the entire Fukushima complex exactly the same right down to the last nut and bolt and the only difference being you put the back up generators on the roof, or add ten feet to the sea wall or put them into watertight steel bunkers with 50 foot snorkels on top and the situation we are seeing now would never happen again.
 
(wasn't there a comparison between biblis and 16000 wind turbine by CHristian ? I saw something similar on german TV ith all planst combined to 35000 wind farm).

No, there was no such comparison by me. What i did was to compare the capacity of wind and solar with the real amount of electricity fed into the grid during one year, and put that in relation to what an average nuclear power plant has as capacity and feeds into the grid. Which turns out to be 85%-90% of the capacity of a nuke can be fed into the grid as electricity, and about 10% of the capacity of wind & solar combined can be fed into the grid, both over the course of one year. I even used a pessimistic 85%-90% figure for the nuke, and as another poster noted, that figure may be higher actually, giving an even better outcome for the nuke.

But yes, it would be interesting to have a comparison how many materials and work is required to produce and install one nuke, and how much of the same would be required to get the equivalent in windmills and solar panels. And that then has to include storage facilities, like hydro storage, to really have a 24/7 supply of energy.

But i guess there is a reason why you will never see such figures from the anti-nuke people.

Greetings,

Chris
 
My impression is that they've only been working on reconnecting the cooling system in the last few days.

Again, that's only my impression, based on the reports I've read. I am curious to why this is. If, in fact, my impressions are wrong and they've been working furiously on this since day one, my curiosity is satisfied.

I can only guess, but i think that due to the quake and tsunami, a lot more infrastructure is damaged that needs repair. It may be true that it would be only 1.5 km from the plant to the nearest connect point, but that doesn't say anything about the cable/line running up to that point from the other side.

And then they probably also needed a bit more people to directly work on the reactors. Who know how it would have turned out if they had less people there trying to keep it under control.

But again, it's just a guess, and your guess is as good as mine.

Greetings,

Chris
 
but a wind farm or solar station would not now be threatening millions of lives.
it would simply be off line.

The reactor at Fukushima isn't threatening millions of lives - that's a wild exaggeration.

The Chernobyl meltdown, which was much more serious than this accident (at least at the moment), caused about 50 deaths among early responders, 9 deaths of children from cancer, and is predicted by the IAEA long term to ultimately cause about 4,000 deaths due to increased cancer rates.

I wonder how many deaths there will be in Japan due to hypothermia from lack of power?
 
but a wind farm or solar station would not now be threatening millions of lives.
it would simply be off line.

How do you arrive at "millions of lives"? And why do you forget to factor in the mining and processing of materials needed to produce steel, copper, rare-earth magnets needed for them? And what about producing the parts for the windmills, assembling them, and finally building the windfarm?

What about the people who may die or suffer if such a large windfarm fails, due to loss of electricity/energy?

See, this is one of the comparisons one can often see, but it is an invalid one. You simply have to factor in all the required things.

How much energy is needed to produce, transport and install the parts and materials needed for a windmill? Take that number and factor that into the electricity it produces. Only after it has produced that much energy the windmill is "energy neutral".

I think that the comparison you made is a silly tactic, because it neglects everything involved with the windmill and only looks at the power it produces, but tries to include things for the other technology to make it look bad.

Again, how did you arrive at the million lives figure?

Greetings,

Chris
 
Again, the reactors survived both the quake and the tsunami. What hurt them was the loss of the back up generators.

You could rebuild the entire Fukushima complex exactly the same right down to the last nut and bolt and the only difference being you put the back up generators on the roof, or add ten feet to the sea wall or put them into watertight steel bunkers with 50 foot snorkels on top and the situation we are seeing now would never happen again.
True.

It would have been been better to write that this particular nuclear power station did not survive the earthquake and the tsunami the earthquake caused.
 
I wonder how many deaths there will be in Japan due to hypothermia from lack of power?
Is there a power source/ are there power sources that would have prevented that - given the climate, the size of the affected area and the loss of infrastructure in the wake of this earthquake and tsunami?

One of the oddest things to realize throughout the whole aftermath for me was the incompatibility of power grids in South Western vs North Eastern Japan.
I hope standardization will be one of the issues tackled.
 
The reactor at Fukushima isn't threatening millions of lives - that's a wild exaggeration.

The Chernobyl meltdown, which was much more serious than this accident (at least at the moment), caused about 50 deaths among early responders, 9 deaths of children from cancer, and is predicted by the IAEA long term to ultimately cause about 4,000 deaths due to increased cancer rates.

I wonder how many deaths there will be in Japan due to hypothermia from lack of power?

let's wait and see. i hope you are correct.
 
So now, instead of imagining new technologies that may or may not ever exist, we exist new physics ?

I'm an optimist. I also believe that the total sum of all our knowledge atm is a small fraction of what there is to know and sometime in the next 1000 years or so someone will actually work out how to build a warp drive, or fold space, or discover a unified physics that explains dark matter, quantum mechanics and e=mc2 combined into a small yet sexy equation.

Which isn't all that long if it's a tenth of the time that the spent nuclear fuel we are going to be using in the next 50 years will need to become safe.

this "well, one day we'll have better options" leads a lot of people to say we should keep coal plants in the meantime, as if they "know" that this better option is "right around the corner". This new tech is kinda like the second coming, really.

I think we'll have cracked it in 50-100 years, and it'll probably end up being fusion, but coal plants have had their day and we really ought to stop burning stuff thats as valuable as fossil fuel.
 
The reactor at Fukushima isn't threatening millions of lives - that's a wild exaggeration.

The Chernobyl meltdown, which was much more serious than this accident (at least at the moment), caused about 50 deaths among early responders, 9 deaths of children from cancer, and is predicted by the IAEA long term to ultimately cause about 4,000 deaths due to increased cancer rates.

I wonder how many deaths there will be in Japan due to hypothermia from lack of power?



I have to dig the article but there were already a few in that region, mostly elderly.
 
Why do they need to?

Why can't every house have it's own small windmill on the roof, and it's own solar panel(s) to supplement the amount of power it needs to pull off the grid.
Seriously? You genuinely don't know the reason?
 
This is the point I dispute. Up to now environmentally speaking Fukushima has been far less impact than the rest of the tsunami damage. The plant security held and there was no enormous contamination outside. This is a rather good demonstration that 40 year old design held, and the newer design are probably even better.

But people would rather have an uranium belching coal (and coal miner killing) plant beside their home ? That is downright irrational and shows that the scare mongering won over rationality.

You're reply doesn't address my post.



It is illogical to expect a 40 year old design to sustain a very rare event and come out unscathed. It is illogical and downright irrational to think the Japanese won't draw the consequence of it and change a bit their design. It is downright stupid to think future plant would not learn the lessons from this one.

Now if you excuse me , I ignore all "daily fail" article.

The risks were known, long ago. The plants could have been decommissioned. Why weren't they?
 
Last edited:
The Chernobyl meltdown, which was much more serious than this accident (at least at the moment), caused about 50 deaths among early responders, 9 deaths of children from cancer, and is predicted by the IAEA long term to ultimately cause about 4,000 deaths due to increased cancer rates.

This study estimates 985,000 deaths.
 
It is logical to expect that nuclear power plants built where there is a known risk of earthquakes and tsunamis should be able to withstand both.

I kept wondering why they didn't plan for just such a disaster? It doesn't seem like anyone there can honestly say, "Who could see this coming?"

The Tokyo Electric Power Company carried out geological and sonic surveys around the Fukushima Daiichi plant to assess the power station's resistance to earthquakes and earthquake related phenomenon, including tsunamis.

The extensive survey was carried out as part of a widespread review of nuclear power plant safety following a magnitude 6.6 earthquake struck the Niigata region in northwest Japan in July 2007, causing a leak of radioactive water from the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant. A fire also broke out at the facility at the time.

Nuclear safety specialists said that despite the surveys it appeared officials at Fukushima Daiichi had not considered the scenario that a tsunami might hit the power plant at a time when they would need to use diesel back up generators intended to provide emergency power to the reactor cooling systems.

Fuel tanks for the generators, positioned at ground level just yards from the sea front, were among the first parts of the facility to be destroyed by the huge tsunami wave that swept inland following last week's magnitude 9.0 earthquake.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...study-showed-Fukushima-plant-was-at-risk.html

It's disgusting. The level of human ignorance, greed and pride, that has brought us to this. Those still defending the Japanese, as if they are just poor innocents, you disgust me as well.
 
It's disgusting. The level of human ignorance, greed and pride, that has brought us to this. Those still defending the Japanese, as if they are just poor innocents, you disgust me as well.

So the Japanese somehow deserved problems related to the Fukushima nuclear site? :boggled::eye-poppi:eek::jaw-dropp

Wow, and you say you're disgusted by what you see here... try looking in the mirror.
 
Last edited:
Now you tell us Jane where the controls in your "study" are for these factors.....
y'know smoking IS rather prevalent around the planet as is coal use..the latter where you might better be spending your vitriol instead of knee jerk anti nuclear fear mongering.
Coal kills period, so does smoking and he latter often due to "naturally occurring radioactive materials".....
try some science some time instead of polemics


Every year 440,000 people die in the US from tobacco use and smoke-related diseases, which is approximately 20% of all deaths in the United States. Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.
While not an obvious source of radiation exposure, cigarette smokers inhale radioactive material that, over time, contribute large radiation dose to the lungs. Worse, smokers are not the only ones affected by the radiation in cigarettes. Second-hand can be just as harmful to nearby non-smokers.

Naturally-occurring radioactive minerals accumulate on the sticky surfaces of tobacco leaves as the plant grows, and these minerals remain on the leaves throughout the manufacturing process. Additionally, the use of the phosphate fertilizer Apatite – which contains radium, lead-210, and polonium-210 – also increases the amount of radiation in tobacco plants.

The radium that accumulates on the tobacco leaves predominantly emits alpha and gamma radiation. The lead-210 and polonium-210 particles lodge in the smoker’s lungs, where they accumulate for decades (lead-210 has a half-life of 22.3 years). The tar from tobacco builds up on the bronchioles and traps even more of these particles. Over time, these particles can damage the lungs and lead to lung cancer.

and
Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste

By burning away all the pesky carbon and other impurities, coal power plants produce heaps of radiation

By Mara Hvistendahl | December 13, 2007 | 99


nuclear-power-plant-with-radiation-sign CONCENTRATED RADIATION: By burning coal into ash, power plants concentrate the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the black rock. Image: ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM

The popular conception of nuclear power is straight out of The Simpsons: Springfield abounds with signs of radioactivity, from the strange glow surrounding Mr. Burn's nuclear power plant workers to Homer's low sperm count. Then there's the local superhero, Radioactive Man, who fires beams of "nuclear heat" from his eyes. Nuclear power, many people think, is inseparable from a volatile, invariably lime-green, mutant-making radioactivity.

Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions. But it isn't supposed to spawn three-eyed fish like Blinky.

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. 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. * [See Editor's Note at end of page 2]

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Fly ash uranium sometimes leaches into the soil and water surrounding a coal plant, affecting cropland and, in turn, food. People living within a "stack shadow"—the area within a half- to one-mile (0.8- to 1.6-kilometer) radius of a coal plant's smokestacks—might then ingest small amounts of radiation. Fly ash is also disposed of in landfills and abandoned mines and quarries, posing a potential risk to people living around those areas.

In a 1978 paper for Science, J. P. McBride at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and his colleagues looked at the uranium and thorium content of fly ash from coal-fired power plants in Tennessee and Alabama. To answer the question of just how harmful leaching could be, the scientists estimated radiation exposure around the coal plants and compared it with exposure levels around boiling-water reactor and pressurized-water nuclear power plants.

The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants.

McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

Dana Christensen, associate lab director for energy and engineering at ORNL, says that health risks from radiation in coal by-products are low. "Other risks like being hit by lightning," he adds, "are three or four times greater than radiation-induced health effects from coal plants." And McBride and his co-authors emphasize that other products of coal power, like emissions of acid rain–producing sulfur dioxide and smog-forming nitrous oxide, pose greater health risks than radiation.

shall we ban lightning too....nasty stuff...
 

Back
Top Bottom