Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems

lomiller said:
At the end of the day just giving the facts is not being deceptive. Now, if someone were directly comparing wind to some other type of generation and not including capacity factor then this is wrong but you have presented little evidence for this actually happening.

TBH it seems to me is that you expect a laundry list of qualifiers every time anyone says any anything positive about renewable but exclude those same background to your own arguments.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but to omit facts about the capacity factor and the likes _is_ deceptive. I'm sorry that i can't give you a link to every TV and radio report about that. But here you can have one example from 22nd of March.

It says right under the headline "Solaranlagen leisten mehr als die noch laufenden AKWs" which translates into: The solar systems deliver more than the still running nuclear power plants".

And that is just one example of very many. No matter where i look, the big majority of reporting about the issue use these methods. It's just wrong.

Dunno how you would call that, but i call that an outright lie, in the way that is presented. Yes, they do deliver more. But only at the peak of their output. A nuclear plant delivers the output almost always.

Yes, i do want to see such a "laundry list". But not just for fun, but to have the comparisons done in a fair way. After all, they put up such laundry lists all the time when it comes to nuclear, pointing out every little thing. But they virtually complete omit any facts about the renewables. That is simply not a fair comparison at all. Either they compare it just by using the proper numbers. Or they include these "laundry lists" for their side as well, as soon as they bring such lists up when it comes to nuclear. Simple as that.

That i'm not giving for every issue about nuclear here is simply because such links have already been given in these threads. Sure, if you like i can repeat them over and over again. But then, people could also simply follows the links already given, assuming that they are really interested in this topic and have followed the conversations.

I never claimed that nuclear has no problems. I know of the problems, and they have been raised a lot of times here. But that does not change the fact that renewables are not yet ready for mass-deployment to replace all our electricity needs. Yes, renewables are a good addition, and it would be stupid to not use them. But, like they do over here, fantasizing about having 100% renewables by 2050, without any solid basis in the real world facts, and using such silly number games as i have describe to make the people think it's all easy-peasy, that's simply not going to fly with me. Sorry.

And the current situation here is that people are driven into fear and panic about nuclear, gettimg them to demand the almost instant switch-off of the existing nukes, and giving them the false pretense that all that can be replaced by renewables right now. That's simply not the case. What will happen here is that they, if they turn off all the nukes, simply increase the power output of the coal and gas plants (there are quite some reserves in them currently), and probably also buy more electricity. Which in turn is again made by nukes or coal/gas plants. So in the end the overall situation does not change for the better at all, in fact, it gets even worse.

Add to that the fact that people are mislead about the true source of the electricity. Inside Europe, the companies can trade so called "RECS certificates". This allows the to re-label their own electricity from coal, gas and nuclear as being electricity made from renewables. So people think that they get either 100% renewables or at least quite some chunk, while in fact a good part of that is just on paper, but not reality.

Greetings,

Chris
 
Last edited:
Walter Wayne said:
In Canada, power consumption is a lot higher in the winter than the summer...
Click to expand...



Hmmm, do you have some data on that? I ask because as I recall Ontario has had its highest peak power usage during heat waves in the summer when all those air conditioners are running...
 
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42473

Painful Lessons for Wind Power

… snip …

Wind One is the 400-foot-tall wind turbine owned by the town of Falmouth, on the southwestern tip of Cape Cod. … snip … Electricity generated by the turbine would be used to power the municipality’s infrastructure, thus shaving about $400,000 a year off its utility costs. 

Installed in the spring of 2010 at a cost of $5.1 million (with some $3 million derived through grants, government kickbacks, and credits), the huge turbine cranks out 1.65 megawatts of electricity during optimum conditions.

… snip …

But as soon as her majesty was switched on, residents began to complain—Wind One was as loud as an old Soviet helicopter.

Neil Anderson lives a quarter of a mile from the turbine. He’s an avid supporter of alternative energy, having owned and operated a passive solar company on Cape Cod for the past 25 years. “It is dangerous,” he told WGBH in Boston. “Headaches.* Loss of sleep. And the ringing in my ears never goes away. I could look at it all day, and it does not bother me … but it’s way too close.”

Tired of the constant chopping sound, pained residents decided to lawyer up. This month a deal was struck with the town to disengage the turbine when winds exceed 23 miles an hour. This is problematic because giant windmills such as Wind One operate at optimum efficiency at about 30 miles an hour.

So now Falmouth’s investment has taken a hit. According to Gerald Potamis, who runs the wastewater facility, shutting off the turbine during higher winds will cost the town $173,000 in annual revenue, because now they’ll have to rely more on natural gas.
Click to expand...

:D
 
This is an interesting graphical depiction of radiation dosages received under various conditions, from a dental x-ray to an airplane flight to one day at one of the Fukushima sites and one hour at the grounds of Chernobyl in 2010. Sorry if this has been posted here already.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42473



:D
Click to expand...

Notice that the town CAN buy power from the grid when the wind is not sufficient. And this is the problem. Sure a homeowner, or even a plant or town can use wind power as long as they can make up the shortfalls. And that's possible because right now the grid is so much larger than the windpower segment that it can handle the extra load. Find and good when the windmill is a green playtoy.

But it gets a lot more problematic when lots of people/businesses/towns are on wind. Drops in output will start to have damaginig effects on the grid. When every town in the area (as well as homes and businesses) loses wind (not uncommon) it cant be readily made up quickly.
 
r-j said:
Can you tell us what it is really like there? I don't trust the news reports, and of late there hasn't even been any of those at all.
Click to expand...

Mostly back to normal except that certain things are in short supply (but nothing really critical) and some lights and escalators that would normally be on are off to save energy. Some businesses have shortened their hours too. Also the trains are less frequent and hence more crowded while some areas are affected by rolling blackouts. Where I live, however, has not been, which I think is because we live near a Shinkansen line. Neither has my office been affected by the blackouts because it is in central Tokyo. We have all the food and supplies we need. I just got back from the supermarket this morning and I was able to pick up almost everything I went to get. They used to be open for 24 hours, but now it's 9 to 9.
 
Below is a very brief summary of some key events of the last few days, since the previous status report:

1. There has been concern about salt accumulation in reactor vessels 1-3 (as steam evaporates the injected sea water, the salt is left behind, and if concentrations build to beyond the saturation point, it will begin to deposit and potentially insulate the fuel assemblies). However, NEI now reports the following welcome news:

Fresh water is being injected into the reactor pressure vessel at reactor 3 at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said.

TEPCO said that radioactive materials discovered at the reactor 3 turbine building possibly came from water from the reactor system, not the spent fuel pool. TEPCO made that statement after collecting samples of contaminated water in the reactor 3 turbine building and conducting a gamma-emitting nuclide analysis of the sample. The reactor pressure and drywell pressure at reactor 3 remained stable on Friday, leading TEPCO to believe that “the reactor pressure vessel is not seriously damaged.

Cooling efforts at Reactor 1 already had switched back to fresh water cooling. Reactor 2 is still being injected with seawater, but is expected to switch to fresh water soon.

The temperature at the bottom head of the reactor pressure vessels are now 149 C (unit 1), 104 C (unit 2) and 111 C (unit 3) — detailed data in reports below.

2. TEPCO Workers laying cables in the turbine hall of unit 3 stood in ankle-deep stagnant water and their feet were irradiated with beta rays (~180 mSv dose), with shallow burns, after ignoring their dosiometer warnings. They have since been hospitalised. Details in the reports below. 17 personnel have now received doses of >100 mSv, but none >250 mSv — the dose allowed by authorities in the current situation.

3. Water spraying continues on spent fuel ponds 2, 3 and 4, to ensure the uranium fuel rods remain covered. The temperature in unit 2 pool was recently measured at 52 C (see detailed data below).

4. On radiation: levels around the plant perimeter are relatively low and steadily decreasing. Levels of I-131 in drinking water supplies in Tokyo are now below regulated limits and restrictions have been lifted. The IAEA radiation monitoring data, at a distance of 34 to 62 km from Fukushima Daiichi, showed very low levels. To quote:

On 25th March, the IAEA radiation monitoring team made additional measurements at distances from 34 to 62 km from the Fukushima nuclear power plant. At these locations, the dose rate ranged from 0.73 to 8.8 microsievert per hour. At the same locations, results of beta-gamma contamination measurements ranged from 0.07 to 0.96 Megabecquerel per square metre.

5. World Nuclear News provides a new summary: Fukushima Daiichi two weeks on. To quote:

Investigations are now underway into the unexpectedly high level of contamination in the water, particularly as the basement of the turbine building is not a recognised radiation area. One theory is that there is a leak from the reactor circuit, but pressures in the reactor vessel indicate this must be elsewhere in the loop.

Despite this disappointment, steady progress continues to be made on site. Instrumentation is being recovered at units 1, 2 and 4 and lights are on in the control rooms of units 1 and 3. Power connections have reached all the units and checks are underway before normal systems can be re-energised. The shared pond for used fuel pond has now been reconnected.
Click to expand...

more

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/26/fukushima-26-march-status/#more-4277

http://bravenewclimate.com/
 
As More Nuclear Plant Damage Is Found, Japan Presses Repair Efforts

About those workers exposed to radiation:

The National Institute of Radiological Sciences said that the radioactivity of the water that the three injured workers had stepped into was 10,000 times the level normally seen in coolant water at the plant. It said that the amount of radiation the workers were thought to have been exposed to in the water was two to six sieverts.
Click to expand...

Remember the helpful xckd chart

2 sieverts is "severe radiation poisoning, in some cases fatal", 4 is "extremely severe radiation poisoning. survival sometimes possible with prompt treatment" while 8 means death.
 
Yeah - any time here is immediate "sunburn" - it's pretty severe....I'm not sure what the implications are being the lower limbs.

Takeaway - don't ignore the instruments you are provided with.
Sad tho for their families. :(
 
Puppycow said:
As More Nuclear Plant Damage Is Found, Japan Presses Repair Efforts

About those workers exposed to radiation:



Remember the helpful xckd chart

2 sieverts is "severe radiation poisoning, in some cases fatal", 4 is "extremely severe radiation poisoning. survival sometimes possible with prompt treatment" while 8 means death.
Click to expand...

I am wondering where the NY time get that. All primary source (tepco) indicate exposure of 170 mSv. I am wondering if somebody by teh NYTime did not do the same error as was done initially (misplace the coma).
 
From the end of the article:

Ms. Gunter said the workers would remain under observation for a few more days, but they are able to walk and do not appear to be harmed.
Click to expand...


That would be great news.
 
Aepervius said:
I am wondering where the NY time get that. All primary source (tepco) indicate exposure of 170 mSv. I am wondering if somebody by teh NYTime did not do the same error as was done initially (misplace the coma).
Click to expand...

As reported by UPI:

TOKYO, March 24 (UPI) -- Two workers laying cable at Japan's crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant Thursday were exposed to high-level radiation and hospitalized, officials said.
<snip>
The three workers were exposed to radiation between 173-180 millisieverts (the measurement of radiation received by people) while laying cable at the No. 3 reactor's turbine building, officials said.

The level is lower than the maximum limit of 250 millisievert per year set for workers tackling the emergency situation at the Fukushima plant ....
<snip>
Click to expand...

However other sources indicate that the workers' feet received a much higher exposure (and resulting burns) because their feet were immersed in the radioactive water for some time.

From the comments to the above article: "The most recent report [unsourced] is that the feet of the two men were exposed to 2-6 sieverts. This is usually a fatal amount of radiation exposure if it is full body exposure, so the fact it was only their feet that were exposed likely makes a huge difference. It will take a couple weeks for some symptoms to appear."
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Mostly back to normal except that certain things are in short supply (but nothing really critical) and some lights and escalators that would normally be on are off to save energy.
Click to expand...

It seems like if it wasn't for the nuclear plant problem, life would be simply going forward there. Quakes and even tsunamis are nothing new to the Japanese. But this nuclear ....

Oh hell, I almost made a bad joke after starting to type the next line.

It's all very tragic.

Still not able to laugh about it.
 
Puppycow said:
Mostly back to normal except that certain things are in short supply (but nothing really critical) and some lights and escalators that would normally be on are off to save energy. Some businesses have shortened their hours too. Also the trains are less frequent and hence more crowded while some areas are affected by rolling blackouts. Where I live, however, has not been, which I think is because we live near a Shinkansen line. Neither has my office been affected by the blackouts because it is in central Tokyo. We have all the food and supplies we need. I just got back from the supermarket this morning and I was able to pick up almost everything I went to get. They used to be open for 24 hours, but now it's 9 to 9.
Click to expand...

I've been looking at the news frequently coming from that area, and I gotta say the difference between Tokyo and the hardest hit prefectures is insane. I'm glad to hear that you're safe at the moment. Someone I speak with on occasion via another forum told me she was in the Sendai region during her days as an exchange student last year, she hasn't been able to get in contact with some of the friends she made there since the quake, though the majority of them are fine she's said.

As far as the nuclear plant at Fukushima is concerned, is there any way that they can bury the reactors like they did at Chernobyl without there being an even greater radiation release? I know the situation's not at the same level but they've had numerous setbacks with the radiation leakage, and considering they've saturated those reactors with sea water it sounds to me like they're beyond repair as far as reinstating service is concerned.

Whatever the case stay safe :(
 
I was asking about it mainly because the containment for one of the reactors is breached, and leaking water with high levels of radiation. I guess considering the circumstances burying the things in concrete and sand is even more last resort than using sea water to cool the reactors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom