Merged nuclear power safe?

[Christian Klippel]

I'm yet to be convinced that anyone can guarantee that a reactor site is very unlikely to be involved in a war or terrorist attack, during its lifetime. How many countries have gone for a hundred years or so without being involved in a war?

That's just not going to happen. Because no one can guarantee that for anything at all. You are asking for the impossible. By your logic, you also have to ask who guarantees that for building, coal and gas power plants, oil raffineries, oil drilling sites, chemical plants, etc.

Just not going to happen anywhere with anything.
That part of your argument is moot.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Alferd_Packer]

WaYou really don't know much about electrical engineering do you. Most of the world's generators would probably end up blowing the cooling systems to smithereens. Hell Japan is special in the regard that the generators located in half the counntry would blow up the cooling systems.

How so?

oh never mind. I googled it, they have two different frequencies depending on where you are.

 

[Skwinty]

Wait really?

The story of Flight 232 was famous worldwide, and Haynes started speaking about it at lunches and meetings. He also became a post traumatic stress disorder speaker and emergency situations trainer.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Then somebody, or a lot of somebodies, are really stupid. They build six nuclear reactors on the ocean, on flat land? In Japan? And the only thing protecting it from complete disaster is a 25 foot high wall?

And yes, if you are building a critical system next to the ocean in an earthquake prone area, you put the critical system a hundred feet up. And you build them so they don't fall down, flood or blow up.

Because otherwise....

So you ar suggesting thatthey should have built the power plant on the side of a hill?

have you ever heard of landslides?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Then somebody, or a lot of somebodies, are really stupid. They build six nuclear reactors on the ocean, {snip} Because otherwise....

They would have had no water to cool the plants with.

 

[stilicho]

....

The systemic problem seems to be TEPCO, which has been caught in the past falsifying tests and ignoring concerns, and being caught in an emergency situation with a rabbit in the headlights look.

....

In all fairness to TEPCO, the Japanese government finished (in 2002) an investigation into reporting irregularities from a period between 1986 and 1992. That's about two decades ago. The ensuing investigation and resignations had nothing whatsoever to do with an inability to deal with a tsunami wiping out power transmission to their cooling systems.

 

[sts60]

This is not true.

The hydrogen comes from the zirc-water reaction.

Zr + 2H2O -> ZrO2 + 2H2

OK, I'll buy that. I don't know if the temperatures being reached also permit thermolysis of the water to any significant degree.

 

[ceptimus]

That's just not going to happen. Because no one can guarantee that for anything at all. You are asking for the impossible. By your logic, you also have to ask who guarantees that for building, coal and gas power plants, oil raffineries, oil drilling sites, chemical plants, etc.

Just not going to happen anywhere with anything.
That part of your argument is moot.

Greetings,

Chris

Greetings to you too!

When a coal power plant or chemical plant is bombed or otherwise attacked during a war, the results are bad. But I think you would accept that they're not as bad for the surrounding area as a devastated nuclear plant.

Of course, some other sorts of power plant, such as hydro electric dams, may be very dangerous when bombed in a war - though the dangers are probably more acute. The nuclear contamination is more of a chronic problem - it may kill more people, but probably over a much greater time period.

 

[Rasmus]

They would have had no water to cool the plants with.

Duh! They could build it near a river. We all know that those would never flood, evah!

 

[Belz...]

True, but an aircraft with, say, a couple of engines failed, can divert to the nearest airport and once it's on the ground, it becomes safe.

The same kind of option isn't available for a nuclear reactor.

Let's use a correct analogy instead:

If ALL engines fail on an aircraft, what are your options ?

 

[Kestrel]

All right, lets say that it is 300 microsieverts at the plant perimeter, or the edge of the companies control and it is public or private ground on the other side of the fence.

Public or private owned by other than TEPCO.

And it is 300 microsieverts on both sides of the fence. Is it ok to assume that?

There will be a dose of 262 Rem per year on the other side of the fence which is 50 times higher than the allowable limit for radiation workers in the US, and an amount of radiation that would be considered to put one at a rather high risk for harm.

It is also 500 times higher than the allowable limit for exposure to the public, therefore the evacuation is required.

Look up the limits for radiation exposure, make yourself more informed.

http://www.ndt-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/RadiationSafety/safe_use/exposure.htm

Oops, I was wrong, it is 2620 times higher.

That's evidence, are you happy now?

Let me try to clarify what I said. Assuming things don't get a lot worse, there will be no need for a complete inch by inch survey of the entire evacuation area after the crisis is over. Radiation levels in most of that area are pretty much normal.

 

[Belz...]

They have been saying things all along like, "it's only a level four", well it's not, it's now being called a level 6

Only the French seem to be saying that. International organisations seem to still say it's a four. Unless something's changed.

 

[ceptimus]

Let's use a correct analogy instead:

If ALL engines fail on an aircraft, what are your options ?

Yours is the incorrect analogy.

In the case of this plant, the backup generators did work for a while, and then the batteries worked for a few hours after that. If it had been a plane, it would have safely landed long before all the backups failed.

If you want a better analogy for the nuclear power plant you should choose something like a Mars-mission spacecraft, where the backup systems would have to work reliably for months in order not to kill the passengers.

 

[DGM]

OT comment: Did you see the movie "the Fugitive?" The Harrison Ford character was tried in Chicago, sent to prison, the train crashed and he escaped by jumping down the face of a HUGE dam, then he made his way back to Chicago. Where was that dam in relation to Chicago?

/OT comment

North Carolina.

 

[Skwinty]

OK, I'll buy that. I don't know if the temperatures being reached also permit thermolysis of the water to any significant degree.

If the temperature of the melting fuel elements exceeds 2,500 degrees celcius, then thermolysis will occur.

The production of hydrogen below this temperature is due to the exothermic reaction of the zircaloy with steam.

 

[elgarak]

North Carolina.

That's where they filmed it.

I don't think that they specified where the dam is supposed to be in the film's story. I seem to recall that other specifics in the movie indicate that there's no such location in reality that would fit all specifics, but I forgot which these specifics are, and can't find a link.

 

[technoextreme]

Greetings to you too!

When a coal power plant or chemical plant is bombed or otherwise attacked during a war, the results are bad. But I think you would accept that they're not as bad for the surrounding area as a devastated nuclear plant.

It depends. It really does depend. On the worst case scenario scale for either of them they would pretty much be the same. In fact the results from both the worst nuclear disaster and the worst chemical disaster are pretty much comparable. Admittedly, the worst chemical disaster being a result of far worst negligence and outright greed than anything that antinuker can try and claim.

Yours is the incorrect analogy.

In the case of this plant, the backup generators did work for a while, and then the batteries worked for a few hours after that. If it had been a plane, it would have safely landed long before all the backups failed.

No. He actually has the right analagy. There have been scenarios where the backups all failed at once in a scenario that most people couldn't anticipate.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

When a coal power plant or chemical plant is bombed or otherwise attacked during a war, the results are bad. But I think you would accept that they're not as bad for the surrounding area as a devastated nuclear plant.

On the other hand, the accumulated damage from decades of coal burning has devistated out fresh water fisheries with mercury polution.

 

[elgarak]

If the temperature of the melting fuel elements exceeds 2,500 degrees celcius, then thermolysis will occur.

The production of hydrogen below this temperature is due to the exothermic reaction of the zircaloy with steam.

...but still needs to be quite high (as you say, it's a reaction with steam, i.e. water vapor. Zircaloy does not react with liquid water).

The most likely conditions for that in Fukushima are found inside the pressure vessels.

 

[bobdroege7]

Let me try to clarify what I said. Assuming things don't get a lot worse, there will be no need for a complete inch by inch survey of the entire evacuation area after the crisis is over. Radiation levels in most of that area are pretty much normal.

I have been trained in the methods for the detection of discrete highly radioactive particles one would encounter when dealing with suspected fuel element defects.

Radiation levels aren't normal in Tokyo.

And you?

But do you agree now that I have posted evidence that the evacuation is required?