• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged nuclear power safe?

Rasmus said:
Difficult. It depends on how you look at things a lot.

If given the choice I'd much rather be in the nuclear power plant than any home or office building when the earthquake happens.

Of course, if they build the roads and homes to the same standards as the nuclear power plants, I'd much rather be in on of those homes far away from the power plant.
Click to expand...

Going off on a tangent a bit maybe, but its going to be commercially and economically unviable to build homes to the standard of nuclear power stations but, obviously, not to build nuclear power stations to that standard.

If we are talking pure risk management then it seems to me to be more risky to build a town of X thousand people near the coast of a tsunami-risk area that it does to put the nuclear station there.

As another aside, part of the issue here seems to have been lack of power for cooling....had they kept the plant running would that have averted this issue? If so, what new risk would it have introduced?
 
We have known how to build reactors safe from cooling system failure for 20 years.

But how old are the reactors in service?

New designs such as we will be building in the next couple decades would be safe even in a tsunami zone.
 
Thunder said:
nuclear power is very safe until hundreds of thousands of people have to evacuate their homes in fear of radiation poisoning.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you can equate precautionary measures taken in 'fear' of something with the actual risk of the event.

You wouldn't measure the safety of air travel by the number of people who are too scared to fly, for example.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
I'm not sure you can equate precautionary measures taken in 'fear' of something with the actual risk of the event.

You wouldn't measure the safety of air travel by the number of people who are too scared to fly, for example.
Click to expand...

Or the number of people grounded to prevent terrorist attacks a la 9/11.

If we were to say, "flying is fine until you find you have to ground 757s with engine trouble then you realize it is really dangerous" or other variations you might be thought of as a bit of a crank.
 
Last of the Fraggles said:
I'm not sure you can equate precautionary measures taken in 'fear' of something with the actual risk of the event.

You wouldn't measure the safety of air travel by the number of people who are too scared to fly, for example.
Click to expand...


The dark would rank as positively hazardous.
 
Japan suffered at first-hand appalling devastation caused by nuclear weapons. It didn't stop them from developing a nuclear power industry. That has to take a certain amount of balls.
 
Last edited:
MrQhuest said:
How many people die from lung cancer caused by coal
Click to expand...

Ten years ago, coal fired power plants accounted for 40% of all the mercury introduced into the air from man-made sources in the U.S. (50ish tons).


ETA: Also, people fear nuclear more than conventional power for the same reason they (falsely) believe that airplanes are more dangerous than cars: when there are deaths they can be linked to a single, dramatic, newsworthy event rather than a daily toll that accumulates steadily and incessantly.
 
Last edited:
Last of the Fraggles said:
I'm not sure you can equate precautionary measures taken in 'fear' of something with the actual risk of the event.

You wouldn't measure the safety of air travel by the number of people who are too scared to fly, for example.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it shows how thunder's argument fails.

Thunder - do you consider crossing the road dangerous? If not then is it dangerous when you get hit by a truck?

In fact, 530 British people attended casualty in 1999 following eye-watering encounters with their zips (figures from the DTI home and leisure accident surveillance system second annual report).

According to Rospa, trousers are responsible for more accidents than any other garment: "In the UK around 3,695 people attend hospital every year as a result of an accident with trousers," says spokeswoman Karen Blanchette. Among the incidents she recounts are "accidentally tripping because of a wide-flared trouser" and "putting your trousers on too quickly, losing your balance, and falling over".
Click to expand...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2003/aug/05/fashion.shopping

I'd advise Thunder not to put any trousers (pants) on either.
 
Thunder said:
nuclear power is very safe....until there is a massive earthquake and/or massive power failure that even kills its fail-safe systems.

then...nuclear power is the most dangerous kind.
Click to expand...
Thunder said:
nuclear power is very safe until hundreds of thousands of people have to evacuate their homes in fear of radiation poisoning.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that something is safe until it isn't.
That's deep, man.
 
nuclear power is very safe until hundreds of thousands of people have to evacuate their homes in fear of radiation poisoning.
Click to expand...
Planes are very safe, until hijacked and flown into highrise buildings.
 
Current update

Fukushima Daiichi

Unit 1
- 439 MWe BWR, 1971
- Automatically shut down
- Water level decreasing
- Pressure release implemented
- Explosion observed

- Containment believed intact
- Seawater injection has started
- Radiation levels did not rise after
explosion
Unit 2
- 760 MWe BWR, 1974
- Automatically shut down
- Water level lower but steady
- Preparations for pressure release
Unit 3
- 760 MWe BWR, 1976
- Automatically shut down
- Preparations for pressure release
Unit 4
- 760 MWe BWR, 1978
- Shut for periodic inspection

Unit 5
- 760 MWe BWR, 1978

- Shut for periodic inspection
Unit 6
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1979
- Shut for periodic inspection

Fukushima Daini
Unit 1
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1982
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
Unit 2
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1984
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
Unit 3
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1985
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
Unit 4
- 1067 MWe BWR, 1987
- Automatically shut down
- Offsite power available
- Water level stable
- Preparations for pressure release
Click to expand...
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_earthquake_reactors_1203111.html
 
BenBurch said:
We have known how to build reactors safe from cooling system failure for 20 years.

But how old are the reactors in service?
Click to expand...

I think you've nailed it. Nuclear power isn't safe or unsafe by itself. It's when you bring the CEOs and businessmen on the table that it becomes inherently unsafe. If we can build reactor cores who's cycle doesn't produce positive feedback and cause a core meltdown in case of cooling failure. Why haven't we replaced the old designs with the new? Because it costs money.

So we are basically gambling here. Betting that the old design will hold true until the end of life of the plant. Guess what, seems like the Japanese are losing the gamble this time.
 
Java Man said:
I think you've nailed it. Nuclear power isn't safe or unsafe by itself. It's when you bring the CEOs and businessmen on the table that it becomes inherently unsafe. If we can build reactor cores who's cycle doesn't produce positive feedback and cause a core meltdown in case of cooling failure. Why haven't we replaced the old designs with the new? Because it costs money.

So we are basically gambling here. Betting that the old design will hold true until the end of life of the plant. Guess what, seems like the Japanese are losing the gamble this time.
Click to expand...


Sure. It still might have been a perfectly – and perhaps the only – sensible option, though.
 
BenBurch said:
We have known how to build reactors safe from cooling system failure for 20 years.

But how old are the reactors in service?

New designs such as we will be building in the next couple decades would be safe even in a tsunami zone.
Click to expand...

I watched a TV program called the Politics Show on the BBC this lunchtime. The presenter posed the question what detrimental effect the events in Japan would have on the UK's plans to build several new nuclear power stations in the next decade(s).

My flippant (and obviously unheard) shouts at the screen were 'when did the UK become as seismically active as Japan', and 'why would we, in the C21st want to build Japanese/US designs from the 1960s/70s'?

This is also my stock answer to the 'Chernobyl question'. Are we now going to build a Soviet reactor design from the 1950s? Somewhat eccentric, even for us.

No-one would think to automatically use 60 year old Soviet, or 50 year old US/Japanese technology, in most other walks of life if they were building something from scratch. They may, of course, use descendants of that technology, containing all the lessons learned over 40 to 50 years of operation.

And AFAIK, nuclear reactors are the only structures designed/built in the UK which are subject to seismic design codes. I've heard some comments that suggest people think these things are thrown up and are no better than pre-fabs.
 
commandlinegamer said:
Japan suffered at first-hand appalling devastation caused by nuclear weapons. It didn't stop them from developing a nuclear power industry. That has to take a certain amount of balls.
Click to expand...




I hope they continue to believe this and their faith carries over onto other countries. Somehow I suspect it will not (for others).

:(
 
Nosi said:
Many people on this forum believe nuclear power to be safe, clean, efficient energy. If it is done right and built well, a nuclear power plant should stand well against what is thrown at it.

Others believe there is no such thing as safe nuclear. Nuclear power plants are simply accidents looking for a date to happen.

The Japanese were very much "the for want of a nail" school when it came to building nuclear reactors. They made them tough and resistant to earthquakes, storms, cold to hot weather. Tough didn't cut it March 11. A 9.0 quake followed by a tsunami slapped their islands around like half chilled Jello, overwhelming the performing specs of the nuclear reactors. We are now looking down the jaws of serious consequences of having such dangerous sources of energy on a jumpy, jittery Earth.
Click to expand...
IIRC this is the oldest reactor in Japan, it's hardly state of the art design.
 
Just mining coal is an ecological disaster, and it's unavoidable. Using it for power is even worse. It may be "cleaner" now than before, but it still puts soot in the air and causes acid rain.
Oil spills are enormous ecological disasters. When there's a spill, it's never just a few thousand gallons - it's hundreds of thousands to BILLIONS of gallons!
Hydro requires having a nearby natural waterfall big enough and has a major environmental impact.
Other forms of generating power are good for individual use (if you can afford it), but totally impractical on a large scale.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, has a minimal impact and generates enormous amounts of electricity. It's only when something goes wrong that things get bad, and that's thankfully quite rare.
The problems Japan is facing are not due to the inherent risks of nuclear power, but the fact they just got by the biggest earthquake ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom