• 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?

Aepervius said:
So *YOU* are saying "it is better to kill a few hundred to a few thousand people every year , than risk a potential killing of a few dozen in a nuclear incident". And that is the worst case scenario a repeat of a chernobyl.

That is downright irrational.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, it is extremely irrational and that's why I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that it is equally irrational if not more so to accept the death of some in the nuclear industry just because the numbers are one or two orders of magnitude less than in other industries.

What I'm saying is that we should accept no deaths. What I'm saying is that the radiation leak and subsequent impact on health could have been prevented if the owner of the plant hadn't been so self confident.

I agree with you in regards to coal. Coal is risky even when done right. It is also highly polluting. Nuclear power is like playing with a gun. Coal power is like playing Russian roulette. Good practices can make it very safe to work with a gun, but as long as you keep comparing it to Russian roulette we'll be in disagreement.

What's so hard in pushing for excellence? Asking for zero deaths? Coal energy production requires pollution and death to generate a profit. Nuclear power doesn't. It can create a profit while being perfectly safe. It is when you start to cut corners to improve that profit that you begin to see problems. Business though, can be carried away without radiation leaks and without deaths if we put the money behind the intent. Problem is we hardly do and that makes nuclear power unsafe.
 
timhau said:
Do you know how the scale works?

I was visiting my mother-in-law today, and lived through what the radio news said was a 2.8 earthquake. Was the Sendai quake (9.0) a) little over three times or b) more than 1.5 million times as bad?
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure people here know how the Richter scale works. But the issue wasn't the quake. The plant was not damaged by it. It was the tsunami that started the whole mess and tsunami wave heights are not measured in a logarithmic scale, but rather in a linear scale of meters. There are clear records of higher waves in the recent history of Japan and prior to the building of the plant and also in recent decades (because they could have always made the walls taller. The evidence for the possibility of a wave break in was clearly there. That they disregarded it is the main reason why they're in this mess.
 
Java Man said:
Yes it is, it is extremely irrational and that's why I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that it is equally irrational if not more so to accept the death of some in the nuclear industry just because the numbers are one or two orders of magnitude less than in other industries.

...
Click to expand...
Like this;
 

Attachments

  • wickerman.jpg
    wickerman.jpg
    94.3 KB · Views: 1
Belz... said:
By that logic we should never do anything because there will always be a bigger threat.
Click to expand...

You're approaching the problem from the wrong angle. It's like saying I can't validate user input to a program because there can always be a longer number or string the user can type in. False. I can always validate against acceptable values or ranges and disregard all else.

Can we protect against a 5 m tall wave? Yes An 8 m tall wave? No. What do we do then. Asking if we can protect against a 9, 10, 11 m etc wave is pointless beyond that. The question is, what's the case when water gets in. Generators are in high ground? Generators are encased in sealed concrete buildings underground (not under sea level but rather in a mound)? Seal will contain up to 10, 20, 30 m of pressure (you name it). What if seal fails? Can energy from one generator be routed to cover for a failed or compromised generator? Yes we design that in. So now you need to fail all six generators bunkered in underground sealed units before you have to call for battery backup. Then we go on battery. Can we have an aux DC input from the exterior to add to the batteries in case the batteries go dry after the 6 generators failed. That way DC power can be provided from an external power source and backup the batteries. Is there an external emergency hydraulic power plug to move the pumps? Is there an external sprinkler system input to fight internal fires? To hydrate the pools?

You see? I'm not designing against bigger threats, earthquakes and tsunamis. But rather against failure of my own design. The magnitude of the threat as a design parameter is superseded by the magnitude of the failure as a relevant parameter for the design.
 
Java Man said:
What I'm saying is that it is equally irrational if not more so to accept the death of some in the nuclear industry just because the numbers are one or two orders of magnitude less than in other industries.
Click to expand...

You realise there is no ZERO endeavour ? None.

So what you are advocating is ... go into a deep cave and never go out ? because that it is about what is left once you eliminate non-zero risk/death activity.

There is next to no "no death" activity in our life. I have a chance of 0.1% of being in a deadly accident every time i go to work with my bicycle. You have also a certain chance when you go by car, train, or whatever. Energy generation is not an exception.

*ALL* activity have a risk. All energy generation being renewable or not, will bear some risk and potential death hazard. The question is not "can this kill us?" the question is "can this save more people than it kills, and/or is it worth the potential risk".

With your "no death" limit, you cut off potentially all energy generation we have (even renewable). Unless you want to be a luddite , modern society WILL require us to take a minimum of risk.
 
Aepervius said:
There is next to no "no death" activity in our life. I have a chance of 0.1% of being in a deadly accident every time i go to work with my bicycle. You have also a certain chance when you go by car, train, or whatever. Energy generation is not an exception.
Click to expand...

Accident is quite distant from over exposure while doing an activity in a crisis that came to be because a wall was not higher than commonly recorded tsunami heights.

Being exposed to radiation because a tube suddenly breaks is an accident. Being exposed to radiation in this crisis while trying to hose down fuel in a pool because all backup systems failed is negligence.

Yes accidents do happen. I'm quite aware of that. Once again my issue is with accepting negligence because there are accidents anyway. Two entirely different things.
 
Java Man said:
Accident is quite distant from over exposure while doing an activity in a crisis that came to be because a wall was not higher than commonly recorded tsunami heights.

Being exposed to radiation because a tube suddenly breaks is an accident. Being exposed to radiation in this crisis while trying to hose down fuel in a pool because all backup systems failed is negligence.

Yes accidents do happen. I'm quite aware of that. Once again my issue is with accepting negligence because there are accidents anyway. Two entirely different things.
Click to expand...

No it is the same things.

In addition you apparently missed 1) that the tsunami in its strength was a rare event and 2) very rare event are simply neglected as the risk is too low. AGAIN, this is the reason why plant don't protect against meteor strike, or even very rare events.

Negligence is to ignore a medium or high risk with high cost, and be sloppy on it. It isn't negligence to ignore very low risk. It is all a question of probability.

And before you ask me, yes I have done some risk management (although nothing which could have led to human risk, only economical consequences). You set the threshold (risk*cost of risk) and compare agaisnt the amount to buy the protection. Some very high risk but no consequence action are ignored, and very rare and highly consequence action are ignored. This happens in *ALL* human endeaviour whether you like it or not.

AGAIN you are acting with hindishgt on very rare events.


ETA Anyway the point is moot as I betcha japan baseline risk will probably now add protection against tsunami and longer batery life.
 
Last edited:
Aepervius said:
No it is the same things.
Click to expand...

So according to you we should accept car defects because car accidents occur anyway?

You can go on and on all you want with the tsunami strength. But the fact stands that a) the power plant survived the 9.0 earthquake b) there are higher waves in recorded Japanese history.

So you can't overlook the fact that they designed the reactor to survive the earthquake. In other words they did anticipate such a magnitude shake. But then they forgot the tsunami. As if a very strong quake was going to be tsunami free. It seems as if they forgot to keep one on par with the other.

I believe this is one of the core flaws in arguments form folks like Sword here. Who hurray they survival of the 9.0 quake, but for whom the tsunami is a totally unexpected event. What were they expecting a tsunami free quake of that magnitude? Get real.

On top of this what I'm proposing is NOT a sky high wall. I'm proposing that they consider the possibility of failure after failure and plan for that and not just sit back and say "oh we can't anticipate everything nature can throw at us". How expensive would it be to bury the generators in a water tight vessel inside a mound of dirt to protect them from impact? To have an AUX DC input to the battery system to be able to run on battery feed longer? To have a hydraulic feed for a backup pump system? Have some movable AC unit that can be brought to site and hooked up?

Some options are more expensive than others, but none more expensive than a cleanup.
 
Java Man said:
And now they're going to need to do it now anyway, and they have the lack of power from the shutdown reactors, and they're in the middle of a crisis, and bleeding money on other things, and on top of that they'll have the cleanup bill. Suddenly Java Man's 5% tax increase begins to sound like a drop in a bucket compared to all this.

Prevention is usually cheaper than correction. Ever heard of insurance policies? It's the stuff you pay with the intent on not using it.
Click to expand...

 
Java Man said:
So according to you we should accept car defects because car accidents occur anyway?
Click to expand...

Firstly it is not a defect, it is a rare occurence risk. If this is something which has a very rare occurence to happen, yes. There is nothing which is risk free.

By the same token no nuclear plan can withstand a 747 crashing landing into it. Would you call that a defect ? No plant is also safe against meteor strike. And in some case (california) there are known fault which could make for a giant catastrophe killing a lot of people.

Also of note is that the biggest tsunami were mostly due to local funelling. For something as flat as what's on sendai it does not seem to be the case. So we are back off really rare events.
 
Java Man said:
This is mediocrity at its best. Your main line or argument is comparing nuclear power with coal/oil/gas power. Which are basically three century old solutions from the beginning of the industrial age.
Click to expand...

They're also the only real competitors to nuclear power. Furthermore, the fact that they've been around a long time also means that their safety is well understood and pretty much already maximized. Yet they're still more dangerous than nuclear, where we continue to improve on safety.

Solar and wind cannot compete yet. And they're actually more dangerous than nuclear as well, having caused more fatalities per unit of energy produced. You just don't hear about it because the people who get killed are the workers doing the construction and installation, and that's not scary to the public.

You will always excel if you compare yourself with the loser in the class. Rather than compare it archaic technologies, compare it with itself and see what could have been improved.
Click to expand...

A lot can be improved. A lot has been improved. And more still will be.

And yet, even now nuclear is still safer than its competitors.
 
Aepervius said:
By the same token no nuclear plan can withstand a 747 crashing landing into it. Would you call that a defect ?
Click to expand...

Really? Some folks at the nuclear energy institute would beg to differ with you:

http://www.nei.org/filefolder/EPRI_Nuclear_Plant_Structural_Study_2002.pdf

"Conclusion
The study determined that the structures that house reactor fuel are robust and protect the fuel
from impacts of large commercial aircraft."

Now even if you were correct. Why not entomb the generators in a water tight sarcophagus knowing that you're in an earthquake and tsunami prone area. I think a building like that is much cheaper than adding one meter to the perimeter wall. Dollar for Dollar better to protect the point installations than the whole complex.
 
Java Man said:
You can go on and on all you want with the tsunami strength. But the fact stands that a) the power plant survived the 9.0 earthquake b) there are higher waves in recorded Japanese history.

So you can't overlook the fact that they designed the reactor to survive the earthquake. In other words they did anticipate such a magnitude shake. But then they forgot the tsunami. As if a very strong quake was going to be tsunami free. It seems as if they forgot to keep one on par with the other.
Click to expand...

As others have said, it comes down to a risk assessment.

Besides, an earthquake occuring in Tokyo may produce a 9.0 'quake in Fukushima, but due to its location it wouldn't necessarily produce a tsunami. Quakes seem to be the more common threat.

Very quick and dirty risk assessment (it's a Sunday);
Based on Wiki-p there have been 195 tsunamis in Japan in a 1300 year period. Therefore there is approximately 1 tsunami hitting Japan every 6.73 years. Of these about 1 in 10 are listed (let's say they are the 'notable' ones). However, Japan has a coastline approximately 29,000km long. Therefore, to affect this 1km of coastline where the reactors are located is a;
((1/6.73) x (1/10) x (1/29,000) x 40) chance.
Of course, the outcome of a nuclear incident varies, therefore I'll let the reader suggest what value should be ascribed to the severity of this risk. But the point is the engineers will have done this calculation and presumably factored in the probabilities of multiple failures of the safety systems over the 40 year working life of the plant, and the figures they got were again, presumably, below the threshold for requiring any additional systems.
And there has to be a threshold, to everything up to and including nuclear facilities, otherwise we'll end up designing all our infrastructure to withstand meteor impacts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom