• 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?

Java Man said:
But the bottom line is just this: what do we do when backup X fails?
Click to expand...

This has to be the single most stupid argument I've ever heard.

You are literally expecting an infinite number of backup systems (and even then what you demand might not be possible to achieve).

1) The external power supply failed.
2) The generators took over.
3) The generators then failed.
4) The batteries took over for temporary cover.
5) During the time the batteries were doing their job,
5a) mobile generators failed
5b) the main external power could not be restored
6) The batteries exhausted.

... so what if they had have one more or 7 more backup systems? Under the right circumstances, they could all fail. Ann all these backups rely on a plant that is intact and basically working as intended. That might easily not be the case - suppose the earthquake had been strong enough to destroy the control mechanisms of the plant and much of the interior structure - connecting power from the outside wouldn't be doing you any good whatsoever then.

Also, no, they do not have to keep asking "what if this fails?". They did not just decide to build a plant that could withstand some earthquakes and not others. They did not just decide to build a wall that could hold up against some tsunamis and not others.

They build a plant that could withstand the largest earthquakes that Japan had ever seen and thus the largest earthquakes they could possible expect.

They build a wall to protect against the largest tsunamis they had ever seen and thus the largest tsunamis they could possible expect. I am sure they included margins of error there, too.

The question "what if an earthquake destroys the plant" need not to be asked, because if it needs to be asked it is too late: The plant should be build for the largest earthquake possible.

Likewise, the question "what if a tsunami breaks through the barriers" need not to be asked, because if it needs to be asked it is too late: The barriers should be build for the largest tsunami possible.

Granted: The tsises of possible earthquakes and tsunamis have been misjudged. Could they have been judged better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes#Largest_earthquakes_by_magnitude

There is one other 9.5 earthquake on that list, one more has been measured at 9.2. and a further two have been estimated to be as high as 9.2 (but could have been as small as 8.7 or 8.8)

I didn't find a similar list of tsunamis, but from what I could gather the largest ever earthquake in Japan was followed by the largest ever tsunami.

So the question is, when do you stop building for bigger and bigger disasters? It seems that building for a combinations of stuff that is bigger than everything that's ever been there seems like a good plan. Also, of course, there comes a point where it simply doesn't matter anymore. If a meteor hits you simply don't have to worry about a little extra radiation from a broken power plant anymore. And it seems to me that amidst all the death and destruction, problematic as the situation may be, the plants have held up quite well.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Nice :)

Hopefully, this will go somewhere.
Click to expand...

Advertising one of our news programmes they have the reporter saying that this would be "the biggest nuclear incident in 25 years."

Looking it up, the last neclear incident that released radiation was Chernobyl, 25 years ago. Since then there has only been one serious incident, and that was at a processing plant, not a reactor, and there was no release of material.

So yeah.... :boggled:
 
PhantomWolf said:
Actually there were three sources, the generators were backed up by Batteries.

And your "very large increase in the probability" is rubbish totally based on hindsight.
Click to expand...

"Hindmost" informed me the batteries are only used to run the control systems, as they are not powerful enough to run the pumps. You may wish to take it up with him.

The 'very large increase in probability' is not rubbish and is not hindsite. The calculation of the odds given was for independent events. Clearly, quakes and tsunamis are not independent.
 
Last edited:
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Six times the energy on one tenth the land area. You will never make up that difference.
Click to expand...

I am still at a loss as to why you consider land area to be the important metric, however. Price/kWh, sure. Perhaps you consider land area to be proportional to environmental impact? I can see that there is some connection, but I am not convinced that it's a particularly meaningful one, and, in fact, I'd suggest that the environmental impact of the land usage is at least in part represented by the increase in price which comes from having to buy or rent that land. Ie. we're back to price/kWh.

One thing that's not represented in that latter metric of course is carbon emissions.

Of course, what happens when we look at that latter metric? Nuclear comes out far ahead of solar as a viable energy source.
 
Roboramma said:
I am still at a loss as to why you consider land area to be the important metric, however. Price/kWh, sure. Perhaps you consider land area to be proportional to environmental impact? I can see that there is some connection, but I am not convinced that it's a particularly meaningful one, and, in fact, I'd suggest that the environmental impact of the land usage is at least in part represented by the increase in price which comes from having to buy or rent that land. Ie. we're back to price/kWh.

One thing that's not represented in that latter metric of course is carbon emissions.

Of course, what happens when we look at that latter metric? Nuclear comes out far ahead of solar as a viable energy source.
Click to expand...
In spite of the fact that you briefly mention environmental impact it appears that you attempt to express every price in monetary value?

I consider the land required an important factor. Perhaps a bit hyperbolic but ... If the land to be used had previously been uncultivated the expansion of solar plants would be no better than say slash and burn agriculture.

Edit:
With:
"Habitat destruction is currently ranked as the most important cause of species extinction worldwide."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_destruction
 
Last edited:
The reactors should have been decomissioned years ago because of the fundamental design flaw they have. The elevated cooling ponds, which are causing all the problems in reactor 4, are inherently risky for an earthquake prone area like Japan. Modern practice does not do this. This is not hindsight, the problem has obviously been recognised as a weakness by engineers and the solution is to have them at or below ground level.
 
Bluespaceoddity said:
In spite of the fact that you briefly mention environmental impact it appears that you attempt to express every price in monetary value?

I consider the land required an important factor. Perhaps a bit hyperbolic but ... If the land to be used had previously been uncultivated the expansion of solar plants would be no better than say slash and burn agriculture.

Edit:
With:
"Habitat destruction is currently ranked as the most important cause of species extinction worldwide."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat_destruction
Click to expand...

Sure, its possible that land use by solar power has major environmental impact. However, that hasn't been demonstrated, and is not demonstrated by the simple fact that it is large. Solar, for instance, doesn't require good agricultural land, and so can use, for instance, deserts for power generation.

But you are right that I may be mistaken that the simple cost of the land is an adequate assessment of environmental impact. At least in special cases (like highly ecologically diverse environments) I concede the point.
So, if we are talking about building solar power plants over tropical rainforest, I'm all for making this comparison.
If we are talking about building solar power plants in deserts, however, I don't see it.
 
Roboramma said:
Sure, its possible that land use by solar power has major environmental impact. However, that hasn't been demonstrated, and is not demonstrated by the simple fact that it is large. Solar, for instance, doesn't require good agricultural land, and so can use, for instance, deserts for power generation.

But you are right that I may be mistaken that the simple cost of the land is an adequate assessment of environmental impact. At least in special cases (like highly ecologically diverse environments) I concede the point.
So, if we are talking about building solar power plants over tropical rainforest, I'm all for making this comparison.
If we are talking about building solar power plants in deserts, however, I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clarifying.


Edit - (Actually - Should I point out that deserts have among the most specialized and fragile ecosystems on the planet or simply accept that you're taking the issue into account? Environmental objections to other human developments aren't always defused by addressing only anthropocentric notions of usefulness of a particular area, after all)
 
Last edited:
Bluespaceoddity said:
Thank you for clarifying.


Edit - (Actually - Should I point out that deserts have among the most specialized and fragile ecosystems on the planet or simply accept that you're taking the issue into account?
Click to expand...

Thank you very very much!

PLEASE, pretend environmentalists, I beg of you, keep your filthy hands off of our desert, you may hate it and force us to grow grass in your stupid, facist Homeowner's Associations, but we desert denizens love it. If you could stop building investment houses for one second and take a look at what you are murdering in your insatiable greed and condescention, maybe you could change your mind.

We don't need a giant Solar hot dog cooker murdering what precious little we have of our ecosystem
 
Roboramma said:
I am still at a loss as to why you consider land area to be the important metric, however. Price/kWh, sure. Perhaps you consider land area to be proportional to environmental impact? I can see that there is some connection, but I am not convinced that it's a particularly meaningful one, and, in fact, I'd suggest that the environmental impact of the land usage is at least in part represented by the increase in price which comes from having to buy or rent that land. Ie. we're back to price/kWh.

One thing that's not represented in that latter metric of course is carbon emissions.

Of course, what happens when we look at that latter metric? Nuclear comes out far ahead of solar as a viable energy source.
Click to expand...

The impact of land area is huge.

First, there is the environmental. Solar panels and nuke plants don't produce carbon, right? So what if you take the land you use to plant steel and silicon and instead plant trees? What is the carbon foot print to planting 58 square miles of trees compared to paving the whole thing over and setting up solar arrays to choke out the life giving sunlight that plants need to process carbon?

Second is the cost and various technical issues. Putting a concentrated power source within a thousand feet or so of everything needed to maintain and repair it, men, tools and equipment, parts storage, etc... dramatically simplifies the task of keeping it all running. What's cheaper, faster and has less carbon impact to repair? A damaged item that is a short ride via electric forklift across a factory floor? Or something ten miles away from the control room that you have to send a team and equipment out in a truck to get to?

While siting solar arrays in deserts make plant life less an issue, it also makes things measurably harder for solar. Deserts have far more particulates and dust floating around, which are toxic to solar generation. The dust collects on surfaces and rapidly degrades the panels or reflectors efficiency. Which in turn requires regular washing of the arrays. Now you're driving around tanker trucks full of water around the facility spraying the panels and when you get to the end, you go back to the beginning and start over again.

Solar and winds out put and reliability are bad enough as it is. They are also more time consuming and energy intensive to meaintian.
 
Bluespaceoddity said:
Thank you for clarifying.


Edit - (Actually - Should I point out that deserts have among the most specialized and fragile ecosystems on the planet or simply accept that you're taking the issue into account? Environmental objections to other human developments aren't always defused by addressing only anthropocentric notions of usefulness of a particular area, after all)
Click to expand...

Environmentalist do recognize the fragility of desert ecosystems, which is why they have historically moved to block development of solar power arrays in the places where they would be most productive.
 
a_unique_person said:
The reactors should have been decomissioned years ago because of the fundamental design flaw they have. The elevated cooling ponds, which are causing all the problems in reactor 4, are inherently risky for an earthquake prone area like Japan. Modern practice does not do this. This is not hindsight, the problem has obviously been recognised as a weakness by engineers and the solution is to have them at or below ground level.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that those were temporary pond due to the fact it is very hard to move around hot rods and maintain a low temperature.
 
Aepervius said:
My understanding is that those were temporary pond due to the fact it is very hard to move around hot rods and maintain a low temperature.
Click to expand...

"Temporary" is a fluid concept. For the duration of the upgrade of reactor 4, that is where the fuel rods were stored the whole time. Apparently the other reactors had some, though less, fuel rods in their tanks, but it appears to have been a long term form of temporary.
 
I think they might actually have gotten lucky with the spent fuel pools - they were placed high enough that the tsunami didn't affect them.

Latest IAEA news is that:
1) Containment vessel pressure monitoring has been restored.
2) Grid power is connected and is being expanded throughout the facility. Seawater is being pumped into the spent fuel pool (ouch)
3) White smoke has been seen emerging from the reactor, but is decreasing in intensity. The spent fuel pool is being sprayed.
4) The spent fuel pool is being sprayed.
5-6) The reactors are now in cold shutdown (i.e. no external cooling required). The temperature in the spent fuel pools have gone down significantly, from ~60 to ~40 Celsius.

Small amounts of cesium and iodine have been detected in the surrounding area, but are mostly of little concern. The noteworthy detection is in Ibaraki prefecture, where some samples exceed food safety guidelines.
 
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...
It would be safe here in Georgia because we have no earthquakes and we sit on top of a solid bed of granite.
 
Belz... said:
The problem with this line of reasoning is that since we can't know exactly when big earthquakes will hit, it leads us to the conclusion that it should never have been built, and this has been adressed by Rasmus.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Japan has a significant quake risk, it is the second biggest economy in the world, the cost of the risk occurring is huge, new designs that are much safer are available for a cost much less than the risk.

Engineers from the time say some of those risks were identified back then, but not addressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom