• 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?

theprestige said:
There are a total of 14 operational nuclear power plants in Japan right now, with two more under construction. There are three operational wind farms. Source.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And combined they only have a capacity just a tad over 100MW. When the wind blows at the right speed, of course. That means they would need 10 times as much to replace a single reactor, and then they would need the proper wind 24/7 as well. Taking the numbers from German windfarms, which only produce 20% of their nameplate capacity over the course of one year, they would need 50 times as many. Add quite some extra ones to compensate for losses in the required storage systems. At least double the resulting number to be able to fill the storage, in case they are depleted, while providing power for the still existing current demand. Because storage makes sense only if you are able to fill it much faster than you empty it, if you really want 100% renewables and nothing else.

I'd like to see where they (or anyone else, for that matter) should place all that stuff if they are to replace the nukes, coal and gas plants with renewables.

Greetings,

Chris
 
I thought that was common knowledge at this point? CNN had interviews with Americans at the plant when the quake struck. They reported extensive damage to the buildings before the tsunami.
 
r-j said:
I thought that was common knowledge at this point? CNN had interviews with Americans at the plant when the quake struck. They reported extensive damage to the buildings before the tsunami.
Click to expand...

The buildings and reactors are different things.

As I understood it, the belief was that the tsunami caused the meltdowns by knocking out the cooling systems by disabling the back-up generators. The article suggests that the earthquake had already broken the cooling systems before the tsunami hit.

If the earthquake alone triggered meltdowns it would bring into question the safety of many other reactors in Japan.Those who claimed that the aging reactors had survived the earthquakes pointed to it as a demonstration of how safe nuclear power is.
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
The buildings and reactors are different things.

As I understood it, the belief was that the tsunami caused the meltdowns by knocking out the cooling systems by disabling the back-up generators. The article suggests that the earthquake had already broken the cooling systems before the tsunami hit.

If the earthquake alone triggered meltdowns it would bring into question the safety of many other reactors in Japan.Those who claimed that the aging reactors had survived the earthquakes pointed to it as a demonstration of how safe nuclear power is.
Click to expand...

As far as I recall, most reports pointed out that the reactor core* and its containment withstood the quake. Also, the cooling equipment that was knocked out was a tertiary system (again, IIRC), indicating that there was damage to the primary and secondary ones. In short, nothing new. Nothing to see here. Move along.

(* A lot of technology and engineering minded people use the term "reactor" to mean the core, and/or the primary containment and its contents. That leads to misunderstandings with 'normal' people, who equate "reactor" with "nuclear power plant". So a sentence like "the reactor withstood the quake" means "core and containment intact", but is understood as "power plant unscathed").
 
Last edited:
JihadJane said:
'The explosive truth behind Fukushima's meltdown
Japan insists its nuclear crisis was caused by an unforeseeable combination of tsunami and earthquake. But new evidence suggests its reactors were doomed to fail'

Evidence suggests reactors severely damaged before tsunami hit.
Click to expand...

More evidence that future reactors should be built to Fukushima TWO standard rather than what was used at Fukushima ONE. And the reactors we are designing today will be even better. Amazing what a difference there is in 30 year old nuclear technology versus forty year old technology, isn't it Jihad?
 
His tale told to The Yomiuri Shimbun sheds light on the heavy initial damage the quake caused inside the building.

The man works for a company contracted by Tokyo Electric Power Co. to handle inspections and maintenance of the reactor in Fukushima Prefecture. He had occasionally worked at the plant since last summer.

When the earthquake struck, he was doing electrical work with some coworkers inside the containment building of the reactor, which was operating at the time, in an area where there was ordinarily no fear of radioactive contamination and thus no need for protective clothing.

"It was such a powerful jolt I could hardly stand. I was thrown from side to side," he said. "I thought, 'That was no ordinary jolt.'" He also heard loud crashes of a crane, lighting and other equipment being bounced around, he said.

Soon the lights inside the building went out and emergency lighting came on. An announcement came next, telling workers to stay where they were. But seams on metal pipes installed in the ceiling had been broken by the strong jolts and water started flooding out.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110316005275.htm
 
What water?

Do you have any idea how many different kinds of water systems there are on a merchant ship?
How many do you think there are in a power plant?
 
How many kinds of pipes are their inside the containment building?

The important thing is to deny any earthquake damage occurred.
 
JihadJane said:
'The explosive truth behind Fukushima's meltdown
Japan insists its nuclear crisis was caused by an unforeseeable combination of tsunami and earthquake. But new evidence suggests its reactors were doomed to fail'

Evidence suggests reactors severely damaged before tsunami hit.
Click to expand...

That's evidence? Evidence names names, has real numbers, takes measurements and does experiments. What you have there is nothing but an extended multi-person recall of a disaster that the people were in the middle of, trying to save their own lives (or so they thought at the time).
 
The vested interest have a deep interest in believing no damage occurred from the quake. Yet they are the ones trying to cast doubt on any evidence that challenges their belief.

It reminds me of global warming deniers. They deny evidence if they don't like it.
 
r-j said:
The vested interest have a deep interest in believing no damage occurred from the quake. Yet they are the ones trying to cast doubt on any evidence that challenges their belief.

It reminds me of global warming deniers. They deny evidence if they don't like it.
Click to expand...

Care to point out this evidence?
 
"I personally saw pipes that had come apart and I assume that there were many more that had been broken throughout the plant. There's no doubt that the earthquake did a lot of damage inside the plant... I also saw that part of the wall of the turbine building for reactor one had come away. That crack might have affected the reactor."

The reactor walls are quite fragile, he notes: "If the walls are too rigid, they can crack under the slightest pressure from inside so they have to be breakable because if the pressure is kept inside... it can damage the equipment inside so it needs to be allowed to escape. It's designed to give during a crisis, if not it could be worse – that might be shocking to others, but to us it's common sense." Worker B, a technician in his late 30s who was also on site at the time of the earthquake, recalls: "It felt like the earthquake hit in two waves, the first impact was so intense you could see the building shaking, the pipes buckling, and within minutes I saw pipes bursting. Some fell off the wall...

"Someone yelled that we all needed to evacuate. But I was severely alarmed because as I was leaving I was told and I could see that several pipes had cracked open, including what I believe were cold water supply pipes. That would mean that coolant couldn't get to the reactor core. If you can't sufficiently get the coolant to the core, it melts down. You don't have to have to be a nuclear scientist to figure that out." As he was heading to his car, he could see that the walls of the reactor one building had started to collapse. "There were holes in them. In the first few minutes, no one was thinking about a tsunami. We were thinking about survival."

The suspicion that the earthquake caused severe damage to the reactors is strengthened by reports that radiation leaked from the plant minutes later. The Bloomberg news agency has reported that a radiation alarm went off about a mile from the plant at 3.29pm, before the tsunami hit.

The reason for official reluctance to admit that the earthquake did direct structural damage to reactor one is obvious. Katsunobu Onda, author of Tepco: The Dark Empire, explains it this way: A government or industry admission "raises suspicions about the safety of every reactor they run. They are using a number of antiquated reactors that have the same systematic problems, the same wear and tear on the piping."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...truth-behind-fukushimas-meltdown-2338819.html
 
Later that month, Tepco went some way toward admitting at least some of these claims in a report called "Reactor Core Status of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station Unit One". The report said there was pre-tsunami damage to key facilities, including pipes.

"This means that assurances from the industry in Japan and overseas that the reactors were robust is now blown apart," said Shaun Burnie, an independent nuclear waste consultant who works with Greenpeace. "It raises fundamental questions on all reactors in high seismic risk areas."

As Mr Burnie points out, Tepco also admitted massive fuel melt 16 hours after loss of coolant, andseven or eight hours before the explosion in Unit One. "Since they must have known all this, their decision to flood with massive water volumes would guarantee massive additional contamination – including leaks to the ocean."

No one knows how much damage was done to the plant by the earthquake, or if this damage alone would account for the meltdown. But certainly Tepco's data and eyewitness testimony indicates that the damage was significant.
Click to expand...

Of course somebody who believes will dismiss any and all evidence that doesn't match what they want to have happened.
 
r-j said:
"I personally saw pipes that had come apart and I assume that there were many more that had been broken throughout the plant. There's no doubt that the earthquake did a lot of damage inside the plant... I also saw that part of the wall of the turbine building for reactor one had come away. That crack might have affected the reactor."

The reactor walls are quite fragile, he notes: "If the walls are too rigid, they can crack under the slightest pressure from inside so they have to be breakable because if the pressure is kept inside... it can damage the equipment inside so it needs to be allowed to escape. It's designed to give during a crisis, if not it could be worse – that might be shocking to others, but to us it's common sense." Worker B, a technician in his late 30s who was also on site at the time of the earthquake, recalls: "It felt like the earthquake hit in two waves, the first impact was so intense you could see the building shaking, the pipes buckling, and within minutes I saw pipes bursting. Some fell off the wall...

"Someone yelled that we all needed to evacuate. But I was severely alarmed because as I was leaving I was told and I could see that several pipes had cracked open, including what I believe were cold water supply pipes. That would mean that coolant couldn't get to the reactor core. If you can't sufficiently get the coolant to the core, it melts down. You don't have to have to be a nuclear scientist to figure that out." As he was heading to his car, he could see that the walls of the reactor one building had started to collapse. "There were holes in them. In the first few minutes, no one was thinking about a tsunami. We were thinking about survival."

The suspicion that the earthquake caused severe damage to the reactors is strengthened by reports that radiation leaked from the plant minutes later. The Bloomberg news agency has reported that a radiation alarm went off about a mile from the plant at 3.29pm, before the tsunami hit.

The reason for official reluctance to admit that the earthquake did direct structural damage to reactor one is obvious. Katsunobu Onda, author of Tepco: The Dark Empire, explains it this way: A government or industry admission "raises suspicions about the safety of every reactor they run. They are using a number of antiquated reactors that have the same systematic problems, the same wear and tear on the piping."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...truth-behind-fukushimas-meltdown-2338819.html
Click to expand...

That's not evidence, it's anecdote. It suggests a direction of investigation. The only thing close to evidence in that story is if the radiation warning did go off, and that's not explained by another cause.

EDIT: "No one knows how much damage was done to the plant by the earthquake, or if this damage alone would account for the meltdown. But certainly Tepco's data and eyewitness testimony indicates that the damage was significant. " Your own source says that it's speculation.
 
Last edited:
"Surviving" an earthquake is different from not being damaged by it.
 
r-j said:
The vested interest have a deep interest in believing no damage occurred from the quake.
Click to expand...

As has already been pointed out, not a single person has ever claimed this. I really have no idea why you would tell such a blatant lie. Do you really think anyone reading this thread will actually believe it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom