Nuclear Power Plants

[rumborak]

Not only is the Fukushima incident bad because of the possible effects of the radiation, etc., it's also fueling the misconceptions many have about nuclear power.

Not sure what misconception you are referring to. The idea that once the shit hits the fan with a power plant, the best you can do is akin to shooting a squirt gun at a burning house, doesn't sound like a misconception to me.

rumborak

[TL]

Not only is the Fukushima incident bad because of the possible effects of the radiation, etc., it's also fueling the misconceptions many have about nuclear power.

Not sure what misconception you are referring to. The idea that once the shit hits the fan with a power plant, the best you can do is akin to shooting a squirt gun at a burning house, doesn't sound like a misconception to me.

rumborak

An older style nuclear plant was more or less at the epicenter of the 4th largest earthquake in over a century, and there's still only a small chance of anything happening. The only actual meltdown that has ever happened in the entire history of nuclear power occurred in the Soviet Union, and could have easily been avoided if it hadn't been, you know, the Soviet Union.

[ricky]

yep.

[El Barto]

And even in this case, they've still managed to prevent a major meltdown.  They've got a huge mess to clean up, but it'll certainly be manageable.

That still remains to be seen. One reactor has its fuel rods exposed to the open, which means there is no cooling for that reactor. They're far from being in the clear.

BTW, I accidentally watched some CNN news yesterday about this, and the verbiage of the news host was appalling. First he commented the pictures of the wreckage as "amazing, amazing pictures", and then he asked a reporter on the ground to give him a "play by play" of what he experienced.

rumborak

rumborak

The core's been uncovered a couple of times since the onset.  You certainly can't minimize the seriousness of that, but it's not the automatic end of the world.  I believe they uncovered the core at TMI, as well.  It's a juggling act.  You're constantly balancing the cooling with the need to let off steam.  Occasionally one will get out in front of you, but there's time to adjust.  That's when you uncover core temporarily and cause some damage there or in this case blow the roof off of the outermost containment vessel.  Given the magnitude of what happened to the plant to start this thing, I'd actually call this a fairly good demonstration of how safe these things can be. 

FOX has been the worst.  I've only been reading it, not watching,  but every single article includes the word meltdown in the header.  I'm actually a little puzzled by it.  What's FOX news's interest in fear mongering in this instance?  Every story is doom and gloom about radiation and/or hints at the incompetence of the Japanese.  As if an American reactor could never have such a problem. 

[Fiery Winds]

Here's another article regarding the misinformation of the nuclear plant.  There is less technical jargon in this one than the previous article.

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/14/the-japanese-nuclear-reactor-overreaction/

[rumborak]

All newspapers are having "meltdown" in their headlines because honestly I think you guys are downplaying the seriousness. Three consecutive explosions with exposed fuel rods is not a controlled situation.
And it's not just Fukushima and Tchernobyl. There have been many close calls in other countries before, without a tsunami and an earthquake to trigger the event.

rumborak

[ddtonfire]

From the article I posted, it seemed to me that everything going on in the plant had been anticipated, or at least justified and accounted for.

[Fiery Winds]

We're not saying it isn't serious, we're saying it's not as serious as some outlets are making it seem.  Many people think that those explosions are nuclear explosions because these outlets are saying "meltdown", "explosion", "leaked radiation" without qualifying what they really mean.  Did you read the articles posted describing that most of the radiation is rendered inert in seconds?  And the rest will react with the ocean water and dissipate?  

[rumborak]

@dtonfire: Did that article take the third explosion into account, the one where the authorities said the shell was compromised too?

@Fiery Winds: Of course, this isn't an atomic bomb going off, and if your criticism is directed towards that notion, I would agree. But don't underestimate people's memory either. A lot of people will remember that Tchernobyl was a meltdown too, and that was a bad, bad event.

rumborak

[Fiery Winds]

I agree, though all those that mention Chernobyl do not tell us that these two plants are completely different in design, and that this plant is incapable of exploding the same way, or spewing as much radiation as Chernobyl. 

[ddtonfire]

Hrm, it would appear that the article was posted well before the third explosion. I'll do some more reading.

I agree, though all those that mention Chernobyl do not tell us that these two plants are completely different in design, and that this plant is incapable of exploding the same way, or spewing as much radiation as Chernobyl. 

The one I posted does, briefly.

[Fiery Winds]

I agree, though all those that mention Chernobyl do not tell us that these two plants are completely different in design, and that this plant is incapable of exploding the same way, or spewing as much radiation as Chernobyl. 

The one I posted does, briefly.

The article you posted is one I was referring to a couple posts back.   

[kári]

Of course there isn't a maximum amount, but my point is that the "process" has "started" and whether we keep doing what we do or stop emitting CO2 (which we can't, because we breathe), the difference is going to be miniscule.

We have pumped enough CO2 in the air over the last 100 years to the point where we can observe changes all over the globe. Imagine 200 years, or even 300. What we have done can be fixed, if we don't change it soon we are in deep shit. CO2 over time will leak out of the atmosphere and into space, we need to keep ourselves and check and not pump out more per year than escapes. The amount of CO2 humans exhale would easily be consumed by plant life. I know this because animals have been making CO2 as a by product since they emerged.

Again, I know, but what I'm saying is 100 years of more polluting isn't going to make a difference. The climate is changing and it's not magically going to stop the moment we stop emitting. What I'm trying to say is that the damage done by 100 more year of polluting is minuscule compared to the damage the waste of 100 years of solely nuclear power will do.

[Chino]

Of course there isn't a maximum amount, but my point is that the "process" has "started" and whether we keep doing what we do or stop emitting CO2 (which we can't, because we breathe), the difference is going to be miniscule.

We have pumped enough CO2 in the air over the last 100 years to the point where we can observe changes all over the globe. Imagine 200 years, or even 300. What we have done can be fixed, if we don't change it soon we are in deep shit. CO2 over time will leak out of the atmosphere and into space, we need to keep ourselves and check and not pump out more per year than escapes. The amount of CO2 humans exhale would easily be consumed by plant life. I know this because animals have been making CO2 as a by product since they emerged.

Again, I know, but what I'm saying is 100 years of more polluting isn't going to make a difference. The climate is changing and it's not magically going to stop the moment we stop emitting. What I'm trying to say is that the damage done by 100 more year of polluting is minuscule compared to the damage the waste of 100 years of solely nuclear power will do.

 

[kári]

What?
As you pointed out, whether we "stop emitting" or not, China is going to continue using fossil fuels excessively. What I'm trying to say is even if they were to "stop" as well right now, it's not going to make all that much of a difference. Yes CO2 escapes into space, and yes plants will make oxygen out of CO2, so eventually the concentration will of course fall back to "normal levels" (what are they anyway?).
But what you should keep in mind is that "global warming" is also a process, which has now begun and will not reverse if we "stop emitting". As I said earlier, the damage of maybe 100 more years of relatively heavy CO2 emission is small compared to that of nuclear waste. Certainly for our future generations.

You so said yourself, you don't want to be part of the generation that kept emitting CO2 because of lack of evidence, but apparently you do want to be part of the generation that instead of using all means to look for a reliable and realistic "clean" source of energy, used those means to push back CO2 emission to a minimum, used nuclear fission power instead and put all of the waste inside of mountains or on the bottom of the ocean.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use nuclear fission power, we should, but we shouldn't use it excessively either as it is potentially for us right now way more harmful (look at Japan now) and definitely for our future generations more harmful than the climate change.

[Sigz]

But you do want to be part of the generation that said as a whole, why worry about the nuclear waste, there's concrete evidence it is extremely harmful to our planet but it's cheap?
We should keep nuclear power to a minimum. Find a good balance between power from fossil fuels and nuclear power until we find a better one.

Except that with most new reactor designs, nuclear waste isn't really a problem, because after a few years, it becomes completely harmless. Yes, it was a problem with old plants, where the waste had to be contained somewhere for decades or more, but that just isn't the case with more modrn designs.

Source? I don't see how radioactive material can become "harmless", the radiation has to go somewhere...

Yeah, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that it's harmless after a few years. A lot of it can be reprocessed for new rods, but how to permanently dispose of high-level radioactive waste is still an unanswered question AFAIK.


That said, nuclear power is still a better option than anything else.

[TheVoxyn]

What?
As you pointed out, whether we "stop emitting" or not, China is going to continue using fossil fuels excessively. What I'm trying to say is even if they were to "stop" as well right now, it's not going to make all that much of a difference. Yes CO2 escapes into space, and yes plants will make oxygen out of CO2, so eventually the concentration will of course fall back to "normal levels" (what are they anyway?).
But what you should keep in mind is that "global warming" is also a process, which has now begun and will not reverse if we "stop emitting". As I said earlier, the damage of maybe 100 more years of relatively heavy CO2 emission is small compared to that of nuclear waste. Certainly for our future generations.

You so said yourself, you don't want to be part of the generation that kept emitting CO2 because of lack of evidence, but apparently you do want to be part of the generation that instead of using all means to look for a reliable and realistic "clean" source of energy, used those means to push back CO2 emission to a minimum, used nuclear fission power instead and put all of the waste inside of mountains or on the bottom of the ocean.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use nuclear fission power, we should, but we shouldn't use it excessively either as it is potentially for us right now way more harmful (look at Japan now) and definitely for our future generations more harmful than the climate change.

The CO2 emissions are growing pretty fast due to the rapid growth of for instance China. The next 100 years would cause waaaay more emissions than the years 1900-2000, so I think it's weird to say it doesn't matter.

And there is more than enough room to store the radioactive material. Of course it will cause problems in the future, but I think running out of natural resources would be a bigger problem.

[kári]

What?
As you pointed out, whether we "stop emitting" or not, China is going to continue using fossil fuels excessively. What I'm trying to say is even if they were to "stop" as well right now, it's not going to make all that much of a difference. Yes CO2 escapes into space, and yes plants will make oxygen out of CO2, so eventually the concentration will of course fall back to "normal levels" (what are they anyway?).
But what you should keep in mind is that "global warming" is also a process, which has now begun and will not reverse if we "stop emitting". As I said earlier, the damage of maybe 100 more years of relatively heavy CO2 emission is small compared to that of nuclear waste. Certainly for our future generations.

You so said yourself, you don't want to be part of the generation that kept emitting CO2 because of lack of evidence, but apparently you do want to be part of the generation that instead of using all means to look for a reliable and realistic "clean" source of energy, used those means to push back CO2 emission to a minimum, used nuclear fission power instead and put all of the waste inside of mountains or on the bottom of the ocean.

I'm not saying we shouldn't use nuclear fission power, we should, but we shouldn't use it excessively either as it is potentially for us right now way more harmful (look at Japan now) and definitely for our future generations more harmful than the climate change.

The CO2 emissions are growing pretty fast due to the rapid growth of for instance China. The next 100 years would cause waaaay more emissions than the years 1900-2000, so I think it's weird to say it doesn't matter.

And there is more than enough room to store the radioactive material. Of course it will cause problems in the future, but I think running out of natural resources would be a bigger problem.

On the big scale of things it's not going to matter a lot, that's what I'm saying. And we're not going to run out of fossil fuels in 100 years... I know this is a delicate issue but IMO we should pump way more money into alternative energy development (nuclear fusion for example.. even though it may not solve all of our problems) instead of using them to drastically lower CO2 emissions.

[El Barto]

All newspapers are having "meltdown" in their headlines because honestly I think you guys are downplaying the seriousness. Three consecutive explosions with exposed fuel rods is not a controlled situation.
And it's not just Fukushima and Tchernobyl. There have been many close calls in other countries before, without a tsunami and an earthquake to trigger the event.

rumborak

This was a nice response:

The lesson so far: Japan suffered an earthquake and tsunami of unprecedented proportion that has caused unbelievable damage to every part of their infrastructure, and death of very large numbers of people. The media have chosen to report the damage to a nuclear plant which was, and still is, unlikely to harm anyone. We won’t know for sure, of course, until the last measure to assure cooling is put in place, but that’s the likely outcome. You’d never know it from the parade of interested anti-nuclear activists identified as “nuclear experts” on TV.

From the early morning Saturday nuclear activists were on TV labelling this ‘the third worst nuclear accident ever’. This was no accident, this was damage caused by truly one of the worst of earthquakes and tsunamis ever. (The reported sweeping away of four entire trains, including a bullet train which apparently disappeared without a trace, was not labelled “the third worst train accident ever.”) An example of the reporting: A fellow from one of the universities, and I didn’t note which one, obviously an engineer and a knowlegable one, was asked a question and began to explain quite sensibly what was likely. He was cut off after about a minute, maybe less, and an anti-nuke, very glib, and very poorly informed, was brought on. With ponderous solemnity, he then made one outrageous and incorrect statement after another. He was so good at it they held him over for another segment

From what I can see this morning, 2 of the three reactors have been secured and the third is finally under control, but not shut down yet.  The fire is at a storage pond for one of the previously unaffected reactors (IV) used fuel rods.  That's where your radiation is going to be a problem; the spent fuel. 

This is an interesting aspect.  As I mentioned previously, I'd call this a fairly remarkable demonstration of the inherent safety of a well built plant.  The next plant design will incorporate the lessons learned this week to be even safer.  The bigger issue is the waste.  You can keep operational pellets fairly safe, but a thousand gallons of highly contaminated waste is a real bitch, and will continue to be so.  The French have gotten pretty good at recycling theirs, but it's still not hugely efficient, and probably not something we'd be willing to spend the money on since sweeping it under the mountain is so much cheaper.  The fact that the most radiation released in the Japan incident is from the spent fuel of a reactor which was non-operational at the onset should be quite telling.

[The Texas Pirate!]

the name of the plant says it all....... FUK U SHINA.........

[orcus116]

This whole thing is starting to get really annoying. It's akin to when the I35 bridge collapsed in Minnesota and everyone was running around in a panic shouting stuff like "gusset plates" and "stress fractures" like they know what they're talking about. Now Indian Point, an NPP close to me, is making front page news every day for the last few days with Chicken Little headlines like "1-10,000 chance reactor won't survive an Earthquake!", as if 9.0 quakes happen in New York ever. I've been dealing with those "It's not if, when when!" nuclear meltdown bumper sticker assholes for years now and they're back trying to get the most efficient source of power in the entire southeastern New York region shutdown for an assinine "what if" scenario.

I got an idea, how about for every misguided thing someone says about nuclear power they have to donate $1 to a Japan relief fund. That should rack up a few million in no time.

[Sigz]

The level of ignorance surrounding this entire thing is mindblowing. For example, this is what my aunt posted on facebook earlier today:

Here's a simple little question from a friend:
What I want to know is were the 8 degrees of axial shift caused by the Japan earth quake WITH or counter to, the 10 degree shift from the Chile one. i.e. is net shift 2 degrees or 18? You can use a shout out if you need to.
Thanks!

[Dublagent66]

It just goes to show how many people have absolutely no awareness of they're surroundings whatsoever.  People in NY are buying iodine tablets?   

[orcus116]

Nah, just freaking out because we have a NPP close by. The last big scare was 9/11 when the two planes flew directly over it even though the reactor walls are made of lead 15 feet thick and were specifically designed to withstand an airplane impact. Hell ConEd is so protective of the plant that they even completely shut down one of the reactors because it wasn't up to safety regulations. Listening to the anti-nuclear activists around here you'd think the whole place was run by people who have no idea what they're doing.

[Chino]

It just goes to show how many people have absolutely no awareness of they're surroundings whatsoever.  People in NY are buying iodine tablets?   

I was readong that some pharmacies ran out in minutes.

[Sigz]

Well, at least the people who run it care. Apparently in California they don't even have a plan if there is damage from an earthquake.

[zerogravityfat]

i was watching a nat geo documentary on the main plate at the california to alaska area, the thing is massive, and if it triggers, there is really no need for a plan, they will all die.

[Chino]

i was watching a nat geo documentary on the main plate at the california to alaska area, the thing is massive, and if it triggers, there is really no need for a plan, they will all die.

I've seen a few docs on that. It's hard to imagine something of that magnitude. It will be 2012 movie kind of stuff.

[ShadowWalker]

I would be all for nuclear power if I actually believed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was an effective safety and regulatory agency. As a journalist, I was covering the agency right around the time the near containment breach was finally discovered at Davis-Besse in Ohio. Plant. That a boric acid leak went undetected for years by both plant and NRC inspectors does not instill a lot of confidence that these guys can get the job done effectively...

[zerogravityfat]

i was watching a nat geo documentary on the main plate at the california to alaska area, the thing is massive, and if it triggers, there is really no need for a plan, they will all die.

I've seen a few docs on that. It's hard to imagine something of that magnitude. It will be 2012 movie kind of stuff.

yup, the tsunami created will hit japan just as hard as the one they had last week. that's huge power from that distance.

[rumborak]

And even in this case, they've still managed to prevent a major meltdown.  They've got a huge mess to clean up, but it'll certainly be manageable.

So much for that one. They say this weekend will decide whether there will be a meltdown or not.

rumborak

[ddtonfire]

Something interesting here:
source: xkcd.com

[Implode]

Fascinating.

[rumborak]

Ugh. Water leaked in reactor #2 that is 10,000,000 higher in radioactivity than normal.

rumborak