Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Japan
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 46 of 175 (608983)
03-15-2011 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by slevesque
03-15-2011 4:25 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
slevesque writes:
Hi Rahvin,
You realize that uranium must be mined too, right ? How many deaths per capita are there in that type of mining compared to coal.
I don't really have a strong opinion on this since in Quebec we are world-leaders in Hydro-electricity (and the funny thing is, that there is a rising movement in the population claiming this is not clean energy :S) and also have a huge eolian potential in the northern part of the province, so Nuclear isn't really an option (we have only one nuclear plant, and apperently it's very safe)
But I found it a bit odd to include deaths by mining coal, and not by mining uranium.
Yes you only have one plant, right in the middle of your 2 largest cities, you should keep it in your prayers. There is one more near the bay of Fundy, but that's not same province.
Don't think hydro is a non-invasive type of power generation when it comes to the environment. It changes the whole river system it is on, affects migration and breeding of some fish many many impacts that cant be denied. Although I do belive wind hydro are mostly green as they don't pollute in the traditional sense, but they do affect the environment. There will be trade-offs in anything we do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:25 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by dronestar, posted 03-16-2011 9:31 AM fearandloathing has not replied
 Message 72 by slevesque, posted 03-16-2011 2:03 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 47 of 175 (608984)
03-15-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Taq
03-15-2011 5:25 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
You might want to check on those Canadian tar sand operations. It is one of the dirtiest, most destructive, and least effecient sources of energy there is.
Have you never heard that quebecers have been wanting their independence ever since the 60's ? And even before that ?
I can't really speak for Alberta, nor for Ontario (which has multiple nuclear power plants if my memory is correct). But I can say that I am proud of our energy production here in quebec, but not so proud of the social movement against hydro-electricity these days.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 5:25 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 6:03 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 48 of 175 (608986)
03-15-2011 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by slevesque
03-15-2011 5:41 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
I can't really speak for Alberta, nor for Ontario (which has multiple nuclear power plants if my memory is correct). But I can say that I am proud of our energy production here in quebec, but not so proud of the social movement against hydro-electricity these days.
As to Quebec independence, fair enough. I have met quite a few BCer's, they are usually a good bunch of people.
There is a lot of hydroelectric power generation in my area of NA as well. It is a mixed bag. The river that runs through my city used to be home to massive salmon runs. Now the salmon are nearly gone. In recent years there have only been less than 10 total salmon returning to some mountain lakes where there used to be 10's of thousands. This is all due to hydroelectric dams. It has really changed the local ecosystem. Now the talk is about breaching some of those dams and replacing the lost hydroelectric power with a massive nuclear power plant along the same river.
Just as an aside, the Snake River is misnamed. The story goes that the first Europeans asked the indigenous population for the name of the river. When they didn't understand the native tongue one of the locals made a hand gesture that looked like the movement of a snake and the river was named the Snake. The local was actually trying to portray a salmon moving upstream.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 5:41 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 49 of 175 (608987)
03-15-2011 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by fearandloathing
03-15-2011 5:25 PM


"Worst case scenario"
Comparing coal to nuclear don't always make sense when it comes to safety. If a coal plant had a worst case accident and the entire plant was lost then it could never compare to a worst case accident at a nuclear plant.
I wonder - what do people here believe is the worst case scenario for a nuclear disaster?
Chernobyl? That was far and away the worst so far. Is that as bad as you think it gets? Do you think it could be worse? What do you think would actually happen if a RAR TERRORIST flew a plane into a nuclear power plant? What specifically do you think would happen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by fearandloathing, posted 03-15-2011 5:25 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by fearandloathing, posted 03-15-2011 6:50 PM Rahvin has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 175 (608988)
03-15-2011 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dronestar
03-15-2011 4:06 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
dronester writes:
The New Orleans coastal/dam system was designed for a rated 3-4 hurricane because historically that area could expect a 3-4 hurricane.
Not so. New Orleans was not designed to withstand the storms that were expected based on history. A similar hurricane had reached New Orleans in 1947. Hurricane Camille in 1969 was a category 5 hurricane at landfall, but missed New Orleans.
It was well know that the levee system in New Orleans was woefully inadequate. Further, Hurricane Katrina was a mere category 3 storm at the time it arrived at New Orleans.
http://www.katrina.noaa.gov/
quote:
At 7:10 a.m. EDT on August 29, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in southern Plaquemines Parish Louisiana, just south of Buras, as a Category 3 hurricane. Maximum winds were estimated near 125 mph to the east of the center.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dronestar, posted 03-15-2011 4:06 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by dronestar, posted 03-16-2011 9:21 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 51 of 175 (608991)
03-15-2011 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by fearandloathing
03-15-2011 5:25 PM


I don't oppose nuclear power,although I would like to see safer designs.
You should take a look at pebble bed technologies. Not perfect, but self-limiting if the reaction heads out of control.
If a coal plant had a worst case accident and the entire plant was lost then it could never compare to a worst case accident at a nuclear plant.
Well, I think you're wrong about the incredible destructive potential of coal power infrastructure. (You should read about coal seam fires, too.)
And that leaves out the fact that even when the coal power plant is running completely according to plan it's putting hundreds of thousands of people at risk, contributing to the inundation of coastal areas and intensity of cyclonic storms, to the pollution of aquifers and atmosphere with heavy metals and particulates, and so on.
But I will go out on a limb and say it is probably far fewer deaths simply because of how few there are compared to coal.
Well, but that's another advantage of nuclear: you need to mine far less material - and thus need far less mines and miners at risk - to generate the same amount of power.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by fearandloathing, posted 03-15-2011 5:25 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 52 of 175 (608995)
03-15-2011 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rahvin
03-15-2011 6:19 PM


Re: "Worst case scenario"
Rahvin writes:
Comparing coal to nuclear don't always make sense when it comes to safety. If a coal plant had a worst case accident and the entire plant was lost then it could never compare to a worst case accident at a nuclear plant.
i do wonder - what do people here believe is the worst case scenario for a nuclear disaster?
Chernobyl? That was far and away the worst so far. Is that as bad as you think it gets? Do you think it could be worse? What do you think would actually happen if a RAR TERRORIST flew a plane into a nuclear power plant? What specifically do you think would happen?
I don't know. Chernobyl wasn't bad enough?? Look at site on google earth, make sure community layers is on as well as photo's. I would guess wind and weather would play a large part. Fist the core of one or more would have to become exposed. I am not sure it will go that far, if it was to experience a full loss of containment it might effect more area then Chernobyl? Being near ocean raises a few concerns for me as well. But ultimately I cant say
.
It is a large area of land near Chernobyl where nobody can live...for now...too expensive to clean up.
I am only saying it is not as simple as it seems, many things to take into account. We need to learn from it, not condemn nuclear power because of it. As I said earlier, it was not one thing but a series of events that when combined leave us where we are now. Chernobyl was much different in design and operation, ultimatly it was man who is responsible for it...not a natural disaster like Japan. Japans reactors have added layers of safety it dint. I do feel that the way used fuel rods are handled will be one of the first thing to need a little thought on.
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 6:19 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 7:43 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 53 of 175 (608997)
03-15-2011 7:18 PM


NYT article
Interesting NYT article that details long standing criticisms of the reactor design:
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
quote:
The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a Mark 1 nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment.
I'm not an expert on nuclear reactor designs, but it does sound like there is some truth to the idea that these reactors are substandard.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by fearandloathing, posted 03-15-2011 7:38 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 56 by jar, posted 03-15-2011 7:39 PM Taq has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 54 of 175 (608999)
03-15-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taq
03-15-2011 12:58 PM


Re: for Rahvin . . .
In my opinion, the fact that although this was planned for, the size of it was not anticipated. Both the primary and the secondary cooling systems got knocked out.
No matter how good planning man can do, guano happens. If it isn't by a natural disaster, then it is by the hand of man.. and never underestimate the power of human stupidity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 12:58 PM Taq has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 55 of 175 (609001)
03-15-2011 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
03-15-2011 7:18 PM


Re: NYT article
Taq writes:
Interesting NYT article that details long standing criticisms of the reactor design:
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
quote:
The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a Mark 1 nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment.
I'm not an expert on nuclear reactor designs, but it does sound like there is some truth to the idea that these reactors are substandard.
CNN interviewed someone who said that in the 80's a study was done and it was thought there was a 90% chance of a failure...I was on phone and missed who was saying what....Looks like it is generally accepted that the Mk 1 design is flawed? I am going to look into is as this is first time I heard this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 7:18 PM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 175 (609002)
03-15-2011 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Taq
03-15-2011 7:18 PM


planning
Taq writes:
Interesting NYT article that details long standing criticisms of the reactor design:
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
quote:
The warnings were stark and issued repeatedly as far back as 1972: If the cooling systems ever failed at a Mark 1 nuclear reactor, the primary containment vessel surrounding the reactor would probably burst as the fuel rods inside overheated. Dangerous radiation would spew into the environment.
I'm not an expert on nuclear reactor designs, but it does sound like there is some truth to the idea that these reactors are substandard.
As is so often the case, the problem is not nuclear power itself but rather the implementation and supervision, as well as information and communication. The issues, risks (general and site specific), benefits, and considerations need to be debated, but also common knowledge; taught in ever school. For example, in the US we have nuclear generating stations built on top of know major active fault zones, ones in areas that can be subject to major tsunamis that have 30 foot tsunami walls, others without, we have nuclear power stations that get their cooling water through deep well systems into major aquifers.
We have nuclear power stations in areas of major population concentrations but there has been little public discussion of issues like evacuation or citizen risks.
We have also underfunded and emasculated the governmental oversight of the industry.
The issue is not nuclear power itself, it's getting folk to invest in getting educated about the current status (aging US Nuclear Power Stations) as well as the risk/benefit possibilities.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 7:18 PM Taq has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 57 of 175 (609004)
03-15-2011 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by fearandloathing
03-15-2011 6:50 PM


Re: "Worst case scenario"
But what specifically do you think is a worst-case scenario for a nuclear meltdown? Some people like to throw out numbers like "hundreds of thousands of people with radiation sickness." They don't typically explain the mechanism by which so many people would be exposed to actually-dangerous levels of radiation. They don't really know what a meltdown is, or the specific results of a meltdown that cause radioactive material to escape or how and where it spreads.
In a nuclear meltdown, the reaction loses control for one of a few reasons. The carbon rods used to absorb neutrons and slow the reaction could fail, causing the reactor to heat up beyond cooling capacity. The cooling system itself could be faulty or damaged. Those are two that come immediately to mind, but the end result is the same - a self-sustaining nuclear reaction that exceeds the tolerance of the reactor core.
In the vast majority of nuclear accidents, we don't see widespread radiation exposure. Why? Because of the construction of the reactors and the mechanism that would carry radioactive material outside. Even in a full-blown meltdown scenario, we aren't looking at a Chernobyl event. Chernobyl was the result of a huge explosion (the overwhelmed coolant boils and expands, creating too much pressure and eventually resulting in an explosion) that managed to breach the concrete reactor ceiling - it literally blew the roof off. This ejected the coolant material, which contained radioactive material, into the air in the form of a steam plume. As I recal, the Uranium fuel rods also ignited, causing radioactive smoke and ash to be ejected. Eventually the reaction wears itself out - today, the heart of Chernobyl is essentially a pile of radioactive slag (cooled and hardened, now, into a messy solid lump) contained in a concrete sarcophagus built around the core for containment. The area remains radioactive primarily because of the material that escaped in the plume of smoke and steam and coated the surrounding environment. It's actually safe to visit the city, now, even if radiation levels are high enough that you wouldnt want to live there, and other life has actually thrived in the absence of man. This isn't a Captain Planet episode, Chernobyl is not a barren lifeless desert - at this point there's simply enough residual radiation that long-lived species like humans will gradually suffer sufficient genetic damage to drastically increase the likelihood of cancer or birth defects. Short-lived and hardy insects and plants and rodents and the like don't particularly care and are doing quite well.
Still, we aren't cockroaches or trees. So how do we avoid that?
There are multiple failsafes built into modern reactors. One of the best is simply that we use a lot more concrete than we did in Chernobyl, and we do it in layers. Observe:
This is a cutaway of the Fukushima reactor.
As of right now, the concrete torus at the bottom has been breached. Look above that, and you'll notice multiple additional concrete layers. Remember how Chernobyl's plume escaped? An explosion blew right through the primary containment...but in the Fukushima reactors, there are secondary containment walls. All of this is still going on in the basement of the above-ground facility, below the concrete floor.
Even in our wildest nightmares, we are not looking at another Chernobyl. Not even close. Even in the case of a full meltdown, we're not going to have a fallout plume in this reactor. The steam being currently vented doesn't actually come into direct contact with the core, and only contains residual radiation, nothing dangerous long or even short term (steam dissipates very quickly, and you have to raise radiation levels pretty far above background before you run into trouble, as in a few orders of magnitude). You can go right ahead and crash planes into these buildings, destroy the above-ground structures, and still not breach any cores. Even if you actually cause a meltdown, we're still not looking at a Chernobyl repeat.
The worst case scenario is that the entire site is made unusable by a core that melted itself into radioactive slag. We wouldnt be able to move it because that would require breaching all of the containment that keeps us safe. The whole compelx would be a loss, and you wouldn't even be able to bulldoze it and start from scratch, it would be a permanent fixture with a "No Trespassing" sign and radiation warning notices. Casualties due to radiation exposure would be minimal, limited primarily to technicians who stay behind to continue efforts to stop the meltdown - and again, that's worst-case.
Most people seem to think that "meltdown" means "a nuclear bomb goes off, it's Hiroshima and Nagasaki all over again, and then radiation from I-don't-know-where gives hundreds of thousands of people cancer I-don't-know-how." That's not at all what it means. It's bad, we want to avoid it, some people could die, but we're not talking about thousands or even hundreds of corpses here.
As for the actual cause of the Fukushima disaster - I'm hearing reports that it was run by a company that had been caught multiple times bypassing safety protocols, even going so far as to falsify reports, and was still allowed to keep running the plant. I also understand that a turbine used to pump coolant was unable to keep up with what was required - essentially the water was boiling in the pipes because it couldn't be pumped through quickly enough, and the steam eventually caused sufficient back-pressure that further pumping was made impossible and the pipes exploded. More than that...I'm sure details will continue to come out, but we'll need the results of a full investigation to do more than hypothesize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by fearandloathing, posted 03-15-2011 6:50 PM fearandloathing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jar, posted 03-15-2011 7:52 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 60 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2011 8:39 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 61 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-15-2011 9:47 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 58 of 175 (609005)
03-15-2011 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rahvin
03-15-2011 7:43 PM


Re: "Worst case scenario"
Most people seem to think that "meltdown" means "a nuclear bomb goes off, it's Hiroshima and Nagasaki all over again, and then radiation from I-don't-know-where gives hundreds of thousands of people cancer I-don't-know-how."
Hiroshima (population 1.6+ million ) and Nagasaki (population 450,000+ ) are also thriving communities today after events that were far more horrific than any possible nuclear plant accident.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 7:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 175 (609006)
03-15-2011 8:07 PM


Risk And Energy
In America it's an oddity for government to intervene in the risk factor relative to creating energy from anything. Since our republic was founded, it's been up to citizens and companies as to whether risk should be a factor in any kind of mining industry.
Mining has always been a huge factor in the welfare and prosperity of America. The '49er California gold miners knew the high risk of venturing out for their fortune. They had a lot to do with opening up the West and exploration etc.
Considering all of the benefits of coal to the nation over the centuries and the millions involved in mining it, relatively few have lost their lives. Any enterprise involves risk. That's life.
What people forget is how many millions have lost their lives due to the loss of freedom or trying to regain lost freedom. Let freedom ring and let people decide whether the risk of death or injury is worth the venture.
President Clinton, with the stroke of a pen, declared a large portion of Utah government land, taking the huge reserve of clean burning anthracite coal off limits to mining. There's been no end in these last decades to the restrictive policies of government which have left us beholden to the oppressive Muslim nations of the Middle East, enriching and empowering them so as for them to sustain their oppression upon their citizens and create havoc globally.
Nuclear energy, due to it's risk of impact on large populations and regions has the potential of affecting large populations and regions. The need for it would be lessened considerably if conventional sources were less regulated.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2011 10:22 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 67 by NoNukes, posted 03-16-2011 11:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 175 (609007)
03-15-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rahvin
03-15-2011 7:43 PM


Re: "Worst case scenario"
Do modern reactors use carbon in their control rods?
Rahvin writes:
They don't typically explain the mechanism by which so many people would be exposed to actually-dangerous levels of radiation.
I don't believe the worst case scenario involves exposures to acute doses of radiation. Relatively few people are exposed to that danger.
I always thought that the worst case scenario was the release of fission products from the fuel into the atmosphere and ground water. What that would take would be some mechanism for damaging containment coupled with a meltdown that destroyed the integrity of the fuel system so that the fission products are no longer retained in the fuel cladding.
In particular things like Strontium 90, radioactive isotopes of iodine, radon, and other short lived radionucides are life threatening hazzards in relatively small amounts and some are very difficult/impossible to remove from the body.
quote:
Even in our wildest nightmares, we are not looking at another Chernobyl. Not even close.
Probably not, but we don't know yet if the worst is over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2011 7:43 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024