jfchandler Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I didn't see this yesterday from Reuters, but it's a good report that explains the major parallels between Fukushima Daichi 1 and Three Mile Island... Japan radiation leak evokes Three Mile Island By Gerard Wynn LONDON | Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:22pm EST LONDON (Reuters) - The radiation leak in Japan immediately recalls memories of accidents at the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island power stations, and how it unfolds will be a critical test for international acceptance of nuclear energy. The Fukushima incident, brought on by the biggest earthquake ever recorded in Japan, took a turn for the worse on Saturday after a blast blew the roof off the facility. There are direct comparisons with the 1979 disaster at Three Mile Island in the United States -- in both cases a cooling fault led to a build up of pressure in the radioactive core and resulted in a relatively small radiation leak. Both use water to control the temperature as uranium degrades in a nuclear chain reaction at the reactors' core, creating steam which drives a turbine to generate electricity. MORE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-nuclear-disasters-idUSTRE72B2QH20110312 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brahmburgers Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?" Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer. Why? We are running out of oil and solar does not work except in a very limited way. Google concentrated solar and see how it can apply to large scale projects. We already have the technology. The sun shines every day, though some days it's obscured by clouds - there are ways to store surplus energy (pump water up above dams, for example). There are also interesting developments with harnessing the jetstream as it applies to wind energy. The jet stream blows 24/7 and much stronger and steadier than ground winds. Solar boosters are not saying the entire world should/could be powered by solar tomorrow. When the first cars came out, 110 years ago, car makers weren't saying we should kill all horses which draw carriages. Getting solar integrated will be a process - which has already started (there are municipal scale power generators online as we speak). EGAT, which is pushing full tilt for nuclear, will look back in 10 to 15 years (when their nuke plants start malfunctioning) and scratch their heads and say, "Why didn't we invest more on solar? Then we wouldn't have the manifold problems we're stuck with now." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 BTW, Elcent above posted some info about plant operator TEPCO's past problems with operations and integrity.... This Reuters report recounts the company's past problems: Japan's nuclear power operator has checkered past SINGAPORE | Sat Mar 12, 2011 10:22am EST SINGAPORE (Reuters) - The company at the center of a nuclear reactor crisis following the biggest earthquake in Japan's recorded history has had a rocky past in an industry plagued by scandal. The Japanese government said on Saturday that there had been radiation leakage at Tokyo Electric Power's (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi plant following an explosion there. The blast came as TEPCO was working desperately to reduce pressures in the core of a reactor at the 40-year-old plant, which lies 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo. In 2002, the president of the country's largest power utility was forced to resign along with four other senior executives, taking responsibility for suspected falsification of nuclear plant safety records. The company was suspected of 29 cases involving falsified repair records at nuclear reactors. It had to stop operations at five reactors, including the two damaged in the latest tremor, for safety inspections. MORE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-nuclear-operator-idUSTRE72B1B420110312 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Why does the densest seismic network in the world/such an earthquake prone area have Nuclear Reactors. Of course they need the power it supplies...but still it makes one wonder. The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?" Right now, everyone is fixated on Japanese reactors and the impacts of the earthquakes. Hello! Nuclear is much bigger than that. Any one or group of factors can imperil living things around a reactor. Earthquake is one of many. In Thailand, the two biggest potential problems for reactors are. >>>>> lax maintenance and/or lack of top-end technical skills - coupled with slowness to react and/or acting too rashly - to an emergency scenario. >>>>> take-over or destruction by outside group. Could be southern insurgents (that's where at least one reactor is planned), or could be a future incarnation of the Reds or some similar hot-headed group. Other problems could include: irresponsible dumping of radioactive trash, not decommissioning the plant when it should be decommissioned, peril to uranium while it makes its long trip from faraway, rising costs of yellowcake, inability or laxness toward doing proper maintenance, things getting stolen (the Thai army gets stuff stolen every month), the list goes on and on. Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer. "Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer." One of nuclear powers big advantages is that, unlike solar, it works at night, and when it is most needed. Power generation is a "use it or lose game" as there are very limited means of storing generated power - and the 2 peak load periods are before and after when solar is capable of supplying energy. Storage systems such as batteries and flywheels hold miniscule amounts of energy compared to that required - the only practical method is pumping water uphill and dropping it through a hydro-station when required as in the aussie Snowy Mountains scheme, which again is tiny in comparison to Japan's o/night and peak load requirements. So, if you like solar, you have 3 problems to overcome: Where to put the solar panels and dams in a densely populated country? What happens to the dams in a major earthquake? How long will your govt stay in office after the entire population sits around in the dark freezing their tits off when the next typhoon comes along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 The latest assessments from the Japanese Govt Spokesman Edano.. via Kyodo News: --No risk to evacuees' health even if No. 3 reactor in Fukushima explodes --No need for new evacuation steps over nuke plant problems: --Part of No. 3 reactor could be deformed, but not meltdown --No effect on nearby residents even if explosive incident occurs --No new serious problem at nuclear plant --No. 3 reactor can resist possible explosion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unblocktheplanet Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Are YOU going let them build one of these HERE in our lovely Thailand? Just about the only civil disobedience I’d risk getting arrested for! All readers should download and watch the new Finnish documentary, INTO ETERNITY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shurup Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Get rid of nuclear plants. I can only compare this comment to those of tree-huggers when they yell and cry to stop pumping oil and after their protest they would go and jump into their cars/uties/whatever_else_they're_driving and take of to go home. Lead by example! Solar/wind energy is not a substitute and coal power plants create a lot more pollution and have greatger effect on human health (at least those leaving nearby). Right now you are probably sitting in the cold AC room, maybe drinking cold beer, have your TV on and writing here on TV. Scrap all that, move into the jungles and live on the trees, THEN you can say let's get rid of nuke plants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossBones Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Japan is a "hi-tech" well organised country, that has spent a lot of time, thought and money on dealing with earthquakes.... Imagine if this happened in another country with nuclear power plants! Yeah.. like the one they are building in THAILAND ... a Thai nuclear power palant.... mai pen rai.. run for the hills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzMick Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I didn't see this yesterday from Reuters, but it's a good report that explains the major parallels between Fukushima Daichi 1 and Three Mile Island... Japan radiation leak evokes Three Mile Island By Gerard Wynn LONDON | Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:22pm EST LONDON (Reuters) - The radiation leak in Japan immediately recalls memories of accidents at the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island power stations, and how it unfolds will be a critical test for international acceptance of nuclear energy. The Fukushima incident, brought on by the biggest earthquake ever recorded in Japan, took a turn for the worse on Saturday after a blast blew the roof off the facility. There are direct comparisons with the 1979 disaster at Three Mile Island in the United States -- in both cases a cooling fault led to a build up of pressure in the radioactive core and resulted in a relatively small radiation leak. Both use water to control the temperature as uranium degrades in a nuclear chain reaction at the reactors' core, creating steam which drives a turbine to generate electricity. MORE: http://www.reuters.c...E72B2QH20110312 "The Fukushima incident, brought on by the biggest earthquake ever recorded in Japan, took a turn for the worse on Saturday after a blast blew the roof off the facility." I'm only speculating here, but as it is known that hydrogen would be produced when problems occur, it would be normal/sensible for an external vent system to be used. If the vent system has broken/collapsed asa result of the earthquake and the steam/hydrogen mix is vented in an enclosed space, it is only a matter of time before it explodes as the hydrogen flow will create its own static electricity spark. BUT the explosion is outside the reactor, and even a minor bang could blow the roof sheeting off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 My comment earlier about the Fukushima Daichi 1 reactor being toast may now extend to reactor No. 3 as well... I don't know if they mean sea water due to tsunami waves, or injected seawater to assist with cooling... Kyodo News: Restoration of reactors 1, 3 difficult due to sea water inflow: Edano Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc11864 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Another Japanese nightmare... They always pretended that their nuclear power plants were earthquake-resistant and safe for any tremor that could shake the construction. Now we have another Chernobyl coming up, despite all what they are pretending that there is no immediate threat for the people. Why then evacuate them 20 km away from the plant? Melting is underway and nobody can stop it. It will continue to burn as in Chernobyl, until all nuclear fuel has been burnt and blown in the sky, poisening thousands of sq.km. land and/or ocean. A nuclear powerplant is not like a Toyota car which has been recalled for failing breakes... Will they ever learn??? This is NOT Chernobyl in any sense of the word. The reactor type is different and Chernobyl had major design flaws, not the least of which was that they had no containment vessel whatsoever. The Japanese are not known to cut corners when it comes to nuclear fission. In other words, relax. :jap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Blog: Mar11-12 (All times are local in Japan GMT+9) Timestamp: 4:05pm Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano warns of the risk of a second explosion at the Fukushima plant, but says reactor 3 could withstand it as reactor 1 did yesterday."There is the possibility of an explosion in the third reactor, as in the case of the first reactor," he said, adding there would be no effect on the health of nearby residents. Timestamp: 3:53pm The Japanese Meteorological Agency says that there is a 70 per cent chance of a major aftershock in the next three days of a magnitude of 7 or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Japan is a "hi-tech" well organised country, that has spent a lot of time, thought and money on dealing with earthquakes.... Imagine if this happened in another country with nuclear power plants! Yeah.. like the one they are building in THAILAND ... a Thai nuclear power palant.... mai pen rai.. run for the hills! I don't want my Ba Mee to glow green, except when I go to MK of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a99az Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 I always though that there was a big margin (like 50% or more) built into this sort of test. @BreakingNews Fukushima nuclear plant was tested to withstand 7.9 quake, not 8.9 - wsj http://on.wsj.com/idd9Yo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lite Beer Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Japanese govt: Fuel rods at Fukushima No. 3 nuclear reactor may be partially deformed by overheating. Situation not considered "meltdown."/RT@markmackinnon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeral Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Yes, we might be lucky that it happened in Japan where standards are high. But it still is another example of the human being palying with a fire he will never be able to fully control. There is only one way to resolve the problem permanently. Get rid of nuclear plants. There are no alternatives currently. Our world needs energy to go forward. To go forward with medicine, all kind of nice things like the internet, taveling etc... nothing happens without energy. Well, there is an option of burning coal. To understand what that means, you can go to visit some Chinese cities and ask when was the last time they saw blue sky. Or perhaps on what decade it happened. The last nuclear plant accident was 1986. That is 25 year ago! The death toll for Chernobyl and this Japan accident has been less than people die in the traffic accidents in one year her in LOS. Nuclear science is more challenging for the mind and therefore might scare some people. It's not that bad at all. incorrect - a minute bit of research would so you how wrong you are. You make far too many assumptions about both the production of and future needs for energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangkokeddy Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Why does the densest seismic network in the world/such an earthquake prone area have Nuclear Reactors. Of course they need the power it supplies...but still it makes one wonder. The bigger question is: "Why build nuke reactors anywhere?" Right now, everyone is fixated on Japanese reactors and the impacts of the earthquakes. Hello! Nuclear is much bigger than that. Any one or group of factors can imperil living things around a reactor. Earthquake is one of many. In Thailand, the two biggest potential problems for reactors are. >>>>> lax maintenance and/or lack of top-end technical skills - coupled with slowness to react and/or acting too rashly - to an emergency scenario. >>>>> take-over or destruction by outside group. Could be southern insurgents (that's where at least one reactor is planned), or could be a future incarnation of the Reds or some similar hot-headed group. Other problems could include: irresponsible dumping of radioactive trash, not decommissioning the plant when it should be decommissioned, peril to uranium while it makes its long trip from faraway, rising costs of yellowcake, inability or laxness toward doing proper maintenance, things getting stolen (the Thai army gets stuff stolen every month), the list goes on and on. Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer. "Nuclear power has drawbacks for myriad reasons. Concentrated solar is cheaper and cleaner and safer." One of nuclear powers big advantages is that, unlike solar, it works at night, and when it is most needed. Power generation is a "use it or lose game" as there are very limited means of storing generated power - and the 2 peak load periods are before and after when solar is capable of supplying energy. Storage systems such as batteries and flywheels hold miniscule amounts of energy compared to that required - the only practical method is pumping water uphill and dropping it through a hydro-station when required as in the aussie Snowy Mountains scheme, which again is tiny in comparison to Japan's o/night and peak load requirements. So, if you like solar, you have 3 problems to overcome: Where to put the solar panels and dams in a densely populated country? What happens to the dams in a major earthquake? How long will your govt stay in office after the entire population sits around in the dark freezing their tits off when the next typhoon comes along? Further question. What happens to if there is an explosion or a fire in a factory that produce solar panels after an earth quake. What is the environmental impact? Solar panel are not that clean, a lot of nasty chemical shit is used to produce them and a lot of toxic chemicals are inside them. They are hazardous waste. Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html Are solar panels the next e-waste? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/03/solar-panels-ewaste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkkjames Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Another Japanese nightmare... They always pretended that their nuclear power plants were earthquake-resistant and safe for any tremor that could shake the construction. Now we have another Chernobyl coming up, despite all what they are pretending that there is no immediate threat for the people. Why then evacuate them 20 km away from the plant? Melting is underway and nobody can stop it. It will continue to burn as in Chernobyl, until all nuclear fuel has been burnt and blown in the sky, poisening thousands of sq.km. land and/or ocean. A nuclear powerplant is not like a Toyota car which has been recalled for failing breakes... Will they ever learn??? This is NOT Chernobyl in any sense of the word. The reactor type is different and Chernobyl had major design flaws, not the least of which was that they had no containment vessel whatsoever. The Japanese are not known to cut corners when it comes to nuclear fission. In other words, relax. :jap: Relax? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fukushima-core&page=2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Perhaps someone should start a new thread about the pros and cons of energy production types somewhere other than here. It really isn't that interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeral Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Yes, we might be lucky that it happened in Japan where standards are high. But it still is another example of the human being palying with a fire he will never be able to fully control. There is only one way to resolve the problem permanently. Get rid of nuclear plants. There are no alternatives currently. Our world needs energy to go forward. To go forward with medicine, all kind of nice things like the internet, taveling etc... nothing happens without energy. Well, there is an option of burning coal. To understand what that means, you can go to visit some Chinese cities and ask when was the last time they saw blue sky. Or perhaps on what decade it happened. The last nuclear plant accident was 1986. That is 25 year ago! The death toll for Chernobyl and this Japan accident has been less than people die in the traffic accidents in one year her in LOS. Nuclear science is more challenging for the mind and therefore might scare some people. It's not that bad at all. incorrect - a minute bit of research would so you how wrong you are. You make far too many assumptions about both the production of and future needs for energy.You also overlook that any rdiation takes 10s of thousands of years to die off- and has to be stored by man for that time....... Edited March 13, 2011 by Deeral Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfchandler Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Jiji Press wire service reports Fukushima Daichi 1 reactor filled with sea water... Tokyo, March 13 (Jiji Press)--The immediate safety has been secured at a reactor of a quake-damaged nuclear power plant in northern Japan, as its container was apparently filled with sea water to cool the reactor, regulators said Sunday morning. There appear to be little risk for now that a massive amount of radioactive substances will leak from the reactor, officials at the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said. The agency and Tokyo Electric Power Co. <9501>, the plant's operator, will work to keep the container filled with water, the officials said. The water filling work started Saturday night in order to forestall any disaster involving the No. 1 reactor of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant in Fukushima Prefecture. Fears of disaster grew after an explosion ripped off the ceiling of the building that housed the reactor of the plant damaged by the 9.0-magnitude quake that jolted eastern and northern Japan Friday. The blast did not damage the reactor container. http://jen.jiji.com/...k=2011031300130 Edited March 13, 2011 by jfchandler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 so sad 4:15pm NHK television quotes a police chief as saying more than 10,000 are feared dead in Miyagi. Our correspondenton the ground said earlier that the same number of people were unaccounted for. Some buildings in the area were moved 3km by the tsunami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeral Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 If they build in Thailand, you can be sure that graft ad corruption will ensure that the project is built below standard. Materials will be skipped as mnoey is syphoned off and things like location etc will be decided by bribery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animatic Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Yes, we might be lucky that it happened in Japan where standards are high. But it still is another example of the human being palying with a fire he will never be able to fully control. There is only one way to resolve the problem permanently. Get rid of nuclear plants. There are no alternatives currently. Our world needs energy to go forward. To go forward with medicine, all kind of nice things like the internet, taveling etc... nothing happens without energy. Well, there is an option of burning coal. To understand what that means, you can go to visit some Chinese cities and ask when was the last time they saw blue sky. Or perhaps on what decade it happened. The last nuclear plant accident was 1986. That is 25 year ago! The death toll for Chernobyl and this Japan accident has been less than people die in the traffic accidents in one year her in LOS. Nuclear science is more challenging for the mind and therefore might scare some people. It's not that bad at all. incorrect - a minute bit of research would so you how wrong you are. You make far too many assumptions about both the production of and future needs for energy. Agreed with Deerai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbeam1 Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Wow only 20 kilometers. I am no expert but that seems to be cutting it rather short to me. Must say I take my hat off to the brave people trying to cool down the reactor though. jb1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lite Beer Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 At least 160 people tested for radiation http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/13/japan.radiation/index.html?eref=edition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 All readers should download and watch the new Finnish documentary, INTO ETERNITY. You can also find fact of the disposal tunnels from it's constructors page. http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal Finnish bedrock is mostly granite, which itself contains uranium and emits radioactive radon gas. I hope Finland will be able to make an profitable business by offering the final disposal place for other countries as well. I think nobody or not many care about the facts of disposing nuclear waste. It's a me generation throughout the globe. Who cares about future generations? There will be a solution? - This way = No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeral Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 "One of nuclear powers big advantages is that, unlike solar, it works at night," - a wonderful comment by one of the myriad clueless posters who have posted on TV over the years.I expect he was in charge of the Irish "space ship to the sun" project???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Wow only 20 kilometers. I am no expert but that seems to be cutting it rather short to me. Must say I take my hat off to the brave people trying to cool down the reactor though. jb1 of couse it is not enough in case it gets worse. This is just face saving tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elcent Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Perhaps someone should start a new thread about the pros and cons of energy production types somewhere other than here. It really isn't that interesting. good idea hopefully a mod will do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts