Rising Temperatures Trigger Concern At Japan's Fukushima Nuclear Plant

[webfact]

Rising temperatures trigger concern at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant

By Danielle Demetriou in Tokyo

FUKUSHIMA: -- Water temperatures at Japan's damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant have risen more than 20 degrees Celsius over the past week.

Concerns are growing in relation to conditions at the plant, in northeast Japan, which was declared in a state of cold shutdown in December last year.

Temperatures at the bottom of the No. 2 reactor have climbed to over 70 degrees Celsius, marking a rise of more than 20 degrees since the start of February.

Boric acid has been injected into the reactor by workers of Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), operators of the plant, in order to prevent an accidental chain reaction.

The rate of cooling water injected into the unit was also increased as part of the plant workers' attempts to stem the surge in temperatures in the reactor. [more...]

Full story: http://www.telegraph...lear-plant.html

-- telegraph.co.uk 2012-02-08

[Reasonableman]

For energy, ANYTHING but nuclear, PLEASE!

[ScubaBuddha]

For energy, ANYTHING but nuclear, PLEASE!

Nuclear is fine, just don't build it in a tsunami zone.

[MikeOboe57]

For energy, ANYTHING but nuclear, PLEASE!

Nuclear is fine, just don't build it in a tsunami zone.

And don't try to test the emergency cooling system (Chernobyl, 1986)

[SouthernMan3]

For energy, ANYTHING but nuclear, PLEASE!

Nuclear is fine, just don't build it in a tsunami zone.

Are you a nuclear physicist ?

[Reasonableman]

For energy, ANYTHING but nuclear, PLEASE!

Nuclear is fine, just don't build it in a tsunami zone.

OK, I'll bite. In what respect is it fine?

"Germany's coalition government has announced a reversal of policy that will see all the country's nuclear power plants phased out by 2022. The decision makes Germany the biggest industrial power to announce plans to give up nuclear energy."

Chernobyl Disaster: International spread of radioactive substances Four hundred times more radioactive material was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The disaster released 1/100 to 1/1000 of the total amount of radioactivity released by nuclear weapons testing during the 1950s and 1960s. Approximately 100,000 km² of land was contaminated with fallout, the worst hit regions being in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Slighter levels of contamination were detected over all of Europe except for the Iberian Peninsula

.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Reasonableman

[MarkCyr]

For energy, ANYTHING but nuclear, PLEASE!

Nuclear is fine, just don't build it in a tsunami zone.

Actually, independent investigators have found that the damage to the cooling system probably started during the earthquake even before the tsunami hit. And there are reactors all over this country and most of them are near, or even right on top of, major fault lines (which are pretty much everywhere in Japan).

Japan is an OK place to live, but you wouldn't believe how passive people here are about this stuff. They fed elementary kids beef that was off-the-charts radioactive in school lunches and even after the officials finally admitted it...nothing happened. So although the move toward green energy has sped up since Fukushima, I think things will just tinker along according to the great Tokyo bureaucratic plan until one of those suckers goes POP and makes 1/3 of the country uninhabitable. ...and that's why I want to get an exit plan in order ASAP. Thailand may have its dangers, but at least you can see them coming. Kind of hard to see cesium in your local veggies.

[maidu]

For energy, ANYTHING but nuclear, PLEASE!

Nuclear is fine, just don't build it in a tsunami zone.

Nuclear is not fine. It so happens the latest big news of a failure was last year at Fukushima due to earthquake and tsunami. Yet there are a slew of other things which make nuclear a bad choice for electricity generation. Here, for example, is just one of many potential problems which could make big problems for Thailand, if EGAT gets its way - to make Thailand go nuclear:

>>>> the sites could get occupied (and possibly sabotaged) by some hothead group. The Yellows took over 2 airports, and the Reds took over Bkk twice - and those events all happened in the past 3 years.

I could make a list of over 30 plausible reasons nuclear is fraught with major potential problems. Wanna see the list?

[warfie]

Would someone please remind me why nuclear is more economical than solar?

[gopnarak]

Would someone please remind me why nuclear is more economical than solar?

Its not only more economical its also more ecological. (... as long someone doesn't want to bomb it)

[Scott]

It seems that Mother Nature occasionally 'bombs' those nuclear facilities as well.

[Ulysses G.]

Would someone please remind me why nuclear is more economical than solar?

Because it actually works on a large scale.

Edited February 12, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[maidu]

Would someone please remind me why nuclear is more economical than solar?

Its not only more economical its also more ecological. (... as long someone doesn't want to bomb it)

If you're joking, it's a warped joke. Nuclear is waaaaay more costly in the long run - than solar - if you look at the big picture. As far as nuclear being more ecological..... I guess it depends on your definition of the word 'ecological. If ecological means poisoning regions for 30,000 years, (including ruined farmland, communities, sea life), then perhaps your conclusion fits. Could a solar mishap ever give us a Chernobyl or a Fukushima?

[maidu]

Would someone please remind me why nuclear is more economical than solar?

Because it actually works on a large scale.

There are several working solar plants - which are large scale. Spain is one country at the vanguard. The US Army has started work on a 50 mw solar site. There is tech now which gives 41% efficiency from the sun. Developments in solar are coming forth at a hectic rate. It's the wave of the future and it's happening now. In 25 years, people will look back at nuclear like they'll be looking back at the efforts to try and keep Bangkok dry, and exclaim; "what were our parents thinking? They poured tens of billions of dollars in to tech that was faulty." Wouldn't it be better to put money towards clean solutions, rather than mortgage the farm to pay for dubious fixes fraught with drawbacks.

[warfie]

Would someone please remind me why nuclear is more economical than solar?

Because it actually works on a large scale.

I'd rather see an accident at a solar plant than a nuclear plant...

"oops, one of the collectors fell over" vs. "OMG, there's a meltdown in progress!"

Added to the original cost of construction, How much is the clean-up of Fukushima going to cost? How complete will that clean-up be?

Would you prefer to live near a solar farm or a nuclear plant?

And, they still haven't figured-out what to do with the waste.

@ gopnarak, "ecological"? don't make me laugh!

[Soutpeel]

^{and of course the reason behind this temperature increase could also be a dodgy temperature sensor...}

[Jangot]

^{and of course the reason behind this temperature increase could also be a dodgy temperature sensor...}

I would sincerely hope not...

I have no knowledge of safety systems in nuclear power plants - but with something as vital as temperature, I would expect two active sensors as a minimum, to provide a verification, any disagreement between the two would raise an alarm.

Better yet would be three sensors, so if two agree and one varies, you know where the problem is.

[maidu]

make a little bamboo basket at the end of a long handle, and try boiling an egg in it. that's will indicate the temperature.

[Ricardo]

The nice thing about solar-power, is that the reactor is approx. 93 million miles away, on the other hand when a star goes 'nova', that's still not far enough !

[Scott]

Topic continues here:

//Closed//