|
Thread is about the various issues surrounding Japan in the aftermath of the recent earthquake. Don't bring the shit side of the internet to the thread, and post with the realization that this thread is very important, and very real, to your fellow members.
Do not post speculative and unconfirmed news you saw on TV or anywhere else. Generally the more dramatic it sounds the less likely it's true. |
On March 14 2011 16:45 Toadesstern wrote:
the same way it happened with reactor 1 and 3 (today). As long as the inner containment stays intact that explosion isn't a problem.
I wouldnt exactly call releasing the radioactive steam into the atmosphere "no problem".
Still its the lesser evil compared to risking an explosion of the reactor itself.
And the B-10 in the boron acid is used to catch at least some of the neutrons but by no means able to prevent anything further.
About the often cited blog post of the english teacher referring to the MIT professor Oehmen - hes an economics professor and also did his PhD in economics - I dont wanna discredit him or anything as i dont know him personally but i wouldnt take his words for absolute truth either.
For now we have to hope that they are able to keep the cores cooled enough for the casing of the fuel rods to stay intact.
"Tepco is also saying it has safely cooled down two reactors at the Daini plant; they are still working on cooling the three at the Daiichi plant - both in Fukushima Prefecture."
edit: nvm i missread the point that they were talking about two different powerplants here - still working on #1 to #3 on Daiichi.
|
On March 14 2011 16:58 Kr1pos wrote:
Summary from press conference just now:
- They have evacuated remaining people from the 20km zone.
- No significant increase in radiation around the area.
- In plant #2, the cooling system haven't been working fully.
- Right now the water is two meters above the rods and sinking.
- They think the can restore the cooling system by relieving pressure from inside the container.
- If this fails, they'll have to resort to seawater.
The worst case outcome of this scenario will be having to pump sea water. Which will wreck the reactor, but will pretty much solve that problem.
There is, really, little to be concerned about - and time will prove that the evacuation was entirely unnecessary.
I wouldnt exactly call releasing the radioactive steam into the atmosphere "no problem".
The devil here, is in the amount of radiation that was released. From all accounts I've gathered, radiation levels in the area went up from roughly "I don't care" to "I still don't care". The important bit is that core containment is holding up fine.
|
On March 14 2011 17:42 don_kyuhote wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 17:36 dump wrote:
Man, it looks like there's some insane power savings going on right now all over Japan.
People are shutting off displays, elevators, vending machine lights...
Imagine if everyone'd been doing this all the time. Makes you realize how much people like to be comfortable. It's only when something big strikes, people buckle down and sacrifice their comfort.
Dont be ridiculous.
People love to act like the whole society could simply stop caring about those things instantly, these are extraordinary circumstances, and goes to show how well prepared japan is to handle these horrible catastrofes if anything else.
|
So sea watter wrecks the reactor. I am wondering how much that cost them, I mean what are the losses.
|
On March 14 2011 17:43 dEphria wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 16:45 Toadesstern wrote:
the same way it happened with reactor 1 and 3 (today). As long as the inner containment stays intact that explosion isn't a problem. I wouldnt exactly call releasing the radioactive steam into the atmosphere "no problem".
On March 14 2011 17:43 Nightfall.589 wrote:
The devil here, is in the amount of radiation that was released. From all accounts I've gathered, radiation levels in the area went up from roughly "I don't care" to "I still don't care". The important bit is that core containment is holding up fine.
0810: Prof Paddy Regan, a nuclear physicist at Surrey University, says that the radiation levels currently being reported from the leaks at the Fukushima plant would have a similar impact to a chest x-ray, and that evacuations from the area, at this stage, are just precautionary.
|
On March 14 2011 17:48 Alpina wrote:
So sea watter wrecks the reactor. I am wondering how much that cost them, I mean what are the losses.
I think how negativly this reflects on nuclear power in the media will lead to a much larger economic loss than whatever happens in those plants.
|
On March 14 2011 17:43 dEphria wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 16:45 Toadesstern wrote:
the same way it happened with reactor 1 and 3 (today). As long as the inner containment stays intact that explosion isn't a problem. I wouldnt exactly call releasing the radioactive steam into the atmosphere "no problem".
It is, especially compared to the situation elsewhere. The steam only contains trace amounts of radioactivity to begin with AND is filtered before being released. I read that there's some cesium there, which is worse, but it's still almost a non-issue.
On March 14 2011 17:48 Alpina wrote:
So sea watter wrecks the reactor. I am wondering how much that cost them, I mean what are the losses.
The reactor is already wrecked, sea water doesn't wreck it that much more. The reason you hesitate to use sea water is mostly because it will "pick up" more radioactivity and is a bigger hassle to deal with once things settle down.
|
On March 14 2011 17:48 Alpina wrote:
So sea watter wrecks the reactor. I am wondering how much that cost them, I mean what are the losses.
It's pretty much a complete write-off - it's cheaper to build a new reactor then it is to scrub the chlorine.
A modern NPP costs somewhere around 1500$/KW.
Considering that the two reactors produce a bit over a gigawatt of eletricity... This will easily end up costing over a billion dollars.
On March 14 2011 17:55 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 17:43 dEphria wrote:On March 14 2011 16:45 Toadesstern wrote:
the same way it happened with reactor 1 and 3 (today). As long as the inner containment stays intact that explosion isn't a problem. I wouldnt exactly call releasing the radioactive steam into the atmosphere "no problem". It is, especially compared to the situation elsewhere. The steam only contains trace amounts of radioactivity to begin with AND is filtered before being released. I read that there's some cesium there, which is worse, but it's still almost a non-issue. Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 17:48 Alpina wrote:
So sea watter wrecks the reactor. I am wondering how much that cost them, I mean what are the losses. The reactor is already wrecked, sea water doesn't wreck it that much more. The reason you hesitate to use sea water is mostly because it will "pick up" more radioactivity and is a bigger hassle to deal with once things settle down.
A reactor that underwhent meltdown (Complete, or partial) is wrecked, but a reactor that was shut down normally (Like reactor 3 seems to be), is completely fine. Until you lose coolant. At which point, sea water will prevent meltdown, but will wreck it.
|
An economic professor, the bane of science. Working at MIT aka the pentagon, you really see the nuclear energy lobby at work in that article.
Considering that so far nuclear energy has not been commercially viable, I really don't think this is an economic issue that nuclear energy is less popular. Really, people try to pay scientists to trick people into thinking it is safe.
Michio Kaku two days ago said this event was the second worse after Chernobyl and that reactor 1 was a potential Chernobyl, not my words. That was even before they had to fall back on sea water. Now they have the same problems with all three?
Also, permanently living with the radiation you are exposed to during an X ray scan is bad. Especially if it happens to many people.
|
|
|
On March 14 2011 17:29 Alshahin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 16:32 Grettin wrote:
Seems like "the number two reactor has lost all of it's coolant". says NHK. This means, there might be a explosion soon. Not sure are they talking about Fukushima or something else. This is very bad. Especially if they think there will be an explosion. But I guess with this they mean that no.2 will follow with it's own hydrogen explosion. There won't be a nuclear explosion. If there is a complete meltdown with no cooling that will generate a lot of heat. And heat means pressure. If the pressure is too great it will eventually explode and that can cause uranium to be blown into the air just like with Chernobyl. If a 7.0 aftershock hits during meltdown, that might have very serious results. It is really worrying that several reactors are on a knife edge and not just one.
Except the fact that Chernobly didn't have a cointament vessel, that is why it's blown into the air.
|
|
|
On March 14 2011 18:03 furymonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 17:29 Alshahin wrote:On March 14 2011 16:32 Grettin wrote:
Seems like "the number two reactor has lost all of it's coolant". says NHK. This means, there might be a explosion soon. Not sure are they talking about Fukushima or something else. This is very bad. Especially if they think there will be an explosion. But I guess with this they mean that no.2 will follow with it's own hydrogen explosion. There won't be a nuclear explosion. If there is a complete meltdown with no cooling that will generate a lot of heat. And heat means pressure. If the pressure is too great it will eventually explode and that can cause uranium to be blown into the air just like with Chernobyl. If a 7.0 aftershock hits during meltdown, that might have very serious results. It is really worrying that several reactors are on a knife edge and not just one. Except the fact that Chernobly didn't have a cointament vessel, that is why it's blown into the air.
Also didn't Chernobyl use graphite?
|
On March 14 2011 17:59 Alshahin wrote:
Michio Kaku two days ago said this event was the second worse after Chernobyl
You know what the second worst nuclear accident after Chernobyl was, prior to this?
Three Mile Island. A partial core meltdown.
Do you know how many people were killed because of Three Mile Island?
Zero.
So yeah, it's pretty safe to claim that this is the second worst nuclear accident to Chernobyl.
|
I don't think that is too much of a problem actually, as this plant was somewhat old and scheduled to be taken out of service soon anyway.
|
I'd take Michio Kaku, who also speaks Japanese and may have connections, over that economics propaganda guy trying to do damage control for the nuclear energy industry.
Chernobyl didn't have aftershocks. Yes, Chernobyl design was different. But meltdown means heat means pressure. The core can melt through the containment and the pressure may be too great for the (damaged) containment. Also, they have to juggle at least 3 reactors while they are still suffering from the aftermath of a huge quake&tsunami. It is on a knife edge.
This event is already worse than TMI as there are several people with acute radiation illness. Also, TMI wasn't the third worst.
|
Three Mile Island was rated 5 accident, this one is rated at 4 so far
|
Not to mention there's always the throw-cement-on-it option.
On March 14 2011 18:10 Alshahin wrote:
I'd take Michio Kaku, who also speaks Japanese and may have connections, over that economics propaganda guy trying to do damage control for the nuclear energy industry.
Chernobyl didn't have aftershocks. Yes, Chernobyl design was different. But meltdown means heat means pressure. The core can melt through the containment and the pressure may be too great for the (damaged) containment. Also, they have to juggle at least 3 reactors while they are still suffering from the aftermath of a huge quake&tsunami. It is on a knife edge.
This event is already worse than TMI as there are several people with acute radiation illness. Also, TMI wasn't the third worst.
Acute radiation illness? Where?
Also, seriously, keep it classy.
|
On March 14 2011 18:10 Alshahin wrote:
Chernobyl didn't have aftershocks. Yes, Chernobyl design was different. But meltdown means heat means pressure. The core can melt through the containment and the pressure may be too great for the (damaged) containment. Also, they have to juggle at least 3 reactors while they are still suffering from the aftermath of a huge quake&tsunami. It is on a knife edge.
When that happens, the anti-nuke rhetoric can start. Unfortunately, "Core may melt through containment, and pressure may may be too much for containment, and they may not keep the situation under control." is not a particularly convincing basis for an argument.
Remember, the longer the situation is stable, the more energy dissipates... The less energy is produced by the core. And the lower is the likelihood of complications.
This event is already worse than TMI as there are several people with acute radiation illness. Also, TMI wasn't the third worst.
Well, if we go by death counts, there's occasionally handfuls of operators that get irradiated. Also, oil rigs explode, to loss of human life.
|
On March 14 2011 17:59 Alshahin wrote:
An economic professor, the bane of science. Working at MIT aka the pentagon, you really see the nuclear energy lobby at work in that article.
Considering that so far nuclear energy has not been commercially viable, I really don't think this is an economic issue that nuclear energy is less popular. Really, people try to pay scientists to trick people into thinking it is safe.
Michio Kaku two days ago said this event was the second worse after Chernobyl and that reactor 1 was a potential Chernobyl, not my words. That was even before they had to fall back on sea water. Now they have the same problems with all three?
Also, permanently living with the radiation you are exposed to during an X ray scan is bad. Especially if it happens to many people.
starting with the last part: The x ray scan example was not saying they have to life with that in the future. Within one hour there was as much as in one xray scan as far as I got it. And after that one hour it was on a normal level again.
The problem with radioactivity is, that when the word comes up everyone thinks of stuff like 235U or Pu or whatever with all those millions of years of half-life. Those parts are only in the inner part and the radioactiv stuff in the outer steam isn't that bad. I'm told those things got a half-life of one or two weeks, so it's not going to have an impact on the future, at all as long it's just the radioactiv steam.
Secondly chernobyl isn't possible unless there's a ww2 bomb beneath the plant that didn't explode and turns out to explode just the moment the meltdown happens or something like that that throws all the radioactiv material in the air.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
