Fukushima Technical Discussion

[andrew]

I agree that an earthquake of this magnitude was a case of when and not if and that there have been major failings at Fukushima, cheifly putting a nuclear power plant in that location.

The way I am looking at this is: did the equipment fail as a result of a series extraordinary events to which it seems the Japanese government took the ostritch approach and hoped it never happened? Yes. Did it fail under normal conditions? No.

I think that certain countries are not suitable for nuclear power where there is the likihood of a natural disaster of any kind be it a slight rumble on the ground or a massive earthquake and tsunami, but in other countries I have no real issue with it, other than the disposal of the waste.

[...]

[Richard]

Andrew, the hitch in your argument is that all nuclear power accidents other than this one have been caused by human error. Furthermore, critical human error appears to have a shorter return period than critical seismic events.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ci ... _accidents

[autogyro]

Andrew, the hitch in your argument is that all nuclear power accidents other than this one have been caused by human error. Furthermore, critical human error appears to have a shorter return period than critical seismic events.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ci ... _accidents

It could be concluded that this disaster was also human error richard.
The problem with nuclear is not whether the causes of disaster are human error or not but the fact that they DO happen and if the problem is major it almost certainly results in those responsible loseing control.
This fact is not the main reason for trying to rid our planet of toxic nuclear material however. The main reason is the 'actions' of some misguided human beings.
Be they the idiots who placed these reactors on the ring of fire, or more worrying those who would use anything to destroy others, even the complete compromising of our environment. Nuclear materials just do not give you any options.

[manchild]

Let me try to explain it to andrew in my own way.

Tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes, tornadoes, landslides, floods etc. are part of the nature know to human kind for millenniums.

If humans build something that can be destroyed by any of these powerful natural events, than it is by default a human error from day one. Knowing that it is likely possible to happen, but deifying logic of survival and health for the sake of profit and conformism is human stupidity.

Everything they've tried to achieve in Japan with NPP, all the profit and better life, will now be swept away by the costs of decontamination, sanation, medical expenses for those exposed to radiation, resettlement, refunds for destroyed property, etc.

Came from nothing, lasted few decades, caused enormous tragedy, polluted the planed for centuries if not millenniums, and than went to nothing.

That is not the source of energy we need.

[andrew]

I fully appreciate that and that is why I think a more suitable energy source should be considered in areas which are likely to suffer from natural disasters.

[autogyro]

I fully appreciate that and that is why I think a more suitable energy source should be considered in areas which are likely to suffer from natural disasters.

Nowhere on this planet can be considered as not subject to possible natural disaster.
It is simply a question of guess work and working out the odds.
I do not want greedy profiteers making profits by risking my life and the lives of my family.
I fully understand that we are stuck with nuclear power and that new nuclear power stations will be built. Non of them have my blessing and all of them should be decommisioned as soon as it is made possible to do so.

[andrew]

I think I am safe in saying that nuclear power is here to stay. Going into the ins and outs of why it is here to stay and who likes it and who doesn't is a whole other issue.

Looking to how the process can be improved, chiefly waste management and disposal, is probably the best way for this thread to go along with discussing the management of the Fukushima disaster.

[forty-two]

Without wishing to sound like a tree-hugger, I am with you entirely on that Autogyro. And actually I think that Andrew's point of view is a more measured and reasonable one than certain other members of this forum.

If I ruled the world (now there's a scary thought!) we'd be exploiting all the rich sources of energy which land on earth every day. In that I would include tidal, solar, wave, wind etc. And since neccesity is the mother of all invention, if we didn't have Nuclear power (actually all solar and wind energy are ultimately nuclear but let's not get into that right now!), governments would have no choice but to invest in green energy.... NOW otherwise the lights would all go out PDQ.

[forty-two]

I think I am safe in saying that nuclear power is here to stay. Going into the ins and outs of why it is here to stay and who likes it and who doesn't is a whole other issue.

Looking to how the process can be improved, chiefly waste management and disposal, is probably the best way for this thread to go along with discussing the management of the Fukushima disaster.

Hate to say so Andrew, but I fear that you will not be able, given 5 lifetimes to convince me that a solution COULD be found for what to do with the waste... ever. No more than you could convince me that Margaret Thatcher was good for the working man.

But I agree with you on moving this to a technical discussion, I regret that I have been a part of this thread's deviation in that regard and for that I am sorry to all of you. Finally, one last off topic remark. It's been years since Chernobyl, and more since TMI, so where are all the superheroes?

Back to Manchild's post of a few days back, I think that the only sound way of "securing" fukushima for the long term is a massive containment structure, containing many layers of protection, each of which designed to be able to both contain the mess inside whilst also being able to withstand a 1,000 year earthquake/tsunami.

[andrew]

If I ruled the world (now there's a scary thought!)

...Mackenzie Crook would be chancellor?

I think as far as the greener (nothing is truly green is it?) energy sources are concerned, offshore wind farms and wave power are the most feasible. These are both constants (nearly) out at sea/on the coast.

I'm not convinced on solar - seriously we can go days without the sun up here. A pint of milk is considered to have a healthy sun tan in these here parts.

I think to discuss sensibly without having to invoke Godwin's Law (I came close to suggesting it in a fit of rage this morning) both sides of the pro/against nuclear power have to admit to some truths that we would not willing agree with, and take a less extreme view and go for a more middle of the road approach.

[andrew]

Hate to say so Andrew, but I fear that you will not be able, given 5 lifetimes to convince me that a solution COULD be found for what to do with the waste... ever. No more than you could convince me that Margaret Thatcher was good for the working man.

But I agree with you on moving this to a technical discussion, I regret that I have been a part of this thread's deviation in that regard and for that I am sorry to all of you. Finally, one last off topic remark. It's been years since Chernobyl, and more since TMI, so where are all the superheroes?

Back to Manchild's post of a few days back, I think that the only sound way of "securing" fukushima for the long term is a massive containment structure, containing many layers of protection, each of which designed to be able to both contain the mess inside whilst also being able to withstand a 1,000 year earthquake/tsunami.

All threads eventually deviate, it's the nature of the beast.

I agree that a solution that satisfies everyone will not be found. It will be a case of a solution that is the lesser of the evils and I think that is the best we can ever hope for where nuclear is concerned. Remember that lyric, "Man kills everything"? Darn true. It is just a case of slowing the rate of "killing" as much as possible. Nice cheery thought for everyone at this late hour to go to bed one. (I make no apologies for being a dour git).

The only solution for Fukushima is some form of containment structure. The main problems as I see it are:

1. The design - considering the lifespan and size it will be a structure of an unprecedented nature.

2. Cooling - comes under design but other than the structural side it is one of the, if not the most important part of the design.

3. Cost - where does the money come form? It’s not a case of a mere few million.

4. Maintenance and monitoring - how do you do that safely?

As for Margaret Thatcher, most of that was before my time or when I were just a lad. From what I have seen though, we pretty much almost back to those days. A Government left with a mess from the previous lot and having to make a lot of unpopular and difficult choices. But I digress.

[Mr Alcatraz]

I find this quote of Edgar Allen Poe, taken from a letter to an associate in the year of our lord 1837 strangely poiniant:

I have no faith in human perfectability. I think that human exertion will have no appreciable effect upon humanity. Man is now only more active - not more happy - nor more wise, than he was 6000 years ago.

As some one that has been pro-nuclear since freshman physics, I find this ordeal very sobering, and sad.


And in departing...........

a little gallows humor?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3973tfsllqw[/youtube]

[Shrieker]

Instead of a huge and complex containment structure, can't they use robots (they are already using, but more for info gathering rather than sorting the mess out, no?) to move the dangerous stuff elsewhere ? If they need bigger/stronger robots, they can be designed and manufactured rather than waiting a whole year surely ? In the meantime use some sort of fabric (as a fellow poster pointed out) to cover the site to limit exposure ?

[WhiteBlue]

[Nothing to see here]

[WhiteBlue]

I think I am safe in saying that nuclear power is here to stay. Going into the ins and outs of why it is here to stay and who likes it and who doesn't is a whole other issue.

Looking to how the process can be improved, chiefly waste management and disposal, is probably the best way for this thread to go along with discussing the management of the Fukushima disaster.

[...] Nuclear power is simply not economic in highly developed and densely populated countries. The only way that utilities and plant manufacturers can make money with nukes is by avoiding the full liability and waste disposal costs. NPPs pay one or two percent of the actual insurance premiums that they need to pay to cover the full damage potential of their equipment. In some countries the tax payers simply are not willing to provide risk cover for nuclear power generation. In Japan the tax payers are going to pick up a tab of €500-1,000bn. With that kind of money you can easily replace all Japanese NPPs with renewable energy technology.