Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Massive quake hits Japan 9.0 Magnitude
- Thread starter Apple OC
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It won't be an issue. Please refer to my previous post in this thread.
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
I feel like the fear mongering done by the international media is just unreal-- is everyone that uneducated?
A before-and-after photo gallery on Australia's ABC News shows just how badly areas of the north-eastern coast were affected by the tsunami.
So we can't relieve pressure by making a Mothra joke or two because someone will be offended. And we can't be all panicky about the situation because we have calm people here to tell us that there's nothing to panic about. So, what can we do? All we have left is to type our little fingers away on our keyboards and post on the internet.
I too don't expect anything like Chernobyl. But, it doesn't help when a Government "Official" tells the media that there is nothing to worry about then another "Official" mentions that there could be a meltdown or something.
So we can't relieve pressure by making a Mothra joke or two because someone will be offended. And we can't be all panicky about the situation because we have calm people here to tell us that there's nothing to panic about. So, what can we do? All we have left is to type our little fingers away on our keyboards and post on the internet.
I too don't expect anything like Chernobyl. But, it doesn't help when a Government "Official" tells the media that there is nothing to worry about then another "Official" mentions that there could be a meltdown or something.
Last edited:
My condolence to japan people, and hope that the gov will and should take a substantial step to address the safety of mass majority when building any plant in future and restore safety guide for what was built to the highest level
I think people have to realize the reactors at Fukushima--while the fuel rods may have melted down--is NOT anywhere close to a major catastrophe like what happened at Chernobyl, where the overheated uranium fuel literally turned the graphite moderator blocks into an explosive bomb and there was no containment structure to hold back the massive release of the fallout from that explosion.
It's more like what happened at Three Mile Island, and the radioactive release from that accident wasn't that significant, thanks to the reactor vessel still in one piece to minimize radioactive release.
It's more like what happened at Three Mile Island, and the radioactive release from that accident wasn't that significant, thanks to the reactor vessel still in one piece to minimize radioactive release.
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
afterall they don't even know the situation inside because the temperature sensors aren't working anymore
also since that water can't be exchanged directly it means that they might have to cool the containment construction from the outside with additional water
obviously it won't be a disaster on the scale of chernobyl but it is already high up on the scale of disasters (6 reactors without cooling, 2 core meltdowns), it's pretty much confirmed that nuclear material has been spilled even if it was just hydrogen blowing up the external construction
it shouldn't be forgotten IMHO that a lot of radition will be spilled in the clean up progress (not only radiation: boric acid is actually quite toxic)
as a consequence the german government for example is already thinking about taking back their early decision to extend the use of their current nuclear plants
edit: according to some reports the evacuation zone was extended to 20 km
edit: don't forget that reducing the heat of a molten core might take quite some time so i wouldn't call the danger off as well: even when being cooled it still might have just enough remaining heat to melt through the bottom of the pressure chamber. i suspect we will know more in 24 hours
Last edited:
While the thread seems to be focused on the crisis at the nuclear power station, pictures are emerging showing the devastation left behind by the tsunami...
Government officials are government officials-- they will never outright tell you the truth, because 9 times out of 10 they're uninformed about it or were told to say something they may not necessarily believe. They usually try to cover their bases-- see this way the government is covered in case something does happen.
I'll definitely agree with you there; it's not ideal, but it will work. Remember that BWRs will continue to make heat post control rod insertion. Boric acid itself isn't that toxic... in fact it can be rather useful in many chemistry situations. Also, if we're talking blunt toxicity, remember you make boric acid through borax, something we use every day in detergents. The LD50 for Boric acid is actually higher than table salt, although there are some reproductive health concerns. I think the biggest problem we're seeing here was the lack of redundancy for external power supplies, and the potential lack of modern safety systems-- as per my previous post, there's supposed to be a wide range of safety measures to assure that this never happens, but due to it's age, who knows.[/quote]
This is what I dislike. Not to get all political here, but alternative energy, however nice, is nowhere even close to providing the power we need. Windmills cannot ever meet energy demand; we're talking about a 5% fill if we put them everywhere. They're also too costly at this point for their given power output. Solar energy, though promising, still has a piss poor efficiency, and thus isn't ready for prime usage for some time. There's really no other alternatives. Despite these few instances (usually caused by human error) nuclear power is actually quite safe... but most people aren't educated enough to know whats actually the deal, and instead listen to the likes of Greenpeace and so on, who coincidentally also have no idea what they're talking about. If Germany is that concerned, they should be upgrading their safety systems, not abandoning it.
That is far more destruction than the power station could bring.
Masashi Goto (former nuclear power plant designer)
"He also described the use of sea water to cool the cores of the reactors at Fukushima-Daiichi as highly unusual and dangerous."
It's from the BBC livepage.
Certainly reactors have multiple cooling connections and it obviously is possible to do this,it's the first time I've ever heard of it happening and as you say it's an absolute last resort.These reactors are buggered and will never go on line again,reactor 3 is plutonium/uranium fuelled.
I'm not against nuclear power but it is a bit more difficult to clear up after a bad nuclear leak and the risks to health from that leakage have the potential to be felt for a lot longer.
So, everyone should just move to Iceland??
How far down would you have to drill, to reach magma?
The largest geothermal country by output is the U.S. Twenty four countries use geothermal to some extent and five produce 10% or more of the countries needs.The problem with Nuclear is not just safety,toxic waste,decommissioning etc but that it locks us all into highly centralised societies which in my opinion is a bad thing.In spite of the nuke industries huge PR job it is not an acceptable alternative to fossils a much better solution is a whole range of alternative green sources with much more local control,micro hydro being just one example..Obviously the real problem is that especially the west uses huge amounts of energy unnecessarily and that needs to be stopped.
(this is not to say geothermal is without problems,it isn't)
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
oh the "thorium pebble bed is superiour" discussion ... i think over the years i had that one a dozen times(even on macrumors) ... a technology developed since the 60ties with spectacular failures regarding safe operation and economical total disasters for the german tax payers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_Reactor
the AVR test reactor alone: construction costs adjusted for inflation did it cost 180 million euro... deconstruction + decommisioning 1 billion euro over the last 22 years (and still not finished)
the highest contaminated facility regarding beta-radiation in the world
that said the german government was still set on that reactor type and built actually a full scale power station:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
-14 years to build, 3 years of operation
-had a release of nuclear material just days after Chernobyl
-bankrupted it's operational company, required a bail out
-in 1997 was put into 'safe enclosure' until decommision can start in 2027 (costing 6.5 million euro per year until they can even start)
thorium pebble bed reactors, the nuclear power plant for the future generations ... to clean up
I know thorium doesn't have an awesome past, especially in early development. That said, I think with more development it's liable to be a better alternative to uranium. What you said is all true, however you're citing an experimental reactor; things just aren't magically perfect, sadly.
To quote one of your articles:
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Ahem, the CANDU reactor design is the 'common rail diesel' of the nuclear World.
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil.
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe." Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote. Finally, Germany is concerend for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600°C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.