Edit:22 Update 2: Experts warned Fukushima of tsunami threat 2 years ago.

[the DRIZZLE]

I think this proves just the opposite. These plants basically underwent a worst-case scenario, and came out without a major disaster. Sure there was some damage as you might expect, but everything considered, I think this should be a victory for nuclear power.

I'm pro nuclear but I'm in the camp that views this as a failure for the nuclear industry. My reasoning is that as far as we know the earthquake and tsunami only caused two failures at the plant, loss of grid power and loss of the backup generators. All the other damage occurred as a result of losing control of the plant after they lost power.

To me, this is not an acceptable result of those two failures. It doesn't take that much imagination to come up with scenarios where you would lose the grid and your backup generators. A much lesser disaster could cause cause you to lose the grid and your backup generators.

 

[Number1]

So how does one build a plant that can protect it from a one in a million meteor strike from space that hits the reactor directly? That's also a natural disaster.

Nonsense, there is no way to build against meteors. However, had the back up generator been located above ground level they could have survived the tsunami and we would not be where we are right now. I am pro nuclear energy, we can build safe nuclear power plants.

 

[brainhulk]

i say just switch to thorium reactors instead of uranium

 

[CZroe]

WTF? No one is trying to make the nuclear power industry pay for government nuclear waste disposal.

The real cost of long term nuclear storage will be far above what the nuclear power plants will pay the government. Its a subsidy.

The MAJORITY of that cost is the US government's and not the private companies. To consider it a subsidy because of the long-term costs is laughable. Do you really think it's cheaper for the government to guard against terrorism at a tens or hundreds of sites where the private waste is stored? It's MUCH cheaper, easier, and more secure to have one, huge, dedicated place for it. Because they are the primary user, they will have to pay for most themselves.

 

[sao123]

They built the plant in Fukushima to survive any expected natural disaster.
Just like US nuclear plants are supposed to survice any expected natural disaster.

What Fukushima PROVED is that the plants are not built well enough. Unexpected natural disaster DO occur.

American nuclear plants are built to a much lower standard since such large earthquakes are not expected here. So American plants have the same amount of headroom as Fukushima.

But, what happens if we have a larger than expected earthquake?
That's right. Disaster.

Fukushima PROVES that nuclear plants are not being built to a high enough standard.

Crap, it only takes one nuclear meltdown to kill millions. If Indian Point in New York suffered a once in hundred, or even once in a thousand year earthquake millions would die and New York City would have to be abandoned.

Do you understand this graph?

It shows that for minimal safety increases, cost goes up exponentially...


So... our plants now can withstand a magnituded 8 quake, at a cost of X hundred million. So to withstand a magnitude 9, they might cost a billion.
Then we do that, and have a magnitude 10 quake. Do we then spend a trillion dolalrs on each plant?

Risk decisions have to be made at a point, to make them economically viable.

Time to stop trying to make the real world into this:

Time to understand the most important truth: Life is fatal.

 

[sdifox]

Do you understand this graph?

It shows that for minimal safety increases, cost goes up exponentially...


So... our plants now can withstand a magnituded 8 quake, at a cost of X hundred million. So to withstand a magnitude 9, they might cost a billion.
Then we do that, and have a magnitude 10 quake. Do we then spend a trillion dolalrs on each plant?

Risk decisions have to be made at a point, to make them economically viable.

Time to stop trying to make the real world into this:

Time to understand the most important truth: Life is fatal.

what's the story behind that picture. Art project?

 

[CZroe]

it is terribly improbable that anything of the sort will happen.

Yes, even for the western coast of the US. I'm just saying that distance-wise it isn't that different. Of course, the wind patterns still mean that it poses a greater threat to the west coast than Canada and New England

 

[sdifox]

Yes, even for the western coast of the US. I'm just saying that distance-wise it isn't that different. Of course, the wind patterns still mean that it poses a greater threat to the west coast than Canada and New England

Canada has a west coast too :sneaky:

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Yes, even for the western coast of the US. I'm just saying that distance-wise it isn't that different. Of course, the wind patterns still mean that it poses a greater threat to the west coast than Canada and New England

I'm pretty sure wind patterns mean a great deal more than distance does.

 

[sao123]

what's the story behind that picture. Art project?

snapple commercial.

 

[techs]

The MAJORITY of that cost is the US government's and not the private companies. To consider it a subsidy because of the long-term costs is laughable. Do you really think it's cheaper for the government to guard against terrorism at a tens or hundreds of sites where the private waste is stored? It's MUCH cheaper, easier, and more secure to have one, huge, dedicated place for it. Because they are the primary user, they will have to pay for most themselves.

The US government is NOT the "primary" user of long term nuclear storage.
One or two nuclear power plant puts out as much energy as every naval reactor at sea. There are like 100 reactors in the US.

And, why is it the governments job to pay for the prevention of terrorism at nuclear waste sites that contain privately produced nuclear waste? Coal and gas plants don't need long term storage. So, if it is really the governments responsibility, which it is not, why isn't this cost to the taxpayers figured into the actual cost of nuclear power?

 

[frostedflakes]

The US government is NOT the "primary" user of long term nuclear storage.
One or two nuclear power plant puts out as much energy as every naval reactor at sea. There are like 100 reactors in the US.

And, why is it the governments job to pay for the prevention of terrorism at nuclear waste sites that contain privately produced nuclear waste? Coal and gas plants don't need long term storage. So, if it is really the governments responsibility, which it is not, why isn't this cost to the taxpayers figured into the actual cost of nuclear power?

Actually toxic fly ash does require long-term storage. 🙂

And it's the government's job because most people (yourself included, no doubt) wouldn't trust the private sector to handle long-term storage of nuclear waste.

 

[techs]

They built the plant in Fukushima to survive any expected natural disaster.
Just like US nuclear plants are supposed to survice any expected natural disaster.

What Fukushima PROVED is that the plants are not built well enough. Unexpected natural disaster DO occur.

American nuclear plants are built to a much lower standard since such large earthquakes are not expected here. So American plants have the same amount of headroom as Fukushima.

But, what happens if we have a larger than expected earthquake?
That's right. Disaster.

Fukushima PROVES that nuclear plants are not being built to a high enough standard.

Crap, it only takes one nuclear meltdown to kill millions. If Indian Point in New York suffered a once in hundred, or even once in a thousand year earthquake millions would die and New York City would have to be abandoned.

Do you understand this graph?

It shows that for minimal safety increases, cost goes up exponentially...


So... our plants now can withstand a magnituded 8 quake, at a cost of X hundred million. So to withstand a magnitude 9, they might cost a billion.
Then we do that, and have a magnitude 10 quake. Do we then spend a trillion dolalrs on each plant?

Risk decisions have to be made at a point, to make them economically viable.

[/IMG]


Time to understand the most important truth: Life is fatal.

My point is that along that curve they obviously did not go far enough into the safety zone, because the expense would be too high.
So, you have proven my point. Economic forces determine the safety of nuclear power plants, not the actual danger.

And as I have shown, if they could reach the brink in Japan within only 50 years of nuclear power plants up and running, the odds of a total failure is far, far, far, far, greater than anyone ever imagined or planned for.

And my point stands. They will build as little safety into plants as they possibly can. And the longer there isn't an accident, they will use that as justification to build even less safety in.

It's the Challenger reasoning. Yes, its colder than ever at a launch, but we have launched 50 times and never had an accident. Lets go. Eventually you will have an accident, under this reasoning.

Lastly, you're blithely talking about what in effect might be a nuclear holocaust. If they had a larger than expected earthquake at, say, Indian Point nuclear plant, you might have millions dead since you can't evacuate NY City. Plus you would not be able to use the city for many years. It might actually be the economic end of the US as the largest economy and disastrously reduce everyones standard of living.

All because nuclear power MAY be a little cheaper than coal or gas power.

Stupidity, just plain stupidity. And greed.

 

[rcpratt]

Update.

UPDATE AS OF 10:00 A.M. EDT, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16:

News reports that high radiation levels led to the evacuation of all workers from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station are not accurate. Workers were evacuated for about an hour but returned to the site to continue efforts to restore safe conditions at the plant.

Restoration of electrical power to the site was under way at the Daiichi plant as of 6:00 a.m. EDT Wednesday. A temporary cable was being connected between an off-site power line and Daiichi reactor 3. Off-site power has not been available at the site since the earthquake on March 11.

Reactors 1, 2 and 3 at the plant are being cooled with seawater. There is some level of uranium fuel damage at all three units, and containment structure damage is suspected at units 2 and 3, NucNet reported.

Before the earthquake, reactor 4 had been in refueling and was completely defueled. Attempts to provide cooling water to the used fuel pool at reactor 4 by helicopter were not successful. Preparations are being made to inject water into the fuel storage pool using a high-capacity spray pump. There have been two fires inside the reactor containment building at reactor 4, but they have been extinguished. Although the reactor containment building at Unit 4 was damaged, the primary containment vessel remains intact.

At the Fukushima Daini site, all four reactors are safely shut down and cooling functions are being maintained.

 

[techs]

Actually toxic fly ash does require long-term storage. 🙂

And it's the government's job because most people (yourself included, no doubt) wouldn't trust the private sector to handle long-term storage of nuclear waste.

Yet "toxic fly ash" does not require protection from terrorists, nor is it very hard to store. Plus gas plants don't produce it.
And would YOU trust the private sector to provide long term storage of nuclear waste? And why should the US government pay for it?
My point is that nuclear power costs are hidden due to government subsidies. There would NEVER be a nuclear plant built without these subsidies.

 

[actuarial]

And as I have shown, if they could reach the brink in Japan within only 50 years of nuclear power plants up and running, the odds of a total failure is far, far, far, far, greater than anyone ever imagined or planned for.

Have you shown this? What are the odds of a total failure now? What did people plan for in terms of odds?

They just had one of the worst natural disasters in recorded human history, and we don't even know yet whether or not anyone even got hurt because of nuclear power at a plant with old tech. But now nuclear power everywhere is dangerous?

Should we also not build any cities on the coast because of hurricane Katrina?

All because nuclear power MAY be a little cheaper than coal or gas power.

Stupidity, just plain stupidity. And greed.

And if you keep using coal or gas, you MIGHT heat up the earth to the point that crops can no longer grow (or flood the earth), and you make the entire human race extinct.

 

[techs]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...oversight-greed-preceded-Japan-nuclear-crisis

Reports: Lax oversight, 'greed' preceded Japan nuclear crisis

TEPCO has come under fire in the past for falsifying safety records at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. In 2002, according to The Wall Street Journal, TEPCO admitted to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency that it had falsified the results of safety tests on the No. 1 reactor.

And less than a year ago, on June 17, a reactor at Fukushima I lost electricity and saw a dangerous drop in cooling water, Bloomberg reported. TEPCO's president failed to adequately investigate to prevent the current crisis, said Iwaki City council member Kazuyoshi Sato.

(much more at link, with links to other sources)

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

My point is that along that curve they obviously did not go far enough into the safety zone, because the expense would be too high.
So, you have proven my point. Economic forces determine the safety of nuclear power plants, not the actual danger.

And as I have shown, if they could reach the brink in Japan within only 50 years of nuclear power plants up and running, the odds of a total failure is far, far, far, far, greater than anyone ever imagined or planned for.

And my point stands. They will build as little safety into plants as they possibly can. And the longer there isn't an accident, they will use that as justification to build even less safety in.

It's the Challenger reasoning. Yes, its colder than ever at a launch, but we have launched 50 times and never had an accident. Lets go. Eventually you will have an accident, under this reasoning.

Lastly, you're blithely talking about what in effect might be a nuclear holocaust. If they had a larger than expected earthquake at, say, Indian Point nuclear plant, you might have millions dead since you can't evacuate NY City. Plus you would not be able to use the city for many years. It might actually be the economic end of the US as the largest economy and disastrously reduce everyones standard of living.

All because nuclear power MAY be a little cheaper than coal or gas power.

Stupidity, just plain stupidity. And greed.

So, because Yellowstone caldera *could* erupt in the next million years we should just shut down all nuclear power.

Got it.

 

[zinfamous]

It doesn't look terribly imposible when you look at it that way.

who put you up to this devilry? that is no earth-world that I know of!

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia...oversight-greed-preceded-Japan-nuclear-crisis

Reports: Lax oversight, 'greed' preceded Japan nuclear crisis

TEPCO has come under fire in the past for falsifying safety records at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. In 2002, according to The Wall Street Journal, TEPCO admitted to the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency that it had falsified the results of safety tests on the No. 1 reactor.

And less than a year ago, on June 17, a reactor at Fukushima I lost electricity and saw a dangerous drop in cooling water, Bloomberg reported. TEPCO's president failed to adequately investigate to prevent the current crisis, said Iwaki City council member Kazuyoshi Sato.

(much more at link, with links to other sources)

So, because levees failed from Katrina we just should never build another levee?

You're an idiot on this subject, and need to get outside of your secure little bubble where multiple catastrophic events don't happen.

 

[sao123]

My point is that along that curve they obviously did not go far enough into the safety zone, because the expense would be too high.
So, you have proven my point. Economic forces determine the safety of nuclear power plants, not the actual danger.

And as I have shown, if they could reach the brink in Japan within only 50 years of nuclear power plants up and running, the odds of a total failure is far, far, far, far, greater than anyone ever imagined or planned for.

And my point stands. They will build as little safety into plants as they possibly can. And the longer there isn't an accident, they will use that as justification to build even less safety in.

It's the Challenger reasoning. Yes, its colder than ever at a launch, but we have launched 50 times and never had an accident. Lets go. Eventually you will have an accident, under this reasoning.

Lastly, you're blithely talking about what in effect might be a nuclear holocaust. If they had a larger than expected earthquake at, say, Indian Point nuclear plant, you might have millions dead since you can't evacuate NY City. Plus you would not be able to use the city for many years. It might actually be the economic end of the US as the largest economy and disastrously reduce everyones standard of living.

All because nuclear power MAY be a little cheaper than coal or gas power.

Stupidity, just plain stupidity. And greed.

your logic fails. They dont build as little safety into the plants as possible, they build as much safety into the plant as it makes sense to do.

Yes, they do make risk assessments, they have to. but even so, it is impossible to forsee every possible disaster, nor does it make sense to.

By your logic... every building in chicago should be able to withstand
*San Fransisco level earthquakes
*Florida Hurricane force winds and surgewater
*Polar ice storms
*Arizona dust storms
*Death valley temperature ranges
*Africanized bees and ant attacks

So then the sears tower would have cost $1 billion, instead of $160 million.


Lets look at the facts...

FACT: Moderate earthquakes happen in the region frequently.
FACT: They had an earthquake response plan in place.
FACT: They have engineering designs in place to withstand tsunami's of up to 7M
FACT: They followed everything. it would have worked...
IF NOT FOR: the TSUNAMI size being larger than planned for... Over 12M.


They study this stuff...
Probability of having a tsunami of 5-6M is < 41&#37; in a given 10 year period... they were prepared for that above and beyond.


You cant say...well we just had the strongest earthquake ever recorded, and the largest tsunami ever recorded and say... well why werent you prepared for that??

It doesnt make financial sense to prepare for "once in a millenium" size events...




http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...lan-foresaw-quake-didnt-see-tsunami.html?pg=2
Japan nuclear safety plan foresaw quake, didn't forsee tsunami

http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/1268
Tsunami hazard probability in Japan




Edit:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0316/Reports-Lax-oversight-greed-preceded-Japan-nuclear-crisis

Reports: Lax oversight, 'greed' preceded Japan nuclear crisis

Christian Science Monitor... real credible journalism there.

 

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110316/ts_nm/us_japan_quake

In a sign of desperation, police will try to cool spent nuclear fuel at one of the facility's reactors with water cannon, normally used to quell riots.

 

[rcpratt]

Water cannons are no more a move of desperation than the helicopters were yesterday.

That article also seems to imply that the helicopters were for dumping water on the reactors themselves, which is simply not the case.

 

[techs]

your logic fails. They dont build as little safety into the plants as possible, they build as much safety into the plant as it makes sense to do.

Yes, they do make risk assessments, they have to. but even so, it is impossible to forsee every possible disaster, nor does it make sense to.

By your logic... every building in chicago should be able to withstand
*San Fransisco level earthquakes
*Florida Hurricane force winds and surgewater
*Polar ice storms
*Arizona dust storms
*Death valley temperature ranges
*Africanized bees and ant attacks

So then the sears tower would have cost $1 billion, instead of $160 million.


Lets look at the facts...

FACT: Moderate earthquakes happen in the region frequently.
FACT: They had an earthquake response plan in place.
FACT: They have engineering designs in place to withstand tsunami's of up to 7M
FACT: They followed everything. it would have worked...
IF NOT FOR: the TSUNAMI size being larger than planned for... Over 12M.


They study this stuff...
Probability of having a tsunami of 5-6M is < 41% in a given 10 year period... they were prepared for that above and beyond.


You cant say...well we just had the strongest earthquake ever recorded, and the largest tsunami ever recorded and say... well why werent you prepared for that??

It doesnt make financial sense to prepare for "once in a millenium" size events...




http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...lan-foresaw-quake-didnt-see-tsunami.html?pg=2
Japan nuclear safety plan foresaw quake, didn't forsee tsunami

http://bssa.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/78/3/1268
Tsunami hazard probability in Japan




Edit:


Christian Science Monitor... real credible journalism there.

First off, the Christian Science Monitor is one of the most respected newspapers in the world.
Apparently all know about it is that it appears to be some religious based newspaper. They have one article a day on religion. Otherwise it has won more awards than virtually any other newspaper in the world.

Secondly, you really don't have a clue. You take the fact that nuclear plants are not built safe enough and immediately try and prove you can't build them safer by saying you must build them to a million year incident standard.

The truth is, the statistics at this point, are terrible. Leaving out Chernobyl, and only using Western built plants, the serious accident rate is already 10 thousand times greater than what the engineers predicted.
Even one serious accident consisting of a breach of the core, (which by the way has already happened at Fukushima) should not happen, say once in 10,000 years. Because if you have 100 reactors that's once every thousand years, and if you have 1,000 that's one every hundred years.
One core meltdown can effectively destroy our countries economy for 10 years if it happens in the wrong place.

You don't build a nuke plant for power that may or may not cost a little less than a conventional power plant if you have those odds.
In fact, no nuke plant could get insurance at those odds. Which means nuclear plants are economically unfeasible without government subsidies.

 

[skyking]

Water cannons are no more a move of desperation than the helicopters were yesterday.

That article also seems to imply that the helicopters were for dumping water on the reactors themselves, which is simply not the case.

The media characterization annoys the crap out of me. All through the article is "sign of desperation" and "overwhelmed".
The water cannon is just a great idea. nobody has to go in harm's way in a damaged building.