"Removal of nuclear fuel begins at Fukushima" and by 2053 all units decommissioned!!

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20131118_30.html

The start of the work is the first step in an unprecedented decommissioning process that is expected to take 40 years.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/nu/fukushima-np/handouts/2013/images/handouts_131118_03-e.pdf

http://www.flickr.com/photos/simplyinfo/sets/72157637484080604/

http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=11770

So, as long as there are no other accidents, earthquakes, aftershocks, tsunamis, typhoons, tornadoes, volcanoes, asteroids, gigantic solar flare EMPs that knock out the power globally or Godzilla, Japan might succeed even without the Power Rangers help.

godzilla_dees.jpg



dd395-Beach-site.jpg


dd395-Sheeple-17-site.jpg
 
Last edited:

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
http://enenews.com/theyre-rushing-s...l-type-seismic-event-wsj-top-official-concern

Tepco is speeding up the spent fuel pool removal process without public explanation. There are no operational nuclear power plants in Japan now. There were 50. This should tell us all something about the "safety" of nuclear power plants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

The government there must have looked again at all the earthquake, volcano, typhoon and tsunami risk assessments that they should have paid attention to when they built the things over known fault lines and in known typhoon and tsunami zones just to BOIL WATER to make a little power. Wouldn't it have been a lot smarter (and cheaper) just to harness the islands volcanism to boil water for a little cheap power?

Nuke power is certainly not "green" power when it will take many times more dirty power than the small amounts of "green" power ever generated by them just to clean up the radioactive mess these reactors leave behind even when "safely" decommissioned without the reactors exploding.

Meanwhile, all they are really doing so far is moving all these rod assemblies about 100 meters away into yet another storage pool nearby, until they can figure out what do with them all for the next million years or so.
 
Last edited:

SlickSnake

Diamond Member
May 29, 2007
5,235
2
0
This is an interesting read that I saw a couple of months ago and attempts to significantly downplay the entire accident. Since I'm no expert in this field, and only a very few well paid atomic scientists actually are, I can't help but wonder at the possible ulterior motives of nuclear scientists who depend on their livelihoods using university, corporate and government funding into researching and promoting atomic energy in spite of all the potential risks and accidents associated with it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...w_information_about_worst_case_scenarios.html
 
Last edited:

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
I came here to post serious things but after seeing all the radioactive green colored images, I no longer can. Godzilla-dolphin are coming to kill us!

Is this the same guy that has posted this crap for two years now under different names?
 

splat_ed

Member
Mar 12, 2010
189
0
0
Personally I think nuclear energy isn't bad per se. It needs to be heavily monitored and independently verified/checked. It also needs extremely stringent safety checks. But it does produce the most energy reliably...

Pity Japan has a culture of "don't whistleblow/criticise bosses". As a result, bosses will take shortcuts to maximise their value to the company. That's what really leads to these problems.

If they'd checked properly AND gone through the plans...

Seriously, let's build a nuke plant in an unstable zone. The west side of Japan is actually relatively stable. If they'd built it there, the chance of an earthquake is a lot less. They can't now as everyone's too scared.

PS: I had a choice of two jobs back in 2009 - one in Fukushima, other in Yamaguchi. Glad I took the latter...
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,936
5,560
136
It's like McOwned 2.0. This fellow needs tow posts after the original post to make his point. Dave is going to have to step up his game.
 

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
When properly regulated and monitored by outside agencies, nuclear power is very safe and efficient. Fukushima was the result of a freak act of nature combined with a lack of oversight. Rather than take it as a learning opportunity for the future, people freaked out.

A lot of the fear of nuclear energy comes from a gross public misunderstanding of it. I put a lot of the blame on movies like The China Syndrome for that. People tend to associate atomic energy with atomic weapons.

There's this idea that nuclear power plants spew radiation and are ticking time bombs waiting to go off. That's simply not true. The reason Chernobyl blew up was due to cutting corners and gross incompetence of staff, which typified Soviet practises of the era. Groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club continue to spread misinformation the the public to further their own agenda.

In Canada's 60 year history of using nuclear energy, for example, there has not been a single incident that posed risk to the public. When Fukushima happened, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission revisited their actions and the plan was praised by the IAEA for being prompt, robust and comprehensive. That's what happens when you have a well regulated industry.

There's a belief among environmentalists that we can replace all these reactors with renewables and conservation. If renewables were actually economically viable and better replacement, we wouldn't still be burning dinosaur goo. The problem with wind and solar is they're very inefficient. They cannot produce power on demand and require massive tracts of land to generate the same amount of electricity. The most powerful solar plant in the United States, located in Arizona, generates a peak of 250 megawatts of power on 2400 acres (3.75sq mi). A single CANDU reactor about the size of a large grain silo can produce a peak of 881 megawatts. All pollution free. Massive wind and solar farms I'd argue are more environmentally damaging due to the huge amounts of land and habitat they take up. Not all countries have big deserts to put them in.

The only real concern is what to do with the waste. Plans are to bury it in abandoned mines, in dense rock far below the water table. Which makes a lot of sense. Though environmental groups are once again limiting viable progress towards a fossil fuel free future. I can't wait to see how they react when fusion power becomes viable. They'll probably claim making mini suns will destroy us all, much like they claimed the Large Hadron was going to create a black hole.
 
Last edited:

PowerYoga

Diamond Member
Nov 6, 2001
4,603
0
0
the general public is ignorant and easily swayed by fear mongering, who would've thought. The salem witch trials never ended, it's just expanding from people to ideas and technology.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Now the idiots are having energy shortages, about as sad as the OP.
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
I haven't really kept up to date on the developments and I don't know a ton about nuclear fuel rods, but I had heard that the cleanup of the rods could be pretty dangerous. If they were to drop some rods and have them come into contact with other rods, it could start an uncontrolled fission reaction that would be pretty massive. Is that true?
 

Evadman

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Feb 18, 2001
30,990
5
81
I came here to post serious things but after seeing all the radioactive green colored images, I no longer can. Godzilla-dolphin are coming to kill us!

Very much this. :/
 

Eureka

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
3,822
1
81
When properly regulated and monitored by outside agencies, nuclear power is very safe and efficient. Fukushima was the result of a freak act of nature combined with a lack of oversight. Rather than take it as a learning opportunity for the future, people freaked out.

A lot of the fear of nuclear energy comes from a gross public misunderstanding of it. I put a lot of the blame on movies like The China Syndrome for that. People tend to associate atomic energy with atomic weapons.

There's this idea that nuclear power plants spew radiation and are ticking time bombs waiting to go off. That's simply not true. The reason Chernobyl blew up was due to cutting corners and gross incompetence of staff, which typified Soviet practises of the era. Groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club continue to spread misinformation the the public to further their own agenda.

In Canada's 60 year history of using nuclear energy, for example, there has not been a single incident that posed risk to the public. When Fukushima happened, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission revisited their actions and the plan was praised by the IAEA for being prompt, robust and comprehensive. That's what happens when you have a well regulated industry.

There's a belief among environmentalists that we can replace all these reactors with renewables and conservation. If renewables were actually economically viable and better replacement, we wouldn't still be burning dinosaur goo. The problem with wind and solar is they're very inefficient. They cannot produce power on demand and require massive tracts of land to generate the same amount of electricity. The most powerful solar plant in the United States, located in Arizona, generates a peak of 250 megawatts of power on 2400 acres (3.75sq mi). A single CANDU reactor about the size of a large grain silo can produce a peak of 881 megawatts. All pollution free. Massive wind and solar farms I'd argue are more environmentally damaging due to the huge amounts of land and habitat they take up. Not all countries have big deserts to put them in.

The only real concern is what to do with the waste. Plans are to bury it in abandoned mines, in dense rock far below the water table. Which makes a lot of sense. Though environmental groups are once again limiting viable progress towards a fossil fuel free future. I can't wait to see how they react when fusion power becomes viable. They'll probably claim making mini suns will destroy us all, much like they claimed the Large Hadron was going to create a black hole.

Get your logic out of here. Don't you see the dangers of green goo and dolphin-Godzilla?

Also I thought the only reason why current generation (read. 1970s) reactors produce so much waste (relatively) is because they are designed to produce weapon-grade plutonium in case of a Cold War heatup.
 

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,408
10
0
When properly regulated and monitored by outside agencies, nuclear power is very safe and efficient. Fukushima was the result of a freak act of nature combined with a lack of oversight. Rather than take it as a learning opportunity for the future, people freaked out.

A lot of the fear of nuclear energy comes from a gross public misunderstanding of it. I put a lot of the blame on movies like The China Syndrome for that. People tend to associate atomic energy with atomic weapons.

There's this idea that nuclear power plants spew radiation and are ticking time bombs waiting to go off. That's simply not true. The reason Chernobyl blew up was due to cutting corners and gross incompetence of staff, which typified Soviet practises of the era. Groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club continue to spread misinformation the the public to further their own agenda.

In Canada's 60 year history of using nuclear energy, for example, there has not been a single incident that posed risk to the public. When Fukushima happened, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission revisited their actions and the plan was praised by the IAEA for being prompt, robust and comprehensive. That's what happens when you have a well regulated industry.

There's a belief among environmentalists that we can replace all these reactors with renewables and conservation. If renewables were actually economically viable and better replacement, we wouldn't still be burning dinosaur goo. The problem with wind and solar is they're very inefficient. They cannot produce power on demand and require massive tracts of land to generate the same amount of electricity. The most powerful solar plant in the United States, located in Arizona, generates a peak of 250 megawatts of power on 2400 acres (3.75sq mi). A single CANDU reactor about the size of a large grain silo can produce a peak of 881 megawatts. All pollution free. Massive wind and solar farms I'd argue are more environmentally damaging due to the huge amounts of land and habitat they take up. Not all countries have big deserts to put them in.

The only real concern is what to do with the waste. Plans are to bury it in abandoned mines, in dense rock far below the water table. Which makes a lot of sense. Though environmental groups are once again limiting viable progress towards a fossil fuel free future. I can't wait to see how they react when fusion power becomes viable. They'll probably claim making mini suns will destroy us all, much like they claimed the Large Hadron was going to create a black hole.

IT doesn't matter what the reason is, fact is, it happened and it ALMOST took out HALF the Europe with it (people often forget this fact).

Look, natural disasters happen, and when they do there is VERY little we can do to stop them from effecting these plants that are ALWAYS build by water.

This is not the first or last time it happens. Is it worth the risk of a major disaster?

I don't think so.

Keep in mind that if Charnobyl did explode and took out 1/2 the Europe. Rivers/Land and everything around it would've been off limits for MILLIONS of years.

Not worth the risk IMO.

And we still don't have a clue the true extent of Fukushima......it takes years to really find out the truth.
 
Last edited:

Eureka

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
3,822
1
81
IT doesn't matter what the reason is, fact is, it happened and it ALMOST took out HALF the Europe with it (people often forget this fact).

Look, natural disasters happen, and when they do there is VERY little we can do to stop them from effecting these plants that are ALWAYS build by water.

This is not the first or last time it happens. Is it worth the risk of a major disaster?

I don't think so.

Keep in mind that if Charnobyl did explode and took out 1/2 the Europe. Rivers/Land and everything around it would've been off limits for MILLIONS of years.

Not worth the risk IMO.

And we still don't have a clue the true extent of Fukushima......it takes years to really find out the truth.

Nuclear reactors don't explode. They don't have enough mass to reach explosive criticality.
 

_Rick_

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2012
3,941
69
91
Keep in mind that if Charnobyl did explode and took out 1/2 the Europe that area/rivers and everything around it would've been off limits for MILLIONS of years.

A burning graphite core is probably worse than an explosion, because it gets a lot of core material to a high temperature and disperses it quite densely with the win. An explosion of the core would have been worse for the immediate proximity, but overall I don't think the damage would have been much worse, as dispersion would have been more localized.

Most of the stuff that is really nasty for long time is also really heavy, and will fall out pretty quickly. There is some medium term issue with drinking water pollution in the areas of heaviest fall-out, and some crops may be lost, as was the case in Fukushima, but usually, even after a decade, there are only very few contaminants left, anywhere but closest to the original site of the accident.

But yeah, I live downstream from a few decent sized dams, and I'm more worried about a dam failure, than once of France's many, many nuclear plants having an accident. Even though there recently was a nuclear incident a kilometer or two from here, when they were dismantling old research reactors, which were located basically down town, and a worker got irradiated. But then, a whole school class was drowned by the operator of a hydro plant, a few years back. So there's really not much in it.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
IT doesn't matter what the reason is, fact is, it happened and it ALMOST took out HALF the Europe with it (people often forget this fact).

Look, natural disasters happen, and when they do there is VERY little we can do to stop them from effecting these plants that are ALWAYS build by water.

This is not the first or last time it happens. Is it worth the risk of a major disaster?

I don't think so.

Keep in mind that if Charnobyl did explode and took out 1/2 the Europe. Rivers/Land and everything around it would've been off limits for MILLIONS of years.

Not worth the risk IMO.

And we still don't have a clue the true extent of Fukushima......it takes years to really find out the truth.

So you're OK with pumping radiation into the atmosphere on a steady basis via coal, but not the occasional outlying incident?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Maybe if the media started running headlines every day like "Deadly radiation is pouring out the local coal power plant, more at 10!"

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,440
5,429
136
So much bad science in this thread.

It is still possible to build safe nuclear reactors TODAY. Ones which are not vulnerable to the faults of Chernobyl (dumb humans), Three Mile Island (more dumb humans), and Fukushima (old design, bad location, i.e. dumb humans).