# Fukushima still melting down, still a nuclear disaster **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 3, 2013, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282 "2013-10-03T17:48:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/141 "2013-10-08T21:52:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > QFT, and I see that FX just wants to deny that in the context it is clear that the sea wall was made to deal with tsunamis. And then his more recent cite also has no trouble calling it a tsunami wall. When one remembers that FX claimed that there was none this once again shows that he is still willing to toss supporters under the bus. It’s a tsunami barrier now. See, he was right all along. They didn’t have a tsunami barrier, they had a sea wall/tsunami wall. Clearly, we just don’t understand where FX is coming from. [QUOTE=FXMastermind] Nope. As your source says, there was a “sea wall”, which I have demonstrated only protects a small area from regular wave action. [/QUOTE] In your own mind I’m sure you’ve fully demonstrated this. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/142 "2013-10-08T23:39:11Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Why? Because the reactor was shut down at the time, the crisis there was the spent fuel, not the reactor. If we didn’t have so many NIMBY’s such as yourself we’d have an actual safe storage place for spent fuel instead of pools next to reactors. A place like Yucca Mountain, for example. > [@](#): > > Like the people who actually think the Fukushima plant had tsunami wall. (it didn’t, it still doesn’t) Your denial of reality does not negate facts. The power plant was sited 25 meters above sea level, and in did have a seawall (which is what you call a “tsunami wall” in addition to that elevation. The fact that the tsunami which actually happened was greater than anticipated and higher than that seawall does not mean the seawall did not exist. Many other costal locations also had tsunami protection including walls but, again, the water overtopped it. The entire coastline in that region dropping a meter in elevation probably didn’t help, either. > [@](#): > > They actually can’t grasp reality, because it would mean they might have to change their mind about something they believe in. Pot -\> kettle. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/143 "2013-10-08T23:52:34Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The plant was not built to withstand thhe flood level it experienced. Right… and the dinosaurs were utter failures because they never evolved to withstand the Chicxulub meteor :rolleyes: The disasters you mention _exceeded anticipated limits_. You are upset because human beings can’t see the future clearly. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/144 "2013-10-09T00:11:07Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Right… and the dinosaurs were utter failures because they never evolved to withstand the Chicxulub meteor :rolleyes: > > The disasters you mention _exceeded anticipated limits_. You are upset because human beings can’t see the future clearly. I think it’s more accurate to say it exceeded the minimum height required for a sea wall by nuclear industry negotiated regulations, which is not the same thing. It has become clear by TEPCO officials themselves that the danger was known, but they lied for fear the public would be upset. They got that part right. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/145 "2013-10-09T03:47:45Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > The power plant was sited 25 meters above sea level, and in did have a seawall (which is what you call a “tsunami wall” in addition to that elevation. No, once again you are just making things up. Fukushima I is 10 meters above sea level. > **[110409e9.pdf](https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110409e9.pdf)** > > 386.08 KB Fukushima II is 12 meters above sea level. > **[110409e10.pdf](https://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/images/110409e10.pdf)** > > 459.79 KB Both plants have/had a sea wall to protect the intake/dock areas, but neither had a tsunami protection wall, which is exceedingly obvious, it’s even in the Tepco documents. And the images of the site. I’ve linked to both already. That the nuclear lovers keep repeating the lie, it’s priceless. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/146 "2013-10-09T04:11:22Z")
> [@XT](#): > > :rolleyes: Dude, seriously…people can go back and look at what I’ve written in your other ridiculous threads on this subject, you stupid little butt muncher. I’ve never understood folks like you that don’t seem to get this or understand the concept. > > Oh, and you are an idiot. > > I’d go with ‘ignorance’ and ‘fear’ as the main reasons, with a side of ‘drank the propaganda kool-aid’ and ‘just plain fucking stupid’…the latter is especially the case with you. > > Anyone who doesn’t realize that there is a huge anti-nuclear movement (really, several of them) out there who has basically prevented, delayed, increased the cost of and generally gotten in the way of expanding the nuclear industry is simply a clueless fuck monkey who doesn’t know what they are talking about and who’s opinion on this stuff is basically worth less than nothing. Which, interestingly enough, fits you to a T. > > And you are an ignorant little piss ant who attempts to ‘win’ discussion through sheer stupidity, ignorance and the willingness to continue to spew ignorance and foam longer than anyone else is interested in continuing to beat their head against your stupidity. Not content to leave it at the 20+ page thread train wrecks that you started (and ended up spewing post after post to yourself, as the fucking troll you are) you post on this subject mainly in the Pit because you are too much of a fuck monkey to post a reasonable debate in GD on the subject, having had your ass kicked up around your ears whenever you try to have a discussion that isn’t about ignorance and fear but actually discusses the real issues. Mother Nature is at the head of the anti-nuclear movement, and she is a lot more effective than those dern hippies. She has destroyed the nuclear industry with on damaging earthquake and a large tsunami. Unlike the hippies, Mother Nature doesn’t lie or engage in politics. She just kicks ass. No amount of nuclear lying is going to bring back respectability to nuclear power. And by the way, there are nuclear power plants in the US that are directly downstream from damns that can fail. [Coverup: Risk of Nuclear Melt-Down in U.S. Higher than it was at Fukushima - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization](http://globalresearch.ca/coverup-risk-of-nuclear-melt-down-in-u-s-higher-than-it-was-at-fukushima/5309002) ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/147 "2013-10-09T04:24:44Z")
As much as I hate it, it is true that the US has numerous reactors at risk from dam failures. > [@](#): > > An engineer with the NRC says that a reactor meltdown is an “absolute certainty” if a dam upstream of a nuclear plant fails … and that such a scenario is hundreds of times more likely than the tsunami that hit Fukushima : > > An engineer with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) … Richard Perkins, an NRC reliability and risk engineer, was the lead author on a July 2011 NRC report detailing flood preparedness. He said the NRC blocked information from the public regarding the potential for upstream dam failures to damage nuclear sites. - See more at: [Coverup: Risk of Nuclear Melt-Down in U.S. Higher than it was at Fukushima - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization](http://globalresearch.ca/coverup-risk-of-nuclear-melt-down-in-u-s-higher-than-it-was-at-fukushima/5309002#sthash.h9W6E3LY.dpuf) It’s an actual problem. It’s also really fucked up, because even if there is advance warning of a dam going, even if we know it will happen, there is no way to move fresh spent fuel rods, much less a reactor core. It’s why they haven’t moved any out the damaged building four at Fukushima yet. You can’t just lift them up and move them. They are too dangerous to remove the from the cooling pond. It’s a truly fucked up thing. And there are so many of them, worldwide. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/148 "2013-10-09T05:16:56Z")
> [@XT](#): > > It’s a test bed, not a full program. We can come back and address this after 2017 when the first stage of testing is done and we see the price of actually putting this into production. I’m massively skeptical that this is going to be a viable solution coupled with wind and solar, but I can pretty much guarantee you that coupling those together is going to drive the price of energy for such a system through the roof. I think you are correct to worry over the price; however, I don’t think the viability is in question. > [@](#): > > Which is enough battery power for around 750k homes for a day…maybe a million homes in California. It will rarely, if ever, be put in a position of being the sole power provider for such a population. Such a large storage system (say, in California) would have multiple wind and solar inputs such that a positive electrical generation would be all but constant. And I’d not drop a monocle if I learned that was backed up with natural gas generators. Yah, you see clouds and so on, but these power sources provide reliable quantities of energy over a given mid-term time frame. > [@](#): > > And this is a RFP for proposals to vendors to attempt to come up with a solution by 2020, not a system that’s currently being put into place. I’m not sure if you are trying to play fast and loose with your cite here or you really are not seeing where things stand on this today. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say you are massively misreading where we are at with energy storage as a viable PRODUCTION solution today. And I seriously have doubts we could ever scale this up to the levels we are talking about to make it viable to more than a few niche markets. I would not doubt that current production capacity is limited today. Nonetheless, these types of batteries have seen sufficient proof-of-concept to be accepted as viable. Using a liquid electrolyte, they have virtually no theoretical capacity limit (not to mention an incredible cycle-life), and so are up to the task of grid-scale application. You ought to look more deeply into the details of the technology. > [@](#): > > I could be wrong (not only am I not an expert on this but I don’t play one on the SDMB…nor have I slept in a Holiday Inn Express lately), and there could be major breakthroughs in energy storage technology just around the corner. Heh- I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express lately, but I don’t get the joke. Anyway, we have the technology now for grid-scale power storage applications, even though still better solutions/chemistries may be forthcoming. Point being, we don’t really need any breakthrough to implement grid-scale storage. > [@](#): > > No, your cites simply show that someone is looking into it and there are some test beds and trials in the pipeline. There are the same things for fusion power and a lot of other things (car companies have invested billions in hydrogen power fuel cells…do you expect to see those on the road anytime soone?). No. Fusion, so far, is not practical. Hydrogen continues to present currently insurmountable obstacles to mass-scale implementation. In contrast, renewable energy sources have proven that they can generate power at grid scale, and the storage technology to accompany those actually already exists, though I admit it has not yet been implemented. > [@](#): > > Just because someone is looking into it does not equate to the technology will be appearing soon…or ever. It might not be technically feasible. It might not be economically viable. Or it might be both, but fails to be competitive with other forms of energy we already have since it adds costs to variable renewable energy systems such as solar or wind I lurked the thread where **Stranger** set you straight about the obstacles to hydrogen fuels. The shape of that argument doesn’t overlay well the discussion about renewables- they’re proven and they’re being installed at 70gw/year and growing. Besides, grid-scale storage systems can only enhance the utility of traditional power generation. Grid-scale storage means surplus power can be stored and utilized, resulting in less fuel usage and higher efficiency. Also, grid-scale storage allows for the practical fueling of an ev fleet. > [@](#): > > Or, it might work out and we will see a gradual adoption of such a system a few decades from now. Yeah, something like that. [The coal generation system took decades to build](http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf); I can’t see why any new regime wouldn’t take a comparable time to fully implement. I think grid-scale storage is coming- it will be the worst power generation and delivery system there is, besides all the other ones we have tried. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/149 "2013-10-09T07:02:58Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > No, seriously, we love that shit. OTOH, there’s plenty of opposition to wind energy from French farmers. Might be renewable, clean and good kharma galore ; but it’s woefully surface-intensive and that land could have been used for cash crops instead; you see ? Funny, many Spanish farmers love windfarms because if your land is low-rate, the steady income from renting out a chunk of it to a power company can mean the difference between living from your land and not. A lot of Spain can’t grow anything more interesting than wheat unless you irrigate extensively, unlike in France. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/150 "2013-10-09T10:26:40Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Both plants have/had a sea wall to protect the intake/dock areas, but neither had a tsunami protection wall, which is exceedingly obvious, Please state your formal definition of a “tsunami wall” because the definitions I keep running into on line seem different than what you use, and if you insist on redefining terms it would be helpful to know what anomalous definition you are using to avoid confusion. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/151 "2013-10-09T14:14:38Z")
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive] I think you are correct to worry over the price; however, I don’t think the viability is in question. [/QUOTE] And you base this on…what? The cites you gave me were for test programs or RFPs for trial production systems that are shooting for 2020 as a target date. I’m not sure where your confidence in this is coming from, but certainly not from what you have cited thus far. > [@](#): > > It will rarely, if ever, be put in a position of being the sole power provider for such a population. Such a large storage system (say, in California) would have multiple wind and solar inputs such that a positive electrical generation would be all but constant. And I’d not drop a monocle if I learned that was backed up with natural gas generators. Yah, you see clouds and so on, but these power sources provide reliable quantities of energy over a given mid-term time frame. And there are more than a million homes in California alone. This system would be able to take the load for about 1/50th of the homes (not counting businesses or any other electric needs, just homes) during times when wind and solar were not able to provide power to the grid, or were not working optimally (i.e. on cloudy, windless or gusting wind days). So, it’s going to take a bit more than some backup from natural gas generators…they are going to either have to do what they do now (i.e. continue to buy electricity from other states that aren’t so ridiculously over regulated on what they can use to generate electricity) or they will have to build more coal or natural gas power plants. Or they will be back to the brown outs they were experiencing a few years ago. Even if this pilot works exactly as hoped for (in 2020), it’s not going to do more than leverage their wind and solar a little. It will be interesting to see how it pans out, to be sure, but I think wild optimism is not called for at this point. > [@](#): > > I would not doubt that current production capacity is limited today. Nonetheless, these types of batteries have seen sufficient proof-of-concept to be accepted as viable. Using a liquid electrolyte, they have virtually no theoretical capacity limit (not to mention an incredible cycle-life), and so are up to the task of grid-scale application. You ought to look more deeply into the details of the technology. To me, that’s wildly optimistic, especially considering the state of the technology available today. I know of no production systems in place today doing what you claim, and at a guess, since the cites you provided earlier were both for test beds or pilot programs (scheduled for 2017 and 2020 respectively) I’m thinking that it’s not ready for prime time yet. Feel free to provide more in-depth cites if you have them, or, better yet, start a real thread on the subject in GD to discuss it. > [@](#): > > Heh- I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express lately, but I don’t get the joke. Anyway, we have the technology now for grid-scale power storage applications, even though still better solutions/chemistries may be forthcoming. Point being, we don’t really need any breakthrough to implement grid-scale storage. If we have it today, where is it? Why were both of your cites shooting for targets that are several years down the pike? Why the delay? Why aren’t renewable energy providers putting this in everywhere, since it would obviously fix the gaps in their own abilities. Seems to me that if this tech existed today and was viable that companies would be putting it in everywhere, since grid-scale power storage would be huge for averaging load and lowering wasted energy. > [@](#): > > No. Fusion, so far, is not practical. Hydrogen continues to present currently insurmountable obstacles to mass-scale implementation. In contrast, renewable energy sources have proven that they can generate power at grid scale, and the storage technology to accompany those actually already exists, though I admit it has not yet been implemented. Renewable energy has proven it can be a niche provider on the grid (well, wind and solar…hydroelectric and geothermal have proven they can be major players in the right areas), no doubt about that. As a main source though, it’s got as long a way to go as fusion or hydrogen. And unless you have something more than what you’ve provided so far, grid scale storage systems are even further out than hydrogen and maybe on par with fusion. > [@](#): > > I lurked the thread where Stranger set you straight about the obstacles to hydrogen fuels. The shape of that argument doesn’t overlay well the discussion about renewables- they’re proven and they’re being installed at 70gw/year and growing. He didn’t set me straight. I knew about some of the issues with hydrogen. However, as I told him in that thread, it’s pretty silly to say that companies spending literally billions on development haven’t seen the same issues as some guy on the internet, and that they haven’t worked to mitigate the problems…especially when you consider that companies like Toyota already have both filling stations, logistic support for the stations AND actual working vehicles already out there doing trials. Which seems to be ahead of your grid level storage systems, at least the ones you cited, which won’t be ready to TEST until 2017 or 2020. > [@](#): > > Yeah, something like that. The coal generation system took decades to build; I can’t see why any new regime wouldn’t take a comparable time to fully implement. I think grid-scale storage is coming- it will be the worst power generation and delivery system there is, besides all the other ones we have tried. And I think that the jury is still out on grid scale storage. Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn’t. Even if it works, maybe it’s cost effective, and maybe not. If it IS cost effective, it’s certainly going to leverage wind and solar, but I don’t see either of those becoming more than a niche source even so. A MAJOR niche source, maybe as much as 10-20% of the production (if we are going to dream, let’s dream big), but that’s going to be pushing it. And, that means we need other, stable and scalable production systems. We have coal and natural gas already. We could stay with those as the backbone of our system. Hydroelectric is tapped out in the US…there aren’t going to be any new large scale hydro projects. Geothermal could be scaled up a bit more, but it’s about tapped out too wrt where we can put the things politically. That leaves nuclear IMHO. We COULD scale that up to take away coal fired plants in fairly large numbers. The technology is mature…today it accounts for over 20% of our power production and that’s with us basically having a moratorium on new plants for 2-3 decades now. Basically, my position is that wind and solar and grid scale storage systems are great. Bring em on. But it’s unrealistic to think that they are going to be able to take a major bite out of our reliance on coal or natural gas fired plants. Nuclear could do that. So, a mix of energy production systems with none off the table and all looked at realistically, using the best where it makes the most sense. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/152 "2013-10-09T14:42:57Z")
> [@Nava](#): > > Funny, many Spanish farmers love windfarms because if your land is low-rate, People love making money. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/153 "2013-10-09T14:45:42Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Please state your formal definition of a “tsunami wall” If you are claiming there “was a tsunami defense in place”, it would be up to you to prove this. Show us the tsunami wall that was in place. once again, it would have to include gates to allow the ocean to flow in and out, and allow ships to dock at the plant. Where is it? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/154 "2013-10-09T14:48:47Z")
[QUOTE=The Second Stone] Mother Nature is at the head of the anti-nuclear movement, and she is a lot more effective than those dern hippies. She has destroyed the nuclear industry with on damaging earthquake and a large tsunami. Unlike the hippies, Mother Nature doesn’t lie or engage in politics. She just kicks ass. [/QUOTE] Good grief. Well, I’d say, based on the body count as well as the destruction, that ‘mother nature’ was more pissed at human beings and their houses than she was at the nuclear power industry. > [@](#): > > No amount of nuclear lying is going to bring back respectability to nuclear power. Whereas use of ridiculous hyperbole is the stock in trade for nutty anti-nuke types, such as yourself, and the public laps it up. If we change ‘facts’ for ‘lying’, you actually have it right, sadly enough…no amount of facts are going to make nuclear respectable, since anti-nuke luddite nutters have pretty much effectively poisoned that well beyond recovery. And you can be proud of your efforts, which have been far more effective than the wildest dreams of the anti-vaxer nuts. Give yourselves big pats on the back for stopping nuclear, and keep thinking you are doing good, and when you use that power to post, know that it comes from good, clean sources like coal, which kills 10’s of thousands of real people each year…as Mother Nature intended, no doubt. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/155 "2013-10-09T14:53:16Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > If you are claiming there “was a tsunami defense in place”, it would be up to you to prove this. Show us the tsunami wall that was in place. > > once again, it would have to include gates to allow the ocean to flow in and out, and allow ships to dock at the plant. Where is it? No, actually that would be on you, if this were a real debate. You’d need to produce some cites (in English) stating clearly that there was no sea wall at Fukushima, instead of some google maps pictures that you are interpreting yourself. That’s how it works. Happily, this is the pit, so I can just laugh at you and call you a moron, since that’s what you are. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/156 "2013-10-09T14:57:59Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Give yourselves big pats on the back for stopping nuclear, Once more, nobody in the US has stopped, or is stopping nuclear reactors and power plants from being built in the rest of the world. > [@](#): > > Mainland China has 17 nuclear power reactors in operation, 29 under construction, and more about to start construction. > > Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world’s most advanced, to give a four-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 58 GWe by 2020, then possibly 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050. > > China has become largely self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle, but is making full use of western technology while adapting and improving it. [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/#.UlVu6NKsiSo](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/#.UlVu6NKsiSo) Be happy. Nuclear isn’t dead. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/157 "2013-10-09T15:01:59Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Once more, nobody in the US has stopped, or is stopping nuclear reactors and power plants from being built in the rest of the world. > > [http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/#.UlVu6NKsiSo](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/#.UlVu6NKsiSo) > > Be happy. Nuclear isn’t dead. This is one of those ‘no shit, Sherlock’ moments. But thanks for citing things I told you months ago in earlier threads. I’m not sure what the purpose was, but your efforts, as always, are appreciated. We all need a good laugh along with the rolling of eyes to perk us up and make our day complete. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/158 "2013-10-09T15:15:06Z")
> [@XT](#): > > your efforts, as always, are appreciated. We all need a good laugh I live to serve. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/159 "2013-10-10T06:31:02Z")
> [@XT](#): > > And I think that the jury is still out on grid scale storage. Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn’t. Even if it works, maybe it’s cost effective, and maybe not. If it IS cost effective, it’s certainly going to leverage wind and solar, but I don’t see either of those becoming more than a niche source even so. A MAJOR niche source, maybe as much as 10-20% of the production (if we are going to dream, let’s dream big), but that’s going to be pushing it. And, that means we need other, stable and scalable production systems. We have coal and natural gas already. We could stay with those as the backbone of our system. Hydroelectric is tapped out in the US…there aren’t going to be any new large scale hydro projects. Geothermal could be scaled up a bit more, but it’s about tapped out too wrt where we can put the things politically. That leaves nuclear IMHO. We COULD scale that up to take away coal fired plants in fairly large numbers. The technology is mature…today it accounts for over 20% of our power production and that’s with us basically having a moratorium on new plants for 2-3 decades now. Basically, my position is that wind and solar and grid scale storage systems are great. Bring em on. But it’s unrealistic to think that they are going to be able to take a major bite out of our reliance on coal or natural gas fired plants. Nuclear could do that. So, a mix of energy production systems with none off the table and all looked at realistically, using the best where it makes the most sense. I read the rest of your post- I will consider what cites to post next to convince you best. You have to give me some more time though- I have a lot to do. I would encourage you to more fully consider what I’ve already cited, such as [NREL’s report tracking new coal fired power plants](http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf)- there is a lot in there about trends in installed capacity for the various traditional energy sources. Compare those charts to the 70 gigawatts of renewable capacity currently annually installed. Look at the projected install rates for new coal and nuclear- practically nothing! I think you underestimate the burgeoning scale of renewable power. And I think you’ll see you are underestimating the potential of grid-scale power storage. But none of this will be built in a day, and we are going to generate power via coal and nuclear for a long time. But I also think nuclear has missed its window- I agree with the premise [here](http://www.economist.com/node/21549936). ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [October 10, 2013, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282/160 "2013-10-10T14:58:45Z")
> [@Gedd](#): > > I just talked to a friend who worked as a technician at a nuclear power plant. Their backup batteries, which she tested every year, could only run the emergency systems for about a day! Utter nonsense. The batteries at a US plant won’t run the large pumps for more than 4 hours. These pumps are critical for heat exchange after an emergency shut down, and with a loss of the power grid, and loss of back up generators, this places a plant on a four hour deadline to get additional power, or they start having extreme problems. It’s why the Ft Calhoun situation was a crisis, with out the pumps and heat exchange for cooling, the spent fuel ponds start heating up. If they had been running the reactor when the fire caused the power loss, it would have been possibly a disaster. It’s one reason why they have still not started the reactor back up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fukushima-still-melting-down-still-a-nuclear-disaster/670282.md?page=9)