http://www.alternet.org/world/150268/nuclear_experts%3A_japan_nuclear_disaster_unprecedented_--_no_way_to_know_about_us_impact/
Here’s a nice picture of one of the buildings. How is it supposed to hold water. It is blown apart.
Reactor 5 is having the same troubles now.
Let me just say something which I feel is factual and hopefully non-denominational in this discussion.
Folks, in general, especially in the media, need to stop sitting on the edge waiting for updates. It takes a little while to figure out what’s really going on at any power plant when something is going wrong, especially when a lot of the sensors are damaged, destroyed, thrown out of calibration, or simply not installed.
I could pick up my phone right now and get an inside line to a large number of coal power plants in the US - coal plants which are a lot less complicated than nuclear - and if I started asking detailed questions like “what is the condition of the pulverizers” or “how safe are the boiler tubes”, it would take anywhere from hours to days for someone to track down that info.
We live in a world with instant 24/7 tweets of whatever drug-induced raving Charlie Sheen dreams up, instant Facebook status updates piped to our hyper-expensive smart phones, etc., but some things just take time to settle out. Anytime I see “BREAKING NEWS: A SCIENTIST (which one? There are a few hundred on and off-site…) SAYS RADIATION LEVELS ARE CLIMBING (where? How was it measured? What type? What was the density?) AND PEOPLE (which people?) COULD BE ENDANGERED! (because working in a steam power plant is safe on its own…right)”, I just sort of grit my teeth and think “wait a day.”
Yes there are some things which people will know right away, but even if this is a serious disaster, it’s still easy to whip oneself into a panic by focusing too much on the information trickling out.
Also note that “a scientist” or “an engineer” may not know what the hell is really going on, yet make a public statement anyhow. I’ve read hundreds of accident reports at power plants where…well shit, it’s like those experiments at crime scenes. “Operator A reports that the main steam pressure climbed from 2400 psig to 2500 psig in 15 minutes, but the PI DCS logs show this to be untrue…Operator B reported that mill #2 was very difficult to balance pressure on right before the explosion, but Operator C claims that mill #2 was acting normally…” and so forth.
Again, I’m not trying to say “everything’s A-double-O-K”, but just…consider letting the news coming out sitting a little bit before reacting.
http://www.alternet.org/world/150268/nuclear_experts%3A_japan_nuclear_disaster_unprecedented_--_no_way_to_know_about_us_impact/ Here is a close up. The building housing the nuclear rods is a mess.
Nitpick: you can, a bit. Control rods can in theory be used to throttle but that isn’t done much. Increasing or decreasing the water flow rate changes the water temperature, which changes its density, which changes its moderating efficiency. That allows power output to be reduced down to about 70% of maximum.
The issue with renewables isn’t really availability - it’s power density and controllability. Wind and solar are thin you need a lot of area to capture significant amounts of energy. We have the area spare, technically. It would take about a million square km to entirely replace the total current energy requirement with solar at 8% efficiency: http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/ (Addition by me: 910019 sq km)
It doesn’t look that much on a map of the world and it isn’t that much compared with land use for agriculture, but you need to cover that area in solar collectors of some kind. Photovoltaics, or tracking CSP, or solar updraft towers… Photovoltaics beat 8% efficiency handily of course but are expensive and resource-hungry to make. Updraft towers are way cheaper per unit area but only 0.5% efficient. CSP efficiency figures are hard to pin down but IIRC, 20% is achievable. Of course all panels will need to be kept clean, tracking heliostats maintained etc.
It’s an enormous task. It probably isn’t impossible. Unless we can churn out photovoltaics and/or solar concentrators by the thousands of square km, we’re not going to do it anytime soon.
Wise words Una, but all the drama is very addictive.
I read this morning that the spent fuel pool in reactor building 4 was empty of water with the fuel rods completely exposed, courtesy of NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko, no less. Bad news.
Then I read that this wasn’t true. Good news!
I’ve just been watching Japanese SDF helicopters water-bombing the 3rd reactor building on http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nhk-world-tv. Commentators say that the SDF helicopters observed water in the SFP of reactor 4 and fuel rods don’t seem to be exposed. How they observed this when reactor 4 still has something of a roof over it is anyone’s guess but I’ll take my good news where I can get it.
OTOH, the 3rd reactor pool was reported to be steaming and with low water levels. Bad news again.
But the helicopters successfully dumped a load of water onto the reactor building, and fire-hoses are going to be set up to continuously spray onto it. Conveniently the building roof was blown off by a hydrogen explosion a couple of days ago, giving access to the SFP. Kind-of good news.
I’m not sure I can look away.
As I observed in the Pit version of this thread, this issue seems to be complicated by a lot of complex questions:
-
At what point do the consequences for failure (human or otherwise) with nuclear power make it so risky that we shouldn’t try it at all?
-
What are our options besides “nuclear power” or “climate change Armageddon”? How practical are they, compared to nuclear?
-
Given that there are actual risks with nuclear power, how do we deal with the financial and liability complications and difficulties that come with it? Is it worth it?
I sure don’t have any answers. 
Heck, I’m not even sure I’ve thought of all the questions!
If you are pro nukes, who should design and build them?
What are you asking here?
The obvious answer is engineers with experience designing these things.
Modern designs are far safer than those designed 40 years ago (as this plant was).
The first jet airliners had a propensity to drop out of the sky. They sorted that problem and planes became safer. This is no different in principle.
Live and learn.
Wise words.
My only quibble would be wondering if the info you are getting, such as it is, is reliable.
Different actors in the drama have different agendas.
Three Mile Island was a case study in this. Different groups were engaged in a cover-their-ass mentality. The messaging was a mess in that case once everyone and their brother got involved.
I realize there are legitimate concerns about starting a panic. That said I think they should opt for “better safe than sorry” and tell people to get out of dodge even when there is just a legitimate doubt about how things will play out.
It would be nice to have one agency responsible for messaging who is not beholden to the industry or politicians but had access to the inside info. Their concern would be public welfare and an honest account of what is happening.
What can I say…a guy can wish.
You know who else was against walk-in humidors?
Yeah… As I mentioned in the MPSIMS version of this thread, an ABC News article I think someone in the Pit pointed out had a lot of scare quotes, but none were quoted directly from a named source. It was either an anonymous U.S. official, or a named person who only said what he said in “various reports.”
Not that it means any of the info in it was false, but still.
The construction companies that have built them in the past have lied and cheated to make more money. The Japanese operators and builders have cheated and lied. They cut safety for profits. They fudged records .They cheated. Is there a corporation you would trust ? Would it be Bechtel, Haliburton, GE ?
That’s a 2 part question. Building it incorrectly is very expensive.
Yeah? So?
Was the Deepwater Horizon built to spec?
It is a human endeavor. If the regulatory agencies are asleep or co-opted then you get bad results ala Chernobyl.
That said, no one in the US has died from nuclear power generation. Lots of people have died from other power production methods.
Why do you keep ignoring that?
Devil’s advocate (because I know someone else is going to say it eventually, and want to get this point out of the way): Yeah, but at least when the Deepwater Horizon failed, it had no chance of killing thousands of people and making a huge area uninhabitable for hundreds of years.
Which do you think the people of Tokyo would rather have failing near them right now: an oil rig or a nuclear power plant?
So you are saying that this is a possibility with this plant? What are the odds? How big an area?
This plant is not Chernobyl. I am sure that there are some serious risks, it is after all a nuclear plant, but neither you nor I know what the worst case scenario is, but I seriously doubt that a remotely possible outcome is “making a huge area uninhabitable for hundreds of years.”
Anyway, from the latest blog post at the MIT NSE Nuclear Information Hub:
Here’s hoping that they are finally getting ahead of it…
I understand you are doing a Devil’s Advocate so not busting your chops. That said:
There are LOTS of things that our industrial society tolerates yet causes mayhem on an epic scale.
Remember the Bhopal Disaster?
I cited earlier (here or another thread going on now) that a dam break in China killed 170,000. Maybe as many as 230,000.
The Texas City Disaster in 1947 killed near 600 people and laid waste to a huge area (ship filled with fertilizer blew up).
How about Love Canal in the US? Toxic crap messing up a large area.
The list is long.
People killed in the US by nuclear energy? Zero.
Why people like Gonzo keep railing against it is beyond me.
There are lots and lots of provable damage done by industry and nukes isn’t even a blip. Even if you include Chernobyl (IIRC around 4000 deaths associated with it) nuclear energy is still, far and away, the safest power there is.
Can nuclear plants cause mayhem? You bet.
But…
Modern designs are far safer than the 40 year old design that is blowing up in Japan,
Further, there are inherently safe designs (i.e. physics makes them safe) on the table. They have other issues (cost/operation) but they can work.
Bottom line is for all of the angst nuclear power as an industrial concern has killed fewer people than any other method. A helluva lot fewer people than coal.
Increased cancer deaths near nuclear power plants « nuclear-news There are plenty of deaths from nuke plants.
gonzomax–get some real sources, if you want people to listen to you. Also, I’m **still **waiting on the cite for the core radiation being released.
Ernest J. Sternglass - Wikipedia A study bt Ernest Sternglass showed TMI resulted in 430 infant deaths. He was not allowed to testify at 3 mile island hearings. That would be because he disputed the “no deaths claim”.