#Login Register


  • 241 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
Home 


The Fukushima Disaster
11-10-2012, 06:49 PM #1,096
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,045 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
11-10-2012, 08:46 PM #1,097
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-10-2012, 06:49 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  TEPCO worried about profits.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaste...1211100044


Kashiwazaki-Kariwa (2% of world nuclear generation) was already shutdown by a previous earthquake but was getting spun up when the Tsunami hit. The facility is in good order and should be put online. The facility was actually shutdown by TEPCO out of almost excessive caution.

40% of TEPCOs base power generation was nuclear. Since they have to provide the power using other sources, they are carrying the plant and plant repair costs as well as the additional replacement power generation costs. This is why they aren't currently in their "happy place".

Japan has few natural resources and without nuclear power will have some real competitiveness issues. Naomi Hirose needs to grow a pair and find a way to get Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, and Fukushima Dai-ni online, if not he should be replaced.
11-11-2012, 03:31 PM #1,098
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,045 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
damned.gif


Quote: Japan's only working nuclear power plant sits on what may be a seismic fault in the earth's crust, a geologist has warned, saying it is "very silly" to allow it to continue operating.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/a...62/1/.html
11-11-2012, 06:13 PM #1,099
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-11-2012, 03:31 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  damned.gif


Quote: Japan's only working nuclear power plant sits on what may be a seismic fault in the earth's crust, a geologist has warned, saying it is "very silly" to allow it to continue operating.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/a...62/1/.html


"Mitsuhisa Watanabe says the earth's plates could move under the Oi nuclear plant in western Japan, causing a catastrophe to rival last year's atomic disaster at Fukushima -- although some of his colleagues on a nuclear advisory panel disagree.

"It is an active fault. The plates shifted some 120,000 to 130,000 years ago for sure," Watanabe, of Tokyo's Toyo University, told AFP."


120000 years ago. Hmmm. Statistically this concern would rank right up there with requiring plants be resistant to asteroid strikes.

I worked with one the El Diablo design engineers and they put a lot of work into making the core assembly earthquake resistance. Proper design and dampening of the 90 tonnes or so of fuel load (the core) is the primary concern.

As a side issue - no serious nuclear accident (that I am aware of) has resulted from earthquake. To this point it is operator error 2 and tsunami 1. Earthquake hasn't scored yet but has made numerous shots on goal.
11-11-2012, 06:23 PM #1,100
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,045 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-11-2012, 06:13 PM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-11-2012, 03:31 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  damned.gif


Quote: Japan's only working nuclear power plant sits on what may be a seismic fault in the earth's crust, a geologist has warned, saying it is "very silly" to allow it to continue operating.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/a...62/1/.html


"Mitsuhisa Watanabe says the earth's plates could move under the Oi nuclear plant in western Japan, causing a catastrophe to rival last year's atomic disaster at Fukushima -- although some of his colleagues on a nuclear advisory panel disagree.

"It is an active fault. The plates shifted some 120,000 to 130,000 years ago for sure," Watanabe, of Tokyo's Toyo University, told AFP."


120000 years ago? Really? Seriously? It is more of a passive fault than an active fault. Statistically this concern would rank right up there with requiring plants be resistant to asteroid strikes.

As a side issue - no serious nuclear accident (that I am aware of) has resulted from earthquake. To this point it is operator error 2 and tsunami 1. Earthquake hasn't scored yet but has made numerous shots on goal.


Quote:

Shimazaki has said the definition of active faults should be broadened to include those that have shifted during the past 400,000 years.

Experts are hard-pressed to identify when fault movements occurred, partly because of an inherent difficulty in assessing geological faults and a dearth of evidence.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaste...1211030057

There will be another report in December.

Also...

Quote:

The government's guideline on building nuclear facilities to withstand earthquakes says no key component of a plant should be built directly above an active fault.

13.gif
11-11-2012, 07:32 PM #1,101
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,992 Threads:1,473 Joined:Feb 2011
There is no doubt in my mind that Fukushima is an epic disaster. When we're dealing with substances that stay with us for that long they should take into account any disaster scenario that could possibly occur despite being on a fault line or not. They're currently building the 5th nuclear reactor here in Finland. The Fukushima accident caused them to go back to the drawing board to include backup systems to the backup systems which I guess is a good thing. Another nuclear plant was planned pretty close to us here on the West coast, but just a few weeks ago one major investor pulled out of the project. Thankfully.

Also under construction here is the world's first permanent nuclear waste repository. The bedrock here is among the oldest in the world
so it makes sense to build it here. There are however no guarantees the bedrock will stay stable for hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm against nuclear power in general. It's not as clean as the industry wants us to believe. What's not being talked about is the uranium mining that's extremely dirty business. Finland imports uranium mainly from Africa and Canada and I had an old guy call me once, he was a retired engineer, as feedback on an article I had published in the local paper. He told me he had actually visited a uranium mine in Angola and witnessed the absolutely horrendous conditions. The workers generally don't live past 30.

As long as profit trumps over human well-being we'll never see any efforts to come up with a cheap and safe energy source. Sadly.
11-11-2012, 08:20 PM #1,102
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,045 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-11-2012, 07:32 PM)Octo Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that Fukushima is an epic disaster. When we're dealing with substances that stay with us for that long they should take into account any disaster scenario that could possibly occur despite being on a fault line or not. They're currently building the 5th nuclear reactor here in Finland. The Fukushima accident caused them to go back to the drawing board to include backup systems to the backup systems which I guess is a good thing. Another nuclear plant was planned pretty close to us here on the West coast, but just a few weeks ago one major investor pulled out of the project. Thankfully.

Also under construction here is the world's first permanent nuclear waste repository. The bedrock here is among the oldest in the world
so it makes sense to build it here. There are however no guarantees the bedrock will stay stable for hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm against nuclear power in general. It's not as clean as the industry wants us to believe. What's not being talked about is the uranium mining that's extremely dirty business. Finland imports uranium mainly from Africa and Canada and I had an old guy call me once, he was a retired engineer, as feedback on an article I had published in the local paper. He told me he had actually visited a uranium mine in Angola and witnessed the absolutely horrendous conditions. The workers generally don't live past 30.

As long as profit trumps over human well-being we'll never see any efforts to come up with a cheap and safe energy source. Sadly.


Yes, a very dirty business. sad2.gif

11-12-2012, 03:54 AM #1,103
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-11-2012, 08:20 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-11-2012, 07:32 PM)Octo Wrote:  There is no doubt in my mind that Fukushima is an epic disaster. When we're dealing with substances that stay with us for that long they should take into account any disaster scenario that could possibly occur despite being on a fault line or not. They're currently building the 5th nuclear reactor here in Finland. The Fukushima accident caused them to go back to the drawing board to include backup systems to the backup systems which I guess is a good thing. Another nuclear plant was planned pretty close to us here on the West coast, but just a few weeks ago one major investor pulled out of the project. Thankfully.

Also under construction here is the world's first permanent nuclear waste repository. The bedrock here is among the oldest in the world
so it makes sense to build it here. There are however no guarantees the bedrock will stay stable for hundreds of thousands of years.

I'm against nuclear power in general. It's not as clean as the industry wants us to believe. What's not being talked about is the uranium mining that's extremely dirty business. Finland imports uranium mainly from Africa and Canada and I had an old guy call me once, he was a retired engineer, as feedback on an article I had published in the local paper. He told me he had actually visited a uranium mine in Angola and witnessed the absolutely horrendous conditions. The workers generally don't live past 30.

As long as profit trumps over human well-being we'll never see any efforts to come up with a cheap and safe energy source. Sadly.


Yes, a very dirty business. sad2.gif

http://soundcloud.com/fightpollution/int...icott#play


"Sigh" you guys seem sweet and well intended and I don't care about the issue other than being factually accurate. The green people really frustrate me. The pollution we are creating in China for solar cells and windmills and the transportation to the US probably equals the pollution and side effects we are saving here. Saying it is "clean energy" is incompletely informed. All these intermittent power sources require a 100% back up. The total pollution footprint is that total system+backup manufacture, shipping, erectïon, and operation footprint.

The greens have turned China into a sewer and seem fairly proud of it.

It is debatable if you are saving anything.

A final word on the "mining" issue. We can't make windmill generators in this country because the EPA won't let us mine the rare earths needed. There is some dirt to manufacturing silicon solar cells as well. Nothing you build is clean. Our squeaky clean EPA regulations are a large part of what has driven US manufacturing overseas.
11-12-2012, 03:58 AM #1,104
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,992 Threads:1,473 Joined:Feb 2011
(11-12-2012, 03:54 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  "Sigh" you guys seem sweet and well intended and I don't care about the issue other than being factually accurate.


Cute fatman.gif
11-12-2012, 04:02 AM #1,105
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,045 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-12-2012, 03:58 AM)Octo Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 03:54 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  "Sigh" you guys seem sweet and well intended and I don't care about the issue other than being factually accurate.


Cute fatman.gif


Yes, you are cute Mr. Sigh. facepalm_panda.gif
11-12-2012, 05:33 AM #1,106
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:42,992 Threads:1,473 Joined:Feb 2011
Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif
11-12-2012, 08:08 PM #1,107
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,045 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif
11-13-2012, 04:00 AM #1,108
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).
11-13-2012, 05:41 AM #1,109
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,045 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Nevermind.
11-14-2012, 03:01 AM #1,110
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(11-13-2012, 05:41 AM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-13-2012, 04:00 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 08:08 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(11-12-2012, 05:33 AM)Octo Wrote:  Well he did take a university course in nuclei calculation 13.gif

lol.gif


Pics or it didn't happen. 13.gif


I do have my Michigan Technological University (Michigan Tech) diploma. I took nucleonics as part of the EE power option (all 60 of my free elective credits were taken in heavy engineering - humanities are a waste for an Engineer).


Nevermind.


Huh? If you have a nuclear engineer in your pocket I'd be happy to discourse with him. I have some questions about soil concentration gradients and absorption coefficients.

The best quote I ever got from a nuclear engineer was that more civilians died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car than were killed by radiation from US commercial power plant accidents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_D...ower_Plant

You previously made some comments on the generator situation. It seems the story is a little involved (not all the comments address the generators).
1. The nuclear power plant is actually in Futaba/Okuma (Fukushima is the province and Fukushima the city is 35 miles away)
2. The bluff the plant is built on was 10 meters (33 ft) higher and was LOWERED so the power plant would sit on bedrock and to reduce the water pumping cost. It would have been safe at the original elevation.
3. The generators were supposed to be in located inside the power plant in the GE reference design. The TEPCO engineers thought there was a flooding danger so they moved them outside where they were swept away.
4. It appears the TEPCO engineers were very worried about earthquake proofing to the point that Tsunamis were a secondary consideration.
5. The Japanese government is paying for cleanup of soil contamination over 2 mS/y (.23 μS/h) or about 2/3rds the normal background radiation or about 5 S/y total exposure. If the US applied this standard we would have to clean up Denver (background radiation is over 6 mS/y).
http://radioactivity.mext.go.jp/en/conte...7_1113.pdf
6. The latest pine needle sampling report shows 25 μS/h at Akougi Kunugidaira (hill country 15 miles NW of the power plant), and 5 μS/h in Iitate village 26 miles NW. There is a plume shaped area to the NW of the facility that is fairly toasty.
7. The comparison of Chernobyl and Fukushima is problematic for several reasons. Not only did over 1/2 of the radiation from Fukushima go into the ocean but the Cesium release was only 1/7 as much (11 PBq vs 87 to 121 PBq) so there is only about 1/20th as much Cesium to worry about. Chernobyl also released 8 PBq of Strontium 90. Even worse, 6 tons of the Chernobyl reactor core went into the atmosphere. Little if any of the Fukushima core vaporized/burned.

Found this:
http://atomicinsights.com/2012/08/fissio...share.html
This is a piece of boosterism for unlimited clean nuclear energy that I generally agree with. Fossil fuel producers and users are accused of being greedy, selfish, dirty, etc. etc. Nuclear is a realistic option. Solar and Wind are unsuitable for base band power generation.


Fun video of a Russian wandering around the Chernobyl exclusion zone with a geiger counter unprotected.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com