Uranium unsafe

[skc]

On a practical note, I think we can assume that there are going to be several reactors in Japan that will never again produce electricity. From an investment perspective, that means an increase in consumption of other fuels, largely LNG and oil in the immediate term.

I just read somewhere that Chernobyl was actually still producing electricity for some 20 years after the incident... amazing.

Although I guess the Japs are less likely going to allow that.

 

[burglar]

I just read somewhere that Chernobyl was actually still producing electricity for some 20 years after the incident... amazing.

Although I guess the Japs are less likely going to allow that.

Re Chernobyl ... wow!

I'm guessing the Japanese are all over this one:

Pebble Bed Reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

 

[awg]

After hearing some very hysterical, uninformative stuff on the media

Will post this link which is a scientic explanation/analysis.

Reassuring too, in conclusion that no leak of highly radioactive material is likely

make up your own mind though

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/13/fukushima-simple-explanation/

 

[tothemax6]

There are alternatives to nuclear that are completely safe and yet you'd perefer a technology that can render a city and it's residents poisoned for many years.

The alternatives do not have the necessary power density to support the required increases in the global power supply. The alternatives are also more costly (the whole idea of energy generation is, in the grand scheme of things, to reduce 'cost', that is - to increase human efficiency).
Until such time as we can synthesize high-efficiency solar cells en-masse in big automated factories, with a low cost, or build a fusion reactor, our best bet is fission, specifically the traveling-wave reactor.

In Australia the proper place for nuclear reactors would be near existing radiation poisoned places like Maralinga, where in the event of a catastrophic failure, there is not the huge danger to population.

Hmm, didn't think of that. Might be a bit hard getting construction crews to work there though .

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Using nuclear reactors are perfectly safe if built in the right places. Unfortunately the right places are usually far from population centres, so short cuts are taken.

In Australia the proper place for nuclear reactors would be near existing radiation poisoned places.



brty

I was thinking of places like Balmain and Wentworth meself.

One must think of the calibre of victims as well as the extent of damage.

gg

 

[Smurf1976]

I just read somewhere that Chernobyl was actually still producing electricity for some 20 years after the incident... amazing.

Although I guess the Japs are less likely going to allow that.

There were multiple reactors at Chernobyl as is the case with the Japanese power plants.

It's the same with other power stations too. Most coal and gas power stations have multiple generating units, each of which can operate independently of the others. In Australia, there are only a few exceptions to this where there is only a single generating unit - most have multiple units (commonly 2 or 4). It's the same with the larger hydro plants too, though the small ones commonly have only a single turbine.

At Chernobyl, they continued running the undamaged units for many years after the accident. No prizes for guessing that this caused quite a bit of concern in neighbouring countries. So the overall site continued generating electricity, just not as much as it otherwise would have since one reactor was permanently out of service.

Likewise, it is not at all unusual that some of the generating units in any non-nuclear power station are out of service (for maintenance etc) whilst others continue running. Indeed there's almost always something out of service somewhere in any grid, including Australia's.

Power stations are less reliable and require far more maintenance than you might imagine. We're talking weeks or months per year of shutdowns for individual generating units, not just a day here and there. There's an awful lot of component parts in a coal (or nuclear) plant, hence the downtime (gas and hydro plants need less maintenance, but they still do have issues).

My point about Japan however is that they are pumping sea water into, I think, 3 reactors and it seems unlikely that they will ever operate again following this. Very clearly they are in a bad state and would require major repairs at the very least. Reading the comments of nuclear experts, it seems that the sea water is clearly an act of desperation, something they are doing knowing that it's not at all desirable (though clearly it's better than ending up with a meltdown).

Given their age and also the non-technical matters (politics etc), I very much doubt the damaged reactors will ever be repaired. Their working lives are over.

For the remaining reactors at the same site, quite likely they have also suffered some damage following the earthquake. It's just that they weren't operating at the time, so the consequences of such damage are less. At the very least, it seems unlikely that they would resume operation anytime soon (if ever). At a guess, they could probably be fixed but it comes down to economics and politics as to whether or not they ever want to run any ractor at that plant again. If there's an actual meltdown then, for political reasons, I'd be surprised if they didn't scrap the entire plant either straight away or at least within a few years.

So once the current crises with nuclear and the earthquake itself are over, there is likely to be an ongoing issue with having these power stations out of service. Most of the power could be supplied from other non-nuclear sources (oil, gas etc) assuming they can get hold of sufficient fuel to run those plants much harder than would otherwise have been the case. But when plant maintenance is required or demand is unusually high (driven by weather), blackouts are certainly possible.

 

[Smurf1976]

(the whole idea of energy generation is, in the grand scheme of things, to reduce 'cost', that is - to increase human efficiency)

You've hit the nail on the head there, something I'd guess that 99.99% fail to understand.

Just generating electricity isn't the aim. You have to be able to do it with the minimum of human effort for it to be worthwhile. Hence the attraction of free flowing oil and gas, easily accessible hydro, coal near the surface and so on. Trouble is, we've pretty much used up those resources, being left with either harder to access (more costly) deposits or alternatives that are also less productive.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Uranium is safe.

I can remember as an old man seeing Bono watch the first man to land on the moon, and I said to meself, any nation that can tolerate Bono is a great nation, and I sobbed, and then I said thanks be to Jeezus I'm not married to a hairdresser.

gg

 

[Gringotts Bank]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126091443.htm

We're not living in the 70's. This is 2011. Read the above link.

It's a matter of asking "what do we want for ourselves and the planet?" then doing what is necessary to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

You don't just put up with substandard dirty fuels that buggerize the planet.

You're all buying what the oil and coal and uranium companies tell you and that is SO LAME I don't know where to start.

Garpal, you're living in a make believe world....somewhere in the 1920's.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126091443.htm

We're not living in the 70's. This is 2011. Read the above link.

It's a matter of asking "what do we want for ourselves and the planet?" then doing what is necessary to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

You don't just put up with substandard dirty fuels that buggerize the planet.

You're all buying what the oil and coal and uranium companies tell you and that is SO LAME I don't know where to start.

Garpal, you're living in a make believe world....somewhere in the 1920's.

You are not in touch with your ancestors GB.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

I would be pushing for more nuclear stations, obviously not on earthquake fault lines.

? Sydney CBD.

gg

 

[Tanaka]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126091443.htm

We're not living in the 70's. This is 2011. Read the above link.

It's a matter of asking "what do we want for ourselves and the planet?" then doing what is necessary to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

You don't just put up with substandard dirty fuels that buggerize the planet.

You're all buying what the oil and coal and uranium companies tell you and that is SO LAME I don't know where to start.

Garpal, you're living in a make believe world....somewhere in the 1920's.

I don't believe Japan has any space for solar and wind power.
Aren't you just buying what the alternative energy companies want?

 

[Gringotts Bank]

I buy what works, for people and the environment.

Too costly?? Well you DO WHAT"S NECESSARY TO MAKE IT LESS COSTLY.

My GOD, you think if we didn't throw billions of dollars into research we couldn't get clean fuel at cheaper than fossil fuel prices??????? Come on!! It would happen so quickly you wouldn't have time to blink.

The whole thing stinks of big business.

 

[todster]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110126091443.htm

We're not living in the 70's. This is 2011. Read the above link.

It's a matter of asking "what do we want for ourselves and the planet?" then doing what is necessary to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

You don't just put up with substandard dirty fuels that buggerize the planet.

You're all buying what the oil and coal and uranium companies tell you and that is SO LAME I don't know where to start.

Garpal, you're living in a make believe world....somewhere in the 1920's.

Yeah Townsville????

 

[So_Cynical]

Re Chernobyl ... wow!

I'm guessing the Japanese are all over this one:

Pebble Bed Reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

Actually no there not all over it, in fact no country has whole heartedly embraced the new nuclear technology's...as far as nuclear goes everyone, Gringotts included is stuck in a time wrap, it seems no one actually wants or needs details...the media is 24/7ing this melt down sensationalism...does anyone here actually have a clue what a containment area is ?understand what its supposed to do?

While the situation is ongoing and has some potential to turn nasty...the likelihood of a worst case scenario is highly unlikely...in fact the quake size and location and Tsunami was the worst case scenario...and at least from the nuclear perspective its not all that bad.

There is the usual negative discussion over at the oil drum (at-least there's some detail there) http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7638

Maybe im being overly pessimistic...maybe this event will be the driver for the new (old in the case of MSR) technology's need to gain acceptance....even Gillard didn't have a clue on Q&A tonight, she seemed to deliberately dumb down her answers on the nuclear questions.

 

[Smurf1976]

in fact the quake size and location and Tsunami was the worst case scenario...and at least from the nuclear perspective its not all that bad.

Safety of these plants (and just about anything else) comes down to probability. This may or may not be the worst case even that ever occurs, but it is certianly not the worst case that is actually possible.

The great problem with this sort of analysis is that there always ends up being some scenario that wasn't foreseen.

There's also the point that the fundamantal objective of such analysis is not to produce 100% certainty of an outcome, since that is not possible. The question is whether you want a 99.8% safe reactor, or whether you are prepared to pay a lot of extra $ for a 99.85% safe one. You can't actually have 100% since that's not possible.

 

[So_Cynical]

Safety of these plants (and just about anything else) comes down to probability. This may or may not be the worst case even that ever occurs, but it is certianly not the worst case that is actually possible.

The great problem with this sort of analysis is that there always ends up being some scenario that wasn't foreseen.

There's also the point that the fundamantal objective of such analysis is not to produce 100% certainty of an outcome, since that is not possible. The question is whether you want a 99.8% safe reactor, or whether you are prepared to pay a lot of extra $ for a 99.85% safe one. You can't actually have 100% since that's not possible.

Smurf

with respect...a 8.9 undersea quake (biggest in 1000 years in Japan) 100 clicks off the coast, 6 meter Tsunami with 2 Nuke plants at sea level right on the coast in direct line of the Tsunami...i really do think this qualifies as a realistic worst case scenario...lets save the fantasy stuff for the Charlie Sheen thread.

The quake made the reactors SCRAM thus rendering the reactor cores as reasonably safe...the system worked on the whole, shame about the plant placement at sea level on the water front...safety is always a game of percentages and money is always given alot of consideration when determining margins of safety.

 

[skc]

with respect...a 8.9 undersea quake (biggest in 1000 years in Japan) 100 clicks off the coast, 6 meter Tsunami with 2 Nuke plants at sea level right on the coast in direct line of the Tsunami...i really do think this qualifies as a realistic worst case scenario...

No... Godzilla hasn't appear yet.

Seriously, you are correct that this is a realistic worst case scenario. The problem is they didn't think of designing against it.

It's never easy to write a design specs, but someone screw this one up that's for sure.

 

[So_Cynical]

No... Godzilla hasn't appear yet.

Seriously, you are correct that this is a realistic worst case scenario. The problem is they didn't think of designing against it.

It's never easy to write a design specs, but someone screw this one up that's for sure.

The thing is i know there's some place i think in southern Japan that actually has a sea wall built with gates that automatically shut if an earthquake is detected...its a anti Tsunami wall....Tsunami is a word of Japanese origin, and yet they didn't think it could happen :dunno: go figure.

To make matters worse it now looks like the Nuke plants didn't have adequate back up cooling procedures in place...like a simple high velocity (water tight/Tsunami proof) diesel pump would of done the trick but they didn't have one...incredible.

------------------------

Anyway looks like its semi official...every-thing's under control.

In the last 48 hours, Tepco (Tokyo Electric Power Company) has carried out repairs to the emergency core coolant systems of units 1, 2 and 4 and one by one these have come back into action. Unit 1 announced cold shutdown at 1.24 am today and unit 2 followed at 3.52 am. Repairs at unit 4 are now complete and Tepco said that gradual temperature reduction started at 3.42pm. An evacuation zone extends to ten kilometres around the plant, but this is expected to be rescinded when all four units are verified as stable in cold shutdown conditions.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/15/fukushima-15-march-summary/

Ah i just noticed someone agreeing with me in the comments.

One thing that can be said at this point is that we are witnessing the worst case scenario. To the perfect storm of old reactor (design), magnitude 9 quake and 10 metre tsunami can apparently be added incompetence in at least one aspect, if the ABC is to be believed:

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Smurf

with respect...a 8.9 undersea quake (biggest in 1000 years in Japan) 100 clicks off the coast, 6 meter Tsunami with 2 Nuke plants at sea level right on the coast in direct line of the Tsunami...i really do think this qualifies as a realistic worst case scenario...lets save the fantasy stuff for the Charlie Sheen thread.

The quake made the reactors SCRAM thus rendering the reactor cores as reasonably safe...the system worked on the whole, shame about the plant placement at sea level on the water front...safety is always a game of percentages and money is always given alot of consideration when determining margins of safety.

I would agree with you SC.

A poor placement for a NR.

One wonders though if the greenies had not forced the guvment of Nippon to place it in a dangerous out of the way place.

Being green can be dangerous.

gg

 

[So_Cynical]

I would agree with you SC.

A poor placement for a NR.

One wonders though if the greenies had not forced the guvment of Nippon to place it in a dangerous out of the way place.

Being green can be dangerous.

gg

GG in the photos both plants have little harbours in front of them with sea walls and all....im thinking this is so Nuclear material can be brought in and taken off site by sea, thus avoiding any issues with the locals and activists?

I mean you wouldn't bother building the harbours if you didn't need them, if there wasn't a propose for them? perhaps this was another reason for building the plants right on the beach front...perhaps in this case, green and political considerations have been given greater weight than the margin for safety.