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.
Re Chernobyl ... wow!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.
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).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.
Hmm, didn't think of that. Might be a bit hard getting construction crews to work there thoughIn 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.
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
There were multiple reactors at Chernobyl as is the case with the Japanese power plants.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.
You've hit the nail on the head there, something I'd guess that 99.99% fail to understand.(the whole idea of energy generation is, in the grand scheme of things, to reduce 'cost', that is - to increase human efficiency)
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.
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.
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.
Re Chernobyl ... wow!
I'm guessing the Japanese are all over this one:
Pebble Bed Reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
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.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.
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.
bravenewclimate.com said: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.
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:
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?