Nuclear Power: Viable energy or not after the Japanese disaster?

Taiwan Living in Taiwan
21

Archdizzy1099 won this entire thread by a long shot.

I really wish people could avoid the knee-jerk reaction propagated by environmental groups such as Greenpeace (their stance on nuclear power is why I won’t donate to them) and realize the following:

We are an industrial society, and we are unwilling to give up our air conditioners, computers, heaters, lights and everything else that runs on electricity.

Our energy needs FAR exceed the energy that can be provided by “clean energy” (do the math, please!), and in fact our energy needs can only be met by the following methods:

  1. Fossil fuel burning
  2. Nuclear energy

Nuclear energy produces waste that needs to be stored properly. But the waste is a manageable quantity: 25 tons of waste per year is a small room’s worth of hazardous waste. A comparable coal-powered plant will burn 100,000 tons of coal every year! That’s 100,000 tons of coal that needs to be dug up, transported to the plant and then burned, filling the air with its toxic smoke.

Any of you who have been to China should be able to see the effects of fossil fuels and how completely filthy they are.

22

[quote=“Ducked”][quote=“Abacus”]I guess people need something to panic about every once in awhile.

[/quote]

I don’t think I feel a need to panic, in fact, in common with most of humanity, I have difficulty overcoming my myopic inertia, denial and apathy.

But if I did feel a need to panic, multiple melting nuclear reactors would fulfill that need admirably.[/quote]

Then post links to multiple melting nuclear reactors because it’s not happening and imo it hasn’t been close to happening. They’ve been extremely cautious and simply flooded them to be absolutely sure nothing bad would happen.

23

[quote=“Abacus”]They’ve been extremely cautious and simply flooded them to be absolutely sure nothing bad would happen.[/quote]That doesn’t make much sense. They have released highly toxic radiation into the atmosphere. I think that’s already pretty bad. There are reports of yet another explosion earlier today.

People ARE going to get VERY sick as a result, and some people WILL die. If that isn’t bad, I simply don’t understand what constitutes a “bad” event to you.

And what about all that sea water they are pumping into the reactors to cool them down? You don’t actually think that they will be storing and treating this contaminated water as if it were radioactive waste, do you? I bet they’re pumping it right back into the ocean. It’s an environmental disaster and saying that nothing bad happened is lunacy. :2cents:

24

Godzilla will rise again…

25

[quote=“archylgp”][quote=“spaint”]Archdizzy1099 won this entire thread by a long shot.
[/quote]

This thread isn’t a theoretical debate on nuclear power. It’s geared at the problems in Japan. Unfortunately, some people can’t help themselves.[/quote]

Lots of people in this thread have posted fears about nuclear power in general. People in Germany have used this event as an excuse to protest nuclear power in their country. Numerous news reports are using the event as a platform for wildly throwing out the question “Is nuclear power safe?”

In such an environment, it’s nice to see some facts and some sense from people like Archdizzy.

26

[quote=“Abacus”][quote=“RobinTaiwan”][quote=“Abacus”]They’ve been extremely cautious and simply flooded them to be absolutely sure nothing bad would happen [color=#FF0000]in Taiwan?.[/color][/quote]That doesn’t make much sense. They have released highly toxic radiation into the atmosphere. I think that’s already pretty bad. There are reports of yet another explosion earlier today.

People ARE going to get VERY sick as a result, and some people WILL die. If that isn’t bad, I simply don’t understand what constitutes a “bad” event to you.

And what about all that sea water they are pumping into the reactors to cool them down? You don’t actually think that they will be storing and treating this contaminated water as if it were radioactive waste, do you? I bet they’re pumping it right back into the ocean. It’s an environmental disaster and saying that nothing bad happened is lunacy. :2cents:[/quote]

Let me clarify. Bad is when there is a reason to panic in Taiwan. There is undoubtedly going to be some local effects from this. But there is and has been zero need to be concerned if you are in Taiwan, the US or Europe. The containment structures are intact according to all reports and there has been no meltdown. The media has been using words such as last ditch and overusing words such as meltdown to make people read the stories while focusing less on facts.[/quote]

I hope you are right. There is an agreement issue in your statement so your clarification was necessary. Emphasis in red.

27

[quote=“RobinTaiwan”]

I hope you are right. There is an agreement issue in your statement so your clarification was necessary. Emphasis in red.[/quote]

I just see a lot of doomsdayers and sensationalism in this thread and the news stories. they say radiation has been vented and measures significantly higher than normal. Well imo the vented system is likely 3 or 4 times removed from the reactor (thru heat exchangers) but over the course of 40 years small amounts of radioactive material is able to transfer between the different heat exchangers because no seal is 100% perfect. And the normal radiation in the air around a nuclear plant is nearly zero so if is any (even if it is small) it’s significantly more. I also think the containment buildings were flooded with seawater instead it continuously being pumped thru (not going back into the ocean). But if it is being pumped thru then it’s still being pumped thru in systems that are 3-4 times removed (again thru heat exchangers) and only trace amounts of radioactive material is being discharged.

My one concern that I can think of is where is the spent fuel stored and how is it stored. At the nuclear plant I worked at in college there was a large pool (think swimming pool) where the material was stored for 5 years before being moved offsite (1 mile away). I would be concerned if this spent fuel was located near the explosions but so far I have not heard any concern about this. As far as I can tell from the FACTS the containment structures are intact and any type of meltdown will be avoided.

In the end this will be regarded in the same light as 3 mile island (or perhaps less so) and not even in the same ballpark as Chernobyl that many are concerned about. But this is probably the final nail in the coffin for any future nuclear plants in the US. And that is going to bring about it’s own consequences since the US gets 20+% of its power from nuclear. And the current nuclear plants are already 35-45 years old. Originally they were only supposed to operate for 40 years but because there isn’t any available power to replace them most of them have been granted 20 year extensions.

28

neouto.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/ … s-rectors/

got this from a blog. Hope this dudes right.

p.s. regarding Taiwans nuclear plants. Six units from Number 1, 2 and 3 are quite old. Over 30 years if i recall correctly.

29

A bit off topic, but this is a serious problem globally, we’re stuck with old, unreliable nuclear power plants that not only are inefficient, but are also much more potential risk factors when it comes to failures compared to the latest generation of modern nuclear power plants. There has been a lot of discussion in the media back home about nuclear power, as Finland just started building new, efficient and much safer reactors while Sweden is stuck with this shitty, outdated and unsafe reactors from the 60’s. In fact, they’re in so bad shape that most of them are turned off for most of the year due to major maintenance being performed, yet they never seem to pass the inspections by the nuclear safety organization in Sweden.

Besides, what’s happening in Japan is nobody’s fault, it’s a freak combination of natural disasters that no-one could’ve predicted. To call an end to future development of what overall is currently one of the only sensible power sources in the world seems outright insane. In as much as I’d like to see better alternatives, wind and solar power ain’t going to replace a nuclear reactor, wave power is far from being a viable type of power, coal… well, just look at Taiwan and China, not exactly something that’s a great alternative, oil, well, too expensive these days, garbage/wood chips/burnable materials, again not exactly great but at least better than coal. If only more countries had good sources of geothermal power like Iceland… Fingers crossed for that Italian power source, but that’s most likely going to be bought out and hidden away if it proves to work as well as they say.

30

[quote=“spaint”][quote=“archylgp”][quote=“spaint”]Archdizzy1099 won this entire thread by a long shot.
[/quote]

This thread isn’t a theoretical debate on nuclear power. It’s geared at the problems in Japan. Unfortunately, some people can’t help themselves.[/quote]

it’s nice to see some facts and some sense from people like Archdizzy.[/quote]

I agree that Arcgidzzy made some good points, especially the one about fear blocking investment in newer, safer technology, but he wasn’t using “facts” – his statistics are garbage. We’re not talking about job-related deaths, but deaths of the general population. If you bring up these kinds of stats, the Chernobyl explosion dwarfs solar power. Coal is a different story. We’re also talking about potentiality of wide-spread nuclear disasters, which is real, but doesn’t show up in the stats. Comparing the risks of nuclear power with solar power is idiotic in my opinion. Anyways, when are they going to get replacement generators up and running and bring an end to this?

Another thing, the explosions are a result of a problem with ventilation systems, correct? They can’t get the pressure out of the building built around the containment building. If so, this also means that the radioactive chemicals that were released during the explosion were going to be released through the ventilation system anyways．

31

How many people you think die every year in relation to air pollution from coal fired plants?

32

Lots, I am guessing?
Nobody cares about dead coal miners, because they are poor.
I’d like to see an honest “death by energy source” comparison.

33

Nuclear power is statistically the safest source of power. It is also the only source of power that when things go wrong that has the potential to cause a worldwide disaster. Humans, all use far too much power, until that stops , and it won’t, then we will continue to search for greater power sources and assume the risks that go with that. The greatest power is mother nature, we cannot harness that, as we have been shown.

34

[quote=“Abacus”][quote=“Ducked”][quote=“Abacus”]I guess people need something to panic about every once in awhile.

[/quote]

I don’t think I feel a need to panic, in fact, in common with most of humanity, I have difficulty overcoming my myopic inertia, denial and apathy.

But if I did feel a need to panic, multiple melting nuclear reactors would fulfill that need admirably.[/quote]

Then post links to multiple melting nuclear reactors because it’s not happening and imo it hasn’t been close to happening. They’ve been extremely cautious and simply flooded them to be absolutely sure nothing bad would happen.[/quote]

No need. It was a conditional statement, and the Japanese authorities, (who’s opinion I’m afraid I consider to be a lot more significant than yours in this context) quite clearly felt it was a risk.

The detailed facts are currently unclear, but the available evidence seems to suggest partial meltdown of two cores.

We also have accounts of various (more or less desperate) improvisations. Its good, even heroic, that they were able to improvise. Its even better if those improvisations worked. It is NOT GOOD that they had to.

I don’t know if it is possible to design a fail-safe reactor, but these ones very clearly did not fail safe, in a threat situation that could be anticipated in this location.

If the failure turns out to be less than total, as looks likely, that is grounds for relief, but it is certainly no grounds for the complacency I’ve seen expressed above, unless one’s concern is limited to immediate threats to personal survival.

35

You are welcome. :bow:

In the future, if we want to have a decent quality of life, we will have to do with less energy, and we will have to use energy more efficiently. But we don’t have to change our ways, we are free to continue with our follies and suffer pain or even extinction in return.

Our assumed energy needs: what you are talking about is not some non-negotiable quantity like gravity or the speed of light; “our energy needs” will either be adjusted to fit what nature can provide in a sustainable manner or we will suffer uncomfortable consequences.

You are welcome to your dreams. Better qualified people than myself have explained the fallacy of such thinking, and i won’t repeat what i have written in this thread already.

Otherwise, you are quite right about the deleterious effects of humans burning coal and oil on a large scale (and you may want to add to those effects those of the tens of thousands of human-made chemicals, as well as the consequences of soil depletion, deforestation, overfishing, and the many other follies of the industrial age). The need for change is obvious, but nuclear energy is a dead-end road (or, better, a road to death).

36

[quote]The need for change is obvious, but nuclear energy is a dead-end road (or, better, a road to death).[/quote]I have to agree. The thought of leaving such dangerous matter in the hands of profit-driven, corrupted human beings is chilling. If you think we can go on like this while hoping for a sustainable future, you might as well believe in tall tales of fairies and leprechauns. Human kind has a history of learning things the hard way. This is not going to be any different.

37

Here is an excellent write-up and analysis from scientifically minded writers. If you can’t be bothered reading it the premise is that this latest incident is not an example of nuclear danger but a triumph of modern engineering that has kept an incredibly powerful energy source under control despite a natural disaster far beyond design limits.

I am pro nuclear power and it’s very sad that this amazing technology is more frightening to many people than driving without seatbelts or chewing binlang.

38

[quote=“llary”]Here is an excellent write-up and analysis from scientifically minded writers. If you can’t be bothered reading it the premise is that this latest incident is not an example of nuclear danger but a triumph of modern engineering that has kept an incredibly powerful energy source under control despite a natural disaster far beyond design limits.

I am pro nuclear power and it’s very sad that this amazing technology is more frightening to many people than driving without seatbelts or chewing binlang.[/quote]

Imagine how much better the plants would have been if they had been using the newest technology instead of designs from the 60’s (before Chernobyl and 3 mile island provided additional lessons learned the hard way). The major design flaw that was exploited in this disaster was that backup power and the backup backup power were vulnerable (essentially wiped out) to the tsunami. I find it slightly surprising that this wasn’t considered after the 2004 tsunami.

39

[quote=“llary”]Here is an excellent write-up and analysis from scientifically minded writers. If you can’t be bothered reading it the premise is that this latest incident is not an example of nuclear danger but a triumph of modern engineering that has kept an incredibly powerful energy source under control despite a natural disaster far beyond design limits.

I am pro nuclear power and it’s very sad that this amazing technology is more frightening to many people than driving without seatbelts or chewing binlang.[/quote]

Its from one writer, and he is clearly off his tiny pointed little head.

And if this was a natural disaster far beyond design limits, then the design limits were clearly far too limited.

40

[quote]I am pro nuclear power and it’s very sad that this amazing technology is more frightening to many people than driving without seatbelts or chewing binlang.[/quote]I’m not afraid of the technology. The human race has never had its priorities straight and that doesn’t fare well with handling radioactive material that has the potential to ruin the earth’s entire eco-system.

Nuclear power producers cut corners where they can just like any other company. They ride the legal system whenever they can. You’re a fool to think that the future of your kids is secure in the hands those who exploit nuclear power.