Taiwan and its nuclear plants

youtube.com/watch?v=Lb6Jz4_4OU0

This clip shows the real level of devastation and damage Fukushima did to a large part of Japan. Who knows when that area will be habitable again?

It is what can happen to Taiwan. Because TAiwans power plants are also near the ocean.

And its possible for tsunamis to destroy them.

Taiwan has six units at three locations that are over 40 years old. And a new one just about finished that has cost near 2 billion plus dollars or more.

Strange the the people of Taiwan are allowing the old ones to continue but demanding a stop to the new one? I guess they dont trust the construction of the 4th nuclear plant for some reason?

Personally im more of the view that the existing old plants should be shut as soon as possible as they are already at the end of their useful lives or very close. And operate the new one (after extensive checks) for the next 20 years (but not 40) with a view to stop nuclear generation on Taiwan.

The island is way too small and too densely populated to allow nuclear power when we know what we know now as a result of FUkushima.

There is a risk to pay to play with that kind of things, EVERY SINGLE one of them new or old are a risk… and I find it amusing that you bring that up… the San Onofre plant is by the seaside and isn’t exactly the best example of plants out there… more now that they are planning to restart it.

losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/03/ … ull-power/

[quote=“Pein_11”]There is a risk to pay to play with that kind of things, EVERY SINGLE one of them new or old are a risk… and I find it amusing that you bring that up… the San Onofre plant is by the seaside and isn’t exactly the best example of plants out there… more now that they are planning to restart it.

losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/03/ … ull-power/[/quote]

And they are talking about a quake on our side of the pond. The cascadia fault zone is capable of producing damage like what happened in Japan.

And all those on our pacific coast are in danger as another catastrophic quake is due.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone

[quote=“tommy525”][quote=“Pein_11”]There is a risk to pay to play with that kind of things, EVERY SINGLE one of them new or old are a risk… and I find it amusing that you bring that up… the San Onofre plant is by the seaside and isn’t exactly the best example of plants out there… more now that they are planning to restart it.

losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/03/ … ull-power/[/quote]

And they are talking about a quake on our side of the pond. The cascadia fault zone is capable of producing damage like what happened in Japan.

And all those on our pacific coast are in danger as another catastrophic quake is due.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone[/quote]

The west coast is PLAGUED with fault zones… There was one already in cali/baja a strong one 7.2 like 2-3 years ago, somehow related to San Andreas fault… I would only worry about a catastrophic one once we stop shaking every spring/fall.
That’s the issue though, many plants are near large bodies of water for temperature containment in the case of the meltdown, like the fukushima case where they pumped water to cool the fission reactors off… if it wasnt for the sea it would’ve blown. The downside is, of course, being close to seas/oceans, creates a latent risk of tsunamis, water pollution, you name it…

Fukushima was a poor design, it needed active cooling, all the new ones use passive cooling. They also placed their backup generator in the wrong position. In fact they had been told to modify the plant as it was a risk but due to cost savings ignored the recommendations.

One of the big problems with nuclear plants is that they often store the waste on site (as they did on Fukushima). This is a problem for Taiwan’s reactor sites too.

The fourth reactor should be the safest of all the reactors in Taiwan , but I guess people think they have a chance to stop this one going operational. AFAIK the plant has cost 8 billion USD already and they want another 2 billion USD to make it operational.

I’m with tommy, I think they should close them down in a more rational manner and open the 4th nuclear plant, the Kending plant is due to close in 2025.

[quote=“headhonchoII”]Fukushima was a poor design, it needed active cooling, all the new ones use passive cooling. They also placed their backup generator in the wrong position. In fact they had been told to modify the plant as it was a risk but due to cost savings ignored the recommendations.

One of the big problems with nuclear plants is that they often store the waste on site (as they did on Fukushima). This is a problem for Taiwan’s reactor sites too.

The fourth reactor should be the safest of all the reactors in Taiwan , but I guess people think they have a chance to stop this one going operational. AFAIK the plant has cost 8 billion USD already and they want another 2 billion USD to make it operational.

I’m with tommy, I think they should close them down in a more rational manner and open the 4th nuclear plant, the Kending plant is due to close in 2025.[/quote]

I Agree, a plant relying ONLY in active cooling is obsolte design, it should work as a complementary tactic in risk situations. Fukushima design was OK for the time it was constructed (seventies). But there is still a LOT of plants that are active cooled, Fukushima is not the only one.
Reactors will always have on site waste… If there is waste waiting to be spent enough for safe transportation on public roads, I would certainly wish it’d stay inside the containment coffins and chambers in the plants. I mean, I may sound against this with all these comments, but it is a great source of energy, its just that there is just not enough resources/experience to contain issues related to it.

We have not done a good job with nuclear reactors . We wanted max power from them . But the containment systems, etc are insufficient.

Steel gets brittle too from irradiation. The plants should not be operated for more then 40 years and yet Taiwans are and so are many others in the world. Its time to shut those down.

They are like 90 year old men. They can suffer complete failure at any time.

I did remember it was something like 10 billion for the 4th reactor, but then thought , nah. But yeah apparently its a lot. Im not sure the three other plants with total six reactors cost 2 billion for all of them in the 70s.

But those suckers are old. They have done a great job, lets shut them down now while its still safe to do so.

Operate the 4th one.

I think Taiwanese are scared now of nuclear power. They are ok with the devils they know (the existing plants) but not ok with the devil they dont know (number 4).

But in reality it should be the devils they know are more dangerous then the devil they dont.

We have used the existing ones very well. Lets shut them down ASAP. I think one can only basically entomb them. “DO NOT OPEN FOR 2 MILLION YEARS” or something like that (ok not that long but probably unsafe to hang around there for some time indeed).

They have to be decommissioned in a very costly and slow process, the waste often remains onsite even if the plant has been demolished. Waste sitting around like that is a massive problem in itself. The whole thing ends up costing too much because society cannot agree better ways of managing the waste. It is possible to reprocess like in Sellafield but that has mostly been a failure so far.
New nuclear plants are very different beasts than old plants but due to costs it doesn’t seem nuclear is a good option for most countries now.

Last I heard they were planning to send the nuclear waste to North Korea… sigh

It is things like that that make you go “hum” when nuclear plants are mentioned.

[quote=“Icon”]Last I heard they were planning to send the nuclear waste to North Korea… sigh

It is things like that that make you go “hum” when nuclear plants are mentioned.[/quote]
Shirley you mean Japan?!?!

Well that was in the 1990s. What happened was the KMT govt signed a contract with NK to take their nuclear waste, however Taiwan backed out of the deal due to foreign pressure (duh) and a recent international court arbitration ruling means Taipower now owes them 100s millions of USD.

Poor North Korean people. Starved by their govt and oppressed and now Taipower wants them irradiated as well.

Luckily Taipower probably cant pay them in cash due to possible international protest (think USA). But it should give them food aid, like in the way of RICE and other edibles.

And since the “new” plant has been built following 20 year old schematics… well… the 90s…

From Japan they did import “interesting” stuff…

Germany did away with their nuclear power programs. There’s really no reason why it can’t be done, but the whole thing needs to be thoroughly planned and conveyed to the people. The current Nuclear power plant is poorly planned with old fashion design and shoddy construction practises. It is located at the most earth quake and tsunami prone side of the north coast. And I still have no clue how they are going to deal with the nuclear waste. It is already proven that the nuclear waste storage site at Orchid Island is leaking radio active materials into the sea. The real cost of nuclear power is never discussed… If KMT thinks nuclear waste and power plants are suitable to be placed at the most scenic and beautiful areas of Taiwan, I’d suggest them to put it to more inhospitable locales, such as KMT headquarters in Taipei, and save the beautiful scenery for future generations.

By the way, Fukushima accident has lasting health and environmental effects. I recall back when it happened there were long discussion about what is the extent of the disaster. Even though all these time has passed, the fish around Fukishima is still 7400 times over regulation maximum. First responders and effected residents are now having a higher cancer rate. Such events happening to Taiwan would render greater Taipei uninhabitable.

Should have sent it over there, then. Disperse it as fine oxide particles over Kim Jong Un’s favorite playground.

There is a lot of hyperbole in your post. Taiwan’s air pollution kills far more people (100s to 1000sx) than the almost zero number deaths that Fukushima will cause.

The reason why the 4th nuclear plant suddenly became a problem is that Taipei citizens realized what a post accident evacuation would do their economic well being. Well there is more to it but I think that’s why the celebrities and many of the urban middle class are getting involved for one. No one cared about the nuclear waste problem when they thought a few aboriginals would only be affected (national shame).

I’m not sure if the Northern coast is really more susceptible that the South, to be honest there isn’t much to go on. Certainly the older plants are more dangerous due to poor design and wear and tear plus they store huge amounts of waste on site.

Cant afford this happening in Taiwan:

Children of the Tsunami
youtube.com/watch?v=7jHuMZ9xyj0

That’s somewhat contrary to what I’ve read. Germany may have announced it’s intent to do away with nuclear power but can’t rely on Green power which is the goal. Problem is there are only 4 real choices for power - nuclear which is unpopular, carbon (coal\oil\gas) which is unpopular, hydro which is yet again unpopular with Greenies, also only works if you’ve got rivers you can dam, and geothermal which is also geology based. Not sure if it’s popular or not with Greenies?

As for the health effects etc, while I’ve heard alarmists saying Japan will become a wasteland etc (okay mild exaggeration) I haven’t heard there being any factual reporting of significant consequences. If the “samurai” teams had higher cancer etc I’d not be surprised but I’ve yet to hear it.

[quote=“hansioux”]Germany did away with their nuclear power programs. There’s really no reason why it can’t be done, but the whole thing needs to be thoroughly planned and conveyed to the people. The current Nuclear power plant is poorly planned with old fashion design and shoddy construction practises. It is located at the most earth quake and tsunami prone side of the north coast. And I still have no clue how they are going to deal with the nuclear waste. It is already proven that the nuclear waste storage site at Orchid Island is leaking radio active materials into the sea. The real cost of nuclear power is never discussed… If KMT thinks nuclear waste and power plants are suitable to be placed at the most scenic and beautiful areas of Taiwan, I’d suggest them to put it to more inhospitable locales, such as KMT headquarters in Taipei, and save the beautiful scenery for future generations.

By the way, Fukushima accident has lasting health and environmental effects. I recall back when it happened there were long discussion about what is the extent of the disaster. Even though all these time has passed, the fish around Fukishima is still 7400 times over regulation maximum. First responders and effected residents are now having a higher cancer rate. Such events happening to Taiwan would render greater Taipei uninhabitable.[/quote]

There’s a lot of hyperbole around this nuclear issue, actual deaths from the Fukushima nuclear incident are going to be in the 10s to 100s at most over many decades. The level of radiation people were exposed to in the immediate area was very limited and no first responders got lethal doses of radiation unlike during Chernobyl. How many people die from scooter accidents or air pollution or strokes or over work every year?

And…you could possibly tune in to ICRT just by wiggling your left ear with a proper dose of this “non-lethal” radiation. There may be benefits to being RADIOactive.