I'm a little pissed about how people are talking about nuclear energy.. The Plant in question was hit with a 9.0 earthquake and then hit with a 10 meter talk tsunami in my opinion the fact it even still is struggling to stay in control is a testiment to human engineering. Any other plant would probably be a giant fireball right now. (well the solar panels probably would just be cracked and laying around)
Hydrogen fire at reactor 4. Radioactive materials released but the inactive rods are not the source of the fire.
I love that we live in a world where that can be said and it is not a line from a movie. It makes me feel like I'm living in the future. However, I wish this was being said under better circumstances.
I'm a little pissed about how people are talking about nuclear energy..
Well, remember to most people electricity is like magic that comes out of their walls to (just as magically) power their electronics. Most people have not clue where it comes from or how it is generated. Since, the word nuclear is connected to so many negative objects and events (nuclear bomb, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) average people are just naturally scared of it. So, basically it is a combo if ignorance and fear.
Well, remember to most people electricity is like magic that comes out of their walls to (just as magically) power their electronics. Most people have not clue where it comes from or how it is generated. Since, the word nuclear is connected to so many negative objects and events (nuclear bomb, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) average people are just naturally scared of it. So, basically it is a combo if ignorance and fear.
Yeah, they hear things like "Chernobyl disaster" and imagine essentially a massive ruined building with a crater in the middle, and a ghost zone around that for miles and miles and miles. They don't think of things like how the other three reactors Chernobyl were still running without incident up until 1999.
How many have died from any nuclear accident ever? People are idiots. I just learn to live with it. Here in Germany there are big protests about new nuclear power stations, and this Japanese situation is playing into the protesters' hands. Or so they think. I say "If it takes an earthquake and tsunami to cause ANY trouble with modern power plants, isn't Germany the best place for them?"
How many have died from any nuclear accident ever?
That depends by what metric. 62 directly, unless you count the rumored death toll for a russian icebreaker which lost reactor containment, which pushes it up to 92. Indirectly is hard to measure, but it's up around the 4-5 thousand mark, mostly from Chernobyl.
Also, the people who are using this problem as a reason to further their agenda against nuclear power absolutely disgust me. I mean, really, guys? Do you honestly think that is a pressing or important issue right now?
Found this write-up on the situation, which includes some references and links to other sources. I have not yet vetted his reliability or accuracy, but it is an intelligent and well written post. I plan to use it as a reference point as more information comes to light.
How many have died from any nuclear accident ever?
That depends by what metric. 62 directly, unless you count the rumored death toll for a russian icebreaker which lost reactor containment, which pushes it up to 92. Indirectly is hard to measure, but it's up around the 4-5 thousand mark, mostly from Chernobyl.
Now is as good a time as any to tell the story of Anatoli Bugorski, a man I am writing a poem about.
Found this write-up on the situation, which includes some references and links to other sources. I have not yet vetted his reliability or accuracy, but it is an intelligent and well written post. I plan to use it as a reference point as more information comes to light. Japanese Nuclear Reactor Design and Current Failure Situation
At least he gets some of the physics completely wrong. The technical write up of the accident is also nothing more than what has been reported in the mainstream news. Aljazeera has had a nuclear expert on a couple of times who dissects the official statements made by the Japanese authorities and has reasonable arguments about the situation being slightly more dire than what the authorities let on. Also here on Finnish TV experts that have visited Japanese nuclear facilities say that the Japanese are not very good with their backup systems.
Also, the people who are using this problem as a reason to further their agenda against nuclear power absolutely disgust me. I mean, really, guys? Do you honestly think that is a pressing or important issue right now?
I read this earlier, but I can't remember where...
Note: This is not a "nuclear accident". It is damage from an earthquake and tsunami. The reported sweeping away of four entire trains, including a bullet train which apparently disappeared without a trace, was not labeled “the third worst train accident ever".
The reported sweeping away of four entire trains, including a bullet train which apparently disappeared without a trace, was not labeled “the third worst train accident ever".
Wrong analogy. A train can only kill / inconvenience hundreds of people, and precautions for train safety are in proportion to that. If external circumstances permitted by those safety precautions lead to a train wreck you can be assured that it will be called a train accident.
Nuclear power plants can cause trouble for a much larger population and seriously if not permanently (on human timescales) damage vast amounts of property. Safety precautions are accordingly much more stringent and external circumstances, such as earth quakes, are taken into account (particularly in Japan). Now when an earth quake hits and five reactors experience serious problems with three of them undergoing massive explosions, then I think it is appropriate to call it a nuclear accident as well as ask some hard questions about whether the safety standards were being upheld at those plants.
Okay, I'll give you that point. Still, so far there have been ZERO deaths from this accident, and from everything I've read the worst case (in this case) is going to be a very messy yet very local cleanup. Meanwhile there are thousands and thousands of deaths elsewhere, and yet all the headlines are about the power station. It's a balance thing, I guess.
Well, now there has been a fourth explosion at the number 4 building and a fire at the fuel waste pond.
Edit @Luke, of course news reporting should always be taken with a grain of salt not only with respect to objectivity but also as to relevance. However, there are currently two hundred thousand people evacuated from the vicinity of the power plants, so going simply by the human interest angle that is right up there with thousands of people dead. Frankly, I'm more interested in the power plants from a technology geek perspective, human suffering is all over the news all the time and I get too worked up to be able to watch it for extended periods of time.
Now when an earth quake hits and five reactors experience serious problems with three of them undergoing massive explosions, then I think it is appropriate to call it a nuclear accident as well as ask some hard questions about whether the safety standards were being upheld at those plants.
It was just hit by an earthquake Five hundred and one times stronger than what it was designed to deal with. I'm just astounded by the quality of the engineering being such that it's still standing at all.
Also, Another development is that the Radiation levels at their highest were previously bugger-all - above normal, but still in the micro-SV range, the sort of thing you'd have to stand around in for weeks just to get a tickle - however, during a short period while there was a fire at the #4, readings in that immediate area showed about 400 milli-seivert per hour, which is dangerously high - roughly the equivalent to getting 40 chest x-rays an hour. Not great for your health, one would imagine.
Well, now there has been a fourth explosion at the number 4 building and a fire at the fuel waste pond.
Last I heard, that fire was out now, but I don't know for sure.
Also, France is Freaking right the hell out - They've declared it a level six nuclear incident. Chernobyl, with the fire, and extreme radioactivity, and the reactor shell breach, and blowing it's insides into the countrysides and the so on and so fourth was a seven. Another example of a six would be the Kyshtym disaster, in which a steam explosion blasted 70-80 tons of nuclear materiel into the environment, contaminating an area of about 800 Square kilometers. Needless to say, this has not yet happened, and France is just going mental needlessly.
Now when an earth quake hits and five reactors experience serious problems with three of them undergoing massive explosions, then I think it is appropriate to call it a nuclear accident as well as ask some hard questions about whether the safety standards were being upheld at those plants.
It was just hit by an earthquake Five hundred and one times stronger than what it was designed to deal with. I'm just astounded by the quality of the engineering being such that it's still standing at all.
It's not really standing anymore, and that's the problem. The Onegawa plant, for example, was hit worse by the Tsunami and no nuclear mishap happened there. The Prime minister of Japan is freaking out at TOPECO for having to hear about explosion #4 from the news instead of them directly. I'm starting to get a picture of an outdated nuclear plant with not up to spec safety systems.
But, as you say, it too early for anyone to get worked up about the scale of the accident, and current info on the radiation levels put them at serious but not dangerous.
It's not really standing anymore, and that's the problem.
It absolutely is. Sure, I don't think it will ever be worth the time and effort to re-light those reactors, and this will instead be the decomissioning of the plant, but it's certainly still there and still standing. If it were not, we'd be at a level Seven emergency, not roughly a level four. Though, come to think, we may just be using different definitions of standing - I mean the reactors and support structures are mostly intact, not enough to start the plant again, but we don't have a containment vessel floating off into the ocean sunset.
The Onegawa plant, for example, was hit worse by the Tsunami and no nuclear mishap happened there.
The Onegawa plant where a state of emergency was declared due to excessive levels of radiation being detected at that plant? They had to shut a reactor down(The other two have been offline for quite a while, unlike the reactors in question at Fukushima), and there was a fire in the turbines. Also, a somewhat unfair comparison - the reactor there that was running was only constructed and lit up in about 2002, not in the 1970s like the currently problematic plants. According to the Onagawa facility Administrator for TEPO, via the Australian -
Earlier, an administrator at Tohoku Electric Power's Onagawa facility said the process for the cooling reactor was "not going as planned", adding that a "nuclear emergency situation" had been declared.
The radiation levels have gone down around that plant again, but I know literally nothing else right now.
I'm starting to get a picture of an outdated nuclear plant with not up to spec safety systems.
Everything was up to spec and seemingly performed exactly as it should have, right until the emergency power was smashed to shit by the tsunami. The reactors SCRAMed exactly as they should have, the coolant systems were working fine, then a giant wave comes along and starts causing trouble. As much as it's something they should have thought about, there is only so much you can do and plan for - and the fourth most powerful earthquake in the world arriving right on your doorstep just as you're about to retire an old nuclear plant isn't really something you'd be able to predict without getting laughed out of the budget meeting. You make a good point, but I'm not sure it's a fair one.
What we should be doing is looking at the failures at these plants and figuring out how to mitigate these risks in the future. It seems it may be prudent for the Japanese to start build their backup generators with fuel supplies in bunkers of their own.
The Onegawa plant where a state of emergency was declared due to excessive levels of radiation being detected at that plant?
Yes, radiation levels rose apparently due to fallout from the Fukushima plant, oh right there is no danger from the Fukushima accident.
...without getting laughed out of the budget meeting. You make a good point, but I'm not sure it's a fair one.
Nobody said nuclear power is cheap, ... oh wait that's exactly the argument industry uses to lobby it. Personally I don't care about clean (because it is an arbitrary measure and very hard to compare to the various other mineral based options), I care about safe, and safe is expensive.
Yes, radiation levels rose apparently due to fallout from the Fukushima plant, oh right there is no danger from the Fukushima accident.
Apparently, you're correct - my mistake. However, Explain how a generation three reactor built and lit in 2002 is a valid comparison to a generation two reactor which started construction in 1961 for your argument to be valid. Oh, Right, of course - a different generation of reactor built 40 odd years later in a time of vastly improved engineering and scientific knowledge particularly regarding nuclear energy, That's a PERFECT comparison. YOU'RE A GENIUS. You even accounted for the fact that one is in a sheltered crescent bay with a small group of islands which would have lessened the impact of the Tsunami! In fact, it's like you already knew that the Onagawa plant had been all but untouched by the tsunami!
Nobody said nuclear power is cheap, ... oh wait that's exactly the argument industry uses to lobby it. Personally I don't care about clean (because it is an arbitrary measure and very hard to compare to the various other mineral based options), I care about safe, and safe is expensive.
Did you hear that gentle wooshing noise? That's the sound of the point of the sentence you chopped down to build your straw-man flying right over your head. Let me quote the whole thing for you -
As much as it's something they should have thought about, there is only so much you can do and plan for - and the fourth most powerful earthquake in the world arriving right on your doorstep just as you're about to retire an old nuclear plant isn't really something you'd be able to predict without getting laughed out of the budget meeting.
Now, Let me explain it for you, since you seem to not understand. An extraordinary event has occurred, of such a magnitude and rarity that it would be practically worthless to plan for it. You can't predict when you're building something that you're going to have a quake that's in the top five most powerful happen right outside your plant, and therefore you need to build around that. You can't predict that the resulting tsunami of the earthquake you can't predict will roll right over the walls you set up to prevent this sort of thing in the event of the much smaller sort of quakes you planned for. Now go to the people building the plant, and say "Hey, I can't predict a once in a lifetime event, nor can I predict a tsunami, both of which occurring practically on top of us, so surely we should build to withstand the biggest quake imaginable, rather than just the major and larger than usual quake we've already prepared for in the specs? Yeah, I know it's going to cost hundreds of millions to prepare for this unforeseeable disaster which, all things considered, is unlikely to occur, but we should, like, totally do that."
The plant was built safely. This was an extraordinary event that was well beyond what it was built to deal with, and while there are most certainly problems, it is still reasonably safe, and has performed admirably by any standard.
Oh, and as for the price? $67 USD per Megawatt hour, as opposed to coal at 74 to 88. That's what they mean by Nuclear power being cheap. If you don't understand their arguments, I'd advise you don't use them. Especially since I didn't say nuclear power was cheap - nor did I say building plants was cheap, which is a ludicrous statement, as they are absolutely not - because they're built to be safe as reasonably possible.
What I did try to say, however, is that vauge and unpredictable disasters of generally unseen power are not going to cut shit with anyone with enough cash(and business sense to build up the cash) to build a reactor. Essentially, we don't build for unforseeable events of unforseeable power, because it's absolutely ludicrous. It's like building your house with a 40 foot thick concrete and steel shell over the top, just in case a meteor is going to crash into your house - it's most likely to never happen.
Comments
If that is serious that is some SERIOUS mental illness.
2000: 5,300 deaths.
2001: 5,670 deaths.
2002: 5,791 deaths.
2003: 7,200 deaths.
2004: 6,027 deaths.
2005: 5,986 deaths.
2006: 4,746 deaths.
2007: 3,786 deaths.
2008: 3,215 deaths.
2009: 2,631 deaths."
How many have died from any nuclear accident ever? People are idiots. I just learn to live with it. Here in Germany there are big protests about new nuclear power stations, and this Japanese situation is playing into the protesters' hands. Or so they think. I say "If it takes an earthquake and tsunami to cause ANY trouble with modern power plants, isn't Germany the best place for them?"
Although, her use of "Lental" is highly suspect. Even the shittiest of Christians know that the term is "Lenten."
Find it here.
Also, the people who are using this problem as a reason to further their agenda against nuclear power absolutely disgust me. I mean, really, guys? Do you honestly think that is a pressing or important issue right now?
Japanese Nuclear Reactor Design and Current Failure Situation
Note: This is not a "nuclear accident". It is damage from an earthquake and tsunami. The reported sweeping away of four entire trains, including a bullet train which apparently disappeared without a trace, was not labeled “the third worst train accident ever".
Nuclear power plants can cause trouble for a much larger population and seriously if not permanently (on human timescales) damage vast amounts of property. Safety precautions are accordingly much more stringent and external circumstances, such as earth quakes, are taken into account (particularly in Japan). Now when an earth quake hits and five reactors experience serious problems with three of them undergoing massive explosions, then I think it is appropriate to call it a nuclear accident as well as ask some hard questions about whether the safety standards were being upheld at those plants.
Edit
@Luke, of course news reporting should always be taken with a grain of salt not only with respect to objectivity but also as to relevance. However, there are currently two hundred thousand people evacuated from the vicinity of the power plants, so going simply by the human interest angle that is right up there with thousands of people dead. Frankly, I'm more interested in the power plants from a technology geek perspective, human suffering is all over the news all the time and I get too worked up to be able to watch it for extended periods of time.
Also, Another development is that the Radiation levels at their highest were previously bugger-all - above normal, but still in the micro-SV range, the sort of thing you'd have to stand around in for weeks just to get a tickle - however, during a short period while there was a fire at the #4, readings in that immediate area showed about 400 milli-seivert per hour, which is dangerously high - roughly the equivalent to getting 40 chest x-rays an hour. Not great for your health, one would imagine. Last I heard, that fire was out now, but I don't know for sure.
Also, France is Freaking right the hell out - They've declared it a level six nuclear incident. Chernobyl, with the fire, and extreme radioactivity, and the reactor shell breach, and blowing it's insides into the countrysides and the so on and so fourth was a seven. Another example of a six would be the Kyshtym disaster, in which a steam explosion blasted 70-80 tons of nuclear materiel into the environment, contaminating an area of about 800 Square kilometers. Needless to say, this has not yet happened, and France is just going mental needlessly.
But, as you say, it too early for anyone to get worked up about the scale of the accident, and current info on the radiation levels put them at serious but not dangerous.
According to the Onagawa facility Administrator for TEPO, via the Australian - The radiation levels have gone down around that plant again, but I know literally nothing else right now. Everything was up to spec and seemingly performed exactly as it should have, right until the emergency power was smashed to shit by the tsunami. The reactors SCRAMed exactly as they should have, the coolant systems were working fine, then a giant wave comes along and starts causing trouble. As much as it's something they should have thought about, there is only so much you can do and plan for - and the fourth most powerful earthquake in the world arriving right on your doorstep just as you're about to retire an old nuclear plant isn't really something you'd be able to predict without getting laughed out of the budget meeting. You make a good point, but I'm not sure it's a fair one.
An extraordinary event has occurred, of such a magnitude and rarity that it would be practically worthless to plan for it. You can't predict when you're building something that you're going to have a quake that's in the top five most powerful happen right outside your plant, and therefore you need to build around that. You can't predict that the resulting tsunami of the earthquake you can't predict will roll right over the walls you set up to prevent this sort of thing in the event of the much smaller sort of quakes you planned for. Now go to the people building the plant, and say "Hey, I can't predict a once in a lifetime event, nor can I predict a tsunami, both of which occurring practically on top of us, so surely we should build to withstand the biggest quake imaginable, rather than just the major and larger than usual quake we've already prepared for in the specs? Yeah, I know it's going to cost hundreds of millions to prepare for this unforeseeable disaster which, all things considered, is unlikely to occur, but we should, like, totally do that."
The plant was built safely. This was an extraordinary event that was well beyond what it was built to deal with, and while there are most certainly problems, it is still reasonably safe, and has performed admirably by any standard.
Oh, and as for the price? $67 USD per Megawatt hour, as opposed to coal at 74 to 88. That's what they mean by Nuclear power being cheap. If you don't understand their arguments, I'd advise you don't use them. Especially since I didn't say nuclear power was cheap - nor did I say building plants was cheap, which is a ludicrous statement, as they are absolutely not - because they're built to be safe as reasonably possible.
What I did try to say, however, is that vauge and unpredictable disasters of generally unseen power are not going to cut shit with anyone with enough cash(and business sense to build up the cash) to build a reactor. Essentially, we don't build for unforseeable events of unforseeable power, because it's absolutely ludicrous. It's like building your house with a 40 foot thick concrete and steel shell over the top, just in case a meteor is going to crash into your house - it's most likely to never happen.