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.
No need to get your pants in a bunch. My point is that these earth quakes are not vague nor unpredictable (in fact earth quakes in Japan are the epitome of what's predictable, hence their building codes etc.). And if you want to throw numbers around then let's say making the plant extra safe would have cost a hundred million dollars more, that works out to a $10^8/(4700*40*365*24)=$0.06 increase in the price per Megawatt hour over the life time of the plant. Even if you take into account that the initial capital has a lost opportunity cost of, lets say, 4.5 billion dollars (annual 10% interest) you end up with an increase of less than three dollars.
You are correct that there probably were some people that argued risk management and profit margins like you did and got their way. This does not mean that they were correct, or that their solutions and specs were optimal from a public security standpoint. There are ways to build nuclear power plants absolutely safely (meaning the only way they could ever cause problems is if people went in and physically hugged the fuel rods), plants are not built that way because they would inherently produce less power (although sometimes at better efficiencies) thus making it more expensive to produce the same amount of energy. This is a fact, now it is up to you to decide how you feel about the risk--savings tradeoff.
This does not mean that they were correct, or that their solutions and specs were optimal from a public security standpoint
Not saying they were. I'm not giving a justification, I'm giving a likely reason - And you have picked that up from what I'm saying, apparently, so that job is done.
And if you want to throw numbers around then let's say making the plant extra safe would have cost a hundred million dollars more, that works out to a $10^8/(4700*40*365*24)=$0.06 increase in the price per Megawatt hour over the life time of the plant. Even if you take into account that the initial capital has a lost opportunity cost of, lets say, 4.5 billion dollars (annual 10% interest) you end up with an increase of less than three dollars.
Now that's a little different - if you want to talk about just plant cost to Megawatt hours, then you're already getting into the territory of about 7 grand per kilowatt hour for a nuclear plant, compared to the grand and change from a coal plant. The reason they're cheaper is that they produce more electricity with less fuel intake than a coal plant - they are much more expensive to build because of, as you say, the safety features and redundancy built into the plant.
No need to get your pants in a bunch.
Hey, You get snippy with that "Oh, Right..." kinda shit, what do you expect? It's cool, we'll keep it chill.
There are ways to build nuclear power plants absolutely safely (meaning the only way they could ever cause problems is if people went in and physically hugged the fuel rods), plants are not built that way because they would inherently produce less power (although sometimes at better efficiencies) thus making it more expensive to produce the same amount of energy.
Well, theoretically, yes, however, there is always something you don't account for. Almost nothing is absolutely safe, because there is simply limits to what we can conceive of - In fact, that's propably why this plant was only built to withstand a 7.2 quake and the Tsunami that would go along with it, because a 9.0 right outside the front door was something that they might have considered so unlikely that it's occurrence was inconceivable, which apparently did not mean what they thought it means.
now it is up to you to decide how you feel about the risk--savings tradeoff.
Well, that's quite simple - if the plant is well built for the conditions and area it's built in, and is well constructed enough to be safe under all normal or Fubar situation, I'm happy enough with that. However, I'm not a nuclear engineer, so there are doubtless things I'm omitting, because there is too much I don't know about Power plant design.
So the news here in Germany is that the government has ordered the closure of 7 pre-1980 nuclear reactors for a safety review. This is a direct result of the situation in Japan. However, the entire situation is a joke.
As a friend on Facebook said: "Now that Germany's shut down the nuclear reactors, how long before we can have safe* buildings too ? *ones that can withstand an 8.9 earthquake."
Overhear Dad complaining about the Japanese people on TV not being able to speak English properly. Valiantly resist urge to point out how most people say "suunami" and not "tsunami". Pride is the price I pay for shelter.
Japan has been dealing with this shit for years, and they need perfect infrastructure to keep such a populous country running. I don't doubt that the country with 200MPH levitating trains can reshape and rebuild a shattered highway in four days.
CNN is reporting that people are leaving Tokyo en masse. They need to entomb those reactors NOW.
Entomb that shit. Giant boronated concrete coffin.
I'm sure it's not that simple, otherwise they would probably be working on it right now...
I feel like Japan hasn't been taking this seriously enough. They're just trying to be like "nah guys we got this shit" and be cool about it. Lives our on the line here, it's not time for that bullshit.
This article points out how there should be greater caution taken than what Japanese officials are calling for.
This is all looking worse and worse each day...I'm not sure what this is going to cause in the coming months...
EDIT: I just realized after looking at a lot of photos of the plant, it's built RIGHT on the shore. What were they thinking? Why didn't they build it more inland? Also why does this plant not have the typical smokestack looking things?
EDIT: I just realized after looking at a lot of photos of the plant, it's built RIGHT on the shore. What were they thinking? Why didn't they build it more inland? Also why does this plant not have the typical smokestack looking things?
One is probably the reason for the other. Many nuclear power plants use natural water as their coolant. It is separate from the water that comes into contact with the fuel, but it can cause heat pollution, in that a lot of boiling water is dumped into the body of water it is next to. I'm not sure if the Fukushima plant uses that sort of cooling method instead of the towers, but I would guess that may be the method used. Also, the cooling towers don't always look like the conic things you are thinking off. Indian Point, near Beacon, looks much more like a dome and a rocket. It is very futuristic looking when the sun strikes it in the morning.
I'm sure some of you know this already, but one of the best places for fact checked, scientifically correct information on the situation as it develops is the MIT nuclear science and engineering blog.
I feel like Japan hasn't been taking this seriously enough. They're just trying to be like "nah guys we got this shit" and be cool about it. Lives our on the line here, it's not time for that bullshit.
That's their public imagine to avoid panic. As for how they're handling it, I assure Japan's best nuclear engineers are dealing with the situation. They're doing all that can be done, even if they appear nonchalant about it. Let them do their job and stop looking over their shoulder repeatedly saying, "why haven't you fixed it yet???"
Or you could say they are lying with propaganda to avoid panic, and when people are inevitably going to find out the real situation, they will be upset and not trust the government. I don't trust what the Japanese government says about this for beans. The nuclear industry is too closely tied to the government for them to be completely impartial in their critique of the situation, and moreover, they have lied in the past to prevent the people from getting nervous.
It brings up a question: Do you lie to the public, or let them know the deal and risk them being worried and full of panic? I say be open, because the truth will be leak out eventually in this media age.
It brings up a question: Do you lie to the public, or let them know the deal and risk them being worried and full of panic? I say be open, because the truth will be leak out eventually in this media age.
I disagree in a situation like this. The Truth changes nearly every minute. It's better to control the message as much as possible. Releasing information as it is needed. With such a fast moving situation the truth of the matter will come out after the event. Better let the calm people handle this in the meantime.
A good example is how we get these spikes in radiation near the planet. During one of these moments the truth is "GET THE FUCK OUT OF JAPAN NOW" then a few minutes later it's "Stay in doors" You want to be able to understand the information before you let it out.
Well, we have proven that the public is capable of understanding and dealing rationally with the information. I mean, just look at all the people on the west cost who are buying iodine. Clearly, they know how to protect themselves.
It brings up a question: Do you lie to the public, or let them know the deal and risk them being worried and full of panic? I say be open, because the truth will be leak out eventually in this media age.
Telling the whole truth would not change how the experts are handling the situation. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people don't need up to the minute updates about the plants because they wouldn't understand it anyway. The best you can do in this situation is simply what you're told. The government will tell them when it's time to move further away and they'll tell them when to take the potassium iodine. While I wouldn't say they have it "under control" since clearly they don't, I'll just say they have a plan and know what they're doing. Some times you just have to trust the government, which is what the Japanese seem to be doing anyway.
Okay, fair enough. People are dumb. However, the Japanese people don't trust the government at all, but they will listen to directions. You listen to the people in the region talking about it on NHK, and they are very skeptical that they are getting the whole story.
Yeah, I noticed that. However, from what I know about radiation exposure, the government is actually giving very good advice on evac zones, iodide usage, etc.
Comments
You are correct that there probably were some people that argued risk management and profit margins like you did and got their way. This does not mean that they were correct, or that their solutions and specs were optimal from a public security standpoint. There are ways to build nuclear power plants absolutely safely (meaning the only way they could ever cause problems is if people went in and physically hugged the fuel rods), plants are not built that way because they would inherently produce less power (although sometimes at better efficiencies) thus making it more expensive to produce the same amount of energy. This is a fact, now it is up to you to decide how you feel about the risk--savings tradeoff.
As a friend on Facebook said:
"Now that Germany's shut down the nuclear reactors, how long before we can have safe* buildings too ?
*ones that can withstand an 8.9 earthquake."
Valiantly resist urge to point out how most people say "suunami" and not "tsunami".
Pride is the price I pay for shelter.
The moral: Everyone talks a bit different.
of the Roman Empire.
holy shit, if this is legit Japan must have some of the best road crews in the world.
CNN is reporting that people are leaving Tokyo en masse. They need to entomb those reactors NOW.
This now raises the question of what will we do when the Japanese people become physically indestructible?
I feel like Japan hasn't been taking this seriously enough. They're just trying to be like "nah guys we got this shit" and be cool about it. Lives our on the line here, it's not time for that bullshit.
This article points out how there should be greater caution taken than what Japanese officials are calling for.
This is all looking worse and worse each day...I'm not sure what this is going to cause in the coming months...
EDIT: I just realized after looking at a lot of photos of the plant, it's built RIGHT on the shore. What were they thinking? Why didn't they build it more inland?
Also why does this plant not have the typical smokestack looking things?
Also, the cooling towers don't always look like the conic things you are thinking off. Indian Point, near Beacon, looks much more like a dome and a rocket. It is very futuristic looking when the sun strikes it in the morning.
It brings up a question: Do you lie to the public, or let them know the deal and risk them being worried and full of panic? I say be open, because the truth will be leak out eventually in this media age.
A good example is how we get these spikes in radiation near the planet. During one of these moments the truth is "GET THE FUCK OUT OF JAPAN NOW" then a few minutes later it's "Stay in doors" You want to be able to understand the information before you let it out.
However, the Japanese people don't trust the government at all, but they will listen to directions. You listen to the people in the region talking about it on NHK, and they are very skeptical that they are getting the whole story.