Japan Earthquake and Tsunami

[Puck it]

They are not admitting to much but they have admitted to a partial meltdown. If they cant control that reactor, they will all go. Nuclear power is a lousy option.

The reactors are forty years old and were slated for decommissiong shortly. It was not the earthquake that caused the problem. It was the tsunami that caused the cooling flow to stop. Although the result could be horrific if things escalate,, but considering what the plants went through and their age. They faired well. Could have been worse. Hopefully they contian the problem to where it is now.

The nuclear worldwide industry when this is over will take what has been learned and implement measures to prohibit it from happening again.

Not going to touch the nuke option as lousy, but we have plenty of nukes floating around on ships. Technology can be safe.

 

[Morwax]

If they are dumping seawater on the core to cool it down, sh(t has hit the fan :-(

 

[Geoff]

If they are dumping seawater on the core to cool it down, sh(t has hit the fan :-(

So what do they call it in Japan when the core melts through the crust of the earth? The America Syndrome?

 

[billski]

The big difference I see in Chernobyl and Japan is neglect/poor operations vs. state of the art, fully compliant with modern standards. This is what's scary - no matter how well they've planned for to protect the reactor, it simply wasn't enough. Tragic. It's too bad our world will not curtail its use of electricity. No matter what is used to generate electricity there is a price to pay. Even wind turbines have issues with non-recycleable materials used. It's as bad as our dependency on oil. /End politic rant/

 

[riverc0il]

It's too bad our world will not curtail its use of electricity. No matter what is used to generate electricity there is a price to pay. Even wind turbines have issues with non-recycleable materials used. It's as bad as our dependency on oil. /End politic rant/

We are all culpable. We all need energy to live the lifestyle that everyone has grown to expect. If the Nukes weren't there, we'd need to get that energy another way. But alternative energy is damn near impossible. There is a lot of resistance in NH for the Northern Pass. The same folks that are pro-green are also NIMBY even though the wires would pipe in hydro power. Just one example. We saw what happened with the wind towers off Cape Cod. And that type of alternative stuff is a drop in the bucket compared to a few nukes. There are no easy answers. Especially when energy critics are relying on the very power that is being addressed. I don't think the problem is not curtailing energy usage. I think the problem is energy is still cheap. It will get curtailed when it gets expensive. And $3.60 at the pump is not that expensive, IMO, even though psychologically people and markets seem to think it is.

Any ways, hopefully lessons can be learned and better plans can be put in place to avert this problem in the future.

 

[billski]

Agreed. If we all learned to live in tiny houses instead of Mansions with electric substations we could all contribute at least to reducing the amount of waste we leave behind.

 

[Morwax]

Genies out of the bottle now, meltdown inevitable : (
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis

 

[deadheadskier]

Agreed. If we all learned to live in tiny houses instead of Mansions with electric substations we could all contribute at least to reducing the amount of waste we leave behind.

I think efficiency is more important than size these days. There are modern 2500 sqft homes these days that cost less to power than older homes half that size.

My wife and I make a 2 bedroom and 700 sqft condo work for us, but it still feels pretty tight for 2. We'll want double the space at minimum when we have kids.

 

[billski]

I think efficiency is more important than size these days. There are modern 2500 sqft homes these days that cost less to power than older homes half that size.

My wife and I make a 2 bedroom and 700 sqft condo work for us, but it still feels pretty tight for 2. We'll want double the space at minimum when we have kids.

I'll meet you halfway regarding efficiency. A big part of it is consumption behavior - leaving lights on, having excessive electrical equipment, vehicles that get 14-15 Mpg, running water excessively. And the less obvious - constant turnover of clothes, having the latest technology, lack of recycling behavior. For each and every item consumed, for each and every home built there is a manufacturing expense /impact, and then there is the hidden expense and impact of disposal.

 

[ctenidae]

Genies out of the bottle now, meltdown inevitable : (
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_bi_ge/as_japan_earthquake_nuclear_crisis

I didn't get that from that article at all.

 

[Greg]

Before/after comparison pics. Slide back and forth. Wow:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?hp

 

[bvibert]

I didn't get that from that article at all.

Me either.

 

[bvibert]

Before/after comparison pics. Slide back and forth. Wow:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...photos-japan-before-and-after-tsunami.html?hp

Holy crap, that's amazing!

 

[Euler]

I think efficiency is more important than size these days. There are modern 2500 sqft homes these days that cost less to power than older homes half that size.

My wife and I make a 2 bedroom and 700 sqft condo work for us, but it still feels pretty tight for 2. We'll want double the space at minimum when we have kids.

Efficiency X size = amazing potential! Imagine if we all went to reasonable sized homes/stores/cars/buildings and combined it with the efficiencies of modern technology.

Until we man/woman up and deal with the fact that we need to seriously reduce consumption, our energy woes will remain with us,

 

[Morwax]

I didn't get that from that article at all.

Thats because Im ellaborating on the situation. IT IS going to melt down period. If you understand the gravity of exposed fuel rods you would also realize they have been and still are downplaying the severity of whats going on. Get back to me in a day or so.
Chernobyl was one reactor.. This is a six pack of reactors which will all go.

 

[from_the_NEK]

This looks like a helpful article:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42071355

However the situation is not looking good no matter how you look at it. The chances of this being as bad as Chernobyl are slim since that was essentially a nuclear explosion. This is more of a semi-controlled meltdown where most of the radioactive material can be contained. Hopefully :worried:

 

[bvibert]

This looks like a helpful article:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42071355

However the situation is not looking good no matter how you look at it. The chances of this being as bad as Chernobyl are slim since that was essentially a nuclear explosion. This is more of a semi-controlled meltdown where most of the radioactive material can be contained. Hopefully :worried:

Thanks, enlightening article. I agree that it's not good no matter how you look at it, but I don't think it's the end of the world like some people are making it out to be. I'm sure they're not letting on to everything that's going on over there, but it does seem like they have a decent handle on things.

 

[Morwax]

Thanks, enlightening article. I agree that it's not good no matter how you look at it, but I don't think it's the end of the world like some people are making it out to be. I'm sure they're not letting on to everything that's going on over there, but it does seem like they have a decent handle on things.

I havnt heard any end of world scenarios yet but exposed fuel rods is not "having a decent handle on things". It is and will continue to get worse.

 

[wa-loaf]

Wild video of the Tsunami
http://gizmodo.com/#!5781566/this-is-the-scariest-first+person-video-of-the-japan-tsunami-yet

 

[Puck it]

I am going to oversimplify this.

There are basiclly two type of reactors in the world. One that generates the steam via direct contact with the fuel, thus creating contaminated turbines. This is the type that Chernobyl is or was. Very obselete technology, but it allowed for very big reactors thus making the output higher.

The second is pressurized steam system. The core has its own cooling loop that is self contained. The steam is generated outside of the core and is not in contact with the radiation directly. This type of the reactor used on all of our Navy ships, demostic plants along with the Japanese and French plants.

With Chernobyl, it was not the core radiation that caused the problems, it was the release of the radioactive gases. The strontium and cesium release was quite large. This made it into the food chain rather rapidly by animals eating the contamnated plants.

This plant has the stainless containment vessel and a concrete sheath over that. This should protect from any escaping as long as the vessel does not become brittle from the heat. The problem here lies in the potential breach of the core cooling system. If they pumping seawater, it most likely pumping onto the vessel itself. There would more signficant steam clouds if the vessels had been breached. If they can maintain cooling and slow the decay reaction down then it should be fine. The vessel design has done its job so far.

Exposed fuels rods doe not mean exposed to atmosphere. It means they are immersed in the cooling liquid. BTW