Fukushima Status?

[Mister Bisley]

I realize I'm bringing facts to a feelings fight here, buuuuut...



You missed this part of @Crohnos01 's post:

"...The current designs take advantage of natural convection to circulate the coolant water so that even if power is lost and/or pumps fail, enough water is circulated to prevent a disaster."

Current designs don't need external or even internal electricity for either the moderator or cooling to function; they have been designed to be physically incapable of melting-down, so that even someone at the reactor's controls couldn't make it happen if they tried; some designs cannot have a steam explosion, like at Fukushima, because they don't use water as moderator or coolant, or they're designed to cool and condense any steam and send it back into the reactor to cool it, without internal or external electricity. Beyond the safety of the reactor itself, there are even designs now that "burn" nuclear waste – their own or that from other reactors – so that issue has also been solved. Or it would be, if the public's fear of nuclear energy didn't prevent the new designs from being made.

Judging the safety of nuclear energy, in its entirety, based on catastrophes with first- and second-generation reactor designs (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima), is like judging the safety of all cars based on the Model-T, Corvair, and Pinto. How many of you are scared of cars?

Whenever someone expresses concern or opposition to nuclear energy, it seems to be based on fear and misinformation, driven by hysterical media coverage and the person's choice not to educate themself (Don't believe stupid crap you read on the internet!). If this sounds like I'm describing anti-gun people, you're right; the phenomena are the same, differing only in subject.

No, I read that part. I'm not disagreeing that the new reactors are less/as safe than the older generation reactors. Of course they are safer. We use advancing technology and lessons learned to make better choices and equipment.

What I disagree with is that they are 100% safe. Read @Patriot1668 post. It's all circumstantial and they are subject to unknown circumstances that are beyond our control.

What happens if a large meteorite, like the one that fell in the Russian city of Chelyabinsk a few years back, causes one to implode on impact? Not much time for it to eat itself then.

 

[MrMillspecer]

I didn't read all the posts but do these new plants eliminate waist ? We were working on unmanned vehicles to remove contaminated soil at Hanford 20 years ago. It's still a problem and will be for generations. I think solar, wind and tides would be a better choice. I don't trust they have it all figured out. And wouldn't want my kids working at Hanford doing safe cleanup.

 

[Vorpalis]

...do these new plants eliminate waist?

Nope, it still takes diet and exercise to lose weight and reduce one's waist

Yes, there are several reactor designs that use fast neutrons to "burn" what would be waste or spent fuel with older reactor designs. Because the fast neutrons effectively accelerate the radioactive decay of daughter elements, the waste from these reactors is both far less radioactive, and decays to safe levels in as little as a few hundred years, as opposed to hundreds of thousands or even millions of years with existing nuclear waste. On top of that, we also get a lot more energy out of a given amount of fuel, since the bulk of current nuclear waste is unburned uranium.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Hey it seems there's some big-brains here so.. what about a thorium (salt?) reactor? Saw something on youtube that made it sound like it was a miracle thing answering all our prayers.

 

[Vorpalis]

What I disagree with is that they are 100% safe. Read @Patriot1668 post. It's all circumstantial and they are subject to unknown circumstances that are beyond our control.

What happens if a large meteorite, like the one that fell in the Russian city of Chelyabinsk a few years back, causes one to implode on impact? Not much time for it to eat itself then.

My understanding is that reactor buildings and containment vessels are engineered to withstand a jetliner crashing into them.

You're right that even modern reactor designs aren't 100.00000% safe. You're also right that we can't be absolutely certain that a giant meteor won't crash into the specific plot of Earth where a nuclear reactor is built, or that another catastrophe like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukushima won't happen again, but we can calculate their probability, and these events are extremely rare*. That something is unpredictable is not the same as it being probable.
We can also calculate the cost of construction, fuel production, and maintenance per unit of electricity produced. And we can calculate the effects of whatever waste is produced. Even considering the catastrophes and risks mentioned above, nuclear wins this math equation, even over many "green" energy production methods.
Those catastrophes also take on a heavy significance in any discussion of nuclear power because of how we feel about them – they were horrible, terrifying events. However, this significance has less to do with their probability, and more to do with a perceptual fallacy called Misleading Vividness (this is also behind a large part of the anti-gun hysteria). Emotions can have a lot of sway over our perception of reality, and over our cognition. It's very difficult, yet also very important, to distinguish between emotion and reason, between opinion and fact, especially when considering or discussing a topic as emotionally-charged as nuclear energy (or guns).

*Actually, tiny meteorites crash to Earth all over, all the time, including into nuclear reactors, but they rarely cause any damage or even a visible streak across the sky. If you run a magnet down your gutters, the tiny little grains of sand you'll find stuck to it are bonafide meteorites that crashed into your roof without you knowing. So, technically reactors are hit with meteorites all the time.

 

[Provincial]

My understanding is that reactor buildings and containment vessels are engineered to withstand a jetliner crashing into them.

You're right that even modern reactor designs aren't 100.00000% safe. You're also right that we can't be absolutely certain that a giant meteor won't crash into the specific plot of Earth where a nuclear reactor is built, or that another catastrophe like Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or Fukushima won't happen again, but we can calculate their probability, and these events are extremely rare*. That something is unpredictable is not the same as it being probable.
We can also calculate the cost of construction, fuel production, and maintenance per unit of electricity produced. And we can calculate the effects of whatever waste is produced. Even considering the catastrophes and risks mentioned above, nuclear wins this math equation, even over many "green" energy production methods.
Those catastrophes also take on a heavy significance in any discussion of nuclear power because of how we feel about them – they were horrible, terrifying events. However, this significance has less to do with their probability, and more to do with a perceptual fallacy called Misleading Vividness (this is also behind a large part of the anti-gun hysteria). Emotions can have a lot of sway over our perception of reality, and over our cognition. It's very difficult, yet also very important, to distinguish between emotion and reason, between opinion and fact, especially when considering or discussing a topic as emotionally-charged as nuclear energy (or guns).

*Actually, tiny meteorites crash to Earth all over, all the time, including into nuclear reactors, but they rarely cause any damage or even a visible streak across the sky. If you run a magnet down your gutters, the tiny little grains of sand you'll find stuck to it are bonafide meteorites that crashed into your roof without you knowing. So, technically reactors are hit with meteorites all the time.

I once was bucking a fir tree that was from a hillside that was 1/2 mile from any road or other access. About 40 feet up from the butt, I hit something embedded deep in the trunk. After making another cut next to the first one, I found what appeared to be a piece of 3/4" crushed rock. It was almost in the center of the 10" diameter log. I have often wondered how it got there. Perhaps it was a small meteorite.

 

[Crohnos01]

Judging the safety of nuclear energy, in its entirety, based on catastrophes with first- and second-generation reactor designs (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima), is like judging the safety of all cars based on the Model-T, Corvair, and Pinto. How many of you are scared of cars?

I love this... It's a great analogy. Where would we be if when the only two cars in the state of Ohio crashed and society decided autos were too risky and quit developing them? Is nuclear power100% safe? Of course not. Are firearms 100% safe? Of course not. But we can mitigate the risks by employing sound engineering and construction practices or simply keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. I dare say the likelihood of deaths from firearms is greater than from nuclear power considering there has never been a nuclear power related death in the US from a licensed reactor. I don't think anyone here arguing against nuclear power would apply the same logic to cars or firearms. I realize that this is an emotionally charged subject, but as was said earlier, don't just buy into the media hype... That's the same group mailigning guns as being risky to society. I have no dog in this fight. I am not in the nuclear industry, but I know other engineering folks who are and I do read...a lot.

 

[pdx210]

We are talking about an accident that can make large areas uninhabitable for centuries not injure or kill a few people. The real point though, our cold war era nuclear power industry wasn't built on generating safe, reliable power like Thorium reactor. It's built on using uranium for power AND the fission process to create a byproduct Plutonium 239 to be processed into weapons-grade material. The technology, infrastructure, and money have all been weighted to this not safe atomic energy for 75+ years.

I love this... It's a great analogy. Where would we be if when the only two cars in the state of Ohio crashed and society decided autos were too risky and quit developing them? Is nuclear power100% safe? Of course not. Are firearms 100% safe? Of course not. But we can mitigate the risks by employing sound engineering and construction practices or simply keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. I dare say the likelihood of deaths from firearms is greater than from nuclear power considering there has never been a nuclear power related death in the US from a licensed reactor. I don't think anyone here arguing against nuclear power would apply the same logic to cars or firearms. I realize that this is an emotionally charged subject, but as was said earlier, don't just buy into the media hype... That's the same group mailigning guns as being risky to society. I have no dog in this fight. I am not in the nuclear industry, but I know other engineering folks who are and I do read...a lot.

 

[Silver Hand]

Sounds like he has something to sell [Post 325] and as with everything that involves reactors there is never a down side.

OH why is it when reactor failures are mentioned Indian Point #1 melt down never gets mentioned.
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/NRDC-1336_Indian_Point_FSr8medium.pdf
Oh yea it is just inactive due to a few cracks?
We in the pacific NW are being more and more contaminated from the wind, rains, and ocean due to the Fukushima melt down.
No one speaks of what rate is involved, but as it was when Indian point #1 was constructed, You have nothing to fear.
I left NY partly to get away from that thing and #2 reactor after seeing everything in the Hudson River die upon there operating.
I did not believe them then, I do-not believe them now.
Silver Hand

 

[Silver Hand]

I wonder what the carcinogen rate is in Japan before the bombs then after and then again after Fukushima.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

Hey it seems there's some big-brains here so.. what about a thorium (salt?) reactor?

CD,
You are right; INEL built a self-damping Salt machine way back when, ('60's?) and for some reason nobody was interested. Kind of like GM's electric car, a great idea mysteriously killed off. Hmm. Anyway-

They are planning to build a Phase-III modular reactor in Idaho, said to be in about 7 years.

 

[HB of CJ]

Considering the half life and physical properties of the radioactive stuff in the ocean off Japan, I for one am not so sure it is a problem for Oregon. Has anybody done studies to determine what and how much stuff is getting to us? Just wondering.

But ... and here is the other boot dropping, just how long will it be until Japan cleans their own house? It has now been YEARS since the epic meltdown. Regarding Japanese rad study comparisons today vs the B29s , that is a very good request.

But ... Godzilla has a way of smashing things.

 

[Bon Sauvage]

At least they can just move away from it for a "while".

that was a joke.. here's a pic of Tokyo.. click on it a couple times

View attachment 343923

Oh, cool! I was there when that photo was taken. If you look hard enough you can see me towards the bottom just to the right (your right) of center.

 

[Vorpalis]

We are talking about an accident that can make large areas uninhabitable for centuries not injure or kill a few people.

The car analogy that you're referring to wasn't about the effects of a nuclear catastrophe, it was about the cause. My point was that discussions tend to focus on the effects of catastrophes, which stirs-up emotions. This makes it difficult to understand that these catastrophes were caused by specific weaknesses in specific designs – like Pintos catching on fire specifically, and only, because of their wiring and gas tank designs – and don't reflect an inherent problem in all designs that will ever exist.

The real point though, our cold war era nuclear power industry [was] built on using uranium for power AND the fission process to create a byproduct Plutonium 239 to be processed into weapons-grade material.

Those are two different reactor designs – one for producing power, the other for producing plutonium. Reactors designed to produce power are intentionally designed to minimize the amount of plutonium they create.

 

[Vorpalis]

what about a thorium (salt?) reactor?

Thorium reactors potentially have some upsides, but also have downsides that its fans downplay. The biggest hold-up thorium has is that there haven't been enough test reactors and research to know whether its upsides pan-out, and how problematic its downsides actually are. Uranium reactors are economically feasible enough that there isn't much money going to researching thorium reactors.

We in the pacific NW are being more and more contaminated from the wind, rains, and ocean due to the Fukushima melt down.

Stop believing stupid, fear-mongering crap you read on the internet. Seriously, this is like the anti-gun people who read how horrible guns are, and all the crime and violence and deaths they cause, and how there's no upside and no one uses them for good – those people's emotions get all worked-up, and then they choose to believe what their emotions tell them instead of facts and reason. You believe we're being poisoned by radiation because it's a scary thought, not because there's any actual evidence or any experts saying it's happening.

I did not believe them then, I do-not believe them now.

The neat thing about facts is that they don't require anyone's belief to be true.

 

[Silver Hand]

I would be happy to walk the beaches and have someone as a witness wile using the proper detection equipment,
I have picked up small bits of information about the ocean being reactive up here in the NW. In fact it has been said on our local news network.
OH yea! So are our beaches, Tourism oh no.

My father was a Foreman on the Construction of Indian Point Phase 1.
The Croton reservoir was to be a part of the emergency cool down system. At the projects end It was omitted due to cost overruns and three million dollars for something that would never happen Almost did.
The plant had a near melt down, the secondary system did not fail totally but the plant was a total loss due to the cracking that occurred in the reactor.
Silver Hand

Thorium reactors potentially have some upsides, but also have downsides that its fans downplay. The biggest hold-up thorium has is that there haven't been enough test reactors and research to know whether its upsides pan-out, and how problematic its downsides actually are. Uranium reactors are economically feasible enough that there isn't much money going to researching thorium reactors.



Stop believing stupid, fear-mongering crap you read on the internet. Seriously, this is like the anti-gun people who read how horrible guns are, and all the crime and violence and deaths they cause, and how there's no upside and no one uses them for good – those people's emotions get all worked-up, and then they choose to believe what their emotions tell them instead of facts and reason. You believe we're being poisoned by radiation because it's a scary thought, not because there's any actual evidence or any experts saying it's happening.



The neat thing about facts is that they don't require anyone's belief to be true.

I have historic proof - Money comes first - Don;t panic the public.

Cancer is a good example!
They were testing atomic bombs in the atmosphere in the 1950s and 60s, it was so contaminated back in those days. We were stopped from drinking milk from time to time.
The bombs never stopped.

One of the Marines I met during my lifetime was a living witness wile stationed at a blast site miles away, I have no idea how many!

He said to me I saw the man next to me and there skeletons and I saw mine.

You trust in them I have no way to make a difference!
But I will now and forever call a spade a spade.
Silver Hand

 

[Crohnos01]

Sigh..... ok, it's obvious that logic has no place in this discussion . Some folks will never move past the "what ifs"... next topic?

 

[Silver Hand]

Sigh..... ok, it's obvious that logic has no place in this discussion . Some folks will never move past the "what ifs"... next topic?

It is not about what if, It is what can we do to stop the damage the melted reactors around the world are causing.

We haven't found a way to stop it so lets just laugh and look the other way.

You now have a topic - How to stop the problems with atomic waist leeching out or into the atmospheric, oceans, and rivers like the Hudson and others.
Silver Hand

 

[Crohnos01]

It is not about what if, It is what can we do to stop the damage the melted reactors around the world are causing.

We haven't found a way to stop it so lets just laugh and look the other way.

Wow....you must be a blast at parties.

I simply believe technology could overcome the issues... you don't. That's fine. We have leared a lot since 1979, and the meltdown issues you mentioned all happened due to coolant failures. I already related the article in a highly respected international engineering magazine describing how these issues have been addressed. The meltdowns were all old technology issues. Fukushima was scheduled for these upgrades prior to the Tsunami. Poor/dated instrumentation, controls, and mechanical systems failed in each of these accidents . I am not in the nuclear industry but I AM a licensed professional engineer with 35 years of instrumentation and controls experience. My most sacred duty is public safety. If I didn't truly believe that the risks were manageable, I would lead the torches and pitchfork mobs to the NRC's door. I realize there is risk with nuclear power, but in 1979 we didn't have SIS and SIL methodology amongst other things.. If you want to believe that we are all dying with every breath and drink of water we take, that's your choice. I think it's more likely that lack of exercise and bad eating habits are going to do me in. The reports in the media are sensationalized because it sells air time and papers.
We as a race I am convinced MUST have am crisis. When I was a kid, we were headed into a new ice age. Now it's global warming, greenhouse gas and toxic waste. If that doesn't get us then crazy gun nuts with assault rifles will.... Does that mean that I think we should bury nuclear waste in steel drums next to the river? Of course not.... But from the reading I have done, the issues are being magnified much more than necessary for agendas other than public protection.
The fact is your mind is made up and I doubt there is much of anything that could be said by I or anyone that would sway your opinion. I am simply reporting articles from the engineering world I work in relevant to the discussion. I think it's probably best we agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Silver Hand]

Wow....you must be a blast at parties.

I simply believe technology could overcome the issues... you don't. That's fine. We have leared a lot since 1979, and the meltdown issues you mentioned all happened due to coolant failures. I already related the article in a highly respected international engineering magazine describing how these issues have been addressed. The meltdowns were all old technology issues. Fukushima was scheduled for these upgrades prior to the Tsunami. Poor/dated instrumentation, controls, and mechanical systems failed in each of these accidents . I am not in the nuclear industry but I AM a licensed professional engineer with 35 years of instrumentation and controls experience. My most sacred duty is public safety. If I didn't truly believe that the risks were manageable, I would lead the torches and pitchfork mobs to the NRC's door. I realize there is risk with nuclear power, but in 1979 we didn't have SIS and SIL methodology amongst other things.. If you want to believe that we are all dying with every breath and drink of water we take, that's your choice. I think it's more likely that lack of exercise and bad eating habits are going to do me in. The reports in the media are sensationalized because it sells air time and papers.
We as a race I am convinced MUST have am crisis. When I was a kid, we were headed into a new ice age. Now it's global warming, greenhouse gas and toxic waste. If that doesn't get us then crazy gun nuts with assault rifles will.... Does that mean that I think we should bury nuclear waste in steel drums next to the river? Of course not.... But from the reading I have done, the issues are being magnified much more than necessary for agendas other than public protection.
The fact is your mind is made up and I doubt there is much of anything that could be said by I or anyone that would sway your opinion. I am simply reporting articles from the engineering world I work in relevant to the discussion. I think it's probably best we agree to disagree and move on.

Address the problems at hand, Find a solution for what damage and events involving failures around the globe that exist today, recover the tons of depleted Radio active materials dumped in our oceans from the soviet union.
Apart from Fukushima, Clean up Chernobyl Ukraine Soviet Union and others.

Then we can consider having an agreement on new tech, as I have been spoon fed the same garbage you are proposing all my life.

You are an engineer, Why is it every time something cannot fail it does and always to a point, it gets burred and then hidden from public view.

Find solutions that will clean up your industries first mistakes, and you darn well know they are serious.
If nothing else watch from 9:26 seconds

What about Sweden just hours later:

3min 54 seconds

The first in Soviet Union accident when? 1958 accident kills several hundred and leaves a large area contaminated.

You have any real answers for what will never happen, but did?

No we cannot agree to disagrees, I understand the need for energy and the pollution involved with the uncontrolled use of fossil fuels. I lived in NYC in the 1960s and prior and have seen it first hand

Solve the nuclear clean up problems of this world and you will be a great engineer!
As there is no other industry that has caused this many complications [Apart from world war] and can only speak time will tell, nothing you should worry about.

Call a spade a spade, Say in fact we don't know the answers or how to solve them! Don't just skirt the issues.
Spoon fed all my life but may I spit this back at you!
Power less - Silver Hand