+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Nuclear power after Fukishima

  1. #1
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default Nuclear power after Fukishima

    So how do you feel about nuclear power after the Sendai Earthquake?

    Given that the Fukishima nuclear reactors survived the fifth largest earthquake and a large tsunami with no major leak of radiaition.

    That in some parts of Japan, the buildings have been used to home people who lost everything because they are the only buldings left standing

    Should we consider nuclear power as a more viable form of energy production because of what happened rather than in spite of?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  2. #2
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,809

    Default

    Nuclear is still viable but the Eqarthquake clearly shows we need to start phasing out these older plants and building newer safer ones. I think Germany has the right idea.

    I think the Indian Point plant that is far to close to NYC & NYC's water supply and on a major pair of faults needs to be shut down. I think Oyster Creek fairly close to me is extremely susceptible to a tsunami and needs to either shut down or have its valve and emergency power setup seriously reworked.

    Fukishima is actually pretty bad. It is going to set back nuclear power a lot and might ironically kill the US efforts to finally build new, safer plants.

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,170

    Default

    I agree with Jim. I think the lesson that we should take from Fukushima is that new, safer plants should be built. I also think that developing nuclear power is an important part of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels. It's obviously not perfect, but I think learning to deal with radioactive waste is preferable to continually pumping more coal pollution into the environment.

    Unfortunately, I think the lesson the U.S. is actually going to take is that nukular power is BAD and we should never ever use it at ALL.

  4. #4
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    I think a lot of the current plants are still 30ish years old and the technology has improved since. The big problem is in decommisioning older sites and finding new sites that one can be safely located.

    The green lobby have had a field day with their declarations though.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  5. #5
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,809

    Default

    In some cases the current location is a good place for building new plants. There are exceptions of course. Too close to the coast and near fault lines really is not a very good idea. Too close to large population centers is not good planning. But of the 104 or so plants in the US, I would guess 75% are in pretty good locations. I don't know about the UK's situation and I realize the population density overall is far higher.

  6. #6
    Member F-X's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Uh oh.
    "Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."
    Justin's Dad

  7. #7
    Jesus F'ing Christ Glazer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga. U.S.A. (Male)
    Posts
    1,483

    Default

    Georgia Power recently announced that construction would continue on two new reactors at plant Vogal. These will be the first new nuke plants in the U.S.A. in many years. Hopefully this will pave the way for mote new plants across America. My only problem with nuclear power is that we don't have a plan for the waste. I think dropping the casks in a subduction zone to sink into the mantle is the best long term solution. Or bury them in deep salt mines.
    Welcome to Mellophant.

    We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.

  8. #8
    Member F-X's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Clearly they also don't have a plan for what to do when a reactor is damaged and you can't even get near enough to it to find out how damaged it is. How can you build a very expensive, very dangerous, very large system, but not be able to fix it if things go wrong?

    If you can't even see what is wrong, how can you even think of being able to fix it? It's actually quite insane.
    Last edited by F-X; 31 Mar 2011 at 12:51 AM.
    "Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."
    Justin's Dad

  9. #9
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    What makes you say they don't have a plan for what to do in case of emergency.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  10. #10
    Large Angry Cat
    Registered
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Grand Cayman Island, B.C.
    Posts
    165

    Default

    we must remember that Japan is a small country...they don't really have a lot of places that don't have geological problems. Here in the US, we have a lot of safe choices. Blazer makes a brilliant suggestion with putting the waste in a subduction zone...that's the kind of long term thinking that is needed here.

    We must have nuclear, geothermal, wind, and other forms of power generation to get off the oil train. The Government needs to start funding some pure research with all that grant money they waste on stupid studies about frog sex. We need to nationalize all the patents that the oil companies own and start trying to improve battery technology and solar panel technology. We also need to look into "underwater wind farms" ie, placing machines on the sea floor that are powered by constant water movement and thus don't depend on the vagarities of weather.

    Also, again, the oil companies are resisting the construction of hydrogen powered electric plants. The ocean is full of hydrogen and an electric plant would be a lot safer use of hydrogen fuel than allowing it to get into the hands of the average idiot consumer and let him put it in his car. Thats just asking for a massive explosion and the loss of a lot of innocent lives.

    I remembered to take my prozac today.

    even a cat needs prozac...they should put that stuff in the water.

  11. #11
    Member F-X's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Something I've not read in the multitude of discussions about this, is that the Japanese people fought long and hard to prevent the nuclear plants from being built. They were scared of having plutonium in Japan, scared of what might happen in an earthquake, but 'the authorities' built them no matter what.

    Now it's obvious they did not build them well.
    "Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."
    Justin's Dad

  12. #12
    Large Angry Cat
    Registered
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Grand Cayman Island, B.C.
    Posts
    165

    Default

    They have admitted that they did not build the plant to withstand an earthquake of this magnitude. Perhaps that was a mistake.

  13. #13
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    True, but if they can learn from their mistakes, then the next generation of nuclear reactors will not only be proof against earthquakes of magnitude 9.0 but ten foot tsunami as well.

    I wonder if they are proof against killer bees?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  14. #14
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,170

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by F-X View post
    Now it's obvious they did not build them well.
    Bullshit. The fact that their safety measures couldn't withstand one of the worst disasters in the recorded history of Japan does not mean they were shoddily constructed to begin with.

    But by all means, lets just keep pumping toxic coal byproducts into the environment. That'll go well.

  15. #15
    Member F-X's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    72

    Default

    The earthquake at the plant was nowhere near 9.0, more like 6
    "Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."
    Justin's Dad

  16. #16
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    True, but they are not looking at building a nuclear reactor on top of the fault are they? It was still the fifth largest earthquake since 1900 and it was hit by not only the 9.0 earthquake, but several 5.0-6.0 aftershocks.

    Not bad for a forty year old set of reactors.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  17. #17
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,809

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by F-X View post
    The earthquake at the plant was nowhere near 9.0, more like 6
    It was the tsunami that appears to have done the worst damage. But yes, an earthquake of around 8.0 under most of these plants is a complete nightmare scenario. A lot more care need to be taken in placement then many countries, especially the USA have exercised.

  18. #18
    Large Angry Cat
    Registered
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Grand Cayman Island, B.C.
    Posts
    165

    Default

    wait...wait...somebody up there still buys that global warming crap.

  19. #19
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,809

    Default

    Global Climate change is pretty clearly occurring. The accumulated data makes it pretty clear that man is affecting the climate in a way that endangers out massive shoreline communities and cites. So Orual is not alone by any means.

  20. #20
    Member F-X's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    72

    Default

    I will confess I still get a chuckle when I read somebody saying the reactors made it through just fine.



    The reality is nobody knows what damage the earthquake may have done.
    "Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."
    Justin's Dad

  21. #21
    Large Angry Cat
    Registered
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Grand Cayman Island, B.C.
    Posts
    165

    Default

    While I will agree that climate change is occurring, I need to see real proof that it's man who is causing this.

    http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

    here is a site that contains the real data, not that stuff manufactured by people planning to profit on global warming schemes and bent on controlling human population increases by means other than those God intended...War, disease, famine, and The Women's Rights Movement.

  22. #22
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    9,809

    Default

    Global Warming Hoax . com Got to love it, it's like they are not even trying at least.

  23. #23
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,340

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by F-X View post
    The reality is nobody knows what damage the earthquake may have done.
    In some ways that is true. They are still trying to work out if Reactor 2 has had a full blown meltdown.

    Then again, it's amazing that the 4 live reactors all didn't go into meltdown
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  24. #24
    Member F-X's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Yeah, instead they all had explosions which either destroyed the building (and nobody knows what else), or explosions and fires. Nice survival tactic there.
    "Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."
    Justin's Dad

  25. #25
    Member F-X's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2010
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit View post
    Quote Originally posted by F-X View post
    The reality is nobody knows what damage the earthquake may have done.
    In some ways that is true. They are still trying to work out if Reactor 2 has had a full blown meltdown.

    Then again, it's amazing that the 4 live reactors all didn't go into meltdown
    It's startling after the fact, to realize that even my worst case scenario at the time, wasn't as bad as it got.
    "Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor."
    Justin's Dad

  26. #26
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    16,253

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts