Japan Fukushima nuclear thread
Discussion
MrCarPark said:
That will be the big pile of fuel pellets that dropped out of the RPV when the cladding melted in Unit 1?
Also in that report is a bit about Unit 2 being cleaned up by the Raccoon. More here (in English)
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Tepco-sends-i...
Interesting.Also in that report is a bit about Unit 2 being cleaned up by the Raccoon. More here (in English)
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Tepco-sends-i...
Question - reading that article led me to this one:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Systems_ready...
In the 2nd picture, various sections have been blurred out - do you (or anyone) know why?
Cyder said:
Bugger, I'd better change my business cards then, and might as well sit back and put my feet up all day instead of having the meeting with the lamp supplier for the vehicle I'm working on the new design of. 
Oh, and I don't believe the more advanced engineering capability bit for a second. I have first hand experience to suggest the direct opposite is true in many cases.
I imagine commercial constraints would prevent you from demonstrating why the work you do is more than just scraps from the Japanese table. Irrespective, it is very hard for anyone to tell the difference between that and a completely fictitious claim. Obviously you are the kernel of Aston Martin Consulting Limited.Oh, and I don't believe the more advanced engineering capability bit for a second. I have first hand experience to suggest the direct opposite is true in many cases.
On the back of the same idea is my own struggle to understand the logic of someone who claims that foreign designed and probably controlled nuclear power is safe in the UK because you think we're smarter than your stupid foreign paymasters who are incapable of designing cars or nuclear power plants.
What heck does your CAD auto design wizard plugin do? Cup holders or something?
dilbert said:
Cyder said:
Bugger, I'd better change my business cards then, and might as well sit back and put my feet up all day instead of having the meeting with the lamp supplier for the vehicle I'm working on the new design of.
Oh, and I don't believe the more advanced engineering capability bit for a second. I have first hand experience to suggest the direct opposite is true in many cases.
I imagine commercial constraints would prevent you from demonstrating why the work you do is more than just scraps from the Japanese table. Irrespective, it is very hard for anyone to tell the difference between that and a completely fictitious claim. Obviously you are the kernel of Aston Martin Consulting Limited.Oh, and I don't believe the more advanced engineering capability bit for a second. I have first hand experience to suggest the direct opposite is true in many cases.
On the back of the same idea is my own struggle to understand the logic of someone who claims that foreign designed and probably controlled nuclear power is safe in the UK because you think we're smarter than your stupid foreign paymasters who are incapable of designing cars or nuclear power plants.
What heck does your CAD auto design wizard plugin do? Cup holders or something?
jimmyjimjim said:
Interesting.
Question - reading that article led me to this one:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Systems_ready...
In the 2nd picture, various sections have been blurred out - do you (or anyone) know why?
The videoQuestion - reading that article led me to this one:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Systems_ready...
In the 2nd picture, various sections have been blurred out - do you (or anyone) know why?
http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2013/201312-e/131...
has a subtitle saying "This video includes pixelized parts mainly in view of technical knowledge."
Presumably Tepco protecting their intellectual property.
MrCarPark said:
jimmyjimjim said:
Interesting.
Question - reading that article led me to this one:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Systems_ready...
In the 2nd picture, various sections have been blurred out - do you (or anyone) know why?
The videoQuestion - reading that article led me to this one:
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Systems_ready...
In the 2nd picture, various sections have been blurred out - do you (or anyone) know why?
http://photo.tepco.co.jp/en/date/2013/201312-e/131...
has a subtitle saying "This video includes pixelized parts mainly in view of technical knowledge."
Presumably Tepco protecting their intellectual property.
V8 Fettler said:
Calm down Dilbert. The proposed designs for the proposed nuclear power stations for the UK will have to meet the requirements of the UK authorities. So although not designed in the UK, the designs should meet UK requirements. This was not the case for Chernobyl or Fukushima.
I'm calm now! 
I guess it was the case for the Japanese, that they didn't know what to ask for to get a good design. I mean for them, it's not like they don't have the technology to manufacture the plant themselves. Actually they asked the Americans for help because GE had the knowhow, and Hitachi had the capacity.
When we ask Areva/Siemens for their design expertise, we're doing so because we don't know any more. To say that it is vetted in the UK, means very little IMO.
This is why I keep on about the reserve system.
We have little choice but to accept implications of our lack of knowledge. For that reason we need mitigation strategies which are effective and comparatively easily understood. No insurance policy is a guarantee. An insurance policy is better than none.
We currently have no insurance policy as I have described it. I can't see why that is anything other than a no-brainer?
dilbert said:
When we ask Areva/Siemens for their design expertise, we're doing so because we don't know any more. To say that it is vetted in the UK, means very little IMO.
We do know, there just isn't a commercial kettle design organisation in the UK so the critical mass of engineers needed to ginger up a design in a reasonable time frame would take several years to create, and there's no political appetite for paying a premium for what would be a job creation scheme. Designing nuclear power stations isn't magic, it's just complicated and requires a lot of experienced engineers to do at a reasonable speed; we have some, and the time it takes to get the some to train more engineers to create that critical mass of skilled manpower is perceived by the politicians to cost more than bribing Areva to do it for us.dilbert said:
We currently have no insurance policy as I have described it. I can't see why that is anything other than a no-brainer?
The problem here is that you don't appear to accept that there IS an insurance policy in place - actually several. I and others have tried to point you (and any others following this) towards what does exist and how it works or would work in the event of a response being required.The response capability you describe would be impractical, expensive and almost certainly not accepted by the operators as fit for purpose or good value, especially when they each have their own plans and contingency arrangements in place that have been reviewed and tested.
You have implied that we're balancing on the edge of a major nuclear disaster, which is very much not the case. Something could happen to prove me wrong tomorrow, but if that were the case; many trained and capable responders (far more that you could fit in a helicopter or two based somewhere central) would be responding within minutes/hours/days in accordance with established arrangements to manage and mitigate the event. I've been involved in some of those contingency arrangements for most of my working life so I'd like to think I have a reasonable understanding of the existing 'insurance policies' and whilst perhaps not perfect (there is always room for improvement) they would provide the framework for protecting the public and the environment in the event of an incident with off site consequence.
hairykrishna said:
It can be - anyone wanting to put nuclear plant accidents in perspective should read about the Banqiao Dam collapse.
Where was that..CHINA.Who has a very large stake in the construction of the forthcoming reactors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
"Cracks in the dam and sluice gates appeared after completion due to construction and engineering errors."
Why should we be building reactors when we NO LONGER HAVE THE INDIGENOUS CAPACITY TO ENGINEER THEM OURSELVES?
MartG said:
Mojocvh said:
Why should we be building reactors when we NO LONGER HAVE THE INDIGENOUS CAPACITY TO ENGINEER THEM OURSELVES?
Errrr....because we NEED the power ?Nuclear energy is the one industry where central planning and government funding actually results in the best value.
I was reading this article on The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/03/fukushima-daiichi-tsunami-nuclear-cleanup-japan) and this comment really stood out to me.
Guardian Reader said:
Right, no waste issues, of course!
Let’s talk a little economics here people, since anything to do with safety seems to be so low on our radar.
My state (Maine, USA) has a decommissioned plant, Maine Yankee, in Wiscasset, with an array of 64 “dry cask canisters” that hold the spent nuclear fuel rods and other radioactive materials. (you can see them on googlemaps)
This article states ( http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/03/16/politics... ):
“…ratepayers pick up the estimated $6 million to $8 million annual tab to store and monitor the radioactive fuel…” from the Wiscasset plant. Since 1996, that is an average of $7 million x 17 years = $119 million. And it produced NO electricity for us in those 15 years, just cost us money.
Well, since there is no other option for storing this poison, and it needs to be kept secure for the next 25,000 years… let’s do the arithmetic…that is $175,000,000,000, not counting for inflation. $175 Billion just in storage costs.
That is just one plant, that produced electricity from 1972 to 1996, a real short 24 years…
How many of those plants are there? 100 working ones in the US, a good percentage of which are near earthquake zones, BTW.
I would rather see all of a large wind turbine farm blow over in a monster storm. Imagine: some twisted steel to haul out, several dozen trees knocked over, some soil erosion to repair—-versus-—thousands of cancer deaths, for decades and decades, hundreds of square miles as no-go zones, food supplies contaminated, etc. for a nuke plant.
Nuclear energy is safe and cheap when things work as expected, but it is super-expensive and deadly when accidents happen.
If we can count on one thing in life, it's that the unexpected will happen.
If the true costs of nuclear energy were factored in to what a utility charged for that electricity, it would not be “too cheap to meter,” but too expensive to produce.
Factor in true costs of insurance policies a utility company SHOULD be required to carry (and does not, BTW) to recompense victims after major accident, and not policies artificially capped by federal legislation–you would not split one atom...
Factor in true costs of security services at storage site for the waste products for thousands of years...
Factor in the design, land, building, and maintenance of a storage facility–none yet exists–and true costs would bankrupt several nations…. Imagine storing your own garbage output in the kitchen for the next number of decades...
…those Pesky Fuel Rods again. They'll be saying the same thing 2,500,000 years from now and cursing at this particular geologic epoch which will become known as the Idiots-cene.
Nukes are not green and are about the dirtiest on the planet. I'll take Global Climate Change, Coal, Fracking, Oil, and killing Golden Eagles with Wind Turbines any day over these Nukes. There are alternatives, just ones that don't work so well for the short sighted thinking of Corporate Wall Street hedge fund investors and ponzi schemers who have nuked away our future with their radioactive poisons.
If it takes a recession/depression to stop the building of these poison plants, then hurray!
That is capitalism at work, and not corporate socialism.
True costs, true costs.
Not sure if it's true, but it really made me think anyway.Let’s talk a little economics here people, since anything to do with safety seems to be so low on our radar.
My state (Maine, USA) has a decommissioned plant, Maine Yankee, in Wiscasset, with an array of 64 “dry cask canisters” that hold the spent nuclear fuel rods and other radioactive materials. (you can see them on googlemaps)
This article states ( http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/03/16/politics... ):
“…ratepayers pick up the estimated $6 million to $8 million annual tab to store and monitor the radioactive fuel…” from the Wiscasset plant. Since 1996, that is an average of $7 million x 17 years = $119 million. And it produced NO electricity for us in those 15 years, just cost us money.
Well, since there is no other option for storing this poison, and it needs to be kept secure for the next 25,000 years… let’s do the arithmetic…that is $175,000,000,000, not counting for inflation. $175 Billion just in storage costs.
That is just one plant, that produced electricity from 1972 to 1996, a real short 24 years…
How many of those plants are there? 100 working ones in the US, a good percentage of which are near earthquake zones, BTW.
I would rather see all of a large wind turbine farm blow over in a monster storm. Imagine: some twisted steel to haul out, several dozen trees knocked over, some soil erosion to repair—-versus-—thousands of cancer deaths, for decades and decades, hundreds of square miles as no-go zones, food supplies contaminated, etc. for a nuke plant.
Nuclear energy is safe and cheap when things work as expected, but it is super-expensive and deadly when accidents happen.
If we can count on one thing in life, it's that the unexpected will happen.
If the true costs of nuclear energy were factored in to what a utility charged for that electricity, it would not be “too cheap to meter,” but too expensive to produce.
Factor in true costs of insurance policies a utility company SHOULD be required to carry (and does not, BTW) to recompense victims after major accident, and not policies artificially capped by federal legislation–you would not split one atom...
Factor in true costs of security services at storage site for the waste products for thousands of years...
Factor in the design, land, building, and maintenance of a storage facility–none yet exists–and true costs would bankrupt several nations…. Imagine storing your own garbage output in the kitchen for the next number of decades...
…those Pesky Fuel Rods again. They'll be saying the same thing 2,500,000 years from now and cursing at this particular geologic epoch which will become known as the Idiots-cene.
Nukes are not green and are about the dirtiest on the planet. I'll take Global Climate Change, Coal, Fracking, Oil, and killing Golden Eagles with Wind Turbines any day over these Nukes. There are alternatives, just ones that don't work so well for the short sighted thinking of Corporate Wall Street hedge fund investors and ponzi schemers who have nuked away our future with their radioactive poisons.
If it takes a recession/depression to stop the building of these poison plants, then hurray!
That is capitalism at work, and not corporate socialism.
True costs, true costs.
Talksteer said:
Also we do have the capacity to design a nuclear plant in the UK. What we lack is the industrial will and a government that fails to understand that attempting to add a veil of "privately funded" to the industry will result in a total lack of standardisation and high cost with substantial outflows of UK capital into the bargain.
Nuclear energy is the one industry where central planning and government funding actually results in the best value.
Always struck me very odd that the Govt sold Westinghouse and their nice AP1000s for £2.8 bn in 2005. Nuclear energy is the one industry where central planning and government funding actually results in the best value.
eldar said:
Talksteer said:
Also we do have the capacity to design a nuclear plant in the UK. What we lack is the industrial will and a government that fails to understand that attempting to add a veil of "privately funded" to the industry will result in a total lack of standardisation and high cost with substantial outflows of UK capital into the bargain.
Nuclear energy is the one industry where central planning and government funding actually results in the best value.
Always struck me very odd that the Govt sold Westinghouse and their nice AP1000s for £2.8 bn in 2005. Nuclear energy is the one industry where central planning and government funding actually results in the best value.
There seems to be a theme developing that we are reliant on outside knowledge, but the issue of ownership is not the same as where the knowledge actually lies. In fairly recent times we had a very large project team to build nuclear power stations and those people are still around. What we're lacking is the political will to address long-term energy security with anything other than free-market dogma.
Meanwhile, in Fukushima...
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/201312...
25 Sv/hr and they've only just found it? Tepco don't exactly cover themselves in glory sometimes.
RenOHH said:
I was reading this article on The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/03/fukushima-daiichi-tsunami-nuclear-cleanup-japan) and this comment really stood out to me.
Sellafield and Dounreay would have provided the long term answer to these issues. Dounreay in particular was 40 years ahead of its time.Guardian Reader said:
Right, no waste issues, of course!
Let’s talk a little economics here people, since anything to do with safety seems to be so low on our radar.
My state (Maine, USA) has a decommissioned plant, Maine Yankee, in Wiscasset, with an array of 64 “dry cask canisters” that hold the spent nuclear fuel rods and other radioactive materials. (you can see them on googlemaps)
This article states ( http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/03/16/politics... ):
“…ratepayers pick up the estimated $6 million to $8 million annual tab to store and monitor the radioactive fuel…” from the Wiscasset plant. Since 1996, that is an average of $7 million x 17 years = $119 million. And it produced NO electricity for us in those 15 years, just cost us money.
Well, since there is no other option for storing this poison, and it needs to be kept secure for the next 25,000 years… let’s do the arithmetic…that is $175,000,000,000, not counting for inflation. $175 Billion just in storage costs.
That is just one plant, that produced electricity from 1972 to 1996, a real short 24 years…
How many of those plants are there? 100 working ones in the US, a good percentage of which are near earthquake zones, BTW.
I would rather see all of a large wind turbine farm blow over in a monster storm. Imagine: some twisted steel to haul out, several dozen trees knocked over, some soil erosion to repair—-versus-—thousands of cancer deaths, for decades and decades, hundreds of square miles as no-go zones, food supplies contaminated, etc. for a nuke plant.
Nuclear energy is safe and cheap when things work as expected, but it is super-expensive and deadly when accidents happen.
If we can count on one thing in life, it's that the unexpected will happen.
If the true costs of nuclear energy were factored in to what a utility charged for that electricity, it would not be “too cheap to meter,” but too expensive to produce.
Factor in true costs of insurance policies a utility company SHOULD be required to carry (and does not, BTW) to recompense victims after major accident, and not policies artificially capped by federal legislation–you would not split one atom...
Factor in true costs of security services at storage site for the waste products for thousands of years...
Factor in the design, land, building, and maintenance of a storage facility–none yet exists–and true costs would bankrupt several nations…. Imagine storing your own garbage output in the kitchen for the next number of decades...
…those Pesky Fuel Rods again. They'll be saying the same thing 2,500,000 years from now and cursing at this particular geologic epoch which will become known as the Idiots-cene.
Nukes are not green and are about the dirtiest on the planet. I'll take Global Climate Change, Coal, Fracking, Oil, and killing Golden Eagles with Wind Turbines any day over these Nukes. There are alternatives, just ones that don't work so well for the short sighted thinking of Corporate Wall Street hedge fund investors and ponzi schemers who have nuked away our future with their radioactive poisons.
If it takes a recession/depression to stop the building of these poison plants, then hurray!
That is capitalism at work, and not corporate socialism.
True costs, true costs.
Not sure if it's true, but it really made me think anyway.Let’s talk a little economics here people, since anything to do with safety seems to be so low on our radar.
My state (Maine, USA) has a decommissioned plant, Maine Yankee, in Wiscasset, with an array of 64 “dry cask canisters” that hold the spent nuclear fuel rods and other radioactive materials. (you can see them on googlemaps)
This article states ( http://new.bangordailynews.com/2011/03/16/politics... ):
“…ratepayers pick up the estimated $6 million to $8 million annual tab to store and monitor the radioactive fuel…” from the Wiscasset plant. Since 1996, that is an average of $7 million x 17 years = $119 million. And it produced NO electricity for us in those 15 years, just cost us money.
Well, since there is no other option for storing this poison, and it needs to be kept secure for the next 25,000 years… let’s do the arithmetic…that is $175,000,000,000, not counting for inflation. $175 Billion just in storage costs.
That is just one plant, that produced electricity from 1972 to 1996, a real short 24 years…
How many of those plants are there? 100 working ones in the US, a good percentage of which are near earthquake zones, BTW.
I would rather see all of a large wind turbine farm blow over in a monster storm. Imagine: some twisted steel to haul out, several dozen trees knocked over, some soil erosion to repair—-versus-—thousands of cancer deaths, for decades and decades, hundreds of square miles as no-go zones, food supplies contaminated, etc. for a nuke plant.
Nuclear energy is safe and cheap when things work as expected, but it is super-expensive and deadly when accidents happen.
If we can count on one thing in life, it's that the unexpected will happen.
If the true costs of nuclear energy were factored in to what a utility charged for that electricity, it would not be “too cheap to meter,” but too expensive to produce.
Factor in true costs of insurance policies a utility company SHOULD be required to carry (and does not, BTW) to recompense victims after major accident, and not policies artificially capped by federal legislation–you would not split one atom...
Factor in true costs of security services at storage site for the waste products for thousands of years...
Factor in the design, land, building, and maintenance of a storage facility–none yet exists–and true costs would bankrupt several nations…. Imagine storing your own garbage output in the kitchen for the next number of decades...
…those Pesky Fuel Rods again. They'll be saying the same thing 2,500,000 years from now and cursing at this particular geologic epoch which will become known as the Idiots-cene.
Nukes are not green and are about the dirtiest on the planet. I'll take Global Climate Change, Coal, Fracking, Oil, and killing Golden Eagles with Wind Turbines any day over these Nukes. There are alternatives, just ones that don't work so well for the short sighted thinking of Corporate Wall Street hedge fund investors and ponzi schemers who have nuked away our future with their radioactive poisons.
If it takes a recession/depression to stop the building of these poison plants, then hurray!
That is capitalism at work, and not corporate socialism.
True costs, true costs.
V8 Fettler said:
Sellafield and Dounreay would have provided the long term answer to these issues. Dounreay in particular was 40 years ahead of its time.
Really?
http://www.dounreay.com/decommissioning/shaft-and-...
quite an interesting site....
Mojocvh said:
Thanks for the link - I've always been interested in the decommisioning side of things. Although still very surprised at the laissez-faire attitude of the orginal designers/architects with regards waste management and what was previously deemed acceptable.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff