to be honest though i still feel that what these reactors(of this age) have stood up too and are still standing up to shows just how robust and safe nuclear energy is.
You say it's safe, but why would you build something that makes the entire world go "OMG, we all gonna die " every time something like this happens? I studied nuclear engineering and know the benefits, the safety measures etc. and on paper everything seems fine, but I really don't feel like living my life always "hoping" that this doesn't happen. I should be able to live "knowing" that it won't happen...
How about the experience of decades of use. This was a tsunami for crying out loud (which are more common than nuclear disasters btw)
This is not a conversation about natural disasters vs man-mad disasters. Yes, tsunamis are more common, as are hurricanes, tornadoes etc... You could even mention that the probability of being involved in a road or train crash is higher than the probability of a nuclear disaster. The point is why add to the equation with something that will have such a wide effect if it goes wrong/is sabotaged? The global effects of a full nuclear meltdown on the scale of Chernobyl (or worse with a plutonium plant) outweigh the unfortunate loss of life in a car crash. It would effect millions of people for years to come. There is no such thing as 100% safety, so we shouldn't play with the odds too much...
So what you're saying is: we should become a subterranean society, seeing as statistically more people have been struck by lightning and killed since nuclear power plants first came into operation than by radiation poisoning or other detrimental incidents caused by or at said power plants. I'll get my miners helmet and pick-axe! Average deaths per year (worldwide): Lightning - 1,000 Nuclear power - 5.6 (at best), 2903 (if we include two hundred thousand caused by Chernobyl, which is questionable since that number comes from the ecoterrorists at Green Peace) - statistics compiled since 1942.
I just wanted to drop by and tell you that, that was some of the worst rhetoric I've seen as of yet. Think we all know that he meant that something which has the possibility (even if the chance of it happening is small) to destroy an entire region is playing with the odds. And yet you compare his statement to a.. lightning strike..?
What annoys me, having read the latest bit on the BBC site about the reactors, is why the hell can't these nuclear operators be honest and tell the truth. Article says that they have been involved in lots of cover-ups over the years, this just undermines any confidence in nuclear power. Seems to be alot of contradicting information still.
The Chernobyl accident was partially caused by an experiment that the managers were trying to test out new cooling systems in case of a scram. After a scram, the core still produces heat and it needs to be cooled to avoid core damage (like what is happening in Fukushima). In case of a power failure the backup generators needed to start up quickly, but the start up time for the Chernobyl generators was considered unacceptable, and so a flywheel system was introduced. The test was to be run during a shift change (for an unknown reason). Then the next day, the Kiev network controller asked that the test was to be postponed as the extra power was needed for the evening peak. When the test was resumed the reactor was to be lowered to 700MW thermal, but a neutron absorber had been produced in the core and the power output continued dropping to 30MW thermal, almost shutdown. The control room operators therefore pulled out the control rods to try and restore power and continue the test. Long story short, a scram was initiated and the bad design of the control rods caused a power spike. The power spike overheated the core and caused the first explosion. The explosion lifted the 20,000 ton upper plate in a steam explosion. The increased heat evaporated the water, making the core heat further (see my earlier post). The result was a nuclear excursion. Modern reactors have better control rod designs, better power loss mechanisms and a hard containment vessel.
The irony is that if he had compared it to deaths from coal-mining, the figure would have been even larger. Also, Deepwater Horizon caused billions of pounds worth of damage and huge damage to the ecology of the entire gulf of mexico yet no-one's hesitant to resume drilling for oil. (Chernobyl actually impreoved the ecosystem of the surrounding areas although only due to the mass evacuation of people).
+1. The unbelievable havoc wrought by non-nuclear fossil-fuel exploration over the last two centuries far, far eclipses the damage ever done by nuclear accidents. Nevermind that coal mining costs as many as 20,000 lives a year in China alone, and is one of the least efficient fuel sources in terms of overall pollution, or that nobody suggests halting oil-based fuel generation after spills alone totalling in the hundreds of thousands - maybe even millions - of tonnes... On topic, sea-water currently being pumped into reactor number 2 at Daiichi, following similar operations on reactors 1 & 3. A state of emergency has also been declared at a second plant, Onagawa.
The thing i do not like about nuclear power plants is that it is sort of like putting all of your eggs in one basket, if some dick comes along and shoves the basket you loose all your eggs. It will take some time to recover their electric power supply...
I wouldn't recommend building nuclear power plants in regions known for earth quakes, I don't think anyone would, but a country needs power, and the industry needs lots of it. In case of Japan she has limited real estate to build on and real estate made even smaller when fault lines must be taken into account prior to construction. I would like to believe that Japan picked the most suitable spots for her nuclear power plants, I will just assume she did. Anything less would be a potential future "suicide" as I see it. It could have been far worse right, Japan will get through this, It's not like she hasn't been through worse things than this.
Why thank you! The fact of the matter is that we have had nuclear power plants in operation for sixty nine years with exceptionally minimal deaths worldwide, in numbers comparable to lightning strikes. Yet nobody is advocating subterranean living due to the threat of being hit during a storm. Life itself is a risk, and the survival rate for everybody is 0%, so look at the risks, examine reality (not what the media says), and live as best as you can within those risks. For me personally: I'd much rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal plant any day.
Don't know if any of you guys follow bit-tech twitter, but this is an interesting read: http://bit.ly/fGGXto
