Japanese earthquake / tsunami discussion

shadowninty

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Those Damn windmills! They may look pretty in Holland, but they are sinister and for some reason, damage wildlife? How? By blowing them?

I also thought your roof related deaths sounds hilarious for solar.

Number one reason not to get solar energy: Well ya know, the guy putting up the stuff on the roof, he could die, yep, fall to his death.

Can't get a satellite dish now, I will be too scared it will cause many deaths.

How about for waves, em, a big wave that could topple and drown midgets.

I already said that ¨all these pale in comparison¨, i.e. mean f all

The Waltzing Consumer

shadowninty wrote: »

I already said that ¨all these pale in comparison¨, i.e. mean f all

Still funny to read though, roof related deaths, classic

Overheal

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Those Damn windmills! They may look pretty in Holland, but they are sinister and for some reason, damage wildlife? How? By blowing them?

actually, noise pollution. and windmills dont just generate noise in the range of audible hearing either. People that live around windmills report regularly feeling ill. Similarly many animals have much different ranges of hearing. Then you have the problem of migratory and sometimes endangered-migratory birds that do happen to quite frequently get snuffed out by getting too close to windmills. Why I don't know why. You'd have to ask a goose or a duck why they fly close to windmills but all the same they do and they get smacked. You also have to ask birds why the divebomb straight into glass windows.

geetar

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Those Damn windmills! They may look pretty in Holland, but they are sinister and for some reason, damage wildlife? How? By blowing them?

I also thought your roof related deaths sounds hilarious for solar.

Number one reason not to get solar energy: Well ya know, the guy putting up the stuff on the roof, he could die, yep, fall to his death.

Can't get a satellite dish now, I will be too scared it will cause many deaths.

might sound hilarious, but its far from it.


Comparing deaths/TWh for all energy sources



Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil - 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas - 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass - 12
Peat - 12
Solar (rooftop) - 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind - 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro - 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear - 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

nuclear provides 14 times the amount of energy to the world as solar, yet it has ten times less deaths per Twh.



source: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

My name is URL

jsd1004 wrote: »

“Fukushima showed that the risk of nuclear power is too high.”

In fact, Fukushima showed just the opposite. How’s that? Well for starters, ask yourself what the death toll was at Fukushima. 100? 200? 10? Not true. Try zero.

It's not really just about death-tolls though, is it? What about the tens of billions worth of damage a catastrophe like this does to the national economy?

Just because few or no lives are lost does not mean that the risk is worth taking.

geetar

My name is URL wrote: »

It's not really just about death-tolls though, is it? What about the tens of billions worth of damage a catastrophe like this does to the national economy?

Just because few or no lives are lost does not mean that the risk is worth taking.

thats true to an extent.

but... what caused the accident, was it nuclear energy, or was it a natural disaster?

dont forget that, A) ireland has no fault lines, and the plant in fukishima was built in the 70's. there are great advancements since then to make them even safer.

Overheal

My name is URL wrote: »

It's not really just about death-tolls though, is it? What about the tens of billions worth of damage a catastrophe like this does to the national economy?

Just because few or no lives are lost does not mean that the risk is worth taking.

that I can nod to.

Solair

The issue is not that it will cause instantaneous deaths, it's just poisoned a large area of Japan's landmass, agricultural production land and fisheries.

The deaths won't be rapid, they'll be slow and nasty due to cancers and kids being born with severe deformities.

The impact will be seen over the coming years, not in the immediate aftermath. E.g. you can expect to see cases of things like childhood leukaemia, thyroid cancers, various bone cancers, foetal deformities etc etc.

Nuclear power's risk is not one of instantaneous death, you'd have to have part of a plant land on top of you or be standing in the reactor for that kind of impact.

The economic cost of Fukushima Dia-ichi is absolutely enormous due to the area that has to be evacuated, damage to the food chain, contamination, clean up costs, law suits, and massive damage to fisheries and coastal tourism.

Also, unlike a chemical accident for example, radiological contaminants are very difficult to clean up and tend to last in the environment for extremely long times due to the fact that they're often incorporated into living organisms e.g. caesium mimicking calcium, radioactive iodine, etc etc etc.

If the problem was simply the instantaneous disaster i.e. a few hydrogen explosions / steam explosions it wouldn't really be a big deal. There have been far worse incidents at petrochemical and gas storage facilities, but they don't spew out long-acting, long-lasting radioactive toxins that do severe damage to living organisms.

The cost:benefit analysis make no sense and in general nuclear power seems to operate a bit like banks. It's unlikely that the industry or power users will bear the cost of this. Rather, the Japanese taxpayer will end up having to deal with it. It had 225.7% Debt:GDP ratio before the disasters, all this stuff will quite likely cause another debt/default issue over the next year or two.

jsd1004

My name is URL wrote: »

It's not really just about death-tolls though, is it? What about the tens of billions worth of damage a catastrophe like this does to the national economy?

Just because few or no lives are lost does not mean that the risk is worth taking.

Just to clarify I am not pro nuclear but believe it should be actively debated.

What about the tens of billions of damage and many more deaths that were caused by deepwater horizon in the Gulf of Mexico. Does that mean drilling for oil should be abandoned. The japanese disaster was caused by a once in a life time disaster. The Gulf of Mexico incident was a man made disaster.

jsd1004

Solair wrote: »

The issue is not that it will cause instantaneous deaths, it's just poisoned a large area of Japan's landmass, agricultural production land and fisheries.

The deaths won't be rapid, they'll be slow and nasty due to cancers and kids being born with severe deformities.

The impact will be seen over the coming years, not in the immediate aftermath. E.g. you can expect to see cases of things like childhood leukaemia, thyroid cancers, various bone cancers, foetal deformities etc etc.

Nuclear power's risk is not one of instantaneous death, you'd have to have part of a plant land on top of you or be standing in the reactor for that kind of impact.

The economic cost of Fukushima Dia-ichi is absolutely enormous due to the area that has to be evacuated, damage to the food chain, contamination, clean up costs, law suits, and massive damage to fisheries and coastal tourism.

Also, unlike a chemical accident for example, radiological contaminants are very difficult to clean up and tend to last in the environment for extremely long times due to the fact that they're often incorporated into living organisms e.g. caesium mimicking calcium, radioactive iodine, etc etc etc.

If the problem was simply the instantaneous disaster i.e. a few hydrogen explosions / steam explosions it wouldn't really be a big deal. There have been far worse incidents at petrochemical and gas storage facilities, but they don't spew out long-acting, long-lasting radioactive toxins that do severe damage to living organisms.

The cost:benefit analysis make no sense and in general nuclear power seems to operate a bit like banks. It's unlikely that the industry or power users will bear the cost of this. Rather, the Japanese taxpayer will end up having to deal with it. It had 225.7% Debt:GDP ratio before the disasters, all this stuff will quite likely cause another debt/default issue over the next year or two.

There is very little evidence of a substantial increase in cancer rates as a result of Chernobyl. Thyroid possibly but that can be attributed to increased screening and children fed with contaiminated milk as outlined in the articles below

Regarding the medical data, would you care to comment.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs303/en/index.html

Regarding cost benefit I think that is incidental. If we do not use nuclear what option do we have? We are quickly killing the planet with Co2 emissions from fossil fuel. It is a tough choice but one that will have to be made.

Coles

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment

This is a collection of papers translated from the Russian with some revised and updated contributions. Written by leading authorities from Eastern Europe, the volume outlines the history of the health and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. According to the authors, official discussions from the International Atomic Energy Agency and associated United Nations' agencies (e.g. the Chernobyl Forum reports) have largely downplayed or ignored many of the findings reported in the Eastern European scientific literature and consequently have erred by not including these assessments.

This was all discussed in detail months ago.

Meanwhile the disaster continues. Does any one think that the situation is under control?

Solair

From what I've been reading online and seeing on NHK, the situation at Fukushima Dia-ichi doesn't appear to have moved on much at all. It's still just a big struggle.

They're about to put some kind of plastic tents over the reactors to reduce further air contamination, but the whole situation still seems to be a mess.

The latest development were to install Japanese built zeolite filters to clean the cooling water so they can recirculate it in a loop, thus avoiding run-off to sea. NHK seemed very critical of the French-US built systems that had been delivered and seemed to think that this Japanese system would do the job. However, I think it's just a lot of nationalistic arrogance. The two systems will be working side by side to clean as much water as possible.

Zeolite is just the same stuff that you'd find in your dishwasher's water softener or in a Brita filter. It will pick up a lot of the dissolved caesium, which is rather like calcium and other nasties. However, it's not really particularly high-tech nor is it 100% effective.

The other development has been reports of serious cracks in the ground with steam coming out of them. These are coming via unofficial sources i.e. workers speaking the media.

It's hard to know if these cracks are ruptured steam vessels under the ground, or if there's hot coolant leaking into the ground water. The worst case scenario would be if the core has melted through the bottom of the plant and is entering ground water as the result would be kind of unpredictable to put it mildly.

Overall, from what I've read / watched online, the situation doesn't seem to be good at all.

The media, outside Japan, seems to have just given up on it. The disaster is probably much worse than Chernobyl in terms of environmental impact and impact on high-density populations. However, I suppose it's a case of Chernobyl was "those scary soviets" during the Cold War where as Fukushima is those "Lovely High Tech Japanese" during peace-time. Also, it's a US-designed reactor, so we can't be pointing out any flaws with it. Good old GE!

Worztron

geetar wrote: »

on a disaster free side of things, if its calm cloudy day, thats two sources of energy right there that arent working.

But you still have: Geothermal, tidal & wave.
There would be a backup store of energy to prevent power cuts. Also countries should be inter connected so that one country with a lot of energy being created could help out another country which is not generating as much energy.

Worztron

shadowninty wrote: »

Windmills can collapse but more importantly damage wildlife if they screw up, Dams can burst (killing hundreds), Geothermal (blowouts, gases, seismic events), Solar (roof related deaths)
Dont know about wave.
All of these pale in comparison to fossil fuel generated power, just like the risks of nuclear.
People forget about the scale of this disaster too. Third ever largest recorded earthquake. Coast sunk by one meter in many areas. Brutal.

There are dangers in many things, thousands are killed worldwide every day in traffic accidents -- should everyone stop driving?
If renewable energy is done right instead of the current anemic approach to it; then accidents can be reduced to a minimum or cut out all together.
Fossils fuels took hundreds of millions of years to create, they will not last forever. If you were living in the area of Japan that is now contaminated with radiation; would you still be so pro nuclear?

Solair

I just do not see the economics of nuclear making any sense though.

The construction cost of the plants is usually massively under estimated and they seem to cost a fortune to maintain and tweak. Take a look at the UK's "Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors" (AGR). That project was MASSIVELY over-budget, with just about everything that could go wrong going wrong in the construction phase and it ended up going wildly over-budget.

The fuel-reprocessing costs are enormous.
The fuel disposal costs are enormous.
The environmental costs should the unthinkable happen are enormous.
The security costs are enormous.
The plants all ultimately have to be decommissioned and the decommission costs are enormous, running into tens of billions!

The UK's old Magnox fleet of reactors has cost a fortune to decommission. The last two are due to go off line in 2012.

Nuclear powers, like the UK, France, the US, the exUSSR always had an ulterior motive for nuclear power i.e. plutonium production. In fact, the first UK nuclear power plant at Sellafield, Calder Hall, was primarily a plutonium production plant, it just generated power on the side. It was a nice cover story though!

Then there was also a lot of secrecy surrounding the technology as it had military / weapons production possibilities, so it's questionable as to whether the design of some (not all) of these plants was as good as it could have been if things had been open to public scrutiny.

It was only really in the 1970s/80s that nuclear power for purely commercial reasons became a reality.

However, it's also worth noting that states seem to have absorbed the cost of these programmes. Again, there was a lot of prestige in being a "Nuclear Power" in the 1970s/80s and states seemed to be wedded to the idea of keeping this stuff going despite the economics.

You'd really have to wonder about the economic logic of the industry.

If we pumped the kind of money that went into the development of nuclear into renewables, they might actually be viable by now.

I just think as a technology, nuclear fission power generation is not really all it's cracked up to be by its proponents.

Smarter use of power, more renewables, better transmission grids etc etc are the way to go.

Coles

The latest Fairewinds presentation. Worth watching.

Edit:- Essential watching.

shadowninty

Worztron wrote: »

There are dangers in many things, thousands are killed worldwide every day in traffic accidents -- should everyone stop driving?
If renewable energy is done right instead of the current anemic approach to it; then accidents can be reduced to a minimum or cut out all together.

Same with nuclear!

Worztron wrote: »

If you were living in the area of Japan that is now contaminated with radiation; would you still be so pro nuclear?

Thats a good question. I dont have an answer to that. I wouldnt like to have to leave my home for months (will probably be over a year). That said I´d like to think I´d see the bigger picture (scale of the situation, idiocy of fuel storage, plant designs), and not be protesting the construction of much more modern plants. I´d reckon I´d be completely terrified of a load of Japans plants and completely use fate in the government however.

Hope you find my answer honest.

Worztron

jsd1004 wrote: »

Its horrible when you have no electricity. http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

That is a real downer about the birds and bats. Is there a way to prevent them flying at the turbines? I presume it is more of a problem for bats.

Solair

Worztron wrote: »

That is a real downer about the birds and bats. Is there a way to prevent them flying at the turbines? I presume it is more of a problem for bats.

Some kind of ultrasonic device to warn them?

Worztron

Solair wrote: »

Some kind of ultrasonic device to warn them?

Great idea. Green energy is paramount but should not interfere with wildlife.

Thrill

TEPCO reported possibility of huge tsunami to gov't before March 11

TOKYO, Aug. 24, Kyodo


Tokyo Electric Power Co. calculated in 2008 that a tsunami higher than 10 meters could hit its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant but has since taken no countermeasures, officials at the Nuclear Industrial Safety Agency said Wednesday.


A manager at the utility, known as TEPCO, reported the calculation to the agency verbally on March 7 this year before the magnitude-9.0 earthquake and ensuing tsunami hit the plant on March 11, the officials said.


The agency instructed TEPCO to adopt countermeasures.

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/08/110690.html

Coles

Why Fukushima is Worse than Chernobyl, The Independent (UK)

George Monbiot is not happy. @GeorgeMonbiot"Unscientific, hysterical rubbish in Independent abt Fukushima. Should be ashamed of such myth-making. "

It must be painful for Monbiot to remember the nonsense article he wrote in the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe.

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power, - The Guardian, March 31st 2011.

andrew

Coles wrote: »

Why Fukushima is Worse than Chernobyl, The Independent (UK)

George Monbiot is not happy. @GeorgeMonbiot"Unscientific, hysterical rubbish in Independent abt Fukushima. Should be ashamed of such myth-making. "

It must be painful for Monbiot to remember the nonsense article he wrote in the immediate aftermath of the catastrophe.

Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power, - The Guardian, March 31st 2011.

In fairness, that Independant article is rather hysterical. They quote a single guy saying that up to a million people could die, without any backup, and then say that 'some scientists' say that up to a million could die. Further, they quote another person who they admit is 'alarmist' who says that Fukushima is worse only because it's lasting longer, and Chernoby went up in one go.
Chernobyl burned for like a week, and released far more radiation. Fukushima has been going on for less time, but the radiation released is smaller, and mostly into water, which obviously isn't as harmful to human health. In addition, AFAIK it's not true to say that a short high exposure to radiation is safer than a long term lower level of exposure.

ed2hands

Monbiot is flogging his book (pro-nuclear)at the moment so won't hesitate to throw his two-cents in at every oportunity.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/world/asia/22japan.html?_r=3

Guy:Incognito

So considering we are not on a fault line and not likely to suffer a tsunami or any other major earth shattering disaster, what are peoples problems with a properly run nuclear plant here?

blackdog2

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So considering we are not on a fault line and not likely to suffer a tsunami or any other major earth shattering disaster, what are peoples problems with a properly run nuclear plant here?

The properly run bit, it is ireland we are talking about

Solair

blackdog2 wrote: »

The properly run bit, it is ireland we are talking about

I wouldn't want nuclear power here, but i don't the i that's a fair comment on our ability to run things safely. There are loads of examples of exemplary safety records in industrial settings in Ireland from the pharmaceutical, bio tech, and electronics industries, and power generation, aviation etc etc

irishgeo

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So considering we are not on a fault line and not likely to suffer a tsunami or any other major earth shattering disaster, what are peoples problems with a properly run nuclear plant here?

you really do some research. Ireland been hit by tsunami before from the Lisbon earthquake.

also its in danger of been hit by one once half the island falls in to the Atlantic, i think its one of the canaries island. also we could get a huge underwater landslide in the mid atalntic ridge.

Solair

The biggest radiological risks to us are probably Sellafield and its French equivalent, Cap de l'Hague.

The closest power station is the soon to close Wyfla Magnox station near Holyhead. It's a huge, two reactor, graphite moderated, gas cooled, natural uranium fueled facility. It was the last of the magnox stations built and is due to go off line soon.

As it was quite late, it is probably a fairly safe, modern installation, but, as far as I am aware none of the British gas (CO2) cooled plants have secondary containment!! It was considered unnecessary as there is no possibility of steam explosions as its gas cooled and contains no pressurised water. They are also apparently capable of passive cooling in the event of power loss (station blackout).

However, the site is earmarked for the development of a next generation European pressurised water nuke plant.

SO, regardless of what are policies are, we have a nuke site within a few minutes of central Dublin and we are probably buying power from it via the interconnections!

shadowninty

These plants are surely much safer then Chernobyl given the EU´s stand on such plants.
The EPR looks fairly good and is apparently safer then previous generation designs (I dont know if this is inherent to its mechanics or what).