Nuclear Power

--Kaiser--

No

spankmemunkey wrote: »

Fukashimas technology was out dated was it?

How many people died in Fukushima?

68 lost souls

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

How many people died in Fukushima?

Its not just about deaths, how much did it cost the economy? How many supply chains were effected?

I know for a fact that many companies could no longer produce certain products due to the fact that their plants and equipment were inside the containment zones. This effected not only the Japanese economy but it affected global sales and in the US and Europe.

srsly78

No

68 lost souls wrote: »

Its not just about deaths, how much did it cost the economy? How many supply chains were effected?

I know for a fact that many companies could no longer produce certain products due to the fact that their plants and equipment were inside the containment zones. This effected not only the Japanese economy but it affected global sales and in the US and Europe.

I hear they had a bit of a flood around the same time, this caused a lot more disruption.

68 lost souls

The flood effects did not last as long as the containment zone. If it was just a flood they could have retrieved equipment and continue manufacturing at other plants but they couldn't because of the failed reactor

srsly78

No

This disruption you talk of was caused by uninformed panic - which you are happy to propagate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444772404577589270444059332.html

There are people living in certain areas of Ireland which have background radiation higher than parts of the fukushima exclusion zone.

68 lost souls

No

68 lost souls wrote: »

It was a disaster not an event look and forgetting Chernobyl there is also 3 mile island and Fukushima incidents to think about.

But you cant use examples of old plants like this as a reason to discount something going forward, with technology constantly improving.

A brand new Nuclear power plant with modern reactor would be incredibly safe, with literally no chance of accidents.

There is a much higher radiation risk in real terms from a coal burning plant releasing uranium dust into the atmosphere than from a nuclear power plant.

68 lost souls

So you would gladly work a 12 hour shift a couple of hundred meters from a recent radiation leak before it has been approved as safe?

Not me, no thanks. Also as an employer if I forced my staff to work in those conditions and any one of them were to get any medical conditions that could be deemed to have been caused by radiation I would be liable for a very big law suit. No thanks.

--Kaiser--

No

68 lost souls wrote: »

Its not just about deaths, how much did it cost the economy? How many supply chains were effected?

I know for a fact that many companies could no longer produce certain products due to the fact that their plants and equipment were inside the containment zones. This effected not only the Japanese economy but it affected global sales and in the US and Europe.

Anything specific about how large the containment zone is? Quite hard to shed a tear for vegetable growers when 20,000 people died in a tsunami

68 lost souls

No

68 lost souls wrote: »

So you would gladly work a 12 hour shift a couple of hundred meters from a recent radiation leak before it has been approved as safe?

Not me, no thanks. Also as an employer if I forced my staff to work in those conditions and any one of them were to get any medical conditions that could be deemed to have been caused by radiation I would be liable for a very big law suit. No thanks.

No I didnt say that but the chances of a radiation leak are tiny but 1000's of people around the world work near coal plants every day and dont even know they are being exposed to heightened radiation levels. Thats what I mean by in real terms.

I would have no problem whatsoever living near and working in a modern nuclear power plant.

68 lost souls

The containment zone was up to 20km at some points but there are various levels of activity allowed at certain distances. I am not detracting from horrible it is for 20,000 people to die, I never mentioned anything about vegetable growers, I am talking a much bigger scale. The supply chain failures impacted manufacturing too including car, computer, instruments, as well as food and other areas.

srsly78

No

68 lost souls wrote: »

So you would gladly work a 12 hour shift a couple of hundred meters from a recent radiation leak before it has been approved as safe?

Not me, no thanks. Also as an employer if I forced my staff to work in those conditions and any one of them were to get any medical conditions that could be deemed to have been caused by radiation I would be liable for a very big law suit. No thanks.

You could have higher than the exclusion zone levels of background radiation in your home/workplace as we speak, and it would be perfectly safe and legal.

As stated before, the panic has been caused by uninformed people like yourself. Please stop making things worse

68 lost souls

Aileen Fierce Semiconductor wrote: »

No I didnt say that but the chances of a radiation leak are tiny but 1000's of people around the world work near coal plants every day and dont even know they are being exposed to heightened radiation levels. Thats what I mean by in real terms.

I would have no problem whatsoever living near and working in a modern nuclear power plant.

I also don't like coal power plants but at the moment we have them as a stop gap. I hope that we can eventually be reliant on renewable resources. and not need to use any non renewable forms

68 lost souls

No

68 lost souls wrote: »

I also don't like coal power plants but at the moment we have them as a stop gap. I hope that we can eventually be reliant on renewable resources. and not need to use any non renewable forms

I am all for using renewable sources but even Ireland would struggle/fail to survive on renewal energy alone and bigger countries wouldn't have a hope. Nuclear power is really the only option for world wide power generation in the future.

--Kaiser--

No

68 lost souls wrote: »

I also don't like coal power plants but at the moment we have them as a stop gap. I hope that we can eventually be reliant on renewable resources. and not need to use any non renewable forms

I wonder if this has been posted before?
Comparative deaths from coal and oil power versus nuclear

Fukushima death toll so far: One stress related heart attack.
Deaths from radiation in the worst possible event conceivable for a reactor with a containment system: zero.
Expected deaths from radiation: zero.
Anticipated cancers, above normal rates: negligible. Far less than coal emissions.
And this is with an outdated, 30 year old reactor stressed far beyond it's design limits.

Curly Judge

No

68 lost souls wrote: »

Nuclear energy is still not a renewable resource and therefore is similar to fossil fuels in that it will run out and we will be stuck in the same place further down the road.

Not if we use this design!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jul/20/richard-branson-obama-nuclear-technology

Curly Judge

No

68 lost souls wrote: »

Its not just about deaths, how much did it cost the economy? How many supply chains were effected?

I know for a fact that many companies could no longer produce certain products due to the fact that their plants and equipment were inside the containment zones. This effected not only the Japanese economy but it affected global sales and in the US and Europe.

Would the fact that they have refused to let most of the reactors - which were not affected by the tsunami - back into operation have anything to do with the decline in their economy?
Probably not! :rolleyes:

Curly Judge

No

QUOTE=spankmemunkey;83065021]The powers that be, one of the reactors is incased in a Sarcophagus of concrete that is cracking and will need to be replaced with a new Sarcophagus this will only last for another 15 years and it will need to be done again
and again and again and again, for 100,s of thousands of years! Theres tons or Radioactive dust down there that is bad news for all concerned if it escapes.[/QUOTE]

But that's a far cry from saying it's going to erupt anytime soon, don't you think?
And when the Chernobyl plant is finally cleaned up - as it inevitably will be - it'll be done by nuclear and civil engineers. Not by hand wringing pessimists.
Present company excluded of course

spankmemunkey wrote: »

One disaster is enough, not to mention fukashima, (natural disaster) that somebody said to me like i was making it up out of a film.

Not quite sure I follow you there, I'm afraid!

spankmemunkey wrote: »

After Fukashima Germany has done a safety audit on all its plants and alot failed causing merkel to call on power stations to be fased out, and focus on renewables, the debate is an ongoing one in Germany!

This will be a fascinating barny, and one I feel sure the Greens will lose!
Hard headed German industrialists will be in there twisting the new government’s tail after the next elections and pointing out the error of their ways.
Anyone who thinks that whirly gigs are going to power the heavy industries of the Ruhr Valley wants their head examined.

Round one to the Nuke heads;
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP_Nuclear_fuel_tax_ruled_unconstitutional_3001131.html

spankmemunkey

Ye know any food that comes into the uk is tested for radiation levels as a result of Fukashima saw it the other night on TV, just thought and laughed to myself what the Irish equivilant was like!

According to the irish guy who does about the house theres enough wind power off the coast of Ireland to supply main land europe, what about domestic solar power?

Capt'n Midnight

Aileen Fierce Semiconductor wrote: »

But you cant use examples of old plants like this as a reason to discount something going forward, with technology constantly improving.

A brand new Nuclear power plant with modern reactor would be incredibly safe, with literally no chance of accidents.

Just like every previous version was to have been. Most of the current EU reactors have problems.

It's the same people running them.

Nuclear power can be safe, economic and the waste can be cleanly stored. But you can't have all three, most can't even demonstrate one. Perhaps the Finns can manage safe storage, but that is a moving goalpost as requirements get more stringent.




And people go on about molten salt reactors having fusible plugs to prevent overheating. This begs the question of why don't other reactors have such simple fail safe devices. Make part of the structure such that when it melts it falls away. Anhydrous Borax melts at 743C if you want to retrofit a neutron poison. If you use the normal hydrated version it will melt at a lower temp.

Zillah

No

Aileen Fierce Semiconductor wrote: »

I am all for using renewable sources but even Ireland would struggle/fail to survive on renewal energy alone and bigger countries wouldn't have a hope. Nuclear power is really the only option for world wide power generation in the future.

Not really, actually. The world's uranium supply would be exhausted in just a few decades if we built enough nuclear power plants to meet our current demands, let alone future demands. We need to use renewables and nuclear to offset fossil fuels as much as possible, and hold out for fusion. Fusion is the holy grail of energy production, and it is not a pipe dream. We just need to limit the damage until we get there.

Jester252

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

no we aren't

you have to remember that peak electrical demand hasn't gone up so we still have all the fossil fuel backup plants

now that we have interconnectors we can export surplus too, last year we got 25% from renewables and we are still rolling it out - also 300MW tidal up north in the next few years

worldwide nuclear peaked at about 15%

Ireland can have just under 50% of its electrical generated from renewable on a good day. Even still more is just lost as our grid can't cope with the stress that renewable bring. The increased number of wind farms means that the inertia of the gird is under pressure. Most farms are cut off at times as one the electricity isn't need or the grid can't handle it. We're going to need a base load power station at any rate. Nuclear power is one of the best solutions for this problem.

Capt'n Midnight

Jester252 wrote: »

We're going to need a base load power station at any rate. Nuclear power is one of the best solutions for this problem.

We already have base load stations.

Please explain why nuclear is a solution when we'd need fossil fuel as a backup to it anway

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We already have base load stations.

Please explain why nuclear is a solution when we'd need fossil fuel as a backup to it anway

And fossil fuel isn't required to back up wind?

Jester252

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

We already have base load stations.

Please explain why nuclear is a solution when we'd need fossil fuel as a backup to it anway

Nuclear would provide energy with much less emissions then coal, oil, gas, or peat. The overall goal is to get these guy producing as little as possible.

Capt'n Midnight

Jester252 wrote: »

Nuclear would provide energy with much less emissions then coal, oil, gas, or peat. The overall goal is to get these guy producing as little as possible.

only if done properly

and no one's managed to do that safely yet. I'm not basing safety on the criteria of "we haven't had a serious accident at this plant yet"

I'm basing it on "we haven't carried out the agreed safety corrections as revealed in the stress tests" , " we're not sure how much plutonium was lost", "we still haven't figured out where to store the waste", "we have no idea where the clean up money will come from"

Two ways of looking at the 1% of coal ash that might escape with the flue gas.

As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.

The other is ( I haven't checked the figures ) http://nuclearaustralia.blogspot.ie/2011/12/coal-1-fukushima-every-6-months.html

the radioactive release from annual coal combustion is 1.069 PBq/yr (peta-Becquerels

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8854592/Japan-Fukushima-disaster-released-twice-as-much-radiation-as-initially-estimated.html

The Japanese government estimated that 15,000 terabecquerels of caesium were released after the plant was damaged, while the new study put the figure at 36,000 terabecquerels

Fukushima released as much radiation as 35 years of coal burning worldwide. Chernobyl was worse.

Coal ash release can be reduced by percipitation and it's a valuable commodity for stuff like germanium and rare earth metals, in terms of radioactivity it's up there with stuff like granite.

Capt'n Midnight

Curly Judge wrote: »

And fossil fuel isn't required to back up wind?

<sigh> yes ,

But we already have the fossil fuel plants so no additional capital cost. and the existing plant will last a little longer if not used 24/7 ?


and as we hook up interconnectors we can distribute backup to some extent.

http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/ Today we're generating 1250MW from wind

There is no way to get that from Nuclear before 2030

Curly Judge

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

<sigh> yes ,

Please spare me your sighing.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But we already have the fossil fuel plants so no additional capital cost. and the existing plant will last a little longer if not used 24/7 ?

The existing fossil fuel plants won't last forever and will have to be replaced, some of them between now and 2030.
Anybody who knows anything about running a furnace will be aware that ramping temperatures up and down is what causes real wear and tear.
I cannot see how the sort of load following necessitated by the "come a day go a day" nature of wind power could possibly extend their working life.
I await an education on that subject.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

and as we hook up interconnectors we can distribute backup to some extent.

Interconnectors which do not yet exist but which can be magiced up by your side of the argument at the drop of a hat.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/ Today we're generating 1250MW from wind

And this time next week we could be generating ....... God knows what?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There is no way to get that from Nuclear before 2030

I most earnestly hope that the opposition to wind power will not be as decietful or as disingeneous as the opposition to nuclear.

Jester252

No

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

only if done properly

and no one's managed to do that safely yet. I'm not basing safety on the criteria of "we haven't had a serious accident at this plant yet"

I'm basing it on "we haven't carried out the agreed safety corrections as revealed in the stress tests" , " we're not sure how much plutonium was lost", "we still haven't figured out where to store the waste", "we have no idea where the clean up money will come from"

Two ways of looking at the 1% of coal ash that might escape with the flue gas.

The other is ( I haven't checked the figures ) http://nuclearaustralia.blogspot.ie/2011/12/coal-1-fukushima-every-6-months.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8854592/Japan-Fukushima-disaster-released-twice-as-much-radiation-as-initially-estimated.html

Fukushima released as much radiation as 35 years of coal burning worldwide. Chernobyl was worse.

Coal ash release can be reduced by percipitation and it's a valuable commodity for stuff like germanium and rare earth metals, in terms of radioactivity it's up there with stuff like granite.

Yet your okay with oil, coal and gas being used as the base load
More people have died from the generation of oil and cold then nuclear. Accidents happen at power plants just look at Lough Ree power station last year.
Nuclear power is the most regulated form of power in the world. People working at the plant will be top of their fields not just a bunch of framers that got a lone from the bank.
The current system of oil, coal, and gas has giving the world a major problem that no one option can solve. Renewable are helping but are unlike to support a the grid. The interconnects will help but if we relied on them will lose security of supply.

68 lost souls

Jester252 wrote: »

Nuclear would provide energy with much less emissions then coal, oil, gas, or peat. The overall goal is to get these guy producing as little as possible.

The best way as far as I am concerned to do this is policy making to reduce use and shift the demand curve of energy demand so the base load is reduced.

Jester252

No

68 lost souls wrote: »

The best way as far as I am concerned to do this is policy making to reduce use and shift the demand curve of energy demand so the base load is reduced.

well it will be next to impossible to change people. Also how does this solve the stability problem?