CNN An 8.8-magnitude earthquake has struck Japan

[J. J.]

Beet, your asteroid argument is just ridiculous.  The chances of an asteroid hit to a nuclear plant are infantesimal.

As for other alternatives... I'm all for having more wind farms and solar plants (preferably less coal).

As for nuclear power plants... they can be shut down.

The Fukushima plants are shut down. You should call the Japanese government and tell them they have no problem. I'm sure they'd be elated to hear the news.

Those were shut down after they lost power, under emergency procedures, hardly ideal.  With warning time of even up to a day, you could easily bring the reaction under control and to shutdown stage (if not even cold shutdown stage with that much lead time).

A warning time of a day is not guaranteed for any disaster. With a warning time of a day, 9/11 could have been prevented too. Besides, 24 hours isn't sufficient. The reactors need at least 72 hours to cool.

Beet, if the situation that is so catastrophic that they can't shut it down, it won't make that much of a difference.

What won't make that much of a difference? It always makes a difference if they can't shut down a reactor & the fallout that would ensue.

Beet, so far the death toll from radiation is zero.  The known death toll from the cause of the problem is 3,600.

No, the death toll from radiation is unknown. One worker has died from being trapped in a shaft in the plant. This could very well have been radiation caused. I do not minimize the tsunami deaths from this discussion, both tsunami and nuclear problems are very real.

Beet, the death toll from the tsunami is still unknown.  A fall is radiation induced?  Please, be serious.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Beet, your asteroid argument is just ridiculous.  The chances of an asteroid hit to a nuclear plant are infantesimal.

As for other alternatives... I'm all for having more wind farms and solar plants (preferably less coal).

As for nuclear power plants... they can be shut down.

The Fukushima plants are shut down. You should call the Japanese government and tell them they have no problem. I'm sure they'd be elated to hear the news.

Those were shut down after they lost power, under emergency procedures, hardly ideal.  With warning time of even up to a day, you could easily bring the reaction under control and to shutdown stage (if not even cold shutdown stage with that much lead time).

A warning time of a day is not guaranteed for any disaster. With a warning time of a day, 9/11 could have been prevented too. Besides, 24 hours isn't sufficient. The reactors need at least 72 hours to cool.

No, but 24 hour warning time for hurricanes (if not 48 hours) is pretty reliable.

And 24 hours is not sufficient, as I said. It takes 72 hours to fully shut down a reactor. Besides, hurricane is only one of many potential risks.

But the reactor wouldn't necessarily have to be shut down completely when the hurricane hit.

[Beet]

Beet, your asteroid argument is just ridiculous.  The chances of an asteroid hit to a nuclear plant are infantesimal.

As for other alternatives... I'm all for having more wind farms and solar plants (preferably less coal).

As for nuclear power plants... they can be shut down.

The Fukushima plants are shut down. You should call the Japanese government and tell them they have no problem. I'm sure they'd be elated to hear the news.

Those were shut down after they lost power, under emergency procedures, hardly ideal.  With warning time of even up to a day, you could easily bring the reaction under control and to shutdown stage (if not even cold shutdown stage with that much lead time).

A warning time of a day is not guaranteed for any disaster. With a warning time of a day, 9/11 could have been prevented too. Besides, 24 hours isn't sufficient. The reactors need at least 72 hours to cool.

No, but 24 hour warning time for hurricanes (if not 48 hours) is pretty reliable.

And 24 hours is not sufficient, as I said. It takes 72 hours to fully shut down a reactor. Besides, hurricane is only one of many potential risks.

But the reactor wouldn't necessarily have to be shut down completely when the hurricane hit.

Yes it would. Unless the reactor is shut down completely, any loss of power to the cooling systems would result in temperatures rising inside the reactor, eventually to over 100 C, and the reduction of the water supply so the fuel rods are exposed, initiating a partial meltdown.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't know if it's been reported here... but there was another large explosion at the plant, thought to be caused by a buildup of hydrogen in the other reactor.

[Beet]

Beet, your asteroid argument is just ridiculous.  The chances of an asteroid hit to a nuclear plant are infantesimal.

As for other alternatives... I'm all for having more wind farms and solar plants (preferably less coal).

As for nuclear power plants... they can be shut down.

The Fukushima plants are shut down. You should call the Japanese government and tell them they have no problem. I'm sure they'd be elated to hear the news.

Those were shut down after they lost power, under emergency procedures, hardly ideal.  With warning time of even up to a day, you could easily bring the reaction under control and to shutdown stage (if not even cold shutdown stage with that much lead time).

A warning time of a day is not guaranteed for any disaster. With a warning time of a day, 9/11 could have been prevented too. Besides, 24 hours isn't sufficient. The reactors need at least 72 hours to cool.

Beet, if the situation that is so catastrophic that they can't shut it down, it won't make that much of a difference.

What won't make that much of a difference? It always makes a difference if they can't shut down a reactor & the fallout that would ensue.

Beet, so far the death toll from radiation is zero.  The known death toll from the cause of the problem is 3,600.

No, the death toll from radiation is unknown. One worker has died from being trapped in a shaft in the plant. This could very well have been radiation caused. I do not minimize the tsunami deaths from this discussion, both tsunami and nuclear problems are very real.

Beet, the death toll from the tsunami is still unknown.  A fall is radiation induced?  Please, be serious.

7 more workers are injured after the latest blast. Since it makes no difference, perhaps you should call the Japanese government and tell them what happens at the plants make no difference?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Beet, your asteroid argument is just ridiculous.  The chances of an asteroid hit to a nuclear plant are infantesimal.

As for other alternatives... I'm all for having more wind farms and solar plants (preferably less coal).

As for nuclear power plants... they can be shut down.

The Fukushima plants are shut down. You should call the Japanese government and tell them they have no problem. I'm sure they'd be elated to hear the news.

Those were shut down after they lost power, under emergency procedures, hardly ideal.  With warning time of even up to a day, you could easily bring the reaction under control and to shutdown stage (if not even cold shutdown stage with that much lead time).

A warning time of a day is not guaranteed for any disaster. With a warning time of a day, 9/11 could have been prevented too. Besides, 24 hours isn't sufficient. The reactors need at least 72 hours to cool.

No, but 24 hour warning time for hurricanes (if not 48 hours) is pretty reliable.

And 24 hours is not sufficient, as I said. It takes 72 hours to fully shut down a reactor. Besides, hurricane is only one of many potential risks.

But the reactor wouldn't necessarily have to be shut down completely when the hurricane hit.

Yes it would. Unless the reactor is shut down completely, any loss of power to the cooling systems would result in temperatures rising inside the reactor, eventually to over 100 C, and the reduction of the water supply so the fuel rods are exposed, initiating a partial meltdown.

Backup generators... which have so far worked in the U.S.  And they'd be starting from a point that's at least 24 hours into the shutdown process, not minutes into it.

[Beet]

Beet, your asteroid argument is just ridiculous.  The chances of an asteroid hit to a nuclear plant are infantesimal.

As for other alternatives... I'm all for having more wind farms and solar plants (preferably less coal).

As for nuclear power plants... they can be shut down.

The Fukushima plants are shut down. You should call the Japanese government and tell them they have no problem. I'm sure they'd be elated to hear the news.

Those were shut down after they lost power, under emergency procedures, hardly ideal.  With warning time of even up to a day, you could easily bring the reaction under control and to shutdown stage (if not even cold shutdown stage with that much lead time).

A warning time of a day is not guaranteed for any disaster. With a warning time of a day, 9/11 could have been prevented too. Besides, 24 hours isn't sufficient. The reactors need at least 72 hours to cool.

No, but 24 hour warning time for hurricanes (if not 48 hours) is pretty reliable.

And 24 hours is not sufficient, as I said. It takes 72 hours to fully shut down a reactor. Besides, hurricane is only one of many potential risks.

But the reactor wouldn't necessarily have to be shut down completely when the hurricane hit.

Yes it would. Unless the reactor is shut down completely, any loss of power to the cooling systems would result in temperatures rising inside the reactor, eventually to over 100 C, and the reduction of the water supply so the fuel rods are exposed, initiating a partial meltdown.

Backup generators... which have so far worked in the U.S.  And they'd be starting from a point that's at least 24 hours into the shutdown process, not minutes into it.

Just because something has worked "so far", doesn't mean it will always work. Backup generators had worked "so far" in Japan until last week as well. And it doesn't matter whether they're starting 24 hours or minutes into the process. Actually, batteries had kept coolant going for 8 hours in Fukushima. Didn't make a difference. The Reactor Unit No. 3 cooling systems had worked for more than 24 hours before failing on Saturday. Made no difference. As long as the reaction process is still going, any loss of coolant will result in increase of temperatures.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But how many natural disasters had Japanese plants been through?  I see no reason to assume our systems will stop working.

[Beet]

But how many natural disasters had Japanese plants been through?  I see no reason to assume our systems will stop working.

How many natural disasters have our plants been through? Japan sees lots of earthquakes and tsunamis.

I do not assume they will stop working, I am saying they could stop working and are vulnerable. I see no reason to assume they are fine when you can't even prove your case.

[bullmoose88]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14plume.html

Don't know if that's been posted but...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But how many natural disasters had Japanese plants been through?  I see no reason to assume our systems will stop working.

How many natural disasters have our plants been through? Japan sees lots of earthquakes and tsunamis.

I do not assume they will stop working, I am saying they could stop working and are vulnerable. I see no reason to assume they are fine when you can't even prove your case.

So far, they have worked through a hurricane and a tornado, where they lost power.  And these are the instances where they actually lost power.  Fermi II went through a tornado this past year and didn't have a reactor problem or power loss.  So far, the U.S. hasn't had a problem maintaining cooling systems during natural disasters.  The precedent lies with me... I've proved my case.  It's working now, and thus we have reason to believe it will continue to work.

[Beet]

But how many natural disasters had Japanese plants been through?  I see no reason to assume our systems will stop working.

How many natural disasters have our plants been through? Japan sees lots of earthquakes and tsunamis.

I do not assume they will stop working, I am saying they could stop working and are vulnerable. I see no reason to assume they are fine when you can't even prove your case.

So far, they have worked through a hurricane and a tornado, where they lost power.  And these are the instances where they actually lost power.  Fermi II went through a tornado this past year and didn't have a reactor problem or power loss.  So far, the U.S. hasn't had a problem maintaining cooling systems during natural disasters.  The precedent lies with me... I've proved my case.  It's working now, and thus we have reason to believe it will continue to work.

No, you have not proved your case, but the case is not "the plant can survive one tornado." The case is "the plant is safe from all tornadoes and hurricanes and other possible disasters." By the same argument, I could have argued that the Japanese nuclear plants were safe. They survived the Kobe earthquake of 1995. So far, Japan had not had a problem maintaining cooling systems during natural disasters. The precedent lies with Tokyo Electric Power Co... Tokyo Electric Power Co. has proven its case... Tokyo Electric Power Co's GE nuclear reactors (of which we have 24+ identical models in the US) work now, and thus they have reason to believe it will continue to work... bull.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The plant hasn't survived just one tornado.  It's been 2 tornadoes and 1 hurricane (at least), 2 of those knocked out the power, and the generators worked.

What is your basis for assuming the generators will fail?  Why will they fail?  I'm just assuming they'll work, because that is they're function.  That is what they are designed and tested to do.  If we have a stray from the norm, there has to be a reason, so what is it?

[Beet]

Because no natural disaster ever happens twice exactly the same way. Japan was struck by a major tsunami in 1983, 1993, and 2007, which had no impact on nuclear reactors, as well as multiple earthquakes over this period. Going by your reasoning, since the plants were "designed and tested" to survive these events, they were fine, because there was no reason to "stray from the norm." Fukushima was "designed and tested" for tsunamis and earthquakes as well. But that didn't prevent disaster.

The problem with this reasoning is that it fails to take into account that some disasters might be different or worse than a disaster that came before. The same problem was seen here during Hurricane Katrina. Certain assumptions were made about how bad a hurricane could be, how high the water would go.

Hurricanes work very similarly to earthquakes / tsunamis because they (1) tend to take out the power supply, and (2) dump high amounts of water. I would not feel safe with a nuclear plant whose backup power generators were not 100% water proof even if completely submerged, or with backup power generators that are 100% impervious to metal objects being hurled at them repeatedly by tornadoes and hurricanes at the highest possible theoretical limit. Until these risks can be addressed, there should be no more construction of nuclear power plants.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The answer to that is simple... build them in hurricane-proof and tornado-proof buildings.  Enough concrete and steel and you're fine.

[Beet]

The answer to that is simple... build them in hurricane-proof and tornado-proof buildings.  Enough concrete and steel and you're fine.

Obviously that was not the case for the Daiichi plants. Since many US plants use the same design, I'd have all of the designs reviewed carefully. Furthermore, even if that problem is fixed, it does not close the issue. We need to wait and see a full review of what happened at Fukushima because I am sure there will be more design flaws and operational flaws that came to light.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The answer to that is simple... build them in hurricane-proof and tornado-proof buildings.  Enough concrete and steel and you're fine.

Obviously that was not the case for the Daiichi plants. Since many US plants use the same design, I'd have all of the designs reviewed carefully. Furthermore, even if that problem is fixed, it does not close the issue. We need to wait and see a full review of what happened at Fukushima because I am sure there will be more design flaws and operational flaws that came to light.

No... the plant didn't fail becaue it wasn't protected from wind/debris.  And like I've already said, earthquakes are different, and I wouldn't build plants near major fault lines where we have major earthquakes.

And while there may be things to learn from this, we have no reason to assume that because of this accident, nuclear power is unsafe.

[Beet]

The answer to that is simple... build them in hurricane-proof and tornado-proof buildings.  Enough concrete and steel and you're fine.

Obviously that was not the case for the Daiichi plants. Since many US plants use the same design, I'd have all of the designs reviewed carefully. Furthermore, even if that problem is fixed, it does not close the issue. We need to wait and see a full review of what happened at Fukushima because I am sure there will be more design flaws and operational flaws that came to light.

No... the plant didn't fail becaue it wasn't protected from wind/debris.  And like I've already said, earthquakes are different, and I wouldn't build plants near major fault lines where we have major earthquakes.

So just because something hasn't happened, it means it couldn't happen? Again, you're using Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) logic. The only difference is that by now they've surely seen the error of their ways.

And uh, the US has tons of plants near major fault lines. Perhaps we should tear them all down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well nuclear power obviously is unsafe. Ask the people in Fukushima if they think they're safe.

[bullmoose88]

Well nuclear power obviously is unsafe. Ask the people in Fukushima if they think they're safe.

Well...sure.  I think the more appropriate question is, as a function of the likeliness of a major problem occurring and the danger of the public stemming from the operation of a plant/plant suffering an accident/disaster...how much more unsafe is it compared to other alternatives...if you want to factor in general cost and/or cost to fix said problem...fine...but that seems to be the necessary question.

[Beet]

Well nuclear power obviously is unsafe. Ask the people in Fukushima if they think they're safe.

Well...sure.  I think the more appropriate question is, as a function of the likeliness of a major problem occurring and the danger of the public stemming from the operation of a plant/plant suffering an accident/disaster...how much more unsafe is it compared to other alternatives...if you want to factor in general cost and/or cost to fix said problem...fine...but that seems to be the necessary question.

Well, sure. But I don't find this mindset of "oh everything is okay" helpful and in light of the disaster in Japan, I find it frankly baffling. Sure, we face different risks than Japan, that doesn't mean we don't face risks. This disaster has to be clear evidence that the nuclear industry as a whole did not think clearly enough about risk in general. That is where it begins.

Once you start taking risk as seriously as it deserves to be taken, then specific risks that you may not have thought of start appearing. And then you can either review your designs and operations, or decide to go with a different type of power. But either way, you are making a decision with more wholistic and accurate trade-offs than if you simply assumed that old safety measures were okay just because we'd gotten by with them thus far.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Alarmist much Beet and jmfsct?

I'm simply relaying my training when I worked in nuke power plants in '94-95...which is probably more training than sum total of the rest of you yahoos, aside from muon.

the only action I have taken is to inform my wife back in Houston to keep the Excursion's fuel tank at least 3/4 full for the next week until this plays out

You would be better received if you actually gave some confirmation this supposed effects of a meltdown. I'm sorry, but your claims simply do not seem plausible

 But I am still a HUGE proponent of nuclear power.  The plant in question is old and the newer designs would not have had this problem.

Could you explain why?

they have differrent cooling designs and requirements

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

OK, my phrasing was bad.  But nothing is "safe".  Nuclear power, compared to the risks, is still a relatively safe and generally healthy way of producing energy.

So long as there's kinetic energy, nothing is ever "safe".

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Japan, March 2011:  earthquake...tsunami...multiple nuclear meltdowns...volcano...

[Tender Branson]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14plume.html

Don't know if that's been posted but...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, Tepco is really good at covering up the "accident" (everything's under control) ...

[Beet]

Here's another factoid showing the mistake of assuming that natural disasters can only be so bad or "don't happen here":

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14seismic.html?hp

What is perhaps most surprising about the Japan earthquake is how misleading history can be. In the past 300 years, no earthquake nearly that large — nothing larger than magnitude-eight — had struck in the Japan subduction zone. That, in turn, led to assumptions about how large a tsunami might strike the coast.

“It did them a giant disservice,” said Dr. Stein of the geological survey. That is not the first time that the earthquake potential of a fault has been underestimated. Most geophysicists did not think the Sumatra fault could generate a magnitude-9.1 earthquake, and a magnitude-7.3 earthquake in Landers, Calif., in 1992 also caught earthquake experts by surprise.

“Perhaps the message is we should re-evaluate the occurrence of superlarge earthquakes on any fault,” Dr. Stein said.