Radiation Suppression in Japan
20 Mar 2011, 9:44 am
Cracked or the Onion did a report on this plant a short while ago, It was about dumb things humans do. One, built on a known fault, two, on a coast that is known for tidal waves.
Three, would be use Plutonium for fuel, and Four, the plant is forty years old.
So the best planning and technology of 1970.
Japan never had warheads to dispose of, so those are ours being safely and peacefully disposed of.
There was not supposed to be any Plutonium in bombs, the stuff is cheap to make, but dirty and long lasting to use. The half life is a lot longer than our species has been around, and would forever poison the land.
So the deeper story, we paid for Uranium bombs, and got the cheap and dirty ones.
They were built for the end of the world, so who would ever know?
This is what happens when a third of all government spending is on secret defense projects. We also have a lot of weapon grade Anthrax.
20 Mar 2011, 5:23 pm
What's really weird is the Japanese government putting this disaster in the same catagory as Three Mile Island with its one puny reactor that partially melted down due to a faulty steam valve. Fukushima-Dai-ichi has 6 reactors equipped with suppression pools. It's NOTHING like TMI. In fact, it's much, much worse.
24 Mar 2011, 6:11 pm
Quite true. At the moment, the only thing keeping it from being Chernobyl level worse is that the structure of the facility is not designed to be rapidly and easily opened for the fuel to be converted into a nuclear weapon.
29 Mar 2011, 12:39 am
I think a history lesson is in order. (he says in his best aspie voice)
Since he's not going to let on to his joke (black humour indeed) I will.
When the Kamakazi pilots prepared to take off to attack the American fleet in WWII they drank ceremonial sake, and the pilots that were staying behind would wave their helmets and googles in salute and shout 'banzi' as they climbed into their planes for their one way trip.
The joke is clear, these are the new Kamakazis, flying suicide missions.
He forgot to mention the scarves.
30 Mar 2011, 12:04 am
Quite true. At the moment, the only thing keeping it from being Chernobyl level worse is that the structure of the facility is not designed to be rapidly and easily opened for the fuel to be converted into a nuclear weapon.
I was thinking about number of reactors and the fact they are all in trouble which means they have more uranium and plutonium than Chernobyl not to mention suppression pools with spent fuel rods, also in trouble. That seems like a lot more than 3 MI and Chernobyl, combined.
Also, no one is talking about how great nuclear energy is anymore.
30 Mar 2011, 5:51 am
Also, no one is talking about how great nuclear energy is anymore.
I am. There are passively safe reactor designs with which the current disaster could not occur. If you leave them alone they will cool down. These are the gas cooled pebble bed design. The coolant never comes in contact with the boiling water that provides the steam to drive the generator turbines. They are quite at odds with the old boiling water reactors.
Fission generation produces heat (a form of energy) without polluting the atmosphere. Breeder reactors will consume the "spent" fuel so there is no storage problem with used up fuel. There is no used up fuel. It all gets converted to lead in the end. Lead is easier to dispose of than hot radioactive descendants of U235 and Pu294. Even thorium and radium are converted ultimately to inert elements.
Objecting to nuclear power is like objecting to dams because inadequate earthen dams collapse every now and again.
ruveyn
ruveyn
30 Mar 2011, 3:05 pm
Also, no one is talking about how great nuclear energy is anymore.
I am. There are passively safe reactor designs with which the current disaster could not occur. If you leave them alone they will cool down. These are the gas cooled pebble bed design. The coolant never comes in contact with the boiling water that provides the steam to drive the generator turbines. They are quite at odds with the old boiling water reactors.
Fission generation produces heat (a form of energy) without polluting the atmosphere. Breeder reactors will consume the "spent" fuel so there is no storage problem with used up fuel. There is no used up fuel. It all gets converted to lead in the end. Lead is easier to dispose of than hot radioactive descendants of U235 and Pu294. Even thorium and radium are converted ultimately to inert elements.
Objecting to nuclear power is like objecting to dams because inadequate earthen dams collapse every now and again.
ruveyn
ruveyn
So am I. The Fukushima plants are based on an old design from the 70's and I agree with you that the more modern designs are much safer. Not only is nuclear power much cleaner than coal energy, it is basically the only real clean alternative to coal. Renewable energy resources simply cannot satisfy our energy needs.
30 Mar 2011, 7:16 pm
Has anyone considered other alternatives? I have one obvious one, begin a massive global campaign to reduce the birth rate to one child per couple. Considering the planet has limited resources and that we are all clearly screwed when they run out, those who are concerned about preserving the human race should be promoting massive birth control efforts.
It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see the less people we have, the longer the race will survive. With less people we would need less power, in fact less of everything, and we would be pushing that inevitable day of reckoning further into the future. About half the present population would be sustainable for many centuries. If population continues to grow instead we will be in deep dodo much sooner.
It seems that the present leaders of the world are doing all they can to rush us headlong into Armageddon. I guess they are all old men who know that things won't get really bad before they are dead and just don't give a flock. They certainly are showing callous disregard for their children and grandchildren though.
31 Mar 2011, 2:18 am
It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to see the less people we have, the longer the race will survive. With less people we would need less power, in fact less of everything, and we would be pushing that inevitable day of reckoning further into the future. About half the present population would be sustainable for many centuries. If population continues to grow instead we will be in deep dodo much sooner.
It seems that the present leaders of the world are doing all they can to rush us headlong into Armageddon. I guess they are all old men who know that things won't get really bad before they are dead and just don't give a flock. They certainly are showing callous disregard for their children and grandchildren though.
We need less people, yes. However, that's a separate issue from our energy needs. Besides, how would you propose how we should go about reducing the human population? When it comes overpopulation of wild animals, such as elephants, in a nature reserve, then the easy solution is just to cull them but you cannot cull people just because happen to be too many them.
31 Mar 2011, 8:46 pm
Also, no one is talking about how great nuclear energy is anymore.
I am. There are passively safe reactor designs with which the current disaster could not occur. If you leave them alone they will cool down. These are the gas cooled pebble bed design. The coolant never comes in contact with the boiling water that provides the steam to drive the generator turbines. They are quite at odds with the old boiling water reactors.
Fission generation produces heat (a form of energy) without polluting the atmosphere. Breeder reactors will consume the "spent" fuel so there is no storage problem with used up fuel. There is no used up fuel. It all gets converted to lead in the end. Lead is easier to dispose of than hot radioactive descendants of U235 and Pu294. Even thorium and radium are converted ultimately to inert elements.
Objecting to nuclear power is like objecting to dams because inadequate earthen dams collapse every now and again.
ruveyn
ruveyn
I'll believe it when I see it.
But, if we are going to go to all that trouble, why not just create technology that utilizes pure hydrogen and skip all these middle men?
01 Apr 2011, 8:47 am
But, if we are going to go to all that trouble, why not just create technology that utilizes pure hydrogen and skip all these middle men?
Because there is hardly any free hydrogen on Earth. Most of it is locked up in water H2O. To get the hydrogen from water or other hydrogen compounds requires energy. What energy do we have in sufficient quantities? The energy we get by burning hydrocarbons, the energy of falling water and the energy produced by the heat of fission. Using that heat we can produce electricity in sufficient quantity to break down water and free up the hydrogen.
Learn some physics, learn some chemistry, learn some thermodynamics and learn to keep your silence when you do not know enough to say anything sensible.
ruveyn
01 Apr 2011, 11:53 am
But, if we are going to go to all that trouble, why not just create technology that utilizes pure hydrogen and skip all these middle men?
Because there is hardly any free hydrogen on Earth. Most of it is locked up in water H2O. To get the hydrogen from water or other hydrogen compounds requires energy. What energy do we have in sufficient quantities? The energy we get by burning hydrocarbons, the energy of falling water and the energy produced by the heat of fission. Using that heat we can produce electricity in sufficient quantity to break down water and free up the hydrogen.
Learn some physics, learn some chemistry, learn some thermodynamics and learn to keep your silence when you do not know enough to say anything sensible.
ruveyn
What about the sun? Doesn't the sun have hydrogen? This nuclear power plant converting isotopes into lead in breeder reactors sounds like a whole lot of complexity just to squeeze out a few drops of energy, doesn't it?
If it wasn't for the gigantic nuclear lobby, we wouldn't even be pursuing it. A lot of companies have research dollars in this area and they want some return on their investment. That's the only reason we are being subjected to these ideas.
01 Apr 2011, 12:10 pm
.
Yes, and photovoltaic conversion of sun-light to energy is one of the least efficient means of getting energy from hydrogen fusion. It is not sufficient to run an industrial grade economy.
Solar panels, AT BEST, is a niche source and only in those parts of the country where sunlight is abundant and uninterrupted by clouds and storms. Great for Arizona. Bad for Massachussetts.
ruveyn
01 Apr 2011, 12:37 pm
.
Yes, and photovoltaic conversion of sun-light to energy is one of the least efficient means of getting energy from hydrogen fusion. It is not sufficient to run an industrial grade economy.
Solar panels, AT BEST, is a niche source and only in those parts of the country where sunlight is abundant and uninterrupted by clouds and storms. Great for Arizona. Bad for Massachussetts.
ruveyn
Because...we haven't put the investment dollars and research that we have put into nuclear. Nuclear technology is more advanced because of research and money alone, that's why we have these elaborate designs. We could do just as much with solar if we worked at it and put the money into it. Plus, it's safer than nuclear and not nearly as complex.
01 Apr 2011, 12:43 pm
The reactor took an earthquake it was never designed to take, also if I remember correctly they were planning on retiring and replacing this reactor in the next few years. It is actually a testament to Japanese Building standards that the situation isn't worse than it already is.
Yeah they probably should have retired it earlier, but to imply that the Japanese did maintainence shortcuts is a stretch, considering they have the strictist building codes in the world.
01 Apr 2011, 4:17 pm
That has yet to be proven. We know we can generate the quantities of power required for an industrial society by using fission reactors. In addition if we deploy breeder reactors we do away with the waste disposal problem. Breeders produce very little waste.
There are some hopeful signs in the area of photo-voltaic conversion. There has been recent progress in photo-voltaic converts that use more of the sun's spectrum than current converts. That means for a given surface area, more energy can be extracted.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
The real problem is baseline power production. Fission plants run continually (except when taken down briefly for mainttaining or fuel-rod removal/replacement). Solar plants can only run by day. That means auxiliary power must be produced to be used at night or when the sun is blocked by weather. This means less net output to do useful work.
ruveyn
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Navy hid - shipyard workers possible radiation exposure |
29 Jan 2024, 1:16 pm |
| Stolen Japanese Art found and returned to Japan |
19 Mar 2024, 4:19 pm |
| Queen Boudica of The British Isles vs Empress Jingu of Japan |
11 Mar 2024, 5:25 pm |
