Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Rachel Maddow explains a nuclear meltdown
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 16, 2011 at 2:19 am #598320
JanSParticipantthis was on her show last night. For those of us that want things in simple terms, this just about says it all…
March 16, 2011 at 4:02 am #720483
ClawGirlMemberThank you for posting this. It’s a really good explanation.
March 16, 2011 at 5:20 am #720484
DPMemberYeah, that’s a decent explanation from Rachel. This info is out there already, but she’s sifted out the essentials for us.
The nukes discussion really belongs on a separate thread from quake/tsunami damage discussion. Maybe this can be the thread . . .
When Obama was campaigning, I was distressed to hear him talking about “clean coal” and nuclear as good options for the future. Even now, in the face of the Japan’s experience, he’s standing by nuclear. Just gotta scratch my head . . .
It’s amazing to think that, after all the safety engineering and redundancy that went into designing the Fukushima plant, they still decided to plunk it down right next to the coastline.
As if they’d all been born yesterday.
As if Japan hadn’t been the country that gave us the word “tsunami.”
What the hell were they thinking?
Don’t answer that. I’ll tell you what they were thinking, ’cause it’s the same thing that ALL nuclear advocates think in their core or cores:
Oh . . . that could never happen HERE . . .
We’ve LEARNED from Chernobyl.
We’ve LEARNED from Three-Mile Island.
–Riiiiiiight.
March 16, 2011 at 5:57 am #720485
inactiveMemberI’m not prepared to get into this too deep DP, but I happened upon the following and what it tells me is that the sites you mentioned were all built about the same time
Fukushima – 1971
Chernoboyl -1971
Three Mile Island – 1974
That’s 40 years old. I am not exactly a nuclear advocate, believe me. But it doesn’t take a nuclear physicist to know that technology has changed in 40 years.
Also, I don’t think oil spills and carbon dioxide and a depleting ozone are particularly safe either, are they? Looking at the long view.
Also, Japan is a country, I’ve learned and been struck by this week, which has an average of 1,500 quakes ANNUALLY. From my point of view, there is a fundamentally different mindset of a nation which has willingly chose to build and thrive like no other nation on such a piece of earth as that. Interesting.
But, don’t be looking for a fight with me. I’m not up for that. Just a few points I’ve been pondering.
March 16, 2011 at 6:06 am #720486
JanSParticipantWSdood…an average of 1500 quakes annually…well..here’s a Youtube video showing earthquakes in Japan between 9 March and 14 March. 1 hour = 1 second. Big one is around 1:17. Make sure your sound is turned up. For some reason it really impacts one better with sound…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xylDxj6-9dY&feature=player_embedded#at=15
March 16, 2011 at 6:25 am #720487
inactiveMemberpoignant video JanS.
March 16, 2011 at 6:34 am #720488
chrismaParticipantWell they started building Fukushima Daiichi in 1967, so Three Mile Island and Chernobyl hadn’t happened yet, when this place was designed, built, and brought on line.
But, what had happened was the largest recorded earthquake in history off the coast of Chile. A 9.5 which produced a 25 meter (82 feet) tsunami on the Chilean coast, and 10 meter tsunamis (~30 feet) up to 6,000 miles away. The earthquake Japan experienced last Friday was extraordinary, but not unprecedented.
The shoreline siting of the plant is less troubling to me than the apparent fact that the backup diesel generators (which should have supplied the critical electricity needed to continue cooling operations after the quake) were rendered inoperable after being swamped by the tsunami. Given that the Japanese gave us the word, and have had more than a passing familiarity with the phenomenon throughout their history, it seems to me to be a stunning lack of planning to not have hardened those generators against water damage. This whole place should have been built like a submarine. Indeed, what were they thinking?
Actually,the plant structure itself seems to have held up pretty well to the earthquake, considering it was designed for a maximum quake of 8.2. Obviously, now the explosions and fires are taking their toll.
As many people have pointed out, none of us sitting here at our keyboards really know what the situation was or currently is on the ground at Fukushima, or what the details of the failures are that the plant operators have had to deal with. Perhaps there are more complex reasons why the backup generators failed, or other contributing factors. I don’t know, and I trust that the people working the problem are doing the best that they can with what they have. I hope that the U.S. and other nations can provide some relief to these guys that are starting their 6th day of this crisis. I can’t imagine any of them have had much rest and who knows what toll the elevated radiation levels are taking on them, physically. I hope and pray that they are able to somehow get control of this thing.
March 16, 2011 at 6:50 am #720489
waterworldParticipantGood article in the NYT about safety issues with the Mark 1 design that were raised back in the 1970s and 1980s. GE says they are perfectly safe, though, so I’m not worried.
March 16, 2011 at 6:59 am #720490
chrismaParticipantGood, if disturbing, article, Waterworld. Thanks for the link. It doesn’t bode well if things keep going south as they have been.
March 16, 2011 at 2:51 pm #720491
redblackParticipantinteresting that msnbc – whose second-largest shareholder is GE – has been keeping up with what’s going on there, and is bringing up the issue of nuclear safety in general on a nightly basis. (but i did see alex witt interview some “expert” from the heritage institute on saturday morning to counter the union of concerned scientists. i think you can guess what his position was.)
there’s a reason why the u.s. government is the only institution that will “insure” nuclear reactors. insurance companies won’t touch them for any amount of money, which is part of the reason why they’re so expensive – they know that nuclear reactors are inherently dangerous. if an insurance company won’t take your money, brother, you have a big problem.
and we still can’t deal with the spent fuel rods safely, no matter how safe the reactors and their containment structures are built.
like, DP, i find it disturbing that obama would even entertain the notion of bringing more reactors online in the u.s. that $36 billion could go a long way toward sustainable energy development and implementation.
or cut from the budget altogether to appease the teabaggers.
March 16, 2011 at 4:52 pm #720492
datamuseParticipantIt may be worth pointing out that reactors are often sited near coasts because that way you have a ready supply of sufficiently cold water.
As far as the backup generators failing due to the tsunami…I’m still looking at that, but I’ve read at least one assertion that more modern designs have enabled the coolant pumps to keep working even without power.
I’m all in favor of cleaner energy solutions myself, but the current unfortunate reality is that solar, wind, geothermal, and wave energy capacity taken all together cannot meet current demand, and won’t be able to for quite some time. Getting people to voluntarily use less power to any significant degree doesn’t seem to work very well, and building the infrastructure to take advantage of clean, renewable sources carries its own environmental as well as monetary cost. IOW there are no ideal choices.
March 16, 2011 at 6:39 pm #720493
DPMemberI know we can’t just decree: “No nukes! Everybody turn your thermostats down.”
All I’m saying is that we should be consciously moving away from nuclear technology, not running toward it. Nuclear might look better than hydrocarbons in the short run, but in the long run, it’s just as unsafe and unsustainable — and we haven’t even talked about the problems of waste storage or weapons proliferation yet . . .
Consider: Every dollar spent on trying to make nuclear energy safe (or cleaning up after a disaster) is a dollar that could have been invested in a sustainable future powered by solar, wind, wave, or geothermal.
Ahh . . . now I’m making speeches.
March 16, 2011 at 7:01 pm #720494
redblackParticipantdatamuse: regarding renewable/sustainable not being immediately achievable, i quipped to the missus last night that i would bet good money that the japanese will move away from nuclear power and invest in something like wave power. and they will probably do it in a way that will embarrass the rest of the industrial world.
the japanese have historically been very dedicated, creative, and industrious when put to the test. i wouldn’t be surprised if they quickly turn this disaster to their and the rest of the world’s benefit.
like america should have done after katrina…
March 16, 2011 at 8:56 pm #720495
JoBParticipantchrisma..
what bothers me more is that the back up generators for the back up generators were rendered inoperable because of what i understand was plug incompatibility…
3 explosions because of the lack of an adaptor :(
March 16, 2011 at 8:58 pm #720496
JoBParticipantDP..
I already turned my thermostat down
without wool socks and a sweater i freeze
i don’t think i am willing to do more
March 16, 2011 at 9:09 pm #720497
chrismaParticipantJoB: I think I heard about the plug incompatibility at one point. As I said upthread, it’s hard to know what the actual situation really was/is.
Without knowing the details, my initial reaction to that report is that if it were me, I’d be stripping cable and finding a way to connect those wires together without the plugs. Exposed high voltage is dangerous, but so is an out of control nuclear reactor. It’s hard to imagine there was not enough technical know-how in a room of nuclear plant operators to MacGuyver up a solution to incompatible adapters. I’m sure there’s more to the story, but who knows if we’ll ever get the details.
March 16, 2011 at 9:26 pm #720498
DPMemberHa. Clearly you’re not part of the problem, JoB. Turn your thermostat back up. And take that sweater off, too. (Rowrrr!)
Remember old Jimmy “Guilt Trip” Carter? During his term as President, he had solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. When Reagan came in, he promptly had them taken down.
(Now that’s what I call leadership!)
Two years ago, I blew a considerable chunk of my savings on an electric heat pump to replace our old, oil-burning dinosaur. It was scary: $14,000 for the heat pump plus another $4,000 for an electrical panel upgrade. But I don’t regret it. Our heating bill is now about a third of what it was, and it’s a mostly carbon-neutral system — since we’re primarily on hydro power here in Seattle.
I might just blow what’s left of my savings on a rooftop solar system.
FYI: In the years ahead, Seattle City Light plans to introduce a system whereby customers can pool their resources and invest in shares of large solar arrays to be built in sunny Eastern Wa. Customers will then get a share of the proceeds from these arrays, either in the form of cash dividends or electric power.
Seattle may have a problem with “too much democracy” when it comes to things like the tunnel, but in the areas of energy development and sustainability, we’re ahead of the game.
I’m proud of us.
March 16, 2011 at 9:27 pm #720499
chrismaParticipantIn response to datamuse on post 11: It occurred to me that better design given Fukushima Daiichi’s location would have been to put the reactors in the ground below sea level. In the event of a complete failure of the backup power/pumps, a gravity fed system of bringing sea water to the reactors could be used instead. I have neither the physics nor engineering background to know what the potential problems of that kind of design might be, or if it’s feasible, but it seems worth looking at in light of the events that have taken place. Obviously, it would have to be designed as a containment system so that the sea water wasn’t flowing back out to the ocean, but I wonder if a passive pumping system using convection from the reactor itself and an air cooled radiator array might even be possible.
From what I have read, the newest reactor designs are built to be able to cool down passively through convection, should all backup cooling fail. However, I don’t think many, if any at all, have been built at this point. Unfortunately, with the expense of building and operating nuclear power plants, we’re probably stuck with the designs that already are operating for quite some time.
It will be interesting to see the effect of this “accident” on the industry and the public acceptance of nuclear power.
March 16, 2011 at 10:08 pm #720500
datamuseParticipantFrom what I have read, the newest reactor designs are built to be able to cool down passively through convection, should all backup cooling fail. However, I don’t think many, if any at all, have been built at this point. Unfortunately, with the expense of building and operating nuclear power plants, we’re probably stuck with the designs that already are operating for quite some time.
Yeah, and that’s definitely part of the issue…replacing a nuclear power plant isn’t exactly a low-cost proposition–whether you replace it with a newer, better engineered one, or make up its generating capacity by some other means.
March 17, 2011 at 1:43 pm #720501
redblackParticipantwe still don’t have a safe way to dispose of spent fuel rods – except by making really nasty ammunition (and even then we’re just nimbying the problem.)
i heard mary landrieu on msnbc this morning touting nuclear power, and i asked the tee vee how eager she and her constituents were to open a spent fuel rod depository in louisiana.
the tee vee, while not silent, did not answer my question.
March 18, 2011 at 1:21 am #720502
dawsonctParticipantSince Nuke plants use insane amounts of concrete, aluminum, and steel, which must be produced using a huge amount of energy, then transported to the site and assembled in a coherent design, all using carbon-fueled vehicles/equipment, it is really difficult to argue that turning turbines with nuclear fission-heated water is greenhouse gas neutral.
Then you have to disassemble it when it reaches the end of it’s service life. More gasses spewed into the atmosphere.
Where are we going to keep the spent fuel?
We can send only so much to people like Art Robinson, besides, I like most of Oregon:
March 18, 2011 at 2:36 am #720503
DPMemberOK, forget all that radiation hazard and pollution nonsense.
N-plants = JOBS! JOBS! JOBS!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.