Slashdot Mirror


Things Get Worse at Fukushima

An anonymous reader writes "Radiation levels are skyrocketing around Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant as reports indicate that a radioactive core has overheated and melted through its containment vessel and onto a concrete floor. Radiation levels inside reactor two were recently gauged at 1,000 millisieverts per hour — a level so high that workers could only remain in the area for 15 minutes under current exposure guidelines."

67 of 1,122 comments (clear)

  1. Before everyone freaks by WhitetailKitten · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is part of the planned failure mode of the reactor. To be sure, it's fairly far on the "stuff is breaking" scale, and there are definite consequences (such as fears of leakage into groundwater). But this is not going to be a Chernobyl-level catastrophe.

    However, fingers crossed that nobody else dies. Japan's already had enough fatalities this month.

    1. Re:Before everyone freaks by WhitetailKitten · · Score: 5, Informative

      TEPCO has a history of coverups and other shenanigans that the cynical jaded type would come to expect from a large corporate-type organization. However, this is just coming back to bite them in the ass on the international stage, so I get the feeling they won't be so lucky this time.

    2. Re:Before everyone freaks by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But this is not going to be a Chernobyl-level catastrophe..

      I really hate that the above statement is becoming the bright side at Fukushima. No matter what corporate greed or human error is uncovered in the coming years/months, the masses are going to remember the hysterics of this tragedy and remain opposed to nuclear energy for some time.

      Amazingly the damage and deaths caused by Deep Water Horizons and the rigs burning in Japan don't get near the hype. And the number of deaths caused by coal are virtually ignored.

    3. Re:Before everyone freaks by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When that didn't work out and it was clear that they had absolutely no other option, TEPCO began pumping seawater in. They did everything they could to avoid writing the reactors off.

      And that's unreasonable because...?

      --
      FGD 135
    4. Re:Before everyone freaks by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Reactors 1-4 will never be used again. But burying them in concrete is absolutely the wrong thing to do. Right now, the cores are still hot enough to melt through the reactor vessel if not constantly cooled by constant pumping of (now) fresh water through the coolant system.

      Worst case scenario (though not hugely likely) - water stops getting in, or stops cooling the fuel rods, they melt down through the reactor into the outer containment vessel, and there's not enough left of the control rods mixed in to prevent the molten fuel reaching criticality again, and it then gets hot enough to melt through the containment itself, then either contaminate groudwater, or even worse, hit enough water to cause a steam explosion, spreading radioactive elements for miles around.

      It's going to take *years* to decommission these plants after the damage they've suffered from the quake and tsunami. No doubt some sort of concrete shroud will be part of the final solution, but right now, keeping control of the coolant flow in both the reactors and the used fuel ponds is the top priority, closely followed by patching any leaks from the containment vessels caused by the multiple hydrogen fires/explosions.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    5. Re:Before everyone freaks by fishbowl · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you have a concrete that can set in that environment, and maintain integrity versus the decay heat that under that blanket of concrete, you should be up for a Nobel Prize.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    6. Re:Before everyone freaks by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Human history is littered with, well, litter. We just push stuff over the next hill or into the river and forget about it. We're starting to run out of room to do this without having side effects of leeching into soils etc.

      What I find ironic is that by blasting stuff into the sun, we might just be able to 'push it over that hill' in a manner that won't be an issue for literally billions of years.

      While our early ancestors surely said "you don't think we can possibly pollute the entire ocean do you?".

      Could we possibly produce enough stuff from this planet that we actually effect the sun in any meaning full way? In terms of scale it seems like we might just be able to get away with blasting our refuse into the sun and not see any significant consequences.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    7. Re:Before everyone freaks by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Bury the whole damn thing in concrete, and be done with it. This crisis would have been resolved two weeks ago if TEPCO wasn't more interested in repairing and reusing the reactor than the public safety.

      Each reactor was written off the moment they pumped seawater into it. The corrosive nature of salt means the steel containment vessels will never pass inspection to allow them be used again to house an active reactor. Reactors #1, #2, and #3 will never be used again. TEPCO deserves criticism for waiting too long to pump in seawater (long enough to allow the rods to become exposed and melt), but refusing to use concrete has nothing to do with it.

      They aren't encasing it in concrete because doing so would compromise their ability to continue cooling, and thus practically guarantee the core melting through the steel containment vessel.. TFA is speculation that this has already happened based on one industry expert's interpretation of the reports he has seen. He's apparently forgotten that reactor #2 suffered a hydrogen explosion inside containment early on (near or in the suppression pool, or "torus"). They've been suspecting for a while that they have a containment breech there, allowing water from the core to leak out. The high radiation readings from the water near that area are consistent with that scenario.

    8. Re:Before everyone freaks by jjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How could North Korea get light artillery within range of Fukushima? And what could they gain besides a nuclear barrage of Pyongyang?

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    9. Re:Before everyone freaks by geekprime · · Score: 4, Informative

      Hmm,

      here's a graphic with the sun and planets drawn to scale, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/interior.html

      I don't think the sun would notice if we threw the entire planet in to it, From that page
      "the radius of the Sun is about 109 times that of the Earth, which implies that the volume of the Sun would hold approximately 1.3 million Earths"

    10. Re:Before everyone freaks by atrain728 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What kind of light artillery has a range of 600 miles?

    11. Re:Before everyone freaks by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Informative

      And it doesn't help that the boss is essentially hiding out in his pillow fort instead of working to try to coordinate the effort, be a public punching bag, or doing anything better than hiding. Fuck at this point taking the warriors way out and killing himself would be a boon to TEPCO and Japan.....

    12. Re:Before everyone freaks by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because salt water can cause a salt build up on the fuel rods, making them much harder to cool and making meltdown more likely. Or does that not jive with your evil corporation narrative?

    13. Re:Before everyone freaks by Toy+G · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No, the announced closure was just postponed in February for another 5 years at least, with a view to get an additional 5 years on top of that after a bit of maintenance.

      Reactors cost huge sums to build, nobody really expects them to last only 30 years; 40 is the bare minimum to get some returns from the whole operation, anything on top of that is pure profit... which is where the REAL interest is, of course.

      --
      -- Let's go Viridian.
    14. Re:Before everyone freaks by WhitetailKitten · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to get off-topic, but I think even North Korea isn't crazy enough to do that, because the response from Japan and its Western allies would be to bomb North Korea back into the Mesozoic Era. Shelling a disabled nuclear power plant to expressly turn it into a dirty bomb when the country's already suffering a three-hit combo of quake-tsunami-reactor isn't just an act of war, it's being a dick on a massive scale.

    15. Re:Before everyone freaks by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ironically, this whole crisis was caused because they did precisely that—the reactors shut down automatically for safety reasons, and then they had no power with which to keep the pumps running because the diesel generators were underwater. Had pretty much any one those reactors not automatically scrammed, it is likely that things would be in better shape than they are now.

      And what folks should take away from all this is that reactors should auto-scram only when they detect a coolant leak, not because of an earthquake that merely might cause a coolant leak. Or at least that's what should happen for older reactors like these that require active cooling in a scrammed state.

      No, scratch that. The takeaway should be that reactors that require active cooling in a scrammed state are fundamentally unsafe in a seismic zone and should be replaced with newer reactors as soon as possible.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    16. Re:Before everyone freaks by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Concrete is a mixture that's water-based. Start with some dry concrete powder (or some Jell-O Instant Pudding), and your radioactive water becomes radioactive concrete. Then, put more concrete on the outside of that to put as much mass between fish and isotopes, and you're golden.

      The part the grandparent post is making fun with is "if you have a material science background". One thing I do know about, is ceramic linings for metal melting furnaces as I've built some. I have in fact poured my own aluminum castings and machined them on my own lathe and milling machine. This necessitates considerable research and book reading about melting furnaces, etc.

      First of all, heat plus solid concrete = powered concrete ready to add water. Red hot and concrete do not go together. Red heat breaks down cement. Cement plus heat equals dust. Concrete plus heat equals dust and gravel. Industrially at (relatively) low temperatures it takes hours to break limestone into cement, so at reactor temperatures it'll likely literally never "set up" into a solid. Plain ole cement aka burned lime quicklime whatever is limestone with the water of crystallization burned out of it. Then you add the water back in and it sets up into artificial limestone. Did you know the pyramids in Egypt are made of "limestone" or is it cured cement? There is a pretty interesting book on that topic. Plain ole cement is pretty cool technology. But it is beyond an epic fail at high temps.

      Now you can buy ultra high temp ceramic coatings for furnaces, kilns, etc.

      Problem 1) very low strength. Like puddle under their own weight. You're likely to end up with a white hot reactor surrounded by a glass puddle.

      Problem 2) explodes and fractures on contact with water and thats everywhere down there in the reactor and on the coasts.

      Problem 3) as generations of steel mills have learned even the best ceramic coatings turn back to dust after at most a year or two of use. So you've bought a year at best, now you have the same problem plus a megaton of mid level contaminated concrete. Ugh.

      Problem 4) It would take an epic amount of high temp ceramic coating to cover the plant. Not in stock, the harbor is wrecked, its too heavy to airlift, and which country will volunteer to shut down their steelmills for a year until more can be made? This is the stuff where a little "salt bag" sized bag weighs about 100 pounds. And you need like a million of those bags. Hmm.

      Problem 5) Cements in general are porous at a like ionic level. Right now, say, 1 percent of whats in the reactor has leaked out. Lets think about this logically, if 100% had leaked out into the sea, the plant would not be an issue anymore... Anyway, if you concrete it, that guarantees that 100% of the reactor core will end up in the ocean (eventually) and it 100% guarantees they will not be able to get at it to stop it (because its buried under concrete).

      Problem 6) Learn what distillation and vapor pressure are. Right now, at least some isotopes are solid and can't fly away. Encapsulate it in a great insulator like cement, it'll get hot enough all right to make an even bigger more dangerous mess.

      So in the short term it doesn't really do anything other than blow a lot of money and look very busy. Once the reactions cease and it cools, slapping some concrete on it might isolate it from the environment, for at most a couple decades, at most. Sooner or later you'll have to clean it up and the concrete will just get in the way.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    17. Re:Before everyone freaks by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...shouldn't several TEPCO executives have commited ritual hara-kiri or seppuku by now?"

      Allow them the honor of placing the first ceremonial bags of concrete on the melted core themselves.

    18. Re:Before everyone freaks by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we can ever apply 30 km/s of delta-v to objects cheaply enough that we're considering doing it for our garbage, I'd like to think that we can 1) find better things to do with that delta-v and 2) find better things to do with our garbage, like recycle it since the energy cost is obviously no longer a concern.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    19. Re:Before everyone freaks by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All GP did was claim that TEPCO tried every option which involved not writing the reactor off first, before pumping seawater in. At no point has the allegation be made that they risked catastrophic failure by doing that.
      If they were genuinely risking a catastrophic failure by not immediately pumping in seawater, then I agree that to not do so was unreasonable.
      But that is not the allegation WhiteTailKitten made.

      All that was alleged was that they tried to avoid wrecking the reactor if they could help it, and when they couldn't avoid wrecking it, did. That does not strike me as unreasonable. Don't forget, Japan is now facing rolling blackouts across a large swath of the country for a year or more because there just won't be the power-generating capacity available. That calculation was surely known when they decided not to immediately flood the reactor vessel with seawater.

      Reckless and stupid would be allowing the reactor to get too hot in the hope that it would do less damage than pumping in seawater. However, pumping in seawater, guaranteeing substantial loss of power-generating capacity, before it was necessary to do so would have been irresponsbile.

      Allowing the situation to develop and shifting from one option to the other when the balance changed seems to me to have been the best thing they could have done.

      If that what actually happened? Was that the point when TEPCO changed their response? I don't know. But what I do know is that GP didn't allege any facts which would lead someone to conclude that TEPCO acted unreasonably, but still expected the reader to imply that this proved TEPCO acted unreasonably.

      --
      FGD 135
    20. Re:Before everyone freaks by Tmack · · Score: 5, Informative

      If they were so unconcerned with saving them, why did they wait on the sea water? they could have done that days sooner but didn't because it would render the reactors useless.

      Because then you end up with radioactive salts to deal with. Pure water will cool without transporting radiation, since theres nothing in pure water that will take on the extra particles. Salt also accelerates corrosion, and when the water boils away, it leave a nice crust all over everything, possibly clogging pipes/pumps/valves, as well as adding insulation to stuff thats already too hot.

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    21. Re:Before everyone freaks by leenks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it.” -- Bernard Shaw

    22. Re:Before everyone freaks by vlm · · Score: 3, Informative

      They say there's no danger of a Chernobyl style catastrophe, but what credibility do they have? These people--and quite a few nuclear proponents around here--told us all that there was "no danger" of any major leak in the days after the tsunami hit. Three weeks later the reactor is a molten puddle on a concrete floor,

      They don't need any credibility at all. BWRs are not a zillion ton charcoal briquette like Chernobyl. You can't light the worlds largest charcoal briquette on fire and vaporize the works... if there is no charcoal briquette. From a credibility standpoint, sure with security theater you could sneak out the BWR and sneak in a RBMK and no one would notice (snicker) but lets be realistic here...

      If the reactor is puddle on the floor, thats good, compared to Chernobyl where the briquette vaporized it for us to breathe... I'd much prefer it melted in a containment structure there, than vaporized here in my air.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    23. Re:Before everyone freaks by lgw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Coal has significant operational issues, but few failure issues

      Coal mine fires are a huge problem, and have killed more people and left more land uninhabitable. As a kid I lived not so far from the Centralia fire, which started burning in 1962 and is still burning - and all my friends will back me up that none of us started it. And then there's the Door to Hell.

      The energy stored in the fuel of a nuclear reactor is high, but small compared to the energy stored in large fossil fuel deposits.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    24. Re:Before everyone freaks by radtea · · Score: 5, Interesting

      “The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it.” -- Bernard Shaw

      The clearly the /. editors or the dimwit who submitted this story are not cynics, because they certainly lack the power of accurate observation. This report speculates that the reactor pressure vessel may have melted, but for some unaccountable reason the summary suggests that the containment may have been breached.

      There are probably better discussions out there, but here's my take on the reactor design, which includes a pretty picture from Wikipedia that gives an idea of the difference between the pressure vessel and the containment.

      This story is pure sensationalism by abstraction and amplification. The mental health effects of fear due to misinformation, sensationalism and lies surrounding nuclear accidents of this type are far greater than the physical health effects, and I dearly hope one day the ignorant assholes who promulgate these kinds of sensationalistic accounts get their propper cumuppance: a massive class-action suit brought by the victims of their voyeuristic fearmongering.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    25. Re:Before everyone freaks by leenks · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I was purely commenting on my parent and not on this story.

      I fully agree with everything you are saying, and I feel this story is going to do nothing but fuel anti-nuclear movements which I don't think the world can realistically afford at the moment.

      These reactors were old too, but this disaster (which was beyond what they were designed to withstand) is going to impact negatively on nuclear power for decades even though the overall impact is far less than any other power source we have available to us today.

    26. Re:Before everyone freaks by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I'm not freaking, but I'm not happy either. When the hydrogen explosion killed some of the workers on the roof, that was a failure that had been anticipated in the design: the outer building bad blow away panels to limit the damage from a hydrogen explosion. It wasn't the hydrogen explosion per se that bothered me, but the fact they had guys on the roof when there was significant hydrogen gas below them. That made me doubt the operators' ability to assess the state of the situation in real time.

      I'm sorry to say that events since then have not improved my estimation of how accurate and timely TEPCO's picture of the situation is. There have been a series of alarming, unexpected events, almost too many to list. Until the situation stops generating nasty surprises, I'd say all bets are off as to how bad this situation *might* get. I say this fully recognizing how effective the defense in depth safety features have been so far at preventing a Chernobyl scale incident. I don't *expect* such an incident to occur, but the unexpected is the characteristic feature of this crisis. If I were a Civil Defense planner, I'd be quietly preparing for a much worse than I'm hoping for.

      It is absolutely true that compared to the tsunami, the Fukushima reactor situation has been relatively minor, but that's not exactly the benchmark I'd want to set for nuclear power safety (don't have an accident as bad as a magnitude 9 quake followed by a coast length 10m high tsunami). There is a potential for a one-two-three punch here: quake, tsunami, radiological disaster. Japan is on the ropes. It's people are valiant, but they are vulnerable. In this situation a radiological disaster wouldn't have to be anywhere near as bad as Chernobyl to be psychologically and economically crushing.

      I'm not anti-nuclear by any stretch of the imagination. The problems in this situation are (a) the obsolete design of the reactors and (b) TEPCO management. It is clear that the combination of these two has produced a situation of such complexity that nobody can say with any certainty what is going on, or what is going to happen. You don't have to be an anti-nuclear fanatic to see this. This system continues to behave in *majorly* unexpected ways. Yes, even in an acceptably safe design there are surprises, but the surprises appear to be cascading, and that shouldn't happen in an acceptably safe design. There's really no way of getting around that. This design isn't good enough, this company wasn't good enough, and the regulation of these reactors' operation wasn't good enough.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  2. No!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wait! I learned everything I know from Slashdot, and Slashdot says nuclear power is safe and no one will get hurt.

    None of this leaking stuff can be happening. La-la-la-la . . . I can't hear you!

    1. Re:No!!! by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the oil and coal lobby certainly want you to fear nuclear so the can continue to kill you slowly with coal plants that emit radiation and smog. Oh, and the wars for foreign oil.

    2. Re:No!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Power is not safe. Period. Anyone who says that is simplifying the truth.

      The question is how dangerous (as in injuries and deaths per unit of energy) the various ways of producing electricity are. I'm not so sure that this accident will make any qualitative change to the picture. Nuclear is still going to be the safest option. Wind is also quite safe, but wind needs to be supported by hydro and natural gas (AKA fossil gas) and those are neither safe nor good for the environment. Wind would be a good alternative if there was a safe and clean way to store energy.

  3. "Containment vessel" by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just to be clear, they are absolutely not implying it has melted through the containment, but, rather, the reactor pressure vessel.

    1. Re:"Containment vessel" by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting
      TFA seems to have forgotten that reactor #2 suffered a hydrogen explosion inside containment

      Enough hydrogen was also produced within the reactor vessel by the interaction between water and hot fuel to cause an explosion at each unit when this was vented to the secondary containment. For units 1 and 3 this removed the top part of the reactor building. At unit 2 this may have taken place in the torus, causing damage there.

      They've been suspecting they have a containment breach in reactor #2 for about two weeks now, in or near the torus / suppression pool which is connected to but sits beneath the main containment vessel. So the presence of highly radioactive water underneath it isn't really a surprise. No need for the core to melt through the steel containment vessel for that to happen.

      The mystery right now is the burns the three workers suffered a few days back. They were working on reactor #3, not #2. #3 was also suspected to have a leak in containment, but their latest readings say that the containment vessel is not losing pressure, which would seem to imply there is no leak. So where did that radioactive water come from?

    2. Re:"Containment vessel" by SmilingBoy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong.

      That's how it really goes:

      Primary Containment: Fuel Rod Cladding (probably damaged in blocks 1 to 3)

      Secondary Containment: Reactor Pressure Vessel (probably intact in blocks 1 to 3)

      Tertiary Containment: Thick Concrete Containment (that's the one you forgot) (largely intact for blocks 1 to 3)

      Quaternary Containment: Outside Reactor building (very damaged)

      So where does the radioactivity come from? Probably mainly from the suppression chamber in block 2, which is damaged, and which has a connection with the RPV and the turbine building.

  4. The *real* shame in all of this by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They've set back nuclear energy for decades, at a time when we most need it.

    Guess we had better get used to more carbon dioxide.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:The *real* shame in all of this by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wind and solar are pipe dreams. I don't care if I get modded down for saying that. I don't care if it goes against popular opinion, or flies in the face of all the pro-solar, pro-wind propaganda of late. And I don't care if it upsets the environmentalists. It's true. Even if you could come up with enough money to build the infrastructure to deploy and maintain the kind of huge solar and wind farms you would need all over the country/world, they'll still only cover a fraction of our present-day needs.

      Just building the transmission lines for that kind of project is going to be overshadow the scale of the whole TVA project. And who's going to pay for it? Do you think the American people (or the people of other countries) are willing to make *real* sacrifices for that, when it really comes down to it? Oh sure, ask any American if they support solar/wind and they'll say "Yes." But try rephrasing it as "Would you support a 50% income tax increase to pay for investments in solar/wind infrastructure?" and see what they answer.

      Believe me, I would love nothing better than a country running exclusively on clean energy, with solar panels and turbines everywhere. But the more I look at the issue, and the kinds of numbers involved, the more I don't see how it's ever going to be practical (not until the coal runs out anyway).

      And that's not even getting into the issue of countries and areas that don't get enough unobstructed sunlight and wind. What's going to happen to them in this utopia?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:The *real* shame in all of this by hawguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yea, now people will finally stop arguing for it and give solar, wind, etc. more attention. Awesome.
      I'm sorry, but I'll never be a proponent for something that has a good chance of causing horrible diseases and mutations and birth defects, regardless of how good the technology protecting it is

      Yes, because solar cells are made from sugar and spice and everything nice, and don't have any toxic components.

      What will you say if a tank of Cadmium waste leaks from a solar cell manufacturing plant, contaminating ground water and causing injury and death. (and who's to say that it hasn't already happened, since we've offshored most of our solar production.)

      All power production has risks and can cause injury or death. The question is what level of risk is acceptable, and it needs to be looked at on a per-kwh basis. Solar hasn't killed many people yet, but it's still in its infancy -- there's around 20GW of installed capacity now, the output of a few nuclear plants.

      (you could blame Chernobyl on outdated and weak Soviet tech if you want, but a modern plant by the gods of technology, Japanese, is faring no better). And there is the matter of having to bury the leftovers for thousands of years.

      This is by no means a "modern" plant - it's a 40 year old plant with a reactor designed by a USA company 50 years ago. More modern designs have passive safety built-in, so no active cooling is required.

    3. Re:The *real* shame in all of this by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's pretty much the conclusion I've reached. By cost, solar (20-45 cents per kWh) is currently nonviable except for places with extraordinarily high electricity costs (e.g. the more remote islands of Hawaii) or extraordinarily strong and consistent sunshine (e.g. the desert Southwest U.S.). Wind is getting there, down to about 7-12 cents per kWh wholesale, compared to 3-5 cents for coal.

      But the biggest problem I think people are overlooking for wind is the sheer scale of the wind farm you need to replace a decent-sized power plant. Roscoe Wind Farm is the largest wind farm in the U.S., with 781.5 MW peak capacity, 627 turbines, covering 400 km^2. Note however that that's peak capacity - how much electricity the farm generates under ideal conditions if each turbine is running at maximum power and efficiency. In practice, the average power generation from land-based wind farms has been about 20%-25% of peak. Be generous and go with the high 25% capacity factor. So 627 turbines and 400 km^2 gives you 195.4 MW of power on average.

      A single AP1000 nuclear reactor generates 1154 MW. Figure maintenance and other reasons will drop that to about 90% capacity factor, or about 1000 MW. A plant will typically have at least two so one can remain operational while the other is shut down, so 2000 MW for the plant. How big would the wind farm need to be to replace that?

      2000 / 195.4 = 10.3x bigger. To replace two AP1000 reactors will require nearly 6500 turbines covering over 4000 km^2. Each turbine requires 100-200 tons of steel, so that's around a million tons of steel. I don't even want to think about the transmission lines needed to string them all together. And wind turbines cost about $1.2 - $2.6 million per MW of peak capacity. Since this hypothetical wind farm has ~8000 MW of peak capacity, that's $9.6 - $20.8 billion in construction costs. The AP1000 reactors are estimated to have a total construction cost of about $4-$5 billion each. So $10 billion for two of them would actually line up with the low end of an equivalent wind farm's construction costs.

      4000 km^2 is about 1% the land area of California. In 2010 California generated about 200 TWh of electricity, or an average of 22 GW. So even if you assumed lots of areas are as wind-productive as Roscoe Wind Farm, and that we developed some technology which could store 100% of generated electricity for later use, California would need to cover 11% of its land area with wind turbines to replace its current electricity generation with wind. That's a bit far-fetched to say the least.

      Wind and to a lesser extent solar are not the panacea a lot of people seem to think they are. They're going to primarily be supplemental power generation technologies for a long, long time. My hopes had been on deep well geothermal, but that's run into significant problems of its own.

    4. Re:The *real* shame in all of this by polar+red · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    5. Re:The *real* shame in all of this by EatAtJoes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wind and solar are pipe dreams. I don't care if I get modded down for saying that.

      Yeah it really takes guts to be a raving pro-nuke on Slashdot, taking potshots at renewable energy. You really bucked the trend, there.

      What really rakes in the mod points on Slashdot: any realistic argument surrounding the horrific health impacts of nuclear power. Nothing gets nerds excited like references to the devastating consequences of Chernobyl on the surrounding population (like say ... Scotland).

      Much braver to make the daring claim that "nobody ever died because of a nuclear accident", because all of the respected epidemiogists sounding the alarm are really luddite shareholders in wind and solar companies right? When I want the real dirt on public health, I always ask .. a physicist or nuclear engineer, because they care about health first!

      Also gutsy: crying crocodile tears for "all the mine workers killed by coal". Only an evil anti-nerd environmentalist would fault corporate negligence in failing to observe basic safety precautions leading to the needless deaths of thousands of miners. Good thing that nuclear is so safe we don't even have to worry about corporate negligence!

    6. Re:The *real* shame in all of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't disagree with your numbers, but your final conclusion on dedicating 11% of california to wind power is a little off. A single wind generator takes a plot of land that's a few hundred square feet. Between the generators is generally farm land (at least in the Midwest it's that way). The farmers have tons of productive land, and they mostly love the few grand per year that the power companies pay them to rent the land for the generators. Very little productive land is lost when a wind farm is build in an area.

    7. Re:The *real* shame in all of this by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wind and solar are pipe dreams. I don't care if I get modded down for saying that. I don't care if it goes against popular opinion, or flies in the face of all the pro-solar, pro-wind propaganda of late. And I don't care if it upsets the environmentalists. It's true. Even if you could come up with enough money to build the infrastructure to deploy and maintain the kind of huge solar and wind farms you would need all over the country/world, they'll still only cover a fraction of our present-day needs.

      Sorry, I don't want to debunk every little sentence, however the whole block I quoted is completely wrong and nonsense.
      If you would place a solar thermal power plant covering whole Nevada you could produce 100 times the energy the planet needs right now.
      If you would use the coast of three random states in the USA, like Oregon, Florida and perhaps Texas to place there wind farms it would cover the energy needs of the USA 2 or 3 fold.

      You simply don't know anything about energy production ... 99% of the people don't know anything about it, so it is not your fault.

      But repeating the lies of the energy companies is no good.

      Believe me, I would love nothing better than a country running exclusively on clean energy, with solar panels and turbines everywhere. But the more I look at the issue, and the kinds of numbers involved, the more I don't see how it's ever going to be practical (not until the coal runs out anyway).

      Dude, you sound like a politician. Starting a sentence with "believe me" is utter fail.
      Anyway, if you had studied the "numbers" as you claim, you would not write such bullshit.
      Perhaps you have problems with where to put the decimal point, my apologizes if that is the case.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:The *real* shame in all of this by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the real world, it is necessary to choose among the feasible solutions that offer the best benefit-cost prospects.

      That is a misconception. In the real world the ordinary citizen does not know what the cost-benefit prospect is.
      The oil the USA (and the world) is getting so cheap is "secured" by endless war since 1970 (roughly). Do you really think the "sudden" revolutions in the middle east are happing just so?
      The low price for energy you pay, is payed with taxes that are fueling your war machine. The war machine is making sure you get the energy you want. If the price for the wars would be in the energy bill, you would see how much you in fact pay. But you don't see that ;d

      Anyway, as a hint for your future:

      The real problem for nuclear is that only a tiny fraction of the populace understands ... but everybody reacts to the hysteria and fear that is propagated by the media.

      This is a very important/bright sentence.
      Let me rewrite it for you:

      The real problem for renewable is that only a tiny fraction of the populace understands ... but everybody reacts to the hysteria and fear that is propagated by the media/government/energy companies.

      You get it? You are convinced that renewables wont ever work because that is what you got told the last 30 years. And you believe it ... but that does not make it true.

      Ah, my hint, which I wanted to give:
      Just turn around every sentence you hear and put in the opposing side and the opposing argument ... then think about it.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:The *real* shame in all of this by MrKaos · · Score: 3

      Wind and solar are pipe dreams. I don't care if I get modded down for saying that. I don't care if it goes against popular opinion, or flies in the face of all the pro-solar, pro-wind propaganda of late. And I don't care if it upsets the environmentalists.

      Fucking Karma whore. You know that's *exactly* what many people here feel. I, however, will probably get modded down by all the pro-nuke-ler ignorant arrogant assholes because I'm saying there are better ways to make power WHILE A FUCKING NUCLEAR REACTOR IS IN THE PROCESS OF MELTING DOWN.

      It's true. Even if you could come up with enough money to build the infrastructure to deploy and maintain the kind of huge solar and wind farms you would need all over the country/world, they'll still only cover a fraction of our present-day needs.

      Bullshit. REAL renewables have yet to see any significant industrial investment and all comes down to political will. Where is your research? I bet you've got none and are just lying. So here is some I've dug up;

      Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential uses industry and government data and finds that, globally, nuclear power is already being outpaced by better means of electricity production. It finds globally, as far back as 2006, more electricity was being produces from low-carbon and no-carbon competitors. Even without subsidies decentralised electricity generators provide almost three times the output and almost six times the capacity of nuclear power, that's kinetic vs potential energy. Energy efficiency means alone are shown to provide ten times the capacity of the nuclear industry.

      Even the pro-nuclear 2003 MIT study found that every ten cents spent to buy a nuclear kilowatt hour (1 kWh) could be used to generate 1.2 - 1.7 kWh of gas fired electricity, 2.2 - 6.5 kWh of co-generation (combined heat and power) from industry or 10 kWh of energy efficiency methods.

      Wind power is already whooping nuclear ass. Back in 2004 it globally outpaced nuclear by six times in annual capacity. With short lead times, farmer friendly, rapid technological development I suspect this will grow after the fukushima disaster.

      America is blessed with so much wind and sun power you don't even need nuke-ler bower, so why don't people like you have the imagination to utilise this resources that ends your dependency on oil and nuclear.

      Oh sure, ask any American if they support solar/wind and they'll say "Yes." But try rephrasing it as "Would you support a 50% income tax increase to pay for investments in solar/wind infrastructure?"

      Ask them if they would like a Fukushima style disaster near them with a General Electric reactor commonly installed around the U.S. I bet there is some hidden failure mode waiting in any one of those reactors - Just as the japanese have recently discovered. Tell them they can save money on CHP and then ask them if nuke is a viable alternative when an electricity company will rent their land to put up wind power - and they can still have their crops or cows.

      But the more I look at the issue, and the kinds of numbers involved, the more I don't see how it's ever going to be practical (not until the coal runs out anyway).

      Please surprise me and share your valuable research with us. Show me the numbers and I'll do some real research.

      And that's not even getting into the issue of countries and areas that don't get enough unobstructed sunlight and wind. What's going to happen to them in this utopia?

      Reeeaally, altruism is a motivator now, as if. What a serious load of Bullshit you have produced. I bet you feel good getting that load out, karma whore. You pro-nuclear idiots have hit a new low *WHILE* a meltdown is occuring you trumpet the lie for all to hear, fucking pathetic. It's one thing

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  5. Media Hysteria? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are, as well, media sources that say this *isn't* so, and that this is mostly a Media Hysteria. For example: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/29/tv_news_goes_hollywood/

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  6. Nuclear technologies by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This disaster will very likely change the way that nuclear power generation plants are approved and evaluated in the future. Unfortunately, a promising technology will almost certainly be set back, perhaps irreparably. The silver lining, however, is that alternative nuclear technologies may finally get a fair shake. Alternate fuels and reactor types offer so many possibilities to possibly exceed the efficiency and safety levels that we put up with today but have thus far been unable to obtain funding compared to the currently developed reactors. That confidence in our current strategy is being eroded rapidly. This isn't some second-rate system like Chernobyl, it is close-to-state-of-the-art.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:Nuclear technologies by WhitetailKitten · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's the thing: The reactors at Fukushima are ~40 years old and contain a design flaw that essentially caused this to happen. Newer designs for water boiler reactors have the water flow in via gravity feed instead of requiring manual pumps running on external power. While it's certainly possible that other problems might've caused a newer reactor to suffer potential meltdown, it's very likely that we would've never seen this occur if Fukushima Daiichi had a gravity-feed water cooling system. The takeaway should be that nuclear power plants need to be upgraded to keep up with the times, but unfortunately I think you're right, and the takeaway will be "OMG NUCLEAR BAD."

    2. Re:Nuclear technologies by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason they've been unable to obtain funding is because they've been unable to obtain authorization to build it. If you come up to me asking for money to build a plant that is illegal to build, I'm not going to give you any money.

      And the reason it's illegal to build safer plants is because the public lumps ALL "nukyulur" into the same "oh shit it's dangerous" boat. It doesn't matter what tech you use, or how safe it is: to the public, you're building Chernobyl Mile Island Daichi and must therefore be run out of town.

      Hell, when they started irradiating food to kill bugs that could kill people, they found that they couldn't sell it. They had to coin a new marketing word (picowave!) so that the mouthbreathing morons that make up most of the public wouldn't think someone had slipped plutonium into their frozen peas.

      So until we get the public over its irrational fear of anything radioactive, we will never see nuclear technological advancements applied. Ever.

      And as I said yesterday, once we get the public over that fear, we still have to address the *real* problems of Nuclear: What to do with the waste, and how to stop cheap bastard energy corporations from cutting safety corners in the name of profits.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    3. Re:Nuclear technologies by Iskender · · Score: 3, Informative

      That confidence in our current strategy is being eroded rapidly. This isn't some second-rate system like Chernobyl, it is close-to-state-of-the-art.

      I see your point about investigating alternative reactor technologies. However, the Fukushima reactors are certainly not state of the art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_boiling_water_reactor reactors for instance are already in operation. Generation III reactors are currently the state of the art of reactors in operation, and the Fukushima reactors are firmly in the generation II category.

      The Fukushima reactors have no doubt had safety upgrades during their lifetime, but there's only so much you can do when the fundamental reactor design is antiquated.

    4. Re:Nuclear technologies by 0WaitState · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reason the public lumps all nuclear power technologies into the same hopper is that they are all run by the same corrupt management culture. Management cuts safety margins, defers upgrades, miscategorizes more frequent natural disasters as once in 1000 years, all the while paying themselves performance bonuses for having improved operating margins. Then the "nobody could have foreseen" event happens, and we the taxpayers have to spend 10s to 100s of billions cleaning up the mess. If the nuclear industry had to post an insurance bond against their future screwups there would be no nuclear industry.

      This isn't a technology problem, it's a regulatory and human problem.

      --

      Remain calm! All is well!
    5. Re:Nuclear technologies by squallbsr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the reactions from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island accidents have actually made nuclear power much more dangerous than it would be today if these major disasters hadn't happened. We would have probably advanced our reactor designs and have had safer reactors as a result.

      --
      Sleep: A completely inadequate substitution for Caffeine.
    6. Re:Nuclear technologies by TheSync · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Nuclear would be fine as long as it was strictly regulated by a 3rd party uninterested in profits (read: the government)"

      And who, exactly, was running Chernobyl, and what was their viewpoint on profits?

  7. Sensationalism and denial by gatkinso · · Score: 3

    This is what I see on this board.

    It is an interesting mix to be sure.

    The situation seems very bad, but headlines screaming "radiation at 10,000,000 times the safe limit" (which turned out to be wrong) are not helping.

    Worse seems to be the nuclear fanboys ignoring the fact that that plant is fsked, in precisely the manner that antinuclear folks said could and eventually would happen.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    1. Re:Sensationalism and denial by PyroMosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The plant is fucked. But it's been hit by a disaster beyond what was even planned for. And how many have died?

      The point isn't that nuclear is perfectly safe. It's that it's better than many of the alternatives out there.

      Look at how many people did as a result of coal and oil operations. Then factor in the pollution that those technologies spew into the atmosphere.

      Now compare that to Nuclear. Including this disaster. Some people who work in the plant have been exposed and been hurt. I recall reading a week ago about 3 killed in a hydrogen explosion at the plant (I've not seen this confirmed). But what will the eventual impact be? ARe we talking about a 50 mile exclusion zone where a big chunk of Japan will be uninhabitable? Thousands geting sick with radiation poisoning?

      Or are we talking about a 1% increased risk of cancer for folks who worked and lived in the immediate vicinity during the month after the incident?

      Because if the eventual results are the latter, I'd rather have a nuclear plant in my back yard than a coal plant.

      Coal WILL pollute the environment.
      Coal WILL increase my risk of various diseases.
      Coal often kills people in it's extraction process.

      Nuclear MIGHT pollute the environment if something goes very, very wrong.
      Nuclear MIGHT increase my risk of cancer if something goes very very wrong.

      If that's the choice, then it's clear to me which one I support. The question now is will the disaster kill / sicken lots of people, or not?

      It's not denial, it's an analysis of the options. It seems to me that the disaster is being sensationalized because nuclear is somehow "spooky". Again, we'll see.

  8. This is corroborated by nobody by sirwired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is speculation by ONE guy in an article in the Guardian, hardly a bastion of calm, rational, journalism. NONE of the other usual online sources have corroborated this at all.

    An actual meltdown, with the core sitting on the floor of the building, would be front page news across the world, yet only this one article says this is the case.

  9. Re:On the XKCD scale... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's actually one red square - the measurement was off by a factor of 100 and later corrected.

    http://www.eimai.in/incorrect-measurements-that-led-to-alarm-in-fukushima/3348/

    --
    "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
  10. Control rod penetrations in pressure vessel? by 1zenerdiode · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article above seems to be fear-mongering. This washington post article discusses what seems to be a more plausible failure mode. Apparently there are gaskets around the control rod penetrations in the bottom of the vessel, and the temperature may have increased enough to damage them allowing primary water to escape into the concrete containment structure. There are also many other penetrations in the vessel for plumbing that may have been damaged during the quake.

  11. Renewable Energy enough, why not use it? by jeroen8 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Our sun, a nuclear fusion source which is already working reliably for more than 5 billion years, produces an extreme amount of energy. Within 6 hours, deserts on Earth receive more solar energy than we use in a whole year globally. Why do we keep ignore this most power full energy source? For the world energy demand (18.000 TWh) we need only a surface area of 188 x 188 square miles with Concentrated Solar Plants. This is a small thumbnail on the map of Africa. Germany has seen the light and is investing 500 billion euro's in Desertec. A CSP plant runs 24 x 7 hours on full power (even when the sun is away because it can store sun heat in molten salt). These CSP plants can easily replace nuclear and coal power plants.

    1. Re:Renewable Energy enough, why not use it? by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You might displace some garden snails, scorpions, or spotted owls by putting up a solar farm.

      Don't put up a wind farm, because old-style high-rpm windmills that aren't even used for large-scale electricity production was known to kill birds every now and then, so all wind power is bad. Off the coast is even worse because senators do not want to put up with the eyesore as they cruise around in their yachts.

      Hydroelectric? you can't dam up any rivers; red squirrels might lose their homes and have to relocate to a new tree.

      There is always an argument against everything. Environmentalists are more BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone) than NIMBY.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
  12. Nobody outside TEPCO really knows by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    And they probably don't know either.

    The reactor may have melted through the base of its pressure vessel, but it's hard to tell. The high radiation levels could either be from a melt-through or from a leak as attempts are made to force water into the reactor pressure vessel. The latest JAIF status report contains almost all the hard data that's coming out. Everything else is secondary speculation based on that limited data.

    No data seems to be available about pressure or temperature inside the reactor. That's listed as "unknown" for unit 2. The sensors involved were probably destroyed in one of the fires, explosions, or building collapses. Pressure in the containment vessel for unit 2 is listed as "low", whatever that means.

    A full meltdown is now a real possibility. The JAIF chart has been showing "Fuel rods exposed partially or fully" for units 1, 2, and 3 for ten days now. Reactor pressure vessels are tough, as are containment structures, but ten days of no core cooling is well beyond design limits.

    Understand that the water spraying operation refers to the containment structure, which is normally dry. Inside the containment is the reactor pressure vessel, which is a boiler. Getting water inside there, which is needed to cover the core and achieve cold shutdown, requires forcing it in against steam pressure. This has to be done in a highly radioactive environment, in a fire-ruined building where the walls and beams have collapsed, the pumps are damaged, and valves which are usually operated remotely have to be operated by people turning handwheels. Some people are trying very hard to do that. Some of them will probably die. If they succeed, there will be a local mess, but it will be manageable. If they fail, there will be a meltdown.

  13. Re:O.S.R. (Obligitory Simpsons' Reference) by JackSpratts · · Score: 3, Informative

    160,000 three mile islands you mean.

    it's now 10% of chernobyl, but hey, who's counting? this is slashdot. we're just denying.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/30/world/asia/30japan.html

    nuclear power: it's safer than ponies.

  14. Re:Cue for the following response by Coren22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Interestingly enough, every one of those but #6 is true.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  15. Not going to be decommissioned by slyborg · · Score: 5, Informative

    This misinformation has been bandied about quite a bit, but the fact is that while Reactor 1 had reached the end of its operating license in March, the Japanese government had actually just extended the license for another 10 years in February. The "entire complex" was not by any means scheduled for shutdown, particularly units 5 and 6, which are undamaged and will likely be restarted at some point.

  16. Best quote I heard on NPR this morning by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Paraphrased since it was hours ago and I was driving... "Traces of plutonium have been found around the Fukushima site, and although the amounts discovered were no higher than if the soil samples were taken from any random soil around the world, the scientists determined that the specific isotopes of plutonium found were from the plant." They then continued to explain why it was super dangerous.
    What I heard was "DANGER DANGER! The soil around the Fukushima site is identical to the soil in your backyard. That's not a good thing! You must Fear It! Fear It!"

  17. Reactor Design and Plate Tectonics by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Construction on the Fukishima reactor began in 1967 (wikipage). It is easy to forget that Plate Tectonics was only accepted as a reasonable explanation of geological phenomenon in the 1960's. According to this excellent New York Times article,

    "After an advisory group issued nonbinding recommendations in 2002, Tokyo Electric Power Company, the plant owner and Japan’s biggest utility, raised its maximum projected tsunami at Fukushima Daiichi to between 17.7 and 18.7 feet — considerably higher than the 13-foot-high bluff. Yet the company appeared to respond only by raising the level of an electric pump near the coast by 8 inches, presumably to protect it from high water, regulators said."

    The tsunami that overwhelmed the plant recently was 46 feet high, far higher than anything they seemed to expect. If you read the NYTimes article, you get a sense that the nuclear safety bureaucracy hadn't adequately integrated modern plate tectonic theory into its safety programs. The 18 foot high maximum tsunami prediction is symptomatic of this.

    From the article, it seems that Japan had based its tsunami predictions on historical records, instead of predictions from Plate Tectonic Theory. Computer simulations of plate movement would have given far larger predictions for maximum tsunami heights, predictions that would have agreed with the height of the recent tsunami. I think a strong argument can be made that Japan's nuclear bureaucracy had not taken into account modern Plate Tectonic Theory in its safety practices. They seem to have instead relied on past records of earthquakes and tsunamis. I am not suggesting that individual people were unaware of Plate Tectonic Theory, but instead that their bureaucratic rules didn't seem to acknowledge it. Since construction on the reactor began in 1967, planning of the reactor must have begun much earlier. It is easy to imagine that the initial reactor designers were unaware of the Theory of Plate Tectonics and its implications.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  18. Not being decommisioned by slyborg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Posted this above as well, but Unit 1 at Fukushima had just been relicensed for another 10 years in February.

    The fact of the matter is that a utility will always apply for an extended operating license and will almost certainly get one. The only plant shutdowns I know of in the US, apart from TMI Unit 2, were when something too expensive to repair needed replacement, such as the ComEd Zion plant outside Chicago, which needed a new $460 million steam generator. So since there is so much better in the way of designs available, why aren't utilities rushing to replace these ancient reactors instead of asking for extended licenses, you ask? Economics of course - an existing plant is almost all sunk cost, and the utilities are in business to make money. They will build new reactors only to add capacity, and they will build the cheapest design they are permitted to.

    My main objection to nuclear power is that these plants are operated by businesses. Unlike a solar farm or even a coal plant, the worst case failure for a nuclear plant is very, very bad. You have a business trying to maximize profit knowing that the worst case failure costs will be shifted to the taxpayer. This is a recipe for disaster. I have no issues at all with the state of reactor technology, and the US military operates dozens of reactors that *move around* and has for 50 years without a major accident (the Russians haven't had as much success there, though). If these things were being operated by some agency like the military with those levels of discipline, perhaps we could all rest assured. When it's some utility executive who wants a bigger bonus, I am not at all confident.

  19. Re:It's already in the UK by Minwee · · Score: 3, Funny

    That was The Guardian. This is what the real BBC had to say on the subject.

    Meanwhile, Yes, Prime Minister had a few things to say about the press:

    "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country, The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country, The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country, The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country, The Financial Times is read by people who own the country, The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

    "Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?"

    "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

  20. Re:Where is the heat coming from by QuantumPion · · Score: 4, Informative

    I realize this was not a chemical reaction, however, I still can't figure out that reaction was stopped at the time of earthquake according to various sources. Graphite rods were inserted into the core to stop the reaction.

    So where is this heat coming from. Is the fission on going, wouldn't that mean the reaction wasn't stopped, it is still on going!

    Can someone explain this to me?

    When a Uranium atom splits by fission, it leaves behind two unstable isotopes. These isotopes soon undergo radioactive decay themselves. These decays produce a significant amount of heat, which can't be "turned off" because it is natural radioactive decay (as opposed to the original induced fission, which can be stopped by absorbing the neutrons which cause fission). The fuel rods are not merely hot and simply need to be cooled off - they are still generating their own internal heat due to these natural decays. The only way to get rid of these decaying isotopes is to wait for them to decay naturally, which is an exponential process.

    Some of the isotopes have a short half life, which causes them to generate a lot of heat, but this large heat load decays away quickly and is gone after a couple days. A majority of the isotopes have half-lives in the years to decades range, which means they produce a moderate amount of heat for several years, which is why spent fuel needs to be stored underwater. Once the fuel is about 10 years out, enough isotopes have decayed that it can remain at safe temperature just by radiative cooling, and so can be stored in dry storage containers.