Fukushima Cleanup, 5 Years On (bbc.co.uk)

AmiMoJo writes: Today is five years since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant was damaged by an earthquake and tsunami, leading to a series of meltdowns. Nearly half a million people were evacuated at the time, with 100,000 still unable to return to their homes. The government has set a goal of 20mSv/year before people are allowed to live in affected areas again, and while progress is being made hotspots are still a problem in many areas. Reconstruction has been largely waiting for decontamination to be completed, allowing homes and businesses to fall into ruin. Those who do wish to return find their communities gutted, with essential services and jobs gone. Meanwhile, engineers are still unable to determine exactly what happened at Daiichi, particularly what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exploding. The initial reports were scary even before the nuclear plant problems were evident. Engadget notes that even now, the worst part of the cleanup remains a grueling work in progress, tough even for robots. Reader the_newsbeagle writes, too, with a link to the New York Times' take on the 5-year mark, and notes that The state and location of the melted fuel inside the reactors is still a mystery. The meltdown zone is too dangerous for human workers to enter, and robots have had limited success navigating in the wreckage. So Japan is recruiting subatomic particles called muons to map the reactors' insides. These particles, born of cosmic rays, constantly stream down from the atmosphere, passing through most matter unimpeded. But their occasional interactions with the subatomic components of uranium allow physicists to locate the blobs of the deadly stuff.

Comments

what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from explod

[fisted]

what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exploding?
  I'd suspect it was the same that saved reactor 1, 3 and 4's pressure vessels from exploding.

The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

A small amount of nuclear contamination in exchange for saving millions of tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere and a lesson in how to prevent this ever from happening again is a good trade, imo.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the accident is poisoning the ocean still and the Japanese diet has lots of fish in it. Bummer.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

A small amount of nuclear contamination in exchange for saving millions of tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere and a lesson in how to prevent this ever from happening again is a good trade, imo.

I agree. Especially when you consider that far more people have had, and will have, serious health problems (including cancers) from all the coal-fired power plants used in Japan than from this incident.
And while the trigger was the earthquake and tsunami, the failure was purely human in nature- poor planning, stupidity, etc. When it comes to coal power, the solutions are not nearly so well known or easily implemented.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[clonehappy]

Your brainpower must be exceedingly limited if you don't understand the length of time and scope of problem that a nuclear meltdown poses to the environment versus some "carbon", that arguably does or does not have a limited effect solely on the climate of the planet.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that the thousands of people evacuated from their homes and businesses for the last 5 years and continuing in the future for a while yet would agree.

It was an unnecessary lesson, given that other nuclear power plants in the same area survived the tsunami just fine because they were properly prepared: they built tsunami walls high enough to handle historical tsunami, plus a bit more as a safety factor. Even as there were warnings in the 2000s that the protection was inadequate at Fukushima the management there didn't improve the situation. This is a trade-off that never should have been necessary. Tepco was simply too cheap to head the lessons already learned by others, and now the government and the people are on the hook to the tune of billions of dollars.

The only lesson learned here is not to trust a for-profit business to do the right thing when safety costs them money. It needs substantial oversight to make sure they don't cut corners.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[phishybongwaters]

You do realize this is actually killing off an entire ocean right? You do realize eating ANYTHING from the Pacific Ocean is very very risky... right? You do realize the halflife of some of these contaminates right? Small amount? Did you read the article? Did you read anything related to this disaster? Half of Japan should have been, and still be, evacuated, it will be causing thyroid cancers and untold others for decades. Chernobyl was an explosive event, yes, but considerably less than fukishima on all honest accounts relating to the nuclear material released, we had several reactors fully melt down, and as such, the material escaped the containment vessels and that's all we know. Well wait, we also know that these plants are so close to the ocean that it's very likely for the cores to melt right throw and into a ground water source, which would cause a massive hydrogen explosion (similar to what actually happened at atleast 1 of the reactors). And that my friend would essentially make Japan completely inhabitable for hundreds or more years. Radiation from this even, deadly cescium and other compounds, was detected as far as central canada for christ sake. People like you scare the shit out of me. Carbon can be reclaimed. Nuclear material can not. Carbon doesn't cause mutations and cancers, nuclear material does. Carbon doesn't continue to react outside of the reactor leaking gamma and beta rays (yes, the same ones that made the Hulk), nucelar material and did in the case of fukishima. You sir are very ignorant of this subject.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much all coal plants release large amounts of alpha radiation in the direct vicinity of the plants, among other pollutants.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[serviscope_minor]

You do realize this is actually killing off an entire ocean right?

No, I don't realise that. Whatever makes you think that's the case?

You do realize eating ANYTHING from the Pacific Ocean is very very risky... right?

No, I don't realise that because it's not true.

Half of Japan should have been, and still be, evacuated

If that's the case, I'm sure you can tell me what the average excess dose in mSv/yr in the half of Japan that ought to be evacuated? I mean you'd never make such a wild claim without knowing the numbers, right?

Carbon doesn't continue to react outside of the reactor leaking gamma and beta rays

By reaction, you mean decay right? Coal ash has decaying radioactive elements in it too, by the way.

yes, the same ones that made the Hulk

I hate to break it to you, but the Hulk isn't real.

Carbon doesn't cause mutations and cancers,

Certain allotropes of carbon are in fact strongly suspected to be carcinogenic.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[cnaumann]

Oddly, the meltdown may be good for the environment. The meltdown has created regions that a bad for humans and may be good for nature. Overfishing in the hot zones is no longer an issue...

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

And that my friend would essentially make Japan completely inhabitable for hundreds or more years.

I'm not sure what your friend has to do with any of that other stuff, but he sounds absolutely terrifying. If he can do that to an entire country, just imagine what he could do to your living room couch. I'd suggest getting some new friends, immediately! Perhaps a couple of commas?

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[AmiMoJo]

It's also with noting now close it came to being far, far worse.

Number 2 rector was building up pressure and the operators were unable to relieve it. The valves seemed to be stuck, even after they got emergency battery power to them. The containment vessel was over its design limit for pressure. Then suddenly the pressure fell, and no-one knows why.

Had the reactor containment vessel failed, the worst case was the loss of Eastern Japan. Hopefully one day we can find out what saved the country.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Salgak1]

Indeed. Coal Ash is more radioactive than actual nuclear waste.. In fact, significant amounts of both uranium and thorium are found in coal fly ash, to the point, in some cases, Thorium Reactor advocates have suggested there's more generate-able power if the Thorium was used in a reactor, than was generated by burning the coal. I've seen no numbers to back that up, but it seems plausible, based on back-of-the envelope numbers. . .

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[suutar]

http://www.sfgate.com/health/a...

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then suddenly the pressure fell, and no-one knows why.

Has no one yet noticed that nuclearly-melted farthole around the backside of the containment vessel ("con-tane-ment wessel" P.Chekov).

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[khallow]

So the latest FUD is that a pressure vessel could have gone boom except for a mysterious pressure drops which AmiMoJo can't explain? I'm just not feeling the fear over here.

Had the reactor containment vessel failed, the worst case was the loss of Eastern Japan. Hopefully one day we can find out what saved the country.

It's not that mysterious. For example, according to this report, the pressure release of Reactor 2 is unexplained, but they weren't close to blowing out the pressure vessel:

The containment pressure rise at first was much slower than should be expected if all the decay heat is delivered to the suppression pool, which is an indication of a leak in the containment boundary. The wetwell venting line configuration had been completed by 11:00 a.m. on March 13, but the containment pressure had not reached the rupture disk setpoint, so no venting occurred. After core damage, the containment pressure increased more rapidly, probably because of hydrogen production. At 6:00 a.m. on March 15, an impulsive sound that was initially attributed to a hydrogen explosion was confirmed near the suppression chamber of the containment. Later reviews suggested that sound was not due to hydrogen burn. In any case the containment pressure did sharply decrease. It is not clear whether the designed vent path was ever in service; however, longer term, the containment pressure has remained low, around the level of atmospheric pressure.

In particular, it's worth noting that there is a rupture disk here precisely to prevent the reactor pressure vessel from experiencing a catastrophic rupture and that the vessel was leaking enough that it might not have even reached a high enough pressure to break the rupture disk.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[The Grim Reefer]

Number 2 rector was building up pressure and the operators were unable to relieve it. The valves seemed to be stuck, even after they got emergency battery power to them. The containment vessel was over its design limit for pressure. Then suddenly the pressure fell, and no-one knows why.

Oh they know why. But they don't think the world is ready to hear about that big ass lizard that took a bite out of the containment vessel and absorbed the radiation.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Applehu Akbar]

It's a problem of culture, not physics. Most of us feel safe flying despite knowing that about once a year, somewhere in the world, a planeload of about 200-300 people will be lost. Furthermore, those who do fear flying just keep quiet and take the train. You never see them protesting around airports or filing suits to prevent Boeing from building the next model. I used to explain this as aviation being grandfathered in before the liberal fear factory decided to start hating science, but recently we have seen them start a campaign against vaccination, which has been settled medicine for two hundred years.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[tnk1]

Perhaps, but it's not like a government automatically does any better.

Note that the #1 nuclear accident in the world was a government reactor for the now defunct Soviet Union. If we're simply going by how bad reactor events have been, we should probably still be more afraid of government control.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[tnk1]

Chernobyl was an explosive event, yes, but considerably less than fukishima on all honest accounts

That is a demonstrably false statement.

Do you even know what happened at Chernobyl?

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[OhPlz]

Yea.. oversight. Like how the oversight of the Mines and Mineral Service here in the states prevented the British Petroleum disaster that spewed oil into the gulf for weeks. I'll take profit motive over a government agency's oversight any day, the odds are better. At least the company has a motivator, the government bureaucrats are just biding their time until they can pension out.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[BlackPignouf]

Sorry to break it to you, but you're the one who doesn't seem to grasp the problem.
If you're talking about coal powerplants vs nukes, the correct metrics isn't brainpower, but "deaths per PWh".
And coal is many orders of magnitude deadlier than nuclear power, even with Tchernobyl and Fukushima.
Global warming isn't the only negative impact of coal powerplants : miners are dying in the thousands per year, in China alone (another example : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...), and air pollution is alarmingly high close to the powerplant, even with good filters.
A coal powerplant in Japan or Germany also has an high impact on people in Sudan, Syria or Tuvalu due to climate change.
The impact of Fukushima is pretty much limited to the Fukushima region.
Sorry for the forbes link, but this article really is relevant to the discussion : http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

You have got to be kidding.

From my home I can see the smoke stack of the Kingston coal power plant in Kingston, TN, located at the confluence of the Emory and Clinch rivers. A few years ago the largest coal ash spill in history happened at the plant when the wall of a large coal ash retention pond collapsed. Nobody died or was injured. The area has recovered and is beautiful. This is quite significant, let me repeat, this was the largest coal ash spill in history, no one was hurt, the area is beautiful.

From my home I can also see wind power turbines up on Windrock mountain, in the Cumberland mountains. There is a fairly good wind resource there.

I can't see it from my home but a few miles down river is the Watts Bar nuclear power plant.

I cannot see it from my home but a few mile up the TN river is the Fort Loudon dam and hydro electric power plant.

I worry the least about the hydro power plants. Very safe, very clean, we have nice lakes for boating, fishing, recreation, they use the dams to help with flood control etc.

I worry a little more about the wind mills, I admit I don't like to see them, I think they ruin the natural beauty. We have eagles etc. around here and windmills kill a lot of birds and bats. I cannot hear the windmills but would not want to have them close enough that I could hear them.

Next, I worry slightly more about the coal plant. The coal plant has the scrubber stacks for pollution and emits mostly water vapor clouds, it is considerably cleaner than in the past. But it still does emit some pollutants into the air that I don't like.

I worry the most about the nuclear power plant. It poses the greatest threat to myself and my family. If there is a problem at the Watts Bar nuclear plant the entire region would be devastated for a very long time. It could be like Fukushima or like Chernobyl. When you have people involved you have human error and there will be problems that were not anticipated. There is much more down side to a problem at a nuclear power plant.

prsdntl

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Hognoxious]

the British Petroleum disaster that spewed oil into the gulf for weeks.

Stop lying, there was no such thing.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[mrchaotica]

Your brainpower must be exceedingly limited if you don't understand the length of time and scope of problem that a nuclear meltdown poses to the environment versus some "carbon", that arguably does or does not have a limited effect solely on the climate of the planet.

You miss the point. Ignore the CO2 and all the "traditional" pollutants (particulates, VOCs, SOx, NOx, etc.) completely. Forget about it; it's irrelevant for the purpose of this post. We're not talking about carbon, or any of the rest of those, at all. Got it?

Okay. Now, understand this: even then, coal-fired plants are still worse because they collectively release more radiation per MWh in normal operation than nuclear plants have done, even including meltdowns!

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[hey!]

In particular, it's worth noting that there is a rupture disk here precisely to prevent the reactor pressure vessel from experiencing a catastrophic rupture

This seemed wrong to me, since the RPV in Unit 2 was already breached. I believe AmiMoJo was talking about is pressure in the the primary containment vessel (PCV), not the RPV. Just to be clear the reactor core is inside the metal RPV and the RPV is inside the reinforced concrete PCV. The in the Mark 1 reactor design the PCV is the outer wall of the "dry well".

I also looked up some design diagrams for the venting system. While venting system rupture disk is indeed designed to protect the PCV it is not built into the PCV itself. Operators have to open two sets of valves in order to transfer pressure from inside the PCV to the disk. So while it's true the purpose of the rupture disk is to prevent catastrophic failure, that can only happen if the venting system is activated and works as expected.

Now the report you linked to is four years old and assumes that the venting system worked correctly, delivering overpressure to the the rupture disk. AmiMoJo is referring to evidence which came out later which indicates that the venting system almost certainly failed.

In a way I do agree with you. It's not mysterious why the PCV didn't explode; it didn't explode because it failed in some other, unknown way. Under the circumstances that was a very good thing in comparison to the alternative, but it takes a rather determined optimism to construe it as an endorsement of the reactor's design. It was more like a stroke of good luck.

This article has both a detailed diagram of the Oyster Creek reactor, which is the same design, and a schematic of the venting system.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[mrchaotica]

You do realize eating ANYTHING from the Pacific Ocean is very very risky... right?

To the extent that's true, it's true mostly because of mercury contamination produced form coal-fired power plants, not radioactive particles from Fukushima.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's oversight or nothing. Which do you think would result in fewer accidents? Or is there a third option I have failed to consider to try to encourage companies to do the right thing rather than scrimp on safety?

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the entire operation should be run by the government. I'm saying that leaving a company alone to set its own safety standards and make its own tradeoffs between expenses and safety is a recipe for disaster.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

I worry the least about the hydro power plants. Very safe, very clean, we have nice lakes for boating, fishing, recreation, they use the dams to help with flood control etc.

The 170,000 killed during the collapse of the Banqiao dam and related dams may disagree with you.

That one disaster killed far more people than every nuclear power accident combined.

The cause was simple - a hurricane stalled over the area dam, dumping a year's worth of rain in a day. Banqiao, a hydroelectric dam, was the most notable dam to fail, but not the only one. The death toll was in the six figures, and millions were made homeless.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not suggesting government should run it by itself. That would also be risky. I'm suggesting that leaving a company to its own devices is risky without thorough oversight. In the case of Fukushima neither the company's efforts nor the government's efforts were adequate, but I'm pretty sure they would have been even worse without oversight. The lesson here is kind of like the one for the 2008 financial crisis: of course a company would never, ever undermine the safety of the entire economy for the sake of making a buck. That was the argument for limited government regulation and interference. Likewise, of course the company that runs a nuclear power plant on the coast of Japan would never undermine safety once they became aware that they had underestimated the tsunami risk, as was discovered in ~2000 or so.

Unfortunately, by empirical example, they would. In both cases they went right ahead and rolled the dice. That's why you need some kind of adversarial system where you have two components, commercial and government, keeping an eye on each other. Doing either alone would be foolish.

In reality, the nuclear power industry is already fairly strongly regulated, but as Fukushima demonstrated, it still needs to be better.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Salgak1]

Actually, depending on what variety of coal is used, and the specific origin of that coal, the mass of coal required for a power plant of a given size puts out between 5 and 10 times the mass of radioactive particles that a nuclear plant of the same output would, if it melted down entirely and completely vented. Similarly, on energetics of the particles, we're again talking roughly an order of magnitude of energy released by those particles, over a year. It's merely diffused over space and time from a point even like a reactor accident, and much is stored as fly ash. Which would have gone to the Yucca Mountain storage facility, but instead, sits in drums outside of coal power plants.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[khallow]

In a way I do agree with you. It's not mysterious why the PCV didn't explode; it didn't explode because it failed in some other, unknown way. Under the circumstances that was a very good thing in comparison to the alternative, but it takes a rather determined optimism to construe it as an endorsement of the reactor's design. It was more like a stroke of good luck.

Or that one or more components were designed to fail first. Or that the part of the PCV which was overpressurized (the "dry well") eventually vented to the part that wasn't (the "wet well"). I'm still hearing way too much assumption about what normal operation during a core melt is supposed to be. I know that if I were designing this thing, I'd have most plumbing passing through the shell of the PCV fail first (especially anything for venting the interior of the PCV).

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[OhPlz]

Do you think nuclear power stations in Japan were unregulated?

We have oversight already, which is the point I was getting at mentioning the MMS. I'm sure Japan had oversight as well. Oversight in the states is one reason why we're still running seriously outdated reactors, so it could be suggested that oversight can work against safety. I'm not suggesting all or nothing, but it's foolish to say "we need oversight". We have it.

If anything, there needs to be more accountability when things get this messed up. Companies won't sacrifice safety as much if they believe it's financially unsound or if it's going to land the decision makes in prison. Perhaps the same is needed for the government overseers.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[AmiMoJo]

The report doesn't contradict what I said, it agrees with it. The pressure was very high, beyond the limit at which the reactor was designed to operate or sustain for long. Not quite high enough to force open the final emergency rupture points that were designed to fail first to avoid an even more catastrophic explosion.

What you have to remember is that the containment building was already damaged at this point. The explosion of building 1 had put holes in it, which happened to vent hydrogen and prevent yet another explosion. But if the containment vessel failed, there was no building to prevent the contents getting out. Thus half of Japan was at risk, due to the amount of material in the reactor that would enter the atmosphere.

There is an NHK documentary called 88 Hours that explains all this pretty well, see if you can track it down.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[hey!]

Well, that's how I would do it too, but it's evidently not how this particular reactor was designed back in the 50s. If the reactor failed in any kind of planned way, we'd have some idea what that was. What we're learning is that we don't have any idea how this particular design behaves when it's operating outside its normal operating envelope.

I think it's important to stipulate I'm talking about this design. You can't really talk about the "safety of nuclear power plants" as if all designs are the same. Clearly the old Soviet RBMKs are dangerous pieces of shite; and concerns about the GE Mark 1s were raised all the way back in the early 70s. Fukushima, in my opinion, probably means it's a high priority not to extend the operational licensing of any Mark 1s. That doesn't necessarily mean the Germans should shut down reactors whose design is 20 years newer. And it certainly doesn't mean Japan should shut down it's brand new Gen 3 reactors it just put into service, although maybe they should look at how those plants are managed and sited.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Yes, this is why all coal power plants have an exclusion zone around them.

Oh... wait...

Hmmm has it ever occurred to anyone that shear amount of radioactivity might not be the most important thing, that the density of radiation might be important, or to wonder why nuclear power only looks kinda good if compared to what is pretty much the most ridiculously polluting way to generate electricity ever invented, and even then comparing in very narrow ways?

Apparently not. Moving along. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Yes, it's not good for the environment, except relatively, in that humans are so incredibly bad anyway.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[KGIII]

It took some work but I read (and properly parsed - I think) their post, not once but twice. I've decided that it has to be trolling. Seriously... It has to be.

I don't know a whole lot about nuclear energy but I've taken the time to learn the basics. I know what to do with the three cookies, I know how safe they are (or can be), I understand the mechanics and process well enough, and I know what half-life means. I'm pretty sure they're intentionally trolling. What's curious is that I'm using an alternative browser at the moment so that I see they're a Facebook user. Who'd tie intentional trolling to their account?

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Firethorn]

It's a problem of culture, not physics. Most of us feel safe flying despite knowing that about once a year, somewhere in the world, a planeload of about 200-300 people will be lost.

I'd argue that it's actually the opposite. Many of us fear flying despite it being generally the safest mode of travel, to the point that you're far more likely to die on the drive TO the airport than on the flight.

The damage from coal is steady and persistent, and therefore we come to ignore it. The damage from nuclear power is approximately once every couple decades, so we fear it. Much like how car accidents trickle in the deaths in 1-2s, normally speaking, so we never hear about them - but we certainly hear about that plane - day in and day out, for weeks, and they bring it up again at the anniversary of the accident, just to pound it in more.

Having run the numbers, we'd have to have such a disaster every year, using the mid-high estimates for the deaths from Chernobyl(which are mostly theoretical even today), in order to even start challenging the death toll from coal with nuclear energy.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Coward]

i like your webesite

i have a information in this webesite

http://www.ko-ra-live.blogspot.com/

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[WindBourne]

assuming that you are American, we now have ACA and you can get back on your lithium.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[angel'o'sphere]

Coal plants in first world nations don't release radiation.
In other words, the general public never gets into contact with it.
The fly ash js deposited ... and the ash js not more 'radioactive' than pure uranium or pure thorium, how could it?

The idea that coal plants are irradiation the population js debunked since thirty years.

Or to say it with words you understand: a coal plant with all its radioactive ash (most plants don't even produce radioactive ash as there is no uranium or thorium in the coal) release less radiation than an open pit mine for Uranium. OOPS!

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[MrKaos]

The pressure was very high, beyond the limit at which the reactor was designed to operate or sustain for long.

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers tested this type of reactor (without fuel in it) and found that it leaks at 70psi. This was the first critical design basis issue. The second was the gate pair seals for the spent fuel pools would leak if they were not powered (IIUC they're inflated with compressed air). What this meant was that GE had to issue instructions to operators. S class facilities have to be constantly powered, this means the reactor and the spent fuel cooling pools. Means *had* to be provided for the reactor to always have power. They didn't and this is why this is criminal negligence at a board room level.

Exposure of these basis design issues meant that as the fuel became more critical in the reactor and the cooling pools they would produce the hydrogen that lead to the explosion. We knowthe spent fuel cool pools were leaking because there was about 450 tons of water above the fuel rods would keep them cool for about 7 days without additional cooling.

Not quite high enough to force open the final emergency rupture points that were designed to fail first to avoid an even more catastrophic explosion.

I have a theory about that. I think that the failing cooling pool is what stopped the reactor from rupturing. The water either broke the seal all at once or over came some threshold to arrive at the head of the reactor where most of it was converted to steam and hydrogen when exploding. It wouldn't have been the first time something some comedy of circumstance prevented a nuclear accident from being worse than it could have been.

What you have to remember is that the containment building was already damaged at this point.

I don't think these nutty nukkers place any value on the communities that Nuclear power destroys.

There is an NHK documentary called 88 Hours that explains all this pretty well, see if you can track it down.

Thank you, I'll look it up. Great scoop btw - a pity I was too busy to get into this one.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[WolfWithoutAClause]

This is absolute total fucking bullshit!

I can only assume that you're referring to a Scientific American article that says that a coal powered plant emits a hundred times than the amount of radiation of a RUNNING nuclear plant; that's a RUNNING plant, not one that has lost its containment when it melted down. When a nuclear reactor melts down, the amount of radiation emitted jumps about a MILLION fold; and then takes decades, or longer, to decay away.

But don't take my word for it, here's the article:

http://www.scientificamerican....

The articles just says that the absorbed dose of someone living within a mile or so downwind of a coal plant is about 1.8 mrem/year, compared to 300 mrem/year of natural background radiation. After a meltdown the levels at that distance can be more than 300mrem/year just from the reactor. It will decay away over time, but it can still be well above acceptable limits hundreds of years later.

There's just absolutely no way at all that the total output of the coal plant could ever reach that of melted down nuclear reactor, let alone being a hundred times more. You're just totally full of it.

There's plenty of reasons to shut down coal plants, mercury, small particle air pollution, acid rain, CO2 etc. etc. Radiation just isn't one of them. The radiation is very dilute and far, far below background radiation. Dilute radiation is largely (but non completely) non problematic; we're surrounded by dilute background radiation anyway. it's the fallout from meltdowns that causes mass evacuations and all farming to cease. That's the real problem, and it's specific to nuclear accidents.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Interestingly enough, apparently TEPCO was planning on beefing up the safety measures later that month. The earthquake just happened first.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[MrKaos]

In particular, it's worth noting that there is a rupture disk here precisely to prevent the reactor pressure vessel from experiencing a catastrophic rupture and that the vessel was leaking enough that it might not have even reached a high enough pressure to break the rupture disk.

Interesting, perhaps you found the ASME report. As I said to you before that was the first design basis issue in implementations of that GE reactor, it started leaking at 70psi.

I know that if I were designing this thing, I'd have most plumbing passing through the shell of the PCV fail first (especially anything for venting the interior of the PCV).

If you were designing this, you would be sperm ;)

Or that one or more components were designed to fail first. Or that the part of the PCV which was overpressurized (the "dry well") eventually vented to the part that wasn't (the "wet well").

Or perhaps the gate pair seals for the spent fuel cooling pools in this reactor were situated in such a way that they leaked water over the top of the PCV. This was the second known design basis issue with this reactor type and that they would leak water when power was lost. It was also known that they would produce hydrogen in this state, and it did explode. The hydrogen density must have been high to puch holes in concrete like that.

However it is all irrelevant, the operators were criminally negligent because they did not take adequate steps to ensure power was maintained to this reactor installation so as to avoid exposing those issues. There is no mystery here. The collusion you yourself complained of, that was exposed in the official report into the accident, that led to the accident. Sea wall was not raised to account for new knowledge, additional generators could have been installed, they could have run those reactor at a lower output. So many opportunities to avoid this accident.

As for your unsubstantiated claims that the facility was to be decommissioned, evidence is emerging that Reactor 4 was actually being upgraded along with disturbing allegations of illegal fuel rod storage. That really undermines your argument that seawall upgrades wern't neccessary. On the good news front though I see that the amount of mox fuel rods in the No.4 reactors are down from 1300 to 400 and we are finally seeing the board of Tepco being brought to justice after avoiding charges of negligence for so long.

Re:The trade was a fair one.

[MrKaos]

Correction: The amount of mox fuel rods in the No.4 reactor's cooling pools are down from 1300 to 400

NHK Re-enactment of the first 88 hours

[Brigadier]

I watched this on NHK this weekend and was very impressed. A bit dramatic but very informative technically

88 Hours - The Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown
http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld...

Meltdown?!

[clonehappy]

I was assured by the Slashdot elite, even weeks on from the earthquake/tsunami, that there had been no meltdown nor even any kind of breach of the nuclear fuel at all and to say otherwise was a tinfoil-hat-tier conspiracy.

This is shocking to hear of a meltdown today!

Re:Meltdown?!

[serviscope_minor]

I was assured by the Slashdot elite

Who are the slashdot elite and how do I join? It sounds like a really awesome secret cabal of illuminati. Is there a special handshake I have to know? Or, is it something gets awarded after you've been been modded funny for a "beowulf cluster" or "hot grits" gag more than 65535 times?

Re:Meltdown?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw, man: DNF before DNF.

Re:Meltdown?!

[thegarbz]

Pat yourself on the back. With all the effort your selective reading must have taken you really deserve it. The meltdowns were known about in days following the incident. 3 reactors were without cooling water after all.

As for breach of nuclear fuel you should listen to the slashdot elite.

Re:Meltdown?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I think that's kinda the point. Slashdot, in general has this insanely pro-nuclear bent. To the point where they're willing to distort reality. As I recall there was a legion of nuclear apologists who'd stop at nothing to try to downplay this major disaster.

Outside of Slashdot, there was one "nuclear engineer" who just wouldn't let it go and made all these statements to the media/anyone that would listen that no meltdown happened, and everything was just perfectly fine. Wow, did he look like an idiot, and still does.

What was that guys name?

Re:Meltdown?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the Slashdot elite are descendants of the people telling us during the 3 Mile Island meltdown that there was no meltdown.
I wonder if it a recognized psychological syndrome, the need to proclaim the truth about events without any real knowledge?
Off-topic, but anyone remember The Pepsi Syndrome?

Re:Meltdown?!

[Anonymous Coward]

>As I recall there was a legion of nuclear apologists who'd stop at nothing to try to downplay this major disaster.

Please tell me more about major disasters where nobody dies from the disaster itself, but where the response to the disaster killed infinitely more people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll#Fukushima_disaster

The disaster is that people like you call those of us who are knowledgeable "apologists" and then kill 1600 people in a chicken with their head cut off style response.

Re:Meltdown?!

[TheMadTopher]

Who are the slashdot elite and how do I join?

Only people who read an article before posting can join. There are no actual members yet.

Re:Meltdown?!

[AmiMoJo]

Three of the six reactors are believed to have melted down.

Re:Meltdown?!

[rvw14]

Unfortunately those of us with six digits IDs are not eligible to join.

Re:Meltdown?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah, fool, I am the founding member, presiding officer, and chief executive liason.

Re:Meltdown?!

[Anonymous Coward]

You think "disaster == death"?

So if a hurricane destroys an entire village, but nobody dies, it's not a disaster? Is that you Donald Trump?

Re:Meltdown?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately those of us with six digits IDs are not eligible to join.

True. You must uncover the true identity of somebody with a five digit ID, kill them, and assume their place. Then you may join and attempt to take the next step and hunt down a four digit ID. If found worthy, then the other three digit IDs will use you to replace one of their number that has fallen out of favor and been eliminated. All two digit IDs are simple perl scripts. One digit IDs are actually transmittions from outside of space and time.

Re:Meltdown?!

[khallow]

It's a matter of degree. A hurricane flattening a village without loss of life is a disaster, so is every star in the galaxy going supernova at the same time. You might notice that one of these disasters is a bit worse than the other.

Disasters that don't kill anyone are really far down on the list.

Re:Meltdown?!

[angel'o'sphere]

Please tell me more about major disasters where nobody dies from the disaster itself, but where the response to the disaster killed infinitely more people.
How is that relevant?
500.000 people evacuated. You have no idea, no has anyone else, how to calculated how many of them had died if they where not evacuated.
So: you are an complete idiot. And idiots even bigger than you mod you up.
Unbelieveable.

Re:Meltdown?!

[khallow]

Strangely enough, I'm unable to google a single post for you from that time. Your first post before the end of 2011 (including all years prior to 2011) was on December 12, 2011.

Re:Meltdown?!

[thegarbz]

To the point where they're willing to distort reality. As I recall there was a legion of nuclear apologists who'd stop at nothing to try to downplay this major disaster.

We're pro nuclear for a reason:

Here's a complete list of power generation methods that have killed less people than the entire nuclear industry:
.

And the winner for the single worst industrial accident, and largest number of people displaced goes to:
Chernob... hahah just kidding, it was a hydro-electric dam.

Now quite frankly the storm we had last summer ranks worse than this disaster. One person drowned and another was killed by a window pane which fell from a skyscraper. That's 2 deaths more than those contributed to your "major disaster".

Re:Meltdown?!

[WolfWithoutAClause]

That is impossible, nuclear power is cheap, safe, and radiation cannot hurt me anyway; and soon nuclear reactors will be EVERYWHERE and it will be GLORIOUS!

Re:Meltdown?!

[khallow]

To continue on my previous post, I call bullshit on the accusation. I did a google search on the time span in question. Then I looked through the comments of the two stories which were at the top for the word "melt". There were in turn one comment each which claimed a meltdown didn't happen. We have exhibit A:

Just something to keep in mind when you see crap like "If nuclear powerplants were merely as safe as they are advertised to be, there should have been a major failure right then". Hey clueless, the cores haven't melted. Yet. They are losing their heat removal capacity over time as less and less water surrounds them. When they do get hot enough, they will melt their containers, and we will have a chernobyl-style release. Not exactly the same as chernobyl, because there's no graphite to burn. Instead the particulate radioactive isotopes and actinides (and plutonium, yay!) will be propelled into the atmosphere via hydrogren explosions. There's also a hell of a lot more uranium and plutonium on site since some clever laddie beancounter got the used fuel rods containment pools located above the reactors.

Fukushima hasn't completely melted down, yet. If it doesn't it will because we (the planet) threw everything we have at it.

And then there's exhibit B:

12mSv/h is slightly more than one red square, no where near an orange one. This makes the highest level of radiation detected, in the cloud of vented gas from inside the containment vessel about 30,000 times less than those at chyernobyl, and only for a very very brief period involving very short half life elements.

The radiation level has since fallen back way down, especially since managing to resubmurge the spent fuel. The reaction has also slowed to about 1/2000th of it's original rates in the reactors, making a melt down extremely unlikely at this point.

So there you have it. The Slashdot elite consists of two posters with opposite viewpoints. Sure, I might have missed someone or some article, but if there were a bunch of people claiming the meltdown didn't happen, I'm sure, I'd have seen them.

Re:Meltdown?!

[HornWumpus]

None of the editors are members...

There used to be a FA reader that was in the habit of posting when he finished reading. To mark all the people just racing for karma.

FA reader. I told him to GTF out.

Re:Meltdown?!

[KGIII]

Someone above told us that we'd have to RTFA. Not worth it. I shall never join the cabal!

Re:Meltdown?!

[AmiMoJo]

Logical fallacy. If they had not evacuated, people would have become extremely ill and/or died. The evacuation area wasn't safe, and in fact parts of it still aren't.

Faced with a disaster, the scale of which is unknown and impossible to predict, they had no choice but to evacuate. If there is any criticism, it's that they should have had a better plan in place.

Re:Meltdown?!

[AmiMoJo]

There was a lot of bullshit posted back then... Can't find it now, but I recall a post where someone claimed to have taken a train passing near the exclusion zone, and used his Geiger counter to "confirm" that the radiation wasn't too bad and there was no need to evacuate. When people have that little understanding of the danger, it's hard to discuss it with them.

Re:Meltdown?!

[khallow]

Yes, there was plenty of crazy stuff. But we see here that the bullshit continues. With all the crazy stuff that actually was said, why make up shit?

Short sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that the plants being asphyxiated due to lack of CO2 agree. The periods of the greatest diversity of life one earth (like the Carboniferous Era) correspond to periods of high CO2. What condition was present during the Archaen Eon and snowball earth? Low CO2.

Re:Short sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that the plants being asphyxiated due to lack of CO2 agree.

As the humanitarians we are, we put the trees out of their misery by cutting down the jungles and paving over the forests.

Even more short sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it not make more sense to cultivate the trees in a sweltering CO2 atmosphere and make them our servants? We have need of wood.

Re:Even more short sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

We have need of wood.

that's what she said

Re:Even more short sighted

[Anonymous Coward]

We have need of wood.

That's what she said

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[serviscope_minor]

Indeed. The main reason is that pressure vessles don't just explode.

The consequences of maintaining old technology.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here was continuing to use old designs of nuclear power station well beyond their sell-by date.

Nobody would advocate using a 40 year old car on the roads. Yet we persist with extending the life of nuclear reactors - clearly into danger territory.

If this reactor had been shutdown and encased on schedule and a new one built using more up to date techniques, then perhaps the issues with it would have been much less.

Re:The consequences of maintaining old technology.

[operagost]

I know we love our car analogies, but 40 year old cars can be, and are, driven on the roads in the USA. Heck, Cuba's are even older. And if things like safety and emissions bother you, you can retrofit a modern computer-controlled engine, ABS disc brakes, and modern safety belts. It's not really possible to install crumple zones, though, so like a nuclear reactor, a 40 year old car will never be quite as safe. However, when a 40 year old car is in an accident, it affects several orders of magnitude fewer people than a reactor accident. So, yeah, let's hope we've learned that politics need to stay out of energy, so that we can move away from obsolete nuclear and coal power and into newer, safer nuclear reactors and renewable energy.

Re:The consequences of maintaining old technology.

[HornWumpus]

Check your dates. The 40 year old cars are great, pre-smog so grandfathered. What we want off the roads are the 30-35 year old cars. Those were bad years. Few exceptions.

These old designs containments appear to have worked. They had to have made a sufficiently wide and shallow pool of corium.

Engineers will learn a lot from taking these 3 reactors apart. TEPCO should not be directly involved. It's too important for 'face' to matter. They all 3 appear to have reached full tilt melt down and the containment did it's job. Doesn't change that the water solubles are gone or in solution in a tank, cooling went open system on melted core.

Re:The consequences of maintaining old technology.

[drinkypoo]

Nobody would advocate using a 40 year old car on the roads.

Sure they do. In fact, the law is set up specifically to advocate using older cars, if you're an enthusiast; you can't import random vehicles until they're 25 years old, which is what kept the Skyline out until now. Now there are R32s coming over here, and there are about to be R33s... I am just now moving away from driving a 35 year old car, but they still have many enthusiasts and there are surprisingly many of them still on the road.

Re:The consequences of maintaining old technology.

[KGIII]

Their statement was patently absurd. There are some gems that are 40 years old, older, or nearing that mark. Pure, unadulterated, hogwash. They should be soundly beaten with a bumper from a '57 Mercury.

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[Anonymous Coward]

what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exploding?

  I'd suspect it was the same that saved reactor 1, 3 and 4's pressure vessels from exploding.

Nuclear engineers are so stupid. If only that had called you.

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[thegarbz]

Reactor 1, 3, and 4 never had a sudden massive pressure excursion which appeared to drop off for reasons either unknown or not revealed.

Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[Rujiel]

I always love how the chief argument on /. for continuing the use pf nuclear power use into eternity entails holding people hostage with the mediocrity of coal-burning and its waste. Is the argument that we're stuck with nuclear due to how crappy the alternatives are, supposed to reassure me?

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[serviscope_minor]

Is the argument that we're stuck with nuclear due to how crappy the alternatives are, supposed to reassure me?

Depends? Answer the question: would you like more people to die to provide you with electricity or fewer? Everything comes with downsides. The downside of nuclear is that it sometimes contaminates small areas of the earth.

The downside of all other sources compared to nuclear is they kill lots more people.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

More people die from everything, nuclear is the one that kills the least.

And, if we just stopped using PWR's and converted to LFTR's, we'd not only have reactors that would not have gone chernobyl or fukushima, but could also be used to convert all those 'used fuel rods' into electricity and burn up all the really nasty radionucliotides as well.

Only short sighted thinking and raving lunatic uninformed environmentalists, plus heaps of regulation towards PWRs prevents us from using LFTRs

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[suutar]

no, it's supposed to make you think "hey, if this thing is actually better in this way than anything else, is it really in our best interests to avoid it instead of using it?"

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[Uecker]

As if there were only two ways to generate electricity.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely agree with you there... Invest in research and build new, safer, plants to provide the world with the clean power it needs..

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[FlyHelicopters]

I always love how the chief argument on /. for continuing the use pf nuclear power use into eternity entails holding people hostage with the mediocrity of coal-burning and its waste. Is the argument that we're stuck with nuclear due to how crappy the alternatives are, supposed to reassure me?

No, but that is the reality for the time being...

For the 21st Century, we largely have 2 options when it comes to the bulk of our power needs.

Coal/Oil/Natural Gas
or
Nuclear

Solar and Wind will slowly increase in overall percentage, but won't be a major part of the total world wide power consumption this century. Maybe in the 22nd Century they will, but hopefully by then Fusion is working and we won't need them.

---

Those who say we can switch it all to Wind and Solar are bad at both politics and math, for various reasons of those two forces, Wind and Solar aren't going to be a serious power source any time soon.

So what do you prefer? Carbon or Nuclear?

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[FlyHelicopters]

As if there were only two ways to generate electricity.

There are many ways to do it, but for now, the major ways are Fossil Fuels or Nuclear.

Wind and Solar will slowly grow as a percentage of the world wide total amount of power generated, but neither will be a major source of power in the 21st Century.

There are many political reasons for that, as well as economic ones.

So what do you prefer? Carbon or Nuclear?

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[mrchaotica]

We should be building solar and wind power plants as fast as we feasibly can. While that happens, we should be decommissioning the coal-fired plants first, then the oil-fired ones, then the natural gas-fired ones, then evaluating the hydroelectric dams for damage to river ecosystems and demolishing the sufficiently-harmful ones, and only then decommissioning the nuclear plants after everything worse is already gone.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[WolfWithoutAClause]

> Solar and Wind will slowly increase in overall percentage, but won't be a major part of the total world wide power consumption this century. Maybe in the 22nd Century they will, but hopefully by then Fusion is working and we won't need them.

Yeah, right. This is just wishful thinking on your part.

Wind power alone is already making 10% of the EU's average electricity supply, and wind energy is now cheaper than coal or gas in many parts of America.

Wind power in the world is growing enormously quickly, literally exponentially, at around 14%, year on year, and has been for about a decade, and shows no sign of slowing; and it's price competitive, fairly consistently cheaper than nuclear. It also has less restrictions than nuclear.

That's just wind; and it's already starting to overtake nuclear power for overall production.baseline.

Solar is smaller, but growing faster, the price is still relatively high, but dropping like a stone; and in sunny places it's already very competitive.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[khallow]

I always love how the chief argument on /. for continuing the use pf nuclear power use into eternity entails holding people hostage with the mediocrity of coal-burning and its waste. Is the argument that we're stuck with nuclear due to how crappy the alternatives are, supposed to reassure me?

If the argument works, then there's no reason to stop using it. And it's supposed to reassure you because it shows the risks are grossly exaggerated for nuclear power. You can then worry about more serious things, like traffic accidents or lightning strikes.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[Uecker]

Please wake up. Everybody is already adding renewables and this is working just fine. Germany added about 200 TWh per year in actual production (not capacity) in a little bit more than two decades. This is more than it had nuclear even when nuclear was its maximum (about 170 TWh / per year). So no, there is no choice between carbon and nuclear.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[FlyHelicopters]

Yeah, right. This is just wishful thinking on your part.

Like I said, people who think Wind and Solar will become a majority of our power are bad at politics and math.

Wind power alone is already making 10% of the EU's average electricity supply, and wind energy is now cheaper than coal or gas in many parts of America.

The EU has spent a huge pile of money to get there, and you start to run into problems if you grow it more. But I suspect they'll get to 20%.

Of course, I said world-wide, not EU. The EU is 10% of the world-wide carbon problem, so it is nice, but not really a solution.

The US is growing, but Wind is only cheap when government dollars make it so. In Texas, I can buy coal power for 7 cents per kWh or wind power for 10 cents per kWh, and that is with the government pushing wind.

Of course this ignores the base load problem. Yea, yea, "the wind is always blowing somewhere", but that assumes there is no politics and that we magically have massive long distance transmission lines, which we don't have and politics and money will prevent us from having any time soon.

Solar is smaller, but growing faster, the price is still relatively high, but dropping like a stone; and in sunny places it's already very competitive.

Solar isn't competitive unless the government messes with the markets and hurts average people by making sure they pay stupid prices for power.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[FlyHelicopters]

Please wake up.

I would love to say the same to you...

Everybody is already adding renewables and this is working just fine.

Yep, I said they were, and they will continue to do so... but it won't become a major part of the total world-wide power production this century.

If you think it will, you haven't done the math.

Germany added about 200 TWh per year in actual production

The last numbers I could find was for 2014. In 2014, Germany produced 34 TWh of solar power. Not sure where you get your 200 THh hour number from.

http://www.tsp-data-portal.org...

In 2014, Germany produced 572 TWh of power and about half of it came from coal.

It is also worth noting that Germany is wealthy and appears willing to throw huge amounts of national treasure at this. Germans also pay triple the cost per KWh that Americans do for power, so frankly using them for an example is a pretty piss-poor one.

So no, there is no choice between carbon and nuclear.

You are welcome to keep thinking that, but you're wrong if you do. This is not an opinion, it is a fact.

World wide power production in 2014 was 40.4% coal, 22.5% natural gas, and 5.0% oil. The oil number is low because much of the energy in oil is used for cars/trucks/trains/planes/ships. These numbers are just for electricity. Those numbers also don't take into account how many homes are heated directly by natural gas (mine is one of them).

Renewables are at about 5%, and I expect that to grow to 20% in the second half of the 21st Century. It will run into a wall at that point due to a number of factors, cost being one, politics being another, the need for reliable base-load being a third.

As our population grows, we'll need even more power than we use today. We'll become more efficient, but the total number will still go up. As more renewables are installed, the demand for coal/oil/natural gas drops, and thus so does the price. Nations like Germany can spend huge sums on going solar, but all that means is that cheap coal will be burned by someone else. Cheap oil will be burned by someone else. Germany going solar/wind doesn't cause the oil/coal/natural gas to just vanish, someone, somewhere will burn them.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[khallow]

Germans also pay triple the cost per KWh that Americans do for power, so frankly using them for an example is a pretty piss-poor one.

I was about to say that their industrial electricity prices were better, but according to this site, they're paying 10.88 pence per kWh versus the US's 4.26 pence per kWh. Ouch.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[WolfWithoutAClause]

> The US is growing, but Wind is only cheap when government dollars make it so.

No, it's not subsidies, and the cost is still going down. Taller wind turbines produce energy much more cheaply and give more consistent power.

> Like I said, people who think Wind and Solar will become a majority of our power are bad at politics and math.

Uh huh. Nuclear power is getting more expensive over time, and is already more expensive than onshore wind. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And there's no upper limit on the amount of wind you can put on a grid, and the costs of electricity storage are dropping in price exponentially as well. One main trick is to export any spare electricity you have. That's what Denmark does, and they're already running on 40% wind power, and have a plan to take it to 85%.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[angel'o'sphere]

Wind and Solar will slowly grow as a percentage of the world wide total amount of power generated, but neither will be a major source of power in the 21st Century.
In Germany, Portugal, Denmark, they are already. And the century has still nearly 85 years left. So it is unlikely you win your bet. Most European countries will long before of the end of the century completely carbon neutral. And the main power source will be wind.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[angel'o'sphere]

Germans also pay triple the cost per KWh that Americans do for power, so frankly using americans for an example is a pretty piss-poor one.
Setting that into the right perspective for you.

Also the 'calculation' is wrong. The average American pays three times the amount for power than the average german does. Because he uses ten times more power ;) for no apparent reason besides bad insulation and inefficient gear and stupid livestyle.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[FlyHelicopters]

No, it's not subsidies, and the cost is still going down. Taller wind turbines produce energy much more cheaply and give more consistent power.

Then why is Wind power 30% more expensive than coal power?

It also isn't consistent, if you think it is, you're kidding yourself. Texas produces more wind power than any other state, yet it is highly variable and natural gas turbines have to be kept on standby to make up for the shortfalls when they happen.

Uh huh. Nuclear power is getting more expensive over time, and is already more expensive than onshore wind.

I don't doubt it, but the reasons for that are also political in nature... we could get the costs down if we got over our "oh my god the nuclears" fears. If we don't, then it will be coal, oil, and natural gas.

And there's no upper limit on the amount of wind you can put on a grid, and the costs of electricity storage are dropping in price exponentially as well.

While it is true that you can put tons of wind power on the grid, it doesn't do any good if the wind stops blowing. Or is blowing too fast. As far as storage, don't be silly, the type of storage that would be required to make wind our primary power is a galaxy away from the types of storage that exist. If you honestly think batteries are going to work, you need a math lesson.

One main trick is to export any spare electricity you have. That's what Denmark does, and they're already running on 40% wind power, and have a plan to take it to 85%.

Yea, you forgot the politics thing... Denmark is a lousy example, it is a small nation of a few million people with only one neighbor, who is an ally. That idea doesn't work most places.

The grand mistake that people like you make is that you look at very small examples of wealthy nations of a few people spending huge sums to do very little, and think it can be applied world-wide. You fail to take into account both politics and math, and in doing so are just kidding yourself. You think that just because something CAN be done, that it WILL be done.

Once you give up that pipe dream and come back to reality, let me know which you would prefer, nuclear or carbon...

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[FlyHelicopters]

In Germany, Portugal, Denmark, they are already.

No, they aren't, not in Germany anyway...

So it is unlikely you win your bet.

No, I'm actually very likely to win it. You can't seem to see beyond the EU. Who gives a crap what the EU does, it is only 10% of world-wide carbon, it could go to zero and wouldn't make any real difference.

There is a world beyond your little space, when you're prepared to come out and see it, you'll be prepared to deal with reality.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[WolfWithoutAClause]

> I don't doubt it, but the reasons for that are also political in nature... we could get the costs down if we got over our "oh my god the nuclears" fears. If we don't, then it will be coal, oil, and natural gas.

Yeah, yeah. Fundamentally, nuclear is pretty expensive, but it's not just price; there's multiple other highly valid reasons why nuclear power can be seriously bad news including nuclear proliferation, nuclear waste, safety (a few percent of ALL reactors have melted down), it's extremely complex, it's highly inflexible- it pretty much has to be run flat-out, needs huge amounts of fresh cooling water, and it takes a long, long time to build. It's not just any one thing. Sure you can fix some of those problems in some places, but that's a lot of major potential downsides. Fuck up any of them, and you end up with a massive white elephant.

But the world is not either-or. We're not back in 1980s where the options were very limited, coal, gas nuclear. Here is a list of places that already have 100% renewable electricity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

>yet it is highly variable and natural gas turbines have to be kept on standby to make up for the shortfalls when they happen.

ROFLMAO. You do know that nuclear reactors can fail at any time, and require back up turbines for the shortfalls? And nuclear doesn't load-follow worth a damn; a nuclear reactor running at 50% is making electricity at double the cost; and it wasn't cheap in the first place. I mean sure, reactors can physically do it, it's just too expensive to actually do it. France- the poster child for nuclear power has to import energy from friendly neighbouring countries during cold snaps, and France was the best possible case for nuclear power!!!

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[angel'o'sphere]

Germany is producing 40% of its energy with renewables, since last year. Likely 45% this year.
No idea about what you are talking.

There is a world beyond your little space, when you're prepared to come out and see it, you'll be prepared to deal with reality.
Yes, and except for China, which is accelerating fast into renewables, all of them are installing wind and solar instead of buying american nuclear plants. The problem is not my news. The problem is the news in America. Except for a random bombing of an American ambassary you don't know anything about what is going on outside of your punny country.

That is a shame.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[FlyHelicopters]

Fundamentally, nuclear is pretty expensive

No, it isn't. Actually, it is shockingly cheap, if done correctly...

Here is a list of places that already have 100% renewable electricity

And that is where you're going wrong. You think that because a select few places are doing it (or appearing to do it), that means it can be everywhere.

Right now, about 5% of the world's power comes from renewables, but that is just electricity, that doesn't count all the fossil fuels used directly.

Driving, for example, consumes huge amounts of oil. Large amounts of natural gas are consumed by healing homes (and water and cooking). None of that is going to change any time soon.

ROFLMAO. You do know that nuclear reactors can fail at any time

Laugh all you like, but while that is true, it isn't that common, and the load is picked up by other things. They don't have enough natural gas turbines to take up the load of all the reactors at once, but perhaps one of them here and there. Most shutdowns are planned, for what it is worth.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[FlyHelicopters]

Germany is producing 40% of its energy with renewables, since last year. Likely 45% this year. No idea about what you are talking.

No, it isn't... Google is your friend:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/...

Seriously, read that, whatever you're being told in Germany, you're being lied to.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[WolfWithoutAClause]

> No, it isn't. Actually, it is shockingly cheap, if done correctly...

Yeah right, whatever you say. France was the absolute best case, and even they don't have the cheapest electricity.

>And that is where you're going wrong. You think that because a select few places are doing it (or appearing to do it), that means it can be everywhere.

>Right now, about 5% of the world's power comes from renewables, but that is just electricity, that doesn't count all the fossil fuels used directly.

LOL, you're out by a factor of 10, try 22% of worldwide primary energy in 2014!!!

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

> Driving, for example, consumes huge amounts of oil. Large amounts of natural gas are consumed by healing homes (and water and cooking). None of that is going to change any time soon.

Actually no, again, you're not tracking reality very well.

Electric cars are largely practical and can be charged very well using renewable power, particularly wind and solar; and they're getting better pretty rapidly (car battery costs are dropping ~8% per annum).

But the kicker is that when you use wind and solar, the primary energy needed to drive goes, way, way down.

That's because electricity is low entropy; batteries and electric motors can be, and are very efficient.

That's also why people with electric cars report that their electricity bill doesn't change much; because their cars are so much more efficient.

Also heating houses can be done with heat pumps.

These things aren't going to change this year or next year, but as cars and boilers wear out people can replace them with more environmentally friendly technologies; it will take a decade or so, but it's definitely happening; and in the meantime nuclear isn't likely to grow, it will shrink, and nor is it needed.

OK, I'm out, you have no clue.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[FlyHelicopters]

OK, I'm out, you have no clue.

Spoken by the person who has none... You really, really need to come out of the clouds and join reality...

Also heating houses can be done with heat pumps.

Sure, but only in some locations, and you'd have to replace all the equipment, and that costs money, money that people don't have.

These things aren't going to change this year or next year, but as cars and boilers wear out people can replace them with more environmentally friendly technologies; it will take a decade or so

This shows how little you know.

If the entire worldwide car production instantly changed to EVs tomorrow, it would take 27 years to replace all the cars on the road in the world with EVs.

Since that isn't going to happen, it will be FAR longer than 27 years.

You live in a bubble, believing things that won't happen because you like how they sound.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[angel'o'sphere]

Yes it is, google is your friend.

The link you post is over a year old and uses data that is even older.

2014, the year when the link was posted, was already at 38% renewables.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Bad insulation, I'll grant you. Inefficient gear - maybe, depends what you mean by "gear". Stupid lifestyle...? Now there I think we disagree. Furthermore, the average American deals with more extremes in terms of climate and has a larger house (is this your "stupid lifestyle"?).

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[angel'o'sphere]

Furthermore, the average American deals with more extremes in terms of climate
In comparison to what? Someone in Thailand? Probably.
Someone in Europe? Certainly not.

has a larger house
That is a hard bet considering that the amount of homeless in the US with "no house" is so high :D
Perhaps you want to say: the average middle class american has a bigger house than the average middle class german ... likely true. Does not really compensate for bad insulation or bad life style, though.

The average lower class american versus an average lower class german: has basically nothing at all.

E.g. how many americans find it completely normal to drive with a car to a laundry shop to do laundry? How many German households have no washing machine?

I consider that a stupid life style. I can not read a book if I have to drive my own car. At a laundry shop I can do nothing except reading .... or surfing.

At home: I can do anything while washing ...

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Uhh... Lots of Americans have to deal with higher temperatures for longer than Germany. Lots of Americans get colder in winter too.

I think the homelessness rate in America is not so big as you think it is. And you clearly don't know much about being a lower-class American either.

I have no idea how many German households have no washing machine. However, most lower-class Americans don't drive to a laundromat; those are more in high-density places, so they'd walk or take public transport.

Re:Nuclear defense force, ASSEMBLLLEEE!!

[angel'o'sphere]

Uhh... Lots of Americans have to deal with higher temperatures for longer than Germany. Lots of Americans get colder in winter too.

Considering that America has 4 times the population of Germany ....
Does not change the fact that before AGW Germany had really cold winters, too. And that right now the hottest parts of Germany are as warm as the US (except for places like the deserts, Arizona, Colerado etc. )

Germany has basically similar climate the US has ...

Pretending nuclear fission is safe

[WillAffleckUW]

Let's be honest here.

We, as a society, have mental blinders to real and known risks.

We know that the entire Pacific region, aka "the Ring of Fire" is vulcanically and geologically active. And is subject to 500 foot tsunamis periodically within recent history, and quakes up to factor 9 or above.

Is it wise to have any nuclear fission reactors in this region?

No.

Will we do anything about this.

Probably not.

Re:Pretending nuclear fission is safe

[tnk1]

There is nothing wrong with having a nuclear reactor in this region. It just needs to be built to fail-safe. This plant in particular was not appropriately built to that standard.

And honestly, if there was a 500 foot tsunami, Japan's going to have other things to worry about. I mean, yeah the homes all around will be irradiated, but since they will have been flattened already and anyone left inside dead, irradiation of their dead bodies is probably just going to slow down decomposition at that point.

Re:Pretending nuclear fission is safe

[WillAffleckUW]

Sigh.

It's like talking to a brick wall about how a factor 9 quake accompanied with a 500 foot tall tsunami is going to crush it and then sweep all the bricks onto the top of the hill it can see in the distance.

"oh no," says the wall, "I will never suffer that circumstance!"

And yet the world has seen many such brick walls rendered into smoking rubble and the bricks put on top of many distant hills.

Re:Pretending nuclear fission is safe

[mrchaotica]

It's like talking to a brick wall about how a factor 9 quake accompanied with a 500 foot tall tsunami is going to crush it and then sweep all the bricks onto the top of the hill it can see in the distance.

Well, just fucking build it above 500 ft and put base isolators under it, then!

The issue is not that we "cant" build nuclear power plants that are safe; the issue is that we stupidly chose not to.

Re:Pretending nuclear fission is safe

[drinkypoo]

The issue is not that we "cant" build nuclear power plants that are safe; the issue is that we stupidly chose not to.

But that's how humanity works. When is the last time you heard of a leak at a chip fab? You don't, because they have double-walled pipes and detectors. We could build oil pipelines that way, but it would cost money, and that money is better spent on yachts and hookers and blow

Re:Pretending nuclear fission is safe

[tnk1]

I was more commenting on the point that you are talking about a 500 foot tall tsunami. The one that happened at Fukushima was only 49 ft tall. A tsunami ten times that size would inflict so much damage that I doubt you could do much to realistically mitigate that. But a 500 ft wave is unknown in human history. The tallest wave known was 100 ft tall at Lituya Bay in 1958.

It's not about whether it could happen, because its probably not impossible. However there is an assessment of risk that has to happen here.

Are you going to suggest that nuclear power is unsafe because it might fail in circumstances that have not been seen in all of history? You might as well suggest that it might have a reactor meltdown if it was hit by a meteor large enough to touch off an extinction event. At that point, who cares? We're all dead anyway. If anyone lives long enough to die of cancer from a busted nuclear plant 30 years after that, they probably lived a charmed life.

Re:Pretending nuclear fission is safe

[tnk1]

Are you saying that the people who run chip fabs do not like yachts or hookers? Because I'm guessing that's probably not it. There is probably a difference in the situations which is more likely to be the reason.

I'm not saying that energy company execs are innocent, I'm just wondering how chip fab execs are somehow different. I'm guessing that they aren't, they just don't have the same risks to deal with. That or they hide their problems better.

Now, if they are better, we should recruit fab execs to run oil companies and nuclear plants. Problem solved.

Re:Pretending nuclear fission is safe

[drinkypoo]

Are you saying that the people who run chip fabs do not like yachts or hookers? Because I'm guessing that's probably not it. There is probably a difference in the situations which is more likely to be the reason.

Yep. Here it is: If you kill a bunch of educated engineers, you may be held personally accountable. If you poison the land for decades (or longer) into the future, you will probably get away with it. QED, the difference is accountability.

Re:Pretending nuclear fission is safe

[ChunderDownunder]

500ft, far out, it always sounds scarier in US units. :)

I'm pretty sure that wave that killed Patrick Swayze in Point Break was nowhere near 150m.

Re:Pretending nuclear fission is safe

[WillAffleckUW]

Try reading the historical records from Japan or China sometime. Or the stories collected from the native population of the Pacific Coastal regions.

It's not as scary as you think. It's just what happens.

Your problem is you don't have back entrances to the unpublished Chinese and Japanese documents that haven't been published in English. In medicine, for example, that's about 4/5th of all the research that has been done.

History didn't start in 1066. Or AD 0. It started many thousands of years ago, way before non-Asian cultures developed written languages.

"uranium ... the deadly stuff" BS

[Prune]

Sounds as if they had hired slashdot's own mdsolar to write the article.

When I was I high school in Ontario in the mid-90s, we got a presentation by a gentleman from the AECB (now renamed CNSC), the Canadian nuclear regulator. He passed a hefty chunk of uranium ore around the school auditorium. Every student got to hold it. Yet, I'm still here to tell about it, and just fine (other than having become a slashdot poster), and I have no concerns about my former classmates, either. Why? Becase playing with that chunk of uranium increased our overall environmental exposure to radiation imperceptibly.

Uranium can be deadly in the long run if you eat it, breathe in uranium dust, or put on a night face lotion laced with a good amount. Aside from that, it's only critical amounts of it, and the byproducts of uranium, that are deadly. The sly wording of the author, though, is intended to associate uranium with death in a general sense, and is FUD that reveals his bias.

A disaster yes, but in perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

More people died worrying about Fukushima than they did from actual radiation poisoning from Fukushima.

Re:A disaster yes, but in perspective

[doconnor]

Even more people will die from the climate change caused by increased fossil fuel burning that is the result of the fear of nuclear energy that Fukushima caused.

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[AmiMoJo]

The other reactors were vented. They had a venting system that passed the contaminated air through water before releasing it. The water cleaned it much of the contamination, but not all, and now they have massive amounts of highly contaminated water to deal with.

They had to send people in to connect up emergency battery power to activate the vents. Those are the people who got the biggest dose of radiation, and who saved Eastern Japan.

For some reason the venting system in reactor two didn't work. The water level was low, but due to the severity of losing the containment vessel they decided to vent anyway. That didn't work either. Then at the last moment, with the vessel way beyond design limits, something happened and the pressure dropped.

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[Anonymous Coward]

Most professionals are pretty stupid. That's why the internet needs to design more things.

How about not doing either?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither continue AGW business as usual, nor use more nuke. Those aren't our two only and sole choices.

Re:How about not doing either?

[Anonymous Coward]

True! I've heard that the power of prayer is very effective too.

Re:How about not doing either?

[FlyHelicopters]

Neither continue AGW business as usual, nor use more nuke. Those aren't our two only and sole choices.

In the long run, you're correct.

In the minor, you're correct.

In the short run major, you're wrong. For the rest of the 21st Century, Coal/Oil/Natural Gas/Nuclear are likely to be the primary 4 power sources for humans on Earth.

Yes, Wind and Solar will slowly go up as a global percentage, but not by enough to really move the needle.

So what do you prefer, Carbon or Nuclear?

Re:How about not doing either?

[angel'o'sphere]

For the rest of the 21st Century, Coal/Oil/Natural Gas/Nuclear are likely to be the primary 4 power sources for humans on Earth.
That is extremely unlikely as basically every nation that is building new plants is focusing on wind and solar: they are cheaper.

Re:How about not doing either?

[FlyHelicopters]

That is extremely unlikely as basically every nation that is building new plants is focusing on wind and solar: they are cheaper.

Saying that doesn't make it true. Wishing it doesn't make it true. Hoping for it doesn't make it true.

Let me know when you wake up to reality, then we can have an adult conversation about this.

Re:How about not doing either?

[angel'o'sphere]

Why don't you google and read some links and get an education?

Can't be so hard.

Seems you are actually not interested in the topic besides spreading your ten or twenty years old information which is in our days disinformation.

Wind and solar is right now cheaper in production costs per kWh than nuclear. Well known and widely spread on /. since months if not years. And significantly more cheaper than coal etc.

Re:How about not doing either?

[FlyHelicopters]

Why don't you google and read some links and get an education?

Why don't you... I posted a reply to your last comment showing you why you're wrong...

Wind and solar is right now cheaper in production costs per kWh than nuclear.

That is probably true for new production... But all are more expensive than coal/oil/natural gas...

I have a choice in my power... 7 cents for coal power or 10 cents for wind power, and the wind power is subsidized by the government here. Texas is the largest producer of wind in the US, we have spent billions making that happen.

Re:How about not doing either?

[angel'o'sphere]

You are an silly american. That is your problem.

Wind power production COSTS like 3.5 cents per kWh. Coal power costs 4.3 cents. nucear is clsoe to 10, depends on whom you ask.

We are talking about production costs here. Not about market prices.

If you can not even get decent prices with subsidizing than this is your stupid way of life, regulations, government, lobbies, or what ever you want to blame.

Point is: building up a new 1GW wind plant is cheaper than a 1GW nuclear or coal plant. Producing 1GWh of power with wind is cheaper than producing it with coal or nuclear.

What you pay is a complete different story. And your american political/social problems are luckily not bothering the rest of the world.

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[serviscope_minor]

So you have some links I can read? I'm finding it somewhat difficult to get any details about this event.

It was a surprise to seismologists and engineers

[peter303]

This quake was the fourth largest in measurement history, one of the rare magnitude 9 earthquakes. It was thought this area would max out at a mid 8 from historical earthquakes and estimation of the maximum potential fault break size. But what happened is three fault segments broke in quick succession, creating a super quake.
A similar thing happened in Sichuan China a few years earlier. Three faults broke making a quake larger than anticipated.
So seismologists are revising their ideas about California faults. Perhaps multiple faults could break together, creating a quake larger than any measured int he past 2000 years.

"highly contaminated"

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the "highly contaminated" is bullshit. It's minimally contaminated, but idiots like you would ban bananas if they weren't cute and yellow.

Re:"highly contaminated"

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the "highly contaminated" is bullshit. It's minimally contaminated, but idiots like you would ban bananas if they weren't cute and yellow.

...says the governer of Flint Michigan.

Re:"uranium ... the deadly stuff" BS

[Applehu Akbar]

Once on a tour of the Nevada Test Site I got to handle a chunk of pure U-238. Dark gray, the size of a common brick and insanely heavy. They use it for shielding.

What's in the water?

[blindseer]

I keep hearing about the contaminated water in Japan but I'd like to know what's in it to get an idea of the problem this poses.

If the problem is heavy hydrogen then I suspect the problem will resolve itself before anyone gets around to processing the water. Some stuff like cesium and strontium are quite deadly but that is also what makes them valuable. There might be money to be made in "mining" this water for valuable radiation sources like that, for things like cancer treatments and disinfecting food.

Just how radioactive is this stuff? Couldn't we just fill an old oil tanker with this water, seal it up tight, then flood the outer hull and watch it sink into a deep sea subduction zone?

Re:What's in the water?

[FlyHelicopters]

Just how radioactive is this stuff? Couldn't we just fill an old oil tanker with this water, seal it up tight, then flood the outer hull and watch it sink into a deep sea subduction zone?

No, Oil Tankers are made from steel and rust, it would never stay sealed. Even if it did, it would likely break in half when it hit the bottom of the ocean traveling at a respectable speed.

Leaving the water where it is likely makes the most sense.

How many died from Thalidomide?

[Anonymous Coward]

How many died from AIDS? If the death vector is something else but it's caused by a prior requirement, the prior requirement is still deadly, even though you can turn round and claim "Nobody died from that!".

Fucking stupid nuclear fluffers.

As someone who lives near the Fukushima plant:

[fullback]

Here are photos and an article in National Geographic from the massive quake and tsunami in the same area in 1896. Almost 27,000 people were killed and a tsunami was reported as high as 50 feet.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic....

The excuse that the tsunami was unprecedented and a "once in a 1,000- year event" is false.

The take away for me after five years is that it was criminally incompetent to not have planned for the possibility of a similar event so recent that there are photographs of it.

The engineers involved in the construction and operation should be in prison.

Disclaimer: I have a BSME with a Nuclear option, and I should be in prison if I had anything to do with the plant. I also live within 90 miles of the plant and remember thinking that I was in serious jeopardy when I saw a helicopter dropping water onto the stored fuel rods on TV. When the helicopters come out, it's the last straw.

Re:As someone who lives near the Fukushima plant:

[AmiMoJo]

There is now a prosecution of some of the senior staff going ahead, but it remains to be seen if it amounts to much.

Re:As someone who lives near the Fukushima plant:

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are photos and an article in National Geographic from the massive quake and tsunami in the same area in 1896. Almost 27,000 people were killed and a tsunami was reported as high as 50 feet.

The excuse that the tsunami was unprecedented and a "once in a 1,000- year event" is false.

The 1896 Sanriku earthquake is reported as being either a 8.2 magnitude or an 8.5 magnitude event.

The 2011 Thoku earthquake was 9.0.

The Richter scale is logarithmic. That means that the 2011 Thoku earthquake had anywhere from 3x to 6x the energy of the 1896 Sanriku earthquake. In addition, the Sanriku earthquake was a greater distance off the coast.

Re:As someone who lives near the Fukushima plant:

[TroII]

Serious question, being Japan and all, why haven't they committed honorific suicide? It seems to be a cultural normalcy for Japanese who find themselves in a position like that. Even bankers who have "merely" caused the loss of money instead of lives will often make a swan dive from a skyscraper.

Re:As someone who lives near the Fukushima plant:

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious question, being Japan and all, why haven't they committed honorific suicide? It seems to be a cultural normalcy for Japanese who find themselves in a position like that. Even bankers who have "merely" caused the loss of money instead of lives will often make a swan dive from a skyscraper.

Real-life Japan is not all tentacle monsters and samurai, you know.

Re:As someone who lives near the Fukushima plant:

[fullback]

(seppuku) was originally a samurai ritual and there aren't any samurai left. Japan still has a very high suicide rate, but big businessmen, bankers and government minions are much more westernized now - they've turned into self-centered weasels.

No bankers are throwing themselves off of buildings. Those would be people in financial trouble, bullied kids, rejected lovers, lonely singles and people who were left with nothing. They lost their homes and livelihoods after having to evacuate from the plant area, but got virtually nothing from TEPCO.

5 years and couting...

[galabar]

I think I prefer the deaths from other forms of power than this complete evacuation for years at a time.

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[Anonymous Coward]

The blowout panel on the reactor floor level of Unit 2 opened when Unit 3 exploded. This allowed accumulated hydrogen to escape, preventing an explosion. It can be seen as a rectangular opening facing seawards on the main structure of Unit 2.

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[AmiMoJo]

There is an NHK documentary called 88 Hours, that's pretty good. See if it is available where you live.

Re:"uranium ... the deadly stuff" BS

[hey!]

I'll go one better. I have a small chip of uranium ore in my desk drawer right this very moment. I got it to test a geiger counter gizmo I got for testing whether old watches I was working on had radium pigment. Naturally I had to make sure the thing works before I trusted a "normal" reading.

I'm not afraid of handling this bit of ore, not in the least. But I wouldn't feel the same about handling the same amount of refined fuel, or the random by-products of a reactor disaster. Clearly I'm not radiation phobic, but extrapolating from the safety of handling ore to the products of a reactor accident is just plain stupid.

I'd have no fear of wearing a watch with radium pigment by the way; I've measured the radiation from them and what you get, even on the face of the watch, isn't a big concern especially if you don't wear it every day; maybe 3x background radiation in my neck of the woods. But I don't work on old radium watches because the binder in the pigment breaks down. If you open the case it'll release radium dust into the room. Would I freak out if I opened a radium watch by accident? No, I just wouldn't voluntarily put myself in that situation. There's a world of difference between carrying around intact radium pigment in a sealed case and breathing loose radium dust, just like there's no comparison between handling a piece of low grade uranium ore and exposing yourself to a radiological disaster.

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[AmiMoJo]

To clarify, the reactor vessel is designed to fail in a somewhat less severe way than simply exploding. There are points that are designed to fail first and vent the high pressure gas inside, into the containment building. However, in this case the containment building already had holes in it from explosions of other nearby containment buildings, so it would have been venting into the atmosphere.

So yeah, no explosion as such, but a massive disaster anyway.

Re:It was a surprise to seismologists and engineer

[angel'o'sphere]

This quake was the fourth largest in measurement history, one of the rare magnitude 9 earthquakes.
The mag 9 quake was 450 miles away, I believe 'natucal miles' even.
At the plant side the quake was roughly mag 6.

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Leslie Corrice's Hiroshima Syndrome is the best all-round source. Corrice's site is an amazing work, he has collected into one place facts as they became known, and news coverage of the events. He is particularly attuned to distortions, exaggerations and certain scenarios that have been delivered to the press chosen for their dramatic description despite a laughably low probably. And unlike just about everyone else, he strives to segregate his news reporting from his own commentary.

Some no-hype and anti-hype information sources compiled by The Actinide Age,

What actually happened, written clearly by a radiation professional and teacher, Les Corrice ... Putting Health Risks from Radiation Exposure into Context: Lessons from Past Accidents Professor Geraldine Thomas, Imperial College London, April 2011 ... Also quoted in New Scientist ... The D-shuttle project comparing negligible radiation doses internationally in 2014, and its published open access paper ... Real-time radiation monitoring network for Japan. See if you can find a reading higher than this ... Internal radiocesium contamination of adults and children in Fukushima 7 to 20 months after the Fukushima NPP accident (all below detection limit in 2012) ... in Proceedings of the Japan Academy ... Radiation dose rates now and in the future for residents neighboring restricted areas (after 2012, will not cause detectable health impacts) ... in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... Will Boisvert confirms that wild claims of Japanese thyroid cancers in 2015 are based on bad science. Dr Jonathan Kellogg summarises the academic criticism ... Tim Worstall confirms that wild claims of a single Tepco worker developing radiation cancer is mere anti-nuclear opportunism ... Articles on the mental health impacts of long term evacuation in Medical News Today and Tech Times, and the cited 2015 Lancet study ... Ocean contamination in 2012(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and in 2015(Scientific Reports) --- already comparable to natural radioactivity ...

Completely wrong

[mdsolar]

"Many discussions of nuclear power on slashdot are polluted by references to completely bogus calculations at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory web site that claim that coal power plants emit more radiation into the environment than nuclear power plants. This is completely bogus because when coal is burned, the uranium within it remains in the ash and its concentration is no greater than in typical low carbon soils. You might as well say that a bulldozer pushing clay soil around is releasing radiation into the environment. Why? Because the uranium in coal comes from the soil out of which the primaeval forest grew. When the coal is burned, you just get the soil components back."

In fact

[mdsolar]

Fossil fuel use cuts our internal radiation burden. http://slashdot.org/journal/27...

Re:"uranium ... the deadly stuff" BS

[KGIII]

It was not *technically* mine but was my older brother's - though I later purloined it, sometime in the mid-1960s. I don't know what ever happened to it. He had (and then I had) a chemistry set or something along those lines. In that set was uranium - I have no idea what for as the manual had long-since been lost. It had a small Geiger counter but I don't think that came with the set.

I'm remarkably healthy for my age but I never developed super-powers. I don't know for certain but, given that we were kids, presumably it was put in a mouth at one point or another. "Here, lick this. I double-dare you!"

Come to think of it, I'm kind of surprised we lived to be adults. I'm pretty sure my parents would be in prison and us kids wards of the State if they let us do some of that stuff today. We distinctly, with concerted effort, tried to make things blow up, be eaten away, smoke, emit fumes, spark, or otherwise frighten our mother.

Yeah, we'd be wards of the State. We used to have molds and melt our own tin soldiers. We had firearms and knives. We climbed to ungodly heights - often jumping off those lofty perches. We broke bones. We actually had a fight with frozen crab apples that had partially thawed out, it was awesome. I got pneumonia and puked in his boot, that was awesome too. Oh, I once beat the ever living hell out of him using nothing but a Queen Anne's Lace (a flower with a vine-like stalk that makes a fine impromptu whip) but that's because he did something to one of my Tonka trucks but I'll be damned if I remember what. Oh, they were made out of metal.

Yeah, we'd be in foster care today.

Re:"uranium ... the deadly stuff" BS

[Firethorn]

I'm not afraid of handling this bit of ore, not in the least. But I wouldn't feel the same about handling the same amount of refined fuel, or the random by-products of a reactor disaster.

Refined fuel is fine. They handle it with cotton gloves - mostly to keep the oils in their hands off the expensive metal stuff.

Random stuff from a reactor disaster? I'm with you.

need new reactors

[WindBourne]

Seriously, we need NEW reactors to replace the old ones. With gen IV, we can even burn up the old waste and even use it to clean coal waste.

Re:what saved reactor 2's pressure vessel from exp

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of biased bullshit.