Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fukushima Reactor Leak Tepco Unable To Find Source  
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Posted (2 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

Fukushima reactor leak TEPCO unable to locate source

From the Asahi Shimbun
Huge Leak of Radioactive Water in Fukushima No 2. Containment Vessel Fractured

Asahi: Tepco can’t find where huge amount of highly radioactive water is leaking at Reactor No. 2 — ‘Fractures’ in containment vessel suspected
The operator of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is grappling to locate the source of a leak of highly radioactive water in the crippled No. 2 reactor [...]

read more:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201212120033

This is dated December 11
Fukushima Worker: Concrete reinforcement of Spent Fuel Pool No. 4 is terribly deteriorating… now in a “dangerous state” — Cooling system stopped working, men helicoptered in

Source: Iwakami Yasumi, Japanese journalist
Translation: Fukushima Diary
On December 11, 2012, Japanese journalist Iwakami Yasumi received this email from Mitsuhei Murata, former Japanese ambassador to Switzerland
I received this message on 12/9/2012.
The pump of the SFP in reactor4 had been having the spotty trouble, but it went out of order on 12/8/2012 at the end.
Nuclear workers were collected for emergency to replace the pump but it takes more 2~3 days to fix they say. (Extra workers were brought by helicopter even at night.)
According to a nuclear worker collected for emergency, the concrete to reinforce the SFP is terribly deteriorating to be in the “dangerous state”.
read more...
http://enenews.com/fukushima-worker-...deteriorating-in-a-dangerous-state

Everything was already weakened. Last week's earthquake certainly didn't help. It would not take much to cause further leakage.

 Wow!  


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
81 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5108 times:

Nobody is surprised. This is TEPCO we're talking about here.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10930 posts, RR: 37
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 5045 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
Nobody is surprised

this...




  

[Edited 2012-12-12 10:08:09]


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6926 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 5038 times:

And only the other day we learned that the new generation reactor we're building will cost 2 billions euros more than last time they had to increase its cost, making the economic case for "safe" nuclear energy more difficult than it already was.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5009 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 1):
Nobody is surprised. This is TEPCO we're talking about here.

Apparently the "leak" is quite small and isnt really supposed to impact much. But yeah, TEPCO indeed sucks.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 4998 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 3):
And only the other day we learned that the new generation reactor we're building will cost 2 billions euros more than last time they had to increase its cost, making the economic case for "safe" nuclear energy more difficult than it already was.

Fusion is decades away, you're not going to be able to run a country solely on green sources like wind/solar/tidal, fossil fuels and hydro power have environmental consequences. Given all that, nuclear power isn't a horrible option.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6926 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 4967 times:

Well, do you live near a nuclear reactor ? Would you support one being built in your town ?

A side effect of Fukushima in Japan was that overnight all the nuclear reactors of the country were shut down. If that would happen in France, we would be even more screwed than Japan is.

I have no problem with the ITER project, though, because even if we manage to live well with less energy in the near future, I still think having vast amounts of energy could be a great thing, to get cheap access to space for example.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20335 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4946 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):

I have no problem with the ITER project, though, because even if we manage to live well with less energy in the near future, I still think having vast amounts of energy could be a great thing, to get cheap access to space for example.

ITER is probably not going to make a huge difference in the economics of energy. A first-generation fusion plant is going to have large operating costs, even if the fuel costs are trivial. The main advantages of fusion will be that it is so clean. The only radioactive waste is in the form of discarded reactor parts and that only stays radioactive for a few decades, so it could be stored on-site until it is safe for discard. There is zero carbon release. There is zero risk for a runaway reaction or meltdown.

A commercial fusion plant would be very similar to a commercial fission plant in many ways. The vast majority of the energy released by the D-T reaction (which would be the first reaction used by any civilization developing fusion power) is in the form of energetic neutrons. 20% is charged particles (which might be useful for direct energy conversion once we figure out how to do that) and the remainder is heat. The heat will be the primary energy form used to actually generate electricity. It will heat a molten lithium blanket that will exchange that heat to water via a heat exchanger. The steam will then be used to drive turbines much as in a coal or nuclear plant today.

D-T fusion reactions have a neutron flux about two orders of magnitude higher than those of fission reactors. This makes materials selection very challenging since almost every atom in the tokamak will be struck and displaced 100 times by a neutron in its lifetime. This will cause all sorts of materials issues. Research is ongoing into the best materials to use, but a tokamak alone will be a very expensive piece of machinery that requires a lot of maintenance. Even though pure deuterium and pure tritium are far more expensive than diamonds by weight, the energy density is so high that the fuel costs will be trivial. It is the operational costs that will make it no more competitive than coal.


User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3763 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 4919 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):

Fusion is decades away, you're not going to be able to run a country solely on green sources like wind/solar/tidal, fossil fuels and hydro power have environmental consequences

Well Germany already covers 20 % from those sources now. Granted, there are challenges ahead (power to gas plants, which produce hydrogen or methane from surplus wind energy, to be consumed in flexible gas power plants when the wind isnt blowing and the sun isnt shining).

This is a long way yet. But it is possible to run the entire country on renewable energy. I was a big supporter of nuclear energy in the old times. Not anymore.

There are alternatives available. If you continue to invest in the field, the costs of renewables will steadily decline and soon be cheaper than conventional power plants (which operation costs totally disregard climate change and damage to the environment so far).

Green energy makes sense, even from a strategic point of view: Independence from oil and coal imports.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 4910 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 5):
Fusion is decades away, you're not going to be able to run a country solely on green sources like wind/solar/tidal, fossil fuels and hydro power have environmental consequences. Given all that, nuclear power isn't a horrible option.

Everything has environmental impact. The question is if we can live with them. As long as everything works perfect nuclear is just that, perfect. But as we have seen it isn't perfect and we are not even looking at the problem of storing the wast for longer time than our historical knowledge.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Well, do you live near a nuclear reactor ? Would you support one being built in your town ?

I used to live close enough that I was in the evacuation area and our telephone system was the last to be upgraded to digital because they had problems running the alarm system on it. As it happened I got a job at a company that did a lot of work at that nuclear plant and several others. I was involved in designing security and fire systems and got to spend a lot of time at them.

As an engineer I find the technology amazing but despite my admiration for what we are able to do and total trust in the knowledge and intentions of the people involved in designing and running nuclear plants I am not able to see how we can run them without accidents. Sadly the accidents that we all know about and the many, many smaller accidents most people have forgotten about show how impossible it is to use nuclear without severe environmental impact.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4892 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
A side effect of Fukushima in Japan was that overnight all the nuclear reactors of the country were shut down. If that would happen in France, we would be even more screwed than Japan is.

Japanese citizens on the whole are able to come together and do whatever the authorities ask of them. The first summer all of the reactors were off-line in 2011, the government set a 15% energy reduction target in the Tokyo area. The actual energy consumption savings were 19% over the previous year.

Despite political opposition, some reactors are currently being put back online. Geologic studies were ordered on all areas with questionable seismic risk and several reactors around the country will never operate again as active fault lines not previously known have been found close to, if not underneath them.

In any case this is a short to midterm crisis for Japan rather than a long term one. This country's energy consumption needs are going down over the next 50 years as the population shrinks by as many as 20 million people.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21864 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 4882 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Well, do you live near a nuclear reactor ?

Not incredibly close, but within 30 miles.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Would you support one being built in your town ?

That question is rather academic, since I live in the middle of NYC and there's no room to build one here. But in principle, yes.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 8):
Well Germany already covers 20 % from those sources now.

That still leaves quite a lot to go.

Quoting cmf (Reply 9):
Sadly the accidents that we all know about and the many, many smaller accidents most people have forgotten about show how impossible it is to use nuclear without severe environmental impact.

I don't see severe environmental impact going on in France. I don't see severe environmental impact going on in the US. I don't see severe environmental impact going on in the UK. I certainly don't see the same sort of environmental impact that fossil fuel plants put out as a matter of day-to-day operations. The overwhelming majority of nuclear incidents result in no radiation release whatsoever.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 4859 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
I don't see severe environmental impact going on in France. I don't see severe environmental impact going on in the US. I don't see severe environmental impact going on in the UK. I certainly don't see the same sort of environmental impact that fossil fuel plants put out as a matter of day-to-day operations. The overwhelming majority of nuclear incidents result in no radiation release whatsoever.

Do you see it in Japan? Do you see it in Ukraine? Do you think it can't happen in UK, USA or France? Nuclear energy is not even 100 years old and we have had more accidents than "could statistically happen". Ad to that all different contamination sites around the world and it really is very expensive energy.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

Would I live near a reactor?

Sure.

The problem with the word nuclear is that a lot of people not rationalize the dangers because of events such as Fukishima, Chernobyl and TMI.

There was a proposed pilot project Toshiba was working on that proposed to run a village up here in Alaska with solid state nuclear power. Essentially it was the same solid state system NASA uses to power space probes, to include Voyager, Cassini and Mars Explorer. They wanted to build a system to power a small village of a few hundred people.

That in my mind is an example of an excellent nuclear project.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6926 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 4796 times:

It's true that people are not rational about nuclear energy, but that goes both ways. The atom as we called it was seen as a thing to have to bolster our ego, with pretty pictures of engineers in white blouses and happy workers.

Well, things have changed, maintenance is outsourced (in Japan too), better safety features are needed and cost a fortune, reactors built to last 40 years are being pushed to 60 or more to avoid the expense of building new ones, and still electricity prices go up every year. This won't last long.

At least here it was a public enterprise and is still partly state owned, so that the fact that the state will foot the bill of an accident is somewhat justified.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 4776 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
There was a proposed pilot project Toshiba was working on that proposed to run a village up here in Alaska with solid state nuclear power. Essentially it was the same solid state system NASA uses to power space probes, to include Voyager, Cassini and Mars Explorer. They wanted to build a system to power a small village of a few hundred people.

That in my mind is an example of an excellent nuclear project.

Like going back to the 1950's. There were a number of small reactors installed around the world including on Greenland and Antarctica, not to mention a few commercial ships. It very quickly turned out to be extremely inefficient and with the exemption of Russian icebreakers went nowhere, despite the 70's oil crisis.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20335 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 4741 times:

Liquid fluoride thorium is pretty interesting. Would need a lot of laws changed to make it possible, though.

User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 745 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 week ago) and read 4729 times:

Nuclear power has in its 60 year history killed at most a few thousand people, probably something in the low hundreds, and remains, even including Chernobyl and Fukushima (the latter having exactly zero fatalities from radiation release), the world's safest energy source.. Meanwhile, air pollution from burning fossil fuels and biomass kill 3,3 million each year. There is not one nuclear reactor in existence that's as dangerous as the 'best' (i.e. least bad) fossil fuel plant. Due to their unreliability, wind and solar can never replace fossil fuels, unlike nuclear.

Also, citing enenews on nuclear is like citing the Koch brothers on climate change or Kent Hovind on evolution, i.e. completely useless.



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4682 times:

^ fair points all.

Not to mention that inhaled air pollution is being attributed to all sorts of things the more its health effects are studied. Everything from the lower sperm count in men living in industrialized nations to DNA changes that promote birth defects to various forms of developmental disorders. Some of those causal or contributory relationships certainly require more data to be a sure thing, but it really makes you wonder. We're reaching the first adult generation of people now who have been born to parents that breathed the most soup.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4674 times:

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 17):
Nuclear power has in its 60 year history killed at most a few thousand people, probably something in the low hundreds,

That is a very difficult number. There are suggestions that Chernobyl will cause around 4k deaths among those directly exposed. One extreme report suggest that worldwide there has been about 1 million premature deaths due to radiation contamination from Chernobyl.

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 17):
Meanwhile, air pollution from burning fossil fuels and biomass kill 3,3 million each year.

There are plenty of problems with oil and bio. Not the least that many countries refuse to deal with them. However, these problems will not disappear by switching to nuclear, just change.

The solution isn't to leave ticking time bombs to future generations. The solution is to provide a workable environment. Even if that means we must stop living above or means.


User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9543 posts, RR: 42
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
The overwhelming majority of nuclear incidents result in no radiation release whatsoever.

   ... even if they're often misrepresented, such as Three Mile Island.

The plant at Chernobyl used a design that had been rejected in the west. What set off the problem at Fukushima was the tsunami, which disabled coolant pumps (it seems to me that it was a known issue). Don't use bad designs, don't build where tsunamis are likely to hit and, if you have to build them in known earthquake zones, make sure they can handle it.

Using Chernobyl and Fukushima to paint nuclear power as "dangerous" is a bit like saying flying is unsafe because of the F-104 and TE901, or that bridges are unsafe because of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge disaster or the Tay Bridge disaster.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8289 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4650 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 19):
Even if that means we must stop living above our means.

Yeah, except that's a fantasy. Logic suggests this is what we must do, but human nature is inherently emotional and once people have a comfortable life, they are simply unwilling to give that up.

What we need are practical policies seeking realistic solutions that are effective over time - not pie in the sky stuff that will never happen. That's where Kyoto and other efforts have gone wrong.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6926 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4642 times:

Quoting David L (Reply 20):
Using Chernobyl and Fukushima to paint nuclear power as "dangerous" is a bit like saying flying is unsafe because of the F-104 and TE901, or that bridges are unsafe because of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge disaster or the Tay Bridge disaster.

Nuclear power is the only thing we do that can render a large patch of land inhabitable for centuries if something goes wrong. You can't compare it to anything else, even an atomic bomb going off releases far less radiation (Hiroshima isn't a dead city like Prypiat is).



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDavid L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9543 posts, RR: 42
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4637 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):
Nuclear power is the only thing we do that can render a large patch of land inhabitable for centuries if something goes wrong.

In that case...

Quoting David L (Reply 20):
Don't use bad designs, don't build where tsunamis are likely to hit and, if you have to build them in known earthquake zones, make sure they can handle it.

 

Chernobyl and Fukushima are not representative of nuclear power in general. They are examples of what can happen if you make obvious and easily avoidable mistakes.


User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6166 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Well, do you live near a nuclear reactor ?
Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
Not incredibly close, but within 30 miles.

I live about the same distance from one, which on the western shore of Lake Erie.

Would I want one built in my neighborhood? HELL YES!!!!! They they would buy my worthless property (along with everyone else in my neighborhood). I'll trade my house for paying off the mortgage (which is WAY more than its now worth) and a couple of cases of beer.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
25 northstardc4m : Sorry but that's not true either. Many chemical processing plants can make large areas uninhabitable for long periods... and kill or injure as many p
26 Post contains images cmf : Still happened. That it was by a design rejected in the west doesn't make it go away. Worse, it doesn't mean the western designs are without problems
27 northstardc4m : Anything can have accidents... name me one totally safe AND reliable method of large scale power generation? Coal mining kills more people a year tha
28 Post contains links MD-90 : Yes. It's called Browns Ferry and it's about 10 miles from my house. When it was built it was the most powerful nuclear plant in the world and the fi
29 Post contains images cmf : My point We are not able to do anything totally safe. We must be able to handle accidents. That isn't worst case scenario. On top of that your sugges
30 MD-90 : Given China's history of political graft and shoddy construction when it comes to assigning big contracts do you really want to encourage them to bui
31 Post contains links and images stasisLAX : Here's one of the nuclear plants in Japan where it was determined that an earthquake fault line runs DIRECTLY UNDERNEATH the plant. Very scary to thi
32 cmf : What gives you the idea I want that?
33 Aaron747 : The fault was undiscovered at the time the plant was built. Geophysics has advanced by leaps and bounds since the late 1960s when the plant was origi
34 MD-90 : I'm just saying let's not encourage them.
35 northstardc4m : Storing commercially viable power is an even bigger uncertainty than nuclear in 1945... to date the only method that works is pumped hydro, and it's
36 cmf : A blanket statement with large historical holes. In 1945 no electricity had been generated by nuclear power. It wasn't until about a decade later any
37 northstardc4m : I have looked, and it's not significant. Lack of fuel sources... unless you want to start making biofuel for the sake of making biofuel instead of ed
38 Post contains links cmf : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19245818 If you wan't to use this argument first address the large amounts of unused farm land and land
39 northstardc4m : I don't play down the consequences anymore than you play then up... Don't get me wrong, Chernobyl is a horrible disaster, but it was the fault of a s
40 connies4ever : CANDU also has a +ve void coefficient. One reasonfor two separate and independent shutdown systems. You still would have decay heat. In CANDU that's
41 northstardc4m : CANDU was designed to cope with void formation as well, RBMK were not. Once an RBMK starts running away it was impossible to stop, and even now with
42 connies4ever : Under normal operating conditions, the coolant at the fuel channel exit is around 3% void.
43 cmf : You do. Sadly you also attribute a lot of other statements to me as well. Especially when suggesting I'm OK with the problems other sources create as
44 NorthStarDC4M : That's an urban legend. There was one comment that the WTC towers could survive the impact equivalent to being hit by a 707 at approach speeds in the
45 connies4ever : Uh, please reread my Reply 42. It has nothing to do with the World Trade Center. It only speaks to the usual CANDU channel exit void fraction. I have
46 cmf : Since you object, what have humankind developed that is perfectly safe? tty alone with that number. There you go again suggesting the poor ways of ha
47 NorthStarDC4M : Chalk that up to the forum... that was a quote of cmf in 43 not you in 42... *shrug* I never made a claim of the kind. Nothing is perfectly safe... I
48 cmf : If you want to cast doubt over what the WTC design covered or not fine but the problematic is certainly there for the nuclear plants that are now tou
49 connies4ever : CANDU containment domes are rated for 707/757-sized aircraft. CNSC currently looking at tightening that regulation. Even if you lose the dome, not th
50 NorthStarDC4M : NO power infrastructure would exist without government money... Hydro plants, wind farms, coal plants... very few built without government money. Gov
51 NorthStarDC4M : And just to put to rest the number of accidents, list via IAEA of civilian nuclear power reports, INES level 4 or higher and directly attributed death
52 connies4ever : Fellow I know recently went off-grid using solar photovoltaic panels. Under Ontario government policy, he can feed power back to the grid and get pai
53 MD-90 : How nice to be supported by taxes paid by others. Obviously not.
54 cmf : WNA consider it a major accident and they promote nuclear energy. I have no idea about the specifics for Ontario but it is perfectly normal to provid
55 connies4ever : No fatalities, no injuries. Economic consequences for GPU for sure, but that's not WNA's concern. Look, IAEA and associated bureaucracies like WANO a
56 cmf : Meltdown, radioactive venting and radioactive waste water released (fortunately low total radiation), one year old plant write off. You need to reall
57 Post contains links connies4ever : Partial meltdown, has happened several times over the past 60 or so years. Not necessarily a catastrophe. In Canada, NRX, for example: http://media.c
58 cmf : Serious accident each time. Even more so since there should be maximum 10 in 100,000 reactor years. We are around 15,000 hours now and have 4. (Do no
59 connies4ever : A question of consequences. Since those AECL staff who worked in NRX after the accident have a lower incidence of various carcinomas than the general
60 cmf : Again, it passed far beyond what should have happened. That makes it serious. Obviously wanting it to remain at all cost.
61 JBirdAV8r : It seems certain members are quite afraid of things they don't really understand. I find that ironic, considering that's the argument the same people
62 cmf : It seems certain members ignore track record and think that until something goes horribly wrong it is perfect.
63 Post contains links and images connies4ever : I tend to agree with JBirdAV8r. I have never said or implied that the nuclear power (or research) business is perfect. Far from it, in fact work we h
64 JBirdAV8r : Simply taking the "track record" for what it is, learning from it and improving the processes, doesn't mean they're "ignoring" it. That just means th
65 cmf : Your assumption is wrong. My argument is based on experience and study of history. Everything humans do fail as some point of time. As mentioned abov
66 connies4ever : Jen let me check my e-mail .... Don't know why my last post got flipped around...perhaps something in the HTML since the Preview looked fine. What exp
67 cmf : Pick any technology you want, doesn't matter. Of course we try to design to keep problems under control. Depending on how well we can do that we may
68 NorthStarDC4M : Humans are fallible, that's how we learn. cmf you are afraid of nuclear accidents, fine, but you also aren't really making any points? The viewpoints
69 cmf : Because we have alternatives. Because they do not send the dangerous down multiple generations.
70 Post contains links NorthStarDC4M : Point A I'm still waiting for you to explain because every other source does not provide for sufficient renewable energy by 2050 without nuclear, esp
71 Post contains links cmf : http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...s-out-2050-renewable-energy-vision This version maintain some fossil, much better alternative. Rule 1, if you h
72 NorthStarDC4M : Talks about Australia, not the world... no nuclear in Australia, much lower population density and much more reliable solar options than most places.
73 cmf : You stated we must have nuclear. If they can do without so can we. The fuel shouldn't be used because it is sitting there. Only reason to use it is b
74 NorthStarDC4M : THE WORLD is NOT Australia alone. Australia has a VERY low population density (3 residents/sq km), direct sunlight available much of the year and lit
75 cmf : Of course you adjust to each location. Read up on Germany's plans. They have the high density yo ask for, the high industry you ask for, the less tha
76 NorthStarDC4M : I'm not... You stated not to use it. Normal disposal today is to let to cool in cooling pools, then store it underground... that would seem to be wha
77 connies4ever : So, then, you are claiming to be able to speak with authority on any tech As a generalisation, spent fuel is back to background radiation levels with
78 cmf : You are. You constantly attribute the far extreme to me. I wish there wasn't any fuel but I am for reducing it as much as possible. Why I have stated
79 connies4ever : Strikes me that the mindset behind what appears to be your position ("we can't make anything safe") is that we shouldn't actually try anything at all
80 cmf : The complete opposite. We should expect things to go wrong and thus be ready for the consequences. If the consequences are too severe then we need to
81 connies4ever : In the extreme case that things get out of hand at a North American nuclear plant, there are plans in place: - distribution of potassium tablets, par
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Best & Worst Airports To Find A Date posted Wed Nov 7 2012 05:17:24 by tioloko100
Shocked To Find He Died posted Sat Sep 15 2012 22:44:45 by seb146
Where To Find N-Scale (Modern) Cars? posted Sat Sep 18 2010 16:08:59 by UltimateDelta
Unable To Send Email From Gmail To Cellphone Email posted Fri May 7 2010 09:59:28 by wardialer
Need Help To Find A 60-90 BPM Song posted Sun Feb 21 2010 10:27:31 by B747forever
Unable To Play Youtube Videos On Ipod Touch posted Sat Jun 6 2009 16:33:13 by Springbok747
Want To Find An Acting Coach Job For Local Theater posted Thu Apr 30 2009 00:00:37 by KAUST
Best Way To Find A Shrink? posted Sun Feb 1 2009 17:12:41 by Lincoln
What You Get To Find In The Restrooms Of MIA! posted Fri Jan 30 2009 11:37:34 by 797
Best Way To Find Strategy Jobs In The UK? posted Thu Jul 17 2008 07:54:32 by 22right