Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors

morgsatlarge.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 190 posts

Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors

#41

Post by woodpanel »

saulrh wrote: post #30
woodpanel wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, his expertise is not fully covering this field. But I think he's still far better informed than most voices we get to hear these days. In Germany it took green-activists a couple of hours to organize nationwide protests. Politicians with no knowledge about physics beyond spelling "meltdown" are immediatly taking advantage of this situation.

On the one hand, our fear responses undoubtedly helped us survive when we had to worry about running away from big things with teeth. On the other hand, it also means that uninformed, power-hungry idiots like to boost their career by destroying things that would make life better for everybody.

It's true. This fear is what created the "Defense of Depth" in the first place (It may have been the absence of it, or the none-allowance of it, that enabled tchernobyl).

The ability to run when alerted by others seems to be a evolutionary proven advantage.

The ability to condemn those false intended alerters I think will pay back as an advantage too.

Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors

#42

Post by JoeAltmaier »

ugh wrote: post #32
Kilimanjaro wrote: post #26

With all that coastline Japan should be investing more in tidal power generation and forget once and for all about nuclear power, too high the risk for earthquakes and tsunamis happening again even at worse scale.

Can tidal power equipment survive a tsunami, though? Japan needs a stable energy supply – if only because they can’t just import power from one of their neighbors in a pinch (like, for example, most European countries can). I heard today that even wind turbines are not ideal for Japan because typhoons are common. Japan is in a pretty unique position – it’s certainly understandable why nuclear power is very popular th…

I hope it remains popular. I know, this is a disaster, but the reactors at risk are old steam-engine types. Comparing this to modern reactors is similar to comparing an old steam-locomotive boiler explosion to a modern formula racecar.

e.g. http://www.nuscalepower.com

Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors

#43

Post by ugh »

Kilimanjaro wrote: post #36
ugh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can tidal power equipment survive a tsunami, though? Japan needs a stable energy supply – if only because they can’t just import power from one of their neighbors in a pinch (like, for example, most European countries can). I heard today that even wind turbines are not ideal for Japan because typhoons are common. Japan is in a pretty unique position – it’s certainly understandable why nuclear power is very popular th…

Earthquake destroys nuclear plant: thousands killed. Tsunami destroys tidal power plant: none killed. You are the PM of Japan, you make the call.

As of yet, no one was killed during the nuclear incident.

Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors

#44

Post by illumin8 »

lispm wrote: post #27

Wow, such a denial of reality. 'in control'? If anything I saw in the last hours, the thing is not in control. Diesel generators failed, a building exploded, core meltdowns going on, restoring of electricity failed, seawater used for cooling (how were they pumping it and are the pumps powerful enough to provide cooling over a longer period of time like days). Valves are not working, measurement of pressure is not pos…

The PhD from MIT failed to mention in his article, when he talks about the 3rd containment being concrete poured around the steel casing, that the reactor which caused an explosion was built prior to this 3rd containment layer being mandatory in BWR design. So, it would seem that his confidence in the 3rd containment layer preventing any melted radioactive materials from getting out should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Updating with more information: Please see this list of BWR reactors throughout the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_boiling_water_reactors

You will notice that Fukushima Daiichi No. 1 (which caused the hydrogen explosion to the building walls) is a BWR/3, MK-1 model reactor. From this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWR#Evolution_of_the_BWR, you will see the following:

The first [General Electric] series of production BWRs evolved through 6 iterative design phases, each termed BWR/1 through BWR/6. (BWR/4s, BWR/5s, and BWR/6s are the most common types in service today.) The vast majority of BWRs in service throughout the world belong to one of these design phases.

1st generation BWR : BWR/1 with Mark-1 containment.

2nd generation BWRs : BWR/2, BWR/3 and some BWR/4 with Mark-I containment. Other BWR/4, and BWR/5 with Mark-II containment.

3rd generation BWRs : BWR/6 with Mark-III containment.

So, it would seem to me, that this confirms, it was not until at least BWR/4 or above that Mark-II containment was used. I'm pretty sure this confirms there is no 3rd containment layer.

Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors

#45

Post by illumin8 »

If anyone wants to read a much more thorough technical analysis of all the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini, as well as a great analysis of what has happened, I found this page has some great info:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_ear...

Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors

#46

Post by PaulHoule »

Kilimanjaro wrote: post #36
ugh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can tidal power equipment survive a tsunami, though? Japan needs a stable energy supply – if only because they can’t just import power from one of their neighbors in a pinch (like, for example, most European countries can). I heard today that even wind turbines are not ideal for Japan because typhoons are common. Japan is in a pretty unique position – it’s certainly understandable why nuclear power is very popular th…

Earthquake destroys nuclear plant: thousands killed. Tsunami destroys tidal power plant: none killed. You are the PM of Japan, you make the call.

Actually, hydroelectric plant failures can cause 100+ kilodeaths. In terms of prompt fatalities, hydroelectricity is by far the deadliest power source.

Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors

#47

Post by benohear »

vdbnnss wrote: post #38
benohear wrote: post #7

My high school class in Switzerland was chosen for the yearly measurement of radioactivity in the population. The graphs they showed us as intro were interesting. Basically they start in the mid-60's and were going down. The level then flatlined at zero for many years. Then Chernobyl came and was a small blip something like 5x less than the 60's level. Turns out a complete meltdown of a civilian reactor a few thousan…

Thank you for reminding us of how much of a non-event the Chernobyl accident was for you in Switzerland, a few thousand miles away. While you're at it, don't forget tell those wimps in Belarus to shut up and stop whining about this non-event.

You're right. For them it was an absolute tragedy. I wasn't implying otherwise.

But the premise of the OP was some Australians that were freaking out because of the events in Japan. It's a similar situation.

Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors

#49

Post by jedsmith »

It really disappoints me that everyone is being reassured by this article.

The author is working with the same information as everyone else (from Japan), and Japan has shown a systematic obsession with controlling the information that is released about its nuclear program -- and any crisis, really. Given that they put the ambassador on CNN to downplay the entire thing, I don't doubt for a minute that the same machinery is at work here. What the article calls a "weakness" in crisis communication, I call intentional.

So even though the write-up dances around it, really, the author is working with the same information coming out of Japan as we are and is describing what he theorizes is the case. You can go after his Ph.D. in Risk Management if you want, but that's beside the point -- I still think it's interesting, though.

I'm all for the long view just like everyone else, and I'd rather wait for, you know, those actually pushing the buttons on the reactor to tell us the scope of the crisis rather than some professor at MIT who digests information and dumbs it down like Bill Nye. Really, don't throw in the towel because this guy wants to downplay the crisis just like Japan's government is doing.

In case you're wondering, this is who (allegedly) wrote the article:

http://lean.mit.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=ar...

Re: Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors

#50

Post by ugh »

ck2 wrote: post #40
ugh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s because hardly any radioactivity was released into the atmosphere during the Three Mile Island incident. It was mostly harmless.

I think you are missing some documentation http://www.southernstudies.org/images/sitepieces/wing_tmi_ca...

There have been several studies of health effects in the aftermath of the Three Mile Island incident, some (like this one) found effects, some didn’t.

But that’s not even that important to the point I was trying to make. The amount of radioactivity released into the atmosphere was very low, in a real disaster (like in Chernobyl) much, much more radioactivity is released – more than any one coal power plant could ever release.

Post reply on HN