Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now • Hacker News Board

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#41

Post by jeffreyrusso » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 12:04 PM UTC

Looking in awe at the fact that the plants are still standing after an earthquake "five times stronger than the older Fukushima plants had been designed to cope with" isn't the right way to look at this situation. Why were these plants built in a massively earthquake prone zone and not designed to avoid what is happening right now? If an earthquake this powerful was possible, the most sensitive pieces of infrastructure should have been designed to handle it. They clearly were not.

I'm no nuclear opponent... I believe that nuclear could very well be the only safe and scalable answer to the world's energy needs - but if we can't make the economics of building safer plants work, then nuclear is a nonstarter.

Proclamations like this that everything is and will be fine are really reckless at this point. Every day it seems like we are finding out that things are much worse than we had previously been told they are, and it looks as though they are still in the process of losing - not gaining - control at Fukushima.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#42

Post by ugh » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 12:06 PM UTC

zalew wrote: post #30

_delirium wrote: post #2

At Chernobyl, this actually happened inside the containment vessel and the resulting explosion ruptured the vessel, leading to a serious release of core radioactives – though this has had basically zero effect on the world in general nor even much impact on the area around Chernobyl. Even just as a matter of rhetoric and persuasion, I think trying to argue that Chernobyl wasn't all that bad isn't the route you want t…

It wasn't that bad at all. In every discussion about Charnobyl I link this (translation from Polish) http://goo.gl/Djbag > So what Chernobyl has taught us? > That nuclear energy is the safest source of energy currently available. The Chernobyl disaster was the worst we can imagine a nuclear power plant. In addition, Chernobyl defied every rule of safety. This property was one big scandal. But that's not all. Followin…

The interviewee is pretty far out, away from anything what pretty much all scientific studies of the Chernobyl catastrophe concluded.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#43

Post by krschultz » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 12:11 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #20

rimantas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much every other energy source is more dangerous than nuclear. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-ener...

Then I guess people are stupid, aren't they, because of all the friends I know none of them would prefer having his/her house close to a nuclear plant, compared to having it close to a coal plant. And what do you know? These stupid people (including me) do have the power to vote, and I sure as hell would vote for nuclear power plants to be closed down were I given the chance to do so.

I live within 5 miles of two nuclear power plants and over 10 navy nuclear reactors. It doesn't bother me one bit. I'm actually thinking of moving closer to one of the power plants because rent is a little cheaper because people like you are irrationally afraid of it.

Look at Japan, right now 10,000 people are dead from a tsunamai/earthquake double punch and you are worried about the nuclear reactor? The one person killed in the reactor was killed by a crane falling, that could have happened at any industrial complex in an earthquake. There have been a few cases of radiation exposure, but I gaurentee you there where also some guys killed in the refineries that blew up. Not to mention only a few months ago we had a dozen guys die when an oil rig blew up. You need to put it in perspective and get a sense of scale.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#44

Post by gritzko » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 12:14 PM UTC

BvS wrote: post #14

_delirium wrote: post #2

At Chernobyl, this actually happened inside the containment vessel and the resulting explosion ruptured the vessel, leading to a serious release of core radioactives – though this has had basically zero effect on the world in general nor even much impact on the area around Chernobyl. Even just as a matter of rhetoric and persuasion, I think trying to argue that Chernobyl wasn't all that bad isn't the route you want t…

I watched a documentary about Chernobyl yesterday ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiCXb1Nhd1o ) an although it's obviously a little sensationalist/emotional I have a really hard time having any respect for people claiming it didn't have that much impact. Fukushima is very different but I agree with others that we should wait at least a couple of weeks till we make any conclusions Speaking of jumping to conclusions:…

> Speaking of jumping to conclusions: Germany just started to shut down 7 nuclear power plants because of Fukushima...

100% pure green hysteria. ~10.000 died because of the tsunami. Who died because of Fukushima? None so far.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#45

Post by krschultz » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 12:16 PM UTC

jeffreyrusso wrote: post #41

Looking in awe at the fact that the plants are still standing after an earthquake "five times stronger than the older Fukushima plants had been designed to cope with" isn't the right way to look at this situation. Why were these plants built in a massively earthquake prone zone and not designed to avoid what is happening right now? If an earthquake this powerful was possible, the most sensitive pieces of infrastructu…

How can you say they "clearly were not"? I think the opposite is quite clear - the main components survived the earthquake just fine.

The problem right now is the lack of power. The pumps are run on electric power, and as soon as the earthquake came the power plant itself shut down. So now you need external power to run the pumps. The power infrastructure failed and no other power plants could power these pumps. So they switched to backup generators, which were then wiped out by a tsunami. Then they switched to batteries (which worked fine, until they ran out). Then they brought in backup generators, which failed. Now we're onto pumping seawater in.

If sea wall had been 50' high instead of 30' high (estimates), the generators would have survived and we wouldn't be hearing about this. If the batteries were more than 8 hours we probably wouldn't be hearing about this. If the external generators worked, we wouldn't be hearing about this. Those are the only mistakes.

Compare that to Gen 4 reactors being designed today - no pumps required to circulate fluid. If anything we should be building new plants because if this had happened to a Gen 4 the fluid would be cooling the reactor even without power and none of this would have been a problem.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#46

Post by paganel » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 12:17 PM UTC

jbri wrote: post #38

paganel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In responding to jbri's comment bellow, as the "Reply" link doesn't show up for me on that one: > Are you suggesting that because ignorant people think something is unsafe, that means that it actually is unsafe? Yeah, this is what I'm saying, but isn't this what web 2.0 people were calling "wisdom of the crowds"? I guess back then it sounded cool, now it's just "return to technocracy" once more.

You can click the "link" button next to the comment header to get a reply box regardless. Regarding this "wisdom of the crowds" crap, does the presence of a lynch mob indicate that someone was actually guilty? If masses of people swear by a medical treatment, does that magically mean it's not a placebo? Crowds are dumb . The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable c…

> Crowds are dumb. The only time you want to follow the "wisdom of the crowd" is when the crowd is your marketable commodity.

We're settled, then, because this is where we disagree :) I believe in the power of the people of taking decisions for themselves (even if the decisions are dumb), while you suggest than an informed elite should have the upper hand (if I read you correctly). I could go on and on about why I believe in what I said above (maybe the fact that I grew up under an authoritarian regime), but that doesn't belong in here, and I'm pretty sure you have your good reasons for believing in what you said.

I guess history will decide.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#47

Post by fremdkraft » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 12:17 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #16

paganel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an excuse to paint nuclear power as completely unsafe and dangerous 50 people sacrificing their lives so that anything even shittier would not happen "is safe and not dangerous"? I fail to imagine what you really find "unsafe and dangerous".

He's right, if you look broadly at statistics rather than anecdotes that you can count on the thumb of one hand.

The problem with these statistics is that you don't really know how many people died of seemingly unrelated diseases while exposure to (increased) radiation has triggered or magnified its development.

I'm not trying to blame radiation for everything. Just pointing out it's likely that these statistics do not convey the complete picture.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#48

Post by krschultz » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 12:17 PM UTC

kahawe wrote: post #13

While the mainstream media is busy selling the global nuclear angel of death scare to people, the techies are just as busy to convince everyone of the other extreme: absolutely everything is fine!!! While there are certainly quite a few engineering victories to be claimed here, I would not call several explosions at a nuclear plant "nothing happened". Also, the earthquake did damage at least reactor 4, there are two…

Differentiate between the building around the nuclear reactor, and the nucleaer reactor.

It's the difference between your house being blow away in a tornado while you are in a tornado shelter, and your tornado shelter being blown away in a tornado while you are in it. The first is bad news, but not a catastrophy. The latter is a catstrophy.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#49

Post by deepGem » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 12:22 PM UTC

Finally an article that puts the right perspective to the reports from world nuclear news and the MIT NSE blog.

India is planning to go ahead with Thorium based reactors and some dickheads in the Indian media are writing reports that India's reactor plans will be put on hold owing to the latest accidents in Fukushima. Are journalists really this jobless in India. I don't mean to be a hater of my own countrymen but such juvenile reporting deserves nothing better than hatred.

Re: Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now

#50

Post by jeffreyrusso » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 12:31 PM UTC

krschultz wrote: post #45

jeffreyrusso wrote: post #41

Looking in awe at the fact that the plants are still standing after an earthquake "five times stronger than the older Fukushima plants had been designed to cope with" isn't the right way to look at this situation. Why were these plants built in a massively earthquake prone zone and not designed to avoid what is happening right now? If an earthquake this powerful was possible, the most sensitive pieces of infrastructu…

How can you say they "clearly were not"? I think the opposite is quite clear - the main components survived the earthquake just fine. The problem right now is the lack of power. The pumps are run on electric power, and as soon as the earthquake came the power plant itself shut down. So now you need external power to run the pumps. The power infrastructure failed and no other power plants could power these pumps. So t…

I suppose we can all have differing opinions on what an acceptable level of risk is, but leaking radiation, fuel storage ponds on fire, and a situation volatile enough to warrant a 30km exclusion zone says to me that the plant clearly was not designed to handle this kind of situation.

If the problem is the lack of power, then so be it - even more of a preventable problem that wasn't properly assured against.

I'm hopeful for the Gen 4 reactors (don't know much about them, but what I've read gives me the impression that they are a significant leap in the right direction in terms of safety.) But I don't think that this particular article is right in holding Fukushima up as some shining example of nuclear safety, especially so early.