Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima • Hacker News Board

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#81

Post by asharp » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:16 PM UTC

paganel wrote: post #32

jgrahamc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which beliefs? That a nuclear power station situated in a major earthquake zone next to the coast could magically survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami? Right now, we don't know how serious this situation is, it could be that this will end with a small amount of radiation leaked and four reactors that have to be decommissioned. Or it could end with a major environmental disaster. We simply don't know yet. I'd cautio…

> That a nuclear power station situation in a major earthquake zone next to the coast could magically survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami? The un-posed question is "what happens if a group of terrorists fly an A380 directly into one of these plants"? Someone on reddit was mentioning that a nuclear plant in Texas was built to "withstand a direct hit from an F-16 traveling at supersonic speeds", but I guess an A380…

Say you were to use a pebble bed reactor (Modern aircraft, modern reactor).

The reactor is designed in such a way that in case of coolant failure/containment failure/etc. the pebbles equilibrate at a stable containable temperature, and as such even if you could obliterate the reactor itself, the pebbles wouldn't melt down and as such wouldn't contaminate the environment with radioactive waste. Similarly as the coolant is helium, it is less radioactive in normal use and as such the coolant leak wouldn't be a critical disaster.

The pebbles themselves are coated in silicon carbide and as such are probably hard enough that you could use them as impactors against softer targets like, say, tanks. Due to this hardness it is thus unlikely that you would damage a large number of pebbles and hence release a large amount of core material.

Disclaimer: I'm not a nuclear scientist, I just think it's freaking cool.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#82

Post by makmanalp » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:19 PM UTC

jgrahamc wrote: post #16

bhousel wrote: post #9

This strikes me more as a political stunt by Merkel to rally the conservative base in Germany than anything else. Still, it doesn't surprise me that this is such a hot button issue right now. I've long been a supporter of nuclear power, but the events of the past week have made me start to reconsider a lot of my beliefs about its safety.

Which beliefs? That a nuclear power station situated in a major earthquake zone next to the coast could magically survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami? Right now, we don't know how serious this situation is, it could be that this will end with a small amount of radiation leaked and four reactors that have to be decommissioned. Or it could end with a major environmental disaster. We simply don't know yet. I'd cautio…

Magically? We're made to believe that nuclear power plants are built for all sorts of compounding contingencies. Take a look at the list of significant earthquakes in Japan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan

8,3, 8.5 and 8.4 are three major earthquakes I see before mid-20th century. If you're building a power plant, it should survive a large safety factor above the largest earthquake you have ever seen, especially since the cost of failure is pretty darn high. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to survive an 8.9 in a major earthquake zone, especially since the largest earthquake the world saw after the 1900s was around 9.5.

I think the fact that the diesels in Daiichi failed because of seawater flooding is yet another gigantic contingency failure. The Japanese know that earthquakes are followed by Tsunamis. What happened?

I used to be pro-nuclear but I'm reconsidering my decisions too. I don't think that humans can be trusted with doing things right, such as decommissioning old plants in time or building in extra safety factors even though it costs way more money to do so. Furthermore, I shudder to think what a deliberate attack attempt at a nuclear plant (or several ones simultaneously) could do. If there are people who drive planes into buildings with no regard to their own life, there will be those who attack nuclear plants also.

Edit: reasons for downvotes would be appreciated to further the discussion.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#83

Post by ajju » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:22 PM UTC

more_original wrote: post #22

Context: The previous government had decided to phase out nuclear power by 2020. After the last election the current revoked that decision and even allowed old power plants that were due to be shut down to operate longer. So, if they hadn't revoked that decision, the seven reactors we are talking about her would have been shut down already or would be about to be shut down anyway.

What are they replacing nuclear power with? From what I understand, Germany is one of the few countries ramping up manufacturing, which is a huge consumer of power. It's interesting that they are essentially cutting supply as demand increases.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#84

Post by bdonlan » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:23 PM UTC

bhousel wrote: post #79

mortenjorck wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real tragedy here is that while it's almost certain no civilians will die from radiation poisoning in this case, there quite likely will be or have already been deaths stemming from lack of electrical power. But people dying from illness from lack of clean water because their water treatment plant is offline and their hospital is out of emergency power doesn't get TV ratings, pageviews, and political attention li…

The loss of power is actually one of the aspects of the situation that I find especially tragic. The USS Ronald Reagan is only 100 miles offshore and has its own nuclear power plant that could be tied into the local grid to provide emergency power to things like the water treatment plants, hospitals, and even the cooling system at the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility. I know the details of parking an aircraft carrier outs…

The problem would be that of matching frequency and phase with the mainland grid. The Kantou, Touhoku, and Hokkaidou area grids run at 50hz, unlike the North American standard of 60hz - so if the ship is using 60hz they'd have to convert to DC and back to AC; this conversion equipment may not be easily available immediately. Even if the frequency matches, you'd need to match phase with the grid as a whole (or intentionally isolate the segment of the grid you're powering). It's safe to say the reactors in an aircraft carrier aren't designed with phase adjustment in mind.

You'd also need some very heavy duty cables to link to the ship's internal grid. And there's no guarantee that the ship would have enough sheer power to do something like that. Moreover, if the local grid itself is devastated, you have nothing to plug into in the first place...

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#85

Post by lutorm » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:24 PM UTC

mortenjorck wrote: post #58

jgrahamc wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which beliefs? That a nuclear power station situated in a major earthquake zone next to the coast could magically survive a 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami? Right now, we don't know how serious this situation is, it could be that this will end with a small amount of radiation leaked and four reactors that have to be decommissioned. Or it could end with a major environmental disaster. We simply don't know yet. I'd cautio…

The real tragedy here is that while it's almost certain no civilians will die from radiation poisoning in this case, there quite likely will be or have already been deaths stemming from lack of electrical power. But people dying from illness from lack of clean water because their water treatment plant is offline and their hospital is out of emergency power doesn't get TV ratings, pageviews, and political attention li…

No, the real tragedy is the now estimated >10,000 people dead from the tsunami and earthquake itself.

That said, I don't get your point. It's not like they could run the reactors if they wanted to. Those people you are talking about are dying because a natural disaster took out the entire infrastructure. That's totally independent of what's going on at the nuclear plants.

Besides, by what knowledge are you claiming that it's "almost certain" noone will die?

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#86

Post by waterlesscloud » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:26 PM UTC

The real lesson here is that you've got to evaluate options on the basis of what happens when the system fails.

Because the system WILL fail.

This is one of the hardest lessons for engineers to learn. That you simply cannot prevent failure. You can make it less common. You can take all reasonable steps to prepare against it. But failure will happen.

So what are the consequences when it does?

The answer in the case of nuclear power is that the cost comes at a level and in a form that many societies are not willing to pay. You can argue the irrationality of that, but you'll lose the argument. Societies don't make decisions on a rational basis. And they're never going to.

This incident is in fact a failure of engineering. There was radioactive material released into the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner. It doesn't matter if it gets worse or better, that's the thing that absolutely was not supposed to happen. It did. The system failed.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#87

Post by dmm » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:26 PM UTC

wladimir wrote: post #53

nopassrecover wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deaths from other fuel sources, while not as immediately obvious as "oh look that nuclear plant just blew up" are potentially far greater.

Frankly, I have heard that argument many times. I know other fuel sources cause deaths too. Gas tanks can explode, fossil fuels exhaust gasses can be poisonous, oil can leak into the sea, and so on. And still I'd rather be exposed to all of those risks than worry about one nuclear explosion. As I said, the consequences can be just too horrible, for too many people. I'd love to move on from fossil fuels to something e…

Any production of electricity is going to result in deaths. It is simply the nature of the immense scale modern society operates on. Coal power plants release pollutants that shorten the lives of tens of thousands of people a year. Coal mining kills thousands and devastates environments. Have you seen the picture of mountains that were leveled for coal in West Virginia?

Most of the mercury in fish originates from coal-burning power plants. [1]

Do you fly? A single airliner accident can kill hundreds at a time, but cars kill many more people a year. Somehow it's more acceptable for people to die one or two at a time in great numbers.

[1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Mercury_in_fi...

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#88

Post by lutorm » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:27 PM UTC

bhousel wrote: post #79

mortenjorck wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real tragedy here is that while it's almost certain no civilians will die from radiation poisoning in this case, there quite likely will be or have already been deaths stemming from lack of electrical power. But people dying from illness from lack of clean water because their water treatment plant is offline and their hospital is out of emergency power doesn't get TV ratings, pageviews, and political attention li…

The loss of power is actually one of the aspects of the situation that I find especially tragic. The USS Ronald Reagan is only 100 miles offshore and has its own nuclear power plant that could be tied into the local grid to provide emergency power to things like the water treatment plants, hospitals, and even the cooling system at the Fukushima Dai-ichi facility. I know the details of parking an aircraft carrier outs…

This sounds good in theory, but I doubt there's even a functioning grid to plug into. If the grid was ok, they surely would have been able to bring in at least some amount of power from unharmed areas.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#89

Post by wladimir » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:27 PM UTC

nopassrecover wrote: post #72

wladimir wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly, I have heard that argument many times. I know other fuel sources cause deaths too. Gas tanks can explode, fossil fuels exhaust gasses can be poisonous, oil can leak into the sea, and so on. And still I'd rather be exposed to all of those risks than worry about one nuclear explosion. As I said, the consequences can be just too horrible, for too many people. I'd love to move on from fossil fuels to something e…

That's because you're mind is clouded by the effects of a mental fallacy (the availability heuristic to be precise) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

You have the full right to disagree with me; I voiced my post as my personal opinion. But you're very rude to say my mind is clouded. I simply don't like large downside risks.

Re: Germany shuts down seven reactors‎ because of Fokushima

#90

Post by ErrantX » Tue, Mar 15, 2011, 3:27 PM UTC

xlpz wrote: post #65

ErrantX wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you can't (currently) replace that nuclear plant with a Windmill (or even a few Windmills) because the power production is still not high enough. So I don't feel that is an entirely fair comparison. What if such an event had hit, say, an Oil fired power station - you'd likely be looking at a reasonable level local oil contamination, and probably a large fire. I don't know how much more likely that…

I never said it'd easy, or that it wouldn't cost money. Everything costs money. Nuclear power plants are expensive, and they have vast hidden costs that are offset to society (how much will it cost to Japan to clean up this mess? is this added to the cost?). Many countries are already getting a very significant percentage of their energy from renewable sources, things like solar power or wind power are getting more e…

I disagree as it happens, I think it is actually not all that hard to make a major impact without getting serious govt. funding (which sadly is like squeezing blood from a stone). All it requires is for those people with enough funds to go out and buy solar panels for their roofs.

Even my parents, who are not exactly the most well off people, can afford (and have bought) solar panels. It doesn't make them self sufficient - but if everyone in the town (that could) did it that is a massive impact!

We had a survey here recently - in the town of about 15,000 people only 48 had solar panels. The statistics from ONS for the area suggest that at least 20% of the residents could afford solar panels.

Just saying :P