Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by tygorius » Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 12:27 AM UTC

secretasiandan wrote: post #8

ars wrote: post #3

Excellent writeup. I've been telling people this all day, but it's great to have a PhD confirm it. BTW, with Chernobyl the control rods were not able to be inserted all the way, which is one of the main reasons it was so bad - the chain reaction never stopped, and the heat just kept building up.

While the article was a decent read, he is not an expert in this field. His work is in Supply Chain/Management http://lean.mit.edu/about/lai-structure/faculty-researchers-... Where does he get his expertise in nuclear reactors? According to the article, his father. "He is a PhD Scientist, whose father has extensive experience in Germany’s nuclear industry"

His work is in Supply Chain/Management

Well, his research and work have been in the area of risk management -- so I find it quite plausible he has access to detailed assessments of nuclear power plant liabilities.

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

#132

Post by jerf » Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 12:39 AM UTC

catfish wrote: post #126

bzbarsky wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason people build power stations is that density of energy matters, not just quantity. Sure, we can replace our current energy sources with solar + wind + wave. What fraction of coastline needs to be covered with wave-driven generators, and what fraction of Earth's land area needs to be covered with solar or wind farms to get to our current energy generation levels? Last I saw the numbers for the US they weren'…

2/3rds of the earth is covered with water, Nothing would prevent putting solar on the oceans surface. And why would we cover land with panels, when we have rooftops that cover triple the area required to generate the base line you cite? Already, flexible rooftop material exist that serves a dual purpose of protecting the home, and producing power. Every problem you cite can be solved readily. Put even a 100th of the…

"Every problem you cite can be solved readily."

... by the simple technique of ignoring our limited resources and engineering skill, yes, sure. Solving them for real is somewhat more challenging. Your ideas are so far-out (a polite way of saying "stupid") that based on experience an explanation of why they won't work will simply be ignored by you. You are off by orders of magnitude, plural.

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

#133

Post by etherael » Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 1:18 AM UTC

lispm wrote: post #31

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 reactor 3 at the first Fukushima plant is not just using Uranium. It uses MOX fuel. So what the author ('expert???') wrote is already useless, he does not even know what the reactors are using as fuel. Japan Today: http://www.japantoday.com/category/technology/view/mox-fuel-... From August last year: MOX fuel loaded into Tokyo Electric's old Fukushima reactor Sunday 22nd August, 05:36 AM JST FUKUSHIMA — Tokyo Ele…

Slightly off topic but not really question;

Is there a defined term for the observation of continuous streams of information tailored to fit a particular popular ideology thus contributing to increased skepticism of said information?

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

#134

Post by icarus_drowning » Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 1:42 AM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #122

SeoxyS wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's use the smarter, more innovative, and safer energy solutions available today. Let's leave these 50's and 60's era shitty technology behind. Oh, and what do you suggest? In the US, for example, we've just about dammed every river that can be dammed, and solar and wind are too expensive for wide scale deployments. The only real alternative we have to the 20% of our energy which comes from nuclear would be to add…

solar and wind are too expensive for wide scale deployments. No, they aren't. And the only reason nuclear is considered "cheap" is that the costs of accidents and waste disposal are methodically underestimated. Oh, and another thing: Uranium fuel is a quite limited resource as well...

Thorium isn't.

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

#135

Post by evgen » Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 4:09 AM UTC

lispm wrote: post #128

CamperBob wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, hundreds of coal-fired plants were built in their stead, and those are currently spewing radioactive waste into the air in normal operation.

Coal-fired plants were not mentioned by me as an alternative or as desirable. Please stop that. I see that you are confused when somebody has not the view of the nuclear industry. You are brainwashed by the corporations. Even thinking that there are alternatives that are not coal seems to be not possible.

It does not matter what you happen to think are good alternatives or are desirable, because those of us who live in the real world have to deal with "what is", not "what could/should be." For base electric load in the US you really have three options: nuclear, coal, gas. One produces a lot of radioactive toxic waste over the course of normal operations, one produces lots of CO2, and the other is nuclear.

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

#136

Post by mrleinad » Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 4:18 AM UTC

Since the author seems so certain that the third containment shell would hold the meltdown safely, and explosions keep happening: Can someone answer me why won't they just allow it to melt down, so they can clean up the rest and get the whole nuclear plant back online? Is it just an economical reason? Or is there any other risk?

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

#137

Post by technomancy » Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 4:22 AM UTC

catfish wrote: post #85

The light from the Sun that strikes this planet, (the largest fusion based nuclear reactor in the Solar System) produces more energy in one day than all the nuclear, oil, or coal based power plants on the planet. One has to wonder why governments insist on building poisonous, fragile, radioactive generators on earth, when we can safely harness solar, wind, and wave energies without such horrifying risk. Will it be th…

> The light from the Sun that strikes this planet, (the largest fusion based nuclear reactor in the Solar System) produces more energy in one day than all the nuclear, oil, or coal based power plants on the planet.

I live in Seattle, you insensitive clod.

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

#138

Post by American_Pie » Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 5:45 AM UTC

Well I am sorry to rain on this parade. But things are not fine. I have worked in a nuclear plant. The control room is a remote control system, controlling the core. By using sensors, not people they determine what is happening. Its not easy. In other major accidents, Three Mile Island, Detroit Fermi I, Chernobyl, follow up investigations reveal the accident was must worse than they thought. The operators in every case underestimated the damage. Under normal conditions this is a stressful, difficult job. I can only imagine how difficult it is after two disasters. Now we have this report of radiation leaks. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/14/world/asia/14plume.html?_r... Talk to anyone in eastern Europe and they will tell you the government covered up the long term health problems from Chernobyl. Additional, there is not just one reactor that is in trouble. There are many.

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

#139

Post by westbywest » Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 5:59 AM UTC

ANH wrote: post #83

CWuestefeld wrote: post #65

I suppose that my fears for this particular situation are mostly allayed. But I think that's only the tip of the iceberg. In the face of the world's need for energy, nuclear power is the only viable option that is available today. I wonder how much this incident is going to weigh against using that option? The power plants in operation today use technology that's quite obsolete. The design of the older plants is an h…

> ...nuclear power is the only viable option that is available today... Nuclear power in itself is unlikely to solve our energy problems. It is only a part of the solution. We will not be able to supply the world with enough energy using nuclear power alone given the length of time it takes to design, approve, build, and certify a nuclear power station. The Sun is by far our greatest source of energy. Have a look at…

Although academic, and with the possible exception of geothermal, astral energy is actually our only source of energy, albeit with differing latencies.

Fossil fuels contain energy from ancient biomass supported by the Sun, and heavy radioactive isotopes (like all heavy elements) are formed in supernovae.

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

#140

Post by SeoxyS » Mon, Mar 14, 2011, 6:03 AM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #122

SeoxyS wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's use the smarter, more innovative, and safer energy solutions available today. Let's leave these 50's and 60's era shitty technology behind. Oh, and what do you suggest? In the US, for example, we've just about dammed every river that can be dammed, and solar and wind are too expensive for wide scale deployments. The only real alternative we have to the 20% of our energy which comes from nuclear would be to add…

solar and wind are too expensive for wide scale deployments. No, they aren't. And the only reason nuclear is considered "cheap" is that the costs of accidents and waste disposal are methodically underestimated. Oh, and another thing: Uranium fuel is a quite limited resource as well...

We have 50 years of petroleum left and maybe 100-200 of coal. Compare that to centuries of Uranium, Plutonium and other radioactive minerals. Also, emissions are a big deal, too. Nuclear waste is contained and far less dangerous (when kept properly) than fossile fuel emissions.