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

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

#31

Post by lispm » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:26 PM UTC

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 Electric Power Co loaded plutonium-uranium mixed oxide fuel Saturday into a reactor at its nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture in preparation for the largest Japanese utility’s first plutonium-thermal power generation.

The No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 plant would be the third in Japan to be used for the so-called pluthermal generation, but the only one among the three to have been subjected to antiaging treatment with 34 years since its launch. Pluthermal output has already begun at the No. 3 reactor of Kyushu Electric Power Co’s Genkai plant in Saga Prefecture and the No. 3 reactor of Shikoku Electric Power Co’s Ikata plant in Ehime Prefecture.

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

#32

Post by ugh » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:27 PM UTC

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 there.

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

#33

Post by drtse4 » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:29 PM UTC

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.

The description he makes of how a plant works is nice, but being "a PhD" in an unrelated field doesn't mean much to me... if he had been a nuclear physicist with nice publications or nuclear engineer working at the xxx plant AND if he had access to additional information on what it's really happening/ed i would have cared more for his conclusions... Looking at the comments [1] (guy from Japanese Atomic Energy Agency) it even seems that he is describing a different configuration of nuclear plant (newer,safer).

[1] https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-w...

Check out the other comments from Daniel on that post for additional info on procedures being put in action by the jp government.

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

#34

Post by veidr » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:31 PM UTC

As a fellow Tokyo resident, newly-minted quake survivor, and even fellow UFC aficionado, I found this guy's reprinted letter of explanation quite comforting. We've been kind of worrying about the nuke meltdown scenarios, and wondering if maybe we should find some pretext for a quick trip abroad in the next couple days.

And so I read this post, and nodded, and though 'Hmm, ok, good... OK, sounds reasonable. Oh, I see, great!'

And then I got to the end, and some little circuit in my brain switched on, and I realized I felt just a little bit too comforted.

As if this post, from a first-time blogger, might actually be the work product of some agent of the US pro-nuke consortium that's trying to get clearance (not to mention indemnification from liability) to build many billions of dollars worth of new plants in the US. Or, perhaps more plausibly, merely the comforting words of a family friend trying to reassure people who weren't really in a position to do much about things in any case. And whose dad works in the nuke industry, with whatever subconscious bias that might convey.

But hey, fuck it: taking that article at face value will make it easier to sleep tonight, so until morning at least I think I'll try to do that. So thanks for posting it!

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

#35

Post by woodpanel » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:31 PM UTC

po wrote: post #2

Strange... I didn't see this story on the new page and submitted after you and it posted a new version instead of auto-voting for yours. I didn't think HN would do that. Going to go delete that version now… This is the most coherent description of the issues and events that I've read (and I've read a few). I learned a lot about BWR nuclear plants. Some people here in Tokyo are starting to get very nervous and mostly…

Staying cool on the other side of the globe is far easier than living right next to it. So kudos!

It is hard to understand the technology behind it. Harder than just burst into cunfusion and condemning things. Every time I tried to get to know more about how nuclear reactors work, the more I found out, the more it calmed me down.

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

#36

Post by Kilimanjaro » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:33 PM UTC

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…

Earthquake destroys nuclear plant: thousands killed.

Tsunami destroys tidal power plant: none killed.

You are the PM of Japan, you make the call.

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

#37

Post by drtse4 » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:34 PM UTC

vog wrote: post #14

This is a very well-written article. In the end, the author provides a nice collection of links to usable resources. If you want to stay informed, please forget the usual media outlets and consult the following websites: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS_Battle_to_stabilise_ear... http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/03/12/japan-nuclear-earthqua... http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/03/11/media-updates-on-nuclea...

Lobbist groups? https://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-w...

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

#38

Post by vdbnnss » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:35 PM UTC

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.

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

#39

Post by radu_floricica » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:38 PM UTC

veidr wrote: post #34

As a fellow Tokyo resident, newly-minted quake survivor, and even fellow UFC aficionado, I found this guy's reprinted letter of explanation quite comforting. We've been kind of worrying about the nuke meltdown scenarios, and wondering if maybe we should find some pretext for a quick trip abroad in the next couple days. And so I read this post, and nodded, and though 'Hmm, ok, good... OK, sounds reasonable. Oh, I see,…

There is a reason I feel much relieved after reading this. Pretty much everything I've read so far implied that once there is a meltdown, all bets are off. We'll have radioactive material boiling in open air, and all the "good" things that come with it. Which sounded very suspicious to me... I mean, isn't containment designed to prevent exactly that? Once the fuel melts, it just makes a hole on the bottom of the containment and pools on the floor? So for me, the money shot was here:

> For that purpose, a large and thick concrete basin is cast under the pressure vessel (the second containment), which is filled with graphite, all inside the third containment. This is the so-called “core catcher”. If the core melts and the pressure vessel bursts (and eventually melts), it will catch the molten fuel and everything else. It is built in such a way that the nuclear fuel will be spread out, so it can cool down.

edit: Plus reading about INES, there was a British plant that had 5 (five) level 4 incidents in 25 years, and a partial core meltdown at a French plant. And many more.

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

#40

Post by ck2 » Sun, Mar 13, 2011, 2:39 PM UTC

ugh wrote: post #28

ck2 wrote: post #12

In theory we should be more worried about the ash radiation from our coal plants (which releases a lot more, in an unregulated manner, and makes me wonder sometimes if it's a trigger for the increase in cancer in industrialized nations). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Radio... it is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much uncontrolled radioactivity into the atmos…

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...