From the New York Times alert:
Japan Faces Prospect of Nuclear Catastrophe as Employees Leave Plant
Japan faced the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear accident
Tuesday morning, as an explosion at the most crippled of
three reactors at the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Power Station
damaged its crucial steel containment structure, emergency
workers were withdrawn from the plant, and much larger
emissions of radioactive materials appeared imminent,
according to official statements and industry executives
informed about the developments.Prime Minsiter [sic] Naoto Kan of Japan was preparing to make a
televised address to the nation at 11 a.m. Tokyo time
What is this going to do to Japan? People within 19 miles are being told to leave. So far the explosions have been hydrogren. This is not the same as a nuclear explosion. The third explosion might be more serious.
What will this do to neighboring countries? What will this do to nuclear power in our country? The anti-nuclear people are already protesting.
Most nuclear power plants are on the east coast, where there is greater population. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Are populations in danger? Should we continue to build nuclear power plants? How involved is the government in our existing plants? Are there tax credits for nuclear power and are there grants available for private industry to build? Perhaps we need to discuss.
Before and after satellite photos. (must see)
New York Times Alert:
Hmmm, you build a mess of nuclear power plants right smack in the middle of the “ring of fire”. I wonder what might happen?
@Slow, not disagreeing with you on that one but if you are a country like Japan, you have not choice. Maybe they should have gone with geothermal.
Lieberman is on now being Eyore over nuclear power. When does he retire?
Just last week, Senator Joe Liberman was commenting about how clean nuclear energy was–are you kidding me? We have nuclear waste setting all over the place because for the last 24 years we have been unable to make up our minds about what to do/how to get waste from around the country to Yucca Montain.
And now, radiation levels continue to soar in Japan and our military people are being exposed to it.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20110315/AS.Japan.Earthquake/
For real information go here: http://mitnse.com/
@Cato the Elder
Thanks for the info. But just one thing–why is MIT information “real”?
Aside from Moonhowler stating the obvious – that what other serious options did they have…..this plant was FORTY YEARS OLD. They built it earthquake durable, hence the three safety systems to keep cooling the reactor. Problem was/is – those systems were al;so dammaged! They didn’t see that as a possibility of hapening. Would you be as so smug if trhe same were to happen to nuclear plants in California located along the San Andreas???? Plants built in the 70’s that are as old or almost as old as this Japanese Plant?
What will happen to future nuclear plant construction here in teh USA? It takes at minimum about 1 BILLION dollars to construct a nuclear plant – and that is just CONSTRUCTION people. It does NOT take into account the Uranium that is quite scarce in quantity, operating costs and…..the HOT topic….waste disposal. Then there are the governmental and environmental loopholes to manoeuvre.
Another problem with nuclear power plants is that few people want to LIVE BY THEM. Everyone enjoys the power they generate…from running their fridge to keeping that Hi-Def LCD TV going. But FEW want to live in proximity to a plant…for that nagging worry of MELTDOWN or contamination.
Cost, resource scarcity (uranium), waste disposal and public opinion will prohibit the nuclear option from expanding in the USA. Right now the US East Coast is under threat from environmental degradation and water destruction (for consumption) from natural gas fracking. Natl. Gas can be used to fire up the power plants and heat homes for a lot less than a nuclear plant.
As for the world, what this disaster shows us all is that there is no such thing as cheap energy. Chernobyl was the first examle, but since it occurrred in the former Soviet, people discounted its effect. It was a product of the perceived “inferior” engineering and technological Soviet Union. THIS catastrophe, however, happened in Japan. A place notorious for its punctuality and micro-managerial trends. If it can happen there – it really can happen ANYWHERE.
At this time in global history, we are now going for the “hard to get” fuel sources….the Bitumen tar sands of Alberta, fracking, deep sea drilling. All options decades ago, but ignored because they were to expensive to drill/refine but also because of their impact on the environment. Now we are agressively going after them and even talking of drilling/refining tar sands in Utah. Nuclear energy is shown yet again to be a very risky venture – even for the safest of places. The illusion of “unlimited growth” is just that.
This is not a good day for the future forecast of global energy and energy sources. Because when the people see and experience what destruction their “cheap” energy will bring them, they will be reminded how fragile our whole global society and economies are. Nothing runs without energy – NOTHING.
@George S. Harris
Because it’s my Alma Mater, of course!
All kidding aside, I thought it was a pretty objective and dispassionate discussion of the situation as opposed to the big MELTDOWN ALERT headlines on CNN.
Great write i[. NMB, you brought up some important points. I just heard on TV that because natural gas is so inexpensive, it is hard for nuclear to compete. That has held development of nuke plants at bay. Not sure I believe it. I heard it on Faux News.
Aren’t all our plants at least 30 years old?
Well I can believe partially that gas is cheaper to produce energy than nuclear. But there is also the PR asect of nuclear as well as the huge cost of producing nuclear. In addition, gas is easily brought online to produce energy. Whereby with nuclear, even after a plant is completed it is still about six months to a year before the energy is distributed to the grid. They have to test and make sure all is well and the threat of a grevious error is negated.
Gas is cheaper in the short-term. But gas is also a finite resource. Gas fields do not give much indication when the have peaked, except for a sudden decrease in production capacity. Where with nuclear, the rods can last many years before they need to be replaced. But there is then another problem with Nuclear. The uranium….uranium is also a finite source and the deposits of it are held, in bulk in nations where US relations are strained. Remember Zaire Yellowcake? Zaire sits upon large deposits of uranium (nothing huge, but bigger than anything else out there….).
And then there is the cost too of refining uranium. One doensn’t just take a chunk and voila a reacor is up and running.
As for teh age of our plants, the majority are 30+ years old. Though some newer ones have been built. I believe the reactor on Lake Anna is a fairly new one.
http://energyfromthorium.com/
Good info on Japan’s reactors. Just scroll down.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years
Faster please. And thorium appears to be plentiful in the US.
More on thorium reactors for those interested
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
Distribution of thorium in US
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1413/thmapfull.htm
Red to Purple means – we gots lots!
Watching TV today, I became increasingly convinced that now Japan nuclear reactors have become a political issue. I have no idea why. The military obviously wouldn’t be giving idodine pills if it were not real.
Are we now going to have nukers? People who don’t think it is really an emergency?
Oh Christ Moon, I sure hope not. But the proof in that pudding would be for all of them to go sit and camp out beside the reactor for a week or so….
Nuclear energy IS a political issue because of the politics, economics and human lives behind it….
NIMBY may take on a new life of its own….
This nonsense is still going on today according to the news.
There are about 60 people hanging in there, battling God knows what monsters in there.
The Nucelar Energy industry in the US has a phenomenal safety record. Throw in the perfect record of the US Navy, and one thing becomes clear: We know how to do nuclear energy safely.
If you can look past all the sensational drama the media is reporting from Japan, you will see that Japan ‘s Nuclear Energy industry was well prepared for anything except the worst (and almost unimaginable) disasters. Japan is situated in a geologically unstable region, and periodically experiences major earthquakes. Not only did their plants have to survive the strongest quake on record there, then they had to face the Tsunami afterwards. Inspite of all the reports of explosions, none have been “nuclear”. Hydrogen gas given off as a by-product of the emergency cooling has been the cause. To date, the containment infrastucture has held, and no full-breach has occurred. To date, no one has been injured or killed by radiation exposure.
Generic comparisons to US reactors, and using this emergency as a pretext to curtailing growth of US Nuclear Energy is extremely irresponisble, IMHO, just as using the BP rig disaster as a pretext to halt all off-shore drilling was irresponsible (and according to the courts, Unconstitutional).
As I said previously, on a related thread, the US and Global econonomies are wholly-reliant on fossil fuels as the main supporter of growth. Everything, the clothes we wear, the food we eat, the homes we live in, the cars we drive, are all made from, or powered by fossil fuels. These are finite resources, for which no viable replacement has been identified, let alone made commercially viable. Wind and Solar are OK, if used at the point of generation, but are unsuitable for distance-transmission. The battery technology to store wind, solar, tidal, energy etc. in sufficient quantity to meet the peaks and drops of demand, does not exist. Hydroelectric capacity at the macro-generation level is at peak, although local, micro-generation could still be developed. “Clean Coal” is marketing spin. Not a single KwH of electricity has been generated to date, by “clean coal”. Natural Gas is “cleaner” and “safer”, and is used to fuel many of our power-plants and heat our homes, but it is also the main seed-stock for fertilizer production. Domestic gas production is increasing, only because we are drilling more wells and pumpingthem dry faster. We aren’t “discovering” new gas deposits. We know where they are. Gas is just politically more acceptable to the the public and environmental movement, and is now profitable for the energy companies.
So, if we kill plans for a nuke powerplant in Virginia, based on events happening in Japan. How do we meet the growth in demand for electric power locally? Natural Gas? Coal? If we use Gas, we will speed depletion and reach decline quicker, not to mention drive the cost of fertilizer and food through the roof. As an aside how will we grow all the corn for ethanol and other “bio-fuels” when we’ve used all the Natural Gas for electricity?
We need Nuclear, solar, gas, wind Hydro, coal, Geo-thermal, Oil, tidal, etc, as part of a comprehensive energy strategy, and we need to use these where they make sense. A “one-size fits all” approach, or one driven by special interests on both sides is a recipe for failure. A west-coat reactor in a quake-zone might be a bad idea, but wind/solar/Hydro supplemented by Gas/coal a great idea. A nuke plant in the stable east makes perfect sense. Localization is the key. Use the technology that makes the most sense from an effeciency standpoint, with the the objective being to stretch what fossil fuels we have left until such time as the “the next thing” is viable, developed and deployed.
The Swiss are shutting down their new nukes projects to ‘review.”
What’s to review? If a Swiss reactor has to survive an earthquake (which the Japanese did) and a major Tsuanami (which destroyed the generators supplying power to the cooling systems) I think that the Swiss will have bigger things to worry about than a meltdown……
I actually haven’t heard one single person suggesting we do away with our nuclear plants. I just hear people talking about people saying that.
You all are getting yourselves all worked up over something that doesn’t exist.
The only concern I have heard is over 2 plants in California that are too close to geological faults.
Steve Thomas – finally someone who understands me :>) *BIG SMILE!*
I just heard on the news that Japan’s reactor 4 (the one with the spent fuel rods covered by water 40 ft. deep) now has no water covering the rods according to the NRC.They are melting down and the problem sounds like you can’t recover them with water because the heat would free oxygen and hydrogen molecules building up potentially explosive gases. I was wondering if they could use liquid nitrogen to cool the spent rods. Nitrogen gas is a fairly inert gas and I can’t think of any bad side effects. That being said, how do you get liquid nitrogen through the building to cover the rods? I hope someone a lot smarter than me is working on that or they are facing a disaster! If those rods melt through the floor and get into the ground there could be radiation coming through fissures for years to come!
@Bear
I keep hearing from people like Glenn Beck that there is nothing to be concerned about. It sure sounds like this is a very dangerous situation.
Isn’t part of the problem that this has never happened before and there really is nothing to compare to? Nuclear is great unless the unthinkable happens. Is this the unthinkable? Is this what movies are made of?
Let’s see….
8.9 Richter earthquake upgraded to 9.1…..check
Massive, record tsunami…………………………check
Nuclear catastrophe due to said tsunami after surviving record earthquake….check
volcano erupting suddenly……..check
Yep…bad movie script. No body will believe it.
@Cargo, what are you saying? That the Japanese catastrophe is a hoax?
FYI….
We don’t have to worry about California’s nukes.
http://www.nbc29.com/story/14265528/lake-anna-reactor-ranked-7th-most-at-risk-for-earthquake-damage
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ranked the earthquake damage risk at all 104 nuclear power plants in this country. The pair operated by Dominion Power, at Lake Anna in eastern Louisa County, come in at 7th most ‘at risk’ on the list.
According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, North Anna 1 and 2 face an annual 1 in 22,727 chance of the core being damaged by an earthquake and exposing the public to radiation. The national average for U.S. nuclear plants is a 1 in 74,000 chance.
The top five most at-risk plants are all on the east coast: Indian Point, north of New York City; the Pilgrim Plant south of Boston, Limerick outside of Philadelphia, the Sequoyah plants near Chattanooga Tennessee and Beaver Valley near Pittsburgh. These five plants are at a higher statistical risk than those along fault lines in California, for example, because they were not designed for and built in presumed strong quake danger areas. Since they were constructed the federal government has revised upwards the quake risks where they are.
According to Jim Norvelle with Dominion Power, North Anna was designed to withstand a magnitude 5.9 – 6.1 earthquake.
@cargo, maybe it’s time to reassess all our plants and see if they are up to snuff. If they aren’t, we need to fix them. This could be a wake up call.
It would be interesting to see what the Japanese equivalent to the NRC had to say about these plants. I’ll stick by the old saw: Figures lie and liars figure. I think Moon may be correct that this should be a wake up call, but we will probably push the “Snooze” button.
#1 – HOW IN HADES can you watch and listen to that drooling, weeping, fat buffon, Beck? YOu must have a very strong digestive system – or you don’t eat at all…..don’t know which….
#2 – Chernobyl is similar in whot happened. After the reactor there exploded, exposing the surrounding environment to extreme radiation, they tried dropping water on it as well. We do have a precedent on how to procede with this reactor. The only difference between these two plants is that Chernobyl was because of Human fault, and the Japanese due to natural disaster and failing of ALL 3 emergency backup systems.
But the real BIG elephant in the room is this – if the reactor cannot be contained, and the area rendered uninhabitable – what will happen to Japan, its economy and its place in the world? And How will China view all of this, as they have had their eye on Taiwan for quite some time?
If the reactor can’t be contained, I don’t see anyone rushing in to claim that island and you’re right the economic repercussions will be felt all over the world and depending on the weather many other countries will be affected by the fallout.
Huh? Where did you get that? I was going with your “Is this what movies are made of?”
As for comparisons to Chernobyl….that reactor used graphite. That burned. And it did not have the containment features that the Japanese reactors did. From what I read, no containment has failed in Japan.
@Cargo, I was asking for clarification. I didn’t know what you meant.
I’m sorry, but this is not based in science. The radiation escaping and being detected is primarily radioactive hydrogen gas, a by-product of the superheated steam created by emergency cooling. In order to have “fall-out” , first you must have a true nuclear explosion, or fissial material must be pulverized by an non-nuclear explosion. Next, either irradiated debris, or the pulverized fissial material must be sent quite high for the wind to carry it any great distance. None of these conditions is possible in a civillian nuclear power reactor core melt-down.
@Steve Thomas
Sorry if I got the fallout thing wrong (that’s great!)
@Bear
No worries. Fallout is nasty, because it hangs around for so long. Get some particles in your lungs, and they will sit there for years doing damage. That’s what makes a “dirty-bomb” such a scarey thought. But a dirty-bomb’s lethality is quite localized, perhaps a mile or so radius, depending on the size of the blast. With all the madness coming out of the media, I can see where folks may think the US in some danger. Actually, you are exposed to higher doses of radiation flying cross-country in a commecial airliner. Radiation is a scary word, but we are exposed to it constantly. Now if my home were within 50 miles of a melted down core, I would be doing the boot-scoot boogie away soonest. As tragic as this is for the people of Japan, we in the US are in no physical danger.
Its not like we worried about the radiation when we bombed the heck out of OUR country. The little bit coming from the reactors now is negligible.
@Steve Thomas
Much as I enjoy being wrong, I did some more research and it turns out if that if the fuel rods melt down they could turn into a “critical mass” which means an explosion could occur much like your “dirty-bomb” and as you said before it depends on how high the radiation is taken for the wind to be a factor.
Melted fuel rods will not explode. They might melt and burn, but to create an explosion, you need to implode that “critical mass.”
Exactly, and that implsion must be uniform at all inward angles. Remember the first North Korean nuke bomb test, and how it fizzled? It was because the implosion was incorrect.