August1991 Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) With events in Japan, an earthquake and then a tsunami, the danger of nuclear energy has become all too apparent. Apologists of nuclear energy say that safeguards protect against all "likely" events. They talk in terms of probability and chance. Well, did any engineer in Japan consider the risk of building a nuclear power station beside the ocean in an earthquake prone country? Did no one consider the danger of an earthquake, and then a tsunami? And did no engineer think of protecting the diesel generators to ensure that water pumps would continue to operate despite an earthquake and tsunami flooding? ---- Many Canadians are fearful of CO2 emissions, global warming/climate change. Nuclear energy is a source of electricity that does not emit CO2. We have nuclear generating stations in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. Ontario relies on nuclear energy for about 50% of its electricity. The federal government financed the research and development of Canada's nuclear energy industry. Should we shut these nuclear stations down? Should we build more? What if our engineers have not thought through all the probabilities. ---- IMHO, like so much else in this modern world of Internet news, we will hear about this "nuclear meltdown" in Japan for another week or so and then we won't hear about it at all. (I admit, I could be wrong.) And in fact, the Fukushima plant has resulted in radiation affecting a handful of people, and in dosages amounting to several xrays a year. Meanwhile, millions of people suffer around the world for a lack of electricity. And many more complain about fossil fuel electrical generating stations. Edited March 15, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) I've only seen one hot water gas leak from a nuclear reactor (and potential melt from within the range I was a little out of it due to having my adams apple ruptured at the time though) and I lived. I think Canadians just need to be prepared to deploy giant high tempetature suction baloons that can go overtop of reactors in case of explosion.. and giant pits. Also things like "dependening on plant electricity to save the plant in case of failure" is just a bad design position. You have to design it so that if it fails, it stops itself without the need of itself to stop itself. Really though FUSSION technology is where it is at. Canada should migrate its fIssion facilitities to fUssion facilities. There are many other energy options.. however no need to stop nuclear power, it happens in the sun all the time, we just need to insure that nuclear power is safe, and by safe I mean it is fool proof, not "somewhat safe" I also got to go on a '' trip near chernobly and it looks like the area has all its trees back. It was horrible no doubt at the time, but even these disasters reduce damage, it would take a massive forest fire to endanger life in ukraine again from it on a large immediate danger scale rather than just gradual effect. Nuclear power is safe IF it is designed by people who care about its safety and plan for all possible events, and scenarios. Other solutions like an equal amount of antimatter to destroy the rods if there is failure and the containment feild fails so that the uranium/plutonium is eradicated into a more stable element. Or a giant plasma gun that is underneeather the reactor and melts the whole thing in event of failure.. but you need to make sure you can also bring in the tech from other locations. --- building them in areas tha arn't prone to natural disaster is a big bonus too. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_fusion_reactors_considered_to_be_safer_than_fission_reactors Edited March 15, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) I've only seen one hot water gas leak from a nuclear reactor (and potential melt from within the range I was a little out of it due to having my adams apple ruptured at the time though) and I lived. I think Canadiana just need to be prepared to deploy giant high tempetature suction baloons that can go overtop of reactors in case of explosion.. and giant pits. Also things like "dependening on plant electricity to save the plant in case of failure" is just a bad design position. You have to design it so that if it fails, it stops itself without the need of itself to stop itself Really though FISSION technology is where it is at. Canada should migrate its fussion facilitities to fission facilities. There are many other energy options.. however no need to stop nuclear power, it happens in the sun all the time, we just need to insure that nuclear power is safe, and by safe I mean it is fool proof, not "somewhat safe" I think we can class your knowledge of nuclear reactors in with your knowledge of the constitution... a whole lot of ignorant bluster. The Japanese reactors are doing what they were designed to do. You cannot engineer for all possible contingencies. That's just a recipe for never finishing anything, and at vast costs. Every single item you use, from your toaster to your car, has compromises between efficiency, performance, economy and safety. The people in the area around those reactors are at far greater risk from water-born infections than they are from radiation. Edited March 15, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWiz Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 No issue is that "black and white"... This issue less so than most... Just like the next Canadian election will have no good choices, so it is with something like Nuclear Energy... It is what it is... Whatever "mankind" builds nature can destroy... Nothing NEW about that... There are also almost always better options/choices, but mankinds love for money trumphs most better options/choices every TIME... So - "The best of bad options is still a bad option and the best option." - GWiz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 No issue is that "black and white"... This issue less so than most... But politicians don't live in a world of grey. They have to decide.What should we do about our nuclear reactors? Heck, what about AECL and Chalk River? They were once in the news and now they're not. (We live in a world where the 15 minutes of fame no longer applies to people: it applies to catastrophes.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) I think we can class your knowledge of nuclear reactors in with your knowledge of the constitution... a whole lot of ignorant bluster. The Japanese reactors are doing what they were designed to do. You cannot engineer for all possible contingencies. That's just a recipe for never finishing anything, and at vast costs. Every single item you use, from your toaster to your car, has compromises between efficiency, performance, economy and safety. The people in the area around those reactors are at far greater risk from water-born infections than they are from radiation. Sure every posibility can't be planned for, but the margin of duty of care is planning for every potential that could happen in the environment you are in. For instance if an earthquake is forcast within 20 years, and the plant will run for more than that time, you should design it to survive the earth quake. Also I understand how nuclear reactors work. If you didn't know one of these reactors was deformed. Edited March 15, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Don't know/Can't say. The complete meltdown in credibility across the broad domain of government and corporate officialdom has pretty much precluded any means of really knowing how to tell never mind who to trust in the issue one way or another. Everything is so political and ideological to the extent that we might as well embed it in religion and take or reject it all on faith. We'd be no farther behind really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Don't know/Can't say. The complete meltdown in credibility across the broad domain of government and corporate officialdom has pretty much precluded any means of really knowing how to tell never mind who to trust in the issue one way or another. Everything is so political and ideological to the extent that we might as well embed it in religion and take or reject it all on faith. We'd be no farther behind really. And yet, somehow, we're all a helluva lot better off than we were a couple of hundred years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 And yet, somehow, we're all a helluva lot better off than we were a couple of hundred years ago. Yeah, it's been a good run hasn't it? And you chalk it all up to the benign honesty of officialdom? Figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Yeah, it's been a good run hasn't it? . 2012? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 2012? No, just a bottleneck - ecological, economic, social. Oh well I guess there's always hope we'll reach the technological singularity or an alien rescue ship bearing cold-fusion reactors and replicators for all will arrive just in the nick of time. There's always hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) The Japanese reactors are doing what they were designed to do. Melt down? You cannot engineer for all possible contingencies. Why not? NO matter what happen, coal powered plant can be left abandoned and nothing happen. In case of large cataclysm everyone will take care of himself and his family - not nuclear reactor. That will be killing life for centuries. The people in the area around those reactors are at far greater risk from water-born infections than they are from radiation. We've seen it during Chernobyl. The effects are still there, as far as Scandinavia. Edited March 15, 2011 by Saipan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 What I have heard on the news is that Canada's reactor are different from Japan's and did say the reactors in California could be in the same danger as Japan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 We need to reevaluate them for sure. In light of the Japan incident, countries around the world are going to be reassessing their nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, nuclear power will be around for a long time. But we have now the chance to make them safer for operation and more contingency plans when a major disaster strikes. Personally, nuclear power comes with too high of a risk, and I have advocated for multiple smaller wind farms and solar farms. We need to decentralize the power grid. That's just my personal view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Personally, nuclear power comes with too high of a risk, and I have advocated for multiple smaller wind farms and solar farms. We need to decentralize the power grid. That's just my personal view. The problem with that is, the more you diversify, the more you need centralization. Very few types of generation plants can store energy and the ones that do have huge environmental impacts. Winds farms themselves are an environmental nightmare, cannot store energy and must supplement their losses through centralization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 We need to reevaluate them for sure. In light of the Japan incident, countries around the world are going to be reassessing their nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, nuclear power will be around for a long time. But we have now the chance to make them safer for operation and more contingency plans when a major disaster strikes. Personally, nuclear power comes with too high of a risk, and I have advocated for multiple smaller wind farms and solar farms. We need to decentralize the power grid. That's just my personal view. I doubt if a re-evaluation is going to fly very far beyond government and industry officials and the usual suspects that worship authority and uphold it's veracity no matter what. I'd be more impressed by a complete re-evaluation of the requirements for auditing, verifying and validating the information that is reported by operators and regulators of just about anything that has the potential to affect millions of people. Nuclear plants are just near the top of a long list of things in which public incredulity is at all time highs. This incredulity in itself is a potent force that has real affects, often for worse, when people start basing decisions on incomplete or misleading information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonsa Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 The japanese reactors were designed to withstand earthquakes and did a fantastic job of it for a 40 year old design. What created this particular crisis was the tsunami breaching the protective sea wall. (just wasn't high enough, just like the sea walls around the coast). This was further compounded by the placement of the diesel generators in a low lying area of the plant, disabling them when they were needed most. No doubt there will be a number of very valuable lessons learnt for furture design/construction. Won't even get into the nonsense about using MOX fuel in a reactor that wasn't designed for it, but hey, the japanese got a great deal from the russians on the fuel. In addition, there are some really promising new reactor technologies being researched right now with a view to commercial implementation within the next 10 to 15 years. these will be infinitely cheaper, safer and more efficient than existing technologies. So far there isn't anything that comes close to the price performance of nuclear power generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 I doubt if a re-evaluation is going to fly very far beyond government and industry officials and the usual suspects that worship authority and uphold it's veracity no matter what. Correct...let the scared bunnies who worship a "sky-is-falling" mentality and paralysis try to leverage events for their own pet projects. It makes for great drama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 The problem with that is, the more you diversify, the more you need centralization. No. You can put up multiple power solutions in various parts of a city. I've gone over this in other threads. Every high rise building can throw solar panels on the top. Along with wind power. Diversifying and decentralizing your power grid is the best solution. One nuclear plant goes down, everyone in the area is out of power. If you have multiple solutions that are decentralized, you stand a better chance of avoiding catastrophe. It's not just a central station, but delivery of the power as well. The ice storm here in Ottawa some years back showed how vulnerable the delivery systems are. Some major lines were down for weeks. Many people had to find a personal solution in the meantime. Centralization is great until it breaks, so best to have an alternative solution as well. There is no excuse for this not to happen in this day and age with the technology we have. Yes it will cost a lot, but only because we have not thought things through properly, or too stupid and stubborn to adapt and change our mentality on how we use power and how we generate it. Very few types of generation plants can store energy and the ones that do have huge environmental impacts. Winds farms themselves are an environmental nightmare, cannot store energy and must supplement their losses through centralization. Nuclear plants don't have a huge environmental impact? Nuclear plants are not an environmental nightmare? Nuclear power plants can store energy? And there are ways to store energy, batteries. Sure we need to be smart about it. But you have less environmental risk from modern batteries than you do with one single nuclear plant. How long do you need to store the nuclear waste for? What are the safety and environmental problems associated with it? Sure we've only seen 2 nuclear plants blow up, and sure we've seen a handful of minor incidents around the planet with nuclear power. but when you have a problem, it tends to be a huge problem. My personal plan in the next 5 years is to buy a house somewhat outside of town, and make it self sufficient. So I am not dependent 100% on a centralized system. And when the centralized system has a problem, at least I won't be left in the dark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 One nuclear plant goes down, everyone in the area is out of power. Yes that is what would happen with decentralization. With the grid now, 10 plants go off and the slack is picked up by plants 1000s of Km away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Nuclear plants don't have a huge environmental impact? Nuclear plants are not an environmental nightmare? Nuclear power plants can store energy? And there are ways to store energy, batteries. Too Funny. The only plants that can store energy are hydro damns...they hold the water back till they need it. Now envision the size of the battery needed to power NYC... Nuclear is cleaner than coal, and has a small impact compared to a hydro damn and kills far less birds than a wind farm. Sure we need to be smart about it. But you have less environmental risk from modern batteries than you do with one single nuclear plant. How long do you need to store the nuclear waste for? What are the safety and environmental problems associated with it? I am waiting to see the 1 million kilowatt battery... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 I'm fortunate enough that if power was off whole winter I'm not affected. I would still have running hot water, can cook and enough power for lights and computer etc. I'm not sure why do we need such risky power as nuclear. What will the future generations do with the waste? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Correct...let the scared bunnies who worship a "sky-is-falling" mentality and paralysis try to leverage events for their own pet projects. It makes for great drama. It also makes for bad decisions. Leveraged information only creates more scared bunnies. Just what the world needs more of right now. Deliberately producing scared people for personal gain or avoidance of liability (which is no different) is one thing but for your entertainment? I guess there will always be a deviant element with a taste for the bizarre no matter what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 Too Funny. The only plants that can store energy are hydro damns...they hold the water back till they need it. Now envision the size of the battery needed to power NYC... Nuclear is cleaner than coal, and has a small impact compared to a hydro damn and kills far less birds than a wind farm. I am waiting to see the 1 million kilowatt battery... You are still thinking a too big one centralized battery. That is not what I am advocating here, and you obviously see that, regardless of your antics. Energy storage solutions are going to be smaller, and more or less on a building level or block level solution. Most buildings already have some sort of back up power generation, and can sustain operations for some time, and with a solar/wind solution as well, that operational ability can be sustained even longer. Our data center was kicked offline two years ago, because the centralized system failed. Also the lighting strike near the facility end up shorting out some circuits and the battery back ups did not kick in, and the center went down hard, leaving no time for the diesel generators to kick in. Almost 24 hours restoration. I knew the place was at this type of risk before, but I don't get paid to make those decisions. People only start to change when shit hits the fan. Our new data center is currently under the design and build phase, and many new contingencies are accounted for and part of the plan. Won't get caught with the pants down again. It takes such a radical change in thinking on how we generate, distribute and store energy, I don't expect many people to see the advantages of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 It also makes for bad decisions. Exactly. So why are you a proponent of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.