"Nuclear Emergency"

[Scouse]

So, pressure is mounting in one of the Japanese reactors. There's been an announcement that they're going to have to vent radioactive gas.

Apparently there's a risk of fuel rod meltdown. Which, in normal language, is simply nuclear meltdown.

LOVE this nuclear power thing. Love it.


So. Who's going to be first to justify the building of new reactors 'cause it means cheap 'leccy instead of the more expensive but certainly nuclear-meltdown-danger-free renewables?

 

[Tom]

What a load of fucking bollocks. The assumption that the Japanese would build a power station in a very geographically active location without the required safeguards is just stupid.

 

[rynnor]

So. Who's going to be first to justify the building of new reactors 'cause it means cheap 'leccy instead of the more expensive but certainly nuclear-meltdown-danger-free renewables?

I'd happily live by a modern nuclear power station - more people are killed by gas explosions than by nuclear power.

Your going to look pretty silly when they sort it out without any major problems.

 

[Scouse]

The assumption that governments make the correct decisions regarding public safety and that humans can plan for the "unforseen" is indeed absolute fucking bollocks

From the Beeb about another Japanese nuclear reactor hit by an earthquake:

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy at Greenwich University, said the reactors were only now just beginning to come back into operation.

"There were things that should've held together but didn't, and it's taken them years to get [the reactors] back in service," ....

"I think it was a shock to the Japanese that the plants didn't hold up as well as they should've done."

8.9 is a hewuge earthquake. The richter scale isn't simply linear either.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Safest buildings in the world really, ofcourse enough sh*t can make things go wonky, but you can't expect everything to be built with a countrywide natural disaster in mind.

Not to mention, this kind of episode and it's only a possibility still.

 

[throdgrain]

I'd blame it on President Bush if I were you. Or Maggie Thatcher!!

 

[Raven]

The Beeb in whipping up a storm over nothing shocker.

 

[Helme]

With a tsunami around I'd hardly think a supposedly, theoretical, maybe, nuclear meltdown would take the headlines but I guess the newspapers just couldn't help themselves.

Nuclear power is pretty much the only realistic option and it's sad that so many people are utterly irrational about it. In the almost 60 years since the first reactor opened, we've had one major incident and it was caused by scientists de-activating security measures to run experiments. As for radiation, heh, a coal plant emits more radiation in a day than a nuclear plant does in a year.

Maybe I'm just biased for living within 10 minutes of a plant though :/

 

[MYstIC G]

So. Who's going to be first to justify the building of new reactors 'cause it means cheap 'leccy instead of the more expensive but certainly nuclear-meltdown-danger-free renewables?

Liverpool should be turned into a nuclear reactor tbh

 

[Scouse]

Your going to look pretty silly when they sort it out without any major problems.

I guess that your next move would be to deny that deliberately venting radioactive gas to "prevent a meltdown" is a "major" problem?

Technicians at the Fukushima Daiichi plant are set to release vapour from the unit in question to lower the pressure and prevent a meltdown.

They've also cleared out the 10k radius of residents now, up from 3k earlier.

I guess that anyone who worries about nuclear, at all, is a bit of a twat tho eh

 

[old.Tohtori]

No, but someone who preaches against nuclear as the great evil is

Also, since the tsunami(one of the largest disaster causes on earth) f*cked the reactor up, venting gas isn't a "major" issue compared to the alternabyl.

 

[Embattle]

Don't use exceptional circumstances to justify what you believe.

 

[Will]

I don't think taking the example of a reactor from the 70s having some (admittedly fairly major) issues following a fucking huge earthquake can be used to state that all nuclear plants are inherently dangerous and shouldn't be built in the UK. Modern designs are far safer and the UK is a lot less geologically active.

 

[Scouse]

So. We're (mostly - apart from Toht) agreed? Deliberately venting radioactive gas to prevent meltdown is a "major" problem.

Yes?


Aaaaaanyway

A massive explosion has struck a Japanese nuclear power plant after Friday's devastating earthquake...

...Japanese officials fear a meltdown at one of the plant's reactors after radioactive material was detected outside it.

No. No problems at all. I'm such a twat

 

[Ctuchik]

So, pressure is mounting in one of the Japanese reactors. There's been an announcement that they're going to have to vent radioactive gas.

Apparently there's a risk of fuel rod meltdown. Which, in normal language, is simply nuclear meltdown.

LOVE this nuclear power thing. Love it.


So. Who's going to be first to justify the building of new reactors 'cause it means cheap 'leccy instead of the more expensive but certainly nuclear-meltdown-danger-free renewables?

Right now there isn't any other financially viable power source out there. So like it or not, if you want to keep using that computer of your's you're gonna have to deal with it.

Both wind and solar farms would take up WAY to much space. And there are days when there's neither wind nor sun. Not to mention the maintenance costs. It's expensive enough to run a nuclear power plant but it can be done efficiently with not that many ppl, a solar farm big enough would need a LOT of ppl, and i don't think you'd be willing to pay an electricity bill that rivals what you pay for in apartment rent.

Water has its benefits but how many Hoover dams do we need to get rid of one single nuclear power plant? And how do we justify destroying thousand and thousands of acres of nature to build them?

A mix of everything? Yes most likely, but it would still require nuclear power plants because even if you used wind, solar and water combined to generate electricity there would still not be enough to power a entire country while still be financially viable. A small country MIGHT get away with it but certainly not countries like France, USA, Mexico or Russia...

The bottom line is that we are going to use what is costing the least money. And at the moment that is nuclear power. Someone earning 2000 - 4000 pounds a month might be able to sit on his/her high horse and be willing to pay more for the electricity, but personally i cant afford that. So i'm voting yes for nuclear and take the risk of a meltdown.

 

[Scouse]

So. No comment on the explosions/injuries/nuclear leaks/risk of meltdown at the Jap plant then Ctuchik?


But to address your concerns - face it people. Energy is too cheap. We're gonna have to stump up. I don't like it, but I will pay it.

For example, I'm currently paying £500/month in petrol simply to get to work and back. Yes, my mortgage is less than that and I do hate it (especially since the government isn't spending the extra tax take on environmental projects) but the expense of fuel in the UK is forcing people to act more environmentally responsibly.

There you go people. You can now ignore the obvious and real safety issues and talk about my politics instead

 

[Scouse]

Oh, btw, it's just been reported by some beeb journalists that they've been stopped over 60km away from the plant, rather than the "official" 10.

 

[Tom]

What "leaks"?

 

[chipper]

they are sayin a roof has collapsed but that explosion looks like the roof has been blown off think there is a very real risk of meltdown now poor bastards hope they manage to contain it

 

[old.Tohtori]

So. We're (mostly - apart from Toht) agreed? Deliberately venting radioactive gas to prevent meltdown is a "major" problem.

I said compared. If the choice is between a meltdown and venting gas.

 

[Scouse]

What "leaks"?

The ones that are being widely reported by every single news agency alongside pictures of the explosion, Tom.

Blinkers, much?

 

[Will]

So. We're (mostly - apart from Toht) agreed? Deliberately venting radioactive gas to prevent meltdown is a "major" problem.

Yes?

It is a major problem. But that doesn't mean that a modern reactor would run the same risk. Advanced CANDU reactors and pebble bed modular reactors are far safer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of renewable energy sources. But if they are unable to reliably provide a base capacity, something will need to fill that gap. I'd rather have nuclear than coal or gas filling that need.

 

[cHodAX]

The ones that are being widely reported by every single news agency alongside pictures of the explosion, Tom.

Blinkers, much?

Yep one reactor building has blown, no one knows if the core has been damaged or exposed yet though. That is going to be telling, it is a 40 year reactor design so they cannot really know if the core is intact at this point but by the size of the explosion there is a risk.

 

[Zenith.UK]

I refer to my post here...
https://forums.freddyshouse.com/off-topic-21/246693-tsunami-2.html#post3735777

The core has definitely been compromised because the radiation level is now about 1000mSv/hr around that area. For comparison the annual exposure for Joe Public to normal background radiation is about 2000mSv but that means you'd get your annual exposure in 2 hours next to the plant.

 

[DocWolfe]

If the reactor was going to meltdown it would have happened already. It's a runaway reaction... it happens pretty fast.

It fucking annoyed me this morning when watching the news some fucking idiot who was apparently an expert constantly speculating, rather than just taking the facts.

 

[Chilly]

Can they not lob a load of boron on it? I thought these things were ridiculously safe?

 

[rynnor]

As far as I can tell the thing that blew was the broken coolant system - without circulation the temperature and steam pressure increased and an aftershock caused an explosive release of steam - the actual reactor core is still intact.

Edit: this picture is similar to the one in Japan - the pumps failed so the waters not circulating and the heat just turns it to steam. You can see that the containment canister sits inside the cooling system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pumpless_light_water_reactor.jpg

 

[Scouse]

Can they not lob a load of boron on it? I thought these things were ridiculously safe?

And how do they get close enough to the reactor to "lob" boron on it without killing themselves?

To be fair, I could make a load of off-colour jokes about kamikaze runs etc.

 

[Tom]

The ones that are being widely reported by every single news agency alongside pictures of the explosion, Tom.

Blinkers, much?

I see nothing about leaks. What I do see is news about higher than normal radiation readings. Are these readings inside the containment facility? The control room? The atmosphere?

Where are they? Or are, as usual, news organisations speculating, because they don't have the foggiest idea what's going on?

 

[Scouse]

I see nothing about leaks

That's 'cause you're a stubborn mo-fo

Venting radiation into the atmosphere, which under normal circumstances would be contained, is IMO a "leak". But aside from that - there are reports of radioactive caesium and iodine outside the plant and the fucking hewuge explosion was of, most likely, radioactive steam.

Sorry. Maybe explosive release isn't classed as a "leak" in your world?

leak
-noun
3. any means of unintended entrance or escape.

Anyway. I'm off to Scouseland for some non-radioactive Liverpool Philarmonic action so will leave you with this:

Walt Patterson, of the London research institute Chatham House, said "this is starting to look a lot like Chernobyl".