The Other Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

The Other Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

depletedcranium.com

Yet there is another Fukushima nuclear plant, which was struck by exactly the same forces but has gone largely unnoticed, primarily because there have been so few problems. Fukushima Daiichi translates directly as “Fukushima Number 1,” and was built starting in 1967. In 1976 it was decided to construct a second nuclear power plant, Fukushima Daini, directly translated as “Fukushima Number 2.” The first units came online at Fukushima Daini in 1982, with a total of four reactors being built, the last coming online in 1986.

Both nuclear plants are located directly on the coast. Fukushi

(visit the link for the full news article)

In the worldwide rush to abandon nuclear power (the Swiss are the latest - www.bbc.co.uk...) have we forgotten that the problems from Fukushima #1 are not actually shared by every plant in the world??

And wher is the plan to replace the Gigawatts of nuclear power? Does anyone REALLY think that wind, etc., is going to be able to do so?

Derek Abbot argues that there are limits to how much nuclear power can be actually scaled up - see www.physorg.com... - he's talking about land area, scarece minerals used in plants & other limits on portential expansion.

For example he calculates that if the world ran 100% on nuclear power then there would have to be a new plant being commissioned somewhere in the world every day - but wtf actually expects the world to run 100% on nuclear power?? (assumes 15,000 plants at 1000Mw each, life of 50 years)

By the same logic if the world ran 100% on wind we'd need to be commisioning 1000 or so 1MW turbines every day, disposing of their old worn out bits & pieces, etc too.

It's just scaremongering using a nonsense scenario (supplying 100% of the world's electricity by nukes) to generate big scarey numbers.

here's some real scarey numbers that do not require invnting anything - Deaths per TWh by energy source (nextbigfuture.com...)

Energy Source Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average 161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

Why are we not screaming from the rooftops at all the people coal kills every single year??!!

depletedcranium.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Why are we not screaming from the rooftops at all the people coal kills every single year??!!

That's a valid question. One thing I learned from the Fukushima incident is that most people don't know squat about radiation and don't even realize that they are more likely to die from a coal plant than a nuclear plant, so they seem a little too eager to shut down all nuclear. So I agree with your point from that perspective, and thanks for reminding everyone of this fact.

The problems I have with nuclear are twofold really, and don't hinge so much on the death rate but on economics.
1. Nuclear waste. We still don't know how to dispose of it. No new nuclear plants should be allowed until this problem is solved. If we have to put nuclear waste on a rocket to the sun to properly dispose of it, then nuclear power isn't economical, and we should know that before we generate tons of it, not after. You could say it's water under the bridge except, the water is still coming every time they renew an operating license.

2. Insurance costs. Nuclear plants are underinsured. This means that we the people are the insurers and will end up footing huge bills in a disaster. Arnie Gunderson discusses the specifics of that issue in this video:

The Implications of the Fukushima Accident on the World's Operating Reactors
vimeo.com...

Here again, if the true costs were factored into the cost of nuclear power, I believe it's not economical. By not accounting for the cost of nuclear waste disposal and by not properly insuring nuclear plants against nuclear accidents, we have totally distorted economics related to nuclear power...and THAT is the problem in my view.

And it makes sense to put them next to the sea or close to earthquake fault lines? Where is the logic in this?

I agree we need nuclear energy for electrical power BUT common sense is necessary! Also it helps if you know wtf your doing BEFORE any major crisis. The japaneese were running around like idiots for weeks while uranium and plutonium rods were exposed and decaying out in the open due to cracks in the casing walls.

It took the IAEC about a week just to show up while everyone was busy listenting to how bad gadafhi was.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


the insurance thing is interesting - are you going from this recent report from AP - www.pittsburghlive.com... that says the risk is $11 Trillion?

If so the "Depleted Cranium" blogger has some argumetn with that too - see depletedcranium.com...

For example he thinks that $11 Trillion is just plucked out of thin air, and inflation adjusted it is more than the Marshall Plant to rebuild Germany after WW2 - ie it is more than the total worth of Germany!!

Plus why is that (possible) external cost not compared to the similar external cost of coal? How much damage is Coal doing every year that is not insured?

IMO nuclear waste is also overhyped - the treament of incidental lightly irradiated materials used in "nucelar activities" (rags, clthes, paper, medical equipment, etc) is laughable - such low level waste is the vast majority of "nuclear waste, contains little rdioactivity in the first place, and it invariably loses what it has in short order, yet it is required to be treated almost as carefully as high level wastes - it's a waste all right - of time and money.

Now I dont' actually agree withthe Depleted Cranium blogger on everything - not even everything to do with nuclear power - but I'm happy to be associated with him on this one - here's anothe one of his efforts related to nuclear waste - depletedcranium.com...

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Your hypocritical enough to make a big deal about global warming, yet you start a thread downplaying nuclear energy as though its nothing to worry about. Something is terribly wrong with you sir!

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Your hypocritical enough to make a big deal about global warming, yet you start a thread downplaying nuclear energy as though its nothing to worry about. Something is terribly wrong with you sir!

You are a moron.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me where I said nuclear energy was "nothing to worry about"?

all energy is something to worry about - my point is that nuclear energy comes in for some biased attitudes desptue being one of hte safest fiorms of energy on the planet.

What is hypocritical is applying costs to the nucelar industry that are not appleid to othe forms of energy - where is your concern over the toxic emissions of cyanide, mercury and other crap from coal plants??!!

And it contributes very little to global warming compared to coal - about which people apparently you care.

People like you are going to screw this planet with your mindless propagandaa against clean electricity! Already Germany is prmising to burn more fossil fuel to replace its nuclear eractors - does that make you feel better??

Anyway - the insurance of nuclear power is an interesting topic - there's a page on it by the industry itself at www.world-nuclear.org... that makes for interesting reading.

Originally posted by Arbingeteur
That's a valid question. One thing I learned from the Fukushima incident is that most people don't know squat about radiation and don't even realize that they are more likely to die from a coal plant than a nuclear plant, so they seem a little too eager to shut down all nuclear. So I agree with your point from that perspective, and thanks for reminding everyone of this fact.

People are more likely to die from a coal plant? I guess if they don't use scrubbers/filters...then yes its possible!

Everything to save a buck means people live a shorter lifespan and big business makes more money. Wow what a dreadful combination of weak goverment!

1. Nuclear waste. We still don't know how to dispose of it. No new nuclear plants should be allowed until this problem is solved. If we have to put nuclear waste on a rocket to the sun to properly dispose of it, then nuclear power isn't economical, and we should know that before we generate tons of it, not after. You could say it's water under the bridge except, the water is still coming every time they renew an operating license.

Actually they use a lot of military grade uranium and plutonium from decommissioned warheads to make fuel rods for electrical power generation. Once depleted they can use DU for tanks and projectiles or they can trasfer semi-depleted material to nuclear repositories for safe keeping.

2. Insurance costs. Nuclear plants are underinsured. This means that we the people are the insurers and will end up footing huge bills in a disaster. Arnie Gunderson discusses the specifics of that issue in this video:

Here again, if the true costs were factored into the cost of nuclear power, I believe it's not economical. By not accounting for the cost of nuclear waste disposal and by not properly insuring nuclear plants against nuclear accidents, we have totally distorted economics related to nuclear power...and THAT is the problem in my view.

edit on 25-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Perhaps the mandatory insurance premiums should be raised but this again points to government protecting big business in way of favorable legislation. Thats the problem I have with wwf, greenpeace and all kinds of green(eco-friendly) legislation. It looks cool on the surface but the little guy ends up footing the bill in a capitalist society.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
:
And it contributes very little to global warming compared to coal - about which people apparently you care.

There is very little proof that CO2 causes global warming and some people say the rising temperatures are a result of the sun swelling and becoming hotter. And did you forget the email scandals from that english university?

To be honest what really bothers me is the carbon monoxide choking smog in big cities where breathing becomes a difficult chore. And when its hot in the summer people who suffer from asthma can die from lack of clean air.

Buses, trucks, ships and everything else that burns diesel and coal.

nuclear power in its current incarnation got stuck in the 1950s, unfortunately, so we're suffering from high building cost, low fuel utilisation and a technological standstill which has completely eroded public confidence in nuclear systems.

most the problems usually associated with nuclear power exist, sure some are overblown, like the notion that nuclear waste was any deadlier on the longer run than f-ex. residue from mercury mining, but they need to be addressed in a technological manner. why you may ask? well, radioisotopes have various medical an and sensor related uses (off the top of my head) and there are kilotons of half used nuclear fuel that won't just magically go away on their own (at least not within a sensible timeframe...) so a useful breeder reactor design is an inevitable necessity.

search this forum for Thorium, LFTR, and oh yeah, this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

i don't think the world as a whole will abandon the most concentrated known source of energy and those who do, do so at their own peril.

a working breeder reactor can provide the neutrons necessary to even transmute long lived fission products if necessary (at a cost) and allow complete utilisation of fuel, ie. no more mining required. fuel consumption ~ 1 ton per GW and year (rather than megatons of coal)