Just In: Blackout at Fukushima Daiichi — Cooling at fuel pools stopped, all power’s been down 3h

page: 9
128
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Afterthought
 


No, my rebuttal is that like coal plants, they're a necessary evil. Coal plants keep costs down, but pump out hundreds of tons of radiation into an area around them. Nuclear plants have the potential for a Chernobyl type accident, but are more efficient, don't require large amounts of fuel to be pumped into them, don't spew the waste that a coal plant does, but leave tons of radioactive waste behind that has to be stored safely. They're both horrible choices, but living downwind of a nuclear plant that operates normally during its lifetime doesn't have the higher risk of cancer and other illnesses that coal does.

I'd love to see them both go away for something better, but right now, there's not a better choice than either of them. Solar and wind require huge areas to produce small amounts of power. Hydro is better, but not everywhere can have a hydropower plant. Our choices are limited in what we have, and both are necessary evils right now.


I hate to say this but but
I agree with the above post 100% I will add that I feel at least for us here in Canada the way to go is Natural gas plants as we have gas coming out of our ying yang and then some.

Star

Regards, Iwinder




posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Have you ever studied what comes out of a coal plant? Normal operations of a "clean" coal plant are almost as bad over its lifetime.

Across the US 1.7 billion tons of CO2, a typical individual plant emits 3.5 million tons of CO2. Sulfur Dioxide, even with emissions controls, 7,000 tons of SO2. 3,300 tons of NOx per year. Mercury, up to 170 pounds from an uncontrolled plant. An ACI plant would stop 90% of that, but only 8% of US coal plants are ACI.


114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium. Baghouses can reduce heavy metal emissions by up to 90 percent3.

720 tons of carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.

220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

www.ucsusa.org...

The top 10 mercury releasing plants in the US released between 683 lbs, to over 1500 lbs of mercury in 2011. Of those, seven of them increased or showed no change from 2010.
www.environmentalleader.com...

In 2012, SO2 levels were down to only 3.3 million tons release, and NOx levels were down to only 1.7 million tons released. Wow, they're doing great. In fact states have started suing over environmental rules that would require coal plants to install new emissions controls.

So yes, while nuclear is a Bad Thing, coal is worse, but both are a necessary evil.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
Being Japan....I'm still waiting for Voltron-like robots to swoop in and clean it all up.

Or maybe we can send this guy to help...

edit on 18-3-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by CommanderCraCra
 


The problem with Helium 3 mining is that it requires going back to the moon. The standard response to just about anything space related is "Why are we going out there, when we have so many problems here?" So while it would be a great thing, and do wonders for us down here, it's a long term project, and most people want to see immediate results.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Hydrogen power plants can't be built in certain areas? You mean like how nuclear power plants shouldn't be built where three fault lines converge?
I think your logic is flawed. I don't know much about the weather in Japan, but something tells me that this area would've been better suited for a combo of wind and solar power.

This article from 2009 might interest you:
"First Hydrogen Power Plant in Italy"
www.alternative-energy-news.info...

This hydrogen power plant is an off shoot of the Environment and Innovation Project known as Hydrogen Park. 7.4 billion euros will be assigned for the whole project by 2012. Another 40 million euro plant will be established on the line of Enel’s existing coal-fired power station in Fusina. It will have an investment of 4 million euros from the local Veneto region. According to Enel this power plant will save the emission of more than 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. This power plant has a capacity of 12 megawatt and burns hydrogen gas in a turbine developed in partnership with General Electric.

We know that the only byproducts of the hydrogen fuel burning process are hot air and water vapor. These two are used to produce steam. This steam can be utilized by a coal-fired plant to produce another potential four megawatts of energy.


Some sources are reporting that a build up of hydrogen caused the Fukushima disaster, but one can easily see that hydrogen by itself when not combined with nuclear energy wouldn't lead to such dire consequences.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Hydro, as in Hydrodynamic. Not everywhere has an area that can have a dam built, to put the turbines in to provide the power.

Wind and solar aren't efficient enough. The average power is 11-15% efficient. That means huge panel farms. I've seen some out in California that stretch for miles. The most efficient on the market is 19%, but they've made them in a lab up to 40%. Wind also means large areas of land and only produces power between 10 and 33 mph.

Japan barely has enough room for its population, farms, and power plants as it is. They can't afford to have huge tracts of land taken up by solar and wind power farms.
edit on 3/18/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

I believe we're more innovative and could get around the need for a dam.
Just looking at all the tons of water that's moved through water parks just to entertain people blows your comment out of the water. Pun intended.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Have you ever studied what comes out of a coal plant? Normal operations of a "clean" coal plant are almost as bad over its lifetime.

Across the US 1.7 billion tons of CO2, a typical individual plant emits 3.5 million tons of CO2. Sulfur Dioxide, even with emissions controls, 7,000 tons of SO2. 3,300 tons of NOx per year. Mercury, up to 170 pounds from an uncontrolled plant. An ACI plant would stop 90% of that, but only 8% of US coal plants are ACI.


114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium. Baghouses can reduce heavy metal emissions by up to 90 percent3.

720 tons of carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.

220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

www.ucsusa.org...

The top 10 mercury releasing plants in the US released between 683 lbs, to over 1500 lbs of mercury in 2011. Of those, seven of them increased or showed no change from 2010.
www.environmentalleader.com...

In 2012, SO2 levels were down to only 3.3 million tons release, and NOx levels were down to only 1.7 million tons released. Wow, they're doing great. In fact states have started suing over environmental rules that would require coal plants to install new emissions controls.

So yes, while nuclear is a Bad Thing, coal is worse, but both are a necessary evil.


Yes I live in the Ohio valley of death if you will so I have a good idea of how bad coal is but a melt down or partial take your pick scares the crap out of me and rightly so.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Have you ever studied what comes out of a coal plant? Normal operations of a "clean" coal plant are almost as bad over its lifetime.

Across the US 1.7 billion tons of CO2, a typical individual plant emits 3.5 million tons of CO2. Sulfur Dioxide, even with emissions controls, 7,000 tons of SO2. 3,300 tons of NOx per year. Mercury, up to 170 pounds from an uncontrolled plant. An ACI plant would stop 90% of that, but only 8% of US coal plants are ACI.


114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, other toxic heavy metals, and trace amounts of uranium. Baghouses can reduce heavy metal emissions by up to 90 percent3.

720 tons of carbon monoxide, which causes headaches and places additional stress on people with heart disease.

220 tons of hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds (VOC), which form ozone.

225 pounds of arsenic, which will cause cancer in one out of 100 people who drink water containing 50 parts per billion.

www.ucsusa.org...

The top 10 mercury releasing plants in the US released between 683 lbs, to over 1500 lbs of mercury in 2011. Of those, seven of them increased or showed no change from 2010.
www.environmentalleader.com...

In 2012, SO2 levels were down to only 3.3 million tons release, and NOx levels were down to only 1.7 million tons released. Wow, they're doing great. In fact states have started suing over environmental rules that would require coal plants to install new emissions controls.

So yes, while nuclear is a Bad Thing, coal is worse, but both are a necessary evil.


Yes I live in the Ohio valley of death if you will so I have a good idea of how bad coal is but a melt down or partial take your pick scares the crap out of me and rightly so.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You can lift the rods out, and expose them for a short time. The rods in reactor 4 are spent cooling rods, which can be contained in casks. They aren't as active as a "normal" fuel rod. Spent fuel rods can no longer maintain the reaction required for use in a reactor. You have to lift spent fuel rods out to both transport them to a holding tank, and to put them in a cask that is used to store them for disposal.

All the fuel that had ever been exposed in the reactors at Fukushima were being stored in the fuel pools when the Earthquake and Tsunami hit. That is because they still to this day have not worked out a better place to store spent fuel from GE BWR's. In some cases the fuel rods are still both nuclear and thermally "hot". Removing them from the storage pools in the reactor buildings at the Fukushima site is not possible until they cool to a temperature that will not precipitate reheating once removed from the pool. This can take years. Longer in this situation.

Nobody ever thought this kind of scenario would ever take place so there was no perceived threat. Hindsight is a bitch isn't it?

The enormous hoist cranes in the buildings were damaged by the subsequent explosions and now useless as far as removing "cooled down" fuel from the pools to any kind of conveyance to whatever storage facility they didn't have ready for them in the first place...

Most of the work being done in the reactor buildings is focused on maintaining cooling apparatus for the remaining pools that contain the still hot fuel and rebuilding the ability to remove the fuel rods once they are cool enough to transport. That is a mega mission considering worker exposure from any other radiation releases from the ongoing underground mass of melted cores.

Maintaining the fuel pool cooling is the priority. It can't be allowed to get out of hand. Word that power to run the pumps that do that is out is worrisome until we hear that it has been restored. The sooner the better.

Tepco did not report this by the way, the information leaked out is my understanding. They didn't tell us that power was out, do you think they will lie about it being restored? They have never been open and forthcoming about this whole thing anyway, in my opinion.

The only way I will believe that nothing new and serious has occurred at the plant is if no new footage surfaces showing another monster cloud of white emissions coming from one of the buildings filmed from 50 miles away by a grainy webcam.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


It comes down to cost. A waterpark recycles almost all of that water, and takes in enough money to make it worth their time to operate. Have you heard about the water fights over the farms out west? Those fights are getting brutal. People really don't like to have the water they think is essential for their life to be redirected.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Iwinder
 


You mean like after Chernobyl, which had 6 times the initial release of Fukushima?


Greetings:

Don't suppose you have a shred of information to back that statement, do you?

We would be willing to discuss this with you, if you can come back with any evidence to back your statement.

Yes, this is calling you out, and it's about time you stick to the facts and provide evidence to back your absurd statement, if you can.

Thank you for your time, consideration and participation and we look forward to your timely response.

Most sincerely,

[color=magenta]Peace Love Light
tfw
[color=magenta]Liberty & Equality or Revolution



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

I believe we're more innovative and could get around the need for a dam.
Just looking at all the tons of water that's moved through water parks just to entertain people blows your comment out of the water. Pun intended.


You understand that it takes POWER to get that water to the water parks, right? And power to cycles it through, right? And power to recycle it, right?

edit on 18-3-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

So one can't combine wind farms with any other type of farming such as cows or chickens or veggies? I had no idea that the land below the turbines had to remain barren. I know that the turbines are a major threat to birds...
Also, you don't need a farm for solar power. Each home can easily have its own panels and containment unit.
edit on 18-3-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


A meltdown is a Very Bad Thing, but honestly, look at how many have happened over the course of nuclear power plants (even counting military uses of nuclear power). Chernobyl was human error (a chain of stupid events that never should have happened in the first place). A coal plant puts that out every single day, regardless of whether someone screws up or not. I'll take my chances on nuclear until something better comes along.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

So one can't combine wind farms with any other type of farming such as cows or chickens or veggies? I had no idea that the land below the turbines had to remain barren. I know that the turbines are a major threat to birds...
Also, you don't need a farm for solar power. Each home can easily have its own panels and containment unit.
edit on 18-3-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)


And now your talking. If we approached our power grid from a standpoint of individual units, as opposed to a large grid, we could deal with a lot of these issues.

But theres not a lot of money in self-sustaining homes, as far as the big corporations are concerned, so its likely that wont happen.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

I believe we're more innovative and could get around the need for a dam.
Just looking at all the tons of water that's moved through water parks just to entertain people blows your comment out of the water. Pun intended.


You understand that it takes POWER to get that water to the water parks, right?



I never said I was an engineer. I'm just brainstorming and throwing ideas out there. There are ways of moving water without electricity.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by CommanderCraCra
 


Why do we need to wait? It's been a long enough time for the cancers to have developed. Maybe if you care to check it out, look for some pictures around Chernobyl. Incredible growth for such an irradiated area. Don't ya think?


Plants are known to show excessive growth in response to radioactivity.

And, plant and animal life has taken over the exclusion zone because there are no people there. No one is there to trim bushes, or cut the grass, or what not.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
For a while nothing about this came up, but I found this article in English:

Power Blackout Interrupts Cooling

It is interesting, because I was trying to figure out if the power was going to come back on, or if it has already, and couldn't find anything about that. Wouldn't that be an important part of the news coverage?

Does anyone know when the power is coming back on?
edit on 18-3-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thorfourwinds
 




Using fresh evidence on the severity of the nuclear disaster, NISA now estimates the total amount of radiation released into the atmosphere in the first week of the crisis was 770,000 terabecquerels.

The agency previously estimated that about 370,000 terabecquerels of radioactive material were released during the period.
The latest radiation figure was still only about 10 per cent of the radiation released from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, the safety agency said.

www.dailymail.co.uk...


The operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, said the meltdowns it believes took place at three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi plant released about 900,000 terabecquerels of radioactive substances into the air during March 2011. The accident, which followed an earthquake and a tsunami, occurred on March 11.

Source


The IAEA International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (INSAG) issued in 1986 its summary report (IA86a) based on the information presented by the Soviet scientists to the Post-Accident Review Meeting. At that time, it was estimated that 1 to 2 exabecquerels (EBq) were released. This did not include the noble gases, and had an estimated error of ±50%. These estimates of the source term were based solely on the estimated deposition of radionuclides on the territory of the Soviet Union, and could not take into account deposition in Europe and elsewhere, as the data were not then available.

However, more deposition data (Be90) were available when, in their 1988 Report (UN88), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) gave release figures based not only on the Soviet data, but also on worldwide deposition. The total 137Cs release was estimated to be 70 petabecquerels (PBq) of which 31 PBq were deposited in the Soviet Union.


1 petabecquerel is equal to 1000 terabecquerels.






top topics



 
128
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join