Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power

I just found this article from March 2011. I've never heard what's been described as the worst nuclear accident in the world called a triumph for nuke power before. I'm not too sure what to think about this.

Lewis Page - The Register - 14th March 2011
Japan's nuclear powerplants have performed magnificently in the face of a disaster hugely greater than they were designed to withstand, remaining entirely safe throughout and sustaining only minor damage. The unfolding Fukushima story has enormously strengthened the case for advanced nations – including Japan – to build more nuclear powerplants, in the knowledge that no imaginable disaster can result in serious problems.

Here's his conclusion:

Now, where does that leave us?

• The plant is safe now and will stay safe.

• Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else.

• Some radiation was released when the pressure vessel was vented. All radioactive isotopes from the activated steam have gone (decayed). A very small amount of Cesium was released, as well as Iodine. If you were sitting on top of the plants’ chimney when they were venting, you should probably give up smoking to return to your former life expectancy. The Cesium and Iodine isotopes were carried out to the sea and will never be seen again.

• There was some limited damage to the first containment. That means that some amounts of radioactive Cesium and Iodine will also be released into the cooling water, but no Uranium or other nasty stuff (the Uranium oxide does not “dissolve” in the water). There are facilities for treating the cooling water inside the third containment. The radioactive Cesium and Iodine will be removed there and eventually stored as radioactive waste in terminal storage.

• The seawater used as cooling water will be activated to some degree. Because the control rods are fully inserted, the Uranium chain reaction is not happening. That means the “main” nuclear reaction is not happening, thus not contributing to the activation. The intermediate radioactive materials (Cesium and Iodine) are also almost gone at this stage, because the Uranium decay was stopped a long time ago. This further reduces the activation. The bottom line is that there will be some low level of activation of the seawater, which will also be removed by the treatment facilities.

• The seawater will then be replaced over time with the “normal” cooling water

• The reactor core will then be dismantled and transported to a processing facility, just like during a regular fuel change.

• Fuel rods and the entire plant will be checked for potential damage. This will take about 4-5 years.
The safety systems on all Japanese plants will be upgraded to withstand a 9.0 earthquake and tsunami (or worse)

• I believe the most significant problem will be a prolonged power shortage. About half of Japan’s nuclear reactors will probably have to be inspected, reducing the nation’s power generating capacity by 15%. This will probably be covered by running gas power plants that are usually only used for peak loads to cover some of the base load as well. That will increase your electricity bill, as well as lead to potential power shortages during peak demand, in Japan.

What do you guys think?

reply to post by dug88


I guess because they didn't explode in a mushroom cloud it's a sucess. Yipee -

dug88
What do you guys think?

The earthquake was on the afternoon of the 11th, and that report is dated only a few days later on the 14th.

I think its merely a case of not knowing then what we know now.

Edit ----
I just did a search for what else that reporter has written more recently, thinking that in the light of new information that he would now be writing articles describing more of the reality.

But no.

Lewis Page seems to be on a personal mission to let everyone know that there is no danger, that nuclear power is safe, all is ok and that if there are any problems, then you are to blame.

Actually, the kind of stuff he writes, one could make a new thread for each of them on ATS.

Japan is looking at an INES Level 4 Accident: Nuclear accident with local consequences. That is bad for the company that owns the plant, but not for anyone else.

Not bad for anyone else??? This guy is living in a self-created fairy tale. This is a level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, but in reality it's actually 3 level 7 events that just occurred at the same site.

My advice: Steer clear of the tuna fish...

Case closed.

reply to post by dug88


Contrast that article with this one from today:

www.truth-out.org...

HW: You should be terrified. It's a mind-boggling situation at Fukushima. This is my 40th year fighting nuclear power, I hate to say it, back when [we] coined the phrase "No Nukes" in 1973. All the years we've been dealing with nuclear power, no one ever talked about three simultaneous meltdowns and four explosions at a single reactor site.
This is not a Soviet reactor situation, these are General Electric reactors. There are two dozen in the United States virtually identical to Fukushima.

And it gets worse. This fuel removal could be horrendous - 18 months if everything goes well. Read the article.

I'm getting reports from the Pacific that I can only refer to as apocalyptic: Major dead zones, radiation being detected all over the place. Radiation in even small doses, cesium, strontium, iodine, will bio-accumulate. If you get a relatively small dose into some seaweed, fish will come; they will eat enough seaweed that it will be significant; they will be eaten up the food chain; we're at the top of the food chain: this is very, very serious.

I believe we got better information from the Soviet Union about Chernobyl than we're getting from TEPCO and the Japanese about Fukushima.

I remember that Days very well and you need to remember
that it was not Fukushima Daiichi NPS alone,
we "expected Disasters" in:
Tokai, Daiichi, Daini, Onagawa and afair Hammaoka NPS, (Ca. 20 Nuclear Cores)
that it is only "a Accident" with 3 molten Reactor is in a Way a success
but the Price we estimated in the first moments would be a catastrophe!

The Article itself is very Yellow!

reply to post by dug88


Nuclear power industry shill...pure and very simple.

Not a lot more to say, except this demonstrates very clearly the levels of not only blatant propaganda in favour of the nuclear power industry (who are always trying to tell us all just how safe nuclear power stations are...!), but propaganda that is absolutely, mind-numbingly stupid.

reply to post by alfa1


Well hes now the editor of the Register:

Full time staff hack job at the Reg has now turned into being the editor and running the show...

lewispage.blogspot.com.au...

His qualifications as an expert on radiation:

Armed Forces Career:

University Air Squadron, RAF 1988-91

Royal Navy officer 1993-2004
Navigator, HMS Quorn 1994-96
Long Mine Clearance Diving Officer course 1996-97
Ops Officer, HMS Middleton 1997-98
All-arms Commando course 1997
Executive Officer, HMS Bridport 1998-01
Officer in Charge, Southern Diving Unit One 2001-04
Joint Improvised Explosive Device Disposal No. 1 Operator course 2001
Education:

Cambridge University (Engineering degree 1988-91, St John's College)
Islington Green Comprehensive

I dont think I'll be buying his book

ETA: Who refers to their qualifications as "Engineering degree"? Wouldnt you specify? Bachelor of... Master of... I dont think he's a real person. Another journalist "duck".


2nd ETA: St Johns college of Cambridge do indeed offer Engineering:

All these courses involve a total of four years study for the BA and MEng degrees*. Provided that the appropriate specialist options are followed in the third and fourth year...
*second class Honours at the end of years two or three are a University requirement for entry to the fourth year and MEng degree.

Riiiiight--so someone with Honours with their undergrad who then goes on to the Masters programme, fails to mention his degree is a Masters, and omits any mention of his undergrad... All within 3 years??

A success, in my mind, would be if the plants sustained no damage at all. By the way, the Fukushima plants were not not built to withstand point 9 earthquakes and that's what hit in 2011.

A successful nuclear plant to me would be one where it can shut itself down during an emergency or other situations...period.

Shutdown systems

All nuclear reactors in Canada have two independent, fast-acting and equally effective shutdown systems.

The first shutdown system is made up of rods that drop automatically and stop the chain reaction if something irregular is detected.

The second system injects a liquid, or poison, inside the reactor to immediately stop the chain reaction.

Both systems work without power or operator intervention. However, they can also be manually activated.

These systems are regularly and safely tested.

nuclearsafety.gc.ca...

InTheLight
A success, in my mind, would be if the plants sustained no damage at all. By the way, the Fukushima plants were not not built to withstand point 9 earthquakes and that's what hit in 2011.

A successful nuclear plant to me would be one where it can shut itself down during an emergency or other situations...period.

See this is where we differ. To me there is no "successful nuclear plant", the are systems with inherit flaws. One of those flaws being melt-down.

A properly designed system would have no flaws--but yu nuke proponents insist on murdering us all.

Thank you for your support of our collective demise.

cartenz

InTheLight
A success, in my mind, would be if the plants sustained no damage at all. By the way, the Fukushima plants were not not built to withstand point 9 earthquakes and that's what hit in 2011.

A successful nuclear plant to me would be one where it can shut itself down during an emergency or other situations...period.

See this is where we differ. To me there is no "successful nuclear plant", the are systems with inherit flaws. One of those flaws being melt-down.

A properly designed system would have no flaws--but yu nuke proponents insist on murdering us all.

Thank you for your support of our collective demise.

I didn't say I was for nukes, actually I am against them, but let's face facts they are not going away any time soon, if ever, so the reasonable attitude to take is to adopt better safety designs and protocols. Thank you for your assumptions.

reply to post by InTheLight


It's not assumptions when I am taking a natural language assessment of that you have written; I even emphasised in bold said text as to highlight your agenda.

Being a nuclear apologist does not make you evil; Pretending you're not does.

cartenz
reply to post by InTheLight

 

It's not assumptions when I am taking a natural language assessment of that you have written; I even emphasised in bold said text as to highlight your agenda.

Being a nuclear apologist does not make you evil; Pretending you're not does.

Your natural language assessment is for the birds...but you are free to read whatever assumptions you wish. Now back to reality.

reply to post by InTheLight


"...for the birds..."

Being that you mentioned Canada's nuke plants, Im going to fly with my assumptions and say that is where you are from...

Given that, you would therefore live in a "common law" country, so my "natural language" assessment of your post is the same "natural language" that would scrutinise you in HM court. Does your discourse not adhere to the natural language meanings in LAW??

But yet you try argue semantics without addressing the issue at hand; You mention "safe" nuclear plants. How can this be aligned with an anti-nuclear stance?

cartenz
reply to post by InTheLight

 

"...for the birds..."

Being that you mentioned Canada's nuke plants, Im going to fly with my assumptions and say that is where you are from...

Given that, you would therefore live in a "common law" country, so my "natural language" assessment of your post is the same "natural language" that would scrutinise you in HM court. Does your discourse not adhere to the natural language meanings in LAW??

But yet you try argue semantics without addressing the issue at hand; You mention "safe" nuclear plants. How can this be aligned with an anti-nuclear stance?

As I explained in my previous post, the part which you did not bold in your subsequent post or not notice at all, nuclear power is here to stay and if you can't accept that fact then you are in a pitiable position. My position/stance at this point is to hope TPTB design future plants, and decommission older plants, with safety being foremost on their agenda.

"Because SMRs are newer, they probably will be safer than the current generation of reactors in the same way that a 2013 Ford is safer than a 1973 Ford," said Michael Mariotte, the executive director of the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an antinuclear organization. "But there could be other safety concerns.... For example, some companies have been talking about cutting costs by using just one control room to run five to six reactors," he said. "When you get to the root cause of nuclear accidents, it's almost always due to human error, and if you have fewer people watching the reactors, there's a greater chance of problems."

www.nationaljournal.com...

reply to post by InTheLight

As I explained in my previous post, the part which you did not bold in your subsequent post or not notice at all, nuclear power is here to stay and if you can't accept that fact then you are in a pitiable position. My position/stance at this point is to hope TPTB design future plants, and decommission older plants, with safety being foremost on their agenda.

Here to stay? You do realise that some of us developed nations manage just fine without nuclear power? Germany even went to the lengths of committing to a nuke-free energy sector?...

Na, you didnt know that because you are to busy trolling us. Go back whence you came troll!

ETA: From the article you linked:

First, there's the economic argument. SMRs would be cheaper than conventional reactors simply because they're smaller

Awesome logic.

cartenz
reply to post by InTheLight

 

As I explained in my previous post, the part which you did not bold in your subsequent post or not notice at all, nuclear power is here to stay and if you can't accept that fact then you are in a pitiable position. My position/stance at this point is to hope TPTB design future plants, and decommission older plants, with safety being foremost on their agenda.

Here to stay? You do realise that some of us developed nations manage just fine without nuclear power? Germany even went to the lengths of committing to a nuke-free energy sector?...

Na, you didnt know that because you are to busy trolling us. Go back whence you came troll!

Well, you can't say that for the U.S., Canada nor China. I do realize you must interject insults but I forgive you because of your not being able to recognize your weak position, nor the reality of the future of nuclear power.

Pro-Nuke-Moron

...

Well, you can't say that for the U.S., Canada nor China. I do realize you must interject insults but I forgive you because of your not being able to recognize your weak position, nor the reality of the future of nuclear power.

Whos weak position? I dont get overtime to post here?. The reality of nuclear power? really? still going on about that? We're fine here in Australia without nuclear, and if you want to buy yellow-cake off us well I guess its all for the economy right?

The fact is, and no amount of spin can deny it: Fukushima is the ELE that will end us all.

Be the boiling frog.

reply to post by InTheLight


Regarding the big Quake at the 3/11

Seismic Construction Standards. The Fukushima 1 Daiichi plants were built to withstand peak ground acceleration of 0.18 g's. At the earthquake epicenter at a distance 110 miles away, peak ground acceleration reached 0.35 g's. Peak acceleration at the plants has not been reported.
----

At the Daini plant, ground accelerations ranged from 186 gal in the vertical plane at unit 1 to 277 gal from north to south at unit 3, as recorded by sensors in the reactor building foundation. The range of design basis figures is a spread from 415 gal to 512 gal.

At Daiichi there is still no data for units 1, 2 and 5, but available figures put the maximum acceleration as 507 gal from east to west at unit 3. The design basis for this was 441 gal. Other readings were below design basis, although east-west readings at unit 6 of 431 gal approached the design basis of 448 gal.

Fault zone acceleration. The world's biggest nuclear power plant had been built on an earthquake fault line that generated three times as much as seismic acceleration, or 606 gals, as it was designed to withstand, the utility said. One gal, a measure of shock effect, represents acceleration of 1 centimeter (0.4 inch) per square second.

Just the additional Info:
Source

cartenz

Pro-Nuke-Moron

...

Well, you can't say that for the U.S., Canada nor China. I do realize you must interject insults but I forgive you because of your not being able to recognize your weak position, nor the reality of the future of nuclear power.

Whos weak position? I dont get overtime to post here?. The reality of nuclear power? really? still going on about that? We're fine here in Australia without nuclear, and if you want to buy yellow-cake off us well I guess its all for the economy right?

The fact is, and no amount of spin can deny it: Fukushima is the ELE that will end us all.

Be the boiling frog.

Well, so far so good at Fukushima at damage control...let's hope for the best because that's all we can do at this point.