|
0 members (),
49
guests, and
24
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
 Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595 |
Germany set to abandon nuclear power for good Interesting article. A 40 year-old reactor (Vernon, VT), the same design as the one in Japan, was given a 20-year extension about a week before the earthquake.
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 583
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 583 |
In recent years, nuclear energy has been touted in some quarters as green. Interest was reviving, even in the US, where we have not seen a new plant since Three Mile Island. However, the real reason that no one has built a nuclear power plant in the US is cost. That and Fukashima will kill nuclear power in the US for a while. However, with oil production peaking and going into permanent decline, nuclear power will eventually look cost-effective again. Will Fukashima be forgotten by then?
Last edited by AlanK; 03/24/11 07:31 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595 |
Will Fukashima be forgotten by then? I doubt it. Even as technology makes nuclear plants "safer", the industry has low credibility in terms of safety and disclosures of accidents/incidents. Not just in the US, but Japan and elsewhere. As an example - the plant in Vernon released a video a few months back - while awaiting a renewal of its license - the video said, in effect "We know we lied to you in the past, but please trust us that we'll do better in the future". It would be like Faux News saying - "No, really that last piece was legit. We didn't make up or omit critical facts/slant it in any way" - how many of us would say "Oh, OK, this time I believe them". A thoughtful person once wrote "Be impeccable with your word". That applies to humans as well as other entities. Once credibility is lost, it's very difficult to restore it.
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256 Likes: 2
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,256 Likes: 2 |
Interest was reviving, even in the US, where we have not seen a new plant since Three Mile Island. Alan, I've read that basic sentence a lot recently, but I'm not sure what the media's definition is for a "new nuclear plant". I suspect it probably applies to permitting, and not necessarily construction, since the first two reactors of Plant Vogtle here in Georgia came on line in 1987 and 1989, several years after TMI. Additionally, according to Wikipedia, units 3 & 4 are to be "the first agreement for new nuclear development (in the US) since Three Mile Island." In 2009, the NRC issued an Early Site Permit and Limited Work Authorization, and construction has been underway for two years. It'll be interesting to watch how/if Fukashima affects this. Wiki article here . Excerpt: On April 9, 2008, Georgia Power Company reached a contract agreement for two AP1000 reactors designed by Westinghouse (owned by Toshiba) and the Shaw Group. The contract represents the first agreement for new nuclear development since the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, and received approval from the Georgia Public Service Commission on March 17, 2009. As stated by a Georgia Power spokesperson Carol Boatright: "If the PSC approves, we are going forward with the new units." On August 26, 2009 the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued an Early Site Permit and a Limited Work Authorization. Construction activities have begun.
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 583
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 583 |
Here is a decent article. The media are generally correct in reporting that no U.S. nuclear power plant had been authorized to begin construction since the year before TMI. According to the IAEA, the Three Mile Island accident was a significant turning point in the global development of nuclear power. From 1963-1979, the number of reactors under construction globally increased every year except 1971 and 1978. However, following the event, the number of reactors under construction in the U.S. declined every year from 1980 to 1998. Many similar Babcock and Wilcox reactors on order were canceled — in total, 51 American nuclear reactors were canceled from 1980-1984.
The 1979 TMI accident did not, however, initiate the demise of the U.S. nuclear power industry. As a result of post-oil-shock analysis and conclusions of overcapacity, 40 planned nuclear power plants had already been canceled between 1973 and 1979. No U.S. nuclear power plant had been authorized to begin construction since the year before TMI. Nonetheless, at the time of the TMI incident, 129 nuclear power plants had been approved; of those, only 53 (which were not already operating) were completed. Federal requirements became more stringent, local opposition became more strident, and construction times were significantly lengthened to correct safety issues and design deficiencies.
Globally, the cessation of increase in nuclear power plant construction came with the more catastrophic Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595 |
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251 Likes: 1
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251 Likes: 1 |
Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572 |
George Monbiot had an interesting take on this. If Fukishima is obsolete/inferior design/construction, and a Richter 9 EQ is as bad as it gets, this is the worst case scenario for natural disaster at a nuke. If this is as bad as it is likely to get, vulnerabiity to natural disaster is no reason not to support nuke development. In fact the opposite is true: it has a superior safety record vis a vis natural forces as compared with any other energy source.
Monbiot's argument, not mine, but not easy to refute, if you consider that Chernobyl and TMI were both pilot error events.
Wherever you go, there you are. SPOTMe!
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 583
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 583 |
George Monbiot had an interesting take on this. If Fukishima is obsolete/inferior design/construction, and a Richter 9 EQ is as bad as it gets, this is the worst case scenario for natural disaster at a nuke. If this is as bad as it is likely to get, vulnerabiity to natural disaster is no reason not to support nuke development. In fact the opposite is true: it has a superior safety record vis a vis natural forces as compared with any other energy source.
Monbiot's argument, not mine, but not easy to refute, if you consider that Chernobyl and TMI were both pilot error events. I have had similar thoughts. Of course, the spent fuel problem and the fact that one cannot permanently wish away operator error leave plenty to worry about. But, dealing with this argument, I think it is hubris to argue that this is the worst that nature can do. I don't expect much bigger earthquakes, but I would love to hear from experts how the experience at the Fukushima plant really ranked in terms of ground shaking, tsunami magnitude, etc. Maybe it's as bad as it gets, maybe not.
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595 |
Apparently one of the big issues facing nuclear power plants is keeping the reactors cool, and this is a factor regardless of age/design. From articles I've read, plants are required to have 8 hours of battery backup for cooling, but there's concern that this may be inadequate. I won't be surprised to see additions/modifications made to plants in the US as result of seeing how difficult it is to contain a plant after a sustained outage. Any number of severe weather events, earthquakes, operator accidents, etc could impact a plant, requiring emergency cooling for weeks/months on end until a complete shutdown could occur.
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572
|
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,572 |
AlanK: Very thoughtful comment. But. Hubris? Ok, quantum theory tells us that there is a non-zero probability of say a black hole emerging at the reactor core at Vermont Yankee at any given moment, and a somewhat greater probability of a pyroclastic event at the same spot (see, e.g. Paricutin, 1943). But a plausible, realistic worse case other than a Richter 9 seismic event? If anything, its the antithesis of hubris to admit I can't come come up with one.
Last edited by saltydog; 04/04/11 06:10 AM.
Wherever you go, there you are. SPOTMe!
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251 Likes: 1
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,251 Likes: 1 |
A 5Km asteroid could hit a plant. There are around 60 or so craters on the Earth, up to hundreds of Km wide. If one were to hit Fukushima, though, that would be the least of our worries.
Verum audaces non gerunt indusia alba. - Ipsi dixit MCMLXXII
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 583
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 583 |
AlanK: Very thoughtful comment. But. Hubris? Ok, quantum theory tells us that there is a non-zero probability of say a black hole emerging at the reactor core at Vermont Yankee at any given moment, and a somewhat greater probability of a pyroclastic event at the same spot (see, e.g. Paricutin, 1943). But a plausible, realistic worse case other than a Richter 9 seismic event? If anything, its the antithesis of hubris to admit I can't come come up with one. I was aiming the hubris comment at George Monbiot, not you. But you inspired me to go read some of his commentary on the subject. I found a lot to like in it. He is attracting criticism, of course, but I would not use "hubris" to describe his thinking.
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595
|
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 595 |
I'm going to wait for the 5Km asteroid to hit a plant. 
|
|
|
Re: Japan EQ
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 558 |
I wish a 5K asteroid would hit the moon on a nice clear night. Nice show.
|
|
|
|
|
