At MOHANADHASSAN….
-
What, really? It’s called a natural disaster for a reason.
-
I heard a top secret experimental butterfly flapped it’s wings in France provoking mass shoe throwing demonstrations in Egypt which reverberated throughout the middle east and eventually resulted in a quake and tsunami in Japan. It’s true.
Before you question this, you should be aware that I apprenticed in mechanical engineering and then spent twelve years travelling around the globe as an engineer with TRW. I’ve worked with automotive firms such as Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Peugeot, Volvo, BMW as well as many plant and control firms the likes of siemens, fanuc, hoffman, wavis, cincinnati, becker etc, etc. I might be younger than ST but I still know some #$%%.
You will respect my authority. -
Sad enough for me to see all that destruction and pain caused by the Quake and the Tsunami !
What I was tryin to say in the previous post is:
The consequences due to the lack of resposibility in natural regards is and always was a problem in this world.
Cause profitability has always main priority.
The risks of running such a unreckonable force like a nuclear
powerplant was always well known and to place it in an area of incalculable tectonical movement was more than risky.
But no matter of geographical issues my oppinion is
It can happen all over the word… anytime… anywhere and it was only a matter of time…The horrid result is what we see right now.
Sad… Very sad !!! My best wishes go to those who are suffering. -
I’m French and I think japanes are in a bad situation, if one reactor core explods, that’s not Tchernobyl, not the two atomsbomb of the end of the last world war. It will be 100 time this three events, so…. Ouch!!! It will be a massacre! The chaos is at the door of this country!
By the way French peoples argue the nuclear energy, but it’s not the same thing, we have good geologic position and our security is maximum. So French peoples has no reason to think about a nuclear explosion in France. We can’t made a comparison.
-
The case of Japan is extreme. A 9.0 earthquake is nearly unheard of; they couldn’t have possibly planned for it. On top of that, the quake itself did not in fact damage the plants, it’s the later tsunami that caused the wreckage by destroying the auxiliary generators. This is in fact proof that Japan was very, very well prepared. Remember the Richter scale is logarithmic; a 9.0 earthquake is 100 times stronger than a 7.0 one. You can be absolutely certain they’ll be making bulletproof tsunami protections in the next couple of years so that this does not happen again.
The nuclear power plant is in a critical situation, but it won’t make a new Chernobyl. Chernobyl was a man-made disaster that involved some painfully incompetent management. This involves nuclear engineers from one of the top countries in the world; there’s just no comparison possible.
Honestly, the sole thing I’ll agree upon is that those plants should all be decommissioned and their fuel disposed. They need to be replaced by modern technologies that are vastly more efficient, powerful and safe.
-
Freestalker.fr wrote:
I’m French and I think japanes are in a bad situation, if one reactor core explods, that’s not Tchernobyl, not the two atomsbomb of the end of the last world war. It will be 100 time this three events, so…. Ouch!!! It will be a massacre! The chaos is at the door of this country!By the way French peoples argue the nuclear energy, but it’s not the same thing, we have good geologic position and our security is maximum. So French peoples has no reason to think about a nuclear explosion in France. We can’t made a comparison.
French:
Sur la grande faille active de Nimes, à Marcoule, le réacteur Phénix est remis en route……
…
en remettant en route à grand frais, un vieux réacteur qui na jamais pu fonctionner durablement sans ennuis de toutes sortes, et ce, dans une zone de sismicité importante.Translation:
On the main active fault in Nimes, at Marcoule, the PHOENIX reactor is restarted …
…
by restarting it at great cost, an old reactor that has never been able to operate for long without any kind of trouble, and this, in an area of significant seismicity.link: http://www.dissident-media.org/infonucleaire/phenix.html
So in France, we make some “no sense” experiment with nuclear, and without taking care about population… so we are able to have some kind of “disaster” in France too…
The document is date in the 2003 Year, but the probleme is the same, 2 plants are actually biuld on seismic fault areas…
-
-
It’s correct, 58 nuclear reactors actualy running…
Administration is good, but they make some mistakes sometimes, but reports are not “publicly released” ^^
I think we (humans of course) need to think about stop nuclear and develop new energy, more clean, less dangerous… But it’s an utopie since nuclear make monney, and governements need monney… so, while nuclearcan make lot of profit, nuclear will survive^^ -
Ezekiel wrote:
It’s correct, 58 nuclear reactors actualy running…
Administration is good, but they make some mistakes sometimes, but reports are not “publicly released” ^^
I think we (humans of course) need to think about stop nuclear and develop new energy, more clean, less dangerous… But it’s an utopie since nuclear make monney, and governements need monney… so, while nuclearcan make lot of profit, nuclear will survive^^Pretty much sums it up. For example, Norway pretty much gets all its energy from hydro (water) power. Now, there have been talks with Germany to install a cable that could transport the clean energy from Norway to Germany, however, due to nuclear lobbyists some necessary regulations for this cable are blocked from the German side.
-
any sort of power makes money. its just, that nuclear reactors translate energy faster and more energy and are therefore more efficient economically. neither is a nuclear reactor dependant from e.g. weather. but looking at canada, who are producing electric energy from the kinetic energy of water in an amount enough to even be sold to the united states, there appears nothing to be stopping us from refusing usage of nuclear power. its a question of time, only for now.
-
Energy generation is dirty. You’ll find reasons to object to any source, any. Pick your poison.
I think we can’t rest on just one source. A mix of hydro, solar, wind (all three only where possible) and nuclear would probably be the best. Like it or not, nuclear is by far the most efficient energy source. Cutting funding and support for nuclear means we’d suddenly lose the most advanced and powerful energy source we’ve ever discovered. With proper security measures, nuclear is safe.
By cutting funding to nuclear, all we’ll end up with is that old plants will stick around for longer because those who run them (business folks) would rather extract every drop of money out of decaying, unsafe plants. They won’t fund new plants themselves, not with the extreme costs driven up by bureaucracy and politics.
-
what about that new powerplant working on base of nuclear fusion. it is said to be far more efficient than nuclear fission plants ever could be, but far cleaner - the radioactive materials produced are less in amount and are fading faster. guess that is where we are actually going to one day.
-
Fusion is one of those things that’s always 50 years away. We’re not speaking in terms of unicorns and fairies, right? So we need something proven that works now.
-
FriendlyFire wrote:
Energy generation is dirty. You’ll find reasons to object to any source, any. Pick your poison.I think we can’t rest on just one source. A mix of hydro, solar, wind (all three only where possible) and nuclear would probably be the best. Like it or not, nuclear is by far the most efficient energy source. Cutting funding and support for nuclear means we’d suddenly lose the most advanced and powerful energy source we’ve ever discovered. With proper security measures, nuclear is safe.
Problem is how to ensure security measures is proper. Maybe when a nuclear plant got fault, first people be killed exactly is who keep it working safe, and then, the plant will running by computer automaticly.
Hope those Japanese can run away as far as they can.
-
It is so difficult to get bureaucrats to agree, let alone the ordinary uninformed public who are so easily swayed by scares to support any view the puppeteer wishes.
Windmill generators should have been an “easy” adoption, when we were kids I saw cartoons of wind-power farms and thought “Wow, fantastic”.
Would you believe that there are motions and factions against wind power too? “The blades are killing innocent birds! They are noisy and a disturbance to the environment! They are ugly, an eyesore!”
So nuclear is great, and my general view is that there has to be a reduction in the worldwide human population somehow, and nature looks like it is taking the lead.
Or do you believe in supernatural intelligence(s) plotting deliberately against the human race?
If I were in control today, I would have fired “His Excellency” the Ambassador to Japan and his pathetic British staff - all of them. On the spot. And without repatriating them at public expense too. And I would see to it that they never worked in any public office again.
What an absolute disgrace to have the emergency teams return because the idiots refused to sponsor them in a time of emergency and rare human kindness. What the hell are they employed for? Origami lessons? Or just to sample local food on expenses?
If the team had been able to save one life it would have been a prestige to the UK. Their help would have been invaluable in any case. This return is a bureacratic disgrace.
-
NeXoSE wrote:
FriendlyFire wrote:
Energy generation is dirty. You’ll find reasons to object to any source, any. Pick your poison.I think we can’t rest on just one source. A mix of hydro, solar, wind (all three only where possible) and nuclear would probably be the best. Like it or not, nuclear is by far the most efficient energy source. Cutting funding and support for nuclear means we’d suddenly lose the most advanced and powerful energy source we’ve ever discovered. With proper security measures, nuclear is safe.
Problem is how to ensure security measures is proper. Maybe when a nuclear plant got fault, first people be killed exactly is who keep it working safe, and then, the plant will running by computer automaticly.
Hope those Japanese can run away as far as they can.
Modern designs cannot experience meltdown.
-
That’s wishfull thinking isn’t it FF, how so? Do they catapault the reactor into space if the cooling is compromised or something.
-
The effects of a nuclear meltdown depend on the safety features designed into a reactor. A modern reactor is designed both to make a meltdown unlikely, and to contain one should it occur.
In a modern reactor, a nuclear meltdown, whether partial or total, should be contained inside the reactor’s containment structure. Thus (assuming that no other major disasters occur) while the meltdown will severely damage the reactor itself, possibly contaminating the whole structure with highly radioactive material, a meltdown alone should not lead to significant radiation release or danger to the public.[17] -
Reactor designs like pebble-bed are passively safe, in other words should the reaction heat up due to lack of cooling, it slows down. This is not an active safety, it is a feature of the very reaction used. More heat causes the reaction to slow down to safer levels.
It’s not just good safety, it’s inherent safety.
