Not the nuclear thing again...

[whitelackington]

At the damaged site there are currently six reactors, three turned off and three
probably damaged beyond use, there were plans to build a couple more.
I would imagine that all of this site will be removed from use for good.
I would further suggest that all sites of the same type in Japan will also be removed from use,
for ever.
They will have to have a major rethink how they as a country proceed.
Decommissioning of all these worrysome plants is going to be very expensive.

 

[Burt]

The nuclear reactors built by man across the world pale into insignificance compared to the giant nuclear bombs called "the Earth" and "the Sun", both of which we depend on and, if were to blow, would destroy evertyhing as we know it. At least man can control and harness the small scale nuclear reactions we create.

As an aside, I had a heary laugh at the TV commentator, who, interviewing a nuclear expert, commented " so... you wouldn't want an explosion like that  in a nuclear power plant, then?" - Damn right, I wouldn't want that in my garden shed!

 

[graham]

... the giant nuclear bomb called "the Earth"...

 

[paul]

The market can deal with it....

Throttling supply simply means electricity supply  will go up in price. This means the proportion of peoples income spent on electricity will increase, and living standards will degrade. Fewer foreign holidays, smaller car, cheaper food, less beer. balance will be met.

We are seeing exactly this with petrol at the moment. Prices go up, "demand" is still the same (people would like to drive) but "useage" appears to be falling judging by the roads....

So the alternative is major hydro, renewables, limiting supply...

Hydro and renewables in the UK cannot meet current demand, nevermind future expectations. even if they could, they are not dependable and vary in availability. Coal, gas and oil are all mainly imported and leaves the UK dependant on supply outside of its control and do not help the balance of trade deficit.

To believe that a simple pricing exercise will greatly decrease demand for electricity is a huge simplification. Most people largely have a choice in curtailing vehicle use, especially for pleasure, either by making more use of public transport or car-sharing or simply staying at home. When prices increase demand for luxury items decreases as these by definition can be done without. Vehicle usage is largely a luxury. Electricity supply is not.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I just love AndyF's "choice" of "cheaper food". How many years has it been since food prices were not related in some significant way to the cost of fuel/electricity?

 

[Duncan Price]

Might I commend readers to an engineering perspective on the Japanese nuclear plant shutdowns:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/

I work with hydrogen & air mixtures on a daily basis, sometimes there are transient pressure excursions - its not a big deal, there are much worse gaseous mixtures which go bang more impressively - I'm sure that some people remember making hydrogen in a test tube during school science lessons and then lighting it...Pop! that's all.

The plant survived a quake 5 times its design maximum.  They were caught on the hop by the subsequent tsunami but even then they did very well.

As someone employed by a company with a sizeable footprint in Japan, I'm more concerned about my colleagues' welfare.  Japan has suffered much much much worse nuclear disasters - twice in one year...

 

[Peter Burgess]

Thank you, Duncan. That is a very informative article. But it doesn't have the dramatic presentation that the Daily Wail can manage, so this:

But you wouldn't know that from looking at the mainstream media. Ignorant fools are suggesting on every hand that Japan's problems actually mean fresh obstacles in the way of new nuclear plants here in the UK, Europe and the US.

That can only be true if an unbelievable level of public ignorance of the real facts, born of truly dreadful news reporting over the weekend, is allowed to persist

... is something that may well come to pass.

I pity the future generations, who may have to bear the burden placed upon it by idiots who can shout louder than trained scientists and engineers who actually have as great a concern for the future of this planet as everyone else.

 

[graham]

Hydro and renewables in the UK cannot meet current demand, nevermind future expectations.

Well, no, they cannot meet current demand 'cos we don't have an installed base. Doesn't mean that they will never be able so to do. Two things need doing, one is mainly technical and the other is mainly political. The former is to work on large scale methods for storing energy produced from renewables, recent work has made some progress in this area.  The latter is to put in place an 'international grid' so that all renewable sources, wind, wave, solar, hydro etc etc are interconnected and the strain can be taken up in one area when there is little available in another. Again proposals have been made.

 

[Bob Smith]

Duncan, it's nice to read an article written by someone that actually understands the facts and implications, and not written by the f*ckw!t humanties graduates the the mainstream press seem to employ.

 

[droid]

What he said  :bow:

 

[graham]

Might I commend readers to an engineering perspective on the Japanese nuclear plant shutdowns:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/

I read it as being optimistic in that he's writing as if it's all done and dusted. Given that these plants will never function again having been doused in rather corrosive sea water and that there will be a long and difficult job of de-commissioning them made far harder by the fact that the fuel which will need to be removed is by no means spent, I doubt we shall know the full outcome of this event for a very long time to come.

His optimism may be warranted, it may not be. It's too early to tell.

As someone employed by a company with a sizeable footprint in Japan, I'm more concerned about my colleagues' welfare.

Quite right too, life is going to be extremely shitty for them for some time to come.

 

[whitelackington]

Three reactors at one site in possible meltdown,
this is a game changer for the world,
it will be very much more difficult for the nuclear lobby, anywhere,
to convice the public that these plants can be made foolproof.

 

[paul]

Hydro and renewables in the UK cannot meet current demand, nevermind future expectations.

Well, no, they cannot meet current demand 'cos we don't have an installed base. Doesn't mean that they will never be able so to do. Two things need doing, one is mainly technical and the other is mainly political. The former is to work on large scale methods for storing energy produced from renewables, recent work has made some progress in this area.  The latter is to put in place an 'international grid' so that all renewable sources, wind, wave, solar, hydro etc etc are interconnected and the strain can be taken up in one area when there is little available in another. Again proposals have been made.

Maybe I should have said "Hydro and renewables in the UK cannot meet current demand, nevermind future expectations even if all available resources were now being harnessed".

Even if all the very hypothetical 'proposals' you are talking about were to materialise. It's a nice idea, but it isn't going to happen. In the meantime, we still need electricity and at least part of that demand will HAVE to be supplied via nuclear reactors.

Let's see some figures on actual capacity on a continuing and reliable basis as compared to current and anticipated demand rather than just talking about alternative sources which although they sound wonderful, by themselves are simply not enough.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Three reactors at one site in possible meltdown,
this is a game changer for the world,
it will be very much more difficult for the nuclear lobby, anywhere,
to convice the public that these plants can be made foolproof.

It's not fools they need to be safe from, but nature. The only fools are those who take every opportunity to use bad science to frighten the world.

 

[AndyF]

Peter

I just love AndyF's "choice" of "cheaper food". How many years has it been since food prices were not related in some significant way to the cost of fuel/electricity?

I think you misunderstood. I mean people have to buy cheaper alternative like Burgers for ?1.99 rather than a steak for ?8.99 in order to fund their fuel bills. Might make the country a bit less fat as well...

Duncan

The plant survived a quake 5 times its design maximum.  They were caught on the hop by the subsequent tsunami but even then they did very well.

What size tsunami was it designed to withstand...?    Earthquakes and tsunamis go hand in hand. Everybody knows this it can't be ignored in the design.

Paul

Vehicle usage is largely a luxury. Electricity supply is not.

Most people have far more scope for reducing electricity useage than car fuel. Take any house and replace ALL bulbs with a low energy version and the saving on lighting is maybe 70%. Stop using tumble dryers and go back to washing lines if you need to. Modern flat screen TV's are less hungry than old tube TV's. Microwave instead of ovens....  Lots of potential but it does mean modest lifestyle changes that make high percentage usage reductions.

Most vehicle usage is the commute with little scope to change.

As for that article. It's a spoof surely...

Quake + tsunami = 1 minor radiation dose so far

maybe should read...

Quake + tsunami = 3 reactors totally destroyed plus at least one more probable. Two in partial meltdown plus a mutli billion dollar clean up bill. Nice

"No core has melted down and come up against the final defensive barriers"  - we'll see

"the safety systems did not come even close to failing" - ummm yes they did. The backup cooling system failed. Obviously

"But proper nuclear reactors are designed so that you can't get water breakup to hydrogen and oxygen inside the containment vessel" - you can if you've had a partial meltdown that has damaged the reactor.

"they injected seawater mixed with boric acid (liquid control-rod material) into the cores. This meant a fair bit of expensive damage to the two reactors,"  -  AKAIK it write off the reactors totally. So yes, I guess that is technically correct at "quite expensive"

Its crap article like this brings discredit on the engineering profession.

 

[Peter Burgess]

AndyF. Scientists and engineers with a concern for truthful reporting and public understanding do not "joke".

 

[Duncan Price]

Quake + tsunami = 3 reactors totally destroyed plus at least one more probable. Two in partial meltdown plus a mutli billion dollar clean up bill. Nice

Small fry compared to the human and financial cost to the whole nation from the 1000's killed by the BIG WAVE and consequent destruction.

Oh BIG SCARY SCIENCE story which we don't understand.  Sure, radiation poisioning is not a nice way to die but everyone is quite happy to lead unheathy lifestyles.  Eg:

... I mean people have to buy cheaper alternative like Burgers for ?1.99 rather than a steak for ?8.99 in order to fund their fuel bills. Might make the country a bit less fat as well...

More fat, I think.

Its crap article like this brings discredit on the engineering profession.

Well if you'd like to eschew the benefits of modern science & technology and live out your miserably short life in a cave then be my guest...

 

[AndyF]

AndyF. Scientists and engineers with a concern for truthful reporting and public understanding do not "joke".

Lets look at his other articles by the same author....

"Giant 5-year-mission aerial wing-ship to fly in 2011"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/11/vulture_tests_announcement/

"Official: Booze prevents senile dementia - WHEN will the gov provide free booze for wrinklies?"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/02/booze_prevents_dementia/

"Saucy spy Anna Chapman to design Russian space uniforms"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/17/anna_chapman_russian_space_uniforms/

...and the rest...

http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=&author=Lewis%20Page&results_per_page=20&advanced=1&sort=date&site=&psite=0&page=2

Clearly an eminant and respectable science journalist then... 

I like Bob's post

Duncan, it's nice to read an article written by someone that actually understands the facts and implications, and not written by the f*ckw!t 

...mmmm.... er.....yeah right.....

You clearly didn't quite spot the joke.

 

[paul]

Paul

Vehicle usage is largely a luxury. Electricity supply is not.

Most people have far more scope for reducing electricity useage than car fuel. Take any house and replace ALL bulbs with a low energy version and the saving on lighting is maybe 70%. Stop using tumble dryers and go back to washing lines if you need to. Modern flat screen TV's are less hungry than old tube TV's. Microwave instead of ovens....  Lots of potential but it does mean modest lifestyle changes that make high percentage usage reductions.

Most vehicle usage is the commute with little scope to change.

Replacing a few bulbs isn't going to drastically reduce consumption. Yes it will help, but it is small beer compared to major industrial users (who manufacture the low energy light bulbs, the TVs, the microwaves) who are billed on a half-hourly rate because they use so much electricity compared to domestic users who are usually billed quarterly.

The bottom line is realistically we are not going to reduce consumption to any great degree (in fact consumption is expected to increase) and we cannot rely totally on coal, gas and oil imported from abroad in case of disrupted supplies. As for 'renewables', they will only ever meet be a very small proportion of the demand and are not dependable (like when the wind doesn't blow, etc) and cannot be ramped up when demand peaks. The only option is nuclear to fill the gap.

 

[Bob Smith]

The simple fact is the nuclear disaster that Andy seemed to elude to is just not the case. There is mention of caesium being detected around the plant as if that's so bad, but without quantifying how much would be harmful there is not much point. The pumping in of sea water, whilst a last resort, was also necessary. The reactor will be severely damaged, but which would you rather have. The explosions have been quite reasonably explained. But as for earthquakes being reliable!? ffs that's just an unbelievable statement. If he meant inevitable then I apologise.