As you say, the reactors at Fukushima survived the Tohoku earthquake,
the only problem being some splashing of the cooling pools. The reactors
themselves shut down correctly, with the control rods dropping into
place and cooling proceeded normally until the tsunami came. The real
problem is that the reactors were of a prehistoric design, dating from
the early 1970s. They bear little resemblance to today's reactors which
incorporate quadruple redundancy of all the essential safety measures.
Emergency generators have been positioned above the level of the
reactors themselves for many years.
The really astonishing thing is that the reactor and its housing were
designed for earthquakes up to magnitude 7. The Tohoku earthquake was
magnitude 9 and yet the reactors survived, probably an example of
over-engineering.
Today's reactors are generation IIIa and are not only designed to
withstand powerful earthquakes, but also large aircraft being dived into
them and all but nuclear bombs.
I, personally, would be quite happy living fairly close to, say, a
European pressurised water reactor, generating 1.6 GW of electricity. In
fact, I'd feel a lot safer there than downstream from a large
hydroelectric dam!
In Europe and in Japan, most of the reactors and all the modern ones
work on MOX technology which allows the spent fuel to be recycled to 96%
and the remaining 4% is easily vitrified and stored. The United States
does not have this technology because Pres Carter insisted that all
reactors be "straight through", i.e. all the spent fuel has to be stored
somewhere and not recycled. This is not only wasteful but it depletes a
limited reserve of uranium. As most of the US reactors are now fairly
long in the tooth, it would not be economical to transform them to MOX
technology.
Brian
On 26/08/2014 18:35, Ahne Oosterhof wrote:
> Just to set the record straight, the Fukushima reactors survived the
> earthquake.
> What did them in was lack of emergency power to shut them down properly, as
> the emergency supply was located in the basement which got flooded by the
> tsunami.
>
> Build the nukes on high ground!
> Ahne.
>
> PS: Switzerland decided against nuclear power because of the Fukushima
> disaster!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Karen Tellefsen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:59 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] NTC - I believe ... (my credo)
>
> Nukes will be necessary in the future for clean energy production.
> However, we need to remember
> that nuclear power plants are potentially disastrously dangerous, and must
> be run very carefully by trained and conscientious personnel. They also
> need to be placed in locations not especially subject to earthquakes,
> tsunamis or hurricanes.
>
> Everything costs something.
>
> Karen Tellefsen
>
>
>
>
> From: Robert Kondner <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>,
> Date: 08/26/2014 10:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [TN] NTC - I believe ... (my credo)
> Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Renewable energy sources tend to be expensive and from what I read can only
> be counted on for 20% of total usage. That leaves a huge hunk to be
> provided by "Large Infrastructure" producers. (Fossil fuel or nukes.) I do
> love saving energy, that is a win / win if there ever was one.
>
> Batteries cost so much they are almost useless here. Electro chemical
> systems are not exactly "Clean".
>
> If that 20% limit for renewable is real I think that means nuke plants for
> the bulk (breeder ???) is all we have left?
>
> Any Thoughts?
>
> Bob K.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pete
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] NTC - I believe ... (my credo)
>
> Some good answers here, led me to do some more research
>
> About 1/3 of the US corn crop goes towards livestock feed.
> 13% is exported.
> 40% is used for ethanol production
> That leaves 14% for food and beverage (including oils, syrups, sugars)
>
> Ethanol is being used in some cases to replace MTBE, to increase octane
> rating. Why? Because of it's resistance to ignition. This is very tiny
> percentage of the gasoline blend. E10 and E85 are ethanol as an attempt to
> replace fossil fuels. However, that resistance to ignition, when used at
> 10% or 86% is what makes it an inefficient fuel, increasing consumption by
> 3% or 25% respectively. It takes one unit of fossil fuel to generate
> 1.3 units of (less efficient) ethanol fuel.
>
> Since 1980, the ethanol industry has received $45B in government subsidies.
>
> The windmills don't seem so bad anymore.
>
> Pete
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ***** Please note that my E-Mail address has changed *****
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
