Japanese solution?

I'm not a nuclear expert, but I've done a lot of study over the years, particularly on reactors and recycling. IMO, it would be many, many years now before they could get any of the highly contaminated cleared out and safely disposed before any recycling could occur, and recycling tens to create a massive, volumetric increase in contaminated liquids and equipment. They probably have a few 100 football fields worth of highly contaminated (and some highly corroded) equipment, liquids, muck and partially melted rods to deal with. I'm pretty sure at this point that they will be focused on the cooling issue alone for some time to come. TEPCO has even said to the media that they don't know if this will take weeks, months or years to simply keep under control.

I can't imagine how they could actually remove the spent rods and safely transport them for any kind of recycling (what few facilities exist around the world) any time soon, particularly with the limited capacity for workers in direct contact with plant components, but the information is still so patchy at this point, it's hard to say. Still, just because I can't imagine it based on my limited understanding doesn't mean more creative people aren't out there who can imagine ways to salvage something of this disaster, and certainly those people would have much more detailed knowledge about the *actual* conditions on the ground at each other the reactors and spent rod pools than anyone outside of TEPCO has.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well,
The Neutron Chemistry of the Uranium Atom will be at its most stable Every day at about 9am JAPAN time.

At any time A decompression of 2.7 atmospheres could occur effecting mental and physical prefromance at the Nuclear Facility.

The Radioactive water that has pooled at the facility could be evaporated by electrictiy, with cesium collecting at the postive charge where it could be drained off and pumped into a cool barrel to be condensed. This would make more room in storage and easier proccessing.
Also lose electrical cables could be used to send a charge in to a room at high voltage to block gamma ray radiation from passing into the areas of other rooms.

Neutron Chemistry for Uranium during Earths orbit around the Sun will be at it lower point some time about June of 2011. Which seems like it might be a good time to call the reactors stability cool, (Including also that the Nuclear Facility is dismanteled.)

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It appears that human's interventions can never beat nature. Humen finds new way but nature also use new ways to balance itself. Unless any new introduction is absolute, final at par to nature's balance, nothing can be posed for sure.

Yes, risks are also linked to hydroelectricity but at least it can be controled earlier than nuclear. Under all types of energy generation, I think soalar & wind power is least risky. Ok?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But if they could not do, then?

 

Dwayne, SHUT UP YOU FOOL

 

This ^.

 

No no no. That's not the way to do it.

Dwayne, you're a blithering idiot. Kindly stop posting.

 

Every bit of that is pure nonsense!! Or, more accurately, GARBAGE!!!

Rabon, do everyone here a favor - get away from the computer and back on your meds!!!!!

 

To Kumar

You said solar and wind power were least risky.
I have not actually seen data for accident rates on solar and wind power plants, so I do not know if you are right or wrong. But risk is only one factor determining what power source is used. Cost is more basic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Wind power costs 15 American cents per kilowatt hour to generate.
Solar cells - 40 cents
Thermal solar - 25
Nuclear - 12
Hydroelectricity - 12
Coal 10
Natural gas - 8

This probably explains adequately why wind and solar are very minor contributors to our total electricity generation.

 

Thanks for good information.

Does it mean that people are more intrested in reducing cost even at the cost of life 7 health?

 

Kumar

You can answer your own question. Coal burning is the second cheapest, and the biggest source of electricity world wide. It also kills more people than all other power generating methods put together.

 

May be but if people & their life & health is more important than money/cost, least risky method should be the right choice. In this way, we may also be able to reduce some global warming or other nature's impalance. *In so said "health is wealth", wealthy is secondary to health.

 

Summary of Deaths in Wind Energy

Number of Deaths in Construction (Installation or Removal) 23
Number of Deaths in O&M 16
Number of Deaths of the Public 4
Total 43

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/BreathLife.html

 

People don't directly see the price tag of all there medical bills under there utilities bills so to them coal and fossil fuels are cheap, the actual price of fossil fuels added in the billions of dollars in pollution caused and exacerbated disease would cost significantly more, and certianly put nuclear in as one of the cheapest.

From: http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html

Coal – China : 278
Coal – USA : 15
Oil : 36 (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas : 4 (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass : 12
Peat : 12
Solar (rooftop) : 0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind : 0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro : 0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao) : 1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear : 0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

 

Yes, everything should be accounted in understanding cost benefit ration.

Still, happening in Japan's reactors seems to be most horrible--because not controlable.

 

Aaah so the problem is human psychology, people only scare of the threats they can't control? I don't get it pollution from coal and oil could be controlled its simply that few care to control it! So if the threat is small and constant, no worries, even if that constant threat cost more in money and lives in the longer term statistically, but if the threat is huge but rare, big worries, even if it never happens.

I wonder if this could be made into a psychological experiment? Give people a choice: they can sit in one chair and an weak but annoying electric shock will be zap them constantly, or sit in the other chair and a very powerful tazer like shock will zap you, but it will be applied at any random time if ever, which would people choose?

 

Plane/rockets accidents are much advertised in media & looks more horrible. But road accidents not.

 

FWIW, I don't buy the WHO figures on Chernobyl deaths. It's been reported that many doctors were told to write "heart attack" on death certificates of people who died from cancer. They did the same thing for years at Chelyabinsk. Figures from the USSR aren't something I consider trustworthy, and even though it's a WHO report, and the numbers are higher than the USSR reports, they're still based on what limited information the USSR let out. There are also horrible birth defects associated with Chernobyl, so the legacy issues aren't factored in.

 

Rocks

You could increase the Chernobyl figures ten fold, and nuclear would still be one of the safest. Even if the Soviets did minimise Chernobyl data, ten fold is seriously unlikely (WHO and IAEA officials are not that naive!) and nuclear remains one of the world's safest sources of electricity.

 

Coal fired energy kills no-one. The mining industry does. It's not the same thing at all.

The energy companied do not run the mines.