Japanese solution?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by universaldistress, Mar 15, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    You people do relies he is a troll don't you? Don't talk to him, the second you do it means he has won.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ULTRA Realistically Surreal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    I've got it! of course!

    What is the defining image of Japan?
    Mount Fuji.
    And what is mount Fuji?
    A bloody great volcano.
    Why is it there?
    Because Japan lies on a subduction zone, hence the earthquake.
    Subduction-zones produce heat, masses of it. The ring of fire.
    Magma, close under the surface.
    Pump a shed-load of water down there and what do you get?
    Geothermal energy - tons of it.
    Simple really. Free and very green. Just ask Iceland, it works for them..
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ULTRA Realistically Surreal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    Kumar, Dwayne couldn't tell an atom from a tea-bag. He knows nothing. He lives in a fantasy world that we usually just ignore. There's nothing wrong with his theory ecxept it's got words in it. Real words about real things, but in a totally random, incorrect and downright decietful and lying way. Thats right Dwayne, you're a fantasist and a liar. The sooner you get banned the better, for misguiding honest people with your BLATANT LIES.

    They will recover whatever nuclear material they can from the core and entomb the rest in concrete. There is no way to get the reactors out even if they wanted to, which they don't. Chucking them in the sea would just make the sea radioactive, and nobody could ever fish there again. (well, for about 200,000 years anyway) Seawater does nothing to sspeed radiation decay, and will likely rot it letting even more radiation out. Forget everything about tin, carbon, copper, zirconium, static or whatever crap he came out with. They aren't involved at all
    The silicon in the concrete is sand, and they used sand and concrete at Chernobyl successfully. Concrete is as hard.. as concrete, and will last thousands of years. Please, do us all a favour and either report or ignore Dwayne, the brainless wonder. Thankyou.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kumar Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,990
    Thanks. I tend to get something from everything.

    Do you suggest that idf some radioactive material is put into the sea, whole sea can become poisionous to us? If so, is is not the biggest weapon for terrorism?
     
  8. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Kumar

    Nuclear waste has been dumped at sea for many decades, without apparent harm. The thing to remember is that the oceans are BIG, really, really BIG.

    If nuclear material is dumped at sea, the dilution effects are enormous. If you get the concentration of radioactive material low enough, it becomes harmless. The oceans, world wide, are 1'000'000'000'000'000'000 tonnes of seawater. A few hundred tonnes of nuclear material soon disappear.
     
  9. Kumar Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,990
    Then what is the problem of dumping the reactors into the sea?
     
  10. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Kumar

    The environmental problem is that the radioactive material is not dispersed, but concentrated in one place, where it can damage sea life.

    However, it also seems to me to be a waste. The reactors contain a hell of a lot of valuable fissionable material, that might be salvaged.
     
  11. Kumar Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,990
    Are Japneese looking at economical benefits at the cost of life/health?
     
  12. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    To cool the reactor that has a breach in it where will the water be stored that they use? There's no place to store the contaminated water so now what? Concrete the building using hydrolic cement which can set up in water.
     
  13. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    You are jumping to conclusions.
    During the first few days of this event the reactors were running at very elevated temperatures and very high pressures (above design).
    Leaks could have occured at those times but now that the pressures are down would have diminished or stopped. The fact that the pressure in the reactors are remaining stable would make it appear that the leaks are either not there anymore or very small.

    The high radiation levels would indicate that the radiation came from the period when the fuel rods were uncovered and the zirconium cladding was likely damaged by high temps. They are checking pipes in the turbine building now to see if they can find any leaks. I suspect that they can deal with small leaks now.
    Also, from what I gather from the reports the total amount of water they are dealing with is not that great, workers that were working in the basement apparently only had waterproof boots that only came up to their ankles, and that's how two of them got water inside their boots. Beta radiation would have been stopped by the boots but you don't want that water in direct contact with your skin (The 3 workers have now been discharged from the hospital by the way).

    How they extract the radiation from the waste water depends on the elements but it can be done, or the water can be isolated until the radiation levels naturally drop since the main isotopes they are dealing with appear to be short lived.

    Arthur
     
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,140
    Here what I think will happen.

    Units 1,2,3 will be decommissions, they were old, near or in the case of Unit 1 already passed its original designed life, and are clearly damaged now anyways. Those reactors maybe de-fueled if possible (hey they managed to do it at 3 Mile Island, and that was a partial meltdown too). After that concrete might be pumped into the dry well and/or a concrete roof may be built on top of the outer containment building completing the outer containment structure.

    Units 4,5,6 maybe reactivated depending on how much damage was done to them by the earthquake-tsuanmi and how much northern japan needs electricity (badly!). Again 3 Mile Island continued running on its other unit, as well as Chernobyl. We will see how much public hysteria cripples the construction of 2 new units on the site using the ABWR design, these were commissioned before the disaster and are schedule for completion by 2016-2017.
     
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yeah, I'm sure the Japanese are aware of Geothermal energy because there are currently 18 geothermal power stations in operation in Japan.

    Even so, the total output accounts for only 0.2% of their electricity.

    So essentially each of their 51 nuclear plants produces about 3 times as much electricity as ALL their Geothermal plants.

    Damn Ultra, you need to get on a plane and straighten out those silly Japanese, what could they be thinking?

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2011
  16. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    The Japanese are not going to do anything that is seriously risky. However, dumping the reactors holus bolus into the sea is definitely very risky. If they can carve up the fuel elements and recycle them, that would be the best outcome. I am not sure how practical that idea is. Perhaps someone more expert than me can comment.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Building nuclear energy plants in earthquake and tsunami proned areas is seriously risky as Japan can now attest. Storing spent fuel rods in those areas is even more risky.
     
  18. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Joe

    Humans learn.
    When the Japanese built the affected nuclear power plant, they made provision for a tsunami within what they saw as reasonable limits. They did not predict a shallow 9 magnitude earthquake just off the coast, and a 14 metre tsunami. Now they know better, and this will be allowed for in future designs.

    It is worth noting that the reactors responded exactly as designed, in spite of being over 40 years old, in response to an earthquake of intensity beyond any experience in Japan. It was just the size of the tsunami that took everyone by surprise, and that is something that will not happen again.

    It is also worth noting, that over 50 nuclear reactors in Japan exist, and only one plant had problems. Again, in spite of an utterly terrible earthquake. Personally, I think the Japanese did pretty damn well. And even the Fukushima Daiichi plant, with all its problems, appears to be coming under control, with no fatalities.

    To put it into perspective, I like to quote the Banqiao Dam in China. This generated hydroelectricity, and the dam burst. The death toll, including those from subsequent famine and disease, was about 200,000. Nuclear power is way safer than that!
     
  19. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    Actually, such tsunamis have long been known to occur, and I believe Japan likely considered such, but considered the likelihood to be low, and the risk worth taking. Considering the amount of energy generated, and the risks of other energy sources, it appears to likely have been a correct decision. They will, however, likely as you suggest, revise their risk estimates and plan for larger tusnamis (they are known to be 100+ feet when striking the North American west coast, albeit infrequently).
     
  20. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Walter

    You are quite correct.

    There is a mountain side on one of the Canary Islands mid Atlantic poised to fall into the sea. When it happens, the resulting tsunami will wipe out the entire eastern seaboard of the United States. It could happen today, or not for a million years, or never. Is it sensible to plan on the assumption that it will happen some time soon? Probably not.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami

    I quote :


    "La Palma is currently the most volcanically active island in the Canary Islands Archipelago. It is likely that several eruptions would be required before failure would occur on Cumbre Vieja. However, the western half of the volcano has an approximate volume of 500 cubic kilometres (120 cu mi) and an estimated mass of 1,500,000,000,000 metric tons (1.7×1012 short tons) If it were to catastrophically slide into the ocean, it could generate a wave with an initial height of about 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) at the island, and a likely height of around 50 metres (164 ft) at the Caribbean and the Eastern North American seaboard when it runs ashore eight or more hours later. Tens of millions of lives would be lost as New York, Boston, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Miami, Havana, and many other cities near the Atlantic coast are leveled."


    We always have to be sensible and practical in planning, and assuming the worst, when that worst is very infrequent, is not always smart.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2011
  21. ULTRA Realistically Surreal Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    This plant had the worst safety record of any of the 50 plants in Japan. TEPCO admitted forging safety inspections to save money. There was a huge scandal and the directors all had to resign, it's a matter of public record.
    I sincerely hope that a full-on safety review forces them to retro-fit the plants with additional safety features after this blunder.
    There are historical records of huge tsunamis in the past, but TEPCO ignored them preferring to use thier own (unapproved) modelling system against the advice of recognised experts in the field. It could have been predicted in size, though not when.
    I think the inevitable enquiry will find TEPCO negligent.
     
  22. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    Ultra

    Of course the enquiry will find them negligent. Any other result would be politically unacceptable.

    That does not mean that the company is any worse than any other company generating power, whether by nuclear, hydroelectricity, or coal.

    This is Real-Politik.
     
  23. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,520
    Several portions of the Hawaiian islands have fallen into the ocean in times past. One resultant tsunami left coral atop Lanai at up to 900 feet in elevation. Debris fields from these massive slides have been identified extending outwards from the islands some fifty miles (80 km) or more. The steep cliffs evident on Oahu are the edge of one slide that remained behind. Presently the "Great Crack" on the Big Island delineates an area of the island poised to fall into the ocean, perhaps. The resultant tsunamis would be quite devastating throughout the Pacific Rim. The resultant damage would dwarf any melt-down and release of core materials.

    Here's a good link on tsunamis:
    http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TsunamiSymposium99.html
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page