Rick, this one got me. If I had had a mouthful of anything, I would have spit it out. Even though I know you're being serious.
In the meantime we'll keep working on that anti-gravity engine to prevent this possibility.
Japan has a long history of major earthquakes and while they need the power badly there is no really safe place to put them like in the US and most other countries.
Watching the news, theres lots of conflicting reports about the condition of these reactors. Apparently one of the reactors has had a partial meltdown and they flooded it with seawater and boric acid to try and cool it. Now theres reports that possibly the cooling systems to two more reactors at another facility have failed.
Yeah but saying you could put something anywhere in the world that's safe from a natural disaster of great magnitude is kind of imbalanced. California has more possible high magnitude earthquake related issues than most of the US, but they have reactors too. Not that I would miss California if it went belly up, just giving an equal comparison state-side.
The thing of it is, you've just got to have a source of power that fits your means. I'm sure the initial Japanese reception to the idea was less than thrilled. In a place with a decently low level of landmass with even less available space, that would require exorbitant amounts of fossil fuel consumption just to deliver the fuel, and the associated costs to power that type of electrical generation facility, I can easily see why they would choose nuclear over anything else.
Every nuclear plant that was approved by the AEA was held to reasonable standards of natural disasters, including American Naval vessels. This was not a reasonable level of a natural disaster, this was the 5th most potent earthquake in recorded history.
Nobody can plan for an event of that magnitude, same as the Indonesian tsunami. If you wanted something similar here in the mid-Western US, compare it to the theories of Yellowstone beginning its super-volcanic eruption. 90% of us in the affected area will be wrote off. The nuclear plants in the mid-West will be scrambled and wrote off, with their families going home to enjoy a few days if they're smart, or trying to beat the other millions of morons on the highways. More than likely, anything between the Mississippi River valley and the central to Western edges of the Rocky Mountains will be wrote off, with El Pres saying "we hold you in our prayers".
Roger that!
It's very obvious the entire story isn't being admitted to yet.
What is obvious is this:
You don't flood a reactor with seawater and boric acid unless you are desperate and have no other options available.
You don't evacuate 175,000 people without good cause.
And now more than 1 reactor is in trouble.
I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is that Japan is prone to major earthquakes. While this one was bigger them almost all they have had, they have had some big ones. Given the dangers of what can happen using nuclear power plants in that type area is almost nuts. Same goes for California and several other places in the world.
As I said, I am all for nuclear power and they can build one in Edmond without stressing me out, but common sense must be used when locating nuclear power. For Japan, even back in the 70s when this plant was built, tidal power might have been a better choice.
I've always been interested in the neuclear power plants.
Early public conception of a "melt down" is a ball of neuclear energy burning through the earth and coming out in china. What a joke.
Three Mile Island had a melt down, and it was all contained in the containment dome from what I've read. The latest disaster should put the neuclear question that some have into perspective with the safety aspect of having neuclear energy as a viable source of energy.
If a facility can survive a disaster of this magnitude without causing any other major problems, I'll be totally on board for neuclear power.......with other assurances that the waste can also be contained.
BTW There were many other power plants that are off line as well, but the news idiots are not reporting on them.
Early public conception of a "melt down" is a ball of neuclear energy burning through the earth and coming out in china. What a joke.
Three Mile Island had a melt down, and it was all contained in the containment dome from what I've read. The latest disaster should put the neuclear question that some have into perspective with the safety aspect of having neuclear energy as a viable source of energy.
If a facility can survive a disaster of this magnitude without causing any other major problems, I'll be totally on board for neuclear power.......with other assurances that the waste can also be contained.
BTW There were many other power plants that are off line as well, but the news idiots are not reporting on them.
The news idiots have one agenda, and that is to wipe nuclear power clean so little fluffy bunnies can play in sunshine and unicorns can prance around farting out rainbows.
The comparisons of this type of event to Chernobyl are what really get me. Chernobyl's moderator was graphite, which has a positive coefficient of reactivity. In contrast, a reactor with water as the moderator has a negative coefficient of reactivity.
What this means is as water is introduced to a covered core, the molecules of the water "absorb" the radioactive fission neutrons. The reaction generates the heat that is then carried to steam generators, which draw the heat out of the primary system(the moderator) and is utilized to generate electricity via turbines. It's almost the same theory as an air conditioner compressor. In addition to this, the control rods that slam to the bottom when the reactor scrams are designed to absorb those same neutrons to a much greater degree, so you have double the effect when you use those control rods and water as the moderator.
Chernobyl's graphite moderator, however, with its positive coefficient of reactivity, means that the neutrons make the heat, but the graphite doesn't absorb them, so they keep making the heat. Even if you scrammed, you still have a long time period of semi-natural heat loss before you even start to touch the reactor cooling down.
When you combine this with rapid increase in pressure with no relief, the pressure and temperature compound each other faster than a Visa card with your wife at the mall.
That is why the big rush is to focus on keeping the pressure relieved to atmosphere while keeping any form of water based coolant, seawater included, flowing across the core to remove the decay heat. Once the decay heat is neutralized, the core will automatically begin to cool itself off due to lack of neutron emission.
That is also why none of this chit can be compared to Chernobyl, because the Russians proved to everyone how dumb they were being not listening behind the wall.
Also, something the media is blowing real hard is radiation levels announced as "amount that is Blah times greater than normal." The higher that Blah, the happier the media is and the public just doesn't know that the typical value is so tiny that it's only quantified and recorded for paperwork.
If you've read all of what I posted, I applaud you. I spent a year and a half in school learning this crap, as well as the operation of the junk, with a minimum average of 11 hours a day in the classroom, and it never really sunk in until I got out of the Navy.
You don't flood a reactor with seawater and boric acid unless you are desperate and have no other options available.
You don't evacuate 175,000 people without good cause.
And now more than 1 reactor is in trouble.
I get the feeling that they are not able to lower the control rods. Boric acid can do what the rods do.
Great info.
