close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Considering what has happened in Fukushima

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by gwalchmai, Mar 14, 2011.

  1. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    26,986
    Likes Received:
    5,311
    Location:
    Outside the perimeter
    Can we now say that nuclear power plants are inherently safe?

    We are looking at the very real possibility of three containment breaches, something that we proponents of nuclear power have said could not happen. It's true that the earthquake which caused these breaches almost never happens, but we can recover from an earthquake in 50 - 100 years without doing anything. That is not true for a meltdown. Those effects will be with us for generations.

    So, what do I tell those people who ask me "Didn't you say this wouldn't happen?"
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011
  2. a_tack

    a_tack

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,777
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Well, we're talking about 3 reactors that have been in place since the early 70's. I think technology on nuclear power has developed alot over the past 40 years.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011

  3. Altaris

    Altaris

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    7,394
    Location:
    Round Rock, TX
    Personally I think we are fine. Their reactors would have been fine with just the earthquake. It was the Tsunami that knocked out the backup generators and really made a mess. That combined with the fact that the reactor is 40 years old, and doesn't sound like it is up to the specs of the current reactors. I think we have beefier containment areas as well.
     
  4. coastal4974

    coastal4974

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Messages:
    3,818
    Likes Received:
    0
    Considering it has the safest record of all other fuel sources, I would say so.
     
  5. Jon91N/A

    Jon91N/A

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,563
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Florida
    You would have to be a complete imbecile to think that the failure of a power plant due to a rare and catastrophic natural event is somehow a legitimate reason to write off nuclear energy.
     
  6. NMG26

    NMG26

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    7,864
    Likes Received:
    505
    Location:
    Colorado
    Uh yeah.

    Leasons are to be learned here to make them safer......not to do away with technology.
     
  7. Brucev

    Brucev

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2009
    Messages:
    9,189
    Likes Received:
    7
    Cool with nuclear power. The good folks in Japan will sort this out. Record of nuclear power generation is excellent in France, etc. U.S. needs to do more nuclear power... lots more. Let the arabs drink their oil.
     
  8. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    26,986
    Likes Received:
    5,311
    Location:
    Outside the perimeter
    It's just a question, Jon, and if you feel that it threatens any of your deeply held beliefs you don't need to respond further.

    Thanks.
     
  9. cowboy1964

    cowboy1964

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Messages:
    23,669
    Likes Received:
    5,260
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    We could build a new coal plant every day like the Chinese are doing.
     
  10. airmotive

    airmotive Tin Kicker

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Messages:
    9,124
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    Location:
    Debris Field
    What's the death toll from the nuclear power plant damage?

    And if we add up ALL the people who have died from radiation exposure from both the Three Mile Island accident AND all of the Japanese plants during this event, you will find that more people were killed by elephants in Tennessee in the last 4 months. (no, seriously...I didn't just make that up)
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011
  11. carguy2244

    carguy2244

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2009
    Messages:
    853
    Likes Received:
    8
    Burning coal and oil seemed innocent enough 100 years ago. Today, climate change. Today's reliable, safe nuclear power may be viewed differently, when future generations will have no safe way to store it, and our great great grandchildren are born with both eyes on the same side of their faces.
    We have the technology to harness wind and the sun for electricity - we're just too caught up in instant gratification.

    Nuclear power is just as safe as fossil fuel power - or just as dangerous.
     
  12. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    26,986
    Likes Received:
    5,311
    Location:
    Outside the perimeter
    Yes. On balance the risk is worth taking.

    But some will ask why we're still operating 40 year old designs and why aren't all nuke plants upgraded to withstand unforeseeable events. How much are we willing to pay per kWH in terms of dollars and in terms of risk?
     
  13. .45Super-Man

    .45Super-Man

    Joined:
    May 4, 2007
    Messages:
    4,609
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Smallville
    Sorry, but to say that "it almost never happens" seems pretty far from the mark. How many years has it been since the first nuclear reactor went online? Now, how many accidents and catastrophies have happened in that relatively short time span??? Hasnt anyone ever seen all of the birth defects and high cancer rates as a direct result of Chernobyl?
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011
  14. INJoker

    INJoker Simply Charming

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    4,883
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Indiana
    Just subbed in a few words to see if it changes your thinking at all...
     
  15. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    26,986
    Likes Received:
    5,311
    Location:
    Outside the perimeter
    I heard the silent "so far" in your statement. ;)

    As of last week how many people would have guaranteed that the Fukushima reactors were quake proof?
     
  16. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    26,986
    Likes Received:
    5,311
    Location:
    Outside the perimeter
    No, it doesn't change my thinking.
     
  17. just a shooter

    just a shooter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,001
    Likes Received:
    0

    because they are still viable and don't wear out.

    what unforeseeable events do you suggest? a direct hit from a 1000lb meteor?

    a nuclear bomb strike?


    should we make them 1 mile thick in concrete and steel 1000 miles from any human habitation?:rofl:

    perhaps build a man made island in the middle of the pacific and put them there...
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2011
  18. gwalchmai

    gwalchmai Lucky Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    26,986
    Likes Received:
    5,311
    Location:
    Outside the perimeter
    A tsunami.


    Maybe. Again, how much is electricity worth, and how much is safety worth?
     
  19. SheepleNoMore

    SheepleNoMore

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Mid America
    Never say never and never say always.

    Safety is a relative term. Relative means arbitrary values are placed on elements of the equation. I say arbitrary values because everyone has different values. One person may say a failure every 10 years is acceptable, another person may say a failure in unacceptable ever.
     
  20. Myke_Hart

    Myke_Hart Handloader

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,858
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    Mount Eden, KY
    We should build more nuclear plants here in the US.... But put them in Cali! :supergrin: