I hope skidzilla is ok!
Thankfully they are well prepared for these things, but even so I hope he's not been unlucky. It seems a lot of the low lying farmland is going to have been ruined.
Coolings failed on one of the nuclear reactors, uh oh :worried:
maybe some lizard will get infected & grow 200 foot high & go on an angry rampage.:evil:
hopefully chip prices wont rocket like they did 15 years when Kobe was hit. £100 for 1mb :gag:
Some of the "Experts" on the BBC are saying that this is a desperate measure, and we could be about to watch the next Chernobyl.
http://www.last.fm/user/skidzilla
skidzilla
skidzilla.googlepages.com/…Last seen: yesterday evening
Assumedly alive then :)
I think the third reactor's just gone.
edit.
2316: Kyodo now says that the suppression pool may have been damaged at the second reactor.
0146 : Tepco says the reactor 3 at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has been emitting white smoke for about 45 minutes, Kyodo News reports. The plant's reactor 4 was the one where a fire broke out earlier this morning
0221: Japanese Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano says the authorities are still looking for the cause of white smoke billowing from reactor 3 at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. He says the radiation reading at the plant is fluctuating by the hour.
0236: Mr Edano, Japan's chief government spokesman, says workers trying to douse the reactors with water were forced to retreat when radiation levels surged there.
0320: Staff have now been evacuated from Fukushima because of a spike in radiation levels, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano told a news conference.
the increasingly improvised methods of water injection concern me. I also find it most concerning that TEPCO brought up the possibility of unintentional criticality in the cooling ponds at R4. If they've brought it up, they think it could actually happen and a self sustaining fission reaction outside the containment vessel would be really bad. Probably still not Chernobyl bad, but at that point it would be demonstrably significantly worse than three mile island.what they tell us today, probably happened 2 days ago.
They need to get boric acid or some other neutron absorber into that cooling pond water, but presumably if they could do that easily they'd just have done it rather than mentioning that criticality was ever on the cards.
very worrying.
the increasingly improvised methods of water injection concern me. I also find it most concerning that TEPCO brought up the possibility of unintentional criticality in the cooling ponds at R4. If they've brought it up, they think it could actually happen and a self sustaining fission reaction outside the containment vessel would be really bad. Probably still not Chernobyl bad, but at that point it would be demonstrably significantly worse than three mile island.what they tell us today, probably happened 2 days ago.
They need to get boric acid or some other neutron absorber into that cooling pond water, but presumably if they could do that easily they'd just have done it rather than mentioning that criticality was ever on the cards.
very worrying.
the increasingly improvised methods of water injection concern me. I also find it most concerning that TEPCO brought up the possibility of unintentional criticality in the cooling ponds at R4. If they've brought it up, they think it could actually happen and a self sustaining fission reaction outside the containment vessel would be really bad. Probably still not Chernobyl bad, but at that point it would be demonstrably significantly worse than three mile island.what they tell us today, probably happened 2 days ago.
They need to get boric acid or some other neutron absorber into that cooling pond water, but presumably if they could do that easily they'd just have done it rather than mentioning that criticality was ever on the cards.
very worrying.
Have to agree, seems to be a whiff of deliberately holding back the facts :tinhat:
the increasingly improvised methods of water injection concern me. I also find it most concerning that TEPCO brought up the possibility of unintentional criticality in the cooling ponds at R4. If they've brought it up, they think it could actually happen and a self sustaining fission reaction outside the containment vessel would be really bad. Probably still not Chernobyl bad, but at that point it would be demonstrably significantly worse than three mile island.
They need to get boric acid or some other neutron absorber into that cooling pond water, but presumably if they could do that easily they'd just have done it rather than mentioning that criticality was ever on the cards.
very worrying.
I thought these nuclear power stations were supposed to be 110% safe? They said the cooling rods drop in and that's it, full shut down.
Think some scientists have been talking a load of bull over the years.
I thought these nuclear power stations were supposed to be 110% safe? They said the cooling rods drop in and that's it, full shut down.
Think some scientists have been talking a load of bull over the years.
Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.
Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.
Building more new nukes will delay the development of renewable energy.
Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.
Building more new nukes will delay the development of renewable energy.
1111: The BBC's Tim Wilcox, in Tokyo, says that some people in the city are capitalising on the crisis. He spoke to one UK-born banker who lives in the city who said he was being quoted £1,500 ($2,400) to buy his own geiger counter.
Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.
Building more new nukes will delay the development of renewable energy.
Alternative is black out/brown out or burning through what little fossil fuel remains..
Theres no doubt that waste is an issue but we are outta time and outta options, we need the nukes till renewable energy can take over.
Building more new nukes will delay the development of renewable energy.
France is seeing the benefit of Nuclear power I beleive.
Their nuclear stations generate more than they need and sell the rest for a fotune, alot of it to us.
I thought they had generators/diesel powered pumps but the problem was fuel? nevertheless I agree that would seem like a better use of the chinooks than the water bombing, airlift in some generators and/or fuel supplies and get the power going again.
I thought they had generators/diesel powered pumps but the problem was fuel? nevertheless I agree that would seem like a better use of the chinooks than the water bombing, airlift in some generators and/or fuel supplies and get the power going again.
It is my understanding that the pumps were electrically powered and due to damaged power lines, they were on the case of getting replacement electrical lines sorted, i think the issue with using fuel powered generators is that there was a lack of fuel nationwide due to the petrolchemical plants being cut off due to the Tsunami and Earthquake, but i would suggest it was rather more important to power those generators.
The diesels started and ran for 1 hr but then stopped maybe because of the tsunami (I would think they have diesel for more than one hour in the tanks ? )
Why not just nuke the plant? A small, tactical nuke would probably be less hassle in the long run. :muttley:
But I say do not build any more of them spend the money on developing Fusion plant, preferably cold fusion.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/17/nuclear-future-beyond-japan/)
There is about 60 million people in the UK if every one reduces there power consumption with 100 watts that will be 6000 MW one nuke gives about
1000MW, educate people to use less power and there would be no need to build more nukes. I have changed 10 of my 60 watts bulbs to 6 watt LED:s which give the same light a reduction of 540 watts.
There is about 60 million people in the UK if every one reduces there power consumption with 100 watts that will be 6000 MW one nuke gives about
1000MW, educate people to use less power and there would be no need to build more nukes. I have changed 10 of my 60 watts bulbs to 6 watt LED:s which give the same light a reduction of 540 watts.
EDIT: the population is continuing to increase, dwellings are being built non stop. the demand for electricity is going only one way.. UP!
There is about 60 million people in the UK if every one reduces there power consumption with 100 watts that will be 6000 MW one nuke gives about
1000MW, educate people to use less power and there would be no need to build more nukes. I have changed 10 of my 60 watts bulbs to 6 watt LED:s which give the same light a reduction of 540 watts.
And what difference will that 540W make to anything? Your local power station willstill be running at the same capacity, electricity cant be stored so if what is generated is not used it is wasted.
540 watts makes a huge difference if 60 million people save as much. As long power companies make huge profits on fission they have no interest in developing safer power.
Powerstations waste 10000,s of Watts everyday by running huge motors and discharging/recharging capcitors that are not connected to anything just to keep the load balanced.
People that say switching off at the plug and fitting low energy lamps makes any difference doesn't have a clue how the system works.
1. Coal - dirty as hell
Micro generation should be being pushed on housing developers imo.
A house can be heated for almost nothing through ground source heating and/or solar heating and Solar PV cells can almost permenatly supply a house.
If develeopers HAD to make 10% of all new houses with these it would be a good step.
Micro generation should be being pushed on housing developers imo.
A house can be heated for almost nothing through ground source heating and/or solar heating and Solar PV cells can almost permenatly supply a house.
If develeopers HAD to make 10% of all new houses with these it would be a good step.
Thats all well and good but the square footage of area for ground source is fairly high, and neither of those helps the massive number of blocks of flats, you could never generate enough power with the space you have to run all those people
assuming you can go down far enough some systems just run loads of pipe only a few feet below the surface
http://xkcd.com/radiation/ (http://xkcd.com/radiation/)
that's quite an interesting chart :-)
If you want base load generating capacity in the GW range, you currently have 4 options
1. Coal - dirty as hell
2. Gas - price fluctuates wildly and as resources deplete it becomes more environmentally damaging to extract
3. Oil - similar problems to Gas, plus dirtier.
4. Nuclear fission - produces radioactive waste, plants are hard to decommission
you can make good arguments in all directions for which of these is least bad, but to argue that we can currently make do without any of them is simply not accurate. In reality, a sensible energy policy includes a variety of fuel types. Gas for example can be spooled up really fast, making it handy for peak load use. Nuclear and Coal are a pain to start up and shut down, so should only be used for base load.
Energy policy is extremely complex.
You don't include Solar, tideal, wave, oceanic current, wind or other similar generation method. There is already over 5000MW of wind turbine electricity generating plant in the UK with a lot more planned.Windpower & wave costs twice the amount of money to generate power than nuclear, gas or coal. - About 1/2 of the extra associated with the wind extra cost is down to the fact that wind is unreliable so they have to keep other power stations running but at a reduced capacity. Tidal/Wave would be the best, but its still expensive atm - would you be prepared to pay double what your paying now for electric? As for solar, your stuck to things you cant control. Day/Night cycle & the weather. They would also need to point a certain direction to get the best from. Even then a footprint size of a normal house would not produce enough electricity to run a house of the same footprint size.
OK, some idiots think that turbines are an eyesore, offer them a nuke plant as an alternative... :w00t: :ptu:
If you want base load generating capacity in the GW range, you currently have 4 options
1. Coal - dirty as hell
2. Gas - price fluctuates wildly and as resources deplete it becomes more environmentally damaging to extract
3. Oil - similar problems to Gas, plus dirtier.
4. Nuclear fission - produces radioactive waste, plants are hard to decommission
you can make good arguments in all directions for which of these is least bad, but to argue that we can currently make do without any of them is simply not accurate. In reality, a sensible energy policy includes a variety of fuel types. Gas for example can be spooled up really fast, making it handy for peak load use. Nuclear and Coal are a pain to start up and shut down, so should only be used for base load.
Energy policy is extremely complex.
You don't include Solar, tideal, wave, oceanic current, wind or other similar generation method. There is already over 5000MW of wind turbine electricity generating plant in the UK with a lot more planned.
OK, some idiots think that turbines are an eyesore, offer them a nuke plant as an alternative... :w00t: :ptu:
That's a completely bullsh*t analogy and you know it.
Americans still seem to be recommending a 80KM evacuation area....says the Country that still hasn't sorted the Bhopal disaster...
If you want base load generating capacity in the GW range, you currently have 4 options
1. Coal - dirty as hell
2. Gas - price fluctuates wildly and as resources deplete it becomes more environmentally damaging to extract
3. Oil - similar problems to Gas, plus dirtier.
4. Nuclear fission - produces radioactive waste, plants are hard to decommission
you can make good arguments in all directions for which of these is least bad, but to argue that we can currently make do without any of them is simply not accurate. In reality, a sensible energy policy includes a variety of fuel types. Gas for example can be spooled up really fast, making it handy for peak load use. Nuclear and Coal are a pain to start up and shut down, so should only be used for base load.
Energy policy is extremely complex.
You don't include Solar, tideal, wave, oceanic current, wind or other similar generation method. There is already over 5000MW of wind turbine electricity generating plant in the UK with a lot more planned.
OK, some idiots think that turbines are an eyesore, offer them a nuke plant as an alternative... :w00t: :ptu:
That's a completely bullsh*t analogy and you know it.
Largest ones now installed can supply 3MW and designs for 10MW versions are in progress. These are estimated to produce minimum 30% of their maximum output spread over any year.