PDA

View Full Version : Fukushima


boofhead
4th Nov 2013, 03:40
Haven't seen anything on the regular media outlets concerning the news covering the death of the Pacific Ocean and the imminent disaster at Fukushima. Tepco is about to wipe out all life in the Northern Hemisphere and there is no coverage on TV or in the papers about it?

Or am I just getting excited for nothing?

Dark Knight
4th Nov 2013, 04:26
Yes and think the profile name explains the reason why!

Cacophonix
4th Nov 2013, 06:36
Might be worth posting on the active Fukushima thread! :rolleyes:

Caco

LookingForAJob
4th Nov 2013, 08:39
Or even reading it ;)

flying lid
4th Nov 2013, 16:15
Fukushima decommissioning slip-up could trigger monumental chain reaction, expert warns - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-31/fukushima-nuclear-meltdown-tepco-tokyo/5059514)

Lid

dead_pan
4th Nov 2013, 17:39
Has anyone posted this before?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/15/1381841826192/Fukuppy-001.jpg

boofhead
5th Nov 2013, 06:51
I looked for a thread about it but missed it, sorry.
However my point is that it is not being covered by the media.

PTT
5th Nov 2013, 07:21
the death of the Pacific OceanEr, the what?

Cacophonix
5th Nov 2013, 07:53
The pacific ocean is in a bad way without Fukushima to be honest... Take the 'gyre' for instance...

Great Pacific garbage patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch)

Of course seas do die... look what the USSR did to the Aral sea....

The Aral Sea Crisis (http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm)

Fukushima by itself won't 'kill' the sea but pouring Caesium and Strontium contaminated water by the swimming pool load into an ocean (no matter how big) is clearly not a 'good thing'.

Caco

boofhead
5th Nov 2013, 15:01
Lots of reports lately about strange things happening in the Pacific, including lots of gyres holding tonnes and tonnes of garbage from the Tsunami. I fly low level along the Pacific coast a lot and I can tell you it is filthy with styrofoam and other floating stuff, much more so than normal.
Oarfish washing up, starfish rotting, a lack of birds, dolphins dying at an accelerated rate, sailors reporting dead areas, whales with lesions and lots of mass strandings.
Is any of it due to Fukushima? I don't know, there have been no reports of increased radiation so far, but the coincidences are there.
Again, no media.

El Grifo
6th Nov 2013, 17:33
Worth a watch :-

David Suzuki's Fukushima Warning Is Dire And Scary (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/04/david-suzuki-fukushima-warning_n_4213061.html)

rmcb
6th Nov 2013, 21:30
Yep - that'll cure the NP Gyre - drain the Pacific!

Of course seas do die... look what the USSR did to the Aral sea....

Somebody in ex USSR must be available to show us how...

Lantern10
7th Nov 2013, 00:16
This is not a good look.

'The ocean is broken' (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/the-ocean-is-broken-20131018-2vs7v.html)

Nemrytter
7th Nov 2013, 00:56
I can tell you it is filthy with styrofoam and other floating stuff, much more so than normal....Is any of it due to Fukushima?Yes, it's a well known (and well hidden) truth of science that incredibly low doses of radiation - far too low to be detected - are able to spontaneously produce styrofoam.
After all, how do you think styrofoam is made in the first place?:suspect:
Again, no media.For once the media appears to be focusing on important stories rather than scaremongering based on the opinions of ill-informed 'experts'.
Talking of which, El Grifo nicely indicates the type of 'expert' I'm talking about with the video he links to.:ok:

rh200
7th Nov 2013, 01:52
Pacific ocean problems, haa Fukushima is the least of its worry's, yawwwn.

A lot of people are starting to wake up to the fact the radiation isn't the biggest boogy man around, and a few of the true believers are just trying to maintain the rage.

tartare
7th Nov 2013, 02:20
And more to the point - exactly how many people have died from radiation poisoning as a result of Fukushima?
None.
That's zero.
Nix.
Naught.
Nil.
Nada...

SpringHeeledJack
7th Nov 2013, 07:38
I was under the impression that a few of the Dai-Ichi plant workers have already succumbed due to the effects of radiation in the last 2 years after doing the dangerous work around the damaged rods and rubble. That said various cancers are directly attributed to the effects of radiation and the victims die not immediately, but over a period of time.



SHJ

Bushfiva
7th Nov 2013, 07:49
No deaths from radiation at Fukushima. The last radiation-related deaths in Japan were in 1999.

MagnusP
7th Nov 2013, 08:02
pouring Caesium and Strontium contaminated water by the swimming pool load into an ocean (no matter how big) is clearly not a 'good thing'.

Homeopathic radiation sickness? Whoda thunk it?

dead_pan
7th Nov 2013, 09:12
And more to the point - exactly how many people have died from radiation poisoning as a result of Fukushima?

Give it a few years...

Cacophonix
7th Nov 2013, 13:49
Homeopathic radiation sickness? Whoda thunk it?

Might be 'homeopathic' on the West coast of America but believe me it is measurable along the coastline around Fukushima and if these idiots don't get their shit together it eventually will be measurable elsewhere as well.

Happy swimming.

Caco

pigboat
7th Nov 2013, 16:28
...exactly how many people have died from radiation poisoning as a result of Fukushima?

Well the fauna is sure taking a shit kicking. ;)

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/03/29/3471215_wide-a02026c26c53205c6460668f587381a2beaf865e.jpg?s=6

Nemrytter
7th Nov 2013, 22:52
Might be 'homeopathic' on the West coast of America but believe me it is measurable along the coastline around Fukushima and if these idiots don't get their shit together it eventually will be measurable elsewhere as well.Yes, the radiation levels are now almost one-tenth as high as they were a few years after atmospheric nuclear weapon testing during the cold war.:ugh:

(edit) Also, on a pedantic note, the radiation from Fukushima is measurable everywhere on the planet. In almost all places it will be measured as: Zero.*


*Or, to stop future pedantry: At least so low as to be immeasurable.

tartare
7th Nov 2013, 23:01
Exactly.
Got a granite bench top in your kitchen?
Guess what - it's irradiating you.
Nuclear reactors are even found in nature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
The hysterical pants-wetting around the `danger' of nuclear power and nuclear reactors is just mind numbing.

Cacophonix
7th Nov 2013, 23:03
Tartare

Are you a moron...?

Caco

MagnusP
8th Nov 2013, 08:50
One of you is . . .

Captain Dart
8th Nov 2013, 08:56
I've had enough. Caco is going onto my 'ignore' list.

glad rag
19th Nov 2013, 18:36
Tepco is due within days to begin removing 400 tonnes of the dangerous spent fuel in a hugely delicate and unprecedented operation fraught with risk. Each assembly contains radiation equivalent to around 10 times that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945.


Some spent fuel rods at Fukushima were damaged before 2011 disaster | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/japan-fukushima-removal-idUSL4N0IZ0TR20131114)


Nov 14 (Reuters) - Three of the spent fuel assemblies due to be carefully plucked from the crippled Japanese nuclear plant at Fukushima in a hazardous year-long operation were damaged even before the 2011 earthquake and tsunami that knocked out the facility.
The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co, or Tepco, said the damaged assemblies - 4.5 metre high racks containing 50-70 thin rods of highly irradiated used fuel - can't be removed from Fukushima's Reactor No. 4 using the large cask assigned to taking out more than 1,500 of the assemblies.
One of the assemblies was damaged as far back as 1982, when it was mishandled during a transfer, and is bent out of shape, Tepco said in a brief note at the bottom of an 11-page information sheet in August.


Does anyone have the opinion that they can do this without making a "mistake"?

Nope me neither, but for all our sakes I hope they do......:uhoh::uhoh::uhoh:

Nemrytter
19th Nov 2013, 21:27
It a bit early to be totting up isnt it?...come back in 10 years, then again in 20...40....80.........200, etc
Not really, the doses received by those close to/working in Fukushima have been carefully monitored. The number of deaths that are a result of radiation exposure are likely to be very small, possibly even immeasurably small.

Interesting to compare that to the number of deaths caused by the tsunami itself. Then to compare the media exposure of tsunami vs radiation.:ugh:

BenThere
19th Nov 2013, 21:57
All things considered, such as coal mining accidents, oil spills, and the like, nuclear power world-wide has been the safest source of energy in our generation.

Pity the Left and Greens came out against it, setting the technology back and costing the working people trying to pay their bills an extra $50 or so bucks a month in utility bills to make a fallacious point against it.

I think true Greens would like to support carbon and emission-free nuclear power as what they wanted all along. Their refusal to admit they were ever mistaken, however, precludes that.

Cacophonix
19th Nov 2013, 22:15
Ben

You are not a moron, but hell some of the shit you come out with makes me wonder?

Caco

BenThere
19th Nov 2013, 22:23
makes me wonder

I encourage you to wonder. It might, one day, make you smarter.

Cacophonix
19th Nov 2013, 22:26
I'll keep on working on that Ben.


Caco

ZOOKER
19th Nov 2013, 22:49
Why is it that Fukushima and Chernobyl are almost no-go areas, when Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities? I should know this, as we did radiation in 'A' Level physics, but has something changed?

Cacophonix
19th Nov 2013, 22:54
I should know this, as we did radiation in 'A' Level physics, but has
something changed?

Understand a on-going nuclear reaction and get with the agenda...

Fukushima is now the worst producer of radio nuclides in the history of mankind...

The Japanese now our specimens...

Caco

G-CPTN
19th Nov 2013, 22:57
All things considered, such as coal mining accidents, oil spills, and the like,
200 men lost their lives building the 73-mile-long Settle to Carlisle railway line and 98 died building the Forth railway bridge.

Nemrytter
19th Nov 2013, 22:57
Fukushima is now the worst producer of radio nuclides in the history of mankind...Do you have a sensible source for that?:}

Matari
19th Nov 2013, 23:00
Caco,

Rickover was a genius, ahead of his time. But would you call him a moron, too?

Cacophonix
19th Nov 2013, 23:02
Do you have a sensible source for that?http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif


Do your own research you lazy... (leave stupid and the rest out of it)

Caco

glad rag
20th Nov 2013, 07:33
[Video] Reactor1 confirmed leaking out the coolant water / 2.0 Sv/h | Fukushima Diary (http://fukushima-diary.com/2013/11/video-reactor1-confirmed-leaking-out-the-coolant-water-2-0-svh/)

Some need together their heads out of the sand...........:ugh:

probes
27th Nov 2013, 14:21
what's going on in Chernobyl
BBC News - Chernobyl's arch: Sealing off a radioactive sarcophagus (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25086097)

Massive and glittering in the weak winter sunshine, a half-built arch looms over Chernobyl's decaying industrial landscape of cooling towers and power lines.
One of the biggest engineering projects in history, it has been likened to a gigantic metal igloo, built to seal off hundreds of tons of nuclear fuel and dust buried inside reactor number four, which in 1986 blew up and burned for 10 days.
Everything about the project is epic: the size, the 1.5bn euro (£1.2bn) cost, the technical problems of working on a radioactive building site.At 110m (360ft) tall, the structure could house the Statue of Liberty, and at 257m (843ft) wide, there would be room for a football pitch. There are acres of metal panels in the roof, to seal off the reactor and the dangerous mess inside. The whole lot will be held together by 680,000 heavy bolts.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71347000/jpg/_71347991_slide_01_chernobyl_arch_464.jpg

MagnusP
25th Feb 2014, 14:53
BBC News - North American scientists track incoming Fukushima plume (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26329323)

Models showing between 2 and 27 becquerels per cubic metre of water. Canadian safe-level limit is 10,000 becquerels per cubic metre. Homeopathic, as I suggested last year.

SpringHeeledJack
25th Feb 2014, 15:18
Ah, Fukushima, the world's most underreported global disaster :hmm: None would be happier than oneself IF there was no danger except to the very local area, but the extent of obfuscation and face saving by our Japanese cousins up to date leads me to think that there is not yet any viable strategy or solution. The Pacific is a vast water feature, long, wide, deep and the toxic effluent from this atomic 'fuk-up' will have been already diluted and spread far and wide into the fish food chain and thereby into the human sphere. Homeopathic doses might well be, but sometimes small doses can have large effects.



SHJ

awblain
25th Feb 2014, 15:51
Historic emissions from Sellafield, La Hague and Dounreay don't seem to have caused too much gross harm to European seas, and the spread of airborne debris from atmospheric bomb tests and Mayak has also diluted worldwide. With the exception of the exclusion zone, and some Northern flora, Chernobyl's not currently too much of a risk.

While it's certainly not good practice to disperse a lot of the cesium and iodine from four nuclear plants into the environment, it's not unprecedented, and with the exception of keeping a check on top-of-the-food-chain fish, it doesn't seem to be a huge threat to the ingested environment.

OFSO
25th Feb 2014, 16:42
it doesn't seem to be a huge threat to the ingested environment.

Maybe yes, maybe no. There's been a huge increase in various cancers in the past 50 years (says my doctor) but with every other possible cause also increasing, it is hard to single out radioactivity as a suspect.

Years ago in Germany I was saw an interview where BMW and DB were asked about their testing for the presence of carcinogens in materials used in car interiors. They replied that all the materials they used were well under the safe levels. "And did you test these materials in combination with each other, for example how they react together in a car parked in hot sunlight ?" they were asked. "No" was the response, "because we are not required to."

Frankly that worries me more than the increase of radioactivity in the atmosphere.

airship
25th Feb 2014, 17:45
MagnusP wrote: BBC News - North American scientists track incoming Fukushima plume (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26329323).
Models showing between 2 and 27 becquerels per cubic metre of water. Canadian safe-level limit is 10,000 becquerels per cubic metre. Homeopathic, as I suggested last year.

Are you still "currently employed" by anyone in the industry MagnusP? Many in the industry might be quite embarrassed by your last post. Well of course, having traversed the whole north Pacific ocean, the "plume" and any contamination having been very well-diluted by now, poses no serious risks...

If local Fukushima fishermen today were to FedEx you a 1kg sample of their most recent catch (suitably packed in dry-ice etc.), would you eat it? Would you make your children / grand-children eat it?! More importantly, would you continue to make them all it eat it if the shipments continued once weekly, for the next 2 years?! :}

Dunno about dry ice, but you're on very thin ice here...

PS. OFSO, please don't feed the trolls, like awblain - when did you last raise a family in the area of Chernobyl...?! :}

MG23
25th Feb 2014, 17:54
If local Fukushima fishermen today were to FedEx you a 1kg sample of their most recent catch (suitably packed in dry-ice etc.), would you eat it?

You do realize that's a complete straw man, right?

awblain
25th Feb 2014, 22:04
Airship,

When did you not notice that I said "exclusion zone excepted" around Chernobyl, and the lichen-eating Reindeer? And where did "check the big fish" indicate that it would be a good idea to be chowing Iwaki-landed sushi?

However, the chances of getting hurt by Fukushima is small. Worldwide, we're probably looking at potential premature deaths in the thousands, not far off the equivalent ingested coal ash toll for the same electricity production. Of course, this would have been different if there had been a north-easterly wind at the time, providing up to 5 million young people with a thyroid problem.

The huge costs of cleaning up on shore should be enough to remind those claiming that nuclear power is cheap, despite build costs of $12-15/W and lead times of over a decade, to run it all by their lawyers and accountants again. Thank the lord for state-bankrolled construction loan guarantees and operational liability caps, hey?

awblain
25th Feb 2014, 22:10
OFSO,

There's been a huge increase in cancer mostly because there's been a huge increase in treating cancer.

What used to happen in the 1950s to a woman with breast cancer in her thirties?

She died in the 1950s. Now, most diagnosed in the 2000s are still alive. Why do you see cancer survivors more often now? Because there are some.

Also, cancer is a disease of the old, and as people live longer lives with greater quality of life in retirement, you've been seeing it more often, and instead of heart disease (until the onrushing obesity tsunami hits).

If nuclear-induced cancers were a huge deal, it would be piled up near the weapons factories and after atmospheric testing, yet it's not. Nuclear power is a return-on-investment disaster, not a cancer disaster.

tartare
26th Feb 2014, 01:26
...and once again, how many people have died from Fukushima radiation?
That'd be nix, nought, nil, nada, none, no-body...
Pandora (http://pandoraspromise.com/)
Nuclear reactors - nature's steam engines.
Love em.... bring it on.
Build one in ever state of Australia to power the desalination plants I say.
By contrast, the carcinogens in coal smoke are really, really scary.
There - that'll get some of you going.

Cacophonix
26th Feb 2014, 01:34
Having just been allowed back here I will just ask what is the half life of caesium 137?

Caco

Bushfiva
26th Feb 2014, 01:48
About 30 years for Cs-137, most of which beta decays to Barium-137m which has a half life of about 2.5 minutes, with gamma decay to Barium -137, which is stable. So with most consumer-grade detectors, you're actually seeing the gamma radiation from the Barium rather than the beta from the Cs.


Caesium-134 has a half life of about 2 years, so that particular isotope is handily taking care of itself. If you look at the decay curves around the region, you can see the Cs-134 decaying and leaving the long tail of Cs-137.

tartare
26th Feb 2014, 02:15
...when we've finished it, take it way out back to the Pilbara craton, the largest oldest, most geologically stable piece of rock on the planet. Bury it in glass. Hell, charge the rest of the world the earth for burying theirs in glass too.
Use the money to buy 9 Virginia class boats - submarine problem solved. Set up a domestic nuclear industry, STEM, innovation and R&D problems solved. Build a spaceport up at Weipa and revitalise the domestic aerospace industry (we aim so low worrying about building bloody cars here for chrissakes).
Mine our uranium and sell it overseas... more forex earnings, because the price will come back.
Gorton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant_proposal) had the right idea...
If you're worried about radiation - here are the facts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation).
Fear your granite bench top, the radon eminating from the ground underneath your floor, or any place above FL20 (which is very pertinent to this forum) more than Chernobyl, Fukushima or Three Mile Island.

llondel
26th Feb 2014, 02:16
If local Fukushima fishermen today were to FedEx you a 1kg sample of their most recent catch (suitably packed in dry-ice etc.), would you eat it?

No, but that's because I don't eat much fish. I'd be more concerned with mercury content, although in a few years when the local top predators have managed to ingest most of the radioactive material it might become more of an issue.

llondel
26th Feb 2014, 02:20
Maybe yes, maybe no. There's been a huge increase in various cancers in the past 50 years (says my doctor) but with every other possible cause also increasing, it is hard to single out radioactivity as a suspect.

I blame California. Pretty much everything here contains something known to the State of California to cause cancer. It's ridiculous enough that I just ignore the warnings now because they're meaningless.

tartare
26th Feb 2014, 03:00
Just out of interest, and because as pilots or people interested in aviation, you will likely be receptive to logical scientific argument - some of the thinking around radiation hormesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis) I find very interesting.
We've spent millions of year evolving and basking in the rays of the giant fusion reactor in the sky...

Dushan
26th Feb 2014, 03:18
Worth a watch :-

David Suzuki's Fukushima Warning Is Dire And Scary (VIDEO) (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/11/04/david-suzuki-fukushima-warning_n_4213061.html)

Oh, well, if Saint Suzuki says so, it must be.

Cacophonix
26th Feb 2014, 03:27
Traditional Japanese Music 1 - YouTube

Caco

awblain
26th Feb 2014, 03:28
Tartare,

Do you also find interesting the Marlboro effect, that small amounts of tobacco smoke are beneficial and the Taliban effect, that a little bit of heroin is a good thing? I find interesting that you consider such unevidenced hocus pocus to be interesting.

We have spent millions of years evolving, yes - breeding at ages before we get old enough to have UV-induced skin cancer or radiation induced solid tumors.

awblain
26th Feb 2014, 03:31
Llondel,

Yes the "known to the State of California" warnings are unhelpful.

However, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to inhale more gasoline vapor or to eat lead paint chips.

pigboat
26th Feb 2014, 03:53
Oh, well, if Saint Suzuki says so, it must be.
Take whatever Suzuki says with a large pinch of salt.

David Suzuki Regrets Dire Fukushima Warning. (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/20/david-suzuki-fukushima-warning_n_4632950.html)

tartare
26th Feb 2014, 04:04
awblain - you reduce the argument to absurdity.

awblain
26th Feb 2014, 04:40
Tartare, I'd have a look back through your posts if you're after absurdity.

Now go and look at costs and return to promoting the idea.

$12/W is a lot to pay for a power source that takes 10 years to build. It doesn't make economic sense, regardless of any safety arguments.

Nervous SLF
26th Feb 2014, 05:37
OFSO,

Also, cancer is a disease of the old, and as people live longer lives with greater quality of life in retirement, you've been seeing it more often, and instead of heart disease (until the onrushing obesity tsunami hits).




Well I have posted some rubbish on here but you take the prize for the ( people insert your own word ) post saying that. :yuk::yuk:

Go to any hospital that treats young children cancer patients and tell the parents that. Your surviving other half can post
the details of your funeral.

tartare
26th Feb 2014, 06:16
On North American scales and using traditional designs perhaps not.
There are many other options now.

awblain
26th Feb 2014, 07:18
Nervous,

Cancer is MOSTLY a disease of the old - there are children who get it too, but they are fewer in number. Any rise in cancer cases from environmental factors has to bear in mind that people are living long enough for it to be cancer that catches them. A rise in deaths from cancer doesn't necessarily mean worse health amongst the old, just that easier killers have been deferred.

Does that mean we should be looking out for carcinogens? Of course.
Does it mean we should be looking out for cancer in children? Of course.

MagnusP
26th Feb 2014, 09:17
Are you still "currently employed" by anyone in the industry MagnusP?

Never have been. BIG motors and generators, medical electronics, astronomical instrumentation and now, in my retirement, legal library.

rh200
26th Feb 2014, 11:57
What I find humorous is a lot of people out there are the same ones screaming global warming and science science science. Yet when presented with basic scientific fact and statistical evidence of the effects of radiation and disposal methods for waste etc, its all insane emotion.

In several decades after more and more accidents, which is normal, we will find that the deaths etc. asscoiated with such will be insignificant compared to a lot of other industrial stuff ups.

oggers
26th Feb 2014, 12:59
awblain:

$12/W is a lot to pay for a power source that takes 10 years to build. It doesn't make economic sense, regardless of any safety arguments.


An economic statement with zero merit, except as a factor of the unit cost of energy spread over the operating lifetime of the plant.

But as it happens, it's almost exactly the same build cost on a $/W basis as the London Array - the world's largest offshore wind farm. £8.4/W (based on official .gov.uk figures).

Hinkley C (projected based on EdF figures) would be £4.8/W. So; lower cost for nuke by that yardstick. FWIW.

And that's before you factor in life of the plant - typically 20 years for a wind turbine - where the nuke moves ahead by another 50%.

But this is only scratching the surface of the economics. The bottom line in the UK can be gauged by the strike prices the energy companies themselves have negotiated with the government - £155/MWhr for offshore wind, £95 for onshore, £120 for solar , £105 for biomass, and........£89.50 for Hinkley C and Sizewell C nukes.

Different regions will have different economics but it is noteworthy that the UK is touted as one of the best places for wind energy in the world. So if wind can't beat nukes on price here it is significant.

awblain
26th Feb 2014, 16:07
Hinkley C is currently GBP16bn for 3.2GW at 2013 prices, that's $8/W. But by the time it's delivered, it'll be GBP24bn. Look at what's happening to the French EPR costs, and delays. Will it work at 1.6GW? Maybe.

Even if an LPG tanker piles into a wind turbine, you're not looking at liability and lost investment costs anything like nuclear. The only thing that saves those costs is initial cost. The $300bn to clean up Fukushima is only half the replacement cost of Japan's reactors. Dividing huge numbers works. And the UK government will inevitably accept the liability for replacing Bristol.

Offshore wind is indeed about the same cost as nuclear. Longevity is far more than 20 years. The array will not be lost, if substantial servicing is required.

oggers
27th Feb 2014, 10:47
Hinkley C is currently GBP16bn for 3.2GW at 2013 prices, that's $8/W. But by the time it's delivered, it'll be GBP24bn.

The correct yardstick to use now is money at today's prices. 2023 prices will be the correct yardstick in....2023. If you're trying to make an economic argument that concept is something of a prerequisite. But seeing as you mention it, how do you arrive at £24bn by the completion date of 2023?

awblain
27th Feb 2014, 11:49
The 16bn is in 2013. So would be the 24bn.
That's not a correction for inflation, it's undercosting.

Look at the overruns in France's attempt to build its first EPR.
A 50% cost overrun on nuclear construction, and more than a decade in construction, is to be expected. And if anything at all goes wrong, during or after construction, the repair costs and timescales are huge.

With the guaranteed price, it should turn a profit over 30 years, but look at Eon - they ran away screaming from having to provide the huge capital.

OFSO
27th Feb 2014, 12:52
Also, cancer is a disease of the old

Not completely true. Many cancers pop up at specific ages. EG a doctor friend tells me I'm well past the age at which testicular cancer occurs in men.

Whoops. Those last two words.....

Doctor also said to me: did you work in the petrochemical industry or asphalting roads ? No ? Than I can tell you, you won't have bladder cancer - and the chances are, if you did, you'd have had some form of bladder cancer by now.

Anyway:

Three-quarters (75%) of all newly diagnosed cancers occur in people aged 60 or over.

Less than 1 in 100 (1%) of cancers are diagnosed in children, aged 14 years or under.

About 1 in 10 (10%) of cancers are diagnosed in people aged 25-49.

awblain
27th Feb 2014, 13:06
I agree - I should have said that cancer is generally a disease of the old, and there are exceptions, including both genetic and environmental exceptions. If you are exposed to carcinogens late in life, they'll typically still cause cancer late in life, whether it will happen before you did anyway is an interesting issue for exposure, diagnosis and treatment.

For old people, there are also many more cancer survivors than they used to be, so we're going to be learning about the long termc onsequences/complications too.

A relevant exception is Iodine as a nuclear daughter product. Once you're over 40 your thyroid is so inactive that the recommendation is to avoid taking Potassium Iodide, as the possible side effects of a big iodine dose are worse than just ingesting the fallout, since it's not grabbed by the thyroid like it is in young people.

oggers
27th Feb 2014, 13:45
The 16bn is in 2013. So would be the 24bn. That's not a correction for inflation, it's undercosting.

Okay, thankyou for the clarification. In that case 24bn is more guess than argument.

A 50% cost overrun on nuclear construction, and more than a decade in construction, is to be expected.



Evidently, from where you're coming from, a flat learning curve is what is to be expected. However, the evidence from China is that the next two EPRs are on schedule and ahead of schedule respectively. And the schedule there is less than 3 years for each unit. FWIW, the cost is $4bn.

awblain
27th Feb 2014, 13:55
The proof of the pudding is when they actually start work. Since they've been under construction since early 2010, that's 4 years gone already, so we're now looking at another 3 years, for 7 in total? Given judicial reviews, I'd be surprised if Hinkley C was anything like so brisk.

Chinese construction, oversight and certification standards may not be enough to satisfy the French on home turf. Local delays are likely to be greater.

The headlined pricing for foreign nuclear construction always seems to be laughably less than the true cost, lest the buyers get embarrassed, and is always less than the cost to repeat it here.

The first EPR in Finland started construction in 2005 and is due to go online in 2015. Flamanville in France started at the end of 2007, and projected to end in 2016. They're probably rather more typical of European construction costs, and both are now well over $11bn in cost (for single 1.6GW plants), with at least two years to go.

oggers
27th Feb 2014, 16:30
The proof of the pudding is when they actually start work. Since they've been under construction since early 2010, that's 4 years gone already, so we're now looking at another 3 years, for 7 in total?

My mistake, the construction time is 4 years.

Given judicial reviews, I'd be surprised if Hinkley C was anything like so brisk.

Yeah well, the antis do tend to chuck every planning hurdle at nuclear their charitable status can fund. And then argue it takes too long to get them built :ok:

awblain
27th Feb 2014, 18:03
Four years into construction already, and those Chinese plants still have a long way to go. It sounds to me like the initial estimate was four years, which looks much more practical to a banker than a decade. The cost growth from the initial estimates the Finns were given is also a bit hair raising, although the real cost seems to be factored in for Hinkley C.

Even in France, the substantially structurally complete plant at Flamanville, seven years into construction, is still at least two years from going into service. And that's not judicial review - it's that it's harder than they reckoned to meet the necessary quality assurance, especially since they hope the plant will run for 60 years (and it has to if it's to make a substantial profit).

Even in France it's been a long time since the bulk of their plants were built. I wonder how many people who worked on Sizewell B are still at work in the UK?

rh200
28th Feb 2014, 02:18
Nuclear plants are like any other process plant, they have standards etc. They are also in constant evaluation on how to do things better. The problem in the west is we didn't have continuity of evolution of designs and construction to take into account efficiencies of building plants.

If you look at the iron ore industry and some others, they can roll out plants like their production lines.

The Chinese are very good at doing that, once they find a good design they just spit them out like marbles. They'll have a few stuff ups, but they will get there.

We in the west keep moaning about value adding and making stuff here, but we shoot our selves in the foot. We could have easily been at the forefront of this. With the naval reactors being a good example, but no we just stand by and let someone else do it. We'll just keep going on about wind turbines etc that the Chinese will just start spitting out as well, and just wallow in our own pity pointing fingers at each other.

tartare
28th Feb 2014, 02:55
Couldn't agree more.
Nuclear science has been stigmatised and pilloried, based on unfounded fear and ignorance.
Bring on the thorium, Pebble bed, modular reactors...
And lets get the kids learning about it in school.
Some real, proper engineering and hard core science.

awblain
28th Feb 2014, 05:38
Nuclear power has been stigmatized because 1% of commissioned plants have failed spectacularly, and are too expensive to build to avoid this.

China is not building large numbers of plants - they're trying existing designs with the prospect of doing that eventually. It might work, but it might not.

Bring on the thorium, Pebble bed, modular reactors...

Well, you could, but you'd have to develop them to match the safety of existing plants, at great cost. Well-understood mature technologies are very expensive. There's no advantage to thorium, despite it having loud "boosters": you get exactly the same cesium and iodine per kWh. After 1000 years, it leaves less waste, but it's not waste after 1000 years that drives the cost and risk.

Look at the first "pebble bed reactor" in Germany - the cost of cleaning it up is currently unknown, but certain to be huge.

oggers
28th Feb 2014, 07:18
There's no advantage to thorium, despite it having loud "boosters"

Well, one very well known advantage of Thorium is the abundance of it.

oggers
28th Feb 2014, 07:29
Four years into construction already, and those Chinese plants still have a long way to go

You wish. Source for that?

awblain
28th Feb 2014, 10:01
You can use the same google I do. "Chinese EPR" will get you information.

First fuel produced for Chinese EPR (http://world-nuclear-news.org/ENF-First_fuel_produced_for_Chinese_EPR-1103134.html)

Groundwork began in China in mid-2008. Completion is quoted as being expected in 2014, yet the Finnish and French plants that are as well along, aren't expected to be at work until 2016. So 2014 for Taishan 1 looks very
unlikely to me.

There's lots of uranium and plutonium as well, including in already used fuel. That doesn't make it a great idea or deal to use it. Developing an infrastructure for thorium from scratch under current safety requirements would be an expensive challenge. Don't forget that without the hair-raising and extremely expensive antics of making submarine propulsion, there would be no nuclear power plants in service. The UK's gas cooled reactors are something of an exception, but that's only because they piggyback on the hair-raising and extremely expensive antics of the Windscale fire, and Calder Hall and Chapelcross.

oggers
28th Feb 2014, 11:59
awblain:

Four years into construction already, and those Chinese plants still have a long way to go

When asked for a source, the only one you provide says:

Areva said that it has now completed the first of three production campaigns for Taishan 1's fuel assemblies at its plant in Romans, France... The fuel will be delivered to the plant in 2014. In January 2013, Areva announced that installation of the heavy components - the reactor pressure vessel, the four steam generators and the pressurizer - had been completed within the reactor building. Unit 1 should begin operating in 2014, with unit 2 following in 2015. Two further EPRs are planned for the site.


Nothing about "having a long way to go". Are you are making stuff up? I would be happy to read a source that would bring clarity to the fog you are creating :ok:

Also:

There's lots of uranium and plutonium as well, including in already used fuel. That doesn't make it a great idea or deal to use it.

What you said was "there's no advantage to Thorium". The abundance of the stuff is an advantage - to the extent that the antis' argument about when the fuel might run out is a moot point.

awblain
28th Feb 2014, 12:17
And alongside that reference to imminent completion, from the manufacturer, I provided the context of the other EPRs under construction - with a long way to go - in both Finland and France, suggesting that that information about China is incorrect.

There's no shortage of uranium. Given the cost of processing and enriching fuel, the raw material price of uranium isn't a big deal. Prices would rise, new mines would open…

Develop thorium reactors - it might happen, but the price is going to be huge, and with existing systems operating for a half century, what will be the advantage.

I'm broadly agnostic on the merits of nuclear power. It's very expensive, and it's never been costed honestly at any stage, not in 1943 and not in 2014.

rh200
28th Feb 2014, 13:00
Nuclear power has been stigmatized because 1% of commissioned plants have failed spectacularly, and are too expensive to build to avoid this.

Thats an over simplification, the ones that have failed spectacularly as you so put it have only really done so as a result of human error, and frankly the errors could have been easilly avoided. The present so called crisis excepted, but even then that scenario was forcast and something that was supposed to be addressed.

That said there are all sorts of reactor designs in operation and the ones that have failed have all been outdated designs, including Fukashima. I believe the one up the road got hit as well, and didn't have a problem, slightly newer design.

Like all technologys we learn and improve, and considering that each of the so called spectacular failures have resulted in significantly less deaths than a lot of other industrial disasters, its hardly a big deal. Though activists do like to "maintain the rage"

As for the Chinese, their playing at the edges at the moment, when they get lined up you'll find them on alibaba :P

oggers
28th Feb 2014, 15:04
awblain

And alongside that reference to imminent completion, from the manufacturer, I provided the context of the other EPRs under construction - with a long way to go - in both Finland and France, suggesting that that information about China is incorrect.

Hmm. Using a source which contradicts your point and then adding on "and I'm suggesting it's incorrect" is quite a novel approach to making a credible argument. This is the first - and hopefully last - time that I have ever felt the need to use the cliche but here goes: you really are 'thinking outside the box' :D

Nonetheless, can you be specific about the problems that afflicted the first two plants which you believe are now also afflicting Taishan 1 and 2. And could you provide a source that doesn't have to be incorrect in order to corroborate your opinion?

awblain
28th Feb 2014, 15:11
How am I expected to get a credible completion data from a press release from Areva about making fuel for the plant in China? You wanted to know the timeline. There it is. You'd have objected if I'd quoted Greenpeace too.

Look to the record in Finland and France.

Maybe something's changed with the later-starting Chinese construction, but I suspect China's regulators are just less interventionist, and don't stop work to get things right.

We won't know how long it takes to build an EPR until some are finished, but currently, it's between 6 and 9 years. 6 if the Chinese plant comes on line this year. 9 if Flamanville goes online in 2 years as expected.

oggers
28th Feb 2014, 23:31
awblain

How am I expected to get a credible completion data from a press release from Areva about making fuel for the plant in China?

Well, the previous time I asked you for a source you did say:

You can use the same google I do. "Chinese EPR" will get you information

...and that press release was what you came up with. But now:

Maybe something's changed with the later-starting Chinese construction, but I suspect China's regulators are just less interventionist, and don't stop work to get things right.

So having failed to find any evidence that "those Chinese plants still have a long way to go" you are now saying "maybe something changed and China's regulators are less interventionist". Well maybe they are, your guess is as good as mine :ok:

awblain
1st Mar 2014, 07:57
I gave you the first example of an article about the timings: google will get you "information", but that still needs some parsing. All the plants have wikipedia entries too, where the timelines and current status are listed.

In France and Finland there is certainly still some way to go. To say that the same isn't the case in China doesn't seem reasonable, especially since it would make China the first place it operated, and the place to find the glitches.

It's understandable that there are few press releases about progress, given the huge delays and cost overruns. Saying "fuel production begins" is a lot more positive than saying "three years to go!".

And there has to be some explanation for why progress in China seems faster than in France. As an alternative, maybe the French are stretching construction out deliberately, but that seems unlikely doesn't it?

It takes 9 years at present to build an EPR in a well-regulated home location. It seems unlikely it can be done in 6 in China.

oggers
1st Mar 2014, 15:47
awblain

And there has to be some explanation for why progress in China seems faster than in France.

Well, the one staring you in the face is that they have learned from experience of the first two. But there are none so blind as those that will not see.

awblain
1st Mar 2014, 17:40
That's possible.

However, the hard bit is still to come, and the plants in France, Finland and China are all at comparable points in construction.

Over the next three years, we'll find out whether Hinckley C's pricing has been optimistic or not. With the agreed strike price being so high, it shouldn't matter - as long as it doesn't melt, it'll be a profitable prospect in the third decade of its operation.

rh200
28th Mar 2014, 05:48
Found this little diddy for plebes to understand the gravity of the situation, should put it on the climate change thread as well.

HOW DANGEROUS IS RADIATION? (http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html)

Mr Optimistic
28th Mar 2014, 14:46
Google 'demon core' and see what happens if you go eyeball to eyeball with it!

rh200
28th Mar 2014, 23:46
Google 'demon core' and see what happens if you go eyeball to eyeball with it!

I think I'm fairly aware of what the Demon core is without googling it. As usual someone takes the extreme example.

Try googling the effects of being in a fire.

A A Gruntpuddock
29th Mar 2014, 02:30
"Nuclear plants are like any other process plant, they have standards etc."

Not against nuclear plants per se, but which 'standard' suggested it was a good idea to construct one in an area liable to tsunamis?

And which 'standard' failed to ensure that such a plant would not be switched off as soon as a significant earthquake occurred, just in case?

Would it be wrong to consider that this problem is the result of incompetence on a massive scale?

It is evident from the videos that most of the affected areas were taken by surprise when the tsunami struck - why????????

rh200
29th Mar 2014, 04:37
Not against nuclear plants per se, but which 'standard' suggested it was a good idea to construct one in an area liable to tsunamis?

Actually the one up the road got hit by the same tsunamis and didn't have a problem. Why, my understanding it was new model and had different cooling systems. Someone else might have a better idea on that.

The moral of the story was that they had known about this eventuality but hadn't instigated reforms. Plants always need improving no matter what they are.

The problem with nuclear is that they are subjected to such a microscope by the media and wack job leftys that they go into nut case secretive mode. So instead of being able to take advantage of so of the most inovative thinking around, they become closed shop.

If even a quarter of the effort and thinking that has gone into making the so called renewables work, went into looking at the nuclear issues we would be sitting back going "what carbon problem"

Bushfiva
29th Mar 2014, 05:22
The one up the road belongs to a different company and was designed with a 14-meter seawall rather than 5.7 meters. In contrast to Fukushima, it was used as a refuge after the tsunami when the neighboring town was swept away.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
29th Mar 2014, 09:19
One of the problems is the Japanese Government, who were (and still are to a large degree) in denial about disaster risks.
I attended a conference where a Japanese Disaster expert pointed out the five hospitals in one town after Fukushima. The 4 Government ones built in the Government approved 'safe' area were all flattened by the tsunami, the private one built up the hill based on a realistic forecast was safe.

The problem with the nuclear reactor was that all the backup systems were vulnerable to the tsunami also -e.g. the emergency switching gear was in the basement. Thus, the seawall was in fact the only means of defence. There was no system redundancy for a tsunami - very poor design.

Lon More
29th Mar 2014, 09:58
The Belgians get about 1/3 of their energy from nuclear power stations. Unfortunatly this is about to drop dramatically as ultrasonic tests have shown up thousands of anomalies in a number of the reactor vessels.

SawMan
29th Mar 2014, 10:12
As with so many other advanced technologies, the main problem with nuclear power plants is a lack of common sense being built-in and applied during use. Why build one where even the possibility of tsunami damage or river flooding exists? Why build one near (or on top of) a known earthquake fault? Why build one without having enough redundancies to cover any foreseeable possibilities of trouble? They can be dealt with better, but it doesn't happen as often as it should :(

One of the older ones operates about 40 miles from here. The gov't keeps renewing it's license even though almost every major inspection finds serious safety concerns happening. One of the last issues arose because that same gov't agency had required an upgrade from fuses to circuit breakers for one safety system about ten years ago, so the plant operators complied but never actually tested them. Two years ago it was found that under the expected load they would all either open far too early or fail to open and burn out that critical circuit which has no other back-up. Why did it take 8 years before anyone thought to test them? :ugh:

I'm not anti-nuke but I am anti-stupidity, of which there is far too much of happening in that industry. Maybe we should mandate that the folks who run these power companies must live with their families next to their least-safe plant :E I bet things would change for the better quickly then!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
29th Mar 2014, 10:51
To a large extent this is a product of Government & big business. The Government heavily regulates which excludes small businesses. Large businesses often lobby for this,under the guise of 'better safety'. Big business then influences politicians to allow 'exemptions' or other mechanisms to avoid actual implementation of the regulations. These exemptions take many forms,including getting Inspection department budgets reduced, and establishing a path for poorly paid Government employees who 'co-operate' to get a final 10 years working for the company in a well paid supervisory role. We all know the mechanisms.
The upshot is that the public gets the impression the industry is well regulated, whilst big business gets little competition (hence higher profits) and low costs.

To take an example from another industry, look at the Lac Megantic train disaster. Someone in the Train Company proposed, and someone in Government allowed, a fuel train to run one-man operation, and for that train to be parked on a hill unmanned overnight with the engine running, and for that train to still be left unmanned after a fire in the engine, which resulted in the brake accumulator pump going offline.

It is worth asking whether Government regulation actually improves safety, or just builds up an industry for a massive disaster less often.

rh200
29th Mar 2014, 11:11
The Belgians get about 1/3 of their energy from nuclear power stations. Unfortunatly this is about to drop dramatically as ultrasonic tests have shown up thousands of anomalies in a number of the reactor vessels.
Wiki must be out of date, their saying about 50% and theres disagrement on whether their flaws of other stuff which jave been there since the start. Interesting.

May not like the frogs much, but hey at 75% they are cooking.