Japanese engineers conceded on Friday that burying a crippled nuclear plant in sand and concrete may be the only way to prevent a catastrophic radiation release, the method used to seal huge leakages from Chernobyl in 1986.
Officials said they still hoped to fix a power cable to at least two reactors to restart water pumps needed to cool overheating nuclear fuel rods. Workers also sprayed water on the No. 3 reactor, one of the most critical of the plant’s six.
Of course this will be tl;dr for those with 30 second attention spans, but for those who've had enough hyperbole and conjecture from the media and your FB friends, here's the wikipedia entry on Fukushima I
VDub
quote:
Originally posted by geroin
nothing to worry about, eh Nick?
Nope...
Not yet G...
What I'd like to know is why is it so challenging to restore power??
Orko
I really do hope that people show more trust in nuclear power. It took the biggest earth quake in over a 100 years, and tsunami, to bring this reactor remotely close to a melt down.
The reactor was built to withstand an earthquake of 8.5, and this was 9. That is roughly 3 times more powerful than it was designed for. So an earthquake 3 times as powerful, and a tsunami, and it still has not 'melted down'.
That is pretty impressive engineering if you ask me.
geroin
quote:
Originally posted by Orko
The reactor was built to withstand an earthquake of 8.5, and this was 9. That is roughly 3 times more powerful than it was designed for. So an earthquake 3 times as powerful, and a tsunami, and it still has not 'melted down'.
That is pretty impressive engineering if you ask me.
where did you read this information?
it was built to withstand an earthquake with a maximum surface magnitude of 7. This is the main concern. Most nuclear power plants are built on a location that has the least seismicity in the area, most are not even built if the possibility of magnitude 8 earthquake and if they are, they are built to withstand an 8. In Japan they don't have this privilege of choosing a very good location but still there is a possibility of an earthquake at any time including the tsunami hence they must have measures to prevent such a catasrophe. For a nation that is the most advanced in the world this was a massive up on behalf of the whole engineering team + officials that are responsible for the safety and proper building codes.
quote:
Originally posted by Orko
I really do hope that people show more trust in nuclear power. It took the biggest earth quake in over a 100 years, and tsunami, to bring this reactor remotely close to a melt down.
it was not the most powerfull in 100 years.
there have been at least 4 more powerful earthquakes before.
and no there is no trust in nuclear power as it is extremely dangerous and could potentially kill thousands/millions. We have to find alternative ways to generate energy or slowly move towards that route.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by geroin
where did you read this information?
it was built to withstand an earthquake with a maximum surface magnitude of 7. This is the main concern. Most nuclear power plants are built on a location that has the least seismicity in the area, most are not even built if the possibility of magnitude 8 earthquake and if they are, they are built to withstand an 8. In Japan they don't have this privilege of choosing a very good location but still there is a possibility of an earthquake at any time including the tsunami hence they must have measures to prevent such a catasrophe. For a nation that is the most advanced in the world this was a massive up on behalf of the whole engineering team + officials that are responsible for the safety and proper building codes.
A massive up in not anticipating a freak event that only happens about once every couple hundred years when the reactor was built like 35 years ago? The earthquake was not the problem. When the earthquake hit, the plant responded exactly how it's meant to. It was the tsunami that caused so much problems when it wiped out power to the backup generators. Japan is dependent on nuclear energy, and they live in an area that is at high risk for earthquakes. Everybody knows that there are risks that come with nuclear power plants, and they had taken every conceivable precaution to prevent anything like this from happening.
I mean come on, a ing 9.0 earthquake and a 10 meter high tsunami? If the plant was unsafe, or they had any doubts as to its ability to withstand a natural disaster, it would have been shut down a long time ago. Reactors have melted down in the past without any natural disasters whatsoever. You're suggesting that they design a nuclear reactor that has 0% risk of failure, and that's simply not possible with the nature of nuclear energy.
Maybe oil refineries should make fireproof oil too :rolleyes:
They did have measures to prevent a catastrophe like this. The thing you're forgetting is that the combination of an earthquake of that magnitude and a tsunami of that size and force is such a freak occurrence that what the reactor was built to withstand actually was reasonable. You can go on and on about "Oh well they should take every conceivable disaster into consideration" but if that's the case, there would be no nuclear power in the world because there's always a risk of something completely unexpected like this happening.
VDub
quote:
Originally posted by srussell0018
but if that's the case, there would be no nuclear power in the world because there's always a risk of something completely unexpected like this happening.
Yes but that's what he wants...
He's opposed to nuclear power...
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by VDub
Yes but that's what he wants...
He's opposed to nuclear power...
Well that's just stupid.
jester
quote:
Originally posted by LiquidX
Not sure how this driver didn't freak out while filming
