Three nuclear reactors melted down right after quake

[Chris]

Tokyo (CNN) -- Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant experienced full meltdowns at three reactors in the wake of an earthquake and tsunami in March, the country's Nuclear Emergency Response Headquarters said Monday.

The nuclear group's new evaluation, released Monday, goes further than previous statements in describing the extent of the damage caused by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11.

The announcement will not change plans for how to stabilize the Fukushima Daiichi plant, the agency said.

Reactors 1, 2 and 3 experienced a full meltdown, it said.

3 nuclear reactors melted down after quake, Japan confirms - CNN.com

 

[Political Junky]

Germany is phasing out Nuclear Power. They've had great success with Solar.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0607/Germany-to-phase-out-nuclear-power.-Could-the-US-do-the-same

 

[Chris]

Germany is phasing out Nuclear Power. They've had great success with Solar.

Germany to phase out nuclear power. Could the US do the same? - CSMonitor.com

Remember when all these posters here were saying that the nuclear disaster in Japan was being blown out of proportion by the press?

Turns out, it was worse than anyone thought.

 

[xsited1]

Germany is phasing out Nuclear Power. They've had great success with Solar.

Germany to phase out nuclear power. Could the US do the same? - CSMonitor.com

Remember when all these posters here were saying that the nuclear disaster in Japan was being blown out of proportion by the press?

Turns out, it was worse than anyone thought.

I recall most everyone was very worried about it. I even started this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...erfectly-safe-for-ya-nothing-to-see-here.html

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, you and many others expressed justified fears that it was much worse than they were stating. And you were correct. The people here that demonstrated their ignorance were Kooky, Walleyes, and BiPolar.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yes, you and many others expressed justified fears that it was much worse than they were stating. And you were correct. The people here that demonstrated their ignorance were Kooky, Walleyes, and BiPolar.

I would just never build a fucking plant near a subduction fault that is for damn sure. Otherwise I'd rather use the vast deserts for nuclear plants instead of solar. Far, Far, Far more power generated.

 

[Old Rocks]

Until we solve the problem of nuclear waste, I would not recomend building another nuke. If what they state concerning the thorium cyle nukes is correct, then we need to build a prototype to make sure it works as stated. As of now, we saw the nuke industry state that Three Mile Island was impossible, and that what happened in Japan was impossible. And both happened. And both were downplayed until they finally had to tell the truth.

The nuclear industry has earned the distrust that is now expressed.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Germany is phasing out Nuclear Power. They've had great success with Solar.

Germany to phase out nuclear power. Could the US do the same? - CSMonitor.com

Generating 2% of your country's electric needs through solar is not what anyone (except a Liberal) would call a "great success".
Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FireFly]

It does not matter how you try to spin green energy, there are limits. You can't get power on demand from Wind or Solar. You can only replace 25% with Wind & 15% with solar. Adding them together Factoring in overlap & off peak production the best you can achieve is 30%.

30% can & likely will happen. Anything beyond that is an absolute lie. There is no way any country is going all wind & solar. Nuclear in deserts is the best option to make up the gap.

 

[martybegan]

Yes, you and many others expressed justified fears that it was much worse than they were stating. And you were correct. The people here that demonstrated their ignorance were Kooky, Walleyes, and BiPolar.

There were concerns, but the fact that still most of the radioactive base material is still contained in the reactors shows the design, while not completely effective, stopped this from being a much much worse accident.

At chernobyl large chunks of the reactor's graphite and rods were blown out of the structure (remember they didnt have containment). That combined with the graphite fire in what was left of the core is what caused large areas to be irradiated.

Here it looks like most of the fissile material remained in the reactor. the current water leaking issues are serious, but nowhere near the soil and air contamination levels seen in Chernobyl.

 

[Likuh]

It does not matter how you try to spin green energy, there are limits. You can't get power on demand from Wind or Solar. You can only replace 25% with Wind & 15% with solar. Adding them together Factoring in overlap & off peak production the best you can achieve is 30%.

30% can & likely will happen. Anything beyond that is an absolute lie. There is no way any country is going all wind & solar. Nuclear in deserts is the best option to make up the gap.

Where did you get that numbers from? How can you be sure the limits of green energy are already explored??

Since America started doing research on it, it spent some trillions (!!) on it. How far would we have got, if this money would have been spent on research on other energy sources?

Many money and work was done to get as much knowledge about nuclear power as we've got now. What do we know now? Nuclear power is uncontrollable, more dangerous than everything human beings ever invented and not reliable. We're at a dead end, still many don't want to accept that, because so much was invested.
Meanwhile, nuclear waste piles up and nobody knows what to do with it. It's an easy aim for everybody who wants to harm a society really badly.

The disadvantages of nuclear energy are so grave that the few advantages can not really justify that it is still used. But of course it's hard to go new ways...

 

[martybegan]

It does not matter how you try to spin green energy, there are limits. You can't get power on demand from Wind or Solar. You can only replace 25% with Wind & 15% with solar. Adding them together Factoring in overlap & off peak production the best you can achieve is 30%.

30% can & likely will happen. Anything beyond that is an absolute lie. There is no way any country is going all wind & solar. Nuclear in deserts is the best option to make up the gap.

Where did you get that numbers from? How can you be sure the limits of green energy are already explored??

Since America started doing research on it, it spent some trillions (!!) on it. How far would we have got, if this money would have been spent on research on other energy sources?

Many money and work was done to get as much knowledge about nuclear power as we've got now. What do we know now? Nuclear power is uncontrollable, more dangerous than everything human beings ever invented and not reliable. We're at a dead end, still many don't want to accept that, because so much was invested.
Meanwhile, nuclear waste piles up and nobody knows what to do with it. It's an easy aim for everybody who wants to harm a society really badly.

The disadvantages of nuclear energy are so grave that the few advantages can not really justify that it is still used. But of course it's hard to go new ways...

So all these plants just chugging along without an issue are "uncontrollable?" Most of them seem to be under control.

As for the waste, yes its an issue, but sequestering it is a viable solution, in many ways far better than how we handle the waste from combustion (up and out). At least nuclear waste is compact.

For the 3 worst accidents in the past 30 years the most minor one was due to bad maintenance and poor emergency procedures, the worst one was due to a shitty design and poor operational procedures, and the middle one was due to a 40 fucking foot high wall of water.

The only one so far with a lasting environmental impact is Chernobyl. We have yet to see if the Fukishima one is more like TMI where the long term damage is kept inside the plant.

 

[FireFly]

It does not matter how you try to spin green energy, there are limits. You can't get power on demand from Wind or Solar. You can only replace 25% with Wind & 15% with solar. Adding them together Factoring in overlap & off peak production the best you can achieve is 30%.

30% can & likely will happen. Anything beyond that is an absolute lie. There is no way any country is going all wind & solar. Nuclear in deserts is the best option to make up the gap.

Where did you get that numbers from? How can you be sure the limits of green energy are already explored??

Since America started doing research on it, it spent some trillions (!!) on it. How far would we have got, if this money would have been spent on research on other energy sources?

Many money and work was done to get as much knowledge about nuclear power as we've got now. What do we know now? Nuclear power is uncontrollable, more dangerous than everything human beings ever invented and not reliable. We're at a dead end, still many don't want to accept that, because so much was invested.
Meanwhile, nuclear waste piles up and nobody knows what to do with it. It's an easy aim for everybody who wants to harm a society really badly.

The disadvantages of nuclear energy are so grave that the few advantages can not really justify that it is still used. But of course it's hard to go new ways...

With all you green idiots in the world I can guarantee we will increase our addiction to Coal & Crude Oil. The founder of Greenpeace finally pulled his head out of his ass & it about time the rest of you wackos do the same.

 

[Chris]

It does not matter how you try to spin green energy, there are limits. You can't get power on demand from Wind or Solar. You can only replace 25% with Wind & 15% with solar. Adding them together Factoring in overlap & off peak production the best you can achieve is 30%.

30% can & likely will happen. Anything beyond that is an absolute lie. There is no way any country is going all wind & solar. Nuclear in deserts is the best option to make up the gap.

There is no limit to green energy.

Green energy is all around us.

The only limit is the political will to achieve these goals.

 

[Truthmatters]

Man is itelligent enough to fix these problems and yet some just never want us to move forward by insisting "no we cant".

 

[martybegan]

It does not matter how you try to spin green energy, there are limits. You can't get power on demand from Wind or Solar. You can only replace 25% with Wind & 15% with solar. Adding them together Factoring in overlap & off peak production the best you can achieve is 30%.

30% can & likely will happen. Anything beyond that is an absolute lie. There is no way any country is going all wind & solar. Nuclear in deserts is the best option to make up the gap.

There is no limit to green energy.

Green energy is all around us.

The only limit is the political will to achieve these goals.

that, and periods of no wind, and night.

 

[Old Rocks]

We have just barely touched geothermal.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html

A comprehensive new MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States has found that mining the huge amounts of heat that reside as stored thermal energy in the Earth's hard rock crust could supply a substantial portion of the electricity the United States will need in the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact.

An 18-member panel led by MIT prepared the 400-plus page study, titled "The Future of Geothermal Energy" (PDF, 14.1 MB). Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, it is the first study in some 30 years to take a new look at geothermal, an energy resource that has been largely ignored.

The goal of the study was to assess the feasibility, potential environmental impacts and economic viability of using enhanced geothermal system (EGS) technology to greatly increase the fraction of the U.S. geothermal resource that could be recovered commercially.

Although geothermal energy is produced commercially today and the United States is the world's biggest producer, existing U.S. plants have focused on the high-grade geothermal systems primarily located in isolated regions of the west. This new study takes a more ambitious look at this resource and evaluates its potential for much larger-scale deployment.

 

[FireFly]

It does not matter how you try to spin green energy, there are limits. You can't get power on demand from Wind or Solar. You can only replace 25% with Wind & 15% with solar. Adding them together Factoring in overlap & off peak production the best you can achieve is 30%.

30% can & likely will happen. Anything beyond that is an absolute lie. There is no way any country is going all wind & solar. Nuclear in deserts is the best option to make up the gap.

There is no limit to green energy.

Green energy is all around us.

The only limit is the political will to achieve these goals.

that, and periods of no wind, and night.

Finally someone who has a clue.

 

[Old Rocks]

Solar thermal. Geothermal. And a continental grid.

Right now, in Oregon and Texas, we often have to idle the wind turbines at the same time that the East Coast or MidWest needs electricity because of the lack of interconnections between the three grids in the US.

 

[FireFly]

Solar thermal. Geothermal. And a continental grid.

Right now, in Oregon and Texas, we often have to idle the wind turbines at the same time that the East Coast or MidWest needs electricity because of the lack of interconnections between the three grids in the US.

I was already counting on a continental grid to get us to 30%. Even though Texas has more wind power than they can use when the wind blows they cant get to 25%. They need storage capacity just to level out erratic wind power. The necessary continental grid will only serve to make the whole country like Texas. Yes we can get to 25% wind without decreasing our current standard of living. After that we just spill-off power.

I will get back to you on Solar Thermal with sun tracking capacity to see what reliable percent of the day they produce power.

Wind and Solar Can Reliably Supply 25 Percent of Oahu's Electricity Need, New Study Shows

Robbie Alm, Hawaiian Electric executive vice president, said, "To reach our renewable energy goals we need to use all the resources available to us. For Oahu, this includes the utility-scale solar, roof-top solar, waste-to-energy and on-island wind that we are pursuing. But on-island resources are not enough to meet Oahu's power needs