[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69853000/jpg/_69853787_69853782.jpg[/img]
[quote]Reactor 4 at Ohi in western Japan will stop generating electricity in the early hours of Monday.
Analysts say Japan will be without nuclear power until December at the earliest, the longest shut-down since the 1960s.
The Japanese public turned against nuclear power after the meltdowns at the Fukushima plant in 2011.
Before the accident, which was caused by a massive earthquake and tsunami, nuclear plants supplied about 30% of Japan's power.
But since then the plants have been closed, either for scheduled maintenance or because of safety fears, and have not been restarted.[/quote]
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24099022]**SOURCE**[/url]
Thanks TEPCO, you fumbling ass covering twats.
You have ruined the promises of nuclear energy for your entire country most likely forever. Even if Thorium does become an affordable alternative you've paved the way for incredible reluctance to use anything other than the FAR more inefficient gas and coal burning power stations. The country will also suffer from power shortages well into the next decade.
[QUOTE=pentium;42206595]
You have ruined the promises of nuclear energy for your entire country most likely forever. Even if Thorium does become an affordable alternative you've paved the way for incredible reluctance to use anything other than the FAR more inefficient gas and coal burning power stations.[/QUOTE]
dude... don't bust an artery.
[QUOTE=pentium;42206595][img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69853000/jpg/_69853787_69853782.jpg[/img]
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-24099022]**SOURCE**[/url]
Thanks TEPCO, you fumbling ass covering twats.
You have ruined the promises of nuclear energy for your entire country most likely forever. Even if Thorium does become an affordable alternative you've paved the way for incredible reluctance to use anything other than the FAR more inefficient gas and coal burning power stations.[/QUOTE]
Placing a nuclear reactor in a area with earthquakes weren't exactly a brilliant idea to begin with.
Especially since it were literally ancient when it comes to the current development of nuclear reactors.
[QUOTE=Van-man;42206610]Placing a nuclear reactor in a area with earthquakes weren't exactly a brilliant idea to begin with.
Especially since it were literally ancient when it comes to the current development of nuclear reactors.[/QUOTE]
If there's anyone I trust the seismic stabilization of a nuclear reactor with (and pretty much everything else), it's Japan.
[QUOTE=pentium;42206634]If there's anyone I trust the seismic stabilization of a nuclear reactor with (and pretty much everything else), it's Japan.[/QUOTE]
Why is that?
[QUOTE=pentium;42206634]If there's anyone I trust the seismic stabilization of a nuclear reactor with (and pretty much everything else), it's Japan.[/QUOTE]
No.
They should be placed in seismic stable regions.
Don't want another factor to add to the list of [I]"shit that can go horribly wrong"[/I]
[QUOTE=Sally;42206646]Why is that?[/QUOTE]
Because if it wasn't for that wall of water we call a tsunami, their infrastrusture at Fukushima did remain online, did it not?
[QUOTE=Van-man;42206610]Placing a nuclear reactor in a area with earthquakes weren't exactly a brilliant idea to begin with.
Especially since it were literally ancient when it comes to the current development of nuclear reactors.[/QUOTE]
There's this thing that's called engineering. They solve problems, like making planes fly or make nuclear reactors earthquakeproof.
[QUOTE=pentium;42206595]
Thanks TEPCO, you fumbling ass covering twats.
You have ruined the promises of nuclear energy for your entire country most likely forever. Even if Thorium does become an affordable alternative you've paved the way for incredible reluctance to use anything other than the FAR more inefficient gas and coal burning power stations. The country will also suffer from power shortages well into the next decade.[/QUOTE]
You seem upset.
[QUOTE=pentium;42206669]Because if it wasn't for that wall of water we call a tsunami, their infrastrusture at Fukushima did remain online, did it not?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Wiki]2008: Tsunami study ignored
In 2007, TEPCO set up a department to supervise all its nuclear facilities, and until June 2011 its chairman was Masao Yoshida, the chief of the Fukushima Daiichi power plant. An in-house study in 2008 pointed out that there was an immediate need to improve the protection of the power station from flooding by seawater. This study mentioned the possibility of tsunami-waves up to 10.2 metres (33 ft). Department officials at the company's headquarters insisted that such a risk was unrealistic and did not take the prediction seriously[/QUOTE]
They knew about it though
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;42206697]They knew about it though[/QUOTE]
We were not discussing the factor of tsunami damage. We were debating over how well the station would hold up in an earthquake and it held up very well, until the tsunami was factored in.
[QUOTE=pentium;42206733]We were not discussing the factor of tsunami damage. We were debating over how well the station would hold up in an earthquake and it held up very well, until the tsunami was factored in.[/QUOTE]
So only the earthquake is considered a danger that can be avoided? They knew about earthquake risks and took precautions, they knew about the tsunami dangers and shrugged it off. Sure it held off the earthquake but what about the aftereffects?
[QUOTE=Sally;42206646]Why is that?[/QUOTE]
Japan is earthquake prone as fuck, they therefore have a massive understanding of anti earthquake building
[QUOTE=DrDevil;42206691]There's this thing that's called engineering. They solve problems, like making planes fly or make nuclear reactors earthquakeproof.[/QUOTE]
Let's test designs in safe areas first.
Mother nature is a devious bitch that should [B]NEVER [/B]be underestimated.
Being cocky and overconfident is the recipe for disaster.
[QUOTE=Midas22;42206696]You seem upset.[/QUOTE]
Many of us are. Irrational fear is doing way more wrong than it has ever done right. Irrational fear is why coal fired power plants are still online in the western world, why nobody can buy an item without six disclaimers and 19 different safety 'features' that make it worse, why nobody can do anything even slightly risky without a two hour fucking safety briefing.
[QUOTE=TestECull;42206865]why nobody can do anything even slightly risky without a two hour fucking safety briefing.[/QUOTE]
Well thats more of the fault of the completely rational fear of lawsuits.
[QUOTE=Midas22;42206696]You seem upset.[/QUOTE]
I don't blame him, this sort of thing could set nuclear energy back decades.
If thousand year old Japanese temples were designed well enough to survive so long, surely modern engineering can keep nuclear reactors earthquake-proof.
Source (also a good read) : [URL="http://gizmodo.com/5846501/how-japans-oldest-wooden-building-is-still-standing"]http://gizmodo.com/5846501/how-japans-oldest-wooden-building-is-still-standing[/URL]
[QUOTE=TestECull;42206865]Many of us are. Irrational fear is doing way more wrong than it has ever done right. Irrational fear is why coal fired power plants are still online in the western world, why nobody can buy an item without six disclaimers and 19 different safety 'features' that make it worse, why nobody can do anything even slightly risky without a two hour fucking safety briefing.[/QUOTE]
Its more than risky when you can only build on the coast and you're sitting on about 3 fault lines.
[QUOTE=Van-man;42206835]Let's test designs in safe areas first.
Mother nature is a devious bitch that should [B]NEVER [/B]be underestimated.
Being cocky and overconfident is the recipe for disaster.[/QUOTE]
Yet by your logic:
[quote]Placing a nuclear reactor in a area with earthquakes weren't exactly a brilliant idea to begin with.[/quote] You cannot place a nuclear reactor anywhere on earth and be promised absolutely zero seismic activity (this includes the Great Plains of North America). Even in recent history the northeast witnessed the effects of earthquakes which again to your logic means we can't build them on the Atlantic coast of North America either. The best you can do is look at previous indicators and predict how powerful of a quake to build for. Japan's been doing that for more than half a century and reinforcing their critical infrastructure every time they questioned the results.
As a result the Fukushima plant survived one of the most powerful earthquakes on record. I just did not survive the tsunami. We now know however if the plant was built just up the hill behind the plant it would of survived.
Nuclear power is probably one of the cleanest (contrary to its portrayal in popular culture) and most efficient sources of alternative power out there. Reactionary decisions are almost never good.
Where nuclear power shuts down, gas and coal takes its place primarily. Not wind or solar. Good job.
I just hope someone makes a big push for nuclear fusion development in the near future - That's our only saving grace.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;42206889]Well thats more of the fault of the completely rational fear of lawsuits.[/QUOTE]
Safety briefings in general, yes, but when you're renting...say...a bicycle, all that's necessary is "Wear a helmet, follow road laws/signs, and don't be a dumbass".
[QUOTE=Jsm;42206892]I don't blame him, this sort of thing could set nuclear energy back decades.[/QUOTE]
good. let's stop using dangerous and environmentally destructive ways of harnessing energy.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42207209]good. let's stop using dangerous and environmentally destructive ways of harnessing energy.[/QUOTE]
I agree, let's stop using gas and coal power plants in favor of...
Wait a minute!
[QUOTE=pentium;42206595]
Thanks TEPCO, you fumbling ass covering twats.
You have ruined the promises of nuclear energy for your entire country most likely forever. Even if Thorium does become an affordable alternative you've paved the way for incredible reluctance to use anything other than the FAR more inefficient gas and coal burning power stations. The country will also suffer from power shortages well into the next decade.[/QUOTE]
Japan has proven themselves to be totally incompetent in the face of a nuclear disaster, until their government gets its shit together they shouldn't be running reactors
Fukushima was preventable and their constant lying and underestimating the problem afterward made it much worse than it had to be
[QUOTE=Stopper;42207223]I agree, let's stop using gas and coal power plants in favor of...
Wait a minute![/QUOTE]
geothermal, tidal, wind
[QUOTE=yawmwen;42207236]geothermal, tidal, wind[/QUOTE]
Japan is using their geothermal sites to full capacity and the power produced is so minuscule compared to Japan's needs that it's not even funny.
Wind and tidal power is hard and costly to harvest, also you can't use it everywhere in the country. And even if you could, how many turbines would you need to power a country like Japan?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a molten-salt thorium reactor be completely safe in the case of an earthquake?
Fukushima was dangerous because of the cooling systems shutting down, but a TMSR would safely shut-off in case of power-loss to the entire system, because the little plug keeping the molten salt would stop being cooled, melt and the salt would just drop off into a safe storage container, and the reaction would halt, as far as I remember.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.