• TEPCO admits they fucked up, Fukushima disaster could have been avoided
    21 replies, posted
[url]http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/10/20121012183824962374.html[/url] [quote=AJE]The utility behind Japan's nuclear disaster has acknowledged for the first time that it could have avoided the crisis. Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) said in a statement on Friday that it knew safety improvements were needed before last year's tsunami triggered three meltdowns, but it had feared the political, economic and legal consequences of implementing them. "When looking back on the accident, the problem was that preparations were not made in advance," Tepco's internal reform task force, led by company President Naomi Hirose, said in the statement. "Could necessary measures have been taken with previous tsunami evaluations? It was possible to take action" by adopting more extensive safety measures, the task force said. The task force said Tepco had feared efforts to better protect nuclear facilities from severe accidents such as tsunamis would trigger anti-nuclear sentiment, interfere with operations or increase litigation risks. Tepco could have mitigated the impact of the accident if it had diversified power and cooling systems by paying closer attention to international standards and recommendations, the statement said. Tepco also should have trained employees with practical crisis management skills rather than conduct obligatory drills as a formality, it said. The admissions mark a major reversal for the utility, which had defended its preparedness and crisis management since the March 2011 tsunami. [B]Internal reform committee[/B] The disaster knocked out power to the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant, leading to the meltdowns, which forced massive evacuations and will take decades to clean up. The statement was released after Tepco held its first internal reform committee meeting, led by former US nuclear regulatory chief Dale Klein. His five-member committee oversees the task force's reform plans. "It's very important for Tepco to recognise the needs to reform and the committee is very anxious to facilitate the reform necessary for Tepco to become a world-class company," Klein told a news conference. "The committee's goal is to ensure that TEPCO develops practices and procedures so an accident like this will never happen again." Investigative reports compiled by the government and the parliament panels said collusion between the company and government regulators allowed lax supervision and allowed Tepco to continue lagging behind in safety steps. Despite records indicating a major tsunami had once hit off Japan's northern coast, Tepco took the most optimistic view of the risk and insisted that its 5.7-metre-high seawall was good enough. The tsunami that struck Fukushima Dai-ichi was more than twice that height. The company had said in its own accident probe report in June that the tsunami could not be anticipated and that the company did the best it could to bring the critically damaged plant under control, although there were shortfalls that they had to review.[/quote]
A shame this will hardly convince those who oppose nuclear energy that it is a safe, and relatively clean, and quite effecient source of energy. Still, it is better than nothing that they owe up to their own faults; And in time, perhaps the world can understand that nuclear energy is one of our most viable options at this point, if you so wish to avoid enviromental damage.
[QUOTE=The fox;38011979]A shame this will hardly convince those who oppose nuclear energy that it is a safe, and relatively clean, and quite effecient source of energy. Still, it is better than nothing that they owe up to their own faults; And in time, perhaps the world can understand that nuclear energy is one of our most viable options at this point, if you so wish to avoid enviromental damage.[/QUOTE] Uranium fission reactors are actually not the answer to our energy problems. they produce long lived waste that is almost impossible to dispose of. our method of disposal is to bury it and forget about it. I'm just waiting for the LFTR reactors and the activation of ITER in the near future.
[QUOTE=The fox;38011979]A shame this will hardly convince those who oppose nuclear energy that it is a safe, and relatively clean, and quite effecient source of energy. Still, it is better than nothing that they owe up to their own faults; And in time, perhaps the world can understand that nuclear energy is one of our most viable options at this point, if you so wish to avoid enviromental damage.[/QUOTE] No man nuclear power is bad because if it reaches Schwarzschild mass it can go entropic and explode like a nuclear bomb like it did in Chernobyl. Seriously though, one thing democracy falls short on is stuff like this, people that don't know [B]anything[/B] about the subject matter yet still get to decide on it.
[QUOTE=The fox;38011979]A shame this will hardly convince those who oppose nuclear energy that it is a safe, and relatively clean, and quite effecient source of energy. Still, it is better than nothing that they owe up to their own faults; And in time, perhaps the world can understand that nuclear energy is one of our most viable options at this point, if you so wish to avoid enviromental damage.[/QUOTE] Aye; I was just thinking "Well now, hopefully this'll silence some anti-atomic luddites", and I still hope it'll make it so that people don't view atomic power so unfavourably, now that it's been shown that they merely forgot to upgrade. The way forward for nuclear power is better reactor tech, starting with the LFTR model, so that meltdowns become less of a potential risk, and we get more power than the old method of fuel rods in atomic piles; that method is about 70 years old, a relic from the last great war that, whilst has served us well, should probably be retired in favour of more efficient reactors and methods. [QUOTE=acds;38012079]No man nuclear power is bad because if it reaches Schwarzschild mass it can go entropic and explode like a nuclear bomb like it did in Chernobyl. Seriously, one thing democracy falls short on is stuff like this, people that don't know [B]anything[/B] about the subject matter yet still get to decide on it.[/QUOTE] That is actually one of the few problems I have with democracy; ignorant or otherwise unspecialised folks dabble in matters that they aren't qualified to tangle with. Now, if it were a phronesic democracy, with phronesis being a term used to refer to "practical wisdom", we'd probably have a democratic consensus wherein people who know their shit are the guys (and girls and others) who in theory would have the main say in matters related to their field. Think of it as a rather specific council of professionals, where the experts are the folks with power in regards to their fields. However, on it's own there may be the risk of corruption and/or stagnation, so it would be the stalwart duty of Council members to educate the public in regards to their fields of expertise, without too much in the way of bias, so that the general public could still make informed decisions regarding important areas of politics, science, agriculture, industry, infrastructure, economy, all that stuff. The thought of the ignorant being unable to have a say in such matters, whilst it'd help make more precise political decisions undiluted by ignorance, also risks an incomplete consensus due to a big number of voters being unable to participate due to a lack of expertise. On one hand, it'd give the wrong impression of the general public, but on the other hand, people should probably learn about what they're dealing with, so that they don't end up slamming stuff like stem cell research due to petty qualms over abortions and "cuz it maeks Babby Jezzis krai". In fact, religion shouldn't have much involvement in politics, save for events and legislation concerning the right to worship, and in the impossibly-rare circumstance when Earth is visited by eldritch beings of cosmic power; the latter being extremely unlikely and implausible, but not strictly-speaking completely impossible, and even then we'd probably be better off sending Evangelions and Gundam mobile weaponry to negotiate the relevance of our existence with a whale-sized octopus god.
[QUOTE=zombini;38012068]Uranium fission reactors are actually not the answer to our energy problems. they produce long lived waste that is almost impossible to dispose of. our method of disposal is to bury it and forget about it. I'm just waiting for the LFTR reactors and the activation of ITER in the near future.[/QUOTE] Fusion will probably be just future, without the "near" part. (I wouldn't expect it before 2040). 4th gen fission reactors actually produce very little waste, of course it still has to be contained, but compared to the damages that fossil fuels do, it's nothing.
[QUOTE=acds;38012079]No man nuclear power is bad because if it reaches Schwarzschild mass it can go entropic and explode like a nuclear bomb like it did in Chernobyl. Seriously though, one thing democracy falls short on is stuff like this, people that don't know [B]anything[/B] about the subject matter yet still get to decide on it.[/QUOTE] Exactly why we need a technocracy
[QUOTE=acds;38012079]No man nuclear power is bad because if it reaches Schwarzschild mass it can go entropic and explode like a nuclear bomb like it did in Chernobyl. Seriously though, one thing democracy falls short on is stuff like this, people that don't know [B]anything[/B] about the subject matter yet still get to decide on it.[/QUOTE] Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion in the sense of a nuclear bomb; The coolant failed in the reactor due to the security measures being turned off, and the control rods being made out of graphite, which failed to cool down fast enough, which caused a extreme steam explosion, which propepelled radioactivity into the atmosphere, and also ejected the extraordinarily radioactive control rods and uranium from the core. I do not see how this can happen if spent fuel is safely stored thousands of meters underground. The point that one can be uncertain of how to warn future generations of the dangers of radioactivity seems to be the major problem; Albeit, as pieces of papyrus have managed to survive for thousands of years, I would suspect; Given how advanced we are in terms of science and so forth, that we can safely warn any future generations of the danger of it; And at some point, be able to completely eradicate any spent waste fuel from earth. Obviously, it is not a totally clean fuel, but it is by far more effecient and clean than anything we currently have up and running.
and no one cares because it was a long time ago so it's ok
[QUOTE=The fox;38012129]Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion in the sense of a nuclear bomb; The coolant failed in the reactor due to the security measures being turned off, and the control rods being made out of graphite, which failed to cool down fast enough, which caused a extreme steam explosion, which propepelled radioactivity into the atmosphere, and also ejected the extraordinarily radioactive control rods and uranium from the core. I do not see how this can happen if spent fuel is safely stored thousands of meters underground.[/QUOTE] I know, I was being [B]very[/B] sarcastic/joking. Also the fact that they had a burning exposed core out in the open for a few days did it's fair share of shitting up the atmosphere.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;38012153]and no one cares because it was a long time ago so it's ok[/QUOTE] Nah, as soon as someone mentions nuclear energy, 80% of the population go "muh, Fukushima!" collectively, stopping any objective debate dead in its tracks
[QUOTE=acds;38012160]I know, I was being [B]very[/B] sarcastic/joking. Also the fact that they had a burning exposed core out in the open for a few days did it's fair share of shitting up the atmosphere.[/QUOTE] Aah, sorry, sometimes it's a bit hard to detect sarcasm on the Internet.. But you are quite correct; The fact that the government at that time did not wish to acknowledge the full extent of the damage did, of course, contribute quite a bit to the problem.
[QUOTE=acds;38012096]Fusion will probably be just future, without the "near" part. (I wouldn't expect it before 2040). 4th gen fission reactors actually produce very little waste, of course it still has to be contained, but compared to the damages that fossil fuels do, it's nothing.[/QUOTE] The way I see it is, it's better to run the small risk of a nuclear disaster than to continue burning fossil fuels the way we do.
[QUOTE=Scar;38012120]Exactly why we need a technocracy[/QUOTE] Technocracy sounds good, but I still feel it should be a democratic technocracy/technocratic democracy, as well as ensuring that everyone gets a reasonable and fulfilling higher education, which means scrap the nuclear subs and Oil Wars and "peacekeeping" in favour of making university free again. Looking at you Cameron; make way for the Techno-Cabals.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;38012218]The way I see it is, it's better to run the small risk of a nuclear disaster than to continue burning fossil fuels the way we do.[/QUOTE] There isn't enough U235 to fuel enough reactors to replace even a majority of fossil fuel applications. That's why the LFTR system is the only realistic bridge between fusion power and fossil fuels.
To date the only time a nuclear reactor has released radiation has been due to someone derping out somewhere. Chernobyl failed because a bunch of interns were charged with handling an unstable reactor during a risky test, and Fukushima failed because the people who owned it were too afraid of the political ramifications of upgrading it that they suffered far worse political ramifications of having it melt down all over the countryside. Derp. [QUOTE=zombini;38012626]There isn't enough U235 to fuel enough reactors to replace even a majority of fossil fuel applications. That's why the LFTR system is the only realistic bridge between fusion power and fossil fuels.[/QUOTE] Nuclear reactors will run on any fissile isotope. They don't need U235. There's power reactors that run on the waste products other reactors run on, others can use the fissile portions of nuclear weapons, still others can extract a few watts from pretty much anything radioactive. [QUOTE=Scar;38012171]Nah, as soon as someone mentions nuclear energy, 80% of the population go "muh, Fukushima!" collectively, stopping any objective debate dead in its tracks[/QUOTE] And if it hadn't happened they're just go "Meh, Chernobyl" instead. [QUOTE=zombini;38012068]Uranium fission reactors are actually not the answer to our energy problems. they produce long lived waste that is almost impossible to dispose of.[/quote] It and Hydroelectric are the best we've got. Flawed? Sure. But it's the best bet if you can't build a dam. [quote] our method of disposal is to bury it and forget about it.[/quote] It's almost as if we never dug the stuff up in the first place :v: [quote] I'm just waiting for the LFTR reactors and the activation of ITER in the near future.[/QUOTE] Fusion will be great but don't hold your breath. They still haven't gotten a reactor that can break even and keep [i]itself[/i] running, nevermind power entire cities. Once day we'll figure it out, but until then, fission is our best bet.
So why haven't we invested in LFTR's yet?
[QUOTE=laserguided;38013056]So why haven't we invested in LFTR's yet?[/QUOTE] You can't make nuclear bombs with it, or at least not as easily.
[QUOTE=acds;38012096]Fusion will probably be just future, without the "near" part. (I wouldn't expect it before 2040). 4th gen fission reactors actually produce very little waste, of course it still has to be contained, but compared to the damages that fossil fuels do, it's nothing.[/QUOTE] Fusion is 25 years off. Just like it has been for 50 years now.
[QUOTE=zombini;38012626]There isn't enough U235 to fuel enough reactors to replace even a majority of fossil fuel applications. That's why the LFTR system is the only realistic bridge between fusion power and fossil fuels.[/QUOTE] As mentioned, current generation powerplants can run on many different fissile materials. Besides, we don't need to run on uranium forever; we need it to work until a better alternative comes along.
Don't worry the free market did everything it could to stop this disaster!
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38014960]Fusion is 25 years off. Just like it has been for 50 years now.[/QUOTE] Yeah in 2040 it will be "Oh we're close, just another 50 years!". It almost seems like we'll be using annihilation before we use fusion. In fact, I wonder if antimatter would do fine to start fusion. Right now we're experimenting with lasers (and railguns, somewhat), wonder if a antimatter reaction would provide enough heat (however, it might not give as much energy as several highpowered lasers because it'd be more spread out).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.