why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[BodomBeachChild]

We live in an era of intense fear mongering, that's why. While yes, the situation in Japan should have everyone double check their plants that doesn't mean everyone should run around and scream, "Oh, my god. We're going to all die from our cruddy nuclear plants."

 

[Antari]

For being designed to withstanding the greatest earth could possibly throw at it... they aren't standing up too well. I'd be kinda mad about a nuclear plant near my home as well. There is no such thing as Failsafe or Foolproof. As well taking into account the average product quality of Russian goods ... I'd be VERY worried if I lived there.

Spoiler

When a wind generator fails, anyone standing beside the thing may get hurt, but thats where it ends.

 

[Evil Tim]

Chernobyl is an outlier as far as nuclear power safety statistics go.

And a hideously poor design run by rank amateurs with every possible safety system disabled deliberately. Thinking every reactor can go up like Chernobyl is like thinking every suspension bridge can collapse exactly like the old Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

 

[Valkyrie101]

But why not use solar and wind power? It will never explode and produces absolutely no yellowcake. Why invest in a type of power which produces waste instead of clean ones which can potentially continue until the sun explodes in 5 million or so years.

Because they'e incredibly inefficient and rely on factors that aren't guaranteed (sunlight and wind respectively). Maintaining our current standard of living requires nuclear power, which contrary to popular belief produces little waste and is quite safe).

 

[Evil Tim]

For being designed to withstanding the greatest earth could possibly throw at it... they aren't standing up too well.

It was a magnitude 9 earthquake, one of the most powerful on record, followed by a 30 foot, 100mph tidal wave which wiped entire towns off the map. The fact that they're standing up at all is testimony to how well designed they are.

Also, that second blast you linked happened yesterday.

 

[Antari]

But why not use solar and wind power? It will never explode and produces absolutely no yellowcake. Why invest in a type of power which produces waste instead of clean ones which can potentially continue until the sun explodes in 5 million or so years.

Because they'e incredibly inefficient and rely on factors that aren't guaranteed (sunlight and wind respectively). Maintaining our current standard of living requires nuclear power, which contrary to popular belief produces little waste and is quite safe).

If power companies were actually concerned with clean energy that produces alot of power, we'd see alot more geothermal in development. The only reason we're using nuclear power is because its CHEAP.

 

[Antari]

For being designed to withstanding the greatest earth could possibly throw at it... they aren't standing up too well.

It was a magnitude 9 earthquake, one of the most powerful on record, followed by a 30 foot, 100mph tidal wave which wiped entire towns off the map. The fact that they're standing up at all is testimony to how well designed they are.

Also, that second blast you linked happened yesterday.

And if you'll look over the claims made during construction of the place it was supposed to be able to withstand a great deal more than that. Including direct military attack. Doesn't look too hardened to me.

Yes its from yesturday ... doesn't make it less important to my point.

 

[Evil Tim]

If power companies were actually concerned with clean energy that produces alot of power, we'd see alot more geothermal in development. The only reason we're using nuclear power is because its CHEAP.

Um, and being prohibitively expensive is a problem that needs to be solved before geothermal is a viable source of energy. Until then, it isn't one.

 

[Valkyrie101]

But why not use solar and wind power? It will never explode and produces absolutely no yellowcake. Why invest in a type of power which produces waste instead of clean ones which can potentially continue until the sun explodes in 5 million or so years.

Because they'e incredibly inefficient and rely on factors that aren't guaranteed (sunlight and wind respectively). Maintaining our current standard of living requires nuclear power, which contrary to popular belief produces little waste and is quite safe).

If power companies were actually concerned with clean energy that produces alot of power, we'd see alot more geothermal in development. The only reason we're using nuclear power is because its CHEAP.

The problem with geothermal is that although it's great, it needs certain geography to work. And cost is a factor, when you're paying for it.

 

[Antari]

But why not use solar and wind power? It will never explode and produces absolutely no yellowcake. Why invest in a type of power which produces waste instead of clean ones which can potentially continue until the sun explodes in 5 million or so years.

Because they'e incredibly inefficient and rely on factors that aren't guaranteed (sunlight and wind respectively). Maintaining our current standard of living requires nuclear power, which contrary to popular belief produces little waste and is quite safe).

If power companies were actually concerned with clean energy that produces alot of power, we'd see alot more geothermal in development. The only reason we're using nuclear power is because its CHEAP.

The problem with geothermal is that although it's great, it needs certain geography to work. And cost is a factor, when you're paying for it.

Geographic location dictates the costs, all you have to do is drill down. But not building it now will only cost us more later.

 

[Evil Tim]

And if you'll look over the claims made during construction of the place it was supposed to be able to withstand a great deal more than that. Including direct military attack. Doesn't look too hardened to me.

It's suffered a minor radiation release after an apocalyptic disaster that may well have killed tens of thousands and that was almost certainly in excess of anything the designers were asked to plan for. I've no idea what you think "direct military attack" means, but I imagine the plant was built in accordance with a specific scenario (probably involving RPGs or given when it was built a single fighter-bomber), not what's the equivalent of being repeatedly shelled by a battleship.

As an example of this, railcars used to transport spent nuclear fuel can survive "direct military attack" as in anything smaller than the main gun of a Bradley doesn't stand a change of penetrating the casing. That doesn't mean they can survive a main battle tank firing at them, but if a main battle tank is firing at a car moving spent nuclear fuel then you probably have bigger problems than a radiation leak to worry about.

 

[Antari]

And if you'll look over the claims made during construction of the place it was supposed to be able to withstand a great deal more than that. Including direct military attack. Doesn't look too hardened to me.

It's suffered a minor radiation release after an apocalyptic disaster that may well have killed tens of thousands and that was almost certainly in excess of anything the designers were asked to plan for. I've no idea what you think "direct military attack" means, but I imagine the plant was built in accordance with a specific scenario (probably involving RPGs or given when it was built a single fighter-bomber), not what's the equivalent of being repeatedly shelled by a battleship.

As an example of this, railcars used to transport spent nuclear fuel can survive "direct military attack" as in anything smaller than the main gun of a Bradley doesn't stand a change of penetrating the casing. That doesn't mean they can survive a main battle tank firing at them, but if a main battle tank is firing at a car moving spent nuclear fuel then you probably have bigger problems than a radiation leak to worry about.

Direct military attack on a powerplant usually includes bombs, above and beyond 500lbs. That means a fairly hardened structure, yes you can make those flexable enough to withstand BIG earthquakes. In the case of those transports being shot at by weapons designed to pierce armor, well they were sorta designed to do that. You will find those containers are able to withstand pretty much anything but specific high velocity armor piercing ammunition.

Its Japan, they design front line buildings to withstand better than mag 10.0 earthquakes, or the worst that the planet can throw at it (or so they think). This one should not have the level of internal damage that it does if they actually did a proper job of what they claimed after an 8.9.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If power companies were actually concerned with clean energy that produces alot of power, we'd see alot more geothermal in development. The only reason we're using nuclear power is because its CHEAP.

Geothermal power might work in many places later, but nuclear works everywhere now.

Having said that, I'd like to see more work down on geothermal power research.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

The problem with geothermal is that although it's great, it needs certain geography to work. And cost is a factor, when you're paying for it.

Geographic location dictates the costs. But not building it now will only cost us more later.

Not quite true. There are some areas where geothermal is practically impossible with today's technology, for instance near natural gas or similar deposits. (It's hard to find commercial-sized deposits, but there are a lot of smaller deposits that could mess up a geothermal borehole.) Coastal cities will also have trouble keeping ground- and seawater out of the bores. Both of those are solveable with further development, but we're not there yet... and I'm sure there are other issues I don't know about.

There is no perfect solution; renewables* just aren't predictable enough or available in a big enough supply, fossil fuels pollute and add to the greenhouse gas problem, we're running out of places to flood to create reservoirs for new hydroelectric dams, geothermal is still regional and damned expensive, and nuclear has its bogeymen too.

The only way to avoid using the above to give up on the 21st century and live in pre-industrial conditions. I don't think anyone really wants that... so we have to pick the least-bad options and work to find better ones for the future. Personally, I rank nuclear really highly among the list of least-bad options.

-- Steve

* including but not restricted to wind, tide, solar, and biofuels of all types.

edited to add:

Its Japan, they design front line buildings to withstand better than mag 10.0 earthquakes, or the worst that the planet can throw at it (or so they think). This one should not have the level of internal damage that it does if they actually did a proper job of what they claimed after an 8.9.

Office buildings are easier to quake-proof; fewer moving parts, for starters.

If I recall correctly the plants in question were quake-rated for a 7.9 under the standards in the early '70s. This quake is rated from an 8.9 to a 9.1 depending upon the source you choose, which is anywhere from 10x to 20x as powerful... and the plant would've still been fully operational had it not been for the largest tsunami ever recorded arriving soon afterward. This wasn't a case of negligence.

 

[Evil Tim]

Direct military attack on a powerplant usually includes bombs, above and beyond 500lbs.

Is that what the design goal was, though? And even if it was, how does that magically give the outer building the ability to withstand internal explosions after earthquakes? You don't know, you're just making shit up to try and bolster your ridiculous claim that it's somehow abnormal for a complex piece of machinery to have operational issues after a staggeringly powerful earthquake that killed thousands.

Its Japan, they design front line buildings to withstand better than mag 10.0 earthquakes, or the worst that the planet can throw at it (or so they think). This one should not have the level of internal damage that it does if they actually did a proper job of what they claimed after an 8.9.

Yeah, that refinery that's currently blowing up looks like it took everything really well. And all those towns that are swept down to their foundations. You can't design a hugely complex structure to be immune to damage, you can design it so it survives and can be used again. The reactors have done an admirable job of withstanding one of the most powerful earthquakes in history. They were about a month from being decommissioned. When a 40-year-old reactor stands up as well as these have, it's a sign of good design, not bad design.

 

[Antari]

The problem with geothermal is that although it's great, it needs certain geography to work. And cost is a factor, when you're paying for it.

Geographic location dictates the costs. But not building it now will only cost us more later.

Not quite true. There are some areas where geothermal is practically impossible with today's technology, for instance near natural gas or similar deposits. (It's hard to find commercial-sized deposits, but there are a lot of smaller deposits that could mess up a geothermal borehole.) Coastal cities will also have trouble keeping ground- and seawater out of the bores. Both of those are solveable with further development, but we're not there yet... and I'm sure there are other issues I don't know about.

There is no perfect solution; renewables* just aren't predictable enough or available in a big enough supply, fossil fuels pollute and add to the greenhouse gas problem, we're running out of places to flood to create reservoirs for new hydroelectric dams, geothermal is still regional and damned expensive, and nuclear has its bogeymen too.

The only way to avoid using the above to give up on the 21st century and live in pre-industrial conditions. I don't think anyone really wants that... so we have to pick the least-bad options and work to find better ones for the future. Personally, I rank nuclear really highly among the list of least-bad options.

-- Steve

* including but not restricted to wind, tide, solar, and biofuels of all types.

Provided we don't try to build geothermal plants in mountain ranges, its well within our capabilities. I admit Tibet would have a hell of a time getting a geothermal plant going but in the case of Japan, they really don't have to go far.

 

[The Afrodactyl]

They have one or two examples of radiation related accidents that has sppoked them: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Mostly though, it's cartoons like the Simpsons. That show has shown the entire town being vaporised by that plant, and often shows things like mutations in wildlife. Plus, it depicts all nuclear plant staff as morons.

 

[Antari]

Direct military attack on a powerplant usually includes bombs, above and beyond 500lbs.

Is that what the design goal was, though? And even if it was, how does that magically give the outer building the ability to withstand internal explosions after earthquakes? You don't know, you're just making shit up to try and bolster your ridiculous claim that it's somehow abnormal for a complex piece of machinery to have operational issues after a staggeringly powerful earthquake that killed thousands.

Its Japan, they design front line buildings to withstand better than mag 10.0 earthquakes, or the worst that the planet can throw at it (or so they think). This one should not have the level of internal damage that it does if they actually did a proper job of what they claimed after an 8.9.

Yeah, that refinery that's currently blowing up looks like it took everything really well. And all those towns that are swept down to their foundations. You can't design a hugely complex structure to be immune to damage, you can design it so it survives and can be used again. The reactors have done an admirable job of withstanding one of the most powerful earthquakes in history. They were about a month from being decommissioned. When a 40-year-old reactor stands up as well as these have, it's a sign of good design, not bad design.

I know that you can't design things to be foolproof, you obviously missed my previous post. Which goes back to the Op's point of why are people afraid of nuclear power. Because as "safe" as everyone claims it is. Its no where near as safe as many other alternatives. And they were the ones making the claims of its invincibility not me ...

 

[ryai458]

Because nuclear power is cleaner and more efficient but, its new which means SCARY.