why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[Thaluikhain]

I was wondering, why not build an enormous blast shield over nuclear power plants? in case of imminent explosion, just close it up, pump in emergency coolant and if it all goes badly, then at least it's all contained. It's one of those ideas that I think sounds too practical - like getting all the players of a football team to stand in a line leading to the opposition's goal o they can just pass the ball down 'till the guy at the end gets it and shoots. Sounds like it should work, but for some reason it doesn't.

That's what they do do (amongst a host of other things) and it works fine.

The problem is, covering the thing in concrete only stops the destroyed reactor from spreading radioactive material. It doesn't stop your very expensive reactor from being destroyed.

Now, pumping coolant in also does work, but you are left with lots of steam, which can seperate into hydrogen and oxygen and cause damage to the outside of the building that the concrete shield and reactor is in, which is what happened in Japan.

[

2) Assuming that we don't find the recipe for magic 100,000 year concrete, we can assume that at some point it will weather. Water will collect, there will be chemical weathering, ALL areas have some sort of geological activity, etc. A few cracks and this stuff works its way into the water table.

You're also assuming that degradation will be rapid enough to pose a risk. I wouldn't; in many places of the world you can find "fossil" water trapped millions of years ago that hasn't migrated to the surface. It's a matter of picking the right location and choosing the right design and materials.

Speaking of which, there have been naturally occuring nuclear reactions occuring on Earth, which have not spread radioactive materials despite being active on and off for millions of years.

 

[Evil Tim]

Now, pumping coolant in also does work, but you are left with lots of steam, which can seperate into hydrogen and oxygen and cause damage to the outside of the building that the concrete shield and reactor is in, which is what happened in Japan.

I believe the actual problem was that while there are supposed to be electrical ignition systems to burn off excess hydrogen in the containment building before it can reach dangerous levels, they're not powered by the reactor itself; the logic behind this is that if the reactor isn't functioning properly they wouldn't be able to trigger them, so they use the external electrical grid.

I doubt the designers considered the issue of there being a problem with the reactor and the entire country the reactor is attached to at exactly the same time.

 

[monkey jesus]

OT: It's so strange that an Escapist lives/works so close by. :B

Even stranger, I used to live in Didcot South Oxon

 

[Sarge034]

Wait people were ok with nuclear for awhile? When did this happen? You should have asked why is the news reporting these demonstrations right now and not three monthes ago. Fear sells and the media is a bias fear mongering vulture.

Want some advice? Question what you are told and WHY you were told it.

 

[drunken_munki]

Yeah, but if something DOES go wrong, stuff goes, very, horribly wrong.
See: Chernobyl outskirts.

True, but by holding back the technology the research gets severely delayed or even halted. We could have super clean and efficient and safe plants by now if the technology was allowed to evolve. What we have is dying old inefficient plants which gives the impression that it is 'unsafe'.

Plus people have the image of barrels of green sludge being dumped into places, which isn't true. The waste is radioactive pellets which are contained in secure contraptions.

 

[Bags159]

Because they aren't safe. Just because they aren't exploding left and right doesn't mean they're safe. And as is proven in the rare cases when they do explode, the consequences are catastrophic. Same thing with stuff like oil drilling: accidents might be rare, but when they happen, the damage they do is nearly impossible to recover from
.

It's too bad all power plants are built and ran to the same standards as Chernobyl.

 

[Joe Deadman]

You'd think people would be more worried about this:

Spoiler: (1:18)

But then you don't get to cry about radiation and meltdowns and stuff (thus presumably getting more viewers etc).
Quite frankly as someone else said somewhere: in this big an earthquake everything is screwed.

 

[Toriver]

I can see both points here, in a way. Nuclear power is, for the most part, safe, but when things go wrong, as we can see now, they do really wrong. Though I think the issue is not so much in that they were using nuclear power as much as putting their reactors on a freaking fault line right in front of the ocean! Seriously, what were they thinking with those locations, especially knowing the frequency and intensity of the earthquakes that hit here?

Anyway, things look really bad now, but I do want to remind people who think the area will be "unlivable for generations" of something.

Current populations of:
Hiroshima - 1,173,980
Nagasaki - 446,007

These two cities were hit by nuclear bombs, and were rebuilt into the thriving cities they are today. I wouldn't exactly call that "unsafe for generations". For a short time after the blasts, radiation levels were dangerous, and those who were in contact with it for extended periods of time ended up sick or dying, but after that time, radiation levels dropped to a safe level, and the cities were repopulated soon after. So I'm confident that things will not be at an unlivable level for long.

 

[Bags159]

I can see both points here, in a way. Nuclear power is, for the most part, safe, but when things go wrong, as we can see now, they do really wrong.

Why does everyone think that all nuclear power plants = Chernobyl in quality?

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I can see both points here, in a way. Nuclear power is, for the most part, safe, but when things go wrong, as we can see now, they do really wrong.

Why does everyone think that all nuclear power plants = Chernobyl in quality?

They don't have to be nearly as bad as Chernobyl to still be devastating.

 

[Evil Tim]

They don't have to be nearly as bad as Chernobyl to still be devastating.

Yes, actually, they do. You might want to consider reading up on the subject rather than just assuming every reactor is an atomic bomb wearing a clever disguise.

 

[Burck]

The same reason why people are scared of sharks.

Nuclear Sharks.

The point being, its psychologically (although incorrectly) horrifying for people in the nearby area.

But one real issue is that nuclear waste must be dumped responsibly, and some communities have suffered dire consequences for the irresponsibility of the owning companies.

That, and I think there isn't much public information on the advantages and disadvantages of Nuclear vs. Coal power.

 

[DSK-]

I've always feared them. No matter how safe they there is always the possibility - even if it is incredibly slight - that something can go wrong.

It isn't the technology I fear, it's the individuals that are supervising it.

Take Concorde - the safest plane that I know of, that in its 40 year service has had one accident - which was down to time saving incorrectly following maintenance procedures.

"Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong".

I'd rather be safe than sorry.

 

[FallenTraveler]

I trust nuclear power plants, I don't trust the people running them, or the natural phenomenon that can affect them. Japan could possibly be in deep shit right now because they apparently didn't think placement through.

Come up with safer nuclear power production methods and I'm all in, or we can skip nuclear power and get to work on hydrogen... or... windmills... or something... woo nuclear power

 

[The Human Torch]

The only thing that is keeping nuclear power plants from being safe is that all those hippies are stopping all progress being made in nuclear safety. The few nuclear power plants that blew up, were built like 50 years ago, we have made MONUMENTAL progress in the nuclear program and those things are safer than most coal power plants.

People fear nuclear power plants because they don't understand the technology. And as always, instead of trying to understand, they harass and reject every single notion.

 

[mew4ever23]

The problem with nuclear power is The byproducts (nuclear waste) and what happens when things go wrong (as others have mentioned, when things go wrong in a nuclear reactor, they go horribly wrong). There's also the problem that safety in a nuclear reactor is relative.

People using Chernobyl as an argument against using nuclear energy - The reactors at Chernobyl were dangerous at the best of times and weren't actually for producing electricity - any electricity from them was a beneficial side effect. Modern reactors are much, much safer, and indeed, even other reactors of Chernobyl's time were safer.

 

[Virgilthepagan]

For the record, the most critical of Japan's reactors was forty years old, poorly maintained and updated. There's a reason people worry about situations like this, and I'm not hearing many volunteers willing to place Nuclear waste in their back yard for a few centuries....

That said, I'm for Nuclear power, it's just that a good chunk of every western nation's population is very much against it. They're not "suddenly" afraid of it, concerns have somewhat understandably escalated though.

 

[Evil Tim]

For the record, the most critical of Japan's reactors was forty years old, poorly maintained and updated.

You do realise the reactors having problems were going to be decommissioned next month because they'd outlived their service lifetime? And after a magnitude 9 earthquake and apocalyptic tsunami are having containment issues rather than blowing the fuck up like that refinery in the video on the previous page? This is hardly a black mark against the reactors themselves.

 

[DRSH1989]

I love nuclear power plants... especially the ones with the juicy melting cores that go BOOM, exploding suddenly for no apparent reason .

 

[archvile93]

Because many people have the mistaken belief that reactor meltdowns are common and the explosion is as bad as an atomic bomb. In the off chance that the reactor does go critical and explode, it would likely be a steam explosion, not an atomic one.