Support NeoGAF

[iidesuyo]

Naoto Kan, former Japanese PM.

Interview on Spiegel Online

Spiegel Online

- actually thought about evacuating ~50m people from the Tokyo area
- Tepco employees sacrified themselves, risking their lives
- there was still still water in reactor 4, cooling down the fuel rods, this reduced damage
- there were leaks in reactor 1, 2 and 3, relieving pressure
- he only got news from the media, was not informed by those in charge
- nuclear meltdown started only 2 1/2 hours after the earthquake
- the people in charge were incompetent, it was assumed that a nuclear meltdown would never take place, no training
- Japanese government will still support nuclear power despite popular rejection, because industry, bureaucracy and energy suppliers want it so

 

[PillarEN]

About the part of supporting nuclear power. Didn't GAF (and it really seemed like every poster who posted in the thread) pretty much yell at Germany when the people voted against nuclear reactors and instead wanted black coal or something to create energy? The idea being that it is much worse for the environment. So is the general mood yay or nay when it comes to nuclear power plants?

 

[iidesuyo]

About the part of supporting nuclear power. Didn't GAF (and it really seemed like every poster who posted in the thread) pretty much yell at Germany when the people voted against nuclear reactors and instead wanted black coal or something to create energy? The idea being that it is much worse for the environment. So is the general mood yay or nay when it comes to nuclear power plants?

The general mood was "nuclear power plants are safe". When Chernobyl happened, it went to "Western nuclear power plants are safe". Since Fukushhima happened it's "those were old reactors, no one could have foreseen a Tsunami".

Blahblahblah, they will find excuses the next time as well. Japan pays billions over billions over billions for that catastrophe, so much about "cheap clean energy".

 

[AliasGreed]

Chernobyl didnt have a Containment, that form of catastrophe won't happen ever again as long as the reactors have a containment around them. See Three Mile Island.

The problem with nuclear power is that all these power plants are old, with old technology and old designs from the 60's.

If new reactors where built almost all problems of the old reactors dissapear.

I became a 100% supporter of nuclear power after spending 1 month in France. About 85~% of there power is nuclear and France has the most bueatiful contryside ive seen in my life. Perfect Greens, 0 pollution.

 

[iidesuyo]

Chernobyl didnt have a Containment, that form of catastrophe won't happen ever again as long as the reactors have a containment around them. See Three Mile Island.

The problem with nuclear power is that all these power plants are old, with old technology and old designs from the 60's.

If new reactors where built almost all problems of the old reactors dissapear.

I became a 100% supporter of nuclear power after spending 1 month in France. About 85~% of there power is nuclear and France has the most bueatiful contryside ive seen in my life. Perfect Greens, 0 pollution.

And when the rivers run low they are supposed to to save energy or import it Germany, because there is not enough cooling water.

Being dependent on one 85% source of power is a very stupid idea.

 

[ElectricThunder]

Those last 2 points in particular should drive home to everybody why it is foolish to expect optimistic outcomes with Japan and nuclear power especially. If you want to see a window into the last point, among others, give the Nuclear Nation documentary(ies) a gander.

What a damned mess.

 

[Dennis]

- the people in charge were incompetent, it was assumed that a nuclear meltdown would never take place, no training

Well, that is stupid.

 

[ultratruman]

Of course it's from Speigel, the Germans love a bit of radiation panic.

It should've been the perfect horror story for them to exploit for their dogmatic anti-nuclear energy narrative. A nuclear power plant, years past its use-by date, hit by both a 9.0 earthquake and an 40m high tsunami in the same day.

Once they realised that still nothing really happened, they've resorted to focusing on the APOCALYPSE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN! Of course, it was sheer luck and had nothing to do with the effectiveness of proper safety precautions or the vastly overblown hysteria around the dangers of nuclear energy in general.

 

[Kinitari]

The general mood was "nuclear power plants are safe". When Chernobyl happened, it went to "Western nuclear power plants are safe". Since Fukushhima happened it's "those were old reactors, no one could have foreseen a Tsunami".

Blahblahblah, they will find excuses the next time as well. Japan pays billions over billions over billions for that catastrophe, so much about "cheap clean energy".

Nuclear is still one of the cleanest and safest. Something like Fukushima was a blessing in disguise in my opinion, as it sort of shook everyone up. Nuclear has been so without event for so long that everyone was letting everything slide. Like nuclear safety and keeping old ass reactors around.

In the same way people don't apply the safety expectations of cars from 1920 to the cars of today, we shouldn't burden the new nuclear plants with the issues of those from 50 years ago. These are now entirely new beasts.

In Ontario, we have doubled down on nuclear, and because of that, we've been able to move away from fossil fuels. Same for other countries with a heavy nuclear presence. And in India, i know there is a lot of work going into next generation reactors, which will hopefully get them less dependent on fossil fuels.


Basically, nuclear is the best option for the environment, and despite set backs, is increasingly safe.

 

[Nilaul]

Just about everything about Fukashima has been altered or covered up by the Japanese goverment/TEPCO.

http://fukushima-diary.com/fukushima-plant-2/
http://fukushima-diary.com/fukushima-plant-2/cover-ups/
http://fukushima-diary.com/health-2/

So yay.. Great going. Its all ready bad.

 

[iidesuyo]

Basically, nuclear is the best option for the environment, and despite set backs, is increasingly safe.

Until people realize there's a shitton of waste that will be toxic for the next 10000 years or so.

 

[Dennis]

Until people realize there's a shitton of waste that will be toxic for the next 10000 years or so.

Shoot it into the sun!

 

[Somnid]

Until people realize there's a shitton of waste that will be toxic for the next 10000 years or so.

I'm pretty confident this is a solvable problem, it's just really cheap to dump it at the moment. Thorium breeder reactors are pretty much the last hope of humanity for sustaining our energy consumption.

 

[CodonAUG]

Until people realize there's a shitton of waste that will be toxic for the next 10000 years or so.

1) If we kill the planet now with coal, who the fuck cares about 10,000 years from now?

2) Newer plants recycle most of their radioactive waste.

3) Some theoretical designs for newer reactors have no radioactive waste.

 

[Frankfurter]

Of course it's from Speigel, the Germans love a bit of radiation panic.

It should've been the perfect horror story for them to exploit for their dogmatic anti-nuclear energy narrative. A nuclear power plant, years past its use-by date, hit by both a 9.0 earthquake and an 40m high tsunami in the same day.

Once they realised that still nothing really happened, they've resorted to focusing on the APOCALYPSE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN! Of course, it was sheer luck and had nothing to do with the effectiveness of proper safety precautions or the vastly overblown hysteria around the dangers of nuclear energy in general.

Nothing really happened...? Are you drunk?

 

[acrid]

AP 1000's are a much better design. I work in a nuclear plant that was built in the 80's. Its safe, but the AP's are more cost effective and safer. In the event of an emergency, they are designed to allow the staff to walk away for 72 hours. Pneumatics, DC power, and gravity are responsible for cooling the reactor and bringing it offline

 

[Sectorseven]

Slightly off topic, but how is Japan's solar adoption rate?

 

[shintoki]

Nuclear is still one of the cleanest and safest. Something like Fukushima was a blessing in disguise in my opinion, as it sort of shook everyone up. Nuclear has been so without event for so long that everyone was letting everything slide. Like nuclear safety and keeping old ass reactors around.

In the same way people don't apply the safety expectations of cars from 1920 to the cars of today, we shouldn't burden the new nuclear plants with the issues of those from 50 years ago. These are now entirely new beasts.

In Ontario, we have doubled down on nuclear, and because of that, we've been able to move away from fossil fuels. Same for other countries with a heavy nuclear presence. And in India, i know there is a lot of work going into next generation reactors, which will hopefully get them less dependent on fossil fuels.


Basically, nuclear is the best option for the environment, and despite set backs, is increasingly safe.

Even with many of the older reactors, they are fine. A nuclear power plant can easily and safely operator for some 60-80 years. TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were all issues that concluded with operator error. The same incident happened at another NPP in Japan as Fukushima, yet they knew how to handle it.

The biggest issue with NPPs right now is making share there is enough Knowledge management and know retention tools in place. Since there was a large gap and the amount of new nuclear engineers vs the retiring work force(Think baby boomers). It's going be a massive hurdle and undertaking for them.

New reactor designs are just better. AP1000 and 1600 are great models. And the new SMRs will probably take off extremely well, specifically with many of the South East Asian countries.

 

[acrid]

The biggest issue with NPPs right now is making share there is enough Knowledge management and know retention tools in place. Since there was a large gap and the amount of new nuclear engineers vs the retiring work force(Think baby boomers). It's going be a massive hurdle and undertaking for them.

This is a big problem at my plant. Many boomers are on the way out. Every task is proceduralized, but there is a big need for tribal knowledge and experience to get the desired results. This experience is walking out the door faster than it can be passed on to newer techs.

 

[ultratruman]

That's one of those posts that I recommend hurriedly walking past and pretending as though you never saw it in the first place.

Were you watching the news when shit was going down? I remember live reporters on the scene describing the imminent evacuation of Tokyo, of a poisonous radiactive cloud sweeping its way down Japan, of the untold mutation to come.

Look at what actually happened: the casualties. 0 deaths. 0 radiation sickness. No damage to children or members of the public. 2 beta radiation burn victims who were discharged from hospital after 2 days. 2 workers who inhaled iodine-131, giving them a risk of developing thyroid cancer (one of the most easily treatable forms of cancer).

Aside from that, about 100 workers were exposed to radiation doses that slightly increased their risk of developing cancer in about 20 years, in a country where 25% already die from cancer.

The amount of iodine-131 escaping from all the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi was less than 10 per cent of the amount released at Chernobyl, and the release of caesium-137, the next most important fission product, was less than 15 per cent of the Chernobyl total. The only reason this accident was moved to the top of the INES highest emergency criterion was because of wrong estimates around the time of the tsunami about the amount of radioactive material released.

 

[Zoc]

I'm all for nuclear power, but that's no reason to let the corrupt fucks at tepco and in the Japanese government off the hook. This whole thing is shameful.

 

[Tacitus_]

The general mood was "nuclear power plants are safe". When Chernobyl happened, it went to "Western nuclear power plants are safe". Since Fukushhima happened it's "those were old reactors, no one could have foreseen a Tsunami".

Blahblahblah, they will find excuses the next time as well. Japan pays billions over billions over billions for that catastrophe, so much about "cheap clean energy".

More like "they were idiots not to flood proof their back up cooling". This whole thing could've been avoided if their backup diesels didn't get flooded.

And yes, new reactor designs avert this since their backup cooling is designed to work without power for long enough to restore powered cooling.

 

[King Tubby]

About the part of supporting nuclear power. Didn't GAF (and it really seemed like every poster who posted in the thread) pretty much yell at Germany when the people voted against nuclear reactors and instead wanted black coal or something to create energy? The idea being that it is much worse for the environment. So is the general mood yay or nay when it comes to nuclear power plants?

If you put the care necessary into making sure your nuclear plants are safe and have as small a risk of meltdown as possible, it is much better than coal power not just for the environment but for basic human safety.

If people decide to shun nuclear power completely it's going to make it that much more difficult to try to deal with climate change while not drastically cutting back energy consumption and contracting the global economy.

 

[PdotMichael]

About the part of supporting nuclear power. Didn't GAF (and it really seemed like every poster who posted in the thread) pretty much yell at Germany when the people voted against nuclear reactors and instead wanted black coal or something to create energy? The idea being that it is much worse for the environment. So is the general mood yay or nay when it comes to nuclear power plants?

Nuclear energy doesn't fix any large fundamental problems the way we create our energy.

And right now wind energy is the cheapest form of energy in Germany (and UK) - even excluding government subsidies (something that would kill nuclear energy).

 

[Kinitari]

Nuclear energy doesn't fix any large fundamental problems the way we create our energy.

And right now wind energy is the cheapest form of energy in Germany (and UK) - even excluding government subsidies (something that would kill nuclear energy).

Emissions? Baseload? Scalability?

 

[PdotMichael]

Emissions? Baseload? Scalability?

You destroy the environment, you are stuck with an energy form which can only do baseload efficiently, scalability lol.

Nuclear Energy only means that you stuck with some other energy forms for mid-load and peak-load, while renewable energy + smart grid etc. basically renders base load power plants obsolete.

 

[Always-honest]

The Netflix documentairy is pretty good (Pandora's Promise) though it's also a bit misleading about nuclear waste and other things.
But some interesting info (that i had a hard time believing sometimes).

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

You destroy the environment, you are stuck with an energy form which can only do baseload efficiently, scalability lol.

Nuclear Energy only means that you stuck with some other energy forms for mid-load and peak-load, while renewable energy + smart grid etc. basically renders base load power plants obsolete.

Uhh, nuclear energy doesn't destroy the environment.

 

[Jay Sosa]

About the part of supporting nuclear power. Didn't GAF (and it really seemed like every poster who posted in the thread) pretty much yell at Germany when the people voted against nuclear reactors and instead wanted black coal or something to create energy? The idea being that it is much worse for the environment. So is the general mood yay or nay when it comes to nuclear power plants?

There are two topics that I try to avoid on GAF:

Nuclear power
genetically altered food

I would advise you to do the same ; )

 

[twobear]

Even with many of the older reactors, they are fine. A nuclear power plant can easily and safely operator for some 60-80 years. TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima were all issues that concluded with operator error. The same incident happened at another NPP in Japan as Fukushima, yet they knew how to handle it.

The biggest issue with NPPs right now is making share there is enough Knowledge management and know retention tools in place. Since there was a large gap and the amount of new nuclear engineers vs the retiring work force(Think baby boomers). It's going be a massive hurdle and undertaking for them.

New reactor designs are just better. AP1000 and 1600 are great models. And the new SMRs will probably take off extremely well, specifically with many of the South East Asian countries.

Operator error is still something that has to be taken into account when assessing risk, though. There have now been three major incidents involving nuclear power that have all been caused or exacerbated by lax operation procedures, and there's no guarantee that those things wont happen again. It's fine that, in principle, nuclear power is relatively clean and relatively safe. But introduce confounding factors like the fact that they're run by private companies who have a vested interest in keeping costs low and that humans are fallible and make mistakes and the risks are different.

 

[PdotMichael]

Uhh, nuclear energy doesn't destroy the environment.

Please, drink a cup of the underground water around the uran mines in Canada.

 

[Kinitari]

You destroy the environment, you are stuck with an energy form which can only do baseload efficiently, scalability lol.

Nuclear Energy only means that you stuck with some other energy forms for mid-load and peak-load, while renewable energy + smart grid etc. basically renders base load power plants obsolete.

Nuclear doesn't destroy the environment, what are you basing that on?

Please, drink a cup of the underground water around the uran mines in Canada.

You shouldn't be drinking underground mine water in the first place. That being said, that's not destroying the environment. If that's your criteria, is the mining of materials for solar panels like.... Catastrophic to you? Or windmill bird death?

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

There are two topics that I try to avoid on GAF:

Nuclear power
genetically altered food

I would advise you to do the same ; )

1) Coal is more dangerous and damming than most people realize. They think everythink is better than Nuclear, but they don't think about how many people are going to die if we go 1-2 degree up. We're past the breaking point, and potentially hundreds of millions of people are going to die by the extreme weather based disasters. Disasters that we have seen nothing of its kind of in the last 10,000 years.
Many people who are for nuclear know the dangers, but think it is ultimately less risk because they know that there is no way that the energy industries in power are not going to back down. People have a short lifespan and many will never feel the consequences of their terrible choices, and thus we pass down the shit to the next generation and always have.

The only thing that can save us from both coal and nuclear is green energy. Massive investments in earth, solar, wind and wave energy, and fortunately we are making great strides. Even in China they have had much more luck than Obama.
Tesla now have a car that pulls out cleener air than the one it takes in. While this tech is expensive, there is hope.

The worst climate disasters will affect poor people when more and more water runs out around the world and crop dies. The disasters like tsunamis will hit people in coastal cities. What seemed like crazy hyperbolic 20 years ago, are potentially turning into scary possibilities within the next 30-100 years if we dont stop this global increase in degrees.




2) GMOs - We've been using GMOs for 100s of years (splicing and combining different strands of seeds). In the 70s we managed to multiply the western worlds food output by 4, and as the population goes towards the 12 billion people we're supposed to hit our cap at (according to UN) Africa absolutely needs to dedicate them to GMO, or we are going to run into food shortage problems soon.
artifical protein meat is still 20-30 years away, and solving our water problems are still a work in progress too.
There are risks, but we have to take risks and choose the lesser worse option. I know many anti-GMO dudes are fearful for a new "gros michel"(Panama disease strand that wiped out virtually all bananas in the 50s and 60s, and left us with the smaller shitter and less tasty banana sort we eat to today).

 

[FunkyMunkey]

only the first page and already anti-nuclear posts that don't know what they're talking about. disappointed

 

[Kinitari]

There are two topics that I try to avoid on GAF:

Nuclear power
genetically altered food

I would advise you to do the same ; )

Why would you avoid those topics? I imagine you have an opinion on them - wouldn't you want to share them and be challenged on them? What good is an opinion if the only people you share it with are people who will agree with you?

 

[nukedawg]

Operator error is still something that has to be taken into account when assessing risk, though. There have now been three major incidents involving nuclear power that have all been caused or exacerbated by lax operation procedures, and there's no guarantee that those things wont happen again. It's fine that, in principle, nuclear power is relatively clean and relatively safe. But introduce confounding factors like the fact that they're run by private companies who have a vested interest in keeping costs low and that humans are fallible and make mistakes and the risks are different.

This is why there are resident NRC members at nuke stations. The NRC couldnt care less if the company makes money. If safety protocol is violated, the NRC will order the plant shut down immediately. They are federally protected and cannot be told to not monitor any task.

 

[Ol No Bones]

Nuclear obviously can't work in all places but a modern nuclear plant could be a very good thing. As long as many precautions are taken I day go for it. I'm sure there's a Simpsons gif that will surface in the thread.

 

[Shahadan]

Why would you avoid those topics? I imagine you have an opinion on them - wouldn't you want to share them and be challenged on them? What good is an opinion if the only people you share it with are people who will agree with you?

Because then he'd have to face a dozen of people quoting everything and trying their best to ridicule him rather than having a conversation. What's the point.

It's probably easier on the nerves to enter a church and argue that God doesn't exist than trying to discuss those topics with the science "experts" here.

 

[Jay Sosa]

Why would you avoid those topics? I imagine you have an opinion on them - wouldn't you want to share them and be challenged on them? What good is an opinion if the only people you share it with are people who will agree with you?

Nah man, I'm good.



Believe me you don't want to hear my crazy ass opinions.

@Vigilant:

Like I said, to me discussing these things on GAF is like discussing politics with your co-workers..nothing good can come out of it.

Because then he'd have to face a dozen of people quoting everything and trying their best to ridicule him rather than having a conversation. What's the point..

Pretty much..every thread ends in people calling each other names and everyone being pissed at each other.

 

[Nikodemos]

Particularly shitty design of a particularly shitty subtype of a shitty type of nuclear reactor gets hit by Mad God's Rage and melts. News and film at 11.

Oh, and btw, there's such a thing as Dai-Ini. And no, it didn't melt down, despite being almost identical to Dai-Ichi.

 

[SL128]

This is why there are resident NRC members at nuke stations. The NRC couldnt care less if the company makes money. If safety protocol is violated, the NRC will order the plant shut down immediately. They are federally protected and cannot be told to not monitor any task.

Their working closely with the companies tends to make them more forgiving, and people who will be more forgiving are frequently more likely to be selected for the job. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture (ctrl+f nuclear for nuclear specific stuff)

For my own stance, nuclear is important to get us away from fossil fuels until we have enough renewable energy, after which they should be phased out.

 

[Moonkid]

New Zealand is pretty rife with anti-nuclear anything sentiments, which would be okay if nuclear energy didn't fall under that umbrella. It's pretty understandable where it comes from NZ, and fair enough for sticking it to the U.S. in the 60s I guess but going forward into the future it's an option that should be considered and not immediately shut down because blah blah CherNObyl.