Fukushima, A Photo Visit

  • Throughout the month of April 2024, participate in the FileJoker Thread Contest OPEN TO EVERYONE!

    From 1st to 30th of April 2024, members can earn cash rewards by posting Filejoker-Exclusive threads in the Direct-Downloads subforums.

    There are $1000 in prizes, and the top prize is $450!

    For the full rules and how to enter, check out the thread
  • Akiba-Online is sponsored by FileJoker.

    FileJoker is a required filehost for all new posts and content replies in the Direct Downloads subforums.

    Failure to include FileJoker links for Direct Download posts will result in deletion of your posts or worse.

    For more information see
    this thread.

Ceewan

Famished
Jul 23, 2008
9,152
17,033
That is really a well-written article. Kudos for sharing it. As far as the contaminated soil goes I am sure someone well come up with an answer. I remain optimistic and I think the Japanese government is doing what can reasonably be done (all indications seem to lean that way, even in this article). You would think they would cut the power to the "ghost towns" though, the whole street lights working in areas where no one lives is kind of creepy (as are the stopped clocks and most everything in general). Fucking great photos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoolKevin

CodeGeek

Akiba Citizen
Nov 2, 2010
5,181
1,864
It is really really sad. But not shocking as I already saw some TV documentation before which showed similar photos. But still... :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoolKevin

Ceewan

Famished
Jul 23, 2008
9,152
17,033
This is why I am not a fan of nuclear energy. This could be any town by a nuclear power plant if shit happens.


And yet it is one of the "cleanest" sources of power on the planet. It is not the science itself that is so dangerous as to how we use it. Responsibility is a bitch. But I feel you bro and it looks like the world too, is looking for alternative solutions to nuclear fission as a clean power source. Let us hear it for windmills and solar energy!
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoolKevin

EzikialRage

Active Member
Nov 20, 2008
672
100
And yet it is one of the "cleanest" sources of power on the planet. It is not the science itself that is so dangerous as to how we use it. Responsibility is a bitch. But I feel you bro and it looks like the world too, is looking for alternative solutions to nuclear fission as a clean power source. Let us hear it for windmills and solar energy!
People say its the cleanest but I have to wonder how clean can someone be if you have to put the waste product in radiation proof containers and bury deep underground? I also wonder that if a a disaster like this happened at a coal plant would the city its in be turned into another Chernobyl or Fukushima?
 

WillEater

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2008
1,004
450
It's a common failure..

People operate the nukes, and people are not robots.

Mistakes do happen.

I worked for 20 years in a high capacity steam generator facility, (Not Nuke) and the failures that we experienced were all personnel related.

Some were operations, but most were engineer related.

A junior engineer decides to modify the spec for the "Super heater Tubes" and they fail shortly after.
Those tubes were OK as they were, but the Jr was hoping for a promotion by saving the company large amounts of money.

They tubes failed because the new tube spec was not able to withstand the service in the super heater.

This story was repeated often enough it rang hollow.

The San Onofre nuke gen station just above San Diego had the same issue. Tube spec was changed, tubes blew, and now the plant is down for good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ceewan

Ceewan

Famished
Jul 23, 2008
9,152
17,033
People say its the cleanest but I have to wonder how clean can someone be if you have to put the waste product in radiation proof containers and bury deep underground? I also wonder that if a a disaster like this happened at a coal plant would the city its in be turned into another Chernobyl or Fukushima?


Personally I am all for "clean coal" plants. I am really pissed at what the Obama administration and the democrats did to states like West Virginia. There is no comparison though between burning coal for power and using nuclear energy. People have been figuring out how to make use of nuclear waste in productive fashions, nor does it use much of the earths unrenewable resources....such as coal.

Food for thought:

(this article is outdated but still very informative)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/smarter-use-of-nuclear-waste/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing


Coal disastors? You bet they happen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania
 

CodeGeek

Akiba Citizen
Nov 2, 2010
5,181
1,864
If you use coal or oil you have CO2 and all kind of waste in gas form. If you use a nuclear power plant you have radioactive waste. While you can get CO2 back from the air (using a lot of energy) and press it back into coal and oil (using even more energy) you can't do that with nuclear waste. You only can shoot it into the sun. And if you do so there is the problem if the rocket explodes.

I think we should heavily rely on green energy. But there is not "one" green energy - it must be a mix.
 

Ceewan

Famished
Jul 23, 2008
9,152
17,033
First of all Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occuring gas, (every oxygen breathing animal expels it and every plant uses it). 2nd, it is very debatable as to how harmful to our atmosphere Carbon Dioxide actually is (don't believe everything you read). 3rd, there are plenty of uses for nuclear waste (as the links I provided earlier help explain) and we are learning more all the time.

I concur on "green energy" though, however it is not very practical and will be expensive and time consuming to implement. A cleaner enviroment is better for all of us and ontop of that it shows we are taking some responsibility for the planet we call our home. I like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EzikialRage

CodeGeek

Akiba Citizen
Nov 2, 2010
5,181
1,864
Yes, it's a natural gas. And in the past there have been times in which there was a much more higher concentrations of it in the air. But to be honest: I don't want to live in such a time. ;) And many other living beings, too.
There is and was even nuclear material in nature, but it's concentration is much less than in that nuclear waste. You don't die from a little bit of radiation, but you do from that shit.

Expensive and time consuming? Not really. E.g. in German the citizens implemented it much faster than the government expected. And even the economy is switching now as some energy producing companies are already on the edge of getting bankrupt. Other energy producing companies in Europe thought that the Germans are dump and build some new power plants - also nuclear. And now - the price for energy on the energy stock exchange dropped like it never had been before and some of the power plants they build even have been activated yet. Germany is flooding Europe with cheap energy. There is only one joke: In Germany the energy is most priciest in all Europe.

I think green energy is better for all of us. 1st energy is infrastructure. So it's better if it's owned by the public. If everyone owns some solar collectors or solar-cells it's own by the public. Energy production should be more decentralized. To prevent blackouts as well as terrorist attacks. That is also solved by that. And, of course, it saves the environment, too. There are even insurance companies which support green energy as they realized that their costs will explode if the environment gets down the drain (e.g. because of house insurances when a flood occurs). So even from a economic point of view it makes sense to push green energy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jugulear

Ceewan

Famished
Jul 23, 2008
9,152
17,033
reuters and other news agencies have bee running stuff on Fukishima and the tsunami the last week or so. Kinda depressing reads really so I have shied away from them. The best articles were probably at Japantoday.
 

WillEater

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2008
1,004
450
A few days after the tidal waves destroyed the generators providing back-up electrical power to Fukushima Daiichi’s cooling system, the protective water bath boiled away from the spent fuel pond for reactor no. 4, leaving the stored spent fuel rods partially exposed to the air. Had it not been for heroic efforts on the part of Japan’s nuclear workers to replenish water in this spent fuel pool, these spent rods would have melted down and their zirconium cladding would have ignited, which most likely would have released far more radioactive contamination than what came from the three reactor core meltdowns.

Japanese officials estimate that, to date, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has released just over half of the total radioactive contamination released from Chernobyl, but other sources suggest that the radiation released could be significantly more. In the event of an extreme GMD-induced long-term grid collapse covering much of the globe, if just half of the world’s spent fuel ponds boil off their water and become radioactive zirconium-fed infernos, the ensuing contamination will far exceed the cumulative effect of 400 Chernobyls.

Most of us tend to believe that a nuclear reactor is something that can be shut down in short order, like some massive piece of machinery that can be turned off by simply flipping a switch, or by performing a series of operations in a prescribed manner over a relatively short time, such as a few hours or perhaps a day or two. In spite of my MIT education (BSME, MIT, 1978), until recently I too was under the spell of this comforting delusion, which is far from the truth. You see, the trillions of chain reactions going on inside a nuclear reactor’s core continuously produce such incredible amounts of energy that a single nuclear power plant can generate more electricity than is required to power a good sized city. Unfortunately, these reactions do not simply “cease fire” at the flip of a switch. In general, it takes 5 to 7 days to slow down a reactor core’s nuclear chain reactions to the point where the core may be removed from the reactor.

After removal, the fuel rods are quite “hot”, both from the perspective of temperature and radioactivity. For the next 3 to 5 years these fuel rods must be immersed under roughly 20 feet of continuously cooled water, both to shield the surrounding area from radioactivity, as well as to prevent catastrophic melt-down from occurring. According to Gundersen, after slowing down the chain reactions inside the reactor cores at Fukushima for a full eight months, the fuel rods would start melting down again if coolant flow was suspended for just 38 hours.

Gundersen explained that, essentially all modern nuclear reactors are designed with banks of “fuel rods”, which contain highly radioactive materials, combined with banks of “control rods”, which mesh between the fuel rods like the interwoven fingers of your right and left hands. It is the degree of interweave that moderates and controls the rate of nuclear chain reactions. He further explained that in the event of a significant loss of reactor control, reactors are designed for a “fail-safe” process to occur, where the control rods automatically fall into the fully meshed position with respect to the fuel rods, resulting in maximal slowing of the core’s nuclear reactions and beginning the process of shutting down the reactor.

Typically, this action rapidly reduces the power produced by these chain reactions by a factor of 20:1 (to 5.0 per cent of full power), but that still leaves thousands of horsepower worth of waste heat that must be removed if the reactor core is not to rapidly overheat and fail catastrophically. After a day of leaving the control rods in the fully interwoven position, this reaction slows to 1.0 per cent, and after a week it will be about 0.1 per cent of full power. Once the reactions in the fuel rods slow to the point where the rods may be removed from the reactor, the spent fuel rods must be cooled inside containment ponds for 3–5 more years before the nuclear reactions decay to a point where the rods can be moved to specially designed air-cooled storage banks.

As mentioned previously, nuclear power plants are only required to store enough backup fuel reserves on-site to keep their backup diesel generators running for a period of one week. The NRC has always operated from the assumption that extended grid “blackouts” would not last for periods of more than a few days. The government has promised that, in the event of a major catastrophe such as a Hurricane Katrina, diesel trucks will show up like clockwork at all troubled nuclear facilities until local grid-supplied electrical power services have been re-established. Unfortunately, governments and regulators have not considered the possibility that the next extreme GMD which Mother Nature unleashes upon Earth will quite likely disrupt grid services over much of the industrial world for a period of years, not just days. The chances that the world’s nuclear reactors will receive weekly deliveries of diesel fuel under such chaotic circumstances are practically zero. In a world suffering from loss of fuel and electric power, if any such deliveries were attempted those fuel tankers would be prime targets for armed hijackers.

Had it not been for heroic efforts on the part of Japan’s nuclear workers to replenish waters in the spent fuel pool at Fukushima, those spent fuel rods would have melted down and ignited their zirconium cladding, which most likely would have released far more radioactive contamination than what came from the three reactor core melt-downs. Japanese officials have estimate that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster has already released into the local environment just over half the total radioactive contamination as was released by Chernobyl, but other sources estimate it could be significantly more than was released by the accident at Chernobyl. In the event that an extreme GMD induced long-term grid collapse covering much of the globe, if just half of the world’s spent fuel ponds were to boil off their water and become radioactive zirconium fed infernos, the ensuing contamination could far exceed the cumulative effect of 400 Chernobyls.