Continuing problems at Fukushima

[overtone]

And again, "Perhaps you would like to point out the factual errors in this analysis"

Already handled, completely and thoroughly, as you know from reading above - there are no factual issues, errors or accuracies, with bullshit. The only relevant matter of fact is that you are posting bullshit on this thread - why is that?

 

 

 

perhaps you would like to explain why you are unconcerned about a bigger number of people killed by coal.

So what are the possible motives, agendas, behind that kind of post in a thread like this? Why would an apologist for nuclear power post like that?

 

 

 

So I refer to my previous: does anyone know how long do they have to keep on cooling the things with water (reportedly 400 tons a day); is it years, decades or centuries?

They can't answer that reliably until they find out what happened to the cores. The guesses I've seen run to years at most - actual retrieval of the cores has been planned (by TEPCO) within ten years, which impiies reasonable and permanent cooling before that time.

Edited September 14, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

I keep posting it because it's still important.

If you replaced nuclear power with coal (and, in the short term, that's the only proven viable alternative) then you would end up with more dead people.

Do you really want to do that?

It's also relevant because it puts the harm done by Fukushima into context- yes it's bad but so are road deaths and I don't see a thread titled "Continuing problems on every road in the world".

So, once again,Perhaps you would like to point out the factual errors in this analysis

Apart from anything else, you are using this as your "justification" for your libellous statement that I "don't care about the death toll from Chernobyl"

Your logic is faulty anyway, but it relies on the assertion that I have posted a "link to wingnut crap" so you ought to be able to show that it's crap.

 

 

Incidentally I don't work for the nuclear industry or any of it's subsidiaries so its just silly to call me "an apologist for nuclear power".

[Delbert]

 

Incidentally, even if I were unconcerned by the death toll from Chernobyl (I'm not, of course) then perhaps you would like to explain why you are unconcerned about a bigger number of people killed by coal. "We are not dysfunctioning Chinese coal burners and miners, "

I don't think anybody is unconcerned about people killed by coal. But for me it's this apparent philosophy of: justify nuclear by find something that you feel is worse. I'm sorry, but that's no justification for anything. But rather a policy of descent to chaos if applied generally. Like how about the number of people killed or injured by gas? Like asphyxiation poisoning or the of reports of houses being blown up. But how many cases of asphyxiation or houses blown up by nuclear? None all as far as I can recall.

 

Can you please place this comparison business in the trash can.

[John Cuthber]

"Can you please place this comparison business in the trash can."

No, because mankind has to make the decisions and, if those decisions are to have any hope of being sensible, those decisions need to be made on the basis of comparisons of the alternatives.

It's not a matter of "find something that you feel is worse." because the nuclear industry didn't '"find" the coal industry.

 

Coal was happily going along killing people, then along came nuclear which kills (according to that page I posted earlier ,which you have all been unable to find any serious errors in) roughly a thousand times less (per TW hr).

Yet there's no thread here discussing "Continuing problems with coal" and, as far as I can see, the difference is simply bias.

If those figures are right- or even close to right- then replacing coal by nuclear energy would drop the death toll enormously and yet, somehow, you want to label that as " a policy of descent to chaos ".

Why is fewer dead people "descent"?

Dead people are just as dead if they are Chinese coal miners or Russian fire-fighters.

 

Why are you apparently a thousand times less bothered by them?

[swansont]

Couldn't agree more. So I refer to my previous: does anyone know how long do they have to keep on cooling the things with water (reportedly 400 tons a day); is it years, decades or centuries?[/size]

A related subject came up in another thread. Most likely years, possibly decades

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77559-heat-left-in-nuclear-spent-fuel/?p=756495

 

Evan after a year you produce > 10 W/kg, and you likely literally have tons of fuel, each metric ton producing 10 kW. It'll be a while before air cooling is sufficient.

[John Cuthber]

Would someone like to check these numbers?

OK, call it 10 tonnes. That means we would have to dissipate 100KW.

As a worst case (i.e. the smallest surface area to lose heat from) lets say it's as dense as uranium and it's spherical.

10 tonnes at a density of about 20 means half a cubic metre.

For a sphere that's a radius of

4/3 pi R ^3 is 0.5

about 0.5 metres.

OK, and the area is 4 pi r ^2

about 3 square metres.

33Kw/ metre square

this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law

lets us calculate the surface temperature it needs in order to radiate away that hest

T^4 *5.67 E-8 =33000

I get T=873K above ambient

850C

Fairly bright red heat, but a steel can would handle it.

That's making some pretty pessimistic suggestions about the material's density and configuration.

Passive cooling should be OK after a year or so- if you could let it radiate away directly into space which might be a problem.

But cooling it isn't a huge problem.

Edited September 15, 2013 by John Cuthber

[swansont]

From what I've read, commercial reactors have 50 - 100 tons of fuel. The fuel in the reactor is not radiating to ambient, because the pressure vessel will be insulating it, and you've calculated the surface temperature. The temperature inside will be higher. What's important is the temperature the fuel rod can handle. Steel isn't used, because that tends to corrode. Reactors use a zirconium alloy and IIRC this oxidizes pretty readily when it gets hot, and when exposed to steam you get hydrogen gas, which was a problem during the accident (and also at Three Mile Island)

[overtone]

I keep posting it because it's still important.

What you've been posting is by turns irrelevant distraction and links to bullshit.

 

 

If you replaced nuclear power with coal (and, in the short term, that's the only proven viable alternative) then you would end up with more dead people.

Maybe, maybe not. One thing's sure - you don't actually know any of that: not the replacement, not the viability, not the proven part, not the kill ratio, none of it.

 

Meanwhile: Poor regulation and governance of coal power is not an argument for more Fukushimas. The inability of governments to properly handle even a comparatively simple matter like coal is an argument against, not for, allowing the promulgation of nukes. Lord help us if the Chinese start building nukes the way they dig coal.

 

 

 

Yet there's no thread here discussing "Continuing problems with coal" and, as far as I can see, the difference is simply bias.

The differences are in scale, implication, and relevance here. If you want to start a thread about "continuing problems with coal", do so - please, elsewhere.

 

 

 

But cooling it isn't a huge problem.

Handling the cooling has been the major problem so far, and into the indefinite future.

Edited September 16, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

I think Swansont has explained the cooling issue.

If we could move the stuff about freely there would be no problem keeping it cool.

However we have to keep it cool, predominantly because we don't want it to catch fire or react with water to generate hydrogen. Again, that's a consequence of the design.

In any event, the heat flux calculation is correct. If you have 10 tonnes of stuff that dense...

If it's dispersed in a bigger building then that's more surface area to radiate from and the surface temperature would be lower. The temperature within would depend on the thermal conductivity of the material.

Perhaps you would like to do the calculation?

 

Incompetent government by the Chinese has little to do with the problems in Japan.

You keep complaining that, when I draw analogies to other places, I'm adding stuff that's "irrelevant".

Well, now you seem to have understood why it is relevant.

 

And, of course re. "links to bullshit."

Either prove that or stop repeating it.

[Delbert]

 

If those figures are right- or even close to right- then replacing coal by nuclear energy would drop the death toll enormously and yet, somehow, you want to label that as " a policy of descent to chaos ".

Why is fewer dead people "descent"?

It is clear I've not expressed or explained correctly. So I'll try to again. I'm not making any comparison or statement about fewer dead people being descent into chaos. And I'm not undisturbed that you appear to conclude that I was. I'm referring to the philosophy or technique of comparison to justify or divert attention away from a process as being a descent to chaos. Simply doing a comparison trick with an aspect of human activity when faced with a problem to justify it will undoubtedly stymie human progress, for the simply premise that a particular process doesn't have to get better so long as it's not worse. Progress of the madhouse.

 

And no, I'm not suggesting we don't endeavour to make things better, but rather the direct use of comparison when faced with a subsequent problem as a justification - I believe there's a subtle difference.

 

And just to emphasise, I'm not making any statement about coal (apart from responding to your comparison philosophy). It may be better or it may be worse, I'm not interested at this moment in time. This thread is about the continuing problems with the Fukushima reactors and nothing to do with relative death or injury rates between nuclear and coal.

[overtone]

 

And, of course re. "links to bullshit."

Either prove that or stop repeating it.

The repetition of this kind of rhetorical attack reveals your awareness of your agenda. If you must troll this thread so, why don't you deal with my observations about your links instead? The only defense of either of them came from others, and it was a cavil regarding the term "liars", a separate issue from bullshit.

 

You continue to pretend I did not deal directly and explicitly with both of your bullshit links - the Sci Am travesty and the wingnut nuke proponent. I did, above, and not only illustrated with direct quotes but explicitly stated how they and your use of them here fit the definition of bullshit - technically:

- - Frankfurt proceeds by exploring how bullshit and the related concept of humbug are distinct from lying. He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.

You posted a link to an "analysis" whose first sentence rendered it worthless - at best irrelevant - to this thread. One death from Fukushima? That isn't serious, and no one who links to that assertion on this very thread for any purpose but ridicule is bothering to take accuracy or truth seriously.

 

And look at this:

 

 

Incompetent government by the Chinese has little to do with the problems in Japan.

But the consequences of the incompetence of the Chinese government at regulating coal mining and burning are such important matters that you must fill this thread with them.

 

Which brings us to that aspect of Fukushima: we can say in reasonable confidence that the preparations and responses of the Japanese industry and government to Fukushima are among the best to be found in the nuclear power field. Japan has topflight engineers, educated and capable labor, competent and well-financed government, sophisticated and resourceful industry. Its government, industry, and people are long familiar with nuclear engineering, and well aware of its hazards.

 

And so this is the high end of what we can expect.

[John Cuthber]

It is not sufficient to show an error in just one sentence of a page in order to write it off as bullshit.

Even less so when that error doesn't materially affect the outcome.

 

If you made the (let's say, "dubious") claim that Fukushima has killed as many people than all other nuclear power combined then you raise the death toll per TW Hr from .04 to .08 compared to about 100 for coal.

So, your comment (while valid per se) doesn't actually change things.

You still need to point out factual errors in the report.

 

BTW,re" Lord help us if the Chinese start building nukes the way they dig coal."

They do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

and it worries me.

However the fact that China can't behave itself is not an argument against nuclear power in Japan or anywhere else but China.

 

Delbert,

replacing something by something demonstrably less harmful is not "descent into chaos"

[Delbert]

 

Delbert,

replacing something by something demonstrably less harmful is not "descent into chaos"

I'm not saying anything of the sort. And again, I'm not undisturbed you've formed this quite disgusting interpretation from my remarks. I'm sorry but I can't explain it any more.

[John Cuthber]

OK, this is what you said

"But for me it's this apparent philosophy of: justify nuclear by find something that you feel is worse. I'm sorry, but that's no justification for anything. But rather a policy of descent to chaos if applied generally."

Nobody was seeking to do that.

Nobody sought to justify nuclear power by "finding" something worse. As I already pointed out, nobody "found" the coal industry- it's there already , and killing lots of people.

 

I did two things.

I sought to put some context to the people killed by nuclear power by showing that it is much fewer than get killed by things that don't cause the same sort of reaction and

I'm pointing out that, given that we need power from somewhere, if we were to choose nuclear power over coal we would end up with fewer deaths.

 

What you talked about might be a descent into chaos- but nobody has advocated it.

however the alternatives to nuclear power are thin on the ground and you have to weigh up the problems with all of them.

Once you look at gross death toll, nuclear power stops looking like a bogeyman.

[Delbert]

 

Nobody was seeking to do that.

Well, you can knock me done with a feather. You've been banging on about the relationship between coal and nuclear to the point dogma.

 

 

OK, this is what you said

I sought to put some context to the people killed by nuclear power by showing that it is much fewer than get killed by things that don't cause the same sort of reaction and

I'm pointing out that, given that we need power from somewhere, if we were to choose nuclear power over coal we would end up with fewer deaths.

But why mention it? This thread is about the continuing problems with Fukushima. Nothing to do with the kill ratio between coal and nuclear.

 

The conclusion can only be that you mentioned it to justify nuclear in some way. My response to that is doing comparisons is not progress, and if applied generally can only stifle human progress to the point of descent to chaos.

 

My view is totally contrary to comparisons. If nuclear power results in accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl, needing, as they appear to do, long term entombing, possibly for decades if not centuries, with surrounding areas rendered uninhabitable, then I think they need to be terminated.

 

That's not forgetting the intrepid individuals brave enough to risk their future health - or possibly their life - to deal with the immediate aftermath.

 

Then there's what I understand to be the as yet unresolved problem of waste material.

 

If the above is the consequence of nuclear power, then as far as I'm concerned it's not an acceptable method of power generation.

Edited September 18, 2013 by Delbert

[swansont]

But why mention it? This thread is about the continuing problems with Fukushima. Nothing to do with the kill ratio between coal and nuclear.

 

 

 

No, I don't think that has wings. In the OP you say "I'm of the view that nuclear power is the most dangerous method of power generation" so you opened this line of discussion from the start. Attempting to debunk that claim is a legitimate part of the discussion. Also, the discussion of dumping "highly radioactive" water screams for context and quantification.

[John Cuthber]

Well, you can knock me done with a feather. You've been banging on about the relationship between coal and nuclear to the point dogma.

 

 

Whether you like it or not, they are related.

However you said "But for me it's this apparent philosophy of: justify nuclear by find something that you feel is worse."

 

and nobody is doing that.

I'm not justifying nuclear power because coal is worse,

I'm justifying nuclear power because we need to get energy from somewhere.

I'm comparing it to nuclear power because I want you to see that nuclear power isn't the bogeyman you claimed to think it was when you said "I'm of the view that nuclear power is the most dangerous method of power generation" .

[Delbert]

 

 

No, I don't think that has wings. In the OP you say "I'm of the view that nuclear power is the most dangerous method of power generation" so you opened this line of discussion from the start.

Well, yes, but it's not quite what I meant to say. I probably used the wrong words, as what I meant was that is was a dangerous form of power generation. And as I've emphasised all along that I'm not interested in comparisons, I'd have thought my wording faux pas would've been manifest. But give a dog a bone...

[swansont]

Well, yes, but it's not quite what I meant to say. I probably used the wrong words, as what I meant was that is was a dangerous form of power generation. And as I've emphasised all along that I'm not interested in comparisons, I'd have thought my wording faux pas would've been manifest. But give a dog a bone...

 

Dangerous relative to what, though? Risk doesn't live in a vacuum. We require power generation, so the salient comparison is with other forms of power generation.

[CharonY]

Precisely. Without a proper context there is no room for a discussion. It may as well be a poll then.

[Delbert]

 

Dangerous relative to what, though? Risk doesn't live in a vacuum. We require power generation, so the salient comparison is with other forms of power generation.

Like dangerous as per the definition of dangerous. As in dangerous to life to the point of: don't do near the bloody thing. And if you disagree with that or feel it's evading your question, then go down to Fukushima and go near the thing. But some people are going near the thing, and by doing so they are bravely keeping the nuclear industry just about acceptable to some (not me).

 

A power producing method that ends up as the situation appears to be at Fukushima, then it is something to be avoided like the plague. And as we know, it's not a one off, with the previous one I understand still in a serious state after I think 26 years - such that I believe they need to build yet another sarcophagus. They probably will have to into the next century. And as for Fukushima, from what I can understand they haven't even got to the state of being able to entomb it.

 

But this isn't attending to the subject. I remind you to what it is yet again: continuing problems with Fukushima.

 

If you're unable - or simply don't want - to address you responses to the subject, then I suggest you refrain from commenting.

 

Anyway, I'll give you a starter for ten: if they eventually have to, how long before they get to a point whereby they can entomb it?

[John Cuthber]

"Like dangerous as per the definition of dangerous."

So, like coal mining then?

Of, perhaps the construction industry?

 

Many industries have problems that are similar to the "continuing problems with Fukushima."

Most of those don't have threads dedicated to them, unlike "continuing problems with Fukushima." but it's not easy to see why they are viewed as bogeymen- unlike the "continuing problems with Fukushima."

[swansont]

Like dangerous as per the definition of dangerous. As in dangerous to life to the point of: don't do near the bloody thing. And if you disagree with that or feel it's evading your question, then go down to Fukushima and go near the thing. But some people are going near the thing, and by doing so they are bravely keeping the nuclear industry just about acceptable to some (not me).

 

A power producing method that ends up as the situation appears to be at Fukushima, then it is something to be avoided like the plague. And as we know, it's not a one off, with the previous one I understand still in a serious state after I think 26 years - such that I believe they need to build yet another sarcophagus. They probably will have to into the next century. And as for Fukushima, from what I can understand they haven't even got to the state of being able to entomb it.

 

But this isn't attending to the subject. I remind you to what it is yet again: continuing problems with Fukushima.

 

If you're unable - or simply don't want - to address you responses to the subject, then I suggest you refrain from commenting.

 

Anyway, I'll give you a starter for ten: if they eventually have to, how long before they get to a point whereby they can entomb it?

 

Given that the thread has been discussing risk/danger since post #1, you might do better starting a new thread that only discusses Fukushima and the technical problems, without mention of these other topics. Because there is risk in everything.

 

If you reject nuclear power because it is dangerous, logically you would be rejecting other forms of energy generation that are more dangerous. But that's not the way the discussion has gone. The problem here is that the damage is concentrated and got a lot of attention. Much like how people think flying is dangerous, because basically every plane crash makes the news, when it is safer than driving on a per-mile basis. But media (or worldwide) attention is not the same as danger or risk.

[Delbert]

 

Given that the thread has been discussing risk/danger since post #1, you might do better starting a new thread that only discusses Fukushima and the technical problems, without mention of these other topics. Because there is risk in everything.

 

If you reject nuclear power because it is dangerous, logically you would be rejecting other forms of energy generation that are more dangerous. But that's not the way the discussion has gone. The problem here is that the damage is concentrated and got a lot of attention. Much like how people think flying is dangerous, because basically every plane crash makes the news, when it is safer than driving on a per-mile basis. But media (or worldwide) attention is not the same as danger or risk.

Well, perhaps it has gone that way, but for my part I was offering an answer to questions asked. So, clearly it was my fault for offering such responses or answers.

 

"Like dangerous as per the definition of dangerous."

So, like coal mining then?

Of, perhaps the construction industry?

Or like crossing the road without firstly looking for oncoming traffic. I don't need a comparison to know that crossing a road without looking is dangerous. Or diving into a swimming pool without firstly checking the water content first.

 

And my dictionary makes no mention of comparisons to qualify or define dangerous.

 

I revert to the subject matter, and ask: does anyone know about this water cooling business, like how long is it likely to continue? What are the implications regarding the water outflow storage and eventual disposal? What is the possible long term plan - if there is one?

[overtone]

It is not sufficient to show an error in just one sentence of a page in order to write it off as bullshit.

That depends on the "error".

 

If it's central to the argument, of a kind of fact used throughout the argument, completely and obviously ridiculous to even casual inspection, and presented seriously, then we know what we're dealing with - not one deduction on that page is honest, and the facts are accurate only by chance if at all. It invalidates the entire argument. And it does so obviously - anyone even linking to something like that is in the same category. Dishonest, in argument, and factually accurate only by irrelevant chance if at all (the defining property of bullshit).

 

 

 

If you made the (let's say, "dubious") claim that Fukushima has killed as many people than all other nuclear power combined then you raise the death toll per TW Hr from .04 to .08 compared to about 100 for coal.

You got those numbers from that link. So we ignore them, and all arguments made from them - because that link has demonstrated beyond serious doubt, in its opening sentence, that it contains nothing but bullshit. Anbd we already know it would be irrelevant even if it were by chance (the only chance) accurate in some factual matter.

 

 

 

However the fact that China can't behave itself is not an argument against nuclear power in Japan or anywhere else but China.

Then neither is their coal mining and burning, or anyone else's, or in fact the entire industry's. So take another look at your bullshit link and see what's left - nada.

 

 

 

Dangerous relative to what, though? Risk doesn't live in a vacuum.

Yes, it does. If you can't get a handle on the risk in the first place, you can't compare it with anything.

 

What we are trying to do amid this barrage of bullshit about rock weathering and background radiation in the world's oceans is get a handle on the risks still posed by Fukushima - the damages still in the future, as well as the ones already incurred. That is the thread topic.

 

 

 

We require power generation, so the salient comparison is with other forms of power generation.

1) The degree and manner in which we require investment in more power generation is debatable - the gains from investment in conservation and waste reduction are dollar for dollar quite possibly greater for decades to come, in most places.

 

2) Coal is the only such comparison presented, which miseads in the extreme, and the comparisons offered with coal are either incredibly stupid or simply attempts at bullshitting - not only invalid, but ridiculous. There is no way to take them seriously, in an honest discussion. An they are not defended, but repeated, as assaults - that is trolling.

 

3) There isn't room on the thread for anoverall safety comparison of the various forms of power generation and efficiency improvements relevant to the entire industries involved - Fukushima gets lost, immediately.

 

4) You can't compare what you haven't described. We have yet to acheive a description of the incurred and still risked damages from Fukushima, and the attempts to establish one have been undermined by permitted trolling and irrelevant bullshit.

 

5) The salient comparison would be with individual examples of relevant, comparable power generation - individual sites and plants of power generated with equivalent levels of safety and regulation, comparable levels of industrial sophistication - not gypsy Chinese coal mine safety (without even a hint of consideration for whether the coal is mined or burned for power, for chrissake), not coal plants permitted to spew effluent without moderation or sequestration, not links to famous denialist punkings, not rocks weathering on the surface of the planet, none of that - those posts should be removed, the thread cleaned up and restored to minimum integrity.

 

 

 

The problem here is that the damage is concentrated and got a lot of attention.

That's not the problem on this thread.

 

And that's not a reasonable description of the continuing problems with Fukushima - let alone the incurred damages. "A lot of attention" does not describe the risks of the continuing plumes and emissions, the risks of future possible events, the damages of the continuing expenses and efforts, and so forth.

 

The "problem" you seem to be focused on is what you regard as an overestimation of the risks of nuclear power compared with coal power - which is almost irrelevant even if properly done, and in this thread rests on completely invalid comparisons with coal - you haven't described the coal risk relevantly, and you haven't described the nuclear risk at all (background radiation? - gimme a break): what do you think you are "comparing"?

Edited September 24, 2013 by overtone