Electronics News

Slideshow: Profs Say Fukushima Plant Passed Ultimate Test

< Previous Page 2 / 2
View Comments: Newest First|Oldest First|Threaded View
<<  <  Page 11/16  >  >>
User Rank
Re: Fukishima a success? Doubtful
Totally_Lost   5/3/2013 2:37:08 PM
Ichien52 -- there is a larger list of bad things that happen every year with storms, affecting more people, with higher property damage, over larger economic zones.

The same people that live with huricanes and tornado's every year, are also deathly afraid of once a decade earthquakes in Calif.

We should do the best job possible, within reasonable economic sense and balance, for constructing and locating Nuke facilities.

But at the end of the day, there are worse problems, with higher costs, that mother nature tosses at some population every year.

Deaths from automotive causes are higher, as are costs ... by orders of magnitude ... let's focus on doing Nuke right (within reason) and focus harder on things that make a real difference.

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/3/2013 2:19:05 PM
NightOwl ... the point is that they are not repeating every few days, weeks, or years. If the frequency goes up, then clearly someone is F uping very badly.

The fact that they are rare, and relatively contained, means that the balances of economics and engineering constraints are somewhere close.

If money in the global system needs to be allocated for the common good, then fixing the high death rate of automotive causes, is a MUCH higher priority with a a MUCH higher return on investment.

see the web article inhabitat.com/study-finds-emissions-from-fossil-fuel-burning-vehicles-are-worlds-fastest-growing-cause-of-premature-death/

User Rank
Fukishima a success? Doubtful
lchien52   5/3/2013 10:27:46 AM
It's hard for me to view Fukushima as anything but a Major C.F.

The earthquake broke primary cooling piping

The Tsunami wiped out power backup

Cooling was lost, three reactors overheated and melted thru the primary containment.

Two years later they stil don't know the exact extent of the damage to the reactor secondary cotainment.

Total loss of 6 reactor units condemned or damaged byond repair. Lost of thousands of square miles of land to conamination. Displacement of tens of thousands of people.

Continued contamnation of the sea due to underground leaks. Buildup of contaminated wastewater and leaks due to inability to clean it fast enough.

Jury rigged cooling is much less safe than it was before the accident.

Unknown long terms effects to health, probably not good.

Unable to secure damaged spent fuel pools.

Management problems and a projected 40-year cleanup that they have yet failed to make a single milestone on time.

Billions of dollars lost.

I can hardly wee anything that would qualify as a success except perhaps for the luck that radiation was carried out to sea instead of back towards higly populated tokyo.

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
NiteOwl_OvO   5/3/2013 10:24:07 AM

You are absolutely right. The Chernobyl and Fukushima plants both performed so well and the problems were so insignificant that both incidents bear repeating. So, I'm sure they will be repeated. Personally, I like glowing in the dark. It makes jogging at night safer. I gave up eating tuna years ago, so no problem there either.

Go nukes!

User Rank
Re: Good news for nuclear
Totally_Lost   5/2/2013 7:28:16 PM

World wide civilan deaths from automobiles are typically 1.25M each year. Add to that the several million more expected deaths for emmissions, both during operation, and the full life cycle of source materials and fuels, and it's even a higher staggering number. Add this up for the last 60 years, and we are talking about a half a billion deaths.

World wide civilan deaths from the Nuke industry over the last 60 years (ignoring WWII), are a few tens of thousands including those expected to die in the next 50 years from the two major accidents. In comparison ... an absolutely insignificant number, 0.01% of automotive deaths.

If the point, is to save people ... concentrate on automotive safety, world wide.

The entire screaming match about how unsafe these plants are, is simply making a huge mountain, out of a grain of sand in comparison.

The anit-nuke folks need to have their screaming rights revoked, and told to go make a real difference int he world. It's simply time to stop all this senseless fear mongering by the anti-nuke folks.

We need RESPONSIBLE oversight of both industries, not the same "enviornmentalists" that want to kill both industries.

Again ... if you want to save millions of people ... fix safety problems in cars and trucks. The Nuke industry has an excellent safety record in comparison.

These hypocrites crying wolf, really need to be told to concentrate on other things that will make a real difference. I'm done with their fear mongering. Done with their FUD. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

I'm an old fashioned, 1970's engineer ... we worry about real problems, including doing a good job at anticipating real problems, and making sure they have minimal impacts. As the paper states, after all the anti-nuke fear mongering, the actual numbers are not that bad. Some engineers did their jobs very well. I'm certain future nuke related engineers will do better, in all their fields.

User Rank
Re: "winning technology"
ab3a   4/30/2013 5:58:02 PM
I agree, big money concentratd in certain interests tends to warp policies toward their side.

I'm a big fan of decentralized production so that no one place can bring down the grid. But that said, there will always be a certain amount of base load to be kept up. Large Nuclear power plants can be a good clean source to meet that base load. 

Jake Brodsky

User Rank
Re: Nuclear still safer
NiteOwl_OvO   4/30/2013 9:28:49 AM
The critical reviews quoted in that Wikipedia article were written by armchair experts. One implies the studies didn't go far enough and that the death toll may actually be higher. Another criticizes the translated (Russian to English) version for not adhering to western-style publications, which it is not. It also criticizes the publication for being too difficult for the critic to peer-review the supporting documents. Basically, the critic trashed the book because he was unwilling to put forth the effort to actually perform a thorough peer-review. Those critical reviews have little or no value.

User Rank
"winning technology"
curious_device   4/29/2013 11:05:06 PM
I agree that there needs to be a mix of energy technologies, but the USA seems to be stuck in the mode of thinking in terms of "what's the winning technology".  This mentality, along with big-money pushing only for centralized, easily monopolized power sources, creates the kind of heavily biased garbage studies that shape energy policy.

User Rank
Re: World Trade Center
patb2009   4/29/2013 8:55:05 PM
i think we can get most of the way there with cheap solar cheap wind and cheap storage

User Rank
Re: Nuclear still safer
bills0   4/29/2013 7:24:56 PM
You apparently believe that all scientists who report or confirm the 4000 number are members of WHO. Not so. There is an interesting survey article on Wikipedia about your source Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment. It is worth a read.

<<  <  Page 11/16  >  >>
Partner Zone
More Blogs from Electronics News
Using ultra-wideband wireless, any item can be located to a level of pinpoint precision that’s never before been possible.
A new test system could have a profound effect on the thermal reliability of power electronics in electric and hybrid vehicles.
A handheld microwave oven about the size of a coffee thermos could soon provide an alternative to cooking food around the old campfire.
Self-driving automotive technology took a big step forward this week as NXP Semiconductors rolled out a pizza-box-sized module called BlueBox that it says will bring production-level, “high automation” to the roads by 2020.
Forty years after starting National Instruments Corp., co-founder James Truchard can trace the company’s vast success back to a single idea.
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6 |  7 | 8 | 9

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2016 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service