3 ms·

Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you go

by iso947 7y ago

Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup.

Barrin92 7y ago
the government of Japan estimates the Fukushima nuclear plant cleanup costs are at least 80 billion dollars, private think tanks have suggested numbers closer to 400-600 billion. The cleanup is going to take 30-40 years, involving a lot of manpower and expertise so one can imagine the additional opportunity cost. Then you can add to this the amount of land that is permanently unusable and the future and current property value destroyed. I think you need to adjust your definition of 'minor problem' a little. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radi...
FooHentai 7y ago
>Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan Earthquake caused the Tsunami. >A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup. "The disaster was the most severe nuclear accident since the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the only other disaster to be given the Level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event Scale." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
- cthalupa 7y ago
  Realistically, even Chernobyl is more of an economic issue than a loss of human life one. There were 54 immediate deaths, and they believe that up to ~4000 people will die earlier than they would have otherwise due to cancer and other complications from radiation exposure. This sounds like quite a bit, until you realize that in the US alone 13,000 people die every year from cancer and other complications related to exposure from coal pollution. Chernobyl and Fukshima are tragic, but you cannot examine the fallout (literal and figurative) in a vacuum - you must compare it to where things stand today. Much of the world's energy is produced from sources that are far more harmful in normal operation than either were in worst case failure modes. We have significantly better technology for nuclear now, as well. Wind turbines are bad for birds, and really NEED to be placed outside of migration paths. Photovoltaic panels create tons of toxic waste in manufacturing. Concentrated solar plants are pretty great, where they work. Geothermal is great where it can work. We should be exploring all of these where we can, work on further minimizing the downsides and solving the problems - a diverse energy strategy is a good one. But this demonization and avoidance of modern nuclear reactors is nuts, as it is one of the highest energy production options we have. They could make a huge impact in the goal of being carbon neutral. And they could do so in a way that is quite safe, especially compared to existing coal and LNG plants. I think arguing against nuclear is short-sighted and costs us one of our best tools at fighting climate change today.
lispm 7y ago
In 2010 Japan had 54 nuclear reactors. In June 2011 Japan had 0 working nuclear reactors! In early 2019 Japan had 42 reactors (12 were closed) and of those 9 were working. A single earthquake caused the shutdown all those reactors for many years. And you tell us "Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan". In reality the single earthquake caused massive economic damage and a huge loss of electricity production capacity. I would expect (just my guess), that several of the 33 shutdown reactors will also never be restarted - adding to the economic damage.
- cthalupa 7y ago
  These shutdowns are largely political, not due to structural damage to the reactors from the earthquake. These reactors weren't shut down because there was fear the earthquake had damaged them, and calling them non-working is only accurate in that they aren't online and doing work - outside of issues from lack of use while shutdown, they are fully functional. Fukushima was not properly built to withstand a tsunami of that magnitude. It withstood the earthquake proper just fine.
  - lispm 7y ago
    How can you realistically say that? A country and its nuclear safety inspectors have declared several reactors to be unfit to run, but YOU claim that it is political? You claim that the plant 'withstood' the earthquake just fine. On what base? An inspection to make such an assessment takes months. It has not been done. How did you know that there were no cracks in the reactor facilities, etc. There were lots of reasons to close some reactors. You simply have failed to even consider that. Once one knows more about the risks of a certain reactor, than its simply a new decision whether a reactor is considered to be safe enough. The fukushima reactor was considered safe just before the earthquake and tsunami. It was thought unlikely that such an event happens and with such strength, Now Japan is having the constant danger of earthquakes and the impact has been underestimated for several reactors. Their sites are now seen to have a higher risk of a strong earthquake causing severe damage. You claim that it is political. That's the same safety culture which lead to the Fukushima meltdowns: proponents of nuclear power downplaying the risks.

by iso947 7y ago

Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup.

Barrin92 7y ago

the government of Japan estimates the Fukushima nuclear plant cleanup costs are at least 80 billion dollars, private think tanks have suggested numbers closer to 400-600 billion. The cleanup is going to take 30-40 years, involving a lot of manpower and expertise so one can imagine the additional opportunity cost. Then you can add to this the amount of land that is permanently unusable and the future and current property value destroyed. I think you need to adjust your definition of 'minor problem' a little. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radi...

FooHentai 7y ago

>Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan Earthquake caused the Tsunami. >A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup. "The disaster was the most severe nuclear accident since the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the only other disaster to be given the Level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event Scale." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

cthalupa 7y ago
Realistically, even Chernobyl is more of an economic issue than a loss of human life one. There were 54 immediate deaths, and they believe that up to ~4000 people will die earlier than they would have otherwise due to cancer and other complications from radiation exposure. This sounds like quite a bit, until you realize that in the US alone 13,000 people die every year from cancer and other complications related to exposure from coal pollution. Chernobyl and Fukshima are tragic, but you cannot examine the fallout (literal and figurative) in a vacuum - you must compare it to where things stand today. Much of the world's energy is produced from sources that are far more harmful in normal operation than either were in worst case failure modes. We have significantly better technology for nuclear now, as well. Wind turbines are bad for birds, and really NEED to be placed outside of migration paths. Photovoltaic panels create tons of toxic waste in manufacturing. Concentrated solar plants are pretty great, where they work. Geothermal is great where it can work. We should be exploring all of these where we can, work on further minimizing the downsides and solving the problems - a diverse energy strategy is a good one. But this demonization and avoidance of modern nuclear reactors is nuts, as it is one of the highest energy production options we have. They could make a huge impact in the goal of being carbon neutral. And they could do so in a way that is quite safe, especially compared to existing coal and LNG plants. I think arguing against nuclear is short-sighted and costs us one of our best tools at fighting climate change today.

lispm 7y ago

In 2010 Japan had 54 nuclear reactors. In June 2011 Japan had 0 working nuclear reactors! In early 2019 Japan had 42 reactors (12 were closed) and of those 9 were working. A single earthquake caused the shutdown all those reactors for many years. And you tell us "Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan". In reality the single earthquake caused massive economic damage and a huge loss of electricity production capacity. I would expect (just my guess), that several of the 33 shutdown reactors will also never be restarted - adding to the economic damage.

cthalupa 7y ago
These shutdowns are largely political, not due to structural damage to the reactors from the earthquake. These reactors weren't shut down because there was fear the earthquake had damaged them, and calling them non-working is only accurate in that they aren't online and doing work - outside of issues from lack of use while shutdown, they are fully functional. Fukushima was not properly built to withstand a tsunami of that magnitude. It withstood the earthquake proper just fine.
- lispm 7y ago
  How can you realistically say that? A country and its nuclear safety inspectors have declared several reactors to be unfit to run, but YOU claim that it is political? You claim that the plant 'withstood' the earthquake just fine. On what base? An inspection to make such an assessment takes months. It has not been done. How did you know that there were no cracks in the reactor facilities, etc. There were lots of reasons to close some reactors. You simply have failed to even consider that. Once one knows more about the risks of a certain reactor, than its simply a new decision whether a reactor is considered to be safe enough. The fukushima reactor was considered safe just before the earthquake and tsunami. It was thought unlikely that such an event happens and with such strength, Now Japan is having the constant danger of earthquakes and the impact has been underestimated for several reactors. Their sites are now seen to have a higher risk of a strong earthquake causing severe damage. You claim that it is political. That's the same safety culture which lead to the Fukushima meltdowns: proponents of nuclear power downplaying the risks.