A turn for the worse in Japan?

[Mongo Skruddgemire]

This is one of the reasons I say that they need to resurrect the "Pebble Bed" concept of reactor.

Yes there were some issues and concerns with the design and there are some kinks that need to be worked out...

But if we would be allowed to start giving the Pebble Bed another look and actually have a chance to look into resolving the few concerns and kinks, we would have a system that could survive having the cooling system going tits-up (you know, sort of what happened in Japan) and not melting down or going all explody on us.

Either that or getting off our asses and finally figuring out how to create a sustained fusion reaction that can be used to generate power. When a fusion reactor critically fails NOTHING BAD HAPPENS.

[Andara Bledin]

According to the Wiki article you linked, Pebble Bed concepts are still currently being researched, so no resurrection is needed as it isn't dead. However, we don't appear to have the technology currently that would be required to make it properly viable.

^-.-^

[Boozy]

This kind of talk is honestly what I'm afraid of, that this will set nuclear power as a whole back decades.

I worry about that, too.

On the plus side - nuclear tech stocks are at an absurd low right now. I'm seriously considering calling our broker and buying in. They have nowhere to go but up.

[Gravekeeper]

On the plus side - nuclear tech stocks are at an absurd low right now. I'm seriously considering calling our broker and buying in. They have nowhere to go but up.

Hey, good idea. ;p

deserts are every bit as biologically and ecologically diverse as any other ecological system. just because it's a different type of system doesn't mean there's no environmental impact.

Yes, but the difference is A) You don't need to clear anything and B) Not many people care. Every type of enviroment has its protective groups in some form or another, but desert is pretty much at the bottom of the list.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Thing is, Chernobyl is the worst possible scenario for a nuclear plant. But Chernobyl is not possible with a modern reactor, simple as that. Modern reactor's have their own containment vessal and don't use carbon to moderate the reaction. They use heavy water. Chernobyl used carbon, that's what caused it go up and what filled the air full of radioactive particles and debris. Carbon = soot. Radioactive soot = bad. >.>

You'd really have to work to get a Chernobyl out of this. Someone would have to back up a truck full of C4 next to the reactor.

Exactly this. I read in the paper that the Japan crisis is level four, whereas Chernobyl is level seven. Big difference.

Despite all the reading (and I've done a lot, as I'm very interested in Chernobyl) that I've done, I still don't see nuclear power as being as dangerous as people keep saying it is. I've toured the UK's nuclear power station at Dungeness, and I really think it's a more viable option than wind farms or whatever the bleeding hearts think is the best way to generate power.

The main problem with Chernobyl was the huge explosion and the massive plume that went up into the stratosphere. We're talking radioactivity spread as far as the UK; there are still places where livestock and soil are monitored, even now. Hell, the Soviet government didn't even admit that the accident had happened til Sweden reported it. O_o And Pripyat wasn't even evacuated til the 27th.

A lot of people forget that the reason for the explosion was that the safety measures were removed to run a test; it wasn't cuz there weren't any in the first place. They should have known better than to run the test, seeing as previous tests had been unsuccessful.

The only concern about Chernobyl is the sarcophagus, and I read that a new one is going to go up fairly soon anyway.

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

I think energy is one of those areas where people in the U.S. say one thing but want another. We talk a good game about wanting clean, renewable energy that reduces dependency on foreign oil and whatnot, but try putting up a wind turbine anywhere. People don't want those on their property because the birds may get chopped up in them.

And damming a river for hydroelectric power isn't going to happen until miles and miles of environmental impact studies are done.

If we're going to be serious about clean, renewable energy, then we absolutely have to consider going back to nuclear power. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. I think the minute a site was announced for a new nuclear power plant, the protests it would generate would make the recent brouhaha here in Wisconsin look like a bridge game.

[Eisa]

Heyyyy, like half of Idaho is desert. We already have this

But yeah, it's ridiculous. We talked about this a little today in my Persuasion & Propaganda class because we were talking about rumors, and all the rumors flying around about the nuclear situation...when it's not all that dire. And CERTAINLY not how people act, like everyone in California should be glowing right about now.

[Gravekeeper]

The main problem with Chernobyl was the huge explosion and the massive plume that went up into the stratosphere. We're talking radioactivity spread as far as the UK; there are still places where livestock and soil are monitored, even now.

That'd be the good ol' carbon they used as a reaction moderator. Nice, sooty, explosive carbon.

[lordlundar]

Ugh, yes, a coal plant going up would be catastrophic. Ironic it's seen as the "safer" option. Any power plant going up is going to be catastrophic, but I doubt coal, natural gas, hydro, etc are built to shrug off an 8.9 quake.

Maybe not, but the old decommissioned power plant in my city could certainly take a pretty powerful hit. It resisted two demolition attempts without so much as a shudder and ended up having to be torn apart brick by brick.

And yes, anyone who thinks that this is unimaginable damage, consider that if such a quake occurred essentially anywhere else in the world, most buildings in the vicinity would just be plain leveled. It's tragic, no doubt, but Japan has more research into geological and atmospheric resilience than the rest of the world combined and has held up extremely well.

As for the plants being unsafe, it's being blown out of proportion by western news who seems to run under the premise that a meltdown means a nuclear blast and a fallout of essentially the entire country. So I tend not to give it any heed.

[Andara Bledin]

Google has put up a slew of Google Earth images of various locations that were affected by the earthquake and tsunami with images from 2008 and those from shortly after the disaster.

Google's Picasa Album

It's a very powerful display.

It's a shame we don't have similar albums for other places hit by major disasters in recent times.

^-.-^

[chozoghost79]

Yeah, once the carbon went up that was it. You were getting a radioactive plume. I don't think the test they were running was even authorized, was it?




Someone's going to bitch regardless of what you do, but at the same time isn't going to give up indoor plumbing or their iPod. So you just need to make the best decisions based on actual information, not the background noise.

Problem with wind power is that the best place for it is off shore and high up, but it's hard to do that with the amount of air traffic congestion around the places we'd need to put wind power. Solar on the other hand is viable now, but we could really use more cash thrown at R&D for it instead of being constantly waylaid due to the big oil money trough.

We have deserts, drag that shit out there and hook it up. >.>

I live in the high desert in California. An outside company tried to come in and build a parabolic trough type solar plant here, but ended up pulling out due to having to perform several studies on wildlife. Ironic that a mostly environmentally friendly source of power was stopped by environmental studies.
News article on it in the local newspaper:
http://www.ridgecrestca.com/news/x92...hdraws-project
Some of the comments are funny. Some adamantly think it was a bad idea. I say build it, but unfortunately it's too late, unless someone else decides to try it.