People living near Japan - Are you ok?

[Der Tor]

I wanted to post Youtube videos about the developement of the siuation in Japan - but i am not sure if they get displayed correctly... in case you can't see them, here are the links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xoYPagJT4o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnAU0z-v4zY

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xoYPagJT4o[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnAU0z-v4zY[/youtube]

[Chrizine]

Well, where to put the solar cells?

There already are plans to put them in the deserts - see desertec.

[Kael]

It's sad how some people are so fixated on the nuclear issue because they believe there's some incredibly slim chance that it might affect THEM, and overlooking the actual disaster that's already happened. (Not you guys, but there are stories of, like, vast numbers of people in Europe panic-buying anti-radiation tablets. WTF?)

And the problem remains, if the power plant fails to keep the radiation in, Japan will forever be contaminated

... surely, when it comes to nuclear accidents, Japan would already be 'forever contaminated' if you looked at it that way. There were those bombs after all!

There's a really big difference between Little Boy or The Fat Man detonated on August 1945 and a nuclear meltdown. Simply put; An A Bomb is about initial breakdown of atoms, the impact of cascade and purity which fuel rods lack. In the other hand a nuclear reactor disaster launches a charge of ionized radiation 150 to 200 times exceeding the nuke.( Usually Nagasaki and Hiroshima radiations are compared to Chernobyl, which surpassed the nukes 300-400 times due to rods ejection.) The ion radiation produced by the rods could easily inhabitate an area in a -long run-, or even a country for hundreds of years. Will this happen to Japan? Personally, the stakes are low, I doubt it. A worst case scenario will render Fukushima zone inhabitable for probably 40-50 years. I'm hoping it won't get that bad.

Considering that we now have the tech to NOT use nuclear plant, it seems FOLLY to risk an armageddon just because some corrupt politician or obtuse scientist insists that nuclear power is the way. Solar , wind, sea, water energy are clean, safe and have no downsides.

A highly debated concept, but in fact it's not that easy. After WWII Japan faced a strong necessity of resources, they were out of oil, coal and natural gas. Japan couldn't afford anything at the time to plan other method for a primary energy resource. I believe eolic energy units were experimental around 1930-1940, and nuclear experimental plants were tested shortly after WWII starting with Obninsk which was shutdown in 2002. They could have used eolic energy in the 1970's, especially after seeing the dangers of ion radiation. But if they wanted to be a world potency they had to build nuclear plants, a bad mistake. Now to the grim part of the subject. Energy is like oil, scarcity means high prices, demand, therefore it equals profit. There's a lot of experimental health friendly concepts that big companies doesn't want to share, because they wish to propagate scarcity. It's good for the business. Eolic and Solar energy alone could satisfy the whole planet requirement for thousands of years. Much like Nicolae Karpen's battery, which is said to be a perpetual movement machine breaking modern physics and the second law of thermodynamics.

Thank you.

[jack_norton]

Energy is like oil, scarcity means high prices, demand, therefore it equals profit. There's a lot of experimental health friendly concepts that big companies doesn't want to share, because they wish to propagate scarcity. It's good for the business. Eolic and Solar energy alone could satisfy the whole planet requirement for thousands of years.

This perfectly summarize what's going on thanks

[Celestie]

Wow, the discussion developed a lot...and the title only fits the context in an abstract but still related way. Well, as long as no-one says anything against it.

Two things, one negative one each, one concerning Germany and one concerning the world. I have the feeling the Germans (and the others that are panicking) are getting hysteric for the composed-appearing Japanese ...but even now the Japanese can't stay quiet anymore. Anyway, it's all understandable that Germany starts a discussion about their power plants because elections are two weeks away but instead of starting a mass-hysteria and political campains against the government they could spend their time right now on doing something to help Japan...if only by quieting down. It's only my own opinion, my friend opposes it for example. I'm just kind fo annoyed at how teh news about that often take longer than the news about Japan.
And, the news of Japan themselves are pushing the problems in Lebanon&Co. totally out of focus, and the crisis there isn't less problematic, it's just done by humans isntead of founding on a natural disaster that results in a uclear crisis, but...the gist is there.

It is kinda scary to hear how people start to flee Tokyo. Not all but...it's a metropolis with millions of people. Hearing how empty the streets are (opposed to the crowds when I was there and that usually were there) really reminds one of the end of the world. Hum, if it was that easy. It's only getting started now instead of ending...

Solar cells really sound nice and all. The production isn't very environmental-friendly, but as long as it doesn't hold such potential long lasting danger like nuclear power, it's the better option governments should invest into. So it's kinda funny how Germany invests in renewable enegry and still expands the timespan of nucler power plant activity (seriously, I never worried about such thing, despite living within the 15 kilometer range of one of the oldest nuclear power plants here in Germany), ...or that was it before Japan's crisis came.

I wanted to write something else but now I can't remember what. uh...beware of useless babbling? *bricked*

And Kael is right in taking critical stance. You sum it up and explain it quite nicely (and know so much *feels useless*).

One feels useless, even when donating somethig, no? And those last fifty workers that are kinda the only hope now, nameless they may be but considering they are working there with such high radiation around them and even with a full-body-cover certainly not coming out there unaffected, probably lacking sleep and udner high stress...cen we call them hero for those facts alone already? I would, but I'm kinda emotional anyway.

[Avaible]

I have the feeling the Germans (and the others that are panicking) are getting hysteric for the composed-appearing Japanese ...but even now the Japanese can't stay quiet anymore. Anyway, it's all understandable that Germany starts a discussion about their power plants because elections are two weeks away but instead of starting a mass-hysteria and political campains against the government they could spend their time right now on doing something to help Japan...if only by quieting down. It's only my own opinion, my friend opposes it for example. I'm just kind fo annoyed at how teh news about that often take longer than the news about Japan.

I'm on your side on that. The first thing I heard concerning the disaster when it begann was how Germany wouldn't be affected in any dangerous way ... after that they reported what actually happened. If it hadn't been for Sankaku I would have totally missed the point because of the way they reported it all.
Our politicians still seem to be quite keen to ensure us everything is alright in Germany - hell, I want to hear news of what Germany does to help Japan!

And, the news of Japan themselves are pushing the problems in Lebanon&Co. totally out of focus, and the crisis there isn't less problematic, it's just done by humans isntead of founding on a natural disaster that results in a uclear crisis, but...the gist is there.

Well, human interest always follows the bigger disasters. Our news rarely report now on the situation of Japan execpt if something explodes. Seemingly, it is more important that the EU-nations can voluntarily participate in a programm to ensure Europeans nuclear plants aren't at risk of not functioning.


And now another point:
I know ferroconcrete walls (some meters thick) are able to block radiation pretty effectively (more than most other materials).
So my personal opinion is that it would be the best way to wrap the whole plants in question in Japan using ferroconcrete.
It would be cost-intensive to completely seal the plants from above, the sides and, most imporantly, from beneath, but it would be the best solution to minimize harm through radiation.
Sure, the ferroconcrete walls would have to be strenghen every decade but better an ugly block of concrete than an open-air meltdown.

There aren't any alternatives either. One way or the other, there is no effective way to stop radiation other than to block it.

[Celestie]

And now another point:
I know ferroconcrete walls (some meters thick) are able to block radiation pretty effectively (more than most other materials).
So my personal opinion is that it would be the best way to wrap the whole plants in question in Japan using ferroconcrete.
It would be cost-intensive to completely seal the plants from above, the sides and, most imporantly, from beneath, but it would be the best solution to minimize harm through radiation.
Sure, the ferroconcrete walls would have to be strenghen every decade but better an ugly block of concrete than an open-air meltdown.

There aren't any alternatives either. One way or the other, there is no effective way to stop radiation other than to block it.

I think they consider it...? Or our news made it sound like that, saying it will probably turn into a "closed off tomb" (basically, I'm sure my translation is off somewhere, wait, I'll copy the line into the thread: "Am Ende wird man einen Sarkophag um das Kraftwerk bauen müssen." - Welt.de). I guess if the cooling down now (with the electricity lines they are trying to install to start up the cooling and stabilize it or something along these lines) fails, they will have to do this to prevent any worse outcome...I hope?

I remember now what I wanted to add last time. Seems like even now there is a large portion of Japanese who don't quite get the dire situation of the nuclear crisis. Most of them have trusted that system for so long, some can't even believe it. Some kinda shut off. And some are just too busy to survive to listen to the news, after all, so many have lost their home and they all lack many necessary, basic things for survival like clean water, warmth/electricity, food and medical attention. It's no wonder those people are the least worried about teh nuclear crisis, but even some of those who are relatively safe haven't grasped the situation yet.

I myself cannot really grasp that this will last the next few weeks, months even...and the bad news come hourly. This will be some long weeks, if not months.

[Avaible]

think they consider it...? Or our news made it sound like that, saying it will probably turn into a "closed off tomb" (basically, I'm sure my translation is off somewhere, wait, I'll copy the line into the thread: "Am Ende wird man einen Sarkophag um das Kraftwerk bauen müssen." - Welt.de). I guess if the cooling down now (with the electricity lines they are trying to install to start up the cooling and stabilize it or something along these lines) fails, they will have to do this to prevent any worse outcome...I hope?

Hm, they likely mean the restricted area around the plant. Our so-called experts estimate the area of 80km around the plant to be a lastingly contaminated zone no one will be able to live in.
"Am Ende wird man einen Sarkophag um das Kraftwerk bauen müssen." would equal that they describe that zone as one great burial ground for whatever tresspasses the zone. But they may also include to .. uhm, what is it called in English? Abschotten for German-speakers (meaning, a complete seal-off with what I described in my earlier post).


And I agree that the world is probably more informed about the situation than many Japanese themselfs who don't have access to the news.
It's ironic, isn't it ...?

[PyTom]

In 2009 (the last year for which that data is available), Fukushima Daiichi produced 29,891 GWh.

In January 2010, all of the solar power in the US generated 10 GWh of electricity.That's about the same amount of electricity that Fukushima Daiichi was able to produce in three hours. It's 23 times _all_ of the solar power produced in the US in 2010.

In 2009, the amount of energy Fukushima I produced was more than 33% of the total produced by all the wind turbines in the US, more than 79% of the amount of energy produced by wind turbines in Germany.

According to Wikipedia, all of the wind turbines in Italy can produce 4,850 MW of power - Fukushima I had a nameplate capacity of 4,696 MW. That's a little misleading, since it neglects the idea of capacity factor. Capacity factor is the fraction of what a plant can generate that it actually generates. For example, a nuclear power plant is down for maintenance some of the time, and may not run at 100% power - on average, it produced 90% of what it's rated to. Wind doesn't blow at full speed all the time - so for wind it's between 20% and 40% of the rating. If we multiply by the capacities, Fukushima I is the equivalent of 10,500 MW worth of wind turbines.

Realize here that I've been comparing a single nuclear plant with all the wind and solar energy produced by entire countries.

Energy is a difficult subject - especially because you have to deal with numbers that are outside those that people normally comprehend. But it's really important that we produce that energy, by whatever means - it improves our lives immensely.

[Celestie]

Energy is a difficult subject - especially because you have to deal with numbers that are outside those that people normally comprehend. But it's really important that we produce that energy, by whatever means - it improves our lives immensely.

It's true, no-one critizises that. It's just when a crisis like this surfaces you have to ask if this is worth the destruction of nature and to endanger millions of lives, not only because of the people living enar the power plants but also because a contaminated nature will end up contaminating humans thanks to consumation of, for example, fish. Just to name one problem. It will be increasingly difficult to tell teh peopel who have suffered or are still suffering from the crisis that the balance would be less good with renewable energy than with a nucler power plant.

Everything has a price, nucler power is more effective than renewable energy, in return it remains dangerous for a very long time. So while renewable energy is less profitable and less effective, it's less dangerous.

Well, it's difficult, indeed. Humans don't want to live with ever-present danger (as soon as tehy realize that danger) and yet they don't want to give up on the luxury that amount enegry gives them.

There is no ultimate right or wrong power source. Like there is no ultimate right or wrong in life. Now wait, why am I getting all philosophical now?

[papillon]

It's just when a crisis like this surfaces you have to ask if this is worth the destruction of nature and to endanger millions of lives, not only because of the people living enar the power plants but also because a contaminated nature will end up contaminating humans thanks to consumation of, for example, fish. Just to name one problem. It will be increasingly difficult to tell teh peopel who have suffered or are still suffering from the crisis that the balance would be less good with renewable energy than with a nucler power plant.

Except that the renewable energy STILL destroys nature, especially if you need to build a million times more production stations since they work less efficiently.

It's increasingly difficult to get people to weigh the balance rationally because people's opinions are often formed by sensationalist news headlines, which go on and on about nuclear scarewords and don't like to mention the drawbacks that other things have. Nuclear is disproportionately focused on as the scariest thing ever. As far as I can tell, nuclear power plants have negative effects on the health of surrounding animals and wildlife - but so do millions of other things people do (factories etc) that don't get nearly as much headline time even when the data reports commensurate risk.

We're not really capable of comprehending all of the risk factors in our world, they're too many and too complex. We tend to focus on a few things.

[jack_norton]

Yes I know what pytom means, but it has to be said that while nuclear power has always LOT of funding, solar energy made lots of progresses in the recent years with much less money available for research. The latest fotovoltaic (I hope that's the right english term) panels produce lot more than the ones of just a few years ago.
Same thing with cars, to steal money from people they keep producing fuel ones when is well known that in less than 50 years oil might be running out or having insanely prohibitive extraction costs!
Right now, nothing is better than nuclear to produce lot of energy, but what if we focused our effort in another direction? I think things would change a lot.

[Avaible]

While it is correct that currently a single nuclear power station is by far more effective than renewable energy, it is wrong to think that humans cannot get the same results of those renewable energy methods.
We all know that energy is infinite - that means regardless of which way we choose to get that energy, we will still get it.

The question is simply wether you want to have Wind Turbines chopping birds to death or crashing (in case of a big earthquake) some cars that passed by, or if you prefer to use a nuclear power ressource which is about as annoying as things can get if there's a malfunction.

What I mean to say is: There are risks and dangers everywhere - but fact is that mankind is not capable of controlling the consequences if a nuclear station runs wild. The chances for it to happen are slim, less than one percent, but once it happens we are not able to stop it.
On the other hands we certainly can minimize danger if non-nuclear-power stations have a malfunction.
I would be completely fine with nuclear energy if not for the extreme radiation, because that is not something we can handle just yet.

[Kael]

Hmmm... I'm not 100% sure but, I remember reading somewhere 7-8 months ago an old article from the U.S Energy Department, (2006 to be accurate), in which it was said that if only 3 of its 50 states -fully harvested- wind energy it could power the whole country. I don't know U.S investment in this subject but it was an interesting article, they actually wanted to expand eolic energy. As for solar energy, physicist have proven over the years that 4-5 hours of noon sun full harvest produces more than 0.5 Zettajoules (which as far as I know it's the current world energy usage.) Also, a report made by the MIT (same year 2006) about Geothermal energy stated it could produce 2000zj, which is almost 4.000 years of planetary energy. Those are old news, although for geothermal energy it is true it needed more technological development, do we have it now? I can't tell for sure. Same could be said with the so called "infinite batteries" and perpetual motion machines, but it keeps going, on and on, and on.

I'm not an ecologist, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Thank you.

[Chrizine]

I completely agree with Avaible. And to add something, nuclear power plants aren't only a problem for the ones near or in case of a malfunction for everyone - We always have the problem about the trash, which has to be stored really safe for a time that's almost impossible to imagine (not to speak of knowing it will be really safe that long). Noone knows where to put it, right?
And if they find a place, it might - even if it seems fine now - turn out to be one hell of a problem in a few decades or so.
Think of Asse. They thought this might be a good place... They put nuclear trash into it... Now contaminated liquids are coming out of it, because it obviously wasn't as good as they thought.