Possible nuclear meltdown in Japan

• 2quik4u

  

  http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/us-japan-quake-nuclear-us-analysis-idUSTRE72B04C20110312
  
  wow this is scary
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Yeah, not good, but not a meltdown. The core is still protected and so far has enough coolant. Still, not good and should be monitored for any possible future leaks. Defiently hurts the imagine the nuclear power industry has been trying to build since Three Mile Island.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031103673_pf.html
• HitsRus

  

  Hurts the image....but only among those who don't really believe it's necessary or the haters. In reality, if those reactors' survive without incident, the fact that they withstood such a cataclysm should be a positive...that safety features are adequate, and the experience of this disaster should add to our knowledge on constructing safe power plants. The risk is never zero...but in terms of historical environmental damage, nuclear is a safer source of power than oil or coal.
• j_crazy

  

  HitsRus;708911 wrote:Hurts the image....but only among those who don't really believe it's necessary or the haters. In reality, if those reactors' survive without incident, the fact that they withstood such a cataclysm should be a positive...that safety features are adequate, and the experience of this disaster should add to our knowledge on constructing safe power plants. The risk is never zero...but in terms of historical environmental damage, nuclear is a safer source of power than oil or coal.

  
  This- the last sentence.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I'm hoping all structures and systems set to safeguard situations like this -- work well. I am a big believer in the possibilities that nuclear power can provide this country, in partnership with oil, gas, and coal, and as a way to fund and develop greener technologies.
  
  It would be sad if this disaster brings a halt to moving forward with nuclear technology, just like it hurt the US with the scare of Three Mile Island in stopping us from progressing in this field.
• believer

  

  The wacko left will capitalize on this and use it to demonstrate how foolish and dangerous it is to expand nuclear technologies. There are risks and dangers in all energy generation technologies. I really hope cooler heads prevail.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I can't think of a more dangerous place to build a nuclear energy facility than on the coastline of the "Ring of Fire". I heard last night that something like 80% of all earthquakes occur along this 25,000 mile stretch from South of Australia, through the sea just East of Japan, through the Aleutians, down California and through Peru. Would America build one on the Pacific coast just outside San Francisco? It would be akin to where the Japanese built the reactors that were hit yesterday.
  
  Nuclear is a very viable option, but to build one in harm's way, even with all of the redundant safety factors, is simply not smart. Kind of like building a home within 100 yards of our Gulf Coast. Sooner or later, you're going to have to deal with a hurricane and then what will you do? Oh...I forgot...you'll put your hand out and ask for a government bailout to rebuild your house. This time, you'll move back 105 yards. But I digress.
• superman

  If anyone knows how to deal a nuclear meltdown, its the Japanese.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Ok, really, really not good. Apparent partial meltdown is likely underway to AP.
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/?nav=rss_email/components
• tk421

  

  well, there goes any hope of new nuclear power plants in this country.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  I read earlier today that China is currently constructing 26 nuclear power plants. twenty fucking six.
• tk421

  

  We're running out of oil, can't build more coal plants, nuclear not an option, we're pretty much screwed. What else is there to make up the difference?
• CenterBHSFan

  

  tk421;709714 wrote:We're running out of oil, can't build more coal plants, nuclear not an option, we're pretty much screwed. What else is there to make up the difference?

  Windmills. Lots and lots of windmills
• believer

  

  tk421;709714 wrote:We're running out of oil, can't build more coal plants, nuclear not an option, we're pretty much screwed. What else is there to make up the difference?

  There is PLENTY of oil to be had but oil speculators and leftist politicians beholden to kook fringe environmentalists will not allow us to tap into it. We CAN build more coal plants but leftist politicians beholden to kook fringe environmentalists will not allow us to tap into it. Nuclear IS an option but leftist politicians beholden to kook fringe environmentalists will not allow us to tap into it.
  

  CenterBHSFan;709742 wrote:Windmills. Lots and lots of windmills

  And solar panels. Lots and lots of solar panels.
  
  Or we can all just start beating each other over the heads with clubs again and start living in caves.
  
  
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I wouldn't mind living in a cave if: 1. Spider-free 2. Warmer climate than Ohia
• believer

  

  CenterBHSFan;709819 wrote:I wouldn't mind living in a cave if: 1. Spider-free 2. Warmer climate than Ohia

  I know what you mean. As long as there's game cookin' in the fire pit and I have a roof over my head - or at least some cozy rocks to crawl into - I'm good to go.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  tk421;709714 wrote:We're running out of oil, can't build more coal plants, nuclear not an option, we're pretty much screwed. What else is there to make up the difference?

  
  The only thing preventing us from finding more oil (there's plenty out there), building more coal plants and SAFE nuclear reactors is US.
  
  Look no further than your favorite, inept (mostly liberal) politician.
  
  Otherwise, we'd be good to go.
• j_crazy

  

  If Louisiana had better regs on them I'd get solar panels on my roof. But in LA you don't get paid for the power you generate, you get a credit which is less than what you pay at night. Wyoming I think has a pretty good system for them. I think it should be mandatory for new construction to have them.
• Tobias Fünke

  

  Can someone tell me why places like Nevada and South Dakota are just loaded with 100 nuclear power plants? There's literally nothing in Nevada. Store the fucking waste you pansies.
• WebFire

  Well, here you go...
  
  http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-571154?hpt=Mid
• tk421

  

  We can't have windmills and solar panels because they damage the environment. Don't you know windmills kill birds and stuff? Shame on you.
• believer

  

  tk421;710554 wrote:We can't have windmills and solar panels because they damage the environment. Don't you know windmills kill birds and stuff? Shame on you.

  Windmills also interfere with the flight path and mating rituals of monarch butterflies and fruit flies. The reflective glare off solar panels in Wyoming and Louisiana has been known to blind white-winged vampire bats.
  
  The Greenies and PETA are planning to climb and occupy these eeeeeevil windmills and stone all solar panels as a sign of protest until all windmills and solar panels are dismantled and safer and more environmentally sound alternative sources of energy are used in their stead.
  
  God bless America!
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  Ok, this is getting really bad. It is not full on meltdown, but it's damn close.
  From the experts who I've talked with:
  For Unit 1, at least some of the core remains exposed and there is no word on the status of the spent fuel pond, which could ignite if water levels are not maintained.
  
  When the IAEA released this document, Unit 2 was stable due to a temporary cooling measure. Now, the IAEA reports that Unit 2 “has experienced decreasing coolant levels in the reactor core.” This is the same failure mode that has afflicted Units 1 and 3.
  
  Unit 3 has lost control of its valves, which were used to vent to reactors, leading to a dangerous pressure build-up (and no ability to pump in water).
  
  I think we are now heading to three full core melts. Chances are, if the containment vessels are breached, the cores will melt through the bottom. There is a small possibility of a vent that would spew radiation. Bob Alvarez points to the possibility of a plutonium fire in the spent fuel ponds, which is a total wildcard. (See what the National Academies had to say about this possibility.)
  
  And the IAEA:
  http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3648/iaea-on-fukushima
  
  Other updates:
  http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3657/another-fepc-statement
• fan_from_texas

  j_crazy;709995 wrote:If Louisiana had better regs on them I'd get solar panels on my roof. But in LA you don't get paid for the power you generate, you get a credit which is less than what you pay at night. Wyoming I think has a pretty good system for them. I think it should be mandatory for new construction to have them.

  
  In LA, the power you generate offsets the power you use, so you're essentially getting paid at the retail rate for your power. See, e.g., http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=LA02R&re=1&ee=1. You can pull your utility tariff and check to confirm, but your credit should be in kWh, and should directly offset the kWh you use.
• j_crazy

  

  fan_from_texas;712087 wrote:In LA, the power you generate offsets the power you use, so you're essentially getting paid at the retail rate for your power. See, e.g., http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=LA02R&re=1&ee=1. You can pull your utility tariff and check to confirm, but your credit should be in kWh, and should directly offset the kWh you use.

  
  What I'm saying is in wyoming you could get paid at the end of the month(at least I think so) if you generate more than you used in LA you just get a net usage bill so the best you can do is no bill.