Fukushima
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2013, 06:14 AM
Fukushima
Hey,
I think everybody knows about the nuclear power plant in Fukushima. It was hyped in Germany as a result the politic is going to shut down all german nucear power plant and replaces them with new energy sources like solar and wind energy (In my opinion not a bad decision but for the wrong reasons).
So my question is: Does anyone know something about Fukushima right now, cuz after a few weeks the topic wasnt discused anymore? and what do you think about the German result to shut the power plants off (were there simular attempt in other countries?)
Thanks for the thoughts Smile

Raise the doubt and don't be shy to ask questions. There are no stupid questions Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 08:16 AM
RE: Fukushima
I've often wondered the same thing. I was really interested in what was going on, but after a while, it fell from the headlines and I never heard another word.

I pretty much just chalked it up to the usual media bullshit. Even the most harrowing of events eventually becomes yesterday's headline and gets replaced by something else. Something new and exciting; like K-Stew cheating on Robert. Dodgy

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 09:38 AM
RE: Fukushima
I get a lot of my info from here....

http://www.fairewinds.org/


I also use google translate to put japanese keywords into youtube.

From what information I can gather robots cant work for long in the radiation, so im not sure how they are going to handle it other than doing what the russians did with chernobyl.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 10:24 AM
RE: Fukushima
(19-02-2013 06:14 AM)Tamril Wrote:  Hey,
I think everybody knows about the nuclear power plant in Fukushima. It was hyped in Germany as a result the politic is going to shut down all german nucear power plant and replaces them with new energy sources like solar and wind energy (In my opinion not a bad decision but for the wrong reasons).
You're correct, although you've missed out a bit of information. As a result of the catastrophe in Japan, our government ordered a three-monthly safety check of all 17 German nuclear power plants. It wasn't until August 2011 that they shut down the eight oldest ones unlawfully. The remaining nine nuclear power plants will run for about another decade as they are scheduled to be closed down in 2022.

(19-02-2013 06:14 AM)Tamril Wrote:  So my question is: Does anyone know something about Fukushima right now, cuz after a few weeks the topic wasnt discused anymore?
I've been checking the news for new information every few months and as far as I know, Tepco, the company who owns the damaged nuclear power plant in Japan, is currently in a deep financial crisis because they are unable to pay for the damages caused by the accidents. The Japanese government and several banks had to help them out so that they wouldn't have to declare themselves insolvent. The reactor blocks in Fukushima are supposed to be removed until 2040.

(19-02-2013 06:14 AM)Tamril Wrote:  and what do you think about the German result to shut the power plants off
I can't approve of their decision because it seems to be based on paranoia-driven fear and activism rather than rational consideration. Due to our country's location on the tectonic plates and our lack of powerful active volcanoes, an earthquake even remotely as strong as the one in Japan is very unlikely, if not even impossible. Furthermore, every single active power plant is so far away from the North Sea, our only connection to the Atlantic Ocean, that they cannot be hit by a tsunami unless it floods like a quarter of our country. The only possible way, as far as I can see, for there to be a catastrophe is if there's a technical error (or a terrorist attack) and the risk of those can be drastically reduced my practicing proper maintenance and by performing frequent security checks.

Last but not least, neither the risk of a nuclear hazard, nor the costs involved in running a power plant are suddenly removed by shutting it down. The nuclear waste still exists and has to be cooled down for a long time until it becomes a little bit safer and even then you have to find a place to store it somewhere.

(19-02-2013 06:14 AM)Tamril Wrote:  (were there simular attempt in other countries?)
From Wikipedia (I assume that you're able to speak German):

Wikipedia Wrote:Einige Staaten wie Indien, Pakistan, Russland und Spanien kündigten eine Prüfung ihrer laufenden Kernkraftwerke an. Venezuelas Präsident Hugo Chávez und Israels Ministerpräsident Benjamin Netanjahu erklärten, sie wollten Pläne für das jeweils erste Kernkraftwerk in ihren Ländern stoppen. China fror die Genehmigungen für alle neuen Kernkraftwerke ein.

Die Schweiz veranlasste eine sofortige Überprüfung aller Kernkraftwerke und plante anschließend eine Laufzeitbeschränkung auf 50 Jahre und damit einen vollständigen Ausstieg bis 2034.

Frankreich (Präsident Sarkozy Kabinett Fillon III), Indonesien, die Niederlande (Kabinett Rutte I), die Türkei (Kabinett Erdoğan II), Vietnam und Weißrussland erklärten, an ihren Plänen für neue Kernkraftwerke festzuhalten.

US-Präsident Barack Obama veranlasste eine Sicherheitsprüfung aller US-Atomkraftwerke. Die Überprüfung ergab, dass die Sicherheitsvorkehrungen gegen schwere Unfälle bei manchen Kraftwerken nicht ausreichend sind.

Italiens Regierung (Kabinett Berlusconi IV, Mai 2008 bis November 2011) setzte einen geplanten Wiedereinstieg in die Kernenergie zunächst für ein Jahr aus. Eine Volksabstimmung im Juni 2011 bestätigte mit großer Mehrheit den Ausstieg.

Die politischen Diskussionen setzten sich weiter fort. In Frankreich nahm die Zustimmung zur Kernenergie langsam ab und wandelte sich bis Juni 2011 in einen langfristigen Ausstiegswunsch bei einer Mehrheit der Bevölkerung. Der Regierungswechsel 2012 (Francois Hollande (SP) wurde Nachfolger von Sarkozy; auch die Regierung (Kabinett Ayrault II) wird von der Parti socialiste gestellt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
19-02-2013, 10:42 AM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2013 10:47 AM by kim.)
RE: Fukushima
(19-02-2013 10:24 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I can't approve of their decision because it seems to be based on paranoia-driven fear and activism rather than rational consideration. Due to our country's location on the tectonic plates and our lack of powerful active volcanoes, an earthquake even remotely as strong as the one in Japan is very unlikely, if not even impossible. Furthermore, every single active power plant is so far away from the North Sea, our only connection to the Atlantic Ocean, that they cannot be hit by a tsunami unless it floods like a quarter of our country. The only possible way, as far as I can see, for there to be a catastrophe is if there's a technical error (or a terrorist attack) and the risk of those can be drastically reduced my practicing proper maintenance and by performing frequent security checks.

Last but not least, neither the risk of a nuclear hazard, nor the costs involved in running a power plant are suddenly removed by shutting it down. The nuclear waste still exists and has to be cooled down for a long time until it becomes a little bit safer and even then you have to find a place to store it somewhere.

I kind of agree Vosur but still wondering about Germany's current plants. Are yours fairly old? So many of the ones in the US are tremendously old - some 30 years and more - some of the older ones were already being shut down or converted to coal plants when Fukushima exploded. Does Germany convert to alternate fuels or do they just completely shut plants down?

Also - are German plants located near rivers or tributaries? That would still provide contamination to spread to oceans indirectly. Some plants in the US have created their own lakes for the possibility of containment issues. Just wondering.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 11:00 AM
RE: Fukushima
(19-02-2013 10:24 AM)Vosur Wrote:  ...
The only possible way, as far as I can see, for there to be a catastrophe
...

I was expecting you to say ... a catastrophe of biblical proportions.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Fukushima
(19-02-2013 10:42 AM)kim Wrote:  I kind of agree Vosur but still wondering about Germany's current plants. Are yours fairly old? So many of the ones in the US are tremendously old - some 30 years and more - some of the older ones were already being shut down or converted to coal plants when Fukushima exploded.
Yes. The oldest one was built in 1958 while the most recent one was constructed in 1982.

The nine nuclear power plants that are still running were erected between 1975 and 1982.

(19-02-2013 10:42 AM)kim Wrote:  Does Germany convert to alternate fuels or do they just completely shut plants down?
Both.

(19-02-2013 10:42 AM)kim Wrote:  Also - are German plants located near rivers or tributaries? That would still provide contamination to spread to oceans indirectly. Some plants in the US have created their own lakes for the possibility of containment issues. Just wondering.
Yes. Here's a map of Germany's nuclear power plants:

[Image: Kernkraftwerke_in_Deutschland.svg]

The dark purple and dark blue ones are still active while all others have been taken out of service.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
19-02-2013, 11:24 AM
RE: Fukushima
(19-02-2013 11:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Also - are German plants located near rivers or tributaries? That would still provide contamination to spread to oceans indirectly. Some plants in the US have created their own lakes for the possibility of containment issues. Just wondering.
Well as far as I know every nuclear power plant needs some water source, because they need the water for the cooling system (its a seperate system, so that no radioactivity is contaminating the rivers, sea, lake etc.) I think the main reason would be the nuclear waste and therefore I agree to Vosur that there is a pretty low chance that we get a failure like in Japan from natural disasters.

Raise the doubt and don't be shy to ask questions. There are no stupid questions Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 12:01 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2013 12:04 PM by kim.)
RE: Fukushima
Wow - that's eight still in service, when before there were twenty seven in service. That's a lot of downsizing - that must strain either resources or strain the grid. In any case, I'd be busting my ass to develop alternate resources like solar and wind and even fusion.

At least with a fusion reactor there is far less radioactive waste and it's less damaging biologically over a shorter period of time, than waste created by fission reactors.

I know about the world's largest experimental facility in the south of France - they call it the ITER International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor - Tokamak nuclear fusion reactor - but they won't have the first results until 2020.

In the mean time, I hope more development is done with wind and solar. I'm thinking they won't do it because they can't figure out how to make people pay for free wind and sun!! Because they are them... you know? Wink

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2013, 12:19 PM
RE: Fukushima
(19-02-2013 12:01 PM)kim Wrote:  In the mean time, I hope more development is done with wind and solar. I'm thinking they won't do it because they can't figure out how to make people pay for free wind and sun!! Because they are them... you know? Wink
I think they should force all new buildings that are developed to be fitted with solar panels. I would then make a "subsidiary" of the goverment with public money in the form of a none profit making entity that makes and develops solar panels. Because there is no profit to be made it will be cheap (with interest free payment plans for those who need them)... or if profit is to be made then that will be used in equipping first all government buildings with solar panels before moving onto housing properties owned by the government and then onto private buildings.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: