Safety of Nuclear Power Plants

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by donquigleone

The chart shows that the extra radiation in towns near Fukushima is about half that you'd get otherwise, IE you get 1.5 times the average dose of radiation, which while undesirable is not dangerous. Now I'm not saying that people should be hanging around Fukushima, but I'd say once the crisis is averted it will be perfectly safe to move back.

I would say that Sv is not the end it all final metric to calculate a risk and hence is not the only factor to consider here. It gives you a good idea of how much radiation certain tissues can handle.

A risk is often not considered dangerous, because it is not risky enough. When somebody tells you smoking is dangerous it would be, by comparison, the same overhyping. It is not more dangerous than elevated levels of radiation (but donÄt get me wrong you cannot easily compare the two, both depend on the dose/how many cigarettes you smoke).

Did you know that 50mSv each year for 35 years (1.75 Sv => WHO 1 Sv == 4% higher cancer risk) raises the average cancer risk abut 7%?
If you apply this number on a large population, e.g. 1,000,000 people you could statistically estimate that 70,000 of them would get cancer in their lifetime.
However, this dosis is not considered dangerous (just to give you a picture what dangerous really means in the world of nuclear risk studies).

The problem is imo not the radiation as a form of background radiation. More interesting are heavy isotopes like Cs 137. If you get these into your body (which is not unlikely since they were set free in the region) they can concentrate in your body and form radioactive hot spots, areas with higher levels of radiation in your body (that can have a more serious impact on certain organs inside your body, even though on average the radiation is not significant). I do not have to mention that the human as the supposed end of the food chain is especially exposed to the risk of accumulating such isotopes with the food. What else to consider... certain isotopes will not easily leave the body once inside (they circulate).

Originally Posted by donquigleone

I meant during the current aftermath of the earthquake, Fukushima is the only set of Powerplants (out of 3 or 4 along that coastline) that has had significant problems.

Why differentiate? But anyway, did you know that Fukushima 2 had an INES 3 incident too (not that I'ld call it a dangerous situation, but in the light of nuclear reactor safety this is not exactly reassuring - my oppinion). The media is very much focused on Fukushima 1.

Originally Posted by donquigleone

While there was a coverup at Monju (which is regrettable), it was not even on the scale of 3 mile island.

My point was that all the previous serious accidents occured in 1st or 2nd generation plants, designed at a time when the industry was still nascent, potential accident causes were not well known, and not incorporating technologies that are standard today.

Did you understand what I wrote about intrinsic design principles and how the age of the powerplants is not the only thing to consider? My theory is that there not so many accidents with breeders to this day is because there are not so many of them running (which could change in the future, since MOX and rebreeding becomes more and more important economically - you can dump only so much radioactive waste, before you run out of safe dumping places and have to recycle it).

Originally Posted by donquigleone

Modern Plants are safer not because they are newer, but because they simply are not as prone to human error as they implement automatic systems to prevent a meltdown from ever occuring. The problem at Fukushima was that the backup Power was a Diesel Engine, which don't tend to work when soaked...

I am more concerned with worst case studies. This is like saying my car has ESP that makes me invincible. Lets say, car 1 (LMB power plant) has ESP, ABS, lane assist, side assist, collission detector... and other nice features but no airbags and no seatbelts and car 2 (LWR power plant) has just airbags and seatbelts instead. Of course car 1 will be safer in most situations, but the worst case will look much worse in car 1 when compared with car 2.

Originally Posted by donquigleone

I think it's a bit unfair to label the nuclear power plant workers as irresponsible. Engineers are human and can make mistakes. It's unfortunate but when they make mistakes the consequences are much larger then for other reporters.

I speak about plant operators in general. I read the analysis results of nuclear incidents that have to be reported to IAEA in german nuclear power plants. 25% of them are based on either: A safety mechanism was bypassed to let the plant continue operation, or: A safety mechanism was not repaired to let the plant continue operation.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_m...ischen_Anlagen (unfortunately only in german)

Originally Posted by donquigleone

Overall the performance of the workers at the plant has been exemplary. And even if there was some covering up going on (and this was probably on the part of Management or politicians), the level of incompetence is nothing compared to Chernobyl. But Fukushima did not occur due to worker error, but due to a design flaw in it's contingency systems. Engineers generally put a very high premium on safety, above all else, but it's only the cases where people make mistakes that get publicised.

So Management and politicians are not a human factor now or what do you want to imply here?

Originally Posted by donquigleone

I don't think you can ignore that perhaps the Authorities aren't entirely sure themselves of how large an exclusion zone is needed. It's better to be cautious in such circumstances. For one thing it was not initially clear how serious the accident was (even to the engineers), and also they may not have wanted to overload an already strained infrastructure with too many evacuations at once, aiming to prioritise the most at risk citizens first and moving from there. That's not to say their response has been perfect, but it could have been much worse.

Well, thats what I meant when I said it is a compromise (a compromise happens if you want something (e.g. you want evacuation zones, based on worst case estimations - not best or average case - but for whatever reason it is not possible to achieve it... then you have to make the best of it - a compromise).

[Kaijo]

Thought I'd drop in and put a couple of links down that might help people understand the issue:

First off, XKCD has a handy radiation chart that is worth looking at.

Second, a helpful visual comparison how many deaths per watts for the three main energy generation types.

Also, just for giggles, including an up-to-the-moment radiation graph for Hiroshima. Mainly to showcase that any radiation released from Fukushima isn't really making it that far, and isn't that dangerous.

Lastly, I wanna share a small story that was posted elsewhere, that one can use to explain to people the issues:

"Once upon a time, there was town. There were some smart people in this town, and they took notice of a natural occurrence wherein trees would fall over rivers, allowing people to cross them. Soon, these engineers were purposefully felling trees across rivers, making life easier and better for everyone.

Eventually, they learned to improve these "bridges" as they were being called, adding railing and flattening one side of the trees to make them safer and more comfortable. Even putting several trees next to each other. They even had plans to begin using new materials to construct bridges, when tragedy struck.

One of the oldest bridges, a simple felled tree that had been in use for 30 years or so, collapsed in foul weather and killed a few people. Rather than call for better safety measures and retire old bridges in favor of safer ones, the populace howled in anger and demanded all bridges to be removed immediately. After all, anyone could die at anytime on one!

Instead, the populace decided that the better idea was to simply hire full-time ferrymen to help people cross rivers. The poor engineers couldn't convince the populace that bridges could be safe, and would end up being cheaper in the long run, then hiring ferrymen. What do you think of these townsfolk?"

I mean, on one hand we have a reactor that survived melting down when confronted with an earthquake AND tsunami that were higher than it was rated for. Some radiation has escaped, but there hasn't been any deaths yet, and at worst, only a few people will be injured. And on the other, we have an oil rig that is responsible for several deaths, as well as the complete ruining of an entire ecosystem, while putting hundreds, if not thousands of fishermen and fish-related industries out of business.

Which disaster would you prefer?

[NameGoesHere]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Also, just for giggles, including an up-to-the-moment radiation graph for Hiroshima. Mainly to showcase that any radiation released from Fukushima isn't really making it that far, and isn't that dangerous.

To be fair, 3-5% of a nuclear bomb is released as ionizing radiation. The radiation does have an effect, but the point of a bomb has always been the thermal radiation + shockwave + cityscape crashing down. Consider also the time frame of products being produced when it comes to bombs and power plants...the former is many magnitudes shorter than the latter and exists as a moment in a super-critical state. The isotope mixture ends up different, and more of what is what decays more rapidly. In nuclear power plants, longer-lived isotopes have more time to reach their maximum activities.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Lastly, I wanna share a small story that was posted elsewhere, that one can use to explain to people the issues:

"Once upon a time, there was town. There were some smart people in this town, and they took notice of a natural occurrence wherein trees would fall over rivers, allowing people to cross them. Soon, these engineers were purposefully felling trees across rivers, making life easier and better for everyone.

Eventually, they learned to improve these "bridges" as they were being called, adding railing and flattening one side of the trees to make them safer and more comfortable. Even putting several trees next to each other. They even had plans to begin using new materials to construct bridges, when tragedy struck.

One of the oldest bridges, a simple felled tree that had been in use for 30 years or so, collapsed in foul weather and killed a few people. Rather than call for better safety measures and retire old bridges in favor of safer ones, the populace howled in anger and demanded all bridges to be removed immediately. After all, anyone could die at anytime on one!

Instead, the populace decided that the better idea was to simply hire full-time ferrymen to help people cross rivers. The poor engineers couldn't convince the populace that bridges could be safe, and would end up being cheaper in the long run, then hiring ferrymen. What do you think of these townsfolk?"

But, the story is a little like comparing apples and oranges? Among other things, it's not an easy task to take down an existing nuclear plant.

Undamaged:
http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats...tistics/costs/

Accident, but mostly undamaged:
http://www.efmr.org/files/TMI-2DFIPetition.pdf

Accident, badly damaged:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Boo.../chernobyl.pdf

Accident, ongoing:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...72U06920110331

...Bridges are rather conventional compared to nuclear reactors. It is an arduous task to clean up after a nuclear accident (entombment doesn't mean the problem is solved, the sarcophagus must be maintained). I suggest reading about places like the Hanford site, in order to envision what kind of task cleaning up mere water can be. And, adding safety features isn't going to stop anybody from falsifying maintenance records (the human side of the equation is a big argument for some). There is nothing wrong with questioning safety, it's only a problem when people give in the hysteria (Jinto has good points against nuclear power, for one). Especially since seismic activity is cyclical, and nature can kick us over the edge any time it so wishes.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I mean, on one hand we have a reactor that survived melting down when confronted with an earthquake AND tsunami that were higher than it was rated for. Some radiation has escaped, but there hasn't been any deaths yet, and at worst, only a few people will be injured. And on the other, we have an oil rig that is responsible for several deaths, as well as the complete ruining of an entire ecosystem, while putting hundreds, if not thousands of fishermen and fish-related industries out of business.

Which disaster would you prefer?

Actually...the second one, I'd think. Once again, no such thing as a relief well for a nuclear plant. At Macondo, the problem could be observed from day one. The people working the problem did what they do for a day job. Operations weren't being handled by volunteers or contracted laborers dealing with things nobody had ever seen before. Even understanding a problem remotely when there are no eyes available is...tedious, to say the least (every cable is "that other cable, what letters?").

"Completely ruining an ecosystem," in reference to Macondo is kind of like saying, "render Japan uninhabitable" in reference to Fukushima. I also believe that when it comes to commerce, oil or radiation have relatively similar effects in dissuading people from traveling, etc. Maybe people would be even more cautious due to radiation, as it's comparatively harder to detect and understand. The widespread impact (of any disaster) simply cannot be accurately tabulated. On the scale of bad things having a node further out doesn't make something less bad. It's still as bad, in the end.

Things don't always go as planned, or even have to make sense (...like everything about Anders in DA II...), but they still happen. Really, what would have happened if the SFP had gone up in flames? I'd like to err on the side of caution, lest my kids grow up hating me for ruining the world, or something similar (if I ever manage to find an unfortunate manslave who'll put up with me, that is ).

Maybe the real problem is that we feel entitled to use as much energy as we want at a self-defined reasonable price.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by NameGoesHere

To be fair, 3-5% of a nuclear bomb is released as ionizing radiation. The radiation does have an effect, but the point of a bomb has always been the thermal radiation + shockwave + cityscape crashing down. Consider also the time frame of products being produced when it comes to bombs and power plants...the former is many magnitudes shorter than the latter and exists as a moment in a super-critical state. The isotope mixture ends up different, and more of what is what decays more rapidly. In nuclear power plants, longer-lived isotopes have more time to reach their maximum activities.

The point was that, even at a site that was hit by a nuclear bomb, there was no dangerous radiation from Fukushima. Which means the radiation really isn't going that far.

But, the story is a little like comparing apples and oranges? Among other things, it's not an easy task to take down an existing nuclear plant.

No analogy is perfect. The idea was to evaluate the intelligence of a group of people who demand the removal of an engineering construct because one or two of them managed to break down and kill a person or two.

Actually...the second one, I'd think. Once again, no such thing as a relief well for a nuclear plant. At Macondo, the problem could be observed from day one. The people working the problem did what they do for a day job. Operations weren't being handled by volunteers or contracted laborers dealing with things nobody had ever seen before. Even understanding a problem remotely when there are no eyes available is...tedious, to say the least (every cable is "that other cable, what letters?").

"Completely ruining an ecosystem," in reference to Macondo is kind of like saying, "render Japan uninhabitable" in reference to Fukushima.

Which is the kicker; Japan is still very much habitable. You might wanna look at what's happening to the gulf. In short, there is going to be a massive dead zone in the gulf that will have an effect worldwide for years to come(just try to estimate the migratory marine life, and the effect all that dead marine life is going to have on the food chain). A nuclear meltdown at it's worst, can barely manage that.

Economically, TEPCO is gonna have issues. That is, the group responsible for the energy source. BP and Transocean? Well, the latter just gave out bonuses to it's employees saying it was their safest year on record! Meanwhile, all those local fisherman are out of jobs because there are no fish to catch, because all the fish are dead! It has immediate local ramifications, which will ripple out through the entire country.

Meanwhile, you can't eat some oranges or milk from Japan for a week, maybe two, and then things are back to normal.

And note: this is ignoring the oil issues that crop up in the gulf, which prop up dictators and kill protesters.

Maybe the real problem is that we feel entitled to use as much energy as we want at a self-defined reasonable price.

I do agree with this, though. Ultimately, becoming more efficient is a big issue (which is why I went with a hybrid; yes, it might cost the same, but it does use much less oil). And the developing world is going to need a lot of energy, too. You can either have them diverting oil to suit their needs (or have western countries keep them down so we can have the oil) which will raise the price, or we can perfect alternative energy. The cheapest, safest base load generation we have is nuclear. Well, hydroelectric is dam good (pardon the pun, heh), but there are only so many rivers where it is practical.

But radiation is scaaaary, so with that chart above, I aim to remove the fear by education on what kind of radiation is safe. Even then, there are differences among particles, some of which will pass through you without doing anything, and some that can't even penetrate your skin.

[NameGoesHere]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

The point was that, even at a site that was hit by a nuclear bomb, there was no dangerous radiation from Fukushima. Which means the radiation really isn't going that far.

As I said, there is no comparison between the isotope mixture of the products of a nuclear bomb and a nuclear plant. Most of what's given off in a nuclear bomb blast decays very quickly. Much of the rest is spewed into the atmosphere, which seems bad, but like the noble gas inventory trapped inside nuclear fuel that was released from Fukushima, it is caught up in the jet stream and quickly becomes dispersed (noble gases even quicker than others as it doesn't clump together). The problem with Fukushima and Chernobyl, or any other plant meltdown, is that both gaseous and liquid release can become concentrated. Japan has been lucky in this sense.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

No analogy is perfect. The idea was to evaluate the intelligence of a group of people who demand the removal of an engineering construct because one or two of them managed to break down and kill a person or two.

Isn't it better to come to understand the situation without an analogy though? The analogy is imperfect, so if there is a policy debate to follow, the actual technology needs to be understood, no? That is why I dislike analogies, anyway.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Which is the kicker; Japan is still very much habitable. You might wanna look at what's happening to the gulf. In short, there is going to be a massive dead zone in the gulf that will have an effect worldwide for years to come(just try to estimate the migratory marine life, and the effect all that dead marine life is going to have on the food chain). A nuclear meltdown at it's worst, can barely manage that.

Economically, TEPCO is gonna have issues. That is, the group responsible for the energy source. BP and Transocean? Well, the latter just gave out bonuses to it's employees saying it was their safest year on record! Meanwhile, all those local fisherman are out of jobs because there are no fish to catch, because all the fish are dead! It has immediate local ramifications, which will ripple out through the entire country.

Meanwhile, you can't eat some oranges or milk from Japan for a week, maybe two, and then things are back to normal.

And note: this is ignoring the oil issues that crop up in the gulf, which prop up dictators and kill protesters.

http://www.tulane.edu/~bfleury/envir...b/DeadZone.htm

The dead zone was there (annually) before the spill. Blame the farmers upstream if blame must be placed, not BP. There are many dead zones all over the world. Coverage over the BP spill had as much crappy reporting as Fukushima has had. The information out there about the spill, is once again the industry on one side and expert personalities tinted by hysteria on the other. Most of the things we do adversely effect nature, as a whole how can anybody quantify the damage? How long does spent fuel have to be contained? 10000 years? 25000? Are the health effects of Hanford and similar sites anything that anybody will ever attempt to tabulate? It is impossible. Estimations can be given, but the unknowns are so large that the estimations are actually pretty hilarious given how much is not considered (yes I know, take the simple system and add onto it...but that does not work here given that there is an agenda to push on any side). In the end, they are all bad, but it is a risk in living so the only thing that can be done is to understand, and do what we can to minimize the damage. Arguing that one thing isn't as bad as another is really...an unacceptable solution, at least to me.

TEPCO is already on the hook (previous links) for more than BP had signed up to pay for by the end of Macondo. The talks of nationalization for TEPCO are no better in terms of shirking responsibilities. There is no way that TEPCO can absorb the damages for this. None of these companies ever face the full set of consequences for their actions.

A nuclear meltdown at worst...well, the papers are part of NUREG's evaluations found at the DOE link I posted earlier. The "worst possible" scenario that was considered was the fuel burning. Once the fuel begins to burn, nobody can get close enough. ONRL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Rid...nal_Laboratory) calculated that such an event would burn for at least 7 months. This would have rendered the main island of Japan uninhabitable. If ONRL is willing to admit that, I would take it as truth. Especially since the DOE did absorb the AEC.

And not being able to eat things from Japan for a week or two...not all of the release are isotopes with short-lives...

Oil issues -> dictators fighting wars. Nuclear plant -> dictators with nukes...nuclear plant targets in a war...I don't like this kind of argument, that can go on and on.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I do agree with this, though. Ultimately, becoming more efficient is a big issue (which is why I went with a hybrid; yes, it might cost the same, but it does use much less oil). And the developing world is going to need a lot of energy, too. You can either have them diverting oil to suit their needs (or have western countries keep them down so we can have the oil) which will raise the price, or we can perfect alternative energy. The cheapest, safest base load generation we have is nuclear. Well, hydroelectric is dam good (pardon the pun, heh), but there are only so many rivers where it is practical.

I'm not arguing against nuclear energy. I prefer nuclear to oil, but from an engineering perspective I'd take Macondo over Fukushima any day. I just want to point out that there are many valid dangers, and hopefully when recommendations for plant safety are made after this they will be taken seriously. I think much of the problem is that we quickly become complacent, and things do not change in the right direction even though much lip service is given.

I would hope that nuclear plant operators would be more competent in at least their site planning in the future. I mean, leveling part of a hill to build a plant, and then siting the emergency backup generators where, again? And the conduit tunnels, too? In a tsunami zone?...Really? Really? Hindsight can be awful...

Originally Posted by Kaijo

But radiation is scaaaary, so with that chart above, I aim to remove the fear by education on what kind of radiation is safe. Even then, there are differences among particles, some of which will pass through you without doing anything, and some that can't even penetrate your skin.

The problem from radiation comes when you ingest it. I know the XKCD chart has been popular, but it does not really put the dangers in perspective. Radiation can become scary, depending on the situation. It is not there for Fukushima, but it can happen. The question is what will we do when it does, such things cannot be ignored.

[Haak]

It seems some Japanese don't like Nuclear power much anymore:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12874198

[Ithekro]

And replace it with what exactly? They use nuclear for a quarter of their energy needs.

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

And replace it with what exactly? They use nuclear for a quarter of their energy needs.

As much as I am in favor of advanced water based reactors... I am finding this situation to be a major setback.

Conventional power systems can be built, tested, certified and connected to grid in an impressively shorter time than Nuclear Plants.

Replacing the old Nuke Plants will be easy... there are pre-built power plant packages that can be purchased.

In fact you can rent or purchase conventional power-barges to supplement power in coastal areas.

Thing is ... for ordinary folks ... conventional plant systems do not carry the same dangers as nuclear plants and to ordinary folk conventional plants are much easier to deal with.

For them Fuel isn't a risk of the same magnitude nor are the engines that burn them.

You will never find a conventional plant that takes almost a month to cool, stabilize and properly shutdown. Nor one that will ever need the possibility of being entombed in concrete.

You do not need a 20 - 200 Km safety zone around a conventional plant that is having fuel leaks, engine, boiler or turbine trouble.

So those are the arguments people will condense and digest.

In the end, this issue of nuclear power supply is most important for the ordinary folks and we must give them what they want. Be it removal or improvement.

To quote a friend of mine who is anti-nuclear : "The educated elite aren't the ones who suffer... since you are usually the first to get out of dodge because you know whats bad and whats not"

In her view : "Nuclear plants need to be over engineered. If it needs to be over engineered, it isn't exactly safe."

In an earthquake prone country, worse tsunami prone, Nuclear power is against the wall and may very well be on its way out of Japan.

[cyth]

Welp, this shit just got real. The nuclear emergency level for the Fukushima power plant has been raised to level 7, which is equal to the one issued for the Chernobyl crisis back in 1986. NHK didn't restrain itself this time to make the comparison. orz

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/2011...249911000.html

[Homura7]

Originally Posted by cyth

Welp, this shit just got real. The nuclear emergency level for the Fukushima power plant has been raised to level 7, which is equal to the one issued for the Chernobyl crisis back in 1986. NHK didn't restrain itself this time to make the comparison. orz

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/2011...249911000.html

Wich is laughable. Seriously, I hate the media, there's just too much sensationalism, but this is the peak of stupidity.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Adan

Wich is laughable. Seriously, I hate the media, there's just too much sensationalism, but this is the peak of stupidity.

I am always careful not to play things down. But it is correct, one cannot compare Chernobyl with Fukushima. Still, isotopes like Cs 137 are in yet unknown quantities in the environment. We have to wait for the analysis data of the long living isotopes. Iodine isotopes in the ocean should not pose a great risk, but Cs 137 in the food chain... hm...

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

To quote a friend of mine who is anti-nuclear : "The educated elite aren't the ones who suffer... since you are usually the first to get out of dodge because you know whats bad and whats not"

In her view : "Nuclear plants need to be over engineered. If it needs to be over engineered, it isn't exactly safe."

If it isn't over-engineered, it is called cost-cutting. Extra engineering always account for most of the safeties, and no doubt, cost issues. (this is something one might find interesting when he/she merges biz finance concepts with Opsys management) Given the rising cost of oil, energy is a big issue out there in the real world. And people want cheap and safe energy - what hypocrisy.

Obviously she needs to go back to school, or she is totally clueless about how businesses run in recessions.

Here is a sensible editorial which obviously nobody reads :

Beware of Japan’s Chernobyl-level rank

TOKYO (MarketWatch) — There are some good reasons to sell Japanese stocks right now, but seeing the word “Chernobyl” in a headline isn’t one of them.

Of course, it’s not good news that Japanese nuclear-safety authorities Tuesday raised their assessment of the crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant to the same level as the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, pushing it up to level 7 from 5 on the IAEA International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. Read more on Japan's upgrade to nuclear crisis assessment.

But investors need to remember that the accident-scale upgrade was based on events that have already unfolded, and doesn’t necessarily reflect the likelihood of more dangers to come.

The Japanese government said the month-long crisis at its Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant is on par with Chernobyl in terms of severity.

Tuesday’s new assessment was the equivalent of a drastic revision to a country’s gross domestic product data — very bad news about something that already happened. It wasn’t a bolt from the blue that no one saw coming.

Anyone paying attention to the Japanese nuclear situation in the days right after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami might remember U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu telling Congress that the United States believed the Japanese situation appeared to be more serious than Three Mile Island.

That was on March 16, the same day the European Union’s top energy official, Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger, told a European Parliament committee that the Fukushima plant was “effectively out of control.”

By the end of the first week after the disaster, Tepco had begun using water sprayed from fire hoses to cool the reactors and spent-fuel pools, and made some tentative progress toward restoring electricity to some of the reactors.

And by the end of the following week, some investors even believed the worst might be over, according to InTrade — the electronic futures market that allows traders to place real-money bets on outcomes of events, thereby providing a snapshot of expectations at any given moment.

As of Friday, March 25, InTrade’s markets predicted only a 15% probability of the Fukushima situation being upgraded to a level 6 accident before the end of the month, and only a 4% chance of being raised to a level 7.

But that premature optimism — perhaps inspired by those early reports of progress at the plant — subsequently unraveled.

By Tuesday, InTrade was showing a 99% chance that Fukushima would be upgraded to a level 6 accident by the end of April, and an 87% chance it would be upgraded to level 7.

The Japanese Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency estimates that the amount of radioactive material the Fukushima situation released to the atmosphere so far is still only about 10% of that released in the Chernobyl accident. But Tepco is still working to contain leaks at Fukushima, and that gap is likely to shrink over the coming months.

And another series of aftershocks in northeast Japan in recent days — several of which exceeded 6.0 — provided constant reminders to investors that new problems are always a possibility. A 6.6 temblor on Monday even knocked out Fukushima’s cooling operations for nearly an hour. Read more about Japan 6.6 earthquake on Monday.

It’s hard to be optimistic in the short term. Japan’s nuclear crisis isn’t over, and a power crisis looms as summer temperatures climb.

The March 11 disaster affected 31,800 megawatts of generating capacity, according to research by Platts. Tepco projects that its summer peak demand will reach 55,000 megawatts, while some forecasts have put the potential level at 60,000 megawatts, implying a summer peak shortfall of up to 13,500 megawatts, Platts said.

Those power outages, as well as factors like ongoing supply-chain disruptions, have prompted equities strategists to downgrade their immediate outlooks for profits and share prices.

Barclays Capital last week cut its end-2011 target for the Topix index to 935 from 1,030, and its Nikkei Stock Average target to 10,500 from 12,000. It also lowered its recurring profit-growth forecast for the fiscal year which began this month. Their strategists now expect ex-financial shares listed on the first section of the Tokyo Stock Exchange to post a 12% loss, compared with a 12.2% profit forecast before the disasters.

But then, Barclays predicts a “new stage of share-price appreciation,” towards the end of this fiscal year, on expectations of a profit recovery.

Fukushima is not Chernobyl, and Tokyo is not Pripyat. And someday, investors might wish they spent less time reacting to dramatic headlines, and more time determining the point at which Japan’s crisis will have finally turned a corner.

[Zetsubo]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

If it isn't over-engineered, it is called cost-cutting. Extra engineering always account for most of the safeties, and no doubt, cost issues. (this is something one might find interesting when he/she merges biz finance concepts with Opsys management) Given the rising cost of oil, energy is a big issue out there in the real world. And people want cheap and safe energy - what hypocrisy.

Obviously she needs to go back to school, or she is totally clueless about how businesses run in recessions.

A few years ago I would have totally agreed with you, however nowadays I recognise where she and other people that think like her are coming from.

If I remember correctly a previous argument was "You smart guys like to look down on us simple folks"

You go "back to school" comment would have had me involved in a very bad argument.

To simply put... She trusts technicians and engineers, she doesn't trust the BUSINESS MEN behind the technicians and engineers.

She no longer trusts scientists because most of them are "beggars for grants"

When it comes to nuclear power arugments with her and my friends I can't help but reveal my brightly coloured bias to beautifully engineered reactor systems. Especially Water based units.

I got cussed out that "I'm in love with the technology more than the people it is to serve." and I had to really look at her words.

She: "If the people it is to serve are scared, then what do you do ?"

Me: "Educate them and answer thier questions"

I should have known better ...

She: "How do you clean up a nuclear fuel leak of any kind ?"

I haven't gotten back to her as yet.

Perhaps I need to go back to school myself.

[Ithekro]

From what I recall, all power plants are over engineered. Be it oil, coal, hydroelectric or nuclear. Any plant that uses turbines to generate power is over engineered so it will last a long time while being a safe and reliable as possible. Any plant that is not will have accidents. Just with nuclear, if it isn't overengineered, a lot more people could die in one accident/ However, the other plant will likely have more people die due to multiple accident, than the single nuclear accident. Things add up after all, because with the other plant types, people get complacent.

Clean up, if I recall correctly, depends on the material that is irradiated. If it is a solid, it gets covered, collected, or washed away with chemicals to nuetralize it. If it is a liquid, is is absorbed and contained. Sometimes it is dispersed to a wider area (say the ocean) were its parts per billion amounts of radiation will be practially nothng of note (I think the US Navy uses the term "banana" as a measurement of radiation, as in how much radiation you get from eating a banana's worth dose of radiation.)

Of course if I recall your specific situation Zetsubo, you were mentioning an island (nation?) specilating on using nuclear power, but the arguements come up that the old conventional plant failed once and was rebuilt in the spot in weeks or months verse a nuclear plants that might never be safe if it fails. How big of an island are we talking about? Will one plant power the entire island, or just be one of a few power plants?

[Vexx]

And someday, investors might wish they spent less time reacting to dramatic headlines, and more time determining the point at which Japan’s crisis will have finally turned a corner.

I wish that were true for *ALL* stocks, crises, or even "Analyst Bozo sez" crapola. Investors - even large ones appear to be complete morons much of the time.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Zetsubo

A few years ago I would have totally agreed with you, however nowadays I recognise where she and other people that think like her are coming from.

If I remember correctly a previous argument was "You smart guys like to look down on us simple folks"

You go "back to school" comment would have had me involved in a very bad argument.

To simply put... She trusts technicians and engineers, she doesn't trust the BUSINESS MEN behind the technicians and engineers.

She no longer trusts scientists because most of them are "beggars for grants"

When it comes to nuclear power arugments with her and my friends I can't help but reveal my brightly coloured bias to beautifully engineered reactor systems. Especially Water based units.

I got cussed out that "I'm in love with the technology more than the people it is to serve." and I had to really look at her words.

She: "If the people it is to serve are scared, then what do you do ?"

Me: "Educate them and answer thier questions"

I should have known better ...

She: "How do you clean up a nuclear fuel leak of any kind ?"

I haven't gotten back to her as yet.

Perhaps I need to go back to school myself.

She is simply taking the path of "ignorance is bliss so I can blame others for making stuff difficult to understand".

If abstract algebra is that easy to understand, quantum physics would be stuck in the 1800s and be totally like intelligent design. There is a reason why physicists have to sit through nights and days just to work out a link between two numbers - logic is easy only if you make an effort to understand it.

The right answer to "If the people it is to serve are scared, then what do you do?" is "Let them be." Fear is an emotion generated by doubt, and doubt is caused by the lack of understanding and knowledge. Nobody can overcome their fear except for themselves, and that one avenue is to seek to understand, decide and if possible, innovate - an aspect many anti-nuclear critics fail to bring up in their case against nuclear power.

Honestly speaking, I see those who oppose nuclear power in favour of alternatives other than geothermal and solar fail to do their math - energy production also takes into account cost-efficiency. Cost-wise, those two are the closest one I can see that can generate sustainable power at an efficient cost over the long period, like half-a-century or so*.

* - This is assuming that we :

1. Don't get idiots like those at TEPCO running the management.
2. Have a proper regulating body that supervises OHAS (Operational Health And Safety)
3. Murder every single corporatist lobbying against such technology in favour of Big Oil
4. Ignore and incarcerate every protestor against aggressive investment and research into such technologies.

Originally Posted by Vexx

I wish that were true for *ALL* stocks, crises, or even "Analyst Bozo sez" crapola. Investors - even large ones appear to be complete morons much of the time.

There are some who deliberately short their shares in order to buy up more of the same later when such a panic is presented. Unfortunately, these people are called "tactical traders" and are a rare minority - most traders these days rely on charts and bars more than they do to simple logic.

And there is another group called "speculators" - they didn't want to put their money in one place for too long because "there might be other better opportunities out there".

Majority are those who bought Nikkei after it fell during the first quake, and subsequently sold their shares to avoid a huge loss due to the Chernobyl rating. What they didn't realise is that an economy doesn't grow by itself; something called "money" has to be pumped into it.

[thevil1]

I just realized this thread was here so I haven't been following it. The way I see it, is that for Japan overall Nuclear energy is a good resource since unlike many other countries, Japan doesn't have any resources of it's own such as oil etc... Even though it may pose a risk since Japan has a tendency to get the occasional strong earthquakes and tsunamis; what doesn't kill them should make them stronger. From this hopefully they should learn how to better prepare themselves for a next time. The less they have to rely on other countries, the better their economy should be also.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

She is simply taking the path of "ignorance is bliss so I can blame others for making stuff difficult to understand".

Well, call me ignorant. But there is one thing you (you as an economy-centered person) have to think about. The radioactive, long living isotopes that were bred in nuclear power plants have to be "stored" somewhere. On the long run storage for such materials will become very scarce and expensive.
So its basically like getting cheap energy today and have to pay high costs for safe storage tomorrow.

Now from an economical POV storing ever increasing amounts of depleted nuclear fuel is not a future proof concept (there are studies where around the world such storage places begin to leak... so basically it is already time to spend a lot of money and make these places safe again (this will not directly be paid with your electricity bills because it is a national/public responsibility and is therefore financed with other taxes which is somewhat intransparent... anyway most people won't care about nuclear waste because the power plants are perceived as the bigger problem - which is wrong for LWR power plants at least).

Hence recycling of nuclear waste is the goal for the future (and I am not talking about the US armor piercing amunition (AC10-GAU8) way of recycling ... rotting on battle fields in 3rd world countries).
The nuclear industry aims for breeder reactors... surprise surprise, most of the newer generations nuclear power plant designs are fast breeders - FBR (that produce more MOX fuel than they need for operation) or simpler thermal breeders that can at least work very efficient with MOX (a by-product in FBRs).

Despite what scientists and lobby groups tell you, breeders are intrinsically less safe than LWR power plants (not only because they operate at much higher core temperatures, but because they rebreed their own fuel - you thought the Fukushima cool down was long? - I think you don't want to see that happen in an FBR - that thing can breed its own fuel and when the control rods fail completely it could theoretically become even supercritical - though I don't exactly know which counter meassures exists for this scenario and how effective they are...).
Even if you could make them safer by over-over-engineering them (by comparison to LWR power plants), you'ld still have to calculate with a worst case that is far worse than anything that can happen in an LWR power plant.
Now think about it again... where are we heading here... you need to factor everything in... the costs of nuclear dumping sites, the resulting economy driven push for FBRs and TBRs, the resulting safety concerns... I must say, I am not convinced that at the long run the costs for this type of electricity come cheaper than renewables (even though, very complicated electricity storage/distribution mechanisms have to be factored in the renewable equation to have a rather stable base load power... I still think it can be cheaper on the long run - I mean the nuclear industry has a lot of indirect costs that are not on the electricity bill, storage is one such cost, treating cancer (very expensive) is another, I could find more...)

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

If abstract algebra is that easy to understand, quantum physics would be stuck in the 1800s and be totally like intelligent design. There is a reason why physicists have to sit through nights and days just to work out a link between two numbers - logic is easy only if you make an effort to understand it.

You must differentiate between the die hard theorem proven scientifical appraoch and what is most common in medicine and biology and similar sciences when statistics are used to "proof" something. Imo nothing can be a greater liar than a well manipulated statistic (there are so many factors where you can cheat: sample group, sample group size, definition of a positive and a negative sample...). So I would be very careful with risk studies and stuff that is based on intransparent statistics.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The right answer to "If the people it is to serve are scared, then what do you do?" is "Let them be." Fear is an emotion generated by doubt, and doubt is caused by the lack of understanding and knowledge. Nobody can overcome their fear except for themselves, and that one avenue is to seek to understand, decide and if possible, innovate - an aspect many anti-nuclear critics fail to bring up in their case against nuclear power.

While this is true, the opposit is also true: many people are blinded by so called scientific facts based on dubious statistical data and analysis. So on average, while the blind are against the technology because it is beyond comprehensible and they fear it, many one eyed among the blind are for it because they think they understand it. Now honestly, I don't know whats better or worse here. But maybe sometimes its okay to be for the right thing because of the wrong reasons.