OT Japan -- Getting Worse

[soul survivor]

Japan Faces Potential Nuclear Disaster as Radiation Levels Rise
By HIROKO TABUCHI, DAVID E. SANGER and KEITH BRADSHER
TOKYO — Japan’s nuclear crisis verged toward catastrophe on Tuesday after an explosion damaged the vessel containing the nuclear core at one reactor and a fire at another spewed large amounts of radioactive material into the air, according to the statements of Japanese government and industry officials.

In a brief address to the nation at 11 a.m. Tokyo time, Prime Minister Naoto Kan pleaded for calm, but warned that radiation had already spread from the crippled reactors and there was “a very high risk” of further leakage. Fortunately, the prevailing winds were sweeping most of the plume of radioactivity out into the Pacific Ocean, rather than over populated areas.

The sudden turn of events, after an explosion Monday at one reactor and then an early-morning explosion Tuesday at yet another — the third in four days at the plant — already made the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station the worst nuclear accident since the Chernobyl reactor disaster a quarter century ago.

It diminished hopes earlier in the day that engineers at the plant, working at tremendous personal risk, might yet succeed in cooling down the most damaged of the reactors, No. 2, by pumping in sea water. According to government statements, most of the 800 workers at the plant had been withdrawn, leaving 50 or so workers in a desperate effort to keep the cores of three stricken reactors cooled with seawater pumped by firefighting equipment, while the same crews battled to put out the fire at the No. 4 reactor, which they claimed to have done just after noon on Tuesday.

That fourth reactor had been turned off and was under refurbishment for months before the earthquake and tsunami hit the plant on Friday. But the plant contains spent fuel rods that were removed from the reactor, and experts guessed that the pool containing those rods had run dry, allowing the rods to overheat and catch fire. That is almost as dangerous as the fuel in working reactors melting down, because the spent fuel can also spew radioactivity into the atmosphere.

After an emergency cabinet meeting, the Japanese government told people living with 30 kilometers, about 18 miles, of the Daiichi plant to stay indoors, keep their windows closed and stop using air conditioning.

Mr. Kan, whose government was extraordinarily weak before the sequence of calamities struck the nation, told the Japanese people that “although this incident is of great concern, I ask you to react very calmly.” And in fact, there seemed to be little panic, but huge apprehension in a country where the drift of radioactivity brings up memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the haunting images of post-war Japan.

The two critical questions over the next day or so are how much radioactive material is spewed into the atmosphere, and where the winds carry it. Readings reported on Tuesday showed a spike of radioactivity around the plant that made the leakage categorically worse than in had been, with radiation levels measured at one point as high as 400 millisieverts an hour. Even 7 minutes of exposure at that level will reach the maximum annual dose that a worker at an American nuclear plant is allowed. And exposure for 75 minutes would likely lead to acute radiation sickness.

The extent of the public health risk depends on how long such elevated levels persist — they may have declined after the fire at No. 4 reactor was extinguished — as well as how far and fast the radioactive materials spread, and whether the limited evacuation plan announced by the government proves sufficient.

The succession of problems at Daiichi was initially difficult to interpret — with confusion compounded by incomplete and inconsistent information provided by government officials and executives of the plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power.

But industry executives in close contact with officials in Japan expressed extreme concern that the authorities were close to losing control over the fuel melting that has been ongoing in three reactors at Daiichi, especially at the crippled No. 2 reactor where the containment has been damaged.

Tokyo Electric Power said Tuesday that after the explosion at the No. 2 reactor, pressure had dropped in the “suppression pool” — a section at the bottom of the reactor that converts steam to water and is part of the critical function of keeping the nuclear fuel protected. After that occurred, radiation levels outside No. 2 were reported to have risen sharply.

“We are on the brink. We are now facing the worst-case scenario,” said Hiroaki Koide, a senior reactor engineering specialist at the Research Reactor Institute of Kyoto University. “We can assume that the containment vessel at Reactor No. 2 is already breached. If there is heavy melting inside the reactor, large amounts of radiation will most definitely be released.”

Another executive said the chain of events at Daiichi suggested that it would be difficult to maintain emergency seawater cooling operations for an extended period if the containment vessel at one reactor had been compromised because radiation levels could threaten the health of workers nearby.

If all workers do in fact leave the plant, the nuclear fuel in all three reactors is likely to melt down, which would lead to wholesale releases of radioactive material — by far the largest accident of its kind since the Chernobyl.

Even if a full meltdown is averted, Japanese officials have been facing unpalatable options. One was to continue flooding the reactors and venting the resulting steam, while hoping that the prevailing winds did not turn south toward Tokyo or west, across northern Japan to the Korean Peninsula. The other was to hope that the worst of the overheating was over, and that with the passage of a few more days the nuclear cores would cool enough to essentially entomb the radioactivity inside the plants, which clearly will never be used again. Both approaches carried huge risks.

While Japanese officials made no comparisons to past accidents, the release of an unknown quantity of radioactive gases and particles — all signs that the reactor cores were damaged from at least partial melting of fuel — added considerable tension to the effort to cool the reactors.

“It’s way past Three Mile Island already,” said Frank von Hippel, a physicist and professor at Princeton. “The biggest risk now is that the core really melts down and you have a steam explosion.”

The sharp deterioration came after a frantic day and night of rescue efforts focused largely on the No. 2 reactor. There, a malfunctioning valve prevented workers from manually venting the containment vessel to release pressure and allow fresh seawater to be injected into it. That meant that the extraordinary remedy emergency workers had jury-rigged to keep the nuclear fuel from overheating no longer worked.

As a result, the nuclear fuel in that reactor was exposed for many hours, increasing the risk of a breach of the container vessel and more dangerous emissions of radioactive particles.

By Tuesday morning, Tokyo Electric Power said that it had fixed the valve and resumed seawater injections, but that it had detected possible leaks in the containment vessel that prevented water from fully covering the fuel rods.

Then an explosion hit that reactor. After a series of conflicting reports about what level of damage was inflicted on the reactor after that blast, Mr. Edano said, “there is a very high probability that a portion of the container vessel was damaged.”

The steel container vessels that protect nuclear fuel in reactors are considered crucial to maintain the integrity of the reactor and the safety of the fuel.

Mr. Edano, however, said that the level of leaking at the No. 2 reactor remained small, raising the prospect that the container was sufficiently intact to protect the nuclear fuel inside.

[Louis]

I'm hardly a NP advocate, but I really doubt these events will do much to slow the pro-Nuke drift we've seen recently. Folks will say "They were old reactors, without the passive cooling features of the new designs," or "You don't get tsunamis in Ohio," or "You complained about Climate Change, well, we're doing something about it."

As long as an entire reactor doesn't go up in a mushroom cloud nuclear explosion (which I believe is not physically possible) the total damage will not be that big, and wind-borne radioactive cesium or iodine does not make for dramatic pictures.

[soul survivor]

Excellent point -- and hope you're wrong. Combination of BP and this is a hint from above that new solutions must be explored immediately.

[BumbleBeeDave]

I'm hardly a NP advocate, but I really doubt these events will do much to slow the pro-Nuke drift we've seen recently. Folks will say "They were old reactors, without the passive cooling features of the new designs," or "You don't get tsunamis in Ohio," or "You complained about Climate Change, well, we're doing something about it."

As long as an entire reactor doesn't go up in a mushroom cloud nuclear explosion (which I believe is not physically possible) the total damage will not be that big, and wind-borne radioactive cesium or iodine does not make for dramatic pictures.

. . . I think you're absolutely right, Louis. It's not that I'm totally anti-nuke. But human nature being what it is and greed being what it is I think this is exactly what will happen.

That being said, that 40 year old reactor is just that--a 40 year old design. I've seen no media info so far comparing that 40 year old design to current design mandates for anything that might be built here in the US over the next ten years.

What has been done in the industry to make them safer? Planning in design for a thousand year event? They might want to rethink that, considering this and the fact that the fuel remains toxic for maybe tens of thousands of years . . . :eek: :crap:

BBD

[R2D2]

. . . I think you're absolutely right, Louis. It's not that I'm totally anti-nuke. But human nature being what it is and greed being what it is I think this is exactly what will happen.

That being said, that 40 year old reactor is just that--a 40 year old design. I've seen no media info so far comparing that 40 year old design to current design mandates for anything that might be built here in the US over the next ten years.

What has been done in the industry to make them safer? Planning in design for a thousand year event? They might want to rethink that, considering this and the fact that the fuel remains toxic for maybe tens of thousands of years . . . :eek: :crap:

BBD

You make a good point. It would be nice to know what improvements have been made. It's too bad that plant hadn't been decomissioned already.

[AngryScientist]

in no way am i downplaying what's happening in Japan, but they will come through this.

as i mentioned, i'm heavily involved in the nuclear industry, the most frustrating part right now is the lack of credible information we are getting over here, i can play couch QB all day long, but its going to take days and weeks for us to really understand the magnitude of the damage this disaster will do to human life, Japan's land and the nuclear industry.

[oldpotatoe]

I'm hardly a NP advocate, but I really doubt these events will do much to slow the pro-Nuke drift we've seen recently. Folks will say "They were old reactors, without the passive cooling features of the new designs," or "You don't get tsunamis in Ohio," or "You complained about Climate Change, well, we're doing something about it."

As long as an entire reactor doesn't go up in a mushroom cloud nuclear explosion (which I believe is not physically possible) the total damage will not be that big, and wind-borne radioactive cesium or iodine does not make for dramatic pictures.

BIG news right now, just like when an airliner augers in and lots of people lost all at once.

Compare the death and destruction of the results of coal powered electricity and the death and destruction from Nuke power plant accidents INCLUDING Chernobyl.

Compare the weight of CO2 and other noxious and deadly stuff spewed into the air every minute from coal and the few tons of nuke waste, that would be even less if it were recycled like the French do.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html

Solar and wind is a teeny part of power generation and is much less efficient and much more expensive than nuke. Safe nuke power has been a fact for decades in the USN and could be in the US except for the political football it has become.

Also remember BP is OIL(cars mostly) and coal and nukes is electricity..apples and oranges until all cars are electric.

Be happy with coal, it is here to stay for a long while.

[1happygirl]

So sad. Now I hear Germany is shutting down their plants. Without the Earthquake, would we be debating the Nuke plants?

[Karin Kirk]

There are some important differences in the public perception of coal/oil vs nuclear. Have you noticed that people are not particularly swayed by data? People are largely concerned with themselves. So if you don't work in a coal mine or live on the Gulf of Mexico, it's hard to care about impacts that you'll never see. But with nuclear energy, the perceived threat is widespread, invisible, and terrifying. Given the inherent mistrust of public officials, how are we to know that a radioactive cloud is not going to drift over our neighborhoods and schoolyards?

I'm not saying that I feel this way, but this is how the public psyche tends to go. I expect the nuclear industry will suffer a setback. I'm not saying that makes sense, but again, things are not always sensible when it comes to public opinion.

[thwart]

Without the Earthquake, would we be debating the Nuke plants? May be a tiny 'silver lining' in this terrible cloud.

I think overabundant (as in way over the top) caution is a really good idea when dealing with nuclear power.

However, I could see increased regulation and delay in nuclear power strengthening the hand of the 'drill, baby, drill' folks... watch out, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge...

[mister]

in no way am i downplaying what's happening in Japan, but they will come through this.

as i mentioned, i'm heavily involved in the nuclear industry, the most frustrating part right now is the lack of credible information we are getting over here, i can play couch QB all day long, but its going to take days and weeks for us to really understand the magnitude of the damage this disaster will do to human life, Japan's land and the nuclear industry.

http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/

UPDATE AS OF 10:20 A.M. EDT, TUESDAY, MARCH 15:
The level of radioactivity at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has been decreasing, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

At 8 p.m. EDT March 15, a dose rate of 1,190 millirem per hour was observed. Six hours later, the dose rate was 60 millirem per hour, IAEA said.

About 150 residents near the Fukushima Daiichi site have been checked for radiation and 23 have been decontaminated.

Japanese authorities have distributed potassium iodide tablets to evacuation center (see this page for more information on potassium iodide). If taken within several hours of ingesting radioactive iodine, potassium iodide can protect the thyroid gland.


UPDATE AS OF 9:15 A.M. EDT, TUESDAY, MARCH 15:
Fukushima Daiichi
Units 1 and 3 at Fukushima Daiichi are stable and cooling is being maintained through seawater injection. Primary containment integrity has been maintained on both reactors.

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA) reported an explosion in the suppression pool at Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2, at 7:14 p.m. EDT on March 14. Reactor water level was reported to be at 2.7 meters below the top of the fuel. The pressure in the suppression pool decreased from 3 atmospheres to 1 atmosphere. Radiation readings at the site increased to 96 millirem per hour.

Dose rates at Fukushima Daiichi as reported at 10:22 p.m. EDT on March 14 were:

* Near Unit 3 reactor building 40 rem/hr
* Near Unit 4 reactor building 10 rem/hr
* At site boundary 821 millirem/hr.
* Kitaibaraki (200 km south of site) 0.4 millirem/hr.


We are working on getting updated information on radiation and dose rates at and near the plant.

Station personnel not directly supporting reactor recovery efforts have been evacuated, leaving approximately 50 staff members at the site. Operators are no longer in the main control room due to high radiation levels.

Safety relief valves were able to be re-opened and seawater injection into the reactor core was restarted around 1 a.m. EDT on March 15 and is continuing.

At Unit 4 on March 14 at approximately 8:38 p.m. EDT, a fire was reported in the reactor building. It is believed to have been from a lube oil leak in a system that drives recirculation water pumps. Fire fighting efforts extinguished the fire. The roof of the reactor building was damaged.

Fukushima Daini
All four reactors at Fukushima Daini are being maintained with normal cooling using residual heat removal systems.


UPDATE AS OF 10:25 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, MARCH 14:
Yukio Edano, Japan�s Chief Cabinet Secretary, during a live press conference at 10 p.m. EDT, said there is a fire at Fukushima Daiichi 4 that is accompanied by high levels of radiation between Units 3 and 4 at the site. The fire began burning at Unit 4 at around 6 a.m. Japan time on March 14 and is still burning. Fire fighters are responding to the fire. The reactor does not have fuel in the reactor, but there is spent fuel in the reactor (pool) and Edano said that he assumes radioactive substances are being released. �The substances are coming out from the No. 4 reactor and we are making the utmost effort to put out the first and also cool down the No. 4 reactor (pool).�

Edano said that a blast was heard this morning at Unit 2 at about 6:30 a.m. A hole was observed in the number 2 reactor and he said there is very little possibility that an explosion will occur at Unit 2.

�The part of the suppression chamber seems to have caused the blast,� Edano said. A small amount of radioactive substance seems to have been released to the outside.

TEPCO workers continue to pump sea water at 1, 2 and 3 reactors. �The biggest problem is how to maintain the cooling and how to contain the fire at No. 4.� At 10:22 a.m. Japan time, the radiation level between units 2 and 3 were as high as 40 rem per hour. �We are talking about levels that can impact human health.� Edano said.

Of the 800 staff that remained at the power plant, all but 50 who are directly involved in pumping water into the reactor have been evacuated.


UPDATE AS OF 9:40 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, MARCH 14:
An explosion in the vicinity of the suppression pool at Fukushima Daiichi 2 just after 6:20 a.m. Japan Standard Time (5:20 p.m. EDT) may have damaged a portion of the reactor�s primary containment structure.

Pressure in the suppression pool has been reported to have decreased to ambient atmospheric pressure shortly after the blast. Plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) has reported possible damage to the reactor�s pressure-suppression system. Radiation levels at local monitoring stations have risen but are still in flux. TEPCO has evacuated some workers from all three Fukushima reactors with the exception of approximately 50 workers involved in sea water pumping activities into the reactors as part of emergency cooling efforts.

Residents within a 20-kilometer (12.5 mile) zone around the plant were ordered to evacuate on Saturday following a hydrogen explosion at Unit 1. Another hydrogen explosion occurred this morning (U.S. time) at Unit 3.

Efforts to inject sea water into Unit 2 have been complicated by a faulty pressure relief valve. The fuel at Unit 2 has been exposed at least twice, before being re-covered with sea water.

Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary, Yukio Edano, has said a partial defect has been found inside the containment vessel of reactor 2 at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.


UPDATE AS OF 5:30 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, MARCH 14:
Tokyo Electric Power Co. reported at 3:00 p.m. EDT that work had resumed to pump seawater into Fukushima Daiichi 2 to maintain safe cooling water levels after the utility was able to vent steam from the pressure vessel. The fuel had been exposed for 140 minutes Monday night due to a malfunctioning pressure relief valve. Water levels later went up to cover more than half of the rods.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports that the Japanese government has formally asked for assistance from the United States on nuclear power plant cooling issues triggered by the March 11 tsunami.

The agency has already sent two experts on boiling water reactor issues to Japan as part of a U.S. Agency for International Development disaster relief team. The experts now are in Tokyo providing technical assistance. The U.S. NRC is also monitoring the Japanese reactor events around the clock from its headquarters operations center in Rockville, Md.

Prior to the second exposure of the rods around 11 p.m., March 14 local time in Japan, radiation at the plant site was detected at a level twice the maximum seen so far � 313 millirem per hour, according to TEPCO.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said he believes the problem at the plant ''will not develop into a situation similar to Chernobyl,� even in the worst case.

The utility said a hydrogen explosion at the nearby No. 3 reactor that occurred Monday morning may have caused a glitch in the cooling system of the No. 2 reactor.

The hydrogen explosion at reactor 3 on March 14 injured 11 people: seven TEPCO workers at the site and four members of the country�s Self-Defense Forces. The reactor's containment vessel was not damaged and the reactor remains safely contained in its primary containment.

Administration, NRC Response to the Accident

At a White House briefing, press secretary Jay Carney said that information is still coming in on the status of nuclear plants in Japan, but that the Obama administration is committed to keeping nuclear energy as part of the U.S. energy portfolio.
Energy Department Deputy Secretary Daniel Poneman said nuclear energy �continues to play an important role in providing a low-carbon future.�

Gregory Jaczko, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said at the briefing that analysis of the damage, the type of reactor and the distances involved indicate a �very low likelihood� that any potential fallout from Japan might reach Hawaii or Western states.

U.S. nuclear power plants are built to endure the strain of natural phenomena like hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes, Jaczko said. �Right now, we continue to believe that nuclear power plants in this country operate safely and securely,� he said.

[mister]

i'm just gonna quote this from another forum.
i thought it was very interesting and also good information.

angry scientist does this sound like reliable info?



What's really going down in Japan's Nuclear Power Plant (shamelessly stolen from here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3396817&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

I DID NOT WRITE THIS THANKS


This thread is intended to move the various discussions about nuclear power, the safety of Japan's nuclear reactors, and related issues out of the general thread about the disaster in Japan. Nuclear talk has overwhelmed the discussion in that thread, along with people coming in asking for information about whether it's going to be another Chernobyl.

But first, a FAQ (updated at 8:15AM GMT, March 14th):


What in the hell is going on here?

In the aftermath of the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan, two nuclear power stations on the east coast of Japan have been experiencing problems. They are the Fukushima Daiichi ("daiichi" means "number one") and Fukushima Daini ("number two") sites, operated by the Tokyo Electric Power Company (or TEPCO). Site one has six reactors, and site two has four. The problematic reactors are #1, #2, and #3 at site one, which are the oldest of the ten and were due to be decommissioned this year.

In short, the earthquake combined with the tsunami have impaired the cooling systems at these reactors, which has made it difficult for TEPCO to shut them down completely. Reactor #1 is now considered safe after crew flooded the reactor with sea water. Reactor #3 was starting this process as this was originally written (6:00PM CST/11:00PM GST on March 13th). Site crew began preparing to add sea water to reactor #2 around 7:30AM GMT on March 14th, if a cooling procedure does not work.

The four reactors at site two did not have their systems impaired and have shut down normally.

Can this cause a nuclear explosion?

No. It is physically impossible for a nuclear power station to explode like a nuclear weapon.

Nuclear bombs work by causing a supercritical fission reaction in a very small space in an unbelievably small amount of time. They do this by using precisely-designed explosive charges to combine two subcritical masses of nuclear material so quickly that they bypass the critical stage and go directly to supercritical, and with enough force that the resulting supercritical mass cannot melt or blow itself apart before all of the material is fissioned.

Current nuclear power plants are designed around subcritical masses of radioactive material, which are manipulated into achieving sustained fission through the use of neutron moderators. The heat from this fission is used to convert water to steam, which drives electric generator turbines. (This is a drastic simplification.) They are not capable of achieving supercritical levels; the nuclear fuel would melt before this could occur, and a supercritical reaction is required for an explosion to occur.

Making a nuclear bomb is very difficult, and it is completely impossible for a nuclear reactor to accidentally become a bomb. Secondary systems, like cooling or turbines, can explode due to pressure and stress problems, but these are not nuclear explosions.

Is this a meltdown?

Technically, yes, but not in the way that most people think.

The term "meltdown" is not used within the nuclear industry, because it is insufficiently specific. The popular image of a meltdown is when a nuclear reactor's fuel core goes out of control and melts its way out of the containment facility. This has not happened and is unlikely to happen.

What has happened in reactor #1 and #3 is a "partial fuel melt". This means that the fuel core has suffered damage from heat but is still largely intact. No fuel has escaped containment. Core #2 may have experienced heat damage as well, but the details are not known yet. It is confirmed that reactor #2's containment has not been breached.

How did this happen? Aren't there safety systems?

When the earthquakes in Japan occurred on March 11th, all ten reactor cores "scrammed", which means that their control rods were inserted automatically. This shut down the active fission process, and the cores have remained shut down since then.

The problem is that even a scrammed reactor core generates "decay heat", which requires cooling. When the tsunami arrived shortly after the earthquake, it damaged the external power generators that the sites used to power their cooling systems. This meant that while the cores were shut down, they were still boiling off the water used as coolant.

This caused two further problems. First, the steam caused pressure to build up within the containment vessel. Second, once the water level subsided, parts of the fuel rods were exposed to air, causing the heat to build up more quickly, leading to core damage from the heat.

What are they doing about it?

From the very beginning, TEPCO has had the option to flood the reactor chambers with sea water, which would end the problems immediately. Unfortunately, this also destroys the reactors permanently. Doing so would not only cost TEPCO (and Japanese taxpayers) billions of dollars, but it would make that reactor unavailable for generating electricity during a nationwide disaster. The sea water method is a "last resort" in this sense, but it has always been an option.

To avoid this, TEPCO first took steps to bring the cooling systems back online and to reduce the pressure on the inside of the containment vessel. This involved bringing in external portable generators, repairing damaged systems, and venting steam and gases from inside the containment vessel. These methods worked for reactor #2 at site one, prior to complications; reactors four through six were shut down before for inspection before the earthquake hit.

In the end, TEPCO decided to avoid further risk and flooded reactor #1 with sea water. It is now considered safely under control. Reactor #3 is currently undergoing this process, and reactor #2 may undergo it if a venting procedure fails.

The four reactors at site two did not have their external power damaged by the tsunami, and are therefore operating normally, albeit in a post-scram shutdown state. They have not required any venting, and reactor #3 is already in full cold shutdown.

Is a "China Syndrome" meltdown possible?

No, any fuel melt situation at Fukushima will be limited, because the fuel is physically incapable of having a runaway fission reaction. This is due to their light water reactor design.

In a light water reactor, water is used as both a coolant for the fuel core and as a "neutron moderator". What a neutron moderator does is very technical (you can watch a lecture which includes this information here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BHdsjo-NR4)), but in short, when the neutron moderator is removed, the fission reaction will stop.

An LWR design limits the damage caused by a meltdown, because if all of the coolant is boiled away, the fission reaction will not keep going, because the coolant is also the moderator. The core will then only generate decay heat, which while dangerous and strong enough to melt the core, is not nearly as dangerous as an active fission reaction.

The containment vessel at Fukushima should be strong enough to resist breaching even during a decay heat meltdown. The amount of energy that could be produced by decay heat is easily calculated, and it is possible to design a container that will resist it. If it is not, and the core melts its way through the bottom of the vessel, it will end up in a large concrete barrier below the reactor. It is nearly impossible that a fuel melt caused by decay heat would penetrate this barrier. A containment vessel failure like this would result in a massive cleanup job but no leakage of nuclear material into the outside environment.

This is all moot, however, as flooding the reactor with sea water will prevent a fuel melt from progressing. TEPCO has already done this to reactor #1, and is in the process of doing it to #3. If any of the other reactors begin misbehaving, the sea water option will be available for those as well.

What was this about an explosion?

One of the byproducts of reactors like the ones at Fukushima is hydrogen. Normally this gas is vented and burned slowly. Due to the nature of the accident, the vented hydrogen gas was not properly burned as it was released. This led to a build up of hydrogen gas inside the reactor #1 building, but outside the containment vessel.

This gas ignited, causing the top of the largely cosmetic external shell to be blown off. This shell was made of sheet metal on a steel frame and did not require a great deal of force to be destroyed. The reactor itself was not damaged in this explosion, and there were only four minor injuries. This was a conventional chemical reaction and not a nuclear explosion.

You see what happened in this photo. Note that other than losing the sheet metal covering on the top, the reactor building is intact. No containment breach has occurred.

http://i.imgur.com/rCSr2.jpg

At about 2:30AM GMT on March 14th, a similar explosion occurred at the reactor #3 building. This explosion was not unexpected, as TEPCO had warned that one might occur. The damage is still being assessed but it has been announced that the containment vessel was not breached and that the sea water process is continuing.

Around 7:30AM GMT on March 14th, it was announced that the explosion at reactor #2 has damaged the already limping cooling systems of reactor #2. It may also receive the sea water treatment if they are unable to use a venting procedure to restart the cooling systems.

Is there radiation leakage?

The radiation levels outside the plant are higher than usual due to the release of radioactive steam. These levels will go down and return to their normal levels, as no fuel has escaped containment.

Here is a chart showing the effects of various radiation poisoning levels (http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/sec21/ch317/ch317a.html#sec21-ch317-ch317a-610). For perspective, note that this chart starts at 1 Gy, equivalent to 1 Sv; the radiation outside the problematic Fukushima reactors is being measured in micro-Svs per hour. The highest reported levels outside the Fukushima reactors has been around 1000 to 1500 micro-Svs per hour. This means that one would have to stay in this area for four to six weeks, 24 hours a day, without protection in order to experience the lowest level of radiation poisoning, which while unpleasant is not normally fatal. And this level will not stay where it is.

Also note the chart of normal radiation exposure levels (http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/sec21/ch317/ch317a.html#sec21-ch317-ch317a-605) from things like medical x-rays and airline flights.

There have also been very minor releases of radioactive reactor byproducts like iodine and cesium along with the steam. This material is less radioactive than the typical output of coal power plants (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html). It is significant mainly as an indicator of the state of the reactor core.

I read that there's a plume of radioactive material heading across the Pacific.

In its current state, the steam blowing east from Japan across the pacific is less dangerous than living in Denver for a year (http://web.princeton.edu/sites/ehs/osradtraining/backgroundradiation/background.htm#cr). If it makes it across the ocean, it will be almost undetectable by the time it arrives, and completely harmless as the dangerous elements in the steam will have decayed by then.

What's this about fuel rods being exposed to the air?

When the coolant levels inside the reactor get low enough, the tops of the fuel rods will be exposed to the air inside the containment vessel. They have not been exposed to the external atmosphere and the containment vessels are all intact.

Can this end up like Chernobyl?

No, it cannot. for several reasons.


Chernobyl used graphite as a neutron moderator and water as a coolant. For complicated reasons, this meant that as the coolant heated up and converted to steam, the fission reaction intensified, converting even more water to steam, leading to a feedback effect. The Fukushima reactors use water as both the coolant and the neutron moderator, which means that as the water heats up and converts to steam, the reaction slows down instead. (The effect of the conversion of water coolant to steam on the performance of a nuclear reactor is known as the "void coefficient", and can be either positive or negative.)

Chernobyl was designed so that as the nuclear fuel heated up, the fission reaction intensified, heating the core even further, causing another feedback effect. In the Fukushima reactors, the fission reaction slows down as the fuel heats up. (The effect of heating of the nuclear fuel on the performance of a nuclear reactor is known as the "temperature coefficient", and can also be positive or negative.)

Chernobyl's graphite moderator was flammable, and when the reactor exploded, the radioactive graphite burned and ended up in the atmosphere. The Fukushima reactors use water as a neutron moderator, which is obviously not flammable.


Note that while Chernobyl used light water as a coolant (as distinct from heavy water (http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm)), it was not a "light water reactor". The term LWR refers strictly to reactors that use light water for both cooling and neutron moderation.

The news said this was the worst nuclear power accident since Chernobyl, though.

It's the only nuclear power plant accident of its type since Chernobyl. It's easy to be the worst in a sample size of one.

Is this like Three Mile Island?

There are similarities. The final effect on the world is likely to be similar: no deaths, minimal external contamination, and a tremendous PR disaster for the nuclear industry due to bad reporting by the media.

How can I keep up with developments?

The western media has been very bad about reporting this event, due to a combination of sensationalist reporting, ignorance, and the use of inexact or unexplained terminology.

One of the safe sources of information is the TEPCO site (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/index-e.html), which has been posting press releases on a regular basis. Unfortunately, this site is often unresponsive due to the immense traffic it is receiving.

The important thing to remember is that most of the "experts" appearing on the news are engaging in speculation. Very few of them are restricting themselves to what they can be sure about, and those that are have often been misrepresented.

Where can I find more information about these issues?

Reading:


Timeline and data sheets for the incident by the Nuclear Energy Institute (http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/)
The International Atomic Energy Agency (http://www.iaea.org/) is providing regular announcements
Wikipedia on light water reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_water_reactor) and nuclear weapon design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design)
The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Systems manual (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/teachers/03.pdf) - the Fukushima reactors are BWRs, a subset of LWRs
More about BWRs (http://www.ansn-jp.org/jneslibrary/npp2.pdf)
Tokyo Electric Power Company (http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/) site with press releases - currently hard to reach due to traffic


Video:


"Physics for Future Presidents" lecture ten, on nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BHdsjo-NR4)
Footage of the hydrogen explosion at reactor #1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg4uogOEUrU#t=43s)


Photos:


before (https://picasaweb.google.com/118079222830783600944/Japan#5583300976630848578) and after (https://picasaweb.google.com/118079222830783600944/Japan#5583300988368599938) satellite photos of Fukushima site one

[goonster]

A major German paper is reporting (http://faz.de) that two holes (8 m^2 each) have been confirmed in one of the reactors' containment vessels, and that the control room has been evacuated.

[bozman]

Excellent point -- and hope you're wrong. Combination of BP and this is a hint from above that new solutions must be explored immediately.

you said it, brother. perhaps Carter was right? perhaps we need to use LESS energy instead of finding ways to produce more.

pray for the Japanese people.

[eddief]

as I understand it, fracking results in some minor problems such as inflammable water from the tap and the poisoning of drinking water. some say our future is in natural gas? but unfortunately, we don't/can't even find out what chemicals are used in the fracking process. God forbid, we could have an energy plan and even consider any type of conservation. Suck it dry.

[maxdog]

as I understand it, fracking results in some minor problems such as inflammable water from the tap and the poisoning of drinking water. some say our future is in natural gas? but unfortunately, we don't/can't even find out what chemicals are used in the fracking process. God forbid, we could have an energy plan and even consider any type of conservation. Suck it dry.


+1 So true. Btw fracking is not the only method, just a little cheaper and better for shareholders.

[1centaur]

One addition to the science noted above is that Chernobyl had no containment structure.

Also, in answer to what's changed in design in 20 years, the newest Gen III design does not require pumps to cool them and thus would have continued being cooled in this case where the electricity was turned off. Gen III has a passive cooling system.

[SEABREEZE]

Who's manning these reactors, at what point is the danger to much for them, that that must leave.

What type of protective wear / equipment do they use, and at what point will it no longer protect with the spike of high levels of radiation.

[soul survivor]

So sad. Now I hear Germany is shutting down their plants. Without the Earthquake, would we be debating the Nuke plants?


HG -- of course not, but that's mssing the point entirely-- the plants weren't built to withstand this much chaos, and they should have been.

[soul survivor]

i'm just gonna quote this from another forum.
i thought it was very interesting and also good information.

angry scientist does this sound like reliable info?

Look, maybe my gut is wrong, but does this sound like nuclear energy industry "best face" on this disaster or what?

[MadRocketSci]

Who's manning these reactors, at what point is the danger to much for them, that that must leave.

What type of protective wear / equipment do they use, and at what point will it no longer protect with the spike of high levels of radiation.

it sounds like if things go as feared, the people working to stabilize the plant will be "pulling a Spock," as my wife put it. Massive respect. Hard to imagine being in that situation.

[mister]

Look, maybe my gut is wrong, but does this sound like nuclear energy industry "best face" on this disaster or what?

no

[Dekonick]

it sounds like if things go as feared, the people working to stabilize the plant will be "pulling a Spock," as my wife put it. Massive respect. Hard to imagine being in that situation.

I have been in a situation where I "pulled a Spock" - it sucks. Knowing you might not leave is not a good feeling. Much respect to the engineers and techs working on saving the masses.

So sad.

[93legendti]

We should remain calm and not draw conclusions about the future of nuke power based upon the media's hyped reports. Katrina was supposed to have "up to 10,000 dead" according to the usual sources. In the end, only 1836 people died. Tragic and very, very sad, but a long way from 10,000.

[mister]

yeah and the US media is definitely hyping the nuclear tragedy news.

[johnnymossville]

Between the Earthquake, Tsunami, the Fukushima problems and the loss of life, this is obviously a tragic event any way you look at it, and I sure hope the U.S.A. is helping in every way we possibly can. This might be a time to take a break from the golf course and march madness and focus on what we can be doing.

Then there's the squandered opportunity happening in Libya....

[johnnymossville]

Interesting Story about Steel, Samurai, and the Nuclear Reactors.

http://jalopnik.com/#!5782082/the-strange-link-between-samurai-swords-and-japans-nuclear-reactors

[Lifelover]

http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/

UPDATE AS OF 10:20 A.M. EDT, TUESDAY, MARCH 15:
The level of radioactivity at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has been decreasing, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.....

..........U.S. nuclear power plants are built to endure the strain of natural phenomena like hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes, Jaczko said. �Right now, we continue to believe that nuclear power plants in this country operate safely and securely,� he said.


Please delete this post. While most likely true, it does not make for goos press.

[mister]

it does not make for goos press.

how so?

[goonster]

The plant is almost entirely out of control.

Two of the reactor containment structures are breached. There is no way to effectively cool either the reactor cores or the fuel storage pools.

I had assumed that the seawater cooling was taking place via in-place backup systems, but it turns out that had been set up with jury-rigged fire fighting equipment. They only thing they can do currently is to set up water cannons and try to effect some cooling by dumping water on the structures from distance.

Nobody really knows what will happen next. There is no precedent for this, and since all worst-case scenarios have been exceeded there is no plan in place other than evacuation. Currently we don't have massive radiation escaping (e.g. from a raging fire), and the weather is blowing away from Tokio, but if that changes there is very little that can be done about it.

Sorry, but that's how it is. :(

[oldguy00]

Where are you getting updates? Latest I can find is from about 4 hours ago..

I thought the way that these were built, that if there was a meltdown, the material would sink into a graphite floor below? Isn't that what was in some MIT paper someone posted a link to in one of these threads??

[goonster]

Where are you getting updates?
German newspapers, but most of these developments are at least 12 hours old.

Isn't that what was in some MIT paper someone posted a link to in one of these threads??
That "paper" (really a blog post for his friends) has been debunked in the sense that the guy is indeed an "MIT researcher", but his area of study has nothing to do with hard science, engineering, or anything related to nuclear power.

Way back when (Monday) all we could do was hope that the defense-in-depth measures would hold. We now know that this is not so.

[mister]

you can read this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12762608

or you can go to the nuclear energy institute's website.
http://nei.cachefly.net/newsandevents/information-on-the-japanese-earthquake-and-reactors-in-that-region/

ps that website has a link to information about the fuel rods storage...
http://resources.nei.org/documents/japan/Used_Fuel_Pools_Key_Facts_March_16_Update.pdf

you can read what tepco is saying.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031609-e.html

or the international atomic energy agency...
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html

[mister]

also saw this on facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/paul-atkinson/japan-nuclear-update-british-embassy/10150111611771235

I have just returned from a conference call held at the British Embassy in Tokyo. The call was concerning the nuclear issue in Japan. The chief spokesman was Sir. John Beddington, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, and he was joined by a number of qualified nuclear experts based in the UK. Their assessment of the current situation in Japan is as follows:



* In case of a 'reasonable worst case scenario' (defined as total meltdown of one reactor with subsequent radioactive explosion) an exclusion zone of 30 km would be the maximum required to avoid affecting peoples' health. Even in a worse situation (loss of two or more reactors) it is unlikely that the damage would be significantly more than that caused by the loss of a single reactor.



* The current 20km exclusion zone is appropriate for the levels of radiation/risk currently experienced, and if the pouring of sea water can be maintained to cool the reactors, the likelihood of a major incident should be avoided. A further large quake with tsunami could lead to the suspension of the current cooling operations, leading to the above scenario.



* The bottom line is that these experts do not see there being a possibility of a health problem for residents in Tokyo. The radiation levels would need to be hundreds of times higher than current to cause the possibility for health issues, and that, in their opinion, is not going to happen (they were talking minimum levels affecting pregnant women and children - for normal adults the levels would need to be much higher still).



* The experts do not consider the wind direction to be material. They say Tokyo is too far away to be materially affected.



* If the pouring of water can be maintained the situation should be much improved in time, as the reactors' cores cool down.



* Information being provided by Japanese authorities is being independently monitored by a number of organizations and is deemed to be accurate, as far as measures of radioactivity levels are concerned.



* This is a very different situation from Chernobyl, where the reactor went into meltdown and the encasement, which exploded, was left to burn for weeks without any control. Even with Chernobyl, an exclusion zone of 30 km would have been adequate to protect human health. The problem was that most people became sick from eating contaminated food, crops, milk and water in the region for years afterward, as no attempt was made to measure radioactivity levels in the food supply at that time or warn people of the dangers. The secrecy over the Chernobyl explosion is in contrast to the very public coverage of the Fukushima crisis.



* The Head of the British School asked if the school should remain closed. The answer was there is no need to close the school due to fears of radiation. There may well be other reasons - structural damage or possible new quakes - but the radiation fear is not supported by scientific measures, even for children.



* Regarding Iodine supplementation, the experts said this was only necessary for those who had inhaled quantities of radiation (those in the exclusion zone or workers on the site) or through consumption of contaminated food/water supplies. Long term consumption of iodine is, in any case, not healthy.



The discussion was surprisingly frank and to the point. The conclusion of the experts is that the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami, as well as the subsequent aftershocks, was much more of an issue than the fear of radiation sickness from the nuclear plants.



Let's hope the experts are right!

[Dekonick]

also saw this on facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/notes/paul-atkinson/japan-nuclear-update-british-embassy/10150111611771235

I have just returned from a conference call held at the British Embassy in Tokyo. The call was concerning the nuclear issue in Japan. The chief spokesman was Sir. John Beddington, Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, and he was joined by a number of qualified nuclear experts based in the UK. Their assessment of the current situation in Japan is as follows:



* In case of a 'reasonable worst case scenario' (defined as total meltdown of one reactor with subsequent radioactive explosion) an exclusion zone of 30 km would be the maximum required to avoid affecting peoples' health. Even in a worse situation (loss of two or more reactors) it is unlikely that the damage would be significantly more than that caused by the loss of a single reactor.



* The current 20km exclusion zone is appropriate for the levels of radiation/risk currently experienced, and if the pouring of sea water can be maintained to cool the reactors, the likelihood of a major incident should be avoided. A further large quake with tsunami could lead to the suspension of the current cooling operations, leading to the above scenario.



* The bottom line is that these experts do not see there being a possibility of a health problem for residents in Tokyo. The radiation levels would need to be hundreds of times higher than current to cause the possibility for health issues, and that, in their opinion, is not going to happen (they were talking minimum levels affecting pregnant women and children - for normal adults the levels would need to be much higher still).



* The experts do not consider the wind direction to be material. They say Tokyo is too far away to be materially affected.



* If the pouring of water can be maintained the situation should be much improved in time, as the reactors' cores cool down.



* Information being provided by Japanese authorities is being independently monitored by a number of organizations and is deemed to be accurate, as far as measures of radioactivity levels are concerned.



* This is a very different situation from Chernobyl, where the reactor went into meltdown and the encasement, which exploded, was left to burn for weeks without any control. Even with Chernobyl, an exclusion zone of 30 km would have been adequate to protect human health. The problem was that most people became sick from eating contaminated food, crops, milk and water in the region for years afterward, as no attempt was made to measure radioactivity levels in the food supply at that time or warn people of the dangers. The secrecy over the Chernobyl explosion is in contrast to the very public coverage of the Fukushima crisis.



* The Head of the British School asked if the school should remain closed. The answer was there is no need to close the school due to fears of radiation. There may well be other reasons - structural damage or possible new quakes - but the radiation fear is not supported by scientific measures, even for children.



* Regarding Iodine supplementation, the experts said this was only necessary for those who had inhaled quantities of radiation (those in the exclusion zone or workers on the site) or through consumption of contaminated food/water supplies. Long term consumption of iodine is, in any case, not healthy.



The discussion was surprisingly frank and to the point. The conclusion of the experts is that the damage caused by the earthquake and tsunami, as well as the subsequent aftershocks, was much more of an issue than the fear of radiation sickness from the nuclear plants.



Let's hope the experts are right!

Sounds like a reasonable conclusion from reasonable people. Not nearly as exciting as conjuring up major drama to scare folks.

It still sucks. I still believe nuclear power is the future... along with continued research and using a mix of alternative energy. Sorry folks, if you like energy, it is a necessary evil.

:)

Great workout at the gym! Now to go run...

Bye!

[oldguy00]

Thx mister. Nice to see updates from the actual experts as opposed to CNN...

[nahtnoj]

I had assumed that the seawater cooling was taking place via in-place backup systems, but it turns out that had been set up with jury-rigged fire fighting equipment. They only thing they can do currently is to set up water cannons and try to effect some cooling by dumping water on the structures from distance.



Me too. Assumed the pipes supplying fresh water had ruptured, and they had reversed waste pumps to draw in seawater. Flow issues, in my mind, were due to the pumps drawing in debris or not functioning properly due to other capacity issues.

If they have been using fire fighting equipment the whole time, well, thats just scary.

[mister]

If they have been using fire fighting equipment the whole time, well, thats just scary.

it was a tsunami that washed away multiple towns...

UPDATE AS OF 10:00 A.M. EDT, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16:

News reports that high radiation levels led to the evacuation of all workers from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station are not accurate. Workers were evacuated for about an hour but returned to the site to continue efforts to restore safe conditions at the plant.

Restoration of electrical power to the site was under way at the Daiichi plant as of 6:00 a.m. EDT Wednesday. A temporary cable was being connected between an off-site power line and Daiichi reactor 3. Off-site power has not been available at the site since the earthquake on March 11.

Reactors 1, 2 and 3 at the plant are being cooled with seawater. There is some level of uranium fuel damage at all three units, and containment structure damage is suspected at reactor 2.

Before the earthquake, reactor 4 had been in refueling and was completely defueled. Attempts to provide cooling water to the used fuel pool at reactor 4 by helicopter were not successful. Preparations are being made to inject water into the fuel storage pool using a high-capacity spray pump. There have been two fires inside the reactor containment building at reactor 4, but they have been extinguished. Although the reactor containment building at Unit 4 was damaged, the primary containment vessel remains intact.

At the Fukushima Daini site, all four reactors are safely shut down and cooling functions are being maintained.

have you guys not seen this video?
http://www.facebook.com/#!/video/video.php?v=1605260179420&comments

[JMerring]

We should remain calm and not draw conclusions about the future based upon the media's hyped reports. Katrina was supposed to have "up to 10,000 dead" according to the usual sources. In the end, only 1836 people died. Tragic and very, very sad, but a long way from 10,000.

12,920 and counting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204953044390300.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories#project%3DJAPANQUAKEMAP11 03%26articleTabs%3Darticle.

[cuda2k]

The scope of this part of the disaster in Japan has been so hard to follow over the last week that I don't know what to believe at this point. What I do know that a regular in the C&V section of BikeForums is in Sendai with his family and his report is that conditions there are going from bad to worse. He finally got power back some time on Wed, however food and fuel stocks are nearly depleted in the region with little sign of improving any time soon. Further more his attempts to get the Canadian embassy to help getting him and his family out of the country (he is a Canadian citizen working in Japan since the early 90's) have been anything but fruitful. I hope that the actual situation is not as bad as some have feared and some evidence has suggested, but in any case the fear of radiation from the plant is doing nothing to help an already devastated region in serious need of help.

[93legendti]

12,920 and counting: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204953044390300.html?m od=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories#project%3DJAPANQUAKEMAP11 03%26articleTabs%3Darticle.
I wasn't referring to deaths from the earthquake or tsunami, I was referring to the media over hyping the danger/effects of the reactor problems.

[thwart]

Given the above British information, it seems very strange that the head of our NRC recommended a 50 mile exclusion radius for American citizens.

Doubt that he's greatly exaggerating the risk here. Why would he, considering the fact that this information goes contrary to the Japanese official recommendation, and causes some diplomatic unrest?

[mister]

yeah.
the japanese, british and US committees are all saying different things.

i think the main concern being whether the japanese or the US are right about the level of water remaining in the spent fuel pools...

[rice rocket]

Here's some more fear mongering for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/16/science/plume-graphic.html?ref=science

in "arbitrary units". :rolleyes:

[93legendti]

...Safe nuke power has been a fact for decades in the USN and could be in the US except for the political football it has become.

Also remember BP is OIL(cars mostly) and coal and nukes is electricity..apples and oranges until all cars are electric.

Be happy with coal, it is here to stay for a long while.
Yup.

For the period 1970-2010, there were no deaths in the USA from nuke power.

During the same period, 35 people died from Wind Turbine accidents.

Then there is the effect on birds and bats:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-09-21-wind-farms_N.htm
For years, a huge wind farm in California's San Joaquin Valley was slaughtering thousands of birds, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks and burrowing owls. The raptors would get sliced up by the blades on the 5,400 turbines in Altamont Pass, or electrocuted by the wind farm's power lines. Scientists, wildlife agencies and turbine experts came together in an attempt to solve the problem. The result?

Protective measures put in place in an effort to reduce deaths by 50% failed. Deaths in fact soared for three of four bird species studied, said the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Fatality Study.

The slaughter at Altamont Pass is being raised by avian scientists who say the drive among environmentalists to rapidly boost U.S. wind-farm power 20 times could lead to massive bird losses and even extinctions.
New wind projects "have the potential of killing a lot of migratory birds," said Michael Fry, director of conservation advocacy at the American Bird Conservancy in Washington.

..."There's concern because of the scale of what we're talking about," said Shawn Smallwood, a Davis, Calif., ecologist and researcher. "Just the sheer numbers of turbines … we're going to be killing so many raptors until there are no more raptors."[/I]

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/batswindmills/

[I]However, recent evidence shows that certain species of bats are particularly susceptible to mortality from wind turbines. Bats are beneficial consumers of harmful insect pests, and migratory species of bats cross international and interstate boundaries.

Dead bats are turning up beneath wind turbines all over the world. Bat fatalities have now been documented at nearly every wind facility in North America where adequate surveys for bats have been conducted, and several of these sites are estimated to cause the deaths of thousands of bats per year. This unanticipated and unprecedented problem for bats has moved to the forefront of conservation and management efforts directed toward this poorly understood group of mammals. The mystery of why bats die at turbine sites remains unsolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_wind_power

The numbers of bats killed by existing onshore and near-shore facilities has troubled bat enthusiasts.[40] A study in 2004 estimated that over 2,200 bats were killed by 63 onshore turbines in just six weeks at two sites in the eastern U.S.[41] This study suggests some onshore and near-shore sites may be particularly hazardous to local bat populations and more research is needed. Migratory bat species appear to be particularly at risk, especially during key movement periods (spring and more importantly in fall).


It's curious that environmentalists oppose ANWR drilling because of the resulting effect on wildlife, yet support wind power, despite the known risks to wildlife.

[oldmill]

How is it a "political football"? Both Obama and the Republican leader of the House, who agree on almost nothing else, are behind it, and the worst I've heard from detractors in Congress is that we should have hearings to make sure Fukushima cant be repeated here. Hardly, ahem, radioactive stuff. A big reason that no new plants have come on line since TMI is economic. It's expensive as hell to build, and Wall Street has been less than enthusiastic when cheaper coal and gas plants are available. (Coal has plenty of externalities of its own that are fobbed onto taxpayers, but that's another debate).

[Dekonick]

How is it a "political football"? Both Obama and the Republican leader of the House, who agree on almost nothing else, are behind it, and the worst I've heard from detractors in Congress is that we should have hearings to make sure Fukushima cant be repeated here. Hardly, ahem, radioactive stuff. A big reason that no new plants have come on line since TMI is economic. It's expensive as hell to build, and Wall Street has been less than enthusiastic when cheaper coal and gas plants are available. (Coal has plenty of externalities of its own that are fobbed onto taxpayers, but that's another debate).

If there is any industry I don't mind the Govt being involved with, it is the production and delivery of electricity. I consider it a public good - like roads -sometimes things that arent profitable need to be undertaken for 'the public good.'

Lets build some nukes! Lets research other sources of energy at the same time.

[thwart]

It's curious that environmentalists oppose ANWR drilling because of the resulting effect on wildlife, yet support wind power, despite the known risks to wildlife. Blatant use of unrelated facts to support 'drill, baby, drill'.

There is no energy source that has no downside whatsoever. Shocking news...

... pun intended.

[93legendti]

Blatant use of unrelated facts to support 'drill, baby, drill'.

There is no energy source that has no downside whatsoever. Shocking news...

... pun intended.
Well, my point was to show the "irony" of those who oppose ANWR drilling because of wildlife concerns, but support wind turbines despite the killing of wildlife.


Other than the fact that wind turbines are killing wildlife and ANWR drilling may or may not kill wildlife, I think the correlation is clear. Could you please elaborate how the facts are unrelated?

[mschol17]

The bird killing issue requires a scale. How many birds die every year from flying into windows? Should we eliminate windows?

More than 20,000 people in the US die from air pollution emitted by coal power plants. Why haven't we shut down all the coal plants? Why don't conservatives support efforts to reduce air pollution from coal plants and industrial boilers? Why should the public subsidize the cost of coal with their health?

[noflysonme]

Is coal cheaper?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining

Dangers to miners
Historically, coal mining has been a very dangerous activity and the list of historical coal mining disasters is a long one. In the U.S. alone, more than 100,000 coal miners were killed in accidents over the past century,[16] with more than 3,200 dying in 1907 alone.[17] Open cut hazards are principally mine wall failures and vehicle collisions; underground mining hazards include suffocation, gas poisoning, roof collapse and gas explosions. Firedamp explosions can trigger the much more dangerous coal dust explosions, which can engulf an entire pit. Most of these risks can be greatly reduced in modern mines, and multiple fatality incidents are now rare in some parts of the developed world. Modern mining in the U.S. is only slightly more dangerous than driving, with .02% of miners dying in accidents, compared with .016% of the country's population dying in car accidents.[18]

However, in lesser developed countries and some developing countries, many miners continue to die annually, either through direct accidents in coal mines or through adverse health consequences from working under poor conditions. China, in particular, has the highest number of coal mining related deaths in the world, with official statistic 6,027 deaths in 2004.[19] To compare, 28 deaths were reported in the U.S. in the same year.[20] Coal production in China is twice that in the U.S.,[21] while the number of coal miners is around 50 times that of the USA, making deaths in coal mines in China 4 times as common per worker (108 times as common per unit output) as in the USA.

In 2006, fatal work injuries among miners in the U.S. doubled from the previous year, totaling 47.[22] These figures can in part be attributed to the Sago Mine disaster. The recent mine accident in Utah's Crandall Canyon Mine, where nine miners were killed and six entombed, speaks to the increase in occupational risks faced by U.S. miners.[23]

Chronic lung diseases, such as pneumoconiosis (black lung) were once common in miners, leading to reduced life expectancy. In some mining countries black lung is still common, with 4000 new cases of black lung every year in the USA (4% of workers annually) and 10 000 new cases every year in China (0.2% of workers).[24] Rates may be higher than reported in some regions.

[Karin Kirk]

Housecats and cars kill magnitudes more birds than wind turbines.
http://cleanet.org/images/clean/literacy/bird_deaths.gif

[Louis]

Housecats and cars kill magnitudes more birds than wind turbines.

In this context I don't think anyone who brings up the bird issue as a way to diss wind power really gives a d@mn about the birds. They're just trying to make what they think is a clever point. It's the sort of thing you hear all the time in various guises on AM radio.

Speaking of road-kill, as folks who ride with me will tell you, while cycling I stop all the time to pick up and toss dead critters aside to save them the further indignity of being ground to pieces by car tires. Tonight on my way how from work (driving) I saw a dead something or other in my lane and swerved to miss it. I then turned around, went back up the hill turned around again, then came back and parked in the road (there was no shoulder) with my headlights shining on it. I was just going to pick it up and throw it into the woods, but as I approached I realized that it was a raccoon and that it was still alive.

Kind of a bummer, because his odds of making it probably aren't good, but in hopes that he was mostly stunned I took a stick and shoved him to the side, then as I got bolder I picked him up by the tail and put him about 10' off the road in the woods. I hope the makes it, but I'm concerned that by temporarily saving him from being run over I might have just extended his agony. No way to know for sure, but at least this way he has a chance.

Nearly everything we humans do has an impact on the environment. Unfortunately, most of the time we do harm. All we can try to do is minimize the bad stuff.

[Kirk007]

It's curious that environmentalists oppose ANWR drilling because of the resulting effect on wildlife, yet support wind power, despite the known risks to wildlife.

Haven't you worn out the groove in this record yet? Plenty of "environmentalists" are working to combat/negate/minimize impacts of wind, solar what have you on habitat and species. Everything in life is a trade off, including the issues at play here. And yes you guessed it, I'm going to again state that the issue is a bit more nuanced but hey, broad generalizations are easy to distort when the agenda is something other than serious debate of the issues....

[Kirk007]

Speaking of road-kill, as folks who ride with me will tell you, while cycling I stop all the time to pick up and toss dead critters aside to save them the further indignity of being ground to pieces by car tires.

You and Barry Lopez. Have you read his easy on this?

[1centaur]

Haven't you worn out the groove in this record yet?

There are plenty of people of opposite political leanings who make broad generalizations, use selected facts and repeat their same old drivel time and time again on this board. 93LTi tends to be the one singled out for personal attacks when he makes his points, and this is tolerated by the mods much more than I like to see. It's easy enough to stick to the ideas and leave out the poster's credibility if you try.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . since at this point it has obviously turned political. Thought I'd wait for a request.

Weather has turned nice here in the Northeast. What about the rest of the country? Can't you guys go out for a ride? . . .

BBD

[Lifelover]

Housecats and cars kill magnitudes more birds than wind turbines.
http://cleanet.org/images/clean/literacy/bird_deaths.gif

And domesticated dogs and cars kill magnitudes more people than Nuke power.

[William]

OMG!!! OBAMA PLAYED GOLF!!!!!

:eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D



William

[Elefantino]

I think it's time we ban cats.

[JMerring]

OMG!!! OBAMA PLAYED GOLF!!!!!

:eek: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :D



William

you're forgetting THE PRESIDENTIAL BRACKET!!! :no:

[Kirk007]

There are plenty of people of opposite political leanings who make broad generalizations, use selected facts and repeat their same old drivel time and time again on this board. 93LTi tends to be the one singled out for personal attacks when he makes his points, and this is tolerated by the mods much more than I like to see. It's easy enough to stick to the ideas and leave out the poster's credibility if you try.

fair enough. There is a reason I rarely even open threads that could go political anymore; I guess I need to be more disciplined in ignoring them. My tolerance for the same old stuff is very low. On the other hand, this issue is an important one and its too bad that it has devolved into the same old drivel.

[93legendti]

Haven't you worn out the groove in this record yet? Plenty of "environmentalists" are working to combat/negate/minimize impacts of wind, solar what have you on habitat and species. Everything in life is a trade off, including the issues at play here. And yes you guessed it, I'm going to again state that the issue is a bit more nuanced but hey, broad generalizations are easy to distort when the agenda is something other than serious debate of the issues....

No, I haven't.

I'd prefer you respond with facts and links to counter the facts and links I posted. If you are concerned with broad generalities, then by all means be specific. That would make it a debate/discussion. I was specific-specific enough to elicit another claim of nuance.

We're both trained as lawyers, so we both know of the need to present facts to support our argument/position.

Your quote above is not an effort to seriously debate or discuss the problem of wildlfie killed by wind turbines.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . let's make it TWO IN A ROW . . . :crap: :crap: :crap:

Please, people . . . go out and RIDE and get rid of all this backed up--well whatever it is you have backed up today wherever it's backed up.

BBD