Earthquake off Japan

[mr friendly guy]

Assuming Germany does opt to replace their nukes with renewables, can they produce enough energy to replace the nukes? Or will they settle on not being a net exporter of electricity?

In other news, there were protests in Japan against nuclear power. If at a worse case scenario, Japan and some western countries do abandon nukes, there is still China, which (from a previous page) analysts believe they will still continue on even though they have called a halt and review of their nuclear plants. In which case they will have a strong negotiating position with foreign nuclear companies as there isn't much business elsewhere.

[LaCroix]

Currently, German and Austrian news report that a meltdown has occurred in Fukushima, having people mouth-breathing heavily...

Of course, that occurred on March 11 or 12, so they are only 16 days late to report it...

But now people are sure that the thing is to blow up any second, no matter that the current temperatures are in the 100C range, far from any melting... Confronted with that, they claim the IAEO hasn't the right data, and they are covering up, and rant about bad politics, and that I'll read how wrong I am in tomorrows papers(who are biased as hell against nuclear energy, as it sells well)...

I hate being the only one (at least it feels so) not overreacting in this country...

[Tribun]

You know, I am German and I'm not in a panic.

As I see it, Japan of course now has a big problem they won't be able to get rid of. It's not that there'll be a big explosion or anything like that. It's more that the surroundings of the plant are already heavily contaminated and it gets worse. The worst problem at the moment is this stuff getting into the ground.

The long-term problem will be, what they should do with this huge, contaminated wreck.

[Broomstick]

There's the possibility of entombing it in place. If they did that, however, I would expect a better job than the Chernobyl sarcophagus, both because it wouldn't be a rush job (I don't think they have a lot of choice at Chernobyl) and because the Japanese tend to build things very well given half a chance.

[Sea Skimmer]

It no.3 has to be sealed back up in some manner of building, the cores will need to cool for several years before they can be fully broken up and removed. The other buildings could all be reasonably repaired unless they have serious unseen internal structural damage. So far very few signs suggest that cesium 137 levels outside the plant grounds are going to be a long term problem, and radioactive contamination we hear so much about is all iodine 131 has a 8.5 day half life. So in a month or two that’s really not going to be a big deal.

[LaCroix]

So if cesium levels aren't that bad, it could be ok to live there in, say, a year's time? (In order to let the rainfall dilute the cesium.)

[PeZook]

Also you can go in with shovels and scrape off the top layer of soil ; That's what most of the "liquidators" at Chernobyl were doing. You then either bury it somewhere stable or put in drums as radioactive waste and ship it off to a storage facility.

It's pretty safe to do when the most radioactive isotopes decay ; Contrary to what most people say about the horrific death toll amongst liquidators, pretty much none of them died or suffered from serious radiation-related health problems. Only the core remains a problem: and even then, you can work on top of the sarcophagus and not receive a particularly high dose. Hell, most of the Chernobyl plant was manned and operated after the disaster until a fire in 1991 knocked out the turbines. No massive death toll there, either.

It's certainly no riskier than cleaning up industrial chemicals after a spill ; Not pleasant, potentially unhealthy but manageable with preparation.

[JME2]

There's the possibility of entombing it in place. If they did that, however, I would expect a better job than the Chernobyl sarcophagus, both because it wouldn't be a rush job (I don't think they have a lot of choice at Chernobyl) and because the Japanese tend to build things very well given half a chance.

My thoughts too.

Speaking of which, isn't the Chernobyl sarcophagus supposed to be renovated this year?

[folti78]

Also you can go in with shovels and scrape off the top layer of soil ; That's what most of the "liquidators" at Chernobyl were doing. You then either bury it somewhere stable or put in drums as radioactive waste and ship it off to a storage facility.

It's pretty safe to do when the most radioactive isotopes decay ; Contrary to what most people say about the horrific death toll amongst liquidators, pretty much none of them died or suffered from serious radiation-related health problems. Only the core remains a problem: and even then, you can work on top of the sarcophagus and not receive a particularly high dose. Hell, most of the Chernobyl plant was manned and operated after the disaster until a fire in 1991 knocked out the turbines. No massive death toll there, either.

It's certainly no riskier than cleaning up industrial chemicals after a spill ; Not pleasant, potentially unhealthy but manageable with preparation.

The last reactor in Chernobyl has been shut down in 1999, but the reactors 1-3 are manned until their spent fuel cooled off and moved into long term storage. The reactor's decommissioning will take more time until then, the buildings themselves need maintenance. Also the Sarcophagus itself needs constant maintenance, along with sprinklers and some other systems inside the building:

[folti78]

There's the possibility of entombing it in place. If they did that, however, I would expect a better job than the Chernobyl sarcophagus, both because it wouldn't be a rush job (I don't think they have a lot of choice at Chernobyl) and because the Japanese tend to build things very well given half a chance.

My thoughts too.

Speaking of which, isn't the Chernobyl sarcophagus supposed to be renovated this year?

It's maintained constantly. It will be replaced (more precisely encased) by the New Safe Containment in 2013 if all goes according to the current plans.

[D.Turtle]

Most people though aren't willing todo that and once the increases truly hit home there will be words exchanged. Likewise the dumb sods reacting to this news is more likely a temporary rather than a permanent phenomenon that will fade as the memory of the disaster fades.

Yes, just like Tschernobyl led to a very short, quickly revised opinion of the merits and dangers of nuclear energy and did not at all lead to a stop of constructing new nuclear plants in Germany and a deap-seated mistrust of nuclear power...

It is very simple: Nuclear energy is dead in Germany. Within 5 - 10 years at the latest, there will be no more nuclear power plants operating in Germany. You may not like it, but thats the way it is.

Assuming Germany does opt to replace their nukes with renewables, can they produce enough energy to replace the nukes? Or will they settle on not being a net exporter of electricity?

Thats a good question. Last year, 22% of the electricity produced in Germany came from nuclear power plants, while 16% came from renewable sources. The plan was to raise the share from renwable sources to about 40% by 2020, which would mean it should be possible to replace nuclear energy with renewables. This would of course mean that coal and gas power plants would have to run longer (and maybe build new ones to replace old ones). Nobody has illusions that this can be done without major investments - in renewables but especially into the power grid - but it is a political reality that will not change.

[His Divine Shadow]

Actually I don't mind, it'll be a good example to others. I would if I was german though.

P.S. As for the post chernobyl days, those had cheap oil, cheap coal and cheap natural gas to tidy people over, and we saw the results of that gas dependancy a few years ago... Those days are all ending due to various reasons.

[salm]

In order to make the renewables efficient we´ll need to build quite a lot of pump Hydro-storage facilities and vastly expand the existing electricity grid. While i´m all for that i´m also quite certain that it will be blocked and boycotted by nimbys and by a lot of people who actually voted green this election.
It´s going to be frustrating.

[Tribun]

Well, things just got worse.

TEPCO found traces of Plutonium in the ground around the plant.

[JME2]

Well, crap.

[His Divine Shadow]

Is plutonium really worse than I-131? It has a way, way longer half-life (which means cleanup) and scary reputation, but it's pretty hard to get it in you, heck you can drink plutonium laced water.

[Ellindsey]

Is plutonium really worse than I-131? It has a way, way longer half-life (which means cleanup) and scary reputation, but it's pretty hard to get it in you, heck you can drink plutonium laced water.

It's significantly less radioactive than the shorter-lived isotopes like I-131. It's also not volatile and quite heavy, so it's not going to get lofted around the world on the wind, and unlike iodine isn't terribly biologically active, so it doesn't tend to get incorporated into living creatures. But since it's longer-lived than I-131, you can't just wait a year or two for it to all vanish. They'll have to completely clean up all the soil and water at the site, but this doesn't mean much for anyone outside the site.

[Broomstick]

It depends.

Sorry there's not a more definite answer, but that's the way it is. It depends on the quantity of Pu or I, whether it's pure element or chemically combined into something else, the precise isotope, where exactly the stuff landed, how vulnerable to further moving around it is....

[Terralthra]

It indicates a more severe breach of primary containment. How severe, and how bad this is, depends, like Broomstick said, on how much there is and how far it is from the reactor.

[Sky Captain]

Aren't most of German nuclear reactors fairly old anyway? Then closing them might be good idea because old obsolete designs are more likely to cause major leaks if something goes wrong.
Germany have potentially active volcano under LaacherSee caldera lake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See
It alone could provide several GW of geothermal power and there are several similar sites nearby. Of course much depends on how feasible it is to drill to recquired depth. Germany may also have significant amounts of shale gas. Problem with building new nuclear reactors is current designs are hugely expensive and time consuming to build at least in western countries. Finnish EPR reactor is suffering constant delays and cost overruns. If it turns out Germany have significant shale gas reserves and accesible geothermal then those could be more cost effective solutions.

[Tribun]

Aren't most of German nuclear reactors fairly old anyway? Then closing them might be good idea because old obsolete designs are more likely to cause major leaks if something goes wrong.
Germany have potentially active volcano under LaacherSee caldera lake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laacher_See
It alone could provide several GW of geothermal power and there are several similar sites nearby. Of course much depends on how feasible it is to drill to recquired depth. Germany may also have significant amounts of shale gas. Problem with building new nuclear reactors is current designs are hugely expensive and time consuming to build at least in western countries. Finnish EPR reactor is suffering constant delays and cost overruns. If it turns out Germany have significant shale gas reserves and accesible geothermal then those could be more cost effective solutions.

Well, the oldest nuclear power plant, Neckarwestheim I, is from 1975. The youngest , ironically Neckarwestheim II, is from 1989. After that it became unthinkable to build anymore of them and the nuclear plants from the GDR were shut off at once after re-unification, as they were so unsafe it was impossible to keep them on.

Also the number of retired nuclear reactors (most non-commercial) is bigger than the active ones. And if you want to read what the most serious nuclear accident in Germanyhad been, look for "Gundremmingen A".

[Ellindsey]

According to the actual soil test results:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-co ... 328e14.pdf

the levels of plutonium detected are not much greater than the ordinary background levels in Japanese soil.

[Broomstick]

Half the problem is that people don't

1) Understand that this stuff is already in the environment, as part of the "background radiation"
2) Have any clue what level of stuff constitutes "background"

Some of it is just naturally occurring isotopes that have always been part of the environment. A very, very small part of it is from all the above-ground nuclear testing in the 20th Century (something like 1,750+ detonations). The fallout from that went all over the world. Anywhere in the world you test the soil finding a few parts-per-whatever of plutonium or uranium or weird iodine isotope is nothing unusual. If you look hard enough you'll find it.

And yet we haven't all dropped dead yet.

While I in NO way advocate DELIBERATELY adding even one atom more of, say, plutonium to the environment it is very clear that the biosphere can tolerate teeny amounts of this shit. Thus, we aren't all gonna die from this. Stay the hell away from the immediate area around Fukushima and don't grow a vegetable garden right next door to it and you'll be fine.

[LaCroix]

It indicates a more severe breach of primary containment. How severe, and how bad this is, depends, like Broomstick said, on how much there is and how far it is from the reactor.

If it was contamination, it's much more plausible that it comes from the fire in the waste pool.

[Pendleton]

It indicates a more severe breach of primary containment. How severe, and how bad this is, depends, like Broomstick said, on how much there is and how far it is from the reactor.

If it was contamination, it's much more plausible that it comes from the fire in the waste pool.

This is almost assured, though the reports of short lived radionuclides indicates fission is still underway within the scrammed reactors that are producing problems for cooling now, namely Nos. 1-3. The Austrian ZAMG has also been monitoring aerosolized emissions of iodine and cæsium, with current output rated at that of Chernobyl's output. Fortunately, these are short lived isotopes, though their constant detection is worrying.

Additionally, I find it quite disingenuous to counter scaremongering about radiation by stating that "we haven't all dropped dead yet", as if this is a false dichotomy of we all either die, or we're all perfectly safe. There is a very serious situation here which has spread radioactive particles across most of the Japanese nation in quantities detectable and traceable to Fukushima (indeed, California and China have detected radiation clouds), not just coincidental blips in background radiation, although these levels are not dangerous right now. The turbine halls of potentially three reactors, are full of extremely radioactive water, with the decay heat of these reactors still being around 10 MW and a breach in containment being likely in at least one such reactor, though the exact details of where these isotopes of iodine and cæsium are coming from is still unknown. This water is leaking into the Pacific, in an area that is highly reliant on fisheries for a way of life. I do not find this a trivial incident in the least. the impact on fisheries is unknown, because even at low levels, the possibility of bioaccumulation for certain isotopes in future releases could be a serious problem for the vicinity. Land crops are also being found with contamination, which the IAEA is looking into with the FAO. Even if the levels of contamination remain within tolerable limits, economic damage is being done all the time with many countries banning imports of produce from Japan, while ironically wishing exports of components for cars or semiconductors were picked up. Up to 25% of global DRAM production may be offline due to rolling blackouts. Another benefit of our globalised economy.

One does not need to be literally glowing in the dark on another continent to class this as an event every bit as serious as Chernobyl. There have been reports that the Japanese are looking to upgrade to an INES 6 if they can't deal with the contaminants (far more of an issue than radiation) very soon.