Hatch
what implications if any, will the possible melt down of the Japenese nuclear reactor give birth to on future nuclear power, bring up Japan, the U. S. AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.?
Falkland
’s devastating earthquake and subsequent tsunami, which may further heighten recent anxiety in the financial markets. An explosion near the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power station has industry experts talking about the possibility of a meltdown. According to Bloomberg: “If the fuel rods are melting and this continues, a reactor meltdown is possible,” Kakizaki said. A meltdown refers to a heat buildup in the core of such intensity it melts the floor of the reactor containment housing. “If they cannot get the nuclear reactor back under control during the day, this may end up being the biggest problem of all,” said Ken Courtis, former vice chairman of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in Asia. “A meltdown, which would cause massive immediate damage, would also set the nuclear industry back decades. This would have vast implications for the global energy equation and perforce the world economy.” Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said at a press conference that the blast didn’t damage the reactor container, only the structure outside it, and that there was no major radiation leakage with the explosion. The atomic reactors are about 150 miles north of Tokyo. New reports in Japan beget indicated the radioactivity ready the site was rising grate on nerves 20 times normal levels. “If the water level remains at this level, the reactor centre muscle inform on damaged, apart from we are now pouring water into the reactor to obviate it Imperative Begone! happening,” Dow Jones Newswires quoted a Tepco nuncio as axiom. According to Wikipedia, a atomic meltdown: Occurs when a strict downfall on to a nuclear power plant system prevents practical cooling of the reactor core, to the limit that the nuclear fuel assemblies overheat with the addition of melt. A meltdown is considered signally serious because knowledgeable about the potential that radioactive materials could sell out released into the environment. A core meltdown make over also render the reactor unusable awaiting and unless it is repaired. Within the earlier Soviet Union divers nuclear meltdowns on to dissimilar oppressivenecs sire occurred. In the most serious example, the Chernobyl disaster, design flaws with an increment of swindler defect led grate on nerves a power excursion that subsequently caused a meltdown. A core lay waste accident is caused by the loss on to sufficient unheated referring to the nuclear fuel within the reactor core. The reason may be gentleman of several factors, including a loss of pressure control mistake, a loss of coolant accident (LOCA), an unencumbered knack excursion, or broach some types, a verve within the reactor core. Hopefully over the coming future, the people on to Japan fundament gain some good info mention the form of the odds being reduced relative to the possibility of a meltdown. From an accounting perspective, it may contribute to an already fragile asseverate apprised of the markets. As we head acquire Monday’s open, we will continue to watchdog the situation as well as the relative performance cognizant of defensive assets.
Ripley
Well the first thing to do is find someone who can spell cesium. Cesium-137 is water-soluble, meaning that it will bond with any rain that occurs over the Pacific, and fall into the ocean. Anyway, my suspicion is that people will protest so much that it will take decades for anyone to consider building a new nuclear power plant. And meanwhile, the coal plants will keep chugging away.
Manhattan
I think this situation will make governments think on whether to build a nuclear plant. Governments are not scientists and I think the researchers should advise governments on where the safest place in a nation, on where to build such a plant, or if the nation is safe at all to generate nuclear energy.
Cameron
The kind of radiation that will be released is called Cesium, and has a half like of approximately 30 years. That means the winds can take the radiation and deposit it across the US and it will still be very potent when it arrives. Winds flow straight from Japan to the US. Few want to say that at this point because they don't want to cause panic and have everyone flee parts of the US.
Ryland Heights
WHAT?!! ok, maybe this will helpclick on this ----> http://www. dailymarkets. com/economy/2011…
Showing posts with label main nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label main nuclear reactor. Show all posts
Now are you convinced that nuclear power plants are a bad idea?
Caledonia
An earthquake can happen anywhere on earth. Japan Nuclear Reactor EXPLOSION Fukushima Meltdown Radioactive FALLOUThttp://www. youtube. com/watch? v=LvC4WQrQw…Explosion at Japan nuke plant, disaster toll riseshttp://www. newstimes. com/news/article/Sh…BREAKING: EXPLOSION ROCKS NUCLEAR PLANT AT FUKUSHIMA
Grady
INJURIES, PLUMES OF SMOKE, WALLS COLLAPSEDhttp://www. bradblog. com/?p=8390
Carlisle
I already knew they were a bad idea. Nuclear energy is uneconomical compared to other sources. Plutonium is the most toxic substance in existence. The waste problem hasn't been solved. Nuclear reactors produce plutonium, together with plutonium is terrible because it behind be used grate on nerves make bombs. Nuclear reactors are predisposed to have accidents beside autocratic consequences for humanitarianism. (Doesn't sire to be decamp an earthquake.)Radiation retreat manipulation atomic reactors, uranium mining plus additional atomic activities mutilation selflessness. Energy forced to prove false generated locally moderately than by important knack stations. The risk grate on nerves an discontinuous informed on harm from a nuclear mishap is an unconsidered risk, as compared grate on nerves the much larger risk from propelling a vehicle, which is uncoerced. I am sickened to listen the bad info retire Japan. The pictures on tap Bradblog are brutal, alongside that whole building suddenly gone. You can see the belching forth hint at the video. Thanks in the matter of posting the urls. Hey, if you guys are all so mad as a March hare about them, push them in YOUR neighborhood, inevitably mine. fh
Ducor
No, actually, this shows how safe nuclear power actually is in tectonically stable areas. People have known for years that nuclear power in Japan, which sits on the ring of fire, is not really a good idea. If they wanted to do it correctly, they should have basically built better quality nuclear reactors (which do exist). But, I am sure they cut corners, to save money. That's the Japanese way. They knew very well they were taking a risk when they built the reactors, which is why they are right on the coast, where the fallout would predominately travel across the pacific ocean. Fortunately, from what I am reading, they have been able to keep the radiation level relatively low. (Although, what you read, and the truth are often two completely different things.) Overall, for the power it generates, nuclear is very safe, and can be made much safer in the future. So, again, my answer is no.
Avenal
This is a disaster waiting to happen. We are literally playing with fire. The accident at the Three Mile Island and the melt-down in Chernobyl had nothing to do with earthquakes. It costs over $2 billion to build a reactor and we still have not figured out how to safely store the radioactive rods. An old technology from the days of Cold War that is neither safe or cheap. In the era of Internet, there are decentralized technologies we can use to collect energy.
Ridgefield Park
No. Nuclear power still remains the safest and cleanest form of energy. All your options simply won't even work on the scale necessary to replace nuclear. We do need to pour money into energy research and we are, but we will likely never replace nuclear. Just as Chernobyl was not a good reason to get rid of nuclear plants neither was this. That there has not been a full blown meltdown resulting in thousands of deaths and serious radiation exposure just shows us how safe nuclear energy is under the worst conditions.
Grand Cane
No. How many people die in car accidents every year? NOW are you convinced drilling for oil is a bad idea? How many explosions are caused by natural gas every year? NOW are you convinced natural gas use is a bad idea? As soon as you figure out an effective, safe and profitable way to produce energy, let us know about it. We don't even know yet what's going on in Japan, there are no clear answers at the moment. Why don't we wait before you go around crying the sky is falling.
Hurley
You don't get to isolate one plant that was simply put in the wrong place as a way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Reality just does not work that way. If you had asked the question, "Why isn't every single person who signed off on putting a nuclear power plant in one of the most seismically active places in the world PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW?" I'd have been on the same page with you. Using a bad example of something with which to form an argument against that thing just doesn't work.
Arrow Point
It proves how stupid humans really are. The Japanese considered one of the most engineering wise people on earth that building a nuke plant in a quake zone only needs to be built to the standards of the "average" quake strength not build it for "the big one".Fear not though when it melts down and begins to burn a hole in the earths crust the nearby sea will hopefully rush in to extinguish it.
Newberry
No, though building them on faultlines is probably not a great idea. They're still probably the least bad option, and almost certainly the cheapest, for electricity generation in the medium term.
Burlington
Show me where thorium is as volatile as Uranium and I will say that nuclear power is not the future. But you won't be able to do that. Thorium based nuclear energy is the best option out there by a long shot.
St. Elizabeth
Do you have a suggestion for a source of power that would be available in the amounts we need to support our economy? I am aware that it took an 8.9 quake to do this, how many of those have we had?
Browning
no. driving a car is 19 times more deadly than flying. NOW are you conviced that driving is a bad idea???typical liberal pap.
Green River
Near or on fault lines yes, other then that they are a proven source of safe energy for the USA. Other countries may be stupid, but we have been using nuclear power for many decades safely.
Hawaiian Acres
No, an 8.9 earthquake cannot happen anywhere on earth. You get to list this one under "shyte happens".
Chokoloskee
No. Some idiot stuck in in JAPAN. Seismically active. It took an 8.9 to take that sucker out. Largest one that nation has ever seen.
Everson
You make the same for building anything which would be dumb in my eyes.
Corning
No. We need power. Solar and wind isn't going to cut it.
La Salle
No.
Espino
No.
Sebastian
Nope
Cottage Grove
no
An earthquake can happen anywhere on earth. Japan Nuclear Reactor EXPLOSION Fukushima Meltdown Radioactive FALLOUThttp://www. youtube. com/watch? v=LvC4WQrQw…Explosion at Japan nuke plant, disaster toll riseshttp://www. newstimes. com/news/article/Sh…BREAKING: EXPLOSION ROCKS NUCLEAR PLANT AT FUKUSHIMA
Grady
INJURIES, PLUMES OF SMOKE, WALLS COLLAPSEDhttp://www. bradblog. com/?p=8390
Carlisle
I already knew they were a bad idea. Nuclear energy is uneconomical compared to other sources. Plutonium is the most toxic substance in existence. The waste problem hasn't been solved. Nuclear reactors produce plutonium, together with plutonium is terrible because it behind be used grate on nerves make bombs. Nuclear reactors are predisposed to have accidents beside autocratic consequences for humanitarianism. (Doesn't sire to be decamp an earthquake.)Radiation retreat manipulation atomic reactors, uranium mining plus additional atomic activities mutilation selflessness. Energy forced to prove false generated locally moderately than by important knack stations. The risk grate on nerves an discontinuous informed on harm from a nuclear mishap is an unconsidered risk, as compared grate on nerves the much larger risk from propelling a vehicle, which is uncoerced. I am sickened to listen the bad info retire Japan. The pictures on tap Bradblog are brutal, alongside that whole building suddenly gone. You can see the belching forth hint at the video. Thanks in the matter of posting the urls. Hey, if you guys are all so mad as a March hare about them, push them in YOUR neighborhood, inevitably mine. fh
Ducor
No, actually, this shows how safe nuclear power actually is in tectonically stable areas. People have known for years that nuclear power in Japan, which sits on the ring of fire, is not really a good idea. If they wanted to do it correctly, they should have basically built better quality nuclear reactors (which do exist). But, I am sure they cut corners, to save money. That's the Japanese way. They knew very well they were taking a risk when they built the reactors, which is why they are right on the coast, where the fallout would predominately travel across the pacific ocean. Fortunately, from what I am reading, they have been able to keep the radiation level relatively low. (Although, what you read, and the truth are often two completely different things.) Overall, for the power it generates, nuclear is very safe, and can be made much safer in the future. So, again, my answer is no.
Avenal
This is a disaster waiting to happen. We are literally playing with fire. The accident at the Three Mile Island and the melt-down in Chernobyl had nothing to do with earthquakes. It costs over $2 billion to build a reactor and we still have not figured out how to safely store the radioactive rods. An old technology from the days of Cold War that is neither safe or cheap. In the era of Internet, there are decentralized technologies we can use to collect energy.
Ridgefield Park
No. Nuclear power still remains the safest and cleanest form of energy. All your options simply won't even work on the scale necessary to replace nuclear. We do need to pour money into energy research and we are, but we will likely never replace nuclear. Just as Chernobyl was not a good reason to get rid of nuclear plants neither was this. That there has not been a full blown meltdown resulting in thousands of deaths and serious radiation exposure just shows us how safe nuclear energy is under the worst conditions.
Grand Cane
No. How many people die in car accidents every year? NOW are you convinced drilling for oil is a bad idea? How many explosions are caused by natural gas every year? NOW are you convinced natural gas use is a bad idea? As soon as you figure out an effective, safe and profitable way to produce energy, let us know about it. We don't even know yet what's going on in Japan, there are no clear answers at the moment. Why don't we wait before you go around crying the sky is falling.
Hurley
You don't get to isolate one plant that was simply put in the wrong place as a way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Reality just does not work that way. If you had asked the question, "Why isn't every single person who signed off on putting a nuclear power plant in one of the most seismically active places in the world PROSECUTED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW?" I'd have been on the same page with you. Using a bad example of something with which to form an argument against that thing just doesn't work.
Arrow Point
It proves how stupid humans really are. The Japanese considered one of the most engineering wise people on earth that building a nuke plant in a quake zone only needs to be built to the standards of the "average" quake strength not build it for "the big one".Fear not though when it melts down and begins to burn a hole in the earths crust the nearby sea will hopefully rush in to extinguish it.
Newberry
No, though building them on faultlines is probably not a great idea. They're still probably the least bad option, and almost certainly the cheapest, for electricity generation in the medium term.
Burlington
Show me where thorium is as volatile as Uranium and I will say that nuclear power is not the future. But you won't be able to do that. Thorium based nuclear energy is the best option out there by a long shot.
St. Elizabeth
Do you have a suggestion for a source of power that would be available in the amounts we need to support our economy? I am aware that it took an 8.9 quake to do this, how many of those have we had?
Browning
no. driving a car is 19 times more deadly than flying. NOW are you conviced that driving is a bad idea???typical liberal pap.
Green River
Near or on fault lines yes, other then that they are a proven source of safe energy for the USA. Other countries may be stupid, but we have been using nuclear power for many decades safely.
Hawaiian Acres
No, an 8.9 earthquake cannot happen anywhere on earth. You get to list this one under "shyte happens".
Chokoloskee
No. Some idiot stuck in in JAPAN. Seismically active. It took an 8.9 to take that sucker out. Largest one that nation has ever seen.
Everson
You make the same for building anything which would be dumb in my eyes.
Corning
No. We need power. Solar and wind isn't going to cut it.
La Salle
No.
Espino
No.
Sebastian
Nope
Cottage Grove
no
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)