Absent some terrible news from Japan this will be my second and last column about the nuclear accidents unfolding there. It turned out I was right last time about the sodium polyboride or boric acid or whatever neutron absorber the Japanese authorities dumped in first one and now two reactors along with a lot of sea water in an attempt to quench the reaction heat. I think it is pretty clear, too, that most of these reactors will not be coming back online… ever. This column looks at what that can mean for the nuclear industry in Japan and I also want to look at how these accidents are or aren’t like Chernobyl — a comparison I am seeing far too often in news reports.
To come up with a good comparison I turned to my friend Robert Bishop, one of the only Americans actually at Chernobyl back in 1986, helping fight that reactor.
These Japanese reactors are old and fairly well understood while Chernobyl was brand new. These Japanese reactors had already been in service for 16 years when Chernobyl melted down. In comparative terms there is no comparison — Chernobyl was vastly worse.
As just one example, when it came to poisoning the nuclear reaction in Japan they inserted the control rods, dumped-in the boric acid, then allowed sea water to enter the containment. In the course of all this the roof of the reactor building exploded revealing the containment vessel, inside of which lay the reactor core. But at Chernobyl it was all so much simpler — no reactor building, no containment vessel, just the out-of-control reactor, standing in the rain, emitting radiation.
Poisoning Chernobyl, according to Robert, came down eventually to dumping tons of powdered bismuth directly into the gaping maw of the reactor core from above. “It was almost instantaneous, ” he recalled. “Bismuth is a good neutron absorber, but more importantly it went through two complete phase changes from solid to liquid to gas, absorbing huge amounts of heat from the core, which was cooled by hundreds of degrees in just seconds. ”
It was a clever gambit, poisoning Chernobyl, but remember that somewhere between 30 and 60 workers died in the process leaving a further legacy of birth defects in the region.
These Japanese nuclear accidents come down to the simple fact that nobody back in the 1960s designed nuclear plants to run for 40 years then go through an 8.9 earthquake. Nor are today’s nuclear plants probably designed to that standard, which means Japan is facing what will by necessity be a significantly different nuclear future.
We’ll see rolling blackouts for months, maybe years, in Japan and the new nuclear plants that replace those old nuclear plants will be vastly different, too. If I were to predict a clear winner in Japan’s new nuclear future it would be Toshiba with its innovative 4S (Super Safe Small and Simple) reactors.
Japan needs increased generating capacity fast. They would like to replace nuclear with nuclear. But the new plants also have to show they can survive an 8.9 earthquake and reduce the number of critical failure points. Toshiba’s 4S reactors, which have been around for several years now, though not yet commercially successful, do all that quite easily.
4S reactor cores are like nuclear building blocks, built on a factory production line and transported by truck to be installed 30 meters under the ground. Each 4S puts out 10 megawatts of electricity or enough for 2000 Japanese homes. Following this path means the lost 1000 megawatt reactors will need 100 4S’s each to replace them or a total of 1200 4S reactors. 4S’s are fueled at the factory, put in place to run for 20 years then returned to the factory for refueling. They are sodium-cooled and pretty darned impossible to melt down. If the cooling system is compromised they automatically shut down and just sit there in a block of sodium.
The biggest problem facing the 4S has been regulatory approvals, which would normally take in aggregate 100 times as long (and cost 100 times as much) if done the same way as a larger nuclear plant. That’s where this earthquake will probably change everything, at least in Japan, where the process will be streamlined almost to nothing with a 4S soon stashed under every power substation giving Japan a smart grid in the process.
I suspect you might be right Bob.
They need power and they need it now.
They are also one of the world’s (if not, the) biggest hoarders of nuclear fuel.
Please don’t let this be the last article on the issue Bob, your insight on this is worthy of being heard.
Dave.
+1 on this.
Concur. +1 ……..and maybe we in the USA will get to use these small reactors too. Ah shucks never mind. It does not fit the lefts idyllic nature god view of the world.
If it weren’t for the hippies, the US would be paved with the cheapest, shoddiest 1960s tech reactors GE could crank out. Shame on the left for being suspicious of them.
How about security for these reactors. US reactors are protected by tanks, yet when tested 53% were penetrated by red teams.
https://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/03/03/030303fa_fact?currentPage=all
If you would like to +1 this on BoingBoing.Net, please visit their Submitterator and post your approval for my post on this subject there.
I hope what you have outlined is correct … and if so, adopted… in Japan and here in the U.S.A.
One thing that Japan has a knack for is emerging from disasters smarter, more secure and more powerful than they were before.
We get Japanese TV and have been watching the disaster unfold. Its now 8:19pm PST and more explosions have occurred at the nuclear plants in the Tohoku region (Fukushima to be exact). The loss of power is significant (I’m not going to put a number to it). My inlaws in Tokyo are staying home today from work because the trains being run are going to limited due to the loss of power from the Nuclear plants. If Bob is right about the 4S reactors, I expect that a few will be deployed within 60-90 days at the outside with a testing period of 60-120 days. If they pass the test, expect wide-spread deployment just north of Tokyo (for Tokyo) and the Tohoku area to power the recovery process.
How many 4S reactors have been constructed to date?
So you’re saying Toshiba stock should rebound?
The biggest thing that freaks people out about liquid sodium reactor cooling is the fact that liquid sodium burns quite spectacularly if it comes in contact with either air or water. Even cooled down to solid form, metallic sodium burns on contact with water.
Well, you will be pleased to note the NRC has explored this issue, and is pondering the virtues of replacing sodium with lead, especially since lead has a lower neutron cross-section (therefore allowing more neutrons, making the reaction more efficient) while blocking more gamma radiation (another plus).
Well, that’s better than sodium, although lead ain’t exactly that great either.
In terms of getting power plants in service quickly, the obvious answer is Natural Gas. NG Turbines are the fastest and cheapest to get running, but expensive to operate because NG BTUs are more expensive than coal BTUs. I have reservations about the logistics of importing much more NG into Japan. LNG facilities don’t get built overnight.
Russia’s Putin went on record today as stating that his country would be rushing about 150,000 tons of liquid natural gas to Japan. It would seem that a limit might be imposed by the number of LNG generating plants presently in operation.
Ugh, Sodium? Really? That’s just begging for trouble. I’m pro-nuke, but no. Just no.
I can’t believe gas and pebble beds wouldn’t be a better choice.
Pebble beds hold a lot of promise, but probably haven’t been explored thoroughly enough yet for Japan to risk major commercial implementation.
A “China Syndrome” or two and they might be willing to spend the money to go solar electric!
Along these very lines the Department of Energy has suggested modifying 4S reactors to use lead as a coolant. We may well see that, but sodium has been used for 40+ years as a reactor coolant.
Bob
…because Sodium worked so well for Fermi 1. Perhaps Nuclear Fission is too temperamental to muck around with natural disasters or terrorism always a possibility?
Also check out the information on line regarding molten salt cooled Thorium reactors. China plans to build them by the dozen for a couple of reasons: In case of a LOC accident, they shut down and cool down without human intervention; Thorium is common and relatively cheap compared with Uranium.
I expect China to mass market them to the world.
Thorium has a long, looooong way to go before commercial viability. Thorium reactor designs are basically at the earliest theoretical and early experimental stages. You’ve got the problem of startup (thorium breeder reactor cycle basically needs to be “jumpstarted” with enriched uranium or plutonium). You’ve got to develop reprocessing, which inherently involves proliferation issues. And the biggest problem they face is that uranium is so cheap nowadays that reprocessing is more expensive than just using fuel once.
Fast breeders are the most efficient by far, but also inherently unstable. There has been a lot of pressure to go FBR, and just as much pressure to not go FBR. It would be so nice if a 4S version of FBR could be made.
Another great article but is the regulatory and public opinion climate in Japan really such that you expect these 4S reactors to speed through and be widely implemented? A lot of power generation capacity was lost but if anything I’d think that the disaster would dampen the prospects for the nuclear industry as it did in the US.
Japan is very different in that sense. I expect they’ll replace nuclear with nuclear.
Japan’s situation is much like France’s is today, and the UK’s soon will be: “No coal, no oil, no choice.”
It seems that the issue in question isn’t whether nuke or not, or if nuke, then what kind, but rather siting. Don’t put the things near the faults (I know, Japan is islands that are more or less close, so there isn’t a simple answer), or near the coasts. The fact that these were so situated contradicts the notion that Japan had truly reasoned the issue out. Being rather small (compared to the US or Europe), transmission losses appear to be worth the cost. It isn’t as if quakes didn’t happen there.
One irony is that new USA reactors apparently need containment vessels built in Japan: https://www.coolhandnuke.com/Cool-Hand-Blog/articleType/ArticleView/articleID/44/US-nuclear-supply-chain-spools-up.aspx
We need a lot of stuff built in Japan. Or somewhere else, unfortunatelly…
Japan has a total of 55 reactors spread across 17 complexes nationwide. What are the chances of them adding additional reactors to the more modern complexes that are deemed safe to pick up the generating capacity that has been lost. These complexes would need to be expanded but everything else is already in place in place.
I think you are correct about the 4S, Bob. Good call.
On the other hand, the next generation of reactors (given this latest experience) may very well be much safer, self-controlling Thorium reactors.
These were developed in the US in the 1950s and 1960s, but largely because they did not take advantage of the pre-existing infrastructure designed to supply Uranium, were never developed beyond what I understand to be a single (successful) prototype.
The special beauty of these molten-salt-cooled reactors is that, in a loss of coolant situation, they shut down and cool down without human intervention.
China is developing Thorium technology, and has plans to build large numbers of them in the coming fifty years or so. They are attractive not just for safety reasons, but because Thorium is such a widely available element, much more so than Uranium.
Given that China has lost the habit of doing anything halfway, I think the Toshiba reactors will have some significant competition. Expect China to mass-market Thorium reactors to the world.
Chernobyl, Three Island and Japan. 1, 2, 3 Knockout.
A country on a zillion major fault lines after a nuclear situation like this continuing on the same line? Not smart. Choices have to be made and someone has to take the first step.
Modern advanced societies like Japan with low birthrates could begin to re-emerge as new 21st Centuries with declining populations, less impact on the land, a respect for labour and a banking system that recognises a new reality. Europe and North America are ready for this. China, too. India, eventually. The Middle East may surprise us.
Far out dreaming? Maybe; but we must at least recognise the previous accidents and now this terrible one as possibly our last wake up call.
Hey, even better!
Let’s make sure that only smart people get to have those kids!
We’ll have that problem whipped in no time!
Right on Herr Darwin.
Ike, I’m presuming you are being facetious. Low birth rates are taking place in the places named, not by force but by choice. Instead of working with the trend nations bring in foreign labour to support their desire to increase wealth. Instead, working with the trend changes can be made that could make there nations wealthier and happier in spirit. With less waste, standards of living would not fall.
Continue with more of the same is unsustainable. If we presume that growth can come only with more people and more power, we are just charging to the eventual game end. Standing body to body would be the extreme example. We’d be gone long before that point.
Heh,
What the “intellectuals” don’t understand is that it is smart people (those that can see more than 5 years into the future) that have kids. Don’t get me wrong, Stupid people often have one or two, because they have no self control… but children are essential to the future, and a reproach for reproduction is really self hate on a civilizational scale.
OK. That was off topic but I couldn’t help myself 🙂
more on topic, I am very excited about the prospect of small scale Nuclear like these Toshiba units… If they can be rolled out and proven more quickly, we may yet find a way to wean ourselves from coal and oil!
“children are essential to the future, and a reproach for reproduction is really self hate on a civilizational(sic) scale.”??!!??
The appropriate number of children are essential for the future. Too many and we are dead. Too few and we are dead. Reproduction that leads to death is pointless.
You cannot under any circumstances have unconstrained growth in a finite environment. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selfish, greedy, stupid or all three.
> Reproduction that leads to death is pointless.
Look around outside until you see a feral, non-human animal. You are looking at a creature that lives in, is a result of, the most efficient possible equilibrium with Environment–an equilibrium in which fecundity operates against mortality in conjunction with Environment such that the speciation that particular creature embodies and represents operates with maximum efficiency within the conditions that bound it. No ongoing artificial infusion of energy, no expanding prosthesis of high technology, was necessary bring that creature before your eyes. That equilibrium comes about not through the operation of Intelligence, which operates to find discrete-point solutions by selectively *ignoring* (and/or failing to even perceive) Information, but through the operation of Evolution, which ongoingly solves for maximum efficiency by incorporating *all possible Information inputs* available and operative through The Innate Compellingness Of The Intrinsic.
But there are drawbacks, we see/opine from our point of view. Those individuals who survive through winters shiver (and/or sleep) through them. Those individuals who find themselves fighting infection as a result of contagion or accident routinely to usually *die* of those infections. The mortality of young is high; the early mortality of adults is high. Lifespan–to our point of view–is “shorter than it could be.” Many, many more creatures of a type are born than long survive; for many, even most, creatures, survival to the point of reproduction is *a*typical. We–and later generations, by definition–only hear from the survivors.
That’s how Evolution works: “Overproduction” of individuals such that Selection–the death of individuals prior to reproduction–slowly shapes their genome for maximum efficiency within boundary conditions of the flavor of Life they happen to embody/represent. Even the average lifespan of Individual is in effect *negotiated* with Environment, Mortality being not a flaw of Life but a *strategy* of Life to maintain its vitality across and within vicissitudes of Boundary Condition. The robin or mosquito you see is at least as highly evolved as we are; arguably, depending not on the Artificial, it may be more so.
We have taken a modified road, artificially entraining matterenergy to our cause, hooking our prayer wheels first to streams and wind-bending trees, and lately to splitting atoms. It is a way of life dauntingly, if not lethally, *less efficient* than the low-technology road unknowingly taken by non-human feral creatures. Just occasionally, as now, we are reminded of its hidden and accruing Cost–of how Intelligence may fail.
Sodium as a coolant is kind of scary. It is corrosive and will react with anything. I’d rather live next to TMI.
The thing that stands out in my mind about metallic sodium, from a demonstration in high school chemistry class 30+ years ago, was how reactive it was in air and water. Take it out of the protective glass clear oil containing jar, wearing protective apron/goggles/gloves and watch it burst into bright white several thousand degree flames. It was amazing to watch for a 16 year old bored high school student. Doubt schools are so cavalier about this stuff these days..
Hope it is really well contained in the reactor. You have to respect its power.
I can’t think of a western nation that will ever build another nuclear plant. The West is terrified of nuclear energy, thanks mostly to anti-nuclear crazies and the press core who prefers drams to debate.
The facts are: Our liberal society wants everything without risk. It’s why we don’t have an energy policy. It’s why social security is allowed to languish without resolving its problems. It’s why the UAW pension fund was over promised and under funded. It’s why Congress once investigated p0rn.
100 years of the Free Lunch Society have transformed us from citizens in a free country to beggars who kneel at Capital Hill, only pausing to complain when something on TV upsets us.
Glenn, you are completely off-base.
There are a number of reasons nuclear power went out-of-fashion in the US.
The cost of building the plants became excessive, mostly I feel due to industry greed. An example of what I mean would be the Washington Public Power Supply System fiasco. WPPSS set out to build five nuclear power plants in Washington State. The idea was that hydroelectric power was cheap, but if WPPSS built five nuclear plants, they could sell cheap power and keep rates low.
Unfortunately, they chose two different style plants from two different suppliers, which ran into delays, cost over-runs, poor planning, construction flaws and mismanagement which lead to the biggest bond default in US history.
Other nuclear power plants ran into the same problem. Trojan in Oregon ran into issues with poor plant construction. The same with Rancho Seco in California. The TVA abandoned projects for many of the same reasons WPPSS was derailed. In all about 60 proposed projects were scrapped in the 1970s and early 1980s. High interest rates, low prices for oil did not help either.
The kicker of course was the accident at Three Mile Island and the unfortunate timing of the movie the China Syndrome.
Blaming the environmental movement is a bit too convenient. If the industry addressed flaws in their designs earlier, if a permanent waste repository was founded, if they kept their costs for developing a plant realistic, the environmental movement would not have had anything realistic to complain about. But Three Mile Island handed the movement a golden ticket to derailing nuclear power in the US for decades.
Consider the prime difference between the US and Japan/Europe: public electric transport. With a much higher per capita electric use (I surmise that, you can Wikipedia that to confirm/contradict if you’re so inclined), coupled with a lower petro fuel use (I know that for a fact), nuclear makes more sense. In the US, petro fuel industry needs all those cars and buses and trucks to keep the demand up, if the US had the electric transport infrastructure it once had (it really did, you know; done in largely by GM) we might have been on the cutting edge of nuclear technology. As it is, most reactors are just submarine motors made large. A few in the community have criticized the industry on that reason alone.
Tell that to the French (France is a western country isn’t it?). They get nearly 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. See wikipedia:
Nuclear power is the primary source of electric power in France. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country’s total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world.[1].
France is also the world’s largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe.[1][2] France’s nuclear power industry has been called “a success story” that has put the nation “ahead of the world” in terms of providing cheap, CO2-free energy.[3] However, France’s nuclear reactors are mainly used in load-following mode and some reactors close on weekends because there is no market for the electricity.[4][5] This means that the capacity factor is low by world standards, which is not an ideal economic situation for nuclear plants.[4]
I always get a kick out of statements like 5 KW powers one home. That’s only 3 hair dryers, 2 20 Amp 120 Volt circuits, OR 1 central A/C unit. Under ideal conditions it may average out that way, but it’s still possible for everyone on the system to be using their A/C at the same time and be doing stuff as well. We should be designing for a higher future standard of living, not insuring a a lower one.
Europeans get by quite nicely on about half the energy consumption as American Rednecks. I’ll let you decide who is smarter. Hint: it doesn’t take brains to squander your resources.
Right on! If you were faced with rolling outages, wouldn’t you be willing to live without air-conditioning for a while? I know I could. Instead of building new power plants, they could instead deploy smart meters that can actively schedule high-current appliances (washing machines etc.) for times when excess power is available. Micro-managing loads could easily deliver the 30-50% demand savings if done right.
No I would not. As I said, we should be designing for a higher standard of living for all of us, not just where we work or in rich people’s homes. Productivity requires freedom from the distraction of discomfort.
Sustainability need not come at the expense of one’s way of life. In fact, It CANNOT. Otherwise no one will be interested (including me.)
What about the pebble bed reactors (I should add I know almost nothing about nuclear reactors).
More great insights into nuclear power generation. Thank you! Please don’t stop.
I understand the Sodium concerns but if it works in this given situation and is easily available, it does (as far as I can remember from school) react down to a relatively safe set of compounds. Even if very quickly, I readily recall! 🙂
I can see Japan will be desperate for electricity but any offers of NG/LNG will only be useful if they have the infrastructure in place to use them. It sounds as though the Toshiba solution could actually work more quickly if regulatory concerns can be met. It sounds more “plug-n-play”. I’m probably way off on this though.
That’d be boron (carbide), Bob, not bismuth.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/rp/chernobyl/c01.html
Robert. What are your opinions on such technologies as pebble-bed reactors, or Thorium-fuelled perhaps? I guess that both of these have far too long a lead-time to be of use in Japan in the near future; but I’d value your opinion…
Maybe someone can enlighten me . . . why aren’t nuclear reactors built on rocky, uninhabited islands offshore and the electricity delivered by undersea cable? It doesn’t make sense to put the reactor in the middle of a densely populated city does it?
I suspect that the problem is finding people to work on it. The days of dedicated lighthouse keepers far from civilisation are long gone. We (rightly) don’t trust software systems to manage and monitor a nuclear power station.
Sorry to disappoint, but the reason these plants didn’t go Three Mile Island was *just because* they were computer controlled. TMI wasn’t; humans created that screw up.
Bob,
Thanks for the insight.
More things went right than wrong in this situation, but you wouldn’t know it from all the carrying on by the journalistic drama queens.
For more perspective, read
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/03/13/some-perspective-on-the-japan-earthquake/
A most useful blog, one of the best I’ve read on the subject:
http://morgsatlarge.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/
Factual errors- forex, F. #3 uses MOX fuel with plutonium, not pure Uranium oxide. Wrote to the author, who is not himself a nuke, and got a ‘well, I don’t maintain it any more’ mechanic’s shrug about the blunder.
For another (positive) view of the Japanese nuclear problems, see Lewis Page
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/14/fukushiima_analysis/
Thanks for the link Jim,
Robert if you haven’t already you may wish to take a look at it.
If what the author indicates is true it’s far more likely they’ll bring the three reactors back on line. I would think that logically that would be where the smart money is if what he’s saying turns out to be the case.
“All reactors’ temperature is now under control and the residual heat reactions inside them continue to die away; soon, no further cooling will be required. The three worst affected will cost more to put right than the other ones, having been cooled with the backup-backup seawater system and lost their roofs, but the process of sorting them out will not be a lot more onerous than a normal periodic refuelling.”
[…] anything nuclear ever really super safe small and simple? https://www.cringely.com/2011/03/is-anything-nuclear-ever-really-super-safe-small-and-simple/ GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "0"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); GA_googleAddAttr("LangId", […]
Bob, can’t tell you how jaw-dropping your last 2 have been, this has been a genuine, certifiable scoop. See you at the Pulitzers.
There are some important points for the world (and especially the USA) to consider.
1) There are newer, better, and much safer ways to convert nuclear fission to electric power. Very onerous regulation can force an industry into staying with old, poor technology.
2) There is no reason to have a few, super large generation plants. That idea came about in the 50’s and 60’s with the belief bigger was better. Sometimes bigger is not better.
3) There is great merit in producing a “standardized” design. Control systems can then be made to be ultra-good. There can be consistent maintenance practices, consistent operating practices, consistent operator training, …. In the USA virtually every reactor is different and unique.
Another important thought !!!
This accident is completely unlike Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. The Japanese are not in denial. They are making the hard decisions and are doing what is needed to protect the environment. They are not compromising safety in order to try to save the facility. It should be clear they are willing to trash the reactors to keep things under control.
Is the Toshiba 4S design related at all to the Hyperion Small and Modular Reactor (SMR)? Hyperion mentions that their power plant puts out not only electrical power but also steam, which seems to me could be put to use for water purification. Nuclear powered desalination plants, anyone?
Microturbines powered by natural gas is the only thing that can be build and deployed quickly. Expect to see a bunch of them deployed for manufacturing sites.
This might also jumpstart a smart grid for the Japanese electrical system as anyone with excess capacity could make money selling it back to the grid.
Quote from a NYT article https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/asia/15nuclear.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
“They’re basically in a full-scale panic” among Japanese power industry managers, said a senior nuclear industry executive.
Bob, I’m curious as to your thoughts on how Japanese management style (i.e. consensus management) may be impairing their ability to respond quickly in a crisis.
Also what are your thoughts on impact on US economy due to reliance on JIT. Japanese auto plants in the US undoubtedly rely on parts made in Japan which may be an unreliable supplier for some time.
Babcock & Wilcox has a modular nuke unit that could use some customers. It is a steam type unit so operation is very well understood. Passive safety designed in!
https://www.babcock.com/products/modular_nuclear/generation_mpower.html
Not as simple as the Toshiba but pretty easy and 125 MW per module. Lots more than 2 MW guys and gals.
A much more optimistic viewpoint from MIT:
http://mitnse.com/2011/03/13/why-i-am-not-worried-about-japans-nuclear-reactors/
“one of the only Americans ” One of the only Americans. What the hell does this actually mean?
That reminds me, whatever happened to Bloom Energy? The miraculous energy solution that was supposed to solve the worlds electricity woes?
“One of the only?” Where did you go to grade school?
Grammar-gestapo aside, what about CANDU technology. Minimal fuel processing, greater neutron efficiency, and apparently less duty/decay heat; heavy water notwithstanding. But not a Japanese technology, so likely off the table.
The Japanese culture does not seem as (forgive the use of the word) reactionary as North American culture. They seem to be thoughtful and deliberate in how they proceed. I would not be surprised if they choose a newer, better, safer, long term solution that will scale better and serve their growing needs for years to come.
Greg Palast weighs in on Toshiba’s plan for Obama-approved nuke plants in TC: https://www.gregpalast.com/no-bs-info-on-japan-nuclearobama-invites-tokyo-electric-to-build-us-nukes-with-taxpayer-funds/
My employer’s Tokyo office just got evacuated for “safety reasons”, along with employee families, to Singapore/Hong Kong.
Anyone thinking this is not as bad as Chernobyl needs a reality check. There are SIX reactors on site with an untold amount of spent fuel being stored near by. If one containment fails badly enough to make the plant inhospitable to humans, all other reactors left to their own devices will melt down and the spent fuel will go up in smoke. We are practically there with containment #2 compromised after yesterday’s explosion and the spent fuel at #4 catching fire.
If the worse case scenario does come to pass, I think that Bob’s smaller more ubiquitous plant’s are a pipe dream — this will be the end of the nuclear industry, period.
— this will be the end of the nuclear industry, period.
In a rational world, which doesn’t exist at the moment, the end of siting nukes where they’re in obvious harm’s way. This *was not* a nuclear accident. Why can’t folks get that through their heads.
[…] Two days later he has a followup posting about this. […]
Bob, please continue with good articles like these last two.
By the way: what about ITER project ? Can it be speeded up ?
OK, that was a silly question. I meant if the Japs have JT-60 and the Brits have the JET already working, I wonder why bother with nuclear energy when fusion is feasible ? The reply is Because niobium-tin (Nb3Sn) superconducting wires will be need to wound the coils… since niobium is not only expensive but rare to produce, will take too long to put to work such energy sources, right ? Or its that ‘m missing something ?
Bob, we need more stuff from you on this Fukushima disaster. What we read or hear from msm is all hype and hearsay. Your insight is sharp, analytical, and right on the button.
Please.
+1
for (0 !=1) {++1}
we need salient updates.
Given that we have had 4 of the 6 reactor facilities at the Fukushima plant now compromised (including spent fuel rod pool on fire in reactor 4 building, the comment above now coming into more critical light (spent fuel on site… increases the ‘dirtiness’ of a major catastrophy in any/all of the remaining 5 reactors), I’m feeling at a loss in estimating the complexity multiplier (if you can’t put out the fire in reactor 4 due to the apparent uncontrolled venting in reactor 2).
Are there non-talking heads who can speak to the next steps between now and ‘the current’ likely worst case? Cringely? Buehler? Anyone?
I’m looking for serious technical discussion as well. The talking heads and the various, non-nuclear-engineer-types being interviewed leaves a huge information vacuum.
Given that we have had 4 of the 6 reactor facilities at the Fukushima plant now compromised
I love reading Airplane accident reports – Why?
Because they shows that what ever the safety human misadventure stymies the safety. And many pilots with the information at their fingertips fail to understand the total data and the primary cause.
Pilots are superfluous till they’re needed then they need super human intelligence to find the cause and control a machine that the automatic controls can’t! The automatic controls are the sum total of human knowledge in the millions of man-hours of flight analysis.
How can a human in the limited time for a solution perform perfectly when the combined human intelligence of programming can’t!
A supplementary to Murphy’s law is Bazz’s Law “Any complex machine has always unforeseen modes of action that lead to proving Murphy’s Law.”
The beauty of a plane accident is that the repercussions of it are limited in time and place.
The danger of nuclear accident is that it extends into the future till 8 times the half-life of the radioactivity*.
Chernobyl is dangerous till the tons of radioactivity is reduced to milligrams of radioactivity thousands of years in the future. A period longer than humans have been able to read.
Could you read a sign written in Sumerian “Danger Radioactivity Do Not Enter” 4000 years ago! Well what language will people be writing 1000 years hence! Most people can’t read English older than 500 years!
And Robert X fails to remember that no matter how much boron you use the underlying radioactivity is still there till 8 times the half-life* of the radioactivity of the element. During which time anything can happen to make the boron separate from the neutron generator.
* depending on the initial size.
Robert X fails to see how the USA does factories — has he seen Detroit and other rust belts? Well how many Nuclear Belts would he want in USA?
They would have to be maintained at cost and not allowed to decay unlike the rust factories — a TAX for ever for no reason except to be alive!
The best ad for Nuclear Energy by the Governor of Pennsylvania in 70’s
3 mile island ” A billion dollar Asset to 2 Billion dollar liability in 90 minutes”
[…] this blog post, he analyzes the Fukushima reactor failures, and suggests the end result will be a rapid growth in small, sealed ‘package’ nuclear reactors such as the Toshiba 4S generator considered for Galena, Alaska. He thinks Japan may have little […]
The western press is mostly misinterpreting the statements out of Japan. They apply cultural expectations against a culture that is vastly different.
One report, from an Australian, makes it sounds like armageddon, but not from anything the individual saw before he left the country; rather by the speculation he applied because he wasn’t being told enough.
Japan has been quite forthcoming with data; they haven’t been forthcoming with western worlds hypothetical scenarios and worse case disaster tails. The Western world likes to hear the worse case scenario and then is thankful when it doesn’t come to pass. The Japanese will present what the current situation is, without hyperbole and conjecture attached.
Excellent piece, Bob; your comments and replies to comments are likewise fresh, insightful, and full of good info and good perspective I’m not getting elsewhere. Keep up the good work.
PS Bob worked as a reporter on the Three-Mile Island disaster; his bona fides on the topic go back decades longer than most of us….
Nicely and thoughtfully said. And a courtesy to the Japanese. Thanks
Yet again, some measured, thoughtful and above all knowledgeable commentary from the Cringester. The real meltdown’s coming from me every morning when I read the hysterical British press headlines – “Armageddon outta here!”, “Meltdown nightmare”, “Invisible terror”, etc, etc. The result of all this will be another twenty years of government paralysis on nuclear power, squintillions of pounds of taxpayers’ money spent on windmills and other nonsense and power rationing when old nuclear becomes obsolete.
Do you have any insight into using Stirling engines to harvest the “wasted fuel”? Another idea is to improve coal/fuel based plant efficiency by adding heat to places that the carbon fuel energy is wasted on keeping the system hot. An article on alternate nuclear technologies would be much appreciated.
Was suppose to be a main reply.
Good to see real expertise on display. Your cnoitrbuiton is most welcome.
O4Uwvc ylejrsmkobvd
j4QOjd vbatmqadpdxk
the Japanese government is being jobbed by TEPCO. which has 4 reactors in disaster, with the other two shutdown reactors at the Daiichi site heating up. time does fly in these things. at present, #1 is said by Kyoto, now that TEPCO has decided to start talking again, to have a 70% fuel melt, #3 a 33% melt in the core, #2 a 3 percent melt with a possible small breach, and fire has broken out again on the fourth floor spent-fuel storage area at #4. radiation at the site has hit 400 mSv and 100 mSv, which for old cranks who remember rems is 40 and 10 rems. oh, and reactor #3 is said to have had a mixed-oxide core in it, which contains plutonium.
we haven’t heard a thing about Fukushima Diiwa for days now, although on Friday and Saturday they were concerned about cooling the three similar reactors at that slightly further southern site.
US utility practice is that the spent fuel pools have 3 to 4 core loads of hot, nasty, too dangerous to put in a concrete outhouse, used fuel. so we have upwards of 5 core loads of melted uranium BWR fuel free-ranging there, potentially 1 or 2 core loads burned off already. that’s, what, 90 to 180 tons of mixed nucleides on the ground and in the air?
ain’t looking good when Godzilla looks to the land and cries.
Japan will rebuild.
but the (now rated at) 9.0 earthquake and tsunami are looking like the good news.
There is no way you can compare the devastation from the earthquake and tsunami to the problems at the reactors. Thousands of people have died and toxics have been spread around by floods. How is this nuclear crisis possibly looking like worse news? As for safe energy, note that a refinery has been burning spreading toxic fumes over populated areas and a dam has burst causing many deaths (don’t know if it was hydroelectric though).
Yes, this is a major disaster. Some workers have died, there will be some low level radiation leakage, the financial cost will be enormous. But that pales compared to the disasters elsewhere in Japan.
Lets say #3 has a hydrogen explosion too and together with earthquake damage cracks the storage pool emptying it in minutes. At this point none of this is exactly low probability. If it has been running on MOX long enough to have spent mixed oxide fuel in it’s pool and that stuff caught on fire good it could make Chernobyl look small.
The potential for a huge disaster is there. We’ve had roofs blown off AND fire in storage pools … yes they got to it before it could get out of control, we got lucky.
Lets hope we stay lucky.
The NY Times reported this morning that the containment on the #3 (the one with the plutonium) has been breached.
This is officially worse than Chernobyl. And yes worse than the earthquake/tsunami — that devastation could be rebuilt in a couple of years — Fukushima’s radiation will last our lifetimes.
[8:33 a.m. ET Wednesday, 9:33 p.m. in Tokyo] Severe damage to the containment vessel of the No. 3 reactor at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is unlikely, Japan Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano said Wednesday, according to a Kyodo News service report.
The nuclear situation in Japan is nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl. There’s been no significant release of radiation, and it doesn’t look like there’s going to be any.
Here’s a picture of the reactor building design: http://imgur.com/UrTkr
The 3rd floor was the cooling pool with up to 20 years of spent fuel. That 3rd floor was blown up on 2 of the buildings. Yikes!
Perhaps roll out LFTRs? I’d assume that Japan’s got as much weapons-grade material as they care to stockpile at this point. Then again, the Toshiba design is already approved, but longer-term the LFTR should be even safer in larger scales..
Has anyone built an LFTR yet or are they still in the theoretical stage?
This is bad news for Hyperion. They are Toshiba’s competition for the mini-nuke reactor. They face the same regulatory hurdles but they are not a Japanese based company so probably won’t get the big contract.
What about the prospects for molten-salt thorium reactors, like the ones China seems to be betting its future on?
https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/
1 hr google talk on thorium MSRs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F0tUDJ35So
100+ power point on thorium MSRs
https://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/GreenEnergyForum_20080725.ppt
Cooter
I have a question that I’ve not seen asked anywhere. Filling the coolant system with seawater must be like using seawater in your steam iron. Yeah, it’s going to corrode things to the point of never-be-used-again, but it seems to me that there’s a shorter term problem. As all the water is boiled away and/or split into free atoms, you’re going to have lots of salt left over accumulating in the reactor, and eventually preventing the free flow of water. You saidin the previous column that it should take a week for the reactor to cool down, so maybe it’ll be ok, but I’m still wondering.
saltwater is all they have at hand. the civic infrastructure is totally smashed. on day 6, somebody’s news report mentioned on the side that authorities are considering opening up a road to the Daiichi site so they can perhaps run another fire truck up there.
a bunch of really clever, dedicated, likely walking dead people at the site are pounding themselves into the mud because they’ve got sticks, stones, and spit to try and stop 6 fulminating nuclear reactors from taking out all of east Asia. they have wavering directors behind the effort and frankly, it’s out of control.
every nuclear reactor license I’ve ever heard of has to have a long, contingency-based, complete and overreaching response plan to a number of scenarios, including disaster. none of what has been happening would be written in that set of documents.
they’re winging it. they had to have site support from the whole nation in the first few hours, half a day at best, to prevent the problems we see. which are not the end of the road. water cannon on the spent fuel pools? — that’ll wash the fuel assemblies right out of the pond onto the concrete.
One aspect which hasn’t been make very clear is what level of infrastructure damage occurred and is continuing. I’ve seen one reference to “not even having telephone service” operating, and reporting by the NYTimes of the remaining 50 persons going around with flashlights, which suggests that electrical power is scarce or non-existent. Personally, my speciality is out-of-the-box thinking. It occurs to me that the problems at these reactors is made vastly more difficult by the lack of power – While the objective is to bring these reactors to cold shutdown – would it have been possible to restart any of these reactors at any time in order to generate power locally? Restarting any of the six reactors to provide a small amount of local power would make this situation possible to bring under control.
I wouldn’t dare do anything like that without first making a very, very thorough inspection of each and every wall, pipe, and seal in the site.
Yours is an obvious solution, but you should listen to that little voice saying “maybe this isn’t such a good idea”.
(Though they still have those diesel generators. Those are probably in better shape, if the water didn’t damage them too much.)
Aside from possible equipment and containment damage due to the quake and tsunami, just-shut-down reactor generally can’t be restarted for a while due to short-lived radioisotopes that poison the fission reaction…look up “iodine pit”. Duration of the outage depends on the output power of the reactor before shutdown and the time it had been running.
To answer my own question, I have found that nuclear plants do not have what is called “Black start” capability, and therefore cannot be started without access to base load power from a grid. So, once grid power was lost, a restart would not have been possible from the power of the on-site diesel generators at any time. There are now reports that TEPCO is attempting to provide a power line to the plant and expects to do so “soon,” which at least clearly suggests that the grid connection to the plant was destroyed by either the earthquake or the tsunami.
And thanks for the other responses. Clearly, the local system has to be functional for a low-power restart – but there was no report of immediate damage, it’s been a slowly deteriorating problem as the LOPA lead to a LOCA, hydrogen explosion, etc. What we are seeing is that recovery from a LOPA is a nasty, risky procedure – it sure wasn’t apparent before this that a LOPA + diesel generator failure could lead to catastrophe.
As as to the safety of a 4S plant, go check out this report: https://www.yritwc.org/Portals/0/PDFs/nuclearreactorletterucs.pdf
[…] reading Robert X. Cringely’s “Is anything nuclear ever really super safe small and simple?“, I have a question that I’ve not seen asked anywhere. Filling the coolant system with […]
[…] back in the 1960s designed nuclear plants to run for 40 years, then go through an 8.9 earthquake, says blogger Robert Cringely.Japan now needs increased generating capacity fast. Toshiba’s 4S (Super […]
What i want is a small (small enough to be hidden in the back yard) system so i can disconnect from the ripoff con artist filled grid hows about half garden shed sized thorium reactors that would be real nice
Nice report.
We are going to see a lot of nonsense in the news caused in part by the news community fanning the flames of the story; It’s in their interests to have as much sensation as possible, as if it isn’t bad enough having any kind of nuclear accident.
In the same vein, most early reactors were designed with as much effort being put into the complexity of the fuel cycle as was put into their capability to generate electricity. This is because there is a *huge* high value industry based on re-processing and fueling nuclear reactors. Even more excitingly, most reactor designs are proprietary meaning little technology is shared. The profit is in the fuel cycle not in the construction of the plant which might last considerably longer than 40 years.
Think vested interests, think Exxon, Shell, Texaco, Total, BP all designing their own petrol engines, each running on their own unique fuel.
Can you see the madness?
The public aren’t as stupid as politicians give them credit for – if they are given the information straight.
Yes, there is an answer mentioned by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater above, The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a Molten Salt Fuelled Reactor (MSFR) which can eat nuclear waste, pump out electricity 100 times more efficiently than current Light Water Reactor (LWR) designs, re-process conventional nuclear fuel for re-use, destroy transuranic wastes from traditional once through reactors, fabricate noble metals as part of their normal operation, aren’t pressurised, are passively safe, can be refuelled whilst running, are naturally load following, are simple by comparison, can be small and are cheaper to build. Oh yes, and the (little) waste produced is safe enough after just 50 years to put in your pocket.
Imagine a reactor that if it overheats a soluble plug melts and the reactor is simply sick into a repository using gravity i.e., ‘If the cooling system is compromised they automatically shut down and just sit there in a block of sodium’. They are intrinsically passively safe. No pumps required for shutdown!
These are the reasons why the Chinese & French are taking that route.
Why aren’t we doing this? They need less fuel 😉 Think of commercial interests in the fuel cycle and maintaining proprietary designs. Ubiquity and standard compliance brings competition and we don’t want that, do we?
What we need are enforced standards and mass production. Isn’t this more important than making a Very Big Hole? That was achieved in < 3 years.
Let's get eating our warheads and waste, lighting lightbulbs and giving industry the cheap reliable electricity it needs. In the west we may not be competitive on hourly rates but we sure as heck can use our technical prowess to blunt that difference with cheap reliable safe energy.
Some links:-
http://energyfromthorium.com/
https://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1
http://energyfromthorium.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=63
http://energyfromthorium.com/2008/11/15/the-green-reactor-the-lftr-and-green-chemistry/
http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2009/03/02/the-best-liquid-fueled-reactor-review/
https://www.globalartwork.com/2010/how-much-fuel-used-in-a-year/
I am not convinced that spreading 100’s of such 10MW nuclear reactors in the country, even if buried 30m below surface, is making the solution safe enough. If I can imagine many scenarios of misusing or sabotaging these, other can do as well.
On the contrary I cannot imagine soft energy solutions like solar panels, or even solution based on chemical reactions (oil, gas, coal), offering options to be misused to the extent of nuclear energy options. The weak part in every option is and will remain the human factor.
The fundamental problem is concentrating energy production to such an extent. Doing this is indeed economically more profitable, but at the same time makes society fragile.
Thats because you arent very imaginitive
This is a sad situation. Especially for a country that minds its own business and has a bunch of hardworking people whose only purpose in life is progress. The worst part is that it had already faced a terrible nuclear disaster decades back. I don’t think they deserve to suffer more.
Nuclear Disaster? That wasn’t a nuclear disaster, that was a war which they started and thankfully lost due to our nuclear technology and its war time application.
Yes, the recent tragedy is horrible and it is a shame to have such a loss of life and impact on their society. But the Japanese people are a very focused and resilient, and there isn’t another culture in the world better equipped to handle such a disaster based upon their national experience in dealing with the impact of nuclear radiation.
Nothing justifies dropping nuclear bombs on top of cities.
Look up the history. Around 10 to 20 years ago, Japan had a reactor that was run like the one on the Simpsons. It failed. Reactor techs were dumping coolant in with buckets. Two of the operators died. There were several levels of safety that were not functional. There was a big flap over it. Someone even went to prison. The parent poster is talking about that incident, not the bombing that ended WWII.
[…] this column by Robert Cringley, which also talks about how the current disaster is much less bad than Chernobyl […]
Sodium is highly combustable when it contacts water or air. What happens if the Toshiba mini nuke ruptures, which is not unlikely in a huge earthquake? Won’t it just burn and spew radiation? The chances of a plant rupturing would be a lot higher because there would be 1200 of them.
how do they stop the 4s from getting ripped off and used as a weapon? or how do they stop someone from putting a bomb (or driving an airplane) into the 4s and creating mass contamination in a highly populated area? how do they stop someone tunneling underground and jacking one?
what is the security process for the installation, transportation, and disposal phases of a 4s unit life? where do you put all the used ones? do they take up more space than spent fuel rods?
im sure there are solutions, i would just like to hear them.
D’oh!!! It just dawned on me. Where are the cooling towers, as at TMI?? None of the pictures I’ve seen show any. How can that be? Simple. They used river/sea water as secondary coolant, just as they do here. So, siting on the coast was very much on purpose; doesn’t look so wise right now. Not having the cooling towers is aesthetically superior; however, I recall controversy over the use of such estuary water to cool power plants. It seems that fish kills occur in the immediate area of discharge, even though the temperature rise is just a few degrees.
https://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20100211-state-thermal-effluent-standards
[…] 15.04 kl 09: og reaktor 4 har hatt en brann). Disse systemene liker ikke saltvann, så det er en ganske dramatisk ting å gjøre. Kanskje går det samme vei med reaktor 3. Tre ytterligere reaktorer ved dette enorme kraftverket […]
I just want to make two simple points. Sodium is a highly reactive metal . Earthquakes could break open a Toshiba Gen 4s reactor and spawn a horrific sodium fire. Great solution.
Soviet Alfa class submarines used a lead-bismuth coolant. Which offers two great properties . Lead and bismuth are nonreactive compared to sodium or potassium . If and when a reactor fails the coolant is lead, when it cools the reactor is encased in lead not salts or a reactive metal.
https://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=132&storyCode=2054804
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-cooled_fast_reactor
What needs to happen…
The majority of buildings that are built from this point forward, especially houses, need to be self sufficient in terms of electricity. This means a combination of geo thermal, solar and wind power to provide electricity, and a battery to store any unused power.
We have to look at a different model for power, the current model is not sustainable and is so very primitive that we’ll look back in 100 years and laugh at how stupid we were.
I agree with John. Energy supply must be decentralized as much as possible. The source of the energy dito. This solves a great, great deal of problems but also presents us currently with many challenges.
The problems it solved are: No more dependency on limited resources and all the political involvement associated with that, no risk of entire areas going black in case of infrastructural failure, no easy huge targets for terrorism.
The challenges are mostly in being able to get enough energy from a local environment to power the local area. It will likely have to be a combination of factors, e.g. solar, waste processing. But also, to some extent, fuel brought in from less decentralized sources. And then there is a need for sufficiently efficient storage with high enough capacity with limited risks to act as a buffer.
Tried to make an energy sufficient house in 1999. Would have cost about $80k for the additional roof space and panels – a bit rich for a $200k house.
The real issues were there was no utility ‘net metering’ in TX at the time so the utility didn’t have to buy back power – you either ran on solar or the grid. The most perplexing/exasperating issue was the HOA, which absolutely forbade any solar *anything* on rooftops. No passive solar water heaters, no PV panels, nada. They even told me I couldn’t go with high-reflectance roofing.
Attitudes have changed/improved quite a bit since then, but you still don’t see many TX houses with solar installed.
A possible major drawback of using many small nuclear power plants is that they all have to be running 24/7 and cannot be throttled. With a few big power plants covering a large area this is less of a problem, as local industry will be able to use up the power during idle periods. With these microplants, this is much less likely to be possible. To fix that, the energy produced during non-peak hours should be stored in a buffer, and proper solutions for that are not readily available at this time.
When the full power of your home’s reactor isn’t needed, the locally generated power could be fed back into the grid. It’s already done, at least in the US. If everyone was doing this you’d probably want to turn the grid into something more like a mesh, for greater efficiency, but that’s just an infrastructure upgrade.
And if you still wanted a local buffer you could use batteries, which could be swapped out and charged in succession. Or something like pressurized water or air with a turbine, or even a large flywheel.
“Or something like pressurized water or air with a turbine, or even a large flywheel.”
You can’t pressurize water. Well, you can but it’s volume doesn’t change. Next?
wondering what the fuss is about, 1923 earthquake death total 120,000, war total for ww2 exceeds how many?
THe human condition seems to devalue life ,perhaps as a defence tactic, some die early to allow the rest to live.
Sorry but can’t think if this happened in the U.S. ,or Canada would Japan or China rush to aid. I Don’t think so.
The underground installment is a great idea as with most infrastucture, why didn’t anyone insist on this before, funding ,cost benefit analysis , an old bugabear.
When Katrina happened Cuba, who is geared and apparently regularly moves huge numbers (with there pigs) without loss of life, did offer help discreetly, but was rebuffed….
Well it’s a matter of pride really. When America suffers a disaster, america doesn’t want help from other countries. And when they do accept help, the politicians will keep it quiet. (as has happened in previous disasters in the US)
For the same reason politicians in the US would never admit that a certain system (healthcare, education etc) works better in some other country, because that would be admitting that the US is not the best in everything everywhere. Which would be political suicide.
Hats off to you Bob for improving the signal to noise ratio of the discussion. Between the hopeless optimists and the nuclear armageddon crowds you are a breath of fresh air.
Keep up the good work.
You’ve got to be joking about the rolling blackouts in Japan lasting for YEARS.
The main reason these are happening right now, is due to most of the 55 reactors nationwide automatically powering down – and I suspect they will need to be integrity checked before they are allowed to power back up, especially the older reactor designs, what with the events at Fukushima.
Japan shouldn’t build reactors on islands. Japan should agree with the continental states about building the atomic power stations in their territory.
[…] I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Is anything nuclear ever really super safe small and simple… – Is anything nuclear ever really super safe small and simple?: The gaping maw of Chernobyl.Absent some terrible n… […]
I would have to go a bit further than the title suggests. Is anything realy totally safe. A follow on question is how much safety is enough. Absolute safety has an infinite cost.
And i would have to question just why we are so tied up with everything must be safe this constant clamour for safety is stiffeling us and our ability develop we are going nowhere unless we get rid of this safety safety safety ,, let me put it like this why are we not on the moon now simple because some silly little ouik alloweed the health and safety brigade to win brave up people we do actually need to get off this lump of rock we call earth sooner rather than later
Seems that here, like in many cases, the real problems here are political/cultural, not technical. see:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-17/japan-s-nuclear-disaster-caps-decades-of-faked-safety-reports-accidents.html
I have to wonder if other “face-saving” high-context cultures have similar skeletons in their closets. At least us western cultures expose our skeletons earlier..
Bob, not to quibble but the reactor in Chernobyl was ON FIRE. It wasn’t just free radiation billowing out of there. Pieces of graphite and everything else were BURNING.
It wasn’t dumping one or two things. It was dumping tons and tons of many different things. They even tried dumping water (not just the firefighters, but from helicopters) at first in what was later considered a rogue operation by local authorities.
It was more than 2 tonnes of sand and clay, more than 2 tons of lead, and boron (which was mixed in with the sand initially) in much smaller amounts.
I didn’t know there were Americans on site in Chernobyl in 1986, aside from Hans Blix and his IAEA team that came in. Where can I read about this?
How can anything as ginormous as our energy consumption be simple or completely safe?
[…] vol plantejar-se l’ús d’altres tipus de tecnologia com els Toshiba 4S que proposa Bob Cringely que són tan xicotets que caben en un tràiler, operen soterrats a 30 metres, estan tancats […]
Bob, can you tell me how the Japanese 4S differs from the Canadian Slowpoke? They both sound pretty similar.
“Absent some terrible news from Japan”
Does this qualify?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1369216/Fukushima-Fifty-First-pictures-emerge-inside-Japans-stricken-nuclear-power-plant.html
makes me glad I am 350 miles from the nearest one here in CA. Would not want to be near NJ.
It was more than 2 tonnes of sand and clay, more than 2 tons of lead, and boron (which was mixed in with the sand initially) in much smaller amounts.
Japan needs to take all the contaminated land and grow soybeans for making biodiesel. Industrial Green Power Inc sells an APGU(Advanced Power Generation Unit) that runs the MYT(massive yet tiny) engine from Angel Labs LLC invented by Raphial RG Morgado. Raphial’s engine runs on biodiesel and doesn’t use engine oil. The unit is expected to be rolled out the beginning of 2012. IGPI’s 2MW units will do the job safely and meet all the GHG regulations and Japan will have the cleanest and most economical power generation on earth.
מרכז היבואנים…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Is anything nuclear ever really super safe small and simple? – Cringely on technology[…]…
toshiba top…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Is anything nuclear ever really super safe small and simple? – Cringely on technology[…]…
Global SMT & Packaging magazine for electronics assembly and advanced packaging professionals….
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Is anything nuclear ever really super safe small and simple? – Cringely on technology[…]…
Amazing post! I, Cringely » Blog Archive Is anything nuclear ever really super safe small and simple? – Cringely on technology seriously makes my night a little bit brighter 😀 Keep on together with the magnificent articles! Heed, want
PC GAMES…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive Is anything nuclear ever really super safe small and simple? – Cringely on technology[…]…
your industry or niche.use the internet -…
there www has millions of blog posts, articles and white papers which should allow you to research your subject in detail and then write some quality content about it. once you know your subject, you can then use the internet to…
[…] that started last year in Japan following the tsunami. But unlike those previous columns (1,2,3,4,5), this one looks forward to the next Japanese nuclear accident, which will probably take […]