|
|
Post by sod on Jun 17, 2012 19:26:21 GMT 9.5
here is a critical comment on the restart of the Oi plant. ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/opinion/AJ201206170019neither the venting filters, nor a quake-proof control centre have been established. i am curious about your opinion on this: do people who support nuclear power think that this is a good strategy? do you think you can win support for nuclear power with such a move? |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 17, 2012 20:35:48 GMT 9.5
Even without any safety upgrades (which should be done on a when convenient schedule for the remaining plants) it is still safer than the methane burners that replaced it while it was shut down so there is no valid argument against restarting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 18, 2012 16:07:13 GMT 9.5
There are valid reasons to restart reactors in Japan. (CO2 being one of them) But my question was about the way in which it is done: basically the Oi reactors have undergone security checks based on the pre-Fukushima regulatory. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303444204577460272545747302.htmlseveral important aspects have not been changed. (venting filters) this is even driving people from nuclear, who are not totally opposed to the technology. (as outlined in the WSJ article above) restarting the reactors also should be strategically combined with the massive support for renewables, which will now be offered. in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-energy-renewables-japan-idINBRE85H00Z20120618Look Anon, there are obviously different opinions about whether Japan should restart reactors or not. (i am sceptical, you totally support it) What i am interested in is, whether we can at least get some agreement over the way in which it is being done. (for example in Germany, the original plan of the red-green government, being a slow phase-out, was much better than the abrupt switch off done by Merkel) |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 19, 2012 3:09:14 GMT 9.5
some new and very interesting articles in japanese papers: another not-opponent of nuclear power opposes the restart. The professor believes that Oi plant is sitting over a fault line. www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2012/0618/Jitters-as-Japan-decides-to-restart-nuclear-reactorshis line of argument is very strong:
"I believe those who want to give the green light to the restart of these reactors should not offer indirect arguments, but rather should state clearly, 'safety is not secured, but we are allowing restart for various other reasons.' "it also doesn t help, that the mayor of Oi has a direct financial (family) interest in the restart of the plant. (end of the article above) ------------- this article in the asahi shimbun outlines the true reason for the restart: decommissioning all reactors would basically bankrupt the complete japanese power industry. ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201206180062------------ the plan to build quake proof emergency buildings is from 2007. but some utilities haven t even started to make a PLAN. Oi is among the reactors without an emergency centre. instead they plan to coordinate response from the cellar of existing buildings. japandailypress.com/9-japanese-nuclear-plants-yet-to-get-quake-proof-buildings-164430 |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 19, 2012 4:42:01 GMT 9.5
The reactors are safer than what they'll be replacing when they start up, that along is enough to justify a restart on safety grounds (the replacement power they are using because they have all those reactors shut down is more dangerous than nuclear).
Upgrading later at a more convenient time is quite acceptable (and nuclear reactors are designed to be able to be safe if they are directly on a fault line just in case you've accidentally built it over one).
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 19, 2012 6:43:00 GMT 9.5
Anon, there is a logical error in your argument above. Even if we assume that nuclear power is saver than other forms of energy on average, we are not allowed to conclude, that a specific nuclear power plant is saver than a specific fossile plant. i am curious, do you have any link that supports your claim about nuclear reactors and active fault lines? while there might be some parts on a plant that might survive the split, the majority will not. www.viewpointcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/japan-earthquake-split-highway.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 19, 2012 13:15:33 GMT 9.5
Given just how much safer nuclear is than fossil fuels the burden of proof of any claim that a nuclear power plant is more dangerous than a fossil fuel power plant lies with those who claim that, not those who claim that the fossil fuel power plant is more dangerous.
Also there hasn't actually been a case where an earthquake caused a safety problem at a nuclear power plant (damage to the plant, yes, but no safety problems even when the ground movement exceeds design parameters, remember that Fukushima was a tsunami washing out the generators, had it just been the quake with no water it would've just been some extra maintenance and upgrading to meet a stricter seismic standard but even delaying restart until the reactor has been recertified (which is what Japan has historically done) would have been an over-reaction).
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 19, 2012 22:48:23 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 20, 2012 5:03:28 GMT 9.5
Yes, sometimes earthquakes damage power plants, it's happened before.
But there is no evidence that the damage from the quake posed a safety problem (as I said before, had it not been for the tsunami the reactors would've just been repaired, upgraded to cope with the conditions experienced and then started back up again).
Oh and they didn't deny that there was meltdown at any point (or maybe you weren't actually following their statements) and I haven't seen any evidence that they lied about how much radiation was released.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 20, 2012 6:53:43 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 20, 2012 9:20:41 GMT 9.5
Do you have a reference to a follow-up which confirms it was indeed a leak and not just a sensor damaged by the earthquake? Besides if there ere a leak wouldn't more than one sensor show it? Tepco took until May (about one month after the event) to admit the full core melt. That's probably because it took them about that long to determine that was indeed what had happened. Trying to call it a INES 4 event is another hint on the attempt to hide the core melt. Where reasonable people see professionals doing their job to the best of their ability and classifying the situation based on the best data they have available you see conspiracy. So what do the reverse vampires have to do with it anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 21, 2012 7:17:09 GMT 9.5
Sorry, but with TEPCO, i see neither "professionals", nor "doing their job to the best of their ability". What i see is a scheme of denial against facts, up until the last possible moment. For example at the moment, TEPCO is denying its attempt to abandon the Fukushima plant. but we have transcripts and protocols of telephone calls: ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ201206090049"According to the exchanges around 8 p.m. on March 14, someone asked: “Around what time will evacuation of all workers from the site be ready?”" "all workers"! and even leaving a crew of 10 (which seems to be the final attempt to keep the denial up) would have been completely abandoning the plant for all practical purposes! MODERATOR
Again the link you give does not back up your contention, in fact the first paragraph says this:
A Diet investigative panel concluded that Tokyo Electric Power Co. never planned to withdraw all workers at the stricken Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, despite mounting evidence to the contrary.
Further violations of the Citation Rule will be deleted. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 21, 2012 7:31:52 GMT 9.5
They were ready to pull everyone out if they had to, that doesn't mean they were actually going to do it (but it is an option that would be worth having under the circumstances).
Whilst upper management at TEPCO did have some problems (although even then TEPCO are being used as a scapegoat to deflect blame away from the government for not being ready for such a quake despite despite it being a known possibility) the lower level people who were actually doing the work of reacting to the problems were doing the jobs as well as they could (and indeed the nuclear engineers at the plant are professionals).
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 21, 2012 7:49:01 GMT 9.5
MODERATOR
Comment deleted. Once again the link you posted did not substantiate your claim. Rather it concluded that the assertion you made was unproven.
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jul 2, 2012 2:24:01 GMT 9.5
Japan is restarting Oi plant under massive protest of tens of thousands. of Japanese people. www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120630a1.html#.T_B__fVCmkRat the same time, TEPCO plans to withhold material of telephone conferences which could provide informations about teir reactions to the crisis. |
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 2, 2012 11:54:57 GMT 9.5
sod: No one needs any further proof that the anti-nuclear movement is a vocal minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by David Walters on Jul 3, 2012 2:10:49 GMT 9.5
Screw Tepco. No argument from me. Too bad this duscussion is like who won the US Civil War: Russia or Germany? See....TEPCO isn't the owner of the ORI plant, KEPCO is. Deal with it. So how does all this have to do with KEPCO's plant start up?
David
|
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jul 4, 2012 4:56:57 GMT 9.5
MODERATOR
Despite a previous warning you continue to violate the comments policy on citations.
You provide no analysis, merely cutting and pasting numerous links which repeat ad nauseam what you have already stated.
That is trolling.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jul 4, 2012 6:22:55 GMT 9.5
it shows that lessons have not been learned. The most important lesson which hasn't been learned is that the anti-nuclear movement is more dangerous than nuclear power, everything else is a triviality compared to that. |
|
