Welcome to Just Commodores, a site specifically designed for all people who share the same passion as yourself.

New Posts Contact us

Just Commodores Forum Community

It takes just a moment to join our fantastic community

Register

Japanese only now starting to admit how bad the meltdown at F ukushima really is.....

Eevo

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
165
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
SA
Members Ride
VY SS Ute
Nuclear Power is the cleanest, safest and perhaps the one with the biggest bang for the money. The new reactors, the Breeder type, uses all the fuel and the waste. Here is a good chance to daemonize the technology.

i look forward to this become the reality.
 

Commo Baba

Active Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2014
Messages
673
Reaction score
99
Points
28
Location
Canberra
Members Ride
VX II Acclaim Wagon.
Thorium reactors are the go but they eat all the fuel so you can't make weapons out of the remains thus not being built.

On Topic: I for one saw at least one (two?) massive explosion from a Nuclear Plant on my telly and if you couldn't tell that was some serious shoot going down you weren't watching. "Nothing to see here"; yeah right !
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2013
Messages
411
Reaction score
14
Points
0
Age
42
Location
Melbourne
Members Ride
ya mum!
Controlled (often mistakenly called "cold") fusion reactors are the future. The technology isn't available yet but controlled fusion has been successful in a lab. Give it 20 years.
 

Eevo

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
165
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Location
SA
Members Ride
VY SS Ute
Controlled (often mistakenly called "cold") fusion reactors are the future. The technology isn't available yet but controlled fusion has been successful in a lab. Give it 20 years.

give it 40-50 years. most of that political, not technological.

also, they wont help consume nuclear waste like breeder reactors.
 

Grennan

Slayer of Stupid Threads
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
2,513
Reaction score
78
Points
0
Location
Glen Waverley, Victoria
Members Ride
VE SSV G8 Sportswagon
Nuclear power is probably very safe when it's done properly, however we live in a world that is primarily driven by profit/greed and that leads to cost cutting where possible and scenarios where these types of outcomes become possible.

edit: How/why did Chernobyl occur?

So first, Nuclear Power, today, is incredibly safe, considering most plants are still 1960 Era GEN2's theyve come a long way and have been refined really well. Canada has exported some really good technologies as well as the US (### was a US design IIRC).

Cost cutting measures, simply do not work in this field though. I am a great advocate of Nuclear Power in this country, yet I worry about it being implemented here. Call me bias or scoff if you like, but I wouldnt want any Labor affiliated politician getting within a pen stroke of it. It needs to be 100% bipartisan that the job needs to be done with the BEST contractors.

Do I think there are areas where Nuclear power is high risk? Yes, Japan is one of those areas. Japan and places like New Zealand are areas that Nuclear power should be very very carefully considered, both on the Ring of Fire and both susceptible to Natural Disasters that put it at risk.

Secondly, Chernobyl was a result of Cold War Technology in the hands of idiots who failed to contain and manage the danger and then tried to cover the entire thing up. It was a result of large scale human error (error and blatant lies), very poor procedures and design flaws.

Im afraid that articles like this and the Chernobyl link scare countries like Australia away from progress, people see the title and panic. We should be looking forward about 10-30 years at this point to the development of GEN4 and 5 technologies. Instead, were to busy debating Soviet secrets and Japanese Natural Disasters.

I think the article is fairly clickbaity, firstly, we all know if things went south there, they would have lost Tokyo. Theres nothing groundbreaking here. What this article highlights is the woeful contingencies for a disaster and the procedures and people in roles who cannot handle pressure. To knee jerk and say "Oh thats it, lets shut down Nuclear Power!" is fear at its finest. Japan get Earthquakes all the time, if you rip up the flowers everytime a disaster hit, youd never get anywhere. How about instead of hiring buffoons to head your Nuclear Advisory, hire someone who is oh I dunno, an expert in the field?

Not knowing enough about Japan specifically, I would think there is a good case for Hydro there, but what would they to if not Nuclear? Wind/Solar cannot support their base load.
 

Immortality

Can't live without smoky bacon!
Staff member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
22,480
Reaction score
19,936
Points
113
Location
Sth Auck, NZ
Members Ride
HSV VS Senator, VX Calais II L67
Isn't that the point though, Japan was supposed to be the poster boy for how the nuclear industry should be run, this natural disaster revealed the truth. It's unfortunate that it generally takes a big disaster to discover these faults.

There really is no need for nuclear power here in, we get something like 70%+ of our power from renewable sources already, once we get rid of that stupid (government subsidised) aluminium smelter in the south island we will be close to 100%.

Japan ran without Nuclear power for a couple of years until all plants were checked and deemed safe after the earthquake, not sure what alternative source they used, possibly fossil fuel based I would imagine.

My question about Chernobyl was simply because the whole meltdown started when some technician did something wrong, regardless of design the primary cause was human error. Even the US have issues, just look at there nuclear armed missiles and the maintenance problems they have had.
 

Grennan

Slayer of Stupid Threads
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
2,513
Reaction score
78
Points
0
Location
Glen Waverley, Victoria
Members Ride
VE SSV G8 Sportswagon
I still think Japan are very highly regarded when it comes to their handling of the situation.

They contained it very well given the magnitude of the Tsunami and Earthquake. Its continued to be contained quite well. The only thing that is flawed here is the representative to the Government had no idea.

There really is no need for nuclear power here in, we get something like 70%+ of our power from renewable sources already, once we get rid of that stupid (government subsidised) aluminium smelter in the south island we will be close to 100%.

Japan ran without Nuclear power for a couple of years until all plants were checked and deemed safe after the earthquake, not sure what alternative source they used, possibly fossil fuel based I would imagine.

Japan relies heavily on Nuclear. Theyre reopening all the reactors.

Just did a quick read, about 20% of energy comes from renewables, Geothermal and Hydro the main contributors there. So yes, when Nuclear went, they relied on fossil fuelsm (Oil, Gas and Coal).

I wish the Greens here allowed us to use Hydro. Alas. They only support Wind and Solar. Good luck producing the base load on that guys.
 
Last edited:

Immortality

Can't live without smoky bacon!
Staff member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
22,480
Reaction score
19,936
Points
113
Location
Sth Auck, NZ
Members Ride
HSV VS Senator, VX Calais II L67
I tend to disagree, TEPCO (the plant operator) downplayed how bad the disaster was, they originally likened it to the 3 mile accident in the US when in fact it is at the same scale as the Chernobyl meltdown as rated by the IAEA. Over the years since the accident occurred TEPCO have had to re-evaluate how bad this accident really is.

It is clear that the operator ignored warnings about the tsunami risk as well as the wider nuclear industry to a large earthquakes.

The way I see it, there were failures right through the system from the plant operator/staff all the way through to the government.
 

Dirbatua

AWOL!
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Messages
3,910
Reaction score
167
Points
63
Age
36
Location
S/e Victoria
Members Ride
VX SS Series 2
yea with earthquakes and tsunamis there is always major issues no matter what is running in the impact zone.

I'd be happy for them to slap a few reactors in the middle of bum#### nowhere, long as they dont go with cheapest quote like the australian government usually does then they would be fine.
 
Top