Hacker News Reader

Comment by olaf | Hacker News Reader

First, the Fukushima case is not yet closed. Tepco told us today (faz.net), that the three damaged reactors are stiil out of control, at least until end of this year. We will see, what will happen.

Second: don't you ignore the risk of how many people _could_ die, in the case of a big disaster? That would have global conequences for quite some days (ironic).

Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal), the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power.

View on HN

>« Even if nobody would die under normal conditions (nuclear and coal »

Except the point of what I was saying and of the link I gave is precisely that under "normal conditions", people die due to coal, whereas it is not the case with nuclear plant.

The reason is that all a nuclear plant releases in the air is water.

> « the consequenences of a (more or less probable) big catastrophe (height of fall) are the main counter argument against nuclear power. »

You must take into account the odds of a probable disaster, such as an earthquake in Japan, but not the consequences of any disaster. It's just unreasonable to assume an improbable disaster will happen. You end up renouncing any technology by thinking that way.

Obviously, Nuclear power plant must be built with security as the main concern. Obviously, a nuclear reactor can be very dangerous. But refusing to use nuclear plants, which are much more efficient than classic ones and a good long-term investment, is idiotic.

We're far more likely to die in a car accident than because of radio-activity, or any other disaster that's on television. Yet, noone is suggesting that a country should be "car free".

Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.

Until a better, safer replacement is found, we'll use cars, and nuclear plants.

I'd wager the change of mind will happen rather quickly after the first terrorist crashes a plane into an US nuclear facility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7eI4vvlupY

Impressive video. However, I wonder if that test would look as good with a real passenger jet.

According to wikipedia the empty weight of a Phantom F4 is 30,328 lb.

The empty weight of a Boeing 737 is up to 80,000 lb (almost 3x as much). The empty weight of an A380 is 610,000 lb (20 times as much).

Would that the walls of the containment area on the reactors in Fukushima were that thick.

I'm pretty sure a big earthquake followed by a tsunami is more damaging than a plane crash.

The recent review of reactor safety here in Germany found that not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it.

http://www.bz-berlin.de/aktuell/deutschland/kein-deutsches-a...

I don't read German.

>« not a single site would survive a large passenger aircraft crashing into it. »

Now, what does that even mean ? If surviving means "keep on working", obviously not.

If it means destruction of the protection layers of concrete around the reactor, it's more dangerous, but just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.

just because the reactor is open, it doesn't mean the radioactive material is going to fly away.

How is the radiation supposed to be contained when your reactor just turned into a burning pile of rubble?

That's exactly why it's dangerous to anyone near the plant, as opposed to a Chernobyl-style or Fukushima-style disaster, where radioactive material is disseminated.

So, your reactor was just turned into a burning pile of radioactive rubble by having something like 150,000 lb of mass smashed into it.

And you say radioactive material will not disseminate?

Not on a comparable scale.

Besides, reactors are a small target that's mostly underground. That should limit the damage.

In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario ?

Weeks after Fukushima alleged terrorists were found making their way towards Sellafield in the UK. The obvious viability of this hypothetical attack became apparent after March 11th.

Yes, and ?

Nothing happened.

The fact is that terrorists want to target nuclear plants.

What's unlikely is that any of them should succeed. Terrorism isn't that easy.

Over a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everything drops to zero - and nuclear has a pretty long timeline.

It seems about as unlikely as someone flying planes into the world trade center...

But gladly terrorism isn't that easy, right?

Yes, it is probably more unlikely than a big earthquake followed by a tsunami.

How many terrorist attacks of that scale have been successfully conducted ?

Over the last twenty years, only one.

During the same period, there has been a dozen of large-scale earthquakes.

And as I said, you're fare more likely to die from a car accident than from any big disaster you see on television.

Not on a comparable scale.

Excuse me? As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima. And they were very worried about maintaining the cooling in the damaged buildings.

In a plane crash scenario we might be talking about no containment and no cooling at all. Instead we might be left with a pile of radioactive rubble and a kerosine fire.

After all you could be right that the scale would not be comparable...

In any case, may I remind you we're discussing a very hypothetical scenario?

Well, 9/11 did happen, and reactor walls are not built to resist a plane crash. So what exactly is hypothetical about the scenario?

As far as I know the damage to the containment was very limited in Fukushima

Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem.

See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open, but of course, if irradiated water goes right back in the ocean, there's dissemination on a bigger scale than Chernobyl.

« 9/11 did happen »

A huge scale terrorist attack like this is statistically less likely than an earthquake in Japan.

Right. Except water from the ocean was going in and out through the few tiny holes, and maybe that was the main problem.

Where are you getting that from? Afaik they flooded the buildings with seawater on purpose, as a means of cooling. They did that because it appeared to be the lesser of two evils.

See, uranium doesn't fly away when the reactor is open

It does seem to fly pretty well when you add fire. At least that's what the 2600 squaremile no-go zone in chernobyl would suggest.

statistically less likely than an earthquake

That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right?

How would you rate the socio-economic impact of a single such event in contrast to, say, 9/11?

Chernobyl had no core containment, it used graphite as a moderator, and it wasn't merely fire that disseminated radioactive material, it was a big explosion. Also, the director was incompetent. Note that the impact of Chernobyl remained rather localised. 2600 square miles may sound big, but on a European scale, it's not much, and Europe is the smallest continent.

If you're telling me poor design and incompetence are bad and especially dangerous in security-sensitive contexts, I agree. So ?

Flooding the reactors was indeed the lesser of two evils.

« That may be true, yet it's bound to happen eventually, right? »

No. It may happen.

Chernobyl had no core containment

Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it?

it was a big explosion

Likewise can we agree that there will be a big explosion when a plane crashes into a reactor?

the director was incompetent

And that is unheard of in other reactors?

on a European scale, it's not much

So, which of these areas would you like to evacuate permanently?

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/power-reactors-map-sm....

No. It may happen.

I wonder where you're taking your optimism from. Yes, terrorism may disappear. But it doesn't seem too likely, does it?

Can we agree that any given reactor will likely have no core containment either, after a passenger jet crashed into it?

No. A broken core containment still provides some protection.

I take my optimism from the fact that I'm not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening, which prevents me from being scared of meteor rains, terrorist attacks, or whatever disaster you can think of.

To put things in perspective, again :

There are much less nuclear power plants than there are dangerous pesticide or fertiliser factories. It is also more likely that a pesticide or fertiliser factory will be poorly maintained.

And yet, people who want to shut down nuclear plants are much more numerous and listened to than people who want to shut down chemical plants.

The only reason people are afraid of nuclear power is that it is associated with those bombs so powerful nobody ever dared to use them in a war since 1945.

There is no rational reason to shut down nuclear plants, and get rid of an energy source that's more efficient and cleaner than any other we know of.

A broken core containment still provides some protection.

Have you seen what a plane crash does to a structure?

As far as I know most reactor walls are not hardened to withstand a plane-crash. That means you wouldn't end up with a "broken core containment". You'd end up with a pile of rubble.

not too impressed by things that have little chance from happening

That's a valid opinion. But I think it's an equally valid opinion that terrorist attacks are not as rare as meteor rains. And that terrorists will specifically target these facilities.

The only reason people are afraid of nuclear power is that it is associated with those bombs

Personally my concerns are not related to the bombs.

I merely think the economic equation that makes nuclear plants appear cost-effective will collapse over the first such event.

Your average nuclear plant is said to be profitable to the tune of $500mio USD/yr. The total cost of the chernobyl disaster is estimated at around $235 billion dollars, and counting.

That means all US nuclear plants combined (circa 100) have to run for 10 years in order to break even with a single disaster. And that's under the assumption that a meltdown in the middle of the USA wouldn't be quite a bit more expensive than a disaster in the middle of Ukrainian nowhere.

Thus my conclusion is that the facilities will be shutdown rather quickly when and if such an event occurs.

reactors are a small target that's mostly underground

Not sure where you are getting this idea, but it's not true. The reactors are usually above ground, and they aren't small at all.

Compared to the WTC, it's quite small, and easy to miss from above. It's quite telling that most people identify a nuclear plant by its cooling towers, something that isn't a specific part of their design.

I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima... Now, the following facts are from my memory, so they might not be absolutely accurate, but I believe the points stand.

- It was hit by an earthquake with a magnitude 1 point higher than it was built for, and it was perfectly OK.

- Only the following tsunami damaged it, and only because it interrupted the power supply of the cooling pumps.

Let us not forget that the power plant was 20 or so years old. New plants would no doubt be much safer.

'only'?

6 reactors were affected. Four of them are wrecked. There are full pools of spent and active fuel exposed to sunshine.

Tepco had twenty years to build higher walls against a Tsunami. There were already enough complaints about the weak security before it got hit.

That there are earth quake in the sea causing Tsunamis is nothing new for Japan.

They failed.

You might be surprised to hear that there are also Tsunamis in North Europe.

They were lucky at Fukushima.

There were no substantial aftershocks that damaged the plant, nor were there any secondary tsunamis.

I can hardly imagine a bigger catastrophe than Fukushima

That's a failure of imagination. Imagine if a comparatively minor secondary tsunami had hit after the containment vessel had been breached. That could spread highly radioactive materials just abotu anywhere - and, worse - could have made it too dangerous to get close enough to the plant for the for the fire engines (!) to spray water to cool the reactors.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com