backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by athfbum.. on Aug 15 at 2:08 PM

The world's largest nuclear power plant demonstrates inherent safety

Those opposed to nuclear power have long raised doubts over its safety.  Often raised is the question, "what would happen if major earthquake struck one?"  Would a radioactivity release endanger millions?  

This morning, we got a chance to find out. A 6.8 earthquake struck northern Japan, almost directly underneath the massive Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Plant, responsible for a third of the Japanese residential electricity supply. The quake leveled hundreds of homes, left fissures 3 feet wide in the ground, and swayed buildings in Tokyo, 300 km away.

What happened at the plant itself? An electrical transformer caught fire and was quickly extinguished. And a tiny amount of mildly radioactive water was released -- one billionth of the safe amount allowed under under Japanese law, or 1/1,000,000 of what is generated from a single dental x-ray. Not even the workers actually inside the reactor were exposed to a dangerous dose, much less the general public. All reactors were shut down for inspection purposes, and initial reports indicate no damage or safety issues. 

And that's it.  Nothing to see here folks, move along.

The western world's nuclear safety record remains unbroken. Over five decades and thousands of reactor-years later, not one person has ever been harmed by commercial power generation. Nuclear power generates no greenhouse gases, and operating costs continue to drop, reaching a level of 1.66 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2006 -- one twentieth the cost of solar power. Despite all this, the U.S. and most of Europe continue to shy away from nuclear power, and pursue pie-in-the-sky energy approaches that, even if they eventually become feasible, will remain forever more expensive to operate.

The West may be ignoring nuclear power, but others are not. Last year, China announced plans to build 30 new reactors, in a bid to reduce air pollution and provide cheap power for its burgeoning economy.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This Proves?
By Ringold on 7/16/2007 6:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
How many more decades of evidence do you really need? :)

I think as long as standards remain high there will be virtually no accidents. I specifically use "accident" instead of, say, "incident", because clearly if you strike a containment building with powerful enough missiles then you're going to break something. That wouldn't really be an "accident", though, as perhaps much greater damage could be done with much less effort by taking out any of the numerous large dams built around the world.

As the blog indicates as well, and if you'd read up just a bit on the subject, the designs are inherently safe. Inherently. In other words, one almost has to try to screw up. This is the same thing with most aircraft; a modern Cessna will not stall or spin unless you make it do so. Many modern reactors will not have a "massive" Chernobyl-style release of radiation unless somebody really, really wanted it to happen.


RE: This Proves?
By Ratwar on 7/17/2007 1:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'd settle for a signed statement from God. :)

I agree, as long as the safety standards remain high, the chances of a problem a very small (almost non-existent). Still, there is no fool proof way to make sure standards won't drop. I am not saying that nuclear power shouldn't be used, only that there will be accidents or incidents in the future.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Related Articles
Nuclear Power Sets New Record
February 28, 2007, 6:39 AM
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki