What's new

Earthquake and the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant

Han Chan

先輩
14 Mar 2006
402
16
28
Does anyone know who made the decision to place the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in one of the most active earthquake zones in Japan? Is it a matter of incompetence or corruption?


According to Wikipedia the plant is the biggest in the world: "Kashiwazaki-Kariwa NPP is a relatively new nuclear power plant located in the towns of Kashiwazaki and Kariwa in the Niigata Prefecture. It is owned and operated by The Tokyo Electric Power Company.

According to the Guiness World Records, it is the largest nuclear plant in the world, with a total electrical output of 8,212 MW."


During the last few years there have been so mane strong quakes in the Niigata region. I guess it must be a matter of time before a more serious accident happens at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant...:(
 
Last edited:
Think one factor that comes into force when building a nuclear reactor/power station is placing it away from built up areas. Having lived near one myself and passing it on my way to work every day, it was out in the middle of no-where.

The fact that it is in an earthquake zone is important but having been to California, which is also an earthquake zone, I am sure that all nuclear plants are built as strong as they can possibly build them.
 
And even the most active earthquake zones need electricity if you're going to put cities there. They can't ship in the electricity from Pakistan.
 
Japan had more earthquakes than anywhere else in the world...there is no truly safe place for a nuclear reactor anywhere in Japan. I feel there is no safe place anywhere in the world as well. But, I do use electricity and have no plans on stopping using it, so I guess it is something that I have to live with.
 
Last edited:
Situation at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant was more serious than initially

Just like the Soviet authorities in connection with the Chernobyl disaster, now several days after the accident it is revealed that the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant accident were actually more serious than originally claimed:

THE ASAHI SHIMBUN, 07/18/2007:

Quake damage at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant was more extensive than initially thought, with radioactive materials discharged into the air, barrels of waste overturning and transformers leaking oil, officials said.

Full article: The Asahi Shimbun | Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis
 
Nuclear stuff is dangerous we have found out over the years and we need to find an actual green alternative.

It might be interesting to note how nuclear stuff is covered?
'Never mind the inherent dangerousness of it,
check out this new technology that will be able to clean it up,'
 
Nuclear power is the way to go. The general public is so apprehensive about it that no wonder any of the few nuclear power plant accidents that do occur make it to the news in such great detail. The pollution, if any, that would be let out of a power plant in case of an accident would be microscopic compared to how much coal and natural gas churns out every day. I don't see any news reports on how much more pollution coal and natural gas are producing. Most of the public see nuclear power as "dangerous" because it involves radiation and really have no knowledge of how a power plant actually works. I'm no expert but my knowledge of a power plant leads me to believe it is far better than any alternative. The media just likes to feed the public's fears of nuclear energy.
Nuclear stuff is dangerous we have found out over the years and we need to find an actual green alternative.
I'm interested in what green alternatives you are talking about. Please don't feel threatened, I'm not going to insult you or anything, just want another view on the matter.
 
I'm interested in what green alternatives you are talking about. Please don't feel threatened, I'm not going to insult you or anything, just want another view on the matter.

During the late 1970ies we had a very strong public campaign against nuclear energy in Denmark. Back then I was active campaigning. We were often ridiculed when we claimed that renewable energy was a good alternative. In the end we won, and since the Chernobyl disaster no politicians here have dared to campaign for nuclear power.

We now have no nuclear power plants in my country, instead we have managed to limit our electricity consumption by using modern technologies, while at the same time investing in renewable energy.

Today Japan produces about 30% of its electricity from nuclear energy. In Denmark Renewable energy (wind and biomass) has been making inroads into the energy mix and now accounts for nearly one-fifth of all electricity generated.

Japan has a significant hydro-electricity production, but expanding it might have serious environmental implications. I would think that Denmark and Japan has equally good conditions for wind power, but you hardly find any sizable windmills in Japan. Further the potentials for expanding solar power are good. Biomass will only become relevant for Japan when 2nd generation technology becomes effective in a few years time - then many waste products will become viable for fuel and hydrogen production.

Denmark has proved that you can have significant economic growth, while keeping energy use stable and gradually using higher percentage of renewable energy.
 
I'll chime in also. The fact that these reports came a day later is normal. Have you ever worked in a power plant? They are huge. And the storage facility would have been one of the last places checked. That, and the facility would be built to contain spills, if and when they happen. I doubt that there is any real danger.
 
I'll chime in also. The fact that these reports came a day later is normal. Have you ever worked in a power plant? They are huge. And the storage facility would have been one of the last places checked. That, and the facility would be built to contain spills, if and when they happen. I doubt that there is any real danger.

I would be very concerned it it really takes till the day after before a radiation leak is detected! Either they knew and kept quiet or they are not able to get realtime data regarding rediation leaks. The first would be arrogant and the second outright incompetent.
 
Have you ever worked in this environment, under the stress of an earthquake? If not, who are you to question? I have!
 
In the end we won, and since the Chernobyl disaster no politicians here have dared to campaign for nuclear power.
Chernobyl is just another example of how NOT to build a nuclear power plant. Nuclear power plants built in the U.S. and Japan use a much safer system than Chernobyl. In the U.S. and Japan power plants use a "light water" system that not only cools the reactors but also "moderates", or slows down, stray neutrons from the fission reaction (slower neutrons are more likely to cause fission when colliding with the uranium). It acts as its own safety valve. For example, if the water begins to heat up its density is lowered. A lower density means less and less neutrons can be slowed down, making the reaction harder and harder to mantain. After awhile, if the problem is not already spotted, the reaction would simply stop. Essentially the worse that could happen is the fuel rods melt from the heat and you have to replace the rods. In Chernobyl, the plant did not use water but instead used graphite to moderate the neutrons. When the graphite heated up, it simply kept moderating those neutrons at the same pace and kept fueling the fission reaction.
Further the potentials for expanding solar power are good.
Solar power takes a lot of land to provide an adequate source of energy, and that is just one thing Japan doesn't have enough of. I could be wrong though, feel free to correct me.
We now have no nuclear power plants in my country, instead we have managed to limit our electricity consumption by using modern technologies, while at the same time investing in renewable energy.
Interesting, what modern technologies are you referencing to?
In Denmark Renewable energy (wind and biomass) has been making inroads into the energy mix and now accounts for nearly one-fifth of all electricity generated.
What accounts for the other four-fifths?
...then many waste products will become viable for fuel and hydrogen production.
I agree that hydrogen fuel (is that what you were referencing to?) would be the best alternative to any current method, including fission reactors, but right now the technology is ahead of us. Also, just on a side-note, France produces the majority of its electricity through nuclear power plants. So really it depends on which country you visit.
 
I would be very concerned it it really takes till the day after before a radiation leak is detected! Either they knew and kept quiet or they are not able to get realtime data regarding rediation leaks. The first would be arrogant and the second outright incompetent.

Unless your spouse or Goldiegirl ;) suddenly grows a beard, you have nothing to worry about.
 
Have you ever worked in this environment, under the stress of an earthquake? If not, who are you to question? I have!
I have never worked at a nuclear power plant, but I assume that the radiation level is constantly measured.

I have been working during earthquakes and daily powerful aftershocks. For a moment everyone keeps quiet and looks at each other, but then continue your tasks. If staff at nuclear power plants reacts differently, I would be surprised. Maybe something like this::gulp::smoke::sleep:?
 
Dear Half and Half

I tried to answer you questions below - in italic:

Quote Half n Half:
Solar power takes a lot of land to provide an adequate source of energy, and that is just one thing Japan doesn't have enough of. I could be wrong though, feel free to correct me.
Actually there are a lot of suitable roofs on top of factories and shopping malls.
Interesting, what modern technologies are you referencing to?
Low energy light bulbs and flat screens use about 20% of old fasioned bulbs and screens. We also invested a lot in insulating our buildings, and though it does not mainly conserve electricity it does save fuel.
What accounts for the other four-fifths?
Oil, Natural gas and coal.
I agree that hydrogen fuel (is that what you were referencing to?) would be the best alternative to any current method, including fission reactors, but right now the technology is ahead of us.
I agree that good solutions for sustainable fuel production is still a few years away. Using maize for ethanol is only making poor peope starve in Africa starve because they can not affort to buy their maize. Hydrogen, by the way is only the solution if it is produced in a sustainable manner.
Also, just on a side-note, France produces the majority of its electricity through nuclear power plants. So really it depends on which country you visit.
That is my point. A industrialized country manages without nuclear power, while Japan, like France have invested heavily in nuclear power
 
Thanks for answering my questions. You bring up a good point about solar panels being put on roofs. I totally agree with the ethanol driving up crop prices. I haven't heard instances of it affecting people in Africa (doesn't mean I don't believe you) but it definitely does/would cause meat prices to skyrocket. Less corn = less feed. Although, one could argue we all go vegan :). I'm glad I got another viewpoint on the subject.
 
Thanks for answering my questions. You bring up a good point about solar panels being put on roofs. I totally agree with the ethanol driving up crop prices. I haven't heard instances of it affecting people in Africa (doesn't mean I don't believe you) but it definitely does/would cause meat prices to skyrocket. Less corn = less feed. Although, one could argue we all go vegan :). I'm glad I got another viewpoint on the subject.

The price of maize is allready affected by ethanol production. If the production of ethanol for fuel dubbles during the next four years, as predicted, the effect for africans who rely on maize for their stable food will be serious: Biofuel production may raise price of food

Anyway this is off topic, so lets continue the nuclear discussion, OK?
 
I have never worked at a nuclear power plant, but I assume that the radiation level is constantly measured.
I have been working during earthquakes and daily powerful aftershocks. For a moment everyone keeps quiet and looks at each other, but then continue your tasks. If staff at nuclear power plants reacts differently, I would be surprised. Maybe something like this::gulp::smoke::sleep:?

Childish answer, but I will help you anyway. They have to react much like an Emergency room would...triage, then treat the problems accordingly. First action would be to ensure that equipment is ok, if not take it offline. Being that it is a power plant, you can't simply turn it off...you must transfer the existing load to another plant.

Once all equipment is taken care of then a good check of the plant would ensue. Checking for leaks etc...It could take several hours (6-10) to check one piece of equipment. I am sure that they had to call in off-duty personnel (which were home with their families after the quake) in order to do these checks. For them to come in also takes time.

The last thing that would have been checked would have been the waste storage areas. They have backup systems in place to prevent leakage. So they would not be high on your list of where to check.

As for radiation monitoring, it was stated in the article that the levels were well below allowed limits...therefore I am sure that they were checking for leaks, but it was not an imminent danger spot at the time.

I am not saying that they could not have done better, but for a layman to sit here and criticize, while having no idea what goes on in this type of situation, makes me sick! Could they have more people on shift on a daily basis to ensure that this goes quicker in the event that there may be a quake in the future? Sure they could, but then I am sure you would complain about your electricity bills being too high wouldn't you?

edit: then I realize that you aren't even in Japan...just complaining for the sake of complaining...wonderful!
 
I just got back, what's going on?
I'm interested in what green alternatives you are talking about. Please don't feel threatened, I'm not going to insult you or anything, just want another view on the matter.

I think Han Chan adequately answered this, and much better than I could hope to.

Another thing we could do is require all newly built homes to have solar panels.
When building new homes we already have building codes for the number of outlets in each room, amount of insulation in the walls, number of exits, plumbing, etc... Seems like the next logical standard.


As per poverty in Africa and the price of maize,
it wouldn't be so bad if Economic Hitmen like John Perkins
didn't swindle countries into accepting ridiculous IMF/World Bank baloney.
Globally, it's actually a food distribution problem, not a food shortage.
 
edit: then I realize that you aren't even in Japan...just complaining for the sake of complaining...wonderful!

As this is a english language forum you can not expect that we are all in Japan at present.

I am not complaining, I am merely amased. I know a lot about the destructive force of major earthquakes, but I agree I am not an expert in the opration and procedures at nuclear facilities.

Half of my family is in Japan, I go there at least twice a year I might move there with my japanese wife in the future. But even if I had no close links to Japan I think it would be allright to voice my concern.

If you want the public to react rationally during a dissaster it is essential that they can trust that they are given exact and timely information. If it takes several hours before a radiation leak the concerned public will find it hard to trust the messages from the authorities. If data about leaks are not shared with the public immediately, it is even worse.

Every day the latest news seems to indicate that the situation was more serious than previously thought: The Asahi Shimbun | Breaking News, Japan News and Analysis
 
Last edited:
A public information site around "Kashiwazaki - Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant"
"Radioactivity measurement" and "Direction of the wind"
http://www.k4.dion.ne.jp/~ngtl-rad/
Driving information of a nuclear reactor of a nuclear power plant.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/nu/kk-np/index-j.html
Now seven nuclear reactors stop.
My opinion,
In spite of a big earthquake of M6.8, it is splendid that seven nuclear reactors stopped safely.
The epicenter was the 9km offing of a nuclear power plant.
Even if a nuclear power plant did meltdown, it was not strange.
This experience is made use of in the next technology.
 
My opinion,
In spite of a big earthquake of M6.8, it is splendid that seven nuclear reactors stopped safely.

The epicenter was the 9km offing of a nuclear power plant.
Even if a nuclear power plant did meltdown, it was not strange.
This experience is made use of in the next technology.
Actually, I think a meltdown would be exceedingly improbable at a modern atomic facility even if there was no contamination released or danger to the public.

But 'splendid' ? Are you serious ??? When one of the world's largest nuclear power plants, built on 'unknown' fault lines in a highly active seismic region to relatively low magnitide specifications, reacts as it was designed and doesn't experience a catastrophic nuclear meltdown..that is something anyone should be congratulated for preventing ?? :eek:
 
Back
Top Bottom