Fallout Studios Forums

It's a sad day when an unforeseen disaster, even when handled very well, can be the death of some very important schemes.
Silly people.

Here's hoping Japan can show those media what-for and try to salvage the situation.

I have a friend over in Japan (study abroad), and the first few days after the incident/tsunami, she said that the media was blowing the whole thing out of proportion. Now it seems that.........this may no longer apply.

Chyros, on 17 Mar 2011, 0:53, said:

Not good. Nuclear power is an important stop-gap against fossil fuels until alternative energies improve in cost and efficiency.

I wish the artificial coal gets introduced into PP fast, it's several months and nothing... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...788D85F468285F9 This coal is supposed to utilize 13times more bio-mass from one hectare (16t) than the Swedish turnip (1.2t)... until then: Oh mighty ones, please, don't turn off every nuclear reactor you can... or you shall feel the wrath* of masses (including Greenpeace, excluding Austrians).

-----------------
*being heard from every pub
Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 20 March 2011 - 21:38.

Death toll has reached far into the quintuple digits, with an estimated 18,400 dead.

I heard from my parents that they've managed to start the cooling system for the Reactors, can anyone confirm this?

Last I heard they were attempting to start the cooling system so they could restore power to at least a portion of the population receiving power from the reactor. I haven't heard anything if the attempt was successful or not.

Sgt. Nuker, on 21 Mar 2011, 16:18, said:

Part of the plant had electricity again so they might turn it back on.
Edited by GDIZOCOM, 22 March 2011 - 00:59.

They pumped them full of sea-water. They aren't running again anytime soon tbh.

The cost to decontaminate the reactors is massive, they are decommissioning it for good.

Destiny, on 22 Mar 2011, 13:04, said:

Let alone the cost to repair the damage seawater does to the reactors >.> .

I would think using seawater to keep the reactors cool is the better alternative, despite the fact seawater is rather destructive. At least there won't be a meltdown. Thing is, what do they plan to do with the seawater once it's cone in contact with radioactive material?

Sgt. Nuker, on 22 Mar 2011, 15:25, said:

Dispose it as radioactive waste. And of course it's better to cool the reactors with seawater than let them melt down, but the plant will still be rather unsalvageable (at least not economically).

After what happened, you'd expect them to go looking for another energy source instead of trying to salvage what is left of this crappy nuclear one... Even pollution caused by coal would be preferable to having a constant nuclear menace in your country...

I suppose they'll build another nuclear power plant, and this time, the cooling systems that have their own generators.

CJ, on 22 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

Not really, nuclear power is still pretty damn safe, whereas with coal your creating pollution all the time. Nuclear is also a good option for Japan as they have very limited natural resources, last I heard they imported most of their natural gas / coal / oil. Prices of those resources are subject to fluctuations and price increases.

The most likely effect is that construction on nuclear power stations on an international scale will be halted, the safety regulations looked over and then updated, then construction will continue again.

CJ, on 22 Mar 2011, 16:14, said:

I disagree. Look at what happened; one of the worst earthquakes in recorded history followed by a 10m tall tsunami and it STILL didn't go Chernobyl. I'd call that pretty safe.

Destiny, on 22 Mar 2011, 16:28, said:

I don't understand why they don't build it underwater. That way, when the electricity goes fzzzt, it will automatically cool itself.

Ion Cannon!, on 22 Mar 2011, 15:57, said:

Yeah I'm aware that they do not really have an alternative :(
It is sad that humanity has to rely so much on Nuclear fission, well, here's to hope that nuclear fusion gets more attention now, at least it's much safer...

CJ, on 22 Mar 2011, 15:12, said:

We don't rely on nuclear power that much actually, I think worldwide about 4% of power is generated from nuclear power stations. Most still comes from fossil fuels.
Edited by Ion Cannon!, 22 March 2011 - 15:28.

Well Chyros, the problem is...how? Even SSBNs are built above ground. A submarine-sized nuclear reactor is not efficient nor will provide enough output, IMO...and I don't think you'd build a nuclear submarine just to connect the reactor to a city's power grid which would be VERY odd O.o

I'm sure you already know Chyros, the stuff in nuclear fuels and reactors don't cool down by themselves, radioactive decay, the heat builds up by itself or something, can't remember word-for-word.

You know, there's a reason why we're all living on land, and why we haven't built Rapture.

Also Ion:
Nuclear power provides about 6% of the world's energy and 13–14% of the world's electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for about 50% of nuclear generated electricity. - Wiki
Edited by Destiny, 22 March 2011 - 15:46.

Ion Cannon!, on 22 Mar 2011, 16:28, said:

For me, humanity kinda starts and stops at Japan, I mean, it's the only country in the world where no one was pillaging after a disaster and where people actually kept on working when they were in danger of dying at any moment...

It certainly starts there. Japan was, up until it lost most of it's north east coast, the largest provider of international aid bar none.

@ Underwater reactors, that ain't ever going to happen. You all know what sort of reaction we see when the black stuff hits a shore line, there is no chance on earth that anyone will attempt to place nuclear material under the ocean. About 60 million hippies and whale huggers would simultaneously assplode.

Wizard, on 22 Mar 2011, 19:28, said:

I'm not of these,plus I don't like the beach nor eating fish, yet I'd assplode too

Destiny, on 22 Mar 2011, 14:28, said:

They do already. The tsunami took out the diesel generators at the plant, which is why the cooling failed.

The problem with underwater reactors is that if the reactor does have to be flooded with seawater, then by design there is nothing between the open sea and all of the radioactive stuff in the reactor core. You'll get ridiculous levels of radiation in the coastal waters.

Destiny, on 22 Mar 2011, 17:28, said:

None of that is actually argument against an underwater reactor. No-one ever said that it had to be submarine-sized at all nor in the shape of such. I mean a literal nuclear power plant underwater.

Wizard, on 22 Mar 2011, 20:28, said:

But it would actually be considerably less harmful to the environment if you put it underwater D: .