In thinking nuclear power plants shouldn't be built in earthquake zones

[VivienScott]

I've been watching the situation in Japan A LOT over the weekend, and I've heard people say things along the lines of there was always a risk of a major earthquake potentially causing a risk of melt down in nuclear facilities.

I can't help but think really they shouldn't be building them if they thought this as the problems related to nuclear meltdown have a global impact.

I know that they don't have a huge amount of options apart from hydro power which they have discounted as the risk of a dam bursting in an earthquake is very dangerous for people living nearby, but, and I know this sounds quite mean, I can't help but feel, people can choose whether or not to live in in the path a broken dam might take, it's fairly contained and predictable, but the fallout from a nuclear meltdown can travel miles and miles, to countries where people are not benefitting from the power generated and in an unpredictable path so there is not choice or escape.

AIBU feeling this way?

Yes, YABU. Nuclear fission plants shouldn't be built anywhere, for the reasons you've stated. They don't only fail when on quake lines.

i think you are bu

experts in nuclear weapons know a tad more than us.....so will have reasoning behind this thinking

Yes because it wasnt the earthquake that has cause the problems with the nuclear power stations it was the tsunami which took out the coolant generators. The earth quake safety features all worked very well.

I was thinking the same thing myself - glad I'm not the only one . Especially as they were saying on the radio that the Japanese are the best nation on the planet for preparing for the risk of earthquakes.

And yes if you use a lot of electricity in your daily life - including a computer. people are too wasteful and demand for electricity for the new gagets etc is far too high and in soo many cases completely unnecessary. If people are going to continue to use electricity in the levels that are currently demanded then we are going to have to find ways to suppply. reusable resources cannot meet this demand.

AIBU that if you want to prevent nuclear reactors being used that u should be working to reduce significantly the electricity consumption.

Neither the Three Mile Island nor Chernobyl incidents were caused by seismic activity. Nor was Windscale (which no one seems to be mentioning).

IIRC, no nuclear incidents were reported after Kobe, or any of the other earthquakes that hit Japan so frequently.

Nuclear plants are (according to one talking head) are designed to withstand massive shocks, even aircraft strike.

Are you saying there should be no nuclear power stations? If so, would the world have to massively expand a fossil fuel based system? Or brace itself to use far less electricity?

I've no answers I'm afraid.

Why does everyone forget about sea energy (or whatever it's called) and off-shore wind farms? These are perfect for both the UK and Japan, being island countries. Yes, it's expensive to start up, but it's better than running out of fossil fuels or suffering from radiation poisoning.

rina it's tidal energy and is being trialled in the UK off the SW and Wales coast. It needs long term trials for its effectiveness and also to see what changes it causes to the environment, including potential shifts in the sediment/sea bed and impact on wildlife.

just because it's under the sea doesn't mean it's safe!

• should have been marine and wildlife

Crystyclear, oh, I see. I should have realised there could be problems along those lines! Thanks :)

IIRC, the drawback with renewables is the amount of power they generate is far lower then fossil or nuclear alternatives. Are there any power experts in MN who know how the figures stack up?

I don't know where I stand on the nuclear debate TBH.

Japan in particular has fewer other resources like gas and coal to rely on. As someone else pointed out the power stations withstood the earthquake very well. It was the tsunami they didn't cope with. They were old too, more modern facilities are even better equipped.

Also seismic activity can happen almost anywhere. We have earthquakes in this country too. A tsunami, whilst a remote possibility, could happen here to - certainly has happen in the long distant past. The earthquake in Christchurch was not considered likely either.

I'm not saying any of this by way of supporting nuclear power, more that there is no where free of risk. We need energy, if we don't want to give up our current lifestyles then it has to come from somewhere, and in large quantities. I really hope that renewable energy technology develops at a fast pace, but I'm not very hopeful it will meet all our demands. If nuclear energy is not developed then I can see we will all have to readjust our lives to consume less (perhaps this is a good thing?)

The Fukushima plants were built to withstand an 8.2 magnitude quake.

That they withstood an 8.9 (which is 5 times stronger than an 8.2) is testament to Japanese engineering.

As has been pointed out, the combination of the quake and the tsunami was the problem in taking out the generators for the residual cooling circuits.

It's very unlikely that there will be a complete meltdown but even if there is it will be contained in the containment vessel and there is no possibility of a Chernobyl style incident. It would be a mess to clean up but a completely localised incident.

OP, YABU and very much out of your depth. If I may suggest, do read up on nuclear physics and plate tectonics.

Re a broken dam. How spectacularly ignorant to think that people can choose not to live along the potential path of the water. There are often people already living there when they build them. How easy do you think it would be to sell your house if you "chose" not to live there any more?

"Fairly contained"

There is no fallout from a meltdown per se. That would need a containment failure.