Japanese nuclear power firm inspected following mass data alterations

You just can't trust people these days.

TOKYO -- Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) launched an on-site inspection at the Japan Atomic Power Co.'s head office in Tokyo on Dec. 14 after it was learned earlier this year that the firm rewrote data related to safety reviews necessary to restart its Tsuruga Power Station Unit 2 in central Japan.

The NRA had temporarily halted its safety review of the Tsuruga plant's No. 2 unit after finding 80 data alterations and deletions in documents related to the power plant's geological condition.

I wonder really how much radiation is affecting the waters off Fukushima these days.

mainichi.jp...

a reply to: musicismagic

Another NRA?



More seriously, there was significant corruption uncovered after the tsunami caused the Fukushima failure. There needs to be constant reviews of safety procedures and site documentation to ensure that such working around safety problems does not happen again. To do this, there must be an attitude of distrust by regulatory authorities.

Thank you music.

I firmly believe this is the single most important event of this millennium.
All the wicked happenings since the Fukushima disaster have been designed and drafted to bury this until there is no retaliation possible from those affected.

Keep up the good work. I pray humanity stops playing with Gods fabric. Splitting the atom is like a mosquito biting an elephant.

Remember, remember.

a reply to: musicismagic

DBL

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: musicismagic
More seriously, there was significant corruption uncovered after the tsunami caused the Fukushima failure. There needs to be constant reviews of safety procedures and site documentation to ensure that such working around safety problems does not happen again. To do this, there must be an attitude of distrust by regulatory authorities.

No, actually, what needs to happen is a real, doable, sensible 'new green deal'...

Immediate and unlimited resources should be applied to building the first truly safe nuclear reactors (LFTRs), and mandate that every single existing nuclear reactor be replaced with them within the next 20 years.

This is easily achievable, since the technology is already proven, and just needs to be tweaked for commercial production.

This tech could also be miniaturized, so so as to provide truly safe and decentralized power - from small boxes that power a house, to bigger ones that power skyscrapers or neighborhoods.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I'd get rid of the term 'new green deal' all together and start over. The term just screams 'unworkable'.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: musicismagic
More seriously, there was significant corruption uncovered after the tsunami caused the Fukushima failure. There needs to be constant reviews of safety procedures and site documentation to ensure that such working around safety problems does not happen again. To do this, there must be an attitude of distrust by regulatory authorities.

No, actually, what needs to happen is a real, doable, sensible 'new green deal'...

Immediate and unlimited resources should be applied to building the first truly safe nuclear reactors (LFTRs), and mandate that every single existing nuclear reactor be replaced with them within the next 20 years.

This is easily achievable, since the technology is already proven, and just needs to be tweaked for commercial production.

This tech could also be miniaturized, so so as to provide truly safe and decentralized power - from small boxes that power a house, to bigger ones that power skyscrapers or neighborhoods.

While LFTR is a step in the right direction, it also comes with its own inherent dangers if unregulated.

While newer tech is 'greener', it doesn't mean safer all round.

For instance, suppose that there is found to be a component in retail LFTR's that is likely to fail in 10 years, and there are millions of these little boxes containing the component. SCRAM'ing an LFTR leaves an unrecoverable and unusable but still radioactive spent reactor. Multiply that by a million or so and it is a massive ecological disaster.

... not to mention all the usual nuclear wastes that must be dealt with (such as depleted Uranium) and the conventional toxicity of many wastes.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: musicismagic
More seriously, there was significant corruption uncovered after the tsunami caused the Fukushima failure. There needs to be constant reviews of safety procedures and site documentation to ensure that such working around safety problems does not happen again. To do this, there must be an attitude of distrust by regulatory authorities.

No, actually, what needs to happen is a real, doable, sensible 'new green deal'...

Immediate and unlimited resources should be applied to building the first truly safe nuclear reactors (LFTRs), and mandate that every single existing nuclear reactor be replaced with them within the next 20 years.

This is easily achievable, since the technology is already proven, and just needs to be tweaked for commercial production.

This tech could also be miniaturized, so so as to provide truly safe and decentralized power - from small boxes that power a house, to bigger ones that power skyscrapers or neighborhoods.

While LFTR is a step in the right direction, it also comes with its own inherent dangers if unregulated.

While newer tech is 'greener', it doesn't mean safer all round.

For instance, suppose that there is found to be a component in retail LFTR's that is likely to fail in 10 years, and there are millions of these little boxes containing the component. SCRAM'ing an LFTR leaves an unrecoverable and unusable but still radioactive spent reactor. Multiply that by a million or so and it is a massive ecological disaster.

... not to mention all the usual nuclear wastes that must be dealt with (such as depleted Uranium) and the conventional toxicity of many wastes.

If we would just go back to a 5 day work week, we may not need nuclear power.
And knock out all these 24 hour a day type businesses 12 hour max.

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: tanstaafl

I'd get rid of the term 'new green deal' all together and start over. The term just screams 'unworkable'.

Nah, use their terms against them.

originally posted by: chr0naut
While LFTR is a step in the right direction, it also comes with its own inherent dangers if unregulated.

While newer tech is 'greener', it doesn't mean safer all round.

For instance, suppose that there is found to be a component in retail LFTR's that is likely to fail in 10 years, and there are millions of these little boxes containing the component. SCRAM'ing an LFTR leaves an unrecoverable and unusable but still radioactive spent reactor. Multiply that by a million or so and it is a massive ecological disaster.

Sorry, but that is nonsense... first it is pure speculation on your part, and it also ignores the fact that

... not to mention all the usual nuclear wastes that must be dealt with (such as depleted Uranium) and the conventional toxicity of many wastes.

Ummm. no? Some research on your part appears to be in order...

First, LFTRs can actually be used to consume the existing stockpiles of dangerous spent nuclear fuel rods and other nuclear waste, and second, they fissile 99% of the fuel, whether Thorium or other (but Thorium is definitely the preferred fuel once the existing stockpiles of dangerous waste has been eliminated) due to its massive abundance, availability, low cost and safety/no radiation danger).

Seriously. Small self-contained units can be engineered to last 50+ years, and be low cost enough to be recycled quickly and easily if/when they malfunction/fail, or come to their end of life (although, after 50 years, I'm sure the new ones will be small enough to wear to power you own superman PDD (personal transport device) for another 50 years.

originally posted by: musicismagic
If we would just go back to a 5 day work week, we may not need nuclear power.
And knock out all these 24 hour a day type businesses 12 hour max.

Ummmm... what are you talking about?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
While LFTR is a step in the right direction, it also comes with its own inherent dangers if unregulated.

While newer tech is 'greener', it doesn't mean safer all round.

For instance, suppose that there is found to be a component in retail LFTR's that is likely to fail in 10 years, and there are millions of these little boxes containing the component. SCRAM'ing an LFTR leaves an unrecoverable and unusable but still radioactive spent reactor. Multiply that by a million or so and it is a massive ecological disaster.

Sorry, but that is nonsense... first it is pure speculation on your part, and it also ignores the fact that

... not to mention all the usual nuclear wastes that must be dealt with (such as depleted Uranium) and the conventional toxicity of many wastes.

Ummm. no? Some research on your part appears to be in order...

First, LFTRs can actually be used to consume the existing stockpiles of dangerous spent nuclear fuel rods and other nuclear waste, and second, they fissile 99% of the fuel, whether Thorium or other (but Thorium is definitely the preferred fuel once the existing stockpiles of dangerous waste has been eliminated) due to its massive abundance, availability, low cost and safety/no radiation danger).

Seriously. Small self-contained units can be engineered to last 50+ years, and be low cost enough to be recycled quickly and easily if/when they malfunction/fail, or come to their end of life (although, after 50 years, I'm sure the new ones will be small enough to wear to power you own superman PDD (personal transport device) for another 50 years.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Sorry - is that supposed to be an answer? Or a pretension to superiority?

Since I am not embarrassed to admit I am not a nuclear scientist, possessing merely a laymans interest in such things, if you want to make a persuasive argument, you need to do so in layman's terms.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut

Sorry - is that supposed to be an answer? Or a pretension to superiority?

Since I am not embarrassed to admit I am not a nuclear scientist, possessing merely a laymans interest in such things, if you want to make a persuasive argument, you need to do so in layman's terms.

It is the nuclear process whereby a stray neutron causes two nuclear beta decays of Thorium to produce Uranium, which provides another stray neutron which kicks the process off again, in a loop.

That is how a Liquid Flouride-Thorium Reactor (LFTR) operates - it makes Uranium.

LTFR is dirty like other nuclear reactors, except that is cannot melt-down as the hotter Thorium moderates the process to limit reaction and reduce the heat - it just doesn't do thermal runaway.

originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut

"

Sorry - is that supposed to be an answer? Or a pretension to superiority?

Since I am not embarrassed to admit I am not a nuclear scientist, possessing merely a laymans interest in such things, if you want to make a persuasive argument, you need to do so in layman's terms."

It is the nuclear process whereby a stray neutron causes two nuclear beta decays of Thorium to produce Uranium, which provides another stray neutron which kicks the process off again, in a loop.

That is how a Liquid Flouride-Thorium Reactor (LFTR) operates - it makes Uranium.

Yes... and promptly uses it as fuel...

From the fine link I provided:

"Because a LFTR fissions 99%+ of the fuel (whether thorium, or plutonium from nuclear waste), it consumes all the uranium and transuranics leaving no long-term radioactive waste. 83% of the waste products are safely stabilized within 10 years. The remaining 17% need to be stored less than 350 years to become completely benign."

Emphasis mine...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut

"

Sorry - is that supposed to be an answer? Or a pretension to superiority?

Since I am not embarrassed to admit I am not a nuclear scientist, possessing merely a laymans interest in such things, if you want to make a persuasive argument, you need to do so in layman's terms."

It is the nuclear process whereby a stray neutron causes two nuclear beta decays of Thorium to produce Uranium, which provides another stray neutron which kicks the process off again, in a loop.

That is how a Liquid Flouride-Thorium Reactor (LFTR) operates - it makes Uranium.

Yes... and promptly uses it as fuel...

From the fine link I provided:

"Because a LFTR fissions 99%+ of the fuel (whether thorium, or plutonium from nuclear waste), it consumes all the uranium and transuranics leaving no long-term radioactive waste. 83% of the waste products are safely stabilized within 10 years. The remaining 17% need to be stored less than 350 years to become completely benign."

Emphasis mine...

If it consumed all the Uranium, then the reaction would stop. Without the Uranium, there aren't any more free neutrons released to feed back into the reaction. It gets it's 'heat' from the Uranium.

originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut
" "That is how a Liquid Flouride-Thorium Reactor (LFTR) operates - it makes Uranium."

Yes... and promptly uses it as fuel...

From the fine link I provided:

"Because a LFTR fissions 99%+ of the fuel (whether thorium, or plutonium from nuclear waste), it consumes all the uranium and transuranics leaving no long-term radioactive waste. 83% of the waste products are safely stabilized within 10 years. The remaining 17% need to be stored less than 350 years to become completely benign."

Emphasis mine..."

If it consumed all the Uranium, then the reaction would stop. Without the Uranium, there aren't any more free neutrons released to feed back into the reaction. It gets it's 'heat' from the Uranium.

This is why it uses Thorium. Thorium is the fuel source. As the reaction converts the thorium into uranium, and then uranium is consumed during the power production phase, more thorium must be added.

Seriously - it appears that you already know everything, and are incapable of ever learning something new.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut
" "That is how a Liquid Flouride-Thorium Reactor (LFTR) operates - it makes Uranium."

Yes... and promptly uses it as fuel...

From the fine link I provided:

"Because a LFTR fissions 99%+ of the fuel (whether thorium, or plutonium from nuclear waste), it consumes all the uranium and transuranics leaving no long-term radioactive waste. 83% of the waste products are safely stabilized within 10 years. The remaining 17% need to be stored less than 350 years to become completely benign."

Emphasis mine..."

If it consumed all the Uranium, then the reaction would stop. Without the Uranium, there aren't any more free neutrons released to feed back into the reaction. It gets it's 'heat' from the Uranium.

This is why it uses Thorium. Thorium is the fuel source. As the reaction converts the thorium into uranium, and then uranium is consumed during the power production phase, more thorium must be added.

Seriously - it appears that you already know everything, and are incapable of ever learning something new.

Liquird Flouride Thorium reactors 'breed' Uranium 233, which has a half life of 159,200 years. The Thorium is what is consumed, producing the Uranium 233.

The Uranium 233 or other radioactive fuel elements are not consumed by a Thorium reactor any faster than they would be consumed in more conventional reactors.

It the U233 was consumed, the reactor would stop and go cold. For it to be a working LFTR, it must have a significant neutron source - i.e: U233 or other radioactive fuels.

Please read this Wikipedia section on the removal of wastes from LFTR's. They aren't as magically 'clean' as you might have been led to believe.

There is a difference between the engineering and the marketing.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Liquird Flouride Thorium reactors 'breed' Uranium 233, which has a half life of 159,200 years. The Thorium is what is consumed, producing the Uranium 233.

-sigh-

Unless you decide to actually read the links I am posting, as well as read the links you yourself are posting, further discussion is apparently futile, but I'll try one last time...

From the 'Advantages' list from your own wikipedia link (maybe you'll click it and actually read it this time?):

"Less long-lived waste. LFTRs can dramatically reduce the long-term radiotoxicity of their reactor wastes. Light water reactors with uranium fuel have fuel that is more than 95% U-238. These reactors normally transmute part of the U-238 to Pu-239, a long-lived isotope. Almost all of the fuel is therefore only one step away from becoming a transuranic long-lived element. Plutonium-239 has a half life of 24,000 years, and is the most common transuranic in spent nuclear fuel from light water reactors. Transuranics like Pu-239 cause the perception that reactor wastes are an eternal problem. In contrast, the LFTR uses the thorium fuel cycle, which transmutes thorium to U-233. Because thorium is a lighter element, more neutron captures are required to produce the transuranic elements. U-233 has two chances to fission in a LFTR. First as U-233 (90% will fission) and then the remaining 10% has another chance as it transmutes to U-235 (80% will fission). The fraction of fuel reaching neptunium-237, the most likely transuranic element, is therefore only 2%, about 15 kg per GWe-year.[52] This is a transuranic production 20x smaller than light water reactors, which produce 300 kg of transuranics per GWe-year. Importantly, because of this much smaller transuranic production, it is much easier to recycle the transuranics. That is, they are sent back to the core to eventually fission. Reactors operating on the U238-plutonium fuel cycle produce far more transuranics, making full recycle difficult on both reactor neutronics and the recycling system. In the LFTR, only a fraction of a percent, as reprocessing losses, goes to the final waste. When these two benefits of lower transuranic production, and recycling, are combined, a thorium fuel cycle reduces the production of transuranic wastes by more than a thousand-fold compared to a conventional once-through uranium-fueled light water reactor. The only significant long-lived waste is the uranium fuel itself, but this can be used indefinitely by recycling, always generating electricity."

They aren't as magically 'clean' as you might have been led to believe.

I never claimed they were perfect, and acknowledge there are still some engineering details to be worked out, but that is the easy part - especially if we (via our taxes to the government) were funding it properly.

There is a difference between the engineering and the marketing.

Obviously - but you keep throwing out red herrings. Focus on real issues and I'll be happy to discuss it further.