OT. Japanese"nukes"

Page 1 of 2  
On Russian TV the other day. Someone has suggested that instead of nuclear power the japs should go for geothermal power. They are on the ring of fire and deep drilling and injecting water would produce steam. Holes arounf 2 or3 miles deep would be needed. Also suitable presumably for the US West coast. The big debate is whether or no this would cause earthquakes. Maybe even stop them by lubricating the tectonic plates.
Now, how could this sort of risk possibly be assessed without doing the experiment?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's already been done and geothermal sites have been shut down in Europe and elsewhere because it was clear that mucking about that deep in the earth does increase seismic activity: Basel, Switzerland's experience:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/462848a.html
"Basel, an industrial centre of Europe's chemical and pharmaceutical industry, borders France and Germany, and more than 700,000 people live in the area. It has a history of earthquakes; in 1356, the city was severely damaged by a magnitude-6.7 quake, the largest ever recorded in central Europe. . . . On 2 December 2006, GPB began injecting water into the well with increasing flow rates. As expected, thousands of micro-earthquakes were recorded. Because of the strongly increased seismic activity felt at the surface, injection was stopped on 7 December. A few hours later, a magnitude-3.4 event rattled the local population, causing fear and anger, and receiving international media attention."
I wouldn't put a lot of hope in geothermal heat for areas like Japan that experience M9.0 quakes. Efficiency demands such geothermal "wells" be placed close to areas of consumption. Japan's history of quakes tells us that could be a very, very bad idea.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good post. Interesting article. But impossible to assess earthquake probabilties I think. Were these earth quakes that would have happened anyway sometime in the future? Some body, somewhere is going to have to continue the experiment to the bitter end.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good post. Interesting article. But impossible to assess earthquake probabilties I think. Were these earth quakes that would have happened anyway sometime in the future? Some body, somewhere is going to have to continue the experiment to the bitter end. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
I became aware of the issue when a non-profit in New York City drilled a deep geothermal "tap" and got the same results and had to close down. Whatever lives down there doesn't like it when we drill down to steal their heat. (-: I believe we'll see geothermal fade as a result of the number of sites that have demonstrably boosted the local seismic activity. What's more interesting to me is that China is sitting on information that could prove a definitive link between dam building and seismic activity. Apparently adding the weight of huge new lakes can cause some deep underground shifting and earthquake activity. At least when a dam breaks during an earthquake, it's all over pretty quickly. Nuclear power plant troubles could go on for years . . .
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert Green wrote:

when they built a new dam near me about 25 years ago and started filling it, you could hear the ground making noises for about a year afterwards as the ground settled and all the subterranean crevices/caves filled up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Until I started research man-made seismiscity, I had no idea about how much dams can affect the surrounding areas. It's a massive weight and the pressure of the water forces it into lots of places deep under the ground, often causing small earthquakes as the rocks and soil shift and compact. The Chinese are apparently surpressing information that shows that a recent major earthquake near a dam was caused by the dam itself.
Break/break. On a marginally related subject, I saw a fascinating geological "detective story" the other day. In a river bed consisting of the usual layers of sediment, they kept find granite rocks about the size of potatoes embedded in the layers of sediment. It had been formed long before any humans or apes might have been pitching rocks into the river and there were enough of them spread around the site to make it clear this was some sort of natural geological action but they couldn't figure out what.
By matching the granite through radio carbon dating and other methods, they discovered the rocks came from much farther north. They were too heavy to have swept along by the current - if they had, the sedimentation would not have been so evenly deposited around them. So current carrying was ruled out as a source. Finally, someone realized that the size and shape of the objects, and most especially the scratches on the rocks led them to conclude that the rocks had been carried far downstream on melting ice floes from an upstream glacier. When the ice melted enough, the rocks would drop through the floes' bottom and plop onto the river bed where they eventually became encased in sandstone.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Here's an update on what really happened in Japan after the quake, at least according to the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/07/world/asia/07japan.html?ref=todayspaper
<< Last month the government acknowledged that three of the plant's reactors had probably suffered fuel meltdowns, after having denied that possibility. On Monday, Japan's nuclear regulator, the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, said that the reactor pressure vessel at one of the plant's reactors appeared to have been compromised as early as five hours after the quake.
The agency also said it now estimated that the radioactive release from the plant totaled 770,000 terabecquerels in the first week after March 11. The agency had previously estimated 370,000 terabecquerels released in the first month.
A terabecquerel is a trillion becquerels, a commonly used measure of the radiation emitted by a radioactive material.>>
Why not say a petrajacuzzi? With no comparison given (like the amount emitted by a dental x-ray or tritium watch) it tells most readers just about nothing.
For the curious and non nuke E's among us:
As any SI unit, Bq can be prefixed; commonly used multiples are kBq (kilobecquerel, 103 Bq), MBq (megabecquerel, 106 Bq), GBq (gigabecquerel, 109 Bq), TBq (terabecquerel, 1012 Bq), and PBq (petabecquerel, 1015 Bq). For practical application, 1 Bq is a small unit; therefore, the prefixes are common. For example, natural potassium (40K) in a typical human body produces 4,000 disintegrations per second, 4 kBq of activity.[2] The nuclear explosion in Hiroshima (14 kt or 59 TJ) is estimated to have produced 81024 Bq (8 YBq, 8 yottabecquerel).[3]
Eight yottabecquerels is a lotta becquerels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yotta-
Usage examples:
a.. The mass of the Earth is 5973.6 Yg (or 5.9736 Zt).[2][3] b.. The total power output of the Sun is approximately 383 YW c.. The known universe is estimated to be 880 Ym in diameter. d.. The average power released by the Tsar Bomba was 5.4 YW
--
Bobby G.





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 04:39:30 -0400, "Robert Green"

Bottom line: no member of the public received an over-exposure of radiation. More people are killed by eating bean sprouts.
--
Work is the curse of the drinking class.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote Re Re: OT. Japanese"nukes":

Very bottom line - we'll have to wait another 25 years or so to find out (if we can) how many more people died from this or that cancer because of too much radioactive iodine or cesium, or whatever isotope.
The Japanese were grossly negligent in their planning and operation of those plants. Plus the plants were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm still in favor of nuclear energy, but alos of heavy duty drills for the operators and fines for upper management and stockholders in case something goes wrong, now orat any time in the future.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Good. Go live there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nagasaki.
Stats can be twisted by interested parties.
HB
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I never got used to Becquerels. Old hand, still going by 1 microcurie 2.2x10^6 dpm For more infogo crazzy at wikipedia with curies, becquerels, and rems
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/07/2011 03:39 AM, Robert Green wrote:

Yes. It is over 13 moles of becquerels.

To make it even simpler, 1 Yottathing is 10^24 things.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't think most people really comprehend numbers greater than a million.
New news from Japan:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/19/world/asia/19tepco.html?ref=todayspaper
<<TOKYO - The Tokyo Electric Power Company said Saturday that the filtration system it had struggled to put into operation at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant had broken down after just five hours, a disappointing setback in its efforts to cool the reactors . . . readings that indicated one of the filters had filled up with radioactive cesium . . .. The rapid depletion of a filter that was supposed to have lasted several weeks suggested the presence of far greater radioactive material than anticipated . . . Tepco, is quickly running out of space to store the tens of thousands of tons of water that have been contaminated after being poured into the reactors and spent-fuel pools. Some of the tanks . . . have inches to spare and could overflow within days. Tepco . . . is also bringing in hundreds of extra tanks. NHK, the national broadcaster, said that the filters had accumulated four millisieverts of radioactive material per hour, about as much as was expected to be collected in a month. Some nuclear experts believe Tepco may again be forced to dump thousands of tons of low-level contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean. In April, it released more than 11,000 tons, prompting protests from neighboring countries, environmentalists and fishermen. >>
(Sorry for . . . the . . . fair use . . . ellipses.)
And the beat (down) goes on. We haven't heard the end of Fukushima.
--
Bobby G.









Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/19/2011 09:31 AM, Robert Green wrote:

But they understand Zt and the W in YW and the m in Ym?
Most people's understanding of the physical concept of power is rather near zero.
People are suppose to know what the "Tsar Bomba" is? I for one have never heard of it AFAIK.
You wrote: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yotta- > > Usage examples: > > a.. The mass of the Earth is 5973.6 Yg (or 5.9736 Zt).[2][3] > b.. The total power output of the Sun is approximately 383 YW > c.. The known universe is estimated to be 880 Ym in diameter. > d.. The average power released by the Tsar Bomba was 5.4 YW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<SNIP from here>
You named the Tsar Bomba, so I think you have heard at least something about at, at least its name.
Its name is a Russian style name meaning "King of Bombs". It was the most powerful nuclear bomb ever widely mentioned to be detonated. It was supposedly designed (downsized from 100 megatons) for 50 megatons and supposedly actually yielded 57 megatons. There is a Wikipedia article on this bomb.
This bomb was a large beast that sounds impractical to drop from any actively available aircraft or spacecraft easily findable in any major noted public channels such as Wikipedia. And, I don't consider Saturn V to be a practical strategic missile due to cryogenic liquid fuels and oxidizers such as liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.
It was unusually clean - its wiki article says 97% of its energy output was from fusion as opposed to fission.
Its Wiki article says it weighed 27 tonnes (metric tons). That's no typical aerial bomb even as far as MOAB and FOAB go. (Mother Of All Bombs" and "Father Of All Bombs" respectively). No submarine-launched missile can carry it, no aircraft-launched missile whose existence or name is unclassified can carry it especially usefully, and it was a bear for military aircraft to carry and deploy within a kilometer of aircraft takeoff point.
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@donklipstein.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/19/2011 07:54 PM, Don Klipstein wrote:

Huh? I copied the words from the OP. Like I said, never heard of it before the OP, the OP didn't give any useful description, and it is a useful point of reference for almost nobody.
IMO whoever can't understand 10^24 isn't likely to go look up Tsar Bomba.

I know that now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<SNIP from here>
You named the Tsar Bomba, so I think you have heard at least something about at, at least its name.
Its name is a Russian style name meaning "King of Bombs". It was the most powerful nuclear bomb ever widely mentioned to be detonated. It was supposedly designed (downsized from 100 megatons) for 50 megatons and supposedly actually yielded 57 megatons. There is a Wikipedia article on this bomb.
This bomb was a large beast that sounds impractical to drop from any actively available aircraft or spacecraft easily findable in any major noted public channels such as Wikipedia. And, I don't consider Saturn V to be a practical strategic missile due to cryogenic liquid fuels and oxidizers such as liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.
It was unusually clean - its wiki article says 97% of its energy output was from fusion as opposed to fission.
Its Wiki article says it weighed 27 tonnes (metric tons). That's no typical aerial bomb even as far as MOAB and FOAB go. (Mother Of All Bombs" and "Father Of All Bombs" respectively). No submarine-launched missile can carry it, no aircraft-launched missile whose existence or name is unclassified can carry it especially usefully, and it was a bear for military aircraft to carry and deploy within 1000 kilometers of aircraft takeoff point.
--
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@donklipstein.com)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There you go, Don, lighting candles instead of cursing the darkness. "Yotta" guy! (-:
As for delivery methods - a piece of cake to sail something like that into the harbors of many large cities on a surface ship with a robotic pilot or suicide crew (or one that's got a nearby rocketplane waiting). Unlike the case of pregnancy, close does count with 50 megatons of TNT worth of bomb. The scary part, as you point out, they throttled back on the original design capacity of 100 megatons.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html
Says that "such weapons are virtually useless for military purposes" but when you read the radius of destruction - A 100 Mt weapon can level urban areas in a zone 60 km wide, cause heavy damage in a zone 100 km across, cause 3rd degree burns in a region 170 km across (only a bit smaller than the width of West Germany) and eye damage to 220 km. "Such a weapon," they say "can only be used as a means of destroying an entire urban region - a major urban complex including suburbs and even neighboring cities. This scale of destruction is much larger than any discrete urban area in Western Europe."
So? As if Russia would not have tried to get one near Berlin if they had developed such a device during WWII. Sounds like just the thing to end the Third Reich in a third of a minute. Stalin would have nuked them twice with Tsar Bomba if he had two. Just to be sure. Probably would have wanted to chalk "Hello Adolph" on the casing himself.
During the cold war, the Sovs could have parked a freighter outside the 12 mile limit, coptered away and demolished New York or Los Angeles. It's probably what China has in mind for a first strike.
Any of the nuke-E's know if there's a functional limit to the size of such a bomb? They built Tsar Bomba in 16 weeks with what the site above says was a lot of guessing.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/20/2011 09:55 AM, Robert Green wrote:

I did both.
BTW, I didn't know what "Yotta" meant until your post (actually until I looked it up elsewhere after seeing your post).
Now I just have to figure out why Seinfeld was so often talking about 10^72.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.