Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-16-2018 11:13 AM
217 online now:
GDR, kjsimons, PaulK, ringo, vimesey (5 members, 212 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,054 Year: 16,877/29,783 Month: 865/1,956 Week: 368/331 Day: 27/69 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Fukushima Apocalypse
dronestar
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 31 of 39 (708010)
10-03-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Rahvin
10-03-2013 12:30 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
Hey Rahvin . . .

Rahvin writes:

There are arguments to be made regarding nuclear power, dronester.

Indeed, I keep making them.

Rahvin writes:

Please do remember that the Fukushima plant didn't just up and melt down under normal operating conditions due to poor oversight or human error or "greed."

Are you kidding me?

Rahvin writes:

But a string of claims that amount to little better than suggestive lies . . .

Ahem, . . . could you please tell me which claims are lies? Be specific:

Nuclear power plants shouldn’t be built near populous zones. They are.
Nuclear Powerplants shouldn’t be placed on fault zones. They are.
Nuclear Powerplants shouldn’t be placed near tsunami risk-areas. They are.
Nuclear Powerplants should be held to high safety regulations and strict monitoring. They aren’t.
Nuclear Powerplants should have adequate safety backups. They don’t.
Nuclear Powerplants should NOT be operated with known design flaws. They are.
Nuclear Powerplants should not store spent fuel rods in non-reinforced, un-secure pools. They are.
Nuclear powerplants can be prone to terrorists
Operating nuclear powerplants are prone to incompetence,
Operating over-sized nuclear powerplants are prone to sheer greed,

(Just wondering Rahvin, you always rush to the aid of nuclear power like one of your own kids is in trouble. What's up with that? I like that your passionate though, I wish more americans cared about some things)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Rahvin, posted 10-03-2013 12:30 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 12:09 PM dronestar has responded
 Message 37 by Rahvin, posted 10-04-2013 4:53 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2795
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 32 of 39 (708068)
10-04-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by dronestar
10-03-2013 12:52 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
MY wonder is why dont we switch to liquid fluoride thorium reactor's?

From what i have read about it its safer, cheaper since we are buring thorium not uranium. (4 times more abundant).

Is it just because you cant get weapons from thorium or am i missing something?


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by dronestar, posted 10-03-2013 12:52 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by dronestar, posted 10-04-2013 12:34 PM frako has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 10-04-2013 4:59 PM frako has responded

    
dronestar
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 33 of 39 (708074)
10-04-2013 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by frako
10-04-2013 12:09 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
Frako writes:

Is it just because you cant get weapons from thorium or am i missing something?

Hmm, sounds like something I would cynically ask.

I am extremely confident that if america used the ANNUAL 1.2 TRLLION dollar military budget for energy resource research and development, we could come up with hundreds of safer and cheaper means of power. I read recently (where?) that a euro nation has developed advanced ocean wave technology. Seems to me the earth has lotsa ocean front, why can't that be developed in more places?

What am I missing? . . .

quote:
Harnessing Ocean Wave Technologies, Creating Jobs

Worldwide ocean waves provide up to 2 terawatts of instantaneous electricity (1 terrawatt equals 1 trillion watts), which is twice the electricity generating capacity currently consume on planet Earth.

http://drreese.wordpress.com/...ure-the-power-of-ocean-waves


And I often wondered about river power. Yes, one massive powerplant on one river couldn't generate power for the entire universe, but why not a small power plant generating power for just one small town? Multiply that design for a thousand rivers and a thousand towns?

Unfortunately, I believe micro-power-plants don't have the same massive profit potential so it is routinely put aside by global corporations and corrupt politicians.

Edited by dronester, : added WAVE link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 12:09 PM frako has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-04-2013 1:06 PM dronestar has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 39 (708080)
10-04-2013 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by dronestar
10-04-2013 12:34 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
but why not a small power plant generating power for just one small town?

There's nothing stopping you from doing that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by dronestar, posted 10-04-2013 12:34 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by dronestar, posted 10-04-2013 1:18 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 290 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 35 of 39 (708082)
10-04-2013 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
10-04-2013 1:06 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
Drone writes:

but why not a small power plant generating power for just one small town?

CS writes:

There's nothing stopping you from doing that.

Yes, . . . except for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, . . . I suppose so.

But since my tax money is already funding expensive and unsafe power sources, why not simply use that money for cheaper and safer energy resources?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-04-2013 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-04-2013 1:55 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 39 (708088)
10-04-2013 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by dronestar
10-04-2013 1:18 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
Drone writes:

but why not a small power plant generating power for just one small town?


CS writes:

There's nothing stopping you from doing that.

Yes, . . . except for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, . . . I suppose so.

How/Why would they stop you?

But since my tax money is already funding expensive and unsafe power sources, why not simply use that money for cheaper and safer energy resources?

You're asking the wrong guy, I'm not in charge of making those decisions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by dronestar, posted 10-04-2013 1:18 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1137 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 37 of 39 (708097)
10-04-2013 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by dronestar
10-03-2013 12:52 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
Are you kidding me?

Im not, actually. The root cause of the Fukushima failure was an earthquake followed by a tsunami. If the earthquake and tsunami had not hit, the Fukushima disaster would not have happened.

There were engineering improvements that could have been made to prevent the disaster even with the earthquake and tsunami, but that doesn't change the fact that the disaster was due to a one-two punch of natural disasters.

The largest single issue was the location of the backup generators (you could also make the argument that the issue was the need for active cooling requiring generators in the first place, and that would be fine, I'm just sticking to the simplest solutions). They kept them in the basement, below sea level, and would obviously be at risk in the case of flooding, like what you see in a tsunami. Moving the generators to an upper level, high above sea level, would have kept the coolant pumps working despite the earthquake and tsunami, and the chain reaction (pun intended) of failures would not have occurred in the first place.

There were other issues at Fukushima, and Tepco has not proven worthy of strong confidence, but those issues were primarily tangential, or at worst they made the cleanup worse - the root cause was not Tepco. The root cause was an earthquake, followed by a tsunami. Even with design changes, there would still be a chance of failure under those conditions.

Nuclear power plants shouldn’t be built near populous zones. They are.

Sometimes they are. Not always.

But the issue isn't just nuclear power, in a vacuum. The issue is nuclear power relative to alternatives. You could similarly say that "hydroelectric power plants shouldn't be built near populous zones." Or the same for gas power plants. Or even gas transport lines. Or oil pipelines, some of which would service oil power plants. These are also extremely hazardous, and it's disingenuous on the border of lying to say that nuclear plants shouldn't be built near populous zones. It leads the reader to multiple false conclusions.

It's actually safer from the actual data to live closer to a nuclear power plant than it is to live near a gas plant, or a hydro plant. "Fewest deaths per unit of power generated" means something, you know.

But there are also reasons for selecting locations for power plants, nuclear included. One reason is personnel - you need people to be able to get to the power plant to keep it running safely. Other reasons are technical - longer transmission lines mean higher requirements in maintenance and lower efficiency through the resistance of the lines. And sometimes you need to provide power for an awful lot of people, and you have very little space available.

Nuclear Powerplants shouldn’t be placed on fault zones. They are.

SOmetimes they are. Indeed they shouldn't be placed on highly active faults. But neither should literally any other form of power generation. An earthquake can more easily cause an oil spill from a pipeline or an oil plant than it can cause a nuclear disaster. Again, your statement is so misleading in and of itself as to border on lying. It leads the reader to multiple false conclusions.

Nuclear Powerplants shouldn’t be placed near tsunami risk-areas. They are.

Tsunami risk areas constitute all coastlines. Tsunamis that can actually cause reasonable chances of damage are also extremely rare. This is why you've only heard of one nuclear disaster related to a tsunami, despite the fact that many nuclear plants are built on the coast so that they can have easy access to coolant water.

Nuclear Powerplants should be held to high safety regulations and strict monitoring. They aren’t.

They absolutely are. The article you mentioned at the start of this conversion, in fact, regarding a shutdown due to jellyfish clogging a coolant intake pipe, demonstrates exactly what you're saying is lacking here, dronester. Failures in regulation and monitoring are the extremely rare exception, and here you are making a statement that very clearly makes it sound like they are the rule. Once again you're leading the reader to make factually incorrect conclusions with your misleading statements.

Nuclear Powerplants should have adequate safety backups. They don’t.

They have multiple redundant backups. The fact that, in one case, the safety backups weren't adequate to overcome an earthquake followed by a tsunami is not an inherent flaw in nuclear power generation or policy. At best one could argue (and I would argue exactly this) that we should begin upgrading our powerplants, up to and including retiring old ones in favor of newer ones engineered to incorporate solutions to the shortcomings we've seen over the past decades with older plants. Things like passive cooling systems and passive shutdown procedures, so that disasters or even human errors could only ever cause the plant to shut itself down safely.

You;re again making it sound like nuclear power is inherently unsafe, at least in its current state. While I'd agree that we could do better, it's still dishonest, because nuclear power has the absolute best safety record of any power generation technology, including wind and solar, per unit of power generated. Your words again lead the reader to draw false conclusions.

Nuclear Powerplants should NOT be operated with known design flaws. They are.

I can agree in principle. But let's be realistic - everything is operated with known design flaws. There is no such thing as a perfect design. I'd agree that governments and utilities can do better to improve designs, between retrofitting existing reactors and replacing old with new, but economically that's just not always feasible, and many of the design flaws are only apparent in a statistically unlikely scenario - like being hit with an earthquake, followed by a tsunami.

Nuclear Powerplants should not store spent fuel rods in non-reinforced, un-secure pools. They are.

The pools were ferrocrete - steel-reinforced concrete. That's essentially de very definition of "reinforced." There's just only so much you can do to reinforce a structure to be able to deal with an earthquake, followed by a tsunami, followed by a coolant failure, which allowed a buildup of hydrogen to start creating explosions inside the reinforced but already-weakened structures.

This isn't a comic book. We can't just build stuff out of adamantium and call it unbreakable.

A better solution would be reprocessing spent fuel rods to generate still more power and reducing waste, as well as making what waste remains radioactive for a shorter period of time. See France for a very successful example.

Nuclear powerplants can be prone to terrorists

This might as well just be a lie, outright. There has never, not once, ever, been a case where terrorists were able to retrieve nuclear material from a nuclear power plant. Hospitals have radioisotopes that are just as dangerous under less security (and in a form more easily carried and smuggled), and yet we haven't seen any dirty bombs.

Operating nuclear powerplants are prone to incompetence,

What isn't, exactly?

Operating over-sized nuclear powerplants are prone to sheer greed,

I'm not even sure what you mean here - "greed" is not some magic force that makes nuclear power plants melt down. If you mean orders from above to keep a plant operating and ignoring maintenance requirements or cutting inspections or whatnot, this is not a problem in the overall case of nuclear power generation. If it is, I'd like to see your evidence for it.

Bear in mind, nuclear power retains the absolute best record in terms of deaths caused per unit of power generated across all alternative power sources. That sort of record is absolutely the result of adequate safety backups, adequate oversight, adequate regulation, adequate maintenance, adequate engineering, and so on. That sort of record doesn't just appear from thin air.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings

Nihil supernum


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by dronestar, posted 10-03-2013 12:52 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1137 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 38 of 39 (708098)
10-04-2013 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by frako
10-04-2013 12:09 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
MY wonder is why dont we switch to liquid fluoride thorium reactor's?

From what i have read about it its safer, cheaper since we are buring thorium not uranium. (4 times more abundant).

Is it just because you cant get weapons from thorium or am i missing something?

The only answer I'm aware of is, ironically, the regulatory structure. It takes a lot of red tape to get a nuclear power plant approved - the cost is in the billions. An entirely new design with a new fuel cycle might be even more difficult, and businesses might find it to be risky.

Then there are folks like dronester, who argue so strongly against nuclear power in general that we tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That's just my best guess.

But I'm with you - I'd be all on board for a Thorium fuel cycle. And I believe you're talking about a molten salt design, which is passively cooled and passively temperature-regulated and passively shuts down in case of an emergency, which is all great.

Thorium also has a longer usable fuel cycle than Uranium, so we can get more power out of it on top of its increased abundance, and the waste material after reprocessing is both minimal and only radioactive for a relatively short time (if I remember correctly, hundreds of years, not thousands or millions).


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995...

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings

Nihil supernum


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 12:09 PM frako has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by frako, posted 10-04-2013 6:30 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2795
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 39 of 39 (708101)
10-04-2013 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rahvin
10-04-2013 4:59 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
The only answer I'm aware of is, ironically, the regulatory structure. It takes a lot of red tape to get a nuclear power plant approved - the cost is in the billions. An entirely new design with a new fuel cycle might be even more difficult, and businesses might find it to be risky.

I think there are a few prototipes in development. but the US had a working thorium reactor in the 60ties, and basically went for uranium power since it can power subs, and other weapons technologies. Why didnt some other nation pick up where the US left off.

Then there are folks like dronester, who argue so strongly against nuclear power in general that we tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That's just my best guess.

From what i know of thorium reactors i wouldn't be protesting stop nuclear power but change to thorium and more of it.

But I'm with you - I'd be all on board for a Thorium fuel cycle. And I believe you're talking about a molten salt design, which is passively cooled and passively temperature-regulated and passively shuts down in case of an emergency, which is all great.

Thorium also has a longer usable fuel cycle than Uranium, so we can get more power out of it on top of its increased abundance, and the waste material after reprocessing is both minimal and only radioactive for a relatively short time (if I remember correctly, hundreds of years, not thousands or millions).

Yea that one 300 years is the time waste remains radioactive, and its al primarily alpha radiation that is stopped by skin only dangerous if such material is ingested.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 10-04-2013 4:59 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018