The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

Gimby: Sep 6, 2011

CombatInformatiker posted:

Well, that's not an argument against production of hazardous waste, not one for nuclear energy.

The point there was that "but it'll be dangerous for thousands of years!" isn't a particular huge problem. Lots of things we do produce waste with long durations - if you were feeling perverse, you could point out that nuclear waste is the only one that disappears on its own without outside intervention - clearly we should be making this temporary waste rather than the other eternal options!

The arguement is essentially that all forms of energy generation tend to produce some enviromental impacts, the choice comes down to which ones are easiest to handle. Due to the huge energy density of nuclear power (both the fuel, and the reactors in general) the footprint of nuclear power tends to be very low and they produce very little in the way of local impact - British nuclear sites tend to be surrounded by nature reserves, for example (due to the exclusion zones and hence low human traffic).

The largest impact of nuclear power comes from mining, and that is a big problem. However, again due to the high energy densities and relatively small amount of fuel required you can pull tricks like extracting uranium from seawater (trialled) or running breeder reactors - we've already got enough fuel extracted sitting in "waste" ponds for years of operation if we were running a complete breeder program.

CombatInformatiker posted:

That's a good point. What's the half-life of the respective isotopes?

They are primordial (that is, arising from the material that originally made up the solar system) and a range of isotopes, but of the order of billions of years.

CombatInformatiker posted:

"Deaths/kWh" is a pretty bad metric (even if that statistic were correct), because it focuses on a single issue (human deaths) and neglects other issues, like environmental pollution, costs, and long-term risks. I do agree, however, that support for some technology should be based on rational metrics, and not on collective panic and prejudice (which can be found in both groups, nuclear proponents and opponents).

It does, true. That said, nuclear comes out decently well on your other metrics too - low pollution (and what there is is generally well contained) - competitive costs (particularly if you take into account the way that nuclear power has historically paid for its externalities while fossil generation has not) and eminently managable long term risks. Its not perfect by any strech of the imagination, but is better than fossil generation and at least competitive with renewable generation for enviromental impact.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 16:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 21:46

CombatInformatiker: Apr 11, 2012

Aureon posted:

That's to say that we've got a lot of hazardous crap around the world, and some more isn't a tragedy.

That's the spirit! Why reduce one kind of waste when there's other waste?
But I do get your point: nuclear waste doesn't deserve the magnitude of bad rap it's getting. I still think that we should strive for renewables providing as much of the energy as is sensible, with nuclear picking up the slack.

Aureon posted:

Also, nuclear proponents panic? what? (Prejudice, sometimes, but we're usually a pretty fact-based crowd)

That's what the nuclear opponents say about themselves as well. There's not really any "panic" on the proponents' side, and I didn't mean to imply it (my wording was bad, sorry for that).

pangstrom posted:

Eh, your posting is very simplistic and very biased so maybe give it a whirl. The fact that it's not what you're looking for is kind of the point.

It's not what I'm looking for because it doesn't have a neutral point of view. If I were looking for lobby material (one way or the other), I wouldn't have come here � the Internet is full of that stuff.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post since it's clearly intended to insult me.

Gimby posted:

The arguement is essentially that all forms of energy generation tend to produce some enviromental impacts, the choice comes down to which ones are easiest to handle. Due to the huge energy density of nuclear power (both the fuel, and the reactors in general) the footprint of nuclear power tends to be very low and they produce very little in the way of local impact [...]

I agree. The point I was trying to make was that nuclear is not the happy-forever-all-problems-solved-it's-just-politics answer to the energy question that some Goons here seem to think. There are non-negligible risks associated with it, even though they may be manageable.

Gimby posted:

The largest impact of nuclear power comes from mining, and that is a big problem. However, again due to the high energy densities and relatively small amount of fuel required you can pull tricks like extracting uranium from seawater (trialled) or running breeder reactors - we've already got enough fuel extracted sitting in "waste" ponds for years of operation if we were running a complete breeder program.

Now that's a problem that should be solvable politically: you'd "just" have to pass a law that dictates that all new uranium must come from seawater. Sure, this will raise prices a bit, but apparently not that much.

Gimby posted:

They are primordial (that is, arising from the material that originally made up the solar system) and a range of isotopes, but of the order of billions of years.

Well, those are not a problem, then, as their decay is so low as to not pose a problem.

Gimby posted:

That said, nuclear comes out decently well on your other metrics too - low pollution (and what there is is generally well contained) - competitive costs (particularly if you take into account the way that nuclear power has historically paid for its externalities while fossil generation has not) and eminently managable long term risks. Its not perfect by any strech of the imagination, but is better than fossil generation and at least competitive with renewable generation for enviromental impact.

I think the bad public image of nuclear energy comes from the promises of safety from the 50s and 60s, which they couldn't completely keep (sure, technology is a lot more advanced today).

# ? Apr 3, 2013 19:44

Pander: Oct 9, 2007; Fear is the glue that holds society together. It's what makes people suppress their worst impulses. Fear is power.

And at the end of fear, oblivion.

Everything should be found in seawater, just not in very high concentrations, correct?

So maybe ban neodymium mining too.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 20:01

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

CombatInformatiker posted:

I've read 1.5 chapters of that book (Google didn't let me read any further), and it seems to be a little simplistic (multiplying the chance of an accident by it's severity and conclude that there's no increased danger? Come on, you can't be serious!) and clearly biased towards nuclear energy, so it's not something I'm looking for.

That's a general approach for any sort of risk management. It's something that people don't like, but it's a really simple bit of economic reality. The chance of your house getting struck by a falling piece from a plane is infinitesimal, but it can be calculated. The potential damage that could cause (including you dying from getting hit from it) is factored into the likelihood of it happening, but the overall result is of the 'as X approaches 0' type of math.

The 'Bias towards nuclear energy' is because despite what you might think, nuclear power is pretty good. The biggest challenge facing it in the US is because not only does a significant portion of the country's population think that a NPP is one Homer Simpson away from being Hiroshima, but also because other forms of power generation are very strongly entrenched in the political environment.

CombatInformatiker posted:

I think the bad public image of nuclear energy comes from the promises of safety from the 50s and 60s, which they couldn't completely keep (sure, technology is a lot more advanced today).

It has a lot more to do with Three Mile Island and Chernobyl than anything before that. The former, of course, being an example of how safe the facilities can be, and the later being an example of why most countries never allowed that style of plant to begin with.

Now there's the hysteria surrounding Fukushima and the associated fearmongering in regards to it that is spurring another round of Nuke Hysteria, thwarting what little progress was being made on that front.

The bitter irony is that the Fukushima plant would have been closed before the Tsunami occurred if it had been properly replaced as originally planned.

Taerkar fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Apr 3, 2013

# ? Apr 3, 2013 20:15

BRAKE FOR MOOSE: Jun 6, 2001

CombatInformatiker posted:

I agree. The point I was trying to make was that nuclear is not the happy-forever-all-problems-solved-it's-just-politics answer to the energy question that some Goons here seem to think. There are non-negligible risks associated with it, even though they may be manageable.

This thread has had tons of discussion about exactly what the risks of nuclear energy are, relative to other power sources, as well as exactly what the present limitations of renewable energy sources are for meeting our energy needs. I'm not quite sure what you think you were adding to it.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 20:23

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

I feel like he's under the impression that if given the choice between infinite free energy and nuclear some of us would choose nuclear. That we like nuclear out of some stubborn clinging to the atomic cars our comic books told us were coming and not because we already did the research, which he asked us to source then dismissed the source as biased, and concluded that it was the best available option.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 20:48

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

Taerkar posted:

The bitter irony is that the Fukushima plant would have been closed before the Tsunami occurred if it had been properly replaced as originally planned.

This right here is probably what I would describe as my major concern with nuclear energy.

Why was it not replaced as planned? Was it a failure of government or of business? Is there anything we could do to ensure that there's absolutely no way nuclear plants could ever run past decommissioning age?

Essentially every incident involving nuclear power has been a failure of people, not a failure of tech, and while we might have developed better reactors we haven't quite managed better people yet. In fact I'd be very tempted to say that our ability to maintain and regulate nuclear power has gotten worse as we huff neoliberalism like paint.

I'm not concerned about reactors maliciously melting down in spite of all of our best efforts because nuclear just hates our children and freedom. I'm concerned about what happens when we inevitably gently caress it up.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 22:25

a lovely poster: Aug 5, 2011; by Pipski

Well, us loving it up is just a part of life. As to what happens when we do inevitably gently caress it, the answer is much less bad consequences then the everyday poo poo we see from fossil fuel sources. Basically,

Fossil Fuels > Nuclear > Renewables

I would love to have a 100% renewable powered society. I totally AGREE with:

CombatInformatiker posted:

I still think that we should strive for renewables providing as much of the energy as is sensible, with nuclear picking up the slack.

The first priority is getting off of fossil fuels. That means shutting down coal and natural gas plants ASAP. If renewables can pick up those losses, great, let's see it done! Otherwise, let's go with nuclear. I think that the main point of disagreement between the pro-nuke and anti-nuke side here is how much power renewables can generate as a percentage of what is necessary.

Anyone who's scared of Nuclear for safety reasons is just a goddamn fool. Nuclear has killed less people per watt generated than any renewable technology. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

# ? Apr 3, 2013 22:32

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Quantum Mechanic posted:

I'm not concerned about reactors maliciously melting down in spite of all of our best efforts because nuclear just hates our children and freedom. I'm concerned about what happens when we inevitably gently caress it up.

Honestly? Chernobyl happens. That's pretty much the worst possible combination of bad design, bad management, bad operating and bad emergency response. Even when you take the most completely outrageous numbers for human suffering resulting from the Chernobyl disaster we could have one a year and still not match the sheer number of premature deaths burning fossil fuels cause.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 22:38

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

CombatInformatiker posted:

Now that's a problem that should be solvable politically: you'd "just" have to pass a law that dictates that all new uranium must come from seawater. Sure, this will raise prices a bit, but apparently not that much.

According to the following article from 2012, mandating that all uranium be gathered from seawater would raise uranium prices by at least 5 times.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22201-record-haul-of-uranium-harvested-from-seawater.html

I have no idea how much of the cost of running a nuclear plant is paying for the uranium, though.

Taerkar posted:

Now there's the hysteria surrounding Fukushima and the associated fearmongering in regards to it that is spurring another round of Nuke Hysteria, thwarting what little progress was being made on that front.

While it is easy to shoot down stupid hysterical articles, it isn't like the Fukushima disaster has had zero negative effects. The Japanese have had to abandon entire cities due to radiation released from the plant in the Fukushima disaster. Even if we grant that no one was or will be harmed by the nuclear radiation, which I honestly do not know if that is true, having to relocate a city's worth of people is a pretty high price that the Japanese government is paying right now for the disaster.

silence_kit fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Apr 3, 2013

# ? Apr 3, 2013 22:41

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Quantum Mechanic posted:

Is there anything we could do to ensure that there's absolutely no way nuclear plants could ever run past decommissioning age?

Yes, it's called "letting new nuclear plants be built". But you see, people are scared of atoms, so...

# ? Apr 3, 2013 22:48

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

silence_kit posted:

I have no idea how much of the cost of running a nuclear plant is paying for the uranium, though.

Smaller than coal.

quote:

Fuel costs account for about 28% of a nuclear plant's operating expenses. Other recent sources cite lower fuel costs, such as 16%. Doubling the price of uranium would add only 7% to the cost of electricity produced.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 22:54

silence_kit: Jul 14, 2011; by the sex ghost

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Smaller than coal.

So if we assume that uranium is 25% of the operating cost, then raising the uranium cost by 5x would roughly double the operating costs of running a nuclear plant. Doesn't sound insignificant to me, unless I am missing something or doing the math wrong.

silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Apr 3, 2013

# ? Apr 3, 2013 23:00

spankmeister: Jun 15, 2008

Uranium nuclear is a transitory technology as far as I'm concerned. We need to move to breeders and start using Thorium for nuclear to really work.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 23:02

muike: Mar 16, 2011; ガチムチ　セブン

silence_kit posted:

According to the following article from 2012, mandating that all uranium be gathered from seawater would raise uranium prices by at least 5 times.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22201-record-haul-of-uranium-harvested-from-seawater.html

I have no idea how much of the cost of running a nuclear plant is paying for the uranium, though.

While it is easy to shoot down stupid hysterical articles, it isn't like the Fukushima disaster has had zero negative effects. The Japanese have had to abandon entire cities due to radiation released from the plant in the Fukushima disaster. Even if we grant that no one was or will be harmed by the nuclear radiation, which I honestly do not know if that is true, having to relocate a city's worth of people is a pretty high price that the Japanese government is paying right now for the disaster.

They haven't "had to" evacuate these cities, they have because people are afraid of radiation.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 23:06

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

silence_kit posted:

So if we assume that uranium is 25% of the operating cost, then raising the uranium cost by 5x would roughly double the operating costs of running a nuclear plant. Doesn't sound insignificant to me, unless I am missing something or doing the math wrong.

It isn't insignificant, but the costs of nuclear generation are heavily end-loaded. Startup and shutdown costs are huge, but actually generating power is relatively cheap.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 23:20

Aureon: Jul 11, 2012; by Y Kant Ozma Post

CombatInformatiker posted:

That's the spirit! Why reduce one kind of waste when there's other waste?

The spirit is: Learn that everything is relative. The world is, naturally, a very dangerous place. An insignificant quantity of radioactive material does not augment the earth's dangerousness in a noticeable way.
When you're changing a quantity from 0.00000 to 0.000001, sometimes it's appropriate to freak out. When you're changing a quantity from 1.00000 to 1.000001, perhaps it's not.
Radiation is all around the planet, and either it doesn't do anything of note or it causes mutations, which were the reason life itself exists on earth. And the quantity of radiation inserted by nuclear power generation (and nuclear military use, i may add) is really minimal.

CombatInformatiker posted:

But I do get your point: nuclear waste doesn't deserve the magnitude of bad rap it's getting. I still think that we should strive for renewables providing as much of the energy as is sensible, with nuclear picking up the slack.

We need to strive for whatever is the best solution at the moment and in the foreseeable future, not go on "I really like this idea!" and strive for it against good sense.
Power generation has consequences. Those consequences exist for all methods, and Nuclear is an order of magnitude lower than renewables, which are another order of magnitude lower than fossil fuels.

CombatInformatiker posted:

It's not what I'm looking for because it doesn't have a neutral point of view. If I were looking for lobby material (one way or the other), I wouldn't have come here � the Internet is full of that stuff.
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post since it's clearly intended to insult me.

Is this the old "But the WHO report is made up by pro-nuclear lobbies!" thing?
Your problem is that the "Mainstream"\"public" opinion is flawed. That's not what you should use as "unbiased". Compared to that "mainstream" opinion, of course a physics book will seem "biased" in the other way: It has actually lost the bias one way.

CombatInformatiker posted:

I agree. The point I was trying to make was that nuclear is not the happy-forever-all-problems-solved-it's-just-politics answer to the energy question that some Goons here seem to think. There are non-negligible risks associated with it, even though they may be manageable.

The risks are non-negligible, but are orders of magnitude lower than any other power generating method, when you need to generate the same amount of energy. It's not "We need a perfect way", it's "we should use the best we have available"

CombatInformatiker posted:

I think the bad public image of nuclear energy comes from the promises of safety from the 50s and 60s, which they couldn't completely keep (sure, technology is a lot more advanced today).

two lethal accidents worldwide in sixty years of production with hundreds of plants world, with a total dead count of ~250, well, it's a loving great track record. It's the best track record any power generation method can claim. It's above all reasonable expectations. It's so good that inconsequential accidents get reported in the news.
It's by far a better track record than Hydro has. Ever heard of Banqiao?

# ? Apr 3, 2013 23:35

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Rent-A-Cop posted:

It isn't insignificant, but the costs of nuclear generation are heavily end-loaded. Startup and shutdown costs are huge, but actually generating power is relatively cheap.

Front and end-loaded, actually. The start-up cost is high and the decommissioning cost is high as well. Actual operation is incredibly cheap due to the low cost of the fuel compared to how far it can go. A trainload of uranium fuel will be more than enough to run a plant for its entire lifecycle. A trainload of coal is maybe a month.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 23:55

ductonius: Apr 9, 2007; I heard there's a cream for that...

silence_kit posted:

The Japanese have had to abandon entire cities due to radiation released from the plant in the Fukushima disaster. Even if we grant that no one was or will be harmed by the nuclear radiation, which I honestly do not know if that is true, having to relocate a city's worth of people is a pretty high price that the Japanese government is paying right now for the disaster.

If you're upset about an energy source making land uninhabitable then boy howdy are you going to be pissed when you learn about the effects of hydroelectric dam construction.

# ? Apr 3, 2013 23:56

karthun: Nov 16, 2006; I forgot to post my food for USPOL Thanksgiving but that's okay too!

Taerkar posted:

Front and end-loaded, actually. The start-up cost is high and the decommissioning cost is high as well. Actual operation is incredibly cheap due to the low cost of the fuel compared to how far it can go. A trainload of uranium fuel will be more than enough to run a plant for its entire lifecycle. A trainload of coal is maybe a month.

A trainload of coal is about 8 hours. Sherco, the big coal power plant outside Minneapolis, goes through 3 trainloads of coal, 30 thousand tons, every day.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 00:01

Aureon: Jul 11, 2012; by Y Kant Ozma Post

silence_kit posted:

So if we assume that uranium is 25% of the operating cost, then raising the uranium cost by 5x would roughly double the operating costs of running a nuclear plant. Doesn't sound insignificant to me, unless I am missing something or doing the math wrong.

If doubling the uranium price increases by 7%, *5 would mean 135%.
Not too insignificant, but not crippling at all.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 00:03

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

karthun posted:

A trainload of coal is about 8 hours. Sherco, the big coal power plant outside Minneapolis, goes through 3 trainloads of coal, 30 thousand tons, every day.

Oh wow. I was really remembering that bit wrong.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 00:07

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

a lovely poster posted:

Well, us loving it up is just a part of life. As to what happens when we do inevitably gently caress it, the answer is much less bad consequences then the everyday poo poo we see from fossil fuel sources. Basically,

Fossil Fuels > Nuclear > Renewables

I've made it pretty clear in this thread that I absolutely want to get off all fossil fuels as a complete necessity, and that I'm even pro-nuclear in situations (say, small countries with little solar irradiation) where renewables can't pick up the slack. I basically want renewables to be our first choice with nuclear as a backup option (backup as in "we can't build solar plants here," not backup as in grid backup). I think the best way to encapsulate my stance is "I am not anti-nuclear, I am pro-renewable."

a lovely poster posted:

The first priority is getting off of fossil fuels. That means shutting down coal and natural gas plants ASAP. If renewables can pick up those losses, great, let's see it done! Otherwise, let's go with nuclear. I think that the main point of disagreement between the pro-nuke and anti-nuke side here is how much power renewables can generate as a percentage of what is necessary.

That's probably true. At least in Australia, 100% renewable is both a technologically and economically viable option. I don't know how it would work for other countries, and purely selfishly I'd love to see Australia become a renewable energy exporter, but I'm totally open for countries becoming zero-carbon energy independent through whatever ways work best for them. I don't particularly want to be subsidising the nuclear grids of other nations with our uranium reserves, though.

It also doesn't hurt that Australia is fanatically anti-nuke (the most pro-nuclear any of our major parties get is being willing to sell uranium) and renewables are a far easier sell here politically.

a lovely poster posted:

Anyone who's scared of Nuclear for safety reasons is just a goddamn fool. Nuclear has killed less people per watt generated than any renewable technology. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

It depends on what you mean by "safety." Even if irradiating large swathes of land doesn't kill that many people it's not a desirable outcome. Or, in our case, carving up the sacred sites of our native people to dump caustic chemicals into the water table for uranium mining. That's just us, though, I don't really care how many reactors or uranium mines other countries are willing to put up with, it's up to them.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Honestly? Chernobyl happens. That's pretty much the worst possible combination of bad design, bad management, bad operating and bad emergency response. Even when you take the most completely outrageous numbers for human suffering resulting from the Chernobyl disaster we could have one a year and still not match the sheer number of premature deaths burning fossil fuels cause.

Again, I understand this. Believe me, I was thoroughly pro-nuclear before I found out about large-scale 24h renewable generation. If I ever again become convinced that nuclear is the only viable zero-carbon energy source then I guarantee I will be right back with you shouting at people about thorium.

computer parts posted:

Yes, it's called "letting new nuclear plants be built". But you see, people are scared of atoms, so...

That doesn't explain why the plant was just left to run and not replaced with another generator. Not that I'm saying a new coal plant would have been a better option than building a new nuclear reactor to replace Fukushima but I can't imagine the expert opinion on that would have been "well let's just keep running it and hope for the best."

Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Apr 4, 2013

# ? Apr 4, 2013 01:57

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Quantum Mechanic posted:

That doesn't explain why the plant was just left to run and not replaced with another generator.

Because there wasn't approval to build any form of replacement yet. What are you really looking for here?

# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:08

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

Install Gentoo posted:

Because there wasn't approval to build any form of replacement yet. What are you really looking for here?

That bureaucracy and general incompetence led to the Fukushima incident. That even in full knowledge that the plant was too old, with advice from scientists and nuclear regulators that it needed to be replaced, it didn't get replaced. That future nuclear plants could just as easily fall victim to the same sort of fecklessness.

Let me put it this way - my country is currently staring down the barrel of leadership of the entire country falling into the hands of a man I wouldn't trust to run a garden fete, let alone regulate a 250 GWh nuclear energy system. Members of his government in the states have already enacted massive public service cuts and are calling for cuts and privatisation of basically every government asset imaginable, as well as devolving the powers of the federal energy and environment ministers to either the states or private regulators. It's not the tech that worries me in and of itself, it's the tech in the hands of populist idiots.

Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Apr 4, 2013

# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:35

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Quantum Mechanic posted:

That bureaucracy and general incompetence led to the Fukushima incident. That even in full knowledge that the plant was too old, with advice from scientists and nuclear regulators that it needed to be replaced, it didn't get replaced. That future nuclear plants could just as easily fall victim to the same sort of fecklessness.

Building a new power plant isn't free, where the hell did you expect the money to come from to replace the plant right then specifically? It was already scheduled to be decomissioned within the next decade by the way, and they had no way of knowing the tsunami would strike it in 2011.

You're basically just reacting out of sheer ignorance. Did you pay attention to the fact that half of the reactors at the facility didn't have problems despite being equally old and subjected to the same conditions? No of course you didn't.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:41

Istvun: Apr 20, 2007; A better world is just $69.69 away.; Soiled Meat

I can only wish that our major disasters would kill no people.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 02:56

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

Install Gentoo posted:

Building a new power plant isn't free, where the hell did you expect the money to come from to replace the plant right then specifically?

Borrow it? Half the point of state-regulated power is to not be subject to the whims of capital. If the company had no way of securing the money needed to decommission it at the time required, then that's poor planning and frankly one more argument against it.

Install Gentoo posted:

It was already scheduled to be decomissioned within the next decade by the way, and they had no way of knowing the tsunami would strike it in 2011.

You're basically just reacting out of sheer ignorance. Did you pay attention to the fact that half of the reactors at the facility didn't have problems despite being equally old and subjected to the same conditions? No of course you didn't.

So which was it? Was the plant too old and unsafe at the time the tsunami hit or did it have up to another decade left? All I've heard is geschrein in the thread about they knew Fuskushima needed to be shut down and it's not because nuclear's unsafe and they just didn't listen to the experts and WE'D do it differently and frankly no, sorry, if a country as loving terrified of radiation as Japan couldn't get their poo poo together to either properly audit the plant or get it shut down within the recommended time frame I don't hold out high hopes for the US doing the same. Your two choices here were either the risk wasn't calculated properly or red tape bound up the processes needed to safely decommission the plant, and from everything I've been able to gather about the incident, even from PRO-nuclear sources, it was the latter.

Also note that again, because I'm sure someone's going to bring up coal again, I am not using this as an argument for not replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:09

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Quantum Mechanic posted:

Borrow it? Half the point of state-regulated power is to not be subject to the whims of capital. If the company had no way of securing the money needed to decommission it at the time required, then that's poor planning and frankly one more argument against it.

So which was it? Was the plant too old and unsafe at the time the tsunami hit or did it have up to another decade left? All I've heard is geschrein in the thread about they knew Fuskushima needed to be shut down and it's not because nuclear's unsafe and they just didn't listen to the experts and WE'D do it differently and frankly no, sorry, if a country as loving terrified of radiation as Japan couldn't get their poo poo together to either properly audit the plant or get it shut down within the recommended time frame I don't hold out high hopes for the US doing the same. Your two choices here were either the risk wasn't calculated properly or red tape bound up the processes needed to safely decommission the plant, and from everything I've been able to gather about the incident, even from PRO-nuclear sources, it was the latter.

Also note that again, because I'm sure someone's going to bring up coal again, I am not using this as an argument for not replacing fossil fuels with nuclear energy.

Borrow it from whom? Are you not aware that Japan is a capitalist nation?

The plant was functioning perfectly fine before it was hit by a massive earthquake shortly followed by a major tsunami. Give me an actual reason that the reactors should have already been shut down in February 2011. Are you not aware that 2 brand new reactors were planned for the site, meant to operational by 2020, before the tsunami happened?

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:18

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Quantum Mechanic posted:

That doesn't explain why the plant was just left to run and not replaced with another generator. Not that I'm saying a new coal plant would have been a better option than building a new nuclear reactor to replace Fukushima but I can't imagine the expert opinion on that would have been "well let's just keep running it and hope for the best."

The plant couldn't be shut down at the time because it provided a significant amount of power. It couldn't be replaced because that entails building a new plant, and the voting public the world around seems to be irrationally batshit crazy about anything to do with nuclear plants. So yes, that was literally the plan, because they literally could not do anything else.

This is also, by the way, why no Nuclear plant has been built in the US post-Three Mile Island despite them supplying 20% of the power in the country.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:21

Ganguro King: Jul 26, 2007

Install Gentoo posted:

Building a new power plant isn't free, where the hell did you expect the money to come from to replace the plant right then specifically? It was already scheduled to be decomissioned within the next decade by the way, and they had no way of knowing the tsunami would strike it in 2011.

You're basically just reacting out of sheer ignorance. Did you pay attention to the fact that half of the reactors at the facility didn't have problems despite being equally old and subjected to the same conditions? No of course you didn't.

Sorry, you are just wrong.

Although they didn't know that a tsunami would strike specifically when it did, TEPCO knew since at least 2006 that their tsunami estimates were inadequate. They did nothing to rectify this.

Also, 4 out of 6 reactors there suffered major problems. The other two were fine because they were already in cold shutdown for maintenance.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:22

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Ganguro King posted:

Sorry, you are just wrong.

Although they didn't know that a tsunami would strike specifically when it did, TEPCO knew since at least 2006 that their tsunami estimates were inadequate. They did nothing to rectify this.

Also, 4 out of 6 reactors there suffered major problems. The other two were fine because they were already in cold shutdown for maintenance.

No, you're wrong.

Their plan to rectify this was to build new reactors so they could decommision the old reactors. Under TEPCO's original planning, the new reactors would have started construction late 2012/early 2013 and take a few years to come online. Retrofitting better tsunami protection for the cooling systems was not considered practical.

3 reactors were shut down for maintenance when the tsunami hit.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:25

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

Install Gentoo posted:

Borrow it from whom? Are you not aware that Japan is a capitalist nation?

The plant was functioning perfectly fine before it was hit by a massive earthquake shortly followed by a major tsunami. Give me an actual reason that the reactors should have already been shut down in February 2011. Are you not aware that 2 brand new reactors were planned for the site, meant to operational by 2020, before the tsunami happened?

Japan has the ability to issue sovereign debt. I am aware Japan is a capitalist nation, but frankly "well a private company had its hands tied by capital availability" isn't a good argument for why important poo poo didn't get done. It's almost like one of my misgivings about the whole idea is private for-profit companies being trusted to run nuclear plants, just like how we're currently trusting them to run coal and oil plants and things aren't going all that well!

So you're stating that the plant was functioning perfectly fine, that safety audits were comfortable with the plant continuing to operate for at least a few more years, and that they were wrong. It's fine if that's your argument and that you're comfortable with stuff like Fukushima happening during times of catastrophic failure, but that's neither the argument nor impression I've gotten from other pro-nuclear advocates arguing the Fukushima case.

computer parts posted:

The plant couldn't be shut down at the time because it provided a significant amount of power. It couldn't be replaced because that entails building a new plant, and the voting public the world around seems to be irrationally batshit crazy about anything to do with nuclear plants. So yes, that was literally the plan, because they literally could not do anything else.

This is also, by the way, why no Nuclear plant has been built in the US post-Three Mile Island despite them supplying 20% of the power in the country.

I get that replacing the plant involves building a new plant, I didn't think Japan ran a nuclear reactor because Cherenkov radiation is so pretty. My question was why was a new plant (not necessarily nuclear) not built, and is there any way of ensuring that the same political calculus wouldn't occur in the future?

I actually agree that the fear of nuclear is irrational. Not completely irrational, but overstated. Like I've said before, if I truly believed they were our only viable solution for fossil fuel dependence I'd, like I was four or so years ago, be calling for us to throw them around like confetti. I'm just not convinced the net positive is greater than the net positive of 100% renewable, where 100% renewable is geographically viable.

Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 03:31 on Apr 4, 2013

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:25

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Quantum Mechanic posted:

Japan has the ability to issue sovereign debt. I am aware Japan is a capitalist nation, but frankly "well a private company had its hands tied by capital availability" isn't a good argument for why important poo poo didn't get done. It's almost like one of my misgivings about the whole idea is private for-profit companies being trusted to run nuclear plants, just like how we're currently trusting them to run coal and oil plants and things aren't going all that well!

So you're stating that the plant was functioning perfectly fine, that safety audits were comfortable with the plant continuing to operate for at least a few more years, and that they were wrong. It's fine if that's your argument and that you're comfortable with stuff like Fukushima happening during times of catastrophic failure, but that's neither the argument nor impression I've gotten from other pro-nuclear advocates arguing the Fukushima case.

You're not addressing how this would be afforded, or why Japan should give away money to a private company to replace them, and you're also not comprehending that if you started building the replacements then, the plant would still have been running in 2011 when the disaster happened.

The safety audits were not wrong, a motherfucking earthquake and tsunami happened. What aren't you understanding about massive natural disasters causing damage?

Quantum Mechanic posted:

I get that replacing the plant involves building a new plant, I didn't think Japan ran a nuclear reactor because Cherenkov radiation is so pretty. My question was why was a new plant (not necessarily nuclear) not built, and is there any way of ensuring that the same political calculus wouldn't occur in the future?

Because the new reactors were scheduled to be built "now" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant&oldid=396253422

Each of the 2 planned new reactors would be powerful enough to replace 2 of the oldest reactors on-site. Seriously dude, there was already a plan in place to replace and decommission the oldest reactors on site by the end of this decade. The plan was to do that in this timeframe because they'd be able to afford it that way, there wasn't the money to do it earlier.

Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Apr 4, 2013

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:28

bedpan: Apr 23, 2008

Quantum Mechanic posted:

Japan has the ability to issue sovereign debt. I am aware Japan is a capitalist nation, but frankly "well a private company had its hands tied by capital availability" isn't a good argument for why important poo poo didn't get done.

When it comes to nuclear power, banish the concept of a "good argument" as to why "important poo poo didn't get done" from your mind.

Assuming the demand remains the same, to decommission an operational reactor you must do one of two things:

1. Replace the reactor with a new model

2. Add other conventional and/or renewable capacity

The first is impolitic and the second carries significant economic, environmental, and feasibility issues. The third option, which is universally supported, is to do nothing.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:36

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

Install Gentoo posted:

You're not addressing how this would be afforded, or why Japan should give away money to a private company to replace them, and you're also not comprehending that if you started building the replacements then, the plant would still have been running in 2011 when the disaster happened.

You're probably right that Japan shouldn't be handing money to a private corporation if they can't afford to handle the fundamental maintenance of the equipment the safety of which they're supposed to be responsible for. However, if they can't afford that fundamental maintenance they shouldn't be running nuclear plants.

Install Gentoo posted:

The safety audits were not wrong, a motherfucking earthquake and tsunami happened. What aren't you understanding about massive natural disasters causing damage?

Actually I distinctly remember the safety audits for Fukushima saying that it was in a tsunami/earthquake risk zone and that the possibility should have been accounted for. Regardless, the environmental impact if it had been solar plants would have been at worst a bunch of fertiliser dumped into the ocean instead of a 20km evacuation zone.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:38

Ganguro King: Jul 26, 2007

This was your contention:

Install Gentoo posted:

You're basically just reacting out of sheer ignorance. Did you pay attention to the fact that half of the reactors at the facility didn't have problems despite being equally old and subjected to the same conditions? No of course you didn't.

But the reason they didn't suffer problems is because they were already shut down! You said so yourself!

Install Gentoo posted:

The safety audits were not wrong, a motherfucking earthquake and tsunami happened. What aren't you understanding about massive natural disasters causing damage?

Nearly the exact scenario that happened was predicted:
NISA, Tepco knew in �06 of Fukushima tsunami threat
TEPCO ignored latest research on tsunami

Yet nothing was done.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:42

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Quantum Mechanic posted:

Actually I distinctly remember the safety audits for Fukushima saying that it was in a tsunami/earthquake risk zone and that the possibility should have been accounted for. Regardless, the environmental impact if it had been solar plants would have been at worst a bunch of fertiliser dumped into the ocean instead of a 20km evacuation zone.

A. The equivalent amount of solar panels would cover a 20km area

B. The only reason it was a 20km area is that people are scared of atoms.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:43

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Quantum Mechanic posted:

You're probably right that Japan shouldn't be handing money to a private corporation if they can't afford to handle the fundamental maintenance of the equipment the safety of which they're supposed to be responsible for. However, if they can't afford that fundamental maintenance they shouldn't be running nuclear plants.

Actually I distinctly remember the safety audits for Fukushima saying that it was in a tsunami/earthquake risk zone and that the possibility should have been accounted for. Regardless, the environmental impact if it had been solar plants would have been at worst a bunch of fertiliser dumped into the ocean instead of a 20km evacuation zone.

Dude since you aren't getting this, the reason there was a problem was not from lack of maintence, it was from diesel generators that supplied power to cooling when the reactors are shut down being flooded. They had been designed for a tsunami roughly 2 meters shorter then the one that hit.

All of Japan is an earthquake/tsunami risk zone. The specific power plant had even been struck by an earthquake several decades ago. They designed with earthquakes and tsunamis in mind, it just turned out they designed too low for tsunamis. There has been almost no environmental impact from this in case you aren't aware.

Ganguro King posted:

This was your contention:

But the reason they didn't suffer problems is because they were already shut down! You said so yourself!

Nearly the exact scenario that happened was predicted:
NISA, Tepco knew in �06 of Fukushima tsunami threat
TEPCO ignored latest research on tsunami

Yet nothing was done.

And those reactors are currently online... it is normal operation for a plant o have some of its reactors shut down for maintenance at any one time.

Nothing was done because it was decided the best plan was to build the new reactors and decommission the old, since retrofitting wasn't considered feasible. There wasn't really a meaningful way to fix the problems they found without doing that.

computer parts posted:

A. The equivalent amount of solar panels would cover a 20km area

B. The only reason it was a 20km area is that people are scared of atoms.

This too.

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 21:46

Quantum Mechanic: Apr 25, 2010; Just another fuckwit who thrives on fake moral outrage.
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me

lol abbottsgonnawin

Install Gentoo posted:

Each of the 2 planned new reactors would be powerful enough to replace 2 of the oldest reactors on-site. Seriously dude, there was already a plan in place to replace and decommission the oldest reactors on site by the end of this decade. The plan was to do that in this timeframe because they'd be able to afford it that way, there wasn't the money to do it earlier.

You seem to think I don't understand the argument about they didn't have the money, when in fact the argument that they didn't have the money is the core of my point. Assuming that Fukushima was not deemed safe at the time, which like I said is the drum every nuclear advocate has been beating about why Fukushima even happened, then that is a failure of the system to properly account for and deal with the basic expected maintenance of a nuclear plant and is a liability in the planning for future nuclear capacity.

bedpan posted:

The third option, which is universally supported, is to do nothing.

This right here is exactly my issue. When "do nothing" is even a choice in regards to something with the capability of a meltdown if nothing is done, that's a concern for me.

computer parts posted:

A. The equivalent amount of solar panels would cover a 20km area

B. The only reason it was a 20km area is that people are scared of atoms.

I'm aware Japan doesn't have the space for solar thermal. I'm actually not even trying to make an argument that nuclear wouldn't be a good choice for Japan, I'm using the Fukushima incident as an example of how things could get hosed up in countries that DO have the space for solar thermal or wind farms.

Install Gentoo posted:

Dude since you aren't getting this, the reason there was a problem was not from lack of maintence, it was from diesel generators that supplied power to cooling when the reactors are shut down being flooded. They had been designed for a tsunami roughly 2 meters shorter then the one that hit.

By "maintenance" I meant the various expenditures necessary to safely run a nuclear plant, although frankly looking at some of our current coal architecture I don't trust our government to reliably engage in basic "things are loving rusting" maintenance either.

Install Gentoo posted:

This too.

"This area was specifically chosen for a large power plant site" is a bit different from "lol guess this area is irradiated now." It's very easy to tell people after the fact that they didn't need to evacuate or that the response to Fukushima was excessive when you don't live there, or when you're not going to be paying either compensation or medical bills for people in the 20km zone who get cancer at the threat of being thrown out of government.

Also, going off Fukushima's 4.7 GW capacity, the equivalent area (assuming the Ivanpah 400 MW plant) would be 4700 MW/400 MW*14.2 km^2 = 167 km^2. The total area of a 20km zone is pi*20^2 = 1256 km^2, and even going off the half that was land is still about 600 km^2. Not that I'm making an argument for solar thermal being reasonable in light of Japan's space issues, but it's not the same.

Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Apr 4, 2013

# ? Apr 4, 2013 03:52

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

«‹›348 »