|
Quantum Mechanic, if the Fukushima nuclear plant had instead been a solar plant, the city of Fukushima would have already been abandoned due to electricity being unavailable there. And if there was a politically viable way for the plant to have been replaced with one that was less than 40 years old, it is unlikely that the tsunami would have caused nearly as much damage as it did. e: Install Gentoo's post was more well thought out than mine. Istvun fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Apr 4, 2013 |
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted: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. They had the money, just not the money to have it already replaced by February 2011. They had the money to have new reactors online by roughly 2015. And this isn't a failure of the system. The plan was to do nothing immediately because they were planning to replace them. This isn't a problem. You're using an incident you don't understand to argue about things you don't know. Istvun posted:Quantum Mechanic, if the Fukushima nuclear plant had instead been a solar plant, the city of Fukushima would have already been abandoned due to electricity being unavailable there. The city of Fukushima was never evacuated. It's over 50 KM from the power plant on the shore. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
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. Instead they are subject to the whims of the state regulators who are not allowed to issue a certificate of need for construction of a new nuke plant. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=216B.243#stat.216B.243.3b quote:Subd. 3b.Nuclear power plant; new construction prohibited; relicensing. (a) The commission may not issue a certificate of need for the construction of a new nuclear-powered electric generating plant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
karthun posted:Instead they are subject to the whims of the state regulators who are not allowed to issue a certificate of need for construction of a new nuke plant. They should have thought about that back when they built the old plant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
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. I know it's normal for them to be shut down for maintenance. But you were chastising the guy by saying that half the reactors were fine when the only reason they didn't suffer problems is because when the cooling systems failed, they were already shut down and didn't need to be cooled anyway. Backup generators on higher ground wasn't feasible? A higher wall wasn't feasible? Sounds like TEPCO covering their asses if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted: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. And when your concern is carried to its historical political and practical end, nothing is done. This is the barrier in modern nuclear power. We cannot easily or cleanly replace the generating capacity provided by nuclear energy and so the only possible option is to maintain the existing infrastructure and either add conventional sources or, when the stars align, build a modern reactor. Additional, your concern, and I must add you are not alone in your concern, is why we are unwilling and unable to address nuclear waste/spent nuclear fuel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:The plan was to do nothing immediately because they were planning to replace them. This isn't a problem. Obviously it was! Seriously, if you are arguing that Fukushima at the time was not considered unsafe in its audit and that the 2015 time frame was acceptable, that's one thing, but that is not the argument being put forward by people who even nominally agree with you, nor does it gel with the information you have provided that the plant was not built to safely account for tsunamis and that doing so after the fact wouldn't have been possible. karthun posted:Instead they are subject to the whims of the state regulators who are not allowed to issue a certificate of need for construction of a new nuke plant. So wait, even after a country has accepted nuclear enough to approve a plant, the political landscape can change enough to make replacing it when it's due for decommissioning politically untenable? You mean almost like I've been saying is one of the issues the whole time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:08
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
Istvun posted:Quantum Mechanic, if the Fukushima nuclear plant had instead been a solar plant, the city of Fukushima would have already been abandoned due to electricity being unavailable there. And if there was a politically viable way for the plant to have been replaced with one that was less than 40 years old, it is unlikely that the tsunami would have caused nearly as much damage as it did. Um, Japan has a power grid you know. Even if one plant fails they can get power from other plants.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:08
|
|
|
Ganguro King posted:I know it's normal for them to be shut down for maintenance. But you were chastising the guy by saying that half the reactors were fine when the only reason they didn't suffer problems is because when the cooling systems failed, they were already shut down and didn't need to be cooled anyway. Those reactors would have been fine if they were running too. You can't just move the backup generators for active reactors, a higher wall would not have guaranteed the existing ones wouldn't have flooded in this particular tsunami. Quantum Mechanic posted:Obviously it was! No more a problem then "quantum mechanic should have known to wear a bulletproof vest when the lunatic gunman burst into his home and shot him". Fukushima Daiichi WAS built safely to account for tsunamis, just not ones as powerful as the one that hit. What's not to get here? Ganguro King posted:Um, Japan has a power grid you know. Even if one plant fails they can get power from other plants. Power grids aren't magic. Japan does not have infinite reserve capacity hanging around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Istvun posted:They should have thought about that back when they built the old plant. How are you supposed to think about laws that will be passed in the future? Why are you arguing that nuclear power needs follow laws that have not been written yet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:So wait, even after a country has accepted nuclear enough to approve a plant, the political landscape can change enough to make replacing it when it's due for decommissioning politically untenable? You mean almost like I've been saying is one of the issues the whole time? We are opposed to nuclear power because we are opposed to nuclear power. You are using you own opposition, and the corresponding political effects, as support for itself. karthun posted:How are you supposed to think about laws that will be passed in the future? Why are you arguing that nuclear power needs follow laws that have not been written yet? Like with Quantum Mechanic, opposition is its own justification. bedpan fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Fukushima Daiichi WAS built safely to account for tsunamis, just not ones as powerful as the one that hit. What's not to get here? From the looks of it they knew a tsunami that large was possible for something like twenty years? That's a long time to do nothing about it. bedpan posted:We are opposed to nuclear power because we are opposed to nuclear power. You are using you own opposition, and the corresponding political effects, as support for itself. I'm not saying we're opposed to nuclear power as a given, I'm saying even if we bring about a glorious nuclear renaissance, we can't be assured that attitudes will remain that way in thirty years. Admittedly my issue here is less with a resurgence in anti-nuclear sentiment and more of a continuation of neoliberalism, deregulation and privatisation. I'm less concerned with "we'll be hamstrung in replacing the plants legislatively" and more with "there'll be a bunch of plants in the hands of lowest-bidder corporations and private regulators."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:
This is good too, but I was thinking more like how the twin towers were meant to withstand airplanes hitting it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:From the looks of it they knew a tsunami that large was possible for something like twenty years? That's a long time to do nothing about it. Possible but not considered likely enough to do anything. Same reason that buildings in earthquake-prone areas have to be designed to withstand roughly say 8 on the scale, not 9, even though 9 is possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Levees are bad because New Orleans got devastated by Hurricane Katrina.karthun posted:How are you supposed to think about laws that will be passed in the future? Why are you arguing that nuclear power needs follow laws that have not been written yet? That was not an entirely serious statement, but I guess Quantum Mechanic proves Poe's Law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
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 actually a very common risk assessment technique; do you mind explaining the problem that you have with assessing danger on the basis of both severity and likelihood? If severity is your only concern then are you just constantly worrying about earthquarkes and tsunamis destroying your house at any moment? It's also a book that is not particularly biased toward anything, it's explaining the science behind different politically-important ideas. It's not a political science book, it's a popsci book written by a physics professor at UC Berkeley. As a fellow physicist, I endorse it as being scientifically accurate, and it's worth your consideration even if it doesn't already jive with your own misconceptions and biases. (and saying "I'm looking only for resources that already agree with my worldview" is not the best way to learn about a topic) And 2500 tons/year is actually a very small amount. Remember, nuclear waste is extremely dense. By volume it's not all that much. Yucca Mountain would have been plenty of space for the indeterminate future even if we don't ever reprocess anything
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Saint loving god, are we still talking about freaking fukushima? If you want to bitch about once-in-a-century events' damage being increased by 1% or so, please look no further than the un-named Fukishima Dam. Nuclear plants are basically dams that don't actually need a river. That also get hosed up two orders of magnitude less. Then, let's look at real math: (Going by Andasol, not counting backup as usual) Andasol produces an average of 21MW, and occupies 2km^2. To get 4700mw, it's about 230 andasols, which is 460km^2, which comes out as a circle with a radius of 12km, which would be permanent as long as it's used, and also bigger than the real exclusion zone needed. (You may be interested in the fact that a forest this size offsets only about 300mw(+/- 100) of electricity production by conventional means.) Aureon fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Istvun posted:That was not an entirely serious statement, but I guess Quantum Mechanic proves Poe's Law. "I'm concerned about the continued safety of a program that requires careful regulation and oversight" - anti-nuclear whackaloonery indistinguishable from parody. I'm not blaming Japan of 30 years ago for not accounting for modern anti-nuclear sentiment, I'm using what happened as an example that as long as something requires the level of regulation nuclear reactors do that we can and should account for the very real possibility that the government even five years from now could sell it off. Not shut it down entirely or make it contingent on a series of ironclad laws but at least keep it in mind when doing a cost-benefit analysis of nuclear vs. renewable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:From the looks of it they knew a tsunami that large was possible for something like twenty years? That's a long time to do nothing about it. Welcome to nuclear power. To do something means to do something and we have decided to do nothing. You attitude leads the charge in this. You have created the very evil you decry. Quantum Mechanic posted:Admittedly my issue here is less with a resurgence in anti-nuclear sentiment and more of a continuation of neoliberalism, deregulation and privatisation. The history of nuclear power in the West is one of regulatory ratcheting, not one of deregulation. And will solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, coal, oil, or gas be free from neoliberalism, deregulation, or privatization? Quantum Mechanic posted:I'm less concerned with "we'll be hamstrung in replacing the plants legislatively" and more with "there'll be a bunch of plants in the hands of lowest-bidder corporations and private regulators." Again, the latter becomes the reason behind the former. bedpan fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:"I'm concerned about the continued safety of a program that requires careful regulation and oversight" - anti-nuclear whackaloonery indistinguishable from parody. I suspect you can see where the argument "We shouldn't support nuclear energy because if people don't support nuclear energy nuclear energy isn't viable" fails, right? The list of things that require careful regulation and oversight is nearly limitless, but of them, nuclear energy is the only thing we dare not pursue. Or do you think that dams don't require careful regulation and oversight?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
bedpan posted:Welcome to nuclear power. To do something means to do something and we have decided to do nothing. You attitude leads the charge in this. We can't follow a normal replacement strategy because of the political and public opposition and because of the political and public opposition we can't follow a normal replacement strategy. You have created the very evil you decry. So have you been missing that whole thing where my only objection to nuclear power is in light of the existence of renewables as an alternative, or do you seriously think that I am opposed to the construction of nuclear plants end of story? bedpan posted:The history of nuclear power in the West is one of regulatory ratcheting, not one of deregulation. And will solar, wind, coal, oil, or gas be free from neoliberalism, deregulation, or privatization? First of all, we're not talking about coal, oil and gas, since I 100% agree the consequences of deregulating/privatising fossil fuels are orders of magnitude worse than nuclear and I've made that very clear several times over. Renewables will not be free of those things, but the consequences are at the very least not as dramatic. At least, for solar and wind, the consequences of unregulated hydroelectric are pretty awful. Istvun posted:Or do you think that dams don't require careful regulation and oversight? I'm very leery of new dam construction too, and am active in opposing the current Federal Opposition's plan for constructing dozens of new dams across the country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Renewables will not be free of those things, but the consequences are at the very least not as dramatic. What consequences exactly are you thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
I am now imagining windmill blades rolling down highways like tumbleweeds and solar mirrors shooting down airplanes flying overhead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:53
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:What consequences exactly are you thinking of? Evacuations, environmental destruction, uranium mining. I understand that they're not in all cases direct consequences of problems with plants and can often be overstated but the fact remains that even if the population on aggregate shift to being more comfortable with nuclear power and things like remaining within 20km of a meltdown there's always going to be media shock-stories or an opposition party willing to capitalise on what is a fundamentally very psychologically impressive event. Honestly if the failings of nuclear acted more like those of coal (i.e. a slow burn of environmental impact/health impact portioned out over the course of years) you'd probably easily get away with it since you're absolutely right - by pure stats nuclear is safe. I don't think we'd have a single coal plant left if the health and environmental impacts were rolled into a single three-hour orgy of smoke and death once every fifty years. With regards to mining, I know mining can be replaced with seawater extraction, but that requires a state program, state subsidies or a uranium mining ban, since without it uranium mining is going to be the cheaper option for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Evacuations, environmental destruction, uranium mining. I understand that they're not in all cases direct consequences of problems with plants and can often be overstated but the fact remains that even if the population on aggregate shift to being more comfortable with nuclear power and things like remaining within 20km of a meltdown there's always going to be media shock-stories or an opposition party willing to capitalise on what is a fundamentally very psychologically impressive event. Honestly if the failings of nuclear acted more like those of coal (i.e. a slow burn of environmental impact/health impact portioned out over the course of years) you'd probably easily get away with it since you're absolutely right - by pure stats nuclear is safe. I don't think we'd have a single coal plant left if the health and environmental impacts were rolled into a single three-hour orgy of smoke and death once every fifty years. The evacuations are purely precautionary. The environment there is fine. Uranium mining isn't even strictly neccesary with newer designs and allowances for reprocessing. You still need to mine a hell of a lot of stuff out of the ground in order to build a wind power facility, or to build a field of solar panels or reflectors, or to run power lines from those to other things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
Nuclear power (Not some methods of uranium mining, which also is really minimal seen the mileage it gets, especially with reprocessing) has never caused "Envinromental destruction". The closed-off zone near Chernobyl had actually become a natural park, since some animals and plants rapidly adapted to the radiation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Uranium mining isn't even strictly neccesary with newer designs and allowances for reprocessing. An excellent point, decades of reactor operation without reprocessing has built up quite a stockpile of spent fuel. With reprocessing, the pattern of effectively ignoring our nuclear waste turns into something of an advantage. New reactors and reprocessing would go quite a ways in managing our nuclear legacy. I'll see if I can find out how many operational years we, the US, can squeeze out of our spent fuel horde. I've seen estimates but I don't have them saved. bedpan fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Nuclear power (Not some methods of uranium mining, which also is really minimal seen the mileage it gets, especially with reprocessing) has never caused "Envinromental destruction". Less of an adaptation and more of a "An increased chance of mutation related offspring loss pales in comparison to the negative effects of humans in the area" effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:So have you been missing that whole thing where my only objection to nuclear power is in light of the existence of renewables as an alternative, or do you seriously think that I am opposed to the construction of nuclear plants end of story? How about as a realistic alternative? Because renewables really aren't enough Or do you only mean to say that renewables should be used where feasible and that we should use nuclear to cover the remainder? I don't think that anyone disagrees with that Here's a question: how do you feel about thorium reactors? Thorium is a waste product of many mining operations, and we have a ton of it right now because we don't have many good uses for it aside from nuclear energy. Would you be satisfied if we built a bunch of thorium reactors and didn't bother mining any more uranium?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Those reactors would have been fine if they were running too. You seem pretty certain, how do you know this? Because the evidence seems to point in the other direction: Reactor 1: Active at time of tsunami, fuel overheats ruining reactor Reactor 2: Active at time of tsunami, fuel overheats ruining reactor Reactor 3: Active at time of tsunami, fuel overheats ruining reactor Reactor 4: Inactive at time of tsunami, outer building damaged by explosion likely triggered by hydrogen from Reactor 3 Reactor 5: Inactive at time of tsunami, not damaged Reactor 6: Inactive at time of tsunami, not damaged Install Gentoo posted:You can't just move the backup generators for active reactors, a higher wall would not have guaranteed the existing ones wouldn't have flooded in this particular tsunami. No poo poo. But it might have been enough, seeing as other nuclear plants along the coast closer to the epicenter survived. But TEPCO did nothing. Install Gentoo posted:Fukushima Daiichi WAS built safely to account for tsunamis, just not ones as powerful as the one that hit. What's not to get here? The point is that they knew or should have known that their design was inadequate. Again, other plants closer to the epicenter were fine. This disaster is the result TEPCO failing to heed the warnings of experts, and regulators in Japan failing to force them to do so. Install Gentoo posted:Power grids aren't magic. Japan does not have infinite reserve capacity hanging around. Again, no poo poo. But Istvun's argument was that the loss of a single power plant would have rendered an entire city uninhabitable, which is just asinine any way you think about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
bedpan posted:An excellent point, decades of reactor operation without reprocessing has built up quite a stockpile of spent fuel. With reprocessing, the pattern of effectively ignoring our nuclear waste turns into something of an advantage. New reactors and reprocessing would go quite a ways in managing our nuclear legacy. As a reminder we use depleted uranium as ammo and armor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
Ganguro King posted:Again, no poo poo. But Istvun's argument was that the loss of a single power plant would have rendered an entire city uninhabitable, which is just asinine any way you think about it. While my post was hyperbole, the broader argument that nuclear power does not have an adequate replacement is a simple extension of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's actually a very common risk assessment technique; do you mind explaining the problem that you have with assessing danger on the basis of both severity and likelihood? Note that I didn't disagree with the conclusion (nuclear waste can be dealt with rather securely), only with that particular way of reasoning. QuarkJets posted:even if it doesn't already jive with your own misconceptions and biases. Besides, I came here with an anti-nuclear bias and asked for good sources of information, so that I could form a rational opinion. I think now that nuclear energy is a relatively safe technology, and that we need it at least in the short and medium term if we want to replace fossil fuels. So yeah, so much for "doesn't already jive with my own misconceptions and biases". And if you don't believe me, do us both a favor and just ignore my posts. Aureon posted: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. Aureon posted:Nuclear power (Not some methods of uranium mining, which also is really minimal seen the mileage it gets, especially with reprocessing) has never caused "Envinromental destruction".
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:The problem is that you can't just view it from a global point of view, you have to look at the local effects. If radioactive waste were to leak into ground water, you can't just say that it's insignificant compared to the total amount of radiation on earth, so you have to make sure that it cannot contaminate your soil or your water. Keep in mind that there are a lot of countries with high energy demand which do not have the US's luxury of large, uninhabited wastelands where is doesn't really matter if some radiation leaks into the ground. Or you could get rid of waste the way the Italians do. Hand it to the mafia along with a big suitcase full of money and then pretend it never existed in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 09:17
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:"Severity times probability" is fine for low and moderate severities, but not for severe threats. Hypothetical example: if heater A is 10% cheaper than heater B, but has a 1% that it starts a fire which burns down your house, you don't conclude that you save 10%*99%=9.9% or that 1% of your house burns down. It also doesn't take into account systematic risk, like a correlation between leakage of containers. That's why I called it "simplistic". But that's not what the book is saying, either. You wouldn't multiply by the percentage savings, you'd multiply the cost of an occurrence (your house burning down) by the probability of that occurring (1%) and then compare that to the probability cost of the other heater (which would have its own non-zero probability of burning down your house). Multiplying the likelihood of the risky occurrence by its impact is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with risks at all severity levels because severity is already part of the formula. That's the whole point. When assessing risk you have to consider severity and probability, not just one or the other. Bananas are mildly radioactive and might give me cancer if I ate enough of them, but the probability of that occurring is so low that I'm definitely not going to stop eating bananas despite cancer being an extremely severe consequence. And systematic risk is included because it's the total probability of a catastrophe, not just the probability of a single failure point like you seem to be implying. quote:That's not what I'm saying and that's not what I'm doing. You asked for good sources of information. I provided one, and then you said that it's not what you're looking for. What are you looking for? QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 09:32
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:"Severity times probability" is fine for low and moderate severities, but not for severe threats. Hypothetical example: if heater A is 10% cheaper than heater B, but has a 1% that it starts a fire which burns down your house, you don't conclude that you save 10%*99%=9.9% or that 1% of your house burns down. It also doesn't take into account systematic risk, like a correlation between leakage of containers. That's why I called it "simplistic". Yes you do, you are just doing it badly. Say you have 300,000 dollars in your home and assorted property. That 1% additional chance of fire is worth 3,000 dollars and that is greater then the cost of your 100 dollar space heater. You buy the better space heater.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:The problem is that you can't just view it from a global point of view, you have to look at the local effects. If radioactive waste were to leak into ground water, you can't just say that it's insignificant compared to the total amount of radiation on earth, so you have to make sure that it cannot contaminate your soil or your water. Keep in mind that there are a lot of countries with high energy demand which do not have the US's luxury of large, uninhabited wastelands where is doesn't really matter if some radiation leaks into the ground. Thing is, this is already covered to some extent. Remember that link I posted about natural reactors? Water flowing through fractured matrix is essentially the worst possible case for leaching. Vitrified waste sealed in stainless steel containers sealed in impervious clay in a bone-dry salt dome is a much more secure option. Leaching into groundwater isn't a threat to properly stored waste. Also, the total amount of waste is small and dense, so you don't need huge wastelands, the facilities can be really very small. -edit CombatInformatiker posted:"Severity times probability" is fine for low and moderate severities, but not for severe threats. Hypothetical example: if heater A is 10% cheaper than heater B, but has a 1% that it starts a fire which burns down your house, you don't conclude that you save 10%*99%=9.9% or that 1% of your house burns down. It also doesn't take into account systematic risk, like a correlation between leakage of containers. That's why I called it "simplistic". The severity times probability measure is the standard one used in pretty much all forms of risk assessment, not just in the nuclear field. Your concerns about simplicity are covered by better estimates of both severity and probablility, and being someone who has done work on this kind of calculation, these estimates certainly do take into account correlation between different factors. Creation of a saftey case is not a simple process by any strech of the imagination. Gimby fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Or do you only mean to say that renewables should be used where feasible and that we should use nuclear to cover the remainder? I don't think that anyone disagrees with that Apparently a lot of people do because I'm an anti-nuclear loon. But yes, this is exactly what I mean - I'd like to see the bulk of our electricity (or all of it in the case of a country with as much solar insolation and wind as Australia) renewable with nuclear to patch up any remainder. I know renewables aren't a realistic alternative for the ENTIRE world and it's a pretty utopian scenario to expect them to be comfortable with buying energy off us and the UAE forever so yeah, there's probably gonna have to be some nukes. QuarkJets posted:Here's a question: how do you feel about thorium reactors? Thorium is a waste product of many mining operations, and we have a ton of it right now because we don't have many good uses for it aside from nuclear energy. Would you be satisfied if we built a bunch of thorium reactors and didn't bother mining any more uranium? I'm a lot more comfortable with thorium than uranium, although I'm not sure if thorium is mature or economical enough to move to in the sort of time frame we need to be talking about to stave off further climate change. Quantum Mechanic fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 12:50
|
|
|
It's not, really. Thorium reactors are something that we should be moving forward on, but it's not something that anyone in the US is really seriously trying to do (or at least not that I've heard of)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:34 |
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:Keep in mind that there are a lot of countries with high energy demand which do not have the US's luxury of large, uninhabited wastelands where is doesn't really matter if some radiation leaks into the ground. One of the basic principles of the NWMO (organization setting up long-term geological storage for Canada's spent nuclear fuel) was "domestic material only." They recognized that the recipient community would be leery about its new role as "national nuclear dumping ground," and decided that they would rather not salt the wound with the title "international nuclear dumping ground." This has the added benefit of avoiding some potential diplomatic squabbles regarding strategic arms control treaties, avoids logistical difficulties of cross-border shipments, and averts the spectacle of Greenpeace activists chaining themselves to the Ambassador Bridge. Admittedly, it's a bit of a hypocritical stance for Canada to take. We're happy to export Uranium and/or CANDU fuel bundles, but we don't want to deal with the inevitable consequences of such actions. If you want to burn it in your country, then you have to bury it as well. Since someone mentioned groundwater contamination... here's a quote from one of the NWMO's many technical reports: http://www.nwmo.ca/uploads_managed/MediaFiles/1442_nwmotr-2009-12_technicalsummar.pdf posted:Under repository conditions, used fuel exposed to groundwater is expected to dissolve very slowly. A fractional dissolution rate of 10-7 per year (i.e., all the fuel is dissolved in 10 million years) is a conservative but realistic rate of fuel dissolution under repository conditions whereas a dissolution rate of 10-4 per year could only occur if oxygenated groundwaters reached the repository (Shoesmith 2007). In either case, water would first have to breach the long-lived containers and come into contact with the used fuel, and then the used fuel would have to dissolve into the water.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 12:59
|
|
