|
Family Values posted:- We don't reuse reactor sites; when a reactor is decommissioned that site becomes a no man's zone. Wind/solar can be replaced on the same site pretty much forever. Even ignoring that, the overall footprint of sites is not big at all. The larger problem has been siting studies themselves. It has been trivially easy to find a reason, any reason, to object to a potential nuclear site. It's one of the reason that new units are typically added to existing sites rather than new sites constructed. The time cost and uncertainty related to developing a new site scare away any potential investors. quote:- An accident at a nuclear reactor is not like an accident at a wind or solar generation site. If a wind turbine has catastrophic failure it might kill someone if they're standing directly under it, but a catastrophic reactor failure results in global (or at least hemispheric) fallout. quote:- Nuclear waste is not like other waste, even just in terms of half-life. There are very viable solutions with benefits over renewables-only strategies that can be pursued if we eschew profit margin. Yet, it's amazing how when it comes to nuclear power ostensible leftists recoil reflexively into the protective embrace of free market economics as an argument against its furthered existence. quote:I'm not even anti-nuke but the uncritical nuke cheerleading that goes on in this thread doesn't even convince me and therefore has zero chance of convincing the public at large, which is pretty strongly anti-nuke.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The accident rate for nuclear, even factoring in Chernobyl and Fukushima, is incredibly low. The article author does the math. 14,000 cumulative reactor years, 11 accidents resulting in a full or partial core melt. If you scale that up to 15,000 reactors (to generate 15TW, all of current consumption, which is his target), you're getting around 12 accidents per year resulting in a full or partial core melt, or 1 per month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The article author does the math. 14,000 cumulative reactor years, 11 accidents resulting in a full or partial core melt. If you scale that up to 15,000 reactors (to generate 15TW, all of current consumption, which is his target), you're getting around 12 accidents per year resulting in a full or partial core melt, or 1 per month. And I'm calling bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
ulmont posted:If you scale that up to 15,000 reactors (to generate 15TW, all of current consumption, which is his target), you're getting around 12 accidents per year resulting in a full or partial core melt, or 1 per month. Because all reactor designs are the same. He did the math.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:we? you got 10 trill laying around buddy have at it The thing is if you want to decarbonise with renewables while shutting down nuke you're still spending at least as much and most likely much more money. At this point anyone not willing to spend trillions to decarbonise is admitting defeat. Family Values posted:- We don't reuse reactor sites; when a reactor is decommissioned that site becomes a no man's zone. Wind/solar can be replaced on the same site pretty much forever. - we don't reuse nuke sites all the time (though occasionally it happens) because it's not a relevant limitation. There is no country currently undergoing a massive expansion of nuclear that already has tons of decommissioned reactors to replace and no space. Note that UK is considering just adding more units to existing sites where old reactors are starting to reach end of life while Sweden accepts that retiring reactors may be replaced by new units. - nuclear accidents are overrated and mostly scary because you can't see radiation like ash or a wall of water about to kill you after a dam breaks. If you spread a modest amount of radiation over a large area radiophobes will freak out over  OMG 50 MICROSIEVERTZ EXTRA EXPOSURE WE WILL ALL DIE but it's diluted to the point where it's not a real concern.- nucular waste is exactly like heavy metal waste in practical terms, as heavy metal waste stays poisonous literally forever. Nobody cares unless it's in their can of tuna. -
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:43
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
ulmont posted:The article author does the math. 14,000 cumulative reactor years, 11 accidents resulting in a full or partial core melt. If you scale that up to 15,000 reactors (to generate 15TW, all of current consumption, which is his target), you're getting around 12 accidents per year resulting in a full or partial core melt, or 1 per month. That's assuming all conditions being equal and us continuing to use existing technology instead of learning from mistakes and correcting faults. But yeah, a monthly Chernobyl ain't great. I agree we should avoid that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
No nukes should be shut down until all coal and gas plants are. That being said, the economics appear to be better for wind/solar/storage and the timeframe to add capacity is superior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:That's assuming all conditions being equal and us continuing to use existing technology instead of learning from mistakes and correcting faults. Well hopefully nobody starts exporting RBMKs and super freak tsunamis dont occur often. His math is still poo poo, and makes too many assumptions, especially assuming that meltdowns are all the same, and ignoring historical data about why they happened. This is why statistics is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Because all reactor designs are the same. He did the math. Also if the containment works reasonably well and we don't get a Chernobyl style release (which involved a reactor design so poo poo it had no containment building at all) who the gently caress cares about core damage. At that point the only thing that happens is that the power company has to write off a reactor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The article author does the math. 14,000 cumulative reactor years, 11 accidents resulting in a full or partial core melt. If you scale that up to 15,000 reactors (to generate 15TW, all of current consumption, which is his target), you're getting around 12 accidents per year resulting in a full or partial core melt, or 1 per month. If the fleet is scaled up to 15,000 reactors, not a one is going to be an RBMK design
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:No nukes should be shut down until all coal and gas plants are. The theory should be to add wind and solar and storage wherever it works to add it. Where it is infeasible to add it, due to land scarcity, population density, or poor wind/insolation resources, construct nuclear plants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Well hopefully nobody starts exporting RBMKs and super freak tsunamis dont occur often. I was being a little facetious, and his maths is bad
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And I'm calling bullshit. Phanatic posted:Because all reactor designs are the same. He did the math. Comrade Blyatlov posted:That's assuming all conditions being equal and us continuing to use existing technology instead of learning from mistakes and correcting faults. Pander posted:This is like predicting car crash deaths going forward by including car crash death statistics since the invention of cars, including all pre-seatbelt, pre-crumple zone, pre airbag statistics. Show me what numbers you guys come up with. An annual Chernobyl or Fukushima instead of a monthly one? Still not great. And none of you have addressed the fundamental timing concern: how is the world going to build and decommission a nuclear plant every single day (if my notes are correct, only one nuclear plant in the US has been completed and launched in the last 20 years, and there are only 52 reactors under construction worldwide)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Nuclear plants are slow to build because of NIMBY political bullshit, they're not some arcane and unknowable secret that humanity just can't understand. If we wanted to build a whole bunch real fast, we could, it's a political will and lack of resources issue, not an engineering problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Show me what numbers you guys come up with. An annual Chernobyl or Fukushima instead of a monthly one? Still not great. Dude, you mention Chernobyl and dont even seem to understand why Chernobyl and Fukushima happened. This is why we have issues with his lovely statistics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Show me what numbers you guys come up with. An annual Chernobyl or Fukushima instead of a monthly one? Still not great. I dont need to, and I cant anyway, because I dont have the requisite knowledge. There are people that get paid a lot of money to work things like this out. What I do have enough knowledge to say definitively, is that your guys methodology, and therefore his conclusions, are dead wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
ulmont posted:An annual Chernobyl or Fukushima instead of a monthly one? Still not great. So how often does a 9.0 earthquake generating a 40 foot high wave happen? That earthquake and subsequent tsunami are like, 100 year events. 100 year natural disasters don't become more likely when you build more reactors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Let me make this really clear. RBMK REACTORS ARE NOT BEING BUILT ANYMORE. There was also some serious retrofitting in the wake of the 1986 disaster to prevent it ever happening again, and it's worth noting that a dozen reactors have been operating since without any serious incidents. YOU DIDN'T SEE GRAPHITE BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Comrade Blyatlov posted:I dont need to, and I cant anyway, because I dont have the requisite knowledge. There are people that get paid a lot of money to work things like this out. Without the requisite knowledge, you can't say how far wrong the conclusions are. If they are off by even a full order of magnitude, it's still not great. HelloSailorSign posted:That earthquake and subsequent tsunami are like, 100 year events. 100 year natural disasters don't become more likely when you build more reactors. 1. What used to be 100 year weather events are now 25 year events. https://www.weathernationtv.com/news/noaa-updates-rain-amounts-to-qualify-as-100-or-1000-year-flood-in-texas/ 2. 100 year natural disasters hitting reactors actually do become more likely when you build more reactors...there are more reactors to hit, after all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
Pander posted:A benefit of small modular reactors is ... oh yea well the benefit of my magic solar panel is its 60% efficient and costs a nickle a watt! also my imaginary wind turbine is made of diamond-aerogel hybrid blades, stands 2km tall and produces 100MW each
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Without the requisite knowledge, you can't say how far wrong the conclusions are. If they are off by even a full order of magnitude, it's still not great. Did you just try to claim that climate change will increase the frequency of earthquakes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
The way to avoid Fukishimas is to not build nuclear reactors where they'll get smashed by tidal waves, or if you do at least make sure the diesel backups are high enough off the ground to not get swamped. The way to avoid Chernobyls is to not build pre-refit RBMK reactors. Both of these are incredibly easy and not at all hard to do. Also, climate change isn't gonna make earthquakes and tidal waves happen more often lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Without the requisite knowledge, you can't say how far wrong the conclusions are. If they are off by even a full order of magnitude, it's still not great. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Nuclear plants are slow to build because of NIMBY political bullshit, they're not some arcane and unknowable secret that humanity just can't understand. If we wanted to build a whole bunch real fast, we could, it's a political will and lack of resources issue, not an engineering problem. I don't think so. Which serious proposals are you thinking of that were cancelled due to NIMBYism? This point gets made in this thread nearly every time it gets bumped. The real reason we aren't building a whole bunch of reactors is because they're expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:24
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:The way to avoid Fukishimas is to not build nuclear reactors where they'll get smashed by tidal waves, or if you do at least make sure the diesel backups are high enough off the ground to not get swamped. The way to avoid Chernobyls is to not build pre-refit RBMK reactors. Both of these are incredibly easy and not at all hard to do. The way to avoid Fukushima is not be a jackass like Tepco and put your backup generators below the flood level. Family Values posted:I don't think so. Which serious proposals are you thinking of that were cancelled due to NIMBYism? This point gets made in this thread nearly every time it gets bumped. Fixing climate change is going to be expensive. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Aug 27, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I don't think so. Which serious proposals are you thinking of that were cancelled due to NIMBYism? This point gets made in this thread nearly every time it gets bumped. Yucca Mountain got stopped because of NIMBYism. You don't normally hear about NIMBY bullshit because it's local and nobody covers news stories to portray local residents stopping big development as villains. I live near SONGS, which was recently shuttered by a scumbag investor who sabotaged the refit by installing subpar parts and then shrugging when they didn't pass inspection, letting them write off the plant and raise power rates to guarantee their profit margins on natural gas plants, because that's capitalism baby! That kind of bullshit can't stand either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
I am so sick of nuclear waste being some special case. By its very nature it decays. It's not going to be around forever. You know what will be around forever? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picher,_Oklahoma The lead tailings are going to be around forever. Till the sun burns the earth. Mercury will always be in our oceans, building up in the food we eat. There toxic superfund sites we make with regular ore mining in our misguided lust for resources will be with us forever until we actively clean them up, but no one goes says we shouldn't mind lead, or rare earths, or any other heavy toxic metal. No one makes projects where we figure out how to mark a superfund site contaminated with mine tailings for people thousands of years in the future, but you know what? It's gonna make them just as dead as a spent fuel dump. Except you know, it's sitting in giant hills on the surface and not buried in a salt dome or in some thick steel and concrete container that we constantly monitor. Nuclear waste is toxic. It is dangerous. But we can deal with it, and it is produced in much smaller quantities than most industrial wastes. Some of it is just hot enough that a good 40 years is all it needs to be made safe. You can't say that about much else. Finally, the nuclear industry kills less people per megawatt of power produced than solar and wind, so it's not even about saving lives, is it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Pander posted:The theory should be to add wind and solar and storage wherever it works to add it. Where it is infeasible to add it, due to land scarcity, population density, or poor wind/insolation resources, construct nuclear plants. Then we need to focus on a standardized design that can get built and turned on in a rapid fashion. Right now it takes too long.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:The way to avoid Fukishimas is to not build nuclear reactors where they'll get smashed by tidal waves, or if you do at least make sure the diesel backups are high enough off the ground to not get swamped. The way to avoid Chernobyls is to not build pre-refit RBMK reactors. Both of these are incredibly easy and not at all hard to do. Might not be a bad idea to relocate the waste from San Onofre away from the ocean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Without the requisite knowledge, you can't say how far wrong the conclusions are. If they are off by even a full order of magnitude, it's still not great. The foundation of his conclusions are entirely faulty. This isn't just a misplaced decimal, this is entire base assumptions being radically incorrect due to his bias. I don't know how many orders of magnitude off that is because you can't divide by 0 (the amount of right he is).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:I am so sick of nuclear waste being some special case. By its very nature it decays. It's not going to be around forever. You know what will be around forever? Yeah, this has always been my take on nuclear waste. It's a non-issue relative to the massive amount of far more dangerous waste we create, transport, and store with barely any regulation or care.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Without the requisite knowledge, you can't say how far wrong the conclusions are. If they are off by even a full order of magnitude, it's still not great. This is one of the dumbest things I've seen posted in this thread. His premises are wrong. His conclusion is wrong. I don't need to show "how far wrong it is." You don't just get to come up with a bullshit number and then say "Well, you can't say how *big* a pile of bullshit it is, so it's probably reasonably close to correct."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
Hi, I did the math on wind power using historical accident and injury rates going back to the 1500's by including old dangerous wind powered saw and grain mills we don't build anymore. The math indicates that, if using wind, over 20 million people would die or be maimed each year if we tried to go entirely wind-based. Kinda proves its not really an option, using math, and facts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Hi, I did the math on wind power using historical accident and injury rates going back to the 1500's by including old dangerous wind powered saw and grain mills we don't build anymore. The math indicates that, if using wind, over 20 million people would die or be maimed each year if we tried to go entirely wind-based. Kinda proves its not really an option, using math, and facts. :woah: Hey can you please point me to the article and in particular his conclusions I'd like to read it myself
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:This is one of the dumbest things I've seen posted in this thread. This sort of thing really needs to be understood by the public at large. At a certain point you can't parse something that is factually unreliable, because you don't have a foundation to build upon. If a source is 50% bullshit then it's 100% useless, because you can't believe any specific element. It's why people shouldn't watch tabloids like Fox or the Daily Mail, even though they sometimes have sane news coverage (their polling unit results for example) - without reasonable trust in the underlying medium you can't gauge the veracity of any specific material.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Yeah, this has always been my take on nuclear waste. It's a non-issue relative to the massive amount of far more dangerous waste we create, transport, and store with barely any regulation or care. If we start reprocessing fuel like France it also goes down significantly
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
Like seriously dude if you cant see the difference between me saying no you're missing things therefore your conclusion is wrong (GIGO) and me doing a probability based analysis to determine likelihood of nuclear accidents I dunno what to tell you But I'd like to read your article please 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
HLW management is very doable, even if we do scale up considerably. From standard fare geological repositories to deep borehole disposal to subduction zone disposal etc. Or even, transmutation or re-use. The main problem for scaling up has to do with cost and desirability. I am a proponent of nuclear power, but at this point - and given the ridiculous advances in technology and efficiency that renewables have seen the last decade, as well as the rate they are still accelerating at - it might be cheaper AND faster to attack this without building new plants (and letting outstanding nuclear and gas plants in use until the base load problem is solved). If your cosmo-theory is that the only way to survive this is to build nuclear plants on a massive scale, I really hope that you will be proven wrong. Because its not happening anyway, and if you are right we are going to die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:The main problem for scaling up has to do with cost and desirability This is a self fulfilling prophecy that is murdering the planet
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:03 |
|
|
The extremely ironic part though is that if humanity persisted with peaceful nuclear tech in the 70s and 80s, we wouldn't even been having this discussion now.Nevvy Z posted:This is a self fulfilling prophecy that is murdering the planet Sure. And it is true as toast still.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2019 19:17
|
|