|
CommieGIR posted:No that's not how we got Fukushima at all. How we got Fukushima was TEPCO ignoring sound advice on the placement of their Generators and Backup Circuit Switchgear.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
DTurtle posted:This does slightly ignore the people forced to relocate from Fukushima and the surrounding area. Which I would posit is a major impact to human life. https://www.science.org/content/article/fukushima-residents-exposed-far-less-radiation-thought A large amount of the relocation is partially paranoia. quote:Now, Makoto Miyazaki, a radiologist at Fukushima Medical University, and Ryugo Hayano, a University of Tokyo physicist, have taken the thousands of data points from the Date dosimeters and compared them with the ground-level estimates from the helicopter data. The scientists concluded that actual radiation doses were roughly 15% of what the helicopters were measuring, scaled to ground level, they reported last month in the Journal of Radiological Protection. That's four times less radiation than what the Japanese government was previously assuming. The evacuation was almost more precaution than actual necessity, and in most cases even if the evacuation hadn't been ordered, most of the homes and building were destroyed anyways. And even so, the total amount of exposure was so low, that in most cases there's not likely to be any medically relevant health effects from it: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/fukushima-radiation-exposure.aspx quote:By August 2020, 2308 disaster-related deaths, that were not due to radiation-induced damage or to the earthquake or to the tsunami, had been identified by the Japanese authorities. About 90% of deaths were for persons above 66 years of age. Of these, about 70% occurred within the first three months of the evacuations. (A similar number of deaths occurred among evacuees from tsunami- and earthquake-affected prefectures. These figures are in addition to the 19,000 that died in the actual tsunami.)The premature deaths were mainly related to: physical and mental illness brought about by having to reside in shelters and the trauma of being forced to move from homes; and delays in obtaining needed medical support because of the enormous destruction caused by the earthquake and tsunami. However, the radiation levels in most of the evacuated areas were not greater than the natural radiation levels in some high background areas elsewhere in the world where no adverse health effect is evident, so maintaining the evacuation beyond a precautionary week or so was evidently the main disaster in relation to human fatalities. The reality is, the dangers from even Fukushima Daichi itself are vastly overstated. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Apr 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
The reality is, this disaster is going to cost anything from $200bn to a trillion, and it also tainted the nuclear industry for at least a decade. One of the reasons that mass nuclear is not happening and will not happen, period is Fukushima. And if you think nuclear is crucial for stemming climate change, then the Fukushima disaster DID have a major impact to human life. Dante80 fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Apr 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
That's worded like you think you're disagreeing with someone. But I'm not sure you are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 16:51
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:That's worded like you think you're disagreeing with someone. But I'm not sure you are. Oh no, I'm not disagreeing with anyone here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 16:53
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:Oh no, I'm not disagreeing with anyone here. :hifive: I'm still a little hopeful but I'm mostly sure the next time anything goes wrong with nuclear energy anywhere in the world it'll be more of the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 16:55
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:The reality is, this disaster is going to cost anything from $200bn to a trillion, and it also tainted the nuclear industry for at least a decade. I think reality is starting to hit, and ironically, Russia's invasion is helping deliver it: That renewables alone are not cutting it, Germany's plan to use natural gas to wean off coal is not happening. France just relected Macron, who is doubling down on growing the French nuclear industry, China is building reactors steadily, even the Saudis are building nuclear plants. Japan doesn't want to become Germany and is already making plans to bring shuttered reactors back online to avoid having to double down on depending on fossil fuels. There's growing popular approval for nuclear, and I think we can continue that trend. In fact, I'm hoping we can. Dante80 posted:One of the reasons that mass nuclear is not happening and will not happen, period is Fukushima. And if you think nuclear is crucial for stemming climate change, then the Fukushima disaster DID have a major impact to human life. But nuclear is happening? There's mass buildout happening in China, Saudi Arabia, India, planned construction in UK, France wants to restart its nuclear construction of both SMRs and large PWR plants, Poland is hoping to build plants to end their coal dependency. Russia's war making it apparent that fossil dependency is just a way for other countries to dictate your geopolitical actions is also demonstrating a need for both renewables and more efficient baseload. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Apr 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 16:58
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think reality is starting to hit, and ironically, Russia's invasion is helping deliver it: That renewables alone are not cutting it, Germany's plan to use natural gas to wean off coal is not happening. France just relected Macron, who is doubling down on growing the French nuclear industry, China is building reactors steadily, even the Saudis are building nuclear plants. Japan doesn't want to become Germany and is already making plans to bring shuttered reactors back online to avoid having to double down on depending on fossil fuels. I'm hoping too, but what you are describing is not what I think when I say mass nuclear. Actually, it's pathetic. Too little, too slow, too late. And yes, Fukushima paid a part to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 17:09
|
|
|
Dante80 posted:I'm hoping too, but what you are describing is not what I think when I say mass nuclear. Its pathetic, yes, but its momentum. And that's momentum worth fighting for. There is no too late. There is only the action we can push. Even if we're looking at decade long projects, they are more worthwhile than saying its not fast enough and giving up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
Agreed on that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 17:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1520067764865568768?s=20&t=fW6JFVpSGQT0q8U6AOSE2g
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
quote:Together, the twin 1100 MWe reactors produce about 18,000 GW·h of electricity annually (8.6% of total California generation and 23% of carbon-free generation) Hahahahahahgahahahahahdgghhhhhhfffffff
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 17:40
|
|
|
Are there any good quick nuclear talking points? I need to convince some fellow leftists who haven’t left the old anti nuclear weapons stance inherited from the Cold War Green Day’s. I’m looking for points on: renewables not being sufficient for baseline load, nuclear waste being a tiny amount physically, and something that could argue a case for nationalization/ deprivatization of the nuclear industry. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Are there any good quick nuclear talking points? I need to convince some fellow leftists who haven’t left the old anti nuclear weapons stance inherited from the Cold War Green Day’s. I’m looking for points on: renewables not being sufficient for baseline load, nuclear waste being a tiny amount physically, and something that could argue a case for nationalization/ deprivatization of the nuclear industry. Thanks! A good talking point is the example that the only ones who benefit from closure and attacking of nuclear power plants is the Fossil Fuel industry, with Indian Point being a prime example: Nearly all the load Indian Point generated was replaced by burning fossil natural gas. There's also the mounting evidence that Germany's closure of Nuclear Power Plants was directly pushed by Gazprom talking points in order for Russia to sell more fossil fuels. There's never been a case where closing a nuclear plant results in renewables filling the gap, its almost always directly lead to more fossil fuels being burned to make up the difference. And nuclear continues to have the lowest Death/kwhr generate of any generating method, the smallest footprint, and lowest environmental impact. In fact, in Diablo Canyon's case specifically, the cooling water outlets have actually become a wildlife refuge due to the slightly warmer waters coming out of the plant, resulting in a marine life bloom of life normally found only in Southern Californian waters. Even in places like Chernobyl, where once was expected to be a lifeless desert, its now a burgeoning wildlife reserve where multiple near extinct species actually began to regain their population. That's not to say there isn't an impact, but nature does not appear to be as sensitive to radiation as we expected. This is partially because most wildlife life expectancy is not in the range where things like cancer would become impactful unlike humans. https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/environment/article258804173.html The sad truth is, most of the anti-nuclear stuff stems from misunderstood fear, in part pushed by real life accidents, but also in part openly encouraged by fossil fuel interests who in reality cannot compete well with nuclear, to that end there's a large fossil donation push to multiple environmental groups including Riverkeepers, National Resource Defense Council, and even groups like Sierra Club who have been given fossil fuel donations and then encouraged to spread anti-nuclear talking points. Renewables, combined with nuclear, can easily replace fossil fuels used in energy generation as well as provide load for carbon capture (if its ever fully viable), desalination (a big future issue for California), and electric vehicle charging. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Apr 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 17:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:A good talking point is the example that the only ones who benefit from closure and attacking of nuclear power plants is the Fossil Fuel industry, with Indian Point being a prime example: Nearly all the load Indian Point generated was replaced by burning fossil natural gas. There's also the mounting evidence that Germany's closure of Nuclear Power Plants was directly pushed by Gazprom talking points in order for Russia to sell more fossil fuels. There's never been a case where closing a nuclear plant results in renewables filling the gap, its almost always directly lead to more fossil fuels being burned to make up the difference. A good summary, thanks! Do you know where I could find reliable sources to cite? Ones that don’t just sound like shilling for the nuclear industry I mean. Edit: one claim that I encountered is “renewables are sufficient for all power generation needs”. I’m pretty sure there’s a rebuttal to this that shows that it’s not the case unless nuclear is part of the picture. DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Apr 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think reality is starting to hit, and ironically, Russia's invasion is helping deliver it Finland was already building another new nuclear reactor, but for ..reasons it was from Rosatom. The whole project is now scrapped and will not restart even if the war ends. Russian nuclear industry is poisonous now. But I guess it is better that it is scrapped now instead of having massive issues later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:Finland was already building another new nuclear reactor, but for ..reasons it was from Rosatom. The whole project is now scrapped and will not restart even if the war ends. Russian nuclear industry is poisonous now. But I guess it is better that it is scrapped now instead of having massive issues later. This has been one of the worst part of Russia shooting themselves in the foot: Rosatom had largely turned the VVER series into a production line product, able to churn out reactors, steam generators, and all the major components. Its gonna be hard to replace the VVER series as an export reactor, all the bugs had been worked out. Yeah, Russia really hosed everything with their stupid was, but the silver lining is its making it abundantly clear that fossil fuel dependency is more dangerous that previously thought. Thankfully Finland did finish their other reactors at Olkiluoto before the war and they plan to reach out to France and America for fuel sourcing. DrSunshine posted:Edit: one claim that I encountered is “renewables are sufficient for all power generation needs”. I’m pretty sure there’s a rebuttal to this that shows that it’s not the case unless nuclear is part of the picture. Depends on the demand, but also depends on the environment. Good example, again, is Germany, that just went through a massive wind drought over the winter and lost a significant portion of generation which had to be made up with coal, gas, and imports. If renewables were sufficient, this wouldn't be true, and even then, we're nowhere near the scale for renewables to be in the position to do so yet. Not even within this decade most likely, and the footprint for the buildout is immense. The way to frame this is: Renewables are good, we need them, but you have to also choose one: Fossil or Nuclear. You get 2 of these 3, and if the climate crisis is as bad as we claim it is, are you really willing to risk using fossil fuels to 'bridge the gap'? If yes, then is it actually being treated as a crisis? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Apr 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1520067764865568768?s=20&t=fW6JFVpSGQT0q8U6AOSE2g I hate my old state so much. California should be a beacon of renewable and nuclear working together to remove fossil fuels, but it's going to end up being renewables and natural gas prolonging the problem for another decade or two.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This has been one of the worst part of Russia shooting themselves in the foot: Rosatom had largely turned the VVER series into a production line product, able to churn out reactors, steam generators, and all the major components. Its gonna be hard to replace the VVER series as an export reactor, all the bugs had been worked out. In retrospect those reactors were probably full of security holes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
My main pro-nuclear talking points recently have been that it's just insane to shut down functioning plants (unless there's a specfici safety issue) for two reasons:
The arguments for new plants is more challenging due to the constant cost overruns and delays, though IMO it's still worthwhile consideirng the benefits of consistent, independent power supply that doesn't need to deal with storage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:In retrospect those reactors were probably full of security holes. Eh, the VVER has been a good product this far, but yeah I wouldn't want any of their computer systems on my network. Thankfully the VVER design is such its difficult to cause significant issues before the automatic systems would shut it down. The margin for error at modern nuclear plants is very small, so even going outside that, verified by analog instrumentation, would result in a shutdown. mobby_6kl posted:My main pro-nuclear talking points recently have been that it's just insane to shut down functioning plants (unless there's a specfici safety issue) for two reasons: Good points, my other argument is: If this is a crisis, a crisis that is directly threatening humankind, why should cost even enter consideration? How much is humanities survival worth? If the goal is to only solve a climate crisis on the cheap, its not a crisis. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:31 on Apr 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:23
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:My main pro-nuclear talking points recently have been that it's just insane to shut down functioning plants (unless there's a specfici safety issue) for two reasons: There's always a way to use more electricity. The worst case scenario is that nuclear drives the price of power down enough to make more industrial applications cost effective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:Are there any good quick nuclear talking points? I need to convince some fellow leftists who haven’t left the old anti nuclear weapons stance inherited from the Cold War Green Day’s. I’m looking for points on: renewables not being sufficient for baseline load, nuclear waste being a tiny amount physically, and something that could argue a case for nationalization/ deprivatization of the nuclear industry. Thanks! A single person's entire lifetime energy consumption, including all the secondary consumption as a side effect of the production of the goods they consume, is about a 1" cube of uranium. That's the sum total of the per person lifetime high level waste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:27
|
|
|
To drive home how bad the Indian Point closure has been environmentally https://twitter.com/johnrhanger/status/1520408028507480065?s=20&t=0giZEtu_VMwf-99G_na-iw
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:33
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:A single person's entire lifetime energy consumption, including all the secondary consumption as a side effect of the production of the goods they consume, is about a 1" cube of uranium. That's the sum total of the per person lifetime high level waste. I seem to remember that all of the high-level fuel waste produced in the US over the entire course of our nuclear power history since would cover a US football field to a depth of about thirty feet. As opposed to the gigatons of coal, oil, and gas we’ve turned into ash and smoke and pumped into the air. It’s a question of whether we want to be responsible and sequester our waste in an easy-to control, easy-to monitor way, or continue to pump it into the air for our kids to breathe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
This Forbes article is primarily about the link between the oil industry and anti-nuclear activism https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/ It also points out that climate scientists have been saying for years that we need nuclear power to combat climate change. Period. There is no path to a low-carbon future that excludes nuclear energy. Here's a level-headed NPR article about how https://www.npr.org/2022/01/18/1073726137/the-us-is-divided-over-whether-nuclear-power-is-part-of-the-green-energy-future It includes this quote "We have to incorporate nuclear energy in a way that acknowledges it's not risk-free," he said. "But the risks of falling short of our climate goals exceed the risks of including nuclear energy as part of the zero carbon energy mix." The "Baseload" issue is basically wrong and easily disputed, you shouldn't use it. Anything can meet baseload with enough energy storage. It doesn't matter that such storage is expensive and impractical. It's not a real technical issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I seem to remember that all of the high-level fuel waste produced in the US over the entire course of our nuclear power history since would cover a US football field to a depth of about thirty feet. As opposed to the gigatons of coal, oil, and gas we’ve turned into ash and smoke and pumped into the air. It’s a question of whether we want to be responsible and sequester our waste in an easy-to control, easy-to monitor way, or continue to pump it into the air for our kids to breathe. The other part is framing it as purely waste ignores that most high level spent fuel CAN be re-used, recycled, or even bred into new fuel. Its not just...trash or waste. Its future potential fuel.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The other part is framing it as purely waste ignores that most high level spent fuel CAN be re-used, recycled, or even bred into new fuel. Its not just...trash or waste. Its future potential fuel. Just so. Speaking of which, in one of these threads someone mentioned French fuel reprocessing. Anyone have any good English-language articles on what they’re doing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The other part is framing it as purely waste ignores that most high level spent fuel CAN be re-used, recycled, or even bred into new fuel. Its not just...trash or waste. Its future potential fuel. Do you happen to have a radionuclide flowchart of fuel -> waste -> fuel -> waste with the percentages? I can do the molar mass calculations for how much net high level waste you get if you burn it twice or thrice
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 18:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, Russia really hosed everything with their stupid was, but the silver lining is its making it abundantly clear that fossil fuel dependency is more dangerous that previously thought. Indeed, in the bigger picture this is a really welcome wakeup call. MrYenko posted:I seem to remember that all of the high-level fuel waste produced in the US over the entire course of our nuclear power history since would cover a US football field to a depth of about thirty feet. As opposed to the gigatons of coal, oil, and gas we’ve turned into ash and smoke and pumped into the air. It’s a question of whether we want to be responsible and sequester our waste in an easy-to control, easy-to monitor way, or continue to pump it into the air for our kids to breathe. Just have to love these "football field" measurement units. How many olympic swimming pool is that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
bad_fmr posted:Indeed, in the bigger picture this is a really welcome wakeup call. I do it specifically to piss off the metric familiar  Its just shy of 41,000m3
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Eh, the VVER has been a good product this far, but yeah I wouldn't want any of their computer systems on my network. Thankfully the VVER design is such its difficult to cause significant issues before the automatic systems would shut it down. The margin for error at modern nuclear plants is very small, so even going outside that, verified by analog instrumentation, would result in a shutdown. Concept is based on the faulty assumption that human behavior is in any way rational.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Just so. Speaking of which, in one of these threads someone mentioned French fuel reprocessing. Anyone have any good English-language articles on what they’re doing? There were some good links in response to my question from a very recent post, just hit the ? below my av.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:There were some good links in response to my question from a very recent post, just hit the ? below my av. Fuckin A, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Do you happen to have a radionuclide flowchart of fuel -> waste -> fuel -> waste with the percentages? I can do the molar mass calculations for how much net high level waste you get if you burn it twice or thrice At least in the US, current burn up is only 3% of the actual fuel before its removed, so 96-97% is still viable Uranium, with 1-2% of the U-235 (high enriched) Uranium still in the fuel. If you assume you have to add back in about 3-4% HEU to return the fuel to good condition (average American reactor is running 3-5% enriched Uranium fuel), its incredibly recyclable. I have a graphic somewhere, I'll try to find it. If you have a breeder reactor, you can further enrich U-238 to create U-233 or other Fissile isotopes from waste or natural uranium. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:20 on May 1, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its pathetic, yes, but its momentum. And that's momentum worth fighting for. There is no too late. There is only the action we can push. Even if we're looking at decade long projects, they are more worthwhile than saying its not fast enough and giving up. I hope it sticks better this time; it feels cyclical. In the early & mid-2000s we saw similar things, but almost all the projects fizzled; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_reactors_in_the_United_States makes for a depressing bit of reading, though I know you've seen this one before. It feels like nuclear energy momentum is oh so fragile, and always for stupid reasons. For the people asking for resources on talking points and scientific data: I've shilled this before and doubtless will again, but it is excellent reading, if a little long: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/index.html Because it was written in 1990, some of it it outdated, namely the parts that deal with the current political climate. But what it will give you is hard data on the mortality and resource use rates compared between fossil, nuclear, and major renewables; hard figures on accident rates and mortality from those accidents, again compared to fossil; hard data on the dangers of waste and how it's not an unsolved problem as is broadly claimed; and reasons why nuclear power fell out of favor in the 80s in the US.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 10:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:At least in the US, current burn up is only 3% of the actual fuel before its removed, so 96-97% is still viable Uranium, with 1-2% of the U-235 (high enriched) Uranium still in the fuel. If you assume you have to add back in about 3-4% HEU to return the fuel to good condition (average American reactor is running 3-5% enriched Uranium fuel), its incredibly recyclable. I have a graphic somewhere, I'll try to find it. U238 in a breeder reactor is used to produce plutonium with some additional small amount of U235 possible after a decay. You cannot enrich U238 to create U233 (as enrichment is a process of isotope separation not creation). U233 would be produced in a breeder reactor that uses thorium as the breeding material.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 17:49
|
|
|
freezepops posted:U238 in a breeder reactor is used to produce plutonium with some additional small amount of U235 possible after a decay. You cannot enrich U238 to create U233 (as enrichment is a process of isotope separation not creation). U233 would be produced in a breeder reactor that uses thorium as the breeding material. Yes I'm aware, I was using it as an example of products a breeder can produce, didn't meant to imply you could get U-233 from U-238. There's other products you can make that are fissionable from U-238
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 17:50
|
|
|
if Fukushima is worth that much money, then The Simpsons intro, comic books, and bad scifi movies (oh and I guess games) are probably worth trillions more in anti atoms money.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2022 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
double posting, but CommieGirs post has an example of a person getting a science degree from pop culture.CommieGIR posted:https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1520067764865568768?s=20&t=fW6JFVpSGQT0q8U6AOSE2g some dumb bird reply : dddaaaa devil canyon plus nukes = real life scifi movie. I r really smart adult with the same voting rights as you. loving christ.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2022 07:21
|
|