Fukushima - It's Not Over

[geni]

...and?

You're going to regale us with tales of loss of RAM, personal dosimetry screw-ups, incident and accident reports?

No. Should I?

 

[Floyt]

[half a page of comparing nuclear to fossil fuel]

Yes. As repeatedly stated, this point is settled. There's no one arguing for coal plants here. You don't usually seem given to strawmen - is it just that this is such an easy line of argument that people like harping on it?

Indeed. And that's why their electricity bills are the highest in Europe, and that's despite huge government subsidies. Solar power has its place, as do most renewables, but it's rather amusing to see people promoting solar in the same thread where people complain that nuclear needs subsidies.

People complaining about subsidies and power costs on either side, on the other hand, are indeed missing the point.

 

[tyr_13]

Yes. As repeatedly stated, this point is settled. There's no one arguing for coal plants here.

Yes you are. You don't know you are, but that is exactly the outcome of your argument.

 

[Diogenes]

Your removal of context is noted.

Your sensitivity is likewise noted.

You made a claim to apply to all civilian nuclear industries, apparently. Said claim doesn't match what I've learned about civilian operations in the United States from people I served with in the US Navy. Now we have an account that the kind of attitude you encounter in the UK also would not be found in France.

On the civilian industrial scale it seems to me (and I'm not an expert on how other countries conduct their nuclear business except to know how sloppy the former USSR was) that France is probably the best at civilian nuclear power generation.

 

[geni]

Your sensitivity is likewise noted.

You made a claim to apply to all civilian nuclear industries, apparently.

Probably. I can't image any that would react well to such a relaxed atitude towards anything short of death.

On the civilian industrial scale it seems to me (and I'm not an expert on how other countries conduct their nuclear business except to know how sloppy the former USSR was) that France is probably the best at civilian nuclear power generation.

UK goverment thought so too and tried to get EDF to build our next generation of nuclear power plants. Subsidy demands ended up being too high.

 

[luchog]

Nuclear proponents tell us that power plants are safe and the risk is very low, but insurance companies don't believe them.

I haven't finished reading the thread, so I don't know if this has already been addressed; but it needs to be, as this a profound misunderstanding of what insurance companies do.

First, can you demonstrate that insurance underwriters do not believe that nuclear power is safe? Their refusal to underwrite the power plants is not a priori proof, as much as you and others would like to believe it is. Can you provide any actual evidence of your assertion?

The general public might have a wrong impression, but underwriters don't base their assessments on public opinion.

Actually, they do to a significant extent. Insurance companies have to weigh not only demonstrable risks when making insurance decisions, but also numerous intangibles such as public perception and the potential for litigation, PR image, and similarly complicated issues.

The biggest problem is "nuisance lawsuits"; that is, lawsuits that have little or no factual basis for their charges, but which are driven by sheer ignorance of the actual effects and risks of nuclear power generation. These lawsuits are common in many industries, and form a significant part of the operating costs of many industries. The most egregious example is the healthcare industry, where specious malpractice and other lawsuits have driven the costs of insurance so high that it is effectively impossible for general practitioners to maintain private practice; and have contributed, along with government regulation of services, to the increasingly high costs of healthcare in the US.

While nuisance suits are typically dismissed, they still require legal responses by the underwriters, with the attending costs; which include court fees, and maintaining a legal staff sufficiently large to deal with the volume of nuisance filings. There is also the issue that some of these will eventually make trial, regardless of how groundless the basis of the suit, due to similar ignorance on the part of the judiciary. Add to that a jury who maintains a similarly negative misperception of the risks and effects of nuclear power plants, and the high potential for unfavourable judgements and multi-million-dollar awards.

There is also the problem that nuclear plants typically receive at least partial government funding, and the complexities of private insurance underwriter compliance with processes and regulations for government-funded projects are... challenging... to say the least. And private underwriting of government-funded projects is far from common, so it's hardly unusual that private companies would be hesitant to underwrite nuclear power plants. Again, the medical industry is a notable case in point, and anyone who has ever dealt with Medicaid reimbursement can illustrate just how difficult it is to manage.

Then there is the PR issue. One example is auto insurance premiums for African-American drivers. This demographic has a demonstrated higher rate of accidents; and therefore would normally have higher premiums charged to compensate. But their premiums do not fully reflect the higher risk, due to the PR issues created by public perception of discrimination against African-Americans in race-sensitive US culture. So, while their premiums are somewhat higher, the difference does not reflect the actual financial risks, and the costs not covered by their premiums are passed on to other, lower-risk, demographics.

The insurance issue not as "obvious" as you appear to think; nor is it nearly the indictment of the nuclear power industry that opponents attempt to paint it.

 

[luchog]

Solar, wind, and hydro energy are quite capable of meeting global energy demands (we can descend into Source Wars here if need be).

No, they're not. Not now, and particularly not with the projected growth of energy needs as third-world countries continue to develop and approach first-world energy consumption. You're encourage to provide sources that support your assertions, but I'm betting you won't have any; and until then, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And that completely ignores the huge environmental impact of wind, solar, and hydro plants with regards to habitat destruction and associated impacts on animal populations and migration. As well as the efficiencies and costs of power generation, which are considerably higher than nuclear for wind and solar; and the extremely limited availability of hydro.

 

[Aepervius]

Hydro is probably 100% exploited in western europe.

Wind and solar don't have an huge impact (as far as I know the latest study) on local fauna. Byrd are killed more by building for example.

The biggest obstacle to be 100% renewable is the fact that the power does not come steadily. To have a baseline power you need something which comes steadily. That's why solar and wind can at best be additional input, but not baseline. Also a wind plant or solar plant rarely reach its peak capacity.

Now that COULD change if , say germany, adds a lot of battery. Physical battery naturally, like having a lake in height, then pump water high when you have excess power, and let it fall down as hydro when you have a lack. Imagine an artificial dam if you prefer. But even that has its negative effect (imagine the water quantity, and the fact it must be at height so if it break out , nice potential energy get crushing what's around). That's also on paper, to my knowledge wasn't done anywhere in the way it would be needed for a country like germany. There are other solutions, but none really beyond paper. As for electrochemical battery, forget it unless we got enormous advance.

No really, there is no way in hell we can have 100% solar, wind , hydro, without some advancement or having additional risk like physical battery. Baseline (coal, nuclear, gas) is here to stay.

 

[Aepervius]

Also something to remember, is that residential consume around 20% of the electricity. The rest is commercial and industrial. And that's about 20% of the energy consumption total. The rest is gas, coal, oil, lpg.

So harp solar cell as much as you want.

 

[luchog]

Hydro is probably 100% exploited in western europe.

I would doubt that it's 100%, it has certainly not reached that in the US. But to exploit further would cause a serious environmental impact; and the damage IMO outweighs the potential benefits when there are options which are much less damaging to the environment.

Wind and solar don't have an huge impact (as far as I know the latest study) on local fauna. Byrd are killed more by building for example.

Perhaps not in Germany (though that may be debatable), but they certainly do in the US. And that's not counting the damage caused to habitat by grading for windfarms, or covering with solar panels (especially in delicate desert environments); and the disruption of migration paths.

 

[lenny]

First, can you demonstrate that insurance underwriters do not believe that nuclear power is safe? Their refusal to underwrite the power plants is not a priori proof, as much as you and others would like to believe it is. Can you provide any actual evidence of your assertion?

Would be nice to see evidence on this one way or the other...

 

[thaiboxerken]

"real"?

If my participation in the refueling activities of the 2 D2W reactors aboard the USS California (CGN-36) doesn't count as "real industry" then I'm not sure what will.

Have you ever worked at a real nuclear industrial site?

I don't know if that counts as naval nuclear reactors are the gold standard of safety.

 

[Floyt]

No, they're not. Not now, and particularly not with the projected growth of energy needs as third-world countries continue to develop and approach first-world energy consumption. You're encourage to provide sources that support your assertions, but I'm betting you won't have any; and until then, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

There's plenty of serious studies that have developed reasonable scenarios. A quite comprehensive one, for starters, is Jacobson and Delucchi 2011 (Energy Policy 39[3]): "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials".
(Part I is the technical analysis of generation, Part II looks at transmission, storage and policy)

Abstract

Climate change, pollution, and energy insecurity are among the greatest problems of our time. Addressing them requires major changes in our energy infrastructure. Here, we analyze the feasibility of providing worldwide energy for all purposes (electric power, transportation, heating/cooling, etc.) from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS). In Part I, we discuss WWS energy system characteristics, current and future energy demand, availability of WWS resources, numbers of WWS devices, and area and material requirements. In Part II, we address variability, economics, and policy of WWS energy. We estimate that ∼3,800,000 5 MW wind turbines, ∼49,000 300 MW concentrated solar plants, ∼40,000 300 MW solar PV power plants, ∼1.7 billion 3 kW rooftop PV systems, ∼5350 100 MW geothermal power plants, ∼270 new 1300 MW hydroelectric power plants, ∼720,000 0.75 MW wave devices, and ∼490,000 1 MW tidal turbines can power a 2030 WWS world that uses electricity and electrolytic hydrogen for all purposes. Such a WWS infrastructure reduces world power demand by 30% and requires only ∼0.41% and ∼0.59% more of the world's land for footprint and spacing, respectively. We suggest producing all new energy with WWS by 2030 and replacing the pre-existing energy by 2050. Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic. The energy cost in a WWS world should be similar to that today.

They even exclude biofuel systems from the analysis, as unnecessary (not sure I would agree with that).

All-renewable scenarios are naturally contestable in their specifics, but they are certainly not unfounded fancies.

 

[Diogenes]

I don't know if that counts as naval nuclear reactors are the gold standard of safety.

Fair enough, it certainly spoiled me for what I considered standard in any other industrial application I worked at since...as in everything else seemed pretty relatively slack.

 

[Aepervius]

There's plenty of serious studies that have developed reasonable scenarios. A quite comprehensive one, for starters, is Jacobson and Delucchi 2011 (Energy Policy 39[3]): "Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, Part I: Technologies, energy resources, quantities and areas of infrastructure, and materials".
(Part I is the technical analysis of generation, Part II looks at transmission, storage and policy)



They even exclude biofuel systems from the analysis, as unnecessary (not sure I would agree with that).

All-renewable scenarios are naturally contestable in their specifics, but they are certainly not unfounded fancies.

They are not indicating any means of storage. As such it cannot be speaking of baseline. Also seeing the indicated number, tehy are not speaking of *energy* consumption, but electricity consumption (world : 20,279,640 Gwh/year). Remember electricity is 20% 33% (sorry should not have trusted my memory) of world energy consumption.

 

[Aepervius]

I rectract what Is aid above, I am stupid, I see that they are speaking in absolute number, I missed they had not Gwh/year but GW. The total amount they cite is in total 52 Tw. The total consumption today is 15 Tw.

Without storage their number are a puff of smoke in Narnia. We have know a long time that we can plaster renewable all over arizona and power the world with wind and solar. But we also have long known this cannot be done without storage.

The only storage they mention is hydrogen. THAT alone would need an enormous infrastructure investment, and I do not see them considering the loss solar/wind7whatever->Hydrogen->Distribution->usage.

but then again i can only access an abstract.

 

[Cuddles]

Yes. As repeatedly stated, this point is settled. There's no one arguing for coal plants here.

You are. Aside from putting up some nonsensical claims about using only renewables that are about as realistic as using only unicorn farts, everything you've said in this thread has been entirely in support of coal and oil. That you're unable to understand that's the result of your anti-nuclear silliness is something you have in common with many other wannabe environmentalists who can't be bothered to actually learn about either the environment or energy production.

You don't usually seem given to strawmen

I'm not, but it's very noticeable how often people unable to support their arguments resort to accusing others of attacking straw men.

People complaining about subsidies and power costs on either side, on the other hand, are indeed missing the point.

Nope. In the end, it's all about money. In an ideal world, we'd build all the renewables we could in places where it's appropriate, and fill in the baseload and any additional power needed with nuclear. In the real world, who the hell do you think it going to pay for that? Consumers in Germany pay nearly double the price for energy than many other European countries, largely as a result of their support for solar power which now makes up a grand total of about 4% of their electricity, and therefore closer to 1% of their total energy consumption. Just how much do you think people are willing to pay for their electricity? How much do you think they are able to pay?

It's easy to be an environmentalist in the magic world of make-believe. In order to have a useful discussion, however, it's necessary to take into account not only what is possible, but what is actually practical. In the real world, things cost money. Any discussion about the pros and cons of different power sources that doesn't take cost into account is completely pointless.

 

[Diogenes]

...
Without storage their number are a puff of smoke in Narnia. We have know a long time that we can plaster renewable all over arizona and power the world with wind and solar. But we also have long known this cannot be done without storage.

The only storage they mention is hydrogen. THAT alone would need an enormous infrastructure investment, and I do not see them considering the loss solar/wind7whatever->Hydrogen->Distribution->usage.

but then again i can only access an abstract.

So...I don't know if I'm allowed to share the article in this context? I would think so.

Those authors mention thermal energy storage...

...Some types of CSP allow the heat to be stored for many hours so that electricity can be produced at night

Hydrogen is the primary storage vehicle indicated in the full-text. The constraints by rare element for battery use in vehicles is mentioned, but everything else is fuel cells or burning liquified hydrogen (airplanes and ships). So, yeah, they are suggested solar-powered aircraft carriers.

Nuclear is briefly discussed...

In summary, the costs of nuclear power are estimated to cover a very wide range, depending on a number of variables that are difficult to project: the costs of new, untested designs; construction times; interest rates; the impact of unforeseen events; regulatory requirements; the potential for economies of scale; site- and job-specific design and construction requirements; the availability of specialty labor and materials; bottlenecks in the supply chains; the potential for standardization; and so on.

ETA:

There are factors for losses in the hydrogen generation/transport/relative efficiency relative to current fuels listed and sourced.

 

[luchog]

I rectract what Is aid above, I am stupid, I see that they are speaking in absolute number, I missed they had not Gwh/year but GW. The total amount they cite is in total 52 Tw. The total consumption today is 15 Tw.

Without storage their number are a puff of smoke in Narnia. We have know a long time that we can plaster renewable all over arizona and power the world with wind and solar. But we also have long known this cannot be done without storage.

The only storage they mention is hydrogen. THAT alone would need an enormous infrastructure investment, and I do not see them considering the loss solar/wind7whatever->Hydrogen->Distribution->usage.

but then again i can only access an abstract.

The paywall makes it difficult to know how well they've addressed the issue; but the comment "Barriers to the plan are primarily social and political, not technological or economic." does not appear to address the environmental impact a proliferation of these three technologies would cause, particularly hydro, which is a very difficult one to mitigate. The impact of hydro is a particularly important issue, as it is the only renewable technology (aside from geothermal, which is too limited to consider) capable of handling peak loads, and providing consistent power generation without wide variability.

I'd also like to see if they've addressed the economics and technical hurdles of hydrogen, as it is currently the most problematic for storage and transfer, and has possibly the worst cradle-to-grave energy economy of all available fuel alternatives (although the jury's still out on methanol's ability to scale).

Floyt, if you have direct access to the article, can you provide extracts showing how these issues are addressed; and how they address manufacturing and maintenance costs and environmental impacts, and the over cost of energy produced using strictly renewable resources contrasted with the cost of nuclear and, as a baseline, current fossil fuel power sources?

 

[r-j]

While the mainstream press is avoiding the story, the same sources that were talking about this current crisis(based on workers on site spilling the beans) a year ago, are now saying the real crisis (again, not being reported yet) is that the ground there has become saturated with water, leading to high radiation from the water, as well as dangerous structural problems, and there is actually no solution at present.

In short, it's far worse than anyone is hearing from the media, TEPCO, the Japanese government, or any nuclear regulatory agency.

This does not surprise anyone.