Japan earthquake + tsunami + nuclear problems

[Christian Klippel]

No. it must match the grid somehow, you can't just dump excess power. Now windmills could be running with trimming, which could be altered to meet load, but because the energy potential of wind varies drastically over the course of minutes, there would need to be enormous overcapacity. Wouldn't help with dramatic wind drops though. One of the expectations was that having a variety of locations would help, but experience has shown that large area drops in wind power are not uncommon. Of course most of the country doesn't even have enough steady wind to be of use.

Solar has even more problems because lots of power is needed at night and the only available solar is on the other half of the world.

I'm sure that the greens have no problem to give up their villages, to put big hydroelectric storage facilities there, so that they can have electricity at all times. After they moved in there, because they had to left the previous one to make space for all the windmills and solar panels.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[andyandy]

I can imagine that it would be better to try to cool them down, wait a while, and then clean up the whole mess to get rid of it. Burrying would leave the mess where it is and would require constant checking, etc., to make sure that it stays "safe".

yeah you're probably right

As a side thought....

Imagine a 9.0 earthquake on a hydroelectric dam....

Japan's dams did mercifully seem to escape unscathed - but yes, that could cause massive (additional) destruction if one burst.....

 

[Rolfe]

Didn't an irrigation dam go, in the middle of it all?

Rolfe.

 

[One Skunk Todd]

Just out of curiosity. If you're going to put the reactors on the coast anyway, is there some reason you couldn't put them in pits below sea level? Then you still have your defense in depth plus the added ability to put in piping and gates that could be opened if all else failed. You could make them mechanical so power's not a problem and one-way to prevent back flow into the ocean.

 

[technoextreme]

The next transition is happening, and it's to solar energy in all its forms. Sun, wind, wave, and we can thank the Moon for tidal. It pours down on us every minute of every day. That's where the future is, and anything spent on nuclear power now is investment in the future thrown away.

That's universally considered to be impossible in the energy community. There simply isn't enough resources to atually be able to feasibly switch over.

I can imagine that it would be better to try to cool them down, wait a while, and then clean up the whole mess to get rid of it. Burrying would leave the mess where it is and would require constant checking, etc., to make sure that it stays "safe".

Of course that's just my speculation, but to me it seems logical that burrying it in place would have more long-term consequences. It may be cheaper to just burry it, however.

Yeah the idiots recommending the Cherenobyl option seem to forget that the Cherenobyl containment is actually falling apart and needs to be fixed.

 

[Pulvinar]

No. it must match the grid somehow, you can't just dump excess power. Now windmills could be running with trimming, which could be altered to meet load, but because the energy potential of wind varies drastically over the course of minutes, there would need to be enormous overcapacity. Wouldn't help with dramatic wind drops though. One of the expectations was that having a variety of locations would help, but experience has shown that large area drops in wind power are not uncommon. Of course most of the country doesn't even have enough steady wind to be of use.

Solar has even more problems because lots of power is needed at night and the only available solar is on the other half of the world.

You're still thinking small and local. I assume you haven't read about super grids. On a continental scale the combined solar+wind availability averages out, day and night.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're still thinking small and local. I assume you haven't read about super grids. On a continental scale the combined solar+wind availability averages out, day and night.

Sounds like a recipe for making yourself vulnerable.

Large-scale electric grids are supposed to protect against localized power outages by allowing power to transfer from elsewhere to the location of the problem. But while they mitigate some risks, they introduce others. Connectivity is a two-way street, and while power generated at location A can help when there's a problem at location B, the reverse is also true: problems at location B can now disrupt power generation at location A. You reduce the risk of small-scale problems, but at the cost of enabling large-scale problems. If your supergrid crashes, then you've lost power everywhere.

In a massive disaster like what's going on in Japan, that loss of power can be incredibly dangerous. It's quite likely that more people will die in Japan because of hypothermia, a condition easily preventable if you have enough power, than because of anything going on at the nuclear plants. Electricity saves lives. The lack of electricity can cost lives. Keeping a degree of locality in such a vital resource as electric generation capacity is an important safeguard against power disruption. But if your base load capacity is solar power generated halfway across the planet, you don't really have much safety margin.

 

[lomiller]

Sounds like a recipe for making yourself vulnerable.

Large-scale electric grids are supposed to protect against localized power outages by allowing power to transfer from elsewhere to the location of the problem. But while they mitigate some risks, they introduce others. Connectivity is a two-way street, and while power generated at location A can help when there's a problem at location B, the reverse is also true: problems at location B can now disrupt power generation at location A. .

Any large scale grid would be high voltage DC due to much greater efficiency. An added benefit is that there is no longer a direct electrical connection which eliminates much of this type of trouble

 

[Pulvinar]

Sounds like a recipe for making yourself vulnerable.

Large-scale electric grids are supposed to protect against localized power outages by allowing power to transfer from elsewhere to the location of the problem. But while they mitigate some risks, they introduce others. Connectivity is a two-way street, and while power generated at location A can help when there's a problem at location B, the reverse is also true: problems at location B can now disrupt power generation at location A. You reduce the risk of small-scale problems, but at the cost of enabling large-scale problems. If your supergrid crashes, then you've lost power everywhere.

In a massive disaster like what's going on in Japan, that loss of power can be incredibly dangerous. It's quite likely that more people will die in Japan because of hypothermia, a condition easily preventable if you have enough power, than because of anything going on at the nuclear plants. Electricity saves lives. The lack of electricity can cost lives. Keeping a degree of locality in such a vital resource as electric generation capacity is an important safeguard against power disruption. But if your base load capacity is solar power generated halfway across the planet, you don't really have much safety margin.

You would have a safety margin because it's part of the design: the solar+wind super grid supplies power most of the time, but you also have quick-starting gas turbine plants for filling in the rare continental-scale lulls. These would be local and immune to grid damage, which can be repaired relatively quickly.

The planning and control of the super grid wouldn't be simple, but then it isn't for nuclear either.

 

[Ziggurat]

You would have a safety margin because it's part of the design

There was a safety margin at Fukushima too. Having a safety margin doesn't mean that the system can't fail. You can't avoid the question of what happens if it fails.

the solar+wind super grid supplies power most of the time, but you also have quick-starting gas turbine plants for filling in the rare continental-scale lulls.

Will they really build sufficient redundant, unused capacity? I doubt it.

I'm not saying we shouldn't build a supergrid. But it won't insulate us from any problems, and making solar and wind the primary base load for it sounds both unlikely and dangerous.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's my favorite video so far about what's going on at Fukushima:

 

[Christian Klippel]

You would have a safety margin because it's part of the design: the solar+wind super grid supplies power most of the time, but you also have quick-starting gas turbine plants for filling in the rare continental-scale lulls. These would be local and immune to grid damage, which can be repaired relatively quickly.

The planning and control of the super grid wouldn't be simple, but then it isn't for nuclear either.

So you are advocating not only to build massive amount of wind and solar stations everywhere, massive because they simply have a low GWh output compared to their theoretical peak power, and a massive and complex grid to connect all that, but on top of it you want to install and maintain lots of "emergency power plants" so that local peak demands or failures of the grid can be dealt with?

Because the you would basically need the same amount of capacity of power plants installed as we have now, and while not operating 24/7, you have still to maintain them.

Sounds a bit nonsensical to me, if we need that amount just for backup purposes. Mind you, building safer, modern nukes, and getting LFTR's and traveling-wave ready for "prime time" to replace the old ones as soon as possible would be a much cheaper option (materials, building work, space needed) in the long run.

Somehow your idea doesn't sound like as if it was thought through.

But then, at least in Germany, the funding of science and development of new nuke technology was virtually stopped long ago, with the decision to exit nuke tech completely putting the final nail in the coffin. After all, who wants to spend lots of money on research and development on something that is 100% guaranteed to never get build at all?

It's easy to point at old technology and their flaws, running around and telling people that it is that way for so long already and nothing new comes along, when you effectively blocked exactly that to begin with. Same goes for the situation with spent fuel. Blocking all plans to get fast breeders build, actively forcing the operators to vitrify the waste to make it unusable for reprocessing, but then pointing at the problem of terminal storage. It's hypocrisy beyond belief.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Skwinty]

Here's my favorite video so far about what's going on at Fukushima:

Excellent!
Should be stock footage for global TV networks.

 

[Skwinty]

It's hypocrisy beyond belief.

As W C Fields said: "Hypocrisy is the vaseline of social intercourse"

 

[JihadJane]

Let me get this right.

We can only do our best!

When people are idiot in chernobyl (and we all know to the FSM that people CAN be really stupid and take a lot of risk) and blow a nuclear central to smithern, this has no far reaching consequence and course change.

Chernobyl had a big influence on debates about nuclear energy.

There is not much one can prepare for against stupid reekless move.

No, it's something that needs to be factored into risk assessments.

But when a disaster hit a central, a disaster which is excedingly rare and for which we could have in future better preparation for next gen plant, and which at the moment do not seem to have catastrophal environmental regional impact, then it is changing the course of energy providing system with far reaching consequence ?

Whether you like it or, the disaster is not good PR for the nuclear lobby and will weaken its influence.

There are several converging, rare, major disasters bearing down on humanity right now. The energy crunch is just one of them.

Having to use conditional phrases such as "which at the moment do not seem to have catastrophal environmental regional impact" does not inspire public confidence.

I love the smell of politic in the morning (not).

You could avoid getting get out of bed until noon.

Alternatively, you could read Dr Euan Mearns' article and discover that he isn't politicking at all.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You're still thinking small and local. I assume you haven't read about super grids.

That's a great argument in favor of nuclear power.

Nuclear works without all that @#%$.

 

[Pulvinar]

Somehow your idea doesn't sound like as if it was thought through.

My idea? This is why people need to widen their focus here and read up on other approaches.

 

[Pulvinar]

That's a great argument in favor of nuclear power.

Nuclear works without all that @#%$.

You're needed in a control room at Daiichi to explain to them how it's all so simple.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The nuclear renaissance is still-born yet again.
It's over, for at least the next generation.

Thou counteth thy chickens, good sir.

Gallup puts the favor/oppose numbers almost even with each other and within the margin of error. 44% favor nuclear, 47% oppose.

FOX News polling results are slightly outside the margin of error from Gallup and gives the pro-nuclear side a slight majority with 51% in favor and 40% opposing.

The alarmist goat rodeo that has gripped the media over the last week has done some damage. But it is not irrecoverable.

The Renaissance goes on.

 

[technoextreme]

My idea? This is why people need to widen their focus here and read up on other approaches.

There really is no single viable method. Solar has huge supply chain issues in that the raw supplies were not at all antcipated to be in huge demand as they currently are. Wind has a strict set of conditions in which the turbines can operate which ironically can result in a turnbine locked down during windy days. Geothermal is location specific though it is actually a useful method for heating housing aparently. Hydroelectric is location dependent and actually is blamed for causing their own set of environmental problems.

You're needed in a control room at Daiichi to explain to them how it's all so simple.

It actually is though. The sad state of affairs is that the only viable technology route that doesn't suffer from huge feasibility issues currently is nuclear.
EDIT:
I'm actually really really happen this discussion has moved into an area in which I am actually an expert in.

In a massive disaster like what's going on in Japan, that loss of power can be incredibly dangerous. It's quite likely that more people will die in Japan because of hypothermia, a condition easily preventable if you have enough power, than because of anything going on at the nuclear plants. Electricity saves lives. The lack of electricity can cost lives. Keeping a degree of locality in such a vital resource as electric generation capacity is an important safeguard against power disruption. But if your base load capacity is solar power generated halfway across the planet, you don't really have much safety margin.

Actually, that is the most stupidest unescusable thing that is going on during this whole disaster. Parts of their grid is incompatible with other parts of the grid meaning you can't easily move power around.