Merged nuclear power safe?

[JihadJane]

Have you heard about global warming?
What about peak oil?

Yes. And a lot more.

There are serious downsides to burning fossil fuels, I am not too optimistic about resolving them before the fossil fuels run out though.

What are the benefits to life on the planet of humans continuing to use the same amount of energy as that which was provided by fossil fuels

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What are the benefits to life on the planet of humans continuing to use the same amount of energy as that which was provided by fossil fuels

1st, it allows humans a much higher quality of life.

2nd, humans who don't have a high quality of life don't care about the environment. Environmentalism is a hobby of the rich.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Christian,
You do have a point there.
We need something to replace coal and oil, and at the moment renewable energy does not look promising for core electricity production. It clearly needs more research , which the Danish government have cut back on.
Actually going full ahead with solar cells in Germany looks a bit premature considering it lack of efficiency and the German weather.

The problem with renewables is that they are pretty much useless when it comes to continuous, reliable and demand-fitting production of electricity and energy. They makes sense only in very little niches, and otherwise can at best augment conventional power generation.

This is simply because of the massive amount of space they require. Just building windmills, PV, etc. is not enough, by far not enough. You also need huge amounts of really big storage systems. But the more storage you need, the more excess capacity of renewables you have to install, just to maintain the storage systems at a proper level and to compensate for losses in the system.

Then you have to connect all that together, or install even more renewables and storage systems the more localized you want to get. For example, quite often we have a week without wind, followed by a day or two with moderate wind, again followed by a week without wind. And that even in the winter. That means that the storage would have to provide energy for at least one week, and the whole system must be able to recharge the storage in a day or two. Just do the math ....

The other method is to install and maintain a whole fleet of conventional power plants just for stand-by. That would mean massive amounts of money spent for renewables, storage and grid, plus a lot of money going into maintainance os the standby plants. Which makes them a huge money sink.

If you live in, or close to, the desert or another very sunny place, solar makes some sense. If you have huge areas of wasteland with a more-or-less constant wind, or shorelines with the same, then windmills make sense. But such places are the exception and not the norm.

I am 100% confident that if renewables would not get the insane amount of subsidies they get here in Germany, no one would ever think about putting PV panels on their roofs, or building huge windfarms, etc. They "work" only because of that massive subsidization. They would never, ever stand a chance on the open market on their own.

So the only real alternatives are continuing to burn through our fossil fuels, or to get modern reactor technology up and running. And i'm sure that we can agree that burning through all our fossil fuels surely is not the best way...

Greetings,

Chris

 

[JihadJane]

I am 100% confident that if renewables would not get the insane amount of subsidies they get here in Germany, no one would ever think about putting PV panels on their roofs, or building huge windfarms, etc. They "work" only because of that massive subsidization. They would never, ever stand a chance on the open market on their own.

The same could be said about nuclear power in many parts of the world.

 

[Christian Klippel]

The same could be said about nuclear power in many parts of the world.

Any proof for that assertion? Or just babbling what you have been told to babble?

Nuclear power is so expensive that in France the people pay half the price that we pay here in Germany, while France has about the same level of taxes, etc. Yea, must be because it's so expensive compared to renewables.

Show the numbers that prove your assertion. You know, real, existing numbers. Compare that to renewables. Can you do that?

ETA: Just as a reminder: In 2011 there will be 17 billion Euros pumped into PV alone here in Germany. PV contributed 1.1% of the overall electricity generation here in Germany in 2009. It's not much more now. 17 billion for 1.1%. In one year alone. Yea, nuclear is soooo expensive.

ETA2: Here you can see what contributes how much to the electricity generation here. 1.9% for PV. Also take a look at the table "Stromerzeugungskosten in Deutschland". There it tells you the "Gestehungskosten". That is how much it costs to produce electricity. 2.65 cent per kW/h for nuclear. 2.9 - 4.6 for wind. And 21.11 - 28.74 for PV. Nuclear is the second cheapest source, the cheapest one being lignite (Braunkohle). Funny how all the renewable sources are way more expensive than nuclear.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The same could be said about nuclear power in many parts of the world.

Not, really. No. In fact wind power receives more than fourteen times more subsides than nuclear does.

And what meager subsidies nuclear receives are more than used up by artificial and unnecessary factors in the construction:

Darlington was designed and built by Ontario Power Generation (then Ontario Hydro), and brought into service between 1990 and 1993 at a final cost of CDN$14.5 billion (1993 dollars). This represents almost twice the estimated final cost (capital + construction) of CDN$7.4 billion (1993 dollars) projected at the time that construction started in 1981 [1]. About 70% of this cost increase, and about 40% of the total cost, was due to interest charges alone. This arose through a stipulation of Ontario's Power Corporation Act (RSO 1990), and originating with Ontario's historic Power Commission Act (SO 1906), which precludes the paying down of capital debt through the utility's rate base, until the capital asset is in service.

The final cost of a large generating station like Darlington is thus sensitive to schedule delays. In the case of Darlington, eleven major delays (amounting to about five years of net lost time per unit) were experienced after the project's initial approval by the utility's Board of Directors in 1977 [2]. The single largest cost increase occurred in 1983, when Units 3 and 4 were deferred for two years due to low-growth in the electricity forecast. This relatively early delay in the project, along with changes in financial policy and worsening economic conditions, increased the final capital cost estimate by about CDN$4 billion, to CDN$11 billion. Reduced load growth accounted for the most significant delays to the Darlington project, but other contributors included labour actions, staff shortages, and two unforeseen technical issues requiring the replacement of generator rotors and pump impellers.

In the end about 70% of Darlington's final cost increase was due to schedule delays and financial policy changes. The remainder of the increase is attributable to changes in scope, including that imposed by an evolving regulatory environment over the course of the project.​

If you could pass a law stating that once a shovel hits dirt, work goes ahead non-stop until the plant is ready for it's first fuel load, the build costs of nuclear energy would drop dramatically.

Another swing and a miss, Jihad.

 

[bikerdruid]

What are the benefits to life on the planet of humans continuing to use the same amount of energy as that which was provided by fossil fuels

it would be one thing if the world could remain constant in its need for energy.
however, the lust for more energy grows exponentially.
it appears that we are a stupid species.
we grow and consume on an ever increasing scale much like a cancer.
one thing that is unike any other cancer, the human cancer provides its own chemo-therapy as we continue to poison our planet.

ultimately, like any technology, nukes are safe...until they're not.

 

[Christian Klippel]

And what meager subsidies nuclear receives are more than used up by artificial and unnecessary factors in the construction:

Darlington was designed and built by Ontario Power Generation (then Ontario Hydro), and brought into service between 1990 and 1993 at a final cost of CDN$14.5 billion (1993 dollars). This represents almost twice the estimated final cost (capital + construction) of CDN$7.4 billion (1993 dollars) projected at the time that construction started in 1981 [1].

<...snip...>
​

Thanks for that, very enlightening. That means that for the money we blow into PV this year in Germany, we could have built a NPP. And another one next year, and so on. And they would deliver far more energy on a far more stable basis than PV can ever do over here.

Just shows how stupid all that renewable crap is getting. Again.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

it would be one thing if the world could remain constant in its need for energy.
however, the lust for more energy grows exponentially.
it appears that we are a stupid species.
we grow and consume on an ever increasing scale much like a cancer.
one thing that is unike any other cancer, the human cancer provides its own chemo-therapy as we continue to poison our planet.

Your hate would make you a powerful Sith Lord if this were a popular science fiction fantasy. But here in the real world, all it does is cripple your ability to form and maintain relationships and limit your options.

ultimately, like any technology, nukes are safe...until they're not.

Did you hear about Fukushima TWO, BD? It's a 30 year old 4,400 megawatt reactor facility that rode out the worst earthquake and tsunami in modern history almost unscathed. It's in good condition and can be brought back on line with minimal repairs.

If that isn't "safe" to you, then your definition of safe is not reasonable or logical.

 

[bikerdruid]

If that isn't "safe" to you, then your definition of safe is not reasonable or logical.

the other one was safe also, until it was not.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

the other one was safe also, until it was not.

In the midst of a disaster that killed 20,000 people, the other one was safe too. The effects of the incident at Fukushima One were limited largely to the plant itself and the land around it is safe for human habitation.

Whatever has happened at Fukushima One is irrelevant to the topic of whether nuclear power in general is safe as the construction of reactors like Fukushima One ended more than thirty years ago.

But don't let little things like reality and context to get in the way of your blind hatred.

 

[Corsair 115]

Just as a reminder: In 2011 there will be 17 billion Euros pumped into PV alone here in Germany. PV contributed 1.1% of the overall electricity generation here in Germany in 2009.

Just wondering, but why the focus in Germany on photovoltaic solar power production as opposed to concentrated solar power production (i.e. using mirrors to focus sunlight on a boiler, which turns water into steam which is then used to drive a turbine, generating electricity).

 

[Aepervius]

the other one was safe also, until it was not.

And you are safe and healthy until you are ill.
What is this ? Obvious-Sentence-night ?

What matters is not that there were broken , what matters is 1) what probability this happens 2) can we use other designs to lower or even zero this probability 3) what can we do to advance NPP tech.

 

[Aepervius]

Just wondering, but why the focus in Germany on photovoltaic solar power production as opposed to concentrated solar power production (i.e. using mirrors to focus sunlight on a boiler, which turns water into steam which is then used to drive a turbine, generating electricity).

Easy : they can sell PV kit to put on roof on any private person, but solar concentrator needs a parc and somebody to maintain / firm / governement, they are not particularly a private person thing and would require to give back the money they sink in construction and maintenance.

 

[kowalskil]

... I am 100% confident that if renewables would not get the insane amount of subsidies they get here in Germany, no one would ever think about putting PV panels on their roofs, or building huge windfarms, etc. They "work" only because of that massive subsidization. They would never, ever stand a chance on the open market on their own.

So the only real alternatives are continuing to burn through our fossil fuels, or to get modern reactor technology up and running. And i'm sure that we can agree that burning through all our fossil fuels surely is not the best way

Chris

1) That is true (I am for new nuclear and cleaner coal) for the time being.

2) The purpose of subsidies it to overcome economic barriers--thing become much less expensive when massively produced. Subsidies for research are always justified; subsidies for first buyers (prompting) might sometimes also be justified.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

 

[Christian Klippel]

2) The purpose of subsidies it to overcome economic barriers--thing become much less expensive when massively produced. Subsidies for research are always justified; subsidies for first buyers (prompting) might sometimes also be justified.

Not in this case, i'm afraid. What happens here is that people, who install a PV system, get about 10 times the money per kW/h than what it would cost otherwise. And that for 20 years guaranteed.

After those 20 years most such systems are also at the end of their lives. Even without the EEG we have here in Germany, PV would never ever be profitable here. It's only because of the insanely high prices per kW/h, which people get for it, that they install these systems.

Also keep in mind that the time of "first buyers" is long over when it comes to wind and PV. Fact is that they need these subsidies because otherwise they are not profitable. Plus, the people building PV and windfarms do not contribute to the required extension/upgrade of the grid, they do not contribute to the building of storage systems, etc. In fact they now complain that the electricity companies have not extended the grid and not built storage systems that could accommodate the renewables. But why should they? They are not using renewables. Such things should be paid by the people that require them for their stuff to work.

It's like complaining about the train operator/company that they did not put enough money in building highways. Now, if the renewables people would also have to pay for the grid and storages, it becomes even less profitable.

No, sorry, the whole crap is just that: crap.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

At least one Japanese firm hasn't lost its balls due to hysteria:

Hitachi Ltd. announced Thursday it will tie up with the provincial government of Saskatchewan, Canada, over development of nuclear energy and radiation technologies.

Hitachi and the provincial government will work on projects developing small nuclear power reactors, technology to re-collect uranium for nuclear fuel and medical technologies that use radiation.

It will be the first time since the crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant that a Japanese company has established a business partnership over practical nuclear projects.

A nuclear-related business joint venture between Hitachi and General Electric will also take part in the projects.

A total of 10 million Canadian dollars (about 780 million yen) will be invested in the projects over the next five years. The parties plan to put the small nuclear reactors into practical use some time from 2023 to 2025.

There are currently 18 nuclear reactors operating in Canada, providing about 15 percent of the country's electricity.

Canada is one of the world's largest uranium producers, with all uranium in the country produced in Saskatchewan.​

The development of small nuclear reactors would be a huge boon for neighboring Albertas oil sands industry.

 

[theprestige]

ultimately, like any technology, nukes are safe...until they're not.

Okay, so how unsafe are nukes, compared to other kinds of unsafe energy production technologies?

Say, how many people has unsafe coal technology killed, compared to unsafe nuke technology?

I mean, here's a claim from US Mine Rescue Association that "history's worst" coal mine disaster killed 362 people.

Compare that to the Short-term health effects and immediate results of Chernobyl, the worst nuke accident in history: "203 people were hospitalized immediately, of whom 31 died (28 of them died from acute radiation exposure)."

The worst nuke accident in history doesn't even come close to the body count of the worst coal-mining accident in history. By all means, I'd much rather have nuke technology stop being safe, than coal technology!

P.S. You're welcome to talk about the long-term effects of nuke accidents, of course. But if you do that, somebody is sure to bring up the long-term effects of normal coal operation. So think carefully before you start comparing the rare and unusual effects of a nuke accident with the harmful effects of normal, non-accidental, coal power operations.

P.P.S. And let's not even get started on the environmental considerations!

 

[Christian Klippel]

Anyone here who can read Japanese? The education & science ministry in Japan is said to have released a map with the contamination levels around the Fukushima Daiichi NPP. See here for the article on NHK.

Would be great if someone who can read Japanese would be able to dig up that map somewhere. I did not find it on the English pages of that ministry, maybe it is on the Japanese ones.

Anyways, in the article they talk about one spot, one square meter in size, where they found extremely high values, exceeding IAEA levels 3-fold. But no numbers about other places, or if that one is the one with the highest level. Also note that this spot is only some hundred meters away from the plant itself.

It looks like my gut feeling about the previous reports where spot-on. Only one small spot, very close to the plant, who has such extreme high levels. Surely does not sound as bad as the press wanted to make us believe. I mean, really. One square meter some hundred meters away from the plant.... Not that it is a good thing, but definitely not as bad as some people and media outlets claim.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[tyr_13]

That does confirm that it's cesium they were looking for. I can't find the article in Japanese, or the map.