Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fukushima

podniesinski.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 227 posts

Re: Fukushima

#71

Post by mackwic »

simoncion wrote: post #68
mackwic wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I have to say I don't know the US infrastructure enough to have a bold opinion, but I know heavy infrastructure like these often have a sound design respectively to their constraints (which can be absurd). The European power grid is very tight and well-meshed, this is why we can let our nuclear power plant and sell electricity to Switzerland, Germany or Netherlands or buy it. I guess it's not as well interconne…

I think that the US either has a national power grid, or has one for the West and East halves of the country. Obviously, throwing power across the whole damn continent is far less efficient than just throwing it across a state. I've -very recently- heard people making the claim that Texas has its own grid, but that's news to me. Maybe the situation in Texas is that they have all the power gen capacity that they need…

> I think that the US either has a national power grid, or has one for the West and East halves of the country

It would makes sense.

> Obviously, throwing power across the whole damn continent is far less efficient than just throwing it across a state.

For now. With the future high-temperature supra-conductive cabling we will be able to do wonders of efficiency on large distance.

Re: Fukushima

#72

Post by athenot »

mackwic wrote: post #53
simoncion wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is true that coal is not the only non-nuclear power generation mechanism, it is -by far- the most common in the US. It is also true that > When you hit a nuclear plant with the fifth largest earthquake ever recorded, then immediately follow that with a twenty foot high tsunami, and then it explodes, it still kills fewer people than an average coal plant does every single year when everything goes perfectly.…

I suggest you to learn a bit about power grid engineering. Basically, the fact that we can't store electricity means that when you power on your toaster, somewhere a power plant has to increase its power to compensate. But the nuclear power plant takes up to 2 days to startup. It's not sustainable for the daily life where consumption change every hour. That's why there is the need for more agile power plant, where fu…

That can be fixed with pricing. Charge more during peak, less during surplus. France relies on nuclear for about 80% of its power. Power is cheaper at night than during the day. As a result, almost all appliances like dishwashers, washing machines, dryers and water heaters come with timers that allow you to use the cheaper power.

Re: Fukushima

#73

Post by anc84 »

pdkl95 wrote: post #66
facepalm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most energy is used for heating, transport, and so on. Your washing machine is not under threat. And I did not suggest any of the things you say. It's all in your head, which went on a rampage triggered by the words "save energy". All I said it is an option. I didn't say you have to take it.

I never said anything about my washing machine. Maybe you should try to watching that talk by Hans Rosling that I linked to. Who are you to say that using less energy is an option, when you have the luxury of heating and energy-expensive transportation, and most of the world doesn't yet have the energy to wash their clothes ?

Calm down.

Re: Fukushima

#74

Post by kenesom1 »

rwmj wrote: post #65
kenesom1 wrote: post #54

The worst case scenario for a nuclear plant accident is millions of casualties and the long-term contamination of major population centers. 152 of the world's 211 nuclear power plants have more than 1 million people residing within 75 km. A plant in India has 16 million living within that radius. Fallout could be dispersed over an area thousands of miles wide. The worst case scenario for an accident at a solar power…

Making solar panels produces no pollution whatsoever? Will redirecting 100$ trillion of world output to a big make-work project produce no side-effects or drop in development levels at all?

Photovoltaic panels are not used in solar thermal plants.

The money is not diverted from other needs - it's spent on renewable infrastructure instead of non-renewable infrastructure.

Re: Fukushima

#75

Post by mikekchar »

mackwic wrote: post #56
DangerousPie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. You seem to suggest that the fact that Fukushima was not adequately prepared for this tsunami was human failure, presumably because they should have expected such a tsunami to occur. If this is the case, then you can just as well argue that it was human failure that the towns in the affected areas flooded because of the tsunami. After all, if they expected such a tsunami to occur they could/should have bu…

> You seem to suggest that the fact that Fukushima was not adequately prepared for this tsunami was human failure, presumably because they should have expected such a tsunami to occur. For your information, in France where we use nuclear energy a lot, we look for the most catastrophic events of the last 100 years to see how we protect our infrastructure. The Japanese looked for the last 50, but there were a tsunami o…

The height of the tsunami depends on the area. In the area in question, for a very long time people thought that it was impossible for the a tsunami to go above 5 meters. That there were tsunami of that size in other areas is irrelevant. The earthquake in question was the most powerful in 1000 years. Looking back 100 years would be insufficient.

What is interesting is that there was actually a city that raised the sea walls to 16 meters in the area. The mayor of that city was actually sent to jail because it was a scam to siphon money to his brother in law who was in construction. I don't remember the details because it was on a TV program that I watched about a year ago, but unfortunately the mayor in question died a couple of years before the tsunami and never lived to see that his actions actually saved the city.

Speaking of the seawall height, there were, indeed, studies done that showed that under certain circumstances 15-18 meter high tsunamis could be generated in that area. This was disregarded. "Why", you ask.

Let me explain. I live by the sea in Japan. I can go to the sea side and climb up on the sea wall. It is 5 meters above sea level. I can walk along it all practically all the way to Tokyo (200 km away). The only places where it doesn't exist is where there are natural cliffs (which are not as prevalent as you might imagine). Every little stream that empties into the ocean has a 5 meter high metal sea gate that can be closed in the event of a tsunami. Where I live there is one at least every km or so.

The sea walls in Japan are already a miracle of engineering. You want to make them 20m high? Around the entire country? This is an insane notion.

To be honest, I will take the risk. I don't want to live in a jail where the only place I can see the ocean is from on top of a mountain.

I live in Sagara, Shizuoka (now merged with Makinohara). It is the most dangerous place in Japan to live for earthquakes because of the imminent Tokai earthquake (50 years overdue, unless it actually happened in WWII when the place was already destroyed and nobody had the ability to measure the big earthquake that happened then). 5% of the population is likely to die by all predictions.

Which means 95% will live. Terrible tragedy, but not worse than surrounding yourself in a 20m high jail IMHO.

Now, there were many human failures regarding the Fukushima disaster (like not having the correct connectors to power the pumps externally). Sea walls is not one of them.

Re: Fukushima

#76

Post by mikekchar »

inatreecrown wrote: post #44
DangerousPie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. You seem to suggest that the fact that Fukushima was not adequately prepared for this tsunami was human failure, presumably because they should have expected such a tsunami to occur. If this is the case, then you can just as well argue that it was human failure that the towns in the affected areas flooded because of the tsunami. After all, if they expected such a tsunami to occur they could/should have bu…

Do you prefer to live by the sea or by the nuclear plant?

Ha ha! I live by both!

Re: Fukushima

#77

Post by jahnu »

simoncion wrote: post #68
mackwic wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I have to say I don't know the US infrastructure enough to have a bold opinion, but I know heavy infrastructure like these often have a sound design respectively to their constraints (which can be absurd). The European power grid is very tight and well-meshed, this is why we can let our nuclear power plant and sell electricity to Switzerland, Germany or Netherlands or buy it. I guess it's not as well interconne…

I think that the US either has a national power grid, or has one for the West and East halves of the country. Obviously, throwing power across the whole damn continent is far less efficient than just throwing it across a state. I've -very recently- heard people making the claim that Texas has its own grid, but that's news to me. Maybe the situation in Texas is that they have all the power gen capacity that they need…

There are three in the US.

East, West and Texas.

https://sites.google.com/site/theuspowergrid/

Re: Fukushima

#78

Post by fulafel »

mackwic wrote: post #56
DangerousPie wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. You seem to suggest that the fact that Fukushima was not adequately prepared for this tsunami was human failure, presumably because they should have expected such a tsunami to occur. If this is the case, then you can just as well argue that it was human failure that the towns in the affected areas flooded because of the tsunami. After all, if they expected such a tsunami to occur they could/should have bu…

> You seem to suggest that the fact that Fukushima was not adequately prepared for this tsunami was human failure, presumably because they should have expected such a tsunami to occur. For your information, in France where we use nuclear energy a lot, we look for the most catastrophic events of the last 100 years to see how we protect our infrastructure. The Japanese looked for the last 50, but there were a tsunami o…

If a nuclear plant's life is 30+ years, making it disaster prone in "once in 100 years" circumstances is pretty reckless. If a nuclear plant vendor aims to make 1000 plants, they should aim for negligible risk that any of their reactors would crap itself due to weather in 150 years or something like that. You pretty quickly find yourself mitigating risk of once-in-a-million-years events from a single plant's POV in this kind of math.

Re: Fukushima

#79

Post by sjwright »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #41
ggreer wrote: post #17

I found the pictures fascinating, but the accompanying text marred my enjoyment. Considering the circumstances of the Fukushima disaster, the anti-nuclear sentiment really irked me. The Tōhoku earthquake & tsunami killed close to 20,000 people. The author completely ignored those victims. Instead, he focused on Fukushima, which will cause around 150 deaths from cancers. For every tragedy created by Fukushima, there a…

In ten years there will still be thinkpieces and photo essays about the disaster of fukushima while the tianjin disaster will end up as a footnote. Despite one being clearly an exclusively human caused disaster and causing a much vaster loss of life. But fire and explosions we are much more familiar, even comfortable, with as causes of death and injury than creepy, invisible, insidious radiation.

Or look at Banqiao Dam. What you ask, you've never heard of it? That was a form of electricity production that catastrophically failed and killed an estimated 171,000 people.

Fukushima was a flea bite by comparison.

Fear of nuclear energy is irrational.

Re: Fukushima

#80

Post by lucaspiller »

athenot wrote: post #72
mackwic wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you to learn a bit about power grid engineering. Basically, the fact that we can't store electricity means that when you power on your toaster, somewhere a power plant has to increase its power to compensate. But the nuclear power plant takes up to 2 days to startup. It's not sustainable for the daily life where consumption change every hour. That's why there is the need for more agile power plant, where fu…

That can be fixed with pricing. Charge more during peak, less during surplus. France relies on nuclear for about 80% of its power. Power is cheaper at night than during the day. As a result, almost all appliances like dishwashers, washing machines, dryers and water heaters come with timers that allow you to use the cheaper power.

The surge pricing is true in the UK too:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_7

Post reply on HN