Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants • Hacker News Board

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#111

Post by crispinb » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 12:37 AM UTC

hurricanetc wrote: post #101

crispinb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. "Environmentalists" (a crude & politically inactive umbrella term) can't even get nations to do the minimum necessary for long-term survival (stop catastrophic rates of wetland & forest destruction even in wealthy nations, reduce CO2 emissions, etc, etc, etc). Greens (for example) hardly get elected anywhere outside of a couple of European nations. It is true there is public resistance to nuclear power, alm…

Nonsense. Fear or nuclear is a result of decades of lobbying and fear mongering by anti nuclear environmentalists.

It's a witch!

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#112

Post by FooHentai » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 12:39 AM UTC

crispinb wrote: post #94

jdshaffer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's not to forget the large quantities of contaminated water that are rapidly increasing at the Fukushima site. Now they want to release them into the ocean... Meltdown is scary, but so are the thoughts of dumping radioactive water into the oceans (and we eat a lot of seafood here in Japan!). Scary.

Well it's scary in the abstract. Which is why to make a rational assessment you need details (of relevant half-life, volumes, ocean dispersal directions & rates, etc). Hard for us laypersons to assess, so it's easier to be scared (if you're anti-nuclear inclined) or complacent (if you're reflexively pro tech).

in situations of doubt there's the Precautionary Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#113

Post by keanzu » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 12:42 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #58

adaisadais wrote: post #21

Knowledgeable nuclear folks: Is there a way of designing safe nuclear plants in safe places in the world and efficiently exporting that energy to other parts within that same region? Thank you for your answers. I know v little on the subject but am a big believer in the inherent power that nuclear generates and its’ cost effectiveness.

Once you're past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible, you would probably have to store the energy chemically. In principle you could charge gigantic banks of lithium batteries and then ship the batteries, but that would require infeasible (probably ludicrous) amounts of lithium, and lithium batteries are a pretty inefficient way to chemically store energy. Alternatively, it probably isn't cos…

> past the distance where transmitting electrical power is feasible

A 1,100 kV link in China was completed in 2019 over a distance of 3,300 km with a power of 12 GW.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

It is feasible to transmit electrical power over far greater distances than most people imagine. For reference Barcelona to Moscow is a 3,000 km flight.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#114

Post by crispinb » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 12:42 AM UTC

FooHentai wrote: post #112

crispinb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it's scary in the abstract. Which is why to make a rational assessment you need details (of relevant half-life, volumes, ocean dispersal directions & rates, etc). Hard for us laypersons to assess, so it's easier to be scared (if you're anti-nuclear inclined) or complacent (if you're reflexively pro tech).

in situations of doubt there's the Precautionary Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Whether that's relevant depends on the source of the doubt, and the relative payoffs.

The primary source of doubt in this case (ie. something with no numbers attached being thought of as 'scary') is ignorance. If that doubt remained after expert consultation, and the negative payoff from the release had a potential to be high, sure, it would be reasonable to apply the principle.

But only after that process, not before.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#115

Post by cthalupa » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 12:53 AM UTC

Melting_Harps wrote: post #29

bawolff wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to call someone misinformed, i think it would only be fair if you cited sources

Especially considering how blatantly false it is, Japan is literately covered in volcanoes/hot spring sources; hence why Onsen is such a big part of their culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onsen My cousin is a Mechanical Engineer with a concentration on renewable energy sources, and while at school for his masters he was telling about his professor he was working under who had his work halted after 3/11 (Tsunami…

That onsen culture is exactly why geothermal is a nonstarter as a panacea for Japan - the sites where people are willing for plants to be constructed are limited and many of them still only allow for small plants. Onsen tourism is the primary source of income for many of these locations and these communities worry that large geothermal plants will kill the tourism industry.

There have been a handful of plants opened post Fukushima with more planned, but opposition to large scale geothermal has been fierce in the prefectures that could supply the sites. I'm sure we'll continue to see plants built, but I'll be shocked if it happens on a scale that can reverse Japan from being a net importer of energy.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#116

Post by FooHentai » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 1:01 AM UTC

espadrine wrote: post #85

FooHentai wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor The primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that occurred. How is the reactor design relevant? Also regarding Superphénix, your telling of this seems a bit biased - The rocket attack occurred in 1982 and it…

> I don't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030 As I mention, Superphénix is a Gen IV, and was finished building in 1981. > the primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that occurred. How is the reactor design relevant? Fukushima melt down because the water destroyed the backup generators. The generators…

>As I mention, Superphénix is a Gen IV, and was finished building in 1981.

No, it isn't and wasn't. The Gen IV FBR types are only GFR, SFR, LMFBR and SCWR.

From the link I provided earlier 'In January 2018, it was reported that "the first installation of the pressure vessel cover of the world's first Gen IV reactor" had been completed on the HTR-PM.'

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#117

Post by FooHentai » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 1:02 AM UTC

lispm wrote: post #99

FooHentai wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor The primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that occurred. How is the reactor design relevant? Also regarding Superphénix, your telling of this seems a bit biased - The rocket attack occurred in 1982 and it…

> The primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that occurred Loss of emergency electricity for the reactors. Needs for large amounts of electricity for cooling of reactors and spent fuel pools. No quick electricity from the outside for the reactors. Hydrogen explosion damaging the building. Cooling only possible with water from the outside. Structural damage due to water on the building. Sp…

You're right, thank you.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#118

Post by cthalupa » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 1:03 AM UTC

FooHentai wrote: post #91

iso947 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup.

>Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan Earthquake caused the Tsunami. >A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup. "The disaster was the most severe nuclear accident since the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the only other disaster to be given the Level 7 event classification of the International Nucl…

Realistically, even Chernobyl is more of an economic issue than a loss of human life one. There were 54 immediate deaths, and they believe that up to ~4000 people will die earlier than they would have otherwise due to cancer and other complications from radiation exposure.

This sounds like quite a bit, until you realize that in the US alone 13,000 people die every year from cancer and other complications related to exposure from coal pollution.

Chernobyl and Fukshima are tragic, but you cannot examine the fallout (literal and figurative) in a vacuum - you must compare it to where things stand today. Much of the world's energy is produced from sources that are far more harmful in normal operation than either were in worst case failure modes. We have significantly better technology for nuclear now, as well.

Wind turbines are bad for birds, and really NEED to be placed outside of migration paths. Photovoltaic panels create tons of toxic waste in manufacturing. Concentrated solar plants are pretty great, where they work. Geothermal is great where it can work. We should be exploring all of these where we can, work on further minimizing the downsides and solving the problems - a diverse energy strategy is a good one. But this demonization and avoidance of modern nuclear reactors is nuts, as it is one of the highest energy production options we have. They could make a huge impact in the goal of being carbon neutral. And they could do so in a way that is quite safe, especially compared to existing coal and LNG plants. I think arguing against nuclear is short-sighted and costs us one of our best tools at fighting climate change today.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#119

Post by FooHentai » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 1:05 AM UTC

intopieces wrote: post #86

khuey wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The technology is better but the costs are too high. Also (the surviving units at) Chernobyl have been shut down for several years.

The cost is too high? The monetary cost will be quite besides the point once climate change wipes out the coast cities on four continents.

It's a false dichotomy. The options are not 'nuclear or climate change'. You also have numerous renewables and (almost always entirely ignored in these discussions) reduction of energy demand.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#120

Post by cthalupa » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 1:06 AM UTC

lispm wrote: post #93

iso947 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup.

In 2010 Japan had 54 nuclear reactors. In June 2011 Japan had 0 working nuclear reactors! In early 2019 Japan had 42 reactors (12 were closed) and of those 9 were working. A single earthquake caused the shutdown all those reactors for many years. And you tell us "Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan". In reality the single earthquake caused massive economic damage and a huge loss of electr…

These shutdowns are largely political, not due to structural damage to the reactors from the earthquake. These reactors weren't shut down because there was fear the earthquake had damaged them, and calling them non-working is only accurate in that they aren't online and doing work - outside of issues from lack of use while shutdown, they are fully functional.

Fukushima was not properly built to withstand a tsunami of that magnitude. It withstood the earthquake proper just fine.