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

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#121

Post by philwelch » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 1:18 AM UTC

keanzu wrote: post #113

philwelch wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but if you want to be safe and resilient against earthquakes and other natural disasters, those are potentially going to take out long distance transmission lines, too.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#122

Post by cthalupa » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 1:25 AM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #32

kingpiss wrote: post #11

Nuclear seems like the best hope for humanity, really a shame people are so afraid of it. Although, I guess the fear is justified given how many disasters there have been.

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm... casts doubt on the future of Nuclear growing anywhere near enough to be a best-hope; scaling it up to world energy production of 15TW seems infeasible - burning through the available Uranium supplies in ~5 years - even scaling it up to 1TW would stretch many resources used in nuclear reactor construction such as rare elements.

These arguments are silly. It would be like arguing against renewables based on tech from half a century ago.

But fearmongering and people being incapable of understanding just how harmful coal is even in comparison to the worst nuclear disasters (which people frequently overestimate the harm from) has lead to significant regulations and cuts in funding, to the point where you're arguing about tech from the 70s.

There's tons of promising research, and without all of the fear, we would not be talking about uranium based BWR. We would have entire other classes of fuel, and some of the Gen4 designs that have been researched could burn all actinides.

You can create nuclear power from a lot more than just uranium.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#123

Post by joshvm » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 2:04 AM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #25

joshvm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common argument used to be that at least the amount of uranium is finite, so we can simply plan where to put it. Another interesting aspect is that we only have a few centuries of nuclear power left at current reserve and consumption rates. Uranium is absolutely a non renewable fuel. This could change with breeder reactors or the various fancy things being researched, but I think there is a public perception that u…

Uranium mined on earth is a finite quantity - but I think the carve-outs you included in your statement are quite wide. We may find a way to artificially produce a high energy substance to use in place of Uranium, and other high number elements may provide alternatives for the primary fuel - additionally space may be an option to find new sources of Uranium if we really want to stick with it. "Peak oil" has been a va…

Absolutely, the key phrase is "current usage and reserves". There will almost certainly be ways developed to stretch or augment or displace uranium as a nuclear fuel.

Thorium salt reactors look promising. But unfortunately there has been lack of political will to fund research and it's only recently that its being investigated seriously again. And this is a common story with virtually all the interesting nuclear technologies. Sounds great, but who's paying for the fundamental research?

My point is that people often compare nuclear and coal as if radioactive ore - which today does mean uranium - is some infinite resource, just because it isn't made of fossils.

The idea of "oh well, we'll just mine more as it gets economic to do so" isn't a sustainable solution to clean energy.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#124

Post by jodrellblank » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 3:01 AM UTC

m4rtink wrote: post #64

jodrellblank wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.htm... casts doubt on the future of Nuclear growing anywhere near enough to be a best-hope; scaling it up to world energy production of 15TW seems infeasible - burning through the available Uranium supplies in ~5 years - even scaling it up to 1TW would stretch many resources used in nuclear reactor construction such as rare elements.

I would assume the numbers would look very differently if breader reactors and alternative nuclear fuel sources (thorium) would be considered.

Thorium is mentioned in the article; availability of halfnium, beryllium, and other rare metals for the containment shielding "is a new argument that Abbott puts on the table, which places resource limits on all future-generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium."

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#125

Post by crispinb » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 3:55 AM UTC

FooHentai wrote: post #119

intopieces wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

reduction of energy demand

Personally I'd go further and say there's no substantial mitigation of climate change without degrowth amongst wealthy nations. Not popular around here of course, being against the religious beliefs prevalent in tech circles.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#126

Post by lispm » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 3:59 AM UTC

cthalupa wrote: post #120

lispm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How can you realistically say that? A country and its nuclear safety inspectors have declared several reactors to be unfit to run, but YOU claim that it is political?

You claim that the plant 'withstood' the earthquake just fine. On what base? An inspection to make such an assessment takes months. It has not been done. How did you know that there were no cracks in the reactor facilities, etc.

There were lots of reasons to close some reactors. You simply have failed to even consider that.

Once one knows more about the risks of a certain reactor, than its simply a new decision whether a reactor is considered to be safe enough. The fukushima reactor was considered safe just before the earthquake and tsunami. It was thought unlikely that such an event happens and with such strength,

Now Japan is having the constant danger of earthquakes and the impact has been underestimated for several reactors. Their sites are now seen to have a higher risk of a strong earthquake causing severe damage.

You claim that it is political. That's the same safety culture which lead to the Fukushima meltdowns: proponents of nuclear power downplaying the risks.

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#127

Post by xxgreg » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:13 AM UTC

fiter wrote: post #48

lispm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables 2019: 46% Renewables 2000: 6% Coal + Gas 2019 40% Coal + Gas 2000 59% Fact: Germany reduced fossil fuels coal+gas and increased renewables massively. Gas itself has increased.

The graph shows 36% coal and 13% natural gas for 2016, meaning coal and gas for 2016 is 49%. There is the question of what this would look like if they didn't shut off their nuclear plants. It's my expectation that the nuclear would have replaced coal and natural gas. EDIT: Changed incorrect 2019 reference to 2016.

This assumes that the nuclear reactors could ramp up and down on a daily basis. Germany's reactors weren't capable of load following to the extent required.

In fact brokdorf was taken offline early due to a failure during a load following experiment. It was only ramping by a small percentage of load.

It's more likely that keeping the reactors online would have made the coal phaseout negotiations harder, and made it easier for the big four power companies to prevent renewables from being deployed.

In my view it's more important to build up industry capable of constantly deploying new zero carbon generation, and exporting this technology, than to keep the reactors running for more than 35 years (the phase out agreement).

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#128

Post by xxgreg » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 5:16 AM UTC

fiter wrote: post #70

lispm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://strom-report.de/strom/ Share of electricity production in Germany in 2019: Coal 19.5% + 9.5% Gas 10.5% 19.8 + 9.5 + 10.5 = 39.8%

Interesting. The graphs on that website do not agree with the ones on Wikipedia. For example, for coal in 2016 Wikipedia says ~220 TWh but Strom says ~135 TWh. EDIT: I see my mistake. I did not add both brown (~135 TWh) and black coal (~100 TWh) together (surprised to see those broken out, but it's a valid difference). In that case, the numbers still do not agree, but at least they are comparable. [0] https://strom-r…

Another chart... Note some stats are percentage of consumption, others are percentage of generation. These differ due to imports and exports.

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#129

Post by espadrine » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 11:21 AM UTC

FooHentai wrote: post #116

espadrine wrote: post #85

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 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.'

> , it isn't and wasn't. The Gen IV FBR types are only GFR, SFR, LMFBR and SCWR.

Superphénix is an SFR. Its first version, Phénix, is literally cited in the official Gen IV description of what an SFR is[0].

Historically, it has not been labeled Gen IV, but only because the Gen IV nomenclature didn’t exist at the time.

[0]: https://www.gen-4.org/gif/jcms/c_9361/sfr

Re: Japan Turns to Coal After Closing Nuclear Power Plants

#130

Post by imtringued » Sat, Feb 08, 2020, 11:49 AM UTC

cthalupa wrote: post #120

lispm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Fukushima was just one of the many "not properly built" power plants. The problem with nuclear is that you can't just say "this plant is clearly a safety hazard, lets upgrade to the newest design" like you can do with software. Security problems will stay until you shut the plant down and build a new one. That means the only way to make nuclear viable is by making smaller modular reactors where replacing a single one doesn't cause the economics to no longer make sense.

There is also the need to maintain infrastructure. When you build a fleet of 20 nuclear plants you need an additional factory or two but once the fleet is complete those factories will no longer have any customers. 40 years later the nuclear plants need to be replaced but there is no factory that can build replacements. You end up paying a lot more if you build designs in batches than if you build 20 small reactors every year for 40 years and gradually replace the unsafest part of the fleet.

Yeah all the nuclear proponents don't even think about small reactors, they just want to shill their snowflake giant Gen IV reactors that are expensive to build and decommission.