Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
spectrum.ieee.org
Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
1–10 of 357 posts
Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
#2> “With the goal of completing the decommissioning in 30 to 40 years [...]"
Can't decide if it's a success of nuclear or a failure. Leaning towards success:
- ~900 tons of super duper radioactive material is more or less safely sitting in steel enclosures
- we're (as a global civilization) slowly but surely figuring out how to move the hazardous waste to a safer storage, and it may only (ahem) take a couple generations
- OTOH another big earthquake/tsunami can potentially wash it all away and release clumps of radioactive and poisonous metals to the environment...?
Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
#3Are the costs of this 13 years and counting expense tab added to the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in any way?
Seems to me like it should, so that generations-long decisions are not made from overly optimistic numbers.
Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
#4Are the costs of this 13 years and counting expense tab added to the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in any way? Seems to me like it should, so that generations-long decisions are not made from overly optimistic numbers.
Japan has (within reason) concerns other than the total cost of electricity: having to haul in coal, oil and LNG over an ocean contested by an increasingly hostile neighbor must be very worrying to them.
Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
#5Are the costs of this 13 years and counting expense tab added to the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in any way? Seems to me like it should, so that generations-long decisions are not made from overly optimistic numbers.
Money is numbers in computers, joules and watts are real things.
Coal, gas and oil is full of externalities which are nowhere near being correctly included in the nominal prices of these commodities. Arguably neither are solar panels and wind turbines.
Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
#6Are the costs of this 13 years and counting expense tab added to the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in any way? Seems to me like it should, so that generations-long decisions are not made from overly optimistic numbers.
Money is numbers in computers, joules and watts are real things. Coal, gas and oil is full of externalities which are nowhere near being correctly included in the nominal prices of these commodities. Arguably neither are solar panels and wind turbines.
What are these putative externalities of wind and solar?
These is a constant whataboutist argument from nuclear apologists, but it falls apart when examined closely, as all pro-nuclear power arguments do.
Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
#7Are the costs of this 13 years and counting expense tab added to the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in any way? Seems to me like it should, so that generations-long decisions are not made from overly optimistic numbers.
Money is numbers in computers, joules and watts are real things. Coal, gas and oil is full of externalities which are nowhere near being correctly included in the nominal prices of these commodities. Arguably neither are solar panels and wind turbines.
On the other hand, the existence of coal power proves that releasing small amounts of radiation is fine, really. So we should be able to build a lot more nuclear power plants; it would take a lot of accidents like these to match the releases from coal.
Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
#8Are the costs of this 13 years and counting expense tab added to the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in any way? Seems to me like it should, so that generations-long decisions are not made from overly optimistic numbers.
japan has limited land, no oil&gas resources, so the nuclear is the perfect source of electricity for them, plus they have the expertise.
Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
#9> “With the goal of completing the decommissioning in 30 to 40 years [...]" Can't decide if it's a success of nuclear or a failure. Leaning towards success: - ~900 tons of super duper radioactive material is more or less safely sitting in steel enclosures - we're (as a global civilization) slowly but surely figuring out how to move the hazardous waste to a safer storage, and it may only (ahem) take a couple generatio…
Sound more like a success for the anti-nuclear movement.
Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money is numbers in computers, joules and watts are real things. Coal, gas and oil is full of externalities which are nowhere near being correctly included in the nominal prices of these commodities. Arguably neither are solar panels and wind turbines.
On the other hand, the existence of coal power proves that releasing small amounts of radiation is fine, really. So we should be able to build a lot more nuclear power plants; it would take a lot of accidents like these to match the releases from coal.
The explosion of Chernobyl released a few thousand PBq of activity. Coal contains a few tens to a few hundreds of Bq/kg. You would have to burn something like 50 times the world coal reserves (and make sure not to use any exhaust filters) in order to match the radiation release of Chernobyl.