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

Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

japannews.yomiuri.co.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 172 posts

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#151

Post by emodendroket »

simondotau wrote: post #122
emodendroket wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the setup was you told me people should feel embarrassed to be scared whether or not they support nuclear power. If they accepted the premise you are setting up now — that it is utterly risk-free — why wouldn’t they support it?

> the premise you are setting up now — that it is utterly risk-free That is a fairly egregious misrepresentation of what was said. And it completely misses the point of the (rather good) analogy. Economies need energy. The only question that matters is whether a proposed source is overall better or worse — per unit of energy — than the status quo or the fallback. Remember, the choice isn’t nuclear power or no nuclear…

How was I meant to interpret “a non-venomous snake, literally safer than a pet dog” as an analogy if it didn’t mean that nuclear power was extremely safe?

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#152

Post by ycuser2 »

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #112
ycuser2 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would you say stances have changed at all in Germany from your POV since last year? Not from my POV. There were long discussions to longer the running time of a few reactors by ... 3 months I guess? It was nationwide topic. Germany wants to safe the whole world by "going by example". So instead of thinking pratically and realisticly "we" try do to things ideologically.

So the topic was basically about extending nuclear only in response to the short-term situation? Not about reevaluating it as a valid green energy source? > Germany wants to safe the whole world by "going by example". So instead of thinking pratically and realisticly "we" try do to things ideologically. This is so strange to me because my view has always been that Germany is this rational pro-engineering actor. Narci…

> So the topic was basically about extending nuclear only in response to the short-term situation? Not about reevaluating it as a valid green energy source?

The Green Party sees nuclear energy as the evil. Never they consider it as green energy. Extending nuclear was a short-term compromise.

I don't know how they want to supply the industry with only renewable energy. I'm not deep enough into that topic.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#153

Post by mpweiher »

locallost wrote: post #150
mpweiher wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. The EDF did not schedule maintenance of half of its fleet Yes it did. > A quarter yes, a quarter went out unplanned. Great to hear that you are backing off from your "collapse" narrative. But still not quite correct. These were planned shutdowns for planned maintenance/inspections. Some of these inspections found problems, as inspections sometimes do and therefore the plants were offline longer than just the or…

There was a collapse of nuclear output in France because half of its plants were at one point offline. Of those, about half were unplanned and unscheduled because of "mysterious stress corrosion". Normally a net exporter, France became a net importer of electricity. The surrounding countries kept it on life support all year. The EDF kept postponing deadlines throughout the year because they could not solve the proble…

I have provided you with all the evidence.

I can't make you actually read and understand it.

Have a good one.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#154

Post by Gwypaas »

Dalewyn wrote: post #25
ycuser2 wrote: post #3

As a German this is quite bizzare to me. Here, our politicians take Fukushima as an example why we should stop nuclear energy. People are scared of nuclear energy. And now Japan goes max nuclear.

Because it makes no sense to not go nuclear. For one: Japan has no natural resources. Fuel for power must be imported. Materials for solar panels (or the panels themselves) must be imported. Nuclear is by far one of the most efficient /and/ effective forms of power generation humanity currently has. For two: Fukushima was a result of human incompetence, nothing to do with the reactor itself or nuclear technology ther…

> For one: Japan has no natural resources. Fuel for power must be imported. Materials for solar panels (or the panels themselves) must be imported. Nuclear is by far one of the most efficient /and/ effective forms of power generation humanity currently has.

Nuclear has a much larger total material requirement than wind and about equal to solar.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262...

> For two: Fukushima was a result of human incompetence, nothing to do with the reactor itself or nuclear technology thereof. The meltdowns at Fukushima #1 could have been completely avoided had the government of the time not been a bunch of worthless fools (hint: TEPCO wanted to scuttle the reactors before they melted down).

How do you perpetually guard against human nature?

> For third: Japan needs power /today/, not tomorrow. Even assuming a transition to non-nuclear forms of power, that will not happen overnight. Using nuclear power is a concern of practical necessity.

This nuclear would come online in 15-20 years, how is that today?

> For fourth: Nuclear fearmongering is patently ridiculous. Nuclear power plants are not atomic bombs, for crying out loud. The same people who cry their hearts out about radiation proceed to fly on airliners and eat bananas. The answer to nuclear fearmongering is not shunning nuclear technology, it's to teach and bring more awareness about what nuclear technology is.

Their risks are subsidized by the governments, and it still on top of that, require enormous subsidies. This move will essentially banish Japan to become an energy starved country in the face of massive renewable build-outs.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#155

Post by knocte »

zdragnar wrote: post #88
knocte wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building new nuclear plants is pro-nuclear. I said green movement is not anti-nuclear but I didn't say it is pro-nuclear. World is not black&white.

Nuclear plants don't live forever. Refusing new nuclear is tantamount to eliminating nuclear. Also, there are certainly green activists against ALL nuclear. I don't have a formal survey handy, but based purely on the opinions of those that I know, far more are anti-nuclear than are neutral on the matter.

> Refusing new nuclear is tantamount to eliminating nuclear.

IT IS NOT. Refusing new nuclear but understanding that current nuclear plants can't be shutdown (yet) until there's more renewable replacements for energy generation is a good compromise.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#156

Post by zdragnar »

knocte wrote: post #155
zdragnar wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear plants don't live forever. Refusing new nuclear is tantamount to eliminating nuclear. Also, there are certainly green activists against ALL nuclear. I don't have a formal survey handy, but based purely on the opinions of those that I know, far more are anti-nuclear than are neutral on the matter.

> Refusing new nuclear is tantamount to eliminating nuclear. IT IS NOT. Refusing new nuclear but understanding that current nuclear plants can't be shutdown (yet) until there's more renewable replacements for energy generation is a good compromise.

Many plants are operating beyond their designed lifetimes because we don't have an alternative right now. This situation cannot go on indefinitely.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#157

Post by mpweiher »

emodendroket wrote: post #151
simondotau wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the premise you are setting up now — that it is utterly risk-free That is a fairly egregious misrepresentation of what was said. And it completely misses the point of the (rather good) analogy. Economies need energy. The only question that matters is whether a proposed source is overall better or worse — per unit of energy — than the status quo or the fallback. Remember, the choice isn’t nuclear power or no nuclear…

How was I meant to interpret “a non-venomous snake, literally safer than a pet dog” as an analogy if it didn’t mean that nuclear power was extremely safe?

Nuclear power is "extremely safe. It is arguably the safest form of energy we have, unarguably one of the safest and unarguable the safest reliable form of energy.

But not "utterly risk free".

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#158

Post by mpweiher »

wewxjfq wrote: post #61
looping__lui wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of Germans want nuclear power back. But politicians don’t want to. Green party has always been against nuclear power. It’s their ideology. And the Merkel’s party who shut them down (CDU) and changed their mind now is no longer on power. German politics bas been ideological madness for the past 18 years or so…

Accusing the Greens of being ideology driven when they have shown to be pragmatic is a joke. Not sticking to any ideology is the reason their politicians top the popularity polls. And wanting something back is one thing, getting something back another. If you want nuclear power back, you must build new plants - good luck, it will only take 20 years! The Green-led BMWK explained in detail the many real hurdles that co…

South Korea builds them in 3 years. We can too, if we want to.

Rolls Royce is building a factory for nuclear reactors. That'll speed things up further. A lot.

If you mean this: https://www.bmuv.de/themen/atomenergie-strahlenschutz/nuklea...

It's completely BS, not really worth bothering with.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#159

Post by askvictor »

vlovich123 wrote: post #144
bryanlarsen wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar and wind do not provide baseload and can therefore not replace any conventional power plant. Think about a hospital, the ultimate baseload requirement. Would a hospital be OK with just power from a single nuclear reactor? Of course not, it would still have a generator for backup power. Nuclear power plants don't run 24/7/365, they have scheduled maintenance and unexpected downtime. Baseload power is ensured t…

> Baseload power is ensured through diversity and spare dispatchable power. Unless I’m missing something, solar and wind are not diverse energy sources though. If one plant is generating less energy because the sun isn’t shining or wind isn’t blowing, then all the nearby plants have the same problem. If you take one nuclear plant offline, the others aren’t impacted. Seems like a completely different scenario. You can…

Japan is quite long (North-South). It's comparable to the East coast of Australia, which has a single grid/energy market. Also, wind and solar are often (not always) complementary energy sources.

Re: Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

#160

Post by askvictor »

Laaas wrote: post #116
askvictor wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For one: Japan has no natural resources. Fuel for power must be imported. Materials for solar panels (or the panels themselves) must be imported. Nuclear is by far one of the most efficient /and/ effective forms of power generation humanity currently has. How is nuclear fuel any different in this respect? Sure it's more compact, but it has other complications regarding transport. They're still going to be reliant o…

Theoretically you can extract much (all?) of the uranium you need from sea water: https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-extrac...

Theoretically you can get anything from sea water, but practically it's not worth it.
Post reply on HN