Live data from Hacker News

Japan adopts plan to make maximum use of nuclear power

japannews.yomiuri.co.jp

171–172 of 172 posts

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

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is whether the sun is shining in the north sufficiently decoupled from sun shining in the south? Is the wind blowing in the north decoupled from the wind blowing in the south? I’m suggesting that the distance is not large enough for that to be the case. Which makes it a very different situation to a nuclear plant taken offline for maintenance. Not to mention that afaik they don’t take the entire plant offline. They’l…

In Australia that distance is certainly enough for completely different weather. But local geo-climactic conditions in Japan might be completely different; it's probably not the distance as much as prevailing winds, geography, etc.

Interestingly for any type of generation - Japan runs two different grid frequencies, which limits cross-flow from one half to the other half. They do have HVDC interconnects, but are rather limited (they're building more, in no small part as a result of Fukushima)

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

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chemical plants serve a different purpose than a nuclear power plant. You can produce electricity in a lot of different ways, you usually can't produce chemicals in a lot of different ways. They're a prerequisite to produce other chemicals or products so not producing them damages your supply chain. Sometimes you can subsitute them for another chemical, usually you can't. Chemical accidents such as the ones you menti…

I never claimed there were no differences between these accidents...but we could simply ban those chemicals, or ban the industry from making those chemicals in that way. The point is not that this didn't happen because, after careful deliberation, it was found that this wasn't possible. The point is that it wasn't even considered, despite the very many accidents having vastly more severe consequences. And it's not ju…

It's awfully quiet now that I refuted your "irrationality" claims.
Post reply on HN