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

Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 357 posts

Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

#171

Post by natmaka »

pfdietz wrote: post #77
Krasnol wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are all those rolling blackouts we've been promised by the fearmongering of the nuclear-astroturf? Weird eh? Maybe it's not always clever to use US-logic on the rest of the world. Germany is not Texas.

Texas, where new nuclear has been dead in the water for years. > “The cost of new nuclear is prohibitive for us to be investing in,” says Crane. Exelon considered building two new reactors in Texas in 2005, he says, when gas prices were $8/MMBtu and were projected to rise to $13/MMBtu. At that price, the project would have been viable with a CO2 tax of $25 per ton. “We’re sitting here trading 2019 gas at $2.90 per MM…

Texas, albeit culturally/politically swimming in fossil fuel, pushes hard towards renewables: https://comptroller.texas.gov/economy/fiscal-notes/infrastru...

Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

#172

Post by natmaka »

Moldoteck wrote: post #150
Krasnol wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are all those rolling blackouts we've been promised by the fearmongering of the nuclear-astroturf? Weird eh? Maybe it's not always clever to use US-logic on the rest of the world. Germany is not Texas.

it didn't happen because germany increased imports by a lot. 20TWh this year so far

Nearly each and every nation imports and exports, in order to optimize (better import low-cost or low-emission electricity than locally generate it thanks to some expensive and dirty plant).

The yearly balance (imports - exports) is key.

Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

#173

Post by natmaka »

Moldoteck wrote: post #156
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is the cost coming from handling it. The latest figure on the cost to handle Fukushima is $190B from 2016. The great thing today is that we don't need to accept radioactive releases from either nuclear power or coal. Simply build the cheap scalable option instead: renewables.

you replace nuclear waste (that can be reduced with purex or reused with fast reactors) with non recyclable toxic renewable waste in much greater quantities For accidents - just need to build newer reactor models. ap1000 is a marvel of engineering

> reused with fast reactors

Please name an industrial ready-to-deploy fast reactor. AFAIK there it doesn't exist, therefore its (after decades of expensive R&D in many nations) just a vague hope, not a potential part of the solution.

Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

#174

Post by natmaka »

vlovich123 wrote: post #144
jajko wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I like nuclear on the paper and its theoretical env impact, this one is hard to ignore. Add costs of current projects which became ridiculous in reality. Plus as we see with various wars nuclear powerplants would be a prime target for terrorists or even state actors, they are certainly not considered as excluded from wars, in contrary. If we move to renewables, over 100 years there would be 0 reason to have a s…

> If we move to renewables, over 100 years there would be 0 reason to have a single nuclear plant running anywhere, apart from making nuclear weapons fuel. I just wish we were now where we would/will be in 50 years in terms of renewables technology maturity and its spread. Of course if we ignore the need for batteries. Renewable advocates conveniently forget to include that in the calculus (there’s active action in p…

> need for batteries

They are needed for transportation, whatever the way we produce electricity (even with nuclear).

> renewables can’t be used in various industrial processes

Why? There is no difference between nuclear-produced electricy and renewable-produced (or battery-stored)-electricy.

> Hopefully we get fusion soon

Does some optimistic scientist hope to enjoy an industrial prototype before 2050?

Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

#175

Post by natmaka »

pfdietz wrote: post #80
polotics wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do pray tell calculate a world's energy system looping back while running purely on renewables, with electric powered mining, transport of ores, refining, panels production... You will find that you cannot, cheap (for now) fossil fuels are subsidising solar panels and wind farms massively.

The mining for renewables would be a small fraction of the mining for industrial society as a whole. So, if electrification cannot be done on this, industrial society as we know it is doomed, and nuclear cannot save it. Unless you're thinking we're going to have nuclear reactors in our mining vehicles...

Moreover many materials used in 'renewables' equipment (wind turbines...) are eternally (at human scale) recyclable. This reduces the need for mining.

Uranium has to be mined.

Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

#176

Post by natmaka »

wkat4242 wrote: post #55
bell-cot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...centuries of unavoidable costs no matter what... OR, you put the nasty and long-lived radwaste into (say) lead barrels, and bury those below some nice, deep, easily-monitored ocean trench. Absolutely nobody's going to accidentally dig those up. And if the effort needed to intentionally do so would be greater than the effort to brew their own fresh radwaste, then nobody will bother trying that, either.

Barrels don't last when filled with nuclear material. The radiation embrittles the materials over time, they wouldn't last 100 years. And then all that crap will be released into the ocean and swerve all over the world.

Indeed, officially the casks conceived during the 1980's are OK, however in 2011 the MIT discovered that "Cracking related to corrosion could occur in 30 years or less, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is studying whether the casks can be used for 100 years as some hope."

https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/...

Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

#177

Post by heavenlyblue »

WalterBright wrote: post #101
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need to replace primary energy with electric energy in a 1:1 ratio. An ICE car is 20-30% efficient, an EV is 90% efficient. Generally we are looking at a grid expansion, but it is not massive. See this amazing chart on rejected vs. useful energy: https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

> an EV is 90% efficient An EV is 85-90% efficient with power coming out of the batteries. However, the charging efficiency of the batteries is at about 80%. So the overall efficiency is 80% of 90%, or 72%.

For the sake of replacement, we should not include the charging efficiency, because the context is that of "how kuch energy the car can store" rather than "where it comes from"

Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

#178

Post by Moldoteck »

natmaka wrote: post #173
Moldoteck wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you replace nuclear waste (that can be reduced with purex or reused with fast reactors) with non recyclable toxic renewable waste in much greater quantities For accidents - just need to build newer reactor models. ap1000 is a marvel of engineering

> reused with fast reactors Please name an industrial ready-to-deploy fast reactor. AFAIK there it doesn't exist, therefore its (after decades of expensive R&D in many nations) just a vague hope, not a potential part of the solution.

many proved it worked, including the Phenix and Superphenix, but were closed due to political reasons. Now russia is the leader with bn-600 and india/china are catching up

Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

#179

Post by natmaka »

zdragnar wrote: post #161
pfdietz wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As of now, the thermoset epoxy in turbine blades can't be recycled. Turbines optimistically last 20-25 years, which means entire generations of them have either been buried or worse, incinerated. https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/sweetwater-wind-t... https://cen.acs.org/environment/recycling/companies-recycle-... The same is true for solar panels. These are NOT unique problems to renewables, of course, excep…

Most blades are now burnt in cement killns. Burying them is forbidden in most (maybe even all, now) Western nations. Recyclable blades have recently become available (RecyclableBlade, ZEBRA, PECAN...), and there are even new ways to cope with the old ones: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/02/08/newly-discovered-che...

> The same is true for solar panels

I doubt so, details will be welcome.

Re: Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

#180

Post by Moldoteck »

natmaka wrote: post #172
Moldoteck wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it didn't happen because germany increased imports by a lot. 20TWh this year so far

Nearly each and every nation imports and exports, in order to optimize (better import low-cost or low-emission electricity than locally generate it thanks to some expensive and dirty plant). The yearly balance (imports - exports) is key.

I meant net imports. France alone net exported to Germany 11TWh from those 20
Post reply on HN