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

191–200 of 357 posts

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

#191

Post by polotics »

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...

It really makes me so sad to see that some people can be so confidently so wrong.

It really does appear that believing in renewables as a way to perpetuate industrial society at scale has become part of some people's identity, and regardless of any actual study on the subject, this belief appears to be a necessity to be part of non-deplorable human society.

Nuclear reactors are a safe way to electrify as much as can be and reduce the body blows societies are going to take in the coming decades. Some industry is not doomed, and social stability can be maintained, at some cost, if and only if we use all technologies at our disposal for what they are, and calculate the risks and rewards right.

Facts are sadly unmoved by any faith, and the real path forward as painful as it may be, is only open to those that accept that they can always be wrong, and will always have to learn more.

Please pfdietz cite your sources and please prove me wrong.

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

#192

Post by natmaka »

Moldoteck wrote: post #186
natmaka wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nuclear is not much more expensive, it's cheaper Production costs: renewables are way cheaper than nuclear ( https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... ) and this is not a new trend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

it kinda depends: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ Edit: for lazard study I kinda fail to assume why they assume 4h storage? I mean, looking at California's grid, they need about 10-14 hours of storage of about 10GW each. And at minimum triple their solar. And that's for ideal 365 sunny days case. But they get about 100 cloudy days. Some of i…

'Advanced nuclear' neglects the last developments (the Vogtle nuclear plant project hugely over-budget and late https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... , cancelled plans (Montagorda, V. C. Summer, River Band, Callaway...). Even the newest pipe dream in town (SMR) already had its first rebuff ( https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-... ).

Last but not least... there is no running project.

Therefore writing "US nuclear capacity has the potential to triple from ~100 GW in 2024 to ~300 GW by 2050." in a title is for sure easy, however there is now sign of such potential to become anything else.

As long as the source is not consuming any fuel nor producing much waste any EROI greater than one seems OK to me.

> why they assume 4h storage?

AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G).

> What you'll do in case both solar&wind will be low?

AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale, as this is useful whatever the type of sources (even if it is mainly nuclear), then to benefit from diverses wind (or even solar) regimes.

> overcapacity will need to be subsidized heavily because excess solar capacity will be unused a lot of the time

Not with an electric fleet of vehicles, to begin with. Green hydrogen will also absorb part of it (for industrial applications, electric backup...).

> if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies

This will kill nuclear (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg ).

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

#193

Post by acdha »

polotics wrote: post #191
pfdietz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It really makes me so sad to see that some people can be so confidently so wrong. It really does appear that believing in renewables as a way to perpetuate industrial society at scale has become part of some people's identity, and regardless of any actual study on the subject, this belief appears to be a necessity to be part of non-deplorable human society. Nuclear reactors are a safe way to electrify as much as can…

I note that your polemic is long on faith in nuclear but short on the same sources you’re demanding. Perhaps you could model the standard you expect from other people by providing sources and some analysis of the very sweeping assertions you’re making.

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

#194

Post by FeepingCreature »

natmaka wrote: post #164
bhawks wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending nearly 1/6th of Japan's GDP to clean up 0.45% of the nuclear waste dumped into the ocean is worth consideration. If the earthquake had happened 20 years earlier (nothing on tectonic timescales) this wouldn't be up to much discussion. If you were to commit such a large amount of cash - a reparation for the disaster - would you spend it all on this?

> 0.45% of the nuclear waste Do you mean that the Fukushima nuclear accident dumped locally in a few days 0.45% of all dumped nuclear waste during the last ~80 years?"? If so it seems non-negligible to me. > 20 years earlier (nothing on tectonic timescales) this wouldn't be up to much discussion Not sure about this. Maybe ~50 years ago, and even so the accident at Three Mile Island (1979) didn't pollute much but trig…

Feels like the question here is, is the point of the government primarily to govern well or to make voters happy?

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

#195

Post by acdha »

Moldoteck wrote: post #178
natmaka wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Does “catching up” mean this is actually working somewhere it can be measured - like we have been with renewables - or is this still theoretical?

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

#196

Post by natmaka »

Moldoteck wrote: post #178
natmaka wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Phenix was not industrial (250 MWe) but a research reactor. Superphenix was an attempt to haul it to industrial scale and it failed to do so, just as every other similar project.

Russia BN-600 is obsolete and was so leaky (sodium!) is isn't even funny. It was superseded by the BN-800 which started in 2014 and has various problems (most related to fuel, the core of this challenge). This path is officially paused (a planned BN-1200 project didn't start). If it works satisfactorily, as you implicitly claim, please state why it isn't declined (other units built) while Russia tries another breeder architecture (BREST-300, using lead instead of sodium)?

India is even farther away, encountering major difficulties with a prototype ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor ).

China is also exploring ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFR-600 )

Nothing industrial and ready-to-deploy, as I wrote it.

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

#197

Post by natmaka »

Moldoteck wrote: post #180
natmaka wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Uh?

2023 (last full year): 9.34 / 8.92

Source: https://energy-charts.info/charts/import_export/chart.htm?l=...

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

#198

Post by natmaka »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #194
natmaka wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 0.45% of the nuclear waste Do you mean that the Fukushima nuclear accident dumped locally in a few days 0.45% of all dumped nuclear waste during the last ~80 years?"? If so it seems non-negligible to me. > 20 years earlier (nothing on tectonic timescales) this wouldn't be up to much discussion Not sure about this. Maybe ~50 years ago, and even so the accident at Three Mile Island (1979) didn't pollute much but trig…

Feels like the question here is, is the point of the government primarily to govern well or to make voters happy?

Indeed, in more than one way.

AFAIK in theory the people knows what is good for itself, and therefore making voters happy is governing well.

ObQuote: https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotes/the-worst-form...

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

#199

Post by Moldoteck »

natmaka wrote: post #192
Moldoteck wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it kinda depends: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ Edit: for lazard study I kinda fail to assume why they assume 4h storage? I mean, looking at California's grid, they need about 10-14 hours of storage of about 10GW each. And at minimum triple their solar. And that's for ideal 365 sunny days case. But they get about 100 cloudy days. Some of i…

'Advanced nuclear' neglects the last developments (the Vogtle nuclear plant project hugely over-budget and late https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... , cancelled plans (Montagorda, V. C. Summer, River Band, Callaway...). Even the newest pipe dream in town (SMR) already had its first rebuff ( https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/11/first-planned-small-... ). Last but not least... there is no…

you sure it neglects vogtle?

> AFAIK because they consider that electric vehicles' batteries will be useful (through V2G). - lol, kinda interesting assumptions, especially considering that it'll still imply additional costs

> AFAIK the idea is to interconnect at continental scale - lol, at such scales that sounds as a bigger pipedream than cheap h2 emission free generation

> if it'll be used less and less, youll need subsidies

> This will kill nuclear (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg ).

This will kill basically any peaker plant be that fossil, hydro or nuclear. That's kinda the point. With a renewable grid you'll need huge overcapacity of both production, peaker and storage that'll be rarely used. No matter the technology - any of it will get extremely expensive the higher the renewable share will get. Even Norway starts facing similar problems since they import cheap renewable in peak production, meaning their hydro is earning less

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

#200

Post by natmaka »

defrost wrote: post #170
natmaka wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obtaining the amount of victims of an evacuation is difficult, and official figures are conservative for many reasons, the main one being that each victim's family obtained financial reparation (see also the "Limitations" section of a pertinent study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266676572... ). During the Fukushima nuclear accident information was scarce and volatile, specialists said that evac…

It's clear that a small number of mostly older people suffered unduly from the stress of an imposed evacuation. It's not clear that this is a specifically nuclear issue. Had an area been evacuated due to earthquakes making the ground unstable, due to extreme bushfires destroying every building, would the stress on the elderly be any less?

> It's not clear that this is a specifically nuclear issue

An evacuation triggered by a nuclear major accident seems specific to nuclear to me, in the sense: if, instead of this nuclear plant, some field occupied by wind turbines or solar panels were build, there would be no need to evacuate.

> Had an area been evacuated due to earthquakes making the ground unstable

No human being can control nor counter this sort of event. We can decide to build wind/solar instead of nuclear reactors.

Post reply on HN