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

211–220 of 357 posts

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

#211

Post by Moldoteck »

natmaka wrote: post #207
Moldoteck wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> you sure it neglects vogtle? No, your "Advanced Nuclear - Pathways to Commercial Liftoff" plays the usual "we benefit from failures because we learn" card, and concludes with promises "The next AP1000s would also realize substantial cost reductions". This is not IMHO solid, especially given well-known pertinent experience (about gaining from experience!), such as https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pi…

based on the fact unit 4 proved there's positive learning curve (30% faster & cheaper than unit 3) they extrapolated this so it seems pretty normal, much more believable than a continental scale grid that'll not need much overcapacity and storage, including because of v2g, that's a pipedream of a solution. Just think of dunkelflaute that'll affect a lot of northern countries, think how much overcapacity the other members will need to have to cover it.

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

#212

Post by Moldoteck »

natmaka wrote: post #189
slt2021 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nuclear fuel: nuclear rods can last about 3-7 years, lets say 5 on avg. 150 rods per 1 GW reactor. so its like one or two rail cars of fuel - extremely compact footprint. how calculate yourself how much fossil fuel you need to power 1 GW power plant for half a decade, and how much CO2 emissions will you generate? How many rail cars of coal Germany will need to generate 1 GW 24/7/365 for 5 years reliably ? it is just…

It's not about energy density but availability. If a nation cannot buy uranium (scarce resources, embargo...) it loses at least temporarily its nuclear infrastructure (and gasps for energy). This is not a real concern for renewables. > Nuclear is capturing strong and weak forces Other (way more practical and determinant) parameters are less enticing. For example: it 'burns' uranium and produces dangerous waste.

uranium can be stockpiled. Or like in japan/france - reprocessed & reenriched. It'll be more expensive but will cover most of temporary problems of uranium supply. For renewables - if you don't have local factories at scale and a steady supply of materials, incl for energy storage - the problem will be the same

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

#213

Post by Moldoteck »

Krasnol wrote: post #153
vkou wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This includes nuclear fuel. Nuclear fuel is both relatively plentiful, and can be sourced from a multitude of countries, both Eastern, Western, and, most importantly, unaligned. A lot of countries have economically viable (for power generation) uranium reserves, but do not exploit them because global prices for it are so low . It differs significantly from oil in this respect.

This is so weird because despite being so plentiful, the EU has still to throw money at Russia for all kinds of stuff related to nuclear energy. Imagine that: we have all kinds of sanctions on Russia here in the EU. The tone is aggressive. There is fear of a Russian invasion into EU countries, and we still have to get that stuff from Russia. So it seems not to be such an easy solution. It gets even worse for poor cou…

not all eu, just some countries. And those(some that want it) are gradually replacing ru enriched fuel with the one from westinghouse. France and US are boosting local enrichment facilities to replace the russian ones. You'll basically have the same problems with renewables if china would ban export to eu/us

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

#214

Post by lupusreal »

otherme123 wrote: post #114
portaouflop wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point ? That we dumped so much crap into the ocean a little more won’t hurt?

And then you have to read about how expensive nuclear is today compared with a few decades ago because of the excesive regulations. Regulations that pro-nuclear usually want to relax, to make nuclear more economically viable. No wonder that dumping nuclear waste to river and oceans is cheaper than having to safely store it for at least a couple of centuries.

Rivers are a bad idea because they change course, get dredged, dammed, etc. Into the ocean is best, preferably somewhere deep and remote (simply to reduce the risk of people messing with it.) Deep trenches that would fuck with fish nets anyway are a good place for it.

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

#215

Post by pfdietz »

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…

Well, my feeling it the exact mirror of that. It is you who I view as hopelessly wrong, someone who has cultish devotion to a failing technology.

What would a disinterested observer make of this?

They'd look for objective evidence to determine which of us is closer to reality.

For example, they might look at what the world is doing right now. What is being installed, renewables or nuclear? Presumably those who are spending money are trying to get the most bang for the buck.

If we look at that, renewables are soundly trouncing nuclear. Even in China, that country that is held up as the last best hope by nuclear advocates. New installs (which reflect the current conditions better than total installed capacity, which is a lagging indicator) are massively in favor of renewables there and elsewhere.

The nuclear advocate who explains away nuclear's troubles as due to the selective omnipotence of greens (selective, since they don't seem to be doing nearly as well on other issues) must really stretch their conspiracy theorizing to explain such a widespread result.

I will also note that you didn't explain how nuclear can power mining in a way that renewables can't.

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

#216

Post by belorn »

chickenbig wrote: post #124
portaouflop wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point ? That we dumped so much crap into the ocean a little more won’t hurt?

> That we dumped so much crap into the ocean a little more won’t hurt? Something I found out recently was that the city of Brussels discharged raw sewage into the rivers until 2007. This from a wealthy city at the heart of the European project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in... Radioactive waste disposal is seldom paired with a cost-benefit analysis. Perhaps this is because the benefits…

Everyone has consistently treated mining waste as an unavoidable side effect of mining, which only economical solution is to dig a whole in the ground and put it there. The only minimum standard that get enforced is that the waste should not leak into the ground water.

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

#217

Post by natmaka »

Moldoteck wrote: post #212
natmaka wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about energy density but availability. If a nation cannot buy uranium (scarce resources, embargo...) it loses at least temporarily its nuclear infrastructure (and gasps for energy). This is not a real concern for renewables. > Nuclear is capturing strong and weak forces Other (way more practical and determinant) parameters are less enticing. For example: it 'burns' uranium and produces dangerous waste.

uranium can be stockpiled. Or like in japan/france - reprocessed & reenriched. It'll be more expensive but will cover most of temporary problems of uranium supply. For renewables - if you don't have local factories at scale and a steady supply of materials, incl for energy storage - the problem will be the same

> stockpiled

Doing so may trigger a market tension.

France reprocesses only part of its fuel, and only 1 time.

> the problem will be the same

Uh?

An existing fleet of reactors is moot without uranium.

An existing fleet of renewables just works (it only needs wind, sun, geothermal activity...)

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

#218

Post by natmaka »

Moldoteck wrote: post #211
natmaka wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you sure it neglects vogtle? No, your "Advanced Nuclear - Pathways to Commercial Liftoff" plays the usual "we benefit from failures because we learn" card, and concludes with promises "The next AP1000s would also realize substantial cost reductions". This is not IMHO solid, especially given well-known pertinent experience (about gaining from experience!), such as https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pi…

based on the fact unit 4 proved there's positive learning curve (30% faster & cheaper than unit 3) they extrapolated this so it seems pretty normal, much more believable than a continental scale grid that'll not need much overcapacity and storage, including because of v2g, that's a pipedream of a solution. Just think of dunkelflaute that'll affect a lot of northern countries, think how much overcapacity the other mem…

> unit 4 proved there's positive learning curve

Unit 4 proved that work units in a given project, sharing the same lapse of time and space, can benefit. Extrapolating it to a whole set of projects is another matter (see the referenced study).

> a continental scale grid

Already exists and is continuously extended: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Transmissi...

> dunkelflaute

Its real impact (surface, frequency, duration...) is vastly overstated. In a glimpse: https://x.com/JonaSalKupper/status/1707035071394238889

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

#219

Post by lupusreal »

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…

"Triggered quite a lot of discussions" is an ultra-low bar. Lots of hysterical bullshit triggers a lot of discussion. Aliens, puzzagate, etc.

TMI was an expensive mistake but the public wasn't at risk.

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

#220

Post by Moldoteck »

natmaka wrote: post #217
Moldoteck wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

uranium can be stockpiled. Or like in japan/france - reprocessed & reenriched. It'll be more expensive but will cover most of temporary problems of uranium supply. For renewables - if you don't have local factories at scale and a steady supply of materials, incl for energy storage - the problem will be the same

> stockpiled Doing so may trigger a market tension. France reprocesses only part of its fuel, and only 1 time. > the problem will be the same Uh? An existing fleet of reactors is moot without uranium. An existing fleet of renewables just works (it only needs wind, sun, geothermal activity...)

you need to gradually replace renewables, especially for a grid that was gradually deployed. You still can stockpile nuclear, France does have several years worth of fuel for such emergencies. France reprocesses only part of the fuel, is expanding Orano facility, but why is this relevant? They do it and they get additional un-enriched uranium stockpile. WTH dude? Are you just throwing random antinuclear statements around? Only in german forums i've seen such strong antinuclear opinions
Post reply on HN