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

221–230 of 357 posts

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

#221

Post by pfdietz »

vlovich123 wrote: post #145
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...

On site mini reactors with directly wired machinery isn’t entirely inconceivable but would require a massive restructuring of industrial layouts and processes.

SMRs are being touted now, but (1) they aren't that small, and (2) they have to be grouped together or else fixed labor costs become unacceptable per unit of power output. The result is a collection whose power output isn't too different from conventional large reactors.

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

#222

Post by Moldoteck »

natmaka wrote: post #218
Moldoteck wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

Yeah, vastly overstated... at this point you're not serious dude. I'm also very aware of european grid, but I guess you didn't read the part that you still need huge overcapacity

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

#223

Post by natmaka »

Moldoteck wrote: post #201
natmaka wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pl…

phenix and superphenix were closed mainly for political reasons, not because these didn't deliver| "This path is officially paused" - meaning the reactor is closed?

> phenix and superphenix were closed mainly for political reasons

Phénix is not pertinent, it worked perfectly but was a research reactor (small, expensive...).

Superphenix never reached the industrial stage, even the enterprise exploiting it (NERSA) never said so. They simply declared that they were willing to continue and hoping to reach the goal (13 years after first reactor divergence, 24 years after project start, with gigantic amounts of money poured at the project).

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

#224

Post by natmaka »

Moldoteck wrote: post #208
natmaka wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh? 2023 (last full year): 9.34 / 8.92 Source: https://energy-charts.info/charts/import_export/chart.htm?l=...

I may be wrong, but this year = 2024, not 2023. Per your source: https://energy-charts.info/charts/import_export/chart.htm?l=...

I may be wrong, but 2024 isn't yet a full year.

Moreover FR/DE isn't the main path anymore, and as DE sometimes plays as a gateway we have to take the complete balance into account.

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

#225

Post by belorn »

_ph_ wrote: post #93
littlestymaar wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources[1]. What nuclear generated has been replaced years ago, and they have a law to phase out coal completely. 472g of C02 per kW/h as we speak[1]. 20 times more than France and its nuclear. A resounding success… [1]: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE

Whether the number for France is correct, is debatable. While I like the electricitymaps app, they are quite optimistic about nuclear power. But that isn't the point. The point is: Germany is strongly reducing the usage of coal. Yes, historically we have burned far too much coal, but that cannot be changed retroactively. What can and is being done is to replace coal as quickly as possible and that is happening. Ironi…

Germany was the country that pushed natural gas to be defined as "green investment" in Europe. They are also building new and fresh thermal power plants to burn even more fossil fuels in the future. There is no end date to when Germany will stop burning fossil fuels.

What can be done and what is being done are miles apart. Investing into new fossil fueled power plants is not what the best thing Germany could be doing, nor is it what they should be doing. In 20 years there will be a large fleet of fossil fueled power plants and people will be again arguing that historically they burned too much of it but nothing can be done retroactively. Changing the current plans of new fossil fueled power plant would not be a retroactively change today, but it will be in 20 years.

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

#226

Post by Moldoteck »

natmaka wrote: post #224
Moldoteck wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong, but this year = 2024, not 2023. Per your source: https://energy-charts.info/charts/import_export/chart.htm?l=...

I may be wrong, but 2024 isn't yet a full year. Moreover FR/DE isn't the main path anymore, and as DE sometimes plays as a gateway we have to take the complete balance into account.

my OG comment clearly stated 'this year so far'. It's also obvious imports increased if you look per month net imports 2023 vs 2024. It doesn't matter the gateway, net imports do matter. Germany net imported 20TWh in 2024 so far and that's a fact. Germany net imported a lot more from neighbor states compared to last year and again, that's a fact.

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

#227

Post by pfdietz »

polotics wrote: post #202
acdha wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Slides of the 20 hours lectures at Ecoles des Mines Paris https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1fqoACrCFtlXKonP266Dk... The lectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgy0rW0oaFI&list=PLMDQXkItOZ... The (already provided in a previous comment) EROEI study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X1... The one specific slide about the low EROEI of solar panel is in: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1…

A typical game for making EROEI look bad is to expand system boundaries. That is, you say "we're paying these workers, and they're consuming products and services that use energy, so ascribe that energy use to this effort". Cast the net widely enough and all energy use in society can be included. But if you do that, EROEI converges to 1, since all energy that is produced is also consumed. And this is perfectly ok.

Elsewhere, with more reasonable boundaries, one finds EROEI is much higher, and has been found to be better than for fossil fuels. An EROEI of about 8 for PV in Switzerland, for example (and Switzerland is not the sunniest place on Earth; the EROEI would be even higher at those locations; it also becomes higher as renewable technology advances, for example with longer lifespans and thinner PV cells.)

That EROEI can't be bad should be obvious. Energy is only a small fraction of the cost of making renewable equipment. If EROEI were bad then renewables could not be as cheap as they are. That they are being sold so cheaply debunks the EROEI arguments directly.

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

#228

Post by visarga »

slt2021 wrote: post #71
visarga wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, solar is also nuclear.

photovoltaic elements inside solar panel rely on photoelectric effect, which is electromagnetic force. It cannot be weak/strong force

on the production side :)

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

#229

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

natmaka wrote: post #210
ovi256 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all, the chemical industry also can do this. Worse, we store untreatable chemical waste forever (see Germany's many chemical waste dumps), unlike nuclear waste which will eventually become safe.

Please source.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untertagedeponie_Herfa-Neurode

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deponie_Ihlenberg

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

#230

Post by EasyMark »

Kon5ole wrote: post #3

Are the costs of this 13 years and counting expense tab added to the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in any way? Seems to me like it should, so that generations-long decisions are not made from overly optimistic numbers.

Japan needs nuclear to have more reliable power source as they have limited land and natural resources. The government may have to just pay for this and learn from the mistakes that led to it. Nuclear is the future.
Post reply on HN