Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:24 PM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #209

belorn wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a bit strange that we don't see death counts from other evacuations. It is not that uncommon to see mass evacuations from flooding, like the one we had in Europe this year or 2021, but its only death caused directly by the flooding that get reported. There the recurring hurricanes in the US and the also recurring evacuations when it happens. Taking a more direct 1:1 example, the Oroville Dam crisis in Californi…

A key difference is that an evacuation triggered by a major nuclear accident could have been avoided (typically: by building renewables instead of a nuclear plant). > Was the evacuation poorly executed in Japan? This is a matter of debate. During the Fukushima nuclear accident information was scarce and volatile, specialists said that evacuating up to Tokyo may prove necessary (this was revealed by Kan Naoto, then Ja…

[deleted]

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

#232

Post by credit_guy » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:24 PM UTC

Kon5ole wrote: post #165

credit_guy wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the operators will undoubtedly go bankrupt I think you are under the impression that if a company files for bankruptcy they can discharge debts they owe to the government. Good luck with that. They will get their power plants sold to the highest bidder, and the proceeds will be used to pay whatever cleanup cost they owe under the Price-Anderson act. Here's a link to a story that BP paid more than $60 BN for the cle…

>I think you are under the impression that if a company files for bankruptcy they can discharge debts they owe to the government. No impressions here, surely you realize that if a company has no money, they won't get money just because the government demands it. >Here's a link to a story that BP paid more than $60 BN for the cleanup related to the Deepwater Horizon spill [1]. But BP has lots of money. Nuclear operato…

They have no money but they have assets that can be seized and sold.

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

#233

Post by pfdietz » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:29 PM UTC

portaouflop wrote: post #112

pfdietz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The point is it’s not the technology that is the issue in Texas - it’s unhinged turbo capitalism

It's a system where it's more difficult for utilities to ram through uncompetitive capital intensive projects by way of capture of the state regulatory agencies. If that's "unhinged", hinge-ness is overrated.

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

#234

Post by chickenbig » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 2:40 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #216

chickenbig wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> The only minimum standard that get enforced is that the waste should not leak into the ground water.

In the case of the Asse II mine it is not clear how strongly connected the water at the mine is to water at the surface. Given it is a salt mine I would not expect a strong connection.

> Everyone has consistently treated mining waste as an unavoidable side effect of mining

Yes, there are better and worse ways to dispose of it. Tailings are a huge problem and have caused many a dam disaster. Plainly Difficult Youtube channel dam disasters makes for sobering viewing. https://www.youtube.com/@PlainlyDifficult/playlists

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

#235

Post by _ph_ » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:05 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #225

_ph_ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is not correct. Yes, we are building more gas power plants. As peaker plants to pick up the residual load. That can in theory be the total net power requirement, which is why we need many of them. However, they are not running continuously. Already today, most gas power plants are idle most of the time. Gas usage by Germany is going on a steep decline as renewables are built up and especially as heating systems are converted to heat pumps.

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

#236

Post by _ph_ » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:08 PM UTC

littlestymaar wrote: post #123

_ph_ wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Whether the number for France is correct, is debatable. While I like the electricitymaps app, they are quite optimistic about nuclear power. They aren't “optimistic”, nuclear simply doesn't emit CO2 directly, and indirect emissions are dwarfed by direct emissions of fossils fuel plants. > What can and is being done is to replace coal as quickly as possible and that is happening. It has been happening for the past 1…

The nuclear emissions seem to be optimistic in their absolute amounts - mining and producing nuclear fuel causes a lot of emissions. No one claimed it exceeds the one of fossil fuel power plants.

There has been a strong decline in coal usage in the last years, both because the CO2 prices have started to move the balance and also because the buildup of renewables has been accelerated again. And no, France hasn't been "filling the gap". Until very recently, Germany had been a constant net electricity exporter.

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

#237

Post by belorn » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:18 PM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #209

belorn wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a bit strange that we don't see death counts from other evacuations. It is not that uncommon to see mass evacuations from flooding, like the one we had in Europe this year or 2021, but its only death caused directly by the flooding that get reported. There the recurring hurricanes in the US and the also recurring evacuations when it happens. Taking a more direct 1:1 example, the Oroville Dam crisis in Californi…

A key difference is that an evacuation triggered by a major nuclear accident could have been avoided (typically: by building renewables instead of a nuclear plant). > Was the evacuation poorly executed in Japan? This is a matter of debate. During the Fukushima nuclear accident information was scarce and volatile, specialists said that evacuating up to Tokyo may prove necessary (this was revealed by Kan Naoto, then Ja…

The Oroville Dam crisis could have been avoided if the power plant did proper maintenance on the dam, and the power plant management was found as being the primary cause of the accident. Dams are in general man made and maintain multiple nuclear bombs in terms of energy in potential, which need to be handled with care. The crisis had as much to do with the weather as Fukushima had to do with earthquakes.

Much of the damage caused by natural events can be avoided with proper planning and prevention, but they cost money. Most natural defenses against extreme weather are also removed in order for developing land or extracting natural resources.

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

#238

Post by foxyv » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:19 PM UTC

portaouflop wrote: post #110

foxyv wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to your point. Disposal of nuclear waste at sea was common up until 1993. There is still a couple hundred thousand tons of such waste sitting in the ocean right now. In addition, about 214 times as much radioactive material was generated by nuclear testing than the Chernobyl breach. Fukushima wouldn't even come close to the waste that has already been released prior to the 1994 ban on Oceanic dumping.

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

The point is, if we cannot responsibly dispose of waste, we should not be creating it in the first place.

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

#239

Post by krisoft » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:24 PM UTC

Dalewyn wrote: post #96

jborean93 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that refute what the parent comment was saying? Sounds like you are agreeing that the problem is not the technology but the people and processes in place.

The problem is (or at least was) with the people in political chairs playing power games. No amount of better regulations or technology can prevent fucking morons going on power trips screwing everything up and then get away with it. The nuclear (TEPCO) people in the field were and are amazing, and it is a cardinal sin they got scapegoated for political purposes.

> No amount of better regulations or technology can prevent fucking morons going on power trips screwing everything up and then get away with it.

I mean. If the story is true (which I have my doubts about). Then the simple change required would have been to make it clear that TEPCO has the sole authority to decide to scuttle the reactors. The politicians could have been morons going on a power trip all they wanted, and the reactors would have been safely scuttled.

If you are a firefighter you wouldn't ask the government if you should pump gasoline or water on a fire. Why did the people managing the nuclear reactors gave the government an opportunity to choose wrong? (Or rather, why was the system set up such that it was not already clearly defined under which technical circumstances the reactor must be be scuttled.)

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

#240

Post by troyvit » Tue, Oct 08, 2024, 3:24 PM UTC

lupusreal wrote: post #214

otherme123 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but who defines "remote"? We've explored a small percentage of the ocean [1] and most of the places we have explored we've been surprised to find life. In fact NOAA estimates that 91% of species in the ocean have yet to be classified [2]. We'd be dumping what is basically a forever chemical into places that we don't understand.

If we can't responsibly keep track of the waste we're producing then we shouldn't produce it. I'm pro-nuclear, and I think we can do it, but we need to be the kind of civilization that can plan beyond the next quarter first.

[1] https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/ocean-exploration/, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

[2] https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-species.html