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

271–280 of 357 posts

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

#271

Post by locallost »

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…

Solar panels last a lot more than 20-25 years. There is a guarantee you will still get 80% of the capacity after this time, but the panels will continue to work after that just fine.

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

#272

Post by Krasnol »

Moldoteck wrote: post #226
natmaka wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fact which is missing here is how much money Germany made with those trades.

As the other commenter wrote: trading, transfers, etc. is normal in the EU grid. You buy cheap, you sell expensive. Just because Germany imports electricity, doesn't mean it has to. The German grid, even in its unfinished state, allows turning off power generation where it doesn't make sense financially, and they can do that fast because they don't have those slow nuclear power generators clogging up the grid.

We'll see what comes of it when the year is finished and official sources release their information. Until then, you can translate this page here from the Federal Network Agency: https://www.smard.de/page/home/topic-article/444/213848

In the last paragraphs they write on in/exports and that they've bought cheap from France and Belgium in the last quarter. Why shouldn't they? France needs to have their reactors running. They are a constant deficit on the French taxpayer. Therefore, it is cheap on the EEX.

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

#273

Post by zdragnar »

locallost wrote: post #271
zdragnar wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Solar panels last a lot more than 20-25 years. There is a guarantee you will still get 80% of the capacity after this time, but the panels will continue to work after that just fine.

Assuming they aren't hit by hail, or large branches, manufacturing defect in an onboard micro inverter, or any other reason, yes, solar panels don't just die at the year 20 mark.

Instead, they supply 1/5 less power than they were originally rated for, which means the system needs to be expanded or replaced to do what it was provisioned to do.

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

#274

Post by [deleted] »

chpatrick wrote: post #259
rbanffy wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can decide to build wind/solar instead of nuclear reactors. Or add passive safety measures to nuclear power plants. Fukushima failed because it was still generating too much heat, but that excessive heat couldn’t power a turbine to cool itself down.

Until the next failure comes along that we didn't predict.

[deleted]

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

#275

Post by pfdietz »

polotics wrote: post #268
pfdietz wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both are small compared to the mining needed for society as a whole. So why the hand wringing? You are desperately straining to make a mountain out of a foothill.

Well no, I am simply certain, from study, that the 100% renewables future being touted is a pipe dream at anything approaching mid 20th century energy consumption levels. Show me one model that does work with any technology, please, any source anywhere I promise I will review. Mining to get renewables to anything like the GWHours needed is very significant, look at the graphs in the data I provided Instead of any kin…

You may feel certain, but by the arguments you've given so far that belief does not appear to have any rational basis.

Are these arguments what led you to the belief, or are they rationalizations you've tried to construct after the fact? They don't appear to be things that a skeptical, rigorously rational person would have come up with.

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

#276

Post by pfdietz »

Moldoteck wrote: post #160
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nuclear exit began in earnest in 2011. Lets have a look at how the German electricity production has shifted over the years: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p... - Fossil gas: 2011 -> 2023 = stable. - Coal: 2011 -> 2023 = large reduction At the height of the energy crisis when half the French nuclear fleet was off line due to corrosion issues. Germany temporarily reopened a few mothball…

Man I know this. But the simple undeniable fact is - if nuclear was kept on - even less gas and coal would have been used, it's an obvious thing. Renewables did help ditching some of fossil generation, but with nuclear it would have been even more

And that's different from "it was replaced by coal".

You should probably have started with a correct statement, not a falsehood that you had to rephrase into a correct statement.

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

#277

Post by vlovich123 »

natmaka wrote: post #174
vlovich123 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

In the renewables case they’re needed for transportation AND grid. The dream that car batteries are used as grid storage afaict remains a dream with no forward movement on that front.

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

#278

Post by pfdietz »

preisschild wrote: post #130
imtringued wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a popular internet myth. The actual data shows that coal consumption is way down and even in the year of the shutdown the percentage of coal/gas went up by an insignificant amount.

Because more and more energy-intensive industries are shutting down their factories in Germany. Those require a large amount of baseload energy.

Nevertheless, "nuclear was replaced by coal" is a lie, and remains a lie.

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

#279

Post by vlovich123 »

pfdietz wrote: post #221
vlovich123 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree it’s unlikely but by the same token renewables don’t really solve this problem any better - at the end of the day you need batteries for both.

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

#280

Post by pfdietz »

WalterBright wrote: post #258
heavenlyblue wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

It is not about how much it can store. You cannot wish away the charging losses. There are no losses to pumping gas into a tank. Nor can you wish away the losses in the charger itself. Converting AC to DC is hardly 100% efficient.

In that case, you should also not wish away refining losses, where petroleum is turned into gasoline and other fuels.
Post reply on HN