Live data from Hacker News

Fukushima Reactor: TEPCO robot aims to extract nuclear fuel

spectrum.ieee.org

351–357 of 357 posts

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

#351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Read and watch what I sent you in previous posts please, it will only take about 20 hours of your time, and then you will know.

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

#352
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's how it works. For all we know, in ten years, parts of the Atlantic Ocean could become uninhabitable by marine life due to radioactive plumes. Or not. The history of radioactive waste disposal is very short. Dumping further could exacerbate future problems. That's kind of why we banned it. Personally I think deep bore hole disposal in geologically inactive regions makes the most sense.

The areas around the nuclear waste disposal sites are monitored for radioactivity. Radiation drops to ambient levels very sharply. Radioactive material decays over time - it'll get strictly less radioactive as time goes on.

Radiation levels at such sites generally drops due to dilution. As we have seen in the case of other wastes like mercury and dioxins, you can get bioaccumulation of this waste in the food chain causing environmental damage.

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

#353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

scaling is expensive. France too, for enrichment is doing scaling of what they already did, just like Germany (I'm referring to german enrichment plant) :) Nuclear is not an outdated tech, why do you say that? Especially the ap1000 reactor. France slept on building more nuclear and was on path to ditch it, reversed only recently, that's why they are where they are, still - in much better shape than Germany in this re…

Westinghouse went bankrupt over that new reactor, and wasn't it supposed to be more cost-effective? Nuclear has peaked, and its share knows only one way. Down [1]. It neither has become in any way more significant better nor has it become cheaper or faster to build. Meanwhile, renewables, got better, cheaper and faster to build. Nuclear is tech from the past. We needed it once. Now it's clogging up the grids, wasting…

it was supposed to be more cost effective, but not for foak and untrained staff. That's why china and korea can build basically same design much cheaper and faster - they got experienced staff and costs reduced with each new build

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

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it never was as all pertinent nations could easily obtain enough uranium to 'cook' it for weapons. Even the most eager to build huge amounts of weapons (USSR and USA) never had any problem related to the amount of uranium needed. Short version: the amount of uranium needed to build an impressive arsenal of nuclear weapons is way, way lower than the amount needed to produce a fair part of gridpower for years. > Ev…

Sure, once the Cold War started ... > This very need was what led nations to build reactors, electricity-generating nuclear plants were at best an aftermath In absolute history, though, this is arse backwards. The UK and the US both had piles and generation plans before they even thought building nuclear weapons was at all possible. The US, in particular, had a nuclear science body that were pretty damn sure weapons…

Nope, and you don't source.

In fact the first man-made nuclear reactor was the 'Chicago Pile-1' ( 'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1 ), which was built by the Project Manhattan, exclusively aiming at building a nuclearbomb.

In WP's article please don't miss this: "Emilio Segrè later recalled that: I thought for a while that this term was used to refer to a source of nuclear energy in analogy with Volta's use of the Italian term pila to denote his own great invention of a source of electrical energy. I was disillusioned by Fermi himself, who told me that he simply used the common English word pile as synonymous with heap. To my surprise, Fermi never seemed to have thought of the relationship between his pile and Volta's."

The world's first reactor used to generate electricity (another one generated some during an experiment in 1948), albeit it wasn't its main purpose, was the 4th reactor, and it started nearly 10 years after: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_I

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

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “What happens if we lose the generators?” They knew. Especially after Forsmark, 2006 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forsmark_Nuclear_Power_Plant#J... ), which was a major subject for the industry. The first stages of a similar incident happened in France decades before. ... and it didn't change anything. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41774144

It's very easy to predict something that already happened will happen again.

Maybe, however History shows that is isn't always done.

Everything is easy, nothing is perfect.

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

#356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a pool of people who definitely died. That's not in dispute. What is questionable, as you point out, is the application of different tricks and shades of "can't prove, must be nuclear" to claim all deaths in the pool as a direct result of nuclear. As others have pointed out there are similar yearly figures for tenuous "coal deaths" as there are here for seven years of post disaster "evacuation deaths".

Invasive cancer statistics in Japan were compiled for the Fukushima Cancer Registry database and published by the National Cancer Center Japan. If we review average annual percent change on Thyroid cancer incidence, there was a more or less stable value between 2008 and 2011. Then in 2012 there is a sudden increase of 10,8% on Fukushima, versus a 3,7% for the whole Japan in the same year [1]. Some increase is normal…

Most radiation-induced solid cancers develop after 10+ years, therefore studying the 2008-2015 period isn't very pertinent.

Compiling statistics about a population is more difficult than doing so for a well-specified group of workers, and given the treatment of workers... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/special-report-he...

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

#357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Read and watch what I sent you in previous posts please, it will only take about 20 hours of your time, and then you will know.

ps. During the 2000s, around ten new copper deposits were discovered each year worldwide. In the 2010s, it was more like 3 to 4 on average. And over the past three years, there has been a total of... one discovery, according to Les Echos: https://t.ly/yhqQr

For copper, as with many other underground resources, discoveries eventually decline over time. It's similar for oil: the peak of annual discoveries of "conventional" oil fields—everything except shale oil—was 60 years ago, and 50 years ago for gas.

Additionally, the copper content in new mines tends to decrease: it is now about 0.5% on average (it was ten times higher a century ago). This means that to extract one kg of copper, you need to extract, crush, and process 200 kg of rock. The higher this number, the more energy is required for a mine to maintain the same production.

For the current production of 20 million tons of copper per year, a few billion tons of ore need to be processed annually—more than for iron! Incidentally, over a billion tons of rock is also processed annually to extract 3,000 tons of gold.

The International Energy Agency has long pointed out that copper production may start to decline in the coming years (even though more is needed in its decarbonization scenarios). A 15-year forecast is reasonably relevant because it takes this long—or even 20 years—to bring a new mine into operation after discovery.

It's not just about permits: roads must be built, a power network for high-power machines, water supply and wastewater treatment facilities, processing plants, etc.

Thus, the production from existing and planned mines is fairly predictable over the next one to two decades. Is it serious if there's less copper?

Maybe, for electrifying 1.5 billion two-ton vehicles. For having only half or a third of that fleet consisting of small vehicles (an electric bicycle requires 100 times fewer materials than an electric car, and there are, of course, intermediate possibilities), maybe not.

For energy, the economic world has not understood that the signal of its decline won't be an indefinite price increase but a contraction of "physical" production (happening in Europe since 2007). A decline in energy means a shortfall in production, hence incomes, leading to less energy but less solvent consumers, with a new price that could settle "anywhere."

For a systemic metal, it will be the same: reduced supply will result in decreased material production, but not necessarily an indefinite price increase. The economy is primarily about the physical!

Post reply on HN