Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

cringely.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

#71

Post by dedward »

bilban wrote: post #44

Not wanting to change the topic. But why on earth would you even consider nuclear power generation when you are in such a geologically unstable area? Sounds like idiocy to me. Fingers crossed here, could do without another man made disaster.

Probably won't have one -it's dangerous territory, but they are managing it. The Japanese are good at managing things, right? (right?)

They have a mix of nuclear, hydro, and other power generating systems to meet their energy needs. Nuclear is one of the cleanest and least disruptive to the environment.

Re: Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

#72

Post by MichaelApproved »

stevefarnworth wrote: post #40
MichaelApproved wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil isn't used to make electricity. The major options are nat gas and coal. This disaster will likely drive DOWN oil prices since Japan will likely need less of it in the short term.

I'm sorry? Oil isn't used to make electricity Oil is used in some types of power station, and the markets are already reacting to not only the increased demand, but due to the infrastructure damage in the north of the country, the fact it'll be harder than ever to get it delivered. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110312-700945.html

I initially assumed that Japans energy gneration profile was similar to the US where it's almost all coal and LNG which is why I didn't think it would impact the oil market as much.

A bit of googling gave me this article which states that oil is actually more popular than coal. http://www.fepc.or.jp/english/energy_electricity/electric_po...

I still wonder if their demand will go up since a lot of the infrastructure is damaged and unusable. But if it does go up, chances are they'll need more fuel oil.

Re: Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

#73

Post by MichaelApproved »

wisty wrote: post #46
MichaelApproved wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil isn't used to make electricity. The major options are nat gas and coal. This disaster will likely drive DOWN oil prices since Japan will likely need less of it in the short term.

Small generators, like the kinds you use for emergency backup power, often run on oil.

My point was regarding large scale power plants that would have a major affect on the market. Still, it turns out that oil based power plants are far more popular than I knew earlier.

Re: Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

#74

Post by willgodfrey »

neutronicus wrote: post #15

Like they wouldn't have boron near a nuclear reactor. I'm a PWR man myself, but I am 99% sure that GE BWR designs have a couple of big tanks of borated water specifically for a LOCA. I highly doubt they're having reactivity problems, it's probably just managing the decay heat, and now the radiation leaks, that's the problem. "Just" is a relative word, here, of course. Boiling water reactors are simpler, cheaper, but…

Just an FYI, the additional reactors going in in South Texas are ABWR's, not BWR's.

Re: Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

#75

Post by ugh »

jsavimbi wrote: post #60
masklinn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like they wouldn't have boron near a nuclear reactor. They probably do, the question is whether they can carry it to the site faster than the US navy, and whether the boron tanks have not been compromised.

Someone's under the impression that the US Navy is capable of doing whatever they want, whenever they want. In actuality, it took a very long time for US-Japanese relations to get to the point where the Navy would be able to station a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS George Washington, at the fleet activities base in Yokosuka. Prior to that, only the conventional carriers Midway, Independence and Kitty Hawk…

So you are saying that Clinton lied? He was quoting Hillary Clinton, a source that should generally be above all suspicions.

Re: Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

#76

Post by rbanffy »

rospaya wrote: post #58

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringely Robert X. Cringely is the pen name of both technology journalist Mark Stephens and a string of writers for a column in InfoWorld, the one-time weekly computer trade newspaper published by IDG.

I think that, currently, Cringely is just Stephens.

Re: Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

#77

Post by pnathan »

mahmud wrote: post #19
ugh wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think experts refers to “experts” on CNN or Fox. Here is the relevant passage in the text I think this refers to: “‘Coolant?’ wondered aloud all the CNN and Fox News nuclear experts looking for a lede for their stories. ‘What is she talking about, coolant?’” And what’s wrong with speculation? Seemed reasonable enough to me.

Speculation is fine, as long as you understand my suspicion of it. Cringely says Japan lost 20% of its electricity supply. I say I wont believe that figure until I hear it from the Japanese nuclear authorities themselves.

Nuclear power is about 35-40% of Japan's grid, according to the what appears to be a site operated by Japanese authorities.

"At present, there are 52 commercial nuclear reactors in operation in Japan with a total generating capacity of 45,742 megawatts. Nuclear power supplies about 35% of Japan’s total electricity demand. It is expected that nuclear energy’s share in electricity generation will increase to more than 40% by around 2010."[1]

[1] http://www.japannuclear.com/files/Japan%20Nuclear%20Fuel%20C...

Re: Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

#78

Post by drawkbox »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #30
djcapelis wrote: post #27

Uhm... the other units at Chernobyl re-entered service for a solid decade after that incident. (Only one of them lasted a decade. Unit 2 caught on fire in '91. Unit 1 was shut down in '96 and Unit 3 lasted until Dec '99.) Cringley's prediction will be wrong. There are a lot of units at that station, two of which are ABWR cores. I would speculate that the majority of these units will return to service.

I think you're right but I give him credit for drawing attention to a big issue that everyone else is ignoring which is Japan's diminished production capacity (rather than focusing on the doomsday meltdown scenarios most of the media are fixated on). Even if they return to service eventually there's going to be downtime. That's going to force Japan to use more fossil fuels which will drive up the price (even more). A…

That goes for the nuclear reactors and the oil refineries. There will definitely be a slow down and that will mean more external sources will be needed short-term, right during summer, where oil prices skyrocket.

Re: Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

#79

Post by rbanffy »

I find it notable that you have mounting pressure that could risk the integrity of the pressure vessel, yet can't turn a turbine connected to a pump to drive cool water through heat exchangers... If a reactor self-destructs unless you can cool it down actively after an emergency shutdown, there must be some serious design issues there.

After you completely kill the fission, you still have some heat being generated from the decay of fission byproducts doesn't sound weird that the device has enough power to self destruct but not enough to cool itself down?

Re: Cringley: Japan may have just permanently lost 20% of its electricity supply

#80

Post by nettdata »

dedward wrote: post #70
nettdata wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BBC is reporting a pretty major explosion. The link has video of it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12720219 While not apparently nuclear, it does seem pretty major. Could be interesting to see what the damage from it will turn out to be.

There will never be a nuclear explosion.... even a meltdown is not a nuclear explosion. Even chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion.

I was referring to an explosion that contained nuclear/radioactive material, not a nuclear explosion.
Post reply on HN