Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany?
Because if Germany makes fewer nuclear plants, they'll make more coal plants.
Or more solar? Increase efficiency? Or use less?
False choice.
Plutonium is Forever
91–100 of 100 posts
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no "atomic troll" and radioactive contamination at Fukushima is potentially a significant problem. But the detected plutonium levels are almost insignificant compared to the detected Cs-137 contamination (whose half-life is 30 years, not months): http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/betu11_e/im... (Pu) http://www.mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfil... (Cs-137) The activity of Cs-137 is o…
The plutonium leak confirms a meltdown and containment breach. That is what is significant.
Are you sure the presence of plutonium indicates a containment breach at a reactor? Remember that the fuel at the reactor 4 SFP is probably damaged and was sprayed with water.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Germany?
They've temporarily shut off all their nuclear plants constructed before 1980. They need to get power from somewhere , and nuclear power has the lowest number of deaths per terawatt-hour of any currently-viable competing energy source. Coal pollutes the atmosphere and kills miners (among other things). Natural gas has an unpleasant tendency to explode during handling, and is considerably more expensive than coal. And…
I think that last thing is inaccurate. Because of better efficiency, simpler plant design, and no fly ash disposal natural gas generated electricity is a little cheaper at current prices. This was a surprise to me, because coal can be 15-70% the price per BTU vs natural gas (coal prices and energy density vary by region).
Nuclear may have the lowest number of deaths/power, but technically the Space Shuttle was the safest way to fly from 1977 to 1986.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#94Re: Plutonium is Forever
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've temporarily shut off all their nuclear plants constructed before 1980. They need to get power from somewhere , and nuclear power has the lowest number of deaths per terawatt-hour of any currently-viable competing energy source. Coal pollutes the atmosphere and kills miners (among other things). Natural gas has an unpleasant tendency to explode during handling, and is considerably more expensive than coal. And…
I think that last thing is inaccurate. Because of better efficiency, simpler plant design, and no fly ash disposal natural gas generated electricity is a little cheaper at current prices. This was a surprise to me, because coal can be 15-70% the price per BTU vs natural gas (coal prices and energy density vary by region). Nuclear may have the lowest number of deaths/power, but technically the Space Shuttle was the sa…
I'd like to point out that even if there were a Chernobyl every two weeks, nuclear would still kill less than coal.
I'm not necessarily that pro-nuclear, I just cannot fathom why all the outrage in power production seems to be directed towards nuclear while coal, that kills ~2700 people worldwide every day is still being used.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if Germany makes fewer nuclear plants, they'll make more coal plants.
Or more solar? Increase efficiency? Or use less? False choice.
The situation in question is Merkel shutting down the 7 oldest German nuclear plants for 3 months. There will be no new clean sources of power deployed during those 3 months -- and unless there is a national campaign to reduce use starting right now in Germany, it will be mostly covered by coal.
During those 3 months, ~250 more will die to SO2 and NOx because of increased coal power production.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
... It is simply not possible to dismantle a nuclear reactor that close after shutdown -- the power produced by radioactive decay heat right after shutdown is in the order of 10MW, and the core is incredibly hot for weeks. If they had done everything as well as they possibly could, they would not be any closer to dismantling the plants than they are today. The best course would have been to maintain cooling so that n…
Germany?
Link to my earlier post on the subject: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2371139
Note that this is not about building new plants -- this is only about what happens in the next 3 months to cover the loss in capacity caused by bringing 7 plants down.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or more solar? Increase efficiency? Or use less? False choice.
The situation in question is Merkel shutting down the 7 oldest German nuclear plants for 3 months. There will be no new clean sources of power deployed during those 3 months -- and unless there is a national campaign to reduce use starting right now in Germany, it will be mostly covered by coal. During those 3 months, ~250 more will die to SO2 and NOx because of increased coal power production.
[deleted]
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that last thing is inaccurate. Because of better efficiency, simpler plant design, and no fly ash disposal natural gas generated electricity is a little cheaper at current prices. This was a surprise to me, because coal can be 15-70% the price per BTU vs natural gas (coal prices and energy density vary by region). Nuclear may have the lowest number of deaths/power, but technically the Space Shuttle was the sa…
I'd like to point out that even if there were a Chernobyl every two weeks, nuclear would still kill less than coal. I'm not necessarily that pro-nuclear, I just cannot fathom why all the outrage in power production seems to be directed towards nuclear while coal, that kills ~2700 people worldwide every day is still being used.
What did I say that made you think I wasn't aware of how destructive coal generate power is? I don't need to point out why people are talking so much more about nuclear power safety than coal safety over the past month or so.
Re: Plutonium is Forever
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because if Germany makes fewer nuclear plants, they'll make more coal plants.
Or more solar? Increase efficiency? Or use less? False choice.
I'm disappointed that I was downvoted to 0 on this one. I didn't think I was overly argumentative and gave an honest response to the parent poster. I hate meta-comments, but they wouldn't be necessary if people wouldn't moderate based on personal agreement/disagreement.