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

91–100 of 357 posts

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

#91

Post by _ph_ »

MoreSEMI wrote: post #88
Krasnol wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, sure they are reaping. 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources[1]. What nuclear generated has been replaced years ago, and they have a law to phase out coal completely. The only weird thing about it is that they're being hated on so much from the nuclear-bubble, while the bubble simultaneously drags the shield of innovation and environment protection. Meanwhile, there is negligible innovation…

While this is true they are among the worst polluters in the EU. England, Spain, France, even italy has a better CO2 balance than Germany per kWH. The amount of energy that comes from renewables is a meaningless number. The only thing that matters is how much CO2 they emit per kWH and due to their coal power plants, the number is quite bad. https://app.electricitymaps.com/map

Yes, Germany has a historic debt there. However, the transition is working and in 2024 Germany has used less coal than any year after 1960. Coal power usage is in a strong decline. The nuclear reactors have been more than replaced.

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

#92

Post by _ph_ »

Scarblac wrote: post #26
Krasnol wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, sure they are reaping. 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources[1]. What nuclear generated has been replaced years ago, and they have a law to phase out coal completely. The only weird thing about it is that they're being hated on so much from the nuclear-bubble, while the bubble simultaneously drags the shield of innovation and environment protection. Meanwhile, there is negligible innovation…

61.5% sounds like a lot, but how much electricity is needed to replace everything that fossil fuel is now used for? I think it needs to increase to 400% or so to do that.

Somewhere between 2-3x the electricity consumed right now (which is way down from the peak several years ago as efficiency increases, e.g. LEDs instead of light bulbs etc.). It would be crazy expensive to build nuclear reactors to produce so much electricity, with renewables it is still quite a task, but a much more manageable one.

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

#93

Post by _ph_ »

littlestymaar wrote: post #62
Krasnol wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, sure they are reaping. 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources[1]. What nuclear generated has been replaced years ago, and they have a law to phase out coal completely. The only weird thing about it is that they're being hated on so much from the nuclear-bubble, while the bubble simultaneously drags the shield of innovation and environment protection. Meanwhile, there is negligible innovation…

> 61.5% of Germany's electricity comes from renewable sources[1]. What nuclear generated has been replaced years ago, and they have a law to phase out coal completely. 472g of C02 per kW/h as we speak[1]. 20 times more than France and its nuclear. A resounding success… [1]: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE

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.

Ironically there was a spike in coal usage in 2022, that was caused both by the war Russia started against Ukraine and even more so by France having to shut down too many nuclear reactors for repairs - German coal had to fill part of that gap.

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

#94

Post by _ph_ »

pyrale wrote: post #23
Kon5ole wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you decide to run nuclear power in a country you have centuries of unavoidable costs no matter what the next government, or next ten generations of citizens decide to do. This is a unique cost consideration for nuclear power, which IMO is rarely considered by the proponents.

Negative industrial byproducts creating costs for future generations is an unique challenge? Have you heard of climate change?

Your argument would be valid if nuclear power would be the only option to prevent climate change. But there are other options: the various renewables, most importantly solar and wind. So it is not nuclear vs. climate change, but nuclear vs. solar/wind.

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

#95

Post by dumah »

slt2021 wrote: post #71
visarga wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, solar is also nuclear.

photovoltaic elements inside solar panel rely on photoelectric effect, which is electromagnetic force. It cannot be weak/strong force

The joke is that Sol is a gravitationally confined thermonuclear reactor.

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

#96

Post by Dalewyn »

jborean93 wrote: post #81
Dalewyn wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You literally do not know what transpired. When the tsunami hit and Fukushima #1 lost power and was at risk of meltdown, TEPCO was ready to scuttle the reactors by dumping seawater in them. It would have rendered the reactors unusable, but meltdown would be prevented. The Japanese government at the time, coming from the Prime Minister (Naoto Kan) himself, denied TEPCO from scuttling them because the government wanted…

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.

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

#97

Post by bell-cot »

pvaldes wrote: post #56
bell-cot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...centuries of unavoidable costs no matter what... OR, you put the nasty and long-lived radwaste into (say) lead barrels, and bury those below some nice, deep, easily-monitored ocean trench. Absolutely nobody's going to accidentally dig those up. And if the effort needed to intentionally do so would be greater than the effort to brew their own fresh radwaste, then nobody will bother trying that, either.

People keep proposing that nonsense from 70's but can be cured studying some really basic biology and oceanography. In 2024 is at a level similar than saying that smoking is good for your children. Is not even funny as a joke. > Absolutely nobody's going to accidentally dig those up Read about the concept of vertical migration

Are you referring to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diel_vertical_migration

If so, Wikipedia's first para makes it clear that that migration occurs at vastly shallower depths than an ocean trench.

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

#98

Post by throwaway2037 »

Kon5ole wrote: post #3

Are the costs of this 13 years and counting expense tab added to the cost of electricity generated by nuclear power plants in any way? Seems to me like it should, so that generations-long decisions are not made from overly optimistic numbers.

I think this is a fair point. Are nuclear waste disposal costs also included? I cannot prove it, but I am pessimistic.

I also doubt that coal includes the health costs associated with many decades of emissions.

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

#99

Post by bell-cot »

wkat4242 wrote: post #55
bell-cot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...centuries of unavoidable costs no matter what... OR, you put the nasty and long-lived radwaste into (say) lead barrels, and bury those below some nice, deep, easily-monitored ocean trench. Absolutely nobody's going to accidentally dig those up. And if the effort needed to intentionally do so would be greater than the effort to brew their own fresh radwaste, then nobody will bother trying that, either.

Barrels don't last when filled with nuclear material. The radiation embrittles the materials over time, they wouldn't last 100 years. And then all that crap will be released into the ocean and swerve all over the world.

Assume that the folks building the barrels know about the embrittlement, and have both a decent budget and some experienced engineers to mitigate the problem.

Also note my phrase "bury them". Radwaste is not some magical Sealed Evil in a Can. If bound in compounds with substantially higher density that the ocean sediments, and emplaced a few tens of meters below the sea floor, then gravity will quite strongly discourage its upward migration.

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

#100

Post by WalterBright »

cyberax wrote: post #11
baq wrote: post #2

> “With the goal of completing the decommissioning in 30 to 40 years [...]" Can't decide if it's a success of nuclear or a failure. Leaning towards success: - ~900 tons of super duper radioactive material is more or less safely sitting in steel enclosures - we're (as a global civilization) slowly but surely figuring out how to move the hazardous waste to a safer storage, and it may only (ahem) take a couple generatio…

> - OTOH another big earthquake/tsunami can potentially wash it all away and release clumps of radioactive and poisonous metals to the environment...? The reactor itself is high enough to be safe from tsunamis.

If the backup generators had been put on a simple platform, the plants would never have melted down.
Post reply on HN