It’s a tsunami barrier now. See, he was right all along. They didn’t have a tsunami barrier, they had a sea wall/tsunami wall. Clearly, we just don’t understand where FX is coming from.
[QUOTE=FXMastermind]
Nope. As your source says, there was a “sea wall”, which I have demonstrated only protects a small area from regular wave action.
[/QUOTE]
In your own mind I’m sure you’ve fully demonstrated this.
If we didn’t have so many NIMBY’s such as yourself we’d have an actual safe storage place for spent fuel instead of pools next to reactors. A place like Yucca Mountain, for example.
Your denial of reality does not negate facts.
The power plant was sited 25 meters above sea level, and in did have a seawall (which is what you call a “tsunami wall” in addition to that elevation. The fact that the tsunami which actually happened was greater than anticipated and higher than that seawall does not mean the seawall did not exist. Many other costal locations also had tsunami protection including walls but, again, the water overtopped it. The entire coastline in that region dropping a meter in elevation probably didn’t help, either.
Pot -> kettle.
Right… and the dinosaurs were utter failures because they never evolved to withstand the Chicxulub meteor :rolleyes:
The disasters you mention exceeded anticipated limits. You are upset because human beings can’t see the future clearly.
I think it’s more accurate to say it exceeded the minimum height required for a sea wall by nuclear industry negotiated regulations, which is not the same thing. It has become clear by TEPCO officials themselves that the danger was known, but they lied for fear the public would be upset. They got that part right.
No, once again you are just making things up.
Fukushima I is 10 meters above sea level.
Fukushima II is 12 meters above sea level.
Both plants have/had a sea wall to protect the intake/dock areas, but neither had a tsunami protection wall, which is exceedingly obvious, it’s even in the Tepco documents. And the images of the site.
I’ve linked to both already. That the nuclear lovers keep repeating the lie, it’s priceless.
Mother Nature is at the head of the anti-nuclear movement, and she is a lot more effective than those dern hippies. She has destroyed the nuclear industry with on damaging earthquake and a large tsunami. Unlike the hippies, Mother Nature doesn’t lie or engage in politics. She just kicks ass.
No amount of nuclear lying is going to bring back respectability to nuclear power.
And by the way, there are nuclear power plants in the US that are directly downstream from damns that can fail. Coverup: Risk of Nuclear Melt-Down in U.S. Higher than it was at Fukushima - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
As much as I hate it, it is true that the US has numerous reactors at risk from dam failures.
It’s an actual problem. It’s also really fucked up, because even if there is advance warning of a dam going, even if we know it will happen, there is no way to move fresh spent fuel rods, much less a reactor core. It’s why they haven’t moved any out the damaged building four at Fukushima yet.
You can’t just lift them up and move them. They are too dangerous to remove the from the cooling pond. It’s a truly fucked up thing.
And there are so many of them, worldwide.
I think you are correct to worry over the price; however, I don’t think the viability is in question.
It will rarely, if ever, be put in a position of being the sole power provider for such a population. Such a large storage system (say, in California) would have multiple wind and solar inputs such that a positive electrical generation would be all but constant. And I’d not drop a monocle if I learned that was backed up with natural gas generators. Yah, you see clouds and so on, but these power sources provide reliable quantities of energy over a given mid-term time frame.
I would not doubt that current production capacity is limited today. Nonetheless, these types of batteries have seen sufficient proof-of-concept to be accepted as viable. Using a liquid electrolyte, they have virtually no theoretical capacity limit (not to mention an incredible cycle-life), and so are up to the task of grid-scale application. You ought to look more deeply into the details of the technology.
Heh- I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express lately, but I don’t get the joke. Anyway, we have the technology now for grid-scale power storage applications, even though still better solutions/chemistries may be forthcoming. Point being, we don’t really need any breakthrough to implement grid-scale storage.
No. Fusion, so far, is not practical. Hydrogen continues to present currently insurmountable obstacles to mass-scale implementation. In contrast, renewable energy sources have proven that they can generate power at grid scale, and the storage technology to accompany those actually already exists, though I admit it has not yet been implemented.
I lurked the thread where Stranger set you straight about the obstacles to hydrogen fuels. The shape of that argument doesn’t overlay well the discussion about renewables- they’re proven and they’re being installed at 70gw/year and growing.
Besides, grid-scale storage systems can only enhance the utility of traditional power generation. Grid-scale storage means surplus power can be stored and utilized, resulting in less fuel usage and higher efficiency. Also, grid-scale storage allows for the practical fueling of an ev fleet.
Yeah, something like that. The coal generation system took decades to build; I can’t see why any new regime wouldn’t take a comparable time to fully implement. I think grid-scale storage is coming- it will be the worst power generation and delivery system there is, besides all the other ones we have tried.
Funny, many Spanish farmers love windfarms because if your land is low-rate, the steady income from renting out a chunk of it to a power company can mean the difference between living from your land and not. A lot of Spain can’t grow anything more interesting than wheat unless you irrigate extensively, unlike in France.
Please state your formal definition of a “tsunami wall” because the definitions I keep running into on line seem different than what you use, and if you insist on redefining terms it would be helpful to know what anomalous definition you are using to avoid confusion.
[QUOTE=Try2B Comprehensive]
I think you are correct to worry over the price; however, I don’t think the viability is in question.
[/QUOTE]
And you base this on…what? The cites you gave me were for test programs or RFPs for trial production systems that are shooting for 2020 as a target date. I’m not sure where your confidence in this is coming from, but certainly not from what you have cited thus far.
And there are more than a million homes in California alone. This system would be able to take the load for about 1/50th of the homes (not counting businesses or any other electric needs, just homes) during times when wind and solar were not able to provide power to the grid, or were not working optimally (i.e. on cloudy, windless or gusting wind days). So, it’s going to take a bit more than some backup from natural gas generators…they are going to either have to do what they do now (i.e. continue to buy electricity from other states that aren’t so ridiculously over regulated on what they can use to generate electricity) or they will have to build more coal or natural gas power plants. Or they will be back to the brown outs they were experiencing a few years ago. Even if this pilot works exactly as hoped for (in 2020), it’s not going to do more than leverage their wind and solar a little. It will be interesting to see how it pans out, to be sure, but I think wild optimism is not called for at this point.
To me, that’s wildly optimistic, especially considering the state of the technology available today. I know of no production systems in place today doing what you claim, and at a guess, since the cites you provided earlier were both for test beds or pilot programs (scheduled for 2017 and 2020 respectively) I’m thinking that it’s not ready for prime time yet. Feel free to provide more in-depth cites if you have them, or, better yet, start a real thread on the subject in GD to discuss it.
If we have it today, where is it? Why were both of your cites shooting for targets that are several years down the pike? Why the delay? Why aren’t renewable energy providers putting this in everywhere, since it would obviously fix the gaps in their own abilities. Seems to me that if this tech existed today and was viable that companies would be putting it in everywhere, since grid-scale power storage would be huge for averaging load and lowering wasted energy.
Renewable energy has proven it can be a niche provider on the grid (well, wind and solar…hydroelectric and geothermal have proven they can be major players in the right areas), no doubt about that. As a main source though, it’s got as long a way to go as fusion or hydrogen. And unless you have something more than what you’ve provided so far, grid scale storage systems are even further out than hydrogen and maybe on par with fusion.
He didn’t set me straight. I knew about some of the issues with hydrogen. However, as I told him in that thread, it’s pretty silly to say that companies spending literally billions on development haven’t seen the same issues as some guy on the internet, and that they haven’t worked to mitigate the problems…especially when you consider that companies like Toyota already have both filling stations, logistic support for the stations AND actual working vehicles already out there doing trials. Which seems to be ahead of your grid level storage systems, at least the ones you cited, which won’t be ready to TEST until 2017 or 2020.
And I think that the jury is still out on grid scale storage. Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn’t. Even if it works, maybe it’s cost effective, and maybe not. If it IS cost effective, it’s certainly going to leverage wind and solar, but I don’t see either of those becoming more than a niche source even so. A MAJOR niche source, maybe as much as 10-20% of the production (if we are going to dream, let’s dream big), but that’s going to be pushing it. And, that means we need other, stable and scalable production systems. We have coal and natural gas already. We could stay with those as the backbone of our system. Hydroelectric is tapped out in the US…there aren’t going to be any new large scale hydro projects. Geothermal could be scaled up a bit more, but it’s about tapped out too wrt where we can put the things politically. That leaves nuclear IMHO. We COULD scale that up to take away coal fired plants in fairly large numbers. The technology is mature…today it accounts for over 20% of our power production and that’s with us basically having a moratorium on new plants for 2-3 decades now. Basically, my position is that wind and solar and grid scale storage systems are great. Bring em on. But it’s unrealistic to think that they are going to be able to take a major bite out of our reliance on coal or natural gas fired plants. Nuclear could do that. So, a mix of energy production systems with none off the table and all looked at realistically, using the best where it makes the most sense.
People love making money.
If you are claiming there “was a tsunami defense in place”, it would be up to you to prove this. Show us the tsunami wall that was in place.
once again, it would have to include gates to allow the ocean to flow in and out, and allow ships to dock at the plant. Where is it?
[QUOTE=The Second Stone]
Mother Nature is at the head of the anti-nuclear movement, and she is a lot more effective than those dern hippies. She has destroyed the nuclear industry with on damaging earthquake and a large tsunami. Unlike the hippies, Mother Nature doesn’t lie or engage in politics. She just kicks ass.
[/QUOTE]
Good grief. Well, I’d say, based on the body count as well as the destruction, that ‘mother nature’ was more pissed at human beings and their houses than she was at the nuclear power industry.
Whereas use of ridiculous hyperbole is the stock in trade for nutty anti-nuke types, such as yourself, and the public laps it up. If we change ‘facts’ for ‘lying’, you actually have it right, sadly enough…no amount of facts are going to make nuclear respectable, since anti-nuke luddite nutters have pretty much effectively poisoned that well beyond recovery. And you can be proud of your efforts, which have been far more effective than the wildest dreams of the anti-vaxer nuts. Give yourselves big pats on the back for stopping nuclear, and keep thinking you are doing good, and when you use that power to post, know that it comes from good, clean sources like coal, which kills 10’s of thousands of real people each year…as Mother Nature intended, no doubt.
No, actually that would be on you, if this were a real debate. You’d need to produce some cites (in English) stating clearly that there was no sea wall at Fukushima, instead of some google maps pictures that you are interpreting yourself. That’s how it works.
Happily, this is the pit, so I can just laugh at you and call you a moron, since that’s what you are. 
Once more, nobody in the US has stopped, or is stopping nuclear reactors and power plants from being built in the rest of the world.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/China--Nuclear-Power/#.UlVu6NKsiSo
Be happy. Nuclear isn’t dead.
This is one of those ‘no shit, Sherlock’ moments. But thanks for citing things I told you months ago in earlier threads. I’m not sure what the purpose was, but your efforts, as always, are appreciated. We all need a good laugh along with the rolling of eyes to perk us up and make our day complete.
I live to serve.
I read the rest of your post- I will consider what cites to post next to convince you best. You have to give me some more time though- I have a lot to do.
I would encourage you to more fully consider what I’ve already cited, such as NREL’s report tracking new coal fired power plants- there is a lot in there about trends in installed capacity for the various traditional energy sources. Compare those charts to the 70 gigawatts of renewable capacity currently annually installed. Look at the projected install rates for new coal and nuclear- practically nothing! I think you underestimate the burgeoning scale of renewable power.
And I think you’ll see you are underestimating the potential of grid-scale power storage. But none of this will be built in a day, and we are going to generate power via coal and nuclear for a long time. But I also think nuclear has missed its window- I agree with the premise here.
Utter nonsense. The batteries at a US plant won’t run the large pumps for more than 4 hours. These pumps are critical for heat exchange after an emergency shut down, and with a loss of the power grid, and loss of back up generators, this places a plant on a four hour deadline to get additional power, or they start having extreme problems.
It’s why the Ft Calhoun situation was a crisis, with out the pumps and heat exchange for cooling, the spent fuel ponds start heating up. If they had been running the reactor when the fire caused the power loss, it would have been possibly a disaster.
It’s one reason why they have still not started the reactor back up.