Still support nuke power plants?

[billfish678]

@Norse

. First from the Soviet nuclear bomb tests in the 50s, then from Chernobyl.

To be fair, the USA blew up a few:) above ground nukes as well. Like a hundred or two. Then again the Soviets super big ass hydrogen bomb singlehandedly added a significant amount to the worlds total fallout amount.

[bengangmo]

Not to forget the French either. Away from home ground as well

[FinnAgain]

I won’t be happy until we see super mutants.

[Broomstick]

@Norse

I know. My point was that it is still and is going to be found well outside Chernobyl and nuclear test sites for quite a while, because there’s been a bit of distributed fallout. First from the Soviet nuclear bomb tests in the 50s, then from Chernobyl.

I sort of consider the fall out areas from Chernobyl as part of the incident, but maybe I should have been more explicit on that.

[Steve_MB]

@FXMastermind

Japan’s science ministry says radiation exceeding 400 times the normal level was detected in soil about 40 kilometers from the troubled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant.

You are supposed to think that ordinary amounts of radioactive iodine-131 exist in all soils, and this is just 400 times the ‘normal levels’.

I doubt that, as written communiques are not generally directed to the illiterate. People who can read are supposed to think that the radiation level is 400 times the normal background.

[levdrakon]

@matt

Yes. I’ve posted it before. Onagawa was closer. Onagawa had a whole bunch of reactors of different ages, but none were as old as Fukushima. Wiki has the details.

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/TEASES/!BIG-STORY/Japan-4-col.jpg

The English language wiki article about Onagawa doesn’t help the pro-nuke side’s case much. The article’s information is uncited, but working with the available information about the Onagawa nuclear power plant it appears:

It has three units. The units are BWRs, just like Fukushima, except they’re rated for less power output. When they’re working.

Unit 1 appears to have been offline since 1996, when it failed tests.
Unit 2 is much “newer” in the sense it was only completed in 1995, but…

July 7, 2006 METI and the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency determined that the plant’s performance was not satisfactory.

so I wonder if it was even running.
Unit 3 only came online in 2002, it was shutdown in 2006 due to pipe integrity concerns, repaired, restarted and as a result of this most recent earthquake disaster, a fire broke out, damaged the turbines and is shut down.

I would not pronounce the Onagawa nuclear power plant a roaring success, by any economics standard. The Onagawa nuclear power plant isn’t helping anyone right now, it’s just driving up costs for everyone.

[levdrakon]

I forgot to mention, Onagawa has the distinction of being the world’s “most quickly built nuke plant.”

Hm.

[FXMastermind]

@Steve_MB

People who can read are supposed to think that the radiation level is 400 times the normal background.

Tell us how you know that then. I would be interested in both how you know this, and how you came to learn it.

[XT]

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I won’t be happy until we see super mutants.
[/QUOTE]

And kill them while listening to the haunting melody of Louis Armstrong’s A Kiss to Build a Dream on? Though personally I’m more fond of blowing the heads off of raider chicks (in slow motion of course) while listening to Civilization by Danny Kaye or Butcher Pete by Roy Brown…

-XT

[FXMastermind]

And you wonder why I joke around? Seriously?

[Una_Persson]

@Whack-a-Mole

I guess it depends where that break point is between the two. That is an engineering question I have no ability to answer. Hopefully Una Persson will see this and shed some light on it.

I do not have the qualifications or experience to speak of nuclear plant design. I can say after visiting more than 600 other types of power plants I have never seen a diesel-powered major boiler or turbine cycle pump. Electric for 99% of them, and steam for the other 1%, but never diesel.

[levdrakon]

@Una_Persson

I do not have the qualifications or experience to speak of nuclear plant design. I can say after visiting more than 600 other types of power plants I have never seen a diesel-powered major boiler or turbine cycle pump. Electric for 99% of them, and steam for the other 1%, but never diesel.

Isn’t it strange that in the end, we depend on ungreen gas to keep these nuclear power plants in a precarious metastable state where they are alive, but not too alive, so that we can hopefully, finally render them not-harmful enough to approach?

[XT]

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Isn’t it strange that in the end, we depend on ungreen gas to keep these nuclear power plants in a precarious metastable state where they are alive, but not too alive, so that we can hopefully, finally render them not-harmful enough to approach?
[/QUOTE]

You do understand the concept of ‘backup’, don’t you? What would you have them do? Put solar on the plant? Even leaving aside the problem that if the earthquake and tsunami did that sort of damage to the plant it would do the same to the solar panels (or wind farm), what if the sun isn’t out when you have your problem?? What if the wind isn’t blowing? Or would you recommend magic pony power as a backup to the nuclear power plant, since that wouldn’t be ‘ungreen’ (though they do give off methane from what I understand)…?

-XT

[elucidator]

The principal elements of the Universe are Earth, Wind, Water, Fire and Irony.

[XT]

Irony…the Fifth Element…

-XT

[gonzomax]

@xtisme

Yes, but the POINT was that even though our ancestors a thousand years ago road on muddy horse tracks they could (even then) build buildings that are STILL AROUND TODAY. And that was with technology that was very primitive compared to what we have today. No doubt a thousand years from now things will have dramatically changed. But we’ll still be able to build buildings that will be around then. Especially if you anti-nukes get the fuck out of the way and actually let us complete a freaking storage site somewhere.

Of course, they you won’t be able to set up these little situations where you can block the building of the things then point to the fact that we don’t have adequate storage as a major problem, right? You’d have to fall back on doing everything in your power to simply block, delay and make nuclear power as expensive as possible, so you can point to the fact that nuclear power plants aren’t being built, or take too long or cost too much…

And I wouldn’t be surprised if 100 years from now the anti-nuke crowd are looked on as we look on the kooky Neo-Luddites (or even the originals) today. They will probably ask themselves wtf was wrong with us…we had a clean energy solution at our finger tips, but the anti-nukes were too scared and stupid to see it, and so we ended up burning various fossil fuels for the next century and increasing the danger and problems from global warming…all the while hoping the magic ponies would save us.

Except that those radioactive scars only exist in your own head. This ‘disaster’ in Japan isn’t going to still be an issue 100 years from now…or next year for that matter. The only ‘radioactive scar’ today is from Chernobyl, and I seriously doubt we’ll ever have another nuclear accident on par with that.

Obviously you didn’t read Whack-a-Mole’s cite…or you just ignored it and continue the same rant. Leaving that aside, I always find this argument ironic coming from the anti-nuke crowd.

And these for the same reason. Especially the part where you still fail to grasp how capital and the stock market actually work.

Ok. What is it? What is the magical stopgap energy source?

-XT

http://solveclimate.com/news/20090918/nuclear-power’s-cost-competitiveness-remains-critical-question No Whack a Moles post was not definitive. I have been reading about the relative costs of energy sources for years and I can drop a thousand sites disputing his post. Here is just one.
The costs of building the incredibly expensive nuclear plants goes up 15 percent a year. Even you can probably see that is a big problem. Even you can understand the impact that has on the cost.
Thank you for yet another condescending childish post. A day without your snottiness is just a day without sunshit.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@gonzomax

http://solveclimate.com/news/20090918/nuclear-power’s-cost-competitiveness-remains-critical-question No Whack a Moles post was not definitive. I have been reading about the relative costs of energy sources for years and I can drop a thousand sites disputing his post. Here is just one.
The costs of building the incredibly expensive nuclear plants goes up 15 percent a year. Even you can probably see that is a big problem. Even you can understand the impact that has on the cost.
Thank you for yet another condescending childish post. A day without your snottiness is just a day without sunshit.

Ha! You want to play cite wars?

You may have read a thousand articles on this but apparently they are the ones in your echo chamber.

Let’s see how your cite starts:

“Nuclear power has long been controversial for its radioactive waste, history of dangerous meltdowns and potential to help spread nuclear weapons.”

That is the first sentence.

Let’s try mine:

“The overall objective of the study is to provide reliable information on key factors affecting the economics of electricity generation using a range of technologies.”

Hmm…sounds a bit more reasonable. The other’s bias jumps right off the page at you. Can’t be missed.

So, how did my cite collate numbers?

*"The study was carried out by an ad hoc group of officially appointed national experts. Cost data provided by the experts were compiled and used by the joint IEA/NEA Secretariat to calculate generation costs.

Cost data were provided for more than 130 power plants. This comprises 27 coal-fired power plants, 23 gas-fired power plants, 13 nuclear power plants, 19 wind power plants, 6 solar power plants, 24 combined heat and power (CHP) plants using various fuels and 10 plants based on other fuels or technologies. The data provided for the study highlight the increasing interest of participating countries in renewable energy sources for electricity generation, in particular wind power, and in combined heat and power plants.

The technologies and plant types covered by the present study include units under construction or planned that could be commissioned in the respondent countries between 2010 and 2015, and for which they have developed cost estimates generally through paper studies or bids.

The calculations are based on the reference methodology adopted in previous studies, i.e., the levelised lifetime cost approach. The calculations use generic assumptions for the main technical and economic parameters as agreed upon in the ad hoc group of experts, e.g., economic lifetime (40 years), average load factor for base-load plants (85%) and discount rates (5% and 10%).

Electricity generation costs calculated are busbar costs, at the station, and do not include transmission and distribution costs. The costs associated with residual emissions – including greenhouse gases – are not included in the costs provided and, therefore, are not reflected in the generation costs calculated in the study."*

How did yours gather its numbers?

“But a new study tallying the cost of nuclear power suggests that nuclear’s many uncertainties could push it out of the realm of being cost-competitive.”

That’s it. “A new study.” What study? A study done by their kid’s daycare? Who knows. They are not saying.

Your cite consists of eight people, near as I can tell, that run the whole thing. That is not necessarily a bad thing but in comparison…

My cite:

The International Energy Agency (IEA; French: Agence internationale de l’énergie) is a Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization established in the framework of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1974 in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis. The IEA was initially dedicated to responding to physical disruptions in the supply of oil, as well as serving as an information source on statistics about the international oil market and other energy sectors.

The IEA acts as a policy adviser to its member states, but also works with non-member countries, especially China, India and Russia. The Agency’s mandate has broadened to focus on the “3Es” of sound energy policy: energy security, economic development, and environmental protection.[1] The latter has focused on mitigating climate change.[2] The IEA has a broad role in promoting alternate energy sources (including renewable energy), rational energy policies, and multinational energy technology co-operation.

SOURCE: International Energy Agency - Wikipedia

So bring it on. More than happy to stack my facts against your “facts”.

[XT]

[QUOTE=gonzomax]
No Whack a Moles post was not definitive.
[/QUOTE]

Seemed pretty definitive to me. And Whack-a-Mole is pretty well read on alternative energy, if you’ve followed his posts in the various GW threads. You on the other hand generally provide off the wall cites from obscure sources so…

The costs of building the incredibly expensive nuclear plants goes up 15 percent a year. Even you can probably see that is a big problem. Even you can understand the impact that has on the cost.

Perhaps you could quote where your cite says that the costs of a nuclear plant goes up 15% per year? It might add some context to see WHY it might go up at that rate (hell, I didn’t even see where it said it, but frankly your cite was so obviously biased it was hard to get through, so I might have missed it).

Surly even you can understand that a biased cite might not be the best source of information, and if you read only information from sources that have an anti-nuclear bent then all you are going to get is a single perspective. Right? Surly? Even you?

Thank you for yet another condescending childish post. A day without your snottiness is just a day without sunshit.

You are welcome. You might want to save this sort of thing for the Pit though. There is really no need since you’ve conveyed in the past how you feel about me, and I wouldn’t want you to get Mod smacked only to be redundant.

-XT

[levdrakon]

@xtisme

You do understand the concept of ‘backup’, don’t you? What would you have them do? Put solar on the plant?

Solar power to keep the emergency systems running? That’s an excellent plan except nuclear power plants have tremendous electrical power needs to keep them constantly running and safe even while everyone else is fighting for, or running for their lives in the aftermath of an earthquake and tsunami. Now, you can solarize your home such that when the grid power shuts off your solar panels could give you plenty of energy to run the refrigerator, cook some food, watch a little TV, dink on the computer, sterilize some drinking water if things were really that desperate, provide heat for your home, provide cooling power in the hot summer heat and provide you with all sorts of creature comforts that are the hallmark of modern civilization. Not those nuke plants though. They need electricity to keep millions of people alive, and that means TONS of electricity. Far more than solar can provide, I humbly admit.

[XT]

I truly don’t know what point, if any you think you are making levdrakon. I think everyone is aware that solar couldn’t possibly provide the backup power needed…that was pretty much my point.

-XT