Slashdot Mirror

"Theoreticaly, the worse failure modes are less likely, even when weighted by produced power. And, also theoreticaly, they should reduce faster than with big sized reactors."

Hmmm, 225MW(electric) let's see, what other nuclear power plants are in the same output range.. Assuming 30% efficiency.. 225MWh(e) /3 *10 == 750MWh Thermal.

Oh were did I see similar numbers recently?? FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI-2 760MWh thermal, FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI-3 760MWh thermal

Ring a bell anyone?? There goes the safe size argument right out the window,.

I guess buying a modern, safe nuclear reactor wasn't really on the top of his to do list, and mothballing the Fukushima reactors before the quake would have been unthinkable, they provided about 20% of the total power used in northern Honshu.

The first reactor was scheduled to be shut down on march 26th 2011., the others over the next decade. You can't do it all at once because you need time to build new plants to replace the capacity.

Which, incidentally, is the main reason that so many old reactors are still running. Nobody will let them build new ones, so how can you shut down the old ones?

Not all of them. Just #1.
http://www.icjt.org/npp/podrobnosti.php?drzava=14&lokacija=818

They are all pretty old anyway ( but have allegedly been used for interesting stuff before: http://www.mail-archive.com/envorum@ypb.or.id/msg00425.html )

What I'm wondering about is China. China gets big earthquakes too and they're building dozens of reactors. Many with the AP1000 design that some people don't think is safe enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000#Safety_concerns

March 26, if the info here is correct: http://www.icjt.org/npp/podrobnosti.php?drzava=14&lokacija=818

If I calculated corectly, the world would need about 3300 nuclear powerplants to replace oil energy with nuclear energy. I'm not claiming this is impossible, but it would be by far the largest building effort humanity has ever attempted. Nuke plants take from 5-15 to build and cost .5 -3 billion USD. Please recall that the world economy is only produces 45 trillion/year. Additionally, we don't have unlimited supplies of uranium either. I'm not saying that we cant switch to nuclear. Just that it is not an easy fix or a magic bullet. It's not very feasible.

What you say rings true, but you're missing a few key details that make nuclear power plants workable:

1. Different parts of the world already rely heavily on nuclear power. France, for example, runs 75% off of nuclear power. These stations do not need to be replaced, so you can knock about 17% off your figures.

2. Dams and wind powered plants do not need to be replaced, so you can knock a few more percent off your figures.

3. Old power plants need to be rebuilt or replaced after their useful lifetimes, anyway. If the decision was made to make all new power plants nuclear fired, then new nuclear plants could be created with little to no negative effects on the world economy.

4. Modern nuclear techniques can provide us with nuclear fuels for much longer than the original 100 year estimate. In a breeder reactor, the reactor actually produces MORE energy dense material (via plutonium creation) than it uses up.

And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.

Yes, because it's not like Europe uses the most nuclear power in the world, and france in particular makes 75% of its power from nuclear power stations (over 3 times more than the avergae 17% , link here)

Just because Europe trys to act 'green' doesn't mean it acts stupidly.

And furthermore, it seems to me that fusion research in the EU is never going to get decent levels of funding all the time that people here instinctively equate all nuclear power with dangerous, radioactive evil.

Yes, because it's not like Europe uses the most nuclear power in the world, and france in particular makes 75% of its power from nuclear power stations (over 3 times more than the avergae 17% , link here)

Just because Europe trys to act 'green' doesn't mean it acts stupidly.