Slashdot Mirror
Stung By Scandal, South Korea Weighs Up Cost of Curbing Nuclear Power
mdsolar writes in about an ongoing scandal in South Korea that has rocked their nuclear power program. "It started with a few bogus safety certificates for cables shutting a handful of South Korean nuclear reactors. Now, the scandal has snowballed, with 100 people indicted and Seoul under pressure to rethink its reliance on nuclear power. A shift away from nuclear, which generates a third of South Korea's electricity, could cost tens of billions of dollars a year by boosting imports of liquefied natural gas, oil or coal. Although helping calm safety concerns, it would also push the government into a politically sensitive debate over whether state utilities could pass on sharply higher power bills to households and companies. Gas, which makes up half of South Korea's energy bill while accounting for only a fifth of its power, would likely be the main substitute for nuclear, as it is considered cleaner than coal and plants can be built more easily near cities."
As far as I can tell, the problem is that nuclear plants were closed in the interests of safety while they await safety recertification - which seems like the straightforward thing to do in any case where safety requirements are found to be in violation.
Is it simply a matter of failure modes? That is, because the worst-case scenario for a fission plant is worse than that of a coal plant?
Yep.
I wouldn't be surprised if Russia is wetting themselves as more and more countries are abandoning nuclear power and switching to natural gas, which Russia has a monopoly over in Asia.
Previewing comments are for sissies!
Seriously, the scandal is less of an issue with nuclear power, it could have happened to ANY of the generating systems they want to switch to as well. Privatizing power generation doesn't work. Its been proven by TEPCO, in the US, and now in South Korea, because the companies will skirt the law anywhere they can as long as they can until they finally get caught. Don't switch to fossil fuels like Gas or Coal, keep the Nuclear and take the plants away from the corporations and put them under strict government control.
The only flaw in your argument: Government controlled utilities have less reason to cut corners because they are not in it to satisfy board members every year or meet quarterly profit margins. The government is just happy with breaking even, corporations want profits.
Or you could, I dunno, provide competent and effective _oversight_ to ensure the nuclear plants are being operated safely? I know - that's just crazy talk.
Nuclear power and a culture based on money can not work safely.
Humans are just too shortsighted, greedy, and unwise for nuclear power yet.
Evolve dammit.
You can't see me making the "jerk off" motion with my hand, but I'm doing it.
There have been zero safety issues with American nuclear plants for 30 years.
There is a big difference between a nuclear accident and other power plant accidents. It puts a huge swath of land into an uninhabitable state for a long period. Think about the property value in the area surrounding the Indian Point plant in NY. A full payout of the Price Anderson Act liability for a large accident there would topple the treasury. An accident at a coal plant isn't likely to put our very government in danger.
'On March 5, 2002, maintenance workers discovered that corrosion had eaten a football-sized hole into the reactor vessel head of the Davis-Besse plant. Although the corrosion did not lead to an accident, this was considered to be a serious nuclear safety incident.[65][66] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission kept Davis-Besse shut down until March 2004, so that FirstEnergy was able to perform all the necessary maintenance for safe operations. The NRC imposed its largest fine ever—more than $5 million—against FirstEnergy for the actions that led to the corrosion. The company paid an additional $28 million in fines under a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice.[65]'
You can't see me making the 'dick head' motion with my hand, but I'm making it.
Tell that to all the tritium that's leaked into the ground water out of Vermont Yankee. Or the collapsing cooling tower. Sure, the cooling tower wasn't radioactive, but what does that tell you about the way they run their railroad? Now the plant is closing taking the jobs and the property values with it. Glad I don't live in Vernon.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
I'm not so sure the right wants nuclear. They've been letting the left crush it by proxy for decades.
It is South Korea. If you have a culture that will fuck up safety certificates at nuclear plants, do you think they are suddenly going to be better with natural gas plants?
Fix the fucking culture and kill the corruption. The technology was never the problem.
Do you think they have a monopoly on that culture? Witness our very own government owned and operated Tennessee Valley Authority and they falsified readings of wells around the coal slurry dam. Oh, they do it with nuclear too.
Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
The same could be said about the USA, where money equals law and justice is make-believe for kids stories.
Yea, we should put government in charge of it from start to finish, That will take all of the incentive to cheat out of it. TVA never does anything like this. No, never at all.
Time Bomber the Book coming soon.
Dunno about rivaling a nuclear explosion...but it sure looked huge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_propane_explosion
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The right wants cheap power. Nuclear used to be the way to make that happen, but with all the problems with environmentalists gas is starting to look like a much better option.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
Ah, the scientifically illiterate nukefan. Always focusing on single, small ideas and unable to see the bigger picture, or understand how we have already solved these problems.
Installing renewable capacity isn't just about building wind, wave, hyro, solar thermal, geothermal and biomass plants, or installing solar PV on buildings. It's about reducing energy consumption by making buildings more efficient and building a smart grid that can manage the load and store energy.
It's actually cheaper to save energy than add new capacity of any kind, and it makes everyone's lives better too. Some people baulk at the idea of anything so socialist, but just keep in mind that you are going to pay for it one way or another. Your choice is give the money to a power company to build some big plant that pollutes and damages your health while lining their pockets, or spend less money making your own life better.
Coal and gas do have a role to play as interim measures before we get very high levels of renewables, and even beyond that point to help smooth capacity. The caveat is that we need to build clean coal and gas plants with carbon capture. It works by capturing all the carbon and other emissions from the plant and storing them underground long term, much like nuclear waste. Of course, it has many of the same problems as nuclear waste does, but being realistic we will need that kind of bridge in the medium term.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
There have been zero safety issues with American nuclear plants for 30 years.
Nope.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Still more deaths than Fukushima though.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
So far
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
So the system worked exactly as intended and no humans were ever at risk.
Typically, people cite examples that support their argument, not the other guy's. But I like your unconventional style.
You are right that we try to balance load, but we are not very good at it. For example electricity is cheap at night but most people's hot water heaters come on during the day just before they need to use it. A well insulated storage tank can easily use cheap off-peak electricity and store that energy for later, especially if the grid itself can tell it when it is best to turn the heater on. At 2AM there might be a little drop in the local wind capacity, but we know it will pick up by 4AM, so the heater can just wait.
OK, but this isn't much "smarter" than the current off-peak system, and I very much doubt that anyone with an off peak tariff and an electric storage heater will run the heater at peak times unless the stored water runs out. That defeats the whole point of storage heating. Not to mention that using electric heating instead of gas just so you have somewhere to dump excess production is quite spectacularly inefficient and costly.
Water heaters will be partially replaced by solar anyway. Solar thermal heating is incredibly efficient and works even on heavily overcast days. Even when the sky is cloudy about 80% of the sun's energy still reaches the surface of the earth, and solar thermal can be 75% efficient.
Forgot to mention - according to this link, a typical solar water heating system will cost £4800 and save £60 per year. In other words, uneconomic - you'd never pay back the costs given typical interest rates. The system can't replace a conventional heater, only supplement it, so you don't even save on the capital costs of your gas or electric heater.
This is what I mean - stuff that sounds good superficially but just doesn't add up under closer scrutiny.
Nuclear
Non-nuclear
Have you been in Vermont recently? I'd love to live there, if there were any jobs.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.