Slashdot Mirror
Fukushima: the Removal of Nuclear Fuel Rods From Damaged Reactor Building Begins (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Workers at the wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant have begun removing fuel rods from a storage pool near one of the three reactors that suffered meltdowns eight years ago. The plant's operator, Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco) said on Monday that work had begun to remove the first of 566 used and unused fuel assemblies in reactor building No 3. The fuel rods stored in unit No 3's cooling pool were not damaged in the 2011 disaster, when a powerful earthquake and tsunami knocked out Fukushima Daiichi's backup power supply and triggered the world's worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, 25 years earlier.
Tepco said the operation to remove the fuel rods, which are in uncovered pools, would take two years, adding that transferring them to safer ground would better protect them in the event of another catastrophic earthquake. Workers are remotely operating a crane to raise the fuel from a storage rack in the pool and place it into a protective cask. The whole process occurs underwater to prevent radiation leaks. The utility plans to repeat the procedure in the two other reactors that suffered meltdowns.
Tepco said the operation to remove the fuel rods, which are in uncovered pools, would take two years, adding that transferring them to safer ground would better protect them in the event of another catastrophic earthquake. Workers are remotely operating a crane to raise the fuel from a storage rack in the pool and place it into a protective cask. The whole process occurs underwater to prevent radiation leaks. The utility plans to repeat the procedure in the two other reactors that suffered meltdowns.
When are we going to find out that all the older reactors similar to Fukushima are shut down safely... Seriously, I have no great problem with the newer designs, but the older ones need phased out, not renewed.
This is some very welcome news in developments at Fukushima as the foundations of Unit 3 are damaged. Workers at Fukushima have already removed 1000 fuel rods IIRC from that reactor building due to concerns about what would happen if the building collapsed.
To get a better understanding of why its an urgent issue, a report called Nuclear Power Plant Security and Vulnerabilities explored vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants.
From that report the issue of spent fuel pool vulnerabilities warranted further study in the now declassified report Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Public Report by the Committee on the Safety and Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage within the National Research Council. It details variations of scenarios created from vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks, however the potential outcomes are similar if they are initiated by a natural disaster.
The most sobering scenarios came from analyzing what happens from loosing the cooling water from a spent fuel pool. Spent fuel rods are kept in a pool with a constant supply of water because the water not only cools them, it moderates the neutrons so that they don't become critical. One scenario examined from loosing the cooling water was a plutonium fire that creates plutonium oxide in the smoke with reactors that are MOX fueled, such as Unit 3 was. With several hundred tons of fuel it would be the largest plutonium fire we have ever faced, it would also be in open air.
You can find information about plutonium oxidization Evaluation of source-term data for plutonium aerosolization which starts at around 500 centigrade. I think that because of the proximity to the sea, plutonium chloride would also be created.
Actions to reduce the possibility of these kinds of scenarios are simple and cost effective. Mainly by dry cask storing fuel that has cooled for 5 years and separating and dispersing spent fuel recently removed from the reactor throughout the pools of reactors that are still operating. All very practical, affordable actions for reducing this risk of reactors that are still operating.
Information about the fuel removal process and the damage to the Unit 3 spent fuel pool in Tepco's Fukushima spent fuel removal plan.
There is very little point arguing about Nuclear power from an idealistic viewpoint. To idealize that nuclear power is perfect and requires no improvements means that the nuclear industry cannot evolve legal requirements for new processes. This, according to the official report into the Fukushima accident, is the main reason the disaster occurred.
So this is a great time to commend the workers and engineers at the Fukushima plant and express gratitude for their efforts to get this disaster under control. Thank you!!!!
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Yeh, damn NIMBY's causing Fukushima with their pseudo-regulatory barriers. Solar's also dangerous! What if a solar panel fell and landed on a bird, it could chop the bird in two!...
NIMBY's kill birds!
Ok, let's look at the facts. Lets just start with the total deaths per energy produced. So even with the bad old nuclear designs from the 50s to 70s that we currently use are better than any other energy source. Even with that very few people want to build more BWR or RBMK's. Most scientists and engineers want to build MSRs but to build a nuclear plant you have to follow regulations that written for LWRs and BWRs. For instance, you have to have a Boron system in your nuclear plant by regulation. The Boron system is used to prevent water from splitting into H2 and O2 gasses in a high radiation environment. If too much gas builds up it explodes. So its a good regulation. Except MSRs don't use water for a coolant so there is no Boron system in an MSR. So technically, a MSR plant which can't meltdown and doesn't require external power isn't legal in the US. So an elected official(s) needs to change the regulations but nobody is willing to be the person who changes nuclear regulation due to the NIMBYs. So we have a design that we have been able to build for 60 years, can't meltdown and by any measure is far safer than the LWR and BWRs we are still building. Do you see any MSRs being built?
Consider this, have any of you ever seen an engineering situation where making something a political issue causes better decisions to be made? I doubt it, I never have and you probably haven't either. Making energy production a political issue is just the same as getting the VP of Marketing to choose which web framework you use. We've had a solution that works for decades and instead we delay and promise unicorns which never exist. Your arguments are largely out of ignorance. You probably know about your chosen profession but you clearly don't work in energy. You are expressing your largely uninformed opinions about a subject you haven't spent time researching deeply. And that causes you to believe things that just aren't so and often violate basic principles of physics. But energy production is about physics and physics alone and doesn't give a shit about what you wish was so. Perhaps it would be better to leave these topics to experts but as long as this is a political issue, I don't expect any progress.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Boron (boric acid) does not prevent splitting of water (which happens at a low enough rate anyway). It's used to reliably shut down the chain reaction, boron is a great neutron poison and borated water is an easy way to deliver it into the core.
As I said, water radiolysis even at full power is generally negligible. The danger is in steam-zirconium reaction, that happens when fuel rods lose cooling and fuel temperature rises past about 800C. This is a purely chemical reaction - zirconium displaces oxygen from water, releasing hydrogen.
"So even with the bad old nuclear designs from the 50s to 70s that we currently use are better than any other energy source. " = HORSESHIT, moron! Falling off a roof is NOT A RESULT OF ANY POWER SOURCE yet is tabulated as one?
You are dumber than you ought to be given what you've invested time to know halfway. NOBODY DIED AS A RESULT OF SOLAR OR WIND POWER TECHNOLOGIES. They threaten nobody ongoing! Nuclear can't say that.
When dishonest faggots like you try to pretend the likelihood of morons falling off their roof proves industry-investment-dying nuclear power is somehow "safer" than anything else, you know you've hit rock bottom of the slag pool.
To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills. Do you ever get tired of being wrong? And since those sources provide fuck all worth of power, when you divide to calculate deaths by terawatt hour you get that solar kills several times more people than nuclear. But yea, do go on and give us your completely uninformed opinion and continue to insist your guesses are equal to data and years of experience in the field.
Years from now, after nuclear finally gets us off of fossil fuels, how do you think your children or grandchildren will think of environmentalists from now? I bet that years from now, historians will lump you in with anti-vaxers (pro-plaguers), flat earthers and Trumpers. All of those groups deny basic data and facts and do so in the fact of that information for years. All of those groups have leaders who know that they are wrong and only care about that sweet, sweet donation money. Do you think the folks that run environmental lobbying groups actually want a solution to climate change? Don't get in the way of that money train dear.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Um, the point is that, while US politicians may take credit for breaking things and then fixing them, it is not culturally appropriate to congratulate Japan for cleaning up their own mess. They neither want your thanks nor appreciate them.. Asian poster here, FTR.
The way you pepper "faggot" throughout your text shows that you're just recycling text and arguements that you don't understand in order to troll and crapflood. Try again. Or better yet, just go away.
It is called 'farming.' The reputation of this site is being farmed by the group who were the highest bidder in buying the domain from Dice. The same sort of people who go around scavenging copper scrap and 'smelting' scrap aluminum, or buying up failed businesses to ride the value down to the ground.
How many have died as a result from the radiation released by Fukushima? There have been some death's during the cleanup because people have fallen off high ledges, buried in gravel etc... So from your point of view we should not count them... So then we have 0 death's after the second worst nuclear disaster, that was caused by building in a tsunami/earthquake danged zone and not following the recommendations on building requirements. If they would have built it a bit more inland that would have been a lot safer.
Chernobyl - Idiotic, and untrained, humans that bypassed the all safety systems and realised it was running out of control at the last minute, but at that point it was already too late.. here we have a few thousands of people that died..
Solar - Sure it's a nice addition, but will never be able to provide enough power for the world.... Releases quite a bit of toxic pollutants during production and recycling. (and we would have to produce a shitload to produce a fraction of the world's energy-consumption.)
Wind - Sure it's a nice addition, but will never be able to provide enough power for the world... Requires a very built out grid since you have to place these quite a bit apart for good production. Affects wild-life and also produce noise-pollution all around it... Quite a large area around it is not suitable for living any more... Perhaps sea-based wild-farms can help a bit, but building at sea and maintaining it will cost both in used fossil fuel and human lives.
Hydro - have killed many more people than nuclear ever has for less power produced. Does also release quite a bit of CO2.
Geothermal - Sure it's a nice addition, but cannot be expanded to provide enough power for the world. (Not even a theoretical possibility)
Extra benefits - produces a lot of extra heat that can be used for central heating.
Coal power - kills around 3 million people in the world *every year*. Spews out a shitload of CO2.
Extra benefits - produces a lot of extra heat that can be used for central heating.
Nuclear - No CO2 neutral, new designs could be used to reduce the amount of waste we already have, and still produce power, and fully remove the risk of a meltdown. Kills fewer people. No environmental impact around it. Does cost quite a bit to build the current versions, but that could drop quite a bit with newer ones.. Technology can be shared without risking nuclear weapon proliferation.
Extra benefits - produces a lot of extra heat that can be used for central heating. Produces quite needed radioactive isotopes needed by hospitals and for research.
* typed with auto-spell enabled... try to see past any weird sentences.
Way to spin this you idiot.
The post you are responding to didn't say the industry should be deregulated at all, they said that the current regulations are incomparable with the state of the art of nuclear design.
Politicians often make such stupid rules. Rules that stifle innovation and the adoption of new technologies. The NRCC is similar, in that they have developed a set of regulations based on technologies from the 1950's and have made it harder to adopt safer alternatives. This is clearly true of the regulatory structure today.
However, the "problem" with nuclear power today is more the public relations issue that comes with all the regulations and the price of alternative like Natural Gas. Who wants to take the risk and engage the PR fight? With Natural Gas being so abundant and priced so low, nuclear power isn't worth the risk. In fact, it's natural gas that's killing off nuclear power as we know it now.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Not sure about solar panels. Building and maintaining a windmill and accidents associated with windmills should not be ignored. Especially if you people count every death as caused by burning coal and gasoline even if there is no proof of that. It is just a matter of using the same methods or else you cannot compare things. You can compare apples and pears if you use a firm method of comparison - shape, taste, color, texture etc. You can compare these. You can compare price. You just take comparable measurements that have been done in well defined way so that anybody can repeat these. If so then number of deaths coal or nuclear caused shall be compared also with people that fell off the windmill while working in engine console. But in times of postmodernist science you do not need to do that, right?
"Atomic Accidents: A History of Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters: From the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima" by James Mahaffey is another enlightening source on what and why goes and could go wrong.
This report should show you EXACTLY why we dont go all in on nuclear. We dont even have a long term plan for storing the fucking waste. How do you build a storage facility that is intended to last 10,000 years??? FYI, our civilization is only about 6,500 years old.
Good-bye
> Especially if you people count every death as caused by burning coal and gasoline
Go ahead, prove gasoline is safe: park your car in a closed garage and and start the engine.
In fact, it's natural gas that's killing off nuclear power as we know it now.
... and revenge is coming as grid battery storage is killing off natural gas peaker plants due to batteries having faster response times and lower cost. The energy coming from nuclear and renewables.
Also distributed battery storage will benefit nuclear power such as electric vehicles during the night as the off-peak baseload level will increase.
To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills.
Next up a discussion of the safest vehicle ever - the Space Shuttle.
Of course, that assessment depends on whether you use total distance travelled, or deaths per launch.
So is it 14 deaths for 537,114,016 miles travelled, 14 deaths for 833 total riders, or 14 deaths for 135 flights?
I really think that deaths is a rather silly metric for people to try to defend nuclear power generation safety. You can't get any agreement on total deaths, should deaths in the supply chain be counted?
It's probably better to look at the physical effects that occur when a nuclear power plant decides to spew it's contents.
Which effects suddenly look a lot different than if a wind tower or solar panel fails.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
So what's the long term plan to store the heavy metals and the byproducts from solar panel production?
To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills.
Of course, that assessment depends on whether you use total distance travelled, or deaths per launch.
So is it 14 deaths for 537,114,016 miles travelled, 14 deaths for 833 total riders, or 14 deaths for 135 flights?
Next up a discussion of the safest vehicle ever - the Space Shuttle.
You are misleading with a bad analogy.
A Space Shuttle is used to get stuff to an orbit. So the correct metric is number of deaths per kg delivered to the given orbit. Trying to count it per mile travelled is completely stupid because travelling around Earth is not the goal of Space Shuttle.
On the other side, counting number of death per kWh is the correct metric in energy production area. The goal of a power plant is to produce energy. So we must count it per kWh.
Of course it depends. You can bend statistics to mean what you want them to which is why we look at the primary purpose of an activity.
The space shuttle's primary purpose was not to commute, it's to get something somewhere so deaths per person / equipment would be a suitable metric. Quite unlike say powerplants which we don't build just for shits and giggles, but rather to generate power.
But sure we don't like deaths. Let's play with your metrics. A nuclear plant spewing its contents have devastated a small amount of land in a couple of countries. Most other power sources are in the process of devastating the planet, or in the case of coal and oil have devastated far more physical land through mining and through various accidents from tailings storage than nuclear has, oh and let's not forget the people killed and the environment made unlivable through hydro both in normal operation and when it goes wrong.
I hope you remember "metric shopping" when you think about solar and wind during a windstill night.
But common, this is lame. Let's go full penis measuring. Why not go for individual structures measured, or number of birds killed in flight, or number of annoyed janitors brushing dust off PV panels. I mean the only thing we can really agree on is that whatever narrative "the other side" is using is a shitty metric.
By the way my post contained more words than yours so clearly it's the better post too.
Ruthlessly extrapolating the current rate of nuclear accidents contaminating their surroundings (3 incidents in 63 years of commercial nuclear energy contaminating about 4000 square kilometers) we'd make the entire land surface of the planet an exclusion zone in less than 8 million years. That may sound like a long time to you, but our future offspring may think otherwise. They don't really give a shit about how many people we kill today, though. Dead people only fertilize the earth so they're just great.
However, this discussion is moot. Building new nuclear power plants that adhere to modern safety regulations has become prohibitively expensive the past few decades. They are simply not economic.
0x or or snor perron?!
Just to be clear, this is just cleaning up [part of] the mess that was lying around before the disaster. This is making absolutely zero progress on the actual cleanup, it's just cleaning up things that should have been cleaned up long ago.
Spent fuel rods lying around in pools is proof positive that nuclear is bullshit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We only store nuclear waste because it's valuable. Once it has been idle for about 5 years (and usually spent fuel is left onsite, often in the reactor, for that time) it's just run-of-the-mill industrial waste. Not something to be taken lightly, but no heroic measures are required either.
"Superfund" sites of all kinds are generally caused by carelessness (or deliberate cheapness) onsite when the waste is produced. Reactor designs that make it easy to get those first 5 years right are a good thing.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
LOL...
Natural Gas is *cheap*. It's actually Cheaper than any other source out there if you look at the entire life cycle costs of the plant. That kind of throws a wrench in your fantasy land view of the electrical generation world. Nuclear plants are being killed off by the lower cost of NG, even for base load.
It just makes sense (and cents) to use the cheapest source for power. Natural gas is that source and thanks to fracking, will continue to be the cheapest source for decades, barring regulatory changes.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Well,
I mean.. if it's radioactive enough to be dangerous, it could still be used for fuel. Go far enough down the line with reprocessing and that waste goes from having a half-life of 10,000 years down to about 100.
Thank you Jimmy Carter.
I'm calling BS on this..
IF you look at the total life cycle cost of various industrial sources of electrical energy, Natural Gas is the cheapest. The only way renewables compete is though tax breaks, carbon surcharges, subsidies and accounting slight of hand (where they conveniently *forget* to include the total life cycle costs). https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/a... does a better job.
Renewables do NOT win on numbers. Never have and it's unlikely they ever will in my lifetime if you do a full cost accounting.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
To date, 440 workers have died installing solar panels. 150 have died installing wind turbines on windmills.
Of course, that assessment depends on whether you use total distance travelled, or deaths per launch.
So is it 14 deaths for 537,114,016 miles travelled, 14 deaths for 833 total riders, or 14 deaths for 135 flights?
Next up a discussion of the safest vehicle ever - the Space Shuttle.
You are misleading with a bad analogy.
This is not an analogy, and was never meant to be an analogy. it is how data can be misconstrued. I was asking specifically which data set the poster wanted to use. It's just like airline miles. Very safe by miles flown, but if you have a crash, you're gonna die unless you get really lucky.
A Space Shuttle is used to get stuff to an orbit. So the correct metric is number of deaths per kg delivered to the given orbit.
Tell us about Columbia. It got everything to orbit quite nicely Not back to earth. Seriously my friend, your calling my example a bad analogy, while completely dismissing what happens to peopel when their vehicle disintegrates after any thing in the weight delivered to orbit is rather distressing.
Trying to count it per mile travelled is completely stupid because travelling around Earth is not the goal of Space Shuttle.
I'm not the one claiming per mile is the proper metric. Take it up with airline industry apologists.
On the other side, counting number of death per kWh is the correct metric in energy production area. The goal of a power plant is to produce energy. So we must count it per kWh.
What do we do when the costs are not merely death?
You show the exact reason why people do not trust the rabid pro nuc people. I only point out that your arrogance and dismissing of any of those people who might not march in lockstep as stupid is just another reason why they trust Pro nuc activities like they would trust Jerry Sandusky to babysit their prepubescent son. Good luck, tell everyone they are stupid and that you know that everything is safe.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You are incorrect and your numbers are a decade old. Gas is only even competative because it's are record low prices of ~$2/mbtu. Historic prices for gas are triple that.
Wind generated power is already cheaper than the average natural gas price generated power without subsidy. And at the rate both Wind and PV solar are dropping in price both will be cheaper than gas generated power (using average gas prices not spot lows) when both subsidies expire in 2024.
And of course gas prices aren't stable, they can fluctuate quite a bit. Though we may have an oversupply of natural gas at the moment which has driven gas prices to record lows, the export terminals that are constructed and under construction are sure to reverse the trend and $6/mbtu gas is probably right around the corner.
One of the strengths of renewable energy is the lack of an input cost, once the facility is constructed the power generated will only be a function of the capital installation costs and maintenance, there is no fuel input cost. So that super cheap wind power built today will be even cheaper in 25 years when the construction costs are amortized out.
By the way my post contained more words than yours so clearly it's the better post too.
Well, that goes without saying. 8^)
I know I piss off a lot of people in here with being a Cassandra about nuc power generation. I'm not really anti-nuc power. But many of the pro nuc people need a kick in the ass to allow reality to set in.
Anti nuc people are not necessarily stupid. Accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima happened. The common element between each was hubris. It might be sobering to think that without the hubris of the guy in charge of the reactor that fateful evening, the RBMK reactors might still be running today. Without the terrible siting decision and the insane decision to build seawalls that were lower than Tsunami that were 100 percent certain to happen, the Fukushima reactor complex would probably be running just fine today (I say probably because there was some question whether the earthquake cracked the containment structure.
People are the weak factor, and hubris is the instrument of failure.
We can argue about metrics all day long. But when these things go kablooey (technical term) they make a helluva mess, and take land that people can make use of and support an economy with without of the picture for a long time.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Nuclear is probably the only way if we want to reduce the amount of CO2 we release per year while not reducing our energy-needs.
Unfortunately, this: one need not like fission (it gives me the creeps) but the above observation simply can't be argued with.
Every single one of the reactors that got shut down was more than 30 years old at the time it failed. And prior to the NIMBY movement, that was generally considered to be the design life of reactors, IIRC. So I would argue that the Fukushima failure would probably not have occurred at all had there been less NIMBY resistance to nuclear power, because it would have been replaced by a newer plant and shut down entirely by 2011.
Now I realize that the timing was entirely random, so it *could* have happened earlier, but the fact remains that newer designs are significantly safer than older designs, and the longer they keep older reactors running, the less safe everyone is.
Also, the NIMBY movement, by making the construction of replacement nuclear plants less attractive, also makes research into nuclear plant design less attractive, which slows progress towards improved safety. So that mindset literally makes the world less safe all around. But that effect is a lot harder to quantify.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Yes, but uranium mining is an automated process (by necessity), and AFAIK none of that process involves leaving uranium ore lying around to contaminate runoff.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Xcell energy last summer received competitive bids for 25 year energy supply contracts for Solar and Wind Plus storage that was lower than gas, coal and all other forms of energy.
The Wind + storage bids were at ~3cents/kwh, significantly less than the ~4cents/kwh than a modern combined stage gas generator bid. Solar with storage was nearly the same cost at natural gas. And again, that cost is fixed one constructed and is not dependent on an input fuel cost.
Oh? Perhaps you should do some research first.
I'm not saying that the drawbacks of solar outweigh the benefits, but their is a pollution problem in the manufacture and disposal of solar panels, and some of those products don't degrade, since their toxicity is due to them being heavy metals. If nuclear is held to the standard that we need a long term plan to store its waste, shouldn't solar meet the same standard?
"So what's the long term plan to store the heavy metals and the byproducts from solar panel production?
Those byproducts don't exist, moron."
Perhaps you should bother to educate yourself before spouting off like a fool.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/m...
https://www.cleanenergywire.or...
https://principia-scientific.o...
https://spectrum.ieee.org/gree...
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
You are incorrect and your numbers are a decade old.
Did you even LOOK at the study? It's based on numbers from 2018 and projects an industrial scale power plant's cost per megawatt hour that goes into service in 2022 or later. My numbers are NOT out of date or a decade old. They are from last year.
Also, there is a HUGE difference between "scheduled" and "unscheduled" power generation here too. IF you have to store power generated by say solar panels to get you though the night (because solar is NOT scheduled capacity) then it goes from just more expensive to WAY overpriced. Unscheduled resources are useful only as long as you need the power when they provide it, if you have to store power, you just added huge levels of expense to convert that unscheduled resource into one you can schedule.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
BS...Receiving competitive bids on some hair brained idea is one thing.. Actually BUILDING it is quite another.
I dare say they didn't find a viable builder who could do what you claim for anything more than a tiny fraction of their customer's usage and Xcell will be turning a lot of natural gas into electrical power even if they build this thing.
So... Do you have a citation to make here? I'd love to see which idiots think they can do this at that price and how they got to their numbers. Somehow I get the feeling they left a whole bunch of costs out of their calculations or are depending on subsidies and tax abatements to make up the difference, but without seeing their bid, all we have is your opinion of it.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The Fukishima cleanup cost 187 billion Dollars and counting.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
All byproducts, stay in the factory ...
So: no there are no byproducts to be disposed off. Solar panels are made from silicon dioxyde. Then doted with those "byproducts".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Perhaps you simply should read how solar panels are made instead of spreading your FUD?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
How do you measure the ROI when returns are 'hippy chick pussy'?
I'll accept their are additional costs...lies will have to be told, hippy pussy will have to be washed. Duh!
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I installed a 9.5KV solar system in 2017. My ROIC (return on invested capital) is running 9.25% with the tax credits and 5.25% without. Both are far better returns then I could get putting the money in the bank or long term deposits. As power cost increases over the years to follow my return will increase. At my current rate of return my system will be paid for in 10 years and I have a 25 year warranty on the panels.
The only thing that would beat that return is investing in the market with significant additional risk.
There's nothing more silly than calling competitive open bidding for power purchase contracts a hair brained idea.
You clearly don't understand either the power market, competitive commercial bidding or how any of this works. Either that or you are a communist who hates the free market. Take your pick.
This is not an analogy, and was never meant to be an analogy.
You're comparing your hypothetical metric of travel safety with his metric of energy production safety in order to prove a point about how "data can be misconstrued". https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%20analogy
It's just like airline miles. Very safe by miles flown, but if you have a crash, you're gonna die unless you get really lucky.
Are you suggesting that airline travel is not the safest form? If you need to go somewhere 300 miles away, the plane will get you there with less chance of death. This is statistical fact.
What do we do when the costs are not merely death?
Come up with statistics that take into account whatever other cost you're considering? If you can articulate and categorize these other costs we may be able to objectively compare energy production with the new metric.
You show the exact reason why people do not trust the rabid pro nuc people.
You'll probably never be able to admit this to yourself, but you fit in perfectly with the dumb NIMBY crowd that keeps us from having nice things. You haven't come up with a single coherent argument. I can only hope that somewhere, deep in your subconscious probably, you feel at least a little bit bad about holding back the human race.
This is not an analogy, and was never meant to be an analogy.
You're comparing your hypothetical metric of travel safety with his metric of energy production safety in order to prove a point about how "data can be misconstrued". https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%20analogy
It's just like airline miles. Very safe by miles flown, but if you have a crash, you're gonna die unless you get really lucky.
Are you suggesting that airline travel is not the safest form? If you need to go somewhere 300 miles away, the plane will get you there with less chance of death. This is statistical fact.
This is getting like arguing with a sack of weasels. This is exactly how stats can be lies If we take say, Chernobyl as metric, your stats should prove that there was no damage , or that it was not relevant even if there was a little bit of inconsequential damage that cause no one any problems. Of course, that is a trap, so you don't have to answer.
When in fact, a reactor that is sitting there, quietly generating power is just about as green as you can get. Have a picnic in the grass growing just outside the containment building. But if and when an accident happens, it makes a helluva mess. But the more rabid pro-nuc kooks just ignore the mess, and move to whatever stat they think makes people forget the damage done.
What do we do when the costs are not merely death?
Come up with statistics that take into account whatever other cost you're considering? If you can articulate and categorize these other costs we may be able to objectively compare energy production with the new metric.
Land that is removed from use. When this happens, money is lost. Evacuating people. They aren't dead, but it costs a lot of money. Reparations for lost property. Remediation costs. Chernobyl's replacement sarcophagus cost 2.35 Billion Euros. 5 percent of the Ukraine budget and 6 percent of the Belarus budget is going to reparations to 7 million people. 330,000 people were kicked out of their homes and property, and resettled elsewhere. The exclusion zone removed a lot of land from production. I'm not sure that we can figure out the initial cost in the panic that ensued right after it happened.
But here's the rub. Why does the Price Anderson Liability indeminification act exist? Seems like the safest mode of power production shouldn't need my tax dollars to clean up the accidents that some think won't happen.
Funny - in a world where the Government bails you out because otherwise you couldn't get insurance that y'all bawl and whine and complain about the terrible insufferable NIMBY's and how mean they are to you because of regulations. Itr's unfair!
You show the exact reason why people do not trust the rabid pro nuc people.
You'll probably never be able to admit this to yourself, but you fit in perfectly with the dumb NIMBY crowd that keeps us from having nice things. You haven't come up with a single coherent argument. I can only hope that somewhere, deep in your subconscious probably, you feel at least a little bit bad about holding back the human race.
Yeah - I only spent a fair amount of my career working with NucE's, and a little bit of time in a reactor environment - for what that is worth. Also funny how we're all pro nuc power, but think that people like you don't realize that you are the exact reason why people don't trust you and your ilk. Someone doesn't agree with you, and you quickly descend into insults. You think that you have some sort of superior intelligence, and that everyone else is dumb. You simply reject anything that isn't in your narrative.
When in fact, you are merely seeing your reflection in a mirror.
This is all sim
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Politicians often make such stupid rules. Rules that stifle innovation and the adoption of new technologies. The NRCC is similar, in that they have developed a set of regulations based on technologies from the 1950's and have made it harder to adopt safer alternatives. This is clearly true of the regulatory structure today.
To understand how the regulatory structure of the NRC works, you have get the legal name correct. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission works with industry to develop legal requirements for Nuclear plant operation that improves the safety of the plants. They examine things like basis design issues and develop a regulatory framework that make safety improvements a legal requirement.
This is why Fukushima was criminal negligence. Rules like that don't stifle innovation, they create it, as the legal frame work contains the operating experiences from all reactor facilities that new design requirements are based on. Innovation happens before the plant is built everything after is building whatever safety lessons are learned.
Fukushima proves that the nuclear industry failed to learn from the Chernobyl accident.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.