Skip to main content

View Diary: Japan about to experience Huge Renewable Energy Boom! (119 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  it takes 5 years to build a nuke (11+ / 0-)

    it's not something you do on a crash basis.

    Do you really want to rush nuclear power plant construction?

    Also the Gen 3 reactors have all the same problems of a Gen 1 reactor, just hidden in more clever fashion.

    Environmental or catastrophic failure, will still plague them and the utilities won't spend the money to make them robust.

    name one reactor that's shut down it's fuel pools and moved spent fuel to dry casks?  

    Name one operator that has gone and built modern Turbo generators as opposed to EDGs?

    Name one reactor with 72 hours of battery?

    They are all whistling past the graveyard.

    •  No, I don't. I don't mean spead up the 'time' (0+ / 0-)

      it takes to build a nuke. I mean the deployment of a vast quantity of them. Can you cite an example of how

      "Gen 3 reactors have all the same problems of a Gen 1 reactor, just hidden in more clever fashion.

      Environmental or catastrophic failure, will still plague them and the utilities won't spend the money to make them robust."

      i'd be curious.

      Can you explain why you think that spent fuel ponds are a problem? Most reactors have moved some spent fuel to dry cask storage. I think most should be forced to do all their cold fuel (any fuel more than a few years old). It's easy to do. But so what that's it not? Only 23 reactors in the US fleet, to site the American situation, have elevated spent fuel ponds...none of which, EVER has caused a problem because of their location or 'existence'.

      Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

      by davidwalters on Thu Jun 21, 2012 at 02:09:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Are you stupid, a shill or a sociopath? (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        Deward Hastings
        I don't mean to speed up the time to build a nuke.
        So if it takes 5 years for Japan to implement your shill solution, that is irrelevant.  In 5 years Japan will have by then survived 6 summers without nukes.  That means, they will have adapted, restructured, built renewables, etc,,,,
        Can you explain why you think that spent fuel ponds are a problem?
        two words:  FukushimaDaichi 4.   Unit 4 was powered down for 6 months during a routine refueling cycle and had a catastrophic event blow the stink out of the entire complex.

        Oh hey, Unit 3 looks like it may have had a prompt criticiality in the SFP.  

        Can you tell me how unit 3 or Unit 4 SFP were good things?

        Most reactors have moved some spent fuel to dry cask storage. I think most should be forced to do all their cold fuel (any fuel more than a few years old). It's easy to do.
        So why don't they do so?  Because dry casks cost money.
        That Utility operators won't pay for dry casks which you consider to be an easy fix, should send fear through the brains of anyone not a thrall to the nuclear complex.  What about the hard problems to fix? Are those getting worked on? Like  uninspected pipes in the cement or buried underground?  Or dropped tools in the reactor vessel which are too expensive to recover?  
        But so what that's it not? Only 23 reactors in the US fleet, to site the American situation, have elevated spent fuel ponds...none of which, EVER has caused a problem because of their location or 'existence'.
        and 16 months ago, you could have argued No SFP has ever caused a problem anywhere in the world

        I'm really not sure if you are stupid or a shill, I'll go with shill.

        By your logic if one SFP blows up in the US, that's really not a problem because 22 SFP's havent.  When a critical problem can fail in a catastrophic manner even if somewhat unlikely, if the results of that catastrophe are severe, all possible measures should be taken to prevent that failure mode.

        Your thinking was the thought process of NASA managers right up to Challenger. "Um Gee Thiokol, we've flown these SRB's 23 times before and nothing has ever gone wrong".
        well the Challenger and her crew showed why that risk was a mistake.

        Your thinking is also that of the Red Cross when they fought Don Francis over destroying contaminated blood supplies .
        The Red Cross said "Very few people have died from this"
        and his reply was "Tell me how many people need to die for you to take action".

        Tell me how many SFPs need to explode for you to declare them unsafe? 2? 3? 5? 10?

        Also tell me why you think it matters there are only 23 Wet SFPs elevated in the US?  Is it okay if 3 SFP's blow up in Japan?  How about China? France? Poland? Brazil?
        Is it okay because they aren't Americans and you don't care about their lives?

        I'd hope you are stupid.

        •  Well, where to begin. Arguing with a (0+ / 0-)

          faith-based fanatic like nathanguy who throws around adhominen attacks ("shill" "stupid") because he lacks a real argument can be difficult. Should we try? Hmmm...

          To cut to the chase the meltdowns in Fukushima, combined with the one-off Chernobyl considering actual human costs are STILL worth doing it. So the question should of been asked with out all your BS was "Given these accidents, was it worth it?".

          Yes, it was. My answer is to look for a solution. You are not, and never have been, "looking for a solution" except fanatical shutdowns of the worlds single largest source of low carbon energy. Here's a few, not in priority order:

          1. nationalize all energy generators.
          2. nationalize all grid and distribution networks.
          3. Use engineering solutions to prevent more accidents.

          But you can't your bird-brain religious brain around that, there is no discussion.

          Let's go back to the original question: CAN an accident of the type that hit Fukushima Diiachi (and not Fukushima Daiini) happen in the US? No. Are the causes for that accident present in US BWRs? Maybe...are plants built in areas where quakes hte magnitude of Fukushima? No. Are plants hardened above Fukushima containment Mark Is? Yes.

          So from a risk assessment POV we are in a LOT better position. We should build lots more. I'll take 4 for my back yard and I'll let you have one for your own.

          "Atfer Japan gets through 6 or so years of no nuclear energy...". We'll see if it survives. Lets look at NOW:

          1. Huge massive deficit in trade...first time since the 1970s due entirely to fuel imports.
          2. Increase in huge ass CO2 out put due to...fuel imports to make up for lack of nuclear.
          3. Whole high energy companies thinking (started) off shoring industries to Vietnam, China.
          4. Massive black outs on the way? How many DEAD because of this? Oh...but it's ok, cuz it's again nuclear.
          5. Massive hit ot hte planet in GHG emissions.
          6. More people dead from the evacuation and subsequent stress induced, fossil fuel created soot increases than will ever die from radiation from Fukushima.

          Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

          by davidwalters on Fri Jun 22, 2012 at 01:06:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  if you ask a stupid question (0+ / 0-)

            expect to get slammed.

            To cut to the chase the meltdowns in Fukushima, combined with the one-off Chernobyl considering actual human costs are STILL worth doing it. So the question should of been asked with out all your BS was "Given these accidents, was it worth it?
            That wasn't the question you asked. but now that you've asked it.

            The answer is clearly no.

            You are not, and never have been, "looking for a solution" except fanatical shutdowns of the worlds single largest source of low carbon energy
            Please don't make up what I do or don't want.  

            Germany is on a crash program to go nuclear-free, they are hitting some great peak numbers early, and they will get that done.  

            Let's go back to the original question: CAN an accident of the type that hit Fukushima Diiachi (and not Fukushima Daiini) happen in the US? No. Are the causes for that accident present in US BWRs? Maybe...are plants built in areas where quakes hte magnitude of Fukushima? No. Are plants hardened above Fukushima containment Mark Is? Yes.
            So is your thesis, that it requires a  9.0 Magnitude Quake and tsunamai to cause a nuclear meltdown and then and only then is it possible for a reactor to meltdown?

            wow, aren't you optimistic.  

            If you think the radiation in Fukushima is so great, why don't you move there? With your kids, relatives, etc?  

            I'll even chip in for the airfare.  But you have to stay there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (66)
  • Elections (25)
  • Environment (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Marriage Equality (17)
  • Economy (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Rescued (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site