Skip to main content

View Diary: New Corrosion Research Shows Accelerated Failure At Fukushima Daiichi (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't write the laws of physics (0+ / 0-)

    If you're going to deny reality, then you need to prove that you're right.  I can point to study after study that electric grids go unstable and collapse without sufficient baseload.

    Don't believe me?  Here:
    Look at that chart.  Solar and wind vary by imense amounts.  From a peak of 25,000MW, which is very good, to less than 2500MW, which is very bad.  That causes rolling blackouts.

    In Germany, outages are up 30% in the last 3 years.  Production has been forced to halt at German factories.  How long do you think that'll be allowed to continue before a new coal plant is built?

    If you want to continue to believe that baseload(nuclear/coal) is unnecessary, you'll have to prove it.  Now with wishfull thinking, but with scientific fact.

    •  Batteries? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RandomNonviolence, splashy

      I believe there are undergraduate physics courses rigorous enough for even you to learn about batteries.  There are also many technical publications dealing with the pressure for improvements in battery technology.

      And electrical grids, while not fully complex systems, have solutions for uneven loading and are developing more.  Me, I'd just love to be able to afford solar panels on my own house with a hot water reservoir in addition to local batteries, ultimately unplugging from the grid.  Looking forward to the day when my nearby coal-fired power plant is retired.  

      Norm, try a bit of calm persuasion instead of frantic name-calling.  You're making no friends and changing few if any minds with your current MO.

      (Oh, and my Ph.D. is in Physics, Norm.)  

      (-7.62,-7.33) l'Enfer, c'est les autres.

      by argomd on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 12:25:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know plenty about batteries. (0+ / 0-)

        Batteries are crude chemical systems that are extremely fragile and die young deaths.  I've been working with batteries for 15 years. They have the highest failure rate of all hardware in our radio system. And every customer who needs reliable backup power has a battery pack sized just big enough to last until the diesel generator starts.

        And if those who oppose nuclear on cost think replacing GW worth of batteries every few years will be cheap, they're in for a shock. Batteries are not going to keep the US grid stable in January.

        But since you have a PHD in physics and I only have a lowly masters degree in electrical engineering, perhaps you can explain the wisdom of shuttering the nuclear plants before the coal plants, during a time of record C02. Sorry, that's lost on me.

        •  If you have a masters in electrical engineering (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jeanette0605, Jim P, splashy

          then you should be able to figure out how quickly we can build the windmills and solar panels as compared to nuclear power plants.

          Hint, it's going to be faster and cheaper.  Nuclear is a crappy power source and has always been dirty and expensive.  There's a reason that nuclear can't get private insurance.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:29:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nuclear for base load (0+ / 0-)

            My position has been very consistent. If I and the experts thought a 100% renewable electric grid would be stable, I would support it.

            Yes I do support building wind/solar first, as much as we can. It may only be 50% renewable. Maybe 70%. But I want wind/solar/nuke over wind/solar/coal, to be C02 free.

            And if one day, after every coal plant, and every oil and gas well have been shut down, we can then shut down the nukes?  Great. I won't complain.

            But I will complain when nuclear is shut down first, because it means more C02.  That's the bottom line isn't it?

            •  Still nothing on fukushima (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Still distracting from the mess at Fukushima?

              Why baseload power is a myth:

              •  Okay, let's discuss Fukushima (0+ / 0-)

                I'm already on record on Fukushima's problems, so I'll summarize.

                Fukushima is the direct result of the anti-nuclear forces geting everything they wanted over the last 40 years.  In the 70's Three Mile Island freaked everyone out, and the world decided that coal, C02 and climate change were much more reasonable than that nasty dirty nuclear power.

                All investment in nuclear engineering stopped.  All efforts to recycle and store spent fule stopped.  And thus it came to pass that in 2011 a nuclear reactor was still using a 1950's design, and decades of spent fuel were still sitting at the plant.

                So a nuclear reactor that was never allowed to be upgraded melted down, and spent fuel that was never allowed to be moved and properly stored is now leaking.
                Total paralysis of the nuclear industry was achieved, exactly as designed.

                In 1994 we had discussions at the University of Illinois that we absolutely could not still be burning coal in 20 years if we wanted to stop climate change.  We knew this day was coming.  And here it is 18 years later, with C02 at record levels and no sign that the coal plants will ever shut down.

                As for the "myth" of baseload, the link you provided made no such claim whatsoever.  What was said was that adding new renewable energy to the mix did not require NEW baseload to be added, because there is already enough baseload and spinning reserve in the system today.

                But that existing baseload is nuclear, coal and natural gas.  Nowhere in the video did they say baseload was unnecessary, just that we have enough.

                But if baseload is nuclear, coal and natural gas, and we need to go C02 negative?  Then we need to keep nuclear and get rid of coal/natural gas.

                Sorry buddy, this isn't up for a debate.  I'm for less C02, and you strangely chose a course that leads to more.

                •  Fail (0+ / 0-)

                  If you are seriously trying to justify the failures of the commercial nuclear industry on environmentalists you lost this argument before you even started it.

                  This is just a lame distraction and your being a troll. The subject at hand is the accelerated corrosion at Daiichi and that it isn't being managed or planned for properly.

                  Sadly the commercial nuclear industry has no sense of responsibility for the mess their industry made and zero desire to change their ways. They had over 50 years to become competent and trustworthy. The reality is that they have failed and each time with permanent consequences were are again and again asked to put up with.

                  We don't NEED nuclear power. One only needs to see the desperate attempts to smear other energy sources to know that this isn't about those other sources. It is about trying to deflect from Nuclear's unjustifiable record as a private sector power source.

    •  Nice dodge scooter (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      So does Exelon pay you to sit here and post this garbage? Ironic you mention nothing about natural gas since that actually makes your weak argument just fall all apart.

      There are plenty of studies that show baseload power is just garbage invented by an outdated industry intended to justify their existence. But this has NOTHING to do with the premature pipe failures going on at Fukushima.

      As for that graph you posted that is NORMAL daily fluctuation as solar gets a big peak during they day from uh, the SUN! This also fits well with Germany's peak daytime power demand.

      •  natural gas emits C02 (0+ / 0-)

        There will always be base load.  If it isn't nuclear or coal, it will be natural gas.  So all you did is trade in a nuclear power plant for hundreds or thousands of natural gas fracking wells poluting the groundwater across the entire country.  And natural gas still emits C02.  How do you propose to get to be C02 negative?

        No, it doesn't make my argument weaker.  We could be C02 free right now if we'd made the right choices 40 years ago.  But nuclear power was too scary for people.

        So now we get scary climate change instead.  Better?

    •  Then do arithmetic if you want proof. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The percentage of in-place solar/wind/tide/geothermal etc., the implementation of various storage methods, is low now. You don't really think they'll stay at today's rate forever?

      And look at the nuke plants going up now. Delay delay delay delay. Rising costs, rising costs, rising costs. Meanwhile those in place go down frequently, and more and more cracks, leaks, and corrosion gets found every month. Hell, it's not even possible to check the degree of containment vessel degradation with any certainty. What? Trust the Nuclear Safety Fairy?

      If you started the extra 1200 or so plants you need tomorrow at 9 am, it'll be on the order of 12-15 years before you have most of them... if you have them. Because who is going to lay out the tens of trillions you need to build them. Even the retired GE Honcho said they are not economically competitive anymore.

      This is just arithmetic. You'll might as well try to prove that 2+2 equals opera-singing koala bears if you're going to go on pretending nuclear is a viable path.

      Got anything to say about the on-going Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters, btw? (Besides that the odds against major nuclear accidents are strong.)

      The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

      by Jim P on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 03:27:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're probably right at this point. (0+ / 0-)

        It was in the 80's and 90's that we recognized that a massive increase of nuclear power was needed to avoid the C02 levels and climate change we see today.  The effort was needed 20-30 years ago.  But it was decided that coal and cliamte change were better options than that "nasty dirty" nuclear power.  So are you happy with where the status quo took us?

        Chernobyl was a terrible reactor design that never should have been built, and wasn't built in the US.  Blame communism for that if you like.

        Fukushima was also an old reactor design that should have been retired and replaced with a better one.  The spent fuel should have been recycled.  At a minimum, it should have been moved to safe storage.

        But those like you got everything they wanted from nuclear power.  Like conservatives who design government to fail and oppose all solutions, so the anti-nuclear people opposed all progress and innovation.  Opposed all waste storage.

        And so we got Fukushima.  The logical result of denying that progress is possible and that the system is doomed to fail.  So, surprise, in 2011 a 1950s design failed and spent fuel that was never moved is now a major mess.

        Congratulations, you win.  Enjoy the climate change.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site