Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site