Skip to main content

From the coverage atWNN comes the news, good and bad, for nuclear tech deployment around the world. Also other sources a well. These as summations/abstracts usually of the longer articles.

First,NYT article on how the gov't, in sheer panic, considered 'evacuating Tokyo during Fukushima a year ago. Like I said the good, the bad and the ugly.

But there is more, below...

Grid connection for South Korean units

Noted this earlier last week:

South Korea's two newest nuclear reactors, Shin Kori 2 and Shin Wolsong 1, have been connected to the grid.

Shin Kori 2 started up in December 2011 and was connected to the grid in January, joining Shin Kori 1 which entered commercial operation in early 2011. Meanwhile, Shin Wolsong 1 started up and was connected to the grid in January. Its sister plant, Shin Wolsong 2, is expected to start up before the end of 2012.

Nuclear development is routine in South Korea

The two units are both South Korean-designed OP-1000 pressurised water reactors and are due to enter commercial operation by the middle of 2012. The grid connection brings the total number of operating reactors in Korea to 23.

[Comment: away we go. Zero panic on the part of the Korean nation as to their nuclear figure. They are going to go to 60% nuclear by 2030. Lets imports of expensive fossil fuel, lower carbon output.--David]

Construction starts at Baltic plant

This from WNN
The first concrete has been poured for the foundation of the twin-unit Baltic nuclear power plant in Kaliningrad, marking the official start of construction of the first reactor there.

RosEnergoAtom announced that on 24 February some 1800 cubic metres of concrete was poured into the foundation slab of the nuclear island building by the general contractor Nizhny Novgorod-based Atomenergoproekt and its subcontractor JSC Northern Construction Management. The pouring of first concrete means that the first Baltic unit becomes the ninth power reactor under construction in Europe.

The chief engineer of RosEnergoAtom's Baltic power plant construction division, Alexander Chebotarev, said that the quality of each batch of concrete is being checked by an onsite certification laboratory. He noted that measures have been taken to create the necessary conditions for laying concrete during the winter weather. Chebotarev said that a special heat gun is being used underneath an awning erected over the foundation in order to raise the temperature to above 15°C whilst protecting the concrete from rain. "All phases of work went smoothly, all in normal mode," he said.

The twin VVER-1200 Baltic project is situated in Kaliningrad, an exclave of the Russian Federation that sits between the EU states of Poland and Lithuania. It is a stand-out project for Russia: the first to be opened to investment by European utilities; the first intended to export most of its output; and the first to use Western components such as an Alstom-Atomenergomash steam turbine.

The plant will be majority owned by RosEnergoAtom, with 49% available to private investment. Talks have so far been held with CEZ, EDF, Enel and Iberdrola and late last year Switzerland-based utility Alpiq agreed with Russian grid operator Inter RAO UES to explore possibilities for a transmission link of up to 800 MWe from Kaliningrad to Germany.

RosEnergoAtom said that the construction of the plant has now entered into "an intensive phase." Commercial operation of the first reactor is slated for 2017, with the second following one year later.


Researched and written
by World Nuclear News

[Comment: RosEnergoAtom is intent on sellingpower to Germany, seen as a major market for clean, green, nuclear energy. I think the real big market, unmentioned is Lithuania and Poland and possibly Sweden.--David]

Kuwait Cancels Nuclear Program.

Gleaned from many sources, the disfunctional Kuwaiti gov't decided to continue to burn vast amounts of it's own natural gas (actually ALL of it) and millions of barrels of oil a year to produce needed electricity instead of going nuclear. They had a considered it starting in 2009 but nothing ever really transpired. They've had major problems with their own infrastructure development and virtually no vision on how to get out it, despite billions in aid and military-industrial investments by the United States.

S.Africa plans more funding for nuclear plants

From S. Africa Bus. Report:

The government has put a R300-billion price tag on its proposed nuclear reactors after years of keeping mum on what the new reactors would cost.

But although this is around a third of SA’s annual budget, it is lower than the going price for a modern nuclear design.

The price, which appeared in last week’s Budget review for 2012, is lower than the current cost of nuclear reactors built in the US, which may be an indication that the government is expecting to draw cheaper bids from from Korea and China.

Questions have been raised as to whether the Korean and Chinese nuclear designs would meet European regulatory standards.

Steve Thomas, professor of energy policy and director of research at the University of Greenwich, said the R300bn translated into about $4 000 (R30 700) a kilowatt. This is called the “overnight cost” and does not include finance costs.

“The two bids they (Eskom) got last time were both over $6 000/kW, so I can only assume they are expecting Korea and China to come in way cheaper. $6 000/kw ‘overnight’ is about par for the advanced estimates for reactors in the US and bids elsewhere, so if you were going for a modern design, that would be the price,” Thomas said.

The government’s last call for tenders was restricted to the French nuclear company Areva and the American power company Westinghouse. Eskom suspended the proposed nuclear project in 2008 because of the cost. The utility was reportedly shocked by the high cost of the French and American bids.

Eskom proposes to generate 9 600MW of nuclear power by 2029. The design the government selects will determine how many nuclear power stations will be built. This could range from six to 10.

“If it was a French reactor (EPR 1 600MW), that would be six reactors. If it was an AP1000 (1 200MW), that would be eight reactors. If it was Korean APR1400 (1 400MW), that would be seven reactors. If it was a Chinese CPR1000, that would be 10 reactors. The two bids last time (in 2008) were for AP1000 and EPR designs, so it is hard to see how it could be them. The R300bn price looks like the bid made by Korea for the UAE. That was their first ever export bid and most people assume it was underpriced,” Thomas said.

Speculation

China has never bid to export nuclear reactors, so it was pure speculation to say Chinese reactors would be cheap, he said. China had sold two 300MW reactors to Pakistan, but the design and the price were not made public.

The DA’s Lance Greyling will table a motion to debate the proposed nuclear programme in Parliament as soon as possible.

The public had had no chance to scrutinise the programme. They had a right to see the evidence on which the budgetary allocation was decided, he said.

“Given that the shadow of the arms deal corruption continues to darken our democracy, the government should be extra careful about the nuclear build programme,” Greyling said.

The three sites Eskom has earmarked for the power stations are Koeberg, north of Cape Town, Bantamsklip on the southern Cape coast near Pearly Beach and Thyspunt near Cape St Francis in the Eastern Cape. - Political Bureau

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 08:39:08 AM PST

  •  Fire and Ice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the fan man

    Fire and Ice   

    Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I've tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

    Robert Frost
    http://www.poemhunter.com/...

  •  Frontline episode on Fukushima tonight on PBS. (0+ / 0-)

    If I recall the promo said they had interviews with workers who were present for the earthquake and subsequent meltdowns.

    Something to have on the tv while checking election results on the computer.

    No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.

    by Magster on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 09:04:41 AM PST

    •  We'll see what happens with that. The CNN (0+ / 0-)

      documentary produced refused to interview defenders of Vermont Yankee. It was amazingly once sided, even for CNN.

      We'll have to wait and see on on the PBS show.

      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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 09:06:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  David - like the govt subsidized nuke poison? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau, Sandino

        All the naysaysers like yourself need to perhaps rediscover that YOU are human too... and affected by this long lasting POISON.

        - Taxpayers pay to build them and dismantel them w/o a vote or say in the matter.
        - Govt. handouts to utility companies give THEM YOUR $.

        Where, once again... does the hundreds of years worth of WASTE go?  "Silence".

        Time to change was yesterday.

        Adm. Hyman Rickover, “father of the nuclear navy,” came out against nuclear power near the end of his life:

        “I do not believe that nuclear power is worth it if it creates radiation. . . .

        Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has a certain half-life, in some cases for billions of years.

        I think the human race is going to wreck itself, and it is important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.”

        •  I AGREE. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          northstarbarn

          I'm human and can be effected by "POISON". Fortunately it's about dosage, and in the case some isotopes, accumulated dosage. Which is why I'm not afraid, as you are, from the one-off accident at Fukushima. FOr that matter even the people in Japan, being kept from their homes, are not that worse off than before. The major hotspots get cleaned up they are now beginning to demand the right to return home.

          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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 11:08:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tell that lie to my neice and the kids in JPN. n/t (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau, Sandino
            •  Alright, ready: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mojo workin

              To Russgrils 'Neice and kids' in Japan (unstated location). Don't worry. While your lives are threatened by the huge increase in diesel, coal and natural gas your gov't is now burning to replace the nuclear energy they could be using, there really isn't much danger from the Fukushima accidents. Don't listen to the Western NGO fear mongers or you own irrational left wing (or your loving, albeit somewhat whacked out Aunt) on this issue: live your lives, only the fear will hurt you.

              David Walters
              Pacifica, CA

              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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 12:05:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  "One-off?" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino

            Three fully melted reactor cores and 5 crammed-full, leaky, precariously propped and wide open spent fuel pools at Daiichi and at least one meltdown at Daiini amounts to "one-off?" Obviously, there is absolutely no level of nuclear disaster that you would consider to be a disaster. Why, the stuff's so safe it doesn't even need containment! You should tell that to the NRC, it would definitely cut down on the costs of new plants. We could just build them out in the open, store the spent fuel in koi ponds with fountains that line the plant driveway...

            Any pro-nuke who openly admits that there's no amount of melting and blowing up that could ever dent their faith is not someone sane people should pay any attention to.

            •  Meltdown at Daiini? Hmmm...what is your (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mojo workin

              evidence for this.

              the plant did not 'blow up'.

              Because of containment the DIACHI plant were not as bad a they could of been.

              and of course what happened at both plants is nothing compared to the actual tsunami that killed 20,000 people.

              It should not of happened. It could of been prevented. let's prevent hte next one. Screaming and yelling and sowing fear, as Joy b. does above, is hardly helpful. Look at the way she respond? Sad.

              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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 12:02:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You didn't hear about (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino

                Daiini? Strange, TEPCO reported it last March, has formally apologized for it in November and again in January. We know that one unit's (#1, apparently) containment is breached, information on the 3 other units and their spent fuel pools (and common pool) has been minimal. Reuters duly reported, though hardly anybody else did. Still, anyone paying attention should be familiar with it.

                Hiromitsu Ino, professor emeritus in metallic materials science at Tokyo University stated his belief that the containment was breached by the earthquake rather than the tsunami, which also did a lot of damage. Daiini's nukes are Mark-IIs.

                •  Joy, that shit was broken, including possibly (0+ / 0-)

                  the Reactor Pressure Vessel is no doubt accurate. But NOTHING about a "meltdown".

                  From what I know from following it, there reason there was so little news is because there was so little news. We know NOW that the smoke was from trashed pumps and motor in the balance of the plant. There really is little news there.

                  No meltdowns. period.

                  PS...the link doesn't go to "Reuters" it goes to a washington blog. The apology from TEPCO wasn't for a 'meltdown' and most of the rumors, which you help purvey, simply have no legs, at all.

                  Maybe it did...but 'expert's quotes are like quoting Michio Kaku who stated there were 'raging fires' in Diachi's spent fuel ponds. We need to see the evidence from witnesses who can or have viewed the videos of insides of these plants.

                  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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 12:59:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Shit" was broken? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sandino

                    Containment vessels are "shit" now? Well, I guess y'all must have redefined the parameters to encompass the completely benign non-dangers and effects of Fukushima. So that reactor vessels, primary containments and even secondary containments are no longer necessary to ensure the safety of the public from nuclear plants.

                    So how come your industry is still trying to sell buildings and containments and using reactor vessels? They'd be a lot cheaper without. Just pour some loose fuel into a regular industrial pressure boiler, add some water, and let 'er rip. Don't even need a tent.

  •  The Kaliningrad NPP (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gzodik, Joieau

    is an interesting one. Kaliningrad Oblast have about 950k inhabitants, which means that the two VVERs alone will produce an average of about 2,3kW per capita. This is close to the Norwegian average (#2 in the world), and about 3x the Russian average.

    I can only conclude that electricity export is the primary goal of this power plant.

    (Reposted my comment from another diary.)

    •  Keep in mind Poland is about 93% coal for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gzodik

      their electrical generation! Anything that can cut this down should be welcomed.

      I might add even Poland's plans for about 10GWS (I think reduced down to about 4GWs but I'll have to check) is really aimed at shutting down gas.

      Poland is more than happy to transit Russian gas to Germany and received a small tariff for it but they don't want to be beholden to Russian gas, thus nuclear, in part. They are also obligated by treaty within the EU to lower their massive carbon footprint. They have no way to do this but with nuclear.

      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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 09:27:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And closer to home (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bincbom, Russgirl, Joieau

    where we we only get radiation-brittle, rust-bucket nukes extended past their design lifetimes by corrupt rubber-stamping 'regulators', the USGS reports that the fallout reaching the US from Fukushima exceeded that from Chernobyl.  This is not in the least surprising, giving the magnitude of the meltdowns and explosions there:

    "Deposition actually decreased as the air mass traveled east to west," said Greg Wetherbee, a chemist with USGS.
    "In the United States, cesium-134 and cesium-137 wet dispersion values were higher than for Chernobyl fallout in part due to the U.S. being further downwind"
    Although this is referred to as an accident, it is more like the inevitable result of systematically corporatized profits and socialized risks in the international plutonium industry. Other nations eager to have their own nuclear weapons are naturally eager to build their own factories, disguised as power plants, despite the impossibility of finding insurance or even knowing the costs of waste disposal and eventual decommissioning.
    •  Puer hyperbole, as expected. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gzodik, mojo workin

      "rust buckets" (a lie, you've never been to a NPP).
      "radiation brittle" (a lie, ever single reactor in the US shows little if any embrittlement on the pressure vessel. There are more corrosion issues than embrittlement ones.

      and I could go on, but ain't, as it's a waste of time: 103 nuclear reactors operating extremely safely and providing 80% of our non-carbon generation. We could use more of these 'rust buckets'.

      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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 09:38:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You and yours David are a sad, sick joke... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bincbom, Sandino

        if you seriously, really believe that these 103 reactors are extremely safe?

        “I’d put my money on the sun and solar energy.

        What a source of power!

        I hope we don’t have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
                 ~ Thomas Edison, 1931

        •  Russgirl, get back to me when you can (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mojo workin

          show nuclear power has been unsafe in the U.S. (or most countries for that reason). Yes, by EVERY record U.S. nuclear and most of the worlds nuclear is extremely safe when compared with how many have died, extremely because compared to fossil fuel, nuclear doesn't kill 2 millions a year which is LESS important to you than your unsubstantiated fear of what "could" happen, but hasn't.

          your entire sense of priorities is wrong, deadly wrong in this case. Every nuke plant is a coal or gas plant that is NOT built. You don't get it do you? Meanwhile, Denmark with all it's wind still hasn't shutdown any fossil plants. Why is that???

          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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 11:01:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you're going to use (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino

            athsma/emphysema statistics all over the world to claim 100% Absolute Causation from coal emissions, you need to consider immune dysfunction, leukemia/NHL, thyroid issues, miscarriage and SIDS deaths, etc. all over the world to be 100% Absolute Causation from nuclear plant emissions.

            Dishonest use of statistics is... dishonest. You know that, right?

            •  I don't claim 100% nor does the EPA or NIH. (0+ / 0-)

              I'm not a health physicist. I know only what is there from gov't agencies which (like on energy usage) are relabile sources for the effects of fossil fuel. I know you want to down play, Joy, the effects of fossil fuel on the human ecology, but you'd be wrong.

              I think most Ashsma (something I know a lot about) is causes in large part by fossil fuel emissions but also other issues such as dust, pollens, etc along with the problems of living in urban environments that are generally known to lower immune response to common things like grasses and pollens (in part because of, but not soley due, to fossil fuels)

              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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 12:24:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Russgirl... please step back, take a breath (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryfry

          and THINK.  What would be the environmental and health costs of the alternative ~100GW of coal or nat-gas fired generation, from mining, to burning, to waste disposal if those nukes didn't exist?  How much fine particulates, how much CO2, how much acid-rain producing chemicals.  How much mercury, and other heavy metal toxics, and... how much uranium, thorium and radium pumped into the environment (yes radionuclides naturally exist in coal)?  Then, compare that to the waste stream of 103 nuclear plants...

          I'll sum it up:

          NOTHING

          emitted into the environment for the nuclear fleet  vs HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF TONS PER YEAR of emissions for the fossil burning equivalent.

          And as far as safety goes - how many people have been killed in the civilian nuclear power program over the past 50 years... the number is

          ZERO!

          Even Three Mile Island killed NO ONE.  And that is the worst US disaster in the history of civilian nuclear power in over half a century!!!!!!

          Now please, PLEASE tell me how you can think nuclear reactors are so incredibly bad and dangerous???  I just can't fathom your reasoning.  Help me out if I'm so wrong and you are right!  Get the facts and THINK CRITICALLY instead of using fear based on unsupported claims.  The more one learns about nuclear science, radiation and nuclear power, the less one fears it.

          BTW: if PV solar power is the most expensive form of renewable power.  There is a huge cost to low density energy sources that are also unreliable.  

          The intrinsic nature of Power is such that those who seek it most are least qualified to wield it.

          by mojo workin on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:46:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  help me out here, David (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joieau

        "rust buckets"
        - a lie
        "radiation brittle"
        - a lie

        There are more corrosion issues than embrittlement ones.
        eh....
        rust (verb) - to become corroded or oxidized (emphasis added)
        eh....

        a little help, my friend?

        Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

        by jam on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:16:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not, not 'rust' but 'rust buckets'. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jam

          The idiom here, since you asked, has little do with the reality. Corrosion is Reactor Containment Vessels (and steam piping to and fro) is a measurable quantity that doesn't imply "rust bucket" like a ... bucket left outside over winter. through the use of 'alloy coupons' and threaded bolts, corrosion and embrittlement becomes not only measurable, but remedied.

          Thus the illusion to 'rust bucket' about to fall apart and spring a leak, is fundamentally a lie at worse, an exaggeration at best.

          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 Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 08:35:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ok, I'll buy that n/t (0+ / 0-)

            Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

            by jam on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 08:51:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  cool. (0+ / 0-)

              And, to be honest, these are still major issues (see Davis-Besse) for nuclear and will be more so as Gen IV reactors come on line running at higher temperatures.

              Fortunately, technology doesn't stand still ( a major issue with those scoffing at nuclear thinking we are still advocating building 1960s style plants when we are not) and newer, better, more corrosion resistant alloys are being developed all the time in the nuclear metallurgy industry.

              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 Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 08:55:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Steam and engineering (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jam, bryfry

              Steam generating systems like fossil (coal, oil) and nuclear thermal power plants use very pure water in sealed loops to prevent corrosion where it counts, in the boiler vessels and reactor vessels. This water is degassed to remove dissolved oxygen because at the very high working temperatures and pressures in such steam plant  that oxygen would cause accelerated corrosion in a short time. The steel alloys chosen for the reactor vessels are also intrinsically corrosion-resistant although other factors such as resistance to neutron embrittlement and preventing buildups of induced radioactivity in the metal also come into play.

               Older steam engines like steam locomotives and ship engines didn't use super-clean water as a rule but they worked at much lower pressures and temperatures where the corrosion effects weren't as great. In their case corrosion was something that could be dealt with by, for example, rebuilding the boiler every few years or so. Doing this to a nuclear reactor or even a coal-fired generator's boiler would be very expensive and troublesome hence the use of very pure deoxygenated water in their steam generating loops.

              •  All true but... (0+ / 0-)

                there are other issues besides oxidation...which is generally not the cause of corrosion in thermal plants. Acidification is, however. And acidified water in PWRs is a major issue and reason corrosion is such an issue, albeit it's dealt with at every fuel outage. Most remedial work isn't even noted in the 'news' (nor should it, unlke here on the DK) unless you look for it through the volumes of paper on NRC outage reports that operators, and NRC inspectors, have to sign off on. Good luck with that!

                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 Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:25:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  my knowledge of corrosion (0+ / 0-)

                extends to hiring a corrosion engineer to explain what would happen if you bolt an aluminum staircase to a steel tower. Before that, I didn't even know there was such a thing as a corrosion engineer...

                Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                by jam on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:57:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Did he/she explain (0+ / 0-)

                  what a sacrificial anode is?

                  Just curious.

                  Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                  -- Albert Einstein

                  by bryfry on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 08:12:21 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  no, it wasn't necessary (0+ / 0-)

                    as it turns out, the staircase wasn't aluminum but galvanized steel so there wasn't anything to worry about.

                    Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                    by jam on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 05:13:32 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  No, "rustbucket" (0+ / 0-)

            is classified in this usage as a negative epithet, a derogatory descriptive term for way past their prime nukes that are "rusty" and could at any time fail due to unchecked corrosion.

            Your preference of terms doesn't in any way render the descriptive epithet invalid. Rust never sleeps.

            •  Yes, because it's an exaggeration and is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mcrab

              totally out of place OR we'd be having accidents everyday. And not small ones, either. It's a lie and you know it. If you have to, in fact, resort to epithets, you've lost any ability to convince the audience you are right. It's a particularly stupid one as nukes are anything but 'rust buckets'.

              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 Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 10:04:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Rustbucket, n. - (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mcrab

              A term to describe an aging, anti-nuke diarist on DailyKos (OED, third edtion). ;-)

              You have your definitions. I have mine.

              Rust never sleeps.
              Nor, apparently, does stupidity.

              Some supporting evidence or material would be nice (e.g., how this "corrosion" is so "unchecked"), but I am familiar with the "rigor" that pervades your comments, so I know not to expect much.

              Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
              -- Albert Einstein

              by bryfry on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 08:21:07 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  This just in: (0+ / 0-)

        Relating to discussions around inspections and transparency and the like:

        A severe blizzard some 34 years ago was said to be the cause of cracks discovered last year in the shield building of the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant. Safety regulators are reviewing the analysis while normal operation continues.

        'Tight cracks' were found within the reinforced concrete of the Davis-Besse reactor building in October last year during a major outage to replace the head of the reactor pressure vessel. Plant operator First Energy Nuclear Operating Company (Fenoc) notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which decided the cracks did not represent an "immediate safety issue" and the reactor returned to service in December, while Fenoc embarked on an analysis to determine how the cracks came to be.

        After considering an "exhaustive" range of potential causes including design, construction, environmental and operational factors, Fenoc yesterday announced that testing of concrete samples supported two conclusions: firstly that extreme weather had caused the cracking and also that safety performance of the building had not been affected.

        During January 1978, said Fenoc, "three days of driving rain preceded a drastic temperature drop to around 0ºF (-18ºC)" while intense winds continued throughout the storm. This weather event, known as the Great Blizzard of 1978, resulted in 51 deaths in Davis-Besse's home state of Ohio. Neither the shield building nor other concrete structures on site were equipped with a weatherproof coating and similar cracks were found in both. Lab tests based on the weather conditions produced the same cracking in concrete samples, said Fenoc.

        The NRC had four inspectors monitoring Fenoc while it compiled the study and the commission is now reviewing the resulting 119-page document which also details some steps that will be taken to manage the building. The company will apply a weatherproof coating, perform extra inspections to verify that cracks have not spread and develop what it called a long-term building monitoring plan.

        The 30-inch (76.2 cm) thick shield building surrounds a 1.5-inch (3.8 cm) thick steel containment vessel that contains the reactor system. The two structures are separated by a 54-inch (137.1 cm) space and both have important roles in nuclear safety: The sealed containment vessel is a final safety barrier to contain radioactivity in the event of an accident while the shield building protects this from external forces.

        Fenoc has a licence to operate the 908 MWe pressurized water reactor until 2017, subject to NRC's ongoing satisfaction with the company's safety performance. An application is in process for an extension of the licence to 2037.

        Researched and written
        World Nuclear News

        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 Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 09:04:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  US Fallout from Fukushima WORSE Than Chernobyl (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, Russgirl, Joieau

    The true costs of nuclear power once again come home to roost - right here at home - even from an accident that occurred thousands of miles away:

    http://www.benningtonbanner.com/...

    And here is the fallout map so you can see how badly your area is affected:

    http://bqs.usgs.gov/...

    •  "SO WHAT?" exactly what the health (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      northstarbarn

      consequences of almost ZERO increase in mSv...mSv is actual dosage. Zero mSv increase in the United States anyway. Scaremongering at the worse.

      But again, so what? What has to be done to prevent this from happening again? I've articulated as have many others, the measures taken to prevent a tsunami induced meltdown from taking place, which includes higher seawalls, relocation of diesel fuel, and replacement of seaside BWRs with Gen III passively safe reactors.

      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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 09:56:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  False. There is NO SAFE DOSE (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, S F Hippie, Russgirl, Joieau

        Radioactive cesium accumulates in the muscle tissue, leading to cancers and health problems years later.

        CANCER for thousands of people is are the "health consequences".  Not now, but later.

        Please do your research.  Radioactive cesium is not the same as daffodils raining down from the sky.  Radioactive fission products like cesium, strontium, and iodine are hazardous to human health.

        And don't forget, we've also been contaminated by aerosolized plutonium from Fukushima.  Do you know what that is?

        •  Actually what you state is completely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bincbom

          unproven. Cesium in fact does not build up in tissue like, say, St-90 or Iodine. Bincom, most of these istobes have short half lives and have not 'built up'...this is false and again, actual dosage is what counts here. Dosages are the same, period, in the US within he huge differentials in background radiation.

          Regardless, i'm not 'for' shit raining down on us. It's bad Fukushima happened. I'm glad the OTHER Fukushima plant did not melt down and allow radionucleaides to "land on the U.S.". I'm for drawing lessons about this from an engineering and safety pov. You don't appear to care. I do.

          Many countries, as my diary points out, also care and address these issues issues where they are appropriate. Which is why the are building out nuclear (along with fossil, wind, solar, etc). The issue is energy, and how to do so with out GHG emissions. Nuclear works for this. Renewables? Not so muc.

          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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 11:05:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again - Incorrect. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sandino, Joieau

            "most of these istobes have short half lives"

            This is not true.  The half-life of the Cs-137 raining down on us is 30 years.  The half-life of the Sr-90 is 29 years.  The half-life of the plutonium - the most dangerous contaminant of all coming from Fukushima - is 24,000 years.

            Even tritium, which is produced in abundance by nuclear reactors, has a half-life of 12 years.  Tritium poses an interesting problem for the nuclear industry.  Because it is essentially a hydrogen atom, tritium is very good at escaping containment, and it does continuously for any operating nuclear reactor.  Although the body treats it as it would any other hydrogen atom and metabolizes it, anyone near a nuclear reactor has a continuous supply of tritium and so they just get dosed continually.

            How big is that dose?  Well, a tritium atom is produced for about every 100 fissions.  Tritium exposure is one reason why recent studies have shown greatly increased occurrences of childhood leukemia and cancers within a 20km radius of any nuclear power plant:

            http://enenews.com/...

            •  Bincbomb, factually you are correct. (0+ / 0-)

              In effect, you are not. Tritium, which is NOT produced in abundance (it goes for $40,000 an ounce if you can procure it from a reactor) has a biological half-life of 3 DAYS.

              This is why to my knowledge, zero number of people have ever been effected by tritium exposure. levels of tritium are monitored and so there is no exposure to it, contrary to what you say unless there is an actual leak of water where the isotope has bonded.

              None of these studies that have purportedly shown an increase...a very small increase mind you, of childhood leukemias has ever shown a single 'cause' for it.

              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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 12:09:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Tritium is readily incorporated (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino

                into biological tissues by substituting for regular hydrogen in molecular bonds. Surely you knew this. Didn't you?

                •  Regular hydrogen in water (0+ / 0-)

                  Thus, it has the same biological half-life as water (about 10 days). It passes out with the rest of the water.

                  Or don't you ever pee or sweat?

                  Tritium is a very weak carcinogen. Your stupid smokestack on your house is a larger source of carcinogens than tritium from the leakiest nuclear plant in the US.

                  Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
                  -- Albert Einstein

                  by bryfry on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 08:29:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  ... (0+ / 0-)

                http://www.ead.anl.gov/...

                the health hazard of tritium is associated with call damage caused by the ionizing radiation that results from radioactive decay, with the potential for subsequent cancer induction

                "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

                by indycam on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:53:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  What plutonium? (0+ / 0-)

              What plutonium fallout is coming from Fukushima?

               Here's the data from soil samples taken several km from the reactors about three weeks after the accident. The results are that no Pu was detected to a limit of 0.1 Bq/kg of soil. The uranium that was detected in the soil is in the same isotopic ratio that you normally find in nature anywhere. Any noticeable uranium release from the reactors and the spent fuel pools would have higher amounts of U-235 since it is enriched for fuel purposes. The isotope ratio shows that none escaped.

              •  Plutonium Contamination (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joieau, Sandino

                Since core material was ejected and burned/vaporized in the reactor explosions, there is of course widespread Pu-239 contamination at the site itself.  One of the hardest hit areas is Date City near Fukushima.  U/Pu fuel is scattered on the ground out in the open around the Fukushima 1 site: it was widely reported that chunks of the fuel were found MILES from the site after the explosions.

                In the US, the west coast was hard hit with with plutonium fallout.  Here is a Japanese article showing the levels measured in California, with peak occurring 3/24/2011:

                http://onihutari.blog60.fc2.com/...

                Even if these levels were "very low", which they really aren't, it doesn't matter because plutonium is so dangerous.  Just ONE plutonium particle, micron sized, in the lungs is more than enough to kill a human being.

                •  You've been listening to Ralph Nader again... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roadbed Guy, mojo workin

                  "Just ONE plutonium particle, micron sized, in the lungs is more than enough to kill a human being" is a lie. It's often trotted out, usually attached to the "hot particle" theory which is also a lie. It the sort of lie that gets repeated so often that folks believe it since everyone is saying it so it must be true and they further promulgate this lie.

                   "The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the lifetime cancer risk from inhaling 5,000 plutonium particles, each about 3 microns wide, to be 1% over the background U.S. average." from the LANL Human Health fact sheet on Pu published in 2005.

                   Scientific testing to determine plutonium toxicity and radiotoxicity show that it's not as bad as a lot of other materials, both chemically and in its radiotoxic effects. It doesn't get absorbed by tissues in the body easily to start with unlike, say, cadmium or beryllium. It's certainly not as dangerous as arsenic. It's still not a good idea to make a regular habit of ingesting large quantities of it but that's true of lots of materials.

                   Particles of anything such as smoke particles from coal-burning power stations etc. inhaled into the lungs get expectorated over a short period of time. The spit is usually swallowed and biology takes any such particles out of the body after another 24 hours or so. Quite a few people working on nuclear weapons research in the US were exposed to significant quantities of Pu, swallowing and inhaling it in industrial accidents during the 40s and 50s. Most of them were still alive, hale and hearty decades later with very few of them suffering cancer.

                   As for the reports that chunks of reactor fuel were found miles from the Fukushima site... really? I know that pundits like Arne Gunderson were speculating wildly about flying fuel rods and widely-scattered debris without actually being within five thousand miles of the Fukushima Daiichi complex while the accident was ongoing. Actual evidence that this happened the way some folks imagine it did is zero. It's another one of those lies everyone repeats, basically.

                •  Is it still true that anyone can edit Wikipedia? (0+ / 0-)

                  In that case, you should go fix this:

                  Several populations of people who have been exposed to plutonium dust (e.g. people living down-wind of Nevada test sites, Hiroshima survivors, nuclear facility workers, and "terminally ill" patients injected with Pu in 1945–46 to study Pu metabolism) have been carefully followed and analyzed. These studies generally do not show especially high plutonium toxicity or plutonium-induced cancer results.[91] "There were about 25 workers from Los Alamos National Laboratory who inhaled a considerable amount of plutonium dust during 1940s; according to the hot-particle theory, each of them has a 99.5% chance of being dead from lung cancer by now, but there has not been a single lung cancer among them."[97][98]
              •  Everybody has about one billion (0+ / 0-)

                plutonium atoms in their bodies (up from about 100,000 "natural" plutonium atoms before cold war atmospheric testing).

                Yet we survive.  Somehow.

                •  Estimates (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Roadbed Guy

                  Given the number of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and the 1990s about five tonnes of plutonium has been finely dispersed into the Earth's atmosphere via the fireballs from those explosions. A good part of that five tonnes was concentrated in the central US states by prevailing winds from the Nevada test site. There doesn't appear to have been a massive die-off in the population in those areas as you might expect if Pu was as toxic as Ralph Nader has suggested. Could it be that Ralph was lying through his teeth? Surely not.

                  •  Yeah, you can find some interesting things (0+ / 0-)

                    in the scientific literature:

                    Although the current world inventory of plutonium is overwhelmingly man-made, it is important to recognize that 244Pu was a primeval radioelement and that 239Pu is formed continuously by spontaneous fission of 238U; the atom ratio U:Pu being about 10(11):1. It has been calculated that the human body has always carried a base load of, perhaps 10(3)-10(5) atoms (< 0.2 amol) of natural plutonium. Since 1945, the release of 239Pu into the environment from atmospheric nuclear weapons testing has added to this base load a civilization-related load which, at approximately 300 fmol, is at least 5 orders of magnitude greater
                    link

                    And this one:Metabolism of injected plutonium in two healthy men

                    Ralphie has probably never heard of Pubmed, however . . .

                •  Given that your current (0+ / 0-)

                  odds of being diagnosed with cancer in your lifetime is 1 in 2, I don't think I'd be all that confident about causes. Of course, there are so many carcinogens in our environment and bodies these days it could be any or all of them. We've managed to get to where only about half of those diagnosed end up dying of their cancers, (an "official cause of death" technicality due to the gnarliness of the treatments themselves), and ~50% of people die of something else (car wrecks, other accidents, heart disease, Alzheimer's, whatever) without ever being diagnosed with cancer.

                  Still, until and unless humans universally die before reproductive age, the species will survive. Maybe that's what you mean.

                  •  Hard to find anything wrong in this take on cancer (0+ / 0-)

                    Of course being diagnosed with cancer these days doesn't necessarily mean one is going to die from it as treatments, etc have gotten a lot better. But generally, our environment is one of the largest contributing factors to death, at least in the industrialized developed world.

                    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 Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 10:23:01 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  October 25th, 2011 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino

                We Are Becoming Nuclear Fuel Rods - Doctor finds uranium and zirconium in Tokyo residents' fingernails.

                Wiki: Radiation Effects page (3 sources, including this one in English):

                On 30 September 2011, the Japanese Ministry of Education and Science published the results of a plutonium fallout survey, for which in June and July 50 soil samples were collected from a radius of slightly more than 80 km around the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Plutonium was found in all samples. Highest found activities (Pu-239 and Pu-240 combined) were 15 becquerels per square meters in Fukushima prefecture and 9.4 Bq in Ibaraki prefecture. Activities of the especially problematic plutonium-241 isotope were not reported, but minimum values can be with some certainty estimated on the basis of the isotope ratio in the reactors, leading to the possibility of contaminations well above 1000 becquerels per square meter.[79][80] Earlier in June, university researchers did detect smaller amounts of plutonium in soil outside the plant after they collected samples during filming by NHK.[81]
                May 19, 2011 found US plutonium contamination levels highest in 20 years. Do scroll down on that link to the RadNet graphs. Very revealing.

                You should broaden your awareness.

                •  Japanese government (0+ / 0-)

                  The ex-skf blog you link to is reporting the Japanese government's measurements. I'd just like to make that clear to start with -- these numbers are coming from a source which you have in the past denigrated and dismissed as corrupt and untrustworthy.

                   From the Japanese Nuclear Safety Commission's report on radioactive materials sampling, dated 1 Dec 2011:

                   "With regard to the measuring results of the  soil collected in Fukushima prefecture between July 13 and October 13, Pu-238 and Pu-239+240 were detected. As for the soil collected at the points except  Okuma-town, it seems that detected Plutonium was not released from Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP, because the ratio of radioactive concentration of Pu-238 to Pu-239 + 240 was  nearly the same as the pre-accident domestic average ratio (0.0261). As for the soil collected  in Okuma-chou, it seems that the detected plutonium was released from Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP, because the ratio of radioactive concentration of Pu-238 to Pu-239+240 was 0.214, that was one digit higher than the national average ratio. "

                   Basically all the Pu they detected (which wasn't much) was in the same ratios as previous pre-accident measurements of Pu contamination of soil in Japan, from atomic weapons explosions carried out from 1945 onwards which has deposited Pu around the world. In one location the ratio was somewhat higher indicating some of the Pu (but not all of it) came from Fukushima.

                   The ex-skf blog presumes that all the Pu reported in the samples is from Fukushima and then makes a wild-assed guess about the amount of Pu-241 that implies. Pity they were wrong, isn't it?

          •  Pure garbage. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            S F Hippie, Sandino

            Here's an exhaustive resource for you, with lots and lots of links to actual studies of uptake, distribution, bioaccumulation and notable health effects of radiocesium -

            Cesium, Radioactive - National Library of Medicine, NIH

            Go ahead and scroll on down almost halfway, to the section entitled "Metabolism/Pharmacokinetics" for the gnarly details.

      •  If the quake caused a misalignment (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, Joieau, bincbom

        of pipes in the coolant system, then those measures dont do squat.

        7 day passive cooling designs vs, trying to make 40 yr old BWRs somwhat safer......

        FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

        by Roger Fox on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 11:42:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A 3 day passive cooling cooling (72 hours) not (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          northstarbarn, Roger Fox, mojo workin

          7 days, only is necessary if onsite diesels generators do not start AND there is not grid power to power the pumps.

          Hardening of intake pumps, fuel tanks, possible relocation, are being tackled now around the world.

          Lessons learned from Fukushima will be incorporated into designs of new plants if they are not already. I say this because the whole passive cooling paradigm was understood to be an issue, that is lost of onsite power by some inability of the diesels to provide cooling water. This is why it's incorporated into various Gen III reactors (AP1000, APR1400, Atema1).

          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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 12:13:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Antis just don't get it... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    northstarbarn, mojo workin

    These countries noted in my dairy (except Kuwait) are moving toward nuclear.

    I've only listed a few of them because they are in the news in the last week!. More are on their way.

    They understand the risks. Nuclear doesn't have to be perfect it has to be better than fossil, which it is, as it's safer. It's better than renewables because it's not intermittent, you know when you build a 1000 MW plant you get 1000 MWs.

    Nuclear is expanding with 60 or so plants under construction in the world. Natural gas is expanding further, in large part because of the needed back up for renewables. This is a 'bad thing, not a good thing'.

    David

    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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 11:12:12 AM PST

    •  And exactly how much (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino

      will these 60 plants - if they ever come on line and no current plants ever get shut down and decommissioned - diminish the CO2 in earth's atmosphere? I know you must have that figure handy, so let's see it.

      •  tens of millions of tons. And that's just (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        northstarbarn

        to start, as another 200 are in various forms of planning. The point, my point, is that it's not enough. We need a full out nuclearization of the energy sector.

        The addition of 60 plants will mitigate whatever CO2 and particulate would be emitted from the only other choice, namely coal and gas. But it's not enough. We need to replace ever GW of fossil with reliable non-fossil. Whatever it takes.

        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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 12:33:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Coal and gas (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino

          are NOT the only choices, David. You just want them to be, because once people realize we don't really need huge, dangerous, water-hogging GigaPlants to meet our needs, they might also realize what an ugly scam this industry is. And go with something else that emits no CO2 at all.

          •  The thing is that people like you keep (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mojo workin

            saying that (and have for the past 30 years) - but when is the magic going to kick in?

            For example, over the past decade for every unit of renewable energy that came on line worldwide for the generation of electricity, 19 units of coal and gas came online.

            Or to put it another way, 95% of new electricity over the past decade was carbon fuel based.

            So we're a HUGE ways away from even meeting  NEW demand with renewables, let alone phasing out existing coal, gas, or for that matter nuclear, power.

            •  um, now? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau
              2011 was still a huge year for deployment [in Europte] — with wind and solar alone representing almost 70% of new capacity.

              That’s almost a 10-fold increase over deployment in 2000, when only 3.5 GW of renewable energy projects were installed. Last year, 32 GW of renewables — mostly wind and solar — were deployed across European countries.

              Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

              by jam on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:27:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, now . . . . (0+ / 0-)

                That's exactly my point, for every unit of "clean" capacity installed, many units of carbon based capacity is built in a less hyped manner, leading to headlines like this:

                From the NYTs: Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

                Global Carbon Emissions Reach Record 10 Billion Tons, Threatening 2 Degree Target

                Fossil Fuel Imports, Use Soar as Japan's Nuclear Fleet Sits Idle

                •  um (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau

                  solar/wind was 70% of installed. So, for every unit of clean capacity installed, 0.43 units of carbon - assuming that the rest was carbon and no nuclear, hydro, or geothermal - was installed. so, to be accurate, your statement should be

                  for every unit of "clean" capacity installed, many tenths of a unit of carbon based capacity is built in a less hyped manner
                  and what's with the scare quotes around "clean"?

                  Since 2008 renewable capacity installations have represented more than half of all new installed capacity.

                  Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                  by jam on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 07:27:02 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  see (0+ / 0-)

                  I was answering your question as in "when will the magic kick in" with "now" - as in, since 2008 more than half of new installs have been renewable (in Europe).

                  Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                  by jam on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 07:29:10 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's only in Europe . .. . (0+ / 0-)

                    and what that means is that half of new generation even in Europe is carbon based.

                    Worldwide the situation is much more dire.

                    maybe a picture is worth a thousand words?

                    In any event, worldwide capacity has been increasing at about 500,000 GWh per year.

                    And the best year ever for renewables saw ~32,000 GWh installed .  ..

                    So things are still getting bad, quickly!  

                    •  in any event (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Joieau

                      First, wind+solar increased by ~260 GWh from 2000 to 2009. Note that nuclear only increased by about 100 GWh, or approximately 2.5 times less.

                      and second, um, no...:

                      And the best year ever for renewables saw ~32,000 GWh installed .  ..
                      Europe installed 32 GW (you don't install GWh, you install GW) in 2011. At a modest 20% capacity factor, thats about 56,000 GWh. And that's "just Europe" as you say.

                      Third:

                      100% of the growth in carbon is from China. Look at the graph on the right that shows coal consumption is flat or down everywhere in the world but Asia/Oceania.

                      so, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here - other than saying that we should all get on board a massive renewable/nuclear deployment today!

                      Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

                      by jam on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 07:59:07 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My point is that people who say that (0+ / 0-)

                        nuclear is not needed because clean/renewables are adequate to replace fossil fuels are sadly misguided.

                        If this were even remotely true, carbon emissions would be trending downward, not rising at all time record fast rates (as I already provided links for above)

                        So while it it good that renewables are being built, the gap between their capacity and total capacity is accelerating.  And that's a huge  environmental crime.

  •  These Diaries Would Be A MUCH Better.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, Sandino

    if you had more balanced coverage of nuclear news.

    The real nuclear news these days is the situation at Fukushima and its worldwide radiological consequences.  Why not cover that, as well as provide other updates on the worldwide radiological and epidemiological consequences of the use of nuclear power?

    If your diaries had this kind of balance, they'd be better received here.  As they stand, the appear to be little more than cheerleading for a dangerous - and dangerously out of touch - industry.

    •  It's a FAIR criticism, Bincbom but in fact I'm (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      northstarbarn, mojo workin

      trying to balance out what in fact remains a media frenzy over Fukushima and whose world wide effects are hardly 'consequences' but do need to be noted. I did note the NYT article today on this very issue, yes?

      I am cheerleading for nuclear as I  see it as the only generation solution for global warming. As this site, being a Democratic Party/Left-of-Center (barely) site I'm here to challenge (as are others of leftist political persuasions) the 'assumptions' about things like Fukushima, Renewables, etc.

      I do, more than others, provide this news in  a straight way, around facts of nuclear expansion. The main reason, bincbom for THIS diary is to challenge the likes of Harvey Wasserman and "Russgirl" who believe, to their own political detriment, that nuclear is 'dead'. They are factually incorrect and live in a fanstay world. I want to discuss with anti-nuclear activists the actual technology and culture of this (political, economic, energy, physics, etc) and not engage in projected beliefs that it's all going to be solar panels and wind mills in the future.

      My diaries actually HELP anti-nuclear bloggers because I call attention to the real state of nuclear energy, most of whom seem to think that no one is building reactors, no money is going toward them, etc etc.

      They, not me, would be more effective if they knew the actual state of their 'enemy' technology and stop, as Russgirl and many others do, screaming 'nuclear is dead, nuclear is dead'. When, in fact, it's just the opposite.

      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 Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 12:20:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Turnabout is fair play, I guess. (0+ / 0-)

    Here we have a diary consisting mostly of news, with a little bit of editorial commentary thrown in. But you wouldn't know it from the vitriolic comments of those who ask not to be descended on in their own separate realm. And whose privacy there has been largely un-infringed upon in recent times, as far as I have seen in my infrequent sojourns there. Hence the ironic subject line.

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Tue Feb 28, 2012 at 06:50:06 PM PST

  •  Some interesting non-nuclear news, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    the fan man

    but still relevant.

    Sarkoszy and Cameron have announced their support for ElecLink, a project to build a 500MW link between UK and France through the Eurotunnel.

    IEA has released a paper on the impact of wind power on European gas markets. I also confirms that wind means a gas lock-in due to the need for rapid ramping of balancing energy.

    •  where do we discuss (0+ / 0-)

      the gas lock-in due to the inability of rapid nuclear ramping to balance energy? Does that go here, too?

      Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

      by jam on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:30:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  huh (0+ / 0-)

      it's actually better than I thought it was:

      As changes in wind output and in electricity demand are not correlated, an increasing wind market share does not significantly change the ramping speeds of residual demand. Only at a high market share (19%) does wind cause faster changes in residual demand.

      Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

      by jam on Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 06:40:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Look, I don't oppose solar or win. I think it's a (0+ / 0-)

    waste of money but if it means some turning down of generation on existing gas and coal plants, not a problem. But the real problem is that they plan more fossil and the reason given by them is the increase in solar and wind where coal and gas are seen as 'bridge tech'.

    Jam and Joeiau think that renewables can do it and based this quite faith-based belief one germany's leap toward increasing renewables. Yet the 'savings' on carbon is "10ths" of a unit, thus the overbuild they need, the hundreds of billions, indeed trillions of dollars is astounding.

    The fact is that gas consumption and the dozens of new gas plants in Germany point to a different direction.

    http://www.iea.org/...

    This is a lively chart of generation in Germany through 2009. We are then missing 2 full years of stats, which would show the yellow, nuclear band, narrowing a lot, and the green, 'renewable' band, widening a little, and coal and gas also widening. And this is the real basis for the charge of fantasy by those that think or even most of the generation can be based on intermittent wind and solar.

    this is why ever gas company, lobby group, etc supports renewables. More renewables means more gas, not less.

    See yesterdays atomic insights on why this is here.

    I'm for replacing the ON DEMAND purple, coal generation, the MAJORITY of Germany's energy, with any non-carbon form generation. I think nuclear wins on every count.

    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 Wed Feb 29, 2012 at 08:52:16 AM PST

    •  You are entitled to your own opinion (0+ / 0-)

      but not your own facts.

      Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

      by jam on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:00:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site