5 ms·

Fukushima has demonstrated that relying on 60's technology and refusing to upgrade or invest because of political sensitivities exposes you to disasters 50 year

Fukushima has demonstrated that relying on 60's technology and refusing to upgrade or invest because of political sensitivities exposes you to disasters 50 years down the line. It's like if everyone got afraid of airplanes in the 1980's and kept flying the same ones from the 60s through today because people were afraid to build new ones. Would you say air travel was unsafe, or that we made poor technology investments?

lispm 10y ago
Now you understand a tiny part of the Energy business. 'Nuclear' is not only a technical problem, it is a financial problem. Old plants will be run until they collapse - unless a regulator keeps the companies from doing that. But then the regulator comes onto pressure, because there is huge amount of money/corruption involved to keep the plant online. Every single plant is a multi-billion dollar investment, jobs, surrounding industry, ... Tepco from Fukushima claimed until the day their plants were hit, that everything was totally safe. Politics supported them. Nobody was questioning them.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  Yes, and despite the technical failings, the political failings and the corruption, the effects were comparatively benign.
  - sfifs 10y ago
    Possibly to you sitting on the other side of the world. Not so for the thousands of people displaced who lost their homes and communities through no fault of their own and might be exposed to higher cancer rates in their lifetimes.
    - mpweiher 10y ago
      Yes, the evacuation zone almost certainly should have been smaller, that's one of the perverse effects of the panic about nuclear, that the mitigation efforts tend to be overblown (not that they should be zero), and therefore the damage from the mitigation much worse than it needs to be. But you missed the word "comparatively". We have lots of human-/technology-induced deaths and injuries. We allow car traffic in our cities at speeds that kills and maims thousands, often children. These are completely avoidable, just lower speed limits to 5mph or less. The US allows more than ten thousand gun deaths every year, because "reasons". etc. etc. So yes, the effects were comparatively benign, compared to most of the technology we surround ourselves with, and certainly compared to all power-generating technologies we have (including solar). Not absolutely benign, though it would be interesting to compare the damage even of accidents like Fukushima to the benefits (in lives saved) of the electricity that was produced.
      - petre 10y ago
        There are people who have returned to their old residences inside the Chernobyl danger zone and they're doing just fine.
  - lispm 10y ago
    Right, it will cost only a few hundred billion dollars, maybe a trillion, to clean up the effects from the earthquake on the nuclear power plants. The country lost most of their nuclear power plants in a single day. It takes years, if not decades to bring them back online - partly. 50 plants. Each worth, say, ten billion dollar (current worth and future earnings - just an estimate). That loss alone goes into the hundreds of billions. Additionally fuel had to be imported, other plants had to be built. 'Currently 42 reactors are operable and potentially able to restart, and 24 of these are in the process of restart approvals. The first two restarted in August and October 2015.' Six years after the earthquake/tsunami. Only a few ten thousand people, maybe a hundred thousand, will work in Fukushima under extreme circumstances to keep the site stable and clean it up the site for the next five decades. Robots die regularly after a short time inside the reactors. Humans get a year worth radioactive exposure in a few hours. Where to get all the people needed to work there? We have experience to dismantle functioning reactors. Here we have damaged reactors with damaged fuel... Very little effects... I don't think so. The effects were much more severe than the industry thought. They were thinking that most of the reactors would operate again, by now. World-wide reactor projects were seeing delays. Companies have a hard time to survive. All these are effects of a single earthquake/tsunami on the nuclear reactor industry. It's a huge financial catastrophe for the nuclear industry and the countries financing it.
    - mpweiher 10y ago
      Right, what you describe are largely the effects of the overreaction, as I was describing elsewhere. There was no actual need to shut down the other plants, etc.
      - lispm 10y ago
        > There was no actual need to shut down the other plants, etc That's your personal opinion. I think it's naive, because you had actually no idea in what state the other reactors were. The OFFICIAL REGULATION AUTHORITIES for nuclear safety in Japan had a different opinion. Some plants had damages, were shutdown because of the earthquake, every plant needed inspections and every plant needed full safety reviews. That it takes so long to bring some of the reactors back shows that there are lots of doubts about their safety and the industry will need to do more than just say 'there was no need to shut them down' - nobody believes that. Here you can find a good overview what the authorities are doing and when reactors might be restarted - if at all: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro... Japan sits on a seismic very active region and severe earthquakes and tsunamis happen. It's only logical after such damage to question the whole safety architecture. Are the spend fuel pools in similar unfortunate positions? Are they full, too? What happens at complete loss of outside electricity? Are the reactors able to safely shutdown then, unlike Fukushima? Can the spent fuel pools be cooled? Are there instruments in the reactor able to survive massive damage in an earth quake? There are many many questions which have not been asked for a decade, because the consequences would have been costly upgrades and even the shutdown of reactors - for example those sitting near fault lines. Given that the nuclear industry in Japan is corrupt and runs very old reactors with severe design mistakes, I think it is only justified to shut down the industry for a full review. That would also include the whole network of politicians, research, industry, utilities, ...
- danmaz74 10y ago
  The OP was talking specifically about closing existing plants before they reach their "end of life" date though.
  - lispm 10y ago
    Fukushima Daiichi 1 just go a ten year life extension in feb 2011. A few days later it was a multi-billion-dollar wreck. Not at 'end of life' obviously does not mean 'safe to operate'. 'end of life' is also not a fixed date. Once the initial 'end of life' date comes, the owner will see how to get a life extension. Fukushima Daiichi 1 had an inspection, some upgrades, got the life extension. Following month this was one of most costly decisions ever made in industry.
jacobush 10y ago
Actually, none of what you said refutes the parent post, rather proves the point. Humans as a group have demonstrated a lack of maturity handling nuclear power.
- throwanem 10y ago
  A lack of maturity by what standard? When we say such things of an individual, we do so by comparison with other individuals. With whom do you compare our entire species?
  - jacobush 10y ago
    I can at best give you a circular (or spiral, given that generations pass) argument: nuclear has not demonstrated that it has a great appeal to current stock of humans.
    - AstralStorm 10y ago
      It didn't because humans are not rational and bad press is highly overblown. Mostly because of link to weapons of mass destruction I suppose. Nobody says anything about the health and ecological disaster that is coal and oil. People do not attribute mining deaths to it and are bad at linking long term chronic health effects to them. A red herring of solar and wind is proposed that people haven't rejected due to outages thanks to the other technologies covering its major drawbacks. Likewise hydro disasters are not covered as much as they should.
- ageofwant 10y ago
  And demonstrated maturity by burning coal that as part of normal predictable operations kills thousands a year? Humans' continous insistence on burning coal instead of thorium may well be our Fermi filter.
  - jacobush 10y ago
    Of course not. Demonstrated even MORE immaturity by burning coal. Aliens discussing us: "are the earthlings burning coal for fuel? I thought you said they couldn't even handle nuclear fission?" "Yes dear Sklaar, it's even worse than we thought. Can you believe where they put the exhaust? Straight into the atmosphere!" And so it happened that Earth was put into another 1000 years of no-contact-policy at the latest board of review, kids...
mpweiher 10y ago
And even with all of these obvious and avoidable mistakes, there were no fatalities. In fact, it was Fukushima that turned me around on nuclear. I always thought that the risks were just too great, that if you weren't perfect there would be disasters of unimaginable proportions. And humans just aren't perfect. I was wrong. Well, not on the last bit :-)

lispm 10y ago

Now you understand a tiny part of the Energy business. 'Nuclear' is not only a technical problem, it is a financial problem. Old plants will be run until they collapse - unless a regulator keeps the companies from doing that. But then the regulator comes onto pressure, because there is huge amount of money/corruption involved to keep the plant online. Every single plant is a multi-billion dollar investment, jobs, surrounding industry, ... Tepco from Fukushima claimed until the day their plants were hit, that everything was totally safe. Politics supported them. Nobody was questioning them.

mpweiher 10y ago
Yes, and despite the technical failings, the political failings and the corruption, the effects were comparatively benign.
- sfifs 10y ago
  Possibly to you sitting on the other side of the world. Not so for the thousands of people displaced who lost their homes and communities through no fault of their own and might be exposed to higher cancer rates in their lifetimes.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    Yes, the evacuation zone almost certainly should have been smaller, that's one of the perverse effects of the panic about nuclear, that the mitigation efforts tend to be overblown (not that they should be zero), and therefore the damage from the mitigation much worse than it needs to be. But you missed the word "comparatively". We have lots of human-/technology-induced deaths and injuries. We allow car traffic in our cities at speeds that kills and maims thousands, often children. These are completely avoidable, just lower speed limits to 5mph or less. The US allows more than ten thousand gun deaths every year, because "reasons". etc. etc. So yes, the effects were comparatively benign, compared to most of the technology we surround ourselves with, and certainly compared to all power-generating technologies we have (including solar). Not absolutely benign, though it would be interesting to compare the damage even of accidents like Fukushima to the benefits (in lives saved) of the electricity that was produced.
    - petre 10y ago
      There are people who have returned to their old residences inside the Chernobyl danger zone and they're doing just fine.
- lispm 10y ago
  Right, it will cost only a few hundred billion dollars, maybe a trillion, to clean up the effects from the earthquake on the nuclear power plants. The country lost most of their nuclear power plants in a single day. It takes years, if not decades to bring them back online - partly. 50 plants. Each worth, say, ten billion dollar (current worth and future earnings - just an estimate). That loss alone goes into the hundreds of billions. Additionally fuel had to be imported, other plants had to be built. 'Currently 42 reactors are operable and potentially able to restart, and 24 of these are in the process of restart approvals. The first two restarted in August and October 2015.' Six years after the earthquake/tsunami. Only a few ten thousand people, maybe a hundred thousand, will work in Fukushima under extreme circumstances to keep the site stable and clean it up the site for the next five decades. Robots die regularly after a short time inside the reactors. Humans get a year worth radioactive exposure in a few hours. Where to get all the people needed to work there? We have experience to dismantle functioning reactors. Here we have damaged reactors with damaged fuel... Very little effects... I don't think so. The effects were much more severe than the industry thought. They were thinking that most of the reactors would operate again, by now. World-wide reactor projects were seeing delays. Companies have a hard time to survive. All these are effects of a single earthquake/tsunami on the nuclear reactor industry. It's a huge financial catastrophe for the nuclear industry and the countries financing it.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    Right, what you describe are largely the effects of the overreaction, as I was describing elsewhere. There was no actual need to shut down the other plants, etc.
    - lispm 10y ago
      > There was no actual need to shut down the other plants, etc That's your personal opinion. I think it's naive, because you had actually no idea in what state the other reactors were. The OFFICIAL REGULATION AUTHORITIES for nuclear safety in Japan had a different opinion. Some plants had damages, were shutdown because of the earthquake, every plant needed inspections and every plant needed full safety reviews. That it takes so long to bring some of the reactors back shows that there are lots of doubts about their safety and the industry will need to do more than just say 'there was no need to shut them down' - nobody believes that. Here you can find a good overview what the authorities are doing and when reactors might be restarted - if at all: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/japan-nuclear-power.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro... Japan sits on a seismic very active region and severe earthquakes and tsunamis happen. It's only logical after such damage to question the whole safety architecture. Are the spend fuel pools in similar unfortunate positions? Are they full, too? What happens at complete loss of outside electricity? Are the reactors able to safely shutdown then, unlike Fukushima? Can the spent fuel pools be cooled? Are there instruments in the reactor able to survive massive damage in an earth quake? There are many many questions which have not been asked for a decade, because the consequences would have been costly upgrades and even the shutdown of reactors - for example those sitting near fault lines. Given that the nuclear industry in Japan is corrupt and runs very old reactors with severe design mistakes, I think it is only justified to shut down the industry for a full review. That would also include the whole network of politicians, research, industry, utilities, ...
danmaz74 10y ago
The OP was talking specifically about closing existing plants before they reach their "end of life" date though.
- lispm 10y ago
  Fukushima Daiichi 1 just go a ten year life extension in feb 2011. A few days later it was a multi-billion-dollar wreck. Not at 'end of life' obviously does not mean 'safe to operate'. 'end of life' is also not a fixed date. Once the initial 'end of life' date comes, the owner will see how to get a life extension. Fukushima Daiichi 1 had an inspection, some upgrades, got the life extension. Following month this was one of most costly decisions ever made in industry.

jacobush 10y ago

Actually, none of what you said refutes the parent post, rather proves the point. Humans as a group have demonstrated a lack of maturity handling nuclear power.

throwanem 10y ago
A lack of maturity by what standard? When we say such things of an individual, we do so by comparison with other individuals. With whom do you compare our entire species?
- jacobush 10y ago
  I can at best give you a circular (or spiral, given that generations pass) argument: nuclear has not demonstrated that it has a great appeal to current stock of humans.
  - AstralStorm 10y ago
    It didn't because humans are not rational and bad press is highly overblown. Mostly because of link to weapons of mass destruction I suppose. Nobody says anything about the health and ecological disaster that is coal and oil. People do not attribute mining deaths to it and are bad at linking long term chronic health effects to them. A red herring of solar and wind is proposed that people haven't rejected due to outages thanks to the other technologies covering its major drawbacks. Likewise hydro disasters are not covered as much as they should.
ageofwant 10y ago
And demonstrated maturity by burning coal that as part of normal predictable operations kills thousands a year? Humans' continous insistence on burning coal instead of thorium may well be our Fermi filter.
- jacobush 10y ago
  Of course not. Demonstrated even MORE immaturity by burning coal. Aliens discussing us: "are the earthlings burning coal for fuel? I thought you said they couldn't even handle nuclear fission?" "Yes dear Sklaar, it's even worse than we thought. Can you believe where they put the exhaust? Straight into the atmosphere!" And so it happened that Earth was put into another 1000 years of no-contact-policy at the latest board of review, kids...

mpweiher 10y ago

And even with all of these obvious and avoidable mistakes, there were no fatalities. In fact, it was Fukushima that turned me around on nuclear. I always thought that the risks were just too great, that if you weren't perfect there would be disasters of unimaginable proportions. And humans just aren't perfect. I was wrong. Well, not on the last bit :-)