5 ms·

A disaster. I'm opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants (still open to possibility of new fusion plants at some in the future) but from an environmen

by ozborn 7y ago

A disaster. I'm opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants (still open to possibility of new fusion plants at some in the future) but from an environmental standpoint it makes far more sense to maintain the existing nuclear plants - at least for now. The biggest drawbacks of nuclear power (expensive and slow plant construction) are off the table with existing plants! Hardening existing plants against possible future catastrophe is probably far cheaper in both economic and human terms than new coal plan construction. Japan already does pretty good job (relatively speaking) with solar power, but it could do much better with the money it will spend on new coal plants if it built more wind power and fixed up existing nuclear plants.

theredbox 7y ago
Misinformed opinions like this always make me so angry. A major industrial power house like Japan or Korea simply has no way of building enough renewable energy sources. It is nonsense.
- bawolff 7y ago
  If you're going to call someone misinformed, i think it would only be fair if you cited sources
  - Melting_Harps 7y ago
    Especially considering how blatantly false it is, Japan is literately covered in volcanoes/hot spring sources; hence why Onsen is such a big part of their culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onsen My cousin is a Mechanical Engineer with a concentration on renewable energy sources, and while at school for his masters he was telling about his professor he was working under who had his work halted after 3/11 (Tsunami and Fukushima meltdown) on exploring the viability of steam powered turbines to offset energy needs for Nuclear, which by the way at its peak never exceed 30%. I as a anti-nuclear activist was dismayed to hear that. It was going well with promising leads, apparently he still needed gather like 3 more years of data to present to the Japanese government before he got grants and permission to move forward with projects and proofs of concept. Sadly, it never happened.
    - cthalupa 7y ago
      That onsen culture is exactly why geothermal is a nonstarter as a panacea for Japan - the sites where people are willing for plants to be constructed are limited and many of them still only allow for small plants. Onsen tourism is the primary source of income for many of these locations and these communities worry that large geothermal plants will kill the tourism industry. There have been a handful of plants opened post Fukushima with more planned, but opposition to large scale geothermal has been fierce in the prefectures that could supply the sites. I'm sure we'll continue to see plants built, but I'll be shocked if it happens on a scale that can reverse Japan from being a net importer of energy.
lispm 7y ago
> maintain the existing nuclear plants In Japan and wait for the next major earthquakes? > Hardening existing plants against possible future catastrophe is probably far cheaper Probably not. That's the case in Japan where several reactors will never be restarted again.
- iso947 7y ago
  Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup.
  - Barrin92 7y ago
    the government of Japan estimates the Fukushima nuclear plant cleanup costs are at least 80 billion dollars, private think tanks have suggested numbers closer to 400-600 billion. The cleanup is going to take 30-40 years, involving a lot of manpower and expertise so one can imagine the additional opportunity cost. Then you can add to this the amount of land that is permanently unusable and the future and current property value destroyed. I think you need to adjust your definition of 'minor problem' a little. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radi...
  - FooHentai 7y ago
    >Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan Earthquake caused the Tsunami. >A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup. "The disaster was the most severe nuclear accident since the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the only other disaster to be given the Level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event Scale." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
    - cthalupa 7y ago
      Realistically, even Chernobyl is more of an economic issue than a loss of human life one. There were 54 immediate deaths, and they believe that up to ~4000 people will die earlier than they would have otherwise due to cancer and other complications from radiation exposure. This sounds like quite a bit, until you realize that in the US alone 13,000 people die every year from cancer and other complications related to exposure from coal pollution. Chernobyl and Fukshima are tragic, but you cannot examine the fallout (literal and figurative) in a vacuum - you must compare it to where things stand today. Much of the world's energy is produced from sources that are far more harmful in normal operation than either were in worst case failure modes. We have significantly better technology for nuclear now, as well. Wind turbines are bad for birds, and really NEED to be placed outside of migration paths. Photovoltaic panels create tons of toxic waste in manufacturing. Concentrated solar plants are pretty great, where they work. Geothermal is great where it can work. We should be exploring all of these where we can, work on further minimizing the downsides and solving the problems - a diverse energy strategy is a good one. But this demonization and avoidance of modern nuclear reactors is nuts, as it is one of the highest energy production options we have. They could make a huge impact in the goal of being carbon neutral. And they could do so in a way that is quite safe, especially compared to existing coal and LNG plants. I think arguing against nuclear is short-sighted and costs us one of our best tools at fighting climate change today.
espadrine 7y ago
This argument causes some of the problems this argument tries to avoid. > I'm opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants The technology involved in nuclear plants has evolved tremendously, both in terms of efficiency and in terms of safety, but the technology of the new generation is fundamentally different. > The biggest drawbacks of nuclear power (expensive and slow plant construction) are off the table with existing plants! Old plants use outdated designs. Nobody would tolerate the 1972 Internet infrastructure nowadays, and yet Chernobyl was created that year, and is still in use. The main reason old plants stick around instead of being replaced is that Greenpeace and Green parties influence each other into lobbying against building correct reactors. Take Superphénix: a French Gen IV reactor started construction twelve years before the Chernobyl accident. Its design is still considered next-gen and highly favorable today. Activists literally fired rocket-propelled grenades at it while it was being built. It got so bad that they had to shut it down. They tried building a similar Gen IV reactor recently, ASTRID, that improved tremendously even compared to the advanced Superphénix, and it got cancelled six months ago because of lobbies. So all that remains are old plants… designs that were essentially initial drafts meant to be replaced by better technology, but that never gets shut down because every replacement gets lobbied against. Those old designs have awful properties, so yeah, we get Chernobyl and Fukushima. We would have had neither if people had let replace the oldest generation. But because of Greenpeace, people died, and fear rose, when all this was unnecessary.
- FooHentai 7y ago
  I don't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor The primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that occurred. How is the reactor design relevant? Also regarding Superphénix, your telling of this seems a bit biased - The rocket attack occurred in 1982 and it was shut down in 1997 by the prime minister due to excessive cost. As for whether fast breeder reactors are 'still considered next-gen and highly favorable' see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix "a group of 80 physicists from the Lyon Physics Institute wrote an open letter about the risks of breeder technology, and in February 1975, about 400 scientists signed their name to an expanded letter."
sremani 7y ago
Japan pretty much imports all of its energy. Its an Island nation with limited flat-land that is densely populated - the Solar production is limited and cannot significantly contribute to its energy needs. Off-shore wind may help, but Japan going forward will assemble one of the most diverse energy portfolios.

by ozborn 7y ago

theredbox 7y ago

Misinformed opinions like this always make me so angry. A major industrial power house like Japan or Korea simply has no way of building enough renewable energy sources. It is nonsense.

bawolff 7y ago
If you're going to call someone misinformed, i think it would only be fair if you cited sources
- Melting_Harps 7y ago
  Especially considering how blatantly false it is, Japan is literately covered in volcanoes/hot spring sources; hence why Onsen is such a big part of their culture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onsen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onsen My cousin is a Mechanical Engineer with a concentration on renewable energy sources, and while at school for his masters he was telling about his professor he was working under who had his work halted after 3/11 (Tsunami and Fukushima meltdown) on exploring the viability of steam powered turbines to offset energy needs for Nuclear, which by the way at its peak never exceed 30%. I as a anti-nuclear activist was dismayed to hear that. It was going well with promising leads, apparently he still needed gather like 3 more years of data to present to the Japanese government before he got grants and permission to move forward with projects and proofs of concept. Sadly, it never happened.
  - cthalupa 7y ago
    That onsen culture is exactly why geothermal is a nonstarter as a panacea for Japan - the sites where people are willing for plants to be constructed are limited and many of them still only allow for small plants. Onsen tourism is the primary source of income for many of these locations and these communities worry that large geothermal plants will kill the tourism industry. There have been a handful of plants opened post Fukushima with more planned, but opposition to large scale geothermal has been fierce in the prefectures that could supply the sites. I'm sure we'll continue to see plants built, but I'll be shocked if it happens on a scale that can reverse Japan from being a net importer of energy.

lispm 7y ago

> maintain the existing nuclear plants In Japan and wait for the next major earthquakes? > Hardening existing plants against possible future catastrophe is probably far cheaper Probably not. That's the case in Japan where several reactors will never be restarted again.

iso947 7y ago
Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup.
- Barrin92 7y ago
  the government of Japan estimates the Fukushima nuclear plant cleanup costs are at least 80 billion dollars, private think tanks have suggested numbers closer to 400-600 billion. The cleanup is going to take 30-40 years, involving a lot of manpower and expertise so one can imagine the additional opportunity cost. Then you can add to this the amount of land that is permanently unusable and the future and current property value destroyed. I think you need to adjust your definition of 'minor problem' a little. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radioactive-rubble-heap-that-was-fukushima-daiichi-7-years-on/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radi...
- FooHentai 7y ago
  >Earthquake hasn’t caused any problems in nuclear plants in Japan Earthquake caused the Tsunami. >A tsunami that killed over 10,000 people caused some minor problems. That’s like saying you got a puncture in a multi car pileup. "The disaster was the most severe nuclear accident since the 26 April 1986 Chernobyl disaster and the only other disaster to be given the Level 7 event classification of the International Nuclear Event Scale." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...
  - cthalupa 7y ago
    Realistically, even Chernobyl is more of an economic issue than a loss of human life one. There were 54 immediate deaths, and they believe that up to ~4000 people will die earlier than they would have otherwise due to cancer and other complications from radiation exposure. This sounds like quite a bit, until you realize that in the US alone 13,000 people die every year from cancer and other complications related to exposure from coal pollution. Chernobyl and Fukshima are tragic, but you cannot examine the fallout (literal and figurative) in a vacuum - you must compare it to where things stand today. Much of the world's energy is produced from sources that are far more harmful in normal operation than either were in worst case failure modes. We have significantly better technology for nuclear now, as well. Wind turbines are bad for birds, and really NEED to be placed outside of migration paths. Photovoltaic panels create tons of toxic waste in manufacturing. Concentrated solar plants are pretty great, where they work. Geothermal is great where it can work. We should be exploring all of these where we can, work on further minimizing the downsides and solving the problems - a diverse energy strategy is a good one. But this demonization and avoidance of modern nuclear reactors is nuts, as it is one of the highest energy production options we have. They could make a huge impact in the goal of being carbon neutral. And they could do so in a way that is quite safe, especially compared to existing coal and LNG plants. I think arguing against nuclear is short-sighted and costs us one of our best tools at fighting climate change today.

espadrine 7y ago

This argument causes some of the problems this argument tries to avoid. > I'm opposed to the construction of new nuclear plants The technology involved in nuclear plants has evolved tremendously, both in terms of efficiency and in terms of safety, but the technology of the new generation is fundamentally different. > The biggest drawbacks of nuclear power (expensive and slow plant construction) are off the table with existing plants! Old plants use outdated designs. Nobody would tolerate the 1972 Internet infrastructure nowadays, and yet Chernobyl was created that year, and is still in use. The main reason old plants stick around instead of being replaced is that Greenpeace and Green parties influence each other into lobbying against building correct reactors. Take Superphénix: a French Gen IV reactor started construction twelve years before the Chernobyl accident. Its design is still considered next-gen and highly favorable today. Activists literally fired rocket-propelled grenades at it while it was being built. It got so bad that they had to shut it down. They tried building a similar Gen IV reactor recently, ASTRID, that improved tremendously even compared to the advanced Superphénix, and it got cancelled six months ago because of lobbies. So all that remains are old plants… designs that were essentially initial drafts meant to be replaced by better technology, but that never gets shut down because every replacement gets lobbied against. Those old designs have awful properties, so yeah, we get Chernobyl and Fukushima. We would have had neither if people had let replace the oldest generation. But because of Greenpeace, people died, and fear rose, when all this was unnecessary.

FooHentai 7y ago
I don't follow what you're saying about 'GEN IV' reactors. AFAIK, that's reactors of a type that won't be online until at least 2030: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor The primary failure at Fukushima was a sea wall too low for the tsunami that occurred. How is the reactor design relevant? Also regarding Superphénix, your telling of this seems a bit biased - The rocket attack occurred in 1982 and it was shut down in 1997 by the prime minister due to excessive cost. As for whether fast breeder reactors are 'still considered next-gen and highly favorable' see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superphénix "a group of 80 physicists from the Lyon Physics Institute wrote an open letter about the risks of breeder technology, and in February 1975, about 400 scientists signed their name to an expanded letter."

sremani 7y ago

Japan pretty much imports all of its energy. Its an Island nation with limited flat-land that is densely populated - the Solar production is limited and cannot significantly contribute to its energy needs. Off-shore wind may help, but Japan going forward will assemble one of the most diverse energy portfolios.