3 ms·

Three mile island was due to a pressure valve failure, not a design flaw in the pressure vessel, secondary storage, or steam generators - the components of a re

Three mile island was due to a pressure valve failure, not a design flaw in the pressure vessel, secondary storage, or steam generators - the components of a reactor that form most of the cost of construction. And the reactor meltdown was contained. The safety standards held. I'm not sure how people try and spin this into evidence that the reactors were unsafe. You're correct that the 1970s construction isn't the same as modern construction though. During the 1970s, series of the same reactor designs were built. As opposed to most modern construction, which are typically the only reactors of a given kind built in a given country. Serial production is much cheaper than one-off production. Electrifying railways and other transportation is going to increase electricity usage, not decrease it. Only about a third of total energy consumption is electric, and most of the rest needs to be electrified as a prerequisite to decarbonization. So assuming that electricity consumption is going to decrease is a very dubious prospect.

runarberg 5y ago
I didn’t bring up Three Mile Island to argue that enhanced safety standards back then would have prevented the partial meltdown. I brought it up to demonstrate that it caused a shift in policy which resulted in slow-down in reactor build-up. Three Mile Island happened despite the safety standards at the time. We don’t know the probability distribution of a nuclear meltdown but we can safely assume that it is a function of relevant safety standards and a total number of reactors. USA decided to mitigate the risk by both limiting the growth of new reactors and increasing the standard. This was a logical choice. If USA had done neither other accidents would be happening now with greater probability then it did in the 1970s.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  The point I'm making is that the increased cost of nuclear wasn't due to greater safety standards. It was due to lower rates of construction, losing the economics of scale of serial production.
  - runarberg 5y ago
    I’m backtracking the debate here so feel free to ignore this. I just watched the latest Technology Connections video about heat pumps[1] where he talks about the total energy savings in replacing gas stoves with heat pumps to provide residential heating, with total energy savings up to 5 times. This goes to show my previous point about how “[w]e don’t need to replace carbon power 1:1 if we patch up the inefficiencies of our current energy use.” So to answer your concern that: > Electrifying railways and other transportation is going to increase electricity usage, not decrease it. All else being equal, yes. However we are not going to replace the energy consumption 1:1. Electrical railways have the potential to be far more efficient in the energy use. Especially if you consider the potential increase in traction allowing better track usage which will pull super inefficient cars and lorries from the road and onto the tracks. Also a minor correction: > So assuming that electricity consumption is going to decrease is a very dubious prospect. No, I don’t assume that. However I am hopeful that we can easily decrease our total energy consumption as we electrify. Meaning that if we are still pumping gas to put into our newly electrified infrastructure and consumer systems, there is a potential that we need to pump less of it for the same benefits because of how much more efficient these new electrified systems are over the old fossil fuel powered ones. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEHFsO-XSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEHFsO-XSI
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      Even if heat pumps are more efficient, replacing gas heating with heat pumps (like what much of Germany is going to have to do) is still an increase in electrical load. Similarly with railway. Electric rail engines may be more efficient, but the existing diesel engines are totally unrepresented in current electrical load. Even if total energy consumption goes down, huge amounts of fossil fuel usage in transportation and industry needs to be electrifed. The fact that they may be more efficient doesn't change the fact that they are totally unrepresented in current electrical energy usage. I stand by my point: decarbonization means our electricity usage is going to grow significantly as existing fuel-based energy is converted to electrical energy input.

runarberg 5y ago

I didn’t bring up Three Mile Island to argue that enhanced safety standards back then would have prevented the partial meltdown. I brought it up to demonstrate that it caused a shift in policy which resulted in slow-down in reactor build-up. Three Mile Island happened despite the safety standards at the time. We don’t know the probability distribution of a nuclear meltdown but we can safely assume that it is a function of relevant safety standards and a total number of reactors. USA decided to mitigate the risk by both limiting the growth of new reactors and increasing the standard. This was a logical choice. If USA had done neither other accidents would be happening now with greater probability then it did in the 1970s.

Manuel_D 5y ago
The point I'm making is that the increased cost of nuclear wasn't due to greater safety standards. It was due to lower rates of construction, losing the economics of scale of serial production.
- runarberg 5y ago
  I’m backtracking the debate here so feel free to ignore this. I just watched the latest Technology Connections video about heat pumps[1] where he talks about the total energy savings in replacing gas stoves with heat pumps to provide residential heating, with total energy savings up to 5 times. This goes to show my previous point about how “[w]e don’t need to replace carbon power 1:1 if we patch up the inefficiencies of our current energy use.” So to answer your concern that: > Electrifying railways and other transportation is going to increase electricity usage, not decrease it. All else being equal, yes. However we are not going to replace the energy consumption 1:1. Electrical railways have the potential to be far more efficient in the energy use. Especially if you consider the potential increase in traction allowing better track usage which will pull super inefficient cars and lorries from the road and onto the tracks. Also a minor correction: > So assuming that electricity consumption is going to decrease is a very dubious prospect. No, I don’t assume that. However I am hopeful that we can easily decrease our total energy consumption as we electrify. Meaning that if we are still pumping gas to put into our newly electrified infrastructure and consumer systems, there is a potential that we need to pump less of it for the same benefits because of how much more efficient these new electrified systems are over the old fossil fuel powered ones. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEHFsO-XSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFEHFsO-XSI
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    Even if heat pumps are more efficient, replacing gas heating with heat pumps (like what much of Germany is going to have to do) is still an increase in electrical load. Similarly with railway. Electric rail engines may be more efficient, but the existing diesel engines are totally unrepresented in current electrical load. Even if total energy consumption goes down, huge amounts of fossil fuel usage in transportation and industry needs to be electrifed. The fact that they may be more efficient doesn't change the fact that they are totally unrepresented in current electrical energy usage. I stand by my point: decarbonization means our electricity usage is going to grow significantly as existing fuel-based energy is converted to electrical energy input.