7 ms·

> The Fukushima reactor was damaged by an unprecedented Tsunami that killed 15000 people. Whereas the reactor accident itself killed zero. We don't have Tsunmai

by lispm 3y ago

> The Fukushima reactor was damaged by an unprecedented Tsunami that killed 15000 people. Whereas the reactor accident itself killed zero. We don't have Tsunmais in Europe, and if we ever get one, the reactors will be our smallest problems. Just like the reactor was the smallest problem with the Tsunami in Japan. Oh, and Japan has also pledged to expand its nuclear generating capacity 3-fold. A single earthquake took out the ENTIRE Japanese reactor fleet for many years. Even today many of the reactors are not running, have been closed forever or are not save (-> the affected reactors at Fukushima). 12 reactors have resumed operations, out of 54. If there is a severe earthquake, I bet the surviving people want to have electricity. Zero of the Japanese nuclear power plants produced electricity after the earthquake. Instead they needed electricity&cooling, to not melt. In Fukushima there was not enough cooling, so cores did melt. Now they are needing several decades to keep the melted cores under control. Costs pile up... https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fukushima-cleanup-costs-swell-with-no-end-in-sight https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Fukushima-Anniversary/Fuku... The government has a conservative cost estimate of >200 billion USD for the Fukushima accidents. > Oh, and Japan has also pledged to expand its nuclear generating capacity 3-fold. The Japanese nuclear generating capacity is very low. Less than 1/4 of their reactors are allowed to run. "Japan" here means "the Japanese nuclear industry". "Introducing the current situation in Japan, Uetake (Senior Managing Director of the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF)) said, “Due to the Fukushima Daiichi accident, nuclear power—which had previously accounted for about 30% of total electricity generated in the country—fell to zero percent. However, with 12 years having passed since the accident, some 12 reactors have resumed operations, and another five have passed the new regulatory standards and are preparing to resume operations.” He also pointed out that ten reactors are currently under review, and “if all of them were to be restarted, the total number of reactors in Japan would be 27, or three times the number of nine reactors in operation as of 2020.”" Where your "3-fold" means far below the state of the nuclear industry before Fukushima. 27 reactors are half the number of what they had operating before Fukushima. They have 54 reactors. "3-fold" just means, that they want to restart some of the old reactors.

mpweiher 3y ago
> single earthquake took out the ENTIRE Japanese reactor fleet for many years. Comically incorrect. The Tsunami took out a single reactor. Human overreaction took out the rest of the reactors. Just like human overreaction took out Germany's accident-free, reliable and cost-effective reactor fleet. > Japan" here means "the Japanese nuclear industry". Incorrect. The elected Japanese government. > "3-fold" also means, that they just want to restart some of the old reactors. Interesting interpretation of the 3-fold commitment from Japan. I doubt it's actually a correct interpretation. Let's see: "Japan adopted a plan on Thursday to extend the lifespan of nuclear reactors, replace the old and even build new ones, ..." https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1144990722/japan-nuclear-power-change-fukushima https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1144990722/japan-nuclear-powe... "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct. And that's just one country out of the 22 who signed the pledge. And a bunch didn't sign but are also expanding at a similar rate, for example India and China. Germany's phase out has been a great advertisement for nuclear power.
- lispm 3y ago
  > Comically incorrect. The Tsunami took out a single reactor. If you don't know it, the Fukushima power plant had six reactors. Three reactors had meltdowns. Four of the six reactors were destroyed. The remaining two are in shutdown since then. The Tsunami was caused by a strong (series of) Earthquake. The Earthquake caused shutdowns of nuclear power plants. throughout the country, not just the Tsunami. The fact is, and this is not comical, today only 12 of 54 reactors are running. More than a decade later. > Human overreaction took out the rest of the reactors. That only shows that you are living in an alternate reality, where you are the expert and you know better than the authorities in a country, where the actual event happened. I doubt that you have any more experience of nuclear technology than the authorities in Japan. > "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct. You can't fully read the thing you posted? Look here: "Under the new policy, Japan will also push for the development and construction of "next-generation innovative reactors" to replace about 20 reactors now set for decommissioning." So they will lose 20 reactors. They also want to develop a next generation and deploy it. How many? Doesn't say. When? Doesn't say. What technology? Doesn't say. They say "next generation". Clear: 20 reactors will be decommissioned. Unclear: when and how they want to replace them. Many of the reactors to be decommissioned are probably not even running now, since only 12 reactors are online. My guess: it won't happen. Second guess: if it happens, it'll take >30 years. The "next generation" (then) EPR in France has cost increase estimations between four and six times. Planning and construction is now ongoing for roughly 25 years. (-> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(Kernkraftwerk)#Beginn_der_Entwicklung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(Kernkraftwerk)#Beginn_der... -> "Bereits 1998 wurde das grundsätzliche Design der Anlage festgelegt.") The only thing which is sure: it will be late and extremely expensive. Plus: the decommissioning of 20 reactors will cost > 100 billion USD. Japan is a fast aging country. Where do they get the engineers for all this from? Japan expected to lose 20% of its population until around 2050. > And a bunch didn't sign but are also expanding at a similar rate, for example India and China. In reality China brings two coal power plants per week online. Now. -> https://globalenergymonitor.org/press-release/chinas-coal-power-spree-could-see-over-300-coal-plants-added-before-emissions-peak/ https://globalenergymonitor.org/press-release/chinas-coal-po... India has 3% of electricity production from nuclear. Tripling that over the next decades won't change much. 72% of electricity is generated from coal. Nuclear is too late, too expensive, ... You just need to check the existing capacity for various power plants and the newly built capacity for power plants from the last years. The trend is clear: nuclear stagnates and struggles to replace aging capacity. Renewable energy is massively expanding, world wide.

by lispm 3y ago

mpweiher 3y ago

> single earthquake took out the ENTIRE Japanese reactor fleet for many years. Comically incorrect. The Tsunami took out a single reactor. Human overreaction took out the rest of the reactors. Just like human overreaction took out Germany's accident-free, reliable and cost-effective reactor fleet. > Japan" here means "the Japanese nuclear industry". Incorrect. The elected Japanese government. > "3-fold" also means, that they just want to restart some of the old reactors. Interesting interpretation of the 3-fold commitment from Japan. I doubt it's actually a correct interpretation. Let's see: "Japan adopted a plan on Thursday to extend the lifespan of nuclear reactors, replace the old and even build new ones, ..." https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1144990722/japan-nuclear-power-change-fukushima https://www.npr.org/2022/12/22/1144990722/japan-nuclear-powe... "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct. And that's just one country out of the 22 who signed the pledge. And a bunch didn't sign but are also expanding at a similar rate, for example India and China. Germany's phase out has been a great advertisement for nuclear power.

lispm 3y ago
> Comically incorrect. The Tsunami took out a single reactor. If you don't know it, the Fukushima power plant had six reactors. Three reactors had meltdowns. Four of the six reactors were destroyed. The remaining two are in shutdown since then. The Tsunami was caused by a strong (series of) Earthquake. The Earthquake caused shutdowns of nuclear power plants. throughout the country, not just the Tsunami. The fact is, and this is not comical, today only 12 of 54 reactors are running. More than a decade later. > Human overreaction took out the rest of the reactors. That only shows that you are living in an alternate reality, where you are the expert and you know better than the authorities in a country, where the actual event happened. I doubt that you have any more experience of nuclear technology than the authorities in Japan. > "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct. You can't fully read the thing you posted? Look here: "Under the new policy, Japan will also push for the development and construction of "next-generation innovative reactors" to replace about 20 reactors now set for decommissioning." So they will lose 20 reactors. They also want to develop a next generation and deploy it. How many? Doesn't say. When? Doesn't say. What technology? Doesn't say. They say "next generation". Clear: 20 reactors will be decommissioned. Unclear: when and how they want to replace them. Many of the reactors to be decommissioned are probably not even running now, since only 12 reactors are online. My guess: it won't happen. Second guess: if it happens, it'll take >30 years. The "next generation" (then) EPR in France has cost increase estimations between four and six times. Planning and construction is now ongoing for roughly 25 years. (-> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(Kernkraftwerk)#Beginn_der_Entwicklung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(Kernkraftwerk)#Beginn_der... -> "Bereits 1998 wurde das grundsätzliche Design der Anlage festgelegt.") The only thing which is sure: it will be late and extremely expensive. Plus: the decommissioning of 20 reactors will cost > 100 billion USD. Japan is a fast aging country. Where do they get the engineers for all this from? Japan expected to lose 20% of its population until around 2050. > And a bunch didn't sign but are also expanding at a similar rate, for example India and China. In reality China brings two coal power plants per week online. Now. -> https://globalenergymonitor.org/press-release/chinas-coal-power-spree-could-see-over-300-coal-plants-added-before-emissions-peak/ https://globalenergymonitor.org/press-release/chinas-coal-po... India has 3% of electricity production from nuclear. Tripling that over the next decades won't change much. 72% of electricity is generated from coal. Nuclear is too late, too expensive, ... You just need to check the existing capacity for various power plants and the newly built capacity for power plants from the last years. The trend is clear: nuclear stagnates and struggles to replace aging capacity. Renewable energy is massively expanding, world wide.