6 ms·

> What exactly was your point here? I'm helping you with your own question: I gave you an example where a reactor was not shutdown for 'political reasons'. It

by lispm 3y ago

> What exactly was your point here? I'm helping you with your own question: I gave you an example where a reactor was not shutdown for 'political reasons'. It was shutdown because it was a crap safety design, which almost caused additional meltdowns. > So same kind of plant, same Tsunami, better results. But not good results. The results were still shit: the reactors had be decommissioned. > the Tsunami was unprecedented Was it? Japan sits for several million years on the "ring of fire" with lots of volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis, ... Here is a list of stronger Earthquakes in the last years... https://www.worlddata.info/asia/japan/earthquakes.php https://www.worlddata.info/asia/japan/earthquakes.php The 2011 earthquake was only the strongest in the short recorded time. There are similar strong ones on the list. -> Earthquake under sea cause Tsunami. > Yet despite all that crap going on, very few people were harmed by the reactor accident, whereas a LOT were harmed by the Tsunami. A few 100k people lost their homes. 10k people will work in the reactors with high radiation over the next thirty years. Japan lost >> 100 billions USD worth of electricity production infrastructure. What's worse: they built the reactors knowing that there was a chance of a meltdown, the molten fuel went through the reactor containment and was going into a concrete bed underneath, where it also was melting into it. With the Earthquake creating cracks. But the kicker: they had no idea what to do then. No plans, no technology, no sensors, nothing. They had decades time to prepare. They did nothing. 6 years after the accident they were finally able to measure radiation inside a reactor: 530 Sievert per hour... They were completely clueless what actually happened, because all electronics (sensors, computers, cameras, robots, ...) were useless, because they all were dead because the high radiation. It will take decades to develop the technology to deal with the molten cores themselves. 880 tons of molten nuclear fuel. -> https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfukushima-decommissioning-plans-revised-7581105 https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfukushima-decommissioni... Looks pretty bad, when a single event can take out all their nuclear reactors for years (please don't mention your armchair expert bullshit that it was all politically overreacting on their side).

mpweiher 3y ago
Again, I quoted Wikipedia, just as you did. "Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..." And yes, the shutdown of nuclear reactors was primarily political: Japan Backs Off Of Nuclear Power After Public Outcry https://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136209502/japan-backs-off-of-nuclear-power-after-public-outcry https://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136209502/japan-backs-off-of-... "Kan's decisions to back away from nuclear power came after an unusual number of public demonstrations. " And of course, all this is an irrelevant sideshow. The point is that you claimed nuclear power is on its way out. Except that turns out not to be the case, we have had 22 countries committing to tripling nuclear power. Tripling is not "on the way out". And it turns out that Japan is one of those countries. Something you first denied. Then you claimed they were only reactivating their old reactors. Even if that claim were correct: so what? It's an increase compared to now. But your claim is not correct: they are actually planning to build new plants. And of course Japan is just one country of the 22 (+China+India+...). So again, how is nuclear on the way out? You know what is on its way out? The German Energiewende. A lot of countries were going to follow this model, but most have now reconsidered, and the few that remain are hedging, for example Belgium just extended the life of their reactors. In Switzerland, recent initiatives to turn their reactors off earlier than currently planned were rejected by the electorate, and of course they have >50% reliably hydro power. In fact, the German public also rejects the Energiewende, around 60% say that getting out of nuclear was a mistake. I have a hard time thinking of anything in recent times that got that kind of a majority. Mehrheit ist gegen Atomausstieg https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlandtrend-3357.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan... And as to the sideshow: You found another plant that was affected by the Tsunami (not the earthquake directly), as it was a sister plant of the one that melted down and sited about the same, so inundated by the same unprecedented Tsunami. Now you claim the Tsunami wasn't unprecedented. The Japanese disagree with you, but what do they know? About anything really. You know better than them about their plans for nuclear power, you know better than them about their Tsunamis, you know better than them what the risk/reward of nuclear power is...despite them actually having had to deal with the 2nd worst nuclear accident in history. Coming back to the Tsunami: "It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan,..." "Most powerful ever recorded" sounds pretty unprecedented to me. "The earthquake triggered powerful tsunami waves that may have reached heights of up to 40.5 meters (133 ft) " "Among the factors in the high death toll was the unexpectedly large water surge. The sea walls in several cities had been built to protect against tsunamis of much lower heights. Also, many people caught in the tsunami thought they were on high enough ground to be safe" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsu... So a lot of non-nuclear infrastructure in Japan built specifically to withstand or even protect from Tsunamis was...washed away by this Tsunami. To point a finger exclusively at the nuclear infrastructure that was also washed away is either ignorant or dishonest. 'nuff said.
- lispm 3y ago
  > And of course Japan is just one country of the 22 (+China+India+...). So again, how is nuclear on the way out? Japan has only working 12 reactors. Tripling those will create 36. It had 54. It's just TRYING to catch up. Other countries will have it more difficult, they need to build new ones. That will take decades and will have very little effect on a global scale, while at the same time many reactors are aging. That's with all these numbers, it's hard to believe that you don't understand that there is not one trend to look at, there are several possible trend curves to look at. What you believe is that the most optimistic outlook proposed by the nuclear industry will actually happen. Good luck with that. There are a lot of other trend predictions possible. One would be to just calculate the current trend a bit further. That would show that nuclear fluctuates around zero expansion. I think even that will be optimistic. > "Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..." They still were ALL shutdown. ALL. Not a single one was running for several years. But you know better. Now you can ask yourself why that was? You might think a bit and find out that the "political" argument is both bullshit and not bullshit: a) Politics is responsible to govern a country. In the end it makes the decisions, and not technocrats. That's their responsibility. Politics should govern a country, not the nuclear industry. b) "Withstood" means not that much for nuclear safety. That a reactor "withstood" one event does not mean that it will withstand the next event. To assess damage (and the reactors had damages (just read the story about the Daini reactor), to analyze the event and improve reactor safety. Many reactors had massive safety problems exposed. That's why they were either shutdown or closed. > "It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan,..." Recording is just done for a few years. It shows that such strong earthquakes are possible in Japan. Better prepare for the next one.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Japan was getting out of nuclear altogether. Now it is expanding. Obviously from its current base. They can't expand from some other base than the current one. And once again, Japan is one of 22+ countries expanding, with the goal of tripling by 2050. Maybe in your universe tripling means "getting out of". In the Real World™ it does not. > Not a single one was running for several years. But you know better. What on earth are you talking about? The fact that they were all shut down was never in dispute. However, your claim was that they were all knocked out of operation for years by the earthquake. That was false. SOME were knocked out by the Tsunami. Obviously so and also never in any way in dispute, with the most prominent example the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Again, do you really believe that this was in dispute? However, shutting down ALL of them was a political decision, a simple fact you continue to deny. It was. Again quoting: "Prime Minister Naoto Kan this week persuaded the operators of another nuclear plant west of Tokyo to temporarily close it to make safety improvements. And he is canceling a plan to build more nuclear facilities." "Declining public support for nuclear power appears to be having an impact on Kan's thinking." In what universe is the prime minister persuading operators to close a plant due to declining public support not a political decision? https://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136209502/japan-backs-off-of-nuclear-power-after-public-outcry https://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136209502/japan-backs-off-of-... But you obviously know better. > Recording is just done for a few years. "The Imperial Earthquake Investigation Committee was created in 1892" "In modern times, the catalogues compiled by Tatsuo Usami are considered to provide the most authoritative source of information on historic earthquakes, with the 2003 edition detailing 486 that took place between 416 and 1888" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan Note that they even have estimated magnitudes for these older quakes. So in your universe, 1600+ years is "just a few years". OK. And obviously you know better than the Japanese about their earthquakes. > it's hard to believe that you don't understand that there is not one trend to look at, Sigh. There are obviously multiple trends. Germany is obviously moving in a different direction (or has moved) from the rest of the world. Belgium is also still moving tentatively in the direction of Germany, but even there the momentum has slowed with the decision to postpone the shutdown. Similar in Switzerland. I would not be at all surprised if they also reverse entirely within the next couple of years. However, it is very obviously possible to compare these trends and to combine them to form an overall trend. Just three years ago you would have been correct, the overall trend was away from nuclear, and Germany was at the forefront of the overall trend. This has shifted. Dramatically. The overall trend is now towards more nuclear, not less. And not just hypotheticals, but official and enacted government policy. And Germany is now the outlier. Very clearly. Heck, even the German public has figured out that getting out of safe, reliable and inexpensive nuclear, even with all its problems, was a mistake.

by lispm 3y ago

mpweiher 3y ago

Again, I quoted Wikipedia, just as you did. "Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..." And yes, the shutdown of nuclear reactors was primarily political: Japan Backs Off Of Nuclear Power After Public Outcry https://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136209502/japan-backs-off-of-nuclear-power-after-public-outcry https://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136209502/japan-backs-off-of-... "Kan's decisions to back away from nuclear power came after an unusual number of public demonstrations. " And of course, all this is an irrelevant sideshow. The point is that you claimed nuclear power is on its way out. Except that turns out not to be the case, we have had 22 countries committing to tripling nuclear power. Tripling is not "on the way out". And it turns out that Japan is one of those countries. Something you first denied. Then you claimed they were only reactivating their old reactors. Even if that claim were correct: so what? It's an increase compared to now. But your claim is not correct: they are actually planning to build new plants. And of course Japan is just one country of the 22 (+China+India+...). So again, how is nuclear on the way out? You know what is on its way out? The German Energiewende. A lot of countries were going to follow this model, but most have now reconsidered, and the few that remain are hedging, for example Belgium just extended the life of their reactors. In Switzerland, recent initiatives to turn their reactors off earlier than currently planned were rejected by the electorate, and of course they have >50% reliably hydro power. In fact, the German public also rejects the Energiewende, around 60% say that getting out of nuclear was a mistake. I have a hard time thinking of anything in recent times that got that kind of a majority. Mehrheit ist gegen Atomausstieg https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlandtrend-3357.html https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan... And as to the sideshow: You found another plant that was affected by the Tsunami (not the earthquake directly), as it was a sister plant of the one that melted down and sited about the same, so inundated by the same unprecedented Tsunami. Now you claim the Tsunami wasn't unprecedented. The Japanese disagree with you, but what do they know? About anything really. You know better than them about their plans for nuclear power, you know better than them about their Tsunamis, you know better than them what the risk/reward of nuclear power is...despite them actually having had to deal with the 2nd worst nuclear accident in history. Coming back to the Tsunami: "It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan,..." "Most powerful ever recorded" sounds pretty unprecedented to me. "The earthquake triggered powerful tsunami waves that may have reached heights of up to 40.5 meters (133 ft) " "Among the factors in the high death toll was the unexpectedly large water surge. The sea walls in several cities had been built to protect against tsunamis of much lower heights. Also, many people caught in the tsunami thought they were on high enough ground to be safe" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsu... So a lot of non-nuclear infrastructure in Japan built specifically to withstand or even protect from Tsunamis was...washed away by this Tsunami. To point a finger exclusively at the nuclear infrastructure that was also washed away is either ignorant or dishonest. 'nuff said.

lispm 3y ago
> And of course Japan is just one country of the 22 (+China+India+...). So again, how is nuclear on the way out? Japan has only working 12 reactors. Tripling those will create 36. It had 54. It's just TRYING to catch up. Other countries will have it more difficult, they need to build new ones. That will take decades and will have very little effect on a global scale, while at the same time many reactors are aging. That's with all these numbers, it's hard to believe that you don't understand that there is not one trend to look at, there are several possible trend curves to look at. What you believe is that the most optimistic outlook proposed by the nuclear industry will actually happen. Good luck with that. There are a lot of other trend predictions possible. One would be to just calculate the current trend a bit further. That would show that nuclear fluctuates around zero expansion. I think even that will be optimistic. > "Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..." They still were ALL shutdown. ALL. Not a single one was running for several years. But you know better. Now you can ask yourself why that was? You might think a bit and find out that the "political" argument is both bullshit and not bullshit: a) Politics is responsible to govern a country. In the end it makes the decisions, and not technocrats. That's their responsibility. Politics should govern a country, not the nuclear industry. b) "Withstood" means not that much for nuclear safety. That a reactor "withstood" one event does not mean that it will withstand the next event. To assess damage (and the reactors had damages (just read the story about the Daini reactor), to analyze the event and improve reactor safety. Many reactors had massive safety problems exposed. That's why they were either shutdown or closed. > "It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan,..." Recording is just done for a few years. It shows that such strong earthquakes are possible in Japan. Better prepare for the next one.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  Japan was getting out of nuclear altogether. Now it is expanding. Obviously from its current base. They can't expand from some other base than the current one. And once again, Japan is one of 22+ countries expanding, with the goal of tripling by 2050. Maybe in your universe tripling means "getting out of". In the Real World™ it does not. > Not a single one was running for several years. But you know better. What on earth are you talking about? The fact that they were all shut down was never in dispute. However, your claim was that they were all knocked out of operation for years by the earthquake. That was false. SOME were knocked out by the Tsunami. Obviously so and also never in any way in dispute, with the most prominent example the Fukushima Daiichi plant. Again, do you really believe that this was in dispute? However, shutting down ALL of them was a political decision, a simple fact you continue to deny. It was. Again quoting: "Prime Minister Naoto Kan this week persuaded the operators of another nuclear plant west of Tokyo to temporarily close it to make safety improvements. And he is canceling a plan to build more nuclear facilities." "Declining public support for nuclear power appears to be having an impact on Kan's thinking." In what universe is the prime minister persuading operators to close a plant due to declining public support not a political decision? https://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136209502/japan-backs-off-of-nuclear-power-after-public-outcry https://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136209502/japan-backs-off-of-... But you obviously know better. > Recording is just done for a few years. "The Imperial Earthquake Investigation Committee was created in 1892" "In modern times, the catalogues compiled by Tatsuo Usami are considered to provide the most authoritative source of information on historic earthquakes, with the 2003 edition detailing 486 that took place between 416 and 1888" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan Note that they even have estimated magnitudes for these older quakes. So in your universe, 1600+ years is "just a few years". OK. And obviously you know better than the Japanese about their earthquakes. > it's hard to believe that you don't understand that there is not one trend to look at, Sigh. There are obviously multiple trends. Germany is obviously moving in a different direction (or has moved) from the rest of the world. Belgium is also still moving tentatively in the direction of Germany, but even there the momentum has slowed with the decision to postpone the shutdown. Similar in Switzerland. I would not be at all surprised if they also reverse entirely within the next couple of years. However, it is very obviously possible to compare these trends and to combine them to form an overall trend. Just three years ago you would have been correct, the overall trend was away from nuclear, and Germany was at the forefront of the overall trend. This has shifted. Dramatically. The overall trend is now towards more nuclear, not less. And not just hypotheticals, but official and enacted government policy. And Germany is now the outlier. Very clearly. Heck, even the German public has figured out that getting out of safe, reliable and inexpensive nuclear, even with all its problems, was a mistake.