4 ms·

> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster and mentioned that Japan faced a situation where there was a chance

by Herz 2y ago

> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was interviewed about the Fukushima nuclear disaster and mentioned that Japan faced a situation where there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone, including Tokyo, and would have to evacuate. Still, how should a person's opinions have scientific value? The scientific report I linked to comes from the independent committee in charge of the investigation. If you want to assert something, you should start there. I understand you may not have a completely scientific background, but what people say does not necessarily represent reality or have intrinsic worth. Talking about science is not the same as conducting science. Regarding your comment, the article you mentioned seems inaccurate. The original sources of the interviews are these: - https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81G08L/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE81G08L/ - https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-considered-tokyo-evacuation-during-the-nuclear-crisis-report-says.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/world/asia/japan-consider... There is no mention of the Japan Atomic Energy Commission. Rather, it seems that idea came from Yukio Edano: "The report quotes the chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yukio Edano, as having warned that such a 'demonic chain reaction' of plant meltdowns could result in the evacuation of Tokyo, 150 miles to the south." In contrast, the report I shared (page 58) discusses the worst-case scenario commissioned by Kan from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission: "The conclusion was that there was time to spare before a worst-case scenario would be reached, and that for the time being there was no need to reevaluate the current evacuation zones." This completely contradicts what you stated, proving that interviews or people's words should not be taken as truth without evidence. Apart from this way of clinging to quotes based on nothing. Evacuation remains a political issue, and not a nuclear one. > The classic "Chernobyl was only possible in the vodka-drinking derelict USSR" 'explanation' is obsolete: most nations aren't as organized as Japan, and Fukushima exposed that even in such an adequate context a nuclear accident cannot be avoided and, even in a low-impact form, may cause huge damage. A 60-year-old power plant withstood the most powerful earthquake in Japan and failed only due to a tsunami, causing one death. If that's not a demonstration of nuclear power safety, what is? > Nope. I argue that a dam is more robust and gives numerous early signs of failure, whereas a nuclear reactor can quickly transition from 'all systems OK' to 'major accident'. Read the Banqiao dam history (from its building to its demise), and imagine a nuclear reactor in such a context. Below I have posted a risk analysis below that highlights how dams are statistically not as safe compared to other structures. > Which comes from past accidents. Is, in your opinion, enhancing safety thanks to knowledge obtained from accidents useless? It's not useless, but often exaggerated and unscientific. The public and politicians fail to rationally assess radiological risks and do not understand risk aversion. The fear-to-real-danger ratio is much more exaggerated for nuclear technology than for any other modern technology. This inability to relate to other technologies has led to this misunderstanding. Page 171 Chapter 3.5: - https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC125953 https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC1... - https://www.iapsam.org/psam12/proceedings/paper/paper_546_1.pdf https://www.iapsam.org/psam12/proceedings/paper/paper_546_1.... As the figure shows, fatalities per GWh are extremely low for current generation reactors compared to other energy sources. This is simply statistics and the reality of the facts. "An accident at a Generation III nuclear power plant with the consequences shown in Figure 3.5-1 is a highly improbable event. The calculated frequency of such consequences corresponds to about 10^(-10) per reactor year, or once in ten billion years of operation per reactor. However, such a number of fatalities, even if based on very pessimistic assumptions, impacts public perception due to disaster (or risk) aversion." - https://world-nuclear.org/images/articles/recalibrating-risk-report.pdf https://world-nuclear.org/images/articles/recalibrating-risk... - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647278/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647278/ - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/ > The evolution of the production cost of various types of sources is clear: [https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo_2426.png](https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electricity-new-renewables-vs-new-fossil-no-geo_2426.png) https://ourworldindata.org/images/published/Price-of-electri... No, it's not clear at all. 1. This graph shows that hype and investment cause prices to collapse, ignoring incentives (100+ billion per year for renewables). 2. LCOE completely ignores the capacity factor and reliability of various technologies, where renewables fail miserably. 3. It ignores grid costs, overproduction costs, and backup costs, all necessary for renewable energy. 4. Lazard's LCOE calculations take the cost of nuclear power from the most expensive U.S. reactor, which is intellectually dishonest. Page 9 note 1: - https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... - https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/SystemLCOE.pdf https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/publications-1/Syst... - https://usaee.org/aws/USAEE/asset_manager/get_file/526535?ver=0 https://usaee.org/aws/USAEE/asset_manager/get_file/526535?ve... > This is not intrinsic; many nations (even in Western Europe) have built such equipment and are willing and ready to resume doing so. Having the equipment means nothing without the entire production chain, investments, know-how, and affordable labor. In fact, in the Chip industry, where this problem is much more real, and where Europeans build the equipment, however, in the event of a TMSC shutdown due to an invasion, it would be a disaster either way, with repercussions for decades. If China raises prices, imposes tariffs, or halts exports, decarbonizing by 2050 would be impossible. How does this show diversification? China controls the rare earths, cheap labor, and production chain. Changing these factors would exponentially increase costs, making solar panels safe but uneconomic. Not to mention the time it takes to make the transition. I support adoption, research, and development, but producing panels economically to decarbonize by 2050 is impossible in that scenario. - https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ https://enduyghurforcedlabour.org/solar/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_industry_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_industry_in_China - https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Solar-PV-Manufacturing-Aug-29.jpg https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/... - https://prospect.org/downloads/15986/download/MA21%20Fitzgerald%20graphic.jpg?cb=255c185bb8c2a083e6fec63d14477bb8&w=1480&h= https://prospect.org/downloads/15986/download/MA21%20Fitzger... > In most nuclearized Western nations, there is no uranium to mine and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market. False. "Australia is estimated to have the largest reserves, followed by Kazakhstan, Canada, and Russia." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves?useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r... Besides, nuclear fuel is not limited to uranium: - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium_mining&useskin=vector https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uranium_mining&us... The availability and quantity of uranium are not valid arguments.

natmaka 2y ago
>> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was >> there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone > Still, how should a person's opinions have scientific value? It is not about his opinions but about the maximal potential effect of the nuclear accident, as described to him by TEPCO (Japan's nuclear operator) staff. > The scientific report Was established AFTER the accident, using complete and stable data. The Prime Minister had to decide DURING the accident, with partial and sometimes obsolete/volatile available data. Given the extent of the potential max evacuation (reaching up to Tokyo) the (way smaller) evacuation zone defined seem pretty conservative to me. > you may not have a completely scientific background Here you are again. Who will, in your opinion, be convinced by this sort of 'argument'? > the report I shared (page 58) discusses the worst-case scenario commissioned by Kan from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission: "The conclusion was that there was time to spare before a worst-case scenario would be reached, and that for the time being there was no need to reevaluate the current evacuation zones." This is utterly absurd. This conclusion was reached way too late, the report states (same page) that in order to produce this conclusion the experts "finished their work in three days". In your opinion during a major nuclear accident everyone around the plant will quietly sit and wait 3 days? Is it a joke? I already answered: the worst was avoided thanks to sheer luck (some reactors were shut down, some emergency cooling was against all odds possible, winds favorably blew a fair part of the dangerous stuff away...). > A 60-year-old power plant withstood the most powerful earthquake in Japan and failed only due to a tsunami, causing one death. Officially much more deaths (2200+), as already proved, and long-term effects are disputed. Plus huge damage. > If that's not a demonstration of nuclear power safety, what is? This is relative. How many victims would some renewable equipment (a field of wind turbines or solar panels) destroyed by a natural disaster cause? > I have posted a risk analysis below that highlights how dams are statistically not as safe compared to other structures. I answered: this is only valid if retaining the Banqiao dam case while considering that a nuclear reactor exposed to the same challenges wouldn't have caused more damage. > fail to rationally assess radiological risks and do not understand risk aversion. The scientific debate about all this (linear no-threshold, hormesis, bioaccumulation...) rages. > fatalities per GWh are extremely low for current generation reactors compared to other energy sources The real amount of damage on health and biotopes is disputed, moreover a single major accident may bump the figures up (Russian-roulette style). > hype and investment cause prices to collapse, ignoring incentives (100+ billion per year for renewables). > 2. LCOE completely ignores the capacity factor and reliability of various technologies This is less and less a challenge, the way lower LCOE of renewables manages budget to compensate it, and many ways to do so (mainly V2G) use equipment (batteries) which is required whatever the type of energy source (even with an impossible "100% nuclear gridpower" scenario: we need batteries for transportation). > overproduction costs One of the trick is to use the continental grid which is needed even with the "100% nuclear" scenario in order to optimize, reduce the probability of failure, quickly restart after a local failure... Another is to produce green hydrogen for the backup. Result: less and less overproduction. > backup costs Nuclear also needs backup, this is about the amount and nature of it. Amount: storage (batteries) and continental-scale interconnections will reduce it. Nature: it emit less and less unwanted stuff, mainly thanks to green hydrogen. > Lazard's LCOE calculations take the cost of nuclear power from the most expensive U.S. reactor, which is intellectually dishonest. It would be dishonest if other recent or ongoing project in the US was more successful. Which one is? > If China raises prices, imposes tariffs, or halts exports, decarbonizing by 2050 would be impossible. How does this show diversification? This is not intrinsic to renewables, we can decide to enhance our autonomy, then do so. Uranium dependancy is totally different as no one can 'decide' to create local uranium reserves. >> In most nuclearized Western nations, there is no uranium to mine and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market. > False. > "Australia is estimated to have the largest reserves, followed by Kazakhstan, Canada, and Russia." This reinsures the US (anglosphere) and Russia, but doesn't do anything for "most nuclearized Western nations". If uranium becomes scarce most nuclearized Western nations (France, Hungary, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, Finland, Romania, Czech Rep., Sweden, Belgium, Spain...) will have to pray and obey to superpowers. On the other hand even superpowers cannot bar a nation from obtaining energy from the wind or the sun. > nuclear fuel is not limited to uranium: Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none.

by Herz 2y ago

natmaka 2y ago

>> In 2012, ex-prime minister Naoto Kan was >> there was a chance that people might not be able to live in the capital zone > Still, how should a person's opinions have scientific value? It is not about his opinions but about the maximal potential effect of the nuclear accident, as described to him by TEPCO (Japan's nuclear operator) staff. > The scientific report Was established AFTER the accident, using complete and stable data. The Prime Minister had to decide DURING the accident, with partial and sometimes obsolete/volatile available data. Given the extent of the potential max evacuation (reaching up to Tokyo) the (way smaller) evacuation zone defined seem pretty conservative to me. > you may not have a completely scientific background Here you are again. Who will, in your opinion, be convinced by this sort of 'argument'? > the report I shared (page 58) discusses the worst-case scenario commissioned by Kan from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission: "The conclusion was that there was time to spare before a worst-case scenario would be reached, and that for the time being there was no need to reevaluate the current evacuation zones." This is utterly absurd. This conclusion was reached way too late, the report states (same page) that in order to produce this conclusion the experts "finished their work in three days". In your opinion during a major nuclear accident everyone around the plant will quietly sit and wait 3 days? Is it a joke? I already answered: the worst was avoided thanks to sheer luck (some reactors were shut down, some emergency cooling was against all odds possible, winds favorably blew a fair part of the dangerous stuff away...). > A 60-year-old power plant withstood the most powerful earthquake in Japan and failed only due to a tsunami, causing one death. Officially much more deaths (2200+), as already proved, and long-term effects are disputed. Plus huge damage. > If that's not a demonstration of nuclear power safety, what is? This is relative. How many victims would some renewable equipment (a field of wind turbines or solar panels) destroyed by a natural disaster cause? > I have posted a risk analysis below that highlights how dams are statistically not as safe compared to other structures. I answered: this is only valid if retaining the Banqiao dam case while considering that a nuclear reactor exposed to the same challenges wouldn't have caused more damage. > fail to rationally assess radiological risks and do not understand risk aversion. The scientific debate about all this (linear no-threshold, hormesis, bioaccumulation...) rages. > fatalities per GWh are extremely low for current generation reactors compared to other energy sources The real amount of damage on health and biotopes is disputed, moreover a single major accident may bump the figures up (Russian-roulette style). > hype and investment cause prices to collapse, ignoring incentives (100+ billion per year for renewables). > 2. LCOE completely ignores the capacity factor and reliability of various technologies This is less and less a challenge, the way lower LCOE of renewables manages budget to compensate it, and many ways to do so (mainly V2G) use equipment (batteries) which is required whatever the type of energy source (even with an impossible "100% nuclear gridpower" scenario: we need batteries for transportation). > overproduction costs One of the trick is to use the continental grid which is needed even with the "100% nuclear" scenario in order to optimize, reduce the probability of failure, quickly restart after a local failure... Another is to produce green hydrogen for the backup. Result: less and less overproduction. > backup costs Nuclear also needs backup, this is about the amount and nature of it. Amount: storage (batteries) and continental-scale interconnections will reduce it. Nature: it emit less and less unwanted stuff, mainly thanks to green hydrogen. > Lazard's LCOE calculations take the cost of nuclear power from the most expensive U.S. reactor, which is intellectually dishonest. It would be dishonest if other recent or ongoing project in the US was more successful. Which one is? > If China raises prices, imposes tariffs, or halts exports, decarbonizing by 2050 would be impossible. How does this show diversification? This is not intrinsic to renewables, we can decide to enhance our autonomy, then do so. Uranium dependancy is totally different as no one can 'decide' to create local uranium reserves. >> In most nuclearized Western nations, there is no uranium to mine and no existing industrial way to tackle this challenge. Any conflict could disrupt the uranium market. > False. > "Australia is estimated to have the largest reserves, followed by Kazakhstan, Canada, and Russia." This reinsures the US (anglosphere) and Russia, but doesn't do anything for "most nuclearized Western nations". If uranium becomes scarce most nuclearized Western nations (France, Hungary, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK, Finland, Romania, Czech Rep., Sweden, Belgium, Spain...) will have to pray and obey to superpowers. On the other hand even superpowers cannot bar a nation from obtaining energy from the wind or the sun. > nuclear fuel is not limited to uranium: Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none.