5 ms·

> No. I was arguing about it being adequate. A decision is always opinion-based. Science explains how the universe works, it explains but does not deliver decis

by Herz 2y ago

> No. I was arguing about it being adequate. A decision is always opinion-based. Science explains how the universe works, it explains but does not deliver decisions. During the accident experts described its worst potentiel effects and therefore the potential largest zone to evacuate and the evacuated zone was far (FAR!) smaller. Just to recap: 2) I quoted the report (took three days) from the most important institutes in Japan, which stated that no further evacuations were necessary. 3) Even the opinions of scientists or experts are not science. These are more informed opinions, yet they are still subject to bias, context, and emotions, especially considering such situation. 4) Can you at least provide evidence for the "experts' description" you mentioned? After several comments, you're still claiming there was a panel of experts who recommended evacuating Tokyo, but so far, you've only linked a fake article with no sources. 5) Since opinions are opinions, and as you say, opinions are human choices, not science, they are largely dependent on the person or group of people making the decision. This demonstrates that it's not the fault of technology but rather human fallibility. I agree with your point that opinions are not science. However, we are still waiting for you to substantiate your claims. > You invoke 'science' and only use rhetorical 'hyperbole'. Your point could be strong if you could exhibit (source!) that the worse potential effects of the accident described by the experts while it was unfolding were strictly impossible. Good luck! I listed the source in the second comment: https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/NAIIC_Eng_Chapter3_web.pdf https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp... > Yes, they are, however nothing is perfect (they also are built to not trigger any major accident...). Nothing is perfect, but we have statistics, risk analysis, and other tools. These are sufficient to understand that nuclear is safe, based on science, not opinions. > Indeed, most of 'risk aversion' here lies in the 'low probability'. Nuclear reactors provide only about 2.2% of final energy, many think that their past mishaps don't really entice us into building many more reactors. Are you serious? Do you know that risk is calculated per GWh or years of operation? I'm sorry, but basic statistics and probability seem to be missing here. > All hypothesis are highly debatable. How? Prove it. Before making a claim, you should provide evidence. Otherwise, it's a completely empty statement. > The solution is know: use adequate membranes (PEM) tolerating intermittency, have only a few centralized plants and let the grid convey to them overproduction from the whole continent (reducing intermittency), have a battery buffer... That's a good point. So the problem of overproduction costs doesn't exist because you can just install batteries, thereby raising the costs. Nice "solution". Funny one. > This is only part of the problem. Interest rate sure bump the total cost up because nuclear project are nearly always (way) late, but the root cause are the reasons for them to lag on. But do you consider it before writing such comments? I linked the article about it before. The inefficiencies start from the lack of economy of scale, little investment, and excessive bureaucracy. A delay in a single piece (made uniquely, since open construction sites in the Western world are few) can halt the entire project. Besides, changing regulations can lead to redesigning certain parts, causing further delays. And delays increase costs because you have to pay salaries even if the work is stopped. It's very simple, but you make it sound like arcane, obscure, unsolvable stuff. Please don't comment on things you don't understand. I linked the article in a past comment, so have the decency to read what I linked before lecturing me on things I've already covered. > No. During the past 10 years they deployed on average 3.3 reactors/years, and nuclear now produces about 5% of their gridpower (renewables: 31%). Those are meek results. The best ones compared to the nuclear quagmire everywhere else, granted, nothing else. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/elec-mix-bar?country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/elec-mix-bar?country=~CHN The fact that nuclear produces 5% and renewables 30% shows that they invested more money in renewables. What exactly are you trying to prove? It's their political choice. > But a single one does so. Please name one. You stated: "Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none." I replied: "CANDU by design can run on thorium." I don't understand. You first state false things and then change the question afterward?

Herz 2y ago
Anyway. I do not intend to continue the discussion. Goodbye.
- natmaka 2y ago
  > 2) I quoted the report (took three days) This is key. During a nuclear accident autorities cannot wait 3 days, then start to evacuate. > 4) Can you at least provide evidence for the "experts' description" you mentioned? After several comments, you're still claiming there was a panel of experts who recommended evacuating Tokyo, but so far, you've only linked a fake article with no sources. This isn't a "fake article with no source". Link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-odyssey-of-naoto-kan-former-japan-prime-minister-during-fukushima/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... Pertinent section: "Kan commissioned a report for the worst-case scenario from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, which confirmed his worst fears: a potential evacuation area reaching as far as 250 kilometers from the stricken power plant—a zone of exclusion that would have reached all the way to Tokyo and affected roughly 50 million people." Numerous other sources exist. PBS, in direct style: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/naoto-kan-japan-was-invaded-by-an-invisible-enemy/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/naoto-kan-japan-w... "I asked people to do a simulation of what could happen. The worst-case scenario was an evacuation of 120 to 190 miles around the plant. If that happened, Tokyo would grind to a halt. Japan would grind to a halt." A local one: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/09/19/national/tokyo-faced-evacuation-scenario-kan/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/09/19/national/tokyo-... Will you dare to write that, in your opinion, the Prime Minister lied? Or that the Japan Atomic Energy Commission erred while elaborating the worst case scenario, or lied to him about it? > 5) Since opinions are opinions, and as you say, opinions are human choices, not science, they are largely dependent on the person or group of people making the decision. This demonstrates that it's not the fault of technology but rather human fallibility. This is just another reason to prefer renewables: no mistake can lead them to trigger a major accident durably endangering remote areas. >> Your point could be strong if you could exhibit (source!) that the worse potential effects of the accident described by the experts while it was unfolding were strictly impossible. Good luck! >> I listed the source in the second comment: https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp... Where (page number, sentence) does this document state that the Japan Atomic Energy Commission assesment of the worst case scenario effects were strictly impossible? >> Yes, they are, however nothing is perfect (they also are built to not trigger any major accident...). > Nothing is perfect, but we have statistics, risk analysis, and other tools. These are sufficient to understand that nuclear is safe, > based on science, not opinions. This is an opinion, and it doesn't counterbalance the fact that renewables free us from such considerations. > Indeed, most of 'risk aversion' here lies in the 'low probability'. Nuclear reactors provide only about 2.2% of final energy, many think that their past mishaps don't really entice us into building many more reactors. > Are you serious? Do you know that risk is calculated per GWh or years of operation? I'm sorry, but basic statistics and probability seem to be missing here. The risk is evaluated by 'reactor.year of operation'. In your opinion the risk tied to a worldwide fleet made of N reactors is equivalent to the risk induced by a fleet made of 2N reactors? >> All hypothesis are highly debatable. > How? Prove it. Please state a pertinent hypothesis which is in your opinion non debatable. ((green hydrogen production, thanks to intermittent renewables)) >> The solution is know: use adequate membranes (PEM) tolerating intermittency, have only a few centralized plants and let the grid convey to them overproduction from the whole continent (reducing intermittency), have a battery buffer... > So the problem of overproduction costs doesn't exist because you can just install batteries, thereby raising the costs. Nice "solution". It is called 'engineering': add things which optimize the whole process. > The inefficiencies start from the lack of economy of scale, little investment, and excessive bureaucracy. This is a mere opinion. 'economy of scale' just cannot work when building the industrial prototype becomes way too painful. I already referenced a pertinent article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... > little investment Where did nuclear suffer from this (please source)?. Surely not in the US nor in France or Russia. > and excessive bureaucracy 'Excessive' here means that, in your opinion, experts of the field failed at recognizing the real value of experience gained from past nuclear incidents. This is laughable. Should they simply ignore them? > A delay in a single piece (made uniquely, since open construction sites in the Western world are few) can halt the entire project. The root cause ("open construction sites in the Western world are few") is the effect of many causes: too much failed (overbudget, over-delay) construction projects, competition from renewables, major blunder at Fukushima showing the "everything is under control" propaganda for what it is, growing concerns about nuclear waste (as industrial breeders failed)... > changing regulations Safety-related requirement changes after recognizing (sometimes after an incident, or worse) that existing ones are insufficient. Do you petition that this is inadequate, that they should be intangible? > It's very simple > but you make it sound like arcane, obscure, unsolvable stuff In your opinion. The whole nuclear industry, worldwide, is federated by a dedicated UN agency (IAEA) and tries hard to overcome those difficulties since the 1980's. You should help them. ((China)) > The fact that nuclear produces 5% and renewables 30% shows that they invested more money in renewables. What exactly are you trying to prove? It's their political choice. You are the one who wrote in this thread: "Building more reactors in parallel can only make production more efficient. In china they are doing excellently.", and I was answering to this. > You stated: "Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none." > I replied: "CANDU by design can run on thorium." I replied: WHERE does an industrial CANDU run without uranium? This is not abut theory, about what may be possible, but about industrial gridpower generation; about what is possible, not about dreams/hopes. Where? There is none. This is not industrial and therefore not a solution. > I do not intend to continue the discussion Runnin' an duckin'

by Herz 2y ago

Herz 2y ago

Anyway. I do not intend to continue the discussion. Goodbye.

natmaka 2y ago
> 2) I quoted the report (took three days) This is key. During a nuclear accident autorities cannot wait 3 days, then start to evacuate. > 4) Can you at least provide evidence for the "experts' description" you mentioned? After several comments, you're still claiming there was a panel of experts who recommended evacuating Tokyo, but so far, you've only linked a fake article with no sources. This isn't a "fake article with no source". Link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-odyssey-of-naoto-kan-former-japan-prime-minister-during-fukushima/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-ody... Pertinent section: "Kan commissioned a report for the worst-case scenario from the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, which confirmed his worst fears: a potential evacuation area reaching as far as 250 kilometers from the stricken power plant—a zone of exclusion that would have reached all the way to Tokyo and affected roughly 50 million people." Numerous other sources exist. PBS, in direct style: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/naoto-kan-japan-was-invaded-by-an-invisible-enemy/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/naoto-kan-japan-w... "I asked people to do a simulation of what could happen. The worst-case scenario was an evacuation of 120 to 190 miles around the plant. If that happened, Tokyo would grind to a halt. Japan would grind to a halt." A local one: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/09/19/national/tokyo-faced-evacuation-scenario-kan/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2011/09/19/national/tokyo-... Will you dare to write that, in your opinion, the Prime Minister lied? Or that the Japan Atomic Energy Commission erred while elaborating the worst case scenario, or lied to him about it? > 5) Since opinions are opinions, and as you say, opinions are human choices, not science, they are largely dependent on the person or group of people making the decision. This demonstrates that it's not the fault of technology but rather human fallibility. This is just another reason to prefer renewables: no mistake can lead them to trigger a major accident durably endangering remote areas. >> Your point could be strong if you could exhibit (source!) that the worse potential effects of the accident described by the experts while it was unfolding were strictly impossible. Good luck! >> I listed the source in the second comment: https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp https://warp.da.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/3856371/naiic.go.jp... Where (page number, sentence) does this document state that the Japan Atomic Energy Commission assesment of the worst case scenario effects were strictly impossible? >> Yes, they are, however nothing is perfect (they also are built to not trigger any major accident...). > Nothing is perfect, but we have statistics, risk analysis, and other tools. These are sufficient to understand that nuclear is safe, > based on science, not opinions. This is an opinion, and it doesn't counterbalance the fact that renewables free us from such considerations. > Indeed, most of 'risk aversion' here lies in the 'low probability'. Nuclear reactors provide only about 2.2% of final energy, many think that their past mishaps don't really entice us into building many more reactors. > Are you serious? Do you know that risk is calculated per GWh or years of operation? I'm sorry, but basic statistics and probability seem to be missing here. The risk is evaluated by 'reactor.year of operation'. In your opinion the risk tied to a worldwide fleet made of N reactors is equivalent to the risk induced by a fleet made of 2N reactors? >> All hypothesis are highly debatable. > How? Prove it. Please state a pertinent hypothesis which is in your opinion non debatable. ((green hydrogen production, thanks to intermittent renewables)) >> The solution is know: use adequate membranes (PEM) tolerating intermittency, have only a few centralized plants and let the grid convey to them overproduction from the whole continent (reducing intermittency), have a battery buffer... > So the problem of overproduction costs doesn't exist because you can just install batteries, thereby raising the costs. Nice "solution". It is called 'engineering': add things which optimize the whole process. > The inefficiencies start from the lack of economy of scale, little investment, and excessive bureaucracy. This is a mere opinion. 'economy of scale' just cannot work when building the industrial prototype becomes way too painful. I already referenced a pertinent article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... > little investment Where did nuclear suffer from this (please source)?. Surely not in the US nor in France or Russia. > and excessive bureaucracy 'Excessive' here means that, in your opinion, experts of the field failed at recognizing the real value of experience gained from past nuclear incidents. This is laughable. Should they simply ignore them? > A delay in a single piece (made uniquely, since open construction sites in the Western world are few) can halt the entire project. The root cause ("open construction sites in the Western world are few") is the effect of many causes: too much failed (overbudget, over-delay) construction projects, competition from renewables, major blunder at Fukushima showing the "everything is under control" propaganda for what it is, growing concerns about nuclear waste (as industrial breeders failed)... > changing regulations Safety-related requirement changes after recognizing (sometimes after an incident, or worse) that existing ones are insufficient. Do you petition that this is inadequate, that they should be intangible? > It's very simple > but you make it sound like arcane, obscure, unsolvable stuff In your opinion. The whole nuclear industry, worldwide, is federated by a dedicated UN agency (IAEA) and tries hard to overcome those difficulties since the 1980's. You should help them. ((China)) > The fact that nuclear produces 5% and renewables 30% shows that they invested more money in renewables. What exactly are you trying to prove? It's their political choice. You are the one who wrote in this thread: "Building more reactors in parallel can only make production more efficient. In china they are doing excellently.", and I was answering to this. > You stated: "Please name a satisfying ready-to-deploy industrial nuclear reactor not needing uranium. There is none." > I replied: "CANDU by design can run on thorium." I replied: WHERE does an industrial CANDU run without uranium? This is not abut theory, about what may be possible, but about industrial gridpower generation; about what is possible, not about dreams/hopes. Where? There is none. This is not industrial and therefore not a solution. > I do not intend to continue the discussion Runnin' an duckin'