If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Trust.org)   Getting tired of an impasse that has been going on since 2011, Japan plans to fire up a few reactors at Fukushima and see what happens   (trust.org) divider line 21
    More: Followup, Fukushima Daiichi, Japan, nuclear reactors  
•       •       •

986 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Feb 2014 at 9:15 AM (20 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-19 08:51:49 AM
Japan is looking to restart OTHER reactors in the country, not the ones at Fukushima.
 
2014-02-19 09:27:41 AM
Ignoring the fact that the headline is completely false, I'd put my money on "they'll generate electricity".

NUCLEAR! OOGIE BOOGIE!

Nuclear opposition is one of the dumbest things you can be on board with. It's one of those "issues" where the occasional BIG SCARY LOUD EVENT that kills a few people is treated as if it's somehow worse than the slow, quiet trickle of death that typifies alternatives.

Ignoring the constant deaths and pollution in coal, oil and natural gas while screaming and clutching your pearls because of the rare nuclear accident that results in significant pollution, injury and/or death at the same - or in most cases LOWER - overall impact is just plain retarded.

/ yea, yea, wind and solar are the magic bullet
// and in the meantime our transition fuel can be unicorn farts
 
2014-02-19 09:45:47 AM
They'll boil water?
 
2014-02-19 10:02:17 AM
Fukushima2: Nuclear Boogaloo?
 
2014-02-19 10:17:20 AM

skozlaw: NUCLEAR! OOGIE BOOGIE!


The tech is never going to get past the fact that it shares a name and basic mechanism with the most destructive, terrifying weapons on the planet.  We can pretend it's because people don't understand reactors, radiation safety, fatality rates, and the energy crisis, but it all comes down to a mental association people have: nuclear=boom.

There isn't a rational case against nuclear.
 
2014-02-19 10:29:16 AM

ikanreed: skozlaw: NUCLEAR! OOGIE BOOGIE!

The tech is never going to get past the fact that it shares a name and basic mechanism with the most destructive, terrifying weapons on the planet.  We can pretend it's because people don't understand reactors, radiation safety, fatality rates, and the energy crisis, but it all comes down to a mental association people have: nuclear=boom.

There isn't a rational case against nuclear.


The waste?
 
2014-02-19 10:33:34 AM
skozlaw:
Nuclear opposition is one of the dumbest things you can be on board with. It's one of those "issues" where the occasional BIG SCARY LOUD EVENT that kills a few people is treated as if it's somehow worse than the slow, quiet trickle of death that typifies alternatives.

And interestingly enough, there has only ever been one BIG SCARY LOUD EVENT that actually ended up in radiation-related fatalities (Chernobyl). There isn't even solid evidence of anyone even being sickened by the radiation from Fukushima, no matter how many misleading scary "radiation spreading" pictures people post on Facebook.
 
2014-02-19 10:37:40 AM
neversubmit:
The waste?

Nuclear: a small amount of waste, contained and sequestered in a specifically-chosen secure area
Coal: constantly belch out tons of waste into the air we breathe.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with nuclear waste here
 
2014-02-19 10:51:57 AM

ikanreed: skozlaw: NUCLEAR! OOGIE BOOGIE!

The tech is never going to get past the fact that it shares a name and basic mechanism with the most destructive, terrifying weapons on the planet.  We can pretend it's because people don't understand reactors, radiation safety, fatality rates, and the energy crisis, but it all comes down to a mental association people have: nuclear=boom.

There isn't a rational case against nuclear.




Easy. It costs too much to build a modern nuclear plant, especially when compared to the alternatives. Nuclear is the only source of energy that Wall Street is unwilling to invest in on its own, so the industry needs the government to guarantee every cent of every loan and then has a specific regulation, limiting potential liability for the owners/investors and placing the taxpayers with almost all the risk. But you know, go nuclear!
 
2014-02-19 10:54:10 AM

XMark: neversubmit:
The waste?

Nuclear: a small amount of waste, contained and sequestered in a specifically-chosen secure area
Coal: constantly belch out tons of waste into the air we breathe.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with nuclear waste here


Why not both? We are going to get them anyways.
 
2014-02-19 11:07:12 AM

MrSteve007: Easy. It costs too much to build a modern nuclear plant, especially when compared to the alternatives. Nuclear is the only source of energy that Wall Street is unwilling to invest in on its own, so the industry needs the government to guarantee every cent of every loan and then has a specific regulation, limiting potential liability for the owners/investors and placing the taxpayers with almost all the risk. But you know, go nuclear!


Nobody's talking about the economics of new plants and the large capital outlays required. The story isn't even about building plants, it's about restarting existing plants.

But, please, continue with your needless pedantry because technically he made an impromptu comment in an informal discussion that when divorced from all other context surrounding it justifies the argument you proffered.
 
2014-02-19 11:08:31 AM
smoke 'em if you got 'em
 
2014-02-19 12:02:11 PM

XMark: skozlaw:
Nuclear opposition is one of the dumbest things you can be on board with. It's one of those "issues" where the occasional BIG SCARY LOUD EVENT that kills a few people is treated as if it's somehow worse than the slow, quiet trickle of death that typifies alternatives.

And interestingly enough, there has only ever been one BIG SCARY LOUD EVENT that actually ended up in radiation-related fatalities (Chernobyl). There isn't even solid evidence of anyone even being sickened by the radiation from Fukushima, no matter how many misleading scary "radiation spreading" pictures people post on Facebook.


Yeah, because it was a) built in a rural area on purpose and b) they moved everyone that lived in potentially dangerous areas out when they set up an exclusion zone.

Very convenient that the pro-nuke folks forget that exclusion zones exist and are put up to prevent deaths. Is it acceptable if nobody dies but you have to fence off a ton of land for generations? I guess it is for you guys.
 
2014-02-19 01:07:54 PM

MrSteve007: ikanreed: skozlaw: NUCLEAR! OOGIE BOOGIE!

The tech is never going to get past the fact that it shares a name and basic mechanism with the most destructive, terrifying weapons on the planet.  We can pretend it's because people don't understand reactors, radiation safety, fatality rates, and the energy crisis, but it all comes down to a mental association people have: nuclear=boom.

There isn't a rational case against nuclear.

Easy. It costs too much to build a modern nuclear plant, especially when compared to the alternatives. Nuclear is the only source of energy that Wall Street is unwilling to invest in on its own, so the industry needs the government to guarantee every cent of every loan and then has a specific regulation, limiting potential liability for the owners/investors and placing the taxpayers with almost all the risk. But you know, go nuclear!



I have done some research on this and have found that based on the cost per Kilowatt-Hour, Nuclear plants are much cheaper than wind and solar. The only power sources that can give a cheaper output based on the initial investment are coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric. The main reason companies don't invest in it is due to the stigma against nuclear and the potential possibility that some president in the future is going to go full retard and order the closure of all nuke plants in the US, much like California did to the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
 
2014-02-19 01:21:46 PM

adamatari: Is it acceptable if nobody dies but you have to fence off a ton of land for generations?


I don't know. You want to talk about the couple hundred Superfund sites caused by coal, oil and natural gas production so we have a basis for comparison or are we just going to pretend they don't exist so you can pretend you're making a very intelligent point?
 
2014-02-19 03:16:19 PM
And that's how Pacific Rim came to be.
 
2014-02-19 04:25:27 PM
Japanese government to citizens: Fuku
 
2014-02-19 04:56:29 PM

Eskaminagaga: I have done some research on this and have found that based on the cost per Kilowatt-Hour, Nuclear plants are much cheaper than wind and solar. The only power sources that can give a cheaper output based on the initial investment are coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric.

You might want to re-research that. The latest numbers from the US Department of Energy concerning the building of new power generation sources, taking into account, incentives/rebates capacity factor, transmission investments, capital costs, plant lifetimes, fuel cost and operations costs, has come to this conclusion:

Cheapest to more expensive, per MWh:

Nat Gas: $67-130 (depending on technology used)
Wind: $86
Geothermal: $90

Hydro: $90
Coal: $100-135 (depending on technology used)
Nuclear: $108
Solar PV: $144
Wind, offshore: $221
Solar Thermal: $261

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

With PV prices falling at a rate of roughly 50% every 3-years, I'd expect PV to surpass nuclear in cost effectiveness within a very short amount of time. Unless researchers can hustle to dramatically drop the cost of building and operating a nuclear plant by tomorrow, the industry in the US should start to focus on preparation of mothballing it's aging reactor inventory and finding proper disposal of it's high level waste.
 
2014-02-19 05:53:42 PM

MrSteve007: Eskaminagaga: I have done some research on this and have found that based on the cost per Kilowatt-Hour, Nuclear plants are much cheaper than wind and solar. The only power sources that can give a cheaper output based on the initial investment are coal, natural gas, and hydroelectric.
You might want to re-research that. The latest numbers from the US Department of Energy concerning the building of new power generation sources, taking into account, incentives/rebates capacity factor, transmission investments, capital costs, plant lifetimes, fuel cost and operations costs, has come to this conclusion:

Cheapest to more expensive, per MWh:

Nat Gas: $67-130 (depending on technology used)
Wind: $86
Geothermal: $90
Hydro: $90
Coal: $100-135 (depending on technology used)
Nuclear: $108
Solar PV: $144
Wind, offshore: $221
Solar Thermal: $261

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

With PV prices falling at a rate of roughly 50% every 3-years, I'd expect PV to surpass nuclear in cost effectiveness within a very short amount of time. Unless researchers can hustle to dramatically drop the cost of building and operating a nuclear plant by tomorrow, the industry in the US should start to focus on preparation of mothballing it's aging reactor inventory and finding proper disposal of it's high level waste.


Thinking back, it was almost 5 years ago when i did that reserch back when they were announcing the new AP1000 plants. I guess technology has come quite a ways. That and i know solar and wind have been given plenty of government incentives to build whereas Fukushima has increased the cost to build and maintain any nuke plants with all of the new emergency equipment they now have to preven rouge tsunamis.

Honestly, it is looking pretty bleak for nuclear power since Fukushima scared people away. With San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, Kewaunee, and the dumbasses at Crystal River being shut down, i wouldn't be surprised if the next decade or two, we will call for a 100% shutdown of all nuke plants in the US. It sucks, but ever since the cold war, people have been scared of anything nuclear and it is going to take more than facts or statistics to convince them.
 
2014-02-19 08:12:57 PM

Eskaminagaga: Honestly, it is looking pretty bleak for nuclear power since Fukushima scared people away. With San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, Kewaunee, and the dumbasses at Crystal River being shut down, i wouldn't be surprised if the next decade or two, we will call for a 100% shutdown of all nuke plants in the US. It sucks, but ever since the cold war, people have been scared of anything nuclear and it is going to take more than facts or statistics to convince them


While I won't disagree that public perception of safety of nuclear is an issue, the industry's financially problems predates any Fukushima or Chernobyl. The death knell of US nuclear came with the 1982 default of the WPPSS nuclear program in the Pacific NW. It wiped away over 6-billion-dollars (adjusted for inflation) in public nuclear bonds - completely tanking a lot of people's retirement and investments. After that, Wall Street quit financing nuclear power. No money = no new plants. Which is why the government had to step in for 100% loan guarantees. Even then, private capital is hard to find and public investment is ziltch.

Heck, the San Onofre debacle is somewhat similar, and has nothing to do with public sentiment or regulations, but simply of a billion dollar engineering failure with the replacement of their steam generators and piping systems. They barely lasted 2-years before springing a radioactive leak and some 15,000 different piping problems. Now ratepayers get to take the utility's mistakes in the pocketbook for the next few decades. Crystal River's steam generator replacement flop is almost identical - costing ratepayers & insurance billions. And all of that was just in the past year.

The future isn't that rosy either. About half of the planned, new nuclear plants have been abandoned. 3.6 GW of nuclear power went offline last year in the USA (along with 4.5 GW of coal). Meanwhile 12 GW if wind capacity came online in 2013 over the same period of time. Even when you take into account capacity factor, it's pretty evident that nuclear power's days are numbered - purely due to technical complexity and financial pressures from competition energy production techniques.
 
2014-02-20 01:47:37 AM
they will blow up destroying every jot of life on this planet
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report