Honda Civic Hybrid rant

[SirNick]

No argument with that.  However, there's certainly something wrong with putting a dollar figure on how much you should care about your impact on the environment.  For now at least, we've only got the one.  So when we damage it beyond repair, no amount of fiscal savings is going to make up for that.  Likewise with running out of oil.  There's an awful high lead-time from the manufacturer.

[Someone]

I can understand people wanting to move away and/or receive compensation, similar situations occur in Australia after major bushfire disasters. Cities and residences are not static, land use changes through various influences. But my point is that almost the entire land area affected in the Fukushima disaster should be returned to its prior usable condition within a decade or so, the towns may have moved on but its not an uninhabitable waste land left behind.

They are currently looking at around 40 years for partial decommissioning to a state where the reactors are entombed and there are no further major releases of radioactive material.

The areas further out might be usable in 10-20 years, but realistically property in those areas is near worthless and there will be decades more infrastructure replacement since it has all fallen into disrepair now. If you don't maintain stuff for a decade or two it tends to deteriorate. A lot of it is being scrapped anyway, rather than decontaminated.

Reactors take 40-50 years to decommission, that is entirely normal, emissions during that period will be below operating conditions.

The contaminated land around the area will be returned to a productive and useful state within the decade or so timeframe.

Compare this sort of contamination against persistent organic pollutants or heavy metal pollution which is expensive and slow to measure but just as dangerous, they have similar distribution and remediation methods but dont get picked up as problem sites because there arent people out there looking for them.

Logical fallacy. A is bad, but because B is also bad that makes A less bad. How about just trying to prevent things that are really bad?

Just pointing out how so much contamination appears after a nuclear disaster, while other industrial processes leave silent legacies that don't get the media attention. For a few hundred dollars any citizen of a sensible country can buy a very sensitive broadband radiation monitor that is simple to use, but the tools to measure other pollutants cost tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands) and require extensive experience, time, and money to operate.

All industrial activities have some side effects and risks that come with them

Yes, but we have better options now. Japan has enough renewable energy for all its needs, all day all year round.

Sure there are better options and a large portion of the world could be powered from renewables, this would be ideal.

But combustion power stations keep being built when the nuclear options would have a lower impact on the population. Politicians won't support nuclear development while the public image remains so negative, continuing to tout the dangers of nuclear is important but it has to be contrasted against the alternatives rather than just dismissing it or we end up in the situation now where coal is still seen as the "best" way to power electricity grids. I'll keep arguing that combustion power plants are likely the worst option available, and seem to have only two redeeming features compared to nuclear:
They are cheap to decommission.
They don't have a negative public image.

Not really great selling points against the overwhelming evidence that other forms of power will benefit everyone in the long term.

[Someone]

To get what we all want, a green lush Earth, we have to be pragmatic.
Yes nuclear as it is done today is not the best, but the hydrocarbon option is far worse.
A bit like flying has a few spectacular accidents, but is still, by far, the safest mode of transport.

Simple and to the point. But trying to get through the anti-change, anti-nuclear, anti-wind, anti-solar, arguments leaves the public and politicians (decision makers) sticking with the worst solutions.

[dannyf]

there's certainly something wrong with putting a dollar figure

It doesn't have to be a dollar, or any other financial figure. It can be done with for example a unit of "utility", whatever you want. Dollar has the advantage of being easily understood and directly comparable.

The importance is to understand that not all good things are worthy of pursuit at any given point. It is what separates stupid people from smart people.

[corrado33]

This thread is very much off topic, might as well throw gas on the fire. 

The US government is not a reliable source of information.

Oh god... Do you believe the moon landing was faked as well? 

Why would they lie about that website? I'm sure the Gov. has lied to its citizens about many things, but why that? What's to gain?

Nuclear power is NOT sustainable. I used to think that we should simply get rid of all carbon based power plants, then I did a bit of research. Nuclear power only accounts for a very small amount (5%) of the world's power production, hence the relatively long figures you see for the "how long will nuclear power last" question. From my quick google search the internet has said about 200 years of nuclear fuel reserves at current consumption rates. (Multiple sites, with slightly differing figures, as well as the government's own calculations) Even if you include the economically accessible uranium in seawater it's not much longer than that. If you assume that all power is produced using nuclear, then that figure drops to a measly 6 years. (Back of the envelope calculations.)

Carbon based fuels are here to stay. The infrastructure is already here, alternative energy sucks (in terms of efficiency and cost), and nuclear won't last. What we NEED is more efficient carbon based fuel generators. Most power plants are still only (at max) 35% efficient, many times much less than that.

I got called out on the whole "nuclear energy is renewable" thing during my candidacy by a few professors. My ignorance of the subject got the best of me. It will not happen again.

[Someone]

Nuclear power is NOT sustainable. I used to think that we should simply get rid of all carbon based power plants, then I did a bit of research. Nuclear power only accounts for a very small amount (5%) of the world's power production, hence the relatively long figures you see for the "how long will nuclear power last" question. From my quick google search the internet has said about 200 years of nuclear fuel reserves at current consumption rates. (Multiple sites, with slightly differing figures, as well as the government's own calculations) Even if you include the economically accessible uranium in seawater it's not much longer than that. If you assume that all power is produced using nuclear, then that figure drops to a measly 6 years. (Back of the envelope calculations.)

The current fuel use in nuclear plants is not recovering much from the "spent" fuel or moving towards the originally envisaged closed cycle where the burn up of the fuel is much slower. Economic considerations (and historically military considerations for nuclear) have dominated the use of fuels, look back through to the start of the industrial revolution for the changes of power source through wood/coal/coke/oil/petrol/gas/electricity.

Back of the envelope for world power could be based on 100-200 years of usable uranium deposits at current rates and 10% of world power delivered from nuclear. So unless you foresee huge increases in power demand the 6 year figure might be a bit low and 10 years might be more realistic if you consider only traditional enriched uranium reactors as the replacements. Not sustainable at all. Changing to other currently available technologies to extend the resource we may only have a few hundred years at best if the majority of power were to come from nuclear plants. More likely with the pressure on to find more uranium it will be found and exploited as we have seen with oil going offshore and now into "unconventional" oil resources, but that only buys another few multiples out to a few hundred more years.

The good news being that theoretical nuclear energy availability is orders of magnitude higher again (unlike combustion plants which are already mature and close to their peak with 30-40% of theoretical efficiency). But to make progress on advancing nuclear technology needs investment, commitments, skilled workers, and time. Which may end up too slow to deliver the current demands, nuclear could end up just a blip in power generation history as a whole with solar/wind/hydro having to take the prime time as fossil fuels decline.

[Someone]

Possibly a stupid question:  Why not build nuclear reactors in the ocean?

Mostly because there is still no way of building long lasting structures in the ocean, nuclear plants from build to decommissioning span 30-50 years or more.

[SirNick]

Figured it was something obvious like that.  I had no idea if assembling a large concrete structure underwater was remotely possible, but we can weld, so...

Thanks for humoring me.

[corrado33]

Possibly a stupid question:  Why not build nuclear reactors in the ocean?

Mostly because there is still no way of building long lasting structures in the ocean, nuclear plants from build to decommissioning span 30-50 years or more.

Not to mention we still don't have a good way of transporting energy long distances. Power line losses are huge...

[SirNick]

I was thinking coastal regions, but that's a fair point as well.

[dannyf]

I got called out on the whole "nuclear energy is renewable" thing during my candidacy by a few professors. My ignorance of the subject got the best of me. It will not happen again.

I wouldn't be too hard on yourself. Even the best professors are known to be wrong: at some time in history, the best scientists were known to push the flat earth theory; and others were pushing for "ether". Newton was proven wrong by Einstein. And if Einstein were right, many of our daily conveniences wouldn't have been possible. and chances are, you are starring at one of those items that proves Einstein wrong - that little LED.

If the best of the best professors are so often wrong, what's the chance of some no name professors being wrong? beyond certainty,

[johansen]

I suspect what is really going on over in Japan is the regulatory agencies are being forced to realize that radiation is good for you.

yes, we know that a third of the ocean will die but that's manageable too.

as to why we don't build reactors in the ocean.. 

[dannyf]

Why do you want to build it in the ocean? What do you gain by doing that?

Cost/benefit analysis, people.

[gildasd]

I was thinking coastal regions, but that's a fair point as well.

Well, there are ocean going nuclear reactors that are far more advanced and efficient that what is currently installed on land...
But I don't think the submariners will let anyone get their toys...

Their greatest party trick, is that the contaminated part is basically a self contained "box" that does not need any maintenance for 25 years. and is the only part that needs to be recycled or sent down a mineshaft after use..
Makes civilian reactors with their tons of waste per year and their 40/50 year decommissioning of thousands of tons of steel and concrete seem a bit prehistoric...

And as a side note, we do have boats that can stay at sea for 25/30 years with no dry-docking or major maintenance. they are used to process gas for example.
The construction methods and coatings are far more expensive than normal vessels, but it would be of the right size:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/business/energy-environment/betting-on-gas-shell-floats-plan-on-high-seas.html

The question remains about how to transmit power.

[tom66]

Not to mention we still don't have a good way of transporting energy long distances. Power line losses are huge...

You sure? Net loss in US grid system ~6%: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3

About the same amount of fuel is consumed transporting petrol than is lost in the US grid system.  40,000 litres per tanker approx. Truck does about 5mpg. If it has to travel from port city to central distribution (it will change over in places of course, but this is an approximation) let's say ~1000mi distance then it will consume 200 gallons fuel or about 1000 litres, which is 2.5%, plus return journey, totalling 5% losses for transportation.

[bwat]

the best scientists were known to push the flat earth theory

Who? Thales knew that the earth was round before 546 BC, something he figured out watching the ships disappear over the horizon, bottom first and not all at once. Also, sailors have always been able to see the curvature of the earth in clear weather on the open seas.

[SirNick]

Why do you want to build it in the ocean? What do you gain by doing that?

Cost/benefit analysis, people.

Well, people (drop the condescension, eh?  I said it might be a stupid question):  High thermal mass, for one.  Core meltdown is perhaps the main concern, so having access to a lot of coolant would be a benefit, right?  Having to use it might have serious consequences to the marine biology, but so it would on land as well.  If it gets to that point, you have bigger fish to fry -- uh... no pun intended.

Also, there's significant concern over storage of waste material.  You need a geologically stable area that is not likely to exchange owners frequently.  The ocean floor has been (politically) pretty neutral for a while...

There are, of course, remaining issues.  Security, expense (certainly), we understand far less about what goes on under the ocean than on land, etc..

[dannyf]

sailors have always been able to see the curvature of the earth in clear weather on the open seas.

What could those uneducated redneck sailors know that our well manicured ivy-educated professors don't?

[dannyf]

High thermal mass, for one. 

What really matters is the water flow on the condenser side (2ndary loop) to maintain efficiency of the turbines. The meltdowns we usually worry about are in the primary loop and requires high pressure running water. Standing water adds little value.

Core meltdown is perhaps the main concern, so having access to a lot of coolant would be a benefit, right? 

Only if that water is actively circulated. Otherwise, the core can boil that water quickly.

On the other side, the ocean can spear the radiation all over the ocean, being a good conveyor belt.

Also, there's significant concern over storage of waste material.  You need a geologically stable area that is not likely to exchange owners frequently.  The ocean floor has been (politically) pretty neutral for a while...

Yeah. It provides an open access to everyone. If you don't want that to happen, it will cost you an arm and two ships to guard that waste facility.

The list of downside goes on and on.

[SirNick]

Fine, withdrawn.  Question stupidity confirmed.  Moving on....

[gildasd]

Their greatest party trick, is that the contaminated part is basically a self contained "box" that does not need any maintenance for 25 years. and is the only part that needs to be recycled or sent down a mineshaft after use..
Makes civilian reactors with their tons of waste per year and their 40/50 year decommissioning of thousands of tons of steel and concrete seem a bit prehistoric...

Orders of magnitude lower output though. Plenty of accidents too, just better covered up than the civilian ones.

But you could do a modular design. so if a core fails, just shut down that one and distribute the load.
These cores tend to be quite reliable, but the habit of crashing into undersea mountains, combat maneuvering and carrying a bunch load of stuff that goes "blam" does push up the incident rate.

In any case, I would like to see this as a transition tech to fully sustainable energy (meaning large scale storage) and/or a far better nuclear tech, based on either U238, Thorium or whatever is better/safer/less polluting than U235...

A a side note, on ship engines, we are pushing the limits of thermodynamics, right now the big thing is marginal gains, but one you have pushed temps down to ambient, the rest is not reusable...
We manage to separate oil in minute quantities out of waste water to get the last drop into the injectors, but that tech has reached maturity (should be done on land, all that oil in household waste water...).
Hybridization is not useful in our constant RPM/load method of use... And you would need to get a hold full of Li-ION to get trans Channel range...
We use up to 4 different engines sizes to always have the right one for a task...
Most of our engines architectures are 30 to 40 years ahead of what is on the road today.
So you could argue that my industry is ready for the next big thing, ready for a tech change.

But it wont be windmills (silly) or solar (even if 60% efficient at all temp ranges - including nights).

[wraper]

Core meltdown is perhaps the main concern, so having access to a lot of coolant would be a benefit, right?  Having to use it might have serious consequences to the marine biology, but so it would on land as well.  If it gets to that point, you have bigger fish to fry -- uh... no pun intended.

Fukushima? They had so much coolant because of the tsunami that all backup systems were destroyed.

[G7PSK]

Nuclear reactors could be built inside mountains, when finished with just close the mountain back up again, by the time a mountain has been eroded away there will be virtually no radiation left and quite likely no one around to care anyway.

[dannyf]

Nuclear reactors could be built inside mountains,

Or on the moon, or the sun, ....


Really?

The turbine side of a nuclear power plant is a thermal machine / heat engine. As such, you need to have a heat sink at the end. That's why nuclear power plants are always built next to a large body of water.

How do you find the equivalent heat sink in a mountain?

[SeanB]

You could always just build one down a mine. Free water ( you have to pump to keep the miner mostly dry in any case) and if the fertiliser does hit the ventilator you just close the top and leave. As the gold mines here are 2km plus deep you could shove a pretty big reactor down there, to return the radioactives back to the rock they came from.

In any case just slapping the stuff 800m down pretty much any mine will work. The mines the uranium was mined from in Gabon are old sandstone deposits with water flowing through the deposits. This was a reactor millennia ago when the Uranium isotope concentration was high enough that you could have a natural reactor form out of the ore. The reaction products are still there, and are dense enough to mine. They did not move far in the interim.