"We can’t see inside Fukushima Daiichi because all our robots keep dying"

[cdev]

Well, so much for the robot apocalypse. A few nukes will kill them just as much as us!

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/245324-cant-see-inside-fukushima-daiichi-robots-keep-dying

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/243904-fukushimas-reactor-2-far-radioactive-previously-realized-no-sign-containment-breach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening

[Marco]

Time for tubes?

[Ian.M]

Last year's Fukushima robot thread for reference: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/bad-news-for-bots-fukushima-cleanup-robots-overpowered-by-radiation-(videos)/

[brucehoult]

Things are certainly pretty grim inside Fukushima.

An interesting thing about that accident is that it's actually persuaded a number of people, including prominent greenies such as George Monbiot, that we should be using a lot more nuclear power. If Fukushima is the worst that can happen -- and it pretty much is .. no one uses designs like Chernobyl any more -- then nuclear is very safe indeed. No one who didn't work there has suffered at all from the accident. As opposed to the 15000+ people killed directly by the tsunami. Or about 10000 people killed every year world-wide in coal mining accidents.

[David Hess]

Time for tubes?

Time for pneumatic and hydraulic computing and fiber optic vision.

An interesting thing about that accident is that it's actually persuaded a number of people, including prominent greenies such as George Monbiot, that we should be using a lot more nuclear power. If Fukushima is the worst that can happen -- and it pretty much is .. no one uses designs like Chernobyl any more -- then nuclear is very safe indeed. No one who didn't work there has suffered at all from the accident. As opposed to the 15000+ people killed directly by the tsunami. Or about 10000 people killed every year world-wide in coal mining accidents.

And the people killed and displaced by dam failures.  Solar and wind power installation and maintenance is dangerous because of the heights involved.

[mtdoc]

One of the greatest shortcomings of humans is the inability (in general terms) to properly assess risk and danger beyond very short timeframes....

[Kleinstein]

The  Fukushima accident was bad, but still not worst case. The time between shutdown and the final failure of the reactor structure help to reduce the damage - so much the containment could capture most of the radioactivity. That delay also reduced the radiation right after the accident, so that workers could still go there to reinstall some cooling. There also was a lot of luck with favorable weather that send something like 95% of the radioactive emissions to the pacific. No such luck with a similar accident happening in France or Belgium.

The time right after the tsunami also showed one problem with nuclear power: they hesitated using see water for cooling (which might have stopped the worst, if done earlier) because this would have ruined the reactor and thus cause high costs. So there is always the balance between costs and safety - which is bad, as there are humans in charge with the inherent danger they bend the rules in favor of economics because they think the risks are not that large. This can happen at all levels - operators, company and government.

[cdev]

A group at NASA developed a vacuum based ceramic, glass and and metal "microtube" system for radiation hardened use a few years ago, which can be fabricated using fairly modern techniques.

This seems like a perfect application for it? It was particularly well suited for high radiation environments.

Maybe Japan is a case where "not invented here" groupthink syndrome is becoming problematic? 

[cdev]

Brucehouldt,

 the Chernobyl situation was (and remains) really bad. Its my understanding that radiation there is not diminishing. Its getting stronger.

They dont know why. Your assertion that radiation is cleaner, is - well, I don't agree with it in the slightest, I think its - uh- very shortsighted. I'll leave it at that.

I've discussed this with nuclear physicists, what they have told me doesn't leave me feeling reassured. I think that our current economic system is not evolved enough to treat issues of this kind as they need to be treated. With a higher level of responsibility. I think mtdoc nailed it there.

Also, the use of boiling water reactors and the production of hot nuclear waste which must be kept cool is extremely problematic.

Especially if we were to have a strong, 1859 level ("Carrington class" Solar storm) coronal mass ejection event which could destroy the transformers that hold together the power grid globally.

We would then have whats called the "loss of the ultimate heat sink" problem on a massive scale.

Lets not go there.

Pray!

[TheAmmoniacal]

Radiation phobia is very prevalent, even among intelligent and educated people. Sad - just no perspective.

[Cerebus]

I think that our current economic system is not evolved enough to treat issues of this kind as they need to be treated. With a higher level of responsibility. I think mtdoc nailed it there.

Economists call these 'externalities', costs of your actions that you do not bear. So if the fine for a radioactive release was greater than the costs of pumping sea water through the reactor to prevent it, then there is a 'rational' reason to take the economic hit of flooding the reactor with corrosive sea water. If, on the other hand, you can only see the cost of the reactor damage, the environmental costs become an SEP (Somebody Else's Problem). Externalities is why we need to have regulation, to ensure that people who make decisions take in the costs to others as well as the costs to themselves. When you have a system where maximizing profit is virtually legally mandated by most corporate law on the planet, you get the situation where common decency ("think of the effects on others") is overridden by the mandate to maximize profits.

[brucehoult]

I think that our current economic system is not evolved enough to treat issues of this kind as they need to be treated. With a higher level of responsibility. I think mtdoc nailed it there.

Economists call these 'externalities', costs of your actions that you do not bear. So if the fine for a radioactive release was greater than the costs of pumping sea water through the reactor to prevent it, then there is a 'rational' reason to take the economic hit of flooding the reactor with corrosive sea water. If, on the other hand, you can only see the cost of the reactor damage, the environmental costs become an SEP (Somebody Else's Problem). Externalities is why we need to have regulation, to ensure that people who make decisions take in the costs to others as well as the costs to themselves. When you have a system where maximizing profit is virtually legally mandated by most corporate law on the planet, you get the situation where common decency ("think of the effects on others") is overridden by the mandate to maximize profits.

The problem with your theory is that the places with the very worst pollution and environmental fuckups are exactly the ones where no one owns anything, there is no profit motive, and absolutely everything is run by professional bureaucrats.

I currently live in one of them, that got so fucked up between 1917 and 1991 that 25 years later it's not unfucked. (of course the same old Party people giving themselves all the factories etc didn't help). Central government manages to steal enough money from the provinces to make Moscow, St Petersburg, and Sochi bright and shiny (at least in parts), but the provinces are truly dire.

[Alex Eisenhut]

http://www.hts-homepage.de/Silizium/Silizium.html

And integrated tubes are called "thermionic integrated micro modules", and although I've never seen one, the references go back to the 1960s.

Then there's Nuvistors too.

I've seen it mentioned that tunnel diodes are "radiation resistant", but what that really means, I don't know. Magnetic core logic I suppose won't mind radiation.

Or maybe make a robot with cable operated mechanics, like a bicycle. Make it like a puppet, with a vacuum tube video system and hydraulic motors activated by the cables.

[Cerebus]

I think that our current economic system is not evolved enough to treat issues of this kind as they need to be treated. With a higher level of responsibility. I think mtdoc nailed it there.

Economists call these 'externalities', costs of your actions that you do not bear. So if the fine for a radioactive release was greater than the costs of pumping sea water through the reactor to prevent it, then there is a 'rational' reason to take the economic hit of flooding the reactor with corrosive sea water. If, on the other hand, you can only see the cost of the reactor damage, the environmental costs become an SEP (Somebody Else's Problem). Externalities is why we need to have regulation, to ensure that people who make decisions take in the costs to others as well as the costs to themselves. When you have a system where maximizing profit is virtually legally mandated by most corporate law on the planet, you get the situation where common decency ("think of the effects on others") is overridden by the mandate to maximize profits.

The problem with your theory is that the places with the very worst pollution and environmental fuckups are exactly the ones where no one owns anything, there is no profit motive, and absolutely everything is run by professional bureaucrats.

I currently live in one of them, that got so fucked up between 1917 and 1991 that 25 years later it's not unfucked. (of course the same old Party people giving themselves all the factories etc didn't help). Central government manages to steal enough money from the provinces to make Moscow, St Petersburg, and Sochi bright and shiny (at least in parts), but the provinces are truly dire.

Not my theory but pretty basic classic economic theory.

Externalities aren't about profits but costs, and your example doesn't demolish the theory but rather enforces it. What were the costs to those "professional bureaucrats" of behaving like they did/do? Nothing, so it was an externality, a "Somebody Else's Problem", so they could happily troll along buggering up everything for everybody but themselves. Just because externalities are easiest to spot in a Capitalist economy doesn't make Capitalism the exclusive venue for their effects.

[senso]

So, why dont they use a "local" hydraulic/air pump, and control from a remote site, long long fiber optics for vision, and they use either air or hydraulic lines to a control remote enought that you dont fry from radiation?

[donotdespisethesnake]

Nuclear power has been extensively tried and shown to be a complete and utter fucking disaster. There are plenty of safer and cheaper options, let's just move on from that failed technological panacea of the 1950s. Nuclear power based on Uranium was just a way to cash in from the arms race anyway, not because it ever made any sense.

About the only reason for nuclear power would be a crash program to mitigate global warming, but it's too late, we've fucked that up as well.

I suppose we may as screw things up thoroughly by spreading lethal radiation over the whole Earth, then get rid of humans altogether. Maybe in a few million years an intelligent species will evolve.

[cdev]

>Radiation phobia is very prevalent, even among intelligent and educated people. Sad - just no perspective.

The town of Fukushima is now totally abandoned "for some reason". So is the area around Chernobyl.

In order to prevent discussion of the underlying issues in  the media they put an unprecedented gag order on the Japanese media muzzling the press, on that issue, and then passed a national law vastly expanding press censorship.

When a government has so little confidence in the defensibility to a rational man or woman of their own positions that they must muzzle the press, or their people, that's not a government you should trust in any way.

There is an issue with extreme space weather and spent nuclear fuel (the "loss of the ultimate heat sink" problem) that makes me think we need a moratorium on further nuclear fission power plants.

We should concentrate on other means of power generation. The Sun is an excellent source of nuclear energy which we can use from a safe distance, naturally.

[brucehoult]

Nuclear power has been extensively tried and shown to be a complete and utter fucking disaster. There are plenty of safer and cheaper options, let's just move on from that failed technological panacea of the 1950s. Nuclear power based on Uranium was just a way to cash in from the arms race anyway, not because it ever made any sense.

That's really not the case. Nuclear is by far the safest way to generate electricity, and only hydro can come near to it for price, and only then if you have the luxury of suitable terrain and weather and low population density. Like New Zealand, for example. Or Canada (though they get 15% from nuclear).

France has, rather uncharacteristically, gotten on with it, iterated their designs to the point that they are very good and safe, and generate something like 75% of their electricity from nuclear. Most of the rest of Europe, and asia, generate 30% - 50% of their electricity from nuclear. France is also the world's largest exporter of electricity -- something that will only increase as long as they have to save the butts of neighbours who conduct energy policy for ideological reasons, not economic or safety ones.

[mtdoc]

Nuclear is by far the safest way to generate electricity,

That is simply an opinion - not supported by facts - and disputed by many well-informed nuclear engineers and scientists. Solar and wind are very safe - regardless of silly claims about workers falling off of wind towers

[Seekonk]

The  Fukushima accident never should have happened. The plant totally survived the tsunami.  That whole mess happened because TEPCO was cheap and wouldn't put the backup power in a safe location.  The first thing destroyed was the fuel tank for the backup generator so the generator sucked in sea water.  TEPCO management should be lined up and shot.  I worked at one of those plants.  All they talked about was how much something cost. It always comes down to people.  There have been at least 1,000 incidents with US nuclear weapons.  It is only a miracle that Georgia is still on the map.

[helius]

Solar and wind are very safe - regardless of silly claims about workers falling off of wind towers

That's a strawman argument: make it sound like falls are the only danger from wind towers, then call that "silly claims". There are many more dangers, the most common of which is blade failure. There have been over 100 fatalities from wind power from the 1970s to the present; this compares unfavorably to the fatalities from nuclear accidents over the same period.

[M4trix]

Radiation phobia is very prevalent, even among intelligent and educated people. Sad - just no perspective.

Something that you can't see, taste or smell and kills you in agony. I think those are good reasons to be afraid. 

[Kleinstein]

The price of nuclear power is rather difficult to quantify: much of the costs for decommissioning and waste storage have not jet occurred and are only first estimates. Also the price for building the plants are usually higher than originally planed.

Another problem is the costs for possible accidents or their insurance. There is essentially no insurance for nuclear power plants. The accidents in Fukushima, TMI and Chernobyl are abut what is expected from nominal MTBF, but the costs are hard to tell and can vary. Not that much statistics.

The last good cost estimates for nuclear power I saw where somewhere around 10 US-cents per kWh and thus not that low. Cost for essentially any power plant depends on the location, not just for nuclear.

Nuclear power also works best and thus lowest costs, when running 24/7 - so producing electricity even than when nobody needs it. On the other side wind and PV is not available all the time. So comparing electricity costs is not that easy - it is more than just one price per kWh. It depends one the local mixture how important these factors are.

[wraper]

The  Fukushima accident never should have happened. The plant totally survived the tsunami.

As well as Chernobyl. That thing had blown up only because they were conducting experiments at extreme conditions  . Should they not mess with it, nothing would happen till this day.

[mtdoc]

Solar and wind are very safe - regardless of silly claims about workers falling off of wind towers

That's a strawman argument: make it sound like falls are the only danger from wind towers, then call that "silly claims".

It's not a strawman, it's a direct response to an earlier post in this thread which made the claim that

Solar and wind power installation and maintenace are dangerous because of the heights involved .

There have been over 100 fatalities from wind power from the 1970s to the present; this compares unfavorably to the fatalities from nuclear accidents over the same period.

Surely you must realize there have been several hundred deaths directly and immediately attributable to nuclear power plant construction, maintenance and accidents during that time period. More importantly, the cancer deaths due to nuclear accidents, while impossible to quantify exactly, number in the thousands even by the most conservative estimates (in the hundreds of thousands according to some).

And how many deaths due to solar?

As i said, the statement made that "nuclear is by far the safest way to generate electricity" is not supported by the facts.