Does Fukushima change anything?

[Ken Natton]

Do the events at the Fukushima nuclear plant change the arguments for and against the use of nuclear power as any part of the solution to our future energy needs?

 

[Borek]

That is open to interpretation, but IMHO no.

When it comes to serious, technical discussion - this is just another lesson that will teach engineers how to design safer reactors.

When it comes to panicking public not understanding the science behind - it will just add to the arsenal of demagogic arguments, but I would not classify them as new, they will play on the same old fears.

 

[cobalt124]

I don't think so either. The Japanese eathquake/tsunami was a very extreme event. Hopefully, an honest "post mortem" will take place at some time, and lessons will be found for governments, operators and engineers to learn.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's going to be a huge factor in the future of TEPCO and the LD's in 'Japanese Parliment' (Diet). For more, Ivan has a lively thread going.

 

[Ken Natton]

Yes, before I started this thread I did check to see if there was any other thread discussing the same point, I simply missed Ivan’s thread because I failed to anticipate that it would have been framed as a question of trust in the industry as a whole. I soon after spotted Ivan’s thread and it was why I abandoned this thread.

I deliberately framed it as a question of whether Fukushima changed anything, because of course there is a long standing existing debate about the rights and wrongs of nuclear power generation and I was a little cynical perhaps in the way I responded to some of the reactions to Fukushima. It seems ridiculous to me to assume that the Japanese engineers failed to anticipate the possibility of an earthquake or a tsunami – of course they did, and of course it was always known that it could cause a serious problem. But it is equally ridiculous to assume that it is possible to build a nuclear power generation plant that is earthquake or tsunami proof. I am put in mind of a famous Thomas Hardy poem about the sinking of the Titanic that draws very ironic contrast between on the one hand, man in his vanity, ever believing that he could build a ship that was unsinkable, and nature, on the other hand, so much more vast, so much more powerful, and making a complete fool of man and his vanity. It would seem to me to be a similar piece of vanity to think that it would be possible to engineer anything to be earthquake or tsunami proof.

But grotesque as the events in Japan are – and whatever my cynicisms, there is no failure of feeling on my part for exactly what the Japanese are dealing with in their typically stoic way – Fukushima does not change the basic truth that, by any dispassionate, rational measure of the term, nuclear power generation is safe. Moreover it remains the only realistic prospect of meeting our long-term future energy needs. But that is the point that, as you said nismaratwork, is under lively discussion in Ivan’s thread.

 

[WhoWee]

This will be a good thread to re-visit in about 18 months - IMO.

 

[nismaratwork]

@Ken: I would tend ot agree with you.

@WhoWee: For the realistic political end, I agree with you.

 

[Proton Soup]

i think the biggest change (at least i hope so) will be that you can't assume some statistical chance that say "it is only 99% likely that the biggest earthquake to be experienced in the lifetime of the facility is a 7.0". rather, you're going to have to design them for worst-case scenarios, 9.0 or higher. especially as production of nuclear power plants ramps up. and even if you are nearly certain that natural disasters are not a possibility where you site the plant, you've still got the man-made unknowns like war to deal with.

so, my vote is on over-design.

 

[russ_watters]

That is open to interpretation, but IMHO no.

When it comes to serious, technical discussion - this is just another lesson that will teach engineers how to design safer reactors.

When it comes to panicking public not understanding the science behind - it will just add to the arsenal of demagogic arguments, but I would not classify them as new, they will play on the same old fears.

I agree and will expand and then throw in a big caveat:

While this does change the risk calculus somewhat and provide lessons for how to improve safety even more, nuclear power is still orders of magnitude safer than it's primary competitor (coal power) in terms of both death toll and environmental damage. So it won't change the conclusion of an objective technical analysis.

The "arsenal of demagogic arguments" does just get another example for the basket, but in the US anyway, the activists who use that arsenal are vocal and successful. So they may well succeed in getting this to set-back nuclear power even further in the US.

 

[rootX]

Too early to discuss.

I also agree with Borek.

 

[russ_watters]

i think the biggest change (at least i hope so) will be that you can't assume some statistical chance that say "it is only 99% likely that the biggest earthquake to be experienced in the lifetime of the facility is a 7.0". rather, you're going to have to design them for worst-case scenarios, 9.0 or higher. especially as production of nuclear power plants ramps up. and even if you are nearly certain that natural disasters are not a possibility where you site the plant, you've still got the man-made unknowns like war to deal with.

That's not how risk analysis works/there is no such thing as a "worst case scenario". Things can always be worse and the only way to properly deal with risk is to accurately quantify it. Ie:

-What is the worst possible earthquake in Japan? 9.0? 9.5? 10.0? How about in Pennsylvania? Should we assume a 9.0 even though nothing higher than 6.0 has ever been recorded?
-How many years should a nuclear waste repository be designed to last? 100? 1,000? 10,000? a million?

This isn't just important for nuclear power, but it is important for comparing one power source to another. Coal power has known risks and costs. Nuclear's risks are tougher to quantify because while the odds of a major failure are spectacularly low, the magnitude of such failures can be spectacularly high. But we have to try, because the reality of the last 30 years in the US is that we've accepted a course of action that killed hundreds of thousands of people when the alternative could have saved most of them.

One of the more successful tactics of anti-nuclear activists is to get the safety, economic, and/or regulatory bars set unreasonably/impossibly high, then just sit back and watch nuclear power fail to get over the unreasonable bar.

so, my vote is on over-design.

That goes without saying: a safety factor (over-design) is a part of any engineering design/analysis.

 

[russ_watters]

Too early to discuss.

It is early, but people are always going to look for expansion of the discussion as soon as the news slows down. It's being discussed in the media and others have brought it up here, so it is important to try to have a rational discussion of the issue rather than wait and allow the sensationalism to take over.

 

[nismaratwork]

How can someone be an environmentalist, and realize that you're acting as one half of the Coal lobby's justification for more coal and less nuclear? It boggles the mind... yet it's as plain as day in the USA.

 

[Proton Soup]

That's not how risk analysis works/there is no such thing as a "worst case scenario". Things can always be worse and the only way to properly deal with risk is to accurately quantify it. Ie:

-What is the worst possible earthquake in Japan? 9.0? 9.5? 10.0? How about in Pennsylvania? Should we assume a 9.0 even though nothing higher than 6.0 has ever been recorded?
-How many years should a nuclear waste repository be designed to last? 100? 1,000? 10,000? a million?

This isn't just important for nuclear power, but it is important for comparing one power source to another. Coal power has known risks and costs. Nuclear's risks are tougher to quantify because while the odds of a major failure are spectacularly low, the magnitude of such failures can be spectacularly high. But we have to try, because the reality of the last 30 years in the US is that we've accepted a course of action that killed hundreds of thousands of people when the alternative could have saved most of them.

One of the more successful tactics of anti-nuclear activists is to get the safety, economic, and/or regulatory bars set unreasonably/impossibly high, then just sit back and watch nuclear power fail to get over the unreasonable bar. That goes without saying: a safety factor (over-design) is a part of any engineering design/analysis.

not any engineering design. some designs are simply planned to fail early for the sake of generating more sales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

but as for impossibly high/unreasonable designs for disaster or warfare-related reactor containment, I'm not convinced that is true. maybe it's true with a diminishing returns on leakage of radiation, like with emissions standards on coal burning or automobiles. is that the sort of thing you're thinking? the other thing is what cost basis we use on measuring whether a massive overdesign is affordable. at one time, extracting oil from tar sands was unaffordable. but at today's per-barrel prices it is profitable. maybe nuclear also needs to be put off for a while.

 

[rootX]

It is early, but people are always going to look for expansion of the discussion as soon as the news slows down. It's being discussed in the media and others have brought it up here, so it is important to try to have a rational discussion of the issue rather than wait and allow the sensationalism to take over.

It will be the causes that going to determine what will be changed not the event outcomes IMO. Without having proper report of what happened, what were the causes, it is not possible to discuss the changes. But as Borek already pointed that's rather part of more technical than political discussion.

I was mainly thinking about how the authorities will see the presence of nuclear reactors in the areas prone to natural disasters.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One of the more successful tactics of anti-nuclear activists is to get the safety, economic, and/or regulatory bars set unreasonably/impossibly high, then just sit back and watch nuclear power fail to get over the unreasonable bar. That goes without saying: a safety factor (over-design) is a part of any engineering design/analysis.

"Unreasonable" has no clear definition. To use such language in the absense of definitive examples is the equivalent of fear-mongering.

You say may say the demands of the anti-nuclear crowd are unreasonable, whereas I say the pro-nuclear position is radically naive and irresponsible - a case of tunnel vision.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here are some questions that I think are significant: How much do we plan to spend on nuclear power over the next thirty years? What would be the result of investing that same money in safer options? For example, how does the future of solar cells affect the viability of nuclear power [the price has been falling very quickly with breakthroughs almost every week]?

David Brooks speculated that nuclear is dead not because of this accident, but because the cost is too high. It hasn't proven to be as cheap as was expected. According to him, it was likely already dead through market competition.

I do have a reference showing that nuclear power is historically more expensive than coal [or at least no better]. In the end, all options are driven by price. This has been the trouble with alternative fuels. Ex: We could switch to algae power almost immediately, but for a price. Same is true of solar now. It is all about cost. If we want to live with higher cost, then let's choose simpler and safer options.

What are the risks associated with solar, compared to nuclear?

 

[russ_watters]

It will be the causes that going to determine what will be changed not the event outcomes IMO. Without having proper report of what happened, what were the causes, it is not possible to discuss the changes. But as Borek already pointed that's rather part of more technical than political discussion.

Unfortunately, that's not true in the US. In the US, nuclear power has been held back for almost completely political reasons.

 

[russ_watters]

"Unreasonable" has no clear definition. To use such language in the absense of definitive examples is the equivalent of fear-mongering.

Then I'll explain: It is unreasonable to set the bar higher than the bar is set for the alternatives. Or alternately, a "reasonable" analysis fairly and objectively weighs the risks of all the alternatives rather than measuring the different alternatives against different standards. [edit] Also, a "reasonable" analysis weighs risks based on criteria that have a meaningful possibility of happening. That's tougher to explain, but the Yucca project's risk analysis/design criteria is an example of what not to do. The facility was required to be designed for a very long lifespan; essentially a lifespan longer than civilization itself has lasted. What are we protecting there? It isn't us! In addition, the current choice is between Yucca and local storage and local storage isn't designed for anywhere near that long. So in order to be better (and be worth doing), Yucca only has to provide a somewhat longer storage life expectancy. Yucca also has other politically mandated flaws, such as the requirement that the disposal be permanent (ie, that we can't go back and reclaim/reuse the spent fuel), despite the fact that much of it remains useful/vaulable.

You say may say the demands of the anti-nuclear crowd are unreasonable, whereas I say the pro-nuclear position is radically naive and irresponsible - a case of tunnel vision.

People can say whatever they want, of course, Ivan - the problem is that your position contradicts the facts and has no rational basis. You're free to keep forwarding that - and in doing so, you provide a good demonstration of the non-technical barriers holding back nuclear power.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: Average lifetime Cost
Median [average] experience: 7.7 cents per KW-Hr
Best [theoretical] experience: 4.0 cents per KW-Hr

COAL POWER PLANTS:
[“Clean” upgrades not considered] 4.8 cents per KW-Hr
*In 1987 dollars, for plants going into operation in the year 2000.
University of Pittsburgh Physics Department: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter10.html

 

[Al68]

I do have a reference showing that nuclear power is historically more expensive than coal [or at least no better]. In the end, all options are driven by price. This has been the trouble with alternative fuels. Ex: We could switch to algae power almost immediately, but for a price. Same is true of solar now. It is all about cost. If we want to live with higher cost, then let's choose simpler and safer options.

This thread is going in circles for no reason. As has been demonstrated already, and pointed out many times, there are no safer options.

You have provided no reason whatsoever for any rational person to even suspect that nuclear power is anywhere near as dangerous as any of its alternatives. Do you have plans to ever do so?

If not, can a moderator close this thread for lack of substance?

 

[russ_watters]

Here are some questions that I think are significant: How much do we plan to spend on nuclear power over the next thirty years? What would be the result of investing that same money in safer options? For example, how does the future of solar cells affect the viability of nuclear power [the price has been falling very quickly with breakthroughs almost every week]?

Such an analysis must also include a technical analysis of how solar power can be made to handle baseline electrical load. Otherwise, you're comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't matter if solar is cheaper and safer than nuclear power at producing a kWh of electricity if it can't produce that kWh at night or in the winter while nuclear can.

David Brooks speculated that nuclear is dead not because of this accident, but because the cost is too high. It hasn't proven to be as cheap as was expected. According to him, it was likely already dead through market competition.

Nuclear is somewhat expensive as well as financially risky. However, both of those are still largely political issues, which by the way also affect other energy sources to a lesser but still surprisingly large extent (see the fight over Cape Wind).

I do have a reference showing that nuclear power is historically more expensive than coal [or at least no better].

No need: it is quite well accepted that coal power is by a fair margin the cheapest high capacity power source we have.

We could switch to algae power almost immediately, but for a price. Same is true of solar now.

Incorrect. Solar power doesn't work at all at night and its capacity varies with the weather and seasons. It is therefore incapable of supplying more than perhaps 20% of our electric power needs and it requires a significant level of backup. In other words, if you replace nuclear power with solar power, you also still need to build coal plants or natural gas plants.

I rarely see solar compared with other energy sources on a level field. I almost always see a kW of solar compared to a kW of nuclear instead of (at best) a kWh vs a kWh.

What are the risks associated with solar, compared to nuclear?

Since it just plain can't do what nuclear does, that isn't a relevant question.

Solar power is best suited toward handling peak load and as a result can be used to displace some of our peak load capacity, almost all of which is natural gas. The natural gas plants would still need to be built as a backup, but they wouldn't need to be run as much if solar took more of the peak.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

"Unreasonable" has no clear definition. To use such language in the absense of definitive examples is the equivalent of fear-mongering.

You say may say the demands of the anti-nuclear crowd are unreasonable, whereas I say the pro-nuclear position is radically naive and irresponsible - a case of tunnel vision.

How about the case of two power plants on the Hudson river in New York state. Both plants pull coolant water out of the river. This river happens to be a home for the endangered shortnose sturgeon. A fish screen system would solve the problem of fish impingement to the coolant system.

Indian point has been required to put in a 1 billion plus closed loop cooling system to get a water permit. Without this Entergy will not be able to get a license extension.

Bowline Point Gas Power Plant that is practically across the Hudson river has been allowed to put in fish screen system for its cooling system.

Sounds like a "unreasonable" double standard to me.

 

[Ken Natton]

I shall point out that this discussion has again become about the general rights and wrongs of the different methods of generating power and has left behind the question of whether or not it is reasonable to see the events at Fukushima as in any way impinging on those arguments. I’m not approving or disapproving of that, I’m simply seeking to highlight that because I see it as important to the context of what I would like to say at this point.

Firstly I don’t agree with even those that share my opinions on nuclear power generation that any part of the question is nuclear power’s safety record relative to other forms of power generation. The question is only whether nuclear power generation itself may be considered safe. Someone will doubtless suggest that I am comparing apples with pears, but it always seems to me that those who are most passionate about the supposed unsafe nature of nuclear power generation are being most illogical when they fail to recognise that they do a far bigger deal with the devil and take a far bigger risk with their safety and that of those dear to them every time they put them into a motor car and take that car out on the public roads. There is something that raises a serious question about what constitutes acceptable risk. I don’t know exactly how it is in the USA, but here in the UK it is abundantly clear to me that riding a motorbike on the public roads comes way beyond the bounds of acceptable risk, but there are plenty who still do it, and plenty who pay the price. You can understand why some people are frightened of flying, but by any dispassionate, rational measure, air travel is safe – far safer than road travel, and few people are too scared to do that. Similarly, by any rational measure, nuclear power generation is safe, and how its safety record compares with other forms of power generation doesn’t change that bald fact.

For me, the comparative issue with other forms of power generation is all about ability to meet the needs. Whatever the issue of coal’s safety, its cleanliness or its cost, the bald reality is that the coal is running out. Solar, wind, wave etc. just can’t produce the power required. I don’t think anyone would dispute that if it were possible, the best solution would always be hydro-electric. Clean, reliable, safe, cheap. But unfortunately, the whole world doesn’t have the geography of Norway. Our energy needs are growing and they are only going to get more. Before too much longer we will be faced with a stark choice – a massive reduction in the lifestyle we have come to take for granted or recognising that nuclear power generation is the only realistic prospect of meeting the load requirements.

 

[Borek]

I don’t agree with even those that share my opinions

Reading this thread I have a feeling that's not only your problem

 

[Ken Natton]

Huh. You missed your vocation Borek, you should have been a tabloid journalist.

 

[nismaratwork]

Is it safe to create a chain reaction? No.

Is it safe to mine and burn coal? No.

How many human endevours are "safe"? Everything is relative.

 

[WhoWee]

I admire the Japanese people for their collective behavior in this crisis. Especially, I admire the personal sacrifice made by the workers at the plant.

Given this is a political thread, I'd like to pose a politically relevant question. If this event happened in the US and the workers were unionized - do you think we would see the same level of personal responsibility - or would union leaders demand someone else do something?

 

[nismaratwork]

I admire the Japanese people for their collective behavior in this crisis. Especially, I admire the personal sacrifice made by the workers at the plant.

Given this is a political thread, I'd like to pose a politically relevant question. If this event happened in the US and the workers were unionized - do you think we would see the same level of personal responsibility - or would union leaders demand someone else do something?

I think if you placed them in the same situation as Japan; a small country where you know the next guy who has to go into that radiation field if you don't, where you know that your friends, family, and everything you love and know is downwind... and I think you'd see the same actions.

 

[WhoWee]

I think if you placed them in the same situation as Japan; a small country where you know the next guy who has to go into that radiation field if you don't, where you know that your friends, family, and everything you love and know is downwind... and I think you'd see the same actions.

I agree the workers would react in a similar fashion. However, I asked a very specific question (my bold) - "would union leaders demand someone else do something? ".