The Other Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant

May 25th, 2011
submit to reddit Share

Since the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the world’s attention has been fixed upon the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. The six reactor plant suffered major damage that disabled the primary cooling systems on units one, two, three and four.

Yet there is another Fukushima nuclear plant, which was struck by exactly the same forces but has gone largely unnoticed, primarily because there have been so few problems. Fukushima Daiichi translates directly as “Fukushima Number 1,” and was built starting in 1967. In 1976 it was decided to construct a second nuclear power plant, Fukushima Daini, directly translated as “Fukushima Number 2.” The first units came online at Fukushima Daini in 1982, with a total of four reactors being built, the last coming online in 1986.

Both nuclear plants are located directly on the coast. Fukushima Daini is about seven miles south of Fukushima Daiichi. Both plants also have very similar breakwater designs.

Fukushima Daini is also where a worker took these amazing pictures of the tsunami surge flooding the area around the reactor containment buildings. The water actually came in even higher than these pictures show, but the worker didn’t stick around to take any more photos.

Fukushima Daini is also where the first death at a nuclear plant as a result of the tsunami was reported. A worker was trapped in the control booth of a crane at the plant’s exhaust stack by the inundation of water. Rescuers reached the worker several minutes later but found he was already dead.

The quake also triggered a shutdown of all four of the reactors at Fukushima Daini, which had been operating at full power at the time. Significant damage was sustained to numerous plant systems, both nuclear and non-nuclear. The fourteen meter high tsunami that struck the plant was more than twice the height the plant was designed to survive. Fires were reported in at least one turbine room. At least some of the on sight backup power systems were also destroyed.

Three of the four reactors at Fukushima Daini sustained significant damage to their primary cooling systems. Flooding of pump rooms rendered the essential service water systems inoperative for units one, two and four. Backup cooling systems continued to function. Even without the ability to dissipate heat into the environment, the internal cooling mechanism of the reactors assured that enough heat was dissipated into the wetwell of the reactor, providing more than a day of decay heat dissipation.

On March 12, officials began preparations for releasing pressure from the reactors at Fukushima Daini, but this was determined to be unnecessary before any pressure was released. Emergency cooling systems continued to function properly and within two days of the tsunami, the primary cooling systems of all reactors were once again functional. On March 30, secondary systems were once again required when a fault occurred in equipment that supplies power to pumps at one of the reactors. Full functionality was quickly restored.

Since then, Fukushima Daini has remained in a state of cold shutdown. As time as passed, the cooling of the cores has become less critical, and all cooling capacity has remained functional. There were no explosions or other major accidents. There have been no releases of pressure or radioactive material from the plant and spent fuel storage remains stable. At this time the plant is considered safe and secure.

Why Daini survived the quake and tsunami so much better than Daiichi:

There’s really only one glaring difference between Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini: the vintage of the nuclear technology of the plants. While Fukushima Daiichi was built with reactor designs from the late 1960′s and early 1970′s, Fukushima Daini was built with technology of the early to mid 1980′s.

A comparison of the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi and Daini:

Both plants use boiling water reactor designs developed by General Electric, although in the case of Fukushima Daini, the vendors were Hitachi and Toshiba, who had licensed the designs of General electric. These are similar to reactors operated in the United States and elsewhere.

The BWR-3 and BWR-4 reactors are very similar in design. The primary difference is that the BWR-4 is larger. Otherwise, most of the basic systems and design features are the same. They use a similar containment structure and general layout to the BWR-1 and BWR-2. The containment system is the Mark 1 containment design, first used at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in 1969 for a GE BWR-2 reactor. These reactors would be considered early Generation II nuclear power reactors.

The BWR-5 represents a considerably greater change in design and technology from the BWR-4 than the BWR-4 did from the BWR-3 or than the BWR-3 did from the BWR-2. The BWR-5 introduced newly designed core spray and auxiliary cooling systems. The BWR-5 also introduced the Mark-2 containment design, a complete redesign of the reactor structure. The Mark-2 design integrates more of the cooling and support equipment into the central containment area of the reactor building. It also includes a number of new safety systems. The explosions that occurred at Fukushima Daiichi were the result of hydrogen buildup from a reaction between the zirconium alloy fuel cladding and the water in the reactor vessels. The Mark-2 containment system includes a system that can purge the reactor coolant with nitrogen gas to avoid such dangers. Further refinements were made to the Mark-2 Advanced containment design.

The BWR-5 represents what would technically be considered a late Generation-II nuclear reactor, although many of the design features continued to be used in the BWR-6 and later the ABWR and ESBWR, which GE Continues to market, members of the Generation_III and Generation-III+ reactor classes.

The conclusion that one can draw from the events at the two Fukushima plants is relatively straight forward: While the older BWR-3 and BWR-4 designs are sufficiently safe in most situations, their designs are nowhere near as robust and reliable as newer reactor designs. Of course, despite holding up so well against forces far beyond what designers had planned, the BWR-5 is, by today’s standards, old technology. Newer reactors are much safer still and have even more reliable passive-based safety features.

This is all the more reason why we should be building more nuclear plants. As newer reactors are built we will be able to eventually shut down the older reactors, thus improving economics and safety even further. The events in Japan do not diminish the picture of safety we have when it comes to new reactors. Rather than assuming that reactors will fail in the manner that they did at Fukushima Daiichi, we should consider how well they held up at Fukushima Daini. This is far more representative of new reactor designs, although those are even safer and more reliable still.


This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 25th, 2011 at 5:43 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Good Science, Nuclear, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



263 Responses to “The Other Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All

  1. 251
    DV82XL Says:

            BMS said:

    While the cost of transmission and distribution is not insignificant, it is substantially smaller than the cost of the power plant itself. Larger systems generally are more efficient, but more importantly, all things being equal, they consistently produce at a smaller financial cost per unit of output..

    The transmission and distribution networks have one other important property that cannot be ignored: they are there. Vast sums of money, time and material have been expended over the better part of the last century building these things and polishing the procedures to make them run. The only way we were able to afford these huge systems in the first place is that they grew slowly and the products that they moved were so inexpensive to produce that the consumer could absorb the cost of construction almost without noticing.

    The point? Many of the distributed generation proposals out there, involve re-tasking these systems, and in many instances this critical issue is breezed over in discussion. This is a mistake. These systems are huge and complex, with a bewildering number of control nodes and operate under protocols that been less designed then they have accumulated. They have not been built for distributed generation traffic, and even in cases where multi-directional flow is physically possible it is often can only be achieved by overriding system fail-safes, and potentially compromising network integrity. Refitting to allow for this, while certainly doable from the engineering standpoint, would be horrendously expensive, and in some cases would require that large chunks of the system go off-line or isolate for extended periods of time and in most cases this factor alone makes conversion infeasible.

    The second overarching technical concern is reliability. We use energy in such a way that an unreliable source is often worse than no source at all. Many of our day-to-day behaviours are predicated on knowing that the juice will be right there, right now, when we throw the switch or turn the key. If you’re a backwoods camper, or stay in a country place off the grid, you make adjustments, but we cannot run our lives not knowing from moment to moment if power will be there. Yes, that’s the case in some third world urban pestholes, but those are not the conditions we are striving for.


    Quote Comment
  2. 252
    fixx Says:

    BMS says:

    “Larger systems generally are more efficient, but more importantly, all things being equal, they consistently produce at a smaller financial cost per unit of output”
    - I will agree that there is economy of scale with large systems in terms of $. And I will concede that, WRT to power generation, larger units produce more power per unit of fuel. But you can’t have large scale without expensive distribution, it is a significant portion of my electrical and gas bills. Unless it is cheap and my private energy utilities are ripping me off (certainly not impossible).
    - The only part of a small scale operation that can’t be mass produced is the final assembly and installation.

    “You should be thankful that all they had to do was fix the distribution system — i.e., the wires, a relatively easy job”
    - Actually when these things happen it can take out more than wires. Transformers can go on poles or at substations if their protection devices don’t react quickly enough. If the load cannot be shunted then outage times get longer.

    “I don’t quite understand what you have written here”
    - I thought I was quite clear and specific. Let me try again. HLW is currently reprocessed and reused. LLW from reprocessed HLW and other activities can be used as fuel in the new generations of reactors but not previously. This is my current understanding but not what I thought you meant in your original comment, I misunderstood you to be saying that LLW has been reused as fuel for 24 years.

    “but even if all of the so-called “waste” is buried deep under a mountain, it is not a problem”
    - Actually in at least one abandoned mine in Ontario there is 4,000,000 tonnes of uranium mine tailings sitting on the surface. Being all too well aware of how mining is conducted in Canada I would guess the tailings could be lying out in the open.
    - Buried waste is not a problem if the waste stays contained, it doesn’t always. Plus no one really wants it in their backyard regardless of how safe it may or may not be.

    “but sadly, scientifically illiterate ideologues, perpetually dreaming of a “renewable” utopia, keep getting in the way”
    - I would suggest it is giant nuclear disasters that are “getting in the way”. How long will they have to keep cooling at Fukushima? What happens if the cooling fails?
    - Are you suggesting that scientifically literate people are against exploring other options and possibilities. That they ALL believe that we should put all of our eggs in one potentially explosive basket. And that anyone who is interested in the pursuing of renewable energy is therefore scientifically illiterate. What was was the method for these conclusions?

    DV82XL says:

    “They have not been built for distributed generation traffic, and even in cases where multi-directional flow is physically possible it is often can only be achieved by overriding system fail-safes, and potentially compromising network integrity. Refitting to allow for this, while certainly doable from the engineering standpoint, would be horrendously expensive, and in some cases would require that large chunks of the system go off-line or isolate for extended periods of time and in most cases this factor alone makes conversion infeasible”
    - Much of what you are saying here is exaggerated or out right wrong. Perhaps you having been reading power generation corporation propaganda (they also hate competition). Systems that feed back onto the grid go in everyday throughout Ontario. There has not been widespread extended outages to implement this. The system I toured that fed back was in operation at least 10 years ago.
    - One safety concern with small independent energy feeders is that when a technician is repairing a line it may not be dead even if the supply is isolated. They assume the lines are live at all times (standard electrical practice).


    Quote Comment
  3. 253
    BMS Says:

    Fixx – You’re a mess. You’re all over the place. It’s almost impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you. My first recommendation is that you remove the chip from your shoulder.

    In just one comment, you’ve managed to confuse and conflate transmission and distribution; high-level nuclear waste, low-level nuclear waste, and mine tailings; and every form of power generation, as if all “options” are the same.

    First, it appears that you’re complaining about the costs of high-voltage transmission as a problem for large plants, but then you cite the item on your electric bill that primarily covers the costs of low-voltage distribution. I would tell you to make up your mind and just pick one, but I don’t think that you understand the difference between the two.

    The costs of distribution are not going away, even if you stick a small generating plant in every small town. The costs of transmission, on the other hand, can exploit economies of scale, just as the power generation systems do. Since the cost of transmission is substantially smaller than the costs of generation, it makes sense to spend more for the former to pay less for the latter. For example, it makes good economic sense to string high-voltage power lines across the Mojave Desert to transport over half of the inexpensively produced electric power that is generated by the Hoover Dam to Southern California.

    When it comes to transmission, large power plants, such as nuclear plants, actually have a stabilizing effect on the grid. So when you complain about transformers that “can go on poles or at substations if their protection devices don’t react quickly enough,” you should understand that this problem increases geometrically as more, smaller generators are added to the grid and large, stabilizing generators are retired.

    Of course, the ideas that you allude to are so nebulous that you could be referring to electricity produced by the utility customer that would be fed back into the grid. I’m doubtful of that, however, because even a fool can see that expansion of this type of grid policy would only drive up the cost of distribution, because the distribution system would now need to accommodate and account for the electric power flowing backward through the wire, and as the distribution systems become saturated, the transmissions systems would also need to be upgraded to accommodate the imbalances. The cost and complexity of T&D is a powerful argument against such micro-generation strategies.

    Next, the difference between high-level waste (HLW) and low-level waste (LLW) is the activity of the material. Uranium mine tailings hardly have any activity at all, since most of the (naturally occurring) radioactive components have been removed.

    Using recycled nuclear material today consists of the following: (1) uranium from old nuclear weapons, which has been used in reactors all over the world; (2) plutonium from used nuclear fuel, which is made into new fuel and has been used quite extensively in reactors in Europe and Japan. The US is currently working on turning plutonium from nuclear weapons into fuel.

    When it comes to recycling nuclear material, plutonium gives the most bang for the buck (much like aluminum being the most useful packaging material to recycle). The main advantage that the advanced reactor designs offer is the ability to “burn” the other actinides, which is impractical in today’s reactors. But even if such reactors were available tomorrow to “close” the nuclear fuel cycle, much of how nuclear power is generated would not change. It requires only a few of these dedicated reactors to “burn” this nuclear “waste” and produce electricity. Most of the power reactors would be the same type that we have today.

    The US has been “exploring” modern “renewable” energy for over four decades now. Anyone who willfully ignores practical evidence because of blind ideology I call “scientifically illiterate.” The Scientific Method is the triumph of evidence over wishful thinking. What you call “exploring,” I call repeating the same dumb mistakes.

    Albert Einstein (who most people would consider to be a “scientist”) is said to have put it this way: “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”


    Quote Comment
  4. 254
    DV82XL Says:

            BMS said:

    The US has been “exploring” modern “renewable” energy for over four decades now.

    For considerably longer than that if you include the only practical form which is hyrdo, and this requires a considerable transmission network which will only have to grow as yet unexploited instances of that resource are nowhere near population centres.


    Quote Comment
  5. 255
    fixx Says:

    BMS:
    “Heh … Looks like someone has fallen off the wagon. It only took six months.”.
    - I will reiterate that previously I said I would “not say anymore on that matter”, that matter being the relative safety of various nuclear reactor designs. I already made it clear that did not mean that I was never going to post here again.

    1) “high-level nuclear waste, low-level nuclear waste, and mine tailings; and every form of power generation, as if all “options” are the same.”
    - The tailings comment was a specific response to your suggestion that all nuclear waste is below ground. During initial refining at mining sites only the desirable and easy to remove elements of the ore are removed. Uranium tailings are radioactive (up to 85% of original ore) and are also toxic by their heavy metal content. There may be other toxins present as a result of the method of extraction.
    - Not sure how you got that I think all “options” are the same. I was looking for clarification WRT “burning” waste on mass and reclaiming highly reactive fuel through reprocessing.

    2) “the item on your electric bill that primarily covers the costs of low-voltage distribution.”
    - Really? You mean that the cost of the high voltage distribution is still rolled into the power generation portion of my bill. That would mean that distribution costs even more than it appears to !!!
    - High voltage transmission is a part of distribution. Can’t distribute it without transmitting it. While this may or may not be the case for billing it is the proper usage of the word for this discussion.
    - If you are not clear on my position with respect to large vs small scale generation then let me try to explain it as concisely as possible. I’m not a fan of centralized power generation from any source.

    3) “you could be referring to electricity produced by the utility customer that would be fed back into the grid. I’m doubtful of that, however, because even a fool can see that expansion of this type of grid policy would only drive up the cost of distribution, because the distribution system would now need to accommodate and account for the electric power flowing backward through the wire”
    - Those accommodations can and are being made, small scale feeding into the grid is already being done. The argument that excessive back feeding is an overwhelming issue has been proven wrong by reality.

    4) “Anyone who willfully ignores practical evidence because of blind ideology I call scientifically illiterate.”
    - So willful ignorance about the percentages of total and specifically electrical energy already provided by renewable resources worldwide would qualify as scientific illiteracy?
    - How about willful ignorance of the total (not just monetary) cost of the irresponsible use of any technology?
    - How about only getting (or only believing) information from sources whose bias is a matter of survival or profit?
    - How about name calling as a method of debate? An attempt to emotionally sidetrack the discussion away from stated practical evidence. Or would that be called a purveyor of scientific illiteracy?

    5) “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
    - Like building nuclear reactors and not expecting nuclear accidents?
    - The pursuit of renewable energy sources has yielded renewable energy sources. Not sure where insanity comes in here. Perhaps you are just attempting to insult a whole group of scientists whose ideology is not in alignment with your own.
    - Albert also believed in a god. Yet still a scientist. Hmmm, perhaps then someone can believe that renewable energy is a viable alternative and still be a scientist.

    6) The chip. Yes, I have a chip on my shoulder. I have a few chips actually. One of those chips is a result of the use of name calling as an attempt to discredit someone’s opinion or facts. In a proper debate those who practice such behaviour should be ejected from the discussion until they learn a little about respecting others and respecting the discussion itself.

    Matte:
    - Actually the implication is that someone whose livelihood relies in an industry is inherently biased in favour of that industry. While not an absolute truth it is certainly reasonable to assume it is a factor. Another implication is that someone employed in an industry is factually informed in the applicable fields. Also a factor but not an absolute truth. I wouldn’t presume to think either of those things and prefer to let a persons responses speak for what they know and don’t know, and what their biases are. In the case of DV8 his profession is totally irrelevant and I apologize for even referring to it.


    Quote Comment
  6. 256
    Matte Says:

            fixx said:

    BMS:
    Matte:
    - Actually the implication is that someone whose livelihood relies in an industry is inherently biased in favour of that industry. While not an absolute truth it is certainly reasonable to assume it is a factor. Another implication is that someone employed in an industry is factually informed in the applicable fields. Also a factor but not an absolute truth. I wouldn’t presume to think either of those things and prefer to let a persons responses speak for what they know and don’t know, and what their biases are. In the case of DV8 his profession is totally irrelevant and I apologize for even referring to it.

    Seems like somebody needs to brush up on their reading skills.

    My “livelyhood” relies on the shut down and decommissioning of nuclear power plants (if it relies on anything, I am pretty employable in most technical fields it would seem), considering the current fleet that I work with and am responsible for I will have my hands full until 2055 (mostly due to politics, if I had my way I could have a site converted into greenfields within 10 years after final shut down). Oh, I will retire around 2045 by the way so the last couple of reactors will have to be somebody elses problem…

    Biases are always a factor, I started off as an anti nuclear activist (was even a member of Greenpeace for a while), then I got myself educated in the natural sciences and changed my mind. I have a broad background in the technical industry and fields and have not worked in the energy sector primarely. Since I was “dumped” into the nuclear industry however I have been advicing 2 national regulators on nuclear safety and one of Europes largest utility on the same topic. I never peddle my employers opinion as the biggest money maker they have is currently coal and gas, however the insights I have in power production, distribution and consumption should be something to consider, even for someone such as you…but I am not holding my breath. I can only lead you to the water, I am not going to pump it down your throat.


    Quote Comment
  7. 257
    BMS Says:

            fixx said:

    So willful ignorance about the percentages of total and specifically electrical energy already provided by renewable resources worldwide would qualify as scientific illiteracy?

    Yes. It does. You clearly are willfully ignorant of the actual percentages, because you perpetually demonstrate that you have fooled yourself into believing that they are somehow significant. Therefore, you are scientifically illiterate by your own definition. Q.E.D.

    High voltage transmission is a part of distribution.

    OK. This officially qualifies you as too stupid to talk to. I can honestly say that I tried. Goodbye. Please go get drunk and troll somewhere else.


    Quote Comment
  8. 258
    BMS Says:

            DV82XL said:

    For considerably longer than that …

    I agree with what you are saying, but I used the word “modern” to emphasize that I was talking about efforts resulting from the large push for “renewable” energy in the US beginning in the seventies, particularly the swollen R&D budgets during the Carter administration, when US DOE facilities like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory began operating.


    Quote Comment
  9. 259
    DV82XL Says:

            BMS said:

    I agree with what you are saying, but I used the word “modern” to emphasize that I was talking about efforts resulting from the large push for “renewable” energy in the US beginning in the seventies, particularly the swollen R&D budgets during the Carter administration, when US DOE facilities like the National Renewable Energy Laboratory began operating.

    Yes I knew that, but I just wanted do drive another nail into the coffin of the idea that distributed generation using renewables is not dependent on long-distance transmission. To their credit even the most hard line supporters of this mode do not bring up a reduced network as a benefit, in fact quite the opposite is implied when they invoke their favourite mantra that the Sun is always shining and the wind is always blowing in some place.


    Quote Comment
  10. 260
    Fixx Says:

    Matte:

    “Seems like somebody needs to brush up on their reading skills.
    My “livelyhood” relies on the shut down and decommissioning of nuclear power plants”
    - I understood what you do just fine. Decommissioning is a part of the life cycle of all nuclear plants and represents a lot of jobs that would still be considered working in the industry. If they aren’t being built then they don’t need to be decommissioned. Understand that I am not discounting your input because of this, I was merely pointing out how biases can work. I am quite sorry I even brought it up because it has become a bit of a sidetrack. As I said earlier I prefer to judge statements by people not the people themselves.

    “I can only lead you to the water,” “I am not going to pump it down your throat”
    - With the same information on a subject such as energy policy, people can easily come to different conclusions. That is because this is not as simple as a math problem such at 2+2 which we will all agree is 4. There are many factors besides dollars and cents. On top of that, everyone will weigh the factors differently.

    “I am not going to pump it down your throat”
    - And I thank you for that. That’s all I ever ask for. I don’t expect to change your mind any more than you expect to change mine. We can agree to disagree. Have a happy new year.

    BMS:

    “Yes. It does. You clearly are willfully ignorant of the actual percentages,”
    - Did you bother to look them up?

    “OK. This officially qualifies you as too stupid to talk to. I can honestly say that I tried. Goodbye. Please go get drunk and troll somewhere else.”
    - While the 14.6 kV coming directly into my workplace may be part of the “transmission system” it is still a part of the distribution of generated electricity. When I used the word distribution I was not referring to a power company’s specific meaning of the word, I was employing the simple english meaning of the word.
    - I was not drunk for either this post or my last post. When I am drunk you will know it because I will tell you, generally to explain any angry retorts I may indulge in (one reason I don’t drink often) or poor typing.
    - I am not a troll just because you get all pissy over semantics. Nor am I a troll because I disagree with your opinions. Since I doubt you would look it up if I suggest it: A troll seeks to illicit an emotional response through inflammatory comments and language. For example, calling someone stupid would be trollish behaviour.
    - You did try, I could see that. Earlier your insults and name calling were more subtle. Sorry to see that you failed. Perhaps in time you will learn how to keep your passion for your beliefs from turning to anger. Good luck.


    Quote Comment
  11. 261
    BMS Says:

    Fixx – Would you like some cheese to go with that whine?

    See, this is one of the hallmarks of the Internet Troll: someone who compulsively disagrees with everyone on a website and then whines, moans, and pouts that everyone is treating him or her so “unfairly.” Please grow up!

    The other flags include making reckless assertions based on nothing but hot air, continuously changing the subject after someone else has scored a debating point, and writing long rambling comments with the intention of peppering the other guy with a horde of unsupported arguments in order to bewilder, overwhelm, and exhaust anyone foolish enough to spend the time and energy to try to match them point for idiotic point.

    The Troll presumes to lecture others without understanding the terms that he or she uses (e.g., transmission vs. distribution, HLW vs. LLW), all the while pontificating on such nonsensical subjects as who is and who is not a “true scientist.” Even neutral or friendly comments are met with hostility and obfuscation by the Troll. Finally, the Troll is too lazy to do his or her own homework. For example:

            Fixx said:

    Did you bother to look them up?

    I am already familiar with these figures, having followed, purely out of curiosity, these statistics for a number of years now. It literally takes less than five minutes on the International Energy Agency (IEA) website to discover that “Other” — the IEA’s collective term for energy generation that “includes geothermal, solar, wind, heat, etc.” (in other words, all of the non-hydro “renewable” stuff) — is a completely trivial source of energy. In fact, the IEA lumps all of this stuff together because, each source (geothermal, solar, wind, heat, etc.) would be too trivial to consider individually.

    The IEA’s figures for 2012 (the latest statistics that have been compiled) show that “Other” constituted only 5% of worldwide electricity generation, roughly the same as oil. In terms of TPES (Total Primary Energy Supply), “Other” constitutes a mere 1.1%. Even lumped together these “renewables” are the tiniest slice of the pie.

    Had you known this information, I’m sure that you would have included in your deluge of commentary, but then again your purpose is not to inform. As you so correctly point out, your purpose is merely “to illicit an emotional response through inflammatory comments and language.” Stubborn ignorance is highly inflammatory to intelligent people.

    If the shoe fits, wear it. Please, Troll, go back under your bridge.


    Quote Comment
  12. 262
    Matte Says:

            Fixx said:

    Matte:

    I am quite sorry I even brought it up because it has become a bit of a sidetrack. As I said earlier I prefer to judge statements by people not the people themselves.

    Still, you pass judgement because of the fact that I work in the industry. Not to mention that ‘facts’ presented to you that goes against your preconceptions are blatantly ignored.

    Well, after having led this horse to water I am going to stop kicking its’ corpse and reiterate an old mantra of mine; “the gene pool requires more chlorine!”.


    Quote Comment
  13. 263
    fixx Says:

    Matte:
    - Please go through this thread and point out where I have ever said that your opinion or a statement you made is invalid because you are biased.
    - Please go through this thread and find where I have ever judged you in any way. Let alone suggested that you should be eliminated from the gene pool.
    - If I disagree with your analysis of particular data or perceptions, I am not judging you. There are plenty of real examples of judgement here that you can use for comparison.

    BMS:
    - You misrepresent me. If you will notice, I only reply to certain threads on here. I do not disagree with everyone on the internet and I am not even close to pouting (back up your statement with any evidence, please). I just think that infantile responses have no place in scientific debates. Since this blog professes to be pro-science, I would expect those that post on it to post intelligent points as opposed to bullying off anyone who disagrees with their point of view. When I call you and DV8 on your B.S. responses I am pointing out that you are not being scientific. Calling someone stupid etc. is not a rational point in any debate. If you don’t care to dispute the facts then you should post nothing because your uninformed judgements are adding nothing to the discussion. If, on the other hand, it is so easy to prove a statement wrong then just do it.
    - Your posts are generally as long as mine. Does that make you a troll too? You can expand the definition of troll all you like (as some are apt to do), doesn’t make it accurate.
    - You really see “did you bother to look them up?” as hostile but don’t see the hostility in your own remarks? I suppose I could have left out the words “bother to” but I don’t see how this compares to the vile comments that come from you.
    - My questions WRT to re-processing V.S. wholesale re-use of waste from nuclear reactors was met with dodgy responses and then eventually an angry tirade. I asked friendly questions in a friendly manner for clarification of your assertion.
    - Why are you excluding hydro from “renewable”?
    - “DELIVERY This line of the bill shows the cost of delivering electricity from generating stations across the Province to your home or business via the high voltage (transmission) and low voltage (distribution) electricity systems.”, from the Ontario energy board site. While my use of the word “distribution” may have led the debate astray a bit, I am right about how my bill is broken down. Furthermore I will demonstrate below with real numbers how your heavy handed response was also just plain wrong.
    - My understanding of HLW and LLW were from research on the internet after your post on reusing spent fuel. If I have used these terms incorrectly in my attempt for clarification of your initial statement, then please explain specifically how.

    BMS:
    - Since your trollish remarks have already served to divert an already diverted thread, this is that last I will say on this matter. I’m not going away though.

    Transmission cost Analysis

    I have to use 2 bills since the distribution portion of the delivery cost is per kWh and the transmission portion is fixed. Luckily I have a normal usage bill and a low(practically none) usage bill.

    Total Electricity Usage:
    - 476 kWh normal usage
    - 4.93 kWh low usage

    Total cost for generation:
    - $44.35 normal usage
    - $0.47 low usage

    Delivery costs:
    - $26.01 normal usage
    - $13.73 low usage

    Through substitution the distribution portion of delivery was found to be $0.02607/kWh yielding:

    Distribution Costs:
    - $12.41 normal usage
    - $0.13 low usage

    Transmission costs:
    - $13.60 normal usage – 19.3% of total cost of electricity
    - $13.60 low usage

    Conclusion and Analysis:
    The cost of transmission as represented on my bill is not insignificant. It is 52% of my delivery charge and 19% of the overall cost of electricity. Since the transmission cost is fixed these numbers will drop significantly when considering higher usage customers. An overall study would be more accurate but a fairly exhaustive search yielded no such studies. Likely because the true cost of transmission will vary heavily based on the distance from generation to the point of use. One number I did find was that about 4% of the power was lost during transmission (I^2R losses etc.). This in itself is a significant number that represents a cost per kWh.


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string Zc7swi to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam