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



234 Responses to “The Other Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant”

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All

  1. 201
    Richard Perry Says:

    In May 1974 India explodes its first atomic bomb using weapons-grade plutonium produced in the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor. The explosion takes place at the Pokhran site in the Rajasthan desert near the border with Pakistan.
    The name of the bomb test is ”Smiling Buddha”.
    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/sabotage_and_attacks_on_reactors/spent-reactor-fuel-security.html

    They claim that a large plane will not compromise a spent fuel pool, yet many are like FUKU high in the air with sheet metal roof. There evaluation is a plane running into side at the center of pool. Why would anyone try this approach, aim plane below at ground level and take out the supporting structure or dive through the roof. They only looked at a center side impact. This the only info I could find and all so if anyone can believe that a cask on a rail car would not turn over when hit by the proposed plane when I have seen films of a plain smashing into other planes of same size throwing them in to the air, the casks make it top heavy. But I would not believe anyone would try to search done a mobile target it is crazy.


    Quote Comment
  2. 202
    Matte Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    They claim that a large plane will not compromise a spent fuel pool, yet many are like FUKU high in the air with sheet metal roof. There evaluation is a plane running into side at the center of pool. Why would anyone try this approach, aim plane below at ground level and take out the supporting structure or dive through the roof. They only looked at a center side impact. This the only info I could find and all so if anyone can believe that a cask on a rail car would not turn over when hit by the proposed plane when I have seen films of a plain smashing into other planes of same size throwing them in to the air, the casks make it top heavy. But I would not believe anyone would try to search done a mobile target it is crazy.

    Take out the supporting structure of a spent fuel pool…with a plane? If you can do that, why bother with the SFP? Why not go for the containment building that houses the reactor, as it is much easier to destroy in such a manner.

    Why would a fuel cask be worried about a thin aluminium tube when it will survive a direct corner side impact by a massive diesel locomotive? You seem fond of youtube so here you go;
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dopK9r83WDU
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_JhruRobRI
    The official reports are far more interesting. But what was the problem with knocking a fuel cask over? Sure it may be a pain to get it upright again, may have to use a big crane even…

    As to planes crashing into fuelbuildings or containment buildings, analysis and testing always takes the worst parameters into account. Testing was performed with a fighterjet (think flying armoured vehicle) at 600 knots which is worse than a commercial airliner (think fast flying soda can in comparison) doing 900 knots (not at ground level though).

    Work on your english mate, I could not understand that last bit…


    Quote Comment
  3. 203
    BMS Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    … this solar looks low maintenance and very flexible for servicing with out shutting down the plant.

    Well, the plant shuts itself down every night.


    Quote Comment
  4. 204
    BMS Says:

            Matte said:

    Why would a fuel cask be worried about a thin aluminium tube when it will survive a direct corner side impact by a massive diesel locomotive?

    Not just a “massive diesel locomotive,” a massive rocket-powered diesel locomotive.


    Quote Comment
  5. 205
    DV82XL Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    DV82XL, You are getting to up tight, at the beginning of this I was showing what the possibilities are not factual but possibilities with this technology,…

    This whole passage is incoherent tripe, the currency on these pages is fact and you are providing none. Yes that makes me angry – when someone wastes our time with unsupported assertions from their own imaginations.

            Richard Perry said:

    In May 1974 India explodes its first atomic bomb using weapons-grade plutonium produced in the Canadian-supplied CIRUS reactor.

    So what? CIRUS was not a nuclear power reactor, but a research reactor. As well the ‘US’ in its name stands for United States, who also had a hand in it, and the Pu was most likely made from targets acquired from France. I’m a bit tired of having Canada blamed for India’s nuclear weapons program on the strength of having supplied this reactor.


    Quote Comment
  6. 206
    Richard Perry Says:

    BMS, But starts up the next day.


    Quote Comment
  7. 207
    Richard Perry Says:

    Matte, did they use the target area on the side center for the evaluation. If so this should be better reinforced then the roof with out water pressure behind it. That’s what they used in evaluating a passenger plane hit. Ever hit a drum full of gas, it does not flex like a empty drum.


    Quote Comment
  8. 208
    Richard Perry Says:

    For those that do not think nuclear power does not lead to bombs, see this.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation

    Dual use technology[edit]
    Dual-use technology refers to the possibility of military use of civilian nuclear power technology. Many technologies and materials associated with the creation of a nuclear power program have a dual-use capability, in that they can be used to make nuclear weapons if a country chooses to do so. When this happens a nuclear power program can become a route leading to the atomic bomb or a public annex to a secret bomb program. The crisis over Iran’s nuclear activities is a case in point.[6]
    Many UN and US agencies warn that building more nuclear reactors unavoidably increases nuclear proliferation risks.[7] A fundamental goal for American and global security is to minimize the proliferation risks associated with the expansion of nuclear power. If this development is “poorly managed or efforts to contain risks are unsuccessful, the nuclear future will be dangerous”.[6] For nuclear power programs to be developed and managed safely and securely, it is important that countries have domestic “good governance” characteristics that will encourage proper nuclear operations and management:[6]


    Quote Comment
  9. 209
    Matthew Says:

    A question for Richard Perry:

    Which countries can you name that have parlayed their civilian nuclear programs into weapons?


    Quote Comment
  10. 210
    Anon Says:

    Whether it is possible to use a power reactor to make weapons grade Plutonium actually turns out to be irrelevant to nuclear proliferation because what really matters is whether it is easier to use a commercially available power reactor or to build your own Magnox or enrichment plant, if it is easier to go with dedicated equipment than to use a power reactor that is exactly what anyone who wants the bomb is going to do and it is also something they could do regardless of whether or not they have a power reactor.

    Turns out that building dedicated Plutonium production reactors is easier than trying to breed the stuff in LWRs or CANDUs and so is Uranium enrichment.

    Remember that the US managed to do both of the dedicated bomb making approaches in the Mid ’40s and they had no nuclear power plants back then.


    Quote Comment
  11. 211
    Matte Says:

    Richard, the term “dual use” is a political term and a smokescreen to hide actual components used to manufacture weapons. Many are available on the open market, critical components are riddled with exportrestitrctions and outright bans, and they are never used in the civilian nuclear industry but very often in civilian heavy industry.

    What US and UN institutions say and what they really mean is severely clouded by politics and has very little direct bearing on what this blog is about.

    Anyone touting the term dual use, is either a politician fishing for votes from greenies och incompetent or both…

    Buzzo, your spam-filter is stopping me from posting by the way.


    Quote Comment
  12. 212
    DV82XL Says:

    Having seen his original assertions reduced to trash, Perry is now resorting to the well-worn trick of throwing anything and everything up against the wall to see what sticks. Cut-and-paste from Wikipedia is the last resort of fools backed into a corner, not an argument.

    You might want to actually read the paper: Nuclear power without nuclear proliferation? by Steven E. Miller & Scott D. Sagan which the passage you quoted was drawn from. You might find that the situation is not as simple as it is being made out to be.


    Quote Comment
  13. 213
    Shafe Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    Why would anyone try this approach, aim plane below at ground level and take out the supporting structure or dive through the roof.

    Yes, just “dive through the roof.” How many dead terrorists would we have before one got within 100ft of the target?


    Quote Comment
  14. 214
    Matte Says:

            Shafe said:

    Yes, just “dive through the roof.” How many dead terrorists would we have before one got within 100ft of the target?

    All of them?


    Quote Comment
  15. 215
    Richard Perry Says:

            Shafe said:

    Yes, just “dive through the roof.” How many dead terrorists would we have before one got within 100ft of the target?

    Ha Ha good one May be 5 in the air plane when they hit the roof.


    Quote Comment
  16. 216
    Richard Perry Says:

    No countries citizens would have allowed the spending of the dollars to develop power as they did to create the Atom bombs, then they had to find away to reduce the cost so told us that they could produce atomic energy at the lowest cost, almost free, it was going to elevate the peoples standing so men would work 30 hour or less a week (now its ~80 hours per family to squeak by).
    One of the huge cost in most nuclear bombs is the production of plutonium and that is one of the remains in spent fuel from NPP. They had this cost now covered by power users but it still needs more work. They had to do this because of the arms race, was it right, YES. But now with the number of bombs in stock I now have to look at NPP the same as any other fuel or energy. I have wondered how much the war departments pay to power companies for the material they get? May be this money would make power to cheap to meter after all if it would show up on NPP ledgers, may be they do but I have not seen it or may be it is the processing companies that sell it to military.

    This site of many that makes the same statements:
    http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/nuclear-nucleaire/nca-acn.aspx?lang=eng

    A though: We have been storing and using great amount of energy since life started, we move up and down when we walk, we use thousands of machines that lift weight to store energy and droop it to use the energy, so there must be an economical way to use this in large scale other then with liquids(why not any solid material that are all around us like sand and rocks). There are small lights now that use any small weight set on it to and create light for a short time, in poor areas it is by far cheaper then oil lamps(cost ~$140.00 fuel a stone set on it and resets when load is removed, same cost as about 4 months of oil to produce light). It has the same problem as solar that the up front cost is high for poor people but those that have saved money from meager wages jump at getting one because they now pay nothing for oil.


    Quote Comment
  17. 217
    Matthew Says:

    Hey doc, the RSS feed on the comments seems to be busted. My reader is telling me it’s not a valid feed.


    Quote Comment
  18. 218
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    Hey doc, the RSS feed on the comments seems to be busted. My reader is telling me it’s not a valid feed.

    Sorry
    http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/nuclear-nucleaire/nca-acn.aspx?lang=eng


    Quote Comment
  19. 219
    BMS Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    One of the huge cost in most nuclear bombs is the production of plutonium and that is one of the remains in spent fuel from NPP.

    Yes, the US government needs plutonium so badly for its nuclear bombs that it has been working recently to build a facility to burn excess weapons plutonium in commercial nuclear reactors. /sarcasm

    Richard Perry, you have to be one of the stupidest SOB’s to comment on this site, and that’s saying a lot.


    Quote Comment
  20. 220
    Richard Perry Says:

            BMS said:

    Yes, the US government needs plutonium so badly for its nuclear bombs that it has been working recently to build a facility to burn excess weapons plutonium in commercial nuclear reactors. /sarcasm

    Richard Perry, you have to be one of the stupidest SOB’s to comment on this site, and that’s saying a lot.

    You are saying now but it has changed over the years, but for this industry to start it was different, I claimed this industry would not have started with out military wants, may be I was not clear about that. Anyone else miss under stood my point. It is so open with so much stored waste around the world it is imposable to watch were it goes, governments have admitted losses of atomic bombs even, they may as well tear the contracts up.


    Quote Comment
  21. 221
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matte said:

    All of them?

    HaHa, I agree but may be only a few, would they meet the 911 bunch in their heaven.


    Quote Comment
  22. 222
    DV82XL Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    One of the huge cost in most nuclear bombs is the production of plutonium and that is one of the remains in spent fuel from NPP. T

    First you idiot, making Pu is probably the least expensive part of the process, the rest of the effort needed to make an implosion device is far more costly. Second, there is no weapons -grade Pu in spent fuel. The Pu in used nuclear fuel is of a different isotope that cannot be used in weapons.

            Richard Perry said:

    You are saying now but it has changed over the years, but for this industry to start it was different, I claimed this industry would not have started with out military wants, may be I was not clear about that. Anyone else miss under stood my point. It is so open with so much stored waste around the world it is imposable to watch were it goes, governments have admitted losses of atomic bombs even, they may as well tear the contracts up.

    You know nothing about the early part of the nuclear fission story if you think it was driven by weapons – try doing some reading before running off at the mouth.


    Quote Comment
  23. 223
    Richard Perry Says:

            Matthew said:

    A question for Richard Perry:

    Which countries can you name that have parlayed their civilian nuclear programs into weapons?

    Read this to get a over view:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon#Nuclear_strategy
    In 1981, Israel had bombed a nuclear reactor being constructed in Osirak, Iraq, in what it called an attempt to halt Iraq’s previous nuclear arms ambitions; in 2007, Israel bombed another reactor being constructed in Syria.

    To show the countries that gained the Atom bomb were years ago, to prove the past you would have to file through news papers.
    If Wikipedia is believable, I feel they are not to bad no propaganda like from government organization promoting an agenda do a search, lots of info


    Quote Comment
  24. 224
    Richard Perry Says:

            DV82XL said:

    First you idiot, making Pu is probably the least expensive part of the process, the rest of the effort needed to make an implosion device is far more costly. Second, there is no weapons -grad e Pu in spent fuel. The Pu in used nuclear fuel is of a different isotope that cannot be used in weapons.

    You know nothing about the early part of the nuclear fission story if you think it was driven by weapons – try doing some reading before running off at the mouth.

    So there was no arms race and cold war, over 60,000 nuclear bombs were made and thousands tested, they needed NPP to speed up the manufacturing(Sold NPP in other countries to speed building), now they have many processing facilities to bypass the NPP at a high cost.


    Quote Comment
  25. 225
    Anon Says:

            Richard Perry said:

    I have wondered how much the war departments pay to power companies for the material they get?

    They don’t pay anything as the Plutonium in spent fuel isn’t suitable for making bombs with (too much ²⁴⁰Pu and ²³⁸Pu).

            Richard Perry said:

    May be this money would make power to cheap to meter after all if it would show up on NPP ledgers, may be they do but I have not seen it or may be it is the processing companies that sell it to military.

    You’re at the point at which you’re just making crap up and hoping we won’t call you on not having a clue what it is you’re talking about.

            Richard Perry said:

    A though: We have been storing and using great amount of energy since life started, we move up and down when we walk, we use thousands of machines that lift weight to store energy and droop it to use the energy, so there must be an economical way to use this in large scale other then with liquids(why not any solid material that are all around us like sand and rocks).

    When you look at the scale it’d need to be done at the idea just collapses (we use a lot more power than you seem to think we do and there is no prospect of our energy consumption going down without civilisation itself collapsing).


    Quote Comment
  26. 226
    Anon Says:

    You were asked which countries turned a peaceful nuclear power programme into a weapons programme, you did not answer the question.

            Richard Perry said:

    In 1981, Israel had bombed a nuclear reactor being constructed in Osirak, Iraq, in what it called an attempt to halt Iraq’s previous nuclear arms ambitions; in 2007, Israel bombed another reactor being constructed in Syria.

    Reactors that were built for the specific purpose of breeding Plutonium, that doesn’t help you case.

            Richard Perry said:

    To show the countries that gained the Atom bomb were years ago, to prove the past you would have to file through news papers.
    If Wikipedia is believable, I feel they are not to bad no propaganda like from government organization promoting an agenda do a search, lots of info

    We know how every country that got the bomb did it, the US, Russia (then USSR), UK, France and China got the bomb before they had any nuclear power plants, India used Plutonium bred in CIRUS, a research reactor and not their power reactors, Pakistan got their enrichment technology from A. Q. Khan (who also spread the tech to Iran), Israel built a Heavy Water reactor (but has no nuclear power plants and it doesn’t look like they’ll build any soon), South Africa developed their own Uranium enrichment technology, North Korea built a dedicated Plutonium production reactor.


    Quote Comment
  27. 227
    Fixx Says:

    Because I like to revive long dead threads…
    “BMS Says:
    October 29th, 2013 at 6:44 am
    Richard Perry said:
    … this solar looks low maintenance and very flexible for servicing with out shutting down the plant.
    Well, the plant shuts itself down every night.” – BMS (just to be clear)

    And at any given time the Earth is being 50% exposed to the sun (astrophysicists correct me if I’m wrong, I’m pretty sure this is at lest the average). Our peak power usage is NOT while we are sleeping (should be in the dark, FU*K shiftwork (f*ck spellcheck, it is it’s own word)).

    BTW, your WP Anti-spam is Chinese to me, literally. An insert to all those paying attention. If you click on something you don’t understand are you culpable… under current laws… where do you live?… I suspect the answer is yes.

    Germany just made a milestone that even my pessimistic mind was pleasantly surprised at. The B.S. that Solar and Wind power are incapable of providing us with our (entitlement based) needs has been shattered. Don’t get me wrong, if aliens attack and for the purposes of space travel nuclear energy is fine but the old adage “don’t sh*t where you live” seems to apply here. The only argument I have heard that dampens the achievement is the issue of storage, despite the multitude of ways to store energy efficiently. The fact that with enough infrastructure we could provide enough energy for an energy conscious society to support itself (in time) has been made pretty clear. Politics and mega corporations aside, the Earth will provide if we so choose. We already have all the technology it just needs to be refined (continuous improvement, never a bad thing) and implemented and then we can get there. More and more I see built for purpose and retrofit systems in my country providing a net increase into the power grid, and the surface has been merely scratched. With further implementation and advancements we can supply beyond our needs. Eventually all illusions are revealed, thought I’d throw that in. Heated sodium in vacuum insulated vessels used to run steam turbines (or any other heat engine, sterling’s are pretty good) is an off the top, good enough for now solution to storage. The science is already there in so many ways. The energy is essentially free and anything we can do to decrease the net increase in temperature of our system is probably a good thing. Speculatively, if we can minimize our net enthalpy during a (historically) prelude to an ice age then we can minimize the depth of the ice age (a total guess, someone qualified please show me the err of my ways).

    Politics and empires are transient compared to the infinite nature of time (there is no single word for this ???, that I know of). If we want to survive as a species we need to shed our partisan ideals and accept that all the answers are in the grey areas as well as the math. We are all equal (who is the judge??). We are all knowing (as far as we know :) ) Altruism and information are the keys, necessity and laziness are the mothers of invention. No species has ever been in the position to control variables related to their survival as us. What or who is stopping us??? Let’s get over it! Knowledge is gather by scientists and used by megalomaniacs, see a problem with that??? Democracies are supporting dictatorships, contradiction??? Totalitarians are implementing communism, another contradiction. In an autistic world can anyone lie, a bit of an aside. Is the gratuitous use of impedance’s creating an un-forseen downside, another aside. Are biases creating an informaticide (apparently a word of my own creation, see harper’s (not deserving of a capital) burning of important information). F*ck you all for you are all F*cked. History repeats, and you either don’t care or are oblivious. Guess this may be a farewell ;)

    Despite what my compatriots (not sure who they are) may think I am suggesting they are biased by the basic law of self-preservation (I am unbound by that law somehow). If we thought as a whole we would be much more effective. The ideas of racial purity and any kind of superiority are archaic IMO (“in my opinion” to the acronym less savvy (may need a singular word for this soon)). Programmers note the nesting ;)

    Drinking the koolaide (I’ll accept the sp. for the lack of copyright infringement) and a lot of other cliches (proves how long we’ve known) seems to apply here, however, I will still always prefer to leave the masses to their own judgement (provided it has not been hijacked by those who desire power, not sure if there is an instance).

    The Internet is knowledge and “knowledge is power” (thank you Saturday morning cartoons). The masses now have the power. Learn to discern, down with the power and up with the masses (yup, definitely a goodbye).

    Science strives for a lack of bias. Science is about the facts. Militaristic and capitalistic interests pervert those facts into power. And then, scientists are haunted by those demons. It’s enough to make a true scientist hold their tongue. F you all, if you can’t do it right then let’s let it all fail and start all over again (fatalist’s viewpoint). What a f**ked up cycle. It’s all in the history, we have access in every medium. If you are looking for it you will see it is there. Willfully ignorant and you will betrayed.

    In specific response to Anon’s posts. You are pretty naive. Assuming you are the same person who usually posts under “Anon” you consistently post responses that reveal your naivety. I can only assume you are young and not well read (not to be demeaning). Israel was “given” nuclear power (in the bomb sense). A lot of nuclear power reactors can make weapons grade material. A non-nuclear power has no power of negotiation with a nuclear power. The politics of nuclear science is pretty clear. The ability of non-aggressive technologies (nuclear power) to be used for aggressive means (nuclear weapons) is a given until we see ourselves as one (hopefully it’s not too late).


    Quote Comment
  28. 228
    fixx Says:

    To DV82XL:
    “Electricity was generated for the first time by a nuclear reactor on December 20, 1951″
    The first atomic bomb was dropped well before that.

    I would guess that nuclear weapons were the goal of the militaristic. Nuclear power was the goal of the industrialists. And politicians saw opportunity in both. Do not delude yourself that nuclear (and other) science is not a tool used by those who wish to dominate. Adversity has proven that co-operation trumps competition for efficiency. Domination is the path to failure (proven historically). A peaceful dialog is the path to progress, aggressive negotiations are like backing a wolf into corner, what would you expect?

    To be clear. My position as a true agnostic (a stand that a friend of mine denies can exist) suggests that you are unqualified to post due to an inherent bias based on your profession. A true scientist is as unbiased as they can possibly be. You cannot be unbiased since your former (possibly current) lively-hood is dependent on the nuclear industry. Not to mention that a true scientist would refrain from calling someone an “idiot” as a point of argument. Such references are archaic as they are subjective judgements made during the early years of psychology (ignorant of the types of intelligence and the difference between intelligence and wisdom). Also these types of comments are purely derogatory in nature, a path a true scientist would shun. As old as you are, grow up, make comments when you have done so. There are valid arguments but that is not what you are providing.

    I don’t mean to attack but I am drunk and bored and after all, it is you and those who post as you do that have caused me to post at all. It is the glimmer of optimism inside me that hopes you will see the light (not a religious reference) and change. Also, there needs to be some sort of sucker that is resilient enough to provide an alternate viewpoint on this blog.


    Quote Comment
  29. 229
    Anon Says:

            Fixx said:

    Because I like to revive long dead threads…

    Or because you’re one of the village idiots.

            Fixx said:

    “BMS Says:
    October 29th, 2013 at 6:44 am
    Richard Perry said:
    … this solar looks low maintenance and very flexible for servicing with out shutting down the plant.
    Well, the plant shuts itself down every night.” – BMS (just to be clear)

    And at any given time the Earth is being 50% exposed to the sun (astrophysicists correct me if I’m wrong, I’m pretty sure this is at lest the average).

    If you ignore clouds and assume that you can perfectly track the sun then yes, you’ll get 50% (which is crap).

    OTOH if you factor in clouds and also the fact that you won’t be pointing it perfectly you get much less than that (Germany has been averaging not much more than 10% capacity factor for solar, though that’s a bad place to put solar power even by Earth standards).

            Fixx said:

    Our peak power usage is NOT while we are sleeping (should be in the dark, FU*K shiftwork (f*ck spellcheck, it is it’s own word)).

    But how are we meant to charge those electric cars we’re told we’ll have to use while we sleep?

    There’s also nothing at all wrong with using cheap off-peak electricity from nuclear plants to run high energy industrial processes especially if they only need a few people to supervise.

    Another problem with solar is that our peak power usage is mid-afternoon to early-evening not local noon when solar produces its maximum output.

            Fixx said:

    BTW, your WP Anti-spam is Chinese to me, literally. An insert to all those paying attention. If you click on something you don’t understand are you culpable… under current laws… where do you live?… I suspect the answer is yes.

    WTF? The Captcha could be better implemented but what you said makes no sense.

            Fixx said:

    Germany just made a milestone that even my pessimistic mind was pleasantly surprised at.

    Oh yes, producing less energy from solar and wind than from nuclear despite solar and wind having a lot more capacity, quite a milestone.

            Fixx said:

    The B.S. that Solar and Wind power are incapable of providing us with our (entitlement based) needs has been shattered.

    It’s not BS and it hasn’t be shattered given that Germany still gets more energy from nuclear than from wind and solar and they are still using fossil fuels.

    Get back when they’ve phased out all coal and gas plants and aren’t requiring imports from France or Scandinavia to keep the lights on.

            Fixx said:

    Don’t get me wrong, if aliens attack and for the purposes of space travel nuclear energy is fine but the old adage “don’t sh*t where you live” seems to apply here.

    Which also means don’t use solar power because it’s waste problem is worse than the one nuclear has.

    But don’t worry, the anti-nuclear movement probably won’t survive the transition to a space based civilisation.

            Fixx said:

    The only argument I have heard that dampens the achievement is the issue of storage, despite the multitude of ways to store energy efficiently.

    None of those ways you mention can be assured to be able to scale up to the level we’d need them to for them to backup solar.

            Fixx said:

    The fact that with enough infrastructure we could provide enough energy for an energy conscious society to support itself (in time) has been made pretty clear.

    True, we’ve shown that nuclear power can do the job just fine on its own for thousands of years without any need for other primary sources to help out.

            Fixx said:

    Politics and mega corporations aside, the Earth will provide if we so choose.

    No, the Earth does not exist to sustain us, it does not care about us.

            Fixx said:

    We already have all the technology it just needs to be refined (continuous improvement, never a bad thing) and implemented and then we can get there.

    Yes we do, it is called nuclear fission.

            Fixx said:

    More and more I see built for purpose and retrofit systems in my country providing a net increase into the power grid, and the surface has been merely scratched.

    Which increase electricity rates for those who can’t afford them (great way to help the poor there).

            Fixx said:

    With further implementation and advancements we can supply beyond our needs.

    Yeah, fission can provide all the power we’ll need for a long time and the abundant low cost (especially off-peak) energy would allow us to run energy intensive industries to provide what we need.

            Fixx said:

    Eventually all illusions are revealed, thought I’d throw that in.

    Yes, you’re illusions aren’t exempt from that.

            Fixx said:

    Heated sodium in vacuum insulated vessels used to run steam turbines (or any other heat engine, sterling’s are pretty good) is an off the top, good enough for now solution to storage.

    Can you store enough to last a whole country at least a week in winter?

    Because that’s how much you’d have to store if you want the unreliables to not provide lots of rolling blackouts.

            Fixx said:

    The science is already there in so many ways.

    Yes it is, pity you can’t comprehend it.

            Fixx said:

    The energy is essentially free and anything we can do to decrease the net increase in temperature of our system is probably a good thing.

    Except that you have to pay to build the collector and being that the energy is low energy density you need big collectors (not cheap), then you’ve got to pay to maintain it.

            Fixx said:

    Speculatively, if we can minimize our net enthalpy during a (historically) prelude to an ice age then we can minimize the depth of the ice age (a total guess, someone qualified please show me the err of my ways).

    If we want to avoid an ice age we know exactly how to do it, just pump extra CO₂ into the atmosphere (it’s working at raising the temperature of the planet when we don’t want the planet warmed, no reason to assume it won’t work if we did want a warmer planet).

            Fixx said:

    Politics and empires are transient compared to the infinite nature of time (there is no single word for this ???, that I know of). If we want to survive as a species we need to shed our partisan ideals and accept that all the answers are in the grey areas as well as the math.

    Something tells me what you really mean is accept your ideals.

            Fixx said:

    We are all equal (who is the judge??). We are all knowing (as far as we know :) ) Altruism and information are the keys, necessity and laziness are the mothers of invention. No species has ever been in the position to control variables related to their survival as us. What or who is stopping us???

    Luddites aren’t helping that’s for sure.

            Fixx said:

    In specific response to Anon’s posts. You are pretty naive.

    Sure you’re not projecting.

            Fixx said:

    Assuming you are the same person who usually posts under “Anon”

    Mostly, though other people have been known to use that name.

            Fixx said:

    you consistently post responses that reveal your naivety. I can only assume you are young and not well read (not to be demeaning).

    Maybe, or maybe it’s a case of you reading fiction and thinking it is fact.

            Fixx said:

    Israel was “given” nuclear power (in the bomb sense).

    They had to develop the bomb themselves though did receive some help from France and Britain (exactly how much is still unknown).

    It’s also worth noting that the time period the assistance was provided was before the NPT.

            Fixx said:

    A lot of nuclear power reactors can make weapons grade material.

    Such as? But can they do it without anyone noticing or without the economics of power production being significantly hurt?

    For you see the power companies like to leave the fuel in the reactor for years at time while to make bomb fuel you’ve got to remove the fuel at least every few months for reprocessing.

            Fixx said:

    A non-nuclear power has no power of negotiation with a nuclear power.

    Not completely, but a nuclear armed state is impossible to truly defeat (they can be destroyed, but only at the cost of yourself being destroyed).

            Fixx said:

    The politics of nuclear science is pretty clear. The ability of non-aggressive technologies (nuclear power) to be used for aggressive means (nuclear weapons) is a given until we see ourselves as one (hopefully it’s not too late).

    It is very hard to use a nuclear power plant for weapons production (with the exception of the Magnox, UNGG and RBMK types and the Hanford N reactor, few if any of which are still in use and which no one is building new).


    Quote Comment
  30. 230
    Anon Says:

            fixx said:

    I would guess that nuclear weapons were the goal of the militaristic.

    No, they were considered necessarily to beat the Axis or at least not be beaten by the Axis (remember that Germany and Japan had nuclear weapons programmes as well as the US and Britain).

            fixx said:

    Do not delude yourself that nuclear (and other) science is not a tool used by those who wish to dominate.

    No different from any other technology, remember that unreliables are mainly a screen to divert attention from the fact that Denmark and Germany aren’t closing their fossil fuel power plants.

            fixx said:

    To be clear. My position as a true agnostic (a stand that a friend of mine denies can exist) suggests that you are unqualified to post due to an inherent bias based on your profession.

    I don’t see what knowledge as to whether or not a fictional character exists has to do with this but I would suggest that you are unqualified to post due to not knowing what you’re talking about.

            fixx said:

    A true scientist is as unbiased as they can possibly be.

    Yes, they also tend to be pro-nuclear.

            fixx said:

    You cannot be unbiased since your former (possibly current) lively-hood is dependent on the nuclear industry.

    I thought DV82XL worked in aviation and wasn’t dependant on the nuclear industry (except in so much as Quebec having a lot of low cost carbon neutral power plants to run industry on).

            fixx said:

    Not to mention that a true scientist would refrain from calling someone an “idiot” as a point of argument.

    It’s not an argument but a statement of fact.

            fixx said:

    Such references are archaic as they are subjective judgements made during the early years of psychology (ignorant of the types of intelligence and the difference between intelligence and wisdom).

    Neither of which you appear to posses.

            fixx said:

    Also these types of comments are purely derogatory in nature, a path a true scientist would shun.

    True scientists don’t tend to like crackpots very much.

            fixx said:

    I don’t mean to attack but I am drunk

    So that’s why you’ve been acting even more stupid than usual?

            fixx said:

    Also, there needs to be some sort of sucker that is resilient enough to provide an alternate viewpoint on this blog.

    You’d do a much better job providing it if you weren’t rambling incoherently half the time.


    Quote Comment
  31. 231
    fixx Says:

    Exuse my drunken ramblings. When I woke this morning I immediately regretted posting my comments on this blog. I should have remembered that any coherent comments I did make would be rebutted in your usual fashion. A point that did not need to be demonstrated again.

    For clarity this was what I was talking about WRT Germany:
    http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/263510/speedreads-germany-gets-50-percent-of-its-electricity-from-solar-for-the-first-time

    Agnosticism is not restricted to theology. It is the more common use of the word but it is not what I was referring to. It is my opinion that some people claiming to think scientifically hold to their beliefs with religious fervor. “Don’t become overly confident in your perception of reality”

    Once again I apologize for my posts. The tangents and railing on about nay-sayers and such was pointless and out of place.


    Quote Comment
  32. 232
    Anon Says:

    Reaching 67% solar and wind on a single day is more likely to mean they’re coming up on the limits of how many intermittents their grid can handle than that they are actually moving towards those energy sources (it’s still coal and gazprom providing most of the electrons).


    Quote Comment
  33. 233
    DV82XL Says:

            fixx said:

    Agnosticism is not restricted to theology. It is the more common use of the word but it is not what I was referring to. It is my opinion that some people claiming to think scientifically hold to their beliefs with religious fervor. “Don’t become overly confident in your perception of reality”

    Those that try and hold up the German experience with wind and solar are the the Western equivalents of the Cargo Cultists of the South Seas. Regardless of how often their perceptions are shown to be wrong, they insist on holding up random events as evidence that their underlying beliefs are right.

    Come back when Germany can claim a full quarter of 67% dispatchable generation 24/7 and I’ll be impressed. As it stands this is a meaningless metric suitable only for impressing those that have no idea just how electric power systems work.


    Quote Comment
  34. 234
    Shafe Says:

            Fixx said:

    The energy is essentially free and anything we can do to decrease the net increase in temperature of our system is probably a good thing.

    Coal is free, too. Both coal and solar energy require you to collect them and covert them into electricity. It just costs a lot more to do that with solar energy.


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string b9OPYm to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam