Pictures show cracks in Ayrshire nuclear reactor(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Pictures show cracks in Ayrshire nuclear reactor
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-47485321
149 comments
If the moderator (graphite) crumbles into the channel it could jam it and prevent the control rods from entering the core and stop the nuclear reaction. However there are secondary (Nitrogen injection) and tertiary (Boron beads) modes of shutting down the reactor.
"In October 2014 a new kind of crack in the graphite moderator bricks was found at the Hunterston B reactor. This keyway root crack has been previously theorized but not observed. The existence of this type of crack does not immediately affect the safety of a reactor – however if the number of cracks exceed a threshold the reactor would be decommissioned, as the cracks cannot be repaired."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gas-cooled_Reactor
"In October 2014 a new kind of crack in the graphite moderator bricks was found at the Hunterston B reactor. This keyway root crack has been previously theorized but not observed. The existence of this type of crack does not immediately affect the safety of a reactor – however if the number of cracks exceed a threshold the reactor would be decommissioned, as the cracks cannot be repaired."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gas-cooled_Reactor
> "however if the number of cracks exceed a threshold the reactor would be decommissioned, as the cracks cannot be repaired"
This is the issue currently. The cracking in reactor 3 has progressed more rapidly than modelled, and has exceeded the threshold of 350 cracks. EDF are arguing that the reactor can be safely operated with more cracks, and want the threshold increased to 700.
This is the issue currently. The cracking in reactor 3 has progressed more rapidly than modelled, and has exceeded the threshold of 350 cracks. EDF are arguing that the reactor can be safely operated with more cracks, and want the threshold increased to 700.
> "However there are secondary (Nitrogen injection) and tertiary (Boron beads) modes of shutting down the reactor."
Hunterston B has also been fitted with "super-articulated" control rods that are designed to be insertable even if the graphite channels are destabilised/distorted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-37789654
Hunterston B has also been fitted with "super-articulated" control rods that are designed to be insertable even if the graphite channels are destabilised/distorted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-37789654
Safety limits are very conservative and are established through experiments. If the reactor can still be shut down safely and will for a few more years then it can run.
Safety limits are very conservative on nuclear power for fairly well established reasons though. If your worst case scenario makes the two largest metropolitan areas in a country uninhabitable for a while, for the current power equivalent of around 6 months new build in offshore wind (Hunterston is 1 GW and we are currently building out around 2 GW a year in offshore wind), then perhaps the caution is worth it.
The strategic industrial behavior is to accept conservative safety limits initially and then apply for exceptions as needed to keep the site running. You'll see the same thing from nuclear power to various chemical plants to NASA.
As an example, the initial safety assessment may assume that a) 5mm is the limit for crack width, and b) by the time cracks are 1mm wide, they will be 2mm wide a month later, and, because of that growth rate, pick 2mm as the “take out of commission now” point (nb: numbers 100% made up; for illustration only)
If, in real life, it turns out that it takes a year for a crack to grow from 1mm to 2mm, the model used can be improved. Result _could_ be that the “take out of commission now” point gets moved to 3mm.
They also may remove some stuff with 2mm cracks and test it for strength, and learn more about how the stuff behaves after being irradiated for decades. That, too, can change (in either direction) the life expectancy of the reactor.
If, in real life, it turns out that it takes a year for a crack to grow from 1mm to 2mm, the model used can be improved. Result _could_ be that the “take out of commission now” point gets moved to 3mm.
They also may remove some stuff with 2mm cracks and test it for strength, and learn more about how the stuff behaves after being irradiated for decades. That, too, can change (in either direction) the life expectancy of the reactor.
Perhaps, but surely you realize that there is currently a lot of pressure (and therefore bias) for keeping the plant operational: Jobs, energy supply and the operator's profits. And the thing is, those biases affect both the regulator (the government), the local population (who probably want to keep their jobs) and the operator (EDF Energy).
So at this point in time I would be skeptical of new experiments and model updates performed by the operator and approved by the regulator. IMHO: Don't approve the model change, do some lab experiments / examine more empirical evidence over time and then possibly change the model for a _future_ reactor.
So at this point in time I would be skeptical of new experiments and model updates performed by the operator and approved by the regulator. IMHO: Don't approve the model change, do some lab experiments / examine more empirical evidence over time and then possibly change the model for a _future_ reactor.
I do, but there also is a lot of pressure to close nuclear reactors because the perceived danger of nuclear power is a lot higher than its real danger.
Also, would you be in favor of _not_ changing the model for current reactors if updated models predict a shorter life time? If you think the model should be updated in those cases, that introduces bias. It also could mean reactor owners would stop making measurements, and that, in turn, would mean we would learn less about making safer reactors.
Also, would you be in favor of _not_ changing the model for current reactors if updated models predict a shorter life time? If you think the model should be updated in those cases, that introduces bias. It also could mean reactor owners would stop making measurements, and that, in turn, would mean we would learn less about making safer reactors.
If such conditions exist, they can be determined while the reactor is shut down. Otherwise that's recklessness. The original safety margins are there for good reason. Setting them aside without thoroughly testing new limits with justifications that include reasons why the original limits were wrong is reckless. "Nothing bad happened" is not a good reason.
Hanlon shows that people rate 'jobs' above all sorts of variables, including economic growth and shuttering zombie businesses which would make everyone richer.
Particularly bizarre in a country like the United Kingdom which is operating at record levels of employment.
Particularly bizarre in a country like the United Kingdom which is operating at record levels of employment.
The UK is operating at entirely fake levels of employment.
The statistics are based on a Labour Force Survey which counts anyone who works for one hour a week - or more - as employed. And also anyone who labels themselves as self-employed, irrespective of hours worked.
This is explicitly official policy, and not exaggeration or hyperbole.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...
The statistics are based on a Labour Force Survey which counts anyone who works for one hour a week - or more - as employed. And also anyone who labels themselves as self-employed, irrespective of hours worked.
This is explicitly official policy, and not exaggeration or hyperbole.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwor...
This ^^^^. Thank you.
So, in the UK, if you're on unemployment benefit (UB) you're permitted to work up to 15 hours a week. But that wage is deducted from your UB. That work counts towards "employment" as far as the current UK stats are concerned. It's a lie and the UK government should own up to this....but statistics, damn statistics make them look good depending on how you cut things.
So, in the UK, if you're on unemployment benefit (UB) you're permitted to work up to 15 hours a week. But that wage is deducted from your UB. That work counts towards "employment" as far as the current UK stats are concerned. It's a lie and the UK government should own up to this....but statistics, damn statistics make them look good depending on how you cut things.
They are employed, though. They're just under employed.
These definitions aren't just made up to make the UK look good, they're international definitions of employment.
These definitions aren't just made up to make the UK look good, they're international definitions of employment.
> which is operating at record levels of employment.
Depends on your classification of "employment". For the last 30 years the UK government DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) has being classifying all sorts of things as "employment" including folks who work on zero hour contracts, which aren't full employment. Governments get to classify all sorts of things as "record levels" of employment, meanwhile these "employed families" are still having to rely on foodbanks to feed themselves.
Depends on your classification of "employment". For the last 30 years the UK government DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) has being classifying all sorts of things as "employment" including folks who work on zero hour contracts, which aren't full employment. Governments get to classify all sorts of things as "record levels" of employment, meanwhile these "employed families" are still having to rely on foodbanks to feed themselves.
Is it bizarre? It seems really intuitive that a country where jobs are prioritized above most else has an incredibly high employment rate.
It might seem inventive, but in this scope/size intuition is often wrong. Same with all large or long-term things in general; humans are notoriously bad at those.
Take this specific case; stay the reactor's systems fail (all of them including the quadruple redundancies), those jobs and energy generators are kind-of irrelevant if you are dead...
Take this specific case; stay the reactor's systems fail (all of them including the quadruple redundancies), those jobs and energy generators are kind-of irrelevant if you are dead...
If graphite cracked/crumbled to prevent the control rods from being re-inserted, that's some scary stuff. The article ending with a request for the safety limit for number-of-cracks to be increased was really surprising for me. The whole "risk VS reward" test comes to mind... the reward is power for 1.8 million homes, but the risk is total catastrophic destruction of the environment for (tens of) thousands of years. The odds may look good, but geez...just a huge gamble to take with other peoples homes/property/lives.
> but the risk is total catastrophic destruction of the environment for (tens of) thousands of years.
This is ranging on hyperbole. Even in the case of a meltdown the result wouldn't be another Chernobyl. The latter was an unshielded reactor. Literally the soviets didn't bother putting a concrete condom on their reactors, because that would be too expensive. We've already experienced meltdowns in properly built reactors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
This is ranging on hyperbole. Even in the case of a meltdown the result wouldn't be another Chernobyl. The latter was an unshielded reactor. Literally the soviets didn't bother putting a concrete condom on their reactors, because that would be too expensive. We've already experienced meltdowns in properly built reactors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
Like Chernobyl, AGR reactors do not have secondary containment: the idea was that as they are gas cooled (no water to phase change) and have enormous cores (so much more time to deal with heat build up), they are safe enough to not need it.
I don't know where you're getting that info. This one says that AGR reactors have 5-7 meter thick reinforced concrete walls: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/...
This isn't a separate containment structure surrounding the reactor, but part of the reactor itself. From your own link, page 42, section 5.8 Containment systems:
> Thus, there seems to be a barrier less in AGR compared with LWR reactors. In AGR's the pressure vessel and containment is one unit, but the vessel contains the total primary circuit.The main reason for this difference is the single phase CO2 coolant used in AGR compared with the H2O coolant in LWR. CO2 cannot undergo suddenly phase change as a result of an unexpected rise in temperature or pressure, i. c. it cannot flash as water. It means that there can be no sudden discontinuity of cooling under fault conditions, and changes in flows, temperatures and pressures progress rather slow.
> Thus, there seems to be a barrier less in AGR compared with LWR reactors. In AGR's the pressure vessel and containment is one unit, but the vessel contains the total primary circuit.The main reason for this difference is the single phase CO2 coolant used in AGR compared with the H2O coolant in LWR. CO2 cannot undergo suddenly phase change as a result of an unexpected rise in temperature or pressure, i. c. it cannot flash as water. It means that there can be no sudden discontinuity of cooling under fault conditions, and changes in flows, temperatures and pressures progress rather slow.
The Three Mile island accident mostly teaches us that we got lucky. Here‘s a quote from that Wikipedia article:
On the third day following the accident, a hydrogen bubble was discovered in the dome of the pressure vessel, and became the focus of concern. A hydrogen explosion might not only breach the pressure vessel, but, depending on its magnitude, might compromise the integrity of the containment vessel leading to large-scale release of radioactive material.
On the third day following the accident, a hydrogen bubble was discovered in the dome of the pressure vessel, and became the focus of concern. A hydrogen explosion might not only breach the pressure vessel, but, depending on its magnitude, might compromise the integrity of the containment vessel leading to large-scale release of radioactive material.
> The Three Mile island accident mostly teaches us that we got lucky.
Why is it considered luck? For it to be luck wouldn't we have to show that there was some way in which the explosion breaching the containment was possible and should've occurred, but due to chance didn't. (Seems like it could've been modeled but I couldn't find anything on that.)
> From 30 March through 1 April operators removed this hydrogen gas "bubble" by periodically opening the vent valve on the reactor cooling system pressuriser. For a time, regulatory (NRC) officials believed the hydrogen bubble could explode, though such an explosion was never possible since there was not enough oxygen in the system. [1]
> Our main conclusions were the following: (1) Most of the initial hydrogen in the bubble was produced by the reaction of the Zircalloy cladding with the super-heated water. (2) During the first 16 hr after shutdown, when boiling of the primary coolant water took place, in the worst case stoichiometric amounts of hydrogen and oxygen could have been produced by radiolysis, leading to a maximum amount of oxygen in the bubble, of 0.7% of the hydrogen, which is well below the explosion limit. (3) After this 16 hr period, when boiling had totally ceased, no further oxygen could have been produced by radiolysis of the primary cooling water. On the contrary, oxygen was recombined with hydrogen due to radiolysis at such a rate that the oxygen in the water was completely removed in less than five minutes. The subsequent rate of removal of oxygen from the bubble by dissolution and radiolysis depended essentially on the rate of dissolution. [2]
[1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0146572483...
Why is it considered luck? For it to be luck wouldn't we have to show that there was some way in which the explosion breaching the containment was possible and should've occurred, but due to chance didn't. (Seems like it could've been modeled but I couldn't find anything on that.)
> From 30 March through 1 April operators removed this hydrogen gas "bubble" by periodically opening the vent valve on the reactor cooling system pressuriser. For a time, regulatory (NRC) officials believed the hydrogen bubble could explode, though such an explosion was never possible since there was not enough oxygen in the system. [1]
> Our main conclusions were the following: (1) Most of the initial hydrogen in the bubble was produced by the reaction of the Zircalloy cladding with the super-heated water. (2) During the first 16 hr after shutdown, when boiling of the primary coolant water took place, in the worst case stoichiometric amounts of hydrogen and oxygen could have been produced by radiolysis, leading to a maximum amount of oxygen in the bubble, of 0.7% of the hydrogen, which is well below the explosion limit. (3) After this 16 hr period, when boiling had totally ceased, no further oxygen could have been produced by radiolysis of the primary cooling water. On the contrary, oxygen was recombined with hydrogen due to radiolysis at such a rate that the oxygen in the water was completely removed in less than five minutes. The subsequent rate of removal of oxygen from the bubble by dissolution and radiolysis depended essentially on the rate of dissolution. [2]
[1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-...
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0146572483...
That's the result of the post-mortem analysis.
The fact that the engineers were afraid it was going to blow up shows that the entire scenario had not been forseen. Hence, luck.
The fact that the engineers were afraid it was going to blow up shows that the entire scenario had not been forseen. Hence, luck.
Sure, secondary containment might fail. But it buys a second chance and requires penetration of meters thick reinforced concrete on top of a failure of the pressure vessel. With such secondary containment it's likely that Chernobyl would have only resulted in the deaths of operators working near the reactor and water supply, and drastically less contamination of the surrounding areas.
And research papers dispute the risk posed by said bubble: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0146572483...
And research papers dispute the risk posed by said bubble: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0146572483...
Well if we set the question like this then fossil fuels are about the same - power for everyone for the small chance to kill from thousands to billions.
In the case of fossil fuel, this is not an incremental risk per plant. Each fossil fuel plant gives electricity to a similar number of people, but can't individually render a subcontinent uninhabitable.
The WHO will tell you that air pollution from fossil fuels kills millions of people each year (multiple times more than even the most outrageous estimates of the combined death tolls of all nuclear accidents in history - even if you add Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the list). You also don’t have to look very hard to find information about how air pollution could lead to large portions of the planet being uninhabitable.
Again, this is aggregate air pollution, not caused by one individual fossil fuel power plant. My whole point was this distinction. Obviously fossil fuels in aggregate cause lots of death and damage.
How fitting in this case is the airing of the HBO Miniseries Chernobyl?
The timing sometimes is just so perfect
The timing sometimes is just so perfect
You're probably hearing about this because Chernobyl aired. It wouldn't be newsworthy otherwise.
I've read about the cracks around a year ago.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43988385
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/06/cracks-n...
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43988385
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/06/cracks-n...
There is some series on nuclear disasters going on all the time. PBS just did a big one on Fukishima last year and Command and Control has been put out again recently. Maybe it's a slight surge, but people have always been interested in these subjects. If you haven't seen either I would highly recommend. Command and Control is particularly frightening as many don't know about it.
Chernobyl is particularly relevant though due to the similarity of the potential failure modes (control rod thermal failure preventing full insertion leading to meltdown).
> total catastrophic destruction of the environment for (tens of) thousands of years
More like 300 years (10 Cs137 and Sr99 half lives) but otherwise you're right.
More like 300 years (10 Cs137 and Sr99 half lives) but otherwise you're right.
Plutonium, a byproduct of all nuclear reactors and part of their waste stream, is dangerous for 240,000 years.
How much plutonium is likely to be released in a nuclear incident? I thought Three Mile Island and Chernobyl mostly released radioactive isotopes of iodine and a bunch of noble gasses, with cesium, plutonium, and strontium being present in smaller quantities and generally settling closer to the reactor.
Plutonium release is far less being less mobile and it doesn't have the biological issues strontium does.
Not all reactors; fast neutron burner reactors output less Pu than they consume.
Those exist only on paper. I'm speaking of actual production reactors which create dangerous amounts of plutonium-laden waste that needs to be cooled, monitored, and protected from human intervention for hundreds of thousands of years -- a problem that we still have no way to solve.
Where did you get that number?
Seems like a typo. Half-life of Pu-239 is ~24,000 years, and of Pu-242 ~374,000 years.
I'm guessing Pu-239 was intended as 1) an extra "0" digit is the more likely typo, and 2) Pu-239 is (AFAIU) the principal Plutonium byproduct of typical Uranium fission reactors.
I'm guessing Pu-239 was intended as 1) an extra "0" digit is the more likely typo, and 2) Pu-239 is (AFAIU) the principal Plutonium byproduct of typical Uranium fission reactors.
Half life means that radioactivity is reduced by half, not eliminated. A single particle of plutonium is enough to cause cancer and kill a person. This is why nuclear fuel rod storage (the waste products) must be guarded for hundreds of thousands of years.
Half life is inversely proportional to radioactivity. Hundreds of thousands of years = no worries, you only live up to 1e-3 that amount.
[deleted]
Why do you assume the failure mode here is catastrophic?
DoctorOetker(1)
No idea why you're getting downvoted...
It's not like modern nuclear reactors can only fail catastrophically, much less a predictable failure case that engineers are actively monitoring to ensure the safe operation of said reactor.
What's terrifying are the failure cases that the engineers aren't aware of -- the unknown unknowns -- which are probably significantly fewer than the cases they are aware of and are monitoring.
It's not like modern nuclear reactors can only fail catastrophically, much less a predictable failure case that engineers are actively monitoring to ensure the safe operation of said reactor.
What's terrifying are the failure cases that the engineers aren't aware of -- the unknown unknowns -- which are probably significantly fewer than the cases they are aware of and are monitoring.
I don't think that was the reason. The reason they waived the safety rule is that a further year of modelling and tests determined that the plant was still safe to run. The motivation for keeping it running was jobs and energy supply. But the extra modelling allows it to continue.
> inside information
This is my biggest problem with the nuclear industry. To begin with much of the design and operations of nuclear power stations were classed as state secrets, today they're classed as commercial secrets. Until the full operational characteristics of these generating stations are properly revealed we just can't trust nuclear power.
This is my biggest problem with the nuclear industry. To begin with much of the design and operations of nuclear power stations were classed as state secrets, today they're classed as commercial secrets. Until the full operational characteristics of these generating stations are properly revealed we just can't trust nuclear power.
>why is it that when a safety limit has been established and later on reached, that (seemingly) uninformed people start walling by screaming 'but the jobs' and 'but the power'. None of those should be more important than a reactor problem you'd think.
And if it depended on those people the reactor would keep running until it exploded. It's almost as if democracy was stupid and ineffective.
And if it depended on those people the reactor would keep running until it exploded. It's almost as if democracy was stupid and ineffective.
I don't think democracy is the problem. The current and broken system in many nations is. I'd rather not have a dictatorship and I don't see Anarchy being particularly effective either. What is your solution?
Edit: I understand the feeling of helplessness, but saying that democracy doesn't work is dangerous as this feeling of apathy spreads and people stop participating in the system and we lose many of the more reasonable voters and then less savory candidates get elected and make things even worse and more apathy spreads and so forth. It becomes a vicious cycle and self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm very guilty myself, but have vowed to start participating more in elections and local politics.
Edit: I understand the feeling of helplessness, but saying that democracy doesn't work is dangerous as this feeling of apathy spreads and people stop participating in the system and we lose many of the more reasonable voters and then less savory candidates get elected and make things even worse and more apathy spreads and so forth. It becomes a vicious cycle and self-fulfilling prophecy. I'm very guilty myself, but have vowed to start participating more in elections and local politics.
> The operational limit for the latest period of operation was 350 cracks but an inspection found that allowance had been exceeded.
>
> EDF plans to ask the regulator for permission to restart with a new operational limit of up to 700 cracks.
Yeah, next time you exceed the speed limit, just ask the police officer for permission to double the fun...
No seriously, what the article is missing, is why there was a limit of 350. Was it just made up at some point to correlate with the expected lifetime? What real, increased risk is involved when operating up to 700 cracks?
Just telling they would have to get the power elsewhere and jobs would be at risk, is obvious and just one side of the medal. If there is no additional risk involved, there is no reason to condemn asking to raise the limit.
Yeah, next time you exceed the speed limit, just ask the police officer for permission to double the fun...
No seriously, what the article is missing, is why there was a limit of 350. Was it just made up at some point to correlate with the expected lifetime? What real, increased risk is involved when operating up to 700 cracks?
Just telling they would have to get the power elsewhere and jobs would be at risk, is obvious and just one side of the medal. If there is no additional risk involved, there is no reason to condemn asking to raise the limit.
Ah, the "normalisation of deviance"; the space shuttle flew just fine with partially eroded O rings in the boosters, until the day it didn't.
> Yeah, next time you exceed the speed limit, just ask the police officer for permission to double the fun...
This is a rather weak analogy - I don't know where you live, but where I live driving the speed limit is not the norm and ironically driving against the common speed of traffic is more dangerous. i.e. You are safer exceeding the speed limit if that is with the flow of traffic than you are driving the speed limit when the flow is faster.
> No seriously, what the article is missing, is why there was a limit of 350. Was it just made up at some point to correlate with the expected lifetime? What real, increased risk is involved when operating up to 700 cracks?
To keep with the same analogy - what you are missing is that speed limits tend to be set assuming the _worst case_ driver, someone that really should not be on the road in the first place. i.e. the limit is not designed for the average driver/car but for the worst. i.e. they are _extremely_ conservative.
> Just telling they would have to get the power elsewhere and jobs would be at risk, is obvious and just one side of the medal. If there is no additional risk involved, there is no reason to condemn asking to raise the limit.
I think the challenge here is to quantify the 'risk' in full, which has to include where the power would come from as an alternative. The present situation is that the capacity is mostly replaced with natural gas, a net CO2 emission loss.
This is a rather weak analogy - I don't know where you live, but where I live driving the speed limit is not the norm and ironically driving against the common speed of traffic is more dangerous. i.e. You are safer exceeding the speed limit if that is with the flow of traffic than you are driving the speed limit when the flow is faster.
> No seriously, what the article is missing, is why there was a limit of 350. Was it just made up at some point to correlate with the expected lifetime? What real, increased risk is involved when operating up to 700 cracks?
To keep with the same analogy - what you are missing is that speed limits tend to be set assuming the _worst case_ driver, someone that really should not be on the road in the first place. i.e. the limit is not designed for the average driver/car but for the worst. i.e. they are _extremely_ conservative.
> Just telling they would have to get the power elsewhere and jobs would be at risk, is obvious and just one side of the medal. If there is no additional risk involved, there is no reason to condemn asking to raise the limit.
I think the challenge here is to quantify the 'risk' in full, which has to include where the power would come from as an alternative. The present situation is that the capacity is mostly replaced with natural gas, a net CO2 emission loss.
"To keep with the same analogy - what you are missing is that speed limits tend to be set assuming the _worst case_ driver, someone that really should not be on the road in the first place. i.e. the limit is not designed for the average driver/car but for the worst. i.e. they are _extremely_ conservative."
This is usually not the case in Europe. If someone doesn't belong on the road, they normally don't pass the exam, but:
* some countries have problems with bribes, I've heard of some egregious cases.
* some countries have a reckless driving culture, for instance traffic in Italy is quite crazy, they don't seem to care at all about the rules.
Sometimes the road does allow one to go faster, but speed limits are enforced through fines and I think in most EU countries you lose your license if you go 30 kmph over the speed limit.
This is usually not the case in Europe. If someone doesn't belong on the road, they normally don't pass the exam, but:
* some countries have problems with bribes, I've heard of some egregious cases.
* some countries have a reckless driving culture, for instance traffic in Italy is quite crazy, they don't seem to care at all about the rules.
Sometimes the road does allow one to go faster, but speed limits are enforced through fines and I think in most EU countries you lose your license if you go 30 kmph over the speed limit.
I'm not familiar with EU laws on this but I highly doubt it. You don't define speed limits assuming a capable driver in an M3, you define them for a questionable driver in a Renault Clio.
> I think in most EU countries you lose your license if you go 30 kmph over the speed limit
It's also a significant penalty in the US, this has no impact on the reality of the speeds that exist in reality, nor the safety.
> I think in most EU countries you lose your license if you go 30 kmph over the speed limit
It's also a significant penalty in the US, this has no impact on the reality of the speeds that exist in reality, nor the safety.
It really depends. In Sweden speed limits are low and nobody respect them. In France they are higher and slightly more respected. In the mountains /hills they are actually way too high and nearly unreachable. Most roads are technically still limited to 80/90km/h but doing more than 70 requires some serious sport driving style.
In Poland the speed limits are certainly more like "minimum required" signs and only very recently a law was introduced that you lose your licence for going 2x the speed limit....but only in towns. Outside of them you can be going as fast as you like and you can't get a ticket higher than 1000PLN(€250). I think at least bribes are either less common now or completely gone, I haven't heard of anyone successfully bribing their way out of a ticket for years now but my dad used to say that he would always get out of them by leaving a 50pln note in the documents.
But yes, in my experience if you happen to be driving at the speed limit(or god forbid - below!) You will have people driving 50cm behind you and overtaking dangerously while beeping.
But yes, in my experience if you happen to be driving at the speed limit(or god forbid - below!) You will have people driving 50cm behind you and overtaking dangerously while beeping.
> You are safer exceeding the speed limit if that is with the flow of traffic than you are driving the speed limit when the flow is faster.
Are you? I've lived in Texas and Oregon, spent a lot of time in Florida and Arizona.
My gut feel is that the places where people drive aggressively and past the speed limit are less safe and the data seems to back that.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/rural_fatal.cfm
I've never felt unsafe by driving the speed limit where others want to go faster in my life, except perhaps by narcissists losing their mind about having to wait a moment to pass.
Are you? I've lived in Texas and Oregon, spent a lot of time in Florida and Arizona.
My gut feel is that the places where people drive aggressively and past the speed limit are less safe and the data seems to back that.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/rural_fatal.cfm
I've never felt unsafe by driving the speed limit where others want to go faster in my life, except perhaps by narcissists losing their mind about having to wait a moment to pass.
Totally agree and it also seems like the bbc is trying to scare the shit outta people. Everyone does have a right to know, but a crack within the core that's been accounted for by professionals needs a concise article with a way better title than this crap.
40+ years of generating clean CO2-free energy.
Designed with slide rules and drafting tables.
An unbelievable accomplishment!
Designed with slide rules and drafting tables.
An unbelievable accomplishment!
>CO2-free energy
But this reactor uses tons of CO2 as coolant! /s
But this reactor uses tons of CO2 as coolant! /s
1. And nuclear waste is nothing to you? Not everything is about CO_2 you know.
2. It is indeed a significant accomplishment. Let's keep it that way by ceasing operation on time and not risk tarring the accomplishment with a reactor failure.
> And nuclear waste is nothing to you? Not everything is about CO_2 you know
This is an incredibly disingenuous comparison. Nuclear waste is not even remotely as much of a problem as CO2 emissions. Nuclear waste can be encased in concrete and buried in remote areas. There are also several areas already irradiated by nuclear bomb testing, so putting the waste there is moot (This applies to the Yucca Mountain facility). The hypothetical situations in which nuclear waste could result in human contamination are borderline absurd. Sure, if society collapses and all records of these waste locations are lost, and if some future civilization decides to dig a mile deep in a remote area with no natural resources, and if they decide to crack open these concrete caskets because all knowledge of 21st Century languages are lost so they can't read the warnings, and if they manage to do all this without knowledge of radiation then humans might get contaminated.
By comparison, CO2 emissions get pumped straight into the atmosphere
> It is indeed a significant accomplishment. Let's keep it that way by ceasing operation on time and not risk tarring the accomplishment with a reactor failure.
Yeah, and then turn around and build more coal and gas plants because the other alternatives cannot provide consistent power at the same price point. This is what happened in Germany and Japan. Anti-nuclear runs contrary to the principles of clean energy. In fact some estimates indicate that the coal plants built in Japan following the reactor closures after the Fukishima Daichi plant failure will actually end up emitting more radiation than the incident itself.
This is an incredibly disingenuous comparison. Nuclear waste is not even remotely as much of a problem as CO2 emissions. Nuclear waste can be encased in concrete and buried in remote areas. There are also several areas already irradiated by nuclear bomb testing, so putting the waste there is moot (This applies to the Yucca Mountain facility). The hypothetical situations in which nuclear waste could result in human contamination are borderline absurd. Sure, if society collapses and all records of these waste locations are lost, and if some future civilization decides to dig a mile deep in a remote area with no natural resources, and if they decide to crack open these concrete caskets because all knowledge of 21st Century languages are lost so they can't read the warnings, and if they manage to do all this without knowledge of radiation then humans might get contaminated.
By comparison, CO2 emissions get pumped straight into the atmosphere
> It is indeed a significant accomplishment. Let's keep it that way by ceasing operation on time and not risk tarring the accomplishment with a reactor failure.
Yeah, and then turn around and build more coal and gas plants because the other alternatives cannot provide consistent power at the same price point. This is what happened in Germany and Japan. Anti-nuclear runs contrary to the principles of clean energy. In fact some estimates indicate that the coal plants built in Japan following the reactor closures after the Fukishima Daichi plant failure will actually end up emitting more radiation than the incident itself.
Literally everything is about CO2. It'll destroy civilization much faster than nuclear waste.
If we do make it over that hurdle, and the many other imminent threats our civilization faces, nuclear fuel is the only means we have (with current technology) of sustaining interstellar travel. Other fuels are too bulky and solar won't work when we get a certain distance from our star. I mean, CO2 and the lies surrounding it are probably going to kill us, and if that doesn't, nuclear war will, and if we manage to muster the level of cooperation and honesty needed to survive these issues, we still face self replicating nanite disasters, murderous omniscient AI disasters, anything you can imagine could kill us before we manage to spread our society into the stars. But if we do want to perform any meaningful operations in deep space, nuclear fuel conservation will be of the utmost importance. Surviving the wealthy few who control these resources and want to use them will be far harder than any other task of cooperation we are faced with.
[deleted]
What about methane?
[Its] impact is 34 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period
https://unfccc.int/news/new-methane-signs-underline-urgency-...
[Its] impact is 34 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period
https://unfccc.int/news/new-methane-signs-underline-urgency-...
That's another thing destroying civilization much faster than nuclear waste. Not sure why you mention it in this thread on nuclear waste.
I was responding to the previous comment which said that "Literally everything is about CO2."
That reactor would have produced about 800 metric tons of nuclear waste in its lifetime. That's quite a manageable amount, about a small warehouse in size.
And aren't newer reactors more efficient? Either way, even the old amount seems manageable to bridge the gap in switching to renewable energy.
Nuclear waste is neatly contained to a portion of the continent where it's buried, and can be easily avoided by a significant part of the civilization. CO2 blankets the entire planet, and from that there is no escape.
Forrest for the trees. Nuclear waste is trivial in comparison to the extinction level event we are causing. But sure, complain about nuclear waste and push for solar and wind that have to be backed by fossil fuels for some solid status quo.
1. "Trivial" is not "Zero".
2. Nuclear waste is not as trivial as you make it sound, especially if you consider the length of time it has to be managed.
However, even present-day renewable technology can apparently provide 80% of project US energy demand of 2050: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-the-world-ru... ; and expected to provide 70% of Denmark's demand by next year already (same article) - despite the non-uniform output of Solar and of Wind. And technology marches on.
3. If countries link up their grids, there would be some mitigation of the non-uniformity of Solar and Wind output.
4. Energy storage technology.
5. CO_2 is a big issue. But non-renewable energy sources which run the risk of causing nuclear holocausts - while not entirely out of the question should be considered only to the extent renewable sources cannot be exploited instead.
6. IIANM One can also significantly decrease the amount of CO_2 emissions from fossil-fuel-fired plants through different process technology. It's not clear to me that between that and construction of nuclear plants, the latter wins out (although I don't have a strong opinion on the matter).
2. Nuclear waste is not as trivial as you make it sound, especially if you consider the length of time it has to be managed.
However, even present-day renewable technology can apparently provide 80% of project US energy demand of 2050: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/can-the-world-ru... ; and expected to provide 70% of Denmark's demand by next year already (same article) - despite the non-uniform output of Solar and of Wind. And technology marches on.
3. If countries link up their grids, there would be some mitigation of the non-uniformity of Solar and Wind output.
4. Energy storage technology.
5. CO_2 is a big issue. But non-renewable energy sources which run the risk of causing nuclear holocausts - while not entirely out of the question should be considered only to the extent renewable sources cannot be exploited instead.
6. IIANM One can also significantly decrease the amount of CO_2 emissions from fossil-fuel-fired plants through different process technology. It's not clear to me that between that and construction of nuclear plants, the latter wins out (although I don't have a strong opinion on the matter).
Mining, refining and delivering uranium rests on fossil fuel powered operations. Building new nuclear plants is not carbon free either. Nuclear energy industry probably nets less carbon emissions per unit of energy than coal or natural gas industries. Yet it's factually incorrect to call it CO2 free. Solar energy industry is often criticised of similar greenwashing, when the initial CO2 cost of creating a solar panel and delivering it from Asia to Europe or North America can have great CO2 burden
Sure, the construction of the plant and acquisition of nuclear fuel uses CO2. The generation of nuclear power itself does not. I'm willing to be that CO2 emitted per megawatt of nuclear power is a fraction of that of coal or gas plants.
And the gasoline used to run the mining vehicles and transport vehicles are already counted in other carbon emission categories - namely transportation. So if you included them in the power generation emissions estimate you're likely double counting them.
And the gasoline used to run the mining vehicles and transport vehicles are already counted in other carbon emission categories - namely transportation. So if you included them in the power generation emissions estimate you're likely double counting them.
That's the sunk cost fallacy though. Some particular nuclear plant was constructed by hauling ore and concrete with diesel trucks. What happens when we switch to electric trucks, with nuclear or solar generated electricity?
By contrast, how do you reduce the CO2 output of coal? Do the same thing and replace the electricity the plant generates with nuclear and solar?
By contrast, how do you reduce the CO2 output of coal? Do the same thing and replace the electricity the plant generates with nuclear and solar?
Is that really the right way to count it? A lot of the CO2 for a solar panel is because the factory is connected to a dirty grid. If the factory was connected to a clean grid this would go away, and it’s involved in making this happen. Should that be charged to the coal and gas industry instead?
For nuclear, CO2 emitted by the concrete should obviously be counted. But uranium mining?
For nuclear, CO2 emitted by the concrete should obviously be counted. But uranium mining?
That’s like saying riding a bike isn’t carbon free because the biker relies on food farmed using CO2-based fuels and the rider breathes out CO2.
But this actually matters! While your example makes it sound indeed silly, full "life-cycle assessments" and counting externalities matters. Permit me to take your example to an even more farcical end: imagine there was a correlation between bikers eating beef and bus commuter being vegetarians - in such a silly world the bus commuters would probably be much greener even though the bus is a gas guzzler. The problem is that with nuclear these analyses are really complicated, and should not be dismissed out of hand. I do believe that nuclear energy is very important in the fight against global warming, but such dismissals do not help convince people of it.
People use the same argument for solar and wind energy; however the goal is for future panels/uranium to be created/mined using non-coal energy
A more real world comparison is an electric bike commute. If the extra power for a cycle commute comes from human food then it's entirely possible that the extra carbon cost of making and charging the battery are a worthwhile investment to help save carbon footprint even though the bike is now heavier.
As you say, vegan vs carnivore (and red vs other meats) would be a factor just as whether the electric power comes from renewable or fossil power.
And to get super complicated you could then weigh the cost of healthcare if the rider is using less physical exertion.
As you say, vegan vs carnivore (and red vs other meats) would be a factor just as whether the electric power comes from renewable or fossil power.
And to get super complicated you could then weigh the cost of healthcare if the rider is using less physical exertion.
You're not wrong, but mind the point from manfredo about double-counting, too. I.e., the bicycle is not _itself_ a source of CO2 as the bus is, so if you cownt the beefeaters' full carbon hoofprint, you have to subtract that elsewhere in the overall assessment.
You say that would be silly, but there are undoubtedly correlations between diet and overall athleticism. Whether beef-eating is positively or negatively correlated with bicycle commuting is difficult to guess, but it would be surprising if there were no correlation.
It seems to me that one of the most critical safety components of a nuclear reactor is the successful isolation of its operation from political or financial pressures.
How do atomic energy organizations succeed in doing this?
How do atomic energy organizations succeed in doing this?
>How do atomic energy organizations succeed in doing this?
From my knowledge: they mostly don't. For example, in France, we have the Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (Nuclear Safety Authority, ASN) which is supposed to be an independent and transparent authority on nuclear safety and information.
However: it has been criticized many times since its inception in 2006 regarding conflicts of interest[1][2], and lacks in terms of safety issues reporting[3].
I'm glad my country invested so much into nuclear energies, I still believe it's our best chance at tackling the upcoming crisis, but we should not let nuclear in the hands of private interests. Governments _have_ to apply a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to safety, regulation, and transparency, regardless of how expensive and inconvenient it is.
We're not doing enough, in France[4], when it comes to safety, from within or without. On top of that: it's giving fuel to anti-nuclear militantism.
[1] http://www.observatoire-du-nucleaire.org/spip.php?article281 [2] https://www.cairn.info/revue-revue-juridique-de-l-environnem... [3] http://mai68.org/spip2/spip.php?article1347 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STjGOGkMz4k
From my knowledge: they mostly don't. For example, in France, we have the Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (Nuclear Safety Authority, ASN) which is supposed to be an independent and transparent authority on nuclear safety and information.
However: it has been criticized many times since its inception in 2006 regarding conflicts of interest[1][2], and lacks in terms of safety issues reporting[3].
I'm glad my country invested so much into nuclear energies, I still believe it's our best chance at tackling the upcoming crisis, but we should not let nuclear in the hands of private interests. Governments _have_ to apply a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to safety, regulation, and transparency, regardless of how expensive and inconvenient it is.
We're not doing enough, in France[4], when it comes to safety, from within or without. On top of that: it's giving fuel to anti-nuclear militantism.
[1] http://www.observatoire-du-nucleaire.org/spip.php?article281 [2] https://www.cairn.info/revue-revue-juridique-de-l-environnem... [3] http://mai68.org/spip2/spip.php?article1347 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STjGOGkMz4k
> Governments _have_ to apply a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to safety, regulation, and transparency, regardless of how expensive and inconvenient it is.
Only in combination with some kind of carbon tax, otherwise you make nuclear too expensive compared to coal or natural gas whose costs are externalized and harder to quantify than nuclear regulatory compliance.
Only in combination with some kind of carbon tax, otherwise you make nuclear too expensive compared to coal or natural gas whose costs are externalized and harder to quantify than nuclear regulatory compliance.
How come France is so reasonable and pragmatic with this where most other western EU (especially Germany) are going the Luddite way?
The anti-nuclear sentiment is pretty strong in France as well[1], but if we compare to Germany for example:
- in 2016, 72% of the energy generation in France was nuclear, Germany never came close to that percentage[2], therefore making it easier to transition away from it.
- France invested a lot into nuclear energy and no government since then would dare to throw such a huge industry (2500 companies, 222 000 jobs) into the trash. I don't think it was the case with other European countries.
There's a lot of pride surrounding our history of nuclear research (since Pierre and Marie Curie), and politicians are often accused by militants of falling for the sunken-cost fallacy or to have a misplaced pride into the industry ("En France on n'a pas de pétrole mais on a des idées" - "In France, we don't have oil, but we sure have ideas").
Ultimately: the percentage of nuclear-based energy in France should go down to 50% by 2025, I just hope we'll manage to reduce our carbon monoxide emissions as well, Germany gave up on nuclear and they're failing at that so far.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Franc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#/medi...
- in 2016, 72% of the energy generation in France was nuclear, Germany never came close to that percentage[2], therefore making it easier to transition away from it.
- France invested a lot into nuclear energy and no government since then would dare to throw such a huge industry (2500 companies, 222 000 jobs) into the trash. I don't think it was the case with other European countries.
There's a lot of pride surrounding our history of nuclear research (since Pierre and Marie Curie), and politicians are often accused by militants of falling for the sunken-cost fallacy or to have a misplaced pride into the industry ("En France on n'a pas de pétrole mais on a des idées" - "In France, we don't have oil, but we sure have ideas").
Ultimately: the percentage of nuclear-based energy in France should go down to 50% by 2025, I just hope we'll manage to reduce our carbon monoxide emissions as well, Germany gave up on nuclear and they're failing at that so far.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Franc... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Germany#/medi...
> France invested a lot into nuclear energy and no government since then would dare to throw such a huge industry (2500 companies, 222 000 jobs) into the trash. I don't think it was the case with other European countries.
Germany all but killed off an industry of 80000 jobs (at the time) in the blink of an eye: photovoltaics.
One other main difference is that having your own nuclear industry is also important for countries aiming for (or having) nuclear deterrence power, like France (and unlike Germany which merely hosts US nukes).
Germany all but killed off an industry of 80000 jobs (at the time) in the blink of an eye: photovoltaics.
One other main difference is that having your own nuclear industry is also important for countries aiming for (or having) nuclear deterrence power, like France (and unlike Germany which merely hosts US nukes).
Could you elaborate on how Germany did kill of the photovoltaics industry? Since this seems different than I remember.
Solar panel production in Germany mostly died because it couldn't be price competitive with those from China.
Installations went down due to reduced subsidies, apparently as an reaction to more than expected solar being installed [0]. I have a hard time calling that "killing of an industry".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source...
Solar panel production in Germany mostly died because it couldn't be price competitive with those from China.
Installations went down due to reduced subsidies, apparently as an reaction to more than expected solar being installed [0]. I have a hard time calling that "killing of an industry".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_Source...
> Installations went down due to reduced subsidies, apparently as an reaction to more than expected solar being installed [0]. I have a hard time calling that "killing of an industry".
"So we kickstarted an industry that created 80000 jobs by subsidizing it, and now we noticed that subsidies actually cost money, so let's turn off the faucet" is what I call a killing.
One of the issues in German politics is that politicians are easily scared of their own courage, instead of doubling down on it (and, in this case, help drive costs down for Germany-made PV through more industrialized and scaled-up production, thereby solving the subsidy problem while propping up an industry instead of leaving it for dead).
It's especially annoying to me because one of the "arguments" in favor of keeping coal alive is that there are 20000 jobs to protect in that industry (and for much more money than it would cost to give those 20000 folks their wage + social security/insurance, no questions asked, until their retirement age, which makes me think that's all just a ruse).
"So we kickstarted an industry that created 80000 jobs by subsidizing it, and now we noticed that subsidies actually cost money, so let's turn off the faucet" is what I call a killing.
One of the issues in German politics is that politicians are easily scared of their own courage, instead of doubling down on it (and, in this case, help drive costs down for Germany-made PV through more industrialized and scaled-up production, thereby solving the subsidy problem while propping up an industry instead of leaving it for dead).
It's especially annoying to me because one of the "arguments" in favor of keeping coal alive is that there are 20000 jobs to protect in that industry (and for much more money than it would cost to give those 20000 folks their wage + social security/insurance, no questions asked, until their retirement age, which makes me think that's all just a ruse).
Dirigisme. It's long been a more centrally planned country with a greater propensity for big state technology projects.
The Green movement does not seem strong in France, but I'm not sure why.
The Green movement does not seem strong in France, but I'm not sure why.
> The Green movement does not seem strong in France, but I'm not sure why.
I have a theory. The French people like the American people put a great deal of value on liberty. Most of the purposed changes made by green activists involve ratcheting up state control the citizen's daily life and as a result are unpopular.
I have a theory. The French people like the American people put a great deal of value on liberty. Most of the purposed changes made by green activists involve ratcheting up state control the citizen's daily life and as a result are unpopular.
Most French put a much greater deal of value on equality than on liberty, and prefer a central and technocratic government, in the vain hope of having it enforce equality.
Hence the immense importance there of Massive Things Backed By Long-Term Plans, natural fruit of any jacobinist gov.
IMHO this lead to massive failures, as those Massive Things are less and less adequate in a fast-paced world.
Hence the immense importance there of Massive Things Backed By Long-Term Plans, natural fruit of any jacobinist gov.
IMHO this lead to massive failures, as those Massive Things are less and less adequate in a fast-paced world.
The French approach to liberty is extremely different to American libertarianism, though. Huge support for state control of business in particular, strong unions, employment law etc.
So, "people" build nuclear reactors in their "daily life"?
Sorry for impinging in your "personal liberty" to place me at risk of a nuclear holocaust. Must be my authoritarian statist tendencies.
Sorry for impinging in your "personal liberty" to place me at risk of a nuclear holocaust. Must be my authoritarian statist tendencies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement
For more background
For more background
How does this relate to nuclear reactors? I do realize how Macro used environmental concerns as an excuse to burden poorer people in peripheral areas with more taxes (rather than, say, taxing the rich and helping to finance hybrid or lower-emission, fuel-efficient vehicles for people in the countryside).
The reason they are wearing the yellow vests are because some government official who knows better than the population decided that everyone must carry two of them in their cars at all times. Similarly they also decided to raise fuel taxes (cars are required for rural life) and subsidize public transport (used in urban areas).
The French are also pragmatic and have seen the failure of the German green energy model, why on earth would they want to do that?
The French are also pragmatic and have seen the failure of the German green energy model, why on earth would they want to do that?
Unlike Germans, the French (thanks to their increased distance) don't have to check their wild mushrooms or boar for radioactive residues to this day due to Chernobyl: https://www.bfs.de/DE/themen/ion/umwelt/lebensmittel/pilze-w...
The only group that I know of that gets closest to treating nuclear power like you would want a civil nuclear organisation to behave, is the US Navy. Maybe part of it is that they live on theirs. Can we all globally adopt the US Navy and somehow make it their mission to provide and protect nuclear power, rather than their current mission of threatening randomly selected countries based on the whims of professional eschatologists? It would make a lot more sense overall, and I suspect they would enjoy it just as much.
I really hate that even the BBC is going down the route of making alarmist-ish sounding article titles which completely butcher the context of the article for the sake of getting clicks.
This link has shown up three times in the last 24 hours, the headline less baitclicky each time. Guess this one took.
[deleted]
The reactor near me (Seabrook Station) has cracks and deformation in the concrete. The structures affected are described as "operable but degraded and nonconforming."
This situation has been developing slowly for last decade though, and the reactor just got re-licensed.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/concre...
This situation has been developing slowly for last decade though, and the reactor just got re-licensed.
https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/ops-experience/concre...
That's a perfect example of the kind of issue that that pilot related to:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19770562
'normalization of deviance'.
That was one of the best posts in a long time.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19770562
'normalization of deviance'.
That was one of the best posts in a long time.
When I see pictures or video of anything nuclear, I tend to now focus upon the noise as radiation will cause more noise, hence the better the picture quality, the happier I feel.
Though for this case, factoring in the lighting, I'd not panic, but equally mindful that cracks are part and parcel in the world of reinforced concrete, I'm not so sure about the material in use here. It's not what you want to be seeing in such use. Equally to combat cracks in any material, you drill small holes either end of the crack to stop it growing.
So for me, why is that not being done? After all, hairline crack today, receding hairline tomorrow possibilities.
After all, would they let an aircraft take off with a known hairline crack? That's one way to put some perspective upon this.
Though for this case, factoring in the lighting, I'd not panic, but equally mindful that cracks are part and parcel in the world of reinforced concrete, I'm not so sure about the material in use here. It's not what you want to be seeing in such use. Equally to combat cracks in any material, you drill small holes either end of the crack to stop it growing.
So for me, why is that not being done? After all, hairline crack today, receding hairline tomorrow possibilities.
After all, would they let an aircraft take off with a known hairline crack? That's one way to put some perspective upon this.
> When I see pictures or video of anything nuclear, I tend to now focus upon the noise as radiation will cause more noise, hence the better the picture quality, the happier I feel.
It doesn't seem to me that that many prospective nuclear safety concerns involve a radiation leak ahead of time. Your heuristic seems better calibrated to detecting leaks that exist now, rather than flaws or limitations in systems that are meant to prevent future leaks.
It doesn't seem to me that that many prospective nuclear safety concerns involve a radiation leak ahead of time. Your heuristic seems better calibrated to detecting leaks that exist now, rather than flaws or limitations in systems that are meant to prevent future leaks.
As I said "Though for this case, factoring in the lighting, I'd not panic".
Thing is about cracks, they tend to grow, hence questioning how they are handled as currently it seems a case of make a note, move along, nothing to see here approach strikes again.
Thing is about cracks, they tend to grow, hence questioning how they are handled as currently it seems a case of make a note, move along, nothing to see here approach strikes again.
Millimeters != hairline. You can fit a lot of hair in a millimeter.
These things are a crazy gamble that civilization is not going to backslide for thousands of years, and we have hundreds of them!
Hold on, isn’t this another Chernobyl in the making? Ie. Using graphite (positive void effect). The very reason why nuclear reactors explode up during a meltdown throwing soot into the air vs melting down quietly.
I look forward to the HBO drama. These dry conversations about safety margins and protecting jobs will make for lots of dramatic irony when we know, but the characters don't, that the reactor blows up shortly afterwards.
Regarding the bit at the end about the alternative being gas or coal, they could just build more wind, it's cheaper than any of the other options if building new and competitive with the cost of fuel alone for existing fossil plants.
Regarding the bit at the end about the alternative being gas or coal, they could just build more wind, it's cheaper than any of the other options if building new and competitive with the cost of fuel alone for existing fossil plants.
Wind and solar power is good. But you can’t turn them on by demand though, which is why nuclear and coal is still widely used.
[Slightly edited.]
[Slightly edited.]
More to the point, nuclear power generates when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
Well coal and nuclear tend to take a long time to turn on. Responding to demand is more the role of gas.
Not sure what you mean here. Where I live (Sweden) I don’t believe we rely on gas for our energy needs.
Nuclear power is almost always used only to provide baseload power to the grid. In Sweden's case, it looks like you're using biofuel power plants [1] for demand following uses when solar + wind can't keep up.
[1] https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/
[1] https://sweden.se/society/energy-use-in-sweden/
From a software / devils point of view Nuclear power is the Mainframe - and solar or wind are the nice new micro services.
If we have a crack in our solar panels, it ain't going to make the BBC news site.
If we have a crack in our solar panels, it ain't going to make the BBC news site.
I wouldn't call solar 'micro', land use is one of its largest downsides.
> If we have a crack in our solar panels, it ain't going to make the BBC news site.
Actually cracking solar panels could be a rather large problem. e.g. Cadmium Telluride cells are gaining in popularity, if a tornado, large hail storm, or similar natural event hits a power plant built with such cells it could result in non-trivial release into the environment.
> If we have a crack in our solar panels, it ain't going to make the BBC news site.
Actually cracking solar panels could be a rather large problem. e.g. Cadmium Telluride cells are gaining in popularity, if a tornado, large hail storm, or similar natural event hits a power plant built with such cells it could result in non-trivial release into the environment.
> From a software / devils point of view Nuclear power is the Mainframe - and solar or wind are the nice new micro services.
The difference is that micro services don't all stop working at the same time when the sun goes down and the air is calm.
Solar is great for running air conditioners. It generates when the demand is highest. But you still need something reliable to generate baseload. They're complementary, not replacements for each other.
> If we have a crack in our solar panels, it ain't going to make the BBC news site.
It won't, but maybe it should. Solar panels are full of toxic substances. As long as they're covered in glass and isolated from the environment that's no big deal, but break the glass and ignore it and you're leeching heavy metals and toxic chemicals into the environment.
Things done competently are good, things done incompetently are bad. Nuclear is not different, solar is not different.
The difference is that micro services don't all stop working at the same time when the sun goes down and the air is calm.
Solar is great for running air conditioners. It generates when the demand is highest. But you still need something reliable to generate baseload. They're complementary, not replacements for each other.
> If we have a crack in our solar panels, it ain't going to make the BBC news site.
It won't, but maybe it should. Solar panels are full of toxic substances. As long as they're covered in glass and isolated from the environment that's no big deal, but break the glass and ignore it and you're leeching heavy metals and toxic chemicals into the environment.
Things done competently are good, things done incompetently are bad. Nuclear is not different, solar is not different.
Excess solar-based energy could be used to store energy that is later used in off-peak hours. Now, storage is a huge challenge (at least if you want it to be environmentally-friendly; otherwise - Tesla already makes a 300 MW-hour Li-Ion battery) - but it's coming along I think.
About cracks in solar panels - those are:
1. Mostly localized (i.e. not a dust storm and such)
2. Doesn't produce a chain reaction - if a few panels are beginning to crack, you would isolate them and inspect the rest. Even if they've completely cracked it's not that bad.
About cracks in solar panels - those are:
1. Mostly localized (i.e. not a dust storm and such)
2. Doesn't produce a chain reaction - if a few panels are beginning to crack, you would isolate them and inspect the rest. Even if they've completely cracked it's not that bad.
> Excess solar-based energy could be used to store energy that is later used in off-peak hours. Now, storage is a huge challenge (at least if you want it to be environmentally-friendly; otherwise - Tesla already makes a 300 MW-hour Li-Ion battery) - but it's coming along I think.
"Excess solar energy" isn't really a thing. Due to the economics, there is no reason to even look at widespread storage until we already have enough solar capacity to satisfy the differential between daytime and nighttime demand. But just doing that is going to consume 100% of the available panel manufacturing capacity for at least a decade.
To cover baseload as well isn't just a question of storage. First you would need to more than triple that amount of solar generating capacity. You'd need enough to satisfy not just the differential between the baseload and peak but the entire peak demand -- while charging the energy storage for nighttime use on top of that, including the conversion losses in both directions.
Only then do you add the cost of storage, which currently isn't economical. It may become so in the future, or it may not, but that's ten or twenty years in any event before we can even start constructing it, much less finish. And there is a non-trivial chance that economical storage technology never materializes.
> About cracks in solar panels - those are:
> 1. Mostly localized (i.e. not a dust storm and such)
Not really. In many cases it is a dust storm, or hail, or a tornado or hurricane or some other weather event.
In other cases it's just time. You have a million panels and every year some percentage of them get cracked by wildlife or tree branches or weather or rogue humans. The damage accumulates.
This is actually a significant issue for solar farms when they reach end of life. What happens then? Just abandoning them in situ would be a serious environmental problem, but the incentive to file for bankruptcy and do exactly that would exist once enough of them are damaged that the cleanup cost exceeds the value of the remaining panels.
> 2. Doesn't produce a chain reaction - if a few panels are beginning to crack, you would isolate them and inspect the rest. Even if they've completely cracked it's not that bad.
It's potentially worse than that, because solar installations tend to be more distributed and have less oversight, so instead of one big problem you have a million cumulative little problems. Which is actually harder to solve because a million little leaks are harder to plug than one big one, and you're adding coordination and distribution problems on top of the engineering problems.
"Excess solar energy" isn't really a thing. Due to the economics, there is no reason to even look at widespread storage until we already have enough solar capacity to satisfy the differential between daytime and nighttime demand. But just doing that is going to consume 100% of the available panel manufacturing capacity for at least a decade.
To cover baseload as well isn't just a question of storage. First you would need to more than triple that amount of solar generating capacity. You'd need enough to satisfy not just the differential between the baseload and peak but the entire peak demand -- while charging the energy storage for nighttime use on top of that, including the conversion losses in both directions.
Only then do you add the cost of storage, which currently isn't economical. It may become so in the future, or it may not, but that's ten or twenty years in any event before we can even start constructing it, much less finish. And there is a non-trivial chance that economical storage technology never materializes.
> About cracks in solar panels - those are:
> 1. Mostly localized (i.e. not a dust storm and such)
Not really. In many cases it is a dust storm, or hail, or a tornado or hurricane or some other weather event.
In other cases it's just time. You have a million panels and every year some percentage of them get cracked by wildlife or tree branches or weather or rogue humans. The damage accumulates.
This is actually a significant issue for solar farms when they reach end of life. What happens then? Just abandoning them in situ would be a serious environmental problem, but the incentive to file for bankruptcy and do exactly that would exist once enough of them are damaged that the cleanup cost exceeds the value of the remaining panels.
> 2. Doesn't produce a chain reaction - if a few panels are beginning to crack, you would isolate them and inspect the rest. Even if they've completely cracked it's not that bad.
It's potentially worse than that, because solar installations tend to be more distributed and have less oversight, so instead of one big problem you have a million cumulative little problems. Which is actually harder to solve because a million little leaks are harder to plug than one big one, and you're adding coordination and distribution problems on top of the engineering problems.
Nuclear is like monolithic kernels: gets a lot of flak for ideological reasons, but it keeps powering the whole world.
Solar is like microkernels: nice on paper but lacks the power for anything serious.
Solar is like microkernels: nice on paper but lacks the power for anything serious.
Eagerly waiting for the cloud for solar panels.
- jobs
- energy supply
why is it that when a safety limit has been established and later on reached, that (seemingly) uninformed people start walling by screaming 'but the jobs' and 'but the power'. None of those should be more important than a reactor problem you'd think.
On the other hand, if there is inside information describing the impact of such cracks as irrelevant to safety and operation, then it would be fine (but then you wouldn't have to cry for jobs and energy).
Jobs should not be a reason to not take into account safety or evolution. As soon as you do that, everything stagnates.