Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

What does make the world turn?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 23, 2018 7:07 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:What I said had two possible meanings. As is normal, you chose the wrong one, in spite of the fact that context would have given you the correct interpretation. Sigh !

name the two possible meaning.

I'll wait.....………………….
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:23 am

1. That there is no multivariable analysis, which was the incorrect interpretation.

2. That landrew's graph was not causally linked with nuclear power, which was my meaning, and which I thought was obvious.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:51 pm

I think both of those statements are correct...…...its not what you first said. And what you first said AS WRITTEN is not fairly subject to contradictory interpretations.

Words have meaning. Post what you mean.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:02 pm

So speaks the guy with the most ambiguous turn of phrase on this forum.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 24, 2018 12:44 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:So speaks the guy with the most ambiguous turn of phrase on this forum.

Thank you. Goes to several issues unless you can only juggle one ball at a time. Context: explains all. Being consistent with what you have previously posted "everywhere" positions most of the rest. The remainder: too argumentative????
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 2:49 am

That post illustrates my point about ambiguity.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:13 am

Mine too....……...
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Experts voice safety concerns about new pebble-bed nuclear reactors

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:19 am

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases ... 081618.php

Basically, because they are using a technique that makes it impossible for the reactor to ever suffer a meltdown, the design lacks many even basic safety features that traditional reactors have.
Expect to learn from unpleasant accidents.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:33 am

EM

As I have said before, nothing is 100% 'safe'. The pebble bed reactor design is a system used to prevent nuclear melt down WITHOUT active safeguards. Hopefully it will work as designed. I understand why your article suggests that may not be sufficient, but hopefully the design concept will work as planned. If so, it will herald in a new generation of reactors that are not 100% 'safe', but get closer to that ideal than any other system, including Bobbo's much loved roof top solar cells (which kill ten times as many people per unit electricity than the old traditional 'unsafe' nuclear reactors ever did.).

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 24, 2018 5:44 am

Missing the point again, Lance...

OF COURSE it won't work as designed: only someone with no experience of engineering expects something new to work exactly as expected. Accidents will happen, radioactivity will leak.
This is normal.
The point is that the next generation reactors will have to go through the same stages of "learning by accident" that traditional reactors have gone through. True, their worst case is far less catastrophic, but that doesn't make them truly safe.
Bottom line: even new nuclear power systems aren't worth investing in commercially - yet.

And, of course, Pebble Bed types create a lot of radioactive waste - given China's environmental track record I'm not hopeful that it will be stored safely.

Spoiler:
PS: stuff your Solar Panel Death statistic were the sun doesn't shine: it makes you sound like a total idiot.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:37 am

Why do you think that matters ?
A coal burning power station produces 100 times as much radioactive waste as an equivalent nuclear power plant, and sprays that waste far and wide in the form of coal smoke and coal ash. A nuclear power plant produces 100 times less, but keeps it concentrated so that it can be disposed of neatly.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ear-waste/

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4129
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:20 am

Strawman.
If nuclear power wants to get back into the future energy mix, it has to be safer, cheaper and more flexible compared to previous nuclear power, not compared to other forms of energy. If nuclear can't compete with coal, then it doesn't matter how less harmful it is.
Geothermal energy is safer than Nuclear. But in most places it would be too costly to dig deep enough.
It's the economy, st&$#*.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:17 pm

IIRC....Lances inclusion of construction/installation/maintenance deaths in all energy production activities is entirely appropriate as relevant. Now, falling off a roof is not "inherent" in producing solar energy....but it is a risk that must be recognized and included in any death tally. Just like bird deaths from wind. Just like thyroid cancer from Nuke. None "inherent" but all unavoidable, even with great attention given to them.

I remember the issue, but not the stats. EM: are you disagreeing with the concept, or the numbers? I find it odd that many people fall off roofs. Or maybe it was mining the raw materials? Again...neither inherent and more attention needs to be given to safety standards on those related issues.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:15 pm

Bobbo

It is not that lots of people fall off roofs. It is more that solar power per roof is not a lot. So a small number of people falling off roofs still adds up to a significant number of deaths per terawatt hour of electricity produced. Because one terawatt hour is a lot of roofs.

EM

The biggest problem with nuclear, as I have said before, is political. It is already the safest method of generating power, by a long way, (yes, possibly geothermal might be safer, but I do not have the figures to compare), compared to all the other major generating methods. The political problem comes from the fact that numerous idiots (like Greenliars and Fiends of the Earth) have spread misinformation and lies about nuclear power and it's supposed risk. So there is widespread and ill informed opposition.

The second major problem is the capital cost of building nuclear plants. This is less of a problem if we spread that cost over the life of the plant, and the cost per kilowatt hour is similar to other major generating methods. Some people quote the cost of decommissioning, but that is typically only one tenth of the cost of commissioning a new plant. The cost of fuel is miniscule. So the actual running costs are lower than any other method.

The major advantages include reliable and unvarying generation (solar and wind are all over the joint), plus lack of greenhouse gas generation, plus minimal need for land space per unit electricity generated (both wind and solar are hungry for land space), safety (fewer lives lost), plus potentially almost unlimited fuel and thus unlimited energy (the new travelling wave reactor can burn uranium 238, and the American government already has 700,000 tonnes of this in storage, which it cannot use). Nuclear power can be set up almost anywhere, such as in the high Arctic, on the moon or Mars or even in space (the probe to Saturn relied safety on nuclear power). There are now available mini reactors, like the Toshiba system, which are safe, and small and able to supply electricity economically to small communities.

The major problem preventing nuclear power being able to make a massive contribution to energy generation is idiocy, due to morons promulgating lies.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:12 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote: The biggest problem with nuclear, as I have said before, is political.

So, I'll say again its the concentration of production to very few high capital cost locations making the loss of each one for whatever reasons (accidents, melt downs, terrorists) just too expensive. DISTRIBUTED power production (both for locational safety, capital concentration, and control by the people rather than selected elites) is the only long term production "of everything" that should be supported. Again: Nuke only for the necessary (for real!) transition period.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:11 pm

Bobbo

That also applies to hydroelectricity, which is massively capital intensive. There have been over ten dams burst, with subsequent loss of money and life. Why do people continue to build hydroelectric dams with that terrible risk ? Answer, hydroelectricity has not been attacked by the millions of morons.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:40 pm

No...…….as you have been told repeatedly.....Dams were built to control flooding, provide water. Electrical production came much later. If dams were only for electricity....they wouldn't be built at all...…….Think fish and flooding of the landscape.

You have trouble juggling more than one ball at a time. ..... or is it just a memory issue?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11548
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:13 am

Except that is wrong. In my country, for example, hydroelectricity is about 80% of all power produced, and all those rather big dams were built ONLY for power generation. I suspect that most of the big hydro dams world wide were built primarily for the same reason.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14678
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Aug 25, 2018 1:26 am

Lance...…..…………………….Observe: Yes, on second thought.....thats true. "So easy to get caught up...………."
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5103
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Risk. Hydro versus nuclear.

Postby Austin Harper » Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:25 pm

NPR wrote:Japanese Government Acknowledges First Fukushima Radiation Death
For the first time since a devastating earthquake and tsunami triggered meltdowns at Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011, the Japanese government says a former plant worker has died as a result of radiation exposure.
...
It's not clear precisely when the man died. He was in his 50s, NHK said, and his duties included "measuring radiation levels at the plant immediately after the severe nuclear accident." He left his job there in 2015, and was diagnosed with lung cancer before his death.

The ministry said that he "developed cancer due to total radiation exposure of around 195 millisieverts," NHK reported. According to Reuters, exposure to 100 millisieverts of radiation in a year "is the lowest level at which any increase in cancer risk is clearly evident."

The earthquake and tsunami killed approximately 19,000 people, as NPR's Elise Hu reported, and "most drowned within minutes." The radiation plumes caused by Fukushima's meltdowns spread up to 25 miles away, she added.

And while this is the first fatality that was attributed to radiation, NHK says four workers who have cancer have been deemed eligible for compensation.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.


Return to “Science, Technology, and Mathematics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests