subject:"Re\: \[Vo\]\:The Fukushima disaster"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg

I looked up the name of the guy who I referred to as the father of the
light water reactor.

Following in the tragedy and tradition of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a giant of
nuclear enegineering, Alvin M. Weinberg was crushed under the heal of
the plutonium madness at the beginning of the nuclear age were safty takes
a backseat to plutonium production.


IMHO, it is this plutonium madness of the cold war that is the primal seed
of the Fukushima disaster.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Both underwater and underground deployment of nuclear plants is ideal for
 certain types of nuclear designs that are totally passively controlled.
 This design is old and venerable. Being greatly concerned about nuclear
 safety, the last paper that Dr. Edward Teller (designed the H bomb) wrote
 before his death recommended this design.

 Also being greatly concerned about nuclear safety, the designer of the
 light water reactor also fought for this design and was fired for pushing
 too hard.

 Light water reactors are good at producing Pu239 which was important in
 those days at the begining of the cold war.


  These designs behave like a nuclear battery. In such a design, the core
 supplies heat as required. The heat output of the design is load leveled.


 The laws of nature regulate the nuclear reaction automatically and without
 the possibility of error.



 If no heat is extracted then the plant goes subcritical and dormant.



 The core is the only part of the reactor that is below the sea. Reactor
 automated core control and the power plant is on a surface barge or
 platform that can be unmoored and remove to port if required to avoid a
 strong hurricane.



 The core would remain underwater in a dormant shutdown state.



 Delayed heat remove from the core is enabled using a chimney effect where
 heated water would rise to the surface through a large pipe.



 The surface turbo-generator rejects heat into the ocean surface and joins
 the prevailing ocean current flow.



 Reactor refueling is simple and can be done automatically and waste
 processing is integral to the reactor design were 99% of the nuclear fuel
 is consumed.



 The underwater deployment is highly resistant to terrorism since the core
 is maintained in a hot cell supported by robots.



 The core is deployed at a 100 meters depth and can withstand any natural
 disaster (earthquake and associated wave generation) or the crash of any
 sized plain no matter the size.





 Using water as a structural material will greatly reduce the size of the
 plant minimizing the cost of structural material to a small fraction of the
 size and cost of current reactors.




 Such a plant is unlikely to be built because of a lack of heart and
 incipient fear from many quarters.


 Too bad the advice of the great men in American science was ignored for
 political reasons…





  Regards: axil










 On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far
 above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building.

 I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore. That
 way there
 would never be a shortage of cooling water, even if all electrical systems
 failed completely and permanently, provided of course that the design used
 gravity feed for the cooling water. If the reactor was far enough off
 shore, and
 deep enough, then tsunamis would go right over it, making little impact.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile
Island.



I found this resent post on “The Nuclear Green Revolution” website. This
story provides eyewitness on the scene details about the politics involved
during the early days of Light Water Reactor development. This story give
insight why the design of the Fukushima reactors were flawed in terms of
safety.



It is a story of human folly on the level of tragedy.



http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2012/03/brief-history-of-light-water-reacto-to.html






On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg

 I looked up the name of the guy who I referred to as the father of the
 light water reactor.

 Following in the tragedy and tradition of J. Robert Oppenheimer, a giant
 of nuclear enegineering, Alvin M. Weinberg was crushed under the heal of
 the plutonium madness at the beginning of the nuclear age were safty takes
 a backseat to plutonium production.


 IMHO, it is this plutonium madness of the cold war that is the primal seed
 of the Fukushima disaster.

 On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:44 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Both underwater and underground deployment of nuclear plants is ideal for
 certain types of nuclear designs that are totally passively controlled.
 This design is old and venerable. Being greatly concerned about nuclear
 safety, the last paper that Dr. Edward Teller (designed the H bomb) wrote
 before his death recommended this design.

 Also being greatly concerned about nuclear safety, the designer of the
 light water reactor also fought for this design and was fired for pushing
 too hard.

 Light water reactors are good at producing Pu239 which was important in
 those days at the begining of the cold war.


  These designs behave like a nuclear battery. In such a design, the core
 supplies heat as required. The heat output of the design is load leveled.


 The laws of nature regulate the nuclear reaction automatically and
 without the possibility of error.



 If no heat is extracted then the plant goes subcritical and dormant.



 The core is the only part of the reactor that is below the sea. Reactor
 automated core control and the power plant is on a surface barge or
 platform that can be unmoored and remove to port if required to avoid a
 strong hurricane.



 The core would remain underwater in a dormant shutdown state.



 Delayed heat remove from the core is enabled using a chimney effect where
 heated water would rise to the surface through a large pipe.



 The surface turbo-generator rejects heat into the ocean surface and joins
 the prevailing ocean current flow.



 Reactor refueling is simple and can be done automatically and waste
 processing is integral to the reactor design were 99% of the nuclear fuel
 is consumed.



 The underwater deployment is highly resistant to terrorism since the core
 is maintained in a hot cell supported by robots.



 The core is deployed at a 100 meters depth and can withstand any natural
 disaster (earthquake and associated wave generation) or the crash of any
 sized plain no matter the size.





 Using water as a structural material will greatly reduce the size of the
 plant minimizing the cost of structural material to a small fraction of the
 size and cost of current reactors.




 Such a plant is unlikely to be built because of a lack of heart and
 incipient fear from many quarters.


 Too bad the advice of the great men in American science was ignored for
 political reasons…





  Regards: axil










 On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far
 above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor
 building.

 I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore. That
 way there
 would never be a shortage of cooling water, even if all electrical
 systems
 failed completely and permanently, provided of course that the design
 used
 gravity feed for the cooling water. If the reactor was far enough off
 shore, and
 deep enough, then tsunamis would go right over it, making little impact.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-03 Thread Jed Rothwell

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile
 Island.


As far as I know, the design of the reactor itself is not at fault. The
accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies.

As far as I know, none of the commercial reactors now sold have passive
cooling after shutdown. So any reactor would have the same problem. Even
CANDU reactors have to be actively cooled.

The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a defective reactor design,
with a stuck valve and a badly designed instrument panel.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-03 Thread Guenter Wildgruber






 Von: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 21:20 Dienstag, 3.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?
 

I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three
Mile Island
It is a story of human folly on the level of tragedy.
 
Axil,
You're probably right.
Meanwhile there is the nth generation of nuclear reactors on the drawing board, 
which maybe are several orders of magnitude safer than the old ones.

But this mutated into a story of  a feeling of collective (UN)safety.
Germany: NoNo
Czechoslovakia: Nuclear reactors are no problem

Spanish communities: 
We welcome nuclear waste from all over Europe. Its  a question of money. Pay 
us. Give us work, and we'll be happy to take care of the waste. 
(But the next generation mabe has a different idea. So WHO exactly has the 
right to decide on intergenerational issues?)

I think , sort of a higher reason has to be at work in such a situation.
Long-term.
Cautious.
But it does not seem to exist.

Human decision-making seems to be driven by short-term fear and greed and not 
by rational long-term evaluation.
Quite possibly this will kill us as a species.

G.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-03 Thread Jouni Valkonen


Any reactor larger than ca. 400 MWe needs active cooling system, because power 
output is larger that can be cooled down passively. However, 300 MWe and less 
can be cooled down after the shut down just submerging reactor into water, 
hence they are inherently safe. And there won't be reactor pressure vessel 
breach if active cooling fails. For example, Kursk's nuclear reactor did not 
suffer any damage in the accident and it is still fully operational reactor. It 
was kept cool by surrounding sea water.

It would be best to have small modular reactors. However nowadays politicians 
count nuclear power as a number reactors. Hence they allow building new 
reactors one at the time and if number of individual reactors is limited, 
industry of course will build the biggest reactor on the market! 

For example, here in Finland politicians allowed to be build one (1) nuclear 
reactor into Olkiluoto, and of course industry chose to build one 1600 MWe EPR 
(world largest!) that is just waiting for Chernobyl/Fukushima scale disaster if 
every planned backups fails like they did fail in Chernobyl/Fukushima. 
Olkiluoto 3 EPR reactor was commercial failure, it is now some five years 
delayed, mostly because of the safety issues that are inherently extremely 
difficult and demanding for that scale reactor.

It would be far more wise to build modular 5x300MWe reactors. Safety issues are 
much cheaper and the grid reliability is higher (single module can be 
maintained at the time while others are running), but it is almost impossible 
to get licence for five (5) nuclear reactors in current political atmosphere!

   ―Jouni


On 3 Apr 2012, at 22:47, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile 
 Island.
 
 As far as I know, the design of the reactor itself is not at fault. The 
 accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies.
 
 As far as I know, none of the commercial reactors now sold have passive 
 cooling after shutdown. So any reactor would have the same problem. Even 
 CANDU reactors have to be actively cooled.
 
 The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a defective reactor design, with 
 a stuck valve and a badly designed instrument panel.
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

In engineering, the simplest design is usually the most elegant, prudent,
safest, and cost effective design.


The Light Water reactor design is a Rube Goldberg Machine design which
leads to high cost and over complication.


*The accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies.*


In a reactor design that does not have a need for a power supply then there
is no chance for a problem with power supplies.


*As far as I know, none of the commercial reactors now sold have passive
cooling after shutdown.*


China is building a completely passive waste free commercial reactor to be
available in 10 years. His will blow the current Light water reactor
builders out of the business.

.
The Chinese are not wedded to the past mistakes of the Americans.


*The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a defective reactor design,
with a stuck valve and a badly designed instrument panel.*


If there is no valve needed in the design then the valve cannot get stuck.


If there is no instrument panel needed then this panel cannot be misread.







On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

  I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile
 Island.


 As far as I know, the design of the reactor itself is not at fault. The
 accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies.

 As far as I know, none of the commercial reactors now sold have passive
 cooling after shutdown. So any reactor would have the same problem. Even
 CANDU reactors have to be actively cooled.

 The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a defective reactor design,
 with a stuck valve and a badly designed instrument panel.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-03 Thread Jed Rothwell


Axil Axil wrote:

In a reactor design that does not have a need for a power supply then 
there is no chance for a problem with power supplies.




Yes. Right. We got it. However there are none available at present. 
Right? So why blame this particular design? Any currently available 
reactor would have failed in this accident.



China is building a completely passive waste free commercial reactor 
to be available in 10 years.




Okay, so in 10 years a solution will be here. Japan presently has 50 
reactors turned off, and they cannot afford to replace them with Chinese 
reactors available in 10 years.


Anyway, even if cold fusion does not succeed, I think there is no chance 
people will building uranium fission reactors 10 years from now. 
Certainly they will not be in Japan.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

 *Any reactor larger than ca. 400 MWe needs active cooling system, because
power output is larger that can be cooled down passively.*

A good nuclear reactor design should be air cooled. Such as design can be
upscaled to handle any cool down heat capacity.

*And there won't be reactor pressure vessel breach if active cooling fails.*

A good nuclear reactor design should be unpressurized, with no pressure
vessel required.

A good reactor design should be modular and be easily expandable from very
small to very large without design complications.

Such a design was prototyped back in 1969 demonstrated for a year and was
discarded for political reasons


China took this prototype design as the starting point for their main line
commercial nuclear reactor development.

jounivalko...@gmail.com


 Any reactor larger than ca. 400 MWe needs active cooling system, because
 power output is larger that can be cooled down passively. However, 300 MWe
 and less can be cooled down after the shut down just submerging reactor
 into water, hence they are inherently safe. And there won't be reactor
 pressure vessel breach if active cooling fails. For example, Kursk's
 nuclear reactor did not suffer any damage in the accident and it is still
 fully operational reactor. It was kept cool by surrounding sea water.

 It would be best to have small modular reactors. However nowadays
 politicians count nuclear power as a number reactors. Hence they allow
 building new reactors one at the time and if number of individual reactors
 is limited, industry of course will build the biggest reactor on the
 market!

 For example, here in Finland politicians allowed to be build one (1)
 nuclear reactor into Olkiluoto, and of course industry chose to build one
 1600 MWe EPR (world largest!) that is just waiting for Chernobyl/Fukushima
 scale disaster if every planned backups fails like they did fail in
 Chernobyl/Fukushima. Olkiluoto 3 EPR reactor was commercial failure, it is
 now some five years delayed, mostly because of the safety issues that are
 inherently extremely difficult and demanding for that scale reactor.

 It would be far more wise to build modular 5x300MWe reactors. Safety
 issues are much cheaper and the grid reliability is higher (single module
 can be maintained at the time while others are running), but it is almost
 impossible to get licence for five (5) nuclear reactors in current
 political atmosphere!

—Jouni


 On 3 Apr 2012, at 22:47, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

  I believe that the design of the Fukushima reactors were Pre-Three Mile
 Island.


 As far as I know, the design of the reactor itself is not at fault. The
 accident was caused by the destruction of the backup power supplies.

 As far as I know, none of the commercial reactors now sold have passive
 cooling after shutdown. So any reactor would have the same problem. Even
 CANDU reactors have to be actively cooled.

 The Three Mile Island accident was caused by a defective reactor design,
 with a stuck valve and a badly designed instrument panel.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

 *Yes. Right. We got it. However there are none available at present.
Right? So why blame this particular design? Any currently available reactor
would have failed in this accident.*
**
**
**
The design of such a reactor was deminstated back in 1969.

FYI,  the NRC will not license a reactor that is not based on a Light Water
Reactor design.

This killed the original 2008 self-regulating, uranium hydride reactor.

From Wikipedia

Hydrogen Moderated Self-regulating Nuclear Power Module


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Moderated_Self-regulating_Nuclear_Power_Module


On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil Axil wrote:

  In a reactor design that does not have a need for a power supply then
 there is no chance for a problem with power supplies.


 Yes. Right. We got it. However there are none available at present. Right?
 So why blame this particular design? Any currently available reactor would
 have failed in this accident.



  China is building a completely passive waste free commercial reactor to
 be available in 10 years.


 Okay, so in 10 years a solution will be here. Japan presently has 50
 reactors turned off, and they cannot afford to replace them with Chinese
 reactors available in 10 years.

 Anyway, even if cold fusion does not succeed, I think there is no chance
 people will building uranium fission reactors 10 years from now. Certainly
 they will not be in Japan.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

*Okay, so in 10 years a solution will be here. Japan presently has 50
reactors turned off, and they cannot afford to replace them with Chinese
reactors available in 10 years.*
* *

* *
* *

*Anyway, even if cold fusion does not succeed, I think there is no chance
people will building uranium fission reactors 10 years from now. Certainly
they will not be in Japan.*


Jed, you often lecture the critics of cold fusion because they have not put
in the time to properly understand and apply LENR technology.

I think you are suffering from the same lack of desire to educate yourself
about nuclear power when you categorically reject nuclear power based on an
incomplete education.

The Japanese are smart people; they should not reject nuclear power based
on the past mistakes and criminally deficient nuclear engineering of their
American idols. Like China they should take their on fate in their own
hands; they can devote some money and talent to direct their nuclear
industry in the proper direction.


It’s only a matter of applying some decent engineering to this need.












On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil Axil wrote:

  In a reactor design that does not have a need for a power supply then
 there is no chance for a problem with power supplies.


 Yes. Right. We got it. However there are none available at present. Right?
 So why blame this particular design? Any currently available reactor would
 have failed in this accident.



  China is building a completely passive waste free commercial reactor to
 be available in 10 years.


 Okay, so in 10 years a solution will be here. Japan presently has 50
 reactors turned off, and they cannot afford to replace them with Chinese
 reactors available in 10 years.

 Anyway, even if cold fusion does not succeed, I think there is no chance
 people will building uranium fission reactors 10 years from now. Certainly
 they will not be in Japan.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-03 Thread Jed Rothwell

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 I think you are suffering from the same lack of desire to educate yourself
 about nuclear power when you categorically reject nuclear power based on an
 incomplete education.


I am not rejecting it so much as reporting that the Japanese public, mass
media, and people living near reactors have rejected it. The people living
in towns near nuclear reactors insist that they remain shut down. The
central government must bow to their wishes.


The Japanese are smart people; they should not reject nuclear power based
 on the past mistakes and criminally deficient nuclear engineering of their
 American idols.


1. Perhaps they should not reject it but they have.

2. Americans are not their idols.

3. The problem in this case was Japanese site engineering (the placement of
the diesel engine fuel tanks), not the American reactor. As I pointed out
several times, any commercially available reactor would have failed under
these circumstances.



 Like China they should take their on fate in their own hands; they can
 devote some money and talent to direct their nuclear industry in the proper
 direction.


I think it would be more cost-effective to devote money and talent to
conventional alternative energy. I'm sure the Japanese could build offshore
wind turbines and rooftop solar at a far lower cost than nuclear energy. I
would not have said that before the Fukushima disaster revealed the true
dollar cost of nuclear energy.

The average wind turbine a few years ago cost ~$2 million per MW of
nameplate capacity. That's  $2000/kw, but actual capacity is about one
third of the nameplate so it $6000/kw. That is expensive, although it is
cheaper than a nuclear power plant starting cost per kilowatt. Anyway, for
the cost of this accident, ~$650 billion, you could buy about ~108 GW of
wind generating capacity, which is about half of Japan's installed
generator capacity, and far more than their nuclear capacity. Needless to
say, the cost of wind power is falling rapidly, and long before you build
108 GW the cost would fall by a large margin.

Even if it turns out the accident cost only half as much as people now
estimate, you could easily replace all of Japan's nuclear power with
offshore wind for the cost of this one accident. As I said to three more
accident like this would go a long way to bankrupting the nation. Nuclear
power is an economic sword of Damocles.

I do not think anyone in his right might would build more fission reactors
now that we have seen what they can do, and how impossible it is to clean
up. Any Japanese politician who recommended more reactors would be voted
out of office. That is not a problem in China where they do not have
democracy or elections and the government can get away with anything it
wants. The recent high speed train accident in turn illustrated this. The
literally buried the evidence on site. They buried the smashed railcars in
the ground. The public made a huge commotion so the government dug them up,
moved them to a local station and covered them up again with tarps this
time.

Given their track record on safety, pollution and other issues I do not
think you should hold the Chinese as a shining example to the world. The
government is, after all, a ruthless dictatorship.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

*I am not rejecting it so much as reporting that the Japanese public, mass
media, and people living near reactors have rejected it. The people living
in towns near nuclear reactors insist that they remain shut down. The
central government must bow to their wishes.*



I am heartened to see that you reject simplistic generalization in your
personal thinking. You are not the type of thinker that will throw out the
baby with the bathwater.



You do not reject the very concept of the automobile because GM once
designed, built, and sold the 1961 Corvair or American Motors the 1970
Grenlin.



But that is what the Japanese are doing. They bought a defective product
and failed to upgrade it with a newer and safer model.



Now the Japanese people will take to their feet and walk, painful and
bleeding, the rutted road of energy production with yet another flawed
technologies forced upon them.



The Fukushima disaster is a failure of the Japanese government for taking
the safer path, the easy road that will lead them into eventual national
collapse.



These hapless and incompetent bureaucrats wanted to squeeze the last
possible kilowatt out of a pile of old nuclear junk.



*I'm sure the Japanese could build offshore wind turbines and rooftop solar
at a far lower cost than nuclear energy.*



The Japanese will be at the tender mercies of the Chinese for the rare
earth materials absolutely required to produce and manufacture this green
stuff. But like Germany, they will be forced to buy it from the Chinese at
whatever the market will bear.



Be assured, the cost of goods from any cartel won’t come cheap.



We are entering a new age of national Darwinism, where the decisions made
now about energy production will determine if a country will long survive.



Germany, Japan, France, and China have already sealed their fate. And by
standing pat…by doing business as usual... the US can flood the skies with
enough CO2 from burning their massive coal and gas reserves to destroy
every coastal city on earth.



So far, mankind has lacked the ability to think in a more nuanced way. The
species lacks the ability to act in its long term interest, Such stupidity
will reap its own grim fate.








On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:


 I think you are suffering from the same lack of desire to educate
 yourself about nuclear power when you categorically reject nuclear power
 based on an incomplete education.


 I am not rejecting it so much as reporting that the Japanese public, mass
 media, and people living near reactors have rejected it. The people living
 in towns near nuclear reactors insist that they remain shut down. The
 central government must bow to their wishes.


 The Japanese are smart people; they should not reject nuclear power based
 on the past mistakes and criminally deficient nuclear engineering of their
 American idols.


 1. Perhaps they should not reject it but they have.

 2. Americans are not their idols.

 3. The problem in this case was Japanese site engineering (the placement
 of the diesel engine fuel tanks), not the American reactor. As I pointed
 out several times, any commercially available reactor would have failed
 under these circumstances.



 Like China they should take their on fate in their own hands; they can
 devote some money and talent to direct their nuclear industry in the proper
 direction.


 I think it would be more cost-effective to devote money and talent to
 conventional alternative energy. I'm sure the Japanese could build offshore
 wind turbines and rooftop solar at a far lower cost than nuclear energy. I
 would not have said that before the Fukushima disaster revealed the true
 dollar cost of nuclear energy.

 The average wind turbine a few years ago cost ~$2 million per MW of
 nameplate capacity. That's  $2000/kw, but actual capacity is about one
 third of the nameplate so it $6000/kw. That is expensive, although it is
 cheaper than a nuclear power plant starting cost per kilowatt. Anyway, for
 the cost of this accident, ~$650 billion, you could buy about ~108 GW of
 wind generating capacity, which is about half of Japan's installed
 generator capacity, and far more than their nuclear capacity. Needless to
 say, the cost of wind power is falling rapidly, and long before you build
 108 GW the cost would fall by a large margin.

 Even if it turns out the accident cost only half as much as people now
 estimate, you could easily replace all of Japan's nuclear power with
 offshore wind for the cost of this one accident. As I said to three more
 accident like this would go a long way to bankrupting the nation. Nuclear
 power is an economic sword of Damocles.

 I do not think anyone in his right might would build more fission reactors
 now that we have seen what they can do, and how impossible it is to clean
 up. Any Japanese politician who recommended more reactors would be voted
 out of office. That

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-03 Thread Jarold McWilliams

You really think people know what they want?  The vast majority of people don't 
think cold fusion is possible, and an even larger amount don't care and focus 
on issues that don't matter.  Most people reject cold fusion, so we should 
invest no money into it because it would be a waste of money?  A democracy is a 
horrible form of government.  Dictatorships are much better, and you don't have 
people making decisions based on irrational fear and emotions.  

Offshore wind costs at least twice as much as onshore, and advances in 
technology like solar is relying on could just as easily help nuclear.  As the 
best spots for wind are taken up, the price will go up again.  
On Apr 3, 2012, at 5:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
  
 I think you are suffering from the same lack of desire to educate yourself 
 about nuclear power when you categorically reject nuclear power based on an 
 incomplete education.
 
 I am not rejecting it so much as reporting that the Japanese public, mass 
 media, and people living near reactors have rejected it. The people living in 
 towns near nuclear reactors insist that they remain shut down. The central 
 government must bow to their wishes.
 
 
 The Japanese are smart people; they should not reject nuclear power based on 
 the past mistakes and criminally deficient nuclear engineering of their 
 American idols.
 
 1. Perhaps they should not reject it but they have.
 
 2. Americans are not their idols.
 
 3. The problem in this case was Japanese site engineering (the placement of 
 the diesel engine fuel tanks), not the American reactor. As I pointed out 
 several times, any commercially available reactor would have failed under 
 these circumstances.
 
  
 Like China they should take their on fate in their own hands; they can devote 
 some money and talent to direct their nuclear industry in the proper 
 direction.
 
 I think it would be more cost-effective to devote money and talent to 
 conventional alternative energy. I'm sure the Japanese could build offshore 
 wind turbines and rooftop solar at a far lower cost than nuclear energy. I 
 would not have said that before the Fukushima disaster revealed the true 
 dollar cost of nuclear energy.
 
 The average wind turbine a few years ago cost ~$2 million per MW of nameplate 
 capacity. That's  $2000/kw, but actual capacity is about one third of the 
 nameplate so it $6000/kw. That is expensive, although it is cheaper than a 
 nuclear power plant starting cost per kilowatt. Anyway, for the cost of this 
 accident, ~$650 billion, you could buy about ~108 GW of wind generating 
 capacity, which is about half of Japan's installed generator capacity, and 
 far more than their nuclear capacity. Needless to say, the cost of wind power 
 is falling rapidly, and long before you build 108 GW the cost would fall by a 
 large margin.
 
 Even if it turns out the accident cost only half as much as people now 
 estimate, you could easily replace all of Japan's nuclear power with offshore 
 wind for the cost of this one accident. As I said to three more accident like 
 this would go a long way to bankrupting the nation. Nuclear power is an 
 economic sword of Damocles.
 
 I do not think anyone in his right might would build more fission reactors 
 now that we have seen what they can do, and how impossible it is to clean up. 
 Any Japanese politician who recommended more reactors would be voted out of 
 office. That is not a problem in China where they do not have democracy or 
 elections and the government can get away with anything it wants. The recent 
 high speed train accident in turn illustrated this. The literally buried the 
 evidence on site. They buried the smashed railcars in the ground. The public 
 made a huge commotion so the government dug them up, moved them to a local 
 station and covered them up again with tarps this time.
 
 Given their track record on safety, pollution and other issues I do not think 
 you should hold the Chinese as a shining example to the world. The government 
 is, after all, a ruthless dictatorship.
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-03 Thread Eric Walker

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.comwrote:


 A democracy is a horrible form of government.


Sad but true.


 Dictatorships are much better, and you don't have people making decisions
 based on irrational fear and emotions.


Dictatorships are better governments, until they're not.  And they have a
bad habit of being overthrown in violent revolutions and coups.  If I were
to place a long bet on the stability of a country, I would go with the
helter-skelter of a democracy over the forced calm of
an unrepresentative dictatorship.  As Churchill once remarked, it has been
said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other
forms that have been tried from time to time.

Nonetheless, I suspect the democracies of the world are going to have to
get their acts together and impose a little authoritarian discipline upon
themselves in order to survive in the emerging global order.  Here's to
hoping that cold fusion will throw a complete wrench in the works and wreak
delightful havoc.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-02 Thread Alain Sepeda

One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that they
can self cool without external energy.
one thing missing were sand filters, that are installed in french
powerplant by the demand of a stubborn engineer that lobby for that
desperate mitigation system.
people were moaning about that being useless since no cas was probable, bu
thsi engineer asked to accept that worst can hemmeps, and that reducing the
catastrophe is a good idea, and it is cheap.
there would have been much less radioactive leaks if used (iodium, cesium)

Fukushima could be easily avoided, with few good decisions,  but one lesson
is that under cataclysmic stress (they lose all they family, were afraid ,
stressed) you make mistakes and lose many opprtunity,... no way to change
the fact that under awful stress people are not perfectly rational.
another things is that ther shoudl exist robust and flexible system. the
time to be able to bring sea water, as a backup solution is not
acceptable... it is dirty, but should be possible.
another is to accept that catastrophe happens in group (the famous
blackswan/dragon king), because of correlated causes.

there have bee design errors, that were identified and could have been
corrected.
there was bad risk assumption in the 70s (the geophysicians were convinced
earthquake could not be higher that 7 because of ferquent quake in sendai
zone, but recently they discovered that 25% of the displacement was not
dissipated at sendai and 9 quake ver probable... they did not believe in
tsunami in that zone, but recently archeologist found 300years old huge
tsunami ins the zone...
(source french version of Sci American)...
recent data were ignored, because of cost.

as usual an accumulation of many faults, errors, bad luck, ignorance,
delusion..
also like in chernobyl the privatization/performance-race seems to have
allowed/caused the bad behavior... (nb: in chernobyl the change of boss to
put a modern performance driven manager instead of careful old executive,
caused the pressure that cause the crash. in fukushima the private status
of TEPCO explain the unwillingness to address problems because of costs).

but in fukushima many things have been well done, avoiding death...
2012/4/2 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com

 After a reactor shuts down, 15% of the rated capacity of the reactor is
 released as delayed heat due to the decay of short lived radioactive
 byproducts. This delayed heat must be dissipated into the environment to
 keep the structure of the reactor from damage.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Bruno Santos

I am not saying that Fukushima was not a big and horrible disaster, but
things must be seen in perspective.

There is no greater tragedy in human history as coal.

Fukushima is a footnote in history of disasters compared to coal. And yet,
people go making much more fuss about nuclear powerplants than they do
about coal.

Coal mining kills a lot of people. That is an issue even in developed
countries. Coal mining killed 48 people in USA in 2010 (
http://www.msha.gov/stats/charts/coalbystates.pdf). In least developed
countries, it's a horrific disaster. Many goods made with energy prompted
by coal-based powerplants are in our houses. China is powered by coal-based
powerplants. See details on this tragedy here :
http://www.clb.org.hk/en/node/17013.

And those figures do not consider what coal does to public health
considering air pollution. Many more die everyday from lung diseases as air
gets fulfilled with toxic gases expelled by coal-based plants.

Coal mining also destroys landscapes and pollute water, not to mention
greenhouse effects.

As if it is not enough, coal ash is radioactive. As a matter of a fact, it
pollutes the environment with much more radiation than nuclear plants waste
does.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Em 1 de abril de 2012 19:10, Michele Comitini
michele.comit...@gmail.comescreveu:

A terrible dam disaster: Vajont 1963.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vajont_Damuseformat=desktop

mic
Il giorno 01/apr/2012 23:12, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com ha scritto:

I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate
electricity. (Safety is measured in accidents per kilowatt-hour.)
- Jed

You might look at the Hydro Quebec James Bay project(s).

Wiki is a start -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project -- but
it's largely from a Quebecoi point of view.

An ecological disaster -- covers an area the size of NY state, induced
earthquakes, completely disrupted (good? bad?) the native Cree/Inuit
population, extensive mercury contamination (alleged forced abortions).
10,000 caribou drowned during one storm (or, alleged, a planned test
release).

While highly motivated, the Cree's opposition to the Great Whale River
Project was mainly ineffective until 1992 when the State of New York
withdrew from a multi-billion dollar power purchasing agreement due to
public outcry and a decrease in energy requirements.

I was in Albany at the time, and peripherally involved with the public
outcry.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Bruno Santos

I meant there is no greater tragedy in human history, in pursuit of
energy, as coal.

Em 2 de abril de 2012 11:26, Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com escreveu:

I am not saying that Fukushima was not a big and horrible disaster, but
things must be seen in perspective.

There is no greater tragedy in human history as coal.

Fukushima is a footnote in history of disasters compared to coal. And yet,
people go making much more fuss about nuclear powerplants than they do
about coal.

Coal mining also destroys landscapes and pollute water, not to mention
greenhouse effects.

As if it is not enough, coal ash is radioactive. As a matter of a fact,
it pollutes the environment with much more radiation than nuclear plants
waste does.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Em 1 de abril de 2012 19:10, Michele Comitini
michele.comit...@gmail.comescreveu:

A terrible dam disaster: Vajont 1963.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vajont_Damuseformat=desktop

mic
Il giorno 01/apr/2012 23:12, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com ha scritto:

I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate
electricity. (Safety is measured in accidents per kilowatt-hour.)
- Jed

You might look at the Hydro Quebec James Bay project(s).

Wiki is a start -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project --
but it's largely from a Quebecoi point of view.

I was in Albany at the time, and peripherally involved with the public
outcry.

RE: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Jones Beene

From: Bruno Santos 

 As if it is not enough, coal ash is radioactive. As a
matter of a fact, it pollutes the environment with much more radiation than
nuclear plants waste does.  


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactiv
e-than-nuclear-waste 

Conclusion of the article - living near a coal plant 3 to 6 times riskier
than living near a nuclear plant, in terms of annual radiation dose.

Radiation from coal is found in the ash (which is disposed of) but also is
exhausted directly into air, where it does the most harm. Testing of
estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones near coal plants was
around 18 millirems a year. Doses for those the living near nuclear plants
was between three and six millirems for the same period. And if food was
grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the
coal plants than around nuclear plants.

Plus - natural gas - which touts itself as clean compared to coal - also
releases more radiation than nuclear plants. Depending on where the methane
comes from, radon and/or tritium is found in the gas and it goes directly
into the air (in your home with a gas fired stove). 

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/02/radioactive-radon-in-home-natural-g
as.html

I can measure a significant radiation signal coming for the exhaust duct of
our gas-fired hot water heater when it turns on (this is in California)
although to be honest, it has gone down in recent years. 

The dose of radiation in natural gas depends on where the gas-well is
located - and the worst (most toxic methane) is said to be from fracking
sites...

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?


Alain Sepeda wrote:

One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that 
they can self cool without external energy.


Sure. There are several designs that use passive cooling. The pebble bed 
reactor is another example. But none have been commercialized yet. The 
designs are radically different from present-day reactors.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear
power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution.

Anyone who believes that global warming is real will certainly agree that
nuclear power is safer even factoring the Chernobyl and Fukushima
accidents. I think alternative energy such as wind and solar would be more
cost-effective and much safer. Unfortunately Japan does not have
significant wind resources, and not much potential solar power either.

Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely
disastrous from an economic and business point of view. No other source of
energy could conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, or cost
even a small fraction as much money. As I said, this accident bankrupted
the world's largest power company and effectively destroyed the houses,
towns, bridges and livelihood of 90,000 to 150,000 people in 5,000 square
miles of land.

(It turns out 90,000 people were ordered out by the government but 60,000
others left on their own after they and their local governments detected
radiation far above natural background. TEPCO and the government say they
will not pay compensation to these 60,000 people, even though no one
disputes their land now has lethal levels of radioactivity.)

If TEPCO had known this might happen I seriously doubt they would've built
any nuclear power reactors. No corporate executive would risk the
destruction of the entire company in a single accident. It reminds me of
Churchill's description of World War I Adm. Jellicoe as the only man on
either side who could lose the war in an afternoon.

People say that no one was killed. I expect many of the young workers will
prematurely die of cancer in the next 20 or 30 years. But assuming for the
sake of argument that no one was killed the situation is still
unprecedented. Consider this:

The U.S. commercial airline fleet consists of 7185 airplanes. That includes
3,739 mainline passenger aircraft (over 90 seats) . . . 879 mainline cargo
aircraft (including those operated by FedEx and UPS) and 2,567 regional
aircraft jets/turboprops. I believe the average replacement cost of the
big mainline ones is around $150 million per aircraft.

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/faa-us-commercial-aircraft-fleet-shrank-2011-0312

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/

Okay imagine that in the middle of one night, when these airplanes are
parked with no one aboard, all 4,615 of the big passenger and freight
airplanes suffer fuel leaks and are destroyed by fire. No one is hurt, but
the entire fleet is destroyed. The replacement cost of the equipment would
be ~$692 billion, which is roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will
cost. Do you think that Boeing, Airbus or any airline would survive this?
Do you think any insurance company would? I don't.

As it happens, this incident did not destroy the Japanese insurance
industry. That is because no nuclear power plant in the world is covered by
private insurance. When nuclear power was invented, the insurance companies
took a close look and decided it was too risky and they would never cover
it. From the very beginning of nuclear power this risk has been assumed by
national governments only. So the Japanese government and TEPCO customers
are on the hook for this. Obviously, no power company can pay for an
accident that costs ten times their entire annual revenue!

TEPCO's earnings are here:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/corpinfo/ir/tool/annual/pdf/2011/ar201101-e.pdf

5065 billion yen = $62 billion

Jones Beene and others have correctly pointed out that coal-fired plants
generally spew far more radioactive material into the environment than
nuclear power plants do. This is common knowledge. No one disputes it.
However, the Fukushima plant probably put out more radioactive materials
than all coal fired plants in history have, and I am sure the Chernobyl
reactor did. Here is one description of the radioactive material at a
location 40 km from the Fukushima reactors, a year after the accident, long
after short lived isotopes were gone:

Outside the Iitate community hall, the radiation dosimeter carried by one
of my travelling
companions to measure external radiation reads 13.26 microsieverts per hour
-- a level
around one hundred times natural background radiation. When he holds his
dosimeter over
the drainage culvert in front of the hall, it stops working altogether --
the radiation level has
gone off the scale. One of the things that you quickly learn in a place
like Iitate is that levels
of radiation can vary enormously within a relatively small area. Iitate has
the misfortune to
lie in a spot where the winds from the coast meet the mountains, and
quickly became a
radiation hotspot due to precipitation. Its inhabitants are among the
150,000 people who
evacuated from the area affected by the nuclear accident, and have no idea
when they will
be able to return home.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

I wrote:


 The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is
 roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost.


As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of the
2008 TARP bailout. Note however, that nearly all of the TARP money was
returned the U.S. government by the corporations and banks. Most of them
paid high interest rates on the loans, so they were anxious to return the
money. I think most of the money came back within two years.

As of last year all but $19 billion of the TARP money was returned to Uncle
Sam. The remaining $19 billion will probably not be returned because the
companies went bankrupt. That's not good, but you cannot compare it to a
$650 billion dead loss. That is, to money spent cleaning up tens of
millions of tons of contaminated soil, building a giant sarcophagus for a
nuclear power plant, and compensating people for the loss of their houses
and livelihoods. Such activities contribute nothing to long-term prosperity
or happiness. It is like hiring hundreds of thousands of people to spend 20
years digging holes in the ground every morning, and filling them in every
afternoon for no purpose.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-02 Thread Axil Axil

FYI:

The EPR is equipped with what Areva refers to as a “core catcher.” If the
fuel cladding and reactor vessel systems and associated piping become
molten, these first two safety mechanisms the molten core will fall into a
core catcher which holds the molten material and has the ability to cool
it. This, in turn, protects the third barrier, containment.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Alain Sepeda wrote:

  One of the characteristic of moder reactors like EPR (Areva) is that they
 can self cool without external energy.


 Sure. There are several designs that use passive cooling. The pebble bed
 reactor is another example. But none have been commercialized yet. The
 designs are radically different from present-day reactors.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Axil Axil

*Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely
disastrous from an economic and business point of view. No other source of
energy could conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, or cost
even a small fraction as much money. As I said, this accident bankrupted
the world's largest power company and effectively destroyed the houses,
towns, bridges and livelihood of 90,000 to 150,000 people in 5,000 square
miles of land.*

You can’t dismiss the long term perspective. What happens in the future is
important.

Your value system is completely opposite to what it should be on this
issue; let me explain.

In economic theory, *moral hazard* is a tendency to take undue risks
because the costs are not borne by the party taking the risk. The term
defines a situation where the behavior of one party may change to the
detriment of another after a transaction has taken place.

Without moral hazard, there is no way for a party to be motivated to change
his behavior, improve his design, or pay for any damage caused.

Paying for damage caused is a great economic principle.

Without moral hazard, somebody else pays for your damage. You take your
profits to the bank and will increase your damage causing behavior to make
more profit.

Lack of moral hazard caused the global financial meltdown and that
financial system has not yet been fixed.

Lack of moral hazard is causing global warming since someone else will pay
to move the cities up into the hills, not the producers of fossil fuels.

Restoring the concept and practice of moral hazard will save this world,
without it we are screwed so whatever you do or say, don’t put it down.

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear
power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution.

The U.S. commercial airline fleet consists of 7185 airplanes. That
includes 3,739 mainline passenger aircraft (over 90 seats) . . . 879
mainline cargo aircraft (including those operated by FedEx and UPS) and
2,567 regional aircraft jets/turboprops. I believe the average replacement
cost of the big mainline ones is around $150 million per aircraft.

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/faa-us-commercial-aircraft-fleet-shrank-2011-0312

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Guenter Wildgruber

Von:Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 22:02 Montag, 2.April 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
 
No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than
nuclear power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining
pollution.
 
Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely
disastrous from an economic and business point of view. No other source of
energy could conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident,

Agree.
Your assessment is sane.

What seems to be difficult to understand to some, is distinguishing different
risk-categories.

a) coal-fired plants probably emit more radioactivity than any orderly working
nuclear power-plant over decades.
Because this has an intrinsic upper limit, as a function of time, society can
decide and switch it off.
b) on the other hand, you have a nuclear plant, which occasionally explodes or
is otherwise severely damaged, and kills the neighbouring people.

Now how to decide?
Assume, both probabilities are equal in the long term, (which is purely
hypothetical, because noone knows) .
Which option would you choose?
Surprise: It depends where you live!

And this has other surprising consequences, eg, that the probability-space in
the time-domain is transformed into a probability-space in the space-domain.
And the results are VERY different.

G.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Robert Lynn

It will be horrendously expensive, but I would like to think that as smart
as the Japanese are, they will come up with some creative solutions to
mitigate the cost - and maybe ultimately it won't be as expensive as
currently imagined.   My parents told me that when they visited Nagasaki
and Hiroshima 25 years ago that apart from the monuments they couldn't even
tell where the bombs had been.

Interestingly the population of Japan peaked in 2008 and is now falling by
about 7 per year.  This is accelerating, so it won't be as hard to find
places for the displaced people.

Returning the land to productive agriculture use may not be economic but
with the addition of a bit of appropriate covering to shield off the worst
of the contamination for a few hundred years, there are any number of
non-agricultural industrial (manufacturing, chemical processing,
refineries), military (bases, test ranges, spaceports), transport
(airports, ports, roads, trains), recreational (parks, golf courses, race
tracks) and even power generating (more reactors?) purposes that the
exclusion zone could be useful for. It might also be fine for hydroponics
and animal feed-lots that don't use anything from the ground (assuming
water supplied from elsewhere), and maybe even forestry would be an option.

On 2 April 2012 21:24, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 I wrote:


 The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is
 roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost.


 As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of the
 2008 TARP bailout. Note however, that nearly all of the TARP money was
 returned the U.S. government by the corporations and banks. Most of them
 paid high interest rates on the loans, so they were anxious to return the
 money. I think most of the money came back within two years.

 As of last year all but $19 billion of the TARP money was returned to
 Uncle Sam. The remaining $19 billion will probably not be returned because
 the companies went bankrupt. That's not good, but you cannot compare it to
 a $650 billion dead loss. That is, to money spent cleaning up tens of
 millions of tons of contaminated soil, building a giant sarcophagus for a
 nuclear power plant, and compensating people for the loss of their houses
 and livelihoods. Such activities contribute nothing to long-term prosperity
 or happiness. It is like hiring hundreds of thousands of people to spend 20
 years digging holes in the ground every morning, and filling them in every
 afternoon for no purpose.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Robert Lynn

Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large
barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore.  While they would be
more vulnerable to the elements they would not threaten any land.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

*Putting aside the long term perspective, .. .*




 You can’t dismiss the long term perspective.


No, you can't, but I just did. My sentence begins putting aside the long
term perspective meaning let's not talk about the future for a moment
here; let's look only at the present.



 What happens in the future is important.


Yes, it is. What happens in the present is also important. An accident that
bankrupts the biggest power company on earth and costs the Japanese
taxpayers several hundred billion dollars is important.


Your value system is completely opposite to what it should be on this
 issue; let me explain.


You don't need to. I made it quite clear that I agree that coal is a bigger
threat in the long term. However, nuclear power is a gigantic economic
threat in the short term. If 3 more Japanese reactors were to go out of
control and explode, it would paralyze the entire economy, which is of the
third largest in the world. It would be roughly the equivalent of the U.S.
fighting the Iraq war again, 5 times in a row.

Coal threatens global warming which in the worst scenario will destroy
entire nations and kill millions of species and individual people. That's
horrible. But a disaster that would impoverish an entire nation -- 4
reactors exploding -- is also horrible, albeit in a different way. Neither
risk is acceptable. Both coal and nuclear have to go.

We need something better. I hope that cold fusion can overcome the academic
politics and replace them both, but if that is not to be, I am sure that
solar and various other methods can replace them. This will be more
expensive than coal per kilowatt hour (ignoring future costs). It will be
far cheaper than nuclear however, now that we have seen the true dollar
cost of nuclear power. After Fukushima it became the most expensive method
of generating electricity in history. I believe it wiped out all of the
profits ever made by TEPCO.

Before Fukushima I supported nuclear power.  I knew that nuclear accidents
have occurred and that they might be severe. However, I never imagined that
a reactor manufactured in the US and installed in Japan could malfunction
to this extent and cost this much money. If you asked me before 2011 I
would have said: that that might happen in theory but in actual practice
we should not worry about such extreme scenarios. Before 9/11 I would have
dismissed the likelihood of fanatics crashing commercial airliners into
buildings. Life is full of surprises.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:

Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large
 barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore.


That seems like a bad idea to me. A rogue wave or a storm at sea can
capsize or break apart any ship, including the largest aircraft carrier or
containership. That happens even when the ships are skillfully handled to
reduce damage. Barges and platforms cannot be handled.

In any case, the long term answer in Japan is already clear. They will
build no more reactors. The public will not stand for it. I doubt they will
even turn back on most of the remaining ones, which are presently off line,
pending inspections. Nuclear power is dead in Japan. Probably in Germany,
too.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Bruno Santos

It is also important to notice that japanese government overlooked serious
issues with the Fukushima power plant. The plant cooling design was not
optimal and they knew it.

The japanese government must be held responsible for the disaster as much
as TEPCO.

Accidents happen, but this was no accident. This was people making bad
judgements on safety issues that they knew were wrong. Many have pointed
out that Fukushima was vulnerable, but people decided to overlook and kept
the plant in use anyway.



Em 2 de abril de 2012 18:08, Robert Lynn
robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.comescreveu:

 Maybe the best long term answer for nuclear is to put reactors in large
 barges or on platforms 10's-100's of miles off-shore.  While they would be
 more vulnerable to the elements they would not threaten any land.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com wrote:


 The japanese government must be held responsible for the disaster as much
 as TEPCO.


It is a little difficult to know what you can do to a government. Vote them
out of office? The people who authorized this plant retired and died long
ago.



 Accidents happen, but this was no accident. This was people making bad
 judgements on safety issues that they knew were wrong.


I doubt that. They are not fools. Generally speaking, power company
officials and engineers are risk adverse.

One commentator in Japan remarked that  after any major industrial
accident, if you go into the files of the plant, you will find someone at
sometime did a study and warned this might occur. It does not matter what
happens; someone anticipated it. They're supposed to think about every
possible scenario. That's their job. In this case someone made careful
studies of tsunamis in local history and determined that a large one might
come. It turned out this person was right.

The problem is, if you were to take action against every accident scenario
suggested by every engineer, no power plant would ever be built or allowed
to operate anywhere. That is more or less the situation they have now got
themselves into, with 50 out of 52 remaining nuclear power reactors turned
off. Local citizens and government regulators are now demanding such
impossibly high standards of safety that I doubt more than a handful of
these reactors will be turned on again. This is bad. At present Japan does
not have clean energy replacements for these reactors, so they are burning
a great deal more coal and natural gas, and they're having severe shortages
of electricity.

It would make more sense to implement some immediate short-term fixes such
as higher seawalls, and then put in place a 20 or 30-year phaseout of
nuclear power. They should live with the risks of another accident for 20
years. It is an unfortunate necessity, better than the alternatives.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Jarold McWilliams

Where do you keep getting this $600 billion dollar number? Most of the sources
I've seen say it's around $50 billion. And Tepco is the 4th largest electric
utility in the world, not the 1st. Adding Chernobyl to nuclear's safety record
is unfair. Chernobyl just showed what can happen to a nuclear reactor if you
ignore all safety issues. The Soviet Union didn't really care much about
safety. Current nuclear reactors are much safer than Fukishima and Chernobyl
reactors. Most future nuclear reactors can be designed to use passive safety
which makes it an order of magnitude safer still. I don't care about global
warming. Nuclear can be far safer, cheaper, and cleaner than any other power
source. Do you know how much subsidies wind and solar receive? The subsidies
are much larger/kwh than other power sources. Solar costs about a $1/kwh
without subsidies. Renewable energy subsidies are paid for by coal, so the
more subsidies you have, the more coal you are burning. Research 4th
generation nuclear concepts, more specifically the LFTR, and you will see that
nuclear can be very safe and economical at the same time.
On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:02 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

No one disputes that coal fired plants kill far more people than nuclear
power, even taking into account casualties from uranium mining pollution.

Anyone who believes that global warming is real will certainly agree that
nuclear power is safer even factoring the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents.
I think alternative energy such as wind and solar would be more
cost-effective and much safer. Unfortunately Japan does not have significant
wind resources, and not much potential solar power either.

Putting aside the long term perspective, nuclear power is uniquely disastrous
from an economic and business point of view. No other source of energy could
conceivably cause so much damage in a single accident, or cost even a small
fraction as much money. As I said, this accident bankrupted the world's
largest power company and effectively destroyed the houses, towns, bridges
and livelihood of 90,000 to 150,000 people in 5,000 square miles of land.

(It turns out 90,000 people were ordered out by the government but 60,000
others left on their own after they and their local governments detected
radiation far above natural background. TEPCO and the government say they
will not pay compensation to these 60,000 people, even though no one disputes
their land now has lethal levels of radioactivity.)

If TEPCO had known this might happen I seriously doubt they would've built
any nuclear power reactors. No corporate executive would risk the destruction
of the entire company in a single accident. It reminds me of Churchill's
description of World War I Adm. Jellicoe as the only man on either side who
could lose the war in an afternoon.

The U.S. commercial airline fleet consists of 7185 airplanes. That includes
3,739 mainline passenger aircraft (over 90 seats) . . . 879 mainline cargo
aircraft (including those operated by FedEx and UPS) and 2,567 regional
aircraft jets/turboprops. I believe the average replacement cost of the big
mainline ones is around $150 million per aircraft.

http://atwonline.com/aircraft-engines-components/news/faa-us-commercial-aircraft-fleet-shrank-2011-0312

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/

Okay imagine that in the middle of one night, when these airplanes are parked
with no one aboard, all 4,615 of the big passenger and freight airplanes
suffer fuel leaks and are destroyed by fire. No one is hurt, but the entire
fleet is destroyed. The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692
billion, which is roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost. Do you
think that Boeing, Airbus or any airline would survive this? Do you think any
insurance company would? I don't.

As it happens, this incident did not destroy the Japanese insurance industry.
That is because no nuclear power plant in the world is covered by private
insurance. When nuclear power was invented, the insurance companies took a
close look and decided it was too risky and they would never cover it. From
the very beginning of nuclear power this risk has been assumed by national
governments only. So the Japanese government and TEPCO customers are on the
hook for this. Obviously, no power company can pay for an accident that costs
ten times their entire annual revenue!

TEPCO's earnings are here:

http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/corpinfo/ir/tool/annual/pdf/2011/ar201101-e.pdf

5065 billion yen = $62 billion

Jones Beene and others have correctly pointed out that coal-fired plants
generally spew far more

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Jarold McWilliams

Greenpeace is not a credible source.
On Apr 2, 2012, at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 I wrote:
  
 The replacement cost of the equipment would be ~$692 billion, which is 
 roughly how much the Fukushima disaster will cost.
 
 As Greenpeace pointed out, by coincidence this is roughly the cost of the 
 2008 TARP bailout. Note however, that nearly all of the TARP money was 
 returned the U.S. government by the corporations and banks. Most of them paid 
 high interest rates on the loans, so they were anxious to return the money. I 
 think most of the money came back within two years.
 
 As of last year all but $19 billion of the TARP money was returned to Uncle 
 Sam. The remaining $19 billion will probably not be returned because the 
 companies went bankrupt. That's not good, but you cannot compare it to a $650 
 billion dead loss. That is, to money spent cleaning up tens of millions of 
 tons of contaminated soil, building a giant sarcophagus for a nuclear power 
 plant, and compensating people for the loss of their houses and livelihoods. 
 Such activities contribute nothing to long-term prosperity or happiness. It 
 is like hiring hundreds of thousands of people to spend 20 years digging 
 holes in the ground every morning, and filling them in every afternoon for no 
 purpose.
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Jarold McWilliams

If we decide to get rid of nuclear and coal in favor of wind and solar, a 
millions of  people will die of starvation. Our GDP would decrease by half.  
I'd rather take a risk that a nuclear reactor explodes or a coal mine 
collapses than the alternative.   
On Apr 2, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Putting aside the long term perspective, .. .
 
  
 You can’t dismiss the long term perspective.
 
 No, you can't, but I just did. My sentence begins putting aside the long 
 term perspective meaning let's not talk about the future for a moment here; 
 let's look only at the present.
 
  
 What happens in the future is important.
 
 Yes, it is. What happens in the present is also important. An accident that 
 bankrupts the biggest power company on earth and costs the Japanese taxpayers 
 several hundred billion dollars is important.
 
 
 Your value system is completely opposite to what it should be on this issue; 
 let me explain.
 
 You don't need to. I made it quite clear that I agree that coal is a bigger 
 threat in the long term. However, nuclear power is a gigantic economic threat 
 in the short term. If 3 more Japanese reactors were to go out of control and 
 explode, it would paralyze the entire economy, which is of the third largest 
 in the world. It would be roughly the equivalent of the U.S. fighting the 
 Iraq war again, 5 times in a row.
 
 Coal threatens global warming which in the worst scenario will destroy entire 
 nations and kill millions of species and individual people. That's horrible. 
 But a disaster that would impoverish an entire nation -- 4 reactors exploding 
 -- is also horrible, albeit in a different way. Neither risk is acceptable. 
 Both coal and nuclear have to go.
 
 We need something better. I hope that cold fusion can overcome the academic 
 politics and replace them both, but if that is not to be, I am sure that 
 solar and various other methods can replace them. This will be more expensive 
 than coal per kilowatt hour (ignoring future costs). It will be far cheaper 
 than nuclear however, now that we have seen the true dollar cost of nuclear 
 power. After Fukushima it became the most expensive method of generating 
 electricity in history. I believe it wiped out all of the profits ever made 
 by TEPCO.
 
 Before Fukushima I supported nuclear power.  I knew that nuclear accidents 
 have occurred and that they might be severe. However, I never imagined that a 
 reactor manufactured in the US and installed in Japan could malfunction to 
 this extent and cost this much money. If you asked me before 2011 I would 
 have said: that that might happen in theory but in actual practice we should 
 not worry about such extreme scenarios. Before 9/11 I would have dismissed 
 the likelihood of fanatics crashing commercial airliners into buildings. Life 
 is full of surprises.
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-02 Thread mixent

In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far
above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building.

I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore. That way there
would never be a shortage of cooling water, even if all electrical systems
failed completely and permanently, provided of course that the design used
gravity feed for the cooling water. If the reactor was far enough off shore, and
deep enough, then tsunamis would go right over it, making little impact.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM, Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.comwrote:

 Where do you keep getting this $600 billion dollar number?


The Japanese mass media, NHK, and The Japan Center for Economic Research.
See:

http://www.jcer.or.jp/eng/research/pdf/pe(iwata20110425)e.pdf

This shows 20 trillion yen for the cleanup ($243 billion). Since this was
written in April 2011, the estimated costs have climbed considerably, and
far more land had to be abandoned.

I estimated the cost to individuals in an earlier message. That is on the
order of $250 billion. Based on Japanese history I doubt the government or
the power company will pay anything to this group. They have offered
families $12,000 each. Their strategy is clear: they will hire an army of
lawyers and delay and stonewall until the people die. This is how Japanese
industry dealt with previous cases of pollution at Minamata and similar
cases, such as ex-U.S. POWs who demanded payment for slave labor during the
war.




 Most of the sources I've seen say it's around $50 billion.


It has cost more than that already, and they have hardly begun.

The cleanup may not cost as much as anticipated because they are already
saying it is impossible, and the only alternative is to abandon the towns
and cities for 50 years or longer. In other words, there is no way to clean
it up at any cost.



   And Tepco is the 4th largest electric utility in the world, not the 1st.


I stand corrected.



  Adding Chernobyl to nuclear's safety record is unfair.


No one would compare the two. I merely mentioned that Chernobyl reportedly
dumped more radioactive garbage into the air and soil than all coal fired
plants in history. I am pretty sure Fukushima did as well, since thousands
of square miles are now at levels ~100 times background.



 Solar costs about a $1/kwh without subsidies.


What does nuclear power now cost, taking into account the cost of Fukushima?

In this report, Greenpeace uses mainstream, official sources such as the
Japanese government and The Japan Center for Economic Research. Their
numbers are as reliable as any. All official sources reportedly
underestimate the likely cost by a wide margin.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:

If we decide to get rid of nuclear and coal in favor of wind and solar, a
 millions of  people will die of starvation. Our GDP would decrease by half.


This is nonsense. Five states in the U.S. alone have more potential wind
energy than the energy from all the oil pumped in the Middle East. It can
be converted to liquid fuel, and we could use it to put OPEC out of
business. The solar energy from a small section of the desert in Nevada
could also outproduce the Middle East, or generate all of the power in the
U.S., if we can find a way to store it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:

Greenpeace is not a credible source.


That is true. Greenpeace gets most of the numbers in the report from
official source in the Japanese government and TEPCO. These are not
credible sources -- as you say -- but there are not many independent
sources in Japan. Local governments are now conducting their own research,
and measuring radioactivity themselves. They show much higher levels, or
much broader areas than the Japanese government. So the problem is much
worse than Greenpeace estimated. However, you have to start somewhere with
a rough estimate.

Most people in Japan do not believe the government, according to public
opinion polls. You would have to be crazy to believe them, because they
have been lying, stonewalling and distorting the facts from day one. After
the reactors blew up, TEPCO spokesmen were actually on NHK denying that
anything had happened. They said there were some sonic effects (loud
noises) but it was unclear what, if anything they meant. To this day, they
have never shown the video of the explosion on TV as far as I know. They
even censored the Emperor when he spoke about it!

A few weeks ago, the Japanese Parliament investigating committee finally
tossed out their own government reports and began using copies of the U.S.
NRL report instead because -- as one MP put it -- the Japanese reports are
a pack of lies.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-02 Thread Eric Walker

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Without moral hazard, there is no way for a party to be motivated to
 change his behavior, improve his design, or pay for any damage caused.


I think you have moral hazard exactly backwards.  Moral hazard is a bad
thing -- it's what happens when people are not held to account for the
money they spend.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-02 Thread Axil Axil

 Both underwater and underground deployment of nuclear plants is ideal for
certain types of nuclear designs that are totally passively controlled.
This design is old and venerable. Being greatly concerned about nuclear
safety, the last paper that Dr. Edward Teller (designed the H bomb) wrote
before his death recommended this design.

Also being greatly concerned about nuclear safety, the designer of the
light water reactor also fought for this design and was fired for pushing
too hard.

Light water reactors are good at producing Pu239 which was important in
those days at the begining of the cold war.


These designs behave like a nuclear battery. In such a design, the core
supplies heat as required. The heat output of the design is load leveled.


The laws of nature regulate the nuclear reaction automatically and without
the possibility of error.



If no heat is extracted then the plant goes subcritical and dormant.



The core is the only part of the reactor that is below the sea. Reactor
automated core control and the power plant is on a surface barge or
platform that can be unmoored and remove to port if required to avoid a
strong hurricane.



The core would remain underwater in a dormant shutdown state.



Delayed heat remove from the core is enabled using a chimney effect where
heated water would rise to the surface through a large pipe.



The surface turbo-generator rejects heat into the ocean surface and joins
the prevailing ocean current flow.



Reactor refueling is simple and can be done automatically and waste
processing is integral to the reactor design were 99% of the nuclear fuel
is consumed.



The underwater deployment is highly resistant to terrorism since the core
is maintained in a hot cell supported by robots.



The core is deployed at a 100 meters depth and can withstand any natural
disaster (earthquake and associated wave generation) or the crash of any
sized plain no matter the size.





Using water as a structural material will greatly reduce the size of the
plant minimizing the cost of structural material to a small fraction of the
size and cost of current reactors.




Such a plant is unlikely to be built because of a lack of heart and
incipient fear from many quarters.


Too bad the advice of the great men in American science was ignored for
political reasons…





 Regards: axil










On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Jed Rothwell's message of Sun, 1 Apr 2012 23:17:19 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far
 above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building.

 I suggest building the entire reactor on the sea floor off shore. That way
 there
 would never be a shortage of cooling water, even if all electrical systems
 failed completely and permanently, provided of course that the design used
 gravity feed for the cooling water. If the reactor was far enough off
 shore, and
 deep enough, then tsunamis would go right over it, making little impact.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-01 Thread Alain Sepeda

one point that start to emerge from the toll of fukushima (that will be
zero, because population have been protected, and lover that 100mSv/y have
no effect),
and chernobyl (mainly dozens of neutron carbonized firemen send to death ,
and few kids who died of thyroid cancer that shoul have been threated)...
the theorical cancer or linera law did not happens...

anyway in the two place, the main toll have been (for chernibyl) and start
to be (in fukushima) the cost of FEAR and EVACUATION.
in japan there are dicussion to allow people to go back home, abandonnin
the ALARA rule (as low as reasonably acceptale) of 1mSv, to apply a
conservative law of 25mSv, and more for elderly (fow whom avec stron
irradiation won't decrease life expectancy by cancer)..

to be precise the big problem in Chernobyl have been the mental disease
linked to evacuation, like fear, depression, anxiety, leading to acoolism,
family violence, depression, and many suicides and murders. beside the
clear kid thyroid cancer fro the most irradiated, the clear statistic
message is that evacuation kills many people, thousands of suicides and
more about indirect mental problems.

in japan, beside the manipulators and the noise that western
environmentalist loves, some thert to moan on the few avoidable suicides of
erderly.
there is a mediatic war

by the wat tsumani are awful, in banda acheh, one third of the population
died, and the 21000-28000 japaneses dead will be hard to compare with neven
the suicides and economic loses of fukushima. especially if to separate the
cost of the nuclear accident and the cost of the delirious fear of
radioactivity.

beside that look at George Monbiot (The Guardian Environmentalist croniker)
article that explain how he have been manipulated by environmentalist abot
the pretented high danger of radioactivity.
when you realise that even for high deadly irradiation, the impact in term
of cancer is not so huge compared to usual behaviors (tobacco, alcool..)
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/04/04/evidence-meltdown/
I remind that being exposed to 1000mSv increase you cancer probability from
about 35% to few % more (+3%about), known from a big population of 1000mSv
irradiated victims in Hiroshima/nagasaki... not se different from usual
behaviors (lasiness, alcool, tobacco)

Anyway our human brain is not rational enough to manage invisible low
probability threat.

that is a problem with LENR since it could forbid the diffusion of
Hyperion-like devise at home, because of negible , danger less, radiation...
leading to concentration of the lenr power plants in only big corps.


2012/4/1 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com

 I agree Jed.  The Fukushima accident was extrodinarily bad.  It also
 should make us understand that we are not capable of anticipating the worst
 event that can occur.  I suspect that there are scenarios much worse than
 what actually happened and thank God that they did not appear.

 Energy sources other than nuclear will not have such devastating
 consequences, particularly ones that last for many decades.  Once I was a
 proponent of nuclear energy, but now I would not want to live anywhere
 close to one due to the dangers that seem to come out of nowhere.

 The promise of LENR keeps me looking forward to a better future for my
 children.  I just wish we could speed up the progress!

 Dave


  -Original Message-
 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
 Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 11:19 pm
 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

  Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:

  Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them.


  Evidently not. The Fukushima accident proved it is not safe. Just
 because it did not kill people right away that does not make it safe. It
 will likely kill many workers in the years to come. It caused tremendous
 havoc and cost ~$600 billion. Taking that much money out of the economy and
 throwing it down a black hole will surely cost many lives.

  A source of energy that can bankrupt the largest power company in the
 world in one day is not safe. No sane business executive would select it.
 If anyone had known this might happen, no country would have built nuclear
 reactors.

  People do not seem to grasp the magnitude of this event. This is $600
 billion in damage and 90,000 people's lives and livelihoods destroyed. No
 industrial accident in history was even remotely as destructive, except
 Chernoblyl, of course.

  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-01 Thread Alan Fletcher

 I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate
 electricity. (Safety is measured in accidents per kilowatt-hour.)
 - Jed

You might look at the Hydro Quebec James Bay project(s). 

Wiki is a start -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project -- but it's 
largely from a Quebecoi point of view.

An ecological disaster -- covers an area the size of NY state, induced 
earthquakes, completely disrupted (good? bad?) the native Cree/Inuit 
population, extensive mercury contamination (alleged forced abortions). 10,000 
caribou drowned during one storm (or, alleged, a planned test release).

 While highly motivated, the Cree's opposition to the Great Whale River 
 Project was mainly ineffective until 1992 when the State of New York withdrew 
 from a multi-billion dollar power purchasing agreement due to public outcry 
 and a decrease in energy requirements. 

I was in Albany at the time, and peripherally involved with the public outcry.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-04-01 Thread Michele Comitini

A terrible dam disaster: Vajont 1963.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vajont_Damuseformat=desktop

mic
 Il giorno 01/apr/2012 23:12, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com ha scritto:

  I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate
  electricity. (Safety is measured in accidents per kilowatt-hour.)
  - Jed

 You might look at the Hydro Quebec James Bay project(s).

 Wiki is a start -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bay_Project -- but
 it's largely from a Quebecoi point of view.

 An ecological disaster -- covers an area the size of NY state, induced
 earthquakes, completely disrupted (good? bad?) the native Cree/Inuit
 population, extensive mercury contamination (alleged forced abortions).
 10,000 caribou drowned during one storm (or, alleged, a planned test
 release).

  While highly motivated, the Cree's opposition to the Great Whale River
 Project was mainly ineffective until 1992 when the State of New York
 withdrew from a multi-billion dollar power purchasing agreement due to
 public outcry and a decrease in energy requirements.

 I was in Albany at the time, and peripherally involved with the public
 outcry.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-01 Thread Alan Fletcher

Japanese experts warn of earthquakes that could produce 34-metre tsunamis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/01/japan-earthquake-tsunami-wave-risk

Much of Japan's Pacific coast would be inundated by a tsunami more than 34 
metres (112 feet) high if an offshore earthquake as powerful as last year's 
occurred, according to a government panel of experts. They report that a wave 
of such height could result from any tsunami unleashed by a magnitude-9.0 
earthquake in the Nankai trough, which runs east of Japan's main island of 
Honshu to the southern island of Kyushu.

...

The Fukushima plant was designed to withstand a 6-metre (20-foot) tsunami, less 
than half the height of the surge that hit it on 11 March, 2011.

The latest forecast shows a tsunami of up to 21 metres (69 feet) could strike 
near the Hamaoka nuclear plant on the south-eastern coast. Its operator, Chubu 
Electric Power Co, is building an 18-metre (59-foot) high sea wall to counter 
tsunamis. The wall is due to be completed next year.
...
- Original Message -
 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-01 Thread David Roberson


This information does not build up my confidence in nuclear reactors located on 
shorelines.  Perhaps a need exists for some form of absolute kill mechanism 
that can be called upon in such an emergency.  It would sacrifice the reactor 
forever but prevent any catastrophic damages.  There must be some material that 
can be flooded into the reactor vessel that would behave in this manner, at 
least I hope there is.

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sun, Apr 1, 2012 10:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?


Japanese experts warn of earthquakes that could produce 34-metre tsunamis
ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/01/japan-earthquake-tsunami-wave-risk
Much of Japan's Pacific coast would be inundated by a tsunami more than 34 
etres (112 feet) high if an offshore earthquake as powerful as last year's 
ccurred, according to a government panel of experts. They report that a wave of 
uch height could result from any tsunami unleashed by a magnitude-9.0 
arthquake in the Nankai trough, which runs east of Japan's main island of 
onshu to the southern island of Kyushu.
...
The Fukushima plant was designed to withstand a 6-metre (20-foot) tsunami, less 
han half the height of the surge that hit it on 11 March, 2011.
The latest forecast shows a tsunami of up to 21 metres (69 feet) could strike 
ear the Hamaoka nuclear plant on the south-eastern coast. Its operator, Chubu 
lectric Power Co, is building an 18-metre (59-foot) high sea wall to counter 
sunamis. The wall is due to be completed next year.
..
 Original Message -
 From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-01 Thread Jed Rothwell

David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

 This information does not build up my confidence in nuclear reactors
 located on shorelines.


They are all on the shoreline in Japan. They use ocean water for cooling.



   Perhaps a need exists for some form of absolute kill mechanism that can
 be called upon in such an emergency.


Reactors are SCRAM'ed of course, but it is physically impossible to keep
them from generating heat. You have to cool them down for many days.

I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far
above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building.
The Fukushima disaster was caused by the tsunami destroying the Diesel fuel
tanks. The tsunami did not destroy the reactor itself, although water did
get into the buildings I think. If the fuel tank and generator had survived
there would have been no disaster.

The disaster was made worse by a mistake made a few days into the disaster.
They brought in an emergency Diesel. It ran out of fuel during the night.
No one noticed. That sounds like an incredibly stupid mistake, but it is
understandable. The people were working under extreme duress, similar to
soldiers in a battlefield. They were facing extreme peril, with intense
radiation and explosions all around them. They had gone without sleep for
days.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster -- 34 meter tsunamis?

2012-04-01 Thread Axil Axil

After a reactor shuts down, 15% of the rated capacity of the reactor is
released as delayed heat due to the decay of short lived radioactive
byproducts. This delayed heat must be dissipated into the environment to
keep the structure of the reactor from damage.



The Indians have designed and are implementing a nuclear reactor that can
passively dissipate this delayed heat production after reaction shutdown
has been triggered.



This passive heat dissipation design uses heat pipes specifically reserved
for this purpose. These pipes carry heat unaided into the environment. Such
heat pipes can operate unpowered in air and/or completely submerged in
water.



The contents of the reactor core are totally sealed from the outside
environment which includes these heat pipes. Nevertheless, uncontaminated
delayed heat can be passively carried into the environment cooling the
reactor without any possibility of core compromise.



The pebble bed reactor design is also passively cooled and can dissipate
the delayed heat load without external power.



The point, many nuclear reactor designs exist that can be  deployed on the
coast, underground or under the sea without the possibility of shutdown
failure.





Early on, the decision to go with the light water reactor design was a
political one born within internal governmental political in-fighting in
preference to safer type designs. The decision makers in the nuclear
industry both in government and in industry will stay with the light water
design for their own reasons.

 Today in the American led orthodox view, nuclear safety lies in
maintaining ages old tried and true technology that maintain safety by
relying on ultimate human intervention and control. Some question that view
as foolish.
But other countries are going in other directions including fail safe
engineered passive control.










On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:17 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:

  This information does not build up my confidence in nuclear reactors
 located on shorelines.


 They are all on the shoreline in Japan. They use ocean water for cooling.



   Perhaps a need exists for some form of absolute kill mechanism that can
 be called upon in such an emergency.


 Reactors are SCRAM'ed of course, but it is physically impossible to keep
 them from generating heat. You have to cool them down for many days.

 I think the problem can be addressed by putting emergency generators far
 above the waterline, perhaps in the second story of the reactor building.
 The Fukushima disaster was caused by the tsunami destroying the Diesel fuel
 tanks. The tsunami did not destroy the reactor itself, although water did
 get into the buildings I think. If the fuel tank and generator had survived
 there would have been no disaster.

 The disaster was made worse by a mistake made a few days into the
 disaster. They brought in an emergency Diesel. It ran out of fuel during
 the night. No one noticed. That sounds like an incredibly stupid mistake,
 but it is understandable. The people were working under extreme duress,
 similar to soldiers in a battlefield. They were facing extreme peril, with
 intense radiation and explosions all around them. They had gone without
 sleep for days.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-03-31 Thread Guenter Wildgruber






 Von: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 15:38 Samstag, 31.März 2012
Betreff: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster
 


About a trillion dollars, as I said.

Monetizing the issue makes it comparative.
But I doubt that. 
No every issue can be monetized.

The whole topic of 'betting markets' is nothing else: Monetizing issues by 
assigning probabilities on them.
Money as a marker of probability.

Should we -the scientifically minded- be bounded to such banality?

The question of 'value' is/should be- put out of  commercialized time and 
profit-expectations.
Maybe there is scientific time, which borders on to the infinite, and is 
opposed to commercial time, which seems to be quarterly profit.
'Value' is a societal variable, and as such should be put into special 
consideration. 
Embarassed,

Guenter

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Regarding the scale of the ecological disaster, my impression is that is so
big that no one has a handle on it. No one knows how much radioactive
material escaped, where it ended up, or how widespread it is. It is much
worse than they originally thought.

Last week they inserted a camera into one of the reactor cores for the
first time. A lot of the material they expected to find is not there. There
is nowhere near as much water as they expected. It is leaking out.

Much of the reactor core is probably spread out as fine dust in the ocean
and surrounding land, from the hydrogen explosion and subsequent chaos. No
one really knows. They are getting dangerously high readings from places
far from the plants. They have millions of tons of contaminated earth and
debris, and nowhere to put it.

The Japanese government has dragged many professors, engineers and experts
out of retirement to work on the problem. They sent soil samples taken many
kilometers away from the plant to Mizuno and others in Hokkaido. The soil
was so radioactive, Mizuno was scared to deal with it, and did not know
where to store it.

The Japanese government is very anxious to cover up this mess with their
proverbial blue plastic tarps -- physical, political and mental. A few
weeks ago someone in Japan downloaded the U.S. NRL report on the accident.
They printed hundreds of copies which were used in the ongoing
Parliamentary hearings, and shown prominently on TV, because -- as one MP
put it, we can't this kind of information out of our own government, so we
are forced to rely on the Americans.

The other day, at the 1-year anniversary memorial service the Emperor gave
a short speech. I have never heard the Emperor say anything controversial.
This did not seem controversial either, but he mentioned that the nuclear
accident is still happening and many people have lost their houses and
farms perhaps for decades. National NHK TV and other major news
organizations censored that part of the speech. They cut it right out. Even
the Emperor is not allowed to say the obvious!

NHK and the mass media also censored the famous videos of the reactors
exploding. I watched NHK extensively during the accident, and recorded it.
They never showed that video; only photos of the buildings days later.
Takahashi told me that everyone in Japan saw the videos on YouTube but not
on TV.

The rest of Japan's reactors are shut down and undergoing extensive
examinations and stress testing. Yesterday they reported that one of them
has much more neutron embrittlement in the steel  reactor vessel than
expected, or than predicted by theory. Some government official said,
don't worry, it is just a math error. (keisan-machigai). Keep moving
folks. Nothing to see here. This is why the Japanese public does not trust
the government or the power companies. I wouldn't trust them as far as I
can throw them.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Here are some details about that rough estimate of $1 trillion damage over
the long term.

The immediate aftermath of the entire tsunami disaster was cost roughly
$250 billion, but it will cost a lot more in the future, especially if they
rebuild the towns. I doubt they will rebuild many of them.

Immediate insurance claims a few months after the accident were only $1.2
billion. Many of the would-be claimants were dead.

Here is an estimate of costs from Greenpeace, admittedly a partisan
organization, but facts and figures are all from Japanese government and
industry sources:

http://www.greenpeace.org/switzerland/Global/switzerland/de/publication/Nuclear/Lessons%20Learned%20from%20Fukushima%20final%20text.pdf

They report that the Min. of Ed. and Science now estimates up to 13,000
km^2 (5,000 square miles) of affected land.

TEPCO is committed to paying $59 billion damages over two years, but that's
just the beginning. The amounts per capita do not begin to cover damages to
lost property or relocation.

Compensation -- if paid -- is expected to cost around $261 billion over the
next 10 years. I expect it will go on much longer than 10 years but they
will not pay.

The direct cost of the clean up and decommissioning is estimated about at
about $650 billion.

The land area and affected by the reactor accident and the number of people
was larger than the tsunami itself, I think, because it goes far inland,
and the effects will last for decades.

Japanese per capita wealth (not income) is ~$0.18 million. Farmers and
people living in the countryside generally have a lot more wealth in
property and facilities such as barns or warehouses than the urban
population. Their income is low but they own lots of buildings, fertile
fields, plastic greenhouses, livestock and so on. All of this property was
destroyed or abandoned. All public facilities such as schools, government
offices, fire departments, fire engines, hospitals, water processing plants
and so on were abandoned. Even if they can go back in 40 years this stuff
will be a pile of junk.

This was a prosperous part of the country.

Not all 90,000 of those people owned farms, canneries, chicken houses, or
fishing boats but many of them did. I happen to know several Japanese
farmers who do not have many acres, but they have canneries and fishing
boats, tractors, trucks, buzz saws, milking machines, bakeries and so on.
When you live in the countryside, you have to have physical tools or
equipment to make a living. Not just an internet connection or a law degree.

I suppose that conservatively, the private and public property of an
average Japanese farmer is about 3 times higher than the average for the
population as a whole. Say, $0.6 million. Multiply by 90,000 people gives
an immediate loss of $54 billion. Add in the lost income from those farms
and factories for the next 40 years and you are looking at a lot of money.
I suppose farms earn about ~4 times the value of the land and equipment
over 40 year, so that's $250 billion. It will never actually be paid by
TEPCO or the government, but that is how much the victims and their
survivors will lose.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-03-31 Thread Guenter Wildgruber






 
Von:Jed Rothwell
jedrothw...@gmail.com
An: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Gesendet: 17:00 Samstag, 31.März 2012
Betreff: Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Jed,

the problem is:
Are there problems who should be adressed as NIL.
In software-speak this has been the thrash-can or the NIL-device, maybe patented
by Apple.

Or are there other problems termed infinite or undecidable?

Guess.

And please do not consider Yourself as the highest of the wise men.
I would never accept. Sorry. Even Buddha would not apply for this eminent
position.

But your intellect is highly appreciated,
nevertheless.

Guenter.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-03-31 Thread fznidarsic

This is nothing new,  I am reading Atomic America by Todd tucker.  When the 
SL-1 reactor went super critical in 1961 the control rod assembly impaled an 
army operator and pinned him to the roof of the containment structure.  When 
they got the body out days later, it was perfectly preserved because the 
radioactivity had killed all of the bacteria.  


The Fermi nuclear reactor melted down in another disaster that had the 
potential to  wipe out Detroit.


It been a long bad history.


Frank Z



-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 9:38 am
Subject: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster


Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote:


Fukishima disaster?  How many people died in this disaster?  3 so far, 0 from 
radiation.



It was more an economic disaster, like Three Mile Island (TMI). TMI nearly 
bankrupted the local Pennsylvania power company, and cost billions of dollars. 
Fukushima effectively bankrupted TEPCO, the largest power company in the world, 
and it will probably end up costing approximately a trillion dollars after 40 
years. I believe the cost will be higher than all other industrial accidents in 
Japanese history, combined. That's a disaster!


It is also an ecological disaster of unknown proportions. A significant 
fraction of Japan's land area -- 4,000 square miles or 0.3% of all the land in 
the country -- has been abandoned for 30 to 50 years. 90,000 people are 
homeless, and have lost their farms, businesses, schools, livestock autos and 
all other possessions.


It also triggered the shutdown of all but 2 Japanese power reactors, which is 
18% of their capacity. It destroyed the nuclear power industry in Japan. I 
think there is no chance additional plants will be approved.


The event was unimaginable beforehand. I am pretty sure that if you were to 
describe such a thing, most politicians and all power company officials would 
have said, that would be a disaster, but it is impossible. I would have said 
that.





How much was the damage to property?



About a trillion dollars, as I said. It is unclear whether the costs will be 
borne by TEPCO and the government, or by the 90,000 people who lost their 
houses, businesses and farms. Knowing Japan as I do, I predict the victims will 
end up paying most of the cost. I predict there will be trials lasting decades 
into the future. TEPCO and it successor companies will use delaying tactics 
until the victims die of old age.


 

  How many people died when a renewable energy dam broke?



That seldom happens nowadays. Retaining dams made from earth sometimes break, 
but not power dams made from concrete.
 



  About 1,000 and probably about the same economic damage with the homes washed 
away.



When and where did that happen? I have never heard of a dam destroying 4,000 
square miles.


 

  There were also fires at oil refineries that killed more people than the 
nuclear plants.



Not when you take into account people killed by pollution from uranium mining. 
Fortunately, that has been greatly reduced in recent decades.


 

  Also, the nuclear plants were built in the 1960's.



The 1970s actually, but the accident was caused by the overall facility layout 
rather than the reactor itself. The emergency power fuel supplies and 
generators were destroyed by the tsunami. That would destroy any fission 
reactor, of any current design.


The overall design was much more vulnerable than most experts thought possible. 
Next generation reactor plants may also be vulnerable. We'll never know; they 
will never build one. At least, not in Japan.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-03-31 Thread Alan Fletcher

 How many people died when a renewable energy dam broke?
 
 That seldom happens nowadays. Retaining dams made from earth sometimes
 break, but not power dams made from concrete.
 
 About 1,000 and probably about the same economic damage with the homes
 washed away.
 
 When and where did that happen? I have never heard of a dam destroying
 4,000 square miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam  -- 1929  ?

... the current death toll is estimated to be more than 600 victims (excluding 
the itinerant farm workers camped in San Francisquito Canyon, the exact number 
of which will never be known).

Of course, 1929 doesn't count as nowadays.  And the land can immediately be 
re-inhabited.

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam  -- 1929  ?

 ... the current death toll is estimated to be more than 600 victims . . .


A concrete dam failure of this nature is extremely unlikely today.

I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate electricity.
Wind turbines are almost as safe. (Safety is measured in accidents per
kilowatt-hour.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster

2012-03-31 Thread Jarold McWilliams

Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them.
On Mar 31, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Dam  -- 1929  ?
 
 ... the current death toll is estimated to be more than 600 victims . . .
 
 A concrete dam failure of this nature is extremely unlikely today.
 
 I believe dams are the safest and cheapest way to generate electricity. Wind 
 turbines are almost as safe. (Safety is measured in accidents per 
 kilowatt-hour.)
 
 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:The Fukushima disaster