Energy Discussion

[Random8145]

I would be hoping it wasn't the person that caused the issue just random material failure!

There are so many redundant systems with nuke power so many things have to go wrong to cause an issue, one thing they always told us is to "trust your indications".

That's what they tell us the public, but then something like Fukushima happens and it turns out they engaged in some really stupid design decisions. Like for one presuming that the level of earthquake that happened wasn't capable of happening in that region. IMO, the reactor should never be designed based on what they "think" could happen, it should be designed to handle all the scenarios. If it's put in Texas, it should still be designed to handle sub-zero temperatures. If it's put in Antarctica, it should be designed to handle 100+ temperatures, just in case. If it's in the middle of Europe, it should still be able to handle a Kansas-sized tornado. And it should be able to withstand the most powerful earthquakes they can possibly engineer it for.

The Fukushima incident just came across as mind-numbingly stoooooopid to me from a regular guy standpoint. They didn't locate the backup generators high enough for a flood that could happen. In addition to that being a fail, there should be backup generators for the backup generators, and backups for those, because sometimes the backups to the main system can fail.

I am not anti-nuclear, but more skeptical of it now.

 

[Brett327]

Oh, that is dramatic alright. Now ask some rando how many people died in that explosion. No wait, ask them how many died in the entirety of the emergency. Radiation sickness? Yep they will get that wrong too. TMI, same. Even as bad as Chernobyl was, most folks have no idea what the casualties were, let alone the environmental or long term medical harm.

My view in all this is that we have had three "major" nuclear incidents, and in every case we have used the lessons to make the systems even safer. Only thing that worries me about nuke plants are the remaining soviet designs without containment buildings. But hell ya. Let's use the example of an ancient design run by idiots and a corrupt government reaction to justify black balling modern western nuclear plants.

I agree with this post, though I'm not sure we have a clear idea about the long term health effects from Fukushima Daiichi, which was a US design, BTW... though quite an old one.

 

[Random8145]

Just saw this…

View attachment 35495

And to top it off, I've read we could actually recycle our nuclear plant waste, and that France does this with theirs, but we do not because of a deal signed with the Soviets because they thought we were using such uranium for the production of nuclear weapons.

 

[Random8145]

The Germans are pretty committed to going to as much renewables as possible, there is not only the political will but more importantly the public will to do so with the Greens holding a lot more power there than pretty much any other large 1st world country. So they might not be able to go to 100% any time soon but getting as close as they can is a national goal, and frankly a pretty admirable one not only for the environment but geopolitically as well.

To say that there transition to renewable power is premature to say the least.



It ain't dead yet but it is certainly dying.

Germany has had an environmentalist culture going way back to at least the 1800s. The Nazis for example had a very environmentalist outlook. The current German environmentalist culture is not influenced from Nazism, rather the Nazism was influenced by the German environmentalist culture. I remember reading somewhere that the origins of the hippie culture in California derive from the German green culture.

 

[nittany03]

Yes but 9/11 wasn't a disaster that could render part of the country uninhabitable.

So we should can the nuclear deterrent and decom every ship with an "N" in the hull number? Because they could create a disaster that rendered part of the country uninhabitable? Notwithstanding, say, the nuc community's perfect record on that front for 50+ years and counting?

 

[Random8145]

So we should can the nuclear deterrent and decom every ship with an "N" in the hull number? Because they could create a disaster that rendered part of the country uninhabitable? Notwithstanding, say, the nuc community's perfect record on that front for 50+ years and counting?

There isn't a history of countries accidentally detonating a nuclear weapon and our country's nuclear Navy is known as being extremely professional, with as you said a perfect record. Civilian nuke plants however it varies. They seem to sometimes be less professional, or even if the staff running the plant is professional, the management of the company that owns the plant may not be such and cheap out on certain safety features that they are supposed to have (Fukushima).

 

[exNavyOffRec]

So we should can the nuclear deterrent and decom every ship with an "N" in the hull number? Because they could create a disaster that rendered part of the country uninhabitable? Notwithstanding, say, the nuc community's perfect record on that front for 50+ years and counting?

It is about 68 years now

 

[nittany03]

It is about 68 years now

And there's the nuc mentality we all know and love that's made it 68 years.

 

[Griz882]

A few posts earlier someone made a note about “rare earth metals” and it is somewhat in error. First, rare earth metals aren’t at all rare or even hard to find, but they are hard to extract (mill) from larger deposits. Second, North America can easily meet their future rare earth metal needs but we don’t want to use ours because mining and extraction are…ready for this…not environmentally friendly.

Often this is the rub of many environmental movements…they want the clean here but the dirty somewhere else. They want the solar panels, but not the mines and mills needed to get there. They want the battery powered cars but not pit mine to get the lithium out of the ground (at least they don’t want it here). This is pretty much the same thing surrounding the nuclear argument. Although clean, efficient, and able to meet most demands…people don’t want it near them.

 

[Random8145]

A few posts earlier someone made a note about “rare earth metals” and it is somewhat in error. First, rare earth metals aren’t at all rare or even hard to find, but they are hard to extract (mill) from larger deposits. Second, North America can easily meet their future rare earth metal needs but we don’t want to use ours because mining and extraction are…ready for this…not environmentally friendly.

Often this is the rub of many environmental movements…they want the clean here but the dirty somewhere else. They want the solar panels, but not the mines and mills needed to get there. They want the battery powered cars but not pit mine to get the lithium out of the ground (at least they don’t want it here). This is pretty much the same thing surrounding the nuclear argument. Although clean, efficient, and able to meet most demands…people don’t want it near them.

That was me, but I said basically what you just said:

It is also questionable as to how independent they will actually make us, because they require a lot of various rare earth elements for their manufacture, and a lot of those right now come from sketchy parts of the world. For example China is where a lot of rare earth elements are currently sourced (they could be sourced elsewhere, but China is the cheapest I believe and the best at mining them) and China also leads in solar panel manufacturing. For battery technology, one of the critical elements is cobalt, and the major source of that in the world is the Congo, where a lot of child labor and oppressive conditions are used in the mining of it.

 

[taxi1]

There isn't a history of countries accidentally detonating a nuclear weapon and our country's nuclear Navy is known as being extremely professional, with as you said a perfect record. Civilian nuke plants however it varies. They seem to sometimes be less professional, or even if the staff running the plant is professional, the management of the company that owns the plant may not be such and cheap out on certain safety features that they are supposed to have (Fukushima).

When cost and profit enters the picture...

What happens when a company operating a nuclear reactor goes bankrupt?

Or the country experiences a revolution and the new guys are Taliban-esque in their appreciation of technology? Or are essentially an End of Days cult?

My view in all this is that we have had three "major" nuclear incidents, and in every case we have used the lessons to make the systems even safer.

My view is that these were Black Swans which arose from the inherent complexity of the systems. Things hook to other things which hook to other things, and couple in ways that simply cannot be completely understood.

After each of these unpredicted failures we rationalized their failure as actually predictable and plugged that hole. The problem is there's lots more holes.

This is an interesting story from INL.

On Tuesday, January 3, 1961, SL-1 was being prepared for restart after a shutdown of eleven days over the holidays. Maintenance procedures required that Rod 9 be manually withdrawn a few inches to reconnect it to its drive mechanism. At 9:01 pm MST, this rod was suddenly withdrawn too far, causing SL-1 to go prompt critical instantly. In four milliseconds, the heat generated by the resulting enormous power excursion caused fuel inside the core to melt and to explosively vaporize. The expanding fuel produced an extreme pressure wave that blasted water upward, striking the top of the reactor vessel with a peak pressure of 10,000 pounds per square inch (69,000 kPa). The slug of water was propelled at about 159 feet per second (48 m/s) with average pressure of around 500 pounds per square inch (3,400 kPa).[15] This extreme form of water hammer propelled the entire reactor vessel upward at about 27 feet per second (8.2 m/s), while the shield plugs were ejected at about 85 feet per second (26 m/s).[15] With six holes on the top of the reactor vessel, high pressure water and steam sprayed the entire room with radioactive debris from the damaged core. A later investigation concluded that the 26,000-pound (12,000 kg) (or thirteen short tons) vessel had jumped 9 feet 1 inch (2.77 m), parts of it striking the ceiling of the reactor building before settling back into its original location,[11][20][15] and depositing insulation and gravel on the operating floor.[15] If not for the vessel's #5 seal housing hitting the overhead crane, the pressure vessel had enough upward momentum to rise about ten feet (3 m).[15] The excursion, steam explosion, and vessel movement took two to four seconds.[15]

The spray of water and steam knocked two operators onto the floor, killing one and severely injuring another. The No. 7 shield plug from the top of the reactor vessel impaled the third man through his groin and exited his shoulder, pinning him to the ceiling.[11]

 

[Randy Daytona]

Back to the energy discussion, NYMEX futures are down 5% this morning, mid $7s, volatility is wild. Also, I don't want to leave out our electric friends...I heard you may also be seeing a significant increase in their electricity rates (>50%) over the next few years (!).

Any thoughts on the EPA possibly making the Permian a nonattainment zone?

EPA warns West Texas of problematic air quality, could implement harsher rules

The state could be forced to provide a plan to improve air quality in the region and be subject to harsher oversight.

www.cbs7.com

Meanwhile, some unpleasant analysis from JP Morgan Chase as reported by Bloomberg.

BNN Bloomberg â Canada Business News, TSX Today & Interest Rates

Get the latest Canadian business news, TSX updates, interest rates and Bank of Canada coverage. Explore stock market investing and get expert financial insights on investment portfolio strategies.

www.bnnbloomberg.ca

 

[Griz882]

Any thoughts on the EPA possibly making the Permian a nonattainment zone?

EPA warns West Texas of problematic air quality, could implement harsher rules

The state could be forced to provide a plan to improve air quality in the region and be subject to harsher oversight.

www.cbs7.com

Meanwhile, some unpleasant analysis from JP Morgan Chase as reported by Bloomberg.

BNN Bloomberg â Canada Business News, TSX Today & Interest Rates

Get the latest Canadian business news, TSX updates, interest rates and Bank of Canada coverage. Explore stock market investing and get expert financial insights on investment portfolio strategies.

www.bnnbloomberg.ca

Both issues are part of the race to shift to new energy sources. $380 oil will certainly hurt and I doubt the production on the Permian will ever fully cease, but no matter what the juice has to flow. It can be petroleum, nuclear, natural gas, renewables, even trash…but the juice has to flow.

 

[Hair Warrior]

What happens when a company operating a nuclear reactor goes bankrupt?

TL;DR: A non issue. Adults would step in.

The bankruptcy court would step in and liquidate the assets prior to the bankrupt company ceasing operations. Happens all the time in the industrial and manufacturing sector. The new company - whether it is a reformed company or a buyer at auction - assumes (or resumes) operation of the plant. Also, any US nuclear reactor is operated solely with permit from the DOE, so the DOE can/will step in with trained reactor operators. If we’re talking a country other than the US, every nuclear power has a similar govt oversight agency.

Or the country experiences a revolution and the new guys are Taliban-esque in their appreciation of technology?

Revolutions and breakaways have happened with nuclear powers: Ukraine in 1989-91 being a prime example. No disruption to nuclear energy plants due to political leadership changeover. Now, they weren’t Taliban-esque, to use your terminology. If we were to carry forward the Taliban example, once they took over in 2021, they mostly tried to retain the infrastructure grid in place (to try to project some competence). They have also reached out publicly to China and Russia - two nuclear powers - for investment. Prior to the Taliban taking over, if they had attacked a power plant in country, it would have been treated as if it were a terrorist attack on a power plant, which has obviously been planned for since the 1970s.

Obviously, what you allude to is the case of present day Iran, which experienced a fanatic religious coup in 1979 that persists to this day. Which is why it’s been important to prevent and delay Iran’s nuclear ambitions through sanctions and other means.

Or are essentially an End of Days cult?

See above, since at least the 1970s - when the idea of terrorism gained international attention - there have been plans in place to prevent such terrorist attacks.

 

[Hair Warrior]

P.S. @taxi1 if you are interested in the “What happens to nuclear power in an apocalypse scenario?” question, watch season 3, episodes 17 and 18, of The Last Man On Earth.