What if the Chernobyl disaster never happened? (DO NOT Add potitics to this discussion, or I will report your post))

[tater]

What matters are the morbidity/mortality per unit power produced, including all causes (mining, transport, etc). By this metric, nuclear is very safe, indeed. Coal is incredibly nasty, both from mining deaths, and deaths resulting from pollution. It would not be unfair to lump a percentage of deaths due to conflict over oil into the toll for oil (ww2 was entirely about oil, for example (Germans heading East for Soviet oil, and the Imperial Japanese for the oil in the NEI), but even without those, oil has associated morbidity/mortality associated with extraction and pollution.

Chernobyl (a terrible reactor design, run by incompetents) certainly makes nuclear look worse than it actually is. Three Mile Island was basically a non-event, and as bad as Fukushima was, it has killed exactly no one (the 1-2 deaths were during the tsunami itself), and any future deaths will be very few, and basically just a slight increase in cancer risk. I think there were a couple acute radiation exposures, but they haven't died.

I find the title odd, though, in stating that political stuff should not be said. Start a thread that is basically political, then disallow politics? Seems like it would be better to simply not start the thread in the first place.

[kunok]

8 hours ago, fredinno said:

Wind: 13.5 cents per kWh

Nuclear: 0.76 cents per kWh

First, what has my post to do with the others? I was talking about the 25000MW excess on gas combined cycle plants in Spain.

You are comparing fuel price against installation cost?... "Fuel" price of wind is 0.

Seriously, even the count tribunal in France says that new nuclear plants are more expensive than the wind equivalent production. And I remark the production and not installed power. For the price of 1GW nuclear (based in a 4 millions €/MW reference cost, lower than for example Flamanville nuclear plant new reactor cost 6,3 millions €/MW and that's if they don't grown again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant) you install 4,21GW of wind power (based on a 0,95 million €/MW reference cost, an "old" value) , then taking into account the reference values of working hours per year:

Nuclear 1Gw x 7750h (total hours in the year minus technical parades)  = 7750Gwh

Wind: 4,21Gw x 2200h (that's in a bad place for a wind generator)= 9262Gwh

And that's only the initial cost. Nuclear power it's very expensive.

Energy density isn't that important in a fixed installation. I can see the sense in the future for huge nuclear powered boats, but not for power plants.

[insert_name]

1 minute ago, kunok said:

fueFirst, what has my post to do with the others? I was talking about the 25000MW excess on gas combined cycle plants in Spain.

You are comparing fuel price against installation cost?... "Fuel" price of wind is 0.

Seriously, even the count tribunal in France says that new nuclear plants are more expensive than the wind equivalent production. And I remark the production and not installed power. For the price of 1GW nuclear (based in a 4 millions €/MW reference cost, lower than for example Flamanville nuclear plant new reactor cost 6,3 millions €/MW and that's if they don't grown again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant) you install 4,21GW of wind power (based on a 0,95 million €/MW reference cost, an "old" value) , then taking into account the reference values of working hours per year:

Nuclear 1Gw x 7750h (total hours in the year minus technical parades)  = 7750Gwh

Wind: 4,21Gw x 2200h (that's in a bad place for a wind generator)= 9262Gwh

And that's only the initial cost. Nuclear power it's very expensive.

Energy density isn't that important in a fixed installation. I can see the sense in the future for huge nuclear powered boats, but not for power plants.

while fuel costs for wind turbines are zero, other variable costs (such as maintenance, labor, etc) are not.

[kunok]

1 minute ago, insert_name said:

while fuel costs for wind turbines are zero, other variable costs (such as maintenance, labor, etc) are not.

I didn't say otherwise, it was a response to that weird and absurd comparative.

[SomeGuy123]

1 minute ago, insert_name said:

while fuel costs for wind turbines are zero, other variable costs (such as maintenance, labor, etc) are not.

And they are also very high for nuclear.  More power density but you have the problem that radiation is dangerous and parts of the plant are inaccessible except by robots.  A mistake will be costly so expensive and elaborate procedures must be followed to do everything.

If you get "Joes cut rate windmill repair" to fix your windmill, worst case a blade falls off and some damage is done.  Maybe a small number of people are killed if the whole tower were to fall over or something.  Point is, it's much cheaper and you can safely take shortcuts because the risk to public health and safety is so small.

[tater]

Wind is 2.1 watts per m². World energy growth per year is about 2%. That means just to cover world growth in need, you'd need to entirely cover Bulgaria in wind farms. Every year.

[Tex_NL]

11 minutes ago, SomeGuy123 said:

... and you can safely take shortcuts because the risk to public health and safety is so small.

No, you can not!
If there were methods to make wind energy cheaper or more efficient without compromising safety it would already part of the design. In order to make a shortcut there has to be something to cut in the first place.

 

[tater]

Wind is secondary solar. Primary solar is vastly more sensible.

[GeneralVeers]

54 minutes ago, tater said:

Wind is 2.1 watts per m². World energy growth per year is about 2%. That means just to cover world growth in need, you'd need to entirely cover Bulgaria in wind farms. Every year.

Other consideration for wind power: getting the materials needed to build such a large number of windmills. That means mining (for the metals) and oil (for the plastics).

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, tater said:

What matters are the morbidity/mortality per unit power produced, including all causes (mining, transport, etc). By this metric, nuclear is very safe, indeed. Coal is incredibly nasty, both from mining deaths, and deaths resulting from pollution. It would not be unfair to lump a percentage of deaths due to conflict over oil into the toll for oil (ww2 was entirely about oil, for example (Germans heading East for Soviet oil, and the Imperial Japanese for the oil in the NEI), but even without those, oil has associated morbidity/mortality associated with extraction and pollution.

Chernobyl (a terrible reactor design, run by incompetents) certainly makes nuclear look worse than it actually is. Three Mile Island was basically a non-event, and as bad as Fukushima was, it has killed exactly no one (the 1-2 deaths were during the tsunami itself), and any future deaths will be very few, and basically just a slight increase in cancer risk. I think there were a couple acute radiation exposures, but they haven't died.

I find the title odd, though, in stating that political stuff should not be said. Start a thread that is basically political, then disallow politics? Seems like it would be better to simply not start the thread in the first place.

Well, WW2 wasn't really about oil, but was still heavily influenced by oil.

15 minutes ago, tater said:

Wind is secondary solar. Primary solar is vastly more sensible.

Primary Solar also turns out to be more expensive!

[adsii1970]

What is potitics, exactly...?

[SomeGuy123]

3 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

No, you can not!
If there were methods to make wind energy cheaper or more efficient without compromising safety it would already part of the design. In order to make a shortcut there has to be something to cut in the first place.

 

You're totally missing the point.  Yes, these numbers are baked into the cost.  But the reason why wind is cheaper is because it's cheaper to build and fix the turbines versus the same capacity in nuclear.  And the reason this is true is because of all the delays and inspections that slow down nuclear reactor construction and repair.

If we were immune to radiation like supermutants in fallout nuclear would beat everything else.

Edited February 14, 2016 by SomeGuy123

[tater]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

Well, WW2 wasn't really about oil, but was still heavily influenced by oil.

Oil was the sole reason for ww2 in he pacific. The US embargoed oil to Japan, and the IJN felt their strategic needs required a source they controlled. The IJA was content to stay in China, the sole purpose of the invasions in the SW Pacifc were cover for taking the NEI, as was disabling the USN.

The German plan was not dissimilar to the WW1 Schlieffen plan. Knock out France, attack Russia. That was the point from the start, and the real goal was Soviet oil.

Oil, as the working fluid of industrial societies has a deep history of violence.

[PB666]

4 hours ago, SomeGuy123 said:

And they are also very high for nuclear.  More power density but you have the problem that radiation is dangerous and parts of the plant are inaccessible except by robots.  A mistake will be costly so expensive and elaborate procedures must be followed to do everything.

If you get "Joes cut rate windmill repair" to fix your windmill, worst case a blade falls off and some damage is done.  Maybe a small number of people are killed if the whole tower were to fall over or something.  Point is, it's much cheaper and you can safely take shortcuts because the risk to public health and safety is so small.

When your turbine is 100 feet off the ground there are no Joes cut rate windmill repairs. The generator bearings eventually wear our and need to be replaced, most opt at that point for upgrading the head and blades or the entire unit, most of the components are completely recyclable so the green house costs are not that much.

Both major nuclear accidents could have been prevented. The Soviet accident had poor design, it was undergoing an unrated and unapproved process, there was a miscommunication between the shifts. The water transfer system was of poor design and was prone to vapor lockups undercertain circumstances.

The Fukashima disaster occurred on 40 year old reactors rated for 20 years of use by the manufactorer, TEPCO was directly and officially warned that there was a periodic risk for catastrophic tsunamis (which, even if they had never been told, given it was Japan and that their reactor lied on the Pacific ocean itself, whose entire basin is prone to catastrophic tsunamis they should have assummed to be the case, why the govt hasn;'t sued their pants off is a total wonder), the emergency power generators were below the 500 year flood level, they made no provisions for back up, trivially they did not have a means of collecting hydrogen in the housing if it had been generated or to contain exhaust leaks.

The is a reason for national regulatory agencies aside from taking bribes and kickbacks from the entities they are supposed to be regulating.

I am pro nuclear, pro wind, pro solar, pro natural gas, pro oil, anti-coal (because any level of mercury contamination is unacceptable, it just doesn't poison one mans fish, it poisons the fish that all nations eat and the crops that all nations eat, and its not an accident, its what happens when you burn lignite coal).

Edited February 14, 2016 by PB666

[Vanamonde]

Guys, Spaceception pointed out that he does not want politics to come up in this thread because he knows we moderators will have to infract and/or lock the thread if it does, and he doesn't want his thread shutdown. That's all that is. Now please, go back to discussing the Chernobyl thing. 

[Wjolcz]

It's such a sad thing humanity has to actually experience a tragedy to know how to prevent it from happening again.

Wish fusion was already a thing...

[Nothalogh]

On 2/13/2016 at 9:30 AM, Spaceception said:

What if the Chernobyl disaster never happened?

Nothing would change, anti energy activists are not governed by reality

[fredinno]

5 hours ago, tater said:

Oil was the sole reason for ww2 in he pacific. The US embargoed oil to Japan, and the IJN felt their strategic needs required a source they controlled. The IJA was content to stay in China, the sole purpose of the invasions in the SW Pacifc were cover for taking the NEI, as was disabling the USN.

The German plan was not dissimilar to the WW1 Schlieffen plan. Knock out France, attack Russia. That was the point from the start, and the real goal was Soviet oil.

Oil, as the working fluid of industrial societies has a deep history of violence.

Damn, is responding to this considered politics?

[fairytalefox]

14 hours ago, Kerbart said:

You cannot see, feel, hear or smell radiation

Well, strictly speaking, it's not exactly true. Your point is solid, I won't disprove it; but at the same time, cheap consumer-grade radiometers are a thing. I, for example, am a proud owner of one of these. It's more a toy than a science instrument, but still.

 

[kerbiloid]

Chernobyl meltdown
→ Anti-nuke hysteria
→ Rise of "green" lobby
→ Rush of "alternative" energetics
→ Electric cars replace petrol [you are here]
→ "Green" electric power plants instead hydrocarbon refineries
→ Old (i.e. nowadays) atomic plants planned rapid disassembly
→ "Green" energetics replaces atomic and hydrocarbon energetics
→ Deficit of electric energy
→ Bancrupcy of "green" energetics
→ Energetical collapse
→ Atomic plants rush
→ Uranium deficit
→ Breeding reactors rush
→ Depleted uranium rush
→ Thorium rush
→ Fusion rush
→ Lithium→Tritium→He3 rush
→ Bright and shiny new world with atomic energy in every house.

P.S.

Chernobyl.
Dozens of specialists were testing that poor reactor in different insane modes for three days, ignoring all warnings, unlocking all locks, until it has surrendered and crashed.

Fukushima.
A really brilliant idea - to build an atomic plant in several meters from the seashore where 20 meters high tsunami already had been registered, and to place its emergency power device in a barn (which has been washed off with water in a second).

A usual car.
One false move - and it's flying off the road.

What's less safe?

Edited February 15, 2016 by kerbiloid

[tater]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

Damn, is responding to this considered politics?

It's military history, and there's no real politics. I can provide a bibliography if you like, I have many, many books on ww2 history, though I'll admit my area of greatest interest is the PTO/SWPA/CBI (particularly naval and army air forces (on both sides)), I have far fewer on the ETO, though I think my view is not at all controversial. 

It is, however, somewhat off topic.

[fredinno]

8 hours ago, tater said:

Oil was the sole reason for ww2 in he pacific. The US embargoed oil to Japan, and the IJN felt their strategic needs required a source they controlled. The IJA was content to stay in China, the sole purpose of the invasions in the SW Pacifc were cover for taking the NEI, as was disabling the USN.

The German plan was not dissimilar to the WW1 Schlieffen plan. Knock out France, attack Russia. That was the point from the start, and the real goal was Soviet oil.

Oil, as the working fluid of industrial societies has a deep history of violence.

It wasn't started due to oil. You only confirmed what I said- Oil shaped the war, but was not the cause of it.

[tater]

32 minutes ago, fredinno said:

It wasn't started due to oil. You only confirmed what I said- Oil shaped the war, but was not the cause of it.

No, the Japanese started the war outside of China entirely for oil. The goal was the NEI. Everything else they did was securing flanks, and hoping to then negotiate some gains away while keeping the NEI. That side is far more clear cut. Oil was everything in the Pacific (both the US embargo (we were 80% of their oil supply) and the growing need for even more oil).

I'll grant you that in the ETO it was certainly more complex. Germany required an oil supply, however. The proximal cause was obviously the invasion of Poland, and subsequent declarations by France and Britain, but that merely changed the tempo. Look at North Africa---they were pushing East for the same ultimate reason (get British Egypt, then step off East for oil), and they tried to woo Turkey as well for similar reasons.

Maybe this tangent belongs in the lounge? It'd be fun down at the pub, that's for sure  

Edited February 15, 2016 by tater

[adsii1970]

As an actual and professional historian, I must raise a penalty flag about the whole "war for oil" nonsense regarding it being the sole reason for World War II. My observations are based on these facts:

• Germany would not have needed the oil of the Ukraine, White Russia, or Western Poland had it not been a REQUIREMENT for its war machine.
  • Germany's war machine was for one purpose - territorial expansion. If you read Hitler's writings and those of the other German leadership under that regime, the immediate goal was the "reunification of all German peoples" within Europe. It was this and Hitler's ambition to create a new German kingdom that would last for a thousand years that made oil the necessity.
  • Germany did have oil off-shore and was able to have an adequate supply for its peacetime domestic needs. However, with the rise of Hitler and the N-Z- Party, this domestic production would not be enough to fuel the war machine. As Hitler's "ultimate" vision changed, Germany needed to increase its access to oil, coal, natural gas, raw uranium, bauxite, iron, chromium, etc.
  • As a part of Hitler's reunification of the German peoples, he considered the Polish, Slavs (to include most of the Western Soviet Union) to actually be parasites on RIGHTFUL German lands; this was because at the end of WWI, Russia did insist on the shifting of Poland further to the west than it had been. This will be repeated at the end of World War II - which is why Königsberg, a traditionally Prussian (German) city is now in Poland.
• Japan's need for oil was also based on their political plans for expansion; however, Japan's driving force behind expansion was its rapid industrialization that began in the late 1800s. Japan's Imperial leadership had been bent on becoming "westernized" to the extent that Japan did in 60 years what the U.S. had done in 120 and what Great Britain had done in nearly 200 years. Japan was running out of natural resources to fuel its industrial expansion. This would be the closest argument for the "war started because of oil..." argument there is, but there is much more to Japan's reasons for its involvement in the Second World War.
  • As a part of this, Japan saw Manchuria as the logical place for expansion. Manchuria (or as the Japanese would later rename it, Manchuko), had an abundance of wood, oil, coal, chromium, iron, bauxite, and other resources needed by Japanese industry.
  • The United States, as a result of Japan's intrusion into Manchuria and the unprovoked attack on the U.S.S. Panay, responded by not only cutting off oil, but cutting off the sale of scrap iron/steel. Although, according to the treaty signed by Japan and the U.S., the U.S. was well within its treaty rights to end the trade and impose an embargo, the Japanese saw this, and the way the Americans treated the Japanese after the Russio-Japanese War of 1904 as a national insult.
  • Secondly, Imperial Japanese leadership regarded Asia as their answer to the European nations' "Africa" - an area rich and ripe for colonization (think Indo-China, Korea, etc.) This increased the demand for raw resources.

To say that the war was fought solely for crude oil is very simplistic. Oil was NEEDED because both nations had ambitions to create huge empires that required a vast war machine that could not be supported with domestic production. It was not the oil that created the war, but the war that created the need for oil...

Now, about Chernobyl, this is not a political statement, but more of an observation. The Soviet Union, since 1946, has had more nuclear accidents than any other nation in the world - but it was because its national leadership under Stalin and later premiers refused to listen to the advice of Soviet scientists. THe end result was that reactors built from the late 1940s through the late 1980s were not designed to be safe, but designed to be easy to construct, low cost to maintain, and to be completed within a very small time frame - I think I read somewhere that from site surveys to the activation of the fuel rods, it was to take no longer than 28 months - think about that... a little over 2 years!

The reality is that politics led to a design that was unsafe; demands from Moscow led to the plant being handled in ways that were sure to doom its design. Now, had the Soviet Union allowed the Russian nuclear scientists to be just that - nuclear scientists free from propaganda from the central state, the result of Chernobyl would have been completely different - the safeguard mechanisms, the coolant design, and operating procedures would have been well within the threshold of what the scientists thought would have been within an acceptable risk margin and there's a chance that had the plant overheated, it would not have exploded but would have had safety mechanisms in place that would have caused the plant to be more like America's Three Mile Island.

[kerbiloid]

Koenigsberg is not in Poland. It's in Russia, as Kaliningrad.

Both main types of Soviet industrial reactors (RBMK and VVER) matched all world standards of safety.
2-3 years is not a reactor's lifespan, it's just an interval between fuel reloading. The same for Soviet, American and other ones.

Edited February 15, 2016 by kerbiloid