HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » World is ignoring most im...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 05:05 AM

World is ignoring most important lesson from Fukushima nuclear disaster

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2012/0405/World-is-ignoring-most-important-lesson-from-Fukushima-nuclear-disaster

World is ignoring most important lesson from Fukushima nuclear disaster

Fukushima's most important lesson is this: Probability theory (that disaster is unlikely) failed us. If you have made assumptions, you are not prepared. Nuclear power plants should have multiple, reliable ways to cool reactors. Any nuclear plant that doesn't heed this lesson is inviting disaster.

By Kenichi Ohmae / April 5, 2012
Tokyo

A year has now passed since the complete core meltdown of three boiling water reactors at Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima No.1 plant. Because of the limited information issued by the Japanese government – and its insistence that the disaster was only a result of the unanticipated magnitude of the earthquake and tsunami – the world does not know what really happened and will thus draw the wrong lessons.

The most critical lesson for the global nuclear industry to learn, since most plants around the world do not face tsunami or earthquake risks, is that no one imagined that the external electricity supply from outside the plant that would cool the reactors could be disrupted. That assumption, just like the assumption that a natural event of the size that took place was unlikely, was based on “probability theory” taught to all nuclear engineers. It is the basis – wrongly – for telling the public that nuclear power generation is “safe.”

As a nuclear core designer who obtained my doctorate from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Nuclear Engineering, I volunteered to look into the situation at Fukushima No.1 in June of 2011. Goushi Hosono, Japan’s minister of Nuclear Power and Environment, personally granted me access to the information and personnel who were directly involved in the containment operations of the post-disaster nuclear plants.

<snip>

All the nuclear reactors in the world have been designed by probability assumptions, originally proposed by Prof. Norman Rasmussen of MIT. It is a scientific way of expressing what the public will accept.

<snip>

Assumptions and probability are for the theoretical dreamers. If you have a hot reactor, soaked in water and without power to circulate the coolant, then you still have to cool it no matter what. If you cannot equip the facility with a reliable last resort of power and heat sink, you should not operate the nuclear plant to begin with. That is the lesson of Fukushima.

<snip>

Kenichi Ohmae, an MIT-trained nuclear engineer also widely regarded as Japan’s top management guru, is dean of Business Breakthrough University. He was a founder of McKinsey & Co.’s strategic consulting practice and is the author of many books, including “The Borderless World.”

© 2012 Global Viewpoint Network/Tribune Media Services. Hosted online by The Christian Science Monitor.



41 replies, 4302 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 41 replies Author Time Post
Reply World is ignoring most important lesson from Fukushima nuclear disaster (Original post)
bananas Apr 2012 OP
orpupilofnature57 Apr 2012 #1
PamW Apr 2012 #2
kristopher Apr 2012 #3
PamW Apr 2012 #4
kristopher Apr 2012 #5
Kolesar Apr 2012 #6
orpupilofnature57 Apr 2012 #7
PamW Apr 2012 #15
kristopher Apr 2012 #19
PamW Apr 2012 #23
kristopher Apr 2012 #27
PamW Apr 2012 #37
kristopher Apr 2012 #38
SpoonFed Apr 2012 #39
orpupilofnature57 Apr 2012 #8
joshcryer Apr 2012 #14
FogerRox Apr 2012 #9
kristopher Apr 2012 #10
orpupilofnature57 Apr 2012 #11
FogerRox Apr 2012 #12
kristopher Apr 2012 #13
FogerRox Apr 2012 #21
kristopher Apr 2012 #26
FogerRox Apr 2012 #32
kristopher Apr 2012 #34
FogerRox Apr 2012 #35
kristopher Apr 2012 #36
PamW Apr 2012 #17
kristopher Apr 2012 #18
FogerRox Apr 2012 #30
kristopher Apr 2012 #33
FogerRox Apr 2012 #29
PamW Apr 2012 #16
kristopher Apr 2012 #20
PamW Apr 2012 #25
FogerRox Apr 2012 #22
PamW Apr 2012 #24
FogerRox Apr 2012 #28
FogerRox Apr 2012 #31
NNadir Apr 2012 #40
Kolesar Apr 2012 #41

Response to bananas (Original post)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 05:18 AM

1. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

NWO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 11:15 AM

2. OH BROTHER!!!!

No - Probability Theory didn't fail us. If you "think" that; then you don't know how to think about probabilities.

Probability Theory tells us that the chance of getting "heads" on a single flip of an honest coin is (1/2).

It also says that the chances of getting heads 10 times in a row is (1/2) to the 10th power or (1/1024).

Therefore, the chances are very low that I will be able to throw "heads" 10 times in a row.

However, it could happen. There's nothing in the Laws of Physics that prevents me from throwing 10 heads straight.

So if I happen to do so; does that mean that "probability theory failed us"

Of course NOT It just means that an improbable event happened.

It's like a 1:1,000,000 chance or more that your airliner is going to crash. But airliners do crash; it's just improbable.

Beside Probability Theory is PROVED by rigorous mathematical proofs; and just because something improbable happened; that doesn't invalidate Probability Theory. In fact, Probability Theory tells you how often the improbable is going to happen.

GEESH !!!!!! It's like teaching grade school here.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 11:38 AM

3. You have an amazing ability to completely miss the obvious point

The author's meaning is that over-reliance probability theory allowed Fukushima to happen; you aren't going to change what he wrote by pretending he attacked the theoretical basis of probability theory itself.

If probability theory as it is used in the nuclear industry had not "failed us" then Fukushima would still be producing electricity and the residents of Fukushima would be warm and secure in their lives.

"How should we deal with the risk that nuclear power might cause our country to perish? This question is what led me to propose the creation of a society free from dependence on nuclear power."
-Naoto Kan Sept 2011
Prime MInister of Japan During Fukushima Multiple Meltdowns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:13 PM

4. POOR COMPREHENSION!!!

No, Kris - I know exactly the point the author is attempting to make.

Honestly, saying that because Fukushima happened that means that probability theory "failed us" is
exactly equivalent to saying probability theory failed us if I toss 10 heads in 10 throws of an honest coin.

The problem is NOT with probability theory; but your dismal understanding of it.

Probability Theory doesn't say what you "think" it says. When Probability Theory says that an event is low in probability; that is NOT saying that it is never going to happen. It just says that the event is improbable.

Again; think about airliners. The chance that your airliner is going to crash is something like 1 in a Million. If you take enough airliner flights, you are going to experience a crash every million flights or so.

But that doesn't mean that you can't crash on your first flight. Also, it doesn't mean that probability theory is wrong if you do crash on your first flight. It's your simplistic understanding of probability theory that has failed; not probability theory itself.

It would do you good to visit your local high school and see if they offer remedial courses in mathematics including probability theory. You might also sign up for some remedial science courses while you are at it.

Fukushima is not going to cause the nation of Japan to perish; any more than a crash of an airliner is going to cause it to perish.

From the Congressional testimony of the eminent radiation epidemiologist Dr. John Boice:

http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf

The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor.

The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:50 PM

5. At least you admit it.

That is the first step to improving it. Don't become discouraged though, improving your reading skills is possible no matter how poor they currently are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #4)

Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:48 PM

6. The designers at Fukishima did not use "probability theory" correctly

Risk calculations are the worst part of a nuclear integration. The Fukishima designers did not know how to obtain the correct data to plug into the calculations, so they came up with the wrong results. That "data" would have been the probability that the auxiliary power would fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 08:54 AM

7. Are you a freeper? Flat out no

castigation , or the casuistries YOU PEOPLE OR REASONABLE FACSIMILES OF PEOPLE USE , TO JUSTIFY SYCOPHANCY BY WAY OF OBSTRUCTING THE facts , just answer the question PamW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orpupilofnature57 (Reply #7)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 03:40 PM

15. Actually I AM answering the question

Let me answer it again with another example of how people mistakenly think about probability.

1) Joe reads in the paper that his chances of winning the recent MegaLotto are 147 million to 1.
2) Joe concludes that probability theory says that he can't win the MegaLotto.
3) Joe buys a ticket
4) Joe's ticket is the winning ticket.
5) Joe won inspite of what probability theory said
6) Joe concludes that probability theory is all wet.

The problem here that leads to Joe's erroneous conclusion at number 6 is that Joe made another erroneous conclusion at step 2). Probability theory doesn't say that Joe can't win the Lotto. It says that it is extremely unlikely that he will win the Lotto.

Probability theory; which is rigorously proven via logic; doesn't say what many here claim it says.
Just like Joe showing his lack of understanding at 2); leading to erroneous conclusion 6).

No - I'm not a "freeper". I represent only myself.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:07 PM

19. Actually you just make the OP author's point

Winning the Lotto would be a life altering "black swan" event if it happens to an individual. The probability of it happening is low, and the consequence is high.

A nuclear disaster such as Fukushima is a life altering "black swan" event when it happens to a nation. The probability of it happening is low, and the consequence is high. In much the same way that most people who understand probabilities will say that playing the lotto is a waste of money even though people DO win, those who promote nuclear power say that nuclear power is safe even though meltdowns DO occur.

By framing their presentation around the low probability instead of the eventual certainty of an extremely high consequence event, they create a false belief in the ability of the industry to not impact the world it operates in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #19)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:56 PM

23. Nuclear is not unique

Nuclear power is not unique in that regard.

When you fly in an airliner, there is a very small but finite probability that the airliner will crash with all on board lost. It's happened in the past, and will happen in the future. It certainly qualifies as a "black swan" event if you happen to be on board.

So do we give up flying in airliners?? NOPE - that's not what the majority of intelligent people do.

When you drive on the freeways with your car; there is a small but finite probability, one that is larger than the airliner crash probability; that you will be involved in a fatal car crash.

So do we give up driving cars??? NOPE - that's not what the majority of intelligent people do.

We seem to have a group of people that are adverse to all risks no matter how small.

We also have some that have their risk priorities precisely backwards. There are some people who are most afraid of nuclear power, somewhat afraid of airline travel; but have no fear of getting in their car and driving somewhere.

If you look at the actual risk, with the last half-century; we have killed about 2.5 million people in automobile accidents in the last fifty years ( about 50,000 each year die on the highways ). Airline travel in the last 50 years has killed thousands of people.

In the last 50 years that we have had nuclear power, NOT a SINGLE member of the general public has been killed or injured by the operation of a US nuclear power plant, including the single large accident at Three Mile Island.

Scientifically, nuclear power is the SAFEST of the 3 technologies mentioned above; and that truth is something the opponents just can't get beyond.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:59 PM

27. Yes nuclear IS unique.

Low probability, high consequence

You yet again prove the point of the OP author by trying to obscure the high consequences associated with nuclear power. Kan wasn't engaged in "anti-nuclear" hyperbole when he made the statement below, he was reflecting on the fact that only a fortunate wind and luck saved Japan's Kanto region and its 40+ million residents from having to abandon the physical and economic center of the nation.

"How should we deal with the risk that nuclear power might cause our country to perish? This question is what led me to propose the creation of a society free from dependence on nuclear power."
-Naoto Kan Sept 201
Prime MInister of Japan During Fukushima Multiple Meltdowns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #27)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 10:29 AM

37. More like

More like extremely low probability, and high consequence.

We now have the values of the "source term" for the various isotope emitted by Fukushima.

As scientists have been pointing out; the amount release while non-trivial is not something that would force the long term loss.

This is the same nonsense the anti-nukes say about how a city would have to be evacuated and abandoned for centuries if it were hit by a nuclear weapon. Of course, all the while, we had two cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were hit by nuclear weapons and didn't have to be abandoned.

Just more hysteria and fear-mongering by people attempting to disprove proven facts.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 12:41 PM

38. Extremely High Consequence

Extremely High Consequence
Extremely High Consequence
Extremely High Consequence
Extremely High Consequence
Extremely High Consequence
Extremely High Consequence


If the winds had been out of the NNE instead of the west Tokyo and the surrounding Kanto Plains would be uninhabited now and probably for decades in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #38)

Tue Apr 10, 2012, 07:39 PM

39. It's amazing... just amazing... isn't it? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 09:59 AM

8. And as far as your Flippant example...

Coins ,congressional experts and probability ,don't speak to the issue of " A fucking clue ,what to do " if the improbable DOES happen .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 01:23 AM

14. Flipping 10 heads in a row:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 02:07 PM

9. Nope, renewable enrgy-anti nuke groups are not exploiting

the dual crisis' of the BP blowout and Fukushima.

We need to advocate for 20% from Wind ASAP, 20% from Solar ASAP, and 20% renewable storage.

This would give the US 200 gigs of renewable generation, and 100 gigs of Renewable storage at price points that frankly beat fission nukes price points hands down. Fission nukes generate 20% or 100 gigs of our electricity, until there are 100 gigs of 24/7 delivertable renewable electricity, the market will not let go of Fission nukes grip.

Look at it this way there are 23 Mark 1 GE BWRs in the US, if you want to see those nukes put out of business, we need 23 gigs of 24/7 renewables in the market place.

I am no longer anti fission nuke, I am 110% Renewable.

Its been a long time since Three mile Island & Chernobyl, being anti nuke hasnt gotten us very far. I'm not going to whine about nukes anymore, it all about 20% from Wind ASAP, 20% from Solar ASAP, and 20% renewable storage.... ASAP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 05:36 PM

10. You are locked into an inaccurate mental model of power systems

Your mind is working around this picture and thinking it is the only rendering of how a power system can self-organize.



However there is also this picture. It shows what it looks like when you bring on large quantities of variable renewables.




The text also explains how the gray area is filled in, which should cause you to modify your perception of the roll storage plays in your model.


Why Germany is phasing out nuclear power
By David Roberts

Germany is involved in a wildly ambitious overhaul of its power system. Its official targets are to hit 35 percent renewable power by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. The Green Party advocates for 100 percent by 2030.

The most controversial aspect of this power overhaul is Germany’s post-Fukushima decision ...

...Putting those questions aside, though, I want to focus on one of the deeper debates about Germany’s nuclear gambit. Nuclear power’s proponents frequently point out that it is one of the only low-carbon sources that can serve as “baseload” (always on) power. Baseload power is needed, they say, because renewable sources like solar are intermittent (the sun isn’t always shining) and non-dispatchable (the sun can’t be turned on and off at will). You need large, steady, predictable power plants if you’re going to have all those flighty renewables involved.

Believe it or not, Germans have heard this argument before. They just think it’s wrong. They don’t think renewables and baseload are complimentary; they think they’re incompatible. In 2010, Federal Minister of the Environment Norbert Röttgen said:
It is economically nonsensical to pursue two strategies at the same time, for both a centralized and a decentralized energy supply system, since both strategies would involve enormous investment requirements. I am convinced that the investment in renewable energies is the economically more promising project. But we will have to make up our minds. We can’t go down both paths at the same time.

...

... what’s needed to complement renewables — to cover that “residual load” — is not baseload, not big, steady, always-on power plants. The residual load will fluctuate in ways that are only partially predictable. To cover it you need options that are flexible and responsive.

Nuclear power plants are not that....


http://grist.org/renewable-energy/why-germany-is-phasing-out-nuclear-power/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 07:32 PM

11. Appeasing the 1% is the only thing keeping

us from the same agenda as Germany ,safe ,affordable ,Green energy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 09:15 PM

12. Thats wonderful of you, in a condescending and authoritative manner



Whats wrong with this graph? It probably doesn't include offshore wind which usually creates pulses associated with the sun setting. And since its so similar to the Minnesota study, its likely only to represent a small study or simulation of a local area, not a national network. Even land based wind creates pulses.

In fact thats just what the Grist says:

Again, this is an idealized representation. Two things to note: first, there can be big surges from day to day and week to week, depending on the weather. And second, if you have enough renewables, they completely takes over the space once occupied by baseload.


Points, 1)the Grist chart represents a local artifact, hardly suitable for a conversation on national policy, and 2) they left out the surges or pulses, 3) After reading the Grist article, they are simply making the same point I am. They want to expand the renewable portfolio to replace fission nukes. And quite frankly how else would one do that?


Minnesota study


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/10/20/the-high-stakes-math-behind-the-wests-greatest-river/
Even local area study shows these pulses


http://aspoireland.org/page/2/
Some Pulses in Ireland

Also seasonal heating should be taken into account, in 50 years theres no reason renewables cant eliminate major uses of nat gas and oil for home heating.

Once we throw in HVDC projects like the Atlantic Wind Connection and Maine Express- then things get very cool. You're up next.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 10:08 PM

13. Here is where you went off target

"if you want to see those nukes put out of business, we need 23 gigs of 24/7 renewables in the market place"

That is a reflection of exactly what I wrote, you are shackled to a mental model that isn't accurate. Your criticisms of the Grist article have no merit; it is describing the way a system built around distributed renewables integrates, not a specific network of any size. Their graphs demonstrate that there is distinct difference between the mating of the characteristics in 1) a centralized large-scale thermal grid and 2) the renewable resources in a distributed grid.


You also misunderstand the performance characteristics of networked wind. Note the two graphs below that compare the performance of individual wind farms (red & blue) with the performance of a grid that networks many wind farms (black). Your mental model doesn't reflect the actual way the system will function.




You're welcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:51 PM

21. Grist specially states the chart represents a smaller model



Secondly dont bother answering my point about the market. Lower price points will rule the day.

"if you want to see those nukes put out of business, we need 23 gigs of 24/7 renewables in the market place"


So what is your better idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:51 PM

26. No, Grist doesn't say that.

Nothing even close to that. Here is what the Grist article is about and what it demonstrates very effectively:
Putting those questions aside, though, I want to focus on one of the deeper debates about Germany’s nuclear gambit. Nuclear power’s proponents frequently point out that it is one of the only low-carbon sources that can serve as “baseload” (always on) power. Baseload power is needed, they say, because renewable sources like solar are intermittent (the sun isn’t always shining) and non-dispatchable (the sun can’t be turned on and off at will). You need large, steady, predictable power plants if you’re going to have all those flighty renewables involved.

Believe it or not, Germans have heard this argument before. They just think it’s wrong. They don’t think renewables and baseload are complimentary; they think they’re incompatible.


Baseload is central to our system only because of an economic model favored it at one point and time in human development. That time has passed.

If you wish to cling to a false "baseload" model where you believe that renewables must imitate the characteristics of large scale thermal, that is your right since we all have the right to be wrong.


German Renewable Power Cheaper Than Fossils in 2030, Study Shows
By Stefan Nicola - Apr 5, 2012 8:39 AM ET

Germany will pay less for electricity from renewable sources than from coal and natural gas in 2030 if it reaches energy targets, the environment ministry said.
Renewable power will cost 7.6 euro cents per kilowatt-hour in 2030, with hard coal and natural gas rising to more than 9 euro cents per kilowatt-hour, the ministry said today in an e- mailed statement, citing a new study it commissioned.
The 331-page document monitors a plan to exit nuclear energy by 2022 and raise the share of renewable sources to at least 35 percent of the power mix by the end of this decade. It forecasts Germany beating that target to reach a share of about 40 percent renewables by 2020, up from 20 percent now.
The study’s projections show “that the plan to transform our energy mix is doable,” Environment Minister Norbert Roettgen said in the statement.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-05/german-renewable-power-cheaper-than-fossils-in-2030-study-shows.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:31 PM

32. LOl, Yes Grist does, I already quoted them just for you.

Youre done. I dont care. Pam is right you dont get a lot of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:46 PM

34. You didn't quote anything

All you've done so far is make shit up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:55 PM

35. See the quotebox in comment #12?

Now go away......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #35)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:27 PM

36. Like I said about making things up

You wrote, "Grist specially states the chart represents a smaller model".

I wrote that the article doesn't say that - and it doesn't.

You doubled down on your false statement with another saying, "Yes Grist does, I already quoted them just for you.

I said you "hadn't quoted anything", which in the context of our dialog means "anything" that supports your claim of what Grist said.

Here is what you quoted from Grist: "Again, this is an idealized representation. Two things to note: first, there can be big surges from day to day and week to week, depending on the weather. And second, if you have enough renewables, they completely takes over the space once occupied by baseload."

That, nor anything else in the article, says any of the things you claim they say that supposedly support your baseload-centric model of how a power system works. In fact, the article is a specific rebuttal of that view.

Why don't you try sticking to the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:04 PM

17. The problem is.

The problem is this author doesn't know beans about an electric grid system.

To him, it doesn't matter that there is a mismatch between generating capacity and load. He thinks that it is OK if the two match "on average".

The problem is that he is just flat out WRONG. In an electric power grid system; the generating capacity has to match the load at all times. I know that if you have a storage system, it can be both a load when it is charging, and a generator when it is discharging. If you make that proviso - then at EVERY SECOND in the operation of the grid; the generating capacity equals the load.

If at any time; the load exceeds the generating capacity; the grid FALLS. You have a blackout.

This is what happened in the several famous blackouts like that affected New York City.

When there is a mismatch in power generation / load; you can have a cascading failure of the grid.

Just because it "averages out" over a day doesn't mean you have a stable grid.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #17)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 04:59 PM

18. Wrong Way Pam strikes again...

"The problem is" that your remarks are completely off target. The two graphs show that the systems meet the demand at all times; the difference is the way the characteristics of the generating sources work together to shape the delivered electricity to the demand.

Failures in the grid - especially large scale failures - are far more common with a centralized thermal system than a distributed system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:05 PM

30. Your're done

No clue. Can I get you a fork.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:44 PM

33. What is it that you don't have a clue about?

We already know that reading text and graphs present a particular problem for you, but perhaps you could be more specific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:02 PM

29. Yes, mismatch sucks

Might be a lack of aptitude. Of course you cant average load/generation over a day, even in less than 15 minutes you can have a failure.

For now HVDC can help in long distance transmission, but 20 yrs were going to need new switching and storage capacity. Its going to take effort. will and some R&D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 03:55 PM

16. Enlighten me....

Enlighten me...

What does this 100 Gw of renewable storage look like? Dr. Steven Chu, myself, and the other scientists of DOE would like to know what 100 Gw of renewable storage looks like.

Is it flywheels, pumped storage, batteries......? Just what is this 100 Gw of storage.

Additionally, storage isn't rated just by the power, but by the total energy stored. Sure we may have a storage system that puts out 100 Gw; but for how long? A few hours?? A few days?? A few week???

Additionally, I don't see the combination of renewables and storage costing less than nuclear fission.

That would only be true if you use the estimates from the likes of UCS who assume that they will be able to drive the price up by an order of magnitude by the delaying tactics of filing lawsuits. I don't see that happening under current nuclear regulation laws.

Additionally, the GE Mark I units in Japan are not the same as GE Mark I units in the USA. Japan / Hitachi / Toshiba "licensed" the Mark I design from GE. Additionally, even though GE provided reactors for 2 of the Fukushima Units ( 1 and 6 ); the rest of the plant doesn't strictly follow the GE design as those in the USA do.

The US NRC requires venting that the Fukushima Units don't have ( hence the hydrogen explosions ), and in the USA, backup diesel generators and their fuel tanks are required to be in water-tight vaults and buried. The Fukushima generators were below grade in non-watertight basement, and the fuel tanks sat on the surface at dockside.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:09 PM

20. "Enlighten" you?

Impossible. You must first have an open mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kristopher (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 04:08 PM

25. My mind is open...

My mind is open; but only to arguments that are scientifically sound.

I don't allow my mind to be filled with ideas that are scientific nonsense, or are just fabrication pulled out of the nether regions that violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and other Laws of Physics that we have proven rule the Universe.

When someone shows me something that is scientifically viable; then I'll accept.

Please don't waste the bandwidth of this forum with some litany of things that you "think" meet the above specifications.

I've read many such a litany from you; and in every single case can cite the Law of Physics that it violated that you didn't know about. So save the effort; I won't read it anyway.

BTW, just thought you'd like to know that our negotiations with the Dept of Energy are proceeding apace. In the future, the projects that receive DOE funding will be vetted by DOE's cadre of scientists, and not by the political dreamers. I think you know what that means for solar and wind.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:54 PM

22. I hate to side with Kris but WOW

I never said the US Mark 1's were the same as the Japanese Mark 1's


WOw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:59 PM

24. Dodged question`

I note that you totally dodged the question I posed as to what this "renewable storage" system looks like.

What technology does it rely on? What is the storage capacity?

I can understand dodging the question; when a suitable technology doesn't exist.

PamW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:37 PM

28. Would you settle for a 500Mw solar plant?

or as reported by the IEA pumped hydro capacity increased by over 35% last ear. That might 4 or 5 commercial scale storage systems, albeit the first few ever built.

And did I fail to mention perviously that I was speaking in terms of energy policy going forward, 20 yrs or more?

So yeah I dodged your question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PamW (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:29 PM

31. Normally I use 20% in 20 years

I omitted the 20 years bit, my apologies, I borrowed that from the DOE 20% from wind in 20 years pdf.

But seriously I never said anything about Fukushima Mark 1's being the same as US Mark 1's, maybe you confused me with another poster.

Additionally, I don't see the combination of renewables and storage costing less than nuclear fission.


Probably should include the cost of of HVDC transmission. Looking at the Atlantic Wind Connection: 5.5 billion to move 7 gigs. OTOH renewable price points are declining, Both the Spanish consortium and GE claim to be working on the next gen turbine 15-16Mw, GE has a DOE grant to look at mag MRI tech and composites towards this goal. R&D like this drives the generation price down, and not incrementally. If the turbine cost doubles and the output triples or quadruples - 4Mw to 15-16Mw for the case of the GE offshore turbine....

So if over 20 years we drop the price of wind and solar by half, and then another half, or more, we can afford to store it and UHVDC to move it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Original post)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 02:16 AM

40. Not really. The most important lesson is STILL that in a 9.0 earthquake and in a 15 meter

tsunami, it is still much safer to be inside three destroyed reactors than it is to be in buildings.

Unbeknownst to the anti-nuke cults, approximately 20,000 people died from collapsing buildings.

Getting lectures on mathematics from anti-nukes is a waste of time in any case.

After all, anti-nukes have never been able to grasp the fact that 3.3 million people die each year from air pollution, a fair fraction from the so called "renewable" biomass that anti-nukes are always trying to shove down people's throats and into their lung tissue.

Since they are preternaturally incapable of recognizing that nuclear power would need to kill as many people as World War II killed every 15 years to be as dangerous as fossil fuels, they're hardly competent to make any kind of mathematical comparisons.

It is though, unsurprising to hear anti-nukes complain about mathematics. Their hatred of mathematics on the grounds that they don't know any is rather similar to their hatred of nuclear science out of ignorance of it.

Of course, Fukushima does prove that nuclear plants can fail in a 9.0 earthquake and a 15 meter tsunami, particularly old ones. However, I have yet to find an anti-nuke who draws the lesson that dams are unsafe in the same kind of event, since the Fujinuma dam failed killing eight people, meaning that dams are also infinitely more dangerous than nuclear plants struck by a huge earthquake and tsunami.

There are zero anti-nukes calling for the phase out of coastal cities, even though more than 200,000 people have died in these in the last 10 years because of earthquakes and tsunamis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNadir (Reply #40)

Wed Apr 11, 2012, 07:34 AM

41. Ghastly sentence structure

Note to other forum users: don't bother trying to decipher those eight pathetic paragraphs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread