9.0 quake hits Japan

[Bazdavies79]

Denmark can get more of their power from renewable because at peak times they simply buy in power from their neighbours, and when there is excessive generation they export it

And what is wrong with that?

We don't have the same capacity in HVDC links to do the same

Is this an insurmountable problem?

which will just use coal or gas to meet the demand anyway

Not necessarily if our continental neighbours embraced renewable.

That CEPOS report has been criticised as it was reputedly paid for by the american oil lobby. Wind energy is subsidised there, rather that than Nuclear.

On Dinorwig again. It can respond to demand quickly, it's a clean and flexible generator. The energy it uses is taken when demand is low. It puts in when demand spikes. It would be used in exactly the same way it is now. More energy would not be needed, but the challenge is keeping the supply as flexible.

[TheDon]

Not necessarily if our continental neighbours embraced renewable.

Embraced renewable AND found a way to store it cheaply and efficiently, else they'd be in the same boat.

Renewable is crap for peak power, you need to store it up rather than being able to generate on demand, and that costs a lot to do.

More energy would not be needed, but the challenge is keeping the supply as flexible.

How wouldn't it?

Please tell me how in a system where you have to use 1000Mw to store and then use 700Mw you don't have to generate an extra 300Mw of power than if you could just generate that 700Mw on demand by firing up another coal plant?

It's simple math here, you've said that Dinorwig is a net loss, how can you not make the next simple step that if it's a net loss you need to generate more energy to get the same peak output.

It doesn't matter that you get to generate it at "off peak" times, you still have to generate more energy than you needed in the first place.

[legov]

Germany now produces 20% of it's electricity with solar.

Everywhere I've searched I've read that it's closer to 4% than 20%

One example

[Bazdavies79]

How wouldn't it?

Please tell me how in a system where you have to use 1000Mw to store and then use 700Mw you don't have to generate an extra 300Mw of power than if you could just generate that 700Mw on demand by firing up another coal plant?

It's simple math here, you've said that Dinorwig is a net loss, how can you not make the next simple step that if it's a net loss you need to generate more energy to get the same peak output.

It doesn't matter that you get to generate it at "off peak" times, you still have to generate more energy than you needed in the first place.

You're making out that doesn't have to happen now. When demand spikes Dinorwig starts up, water is pumped back up between 3 and 5am. Dinorwig is not used for peak hours, just spikes. No extra energy would have to be produced than is now to have that facility. That's a real world example already in use, of a green way of coping with spikes.

At peak hours extra energy could be produced by bringing more renewable sources online. Obviously renewables are not as flexible as fossil fuel power stations, if the wind aint blowing you aint got the energy. So, the question is, is it logistically possible to run a grid purely on renewables? Many experts think so, many don't. I'm not convinced by either argument, but even I'm less convinced by the nuclear argument. I think it's the politicians easy, lazy way out. It's passing a problem on to the next lot, after they're dead and gone.

[TheDon]

How wouldn't it?

Please tell me how in a system where you have to use 1000Mw to store and then use 700Mw you don't have to generate an extra 300Mw of power than if you could just generate that 700Mw on demand by firing up another coal plant?

It's simple math here, you've said that Dinorwig is a net loss, how can you not make the next simple step that if it's a net loss you need to generate more energy to get the same peak output.

It doesn't matter that you get to generate it at "off peak" times, you still have to generate more energy than you needed in the first place.

You're making out that doesn't have to happen now. When demand spikes Dinorwig starts up, water is pumped back up between 3 and 5am. Dinorwig is not used for peak hours, just spikes. No extra energy would have to be produced than is now to have that facility. That's a real world example already in use, of a green way of coping with spikes.

At peak hours extra energy could be produced by bringing more renewable sources online. Obviously renewables are not as flexible as fossil fuel power stations, if the wind aint blowing you aint got the energy. So, the question is, is it logistically possible to run a grid purely on renewables? Many experts think so, many don't. I'm not convinced by either argument, but even I'm less convinced by the nuclear argument. I think it's the politicians easy, lazy way out. It's passing a problem on to the next lot, after they're dead and gone.

But when you're on about having more Dinorwigs then you need to increase the energy output we have now. When renewable can't meet the demands we have now, then how can it meet that plus enough to have multiple Dinorwigs to cope with spikes?

There's a reason we abandoned plans for another Dinorwig.

It might be a green way of coping with spikes, but as with all green ways it's expensive compared to the alternatives or just bringing another generator online.

No free market is going to choose green power because it's simply uneconomical.

That's the real problem, who cares if we can meet our entire energy output from green when we can't afford it if we do?

The facts are we need a stop gap until we can improve the technology enough that green becomes affordable, and of the options, nuclear is the one that ticks the most boxes.

[Bazdavies79]

But when you're on about having more Dinorwigs then you need to increase the energy output we have now. When renewable can't meet the demands we have now, then how can it meet that plus enough to have multiple Dinorwigs to cope with spikes?

Renewable wouldn't be capable of providing enough power for more that just one Hydro Station at very low demand times, in the early hours of the morning? Well that's one opinion in the debate.

Of course the economic case for renewables is becoming more favourable, same cant be said for non renewables including nuclear.

[trekka]

As an aside from the nuclear debate, I stumbled across this site today.

It is really interesting stuff and goes to show how unstable the region is (16 small(ish) quakes so far today). It also gives volcano information, etc.

[TheDon]

But when you're on about having more Dinorwigs then you need to increase the energy output we have now. When renewable can't meet the demands we have now, then how can it meet that plus enough to have multiple Dinorwigs to cope with spikes?

Renewable wouldn't be capable of providing enough power for more that just one Hydro Station at very low demand times, in the early hours of the morning? Well that's one opinion in the debate.

Of course the economic case for renewables is becoming more favourable, same cant be said for non renewables including nuclear.

Hey look, it's Mr Strawman. I never said we couldn't have more than one.

My point, was that to have more of them, we'd need to increase energy generation. You said we wouldn't.

It's not about if renewable would be capable of powering more than one, it's that to do so, our total energy generation has to increase.

That is a fact. It's not an opinion in a debate, it's a simple fact drawn from simple mathematics.

If you're going to replace generators that kick in for a spike and generates 1000Mw of energy, with a stored hydro plants that kicks in for a spike and generates 1000Mw of energy, but at a cost of 1300Mw of energy, then you need to increase your total energy generation by 300Mw to have the same output.

It doesn't matter when that additional energy is generated, it still has to be generated.

So when we're unable to get renewable to meet our current generation needs, then relying on it entirely, when to do so means we'd actually have to increase our total generation (again, not opinion, fact based on the above) is going to be a pretty difficult task, and not a cheap one.

Sure, it's becoming "more favourable" but only because of subsidies. Take the subsidies away, and no one touches renewable (again not opinion, it's simply uneconomical to use renewable without subsidies, hence the uproar about the solar subsidies for houses being cut, because without them, it was throwing money away rather than saving it).

That's the real problem. We need huge strides in technology (both in generation and storage) before renewable becomes a real alternative. Until then, we need a reliable cheap power source as a stop gap.

[Bazdavies79]

Hey look, it's Mr Strawman. I never said we couldn't have more than one.

My point, was that to have more of them, we'd need to increase energy generation. You said we wouldn't.

When I said more energy wouldn't be needed I was of course referring to Dinorwig in particular. I couldn't work out why on earth you thought more energy would be needed to keep it running with renewables. You were talking about if we built more similar pump storage, my error.

Yes indeed with more Hydro, more energy would be needed, but only during low demand times. I don't think capacity is an insurmountable logistical problem. The real problem is having a network flexible to demand which did not suffer at the whim of mother nature.

On the economic issue, Nuclear AND fossil fuels are hugely expensive. When ALL things are considered, I'm not so sure renewables come off so badly in the viability case.

[TheDon]

On the economic issue, Nuclear AND fossil fuels are hugely expensive. When ALL things are considered, I'm not so sure renewables come off so badly in the viability case.

They really do.

more

even more

and even more

All just from the front page of a google search for "comparison of energy generation costs" so I'm not cherry picking.

When all things are considered, renewables come off dreadfully in the viability case. As I keep saying, without subsidies, no one would touch them. It's a one way ticket to losing vast amounts of money, or sky high energy prices.

Do you want to elaborate on why you think they don't come off too badly? Because honestly, half an hour of reading into the costs associated with renewables and there's literally no way anyone can say they're ready for prime usage.

[Bazdavies79]

I looked quickly at the first link, a study commissioned by PB Power, and the costs considered were all fairly up front costs. Looking more wholisticaly at it, at environmental and human health costs, and other costs associated with the exploration and control of ever more precious finate fuels might give a more accurate picture.

[TheDon]

The majority of those papers take the decommissioning and clean up costs into account. The coal and gas ones also have components in their costs for co2 capture. The cost of the fuel for each is also projected at rising significantly.

So do you want to say what these other costs there are that seemingly every study into this has missed out on, yet you're somehow aware of and know that it'd somehow make something 3x more expensive?

Are you in sales? because you sure now how to put in plenty of big words without actually saying anything.

How about we look at the cost of losing our areas of significant natural beauty if we switch entirely to renewable? The countryside would have to become one huge windfarm, the coastlines one long hydro plant, and animals will have to leave their habitats (plenty of studies have shown that exclusion areas exist around both wind and hydro generation due to the noise from them) and therefore the loss of tourism that we'll also encounter.

You're speaking like renewables just solve a problem with the cost of building them, the "environmental and human health costs" exist with renewables too. In the cases of tidal barriers (the only renewable that actually compete with non-renewable on the cost of generation) the environmental costs are all too high.

[Bazdavies79]

I didn't mention clean up and decommissioning because I looked at those links quickly and saw them included. But lest talk about it then, BP power have come up with their figures, who are BP power? who are nuclear fissionary? Are they unbiased? I won't link to any sites as I'm finding it difficult to hang my argument on most of the info out there due to impartiality concerns.

Instead of looking at what BP and Nuclear fissionary tell us will happen, lets look at what has happened.

Nuclear 'incidents'

Also decommissioning costs...

Trawsfynydd cost- 73bnThe trawsfynydd 'clean-up' (I say loosely) should be completed in around 2080. It hasn't produced a watt of power since 1991.

And from wiki...

In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost 480 million euros (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years. Despite the huge investments in securing the dismantlement, radioactive elements such as Plutonium, Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60 leaked out into the surrounding lake.

On tidal, not all systems require the destructive construction of a barrage. However in some instances the positives may outweigh the negatives, if each case is looked at on it's own merits.

[snowychap]

BBC environment correspondent story on 21st August at 12:19:

 

 

Q&A: Fukushima leak problems

Our environment correspondent Matt McGrath assesses the ongoing efforts to deal with contaminated water at the damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan. It has been revealed that some of the storage facilities used in the clean-up have been leaking highly radioactive water.

This isn't the first water leak at the plant. What is going on?

The ongoing problem with water seems to be coming, in the main, from poorly constructed storage tanks.

Tepco, the company that operates Fukushima, is using huge volumes of water every day to cool the reactors that once generated electricity at the plant.

When the water comes in contact with fuel rods at the heart of the reactors, it becomes highly radioactive and has to be stored in large containers on the site where the water is then processed to remove some of the most dangerous elements.

Every day, the company has an extra 400 tonnes of irradiated water to store. This is roughly a 10th of an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

The water is held in some of the 1,000 water tanks the company has erected on site. But there are problems with these tanks, says Prof Neil Hyatt, from the University of Sheffield, UK.

"To keep up with the rate at which radioactive cooling water is accumulated, Tepco has opted to use containment tanks incorporating plastic seals. Seepage from these joints was the cause of the latest leak of radioactive water."

It is believed that about a third of the storage is constructed in this way. Four previous, smaller leaks all came from these type of tanks.

Finding the small leaks is very difficult, according to Prof Hyatt.

"It is very challenging. They have a real problem with the high level of background radiation, so the small leaks are hard to find."

How dangerous are the levels of radioactivity?

Officials have said that the level of radiation close to this latest leak is extremely high. The water is said to be 8 million times above the safe level for drinking water.

According to Prof Paddy Regan, at the University of Surrey, UK, this leak must be kept in some perspective.

"The numbers reported for dose from these concentrated sources are high - standing there for any more than a few minutes would not be encouraged - but the risks are measurable and the potential doses received should be monitored by workers in the immediate area," he said.

The overall level of radiation that has been emitted by the Fukushima disaster also needs to be kept in perspective. According to Dr Ken Buesseler, senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, US, the release of the radioactive element caesium from Fukushima is between a 10th and a third of what was released from the accident in Chernobyl, and perhaps one fortieth of what was released by nuclear bomb testing globally in the 1950s and 1960s.

The proposal to raise the incident level from one to three means it's more serious than we thought?

Raising the threat level to three on the International Nuclear Event Scale (Ines) makes it the most serious nuclear incident since the reactors themselves melted down in the wake of the tsunami in 2011.

Each step on the seven-step scale represents a tenfold increase in severity. Level 3 means the danger is contained on the site and there is no imminent threat to the public.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Level 3 can be assigned when there is "severe contamination in an area not expected by design, with a low probability of significant public exposure."

Prof Andrew Sherry from the University of Manchester, UK, says the measures taken by Tepco are the right ones.

"Though serious, this leak is a long way from the Level 7 incident we were facing in 2011. The approach taken by Tepco to drain the tank, pump leaked water to temporary storage, and protect the drainage of contaminated water to ground water, is entirely sensible," he explained.

Is storing water the only problem?

If only. The Fukushima site suffers from its location, where groundwater from the hills surrounding the plant flows down and into the radioactive areas. Tepco wants to channel some of this water, with low levels of radiation, into the sea, but local fishermen are strenuously opposing this.

Given the plant is so close to the sea, Tepco is working on a series of plans to stop more radioactive water getting into the ocean, including erecting steel barriers and injecting chemicals into the earth to create an impermeable layer.

But given that the plant is in an active earthquake zone, there is a danger that further tremors could spill much of the stored water.

"It is a potential; it is realistic, " said Prof Neil Hyatt. "I would be saying to the government and to Tepco to make clear that in the event of an emergency, there are plans in place to deal with this."

Underlying all the water problems is the key issue of what to do with the damaged reactor cores. If these can be dealt with, then the water becomes much less of a problem Tepco had planned to remove some of the 400 tonnes of highly irradiated spent fuel in Reactor No 4 later this year. This won't be easy.

"It is on another scale entirely, a nightmare really," said Prof Hyatt.

Why hasn't the Japanese government stepped in?

In essence, they already have. In May last year, the Japanese government injected $12.5bn (£8bn) in return for more than half the shares in the company. It was part of a 10-year restructuring plan.

According to the trade and industry minister, Yukio Edano, the capital injection was needed to ensure the utility company could continue to supply electricity and pay for compensation and decommissioning costs.

Where will all this end?

In the very short term, Tepco will have to invest in more robust storage tanks, and cope with continuing problem of groundwater. Its ultimate hope is that this water can be treated and cleaned, and then released into the sea.

Tepco will then have to tackle the fuel rods, which a slow and tricky task. The IAEA says it could take 40 years. Some experts believe the whole clean-up will take more than a century.

 

 

BBC environment correspondent story on 22nd August at 10:32:

 

 

Fukushima leak is 'much worse than we were led to believe'

A nuclear expert has told the BBC that he believes the current water leaks at Fukushima are much worse than the authorities have stated.

Mycle Schneider is an independent consultant who has previously advised the French and German governments.

He says water is leaking out all over the site and there are no accurate figures for radiation levels.

Meanwhile the chairman of Japan's nuclear authority said that he feared there would be further leaks.

The ongoing problems at the Fukushima plant increased in recent days when the Tokyo Electric Power Company (Tepco) admitted that around 300 tonnes of highly radioactive water had leaked from a storage tank on the site.

Moment of crisis

The Japanese nuclear energy watchdog raised the incident level from one to three on the international scale that measures the severity of atomic accidents.

This was an acknowledgement that the power station was in its greatest crisis since the reactors melted down after the tsunami in 2011.

But some nuclear experts are concerned that the problem is a good deal worse than either Tepco or the Japanese government are willing to admit.

They are worried about the enormous quantities of water, used to cool the reactor cores, which are now being stored on site.

Some 1,000 tanks have been built to hold the water. But these are believed to be at around 85% of their capacity and every day an extra 400 tonnes of water are being added.

"The quantities of water they are dealing with are absolutely gigantic," said Mycle Schneider, who has consulted widely for a variety of organisations and countries on nuclear issues.

"What is the worse is the water leakage everywhere else - not just from the tanks. It is leaking out from the basements, it is leaking out from the cracks all over the place. Nobody can measure that.

"It is much worse than we have been led to believe, much worse," said Mr Schneider, who is lead author for the World Nuclear Industry status reports.

At news conference, the head of Japan's nuclear regulation authority Shunichi Tanaka appeared to give credence to Mr Schneider's concerns, saying that he feared there would be further leaks.

``We should assume that what has happened once could happen again, and prepare for more. We are in a situation where there is no time to waste," he told reporters.

The lack of clarity about the water situation and the continued attempts by Tepco to deny that water was leaking into the sea has irritated many researchers.

Dr Ken Buesseler is a senior scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who has examined the waters around Fukushima.

"It is not over yet by a long shot, Chernobyl was in many ways a one week fire-explosive event, nothing with the potential of this right on the ocean."

"We've been saying since 2011 that the reactor site is still leaking whether that's the buildings and the ground water or these new tank releases. There's no way to really contain all of this radioactive water on site."

"Once it gets into the ground water, like a river flowing to the sea, you can't really stop a ground water flow. You can pump out water, but how many tanks can you keep putting on site?"

Several scientists also raised concerns about the vulnerability of the huge amount of stored water on site to another earthquake.

New health concerns

The storage problems are compounded by the ingress of ground water, running down from the surrounding hills. It mixes with radioactive water leaking out of the basements of the reactors and then some of it leaches into the sea, despite the best efforts of Tepco to stem the flow.

Some of the radioactive elements like caesium that are contained in the water can be filtered by the earth. Others are managing to get through and this worries watching experts.

"Our biggest concern right now is if some of the other isotopes such as strontium 90 which tend to be more mobile, get through these sediments in the ground water," said Dr Buesseler.

"They are entering the oceans at levels that then will accumulate in seafood and will cause new health concerns."

There are also worries about the spent nuclear fuel rods that are being cooled and stored in water pools on site. Mycle Schneider says these contain far more radioactive caesium than was emitted during the explosion at Chernobyl.

"There is absolutely no guarantee that there isn't a crack in the walls of the spent fuel pools. If salt water gets in, the steel bars would be corroded. It would basically explode the walls, and you cannot see that; you can't get close enough to the pools," he said.

The "worsening situation" at Fukushima has prompted a former Japanese ambassador to Switzerland to call for the withdrawal of Tokyo's Olympic bid.

In a letter to the UN secretary general, Mitsuhei Murata says the official radiation figures published by Tepco cannot be trusted. He says he is extremely worried about the lack of a sense of crisis in Japan and abroad.

This view is shared by Mycle Schneider, who is calling for an international taskforce for Fukushima.

"The Japanese have a problem asking for help. It is a big mistake; they badly need it."

 

[peterms]

Same old story.  Lie about the risks, lie about the costs, conceal evidence of mistakes.  Mad, lethal, and wholly irresponsible.

[Troglodyte]

Thought they'd had another one when I saw the thread title on the first page!

 

Thankfully not the case, but obviously the issues are far from over.

[Danwichmann]

Truly horrible earthquake in Nepal yesterday. 

 

Thankfully my wife and her family all safe, but I've many friends there who I haven't been able to contact yet. The desperately poor infrastructure is going to make it all but impossible to reach the worst effected areas quickly enough to save lives.

 

Just under 2000 confirmed dead at the moment but this is going to shoot up when they reach the worst effected areas and remote villages in Gorkha near the epicentre. I was teaching at a school there in October last year, the village took hours to get to even in good conditions. I am bracing myself for terrible news when it finally reaches us. 

[Xann]

My friends in Kathmandu are safe and well. They're in the open now awaiting aftershocks.

[Danwichmann]

My friends in Kathmandu are safe and well. They're in the open now awaiting aftershocks.

Yes a lot of people spending a second night sleeping in the open now. Feeling a lot of cold and rain predicted later in the week. Need shelters fast.

[YLN]

4000 is a lot of dead people. Even when you take into account they're Indian.

 

Very sad. 

Edited April 27, 2015 by YLN