iTulip Fukushima Poll

[don]

Are you:

1- Suffering from Fukushima Fatigue . . . had enough.

2- Given up on 'tulipers getting it that nuclear power is as safe as mother's milk.

3- Given up on the real world costs of nuclear power being addressed on the 'tulip.

Where are you?

[Starving Steve]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

I vote for #2: Nuclear power is as safe as mother's milk, and we need to get our act together and build nuclear power plants everywhere; also we need hydro-electric dams and power plants, and we need natural gas-fired power plants. We have to get moving on this now, everywhere including Germany, the UK, Canada, America, and Japan. We need leadership on this issue now. Otherwise, our standard of living will continue to go to ship.

An excellent article on this subject is titled, "The Future of Energy", by Byron King, dated July 1, 2011. You can find this article online now at The Daily Reckoning. Sad to say, he envisions coal to continue to be the major fuel for generation of electricity, even decades from now. He writes that even if the so-called, "alternative (green) energy" sources were to double their output by four doublings ( 2^4 = 16x) in twenty years, they would merely provide about 10% of what the world would require in electric energy in 2031. He also envisions that the world will remain hooked on oil for the next two decades, at least.
He envisions a renaissance in atomic power use, just as I do.

[brent217]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

Are you:

1- Suffering from Fukushima Fatigue . . . had enough.

2- Given up on 'tulipers getting it that nuclear power is as safe as mother's milk.

3- Given up on the real world costs of nuclear power being addressed on the 'tulip.

Where are you?

Hmm. I have had enough of conventional (boomable?) nuclear. I am willing to try building pebble bed reactors in places that do not regularly have earthquakes and tsunamis, but I would like some thought put into the waste storage facilities before we get started. I think we will not have to store the waste forever, at the current rate of progress, a few hundred years should be good. In the long run, I believe that we should be able to use safe skyhooks to get the long term radioactives off our world, and stored somewhere they will cause no harm, such as the Sun. Yes, I realize skyhooks today are only a dream, but I can't see them remaining a dream forever, technology is increasing too fast. And other than the waste issue, I do not really see other insurmountable safety issues with pebble bed. Additionally, I would rather they be run as public facilites than by corporations specializing in profit maximization (and therefore unsafe dust disposal). Will be interesting to see what happens.

On the other side, nuclear power came about as a result of WW2 giving practical applications to what were previously just theories. Todays theories are all about quantum this and quantum that, and the USA and China are just starting to use quantum tech for unbreakable communications. Any possibility of quantum weapons for the coming WW3, which could lead to new power sources afterwards? Looking back, the initial experiments and the side effects of nuclear took quite a while and some pretty nasty accidents to get them to a "safe" useful point, might be a similar timeline with other new tech.

Ok, I'm rambling, and will stop now. Just wanted to lay out the different paths I can see for our world in the nearish future for energy.

[oddlots]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

Above all Fukushima taught me what a danger the waste is in the "cool down" phase (leaving aside the long term waste issue.) The fact that simply the absence of active cooling could add so much fuel to the fire so to speak while also being entirely outside the "containment" vessel was a revelation to me and demonstrated the shallowness of my knowledge of the whole process. My understanding has always been that the early reactor designs, repurposed from early military applications (e.g., propulsion) to civilian ones were deeply flawed, but I clearly never realised how flawed and potentially catastrophic.

I think all existing nuclear stations are entirely suspect until they demonstrate that their "safety" is not reliant on rosy assumptions based on a domino-like chain of other assumptions, such as the idea that a release of something like 2% of the core material was the worst case (as I think underlay the emergency planning for Fukishima.)

The point: Nuclear is nowhere near "ready for its close-up."

I'm not sure that this applies equally to all extant designs so I suspect it's hysteria to paint the entire industry with the Fukushima brush so to speak. Despite Fukushima i am (strangely?) unworried by living close to several CANDU nuclear installations. The CANDU is at least somewhat passively safe. The pebble bed design, as an example, seems to improve further on this "dead man's brake" feature even to the point of making "containment" - where much of the massive cost of nuclear comes from - quite plausibly redundant.

What stops me from giving up on nuclear:

a) Its all over the place so, apart from making ourselves feel good, I'm not sure that saying we're going to go non-nuclear is much more than a boast. From what I've read the Germans will end up having to buy at least partially nuclear power from Russia in order to close their plants. If true that strikes me as more of a salve than progress.

b) While the project of really auditing existing nuclear is daunting if not completely naive (given vested commercial interests), I don't think we can wholesale toss-it-out: what would the shock of that be? Would the same people who would support such a headlong retreat - see above - really be willing to bear the sacrifice? We seem to be caught between two politically undeliverable goals.

c) The best contemporary designs seem so far superior to the old, high-pressure designs that I'm tempted to say they are almost a different category. The latter have a Rube Goldman like quality to them - first, create a lot of danger then an elaborate system of countermeasures - that seem completely absent in the former.

Given my point about the "cooling pond" issue above, my records not too good at the moment and I've watched the whole Fukushima thing with a good deal of horror, but we're still stuck at the end of the day: I can't see a) how we can continue without a severely audited existing nuclear infrastructure (given the yawning gap between our needs and peak oil, gas etc.) b) not consider honestly the value of new generation nuclear especially in light of what Fukushima has taught us.

[lektrode]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

methinks a number 4 is needed:

4- why is nuclear power like women?

(cant live with em, but try livin without em ;)

[c1ue]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

5 - Tired of the propaganda flying about.

Nuclear power isn't safe as mother's milk, but nothing (including mother's milk) is.

[Shakespear]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

6 - Keep adding Info for iTulipers to consider on the subject because it is an important matter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNq0q...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7okfjwy4Vw

[c1ue]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

Some fact (vs. anti-nuke hysteria fiction)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3f9233ee-a...#axzz1RXciz4uP

h/t rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com

Once again, the question of nuke or no nuke power plant comes down to politics in the 1st world and reality in the 2nd world. Those rich enough can enjoy the luxury of going to some other route while those who need electrical power are going to get it in whatever fashion they can achieve.

It is too early to say what long-term impact the Fukushima disaster in Japan will have on plans for new nuclear power plants. But so far the effect has not been as dramatic as might have been anticipated.

Italy, Thailand, Egypt, the US and Switzerland have postponed or cancelled units since the accident and many states are reviewing safety procedures and Germany has opted to abandon nuclear power. However, China, India, Russia, South Korea and other big countries have retained their programmes.

Of 570 units planned before Fukushima, only 37 have been axed or put on hold since the crisis, according to Arthur D. Little, a consultancy. Despite several commentators declaring an end to the “nuclear renaissance” – as the recent worldwide push for nuclear has been dubbed – governments apparently see few alternatives.

“There will be some leaning back and thinking about how Fukushima affects the safety of new-build [reactors]. And there may be one or two years’ delay. But most projects are still ongoing,” says Michael Kruse, principal at AD Little, in Germany.

If the renaissance continues mostly as planned, that will be welcome news for service providers relying on the industry. That includes business schools that have been hoping to train the next generation of nuclear leaders. In the UK, Manchester Business School, Aston Business School and Cambridge Judge have all been developing teaching programmes, assuming shortfalls in the nuclear sector in the coming years.

AD Little says Europe needs 74,000 nuclear personnel by 2020. Several reports have pointed to the nuclear industry’s ageing profile. About two-thirds of top British nuclear managers could retire by 2025, according to Cogent, the skills council that covers the nuclear industry. EDF, the French utility, expects half its nuclear staff to leave by 2015.
Phil Gamlen, head of corporate learning partnerships at MBS, does not see Fukushima as altering this demand. “Our view is that it is unlikely to dull the interest of our clients. When you talk to the industry, the general view is that [Fukushima] is going to cause a hiatus. But the energy imperative is such that politicians actually have very little room for manoeuvre.”

Some even argue that Fukushima increases the need for management training. “The incident should make our programme even more essential,” says Cora Lynn Heimer Rathbone, director of executive education at Aston Business School, which is developing a Certificate of Nuclear Professionalism with National Skills Academy Nuclear (part of Cogent). “The reality is that Fukushima re*inforces the need for a programme that develops people’s skills across the managerial, operational and technical areas of a nuclear plant.”

In light of Fukushima, the certificate may now have a greater emphasis on crisis management and thinking in emergency situations. But Ms Heimer Rathbone says the ultimate decisions about the curriculum rest with the nuclear industry.

Ms Heimer Rathbone and Mr Gamlen point out that people will be needed to run existing nuclear plants or for decommissioning programmes. But the greatest opportunities will probably be in new-build projects, in the UK and further afield.

Mr Kruse argues that in the past the industry emphasised engineering at the expense of managerial skills. If the plants are to be completed successfully this time, he says there needs to be a better balance of capabilities – from finance to project management, engineering and scientific expertise.

“New-build projects are typically run by engineering people and they are focused on the technology issues . . . But you also need people from the management perspective who have a decent understanding of the business case, risk management and particularly how different areas are interconnected. The essential thing is to understand that all aspects are equally important.”

MBS has teamed up with the International Nuclear Academy in France and the Dalton Nuclear Institute at Manchester University to offer short, open courses aimed at senior executives. The first sessions took place in March, as Fukushima was unfolding, and ranged from the laws and economics of nuclear to managing supply chains and skills shortages.

Mr Gamlen says the courses are aimed at two groups: people recruited to nuclear for their technical skills who need management training, and non-nuclear managers joining from other fields. He says the industry needs to attract individuals from chemicals and aerospace to scale up sufficiently. “If you are bringing these plants online by 2015 or 2016, you need managers now. You are not going to grow these people out of universities. You are going to have to convert them.”

Managers recruited from aerospace might be a good fit because of their experience with complex supply chains and long research lead-times. But some aspects of nuclear are unique, including its absolute safety calculus and range of stakeholders. MBS’s courses include training in making decisions in highly uncertain situations and managing public concerns over nuclear power.

MBS is also providing bespoke programmes – for Areva, the French nuclear operator, for example. Mr Gamlen says international companies such as EDF and Areva want to train their UK-based managers in the UK to expose them to cultural norms and regulatory practices.

MBS hopes to become an education hub to the emerging energy cluster in the north-west, where more than half of the UK’s nuclear workforce is employed, according to Cogent. Mr Gamlen estimates MBS could generate £1m-£2m a year from the nuclear industry – about 20 per cent of its executive education income.

Ms Heimer Rathbone says the Certificate of Nuclear Professionalism will probably include a dozen modules across technical, commercial and leadership themes. It will be aimed at everyone, from graduates to veterans. Aston is also hoping to work with individual companies.

Meanwhile, this autumn, Cambridge Judge will offer a one-year MPhil programme in nuclear energy, with the university’s engineering, earth and materials science departments. The course will cover engineering and safety essentials, as well as technology policy and management.

William Nuttall, senior lecturer in technology policy at Judge, says nuclear managers now need a greater range of perspectives. “So much has changed since the UK last built nuclear power stations 25 years ago. Those were the days of a much larger state-led sector. Now the range of stakeholders is much broader and there are many ways that higher education can contribute that may not have been necessary before.”

Outside the UK, the year-old European Nuclear Energy Leadership Academy in Munich recently started nuclear management courses. Funded by six companies and housed in an impressive purpose-built facility, the first “leadership cycle” has attracted 20 “future chief executives”.

John Shepherd, marketing director, says the idea is to develop “management expertise in the nuclear context”, appealing to people with technical and non-technical backgrounds. Enela, which is championed by the European Commission, is also developing a management programme aimed at younger graduates with Munich Technical University.

“It’s not just a question of education,” adds Michael Parker, former chief executive of British Nuclear Fuels and an MBS alumnus. “It’s about having people who are experienced in project management and they don’t necessarily need to come from nuclear.”

[Chris Coles]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

We need to concentrate upon building homes that are energy neutral, using as much solar as possible to reduce the load requirements. CPV, Concentrated Photo Voltaic will be the road to take using large desert areas as the long term future power source for the entire planet. This may be why so many in Europe are putting up with the cost of sorting out Libya as it is close, has infrastructure and can be used for that purpose.

[lektrode]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

We need to concentrate upon building homes that are energy neutral, using as much solar as possible to reduce the load requirements. CPV, Concentrated Photo Voltaic will be the road to take using large desert areas as the long term future power source for the entire planet. ...

with all due respect, mr c...

the best road to take is to put the PV directly on the roof of the power consumer, since the line losses suck down/waste so much of the output that large, out in the boonies installations merely hand the utility conglomerates a bunch of subsidies and depreciation writeoffs, while jacking up the kwh rates to the consumer, who then gets to pay twice (or maybe 3 or 4 times) what it would cost if they put it on their own roof... (with the added bonus, assuming one has batteries to fill up during the day, of having ones lights stay on when the grid goes down)

so NO, i dont think desert/boonieville installations make sense.

and keeping to the theme of the thread: WE NEED A MANHATTAN PROJECT II, to design a new generation of nukes (the pebble bed type, whatevahs) AND A ***MASSIVE*** AND IMMEDIATE BUILD OUT, like yesterday

and if the dipsh__s in DC hadnt just blown 2 or 3 trillion bailing out the banks, the auto and state/municpal unions (for merely 1 year?, as whats improved on the state of the states since last year/09) then there might have been something to show for all the otherwise _wasted_ effort$.

hell, just fixing the GD highways would've created more jobs than the 3 blind mice (barry, harry and nancy)

[c1ue]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

We need to concentrate upon building homes that are energy neutral, using as much solar as possible to reduce the load requirements. CPV, Concentrated Photo Voltaic will be the road to take using large desert areas as the long term future power source for the entire planet. This may be why so many in Europe are putting up with the cost of sorting out Libya as it is close, has infrastructure and can be used for that purpose.

Frankly this is a completely 'magical' view, at least with existing technology.

For one thing, due to the vagaries of season, 100% non-PV backup is necessary. If you have to have 100% backup, then what exactly is the benefit of paying for more incremental and unreliable electricity generation?

No matter from cost, from CO2 generation, from reliability, etc etc the idea of being 'self sufficient' using PV is an attractive idea but is simply not practical.

[Starving Steve]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

We need to concentrate upon building homes that are energy neutral, using as much solar as possible to reduce the load requirements. CPV, Concentrated Photo Voltaic will be the road to take using large desert areas as the long term future power source for the entire planet. This may be why so many in Europe are putting up with the cost of sorting out Libya as it is close, has infrastructure and can be used for that purpose.

My brother has one of the largest passive-solar homes in central California. His house faces the south, has full solar exposure, no trees, it has gigantic south-facing windows, and the north-side is almost buried into a hill. And here are my observations:

75-80F inside the house during the day in summer; 60-65F inside the house during the day in winter, with some heat required; 60-65F inside the house during the night in summer; 55-60F inside the house during the night in winter, with heat required

With central-heating running, off and on, day and night, his house is 65F day and night in winter.
Occasional central-heating is required in May and early June at night, and again beginning in late October at night.

His house is located near Monterey. The coast has a winter and early spring mean temperature around 50F-55F outside with clouds and some rain. The coast has an early summer mean temperature of around 60F outside, usually with fog or low clouds. The coast has a late summer (September ) mean temperature of around 75F-78F outside, virtually always cloud-free and fog-free.

The bottom-line is that what he gains by sunshine in the summer, he loses back at night by out-radiation to space.
What he gains by sunshine in winter (if there is sunshine) he loses back at night by out-radiation to space.
The south-side of his house is bright during the day, all year; and the north-side of his house is shaded during the day, all year.

The latitude is 36 degrees north from the equator. The heating and lighting benefit from passive-solar design is negligible.

[lektrode]

Re: iTulip Fukushima Poll

My brother has one of the largest passive-solar homes in central California. His house faces the south, has full solar exposure, no trees, it has gigantic south-facing windows,... The benefit from passive-solar design is negligible.

adding: for winter:
then he needs to get some sort of window blankets...
could be fancy-kine gizmos that automagically close when the sun goes down, or simply some heavy drapes that he pulls closed at night

for summer:
some kind of reflective film stuck onto the glass to reflect-away the excess solar radiation
and/or draw the drapes when the sun is sideways/streaming in
assuming he already has either a hip roof or some kind of overhang shading the windows

this stuff aint zactly rocket science to make work and work really well, ya know.