Fukushima dumping radioactive water

[phinix]

Japan will release more than one million tonnes of radioactive water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean.

Interesting. So if I ever gonna visit Japan, I won't be able to try sushi made by the best itamae in the world... 

[glibber]

Who's ready for Subnautica in real life?

[yui]

in a few months all of that water is going to be all mixed and so all sushi will be equal, and one million tonnes seems large, but i am not even sure it will really move the needle when it comes to the greater ocean, dunno, haven't done any research right now, just trying to temper the fears and cries of we all gonna die tomorrow.

[tp4tissue]

Yup. this is going to be devastating.

NOT, that anyone should be eating fish to begin with.  But with BIO-Accumulation the pacific fish will become very toxic.  The radiation is absorbed by plakton, small shrimp/fish eat the plankton, the bigger fish eat the small fish,  hughmahns eat the big fish, = CANCER. Not to mention the water is filtered through the fish's gills, it's like a radiation collector.

You'd think the ocean dilutes it, and it does, but Marine life will CONCENTRATE this radiation.

You can forget eating sushi in Jpn,  if you're going there, you're breathing in fresh reactor dust, that has blown in from the mountains which remain highly contaminated and uncleanable. 70% of the contaminated landmass is forests/hills/mountanous terrain. Impossible to clean/decontaminate. We're looking at almost a 300mile circle around fukushima. The dust travels. They also have radioactive rubble which they're burning and casting into concrete. So, that radioactivity just rises with the air and wind. Their cancer rates have skyrocketed, they've removed all journalistic freedoms in the nation and it can not be reported on.

Specific to the water,  Tritium is NOT the only thing in there, their efforts to filter the water has FAILED, which means it's contaminated still with things like Strontium. 

[T’Downit Strider]

Yup. this is going to be devastating.

NOT, that anyone should be eating fish to begin with.  But with BIO-Accumulation the pacific fish will become very toxic.  The radiation is absorbed by plakton, small shrimp/fish eat the plankton, the bigger fish eat the small fish,  hughmahns eat the big fish, = CANCER. Not to mention the water is filtered through the fishs's gills, it's like a radiation collector.

You'd think the ocean dilutes it, and it does, but Marine life will CONCENTRATE this radiation.

You can forget eating sushi in Jpn,  if you're going there, you're breathing in fresh reactor dust, that has blown in from the mountains which remain highly contaminated and uncleanable. 70% of the contaminated landmass is forests/hills/mountanous terrain. Impossible to clean/decontaminate. We're looking at almost a 300mile circle around fukushima. The dust travels. They also have radioactive rubble which they're burning and casting into concrete. So, that radioactivity just rises with the air and wind. Their cancer rates have skyrocketed, they've removed all journalistic freedoms in the nation and it can not be reported on.

Specific to the water,  Tritium is NOT the only thing in there, their efforts to filter the water has FAILED, which means it's contaminated still with things like Strontium. 

Not to take sides, but what proof do we have that they’re wrong, and you’re right? I’m not calling you a liar, but perpetuating claims without sourcing them is how people get the wrong ideas in their head. That’s all.

[tp4tissue]

Not to take sides, but what proof do we have that they’re wrong, and you’re right? I’m not calling you a liar, but perpetuating claims without sourcing them is how people get the wrong ideas in their head. That’s all.

Absolutely Strider, I leave it to you to do your own research and disprove my claims.

[iri]

in a few months all of that water is going to be all mixed and so all sushi will be equal, and one million tonnes seems large, but i am not even sure it will really move the needle when it comes to the greater ocean, dunno, haven't done any research right now

OK, I'll do it for you: 1 million tonnes of water is 0,00000000000000007% of the world ocean.

[tp4tissue]

in a few months all of that water is going to be all mixed and so all sushi will be equal, and one million tonnes seems large, but i am not even sure it will really move the needle when it comes to the greater ocean, dunno, haven't done any research right now

OK, I'll do it for you: 1 million tonnes of water is 0,00000000000000007% of the world ocean.

That's not how it works.  That is just what they have in the tank, and some of it is filtered.  There is continuous groundwater leaking into the reactor chamber and into the ocean. This is unfiltered, direct contact with core material.

Bioaccumulation will also concentrate the radiation. It all comes back. This is not a small risk.

[Surefoot]

They will filter the water before, and release it progressively over many years. They are dumping a dose about 0.05sV per tonne of water.
For reference:
https://xkcd.com/radiation/

The risk is much greater if current unfiltered radioactive water seeps into groundwater. They had to make a choice.

Fish are getting contaminated by other chemical agents and heavy metals, dumped by industry, and there are well known scandals around that.
Eating a banana, or a bag of cashew nuts will give you a radioactive dose much greater than any fish that has been in Fukushima waters.

[tp4tissue]

The risk is much greater if current unfiltered radioactive water seeps into groundwater. They had to make a choice.

Fish are getting contaminated by other chemical agents and heavy metals, dumped by industry, and there are well known scandals around that.
Eating a banana, or a bag of cashew nuts will give you a radioactive dose much greater than any fish that has been in Fukushima waters.

That is not what's happening, Attempts at filtration has been done but the results are poor, and they've disclosed that they still have alot of water that is contaminated with heavy elements.

The GROUND WATER is already in contact with the reactor containment. This is why they built the icewall (a refrigeration trench to stop ground water) which did not work, and 300+ tons of ground water reaches core containment per day and is still seeping through directly into the ocean. This is in excess of what they're pumping and storing to keep the melted fuel cool.

[cthalupa]

Scientific consensus is that this is safe, and I don't really see any reason to believe otherwise. I'd say mercury is a much more pressing concern, and unrelated to Fukushima.

No problem putting my money where my mouth is, either - I'm in Japan for work every year, 2020 notwithstanding. I'll keep eating plenty of sushi when I'm there.

[tp4tissue]

Scientific consensus is that this is safe, and I don't really see any reason to believe otherwise. I'd say mercury is a much more pressing concern, and unrelated to Fukushima.

No problem putting my money where my mouth is, either - I'm in Japan for work every year, 2020 notwithstanding. I'll keep eating plenty of sushi when I'm there.

Nope, there is no such consensus.  All research in this field is tightly controlled by the industry. The NRC which is suppose to be oversight is actually thoroughly captured by the corporations. Behind which is the military arms.

If you read into the public citizen science on the subject, these are rigorous university works, but not funded by military or industry, you'd see that nooq power is not economical, extremely toxic and have deadly consequences which is spread across the globe.

We average 1 reactor melt down every 10 years.  And they'd have you believe it's safe.  There are only 440 total.

The failure rate is EXTREMELY HIGH.

[Surefoot]

That is not what's happening, Attempts at filtration has been done but the results are poor, and they've disclosed that they still have alot of water that is contaminated with heavy elements.

What's your source on this ?

The GROUND WATER is already in contact with the reactor containment. This is why they built the icewall (a refrigeration trench to stop ground water) which did not work, and 300+ tons of ground water reaches core containment per day and is still seeping through directly into the ocean. This is in excess of what they're pumping and storing to keep the melted fuel cool.
[/size][/color]

Again, source ?

So far the scientific community says: they'll release the filtered water over 10 years, which contains tritium, which is slightly radioactive indeed.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/09/12/its-really-ok-if-japan-dumps-radioactive-fukushima-water-into-the-ocean/?sh=68c3687db298

As for concerns: mercury poisoning in the Bay of Tokyo is much more serious. By multiple orders of magnitude. This has caused a lot more deaths in human population, and devastation to the marine flora and fauna.

And as for the risks vs benefits:

These guys say it much better than i can do.

[tp4tissue]

Nuclear is not clean. when all the mining, transport, processing, is taken into account, nooq is only ~6 to 9% cleaner than coal power.  and it builds extremely slowly, ~30 years. We don't have that kind of time, We are no longer in a climate crisis we're in a climate emergency.

Wind mills go up in 1 year, highly reliable. The Tesla Utility scale Battery has already been proven in australia, it works.   Everything is ready to go.

There is no future in nooq.

Summary

Detail

Groundwater problem

Lessons

[/size][/color]

[Leslieann]

Japan will release more than one million tonnes of radioactive water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant into the Pacific Ocean.

I don't get the sudden panic.
I could have told you this was coming on day one, they only waited to announce it because had they done this sooner the panic would be even greater.

Blah blah blah, they were treating the water.
Okay and where was the spoils of that going to go? A landfill on an island and allowed to leach out over time? How many would get "lost" on the way to that island?  If you think they were going to do everything precisely by the book on this and nothing was going to get into the environment you clearly do not understand corporations.

For example..
https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021/04/12/overwhelming-scientists-confirm-massive-ddt-dumping-ground-ocean-floor-between-long-beach-catalina-island/

[Surefoot]

Nuclear is not clean. when all the mining, transport, processing, is taken into account, nooq is only ~6 to 9% cleaner than coal power.

That's preposterous at best: if you compare with coal mining, transport etc. it's not even in the same order of magnitude.

and it builds extremely slowly, ~30 years.

No it doesnt... Again, wrong scale factor here.

We don't have that kind of time, We are no longer in a climate crisis we're in a climate emergency.

Indeed and going full coal is certainly not the answer. The facts are, nuclear plants are being replaced by coal plants, right now.

Wind mills go up in 1 year, highly reliable. The Tesla Utility scale Battery has already been proven in australia, it works.   Everything is ready to go.

Certainly. Look at Kurzgesagt video above please. They have actual real figures, and a set of different, reliable sources for them. Wind cannot fulfill the energy demand, again by several orders of magnitude. The increase in energy demand is actually greater than the increase in windmill deployment (plus the problem of getting a location, political support, etc.). Hydro is saturated. Solar, while also increasing at exponential rates, is not following the demand.

There is no future in nooq.

Disagree here. It's the perfect transitional step towards 100% renewable. Current politics to disassemble nuclear plants and replace them with coal are driven by corruption, not facts.

Summary
(...)

Only one single source from 2011, with zero figure, no independent measurement, from an obvious anti-nuclear NGO (and who funds them by the way..). I'll refer again to Kurzgesagt: they cite all their sources, who have done actual measurements.

So yes, do not ever give the keys to nuclear power plants to private corporations: that much is obvious.

Again, this crisis is vastly overshadowed by the heavy metal contamination and also by the over fishing ...

[yui]

problem with TP, i tried last time doing the same as you but he will not take into account any data going against his views, like any good american. he got in his mind that anything is better then nuclear so you will not be able to change him, and he will continue to go full trump and disseminate lies about it all over the place, it is why i did not even try to counter him on this post, the best way is to just ignore what he is saying at one point.

[Surefoot]

problem with TP, i tried last time doing the same as you but he will not take into account any data going against his views, like any good american. he got in his mind that anything is better then nuclear so you will not be able to change him, and he will continue to go full trump and disseminate lies about it all over the place, it is why i did not even try to counter him on this post, the best way is to just ignore what he is saying at one point.

Yeah i got that, just posting links to actual facts for others to see (like the Kurzgesagt vid that was just posted to YT a few days ago, very nicely done). I didnt know about these facts myself before doing some research, and nuclear is a really sensitive topic, with a lot of extreme views and emotional responses.

[Leslieann]

problem with TP, i tried last time doing the same as you but he will not take into account any data going against his views, like any good american. he got in his mind that anything is better then nuclear so you will not be able to change him, and he will continue to go full trump and disseminate lies about it all over the place, it is why i did not even try to counter him on this post, the best way is to just ignore what he is saying at one point.

I don't like defending TP but it's not a matter of head in the sand like you claim.
You claim he was like a typical American and stuck in his ways on anything but nuclear when in reality he is/was open to hearing other ideas, just not the one you wanted.

You're not going to sway him on this by just spewing the same claims pro-nuclear activists have thrown around for the last 60 years, he grew up in nuclear's prime and heard all of it before. You better bring facts, links, and evidence and new ideas if you want it to be a viable solution and it needs to be an actual solution, not just another stop gap that just creates an even larger mess to deal with later.

[yui]

the thing is, we did in the last thread on the subject, i was not alone, and right now we have the choice between a stopgap that will destroy us in the next 40 years or a stopgap that maybe will render some part of the world inhabitable in the next 500 years.

problem with TP, i tried last time doing the same as you but he will not take into account any data going against his views, like any good american. he got in his mind that anything is better then nuclear so you will not be able to change him, and he will continue to go full trump and disseminate lies about it all over the place, it is why i did not even try to counter him on this post, the best way is to just ignore what he is saying at one point.

I don't like defending TP but it's not a matter of head in the sand like you claim.
You claim he was like a typical American and stuck in his ways on anything but nuclear when in reality he is/was open to hearing other ideas, just not the one you wanted.

You're not going to sway him on this by just spewing the same claims pro-nuclear activists have thrown around for the last 60 years, he grew up in nuclear's prime and heard all of it before. You better bring facts, links, and evidence and new ideas if you want it to be a viable solution and it needs to be an actual solution, not just another stop gap that just creates an even larger mess to deal with later.

the solution is not destruction, it never is, we can prevent further catastrophes by researching further but with the current mentality it is not going to happen, no company will invest in making anything more secure, just convert to coal, that is an order of magnitude more dangerous, because way lass fail-safes, and will just accelerate our energy crisis, and transform electric cars into coal powered cars.

I am saying to stop bashing nuclear's head in and try to propose alternatives, but it is so much easier to destroy than to build, isn't it?

that is my problem with the TP's and others whole stance, they wants to destroy and do not care about what to build instead, coal is just a faster death, that's it, and right now nuclear is not replaced by renewable, because most grids are not built to handle that but by gas and coal.

when i say TP goes full trump mode it is because on the last thread he just discredited all other sources than his as unreliable internet sources, in sum calling them fake news, while only presenting equally reliable internet and TV sources, it is what pissed me off and form this opinion...

and i am not pro-nuclear, i am just anti coal and gas, and although I'd love to live in a teletubies world where physics and economy does not matter, i am not, and physics dictate that energy takes time to propagate, so you need storage everywhere, and you need energy in to have out, so you need huge storage for the night, and energy storage is inefficient and expensive, and so economy says we have either coal, gas or nuclear... (try to calculate how much it would cost to power your home for a whole night in winter using batteries?, a quick back of the napkin estimation for my house would be 2835 USD in batteries alone, only for heat mind you and assuming cheapest batteries from this site https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-cited-below-100-kwh-for-the-first-time-in-2020-while-market-average-sits-at-137-kwh/ and those have a likely usable lifespan of about 5 years is treated correctly less if overheated or ran flat constantly...) the thing is we are not ready, and wont be for as long as peoples are more concentrated on destroying what exists than build something to replace it.

for example to remedy this problem there exists fe-fe batteries, they have rather low energy density but that could be a good thing as it makes them safer, and they are much cheaper and have a much lesser impact on the environment than lithium batteries. and best of all the research is public, only issue is finding the chemicals, as one of them seems impossible to source in europe (iron 3 sulfate if i recall correctly edit: chloride actually and maybe iron 2) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468067219300318
although there maybe a bit less money to be made with all the opensource-ness of it
and i just saw there is a new version of it
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468067220300808

Economy says: whatever is cheapest, so make something else cheaper than nuclear or coal and economy will follow, and so will society...

[Surefoot]

the thing is, we did in the last thread on the subject, i was not alone, and right now we have the choice between a stopgap that will destroy us in the next 40 years or a stopgap that maybe will render some part of the world inhabitable in the next 500 years.

It has to be said that in one case, the risk is manageable (nuclear power plants do not blow up randomly.. they never do), and yes managing that risk is expensive, but much less than what the alternative currently entails. That's the whole point. I dont think any of us here is pro-nuclear (I clearly remember Chernobyl, and as other Europeans the cloud got over my area too) - but there's no other stop gap for the next decades or so before full renewable can take over.
A huge part of the solution is sensible policies for funding that stop gap properly, with clear objectives of replacing it with proper renewables. I know it's almost as unrealistic as cold fusion for tomorrow. Still setting ambitious goals is a way to achieve something in the right direction, maybe...

[tp4tissue]

Surefoot, you clearly did not watch the video and yet you claim other people are misinformed.

The numbers do not come FROM fairewinds this (nefarious NGO),  the numbers come from Citibank/ Lazaar financial/ and Rocky Mountain Institute.

Arnold Gundersen, who heads fairewinds, was senior vice president in the nuclear industry, He had a fellowship w/ Atomic Energy Commission ,  He holds nuclear patents, and was a licensed nuclear operator.

You are clearly burying your head in the sand, you're trying to win an argument, ignoring the facts.

Where are YOUR sources, you have provided none. Nooqular power simply does not work, neither as a power generation technology nor a sustainable financial institution. It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.

[cthalupa]

It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.

This is an absurd claim. How has France produced 70% of it's power from nuclear energy over the past decades? How has it been able to export significant amounts of power to neighboring countries?

[tp4tissue]

It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.

This is an absurd claim. How has France produced 70% of it's power from nuclear energy over the past decades? How has it been able to export significant amounts of power to neighboring countries?

Nope it hasn't, their nuclear industry is fully bankrupt, google it.  They even import power from neighboring countries because the renewable power that those countries invested in, like Germany is cheaper.

France also now has to deal with the Millions of tons of waste product that NO ONE on the planet knows what to do with.

Nooq waste has to be monitored and guarded from 3000-1,000,000 years.  For the short time each reactor is online, it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate the power necessary to OFFSET the labor cost of the End product.

So, YES, Nuclear is NET NEGATIVE POWER.

[Surefoot]

Where are YOUR sources, you have provided none.

I posted quite a few links, and asked you to look at the souces provided by kurzgesagt. You obviously did not...

Nooqular power

That doesnt go in favour of getting you any credit, spelling like a 12 year old...

It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.

No. You clearly have zero idea of what you are talking about. Also from a scientific point of view, the cringe is definitely strong here.

Nope it hasn't, their nuclear industry is fully bankrupt, google it.  They even import power from neighboring countries because the renewable power that those countries invested in, like Germany is cheaper.

No where did you get that info again ? Fox News ? What the hell, it's not even close to reality, it's the complete opposite. France exports a lot of its electricity, and yes to Germany, since they did close nuclear power plants and are at a deficit. As for "bankrupt", where did you get that, nuclear power plants in France are owned by a public company (= the state) not by a private entity. And France is no more bankrupt than the US would be... Source: I live there.

France also now has to deal with the Millions of tons of waste product that NO ONE on the planet knows what to do with.

Not millions of tons.. again with the wrong scale.

Nooq waste has to be monitored and guarded from 3000-1,000,000 years.  For the short time each reactor is online, it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate the power necessary to OFFSET the labor cost of the End product.

That kiddie spelling again... And no, even counting the dismantling of power plants, it's still cheaper than coal when we account for environment impact.

So, YES, Nuclear is NET NEGATIVE POWER.

That was a net negative argument...

[cthalupa]

It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.

This is an absurd claim. How has France produced 70% of it's power from nuclear energy over the past decades? How has it been able to export significant amounts of power to neighboring countries?

Nope it hasn't, their nuclear industry is fully bankrupt, google it.  They even import power from neighboring countries because the renewable power that those countries invested in, like Germany is cheaper.

France also now has to deal with the Millions of tons of waste product that NO ONE on the planet knows what to do with.

Nooq waste has to be monitored and guarded from 3000-1,000,000 years.  For the short time each reactor is online, it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate the power necessary to OFFSET the labor cost of the End product.

So, YES, Nuclear is NET NEGATIVE POWER.

France is the largest energy export in Europe.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/electricity-export-france/
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx


France is going to need to run on existing nuclear tech for nearly another thousand years to get up to a million tons. Meanwhile Gen3 designs use significantly less waste, and Gen4 designs are even larger leaps forward. As for monitoring and guarding, it's pretty minimal effort. Bury it where there's no water table.

[lazerpointer]

It's really unfortunate. We will have to adapt. Aquaculture will become more widespread in the generations to come, I would wager.

I hope mankind learns from this lesson and stops spilling waste into our oceans. Like stated by others in the thread, I have high hopes for batteries and other forms of energy generation.

In my opinion, we shouldn't need to rely on anything except the power of the sun for all of our needs.

[tp4tissue]

It's really unfortunate. We will have to adapt. Aquaculture will become more widespread in the generations to come, I would wager.

I hope mankind learns from this lesson and stops spilling waste into our oceans. Like stated by others in the thread, I have high hopes for batteries and other forms of energy generation.

In my opinion, we shouldn't need to rely on anything except the power of the sun for all of our needs.

And wind. of course, wind is actually more likely than solar to take over, because it's been easier to build.

Nothing is worse than nooq, it's a joke how long it takes to build, the cost overruns are enormous, the delays usually run into a dozen years

[tp4tissue]

France is the largest energy export in Europe.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/electricity-export-france/
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx


France is going to need to run on existing nuclear tech for nearly another thousand years to get up to a million tons. Meanwhile Gen3 designs use significantly less waste, and Gen4 designs are even larger leaps forward. As for monitoring and guarding, it's pretty minimal effort. Bury it where there's no water table.

That article and report is clearly bogus industry shill numbers.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of electrical power.  If they're exporting so much and doing so well, explain how their system went bankrupt.

Just because exports exist, does not means the system works.  They're taking on a HUGE LOSS. The burden is then payed for by the tax payers.

This is because it costs France more to make this power than their income selling it.  Again, NATIVE french businesses in france are buying power from across the pond to stay competitive.

The result of France's export at utility scale is one of desperation, it's been a firesale.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/09/24/nuclear-power-is-now-the-most-expensive-form-of-generation-except-for-gas-peaking-plants/

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-658-25987-7_10.pdf?error=cookies_not_supported&code=6fcf4e22-4721-4f8d-984f-0b13e1b41366

[cthalupa]

France is the largest energy export in Europe.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/electricity-export-france/
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx


France is going to need to run on existing nuclear tech for nearly another thousand years to get up to a million tons. Meanwhile Gen3 designs use significantly less waste, and Gen4 designs are even larger leaps forward. As for monitoring and guarding, it's pretty minimal effort. Bury it where there's no water table.

That article and report is clearly bogus industry shill numbers.

Nuclear is the most expensive form of electrical power.  If they're exporting so much and doing so well, explain how their system went bankrupt.

Just because exports exist, does not means the system works.  They're taking on a HUGE LOSS. The burden is then payed for by the tax payers.

This is because it costs France more to make this power than their income selling it.  Again, NATIVE french businesses in france are buying power from across the pond to stay competitive.

The result of France's export at utility scale is one of desperation, it's been a firesale.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/09/24/nuclear-power-is-now-the-most-expensive-form-of-generation-except-for-gas-peaking-plants/

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-658-25987-7_10.pdf?error=cookies_not_supported&code=6fcf4e22-4721-4f8d-984f-0b13e1b41366

Neither of your sources refute mine. Nor do either of them even indicate nuclear has to be the most expensive - just that the current political realities and scale of economics mean that building new ones is quite expensive, largely because so few are being built.

It's not really possible to argue with someone who just immediately dismisses any counter-evidence as bogus industry shill numbers, while claiming that their sources are infallible, though, so I'm not really sure where to go from here.

Neither of us are in charge of policy for this, so I guess it doesn't much matter what either of us believes.

[tp4tissue]

Neither of your sources refute mine. Nor do either of them even indicate nuclear has to be the most expensive - just that the current political realities and scale of economics mean that building new ones is quite expensive, largely because so few are being built.

It's not really possible to argue with someone who just immediately dismisses any counter-evidence as bogus industry shill numbers, while claiming that their sources are infallible, though, so I'm not really sure where to go from here.

Neither of us are in charge of policy for this, so I guess it doesn't much matter what either of us believes.

They absolutely refute your claims. The system doesn't work, it was never designed to do what the marketing of today says it will do.

It was never made to reduce carbon, and that's why it has minimal impact on carbon emmissions. It was never made to be cost effective, because it was merely a side channel project and a secondary use of weapons material.

The only reason reactors exist is because its a convenient public fascade to maintain the refinery infrastructure to build weapons.

I am a supporter of the arms use of this technology, but to dot it across the map in pointless reactors which produce unusable and unnecessary contaminants puts the entire globe at an existential risk which obviates the whole point of having super weapons to begin with.

It's important that you research this further than the first few google results and the bias that the industry has casually left in public dialog.

There is a utility to nuclear that WORKS and that's the weapons systems.  And an area which clearly does NOT work and is extremely harmful , that's the reactors.

[Surefoot]

Nuclear is the most expensive form of electrical power.

It's not. Fossil fuels are, when you account for environmental damage. You clearly didnt read properly the article you posted yourself: they are talking costs of new energy (so building new power plants - which has become expensive in France for political reasons mostly, again, see the K video for more complete data on this).
Please tell us with your own words, what do you think we can replace nuclear power plants with, during the next 40 years or so, while sustaining energy demand (and these words are important..).

If they're exporting so much and doing so well, explain how their system went bankrupt.

Again, France is exporting a lot, and selling electricity at near cost to its residents. Still do not understand what is "bankrupt" here - I'm not saying we have zero problem in France (by far) but electricity generation is not one. Actually the EU would want France to privatize its electricity sector which is still mostly public as of today. Explain to us, how a whole country can become bankrupt. Boggles the mind what kind of propaganda is being fed to people in the US...

Just because exports exist, does not means the system works.  They're taking on a HUGE LOSS. The burden is then payed for by the tax payers.

So, do you understand how a public system works ? It's not a private company. It's indeed paid by taxes (for the investment part), but mostly by the electricity bill itself (for running costs). The participation of the public tax money into that is what irks the EU who sees that as "anti competitive" - which of course is obvious since it DOES NOT NEED TO TURN A PROFIT SINCE IT'S PUBLIC.

This is because it costs France more to make this power than their income selling it.  Again, NATIVE french businesses in france are buying power from across the pond to stay competitive.

No they dont. Again where did you get that idea ?

It was never made to reduce carbon, and that's why it has minimal impact on carbon emmissions.

It's completely false. The opposite is clearly demonstrated by actual measurements (a simple search on air quality in France vs Poland for example, to get nuclear vs coal results). Again, the video from K i posted provides all the sources and actual measurements... It's also quite obvious when you know how a nuclear power plant works, which i'm starting to think that you do not.

The only reason reactors exist is because its a convenient public fascade to maintain the refinery infrastructure to build weapons.

Again, you have zero idea of what you are talking about. Weapons grade uranium is completely different from the one that's used in civilian reactors, and need to be refined in a very specific way.
There are dedicated factories for the weapon stuff. Civilian reactors byproducts are useless.

I am a supporter of the arms use of this technology
 

You understand that the weapons use is actually a major threat to our global existence, right ? And just the open air tests we've done in the last 70 years or so did contaminate the whole surface of the globe, to a point we have to use special steel from sunk WW2 battleships to build radiation detection equipment ? By the way, this background radiation is also non-zero but weak, a bit like what the seawater released at Fukushima would be.

There is a utility to nuclear that WORKS and that's the weapons systems.  And an area which clearly does NOT work and is extremely harmful , that's the reactors.

Fox News again ? Do you get your science facts from Tucker Carlson ?

[tp4tissue]

None sense

Surefoot this is not an Anti-france thing. I don't understand why you refuse to do your own research. I don't even understand what you're parroting because they're not grounded in any facts. Even the French don't make the claims you're making, the vast majority of France does not support nuclear power.

French nuclear industry is bankrupt, this is a fact, you can find it on the first thing you google. The fact that its businesses can not be competitive buying native electricity is also a fact, which is why they import.

Weapons make us safe because in the case of nooq, they're doomsday valves,  they work without ever having to fire them.

The power generation on the other hand just increases highly toxic waste.

You really need to do some more research, i can tell you're butt-hurt over someone mentioning France + Bad, and whatever slight to your identity that  generates. But this is not about that.  When you grow up a little more and finally google it, you'd see, NO ONE even in FRANCE wanted nuclear power, It was never voted on, they just passed it because the power that be wanted in on the tax money.

[Surefoot]

When you grow up a little more

I suggest you do, before talking about grown up topics like this one...
Again you answered zero of my questions, read zero of my posted links and relevant data, and jumped straight to ludicrous conclusions.

French nuclear industry is bankrupt, this is a fact,

It's not, again, nuclear power plants in France are owned by the public sector, which is the state. Is my English wrong or something ? Seems like i've repeated this multiple times and it still does not get through.
Articles which talk about this are either misinformed (US publications of doubtful nature..) or are talking about AREVA, which is a private entity that's supposed to handle the logistics for the nuclear industry, which has been mismanaged and indeed involved in corruption. But that's another topic entirely...

NO ONE even in FRANCE wanted nuclear power

We like our relatively cheap electricity. How are things in Texas, remind me ?

[tp4tissue]

Nonsense

LOLOLOL, surefoot, now you're just rambling.

Texas and FOX NEWS are both major backers of Nuclear power. Which failed across the board for that state.

The french nooq power industry ran 6 full years of losses and went into bankruptcy, some pieces sold off to Japan. 

So it's clear you know nothing about America, and despite being French, you know very little about France. I've answered your questions, the rest is on you.

[Surefoot]

So it's clear you know nothing about America, and despite being French, you know very little about France. I've answered your questions, the rest is on you.

What the actual hell, no you didnt, you answered zero question... I'll stop here, you didnt even read my sources.

And your "reality" is not our reality, as it seems...

[tp4tissue]

So it's clear you know nothing about America, and despite being French, you know very little about France. I've answered your questions, the rest is on you.

What the actual hell, no you didnt, you answered zero question... I'll stop here, you didnt even read my sources.

And your "reality" is not our reality, as it seems...

I did answer your questions, you refused to follow up and research on your own.

For the sake of your own people, please do your homework.

[Surefoot]

I did answer your questions

No you did not, even just one... especially the important one: with your own words what do you think is the solution for the next 40 years or so, to answer to the rapidly expanding energy demand ?

, you refused to follow up and research on your own.

I think i posted interesting sources of information. That should be enough for anyone that's not a conspirationist / Qanon / whatever you claim you are..

For the sake of your own people, please do your homework.

I'm not a politician. For what it's worth, no one told us in France that we are bankrupt, it's one of the funniest and most perplexing things i've been told in the last few months, and I'm writing this on a computer that runs with.. nuclear electricty. Guess no one told my provider they are bankrupt, either. I'll make sure to phone and warn them, on behalf of "tp4tissue from Geekhack"...

As for your completely wrong answer about Texas: nuclear is about 5% of their electricity. That's not "being completely pro-nuclear"...

Again, i'm posting this for others to see since you will not read it.

[tp4tissue]

nonsense

There's no straw for you to grab at, you don't win arguments just by speaking. You need to back them up with facts.

I don't know why you need someone else to tell you french nuclear power went bankrupt, since that's what happened regardless of what anyone says, it's just a fact.

[yui]

It produces NET NEGATIVE POWER.

This is an absurd claim. How has France produced 70% of it's power from nuclear energy over the past decades? How has it been able to export significant amounts of power to neighboring countries?

Nope it hasn't, their nuclear industry is fully bankrupt, google it.  They even import power from neighboring countries because the renewable power that those countries invested in, like Germany is cheaper.

France also now has to deal with the Millions of tons of waste product that NO ONE on the planet knows what to do with.

Nooq waste has to be monitored and guarded from 3000-1,000,000 years.  For the short time each reactor is online, it is IMPOSSIBLE to generate the power necessary to OFFSET the labor cost of the End product.

So, YES, Nuclear is NET NEGATIVE POWER.

NEGATIVE POWER HAS NO MEANING. POWER, LIKE LENGTH CAN'T BE NEGATIVE YOU ABSOLUTE BABOON, ELSE YOU CAN TRAVEL BACK IN TIME FFS LEARN PHYSICS (Power = Energy/time and neither energy or time can be negative...)
with that out of the way, Germany is N1 on coal in Europe, and has been actively importing from France for the last decade... your numbers are all outdated to an alarming degree or cherry picked to the point of not actually making any sence anymore.
AND STOP SAYING NEGATIVE POWER.
(and no you do not need to actively monitor it for 3000 to 1000000 years... if you properly get rid of it)

[iri]

tp4 is a troll. He'll say any kind of nonsense to make you respond. You take the bait, he enjoys it. Do a reasonable thing and put him in your ignore list.

[Surefoot]

NEGATIVE POWER HAS NO MEANING. POWER, LIKE LENGTH CAN'T BE NEGATIVE YOU ABSOLUTE BABOON, ELSE YOU CAN TRAVEL BACK IN TIME FFS LEARN PHYSICS (Power = Energy/time and neither energy or time can be negative...)

While tp4 is trolling, I would point that if you talk about "net power delivery" you could subtract power input from power output (although scientists prefer a ratio, so divide one by the other, to get the efficiency factor), so a power plant of course should always have positive net power delivery (otherwise it's not a power plant...). A good example is current fusion reactor experiments, which have negative net power delivery (or a ratio <1.0) since they need more energy input than they can produce, and the goal of course of research there is now to engineer a solution that is net positive (so we can use fusion to power our grid). ITER is such an experiment, also there's a really nice prototype in Germany with a really interesting approach, and various variants of discrete/solid state "z-machines", all look very good but are still decades away from producing more energy than they consume.
Both ways of calculating work, the first one would be relevant for power grid usage (so you know the net power added to the grid - for grid engineering of course, also for invoicing/sales). And yeah obviously tp4 statement makes no sense whatsoever in regard to all of this... There are political and financial (and corruption) considerations to the problem but these are different topics.

[phinix]

Sorry guys, I put this subject out, so we could discuss and share our opinion on this, didn't want to "ignite flames" between us.
We're keyboard lovers, not keyboard warriors

Let's get back on the subject - I understand that Japanese government made this decision to release that water to ocean - do they need an approval from International Atomic Energy Agency for example to do that? Apparently, from this article it looks like they haven't received any yet.

[iri]

We're keyboard lovers, not keyboard warriors

Speak for yourself!

[phinix]

We're keyboard lovers, not keyboard warriors

Speak for yourself!

Show Image

 :p

[Surefoot]

Let's get back on the subject - I understand that Japanese government made this decision to release that water to ocean - do they need an approval from International Atomic Energy Agency for example to do that? Apparently, from this article it looks like they haven't received any yet.

According to Reuters they just did:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-disaster-fukushima-water-release-idUSKBN2BZ2U3
Of notable concern is what TEPCO will do with the filtered out radioisotopes since these have to be disposed of properly...

[tp4tissue]

Sorry guys, I put this subject out, so we could discuss and share our opinion on this, didn't want to "ignite flames" between us.
We're keyboard lovers, not keyboard warriors

Let's get back on the subject - I understand that Japanese government made this decision to release that water to ocean - do they need an approval from International Atomic Energy Agency for example to do that? Apparently, from this article it looks like they haven't received any yet.

The approval makes little difference to the net result. Nooq power is a total failure across the board for every country.

It was never designed to work. What they thought in the 50s was, we're going to have lots of this weapons material so we can rule the world. Turns out this type of material makes the world not worth ruling because it's just too toxic. 

Over time the economics of reactor tech failed completely as we saw the bankruptcy of both America's Westinghouse and GE Nooq-Electric division.   Then recently our fancy european poster child of nooq power France's nuclear, also went bankrupt.  All of this was built on tax dollars.  TODAY , not a single wallstreet firm / bank is willing to invest in nuclear. So you have to ask yourself, if this stuff actually worked why isn't the smart money coming in.

The outcomes however is not a problem of money, it's a problem of the contamination.  The half lives are too long.  The fresh waste requires active power to stay cool and are kept in above ground pools.  This is a major security concern.  Then when we try to put the stuff into containers, it destroys the containers, and we have to keep making new containers, for anywhere between 3000-1000000 years.

It is impossible to turn around and offset just the babysitting cost of the end material. Meanwhile, the climate crisis looms in the background and will not take a break.

[tp4tissue]

Germany is N1 on coal in Europe, and has been actively importing from France for the NEGATIVE POWER.
(and no you do not need to actively monitor it for 3000 to 1000000 years... if you properly get rid of it)

Germany is the strongest economy in Europe. being N1 in coal, is just a consequence of their success.

Overall that nation is ahead of the curve with 46% power generation from Renewables. Their investment in this is already paying off as their companies enjoy cheaper power all around.

As for watching the waste, YES we actually do have to actively maintain it for that long. Overtime containers have to be refreshed. We really can't bury it underground either, because it's impossible to predict the geological stability over that time scale.  It's also really easy to forget where you buried things.

Disposal was not part of the consideration when this technology was developed because we THOUGHT we were making what was going to be a very valuable weapons material.  Turns out, not only is this stuff not valuable,  You have to PAY PEOPLE to take it away, and exceedingly the case, there are few of those people left , The Uranium market collapsed long ago.