Fukushima upgraded to Cat 7 TEPCO: Radiation leak may have topped Chernobyl release

Page 50 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,376
5,337
146
Well, I am in the solar power industry so I know a thing or two about renewables but by all means, please enlighten us on how we can provide the power this nation requires without using coal or nuclear using only technology that we currently have and lets say no more than a 25% increase in retail power costs. Hell, i'll give you credit if you can figure out how to do it without cost being an issue.

I am really looking forward to your answer.
Cool thing to know. Mind if I bounce some ideas off you when I go to building?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Dont you work in the oil industry?

Not for quite a while now. I used to be a roughneck/derrickhand on a drilling rig but that was over 10 years ago. It was friggen awsome money, especially for my age, but back breaking work and rough on the family. Today I own my own company in the solar industry after 10 years of estimating/project managing in commercial roofing.

All 3 dealt with energy in one form or another so I have a decent understanding of the big picture, or at least I like to think so. Red evidently knows a shitload more than I do though and I am eagerly awaiting his reply.
 

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
From my limited understanding one of the major things holding back renewable energy is our severely outdated powergrid, especially in the north east.
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
4
0
Last weekend during the big tornado outbreak, a tornado directly hit Surry power station, taking out the switchyard, causing a loss of offsite power. Both units shut down safely, and all backup power systems are operating correctly. That's how things are supposed to work :)


the earthquake wiped out all backup systems at once though... i dont think japans problem really was prevention- i dont think there is much you can do with forces of nature that extreme... but the thing is they cant fix it. thats where the problems really are- IF you have total failure of all systems, HOW do you stop catastrophe?
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
4
0
From my limited understanding one of the major things holding back renewable energy is our severely outdated powergrid, especially in the north east.

i think this true. many power companies are pushing for "smart grids". basically a gid full of status sensors and remote controls. it will give them full status of where power is on the whole grid, where they can send power and take it from, and figure out how much to charge people exactly, in real time.

i would think with this type of grid, solar power could be collected and redistributed without batteries. every home would have solar and wind harnessing, and they would all share that power intelligently.

right now its not feasible because the way the system is you need batteries in your basement as a buffer for those times when power isnt being harnessed. but if the grid was smart, it could precisely redistribute power coming in and going out of every single house. batteries could still be used, but not needed.
 
Last edited:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
i think this true. many power companies are pushing for "smart grids". basically a gid full of status sensors and remote controls. it will give them full status of where power is on the whole grid, where they can send power and take it from, and figure out how much to charge people exactly, in real time.

As far as renewables go the most important part of a "smart grid" is exactly as you said, allowing them to see what is being generated by those renewables in real time. Along with existing weather modeling that allows them to ramp up or down power generation from their plants. As it is now we could put solar on every home in a city and it wouldn't change the amount of power an electric company would be required to have online because they don't have real time data on the power being produced by those solar systems.

i would think with this type of grid, solar power could be collected and redistributed without batteries. every home would have solar and wind harnessing, and they would all share that power intelligently.

It actually already works like this just without the "intelligent" part. A grid tied system, which is the most common and by far the most economical, feeds power into the grid when it produces more than you are using at that moment in time. Most people aren't even home when their solar electric system is producing the most power and there electric meters literally spin backwards (well, most of them are now digital but you get the point). Other than small battery based backup systems I wouldn't advise anyone to go "off grid" unless there is a really good reason. Batteries are expensive, add complexity, vastly increase maintenance and last 1/3 to 1/4 of the guaranteed life span of the panels and that is only if the owner doesn't mess with the controller to draw the batteries down further which a large portion do.

right now its not feasible because the way the system is you need batteries in your basement as a buffer for those times when power isnt being harnessed. but if the grid was smart, it could precisely redistribute power coming in and going out of every single house. batteries could still be used, but not needed.

No. The grid literally is your buffer for those times. The rest of the time you are either using a combination of the power you are producing and grid power or selling power back to the grid. If you already have grid power batteries are not required to put solar on your home and in almost all cases are not advisable either. Most states, if not all by this point, have net metering laws so the power company must give you a 1-1 credit until you go over your usage (calculated yearly in my state). In very simple terms they have to buy it from you for the same price they sell it to you and NOT the price they pay from utility level produces BUT once you reach your yearly usage they can pay you the going rate which is a fraction of what you end up paying.

Laws vary from state to state but the above is generally pretty close.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,994
37,167
136
the earthquake wiped out all backup systems at once though... i dont think japans problem really was prevention- i dont think there is much you can do with forces of nature that extreme... but the thing is they cant fix it. thats where the problems really are- IF you have total failure of all systems, HOW do you stop catastrophe?

The tsunami took out the plant's backup power, not the earthquake. When the plant detected the earthquake it preformed exactly as expected by scramming the operating reactors and firing up the diesel generators. Those functioned for about an hour until the wave arrived and took them out along with a lot of electrical switch gear.

Newer designs are passively safe and don't rely on having power to prevent a major accident. About all you have to do is refill the water tanks if they start to run low and that can be done without any power to the facility.

There actually is no better case to start retiring the Gen I reactors and replacing them with Gen III+ and Gen IVs than what has happened in Japan. I expect any utility seeking a license extension on old plants is going to have a hard time getting one now. Hopefully that means more new and safer plants will be built.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Workers at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant appeared to have “lost the race” to save one of the reactors, a U.S. expert told the Guardian.

Richard Lahey, who was head of safety research for boiling water reactors at General Electric when the company installed the units at the Japan plant, says the radioactive core in the Unit 2 reactor appears to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and on a concrete floor.

“The indications we have, from the reactor to radiation readings and the materials they are seeing, suggest that the core has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel in unit two, and at least some of it is down on the floor of the drywell,” Lahey told the paper.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/29/workers-japan-nuke-plant-lost-race-save-reactor-expert-says/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Workers at the crippled Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant appeared to have “lost the race” to save one of the reactors, a U.S. expert told the Guardian.

Richard Lahey, who was head of safety research for boiling water reactors at General Electric when the company installed the units at the Japan plant, says the radioactive core in the Unit 2 reactor appears to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and on a concrete floor.

“The indications we have, from the reactor to radiation readings and the materials they are seeing, suggest that the core has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel in unit two, and at least some of it is down on the floor of the drywell,” Lahey told the paper.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/29/workers-japan-nuke-plant-lost-race-save-reactor-expert-says/

I am eagerly awaiting your reply to post #1225. Here is a link in case you missed it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31569373&postcount=1225
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,994
37,167
136
TEPCO just started sending robots into the reactor buildings so we'll see what they turn up.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
I am eagerly awaiting your reply to post #1225. Here is a link in case you missed it:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=31569373&postcount=1225

A combination of renewables, I know its kinda tough to imagine investing that much. But it is far cheaper then building these crap super complicated expensive HUGE subsidy sucking (THATS what nuke power industry is about) coffeemakers from the cold war era because you think its "cool". Nuke is done.


Sorry to those small pen0r types who just HAVE to have it, you guys buying a newer bigger car will compensate fine and we keep the plutonium shit out of the air. Sounds like a good compromise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
You're not allowed to actually question him about anything he posts...he won't post again until he finds more bullshit on the internet.

You are a admitted industry shill very much wrong throughout the thread.

You have 0% credibility. Do something useful for humanity and soak your skull in molten corium you puppet.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
A combination of renewables, I know its kinda tough to imagine investing that much. But it is far cheaper then building these crap super complicated expensive HUGE subsidy sucking (THATS what nuke power industry is about) coffeemakers from the cold war era because you think its "cool". Nuke is done.


Sorry to those small pen0r types who just HAVE to have it, you guys buying a newer bigger car will compensate fine and we keep the plutonium shit out of the air. Sounds like a good compromise.

Actually I think solar is cool, that is kinda why I put my money where my mouth is and opened a business in the solar industry.

Would you mind elaborating on the "mix or renwables" because aside from the crackpots people in the renewable industry don't even think its possible at this time.

As far as "hard to imagine investing that much", yes it is because it is impossibly expensive but lets put cost aside for the moment. I would like to hear how we replace all of the coal and nuclear power in this country using existing technology. How much solar? How much wind? Biofuel? Unicorn farts? What and where.

Edit: As far as the "you guys" part, I can all but guarantee that I am responsible for more renewable energy being installed from my work TODAY, a single day, than you have in your entire life. As I said, I put my money where my mouth is. How about you?
 
Last edited:

rcpratt

Lifer
Jul 2, 2009
10,433
110
116
You are a admitted industry shill very much wrong throughout the thread.

You have 0% credibility. Do something useful for humanity and soak your skull in molten corium you puppet.
Right. Because I'm the one trying to call rebar and other debris spent fuel assemblies.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Right. Because I'm the one trying to call rebar and other debris spent fuel assemblies.

You will be proven wrong once again. Those are fuel rods, there are many pictures all over the net. That stuff was not rebar, nor did it even look like rebar. Rebar is not hollow.