The Off Topic Topic

[frunk]

I think he's saying that earthquakes change the way fission works.

[The Brain]

Its not really smart to depend so much from one single source of power,

Manitoba (and Quebec) get virtually 100% of their electricity from a single source - hydro.

That's an energy source that has killed hundreds of thousands. Should switch to nuclear.

[Valmy]

A major earthquake is going to hit and reduce France to a radioactive wasteland which will be the setting of Fallout 6.

[The Brain]

Le Fallout 6.

[The Brain]

I think he's saying that earthquakes change the way fission works.

[The Larch]

Nuclear is not clean at all. You get a big pile of nuclear waste that you have to dispose, cant take that out of the equation.

It is in all fairness a very tiny pile, it's one of the things about nuclear that you get a low volume of waste and you don't release it to the environment. And there are ways to dispose it, you can for instance bury it. Works great.

It its so easy how come there are only like 3 or 4 sites in the whole world where deep geological storage is done?

And several thousand tons per year (annual production) is not a very tiny amount. And you have to take care of it for several thousand years. Its sweeping shit under the rug for the future generations to deal.

[Barrister]

Its not really smart to depend so much from one single source of power

I don't see why not.  It's not as if the science of fission is highly variable.

Many minor earthquakes (magnitude 1 or less) are detected every year in France. The average number of earthquakes increases by a factor of 10 when the magnitude threshold is reduced by 1. Estimates suggest that every century in France, there is approximately one earthquake of magnitude 6 or more, ten earthquakes of magnitude 5 or more, one hundred of magnitude 4 or more and more than one thousand earthquakes of magnitude 3 or more. Worldwide over the same period, there are more than 10,000 earthquakes of magnitude 6 or more. On average, about twenty earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 or more are detected every year in mainland France ...

The richter scale is a logarithmic scale - magnitude 2 is 10 times stronger than magnitude 1.

Your source loses credibility the minute it talks about magnitude 1 "earthquakes".  Such "earthquakes" can not be detected by humans.

As well earthquakes are not randomly placed around the globe, but are highly localized in certain regions.

It is trivially easy to find a number of seismically stable areas where you can dispose of nuclear waste.

[Barrister]

Nuclear is not clean at all. You get a big pile of nuclear waste that you have to dispose, cant take that out of the equation.

It is in all fairness a very tiny pile, it's one of the things about nuclear that you get a low volume of waste and you don't release it to the environment. And there are ways to dispose it, you can for instance bury it. Works great.

It its so easy how come there are only like 3 or 4 sites in the whole world where deep geological storage is done?

NIMBYism.

And several thousand tons per year (annual production) is not a very tiny amount. And you have to take care of it for several thousand years. Its sweeping shit under the rug for the future generations to deal.

Compare the amount of nuclear waste to the amount of air pollution produced (including greenhouse gasses).  And you don't actually have to "take care of it" - the radioactive isotopes are generally not water soluble and if properly buried and stored do a great job of staying put.

[The Brain]

Nuclear is not clean at all. You get a big pile of nuclear waste that you have to dispose, cant take that out of the equation.

It is in all fairness a very tiny pile, it's one of the things about nuclear that you get a low volume of waste and you don't release it to the environment. And there are ways to dispose it, you can for instance bury it. Works great.

It its so easy how come there are only like 3 or 4 sites in the whole world where deep geological storage is done?

And several thousand tons per year (annual production) is not a very tiny amount. And you have to take care of it for several thousand years. Its sweeping shit under the rug for the future generations to deal.

Political reasons. From a technological and safety perspective burying nuclear waste isn't hard. Safety regulations for radioactivity are much, much stricter than for other hazards. From a safety perspective this is madness.

Some thousands of tons a year to keep the lights on in France? That's tiny. And if you bury it it takes care of itself, it's not like you have to babysit it.

[crazy canuck]

Its not really smart to depend so much from one single source of power

I don't see why not.  It's not as if the science of fission is highly variable.

Many minor earthquakes (magnitude 1 or less) are detected every year in France. The average number of earthquakes increases by a factor of 10 when the magnitude threshold is reduced by 1. Estimates suggest that every century in France, there is approximately one earthquake of magnitude 6 or more, ten earthquakes of magnitude 5 or more, one hundred of magnitude 4 or more and more than one thousand earthquakes of magnitude 3 or more. Worldwide over the same period, there are more than 10,000 earthquakes of magnitude 6 or more. On average, about twenty earthquakes of magnitude 3.5 or more are detected every year in mainland France ...

Natural disasters such as earthquakes may disrupt the output of energy from nuclear power plants.  And so in answers to Yi's query as to why it might not be a good thing to put all eggs in one basket the answer is that the basket may become damaged to the point that a country with such a limitation could have a serious problem.

Unless course the nuclear industry is able to build a plant that cannot be damaged.

[Barrister]

Natural disasters such as earthquakes may disrupt the output of energy from nuclear power plants.  And so in answers to Yi's query as to why it might not be a good thing to put all eggs in one basket the answer is that the basket may become damaged to the point that a country with such a limitation could have a serious problem.

Unless course the nuclear industry is able to build a plant that cannot be damaged.

The nuclear industry is able to build plants in places that don't suffer earthquakes.

[frunk]

Natural disasters such as earthquakes may disrupt the output of energy from nuclear power plants.  And so in answers to Yi's query as to why it might not be a good thing to put all eggs in one basket the answer is that the basket may become damaged to the point that a country with such a limitation could have a serious problem.

Unless course the nuclear industry is able to build a plant that cannot be damaged.

A natural disaster able to disrupt a whole country's output of energy from nuclear power plants would also destroy every other source of energy production.  It's not like nuclear power is uniquely vulnerable.  In fact it is much less vulnerable than wind or hydro, and over the lifetime produces less pollutants than coal or oil even if you assume that there's a Fukushima event.

[crazy canuck]

As well earthquakes are not randomly placed around the globe, but are highly localized in certain regions.

Yes and when one looks at a seismic map of France, that country appears to be one of the regions where Earthquakes do in fact occur.

NIMBYism.

Actually its because of a lack of suitable areas for such storage.  To try to remedy that problem multinational storage sites have been proposed.

[crazy canuck]

Natural disasters such as earthquakes may disrupt the output of energy from nuclear power plants.  And so in answers to Yi's query as to why it might not be a good thing to put all eggs in one basket the answer is that the basket may become damaged to the point that a country with such a limitation could have a serious problem.

Unless course the nuclear industry is able to build a plant that cannot be damaged.

A natural disaster able to disrupt a whole country's output of energy from nuclear power plants would also destroy every other source of energy production.  It's not like nuclear power is uniquely vulnerable.  In fact it is much less vulnerable than wind or hydro, and over the lifetime produces less pollutants than coal or oil even if you assume that there's a Fukushima event.

Yes, all forms of energy production are vulnerable and each also has different kinds of vulnerability.  I am not sure why you think Hydro is more vulnerable than nuclear.  In my memory the hydro plants in BC (or elsewhere) have not had to be shut down while I know of a number of nuclear power plants around the world that have had to be shut down for a variety of reasons.

Given the differing risks across various forms of energy production it would seem foolish to rely on only one form if others are also available.

[The Brain]

As well earthquakes are not randomly placed around the globe, but are highly localized in certain regions.

Yes and when one looks at a seismic map of France, that country appears to be one of the regions where Earthquakes do in fact occur.

NIMBYism.

Actually its because of a lack of suitable areas for such storage.  To try to remedy that problem multinational storage sites have been proposed.

An earthquake that takes out French nuclear power pretty much takes out France.