The Off Topic Topic

[The Brain]

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.

Hydro plants have an unfortunate tendency to collapse at inopportune moments, for instance when people live in the valleys or plains below.

[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.

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

What level of Earthquake are French nuclear power plants able to survive and continue to operate without any difficulties?

[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.

What level of Earthquake are French nuclear power plants able to survive and continue to operate without any difficulties?

I don't know but google told me this:

In France for instance, nuclear plants are designed to withstand an earthquake twice as strong as the 1000-year event calculated for each site.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/nuclear-power-plants-and-earthquakes/

[The Larch]

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.

While some sources of electricity are dangerous to rely to heavily on because they are quite variable) solar and wind for example), diversity of electricity sources is not a virtue in and of itself.

Hydro is a bit of a peculiarity, as you cant really turn off a dam. AFAIK Norway is more or less at the same situation, with Hydro being their main power source. With it you also have the risk of a dry year, but its less probable, although you never know with climate change.

Regarding the diversity of sources, I disagree. IMO having a somehow balanced mix is better than relying disproportionally from one single source.

I will continue later, as I have to leave now, but for the record I am no rabid anti nuclear activist, I just think that it is not the somehow magical source of energy that most people over here think it is. 

[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.

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.

So BC should diversify away from hydro and open a nuclear plant?

[frunk]

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.

Dam Failures.  There have been more people killed by dams breaking than by all the nuclear weapons/accidents.  You are fooling yourself if you think an earthquake that can cause a dangerous nuclear accident wouldn't have an equally disastrous effect on a dam (which is much more likely to be near a fault line).

[The Brain]

Language.

[frunk]

Sorry.

[Duque de Bragança]

Stupid Ségolène and Greens.

Fixed!
The bill will not pass or will be emasculated. It's not like Hollande has billions to spend to finance this transition. The CGT (trade union linked to the Commies) and the nuclear lobby will unite against it if necessary.

[crazy canuck]

Hydro plants have an unfortunate tendency to collapse at inopportune moments, for instance when people live in the valleys or plains below.

And nuclear plants have an unfortunate tendency to release radiation.

Seems to me a good reason to do both, where possible, in case one fails.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Dam Failures.  There have been more people killed by dams breaking than by all the nuclear weapons/accidents.  You are fooling yourself if you think an earthquake that can cause a dangerous nuclear accident wouldn't have an equally disastrous effect on a dam (which is much more likely to be near a fault line).

Why are dams more likely to be built near fault lines?  Did someone forget to tell the Japanese that? 

[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.

So BC should diversify away from hydro and open a nuclear plant?

How one could possibly get that statement from what I said is more than just puzzling

[frunk]

Why are dams more likely to be built near fault lines?  Did someone forget to tell the Japanese that?

There's no requirement to site a nuclear plant in a given location apart from being close to what it is supplying power to.  Locations for dams are dependent on geography, and where there are fault lines are frequently good locations for dams.

I'm not sure what the Japanese have to do with it.

[Valmy]

Stupid Ségolène and Greens.

Fixed!
The bill will not pass or will be emasculated. It's not like Hollande has billions to spend to finance this transition. The CGT (trade union linked to the Commies) and the nuclear lobby will unite against it if necessary.

Ah you are right.  The article mentioned this in the last paragraph but if you do not read it carefully it gives the impression this passed and is a law.  If it is just a bill well that means nothing.

The title of the article is incredibly misleading and basically a lie.  A bill was proposed France has done nothing yet.

[The Brain]

Hydro plants have an unfortunate tendency to collapse at inopportune moments, for instance when people live in the valleys or plains below.

And nuclear plants have an unfortunate tendency to release radiation.

Seems to me a good reason to do both, where possible, in case one fails.

Unfortunately masses of water suddenly released are much more dangerous than radiation.

More to the core of the matter though is that many natural disasters, and certainly earthquakes, are fairly localized things. A monster earthquake could conceivably take out a nuclear site in France, but it won't take out nuclear sites all over France. The same is generally true for other energy producing sites. This being so it is more important that your power plants are spread out in a country (which tends to be the case anyway for transmission loss reasons) and not all concentrated at a single site, than exactly how many different types of plants you have.