Another Aussie Tesla battery blaze

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

You said:

In the same block, you also mentioned the 50-year amortization period. Gen III+ and IV plants contain passive elements that were, ironically, designed to both improve safety and reduce cost, but, due to an atrophied manufacturing sector and the red tape of the NRC, still ended up producing more expensive plants, as we see from Vogtle 3/4.

The point is that nuclear power plants have to be in place for a significant period of time. The longer the time period, the more exposed to risk from unlikely events. Arguing over whether what "decades" or "on the order of" means, or whether it is closer to 30 or 50 years steers the conversation away from the logical core of the idea. We could argue all day over the multitude of variables that should count on the balance sheet for construction costs, nuclear waste disposal costs, etc. That's all missing the point, which is just that the longer something is around, the higher the chances are its existence will overlap with an unlikely event.

Do you have any examples that aren't from the UCS? They are vehemently anti-nuclear:
Nuclear Power | Union of Concerned Scientists (ucsusa.org)

I'm not dismissing what you are saying, but I'd prefer something unbiased. It's a bit like somebody bringing up Jacobson or Lovins.

1. I already posted them. The articles show that the fault system is capable of generating magnitude 7.5 events, which are sufficient to challenge the threshold of safety at Diablo Canyon.

2. You can't dismiss this just because you don't like what it says. The points are cogent, reasoned, and backed with data.

That's not what I'm saying. My point is that the data used to design the plants that have been running for the past 50-60 years, free from incident due to seismic causes, makes a very strong case for the validity of that process.

This may be the core of where we disagree, actually. I disagree that 50 years of being incident-free makes a strong case for safety when the key variables are very unlikely (like, 1:10,000) events.

OK, but it hasn't happened, right? We can both agree on that. So that needs to be acknowledged.

Yes, for what that is worth. Only extremely dubious conclusions can be made from it.

What exactly am I ignoring? My desire was to get the mischaracterization of what transpired at Fukushima cleared up. As I said, if you are willing to cede that, then we can move on, I have no problem with that.

Just wanted you to acknowledge your mistake. I don't mind talking about Diablo Canyon at all.

OK, zoom out and take a bigger picture view of the event and I hope that will help explain how the system at large failed to 'anticipate.' You're focused on the individual mechanism of how the tsumani failed to be mitigated (regulatory capture), but if you take a much more zoomed out view, the word anticipate when applied to the greater system that led to the disaster becomes more valid. This notion that it's some sort of evidence that I don't understand anything about Fukushima seems to me to be an argumentative device that I really do not appreciate. It's just not true.

Go ahead. Where have I professed to be a geologist? My comments on Fukushima Daiichi are factual, I've not commented on the issues surrounding Diablo Canyon, as it wasn't a major component of this discussion until this post.

It actually was, because you asked specifically for an example. I provided it waaay up there.

Are you high? I asked you to acknowledge that you mischaracterized Fukushima, read the bloody thread, very little attention was given to Diablo Canyon until this post. I'm more than willing to discuss that plant, but I'm not going to be baited into some psychological black hole where an alternative version of this thread focused on something completely different.

Man, you asked me for an example. I gave it. It's really that simple.

You brought them up because of my comments on your mischaracterization of Fuskushima Daiichi, which I appreciate, and I appreciate your experience, but we still aren't into having a productive discussion at this point because this post has gone into the weeds in multiple areas, including judgement of my character and my motives.

And likewise mine.

History is a good predictor of future behaviour and we'd be foolish to ignore it. Japan's history of tsunamis was used in their modelling to predict future activity, which was validated by the 2011 event.

Totally. But the past 50 years, and perhaps even all of recorded human history is insufficient for risk assessment on this subject. We have to use our understanding of deeper history to model.

But yes, absolutely, those aspects should be considered as well. It should be a concerted effort to establish the safety of a site, using all available data. And, if the site ends up being less than ideally located (I'm thinking Japan) then sufficient civil accommodations must be made to ensure safety, and this does not exempt the facility from future upgrades being necessitated by emergent data that expands on the knowledge that was used for the initial construction.

Correct.

Good. Glad we agree.

Now, what specifically would you like to discuss about Diablo Canyon? And should we make that a new thread, because this is a thread about an Australian battery fire and we are so far OT it's laughable.

Same. I'll let you make your decision on what to think of Diablo Canyon.

 

[OVERKILL]

The point is that nuclear power plants have to be in place for a significant period of time. The longer the time period, the more exposed to risk from unlikely events. Arguing over whether what "decades" or "on the order of" means, or whether it is closer to 30 or 50 years steers the conversation away from the logical core of the idea. We could argue all day over the multitude of variables that should count on the balance sheet for construction costs, nuclear waste disposal costs, etc. That's all missing the point, which is just that the longer something is around, the higher the chances are its existence will overlap with an unlikely event.

The initial comment was about the financial aspect of it, where the amortization period plays a significant role. Whether this is recouped in 30 or 50 years, that's a significant difference if the lifespan of the facility is 80.
This quote:

Reactor design must balance initial investment cost with likelihood of given events. The lower the perceived likelihood, the less likely the cost will be undertaken. Regulatory measures can be implemented, forcing mitigations, and driving up the costs. Reactors must amortize over decades, often on the order of a half century,

So, whether it takes 30 or 50 years to pay off that initial investment, that's a big difference.

It's also a discussion that's a bit tangential from the one you appear to want to be having, so let's leave that out of the new thread.

1. I already posted them. The articles show that the fault system is capable of generating magnitude 7.5 events, which are sufficient to challenge the threshold of safety at Diablo Canyon.

2. You can't dismiss this just because you don't like what it says. The points are cogent, reasoned, and backed with data.


This may be the core of where we disagree, actually. I disagree that 50 years of being incident-free makes a strong case for safety when the key variables are very unlikely (like, 1:10,000) events.


Yes, for what that is worth. Only extremely dubious conclusions can be made from it.


OK, zoom out and take a bigger picture view of the event and I hope that will help explain how the system at large failed to 'anticipate.' You're focused on the individual mechanism of how the tsumani failed to be mitigated (regulatory capture), but if you take a much more zoomed out view, the word anticipate when applied to the greater system that led to the disaster becomes more valid. This notion that it's some sort of evidence that I don't understand anything about Fukushima seems to me to be an argumentative device that I really do not appreciate.


It actually was, because you asked specifically for an example. I provided it waaay up there.


Man, you asked me for an example. I gave it. It's really that simple.


And likewise mine.


Totally. But the past 50 years, and perhaps even all of recorded human history is insufficient for risk assessment on this subject. We have to use our understanding of deeper history to model.


Correct.


Same. I'll let you make your decision on what to think of Diablo Canyon.

We can discuss all of this in the new thread I've created, let's allow this thread to go back on topic now please.

 

[zzyzzx]

At some point these electric car fires are going to prevent people from getting homeowners insurance.

 

[PandaBear]

At some point these electric car fires are going to prevent people from getting homeowners insurance.

I hate to say, governments have been very lenient in many nations allowing questionable behaviors and practices to exist all over the world, whether they are democracy or dictatorship. In the end the owners and renters have to protect themselves and that manifests into insurance companies have to protect themselves by either mandating certain safety standard, segregating liabilities between owners (car insurance have to cover house fire from EV, or different quotes between garage parked vehicles vs street parking), or mandate home fire safety standard to delay garage fires so people can escape. Or certain fire safety standard in EV batteries eventually.

Ideally if we live in a world where gov mandates the right code we don't have to do this, but insurance have been mandating a lot of stuff to protect us.