We should look for upbeat and heartwarming stories, like how the banksters are doing.  You know, the bitchin’ cool places where they are vacationing, the awesome homes they own, their adorable wives and mistresses…

Yeah, that doesn’t work for me either. And it would probably be a breach of netiquette to encroach on the turf of the NYT’s Lifestyle section.

Perhaps the largest single cause of unpredicted failures in complex systems is that multiple components, supposedly independent and redundant, can all fail at the same time for unforeseeable reasons. These can be “commonmode” failures—multiple failures of identical, redundant components in the same manner—or “common-cause” failures—multiple failures, caused by a single initiating event, of components that are different from each other but aresupposed to do the same task. For example, identical valves can fail at the same time if they are all exposed to conditions for which they were not designed, or if they were designed or built wrongly: a common-mode failure

From “Brittle Power”, Lovins and Lovins 1984.

I’m reaching peak panic mode myself. I would have sworn a couple of years ago that Palin was the pinnacle of absurdity, but she is merely a stepping stone to complete and total insanity. States changing laws that protect children under the age of 15 from working? Heartbeat laws? Union busting?and on the other hand, earthquakes and tsunamis that rock a region and people claim it’s karmic retribution for Pearl Harbor?

WTF. WTF. WTF.

I’m worn out. I agree that things have gone so far into cloud cuckooland that we may never see sanity again.

And Kasich. Jesus, quit killing Ohio, for pete’s sake.

@meepmeep09: Only Alessandra Stanley can save us now.

@rootless_e—Fuck you and your Luddite horse.

And now the stock market is down 235 points. Those Wall Street trollops never could hold their fudge. Jump, you fuckers!

I never thought that at age 50 I’d rediscover sucking my thumb.

Apparently one Jim Cramer on CNBC’s Mad Money thinks the Japanese authorities are blasting these plants with seawater rather than dumping vast quantities of concrete on them because they plan on reusing them when all the fuss dies down.

I don’t have much time for web trawling today. Has anyone suggested they nuke the plants to cut to the chase and get it all over and done with yet?

YAFB, they’ve already pumped boron and seawater into them. I don’t think those plants will ever be started up again. Pouring concrete on them would be a pretty idiotic idea.

dumping vast quantities of concrete on them because they plan on reusing them when all the fuss dies down.

Cramer’s the kind of guy who tries to put out grease fires with water.

Thread title’s contagious, huh? ;)

Pouring concrete on them would be a pretty idiotic idea.

Yeah, but it would be fun to watch what it does!

I hope Cramer never meets up with Bill Kristol. That much concentrated Wrongness might very well cause a Cosmic Anomaly that makes 10,000 Chernobyls look like a weenie-roast.

No worries. We could dump a few gazillion tonnes of concrete on them. No plans to reuse them after that.

How anyone can live and watch cable TV is beyond me.

BTW: Luddites were not against technology, they were against starving.

I’m a big fan of technology. I’m against stupid engineering.

I’m against stupid engineering.

...as defined by Armory Lovins and the Power Elves at Stanford.

Darn. If only Brittle Power had come out 15 years earlier, this wouldn’t have happened. And everyone in Northern Japan would be living in geodesic domes and driving Dymaxion Cars. But they still wouldn’t be using solar and wind as primary power sources.

If I designed a reactor that, 30 years after it was built, survived a 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami with only a class 5 INES incident to show for it, I’d be expecting high fives and free blow jobs.

Brittle power came out in 1984. The Union of Concerned Scientists critique of nuclear was much earlier. Sadly, it appears that the commitment of nuclear advocates to models that do not match reality is even stronger than Wall Streets’ love of mortgage risk models that discounted possibilities of a drop in housing prices.

The pro-nuclear side is so committed to its narrative that any criticism is based on hippy drug use and mysticism it can sneer at Stanford Civil Engineering as “power elves”. The fact remains that the anti-nuclear criticism has been validated by experiment. Reality is what it is.

Now it looks like they’ll be using helicopters to drop water on Unit 4’s spent fuel pool.

Hope they have a lot of helicopters.

If I designed a reactor that, 30 years after it was built, survived a 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami with only a class 5 INES incident to show for it, I’d be expecting high fives and free blow jobs.

Comment by justlen on 03/15/11 at 10:22 AM

Class 6, but who is counting?

My advice is to keep your zipper up.

If I designed a reactor that, 30 years after it was built, survived a 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami with only a class 5 INES incident to show for it, I’d be expecting high fives and free blow jobs.

Probably quicker, easier, and less risky to become a pop star in some beat combo.

It would take some pretty twisted logic to use this near-apocolyptic event at a very old plant to argue against new plant construction.

Crap, you can completely cut power to and from a Gen III GE design, and it’ll just sit there muttering at you - no problem.

You can blow a hole through a gen IV (Johannes/Cummings pebble bed) reactor and have nothing worse than some hot marbles. One or two dudes with bunny suits and vaccums, no problem.

Jump to a Thorium reactor and I’d build a daycare on top of it.

The technology failed this time, hence it is no good.

That’s why I stopped driving my car when the spark plugs got fouled. Stupid engineering!

Len, the problem is that when these plants were designed and placed, the risk assessments were expressed in so many incidents per many thousands of years. It’s crap, and a methodology still used in planning now.

Anti-nukers (and I’m one, BTW) don’t do anyone any favors when they go full-on hysterical and “We told you so” in the midst of events like this. Pro-nukers who poo-poo the anger and concern likewise do their own views little good in such circumstances.

YAFB, it’s a 40 year old design and the plant will be retired. They have finite operating lives.

Modern designs have very little in common.

They have finite operating lives.

Evidently!

Len, you’re talking about public trust. Similar arguments were used when these plants were built. I don’t have the resources to check, but I’d imagine a 9.0 quake plus a rapidly following tsunami wasn’t considered something worth planning for, or they’d have over-engineered and had more backup systems in place.

For me, the problem with nuclear is that nuclear advocates seem lost in some technological fantasy that prevents them from actually engaging in rational argument. If Stanford produces a study that shows mixed green technologies can produce reliable base power and your response is “luddites” and “Power elves” you are engaging in something that is not rational argument. If the UCS argument about common-mode and common-event failures making PRA studies invalid is repeatedly validated by “improbable” failures that turn out to happen, and your response is that life is risky, then you are not confronting reality.

If you are going to say that only the US has a nuclear waste problem while a fire is starting in Japan in a jam packed used fuel pool, you are really nuts.

The Left can calm down now.

Nah. When Hillary’s lost BTD, then you know it’s all over:

What I have not seen is criticism of Crowley’s boss, the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who should have defended Crowley. Instead, she is now complicit in the Obama Administration’s disgraceful behavior. Shame on the Secretary of State. This is the most disgraceful moment of her tenure.

Speaking for me only

From what I have read what they designed for was:

-largest quake recorded.
-Largest Tsunami recorded. Then they doubled it.

I am not trivializing the horror of this accident. But it was an unprecedented series of events, and the reaction (primarily in the press) is driving me nuts.

Just yesterday the press was camped out at San Onofre badgering the plant manager with “could it happen here?” Again, not dealing in facts but trying to get him to use the word “meltdown.”

I am not trivializing the horror of this accident. But it was an unprecedented series of events

It’s such a historically new energy source with unique risks that “unprecedented series of events” shouldn’t be surprising.

I’m not keen on rolling out new untried technologies worldwide when there are alternatives that have fewer implications for the environment, less troubling political ramifications, are less susceptible to cutting safety corners for economic reasons, and have some sort of figured-out back-end stream to deal with decommissioning and waste disposal.

From what I have read what they designed for was:

-largest quake recorded.
-Largest Tsunami recorded. Then they doubled it.

I am not trivializing the horror of this accident. But it was an unprecedented series of events, and the reaction (primarily in the press) is driving me nuts.

Right. So they created a risk model in which certain events were treated as too improbable to merit consideration. Then those events happened.

Watching the press ask why a nuke couldn’t be used to close the hole at the BP spill convinced me to not watch the press. Watching the Japanese press conference last night was a reminder of just how outstandingly stupid our press corp has become

So they created a risk model in which certain events were treated as too improbable to merit consideration.

There’s a term in UK nuclear safety planning (maybe the US, too, I don’t know—believe it or not, in some respects you’re way more cautious in the US than we are in the UK): ALARA - in terms of emissions, As Low As Reasonably Achievable. It’s an economic criterion. That’ll always be a factor.

@ rootless_e: At least we can agree on one thing.

Pro-nukers who poo-poo the anger and concern likewise do their own views little good in such circumstances.

Brit, I apologize for being short-tempered with critics who seem to think that nuclear power was developed by dumb people who intentionally employed misleading mathematical techniques to disguise the inevitable death-toll of their heinous creation. I also have no use for people who appear to be gloating over this event because it validates the embrace of pie-in-the-sky bullshit scenarios involving totally-distributed “Village” power. I won’t indict the choices made 40 or 60 years ago because a working alternative might be commercially feasible in 2050, assuming we totally terraform the creaky US grid and find a few trillion dollars to install wind turbines, solar panels, and hydrogen fuel cells every every half-mile or so. 

I’m not “pro-nuke,” and I never will be until someone gets a handle on what to do with spent fuel and low-level waste products. Otherwise, for an inherently dangerous process, it’s been remarkably free of major accidents, although it’s had plenty of scary moments.

The Japanese chose to build nuclear plants for any number of reasons that were compelling at the time, including fuel diversification, national pride, and development on in-country technology expertise and export revenue potential, as well as—ironically—national security. To stand by like Nelson and say “HAH-hah!” because things are fucked up at Fukishima is the best evidence I’ve seen lately that human beings are descended from slugs.

One of the many annoying things about US press/political culture is the theory that any risks or costs or tradeoffs must be the result of malfeasance. This means that instead of figuring out what one is willing to give up for some goal, the appropriate response is to get angry.

I have been reading from several places that they have stabilized two of the four reactors. Haven’t seen anything official.

Speaking for me only, no apology necessary, Strange. Given the circs, I think a little impatience is understandable wherever you stand on these issues.

Energy conservation is one of the least sexy technologies out there. How we can progress when half the polity of the largest-consuming and arguably most technologically advanced nation in the world is intent on making the continued use of costly, shortlived incandescent lightbulbs a hill to die on, FFS, I’m not sure.

My problem is that the questions of peak oil, population growth, large-scale new industrialization, and climate change aren’t new, and were predicted many years ago. We shouldn’t be starting from here in this day and age, but here we are.

I’d have more faith in the engineers to do their damnedest to design and build robust systems if it wasn’t for the amounts of investment required, the involvement of for-profit corporations with all that entails, and a long history of graft and regulatory failures—and the clincher—all this overseen by politicians.

Certainly on my part there is no gloating, far from it. But I’m not going to be silent when people claim this is a validation of the success of the design. The failure we are seeing is exactly the type of failure that the UCS forecast 40 years ago and that we were told was the panicked imaginings of scientific illiterates and Luddites who just didn’t understand how PRAs worked.

As for your critique of the Standford study, it lacks some content. I’m in favor of making energy choices rationally based on costs and social values, not on prejudices about what solutions are not macho enough.

If Stanford produces a study that shows mixed green technologies can produce reliable base power and your response is “luddites” and “Power elves”

You linked to one study that concludes that wind farm power production can be made more reliably consistent by linking several windfarms on a mini-grid. Whoopee.

You linked to another study that says the world can produce 17 trillion watts of power with renewable energy if it closes down all fossil and nuclear sources and replaces them with 17 trillion watts of renewable generating sources.

A large-scale wind, water, and solar energy system can reliably supply all of the world’s energy needs, with significant benefit to climate, air quality, water quality, ecological systems, and energy security, at reasonable cost. To accomplish this, we need about 4 million 5 MW wind turbines, 90,000 300-MW solar PV plus CSP power plants, 1.9 billion 3 kW solar PV rooftop systems, and lesser amounts of geothermal, tidal, wave, and hydroelectric plants and devices.

No arguments there. With infinite time and money and a total reinvention of distribution and control infrastructure, I’ll bet they can do it—although it would help a lot if any of the technologies the study promotes actually worked as well as their assumptions. BTW, I also enjoyed the “Ringworld” novels.

If the UCS argument about common-mode and common-event failures making PRA studies invalid is repeatedly validated by “improbable” failures that turn out to happen, and your response is that life is risky, then you are not confronting reality.

That wasn’t my response. I’m very happy to see PRA refined and made more robust and reliable over time…at least until better methods come along. Kudos to Lovins for spotting the flaws, but that doesn’t make the people who designed the Fukushima plantS criminals…and it doesn’t necessarily invalidate the underlying theory.

I’m in favor of making energy choices rationally based on costs and social values, not on prejudices about what solutions are not macho enough.

Oh, well aren’t you a Big Boy.

No arguments there. With infinite time and money and a total reinvention of distribution and control infrastructure, I’ll bet they can do it. Plus, it would also help if any of the technologies the study promotes actually worked as well as their assumptions. BTW, I also enjoyed the “Ringworld” novels.

The Stanford study, which is not the only one, looks at the common “wisdom” that wind/solar cannot satisfy base power requirements and indicates that it’s not necessarily so.  Thus, when we make decisions about where to invest to upgrade our existing grid, that we do not have to make nuclear/coal choices - at least not right away.  It’s a pretty sober engineering study and to compare it to juvenile Sci-Fi really undercuts your argument.

I’m not 100% against nuclear. In fact, there are promising SMR designs. But when people rankly assert that we need nukes to meet baseline demand, they are speaking from received wisdom, not from actual evaluation. What would help also is if people who support nuclear didn’t veer into PR at every excuse. If you are going to e.g. champion molten salt reactors, it would be good to upfront note that you are not talking about table salt but about super high temperature sodium fluoride tubes (probably mixed with berylium) running through high pressure steam tubes and so there are issues of poison, corrosion and fire to consider.

If you are going to e.g. champion molten salt reactors, it would be good to upfront note that you are not talking about table salt but about super high temperature sodium fluoride tubes (probably mixed with berylium) running through high pressure steam tubes and so there are issues of poison, corrosion and fire to consider

.

The Navy tried that. Didn’t work out so well.

It’s a pretty sober engineering study and to compare it to juvenile Sci-Fi really undercuts your argument.

Actually, it’s a pretty short term-paper that ennobles itself by pretending to assess the availability of rare materials used in solar and other renewable power technologies. Otherwise, it totally ignores the actual costs of the technology and control and distribution overlays; implementation strategy/sequence/costs of retiring existing sources; comparative lifetime costs including maintenance and replacement; siting limitations; and current lack of a manufacturing base to meet the requirement. 4 million 5MW wind turbines? Really? That should be interesting.

The study itself admits that what it’s talking about is a Manhattan Project/Apollo Mission-style wall-to-wall transformation of power production (which even then is a tremendous understatement). And what they’ve sketched out here is more nearly aspirational than executable.

Oh, and does Kevin K. need to change the clocks and check the smoke detectors for this joint?

Yes, he does…and I keep forgetting to remind him. Thanks, meep!

Oh lord, CNN just said that the hydrogen generation meant that the core temperature must be at least 2200F.

Where’s that bottle of Gin?

All this technology foofaraw is so confusing.

True. Modern wind turbines are so simple and untechnological compared to boiling water. And smart grid is just some wires on poles. And obviously doubting the engineering brilliance or economic sense of nuclear power is EXACTLY the same as being a follower of Pol Pot.

Your hair-shirt is showing, dude.

Please don’t harsh on my plans for internet fame and fortune, rootless. That whole Godwin thing has been worked to death. Meep’s Law shall be a new and innovative rule of Teh Intertubes, wherein first mention of Pol Pot shall indicate that an online dispute has exceeded criticality (so to speak).

I only wish I had come up with it back when you were doing daily battle with the atriots over HCR; oh well, innovation delayed is fortune lost, or, something…

The IAEA is reporting that the radiation level at Fukushima is 0.6mSv. That was at 0600UTC.

anything useful to see/hear there?

You’re a liberal in the know, Meep.  It’ll probably all be rehash for you.

“meeps law” is pretty good.