[mpweiher]

> six reactors.

Pardon me: a single power plant. Well, not even a whole power plant. Parts of a single power plant. Doesn't change anything.

> The Earthquake caused shutdowns of nuclear power plants. throughout the country

You are trying to insinuate that the earthquake somehow caused damage to the plants so that they needed to be shut down. This is not the case:

"Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

The reactors were fine. The decision to shut them down was a political one, not a technical one.

>> "Build new ones." Guess your interpretation wasn't correct.

> You can't fully read the thing you posted?

Yes I can. Alas, you don't seem to be able to read or remember what you wrote:

>>> "3-fold" just means, that they want to restart some of the old reactors.

This was false and continues to be false. They are building new ones.

> In reality China brings two coal power plants per week online.

Yes, in addition to building out nuclear and renewables, China is als still building coal plants.

Can you explain how that is related to anything? I mean, they als build cities, bridges, railway lines, ships, ...

> Nuclear is too late, too expensive, ...

Citation needed.

Nuclear is quicker than renewables. France converted their electricity to nuclear in 20 years. Germany has taken 20 years so far to try the same with renewables and we are flailing. We have the 2nd most expensive and 2nd dirtiest electricity in the EU. And we haven't even started on the more difficult part yet.

> ...the last years.

The underinvestment into nuclear in the last 10-20 years is a well-known problem that is just now being corrected. Linearly extrapolating the past is ... not wise. Particularly when there has been a massive policy change.

Germany is alone in the world with its Atomausstieg. The rest of the world is looking at us with pity and bemusement while they build reliable, grid-level electricity generating capacity in the form of nuclear reactors.

[lispm]

> Pardon me: a single power plant. Well, not even a whole power plant. Parts of a single power plant. Doesn't change anything.

A large power plant with six reactors. Zero of them are operating anymore. None will. Nothing of that was a political decision.

> The reactors were fine.

Fukushima reactors have three melted cores. They are fine?

> The decision to shut them down was a political one, not a technical one.

Look, you claim that you are knowing it better than the authorities in Japan. This is laughable.

[mpweiher]

>> The reactors were fine.

> Fukushima reactors have three melted cores.

We were talking about the non-Fukushima reactors. Which you claim were "shut down by the earthquake".

Which were not shut down by the earthquake.

>> The decision to shut them down was a political one, not a technical one.

> Look, you claim that you are knowing it better than the authorities in Japan. This is laughable.

No, I am quoting. Once again:

"Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japan

They withstood the earthquake. They were not shut down by the earthquake.

The one claims to know better than the Japanese authorities is the one who says they are not building new plants, just reactivating old plants. When the Japanese themselves say they will be building new plants.

[lispm]

> They withstood the earthquake. They were not shut down by the earthquake.

You know nothing about safety of nuclear power plants in Japan?

There is a nuclear power plant. Then there is a strong earthquake.

Technical systems will automatically shutdown the powerplant, if the earthquake is of a certain strengths. If not, it might be shutdown because of other factors (like loss of outside electricity).

Then one does not know the state of the power plant.

Then an inspection will determine the state of the powerplant. It might also be the case that damage was minor. Still the question again: is this powerplant still safe to operate? Will it survive another earthquake? Are the assumptions about the strength of earthquake still correct etc.

It will be determined if powerplants will need technical improvements, for example powerplants on the coast might need better flood protections. It is then seen if technical improvements are possible & economical.

Take for example Fukushima Daini, another nuclear powerplant on the coast:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daini_Nuclear_Power_...

To make it clear to you: Daini is ANOTHER power plant and not the Daiichi powerplant. It also sits on the coast and it has four reactors. A single powerplant with four reactors, on the coast. Affected by both the Earthquake and the Tsunami (which was caused by the Earthquake).

"All four units were automatically shut down (scram) immediately after the earthquake"

"The tsunami caused the plant's seawater pumps, used to cool reactors, to fail. Of the plant's four reactors, three were in danger of meltdown.[19] One external high-voltage power line still functioned, allowing plant staff in the central control room to monitor data on internal reactor temperatures and water levels. 2,000 employees of the plant worked to stabilize the reactors. Some employees connected over 9 kilometers of cabling using 200-meter sections of cable, each weighing more than a ton, from their Rad Waste Building to other locations onsite."

"The tsunami that followed the earthquake and inundated the plant was initially estimated by TEPCO to be 14 meters high, which would have been more than twice the designed height.[11] Other sources give the tsunami height at Fukushima Daini plant at 9-meter-high"

"In unit 3, one seawater pump remained operational and the residual heat removal system (RHR) was started to cool the suppression pool and later brought the reactor to cold shutdown on March 12."

"The loss of cooling water at reactors 1, 2 and 4 was classified a level 3 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (serious incident) by Japanese authorities as of March 18."

"As of June 2011, 7,000 tons of seawater from the tsunami remained in the plant. The plant planned to release it all back into the ocean, as the tanks and structures holding the water were beginning to corrode. Approximately 3,000 tons of the water was found to contain radioactive substances, and Japan's Fisheries Agency refused permission to release that water back into the ocean."

and so on.

The reactor was early on in a critical state and three more meltdowns were feared.

You did not do any research on what happened with the reactors in Japan.

Sad.

They had a lot of luck that this powerplant did not have the same fate as the one in Fukushima Daiichi.

TEPCO has closed the plant and it will be decommissioned.

The Japanese nuclear industry was prone to corruption, incompetence and criminal behavior. Especially TEPCO the owner of the plants:

https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/fumbling-toward-f...

"On March 2, 2011, just days before the start of the current earthquake catastrophe, Japan's nuclear regulators lobbed accusations of mass negligence against Tepco. It alleged that Tepco had failed to inspect 33 pieces of equipment at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, one of the sites of the current catastrophe, including central cooling system elements in the six reactors, and spent fuel pools that hadn't been inspected according to regulations. The company has since admitted to having made the errors."

"At the same time, Tepco also reported to the nuclear regulatory authority that it had not only failed to do the 33 inspections at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant, but also 19 further inspections at the nearby Fukushima-Daini plant."

Just shortly before the Earthquake, the reactors were claimed to be safe by Tepco.

[mpweiher]

Thanks for digging up the story about Daini.

Checking the Wikipedia page, this was a sister plant to the one with the meltdown, located very similarly and inundated by the same 14m Tsunami that was twice the height both plants were designed for.

It got a bit luckier and avoided the same fate.

So same kind of plant, same Tsunami, better results.

What exactly was your point here?

Oh, and there was corruption in the Japanese nuclear industry.

I also remember reading about those problems after Fukushima, and that actually informed my change in opinion about nuclear power:

There was corruption, they were using an old design, they disregarded new directives, the Tsunami was unprecedented.

Yet despite all that crap going on, very few people were harmed by the reactor accident, whereas a LOT were harmed by the Tsunami.

Maybe this nuclear stuff isn't nearly as dangerous as I thought?

[lispm]

> What exactly was your point here?

I'm helping you with your own question: I gave you an example where a reactor was not shutdown for 'political reasons'. It was shutdown because it was a crap safety design, which almost caused additional meltdowns.

> So same kind of plant, same Tsunami, better results.

But not good results. The results were still shit: the reactors had be decommissioned.

> the Tsunami was unprecedented

Was it? Japan sits for several million years on the "ring of fire" with lots of volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis, ...

Here is a list of stronger Earthquakes in the last years... https://www.worlddata.info/asia/japan/earthquakes.php

The 2011 earthquake was only the strongest in the short recorded time. There are similar strong ones on the list. -> Earthquake under sea cause Tsunami.

> Yet despite all that crap going on, very few people were harmed by the reactor accident, whereas a LOT were harmed by the Tsunami.

A few 100k people lost their homes. 10k people will work in the reactors with high radiation over the next thirty years. Japan lost >> 100 billions USD worth of electricity production infrastructure.

What's worse: they built the reactors knowing that there was a chance of a meltdown, the molten fuel went through the reactor containment and was going into a concrete bed underneath, where it also was melting into it. With the Earthquake creating cracks. But the kicker: they had no idea what to do then. No plans, no technology, no sensors, nothing. They had decades time to prepare. They did nothing.

6 years after the accident they were finally able to measure radiation inside a reactor: 530 Sievert per hour...

They were completely clueless what actually happened, because all electronics (sensors, computers, cameras, robots, ...) were useless, because they all were dead because the high radiation. It will take decades to develop the technology to deal with the molten cores themselves. 880 tons of molten nuclear fuel. -> https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsfukushima-decommissioni...

Looks pretty bad, when a single event can take out all their nuclear reactors for years (please don't mention your armchair expert bullshit that it was all politically overreacting on their side).

[mpweiher]

Again, I quoted Wikipedia, just as you did.

"Though all of Japan's nuclear reactors successfully withstood shaking from the Tohoku earthquake..."

And yes, the shutdown of nuclear reactors was primarily political:

Japan Backs Off Of Nuclear Power After Public Outcry

https://www.npr.org/2011/05/11/136209502/japan-backs-off-of-...

"Kan's decisions to back away from nuclear power came after an unusual number of public demonstrations. "

And of course, all this is an irrelevant sideshow.

The point is that you claimed nuclear power is on its way out.

Except that turns out not to be the case, we have had 22 countries committing to tripling nuclear power. Tripling is not "on the way out".

And it turns out that Japan is one of those countries. Something you first denied. Then you claimed they were only reactivating their old reactors. Even if that claim were correct: so what? It's an increase compared to now.

But your claim is not correct: they are actually planning to build new plants.

And of course Japan is just one country of the 22 (+China+India+...). So again, how is nuclear on the way out?

You know what is on its way out? The German Energiewende. A lot of countries were going to follow this model, but most have now reconsidered, and the few that remain are hedging, for example Belgium just extended the life of their reactors. In Switzerland, recent initiatives to turn their reactors off earlier than currently planned were rejected by the electorate, and of course they have >50% reliably hydro power.

In fact, the German public also rejects the Energiewende, around 60% say that getting out of nuclear was a mistake. I have a hard time thinking of anything in recent times that got that kind of a majority.

Mehrheit ist gegen Atomausstieg

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/deutschlandtrend/deutschlan...

And as to the sideshow:

You found another plant that was affected by the Tsunami (not the earthquake directly), as it was a sister plant of the one that melted down and sited about the same, so inundated by the same unprecedented Tsunami.

Now you claim the Tsunami wasn't unprecedented. The Japanese disagree with you, but what do they know? About anything really. You know better than them about their plans for nuclear power, you know better than them about their Tsunamis, you know better than them what the risk/reward of nuclear power is...despite them actually having had to deal with the 2nd worst nuclear accident in history.

Coming back to the Tsunami:

"It was the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan,..."

"Most powerful ever recorded" sounds pretty unprecedented to me.

"The earthquake triggered powerful tsunami waves that may have reached heights of up to 40.5 meters (133 ft) "

"Among the factors in the high death toll was the unexpectedly large water surge. The sea walls in several cities had been built to protect against tsunamis of much lower heights. Also, many people caught in the tsunami thought they were on high enough ground to be safe"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsu...

So a lot of non-nuclear infrastructure in Japan built specifically to withstand or even protect from Tsunamis was...washed away by this Tsunami. To point a finger exclusively at the nuclear infrastructure that was also washed away is either ignorant or dishonest.

'nuff said.