Posted by Vaughn on May 5, 2012, 1:42 pm
Now we see the second half of the Fukushima environmental disaster. This
half will likely cause worse, longer lasting, and much wider damage than
the first half, but it won't make headlines. Japan has overreacted by
abandoning nuclear power. Since they haven't had the time to make up
the gap with alternative energy sources, it's safe to say the they are
doing it with fossil plants, and like China, doing so with little or no
regard to emissions.
Posted by Roberto Deboni DMIsr on May 5, 2012, 8:53 pm
On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:32:44 -0700, Bob F wrote:
And what have nuclear power plants done to Japan ?
40 years of prosperity ?
less polluted cities ?
less energy dependence ?
Posted by Roberto Deboni DMIsr on May 5, 2012, 10:30 pm
On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:53:27 -0700, Bob F wrote:
But I though we where writing about Japan.
Japan has no shale gas. No coal. No oil.
And that changes the economics dramatically.
But if we consider the greenhouse problem, United States
economics may change ... in the future.
Posted by Vaughn on May 6, 2012, 1:43 am
On 5/5/2012 6:30 PM, Roberto Deboni DMIsr wrote:
All true. Also, the economic argument is beside the point because Japan
already had the nuke plants, so the construction costs were all sunk.
Last I heard, fuel costs for an existing nuke plant are cheap compared
Posted by bob haller on May 6, 2012, 9:05 pm
most of the japanese nuke plants are around 40 years old.........
thats the age they should be replaced.
japan nearly lost tokyo and its country. the fukashima plants have
elevated waste core storage pools nthat are structurally damaged by
hydrogen explosions during the inital accident.
another earthquake could collapse the pools