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.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/05/japan-shuts-down-last-nuclear-reactor
Vaughn
Posted by Roberto Deboni DMIsr on May 5, 2012, 8:53 pm
On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:32:44 -0700, Bob F wrote:
> Vaughn wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/05/japan-shuts-down-last-nuclear-reactor
>>
>>
> After what nuclear power plants did to Japan, I'd hardly say they have
> "overreacted".
And what have nuclear power plants done to Japan ?
40 years of prosperity ?
less polluted cities ?
less energy dependence ?
--
Robert Deboni
Posted by Roberto Deboni DMIsr on May 5, 2012, 10:30 pm
On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:53:27 -0700, Bob F wrote:
> Roberto Deboni DMIsr wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:32:44 -0700, Bob F wrote:
>>
>>> Vaughn wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/05/japan-shuts-down-last-nuclear-reactor
>>>>
>>>>
>>> After what nuclear power plants did to Japan, I'd hardly say they have
>>> "overreacted".
>>
>> And what have nuclear power plants done to Japan ?
>>
>> 40 years of prosperity ?
>> less polluted cities ?
>> less energy dependence ?
>
> from
>
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/04/nuclear-power-is-expensive-and-bad-for-the-environment-it-is-really-being-pushed-because-it-is-good-for-making-bombs.html
>
> Forbes points out:
>
> Nuclear power is no longer an economically viable source of new energy
> in the United States,
Correct.
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.
--
Robert Deboni
Posted by Vaughn on May 6, 2012, 1:43 am
On 5/5/2012 6:30 PM, Roberto Deboni DMIsr wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:53:27 -0700, Bob F wrote:
>>
>> Nuclear power is no longer an economically viable source of new energy
>> in the United States,
> Correct.
> But I though we where writing about Japan.
> Japan has no shale gas. No coal. No oil.
> And that changes the economics dramatically.
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
to alternatives.
Vaughn
Posted by bob haller on May 6, 2012, 9:05 pm
> Vaughn wrote:
> > On 5/5/2012 6:30 PM, Roberto Deboni DMIsr wrote:
> >> On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:53:27 -0700, Bob F wrote:
> >>> Nuclear power is no longer an economically viable source of new
> >>> energy in the United States,
> >> Correct.
> >> But I though we where writing about Japan.
> >> Japan has no shale gas. No coal. No oil.
> >> And that changes the economics dramatically.
> > 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 to alternatives.
> Maybe thay've already lost enough land and money to failed nukes.
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
XML site map
>> 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.
>>
>>