Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: Nuclear power debate: yes or no?
All I can say is, that we don't produce more energy than we consume. It would make no sence economically, and it would kill the grid.
About the number of new reactors: 60 are under construction, and you can be pretty damn sure, they're all going to be completed. Hundreds are planned. A few of these might be cancelled, but the vast majority won't. Most are built in China, Russia and India, and they're not very prone to panic caused be these events. In fact they've all stated, that nuclear power is still essential in their future power supply.
Things can go wrong, no doubt about it. Nature is a strong mofo. But when things go wrong, as they've done in Japan, people on the ground will probably have much bigger problem than a bit of leaking radioactivity. The true disaster in Japan is a natural disaster and not a nuclear disaster - even if it's easy to forget watching the news these days. 20.000+ people has been killed, millions are homeless, entire communities has been washed away, financial damages are extreme. In light of all this the events at Fukushima Daichi seems pretty pale in comparison.
You re trying to minimize but i think this is a very bad argument.
The Japan failure is in this way much worse then Chernobil
It seems quite as a tool that brakes itself exactly in the moment you need it more.
If such a cathastrofic event hits your land you dont really need a black-out too.
And if a black-out could be tolerable you dont need to evacuate 200000 persons because the power plant is out of control.
(edited)
You re trying to minimize but i think this is a very bad argument.
The Japan failure is in this way much worse then Chernobil
It seems quite as a tool that brakes itself exactly in the moment you need it more.
If such a cathastrofic event hits your land you dont really need a black-out too.
And if a black-out could be tolerable you dont need to evacuate 200000 persons because the power plant is out of control.
(edited)
Here you go again, bagatalizing the situation. The problem in Japan is because we can't rely on nature not to strike harder as we predict.
There are 2 disasters in Japan, 1 tsunami, 1 nuclear disaster that keeps on going. Don't bagatalize that! Without the nuclear part it was a normal natural disaster. Yes they happen, unfortunately that's nature. Nuclear power stations aren't nature but the mistake of people supporting these things. You can build a nuclear power plant that can stand earthquakes of 8.0, a 8.5 hits and problems again, they can build 8.5 and a 9.0 happens, problems again. And if an earthquake happens the nuclear power station is expected to hold, the impact of the disaster destroys the complete nuclear power station after that, just as in Japan, great.
But I now see that you really don't want to hear any negative info about nuclear power stations. You have made up your mind and probably will never change again if you can stick your head in the ground that deep not to see all the unpredictable problems that can happen now or in the near future. Not to mention the money involved (yes I know you don't believe the studies), the waste, the alternatives etc etc etc etc .. Not even when a nuclear disaster is going on for, you still say it's almost nothing. Not 1 single alternative will cause so much problems if it goes wrong, and things go wrong, count on that.
There are 2 disasters in Japan, 1 tsunami, 1 nuclear disaster that keeps on going. Don't bagatalize that! Without the nuclear part it was a normal natural disaster. Yes they happen, unfortunately that's nature. Nuclear power stations aren't nature but the mistake of people supporting these things. You can build a nuclear power plant that can stand earthquakes of 8.0, a 8.5 hits and problems again, they can build 8.5 and a 9.0 happens, problems again. And if an earthquake happens the nuclear power station is expected to hold, the impact of the disaster destroys the complete nuclear power station after that, just as in Japan, great.
But I now see that you really don't want to hear any negative info about nuclear power stations. You have made up your mind and probably will never change again if you can stick your head in the ground that deep not to see all the unpredictable problems that can happen now or in the near future. Not to mention the money involved (yes I know you don't believe the studies), the waste, the alternatives etc etc etc etc .. Not even when a nuclear disaster is going on for, you still say it's almost nothing. Not 1 single alternative will cause so much problems if it goes wrong, and things go wrong, count on that.
The Japan failure is in this way much worse then Chernobil
This is just laughable. And it shows you've got no grasp of reality. If you're accusing me of minimizing, let me be the first to accuse you of maximising. Fukushima is in no way comparable to Chernobyl. Noone comparing the facts could claim that.
The black out is undesirable. But what would you expect? Any fossil power plant, any wind mill, any dam, any oil refinery, anything would be affected by a tsunami like that. You've seen some of the tv-footage of the tsunami, right?
This is just laughable. And it shows you've got no grasp of reality. If you're accusing me of minimizing, let me be the first to accuse you of maximising. Fukushima is in no way comparable to Chernobyl. Noone comparing the facts could claim that.
The black out is undesirable. But what would you expect? Any fossil power plant, any wind mill, any dam, any oil refinery, anything would be affected by a tsunami like that. You've seen some of the tv-footage of the tsunami, right?
I'm only putting it all into perspective. Without perspective facts are useless. And perspective is excactly what you lack in this case.
Besides that I don't think you have anything on me when talking about an already made up and unchangeable mind. Reread this thread if you need any evidence. Nothing sticks on you. You're like teflon.
I'm really against nuclear energy yes :) You have 3 kind of people in this discussion, those that are anti-nuclear, those that don't really mind, and those that are pro-nuclear. The last 2 are for me the same, a bit pro is also pro.
For example (I still have to find it) like you told me there is enough uranium to power humanity for a long time, that doesn't convince me to support it, it makes me more scared and sorry for the future of humanity.
For example (I still have to find it) like you told me there is enough uranium to power humanity for a long time, that doesn't convince me to support it, it makes me more scared and sorry for the future of humanity.
I am a little late, but about tidal energy.
First of all, if you show an advertise, and the entire advertise about the product is animated, then you are in problems :P.
Here where I live, in San Francisco, they invested quite some money in tidal energy tests, it started in 2003, after 8 years of testing with different vendors:
Too expensive
As much as I would be proud of living in probably one of the first-renewable-energy-big-city thingy, don't know if this is the right approach.
The project is still going on though.
First of all, if you show an advertise, and the entire advertise about the product is animated, then you are in problems :P.
Here where I live, in San Francisco, they invested quite some money in tidal energy tests, it started in 2003, after 8 years of testing with different vendors:
Too expensive
As much as I would be proud of living in probably one of the first-renewable-energy-big-city thingy, don't know if this is the right approach.
The project is still going on though.
Then you haven't watched the video, they already build and tested the concept shown in the video. Also this same concept is already tested with wind power and it showed it works perfectly (wind directions doesn't matter by the design). You have a circular movement, connect a dynamo and you have power :) Even I could make this device in a smaller version with the right tools.
And at the moment many projects are going on, maybe a bit to many. The more money invested in 1 concept, the cheaper it becomes. But that's not really happening at the moment. On the other hand, prototypes are expensive, mass-production isn't, that will always be. And in tests are failures also results, not the result they hoped for probably, but that can happen with tests. But at least a failure doesn't mean a disaster near your home with this technology :)
Hopefully it will work in the near future :)
(edited)
And at the moment many projects are going on, maybe a bit to many. The more money invested in 1 concept, the cheaper it becomes. But that's not really happening at the moment. On the other hand, prototypes are expensive, mass-production isn't, that will always be. And in tests are failures also results, not the result they hoped for probably, but that can happen with tests. But at least a failure doesn't mean a disaster near your home with this technology :)
Hopefully it will work in the near future :)
(edited)
An interesting video, Energy War:
This is about oil and gas, but can be about all resources that are mined in certain questionable countries.
This is about oil and gas, but can be about all resources that are mined in certain questionable countries.
Sometimes it takes a while to show a good picture of the situation.
This is also a good 1, a bit less long ;) Here Comes the Sun. What is said in the first 50 seconds is already interesting to think about.
(edited)
This is also a good 1, a bit less long ;) Here Comes the Sun. What is said in the first 50 seconds is already interesting to think about.
(edited)
exscuse me if I take an old post, but I think it need to be responded:
To be honest I trust the corporations actually building these things to have a lot more insight to the profitability than anyone else. After all they're the ones taking risks and making the investments. And you just have to take a look at the real world. Currently hundreds of reactors are beeing built and planned by private contractors all over the world. Nobody would do this, if they didn't consider it good business.
It's always a good business if SOMEONE ELSE pay the price of failure:
for example in Japan they talk to nationalize TEPCO (now that they can't help paying damages done..)
To be honest I trust the corporations actually building these things to have a lot more insight to the profitability than anyone else. After all they're the ones taking risks and making the investments. And you just have to take a look at the real world. Currently hundreds of reactors are beeing built and planned by private contractors all over the world. Nobody would do this, if they didn't consider it good business.
It's always a good business if SOMEONE ELSE pay the price of failure:
for example in Japan they talk to nationalize TEPCO (now that they can't help paying damages done..)
I agree that it's a problem society must help to bear the risks in case of a serious accident. But some things are just too big for any private entrepreneur to take on. And the nuclear industry is one of the very few that's liable for damages caused by natural disasters. Most others are not responsible for damages caused by freak accidents.
Most countries have a strong regulation on liability, where the state only covers in excess of certain amount of money: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html
About Japan:
Japan is not party to any international liability convention but its law generally conforms to them. Two laws governing them are revised about every ten years: the Law on Compensation for Nuclear Damage and Law on Contract for Liability Insurance for Nuclear Damage. Plant operator liability is exclusive and absolute, and power plant operators must provide a financial security amount of JPY 120 billion (US$ 1.4 billion) - half that to 2010. Beyond that, the government provides coverage, and liability is unlimited. In relation to the 1999 Tokai-mura fuel plant criticality accident, insurance covered JPY 1 billion and the parent company (Sumitomo) paid the balance of JPY 13.5 billion.
Regarding nationalization it's my interpretation it would be done (if its' done in the case of TEPCO) to make sure, the state get's it's money back somehow.
(edited)
Most countries have a strong regulation on liability, where the state only covers in excess of certain amount of money: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf67.html
About Japan:
Japan is not party to any international liability convention but its law generally conforms to them. Two laws governing them are revised about every ten years: the Law on Compensation for Nuclear Damage and Law on Contract for Liability Insurance for Nuclear Damage. Plant operator liability is exclusive and absolute, and power plant operators must provide a financial security amount of JPY 120 billion (US$ 1.4 billion) - half that to 2010. Beyond that, the government provides coverage, and liability is unlimited. In relation to the 1999 Tokai-mura fuel plant criticality accident, insurance covered JPY 1 billion and the parent company (Sumitomo) paid the balance of JPY 13.5 billion.
Regarding nationalization it's my interpretation it would be done (if its' done in the case of TEPCO) to make sure, the state get's it's money back somehow.
(edited)