View Poll Results: Does this article reassure your faith in Nuclear Energy?

Voters
29. You may not vote on this poll
  • Nuclear power is safe.

    16 55.17%
  • Nuclear power is not safe at any price.

    10 34.48%
  • It reassures my faith in human arrogance.

    4 13.79%
  • Corporations, like TEPCO, can handle it.

    0 0%
  • TEPCO will be bankrupted without gov't bailout.

    2 6.90%
  • Corporations get profits, publc gets liabilities, status quo.

    5 17.24%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 47

Thread: Fukushima: Revisited

  1. #11
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    Ok, I disagree with the premise that it is impossible to do anything if something goes wrong the world is screwed. Fukishima had an extraordinary set of circumstances to an island dependent on nuclear power for it's energy since it has basically no natural energy resources of it's own. If there were any country that should be scared of nuclear power, they would certainly be it.

    Also, whenever someone references most or many scientists without referencing which ones, I tend to disregard the statement as being from someone with an agenda. Also, since it was said by someone named Murita, who is not identified, all the more so. Is it serious, no doubt.
    I was referring to major catastrophes similar to what may happen to Fukushima Daiichi. The material is so radioactive and dangerous that we are simply unable to repair or deal with it. Look at Chernobyl, decades later we are still unable to do anything other then bury/cover it and hope that in the future we develop a way to fix it. In the mean time it still leaks radiation into the environment rendering anything close uninhabitable in any sort of safe manner.

  2. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    01-16-14 @ 05:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,431

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    I have followed the Fuku story very closely since it happened, in fact I cancelled a trip to Japan that was scheduled two weeks after. Before I was pro-nuke, now I'm adamantly against it.

    Japan has radiated it's people and country, it continues to radiate them everyday and will continue to do so for some time. The effects, particularly in health, will be felt for a couple hundred years. One would think of all countries Japan would be prepared to deal with such a disaster but as has been shown, they have no clue, before or after.

    Mankind does not have the intelligence, knowledge, attitude or presence of mind to deal with nuclear energy. Maybe some time in the future, but not now.

  3. #13
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    solar and renewables are an important piece of the puzzle, too. they're building a windfarm outside my town, and it's absolutely awesome. i ride out sometimes to check out the progress. nuclear is also good for producing a lot of power, and that's what we need. i vote all of the above.
    True story of windfarms in New York State. Initially, multimillionaires are given a tax break to develop windfarms. You pay attention and then decide if it is Green energy and I am a registered Green, an environmentalist with a solar patent. I am prejudiced toward Green energy. First the wind farms are allowed a five-year amortization for the initial investment and that is multi-millions. That means they can write the entire investment off on their tax returns in five years. Second, the wind doesn't necessarily blow when you need the power and there is no storage capability. The gas and steam turbines making the power that the wind turbines would replace are designed to staay on for 10-20 year intervals, so you don't shut them down. I believe you can reduce fuel input to lower power but I'm not certain. So even as you produce the wind power the need may not be accessible for your supply. Nevertheless for 10 years NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority) guarantees to pay for every kilowatt generated, even if it does not go into the grid and a lot of it won't. An accelerated write down plus this guarantee to buy energy that is not used is what makes wind farms profitable. The status quo of Electrical Energy distribution utilities accepts this because the electric that is used is distributed through their grid and they make another profit. Win-win for big money investors. Win-win for the existing grid. The loser is the taxpaying public. If you develop thousands of small wind generators coupled with battery backup at a local level you get true efficiency, localized investment, localized savings, localized jobs, localized maintenance and the distribution grid (another big money operation) bites the weenie. Needless to say, I am not a fan of big windfarms, but I am absolutely a proponent of wind, solar, biomass, whatever, at a LOCAL level.

  4. #14
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by spanky View Post
    I have followed the Fuku story very closely since it happened, in fact I cancelled a trip to Japan that was scheduled two weeks after. Before I was pro-nuke, now I'm adamantly against it.

    Japan has radiated it's people and country, it continues to radiate them everyday and will continue to do so for some time. The effects, particularly in health, will be felt for a couple hundred years. One would think of all countries Japan would be prepared to deal with such a disaster but as has been shown, they have no clue, before or after.

    Mankind does not have the intelligence, knowledge, attitude or presence of mind to deal with nuclear energy. Maybe some time in the future, but not now.
    This is true and especially acknowledging the technical capabilites and work ethic of the Japanese. If it is a problem for them, it is as large or larger a problem for any other group, corporation, country, or whatever. The Japanese are technically sophisticated, brave, self sacrificing, and committed. They don't have a solution. Maybe prayer, long term. Good fortune, kharma, short term with no earthquake.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    01-16-14 @ 05:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,431

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    I'll tell you another thing, the only thing that saved Japan from it being a complete and total disaster is the prevailing winds which blow west to east 95% of the time...out to sea. If the PWs were east to west everything from there down to maybe Kyoto would be radiated to a degree it would call for evacuation...Tokyo would be a ghost town.

    And let's not even talk about the reaction from China and Korea.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    01-16-14 @ 05:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,431

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    This is true and especially acknowledging the technical capabilites and work ethic of the Japanese. If it is a problem for them, it is as large or larger a problem for any other group, corporation, country, or whatever. The Japanese are technically sophisticated, brave, self sacrificing, and committed. They don't have a solution. Maybe prayer, long term. Good fortune, kharma, short term with no earthquake.
    Agreed Dave, and that's my point. The Japanese were completely unprepared to handle this kind of crisis, what hope can we have for us or even the Germans, much less second world countries like Pakistan, N Kora or Iran?

    IMO the only way nuclear power is safe is if it is 500-1000 feet underground but that kind of engineering might make it economically unfeasible.

  7. #17
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by spanky View Post
    Agreed Dave, and that's my point. The Japanese were completely unprepared to handle this kind of crisis, what hope can we have for us or even the Germans, much less second world countries like Pakistan, N Kora or Iran?

    IMO the only way nuclear power is safe is if it is 500-1000 feet underground but that kind of engineering might make it economically unfeasible.
    Nuclear power has never been economically feasible. It is always built with gov't loans or guarantees because banks will not finance Nukes. The liability issue has always been the reason. Nevertheless, once online the distribution grid profits, just like with Iraq's OIL or Libya's OIL or any distributed energy. The grid is the problem, not the solution. The "grid" meaning overhead or underground wires, piplines, refineries, tankers, any means of transport moving energy. That is the area to monopolize from a business standpoint with max profits and minimal liabilities.

  8. #18
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    My wife worked on developing safety critical computer software. I worked in developing 99.999%, 5 nines, total failure resistant hardware. There was always resistance from American management to take short cuts that risked having the stuff meet specifications. In addition certain cultures had an easier time trading meeting the requirements for reduced development time, testing, cost, etc. The worst culture in my experience is the Indian followed closely by the Chinese.

  9. #19
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,709

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Baralis View Post
    I was just reading up on recent developments (or lack of) the other day. A question crossed my mind, why would man attempt to use something so dangerous that if something went wrong we were totally screwed and nothing man can to can fix it? The only answer I came up with is GREED. Who cares that we risk humanity and world health if we can make mad cash in the process! It really is sad mankind is willing to stoop so low.
    Nuclear power has a lower death rate per kWh than solar power.


    Read that sentence again.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Nuclear power has never been economically feasible. It is always built with gov't loans or guarantees because banks will not finance Nukes. The liability issue has always been the reason. Nevertheless, once online the distribution grid profits, just like with Iraq's OIL or Libya's OIL or any distributed energy. The grid is the problem, not the solution. The "grid" meaning overhead or underground wires, piplines, refineries, tankers, any means of transport moving energy. That is the area to monopolize from a business standpoint with max profits and minimal liabilities.
    The banks don't finance it because of regulatory red tape, mostly. It slows down and stalls projects way too much, making costs balloon. If we streamlined the process properly, it would cost far less.

    And still be the safest form of energy that exists.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  10. #20
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:28 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,289

    Re: Fukushima: Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Nuclear power has a lower death rate per kWh than solar power.


    Read that sentence again.



    The banks don't finance it because of regulatory red tape, mostly. It slows down and stalls projects way too much, making costs balloon. If we streamlined the process properly, it would cost far less.

    And still be the safest form of energy that exists.

    If I were you, I'd check my breathing tube. Must be under a lot of sand or deeply impacted. The banks have never financed Nukes. It's not about red tape. It is about the potential for catastrophic liability costs relating to malfunction, human error and eventual bankruptcy. If I'm a Nuke Corporation and my Nuke starts costing me more than it's making, I'm filing bankruptcy and that is the real world. Now the cleanup, decontamination, etc., is the public's problem and I can start another investment. That's why we have Corporations, to reduce liabilities. See how that works? After the profits are gone, bail, bankrupt, sayonara. Real world.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •