If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Mother Nature Network)   After seeing what the devastating earthquakes did to its nuclear power plants, Japan vows to give up nuclear energy. In 2030   (mnn.com) divider line 68
    More: Asinine, Japan, nuclear powers, shale gas, vows, earthquakes, Democratic Party of Japan  
•       •       •

1558 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Sep 2012 at 4:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-13 04:48:44 AM
You know what's worse than a few million Japanese walking around with a slight greenish glow? 128 million of them walking around without electricity. Even switching over from nuclear to alternatives in the next 18 years through 2030 is going to be incredibly difficult economically.
 
2012-09-13 04:49:21 AM
Gojira, I just can't quit you.
 
2012-09-13 04:50:25 AM
Not going to happen.
 
2012-09-13 04:52:08 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-13 04:53:56 AM

Lexx: You know what's worse than a few million Japanese walking around with a slight greenish glow? 128 million of them walking around without electricity. Even switching over from nuclear to alternatives in the next 18 years through 2030 is going to be incredibly difficult economically.


This. Although if anyone can do it, it's Japan.
 
2012-09-13 04:59:24 AM
Perhaps they can convert their intense sexual deviance into a usable power source.

Fittingly enough, Germany could probably help them with that.
 
2012-09-13 05:02:51 AM

robohobo: Perhaps they can convert their intense sexual deviance into a usable power source.

Fittingly enough, Germany could probably help them with that.


An axis of porn?
 
2012-09-13 05:05:12 AM

common sense is an oxymoron: Lexx: You know what's worse than a few million Japanese walking around with a slight greenish glow? 128 million of them walking around without electricity. Even switching over from nuclear to alternatives in the next 18 years through 2030 is going to be incredibly difficult economically.

This. Although if anyone can do it, it's Japan.


Japan won't be the first country abandoning nuclear power. Austria, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, and Germany have done or will do it as well, Germany has already shut down 7 of its 17 nuclear power plants and will shut down the remaining 10 by 2020, and is heavily investing in renewable energy to still be able to lower its CO2 emissions.

Nuclear Power Phase-out
 
2012-09-13 05:07:25 AM
Bad news is that they'll be firing up coal power plants.
 
2012-09-13 05:09:00 AM
graphics8.nytimes.com

Some glad morning when this life is o'er,
I'll fly away;
To a home on God's celestial shore,
I'll fly away (I'll fly away).

I'll fly away, Oh Glory
I'll fly away; (in the morning)
When I die, Hallelujah, by and by,
I'll fly away (I'll fly away).

When the shadows of this life have gone,
I'll fly away;
Like a bird from prison bars has flown,
I'll fly away (I'll fly away)

I'll fly away, Oh Glory
I'll fly away; (in the morning)
When I die, Hallelujah, by and by,
I'll fly away (I'll fly away).

Just a few more weary days and then,
I'll fly away;
To a land where joy shall never end,
I'll fly away (I'll fly away)

I'll fly away, Oh Glory
I'll fly away; (in the morning)
When I die, Hallelujah, by and by,
I'll fly away (I'll fly away).
 
2012-09-13 05:14:19 AM
Why don't they just suspend nuclear reactors in anti-gravity chambers? That way when an earthquake or meteor hits it'll just stay suspended and not hit anything and blow up. Also make concentric layers of defence, so if one ball of containment collapses there's another one to hold it in... oh the fools, if only they'd built it with 6001 hulls... when will they learn?!

Simple.
 
2012-09-13 05:14:44 AM

Factory Trained Pediatrician: common sense is an oxymoron: Lexx: You know what's worse than a few million Japanese walking around with a slight greenish glow? 128 million of them walking around without electricity. Even switching over from nuclear to alternatives in the next 18 years through 2030 is going to be incredibly difficult economically.

This. Although if anyone can do it, it's Japan.

Japan won't be the first country abandoning nuclear power. Austria, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, and Germany have done or will do it as well, Germany has already shut down 7 of its 17 nuclear power plants and will shut down the remaining 10 by 2020, and is heavily investing in renewable energy to still be able to lower its CO2 emissions.

Nuclear Power Phase-out


The sheer megawattage that needs to be replaced in Japan dwarfs that of any of the countries listed, including Germany.

Nuclear power by country
 
2012-09-13 05:22:48 AM

Factory Trained Pediatrician: Japan won't be the first country abandoning nuclear power. Austria, Sweden, Italy, Belgium, and Germany have done or will do it as well, Germany has already shut down 7 of its 17 nuclear power plants and will shut down the remaining 10 by 2020, and is heavily investing in renewable energy to still be able to lower its CO2 emissions.

Nuclear Power Phase-out


Yup. The ultimate concern being, not really the danger as such (it's close to nonexistent, note that it took an earthquake _and_ a tidal wave to create even the localized destruction seen in Japan). The primary concern is that fission fuel is another mostly non-renewable resource that's not exactly evenly distributed across the globe, whereas the sun, tides, geothermal, and wind are more or less everywhere barring some extreme climates.

Some tech developed in the last 5 years or so has taken solar, especially, from something of a hippie pipe-dream to a real industrial possibility. I refer mostly to methods for reprocessing the waste and mass-producing various kinds of cells. Plus broader-spectrum grabs instead of the relatively narrow band around visible light that we've mostly been using. So, yeah, bit of everything, really.

This doesn't make the anti-nuclear-power idiots magically not idiots, though. They're still scientifically illiterate retards for the most part. Sort of analogous to people that hated the steam engine and using horses instead feeling validated because they held out until gasoline became more common-- no, the fact that a better tech did eventually become viable does not make your luddism valid.

//Last bit added because I'm feeling that one coming in this thread.
 
2012-09-13 05:25:06 AM
It also said Japan should develop resources in nearby waters and look to cheaper procurement of liquefied natural gas and other fossil fuels, including shale gas.

Japan, with precious few resources of its own, is presently heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East and has been forced to ramp up its imports to make up the energy shortfall over the last 18 months.
 
2012-09-13 05:31:01 AM
Could this lead to Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere 2: Electric Boogaloo?
 
2012-09-13 05:59:59 AM
Dadoody that's a really pretty song you shared. thank you.
 
2012-09-13 06:01:19 AM
I wonder what subby found asinine about this?

That they get rid of nuclear power in a knee jerk (to him/her) reaction or that this takes 20 years. It's 54 power plants for crying out loud.
 
2012-09-13 06:02:11 AM
Asinine is giving it up. This is all "OMG nukes are scary!!!" hysteria.

See this mushroom cloud?

img651.imageshack.us

A nuke? No, that's a fire at an oil refinery in Japan after the earthquake. How many people died from that? How many have died from oil rig, mining, and other fossil fuel industry disasters? (Not even counting global warming.) Heck, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

Yeah, one of the worst earthquakes ever recorded, combined with a tsunami size not seen in over 1000 years, combined with the stupid move of putting all the backup and backup-to-backup generators at ground level (which other plants typically don't), ended up with some local contamination. And one paper found that the evacuation resulted in nearly 2-1/2 times as many deaths as the radiation ones it may have prevented.

Man up, Japan. We used full-scale nuclear explosions to annihilate two of your cities, and you turned out OK. When your parents were your age, they already glowed -- and they liked it!
 
2012-09-13 06:47:48 AM
If anyone can do it, Japan can do it. Hopefully they'll plow R&D cash into the project and get it sorted, maybe even show everyone that it can be done. With robots.
 
2012-09-13 06:59:43 AM

Lexx: You know what's worse than a few million Japanese walking around with a slight greenish glow? 128 million of them walking around without electricity. Even switching over from nuclear to alternatives in the next 18 years through 2030 is going to be incredibly difficult economically.


Oooor, it could help kickstart new types of energy production equipment companies who will employ people and sell useful products abroad, thus strengthening the Japanese economy. You know what they say, gotta spend money to make money. Frankly I wish we'd do that here. Besides, I don't think they're gonna turn off the reactors before they're ready, they're not going to deprive a high tech, electronics-loving society of electricity.
 
2012-09-13 07:45:08 AM

Lexx: You know what's worse than a few million Japanese walking around with a slight greenish glow? 128 million of them walking around without electricity. Even switching over from nuclear to alternatives in the next 18 years through 2030 is going to be incredibly difficult economically.


It doesn't help that Japan isn't known for its vast oil, gas or coal resources. Japan relied so heavily on nuclear power because it's cheap (well, at least until you factor in the occasional catastrophic meltdown).

Japan being what it is, maybe they'll figure out how to use solar, wind and geothermal energy in new and better ways. Japan's industries are masters at improving on existing technology.
 
2012-09-13 07:54:37 AM

Gawdzila: Lexx: You know what's worse than a few million Japanese walking around with a slight greenish glow? 128 million of them walking around without electricity. Even switching over from nuclear to alternatives in the next 18 years through 2030 is going to be incredibly difficult economically.

Oooor, it could help kickstart new types of energy production equipment companies who will employ people and sell useful products abroad, thus strengthening the Japanese economy. You know what they say, gotta spend money to make money. Frankly I wish we'd do that here. Besides, I don't think they're gonna turn off the reactors before they're ready, they're not going to deprive a high tech, electronics-loving society of electricity.


I'm sure your trolling, but you sound like so many environmentalists I hear. Its interesting to see none of them put their money where their mouth is and actually disconnect from electricity. I wish they would. Then we wouldn't have to see their foolishness on display in internet forums so much.
 
2012-09-13 08:04:09 AM
This thread should have been done in one.
 
2012-09-13 08:51:52 AM
Since subby is obviously some sort of engineer that makes Montgomery Scott look like a useless old drunk (instead of a slightly sauced but legendarily awesome engineer of near mythical competence) maybe he could come up with a way to provide Japan with enough power without using nuclear power plants.
 
2012-09-13 08:53:56 AM

Gawdzila: Lexx: You know what's worse than a few million Japanese walking around with a slight greenish glow? 128 million of them walking around without electricity. Even switching over from nuclear to alternatives in the next 18 years through 2030 is going to be incredibly difficult economically.

Oooor, it could help kickstart new types of energy production equipment companies who will employ people and sell useful products abroad, thus strengthening the Japanese economy. You know what they say, gotta spend money to make money. Frankly I wish we'd do that here. Besides, I don't think they're gonna turn off the reactors before they're ready, they're not going to deprive a high tech, electronics-loving society of electricity.


On paper that sounds awesome but I doubt any of those technologies will be ready in 10-20 years.
 
2012-09-13 09:22:41 AM

gerbilpox: Man up, Japan. We used full-scale nuclear explosions to annihilate two of your cities, and you turned out OK. When your parents were your age, they already glowed -- and they liked it!


Just in case someone here isn't aware, the destruction of two cities via nuclear bomb is exactly why Japan is so skittish about nuclear power. Some of the blame for their attitude toward it goes to us.

Regardless, it is a shame they don't have much space available for clean energy production. Coating all their buildings with solar panels could work well soon, and maybe they can do something with geothermal, but I'm not sure what else would work, since Japan doesn't seem to have a ton of unpopulated space that isn't mountains.

/can you use tidal energy in a place subject to frequent typhoons?
 
2012-09-13 09:31:31 AM
>>>The move would bring resource-poor Japan into line with Germany.

So like the Germans, they will by their electricity from nukular powerplants in France ?

YAY !!!!

Sidenote... The country has been running through summer with only 1 nukaplant online (that obliged to shut down 8 coal plants to limit the overproduction) So... aside from the shareholders... There is no big interest in keeping unmaintained flawed nukaplant few of them being right over faultline. (in before the derp: It's illegal in japan to have these plants over a fault line but they were discovered later so the plant homologation was insanely grandfathered).

I'v been hoarding generatoors and fuel for nothing :-(
 
2012-09-13 09:40:09 AM

gerbilpox: See this mushroom cloud?


[img651.imageshack.us image 435x515]

Uh... that's not a mushroom cloud. It's just a rather large explosion. A mushroom cloud is shaped like a big wide flat mushroom. It is possible to create a mushroom cloud with fuel air explosives, but that's not it.

A nuke? No, that's a fire at an oil refinery in Japan after the earthquake. How many people died from that? How many have died from oil rig, mining, and other fossil fuel industry disasters? (Not even counting global warming.)

This is a reasonable point. It's partly because the consequences of a reactor accident are so severe that the industry is much more heavily regulated and a great deal more attention is paid to safety.

Heck, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

That's complete and utter nonsense. 10 years after it is used in a reactor, exposure to raw nuclear waste is 10,000 rem/hr (or 100 Sv/hr, a fatal dose). You could live in a pile of coal ash for a year and not even get 1 Sv. The Scientific American article refers to the dose people get from the level of exposure people get from various sources. Radioactive waste is highly processed and stored well away from people, whereas fly ash not so much.

Here's a usual chart on various levels of radiation exposure: XKCD Radiation Chart

Yeah, one of the worst earthquakes ever recorded, combined with a tsunami size not seen in over 1000 years, combined with the stupid move of putting all the backup and backup-to-backup generators at ground level (which other plants typically don't), ended up with some local contamination. And one paper found that the evacuation resulted in nearly 2-1/2 times as many deaths as the radiation ones it may have prevented.

[citation needed]

Man up, Japan. We used full-scale nuclear explosions to annihilate two of your cities, and you turned out OK. When your parents were your age, they already glowed -- and they liked it!

Hmm... or maybe I should say good job trolling?
 
2012-09-13 09:43:04 AM
Wow, my typing and proofreading were way off on that last post.
 
2012-09-13 09:55:08 AM

King Keepo: If anyone can do it, Japan can do it. Hopefully they'll plow R&D cash into the project and get it sorted, maybe even show everyone that it can be done. With robots.


More likely it'll be tentacles.
 
2012-09-13 09:56:42 AM
So, under the fairly reasonable *assumption* that viable fusion power will be available by 2050 (maybe hopeful assumption?), does this mean Japan would exclude this source of energy as well?
 
2012-09-13 10:03:30 AM
Stupid now, stupid in 2030. But at least they've given themselves lots of time to wriggle out of it.

As a species, we need to stop running away from good things just because many of us are too stupid and lazy to understand them. PR triumphing over science is a constant, slow-moving disaster.
 
2012-09-13 10:25:06 AM
Japan will switch over to whale and dolphin burning plants.
 
2012-09-13 10:29:20 AM
Coming up next: giving up flying in 2021 because of 9/11.
 
2012-09-13 10:35:33 AM

Director_Mr: I'm sure your trolling, but you sound like so many environmentalists I hear. Its interesting to see none of them put their money where their mouth is and actually disconnect from electricity. I wish they would. Then we wouldn't have to see their foolishness on display in internet forums so much.


Count me in as an environmentalist who firmly believes nuclear power isn't worth its cost and liability, who also believes that all coal plants should be shut down within a decade, and thinks natural gas should be only used for peak-load plants and phased out over 30-years. I also believe a concerted national emphasis should be put efficiency and conservation.

That said, I'm still connected to the grid . . . except I'm connected to sell excess power back! As of June, my house has been generating more energy it uses, via rooftop solar. Sometimes, just for the heck of it, I disconnect from the grid and run the house for a day or two on solar + batteries, just because I can. I set up my folk's vacation house to generate 3x's than the energy we use, and currently, about 1/3rd of my workplace's energy is generated via rooftop solar. For me, each of these arrays pay off in 6-7 years, so it isn't some pie-in-the-sky dream to be net-positive, or overly expensive. All it takes is planning, a little bit of engineering and use of off-the-shelf products.

How I became net-positive and am now selling extra, ultra-clean solar power back to the grid, for my neighbors to use.
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
If I can do it in a couple years, *in cloudy Seattle* there's no reason why Japan can follow in a similar, albeit national effort.
 
2012-09-13 10:41:07 AM
Zasteva:

Heck, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

That's complete and utter nonsense. 10 years after it is used in a reactor, exposure to raw nuclear waste is 10,000 rem/hr (or 100 Sv/hr, a fatal dose). You could live in a pile of coal ash for a year and not even get 1 Sv. The Scientific American article refers to the dose people get from the level of exposure people get from various sources. Radioactive waste is highly processed and stored well away from people, whereas fly ash not so much.


I used the title of the article (at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radi oactive-than-nuclear-waste ), but you're right, that's not what the content says. It's about how much radiation we're exposed to from each -- specifically, that a study found that those living in the vicinity of a coal-burning plant get more radiation than those near a nuclear plant. My (badly expressed) point was the people freak about being near the latter when they get worse from the former -- even when just talking about radiation, and not other air pollution effects, etc.

--------

Yeah, one of the worst earthquakes ever recorded, combined with a tsunami size not seen in over 1000 years, combined with the stupid move of putting all the backup and backup-to-backup generators at ground level (which other plants typically don't), ended up with some local contamination. And one paper found that the evacuation resulted in nearly 2-1/2 times as many deaths as the radiation ones it may have prevented.

[citation needed]


The citation was there in the link but I'll cite it again here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717084900.htm

"...the paper also notes that nearly 600 deaths were reported as a result of the evacuation process itself, mostly due to fatigue and exposure among the elderly and chronically ill. According to the model, the evacuation prevented at most 245 radiation-related deaths -- meaning the evacuation process may have cost more lives than it saved."

(600 / 245 = 2.45 = nearly 2-1/2)

The actual paper:

Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident
John E. Ten Hoeve and Mark Z. Jacobson
Energy Environ. Sci., 2012,5, 8743-8757
DOI: 10.1039/C2EE22019A

(In fairness, I can't speak to how well the article characterizes the paper, because I'm not going to spend the £34 to get a copy of it.)
 
2012-09-13 11:26:53 AM
The Japanese will give up nuclear power. And Glenn Miller will come out of the ocean to play at my daughter's wedding. The daughter I don't have yet but will father with a famous supermodel who is into hairy, burly middle-aged guys with no money.
 
2012-09-13 11:27:24 AM

gerbilpox: Asinine is giving it up. This is all "OMG nukes are scary!!!" hysteria.

See this mushroom cloud?

[img651.imageshack.us image 435x515]

A nuke? No, that's a fire at an oil refinery in Japan after the earthquake. How many people died from that? How many have died from oil rig, mining, and other fossil fuel industry disasters? (Not even counting global warming.) Heck, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste.

Yeah, one of the worst earthquakes ever recorded, combined with a tsunami size not seen in over 1000 years, combined with the stupid move of putting all the backup and backup-to-backup generators at ground level (which other plants typically don't), ended up with some local contamination. And one paper found that the evacuation resulted in nearly 2-1/2 times as many deaths as the radiation ones it may have prevented.

Man up, Japan. We used full-scale nuclear explosions to annihilate two of your cities, and you turned out OK. When your parents were your age, they already glowed -- and they liked it!


THIS!!!!!
 
2012-09-13 11:45:09 AM

MrSteve007: Director_Mr: I'm sure your trolling, but you sound like so many environmentalists I hear. Its interesting to see none of them put their money where their mouth is and actually disconnect from electricity. I wish they would. Then we wouldn't have to see their foolishness on display in internet forums so much.

Count me in as an environmentalist who firmly believes nuclear power isn't worth its cost and liability, who also believes that all coal plants should be shut down within a decade, and thinks natural gas should be only used for peak-load plants and phased out over 30-years. I also believe a concerted national emphasis should be put efficiency and conservation.

That said, I'm still connected to the grid . . . except I'm connected to sell excess power back! As of June, my house has been generating more energy it uses, via rooftop solar. Sometimes, just for the heck of it, I disconnect from the grid and run the house for a day or two on solar + batteries, just because I can. I set up my folk's vacation house to generate 3x's than the energy we use, and currently, about 1/3rd of my workplace's energy is generated via rooftop solar. For me, each of these arrays pay off in 6-7 years, so it isn't some pie-in-the-sky dream to be net-positive, or overly expensive. All it takes is planning, a little bit of engineering and use of off-the-shelf products.

How I became net-positive and am now selling extra, ultra-clean solar power back to the grid, for my neighbors to use.
[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x371]
If I can do it in a couple years, *in cloudy Seattle* there's no reason why Japan can follow in a similar, albeit national effort.


encrypted-tbn2.google.com
 
2012-09-13 11:46:11 AM

RoyBatty: It also said Japan should develop resources in nearby waters and look to cheaper procurement of liquefied natural gas and other fossil fuels, including shale gas.

Japan, with precious few resources of its own, is presently heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East and has been forced to ramp up its imports to make up the energy shortfall over the last 18 months.


We noticed the same thing. -Clearly this is good for the oil companies... to those of you not aware, guess where a good chunk of natural gas resides?

Link

Well, at least my stocks will make me rich.
 
2012-09-13 01:02:40 PM

Lexx: You know what's worse than a few million Japanese walking around with a slight greenish glow? 128 million of them walking around without electricity. Even switching over from nuclear to alternatives in the next 18 years through 2030 is going to be incredibly difficult economically.


Even worse than that? A lot less of them due to increased deaths from coal, oil, natural gas power plants that would have been in place had the Japanese chosen not to go with nuclear when they did.

Until this disaster is shown to have killed, injured, and/or "cost" as much to them as the alternative power sources of the time would have, they should be glad they chose nuclear power.
 
2012-09-13 01:10:58 PM
The main point is that the cost of failure for nuclear power is far to high for any nation to bear. Japan is learning this the hard way. TEPCO has already been nationalized because these companies cannot survive even a single disaster.

One more serious earthquake will take out the fuel pool in reactor 4 causing more radiation to be released than all nuclear testing combined. And the main reason this fuel pool has so much spent fuel? Money. These companies don't want to spend the money to properly put the spent fuel in dry cask storage when they should. So they simply accumulate risk while paying sweet dividends. And in the end, the problem will be socialized (as it is now).

It is a misconception that nuclear power is clean and cheap. It's not. However, we do know that it is very, very political. Even today, the govoner of Fukui made this statement:

"Nishikawa said if the government wants to decommission the reactors in his prefecture, it must remove all the spent nuclear fuel kept there immediately, and restore the plant sites back to their original state."

So the areas that profited from nuclear power and agreed to support the plants want the stuff out as soon as the money stops flowing? And who is going to take the spent fuel? Some region that didnt want it in the first place?

Nuclear should be banned for three reasons:

1. the cost of failure is far too high
2. the real costs associated with nuclear are hidden and most of them will be incurred far into the future
3. nuclear is far too political for correct decisions to be taken
 
2012-09-13 01:20:37 PM

GiantPeon: Nuclear should be banned for three reasons:

1. the cost of failure is far too high
2. the real costs associated with nuclear are hidden and most of them will be incurred far into the future
3. nuclear is far too political for correct decisions to be taken


The problem is that we can't reduce demand quickly enough for the economy not to stall. I'm all for thorium reactors as an *interim* solution to get us off fossil fuels at a faster rate. Alternative solutions can't ramp quickly enough.
 
2012-09-13 01:27:12 PM

lohphat: The problem is that we can't reduce demand quickly enough for the economy not to stall. I'm all for thorium reactors as an *interim* solution to get us off fossil fuels at a faster rate. Alternative solutions can't ramp quickly enough.


Lol. Yep, let's ignore the quickest and easiest form of energy; conservation, put our plans on a completely imaginary form of nuclear power (outside of a couple test reactors), and pretend that the massive growth in renewable energy doesn't exist.

Sounds about right for the typical American.
 
2012-09-13 01:38:07 PM

lohphat: GiantPeon: Nuclear should be banned for three reasons:

1. the cost of failure is far too high
2. the real costs associated with nuclear are hidden and most of them will be incurred far into the future
3. nuclear is far too political for correct decisions to be taken

The problem is that we can't reduce demand quickly enough for the economy not to stall. I'm all for thorium reactors as an *interim* solution to get us off fossil fuels at a faster rate. Alternative solutions can't ramp quickly enough.


There is only a single viable "quasi permanent" nuclear solution, and it is G2V (google is your friend). A single reactor can supply power to the whole planet and it has a time proven safety record. The only issue that remains is how to harness, store and distribute its power.
 
2012-09-13 01:44:30 PM

MrSteve007: lohphat: The problem is that we can't reduce demand quickly enough for the economy not to stall. I'm all for thorium reactors as an *interim* solution to get us off fossil fuels at a faster rate. Alternative solutions can't ramp quickly enough.

Lol. Yep, let's ignore the quickest and easiest form of energy; conservation, put our plans on a completely imaginary form of nuclear power (outside of a couple test reactors), and pretend that the massive growth in renewable energy doesn't exist.

Sounds about right for the typical American.


The "Real Problem" is that we can't base load from renewables with current or theorized technology. This is not to say that we should build out as much as possible. The reality is the best our current technology and power pricing can deliver is a hybrid system of renewables and natural gas.

The only feasible system purposes is to use a massive national installation of diversified renewables to produce Methane via the Sabatier process. This will be incredibly expensive but it will also solve the problem of energy storage and transportation.
 
2012-09-13 01:51:20 PM
WTF is up with the Asinine tag ?

They understand the capabilities of their infrastucture better than you, subby, (and unlike the good ol' US of A, their government isn't crippled by ideological libertarians demanding ever-smaller and less answerable government action)

Ambitious? yeah, but if they claim they can do it, let 'em try. Why be a dick about it?
 
2012-09-13 01:52:13 PM

b2theory: MrSteve007: lohphat: The problem is that we can't reduce demand quickly enough for the economy not to stall. I'm all for thorium reactors as an *interim* solution to get us off fossil fuels at a faster rate. Alternative solutions can't ramp quickly enough.

Lol. Yep, let's ignore the quickest and easiest form of energy; conservation, put our plans on a completely imaginary form of nuclear power (outside of a couple test reactors), and pretend that the massive growth in renewable energy doesn't exist.

Sounds about right for the typical American.

The "Real Problem" is that we can't base load from renewables with current or theorized technology. This is not to say that we should build out as much as possible. The reality is the best our current technology and power pricing can deliver is a hybrid system of renewables and natural gas.

The only feasible system purposes is to use a massive national installation of diversified renewables to produce Methane via the Sabatier process. This will be incredibly expensive but it will also solve the problem of energy storage and transportation.


Huh?
 
2012-09-13 02:16:27 PM

lohphat: GiantPeon: Nuclear should be banned for three reasons:

1. the cost of failure is far too high
2. the real costs associated with nuclear are hidden and most of them will be incurred far into the future
3. nuclear is far too political for correct decisions to be taken

The problem is that we can't reduce demand quickly enough for the economy not to stall. I'm all for thorium reactors as an *interim* solution to get us off fossil fuels at a faster rate. Alternative solutions can't ramp quickly enough.


This.

The U.S. and India have shiat-tons of thorium.
 
2012-09-13 02:32:50 PM

give me doughnuts: lohphat: GiantPeon: Nuclear should be banned for three reasons:

1. the cost of failure is far too high
2. the real costs associated with nuclear are hidden and most of them will be incurred far into the future
3. nuclear is far too political for correct decisions to be taken

The problem is that we can't reduce demand quickly enough for the economy not to stall. I'm all for thorium reactors as an *interim* solution to get us off fossil fuels at a faster rate. Alternative solutions can't ramp quickly enough.

This.

The U.S. and India have shiat-tons of thorium.


I think Fark should have 3 vote buttons:

1. Smart
2. Funny
3. Troll

And if someone gets enough troll clicks, they get an icon next to their name, similar to "Total Fark". And my guess is that over half the people who buy "Total Fark" would have the troll icon.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report