tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5936402483709284852.post7951045669169384607..comments2023-06-30T14:35:38.366+01:00Comments on Burrowers, Books & Balderdash: Hypocritical much?Hart Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17599570189253229318noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5936402483709284852.post-78234695738834948102011-06-29T13:58:42.407+01:002011-06-29T13:58:42.407+01:00Yes, and no.
For the sake of the argument, I am ...Yes, and no. <br /><br />For the sake of the argument, I am willing to accept that most of my (and others') reservations about nuclear power are based on fear. In reality, the common man (and woman) knows very little about nuclear power, the effect of radiation, or how much it takes to make an effect at all. We just get scared when we hear the word "nuclear", and forget to think rationally about it. Most of us immediately jump to the conclusion "cancer" (or worse - "mutation" - I'm fairly sure there are people who truly believe you might turn into the Hulk or something by exposure to radiation...). The point is, it's an irrational fear. <br /><br />BUT. That doesn't mean I buy the argument that it's economically preferable to whatever alternatives there are out there. <br /><br />First of all, as mentioned, a nuclear power plant will inevitably continue to demand costs for a long long long time after it stops producing values. Is it still cheap energy if you count the cost of keeping the waste safe for ten thousand years afterwards? <br /><br />Secondly, there is the matter of R&D. When people say solar power is expensive, it is generally because the research and development to make it up and running is included in the price. Since nuclear power was subsidized from the start, this cost has already been covered by governments. If included in the total amount, the price regime might be another. <br /><br />Third, nuclear power plants are almost always under-insured. TEPCO has in this disaster lost more than it has earned in its 38 year long history. Obviously it wasn't insured for that. The economic impact the disaster have had - ranging from compensation paid to evacuees to loss of profit from export fall - is MASSIVE. <br /><br />Thus I don't buy the argument that nuclear power - at least not as it stands today - is as economically sound as the proponents claim.Cruella Colletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11422848273167338884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5936402483709284852.post-76295167495893461352011-06-28T20:14:59.081+01:002011-06-28T20:14:59.081+01:00I believe in nuclear power. I don't think that...I believe in nuclear power. I don't think that the situation was handled well at all at Fukushima and that they made many mistakes. Personally, nuclear power gives an opportunity for tremendous affordable energy and I hate to see it come under attack because of a disaster like this.Michael Offutt, Phantom Readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10557969104886174930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5936402483709284852.post-54528612376874294292011-06-28T17:14:45.224+01:002011-06-28T17:14:45.224+01:00Mari-I think, were it any of my business, my react...Mari-I think, were it any of my business, my reaction would be exactly the same as yours. I don't like nuclear power--never have--and it has to do with the fact that it is NEVER DONE... the waste lasts basically forever and we have no clue how to deal with it. Yes on the wind and sun. <br /><br />I love the pragmatic Japanese you describe. I haven't been to Japan, but you always make me want to go.Hart Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17599570189253229318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5936402483709284852.post-8458630172435491932011-06-28T13:39:12.315+01:002011-06-28T13:39:12.315+01:00The most common reason to mention the state of rec...The most common reason to mention the state of recovery in Japan on the news that I listen to is when they're talking about supply chain problems for car manufacturers. Even Fukushima doesn't get mentioned much.<br /><br />But I'm very angry about the reaction to Fukushima. For me the story is not the scale of the disaster but the scale of the disaster which was avoided: the earthquake and tsunami were way beyond design tolerances; the reactor was obsolete and poorly maintained; cooling systems failed and the repairs were mis-managed; and yet the reactor still didn't disappear in a nuclear fireball. Even when nuclear power is done badly it is still safer than coal.<br /><br />That's the story, and the global reaction against nuclear power is really rather disappointing to me.Dunxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12612454207916684408noreply@blogger.com