I agree that as far as expectations are concerned it's a pretty safe bet, but I think Japan has an opportunity to take the billions that would go into starting a new program and putting it into major consumer incentives to purchase solar, which would not only generate a good flow of revenue here, but also encourage some of Japan's companies to expand their considerable solar investments.
Plus, and this is not something that most people outside of Japan really understand too well, Japanese people really don't like nuclear power to begin with. The public was basically dragged kicking and screaming into accepting nuclear power, and this incident, which is going to drag on and dominate the news for months, isn't going to liken the new generation of Japanese to nuclear at all.
Anyway, when all is settled down I think we could see the Japanese government taking advantage of what seems like a big opportunity at the right time.
As things stand right now, this is the alternative to nuclear. Renewables aren't ready for the scale needed... yet. I'm eager for that day to come, but it's not here yet.
And then there's this. Coal affects millions of people every day. Nuclear has a few dramatic events, but those are dwarfed by coal's daily operations.
chart from this source data: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/dea...gy-source.html
Germany is already getting ~15%+ from renewables, and they are planning to get 100% of their electricity from renewables by ~2050:
Germany is not all that sunny -- if they can do it, then the USA certainly can, too. There are several other renewable energy sources that could be used as well.
According to reports by the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP), work-related deaths in uranium mines are estimated at between 5, 500 deaths (for radiation workers @ 3 mSv) to 37, 500 deaths (for radiation workers @ 20 mSv) per million workers a year.
This compared with deaths in the manufacturing industry (estimated at 110 deaths per year per million workers) and the construction industry (estimated at 164 deaths per million workers per year)*.
* ICRP reports ICRP27/ICRP60.
As with coal and its emissions, nuclear radiation can be a slow killer, which means that many deaths do not show up in statistics.
Quote:
One of the most important findings of an inquiry within the USA Department of Energy in 1989 was that low doses of radiation, spread over a number of years, are just as dangerous as acute exposure. It means that the model used by the ICRP to determine the acceptable levels of exposure for workers is wrong. Science today understands what it did not fully comprehend in 1945 or perhaps even in 1968: there is no safe level of radiation.
IMO, humanity should pay more attention to wasting less and improving the efficiency of existing power plants (all types), instead of building more and more. As Pale mentioned, RE isn't ready to jump in and take over starting today, but it can, and should, be prioritized. I know that suddenly closing all power plants is not possible, but they can be upgraded, then phased out over 50-100 years, while renewables gradually take over.
__________________
e·co·mod·ding: the art of turning vehicles into what they should be
What matters is where you're going, not how fast.
"... we humans tend to screw up everything that's good enough as it is...or everything that we're attracted to, we love to go and defile it." - Chris Cornell
Germany is already getting ~15%+ from renewables, and they are planning to get 100% of their electricity from renewables by ~2050:
Germany is not all that sunny -- if they can do it, then the USA certainly can, too. There are several other renewable energy sources that could be used as well.
__________________
e·co·mod·ding: the art of turning vehicles into what they should be
What matters is where you're going, not how fast.
"... we humans tend to screw up everything that's good enough as it is...or everything that we're attracted to, we love to go and defile it." - Chris Cornell
The German model is based on artificially high tarrifs for renewable subsidies and a desire to remove Nuclear from their network. As an outsider I wonder how much the US public would accept such market manipulation to finance such things.
The government in Germany has been making noises about extending the life of nuclear plants by 8-10 years to maintain capacity and cost competiveness of power to industry. If that happens the renewables market will decline and the growth may stop, solar investment is declining already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw
IMO, humanity should pay more attention to wasting less and improving the efficiency of existing power plants...
+1
The key here is reducing what we use domestically - there is a hell of a lot of waste there which costs us all cash, which is what Frank said about 2 pages ago
I just don't see nuclear as a desirable or evil demon, just something we have to live with maybe for now maybe for longer.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
I'd much rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant, but at the same time, I don't really support building new reactors and instead favour heavy investment in alternative solutions (solar, wind, etc), so I voted "don't care."
However, I think the poll question is pretty clearly flawed, as it's not really asking anything. It's really just saying, would a nuclear plant v. no change be a good thing, which I think is a pretty silly question since that's not ever going to be the case. It's going to be a nuclear plant v some other source, some type of industry or manufacturing, etc.
The poll is valid even though it's not the question you might have preferred.
The question asked is a simple one: would you want to live near a nuclear plant? The poll topic is actually that of NIMBY. Often people are in favor of something as long as they don't have to live near it. There seems to be an element of hypocrisy in the NIMBY position, and that's the topic as it was framed.
The question asked is a simple one: would you want to live near a nuclear plant? The poll topic is actually that of NIMBY. Often people are in favor of something as long as they don't have to live near it. There seems to be an element of hypocrisy in the NIMBY position, and that's the topic as it was framed.
Not really, if you think about it. I don't want to live near anything (other than trees, mountains, etc), so there's no hypocrisy in my not wanting anything in my back yard, other than the aforementioned solar on my roof, personal wind turbine, etc. However, a lot of people obviously do want to live in or near urban areas, or at least choose to do so, and I'd rather have nuclear plants there than the current coal-fired plants.
And I really don't want to live downstream from a large hydroelectric dam, either.
Not really, if you think about it. I don't want to live near anything (other than trees, mountains, etc), so there's no hypocrisy in my not wanting anything in my back yard, other than the aforementioned solar on my roof, personal wind turbine, etc. However, a lot of people obviously do want to live in or near urban areas, or at least choose to do so, and I'd rather have nuclear plants there than the current coal-fired plants.
And I really don't want to live downstream from a large hydroelectric dam, either.
It sounds like your motivation is more that of being reclusive than NIMBY-ish.
Since it is relevant to the thread, some may find this link interesting: click here
After all, one can not be merely not only NIMBY now, but also be NIABY, NAMBI and BANANA.
Today
Other popular topics in this forum...
