Japan To Replace Fukushima Reactor W. Largest Wind Farm

polaris_x

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Sounds cool that more money is going to be building, and thus researching new forms of power. And my understanding is that Fukushima was about to be decommissioned if the accident hadn't happened anyways. That said I think it is kind of a weird reactonary thing. I mean for one thing I look at the Fukushima accident as an argument for nuclear power. I mean the plant was 40 years old and was hit with a gigantic 9.0 magnitude earth quake and then hit directly with a tsunami. And even after a disaster of that magnitude no one died as a result of it being a nuclear plant.

It is just weird to me about how people will evaluate risk. I mean a lot of people were freaking out about a possible radiation cloud from Japan coming to north america, but no one freaks out about the radiation exposure you get hit with from flying in plane. Hell people freak out about radiation in general when it would seem to me that things like being a crappy driver and eating fast food would take more years off of your life than a hypothetical exposure to radiation.

i think some people died ... also ... we're talking about nuclear radiation exposure ... you can't determine the health consequences ... it's sort of like depleted uranium ... gov'ts have long said they are safe ...

having said all that - i am generally ok with the safety of nuclear reactors ... i do think tho in the end - it comes down to cost ... it's still the most expensive form of new energy out there ...

brianlux

polaris_x wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Sounds cool that more money is going to be building, and thus researching new forms of power. And my understanding is that Fukushima was about to be decommissioned if the accident hadn't happened anyways. That said I think it is kind of a weird reactonary thing. I mean for one thing I look at the Fukushima accident as an argument for nuclear power. I mean the plant was 40 years old and was hit with a gigantic 9.0 magnitude earth quake and then hit directly with a tsunami. And even after a disaster of that magnitude no one died as a result of it being a nuclear plant.

It is just weird to me about how people will evaluate risk. I mean a lot of people were freaking out about a possible radiation cloud from Japan coming to north america, but no one freaks out about the radiation exposure you get hit with from flying in plane. Hell people freak out about radiation in general when it would seem to me that things like being a crappy driver and eating fast food would take more years off of your life than a hypothetical exposure to radiation.

i think some people died ... also ... we're talking about nuclear radiation exposure ... you can't determine the health consequences ... it's sort of like depleted uranium ... gov'ts have long said they are safe ...

having said all that - i am generally ok with the safety of nuclear reactors ... i do think tho in the end - it comes down to cost ... it's still the most expensive form of new energy out there ...

I could see a good argument being made for nuclear reactors built on stable ground (though I would still argue against them, of course) but Japan? No way. There is no way a safe nuclear reactor can be built in Japan. Following the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami there was significant concern that a very large shelf which comprised much of eastern Japan could give way. This is not one of those myths like, "California is going to fall into the ocean" kind of thing. It really could happen. The instability of the ground that makes up Japan is well documented.

And we're not out of the woods as far as Fukushima goes either:

http://fukushimaupdate.com/

http://www.livescience.com/26480-fukush ... zures.html

MotoDC

brianlux wrote:

they are not a long term substitute for learning to live with less

But aren't they, in a way? The largest windfarm in the world produces just over a fifth of the energy that the (40 year old) nuke plant used to produce. That may not have an immediate effect, but to unsung's point, if they don't find another source of power, Japanese folks may be forced to cut their energy usage drastically.

polaris_x

MotoDC wrote:

But aren't they, in a way? The largest windfarm in the world produces just over a fifth of the energy that the (40 year old) nuke plant used to produce. That may not have an immediate effect, but to unsung's point, if they don't find another source of power, Japanese folks may be forced to cut their energy usage drastically.

that's the point ... we should all be cutting our energy usage ... it's absurd that it has to be by force ... but we cannot continue to treat our resources and energy as that it has no consequences or limits ...

brianlux

polaris_x wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

But aren't they, in a way? The largest windfarm in the world produces just over a fifth of the energy that the (40 year old) nuke plant used to produce. That may not have an immediate effect, but to unsung's point, if they don't find another source of power, Japanese folks may be forced to cut their energy usage drastically.

that's the point ... we should all be cutting our energy usage ... it's absurd that it has to be by force ... but we cannot continue to treat our resources and energy as that it has no consequences or limits ...

Right! I'd rather see hundreds of ugly windfarms than I would scores of nuclear power plants because they are cleaner and safer. But studies (sorry, I don't have time to find the references right now) have shown that thus far there are no viable substitutes for the massive amount of cheap energy provided by oil- and using oil in the quantities with which we have over the last 100 or so years has proven to have disastrous consequences. The logical solution is to develop clean energy sources and learn to reduce our energy consumption. It makes more sense to do that sooner than later.

MotoDC

brianlux wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

But aren't they, in a way? The largest windfarm in the world produces just over a fifth of the energy that the (40 year old) nuke plant used to produce. That may not have an immediate effect, but to unsung's point, if they don't find another source of power, Japanese folks may be forced to cut their energy usage drastically.

that's the point ... we should all be cutting our energy usage ... it's absurd that it has to be by force ... but we cannot continue to treat our resources and energy as that it has no consequences or limits ...

Right! I'd rather see hundreds of ugly windfarms than I would scores of nuclear power plants because they are cleaner and safer. But studies (sorry, I don't have time to find the references right now) have shown that thus far there are no viable substitutes for the massive amount of cheap energy provided by oil- and using oil in the quantities with which we have over the last 100 or so years has proven to have disastrous consequences. The logical solution is to develop clean energy sources and learn to reduce our energy consumption. It makes more sense to do that sooner than later.

Brian, I was merely saying that, in contrast to your statement that I originally quoted, the windfarms are in fact (or could be) a substitute, in a way, for learning to live on less since they may force that to become the reality anyway. Unfortunate that a natural disaster had to occur to make that happen, but it's not as if the use of nuke power caused that natural disaster. The tsunami would have happened either way, this just happens to be one positive side effect. Easy for me to say "positive", I suppose, since it's they and not I that must live on less power...