consider that actual danger. The site you linked was very interesting. I just wonder..the world demands this electricity, how will that demand be met without nuclear power. The frequency of occurrence should limit the danger. What % of a given nations power comes from nuclear power and how do you replace it?
In Japan ,the risk of building a plant that close to the sea on a major fault line would seem to have been a clue, right? I mean Tsunami has been a part of that culture for centuries...just saying that the problem might have something to do with more than radioactive waste or the black swan.
What caused the issue in the Soviet Union? Thinking of fallout as the result of something unexpected.
Here some hard facts about Chernobyl and Fukushima:
1) Chernobyl's "accident" in 1986 was in reactor No. 3. The other reactors (No 1, 2 and 4) worked as long
as 2000 when the whole production was closed... (no comment)
2) Fukushima's reactors 1 to 6 were all hit and destroyed at the same event 2011.
Reactor 1, 2 and 3 melted totally down, reactor 4 was defuelled, 5 and 6 were down for maintenance reasons (so four times the catastrophe?)
Some thoughts about the cost of the *first aid* in Chernobyl here:
While it is difficult to establish the total economic cost of the disaster, in Belarus the total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235 billion (in 2005 dollars). The on-going costs are, however, better defined; in their 2003–2005 report, The Chernobyl Forum stated that between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine still related to Chernobyl, while in Belarus over $13 billion is thought to have been spent between 1991 and 2003, with 22% of national budget having been Chernobyl-related in 1991, falling to 6% by 2002. Much of the current cost related to the payment of Chernobyl-related social benefits to some 7 million people across the 3 countries."
Source Wikipedia (Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
These are numbers we are not used to see in a budget or household for the next four years of election.
Chernobyl was a 50 year old graphite pile similar to Fermi Pile, the USA's first reactor under the stadium in Chicago.
Nobody could manage that without the say of the then Soviet government, it was bound to happen.
Fokushima was a victim of super polite style of Japanese management.
US reactors have not had an incident since TMI-3 in 1979. We have had many die in coal mines.
Nuclear is over 25% of US energy and can not be replaced with solar and wind energy with their own problems.
This is a capitalist system, nothing will happen unless it is economical and R/R are economically justified.
Batteries are not going to power your air conditioning 24 hrs a day, all the current solar and wind energy today is less than 2% and is done only as a tax deduction, carbon credit, and looking good to public and investors.
With 400M of 7B world population this country is using over 35% of world energy. God forbid we have a 5-days blackout due to loss of 5% of our electricity, this country will be in riots.
Get real, you accept risk when you buy insurance for your house and car or have stop limits on your trades (Although I don't know many with insurance for their 401Ks).
Simply, nature requires you to take risk to survive and get by daily. So, let's get real.
The following user says Thank You to aligator for this post:
Yea there's always a reason why it failed. Yea it was because of this and that. It was like that then. It is different now. That last one was over there. What can you expect from them? Well when you build one there? When you build one like that? I have years of learning. I even work in one. Well when you take care of the waste in such a poor manner.
But save the best for last -
"This is a capitalist system, nothing will happen unless it is economical and R/R are economically justified."
That's why they always need government guarantees. Government subsidies. Government to take care of the waste. And government to pay their bonuses and bailouts. Really, a nuclear power plant is like an IPO. Goldman issues one, and then sells it short and heads for the hills with their money. Face it. The only people who like nuclear power are the super rich and powerful and the poor who don't know any better. Who think that "Well they wouldn't 'uv built the darn thing if it weren't safe Martha."
Platform: Abacus, Slide Rule, HP-65, Metastock, TOS, NT
Favorite Futures: Futures
Posts: 3,424 since Aug 2010
Thanks: 1,052 given,
Forum Reputation: Legendary
Thanks. I encourage anyone to equally read both sides of any issue, not just pieces taken out of the context to serve one's agenda. Sensationalism sells commercials, that is why 90% of the news is bad news. Most people don't care about good news that we are blessed with good energy fortunes and abundance of resources.
The problem is most have an opinion (installed or genetic) on certain issues that no amount of relevant information and facts will make a dent in their hard standings.
In 1954, then Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission Lewis Strauss promised that the nuclear industry would one day provide energy “too cheap to meter.”(5) More than 50 years and tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies later, nuclear power remains prohibitively expensive. Even among the business and financial communities, it is widely accepted that nuclear power would not be economically viable without government support.(11) Despite this poor economic performance, the federal government has continued to pour money into the nuclear industry the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included more than $13 billion in production subsidies, tax breaks and other incentives for nuclear power.
The most important subsidy for the nuclear industry and the most expensive for U.S. taxpayers comes in the form of loan guarantees, which are promises that taxpayers will bail out the nuclear utilities by paying back their loans when the projects fail. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the failure rate for nuclear projects is “very high well above 50 percent.”(12) The nuclear industry is demanding $122 billion in federal loan guarantees for 21 reactors. If these guarantees were authorized, taxpayers would be on the hook for at least $61 billion."
If the European energy market was a level playing field, where energy pricing would reflect the true costs of producing energy from different sources, nuclear power would be economically insane. All countries using its technology have seriously underestimated the full costs of nuclear power. Not a single nuclear power plant was ever built without direct or indirect subsidies, paid by taxpayers and increasing the profits of the nuclear industry. Also, nuclear power will not be able to compete with renewable energies without huge amounts of state aid. That nuclear power today produces on third of Europe’s electricity is due to political that created favourable market conditions: Over the last 30 years, the EU’s governments spent more than €45 billion for nuclear research.
As already said, Most of the costs of a (however likely) serious nuclear accident will be borne by society and not by the plant operator’s insurance. There is a huge gap between the expected costs of decommissioning and waste storage of the currently operating plants in the EU and the money set aside for that purpose by the operators. The hidden costs of waste disposal, decommissioning of plants at the end of their lifespan (the decommissiing costs alone could be as high as 500 billion Euro for the power stations currently operating within the EU) and provisioning for accidents have never been adequately accounted for, and will result in a massive burden on future economies and generations."
"4. Nuclear power is no solution to climate change
In order to avoid the most catastrophic effects of global warming, the world will have to cut back its emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases by around 50% by 2050. Since by far the most of emissions happen in the energy sector, the nuclear industry hopes to use the climate crisis to stage a nuclear revival, arguing that nuclear power is cheap, emission-free and thus has a role to play in securing low-emissions supply of energy.
But nuclear power is not at all emissions free, if emissions in relation to uranium mining, transportation, plant construction and decommissioning and waste storage are included in the calculation. It has been calculated that for example in the UK with its 23 nuclear reactors, doubling capacity would cut emissions by no more than 8% . Globally, tripling nuclear capacity by 2050 might contribute 12.5%-20% to the necessary emission reductions. But such scenarios — one plant every two weeks — have no link to political reality, and the costs would be astronomic.
Compare this to the 20% reduction of energy consumption (and emissions) the European Union can achieve by 2020 (30 years earlier) at zero net costs, as the European Commission has pointed out in a “Green Paper” on energy efficiency. Also, nuclear power comes with high opportunity costs (since every Euro can be spent only once): Every Euro invested in new nuclear power could save ten times more emissions if it was invested in energy conservation measures instead — thus also securing energy supply ten times cheaper. "