Good! urgently news! Shikoku Electric Energy Co. decided to scrap the Ikata No.1 Nuclear Plant,
Badman Nishioka/rainforest action group/Osaka/
Originally shared by Nishioka Yoshio
Good news! Yesterday, Shikoku Electric Energy give up to re-operate the Ikata Nuclear Energy Plant No1 that decide to scrap! Good! But Ikata Nuclear Energy plant No.3 , Abe Pm Minister and Ehime Governor permitted on last year, will re-operate on this July! Bad!
Badman Nishioka/rainforest action group/Osaka/
https://english.kyodonews.jp/photos/2016/03/403488.html
Less nuclear means more coal. I'd rather see them building geothermal plants than shutting nuclear plants down.
ReplyDeleteMore voltaic plants less nuclear!
ReplyDeleteJ Miller Voltaic plants can't power a grid. We should be focusing on getting off fossil fuels, which means not being so critical of nuclear.
ReplyDeleteDont fear atomic energy cus none of them can stop the time. Bob Marley. Our sun is nucular so lets work hard to use less but benefit more.?
ReplyDeleteEric Mueller you must work for the power corps. With voltaic and batteries who needs the grid?
ReplyDeleteBesides the grid is a calamity waiting to happen. Independent power sources are much more stable for the public's peace and peace of mind.
J Miller No, I'm just someone who realizes that we could've eradicated coal by now if we hadn't fought against nuclear.
ReplyDeleteBattery technology still isn't where it needs to be to power a grid. Even then, you have a limited number of daytime hours during which cells can generate energy for storage, and if you run out of reserves during the night you're screwed. Battery technology may get to the point where solar can support an entire grid someday, but in the meantime we're spewing literal tons of fossil fuel emissions into the air. That could have been avoided by investing in nuclear. Japan is a perfect example. When they take these nuke plants offline, are they going to solar? No, they're going straight back to coal.
Japan and Russia have shown how dangerous, costly and a waste nuclear power is. The fact that I do not need a grid says otherwise about current battery tech.
ReplyDeleteI say that investment should be put into energy storage that the grid use as a backup.
If solar panels were on every roof top we would not need a nation wide grid or nuclear plants.
J Miller We would still need a nation wide grid. Besides, the cost of installing all those solar panels and storage units would be astronomical. It's just not going to happen, which means that if we cut back on nuclear we're just ushering in more coal.
ReplyDeleteGiven how widely nuclear has been used, its accident rate is extremely low. There have been disasters, but they are few and far between and could have been avoided with better safety precautions and tighter regulations.
Have you looked what nuclear costs are? Decommissioning nuke plants costs billions each. The costs of storing highly toxic nuke waste all over our country for hundreds of thousands of years will be in the trillions. And that is if we find a way to safely store it and it does NOT contaminate our water supply.
ReplyDeleteYou want to talk about costs, let's do that. In the mean time look into the true costs of nuclear. You will find it is lots more than people realize.
Couple that with the potential dangers and I can't see how anyone can advocate for nuclear power.
J Miller Decommissioning takes hundreds of millions per reactor, not billions. Plant operators set aside money from their profits over the life of the reactor to pay for this. To install solar panels and batteries you wouldn't be using private money, you'd be using public money. There is not a snowball's chance in hell you're going to get that kind of spending approved to be able to install panels and batteries in every home, not to mention the problems of private property.
ReplyDeleteStorage and decommissioning costs are high, but other costs are low compared to other forms of energy generation. Even taking those costs into account, it's still cheaper per kilowatt hour than solar and wind. When you talk about power sources with lower startup costs you're talking coal and natural gas. Like I said, if you want us to keep burning fossil fuels then by all means, oppose nuclear.
Nuclear waste disposal is incredibly safe and does not regularly poison the environment. Any instances of it doing so are, again, a result of poor planning, lack of safety procedures, and poor oversight.
If getting rid of nuclear would actually lead to more solar and wind it might be worth it, but when a nuke plant goes offline a coal or natural gas plant opens up. This is just how things work, less nuclear means more coal. Beyond that, we could've taken scores of coal plants offline if we had relied more on nuclear in the period between the advent of nuclear technology and the point when solar becomes economically viable. But no, I guess dumping tons of fossil fuels into the atmosphere is what you want. I swear, you're worse than an anti-vaxer.
Let me know when they figure out how to safely store or rid us of the tons of nuclear weapons waste we have sitting all over the country now. And you advocate to make more.......
ReplyDeleteJ Miller Weapons grade radioactive material is different from the radioactive material used in power generation. We're talking about nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons. Stay on topic.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned weapons? You stay on topic. The tons of nuclear waste that we have at each nuke site now is just as deadly.
ReplyDeleteLet me know when we find a way to dispose of it you highly misinformed person.
J Miller I didn't bring up weapons waste, you brought up weapons waste, which is an entirely different issue.
ReplyDeleteWe have multiple ways of disposing of nuclear waste, most of which involve sequestering it until it becomes inert (i.e. not deadly). Sure, it's still dangerous until it's inert, which is why we sequester it. Saying that safely stored nuclear waste is dangerous is like saying that electricity is dangerous. Sure, there's a potential for danger, but if you handle it right there's no threat at all.
You're the one spouting debunked lies about nuclear in service to a neanderthalic anti-science worldview. New technology is not inherently bad, but people like you smear anything new anyway because you fear what you don't understand.
You are diluted by the BS the they feed you.
ReplyDeleteLove how you neglect to mention transportation costs or the costs of storage. These all add to the costs of nuclear power. You say we have a way to sequesture the waste but it still sits there. Waiting to cause damage.
What you call potential danger is still a danger. You seem to think that nuclear power generation and waste storage is trivial. Something as simple as power cut off to the pumps can be catastrophic. That is not trivial.
I would say that stored nuclear waste is only safe as long as the cage housing it, is intact. A functioning nuke plant is only safe as long as it gets power to run the pumps. Fukushima can attest to that.
Hectares lost for decades, tons of contaminated water dumped into the ocean to contaminate their food supply. Who knows how many people will get cancer from exposure. Who knows how long it will take to even be safe to get back into the building to contain the damage.
This is all justifiable to you?
It is people like you that view nuclear power as some kind perfect solution while ignoring the extreme costs and dangers of it, will someday destroy the use of acres of land and or kill many people in this country around a nuclear site here in the US. Accidents happen. But with nuclear, accidents are very costly, both in dollars land and lives. With almost 100 nuclear reactors currently in the US presently, the odds say an accident will happen.
For someone to disregard those facts, says that they have no common sense and are clueless to the reality of the world.
You are right in one in one of your comments. I do fear nuclear power. But not because I do not understand it. Because of people like you that underestimate it's dangers.
J Miller Transportation and storage costs are figured in to the costs of running a nuclear plant, and nuclear is still more cost effective than wind and solar. You do know that wind and solar units require maintenance, right? Do you know what a logistical nightmare it would be to perform maintenance on every single home and business in the country? Not to mention installing it all in the first place.
ReplyDeleteFor all the potential things that could go wrong, how often have they actually gone wrong? Maybe a handful of times in well over fifty years. Technology and safety procedures are getting better all the time, and the handful of disasters could have been avoided with the technology available at the time. Chernobyl is a testament to the laziness of Soviet engineering, not the volatility of nuclear power. It was 100% avoidable, as was Fukushima.
What's more dangerous, the extremely low chance that something will go wrong with a nuclear plant, or the guaranteed health hazards of continuing to rely on fossil fuels for power generation? Carbon pollution causes cancer, respiratory problems, smog, not to even mention its effect on global warming. You're opposing our best option to end our dependence on fossil fuels.