OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson <svj.orionwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What the Fukushima disaster appears to have taught us in huge spades > is the fact that locating nuclear plants where both earthquakes and > tsunamis will occur on a regular basis is a really, really, REALLY bad > idea. The lesson learned: DON'T do it! I want my sushi cold, not hot! > That would be the whole of Japan, since they use seawater to cool the reactors. They do not have enough large rivers with year-round flows to locate them inland. In Japan at present there are 54 reactors. All but 3 are closed down. The other 51 are either damaged or destroyed by the earthquake, or under inspection. See: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-27/japan-has-3-reactors-with-6-4-of-total-capacity-online-table-.html They are finding many problems. In one day, nuclear power went from being the cheapest and most reliable source of energy in Japan to being unimaginably expensive. Expensive enough to effectively bankrupt TEPCO, one of the largest power companies on earth. During the crisis, there were secret plans to evacuate millions more people, if things had gotten any worse. Clearly, the financial and technical risks are too high. This is not a viable source of energy. I did not feel that way before the crisis. I do now, and the whole of Japan does as well. The news shows high level discussions in government in industry that have been underway since July. The issue is no longer whether they will phase out nuclear power, but how they are going to do it, and how soon. - Jed
