1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Sep '13 14:384 edits
    http://phys.org/news/2013-09-japan-nuclear-free-reactor.html

    I think they are making a terrible mistake! -a ridiculously irrational nee-jerk reaction to the Fukushima nuclear crisis and which hasn't been thought through in the slightest esp regarding the energy policy given Japan's lack of energy sources.

    That reactor was an old reactor of a design that was much less safe than the newer ones. Rather than abandoning nuclear, they may be much better off making more nuclear reactors but learn from history by not building them very close to sea level given the history of tsunamis there and also to stick to the more modern safer designs that have a proven track record for safety and never use the older unsafe designs ever again.


    When an aircraft crashes and kills many people, should you ban all aircraft or learn from the disaster to make all aircraft safer?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 Sep '13 16:16
    Originally posted by humy
    I think they are making a terrible mistake! -a ridiculously irrational nee-jerk reaction to the Fukushima nuclear crisis and which hasn't been thought through in the slightest esp regarding the energy policy given Japan's lack of energy sources.
    People in general are irrational about nuclear. Something about radiation being an invisible killer, combined with our fear of nuclear bombs. But then we are similarly irrational about flying, something about the lack of control, and near certainty of death if a serious accident occurs in flight. We are much more comfortable with trains and busses even though they too can have catastrophic accidents.
    I believe nuclear is now for China and India to develop. They have the greatest need for energy and are less tied up in red tape.
    I think however that if Japan invests in renewables they might do just as well with renewables as with nuclear.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    15 Sep '13 19:02
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    People in general are irrational about nuclear. Something about radiation being an invisible killer, combined with our fear of nuclear bombs. But then we are similarly irrational about flying, something about the lack of control, and near certainty of death if a serious accident occurs in flight. We are much more comfortable with trains and busses even th ...[text shortened]... that if Japan invests in renewables they might do just as well with renewables as with nuclear.
    I think however that if Japan invests in renewables they might do just as well with renewables as with nuclear.

    Agreed. I think they, and every other country, will do better with renewables in the very long run. Nuclear, unless you are talking about fission rather than fusion, has no future in the very long run. I just see going nuclear as a rational way to buy as time in the medium run until we find a way of making renewables more cost effective.
  4. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    15 Sep '13 23:37
    Originally posted by humy
    I think however that if Japan invests in renewables they might do just as well with renewables as with nuclear.

    Agreed. I think they, and every other country, will do better with renewables in the very long run. Nuclear, unless you are talking about fission rather than fusion, has no future in the very long run. I just see going nuclear a ...[text shortened]... to buy as time in the medium run until we find a way of making renewables more cost effective.
    But nuclear, fission style, has huge bill to pay 30 years down the line when it's time to decommision the reactor. We in the US still haven't solved the nuclear waste problem. It's just sitting around rotting out their containers meanwhile we waste a lot of time not putting the stuff in deep salt mines or whatever, where you can store the stuff for the next 100,000 years or so.
  5. SubscriberKewpie
    since 1-Feb-07
    Joined
    20 Jan '09
    Moves
    316915
    16 Sep '13 04:41
    Synroc looked promising, but Australia hasn't the money to develop the process and the US seems lukewarm, with not much action on their website:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
    http://www.synrocansto.com/index.html
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    16 Sep '13 11:08
    Originally posted by Kewpie
    Synroc looked promising, but Australia hasn't the money to develop the process and the US seems lukewarm, with not much action on their website:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc
    http://www.synrocansto.com/index.html
    A thought occurred to me: If Synroc can store radioactive wastes in a solid form, could you then use that rock, say in thinner sheets than a simple cube, and use them as the active element in an atomic battery, powered by the radioactivity of the synroc itself? If so, that would be a win win situation seems to me.
Back to Top