Tokyo High Court slashes damages to Fukushima nuclear disaster evacuees

Post by saagarjha » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

credit_guy wrote: post #58

yongjik wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, when the alternative is fossil fuels (and it frequently is), you only have to understand that, even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. And please don't give me "we should all use less energy." Even if we should all use less energy, it's still better to generate this less energy from nuclear, as long as we're using fossil fue…

I'm pro-nuclear myself, but going to play devil's advocate here. Chernobyl was bad, but it could have been much worse. Also, Chernobyl did actually kill people, and displaced many more. Fossil fuel plants put some stuff in the air, that according to some models do some other stuff that if you squint hard could make you believe that some bajillions of people died. But people don't actually die because there's ash in t…

Post by catalogia » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #82

magduf wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't. Coal ash takes up an enormous amount of space, and it can blow around too. Nuclear waste takes up a relatively small volume.

Interesting. I think the opposite. Just the fact that we've spent tens of billions on Yucca mountain alone to have it go nowhere makes me think differently. If I was a contractor faced with solving the coal ash problem or the nuclear waste problem, I'd avoid the latter like the plague even if just for the political difficulties, notwithstanding the engineering part of the problem.

Post by bumby » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

catalogia wrote: post #83

bumby wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I think the opposite. Just the fact that we've spent tens of billions on Yucca mountain alone to have it go nowhere makes me think differently. If I was a contractor faced with solving the coal ash problem or the nuclear waste problem, I'd avoid the latter like the plague even if just for the political difficulties, notwithstanding the engineering part of the problem.

The only reason trillions of dollars haven't been spent cleaning up the byproducts of burning fossil fuels is because we just dump it into the environment instead. If the fossil fuel industry were held accountable for the waste, it would be much more expensive than the boondoggle that is Yucca mountain. (Particularly if CO2 emissions are properly considered...)

Post by ohyes » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #82

magduf wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't. Coal ash takes up an enormous amount of space, and it can blow around too. Nuclear waste takes up a relatively small volume.

Interesting. I think the opposite. Just the fact that we've spent tens of billions on Yucca mountain alone to have it go nowhere makes me think differently. If I was a contractor faced with solving the coal ash problem or the nuclear waste problem, I'd avoid the latter like the plague even if just for the political difficulties, notwithstanding the engineering part of the problem.

Post by Barrin92 » Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 11:24 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #25

pgt wrote: post #4

I used to be pro-nuclear, but here in South Africa, we can't even keep our coal plants running - nevermind nuclear. Last week a 930MW nuclear turbine at Koeberg went down because the cooling pump filters had not been cleaned in years and was filled with fish and jellyfish. Small-scale, independent solar producers and perhaps geothermal or CSP (molten salt) seem to be the only strategies that can work. There will alwa…

Actually, when the alternative is fossil fuels (and it frequently is), you only have to understand that, even if your nuclear reactor goes kaboom, it will still kill less people than your fossil fuel plant that does not blow up. And please don't give me "we should all use less energy." Even if we should all use less energy, it's still better to generate this less energy from nuclear, as long as we're using fossil fue…