3 ms·

Environmentalists just can’t get out of their own way. Solar and wind were never viable alternatives to replace nuclear in Japan. It was always going to be coal

Environmentalists just can’t get out of their own way. Solar and wind were never viable alternatives to replace nuclear in Japan. It was always going to be coal. But when good is the enemy of perfect this is what you get. So let’s raise our glasses to the next decade of coal energy in Japan. Congratulations environmentalists, you won! You killed nuclear!

dangus 7y ago
Was it the “environmentalists” who won here? That’s just a label, and you’re using it to group an unknown mass of people together, assume they have identical views, and criticize them. Let me guess - everything that’s gone wrong in the world is also the fault of “the liberals?” In reality, Japan had an unfortunate nuclear catastrophe and it scared people, rightfully. The public put pressure on the government to ensure the catastrophe didn’t happen again. Meltdown scare is the major downside of nuclear outside of waste management. I think a lot of people aware of the science of energy generation consider nuclear a very reliable, green solution compared to the alternatives. But asking the general public to ignore the big scary elephant in the room is like asking people to stop freaking out about flying on planes (while they have no fear of the objectively less safe alternative of driving).
- jdshaffer 7y ago
  And that's not to forget the large quantities of contaminated water that are rapidly increasing at the Fukushima site. Now they want to release them into the ocean... Meltdown is scary, but so are the thoughts of dumping radioactive water into the oceans (and we eat a lot of seafood here in Japan!). Scary.
  - crispinb 7y ago
    Well it's scary in the abstract. Which is why to make a rational assessment you need details (of relevant half-life, volumes, ocean dispersal directions & rates, etc). Hard for us laypersons to assess, so it's easier to be scared (if you're anti-nuclear inclined) or complacent (if you're reflexively pro tech).
    - FooHentai 7y ago
      in situations of doubt there's the Precautionary Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
      - crispinb 7y ago
        Whether that's relevant depends on the source of the doubt, and the relative payoffs. The primary source of doubt in this case (ie. something with no numbers attached being thought of as 'scary') is ignorance. If that doubt remained after expert consultation, and the negative payoff from the release had a potential to be high, sure, it would be reasonable to apply the principle. But only after that process, not before.
crispinb 7y ago
Nonsense. "Environmentalists" (a crude & politically inactive umbrella term) can't even get nations to do the minimum necessary for long-term survival (stop catastrophic rates of wetland & forest destruction even in wealthy nations, reduce CO2 emissions, etc, etc, etc). Greens (for example) hardly get elected anywhere outside of a couple of European nations. It is true there is public resistance to nuclear power, almost everywhere. And the very same citizenries which don't want nuclear power also vote against action on climate change, for the corporatacracy, & for the generalised sacrifice of the biosphere for fake 'economic growth'. People don't want nuclear power because they are scared of it being near them (rightly or wrongly). This has zip to do with environmentalism.
- hurricanetc 7y ago
  Nonsense. Fear or nuclear is a result of decades of lobbying and fear mongering by anti nuclear environmentalists.
  - FooHentai 7y ago
    Nothing to do with them there accidents, eh.
  - crispinb 7y ago
    It's a witch!
  - imtringued 7y ago
    There also were decades of lobbying and mismanagement that made the fear mongering possible. Nuclear has a bad reputation because it deserves one.
FooHentai 7y ago
This argument only sounds good if you deliberately omit the geothermal, tidal, and offshore wind potential of Japan. Offshore wind potential alone is 1600Gw, with 600Gw of that in easy reach. Tidal is progressing well with some ideal straights locations with consistent, high flow.

dangus 7y ago

Was it the “environmentalists” who won here? That’s just a label, and you’re using it to group an unknown mass of people together, assume they have identical views, and criticize them. Let me guess - everything that’s gone wrong in the world is also the fault of “the liberals?” In reality, Japan had an unfortunate nuclear catastrophe and it scared people, rightfully. The public put pressure on the government to ensure the catastrophe didn’t happen again. Meltdown scare is the major downside of nuclear outside of waste management. I think a lot of people aware of the science of energy generation consider nuclear a very reliable, green solution compared to the alternatives. But asking the general public to ignore the big scary elephant in the room is like asking people to stop freaking out about flying on planes (while they have no fear of the objectively less safe alternative of driving).

jdshaffer 7y ago
And that's not to forget the large quantities of contaminated water that are rapidly increasing at the Fukushima site. Now they want to release them into the ocean... Meltdown is scary, but so are the thoughts of dumping radioactive water into the oceans (and we eat a lot of seafood here in Japan!). Scary.
- crispinb 7y ago
  Well it's scary in the abstract. Which is why to make a rational assessment you need details (of relevant half-life, volumes, ocean dispersal directions & rates, etc). Hard for us laypersons to assess, so it's easier to be scared (if you're anti-nuclear inclined) or complacent (if you're reflexively pro tech).
  - FooHentai 7y ago
    in situations of doubt there's the Precautionary Principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
    - crispinb 7y ago
      Whether that's relevant depends on the source of the doubt, and the relative payoffs. The primary source of doubt in this case (ie. something with no numbers attached being thought of as 'scary') is ignorance. If that doubt remained after expert consultation, and the negative payoff from the release had a potential to be high, sure, it would be reasonable to apply the principle. But only after that process, not before.

crispinb 7y ago

Nonsense. "Environmentalists" (a crude & politically inactive umbrella term) can't even get nations to do the minimum necessary for long-term survival (stop catastrophic rates of wetland & forest destruction even in wealthy nations, reduce CO2 emissions, etc, etc, etc). Greens (for example) hardly get elected anywhere outside of a couple of European nations. It is true there is public resistance to nuclear power, almost everywhere. And the very same citizenries which don't want nuclear power also vote against action on climate change, for the corporatacracy, & for the generalised sacrifice of the biosphere for fake 'economic growth'. People don't want nuclear power because they are scared of it being near them (rightly or wrongly). This has zip to do with environmentalism.

hurricanetc 7y ago
Nonsense. Fear or nuclear is a result of decades of lobbying and fear mongering by anti nuclear environmentalists.
- FooHentai 7y ago
  Nothing to do with them there accidents, eh.
- crispinb 7y ago
  It's a witch!
- imtringued 7y ago
  There also were decades of lobbying and mismanagement that made the fear mongering possible. Nuclear has a bad reputation because it deserves one.

FooHentai 7y ago

This argument only sounds good if you deliberately omit the geothermal, tidal, and offshore wind potential of Japan. Offshore wind potential alone is 1600Gw, with 600Gw of that in easy reach. Tidal is progressing well with some ideal straights locations with consistent, high flow.