5 ms·
With all that coastline Japan should be investing more in tidal power generation and forget once and for all about nuclear power, too high the risk for earthqua
by Kilimanjaro 16y ago
With all that coastline Japan should be investing more in tidal power generation and forget once and for all about nuclear power, too high the risk for earthquakes and tsunamis happening again even at worse scale.
- ugh 16y agoCan tidal power equipment survive a tsunami, though? Japan needs a stable energy supply – if only because they can’t just import power from one of their neighbors in a pinch (like, for example, most European countries can). I heard today that even wind turbines are not ideal for Japan because typhoons are common. Japan is in a pretty unique position – it’s certainly understandable why nuclear power is very popular there.
- Kilimanjaro 16y agoEarthquake destroys nuclear plant: thousands killed. Tsunami destroys tidal power plant: none killed. You are the PM of Japan, you make the call.
- ugh 16y agoAs of yet, no one was killed during the nuclear incident.
- daniel02216 16y agoWeren't some engineers already killed during the explosion?
- Wientje 16y agoThe one death reported so far was when the earthquake hit and he got crushed by a crane.
- PaulHoule 16y agoActually, hydroelectric plant failures can cause 100+ kilodeaths. In terms of prompt fatalities, hydroelectricity is by far the deadliest power source.
- eliasmacpherson 16y agoAm I right in thinking that your figure is for inland hydroelectric power plants, not Tidal power generators?
- Uchikoma 16y agoI would be interested in how tidal generators can cause >100.000 deaths.
- cracki 16y agodid the earthquake kill thousands, or did the total failure of a nuclear power plant kill them? a tsunami can kill just as many people as an earth quake. the subsequent deaths due to a destroyed power plant are another matter. from the article I get the impression that nuclear plants are built to withstand a lot of abuse and fuckups. i see no reason to shy away from nuclear power. their power producing companies will know what kind of plants to run. we don't.
- illumen 16y agoThis is a company that has been caught falsifying safety reports, and had resignations because of it. I would not trust them to choose in the interest of everyone - but instead in the interest of the company.
- Natsu 16y ago> This is a company that has been caught falsifying safety reports, and had resignations because of it. That's highly encouraging. That means that caught the people falsifying the reports and that they fired them. If they had a "perfect" record, I would be incredibly worried.
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoI hope it remains popular. I know, this is a disaster, but the reactors at risk are old steam-engine types. Comparing this to modern reactors is similar to comparing an old steam-locomotive boiler explosion to a modern formula racecar. e.g. http://www.nuscalepower.com http://www.nuscalepower.com
- Wientje 16y agoHow, exactly, is this a disaster compared to the greater surroundings? Preliminary results are one death, some injured people and perhaps 10 people who'll die from cancer in 20 years time who otherwise wouldn't. Compare to the thousands deaths, millions homeless and unimaginable damage from the earthquake and the nuclear 'disaster' is but a drop in the ocean.
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoOne way its a disaster is, if it warps public policy for decades to come, armtwists power providers into dirty, ecologically disastrous choices and impoverishes a nation thru expensive energy.