3 ms·

I want new ones, not built in tsunami & earthquake prone areas, since they are the only practical way to eliminate greenhouse gasses, and to stop propping up th

by webXL 13y ago

I want new ones, not built in tsunami & earthquake prone areas, since they are the only practical way to eliminate greenhouse gasses, and to stop propping up theocracies in the Middle East.

webXL 13y ago
Oh, and I forgot about getting off of coal. Even if there were 10 more Fukushimas, it still wouldn't be as much radiation as what coal produces: "The radiation that fossil fuel plants spew into the environment each year is around 0.1 EBq. That’s ExaBecquerel, or 10 to the power of 18. Fukushima is pumping out 10 trillion becquerels a year at present. Or 10 TBq, or 10 of 10 to the power of 12. Or, if you prefer, one ten thousandth of the amount that the world’s coal plants are doing. Or even, given that there are only about 2,500 coal plants in the world, Fukushima is, in this disaster, pumping out around one quarter of the radiation that a coal plant does in normal operation." http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/10/the-fukushima-radiation-leak-is-equal-to-76-million-bananas/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/10/the-fukus...
toyg 13y ago
Yeah well, you can sort of plan for tsunamis, but earthquakes have a habit of sneaking up on you. In 2012 there was a humongous earthquake in Italy... in the area with the lowest risk of earthquake around the entire country, technically one of the safest areas in the continent. The only completely-safe nuclear reactor is the one which doesn't get built.
- webXL 13y ago
  The only completely safe ____ is the one which ____. We can fill in the blanks all day long. There are ways to mitigate the earthquake risk and there are new designs that are incapable of melting-down. Using a combination of the two would certainly be better than crap we're spewing into the atmosphere at the moment.

3 ms·

I want new ones, not built in tsunami & earthquake prone areas, since they are the only practical way to eliminate greenhouse gasses, and to stop propping up th

by webXL 13y ago

I want new ones, not built in tsunami & earthquake prone areas, since they are the only practical way to eliminate greenhouse gasses, and to stop propping up theocracies in the Middle East.

webXL 13y ago
Oh, and I forgot about getting off of coal. Even if there were 10 more Fukushimas, it still wouldn't be as much radiation as what coal produces: "The radiation that fossil fuel plants spew into the environment each year is around 0.1 EBq. That’s ExaBecquerel, or 10 to the power of 18. Fukushima is pumping out 10 trillion becquerels a year at present. Or 10 TBq, or 10 of 10 to the power of 12. Or, if you prefer, one ten thousandth of the amount that the world’s coal plants are doing. Or even, given that there are only about 2,500 coal plants in the world, Fukushima is, in this disaster, pumping out around one quarter of the radiation that a coal plant does in normal operation." http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/10/the-fukushima-radiation-leak-is-equal-to-76-million-bananas/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/08/10/the-fukus...
toyg 13y ago
Yeah well, you can sort of plan for tsunamis, but earthquakes have a habit of sneaking up on you. In 2012 there was a humongous earthquake in Italy... in the area with the lowest risk of earthquake around the entire country, technically one of the safest areas in the continent. The only completely-safe nuclear reactor is the one which doesn't get built.
- webXL 13y ago
  The only completely safe ____ is the one which ____. We can fill in the blanks all day long. There are ways to mitigate the earthquake risk and there are new designs that are incapable of melting-down. Using a combination of the two would certainly be better than crap we're spewing into the atmosphere at the moment.