[Closed] Japan Shuts down it's Nuclear Reactors and Prepares for Power Shortages

Hmmmmm... Rock and a Hard place!

We know of the advantages associated with Nuclear Power. We know of the disadvantages. In an ideal world, in a "safe" environment, modern Nuclear Power stations are [i]technically[/i] the answer. The problem is, there's no such thing as a 100% guarantee of safety. And Japan is in an area of the world that is susceptible to lots of natural disasters!

Got to say though that if it affects Japans economy, it's going to affect the whole world quite drastically. We can forget about our pathetic "2x 0.01% negative growth quarters in a row" recession that we're going through, it will impact heavily!

Also, don't suppose Shimano products will get any cheaper either! 😕

Sony, Cannon and many more

Unfortunately fear of nuclear overrides logic, especially in Japan. A natural disaster, predictable from history, destroys many towns and villages - nearly 20 000 people die. Also leads to meltdown of old, badly configured nuclear power station - but no deaths. So, rebuild the towns in the coastal areas and close all the nuclear stations ?

Nuclear's bad mmmmkay 🙄

i think the japanese, perhaps understandably- no other country was nuked, have some issues regarding radiation, I work with in a lab that uses some radioactive isotopes and a radiation obsessed japanese lab tech and she wears 2 lab coats and a breathing mask, which is completely unecessary, infact a high altitude flight to japan doses her with more radiation than we carry in the lab.

im sure they could make it work without nuclear, but it will be expensive for them and their economy and the rest of us, they plan to up their gas usage massively and that will drive gas (& petrol) prices up too.

Good - another country sees sense.

Two sets of info to add
[url= http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html ]Deaths Per TW of energy produced[/url]

and
[img] [/img]

yay, more good news

Wouldnt no deaths yet be a more appropriate description?

Indeed it would be AA - some of the workers got a fair old doseage and the spill into the environment will cause some as will the moving people out of their homes.

as will the moving people out of their homes.

Moving people out of their homes causes death by radiation? 😯

Yay, another Nuclear thread! Does that mean it's only another week till the religon thread comes up? I like those ones. Someone check the "big hitters thread" rota!

Tree - moving that number of people out of their homes will result in a very small number of extra deaths not from radiation tho - from stress and so on.

expect anything made in japan to become more expensive and harder to get?

Won't be able to talk to God either

...Japan has closed all it's reactors for safety tests and further approval before restarting...

in other words...

japan wants to reassure it's people that their nuclear power stations aren't doing anything silly (overloaded cooling pools for example)

in other words...

the japanese will soon be campaigning to turn the power stations back on...

Interesting times ahead for the Japanese economy:

1. Their economy will be running a current account deficit now that they will have to continue importing energy;
2. They have an aging population who will become net sellers of Japanese government bonds very soon;
3. The Japanese central bank is trying to introduce a bit of inflation into their economy, which the bond market will not like;
4. They have a huge debt which combined with the 3 points above could mean a Yen crisis in the not too distant future.

Good. It's clearly going to be a much better world when we get rid of all nuclear power stations and increase the rate at which coal is burnt to a level that would impress the Victorians.

I mean what could possibly go wrong? More people dying from respiratory illness? Changed weather patterns, disease, famine, failed harvests, changed weather patterns and whole countries such as Bangladesh potentially wiped off the map due to AGW? Not to mention the poor buggers who seem to keep getting killed digging the stuff up....

Then there's all that radiation that coal-fired power stations belch out in routine operation. But that's a different sort of radiation, right? 🙄 Toxic ash with no long-term storage strategy - the list goes on.

Sounds great.

Zokes - you know that is utter bobbins - why do you keep repeating it?

Be an evangelist for nukes despite the evidence if you want - but why keep repeating these canards? They don't get any truer if you keep repeatign them.

Oh great. A new debate topic.

I mean what could possibly go wrong? More people dying from respiratory illness? Changed weather patterns, disease, famine, failed harvests, changed weather patterns and whole countries such as Bangladesh potentially wiped off the map due to AGW? Not to mention the poor buggers who seem to keep getting killed digging the stuff up....

Then there's all that radiation that coal-fired power stations belch out in routine operation. But that's a different sort of radiation, right? Toxic ash with no long-term storage strategy - the list goes on.

I put it down to over the top alarmist arguments used by the anti-nuclear lobby which are designed to frighten people.

Be an evangelist for [s]nukes[/s] (substitute with a topic of your choice) despite the evidence if you want - but why keep repeating these canards? They don't get any truer if you keep repeatign them.

I'm not sure which bobbins you're referring to...

1) People die from respiratory disease as a result of burning fossil fuels - [u][url= http://www.psr.org/news-events/press-releases/coal-pollution-damages-human-health.html ]this is a fact[/url][/u]

2) AGW is a real phenomenon, and you and I both know all those scenarios are well within the bounds of what is predicted by better climate scientists than you and I are

3) People do die regularly mining coal. New Zealand and South Wales are two recent 'first world' examples

4) Coal contains traces of radioactive elements (including uranium), and of course there is the 14C in coal - a natural beta-emitter. You don't want to breathe that in. There are several peer-reviewed papers on the radiation emitted by various generation sources, as you know.

5) The ash produced is[u] [url= http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste ]toxic, carcinogenic, and radioactive[/url][/u]. Current management strategy is to stick it in a hole in the ground - a strategy you seem to take issue with when applied to other toxic, carcinogenic, radioactive wastes.

So, which bit is bobbins? If it's the bit about having to build more coal-fired power stations, then pray tell, where else are we going to get our energy from when gas runs out. Whilst in the long-term, Germany plans to replace its nuclear power with renewables, for the foreseeable future, [url= http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=802 ]it'll be coal that fills the gap[/url] (and imported nuclear)

All that is true - however nuclear releases far more radioactivity into the environment and actually creates very dangerous waste and makes no and can never many any significant contribution to combating global warming.

so your posts as usual are the mix of half truths and outright nonsense that characterises the pro nuclear lobby and its frankly unpalatable propaganda

Fortunatly more and more people are coming to the realisation of the truth - that nuclear is not the answer

TandemJeremy - Member
All that is true

so your posts as usual are the mix of half truths and outright nonsense

🙄

How about instead of some vexatious arm-way post that contradicts itself, you respond to my referenced facts with some of your own to support your argument? Preferably from neutral sites, as (I think) all mine have been.

Thats right

A half of the truth is true but only tells half the story.

TandemJeremy - Member
All that is true

You typed it, not me. Now then - these referenced sources to back up your argument? It's looking even thinner than usual at present. Some might say almost anti-nuclear (or even coal) evangelistic...

however nuclear releases far more radioactivity into the environment and actually creates very dangerous waste and makes no and can never many any significant contribution to combating global warming.

And also it is an unearthly power which challenges God's mighty heavenly power and his divine plan.

Nuclear energy is dark, satanic, and the diabolical work of the Devil. God wants to bathe us all in the bright loving warmth of the Sun, as it shines down on us from the heavens.

I thought I would mention that as the religious angle never seems to be included on these nuclear threads.

I'm still figuring out how to include the Falklands War thereby creating a monstrous mega-thread which will destroy STW.

No wait....... Maggie Thatcher called the miners during the miners strike "the enemy within" in reference to a new enemy after the Falklands War. It's now clear to me that the Falklands War was just the prelude to destroying the coal industry so to allow the nuclear industry to flourish.

God that women was evil - Satan must be getting very restless to meet her.

\o/

*Applauds Ernie*

God wants to bathe us all in the bright loving warmth of the Sun, as it shines down on us from the heavens.

co2 emissions - give a ***? Let's be honest, that's a losing battle.

something I believe the Green Party would approve of

Which of course is why I voted for the Green Party on Thursday .......I want to be part of God's divine plan 8)

Plus I didn't want to vote for the other shower of useless ****s

I want to be part of God's divine plan

There are, of course, lots of other reasons for letting the Lord into your life.

Tell me about them DS. I want to know.

Because He will enlighten you so you know nuclear power make sense?

Zokes - you know that is utter bobbins - why do you keep repeating it?

No TJ, I did a quick 5,000 word epidemiological survey for my undergrad degree on the effects of coal power stations on disease around the world. Turns out they do cause respiratory illness, birth defects and cancer.

[url= http://www.watchtower.org/ ]Here you go ernesto.[/url] See you can find some inner peace and rid yourself of the issues that seem to be troubling you so much.

All that is true - however nuclear releases far more radioactivity into the environment and actually creates very dangerous waste and makes no and can never many any significant contribution to combating global warming.

*Cough* horseshit *cough*

The reality is, is that coal stations release more radioactivity into the environment.

Yes they do Bwaarp. the bobbins is the insinuation that they release more radioactivity than nuclear plants.

Nuclear apologists like Zokes like to ignore the "accidental" releases and of course the as yet insoluable issue of the waste.

Coal plants put more radiation into the environment than Cheronbyl? Fukoshima? Windscale?

No TJ, I did a quick 5,000 word epidemiological survey for my undergrad degree on the effects of coal power stations on disease around the world. Turns out they do cause respiratory illness, birth defects and cancer.

what type of power stations? Did you find evidence or correlations? What other factors were correlated with these problems?

Got journals? I'll start with the first. Nuclear plants only have the potential to put more radioactivity into the environment. This is not born out in reality. It's like saying flying on an airliner is more dangerous than driving because 270+ people get killed when they crash into the side of a mountain.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045

Radiation doses from airborne effluents of model coal-fired and nuclear power plants (1000 megawatts electric) are compared. Assuming a 1 percent ash release to the atmosphere (Environmental Protection Agency regulation) and 1 part per million of uranium and 2 parts per million of thorium in the coal (approximately the U.S. average), population doses from the coal plant are typically higher than those from pressurized-water or boiling-water reactors that meet government regulations. Higher radionuclide contents and ash releases are common and would result in increased doses from the coal plant. The study does not assess the impact of non-radiological pollutants or the total radiological impacts of a coal versus a nuclear economy.

......rid yourself of the issues that seem to be troubling you so much.

I will help me with my errant nasal hair issue ?

Cool

The study does not asses the impacts of the nuclear plant going tits up.

It's like saying flying on an airliner is more dangerous than driving because 270+ people get killed when they crash into the side of a mountain.

2 pages eh...I'd say 5+

Consequently, the energy content of nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is more than that of the coal consumed! Clearly, coal-fired power plants are not only generating electricity but are also releasing nuclear fuels whose commercial value for electricity production by nuclear power plants is over $7 trillion, more than the U.S. national debt. This figure is based on current nuclear utility fuel costs of 7 mils per kWh, which is about half the cost for coal. Consequently, significant quantities of nuclear materials are being treated as coal waste, which might become the cleanup nightmare of the future, and their value is hardly recognized at all.

How does the amount of nuclear material released by coal combustion compare to the amount consumed as fuel by the U.S. nuclear power industry? According to 1982 figures, 111 American nuclear plants consumed about 540 tons of nuclear fuel, generating almost 1.1 x 10E12 kWh of electricity. During the same year, about 801 tons of uranium alone were released from American coal-fired plants. Add 1971 tons of thorium, and the release of nuclear components from coal combustion far exceeds the entire U.S. consumption of nuclear fuels. The same conclusion applies for worldwide nuclear fuel and coal combustion.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

[img] [/img]

Could anyone help me interprete this illustration, please?
[img] [/img]
[url= http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/ ]http://www.the9billion.com/2011/03/24/death-rate-from-nuclear-power-vs-coal/[/url]
Isn't it all a bit like the car v plane argument? More die in cars but a plane crash grabs more headlines. Or is it?

Has anyone seen the boobs thread on NSMB?

what type of power stations? Did you find evidence or correlations? What other factors were correlated with these problems?

?

I wonder how much plutonium is released / created by coal stations?

It does also amuse me that according to the nuclear apologists its dirty coal or nuclear - nothing else is possible and that apparently new nuclear tech will appear to make it all wonderful but coal can never be improved.

[i]nuclear apologists[/i]

You use "apologist" about any-one who disagrees with you on pretty much everything. Makes you sound like a ****er

Not to spoil the highly enjoyabe nuclear-vs-coal battle, but Japan seems to be turning to oil and natural gas to cover the gap rather than coal, according to most sources.

emsz - Member

nuclear apologists

You use "apologist" about any-one who disagrees with you on pretty much everything. Makes you sound like a ****

Thanks for that 🙂 Only cars and nukes normally

I wonder how much plutonium is released / created by coal stations?

Could they be called nuclear deniers?

TJ, I've been following these nuclear debates on STW for a while now. Every single one ends with you saying no to nuclear. Do you have an alternative source of energy in mind? Unless we go back to the dark ages, are prepared to cover every inch of the country in windmills or just give up on any kind of CO2 controls, how else are we going to proved the power we all need?

ittaika

Been said many times and I really don't want to go into it [i]again[/i]. email in profile if interested but in a tiny nutshell

Energy conservation, alternative, conventional sources in a mix
Remember nuclear is only a small % of the UKs total energy needs

Although you might not be able to reduce the countries co2 production from electricity generation much but significant savings are also possible from other places.

It is possible for the UK to produce less CO2 overall and go nuclear free.

This thread is a honey trap for big hitters.

It might be worth making sure the mods have seen this thread; they'll need to upgrade the servers before Tuesday morning when everyone's back "working".

Either that or they could just close it and link to the 10 pager a month or so ago.

It might be worth making sure the mods have seen this thread; they'll need to upgrade the servers before Tuesday morning when everyone's back "working".

In the mean time.
[url= http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/nuclear/new/new.aspx ]

Why is nuclear important?

Nuclear power is low-carbon, affordable, dependable, safe and capable of increasing diversity of energy supply.

It's a road that has been far too well trodden though DS.

Someone check the "big hitters thread" rota!

Reasonable turnout thus far, but needs a few more [s]suckers[/s] contributors to be lured in with the hope of a meaningful debate 🙂

"Hope of a meaningful debate"?

I've scanned this thread, can't find any 😉

It is possible for the UK to produce [b]even[/b] less CO2 overall and go [s]nuclear[/s] coal free.

Although you might not be able to reduce the countries co2 production from electricity generation much but significant savings are also possible from other places.

Go on then....

Electricity instead of gas for heating as natural gas runs out

Electricity taking an increasing role in transportation as petrol and diesel run out

Sure - there's less CO2 at the point of use, but you'll still need to make that extra electricity from something.

buzz-lightyear -
Member
This thread is a honey trap for [i]retards[/i].

Ftfy