Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: The Fukushima crisis should not spell the end of nuclear power.
Source:
Monbiot
URL Source: http://www.monbiot.com/2011/03/16/atomised/
Published: Mar 16, 2011
Author: George Monbiot
Post Date: 2011-03-16 14:29:48 by go65
Keywords: None
Views: 19391
Comments: 27
The nuclear disaster unfolding in Japan is bad enough; the nuclear disaster unfolding in China could be even worse. “What disaster?”, you ask. The decision today by the Chinese government to suspend approval of new atomic power plants. If this suspension were to become permanent, the power those plants would have produced is likely to be replaced by burning coal. While nuclear causes calamities when it goes wrong, coal causes calamities when it goes right, and coal goes right a lot more often than nuclear goes wrong. The only safe coal-fired plant is one which has broken down past the point of repair.
Before I go any further, and I’m misinterpreted for the thousandth time, let me spell out once again what my position is. I have not gone nuclear. But, as long as the following four conditions are met, I will no longer oppose atomic energy.
1. Its total emissions – from mine to dump – are taken into account, and demonstrate that it is a genuinely low-carbon option.
2. We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried.
3. We know how much this will cost and who will pay.
4. There is a legal guarantee that no civil nuclear materials will be diverted for military purposes.
To these I’ll belatedly add a fifth, which should have been there all along: no plants should be built in fault zones, on tsunami-prone coasts, on eroding seashores or those likely to be inundated before the plant has been decommissioned or any other places which are geologically unsafe. This should have been so obvious that it didn’t need spelling out. But we discover, yet again, that the blindingly obvious is no guarantee that a policy won’t be adopted.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
#1. To: go65, Mad Dog (#0) (Edited)
2. We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried.
And politicians and plant owners are prepared to deal harshly with environmental saboteurs. Just say no to eco-nazis!
Eco-nuts are responsible for 100's of thousands of spent fuel rods being stored at Fukushima. Eco-terrorists are directly responsible for the worst of the radioactive nightmare happening in Japan. These storage "pools" do not have the same durable containment vessels as the reactors, and are the source of most of the emissions. The stuff belching out of them is greatly hampering work on the reactors.
Nuke power can be very safe, if you can keep eco kooks out of the process.
#3. To: hondo68 (#1)
"Nuke power can be very safe, if you can keep eco kooks out of the process."
Yeah, like the storing of waste that stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years at the 'extinct' volcanic caldera of Yucca Mountain in Nevada, right?
Gee, those 'extinct' volcanoes never erupt, right? Except when they do.
The supply of fuel is finite, and the waste problem will never be solved.
#4. To: Ferret Mike (#3)
Yeah, like the storing of waste that stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years at the 'extinct' volcanic caldera of Yucca Mountain in Nevada, right?
You once again demonstrate your sheer ignorance of reality, with such a statement.
If you KNEW what you were talking about, the quote above would be embarrassing to you.
But for leftists like you, it's easier and more comforting, to be willfully ignorant.
You're a putz.
#8. To: Capitalist Eric (#4) (Edited)
I do what I'm talking about. I was one of thousands arrested protesting nuclear power waste disposal and weapons testing at Yucca Flats in March of 1988. I know much about this topic as a long time activist. Hey, we got the industry stifled and had a plant they had already bought much the equipment for canceled in Oregon.
And thanks to Japanese stupidity and lack of concern for proper safety protocols we will now do it again. Obama may want nuke plants, but they will not be happening here.
#10. To: Ferret Mike (#8)
I do what I'm talking about. I was one of thousands arrested protesting nuclear power waste disposal and weapons testing at Yucca Flats in March of 1988. I know much about this topic as a long time activist.
Which means precisely dick.
In 1988, I was working as a reactor operator, on an S5W-equipped submarine. And they don't even let you near the RPCP unless you seriously know your shit.
I do.
You don't.
#13. To: Capitalist Eric (#10) (Edited)
In 1988, I was working as a reactor operator, on an S5W-equipped submarine. And they don't even let you near the RPCP unless you seriously know your shit.I do.
You don't.
With that and a buck and a half you can go buy a cuppa coffee.
I was got NBC* training in the Army to qualify to train to do radiological surveys on the ground and in the air when I was in the 82nd Aviation Battalion (now Brigade) because they need NCOs on flight status for this role. So what?
It taught me things about radio-active contamination and protocol that helped when I learned about the nuclear waste problem and the foolishness of nuclear power, but leaders of the movement like Loyd Marbet know more about this topic than either you or me and he never served in the military.
Historically, nuclear power came about to try to find a peaceful use of the technology developed to build the USS Nautilus and later reactor powered vessels, but that does not make you an expert on this topic just because you worked on this sort of craft before.
Grow up, junior.
*NBC= Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
#16. To: Ferret Mike (#13)
I was got NBC* training in the Army to qualify to train to do radiological surveys on the ground and in the air when I was in the 82nd Aviation Battalion (now Brigade) because they need NCOs on flight status for this role. So what?
Exactly. So what? You're telling me that you're trained to hold a Geiger counter. BFD.
It taught me things about radio-active contamination and protocol that helped when I learned about the nuclear waste problem and the foolishness of nuclear power,
Ah, we get to the money-quote. This demonstrates conclusively, that you don't know diddley shit about the subject.
WHY is a long half-life a good thing? Why is a short half-life a bad thing? When you're able to grasp why your prejudices have you completely ass- backwards on nuclear power, then come back and join the adults.
Because your "qualifications" are limited to being an "activist," and a monkey with a geiger counter. In other words, you're a professional BS artist.
Unlike you, I've been there, DONE that. I've put my hands on fuel cells, I've literally sat on my ass on primary containment vessal, inside the primary shielding, with my arms resting on the control-rod drive mechanisms.
Like most leftist "activists," a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But you're even worse than the typical leftist- you have no knowledge, but think you have firm grip on reality.
You're clueless.
Grow up, junior.*NBC= Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
Wow. Did you read that in a book somewhere? LOL.
Historically, nuclear power came about to try to find a peaceful use of the technology developed to build the USS Nautilus and later reactor powered vessels, but that does not make you an expert on this topic just because you worked on this sort of craft before.
Actually, it DOES.
You're just too stupid and too propagandized, to understand that.
Piss off, gramps.
#19. To: Capitalist Eric (#16) (Edited)
WHY is a long half-life a good thing? Why is a short half-life a bad thing? When you're able to grasp why your prejudices have you completely ass- backwards on nuclear power, then come back and join the adults.
Are you asking if I understand that decay of radioactive material is measured by determining how fast a discrete entity like atoms break down, I do. A half life of a radioactive element is the length of time it is estimated to take for approx. half of the material to decay.
For example, the decay of say Carbon-14 for example is exponential and has a half-life of over 5500 years. Carbon-14 will deminish to half of it's original size at the point it reaches it's half life. After another period that long, there will be a quarter of the original amount remaining.
Replies to Comment # 19.
There are no replies to Comment # 19.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]