Support NeoGAF

[Trokil]

According to several news sources (Spiegel, South China Morning Post) the costs of the nuclear disaster may rise and will double within the next year. Japan will have to spend billions every year to clean up and this still leaves out the costs of deconstruction, salvage and storing so much nuclear waste for hundreds of years.

Nuclear energy as it seems was just a ponzi scheme. While the current generation is getting the profits our children and their children will either have to find a way to deal with the waste or in the case of Fukushima, Chernobyl or all the other nuclear disasters with the waste and the radiation in the enviroment.

It would be interesting to make a study, if over the long run, nuclear energy may even cost more, just because of the waste and the very difficult deconstruction of the plants, than what the economy has gained from the “cheap” energy

 

[Pomerlaw]

What is/was the alternative in Japan!?

 

[DrROBschiz]

I still believe in Nuclear myself but industry and government support went in a lot of poor directions with the technology over the years

 

[Aiii]

I'm sure our kids are way better off with a bit of radiation in select regions then with how we're fucking up the environment with coal power plants, OP, to be quite honest with you.

 

[Sony]

I personally wouldn't mind to contribute to a crowdfunding campaign for the cleanup and maintenane. If a million people around the world donate 10 dollars, it's 10 million dollars.

I feel like cleanups like this shouldn't be held back financially as it's of utmost importance to do it at the best quality possible.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

It would be interesting to make a study, if over the long run, nuclear energy may even cost more, just because of the waste and the very difficult deconstruction of the plants, than what the economy has gained from the “cheap” energy

Fossil Fuel would cost significantly more, on a global scale.

I can't see how one country cleaning up some nuclear waste is more expensive than dramatically changing the climate of the entire planet.

 

[Trokil]

What is/was the alternative in Japan!?

A land on top of the pacific fire ring, well that is hard I guess. Also there is no wind or sun as well, so I guess it has to be nuclear energy.

Fossil Fuel would cost significantly more, on a global scale.

I can't see how one country cleaning up some nuclear waste is more expensive than dramatically changing the climate of the entire planet.

If there was only an alternative. But it seems there is only coal or nuclear.

 

[clemenx]

Ah yes. A disaster caused by the 4th strongest earthquake ever (that's no biggie, right?) Means everything Nuclear is shit.

 

[Drazgul]

Nuclear energy is still the way to go, but building plants in Japan may not have been the smartest idea.

 

[Jezbollah]

According to several news sources (Spiegel, South China Morning Post) the costs of the nuclear disaster may rise and will double within the next year. Japan will have to spend billions every year to clean up and this still leaves out the costs of deconstruction, salvage and storing so much nuclear waste for hundreds of years.

Nuclear energy as it seems was just a ponzi scheme. While the current generation is getting the profits our children and their children will either have to find a way to deal with the waste or in the case of Fukushima, Chernobyl or all the other nuclear disasters with the waste and the radiation in the enviroment.

It would be interesting to make a study, if over the long run, nuclear energy may even cost more, just because of the waste and the very difficult deconstruction of the plants, than what the economy has gained from the “cheap” energy

This will make you feel better OP

https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/OperationalByAge.aspx

Almost one fifth of all nuclear reactors around the world are over 40 years old.

 

[MikeHattsu]

I personally wouldn't mind to contribute to a crowdfunding campaign for the cleanup and maintenane. If a million people around the world donate 10 dollars, it's 10 million dollars.

Well...

Japan will have to spend billions every year to clean up and this still leaves out the costs of deconstruction, salvage and storing so much nuclear waste for hundreds of years.

 

[Steel]

Ah yes. A disaster caused by the 4th strongest earthquake ever (that's no biggie, right?) Means everything Nuclear is shit.

Exactly. Especially considering the tsunami killed thousands when the nuclear plant killed.... Is it even over 10?

 

[DrROBschiz]

Nuclear energy is still the way to go, but building plants in Japan may not have been the smartest idea.

LW reactors were always supposed to be a stop gap technology

We should have been on passively safe nuclear reactor tech for decades by now

 

[Trokil]

Almost one fifth of all nuclear reactors around the world are over 40 years old.

Yes, two of them right next to my place, which is awesome.

 

[XT Vengeance]

A land on top of the pacific fire ring, well that is hard I guess. Also there is no wind or sun as well, so I guess it has to be nuclear energy.



If there was only an alternative. But it seems there is only coal or nuclear.

Solar and wind a good and all, but they aren't good enough for base load.

 

[elyetis]

Almost one fifth of all nuclear reactors around the world are over 40 years old.

And fear is sadly more likely to prevent building newer & safer reactor, than preventing older one from running.

 

[DrROBschiz]

You dont solve scientific hurdles by running away from the problems

Same applies to solar and wind. They have a place but arent silver bullet tech

And it makes no sense to accept that there is no other way

Nuclear "waste" is only waste until we engineer a way to use and process it which is already technically possible

Nuclear has WAY to much positive potential to our future to run away from

 

[Kurdel]

I'm sure our kids are way better off with a bit of radiation in select regions then with how we're fucking up the environment with coal power plants, OP, to be quite honest with you.

100% agree.

 

[t26]

And fear is sadly more likely to prevent building newer & safer reactor, than preventing older one from running.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/24/498842677/waste-families-left-behind-as-nuclear-plants-close

 

[hobblygobbly]

Ah yes. A disaster caused by the 4th strongest earthquake ever (that's no biggie, right?) Means everything Nuclear is shit.

True that nuclear energy is safe but we are still at the mercy of operators. The Fukushima disaster comes from negligence by the operator (Tokyo Electric Power Company) that the investigation found such as lack of containment procedures. Also some of the systems in use at Fukushima had been known for decades to be flawed and the company failed to come up with solutions. The escalation of Chernobyl was also a result of negligence by operators. This is why operators need to be scrutinised more and pressured by the government more than exists, because negligence in its operation has much, much more severe repercussions than say if something went down at a coal power plant.

 

[Earthstrike]

According to several news sources (Spiegel, South China Morning Post) the costs of the nuclear disaster may rise and will double within the next year. Japan will have to spend billions every year to clean up and this still leaves out the costs of deconstruction, salvage and storing so much nuclear waste for hundreds of years.

Nuclear energy as it seems was just a ponzi scheme. While the current generation is getting the profits our children and their children will either have to find a way to deal with the waste or in the case of Fukushima, Chernobyl or all the other nuclear disasters with the waste and the radiation in the enviroment.

It would be interesting to make a study, if over the long run, nuclear energy may even cost more, just because of the waste and the very difficult deconstruction of the plants, than what the economy has gained from the “cheap” energy

This is assuming all nuclear power plants eventually get destroyed or have an accident. The japanese governments inability to effectively operate a plant should not prevent the rest of the world from doing so.

 

[Trokil]

This is assuming all nuclear power plants eventually get destroyed or have an accident. The japanese governments inability to effectively operate a plant should not prevent the rest of the world from doing so.

The US also had a disaster, as had the Swiss. So if neither Japan, the US or Switzerland are able to run them without incidents, who should then?

 

[Steel]

The US also had a disaster, as had the Swiss. So if neither Japan, the US or Switzerland are able to run them without incidents, who should then?

Tell us, what was the result of the U.S. "disaster"? Little more than hysteria.

 

[Breakfast at Noon]

Has it not been proven that the radioactive spill has reached the US cost?
This has been horrific and cost should not be the issue, can't understand why the world's scientists have not gathered to help then fix the fact it is still pumping into the ocean.

 

[Darkangel]

It's a shame that this disaster happened, but I'm still 100% in favour of nuclear energy. It is the only clean power source that can realistically replace fossil fuels (aside from maybe hydro, but that's luck of the draw).

They need to invest more money into modern reactor designs and keep the facilities away from hazardous areas.

 

[kirblar]

Japan has a massive problem with infrastructure decay due to the population decline. That's not true for western nations.

 

[Trokil]

Tell us, what was the result of the U.S. "disaster"? Little more than hysteria.

The Three Mile Island Accident

 

[Fuchsdh]

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/24/498842677/waste-families-left-behind-as-nuclear-plants-close

To be fair, the US has far more energy options overall than Japan, but yeah, I think the "nuclear waste is better than sea level rise" arguments are missing the point. We have the capabilities to move a lot more of our current fossil fuel power to safer renewables than nuclear, and in the developed world energy usage isn't spiking; the global demand for more power is coming from the developing world and that's where a lot more focus on cleaner power needs to come from.

 

[Steel]

The Three Mile Island Accident

I know about three mile island. My point is actually illustrated in the link you gave: It only caused one cancer death.

 

[kswiston]

The US also had a disaster, as had the Swiss. So if neither Japan, the US or Switzerland are able to run them without incidents, who should then?

Do you realize how many people die direct and indirectly from fossil fuel production and use?

Hell, more people die building and maintaining wind turbines per terawatt hour of electricity produced than nuclear power plants kill.

 

[platocplx]

According to several news sources (Spiegel, South China Morning Post) the costs of the nuclear disaster may rise and will double within the next year. Japan will have to spend billions every year to clean up and this still leaves out the costs of deconstruction, salvage and storing so much nuclear waste for hundreds of years.

Nuclear energy as it seems was just a ponzi scheme. While the current generation is getting the profits our children and their children will either have to find a way to deal with the waste or in the case of Fukushima, Chernobyl or all the other nuclear disasters with the waste and the radiation in the enviroment.

It would be interesting to make a study, if over the long run, nuclear energy may even cost more, just because of the waste and the very difficult deconstruction of the plants, than what the economy has gained from the “cheap” energy

what? LMAO they got hit with a huge fucking earthquake. And funily enough just last night i was reading about Chernobyl which was literally all human error and not respecting nuclear power. They only had one damn safety mechanism in place to stop a reaction. ONE and it took a minute for it to go in place and in one minute the reaction got out of control. There was a litany of failure due to human stupidity.

Nuclear energy in its essence is extremely viable as long as we plan for the worst of the worst and x2 to make sure we protect containment above all else. fossil fuel based energy generation is by far the worst for the planet.

True that nuclear energy is safe but we are still at the mercy of operators. The Fukushima disaster comes from negligence by the operator (Tokyo Electric Power Company) that the investigation found such as lack of containment procedures. Also some of the systems in use at Fukushima has been known for decades to be flawed and the company failed to come up with solutions. The escalation of Chernobyl was also a result of negligence by operators. This is why operators need to be scrutinised more and pressured by the government more than exists, because negligence in its operation has much, much more severe repercussions than say if something went down at a coal power plant.

yup human negligence is the reason there has to be near perfect ways about containment or a ton of safety mechanisms in place and if we placed a lot of investment in generation we probally could solve a lot of the issues while also making sure if something happened the damage is minimal. cherynobl was by far the worst disaster. Like 1st responders were fucking tasting their own blood, having their skin freaking break apart. we have to respect nature and take a lot more precautions.

 

[Hari Seldon]

To be fair, the US has far more energy options overall than Japan, but yeah, I think the "nuclear waste is better than sea level rise" arguments are missing the point. We have the capabilities to move a lot more of our current fossil fuel power to safer renewables than nuclear, and in the developed world energy usage isn't spiking; the global demand for more power is coming from the developing world and that's where a lot more focus on cleaner power needs to come from.

We didn't have that capability until extremely recently. If we had moved completely to nuclear by the end of the 80s we would be in pretty awesome shape. But the anti-nuclear nutters were just as bad as the anti-vaccine nutters and now we are at record high temps.

 

[pestul]

I hope nuclear does take off, but there are certain countries and regions of the world where it may not be manageable due to the risk of conflict, aging infrastructure/maintenance and natural disaster. And the consequences of a nuclear disaster in those places are massive.

Power is a tough nut to crack. Here in Newfoundland & Labrador we're struggling with the issues surrounding hydroelectric power: Giant reservoirs, methylmercury contamination, native land seizures and relocations.

 

[clav]

What kind of energy does the OP support then over a long term period?

A bit off-topic, but I like this board game as a starting point to learn about energy strategies.

 

[ahoyhoy]

Invest more money in nuclear to make it safer. The only reason we have shitty old plants like this that are vunerable to such disasters are because countries are wary to invest more in nuclear due to scare mongering.

How much did the Gulf Oil Spill cost to clean up? How about ExxonMobil Valdez? How about all the various coal plants and the lawsuits for smog and slurry runoff in local communities?

Compare all those to the costs three nuclear disasters that occurred around the world in four decades.

 

[Frankfurter]

I'm not sure why people keep comparing nuclear to oil or coal. Both are terrible.
Renewables are the way to go.

 

[Wereroku]

I'm not sure why people keep comparing nuclear to oil or coal. Both are terrible.
Renewables are the way to go.

Because renewable sources are terrible at the moment for reliable base power and are not all that renewable when you look into the rare earth minerals needed to produce them.

 

[DrROBschiz]

I'm not sure why people keep comparing nuclear to oil or coal. Both are terrible.
Renewables are the way to go.

Because the potential of Nuclear power is far greater than all the alternatives combined?

 

[clav]

Renewables are the way to go.

Isn't it better to diversify resources though because of costs?

 

[SenorArdilla]

what? LMAO they got hit with a huge fucking earthquake. And funily enough just last night i was reading about Chernobyl which was literally all human error and not respecting nuclear power. They only had one damn safety mechanism in place to stop a reaction. ONE and it took a minute for it to go in place and in one minute the reaction got out of control. There was a litany of failure due to human stupidity.

To be fair, the engineers at Chernobyl were testing what it would take for the plant to fail if the safety was turned off.

 

[Trokil]

What kind of energy does the OP support then over a long term period?

As if it was a technological problem. Solar, wind, geothermal energy, biomass plants, it all would work out. But if there are local energy providers, there would be no place for big cooperations to make more profit. So they will block anything to keep the status quo.

It is pretty much the same thing about food production. We could feed 10-11 billion people, have jobs for more people, but there is no big profit in it.

 

[Linkstrikesback]

Nuclear energy as it seems was just a ponzi scheme. While the current generation is getting the profits our children and their children will either have to find a way to deal with the waste or in the case of Fukushima, Chernobyl or all the other nuclear disasters with the waste and the radiation in the enviroment.

It would be interesting to make a study, if over the long run, nuclear energy may even cost more, just because of the waste and the very difficult deconstruction of the plants, than what the economy has gained from the “cheap” energy

Nuclear has done a fraction of the damage that the carbon emissions have done from all the much worse energy production methods.

 

[PdotMichael]

I'm sure our kids are way better off with a bit of radiation in select regions then with how we're fucking up the environment with coal power plants, OP, to be quite honest with you.

The black and white world of a nuclear energy supporter.

 

[andythinkpad]

We all knew this. Remeber the Olympus accounting scandal? This is that, times 100.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Can we dispel the myth that Solar and wind are somehow free from any challenges in both materials required, long term performance and output?

I think its great tech and totally should be used in the right applications.

That said a realty check also needs to happen

 

[Earthstrike]

As if it was a technological problem. Solar, wind, geothermal energy, biomass plants, it all would work out. But if there are local energy providers, there would be no place for big cooperations to make more profit. So they will block anything to keep the status quo.

It is pretty much the same thing about food production. We could feed 10-11 billion people, have jobs for more people, but there is no big profit in it.

you really need to read more about energy policy. Electricity is a commodity. Prices are not that inflated by the ominous "corporation" except in instances where some politifcal group has succeeded in granting them a state monopoly. The worst part is you are talking about cost and listing off a slew of power options that are currently more expensive. The best long run options society has to look forward to are technological advances in photovoltaic solar and fusion power. We have to plan the interim carefully.

 

[Wereroku]

As if it was a technological problem. Solar, wind, geothermal energy, biomass plants, it all would work out. But if there are local energy providers, there would be no place for big cooperations to make more profit. So they will block anything to keep the status quo.

It is pretty much the same thing about food production. We could feed 10-11 billion people, have jobs for more people, but there is no big profit in it.

None of those resources produce anywhere close to amount of power the country needs and require rare earth minerals that are both expensive and in finite quantities as well. Also Solar and wind require insane amount of land to run on and have been shown to cause damage to local ecosystems. Geothermal is not even in it's infancy and biomass is just another form of burning carbon. How are any of those a realistic alternative?

 

[pr0cs]

Nuclear has done a fraction of the damage that the carbon emissions have done from all the much worse energy production methods.

Which areas have been made uninhabitable by the current energy production methods?

 

[PdotMichael]

And fear is sadly more likely to prevent building newer & safer reactor, than preventing older one from running.

That's not true. The cost of closing a nuclear powerplant is so high that energy companies want to run them forever.

Many nuclear energy power plants project die at an early state because it's too expensive. Without direct and indirect subsidies nuclear energy isn't profitable unlike wind energy for example which is at this point a stupid safe investment.

 

[Trojita]

The regulations with requiring newly built nuclear reactors and dismantling the old ones should be stricter. They knew that Fukushima plant was fucked.