Mr. K. on 22/3/2011 at 08:53

---

I really don't see nuclear as cheap as it's being sold to us. In France they get 75% of their electricity from nuclear sources, yet they don't have very cheap electricity (actually, the residential cost is a little higher than the mean for the rest of the union). And this is just the cost in the electricity bill.

Source: (www.energy.eu)

On the other hand, in Denmark they generate over 20% of their energy from wind farms, and solar is another 20% I think. They also have the most expensive electricity bill (over 2x the mean price), but they also are the only country that does not heavily depend on energy imports. Actually, they are a net exporter of energy (the only country that does so un the EU). In some places within Denmark, they are 100% reliant on renewable energy (some island, I don't remember the name).

To me, energy independence far outweights the economic costs of electricity (within reason), both in a local and in a general scale. Also, nuclear does not seem to result in consumer savings.

Kolya on 22/3/2011 at 12:41

---

Are you saying that the same or lower security standards should be applied to nuclear energy as to those other energy sources then?

In my opinion the consequences of a nuclear disaster are too devastating for humans to deal with the tech safely enough. Be it due to so called "human error", corruption, or natural disasters.
Additionally the time scale of nuclear technology is too long for the human attention span. Whole countries can change, be attacked, become broke, not care any more. You probably don't believe that things could change so dramatically in future where you live, that you couldn't handle the safety requirements in the long term.
I've seen the world change rapidly and profoundly and don't believe you can predict the future. In eastern Europe old reactors are rotting without appropriately trained staff. Let alone nuclear waste disposal sites that will require our attention and the attention of our children and grandchildren and grand-grandchildren. I doubt they'll thank us.

I haven't advocated oil or coal as alternative energy sources. I named renewables such as sun, wind, water and geothermal energy as energy sources and natural gas as a bridging source until we can completely rely on these.
Maybe it's just your polemic style, but if Chernobyl and Fukushima and this lengthy discussion with all the stats and facts, boil down to an "irrational phobia" for you, then further arguing is a pointless task.

heywood on 23/3/2011 at 00:22

---

I think that living during the cold war with the threat of nuclear annihilation hanging over our heads introduced an innate fear of anything nuclear into our culture. I call it a phobia because there is an element of conditioned fear response regardless of whether there is any real danger. I grew up in the 1980s and radioactivity signs still tend to catch my attention like no other warning sign does. I'm sure others of my generation or older can relate, not sure about younger people though. It becomes irrational when we start letting that disproportional response to nuclear danger override the facts & hard data in our energy policy decision making.

I agree with you about the long term plant maintenance, decommissioning, and waste storage issues. These are problems that have to be worked regardless of whether new nuclear plants are built. I'm frustrated that they are being blocked and I suspect there are shortsighted people who prefer they don't get solved in order to retain the argument against nuclear power.

And I know you haven't advocated coal or oil as alternative sources. However, Germany's closure of its nuclear plants will likely increase reliance on coal and oil in the near term. It's not like Germans are suddenly going to start using 50 TWhr per year less energy as a result of the plant closures.

My main point was that the level of acceptable risk should be in proportion to the harm. We have a half century of experience with nuclear power now and the numbers say the consequences of a nuclear disaster are not too devastating for humans to deal with. On the scale of disasters, nuclear accidents are way down the list. It's not like there's a thermonuclear bomb inside each plant ready to go off if the wrong things happen.

When a record flood caused the Banqiao Dam to burst in 1975 taking out 7 towns and killing up to 230000 people, the reaction was mostly to chalk it up to an unfortunate act of mother nature and get on with life. It did not cause a major rethinking of hydro power. Same for the scores of other dam breaks that have occurred, including one in Fukushima prefecture that burst as a result of the earthquake. And over the last 20 years in the US, there have been natural gas explosions every year or two, some which have leveled whole city blocks. People seem to just shrug them off and they drop out of the news after a day or two. In light of all the harm caused by other sources of energy, what justifies calling nuclear energy too unsafe for use?

Dia on 23/3/2011 at 12:32

---

Right up there with why do people build homes on bluffs in areas prone to mudslides?

Re: Fukushima reactors

Adding to its woes: The plant was holding more uranium that it was designed to handle, and it had missed safety checks. ((http://search.yahoo.com/search?cs=bz&p=Fukushima+reactors&fr=fp-tts-352&fr2=ps))

Yakoob on 23/3/2011 at 21:26

---

Koki needs to be the president of the world if he can evacuate 20,000 people from several cities in a 20 minute time period.