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: 18850
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 # 11.
#1. To: go65, Mad Dog (#0)
(Edited)
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.
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.
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.
A series of large explosive volcanic eruptions occurred to the north of Yucca Mountain millions of years ago, producing dense clouds of volcanic ash and rock fragments which melted or compressed together to create layers of rock called tuff, forming the mountains and hills of the region. The volcanic eruptions that produced Yucca Mountain ended about 12 million years ago. This explosive volcanism produced almost all (more than 99 percent) of the volcanic material in the Yucca Mountain region.[16] Several million years ago, a different type of eruption began in the area. These eruptions were smaller and much less explosive. These small eruptions were marked by lava and cinders seeping and sputtering from cones or fissures. The last such small eruption occurred about 80,000 years ago. The remaining volcanic material (less than 1 percent) in the Yucca Mountain region is a result of these smaller eruptions.[9] Researchers funded by the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects and the Nuclear Waste Division of Clark County, Nevada suggested that the size of the Yucca Mountain volcanic field was not well known. Eight Quaternary basalt volcanoes erupted within 50 km of the proposed repository in the past million years, and higher than previously predicted recurrence rates for Yucca Mountain volcanism are possible in the future.[17] Read the article; clown. See how you embarrassed yourself with that ignorant post to me. You will find that if anything, I understated the risks of that site for such dangerous material.
Once again, you demonstrate that you haven't a fucking CLUE about the subject. Typical leftist- thinking you can read a sound-bite synopsis of radioactive material, it's ramifications, dangers, issues, etc... and that you're an expert. Get real.
#15. To: Capitalist Eric (#11)
Hey, too bad your penis is but the size of an IM-9B/PD, Radiacmeter; but that's your damn problem, not mine.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest2. We know exactly how and where the waste is to be buried.
#3. To: hondo68 (#1)
"Nuke power can be very safe, if you can keep eco kooks out of the process."
#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?
#9. To: Capitalist Eric (#4)
Volcanic history
#11. To: Ferret Mike (#9)
You will find that if anything, I understated the risks of that site for such dangerous material.
Replies to Comment # 11. 
End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]