Slashdot Mirror


Japan Aims To Abandon Nuclear Power By 2030s

mdsolar writes "Reuters reports that the Japanese government said it 'intends to stop using nuclear power by the 2030s, marking a major shift from policy goals set before last year's Fukushima disaster that sought to increase the share of atomic energy to more than half of electricity supply. Japan joins countries such as Germany and Switzerland in turning away from nuclear power ... Japan was the third-biggest user of atomic energy before the disaster. In abandoning atomic power, Japan aims to triple the share of renewable power to 30 percent of its energy mix, but will remain a top importer of oil, coal and gas for the foreseeable future. Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's unpopular government, which could face an election this year, had faced intense lobbying from industries to maintain atomic energy and also concerns from its major ally, the United States, which supplied it with nuclear technology in the 1950s.' Meanwhile, the U.S. nuclear renaissance appears to be unraveling."

43 of 214 comments (clear)

  1. They shouldn't abandon it by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Just put it off for a while. It can be done safely. The path is obvious.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nuclear is cleaner and more efficient than just about every everything.

    2. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by N0Man74 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe... but it's like air travel. It might be statistically safer, but when it goes wrong it can really go wrong. It's hard to overcome that psychologically, even if it isn't rational.

    3. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by denis-The-menace · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because the designs that everybody associates to a nuclear reactor requires constant monitoring (control rods) and power dependent back-up systems and a massive building.

      LFTR has none these design issues.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    4. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by progician · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good question. Now let's see the reality: Government and corporations are handling virtually everything? And why is the nuclear power plant is more dangerous in the hand of a government than let's say, a hydrogen-bomb? And if the governments and the corporations are the problem, and not the energy source, than people should abolish governments and corporations instead of feeding the politicians with trendy topics, such as this.

    5. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by cdrguru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, but if 30-40% of your electrical supply is based on the sun shining a tropical storm can kill people dependent on electricity.

      There are some people that believe so completely that nuclear power is unsafe that we are going to move from electricity being an always-there reliable energy source to something that is there sometimes and other times not. The biggest thing that comes to mind are home patients that are reliant on some assist device for breathing. Today, such devices plug in the wall because it is assumed that the wall supply is 99.999% reliable. We are going to change that.

      In the US the biggest problem with reliability will shortly become simply that we are out of capacity. We haven't built a new major power plant in a long, long time and we aren't likely to do so anytime soon either. We have crippled the electric generation industry with public comment and environmental impact statements to the extent that a small group that is barely organized can block a new generating plant until the plant's sponsor gives up. That is what keeps happening - a plant is proposed, plans are drawn up and goverment approvals and even financing guarantees obtained. Then it is opened to the public and a few people that are fearful of electric power lines can block it. Or it is people that intensely want the US to return to prairie and forest rather than cities and suburbs block it.

      In the meantime, growth continues and the margin of overcapacity grows thinner and thinner. We massively overbuilt in the 1950s and 1960s to the extent that we have been able to live off this and a bunch of relatively small "peaker" plants that were designed to run for a few hours a day - they are now running 24x7.

      We had an opportunity for the federal goverment to change the rules and make it possible to build a new generating plant in the US. This didn't happen and almost certainly we are going to run out of capacity within the next few years - a time period shorter than it would take to build a new plant and get it online if we started right now. And that would have to be a coal plant - it takes about twice as long to get a nuclear plant built and there is no time for that now.

      Either Japan or Germany is likely to be one of the first places to experience a change when electricity is no longer an assured resource for the average homeowner. Germany has the buffer of being able to draw on France and their nuclear power generation but Japan really doesn't. A couple of storms with high winds and clouds would wipe out any solar collection and/or wind generation and leave them in the dark - but it isn't being in the dark that is the problem. It is the people that are at home that are reliant in one way or another on electric power to continue living.

      We aren't talking about air conditioning - people in Japan lived for thousands of years without air conditioning and central heating. Germany as well and most parts of the US are fine without air conditioning. What will lead to deaths are the people with the home oxygen concentrators, home ventilators and things like that. For the most part if the power is on for even a few hours a day and at night people's refrigerators will be OK and things like insulin will be fine.

      And I would assume most businesses will simply have to have their own generating capacity in one form or another.

    6. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing comes without risk. Dependance on imported fuel seems much more risky for Japan than modern LFTR reactors, but if they want to deal with the financial risks of having to buy fuel from imported sources, I pity them.

      LFTR reactors are stable when unattended, even right after full power operation. This means that one could build the containment structure in such a way that even with the strongest shaking/bouncing the internal structure would be there and the thing would be safe, even without somebody there to take care of it. The risk of containment breach is greatly reduced because there is no pressure vessel required when the reactor is on its own.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by firewrought · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We massively overbuilt in the 1950s and 1960s to the extent that we have been able to live off this and a bunch of relatively small "peaker" plants that were designed to run for a few hours a day - they are now running 24x7.

      Methinks you are being somewhat alarmist. Yes, there are a lot regulatory hoops to jump thru, but I don't see peaking units being run 24x7. And modern American business practices is to squeeze the margins on an over-engineered resource instead of preserving the buffer... we've seen this with other things too (for instance, nuke plants getting up-rated based on closer analysis of their potential operating limits). Lastly, don't forget that we have wholesale market that didn't really exist before the mid-90's: each part of the country doesn't have to be nearly as self-reliant as it once did because there's a huge grid to draw on.

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    8. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by bobbied · · Score: 2

      No, he is pretty much correct. Looking at deaths per Mega Watt Hour, and including the deaths from Chernobyl (which was a huge stupid mistake) nuclear energy is hands down safer than fossil fueled generated electricity. I imagine that it's safer than wind power too, and if you start looking at the supply chain for solar generation components I'll bet it will stack up to that too.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>Maybe... but it's like air travel. It might be statistically safer, but when it goes wrong it can really go wrong. It's hard to overcome that psychologically, even if it isn't rational.

      Yeah but the Japanese are supposed to be rational, intelligent people. I thought they were more intelligent than to abandon Nuclear which is the only real replacement for when the oil becomes scarce. Oh well. Maybe by 2030 when oil skyrockets to $1000 a barrel they will realize they have no choice.

      And by the way there's no reason for nuclear to "go wrong". Anybody with sense should have realized building the plant would be hit with a tsunami eventually. They failed to make it tsunami proof (such as putting the electrical generators on the ground where they could be fouled with seawater). It's a case of cutting corners to save money, which should be forbidden.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    10. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Like windmill farms, giant dams, and solar panel fields.

      Windmill farms take up very little space, because the land can still be used for other purposes, such as grazing, or growing rice.

      Windmills can also be placed in the ocean, where winds are stronger and steadier.

    11. Re:They shouldn't abandon it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Electricity demand is actually falling in Japan. A major part of their plan is to become more efficient and to make better use of off-peak electricity so that demand is spread out. In the wake of Fukushima everyone here got on board saving energy and it has proven popular with both consumers and businesses. Companies are always looking for a reason to sell you the latest version of X and energy efficiency is now a big marketing point.

      I absolutely guarantee you that electricity won't become a non-constant resource in Japan. If I am wrong I will eat my hat, but I'm confident you will be the one who looks like an ass in 10 or 20 years time. I just hope Slashdot is still around and you are still using your account by then.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Why does slashdot accept energy submissions... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...from a dude that owns a solar-power company? The story is slashdot-worthy, but the tone is partisan fluff. Is he really the only guy submitting this story?

    1. Re:Why does slashdot accept energy submissions... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      from a dude that owns a solar-power company

      This isn't wikipedia, you can submit a story about yourself if you want, and if it is deemed interesting it will go to the front page.

      Is he really the only guy submitting this story?

      Which parts of his submission do you take exception to, whoever you are besides a coward?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. $5 says this story is more inaccurate than usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh man, a mdsolar story. I was beginning to miss his astroturf shenanigans.

  4. Someone better tell TEPCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They have even been repairing units 5 and 6 at Fukushima Daiachii to go back on line within the next few years. All other nuclear plants are being repaired and re-fitted. It looks like a long way from a plan to phase out nuclear power any time soon.

  5. Global Warming by puddingebola · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The way I have seen the debate presented:

    1. The world runs on fossil fuels primarily

    2. Fossil fuels contribute to global warming

    3. The world needs energy sources that don't contribute to global warming

    4. Atomic energy does not produce CO2, but questions about its safety (Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 mile) or public worries about its safety persist

    5. Renewable energy sources, in there current state, can't satisfy current or projected demand for energy

    6. Oh no.

    1. Re:Global Warming by denis-The-menace · · Score: 4, Informative

      The real solution are LFTR reactors.

      No more enrichment, ever.
      Cheap fuel (currently is a waste product of mining)
      No more 100+ Atmosphere pressure vessels to burst
      No more backup generators needed
      Accidental meltdowns are impossible
      Turn reactor on/off in hours/minutes not months
      Unable to weaponize any part of fuel or waste.
      Needs Uranium only to start the reactor
      Creates leukemia fighting medical isotopes from waste
      Creates isotopes for space-grade batteries for NASA from waste
      Very little waste is left-over and it's radioactive for about 300 years.
      Prototype was run for 5 years+ in the 70s.
      Both China and India are working on it (and THEY will get the patents)

      Issues:
      -Regulations set by existing Nuke industry.
      -"Nuclear is bad" mentality of public and politicians.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    2. Re:Global Warming by cdrguru · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your idea of problems with nuclear power are interesting.

      Three Mile Island really affected nobody - not even plant workers. It is somewhat of a blot on the history of nuclear power, but there are plenty of those anyway.

      Chernobyl was caused by a stupid test that was mismanaged - sort of a stupid on top of a stupid. There has certainly been some health considerations for a few thousand people and it is likely the most widespread effect of nuclear power, ever. And it would be nice if it stayed that way. But, there is no accounting for stupid.

      Fukushima could have been forseen, but the environmental conditions were a bit extreme. Part of the problem is and continues to be spent fuel storage. We should be reprocessing this but because the fuel rods contain plutonium this is viewed as a way to make bombs and strictly forbidden right now. So we are all waiting around for either a reprocessing plant or two to be built - since the 1950s - or for there to be constructed a disposal site - since the 1960s at least.

      Probably 90% of the problems with nuclear power could be solved by having a small number of reprocessing plants for spent fuel rods built. Understand that the fuel rods have been only around 5% "spent" and could be reprocessed into new fuel rods with the 95% of the active materials still present in them. The "no reprocessing" philosophy is like having a car that spews 95% of the gasoline out the tailpipe unburned and leaving this situation for 50 years.

    3. Re:Global Warming by denis-The-menace · · Score: 2

      Except this one has been proven to work.

      It didn't provide jobs in the right place of the US so it was canned.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    4. Re:Global Warming by mpe · · Score: 2

      Probably 90% of the problems with nuclear power could be solved by having a small number of reprocessing plants for spent fuel rods built. Understand that the fuel rods have been only around 5% "spent" and could be reprocessed into new fuel rods with the 95% of the active materials still present in them.

      Which would also make nuclear fuel highly sustainable and arguably more "renewable" than so called "renewables".

  6. Re:Erection? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

    Are elections in Japan held on a need-only basis?

    Not need-*only*, but when needed, yes. Like any parliamentary system, election are held if the government suffers a vote of no confidence. There's also a set term, at the end of which elections are held regardless, but they can happen early. in Japan, the term for the lower house is four years, but this wouldn't be the first time in recent history that an early election was called; the 2003 lower house went back to the polls in 2005.

  7. Lets wait what the next 20 Japanese PMs say ... by tp1024 · · Score: 4, Informative

    In fact, it could be more than 20 prime ministers until that time.

    The big question is, whether Japan is even capable of doing anything like this at all. They have been unable to implement internationally widespread safety measures that the contructors of the very reactors recommended, that have been destroyed in the accident. And that would have been cheap, less than $10bn for all 50 reactors, yet the Japanese didn't. And this isn't a singular experience.

    Japan has stagnated economically for the last 25 years. Last year, the global shortage of harddisks wasn't down to the tsunami in Japan, but a flood in Thailand of all places. (Which intends to build at least 5 nuclear reactors, btw.) Currently, Japan is paying on the order of $30bn on imports per year to very imperfectly compensate for the lack of nuclear power - "volontary" blackouts and shutdown are continuing as power saving measures during the summer. And unlike other expenditures, Japan can't pay for this with domestic debt, because they actually have to pay a foreign country in foreign currency - which is unsustainable in the long run without a source of income, which hasn't been forthcoming in Japan for the last quarter of a century. And as Steins Law says, this will stop.

    Renewable energy is expensive and no country has as yet installed anything in the way of the infrastructure require to use them on more than a small scale. So far, only the low-hanging fruits have been picked that stress the existing infrastructure to its limit. And Japan, being an island with two separate power systems, is in an even worse position than just about any other country imaginable.

    The question for anyone outside Japan isn't just whether Japan will be capable of pulling it off. The question isn't just if one of the regularly resigning Prime Ministers of Japan turns his or her back to this policy and makes it null and void. The actual question is whether, by 2040, Japan is still going to matter.

    1. Re:Lets wait what the next 20 Japanese PMs say ... by tp1024 · · Score: 2

      You really like to have reality bend your way, don't you?

      Read the repont of the "Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission" and you will find that safety measures not being implemented, was *not* a matter of nuclear energy being nuclear energy, but a matter of nuclear energy being in Japan. The conclusion was, that Fukushima was a disaster "Made in Japan". Google it, read it.

      You will also find that the epicenter of the quake was *not* in Fukushima. It was more than 100km away. That makes your claim that it wasn't laid out for a 9.0 quake just ludicrous.

      As for renewables:

      Hydro - right let's build a three gorges dam in japan! Or let's build dam anywhere on the whole damn planet and watch the self-declared saviours-of-the-people-of-the-world decent on it and declare it perfectly impossible/superfluous or whatever. Be it in China or Brazil to name just two recent cases.

      Wind - go to Germany and you will find wind turbins standing while others are spinning, because their power isn't needed at that point in time. This problem is growing worse each time another turbine is added. Meanwhile the self-declared saviours-of-the-people-of-the-world are protesting power lines and hydro-storage whereever they can.

      Solar - same problem as wind, just worse, because its power peaks at even higher levels. If Germany wants to get 15% of total electricity from photovoltaics, it needs to install power equivalent to 150% of Germanys midday electricity consumption. You're not just wasting a third of the solar (meaning you won't actually reach the rather modest 15% I set out), but you're also wasting *all* the wind power being generated concurrently and hydro and geothermal etc. And that's not even considering the fact that in order to simply replace Fukushima Daiichi, you'd need to blanked the whole initial evacuation area ( 20km around the plant, which has already been reduced and will continue to shrink) with state-of-the-art solar farms and ignoring all storage and infrastructure issues. No forests, no untarnished scenery, nothing left. - Just for 6 out of 54 reactors.

      Geothermal is laughable in a country with a decent population density. Iceland might get some 40% from geothermal. New Zealand has less than 10%. Iceland has about 3 people per sqkm, New Zealand has 16 people per sqkm, Japan has 340 people per sqkm. All those islands are volcanically active and hardly representative of the world at large.

      Also, only hydro energy is sometimes cheaper than nuclear power of all the options you mentioned. The larger, the cheaper. All the rest is much more expensive. And forget your propaganda figures of $ per MW. What counts is not how much energy per second you can deliver under ideal conditions, but how much energy you can deliver under typical conditions per year. And again, this still ignores the infrastructure and storage requirements.

  8. Political Posturing by stevegee58 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Japan is a tiny, resource-poor but energy-hungry country. Nuclear energy is the only thing that makes sense economically. What are they going to replace it with? Oil? Natural gas? Those sources come from so far away and from such temperamental suppliers that it's too risky to depend on long-term.
    To get reelected Japanese politicians have to put on an anti-nuclear Kibuki theatre to placate the masses. But the fact is they'll never give up nuclear and "renewable" energy sources won't ever put even a dent in their supersized energy demand.

    1. Re:Political Posturing by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Jesus fucking Christ Slashdot, how did this guy get modded up?

      What are they going to replace it with? Oil? Natural gas?

      TFS and TFA both state clearly that the intention is to boost renewable energy to 30% of the mix or more. Before 11/3 Nuclear accounted for about 23% of Japan's electricity, so the plan is quite clear.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Political Posturing by gonzonista · · Score: 2

      Geothermal?

      --
      If absolute power corrupts absolutely, what does this say about renewable power?
  9. No increase then by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    If they increase their renewables to 30% of their total then that will more than replace current nuclear capacity, so their use of oil and coal for electricity won't go up. Furthermore you would actually expect it to go down as people switch to electric vehicles.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Re:Erection? by rastos1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yes, the erections are held on need-only basis. You do it differently? ;-D

  11. nuclear is safe by ssam · · Score: 4, Informative

    Nuclear power has an very low deaths per kWh, even when you include chernobyl, 3mile island and fukushima ( http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html ). chernobyl is a terrible design (as the coolant boils, the reaction goes faster. fail), nothing like that could happen in any modern (by which i mean anything made in last few decades).

    Switching to any other form of power generation will cost lives.

    From a environmental point of view, suppose japan can build enough wind and solar to replace nuclear (big job on the scale of a war effort), if they did that along side nuclear they would be reducing carbon emissions. if you do it instead of nuclear then you are standing still. Now take a look at this http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ and have a read of IPCC, and explain how we are going to not hit 400 ppm.

  12. Nuclear by Bensam123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People shouldn't be turning away from nuclear, they should be embracing it. One of the greatest discoveries in the last 100 years and people are shying away from it because of teething issues. Of course the teething issues left huge marks, but so do a lot of things of tremendous amounts of potential and power. Leaps and bounds have been made in the field too. Everyone wants to get back to the basics, but harnessing the atom still remains an extremely viable option, let alone what would happen if it went mainstream.

    Stuff like this really makes me sad. It's made me sad ever since I learned about nuclear power and found out it was never widely used... It made me ask why. And so far, after all these years, the only reason I can come up with is fear.

  13. Re:Moronic, absolutely moronic. by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why do you hate America? Obviously, the power companies that cut corners will kill more people and therefore have fewer customers than the companies that don't cut corners and kill fewer people. See? The market solves everything.

  14. Geothermal by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No, but if 30-40% of your electrical supply is based on the sun shining a tropical storm can kill people dependent on electricity.

    Japan should go with Geothermal. There is plenty of hot rock very close to the surface south east of Tokyo. There are also good GT sites close to Nagoya and Osaka. There is enough to meet all of their electricity needs for centuries.

    One drawback for GT is minor earthquakes, but Japan has so many of those already, that a few more shouldn't matter.

  15. I blame the media. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The plant took an earthquake *and* flooding, and yet still the radiation leakage into the surrounding area was negligable. Containment held, even if it did need a bit of improvised emergency cooling. That was on an old plant design - if it had been built to a more modern design, there would have been no need even for that. And yet if you watched the television coverage, it looked like Chenobyl II. There was more airtime given to that nuclear plant than to all the rest of Japan put together, so it is no surprise people were terrified. The media played-up the nuclear aspect, because nuclear means scarey and scarey means viewers. And viewers mean money.

    1. Re:I blame the media. by tp1024 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The nuclide release wasn't neglible, it wasn't acceptable in any way whatsoever and I have yet to see anyone in authority say so. That's nonsense. Period.

      It is true, it was much smaller than that of Chernobyl, especially considering that 3 reactors were involved. But it was still so large, that the evacuation of the population was definitely necessary - though on a smaller area and for a shorter time. It also not in all places that were evacuated (especially in the south) and not in the way it was done, especially the hasty evacuation of hospitals that cost hundreds of lives.

      So stop belittling it.

    2. Re:I blame the media. by tp1024 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't trust the media either - but this is just the wrong part to distrust, because it is true.

      It's not true that the areas will be uninhabitable for centuries or millenia or millions of years as some people think. The worst affected areas are expected to fall below 20mSv/year by 2016. That's not exactly a low figure, some people will freak out about it and the Japanese government won't allow people to stay in such areas over night, but it's in line with natural radiation in some places like Denver - without them suffering any health consequencess.

      What gets lost with many people is that Cs-137 only contributes to half the radiation of Cs. The other half is Cs-134 which has a half-life of just 2 years, which means that radiation drops quickly in the first years. In Chernobyl, they just reduced the maximum allowed life-time radiation dose from 400mSv initially (a bit less than the average in Cornwall) to 250mSv to 150mSv. Recently, they stopped doing that and plan to simply open up a lot of areas formerly treated as off-limits dead-mans-land.

    3. Re:I blame the media. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      So, why - while you think radiation leaks are neglectable - is an area of 70km times 30km evacuated?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  16. Re:There are only a few options, so far by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

    A planetary power grid would run into a few problems. Just look at the situation with the middle east right now, and how much the rest of the world invests into trying to keep favor and keep order so the oil flows. That same region is also ideal for solar: Near the equator, and very little cloud coverage to block the precious photons. Do you think Europe would be happy about depending on them for power? We're having enough worry about Russia's control of the gas supply.

    There are some technological magic bullet possibilities. A true smart grid could make renewables much more practical, but that has technological and political difficulties too.

  17. How can it go "really wrong"? by JSBiff · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If anything, Fukushima has re-assured me. It kind of seems like it went "really wrong" - but nobody died, and according to the scientific evidence, no one *will* die from Fukushima radiation. What am I missing - how can it go "really wrong"?

    It appears to me that the biggest threat to public health if something goes wrong at a nuclear plant, is people panicking and causing harm to themselves or others - self medicating on Potassium Iodide and overdosing themsevles or their children; getting into traffic accidents while trying to evacuate, etc.

    Those are potentially real harms, but can be minimized by honest reporting by the media and sustained public education. Instead, the public is convinced that any release of radioactive isotopes from a nuclear plants is an end-of-the-world scenario, which it clearly is not.

    1. Re:How can it go "really wrong"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2

      There is mo scientific evidence that no one will die from Fukushima, how retarded are you?
      The only thing for sure is: when in 15 years the first people are dying from cancer caused by Fukushima: no one will be able to prove that!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:How can it go "really wrong"? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have absolutely no clue, thats the point.

      The whole area is evacuated, why?

      Because it is super safe to live there. Obviously.

      Three reactor cores melted down and you think nothing will happen from that? How desasterous is the education system in your country that you can no think?

      Even the guys who bravely went in to the reactor got radiation doses that are quite manageable, about the equivalent of what a flight attendant working the London-New York route gets in her career. Oh my got how retarded.
      It is a difference wether you get some radiation from the outside or if you inhale/eat radioactive isotopes.

      What the fuck has high altitude flight radiation to do with a nuclear desaster? Nothing you idiot!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:How can it go "really wrong"? by terjeber · · Score: 2

      Three reactor cores melted down and you think nothing will happen from that?

      Not nothing. About 130 people may die eventually due to the disaster. Comparatively, 600 people died in the evacuation. Stanford says the number has a large uncertainty, from a low 15 to a high 1000. You are right, it is not nothing, but it is a very small number. Statistically insignificant would be the appropriate description.

      I'd say it would be far more dangerous if gasoline prices dropped 30% in the US. Far more people would die in the ensuing increase in traffic. For a disaster, Fukushima is a bit of a dud.

  18. Re:Germany again? by Tailhook · · Score: 2

    Has no one else been wondering why Germany is being seen as a utopia with all of the answers, recently?

    No. Germany is a prosperous western nation. Germany has its budget deficit under control. Germany has its trade balance under control. Germany financial laws minimized exposure to toxic debt. As a result, the effects of collapse of the debt bubble in '07-08, the so-called financial crisis, were much more limited in Germany, amounting to a total bailout liability of only about 5.5% of GDP. The costs to other western nations was/is much higher.

    Among the many effects of this is that Germany still has the luxury of indulging new social programs. It is also the go-to repository of wealth whenever one of the unproductive and misgoverned PIGS needs to be propped up which gives Germany a great deal of influence in the EU.

    In my opinion Germany has all of these things for three basic reasons;

    First, Germany has managed to keep its spending under control. There are many public benefits and a great deal of wealth redistribution in Germany, but the Germans don't tolerate large accumulations of debt; if the revenue of the German treasury can't fund it the dependents don't get it. That includes the medical system and the education system.

    Second, Germany has an industrial policy that isn't subject to certain veto by pressure groups and their civil lawsuits. This means Germany can make choices, like replacing nuclear reactors with renewable, coal or anything else they decide to use and it doesn't get killed by some judge. This attracts capital.

    Finally, Germany protects its domestic industry and workers from unrestrained competition with Asia. Trade unions, businesses and governments can all, independently, pursue importers in court to enforce Germany's sovereign trade laws, and they do so with high frequency. This all somehow happens without statist punditry crying 'oh noes trade war!' The result is Germany has a fully developed industrial base and workforce that is very attractive to capital.

    Wealth is important. Germany has consistently sustained real wealth creation since the end of of the Second World War through hard nosed trade policy, credible industrial policy and sound fiscal governance. It doesn't surprise me that Germany has earned some respect.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!