Slashdot Mirror
Stung By Scandal, South Korea Weighs Up Cost of Curbing Nuclear Power
mdsolar writes in about an ongoing scandal in South Korea that has rocked their nuclear power program. "It started with a few bogus safety certificates for cables shutting a handful of South Korean nuclear reactors. Now, the scandal has snowballed, with 100 people indicted and Seoul under pressure to rethink its reliance on nuclear power. A shift away from nuclear, which generates a third of South Korea's electricity, could cost tens of billions of dollars a year by boosting imports of liquefied natural gas, oil or coal. Although helping calm safety concerns, it would also push the government into a politically sensitive debate over whether state utilities could pass on sharply higher power bills to households and companies. Gas, which makes up half of South Korea's energy bill while accounting for only a fifth of its power, would likely be the main substitute for nuclear, as it is considered cleaner than coal and plants can be built more easily near cities."
You can't see me making the "jerk off" motion with my hand, but I'm doing it.
There have been zero safety issues with American nuclear plants for 30 years.
We all know what moving off nuclear means: more reliance on fossil fuels.
But I guess that's what the environmentalists want. (It's obvious that the political right wants that.) I used to think that the scales tipped towards environmentalists being simply naive in their mistaken belief that renewables could handle the load nuclear currently does, but it's obvious at this point that they cannot, and that every time you shut down a nuclear reactor fossil fuels take their place. The inescapable conclusion is that environmentalists must want more gas and coal burned in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania
Well coal certainly didn't do anything for their property values...
Nobody is rebuilding TMI, Fukushima or Chernobyl yet that dam was rebuilt because they needed the flood control. It is precisely because the land is habitable that they need the flood control. Your analogy is very flawed.