It appears that this "black swan" has yet to slaughter you. As I see it, I would welcome such things because my minor increase in risk is balanced by considerable benefit to society.
How is having to give up a 450K USD house and 160K USD/ year job NOT slaughter!? I am sure the turkey is most confident of its arrangement the day before it is slaughtered for Thanksgiving. You just don't know when Thanksgiving is coming, turkey.
So you saw what I did there? Make stupid accusations on the internet and you might just get mocked. Sure I have some sympathy for people who suffer, but when you use that suffering as an excuse to harm your society, well, your credit line gets revoked with me.
Very cryptic . . . are you saying that "harm your society" is the closing down of nuclear plants, the very thing that is causing these people to suffer in the first place!? I am afraid this is another ass-hat comment from you. One more, and I will have to start referring to you as "ass-hat turkey."
Seriously, are you even debating at this point? Why do I feel like I am watching a monkey fling his own feces at a zoo's observation window? This is seizure invoking juvenility. Again . . . we go down the long rabbit hole of a thread, and towards the end you forget to take your medication or something. Come on!
What error? You are the one trying to state that unsophisticated ("poorly developed") arguments can be accurate and correct. Would one not measure the sophistication of an argument using criteria including accuracy and correctness? You love taking the indefensible positions, don't you?
I find Japanese real estate to be overpriced too.
Overall Japan land prices have not only been crashing since the accident (see ORIX), land in Fukushima and the surrounding prefectures appears to no longer be marketable (even the liquid "mansion" apartments. My friend has one 10 minutes from my house, and even though he was offered 30% above the price he paid before the accident, he cannot even sell it now with a 15% discount from what he paid . . . after 8 months being on the market).
If you think land prices are overpriced post-accident, you must be admitting that the reaction to the fallout so far is too optimistic and is not "nuclear hysteria". So you have had a change of heart?
I gather Japan does like the rest of the developed world have legal remedies for awarding fines and damages for when things like Fukushiima happen.
Fines for what damages? According to you and your ilk there are no damages from Fukushima and everyone is just caught up in "nuclear hysteria." Besides, did you not see the estimate of proper compensation of the victims would at least be 10 Trillion USD!? Japan would cease to exist if it actually took proper responsibility for the accident. This is the uncoverable risk of nuclear power, destroyer of nations.
Blockades of Japan have occurred before in living memory. It's not foolish to consider the risk of them happening again.
Chinese blockades, eh? Seriously? You might be aware of this, but the U.S. has purposedly placed enough troops in both South Korea and Japan so that if China were ever to even build up its navy in a threatening way (much less form a blockade . ..), there would be domestic political support for WWIII. At which point, you get your foundest wish, and the entire world goes nuclear (though, for just a short amount of time).
Besides, China is not stupid. The proper way to form a blockade these days is to monopolize something (like rare earths, or even Uranium), and then at some point say you are not going to sell anymore. Nukes made market power the weapon of choice for trade disputes.
I wasn't aware of this. That's a pretty sad spectacle, if things really turn out as you claim.
I would think a pro-nukie like yourself would be aware of this fact. There are already lawsuits and local government demands to start immediate decomissions of at least a dozen reactors. And all that was BEFORE this damning report came out. Strange how reality works, isn't it? Perhaps perceptions can be swayed in the short-term, but eventually everyone is going to have to deal with it. Even those intent on denial until the bitter end.
Who said anything about oil being "bad?" On the contrary, I attribute our technological progress up until recent times primarily due to cheap, easy to reach fossil fuel based energy. Must you create such a weak straw-man to discuss this topic?
Fossil fuel is finite and creates pollution when used. Both these characteristics do have measurable, scientifically observable costs (specifically speaking, "externalities") that the vast majority for which producers have never had to bear. This is, undeniably, a form of a subsidy. Therefore, (assuming all else equal) NOT subsidizing alternatives that do not have the same externalities would simply not be rational economic policy.
Of course we shouldn't try for energy independence by producing more oil . ..
Assuming you are now referring to a national "energy independence" policy, the economics for doing so by fossil fuels just are not there unless you are talking about countries like Saudi Arabia. This is simply a comparative advantage and international trade economics exercise and has nothing to do with "oil is bad" straw-man arguments.
Sure, but no different from nuclear, fossil fuel production, etc . . . How can solar ever move to mainstream with out at least receiving similar subsidizes to the more established forms of electricity production industries?
How about removing the subsidies from the other industries first?
Not disagreeing, but would like to note that First Solar's fundamentals still look very strong. I think at this point the Chinese manufacturers are just clearing the industry of a lot of dead wood that was using old technologies.
Of course, Chinese dumping could reach a point that even innovative firms like First Solar will not be able to compete, but it does not look like we have reached that point yet. Meanwhile, price decreases should really start pushing the overall technology mainstream.
Fossil fuels generate pollution and green house gases. Who pays for that cost? Not the producers but the public. Economically speaking, that is a subsidy.
This is a company problem. The industry is healthier than ever, with fierce competition pushing technological advances at break necking speeds. There are many, many companies that were depending on subsidizes to survive, but now more and more geographic areas no longer need to be subsidized for solar to make sense. The winners at this point seem to be Chinese manufacturers and innovative firms like First Solar. All companies will temporarily take a hit until the losers disappear, but once that happens, the winners take all (at a non-subsidized price point).
Didn't we see something similar happen in the PC industry when it was just getting started?
While your oversimplification and arrogance towards technologies and risk situations you don't understand, is merely a bit annoying to me.
How many nuclear reactors have melted down within 100 miles of your home? If it is less than three, I have you beat. It is human nature to not truly comprehend a risk until the worst case scenario has actually taken place. Owning stock in an energy firm is meaningless compared to actually living through the consequences of the uncovered risks those firms take. You are all talk, understand nothing about these risks, and are willfully ignorant to those who have "understood" at great personal cost. You live in a little, sheltered world where your view seems obvious to you, until a black swan comes by and slaughters you like a Thanksgiving turkey.
keep in mind that the "little, small world" of Duke Energy has more than three times the capitalization of TEPCO
Nice. Not only did you manage to completely mess up that calculation, but you are comparing the post-accident TEPCO mktcap, which is now less than 1/20 of what it was pre-accident. Finally, is bragging about a company having higher mktcap part of some kind of backwards valuation-based strategy where you buy high and sell low? Anyway, I suppose it is your own money if you want to lose it, that is your choice.
Dams were invented way before electricity. It is a very ancient technology. Perhaps if you spent some time understanding more some of the basic technologies like dams before getting into advance technologies like nuclear reactors, you would have some perspective instead of trying to make such misconstrued comparisons.
You should try to be a "sophisticated" poster then . ..
Of course, because "poorly developed" arguments tend to be both accurate and correct!? Have I scared you out of the nuclear debate and into some kind of strange, quasi-English debate?
First, Japan is another country
Exactly. If you are not qualified enough to invest neglible amounts in Japan, you are certainly not qualified to debate the energy policy they use there. I thought we had gone over this before already . ..
I find its stocks to still be overpriced
Spoken like another self-proclaimed stock expert . . . Have you forgotten that we are talking about JREITS here? ORIX is still well below the initial 311 crash. You are claiming the Japanese market is stupid and overacting to the nuclear accident. Your argument should be that real estate is UNDER PRICED to be consistent with your theories on the disaster. Yet here we are . . . floating around the cognitive dissonance of your confused mind.
Chernobyl is a good counterexample. They mapped at the ground level concentrations of radioactive materials.
Where do you get this misinformation!? The recent accounts of Chernobyl I have come across are that you literally have to check radiation for every step to really know what you are being exposed to. One step you are in the clear and the next step you are in a hot spot because that shrub species you are now standing next to happens to biologically concentrate a specific radioactive isotope. Please present the proof that even a non-negligle number of the current ground level hot spots in Chernobyl are mapped . ..
And nuclear waste is not processed by normal waste disposal plants.
I think that was my point. Yet normal water waste disposal plants are having to deal with nuclear waste from the fallout and the "washout" . . . Are you arguing for my side now? Regular waste water is becoming radioactive waste. There is no infrastructure existent in the entire world for dealing with the shear amount of radioactive contamination and normal infrastructure is being crushed by the burden.
Seems reasonable to me to just rezone it for industry.
OK, but to be fair, let's include YOUR house in the rezoning . . . we will compensate you with what I got: 0 JPY. You can now sell your house for cents on the dollar to some happy nuclear company so that they can tear it down and continue to reap from the misery they originally caused others. (You do realize that with that comment of yours, you have now clearly moved into "asshat" territory?)
it's far smaller by many orders of magnitude than the quantities of coal
Again, what, are we worried about here, pirates? Any economic analysis of foreign dependency will look at the pricing power of the foreign suppliers which is directly correlated to level of industry competition. Do you honestly believe that the uranium industry is more competitive than the petroleum and coal industries!? By your logic, Japan should run on anti-matter, since it comes in a really small package. This is nonsense . ..
Japan has almost 30% of its power generation in nuclear
Wrong, again. Currently 6/54 reactors are actually operating (3 more will shutdown this January), so that is closer to 3% today and less than 2% within a month from now . ..
requires a level of importing that apparently Japan doesn't want to rely on
I think making blanket statements about what Japan "wants" is pretty meaningless. Sure, there are people who have invested in nuclear, just like you, and will be dedicated salesmen until the bitter end. The actual reality is that Japan
It is alright to lack specific credentials when discussing such matters, but to so easily dismiss the opinions of those who actually do have relevant credentials is simply a public demonstration of willful ignorance, nothing more.
All I can say to that is I sincerely hope that Duke Energy regains its pre-Lehman shock highs so that you can sell out and stop the shilling. Your oversimplification and arrogance towards entire nations and cultures vastly beyond your comprehension is a giant time sink to address for those with legitimately aligned exposures to the situation.
Again, have you ever even been to Japan, because your ignorance of that country is quite explicit. Why not just shill within your own little, small world of Duke Energy?
I find people who value "sophistication" over accuracy and correctness . ..
I was using sophistication to refer to a collective of characteristics, including accuracy and correctness.
You know what, I really do not feel like responding to another one of your long posts when you never responded to my last post a while back. Here, for your convenience I have re-posted it below:
Right, so if energy infrastructure investments are just as simple as the laws of physics, why are YOUR investments any different? Yet you (and many people like you) have decided not to invest in a country that you have also claimed has an overblown accident (i.e. a discounted investment . . . representing any easy gain). Explain that.
Alright, up until now my main beef with you was your insulting arrogance towards Japan and the Japanese people. However, it seems that even your pro-nuke basis has some glaring flaws. Just to point out a few:
Occasional meltdown creating unusable blocks of land for a period of time, it still uses less land area than solar or wind per unit of power generated.
Really?! Is this the same thing? Did you ever consider the worst part of fallout (besides the fact that it is a public hazard) is not knowing completely what areas are impacted? That nice, neat circle around the plant you see, complete BS. ALL dangerous areas cannot be economically mapped to the detail necessary (at ground level). And, guess what, they are constantly MOVING, usually to important places like waste treatment facilities. It is kind of hard to have a society if your waste disposal plants are now too radioactive to function normally (and are piling up radioactive waste miles long).
Nor does it create dependence on foreign imports
Right, because nuclear plants run on unicorn horns, something Japan is abundant in. Oh, and Japan has very stable geological features for nuclear waste, so no need for creating a dependence on foreign exports of waste. . . (I am being sarcastic)
The thing is that there currently isn't a credible replacement for nuclear power aside from other technologies with their own serious drawbacks.
Wow, really? This technology has been with us for over half a century and still only accounts for 13.5% of world power generation. Maybe every technology has serious drawbacks and different governments are weighing the costs and benefits carefully, just like you do with YOUR own investments. Their aggregate conclusion so far has been quite less extreme than yours and, accordingly, a significant majority are not using the technology to the level that "physics dictates." Maybe this issue is more complicated than a simple physics equation?
But, again, back to my main point . ..Japan does not need you, someone not even willing to invest in it himself, to be telling it what it needs to do. ALL investments require consideration of the risks and the risk preferences of all those involved (both of which are unique to the risk environment and people involved), not just YOUR investments. I really am curious how your brain is dealing with that cognitive dissonance of yours . ..
Here is your chance to pick-up where you left off . . .
Since the dam failed due to flooding, how many people do you think would have died WITHOUT the dam!? Furthermore, hydroelectric capacity of a dam is directly correlated to the dam's ability to pass through water. A dam's ability to survive flooding also depends on its ability to pass through water. If anything, a MORE ambitious power generation design to the damn could have increased its survivability. Consequently, your argument is patently false.
EU DOES have a free media, and last time I have checked, not a single airline in China is currently banned from EU skies
I find this statement extremely naive. Either the EU accepts siphoning fuel by mouth or the Chinese government has a different set of operational standards for flights to the EU region, and they have (shock) tricked the EU aviation authority.
Besides, the EU is only concerned about safety within their own airspace. They control what happens at their airports and flights from China have already made it thousands of miles before they hit EU airspace, so the overall probability of an accident in EU airspace can be minimized, while the monetary impact of a ban on such a large nation is extremely high.
I guess the short of it is if you must fly Air China, be sure you are flying from an EU airport . ..
. . . if you are going to level an accusation such as that . ..
I purposely did not bring up the reports of tainted baby milk formula, lead tainted toys, plastic in rice, etc . . . because I thought it was pretty much universally accepted that China had low QA standards at this point. Obviously I was not expecting to run across someone who is apparently stuck on the Chinese version of the Internet and would be mortally shocked by my post. . .
China has the same regulations, as does the US, as does Japan.
I find that a fascinating statement, given that the Chinese government does not even pretend that there is free domestic media. How can we even begin to verify your claims when the Chinese government actually prevents any kind of independent confirmation of ANYTHING that occurs within the country? The only independent information that does leak out, does not look promising . ..
a photo of a couple of jackasses proves nothing more than there are jackasses on the planet, hardly newsworthy.
I assure you that such a picture would be very newsworthy if it occurred at an airport in either the U.S. or Japan. Again, just dismissing the issue as a bunch of jackasses is a weak argument when considering the context is an airport. Are Chinese nuclear plants operated by the same jackasses?
On the streets, perhaps, but as aircraft personnel? Are you serious!? Not sure where you are writing from, but from where I come from, aviation is a highly regulated industry, and rightfully so. Those pictures represent more than a couple of idiots, but a failure of various systematic controls and lack of basic equipment.
Are you seriously implying fascist, communist China has better overall controls than free, democratic Japan? Right . . . now NOTHING on Slashdot could possibly surprise me . . . we might has well be pelting each other with our own feces at this point.
Because you have some piss-ant little investment in Duke Energy, which apparently is more important than the safety and livelihood of entire nations. Nations of which you are completely ignorant of in regards to their language, culture, and energy profile, yet you think you know what is best in regards to their energy policies. You have a significant personal bias that is not aligned with those most at risk from this specific incident, and yet you argue as if you have altruistic motives. Seems pretty shill-like to me . . .
Shilling for your minute equity investment, are you? How noble . ..
I am not employed to shill by anyone
Of course, because you would be fired for the quality of arguments you have been making.
My concern about the future of my society
Right, and Japan is not your society. Your biased spin is pissing off those of us who actually do have a vested interest in Japan and making the pro-nukes seem like a bunch of control freaks.
it doesn't have to import it all the time . . . less vulnerable to trade disruptions
Um, trade disruption due to all the pirates around Japan? Oh, and the nuclear waste you can just leave forever at the site, as we all saw during the Fukushima crisis. Brilliant . . .
Are we going to have another long thread just to have you spew out some nonsense towards the end again? For instance, if you are going to say that hydroelectric kills MILLIONS, you might as well get it out now so that we can address it early.
Just to warn you, khallow will take you down a long, long thread. Then, towards the end, he will surprise you by a bunch of unsophisticated statements like nuclear has no foreign imports requirements for Japan (even though it has both Uranium import and waste export requirements). Or that there are no credible alternatives to nuclear, even when nuclear only accounts for like just 13% world electrical power production after 50 years. It really is a disappointment to find out after so much time that you have actually been debating with such a pro-nuke light weight . . .
Then he will pop up again weeks later as if the thread never took place. It is a big time sink . . . you have been warned . . .
As it stands right now, everyone smoking, inhaling asbestos, and contracting HIV today has a 0 death count. Is this a reasonable supportive argument for smoking, using asbestos, or contracting HIV? Why is it a reasonable supportive argument for the Fukushima fallout discussion?
most pessimistic credible estimate is on the order of 1000.
I think, when things go wrong, people should be held accountable for their mistakes.
Right, so the U.S. taking 7 and half years to admit an actual meltdown at 3M proves they are worthy? Who got fired for that mistake?
Here I think the issue is with Tokyo Electric, and some people should be canned, some fined personally, and the company as a whole held responsible.
The problem is that even if that did happen, which it will not, it would come no where close to preventing future accidents. This is the banking bailout issue all over again but with global health implications.
Again, I think you are one of the more reasonable pro-nukes here, but I still feel like statements like "willing to be responsible and own up to the risks involved" has very little to do with the realities of today. Especially when taking in account that the majority of future nukes will be in India and China, with little to none international oversight.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears that this "black swan" has yet to slaughter you. As I see it, I would welcome such things because my minor increase in risk is balanced by considerable benefit to society.
How is having to give up a 450K USD house and 160K USD/ year job NOT slaughter!? I am sure the turkey is most confident of its arrangement the day before it is slaughtered for Thanksgiving. You just don't know when Thanksgiving is coming, turkey.
So you saw what I did there? Make stupid accusations on the internet and you might just get mocked. Sure I have some sympathy for people who suffer, but when you use that suffering as an excuse to harm your society, well, your credit line gets revoked with me.
Very cryptic . . . are you saying that "harm your society" is the closing down of nuclear plants, the very thing that is causing these people to suffer in the first place!? I am afraid this is another ass-hat comment from you. One more, and I will have to start referring to you as "ass-hat turkey."
Seriously, are you even debating at this point? Why do I feel like I am watching a monkey fling his own feces at a zoo's observation window? This is seizure invoking juvenility. Again . . . we go down the long rabbit hole of a thread, and towards the end you forget to take your medication or something. Come on!
I was just correcting your error.
What error? You are the one trying to state that unsophisticated ("poorly developed") arguments can be accurate and correct. Would one not measure the sophistication of an argument using criteria including accuracy and correctness? You love taking the indefensible positions, don't you?
I find Japanese real estate to be overpriced too.
Overall Japan land prices have not only been crashing since the accident (see ORIX), land in Fukushima and the surrounding prefectures appears to no longer be marketable (even the liquid "mansion" apartments. My friend has one 10 minutes from my house, and even though he was offered 30% above the price he paid before the accident, he cannot even sell it now with a 15% discount from what he paid . . . after 8 months being on the market).
If you think land prices are overpriced post-accident, you must be admitting that the reaction to the fallout so far is too optimistic and is not "nuclear hysteria". So you have had a change of heart?
I gather Japan does like the rest of the developed world have legal remedies for awarding fines and damages for when things like Fukushiima happen.
Fines for what damages? According to you and your ilk there are no damages from Fukushima and everyone is just caught up in "nuclear hysteria." Besides, did you not see the estimate of proper compensation of the victims would at least be 10 Trillion USD!? Japan would cease to exist if it actually took proper responsibility for the accident. This is the uncoverable risk of nuclear power, destroyer of nations.
Blockades of Japan have occurred before in living memory. It's not foolish to consider the risk of them happening again.
Chinese blockades, eh? Seriously? You might be aware of this, but the U.S. has purposedly placed enough troops in both South Korea and Japan so that if China were ever to even build up its navy in a threatening way (much less form a blockade . . .), there would be domestic political support for WWIII. At which point, you get your foundest wish, and the entire world goes nuclear (though, for just a short amount of time).
Besides, China is not stupid. The proper way to form a blockade these days is to monopolize something (like rare earths, or even Uranium), and then at some point say you are not going to sell anymore. Nukes made market power the weapon of choice for trade disputes.
I wasn't aware of this. That's a pretty sad spectacle, if things really turn out as you claim.
I would think a pro-nukie like yourself would be aware of this fact. There are already lawsuits and local government demands to start immediate decomissions of at least a dozen reactors. And all that was BEFORE this damning report came out. Strange how reality works, isn't it? Perhaps perceptions can be swayed in the short-term, but eventually everyone is going to have to deal with it. Even those intent on denial until the bitter end.
unquestionable axiom that oil is bad
Who said anything about oil being "bad?" On the contrary, I attribute our technological progress up until recent times primarily due to cheap, easy to reach fossil fuel based energy. Must you create such a weak straw-man to discuss this topic?
Fossil fuel is finite and creates pollution when used. Both these characteristics do have measurable, scientifically observable costs (specifically speaking, "externalities") that the vast majority for which producers have never had to bear. This is, undeniably, a form of a subsidy. Therefore, (assuming all else equal) NOT subsidizing alternatives that do not have the same externalities would simply not be rational economic policy.
Of course we shouldn't try for energy independence by producing more oil . . .
Assuming you are now referring to a national "energy independence" policy, the economics for doing so by fossil fuels just are not there unless you are talking about countries like Saudi Arabia. This is simply a comparative advantage and international trade economics exercise and has nothing to do with "oil is bad" straw-man arguments.
Sure, but no different from nuclear, fossil fuel production, etc . . . How can solar ever move to mainstream with out at least receiving similar subsidizes to the more established forms of electricity production industries?
How about removing the subsidies from the other industries first?
Not disagreeing, but would like to note that First Solar's fundamentals still look very strong. I think at this point the Chinese manufacturers are just clearing the industry of a lot of dead wood that was using old technologies.
Of course, Chinese dumping could reach a point that even innovative firms like First Solar will not be able to compete, but it does not look like we have reached that point yet. Meanwhile, price decreases should really start pushing the overall technology mainstream.
Fossil fuels generate pollution and green house gases. Who pays for that cost? Not the producers but the public. Economically speaking, that is a subsidy.
This is a company problem. The industry is healthier than ever, with fierce competition pushing technological advances at break necking speeds. There are many, many companies that were depending on subsidizes to survive, but now more and more geographic areas no longer need to be subsidized for solar to make sense. The winners at this point seem to be Chinese manufacturers and innovative firms like First Solar. All companies will temporarily take a hit until the losers disappear, but once that happens, the winners take all (at a non-subsidized price point).
Didn't we see something similar happen in the PC industry when it was just getting started?
While your oversimplification and arrogance towards technologies and risk situations you don't understand, is merely a bit annoying to me.
How many nuclear reactors have melted down within 100 miles of your home? If it is less than three, I have you beat. It is human nature to not truly comprehend a risk until the worst case scenario has actually taken place. Owning stock in an energy firm is meaningless compared to actually living through the consequences of the uncovered risks those firms take. You are all talk, understand nothing about these risks, and are willfully ignorant to those who have "understood" at great personal cost. You live in a little, sheltered world where your view seems obvious to you, until a black swan comes by and slaughters you like a Thanksgiving turkey.
keep in mind that the "little, small world" of Duke Energy has more than three times the capitalization of TEPCO
Nice. Not only did you manage to completely mess up that calculation, but you are comparing the post-accident TEPCO mktcap, which is now less than 1/20 of what it was pre-accident. Finally, is bragging about a company having higher mktcap part of some kind of backwards valuation-based strategy where you buy high and sell low? Anyway, I suppose it is your own money if you want to lose it, that is your choice.
The benefits of dams are numerous: they provide water for drinking, navigation, and agricultural irrigation. Dams also provide hydroelectric power and create lakes for fishing and recreation. Most important, dams save lives by preventing or reducing floods.
Dams were invented way before electricity. It is a very ancient technology. Perhaps if you spent some time understanding more some of the basic technologies like dams before getting into advance technologies like nuclear reactors, you would have some perspective instead of trying to make such misconstrued comparisons.
You should try to be a "sophisticated" poster then . . .
Of course, because "poorly developed" arguments tend to be both accurate and correct!? Have I scared you out of the nuclear debate and into some kind of strange, quasi-English debate?
First, Japan is another country
Exactly. If you are not qualified enough to invest neglible amounts in Japan, you are certainly not qualified to debate the energy policy they use there. I thought we had gone over this before already . . .
I find its stocks to still be overpriced
Spoken like another self-proclaimed stock expert . . . Have you forgotten that we are talking about JREITS here? ORIX is still well below the initial 311 crash. You are claiming the Japanese market is stupid and overacting to the nuclear accident. Your argument should be that real estate is UNDER PRICED to be consistent with your theories on the disaster. Yet here we are . . . floating around the cognitive dissonance of your confused mind.
Chernobyl is a good counterexample. They mapped at the ground level concentrations of radioactive materials.
Where do you get this misinformation!? The recent accounts of Chernobyl I have come across are that you literally have to check radiation for every step to really know what you are being exposed to. One step you are in the clear and the next step you are in a hot spot because that shrub species you are now standing next to happens to biologically concentrate a specific radioactive isotope. Please present the proof that even a non-negligle number of the current ground level hot spots in Chernobyl are mapped . . .
And nuclear waste is not processed by normal waste disposal plants.
I think that was my point. Yet normal water waste disposal plants are having to deal with nuclear waste from the fallout and the "washout" . . . Are you arguing for my side now? Regular waste water is becoming radioactive waste. There is no infrastructure existent in the entire world for dealing with the shear amount of radioactive contamination and normal infrastructure is being crushed by the burden.
Seems reasonable to me to just rezone it for industry.
OK, but to be fair, let's include YOUR house in the rezoning . . . we will compensate you with what I got: 0 JPY. You can now sell your house for cents on the dollar to some happy nuclear company so that they can tear it down and continue to reap from the misery they originally caused others. (You do realize that with that comment of yours, you have now clearly moved into "asshat" territory?)
it's far smaller by many orders of magnitude than the quantities of coal
Again, what, are we worried about here, pirates? Any economic analysis of foreign dependency will look at the pricing power of the foreign suppliers which is directly correlated to level of industry competition. Do you honestly believe that the uranium industry is more competitive than the petroleum and coal industries!? By your logic, Japan should run on anti-matter, since it comes in a really small package. This is nonsense . . .
Japan has almost 30% of its power generation in nuclear
Wrong, again. Currently 6/54 reactors are actually operating (3 more will shutdown this January), so that is closer to 3% today and less than 2% within a month from now . . .
requires a level of importing that apparently Japan doesn't want to rely on
I think making blanket statements about what Japan "wants" is pretty meaningless. Sure, there are people who have invested in nuclear, just like you, and will be dedicated salesmen until the bitter end. The actual reality is that Japan
. . . I have credentials . . . irrelevant aside from indicating some degree of technical and scientific aptitude
Fair enough. Now take a look of the list of people you claim as "people who've never run anything larger or riskier than a university lab."
Here, let us just look at one, who is the Permanent Representative to the United Nations for Japan. Or, do you mean that only an individual from the nuclear industry (with the associated biases) is qualified to investigate such matters?
It is alright to lack specific credentials when discussing such matters, but to so easily dismiss the opinions of those who actually do have relevant credentials is simply a public demonstration of willful ignorance, nothing more.
All I can say to that is I sincerely hope that Duke Energy regains its pre-Lehman shock highs so that you can sell out and stop the shilling. Your oversimplification and arrogance towards entire nations and cultures vastly beyond your comprehension is a giant time sink to address for those with legitimately aligned exposures to the situation.
Again, have you ever even been to Japan, because your ignorance of that country is quite explicit. Why not just shill within your own little, small world of Duke Energy?
I find people who value "sophistication" over accuracy and correctness . . .
I was using sophistication to refer to a collective of characteristics, including accuracy and correctness.
You know what, I really do not feel like responding to another one of your long posts when you never responded to my last post a while back. Here, for your convenience I have re-posted it below:
Right, so if energy infrastructure investments are just as simple as the laws of physics, why are YOUR investments any different? Yet you (and many people like you) have decided not to invest in a country that you have also claimed has an overblown accident (i.e. a discounted investment . . . representing any easy gain). Explain that.
.Japan does not need you, someone not even willing to invest in it himself, to be telling it what it needs to do. ALL investments require consideration of the risks and the risk preferences of all those involved (both of which are unique to the risk environment and people involved), not just YOUR investments. I really am curious how your brain is dealing with that cognitive dissonance of yours . . .
Alright, up until now my main beef with you was your insulting arrogance towards Japan and the Japanese people. However, it seems that even your pro-nuke basis has some glaring flaws. Just to point out a few:
Occasional meltdown creating unusable blocks of land for a period of time, it still uses less land area than solar or wind per unit of power generated.
Really?! Is this the same thing? Did you ever consider the worst part of fallout (besides the fact that it is a public hazard) is not knowing completely what areas are impacted? That nice, neat circle around the plant you see, complete BS. ALL dangerous areas cannot be economically mapped to the detail necessary (at ground level). And, guess what, they are constantly MOVING, usually to important places like waste treatment facilities. It is kind of hard to have a society if your waste disposal plants are now too radioactive to function normally (and are piling up radioactive waste miles long).
Nor does it create dependence on foreign imports
Right, because nuclear plants run on unicorn horns, something Japan is abundant in. Oh, and Japan has very stable geological features for nuclear waste, so no need for creating a dependence on foreign exports of waste. . . (I am being sarcastic)
The thing is that there currently isn't a credible replacement for nuclear power aside from other technologies with their own serious drawbacks.
Wow, really? This technology has been with us for over half a century and still only accounts for 13.5% of world power generation. Maybe every technology has serious drawbacks and different governments are weighing the costs and benefits carefully, just like you do with YOUR own investments. Their aggregate conclusion so far has been quite less extreme than yours and, accordingly, a significant majority are not using the technology to the level that "physics dictates." Maybe this issue is more complicated than a simple physics equation? But, again, back to my main point . .
Here is your chance to pick-up where you left off . . .
killed infinitely more people than the melt down, and orders of magnitude more people than even Chernoby.
Here is a citation countering the above citation-less statement.
The Banqiao dam was begun in April 1951 on the Ru River with the help of Soviet consultants as part of a project to control flooding and to generate electricity.
Since the dam failed due to flooding, how many people do you think would have died WITHOUT the dam!? Furthermore, hydroelectric capacity of a dam is directly correlated to the dam's ability to pass through water. A dam's ability to survive flooding also depends on its ability to pass through water. If anything, a MORE ambitious power generation design to the damn could have increased its survivability. Consequently, your argument is patently false.
EU DOES have a free media, and last time I have checked, not a single airline in China is currently banned from EU skies
I find this statement extremely naive. Either the EU accepts siphoning fuel by mouth or the Chinese government has a different set of operational standards for flights to the EU region, and they have (shock) tricked the EU aviation authority.
.
Besides, the EU is only concerned about safety within their own airspace. They control what happens at their airports and flights from China have already made it thousands of miles before they hit EU airspace, so the overall probability of an accident in EU airspace can be minimized, while the monetary impact of a ban on such a large nation is extremely high.
I guess the short of it is if you must fly Air China, be sure you are flying from an EU airport . .
. . . if you are going to level an accusation such as that . . .
I purposely did not bring up the reports of tainted baby milk formula, lead tainted toys, plastic in rice, etc . . . because I thought it was pretty much universally accepted that China had low QA standards at this point. Obviously I was not expecting to run across someone who is apparently stuck on the Chinese version of the Internet and would be mortally shocked by my post. . .
Asking for substantial proof of claims being thrown out as fact is a requirement of meaningful public discourse.
Unfortunately, I know such a statement is futile, as I get the sense that Slashdot has been taken over by a bunch of 12 year-olds . . .
China has the same regulations, as does the US, as does Japan.
I find that a fascinating statement, given that the Chinese government does not even pretend that there is free domestic media. How can we even begin to verify your claims when the Chinese government actually prevents any kind of independent confirmation of ANYTHING that occurs within the country? The only independent information that does leak out, does not look promising . . .
a photo of a couple of jackasses proves nothing more than there are jackasses on the planet, hardly newsworthy.
I assure you that such a picture would be very newsworthy if it occurred at an airport in either the U.S. or Japan. Again, just dismissing the issue as a bunch of jackasses is a weak argument when considering the context is an airport. Are Chinese nuclear plants operated by the same jackasses?
Guess what, you can find idiots in Japan
On the streets, perhaps, but as aircraft personnel? Are you serious!? Not sure where you are writing from, but from where I come from, aviation is a highly regulated industry, and rightfully so. Those pictures represent more than a couple of idiots, but a failure of various systematic controls and lack of basic equipment.
Are you seriously implying fascist, communist China has better overall controls than free, democratic Japan? Right . . . now NOTHING on Slashdot could possibly surprise me . . . we might has well be pelting each other with our own feces at this point.
He's a nuke shill, no mistake about that.
Why would I be?
Because you have some piss-ant little investment in Duke Energy, which apparently is more important than the safety and livelihood of entire nations. Nations of which you are completely ignorant of in regards to their language, culture, and energy profile, yet you think you know what is best in regards to their energy policies. You have a significant personal bias that is not aligned with those most at risk from this specific incident, and yet you argue as if you have altruistic motives. Seems pretty shill-like to me . . .
still am invested in Duke Energy
Shilling for your minute equity investment, are you? How noble . . .
I am not employed to shill by anyone
Of course, because you would be fired for the quality of arguments you have been making.
My concern about the future of my society
Right, and Japan is not your society. Your biased spin is pissing off those of us who actually do have a vested interest in Japan and making the pro-nukes seem like a bunch of control freaks.
it doesn't have to import it all the time . . . less vulnerable to trade disruptions
Um, trade disruption due to all the pirates around Japan? Oh, and the nuclear waste you can just leave forever at the site, as we all saw during the Fukushima crisis. Brilliant . . .
Are we going to have another long thread just to have you spew out some nonsense towards the end again? For instance, if you are going to say that hydroelectric kills MILLIONS, you might as well get it out now so that we can address it early.
Can we please have your credentials, fine sir?
Just to warn you, khallow will take you down a long, long thread. Then, towards the end, he will surprise you by a bunch of unsophisticated statements like nuclear has no foreign imports requirements for Japan (even though it has both Uranium import and waste export requirements). Or that there are no credible alternatives to nuclear, even when nuclear only accounts for like just 13% world electrical power production after 50 years. It really is a disappointment to find out after so much time that you have actually been debating with such a pro-nuke light weight . . .
Then he will pop up again weeks later as if the thread never took place. It is a big time sink . . . you have been warned . . .
most pessimistic credible estimate is on the order of 1000.
Citation needed.
I think, when things go wrong, people should be held accountable for their mistakes.
Right, so the U.S. taking 7 and half years to admit an actual meltdown at 3M proves they are worthy? Who got fired for that mistake?
Here I think the issue is with Tokyo Electric, and some people should be canned, some fined personally, and the company as a whole held responsible.
The problem is that even if that did happen, which it will not, it would come no where close to preventing future accidents. This is the banking bailout issue all over again but with global health implications.
Again, I think you are one of the more reasonable pro-nukes here, but I still feel like statements like "willing to be responsible and own up to the risks involved" has very little to do with the realities of today. Especially when taking in account that the majority of future nukes will be in India and China, with little to none international oversight.