upvote

points

by cogman1023 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby leonidasrup22 hours ago|
next
[-]
On the contrary, Japan is changing it's energy policy and restarting it's nuclear reactors.

"Japan’s Energy Plan: New Policy Shifts Nuclear Power Stance from Reduction to Maximization"

https://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/d01195/

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

reply
upvoteby cogman1022 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Hmm, I may have been too vague. When I stated "these" I was talking specifically about the Fukushima plants and not Japan's policy for reactors nationally.

Are they planning on restarting the Fukushima plants? I didn't think they were.

reply
upvoteby mpweiher22 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
The Fukushima plants were completely destroyed by the meltdowns and subsequent Hydrogen explosions that were caused by the Tsunami.

There was never any chance of "restarting" them, so not sure why you brought that up.

reply
upvoteby cogman1022 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Because I'm confused at to what the

> On the contrary

was about. Contrary to what?

reply
upvoteby mpweiher21 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Contrary to your claim Japan is not shutting down its nuclear reactors. It is restarting them.
reply
upvoteby cogman1021 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Not a claim I made.
reply
upvoteby snarkconjecture18 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> These reactors can be made safer, but they all still have a foundational design flaw which means the ultimate goal should be replacing rather than continually spending money reinforcing.

This was about the Fukushima reactors that were completely destroyed? In response to a discussion of Belgian reactors that are completely different?

reply
upvoteby Moldoteck19 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Fukushima units were dismantled more from fear of public opinion. They could have operated unaffected units further safely with proper fixes
reply
upvoteby pqtyw21 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
All nuclear reactors are massively safer than coal power plants though. If you excluded climate change and Co2 emissions entirely and measured harm/deaths adjusted by the amount of power generated the difference would be astronomical.
reply
upvoteby 18 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby ViewTrick100218 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Or you know, just build renewables and storage. Displace vastly more coal faster with a death per kWh where the only injuries comes from traditional construction and mechanical industry work.

No need for any special casing.

reply
upvoteby FabHK10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> where the only injuries comes from traditional construction and mechanical industry work.

Still count.

reply
upvoteby ViewTrick10026 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
They do count, but look at it from a societal perspective.

For the general public no harm can come their way.

Unless they through some mechanical failure manage to walk underneath a wind turbine shedding or collapsing.

Same with solar. Which is even less risky.

For nuclear power the about all effects from a large scale failure will impact society through either radiation or life changing evacuations.

And then society is on the hook to pay for the entire cleanup work.

For renewables the only people who get harmed are those who work in the industry. The risk for the general public is zero.

reply
upvoteby Ray2018 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> measured harm/deaths adjusted by the amount of power generated

In this case, we find that nuclear nuclear reactors are 2 orders of magnitude more dangerous than gas and coal power plants.

reply
upvoteby don_esteban6 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
do you account for all the air pollution and downstream health effects coal power plants cause?
reply