Posts by Name 7 10 publicly visible posts • joined 15 Mar 2011
Do I note a change of tone?
So, let's see:
- Nuclear material on fire open to the elements;
- Helicopters attempting to put said fires out;
- Surrounding area evacuated and no-fly zone imposed;
- Systematic lack of information;
- Increasing nervousness of foreign governments.
Yep, no point in drawing hasty comparisons, no siree.
Nuclear power is too expensive. Too costly. Period.
It's also exceedingly cheap in the very short term, the life-time of a nuclear power plant.
A power plant's average cost per kWh is simple: total cost divided by total kWh produced.
That actually applies to all sort of power plants.
Tell us, since you like nuclear power, what is the total cost of running a nuclear power plant? Don't forget to add the storage cost of the nuclear waste.
What?! What do you mean you can't? You're pro-nuclear. You like the thing. It's lovely.
Oh, yes. You're right. Of course, global warning is more expensive. Sure, then nuclear is the solution. Two wrongs always make a right.
Sod our descendants! They should have been born now. It's their fault. Let them pay.
You're missing my point, Highlander.
The "triumph" swipe is directed at the person that wrote the original report, "analysis" he called it. The mistakenly called "journalist" reported on a win before the horse had crossed the line. And he lost the bet. Real journalist report on facts and may construct an analysis that factual-based to inform others.
As to the engineering of the plant, what does that matter now? Unsinkable ships and 100%-safe nuclear power plants.
I feel sorrow for those putting themselves in danger to control the plant. Japan has already a human tragedy caused by the tsunami, the last thing they needed is another caused by human arrogance ("Sure, we can build them safely. Duh...").
Where's my nuclear power plant? I want one! NOW! Completely harmless, they are.
So, the journalist decided to write about an current event, labelling nuclear safe for consumption by all. Forget Chernobyl, he writes, we should have a (popcorn) nuclear power plants in each corner of the world at whatever the cost.
The said journalist couldn't wait (did it itch that badly?) until the crisis was over to proclaim the superiority of mankind over nature. Hurray, Engineers. Go forth and spread the nuclear goodness.
I believe "cost" is the one topic that break the nuclear argument. The cost concept is well understood by both environmentalist and capitalists.
What is the cost of a nuclear power safe that can be safe in Japan? What would be the cost of having all nuclear power stations in the world to the same standard of safety?
After that: what is the cost for future generations to safely store the nuclear "ashes"?
If you go a bit beyond your own navel and add the cost for your grandchildren and to the one hundred generations after them, you see that nuclear power is unaffordable.
And who cares about people getting leukaemia or thyroid cancer? That's a bunch of bull, isn't it?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
