Japan Fukushima nuclear thread

[Globs]

Bing o said:

Mobile Chicane said:

one-off incident triggered by an earthquake. Hardly a reason to stop investing in nuclear power.

Limitless, clean energy. What's not to like?

If it's so clean, why was your neighbour dying of Lukemia?

And if it's so safe, how come not a single insurance company will insure any plant?

[hairykrishna]

Globs said:

And if it's so safe, how come not a single insurance company will insure any plant?

This is total nonsense.

[DJRC]

Its globs, you get used to him.

[supersingle]

hairykrishna said:

This is total nonsense.

So who's paying for the damage at Fukushima?

Clue: it ain't TEPCO.

[Mobile Chicane]

Bing o said:

Mobile Chicane said:

one-off incident triggered by an earthquake. Hardly a reason to stop investing in nuclear power.

Limitless, clean energy. What's not to like?

If it's so clean, why was your neighbour dying of Lukemia?

Clearly the consequences of an accident are horrendous, however that's no reason to stop investing in the technology.

Humanity needs to embrace nuclear power, unless we want to go back to living in caves.

[Apache]

Chernobyl and Fukashima caused deaths but I would dare to say that the numbers were not as large as those killed by their inability to pay to warm themselves due to increased green taxes, reliance on green power and reluctance to invest in new nuclear technology

[hairykrishna]

supersingle said:

hairykrishna said:

This is total nonsense.

So who's paying for the damage at Fukushima?

Clue: it ain't TEPCO.

The Japanese government, TEPCO and TEPCO's insurers.

[supersingle]

hairykrishna said:

The Japanese government, TEPCO and TEPCO's insurers.

TEPCO are looking for $26 billion of loans to tide them over for the next year. The loans will be guaranteed by the taxpayer.

It's always the taxpayer. Insurance companies will only insure up to a limit which isn't anywhere close to the potential cost of a nuclear disaster.

I don't understand PH sometimes. Whenever the state supports an unviable business model people are (quite rightly) up in arms. But, for some reason nuclear power is a special case which warrants enormous government subsidy and guarantees should it go wrong.

Nuclear power would not exist without state and taxpayer support. That is a fact.

[Regiment]

supersingle said:

TEPCO are looking for $26 billion of loans to tide them over for the next year. The loans will be guaranteed by the taxpayer.

It's always the taxpayer. Insurance companies will only insure up to a limit which isn't anywhere close to the potential cost of a nuclear disaster.

I don't understand PH sometimes. Whenever the state supports an unviable business model people are (quite rightly) up in arms. But, for some reason nuclear power is a special case which warrants enormous government subsidy and guarantees should it go wrong.

Nuclear power would not exist without state and taxpayer support. That is a fact.

Neither would wind, solar, or anything else. Stopping taxpayer support would also stop a lot of funding towards ITER as well.

[Mojocvh]

supersingle said:

hairykrishna said:

This is total nonsense.

So who's paying for the damage at Fukushima?

Clue: it ain't TEPCO.

And we are paying for their BLOODY whaling from the monies donated to clean it up!

[eldar]

supersingle said:

Has any country actually got long term storage for high level waste yet? Last I heard Finland had started but wouldn't actually be able to use it for decades. Britain was trying to persuade the people of Cumbria that they should have it and the US was getting nowhere.

The waste must be really stating to mount up now. How long can they realistically keep it all in reactor buildings.

I've heard of a few US plants storing it on site in dry casks but that's only really intermediate storage. The industry needs to sort it out and fast!

They are still persuading the people of Cumbria to host the deep repository. Been to a couple of meetings about it recently. In principle its fine, but there is a lot of work to be done, particularly the inventory.

Given it will be under my house, and a new build reactor will be a mile away as well, I'm watching this closely.

[Globs]

supersingle said:

I don't understand PH sometimes. Whenever the state supports an unviable business model people are (quite rightly) up in arms. But, for some reason nuclear power is a special case which warrants enormous government subsidy and guarantees should it go wrong.

Nuclear power would not exist without state and taxpayer support. That is a fact.

Inconvenient truths indeed.
In a free market economy nuclear for the west would have stopped with Three Mile Island.

[DamienB]

So what you're saying is, we should have either

(a) a world without nuclear power, where limited gas, coal & oil resources would be used up more quickly thus raising energy prices to all far beyond current prices

or

(b) a world with nuclear power where the consumers pay all of the bill to the power companies rather than paying part of the bill to the power companies and part of the bill as taxes to the government, but basically spend the same amount of money either way, yet probably less money than (a)?

[Globs]

DamienB said:

So what you're saying is, we should have either

(a) a world without nuclear power, where limited gas, coal & oil resources would be used up more quickly thus raising energy prices to all far beyond current prices

or

(b) a world with nuclear power where the consumers pay all of the bill to the power companies rather than paying part of the bill to the power companies and part of the bill as taxes to the government, but basically spend the same amount of money either way, yet probably less money than (a)?

No, those are your own narrow thoughts, not mine.
I think it should be left to the market to decide: I am small government minded, so all subsidies are out.

[DamienB]

Predictable response I'm afraid globs.

We either pay more for non-nuclear or pay (apparently less + taxed more) for nuclear. The economic arguments don't really favour any option as far I can see.

[eldar]

Globs said:

Inconvenient truths indeed.
In a free market economy nuclear for the west would have stopped with Three Mile Island.

In the same way Jet travel should have stopped with the Comet?

The economic case for nuclear becomes stronger every time energy prices rise.

[Globs]

eldar said:

In the same way Jet travel should have stopped with the Comet?

Why would the market resist a faster cheaper and more reliable way to travel?
I'm not sure you've got the hang of this analogy thing...

In fact the UK jet scene was destroyed by the government giving away all the rights to the US IIRC.. more meddling.

[hairykrishna]

It's in no way a level playing field. If the fossil fuel plants were held to the same waste standards as nuclear they would be insanely uneconomic. Tens of thousands of deaths per year from respiratory conditions attributable to burning coal in power plants. Can you imagine the outcry if nuclear killed that many as a one off, never mind every year? Renewables make very little economic sense outside of a few restricted geological locations. How exactly do you propose that we generate electricity?

[DamienB]

Globs said:

In fact the UK jet scene was destroyed by the government giving away all the rights to the US IIRC.. more meddling.

Utter nonsense. Rolls-Royce are the second biggest player in the business. http://www.economist.com/node/12887368

[Talksteer]

Globs said:

eldar said:

In the same way Jet travel should have stopped with the Comet?

Why would the market resist a faster cheaper and more reliable way to travel?
I'm not sure you've got the hang of this analogy thing...

In fact the UK jet scene was destroyed by the government giving away all the rights to the US IIRC.. more meddling.

Errr the UK jet engine scene is somewhat buoyant with one of the worlds three major jet engines companies based here. The only jet technology freely shared with the US was that of the Whittle gas turbine. Post war the British gas turbine manufacturers we able to compete with the US ones because they effectively cooperated as a single unit long before RR ended up owning them all.

The US dominated commercial aviation because the US is a big, single, rich country as a result they had by far the biggest market for flying. Flying in the EU only recently caught up due to simplified border controls and deregulation.

As far as jet liners went the US manufacturers had a massive advantage as the USAF bankrolled them to develop strategic bombers, the swept wing with podded engines underslung configuration which is used on virtually every large commercial aircraft was developed for the B47. The development of the 707 was essentially bankrolled against the KC135 air to air tanker.

Jet airliners weren't developed out of nothing to fulfil a commercial need they were an example of the private sector leveraging government funding to produce a commercially successful product.

It is not necessarily true that every commercial decision is superior to a governmental one. In the case of power generation you have a pure commodity product, a single distribution network and an imperative to deliver this product to virtually everyone. In the case of a powerplant you also have an asset which require government consultation to locate and support and which is regulated (and could be closed illogically) by them. What is financially best for the country and what is best for private finance may be very different things.