Mike Marlow wrote:
Tom Del Rosso wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:
Wow, Mike... don't you think they know that it's not.

So if its cheap, why are they pulling the plug?
Because one accident like this costs way more than the savings.
And displaces thousands if not millions.

Does it really cost more than all the savings for 50 years between
accidents?

Think about that - just for a moment.

Ok. Now what?

Note that I'm thinking about all the savings from hundreds of reactors that
had no accidents.


And that interval will get longer. Keeping it away from shore in a
country that has tsunamis isn't that hard.


Of course, we all know that the only threat is tsunamis...

It sure isn't earthquakes, since all the reactors including Fukushima
survived that.


Clean... those rods will need to be kept clear of anyone for 40
thousand years. So you realize that civilzation has not been
around that long. What language will they be speaking then. Will
the warning to the entrance be understood...

It won't take us 100 years to figure out how to get the remaining
energy out of them, if we try to do it at all.

You might be right about that. I suspect you are. So long as nothing
happens in the 100 years...

We can make a facility that's stable for longer than that.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.