Tom Del Rosso wrote:
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?


So - what is that savings? Be sure to include all of the costs associated
with nuclear energy. 11% of the world's energy is generated by nuclear
power. What are the surrounding costs of that energy? It was supposed to
be too cheap to meter, but then it became very expensive to administer and
to deliver. So - what are those savings?


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.


You sir, have a lot to consider. Simply because something has not happened
yet, is no reason not to be concerned for the cost for when it does happen.
It is very short sighted to simply look at what has (or has not...)
happened... yet.



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.

We can? I think the DOE would want to hear of your plan.

--

-Mike-