Obama defends nuclear power amid Japan crisis

Sun power, safe, clean, free!

Kapuna.

Agreed but how much flat landmass do you need to build a solar-plant that will produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear one.

Never mind finding and paying for that landmass.

Similar for wind-power.

And a good quake will take those down too.

None of the hundreds of wind turbines in Aomori prefecture were damaged in the quake, and there is plenty of land there to significantly increase the number of wind farms. Just need more supportive government policies. The same applies for Hokkaido. Moreover, even if they are damged in an earthquake, they don't emit radioactivity and cause nationwide panic.

Bogart.

What is causing the nationwide panic are the scare-mongers, etc both in the media and online.

No Zenny, it is the situation at the Fukushima nuclear plant. Don't blame the messenger. I suspect the nuclear industry in Japan will never recover from this, no community will want a new nuclear plant built near them now.

kapuna:

" Sun power, safe, clean, free! "

Yes, but also inefficient to the degree it is almost ridiculous. Sorry, but there is no easy, politically correct alternative to the know energy sources like fossil fuels and nuclear.

Kapuna said -- Sun power, safe, clean free! ( Plus candles )

Obama is in the pockets of the Nuke Lobby? That would undoubtedly be the cry if McCain had won and taken the same tack...

Zenny11: "What is causing the nationwide panic are the scare-mongers, etc both in the media and online."

Yes and no. The situation is indeed scary. I agree that on the one extreme there IS a lot of fear-mongering going on in the foreign media in particular, but on the other end it's hard to know what's happening with TEPCO at the wheel. Even the PM was shouting at them today for the lack of information.

I do agree that of course 'green power' is a lot safer, but it's just too darned expensive. Many this will HELP for a push to make the technology cheaper and more accessible, but it's not going to replace nuclear power in the short run, for sure.

Sun power, safe, clean, free!

Agreed, just have that pesky night problem that keeps getting in the way.

I actually have no problem with anything Obama said here.

Proponents of nuclear power fear their efforts to win over the public to the safety of their industry have been dealt a tremendous blow by the disaster in Japan.

Actually step back for just a moment. 41 year old Nuclear power plant gets slammed with a magnitude 9 once in a thousand years earthquake and one of the most powerful ever recorded in history, then gets nailed with a 30 foot tsunami right afterward. The largest one two punch Mother nature could ever throw and the cores remained intact and the reactors shut down as designed. Situation is bad as the cores despite having shut down all active nuclear reactions that would have continue to generate heat started shedding the residual heat already built up and stored instead (think coals left over after the fire went out that still flares up after you blow on them) and that is the cause of all the problems right now cooling the 'embers' down after the one two punch.

But the fact remains though they went through the worse forces the planet could muster and they didn't collapse or had a core rupture, just about a safe as your ever going to get with a nuke plant if you really think objectively about what happened to them last Friday.

Have to agree with sallwind.

PWR reactors will shut themselves down when outside power is cut, so they are good for a region like Japan. They got other cons though.

I am imagining if those had been High-Yield reactors like some countries in europe, etc use.

sailwind

just about a safe as your ever going to get with a nuke plant

No, they could have been shipboard and operated by the US Navy... : )

I actually have no problem with anything Obama said here.

Agreed entirely. Nuclear power is a lot safer and more sustainable than oil. I'm pleasantly surprised to learn that the US gets 20% of its power from nuclear. Hopefully in the future that number will go higher.

"Yes, but also inefficient to the degree it is almost ridiculous. Sorry, but there is no easy, politically correct alternative to the know energy sources like fossil fuels and nuclear."

Total rubbish and propaganda.

I have solar panels and there's nothing "inefficient" about it. The reason why governments won't push solar energy is because it's not "economic" which means free energy would put the power mafia out of business.

Not to mention there's also Geothermal and Wave which are far safer and cleaner.

It is pure propaganda because there's too much money that would be lost if energy was free.

There are many alternative energy sources out there. While it may take a while to transition from nuclear to those sources plus many energy sources we still haven't discovered. In my state alone we have whats called "ZeroNet" houses which combine solar, wind, geothermal and if I'm right hydro-electric depending on location to make the house itself self sufficeint energy-wise and excess energy is actually sold to power companies. No electric bills whatsoever and actually produces more energy than a household of 5 can actually use. I do agree though that these reactors held up pretty well considering the impact of what happened. its not like everything failed, just the situation is beyond human control.

I have solar panels and there's nothing "inefficient" about it.

Most of the time I live in Michigan, in an area that gets decent sunlight a handful of days out of the year. Given the cost and power yeild the amount of time it would take to recoup my investment in a solar panel would be roughly twice the recommended useful life of the panel itself. So at the very least it's absurdly ineffective cost wise.

The reason why governments won't push solar energy is because it's not "economic" which means free energy would put the power mafia out of business.

Nothing is free. Solar panels certainly aren't and neither are commercial grade wind turbines, me and my brother rigged a couple up out of some spare parts but the best those can do is power the lights in his shed, more of a pet project that a viable alternative to oil or nuclear energy.

It is pure propaganda because there's too much money that would be lost if energy was free.

We continue to use oil and nuclear energy because they're the cheapest energy sources per volume available. Although a compelling case could be made for biomass.

Anyway people are complaining about the safety of nuclear reactors, it's ridiculous. How many people died last year from a reactor explosion? None. How many people died in gas explosions? Dozens. Generation IV reactors will be out in the next few decades and will actually be able to use nuclear waste more effectively than todays reactors use nuclear fuel. That is a technology I can put my money behind.

This is one of those rare occasions when President Obama is right. I can't believe it - but he is right! The only reason I can come up with as to why he actually got this right is that he honestly believes in the religion of global warming. If the proponents of this cult actually believe the terrible things that could happen to the earth and it's inhabitants if we don't stop using fossil fuels then nuclear is the only way to make a fast switch to an abundant energy supply that doesn't emit any of the so-called greenhouse gases. A lot more people die each year from oil, coal, and gas exploration and plant accidents then in nuclear accidents - not to mention respiratory ailments and diseases. That said, the word 'radiation' is terrifying - especially now if you have family and friends on northern Honshu.