TEPCO, you are guilty of incompetence and reckless endangerment. You were, however, pretty spot on about the nature of people. Too bad you decided on willful ignorance instead of education.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
Oh..don't worry I get it all very well. Have been getting it very clearly since 3.11 and the Tepco and J- govt. announcements of " everything is under control" and " there us no meltdown ".
So, basically, you passed judgement on the first day, and have based everything on that since.
Being uncomfortably close the radiation clouds in those days certainly certainly did that to me and the people up here in north Kanto and Tohoku. I do find it interesting how you are so quick to tell people not to believe anything that casts a negative shadow on the nuclear industry yet you expect people here to believe Tepco's assurances that everything is "under control".
The only expectations I have of people (and considering how often it is dashed, I wouldn't even call it an expectation) is that they don't take everything they read as gospel prior to checking, and instead just dump it straight into their ammunition pile. And I have NEVER, NOT ONE SINGLE TIME, have I EVER used TEPCO as a source, nor have I ever even hinted that people should believe them without caveat, and I have even referred to them as incompetent on more than one occasion. My record of posts is available for anyone to see.
And yet, the insistence here as that I am a cheerleader for TEPCO. That's what lazy thinking does to you. Makes you so eager to view life simply that you just divide the world into "them" and "us".
Well, I,m sorry but most of us who were here during those days in March have every reason to be sceptical of Tepco's assurances. As you said the point is not about trust but about verifying information and then passing judgment...I think Tepco,s record speaks for itself.
There is nothing to be sorry about. However, there is a difference between being skeptical and being cynical. Everyone should be as skeptical as they can be, and there doesn't even need to be any reason for it. Skepticism is good. Skepticism keeps us alive and moving forward. Cynicism is not skepticism. Cynicism may keep us alive, but it also ties us down. Cynicism makes a decision once, and bases everything else on that foundational assumption without external verification; It simply assumes guilt. It is cynicism that destroyed the safety culture of nuclear science to begin with. TEPCO, unfortunately, was very much aware of how people would react to information about nuclear safety, and very unwisely chose the path of ignoring the problem, rather than educating the masses. I blame them, definitely, considering that even posting in a thread is an upstream swim against the willfully ignorant, but I cannot say I don't understand why they did it. These threads are proof that, for better or for worse, people simply do not react well when they know only enough to be dangerous.
-3 ( +5 / -8 )
Well, that's the problem. The public DOESN'T get informed. Many of the disclosures that have come out recently -- some by foreign sources -- contradict the "Information" Tepco announced to the public at the height of the disaster.
Yes, some has. Which is why TEPCO is indeed guilty of several cover-ups. Those are not what I am referring to. You don't have to be a nuclear engineer to understand that not doing planned maintenance or upgrading safety systems is a good thing. What I am talking about is when people demand information, any information, and keep growling until they get it, and then complain when it is shown to be wrong in the future. That's a little bit like demanding that a baker give you the cake right now, and then complaining because it is half-baked.
It isn't enough to demand information. You have to be rational enough to know what the limits of that information is. Look at some of the responses in this thread: I specifically say that the point is not to trust what others say blindly, and you get someone mockingly claiming I am telling them to trust me blindly. I then clarify that the proper response is to verify information, and I get another poster snidely commenting on how I only trust information from TEPCO. These are not the actions of people looking for information. These are the actions of people looking for any sort of ammunition and anyone to aim it at.
Too much information is just as bad as not enough information, but the reason is the same. People like to make assumptions either way, and rarely bother verifying them first.
Cabadaje - I saved myself an afternoon of reading
I am not sure how it works in your neck of the woods, but generally speaking, claiming that it would take you an afternoon to read less than a half page actually reflects less well on yourself than on the guy who wrote it.
and skipped down to your conclusion "people who worry about nuclear meltdowns in their backyards are uneducated fools"
That's what happens when you don't bother to read what other people write. You end up jumping feet-first into the wrong conclusion.
Thanks. But now what do we do when the govt has admitted they thought about evacuating TOKYO after 3/11, and the press has proven itself to be nothing more than a government mouthpiece?
You ask yourself what the hell that has to do with this article. And I don't mean that snidely. You ask yourself if that information is actually pertinent to this particular event, and whether or not the emotional response from it is coloring your perception of the current event.
Instead of patronizing people for asking questions, why don't you ask Tepco et al why they are still scrambling 2 years later?
I'm not patronizing people for asking questions. I'm scolding them for not asking questions, and instead jumping straight to conclusions.
-2 ( +6 / -8 )
Well, I,m certainly glad you have so much more factual information about the situation than the rest of the uninformed public out there. I think we can all stop worrying and head back to the beach then...everything is just dandy up there. Thanks.
What part of "Don't blindly believe everything you are told." are you not getting?
The point isn't to trust me. The point isn't about trust at all. The point is that the proper order of things is to FIRST verify information, THEN pass judgement.
-7 ( +4 / -11 )
Yes, TEPCO does have emergency power supplies. Yes, the power supply is on and it is circulating the coolant. Yes, it was on a little after 5 hours after the blackout.
No, it was not an emergency, because they have a 4 day window in which they could turn on the emergency backup power without any actual danger. No, they couldn't just replaced the breaker and flip the energy back on because something caused the breaker to break and it would be supremely stupid to hope whatever did that just decided to disappear on its own. Smart engineers actually investigate a possible danger instead of just assuming everything is good.
Out of the three pools that were off, pool number 2 had already been turned off for maintenance, which is precisely why the engineers were not in any big hurry or panic; again, they have a full four days, so taking a few hours to make sure there wasn't anything that would cause even more damage if you just turned everything back on was a very good idea. Similarly, there are 4 other perfectly good working coolant systems for the pools, any of which can be rerouted to perform double-duty, and even if there wasn't, and even if the back-up systems that do exist despite everyone's indignation that they don't, even then it still wouldn't be an emergency because the system is designed so that an external source, usually the local fire truck, can be easily put in place and circulate the coolant in the pool.
It is one thing to run around like Chicken Little over damage that has actually occurred; it is another to go out of your way to panic every time someone as much as stubs their toe. While JapanToday is certainly not helping with these half-assed articles talking about "makeshift systems" for cooling, not mentioning that the pools were without power for a mere 5 hours while talking about the 4 day buffer as if it were some imminent deadline of doom and not a x20 safety margin, and ignoring that the actual blackout only lasted about 3 minutes, still, this sort of ridiculous panic is what makes the more knowledgeable people disregard the general public opinion.
How many times are you going to ask why your opinions are not being taken into consideration when this is the sort of reaction you have over such utterly minor situations? The public demands to be informed, and when they are informed, all they do is start whining and making assumptions that they have absolutely no background to make. It is as if the public assumes that being informed somehow makes them actually knowledgeable about what they are being informed on. If you are going to panic and work yourself up into a lather every time something happens, regardless of the actual danger level, you are better off not being informed.
Claiming you heard it before in the news does not actually mean that you heard it before in the news. Believing that something like this has happened before does not actually mean something like this has happened before. The unfortunate consequence of passionate belief is that you forget that the assumptions you made once upon a time where assumptions and not facts. Additionally, you begin to fancy yourself as more knowledgeable than people who are actually experts in a given field, and arrogantly state that the "obvious" solution is to move highly dangerous material out of a stable containment area, even though the actual process of moving it would pose a much, much, higher threat than not moving it.
It is really getting ridiculous. I certainly cannot agree that TEPCO acted competently in the administration of the nuclear plants, and they are certainly directly at fault both for the failure of the safety systems and for the lack of safety culture within the plants and the field. TEPCO has done a great many thing as wrong as they could, and are responsible for setting back the exploration of nuclear fuels decades, while using the excuse that they didn't want to alarm the general public. Unfortunately, the reaction from the general public does actually support what should have been a very flimsy excuse. As can be seen on this forum, the general public just doesn't care about determining the facts behind a story; as soon as they hear their fears confirmed, they almost gleefully jump into assumption and condemnation.
Way to go, people. You are actually supporting TEPCO's (and the nuclear community in general) reluctance to share information.
-18 ( +9 / -27 )
TEPCO said the reactors were unaffected Now where have I heard that before?
Don't know. Where did you hear that before?
How is this still happening? You'd think that being so much in the public eye that they'd have a string of contingency plans in place to prevent things like this from happening, again. And again. And again...
They did and do. And are you saying that this has happened, what, three times?
Just a thought, but don't all those other nuclear plants have spent fuel pools as well? Since they aren't on right now, is it impossible to transport the spent fuel rods currently in the pools at Daiichi plant to those other pools where they can be cooled by fully functional and undamaged facilities?
That's where it gets a little dangerous, actually. Transporting those rods is a risky proposal for a few reasons. Leaving aside the physical security aspect, terrorists, protesters, flat tires, and the other conceivable but highly unlikely Murphisms that could occur, there are the practical aspects, such as providing proper cooling on the way, ensuring that the transport time is short and within safety limits, proper containment not merely in case of an accident, but also simply just to move it, and how to do all of this however many times it requires to move all 8500 rods. When one takes in the scale and effort that moving these rods would require, it is safest to leave them where they are.
-25 ( +6 / -32 )
Yawn...So what is the big deal about radar lock???
The same big deal as a gun pointed at your face, cocked, and finger on the trigger.
getting a target lock on another vessel is nothing unheard of with military ships,both air and water.
Yes. In war.
Now if a weapons launch would have occurred that would be another issue completely but Radar lock???
Yes, a weapons launch would have been another issue entirely (sometimes referred to as "act of war"). Which in no way diminishes how serious a radar lock is. Just because you had the option to shoot someone in the face, but didn't, will not get you any sympathy for pointing a gun at their face to begin with.
Don't get your panties in such a bunch Japan,after all China has ICMBs that are target locked on Tokyo and many other major cities and ports within Japan,that doesn't mean they are being aggressors . sheesh,chill out!
You have absolutely no sense of proportion. You are seriously comparing a nuclear strike to a radar lock? It's foolish enough to pass judgement on something you are not familiar with, but it is downright idiotic to be dismissive or snide about it when you can't even wrap your head around the scale of the issue.
11 ( +14 / -3 )
Oh good, the memo from the PLA finally made it to the PRC.
9 ( +9 / -0 )
Why not just go 100% solar?
Solar power is kind of notorious for being the renewable resource that will never make up the energy it takes to create it. For a home it might be useful, but only if the home is already highly energy efficient; it will not pay for itself or offset any net gains.
But overall, the main problem with it is that it is only good for very low levels of energy use, such as energy efficient homes. Solar panels simply do not produce the quantities of energy needed by industry, let alone providing a base load, or even a reliable flow. This is, unfortunately, the main issue with pretty much all renewable resources.
Think of it this way: The energy contained in a given source depends largely on how long the energy has had to concentrate. Fossil fuels have been around for millenia, and have been concentrated into very rich, very dense, sources of energy. Biomass may have only been around for a few months prior to being used, and things like wind and solar have barely touched down on Earth. It is a little like trying to collect water from a dripping tap; the longer the drip, the more water is available. If the drip just started, there just isn't a lot of water there to be had.
-1 ( +6 / -8 )
My detractors did not get that I advocate long-term, sustainable renewable power.
Sure, who doesn't? The question, however, is about the quantity of power needed.
Coal and fossil fuels are not sustainable, and neither is nuclear. Agreed?
In what sense is nuclear energy not sustainable?
-2 ( +4 / -7 )
I've had to "put to sleep" four dogs in my life-time, and every time it was because life was simply too painful for the dog and there was no hope of recovery. I've also probably spent more on vets bills than I've spent on hospital bills. If my parents were in constant pain with no hope of recovery then I don't think any reasonable and loving child would oppose "putting them to sleep".
What any reasonable or loving child would do is up to them. It doesn't change the fact that no doctor is going to advance "putting them to sleep" as an option, nor would the neighbors, friend, and family be quite as casual or sympathetic about hearing their choice to do so to their parents, as opposed to their beloved puppies (which is really rather backwards, if you think about it). Would some understand? Of course. But when all is said and done, a pet is a pet, and we love them, and we go through great pain and struggle to make them part of our family...but no matter how much we love them and no matter how much we tell ourselves they are just as valuable as any other member of our family (and in some cases, more), there will always be limits and values placed on their lives that are rarely even considered for humans.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
Don't let this sort of headline scare anyone. We are stuck with the npp cleanup bill for generations.
"Unlike those wonderful clean burning fossil fuels, which have no foreseeable economic consequences at all."
That said, I would rather pay higher prices and have truely safe & clean power.
"However, to make that judgement, I would rather not actually compare safety and environmental impact records, and simply assume my personal choice is safest and cleanest."
And, I will also count it as cheap because no matter the cost, it is basically free compared to decades of cleanup (that will never be 100% complete, really) from another nuclear disaster.
"Free to me, of course, ha ha...everyone knows that fossil fuels can provide power to industrialized nations without causing foreseeable pollution, or affecting the environment in any significant way. There is no way that we will have to spend decades to repair the damage it cause."
Peace of mind would be priceless.
Sticking your head in the sand only paints a target on your ass.
-3 ( +7 / -11 )
Hmmm, some misconceptions and misinformation here it seems.
Yeah, that happens. Let's keep an eye out for it, shall we?
First, although wind does not have a lot of mass, when applied over a large surface area that small mass is amplified.
Well, sure. Obviously. That is, after all, the foundational concept of wind energy to begin with, all the way back to when it occurred to someone to tie a bed-sheet to their boat.
Yes, rolling friction of the bearings and gearbox must be overcome, as does the resistance of the generator to turning (due to magnetic forces), but the concept does work, that much has been proven.
I don't believe anyone has said otherwise. The question has never been whether it works or not. The question is about the efficiency and economic viability of it.
Further, the driving force, wind, is a completely free commodity, it's not taxable, so the only cost is in capital equipment and transmission lines.
It's also uncontrolled and unreliable as a power source. You are, quite literally, at the mercy of the elements.
Once those are put in place then the amount of wind used to create energy is somewhat less important since one mustn't pay more if more wind is used to create that energy, if the operating cost calculations and ROI are proper.
Yes, well, while that is theoretically true, over-production has never really been a major problem for wind farms. The problem has always been a lack of sufficient wind, not too much of it.
As for wind being a reliable energy source, I'm sure there are a lot of farmers around the world, particularly in the Midwest and Western parts of the US who will attest to it.
As long as you're sure. Wouldn't want to spread any misconceptions or misdirection around.
In fact, the cultivation and settling of those huge tracts of land would not have been possible without harnessing wind energy, since it was a matter of life or death to be able to harness wind to pump irrigation water from wells out to cattle and to crops in the days before internal combustion engines and electricity.
Which is an excellent example of the niche wind power can fill. As opposed to, say, as a substitute or replacement for industry level quantities of production.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
The failure of this power source necessitated the evacuation of how many thousands of people? How many square kilometres does the no-go zone cover, and for how many hundred years will it be a no-go zone? How many head of cattle/family pets had to be abandoned to starve? How many thyroid cancers in children is it likely to cause? How far away has the water supply been compromised?
Well, I'm not going to pretend that a nuclear disaster isn't as dangerous as a wind turbine disaster, and we've already gone over how exaggerated or emotionally over-dramatic some of the above are, so I won't go into that all over again...
I will, however, point out that comparing the damage a single failed turbine causes compared to that of a nuclear plant is somewhat disingenuous. A single reactor can produce in excess of 500 MW. To get close to that, well, you need a lot more turbines, and they need to be a heck of a lot bigger and a heck of a lot more expensive than this one. Let's look at Meadow Lake Wind Farm, which produces about 500 MW, and yet still falls into one of the top ten largest wind farms in the world.
In this wind farm, 121 modern turbines are spread over 26,000 acres. That's around a 16km x 10km square. Most of this area is farmland, out of necessity really, because these devices generate a lot of noise. So much noise that the EPA has actually had to do a study to determine whether the noise would have long-term detrimental effects of humans (it certainly increases the stress levels of the local wildlife, for those who are interested in that). And we aren't talking occasionally either. As long as these things are moving, they are making noise.
It is, of course, difficult to compare apples and oranges. After all, there is a possibility that a single reactor plant can fail and we lose land, but there is a certainty that a wind farm will require that land to begin with, so even though we haven't actually lost the land, we still had to take it out of our available resources list and assign it as "used". While the area would not be labelled a "no-go" zone, the actual risk and threat of working in that area would not be all that different from working in the no-go zones of a nuclear disaster. As far as pets and other animals go, well, having the animals living in that area long term would actually cause them more stress due to the noise.
Are wind farms safer than nuclear plants? Absolutely. But that safety comes with a corresponding price, and that price is paid is not just higher economically, it is also higher in terms of land, resources, flexibility, and environmental impact. And the price must be paid up front. A reactor, well, the factors we are talking about here only become issues in the event of a failure, whereas they are always continuous issues in the case of a wind farm.
Don't think wind energy is the beloved solution of all: http://stopthesethings.com/ It has as many haters as any other energy resource, the only difference being that most of these people have actually experienced the reason for their opinion personally, as opposed to it being a political cause because they just don't like the idea of it.
no one even noticed when it happened is not a bad thing.
Not exactly a great marketing line. When you make an investment in something, you generally want it to actually return on that investment. If things are humming along merrily, and then you go check out your investment and find it wasn't actually turned on, you have to wonder what you spent that money on.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
And they still made a decent profit out of the turbine in these 12 years.
I don't know anything about the situation, and that might well be true, but it seems like a rather random assumption to make.
Nevertheless, why do they mention the Dutch turbine before the Japanese steel column?
Alphabetical? Because people tend to remember the last thing they hear better, and JT didn't want to offend the Dutch?
Does there have to be a reason?
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Which is not to say the technology couldn't actually be improved. It's just that, well...it just isn't worth the investment. Wind power has one of the higher efficiency potentials of renewable energies (I think it is around 60% potential), but the problem is twofold: 1) You lose a lot of it in conversion to mechanical energy because, 2) wind doesn't have a lot of mass to it, so it is particularly bad at moving heavy things. You run into diminishing returns really quick.
Also, they don't have great environmental records.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
There are enough examples in human history of advancements being driven by primary considerations a little bit more humanistic than just a " bottom line ".
Are there? I can't think of too many off the top of my head. Certainly not enough to even be considered statistically significant (possibly not even noticeable).
It is also a "fact" that majority of Japanese public is in favor of gradually shutting down the N-plans as reflected by the numerous surveys on the topic since 3.11 including the most recent one.
I will agree that most people would rather not have nuclear power, however I will not go as far as to say that they would favor a gradual shut-down if it means that they will have to bear extra costs or inconvenience. Notice that neither the survey question nor my question would actually contradict each other.
Another "fact " is that the new LDP government made a U-turn on the DPJs roadmap to shut the reactors down by the 2030s and is in favor or re-starting idled reactors as well as proposing to build new ones despite the majoritys opinion clearly being the exact opposite.
Okay. Now, think about that a bit: There was already a plan in place which took into account the opinions of the majority. Then, it was decided that a new plan had to be made, one which was guaranteed to affect the public opinion.
Does that sound like something that didn't require consideration? Was the previous plan so conceptually flimsy that the new administration could just casually brush it off the table without even "giving a damn" about the public opinion?
If that is not an example of the elite "knowing better" and "not giving a s&%$"..about the majority opinion I dont know what is.
Well, being that you just decided to throw in a new variable, "knowing better", I won't say anything about it other than to say that yes, often by definition, the elites do indeed know better (in fact it is how one often becomes an elite in the first place) and that there is nothing shameful about being more skilled in a particular field than the general public.
In regards to not giving a series of expletive characters about the majority opinion, that is pretty much the same accusation leveled at any member of a controversial topic. The problem is that you are deciding on a personal conclusion, whereas the problem itself is not a personal one. If a group of doctors decide that smoking marijuana is not healthy for people with cancer, referring to them as people who don't give a damn about patients is a non-sequitor. It isn't even a question of whether they are right or wrong; the problem is that by making it personal, you give yourself the excuse to dismiss anything they have to say about it. If it is a situation where the numbers make the final decision, no amount of public opinion will change that reality.
Just because dad won't buy you a car doesn't mean he doesn't give a damn about you. Sometimes, you just can afford to buy your kid a car.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
It is a crucial problem.
Not...really. Sure, it is definitely a concern, but it can't really be referred to as a problem. After all, the solution is pretty straightforward.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
I have to agree that there needs to be some sort of double-blind justice system in place for the military. A regular civilian justice systems isn't going to work very well in the military environment, and the current system, in which justice tends to be administered by people who lived in a military several decades out of touch with the modern world, won't work either. Back in 1992, in the movie "A Few Good Men", one of the lines goes something like:
"The days of breaking down a man and rebuilding a marine are over."
That was ten years ago, and yet, the large part of the officer line in all branches is still populated by a military that had a culture far less tolerant, far less secure, than today's recruits have lived in. There are, of course, going to be cultural differences, and there are going to be traditions, always, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, a tradition or culture that attempts to explain away as normal behaviour acts which are seen as criminal by practically all civilized societies is not a tradition or a culture; it is an excuse, and an excuse for things that you know are morally wrong, but don't have the courage to admit you want it like that anyway.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Precisely - thank you for re enforcing my point. No target worth striking here? The bad guys will go look in another neighbourhood.
Probably. If you can't strike at the industry, strike at the people.
sad but true and accurate description of reality -and therein lies the reason why the "elite" does not really give a s&%#$ about what majority of the population thinks most of the time.
Don't confuse the facts of reality with your opinion or conclusion.
Fact: The bottom line is one of the major driving forces of civilization and scientific advancement through-out the history of mankind. Nothing gets done without it; nothing starts without the promise of it.
Opinion: Elites don't give a damn about the majority of the population.
Notice how the opinion doesn't even follow, in any way, shape, or form, from the actual fact?
Newsflash: The majority of the population doesn't really give a damn about the majority of the population most of the time. Neither, for that matter, do most terrorists.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
The problem as always with these internal investigations done by independent groups hired by the same corporation being investigated is whether or not the government and more importantly the general public accept the findings or not.
I'm not so sure that is what is actually the problem. The thing of it is that what the findings indicate usually doesn't affect people's opinions as much. Those who aren't too concerned with the topic moved on long ago, those who have a mild interest in it file it away somewhere in their mind, and those who adamantly hold a position on either side either accept it or reject based more on whether it agrees with their previous stance than any actual findings.
In this case the government is too closely in bed with TEPCO to be considered an independent judge so there has to be some other authority that needs to look into this matter.
Then the question needs to be: "Who would the anti-nuke/corp/whatever people trust, regardless of their findings?"
After all, anti-nuke people had no problem throwing WHO under the train when they didn't hear what they wanted (and it was doubly funny when articles started coming out with people simultaneously blaming WHO for exaggerating and for downplaying the effects in the article).
If you can't think of an independent body you would trust if they told you something you disbelieve, then perhaps you shouldn't be pretending you are making decisions based on rationality.
-6 ( +5 / -11 )
Apparently, domestic terrorism is a bigger threat than the effects of Fukushima are expected to be. Could anyone please tell me what the effects of Fukushima are expected to be?
From what perspective?
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Basroil: the point is to use energy efficiently.
No argument that people should definitely use energy more efficiently, however I stil maintain that it isn't the energy consumption by regular folk that causes energy shortages. By far, the lion's share of electricity is consumed by industry, and it is industry that needs a reliable base load of energy to continue functioning.
It's a question of targeting the actual problem, instead of something that we would like to see get done. Those folk who are marching and protesting nuclear power are not there to address the actual cause of the problem; they are there because they want their political desires to be realized. The same is true for the general eco-movement for non-industry. The purpose of people advancing that angle isn't to save the environment or to produce energy more efficiently; heck people are still arguing about whether human influence is a significant factor in climate change. We have absolutely no way of knowing what the effect of everyone going green will be. People want to go green because they feel a personal need for it, whether it is because they want to feel more "natural", or dislike the thought of pollution, what-have-you. The issue of energy production, however, is a matter of numbers; no matter how one feels about the situation, when all is said and done, it was numbers that got us here and it is numbers that will get us out.
There is nothing wrong with having emotionally based concerns or arguments, however, in an argument about energy efficiency, they don't have as much significance as actual data.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
It's one of those annoying, aggravating, ridiculously-disproportionate-time-and-effort-needing types of situations that, no matter how unlikely the threat is...You just cannot afford the price of failure.
I think every physical engineer has run into one of those, at one time or another.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
The snagging thing has me a little worried too. If you just can't squeeze into the car, and the gate starts coming down, wouldn't you get caught between the doors and the gate?
2 ( +2 / -0 )
What ever happened to geothermal energy? Why isn't anyone using it?
It's mostly about convenience. Even in a place like Japan, there aren't that many places with the required temperature differential, and the ones who do make good candidates are filled with onsen, who have, historically, been opposed to geothermal plants in their area, and with fair reason.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Ah, who cares that thousands are back up and marching again against nuclear power?
Who cares about the promise by regulators not to restart without the permission of the local communites?
Mostly the local communities who really, really, wanted to turn the heaters on during winter.
Who cares that more and more facts about how far the radiation from Fukushima has spread are coming out?
Mostly those who never really cared too much about whether it was a fact or not prior to complaining about it.
Who cares that the ineptitude of companies like TEPCO continues on a daily basis?
You would think that is precisely what the protestors would be up in arms about, considering that this is probably the most blatant abuse and reckless endangerment of people the world has seen in some time, but hey, they have their political priorities, and we have ours. They care more about eliminating nuclear power, and we care more about eliminating the bureaucracy that allowed such negligence in the use of such potentially dangerous technology.
None of that matters; what DOES is the bottom line,
-and Abe is true to the LDP in scrapping plans to wean Japan off the nuclear teat and keen to restart reactors. "They must pass stringent new guidelines", he says, despite at least a few companies saying they will have done so within 5 years (but will restart in July).
Like you said, what matters is the bottom line. Japan cannot afford to be without power. So much so that Abe is willing to risk political suicide and get the reactors back on before new measures are in place.
Increase security against the threat of terrorism? great -- fine idea, really. But given they can't even take care of security in day to day matters will this be more lip service as usual? Methinks yes.
If only people were willing to march and protest against the actual problem, and not the boogeyman's shadow.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )