Dearest Foxy,

Well, we'll see, won't we ? We're a long, long way from Chernobyl-type designed power stations - and of course, the Soviets believed that whatever technology they used was inherently better (Marx said it would be so) than any capitalist technology by virtue of being socialist. So they were bound to make colossal mistakes - and not rectify them.

Hi Bazz,

Yes, what fool would put a Japanese nuclear power station near a fault line, and just a few metres from the sea and frequent tsunamis ? Of all countries, I would have thought that Japan, Indonesia and New Zealand would be the least favourable for nuclear power stations. Maybe Iceland too. Maybe Tonga. Up in the Andes, or in the Rift Valley. Around Naples. That still leave quite a bit of country.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy,

Your first post simply shows how effective the scare campaign has been, some wild exaggerations incl:

1, No one has ever intended to build a nuclear waste dump in anyone's neighbourhood.
2, Fuel rods radioactivity after 40 yrs has dropped to 1/1000th, and after 1000yrs has dropped to 1/1000000, and is close to harmless.
3. Nuclear fuel is sealed in glass type confinement, and is only hazardous if you sleep on them. Other industries produce vastly bigger quantities of far more hazardous waste.
4. All of the nuclear waste in the US from 160 reactors over 40yrs would cover a cricket pitch about 1m deep, so the waste storage is minute compared to the size of the industry, and the pollution is negligible
5 The only radiation plumes were from a run down 1950s reactor with no protection in Russia, and 3 reactors that were hit by a massive Tsunami that killed >20 000 people. The reactor failures killed no one. In total one major air disaster kills more people than in the entire history of nuclear power.
6 There is enough uranium and thorium to power the world for hundreds of millennia.

Your second link is also misrepresentative.

There are several new reactors approved in the EU which are much larger than those of a couple of decades ago, and more on the drawing board as the EU realises that renewables cannot in themselves replace fossil fuels.
Also Areva and EDF are a long way from going bankrupt and EDF posted a surplus last year.

No Joe, they can be built in earthquake areas, you just build them on
large concrete slabs that can let the land move under them.
They build multistory buildings that way.
Another way could be to float them on lakes.

Rough ideas of course but I image civil engineers would have plenty of ideas.

Thanks Bazz,

I didn't think of that, not being an engineer. I'll ask one of my brothers who is one, if we're talking. On the other hand, he believes that CIA explosives brought down the Twin Towers, so there you go. There's nowt so queer as folk, especially one's own.

Cheers,

Joe

From Foxy's favourite site:

http://www.dw.com/en/nuclear-reactor-sites-dismantle-or-fence-off/a-19111969

So much unnecessary panic and confusion over plant radiation levels.

The decommissioning of nuclear power plants is very nice work if you can get it. One plant is only 16 years old, closed by Merkel fiat, along with others well before the end of their effective lives. Germany is now to pay dearly after losing the court battle over such knee-jerk stupidity. http://www.dw.com/en/german-utilities-win-compensation-for-nuclear-phaseout/a-36639314

Greens are beavering away in France to reduce nuclear in the energy mix until renewables make up 100% ! http://www.dw.com/en/france-tilting-toward-nuclear-phase-out/a-18692209

How such comical stupidity can hold political sway is due to FUD wrought by Green scaremongers. If anything, Fukushima should give us more confidence in a nuclear future, but the stupid reaction to it on the ground is driving the stupidity we are seeing in Europe.

The Green dogma on storage is "have faith, science will find a way."
Show me the money! (and don't cherry-pick hydro as your example).

Science has found a way to solve CAGW, it's nuclear.

LF,

Merkel, after caving into the greens closed the nuclear plants and claimed that the energy companies would have to foot the bill for decommissioning them. The companies sued and won compensation not only for the costs of prematurely decommissioning the plants, but for loss of income totaling EU100bns, and having to build coal fired plants to make up the base load.

Plus with one of the highest energy costs (2x that of France) businesses are starting to close or move to less costly countries.

What's more is that it is starting here:

"Electricity companies have begun hiking consumer prices around the country, blaming the closure of coal-fired generators and the increased cost of renewable ­energy for higher-than-predicted increases of more than $130 this year. EnergyAustralia and AGL have increased electricity tariffs in Victoria by $135 and $132 on ­average for the year respectively — greatly exceeding state government modelling that concluded bills would rise by $27 to $100.

The Victorian price rises will flow from this week but the companies’ customers in other states, including South Australia and NSW, face a yet-to-be announced price rise in June."