Homepage Forums Environmental Forums earthquakes and fission problems

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1100
    Avatarshawn
    Member

    Looking at the incident in Japan, we can count the cost of what will occur in many ways:
    1)life experience for many people will be drastically affected……..How can one estimate the value of that?
    2)The costs of clean-up and containment……… Very large numbers of dollars.
    3)The loss of lives…….How can one place a dollar value on such a loss?
    4)The loss of land…….The ongoing costs which increase yearly.

    Such costs are so vast that they make the costs of realizing practical fusion power to be minuscule.
    I see much leverage to get the agenda here moved forward, so that we do not have to live with the specter of fission power and its sword of potential doom dangling over us any longer.
    Got to make hay while the sun shines and this is pretty much the only good aspect of this disaster in that it can be used to push the solutions forward as people are actually listening right now.
    But people are a fickle and forgetful bunch, so the window of opportunity may not last very long.

    #9790
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    Well, the conventional pundit wisdom at the moment is that this is a near-fatal PR blow to fission expenditures. Others are noting that economically, fission needs natural gas to be above $8 to make fission competitive, and it’s at $4 and likely to decline, if anything, for the next decades.

    Of course, FF can compete with natural gas at 40ยข, so that’s not an issue!

    But in the fission pull-back, there may be some funds looking for a home …

    ๐Ÿ˜‰

    #9793
    Avatarrashidas
    Participant

    Nuclear Fission’s troubles mean bad news for obtaining financial support for fusion power. Even though readers who follow focus fusion’s progress understand the difference between fission and fusion, the general public probably does not. This will make it more difficult for aneutronic fusion to get the financial support it needs to make aneutronic fusion a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

    #9806
    Avatarbenf
    Participant

    I agree our efforts to present fusion in a positive light are made more difficult by events in Japan. But there is still an even larger world event coming that people will have to face. The prospect of energy shortages in an ongoing expanding population, even with the advent of renewables such as solar and wind power. People adapt and change though. We went from fire to the development of electricity, even though electricity can be considered dangerous when not handled properly. We have to continually make the same case for fusion power, such as Focus Fusion, which would be far safer than fission nuclear power….

    #9816
    AvatarRezwan
    Member

    shawn wrote: Looking at the incident in Japan, we can count the cost of what will occur in many ways:
    1)life experience for many people will be drastically affected……..How can one estimate the value of that?
    2)The costs of clean-up and containment……… Very large numbers of dollars.
    3)The loss of lives…….How can one place a dollar value on such a loss?
    4)The loss of land…….The ongoing costs which increase yearly.

    Hi Shawn: I’m not sure I understand your question. Is this about the tsunami itself? For example #1 – think of the PTSD of many people in the tsunami, the kid who got out of a car but his parents were in there and are now missing, probably dead – so many awful stories like that. I can’t even begin to imagine how that would crush your spirit and mess you up for life.

    Or are you talking about the nuclear emergency effects and losses? Those are easier to calculate. You just need things that you can compare. A person who gets cancer from smoking vs. from radiation vs. from breathing coal dust – they all have cancer. So, the question is, what are we willing to tolerate? We pass laws to reduce smoking, and we suffer coal plants to continue with no problem. Does nuclear power cause more damage than these, or less? If less, it seems that you would need to go after the coal plants first, and then after nuclear power. If more, then nuclear would be your first stop. Per these stats, nuclear is far down on the problem list. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

    #9855
    Avatarshawn
    Member

    OK, How can one put a dollar value……which is only debt anyway, onto the life experiences of the victims left in the wake of fission accidents, like Chernobyl and now Fukoshima?
    The opponents of fusion have been using dollars as an argument, as in…look how much it will cost, as if that is even a rational argument in the first place.
    Compared to the epic disasters we see surrounding fission, fusion costs even if they were dramatically higher would be worth the price paid and would still be cheaper than cleaning up the mess left behind fission sites.
    Quality of life is not about what we are willing to tolerate, as this is not that kind of age anymore.
    Unfortunately the status quo keeps things in that mindset of dollars (as if that is a basis in any reality) rather than what is possible and best.
    The money is an artificial system designed to inflict suffering and limitations……it is the strategy of attrition.
    Money these days is all fiat currency and is a weapon of conquest, not a facilitator which will build a better future for the people.

    #9859
    AvatarBrian H
    Member

    benf wrote: I agree our efforts to present fusion in a positive light are made more difficult by events in Japan. But there is still an even larger world event coming that people will have to face. The prospect of energy shortages in an ongoing expanding population, even with the advent of renewables such as solar and wind power. People adapt and change though. We went from fire to the development of electricity, even though electricity can be considered dangerous when not handled properly. We have to continually make the same case for fusion power, such as Focus Fusion, which would be far safer than fission nuclear power….

    That “advent” is more like a rape and pillage. They tie up and degrade existing plant, (by forcing them to do rapid on/off cycling to make up for the irregularity and unpredictability of renewables), deflect obscene amounts of money into low-output generation, and play havoc with the environment.

    Economics will first force widespread adoption of natural gas generation, with much upgraded sourcing and pipeline networks, and then FF will kick the whole applecart over.

    In both cases, the question of “bang for the buck” will decide.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.