francisoconnor3 at bigpond.com
Thu Mar 17 18:55:08 AEDT 2011
It was always a more expensive option, if they concentrated on the
'safety thingie' ... but I loved the comment that one supplier had
wanted not only loan guarantees, but also a reduction in the
standards applicable to reactor construction.
And it doesn't end there ... with radioactive element half-lives
being so extensive and the propensity of contamination to stick to
pretty well anything around where fission has occurred, you have real
big problems with waste products and site decommissioning ... which
I'd argue dwarf the problem of running a reactor safely. Operations
isn't really the issue ... although the residents of Fukishima, or
Three Mile Island or Kiev would probably disagree with me ... because
that can be factored into the cost/benefit analysis of power
generation. (And statistically speaking, running nuclear power sites
has been a pretty safe proposition over the last 60 years) The big
problem is when we close down old facilities or try to get rid of
waste. Either issue generates the 'Mother of All' Toxic Waste Dumps.
That said, building such sites in an area as unstable as Japan was
always fraught with 'issues'.
Given Japan's geology I'd be looking at geothermal in a big way after
this tragedy has been resolved ... little or no fuel costs,
relatively easy to punch holes in the crust, uses energy that's
already available and is effectively going to waste, and as a
by-product could probably advance their earthquake/eruption
prediction science by leaps and bounds. Looks to me like a
no-brainer. Safe (as any energy generation technology can be),
economic, and environmentally friendly.
Other viable projects may include ocean wave generation, water
thermal technologies (the shelf off Japan's coast is deep and would
probably provide a drop-off par excellence for the piping) and
off-shore wind generation.
In other words ... Japan should play to its geographic strengths.
Solar probably isn't viable in Japan (not a lot of area to site the
solar cells, not really and efficient/effective alternative yet, and
the manufacturing of same tends to dissipate most of the economic and
pollution benefits anyway), gas or coal have to be imported
(expensively) and have their own greenhouse issues, and whilst hydro
is big in Japan there is no way it can supply more than a fraction of
Japan's power needs.
Of course controlled fusion has been 'just around the corner' for the
last 40 years ... but I'm guessing that's still a way off before it
appears. (With the Manhattan Project physicists were trying to make
what had been a controlled fission reaction into an uncontrolled one
... with fusion they're going the other way and that is hideously
more difficult - especially given the mind-boggling energy output
Just my 2 cents worth ...
At 4:56 PM +1100 17/3/11, Birch, Jim wrote:
>John Quiggin's article on the future of nuclear from today's Fin Review
>(on his site)
>CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
>The information in this transmission may be confidential and/or
>protected by legal professional privilege, and is intended only for
>the person or persons to whom it is addressed. If you are not such a
>person, you are warned that any disclosure, copying or dissemination
>of the information is unauthorised. If you have received the
>transmission in error, please immediately contact this office by
>telephone, fax or email, to inform us of the error and to enable
>arrangements to be made for the destruction of the transmission, or
>its return at our cost. No liability is accepted for any
>unauthorised use of the information contained in this transmission.
>If the transmission contains advice, the advice is based on
>instructions in relation to, and is provided to the addressee in
>connection with, the matter mentioned above. Responsibility is not
>accepted for reliance upon it by any other person or for any other
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
More information about the Link