Quote:
Originally Posted by morls
I think coal is safer. But dirty. Renewables are the way to go, as much and as quickly as possible.
|
The Fuskushima reactors have been in commercial operation since 1971, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1978 and 1979 respectively (reactors 1 to 6). Over this time, they have been continuously producing 460, 784, 784, 784, 784, 1,100 MW (instantaneous power rating), respectively. This energy is directly responsible for Japan's economic development since 1970. Japan's economic development since 1970, has been directly contributing to the world's and your lifestyles, and economic well-being over this time frame.
I'd call that benefit.
"Renewables" for producing this amount of power, (instantaneous), were not available over this time frame. They are still not available. Wishing that such alternatives was/are real does not make them real. Technological development is not purely a function of investment. Technology development is usually a medium-high economic risk factor. Economic risk can result in serious widespread massive economic disaster and massive death/casualities.
I'll say it again … Technological development is not purely a function of investment … the relationship between the acquisition of knowledge derived from research, is not linearly related to investment funding. Humans take time to accumulate knowledge. Time is an independent variable, and is invariant of human investment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by renormalised
People need to get a little perspective about nuclear materials and the harm they can cause.
|
Yep ! I'll go one step further, and state that people need to learn what parameters are involved in 'making something happen'.
All conversations on this topic constantly imply that humans can make viable technical/economic alternatives appear out of thin air. There is no historical evidence of this.
Only belief and blind faith.
Lets get clear about that.
Cheers