LENR notwithstanding as influential in this rejoinder…
Everything is relative. The trillion dollar price tag is a drop in the bucket for non-carbon based energy; a great bargain in life and treasure lost. Nuclear disaster is a bargain. This unfortunate incident though tragic and heart-rending is but a pittance, a trifle, a minute allowance compared to the horrendous cost associated with the eventual sea level rise that comes from the warming of our world, an appalling tragedy that would inundate most of that poor imprisoned island. The inhabitants of that island will be forced to endure life on a habitable portion reduced by half to its current extent. How much does the lost coastline of this shrunken and embattled Japanese island cost to replace and move inland and upland into the hills. A certain and impending nightmare is the forfeiture of the bountiful and rich harbor and city of Tokyo. This priceless jewel of the japans will be swallowed far beneath the rolling waves of the Pacific. And yet so great a tragedy, this loss as certain as guaranteed can be is but one of a thousand, the gems lost along the coast despoiled dismantled and torn asunder by the remorseless cruel sea. And that irradiated area that you are so concerned about will also be taken by the rising and roiling seas, a price of courage lost, of future vision clouded by the stinging mists of fear, a shining city lost forever to any living memory of man. Embrace the thing you fear most and in that embrace the assent of the greater good is certain. On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Jarold McWilliams <oldja...@hotmail.com>wrote: > Other renewable energy sources will take trillions out of just the U.S. > economy every year because they cost about twice as much as other energy > sources. And your numbers for cost are way too high. It creates jobs by > rebuilding lost homes, etc., thus stimulating the economy according to a > lot of people. Like I said, these reactors were built in the 60's or 70's > and there are safer reactors today. I suggest you look up liquid fluoride > thorium reactors that are an order of magnitude safer than today's nuclear > and has a projected cost lower than coal. > > On Mar 31, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > > Jarold McWilliams <oldja...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Nuclear is just as safe, if not more, than both of them. >> > > Evidently not. The Fukushima accident proved it is not safe. Just because > it did not kill people right away that does not make it safe. It will > likely kill many workers in the years to come. It caused tremendous havoc > and cost ~$600 billion. Taking that much money out of the economy and > throwing it down a black hole will surely cost many lives. > > A source of energy that can bankrupt the largest power company in the > world in one day is not "safe." No sane business executive would select it. > If anyone had known this might happen, no country would have built nuclear > reactors. > > People do not seem to grasp the magnitude of this event. This is $600 > billion in damage and 90,000 people's lives and livelihoods destroyed. No > industrial accident in history was even remotely as destructive, except > Chernoblyl, of course. > > - Jed > > >
