(October 21, 2018 at 3:02 pm)wyzas Wrote:

(October 21, 2018 at 1:44 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: It was far from just local as contamination has entered the Pacific ecosystem 
causing damage well beyond Japan. And an increase in plant numbers just makes that more likely .

Did it effect the entire planet? Did Chernobyl? Did the hundreds (500+) of bombs?

Let me put it another way, which is the planet (and the human race) more likely to recover from?

To my way of thinking we're going to have to pick. The fear of limited electric power is the greatest fear and a non option. Or maybe global warming isn't the treat I've been lead to believe. 

Read about the passive safety developments where Japan would not happen again. There is also micro reactors to take into consideration.

---

We should remember Mother Earth is one tough bitch.   The question isn’t whether the earth will recover,   She will.  But She operate on time scale 4-5 orders of magnitude greater than history of human civilization. Her recovery, however complete and inexorable, will in most cases not save us.

The question is which will bring more pain, misery, and impoverishment to humanity.   That is more difficult to answer.  Humans responds more to acute stress than chronic slow boil stress.   Major nuclear accident in densely populated area could certainly bring about level of pain and impoverishment as reasonable scenarios of global warming.

For example, a plausible trajectory of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident could have made greater Tokyo untenable, displace 30-40 million people leaving them with scarcely at place to go in their own country and wiped perhaps a third off of Japan’s GDP for a period on the order of 10 years.

Quote:

(October 21, 2018 at 2:06 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: I  would not be. I do long-term energy market forecast for living.  I work with Los Alamo national laboratory On economic assessment of emergent nuclear technology for utility resource planning purposes.

Then you're just the person to ask, more nuclear reactors replacing fossil fuel reactors (as many as possible understand peak demand issues) or not?

In China and India, nuclear will likely replace a portion of existing fossil generation, subject to contingent events such as whether another major nuclear accident happen somewhere in the world over the next 20-30 years.   In much of the rest of the world, no, at least not to appreciable degree for the foreseeable future,

(October 21, 2018 at 3:02 pm)wyzas Wrote:

(October 21, 2018 at 1:44 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: It was far from just local as contamination has entered the Pacific ecosystem 
causing damage well beyond Japan. And an increase in plant numbers just makes that more likely .

Did it effect the entire planet? Did Chernobyl? Did the hundreds (500+) of bombs?

Let me put it another way, which is the planet (and the human race) more likely to recover from?

To my way of thinking we're going to have to pick. The fear of limited electric power is the greatest fear and a non option. Or maybe global warming isn't the treat I've been lead to believe. 

Read about the passive safety developments where Japan would not happen again. There is also micro reactors to take into consideration.

---

(October 21, 2018 at 2:06 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: I  would not be. I do long-term energy market forecast for living.  I work with Los Alamo national laboratory On economic assessment of emergent nuclear technology for utility resource planning purposes.

Then you're just the person to ask, more nuclear reactors replacing fossil fuel reactors (as many as possible understand peak demand issues) or not?

1. It does not need to effect the whole planet to be worrisome 

2. If it occurs over and over who knows 

3. It's not an either / Or both could be a threat 

4.I read the safety developments. So far i'm not impressed. And micro reactors a issues of their own which even their own creators ex knowledge

The safety of emergent nuclear technology is in many cases bought at the expense of thermal dynamic inefficiency and extreme demand on material science.     If these issues can in theory be overcome they still require a critical scale of deploymemt to achieve anything close to a viable level of economy.

The possibility of assembling a critical scale of deployment depends on public tolerance.   Perception matter more than reality amongst those who needs to be convinced.   Without assembling critical scale of deployment quickly, the theoretical economic performance of emergent technology will evaporate, and the technology will be set up to fail.   Having any track record of economic failure will make progress much more difficult still.

The reality is those who would otherwise be most interested in the role nuclear power can play in carbon emission reduction also by and large are those who are ideologically opposed to nuclear power and irreconcilably distrustful of the nuclear industry.

Can we get all of "those" people together in one place and whack them with carbon sticks?

I think climate change sparked Elon Musk to start thinking about missions to Mars as a potential species survival thing.

How about you take people around the moon, land them back on Earth and see if you can make it work here.