The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
We need to operate on deaths per KwH. Nuke wins hands down. Align culture with our nature. Ot else!
No one here is advocating for more coal and other fossil burning. So your straw dog disappears. Then the comparison with renewables must take place, on a time scale of millennia.
Not one person on this planet is capable of making an adequate judgement of the effects of nuclear power, since a) we are only just beginning to understand genetics, and b) we don't have a handle on real costs or real time frames.
What we do have is hard, commercial evidence, that overcoming cost barriers and massive supply chain scale up has already been proven on a global scale for renewables, which can't be said about nuclear. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
No one in their right mind ignores the lethal nature of coal as king killer, and the other fossils as part of a poison in this civilization.
PS. Fish count too, especially in Japan. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Not that the SU was a textbook example of openness. But it's still rather hard to find solid basic data for contamination and exposure from Fukushima.
A lot of people have missed that the supposedly open Western democratic free market state of Japan has actually been more secretive and less concerned with the fate of its citizens than the Stalinist socialist etc Soviet Union.
More secretive, yes. Less concerned with the fate of its citizens... that's hard to argue when you consider the sort of hazmat gear the Soviets sent their cleanup crews in with (or not).
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
One never knows if rumours like these are true.
But when TEPCO has such a reliable record of spin and terminological inexactitude, almost anything could be going on.
It's also interesting that the last radiation survey focused on external sources only and apparently made no attempt to check for internal contamination.
But yes, by and large we keep running our nuclear plants with no plans about what to do with the waste. See, for instance Nuclear dump (of final storage and German elections) by DoDo on September 27th, 2009. tens of millions of people stand to see their lives ruined because the bureaucrats at the ECB don't understand introductory economics -- Dean Baker
The original story here, "How Sweden deals with nuclear waste" is the pro-nuclear story. It needs to be read carefully to sort out what "could" be done with the high-level waste from what "is" being done, i.e., it's being stored in "temporary" above-ground sites just like it is everywhere else.
Since Starvid wrote that piece, SKB has chosen Forsmark as location (so much for my industry sources) though the final decision rests with the government. Latest news is contracts with the consultants needed to construct the place where the waste will be encapsulated (new part of CLAB) has been put up for tender. Encapsuling is scheduled to start in 2025 and be in full speed in 2027. The process is lumbering on in its own slow pace with no visible signs of halting. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by Cat - Mar 31 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 22 3 comments
by Oui - Mar 27 23 comments
by gmoke - Mar 17
by Oui - Mar 16 22 comments
by Oui - Mar 15 5 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 9 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 14 14 comments
by Cat - Mar 311 comment
by Oui - Mar 31
by Oui - Mar 294 comments
by Oui - Mar 274 comments
by Oui - Mar 2723 comments
by Oui - Mar 22
by Oui - Mar 2211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 223 comments
by Oui - Mar 1988 comments
by Oui - Mar 1744 comments
by Oui - Mar 1622 comments
by Oui - Mar 1541 comments
by Oui - Mar 155 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Mar 1414 comments
by Oui - Mar 134 comments
by Oui - Mar 128 comments
by Oui - Mar 1112 comments
by Oui - Mar 1060 comments