Quote:
Originally Posted by Oiler41
I think nuclear energy is a viable option. The knee jerk based on what is happening in Japan is normal when something catastrophic like this happens. Was the problem the power plant? No. Was the problem the earthquake? No. The problem was the tsunami. Locate nuclear power plants where they are not near the water, not on a fault line, or in a tornado alley. Modern day nuclear power plants rely on gravity feed water cooling systems. What that means is that if they have a power failure, water flows from above to allow time to get backup power systems working, so that pumps used to circulate the water can be placed back online. In the case of Japan, they had back up power sources, but they went under water so it was the one, two punch of earthquake followed by tsuname that led to what is happening now. We are very dependent on fossil fuels; that isn't likely to change in the short term. However, we do need to look at all alternative sources including nuclear. Just my .02.
Glynn
|
We do need to look at al alternatives, but Japan's island grouping circumfrances is not really a good geographic fit for nuclear power plants- island are not in general- especially in areas with the constant seismic activity and tsunami probablilities (tsunami is from the Japanese language).
Japan as a technological leader and its power needs are difficult due to its size and being a country of islands. So, it chose nuclear as its prime power source. It doesn't have a lot of land mass for something like wind or huge solar panel "fields." It is a country with a lot of people and construction is very vertical. It will be hit many more times by tsunamis in the future and the plants that are in trouble were built in 1979. A lot has been developed since then in terms of plant engineering. They really have a problem in terms of viable energy sources. The US has many more options.