Fukushima meltdown hastens decline of nuclear power

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 11 Dec 2014, 10:09

Russia and India are ramping up energy ties and will construct at least 12 new nuclear reactors by 2035. Two will be completed by 2016 at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant, Russian state-owned power company Rosatom confirmed Thursday.

MAD.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Dec 2014, 11:29

If it isn't already, solar will be way cheaper than nuclear before these 12 get built so one has to conclude that such deals are the result of stupidity or criminality rather than sound economics.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 11 Dec 2014, 12:06

Endangered Puget Sound Orca Died While Pregnant, Scientists Learn

“Over the last two and a half years we have not had any calves survive and of course 100 percent mortality in offspring is not good for future,” Balcomb said.

Maybe you're wondering what's this is doing in this thread.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 12 Dec 2014, 11:29

UK's €46 billion bid for EIB nuclear loan

The largest chunk of infrastructure money in the UK's list is the €46bn it is seeking from the EIB for new nuclear power stations which have been hit by "funding shortages due to lack of support from utilities and private investors"

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Dec 2014, 13:27

Surely the invisible hand of the market will secure privater finance for something as profitable as new nuclear without the government having to borrow from the EIB?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 12 Dec 2014, 13:54

biffvernon wrote:Surely the invisible hand of the market will secure privater finance for something as profitable as new nuclear without the government having to borrow from the EIB?

There's more to it than just 'borrowing' of course. They have to keep their friends happy too.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 12 Dec 2014, 14:16

All this money will be "raised" by the EIB which means that they will be borrowing from private investors who will be borrowing it at the low prevailing rates from other banks who don't have the money but will "print" it themselves thus putting trillions of euros into the pockets of a few already cash bloated *anking families. Why the **ck don't our government just print the money themselves? Oh! I forgot. They are in the pockets of those few already cash bloated *anking families!!

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 08 Apr 2015, 10:26

Nuclear waste dumps bypass public approval under new UK law

Local communities and councils can dispute the details, but can’t stop the process.

Toxic waste, toxic 'laws'.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Apr 2015, 11:11

One of the few things that could save life on earth in the coming century is if we have either several Fukushima/Chernobyl type accidents or, even, a full scale global nuclear exchange, just to so long as the mad bastards don't let them all off.

Why?

Because it would completely F--k industrial civilisation up and quite probably lead to a sharp die-off of a significant portion of the global human population as a consequence of having to move out of contaminated areas as well as the inevitably major impact on various supply chains.

Meanwhile, the rest of life would move back into those contaminated areas. Sure enough, such life would be deleteriously affected by the radiation, but not half so much as it is being affected right now by having progressively nowhere to live at all.

If you think I'm talking bollocks, do some research on the internet about how wildlife and ecosystems are thriving in the depopulated areas surrounding Chernobyl, despite the radiation risks.

If the rest of life on earth could choose between temporarily elevated radiation levels such that, say, it suffered a 30% reduction in its fertility but had much greater territory available in which to be fertile versus the current situation of being pushed to the very edge of mass extinction by industrial human civilisation's rapacious and singular colonisation of all territories, I think we can safely guess which it would choose.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 08 Apr 2015, 11:19

No, you're not (talking bollocks, that is).

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 08 Apr 2015, 13:06

If we do have a relatively fast collapse we will have several, probably many heavily contaminated nuclear meltdown/fuel fire zones as abandoned reactors or fuel stores go up. However, they will not become long term nature reserves, because within a handful of generations, people will be so desperate for fertile land they will repopulate them and take the long term consequences (the most severe contamination will be over in a century, and science based governance a fading memory).

A hundred years from now they may resemble an early Ballardian dystopia.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 08 Apr 2015, 13:32

It depends on numbers.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Apr 2015, 14:04

Yes.

A fast collapse would likely mean a sudden decrease in the human population. On the other side of that crash, numbers may be sufficiently depleted as to not immediately warrant re-populating heavily contaminated areas, thus giving the rest of life a respite from the erstwhile encroachment of mankind. Albeit, in the case of radiation following the collapse of reactors and/or following a nuclear conflict, a respite under less than ideal conditions.

I've got to hope for the best and a fast collapse is the best we can hope for, at least for mankind as a whole and likewise for the rest of life.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 09 Apr 2015, 04:47

I read that fungi in the Chernobyl area have been virtually wiped out and that vegetation isn't rotting as it should. This will have drastic results on fertility and will eventually lead to top soil being buried under a mat of dead but un-decomposed vegetation. Not good for food production!

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 09 Apr 2015, 06:47

kenneal - lagger wrote:I read that fungi in the Chernobyl area have been virtually wiped out and that vegetation isn't rotting as it should. This will have drastic results on fertility and will eventually lead to top soil being buried under a mat of dead but un-decomposed vegetation. Not good for food production!

All of that may or not pertain at Chernobyl. However, it is unlikely to pertain for more than, say, a few decades and is highly unlikely to pertain for more than a century. Meanwhile, despite these obvious deleterious effects of radiation and despite the fact that this buggers up human agriculture for a century, the rest of life will have more or less re-established itself there nonetheless. Or, rather, the rest of life will have re-established itself precisely because human agriculture has been buggered up there.

Like I said previously, if the rest of life on earth could choose between temporarily elevated radiation levels such that, say, it suffered a 30% reduction in its fertility but had much greater territory available in which to be fertile versus the current situation of being pushed to the very edge of mass extinction by industrial human civilisation's rapacious and singular colonisation of all territories, I think we can safely guess which it would choose.