Comments on: The lesson of Fukushima http://blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/2012/03/07/the-lesson-of-fukushima/ Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:23:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: backpacker http://blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/2012/03/07/the-lesson-of-fukushima/comment-page-1/#comment-470 Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:51:05 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/?p=197#comment-470 Old and antiquated reactors like Fukushima are intrinsically dangerous and expensive, and produce huge amounts of radioactive waste. The dangers and the waste problems are much reduced in the newest reactor designs. One design, the integral fast reactor (IFR), was developed by the US. The IFR cannot melt down in a conventional way because the core of the reactor automatically shuts down when the temperature goes up. The IFR is not a boiling water type reactor, and need not be built near coastlines. It is cooled by liquid sodium, not water. Liquid sodium can be dangerous, so no one can claim there is no danger, but safe methods have been developed. Furthermore, the IFR eats its own waste. It can use stored existing nuclear waste for fuel too. Go read about it at Steve Kirsch’s blog, available online. That brilliant invention was canceled and shut out of the American energy program by Clinton Gore many years ago. A shame.

]]>
By: AlkalineState http://blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/2012/03/07/the-lesson-of-fukushima/comment-page-1/#comment-434 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:41:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/?p=197#comment-434 I was anti-nuke until Fukushima happened. What we learned from Fukushima is that nuclear power is much safer than previously thought. One of the largest nuclear accidents in the history of the world, near one of the the largest city in the world (Tokyo)…. resulted in fewer casualties than a single car accident. Zero carbon, zero emissions, low mortality, high output. Move ahead.

]]>
By: GFawkes http://blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/2012/03/07/the-lesson-of-fukushima/comment-page-1/#comment-433 Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:50:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/?p=197#comment-433 Nuclear is not beyond the moral pale because the few accidents that we have seen thus far have not killed enough people? Your failure in this argument is a lack of foresight. You, like most Americans, have an impaired ability or lack of desire to consider a future beyond the next 4-year election cycle. Nuclear waste lasts not for centuries, but for millennia. I’m talking about the high-grade waste such as spent fuel rods. This stuff can be reprocessed to make more fuel, sure, but it can not be destroyed. There is no way to speed radioactive decay. Our world now has a stockpile of high-level radioactive waste that will have to be actively managed for millennia. This time scale is far longer than that of civilizations. What right have we to shackle future human civilizations to the responsibility of managing this waste for which we gained energy and they will gain nothing? Nuclear energy is a big loan that we will never repay. You think this is within the moral pale?

]]>