aa10f1f2   
   From: bobnospam@gmail.com   
      
   bob haller wrote:   
   > On May 6, 2:01 pm, "Bob F"  wrote:   
   >> Vaughn wrote:   
   >>> On 5/5/2012 6:30 PM, Roberto Deboni DMIsr wrote:   
   >>>> On Sat, 05 May 2012 14:53:27 -0700, Bob F wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>>> Nuclear power is no longer an economically viable source of new   
   >>>>> energy in the United States,   
   >>   
   >>>> Correct.   
   >>   
   >>>> But I though we where writing about Japan.   
   >>>> Japan has no shale gas. No coal. No oil.   
   >>>> And that changes the economics dramatically.   
   >>   
   >>> All true. Also, the economic argument is beside the point because   
   >>> Japan already had the nuke plants, so the construction costs were   
   >>> all sunk. Last I heard, fuel costs for an existing nuke plant are   
   >>> cheap compared to alternatives.   
   >>   
   >> Maybe thay've already lost enough land and money to failed nukes.   
   >   
   > most of the japanese nuke plants are around 40 years old.........   
   >   
   > thats the age they should be replaced.   
   >   
   > japan nearly lost tokyo and its country. the fukashima plants have   
   > elevated waste core storage pools nthat are structurally damaged by   
   > hydrogen explosions during the inital accident.   
   >   
   > another earthquake could collapse the pools   
      
   And it isn't anywhere close to over. It may still get much worse.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)