From: bobnospam@gmail.com   
      
   Jim Rojas wrote:   
   > Bob F wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > There are plenty of alternatives...wind, geothermal, tidal flow,   
   > solar. At least Japan is taking a stand. We in the USA are always profit   
   > motivated, regardless of the casualties.   
      
   Privatise the profits, socialize the losses (limits of liability via   
   Price-Anderson). Classical Republicon practice here in the US.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)