Japan shuts last of nuclear reactors

[Hamletintaiwan]

Yes, nuclear power is so clean as long as the yellowcake is not dug out under your nose.
As long as the waste is not buried in your backyard and as long as there is no accident.

I am not saying they should just turn them off if there is no replacement. I even think that they should build new once and replace the old and dangerous once.
But, I'd like to see a very aggressive attempt paving the way out of this.

Taiwan should invest into Solar thermal energy (STE) coupled with a desalination of salt-water it could tackle two problems at once.
Making solar water heaters on the rooftops mandatory could save a lot of gas which can be used to generate electricity.

They could tax all the scooters and RVs off the streets and use that money.

[Impaler]

I'm curious. Impaler, or anyone else:
And btw ... what on earth does GM's failure have to do with Japan switching off its nuclear reactors, or with renewable energy subsidy?

I was responding to the comments made by others.

I'm curious. Impaler, or anyone else:

1) What do you propose we should do to improve our hopelessly inefficient "modern" society? If you think 'inefficient' is an exaggeration, consider that the UK (to take one example for which figures are available) spends as much on operating its private-car fleet (~31m vehicles) as it does on the National Health Service and the Department of Defence, combined. If you don't believe that, do some googling and run the numbers yourself.

Why is that an example of "inefficien[cy]"? Gee, zillions of tons of grain get eaten by rats every year in the U.S. -- is that "inefficient"? How about compared to, say, China or India, where even more gets eaten by rats, proportionately?

2) Would you be happy to have a nuclear waste dump in your backyard? a) Maintained by the Government of Japan? b) Maintained by Taipower?

. . . because, like, the government is putting nuclear waste dumps in people's back yards, rather than siting them out in the middle of stable geological formations in the middle of the fucking desert where nobody lives.

[finley]

Why is that an example of "inefficien[cy]"?

Seriously? I have to explain that? You honestly think 6% of a rich country's GNI (and a hell of a lot of oil) used simply to move people from A to B is a good bargain? That even though there are perfectly viable ways of doing it for one-tenth of the cost, it's better to just stump up the cash rather than aim for some sort of improvement?

The current world record for fuel efficiency, as I mentioned elsewhere, is 12,600mpg equivalent (US gallons). The typical US car achieves about 20mpg. See any room for improvement there?

Gee, zillions of tons of grain get eaten by rats every year in the U.S. -- is that "inefficient"? How about compared to, say, China or India, where even more gets eaten by rats, proportionately?

Um ... "yes"? You obviously live in some alternate universe where that represents the pinnacle of efficiency. The Chinese and Indians lose more because they're blithering idiots who can't be bothered to store it properly.

. . . because, like, the government is putting nuclear waste dumps in people's back yards, rather than siting them out in the middle of stable geological formations in the middle of the fucking desert where nobody lives.

Again, you obviously seem to live in some sort of alternate universe where things are done properly. A few snippets from that most reliable of all sources, Wikipedia.

China, as usual, is putting a high priority on safety:

Geological disposal has been studied since 1985, and a permanent deep geological repository was required by law in 2003. Sites in Gansu Province near the Gobi desert in northwestern China are under investigation, with a final site expected to be selected by 2020, and actual disposal by about 2050.

Likewise with India:

Interim storage for 30 years is expected, with eventual disposal in a deep geological repository in crystalline rock near Kalpakkam.

Surprisingly, Germany has also done a hell of a lot of talking and not a lot else:

German planning for a permanent geologic repository began in 1974, focused on salt dome Gorleben, a salt mine near Gorleben about 100 kilometers northeast of Braunschweig. The site was announced in 1977 with plans for a reprocessing plant, spent fuel management, and permanent disposal facilities at a single site. Plans for the reprocessing plant were dropped in 1979. In 2000, the federal government and utilities agreed to suspend underground investigations for three to ten years ... Meanwhile, electric utilities have been transporting spent fuel to interim storage facilities at Gorleben, Lubmin and Ahaus until temporary storage facilities can be built near reactor sites.

As for Taiwan, it's common knowledge that the dump on (inhabited) Orchid Island is leaking already, after only a few decades.

It's certainly possible to dispose of nuclear waste properly. I get the impression that the US are doing a fairly good job. Generally, though, getting slack-jawed humans to do anything properly is a bit of an uphill struggle.

[Mucha Man]

. . . because, like, the government is putting nuclear waste dumps in people's back yards, rather than siting them out in the middle of stable geological formations in the middle of the fucking desert where nobody lives.

You realize that most nuclear waste in Taiwan, for example, is stored on site, which means in areas not only geologically unstable but also susceptible to attacks from China, and tsunamis to say nothing of the fact that at least 10 million people within a 50km radius.

[trubadour]

They could tax all the scooters and RVs off the streets and use that money.

that would be so awesome