Comments for Japan Drops Nukes then Reverses Policy at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 7 out of 7 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Wed, 22 May 2013 02:08:27 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/monitoring-pollution/3811-japan-drops-nukes-then-reverses-policy#comment-47555 I call bullshit on all the people saying "Japan needs nuclear power". If any country in the world can support themselfs from only renewables it's Japan. They have a lot of mountains so that gives the the options of hydroelectric power -> baseload. Also geothermal, since the earths crust is pretty thin -> baseload. So with that we covered the baseload. For the rest: In the south solar would be a great option. All around the country you could use wind, wave and tidal power. - Slowking Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:48:39 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/monitoring-pollution/3811-japan-drops-nukes-then-reverses-policy#comment-47390 With all of Japan's Potential for renewable energy, I could easily see it becoming a net energy exporter. When it's hard to grow food on your awesome Island home, just grow money. - David Hurt Sun, 07 Oct 2012 11:31:16 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/monitoring-pollution/3811-japan-drops-nukes-then-reverses-policy#comment-47361 so just like other garbage landfills etc., why not look at it as a resource? - gurjeet Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:29:59 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/monitoring-pollution/3811-japan-drops-nukes-then-reverses-policy#comment-47332 What happened was really terrible and devastating,and what happened, tsunami wise, could not have been predicted, tsunami's of that amount of destruction, seriously, have only made it into the written record a handful of times. We can't base our whole economic futures on the possibility that lightning may strike twice in the same place...though being more cautious around electricity in the future would be wise. however, I think japan has to see it's disaster as a resource now. cleaning up that area will take decades. farm land is lost, homeland is lost, but what is contaminated soil good for? well, why not build a nuclear reactor right about where the melted down reactors are? as the land wont be safe for some time for anything else... clear a clean path for a road, clear a clean space in the middle of the bulls-eye and put an other one up.... then you essentially have a nuclear reactor in the middle of a giant radioactive mote. Then remove rings from the outside of the target area in. by the time you remove or clean or process 50 mile radius worth of soil, you'll be at the center again ready to recondition or take down your nuclear reactor again. obviously im being very general but what else is the land good for right now and for a long time from now? so just like other garbage landfills etc., why not look at it as a resource? - sarah Thu, 27 Sep 2012 00:15:56 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/monitoring-pollution/3811-japan-drops-nukes-then-reverses-policy#comment-47325 Wow, I read the first 3 words and immediately thought... WTF?! - James Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:52:19 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/monitoring-pollution/3811-japan-drops-nukes-then-reverses-policy#comment-47319 I agree with Eletruk. Japan does need nuclear power. It is the only viable baseload solution for them. I know there is a tremendous amount of energy in tsunami waves, but they are not frequent enough to provide a base load. Renewables simply don't cut it. People should not automatically equate nuclear with 'bad' and renewable with 'good', that kind of thinking is for morons. - furburger Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:11:57 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/monitoring-pollution/3811-japan-drops-nukes-then-reverses-policy#comment-47311 Newer nuclear power options rather than the ones based on GE selling fuel rods when only 20% consumed. Thorium reactors, or LFTRs are the future, safer cleaner and much more Thorium is available than Fissile Uranium. - Eletruk Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:44:57 +0100