Japan will be dealing "for decades" from Fukushima

[utgibbs]

The Japanese, according to the French, will have to "deal with the consequences of this accident for decades."

Long after all of the devastation of the tsunami has been rebuilt, and after the wounds healed, there will be a lasting and lingering legacy for the grandchildren of Japan not yet born.

Moreover, more radioactive smoke billowing out of reactors, and the workmen are training to spray concrete on the reactors. In other words, the world's second Zone of Alienation in just under 25 years.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...n-says-1-.html

Capital has no time-horizon to effectively deal with or plan for nuclear energy. In our lust to grow Capital, we have forgotten the very things we need to grow human beings.

[IPorange]

How did communist government planning work out for the Chernobyl plant? Feel free to just post a picture of Ali vs Frasier and just declare victory, or reference some African megafauna in my backyard. It's what I've come to expect.

[volinbham]

Tis the fault of capital - always is.

[IPorange]

I just think it is ironically small-minded to think the issue is anything less than the brief nature of an individual human life and consciousness and even human generations and cultural evolutions, vs the time scale of this kind of science. This isn't a political philosophy problem (as I'm sure you agree). Government's ability to plan beyond a couple of decades is pretty limited for the same reason Capital's is: we aren't psychic.

[hohenfelsvol]

The pesky ole gorilla is eating apples and oranges now.

[Volst53]

I'd love some apples and peanut butter right now. Locally grown and shipped on high speed rails if you please.

[hohenfelsvol]

Originally Posted by Volst53

I'd love some apples and peanut butter right now. Locally grown and shipped on high speed rails if you please.

Sorry, going to have to go slow boat. High speed rail is dead here. Too capital intensive.

[Volst53]

stroy of my life

[utgibbs]

Originally Posted by IPorange

How did communist government planning work out for the Chernobyl plant? Feel free to just post a picture of Ali vs Frasier and just declare victory, or reference some African megafauna in my backyard. It's what I've come to expect.

It didn't. But the "communism" you refer to was simply a different type of economic rationality made supreme over the needs of people. And it was even less rational than our own (which is nearly totally irrational).

I no longer expect you to bring your A-game to the discussion either, IP. But, please, regale us with your jpgs of a guy fishin' in Colorado when you're out of words.

It was Ali vs Liston btw, and I only declare victory when it is won.

[MG1968]

remember, gibbs also criticized capital for not being able to adequately plan for events that might happen in 1.7 million years.

[IPorange]

Originally Posted by utgibbs

It didn't. But the "communism" you refer to was simply a different type of economic rationality made supreme over the needs of people. And it was even less rational than our own (which is nearly totally irrational).

I no longer expect you to bring your A-game to the discussion either, IP. But, please, regale us with your jpgs of a guy fishin' in Colorado when you're out of words.

It was Ali vs Liston btw, and I only declare victory when it is won.

You are the self-declared undefeated champion of the world, aren't you?

You so quickly dismiss the fact that the worst nuclear accident in the history of the world (that we know of) occurred under the very political school of thought you espouse as being the answer to these sorts of concerns.


My original point was that the failure is not with the brand of government, but with the limits of our own existence. Please show me the error in that thought. Show me how government can plan hundreds and thousands of years into the future effectively. Give me an illustration as to what that would look like.

[utgibbs]

Originally Posted by IPorange

I just think it is ironically small-minded to think the issue is anything less than the brief nature of an individual human life and consciousness and even human generations and cultural evolutions, vs the time scale of this kind of science. This isn't a political philosophy problem (as I'm sure you agree). Government's ability to plan beyond a couple of decades is pretty limited for the same reason Capital's is: we aren't psychic.

I disagree.

Thanks to human ingenuity, for instace, we can look back into the past 13.5 billion years with amazing precision and detail.

Although the future is less certain (damn Dark Energy!), we can still plot the destiny of the universe, although, admittedly, along three different trajectories.

The decision to put nuclear reactors around the Ring of Fire, when we have high efficiency transmission lines, is a decision, I'm afraid to say, that could only be made by Capital. I find it incredulous anyone would argue this point, especially now in hindsight.

And I can pull up and cite now several very prescient studies (as I'm sure we all can now) which suggested strongly this was a bad, bad idea.

Planning works. But planning within the instantaneous time horizon of Capital is unthinkable.

[IPorange]

Originally Posted by utgibbs

I disagree.

Thanks to human ingenuity, for instace, we can look back into the past 13.5 billion years with amazing precision and detail.

Although the future is less certain (damn Dark Energy!), we can still plot the destiny of the universe, although, admittedly, along three different trajectories.

The decision to put nuclear reactors around the Ring of Fire, when we have high efficiency transmission lines, is a decision, I'm afraid to say, that could only be made by Capital. I find it incredulous anyone would argue this point, especially now in hindsight.

And I can pull up and cite now several very prescient studies (as I'm sure we all can now) which suggested strongly this was a bad, bad idea.

Planning works. But planning within the instantaneous time horizon of Capital is unthinkable.

The entire Japanese archipelago rests on the ring of fire. I'm not sure where you are advocating them putting their reactors.

And I'm virtually certain the placement of those reactors had more to do with government regulation and planning on every level than "pure capital." Since you think it's incredulous anyone could think that it wasn't only capital that was involved in placing those plants, perhaps you could explain how nuclear plants are laid out and apparently not regulated in Japan.

Also, please explain how hindsight and the occurrence of a disaster would affect how a reactor had been planned and laid out decades prior. Seems like an unintentional confession of extreme bias.

As far as the "precision and detail" (highly relative terms) at which we can see the past, I'm not sure how that enters into the planning equation for the time scale we are speaking of. That is the same as saying due to the "precision and detail" in which we know American history, we can predict who the next two presidents will be. Of course we can't.

I'm one of those paleoclimatologists you squeal about. We aren't fortune tellers. I can tell you a lot about the sort of natural environment that will likely naturally occur in a given area based on looking at the past, current species assemblages, and projected future geologic landscape. That doesn't mean I can tell you anything to do with the future activities of the biggest and most dynamic force currently on the planet: humans. Humans change everything.

[utgibbs]

Originally Posted by IPorange

Also, please explain how hindsight and the occurrence of a disaster would affect how a reactor had been planned and laid out decades prior. Seems like an unintentional confession of extreme bias.

Humans change everything.

Only those soaked in the dominant culture could, without incredulity, claim that putting a nuclear reactor on the Ring of Fire is a good idea, an example of "good planning." That hindsight now confirms this perfectly sound and plain common sense seems to prove your "unintentional confession of extreme bias." We actually know exactly and precisely how long and how dangerous the products and by-products of a nuclear reactor are. To date, I know of no plan to deal with said wastes. GSM, I'm afraid.

I don't know the figures on Japan nuclear MW off the top of my head, but it is a PERFECT example of decisions made by Capital and not common sense. Those MW could have been produced, for instance, by tidal renewables, by relentless efficiency measures, by abundant wind resources... in other words, by a host of other deployments besides nuclear.

In fact, I believe this is exactly what you propose, no?

Your high horse only prepares you for a longer fall....

[IPorange]

Originally Posted by utgibbs

Only those soaked in the dominant culture could, without incredulity, claim that putting a nuclear reactor on the Ring of Fire is a good idea, an example of "good planning."

When did anyone say it was a good plan? You're the one who have apparently blindly asserted that the plants were placed their by "capital" alone, despite the obvious heavy involvement of the Japanese government in it's regulation and construction. You can be incredulous about something once you in any way even remotely back that claim up. Don't go making up claims that other people haven't even made as straw man.

That hindsight now confirms this perfectly sound and plain common sense seems to prove your "unintentional confession of extreme bias." We actually know exactly and precisely how long and how dangerous the products and by-products of a nuclear reactor are. To date, I know of no plan to deal with said wastes. GSM, I'm afraid.

Up until two weeks ago, you advocated the use of nuclear energy. The only thing that changed was a somewhat inevitable disaster-- not the underlying facts. You have demonstrated the inability to foresee all possible outcomes (something you claim can be done via government planning) or were holding an opinion that was extremely uninformed. Which was it?

I don't know the figures on Japan nuclear MW off the top of my head, but it is a PERFECT example of decisions made by Capital and not common sense.

This statement is so devoid of logic, it's actually fascinating. You don't know, but you find it a perfect example of there being better alternatives that weren't followed. Yes. That's brilliant. And I'm on the high horse.

Those MW could have been produced, for instance, by tidal renewables, by relentless efficiency measures, by abundant wind resources... in other words, by a host of other deployments besides nuclear.

You don't know the figures, but you know they can be produced through famously inefficient wind turbines and tidal power. That's some brilliant scheming right there. How many wind turbines does it take to meet the capacity of a single nuclear reactor? about 2800 over 60,000 acres. Japan doesn't have that kind of space, not to mention what that would do to migratory birds. This isn't just a "capital" decision. This is a "reality gorilla" decision.

There are 55 nuclear power plants in Japan. 60,000 acres = about 93 square miles. 93 x 55 = 5115 square miles of wind turbines. To replace those plants, you'd have to cover 1 sixth of Hokkaido with wind turbines. Does that sound practical? Shall we discuss the environmental damage of fragmenting that much environment and putting lethal bird-chewing machines for thousands of square miles? Or the expense of maintaining that many separate constructions? Wonder how much fuel it would take to run maintenance vehicles between each one.

You think like a policy wonk, from the top looking down.

In fact, I believe this is exactly what you propose, no?

Your high horse only prepares you for a longer fall....

I'm a realist. It's going to take an "all of the above" approach to meet our energy needs. My opinions are fairly well researched and unlike you, don't change overnight because of one tragic event.

I'd still like to hear your expose on Japan's lack of nuclear regulation, which you apparently believe since "capital" alone decided on the placement and existence of those plants.