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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The notion that "government" planning and regulation during the time of Capital is, well, cute, naive, but in the end, absurd. I refer you to the Supreme Court decision of Jan 21, 2010, if you need a primer on the absurdity.
I have yet to even detail the mendacity of TEPCO regarding nuclear safety either. But, as I maintain, if the Japanese can be mendacious about nuclear safety, then to whom can we trust it?
There are very credible (credible in that governments definitely have it on the table) of putting 16 London sized PV arrays in the Sahara. Covering 1/6th of Hokkaido with wind turbines - a low population density island - is absolutely feasible. But I noted an "all but one of the above" approach as well. I didn't know the specific numbers to quote, but I knew them well enough that an "all of the above" could, fairly easily actually, cover the missing MW as you have graciously demonstrated.
Changing my mind after one "tragic" accident which has exposed numerous fallacies, irregularities, and will leave a lasting legacy on Japan for its unborn grandchildren, is not the sign of a fickle mind, but the mark of sober reflection and adult thinking.
I would like to think one day the human race can be mature enough to handle the responsibilities of the atom. Unfortunately, events in Japan have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt we aren't there yet. There is no doubt nuclear is the most bang for the least carbon. Absolutely no doubt. But we don't let tweeners drive on the highway. We have already assigned the problem of spent fuel to future generations - quite simply not adult thinking.
Unfortunately, the "all of the above approach" to a problem I applaud your commitment to solving also involves looking deeply at our society, looking deeply at the supremacy of Capital, its antagonisms and its contradictions so exposed in our historic time, and examining its role and future as the supreme rationality governing our social order.
