1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Japan Quake Is Causing Costly Shift to Fossil Fuels

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by cwerdna, Aug 20, 2011.

  1. cwerdna

    cwerdna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    12,544
    2,123
    1
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    #1 cwerdna, Aug 20, 2011
  2. Tideland Prius

    Tideland Prius Moderator of the North
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    44,851
    16,089
    41
    Location:
    Canada
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Hopefully they can come up with lower polluting alternatives and that this is just a temporary solution until then.
     
    #2 Tideland Prius, Aug 20, 2011
  3. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Like better designed nuclear or cheap, clean burning and massively abundant natural gas.
     
    #3 TimBikes, Aug 21, 2011
  4. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,534
    4,063
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Tim,
    Japan does not have natural gas resources, and shipping it is not easy. This is one reason they went so fast for nuclear in questionable locations. They do need to make their nuke's safer, and add more renewable and fossil fuels. Bringing back moth balled generators is a quick but dirty fix. I hope the Japanese people the best in recovery from the disaster.

    Part of the reaction was also a shift of german power from nuclear to coal. This is cleaner more efficient coal, and they are quickly adding renewable.
     
    #4 austingreen, Aug 21, 2011
  5. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    19,744
    8,102
    54
    Location:
    Montana & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2018 Chevy Volt
    Model:
    Premium
    Japan's disaster was a simple matter of playing the cost versus risk scenario. This is NOT a "point the finger" statement - rather just the opposite. You see . . . WE do the same cost/risk based power infrastructure here in the U.S. - and Japan simply followed suit. A few months ago, I had the very good fortune to talk to a knowledgeable "higher-up" at our OWN local (25 miles away) nuke facility - San Onofre. Publicly they paint a rosy picture of safety - being located right on the beach. Don't want to betray any confidences ... but let's just say the conversation was a dose of reality we were not looking forward to hearing.

    .
     
    #5 hill, Aug 21, 2011
  6. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,317
    3,588
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    The big picture is that the Japan tsunami disaster probably forces the realization that it is not yet possible to instantly replace fossil fuels over the next 10 years.

    The smaller picture is Japan relied for many years on oil-fired generators and these are still available so that is good for them in this crisis. Oil is expensive as the main drawback. Long term presume they shift to more import LPG, solar, wind, and import coal-fired instead of nuclear.
     
    #6 wjtracy, Aug 23, 2011
  7. TimBikes

    TimBikes New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    2,492
    245
    0
    Location:
    WA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    I'm doubting they have the land area for renewables like wind or solar that could produce sufficient energy for their needs, so renewables for them are a costly pipe dream I suspect.
     
    #7 TimBikes, Aug 25, 2011
  8. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,534
    4,063
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    #8 austingreen, Aug 25, 2011
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)