SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (41781)3/16/2011 7:52:02 AM
From: Mark Marcellus3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 78572
 
The real question is:

- What is the total cost of accidents accounting for accident frequency per energy produced vs other approaches?


And you are potentially making the same error as the people who invested in crappy AAA mortgages in 2007 on the theory that housing prices have historically only gone up. Even assuming that the numbers would back you up, that is history. The nuclear black swan is a big hairy beast that can literally appear overnight and live on for millennia. The others, while certainly bearing their own significant risks and costs, do not have the same fat tail risk.

I'm not against developing nuclear capacity but I lack confidence that we are where we should be in terms of process.



To: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (41781)3/16/2011 11:37:20 AM
From: Madharry  Respond to of 78572
 
now that i finally heard what the problem was with the japan nuclear reactors, it seems like very japan specific issue- namely the tusnami swept away the diesel fuel tanks that were supposed to fuel the generator whcih would furnish power to the cooling equipment. im not saying its impossible for a tsunami to hit the united states coastal area, but its a highly unlikely event and could be solved by storing the diesel tanks underground.