Journals Impact Factor Medicine

train nuclear PMI

The nuclear energy has many people divided. What so if we think a little bit, consistently?

I support PMI make a whole. I put what I see from my chair and my biography, and you add on your side. None insists that the other opine at all, because first explore and then we think, and not vice versa .

Here is my attempt to, you know, is partial:

Things that I like about nuclear energy? I can hardly see it because I have him emotionally antipathy to nuclear power, and because you are falling (in present continuous) in Japan, is objectively more difficult to see the positive. But I have a couple of minutes to write what I see, and is supposed to know how to do a PMI .

• produces energy. Large amounts of energy.
• There are places where plants are already built, so in those places part of the cost, construction and training, are a thing of the past.
• depends on there being no wind or sun and, in principle, if the supply of "nuclear fuel" (whatever it is, that I have a lot of data) is more stable than oil, then things are relatively predictable.
• is concentrated and responsibilities are in few hands, which is good if the "many" are "dirty and neglected."
• Create some skilled jobs. I do not know how many, but is a benefit for someone.
• Produce economic benefits to owners. I do not know how, or divided among many, but it is a benefit to someone.

Do you see any advantage? No part of PMI sensu stricto, but something would be done later, but do you have data on some of the advantages?

Problems and dangers that I see nuclear power? now it's easy to see some, and it's easy to be accused of being alarmist, to take advantage of Japan's problems to justify an irrational aversion to nuclear energy. I tried to find the positive aspects and I have asked for more evidence in favor if someone scores. Now, in the PMI, plays see the negative aspects.

• When it gets out of hand, you can get out of hand by storm. Some sites are more dangerous than others. Look at the map of earthquakes (since 1973) and nuclear power plants in the world . Lest you get out of hand, specialized resources are devoted for many years. Like any type of fire, is a controlled risk. Nobody says the fire is "safe", just like that.
• requires nonrenewable resources. That, surely, are more in some parts of the world than in others. And that, in general, are not close to home.
• produces waste that is troublesome to manage.
• is very concentrated and long-term investment needs, so it is not flexible in space ("here and not there") or time ("today for today").
• (In the Canaries, in particular, should think of several plants or long cable runs, so it is probably more difficult to achieve economies of scale.)
• Oh, I forgot: is attackable. Someone threw planes into the twin towers. Is not it possible to launch aircraft against a nuclear plant?

Again, you see negative things that I do not see? Am I wrong or can give numbers for some of these things?

And what are the interesting aspects, ie aspects that are neither good nor bad? This part is curious, because he is forced to change perspective and break the "attack / counterattack."

• Energy is a supply, but in the background is a service . Personally I do not need "fuel", but "temperature nice home, "" drinking water "," being in that place "(or" being in a place where you can do such things ")," to communicate with such people. "What services we need, and how they can response using less energy or, perhaps, no energy? How many things they can apply the rule of three trips to replace video conferencing?
• nuclear energy is "industrial", not biomimetic. Maybe the problem is not it is only "nuclear" but is "central" . It is a point of failure different from other points of failure. If damaged my fridge is my problem. If you spoil your / our head a problem of many more people. (In part, depends to the wind direction.)
• The amounts and context of alternative matter. Can we use our money in savings? It would be the equivalent of finding new oil fields, or to build new nuclear plants. How much energy "need"? What other sources are there? The
• risks are estimated information passed. If things change faster than your "five-year plans," bad.

Do you see more interesting things?

you know? Now I can give my opinion :

• I think nuclear energy and environmental costs is "content-based threats technological effort, is expensive in times of economic recession, is complex in times of" climate chaos "and political instability (as this "map epidemic manifestations in the world" ). And, as is long term, measured in decades, is very optimistic to think that in a given area there will be problems in the coming decades.
• But mostly I think it distracts us from the real mental work , which is how much energy we need to why, and how to get it in a clean, respectful, and even restoration of ecosystems. The raw and no offense to anyone in particular: we like "debate" to "thinking."
• Personally, failing that give me the specifics of "small corner of the picture, I suspect they do not change the overall picture, it would not issue any further, and would forward the closure of the old as possible. Oh, and would look at things like disastr.org if they fail (or are attacked) those.