[ExI] THE END for nuclear power
bbenzai at yahoo.com
Fri Mar 25 13:05:48 UTC 2011
Jeff Davis <jrd1415 at gmail.com> wrote:
> shouldn't coastal
> cites and power
> plants located on the coast build dikes/levies? Isn't
> that easier
> than moving entire cities? (Which will also solve the
> (bogus) problem
> of rising sea levels due to global warming?)
> The tsunami wave was after all only 12 meters high, and
> that was a big one, no?
and "F. C. Moulton" <moulton at moulton.com> wrote:
> How abut instead of arguing forth and back about what is
> and is not
> rational the persons making the various claims develop some
> actual numbers.
> And since locations vary pick a location; perhaps New
> Orleans or perhaps
> some place in Japan. Pick a site; state all of
> your assumptions; state
> what needs to be bought, built, moved, etc. Do a
> threat and risk
> analysis. Put in all of the costs. Put in how much
> you value each human
> life and list the probabilities of death from your
> proposal. Put in the
> benefits. And then maybe it might be
> possible to start the process of
> making a decision.
The thing that stands out in my mind is the difference between Taiwan and Japan. Japan was devastated by the Tsunami, Taiwan didn't even notice it.
I'm wondering how much it would cost to dig some strategically-placed trenches round the coastline of Japan, how big they would have to be, how much it would cost in relation to the other proposed ideas.
Do it right, and Tsunamis would never be a problem for Japan again. Although, it would be a humongous engineering project.
Or is this a 'Solar Power Satellite' kind of solution? (Yes, it would work, but it's not gonna happen, TSOTS*, for so many reasons).
* This Side Of The Singularity. Yes, I reckon it needs an acronym.
More information about the extropy-chat