# Nuclear meltdown! Holy Godzilla NOOOO!!! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 12, 2011, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389 "2011-03-12T08:19:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 59
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1161 "2011-03-28T21:59:01Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Ok…[here](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-quake-fukushima.eps-20110317,0,3932122.graphic) is a map of the evacuation zone. Note how far out the semi-circle of evacuation goes (barely beyond the coastal areas). [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/packages/flash/newsgraphics/2011/0311-japan-earthquake-map/) is a map showing the zones of destruction from earthquake and tsunami on the east coast of Japan. Here is a more detailed map of the evacuation zone, including the US’s advisory 50 mile limit. Notice the town of Shirakawa is actually outside of the US 50 mile advisory zone, but that on the map showing earthquake damage it’s inside the zone? [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/packages/flash/newsgraphics/2011/0311-japan-earthquake-map/) is another map showing the distances from the plant and possible radiation exposures…compare and contrast that, once again, to the map showing the damage zones from earthquake and tsunami. Those maps don’t show land area inundated with seawater. The Fukushima prefecture has a [land area of 13,782km²](http://www.japan-i.jp/explorejapan/tohoku/fukushima/). > [@](#): > > The tsunami inundated a total area of [approximately 470 square kilometers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami#Japan) in Japan. That’s the total land area of all Japan inundated by seawater. Even if the entire tsunami were confined only to Fukushima, that’s only 470km² out of 13,782km². It would still only be a tiny fraction of the affected area. Instead, > [@](#): > > The most severe effects of the tsunami were felt along a 670-kilometer (420 mi)-long stretch of coastline from Erimo in the north to Ōarai in the south, with most of the destruction in that area occurring in the hour following the earthquake. and [from the same cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_T%C5%8Dhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami), > [@](#): > > The earthquake triggered extremely destructive tsunami waves of up to 23.6 m (77 ft) that struck Japan minutes after the quake, in some cases traveling up to 10 km (6 mi) inland The furthest it reached inland was 10 km, and that wasn’t in Fukushima. The evacuation area is firmly out to 20km, and now strongly suggested out to 30km. Even where the tsunami reached furthest inland (and that was not in Fukushima) you’re talking 10 km vs. the 30 km evac zone. The tsunami simply cannot have inundated anything but a tiny fraction of the FNPP area. > [@](#): > > If you say so. I MEANT my post to be about more than simply Fukushima province, but ok…given the amount of damage I’m seeing, especially in the various ports in the province, I think that it’s going to be a toss up still as to what contaminated more food production…the ‘nuclear disaster’ or the tsunami. No way to measure the other contamination at this point, since no one is reporting on it…everything seems focused on the nuclear aspect to the exclusion of everything else. I’m content to wait and see what data comes out in the following weeks. I think I’ve shown the evacuation and ban on produce has affected a much larger area than just the area that got swamped. > [@](#): > > I don’t know where you are getting that the coastal areas weren’t as I described…have you looked at any of the images from the region? Inland, look at the zone of destruction from the earthquake and consider that it wasn’t just buildings falling over. There would have been water mains broken, fires raging, sewer systems disrupted and lots of dead. According to the map I linked to earlier over 10,000 buildings were destroyed in the province (and I think that’s a low estimate based on what I’m seeing). I have eyes and I can see the devastation the tsunami wrecked and I’m not contesting it did terrible damage. But, the total land area affected by a 30km circle is 2827 km2, and an area of a [50km circle is 7854 km2](http://www.calculateme.com/cArea/AreaOfCircle.htm). Only 470km2 of land was inundated, and that was spread out across something like 600km of coast. > [@](#): > > Yes? And? What do you suppose this means or proves? What’s the total percentage of the population of Japan killed or missing due to the nuclear accident alone? Zero. Faulty comparison. I could just as easily compare the millisieverts received standing in a Fukushima reactor vs. the millisieverts received swimming for your life in a 30-meter tsunami and it should be obvious that’s a silly comparison. You continue to directly compare lives lost due to tsunami, and lives lost due to FNPP. Do you really think it’s that simple, or is that how simple you need it to be, in order for your little nuke-lovin’ head not to explode? > [@](#): > > Again, so what? Japan has higher levels of building standards, better emergency response, and greater capacity to deal with disaster than Haiti. What does this prove or mean to you? Basically, screaming “10,000 dead!” without context is gloom-mongering. Screaming “0.1 percent dead!” just isn’t as sexy, I guess. > [@](#): > > The bottom line is that if you look at the dead and missing in Fukushima alone (it was on one of the maps earlier), any ONE of those small villages has more dead than has happened thus far due to the ‘nuclear disaster’…and in every one of those cases the number of missing (STILL) is much higher than the death toll. Any one of those little villages is going to have more injured than has thus far happened at the nuke plant as well. > > -XT Yes, but I don’t know what you think that means. That more people have died doing x, than have died doing y, doesn’t mean anything unless x and y are very similar things. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1162 "2011-03-28T22:30:59Z")
[QUOTE=levdrakon] Those maps don’t show land area inundated with seawater. The Fukushima prefecture has a land area of 13,782km². [/QUOTE] No it doesn’t…it shows the total area of devastation of the earthquake and tsunami combined. Which is what I said. I didn’t say that the tsunami caused all the damage. > [@](#): > > That’s the total land area of all Japan inundated by seawater. Even if the entire tsunami were confined only to Fukushima, that’s only 470km² out of 13,782km². It would still only be a tiny fraction of the affected area. Instead, So what? Again, the map I provided (well, one of them) shows the damage area of the disaster as a whole, not just the damage from the tsunami. > [@](#): > > The furthest it reached inland was 10 km, and that wasn’t in Fukushima. The evacuation area is firmly out to 20km, and now strongly suggested out to 30km. Even where the tsunami reached furthest inland (and that was not in Fukushima) you’re talking 10 km vs. the 30 km evac zone. The tsunami simply cannot have inundated anything but a tiny fraction of the FNPP area. Only 10 km, ehe? Well, no worries I guess. Again, though, the map wasn’t supposed to indicate only the area affected by the tsunami, but the area affected by the entire disaster…most of which was from earthquake damage. That’s why I provided that map and and then showed you the extent of the evacuation zone due to the nuclear issues. The area included in the damage zone extended out as far as the US advisory zone (50 miles). > [@](#): > > I think I’ve shown the evacuation and ban on produce has affected a much larger area than just the area that got swamped. Yeah, but you are batting at a strawman. So what if the area affected by just the tsunami doesn’t encompass all the area of the nuclear evacuation zone?? > [@](#): > > I have eyes and I can see the devastation the tsunami wrecked and I’m not contesting it did terrible damage. But, the total land area affected by a 30km circle is 2827 km2, and an area of a 50km circle is 7854 km2. Only 470km2 of land was inundated, and that was spread out across something like 600km of coast. Then why did you question the pictures I showed you earlier? And, again, why are you focused exclusively on the tsunami? I know you realize that the majority of the damage came from the earthquake…right? And as shown in the map I liked too, the destruction zone for that extends beyond the 50 mile US advisory zone. And that’s just in this one single province. > [@](#): > > Faulty comparison. I could just as easily compare the millisieverts received standing in a Fukushima reactor vs. the millisieverts received swimming for your life in a 30-meter tsunami and it should be obvious that’s a silly comparison. You continue to directly compare lives lost due to tsunami, and lives lost due to FNPP. Do you really think it’s that simple, or is that how simple you need it to be, in order for your little nuke-lovin’ head not to explode? Sure I think it’s that simple. It’s one event. Which aspect of this one event has cost more lives? The tsunami? The earthquake? The nuclear ‘disaster’? Which has caused the most disruption? Which caused the most damage? Which caused the largest amount of people unable to go to their homes? Which will end up costing the most money? I don’t know…but I do know (and so do you) which of those three will be the lowest in all of those categories. It will be a toss up between the earthquake and tsunami, and the nuclear ‘disaster’ will be a far distant 3rd. You know it. I know it. > [@](#): > > Basically, screaming “10,000 dead!” without context is gloom-mongering. Screaming “0.1 percent dead!” just isn’t as sexy, I guess. Again, it’s your attempt to deceive with numbers. Because people will think ‘well, .1 percent dead is not that bad’, whereas they will think ‘man, 10-30 thousand dead is a hell of a lot’…especially when you fess up that the percent dead from this nuclear ‘disaster’ is likely to be either 0.00000 or 0.00000000000001. I don’t know why you think this tactic will work for you, or what you hope to achieve by such deceptions, to be honest. > [@](#): > > Yes, but I don’t know what you think that means. That more people have died doing x, than have died doing y, doesn’t mean anything unless x and y are very similar things. What I think it means is to look at the big picture instead of trying to focus on one aspect and then use deception to make whatever point you think you are making in all this. I know that FXM is an idiot…and seemingly stupid as well. I don’t know what your excuse is though, since I didn’t think you were either. -XT ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1163 "2011-03-28T22:55:54Z")
I think the nukers are angry that the nuclear reactors are melting down and stuff. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1164 "2011-03-28T23:04:19Z")
You are obviously using the term ‘think’ very loosely, if you are applying it to yourself… -XT ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1165 "2011-03-28T23:17:18Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > No it doesn’t…it shows the total area of devastation of the earthquake and tsunami combined. Which is what I said. I didn’t say that the tsunami caused all the damage. Geez. Please for once [watch the video in this link](http://english.cntv.cn/program/bizasia/20110323/102828.shtml). It’s transcribed as well, but I want you to see the video. Those farmers are sitting on tons of fresh produce they can’t sell. Those are not farmers dog paddling past shit and dead bodies floating around their farms. I think you need to stop looking at disaster pictures and try to imagine that the entire “affected area” isn’t nearly as devastated as the worst pictures you’re looking at. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1166 "2011-03-28T23:33:45Z")
In case I haven’t, I urge interested persons to read Martin Cruz Smith, author of _Gorky Park_. The book is called _Wolf Eats Dog_, and is something of a mystery, but takes place in the Ukraine after Chernobyl. Many older residents have returned to their contaminated farms and homes, preferring to live under that threat than leave their homes. It compellingly describes the very strange fear of something you cannot see, cannot sense and cannot avoid. One of the ironies is that the older folks are eating better than ever, but they are eating food they cannot sell, that the State does not want. Joe Bob 'luc says “Check it out!” ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1167 "2011-03-28T23:59:22Z")
How did I miss that Arkady Renko novel?! Thanks, **'luc**. Smith has written intelligent fiction about nuclear subjects before ([Stallion Gate](http://www.amazon.com/Stallion-Gate-Martin-Cruz-Smith/dp/0345310799/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_11)). [Wolves Eat Dogs](http://www.amazon.com/Wolves-Dogs-Arkady-Renko-Novels/dp/0671775952/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1301356362&sr=8-1) sounds pretty good. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1168 "2011-03-29T01:28:03Z")
The tsunami was horrible. It killed a lot of people and destroyed buildings and devastated the farming . After the shock is over, they will rebuild. Life will go on. At the nuke plant, a lot of radiation will poison the land and kill people for generations. There will be a streak in the Japanese coast they will take a lot of work to seal up. It will be completely useless forever. The waste is being flushed into the ocean. That of course for a people who eat a lot of seafood, is a big problem. The air is being poisoned by radioactive waste. It has traveled all the way to America. I suspect it is even worse in Japan. Japan is a densely populated area. It is not like Chernobyl. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1169 "2011-03-29T01:37:29Z")
Yeah, but this movie is a long way from over. Hell, it’s not even the third scene yet. Much less intermission. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1170 "2011-03-29T03:46:48Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The trouble is, the ‘nuclear disaster’ isn’t even in the ball park for being as destructive as the earthquakes and tsunamis of the past, let alone this one. Even if your assertion that it was incompetence that caused what’s going on here, the two things aren’t on the same scale using any measurement you care to name. Cost? The tsunami and earthquake are going to cost hundreds of billions to recover from. The nuclear plant? Maybe a billion or two. People driven from their homes? 30k vs 100’s of thousands. Killed? Zero vs 10’s of thousands. Injured? 10’s of thousands vs a few hundred, maybe a couple of thousand depending on how you define ‘injured’ and how long a time span we take this. > > Again, it was a 40 year old plant. And older design. It wasn’t the best, safest design out there. Yet there still hasn’t been a ‘nuclear disaster’, and people were given a hell of a long time to evacuate if the worst happens (it still could). MUCH longer than the earthquake or tsunami gave people to evacuate. > > The thing is, people CHOOSE to live in places that are potentially catastrophic. Think of all those folks who live in California right on the fault line. Or those folks who live in the shadow of Mt Vesuvius (millions). If there was a nuclear power plant right there at Mt Vesuvius and it cut loose, the nuke plant would be the least of the folks worries…because hundreds of thousands or even millions would die FROM THE VOLCANO. The few hundred or even thousand that might be effected by the nuke plant would be spit in the wind when compared to the disaster happening there. > > Better building codes. Still, over 10,000 known dead…20,000 still missing. No idea how many injured but I’m guessing 10x the known dead would be conservative. > > And yet, having know and prepared for the disaster…10,000 dead. 20,000 missing. Possibly hundreds of thousands injured. Certainly 100’s of thousands homeless and living in temporary shelters. Vs no known dead, no known missing, maybe a few hundred or thousand injured, and 30k evacuated. > > The entire disaster is not ok with me you idiot. :mad: But shit happens and if it happens near you then you have to deal with it. What makes me mad is the willful ignorance displayed by folks like you, who close their ears to the wider events and focus merely on one aspect as some sort of vindication of your world view on nuclear energy. > > -XT Those are a number of interesting opinions that you have. I don’t share them. I don’t agree the plants were built to be as safe as possible at the time, or that it is only to a degree you find acceptable that the displaced are hurt. I am of the opinion that they are injured beyond your and my abilities to understand and emphasize with. I disagree with the attitude that these consequences are acceptable. In my opinion they are not. It’s pretty clear that your attitude is limited to something like: “yeah, its tragic, but what can we do? What’s done is done, blah, blah, blah.” It’s not over with respect to Fukushima. It’s just beginning. The consolation that I have is that there will never be another nuclear reactor used for generating power in the US. There isn’t likely to be another in Japan as well. This means massive investments in an upgraded power grid for the US and investments in wind and solar with the generating capacity not centralized, but spread out. Profits and gains will also be spread out. I think that is all good. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1171 "2011-03-29T13:29:26Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Those are a number of interesting opinions that you have. I don’t share them. I don’t agree the plants were built to be as safe as possible at the time, or that it is only to a degree you find acceptable that the displaced are hurt. I am of the opinion that they are injured beyond your and my abilities to understand and emphasize with. I disagree with the attitude that these consequences are acceptable. In my opinion they are not. It’s pretty clear that your attitude is limited to something like: “yeah, its tragic, but what can we do? What’s done is done, blah, blah, blah.” It’s not over with respect to Fukushima. It’s just beginning. > > The consolation that I have is that there will never be another nuclear reactor used for generating power in the US. There isn’t likely to be another in Japan as well. This means massive investments in an upgraded power grid for the US and investments in wind and solar with the generating capacity not centralized, but spread out. Profits and gains will also be spread out. I think that is all good. I was watching a Chinese English language news piece yesterday. It was bragging about China’s nuke power program. They only have a few actually working reactors, and get 1% of their electricity from nuke. Even going full steam ahead, as only China could I guess, they’re bragging that nuke power will produce TEN TIMES that by 2050. Wow, 10% nuke power in as little as 40 years. Woo, save the world from all that CO2! 10%. Ha, ha, ha, ha! Anyhoo, we might see one or two hyper-expensive trophy plants built. I’m fine with that; I think that’s all they’ve ever been anyway. Keep science alive and all that. I’m with you though. Please, let’s dump those billions into smart grids and distributed power generation. It’s always windy somewhere, and always sunny somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1172 "2011-03-29T13:31:34Z")
Hate to tell you, but 10% of China’s energy usage is an absolutely massive number. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1173 "2011-03-29T13:44:52Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Anyhoo, we might see one or two hyper-expensive trophy plants built. I’m fine with that; I think that’s all they’ve ever been anyway. Keep science alive and all that. [As reported by the BBC:](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12885271) > [@](#): > > China is on course to overtake the US in scientific output possibly as soon as 2013 - far earlier than expected. > > That is the conclusion of a major new study by the Royal Society, the UK’s national science academy. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1174 "2011-03-29T14:04:40Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > [As reported by the BBC:](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12885271) Sure, China has more people so you’d think they’d publish more scientific papers. Good for them. They’re still way behind in having their work cited by other scientists, and China hasn’t come out with any killer apps or game-changing technologies. They’re getting their nuke technology from the west. That’s sort of a relief. They’re inevitably going to have explosions and meltdowns and much running and screaming, but if could be worse using their own nuke tech. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1175 "2011-03-30T01:40:52Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > I was watching a Chinese English language news piece yesterday. It was bragging about China’s nuke power program. They only have a few actually working reactors, and get 1% of their electricity from nuke. Even going full steam ahead, as only China could I guess, they’re bragging that nuke power will produce TEN TIMES that by 2050. Wow, 10% nuke power in as little as 40 years. Woo, save the world from all that CO2! > > 10%. Ha, ha, ha, ha! > > Anyhoo, we might see one or two hyper-expensive trophy plants built. I’m fine with that; I think that’s all they’ve ever been anyway. Keep science alive and all that. > > I’m with you though. Please, let’s dump those billions into smart grids and distributed power generation. It’s always windy somewhere, and always sunny somewhere. 10% of China in 2050 will like 50% today. It’d be like 10 Kyoto treaties (not that I beleive Chinese news). ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1176 "2011-03-30T01:51:53Z")
[Actually](http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html), they have 13 working reactors and 25 modern advanced reactors under construction. > [@](#): > > Mainland China has 13 nuclear power reactors in operation, more than 25 under construction, and more about to start construction soon. > Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world’s most advanced, to give more than a ten-fold increase in nuclear capacity to at least 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050. > China is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle. So…they are expecting a 10 fold increase in the energy they get from nuclear by 2020. Notice this part here: > [@](#): > > Most of mainland China’s electricity is produced from fossil fuels (80% from coal, 2% from oil, 1% from gas in 2006) and hydropower (15%). Two large hydro projects are recent additions: Three Gorges of 18.2 GWe and Yellow River of 15.8 GWe. Rapid growth in demand has given rise to power shortages, and the reliance on fossil fuels has led to much air pollution. The economic loss due to pollution is put by the World Bank at almost 6% of GDP.1 > > Domestic electricity production in 2009 was 3643 billion kWh, 6.0% higher than the 3450 billion kWh in 2008, which was 5.8% more than in 2007 (3260 billion kWh) and it is expected to rise to 3810 billion kWh in 2010a. Installed generating capacity had grown by the end of 2010 to 962 GWe, up 10.1% on the previous year’s 874 GWe, which was 10.2% above the 2008 figure of 793 GWe2. At the end of 2010, fossil fuelled capacity (mostly coal) reached 707 GWe, hydro capacity was 213 GWe (up 16.6 GWe in the year), nuclear capacity was 10.8 GWe and wind capacity reached 31 GWe. Meanwhile, investment in electricity dropped 8.5% to CNY 705 billion ($107 billion) for the year. Capacity growth is expected to slow, reaching about 1600 GWe in 2020. -XT ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1177 "2011-03-30T02:16:02Z")
China heats many of its homes and cooks with compressed coal. They have a lot of coal. But they realize they can not continue along that path. They are having serious pollution problems. They are leading the world in solar research. They are spearheading wind energy. They are working hard on alternative energy.They are interested in nuclear as a stopgap. Their needs are huge. Anybody should be able to see nuclear is fraught with danger and huge costs. Especially if you include accidents as part of the cost. Japan is going to lose billions dealing with their nuke problems. They will have a radioactive scar where part of the coast used to be. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1178 "2011-03-30T02:24:24Z")
And yet they are building coal plants like mad…just like they are building every other type of power generator like mad. They get over 80% of their generated electricity from COAL…and that figure isn’t likely to change that much (though they are building a boat load of nuclear power plants and expect a 10 fold increase in nuclear energy by 2020…so that might drop that figure to 70 or even 60%). Wind? Solar? Yeah, they are developing it…right now it’s not even a percent and I seriously doubt they will get it to 10% in that same time frame…hell, the way they are growing, I doubt they will EVER get solar AND wind combined to 10% of their total energy production. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1179 "2011-03-30T02:29:56Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > China heats many of its homes and cooks with compressed coal. They have a lot of coal. But they realize they can not continue along that path. They are having serious pollution problems. Yes, that’s why they are working hard at importing cleaner and cheaper coal, and are building cleaner plants. Coal will be, in China as in the rest of the world, a very important power source for some decades yet. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2011, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389/1180 "2011-03-30T06:56:10Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Anybody should be able to see nuclear is fraught with danger and huge costs. I have cited here (or elsewhere…losing track but somewhere on this Board): - Nuclear is cheaper than all but coal - ZERO people in the US have been killed as a result of nuclear power generation Whether it was this thread or other thread I am sure I have pointed this out to you. You refuse to listen to facts or argue the merits and prefer to cling to your overt biases. You claimed before you could provide a thousand cites to debunk the cost issue I raised in another thread. You have yet to provide one such cite (well, you did provide one but I showed it was so horribly biased and skewed and essentially worthless as to be ignored completely). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389.md?page=58) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-meltdown-holy-godzilla-noooo/574389.md?page=60)