On Jan 12, 10:54*pm, |"
wrote:
On Jan 12, 8:52*pm, Brad Guth wrote:









On Jan 12, 1:24*pm, bob haller wrote:

Over 90% of Japan's reactors to be offline

This week another nuclear reactor in Japan will be shut down for
regular inspections. With this addition to the list, more than 90
percent of the reactors in the country will be out of service.

Shikoku Electric Power Company will start procedures on Friday to
reduce the power output from the No.2 reactor at the Ikata nuclear
power plant in Ehime Prefecture, western Japan.

The reactor will shut down on Saturday for a 3-month inspection.

When it shuts down, 49 of the country's 54 reactors will be out of
service.

Stress tests are required before the reactors can resume operations.

In addition, Ehime Prefecture and Ikata Town officials say they can't
decide whether to approve resumption of operations for the nuclear
reactors until the central government draws up new safety guidelines
that take into account the Fukushima nuclear accident.

Other local authorities are also cautious about putting nuclear
reactors in their areas back online.

All currently operating nuclear reactors in Japan are scheduled to
undergo inspection by this spring, at the latest.

If the present deadlock continues, the country could see all 54
nuclear reactors shut down.

Friday, January 13, 2012 02:04 +0900 (JST

They should plan on paying at least $1/kwhr, and choking pollution for
the next decade.

What could possibly go wrong with LNG supertankers in several harbors
at any one time?

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

If you think some sort of nuclear power is relatively safe, then I
suspect
LNG might handled relatively safely. Of course, the excution will
likely
be flawed. So some great yellow flash in the night will a possible.
And an earthquake could be the trigger. Imagine the results of
a wave driven by quake effects on a supertanker in harbor.

I do think they could do better than a dollar per KW.
Nonetheless, Japan is a nation with huge problems.

Thorium fueled reactors of the AP-1000 configuration that's greatly
simplified, are as close to failsafe as Big-Energy gets. Of course
you'd have to make do with paying not more than 5 cents per kwhr,
because it wouldn't cost one half cent per kwhr to create.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/min...-talks-to.html
http://realdoctorstu.files.wordpress...comparison.jpg
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...Nuclear-Power/
http://energyfromthorium.com/joomla/...64&It emid=63

There are thousands of such links pertaining to the positive/
constructive use of thorium instead of uranium.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”