[Closed] The Long Shadow of Chernobyl

Given that the vast majority of links posted to demonstrate the dangers of nuclear power come from anti-nuclear websites, I think it's fair game that statistics on the dangers of other forms of generation come from "anti" propaganda websites too.

Put your hand in water at -30°C or even cold then Rainmaker. Still harmless?

How about we compare the effects of ionising radiation with soemthing really comparable, such as ioninsing radiation. Hot or cold water don't shoot bits off the DNA in your cells.

Put your hand in water at -30°C or even cold then Rainmaker

You could try, bit it may be a little difficult 🙄

[img] [/img]

Smuggest. Jpeg. Ever.

Argh!

Edukator - It was an analogy to describe LNT, not a real life experiment.

If you look at the links there are examples of comparing ionizing radiation with ionizing radiation from published peer reviewed studies by scientists. I think the Reference page on the first website has a list a few more.

I have always found it strange that people don't want to look at the possibility people are actually going to be alright at Fukushima and instead want to continually perpetuate the story of an imminent blood bath as if rubbing their hands together waiting for people to start dropping dead. Not saying this is you Edukator (I don't know you) but I do know a couple of people who try to seek links they can connect to Fukushima. Basically their logic is if anyone sneezes or gets a nose bleed 400km from Fukushima... its radiation!!

So Fukushima didn't happen? the contents of four reactors can be vented into the environment and verything will be hunky-dory?

So Fukushima didn't happen? the contents of four reactors can be vented into the environment and verything will be hunky-dory?

Compared to the damage several millions of tons of seawater at about 10 C did to the surrounding area, I'd suggest that the nuclear aspect itself (as of yet, no one has been killed by radiation from it I think) was indeed a fairly minor event, yes.

No one has been killed by radiation YET...

"A fairly minor event, yes". Nuclear denial taken to a whole new level...

Nuclear denial taken to a whole new level...

No, I think you'll find it's called a sense of proportion.

Number of people killed by a bit of water moving: 14,308 drowned
Number of people killed by devastating multiple nuclear meltdowns: 0

So Fukushima didn't happen? the contents of four reactors can be vented into the environment and verything will be hunky-dory?

no one will say this was a good thing however it did change my view

there are two views
!. It leaked nukes are bad get rid of them all it as a disaster.
2. It was not designed to cope with this sort of event /natural disater and yet it was till controlled [ in the way say a fire would be] did not get out of hand and no one died and it dod not melt down. See how safe they really are that even this unpanned natural disaster did not lead to serious nuclear event

Take your pick as the facts support either view

and in the year since the earthquake/tsunami/meltdown-or-not, 30,000 europeans have been killed in car crashes.

nuclear power isn't completely safe, it's just much less dangerous than lots of other things we don't seem to worry about.

...like air pollution from unclean energy sources.

Holy isotopes Batman!

Can't believe this is still going, I only posted a link to some nice photos!

Anyway, to summarise, Nuclear is a clean dirty (non) polluting method of power generation that kills millions of people, but is nicely balanced out with murderous fluffy green wind turbines that kill more people and other stuff!

Yes that probably does just about sum all the important to know stuff.

Nuclear power stations were an amusing but pointless experiment, and the world has moved on.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article33807.html

Renewables also recieve massive subsidies from the government.

Germany was abandoning nuclear power before Fukushima, they just brought it forward (and have been importing nuclear power from France and Czech Republic) so it is no big drawback or surprise to the nuclear industry. Nice to see Germany building 12 new coal plants to replace them which produce 100 times more radiation and pollutants than nuclear. The other countries such as Switzerland and Italy were small players who were looking to exit nuclear anyway (even though they are Hydro and the Banqiao Hydro dam disaster in 1975 killed over 100,000 people). China and India seem to have big plans for nuclear power.

Germany is the leader in renewables technology but are now cutting support and subsidies for solar power for the next 5 years because it is too expensive. The customer will see this as a increase in their electricity bill. Wind Turbines in Germany used to have an average load factor of 30%-40% but it is now only 18% simply because they locate the turbines in the prime windy areas first and then are forced to install them in less desirable places. I am not an anti-renewables person, just don't think they are the answer without nuclear power.

The problem with posting links is there's always another one out there that contradicts the other 🙂

http://www.atasteofred.com/index/2012/03/asia%E2%80%99s-thirst-for-power-makes-nuclear-future-bright/
http://etfdailynews.com/2012/03/22/why-uranium-stocks-are-poised-to-profit-from-a-nuclear-renaissance-ura-ccj-uec-dnn-uuu-urz-urre/
lungusa.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/coal-fired-plant-hazards.pdf

Nuclear power stations were an amusing but pointless experiment, and the world has moved on.

Really????

Would you explain why, despite the best efforts of renewables, the majority of the UK's (and even the world's) electricity is still fossil-based? I think you'll find that's somewhat older tech than splitting (or hopefully in some distant future) fusing atoms.

But, I suppose unlike TJ, you don't waste pages demonstrating how blinkered you are when a few lines will do it...

France is also 75%-80% nuclear powered and has the cheapest electricity in Europe and Germany is the leader in renewables and has the second most expensive.

There is also thorium reactors which can't melt down and are safe from earthquake, tsunami and human error and will cost something like 80% less than uranium fuel based reactors. India is building a thorium reactor that should be running by the end of the decade.

Then you have Small Module Reactors (SMR's) which are compact stand-alone units, and can be built when the need arise. If you have a small town with a population of 100,000 people, then when it rises to 150,000 you simply add another SMR to meet rising demand. A 25-megawatt SMR could supply electricity for 20,000 homes. SMR's can be located underground for security and they would produce significantly less waste.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/01/india-thorium-nuclear-plant
http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_costs/thorium_costs.php

But the unanswered question is, what do you do with the inevitable waste?

can we not just pump it into the atmosphere like we do with fossil fuels? I mean what harm has CO2 done to us eh?

I think everyone agrees that storage is a headache/problem/not perfectly answered and that storage methods are not as brilliant as they could be.

Storage of fossil fules emissions is a far mor epressing problem right now and for the future

raising the planets temperature will do more harm

RWE and E.On halt plans to develop UK nuclear plants

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17546420

Veeery interesting.

Or more good...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Society

Thorium produces less waste and also is pretty much impossible to make nuclear weapons from which also takes away the proliferation issue.

Annual waste from one reactor will fit into a pickup truck and the fuel from 50 years of reactor operation could fit in a single football field, amounting to 77,000 tons (1,540 tons per year). We discard 179,000 tons of batteries per year in the United States and they contain toxic heavy metals. To improve the efficiency of renewable energies it is proposed that huge batteries be used to store the energy, just how much waste is this going to produce compared to nuclear power? As I said before I'm not anti-renewables but don't believe anything wears halos.

Another perspective is that the amount of waste produced by nuclear power is 2 pounds for each persons lifetime electricity needs (fits into a coke can) compared to 68 tonnes of coal put into the atmosphere per person. If all electricity was generated by nuclear power, every American would generate a weight equivalent to 7 quarters of waste per year. Coal fired plants also expose the population to around 100 times more radioactive by-products than nuclear power plants do in their entire lifecycle.

People say future generations will be furious with us if we leave nuclear waste for them to clean up. I think future generations will be more furious with us if we continue using fossil fuels that produce waste that can't be contained adequately and potentially end life on earth as we know it. Fossil fuels will be a far bigger problem for future generations than nuclear power ever will be.

But the unanswered question is, what do you do with the inevitable waste?

This thread's about 13 pages long now. I suggest you read some of it instead of attempting a poor impersonation of TJ in his absence.

If we never compare technologies to what existed in the pre-industrial revolution world, we will always play the game of which is 'least bad'.

Remember we have lived for millenia on just current solar income. Coal, gas, fission...they are all powerful, exciting methods that give the illusion of abundance, but they are all finite. Fun while they last.

Germany was abandoning nuclear power before Fukushima, they just brought it forward (and have been importing nuclear power from France and Czech Republic) so it is no big drawback or surprise to the nuclear industry. Nice to see Germany building 12 new coal plants to replace them which produce 100 times more radiation and pollutants than nuclear.

http://mrws.decc.gov.uk/en/mrws/cms/Waste/UK_radioactive/UK_radioactive.aspx

NDA.GOV.UK "http://www.nda.gov.uk/ukinventory/documents/Reports/upload/2010-UK-Radioactive-Waste-Inventory-Summary-of-the-2010-Inventory.pdf"

http://www.british-energy.com/documents/Radioactive_Waste.pdf

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-Bon_voyage_to_Berkeley_boilers-2003127.html

But without trawling through all the links Macavity has posted, how many people die from nuclear power generation per GWatt, compated with gas powered stations, coal powered stations, wind etc?

From what I can see it's zero for nukes vs some for all the others.

So why are you arguing that nukes are dangerous?

without trawling through all the links Macavity has posted

Are you shy?

boriselbrus - There were approximately 56 deaths from Chernobyl and uranium mining has caused a few deaths back in the 1950/60's. Nuclear still has the lowest death rates compared to other kinds of energy generation including wind which I didn't believe until you read some of the articles out there regarding the turbines.

I honestly don't know why people here and elsewhere are fixated on nuclear and seem too scared to protest coal which kills hundreds of thousands of people a year. I am guessing no one can stand up and defend coal so they have no one to argue with? Or maybe since coal power generates over 70% of the world energy it is too late to do anything about it and they should have been focused on that decades ago instead of nuclear, "you snooze you lose" as they say.

Regarding waste:
"About 2 billion years ago, at Oklo in south-eastern Gabon nuclear chain reactions just like those which we produce in reactors occurred spontaneously in several deposits of natural uranium mineral.

For over a million years, about fifteen natural nuclear reactors operated with power levels of up to 100 kiloWatts. None of the fission products remain radioactive today – they have completely decayed. However, one finds their stable (non-radioactive) descendents in their place. The nuclear waste which we produce now is carefully confined, which was certainly not the case at Oklo.

Yet after two billion years we find that the plutonium and the fission products, left to their own, have not migrated more than a few meters, perhaps three meters at most. That "waste" remains in the sedimentary rocks, in or near each natural reactor, without even being dispersed or carried away by the ground water which was necessarily present as the moderator to produce the chain reaction. Most of the fission products form solid compounds and they are not at all mobile."

I honestly don't know why people here and elsewhere are fixated on nuclear

The risk of a nuclear disaster may be small however the consequences are rather large- it is why they are genrally place din remote places and not in the middle of towns
We could debate the relevant risks but i imagine everyone can see it.

Junkyard - I envy your clear head and understanding of the populace 🙂

Maybe your right but there is a second part to the sentance which relates to the first which was my main point "...and seem too scared to protest coal which kills hundreds of thousands of people a year."

You say "...the consequences are rather large". Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima (so called near "nuclear appocolypses") are your consequences? Only 56 died in these disasters which is probably the daily death total of coal, but I suppose the deaths caused by coal aren't considered "accidents", just routine.

I envy your clear head and understanding of the populace

its like flying, many fear this, though you are more likely to die in the car on the way there.
However you are much more likely to survie a car crash than a plane crash.
It is about risk you cannot see or assess easily hence the diveregnce on risk views.its not like you are asked to choose to fight the squirrel or the tiger now is it 😉

So, who saw the debate on Nuclear / Gas / Renewables on Newsnight last night? It was almost like the debate on here!

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima (so called near "nuclear appocolypses") are your consequences

Rainmaker - far more than that died from these accidents - tens of thousands is a a more reasonable figure. some claim millions. Sources quoted earlier

Zokes - when are you going to make meaningful answer to " what are you going to do with the waste?" you did come close to admitting there is no answer at one point. Don't say yo have answered unless you actiaulay copy and paste your[i] meaningful[/i] answer

One issue about the risk is the longevity of the risks here tens of thousands of years this stuff remains toxic for

I shall leave you pro nuclear evangelists to your ridiculous. unscientific, illogical position. Some of the pro nuclear nonsense espoused on here by folk who really should know better is astounding

"radiation is safe, I know this because my bosses gave me a safe limit"

"Radiation risk is the same as hot water"

Rainmaker - far more than that died from these accidents - tens of thousands is a a more reasonable figure. some claim millions. Sources quoted earlier

Zokes - when are you going to make meaningful answer to " what are you going to do with the waste?" you did come close to admitting there is no answer at one point. Don't say yo have answered unless you actiaulay copy and paste your meaningful answer

When are you going to give us a viable alternative that isn't subsidised against the environment i.e. fossil-based?

And if you're so hell bent on the fact that no amount of radiation is safe, I would strongly suggest that coal-based generation should be higher up your hit-list than nuclear. But again, you've been told this, you choose to ignore it. For an apparently intelligent man, you do seem to exhibit an astounding level of wilful ignorance on this topic 🙄

Rainmaker - far more than that died from these accidents - tens of thousands is a a more reasonable figure. some claim millions. [u]Sources quoted earlier[/u]

Yeah, right 🙄

Interestingly (debatable) LOL the relationship between half life and the decay constant mean that substances that decay over thousands (or more years) are in fact less radioactive than than fast decaying materials. Give me a minute, I'll dig out the equations if you want.

So TJ if you're worried about nuclear waste, the longer it takes to decay the better...

(sara Mrs emsz) 😀

Oh God, he's back...

Anyway TJ, the answer is back there on the thread. You vitrify it and bury it in a geologically stable area.

You might not like that answer, but that was the answer given, and that is what is done.

I was resisting, but since the great unshakeable opinion is back...

I shall leave you [s]pro[/s] anti nuclear evangelists to your ridiculous. unscientific, illogical position

FTFY

TJ - The comparison of hot water was an analogy for the LNT model and nothing more, don't try making into something that it wasn't (unless you are referring to something else). You're taking a lot of things out of context.

I don't remember reading the sources of total killed at Chernobyl on this thread (it is very long now) but I can guess it was the New York Academy of Sciences report?

If so then the New York Academy of Sciences report was initiated and effectively edited by Greenpeace. Chernobyl is probably the most investigated industrial accident in history but the NYAS report dismisses all other reports from the Red Cross, IAEA, UNSCEAR, and the World Health Organisation, claiming they are in a conspiracy with the nuclear industry but provide no supporting evidence.

Douglas Braaten, the Director and Executive Editor (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences), stated “In no sense did Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences or the New York Academy of Sciences commission this work; nor by its publication do we intend to independently validate the claims made in the translation or in the original publications cited in the work. The translated volume has not been peer-reviewed by the New York Academy of Sciences, or by anyone else.”

And there is a solution for the small amount of nuclear waste produced which is geological disposal (see Gabon in Africa). What is going to happen to the expired batteries which will be required to make renewable feasible and as pointed out will most likely be much more than nuclear waste? Unlike coal, nuclear provides tiny amounts of waste for the power it generates and can be contained. Every new reactor reduces the waste produced.

"A traveling wave reactor is an ingenious idea that would use depleted uranium as fuel. It is designed by a firm called TerraPower, in Seattle and has the financial backing from Bill Gates of Microsoft.

Scientists have a design for a reactor that needs only a small amount of enriched fuel. The core in a traveling-wave reactor converts nonfissile material into the fuel it needs. These reactors could possibly run for 200 years without refueling and will run on nuclear waste."

You're taking a lot of things out of context.

This is his raison detre...

I think we should now all use the jpeg I borrowed the other day when attempting a discussion with TJ on this topic. It would save an awful lot of bother:

[img] [/img]
/p>

Else there's always

TandemJeremy - Member

TandemJeremy said something stupid.

😉

http://www.straight.com/article-648391/vancouver/former-energyindustry-executive-arnie-gunderson-blows-whistle-nuclear-power

Tfft, this thread was a bit low on dodgy links with no context or narrative.

Y'see, Macavity does have some advantages over TJ - at least he realises he has nothing intelligent to say and leaves us with a link that's pretty easy to ignore.

I remember reading an article regarding terrorists using dirty bombs but the result and intent wouldn't be massive deaths but massive chaos.

The example was given of an incident that occurred in 1987 in Goiania, Brazil. Scavengers pried open a canister from a discarded radiation therapy machine that contained powdered cesium-137, a hard gamma emitter. It glowed in the dark. They took it home and people played with it, rubbed iton their bodies, ate sandwiches with the powder on their hands and shared the blue, luminous substance with others.

It caused 4 deaths and contaminated 250 other people who were treated with a drug that reduces the internal dose of cesium. The amount of people that showed up to hospital because of panic : 130,000.

I remember it also said that if the goal of terrorists was to cause mass death they wouldn't use nuclear by-products, it is easier, cheaper and more efficient to go to the local hardware store and you can get all you need.

Sorry, didn't mean to change the subject but since it is almost the same thing 🙂

Mass death is bloody hard - if terrorists could achieve it, they probably wouldn't be terrorists to start th - theyd fight conventional wars.

[b][u]FAO Edukator[/u][/b]

Re: our discussion about energy use and efficiency, sacking of lectures, etc., see the following examples in the literature:

Lorna A. Greening, David L. Greene, Carmen Difiglio, [b]Energy efficiency and consumption — the rebound effect — a survey[/b], Energy Policy, Volume 28, Issues 6–7, June 2000, Pages 389-401, ISSN 0301-4215, 10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5.
( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421500000215)
Keywords: Energy; Conservation; Rebound; Energy; demand

"[i]Potential carbon reductions resulting from technological improvements in the consumption of energy may be reduced by the “rebound” effect (Wigley, 1997). The “take-back” or “rebound” effect refers to an increase in the supply of energy services with a corresponding decrease in the effective price, the size of which depends upon the underlying cost structure. This in turn may result in an increase in demand in response to these price decreases. [b]Therefore, increased demand for the service, without an offsetting increase in fuel price, can erode technological efficiency gains[/b]. Although this premise is undeniably rooted in neoclassical economic theory, the real controversy lies in the identification of sources and size of the rebound. Depending on the definition used for the rebound, the size of this effect can be either insignificant or can result in an increase in fuel consumption (Grubb et al., 1995; Grubb, 1996; [Brookes, 1990], [Brookes, 1992] and [Brookes, 1993]).[/i]

Steve Sorrell, John Dimitropoulos, [b]The rebound effect: Microeconomic definitions, limitations and extensions[/b], Ecological Economics, Volume 65, Issue 3, 15 April 2008, Pages 636-649, ISSN 0921-8009, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.013.
( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907004405)
Keywords: Rebound effect; Energy efficiency; Energy demand

"[i]Numerous empirical studies, principally from the US, suggest that these rebound effects are real and can be significant (Greening et al., 2000). However, while their basic mechanisms are widely accepted, their magnitude and importance are disputed. [b]Some analysts argue that rebound effects are of minor importance for most energy services (Schipper and Grubb, 2000), while others argue that the economy-wide effects can be sufficiently important to completely offset the energy savings from improved energy efficiency[/b] ( [Brookes, 1990] and [Saunders, 1992]). The policy implication is that non-price regulations to improve energy efficiency may neither reduce energy demand nor help to mitigate climate change.[/i]"

I made the mistake of asserting that energy efficiency does not reduce consumption, when I should have said that energy efficiency MAY not reduce consumption.

Y'see, Macavity does have some advantages over TJ - at least he realises he has nothing intelligent to say and leaves us with a link that's pretty easy to ignore.

Herr zokes again proving what a c@ck he is.

Pigface said something stupid.

🙄

I've just read my meters for March, Kit:

Consumption: 164W

Production: 381W

We're not on gas and used a few sticks of wood as it was a mild month.

Since I bought the house lighting the kitchen has gone from 9 X 40W = 360W to 36W. Lighting the bathroom from 2 X 100W spots + 3 x 40W to 3X 4W LEDs + 36W. The new oven consumes 2200W, the old one 3500W. The flat screen TV significantly less than the cathode ray. The washing machine uses solar-heated hot water so the only electrical consumtion is an efficient motor.

If you apply all the energy savin new technology to a house the savings are enormous and far outweigh any gagets added in the last ten years (I'm limiting my analysis to Europe as taken globaaly the rise in population is eleiminating the benefit of any savings). Germany per capita elergy use is decreasing and has been for years - thanks to energy saving measures outstripping the consumption of new gadgets.

when are you going to make meaningful answer to " what are you going to do with the waste?"

I shall leave you pro nuclear evangelists to your ridiculous. unscientific, illogical position. Some of the pro nuclear nonsense espoused on here by folk who really should know better is astounding

Jesus wept TJ and the muse of knowledge shudders

The god of hyperbole and pig headed ill placed arrogance cheers hallelujah and offers you a thousand blessings

There is no pro nuke fanatic as for scientifc and illogical you are a nurse arguing with someone who works in this area...have a think about this.

radiation is safe, I know this because my bosses gave me a safe limit"

"Radiation risk is the same as hot water"

You're lousy at insult, JY.

Herr zokes I am in your league now then.

I was not trying to insult him.
I dont understand why he uses hyperbole like that then claims to be the logical scientific one...it is like me moaning at people's typos and saying I type well.

Good effort on your energy stuff...you have shamed me into action for my own house. I was very good when I lived an alternative lifestyle in woods etc and really quite rubbish now.

Just as it all went silent, along comes a fire at a Nuke site in France

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17630358

Interesting stat on that link is that France gets 75% of it's electricity from nuclear generation. I'm sure the fire (it's out, don't panic!) and the statistic will create some sort of reaction

Nothing to worry about, if it goes bang the radioactive cloud will be blown safely out to sea. 😉

I'm sure the fire (it's out, don't panic!) and the statistic will create some sort of reaction

Well I can't see it doing Melenchon any harm as he's being backed by the Greens. So it's probably the last thing Hollande needed as he's seen support for Melenchon double in the last couple of weeks or so. Obviously Hollande will beat Melenchon but he might have make even more concessions to avoid humiliation. He best brush up his Green credentials.

As I'll be away on vote day I've given my procuration to a lady on Bayrou's campaign team; I'm pretty sure he'll get my vote. Madame has my procuration for the second round so that's two anti-Hollande votes..

Madame has my procuration for the second round so that's two anti-Hollande votes..

Are you sure a proxy vote passed to Bayrou's campaign team will automatically lead to an anti-Hollande vote in the second round ? Likely I know, but apparently Sarkozy has not yet definitely secured Bayrou support for the second round :

[i]A well-placed source argued to me a few days ago that the election winner will depend on Bayrou. His case went like this:

"On the evening of the first round, if Bayrou thinks Sarkozy will win, he’ll demand a high price. But if Bayrou thinks that Sarkozy will lose, he’ll swing behind Hollande and Sarkozy will indeed lose".[/i]

[url= http://www.economist.com/blogs/elysee/2012/03/fran%C3%A7ois-bayrou ]The disappearing third man[/url]

By "Madame" I mean my wife and she has an allergic reaction to Hollande. Strange that [url= http://www.lepoint.fr/politique/election-presidentielle-2012/barometre-ipsos-le-point-bayrou-toujours-plus-populaire-12-03-2012-1440479_324.php ]the most popular candidate never scores well in the elections.[/url] Bayrou is regarded as honest, trust worthy and with the best programme for the most people, and he'll get nowhere as usual.

Ah, right, I'd assumed that Madame was the "lady on Bayrou's campaign team".

Strange that the most popular candidate never scores well in the elections

Yup. Could it be because of this : [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/french-election-blog-2012/2012/apr/03/francois-bayrou-stuck-middle-boring ]François Bayrou: stuck in the middle and mind-blowingly boring[/url] ?

[i]"Indecisive, characterless, insipid, monotonous, platitudinous, unexciting – these are just some of the qualities that will ensure the centrist candidate François Bayrou does not break through … again"[/i]

On th eother hand you could say that elections are like STW political threads, highly polarised. The voices of reason are drowned by the extremes insulting and yelling at each other.

Yeah, I suppose so - I hadn't really thought about it, but I guess you could be right.

I mean about STW political threads being highly polarised and the voices of reason being drowned by the extremists insulting and yelling at each other.

Doesn't bother me though - I just let them get on with it.

😀

where the reactor was shut down after the alarm was raised at 12:20 (11:20 GMT).

Now then, what's that problem that's happening in the North Sea? Is it a nuclear rig that's leaking flammable and polluting gas? Nah, didn't think so....

I think Kraftwerk have something to say on the matter:

Big article in todays newspaper here in Italy (Il Giornale). Their solar power costs €70 billion and produces the same electricity as €2 billion worth of nuclear.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/eo20120419a1.html