James, sorry. Nuclear is NOT our best hope. Hear me out. You are a brilliant guy, you'll see why. James Newtons Massmind wrote: >> Chernobyl tragedy - April 26, 1986 - 20 years ago today... >> Has it been that long? >> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/europe/2006/chernobyl/default.stm >> >> -- Mark >> >> > > And the grass is still growing around the site, the deer come and graze, and > have babies, the trees are growing... The local villagers are (now) dying at > normal rates. > Yes. Thank goodness some technicians were able to bury the lot under layer after layer of concrete so that the emissions are now acceptable. But the PROBLEM is still there, it never went away. There will have to be a sign on the top of the Chernobyl rubble-pile stating "do not disturb for 10K years". Anybody honestly think that is realistic? > Yes, thousands died. Between 4 and 90 thousand depending on who you listen > to. And if we build more plants, even though they would undoubtedly be safer > than the horrible design of Chernobyl, it is entirely possible that another > failure could happen and thousands more could die. But it is a drop in the > bucked compared to the millions who have died as a result of our use of > fossil fuels. Look at the number of deaths due to pollution from oil and > coal burning. Think about global warming (unless you are still one of the > nut cases that deny it exists). New Orleans alone. Add in the thousands who > have died in wars to protect our supply of oil. All the 9/11 deaths. All > from oil. > Global warming is caused by.. er.. WARMING... which is indirectly caused by carbon dioxide. Yes, while I can't be certain that global warming is not simply a cyclical event, excessive warming DOES cause a lot of death and destruction. And we need to fix it. > Nukes are our best hope for the future. > Nope, sorry, wrong answer. There are so many negatives to nuclear power I cannot even begin a list. But later I will list a few. > The danger of nuclear power, while certainly serious, has been massively > over stated. Perhaps by vested interests who decided that other sources of > energy would be more profitable for them? How many people have been injured > by a well designed nuke plant? Um... That would be... ZERO. Three Mile > melted down and no-one died. Same basic class of failure as what happened at > Chernobyl. If you build them right, they are much less likely to be unsafe. > On the other hand, the damage of using coal and oil is inherent in the > source (Strip mining / OPEC) and in the process of using it (burning with > air). > I never said using oil and gas is better, because when you use then, you simply add more to the carbon dioxide burden of the atmosphere. In this we agree. > The FOUNDER of Greens Peace just released a statement that he now supports > nuclear power as a more environmentally friendly source of power than coal, > oil or even hydroelectric. With age comes wisdom. > He hasn't thought it through yet. Somebody.. or a lot have somebodies.. have flimflammed him into thinking this is the only other possible thing to use. If that is wisdom, we are truly lost. > France is installing several new atomic power plants rather than depend on > OPEC. > These guys are driven by the same notion that our government has... It provides technicians and engineers that would normally be making nuclear bombs something to do between bombs.. The governments lie to their people to perpetuate an enormous folly. > I would be pleased to host one in my town or back yard assuming it would > remove the areas dependence on fossil fuels. > No you wouldn't. Not really. Think about it. > People need to pull their heads out of the emotional fog at look at these > issues with reason. > Sorry, no fog in my house. We don't allow fog here. We work in FACTS. > Spent fuel goes back in the earth where it came from and is, obviously, less > energetic than it was before. It may be breaking down faster and therefore > be more radio-active, but it will be active for a shorter period of time and > so contribute less destruction to the environment. It doesn't need to be > stored at a cost of billions. Sounds like a good idea, but its been thought of before. I wonder why they have never done it before... or will they actually do it now? Sounds pretty expensive to me....Store it at a cost of billions, or spread it around at the cost of billions. Nuke plants in operation since 1950 still store their offal in tanks under the plants. So the REAL costs of operating nuke plants hasn't even begun, has it? > It needs to be chopped up and spread out over > the area where it was originally mined. Or dropped in the ocean. For pete > sake, its radiation, we get it from the sun, from the earth, from the water, > everywhere. It just isn't that big a deal. Manage it, deal with it, get over > it. > No, uranium 235 does NOT occur naturally, and must be intensely refined by centrifuge and/or filtering. No, more misconceptions. This energy was trapped when the original star-stuff was created after the "Big Bang". When we tinker with it and generate electricity, we release enormous amounts of heat. And more heat we DO NOT need. Remember the one about global warming? > Or keep breathing poisoned air and deal with the storms, rising oceans, and > OPEC. > Again, a short list of serious problems with nuclear power generation: 1. The fuel is costly to acquire and concentrate enough to be made useable. Sources of yellow cake are becoming harder and harder (Do ya think maybe that "harder to find" = higher costs?) to locate. The best source now is Nigeria... an ISLAMIC country. Sounds like costly oil all over again, doesn't it? We just CAN'T catch a break, can we? 2. Despite a lot of interesting ideas, storing spent fuel long enough for it to be rendered inert still seems to be insolvable. Hasn't been solved in 60 years. well, maybe we will get lucky somehow. 3. Nuclear power plants are costly to operate and costly to maintain. The pressure vessels become damaged (made brittle) by the radiation and must be periodically replaced... and the old ones cut up and buried. Now, I have rained on your parade. I do so because there is a viable alternative. I (and many others) have had the solution since I was a kid. Solar energy. Not with photovoltaics; they presently use up more energy to make than they generate. No, just raw solar heat energy. Imagine a 10 square mile area of the Arizona desert - probably Indian land, since there is so much unused. Rainfall here is less than 5 inches a year, and the sun shines with incredible intensity here all year long. Concentrate sunlight with simple parabolic mirrors made of stainless steel, and heat water into steam, and spin turbines. Just like a nuke plant, but no nuclear material, no containment vessel, no spent fuel. Disadvantages? Well, the sun goes down every day, but there is a simple solution for that too. Here's MY list: 1. We have calculated that a solar plant that can capture 5 square miles of desert sunlight will generate enough electricity to meet the electrical needs of the USA even as the needs expand for the next 50 years. 2. Excessive capacity will be used to breakdown water into oxygen and hydrogen, which will be first stored to generate heat for running some turbines at night, providing the grid with energy during the night. Excess hydrogen will be shipped to special "gas stations" that will provide fuel for the thing that will power cars. AND this hydrogen will be CHEAP. The burning of hydrogen and oxygen produces ONLY water, NO carbon dioxide. 3. No extra heat is created when using solar energy, as it would have fallen on the desert anyway. Its OUR sunlight, not imported from Saudi Arabia. 4. There is absolutely NOTHING about solar energy used in this way that is complex or leading edge. Nothing tricky in any way, except MAYBE making sure the mirrors don't accidentally point toward an airplane flying over... No, instead of doing it right, the American public is being "forced" to use nuclear power because "its our best hope". I sure hope people wise up. This isn't being pushed much because it is just too simple for words... My philosophy of life is that I must NOT leave a big mess for my children to forced to deal with. And nuclear power is about the biggest mess POSSIBLE. Wow, I am getting too old for this... --Bob > --- > James. > > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist