Gus S Calabrese wrote:
> Nuclear power is a practical technology at this point. Politics is  
> the only thing that
> limits it.   Two issues to be settled.  Where to put the plants and  
> where to put the waste.
>   
I'm disappointed, Gus. It doesn't worry you that after 60 years of 
trying, the waste problem
still hasn't been "solved"?

> If one looks at the figures dispassionately, nuclear plants have  
> operated safely in most
> locations.  They do cause deaths and the cost vs benefit ratios are  
> acceptable.
>   
In order to render Chernobyl safe, more than 500,000 men risked 
sterility and worse in order
to pour a concrete coffin  around the radioactive  plant. Do you really 
think that kind of
cost is "acceptable"?
> ( The above paragraph will make sense to those who realize that every  
> activity has costs /
> benefits and that most c/b can be quantized ... including the cost of  
> a human life or the cost of
> a human man-year of life. )
>   
I disagree. The benefits of nuclear (if there are any) do not outweigh 
the true cost. Because
waste has not been solved for plants already in operation, the true 
"costs" have not yet been
determined. Worse, yellowcake (raw uranium ore) is found cheaply in 
Nigeria... another
Islamic country. Think about it; its $70 oil all over again

> Output of nuclear plants can be in the form of electricity or  
> hydrogen.  I expect in the future that
> the ratio of power distribution will be about 50/50.   Hydrogen is  
> portable and pipeable. <----new word
> Electrical energy is portable and can be sent long distances via  
> transmission lines.
>   
Agree. But the source should be solar energy, not nuclear. Nuclear 
needlessly adds to the
global heat burden, solar does not... the sun will shine regardless. No, 
I DON'T mean PV,
I mean brute solar concentration. Its a nuclear plant without nuclear 
fuel. Childs' play.
> It is all pretty simple if standard politics^1 disappeared.  Sadly,  
> therein lies the rub.
> Terrorism issues^2 are no different for nuclear than for other  
> technologies.
>   
But a nuclear plant is more attractive as a terrorist target because of 
the radioactivity involved.
>
> ^1   Greed, NIMBY, tribalism, socialism (see greed ), and alpha/beta/ 
> omega pack behaviour.
> ^2   Terrorists are created by politics.  See ^1.  If state sponsored  
> terrorism went away so would
> small group terrorism go away.  Sigh !   Might as well wish for a  
> marmalade moon.
>   
A marmalade moon sounds pretty good to me. I'll set up a website...

You were just kidding, right, Gus? This is a joke to get me going, isn't it?

--Bob

>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> AGSC  Augustus Gustavius Salvatore Calabrese
> 4337 Raleigh Street
> Denver, CO
> 720 222 1309     303 908 7716 cell
> adding " spam2006 " bypasses my spam blocker.  Please place in the  
> text or at the END of the subject line.
> ( i am hard to reach by phone )
> All ideas, text, drawings and audio , that are originated by me,  and  
> included with this signature text are to be deemed to be released to  
> the public domain as of the date of this communication .  AGSC
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>   

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist