>>From what I've read, most people who know what they're talking about
>>agree
> that another nuclear accident on the scale of Chernobyl is
> impossible.

>From what I've learned in life, so far, any experts who declare
anything "impossible" should be shunned like the plague and given an
adequately wide berth. When talking about the geographic reach of
Chernobyl type events that's a rather wide berth :-)

Chernobyl occurred because it could and because of human error. The
latter function can allow such things to happen even when they "can't"
:-(.

>> 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.

I have so far seen nothing to suggest that the waste problem has been
"solved". I see this as THE over-riding issue. If you can genuinely
hand on heart and have your children's children's children's 
children's
lives a genuine concern some day declare it solved I'd still want to
see Murphy and Darwin do a full risk analysis on it so they can show
you the many holes they'd find. Human nature is such that no
guarantees can be trusted that aren't backed up by data that can't be
falsified by their greatest opponents. And even then people get it
wrong. The mistakes of the past are always explicable in terms of how
much we now know. But there are still ALWAYS mistakes of the past.
Until we know that we cannot know we can't start to build "safe"
solutions.


> As James said a while back (and I'm paraphrasing), "just take the
> waste back
> to the mining site, and spread it thin". Nuclear waste is less
> radioactive
> in the long term, than uranium ore.

Sounds good. Not true. Doesn't work.
Some version MAY be able to be made to work.
Someday. Maybe.
You can get more waste out than starter product.
The waste products are in many cases much much much ... much worse
than the raw materials. You could (arguably) add suitably ground and
processed yellow cake to your food at say a 5% content and eat it
indefinitely and possibly not suffer too badly, apart from taste and
texture. There's any amount of things that come out of a reactor that
that is not true for. And while ""nature"" put the stuff in the ground
in a manner where it largely stays put, there really really isn't any
guarantee that anyone will give you and die for (but you may) that WE
can do the same. Solve the waste problem and I'll join the cheering
squad and the saluting line. Until then I'm wry of greedy men, human
nature and Murphy and Darwin.

>> Worse, yellowcake (raw uranium ore) is found cheaply in
>> Nigeria... another
>> Islamic country. Think about it; its $70 oil all over again

No problem. Everywhere is liable to be an Islamic country (or, at
least, that's certainly the aim) by the time it really matters :-).

But eg Australia has 'quite a lot' and I recently heard that one of
the Pacific Islands has too (hard as I find to believe that).

> This topic has been beaten to death. Unlike nuclear power, solar is
> economically unfeasible.

Sweeping statements do not by themselves a factoid make.
One could as easily say, "... unlike solar power, nuclear is
economically unfeasible."
ie *UNTIL* the "waste problem" is irrefutably solved and properly
costed nuclear power generation is operating with the jury still out.
I see no reason, alas, to have confidence that the bottom line will be
favourable EXCEPT an inexplicable rosy eyed desire that it be so. If
solar was your only choice then it could and would be made to work and
with ease. The BEST use of solar may well not look like what we see
now. It may eg be large solar farms in southern US states making
Hydrogen by any of a range of means. It might be the once mooted solar
power  satellites (but probably not).

Would YOU trust a man who is trying to sell you something that was
felt to have such an unknown and potentially high level of risk that
the industry applied to the government for a waiver from legal
responsibility - and the government complied? Would you trust an
industry full of them? You would !!!? "Hey Jack, I may have found a
site for our new plant ... ". If you are unaware of the legal status
of risks from the US nuclear power industry you may find it
enlightening to check it out.

I believe that solar AIR thermal systems have the possibility of
offering solar heating on a per household basis at a far far more cost
effective basis than current water based systems. During our least
sunny winter month the roof of my (larger than many) house receives
about 400 kWh of solar insolation. Per day! If one could capture and
properly utilise 25% of that = 50 kWh it would remove the need for any
external heat for the home. In summer the input rises to about 1500
kWH/day = about $150 of heating at current rates. Present water solar
systems are generally heavy and of limited area. A "big" home system
may be 6 m^2. Half my roof is 90 m^2 - 15 x larger. If we can
accommodate that scale of capture then acceptable efficiency can be
rather lower and new utilisation tricks can be learned.

In winter at say 50 kWh thermal available a 10% efficient Stirling
Engine would provide a useful 5 kWH/day - and the thermal energy would
still be available for use. Over a 10 year (cough) lifetime that's
about $2,500 worth of electricity at domestic rates. That's NOT enough
electricity to run an average home's non thermal and non lighting
needs, and certainly not enough for mine! :-). But the thermal input
would put  massive dent in mains power requirements.

>>> 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.

Standard politics, despite its many many many evils, also helps make
"the market" a decent citizen in such heavily skewed situations. The
invisible hand, market forces, what the market will bear, supply an
demand and all their fellow travellers may be all very well (and may
not) when all the players are on hand to attempt to level the playing
field according to their own measures of levelness. BUT when many of
the invisible hands belong to those who have not been born, and will
not be, if at all, for another 100, 1000, 10000 and even 100000 years,
then it needs someone to stand up for them apart from those with
vested interests or who are just so bright eyed and bushy tailed over
what can be achieved now that they epitomise Mr Butlers famous
"frankly my dear, I don't give a damn". If people (or any other
beings) had been burying nuclear wastes of the sort we are talking
about now, all over the planet 1,000 or 10,000 years ago then our
attitudes to them would be 'rather different'.

I'm loosely involved with a group of people interested in buying a
(very) isolated former US chemical weapons and nuclear waste dump
which has also been blessed with one or more 'broken arrow's. (US
territory but not in any US state :-) ). This is liable to prove an
interesting exercise in long term management and ongoing remediation.
It will be interesting to see what responsibilities the military and
government accept and which they seek to avoid when this is
transferred out of government hands. Not that the government can be
relied on for this - they lack visible hands as well.

> Let's make a list of technologies that are attractive to terrorists,
> shall
> we? And then work together to get them banned?
> Commercial jets and high-rise buildings would be at the top of the
> list of
> "attractive terrorist targets."

Attractive is not the issue in this case - that's a straw man. You
need to attack the right man :-).
At issue is the ability for terrorists (whatever that means) to use
something to threaten a large number of unspecified people credibly.
eg ability to destroy a hydro dam may do lots of damage but the target
is very specific and requisite remediation, prevention and costs are
reasonably knowable so the 'terror' (I dislike that word in this
context) bounds are well set. Known possession of a small amount of
Anthrax spores arguably has a wider terror prospect than threatening
to destroy the Boulder Dam.

>>> ^1   Greed, NIMBY,

So, we can build one in your BY then ? :-)

> tribalism
?

> , socialism

the word I know, but can't see how it applies especially usefully here

> (see greed ),

if you must equate socialism and greed or need to do so to make sense 
of an argument then it's liable to water down the logical level :-)

> and alpha/beta/omega pack behaviour.

Can't go wrong here.
It's the fault of the top dog, wannabee top dog, bottom do and 
presumably all the dogs in between.

>>> ^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.

"Terrorism", whatever it is, is a product of human nature. 
State/individual/whatever are just facets of the general problem. 
They're all covered in marmalade.

Which is getting off the subject (just) slightly.

If you can solve the waste problem then we'll all be free to deal with 
terrorism. Until then our children's children's children cower in 
dread at the thought of the lies which will be told to foist our 
problems onto latter generations so we can have cheap and economic 
nuclear power.

If, as Gus suggests, Socialism is "greed", presumably because it seeks 
to share "other people's" assets (whatever that may mean :-) ) with 
people who they don't belong to (whatever that may mean :-) ) THEN 
nuclear power in its present state is the ultimate expression of 
socialism, as it seeks (very successfully) to take the assets of a 
future unspecified number of generations in order that we may have 
"cheap" power now. I'm all for cheap, safe nuclear power BUT it has to 
be legitimately costed and the waste disposals issues must be 
unquestionably settled and costed. Until then it's just future theft.

As for Socialism being greed, I'm no great apologist for any of the 
'isms, whether socialism, communism, capitalism, anarchism or 
whatever. All are just expressions of human nature and all have their 
failings and necessarily blindspots to justify themselves as THE best 
answer. Those who think that their interpretations of reality and 
perspectives on what is right and just and fair, at the expense of the 
reasoning of others, are liable to be all as deluded as each other. 
The dyed in the wool unbending hard line Marxist and Capitalist are 
every bit as blind and greedy and depraved as each other. Each, of 
course, with the purest of motives. The only way out of this maze is 
appeal to an absolute standard. But that, fortunately for all, is 
another subject :-).


        Russell











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