On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 07:50 -0700, Bob Axtell wrote:
> 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"?

Well, what about the "waste" from other power generation? Coal plants
have spewed all kinds of crap into the air for a century now. LOTS of
health problems have resulted. Yet to many coal is FAR more appealing
then nuclear, despite it's huge amount of harm.

> > 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"?

Depends. How many people have had their lives cut short because of our
burning of fossil fuels over the past century? 500,000? I'd guess WAY
more.

> > ( 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. 

Fine, but the "real costs" for other energy production has also not been
determined, so I don't see why this is a huge issue for one technology,
and a non issue for all the others.

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

That I didn't know. I have heard that Canada also has alot of uranium
ore, so for me that's a solution.

> > 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.

Very true, and I also hope solar WILL be an option one day. As it stands
now, the cost of solar is just to high to be worth it. 

As with the oil sands in Alberta, which only a few years ago weren't
worth much, the rising price of energy will allow other technologies to
break through. Unfortunately we can't wait for that to happen, we need
the energy now.

> > 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.

Terrorists have SO many targets to choose from it boggles the mind. To
use that as an excuse would mean you'd have to ban so many other things
from existing, it just doesn't fly IMHO.

I am not hugely fond of nuclear power. It has it's issues. But of all
the options today, it is the only practical choice IMHO. Burning more
and more fossil fuels is easily as bad as building more nuclear power
IMHO. And solar is just too expensive. Wind is a WONDERFUL choice, but
it just doesn't work everywhere, and worse it's not a constant source of
power.

TTYL

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