[Rhodes22-list] Nuclear Energy

Sat Feb 19 12:07:58 EST 2005

Brad,

Your answer begs the question.  Nuclear Power Plants are not 
"off-the-shelf" technology.  We don't know what to do with the wastes.  
I'm sure you've noticed that the Bush administration has decided since 
the last time we discussed this issue on the list, that Yucca Mountain 
costs too much, and that we don't really need this facility.  Meanwhile, 
the Nuclear Power Industry has decided that it is perfectly safe enough 
to continue storing the wastes right where they are.

So much for 50% of the arguments put forward in support of nuclear waste 
disposal last year.

The last time I checked, the United States was the Saudi Arabia of 
coal.  We were said to have a 500 year supply.  It would seem simpler to 
reduce emissions from coal fired plants, than to make nuclear wastes 
safe.  Then coal fired plants would be "off-the-shelf" technology.  We 
could build coal fired plants all over the world, and export our coal. 

Hydro-electric is also "off-the-shelf" technology.

The core of this planet is a molten cauldron of stored energy.

We know how to capture and covert energy from sunlight, from wind, from 
sunflowers, and from cow farts.

But maybe those aren't the right answers either.  The point is that 
developing nuclear energy will inevitably develop more nuclear weapons, 
and produce more nuclear waste, and we will never be able to undo the 
damage we have done.  If we can see that so clearly, and virtually 
everyone agrees on these points, we should do all we can to stop it by 
developing other technologies--we should not proceed in the name of 
expediency or short term profit.

Bill

brad haslett wrote:

>Bill, 
>
>Your concerns about the nuclear "genie" are precisely
>those of the Los Alamos scientists.  An excellent book
>on the subject is "Hiroshima in America: A Half
>Century of Denial" by Lifton and Mitchell. For some
>very recent perspective read;
>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allison17feb17,0,2948408,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
>Bill,
>
>
>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p09s01-coop.html
>
>http://wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html
>
>http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_13_05_SC.html
>
>The problem with "putting it back in the bottle" is
>that a number of responsible countries would have to
>give up their primary power supply.  France, for
>example, gets 70% of their electricity from nukes.  As
>Roger pointed out, Iran doesn't need nukes.  This
>isn't a matter of "fairness", it's a matter of
>responsibility.  A nuclear armed Middle East might
>have weapons pointed at each other but you can be
>assured, they would all have nukes pointed at Israel. 
>It shouldn't be allowed to develop and the recent sale
>of bunker busting bombs to Israel was most likely
>designed to prevent such a thing.
>
>The CEO of Chevron-Texaco went on record this week
>with the statement, "we are running out of cheap oil".
> While this has been predicted for over a hundred
>years, we are just now hearing the largest players in
>the industry state it.
>
>Nuclear power plants are "off-the-shelf" technology
>that we can implement right now.  And yes, some
>nations should be prevented from having them.  The
>United Nations is a morally bankrupt institution and
>can't police this issue any more than it could "oil
>for food".  How do you keep nuclear products out of
>the hands of untrustworthy nations?  That Sir, IS the
>question of the century.
>
>Brad
>
>
>
>--- Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Roger,
>>
>>Of course I wonder why they want it.
>>
>>But that's not the point.
>>
>>You and others argued for the continued development
>>of Nuclear Energy.  
>>That carries with it the development of nuclear
>>energy by other 
>>countries, as well as us--meaning that everyone will
>>figure out how to 
>>pack that energy into very small packages that can
>>be exported at will.  
>>Pakistan, a Muslim military dictatorship, has amply
>>demonstrated this 
>>capability by exporting bomb technology all over the
>>world.
>>
>>The President of the United States claims our Social
>>Security system is 
>>in crisis because it will be underfunded in 75
>>years.  If we can look 75 
>>years ahead, and plan for the future, why can't Iran
>>or any other 
>>country do the same thing?
>>
>>World problems are complex, and they are not solved
>>by simplistic 
>>thinking.  I can make a case for Nuclear Energy,
>>however any case for 
>>nuclear energy must address the fact that everyone
>>who learns that 
>>technology will inevitably also learn how to create
>>devastating weapons 
>>using the same knowledge.
>>
>>Nuclear weapons are one of the small number of
>>genies that can be put 
>>back into the bottle.  The whole world knew that
>>Iraq didn't have 
>>them--only the President of the United States
>>claimed to have better 
>>information than everyone else, justifying his
>>invasion, at a time when 
>>weapons inspectors on the ground said unequivocally
>>that Iraq did not 
>>currently possess nuclear weapons.
>>
>>Nuclear power plants can mask the presence of
>>nuclear weapons.  That's 
>>why Iran wants them.  You can't say that we should
>>switch to nuclear 
>>energy, but at the same time we should prevent
>>everyone else from doing 
>>the same thing.  Either nobody gets them, or
>>everybody gets them.
>>
>>When push comes to shove, I think I fall on the side
>>of nobody gets 
>>them.  We should work to develop other means to
>>harness energy.  While 
>>we may run out of oil, the current model of the
>>universe predicts that 
>>we will always have more energy than we can safely
>>use.  Certainly we 
>>won't have to worry about that for the next couple
>>of billion years.
>>
>>So where do you fall?  Is nuclear energy too
>>dangerous, or isn't it?  Is 
>>it OK for Iran to have nuclear power plants, or not?
>> You can't have it 
>>both ways, and people like you are the people who
>>will decide how this 
>>goes.  If you say the engineering equivalent of
>>"Damn the 
>>torpedoes--full speed ahead!" this world will be
>>awash with nuclear 
>>weapons.  If you say "We've got to do better!" you
>>and others like you 
>>can work to find energy sources that don't have the
>>dangers attendant to 
>>nuclear energy.
>>
>>In a serious discussion of the matter, I don't see
>>how you can take one 
>>position with regard to "us" and a different
>>position with regard to "them".
>>
>>Bill Effros
>>
>>
>>Roger Pihlaja wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Bill,
>>>
>>>You have to wonder why they want it.  Iran is
>>>      
>>>
>>sitting on proven reserves of
>>    
>>
>>>about 1 trillion barrels of crude oil as well as
>>>      
>>>
>>copious quantities of
>>    
>>
>>>natural gas.  The country has excellent warm water,
>>>      
>>>
>>ice-free port facilities
>>    
>>
>>>to ship their crude oil and natural gas.  They have
>>>      
>>>
>>a pretty good
>>    
>>
>>>intra-country pipeline and refinery infrastructure.
>>>      
>>>
>> They have zero reserves
>>    
>>
>>>of uranium.  At the present rate of energy
>>>      
>>>
>>production & given Iran's current
>>    
>>
>>>population, GDP, & growth rate, their proven fossil
>>>      
>>>
>>fuel reserves will
>>    
>>
>>>supply all their internal energy and export needs
>>>      
>>>
>>for the next 50-75 years,
>>    
>>
>>>even if the country gets heavily into manufacturing
>>>      
>>>
>>petrochemicals like
>>    
>>
>>>polyethylene, polypropylene, nylon, etc.  That's
>>>      
>>>
>>enough time to build and
>>    
>>
>>>use up at least 1 generation of nuclear power
>>>      
>>>
>>plants before they are even
>>    
>>
>>>necessary.
>>>
>>>Gee, do you think maybe, just maybe, Iran has an
>>>      
>>>
>>alternate agenda here?
>>    
>>
>>>Roger Pihlaja
>>>S/V Dynamic Equilibrium
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
>>>To: "R22 List" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
>>>Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:52 PM
>>>Subject: [Rhodes22-list] Nucular Energy
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Been meaning to ask.
>>>>
>>>>How 'bout that Iran?
>>>>
>>>>Do they get to have nuclear energy, too?
>>>>
>>>>Or is it only safe enough for us?
>>>>
>>>>Bill Effros
>>>>__________________________________________________
>>>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>www.rhodes22.org/list
>>    
>>
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>__________________________________________________
>>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
>>>      
>>>
>>www.rhodes22.org/list
>>    
>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
>>www.rhodes22.org/list
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! 
>http://my.yahoo.com 
> 
>
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>  
>