[Rhodes22-list] Nuclear Energy

brad haslett flybrad at yahoo.com
Sat Feb 19 10:40:51 EST 2005


Bill,

Help me out, I can't find a reference to the Bush
administration deciding we don't need Yucca Mountain. 
The DOE did cut its 2006 Yucca Mountain budget request
by $100 million because it couldn't use more money in
light of the current litigation and environmental
opposition, but nowhere can I find a statement by the
current administration that we don't need the
facility.  Website?  The nuclear power industry is
currently storing on site because they have no other
place to go.  They themselves are pushing for Yucca
Mt., or somewhere, anywhere, because they know the
current solution is not long-term feasible.  France
doesn't seem to have this problem.  Perhaps we should
study both their science and their politics.

We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and for a price, coal
can be burned very clean.  The Clinton administration
pushed natural gas powerplants because that is what
the environmentalists wanted.  This ignored that
natural gas production follows the same production
decline curve as oil and we are net importers of this
product as well.  We could live on coal for quite a
long time but it faces strong environmental group
opposition as well.

Hydro-electric is no longer a player.  We were able to
build the TVA system because FDR had the power (there
was little opposition) and the country needed the
work.  Hydro can't pass the environmental groups
opposition and local politics anymore.

Wind is rapidly developing in places like North Dakota
and Iowa (where they don't use that much power) but
faces stiff opposition in places like California and
Massachusetts (Ted Kennedy being one of the
opponents).  But wind is economically competitive with
coal and Florida Power and Light is one of the major
producers.

Solar works on a small scale but the technology hasn't
progressed far enough to be competitive.

Something has to give somewhere in the energy
equation.  Sometimes I think the environmentalists
would like us to return to the pre-petroleum age when
we lit our lamps with whale blubber.  So much for
"Save the Whales".  Only a fool doesn't want clean air
and water but there is no such thing as a completely,
emission or pollutant free fuel.

We need a comprehensive energy policy and we need it
today!  So far, the Bush administration has taken the
same approach as every one preceding it, very little.

Brad


--- Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:

> 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.
> >>
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com 


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list