See below. My replies also apply to similar points put by some other
posters.
I am not saying that I have any pat answers for future sources of energy,
but I am implying that there is no single definite answer at present.
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Brent P" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:hjvwb.294485$Tr4.929288@attbi_s03...
> In article <[email protected]>, Dori
Schmetterling wrote:
> > Nuclear power is not the answer, unfortunately. In Britain in the
> > fifties/sixties it was promoted as the ultimate source of cheap power,
but
> > we have had nothing of the sort; it was just a chimera. The company
that
> > was left with the nuclear power stations after privatisation needs large
> > state subsidies just to keep going. And we can't close it down because
we
> > don't what to do with the nuclear materials. All European countries
(except
> > maybe France) have put nuclear power on hold or have decided against it.
> >
> > Not only can accidents happen in the west (Three Mile Island, among
others),
> > there are huge issues of waste disposal. AFAIK, no waste from UK
nuclear
> > reactors has been permanently stored anywhere. And when does nuclear
> > material with a half-life of centuries finally degrade into harmless
> > components?
>
>
> So you base your fears on 1/4 century or older technology.
FROM DAS: At the time nuclear power was touted as THE way to go. I was
really quite in favour as I thought much of the criticism overblown and only
used by politicians to curry favour with voters. Hindsight is 20/20 vision
and irrelevant. We cannot foresee what other consequences nuclear power
stations can have. It is, I believe, naive to think that because we have
moved on that a Three Mile Island could never happen again. Of course it
could, because human error can happen again. We have had incidents in
western Europe, too, AFAIK.
Do you think that the Bhopal disaster could not happen again? (Toxic
chemical leak at a Dow plant in India.) It certainly was not the intention
of Dow or a lack of safety rules that caused it, but the negligent atitude
of one or two workers locally.
>
> If CO2 is as big of a problem as we are told it is, radioactive waste
> is but a tiny fraction as bad. If CO2 is really that bad, then nukes
> are one way to go to a less damaging source of energy. Coal plants
> actually spew more radioactive materials than nuclear plants.
FROM DAS: I am not sure that CO2 is such a big problem, considering that
every night huge amounts of the gas are released by plants...
I am not talking about the waste 'spewed' out during operation, but the
waste product left after processing. You have to answer the question of
what is to be done with radioactive material that has a half-life of
centuries.
Most location proposals for bury the stuff are not implemented because the
ground is not geologically stable. Leakage into ground water would be the
result. What a legacy to leave our grandchildren!
>
> > I am not suggesting that wind power etc is an answer (the first
opponents of
> > wind farms have made their presence felt, and who can blame them?), but
> > nuclear power is not, either.
>
> With the those politically on the left and environmentialists opposing
> large scale wind farms proposed by various developers who see wind
> turbines as a money maker that can provide clean energy they show their
> true stripes. They want to control how people live, and abundant clean
> energy threatens that goal.
FROM DAS: Wind farms can be a blot in the landscape. They may be ok in the
Mid-Western prairies when used to power the needs of a few hundred thousand
people, but I can't see them being built in northern New Jersey or the
suburbs of Paris to meet the needs of conurbations containing millions of
people.
