Posted by Phil Cook on July 2, 2004, 5:17 pm
In Search of a National Energy Strategy - Why Cold, Hard Scientific
Realities Will Always Trump Warm, Fuzzy Political Ideals
6.30.04 Richard Barker, President & CEO, Quad Resources, Inc.
Posted by Tim Keating on July 3, 2004, 11:56 am
On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:17:50 -0500, Phil Cook
blah.. blah... More scientific soothsaying.. and half truths..
Still using old prices for renewables.
Which are getting CHEAPER each year as scale of economy grows.
While the other sources are getting MORE expensive year by year.
And using old stereotypes for wind power... tsk..tsk..
The larger turbines have blades which are slow and visible enough
that most birds can avoid them. (reduced bird kills). The author
also ignores that the Sierra Club is NOW promoting wind power !
Nuclear may look cheap until you factor in the cost of contaminating a
state or two with radioactive isotopes.
Same goes for burning coal. The emissions are a significant problem
that will never go away,
Dependence Foreign Oil.. Just look at the cost of Iraq operation..
Projected to be over ~250B$! Just to wrest control of it's oil from
Imagine if that money had been put into conservation and renewables !
Posted by Roger Gt on July 3, 2004, 5:57 pm
: > On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 12:17:50 -0500, Phil Cook
: > Nuclear may look cheap until you factor in the cost of
: > state or two with radioactive isotopes.
: I have never understood this: aren't the wastes from nuclear
: plants a fairly small volume of material, easily contained?
Yes, absolutely and it is common practice.
: And which states have been contaminated and how much has it cost
: the taxpayer?
None, nor is it likely or even possible given the currently
imposed standards for handling.
Good questions, too many people take the anti-nuke kooks at their
word with out checking.
Posted by Zebedee on July 3, 2004, 6:43 pm
The problem with nuclear power is that the current reators aren't safe.
Chernobyl was just one example, 3 mile island was another. These are
reactors that blew up completely. Chernobyl contaminated farms 2,000 miles
away. Meat from farms in Wales and milk from farms in Wales was contaminated
and had to be treated as toxic waste. Cancer across the area has risen
Because the accidents can be so severe for even a minor failure, the risk is
far too great.
(Claiming asylum in an attempt
to escape paying his debts to
Dougal and Florence)
Posted by Bill Bradley on July 3, 2004, 7:54 pm
TMI blew up? That would be news to everyone who lives right around it.
Making yourself look ignorant of basic fact does little to support
I'm assuming that you are an American since most of the rest of the
world is well aware of the percent of energy in Europe and Japan that is
produced by Nuclear power. The examples that you cite are 50+ year old
designs which are all that is common in the US due to people like you
NIMBYing any modern reactor construction. It's the equivalent of saying
that modern cars aren't safe since a '57 Chevy didn't have seat belts,
air bags, ABS, crumple zones, etc.
You are exposed to FAR more radioactive waste from Coal fired power
plants than Chernobyl. Take a look at
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html for a
scope of the actual numbers.
We have much more to worry about from the existing coal energy
production infrastructure than new nuclear development.
Modern designs are self-limiting. That is to say they can not go
critical (which neither Chernobyl nor TMI were in danger of anyway) but
will in fact naturally "fail safe."