RE: [OPE] Power

Date: Fri Feb 15 2008 - 11:54:06 EST

>> I put nuclear first, because it is the only currently proven and viable
>> alternative> for large scale 24/7 electricity generation to coal and
>> oil.
> Hi Paul C:
> Proven to do what?   There are _thousands_ of examples of  "accidents"
> at nuclear power plants.  When these accidents occur, the potential
> immediate
> and long-term damage to the environment is much greater than an industrial
> accident in a coal mine or oil refinery (although, oil spills in the ocean
> can wreck
> havoc on ocean life).
> Remember Detroit. Three Mile Island. CHERNOBYL!

Gerry there are thousands of examples of acidents in all large
industries, what you have to say is how frequent have serious
accidents causing loss of life?

There are of course ordinary industrial accidents in all power plants
but there has only been one in the history of the nuclear power industry
where serious release of radioactivity and loss of life occured -- chernobyl.
There was a serious release with no loss of life at Windscale in 1957, but
this was a nuclear weapon production facility not a power plant.

> And what do you do with the spent fuel?

It should be buried, the delays in doing this in the UK and
the US are testimony to the lethargy of our governments. The
German industry has been burying it for years.
 > You put forward nuclear power as a "transitional demand".  I'm not sure in
> what
> sense you meant that.

I mean these are demands for the transition process to a zero carbon

>> We know from France that it is possible to run an electical generation
>> system> reliably on predominantly nuclear power, it remains to be proven
>> that this can> be done with non nuclear technologies.
> What do we know from Chernobyl?

That even the most serious nuclear accidents cause relatively
few casualties --- certainly compared to deaths in coal mine
disasters over the comparable period.
>> Bio fuels are as Castro points out, genocidal in their implications.
> Then let us recall that the nuclear power industry was the by-product of a
> _truly_ genocidal technology: the nuclear bomb!  Indeed, the development
> of
> the nuclear power industry was historically a cover and rationalization
> for
> additional spending on nuclear weapons.

Yes, that is well known, but that is association not cause.
Shifting grain production to fuel american autos will cause millions to
starve. The same can not be said of building more nuclear power stations
in the USA.

ope mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 00:00:03 EST