🚀 go-pugleaf

"D.A.Kopf" <dak@dakx.com> wrote in message
news:393D6C16.AB65AC41@dakx.com...
> Donald Borowski wrote:
> >
<snip>

> However, it seems
> reasonable to me that individual risk-taking should not imperil the lives
of
> others. Criminal law seems to agree, by allowing punishment for
involuntary
> manslaughter. If I fell off a roof onto someone, well, I'm bound to say
I'd
> feel responsible for their injury. If a nuke that I designed had an
accident
> that caused injuries, I'd feel uncomfortable arguing that I'm not
reponsible
> becaused I used accepted engineering standards.

This is a quandary of any industrialized society.  Substitute "chemical
plant", "gas flares", "car", "toaster", or "space shuttle" for "nuke", and
you'll see what I mean.  Pretty much all engineered items carry a risk, and
that's OK if society decides they're worth it.

By the way, the formula used to evaluate risk is:

Risk = Probability x Consequences

An airplane flight, for instance, is low-risk, even though the consequences
of an accident are drastic--because the probability of an accident is very
low.  Roofing (to amuse wmbjk) is relatively high-risk, because both
probability and consequences are significant.

Now, by this measure, nuclear energy is low-risk (if we're talking about
LWR's and CANDU's).  Anti-nuclear advocates get a long way by stating the
_consequences_ of a nuclear accident, while ignoring the probability of one.
One Canadian group quoted verbatim from an AECB report about the possible
consequences of an accident during transportation of MOX fuel in Canada
(AECB is our nuclear regulatory body).  Unfortunately, the anti-nukes
ignored all the qualifiers; for instance, the containers (made of black-box
material) would have to be completely vaporized in a truck explosion,
releasing all the plutonium into the air, within a short distance of an
urban centre, with a strong wind blowing directly towards the centre, during
a temperature inversion (to keep the smoke plume close to the ground),
assuming that no evacuation measures were taken, and that everyone inhaled
enough plutonium to cause cancer within 10-40 years.  They also neglected to
quote the report's estimate of the probability of such an accident:  I
believe it was 1x10^-9, or one in a billion, though how they got THAT
number.... I can dig up the reference if anyone's interested.

Whew.

Murray Love wrote:
> 
> "D.A.Kopf" <dak@dakx.com> wrote in message
> news:393D6C16.AB65AC41@dakx.com...
> > Donald Borowski wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
> 
> > However, it seems reasonable to me that individual risk-taking
> > should not imperil the lives of others. Criminal law seems to
> > agree, by allowing punishment for involuntary manslaughter.
> > If I fell off a roof onto someone, well, I'm bound to say I'd
> > feel responsible for their injury. If a nuke that I designed had
> > an accident that caused injuries, I'd feel uncomfortable arguing
> > that I'm not reponsible becaused I used accepted engineering standards.
> 
> This is a quandary of any industrialized society.  Substitute "chemical
> plant", "gas flares", "car", "toaster", or "space shuttle" for "nuke", and
> you'll see what I mean.  Pretty much all engineered items carry a risk, and
> that's OK if society decides they're worth it.

Although individuals can decide whether to use cars, toasters, or (here in
North Carolina) collapsing walkways, while these other risks are forced upon
them. It thus seems to me their acceptance is properly a political, not an
engineering, decision.
> 
> By the way, the formula used to evaluate risk is:
> 
> Risk = Probability x Consequences

I understand expectation values pretty well, but differentiate between known
probability distribution functions ("One in a million will win the lottery")
and calculated pdf's ("Chances of failure are one in a million"). The former
allows an objective decision to be made, but the latter involves subjectivity
until such time as sufficient real-world statistics are accumulated. I
personally use the time-honored 5% estimate in these cases - one in a hundred,
one in a million, one in a billion, they are all one in twenty as far as I'm
concerned (If I recall correctly, it was the twentieth shuttle mission that
blew up).

Other people can of course choose a different a priori threshold probability,
but if this is done, then for all lower-probability events, relative risk
becomes the same as relative consequences.

> 
> An airplane flight, for instance, is low-risk, even though the consequences
> of an accident are drastic--because the probability of an accident is very
> low.  Roofing (to amuse wmbjk) is relatively high-risk, because both
> probability and consequences are significant.
> 
> Now, by this measure, nuclear energy is low-risk (if we're talking about
> LWR's and CANDU's).  Anti-nuclear advocates get a long way by stating the
> _consequences_ of a nuclear accident, while ignoring the probability of one.
> One Canadian group quoted verbatim from an AECB report about the possible
> consequences of an accident during transportation of MOX fuel in Canada
> (AECB is our nuclear regulatory body).  Unfortunately, the anti-nukes
> ignored all the qualifiers; for instance, the containers (made of black-box
> material) would have to be completely vaporized in a truck explosion,
> releasing all the plutonium into the air, within a short distance of an
> urban centre, with a strong wind blowing directly towards the centre, during
> a temperature inversion (to keep the smoke plume close to the ground),
> assuming that no evacuation measures were taken, and that everyone inhaled
> enough plutonium to cause cancer within 10-40 years.  They also neglected to
> quote the report's estimate of the probability of such an accident:  I
> believe it was 1x10^-9, or one in a billion, though how they got THAT
> number.... I can dig up the reference if anyone's interested.
> 
> Whew.

"D.A.Kopf" wrote:

> Murray Love wrote:
> >
> > "D.A.Kopf" <dak@dakx.com> wrote in message
> > news:393D6C16.AB65AC41@dakx.com...
> > > Donald Borowski wrote:
> > > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > However, it seems reasonable to me that individual risk-taking
> > > should not imperil the lives of others. Criminal law seems to
> > > agree, by allowing punishment for involuntary manslaughter.
> > > If I fell off a roof onto someone, well, I'm bound to say I'd
> > > feel responsible for their injury. If a nuke that I designed had
> > > an accident that caused injuries, I'd feel uncomfortable arguing
> > > that I'm not reponsible becaused I used accepted engineering standards.
> >
> > This is a quandary of any industrialized society.  Substitute "chemical
> > plant", "gas flares", "car", "toaster", or "space shuttle" for "nuke", and
> > you'll see what I mean.  Pretty much all engineered items carry a risk, and
> > that's OK if society decides they're worth it.
>
> Although individuals can decide whether to use cars, toasters, or (here in
> North Carolina) collapsing walkways, while these other risks are forced upon
> them. It thus seems to me their acceptance is properly a political, not an
> engineering, decision.

There may be some merit in the distinction, but there are very few who decide to
use no electricity. Only in this case is there an "imposed" risk and no benefit.

The real case we are discussing then is a risk that I take on directly (e.g.,
installing and maintaining PV panels) or one that I take on indirectly (the nuke
plant that I get power from). From either I get the benefit of electricity. If
either one kills me, I am just as dead.  But the risks of the nuke plant are
lower.

And then there is the next case of a coal plant vs. a nuke plant. Once again, the
risks of the nuke plant are lower.

Some have made the counter argument that a nuke accident would make a large swath
of land inhabitable for generations. I still am not convinced that even over
generations the damage caused by the anticipated number of nuke accidents is
greater than the damage caused by the normal operation of the coal plants that
would be necessary to produce the same amount of energy.

--
Donald Borowski
Agilent Technologies, Spokane PGU

Donald Borowski wrote:
> 
> "D.A.Kopf" wrote:
> 
> > Murray Love wrote:
> > >
> > > "D.A.Kopf" <dak@dakx.com> wrote in message
> > > news:393D6C16.AB65AC41@dakx.com...
> > > > Donald Borowski wrote:
> > > > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > However, it seems reasonable to me that individual risk-taking
> > > > should not imperil the lives of others. Criminal law seems to
> > > > agree, by allowing punishment for involuntary manslaughter.
> > > > If I fell off a roof onto someone, well, I'm bound to say I'd
> > > > feel responsible for their injury. If a nuke that I designed had
> > > > an accident that caused injuries, I'd feel uncomfortable arguing
> > > > that I'm not reponsible becaused I used accepted engineering standards.
> > >
> > > This is a quandary of any industrialized society.  Substitute "chemical
> > > plant", "gas flares", "car", "toaster", or "space shuttle" for "nuke", and
> > > you'll see what I mean.  Pretty much all engineered items carry a risk, and
> > > that's OK if society decides they're worth it.
> >
> > Although individuals can decide whether to use cars, toasters, or (here in
> > North Carolina) collapsing walkways, while these other risks are forced upon
> > them. It thus seems to me their acceptance is properly a political, not an
> > engineering, decision.
> 
> There may be some merit in the distinction, but there are very few who decide to
> use no electricity. Only in this case is there an "imposed" risk and no benefit.
> 
> The real case we are discussing then is a risk that I take on directly (e.g.,
> installing and maintaining PV panels) or one that I take on indirectly (the nuke
> plant that I get power from). From either I get the benefit of electricity. If
> either one kills me, I am just as dead.  But the risks of the nuke plant are
> lower.

Not in my opinion. We'll have more data after the winding-down of the existing
ageing first-generation nuclear plants. After that our opinions will no doubt
converge somewhat.

> 
> And then there is the next case of a coal plant vs. a nuke plant. Once again,
> the risks of the nuke plant are lower.

More people may have died so far from coal usage, but typically not without
individual encounters with, and acceptance of, the risks [smog, acid
rain, war, global warming]. Nuke risks are mostly invisible to individuals and an
informed political acceptance of them is correspondingly difficult to obtain.

> 
> Some have made the counter argument that a nuke accident would make a large swath
> of land inhabitable for generations. I still am not convinced that even over
> generations the damage caused by the anticipated number of nuke accidents is
> greater than the damage caused by the normal operation of the coal plants that
> would be necessary to produce the same amount of energy.

Assert your opinion by all means. Just don't portray it as an objective
scientific statement that doesn't contain human fallibility. To paraphrase
Sherlock Holmes, it is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the data.
One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission will never
provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.

"D.A.Kopf" wrote:
> 
> One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission will never
> provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.

???  It is already providing a sustainable energy source for mankind. 
Nuclear fission is sustainable for hundreds or thousands of years.  A
large increase in the number of nuclear power plants can be expected
beginning twenty to fifty years from now.

-dl

Don Libby <no.spam@tds.net> wrote:

>"D.A.Kopf" wrote:
>> 
>> One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission will never
>> provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.

>???  It is already providing a sustainable energy source for mankind. 
>Nuclear fission is sustainable for hundreds or thousands of years.  A
>large increase in the number of nuclear power plants can be expected
>beginning twenty to fifty years from now.

>-dl

Twenty-five years from now, the overwhelming proof will be that
nuclear power is mutating the human race into genetically defected
people.

Also, efficiency advances will make power consumption equal to today's
or even less.

Donald Borowski <borowski@spk.agilent.com> wrote:



>"D.A.Kopf" wrote:

>> Murray Love wrote:
>> >
>> > "D.A.Kopf" <dak@dakx.com> wrote in message
>> > news:393D6C16.AB65AC41@dakx.com...
>> > > Donald Borowski wrote:
>> > > >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > > However, it seems reasonable to me that individual risk-taking
>> > > should not imperil the lives of others. Criminal law seems to
>> > > agree, by allowing punishment for involuntary manslaughter.
>> > > If I fell off a roof onto someone, well, I'm bound to say I'd
>> > > feel responsible for their injury. If a nuke that I designed had
>> > > an accident that caused injuries, I'd feel uncomfortable arguing
>> > > that I'm not reponsible becaused I used accepted engineering standards.
>> >
>> > This is a quandary of any industrialized society.  Substitute "chemical
>> > plant", "gas flares", "car", "toaster", or "space shuttle" for "nuke", and
>> > you'll see what I mean.  Pretty much all engineered items carry a risk, and
>> > that's OK if society decides they're worth it.
>>
>> Although individuals can decide whether to use cars, toasters, or (here in
>> North Carolina) collapsing walkways, while these other risks are forced upon
>> them. It thus seems to me their acceptance is properly a political, not an
>> engineering, decision.

>There may be some merit in the distinction, but there are very few who decide to
>use no electricity. Only in this case is there an "imposed" risk and no benefit.

>The real case we are discussing then is a risk that I take on directly (e.g.,
>installing and maintaining PV panels) or one that I take on indirectly (the nuke
>plant that I get power from). From either I get the benefit of electricity. If
>either one kills me, I am just as dead.  But the risks of the nuke plant are
>lower.

>And then there is the next case of a coal plant vs. a nuke plant. Once again, the
>risks of the nuke plant are lower.

>Some have made the counter argument that a nuke accident would make a large swath
>of land inhabitable for generations. I still am not convinced that even over
>generations the damage caused by the anticipated number of nuke accidents is
>greater than the damage caused by the normal operation of the coal plants that
>would be necessary to produce the same amount of energy.

>--
>Donald Borowski
>Agilent Technologies, Spokane PGU

Thanks for giving me a great quote to put on my web site!!! Do you
have a picture of yourself wearing a dunce cap?

In article <8hmmgv$20f$3@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, your mom wrote:

> Don Libby <no.spam@tds.net> wrote:
> 
> >"D.A.Kopf" wrote:
> >> 
> >> One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission 
> >> will never
> >> provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.
> 
> >???  It is already providing a sustainable energy source for mankind. 
> >Nuclear fission is sustainable for hundreds or thousands of years.  A
> >large increase in the number of nuclear power plants can be expected
> >beginning twenty to fifty years from now.
> 
> >-dl
> 
> Twenty-five years from now, the overwhelming proof will be that
> nuclear power is mutating the human race into genetically defected
> people.
> 


What's your Radon level? 50% of American exposure is Radon, very little 
remidiation is being done. Cahnces are nuclear power isn't radiating you 
as much as your basement.

-- 
--
http://www.ttsw.com/orion/orion.html   Orion Links 

On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:38:56 GMT, none (Quarks like a duck) wrote:

>Donald Borowski <borowski@spk.agilent.com> wrote:
>>There may be some merit in the distinction, but there are very few who decide to
>>use no electricity. Only in this case is there an "imposed" risk and no benefit.
>
>>The real case we are discussing then is a risk that I take on directly (e.g.,
>>installing and maintaining PV panels) or one that I take on indirectly (the nuke
>>plant that I get power from). From either I get the benefit of electricity. If
>>either one kills me, I am just as dead.  But the risks of the nuke plant are
>>lower.
>
>>And then there is the next case of a coal plant vs. a nuke plant. Once again, the
>>risks of the nuke plant are lower.
>
>>Some have made the counter argument that a nuke accident would make a large swath
>>of land inhabitable for generations. I still am not convinced that even over
>>generations the damage caused by the anticipated number of nuke accidents is
>>greater than the damage caused by the normal operation of the coal plants that
>>would be necessary to produce the same amount of energy.
>
>>--
>>Donald Borowski
>>Agilent Technologies, Spokane PGU
>
>Thanks for giving me a great quote to put on my web site!!! Do you
>have a picture of yourself wearing a dunce cap?

It is a measure of how different perspectives can be on this issue.
That "none" can be incredulous at Donald's comments, so much so he
feels no obligation to point out what he thinks is wrong with those
comments.  And yet in another post "none" writes:

>Twenty-five years from now, the overwhelming proof will be that
>nuclear power is mutating the human race into genetically defected
>people.

.. and he expects not only to be taken seriously, but assumes he holds
the high ground.  The mind boggles!


...Greig

>Twenty-five years from now, the overwhelming proof will be that
>nuclear power is mutating the human race into genetically defected
>people.

That's interesting.  Nuclear power has been used for over fifty years
already.  I can't imagine what's going to happen in the next 25.

>Also, efficiency advances will make power consumption equal to today's
>or even less.

Quite possibly.  

M Kinsler



-- 
............................................................................
114 Columbia Ave. Athens, Ohio USA 45701 voice740.594.3737 fax740.592.3059
Home of the "How Things Work" engineering education program.
See http://www.frognet.net/~kinsler

Don Libby <no.spam@tds.net> wrote in message
news:393EC284.C1580A2D@tds.net...
> "D.A.Kopf" wrote:
> >
> > One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission will
never
> > provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.
>
> ???  It is already providing a sustainable energy source for mankind.
> Nuclear fission is sustainable for hundreds or thousands of years.  A
> large increase in the number of nuclear power plants can be expected
> beginning twenty to fifty years from now.

Sustainable for geological periods (millions-billions of years)?


>
> -dl

�

Dogknees wrote:

> Don Libby <no.spam@tds.net> wrote in message
> news:393EC284.C1580A2D@tds.net...
> > "D.A.Kopf" wrote:
> > >
> > > One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission will
> never
> > > provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.
> >
> > ???� It is already providing a sustainable energy source for mankind.
> > Nuclear fission is sustainable for hundreds or thousands of years.� A
> > large increase in the number of nuclear power plants can be expected
> > beginning twenty to fifty years from now.
>
> Sustainable for geological periods (millions-billions of years)?

The energy in uranium and thorium is large compared to the
energy to extract them from dilute ores, even seawater,
although the whole ocean contains less than a cubic mile of uranium
and virtually no thorium.� This is an energy reserve equivalent
to at least 100 trillion barrels of oil.� Here is a very accessible
summary of a B.L. Cohen paper, by the irreplaceable John McCarthy:

���� http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html
�

But hardly any of either the world's uranium
or its thorium is in water.� Most of it is in rocks.
Read "World Uranium Resources", by Kenneth S. Deffeyes and
Ian D. MacGregor, Scientific American January 1980.

Also read my proposal (below) for how fission energy,
or any sustainable energy, can come to a vehicle's drive wheels
in a form very much safer than today's liquid and gaseous fuels.

---------------------------------------------------------------
$1 uranium = ca. $124 petroleum = ca. $111 natural gas.
Electricity? Hydrogen?�No, the indirect nukemobile power-taps
distant reactors through the fifth element, ~boron~.� More at
http://members.xoom.com/I2M/boron_blast.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------
�

none (Quarks like a duck) wrote in message
<8hmmc6$20f$2@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Donald Borowski <borowski@spk.agilent.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>"D.A.Kopf" wrote:
>
>>> Murray Love wrote:
>>> >
>>> > "D.A.Kopf" <dak@dakx.com> wrote in message
>>> > news:393D6C16.AB65AC41@dakx.com...
>>> > > Donald Borowski wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > <snip>
>>> >
>>> > > However, it seems reasonable to me that individual risk-taking
>>> > > should not imperil the lives of others. Criminal law seems to
>>> > > agree, by allowing punishment for involuntary manslaughter.
>>> > > If I fell off a roof onto someone, well, I'm bound to say I'd
>>> > > feel responsible for their injury. If a nuke that I designed had
>>> > > an accident that caused injuries, I'd feel uncomfortable arguing
>>> > > that I'm not reponsible becaused I used accepted engineering
standards.
>>> >
>>> > This is a quandary of any industrialized society.  Substitute
"chemical
>>> > plant", "gas flares", "car", "toaster", or "space shuttle" for
"nuke", and
>>> > you'll see what I mean.  Pretty much all engineered items carry a
risk, and
>>> > that's OK if society decides they're worth it.
>>>
>>> Although individuals can decide whether to use cars, toasters, or (here
in
>>> North Carolina) collapsing walkways, while these other risks are forced
upon
>>> them. It thus seems to me their acceptance is properly a political, not
an
>>> engineering, decision.
>
>>There may be some merit in the distinction, but there are very few who
decide to
>>use no electricity. Only in this case is there an "imposed" risk and no
benefit.
>
>>The real case we are discussing then is a risk that I take on directly
(e.g.,
>>installing and maintaining PV panels) or one that I take on indirectly
(the nuke
>>plant that I get power from). From either I get the benefit of
electricity. If
>>either one kills me, I am just as dead.  But the risks of the nuke plant
are
>>lower.
>
>>And then there is the next case of a coal plant vs. a nuke plant. Once
again, the
>>risks of the nuke plant are lower.
>
>>Some have made the counter argument that a nuke accident would make a
large swath
>>of land inhabitable for generations. I still am not convinced that even
over
>>generations the damage caused by the anticipated number of nuke accidents
is
>>greater than the damage caused by the normal operation of the coal plants
that
>>would be necessary to produce the same amount of energy.
>
>>--
>>Donald Borowski
>>Agilent Technologies, Spokane PGU
>
>Thanks for giving me a great quote to put on my web site!!! Do you
>have a picture of yourself wearing a dunce cap?
>
>

and note that nuclear is always compared to coal, why is natural gas,
solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, biomass and oceanic excluded. i dont
particularly like coal plants, way to dirty and cheap.

ant

none (Quarks like a duck) wrote in message
<8hmmgv$20f$3@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Don Libby <no.spam@tds.net> wrote:
>
>>"D.A.Kopf" wrote:
>>>
>>> One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission will
never
>>> provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.
>
>>???  It is already providing a sustainable energy source for mankind.
>>Nuclear fission is sustainable for hundreds or thousands of years.  A
>>large increase in the number of nuclear power plants can be expected
>>beginning twenty to fifty years from now.
>
>>-dl
>
>Twenty-five years from now, the overwhelming proof will be that
>nuclear power is mutating the human race into genetically defected
>people.
>
>Also, efficiency advances will make power consumption equal to today's
>or even less.
>

not to mention the increases in efficiencies of renewable energy
generation, bio fuels, and other alternate energy sources which are likely
to happen, i would rather see orbiting solar power plants then more massive
nuclear plants, orbiting solar power plants will probably be about as
expensive as a nuclear option is by then, and with any luck i will still be
around then to see what happens, unlike some of the people who are so
confident that nuclear technology is the solution. 50 years ago nobody
accurately predicted the shaped of the present that we live in so i believe
it is a little early to predict an expansion of nuclear power in 50 years
time based on toadies technology.

just on the grounds of the legacy of nuclear waste that we are leaving for
future generations nuclear power is ethically and morally wrong, funny how
the nuclear experts damned that morals,  ethics and emotions be excluded
form the debate and that nuclear power must be judged only on reductionism
scientific principles. if somebody feels that leaving nuclear was for
future generations to enjoy is wrong then that opinion is valid, by al
leans attempt to persuade people but dont try and exclude the ones whose
opinions dont agree, as many nuclear experts demand that they not be "held
hostage to public opinion" and democratic processes. many of them are
closet totalitarians or technocrats IMO.



ant

On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:40:12 +1000, "ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote:

>
>none (Quarks like a duck) wrote in message
><8hmmgv$20f$3@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>Don Libby <no.spam@tds.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"D.A.Kopf" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One likely datum we would probably both stipulate: nuclear fission will
>never
>>>> provide a sustainable energy source for mankind.
>>
>>>???  It is already providing a sustainable energy source for mankind.
>>>Nuclear fission is sustainable for hundreds or thousands of years.  A
>>>large increase in the number of nuclear power plants can be expected
>>>beginning twenty to fifty years from now.
>>
>>>-dl
>>
>>Twenty-five years from now, the overwhelming proof will be that
>>nuclear power is mutating the human race into genetically defected
>>people.
>>
>>Also, efficiency advances will make power consumption equal to today's
>>or even less.
>>
>
>not to mention the increases in efficiencies of renewable energy
>generation, bio fuels, and other alternate energy sources which are likely
>to happen, i would rather see orbiting solar power plants then more massive
>nuclear plants, orbiting solar power plants will probably be about as
>expensive as a nuclear option is by then, and with any luck i will still be
>around then to see what happens, 

Perhaps this is the crux of the issue.  Faith in future technological
development is a powerful thing, history has set a precedent.  I am a
big fan of space-based solar, but it is LONG way off.  We will need a
huge step forward in the technology we use to raise payload, perhaps
"space-towers" as in Arthur C Clarke's 'Fountains of Paradise'.

But these are futures.  What about now?  When we need power, we cannot
rely on dreams.


>unlike some of the people who are so
>confident that nuclear technology is the solution. 50 years ago nobody
>accurately predicted the shaped of the present that we live in so i believe
>it is a little early to predict an expansion of nuclear power in 50 years
>time based on toadies technology.

Nuclear power will expand because of current requirements, and the
fact that nuclear is the only alternative to fossil fuels in many
cases NOW.  If other technologies come forward over the next 50 years,
they will take time to implement, and they will affect the way we
source energy 100 years from now.

And if those technologies do not come forward in the next 50 years,
nuclear has a potentially long future, we have lots of time to develop
and implement other technologies.


>just on the grounds of the legacy of nuclear waste that we are leaving for
>future generations nuclear power is ethically and morally wrong, 

So too, is delivering a world to our children that is starved of
energy.  Remember, the developing world is desperate for power now,
and it is "ethically and morally wrong" to deny them.  Are they
looking at solar and wind power?  No, they are not.

>funny how
>the nuclear experts damned that morals,  ethics and emotions be excluded
>form the debate and that nuclear power must be judged only on reductionism
>scientific principles. 

Environmental issues, including the issue of waste disposal, are very
central to the choice of nuclear power over the alternatives.  I
believe the issue has been resolved, but the question for many
remains:  have we solved waste issue, or at least can it be solved
adequately?  It seems to me if you are inclined to have faith in the
future development of alternative power technologies, why not have
faith in our ability to safely manage nuclear waste.

>if somebody feels that leaving nuclear was for
>future generations to enjoy is wrong then that opinion is valid, by al
>leans attempt to persuade people but dont try and exclude the ones whose
>opinions dont agree, as many nuclear experts demand that they not be "held
>hostage to public opinion" and democratic processes. many of them are
>closet totalitarians or technocrats IMO.

If our energy choices were to be subject to democratic principles,
then all our power would be produced by solar power.  But it isn't,
because solar power has technical limitations.  It is not that the
"experts" are totalitarian, it is that the politicians know that they
must rely on the advice of experts to make the correct choice, ie one
that is both technically and economically viable.


...Greig 

On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:44:32 +1000, "ant" <dont-look@evil.spam> wrote:

>and note that nuclear is always compared to coal, why is natural gas,
>solar, hydro, wind, geothermal, biomass and oceanic excluded. i dont
>particularly like coal plants, way to dirty and cheap.
>
>ant

Natural gas certainly burns cleaner than coal, but it does produce GH
gases, and using natural gas for electricity production is a waste, as
it is far more valuable as a source of direct heating in domestic and
industrial applications.

Hydro is comparable to nuclear/coal in that it is a viable centalised
power generation technology.  But the resource is limited.  When it is
available, hydro is usually the obvious choice.

Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and oceanic cannot be directly
compared to coal and nuclear, because they have very different
characteristics in terms of economics, applicability and reliability.


...Greig