[Hidden-tech] Nuke Power & Energy Providers?

[Shel Horowitz]

>Everybody,
>
>This topic could quickly change into a flame war. The questions was is
>one electric provider was better then the other.

It is more than possible to have a disagreement and keep the tone 
civil. So far, all the comments I've seen have been appropriate.

>
>This is really not the forum to debate nuclear power. The simple fact
>is all power sources have a down side even renewables. Solar needs
>lots of land, wind turbines injure birds,  Hydroelectric changes the
>flow of rivers, Oil comes from a politically unstable parts of the
>world and adds to global warming, the list goes on.

Yes, this is certainly true. But oil and coal have more negatives 
than most other choices.

>
>   Yes we need to invest in renewables for power. But we can't discount
>a valid DOMESTIC source of power that does not add to global warming ,
>do to outdated fears.

Umm, first of all, nukes do contribute to global warming. The first 
thing I ever learned about them had to do with fish kills because of 
heat discharges. Second, I would hardly say that my concerns about 
nukes are outdated. In a post-9/11 world the catastrophic 
consequences of a terrorist attack have to be factored in, and that 
doesn't even count the concerns about operating safety, waste 
disposal, etc.

>
>And for the na sayers let me point out that the " accident at the
>Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown,
>Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S.
>commercial nuclear power plant operating history(1), even though it
>led to NO deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby
>community." 
>http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

One could make a case that Enrico Fermi in 1966 and Brown's Ferry in 
1975 were just as dangerous. And I do believe people died in the 
Fermi explosion. Also, the Chernobyl accident led to fatal radiation 
exposure for 60.000 unfortunates, and the toll is expected to triple, 
according to a Greenpeace report:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/chernobyl-deaths-180406

This hardly strikes me as outdated worry.

>
>Just before bashing a valid source of power, remember the refinery
>fires, tankers spilling oil,all the trapped coal miners, and natural
>gas explosion.  Nuclear power does not look so bad in that light.

Yes it does. See above, and remember that we have never yet (and I 
hope never will) seen anything even remotely close to a worst-case 
nuclear accident.

And you don't address the very real issue of waste storage. Let's put 
it in perspective.

Only 20 years ago, the data storage standard was an 8" floppy. I 
don't know anyone who still has a machine that can read those. The 
oldest human-civilization artifacts we have are 25-30,000 years old; 
we are demanding a safe and secure technology that will last ten 
times as long as those artifacts, and whatever written or electronic 
instructions will be readable by those far-future cultures. I'm 
generally a pretty optimistic person, but I'm not very optimistic 
about that!
-- 
_________________________________________________
Shel Horowitz - 413-586-2388/800-683-WORD shel at frugalfun.com
-->Join the Business Ethics Pledge - Ten Years to Change the World,
One Signature at a Time  (please tell your friends)
<http://www.business-ethics-pledge.org>
Marketing consulting * copywriting * publishing assistance * speaking
How to market ethically/effectively: http://www.frugalmarketing.com
Ethics Blog:  http://www.principledprofit.com/good-business-blog/
Books: http://www.frugalmarketing.com/shop.html
_________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.hidden-tech.net/pipermail/hidden-discuss/attachments/20071101/e6e6f2b4/attachment-0006.html