I guess it's all about the money that needs to be spent to make clean energy. Kinda like delaying a repair on your Coupe because you don't want to throw down the bucks for it as long as it's still flying.
----- Original Message ----- From: Carl Prather To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2008 2:01 AM Subject: [ercoupe-flyin] Nuclear power I never post but I have to comment on Nuclear energy as potential source of energy. We cannot make nor destroy matter so matter whether nuclear power plants are made or not doesn't change what material exists, just where it's located. One fellow, in the 1800's, tried to estimate to age of the Earth as something like 40,000 years of age. The problem with his calculations is that he did not take into account all of the uranium on the planet, which changed the Earth's age, based on cooling, up to only 4.5 billion years. That is, and was, a lot uranium. There's a bombastic radio talk show host in the San Francisco area named Bill Wattenberg, Dr. Bill as he is sometimes called. He is a nuclear physicist who has worked UC Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore Labs. I always wanted to know to what extent spent nuclear rods present a radiation danger to humans and the environment. He says that after few weeks of cooling down, the cooling rods sat in free air will emit as much radiation and the surrounding area from a distance of 50' or greater. In each of these rods, there is a thimble-sized amount of nuclear material that has a half live of several 100,000's of years. These rods can be processed further and even this really long-lived stuff can be re-used. We have hundreds or years of OPEC-free energy setting in the ground. As for disposal, he says that storage casks, many times the size needed to contain radiation can be built without worry of cask degradation. Or, the nuclear material can simply put back in mines which they came. Another plan was to disperse the stuff on the ocean floor in amounts that it becomes environmentally inconsequential. How about that! But Wattenberg's biggest criticism of nuclear foes is that coal fired plants emit 15,000 tons of radioactive material into U.S. every year and that nothing is being done or said about those "radiation leaks". He believes that we should double or triple our nuclear generating capacity, shut down most of the "dirty" coal-fired plants and the clean burning natural gas plants. Then we use the excess natural gas to power our cars. Now, we quit using polluting the coal plants and cars, using an energy supply that will last 200-300 years life from Canada and from domestic sources. And then there's carbon foot print thing and global warming. He rails on environmental groups as "wackos" but he also spearheaded legislation to prevent logging near rivers because of proven environmental concerns. Solar energy has always appealed to me because of it's apparent simplicity and the fact we have roof tops everywhere. Wattenberg says these alternate forms of energy are pipe dreams because they cost too much and we could blanket the countryside with solars panels or wind turbines and will have, at best, a spotty, underwhelming supply of energy. He, interestingly, has solar panels installed at his house! May it's hubris, but if Dr. Bill is right then we are laboring under a false sense of safety with respect to the environment when it comes to nuclear energy. Obama's choice of Nobel laureate Steve Chu, a nuclear physicist for energy secretary may prove interesting as Chu is also interested in energy efficiency and non-food boi fuels. Obama says he intends to put science ahead of ideology. Time will tell. Carl Prather ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Life on your PC is safer, easier, and more enjoyable with Windows Vista®. See how
