I hate to say it, but I think the nuke issue has turned into a very PC conversation. They're Just Wrong. Basically a sort of Science vs Religion discussion. Saying Nuke's are OK or maybe even Nukes might be OK has all your friends sighing and shaking their heads in dismay.
I guess I'm in the middle. I basically think we walked from serious nuke energy research, it was too sensitive an issue in terms of safety and we didn't want rogue nations making bombs. As for "where's the science" on nukes, Carl sent out a lot of great links. Here's what may be an urban legend, but I've heard it from more than one source: More radiation is emitted from a coal plant than a nuke reactor! How is that possible? Well, coal has uranium and other elements in it. They are not eliminated during processing so are free to exit into the air during burning. Nukes, on the other hand, have standards for radiation emission, while coal plants do not. Odd but I think its true. The real answer is likely Diversity: just say "yes" to Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geo thermal, Tidal and so on. And indeed, as Kim Sorvig has pointed out .. create small ones .. like a neighborhood sized solar installation. Why? Get rid of transmission losses and increase local robustness and add to the "smart grid". But boy, windfarms have a lot going against them: they are a visual blight. We used to drive through one in California several times a year commuting to Santa Fe from Palo Alto. -- Owen On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Paul Paryski <ppary...@aol.com> wrote: > If everything is taken into consideration, the carbon footprint of nukes > is really very high, much higher than the alternate forms of energy such as > wind, solar, hydroelectric and even some thermal sources. France is paying > dearly for its nukes. One of the innovative sources of energy that is > being installed in Europe is slow moving hydro-turbines placed in riverbeds. > cheers, Paul > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Holmes <rob...@holmesacosta.com> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:29 pm > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - > Yahoo! News > > Yeah, greenest only if you ignore the environmental/human/dollar costs of > getting the uranium out of the ground and then you forget about that whole > messy decommissioning component (which usually relies on the assumption > that national government must ultimately underwrite/pick up the tab and is > therefore free)—R > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net> wrote: > >> From the "I Like Nukes" department we have new designs that look >> interesting: >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/gates-discussing-nuclear-reactor-china-124722465.html >> They run on depleted uranium and apparently are safer. >> >> Ironically, nukes are apparently the greenest critters around too. >> >> -- Owen >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
