Ed,
We should never minimize problems - but we shouldn't maximize them either.
Why isn't the Pacific Trench an option?
A long half life means less acute, but more chronic radioactivity.
Had Carter not stopped the reprocessing plants, the rods would have had most of the plutonium removed and been even more safe for disposal.
Finally, why are the spent fuel rods so dang dangerous in the emptiness of (say) Nevada, but OK stuck around the well-peopled nuclear plants - for 30-40 years?
Much more seriously, nuclear energy in its modern form (rather than 30-40 year old models) is the answer for the future whether we like it or not. People's opinions (well lathered by the anti-nukes) will change when the winter's cold begins to penetrate and solar and wind aren't coming through.
Harry
--------------------------------------------
Ed Weick wrote:
Harry, thanks, but we mustn't minimize the problems around nuclear power generation. A few years ago I did some work on the problems of disposing of nuclear waste and they presented enormous challenges. Because of the long half lives involved, and the possibilities of massive social change over long periods of time, making sure that people understood the nature of a waste disposal site like Yucca Mountain is a major issue. How do you communicate with people of the far distant future? Will they understand our iconography? The Canadian government was considering deep burial in the Canadian Shield, but there was no guarantee that the stuff wouldn't leach out over the centuries involved. No part of the Earth, no matter how solid it appears, is permanently in place. And I don't think the Pacific Trench is an option. Deep space perhaps?
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Pollard" <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ed Weick" <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] Lumps of unskilled labour
> Ed,
>
> I fear that one of Keith's few blind spots is his denial of nuclear
> energy. So he brings up Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as if these are
> convincing antinuclear arguments.
>
> Chernobyl was a pretty awful disaster -- but it was a Russian disaster and
> cannot be compared with Western nuclear operations.
>
> Three-Mile Island didn't hurt anybody except indirectly. They closed the
> second reactor for a very long time. During this time we replaced nuclear
> electricity with coal produced electricity. Coal kills a lot of people
> every year. So the closure of the second reactor led to additional mining
> deaths.
>
> Yet no one was killed, or hurt, in the accident. This was the original
> technology. there have been many improvements over the years. This is led
> to much more production of electricity from the same reactors than was
> possible when they were first built.
>
> Now the technology is 40 years old. There is no doubt that modern nuclear
> reactors would be improved in every way. They would be safer (though
> they've been remarkably safe over the last 40 years). They will be much
> more efficient. Their fuel is abundant and pollution is nonexistent.
>
> So, why aren't we building more in the US?
>
> The answer is, of course, politics. Such non-problems as waste can be
> settled simply. We drop it in the deepest part of the Pacific trench.
>
> So-called alternative energy sources have been just as well subsidized as
> nuclear ever was, but are unable to produce the power that is
> needed. Perhaps they will be able at sometime in the future but future
> power doesn't help us now.
>
> Keith has eloquently pointed out how the world was changed by the discovery
> of oil. The reason for the changes was that suddenly we seemed to enjoy
> unlimited power. Nuclear offers the same great prospect. Solar , wind,
> and the rest, do not offer us any possibility of power without limit.
> Maybe, one day -- but we need power for next winter.
>
> Harry
**************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.comcast.net/~haledward ****************************************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.518 / Virus Database: 316 - Release Date: 9/11/2003
