At 07:39 PM 7/3/2006, Eli Rabett wrote:
>Hydro resources are about maxed out. The other two speak for
>themselves. Nuclear is better. However, the post that I was replying
>to specifically compared coal to nuclear. If you have a problem with
>that discuss it with the Jim Torson
Which article comparing coal to nuclear are you referring to?
> > Tidal and wave generation are not mentioned.
> >
>Come on, you want to throw spaghetti against the wall do it on someone
>elses post. The first claim in Jim Torson's post that I replied to was
>that nuclear had very high CO2 emissions associated with it. The URL
>(and other links) show that this is not the case.
I gave links to a number of articles on this "Nuclear Safety Issues"
thread. Most of them discussed radiation effects and various
safety issues. Perhaps I have missed something, but it appears
that only two of them mentioned nuclear CO2 emissions:
The Executive Summary of the Insurmountable Risks book says
on page 2 (page 5 of PDF file):
"Compared to the other major energy sources used around the
world to generate base load electricity such as coal, oil, and
natural gas, nuclear power plants emit far lower levels of
greenhouse gases even when mining, enrichment, and fuel
fabrication are taken into consideration.[15]"
The 2003 MIT study (The Future of Nuclear Power) starts with
this on page vii (page 7 of PDF file):
"We decided to study the future of nuclear power
because we believe this technology, despite the
challenges it faces, is an important option for
the United States and the world to meet future
energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide
(CO2) and other atmospheric pollutants."
Which article that I referred to claimed that "nuclear had
very high CO2 emissions associated with it"?
>The second claim I replied to was the nuclear had a very low ration of
>power output to power input. Again, this is shown not to be the case.
Which article are you referring to here?
>Frankly, I think a number of questions were answered in the URL, and
>some statements made here were falsified.
If you think that I have said something that is falsified or one of
the articles I referenced said something that is falsified, I would
request that you clarify what I said or which article said what
that you consider to be falsified. Also, it would be useful to
explain why you think it was falsified.
By the way, the paper you referred to was produced by the
Uranium Information Centre, which is "funded by companies
involved in uranium exploration, mining and export in Australia."
If we apply Michael's criteria of rejecting information from
"advocates," then this certainly would qualify for rejection.
Of course, probably all of the nuclear-related articles that have been
referenced would also need to be rejected by the same criteria.
I would suggest that people be discerning and evaluate reports
and articles based on their merit and content rather than
rejecting things out of hand based on their source. That's the
only way people will really learn what's going on with the
nuclear industry.
Jim
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
