On 11/26/06 6:51 PM, "Patrice LACOUTURE (GMail)", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The French answer (for now, but of course there's controversy on this), > is "stop fossil energy now, live to develop clean, renewable energies, > and in the meantime fill the gap with the nasty nukes". French are smart, eh? I am not advocating the safety of nuclear power plants but was talking about the "over engineering" aspect which is jacking up the cost enormously. Primary containment for example is only the first defense and a nuclear power plant has so many layers of safety barriers (another over engineering). Human cannot reduce the risk to zero (just like aircrafts could never be made crash proof) but today's nuclear plants are very safe. The problem is that the safety and environmental arguments are mostly emotional and political. If certain aspects of nuclear power plants might be judged unsafe, but with scientific and objective arguments, I am sure they will (and should) be properly addressed. But unfortunately, nuclear power plants are usually built in remote sites, which means farmers and fishermen have to be convinced. Not that I no way discredit their ability to make intelligent judgment based on objective facts, they usually require assistance in public hearing etc. This is where the political elements and greed intrude. Green Piece and Green Party etc come in and make the issue overly complicated while all farmers/fishermen really want is as much compensation money as possible. The worst thing for mankind is to BURN the non-renewable fossil material as fuel. When it's gone, it's gone forever, unlike those used in chemical industries etc. Besides, in most power generation scheme (including nuclear), much of energy is lost wasted in a form of exhaust gas (autos) and cooling water (power plants). Also, think about thousands of commercial jet liners each with tons of fuel flying around in any given time, let alone the fuel used for cargo ships. Nuclear power plants, as in any other industrial products, have its own risks but the "probability" of catastrophic accidents is nearly zero now and it is a matter of consciousness by ourselves of the energy waste we are creating vs. accepting some theoretical risk. Difficult subject. Well, I think I went too far on this OT and should stop, but hope this BURNING would begin to subside some day :-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
