Re: Nuclear Power One aspect of nuclear power which concerns me (in addition to the overwhelming number of reasons not to support it) is the less publicized situation it creates in terms of ROI. There is a huge investment put into construction and decommission then, an equally huge amount of political pressure to keep it running as long as possible - not only to recover those investments but, to improve upon the the gains and advocate further use of that technology. That translates to risk vs. profit and forces the public to trust those who are making the decisions (i.e. those who are profiting).
- Redler "I am the decider" - G. W. Bush Mike Weaver wrote: > chem.dd, > > Have a look at what Chernobyl is like now. It's not like you really get a > second chance when you screw up with nuclear. > > FWIW, I think if you had started your post with: "Here are examples of > nulclear power working successfully; the problems > that caused Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are now solved - here's the > proof: (insert proof) perhaps it merits a second look for these reasons > 1,2,3," you would have had a better response. You mention > scientific and engineering but then no examples or research. I think you set > yourself up to get hammered. > And no, I personally don't think nuclear power is a good option, but would > read a well-constructed post as to why I'm wrong. > > -Weaver > > > "scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the > use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile > Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a > functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. > Please let me know your thoughts on this." > > > > > > jtcava wrote: > > >> I'm getting the idea that I wouldn't want many of the people here on >> this online comunity anywhere near me when sh*t happens. >> It is my outlook that everybody has something to offer in a true >> survival situation. >> >> John >> >> Keith Addison wrote: >> >> >>>> I would think this is the ideal forum for discussing any aspects and >>>> options >>>> for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, particularly in terms of >>>> sustainability. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Indeed it is, as a great deal of previous discussion residing in the >>> list archives will attest, covering, I'm sure, all aspects of the >>> issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> What is truly sad is closed mindedness. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Wouldn't you think, David, that's it's perhaps a little closed-minded >>> to arrive at a mature forum such as this and just naturally assume >>> such an obvious subject hasn't been dealt with here before in the >>> last six years? I think the reason Robert would be laughing if only >>> it wasn't so sad is that your argument has had all the substance shot >>> right out of it long ago. >>> >>> It's also a little closed-minded to to assume that it's Robert who's >>> being closed-minded, apparently without checking first to see what he >>> might have posted on the subject before, or even checking his >>> website, though he provides the url. This, eg: >>> http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/p5.htm >>> Ranger Supercharger Project >>> >>> Maybe you owe him an apology. >>> >>> I have to say the same for your views on nuclear power: >>> >>> >From an objective >>> >>> >>> >>>> scientific and engineering, as opposed to the politically correct view, the >>>> use of nuclear energy is the solution. ( Please don't scream Three Mile >>>> Island and Chernobyl) Fission reactors will have to do until we develop a >>>> functional fusion reactor which is by its physics inherently safe. >>>> Please let me know your thoughts on this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> That argument has also been shot down thoroughly and many times. >>> >>> I find it a little sad the way you ascribe objections to nuclear >>> power to mere politically correctness. Not objective, eh, no facts? >>> >>> I suggest you go and do some reading, offlist, at the address listed >>> at the end of every message you receive from the list: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 >>>> messages): >>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> When you've done that (make sure you do a thorough job), please come >>> back and offer some support for your view that objections to nuclear >>> power have only political correctness to support them. >>> >>> Thankyou. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Keith Addison >>> Journey to Forever >>> KYOTO Pref., Japan >>> http://journeytoforever.org/ >>> Biofuel list owner >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
