From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: ZERO Nuclear impact (was: Is car pooling for real? etc)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 20:03:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.232009.1209@nmt.edu> houle@nmt.edu (Paul Houle) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.202320.6596@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>
>>     to the concept of nuclear power.  In my way of thinking, a cask
>>     of potentially useful radioisotopes buried thousands of feet
>>     under western hills is exceedingly preferable to the smog-belching
>>     coal-fired plants in the Ohio valley that are progressively
>>     acidifying our streams and killing our trees.  
>>
>
>	I agree.  This would be correct if the only two sources of energy
>that we have availible are nuclear fission and coal.  Fission advocates
>usually like to compare nuclear energy with coal...  Maybe once in a while
>they say something like "A solar cell doesn't produce enough energy in
>it's lifetime to make up for the energy it costs to make it."  I suppose
>that if I had to make a choice between nuclear fission and coal,  I'd
>probably end up choosing fission.  No matter which one we choose,  we
>go "ONWARD TO THE PLEISTOCENE!" whenever we deplete our reserves...  Both
>are 'Fossil' fuels -- one from once living materials,  the other produced
>in the cores of exploding supernovae.  (Maybe you nuclear power people should
>pick up a few slogans from Earth First!)  Either that,  or we switch to
>renewables,  in which case nuclear power,  coal power and the rest of
>them are all just temporary holdups in the progress of technology -- Hell,
>you nuclear people are anti-technology! :-)

     Not anti-technology, just pro-economic.  

     Solar power may well be the answer of the future, especially with the 
     dye cells of Regan and the boys or the metallurgical grade silicon 
     cells of TI and SoCal Edison.  However, it is not the wave of the
     present and those smoke-belching plants cannot be replaced by 
     distributing solar panels.  And even when costs come down, there
     are still nontrivial infrastructure and energy storage questions that 
     must be economically solvable.  These things have all been solved
     for nuclear and fossil fuels.  

>	Environmentalists do not advocate coal as an energy source.  Therefore,
>why don't you guys go out and learn a bit about renewables and then come
>back and compare their potential with the potential of nuclear power.  One

     Not directly, but by vehemently opposing nuclear plants at least
     five coal-fired generators will need to be built in my area in 
     the next few years (probably more than ten).  They will be built,
     solar will not replace them.  They could, however, have been 
     replaced with a reactor or two at Lake Anna.  Unfortunately, the
     political obstacles are too great for such construction.

     Potential does not heat my home or light my bulb.

>thing you'll discover is that the average American house,  with average
>appliances,  has enough roof area for it's electricity needs to be met with
>photovoltaics plus storage in almost all of the lower 48.  Or maybe you'll
>realize the fantastic supply of sustainable wind energy that blows through
>Nebraska or the rest of the states of the Great Plains.  This doesn't even
>tie up the land -- windmills fit right in with agriculture and grazing.

    Agreed completely.  And for around $25,000, I could do just that.
    Fortunately, power does not cost me anywhere near as much as the
    amortization and maintenence costs (even for all the machines that 
    my wife and I rely on to work as well as our household appliances).

    And my subdivision does not allow windmills ...

>	Beyond just sustainable ways of producing energy,  there are also
>great steps to be made in the area of using it efficiently;  it is believed
>that America's consumption of electricity could be cut by 70% without making
>any sacrifices...  Hell,  a well-designed compact flourescent produces
>better quality light than an incadescent and lasts ten times as long,  which
>makes it more convenient to boot.  Similarly,  a well-insulated refrigerator
>keeps a more even temperature inside.

     If one assumes market efficiency, there is always a sacrifice 
     in cutting electricity usage.  

>	If nuclear power advocates would just give up their luddite-like
>apprehension towards sustainable technologies,  then we might actually
>start developing a sane energy technology for this country and the world.

     I have absolutely no fear of sustainables, just a fear of being
     led down the garden path by the incorrect economic assumptions
     of advocates.

     Show me a renewable system that competes economically with 
     the service I get from Virginia Power, and I'll switch tomorrow.
     (Oh by the way, I'm not going to rewire all of my capital goods
     in anticipation).

                               dale bass

--
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.environment,sci.physics