From: kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com (Kevin Brown)
Subject: Re: Radioactivity and Superstition (and the *Real* Problems)
Organization: I can't see any in the immediate vicinity...
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:05:29 GMT

In article <52907@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.133036.25840@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> whitlock@dcss.mcmaster.ca (Jeremy Whitlock) writes:
>>In article <JYM.92Sep1181648@remarque.mica.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu (Jym Dyer) writes:
>>>
>>>>> General luddism.  Nuclear applications are new.
>>>
>>>=\= Pro-nuke advocates are always bringing this up, but I must
>>>say that I've never met even one anti-nuke advocate who was
>>>actually motivated by Luddism.  Not a single one.
>>
>>Come on now.  Of course if you walked into an anti-nuke demonstration and 
>>asked around if anyone was a Luddite, or if anyone had a fear of technology, 
>>you'd find no-one.  If you asked the anti-automobile crowd at the turn of the
>>century you'd also find no-one.  If you asked the anti-vaccination,      
>>anti-airplane, anti-immunization, anti-genetic engineering, anti-steam power,
>>anti-electric light bulb, anti-pasteurization, anti-space travel,     
>>anti-blood transfusion, anti-X-ray, or any anti-<new technology> crowd over
>>the last century of so, you'd likewise find few who outright expressed a
>>fear of technology.  Unless, of course, you looked deeper.
>
>And what about if you looked "deeper" into the motives of those who
>are against wind and solar technolgies? 

Let's have a show of hands here.

How many of us are actually *against* wind and solar technologies?

Now let's change the question slightly, to reflect what I (and, presumably,
others) believe it to actually be:

How many of us are against wind and solar technologies AS REPLACEMENTS
FOR EXISTING AND CURRENTLY PROPOSED POWER GENERATING STATIONS?

I have absolutely nothing against solar and wind technologies.  In
certain situations, they are the best choice.

But few situations are as context-free as many people (particularly the
anti-nuke types) would like to believe.  If, for example, the power
station being proposed is to be sited on the northern part of the east
coast and must generate 1 GW, solar technology will probably be
inappropriate due to the lack of continuous sunlight.  Wind technology
might fare better, but this depends on whether or not the wind patterns
are consistent and favorable.  That leaves you with coal, hydroelectric,
coal, nuclear, and possibly natural gas (there any 1GW natural gas
stations?  I was under the impression that NG was primarily used to
deal with peak-load situations only, rather than baseload).  Hydroelectric
is probably out, inasmuch as it's currently being exploited about as
much as it can be (corrections welcome).

GIVEN THE ABOVE CHOICES, I happen to think that nuclear power is the best
choice.  It's relatively compact, efficient, clean, and (if the reactor
is designed properly) safe.

If there is indeed some sort of anti-wind and anti-solar hysteria, I
haven't seen it (relevent citations of such things are, of course,
welcome).  If solar technology advances to the point where it is as
cost-effective, efficient, and useful as nuclear technology is today,
I'll welcome it with open arms.  The same is true of wind power.  I
only have a problem with claims that these technologies are somehow
better than the current technologies in terms of cost-effectiveness
and reliability (such arguments need to be backed up).

What are the *technical* reasons used by the anti-nuke crowd to justify
their opposition to the construction of nuclear power plants, that do not
apply to any *other* power-generating technology that can fill the need
for a 1GW power station in a reasonably cost-effective manner?  I
know of none that have not been laid to rest by sound engineering, i.e.
"technofixes".

>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu


-- 
				Kevin Brown

			    kevin@nuchat.sccsi.com
			    kevin@taronga.taronga.com