From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Nuke Stupidity Rebuttal
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:39:44 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <54008@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>It seems obvious to me that the risks posed by coal are of a different
>kind than the risks posed by nuclear fission. Coal has many obvious
>problems, but given current technology, no coal plant can cause the
>same level of devastation that we see at Chernobyl (unless we want to
>take the improbabilities of statistical mechanics into account and
>thus render the whole discussion futile). 

On the other hand, most of us consider the *routine* risks offered by
coal and oil to be of a different type causing significantly more *proven*
damage than that of nuclear. Even including Chernobyl, which all of us
agree was an unsafe design, the global effects of the *routine* pollution
caused by coal and oil are still greater than the effects of nuclear power
operations *and* accidents over the last 30 years. If you add in mining
hazards such as roof falls and black lung, transportation accidents, refinery
explosions, coal yard fires, steam plant explosions, and the like, the
balance tips even further in favor of nuclear power. It's true that an
absolute worst case nuclear accident involving sudden breach of primary
and secondary containment followed by a fire for dispersal would have
a regional effect worse than any *single* coal plant accident, but coal
plants *don't need accidents* to do severe harm to the environment, they
do it *routinely*. 


>Since there appears no pressing need for immediate construction of
>new generating capacity, my belief is that it pays to be cautious here.
>I'd rather spend money on solar, conservation, insulation, natural
>gas, fancy pollution control equipment ....  For detailed descriptions
>of alternate energy paths see proposals by the UCS, EPRI, and the 
>Rocky Mountain Institute. In these you will find in depth analysis of
>comparative costs.

While it's not urgent to increase *net* generating capacity in the
US or Europe in the next few years, it's essential to replace aging
plant on an ongoing basis over the next few decades. *And* the third
world is rightfully demanding access to electrical power. I don't want
to see any more coal plants built. And I don't want to see the busbar
price of electricity increase dramatically. Conservation and insulation
are fine, they *slow* the rate of increase for new *net* capacity in
already industrialized nations, but they don't address the issues of 
replacing aging plant or supplying capacity to emerging nations. Solar 
and indirect solar are significantly higher cost sources of electricity
than coal or nuclear. Their use would raise busbar prices sharply.
Natural gas is only a short term solution, and it still emits CO2
and NOx pollutants as a *routine* part of it's operation. It *is*
the current best alternative to nuclear however. If we pin our hopes
on a clean and cost effective replacement for natural gas generation
being developed in the next 50 years, we may be alright, but that's
a mighty big if on which to gamble the future of industrial civilization. 
We have better uses for natural gas than generating electricity. There 
aren't many better uses for nuclear power than generating electricity.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy