| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"richard schumacher" |
| Date: |
27 Apr 2007 11:14:36 AM |
| Object: |
Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
Are you aware that all the high level nuclear waste produced to supply all
the power needs for a family of 4 can fit inside a shoebox? And that if
a family of 4 *for 20 years* can fit inside a shoebox?
"The high-level nuclear waste produced by meeting the energy needs
of..."; yes. The same volume of coal would meet those energy needs for
about two hours. Nuclear materials and reactions are extremely potent
and compact compared to chemical ones.
Efficiency improvements would help the *US* considerably. But in order
to support nine billion people at a Western standard of living the
*world* will need about four times as much energy as it now uses by the
middle of the Century. The only technology we have in hand which can do
this without a disastrous acceleration of global warming is nuclear
fission. Economic democracy and environmental responsibility both
demand it.
The time for ignorant hysteria is past. Our grandchildren will curse us
as immoral idiots for not replacing fossil fueled power plants with
nuclear power as quickly as possible.
.
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
27 Apr 2007 08:51:10 PM |
|
|
"richard schumacher" <no-spam@invalid.net> wrote
Efficiency improvements would help the *US* considerably. But in order
to support nine billion people at a Western standard of living the
*world* will need about four times as much energy as it now uses by the
middle of the Century. The only technology we have in hand which can do
this without a disastrous acceleration of global warming is nuclear
fission. Economic democracy and environmental responsibility both
demand it.
So your intent is to build 150,000 new nuclear reactors for the apes ay?
How are you going to provide security for those reactors when you have
been unable to prevent weapons grade nuclear material from reaching the
black market when there are only 400 reactors in use world wide?
.
|
|
|
| User: "richard schumacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
27 Apr 2007 09:38:01 PM |
|
|
In article <I7vYh.19119$Uq.3899@read2.cgocable.net>,
"Vendicar Decarian" <BushIsATraitor@hotmail.com> wrote:
Efficiency improvements would help the *US* considerably. But in order
to support nine billion people at a Western standard of living the
*world* will need about four times as much energy as it now uses by the
middle of the Century. The only technology we have in hand which can do
this without a disastrous acceleration of global warming is nuclear
fission. Economic democracy and environmental responsibility both
demand it.
So your intent is to build 150,000 new nuclear reactors for the apes ay?
Yes. The alternatives are a roughly equal number of coal-fired power
plants, or economic injustice for most of nine billion people. Which
would you prefer?
How are you going to provide security for those reactors when you have
been unable to prevent weapons grade nuclear material from reaching the
black market when there are only 400 reactors in use world wide?
Weapons grade material comes from weapons programs. We will stop these.
Note that no material has been diverted from the French power stream,
which is guarded by the military.
These are soluble political problems. Fossil fuels have unsolved
technical problems. Which would you prefer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
28 Apr 2007 01:51:01 AM |
|
|
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
So your intent is to build 150,000 new nuclear reactors for the apes
ay?
"richard schumacher" <no-spam@invalid.net> wrote
Yes. The alternatives are a roughly equal number of coal-fired power
plants, or economic injustice for most of nine billion people. Which
would you prefer?
A false dichotomy. The question is not nuclear or coal. The question is
how efficient can we become.
The current economy is at least 90% inefficient. Double product lifetime
and you half the energy consumed in manufacturing, transportation, etc, and
you half the amount of labour needed to produce a product.
Why continue unneceessary and inefficient production and the tyrany of
wage slavery?
How are you going to provide security for those reactors when you have
been unable to prevent weapons grade nuclear material from reaching the
black market when there are only 400 reactors in use world wide?
"richard schumacher" <no-spam@invalid.net> wrote
Weapons grade material comes from weapons programs. We will stop these.
You have done such a good job with Iran and North Korea, India and
Pakistan, and of course Israel.
You have been so effective in the stopping of these nuclear programs that
I have overwhelming faith in your contunued success in a future consisting
of 150,000 nuclear reactors, tens of thousands of waste disposal sites, and
tens of millions of people working in the Nuclear industry.
"richard schumacher" <no-spam@invalid.net> wrote
Note that no material has been diverted from the French power stream,
which is guarded by the military.
Watch how quickly it gets diverted from the third world waste stream.
"richard schumacher" <no-spam@invalid.net> wrote
These are soluble political problems.
They are. But I see no evidence that the apes have become any more
intelligent in the last 2,000 years, so I suspect these political changes
will only be possible through genetic engineering.
"richard schumacher" <no-spam@invalid.net> wrote
Fossil fuels have unsolved technical problems. Which would you prefer?
A 4 fold improvement in economic efficiency through the improvement in
product lifetime, a mandated reduction in work hours to 2 days a week, a
shift to a more agrarian lifestyle, and energy production from solar, wind,
geothermal, nuclear and fossil fuels, in that order.
Oh, and a reduction in global population by a factor of 4, established
through 100 years of a one child per family fertility policy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terryc" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
27 Apr 2007 07:56:46 PM |
|
|
richard schumacher wrote:
Efficiency improvements would help the *US* considerably.
So let's put the money into energy efficncies, rather than nuclear power.
But in order to support nine billion people at a Western standard of living
So you agree that the population of the USA can start by reducing its
standard of living to that of the western world.
the *world* will need about four times as much energy as it now uses
by the middle of the Century.
This can be reduced greatly by lowering the energy use in the USA.
The only technology we have in hand which can do
this without a disastrous acceleration of global warming is nuclear
fission. Economic democracy and environmental responsibility both
demand it.
Lol, nuclear power is not democratic, as most people know it. Say hello
to the police state.
.
|
|
|
| User: "richard schumacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
27 Apr 2007 09:45:24 PM |
|
|
In article
<46329bde$0$4608$61c65585@un-2park-reader-01.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>
,
Terryc <newsonespam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote:
But in order to support nine billion people at a Western standard of living
So you agree that the population of the USA can start by reducing its
standard of living to that of the western world.
The 4x energy requirement comes from assuming that the whole world
adopts the Japanese standard for energy efficiency, which is already the
best there is (50% better than Europe, twice as good as the US). If you
believe that the US, Europe, India, China, and the rest of the world can
be convinced to abandon or forgo a high standard of living, then you are
part of the problem.
The only technology we have in hand which can do
this without a disastrous acceleration of global warming is nuclear
fission. Economic democracy and environmental responsibility both
demand it.
Lol, nuclear power is not democratic, as most people know it. Say hello
to the police state.
On the contrary: a police state would be required to keep nine billion
people living in low-energy poverty.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
27 Apr 2007 06:00:51 PM |
|
|
richard schumacher wrote:
Are you aware that all the high level nuclear waste produced to supply all
the power needs for a family of 4 can fit inside a shoebox? And that if
a family of 4 *for 20 years* can fit inside a shoebox?
"The high-level nuclear waste produced by meeting the energy needs
of..."; yes. The same volume of coal would meet those energy needs for
about two hours. Nuclear materials and reactions are extremely potent
and compact compared to chemical ones.
Efficiency improvements would help the *US* considerably. But in order
to support nine billion people at a Western standard of living the
*world* will need about four times as much energy as it now uses by the
middle of the Century. The only technology we have in hand which can do
this without a disastrous acceleration of global warming is nuclear
fission. Economic democracy and environmental responsibility both
demand it.
The time for ignorant hysteria is past. Our grandchildren will curse us
as immoral idiots for not replacing fossil fueled power plants with
nuclear power as quickly as possible.
Not replying ot you specifically, but isn't it interesting that the same
ostriches that don't believe in global warming are the same ones touting
nuclear power to solve the problem...
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, not to mention safe.
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
27 Apr 2007 09:34:41 PM |
|
|
"Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote
Not replying ot you specifically, but isn't it interesting that the same
ostriches that don't believe in global warming are the same ones touting
nuclear power to solve the problem...
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, not to mention safe.
Hell many of them are the same Criminals who claimed that smoking doesn't
cause cancer, and who proclaimed repeatedly that the Montreal Protocol - an
agreement to reducet the production and emissions of CFC's. would cost 100
trillion to implement and would kill 2 billion people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Godfather!" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
27 Apr 2007 10:31:15 PM |
|
|
Vendicar Decarian wrote:
"Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote
Not replying ot you specifically, but isn't it interesting that the same
ostriches that don't believe in global warming are the same ones touting
nuclear power to solve the problem...
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, not to mention safe.
Hell many of them are the same Criminals who claimed that smoking doesn't
cause cancer, and who proclaimed repeatedly that the Montreal Protocol - an
agreement to reducet the production and emissions of CFC's. would cost 100
trillion to implement and would kill 2 billion people.
The Godfather Thus Spake:
Or the dangers of Fluoridation of drinking water
to reduce the dental costs of tooth cavities.
Gods Daddy!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Why does the world shed crocodile's tears over the
richly merited fate of a small Jewish minority" ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Brock" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
27 Apr 2007 07:51:16 PM |
|
|
"Dan" <dnadan56@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:I9vYh.40$vH7.31@newsfe03.lga...
richard schumacher wrote:
Are you aware that all the high level nuclear waste produced to supply
all the power needs for a family of 4 can fit inside a shoebox? And
that if
a family of 4 *for 20 years* can fit inside a shoebox?
"The high-level nuclear waste produced by meeting the energy needs
of..."; yes. The same volume of coal would meet those energy needs for
about two hours. Nuclear materials and reactions are extremely potent
and compact compared to chemical ones. Efficiency improvements would help
the *US* considerably. But in order to support nine billion people at a
Western standard of living the *world* will need about four times as much
energy as it now uses by the middle of the Century. The only technology
we have in hand which can do this without a disastrous acceleration of
global warming is nuclear fission. Economic democracy and environmental
responsibility both demand it.
The time for ignorant hysteria is past. Our grandchildren will curse us
as immoral idiots for not replacing fossil fueled power plants with
nuclear power as quickly as possible.
Not replying ot you specifically, but isn't it interesting that the same
ostriches that don't believe in global warming are the same ones touting
nuclear power to solve the problem...
I don't fit that category. I believe very strongly in golbal warming.
However, I do not see nuclear power as a safe and cost effective solution
unless we are willing to ignore certian needed safeguards to circumvent
costs. But then, I've always been a little different ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "richard schumacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
27 Apr 2007 09:33:13 PM |
|
|
In article <I9vYh.40$vH7.31@newsfe03.lga>, Dan <dnadan56@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"The high-level nuclear waste produced by meeting the energy needs
of..."; yes. The same volume of coal would meet those energy needs for
about two hours. Nuclear materials and reactions are extremely potent
and compact compared to chemical ones.
Efficiency improvements would help the *US* considerably. But in order
to support nine billion people at a Western standard of living the
*world* will need about four times as much energy as it now uses by the
middle of the Century. The only technology we have in hand which can do
this without a disastrous acceleration of global warming is nuclear
fission. Economic democracy and environmental responsibility both
demand it.
The time for ignorant hysteria is past. Our grandchildren will curse us
as immoral idiots for not replacing fossil fueled power plants with
nuclear power as quickly as possible.
Not replying ot you specifically, but isn't it interesting that the same
ostriches that don't believe in global warming are the same ones touting
nuclear power to solve the problem...
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, not to mention safe.
Yes, there are some opportunists who are using global warming as a
justification for nuclear power. That does not invalidate nuclear power
as the best way to halt global warming while providing the energy needed
for the economic development of most of the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vendicar Decarian" |
|
| Title: Re: The True Costs of NUCLEAR POWER |
28 Apr 2007 01:39:03 AM |
|
|
"richard schumacher" <no-spam@invalid.net> wrote
Yes, there are some opportunists who are using global warming as a
justification for nuclear power. That does not invalidate nuclear power
as the best way to halt global warming while providing the energy needed
for the economic development of most of the world.
Energy certainly is needed to develop the rest of the world. But only a
fraction of what the U.S. consumes.
Efficiency first, then renewables, and then nuclear as a near last resort.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
