AW: [ RadSafe ] cost per kilowatt ratio

[Franz Schönhofer]

Jeff,

I do not recall that I read your name before on RADSAFE - welcome to the
community! Please do not fall from the beginning into the trap of Mr.
Salsman. He has since months (years?) tried to keep us busy with his
DU-stories, with queer, nonexisting compounds of DU, "gases" of those
nonexisting compounds, trying to convince us to accept them as the real
dangerous compounds causing detriment etc. etc. Any facts put forward by
RADSAFE subscribers - among them some very well familiar with DU,
epidemiology, with access to all kind of US and international research -
have not been able to stop his ever repeated claims. 

Obviously some clear messages during the last few days have caused him to
change suddenly the subject of his ire - now we have suddenly contributions
about the inefficiency of nuclear power, the great efficiency of wind,
solar,..... everything without any funded arguments. 

I absolutely do not want to disencourage you to answer to his claims, the
facts you put forward are very intrested and obviously very well researched,
but I do not believe that you will convince Mr. Salsman - he will always
find some point of criticism and if it only would be that he will tell
everybody that you wrote 4.5% and according to his sources it would be only
4.4 %.....

Best regards,

Franz
 

Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Jeff Terry
Gesendet: Samstag, 10. Februar 2007 18:48
An: radsafelist
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] cost per kilowatt ratio

I do believe that I stated "let's consider the next 30 years"

Shaping is clearly an issue with wind power. I don't believe that you  
will see hydro in the U. S., the fishing industry is too important.

3% of U. S. land is a miniscule percentage, considering that in 1982  
only 3% of U. S. land excluding Alaska was used at population density  
of 4 people per acre (Land Economics, Vol. 58, No. 2 (May, 1982), pp.  
236-259).

However, as more wind turbines are built in the farmland along the  
migratory flyways, your bird kills will greatly increase. When you  
look at the flyways (http://www.birdnature.com/allflyways.html) you  
find that much of the U. S. is covered by major migratory pathways.

Maybe, killing birds and fish is more acceptable than burying  
reprocessing and reburning nuclear fuel or/even burying it in the  
ground and this issue could be ignored. I for one would hate to see  
the 10-12 thousand Sandhill Cranes that migrate through the farmland  
of Northwest Indiana chopped up in wind turbine blades. Just a couple  
of sources:

One small wind farm kills about 1000 birds a year.
(Biosystems Analysis, Inc., Wind Turbine Effects on Avian Activity,  
Habitat Use, and Mortality in Altamont Pass and Solano County Wind  
Resource Areas: 1989-91 (Sacramento: California Energy Commission,  
1992))

and my favorite quote from the Sierra Club who call wind turbines the  
"the cuisinarts of the air."
(Paul Gipe, Wind Energy Comes of Age, p. 450.)

Nuclear power looks better to me all of the time.

Jeff