Re: norm's "grand plan" (alternatives to nukes/coal)

[Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>]

May 2

	Norm writes:

	"The question is whether we have the will and national leadership needed
to lead us, and the world, away from all fossil fuels (including gas) and
away from nukes (sorry guys) to a world of safe, clean and efficient energy."

	Norm, the drawbacks of (for instance) solar panels have been explained to
you.  You have done nothing to explain away these drawbacks -- and they
can't be explained away.  Housing developers have to fight environmental
protectionists and state bureaucracies for years to build a few houses on a
few acres or a few square miles.  How long is it going to take to get
approval to cover hundreds of square miles with solar panels?  What are you
going to do about all the "endangered species" whose habitats will be
destroyed by the vast fields of solar panels?

	We already have a safe, clean, and efficient source of energy, and it's
called nuclear.

	Next:

	"The money is there. Its stuck in the military budget (300 + BILLION,
including 12 Billion for nuke weapons). At 50% of that budget we'd still
be the strongest military superpower on the face of the earth with the
capacity to blow anyone back to the stone age."

	This makes it patently obvious that yours is a political agenda.  I am not
looking to start a debate in political science, but it so happens that
defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government.  And quite
frankly, Norm, I don't think you would be satisfied even if the defense
budget were reduced by 50 percent.

	
	Finally:

	"There were many excellent comments, mostly in the negative, about what
problems each type of alternative energy brought with it to the table, and
I'm not about to argue with any of those caveats or problems, because
that's not
the point."

	What is the point?  That you don't like the atom because it is controlled
by large corporations?  Do you think those enormous fields of solar panels
are going to be build by weekenders working in their garages?  They will be
built in factories owned by multi-national companies.  The same thing goes
for fuel cells, tidal machines, and windmills.

	No matter what source of energy you can think of that has the capacity to
serve tens of millions of people, it will be built by large corporations
because they are the only institutions with the necessary amount of
capital, and the capacity to muster the human and material resources to get
the job done.  Or is full scale socialism lurking in the wings -- is that
what you are really hoping for, Norm?  I can't help but suspect that this
is your actual long-range goal.

Steven Dapra
sjd@swcp.com



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html