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

[Neon John <johngd@bellsouth.net>]

Norman & Karen Cohen wrote:
> 
> Hi all
> In order to save space, let me respond to all those who posted on the
> thread about what would I suggest we replace nukes and coal with.

Nah, not going to get off that easy.  I made several very specific
requests of you yesterday concerning environmental impact analysis
of your proposals.  If I'm going to spend (waste?) my time sharing
my knowledge and experience with you and doing the research and
computations that you should have done before hanging your hat on
the anti side, I request the courtesy of a reply directed at my
issues.  If you don't really want a dialog and are just looking for
a place to pontificate, that's fine.  I, and I hope all of my
colleagues will back off and let you do it.  But I won't waste my
time on any other dialog.

> This is a very complex problem, and I just gave Sandy a broad sketch of
> where to go. Of course there will be obstacles of all kinds placed on
> the road.

No, it's not a complex problem.  It is a very simple problem if
science is used to make the decisions.  Closed cycle nuclear is THE
cleanest, the least impactful and the safest of any energy source
including solar.  Your side has never been able to refute that
statement with facts and instead rely on emotion.  Obstacles aren't
"placed on the road" to your utopia.  Basic physics takes care of
that.  There's an old saying that goes something like 'Those who
ignore history are doomed to repeat it'.  The energy corollary is '
those who ignore the science are doomed to make the same mistakes as
their predecessors.'  

> The important part of my answer (for me at least) to Sandy, concerned
> "national will". As the many people on this list have shown by the
> obvious intelligence exhibited in their postings, this country has the
> personal resources to tackle most any problem and succeed. 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.

I challenge you again to produce an energy source (and not just an
energy transport such as hydrogen) that is "safer, cleaner, more
efficient" AND practical.  We've demonstrated with just a few
matchbook calculations that neither hydro nor wind is practical.  A
few slightly more complex computations shows solar for the failure
that it is.  And that's before the practical matter of environmental
impact analysis is done.   Please, Norm, don't pull a Clinton. 
Don't try to dodge the issue and change the subject.  Clinton's a
master; you're not.  

I want to hear specifics on the environmental impact of, say,
widespread solar deployment.  If you or your group have not done the
analysis, then you're doing little more than floating a straw man
proposal.

> As Mr Pyle's post shows, the paths to get there are growing clearer each
> day. But the effort and expense will be major, for both the US and for
> developing countries that want industrialization on the quick.

And the goal or payback is?

> 
> 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. But what could be done
> with an investment of 150 billion a year for 10 years (1 trillion, 500
> billion bucks) into
> alternatives?

Ok.  I'd like to see an environmental and societal impact analysis
of a conventional world war III, what will happen if some US leader
is foolish enough to withdraw our nukes and again disarm like we did
between the previous two world wars.  Recall that little saying
about those who forget history?

> Finally, a quick question - do any of you get EREN news from the DOE? A
> weekly email newsletter that updates the US's progress on alternative
> energy. And its from the DOE, not us
> no-nukers.

I've seen it but I can't stand to read it.  It is a step-by-step
documentation of the dying quiver of our once-great national labs
grasping in the dark for a mission, any mission.  I don't like
grieving and what is going on in the national labs now makes me
grieve.

Lastly, I urge everyone else on this list to cease responding to
Norm until he answers the specific questions that have been put
before him.  Let's force the issue of a meaningful dialog and not
allow this pontification to continue to waste our time.

John

-- 
John De Armond
johngdSPAMNOT@bellsouth.net
http://personal.bellsouth.net/~johngd/
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html