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

["ruth_weiner" <ruth_weiner@email.msn.com>]

I'd also like a response to the fact that ALL energy conversion methods have
environmental side effects, whose magnitude depends on the amount of energy
converted.  That's not a negative comment, it's a consequence of the Second
Law of Thermodynamics.  It's just another way of saying there are no easy
answers.  Just as nukes are not a cure-all, neither is solar, wind, etc.
The Second Law has been around for about 100 years and is not going away.
The "down side" to energy conversion methods are simply illustrations of the
Second Law.

I would like to add one item to the solar energy discussion:  we actually
have provided both heat and hot water with solar collectors to a couple of
houses in Bellingham, WA (not your sunny warm climate), except it is not
possible at all during December and January because daylight doesn't last
long enough.  Which illustrates the point: energy is going to be supplied by
a mix of methods, not by any total substitutions.  Solar energy is best for
direct heating, and better in some places than others, and using it for that
allows a cutback on electricity supply.  I might point out that where I
live, in Albuquerque, most people have de facto solar heating, some actually
supply heat and hot water with solar collectors, and most of us use
evaporative cooling instead of air conditioning, but we still use thermally
generated electricity for electrical uses.

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com

Ruth Weiner
ruth_weiner@msn.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 9:54 PM
Subject: Re: norm's "grand plan" (alternatives to nukes/coal)


>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



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