Re: lots of responses, one email, easy deleting, low in calories

["dkosloff1" <dkosloff1@EMAIL.MSN.COM>]

Norm,



There in no "false nuke vs coal dichotomy."  It is reality, proven by the

Swedish experience and the plans of the Red Chinese.  It is also a reality

that is responsible for the most powerful opposition to nuclear power, that

of coal mining interests (unions and mining companies).  I don't know how

many years you lived in coal mining country, but I lived in WV for three

years.  If you think coal miners (and railroad companies) are just going to

fold their tents and walk away, you have another think coming.  Even the

alleged nuclear phase-out in Germany is driven partly by coal mining

interests.  There is substantial alternative enegy only where there is

little or no coal.  France and Japan are two examples, both rely heavily on

nuclear power and plan to continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

France is 80% nuclear plus export and Japan is building more nuclear power

plants.



As for your natural gas bridge: it explodes and kills people and leaves

others horribly maimed.  That may not bother you, but it bothers me.  Not

long after Chernobyl, there was a natural gas explosion in Siberia that

killed at least 600 people.  They don't know how many for sure because an

unknown number of bodies were completely incinerated.  There have been

several fatal natural gas explosions and fires in the US that have killed

more than 100 people.  Ten or twenty deaths at a pop is not remarkable.

Even at current natural gas usage rates, US nuclear power can never even

approach natural gas in terms of human deaths.   In addition R. Bertell (a

hard-core anti-nuke) has written that natural gas use is one of the largest

contributors to individual radiation exposure.  Natural gas usage releases

radon gas.



Even if Senator Kerry's rosy prediction were to occur; in 20 years, 80% of

US energy would still have to come from other than alternative sources.   At

least 50% of that would be from coal.  That would be more coal usage than we

have now.  Don't forget that geothermal energy releases radioactivie

materials and multiple toxic materials, including hydrogen sulfide.   I grew

up in Lakeport, CA about 30 miles from the Geysers geothermal field.  When I

went back home after the geothermal field had been developed I could often

smell the hydrogen sulfide in the air when the wind came from the fields.



Bear in mind that Senator Kerry does not know squat about energy and

engineering, he just knows how to mine for votes.  I have been an energy

engineer for thirty years, including about 7 when I was an anti-nuke.  I

learn from my mistakes as well as from my other experiences.



People have been yapping about wave power for decades, yet nothing has come

of it.  Solar and wind energy have been availible to most people for

decades, yet few of them do anything about it.  There is no magic solution

to energy supply.



Don Kosloff dkosloff1@msn.com

2910 Main Street, Perry OH 44081



----- Original Message -----

From: "Norman Cohen" <ncohen12@HOME.COM>

To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:56 AM



> Don, I do disagree with you that replacing nukes with alternatives

> means more coal. From day 1 on this list I've agreed that coal sucks big

> time. When I write "Alternatives" I mean: solar, wind, wave, geothermal,

> landfill gas, some bio mass, bio diesel, efficiency, with natural gas as

> a bridge/gap filler until enough renewables come on line.





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.