Re: Public Trust and Other Dreams

[Ruth Sponsler <jk5554@YAHOO.COM>]

Russ - 



I will 'believe in coal' when acid rain on ridgeline

habitats (mountain top biogeographical 'islands') is

not a problem. 



http://www.itpi.dpi.state.nc.us/counties/Yancey/yancey/mtview.html



http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/nsfoutreach/htm/n50_z2/pages_z3/17_pg.htm

 

I support nuclear because it is the alternative to

fossil fuels that is able to generate the most

practical quantity of electricity (large amounts).  



I also happen to think that solar is a good

alternative for sunny (Southwestern) regions

especially with passive designs.  However, even if

everyone in the states of New Mexico or Arizona had a

solar system on their roof, they would still need some

non-solar generation, because solar cannot generate

sufficient power for peaks or at all times of the day.

 For that other electricity need, I'll take Palo Verde

over Four Corners Coal Plant any day.



The article below, while admittedly heavy on the

'propaganda' side, states that Four Corners spewed 13

million tons of 'toxins' in the air.  I think they

mean mainly nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides. 



http://dinecare.indigenousnative.org/4_corners_toxins.html



Even if the figure is an exaggeration, the point is

that Four Corners Power plant puts out enough air

pollutants to obscure vistas that were once very clear

in the region, while Palo Verde emits very little.  By

the way, Four Corners was built _after_ the

anti-nuclear pressure movement had its heyday out in

California with Jackson Browne etc.  The power

companies decided that coal was the 'default'

alternative.  



I have found coal to be a very "interesting" default

choice of people who call themselves

"environmentalists" [not!].  When presented with the

choice of being anti-nuke or 'hugging a tree,' these

people choose to be anti-nuke and to kill the tree by

allowing coal as the 'default' option.



On the other hand, I have found no evidence so far

that being pro-nuke is incompatible with 'hugging

trees.' [I mean conservation of forests, wilderness,

etc.]



In answer to the original question, I became

interested in energy issues when I was a kid growing

up in California during the 'energy crisis' of 1975. 



~Ruth 2.  







> I will believe in nuclear power when two things have

> been done. First,

> nuclear reactors are extremely inefficient. Up to

> 90% of the energy

> produced is dumped as radiant heat with only 10-15%

> utilized for power

> conversion. Recycle some of that lost energy to get

> "more bang from the

> buck". Secondly, the waste management issue. Got to

> find a way to either

> produce less long-term rad waste, or figure a way to

> "recycle" it. Yucca

> Mountain just like WIPP in New Mexico is only a

> temporary fix. It will

> fill up and then close. Then what?

> So, two good threads can come from this query......

> - Russ Johnson

>   Radiation Safety and Training Specialist

>   New Mexico State University

> 

>



__________________________________________________

Do You Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more

http://games.yahoo.com/

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

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.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/