[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
No wind in my backyard....
Funny, the proponents of nuclear energy are often subjected to the "too
cheap to meter" statement (how long ago did that happen - fifty years,
maybe?).
But many proponents of solar and wind energy make exactly the same mistake
with their outlandish claims of "The sun/wind are free!" Maybe they are,
but that doesn't mean the process of turning that energy into something we
can use is free. That doesn't mean that solar or wind power are available
or reliable enough to replace other forms of power generation. Fits nicely
on a bumper sticker, though.
(In all fairness, people who actually know something about alternative
sources of energy aren't the ones making those claims - it's the uninformed
ones who are primarily just anti-nuclear and who support solar and wind
power as 'noble causes' to battle the nuclear boogey-man.)
I for one would like to see solar and wind power developed IF they don't
have greater drawbacks than the current forms of energy production we use,
but bumper-sticker slogans don't show me anything. It's not a matter of
philosophy -- whether they are viable methods of power generation depends on
science, engineering, economics, thermodynamics, etc., just like anything
else. And discussing those issues so that relative comparisons can be made
is fair game, in my book. It's not as easy as "Nuclear: Bad. Wind: Good."
By the way, it seems a little odd for one of the thousands (?!? we're that
famous?) of 'lurkers' to lash out at a regular contributer in order to
defend Radsafe against off-topic postings. I think the Radsafe moderator
handles that task quite diplomatically. I suspect it's more a case of the
hoof of somebody's sacred cow being stepped on. So, sorry, Mr./Ms.
Himalaya, if that really is your name.
Vincent "Rockies" King
Grand Junction, CO
P.S.
>From Merriam Webster's online dictionary:
Radiation:
1 a : the action or process of radiating b : the process of emitting radiant
energy in the form of waves or particles c (1) : the combined processes of
emission, transmission, and absorption of radiant energy (2) : the transfer
of heat by radiation -- compare CONDUCTION, CONVECTION
2 a : something that is radiated b : energy radiated in the form of waves or
particles
I'm not sure what the 'theoretically correct' definition is, since Mr./Ms.
Himalaya didn't provide it and the hint didn't help at all, but Bob Hearn's
short version, "transfer of energy," doesn't seem like nonsense to me.
VK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mountain Himalaya" <mountain_dog@eudoramail.com>
To: <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: We love wind -- or do we?
> Bob Hearn claimed:
>
> >Continue your lurking, Mountain_dog, but don't waste >bandwidth trying to
> >interfere with discussions of energy resouces, recognizing >that the root
of
> >RadSafe is the term radiation - a transfer of energy.
>
> Nonsense. Your definition of radiation is not theoretically correct,
(hint: gamma radiation). Consult your freshman college physics books.
>
> Your line of reasoning is not much better than your definition of
radiation.
>
> I recognize the radsafers right to favor certain political points of
views, to like and dislike certain personalities. I however object to posts
ereflecting these points of views in an alternate energy sources context.
>
> The original post was nothing more than criticizing some personalities in
context of energy production.
>
> Bob: You can also argue against me for not revealing my true identity but
that would be besides the point.
>
> Thank you and Best Regards.
>
>
>
************************************************************************
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/