Re: Greenpeace and Christopher Beyer

["Hampshire, John" <John.Hampshire@Jacobs.com>]

I hesitated to jump into this fray as it is by default an emotionally
charged issue.  As such, let me begin with the universal disclaimer that
these opinions are solely my own, and do not necessarily reflect my
employer's or any other entity.

I would like to thank Mr. Beyer for his thoughtful opinions.  I was
greatly impressed by his courage to openly and honestly express ideas
that he undoubtedly knew would be unpopular in this forum.  I don't
agree with all of his opinions, but that does not make my gratitude
towards him diminish.  It has been fascinating to read the e-mails he
sparked.

That said, I would like to offer a few of my own observations.  The only
way to truly evaluate the relative worth of one energy source versus
another is the method alluded to in Mr. Beyers' second e--mail:  a true
cost-benefit analysis (ALL costs, not just dollars).  I personally
believe that nuclear power is the best option currently available to us
for generating large amounts of centralized power.  This was true ten
years ago, and is true today (again in my opinion!).  Unfortunately, I
am unaware of any hard, unbiased evaluations to support this notion.  By
the way, it would be patently unfair to account for historical costs to
develop a technology in this equation.  I say this out of a desire NOT
to tip[ the scales toward nuclear power.  After all, should we attempt
to estimate the true historical costs of the second-cleanest heat
generation method (natural gas), we would have to accept the death toll
incurred during all the pre-OSHA days of drilling.

Notice that I referred to "large amounts of centralized power."  Solar
and wind power generation do have a potential place in our system, but
it is likely to be limited to individual supplementary use.  The
argument that its useful life is limited to seven or less years is
easily countered by the assumption that an either technology would
likely benefit from technological advances either of these ever
experience the economic forces of supply and demand (witness the
advancements of any other technology driven by these forces - computers
come readily to mind as one example).  There are technical limitations,
to be sure, so this isn't the panacea some would hope.  Nonetheless, it
bears consideration.

In the end, I have to agree that neither of these sources are likely to
seriously dent the electrical capacity demand.  At best, they will
supplement it, but even then their effectiveness will be limited to
areas most suitable for their implementation.  I doubt seriously that
Seattle could do much with even a perfect solar panel system.

By the way, in reference to wind power, the wind mills between Oakland
and Livermore have been blamed for some deaths.  Seemed individuals
motoring down the highway got mesmerized by the hypnotic motion of the
twirling blades, and drove in directions the road was not meant to
support....  It just goes to say that no power source is perfect in any
regard.

Unfortunately, these are all logical arguments for use in an emotional
war....


P.S.:  it is also my humble opinion that we need radicals like
Greenpeace to help define the extremes of opinions and enable reasonable
people to form rational opinions (a la the CERCLA and NEPA approach to
public participation); the real problem is they are being portrayed as
"mainstream," and their arguments are being given a disproportionate
weight.

John Hampshire, Health Physicist (and nuclear power supporter, but
formerly someone who was duped by anti-nuclear arguments in my high
school days...)
John.Hampshire@jacobs.com
(by the way, my principle duties are in the field of environmental
consulting, if that helps anyone to understand my perspective better).