2008-2-5 15:42:00
Jody writes:
"First and foremost, we are not ready for nuclear power. Look around the world right now and you want to increase nuclear power?"
JJ:
Yes, definitely.
It sounds like you are mixing up nuclear weapons with nuclear power.
Jody:
"No way. I am very content in pushing it back until it can be perfected in such a way that no waste is generated and we as a race are smart enough to use it and use it responsibly."
JJ:
If we had this attitude toward cars the we would still be using the horse and buggy. In the beginning many thought that the automobile was a tremendous hazard. Suppose we decided to not drive cars until they were perfected and of no danger to anyone? The result is we would have no cars. We improved them by using them and they are still not perfect. We continue to use them even though they kill 50,000 people a year in the United States alone. The reason? The benefit is worth the risk of the danger involved.
Jody:
"I suggest reading an occasional copy of 'Popular Science.'"
JJ:
People often tell me to read something nebulous. To make a point one should quote something specific from the magazine or book mentioned.
Jody:
"If any of you have done any research on solar power, then guess what? We have just developed the technology to bring solar power down to what coal power electricity costs us now."
JJ:
This is still far from being perfected.
Altogether renewable sources (namely wind, solar and geothermal) only supply about 2.4 percent of the electricity for the United States.
To build a solar energy plant equal to the power of a typical coal burning one of a billion watt capacity then would occupy a space of 50 square miles.
To even come close to supplying our energy needs we would need about 500 plants which would require (figuring maintenance roads and access) 25,000 square miles of ground which is equal to the surface area of Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New Jersey combined.
It is true we have made some advanced in solar energy but they are not yet commercially available and even when they are we would still need a tremendous area of land to power more than 5 percent of the country and at present electricity from solar is much more expensive than coal. In a few more years we may be able to power more than our water heaters with solar energy if we are living in an area with good sunshine -- but even here installation will be expensive. I would consider getting solar energy myself if it was not so expensive.
Jody:
"Now, huge solar power plants could be built in our deserts. Huge wind power plants could be built in the windy areas. Both can be utilized in big cities where wind is very prevalent at the higher altitudes on the rooftops of the buildings and solar can be used on the tops as well and even built into all the windows on the buildings."
JJ:
And they are doing this as it is economically viable but the chances of supplying more than 5-10 percent of our power is very slim. Green people like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are already fed up with proliferation with the eyesore of wind and suing to contain it.
Jody:
"Next, lets continue to develop electronics, light bulbs, and so forth that give us more for less such as the light bulbs you spoke of."
JJ:
But no matter how much we conserve demand will always go up. This helps but is not the solution.
Jody:
"We also need to continue working on hydrogen as a source of fuel. How much water do you see on the planet? There is unlimited potential there as well. Electrolysis easily separates Hydrogen from Oxygen."
JJ:
But it currently takes more carbon based energy to produce a unit of hydrogen than the energy released. Thus hydrogen will not reduce pollution of greenhouse gasses with the current technology. If we could produce hydrogen from nuclear energy then we could have a carbon free non polluting supply of hydrogen.
Jody:
"Not to mention, we haven't even begun to tap into geothermal energy."
JJ:
Unless there is some breakthrough in geothermal technology we are unlikely to power more than several percent of our country from this. Currently less than 1% of our power comes from geothermal.
Jody:
"So combine the use of wind, solar, hydrogen and geothermal, and conservation, all of which are free and have zero emissions and not to mention you can't blow someone up with it."
JJ:
These three only supply 2.4 percent of our energy and are unlikely to supply more than 5 percent in the foreseeable future. We have to look at what can be done in the practical future.
Jody:
"I prefer these technologies to be developed."
JJ:
Their development is already fairly well under way and they have not yet proven themselves viable for producing more than a couple percent of our energy needs.
Jody:
"The byproducts from these technologies are far safer to our planet than nuclear waste any day."
JJ:
They are not safer. There has not been one life in the western hemisphere lost because of nuclear radiation in the creation of electricity whereas many lives have been lost because of coal plants and other methods. There has also not been one animal killed either whereas windmills have killed many birds, some on the endangered species.
All energy sources have problems. For instance producing the materials for solar (vast quantities of steel, glass, and concrete) for deployment of a solar hardware requires about 3 percent as much coal burning as producing the same amount of electricity by direct coal burning.
In addition to this solar panels often use cadmium compounds which are very poisonous and must be replaced and disposed of periodically.
Jody:
"Again, how many years does it take these wastes to decay?"
JJ:
Most of the waste decays to a fairly safe level in about 60 years and we could store all the plutonium from every plant in the United States in my living room. Plutonium is about as poisonous as caffeine.
The good news is the waste can be recycled through Integral Fast Reactors and could power the United States for 1000 years without mining any more uranium.
Jody:
"And what harm comes if these wastes break down? What harm comes if some petty nation decides to take these wastes and proliferate nuclear weapons with them."
JJ:
The plutonium in a breeder reactor cannot be touched by human hands for it would mean instant death. For one thing the temperature is so high that it would evaporate a body and the radioactivity of the mix would kill. The nuclear materials have to be handled with robotic arms.
Stealing the plutonium would not be like in the movies where the bad guy runs off with a briefcase, but would involve an almost impossible undertaking.
Then, after the plutonium is stolen it would have to be smuggled out of the country and an advanced nuclear technology and equipment would have to be available somewhere in order to make a bomb.
If a rogue state wants to make the bomb, it will have to do it the way Iran is attempting to do it: build their own reactors, obtain some uranium ore and separate enough U-235 to complete the job.
Jody:
"Oh, and what about the side effects of nuclear energy on our genetic code. Have you not seen the pictures of the animals growing extra legs and arms? Radiation causes cancer."
JJ:
You've been watching too many horror movies. You get more radiation from your watch and much more from a coal fired plant then you do from a nuclear plant. The greatest scare (mostly contrived) from Three Mile Island released much less radioactivity than you get by walking to the grocery store.
Jody:
"Until we rise above our selfishness and petty differences as a race, until we are smart enough, nuclear does not need to proliferate."
JJ:
If you were to say nuclear bombs I would agree, but nuclear energy is an entirely different matter and its time we stopped being spooked by it through the use of scare tactics.
Jody:
"Does this energy provide life?"
JJ:
"More than other sources. It has power to make the desert blossom as the rose and give abundance to the starving masses."
Jody:
"No. It provides power not life."
JJ:
"Life needs power to flourish."
Jody:
"This energy is used in weapons of mass destruction and they kill."
JJ:
No one in the United States has EVER been killed because of radiation from a nuclear power plant.
Jody:
"Humanity can live without power. We've did it for eons."
JJ:
Humanity has never lived without power. Throughout history those with the greatest sources of power have lived with the most abundance. In the past slavery was one of the sources of power but that has been replaced by other sources. Without the developments we have had in power slavery would probably still exist.
Jody:
"Radiation causes cancer and harms our genetic code. The waste kills the planet and will probably cause repercussions far into the future."
JJ:
But that has never been a problem with nuclear energy. Being afraid of nuclear radiation from a power plant is more unrealistic than being afraid of the fire going off in your engine as you drive down the road. A hundred years from now these nuclear fears will be seen in the same light.
Jody:
"Let's see, I may be happy because I was warm in the winter and cold in the summer. However, I'm not happy because people use this technology as a weapon of mass destruction. I'm not happy that the wastes could harm future generations as well as our own."
JJ:
A nuclear power plant is NOT a weapon of mass destruction and so far the waste has not harmed a living soul in the United States.
I would be very happy if this power source were used to bring relief in suffering to millions of people throughout the planet. Why stand in the way of this?
skoosh73 writes:
"The fears that the main public have concerning nuclear power are not just phantoms."
JJ:
I would submit that most of them are phantoms. Can you name one that is not?
skoosh73:
"I found this study to be interesting. Though it promotes "keeping nuclear power on the table" It addresses many of the problems of nuclear power. The reasons cited for overcoming solutions to these problems seem to be economics.
" http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf "
JJ:
It appears the main negative pointed out there are the "concerns" of the environmentalists. Fortunately most of their concerns are illusionary.
The article concludes:
"But we believe the nuclear option should be retained, precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power that can potentially make a significant contribution to future electricity supply."
It is also significant that this article was written in 1990 and the safety factor in the latest generation of reactors developed since then has been increased significantly.
In conclusion let me note that when we look realistically at our alternatives nuclear energy is our best hope. It is entirely possible that a source could be developed that could power the world without having the bogeyman factor to it. I would have no problem supporting any energy source that can supply our needs with relative safety.
I'll end with a quote from DK:
"On the physical plane, the great scientific discovery, called colloquially the 'splitting of the atom,' will be turned eventually to the production of those conditions which will enable mankind to follow the good, the beautiful and the true. This men will then be able to do, freed from the dread presence of purely materialistic thinking. This is no idle vision or vague dream. Many scientists today (and particularly those who love their fellowmen) are not only visioning the non-destructive aspect of atomic energy but are already engaged in harnessing-for the good of humanity -- some of its products and its radioactive properties."
("Rays & Initiations," by Alice A. Bailey, Pg 648)
Copyright © 2008 by JJ Dewey, All Rights Reserved