Re: Are nukes the answer to global warming?

From: BlackWater (bw_at_barrk.net)
Date: 02/09/05 

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 22:48:01 GMT

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 23:57:17 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<EXTRApublic21@lakeweb.com> wrote:

>
>
>Tim O'Flaherty wrote:
>> A solution must be politically,
>> technically AND economically feasable.
>
>This would seem to be an impossible requirement. Evidenced in that we
>still don't seem to have a 'solution'. Take 'politically' out and it
>would be readily feasible.

   CAN'T take out "politically" ... indeed the 'technical'
   and 'economical' parts are LESS important - as witnessed
   in our Apollo program and Reagans 'Star Wars' hoax. Sell
   the public FIRST and THEN worry about the money and
   technical details.

>As you wouldn't take our last discussion to a conclusion, I'll do it
>now. The problem is not the technology. The problem is human. It may
>eventually turn out that we are not capable of using nuclear
>economically, but that will be because of the political nature of this
>beast. Nuclear is a sound technology; from mining to disposal. It is the
>perception that something is wrong with nuclear that has become the problem.

   I think it *can* be used in an economic fashion.
   The trick is creating enough momentum so that
   most of the critics will be bowled-over. There
   will always be some screamin' meemies ... but
   if they're not TOO numerous they can be ignored.

   Nuclear power is the obvious REALISTIC solution
   to the presumed 'global warming' crisis - all
   other proposed alternatives are pie-in-the-sky
   either because of technical difficulties or
   ridiculous costs. This has to be hammered in
   until it overcomes the political appeal of
   those 'alternatives'.

   Half the battle is in creating safer, cleaner,
   nuclear plants. They MUST be intrinsically safe
   so loss of coolant, terror attack or just inept
   employees CANNOT cause any kind of meltdown. The
   Three-Mile-Island and especially Chernobyl events
   are deeply engraved in the public consciousness
   and it will take a TRUELY safe design to get
   around that.

   The waste disposal issue will always be plagued
   by the NIMBY phenomena, but by using remote lands
   already under federal jurisdiction this can be
   overcome. The 'pebble-bed' type reactor is both
   intrinsically safe AND leaves wastes nicely,
   strongly, encapsulated. Most of the research
   money should be shifted there so they can
   make the final refinements on the 'pebble'
   shells.

   To overcome political resistance SIGNIFICANT
   improvements in safety and cleanliness will
   have to be demonstrated. The average Joe has
   to be CONVINCED ... and you'd better not be
   lying to him.