I disagree, although there is a PC aspect to the discussion about nukes. I
believe that there are studies indicating that nukes are not cost effective if
all the related costs (construction, mining, transportation of materials, water
use, impact studies, decommissioning, etc.) are included. The risk factor is
significant; there has been one very serious incident every ten years. France
and Germany have spent billions trying to decommission some of there older
plants.
This being said I think that research is important and newer technologies might
address some of these problems. Again nukes are a very complex issues. The
esthetics of a nuke plant are really yucky more so than wind turbines.
Coal has very significant environmental issues, as most people are aware. But
then slowing the construction of coal plants in China by replacing them with
small, more innovative nukes might be a solution.
Energy conservation and efficiency is a must. And most people don't realize
that the energy-water nexus is very real (every time one opens a faucet energy
is being used and every time one turns on a light water is being used in a
chain of impacts).
There is no free lunch......
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Sent: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 5:15 am
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo!
News
I hate to say it, but I think the nuke issue has turned into a very PC
conversation. They're Just Wrong. Basically a sort of Science vs Religion
discussion. Saying Nuke's are OK or maybe even Nukes might be OK has all your
friends sighing and shaking their heads in dismay.
I guess I'm in the middle. I basically think we walked from serious nuke
energy research, it was too sensitive an issue in terms of safety and we didn't
want rogue nations making bombs.
As for "where's the science" on nukes, Carl sent out a lot of great links.
Here's what may be an urban legend, but I've heard it from more than one
source: More radiation is emitted from a coal plant than a nuke reactor! How
is that possible? Well, coal has uranium and other elements in it. They are
not eliminated during processing so are free to exit into the air during
burning. Nukes, on the other hand, have standards for radiation emission,
while coal plants do not. Odd but I think its true.
The real answer is likely Diversity: just say "yes" to Solar, Wind, Hydro, Geo
thermal, Tidal and so on. And indeed, as Kim Sorvig has pointed out .. create
small ones .. like a neighborhood sized solar installation. Why? Get rid of
transmission losses and increase local robustness and add to the "smart grid".
But boy, windfarms have a lot going against them: they are a visual blight. We
used to drive through one in California several times a year commuting to Santa
Fe from Palo Alto.
-- Owen
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Paul Paryski <ppary...@aol.com> wrote:
If everything is taken into consideration, the carbon footprint of nukes is
really very high, much higher than the alternate forms of energy such as wind,
solar, hydroelectric and even some thermal sources. France is paying dearly for
its nukes. One of the innovative sources of energy that is being installed in
Europe is slow moving hydro-turbines placed in riverbeds.
cheers, Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Holmes <rob...@holmesacosta.com>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 7, 2011 4:29 pm
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Gates discussing new nuclear reactor with China - Yahoo!
News
Yeah, greenest only if you ignore the environmental/human/dollar costs of
getting the uranium out of the ground and then you forget about that whole
messy decommissioning component (which usually relies on the assumption that
national government must ultimately underwrite/pick up the tab and is therefore
free)—R
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net> wrote:
>From the "I Like Nukes" department we have new designs that look interesting:
http://news.yahoo.com/gates-discussing-nuclear-reactor-china-124722465.html
They run on depleted uranium and apparently are safer.
Ironically, nukes are apparently the greenest critters around too.
-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
