----- Original Message -----
From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2001 5:44 AM
Subject: Re: Times have changed, 'green' sells products L3
> At 13:40 14-7-01 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >Second, as Zimmy had said, methodology can be checked. I've looked at
the
> >methodology of the green sites and it is virtually non-existent. No
> >statistical analysis, only stories.
>
> Dan, do you really expect every website to be a scientific website? Green
> sites aren't aimed at scientists, they are aimed at the general public.
You
> can't fill a website with extensive scientific analyses if you want to
> reach the general public -- a large part of the population does not have a
> scientific background and would therefore not understand what was said on
> that website.
Your cover page doesn't have to be full of the science. But, if you want to
make a claim, it is worthwhile providing credible evidence. I'll give a
very good example of good science in covering the effects of a nuclear
accident. Take the official UN sites I quoted earlier:
http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c05.html
and
http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/chernobyl-update.pdf
Also look at a pro nuclear energy advocacy site:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/industry/chernobyl/inf07.htm
Why can't the anit-nuke sites have this level of documentation? My answer
is that such documentation does not exist. Outside of this one example,
scientific studies have not shown that nuclear power plants have been
responsible for any deaths. Up to this point, , and those studies that have
indicated the possibility of a correlation between nuclear power and cancer
rates have been followed with more complete studies that showed the higher
observed rateto simply be the result of random chance.
The header at this site is worthwhile:
WNA Publications are updated regularly to serve as a comprehensive and
reliable resource.
The WNA can vouch for and support anything it publishes, and unreservedly
offers to correct promptly anything that is shown as wrong or misleading.
I'd love to see an anti-nuke site make and keep the same pledge.
> That's why green sites have to have stories -- so the public can
understand what's going on >without having to get a degree in physics
first.
A few stories to give a feel for the statistics is all right, but stories
alone cannot be taken as evidence for anything. As another poster has
asked, do you know of any credible evidence to back up the claims that
Western nuclear power plants have increased the cancer rate? If you don't,
does that make you stop and think that maybe there isn't any creditable
evidence to give?
Let me ask a question about a related field that Zimmy and I brought up.
There have been heartbreaking stories about parents who's children have died
of cancer. The parents "know" its the high voltage power lines near them
and want the world to know that the evil power companies are killing
children for the sake of profits. (I am quoting from stories I've heard and
read in the press.) Do you consider these stories as credible evidence, or
do you accept the contention that one has to show that there is indeed a
correlation between proximity to high voltage lines and childhood cancer?
No hard feelings, but I've asked this question in different ways a number of
times, and I don't think I've received a direct answer. I've gotten "yes I
accept science", but then I get claims that are inconsistent with good
scientific methodology. And, after pointing this out, I still get the feel
that your viewpoints have not changed.
What is your position on this? That there is credible evidence, its just
not provided? That, if millions of people believe something, that is
credible evidence in and of itself? That, while science is worthwhile, it
doesn't know everything, so nonscientific evidence must be considered too?
> >According to your figures, it would cost about $30,000 up front to
install
> >just the solar cells to supply the electricity for a house in the
> >Netherlands. Add the cost for energy storage, and you can get closer to
> >$60,000. That's just too much money for people to be able to afford it.
>
> The system you are referring to is an autonomous photovoltaic system,
which
> does have storage capabilities. This system however is 3-4 times as
> expensive as a net-connected system, which admittedly makes it too
> expensive for most households.
>
> The alternative is a complete net-connected system, which would cost ~USD
> 32,000. Still a lot of money, but affordable.
>
OK, but you see the problem, don't you? A net connected system relies on
conventional power plants for those times when the solar cells don't work.
Without storage, the solar cells will only work during the day, will not
work very well at all during winter or on cloudy days. Thus, one will need
enough conventional power plants to meet the full load for those days where
solar just won't work.
>
> > If
> >all of Europe were to go on such a system, assuming 4 person households,
it
> >would cost more than 11 trillion dollars.
>
> First, I think households aren't that big anymore. IIRC, the average for
> Western Europe (off the top of my head) is ~2.5 persons per household.
Fair enough. Then the price goes to 17.6 trillion.
> Second, it's not like one organization has to pay all the costs -- every
> household should pay for getting a solar power system.
The money will have to come from somewhere. People will have to make deep
sacrifices. Its about 2 years of GDP for Europe.
>Third, we don't have to get everyone on solar power within one year. It
would actually be
> impossible -- production and logistics wouldn't be able to keep up.
Even with a 10 year phase in, it will be an enormous burden. Solar panels
alone will be 20% of the total spending: more than the spending on health
care. Plus, with maintaince costs, we are talking about 25%-30%.
>
>
> >Plus, there would be a significant maintained cost.
>
> I don't think those costs would be much (if any) higher than an other
> system. Basically, you'll need someone to clean the panels a few times per
> year, and check the hardware once a year. A few replacement parts every
few
> years, and that's it.
>
OK, let me be generous 5% of origional purchace price in maintainance and
replacement. That's about $3,000 per year for a full system. (I can't see a
solar system that goes off line every night and virtually off line for much
of the winter worth considering as a major source of energy.) Plus, think of
the deaths that will occure as millions of people climb on the roof several
times a year. Let me do some quick numbers. If the chance of falling to
one's death is 1 in 100,000 every time one climbs on one's roof and one
climbs on the roof 5 times a year, and there are 250 million households in
Europe, then if everyone had solar power, it would be responsible for about
12,500 per year.
> High maintenance costs? Yes, you'll get that for nuclear power plants. We
> can't tear down the Dodewaard nuclear power plant for at least 40 years;
> maintenance alone is expected to cost NLG 164 million. That's a lot of
> money to spend maintaining something that doesn't produce energy anymore.
But, you realize that you are talking about a system that supplies many
households compared to a system that supplies just 1. At the site I quoted,
shutdown costs are given as about 5% of total costs. That's not too bad.
>
>
> >Plus, there are all the environmental problems
> >associated with the manufacture of solar panals. Why are those swept
under
> >the rug?
>
> I doubt they are "swept under the rug". The problem is that the nuclear
> lobby uses that argument to "prove" that we shouldn't switch to solar
> power. I believe however that we should accept those problems because
we'll
> be better of in the long run.
>
Out of curiosity, why is every scientist who disagrees with your position
part of the nuclear lobby? There are many people who are both educated and
want what is best. If solar power doesn't sweep this under the rug, then
I'd expect a site to both give the problem and a proposed solution: as many
pro-nuclear sites do.
> With solar panels, it's like with bicycles. A bicycle factory will cause
> pollution when producing bicycles, but we accept that because in the long
> run the minimal environmental impact of bicycles outweighs the
> environmental impact of production.
>
OK, please refer me to a website that gives the environmental impact of
solar panel production. One that discusses in detail the waste disposal
problem in manufacturing solar panels, and how big it will be when scaled
up. Or, if you have an article, I'd appreciate a reference and a summation,
with a chance to ask questions.
Dan M.
