RE: Times have changed, 'green' sells products L3

[Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM]

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Sunday, July 15, 2001 11:00 PM
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: Times have changed, 'green' sells products L3

> Further, the fact that is only suppose to reduce the use of fossil fuel
> fuel is, IMHO, a tacit admission of the problems.  Economically viable 
> technologies have made much stronger inroads in 20 years than a few %.  
> Remember, 10% is only 3% better than the US is right now and about 6% 
> better than the Netherlands is right now.  Plus, with the present rate 
> of increase in energy consumption in the Netherlands, even more fossil 
> fuels will be used in 2020 than is used now.

True (and not just for The Netherlands), but if we wouldn't get part of our
energy from alternative sources, that increase would be even bigger. So,
basically what we're doing for now is not decreasing the use of fossil
fuels, but limiting the increase in use.


> > All those people (save the occasional telecommuter) has to travel 
> > from home to work and back, most of them five times per week. There 
> > is a certain chance that you will be killed in a traffic accident,
> > so one could easily claim that nuclear power is responsible for a
> > certain number of deaths in traffic every year.
> 
> OK, lets calculate that number. :-)   Lets assume that, with some car
> pooling and days off, etc. that a car is driven about 8,000 mile per
> for each one of these people.  That's a total of 640 million miles.  At
> 
> http://detnews.com/pix/2000/01/04/fron2.gif
> 
> one calculates the death rate in autos as roughly 15 deaths per billion
> miles driven.  So, roughly 10 deaths per year can be attributed to
> these folks driving.  If all of the household electricity in the US 
> (roughly half of the electricity in the US) were to come from nuclear, 
> that would increase to just under 50 driving deaths per year.

There are a few problems with this. You're comparing two things you can't
compare: people falling off roofs in *Europe*, and people dying in car
accidents in the *US*. If you want to do it right, you'll have to calculate
both rates for either Europe or the US. With calculations based on actual
data of course, not assumed numbers -- but I'm sure you already realized
that.   :-)


> BTW, I'm guessing you never had safety officer as part of your job
> description, right?

Um, not in this life, anyway. Maybe in a previous or next one...   :-)


> > Of course, if you fall off the roof you probably didn't take 
> > protective measures...
> >
> 
> Or, they didn't work because a mistake went unnoticed.

As long as humans have to work, mistakes will be made, and mistakes will go
unnoticed (after all, safety officers too can make mistakes, although it's
sloppy work if you don't check your equipment before using it). But anyway,
I consider it an accepted risk: if you climb on a roof, you know you can
fall off. It's the same as the higher radiation exposure you get when you're
an airline pilot or a worker in a nuclear power plant: you know the risk,
and you accepted it when you signed your contract. If you can't accept the
risk that comes with a job, don't apply for the job.


> Why can one blame the person who had the accident for one type of
> accident, but hold the industry accountable for another.  It sounds 
> like a double standard to me.

I didn't hold any *person* responsible for any accidents; it's just a choice
of words. One could also say that the solar power industry is responsible
for those 12,500 deaths you mentioned. If they hadn't made solar panels, no
one would have to climb on a roof to clean them.


Jeroen

_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website:                    http://go.to/brin-l