----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 7:11 PM Subject: Re: John Edwards: John Kerry is Jesus
> At 04:34 PM 10/15/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: > >--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> For example, if Kerry were to argue that starting a > >> program to develop > >> nuclear plants that would be able to be run cheaper > >> with more efficient > >> regulation is a practical way to reduce greenhouse > >> gases, then he would be > >> reasonable...even if the fruit of the labor wouldn't > >> start to be seen for > >> 10 years, and the real benefit would only be > >> realized after 20. > > > >Well heck, Dan, all we would have to do that is to > >build the damn things. > > Dan can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe that the key point of > Dan's statement was "cheaper and more efficient." If I recall correctly, > The Economist recently cited a study where it was determined that even with > an appropriate level of carbon taxation, that nuclear power plants still > would not be an economical source of power. > That's pretty well it. Nuclear power plants are not inherently expensive, but they are under the present system. Virtually every plant that has been built has been a "to spec" plant, with the obvious overhead. Further, the public unease with anything nuclear has translated into potential liability that is far greater than equal risk elsewhere. Further, an effective massive nuclear industry would probably need breeder reactors. We would have to address the proliferation risk before using them. From what I've seen, that's doable...but we're not there yet. Converting our electrical grid to, say, 70% nuclear will not just be a matter of going forward with new plants just like the old ones. Lead times of <8 years before the new system starts to come on line would surprise me. So, if candidate X was a "no nukes" guy and candidate Y said she had a program to decrease global warming by turning to nuclear power, her campaign would be fully within its rights to argue that the problem would be worked on under their administration, but not the other one....and that we will start the work to reduce global warming if candidate Y gets elected. This has nothing to do with whether or not the statement "federal funding for additional lines of stem cell research under the Kerry administration will hasten the day when paralyzed people can walk again" have much validity at all. Its reduces the conditions, by one, that have to be fulfilled for Edwards statement to be a reasonable one. My point was more a quibble with one particular part of Gautam's argument than a counter-argument. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
