While there is a risk to nuclear paower, there is a risk associated with all methods of power generation. One thing that goads me a little, living in Mississippi, is the hypocracy of people in say California, who really get their backs up at the thought of any sort of power plant being built there, but then are the most obscene users of power in the world! To satiate themselves, they hog the power we produce (the risk is on us!), forcing up the price and limiting the availability of the power we produce here to the poorest people in our state, who just happen to include some of the poorest people in the US! We provbaly do have people who work as janitors in TVA facilities, or in the nuclear plant having to greratly curtail their use of power because of the actions of hypocrits in California! Be nice to see these power hogs assume the risk involved in their lifestyle! ...a bit of a rant, but it is one of the things you run into with this issue.
Nuclear power is a good option because it can be stored (as fuel) transported as fuel and produced when needed. Some other options, like solar and wind power, cannot be readily stored or transported. Being able to produce at times of peak demand, and then scale back when demand slackens is an important aspect of power supply. Fossil fuels are a lot messier, although they can be transported and stored. "So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible" John Milton ________________________________________ Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 >>> Leslie Mertz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2/9/2006 9:32 AM >>> > > I'm curious as to how well the answers posted are matching what > Leslie is > hoping to get as an answer... Perhaps she left it broad to see the > wide > variety of responses she may get, or perhaps she'll need to refine her > question more... I did want to leave it broad. Here's the background: The question came up after a discussion about the immediate need to do something about global warming, yet still provide energy for the masses. A few folks, including Jared Diamond, say that environmentalists should now embrace nuclear energy as it weans us off fossil fuels. Others believe nuclear is not the way to go, but even here there is disagreement: Some say shut down all the plants and others say we should keep what we have but not open any new plants. The discussion morphed from one on the advantages/disadvantages of nuclear energy to one on viable options, especially in developing nations that are experiencing drastic population growth and, often changing lifestyles that are becoming more energy-demanding. Leslie ============================ Leslie Mertz, Ph.D. educator, science writer/author ------------------------------------------------------------ This message has been scanned by GWGuardian on GWGuardian.mc.edu and found to be virus free. ------------------------------------------------------------
