eric + michiko wrote:
> Paul wrote:
> > > 1. Fossil fuels forever (don't confuse me with facts)
> > > 2. Nuclear power (science can solve the problems)
> > > 3. Balanced use of solar, wind, and conservation. (cultural change)
> > I pick "all of the above," with the provision that as fossil fuels do
> > become rarer agro-based fuels will replace them, at least in part.
> > All of the scientific problems of nuclear power have been solved. The
> > only remaining problems are political and the threat of contractors
> > cheating.
>
> All solved? Have I missed something, Paul. What do we do with the waste?
> And aren't you assuming that a major "accident" will never happen?
I'd have to agree and beg the same questions. In theory, maybe. It
reminds me of a garbage incinerator they wanted to put near the river.
With a cement kiln nearby, they also wanted to burn hazardous waste.
The engineering made it look extremely efficient and that all of the haz
chems would be incinerated with few or no byproducts/depositing/etc.
What they neglected to mention was that while it *may* be possible,
every single one of the plants they used as examples had chronic
problems functioning to that level. Add people to the mix, factor in
bottom-line cutbacks in labor/materials/expenses, and none of it lives
up to design. Count me as one scientist who is always skeptical of the
ability to "work out all the problems". Scientists who profess this
ability have put their arrogance above their science.
--
Please note and remove the spamblock "faux." from my reply-to address
above in order to send a reply. I use it to block some of the junk
mail.
