Keith,
I fear you are correct about a fearful public. I suppose it is poor
education that is at the root of the trouble. Most of us leave school
completely unable to make knowledgeable decisions. We are swayed this way
and that by "experts" and as the doomsayers get far more press than those
with common sense ("the bleeds lead") in due course nuclear reactors will be
replaced by the real killer - coal. We can just hope that the bad effects of
coal will be minimized over time. I should say that we have a lot of coal,
so if it can be made to work safely it can take over the 20% of power
production that is now nuclear. However, there will always be a need for
small nuclear plants in places like Alaska.
Some of our friends advocate solar and wind. Solar is too expensive and wind
cannot be depended on. Denmark boasts of its wind power produced
electricity. As I noted on a previous post, I found that Denmark had 54
windless days in a year when I looked at it. Ironically, when wind failed
they turned to Sweden to fill the gap, possibly from Swedish nuclear
reactors (which, I understand are being closed down).
I must remind you that my information is somewhat out of date. I haven't
bothered much in recent years has for all intents and purposes more nuclear
plants have been a no-no in the US.
Anyway, I expect you have been across the North Sea by boat, in which case
you know what the winds are like. If the Danes cannot get reliable wind for
their turbines, I wonder where else turbines can be relied on for certain
continuous power.
Over here, natural gas is the poster boy of future energy needs, but we've
had some problems with old pipes belching flames, or causing evacuations.
Actually, as our governments at every level puts infrastructure at the
bottom of their 'to do' list, pipes of every kind are becoming suspect.
Large water and oil losses have been occurring. Local government reaction
has been to patch up the leaks, which leaves us wondering where the next
leak will occur.
When a gas pipe breaks, it's not just a traffic nuisance or a contaminant
problem. It can be pretty dangerous and people have died in recent times.
I suppose every method of producing power has its problems. The history of
nuclear power in the United States demonstrates this. Yet, during the last
40 years, although our 104 reactors have had a number of relatively minor
problems they are now operating at 92% capacity - which shows how little
down-time they have.
Their accident record is one of the lowest in American industry. In 2008,
they achieved 0.13 industrial accidents per 200,000 worker-hours.
Not that this is not likely to mean anything to the undereducated public who
look at the nuclear power plant and see Hiroshima.
Harry
******************************
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042
(818) 352-4141
******************************
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 1:09 AM
To: [email protected]; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,
EDUCATION'
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Question:
Harry,
There is hardly anything in you reply with which I would disagree.
Nevertheless, you miss the point. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
together with the (admittedly rare) accidents at Windscale, Chernobyl and
Three Mile Island, together with the clam-like secrecy of the nuclear
industry (yes, it's always a governmental or quasi-governmental affair)
means that the general public are fearful of nuclear power and it's never
likely to leave the collective memory while nuclear power stations operate.
(Yes, the coal industry spreads much more radioactivity around the world
than nuclear power stations but it nowhere remotely reaches, nor could ever
reach, safety limits. DNA has evolved special mechanisms over hundreds of
millions of years which are repairing thousands of times more mutational
accidents than that produced by natural background radiation which is still
higher than coal-produced stuff.) (Also we'd already have had a rash of
cancer from the use of the mobile phone.)
As to insurance and the fact that no insurance company will insure against
floods in vulnerable places, then this is another instance of where
governments (central and local) are not doing their job. If bureaucrats were
carrying out their duty of care, then house-building in these areas should
be outlawed (unless on stilts!)
Keith
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
