At 05:43 AM 7/4/2007, Eric Swanson wrote: >You want to be optimistic, so how many nukes would it take to power a >fully developed India and China, not to mention the other nations that >you apparently want to see brought up to Western levels of >development. Where's the fuel to come from for all those nuclear >power plants, without a recycling of fuel to recover the plutonium? >The next question is, what sort of world would we find ourselves in if >all that fuel were to be recycled and reprocessed? With all the bad >actors around, what level of security would be necessary to prevent >disruptions? I submit that a total government control of everybody's >life would be necessary to catch even the least important threat. >Such a system would make today's concerns about "terrorist's" seem >like a mild spring breeze. Personally, on this day of celebration of >American Freedom and Independence, I must say that I would oppose the >creation of any such system, which would of necessity destroy all >manner of freedoms that most Americans now take for granted. I do not >want to live in a such police state. > >ES
Eric, I agree with what you are saying here. A year ago I posted references to a couple articles on this issue by Amory Lovins: Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role in Climate Change Mitigation The PowerPoint slides from Amory Lovins's 16 August 2005 invited testimony to the California Energy Commission (in .PDF format) outline why nuclear power's inherently high cost and slow deployment make it a counterproductive answer to climate change. The world market is instead buying end-use efficiency, decentralized renewables, and low-carbon fossil-fueled cogeneration faster and on a larger scale, and those superior investments will save more carbon sooner per dollar. http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-09_NukePwrMitig.pdf The nuclear proponents on this list have not explained any reasons why Lovins' analysis is in error. As far as I can tell, they simply ignore it because they don't like the conclusions. For those who are arriving late to the party here, I would encourage you to take a look at these. Jim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
