Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaintliein
Great! Then the new technology can stand on it's own in the marketplace without government support! Glad to hear it.
|
Hmmm...then with that argument nuclear energy can stand on it's own without government support as well...government support that includes funds to campaigns via nuclear lobbyist, etc. One thing I will give many of the hard core tree huggers is that they'll still be out there fighting nuclear energy for no money whatsoever. Whereas if you took away the funding of the so called "grass roots campaigns" that promote nuclear energy... once the paychecks are gone, they will be as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaintliein
Meanwhile, Britain almost froze because their turbines wouldn't work when it got cold.
|
As for the frozen turbine argument ...again...as stated in my last comment, it depends on what method you use where. Also, while Britain almost froze when the turbines halted due to natural disaster, how many people got cancer, how many died, and how many generations were effected by that one unanticipated uber-cold snap? Not nearly the same comparison as the scale of Japan. We won’t fully know the extent of that ecological and physiological damage for decades.
Also, how cost effective is it going to be to rebuild the nuclear facilities in Japan? Far more than it would cost to rebuild turbines. And what exactly will be happening now while citizens up North freeze due to lack of power there now that they've lost their primary power source? Britain was back up and running long before Japan will be. Quake and Tsunami damage to the power grids aside, the time it will take to rebuild the actual reactors could be a few years even at the fastest pace.
There really is no comparison from UK to Japan, in cost, damages, or downtime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaintliein
Of course most of the "billions allocated for nuclear energy. . . are in the form of rules regulations and inspections, not support.
In other words, the new technolgies will never be able to compete. . . until they are competitive.
|
Regarding funding for nuclear rules, regulations and safety...there is funding within that for "regulatory" commissions ad nauseum, as well as for developing "safer" technology within the nuclear field. There's also a good portion in government grants that can be put towards new nuclear facilities.
I never said anything about using government funds to support the alternative method's infrastructure. But why the money towards the many many commissions and the "safer" nuclear tech research plus grants couldn't be equally effectively parlayed into alternative methods has yet to be seen.
Much of the studies put forth claiming alternative methods are so much more costly were in fact prepared by agencies hired by the pro-nuclear groups. Granted, that's not to say that so-called "independent" reports by the alternative methods agencies would be that much more honest or accurate.
Keep in mind most have never heard of the issues that plagued Hanford Washington. Granted, that plant was built in 1943, but no public admission of nuclear spill/leak was ever made. From what I've read, they never fully admitted if the widespread radiation was solely from irradiated cooling waters going back into the river (as they usually do) or if it was both a mix of that and other spills from where they were actually processing the weapons grade Plutonium. But the reactor itself utilized Plutonium in its cores and it is known that at least a portion of the contamination down river came from the cooling water in the reactor itself.
A lawsuit put forth by some of those downwinders in the 80’s wasn’t even settled until 2005. (Downwinders won that suit BTW.)
(Wiki Downwinders:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders#Hanford )
The document: An Overview of Hanford and Radiation Health Effects. (HHIN) is no longer available on the Wash state health Dept site but is available to order through the CDC.
Summary of the document: Presents some basic information about Hanford, the radiation it released and how people were exposed to the radioactive contamination. It also provides an introduction to the possible health effects from radiation exposure, including a special section on thyroid disease. Summer 1996.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iaintliein
Certainly nuclear is an agenda. . . so is anti-nuclear.
|
Yes, there are both pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear agendas. I'm not about to chain myself to the entrance of a nuclear plant wielding a sign that says "No Nukes" and screaming "We're all gonna die" to everyone who passes by.
For me, I'm not anti-nuclear...I'm pro personal well being. And until some of the pro-nuclear physicists start admitting that there are potential risks, instead of putting up this front as though new facilities are practically invincible, I think it's foolish to fully get behind nuclear energy. That kind of arrogance in various industries has screwed us time and time again.
It also should be noted that the general population will often hear the pro-nuclear side of things because there is more money behind it. This leads to conspiracy theories being tossed out by the anti-nuclear side, so when the general public has the two sides to compare, the anti-nuke side often seems like nutjob fanatics.
There is an intelligent, non-fanatical side to the anti-nuclear/limited-nuclear debate. It tends to be overshadowed by money of nuke corps and crazy of ultra non-nuke fanatics (who tend to be fanatics in other areas as well).
I just wanted to toss out a more in-depth look at the side you generally won't hear much about because it's not either buying ad space (in the corporate aspect) or creating a scene by chanting and waving signs in protest (as in some of the non-nuke fanatics).
A colorful world to say the least 
