Karen, see embedded comments.
On 21 March 2011 15:52, Karen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Happen to miss some important emails and now I ended up a living Owl.
> I just answered Fil offlist and I thought it would be nice to ask the
> list a few questions:
>
> 1. are we playing fire when we suggest that nuclear energy is containable ?
> We can't even effectively control fire, something that is an ancient
> fuel that we have been using
> for millions of years. Forrest fires in the States and in Australia
> are clear recent examples. They burned for
> days with huge social costs.
Forest fires are nature's way. Fires happen all the time, not started
by humans. Sometimes, humans start bad fires, but nature recovers.
Read up on the nature, frequency, and response of nature to forest
fires.
And yes, nuclear energy is containable. This is evident from the
history of nuclear energy.
>
> 2. Knowingly that nuclear energy is the most cost efficient and
> therefore the attractiveness of making lots
> of money is one strong advantage, at least from the commercial point
> of view. And that natural resources like coal is depleting, offers
> another point for Nuclear, how about the cost of playing nuclear
> energy which is tonnes more spontaneous than fire.
> Can we be afford it? What is the safest nuclear plant design that
> would contain possible accidents?
> Reading the accidents and news daily, can we trust people to play god?
> Or at least the master of something
> that we cannot 100 percent contain?
>
Nuclear energy is not spontaneous at all. The nuclear fuel is HIGHLY
manufactured material. Naturally occurring uranium is virtually
harmless. I have samples of pitchblende in my rock collection. Have
had since I was a boy. I'm fine.
We are imperfect beings. Your demand for "100 percent" containment is
not rational. It can't be done. Nature can't do it. Humans can't do
it.
Forget about coal being depleted. What about the health risks and
GHGs from using coal as an energy source?
As far as cost goes, I would like to know where you got your
information on cost. I expect that given the extremely tight control
on nuclear plants, that the costs would be higher. But are the costs
that much higher - proportionally - than other high-tech / dangerous
technology? I ask out of ignorance. Until I have numbers, I will not
endorse one side or another of the argument.
> 3. What is the real benefit of having a nuclear plant? Why is it that
> we cannot make other forms of energy cheap? Why has it got to be
> nuclear? Sun is abundant source of energy in many parts of the world.
> Why not tap and transfer this energy?
This has been covered in previous emails on this list.
>
> In all, why should it be all fission?
>
Cuz that is, for now, the only game in town.
>
> I'm fully awake...
> Karen Fu
>
I hope you get a good night's rest.
Try a shot of whiskey. That always helps me. :-)
Cheers.
Fil
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|