Karen et al,
What I mean by all this is that generalities are very dangerous things. One
cannot just say "forest fires are bad." Forest fires, no matter who starts
them, just *are*. Badness and goodness of things only pops up when we put
value judgements on things like forest fires. Same with nuclear power and
coal power.
Every time we say that something is bad or good, we're passing on all the
assumptions we make about the situation and the consequences of that
situation. I suggest that it is very important that we reflect on the
assumptions we make and see what we *really* mean when we say something is
good or bad.
Karen, please don't put yourself out to get the data. Again, all I meant
was that without a really clear understanding of the facts, it is very easy
to end up with an inconsistent value judgement on things.
If we decide that nuclear power is bad and shut down all the reactors, then
there will be consequences.
I believe that those consequences will be worse, in the long run, than not
using nuclear power, at least for a while longer (like, another century or
so). I could explain that, but I get the feeling that I've been spouting
off a bit too much on this thread.
So I'll go mark some assignments instead. :)
Cheers.
Fil
On 22 March 2011 15:28, Karen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi All, and whoever is moderating this list:
> Can anyone on this forum fix the crazy reply to line that doesn't link
> to 'PhD design list'.
> Its a pain to delete the email of the author and replace it manually
> with the list's address...
>
> On with my elfin adventure on nuclear in the middle of the night/day,
> whatever you call it..
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Filippo A. Salustri
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Karen, see embedded comments.
> >
> > On 21 March 2011 15:52, Karen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
> I just knew before I shut my eyes to sleep that someone would say this
> because
> I didn't specify 'Fire'. My apolgies for missing the explaination.
>
> Forest fires are natural occurance. But what I was trying to say was that
> fire is something we cannot control effectively despite our advancement
> in technologies. Fires can be started by humans as they could be started by
> nature. With climate change and weather conditions getting drier in places
> in California and Australia, prepare for more fires.
>
> And many fires are initiated by humans.
> And often it is very hard to recover. Often at the risks of firefighters.
> One typical example is the forest fire in California in the US about 2
> years back.
> It was outrageous. (see reference links below my sig.)
> And notably the fire caused in LA was human induced too.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Naturally occurring uranium is harmless, but after human intervention, this
> can
> become harmful. The same could be said about gun powder. Some cultures use
> it for fire crackers, celebration; while some used it to blast their
> enemies' heads off.
>
> The hard truth is there are people who have uncanny ways of doing things.
> They are all innovative. But the cause for concern is the potential and the
> extent of danger that each element poses. It I hold uranium. or even
> harmless
> amount of untouched hydrogen, I am fine. But if I hold just hydrogen
> alone and played
> with it in huge amounts under pressure, I get a hydrogen bomb. Human
> ingenuity
> can come up with ideas. Just that it has to be on the right track.
> Hydrogen is abundant.
> Wrong use, and its a terrifying abundant gas used for massive destruction.
>
>
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> True we are imperfect beings. And also due to our imperfection, we cannot
> also
> be confident and sure that humans can design the best containment to fuels
> that are potentially highly combustible. Both nature and humans cannot
> ensure 100 percent
> containment on any materials that we have to be totally safe. We need
> precautions.
> If we can prevent a disaster like Fukushima, and we are able to do now; I
> feel
> we should take the precaution now like some of the EU countires are doing
> now.
>
>
>
> >
> > Forget about coal being depleted. What about the health risks and
> > GHGs from using coal as an energy source?
>
>
> Should have added to say that I don't even want coal / fossil fuels and
> anything
> that exhaust fumes. Anyway I've just stated my stand on coal now at
> late bedtime.
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> I am trying to hunt for the stats. It comes with a large world map
> showing where the
> nuclear plants are. US has lots concentrated in the eastern part of
> their country.
> Then they show the costs of setting up a plant that is initially high
> and covers itself
> over a period of time. If memory doesn't fail me, in aroun 5-8 years
> time, and its covered.
> I should have recorded the link when I read it last week.
> I will try to find it.
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> In all, why should it be all fission?
> >>
> >
> > Cuz that is, for now, the only game in town.
>
>
> if thats the only game in town, then we are being utterly uncreative.
> How can we be confined by that one source of energy alone when there
> are clearly others at hand?
>
> Its like talking about using only force to answer problems in the world.
> There are many ways of doing it. Gandhi used peace for India to obtain
> freedom for
> his people. Singapore used to believe that merging with Malaysia as
> the only way to
> survive. People used to think that a country that has lots of natural
> resources are the ones
> which will prosper. It is via human creativity that makes our
> prosperity and it is
> humanity that keeps our society sustainable.
> All these policies/inventions.ideas are man-made. We can change. For
> that to change,
> we must have guts to go into the unknown and venture. And fortunately for
> us,
> we have other sources of energy that we can source. It may not be quick and
> cost
> effective like nuclear, but we can design it with our expertise of new
> forms of energy tio
> answer problems. Policies to encourage smart use of energies. My blog
> is about that.
> If anyone's interested, its below my sig too.
>
> The reality is do we need to really use
> that much energy? Of course we don't. Thats another topic.
>
> Its already 3:20 am here. I need to get some sleep. I only login an
> hour ago. Shouldn't have.
> But I did. So I might as well complete at least this email. I have
> books to cover and notes to take
> tomorrow.
>
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> I'm fully awake...
> >> Karen Fu
> >>
> >
> > I hope you get a good night's rest.
> > Try a shot of whiskey. That always helps me. :-)
> >
>
>
> Thanks for the advise. But I don't drink.
> I only use wines for culinary purposes.
> And I don't take caffeine to wake me up.
> I use excercise. It works. : )
>
> I'll look for the infographic and the stats and post later.
>
> Karen Fu
> elfin blog: http://daringtochange.wordpress.com
> Other blogs can be traced from here. Your adventure may vary.
>
> My sleepy links are for your reference. I shall endeavour to look for more.
> But for now, let me have my slumber.... (thanks)
>
> 1. California Forest Fire, New York Times:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30wildfires.html
> 2.What causes forest fires:
> http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-causes-forest-fires.html
> 3. Human caused wildfires increases in Calif
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wildfires/2009-05-14-human-caused-wildfires-increasing_N.htm
> 4. Eyeing Japan, Countries reassess Nuclear Plans:
>
> http://www.greatenergychallengeblog.com/blog/2011/03/15/eyeing-japan-countries-reassess-nuclear-plans/
>
--
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/
|