Jeffrey,
NIMBYism is one of society's greater evils, a staggeringly arrogant
position usually taken by those without the wits to see how
mean-spirited they're being to their "neighbours." I don't deny
NIMBYism exists, I just deny its place at the table of discussion.
Sorry but energy gained is energy gained. I don't much care what the
psychological impact is. This is why we're supposed to listen to
experts. The psychological impact you speak of certainly exists, but
it's wrong. The facts tell us otherwise. The way you write sounds
like you actually believe that
> energy gained
> through radioactive decay is simply not the same as energy gained from
> burning organic fuel
Do you honestly believe that? I hope not. And if not, then why are
you assuming the voice of those who are wrong? Don't you see that as
legitimizing their position?
You also wrote:
> I agree with the previous participant's comment that to rely on nuclear
> energy in view of rising prices of fossil fuels is an extremely short term
> measure that has large future unknowable and unknown repercussions.
Why? And how so? And how are the "large future unknowable and unknown
repercussions" of nuclear energy any different from all kinds of other
technologies, including petroleum, plastics, GM foods, rampant use of
computers, etc. This is just the way things are. We can hope to
someday achieve the enlightenment necessary to make sense of it all,
but we can't just go back to living in caves while we wait for that
enlightenment, can we?
> It looks
> like it is the market that is driving us to nuclear energy, and this drive
> is usually and erroneously--perhaps deceptively--couched in arguments of
> energy shortage.
On the contrary, I support certain types of nuclear power exactly
because there is no energy shortage to speak of, even though we do
waste a great deal of it. The problem is where the energy is coming
from.
Cheers.
Fil
On 18 March 2011 22:56, jeffrey chan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Fil,
> Typical 'permanent' and consolidated storage such as the Yucca Mt Proposal
> do not get built and used because no one wants this in their backyard. We
> can all bet that even if the political base of the final location is weak,
> there will be strong opposition--an injustice in one part of the world has
> the capacity to resonate throughout the entire globe, says Habermas!
> Furthermore, I don't think insofar as nuclear wastes are concerned, applying
> the kind of cost-benefit analysis (i.e., harvesting residual energy by
> decay) is even the way to think about this issue. After all, energy gained
> through radioactive decay is simply not the same as energy gained from
> burning organic fuel: the psychology of perception is vastly different. Just
> like recycling our waste-water under water conservation policies in any arid
> locale, the first battle has to be a psychological; and this entails a
> deontological battle of conviction over simple utilitarianism. Similar logic
> applies to medical isotopes.
> I agree with the previous participant's comment that to rely on nuclear
> energy in view of rising prices of fossil fuels is an extremely short term
> measure that has large future unknowable and unknown repercussions. It looks
> like it is the market that is driving us to nuclear energy, and this drive
> is usually and erroneously--perhaps deceptively--couched in arguments of
> energy shortage. If we as a civilization is driven about by the things we
> have designed for the allocation of resources, then we have indeed lost
> control and all talk of design and the designer is no longer valid or
> relevant.
> Finally, if we look at where are the places where nuclear plants are being
> proposed, the correlation between rocketing population growth and a seeming
> consensus to build them are quite telling. As a species, are we contend to
> allow the paradox of rising populations diminish the probability of
> populations down the road? A paradox indeed--and a frightening one. This is
> one technology that we know how to build and harness, but we have no good
> theory or practice of containment. I always thought we would have by now
> invented robots and improvisatory measures to fight nuclear fires. The
> helicopters dumping water and boric acid fire-fighting tell me that we don't
> yet have very accountable measures in place. Until we have accountable
> measures, it is the responsibility of a designing species to forestall any
> further development of something that is patently harmful and unknowable
> with long lasting undesirable consequences.
> Jeffrey Chan
>
>> Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:27:02 -0400
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Status of "design" re Japanese nuclear crisis? Reply to
>> Norman - a Fukushima solution by Germany
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>> It depends on the technology used.
>> For instance, IF the Yucca Mountain repository ever gets built & used, the
>> stored waste will generate enough heat to keep the ambient temperature at
>> around 200C. You can boil water with that kind of heat. Which you can use
>> to run turbines that generate electricity. And that heat source will be
>> available for thousands of years. Wouldn't it be good to find a use for
>> that nuclear waste?
>> Also, if we used thorium based reactors, then we wouldn't get as much
>> waste,
>> and much of the nuclear byproduct would be highly-valued "medical
>> isotopes."
>>
>> That said, I would not advocate to "depend on Nuclear energy for hundreds
>> of
>> years." It's a temporary measure, and, I think, a very good one.
>>
>> See my blog posting:
>> http://filsalustri.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/rethinking-nuclear/
>>
>> Cheers.
>> Fil
>>
>> On 18 March 2011 13:27, Rob Curedale <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > I wonder how many spent fuel rods we will have to dispose of if we
>> > depend
>> > on
>> > Nuclear energy for hundreds of years. It seems like lazy short term
>> > thinking
>> > again.
>> >
>> > Rob Curedale
>> >
>> > .....................................................................
>> >
>> > email: [log in to unmask]
>> > url: www.curedale.com
>> > address: PO Box 1153 Topanga CA 90290 USA
>> > skype: rob.curedale
>> > profile: http://tiny.cc/92p9t
>> > twitter: @designresearch
>> >
>> > .....................................................................
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>
--
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/
|