View Single Post
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.woodworking
Larry Jaques[_4_] Larry Jaques[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,025
Default Nuclear Reactor Problems

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:46:15 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 6/1/2011 4:17 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/1/2011 12:50 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 6/1/2011 1:02 PM, chaniarts wrote:
Han wrote:
wrote in :

Problem still is that wind doesn't blow 100% of time either here or
in Germany. Baseload is still an issue.

Probably less of a problem in Germany than hereabouts.

but it's much windier elsewhere in europe than germany. without a
european-wide energy producer, they're going to have to buy power from
elsewhere. that elsewhere is going to have to use nuclear, so they're
just
exporting their problem to another country.

This whole is issue is purely political and based on neither science,
nor 40 years of statistical evidence with regard to the risk versus
reward of nuclear electrical generation.

I listen to "Democracy Now" on the local Pacific radio daily, simply as
a constant reminder as to just how much these people who produce it hate
the thought of a sucessful democracy ... it is exactly the same mindset
with regard to nuclear energy.


In the entire history of the world, has there ever been a single
instance of a successful democracy?


If you equate success with longevity, the jury is still out. (and this
one won't last much longer at the current rate)

I'm curious.
In the last 50 years, how much electrical energy has been produced,
worldwide, by plants powered by (a) coal, (b) other fossil fuels, (c)
nuclear energy, and (d) all other energy sources combined?
During the same 50 years, how many people have been killed, and how many
injured, as the result of the use of (a) coal, (b) other fossil fuels,
(c) nuclear energy, and (d) all other energy sources combined?
The mortality/injury rates should include the processes of extracting
the energy source and transporting it to point-of-use.
I don't know, but I rather suspect that the death/injury rate per
megawatt for nuclear power is lower than the other categories.


That is exactly my point, and just a much longer winded way of saying
the same thing. For those who prefer wordy illumination:

Reward versus risk is a tradeoff in all basic human endeabors from
hunter gathering to fishing for dinner, and nuclear energy is provably,
and statistically, far less riskier than your choice of geographic
location, from Joplin MO to Japan.


Tell 'em "Get with it, folks. LIFE is a risk."


Nuclear energy may not be the winner in the long run, some new
technology will eventually come along, but currently it is far and above
the best possible "risk versus reward" choice, except to the fuzzy
thinking bunch.


I'd prefer safe fusion to safe fission, but it's not here yet.
Soon, though.


But you have to consider that most of the anti-nuclear bunch are of the
EXACT same political mindset as those who want to outlaw male
circumcision in San Francisco, a special breed of progressive dickheads
who would apparently benefit greatly from the act themselves ...


No, the world would benefit greatly from their complete testicular
excision, not just a bit of skin. They'd be even more eunuch after
that, huh? Oops, I meant "unique".



--
Education is when you read the fine print.
Experience is what you get if you don't.
-- Pete Seeger