bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (05/03/84)
<...> Limited Liability In response to an argument that the nuclear power industry should not be subsidized, in particular by limiting the liability, I must agree. I see no reason why the liability should be limited, and if a company screws up, it (the managers in particular) should be willing to bear the consequences. I also feel that the nuclear power industry should not be subject to overregulation and delays which coal and other power industries do not attract. My belief is that, in a free market, nuclear power can compete, economically, with other (coal, hydro) sources. Conservation Conservation is great, and many companies have saved much energy and money by this method (as Jon White points out). If I'm not mistaken, though, much of the energy saved by conservation is/has been in heating, which is not usually related to electrical power. Thus, most conservation-of-energy arguments don't apply to whether or not we need nuclear power. Further, most of the easy conservations have been made, to save money if for no other reason. All my friends (and their parents) turn down the thermostat at night, to the point where lots of blankets are necessary. If people are already wearing sweaters indoors during the day, are they likely to save more energy by foregoing heat altogether? Straw Men and Nuclear Irrationality Someone claimed that the "pro-nuke" people believed that anyone against nuclear power must think that a reactor could turn into a nuclear bomb. Naturally, anyone who is even slightly informed knows that this is not possible, including many (perhaps most) of the people who are against nuclear power. Certainly I would expect and hope that those who are actively opposed to nuclear power to have this modicum of knowledge. It is surprising, however, what sort of things that uninformed people believe. Recently (on a whim), I bought one of the latest "James Bond" books, having read the Ian Fleming series when I was young, and wondering how the new author compared. It was entitled "License Renewed". The bad guys were out to blackmail the world by taking over a bunch of nuclear power plants and threatening to turn them into "China Syndromes". In more than one place, the book talked about how the radioactivity would go straight through the earth and cause much damage when it emerged on the other side. So far as I can tell, the author really believed this to be possible. If the author, presumably an otherwise educated man, believed this to be possible, what do you think that his lesser-educated readers believe? If you couple such beliefs with the fanaticism of, say, Rex S*nders, who feels that it is not only right but important to usurp the democratic process because he *knows* his cause is just, you have a dangerous combination. (note: Rex probably knows that a reactor core melting through the earth is physically impossible, but it is clear, and amazing, that others don't know). Sam Hall
dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Example #22) (05/04/84)
Re: Nuclear Odds & Ends________________________________________________________ > If I'm not mistaken, though, much of the energy saved by conservation is/has > been in heating, which is not usually related to electrical power. Thus, > most conservation-of-energy arguments don't apply to whether or not we need > nuclear power. I don't have any statistics on this, but I have some generalizations based on fact, along with some solid observations and a few inquiries. Conser- ving ideally involves more than turning down the thermostat and huddling in sweaters. For one, it can involve retrofitting your building (or even (*gasp!*) building it properly in the first place) so that your heat energy doesn't es- cape to the outdoors. A side-benefit of this is that the building will not need to be air-conditioned as much in the summer (air-conditioning is, of course, electrical). Also, one can conserve electricity by using lower-wattage light bulbs, or replacing incandescent bulbs with fluorescent bulbs where appropriate. Of course, not having lights on when not using them helps. This is often the case in homes, but I think we could do a better job in business and industry. Note, though, that we should keep the *entire* energy picture in focus: the resource cost of making incandescent or fluorescent bulbs, the resource cost of proximi- ty devices that turn lights off when you're not around, etc. I honestly don't know how these balance out, but that should be considered. Another potential source is to evaluate the electrical appliances you have. Does that electric hot pot use more energy than the stove does to heat up the same amount of liquid? I don't know (though I would guess that the hot pot would use less energy than an electric stove, but more than a gas stove). Again, these things should be looked at with the *entire* energy picture in fo- cus, including the resources and energy spent in the manufacture of the appli- ance. More efficient electrical appliances are also available: water heaters that heat faster with less heat, smaller computers (!), and so forth. Of course, conservation can also help extend our other non-renewable energy sources. Just keeping a car well-maintained can save fuel (and money). If pilot lights were eliminated, we could cut residential use of natural gas in half (and probably cut industrial use by a good amount; I don't know)! On a larger scale, I think we can do without a lot of the waste that goes into the manufacturing of faulty products dressed up in excessive packag- ing; but let's not unzip that pair of pants just yet... Co-generation is an application of a conserving approach. Industries produce a lot of heat as a by-product, and that heat can be used for (among other things) heating (believe it or not) and the generation of electricity. In the early 1900's, co-generation supplied a very substantial amount of indus- try's energy. (Over 20%, if my memory serves me right; but don't take my word for that, I don't have references handy.) Finally, the use of renewable energy applications can be viewed as a conserving approach. By collecting the power from the wind, the waves, the river, and the sun; we're not using anything up. So you see, conservation is more viable than you might think! <_Jym_> : Jym Dyer : Nashua, NH : ...{allegra,decvax,ucbvax}decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer :