Peter Flass wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 9:24 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Peter Flass wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2012 9:28 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>>>> On 11/12/2012 7:29 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>> Philipp Thomas wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11 Nov 2012 14:03:39 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as living without risks, especially generating
>>>>>>>> electricity.

>>>>>>> Who said no risks? It's the amount of risk your'e taking that's
>>>>>>> important and nuclear power has too much for my liking. I'd rather pay
>>>>>>> more and make cuts in my consumption.

>>>>>> Paying more isn't the problem.

>>>>> Then it would be acceptable to require nuclear plants to have
>>>>> non-cancellable private insurance and plans for taking care of the
>>>>> waste until it's reasonably safe?

>>>>> The problem is depending on another
>>>>>> political entity, who was not happy about giving up East Germany,
>>>>>> for fuel resources.

>>>>> Single-sourcing is always dangerous.

>>>> Yet that is what these countries are doing, including Japan.

>>>>> With nuclear power, the generation can be done
>>>>>> even it there's a problem obtaining new fuel.  The next level
>>>>>> of fuel, which has a lot of energy stored in it, are fossil fuels
>>>>>> which have the same problem.  Wind and solar aren't good resources
>>>>>> because they don't furnish 100%.  Biofuels get wonderful press but
>>>>>> the side effects of that is a reduction in people food.

>>>>> Depends on what the fuels are.  It's true of corn (maize), which may
>>>>> even have a negative whole-system contribution.  That may be less true
>>>>> of other feedstocks like sugar cane and sawgrass.  And certainly is of
>>>>> the biofuels that are otherwise waste products, but those will
>>>>> probably never amount to a major percentage.

>>>> You are forgetting that, if sawgrass is more profitable to the farmer,
>>>> s/he will plant that rather than grains or corn for feedstock.  Prices
>>>> for feed go up; meat prices go up.  When the subsidies go away, the
>>>> US meat market is going to be a mess.  There still is no farm bill.

>>>>>> AFAICT, nuclear is the "safest".  The Japanese problem was tsunami,
>>>>>> not the nuclear power plant.

>>>>> Wrong.  The Japanese problem was the tsunami PLUS the nuclear power
>>>>> plant.  If it had been another type of power plant, the damage would
>>>>> have been minimal (outside of having to rebuild the plant).

>>>> This is an awfully big assumption.  mega-tons of moving water will smash
>>>> anything to pieces.  I don't see how a newer design would have not
>>>> been mashed.

>>>>> Possibly
>>>>> other nuclear technologies (e.g. thorium) would have risks comparable
>>>>> to non-nuclear plants, but I don't think that those are commercially
>>>>> viable at this time (if I'm wrong no doubt mrr will correct me).

>>>>> Besides the force of water smashing
>>>>>> everything, the backup generators also got swamped.  I've never
>>>>>> understood why those are put in the basements instead of above
>>>>>> ground.

>>>>> I expect it's cheaper.  After all, the dikes are good for a 100-year
>>>>> event, so what could go wrong?

>>>> The 101st birthday.

>>>> /BAH

>>> A lot of New York's infrastructure was built by General McClellan after
>>> the Civil War.

>> STate or city?

>> /BAH

> City. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan#Postbellum_years