WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy

[catc...@verizon.net]

* Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.       Another view. Note 110 comments. Walt Brewer             Click the following to access the sent link:       WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy* This article will be available to non-subscribers of the Online Journal for up to seven days after it is e-mailed.                 Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email content from any Web site. Click here for more information.   *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser. http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970203440104574404762971139026-email.html&nonsubURI=%2Farticle_email%2FSB10001424052970203440104574404762971139026-lMyQjAxMDA5MDEwODExNDgyWj.html

[eph]

Lol. How do they come up with this stuff... They overlook nuclear
waste disposal problem and the limited supply of uranium. I choose
covering some desert land (and/or parking lots) over with solar panels
(until better ways are found).

F.

On Sep 18, 10:21 pm, catca...@verizon.net wrote:
> *Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.

>
> Another view. Note 110 comments.
>
> Walt Brewer
>

> ********************
>
> If you are having trouble with any of the links in this message, or if the URL's are not appearing as links, please follow the instructions at the bottom of this email.
>
> Title: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy

>  This article will be available to non-subscribers of the Online Journal for up to seven days after it is e-mailed.
>

> Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to access the sent link:http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&...
>
> Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to SAVE THIS link:http://www.savethis.clickability.com/st/saveThisPopupApp?clickMap=sav...
>
> Copy and paste the following into your Web browser to forward this link:http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=forward&e...
>
> ********************
>
> Email pages from any Web site you visit - add the EMAIL THIS button to your browser, copy and paste the following into your Web browser:http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=browserBu..."
>
> *********************
>
> Instructions:
> -----------------------------------------
> If your e-mail program doesn't recognize Web addresses:
> 1. With your mouse, highlight the Web Address above. Be sure to highlight the entire Web address, even if it spans more than one line in your email.
> 2. Select Copy from the Edit menu at the top of your screen.
> 3. Launch your Web browser.
> 4. Paste the address into your Web browser by selecting Paste from the Edit menu.
> 5. Click Go or press Enter or Return on your keyboard.
>
> ********************

[Jerry Roane]

Walt

Using this guy's logic the wind turbine base is 12 feet in diameter or takes up 113 square feet.  The nuclear strip mine in Canada takes up more square miles than his nuke plants.  What it does point out is perhaps energy efficiency is important on the grand scale of things.  He certainly does not understand the car wash and how it operates perhaps to complete his education he should be working at the car wash so he will understand water usage and reuse.  He is not educated enough to understand his topic.  There is not enough once-through nuclear fuel to do what he wants.  We have to be smarter than this guy or we are toast.  Step one is to drop our energy waste pushing brick shapes down the highway rolling on under-inflated rubber tires.  Step two super insulate!  Step three harvest waste heat from all the power plants including his old nuke plant. 

Jerry Roane

[eph]

Good points. Off-shore wind turbines are also a possibility.

F.

On Sep 18, 11:36 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Walt
>
> Using this guy's logic the wind turbine base is 12 feet in diameter or takes
> up 113 square feet.  The nuclear strip mine in Canada takes up more square
> miles than his nuke plants.  What it does point out is perhaps energy
> efficiency is important on the grand scale of things.  He certainly does not
> understand the car wash and how it operates perhaps to complete his
> education he should be working at the car wash so he will understand water
> usage and reuse.  He is not educated enough to understand his topic.  There
> is not enough once-through nuclear fuel to do what he wants.  We have to be
> smarter than this guy or we are toast.  Step one is to drop our energy waste
> pushing brick shapes down the highway rolling on under-inflated rubber
> tires.  Step two super insulate!  Step three harvest waste heat from all the
> power plants including his old nuke plant.
>
> Jerry Roane
>

> On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:21 PM, <catca...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >          [image: WSJ.com] <http://www.wsj.com>
> >      <http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;213428230;11024269;p?http://ad.doublecl...>      *
> > Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.           Another view. Note 110 comments.
>
> > Walt Brewer
>
> >                   Click the following to access the sent link:           WSJ.com
> > - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy<http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=viewThis&...>

> > * This article will be available to non-subscribers of the Online Journal
> > for up to seven days after it is e-mailed.                  [image: SAVE

> > THIS link]<http://www.savethis.clickability.com/st/saveThisPopupApp?clickMap=sav...> [image:
> > FORWARD THIS link]<http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=forward&e...>

> >             Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email content

> > from any Web site. Click here<http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThis?clickMap=browserBu...>for more information.

> >                *This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste
> > the entire address below into your web browser.
>

> >http://online.wsj.com/wsjgate?subURI=%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970203...

[Jack Slade]

There is no nuclear waste disposal problem. We have been using it for 70 years, and all the waste has no problem, so far, except in the minds of some fearful people who don't know F-all about anything nuclear.   There is no problem with transporting it, either, except the problems created by those same people. Have you heard about any problems in France, where 80% of their electricity is nuclear, or here in Ontario, where 50% of ours is? I havent.   Jack Slade --- On Sat, 9/19/09, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[JamieB]

What about that waste in 100 years? 1,000 years? 10,000 years? Are you
sure it still won't be a problem? How will we even communicate the
hazard to society in 10,000 years time?

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0115.shtml

On Sep 19, 8:19 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> There is no nuclear waste disposal problem. We have been using it for
> 70 years, and all the waste has no problem, so far, except in the minds of some fearful people who don't know F-all about anything nuclear.
>  
> There is no problem with transporting it, either, except the problems created by those same people. Have you heard about any problems in France, where 80% of their electricity is nuclear, or here in Ontario, where 50% of ours is? I havent.
>  
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Sat, 9/19/09, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Walter Brewer]

I repeat my bet: In <200 years, pealing back the atom onion one more layer
will solve the waste issue. (And better still maybe source of energy as
well).

Walt Brewer

[JamieB]

Possibly. Possibly not.

Rather than rely on your bet being a winner, I'd rather bypass fission
and go straight to renewables - no waste, no finite fuel source.

[eph]

Ontario's nuclear reactors can (and do) leak tritium, a radioactive
gas that has a 12 year half-life.

F.

On Sep 19, 3:19 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> There is no nuclear waste disposal problem. We have been using it for
> 70 years, and all the waste has no problem, so far, except in the minds of some fearful people who don't know F-all about anything nuclear.
>  
> There is no problem with transporting it, either, except the problems created by those same people. Have you heard about any problems in France, where 80% of their electricity is nuclear, or here in Ontario, where 50% of ours is? I havent.
>  
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Sat, 9/19/09, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>

[Michael Weidler]

Nuclear waste disposal is a POLITICAL problem. Limited supplies of Uranium are also mainly a POLITICAL issue (breeder reactors). Then there is the alternate Thorium cycle. I'm sure what amount of thorium the US has, but I seem to recall we aren't a major source.

--- On Fri, 9/18/09, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Jerry Schneider]

At 12:19 AM 9/19/2009, you wrote:
>There is no nuclear waste disposal problem. We have been using it for
>70 years, and all the waste has no problem, so far, except in the
>minds of some fearful people who don't know F-all about anything nuclear.

I guess you don't know about the extremely difficult clean-up
problems, costing billions, at Hanford in Washington State and the
strong possibility that radioactive waste will soon be flowing into
the Columbia River from leaking underground tanks at that site.

> There is no problem with transporting it, either, except the
> problems created by those same people. Have you heard about any
> problems in France, where 80% of their electricity is nuclear, or
> here in Ontario, where 50% of ours is? I havent.

Do you know what the French do with their waste? What do the
Canadians do? Please inform us with your knowledge.

[eph]

There was just a tritium spill into the Ottawa River from a medical
nuclear isotope producing reactor. This shows how fallible nuclear
plants can be.
Downriver from Chalk River
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Downriver+from+Chalk+River/1726121/story.html

I'm for use (though not necessarily building) of nuclear reactors
until all spent nuclear fuel is reprocessed, but I'm also for
increasing renewable energy supply as quickly as possible.

F.

[Jerry Schneider]

At 08:55 AM 9/19/2009, you wrote:
> Nuclear waste disposal is a POLITICAL problem. Limited supplies of
> Uranium are also mainly a POLITICAL issue (breeder reactors). Then
> there is the alternate Thorium cycle. I'm sure what amount of
> thorium the US has, but I seem to recall we aren't a major source.

Isn't it both TECHNICAL and POLITICAL?

[eph]

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html

Seems to be an industry friendly view. Non-friendly views state
reprocessing dangers and terrorist fears and economic viability. I
think economic viability along with safety will be improved over time.

F.

[Jerry Roane]

F

I would like to inject a thought on the future competence of those keeping health destroying radio-active material from doing harm.  As with any operation, the people make the difference.  If the future 10,000 years requires that some person be in charge of watching our waste produce for multiple generations I contend the competence will get better and the competence will get worse depending on the people.  Say we create a lead barrel that is wrapped in non-obtainium and the fourth generation person put in charge of the nuclear waste decides to open up the barrel to see what nuclear waste looks like.  What if the guy is like a burger flipper my wife once knew who thought it would be cute to get on the roof of a Jack in the Box restaurant and toss ground beef at passing cars.  Clearly the Jack in the Box franchise procedures manual mentioned keeping the meet in cold storage rather than tossed at passing cars but the person left in charge of that franchise was not capable of wise choices.  Who would apply for a job to watch a mountain or two of barrels but someone not much different than this famed Houston burger flipper?  I have this image in my head of nuclear waste blobs flinging out into traffic as they drive by and this guy laughing his ass off.  Just a thought.

Underplaying the threat this material has in more serious deviants control is foolish for the grand children or great grandchildren or great great grandchildren just so we can be ignorantly wasteful of energy seems selfish.  The nuclear power is on the sun.  All we have to do is beam it here using light waves and collect it for our use.  The nuclear waste gets deposited in the sun solving the waste problem.

Jerry Roane

[eph]

I think you meant to address your letter to Jack Slade and Michael
Weidler. My take on the mater is to reprocess the waste from nuclear
plants so that the material's danger is reduced to (only) 1,000 years
instead of 100,000. Even if we stop now, we have a lot of hot
material that would require disposal. Though some argue 1,000 year
disposal may as well be 100,000 years - same effort needed.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=AAEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=nuclear+reprocessing+half-life&source=bl&ots=-UqmLVvBNH&sig=g8ssZe5uaw93pftFPAOroJQq8Uw&hl=en#v=onepage&q=nuclear%20reprocessing%20half-life&f=false

F.

On Sep 19, 2:30 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F
>
> I would like to inject a thought on the future competence of those keeping
> health destroying radio-active material from doing harm.  As with any
> operation, the people make the difference.  If the future 10,000 years
> requires that some person be in charge of watching our waste produce for
> multiple generations I contend the competence will get better and the
> competence will get worse depending on the people.  Say we create a lead
> barrel that is wrapped in non-obtainium and the fourth generation person put
> in charge of the nuclear waste decides to open up the barrel to see what
> nuclear waste looks like.  What if the guy is like a burger flipper my wife
> once knew who thought it would be cute to get on the roof of a Jack in the
> Box restaurant and toss ground beef at passing cars.  Clearly the Jack in
> the Box franchise procedures manual mentioned keeping the meet in cold
> storage rather than tossed at passing cars but the person left in charge of

> that franchise was* not capable of wise choices*.  Who would apply for a job

> to watch a mountain or two of barrels but someone not much different than
> this famed Houston burger flipper?  I have this image in my head of nuclear
> waste blobs flinging out into traffic as they drive by and this guy laughing
> his ass off.  Just a thought.
>
> Underplaying the threat this material has in more serious deviants control
> is foolish for the grand children or great grandchildren or great great
> grandchildren just so we can be ignorantly wasteful of energy seems
> selfish.  The nuclear power is on the sun.  All we have to do is beam it
> here using light waves and collect it for our use.  The nuclear waste gets
> deposited in the sun solving the waste problem.
>
> Jerry Roane
>

[Jack Slade]

I don't expect to live 10,000 years. In the long run, it is only practical to expect people to try to take care of what they can, reasonably, in one lifetime. I just hope I have raised my children to take care of their's, and that includes taking care of problems that arise.   In another million years the sun may go nova. Am i supposed to worry about that, too?   Jack lade --- On Sat, 9/19/09, JamieB <cal...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jack Slade]

I wonder if that waste is at the Hancock site because rabble-rousers wouldn't let them store it in a place scientists considered safer. Are you sure of the cost? That should have made headlines, and I don't remember any.   Don't piss me off about my knowledge of nuclear, or lack thereof. I don't try to tell them where to store the damn stuff because I am not an expert, not like a lot of others who pretend to know, but just repeat what they heard from some guy on a soap box.   I don't know where they store it here, or in France, but I repeat that it has caused no problems so far.  The many N-powered ships that the U.S. has have caused no problems. Don't answer by telling me about the accident caused by an overzealous supervisor pushing an over-ride button that shouldn't have been there. Lesson learned, I hope.   Jack Slade --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> Subject: [t-i] Re: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy

[Jack Slade]

Trivial, unless you gan tell us how much, or how dangerous, anybody get injured, or how you can spill a gas into a river. Gas spills into the air, doesn't it? Are you sure any of us knows enough to even discuss this with any degree of accuracy, or just enough for it to be scare tactics?   Jack Slade

--- On Sat, 9/19/09, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy

[eph]

ENVIRONMENT: German Leaks Raise More Nuclear Fears
By Julio Godoy
BERLIN, Jul 8 (IPS) - Confirmation that radioactive brine has been
leaking for two decades from a German underground deposit for nuclear
waste is yet another blow to the idea that nuclear power can safely
increase electricity generation and simultaneously reduce emissions.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43108

Huge radioactive leak closes Thorp nuclear plant
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/09/environment.nuclearindustry

I would not qualify Nuclear as "no problem".

F.

On Sep 19, 10:01 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Trivial, unless you gan tell us how much, or how dangerous, anybody get injured, or how you can spill a gas into a river. Gas spills into the air, doesn't it? Are you sure any of us knows enough to even discuss this with any degree of accuracy, or just enough for it to be scare tactics?
>  
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Sat, 9/19/09, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>

> Subject: [t-i] Re: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy
> To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Received: Saturday, September 19, 2009, 4:13 PM
>
> There was just a tritium spill into the Ottawa River from a medical
> nuclear isotope producing reactor.  This shows how fallible nuclear
> plants can be.

> Downriver from Chalk Riverhttp://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Downriver+from+Chalk+River/17...

[Jerry Roane]

F.

I was keying off the last sentence.  " I think economic viability along with safety will be improved over time"  I was saying that future safety will be variable not always improved. 

Jerry Roane

[eph]

You're probably right there, more and more reactors are springing up
and their lifetime of 40+ years means progress will be very slow. I
was sort of thinking in the uranium availability span, not the near
term. We can't shut down nuclear now, first coal must go, then
nuclear towards clean renewable energy.

F.

On Sep 19, 10:57 pm, Jerry Roane <jerry.ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> F.
>
> I was keying off the last sentence.  " I think economic viability along with
> safety will be improved over time"  I was saying that future safety will be
> variable not always improved.
>
> Jerry Roane
>

> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 1:47 PM, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you meant to address your letter to Jack Slade and Michael
> > Weidler.  My take on the mater is to reprocess the waste from nuclear
> > plants so that the material's danger is reduced to (only) 1,000 years
> > instead of 100,000.  Even if we stop now, we have a lot of hot
> > material that would require disposal.  Though some argue 1,000 year
> > disposal may as well be 100,000 years - same effort needed.
>

> >http://books.google.ca/books?id=AAEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=nucl...

[Jack Slade]

I would, until you tell me who is suffering because of it. I don't think this subject should be discussed by us, for 2 reasons:  (1) We don't know enough, and (2) It has nothing to do with transportation.   Jack Slade

--- On Sun, 9/20/09, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[eph]

How about 351 people with cancer in Pennsylvania?

Ex-Owners of Nuclear Fuel Plant Are Ordered to Pay $36.5 Million
Published: Friday, September 18, 1998
The former owners of a nuclear fuel processing plant were ordered
today to pay at least $36.5 million in damages for a rash of cancer
cases in a Pennsylvania town of about 1,900.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/18/us/ex-owners-of-nuclear-fuel-plant-are-ordered-to-pay-36.5-million.html

F.

On Sep 20, 2:01 am, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I would, until you tell me who is suffering because of it. I don't think this subject should be discussed by us, for 2 reasons:  (1) We don't know enough, and (2) It has nothing to do with transportation.
>  
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Sun, 9/20/09, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [t-i] Re: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy
> To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Received: Sunday, September 20, 2009, 2:29 AM
>
> ENVIRONMENT:  German Leaks Raise More Nuclear Fears
> By Julio Godoy
> BERLIN, Jul 8 (IPS) - Confirmation that radioactive brine has been
> leaking for two decades from a German underground deposit for nuclear
> waste is yet another blow to the idea that nuclear power can safely

> increase electricity generation and simultaneously reduce emissions.http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43108
>
> Huge radioactive leak closes Thorp nuclear planthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/09/environment.nuclearindu...

[Jerry Schneider]

At 08:09 PM 9/19/2009, you wrote:

>You're probably right there, more and more reactors are springing up
>and their lifetime of 40+ years means progress will be very slow. I
>was sort of thinking in the uranium availability span, not the near
>term. We can't shut down nuclear now, first coal must go, then
>nuclear towards clean renewable energy.

My impression is that there are a large number of nuclear plants around
the world that need to be shut down because they are worn out - but
that the money needed to deak with them isn't available. Should we build
new ones and just not deal with the old ones? If so, what problems would
such a strategy present to present and future generations?

- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans

[eph]

In Ontario, we have a certain number of sites which have nuclear
plants. These areas are contaminated and store radioactive material.
I would not want new sites contaminated by reactors, but rebuilding,
replacing or adding reactors on the same site would be OK as I see it,
until renewable energy can replace them (after replacing our coal
energy). Those sites are contaminated and will be a problem to deal
with in the future. The cost of decontaminating the site should be
part of the cost of energy, perhaps the money should be held in trust
by a third party until it is needed. I don't know what things are
like in other places.

F.

[Jack Slade]

Please confirm that 351 people in Pensylvania have cancer because of a brine leak in Germany.   Latest info is that it is impossible, when somebody contracts cancer, to track down any exact cause. It is possible to win a court case only because of speculation by un-educated jurors, and lawyers who are, of course, always truthful. My statement stands.   Jack Slade

--- On Sun, 9/20/09, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[eph]

I've heard the argument that Nuclear is the lesser of many evils, but
to claim it doesn't have any problems is incomprehensible.

Child Leukemia Rates Increase Near U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
Salem-News.com
The carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure are most severe among
infants and children.
(NEW YORK) - Leukemia death rates in U.S. children near nuclear
reactors rose sharply (vs. the national trend) in the past two
decades, according to a recent study.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may182009/kids_leukemia_5-18-09.php

At some point, empirical evidence is all we have to determine what is
reality. We know radiation can cause Leukemia and we know rates of
Leukemia are higher around Nuclear plants.

F.

On Sep 20, 4:52 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> Please confirm that 351 people in Pensylvania have cancer because of a brine leak in Germany.
>  
> Latest info is that it is impossible, when somebody contracts cancer, to track down any exact cause. It is possible to win a court case only because of speculation by un-educated jurors, and lawyers who are, of course, always truthful. My statement stands.
>  
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Sun, 9/20/09, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [t-i] Re: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy
> To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Received: Sunday, September 20, 2009, 1:51 PM
>
> How about 351 people with cancer in Pennsylvania?
>
> Ex-Owners of Nuclear Fuel Plant Are Ordered to Pay $36.5 Million
> Published: Friday, September 18, 1998
> The former owners of a nuclear fuel processing plant were ordered
> today to pay at least $36.5 million in damages for a rash of cancer

> cases in a Pennsylvania town of about 1,900.http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/18/us/ex-owners-of-nuclear-fuel-plant-...

[Jack Slade]

You are wandering, without changing topic subject. Wasn't the initial talk just about safe storage? You mentioned tritium leakage.  It is so dangerous that it is used in flourescent tape and exit signs. Be careful, don't eat any exit signs!!   Jack Slade

--- On Sun, 9/20/09, eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[eph]

I don't agree, but I'm not arguing anymore it's pointless.

F.

On Sep 20, 9:20 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> You are wandering, without changing topic subject. Wasn't the initial talk just about safe storage? You mentioned tritium leakage.  It is so dangerous that it is used in flourescent tape and exit signs. Be careful, don't eat any exit signs!!
>  
> Jack Slade
>

> --- On Sun, 9/20/09, eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: eph <rhapsodi...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [t-i] Re: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy
> To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
> Received: Sunday, September 20, 2009, 9:22 PM
>
> I've heard the argument that Nuclear is the lesser of many evils, but
> to claim it doesn't have any problems is incomprehensible.
>
> Child Leukemia Rates Increase Near U.S. Nuclear Power Plants
> Salem-News.com
> The carcinogenic effects of radiation exposure are most severe among
> infants and children.
> (NEW YORK) - Leukemia death rates in U.S. children near nuclear
> reactors rose sharply (vs. the national trend) in the past two

> decades, according to a recent study.http://www.salem-news.com/articles/may182009/kids_leukemia_5-18-09.php

[Michael Weidler]

It's not a technical problem in my opinion. On the other hand, I am certainly not an expert on the subject.

--- On Sat, 9/19/09, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:

From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> Subject: [t-i] Re: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy

[Michael Weidler]

Jerry,   I can't see future generations letting the resources we decided to bury sit idle for even 2 or 3 generations, let alone 10,000 years.   I would think some branch of the military would be in charge of oversite at the storage facility. THe military already does a number of extremely boring jobs quite well.   And as for the nitwit who decides to " see what nuclear waste looks like" - he'll be dead from exposure. End of problem. --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy To: transport-...@googlegroups.com

[Michael Weidler]

In molecular form, tritium is simply a slightly radioactive form of hydrogen and a gas. --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com> wrote:

From: Jack Slade <skytr...@rogers.com> Subject: [t-i] Re: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy

[JamieB]

I don't think future generations are going to thank us for creating
long-lived fissile waste for them to look after, just because we were
too ignorant to be able to manage our energy supplies effectively.

The sun going nova is out of our hands so you're let off the hook on
that one, but not screwing up the world for those who follow us is
quite important (at least in my book).

[Jerry Schneider]

At 08:35 AM 9/21/2009, MW wrote:
>It's not a technical problem in my opinion. On the other hand, I am
>certainly not an expert on the subject.

Neither am I but I can't imagine that the problem is not highly
technical in nature.
-------------------------------------------

>--- On Sat, 9/19/09, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
>
>From: Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org>
>Subject: [t-i] Re: WSJ.com - Opinion: Energy 'Sprawl' and the Green Economy
>To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
>Date: Saturday, September 19, 2009, 9:55 AM
>
>
>At 08:55 AM 9/19/2009, you wrote:
> > Nuclear waste disposal is a POLITICAL problem. Limited supplies of
> > Uranium are also mainly a POLITICAL issue (breeder reactors). Then
> > there is the alternate Thorium cycle. I'm sure what amount of
> > thorium the US has, but I seem to recall we aren't a major source.
>
>Isn't it both TECHNICAL and POLITICAL?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Michael Weidler]

Ok, Jamie. But henceforth, you are no longer allowed to use your computer or electricity in general because it comes from nuclear, coal, natural gas, or oil. Very very little electricity comes from so-called renewable sources.