Posted by bobba on Jul 08, 2002 at 16:42
(208.58.229.96)
Re: Should we go nuclear and conquer space? (DA Morgan)
Solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal
These are all pretty clean but whether they are cleaner than nuclear is debatable, but just barely. They are certainly not abundant and additional are not even available in many areas.
Political motive does not make something dirty. In fact politics does not make anything dirty except, perhaps politics. But a dirty source of energy may make for politics. I think you have the cause-effect relationship reversed.
Seems you have it reversed. Nuclear is either cleaner or not cleaner than what we currently use: a little oil, a little gas, and a lot of coal. I contend that it is cleaner by far. Politics has nothing to do with it.
Personally I would like nothing more than a clean form a nuclear energy. Much like Sagan and others I hope some day we have energy in such abundance that we can raise the living standard of the rest of the humans on this planet to ours ... and then get the population under control or off exploring the cosmos.
Studies suggest that population will stablize by around 2070 (IIRC). The study was posted here some time back. If you want, i'll hunt it for you. It was in nature.
And to that end I would gladly vote to increase my own taxes if it meant a serious effort to develop fusion power. But trying to pretend that fission of uranium is clean is a hoax.
Not clean, cleaner
And if you doubt me fly on into SeaTac airport and I'll take you out to Hanford for a nice vacation. Just bring your lead undergarments.
Not clean, cleaner
I'll choose Nuclear over coal. I'll be more than happy to live "downwind" from the plant. In fact, I'd be far more willing to live downwind from a nuclear plant than a coal plant.
Re: I have no idea, as usual, what you are talking about DA Morgan 15/7 12:05
(2)
Re: Should we go nuclear and conquer space? Bobba 09/7 13:09
(4)