Quote:

A nuclear power plant does operate on a virtually CO2-free basis, it actually is about on a par with fossil-fuel generating plants when the carbon emissions needed to build the plant, process the ore, manufacture the fuel assemlies.  When the whole of the fuel cycle is considered nuclear isn't all that much better than burning fossil fuels.

CO2 sequestration seems to be the short-term answer.  We cannot wean ourselves off of the energy stored in carbon-based reserves fast enough to have an effect.

Another problem is the bulk of nuclear waste that has built up.  Yucca Mountain, once it finally gets to open, has enough material already waiting for burial to fill it up, with much, much more to spare.  Where is the waste currently being stored?  For nuclear power plants, it's on site.  That's right, the gov't taxes the companies for a storage site the gov't has yet to open, then forces the utilities to pay for facilities to store their spent fuel on site.  You don't hear of a second waste site being bantied about, have you?

Energy gains can be made through making the delivery sytem more efficient.  Much of our grid is old and wastes a lot of energy.  Lighting is a large percentage of our energy usage, so small gains there translate into big savings.  Ideas like these need to be promoted because they provide the biggest return on the dollar.

Large public works projects, spending large sums of gov't money (raised thru taxes), have had positive effects on the quality of the economy.  Eisenhower's interstate plan, the TVA, Rural Electrification Act are examples.  We need to finance more such projects.

Energy is an illustration of but one of the problems facing this country.  Much of its infrastructure needs upgrading or replacement.  The first segments of the interstate system are over 50 years old, bridges are into the twilight years of their anticipated life span.  The fabric of our country is full of holes.  It sorely needs replacing.

   A long time ago there was pretty good data that radon was not in fact bad for you at household levels but actually good for you.  Just to swing the discussion in an unexpected direction I give you ..

(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

"Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv,
unknowingly, during a 9-20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT
theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced – to
about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the
incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced – to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general
public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation hormesis model."

TwistTieCollector wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 5:00pm:



I'd like to see your documentation regarding these "facts"