Some contrasting opinions I have encountered recently (like mainly in the past 24 hours or so) which I'd like to hear your responses to if you have the time and inclination:
At 06:02 PM Saturday 4/26/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >As promised, I looked into at what I think is the most expeditious plan to >handle global warming. As is my wont, I will preface my recommendations >with a bit of analysis that will serve as a foundation for my later work. > >[snip] > >OK, having said that, lets go to green technologies. The first and most >obvious one is nuclear power. Nuclear power is a well proven technology. >It has been used competitively with fossil fuel plants. The subsidies >for nuclear power have mostly been indirect benefits from governmental >nuclear weapons research. > >Nuclear power has been subject to criteria for safety that has not been >paralleled by most other industries. In particular, risk is assessed using >a linear model to assess damage from low level radiation, even though >studies of low level radiation, on average, show a very small benefit to >low level radiation. > >I discuss this at some length in my blog at > >http://science-community.sciam.com/blog/Dan-Ms-Blog/300001389 > >But, the essence of the report is that, if the linear model is correct, it >should be apparent in the dependence of morbidity rates on natural >background radiation. In particular, if the linear model is correct, the >high levels of radon in the Denver area should result in a very strong >signal in lung cancer deaths among non-smokers particularly non-smokers in >households that do not contain smokers. But, instead, the large scale test >from that area show a homesis effect: death rates are lower. > >Now, with the uncertainties in correcting for different people with >different risks living in different areas makes this result consistent with >no effect. But, after 60 odd years of analysis, the evidence is, with the >rare exception that can be ascribed to statistical anomalies, that there is >no measurable risk associated with low doses of radiation. > >Given this, and given the low measured death rate when a near worst case >scenario took place (Chernobyl with less than 100 deaths according to the >official commission monitoring the situation), it seems a no-brainer that >the benefits in reducing CO2 emissions outweigh the relatively small risk >inherent in nuclear power. Further, even the accidental death rate >associated with other power sources compare unfavorably with nuclear energy >(including Chernobyl). > >There are some difficulties associated with nuclear power. In particular, >the use of breeder reactors could enhance the possibility of weapons grade >fuel being used. One possible solution to this is the poisoning of the >fuel with other material that would have to be separated out to obtain bomb >grade material. But, if we accept breeder reactors, the projections are >that we can have nuclear based electricity for at least 100 years. <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080512/parenti> >[snip] > >Hydrogen was a big deal for a while, but according to Wikipedia > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle > >there are a lot of efficiency problems along the supply chain. Googling >the question, I find that hydrogen is now produced from methane ..and that >while the theoretical efficiency of producing it from electric power is OK >(80%-90%), no one seems to be doing it on a massive basis. This sends a >clear red flag to me. In theory, it is doable, but the practicalities are >beyond us now. This is a technology that I wouldnt count on nor would I >spend resources on large scale engineering efforts (e.g. like the 200+ >million dollar compressed air facility that I do support), but one that Id >invest R&D dollars in fundamental research on the problems. Did you see Ahhnahld's appearance on the Tonight Show this week where this was one of the topics they discussed? . . . ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
