I agree that fear of the unknown is a major setback. The problem is not
fear but it IS the unknown, simply because the citizenry have remained
uninformed, misinformed and disinformed, especially by activists.
If we are talking about the same event, a nuclear power plant in Japan
was closed down (I don't know for how long) following three deaths from
a major steam burst in the turbine hall. This made headlines because the
steam was generated from a nuclear reactor. If it had been a coal, oil
or gas-fired power station, it would never have reached the
international press. In fact, several such accidents happen each year
from conventional power generation, but I cannot see why the type of
initial heat source has any bearing on the accident and why
nuclear-generated steam is any different from fossil-fuel-generated
steam. It is the word 'nuclear' that the activists use to further their
arguments, even where there is no relevance.
As for Iran, that's pure politics, IMHO. There is nothing in
International Law or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaties, which Iran
has signed, to disallow any country from pursuing a civil nuclear
programme and Iran is perfectly within their rights to do what they have
done, even according to Dr el-Baradei. Their political error has
probably been to react badly to the US stance, resulting in no
transparency. They are within their rights to enrich uranium to 5% and
to reprocess used fuel. For the moment, I understand that they have
enriched a few grams of U to 4%, sufficient to light a small town for an
hour or two. They are nowhere near the enrichment of 90% or more
required to produce weaponry, nor do they have the capacity to do so.
Yes, if it has taken them 6 weeks to enrich 3 or 4 g to 4% with their
existing equipment, it would take them many decades to enrich sufficient
U to sustain an uncontrolled chain reaction (i.e. a bomb). If the IAEA
had been allowed to do their job correctly without political
interference from the USA, EU, Russia and China, then the situation
would never have arisen. Unfortunately, these countries are the biggest
contributors to the IAEA's revenue, and el-Baradei knows that one cannot
spit on the hand that feeds you. Notwithstanding, if they enrich under
IAEA control for demonstrably civil purposes, I have no problems with that.
Brian
MA/NY DDave wrote:
> Hi Joe, Brian, EnviroNet Listservers,
>
> Joe, I really don't know much about the environmental effects, or the
> global energy effiency of Nuclear Power plants. I have seen a little here
> and there over the years you, Brian, I, and others have lived on this earth
> yet not a lot that has fully informed me about this energy option.
>
> I know the French like it, and some others in the EU don't like this
> option. Every country's resources is a bit different.
>
> I will read Brian's notes again so I will learn a bit more on one side of
> the equation (the supply side), not the disposal side.
>
> SO Anyway, Nuclear Power has a bad rap based on Nuclear and "A" bombs used
> in warfare and "sloppy management" of Nuclear Power facilities like in the
> Ukraine. In Japan even though a Nuclear Power plant was more immune to
> earth quakes then the rest of their infrastructure the Japanese citizenry
> made a major power plant close. They probably were afraid of another home
> grown Hiroshima.
>
> Again it seems like fear is the prime motivator against Nuclear Power on
> one side of the table. On the other side (Iran) it seems like Nuclear Power
> is either a "we want to be one of the big boys" or they really need Nuclear
> Power so that they can sell and make an income out of their land resources.
>
>
>
> Yours in Engineering, Dave
> YiEngr MA/NY DDave
>
--
http://www.cypenv.org Cyprus environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv World environment/energy
http://www.cypenv.org/weather Cyprus weather
http://www.cypenv.org/smf/index.php Environment/energy forums
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cypnature/ Cyprus nature forum
|
