Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Daily Diversion / Silverman Overheard: Bill Frist Muses on the Merits of Nuclear Power vs. Wind Power
Posted by Jack Silverman on Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 6:59 AM
Showing 1-12 of 12
That's right, Dr. Frist. You may think you can say something stupid in a private conversation without us finding out, but you are sadly mistaken. Pith is everywhere! We overheard Fred Thompson just the other day cracking wise about solar panels. He won't get away with it, either.
I'm afraid your source misunderstood. Frist said more people were killed by "weird Germans."
He added that one benefit of wind turbines is that young med students could find a steady supply of feral cats underneath them waiting for battered birds to drop from the sky.
Silverman, you suck. To compare modern nuclear power plants to those of the Chernobyl generation (1950's/60's technology) is absurd. The French have produced half or more of their electricity from nuclear for decades, and have more or less perfected safe & reliable nuclear power plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
That being said, I think both nuclear and wind power are viable options to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Hey Sen. Frist if nuclear power is so safe why don't we repeal the Price-Anderson Act! Apparently we don't need the government to indemnify nuclear power plants after all. Let the friendly atom compete on an even playing field with other energy technologies.
What a fraud.
The French have more or less perfected safe and nuclear power plants. That's a good one, Tobin. Have they figured out how to safely dispose of nuclear waste that will be radioactive for millennia? Have they had occasional radiation leaks? (The answer is yes.)
And most importantly, have they figured out how to secure their plants against terrorist attack? No, and the French government is terrified of such a possibility. And have they figured out how to ensure that said waste won't get into the hands of the wrong people?
I'm not saying that the nuclear power plants of today aren't significantly safer than the plants of 40 years ago. Sure they are. But the potential for a disastrous accident from a nuclear plant is far greater than other sources.
Now I'm not saying that wind is going to supply anywhere near the power that nuclear power could. But to suggest that nuclear power is safe is a stretch. And there are plenty of folks in France, particularly those who live near Beaumont-Hague, who aren't happy at all about the French nuclear program.
I don't think we have to worry about terrorist attacks on a wind farm.
And do you want to model your energy policy on a country that worships Jerry Lewis?
(Actually, I love Jerry Lewis too, so scratch that last one.)
The fact of the matter is that coal power plants are far more dangerous than nuclear plants.
Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm
Tobester, ol' buddy, I'm with you on the coal. And this whole "clean coal technology" scam that's getting a lot of press is a crock of shit.
Still, we were talking about the dangers of nuclear power vs. wind power, not vs. coal.
And I'm still skeptical about the long-term safety of nuclear power. I'm not even suggesting that we should stop using it, or completely rule out expanding our use of it. But I'd be wary of it as the central approach in dealing with alternative energy.
I see the refugees from the 1970s are still using Chernobyl as an anti-nuke argument, despite the obvious fact that Chernobyl's reactor and management was about as relevant to nuclear plant issues in the Western world as 16th century Spanish galleons. I also notice that the anti-nukes are never pointed out as the prime reasons that carbon levels are higher than they were 30 years ago, when many states were 1/2 nuclear/ carbon free. Now they are 25% nuclear/75% carbon. Wind and solar alternative energies are exorbitantly expensive, unreliable, uncontrollable sources of small amounts of virtually useless power. The country that has more wind than any other, Denmark, has failed utterly in reducing carbon emissions, despite errecting more windmills per capita than anyplace on the planet. Only by buying hydroelectric from her neighbors has Denmark managed to reduce her emissions, which are still the highest in Europe. France is the guiding light, with over 80% nuclear and leads the planet in responsible emission levels. We already are pouring hundreds of millions into wind,solar which has yet to produce 1% of our power, and has near-zero ability to produce peak demand power, meaning that no existing fossil fuel plant will ever close its doors because of additional windmills or solar PV. Alternative energy types are basically religious zealots who deny reality and invent devils like nuclear technology. Their arguments cannot withstand even superficial challenges. Alternative energy technologies are basically fraudulent. Only solar thermal has any chance of contributing carbon free power, but it still is way too expensive and still all to often cannot produce enough power when needed.
Hey Kerry,
Try making a paragraph every now and then. Jesus, that shit's all swimming together. As for nuclear power, until they figure out what to do with the radioactive waste, it should be off the table, period.
This is all very interesting but I happen to be a firm believer in wind energy as a clean, dependable source of energy. Also, there must be a good reason for the nuclear power plants closing. I think I can describe it in one word, DANGEROUS! But I do agree, things need to change, fast. I suggest we try a little bit of everything until we find something that works.
I'm generally an effective aristarch though in this case I am in all praises.
Comments (12) RSS