Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!tektronix!teklds!azure!jonw
From: jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics
Subject: Sevener vs. Wheeler on nuclear power
Message-ID: <2681@azure.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Apr-84 11:30:52 EST
Article-I.D.: azure.2681
Posted: Thu Apr  5 11:30:52 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Apr-84 05:39:39 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 56

<>
Tim Sevener writes:

      7)what is the purpose in continuing to underwrite Nuclear power at the
      expense of alternative forms of energy--Reagan has increased the
      amount of money the gov't spends on nuclear power.  Is this the
      "free-enterprise"   approach?  Increase gov't spending for those programs
      which benefit the biggest businesses and tend to lead to centralization
      and monopoly power while cutting spending for ordinary people?

T.C. Wheeler responds:

   7.	What alternative energy sources.  Be specific.  Then go ask
   your Congressman why the expenditures are approved every year.  I
   don't like nuclear plants either, but we are stuck with them until
   something better comes along.  Would you rather close them all down
   tommorrow and go back to fossil fuels, daming rivers, and generally
   playing havoc with the environment?  

At the risk of appearing to be a snivelling, commie-loving wimp, I must
disagree with T.C. on this one.  The Reagan administration has actively
promoted nuclear power at the expense of a much more rational, soft-path
approach to our energy needs.  I'm glad to hear that T.C. doesn't care for
nuclear plants, but I would like to make a few comments:

a) There are many viable alternative energy sources, but the most important
one is probably conservation.  For an in-depth analysis of this, refer to
"Energy Future" by Daniel Yergin.  Solar is becoming more feasible all 
the time, especially now that the Japanese have taken the lead in photo-voltaic
development.

b) According to Ralph Nader, nuclear plants are more polluting than their
fossil fueled equivalents if you look at the total picture.  That is, if you 
take into account the exposed tailings from uranium mines, the environmental 
impact of a nuclear plant is greater than a coal-fired plant.  And when you 
begin to consider the possibility of an accident, well, I don't think that 
there's much of a contest.

c) Nuclear power provides 4% our nation's total energy needs (this is a 1977
figure, but it has got to be close to the current figure).  I think that we 
could probably shut down most of the existing plants if we had an aggressive, 
national conservation effort coupled with a program to convert some of the 
literally thousands of existing dams to hydro-electric.

d) Nuclear power wouldn't be here today if not for the Price-Anderson Act,
which is an insurance policy for the nuclear industry underwritten by 
taxpayers.  Do you think that private-sector insurance companies would be 
stupid enough to risk insuring a nuclear power plant?  Hell no.  I say that we
let the free market work as it was intended to by repealing the Price-Anderson
Act.

In summary, the alternatives to nuclear power exist now, and the sooner we get
rid of that economic and environmental disaster the better.

			Jon White
			[decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw